Pantsir missile/gun AD system: #2

Yeah looks like there should be a bit of room in the cab behind the driver before the engine.
I guess the operator area on the existing version is where that door is behind the spare tire?

Does it look like they managed to reduce the vertical height on the new version by 20cm or so to you guys?
Existing version always looked like it has questionable CoG height to me so reducing it would be likely a priority IMO.
Could just be an optical illusion with the different cab shape/maybe different chassis proportion

hoom wrote:Yeah looks like there should be a bit of room in the cab behind the driver before the engine.
I guess the operator area on the existing version is where that door is behind the spare tire?

Does it look like they managed to reduce the vertical height on the new version by 20cm or so to you guys?
Existing version always looked like it has questionable CoG height to me so reducing it would be likely a priority IMO.
Could just be an optical illusion with the different cab shape/maybe different chassis proportion

Indeed, there's some trouble with CoG of the old model, which led to lower accuracy when firing the cannons.

But yea it does seem that the SM version with a new chassis has lower CoG because the wheel clearance is lower

hoom wrote:Yeah looks like there should be a bit of room in the cab behind the driver before the engine.
I guess the operator area on the existing version is where that door is behind the spare tire?

Does it look like they managed to reduce the vertical height on the new version by 20cm or so to you guys?
Existing version always looked like it has questionable CoG height to me so reducing it would be likely a priority IMO.
Could just be an optical illusion with the different cab shape/maybe different chassis proportion

I have just found another view of Pantsir SM chassis on the internet. I realize Russian engineer can't design operator area behind the spare tire because you can see grill radiator on the roof-top.

GarryB wrote:That is a good question... I don't know, but actually it is interesting because a remote location in the cabin would be ideal because in the near future these turrets are going to be mounted on armoured vehicles for forward deployment with units so having unmanned turrets would actually make that transition easier.

The Arctic model seems to have the crew and driver in the front module and the weapons and sensors in the rear module but it is not obviously the case.

The Arctic model have 2 modules : the crew and driver in the front module and unmanned-turret in the rear module. I guess the Arctic model can fired G2A missiles while moving.This is the advantage over Pantsir SM based-on Kamaz 53958.

Lennox wrote:Indeed, there's some trouble with CoG of the old model, which led to lower accuracy when firing the cannons...

Serbian Army can vouch that it definitely does have some trouble with centre of gravity and that it affects way more than just gun accuracy





As for crew compartment on SM it's between the wheels above the fuel tank

This is the vehicle shown for the first time at the Moscow Parade. Doesn´t look like a door to the control room between the tires.


This is the version shown at the Army 2021 exhibition. You can clearly see the door.


Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

Hole wrote:This is the vehicle shown for the first time at the Moscow Parade. Doesn´t look like a door to the control room between the tires.


This is the version shown at the Army 2021 exhibition. You can clearly see the door.


Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

They are not the same. Upper one is domestic Pantsir-SM and lower one is Pantsir-S1M for export.

Russia’s upgraded Pantsyr anti-aircraft missile/gun system can fight any strike drones

The Pantsyr-S1M has received new hypersonic surface-to-air missiles that has boosted its striking range from 20 km to 30 km, its operational altitude from 15 km to 18 km and its destruction area threefold

MOSCOW, November 30. /TASS/. The upgraded Pantsyr-S1M surface-to-air missile/gun system is capable of fighting all types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including strike drones, Industrial Director of the Armaments Cluster at the state tech corporation Rostec Bekkhan Ozdoyev told TASS on Tuesday.

"The upgrade has substantially boosted the Pantsyr’s capabilities for fighting all types of drones. In particular, the system is capable of effectively detecting and destroying all types of strike drones that are in operational service," he said.

Deputy CEO of the High Precision Weapons Company (part of Rostec) Sergei Mikhailov told TASS at the EDEX 2021 international arms show that the upgraded Pantsyr had the potential to become the basis for tactical air defenses.

"The Pantsyr-S1M can be used as the basis for building an effective modular air defense network capable of shielding any military units from small-size and strike drones, precision weapons and, of course, military aviation - aircraft and helicopters. The system fully complies with the present-day A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] principles [an air defense system used to prevent an enemy from penetrating into vital areas]," Mikhailov said.

The Pantsyr-S1M has received new hypersonic surface-to-air missiles that has boosted its striking range from 20 km to 30 km, its operational altitude from 15 km to 18 km and its destruction area threefold. Along with new missiles, the system can also fire missiles of the Pantsyr-S1 launcher. The upgrade of the Pantsyr-S1M has also improved its stealth, jamming resistance and the rate of fire.

Russia’s state arms exporter Rosoboronexport signed the first contract on the delivery of Pantsyr-S1M anti-aircraft missile/gun systems at the Army 2021 international arms show on August 25.

Upgraded Pantsyr to lay basis for Russia’s multi-layered counter-drone system

The upgraded Pantsyr-S1M surface-to-air missile/gun system will be a major element of Russia’s multi-layered counter-drone system, Deputy CEO of the High Precision Weapons Company Sergei Mikhailov said at the EDEX international defense show running on November 29 - December 2 in Cairo.

"Countering drones is a major task for present-day air defense weapons. Currently, the Russian industry produces two types of counter-drone capabilities: ‘soft-kill’ to suppress drones by electronic countermeasures and ‘hard-kill’ to physically destroy UAVs. The network integrating both technologies was unveiled at the IDEX 2021 [international arms] show and the Pantsyr-S1M will be its major component, in particular, within a group of systems for physically eliminating drones," Mikhailov explained.

