Pantsir missile/gun AD system: #2

Yeah looks like there should be a bit of room in the cab behind the driver before the engine.
I guess the operator area on the existing version is where that door is behind the spare tire?

Does it look like they managed to reduce the vertical height on the new version by 20cm or so to you guys?
Existing version always looked like it has questionable CoG height to me so reducing it would be likely a priority IMO.
Could just be an optical illusion with the different cab shape/maybe different chassis proportion

That is a good question... I don't know, but actually it is interesting because a remote location in the cabin would be ideal because in the near future these turrets are going to be mounted on armoured vehicles for forward deployment with units so having unmanned turrets would actually make that transition easier.

It would have to be reorganised so much of the stuff that is not part of the turret goes in the troop compartment of the hull on the armoured vehicle and things are clearly going to have to be reduced in size. but a lot of the equipment will be power generation to run the radar and electronic sensors and drives, so the armoured vehicles will already have generators and power takeoff from their main engines though a couple of APUs would be useful.

The Arctic model seems to have the crew and driver in the front module and the weapons and sensors in the rear module but it is not obviously the case.

hoom wrote:Yeah looks like there should be a bit of room in the cab behind the driver before the engine.
I guess the operator area on the existing version is where that door is behind the spare tire?

Does it look like they managed to reduce the vertical height on the new version by 20cm or so to you guys?
Existing version always looked like it has questionable CoG height to me so reducing it would be likely a priority IMO.
Could just be an optical illusion with the different cab shape/maybe different chassis proportion

Indeed, there's some trouble with CoG of the old model, which led to lower accuracy when firing the cannons.

But yea it does seem that the SM version with a new chassis has lower CoG because the wheel clearance is lower

hoom wrote:Yeah looks like there should be a bit of room in the cab behind the driver before the engine.
I guess the operator area on the existing version is where that door is behind the spare tire?

Does it look like they managed to reduce the vertical height on the new version by 20cm or so to you guys?
Existing version always looked like it has questionable CoG height to me so reducing it would be likely a priority IMO.
Could just be an optical illusion with the different cab shape/maybe different chassis proportion

I have just found another view of Pantsir SM chassis on the internet. I realize Russian engineer can't design operator area behind the spare tire because you can see grill radiator on the roof-top.

GarryB wrote:That is a good question... I don't know, but actually it is interesting because a remote location in the cabin would be ideal because in the near future these turrets are going to be mounted on armoured vehicles for forward deployment with units so having unmanned turrets would actually make that transition easier.

The Arctic model seems to have the crew and driver in the front module and the weapons and sensors in the rear module but it is not obviously the case.

The Arctic model have 2 modules : the crew and driver in the front module and unmanned-turret in the rear module. I guess the Arctic model can fired G2A missiles while moving.This is the advantage over Pantsir SM based-on Kamaz 53958.

Lennox wrote:Indeed, there's some trouble with CoG of the old model, which led to lower accuracy when firing the cannons...

Serbian Army can vouch that it definitely does have some trouble with centre of gravity and that it affects way more than just gun accuracy





As for crew compartment on SM it's between the wheels above the fuel tank

This is the vehicle shown for the first time at the Moscow Parade. Doesn´t look like a door to the control room between the tires.


This is the version shown at the Army 2021 exhibition. You can clearly see the door.


Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

Hole wrote:This is the vehicle shown for the first time at the Moscow Parade. Doesn´t look like a door to the control room between the tires.


This is the version shown at the Army 2021 exhibition. You can clearly see the door.


Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

They are not the same. Upper one is domestic Pantsir-SM and lower one is Pantsir-S1M for export.

Russia’s upgraded Pantsyr anti-aircraft missile/gun system can fight any strike drones

The Pantsyr-S1M has received new hypersonic surface-to-air missiles that has boosted its striking range from 20 km to 30 km, its operational altitude from 15 km to 18 km and its destruction area threefold

MOSCOW, November 30. /TASS/. The upgraded Pantsyr-S1M surface-to-air missile/gun system is capable of fighting all types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including strike drones, Industrial Director of the Armaments Cluster at the state tech corporation Rostec Bekkhan Ozdoyev told TASS on Tuesday.

"The upgrade has substantially boosted the Pantsyr’s capabilities for fighting all types of drones. In particular, the system is capable of effectively detecting and destroying all types of strike drones that are in operational service," he said.

Deputy CEO of the High Precision Weapons Company (part of Rostec) Sergei Mikhailov told TASS at the EDEX 2021 international arms show that the upgraded Pantsyr had the potential to become the basis for tactical air defenses.

"The Pantsyr-S1M can be used as the basis for building an effective modular air defense network capable of shielding any military units from small-size and strike drones, precision weapons and, of course, military aviation - aircraft and helicopters. The system fully complies with the present-day A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] principles [an air defense system used to prevent an enemy from penetrating into vital areas]," Mikhailov said.

