"Ideal means for the destruction of UAVs": NATO appreciated the Russian anti-aircraft missile system "Pantsir-S"

54
"Ideal means for the destruction of UAVs": NATO appreciated the Russian anti-aircraft missile system "Pantsir-S"

The Russian anti-aircraft missile and gun system (ZRPK) "Pantsir-S" is called the "ideal tool" for combating drones. NATO came to this conclusion.

The NATO Air Force Joint Center of Excellence, led by US Air Force Europe and Africa Commander Jeffrey Lee Harrigian, has released a report on the organization of air defense. Studying the air defense systems, the authors of the document admitted that the Russian Pantsir-S air defense missile defense system is the best weapon to defeat all types of drones.



The report says that the data of the air defense missile system was originally created for point object protection from enemy aircraft and helicopters, as well as to cover long-range air defense systems from high-precision weapons... The characteristics incorporated into the complex allowed the Pantsir to successfully fight drones.

Due to these characteristics, "Pantsir-S1" is ideal for combating the entire range of small and tactical military drones, and also allows you to close the gap existing in regular air defense units between special systems to counter large-sized UAVs and counter systems for mini-drones

- stated in the report.

The report explicitly states that due to its ability to destroy all types of drones, the Russian air defense missile system on the battlefield "poses a threat" and becomes a priority target that must be destroyed before the start of operations.

As an example, the report cites the operation of the Turkish army in the Syrian province of Idlib to destroy the only ZRPK "Pantsir". It is noted that the Turks called the complex a priority target requiring immediate destruction, since the air defense missile system posed a real threat to drones.
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    27 February 2021 07: 47
    ZRPK "Pantsir-S" weapon is undoubtedly excellent. Only well trained crews are still needed for it. Without this, at the moment, nothing.
    1. -9
      27 February 2021 08: 19
      Quote: oleg-gr
      ZRPK "Pantsir-S" weapon is undoubtedly excellent. Only well trained crews are still needed for it. Without this, at the moment, nothing.

      I agree and support your words ... But after all, Avtobaz and Krasukh, and other electronic warfare products were made in the factory ... they do not crush the enemy signal, it turns out ...
    2. +1
      27 February 2021 21: 53
      As with any modern air defense system ...
      And for an affective air defense, oh, how many things are needed.
    3. 0
      28 February 2021 16: 05
      And it’s time to create a projectile for him with a remote fuse. I think the technologies have already reached this point)))
  2. +14
    27 February 2021 07: 50
    They made this conclusion after they began to study the Carapace from Libya? So our troops went to the Carapace SM, created on the experience of combat use in Syria. We ourselves do not really know what it can do.
    1. 0
      27 February 2021 19: 47
      All the same, they are unlikely to be able to repeat, all the "brains" that they have already dumped the old ones and the new ones are gone.
  3. +1
    27 February 2021 08: 00
    Due to these characteristics, "Pantsir-C1" is ideal for combating the entire range of small and tactical military drones, and also allows you to close the gap that exists in regular air defense units between special systems for countering large UAVs and anti-drones complexes.

    Well, and our Israeli "partners" a couple of years ago, they posted a bunch of vidos here, where they knocked out Pantsir-C1 straight in batches))))
    1. 0
      27 February 2021 19: 48
      Well, yes, when the crew left smoking laughing
  4. mvg
    -17
    27 February 2021 08: 05
    Maybe they are bullied? Syria, Libya, Armenia. And there were problems at the GOS. It's hard to believe in sincerity.
    1. +8
      27 February 2021 08: 17
      Quote: mvg
      Maybe they are bullied? Syria, Libya, Armenia. And there were problems at the GOS. It's hard to believe in sincerity.

      mvg - as always - old songs about the main thing ... Modernized for a long time and many times!
      1. mvg
        -1
        27 February 2021 13: 09
        Modernized for a long time and many times!

