Pantsir missile/gun AD system: #2

The advantages of the ZU-23 is that it is cheap and in service, yet with an upgrade, its performance is increased significantly without making it a lot more expensive.

The thing is that the Sosna is a new missile that is much faster and much longer ranged than MANPADS... 10km vs 6km, which makes it more effective against aircraft that might be armed with 6-8km range weapons like Hellfire etc.

Also the 23mm cannon shell is probably cheaper than the 30mm, but only the Shilka and ZU-23 use that round. The 23mm shell used in the Hind and other aircraft is a smaller shorter cartridge, though the HE heavy projectile is the same.

Eliminating a calibre from the inventory (23x152mm) would be a good thing and certainly the extra range and performance in missiles and gun ammo would be valuable, but not as much as commonality as BMP-2/3 units and of course air defence units with Tunguska and Pantsir using the same 2A38M cannon would be useful too.

Personally I would modify the design to allow perhaps more missiles to be carried... say 8 Pine missiles and two Verba and two Igla or older missiles like SA-9 or SA-13 for simpler targets.



I would also probably put the ball turret up higher and to the rear to give it a full 360 degree FOV.

One at all: the Pantsir air defense missile system will destroy the enemy without a crew

The new machine does not need artillery operators

Armed forces of Russia will receive anti-aircraft robot machine. It will be created on the basis of the Pantsir missile-cannon complex. The machine will be able to automatically, without the participation of military operators, find targets, identify and destroy them, which will not put soldiers and officers at risk. Also, the installation will be ready to work in areas with ultra-low temperatures or chemical contamination. According to experts, such a robot will radically increase the combat capabilities of Russian air defense.

Maximum automation

The Ministry of Defense made a fundamental decision on the development of an anti-aircraft robot, the tactical and technical requirements for the machine have already been determined, sources in the military department told Izvestia. Only the driver of the car will enter into the calculation of the installation; the vehicle will not need a combat crew - the electronics will take over all the control and conduct of the battle. To this end, its “brains” will be connected with automatic troop control systems using the so-called military Internet - a closed data transmission segment.

Thanks to this, sources in the military department noted, the new anti-aircraft gun will be able to receive information about the air situation in the area of ​​responsibility both from its regular radar and from more powerful third-parties. And not only ground-based, but also mounted on helicopters, ships, drones or long-range radar detection and control aircraft such as A-50.

Anti-aircraft robot electronics will allow you to analyze the entire amount of incoming information and, comparing the data, create a single picture of the battle. Then she identifies the most dangerous and valuable aircraft, selects the type of weapon (missiles or cannons) and gives a command to kill, Izvestia’s interlocutors noted. The exact date for completing work on the new anti-aircraft missile-cannon complex (SAM) in the Ministry of Defense could not be named.


Full Article
https://iz.ru/948322/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/odin-na-vsekh-zrk-pantcir-unichtozhit-protivnika-bez-ekipazha

That is a natural progression from an IADS where each vehicle or aircraft or unit is just a node within a network that supplies information (for A-100 and A-50 aircraft and radar and optical stations) and provides "kill" services like manned and unmanned anti aircraft platforms.

Vehicles and aircraft with sensors and weapons provide information to the network with their sensors and kill options with their weapons... the problem with a robotic platform is the ability to scan for targets and be able to identify them as friend or foe or mother nature and to pass that information to the centralised control... decisions to engage or not to engage depending on the situation and condition... the platform detecting the target might not be the ideal platform to engage the target for instance... say a Shilka detects a Apache helicopter 15km away so it cannot engage it itself, but when it passes the targets information to HQ it might have a Verba battalion 3km from where the Apache is currently operating so they will be contacted and given target information and instructed to engage...

It is also interesting... that part about operating in a chemically contaminated area made me think... with a near fully robotic force you could add chem grenades to your smoke grenades and call in chem strikes on your own position if the enemy is infiltrating or attacking your position...

