Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Share

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  medo on Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:53 pm

    Thanks for additional pictures. It seems they were prepared there for high ranking visit in KBP Tula. I wonder if this green Pantsir with new search radar is meant for Russian air force.

    Tracked Pantsir have the same turret and same radars as the one on standard wheeled Pantsir, so it for sure have the same capabilities.

    True, Pantsir and Tor-M2 are more or less equal, but still are different. In previous time ground forces also use both Tunguska and Tor-M1. Could be, that they will buy both to get more systems per year, because they are produces in different producers and that they well supplement each other in battle formation and could make electronic warfare against both of them more difficult.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:55 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:If the photo legitimate (not a photoshop) than it concludes that the tracked pantsir is still alive and might see production.
    I noticed that it has 12 rockets instead of the 8 on previous photos.

    By the way Medo, why would the Army go for both TOr-M2 and tracked Pantsir? Aren't they more or less equivalent?

    Competing factories jockeying for orders.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:48 am

    Actually the Brigade structure of the Russian Army has two air defence battalions ... one is gun and missile (ie Tunguska) and the other is missile only (Strela-10 or Tor).

    I rather expect they will keep this structure and the Pantsir-S1 on a tracked vehicle would be manditory to keep up with tracked units. I rather suspect the TOR will replace Strela-10 (SA-13), though some units might get Morfei based units as well.

    At a higher level they will have BUK, which will likely be replaced by Vityaz/Morfei when that system comes on line.

    The whole point of the Pantsir-S1 system was to make it flexible to be a cross service system, so the trailer version, the truck mounted version, the tracked version and a naval version were all developed for the respective military arms.

    The tracked models are for tracked Army units. The trailer and truck mounted models will likely be used by the Army to defend S-300V4 systems and fixed sites because it is cheaper to buy and operate than the tracked models. The Airforce will also buy the truck and trailer models, with the former having the same wheeled mobility as the S-400 and S-500 units they will be located with, while the trailer models will be set up around fixed sites like airfields and command centres.
    The Navy will use both the ship based system and likely the trailer and truck mounted systems for defending port facilities and S-400 SAM sites and HQs.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:42 am

    I will be surprised if the navy adopts the naval version of Pantsir on the stealthy Frigates and corvettes. The Pantsir system has a poor RCS. It will make sense to have it though on the aircraft carriers as they are not stealthy at all.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:12 pm

    Some new photos from another site: http://mirabilis-ru.livejournal.com/677.html

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  medo on Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:18 pm

    I more think tracked Pantsir will replace Tunguska in army units, while Tor-M2 will replace old Osa, which also need replacement.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:40 am

    I will be surprised if the navy adopts the naval version of Pantsir on the stealthy Frigates and corvettes. The Pantsir system has a poor RCS. It will make sense to have it though on the aircraft carriers as they are not stealthy at all.

    The naval Pantsir-S1s will most likely be fitted to non stealthy vessels like the Kuznetsov upgrade, and Kirov upgrades and Slava upgrades.

    I would think the future of CIWS will be a combination of Duet gun turrets with stealthy enclosures, and Morfei lock on after launch IIR seeking short range missiles.

    With upgrades the Pantsir-S1 can replace both Kashtan and Klinok on large vessels receiving upgrades.

    The number of engagement channels per turret (4), and the engagement envelope... from 2m up to 15km and from1.5km out to 20km means it can tackle a wide range of threats well beyond Kashtan and Klintock... and in some parameters can exceed medium range SAMs like SA-N-7 in terms of lower ceiling and crossing range.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Pantsir-S1: News

    Post  Viktor on Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:07 pm

    Well as Im in a little hurry I will write my opinion on this rather harsh report but there are some interesting things also witch suggest TOR-M2/Pancir-S1 will be used together and will not replace each other.

    Well here it is.

    07/04/12 REPORT ON THE SHORTCOMINGS ZRPK "ARMOUR-C1"
    April 7 2012 .
    bmpd.livejournal.com, April 6. From 3 to April 6 in St. Petersburg under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences (RARAN) and JSC "NPO Special Materials" held open Jubilee XV-th All-Russian Conference "Actual problems of safety and security." The conference was held in VUNTS Navy "Naval Academy. N. Kuznetsova. "

    One of the participants at our disposal did read notes on the conference report, representatives of an entirely open-air defense of Russia "Evaluation of ZRPK" Armour-S1. "The report's authors - Belotserkovsky VV, Candidate of Military Sciences, Associate Professor (VPVO Air Force) and D . A. Razin (VA VPVO BC).