The Pantsyr-S1M has received new hypersonic surface-to-air missiles that has boosted its striking range from 20 km to 30 km, its operational altitude from 15 km to 18 km and its destruction area threefold. Along with new missiles, the system can also fire missiles of the Pantsyr-S1 launcher. The upgrade of the Pantsyr-S1M has also improved its stealth, jamming resistance and the rate of fire.

Russia’s state arms exporter Rosoboronexport signed the first contract on the delivery of Pantsyr-S1M anti-aircraft missile/gun systems at the Army 2021 international arms show on August 25.

Upgraded Pantsyr to lay basis for Russia’s multi-layered counter-drone system

The upgraded Pantsyr-S1M surface-to-air missile/gun system will be a major element of Russia’s multi-layered counter-drone system, Deputy CEO of the High Precision Weapons Company Sergei Mikhailov said at the EDEX international defense show running on November 29 - December 2 in Cairo.

"Countering drones is a major task for present-day air defense weapons. Currently, the Russian industry produces two types of counter-drone capabilities: ‘soft-kill’ to suppress drones by electronic countermeasures and ‘hard-kill’ to physically destroy UAVs. The network integrating both technologies was unveiled at the IDEX 2021 [international arms] show and the Pantsyr-S1M will be its major component, in particular, within a group of systems for physically eliminating drones," Mikhailov explained.

The Pantsyr-S1M is highly cost efficient in fighting modern drones, he said. "The munitions that are used make it possible to fully meet the cost/efficiency ratio in striking targets. We can confidently say that the Pantsyr-S1M is the world’s least expensive counter-drone system," he added.

https://tass.com/defense/1368227

What is the flying altitude of that Turkish drone?

lyle6 wrote:

Hole wrote:
Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

Less of the former, more of the latter. There's probably not enough space in the cabin recess for two work stations to fit side by side. Earlier renders of the Pantsir-SM also show a control module in the same spot:
[

A good thing would be two seperate vehicles for the launcher and one for the crew/work stations.

Most expensive is to train operators. So enemy will attack mainly the launcher because it will detect its radar while the other vehicle with the crew can be hiden better.

That's something they have done in the artic versions but it is a trailer so it's still one vehicle.

For remote areas where mobility isn't as omportant as on the frontline it could be a solution.

Isos wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

Hole wrote:
Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

Less of the former, more of the latter. There's probably not enough space in the cabin recess for two work stations to fit side by side. Earlier renders of the Pantsir-SM also show a control module in the same spot:
[

A good thing would be two seperate vehicles for the launcher and one for the crew/work stations.

Most expensive is to train operators. So enemy will attack mainly the launcher because it will detect its radar while the other vehicle with the crew can be hiden better.

That's something they have done in the artic versions but it is a trailer so it's still one vehicle.

For remote areas where mobility isn't as omportant as on the frontline it could be a solution.

Pantsir can be worked via through command vehicles. It doesn't actually have to be manned besides transporting it. But those things are expensive and are a problem for mobility.

Well I like the idea of two vehicles which means two hit to destroy it. Loosing one means loosing just half the system and crew can be in the one not being hit.

The arctic version, even if they are always togather, does this by being a 2 part vehicles. A hit by a small munition like drone ones will damage only one of them.

Operationally a unit of vehicles would be 6 to 8 vehicles with command information coming from the air defence network... they certainly would not operate with all 6 or 8 vehicles with radars shining everywhere giving away their position to anyone who happens to be looking.

One or maybe two vehicles will operate their search radars and pass target data and air information to the other vehicles.

{edit} should add the vehicles with search radar operating will pass data and air situation information to the command vehicle in the group who will share that information with the other vehicles and also pass that information up to the IADS, while all the vehicles in the group will probably be listening for radar and radio traffic but also their optical systems in the area like drones etc wiht all that information pooled and shared and analysed by the command vehicle which will then delegate targets to vehicles to engage as well as pass target information up the chain. Targets outside their missile range could be engaged by other batteries closer to the enemy targets receiving their target information via the IADS network.{/edit}

When engaging a target a vehicle will use its tracking radar with such a narrow beam only the target being tracked will likely detect it.

Hiding from enemy air power makes sense to avoid being attacked but they are supposed to be there defending targets in the area... not hiding like little pussies who can hear dogs barking.

They have the missiles and guns to essentially defend themselves from anything that could be fired at them... if they are sensible and don't make mistakes they should be just fine.

But Pantsir performed so poorly in Syria...

Any problems with any system are normal, but it seems the response is different... for Russia they analyse what happened and upgrade their systems to better deal with the new threats, while the US seems to withdraw their air defence batteries and pretend they work just fine... why is everyone buying S-400s?

What is the flying altitude of that Turkish drone?