Rob Lee
@RALee85
·
5h
Deputy Commander of the Aerospace Forces, Lieutenant General Andrei Yudin, said the VKS expects to receive 27 Pantsir-S vehicles in 2019

Truck mounted pantsir will have hard time following tabk units but tunguska or tank mounted pantsir should be good specially that indians operate russian made t-90.

Rob Lee
@RALee85
·
6h
The Economic Times reports that India's Defence Acquisition Committee will decided how to respond to Russia's objection after its Tunguska-M1 and Pantsir lost an Indian air defense (SPAD-GMS) tender worth $2.5 billion(South Korea's K-30 Biho was selected).


Rob Lee
@RALee85
·
6h
According to the Economic Times, the Pantsir and Tunguska-M1 failed the tests, in particular they could not meet the mobility requirements

Well that makes more sense than them not being able to hit targets.

Tunguska is about 34 tons which is getting a little on the large size but still lighter than tanks... except Sprut.

Still such an issue is clearly not a problem for the Russians... of course SOSNA on a BMP-3 chassis with a single twin barrel 30mm cannon and similar optics to what they are fitting to the current 57mm system would make it cheap and light yet still rather more effective than the South Korean entry which basically just had two single barrel 30mm guns and some MANPADS.

The armor on tunguska is useless. Not enough to protect it against bigger rounds but too much to make it heavy.

Pantsir is a real medium air defence and with new missile it is also better than homemade indian air defence akash system. And it can fire on the move its missiles.

The south korean system is an easy target for suicide drones. Pakistan can buy from kalashnikov some and destroy them next time.

Pls define "bigger rounds". If it can protect its crew from a HMG then it is adequate. Its a frigging SHORAAD/SPAAG, not an IVF.

The armor on tunguska is useless. Not enough to protect it against bigger rounds but too much to make it heavy.

What an odd thing to criticise it for... SPAAG traditionally have weak armour... the last two US gun vehicles.. the twin 40mm Duster, and the six barrel gatling 20mm Vulcan had no protection for their crew at all.... mainly for the obvious reason that a better more open field of view is more important for an air defence gun than protection from enemy fire.

The Shilka wasn't well protected... not much better than rifle calibre AFAIK, and the German Gepard is based on a Leopard 1 which is tinfoil armour... the radar and optics not protected at all.

Pantsir is a real medium air defence and with new missile it is also better than homemade indian air defence akash system. And it can fire on the move its missiles.

Pantsir has no better armour than Tunguska or Shilka though better than open tops like Duster and Vulcan... keep in mind that the Humvee with Stingers they use as air defence vehicles are not armoured either... an AK bullet will penetrate them... most American troops thought their humvees were armoured because they are so heavy... 2-3 tons, but the armoured model is heavier and slower and not that much better protected.

The south korean system is an easy target for suicide drones. Pakistan can buy from kalashnikov some and destroy them next time.

I terms of armour no air defence system is really safe when it is not operating, yet conversely when they are operating your best chance to take them out is to use ground forces...

The purpose of a suicide drone is often to take out air defence systems so other weapons and aircraft can get through... so suicide drones are a serious threat to all air defence vehicles.

Even Sosna is an MTLB chassis, but one of the newer models on a BMP-3 would probably be the best protected SPAAM system (missile)... and for guns of course an Armata based IFV with a 57mm gun will probably be the best protected SPAAF but for most air defence vehicles their protection from enemy weapons mainly comes from using its weapons before the enemy gets a chance to hit them... compounded by the ability to hit their missiles and bombs too.

Big_Gazza wrote:Pls define "bigger rounds".  If it can protect its crew from a HMG then it is adequate.  Its a frigging SHORAAD/SPAAG, not an IVF.

Tunguska was meant to be 500m behind tanks in soviet tactics so the most likely rounds it could face were 120mm from tanks or 30 and 20mm from other IFV ... so it is uselss to armour it as the armour doesn't protect against such rounds but make the vehicle heavy and reduce its mobility which makes it an easier target.

I would rather have a tunguska with much better mobility than with an armor that protects only against small arms fire.

Pantsir has no better armour than Tunguska or Shilka though better than open tops like Duster and Vulcan...

