Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
I wanted to know it the small missile will be put in service. And when.
+72
Isos
higurashihougi
william.boutros
marcellogo
dino00
Hole
LMFS
Batajnica
Jhonwick3
The-thing-next-door
kopyo-21
d_taddei2
jhelb
Big_Gazza
Cheetah
T-47
ATLASCUB
AmbiOpinion
PapaDragon
hoom
marat
Rmf
franco
miketheterrible
Benya
rambo54
x_54_u43
max steel
GunshipDemocracy
OminousSpudd
Book.
KRATOS1133
Viktor
sepheronx
Mike E
eridan
Indian Flanker
Werewolf
AlfaT8
sheytanelkebir
Deep Throat
Vann7
zino
zg18
magnumcromagnon
calripson
mack8
xeno
Morpheus Eberhardt
ali.a.r
Cyberspec
Karria
Hachimoto
KomissarBojanchev
Rpg type 7v
gaurav
collegeboy16
George1
Sujoy
Zivo
flamming_python
gloriousfatherland
Mindstorm
TR1
TheArmenian
Stealthflanker
IronsightSniper
GarryB
Admin
Austin
medo
Russian Patriot
76 posters
Pantsir-S1 News Thread:
Hole- Posts : 11122
Points : 11100
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6171
Points : 6191
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Hole wrote:I wanted to know it the small missile will be put in service. And when.
it was already tested in Syria and to my understanding is now already. At least there. Surely all updates will come sith SM.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
That is very interesting... when they talked about four missiles per launch tube I thought what they meant was each missile was fitted with four separate warheads... which I thought was both clever but potentially wasteful... what if there were only three drone targets?
Having four separate missiles in each launch tube means the standard 12 tube load out means potentially 48 missiles per vehicle launcher and just under 300 missiles per battery of 6 vehicles.
Of course I would expect these new missiles would not have the 40km-60km range of the new missiles... perhaps they realised that if the standard sized missiles could manage hitting targets at 40km and soon 60km range then they could make them smaller and still able to hit targets at 12-20km... and that much of the time that was all that was needed.
They pretty much did the same with TOR and BUK where they have increased the number of missiles per launcher in the later models by reducing the size of the missiles but also increasing performance... the latest model TOR has 16 ready to fire missiles instead of 8, and the latest model BUK has 6 missiles ready to launch instead of 4.
I would say they would mix the loadout with large rockets to allow the engagement of aircraft at standoff ranges (40km and later 60km), but also have half or more with these much smaller missiles... so you could fire each missile, one at a time each at its own target without wasting excess warheads.
The Naval model would have 8 missiles on the launcher, plus another 24 in internal reloading magazines, which means a total of 32 missiles of the large size and 128 missiles per gun mount if they use the compact quad pack tubes... that is pretty impressive.
In fact that mini missile looks so small you could probably set it up in a ground based launch tube with a remote control system and use it instead of MANPADS... there was an individual Grad rocket launch tube available for special forces... having a single launch tube for a small Pantsir missile would be very potent... 20k range and the ability to hit targets with no IR sensor that DIRCMS could defeat... just a question of how small the guidance kit would be... Borrowing the Kornet-EM system should allow 10km effective range at least...
Having four separate missiles in each launch tube means the standard 12 tube load out means potentially 48 missiles per vehicle launcher and just under 300 missiles per battery of 6 vehicles.
Of course I would expect these new missiles would not have the 40km-60km range of the new missiles... perhaps they realised that if the standard sized missiles could manage hitting targets at 40km and soon 60km range then they could make them smaller and still able to hit targets at 12-20km... and that much of the time that was all that was needed.
They pretty much did the same with TOR and BUK where they have increased the number of missiles per launcher in the later models by reducing the size of the missiles but also increasing performance... the latest model TOR has 16 ready to fire missiles instead of 8, and the latest model BUK has 6 missiles ready to launch instead of 4.
I would say they would mix the loadout with large rockets to allow the engagement of aircraft at standoff ranges (40km and later 60km), but also have half or more with these much smaller missiles... so you could fire each missile, one at a time each at its own target without wasting excess warheads.
The Naval model would have 8 missiles on the launcher, plus another 24 in internal reloading magazines, which means a total of 32 missiles of the large size and 128 missiles per gun mount if they use the compact quad pack tubes... that is pretty impressive.
In fact that mini missile looks so small you could probably set it up in a ground based launch tube with a remote control system and use it instead of MANPADS... there was an individual Grad rocket launch tube available for special forces... having a single launch tube for a small Pantsir missile would be very potent... 20k range and the ability to hit targets with no IR sensor that DIRCMS could defeat... just a question of how small the guidance kit would be... Borrowing the Kornet-EM system should allow 10km effective range at least...
