Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/209274.html

Russian MoD this year buy 28 Pantsirs and they sign a contract for 27 additional Mi-35M helicopters. They will also sign additional contracts for Mi-28N and Mi-8AMTSh. In total they will buy this year 58 planes and 124 helicopters

medo wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/209274.html

Russian MoD this year buy 28 Pantsirs and they sign a contract for 27 additional Mi-35M helicopters. They will also sign additional contracts for Mi-28N and Mi-8AMTSh. In total they will buy this year 58 planes and 124 helicopters

Nice. Pretty much the one thing completely covered in new purchases, attack helos.

TR1 wrote:

medo wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/209274.html

Russian MoD this year buy 28 Pantsirs and they sign a contract for 27 additional Mi-35M helicopters. They will also sign additional contracts for Mi-28N and Mi-8AMTSh. In total they will buy this year 58 planes and 124 helicopters

Nice. Pretty much the one thing completely covered in new purchases, attack helos.

It seems they really need to replace old Mi-24.

More interesting is, that after those critics, MoD increase orders for Pantsirs. This year they will get 4 complete batteries.

The significant purchase of Pantsirs is interesting... and necessary... this is part of the counter to cruise missile decapitation attack popular in the west.

The current talk from the US involves the arrival of enough ships and subs to deploy about 430 cruise missiles... which is four times the number they used against Libya. It is clearly an indication that the Iranian air defence forces are perceived to be much stronger than Libyas and they need extra brute force to overcome it.

With a fully operational IAD and well positioned systems you can be much more efficient in your use of AD assets and systems. The key with cruise missiles is early detection... with aircraft in the air even a simple AAM is an effective anti cruise missile weapon, but obviously layers is the key... even an enormous volley attack of Tomahawks is useless against deep underground bunkers, so clearly their targets will be communications centres, radar sites, air defence sites, and airfields. They need to take out some or all of the air defence network before they can risk the big heavy bombers needed to bring in the deep penetration bombs needed to take on the deep underground shelters.

The significant purchase of Pantsirs is interesting... and necessary... this is part of the counter to cruise missile decapitation attack popular in the west.

True. I also think that every S-400 battalion get one battery of Pantsirs for protection. This year RuAF will have 8 battalions of S-400 and let say 20 previous and 28 from this year, they will have 8 batteries of Pantsirs to complete their protection.

True. I also think that every S-400 battalion get one battery of Pantsirs for protection. This year RuAF will have 8 battalions of S-400 and let say 20 previous and 28 from this year, they will have 8 batteries of Pantsirs to complete their protection.

Their versatility and mobility also make them very useful... I would expect they will try to get as many as they can afford.

In terms of performance at sea nothing shows the improvement more than a small patrol boat getting Pantsir-S1 to replace a Kashtan-M mount. Now Kashtan-M is a good system with its 10km range missiles and 4km range 30mm guns the biggest threat to a small patrol boat... helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are kept at arms length with very few helos able to attack with common weapons from more than 8km or so.
Compared with a MANPADS turret firing mistral or stinger or igla which max out at 6-7km a helo like an Apache can stand off with 8km range Hellfires and hammer that boat. The boat will not be fast enough to outrun or out manouver a helo and would rely on trying to shoot down the incoming missiles.

With Pantsir-S1 the range of the missiles extends the engagement range to 20km which means that helicopters can be engaged before they launch.

The flat open sea is one thing however, on land the advantage shifts even further in favour of the ground platform because the radar picture of the surrounding airspace can be accessed via datalink with the ground vehicle able to search passively using thermal and optical sights and the terrain can make detection of the ground vehicle difficult or impossible till it is too late. The clever use of terrain to defend a target means you can place individual vehicles in places to passively detect threats and pass target data on to the rest of the defence... for instance imagine a flat open valley with something you are protecting on that plain, but there is a small hill 4-5km away that an enemy might use to observe from behind. Your vehicles around the target can't see through the hill so an approach from behind the hill and then popping up from behind the hill to observe and then launch an attack from makes a lot of sense... except the defenders already thought of that and have stationed a 2-3 Pantsir-S1s in the forest beyond the small hill which the attacking helos flew over on their way to the small hill. Those vehicles would pass target data to the IAD network and a squad of fighters is on the way... after they launch their attack (they can do so from medium range because the targets have already be identified as hostile and are cleared to fire) any survivors can be mopped up with the forward located Pantsir-S1s which can each engage 4 targets at a time... though I would think of a flight of 6-8 helos that the fighters will have taken out more than half with R-77s already... of course an observation unit on top of the small hill with Iglas could also have called up an air attack and alerted the ground forces, but if instead of half a dozen helos the threat was 20-30 cruise missiles flying low and fast with the first missile aimed at the radar station on top of the hill then lets assume the first warning is the first cruise missile detected at 10km by the radar on top of the hill, decoys and jammers would be pointless as the missiles are guided to a coordinate rather than a signal, but the very high speed of the Pantsir-S1 missiles might make interception possible if they are ready. Border assets detecting the incoming missiles several minutes before hand would greatly increase the chances of survival. If alerted the three Pantsir-S1 vehicles could take on 12 targets at once till they run out of ammo. The radar on the hill could possibly survive because only the first few missiles will be going for the radar, the rest will be aimed at the known AD vehicle positions around the target and the target itself. Early detection would also lead to getting fighters into the air and their efforts will thin out the numbers of threats the ground based systems will have to deal with...

