Pantsir missile/gun AD system: #2

Also I doubt that 9 Pantsirs were destroyed by drones or air strikes. Most of the "destroyed" systems were left by retreating soldiers.

Well it's a truck that can move same way as the pick-ups they use to retreat.

It's a very mobile system. You can use it to retreat.

Also those numbers are from US. They are meaningless.

Note also that most of them were coming on russian chassi which means Russia is getting ride of them in favor of S2 or SM which is smart.

You are spot on in the first part of your post, and totally wrong in the second. Russian A2/AD and all those stories are BULLSHIT. I posted some days ago a serious document where they lay very clear that they are not planing about hiding in their holes until NATO decides to stop beating them but actually about laying waste of the attackers infrastructure. These guys fought and won WWII, do you think they are suckers in terms of warfare??

They put more money on S-400 and other AD than on buying more cruise missiles or BM.

I'm not saying they lack offensive weapons. I'm saying they show more interest on defensive ones.

We see in Syria vs Israel or NK or Lybia that the one who attacks always succeed to destroy enemy infrastructure, expensive systems.

IMO they should buy more sukhois than AD systems. Just like their clients should buy more fighters than AD.

Isos wrote:

I'm not saying they lack offensive weapons. I'm saying they show more interest on defensive ones.

We see in Syria vs Israel or NK or Lybia that the one who attacks always succeed to destroy enemy infrastructure, expensive systems.

IMO they should buy more sukhois than AD systems. Just like their clients should buy more fighters than AD.

Well, in my opinion the offence/defense dilemma is more a geopolitical question than a military capability one. For the most part Russia is trying to avoid escalation in favor of cultivating strategic partnerships even while sacrificing face and assets. It is bidding its time, awaiting the decisive shift in world political/economic balance that it knows is coming. Some small concessions and losses are worth the larger long term potentials.

A good example is that dawning of the SU-24 by Turkey in 2007. Russia could have easily escalated the situation by at least attacking the origin base of the F-16 to the effect of destroying the aggressor squadron and saving its face and proving its military efficacy. But then what? Bar WW3, the US would have gotten all the excuse to rally the whole of NATO behind it, consolidating its grip on Turkey and basically isolating Russia from the near/middle east. Instead,  Russia swallowed some pride and limited its response to a diplomatic hardball, leading Erdogan to apologize/compensate and what followed in the geostrategic dynamic of the two nations looks like a case study in a chess masterclass.

The US also senses the coming shift, hence its desperation in military posturing and sanctions. But time, with all its indifference, is on Russia's side.

Isos wrote:

Also I doubt that 9 Pantsirs were destroyed by drones or air strikes. Most of the "destroyed" systems were left by retreating soldiers.

Well it's a truck that can move same way as the pick-ups they use to retreat.

It's a very mobile system. You can use it to retreat.

Also those numbers are from US. They are meaningless.

Note also that most of them were coming on russian chassi which means Russia is getting ride of them in favor of S2 or SM which is smart.

You are spot on in the first part of your post, and totally wrong in the second. Russian A2/AD and all those stories are BULLSHIT. I posted some days ago a serious document where they lay very clear that they are not planing about hiding in their holes until NATO decides to stop beating them but actually about laying waste of the attackers infrastructure. These guys fought and won WWII, do you think they are suckers in terms of warfare??

They put more money on S-400 and other AD than on buying more cruise missiles or BM.

I'm not saying they lack offensive weapons. I'm saying they show more interest on defensive ones.

We see in Syria vs Israel or NK or Lybia that the one who attacks always succeed to destroy enemy infrastructure, expensive systems.

IMO they should buy more sukhois than AD systems. Just like their clients should buy more fighters than AD.

They have purchase more cruise missiles in last 4 years than they have during times leading up to end of USSR. Possibly more than end points of USSR.

They just seem to showcase them in terms of numbers compared to pantsirs which are easily visible.

@Daniel_admassu

Actually, all NATO left Turkey alone and clearly told them you fuck up alone we won't help. That's why Turkey bought S-400. They understood NATO doesn't give a fuck about Erdogan and thry could even be the next big target in the middle east.

Also Russia responded. 2 days after the downing of the su-24, 2 kurds destroyed a Cobra helicopter with a russian Igla-S manpad killing the 2 crews. It was the first time they used such weapon and that was procided by Russia for sure.

