Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

GarryB just recently said that the new Pancir-SM might look like an MLRS and if we take a look at its pictures it really does.   





When we compare this new systems with its equivalent of the past like S-125 - Huuuh what a huuuge increase in capabilities and yet S-125 is very much alive and kicking in

many countries even today.

After seeing this, AA guys must be hard at work making a trailer full of new Tor Missiles. GarryB you should check your mailbox for a cheque   

Another 40km range confirmation

More about "carapace-SM"

Viktor wrote:GarryB just recently said that the new Pancir-SM might look like an MLRS and if we take a look at its pictures it really does.   





When we compare this new systems with its equivalent of the past like S-125 - Huuuh what a huuuge increase in capabilities and yet S-125 is very much alive and kicking in

many countries even today.

I feel like were just at the tip of the ice berg, it's possible now that Russia is developing train rail delivered ICBMs that we could see a variant of Pantsir where a train car could have an automated sliding roof where a Pantsir AD complex rises to the top of the train car and has 60 to a 100 missiles tucked away, and can have a two sided missile tube loading system. One side of the complex's missiles could be active and ready to fire on target, while the other one can be loading missiles on the automated system. While were at it we might as have well a Tor-train car equivalent, both Pantsir and Tor complement each other in the point defense role.

I know we already discussed this as such, but I feel like the Russian MOD would be crazy not to entertain such ideas.

The TOR system would have the advantage of all rounds ready to fire immediately, but Pantsir now has a serious range advantage.

The number of guidance channels for both missiles means the more missiles carried ready to fire the better...

I expect the new missile(s) for TOR to have longer range than the current one.
In my opinion, the main advantages of the TOR vs PANTSIR are:

1. Min. range of engagement is better
2. Missile is more maneuverable


Overall, TOR is better against closer range targets and against PGMs.
PANTSIR is better for longer range engagements.

TheArmenian wrote:I expect the new missile(s) for TOR to have longer range than the current one.
In my opinion, the main advantages of the TOR vs PANTSIR are:

1. Min. range of engagement is better
2. Missile is more maneuverable


Overall, TOR is better against closer range targets and against PGMs.
PANTSIR is better for longer range engagements.

I would also add that Pantsir has the advantage in the sense that it can engage ground targets to certain extent with it's dual auto-cannons. If insurgents like Islamists from Dagestan were to attack the train than the auto-cannons with they're high rate of fire and combined with HE-Frag rounds, could effectively engage them, and a Shtora passive protection system could be helpful. Such a train could have sloped armor, but that would be too obvious and could hamper the effectiveness of the train delivered ICBM...though a solution for that could be that they could have regular train car side paneling, with space for sloped armor hidden behind it separating the exterior from the interior if its possible and doesn't hamper mobility of train car with weight issues.

TheArmenian wrote:I expect the new missile(s) for TOR to have longer range than the current one.
In my opinion, the main advantages of the TOR vs PANTSIR are:

1. Min. range of engagement is better
2. Missile is more maneuverable


Overall, TOR is better against closer range targets and against PGMs.
PANTSIR is better for longer range engagements.

Pantsir have auto cannons with Infra Red Optics sensors and can operate without radars as far i read. This is ideal against Stealth planes that cannot hide its heat signature and cruise missiles flying low too and can operate totally hidden from enemy radars ,and the enemy planes will not know a pantsir  location until is shot down. Also Pansirs are deployed at the last line of defense inside military airports and important facilities. So probably is the other way , even though both have small range ,seems Pansirs are better for closer range.

GarryB wrote:The TOR system would have the advantage of all rounds ready to fire immediately, but Pantsir now has a serious range advantage.

The number of guidance channels for both missiles means the more missiles carried ready to fire the better...

I'm not sure if i understand you correctly. All missiles placed on TELAR are ready to fire immediately, and both Tor and Pantsir could guide 4 missiles simultaneously, which missiles will be launched, depend on operator.

TheArmenian wrote:I expect the new missile(s) for TOR to have longer range than the current one.
In my opinion, the main advantages of the TOR vs PANTSIR are:

1. Min. range of engagement is better
2. Missile is more maneuverable


Overall, TOR is better against closer range targets and against PGMs.
PANTSIR is better for longer range engagements.

Pantsir doesn't need very short min.range of engagement, because the close 3 km range is covered by guns. That is why Pantsir as well as Tunguska could use two stage missiles.

Pantsir's missile is less maneuverable because it is faster, but still enough agile to engage all targets.

TheArmenian wrote:I expect the new missile(s) for TOR to have longer range than the current one.
In my opinion, the main advantages of the TOR vs PANTSIR are:

1. Min. range of engagement is better
2. Missile is more maneuverable


Overall, TOR is better against closer range targets and against PGMs.
PANTSIR is better for longer range engagements.