Off the top of my head I think it was about 8km which got them above MANPADS reach, and made it a difficult target for other ground based systems for its lack of IR signature and RCS, but it should have been able to be targeted by even old model Pantsir and TOR let alone new ones.

Easy to answer. After they saw how great Russia developed in the last few years they want western sanctions.

Hole wrote:Easy to answer. After they saw how great Russia developed in the last few years they want western sanctions.

Not gonna lie, Western Sanctions have been very good for the Russian economy, the level of self sufficiency they've gained in the last 10 years is phenomenal.

A lot of common sense decisions and changes in policy that Russia should have done years ago they have not because it is just easier and cheaper and quicker to buy off the shelf.

Investing in the food production industry for Russia would have been a minefield with cheap EU imports making it simply unprofitable, and international trade regulations frowned on such subsidies anyway, but thanks to the western sanctions they were able to make the changes, and suffer a short period of pain, but the result was much better for Russia and Russians. The US using the US dollar as a weapon has essentially driven them to drop the US dollar in international trade which is something they talked about for decades but never got around to doing anything about it till they were pushed.

It was certainly not painless, but in terms of their future prospects I think what hasn't killed them has certainly made them stronger.

But the irony is that secretly those western companies wanted to produce stuff in Russia all along because it is like producing stuff in China... in comparison the wages are cheap but there is a large skill base and a well educated population.

Even the French engine company Safran made an offer to Russia... the French were having to restrict their sales of engines for Russian aircraft because of western sanctions so the Russians of course started looking at developing and producing their own engines across the entire range of all the aircraft and vehicles they made... there were gaps like in helicopters and light jet trainers and also missiles and UAVs where they didn't have a good range of options from Russian companies because traditionally such things were made in the Ukraine or eastern europe, while some civilian products new and old were designed with French and American engines to appeal to foreign markets and foreign customers.

Sanctions meant a change for Russia, but Safran actually made the offer to the Russians that if they kept buying French engine types (presumably set up local production to bypass sanctions) that they would start buying their expensive hot bits (the hot section titanium bits) for all their engines from Russia instead of from the US. The Russians have new engine programmes for the gaps in their inventory and I suspect they want to fill those themselves... they are starting from new designs using state of the art design and materials so they are not remaking old engines, but developing and producing new engines which should make their new aircraft rather better.

Would be interesting if Safran decides to get Russian hot parts for their engines anyway just to spite the US... it is US pressure for Sanctions driving this whole situation in the first place... not to mention certain submarines they wont be building for Australia... the irony is that Russian hot parts would likely be cheaper than American made ones... and both would likely be made of Russian Titanium...

GarryB wrote:But the irony is that secretly those western companies wanted to produce stuff in Russia all along because it is like producing stuff in China... in comparison the wages are cheap but there is a large skill base and a well educated population.

Even the French engine company Safran made an offer to Russia... the French were having to restrict their sales of engines for Russian aircraft because of western sanctions so the Russians of course started looking at developing and producing their own engines across the entire range of all the aircraft and vehicles they made... there were gaps like in helicopters and light jet trainers and also missiles and UAVs where they didn't have a good range of options from Russian companies because traditionally such things were made in the Ukraine or eastern europe, while some civilian products new and old were designed with French and American engines to appeal to foreign markets and foreign customers.

Sanctions meant a change for Russia, but Safran actually made the offer to the Russians that if they kept buying French engine types (presumably set up local production to bypass sanctions) that they would start buying their expensive hot bits (the hot section titanium bits) for all their engines from Russia instead of from the US. The Russians have new engine programmes for the gaps in their inventory and I suspect they want to fill those themselves... they are starting from new designs using state of the art design and materials so they are not remaking old engines, but developing and producing new engines which should make their new aircraft rather better.

Would be interesting if Safran decides to get Russian hot parts for their engines anyway just to spite the US... it is US pressure for Sanctions driving this whole situation in the first place... not to mention certain submarines they wont be building for Australia... the irony is that Russian hot parts would likely be cheaper than American made ones... and both would likely be made of Russian Titanium...

Is there any realistic possibility of that deal coming through?

The Safran engine offer for Russia... not likely in my opinion.

France feel betrayed by the US over this deal and it would now be a great way to cut them out of some of their business, and from their perspective it would also be useful because having US parts in their engines gives the US a bit of a veto on who can be customers, but Russia has clearly decided to replace foreign engines in their military and civilian inventory... the new engines are modular and scalable so they can make engines in different classes without too much work and testing.

Plus it wasn't that long ago France burned the Russians over a certain helicopter carrier deal, so saying no will probably feel good too, though a lot of aircraft around the world use French engines so it would have been worth a bit of money the real question is how long it would have been allowed to continue before sanctions demanded an end to that...

My understanding is that the offer was made to prevent the Russians dropping French engines in a range of Russian aircraft like their new civilian airliners and the Ka-226T and other aircraft too and has not been repeated...