The Pantsyr-S1M is highly cost efficient in fighting modern drones, he said. "The munitions that are used make it possible to fully meet the cost/efficiency ratio in striking targets. We can confidently say that the Pantsyr-S1M is the world’s least expensive counter-drone system," he added.

https://tass.com/defense/1368227

What is the flying altitude of that Turkish drone?

lyle6 wrote:

Hole wrote:
Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

Less of the former, more of the latter. There's probably not enough space in the cabin recess for two work stations to fit side by side. Earlier renders of the Pantsir-SM also show a control module in the same spot:
[

A good thing would be two seperate vehicles for the launcher and one for the crew/work stations.

Most expensive is to train operators. So enemy will attack mainly the launcher because it will detect its radar while the other vehicle with the crew can be hiden better.

That's something they have done in the artic versions but it is a trailer so it's still one vehicle.

For remote areas where mobility isn't as omportant as on the frontline it could be a solution.

Isos wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

Hole wrote:
Does the first version got the controls inside the drivers cabin or was it just a prototype and now one bothered with to much details?

Less of the former, more of the latter. There's probably not enough space in the cabin recess for two work stations to fit side by side. Earlier renders of the Pantsir-SM also show a control module in the same spot:
[

A good thing would be two seperate vehicles for the launcher and one for the crew/work stations.

Most expensive is to train operators. So enemy will attack mainly the launcher because it will detect its radar while the other vehicle with the crew can be hiden better.

That's something they have done in the artic versions but it is a trailer so it's still one vehicle.

For remote areas where mobility isn't as omportant as on the frontline it could be a solution.

Pantsir can be worked via through command vehicles. It doesn't actually have to be manned besides transporting it. But those things are expensive and are a problem for mobility.

Well I like the idea of two vehicles which means two hit to destroy it. Loosing one means loosing just half the system and crew can be in the one not being hit.

The arctic version, even if they are always togather, does this by being a 2 part vehicles. A hit by a small munition like drone ones will damage only one of them.

A new military air defense unit at the Pantsir air defense missile system was formed near Khabarovsk

The new unit will provide air defense of the most important military and industrial facilities, military units and formations of the district troops

TASS, December 3. A new military air defense unit of the Eastern Military District (VVO) has been formed near Khabarovsk, it will be armed with the Pantsir universal short-range anti-aircraft missile-gun systems (ZRPK), the press service of the district reported on Friday.

“At the moment, the military formation is being equipped with anti-aircraft complexes.

The new unit will provide air defense for the most important military and industrial facilities, military units and formations of the district's troops. In addition, it will strengthen the air defense grouping, providing protection against massive attacks by air attack weapons using high-precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles at low and extremely low altitudes.

https://tass-ru.translate.goog/armiya-i-opk/13099825?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

NOTE: Plan is for an Air Defense regiment in each Military District (plus 1st Aerospace and Missile defense Army) to act as a reserve rapid deploy-able Air Defense. This is the 3rd regiment that I have heard being activated. Would make sense to me down the road to include S-350 with these units.

But Pantsir performed so poorly in Syria...

Easy to answer. After they saw how great Russia developed in the last few years they want western sanctions.

Hole wrote:Easy to answer. After they saw how great Russia developed in the last few years they want western sanctions.

Not gonna lie, Western Sanctions have been very good for the Russian economy, the level of self sufficiency they've gained in the last 10 years is phenomenal.

Broski wrote:

Hole wrote:Easy to answer. After they saw how great Russia developed in the last few years they want western sanctions.

Not gonna lie, Western Sanctions have been very good for the Russian economy, the level of self sufficiency they've gained in the last 10 years is phenomenal.

Yes and no.
The "sanctions" didn't bring much effect, because most of those were just fake.
Starting from some big guns, like let's say turbines for electric stations ...
What was the final effect of "sanctioning Russia"? Siemens localizing production.
There is a dropping share of Russian import of medicines, constant. Why? Well, because all the biggest players in the business ... opened their own factories in Russia.
So they don't export drugs, now they import the components as a Russian subject.
In reality, if the "west" would really like to stroke the Russian economy - they would have done that.
But there is no "west" as presented, and they don't want to.
This is business, and in the end, everybody understands that.
And what we get at the receiver's end, is just a theatre.

GarryB wrote:But the irony is that secretly those western companies wanted to produce stuff in Russia all along because it is like producing stuff in China... in comparison the wages are cheap but there is a large skill base and a well educated population.

Even the French engine company Safran made an offer to Russia... the French were having to restrict their sales of engines for Russian aircraft because of western sanctions so the Russians of course started looking at developing and producing their own engines across the entire range of all the aircraft and vehicles they made... there were gaps like in helicopters and light jet trainers and also missiles and UAVs where they didn't have a good range of options from Russian companies because traditionally such things were made in the Ukraine or eastern europe, while some civilian products new and old were designed with French and American engines to appeal to foreign markets and foreign customers.

Sanctions meant a change for Russia, but Safran actually made the offer to the Russians that if they kept buying French engine types (presumably set up local production to bypass sanctions) that they would start buying their expensive hot bits (the hot section titanium bits) for all their engines from Russia instead of from the US. The Russians have new engine programmes for the gaps in their inventory and I suspect they want to fill those themselves... they are starting from new designs using state of the art design and materials so they are not remaking old engines, but developing and producing new engines which should make their new aircraft rather better.

Would be interesting if Safran decides to get Russian hot parts for their engines anyway just to spite the US... it is US pressure for Sanctions driving this whole situation in the first place... not to mention certain submarines they wont be building for Australia... the irony is that Russian hot parts would likely be cheaper than American made ones... and both would likely be made of Russian Titanium...

Is there any realistic possibility of that deal coming through?