        Their 35 years are modernizing ... The UAE received them in 2015 .. fresh, but something went wrong in Libya.
    2. -1
      27 February 2021 08: 34
      "... Just don't throw me into the thorn bush ..."
    3. 0
      27 February 2021 12: 20
      Quote: mvg
      Maybe they are bullied? Syria, Libya, Armenia. And there were problems at the GOS. It's hard to believe in sincerity.
      With their military air defense, everything is much worse: the stake is made on aviation, plus, with the size of their air force, it is not difficult to achieve air supremacy. In addition, they have small caliber ammunition with controlled detonation, which can provide the Carapace cannons with the ability to destroy small drones.
  5. +12
    27 February 2021 08: 06
    ".....Due to these characteristics, "Pantsir-C1" is ideal for combating the entire range of small and tactical military drones, and also allows you to close the gap that exists in regular air defense units between special systems for countering large UAVs and anti-drones complexes..... "
    ========
    It's funny! And in our country, many "experts" consider the "Shell" to be an incapable "stupid development" or, as it is now fashionable to say "another" cut of the "budget" ..... But it turns out that it can fight a UAV very, very successfully:

    There were problems with detecting small, slow-moving UAVs at low and ultra-low altitudes ... But they seemed to be eliminated ...
    PS "Torah" - too sumptuously They have proven themselves in the fight against all types of UAVs (although they were not originally intended for this ... But when fighting any "small flying punks", the "Thors" have only one drawback compared to the "Shells" - they ( "Torah") - rocket! And "Armor" - rocketcannon!
    1. -2
      27 February 2021 08: 24
      Quote: venik
      And "Armor" - missile and cannon!

      And how many targets were shot down by the Shell's cannons? In what events have they proven themselves?
      Quote: venik
      the "Thors" have only one drawback in comparison with the "Shells" - they ("Torah") are missile!

      But "Pantsir-SM" is also available in a "pure" rocket version ... for "Thor", a small-sized zur is being developed specifically to combat UAVs ... After the start of production of small-sized zurs for "Pantsir" and "Thor" The "relevance" of cannon armament will lose its former importance ... unless corrected 30-mm projectiles are developed!
      1. +4
        27 February 2021 08: 28
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        And how many targets were shot down by the Shell's cannons? In what events have they proven themselves?

        Nikolaevich I - there will be no guns - a dead zone in front of the air defense system will appear and it will be much worse ...
        1. mvg
          -10
          27 February 2021 08: 53
          there will be a dead zone in front of the air defense system

          I like the Phalanx or Goalkeeper option with the least dispersion. I don't know if cannons and missiles can work at the same time
          1. +1
            27 February 2021 12: 06
            The Phalanx has a weight that is prohibitive for a mobile chassis.
            1. mvg
              -6
              27 February 2021 12: 54
              Phalanx's weight is outrageous

              What is beyond the Carapace? The same radar, the same electric drives, plus ammunition. Falanx is on a towed platform. By the way, the Carapace is also under 30 tons of weight.
              Falanx confidently shot down from mines to supersonic anti-ship missiles during exercises. Almost 100%. Our Shilki, AK-630 are not capable of this.
              In the shortcomings of the Pantsir, some write about 19% of the targets shot down. Something is decided, something is not. The first Armor 1994, 35 years to fine-tune the complex ??? The Syrians received the first Armor in 2012, in a couple of years you can train all the calculations. And they could not cope with the subsonic Axes and Delilah.
              And drones now fly 5-7 km. And they see for tens of kilometers .. It is difficult for the shell.
              PS: It's a pity for a plastic anti-aircraft guided missile copter for $ 100 thousand, but a serious UAV won't get the Armor.
              1. +2
                27 February 2021 17: 51
                25 years old, not 35, learn to count, you would graduate from school or something ...
                1. +2
                  27 February 2021 18: 17
                  Quote: Torins
                  25 years old, not 35, learn to count, you would graduate from school or something ...

                  Moreover, in the course of modernization, during this time, they could create a product that is completely different in capabilities, which only retained the name, but in fact is a new product.
          2. +2
            27 February 2021 14: 51
            Quote: mvg
            More like Phalanx's option

            =======
            "Phalanx" in terms of performance characteristics even falls short of "Shilka"! bully
            1. mvg
              -3
              27 February 2021 15: 16
              on performance characteristics even to "Shilka" does not hold out!

              For what? wink The quality of the radar, the automatic prediction calculation, the drives, the weight of the second salvo, dispersion? Shilka will shoot down a rocket? Or a Mosquito? Don't be ridiculous ... And she won't see modern CDs ... To fight the Mujahideen, shooting villages .. yes .. it can. Useless BTT now. Even by his own direct deed, he will not be able to protect the columns.
              1. 0
                27 February 2021 18: 17
                Quote: mvg
                By what? wink The quality of the radar, the automatic lead calculation, the drives, the weight of the second salvo, the dispersion?