    The report states:

    Work to create complex "Armour-C1 'held by the" Programme of development of a unified system of antiaircraft missile weapons (weapons) "under the ROC" ZPRK "," Armour-C1 "," Armour-SM "," Redoubt "and" Gladiator. " On the basis of technical solutions ZPRK "Armour-C1 'plan to create interspecies short-range and short range, including the defense ST.

    The main advantages of ZPRK "Patsir-C1 'are the presence of the automatic mode of operation, including in the composition of the subdivision, and the ability to fire at targets up and moving as the cannon and missile weapons.
    However, the developer is not currently addressed the following main problems and shortcomings:

    1) The actual results showed a low-fire testing of fire komplksa possible targets maneuvering and flying with the coursework option for more than 2 - 3 km

    2) confirmed the possibility of shooting at targets flying at speeds over 400 m / s, although the complex is given in the TTX velocity equal to 1000 m / s

    3) The maximum range 20 km provided at air targets flying at speeds of up to 80 m / s (target E-95), as disposable peregruki SAM at this distance does not exceed 5 units.

    4) The main disadvantage is bikalibernoy rocket ***** otstutstvie engine sustainer stage missiles, which resulted in the stated range Zana defeat the missile will move to a negative acceleration of the order of 50-30 m/s2, which leads to the appearance of such non-linearities in the input signal control loop SAM, which lead to errors uvelichaniyu her guidance in the rapidly maneuvering target

    5) is not confirmed by the possibility of complex lesion MAF, TRUNC, and their warheads using hypersonic missiles with a warhead weight 4 kg

    6) the presence of only two methods of targeting missiles ***** (using three points, the method of half-rectification) limit the ability of the complex to engage with different types of EHV difficult conditions (maneuvers, noise, NLTS, hovering helicopters, UAVs, etc. etc.).

    7) management system to undermine the hypersonic warhead missiles, which operates on a signal from ZPRK in accordance with the established difference between the distances between the target and the missile can be effective only when the mouse SAM ****** by full rectification, but when you hover the SAM method of "three points "and half a rectification works only when moving directly to the target shooting fighting machine ZPRK

    Cool in the latter case, the effectiveness of the above defeats the purpose may be low due to the phenomenon ricocheting submunitions chati battle, as in this case the vector of its velocity will be directed at a small angle to the surface of target

    9) does not ensure the effective coordination of military equipment SAM (non-contact sensor field trip purpose, and the NDC area razeta submunitions warhead), and preventing operation of the NDC **** SAM from the surface during firing of NLTS
    10) the impact of weather conditions (rain, fog, hydrometeors) to reduce target detection range for the developed RLSSTSR millimeter wave range is 10-50 times stronger than the version of radar ZPRK centimeter wavelength range, and this deficiency can not be skompensrovan presence ZPRK " Patsir-C1 'opto-electronic channel EC support, because the latter is also a negative depending on weather conditions

    11) large dimensions in the BM ZRPK wheelbase, especially in height (in firing position 5.65 m ), And the lack of armor protection ognekomplekta, apparatus bay (SOC, SSTSR, MSA) do not allow ZPRK at the forefront in the battle, and pre-combat troops disguised orders

    12) BM ZPRK dimensions in the stowed position on the wheel base (4, 374 m ) Does not allow you to transport it by rail, as the allowable loading gauge height (1T) is 3.8 m , And the dismantling of the apparatus bays and loading it into a platform for the transport with the aid of a special valve makes for a BM 3 hours, and requires a spetskrana and accessories.
    Unloading and installation of the equipment compartment for rail transportation require the same labor costs (3:00) and the presence of spetskrana.

    13) dimensions of the BM increased labor costs for technical equipment starting position compared to other SAMs (SAM) army air defense

    14) while translating complex from traveling to combat the use of "ECO Mode" (with a thermal imager) exceeds the stated 5 minutes (actually 8-9 minutes)

    15) at boot time full of ammunition with the TLV is sufficiently large and is 25-30 minutes
    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:23 pm

    There have already been several replies to this by PVO guys, lemme find them again and post them.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:30 am

    Well some of the performance problems can be dealt with via Hermes.

    The design of the new Pantsir-S1 missile is unified with the new anti tank missile Hermes, but with a few differences, one of which is that the Hermes will have several terminal homing options including MMW radar, SALH, satellite, and IIR.

    Even very serious problems in guidance accuracy should get the missile fired from a Pantsir-S1 close enough for a nose mounted IIR or MMW radar seeker to detect the target and engage it.