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6171
Points : 6191
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
GarryB wrote:
Of course I would expect these new missiles would not have the 40km-60km range of the new missiles...
those wil be to me for fighters before they reach you.
They pretty much did the same with TOR and BUK where they have increased the number of missiles per launcher in the later models by reducing the size of the missiles but also increasing performance... the latest model TOR has 16 ready to fire missiles instead of 8, and the latest model BUK has 6 missiles ready to launch instead of 4.
To the answer is : cruise missile saturation attacks. One salvo in Syria had 100 CMs. You dotn have tome to reload otherwise you might end up like Syrian Pantsir...
The Naval model would have 8 missiles on the launcher, plus another 24 in internal reloading magazines, which means a total of 32 missiles of the large size and 128 missiles per gun mount if they use the compact quad pack tubes... that is pretty impressive.
That is actually great news. 22800 having 12 long range missiles + 8 small in initial load...
dino00- Posts : 1677
Points : 1714
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 37
Location : portugal
VKS will receive another regiment C-400 and several complexes "Pantsir-S"
MOSCOW, October 17 - RIA News. In the near future, the aerospace forces of the Russian Federation will receive a regular regimental set of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system and several sets of the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and gun complex, according to the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Russian Ministry of Defense
РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20181017/1530917222.html
MOSCOW, October 17 - RIA News. In the near future, the aerospace forces of the Russian Federation will receive a regular regimental set of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system and several sets of the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and gun complex, according to the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Russian Ministry of Defense
РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20181017/1530917222.html
jhelb- Posts : 1095
Points : 1196
Join date : 2015-04-04
Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About
According to Viktor Murakhovsky, the Pantsir-S1 has been an almost complete failure so far.
From April to October, Tor-M2U complexes at Khmeimim airbase in Syria intercepted more than 80 air targets with an 80% success rate, the Pantsir-S1's success rate was 19%.
https://vz.ru/news/2018/11/2/949009.html
From April to October, Tor-M2U complexes at Khmeimim airbase in Syria intercepted more than 80 air targets with an 80% success rate, the Pantsir-S1's success rate was 19%.
https://vz.ru/news/2018/11/2/949009.html
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
Sounds like BS cause Pantsir has been hailed by Russian mod as huge achievement
Plus it underwent ridiculous amounts of trials
Plus mod themselves hailed pantsirs use in Syria and made more orders to defend S-400 sites.
Almaz Antey advertising like Sega against Nintendo of the 90's
"80 targets with 80% accuracy" screams of made up statistics on the spot.
Plus it underwent ridiculous amounts of trials
Plus mod themselves hailed pantsirs use in Syria and made more orders to defend S-400 sites.
Almaz Antey advertising like Sega against Nintendo of the 90's
"80 targets with 80% accuracy" screams of made up statistics on the spot.
Hole- Posts : 11122
Points : 11100
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
A few pages back is a chart with the targets the Pantsir intercepted. Doesn´t look like a failure to me.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
miketheterrible wrote:Sounds like BS cause Pantsir has been hailed by Russian mod as huge achievement
Plus it underwent ridiculous amounts of trials
Plus mod themselves hailed pantsirs use in Syria and made more orders to defend S-400 sites.
Almaz Antey advertising like Sega against Nintendo of the 90's
"80 targets with 80% accuracy" screams of made up statistics on the spot.
Viktor went on to delete his Facebook account lol...you'd think a guy so vehement in his points would stand by his word, instead he would go run into hiding when the microscope turned on to him. We also live in a era where 'journalists' rely on sensationalism and clickbait because their isn't any 'real' money in microwave news market. What's even more crazy is you have Alexey Kholoptov recently going on a apoplectic binge saying Facebook was ordered by RU MOD to delete his page in a act of censorship.....Is he freaking serious LMAO?!?!
For virtually the past two years the US news cycle was dominated by articles of Facebook "eliminating Russian influence" on it's site, so now the Russian Ministry of Defense wields the power to do this, in this climate lol?!?!