                ======
                Yes, for all of the above! The radar station there is generally complete junk! The rate of fire is even lower than that of the Shilka, the effective range and reach in height are even worse!
                In addition, the "Volcano" has an OPEN (top) half-tower! In bad weather - you have to cover yourself with a tarpaulin ... And yet - there are big problems with ammunition (constantly buggy) ...
                As for the "automation" - so it is NOT there at all! The radar is used only for DETECTING targets, aiming - exclusively on the optical sight!
                Is that enough? hi
                1. mvg
                  0
                  27 February 2021 18: 34
                  Is that enough?

                  Find videos of the Goalkeeper and Volcano trials. Shot down all 100% of targets, 10 out of 10. Americans have worse radars wassat Yes, only Tyles competes with them .. and is located where necessary, unlike, say, AK-630.
                  There are 1400 shells on Carapace, at a rate of 5000 h / min, how long will it last? Barrel resource for 2 minutes of shooting .. if I remember correctly. Phalanx has a belt-loading system that shoots more accurately than the 2A38 or GSh.
                  If we are talking about the protection of a stationary object, then the Buk with a towed Volcano.
                  Radar Shilka can not even be compared .. I don’t know the new Shell, the old one had serious problems. Either he catches birds, then the UAV does not see. At least that's what our experts wrote.
                  1. +3
                    27 February 2021 21: 40
                    Quote: mvg
                    Find videos of the Goalkeeper and Volcano trials.

                    =======
                    Are you talking about WHAT complexes ???
                    I personally - about this - M-163 "Volcano":

                    And what are you talking about? About this or what?

                    So this is the Volcano-Falanx marine complex!
                    Land version:

                    not widespread - too expensive, cumbersome and at the same time extremely small range ..... request
                    1. +2
                      28 February 2021 00: 22
                      These are freaks ... a weapon cannot be like that ... all the more effective The developer has a sick imagination, apparently ..
        2. 0
          27 February 2021 09: 17
          Quote: Dread
          there will be no guns - a dead zone will appear in front of the air defense system

          ========
          good I can only notice one thing: not "in front", but in general - "around"!
          drinks
      2. +4
        27 February 2021 08: 52
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        And how many targets were shot down by the Shell's cannons? In what events have they proven themselves?

        ========
        1. According to some "well-tested gossip" Turkish "Phantom" that violated the border of Syria in the summer of 2012 was shot down exactly cannon fire "Shell" ....
        2. During the defense of Khmeimim, "Pantsiri" often used cannon weapons and were used quite often (mainly against small slow-moving targets). It's too lazy to look for a source, but such information (and official) - came across!
        --------
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        But the Pantsir-SM is also available in a "pure" rocket version.

        =======
        belay ? In fact - this is how it was PLANNED (and such plans exist):

        But this is NOT MORE than "plans" ... De facto - "Pantsir-SM" - remains precisely the missile-gun:

        Apparently, precisely because cannon armament can be very useful in terms of cost / effectiveness against every little thing ...
        -------
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        After the start of production of small-sized zurs for "Pantsir" and "Thor" and with the expansion thereof, the "relevance" of cannon armament will lose its former meaning ...

        =======
        belay Are you serious, or is this a "morning joke" to "cheer up"?
        ----------
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        unless they develop adjustable 30-mm projectiles!

        ========
        57mm - yes! Developing! And even experimental and design tests are underway ..... And a 30-mm projectile, and even an adjustable projectile - there are no such plans (and not only with us, but also with "them") ... But 30-mm projectiles with remote undermining is YES! Against flying little things - what the "doctor ordered"! And "cheap and cheerful"!
        hi
        1. -1
          27 February 2021 10: 49
          Quote: venik
          And a 30-mm and even a corrected projectile - there are not even such plans (and not only with us, but also with "them") ...

          "Never say never"! We have plans ... both we and" them "...
          Quote: venik
          30-mm shells with remote detonation are YES! Against flying little things - what the "doctor ordered"! And "cheap and cheerful"!

          That is, protection against "flies"? Well, this ... has not yet been able to create cheap guided "small" missiles! But work in this direction is underway! (Moreover, I do not mean "anti-aircraft nails" at all!)
          Quote: venik
          the "relevance" of cannon armament will lose its former meaning ...

          There was a Tunguska air defense missile system ... a cannon-missile system. It was replaced by the "Pantsir" missile-gun complex. Is the value of cannon armament not decreasing?

