Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

I have a silly question, but one that has always bothered me.

Why does such a large array, with presumably easier access to cooling + power, have similar detection figures to say a Zhuk-M2?

Impressive otherwise.

Discrimination and frequency probably.

The larger antenna likely gives the ability to track more targets that are smaller.

BTW nice find Medo.

Troops on Thursday will receive six TSBS complexes "pantsir-s"

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20121119/911339947.html

http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/25888/

Air and space defense (VKO) receive their first battery of Pantsir-S to work with S-400 regiment. I wonder if Kaliningrad S-400 unit also have Pantsir battery or they still have to receive it.

So how many Pancir-S1 have being delivered this year?

I think all delivered Pancir-S1 so far have gone to VKO, army has just recently clear their introduction.

I think all delivered Pancir-S1 so far have gone to VKO, army has just recently clear their introduction.

Pantsyr-S1 will never be delivered to VKO because any export model is not complying with domestic requirements.

The Pantsir-S1 will certainly serve with the VKO, because it is the best in its class. It will certainly not be much like those systems exported as the ECCM and C4IR systems will be different and likely there will be other modifications, but in terms of its use as a close in defence system for an S-400 battery you would be hard pressed to find a more effective system anywhere in the world.

GarryB wrote:The Pantsir-S1 will certainly serve with the VKO, because it is the best in its class. It will certainly not be much like those systems exported as the ECCM and C4IR systems will be different and likely there will be other modifications, but in terms of its use as a close in defence system for an S-400 battery you would be hard pressed to find a more effective system anywhere in the world.

I agree, Pancir-S1 will certainly be delivered VVKO and assigned to every S-400 battery as well as NEBO-M complex per regiment or even per battery.

I think we can not count of Tor system and while its appearance wont be in VVKO, it will be in Army units together will Pancir-S1 and those

two systems will form best point air-defense in the world as they complete each other.

Tor has always been an Army system, so it might or it might not be deployed with the VKO... personally I think it unlikely.

Pantsir-S1 is the new standard and in a Tunguska model will serve in the Air Force, Army, Navy, and other forces of Russia for quite some time to come.

The Pantsir-S1 will certainly serve with the VKO, because it is the best in its class.

GarryB ,probably i has been not clear enough ,sorry.


Pantsyr-S1 CANNOT be inducted in any MO order simply because it is the export version -designed for UAE and other major interantional buyers - of Pantsyr-S (the version inducted in VKO).

I know that a lot of confusion exist on this subject ,above all because very often the two denominations are used ....and reported in media....in a shallow, almost equivalent way; instead ,obviously, them are VERY DIFFERENT one from the other with COMPLETELY DISTINCT internal components and lines of production.

Just to provide an example of what now said you can note (from the same maker -ЗАО Московский Прожекторный Завод-) that Pantsyr-S and its export version Pantsyr-S1 have different power supply and management systems



http://mpzvpk.ru/katalog/sistemy-elektropitaniya-dlya-kompleksov-pvo/


I was not attempting in any way to attack the value of Pantsyr-S1 (it is more that 2,5 times more lethal and over 7 times more survivable than the best not-export version foreign equivalent ), what instead i was attempting to point out is that it will never be inducted in Russian Federation service for the same reason that no T-90MS or RVV-SD/MD/BD will be ever inducted : the technical and performance requirements dictated by МоРФ are significantly higher.

The resulting Pantsir-S1 is significantly better than the original domestic model, though no doubt the money spent will result in a greatly improved system for Russia too.

GarryB i sincerely don't follow you, what you mean with original domestic model ?

Domestic corresponding of ANY weapon offered for export DWARF it in almost any cardinal parameter ; where a particualr improved modification of a particualr weapon has been offered in the past for export already a significantly superior domestic version had been always developed in advance.


Pantsyr-S now introduced in Russian air defense structure is in another class in comparison with what you callthe "improved version" delivered to UAE ; rather -in its main component- it represent just one of those systems where this difference is not merely limited to a superior domestic version of an identical one offered for export !.