Don't need to. It has 20/40km range missiles so it can be further away than a tunguska on a small hill to cover the tanks.

I terms of armour no air defence system is really safe when it is not operating, yet conversely when they are operating your best chance to take them out is to use ground forces...

The purpose of a suicide drone is often to take out air defence systems so other weapons and aircraft can get through... so suicide drones are a serious threat to all air defence vehicles.

I was not talking about armour. The 30mm of k-30 will almost never be used since their effective range is 2km. The manpad Pk drops very low when the other aircraft has MAWS and launch flares on time. Not to mention that small drones are very small IR targets. Radar will see it at greater range.

Anyway pantsir is way better than this shitty south korean thing. Indians are corrupted. They should start massives sells to Pakistan instead of being stuck with those clowns that don't even hide that they want westerners are new main suppliers.

Tunguska was meant to be 500m behind tanks in soviet tactics so the most likely rounds it could face were 120mm from tanks or 30 and 20mm from other IFV ... so it is uselss to armour it as the armour doesn't protect against such rounds but make the vehicle heavy and reduce its mobility which makes it an easier target.

No they weren't... Tunguska would not be operating with tanks... they would be further back behind the IFVs...

I would rather have a tunguska with much better mobility than with an armor that protects only against small arms fire.

According to this report it doesn't have enough mobility to satisfy them... of course it might just mean they want to operate it in a location where the bridges can't take 30+ ton vehicles...

Don't need to. It has 20/40km range missiles so it can be further away than a tunguska on a small hill to cover the tanks.

Pantsir and Tunguska are practically the same thing... same guns and will likely end up with the same missiles too... an Army version of Pantsir will be tracked and used like a Tunguska is currently... of course the Pantsir system will be fitted to Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon chassis... though they might go for the lighter and cheaper Sosna with the Typhoon light vehicles.

I was not talking about armour. The 30mm of k-30 will almost never be used since their effective range is 2km. The manpad Pk drops very low when the other aircraft has MAWS and launch flares on time. Not to mention that small drones are very small IR targets. Radar will see it at greater range.

It fills a niche for a price.... clearly the Indians were happy with the price... that is its main selling point.

Replacing the missiles with something like SOSNA would make a huge difference in performance without increasing cost very much at all... but with Russian forces they will have both Pantsir as a gun/missile system and a TOR missile system as well as most of their IFVs having 30mm cannon and modern night and all weather optics and fire control systems and target autotracking systems that would make them potent AA systems in their own right... not to mention Igla-S and Verba MANPADS too.

Anyway pantsir is way better than this shitty south korean thing. Indians are corrupted. They should start massives sells to Pakistan instead of being stuck with those clowns that don't even hide that they want westerners are new main suppliers.

Not a huge deal... I suspect orders for Russian air defence systems will only increase over the next few years... will be amusing when Israel starts buying Pantsir....

GarryB wrote:Also the 23mm cannon shell is probably cheaper than the 30mm, but only the Shilka and ZU-23 use that round.

I was hoping that Russia will offer existing users of Shilka the option to upgrade their Shilka's to Tor or Panstir level. How hard could that be ?

Pantsir and Tunguska are practically the same thing.

Not really. Tunguska has vintage radar, optics and computers. Pantsir is waaay better.

It fills a niche for a price.... clearly the Indians were happy with the price... that is its main selling point.

12 millions $ each. Tor and pantsirs are around 15 million. Indians got fucked by the corrupt army generals in charge of the buying.

I was hoping that Russia will offer existing users of Shilka the option to upgrade their Shilka's to Tor or Panstir level. How hard could that be ?

That's impossible it doesn't use missiles. That's a gun system with a radar. The one they could upgrade to tor lvl is the Osa.

Isos wrote:Anyway pantsir is way better than this shitty south korean thing. Indians are corrupted. They should start massives sells to Pakistan instead of being stuck with those clowns that don't even hide that they want westerners are new main suppliers.