Its the other way around. Pantsir was specifically made to nail incoming PGMs. Hence the huge booster, and massive top speed and very fast acceleration.

As far as current missiles go Tor has better performance against maneuvering targets at the extreme of the engagement envelope, because of missile sustained engine.

If Tor was better for close targets, it would be used over Pantsir to protect S-400 batteries.

Maybe they will use all three complexes, Pantsir-S1, Tor-M2KM and Morphei.

Interesting article

By 2015, the Russian gunners get a new ZRPK "Carapace-S"

1. Pancir-SM by 2015   

By 2015, the anti-aircraft missile troops of the Russian Federation will receive a new deeply modernized air defense missile-gun system / ZRPK / "Carapace CM". Told Itar-Tass on Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Igor Klimov Air Force.

2. Did we count right? 50 Pancir-S1 in service. If true   

Total armed with anti-aircraft missile troops Russian Air Force is about 50 vehicles in its class.

TR1 wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:I expect the new missile(s) for TOR to have longer range than the current one.
In my opinion, the main advantages of the TOR vs PANTSIR are:

1. Min. range of engagement is better
2. Missile is more maneuverable


Overall, TOR is better against closer range targets and against PGMs.
PANTSIR is better for longer range engagements.

Its the other way around. Pantsir was specifically made to nail incoming PGMs. Hence the huge booster, and massive top speed and very fast acceleration.

As far as current missiles go Tor has better performance against maneuvering targets at the extreme of the engagement envelope, because of missile sustained engine.

If Tor was better for close targets, it would be used over Pantsir to protect S-400 batteries.

True and few more things.

- Pancir has far better ECM
- Tor has far better parameter shooting
- Pancir has better reach in range and altitude (you can not overfly Pancir - very important)
- Tor can far better shoot down maneuverable missiles
- Both systems are pinned against each other and both are advancing in their areas and are top of what world (Russia) has to offer in comparison with others
- Both systems eat PGMs and stuff for lunch

Together they form and insuperable barrier

Pancir-S1 in Sochi   

Wow, nice photo.

Looks like Latin America almost, doesn't it? Brazil maybe

Thank god Sochi will be same from Islamic Caliphate HARMs.

1. Min. range of engagement is better

Both have an inner dead zone of about 1.5km AFAIK, but Pantsir covers that inner zone with cannon.

Pantsir have auto cannons with Infra Red Optics sensors and can operate without radars as far i read.

Both systems have command guided missiles that can operate with radar turned off.

I'm not sure if i understand you correctly. All missiles placed on TELAR are ready to fire immediately, and both Tor and Pantsir could guide 4 missiles simultaneously, which missiles will be launched, depend on operator.

The new Pantsir has 12 ready to launch missiles on the standard vehicle... the new TOR has 16.

With 6 Pantsirs operating together you can have 360 degree coverage but to launch any missile at any target you might need to turn a turret.

With 6 TOR vehicles I presume the 360 degree coverage but with vertical launch the turrets don't need to be directed to the target if another vehicle is guiding the missile.

Pantsir's missile is less maneuverable because it is faster, but still enough agile to engage all targets.

Enormous speed also limits the countermeasures the target can deploy or manouvers it can perform to evade.

Maybe they will use all three complexes, Pantsir-S1, Tor-M2KM and Morphei.

I am certain they will.

Its the other way around. Pantsir was specifically made to nail incoming PGMs. Hence the huge booster, and massive top speed and very fast acceleration.

As far as current missiles go Tor has better performance against maneuvering targets at the extreme of the engagement envelope, because of missile sustained engine.

If Tor was better for close targets, it would be used over Pantsir to protect S-400 batteries.

TORs advantage is its sophisticated 3D radar which is very capable... and expensive.

The missiles are like CIWS systems... that is what it is used for at sea in the form of the Klintok.

And meanwhile in the west I'm sure we're hearing things like "warmongering Venezuelan dictators buying weapons instead of feading their own people". Anyway, how does Venezuela buy all these weapons. Bulgaria would've gone bankrupt if it bought even a single Tor or Buk-M brigade.

GarryB wrote:
As far as current missiles go Tor has better performance against maneuvering targets at the extreme of the engagement envelope, because of missile sustained engine.

GarryB , I couldn't find the link , however Russia had made commendable progress in the field of Direct Energy Weapon (DEW).

Therefore, shouldn't Russia start using DEW for tactical battlefield missions as well as for Air Defense ?

GarryB wrote:The new Pantsir has 12 ready to launch missiles on the standard vehicle... the new TOR has 16.

With 6 Pantsirs operating together you can have 360 degree coverage but to launch any missile at any target you might need to turn a turret.

With 6 TOR vehicles I presume the 360 degree coverage but with vertical launch the turrets don't need to be directed to the target if another vehicle is guiding the missile.

