Pantsir missile/gun AD system: #2

Even smaller. Sosna is still using a tracked chassis of BMP-3 derivative.
I thought Tigr, the same way as Gibka-S.



This missile will be less expensive

Anti drone posts moved to here.


Pantsir video that was transferred but is relevant to this thread:

The tracked version of PANTSIR is undergoing tests.

Krepost wrote:

Did they replace the gun with an A0-18? It looks a lot thicker.

Krepost wrote:The tracked version of PANTSIR is undergoing tests.

and immediately using the 40 km range missile.

Did they replace the gun with an A0-18? It looks a lot thicker.

It is probably a missile tube... it can carry up to about 6 on each side which is two side by side and vertically 3 tubes.

This is two tubes... obviously for testing they are not fitting all 12 tubes.

These are the 40km range missiles so they are bigger and longer than the originals so they would extend well beyond the twin barrel 2A38M cannon.

The missiles of the Pantsir.
From left to right (note that they are export designations):

- The standard 20km range 57E6 missile
- The new longer range and faster 57E6M missile for the Pantsir-SM
- The smaller (anti drone) TKB-1055 missile for the Pantsir-SM
- The small pack of small missiles that fits in place of of one larger missile

There is a version without guns, and a double 2x12 battery of missiles instead.
So if those will be loaded with that small antidrone missiles, it will get an insane ammo load for the class.

Edit : have you spotted the range of this smaller missiles?



If we will take a 57E6 as a reference, it is 3160mm width and 90/76mm diameter.
This new 57E6M looks like a bit shorter, but wit a slightly thicker and much longer booster and much thinner missile.
Missiles of the new version and small one looks about same diameter as the old one, with smaller nose cone which probably is the missile itself, with the most of its length being booster.
So my guess is that the new small missile is about 1600mm long and 70-76 mm diameter.
This replicates the Igla dimensions, sooo ... I would bet on a range of approx. 6-8 km.

I would add two jammer "guns" in the mix to cover different frequencies used by at least civilian FPV and let harder military grade jammers on specific vehicles.

This replicates the Igla dimensions, sooo ... I would bet on a range of approx. 6-8 km.

This light Pantsir missile looks rather more substantial than an Igla or Verba, and though it does not have a separate solid rocket booster like the other two missiles have, would expect its performance is 10-12km.

The thinnest missile is the 40km range missile with the big solid rocket booster, while the 20km range missile is bigger and heavier and with a smaller solid rocket motor, and the smallest missile has no solid rocket booster, which makes sense because it probably wont detect drone targets at more than 6-8km anyway, but the SOSNA missile already exists and it would make sense to use that for the job of anti drone missile as it is laser beam riding so IR and RCS does not matter... the SOSNA can reach targets 10km away and is ready to go. It is a two stage missile but a much smaller solid rocket booster and a tube launcher that looks like a long ATAKA launch tube.

In many ways the anti drone Pantsir looks similar to the Vikhr missile, which has a 10-12km range (helicopter or Su-25 launch).

It will be interesting to see what sort of EMP shell a 30mm cannon could fire. Together with air burst HE Frag shells these will compliment the missiles when large numbers of threats appear.

Interestingly if they do have air burst shells then it would actually make sense to revert back to 2A72 single barrel cannon as the very high rate of fire of the 2A38M twin barrel cannon is not needed with air burst shells.

I would add that the Bulat ATGM, which is the half sized Kornet ATGM would be rather interesting in the Anti drone role too... being laser guided you could aim it at anything you can see or detect and it is rather small and probably rather cheap too. With a HE frag warhead with maybe a command detonated warhead it would be useful against small air targets too.

Any word on the mini TOR anti drone missiles at this 2024 event?

If you look at the base of this new Pantsir mount is appears to be suited to small trucks or static positions and trailers. I suspect the SM and the tracked model will either keep the guns or feature rather more than 12 racks.