They have purchase more cruise missiles in last 4 years than they have during times leading up to end of USSR. Possibly more than end points of USSR.

They just seem to showcase them in terms of numbers compared to pantsirs which are easily visible.

Well then they should show them. In Syria they filmed all their S-400 but never the Iskander which is present in very low numbers. Their Sukhoi are also almost never shown with tactical missiles. They showed only once a su-34 with kh-35.

Isos wrote:They put more money on S-400 and other AD than on buying more cruise missiles or BM.

I'm not saying they lack offensive weapons. I'm saying they show more interest on defensive ones.

We see in Syria vs Israel or NK or Lybia that the one who attacks always succeed to destroy enemy infrastructure, expensive systems.

IMO they should buy more sukhois than AD systems. Just like their clients should buy more fighters than AD.

This is just your impression, they have multiplied the number of offensive missiles in the last 10 years. Here we have better sources and judgement than CNN headlines in third world countries, why would some odd and inconsequential Israeli attacks on Syria be of value to judge the ultimate capabilities and doctrine of the Russian military?

This way in autumn of 2020, along with the ground forces ‘Iskander’ systems capable of carrying 2-4 cruise missiles, the overall Russian salvo already exceeds 2,350 missiles. Nominally it is still less than what is available to the USA. However, firstly, the combat effectiveness of the newest Russian missiles surpass by far that of the old American ‘Tomahawks’, and secondly, let us remember that back in 2010 the Russian salvo had only 600 missiles. So the progress in the course of 10 years is truly revolutionary. And who said that we want to stop there.

http://thesaker.is/a-cruise-missile-revolution-took-place-in-russia/

Consider also the last statements from Shoigu saying plainly that they are going to strongly increase the amount of hypersonic missiles procured as it will be the base of their conventional deterrence.

franco wrote:American military commander named the number of Bayraktars destroyed by the Russian Shell in Libya

In the spring-summer of 2020, Turkish media enthusiastically described the destruction of "dozens" of Pantsir-C1 air defense missile systems in Libya. However, the American military commander Jeff Jaworski found out the true state of affairs and named both the number of irretrievably lost air defense missile systems and the number of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 reconnaissance drones destroyed by a Russian-made air defense system.

According to a journalist from the United States, he conducted a thorough investigation, including using information from the Pentagon. As a result, he found that Ankara greatly exaggerated its successes and spoke extremely modestly, and even sparingly, about its losses. But an impartial journalist calculated that the Turks destroyed 9 units of these air defense missile systems, which were under the control of Arab operators.

In Libya, Pantsir-C1 personnel acted more efficiently than in Syria, they already knew the tactics of Bayraktar attacks

- the meticulous journalist drew attention.

According to him, 47 units of Bayraktar TB2 were shot down in Libya by "Shells", and now these UAVs no longer seem so invincible. The American also studied the financial side of the issue. 9 air defense missile systems cost $ 118 million, and 47 UAVs - $ 245 million.

We remind you that another civil war in Libya began in the spring of 2014. On the one side of the confrontation is the country's official parliament (sits in the east in Benghazi) and its Libyan National Army, led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, and on the other, the Libyan National Accord Government (sits in the west in Tripoli), consisting of Islamists and supported by the UN and Turkey ...

https://pll4mi3fskkynekzvxxr6u4ery--topcor-ru.translate.goog/18972-amerikanskij-voenkor-nazval-chislo-bajraktarov-unichtozhennyh-rossijskim-pancirem-v-livii.html

The cost figures are ,as always, completely wronged :

- TB2 Bayraktar in the export market cost not less than 8-9 ml dollars at glider (excluded weapons and control stations) ,therefore 47 TB2 downed in Lybia are a loss of 376 to 423 ml dollars not 245 ml dollars
- Панцирь-С1, first version like UAE ones, in the export market cost around 5,5-6 ml dollars at launchers ,therefore a loss of 9 launchers (and we know that not less of 5 of them was simply abandoned by LNA cause the advancing ground offensive) amount to 49,5 to 54 ml dollars

As already said in the past, the losses of Панцирь-С1 launchers has been almost entirely caused by the ground offensive of the GNA coordinated by Turkey with heavy participation of "war veteran" Syrian rebels and its own time caused by lack of construction of fortificated defensive structures, ambush positions and masked and covered fire points in the LNA controled territory that not expected a counter-offensive by part of GNA.