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6171
Points : 6191
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
magnumcromagnon wrote:
Viktor went on to delete his Facebook account lol...you'd think a guy so vehement in his points would stand by his word, instead he would go run into hiding when the microscope turned on to him. We also live in a era where 'journalists' rely on sensationalism and clickbait because their isn't any 'real' money in microwave news market. What's even more crazy is you have Alexey Kholoptov recently going on a apoplectic binge saying Facebook was ordered by RU MOD to delete his page in a act of censorship.....Is he freaking serious LMAO?!?! For virtually the past two years the US news cycle was dominated by articles of Facebook "eliminating Russian influence" on it's site, so now the Russian Ministry of Defense wields the power to do this, in this climate lol?!?!
not sure if Murhakovsky wants to be seen (per click ;-) .. just curious where is MoD stats or military opinion? Tor in Syria is not because of Pantsir failure but simply they need to test new toy in war combat conditions.
Did he provide exact attack scenarios and how defense is supposed to be? EW can neutralize most of them so why to use Pantsir? Tor missile is helluva expensive and use this to take drone from Ali express for $300?
And his findings he published on facebook & telegram instead being sent to MoD.
Yup sounds legit to me.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
GunshipDemocracy wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:
Viktor went on to delete his Facebook account lol...you'd think a guy so vehement in his points would stand by his word, instead he would go run into hiding when the microscope turned on to him. We also live in a era where 'journalists' rely on sensationalism and clickbait because their isn't any 'real' money in microwave news market. What's even more crazy is you have Alexey Kholoptov recently going on a apoplectic binge saying Facebook was ordered by RU MOD to delete his page in a act of censorship.....Is he freaking serious LMAO?!?! For virtually the past two years the US news cycle was dominated by articles of Facebook "eliminating Russian influence" on it's site, so now the Russian Ministry of Defense wields the power to do this, in this climate lol?!?!
not sure if Murhakovsky wants to be seen (per click ;-) .. just curious where is MoD stats or military opinion? Tor in Syria is not because of Pantsir failure but simply they need to test new toy in war combat conditions.
Did he provide exact attack scenarios and how defense is supposed to be? EW can neutralize most of them so why to use Pantsir? Tor missile is helluva expensive and use this to take drone from Ali express for $300?
And his findings he published on facebook & telegram instead being sent to MoD.
Yup sounds legit to me.
Also his claims make the idea that SAM's work individually as opposed to IADS, which just seems a bit off. "Can't detect and destroy small drones", really? I recall the episode of Military Acceptance where Pantsir detected and destroyed a small quad-copter.....but that in itself is irrelevant, because Pantsir is part of IADS, which means if Pantsir cant detect small drones than certainly Nebo-M will. There's a reason why command posts like Baikal-M and others exist.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Pantsir destroying small drones, 3 RQ-21A's:
https://southfront.org/russian-pantsir-goes-hunting-syrian-skies/
It's even stated on RU MOD image Gunship posted earlier:
https://southfront.org/russian-pantsir-goes-hunting-syrian-skies/
It's even stated on RU MOD image Gunship posted earlier:
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6171
Points : 6191
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
magnumcromagnon wrote:Pantsir destroying small drones, 3 RQ-21A's:
Murhaovsky clearly bullshited. I presume this was mix of low military knowledge and need to more fame / clicks. BTW if drones cannot be stopped by EW then EW sucks.
Pantsir was tested then Tor was sent to be tested (and sold at higher price).
Economically using a missile for $100,000 to kill $300 drone is idiocy mixed with criminal negotiability of defense budget. But for couch troops money dont matter
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1459
Points : 1535
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
Feelsbad that he was not elaborate any further.
Tracking and engaging very slow+ very small targets is nontrivial. The drones may have extremely small RCS and slow. While air defense radar usually use doppler effect which have blind speed. Target slower than what processing systems determined will be filtered off and thus undetected.
Low flying target, especially those flying from horizon introduce multipath error, in shape of "nose dive or nose up" phenomenon or entirely cannot be locked as the reflection from target-ground-radar cancels each other. As seen from trends SPAAG engagement radar operates in high frequency, from X to higher to allow small beamwidth, which not only to provide resolution but also as some form of remedies against pop up target (so that the beam wont hit ground).
Pantsyr did well in this respect as the engagement radar operates in 8mm band. Which brought us to blind speed problem. This could be remedied by the TV-IR tracking station, which of course may constraint the number of target that can be engaged and perhaps burden the operator as it might need to manually identify and track the target. Plus limited range as these drones may have very small IR signature.
Tor are no different this respect which i wonder what makes it "can be more successful".
Tracking and engaging very slow+ very small targets is nontrivial. The drones may have extremely small RCS and slow. While air defense radar usually use doppler effect which have blind speed. Target slower than what processing systems determined will be filtered off and thus undetected.