In regards to guns, I think 57mm is slightly too big for a combination system, but perhaps 37mm or 45mm could be brought back for this role. There would be little additional logistical burden as airburst or guided anti aircraft shells would need their own production lines anyway, leaving barrel production as the only issue with this approach.

While I have not done any calculations I would estimate that it would infact be more optimal to use a 76-100mm gun as a gun only system for guided shells and a 37-45mm for airburst. 57mm just seems too limiting to rate of fire for airburst to be optimal and too small to get the most out of guided shells.

If you look at the base of this new Pantsir mount is appears to be suited to small trucks or static positions and trailers. I suspect the SM and the tracked model will either keep the guns or feature rather more than 12 racks..

I agree. The six missiles per side where each missile can be replaced by four small missiles is not so much an upgrade as it is the standard system without the guns, so smaller lighter and cheaper and lower maintenance. It would also be more suitable for defending things around the country because there wont be 30mm cannon shells blazing out at 5,000 rpm over the area where this thing is defending. Replacing missiles is easier than maintaining two twin barrel 30mm cannon. Replacing missile tubes is easier than cleaning and maintaining and loading 30mm cannon rounds.

In regards to guns, I think 57mm is slightly too big for a combination system, but perhaps 37mm or 45mm could be brought back for this role.

With command detonating 30mm cannon shells the 30mm guns are actually still good... especially for very light small targets like drones. Of course it means the very high rate of fire of the twin barrel 30mm 2A38M cannons is no longer needed and shifting back to the smaller lighter 2A72 single barrel cannon actually makes sense because the airburst shells and dual feed ammo make up for it.

Depending on the situation you could have airburst HE rounds in one feed and APFSDS rounds in the other. When you select the feed the aiming system will compensate for the very different trajectories of the two different rounds so all your HE rounds go where you want them and all your AP rounds go where you want them. The AP rounds have much better penetration than the full calibre AP rounds single feed guns fire.

So instead of a 2A38M cannon firing 50-70 shells per second each to cover the intercept box with 30mm shells so small targets can't slip through, you have the 2A72 cannon firing 5-6 rounds a second that fill the intercept box with fragments by exploding near the intercept box meaning firing a lot less shells but increasing your chances of getting hits on small targets. For larger heavier perhaps armoured targets, the APFSDS rounds will penetrate rather better than the full calibre AP rounds the 2A38M has to fire.

The 2A38M fires a continuous belt of ammo so the HE rounds and the AP rounds are on the same belt... this means the HE rounds can't be too heavy and slow and the AP rounds can't be too light and high velocity or they will have completely different trajectories and your shots will go all over the place. The HE round and the AP round have the same weight and speed so they both hit the same point of aim when fired in the same belt of ammo. This reduces the performance of the HE round which works better with more HE and does not need speed to be effective. With the AP round it needs to be the same weight as the HE round and moving at the same speed to shoot to the same point which means very high velocity darts are not an option.

With the 2A72 cannon it has separate feed systems so you can have HE airburst rounds and APFSDS rounds in separate feeds. When you select the ammo type it will adjust the point of aim so all your shells hit the target. It means when shooting armoured targets you get better penetration and with airburst rounds you can take out small light targets. You could also have HE frag shells without the command detonation stuff and more HE and bigger fewer fragments for use against larger heavier targets. You could even give it a smart fuse so if it impacts a target it penetrates inside before it explodes which would make it much more effective against soft skin targets too.

The 57mm gun is certainly too big to have in combination with Pantsir missiles but you could have SOSA or Verba/Igla-S missiles on it too. Cannon are ideal for targets flying straight and level while missiles are good for targets manouvering hard trying to evade interception.

The 57mm gun can also fire guided shells too.

While I have not done any calculations I would estimate that it would infact be more optimal to use a 76-100mm gun as a gun only system for guided shells and a 37-45mm for airburst. 57mm just seems too limiting to rate of fire for airburst to be optimal and too small to get the most out of guided shells.