Talking about cruise missiles, on Russian Far East air defense exercise S-300 crews fire on real Kh-55 cruise missiles launched from Tu-95 planes and shot them down. Cruise missiles are not such big problem for modern and competent air defense. Also majority of western cruise missiles will be launched from sea, so their routes to strategically important targets in Russia and China are well known for their military, so good placement of navy ships could mean, majority of cruise missiles will be shot down before they reach the coast. I doubt NATO will go to launch cruise missiles from closed seas like Baltic or Bleak Sea, because their ships will be well in range of coastal Yakhont and Club anti ship missiles.

For the most part of their flights cruise missiles will fly at medium altitude and at cruise speed to maximise range.

In the case of attacking Iran I rather suspect that many of the missiles will not come in from the sea as the sea is flat and an even temperature so IR and radar sensors will pick up cruise missiles fairly easily.

It is more likely that the US will route its missiles through other countries to confuse the defences.

Using waypoints they will likely route the missiles to come from unexpected weakly defended directions... if the Iranians had any smarts they will pretend to neglect certain unlikely directions so when the US uses that direction to attack some carefully hidden mobile systems can pop up and smoke the attackers. Careful use of fake SAM sites... especially if it is fully manned can make the Americans think certain areas are strongly defended... a few loyal subjects "defect" with knowledge of nuclear facilities that don't exist... the risk to bomb a fake site is the same as to bomb a real site... first sign of an attack and get the men to run away to hide in bunkers and let them think they have taken out something important.

They should order 5,000 Pantsir-S1 systems with no radar, only optics/thermals, and get a licence to produce the missiles and make tens of thousands of them.

Not getting radars makes the system orders of magnitude cheaper and harder to find, though it will degrade its performance you can compensate for that buy buying lots more.

Or perhaps you could get a custom designed version with a 4 sided AESA radar antenna that performs search and track functions for one vehicle in the battery with the rest EO only... a decent modern AESA with modern electronics it should be able to guide 20-30 missiles by itself and track hundreds of targets at one time... The extra cost of that one vehicle compensated for by the lower cost of the rest of the vehicles and that one vehicle of course gives you day/night/all weather performance and early warning.

After MIG-31 modernization program, new attack comes on Pancir-S1 again.


Source is loved by TR1 - izvestia.ru

Main problem is that Pancir-S1 can not hit maneuvering targets and therefore can not hit guided munition and therefore is useless.

Makes no sense but here it goes.

WTF is going on with all those attacks, MIG-31/Bulava/Graney/Pancir-S1/T-90/BMP etc etc?

09/14/12 ARMY ABANDONED "ARMOR". DEFENSE DID NOT SUIT FEATURES AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS
September 14 2012.



News . Command of the Army has refused to adopt the anti-aircraft missile and gun system (ZRPK) "Shell-S1". Complex tests have shown that it does not meet the stated requirements. This "News" said a source in the Main Command of the Ground Forces.

- Recent military tests at the site Ashuluk showed that technical and combat characteristics ZRPK "Shell-S1" do not comply with the Army. On this basis, it was decided not to purchase these systems, - he said.

ZRPK "Shell-S1" designed Tula Instrument Design Bureau (KBP)-based air defense systems "Tunguska". His task - to cover part of the air attack in battle and on the march, to protect strategic targets, the cover of anti-aircraft missile systems, long-range S-300, S-400 and S-500 run. "Shell-S1" can also affect and ground targets - infantry and light armored vehicles.

Defense Ministry previously purchased ten systems "Shell-S1", they are now distributed teams Aerospace Defense (ASD) for the cover of the S-400 "Triumph". The plans of the Ministry of Defense to purchase of about one hundred ZRPK "Shell-S1" for ASD teams over the next eight years.

Question of supplies of "armor" in the Army debated for several years, comparative trials of these complexes and anti-aircraft missiles "Tor-M2" Concern PVO "Almaz-Antey". As told to "Izvestia", the representative of the Russian military-industrial complex, all tests were not very successful for the "shell".

- Not rocket capable of hitting targets maneuvering, the complex itself is bulky and not mobile, which is essential for infantry units, there are questions to radio-based, - the "News" officer who is familiar with the situation. In addition, he noted that in modern warfare, such short-range combat aircraft are powerless against that attack, not coming into range air defense systems and helicopters against enemy far more effectively man-portable air defense systems and small arms.

In turn, the Deputy Director General of the Tula KBP Yuri Savenkov told "Izvestia", which in the main technical and combat characteristics of the complex of serious questions have no command of the Army.

- The main complaint the Army high command to the complex is that it is on the wheel platform and suhoputchiki want ZRPK on crawlers, - he stressed.

According to the head of the Center for Military Forecasting, Colonel Anatoly Tsygankov, despite the failure of "shell", the MoD still have to equip the land of missile-gun air defense systems.

- Six years ago we adopted the concept that air defense units, the Army must be equipped with anti-aircraft missile and cannon. This concept is no one has yet been canceled. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence will have to either bring the "Shell-S1", or looking for their foreign counterparts, which is not, - said the Gypsy.