Low flying target, especially those flying from horizon introduce multipath error, in shape of "nose dive or nose up" phenomenon or entirely cannot be locked as the reflection from target-ground-radar cancels each other. As seen from trends SPAAG engagement radar operates in high frequency, from X to higher to allow small beamwidth, which not only to provide resolution but also as some form of remedies against pop up target (so that the beam wont hit ground).
Pantsyr did well in this respect as the engagement radar operates in 8mm band. Which brought us to blind speed problem. This could be remedied by the TV-IR tracking station, which of course may constraint the number of target that can be engaged and perhaps burden the operator as it might need to manually identify and track the target. Plus limited range as these drones may have very small IR signature.
Tor are no different this respect which i wonder what makes it "can be more successful".
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07
He didn't elaborate cause he was making shit up.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-07
Does he have a source for such claims at least ? Syrian environment near the russian airbase is no different than what they are used to during training where pantsir proved to be very good. They wouldn't have send it in syria if they knew it sucks.
The guy is also talking about its performances against small and slow targets. Which are very hard to detect like stealthflanker said. I remember reading in another forum a former DCA military guy from Hungary saying s-300 for exemple couldn't track target with speed lower than 180 km/h. All radars have this issue.
I wonder how US air defence system would do against such targets ? Maybe russia should buy thousand of those drones instead of spending in mach 10 missiles ...
The guy is also talking about its performances against small and slow targets. Which are very hard to detect like stealthflanker said. I remember reading in another forum a former DCA military guy from Hungary saying s-300 for exemple couldn't track target with speed lower than 180 km/h. All radars have this issue.
I wonder how US air defence system would do against such targets ? Maybe russia should buy thousand of those drones instead of spending in mach 10 missiles ...
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6171
Points : 6191
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Isos wrote:Does he have a source for such claims at least ? Syrian environment near the russian airbase is no different than what they are used to during training where pantsir proved to be very good. They wouldn't have send it in syria if they knew it sucks.
The guy is also talking about its performances against small and slow targets. Which are very hard to detect like stealthflanker said. I remember reading in another forum a former DCA military guy from Hungary saying s-300 for exemple couldn't track target with speed lower than 180 km/h. All radars have this issue.
Then why Tor radar was OK if others wasnt ?
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-07
GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Then why Tor radar was OK if others wasnt ?
Tor was specially designed to engage munitions. So it has a software capable of dealing with any small and slow target since the begining. Pantsir should have received similar capabilities during the development.
They never gave results for tor use in syria. When you look at what pantsir fired you can be sure it is a very good system.
To know that there was 80 targets at which tor fired means he knows a general in charge in syria and he told him classifid informations about tor and pantsir. Even the crews are on rotation and probably don't that much. So his statement, unless proved, are total bullshit. Moreover like I said previously the guy talk about S1 while russia has S2 in syria.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6171
Points : 6191
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Isos wrote:
To know that there was 80 targets at which tor fired means he knows a general in charge in syria and he told him classifid informations about tor and pantsir. Even the crews are on rotation and probably don't that much. So his statement, unless proved, are total bullshit. Moreover like I said previously the guy talk about S1 while russia has S2 in syria.
but but but he is an expert! newspapers claim
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1459
Points : 1535
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
magnumcromagnon wrote:
The one in Masyaf is interesting as it shows how low target speed that can be intercepted. The Pantsyr Engagement radar is known capable to track target as slow as 36 km/h (10 m/s) and i assume so does TOR. Confusion with birds could happen as bird can fly faster and having similar RCS as terrorist drones. But it could also happen to TOR.
I'm curious tho if the terrorist UAV can actually flies slower than that.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6171
Points : 6191
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Stealthflanker wrote:
I'm curious tho if the terrorist UAV can actually flies slower than that.
taking into account that US was designing all engineering and tried to test Russian AAD potential I'd say very likely. I dont get why he was praising Tor over Panstir either.
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
As usual a lot of reactions on the web about a no-fact, miracle of the web 
Виктор Мураховский in all this ridiculous history has zero role !
It was NOT HIM to throw around and even less conceive and write this absurd amount of non-senses; instead it MERELY UPLOADED on its facebook page, as it do regularly and among several others, a post of third party publications (in this instance a Telegram post of "Военные журналисты"), very likely without even controling its content
.
For the chronicle this happened other times ,in the pasted years, with others absurd articles about presence of C-300 batteries and Искандер-М in Syrian Army.