My dislike for those pagan Indians aside, I understand the deal with South Korea has not been signed. Assuming it is, how will Pakistanis destroy those K 30? K 30 will be protected by Shilka and Osa. India has recently upgraded their Shilkas.

jhelb wrote:

Isos wrote:Anyway pantsir is way better than this shitty south korean thing. Indians are corrupted. They should start massives sells to Pakistan instead of being stuck with those clowns that don't even hide that they want westerners are new main suppliers.

My dislike for those pagan Indians aside, I understand the deal with South Korea has not been signed. Assuming it is, how will Pakistanis destroy those K 30? K 30 will be protected by Shilka and Osa. India has recently upgraded their Shilkas.

Israel last year destroyed pantsirs and shilka with optical guided atgms and suicide drones.

K-30 will be an easy target.

jhelb wrote:

Isos wrote:Anyway pantsir is way better than this shitty south korean thing. Indians are corrupted. They should start massives sells to Pakistan instead of being stuck with those clowns that don't even hide that they want westerners are new main suppliers.

My dislike for those pagan Indians aside, I understand the deal with South Korea has not been signed. Assuming it is, how will Pakistanis destroy those K 30? K 30 will be protected by Shilka and Osa. India has recently upgraded their Shilkas.

What do you mean K30 will be protected by Shilka and Osa? K30 is there to protect, not to be protected. And why would be new modern AA complex protected by ancient relicts like Shilka and Osa? It should replace them. Anyway, if Indians want to buy them, let them buy them. K30 is still good enough to shot down Indian helicopters.

Pantsir more than prove itself in many battlefields, including in desert. They will have more than enough customers for them.

The indian contract is obvious - to diverse from Russian supplies. Even if it means they will give up capabilities. Which is silly cause the K30 is as mobile as Tunguska yet Tunguska failed? It has better missiles than the K30 since it only has the ability of MANPADS compared to Tunguska missile is slightly better.

Tracked Pantsir would have been ideal of course for India.

miketheterrible wrote:The indian contract is obvious - to diverse from Russian supplies.  Even if it means they will give up capabilities.  Which is silly cause the K30 is as mobile as Tunguska yet Tunguska failed? It has better missiles than the K30 since it only has the ability of MANPADS compared to Tunguska missile is slightly better.

Tracked Pantsir would have been ideal of course for India.

Yes, and we sow, how this diversity worked for Indians around Balakot clash. Total failure in the air and total failure on the ground. The only thing they manage to do was shooting down their own helicopter by Spyder SAM.

medo wrote:

Yes, and we sow, how this diversity worked for Indians around Balakot clash. Total failure in the air and total failure on the ground. The only thing they manage to do was shooting down their own helicopter by Spyder SAM.

Right. I forgot to write it but that means their AD will, just like their airforce and navy, be composed of systems from different countries more precisly from Russia, India, Israel and now south korea.

That's impossible to integrate inside a proper IADS and even IFF won't be the same. So we can expect those south korean k-30 to shot down their Apaches if they are not destroyed by the rafales before while their Spyder will be busy launching missiles at MKIs which will be intercepting their mirages that will be fighting their mig-29s.


Chinese must be laughing as much as Pakistanis.

Isos wrote:That's impossible to integrate inside a proper IADS and even IFF won't be the same.

Then how is NATO integrating various missile system into a singular IADS? How did Greece and Bulgaria integrate Russian made S 300 in NATO's IADS? How is South Korea integrating their air defense systems with US analogues? How is Pakistan integrating missile systems from MBDA and China into their IADS?

Do you even understand how integration works?

IFF is never the same. It always has to be developed in house. In fact Russian and US laws prohibit the export of IFF.

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:That's impossible to integrate inside a proper IADS and even IFF won't be the same.

Then how is NATO integrating various missile system into a singular IADS? How did Greece and Bulgaria integrate Russian made S 300 in NATO's IADS? How is South Korea integrating their air defense systems with US analogues? How is Pakistan integrating missile systems from MBDA and China into their IADS?

Do you even understand how integration works?

IFF is never the same. It always has to be developed in house. In fact Russian and US laws prohibit the export of IFF.

