Pantsir missile/gun AD system: #2

Well Aviapro didnt even got their own news TBH... it's just copy pasted stuff from others, even from doubtful Chinese forum board, which itself cannot be traced back.

Similar thing as that military magazine or something.

Hair raising but other "medias" and social media posters often took their article.

Lot of people quote them (Avia pro) because all the sensationalist stuff they publish.

Regarding the Pantsir radar, it's been shown in Syria and Libya that when jammed it's effectiveness is obvioulsy reduced some say to less than 10km when dealing with drones, who are already "low visible". That's how some of them were hit.

Isos wrote:SyrianMC twitter account which is hold be SAA air defence guys reported the opposite. They said pantsir can down pretty little target and they complained about chinese radars which are not working as advertized.

This article is another bullshit for israeli twitter warriors/experts.

Do you have a link? I heard nothing on Chinese radar but then again I have been busy.

Usual piece of advice: if a nation buys systems like pantsir (no political arm wrangling or bribes) and then others do too, it's probably because it actually works and was tested. Hence why nations pro US like UAE purchased it. Only nations bribes and or forced buys junk (Patriot for example).

Plus Russia base in Syria is protected by these same systems anyway and has high success rate.

I posted the posts in the syrian war thread but it was a year ago or something like that.

The twitter account is closed fir now. They close it when they go for Libya I think.

But he clearly said they disappointed by chinese radars.

Yeah, I figure. A lot of sources are always anonymous and or just nonsense. This comes out often whenever the SAA AD system operators screw up. Easy to blame the tool rather than the operators.

Cyberspec wrote:Lot of people quote them (Avia pro) because all the sensationalist stuff they publish.

Regarding the Pantsir radar, it's been shown in Syria and Libya that when jammed it's effectiveness is obvioulsy reduced some say to less than 10km when dealing with drones, who are already "low visible". That's how some of them were hit.

There are factors, which could reduce radar capabilities, like weather, jamming etc. All those factors could be calculated and included in air defense planning. Pantsir is a new system and Russians know quite a lot about jamming and electronic warfare and they also learn a lot of lessons from war in Serbia in 1999. They have all needed algoritms to deal with jamming. NATO and Turks use a lot of jamming to jam Russian air defense in Hmeimim, specially at terrorist drone attacks and they have no problem to shot them down. As I said many times, it's not a problem in Pantsir, it works just fine. Problem is in arab crews, which obviusly know only basics to use them, but not much about tactics and EW warfare. Just look how many times they use them in a wrong way. This could tell you everything.

They have all needed algoritms to deal with jamming. NATO and Turks use a lot of jamming to jam Russian air defense in Hmeimim,

They mostly have attack mossiles like kalibr or kh-31. The koral in Idlib, if it was against Russian pantsir would have never enetered in Syria and if they use it from Turkey it would received a kh31 in the face and Erdogan would be runing not to get hit by kalibrs.

medo wrote:Problem is in arab crews, which obviusly know only basics to use them, but not much about tactics and EW warfare. Just look how many times they use them in a wrong way. This could tell you everything.

To be fair, they have only one vehicle where they should have at least one battery working under the umbrella of medium and long range SAMs + EW + IADS + air force interceptors, readily available reload vehicles etc. The territory offers no easy cover like forested terrain in Serbia does, either. It is no excuse for abandoning an unloaded Pantsir in the middle of the field, I know, but still those are very vulnerable conditions for any system and any crew. Israel just needs to work them out a bit, based on local intelligence, to deplete their ammo or overwhelm them and score an easy PR victory, as no one will remember the amount of times the AD crews did their job just right or the amount of missiles they downed, but rather when they failed.

It's funny that turkish fanboys are making a campaign on twitter saying they have the best weapon "TB-2" against Russia AD systems .

To be fair, they have only one vehicle where they should have at least one battery working under the umbrella of medium and long range SAMs + EW + IADS + air force interceptors, readily available reload vehicles etc. The territory offers no easy cover like forested terrain in Serbia does, either.

Pantsir can act on its own or in a battery formation... it benefits from working in a nation wide IADS, but that is not critical... and a full battery should be able to operate for extended periods of time safely and defending not just itself but the targets nearby...

Flat open terrain is actually ideal for the air defence because there is no way the enemy can use trees and hills to sneak up for a close shot and then duck back down behind cover.

One vehicle on it own could take on probably 60% of the worlds air forces and come out rather well... simply because probably 55% out of the 60% probably wouldn't even know it was there... especially at night.

There are lots of ways it could be used... chipping away the enemy air force a bit at a time until they ground them for fear of loosing their entire airforce... most countries couldn't afford all the drones and stand off weapons needed to defeat one vehicle on its own let alone a battery...

If they surely sucked or Russian radar sucked, then how come does Russia repel drone and mortar strikes on its Airforce Base with such massive success? Those things show up smaller on radar than a cruise missile.

There are plenty of reasons why it's hard to believe anything said in the article because basic understanding of physics makes it a joke. First off - radar detecting and tracking cruise missiles. A Chinese radar won't do any better because it has same limitations - how far it can detect and track said cruise missile. Neither long range radar that bounces off of ionosphere or low altitude radar is needed. Not long range high altitude radar.

This typical western way of controling people or doing propaganda. They pop things directly from their ass and let people fight for nothing.

There is nothing to comment there.

Pantsir is SPAAG with tiny missiles. It's not meant to fight alone a fucking air force or be a strategic weapons. Even if it downs 50% of cruise missiles it's very good.

They better spend times analyzing what US does with their 900 billions every year for defense and how much goes direclty in the habds of corrupted people or already ultra-rich people.