    Of course I am not going to defend the Pantsir-S1 too much because I think having it and TOR is a good idea as they compliment each other... and at the moment both use cheap missiles that can be bought in large numbers and used in training, unlike a more expensive missile with its own built in guidance system that will be destroyed each time it is used.

    gloriousfatherland
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 99
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 24
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:04 am

    Well its a good thing they didn't mention anything about it being able to shoot down stealth aircraft or not shot it down Rolling Eyes

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:21 pm

    Those shortcomings are interesting.

    First of all, Pantsir placed on truck is not meant for ground forces, but for Air force units, so this is not a shortcoming.

    Shortcomings mentioned on testings with aerostats and E-95 drones are actually tests, which we could see on youtube. But I'm sure these are not all tests. It was for sure far more tested in Russia and in UAE, that what we could see on youtube videos and while UAE didn't say Pantsir is not reaching its given capabilities and is buying it (in contrary, they will cancel Pantsir and buy western equipment like Crotale NG or similar) only means that Pantsir is reaching what is meant to reach by given capabilities.

    Shortcomings in missile guidance, this is BS. Missiles are SACLOS guided, they are not IR or ARH. Radar or EO sight track the target and guide missile to it, parameters have no influence with missiles, they are for gun ballistic computer and parameter 2-3 km is for gun armament.

    Weather conditions are the same for all tracking radars, which work little slower to filter rain, but all other is the same.

    4 kg warhead with specially designed fragments is still more than enough for practically all flying targets, but at the end any remaining missile or bomb will be engaged by guns.

    Some shortcomings mentioned with railway transport and loading time are nonsense, because it is not ground forces SAM, but air force SAM and majority of similar systems don't have better times.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TheArmenian on Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:43 pm

    IT all suspiciously sounds like the whole thing was written by someone on the payroll of a competitive design bureau (Almaz, Kupol...).
    Waiting for TR1's translations of comments by PVO guys.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:53 pm

    It is interesting to hear criticism of MMW radar for its reduced effectiveness in bad weather.

    CM wave radar is less effected by the weather and has better range but is much easier to jam or direct anti radiation missiles at. AFAIK there are no ARMs that seek emitters in the MMW band.

    Equally while CM wave radar has longer range it does not have the definition to see the shape of ground targets like MMW radar does.

    In terms of night and all weather capability the Pantsir-S1 with CM and MMW radar plus thermal and digital optics is very well equipped to engage a range of targets.

    In comparison the Sosna-R generally only has thermal and optical systems and laser beam riding guidance.

    Note the huge jump in guidance accuracy for Kornet-EM is probably directly related to both the Pantsir-S1 and Hermes and Kornet all being KBP products and a significant reason for the doubling of range was the increase in precision in guidance for the auto tracker and optics.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:00 am

    Tracking radar in Pantsir is quite big and modern digital PESA radar, no smaller or weaker than RBE2 PESA radar on Rafale, which have range of 80 km, so I think radar is powerful enough to filtered heavy rain out and work effectively in its given range of 28 km.

    Radio guiding SACLOS missiles are no different than laser guiding SACLOS missiles even in radar mode of working, so I really don't understand what kind of critics they want to give with parameter, which is important for gun ballistic computer, so I have a feeling they are not knowing exactly what they are talking about.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  Viktor on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:41 pm

    What borders me most is idea that Pancir-S1 can not shoot down anything flying faster than 400m/s such is HARM for example.

    With its radar and 1000m/s missile I sow no problem dealing with HARM like threat.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:00 pm

    Viktor wrote:What borders me most is idea that Pancir-S1 can not shoot down anything flying faster than 400m/s such is HARM for example.

    With its radar and 1000m/s missile I sow no problem dealing with HARM like threat.

    Don't take this report as indicative of anything. It has been heavily....scrutinized on the big Russian forums.
    Frankly there is lack of clarity where this thing i coming from, and if it is not just some anti KBP fantasy.
    Not to mention it has already been exported to state that can afford to buy anything it wants, and has no lack of Western suppliers. IF the UAE found llarge faults in the complex outside of intended parameters there would have been a scandal.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/197121.html#comments
    point 4: nonsense
    point 8: nonsense
    point 11:whole point of Pantsir is point defense of larger complexes

    http://forums.airbase.ru/2005/10/t35307,54--pantsir-s1-dodelali.html

    "The fact that this is portrayed as an "open" discussion on the Pantsir SAM itself brings doubt. Since when are these discussions "open"? This is either BS, or the experts who wrote this are
    experts in their own eyes". Would be interesting to see what this "report" has to say about information sharing between vehicles, about serviceability, about user ergonomics: but nothing. "


    http://forums.airbase.ru/2012/04/t62410,86--razvitie-morskogo-oruzhiya-2.4030.html#p2775184

