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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
1. Min. range of engagement is better
Pantsir have auto cannons with Infra Red Optics sensors and can operate without radars as far i read.
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.
Pantsir's missile is less maneuverable because it is faster, but still enough agile to engage all targets.
Maybe they will use all three complexes, Pantsir-S1, Tor-M2KM and Morphei.
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.
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 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.
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.
Viktor wrote:Pancir-S1 in Sochi Shocked
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.
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.
Therefore, shouldn't Russia start using DEW for tactical battlefield missions as well as for Air Defense ?
|
|