GarryB wrote:Pantsir can act on its own or in a battery formation... it benefits from working in a nation wide IADS, but that is not critical... and a full battery should be able to operate for extended periods of time safely and defending not just itself but the targets nearby...

Yes, Pantsir can act on its own, BUT it is meant to do only in SELF DEFENSE. No one with sane mind will ever plan to do air defense with single Pantsir. If Pantsir is your best and most potent platform, than it must be protected by lower tear air defense systems, like VSHORAD, MANPADs and AA guns. In that case Pantsir form its own IADS with lower tear systems. It need assistance and protection in time of reloading or when it is overwhelmed.

Syria uses its pantsirs like russia uses its S-400. That's not a strategical weapon.

Btw if it was so shitty israeli and turks wouldn't make so much noise about destroying them. It only proves that their respective air forces fear them.

Beside that, pantsir and tor are the only systems that intercept grad rockets. Israeli iron dome is pathetic in comparison (they even make tgeir fanbois believe that the system doesn't intercept non dangerous rockets hahah the joke, they find excuses in adcance for their shitty system).

The main point is the radar. They shit on the Russian radar comments but state how great Chinese ones are. If that was the case, they would provide some kind of source. Some kind of quotes from known AD professionals. But nothing. As stated earlier, their source is from either a Chinese forum post, or made up.

I doubt the Chinese radar is even good. It got destroyed pretty quickly anyway. And if what ISOS said is correct, then real AD people didn't like the Chinese systems anyway. A reason why turkey purchased the S-400 instead of the FD-2000 from China.

New radar for pantsirs incorporating lessons from Syria. Probably much more powerfull than the small one on pantsirs with data link to "command and control" pantsirs so that they don't use their own search radars making them even more dangerous.

Isos wrote:New radar for pantsirs incorporating lessons from Syria. Probably much more powerfull than the small one on pantsirs with data link to "command and control" pantsirs so that they don't use their own search radars making them even more dangerous.

That thing has been around for quite some time.

I don't think he was suggesting it was recently developed for the role...

A new Pantsir version SM-SV on a tracked chassis will be created for the ground forces to protect the S-300V4:

https://iz.ru/1060580/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/kompleksnyi-pokhod-super-pantciri-postupiat-v-sukhoputnye-voiska

LMFS wrote:A new Pantsir version SM-SV on a tracked chassis will be created for the ground forces to protect the S-300V4:

https://iz.ru/1060580/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/kompleksnyi-pokhod-super-pantciri-postupiat-v-sukhoputnye-voiska

Finaly Pantsir will go to ground forces. Intersting is, that they decide for medium range Pantsir-SM. So SHORAD will be firmly in hands of Tor-M2 and Pantsir will most probably replace old Buk-M1, when they will have enough of them to protect S-300V4.

medo wrote:

LMFS wrote:A new Pantsir version SM-SV on a tracked chassis will be created for the ground forces to protect the S-300V4:

https://iz.ru/1060580/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/kompleksnyi-pokhod-super-pantciri-postupiat-v-sukhoputnye-voiska

Finaly Pantsir will go to ground forces. Intersting is, that they decide for medium range Pantsir-SM. So SHORAD will be firmly in hands of Tor-M2 and Pantsir will most probably replace old Buk-M1, when they will have enough of them to protect S-300V4.

Meanwhile I was proven right yet again!

Finaly Pantsir will go to ground forces. Intersting is, that they decide for medium range Pantsir-SM. So SHORAD will be firmly in hands of Tor-M2 and Pantsir will most probably replace old Buk-M1, when they will have enough of them to protect S-300V4.

I disagree... it clearly and repeatedly states that the new Pantsir-SM system they are introducing is specifically to protect their S-300V4 batteries from small difficult targets that sneak in close like drones or munitions that are not worth a full sized missile.

They don't say they are introducing it to their armoured formations to move with their armoured groups so Tunguska and Pine and TOR and BUK should all remain in service and in use... I suspect they chose the longer ranged Pantsir because of its better radar and therefore better discrimination of very small targets at close range.

It also mentions the mini missiles with four missiles per standard missile tube and it says a range of 5-7km for those... which is plenty really...

GarryB wrote:

Finaly Pantsir will go to ground forces. Intersting is, that they decide for medium range Pantsir-SM. So SHORAD will be firmly in hands of Tor-M2 and Pantsir will most probably replace old Buk-M1, when they will have enough of them to protect S-300V4.

I disagree... it clearly and repeatedly states that the new Pantsir-SM system they are introducing is specifically to protect their S-300V4 batteries from small difficult targets that sneak in close like drones or munitions that are not worth a full sized missile.

They don't say they are introducing it to their armoured formations to move with their armoured groups so Tunguska and Pine and TOR and BUK should all remain in service and in use... I suspect they chose the longer ranged Pantsir because of its better radar and therefore better discrimination of very small targets at close range.

It also mentions the mini missiles with four missiles per standard missile tube and it says a range of 5-7km for those... which is plenty really...

Did I say anything different? Primarily they will go for S-300V4 protection. But ground forces will not have that many S-300V4 brigades (at least one brigade per military district), so it will be economicaly wise to buy them more or they could simply order additional Tor-M2 batteries for that porpouse. Pantsir-SM is with its range exactly between Buk-M3 and Tor-M2.

The other solution is to buy more simple and cheap BM missiles to destroy all the airports from where drones can take off. Small drone have generally 200-400km range. No need for expensive state of art manoeuvring Iskander for all targets.

They can also mount ELINT pod of su-25/Yak 130 to look for the command posts of those drones and destroy them which then is safer as they can't use the drones and the command post take more time to be replaced, specially if the company making them was hit by a kalibr missile.

Big drones are easy targets that can be dealt with S-300/buks and they can't be used in huge number because they cost too much.

Drawing of Pantsir-SM-SV.