I can't agree, even without airburst shells the S-60 was an excellent air defence gun, especially when used in conjunction with radar direction, but smaller faster targets like jets made it difficult for the systems of the time to track and engage such targets. The higher rate of fire of 14.5mm and 23mm weapons proved more effective in putting more projectiles up in the path of the target... the 30mm was added to increase range due to helicopter launched anti armour weapons.

The 57mm could not fire fast enough with conventional shells and without precision target tracking.

The 2S38 should be excellent for engaging targets of all types including A-10s, AH-64s, and drones as well as cruise missiles and other weapons used against ground vehicles.

Add a half dozen SOSNA missiles with 10km range and very high flight speed, and perhaps 4x Bulat ATGMs which would occupy the space of one Kornet missile for very close engagement of drones and you have an excellent air defence vehicle.

Of course you also need vehicles with jammers and lasers and your own drones...

Increasing the calibre would reduce the amount of ready to use ammo and I don't think the 2S38 will be spotting and tracking drone targets at more than 5-6km anyway... they are small targets with low IR and RCS signatures... a 57mm shell could hit targets out to 12km or so, larger calibres further, but how often would they detect such targets at such distances... and the extra weight of the guns and ammo and a rather lower rate of fire too.

The 57mm can achieve rates of about 240rpm which is pretty good with airburst ammo and precision target and outgoing shell tracking.

The calculations are intense, but a moving target detected 3km away moving in this direction at this speed can do all these things... climb or descend or maintain altitude, turn left or turn right, speed up or slow down or stop. In the 4 seconds it takes for the shells to get there you can use all those variables to create a box of where that platform can possibly be in that time period, and then you just need to fire bursts of 57mm shells with air burst warheads to fill that box with hot fragments... and then wait and if it works move on to the next target. One of the shells you fire of the perhaps 4 or 5 needed can be guided so as it moves closer to the interception box the box gets smaller as there is less time to manouver so the guided shell can manouver following the manouvers of the target to impact and get a hit.

To put it into perspective a hypersonic target like Zircon moving at 3km/s even if it didn't turn or climb or accelerate or decelerate... flying in a perfectly straight line has an interception point 12km away from its current position with a 4 second intercept time... if it was allowed to turn left or right or climb or descend then that 12km long box becomes quite enormous, and with a target moving at 3km per second if you go for one interception point and it turns that interception point might move 10km and you are already heading to the wrong intercept point... the intercept time is now less and you have to shift your flight intercept point 10km... most of the time you wont have time to reach it... remember half a second out and you miss by 1.5km.

Obviously with drones it is much simpler because the speeds are much lower.

57mm guns will be excellent, and not just for air defence but also for anti armour and general use on the battlefield, but the 30mm cannon will remain useful.

Lasers are becoming more mature and useful even if they might not be a lot of use in the rain or snow or the fog.

When it comes to 30mm a short burst from the double barrel cannon firing airburst shells would be rather more effective than the slow firing and inaccurate 2A72 firing the same airburst shells.

While 30mm airburst may be sufficient against small numbers of civilian quadcopters I would urge you to take a look at the performance of German 35mm high rate of fire airburst systems in Ukraine, I am not sure if they have been part of any engagements yet, but how the Russians destroy them will be a rather good indication of what level of fire rate and caliber are best suited to such an application.

When it comes to 30mm a short burst from the double barrel cannon firing airburst shells would be rather more effective than the slow firing and inaccurate 2A72 firing the same airburst shells.

A couple of points there... first of all accuracy is regarding recoil and vibration and firing the single barrel 2A72 in single shot is probably about as accurate as 30mm cannon can get. 2,500 rpm twin barrel 2A38M cannon generate quite a bit of vibration which does lead to dispersal of shells... as does 6 barrel 30mm cannon on the naval air defence mounts but normally that is a good thing because you aim to the centre of the interception box and rely on the shot spread to fill the entire box.

Second... no matter how accurate any of them is there wont be engagements of small drones at 4-5 km range... in fact many will be shooting targets popping up or recon drones flying at a few hundred or a few thousand metres up in the air over your troops using zoom lenses to find targets and call in the attack drones.