In this case, the head of the Institute of Analytical Department of Political and Military Analysis Alexander Khramchikhin said "News" that the failure "armor" to shoot down targets maneuvering makes it useless weapon.

- If the system can not bring down the maneuvering target, which means he will not be able to hit guided munitions. This means that the unit, which is a set of covers, will be vulnerable to enemy fire MLRS. Until this problem is solved, "shell" for the ground forces to buy pointless said Khramchikhin.

Complex "Shell-S1" is equipped with 12 anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M335. Launch range -12 km, The height of the targeted objectives - 8 km. The complex can lay up to three missiles. Artillery weapons - two 30-mm automatic cannon 2A72. Single-barreled gun. Fighting module installed on the roof body combat vehicle. In addition to the weapons include radar target detection and target tracking station and rockets. There is also an optical channel fire control system. In the body of the combat vehicle operators placed guidance and commander.
http://izvestia.ru/

Ah yes, "Sources" at it again.

Thing is, the testing between Tor and Pantsir happened....like 3 years ago. Things improve in that timeframe.

Hilarious!

The Pantsir-S1 evolved from the Pantsir, which in turn was developed as a version of Tunguska which has been in service since the mid 1980s.

It is used on land as the above mentioned systems and at sea in the systems Kashtan and Kashtan-M, and is about to enter service in the Pantsir-S1 naval model.

... but it can't hit manouvering targets?

Lets assume that is not the BS that is appears to be... guided munitions actually do very little manouvering, they generally make minor course corrections as they approach the target... nothing extreme or fundamental... we are not talking more than a 1-2 g turn to bring the weapon back on course.
Helicopters are another primary target and they physically can't perform more than 2-3gs simply because they don't fly fast enough.

There are wheeled, trailer based (ie shelterised) and tracked models of Pantsir-S1 that have been proposed already, the only problem I have seen is that the tracked model is based on a GM-9999 type chassis made in Belarus. With the new wheeled and tracked vehicles being developed in Russia right now however I would say that getting both wheeled and tracked models will not be too much of a problem... they will just have to wait till the new vehicle platforms are ready.

It is rather interesting that the officer in the know that talks about things suggests that the Pantsir-S1 lacks the range to engage the launch platform as well as the weapons, because the Pantsir-S1 has a range of 18-20km with missiles which certainly out reaches any helo/anti armour missile combo I am familiar with, unlike TOR which has a shorter range.

If the Pantsir-S1 system it too big and bulky for use with infantry then perhaps they need to break it up/down.

In the new armoured vehicles the turrets are unmanned so the crew positions in the turret in the Pantsir can also be eliminated, which means more stuff can be in the turrets, and the rear hulls of the vehicles could be used for the remaining electronics and bits and bobs. If necessary a hull extension could be used to further accommodate the full system and also considering it has been a few years, perhaps an electronics revamp to make the electronics smaller and lighter might be in order too.

I laughed out loud when they suggested looking at foreign alternatives to Pantsir-S1...

BTW a few inaccuracies there as well... the Pantsir-S1 has two twin barrel 2A38M cannon, as used in Tunguska, and hasn't used the 2A72 guns (BMP-3) for some time. Also the range of the missiles is 18-20km, not 12km.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this report is not for the current Pantsir-S1, that it is for the older model that was basically an upgrade of the Pantsir where they took all the old systems (radar etc) and improved them as much as they could. This was rejected by the United Arab Emirates who them paid for the Pantsir-S1 which has all new electronics, new sophisticated modern radars, new EO systems, new guns etc etc.

To put it in perspective the 2 single barrel 2A72 cannon fire at about 500 rpm each so we are talking about 1,000-1,200 rpm. The 2A38M guns used on the Tunguska fire the same powerful ammo at about 2,500 rpm each, so we are talking about an extra 4,000 rpm per vehicle.

Thing is, the testing between Tor and Pantsir happened....like 3 years ago.

They weren't actually tested against each other, there is a requirement for both systems.

The air defence companies in a brigade have missile platoon and a gun and missile platoon.

Traditionally the Gun and missile component was a mix of ZSU-23-4 and either SA-9 or SA-13, and the missile platoon was traditionally the OSA, or SA-8.

The TOR is the natural replacement for the SA-8, and Tunguska replaced the Shilka and the SA-13.

Now they are looking at what to replace the TOR and Tunguska with, and the two contenders are upgraded models of both systems.

They aren't competing against each other, they are just replacing older models of themselves.

The first attempt to upgrade Pantsir was half arsed and though the Russian military actually accepted it the United Arab Emirates decided to fund a proper upgrade... the result is Pantsir-S1.

The Pantsir-S1 is not an infantry support air defence system, it is optimised for defending other things like larger SAMs or airfields, or HQs etc. It is wheeled because that makes it cheaper... it doesn't need to keep up with tanks and IFVs, it just needs to keep up with the big slow trucks of a heavy SAM system... or an airfield.

Isn't there already around ten or so of them in service with the air defense forces around Moscow? If Pantsir is so underwhelming, why did they buy some based off their previous tests?

Complex "Shell-S1" is equipped with 12 anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M335. Launch range -12 km, The height of the targeted objectives - 8 km. The complex can lay up to three missiles. Artillery weapons - two 30-mm automatic cannon 2A72. Single-barreled gun.

It seems they are talking about first prototype from the middle of the nineties. Someone should say to Izvestia to check calendar. It's 2012 now.