When it realized that this Telegram post of "Военные журналисты" refering to ther usual unnamed "expert" , had been reported by A. Хлопотов (who is in a plain war with Уралвагонзавод since its exclusion from Company's privileged information channel and is therefore interested in finding arguments in favour of the supposed actions by part of leading domestic Corporations against "free" journalism ) realizing the open innuendo that the unnamed expert was him, it readily canceled this Военные журналисты post from its Facebook page.
How people on internet can still call Виктор Мураховский in this low level story is beyond human understanding........typical instance of "much ado about nothing"
Виктор Мураховский in all this ridiculous history has zero role !
It was NOT HIM to throw around and even less conceive and write this absurd amount of non-senses; instead it MERELY UPLOADED on its facebook page, as it do regularly and among several others, a post of third party publications (in this instance a Telegram post of "Военные журналисты"), very likely without even controling its content
. For the chronicle this happened other times ,in the pasted years, with others absurd articles about presence of C-300 batteries and Искандер-М in Syrian Army.
When it realized that this Telegram post of "Военные журналисты" refering to ther usual unnamed "expert" , had been reported by A. Хлопотов (who is in a plain war with Уралвагонзавод since its exclusion from Company's privileged information channel and is therefore interested in finding arguments in favour of the supposed actions by part of leading domestic Corporations against "free" journalism ) realizing the open innuendo that the unnamed expert was him, it readily canceled this Военные журналисты post from its Facebook page.
How people on internet can still call Виктор Мураховский in this low level story is beyond human understanding........typical instance of "much ado about nothing"
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
He claimed the operators were confused by birds, but unless they have a serious leg tag then a birds radar signature would be minimal and much less than for a UAV, which generally has a motor on board generating heat and being fitted with metal components or at the very least batteries.
The TOR system is more expensive but its missiles are cheaper, but it is still a bit of a waste using them against drones.
Have mentioned several times in the past that a simple drone armed with a 40mm grenade launcher in its nose that could be flown around like a fighter with a nose camera using data from huge radars that can detect and track the tiniest threat... fly up to the target and look at it with the camera... enemy drone the shoot a grenade.
Special grenades designed to detonate at 50m distance from the muzzle and explode sending a wall of fragments forward in the line of fire would be an ideal round... reduced propellent because it does not need enormous range... and fire at the target when it is 55-60m away to ensure destruction with the first one or two shots... no sophisticated electronics or expensive seeker... reusable drone and cheap fixed ammo... and the most awesome LAN party game... teenage boys from throughout Russia would love that as a job.
And when not defending the base you could use it against ground targets while supporting troops... the grenade is like an airborne claymore mine.
The Soviets already had a 30x165mm cannon shell for aircraft for strafing ground targets that detonated at about 1.8km from the muzzle... it was called Cargo Carrying.
No smart sensors or last second fusing of the round to detonate at any range... just fly up behind the threat and at the right range.... bang.
The TOR system is more expensive but its missiles are cheaper, but it is still a bit of a waste using them against drones.
Have mentioned several times in the past that a simple drone armed with a 40mm grenade launcher in its nose that could be flown around like a fighter with a nose camera using data from huge radars that can detect and track the tiniest threat... fly up to the target and look at it with the camera... enemy drone the shoot a grenade.
Special grenades designed to detonate at 50m distance from the muzzle and explode sending a wall of fragments forward in the line of fire would be an ideal round... reduced propellent because it does not need enormous range... and fire at the target when it is 55-60m away to ensure destruction with the first one or two shots... no sophisticated electronics or expensive seeker... reusable drone and cheap fixed ammo... and the most awesome LAN party game... teenage boys from throughout Russia would love that as a job.
And when not defending the base you could use it against ground targets while supporting troops... the grenade is like an airborne claymore mine.
The Soviets already had a 30x165mm cannon shell for aircraft for strafing ground targets that detonated at about 1.8km from the muzzle... it was called Cargo Carrying.
No smart sensors or last second fusing of the round to detonate at any range... just fly up behind the threat and at the right range.... bang.
Hole- Posts : 11122
Points : 11100
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
I guess the guys in the Pantsir systems shoot at small UAV´s because it is fun. It is a warzone so nobody will punish them for "wasting" a few missiles.
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
GarryB wrote:He claimed the operators were confused by birds
He....who ?
Who claimed all those absurdities ?
This is the "incrimed" post :
https://t.me/voenzhur/2475
From here :
http://telegramfor.me/chan.php?id=voenzhur&PAGE=13
This is the channel:
http://telegramfor.me/chan.php?id=voenzhur
Anyone can see anywhere any sign of the poor Виктор Мураховский ? (That has had the only sin to be a well known name in the field and to have unfortunately uploaded this on its Facebook pag
e )