Pantsir also have 2 guns and they count too.

Not, it doesn't go in this way. Tor also have to turn its turret to target to lock it and guide missiles to it. Every missile before launch is synchronized with missile guidance codes, that neighboring complex could not interfere with missile guidance, what could bring to missile lost.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:And meanwhile in the west I'm sure we're hearing things like "warmongering Venezuelan dictators buying weapons instead of feading their own people". Anyway, how does Venezuela buy all these weapons. Bulgaria would've gone bankrupt if it bought even a single Tor or Buk-M brigade.

Oil.

Viktor wrote:Pancir-S1 in Sochi Shocked

Beautiful picture. Pantsir suits prefect in this environment and is well masked with nets.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:And meanwhile in the west I'm sure we're hearing things like "warmongering Venezuelan dictators buying weapons instead of feading their own people". Anyway, how does Venezuela buy all these weapons. Bulgaria would've gone bankrupt if it bought even a single Tor or Buk-M brigade.

Most sales of Russia military sales ,just like it Gas are by credit. Russia gave a US $4 billion line of credit to Venezuela.
They are not rich but neither poor ,and their oil allows them to pay back. They Got a dozen of SU-30s, S-300VM and Tors system too.  However i don't think Pansirs or Tors are expensive..If Syria and Egypt and Cyprus according to wiki have Tor system too.Their estimated price is $25 million each.  Maybe reason Bulgaria doesn't have them is for being a NATO member or Associate.

GarryB wrote:

1. Min. range of engagement is better

Both have an inner dead zone of about 1.5km AFAIK, but Pantsir covers that inner zone with cannon.

Pantsir have auto cannons with Infra Red Optics sensors and can operate without radars as far i read.

Both systems have command guided missiles that can operate with radar turned off.

I'm not sure if i understand you correctly. All missiles placed on TELAR are ready to fire immediately, and both Tor and Pantsir could guide 4 missiles simultaneously, which missiles will be launched, depend on operator.

The new Pantsir has 12 ready to launch missiles on the standard vehicle... the new TOR has 16.

With 6 Pantsirs operating together you can have 360 degree coverage but to launch any missile at any target you might need to turn a turret.

With 6 TOR vehicles I presume the 360 degree coverage but with vertical launch the turrets don't need to be directed to the target if another vehicle is guiding the missile.

Pantsir's missile is less maneuverable because it is faster, but still enough agile to engage all targets.

Enormous speed also limits the countermeasures the target can deploy or manouvers it can perform to evade.

Maybe they will use all three complexes, Pantsir-S1, Tor-M2KM and Morphei.

I am certain they will.

Its the other way around. Pantsir was specifically made to nail incoming PGMs. Hence the huge booster, and massive top speed and very fast acceleration.

As far as current missiles go Tor has better performance against maneuvering targets at the extreme of the engagement envelope, because of missile sustained engine.

If Tor was better for close targets, it would be used over Pantsir to protect S-400 batteries.

TORs advantage is its sophisticated 3D radar which is very capable... and expensive.

The missiles are like CIWS systems... that is what it is used for at sea in the form of the Klintok.

The export version TOR-M2E has a minimum engagement range of 1 km at targets flying 100 m above ground.
http://kupol.ru/spetstekhnika/pdf/tor_m2e/TOR_M2E_eng_2013.pdf

I believe the PANTSIR's minimum engagement range is 3 km because of the booster rocket. That's why it has the guns.

And by the way, the following is from the advertisement for the TOR-M2E:

"SAM SYSTEM 9331 IS INTENDED FOR DAY/NIGHT AIR DEFENCE OF VITAL MILITARY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES

AGAINST ATTACKS OF AIRCRAFT, HELICOPTERS,CRUISE MISSILES, ANTIRADAR AND OTHER GUIDED MISSILES,

GLIDING AND GUIDED AERIAL BOMBS AND UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES WITHIN KILLING ZONE IN AN ADVERSE

WEATHER AND JAMMING ENVIRONMENT"

Moscow's 4th Brigade of Aerospace Defence Forces received 6 new Pantsir-S1's!  

Therefore, shouldn't Russia start using DEW for tactical battlefield missions as well as for Air Defense ?

That stuff is very expensive and still not mature technology, though investments will pay off eventually.

BTW Pantsir-S1 Aircraft kill envelope for the land based version is 1.5km to 18km from 5m altitude to 10km altitude.

TOR-M1 has an aircraft kill envelope of 1km to 12km and 10m to 6km in altitude.

I don't think the 500m different in range is actually that relevant.

The spacial location of vehicles within the same battery would likely make such a distance not so important as the vehicles often operate in pairs and don't always operate within 500m of each other, meaning in practical terms if one vehicle in the unit can't engage a target a vehicle within the same unit might be still in range...