    And this is from a guy who has insider info + rages about domestic armaments half the time, so no KBP fanboy:

    "Did the people who write this ever see a SAM? In it's current form it is certainly not a perfect vehicle, but its weakness are not what this report carries across. Report is full of nonsense
    and lack of reality. For example:
    1.) The SAM does not fire its guns on the move, everyone knows that. The strength of the guns is strong as will flip the Kamaz the hell over.
    point 1.) There are masses of test firing at Saman targets (based on Osa) in the 6-8km parameters. The authors either are not privy to this info, or are purposefully not acknowledging it.
    point 2.) They did not shoot at 1000 meter/second targets, because such targets do not exist.
    point 3.) Maximum distance of shot is longer than 20km. Due to the function of any SAM, ability at such a range is much reduced. E95 target has nothing to do with this.
    point 4.) old joke from followers of single stage rocket design.
    pt 5.) Nonsense. Also, where did they get the size of the warhead of the hypersonic SAM? It is much larger...
    pt 6.) nonsense
    pt7.) Some semblance of sense. But this rocket, is one of self defense.
    pt8.) Ricochet? Nonsense.
    pt 9.) here the reporter just comes off as ignorant
    pt 10.) Detection radar on Pantsir is centimeter. You could even say decimeter. the Phased array is milometer. All the problems with this are long known. TO the extent that they can, they are being solved by the producer. Plus, the new detection radar....just don't try to demand too much of the complex. 16km -against a plane, 12km - against a missile. No more is needed.




    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:34 pm

    Just as I suspected.
    Thanks TR1 for taking the time.
    I gave you a + point for your post Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:57 am

    What borders me most is idea that Pancir-S1 can not shoot down anything flying faster than 400m/s such is HARM for example.

    The claim is not that it can't engage targets flying faster than 400m/s, the claim is that it hasn't been tested against such a threat.

    I rather suspect that taking a standard Russian ARM like Kh-31 or Kh-58 they could perform such a test fairly easily and probably already have done so.

    Note of course the peak speed from a HARM might be close to 1,000m/s or Mach 4 but at a distance of dozens of kms or more the flight speed of the missile will be lower than this with perhaps an average speed of something like 600m/s anyway.

    BTW regarding The Armenians post regarding TR1s post... x2

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  medo on Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:06 pm

    Agree with TR1, those critics are there only for critics. But why would they want to criticise so much a product, which is exported well and make good money? I think tis is more marketing move from concurence. After all, if missile fail, Pantsir still have guns to kill.

    gloriousfatherland
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 99
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 24
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:57 pm

    What I dont understand is the difference between teh TOR and the PANTSIR...Arn't the PANTSIR supposed to replace the Tunguska? Those upgraded tunguskas have a longer detection range that pantsir's and TOR trumps them all. So why just not go with the TOR-M2 which have the ability to engage cruse missiles very effectively?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:10 pm

    Makes me wonder if it is much better than this system at a fraction the cost...



    _________________
    The true value of life knows only the paratrooper. For he is more likely to look death in the eye.  -- Vasily Margelov

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:10 pm

    The structure of a new Russian Brigade (that is heavy, medium and light... and including motor rifle and tank brigades) has two regiments of air defence vehicles... one missile and one missile and gun.

    Traditionally the gun and missile was either Shilka and SA-9 or later Shilka and SA-13, and then Tunguska, while the missile units were SA-8 OSA and then SA-15 TOR.

    In the future structure I rather expect they will go for Pantsir-S1 in the gun/missile units and TOR for the missile units. There is no need for one or the other to do everything.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  medo on Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:45 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:Makes me wonder if it is much better than this system at a fraction the cost...


    Mistral is French equivalent MANPAD to Igla-S, so vehicle mounted Igla-S is the same as Mistral on this video. Different type of SAM comparing to Pantsir or Tor-M2. The nearest French equivalent to them is Crotale-NG.

    There were reports, that ground forces receive first Tor-M2 systems last year, but up for now now picture of them. We only see pictures and video of Belarus Tor-M2. It's true, that Tor-M2U and Pantsir-S1 are very similar by their capabilities and having both in ground forces units only means, that you could choose which one will you use in particular environment and which capability you need more, gun fire or vertical launch.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:21 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:Makes me wonder if it is much better than this system at a fraction the cost...


    Like Medo said, that is really a simple MANPAD adaptation.

    The French, nor anyone really, have the kind of integrated defense system like the Pantsir, shortcomings or not.


    Sponsored content

    Re: Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:02 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:02 am