If you can hit those recon drones most of the time you massively reduce the performance of enemy drone attacks, and the ideal way to design air burst 30mm rounds would be a rear mounted sensor with a detonator and then a HE charge and a cluster of preformed fragments at the front shaped aerodynamically to fly through the air to the target location... so when you command detonate the round you have a bit of control... if it is a large drone or your shell is a bit off target you can detonate early and get a good spread of hits... with a smaller target or your shell is very very close to hitting it then detonate it very close to the target for max damage and effect.

The point is that with a precision fuse you have to know how close you are going to get before you fire, or you just have to guess. You also need a super super accurate timer for very very precise detonation, whereas command detonation means you can track target and shell and decide as the two converge... electronically decide of course...

The point is that the command detonation is more flexible and likely more effective, while also being cheaper.

Note the first Pantsir models actually had 2A72 cannons fitted for shelterised versions used around the place to defend airports and HQs etc etc, but it was decided that the higher rate of fire of the 2A38M makes them more effective against smaller targets like cruise missiles and bombs. The airburst rounds means rate of fire is not so critical, but of course it might take time to get reliable rounds as they will be new production and it will take time to get the into service in useful numbers.

I would urge you to take a look at the performance of German 35mm high rate of fire airburst systems in Ukraine,

Well of course the AHEAD rounds will be rather more efficient in 35mm calibre rounds as it is a much bigger round with a 750 gramme projectile compared with the 400 gramme projectile of the Russian 30mm round, but the Russian 30mm is widely deployed already across the battlefield and certainly volume of fire will make a difference with the 2A42 firing up to 800 rpm and the 2A72 firing is lower but it has a longer barrel and higher muzzle velocity... compared with the 35mm guns of the Gepard firing at 550 rpm per gun. Of course the twin barrel 2A38M fires at 2,500rpm.

The real point is that for small light targets a 57mm gun with air burst shells is an even better solution... but the 30mm rounds will likely be in service faster.

Air burst rounds would also be useful against soft targets too...

I would expect most FPV drones are simply too fast and manouver too much for cannon fire to engage... you would be ripping up the terrain all around your positions probably doing more damage than the drone would.

The real solution would be lasers because of their immediate interception potential and ability to hit medium and high flying recon drones.

Low energy lasers could be used to scan for optics in the air to locate them and a higher power beam to destroy them structurally.

In fact I would say put it in an airship and have it hover over friendly positions with radar and IIR and digital low light TV sensors and even LIDAR scanning from above with an unimpeded view of the battlefield.

It can spot enemy forces and enemy weapons as they are launched and follow them and also call out their launch positions to artillery to deal with ASAP.

A very high flying balloon will be safe from small arms fire and can defend itself with its laser from heavier missiles, plus of course flares and chaff and jammers that could be lowered on cables to misdirect enemy guided weapons.

It could be an AWACS like platform with large long range radar and could be used to bounce signals for communication and control of small units and drones and robots on the ground.

It could be free flying or tethered to a truck with a ground based power supply and communications through the tether.

A naval version could replace an AWACS aircraft and aircraft carrier for smaller groups of ships... it would certainly be more cost effective.

For poorer countries they could operate them instead of light AWACS aircraft like HAWKEYE types... and with the use of ground based power or solar panel power they could remain on station for weeks or months depending on the role.

Just as a signals bouncer for local forces to local commands or to send local signals to another country via satellite communications.

GarryB wrote:

Well of course the AHEAD rounds will be rather more efficient in 35mm calibre rounds as it is a much bigger round with a 750 gramme projectile compared with the 400 gramme projectile of the Russian 30mm round, but the Russian 30mm is widely deployed already across the battlefield

My original point was that since the air defence airburst shells would be used by air defense guns only you can introduce a new caliber without any issues say for barrel production. A 37-45mm cannon for light AA guns and combination platforms could work well without adding any real industrial or logistical burden.