The same interceptor missile it employ ,in facts ,is not merely a superior domestic version of the export missile -57E6-E -, but a new ,widely improved version, -23Ya6- with an heavier booster and redesigned propellant, warhead layout and composition, of which not even exist an export version (and where the decision to design this downgraded version of 23Ya6 would be taken it wopudl represent a big leap in performances in respect to 57E6-E now offerend in Pantsyr-S1)


http://www.hotnews1.us/news-2873355-Russian-armor-S-test-of-missile-and-artillery-systems-to-shoot-down-cruise-missiles-Figure.html


http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Missiles-And-Rockets-2010/Russian-Air-Force-Pantsir-S-packs-a-more-powerful-punch.html

Mindstorm; any more information on 23Ya6?
From what I have found range is increased to ~25km.
-Thanks in advance
Learn something new every day.

That might be the case now... the booster rockets these missiles use are standard and were designed originally for sounding rockets. The smaller lighter rockets were used in the original SA-19 for the Tunguska and allowed the system to engage targets out to 8km. Newer, more powerful rocket boosters have extended range and speed performance, but sensor upgrades have also taken place... very simply they could have taken the biggest heaviest booster from the 1980s and given the missile a range of 20km, but the sensors and guidance probably wouldn't have been good enough for reliable kills.

The parallel upgrades in sensors and electronics etc have improved to the point where the extra range can actually be used to good effect.

I don't doubt that the domestic model will be better than any export models but initially in the early 2000s the Russian military was happy to settle for a cheaper upgrade with 12km range missiles and 2A72 guns that were cheap. It was the UAE that not only said they wanted brand new radars and electronics, but also extra range and multi target engagement capabilities. The resulting Pantsir-S1 was a huge step up from the previous system. The fact that the Russian military have taken it even further does not surprise me... they are also working on the HERMES missile system that uses a unified missile design and can be used against ground targets at a range of ranges with a ballistic flight path and ranges from 20km for the air launched model (with a small booster) to 40km and 100km with ground launched versions with larger boosters and all with terminal homing head options.

TR1 wrote:Mindstorm; any more information on 23Ya6?
From what I have found range is increased to ~25km.
-Thanks in advance
Learn something new every day.

In my opinion new missile with increased range will be connected with new search Janus face radar, which have range 40+ km to see far enough for engagement. With those new missiles one Pantsir alone will be more capable than a whole battery of SAM-3, SAM-6 or Bamse, which are medium range SAMs.

Another factor of the two faced radar is that assuming its rotation rate is the same or similar then it should have double the scan/update rate of the older models, which would result in much better target information... especially for small and fast moving targets.

GarryB wrote:Another factor of the two faced radar is that assuming its rotation rate is the same or similar then it should have double the scan/update rate of the older models, which would result in much better target information... especially for small and fast moving targets.

Which really matters only for export systems as an part of Russian VKO it will always be part of higher echelon systems receiving info

from automated control systems and its radars much higher in advance.

On the other hand that matters for export systems as I did not notice automated control systems being exported that much.

Viktor wrote:

GarryB wrote:Another factor of the two faced radar is that assuming its rotation rate is the same or similar then it should have double the scan/update rate of the older models, which would result in much better target information... especially for small and fast moving targets.

Which really matters only for export systems as an part of Russian VKO it will always be part of higher echelon systems receiving info

from automated control systems and its radars much higher in advance.

On the other hand that matters for export systems as I did not notice automated control systems being exported that much.

Not exactly. It's true, that it is inside S-400 formation and could get all info from higher echelon, but it is also there to protect the same S-400 and higher echelon radars on the move, when they change positions. In that time Pantsir need its own search radar to control air situation.

Mindstorm wrote:

.....is there a difference between domestic T-90S and exported T-90S?

Yes,the most important feratures of domestic T-90S are the following :

1) Weightless
2) Completely Invisible
3) Totally Incorporeal

No weapon at world is capable to penetrate it and enemy Intelligence cannot collect any information on it.

,forgot about common sense that time- Occam'sRazor.exe failed to load.

medo wrote:

Viktor wrote:

GarryB wrote:Another factor of the two faced radar is that assuming its rotation rate is the same or similar then it should have double the scan/update rate of the older models, which would result in much better target information... especially for small and fast moving targets.

Which really matters only for export systems as an part of Russian VKO it will always be part of higher echelon systems receiving info

from automated control systems and its radars much higher in advance.

On the other hand that matters for export systems as I did not notice automated control systems being exported that much.