I don't know what to think about this...


https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2021/03/23/second-pantsir-s1-left-for-germany-in-favor-of-the-americans/

littlerabbit wrote:
I don't know what to think about this...


https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2021/03/23/second-pantsir-s1-left-for-germany-in-favor-of-the-americans/

It's an emirati pantsir well known by the US. And it also seem damaged.

30mm AA cannons used to engage lightly-armored ground vehicles.

Is the Pantsir an upgrade of the Tugunska so that basically replaces it or do they work together in an integrated AD system?

Pantsir originally was a shelterised version specifically for the Russian Air Force and Navy, of the Army Tunguska system.

The Tunguska allowed the replacement of two vehicles (Shilka and SA-9/13) with one vehicle.

Tunguska was more expensive than either a Shilka or a SA-13 vehicle... the Shilka has a radar and the SA-13 has a simple ranging radar and sensors to detect terrain avoidance systems in low flying aircraft and missiles, but the Tunguska combine guns and missiles that were superior in every way on one vehicle that was cheaper than the two vehicles previously used.

The search and tracking radars on the Tunguska made it vastly more capable but also more expensive than the shilka, but with larger calibre guns with a higher rate of fire, and carrying more missiles than the SA-13 carries with longer range and harder for the target to evade it was a significant step forward.

The tracked vehicle is heavy but was designed to operate in the field with tank armies.

Pantsir was intended to be a lighter cheaper vehicle based on trucks with better strategic mobility on good roads.... you could drive a Pantsir battery 2,000km and then to straight into action... with Tunguska after travelling 1,000km you would likely need to do some maintenance and overhauls as with any tracked vehicle.

It is likely that the new turret mount created for the Pantsir will be fitted to Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang based platforms as well as perhaps Typhoon and DT-30 type vehicle types as well.

The Ministry of Defense announced serial deliveries of the new Pantsir-SM anti-aircraft missile system. 

The latest Pantsir-SM anti-aircraft missile and gun systems will be the first to be adopted by the anti-aircraft units of the Western and Central Military Districts. The decision on this was made in the Ministry of Defense.

The new Pantsir-SM anti-aircraft missile system will soon begin to enter the army, and state tests of the anti-aircraft complex are planned to be completed this year. As stated in the military department, the new version of the complex significantly exceeds the Pantsir-S developed in the early 2000s. When creating it, the experience of using anti-aircraft gun and missile system in combat operations in Syria and Libya was taken into account.

As reported by Izvestia" Citing sources in the Defense Ministry, the Defense Ministry has already decided to supply Pantsir-SM to the troops. First of all, it will enter service with anti-aircraft gunners of the Western and Central Military Districts. Deliveries will be carried out as part of the state defense order in a planned mode. Then the upgraded complexes will be put into service with anti-aircraft units of other military districts.

As previously reported, Pantsir-SM received a new radar with AFAR, which allows detecting aerodynamic targets at a range of up to 75 km. The use of a new missile and a multi-functional targeting station increased the maximum radius of destruction to 40 km.

The anti-aircraft gun and missile system itself still carries 12 anti-aircraft guided missiles, but to repel massive airstrikes on external target designation, a transport-loading vehicle of the complex carrying up to 24 missiles can fire. This option is provided in case there is no time to recharge the ZRPC. In addition, the Pantsir-SM ammunition package includes new small-sized anti-aircraft missiles specially designed to destroy drones. One vehicle can carry up to 48 such missiles.

Source: 

Wonder what they'll do with all the existing pantsirs. Upgradable?

Lurk83 wrote:Wonder what they'll do with all the existing pantsirs. Upgradable?

I doubt that the Pantsirs-S will be converted into a Pantsir-SM version. The new Pantsirs is based on a new chassis, it will be easier to build new ones.

Lurk83 wrote:Wonder what they'll do with all the existing pantsirs. Upgradable?

They are different classes. Pantsir-S is SHORAD and Pantsir-SM is medium range SAM. Pantsir-SM is not replacement for Pantsir-S, but will fill a niche between Pantsir-S SHORAD and S-350, S-400, S-500 long range SAMs.

medo wrote:

Lurk83 wrote:Wonder what they'll do with all the existing pantsirs. Upgradable?