The main complaint the Army high command to the complex is that it is on the wheel platform and suhoputchiki want ZRPK on crawlers, - he stressed.

Wheeled version is for VKO, not for ground forces. LOL



What the hell is this than?

Six years ago we adopted the concept that air defense units, the Army must be equipped with anti-aircraft missile and cannon. This concept is no one has yet been canceled. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence will have to either bring the "Shell-S1", or looking for their foreign counterparts, which is not, - said the Gypsy.

The nearest foreign counterpart is Crotale NG, but still far behind Pantsir-S1 or they have in mind something from China, what is even worse? Who is this Gypsy?

In the new armoured vehicles the turrets are unmanned so the crew positions in the turret in the Pantsir can also be eliminated, which means more stuff can be in the turrets, and the rear hulls of the vehicles could be used for the remaining electronics and bits and bobs. If necessary a hull extension could be used to further accommodate the full system and also considering it has been a few years, perhaps an electronics revamp to make the electronics smaller and lighter might be in order too.

Pantsir-S1 doesn't have crew in the turret from the beginning. Tunguska have.

The huge irony is that in most areas the plan so far seems to be a drive for unification of systems between the branches... the Pantsir-S1 is ideal for the Air Force, but in wheeled form not so good for the Army.

Not really a huge shock... 30 years ago each branch of the military could buy separate systems designed especially for them... the Tu-128 Fiddler aircraft was an enormous custom designed interceptor especially for the PVO and not used by any other part of the Air Force.

These days they want unification... to the point where the next generation short range AAM called 9M100, will be used by pretty much all aircraft that can use the R-73, but will also enter service in the Army as the Morfei, and will be used in the Navy as well as a point defence missile.

152mm guns for the Army will be joint developed with the Navy.

SAMs will be unified between the AF, Army, and Navy, and ADF (aerospace defence force).

It therefore makes sense that the Pantsir-S1, which replaces the Pantsir in the Air Force, and the Pantsir in the ADF, and the Kashtan-M in the Navy, would also replace the Tunguska in the Army.

The irony is that the Army is moving to new vehicles... the vast majority that will be in service will be wheeled anyway.

If Pantsir-S1 can't intercept manouvering targets what has changed? Tunguska could. The Pantsir is based on Tunguska and it could too.

The Navy think it can intercept present and future anti ship missiles.

I suspect the real issue is that the TOR might actually be making direct contact with manouvering targets, while the Pantsir-S1 is using its proximity fuse.

The unification of design between Pantsir-S1 and Hermes suggests there is too much invested in the system to back out now.

Together a Pantsir-S1 regiment and a TOR regiment would be thoroughly complimentary, The TOR can target incoming guided weapons, while the extended reach and very high speed of the Pantsir-S1 missiles means it can engage helicopters and UCAVs. The guns on the Pantsir-S1s offer a capability to engage targets at closer ranges at lower cost and of course to engage targets like UAVs and drones as well as incoming missiles and bombs.

They developed an ANIET equivalent for the 30mm cannon shell... it would be interesting to see that fitted to a proper AD gun...

Of course it might be possible that a new AD vehicle might be developed... certainly a laser beam homing 45mm shell could effectively replace the two 30mm guns and greatly extend effective gun range to the point where targets at 7-8km can be engaged by gun. The addition of 12 missiles and a rearrangement of the turret to allow for a single gun mount might make for an interesting new system..

Indeed these systems will operate in heavy, medium, and light brigades with tracked and wheeled vehicles.

Perhaps a solution in the light, medium and heavy units would be to assign a few IFVs that have been redesigned as air defence IFVs. In current BMP units these were BMP-2 vehicles with gripstocks for MANPADS, but in these new units they could have their troop carrying capacity replaced with automated rack mounts for 45mm ammo and to operate with the units Pantsir-S1s where the Pantsir-S1s give them target information and they locate their target and fire on them using onboard lasers to mark their target themselves.
Such gun vehicles could be used in other units for fire support purposes where their direct fire capability would be useful with standard and laser guided shells.

Of course it might be possible that a new AD vehicle might be developed... certainly a laser beam homing 45mm shell could effectively replace the two 30mm guns and greatly extend effective gun range to the point where targets at 7-8km can be engaged by gun. The addition of 12 missiles and a rearrangement of the turret to allow for a single gun mount might make for an interesting new system..

I don't see a problem to place Pantsir on another vehicle if they don't like current one. They could place it on new Armata chassis for tracked version and on new 8x8 vehicle for wheeled version.

Well, 45 mm gun is far larger gun than 30 mm one. Placing larger gun on a system like Pantsir, it means you have to take missiles away or to place few smaller ones like Igla. Similar AAA systems like German Gepard, Polish Loara, Japanese Type 87 and similar Chinese one, equipped with Oerlicon 35 mm gun are without missiles. Germans with modernization place two Stingers on Gepard. 45 mm gun is even larger than 35 mm gun.

Perhaps a solution in the light, medium and heavy units would be to assign a few IFVs that have been redesigned as air defence IFVs. In current BMP units these were BMP-2 vehicles with gripstocks for MANPADS, but in these new units they could have their troop carrying capacity replaced with automated rack mounts for 45mm ammo and to operate with the units Pantsir-S1s where the Pantsir-S1s give them target information and they locate their target and fire on them using onboard lasers to mark their target themselves.
Such gun vehicles could be used in other units for fire support purposes where their direct fire capability would be useful with standard and laser guided shells.