Not exactly. It's true, that it is inside S-400 formation and could get all info from higher echelon, but it is also there to protect the same S-400 and higher echelon radars on the move, when they change positions. In that time Pantsir need its own search radar to control air situation.

I know. Im not questioning of necessity to develop batter search and fire control radar.

Even on the move Russia assigns search radar (Protivnik/Ganma-S1/Gama-D/NEBO iterations to smaler ones ) to every missile regiment or even battery who pass information on control systems. Link is not broken. Ever.

There is a significant difference in precision and accuracy between a search radar and a tracking radar.

For very high speed or small RCS targets (or both) a two faced radar doubles the scan rate.

Obviously having four fixed faces would be ideal as the scan rate would be electronic and therefore could take mili seconds instead of x per minute.

The information within a network is only as good as the quality and speed of capture and processing of that information. Garbage in Garbage out.

Having high quality search and tracking radars on your vehicles greatly improves the quality of information your forces have access to.

Viktor wrote:

medo wrote:

Viktor wrote:

GarryB wrote:Another factor of the two faced radar is that assuming its rotation rate is the same or similar then it should have double the scan/update rate of the older models, which would result in much better target information... especially for small and fast moving targets.

Which really matters only for export systems as an part of Russian VKO it will always be part of higher echelon systems receiving info

from automated control systems and its radars much higher in advance.

On the other hand that matters for export systems as I did not notice automated control systems being exported that much.

Not exactly. It's true, that it is inside S-400 formation and could get all info from higher echelon, but it is also there to protect the same S-400 and higher echelon radars on the move, when they change positions. In that time Pantsir need its own search radar to control air situation.

I know. Im not questioning of necessity to develop batter search and fire control radar.

Even on the move Russia assigns search radar (Protivnik/Ganma-S1/Gama-D/NEBO iterations to smaler ones ) to every missile regiment or even battery who pass information on control systems. Link is not broken. Ever.

Absolutely, but not forget, that Pantsir's main targets will be bombs and missiles and its own search radar could be better in finding them than larger Protivnik, Gamma or Nebo radar. They will for sure give them clear picture of enemy planes in the air, but bombs and missiles they launch they will have to find with their own radar, specially when S-400 is on the move.

The Russian Army had serious problems with UAVs in Georgia too... these very small targets have very small RCS and very small IR signatures and were hard to spot visually to engage with weapons like Igla or Zu-23 due to the height they operated at.

BUK was used but was overkill. R-73s were also used, but again not an ideal solution.

A Pantsir-S1 battery, or TOR would have been ideal and also overkill though their missiles are not expensive.

GarryB wrote:The Russian Army had serious problems with UAVs in Georgia too... these very small targets have very small RCS and very small IR signatures and were hard to spot visually to engage with weapons like Igla or Zu-23 due to the height they operated at.

BUK was used but was overkill. R-73s were also used, but again not an ideal solution.

A Pantsir-S1 battery, or TOR would have been ideal and also overkill though their missiles are not expensive.

So the best solution is modernization of Tunguska to get radar mode for missiles and night channel in optical sight, because Tunguska have problems with UAVs in night time.

medo wrote:

GarryB wrote:The Russian Army had serious problems with UAVs in Georgia too... these very small targets have very small RCS and very small IR signatures and were hard to spot visually to engage with weapons like Igla or Zu-23 due to the height they operated at.

BUK was used but was overkill. R-73s were also used, but again not an ideal solution.

A Pantsir-S1 battery, or TOR would have been ideal and also overkill though their missiles are not expensive.

So the best solution is modernization of Tunguska to get radar mode for missiles and night channel in optical sight, because Tunguska have problems with UAVs in night time.

Tunguska modernization of course but look at OSA-1T modernization and Russia has lots of OSA in their inventory with can not be replaced by
Tor systems never. It gives quite a punch for small money.

The next Tunguska will likely be composed of components and systems from Pantsir-S on a tracked chassis, so the engagement of UAVs should not be an issue at all.

Regarding Victors suggestion of OSA... I think that would have a lot of merit, the OSA reportedly was effective against low flying cruise missiles, so use against UAVs should be fairly straight forward. It could use existing stocks and with a minor optics upgrade should be useful for all weather day and night use without being expensive. The OSA missiles are very much like TOR missiles in that they are simple and cheap and don't have a terminal seeker. They are command guided, just like the Tunguska/Pantsir/TOR missiles.