They are different classes. Pantsir-S is SHORAD and Pantsir-SM is medium range SAM. Pantsir-SM is not replacement for Pantsir-S, but will fill a niche between Pantsir-S SHORAD and S-350, S-400, S-500 long range SAMs.

When it comes to Russia, Short vs Medium range is a relative term. The S-350 can engage targets out to 150km but it's still a medium range SAM, and the difference between the Pantsir's 40km and 150km is huge.

The top priority units will get the new gear and the gear they were using will be cascaded to lower priority units.

There are still some units using Shilka so they will likely get Tunguska and those previously operating Tunguska will get the newer vehicles etc etc.

Just because they have a new model Pantsir does not mean previous models become useless, they are very capable and the missiles are command guided and cheap, while at the same time being rather high performance weapons that are very effective.

They still have enormous numbers of obsolete SAMs they use as targets during air defence exercises and a system like Pantsir would be a rather useful drone launching system to test air defence equipment... you could site a few in the distance and launch a volley of targets very quickly and easily and cheaply.

A light and mobile system that is cheap to operate.

The Pantsir-M shipborne anti-aircraft complex received new capabilities. Now he is able to intercept targets flying at a height of no more than one or two meters above the water. Such characteristics provide protection against all modern, and most importantly, promising anti-ship missiles, air bombs and other precision weapons.

Naval maneuver
Interception of targets at ultra-low altitudes was practiced during test launches from the Odintsovo small missile ship (MRK) and the Shuya large missile boat. According to Izvestia sources in the military department, the naval Shells shot down several Kornet anti-tank missiles imitating an enemy strike. All targets were intercepted at a distance of several kilometers from the launch point, when they were flying at an altitude of one to three meters above the water.

https://iz.ru/1213030/roman-kretcul-anna-cherepanova/sboi-po-programme-korabli-vmf-poluchili-zashchitu-ot-vysokotochnogo-oruzhiia

That is impressive... a Kornet coming at you is a supersonic target 152mm in diameter... from several kms away a human would never even see that.

Quite exceptional though... quite some time ago they tested Igla missiles against AT-3 ATGMs, which I believe were flown at about 10-20m altitude to simulate a stealthy cruise missile and 5 out of 9 targets were shot down... which is pretty good for a missile with no proximity fuse against such a small target.

The result of course was the Igla-S which amongst other improvements added a proximity fuse to make it more effective against very small targets so it does not have to make direct contact with the target to kill it.

GarryB wrote:That is impressive... a Kornet coming at you is a supersonic target 152mm in diameter... from several kms away a human would never even see that.

Quite exceptional though... quite some time ago they tested Igla missiles against AT-3 ATGMs, which I believe were flown at about 10-20m altitude to simulate a stealthy cruise missile and 5 out of 9 targets were shot down... which is pretty good for a missile with no proximity fuse against such a small target.

The result of course was the Igla-S which amongst other improvements added a proximity fuse to make it more effective against very small targets so it does not have to make direct contact with the target to kill it.

On video from Syria you can see group of people being targeted by atgm and never spotting the missile.

So that may work in tests but hardly in real combat.

Neither would they use Tor/Pantsir to defend against ATGMs.

People may not see the missile, but radar an optics can. And the missile of a Pantsir system is much cheaper then a tank, so they will use them to shot down ATGM´s.

Apologies if already posted.

Neither would they use Tor/Pantsir to defend against ATGMs.

The TOR and Pantsir are specifically there to defend against enemy air forces and munitions... including javelin and hellfire and HARM and anything in between...

Very slow missiles like Javelin would certainly be engaged and in fact target data could be passed to nearby BMPs to engage incoming slow threats with airburst cannon fire now... and in the near future the 2S38 will likely compliment Tunguska and TOR and Pantsir systems with a 57mm cannon shell...

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:

Lurk83 wrote:Wonder what they'll do with all the existing pantsirs. Upgradable?

I doubt that the Pantsirs-S will be converted into a Pantsir-SM version. The new Pantsirs is based on a new chassis, it will be easier to build new ones.

I have a question about Pantsir SM based on KAMAZ-53958. I can't find control operator cabin image Pantsir SM on Kamaz-53958 in the internet. I think control operator cab integrated in driver's cabin. Do you have pics about control operator cabin Panrsir SM on Kamaz-53958 ?