Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
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.
miketheterrible likes this post
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.
dino00 likes this post
They have all needed algoritms to deal with jamming. NATO and Turks use a lot of jamming to jam Russian air defense in Hmeimim,
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.
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...
LMFS likes this post
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
GarryB and LMFS like this post
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