Russia already have similar turret from MT-LB-6MB5 upgrade with GSh-30-2 gun and Igla missiles. This turret could be also placed on BTR-82A or Vystrel vehicle. They could increase number of Iglas from to 2 to 4 and could get good light VSHORAD system for lighter brigades and could work well with Barnaul-T.

Using MANPADS would be a huge step backwards.

The whole point of operating with the brigade is to defend that brigade that might be spread over a significant area. Having missiles with an effective range of only 5-6km simply doesn't cut it... especially considering that some of the IFVs will have MANPAD gripstocks anyway.

I don't see a problem to place Pantsir on another vehicle if they don't like current one. They could place it on new Armata chassis for tracked version and on new 8x8 vehicle for wheeled version.

They are going to have to anyway... there is no point spending all this money on an Armata brigade if you have non armata vehicles using different engines and transmissions and other components... the idea behind the armata brigade is that you need to support one vehicle type with one engine or related engine family with standardised components and the result is a group of vehicles with the same mobility and protection levels that can operate together.

Having the vehicle that protects all the other vehicles with very thin armour is just asking to be taken out first... leaving the whole unit vulnerable to air attack.

Well, 45 mm gun is far larger gun than 30 mm one. Placing larger gun on a system like Pantsir, it means you have to take missiles away or to place few smaller ones like Igla. Similar AAA systems like German Gepard, Polish Loara, Japanese Type 87 and similar Chinese one, equipped with Oerlicon 35 mm gun are without missiles. Germans with modernization place two Stingers on Gepard. 45 mm gun is even larger than 35 mm gun.

Yes, that is why I suggested a separate vehicle... if it is chosen over the 57mm gun (and I think it will because of ammo size) then it will likely be the standard IFV gun, so adding an IFV or perhaps 4 to the Pantsir-S1 unit you could fill the troop compartment of the armata based IFV with auto ammo handling equipment and perhaps put a few hundred rounds in each vehicle. The Pantsir-S1 vehicles wont need their 30mm cannons which should make them smaller and lighter and cheaper and they could direct the IFVs to targets that the IFVs can mark with their own lasers and engage with guided ammo.

Using a large gun and MANPADS is not really an option because the 45mm gun could probably engage targets at greater range than the MANPADS... the missiles on the Pantsir-S1 and indeed TOR would be far more effective.

Of course a redesigned Pantsir-S1 with a single 45mm gun down the centreline with a fixed four faced AESA array on the roof that combines the search and tracking functions of the two radars currently used with 12 missiles attached to the sides of the turret could easily be an option too, though that would require a rather wider turret to accomodate the gun and its autoloader and internal space for shells.

Note the 45mm guns shells will look like very long cans and will be fairly compact and easy to store and handle.

Russia already have similar turret from MT-LB-6MB5 upgrade with GSh-30-2 gun and Igla missiles. This turret could be also placed on BTR-82A or Vystrel vehicle. They could increase number of Iglas from to 2 to 4 and could get good light VSHORAD system for lighter brigades and could work well with Barnaul-T.

MANPADS are a last resort for vehicles, they are of course better able to use their performance than when carried by a man, but when you are relying on MANPADS you are letting the enemy get very close. It makes rather more sense to use something like SOSNA-R with a very high speed missile and 8-10km range, than a MANPADS.

I appreciate that for the light brigades, when working with 10-12 ton vehicles then something like Phoenix with MANPADS and 12.7mm HMGs is probably the limit in terms of weight, but for a 25 ton vehicle in a medium brigade then you need range and reach and power.

Iglas were used as an upgrade for the ZSU-23-4M4, but they are only intended to offer an air defence capability while the gun ammo is being reloaded and I suspect that is the same for the Gepard.

The point is that with the Pantsir-S1 the idea is that both systems, missile and gun are to be used as required with each supporting the other.

In the medium level vehicles it might make sense to separate the missiles and guns to reduce weight. For the heavy vehicles they probably wont need to, though the anti aircraft performance of the 45mm guns might make its use worth it, but I would still prefer separating the gun from the missile if they go for the heavier calibre gun... it all depends on how heavy and complex a four face AESA array is as its replacement of the search and tracking radar should allow much faster 360 degree electronic coverage with no moving parts and would free up the front of the turret for a gun which means the 30mm guns could be removed and the design adapted for the new 45mm gun (with guided shells one gun would do...)

For the light brigades pantsir-S1 would be too big and heavy... remember the tunguska is 34 tons. An 8 missile system on a kurganets or boomerang could be manageable but to squease it into a 10-12 ton platform... they might go for a single 2A38M 30mm twin barrel cannon and 4 or 8 SOSNA-R missiles, or they might go for Morfei or 4 x Pantsir-S1 missiles...

Yes, that is why I suggested a separate vehicle... if it is chosen over the 57mm gun (and I think it will because of ammo size) then it will likely be the standard IFV gun, so adding an IFV or perhaps 4 to the Pantsir-S1 unit you could fill the troop compartment of the armata based IFV with auto ammo handling equipment and perhaps put a few hundred rounds in each vehicle. The Pantsir-S1 vehicles wont need their 30mm cannons which should make them smaller and lighter and cheaper and they could direct the IFVs to targets that the IFVs can mark with their own lasers and engage with guided ammo.

