Pantsir missile/gun AD system: #2

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

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

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.

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

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?

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:
[

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.

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

Broski wrote:

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.

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...