Pantsir-S1 News Thread:

medo wrote:

Hole wrote:Only Tor-M2 (16) hast more missiles than Pantsir.

The 35mm guns of Gepard lack a lot compared to the 57mm gun the russians brought back.

No, arctic Pantsir-SA have 18 missiles.

Russia unveiled an upgraded variant of the Pantsyr-S1 air defence system at the IDEX show held in Abu Dhabi on 17–21 February.

A source from the Instrument Design Bureau (KBP) told Jane’s that the Pantsir-S1M can use the new 57E6M-E surface-to-air missile (SAM), which can intercept targets flying at speeds of up to 1,000 m/s. It can engage targets at altitudes of 15–18,000 m and has a slant range of 1,200–30,000 m compared to the 57E6-E missile’s 15–15,000 m altitude and 1,200–20,000 m range.

The reduction in the length of the missile has enabled a larger booster to be fitted that increases its speed from 1,300 m/s to 1,700 m/s. Nevertheless, the weight of the warhead, which is designed to destroy a target using fragmentation rods and missile debris, has grown from 20 kg to 25 kg. The overall weight of the new SAM has increased from 98 kg to 115 kg.

The upgraded Pantsir-S1M has a multifunctional fire-control radar and an upgraded search radar, both fitted with phased antenna arrays. The L-band search radar detects and tracks up to 40 targets simultaneously, while the EHF fire-control radar can engage four targets simultaneously.

GarryB wrote:Normally it would be X band or Ku band search for accuracy and range, but they have been working hard on L band because it reveals very small targets and stealthy targets much better than the higher frequencies do... it is less effected (negatively) by the shape of the object.

As it is a search radar it just needs to detect targets and threats rather than highly precisely track them, so it is generally better... as long as it is accurate enough to get sharper vision systems pointed at the target (ie tracking radar or EOs).

So heavier warhead and better range... at 115kgs it is still a fairly light missile... it is only slightly heavier than the R-73 AAM.

Edit... note the tracking radar is described as being EHF, which is basically MMW frequency radar, which has issues with moisture in the atmosphere but is a very short wavelength that should allow accurate tracking of even very small targets accurately... it is useful because it can track outgoing cannon shells and adjust fire in real time, but can also track missiles ingoing and outgoing to allow command signals to steer the missile to hit the threat accurately....

Hole wrote:
24.

That is very much like the drawing I saw, but it had a full forty missile tubes ready to fire...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Some time ago there were info about Hermes-K/Hermes  with 100km range. This nicely eliminates need to 152mm+ guns on ships BTW.
It was on website of Tula KBP but disappeared... i wonder if this is under construction now.

http://otvaga2004.ru/atrina/atrina-ships/korabelnyj-kompleks-germes-k/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-49.html

magnumcromagnon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Some time ago there were info about Hermes-K/Hermes  with 100km range. This nicely eliminates need to 152mm+ guns on ships BTW.
It was on website of Tula KBP but disappeared... i wonder if this is under construction now.

http://otvaga2004.ru/atrina/atrina-ships/korabelnyj-kompleks-germes-k/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-49.html

Except that the 152mm gun would switch between artillery bombardment and air-defense on the fly. Back in the 1960's 'experts' claimed that missiles would completely eliminate the need for guns......as you could see that never happened.

Hole wrote:Hermes will have its niche. Pin-point strikes against valuable coastal targets. But for shore bombardement the good old grenade is still No. 1.

GarryB wrote:

Some time ago there were info about Hermes-K/Hermes with 100km range. This nicely eliminates need to 152mm+ guns on ships BTW.
It was on website of Tula KBP but disappeared... i wonder if this is under construction now.

Yeah, that is just Hermes with its terminal guidance... except lofted on a ballistic path towards the target area.

In terms of volume and area a Hermes missile at 110kgs will be rather bigger and take up more space than a 40kg 152mm guided shell and perhaps 20-30kgs of propellent to send it 60-70km.

I would think they could make room for both systems as the Hermes could be used as a very long range CIWS to shoot down enemy anti ship missiles at extended ranges as well as hit ground targets.

The effectiveness of the "Iron Dome" of Israel questioned

On March 25, three children and four adults were wounded in Israel as a result of a rocket attack on the village of Mishmeret located 34 km north of Tel Aviv. Early in the morning, an air-raid siren sounded in A-Sharon, but the Iron Dome missile defense system did not intercept the launched missile. A direct hit destroyed a residential building and damaged several cars.



According to preliminary data from the Israeli military, the rocket was fired by Hamas representatives from the Rafah region, located in the south of the Gaza Strip. What exactly was a rocket and for what reasons it calmly overcame more than 100 km over Israeli territory, is not specified.

In connection with the rocket fire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on a visit to the United States, will fly to Israel ahead of schedule.

This is the second shelling of Tel Aviv in the last month. Earlier, on March 14, two rockets were fired from Gaza in the direction of Tel Aviv. The “Iron Dome” also failed to intercept targets.

There is a question about the effectiveness of the “Iron Dome” missile defense system .(Iron Dome): why did she not intercept these missiles? Although Israel has always stated that the situation is completely controlled by the air defense system.

The main weapon of Hamas were Qassam rockets , which were unguided rockets. They were made in an artisanal way and had a primitive design in the form of a simple pipe with a warhead and engine. Start was made from the simplest launchers almost "by eye". About three-quarters of these missiles are not able to accurately hit even a very large target.

The air defense system, when capturing a target, calculates the trajectory of the missile’s flight and intercepts it (now, as it turns out, does not intercept) only if it threatens populated areas. Therefore, a significant part of the missiles was simply accompanied, and the effectiveness of the “Iron Dome” system under such conditions was very high.

But recent events show that the missile potentials of various resistance movements have expanded significantly, and even with their primitive shelling they question the capabilities of the Iron Dome.. This is a bad messenger for the defense of Israel in the event of a serious military conflict. It also calls into question the entire Israeli air defense system, which in recent years has been declared multistage and very effective. But Hamas missiles have become the “tool” that is already calling into question this effectiveness. A separate question is on the percentage of interception systems Iron Dome.

By the way:

It is worth adding that just a few minutes ago, a message came from the United States that Donald Trump recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel. At the time of signing the document was attended by the head of the Israeli Cabinet Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://topwar.ru/155969-izrailskij-zheleznyj-kupol-snova-ne-srabotal.html