True, 45 mm gun or 57 mm gun are good choice for IFV, which could do AD job in self defense. But to work with missile complex like Tor or Pantsir this gun must be inside dedicated AD vehicle. USSR have something similar in testings with 37 mm guns named ZSU-37-2.



Idea is good, but expensive, because you need two expensive vehicles, one with gun and another with missiles, like ZSU-23-4 and Strela-10 in the past. Sweden have now similar concept with CV-90-40 in AD version and RBS-70 placed on M-113.

MANPADS are a last resort for vehicles, they are of course better able to use their performance than when carried by a man, but when you are relying on MANPADS you are letting the enemy get very close. It makes rather more sense to use something like SOSNA-R with a very high speed missile and 8-10km range, than a MANPADS.

I appreciate that for the light brigades, when working with 10-12 ton vehicles then something like Phoenix with MANPADS and 12.7mm HMGs is probably the limit in terms of weight, but for a 25 ton vehicle in a medium brigade then you need range and reach and power.

Vehicles in medium and heavy brigades are able to carry systems like Tor, Pantsir and Buk, but vehicles for light brigades could not. Light brigades are more or less motorized infantry with armored vehicles, which drive them to battlefield, but than they walk. Infantry air defense is more or less based on MANPADs, so guns up to 30 mm, MANPADs and lighter missiles like Strela-10 or Sosna are maximum what they could carry. In my opinion using MANPADs on their AD vehicles is not that bad, because vehicles and infantry could share missiles, when needed. We will see what range will Verba have. If they increase range to 8 km, than there will be no need for Sosna, because Verba will be fire and forget type, while Sosna still need to be guided.

True, 45 mm gun or 57 mm gun are good choice for IFV, which could do AD job in self defense. But to work with missile complex like Tor or Pantsir this gun must be inside dedicated AD vehicle. USSR have something similar in testings with 37 mm guns named ZSU-37-2.

But then again you have to ask yourself if the IFVs in the brigade (a tank brigade will have one infantry battalion and 3 tank battalions, while a motor rifle brigade will have one tank battalion and 3 infantry battalions) can all carry and fire laser homing 45mm or 57mm shells and the whole Brigade operates under the same network... the main function of the Pantsir and TOR batteries will be to provide local air space information to the Brigade and to pass that up the chain to the local air defence network. They could also receive longer range information from the network regarding approaching threats or targets.

With that sort of information and all vehicles having satellite navigation with moving map displays showing friendly and enemy and unknown platforms the IFVs could perform anti aircraft roles using data from the network... a helo appears and the closest IFV (say 4km away from the threat) calls it and fires a single laser guided round...

For the heavy brigades Pantsir-S1 should be OK, for the medium brigades it might need to loose some weight... perhaps only four missiles on each side. For the light brigade perhaps a single 30mm gatling gun and four missiles, or perhaps 8 missiles and no gun and rely on IFVs.

Idea is good, but expensive, because you need two expensive vehicles, one with gun and another with missiles, like ZSU-23-4 and Strela-10 in the past. Sweden have now similar concept with CV-90-40 in AD version and RBS-70 placed on M-113.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear with my suggestion.

My idea is that as the vehicles get lighter then the size and weight of Pantsir-S1 starts to become a problem. Pantsir-S1 is heavier than Tunguska and Tunguska weighs 34 tons so it will be a problem to fit it into a 25 ton class vehicle.

The photo above of the tracked Pantsir-S1 is a GM-xxxx vehicle produced in Belarus and will be replaced by armata, kurganets, and the two boomerangs. It should fit armata, and might be shoehorned into kurganets and big boomerang, but with little boomerang you'd have problems.

My suggestion is to revise the search and tracking arrangement so that instead of two radar systems you have a 4 faced fixed AESA radar that can scan 360 degrees without moving. That should free up a lot of space in the turret because you had two separate radars with moving mechanisms for both. Further to reduce weight I was suggesting removing the guns and ammo and just keep the missiles, though prehaps reduce to 8 instead of 12 to further reduce weight.

To compensate for the loss of guns I was not suggesting making a new air defence vehicle like Shilka using a 45mm or 57mm gun... what I was suggesting is modifying a standard IFV so that instead of carrying troops it had extra ammo in its rear troop compartment. The 45mm rounds are very compact for their calibre so having the entire troop compartment they might have room for 4-500 rounds of ammo. This IFV will obviously no longer be an IFV, and of course it will be a light 6 wheeled Boomerang vehicle because the heavier brigades will have proper pantsir-s1 vehicles.

Basically you'd have 4-6 of these vehicles with extra ammo operating with the air defence regiments... you could also add a couple to the TOR battery as well to give them some extra gun power.

Very simply any target that could best be engaged with gun fire... perhaps an enemy helo detected by its IR signature hovering behind a tree can be engaged with a 45mm APFSDS round through the tree, or a low flying hovering helo could be engaged with a laser homing 45mm or 57mm shell out to 5-6km or so.

The missile vehicle with its AESA array should be able to direct the IFVs to targets and those IFVs can then engage them themselves without further assistance.

Of course in the light units they might just replace Pantsir with Morfei when it is ready.