It seems I know more than you.

Because nato has its own standards for all the countries. They all use those standards which are made by the US so that they can work togather.

Who told you Greece and Bulgaria integrated them inside nato ? Turkish s-400 can't be integrated inside nato iads unless NATO (or more precisle US) shares its data with russians. That's the same for greece and bulgarian s-300. That's not gonna happen anyday soon.

South Korea operates mostly US systems and produce its own so that they can be integrated with US systems.

Integration means your softwares can communicate from one system to another so you need to work within the good encrypted network and use a database of "words" to transmit. Russian and nato use different ones and they will never share that. Israeli have no reason to use the same as NATO even if they use US stuff, they mostly use their own comms and softwares. Indian made stuff are made with their own standards.

It's like 10 people talking each their own language and understanding their own language. That doesn't work well.


Russia doesn't export its own IFF but offers IFF for export. US puts its IFF inside all their export aircraft. Turkey for exemple can't use its f16 against US or Israeli f16. The opposite is not true.


You don't know what you are talking about.

Isos wrote:

It seems I know more than you.

Because nato has its own standards for all the countries.

So very conveniently you left out the example of Pakistan that I gave you who have integrated Chinese SAMs with those from MBDA.

As long as there is a tactical data link that allows military aircraft and even ships and ground troops to share their tactical pictures in near-real time why can't a country procure SAMs from different countries?  So effectively using the same tactical data link Greece's Patriot missiles can communicate  with their S 300 and Tor.

Have you ever come across something called an RFP that is released by various countries when they intend to procure a SAM system ? If it's not too big an ask do pull one out and read. It clearly mentions that the system that is being offered should be such that it can be integrated with the country's existing air defense systems.

INTEGRATION = Tactical Data Link. Kapish?

Isos wrote:They all use those standards which are made by the US so that they can work togather.

What do you mean by standard? They use a military tactical data link network called Link 16.

So very conveniently you left out the example of Pakistan that I gave you who have integrated Chinese SAMs with those from MBDA.

I didn't saw that one. Be more precise about this one bc I don't which system you're talking about.

As long as there is a tactical data link that allows military aircraft and even ships and ground troops to share their tactical pictures in near-real time why can't a country procure SAMs from different countries?  So effectively using the same tactical data link Greece's Patriot missiles can communicate  with their S 300 and Tor.

Have you ever come across something called an RFP that is released by various countries when they intend to procure a SAM system ? If it's not too big an ask do pull one out and read. It clearly mentions that the system that is being offered should be such that it can be integrated with the country's existing air defense systems.

Do you know what a data link is ? It's a just rules. Rules about frequencies on which you work and rules about how and what signals you send and what it means. Link 16 is NATO datalink and if you want Greece s-300 to use it NATO have to give russia those rules something they will never do. The same works for russian, indian or israeli datalinks.

Indians can ask russian system to have those datalink but if nato says no or israeli say no about those system won't be compatible.

Greece never made a competition or request about its s-300. They were meant for Cyprus and ended up in Greece. They are link to other russian system there but not to the mirages, f16 and other western systems.

A country can ask to integrate the offered system in its OWN and homemade designed IADS and that for all the systems it buys if it is done from the begining and if it has a homemade IADS. Maybe it is the case for pakistan. But Greece and Turkey use NATO stuff and datalinks so they can't integrate russian stuff. Too dangerous for NATO.

India can also integrate all the things they buy inside their own standards but it seems they failed.

What do you mean by standard? They use a military tactical data link network called Link 16.

A standard is a rule that you use for everything. Link 16 the standard datalink. 120mm gun for tanks is the standard gun for nato tanks. That way they can use each other weapons, munitions and communications ...

So Turkey and Greece and Bulgaria use it. If they want to integrate s-300/400 they will need to give russian data about how to use the link 16 in them so russia will have access to nato critical communications (and US can make money and control them...).

If they want to integrate them they need a homemade datalink and integrate it inside russian stuff and western stuff but they won't be integrated inside NATO anymore.