If they increase range to 8 km, than there will be no need for Sosna, because Verba will be fire and forget type, while Sosna still need to be guided.

True but SOSNA-R is rather faster than Igla... it takes about 10 seconds to reach 8km...

Light brigades will not have marching infantry, they will be highly mobile and the situation will determine whether they attack objectives mounted or dismounted.

We are not talking about troops in SUVs, these are APCs and IFVs with 4 and 6 wheel configurations in probably the 10-15 ton class.

To compensate for the loss of guns I was not suggesting making a new air defence vehicle like Shilka using a 45mm or 57mm gun... what I was suggesting is modifying a standard IFV so that instead of carrying troops it had extra ammo in its rear troop compartment. The 45mm rounds are very compact for their calibre so having the entire troop compartment they might have room for 4-500 rounds of ammo. This IFV will obviously no longer be an IFV, and of course it will be a light 6 wheeled Boomerang vehicle because the heavier brigades will have proper pantsir-s1 vehicles.

This is exactly what Swedes have with CV-9040 AAV. Modified IVF with 40 mm Bofors gun for AD job and it also have small search radar.



Russians could do the same to place 45 mm or 57 mm gun on tracked IFV or 8x8 wheeled IFV and modify it for AD job, It will work with same Barnaul-T or Polyana IADS as other SAMs will.

But I doubt such big guns could be placed on lighter 6x6 Boomerang. They are too powerful for lighter vehicles. In my opinion 30 mm is maximum for them.

the main function of the Pantsir and TOR batteries will be to provide local air space information to the Brigade and to pass that up the chain to the local air defence network. They could also receive longer range information from the network regarding approaching threats or targets.

Actually Tor and Pantsir are on receiving end of air space informations although they could share picture with battery command post and higher. Ground forces also have their own IADS build through Barnaul-T, Polyana-D4M1 and other complexes to provide pictures and orders to firing units. In my opinion Barnaul-T will provide those guns needed info about air space situation.

Light brigades will not have marching infantry, they will be highly mobile and the situation will determine whether they attack objectives mounted or dismounted.

We are not talking about troops in SUVs, these are APCs and IFVs with 4 and 6 wheel configurations in probably the 10-15 ton class.

High mobility of light brigades doesn't mean they will fight in battle inside lightly armored vehicles. Vehicles are there to quicly transport them from one zone to another. They will fight mostly as infantry.

http://www.function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11364065@egNews

Russian ground forces didn't cancel Pantsir-S1. At the moment testing example was in production and after testings with ground forces, they will make decision about it. Till now it was not tested yet.

This is exactly what Swedes have with CV-9040 AAV. Modified IVF with 40 mm Bofors gun for AD job and it also have small search radar.

The difference is that I wouldn't bother with the small radar... if the weather is too bad to see the target with thermal sights then it is probably too bad to use laser guided shells too.

Also just modifying the troop compartment for more ready to use ammo storage... perhaps a removable automated ammo rack that can be driven up the rear ramp and into the troop compartment after first removing the seats etc would allow any IFV to perform the role if needed and it also means that empty racks can be driven out and full racks driven into the rear to replace them... in fact you could have two... one rack you drive in and then the gunner can push a button and all the ammo from the drive in auto ammo handling rack can load its ammo into the turret ammo store. That rack can be withdrawn and a second rack full of ammo can be driven in so the vehicle is fully loaded and ready for combat.

As all the IFVs have rear ramps in all the weight classes in all the brigades you could design these auto ammo racks for all the vehicle types (Armata, kurganets, and both Boomerangs).

But I doubt such big guns could be placed on lighter 6x6 Boomerang. They are too powerful for lighter vehicles. In my opinion 30 mm is maximum for them.

I agree that the lighter vehicles might use different weapon options, but I actually thought that the Boomerang-10 should be able to handle the 45/57mm gun and might perhaps use it as the main gun for the tank vehicle in place of the 125mm.

I think the medium wheeled and tracked vehicles could use the long recoil 125mm gun from Sprut, and of course armata should have no problems with the full power 125mm gun, but that the Boomerang 10 could use the 45/57mm gun for its gun platform/tank.

The boomerang-10 IFV could use a 30mm cannon and perhaps 4 Kornet-EMs... I was going to suggest the BMP-3M armament but with all that ammo in such a small vehicle you might not fit sufficient troops... it is after all a troop transport.

Actually Tor and Pantsir are on receiving end of air space informations although they could share picture with battery command post and higher. Ground forces also have their own IADS build through Barnaul-T, Polyana-D4M1 and other complexes to provide pictures and orders to firing units. In my opinion Barnaul-T will provide those guns needed info about air space situation.

It used to be that way, but with the range performance of the radars fitted to the vehicles and of course other radar equipped vehicles supporting the brigade I would think it would very much be a case of mutual communication.

Keep in mind that the Brigades are very mobile and when operating in places like Georgia where there was little to no coverage of air space then the sensors the brigade is equipped with will often generate better information than the assets of the aerospace defence forces. It will very much be a case of sharing what they can see, while not wanting to transmit all the time to give yourself away.

These days with very small UAVs that are not easy to track or engage it is important for all units to keep an eye out for threats/targets.

High mobility of light brigades doesn't mean they will fight in battle inside lightly armored vehicles. Vehicles are there to quicly transport them from one zone to another. They will fight mostly as infantry.

The brigades will be fully mechanised, there will not be truck delivered units.

Having said that of course the vehicles will deliver the troops to their objectives who might attack mounted or on foot depending on the situation. If the enemy has lots of snipers and MGs but little in the way of effective anti armour weapons then a mounted attack will minimise casualties. Of course if the enemy has plenty of anti armour weapons and knows how to use them then the troops will attack dismounted with the vehicles providing stand off support.

Light brigades however rely on speed and firepower... you wouldn't use them to invade a city or serious enemy hard position.

Russian ground forces didn't cancel Pantsir-S1. At the moment testing example was in production and after testings with ground forces, they will make decision about it. Till now it was not tested yet.

Also keep in mind the vehicle this system is to replace is the Tunguska M1 which entered service in about 2003, so they might decide the existing system does the job and delay purchase for a few years anyway. If they did purchase it it will likely replace older systems... AFAIK they don't still use Shilka in units but there are still quite a few SA-8s in service that have not been replaced by TOR yet... because SA-8 was pretty good and TOR was expensive.

medo wrote:http://www.function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11364065@egNews

Russian ground forces didn't cancel Pantsir-S1. At the moment testing example was in production and after testings with ground forces, they will make decision about it. Till now it was not tested yet.

Fresh from the news oven:

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120919/176048717.html

[quote="GarryB"]

AFAIK they don't still use Shilka in units...

There are still a few Shilkas in some units.

It used to be that way, but with the range performance of the radars fitted to the vehicles and of course other radar equipped vehicles supporting the brigade I would think it would very much be a case of mutual communication.

Absolutely, Those systems will communicate and share their radar pictures. But believe me, crews in firing vehicles will not coordinate the work and deliver targets to other users, but will be concentrated on their own job. Battery command post for Tor or Pantsir is that point, which do exactly that and could also coordinate and deliver targets to other users, like MANPADs and IFV AA guns, being indirectly or through higher level.

Light brigades however rely on speed and firepower... you wouldn't use them to invade a city or serious enemy hard position.

Maybe I'm a little of old school, when something is light, than it is infantry. But other way, I agree. Light brigades will be kind of quick reaction force.

The difference is that I wouldn't bother with the small radar... if the weather is too bad to see the target with thermal sights then it is probably too bad to use laser guided shells too.

Of course Russians don't need to place radar on such a vehicle. The point of CV-9040 is exactly that, that Swedes got AD vehicle from standard IFV and have similar gun 40 mm. Without radar you could not tell the difference from outside.

There are still a few Shilkas in some units.

And quite a few in storage I suspect, but their numbers will diminish.

I know that there are quite a large number of OSAs in service because it was replaced by one vehicle that was very expensive... TOR.

The Shilka on the other hand was replaced by half a vehicle... Tunguska... which also replaced the SA-13.

Absolutely, Those systems will communicate and share their radar pictures. But believe me, crews in firing vehicles will not coordinate the work and deliver targets to other users, but will be concentrated on their own job. Battery command post for Tor or Pantsir is that point, which do exactly that and could also coordinate and deliver targets to other users, like MANPADs and IFV AA guns, being indirectly or through higher level.

I agree that that is the way it used to happen, but now with better night and all weather sensors... not necessarily just radars but also thermal and just plain optical sights that the data gathering capacity of most vehicles has increased beyond the level of current generation recon vehicles.

This means that as the commander detects a threat they will mark it on their digital battle management system maps, and when they identify it that information will be added to the shared map so other units in the area will now see that threat on their maps too. This information wont just be used locally but will be passed up the chain to HQs for the regiment and the brigade. For targets the unit cannot identify the HQ might send a UAV for a closer look or a ground based recon unit to determine if it is a friend, or foe or neutral.

Targets detected by air defence units will operate the same way, they will receive long range target information from the IADS, but they will also pass up information on threats they detect locally... this will likely be done automatically as part of the battle management system (BMS).

The improved datalink communications and C4IR system is akin to a business computer setup.

Without proper networking infrastructure each computer had a very specific role, like doing the accounting, or printing reports and letters etc, or producing drawings.
The data sharing would be by floppy disk and distribution of software from above would occur when necessary only.

With the new net centric structure the main change is the bandwidth of the communication channels and the ability for every computer connected to the network... either hard wired or wireless, to communicate with other computers and resources on the network including printers and computer controlled machines and network based hard drives for shared storage (ie NAS)etc etc.

This change in level of communication means much better cooperation and fewer bottlenecks for access to resources.

Taken back to the military situation, it means artillery can be as responsive as previously calling on tanks within your own unit to fire upon a structure. It means target and threat information can be shared as it is collected instead of coming as a surprise when you stumble on the enemy unit yourself. Most importantly it means you will know where your guys are and get to know where there guys are much faster with much better coordination and use of the force available to you.

Maybe I'm a little of old school, when something is light, than it is infantry. But other way, I agree. Light brigades will be kind of quick reaction force.

The Modern Soviet and Russian armies are fully mechanised so really the only equivalent of a light infantry unit that they have would be the VDV which is also fully mechanised which makes it mobile and with very high fire power for its role... even more so if it gets helicopter and Su-25xx support as the latter resources are just getting more and more powerful by the day.