          Quote: venik
          But this is NOT MORE than "plans" ... De facto - "Pantsir-SM" - remains precisely the missile-gun:

          And I really assured that in the troops there is "to the fig" "Shell-SM" ... and missile-cannon, and "clean" missile ...? The word "is" can be used in a different sense! For example, there is a thoroughly developed project of the complex ... a prototype of the complex ... that is, "pour and drink"!
          PS Damn! I cannot answer further! The computer is "buggy"! Already for a bit!
      3. -2
        27 February 2021 09: 54
        https://yandex.ru/video/preview/?text=%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%20%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%20%D0%B2%20%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8&path=wizard&parent-reqid=1614408753715142-1635435251708699438600110-production-app-host-man-web-yp-35&wiz_type=vital&filmId=16721996250695913409
    2. mvg
      -8
      27 February 2021 08: 29
      And "Armor" - missile and cannon

      It was just that the guns did not show themselves. Maybe 30 mm shells with remote detonation will fix something. But, the efficiency of 2000-3000 m is not enough for a UAV. I think the UAV operators are partly to blame themselves. Look at the range. Almost point blank. Herons can do a lot more.
      1. 0
        27 February 2021 21: 43
        Quote: mvg
        Look at the range. Almost point blank. Herons can do a lot more.

        ========
        Here are missiles against the "Herons", and the cannons close the "dead zone" (in range) - 1-2 km!
        It is strange that you do not know this! Very strange! hi
        1. mvg
          -1
          27 February 2021 22: 19
          Here are missiles against "Herons"

          So look at the performance characteristics of Heron: 7500 altitude, fly for 16 hours ... this is not for Armor. Such a thing will hit the target from 20-30 km. Look at what they shot down. 3,2 - 4,5 km, as I wrote, either the operators are wrong, or this is the maximum for Pantsir. No one shoots at his declared 20 km range. BUKs drove up from their 70 km and Bayraktars fell down.
          And immediately there was talk of a 40 km rocket.
          PS: The shell will not even see them at 30-40 km., With an EPR of 0,1 - 0,3 m2
          1. +3
            27 February 2021 23: 20
            Quote: mvg
            So look at the performance characteristics of Heron: 7500 altitude, fly for 16 hours ... this is not for Armor. Such a thing will hit the target from 20-30 km.

            ========
            20-30 km? belay To begin with, Heron is a scout. The shock in this family is Eitan (Heron TP), and even then it is not clear what he is armed with. In any case, hardly missiles with a firing range of 20 - 30 km.
            ----------
            Quote: mvg
            Look at what they shot down. 3,2 - 4,5 km, я and wrote, either the operators are wrong, or this is the maximum for Shell.

            =======
            My friend, you actually читать do you know how? It seems - no! Because a sign was given above from which it follows that it was the "Armor" who got "Heron" from a distance of more than 16 km !!! Moreover the very first rocket!
            -----
            Quote: mvg
            No one shoots at his declared 20 km range.

            ========
            In fact, almost no one almost ever shoots at the maximum range at all! Any anti-aircraft gunner will tell you this! The maximum range is determined for targets with a large RCS, in ideal weather conditions, in the absence of interference and a perfectly flat underlying surface .... And this - alas (!) Almost never happens! request
            Secondly, the greater the range, the greater the probability of a miss, and therefore they try to let the object into the zone of "guaranteed hit" (more precisely, "hit with the highest probability").
            ---------
            Quote: mvg
            BUKs drove up from their 70 km and Bayraktars fell down.

            ========
            WHERE have you seen Buks with a range of 70 km in Syria? Such a range is given only by the Buk-M3, but there are no such ranges in Syria and have never existed! There are Buk-M1 and possibly Buk-M1-2. For those and others maximum (calculated) range 40 km!

            Judging because you you don't know anything, we can assume that in air defense issues you are (sorry!) - a complete layman, but with great ambitions! Once again - Sorry! hi

            PS Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to demonstrate your complete amateurism! soldier
    3. +1
      27 February 2021 11: 03
      Quote: venik
      But when fighting any "small flying punks", the "Thors" have only one drawback compared to the "Shells" - they ("Torah") are missile! And "Armor" - missile and cannon!

      Firstly, they have different prices, and, accordingly, the technological level of weapons cannot be compared by definition. And secondly, Thors need better crew training and more serious maintenance. So for the "punks" this complex simply cannot be used - it is not even worth five cheap drones of one Thor rocket. That is why it is intended strictly for the destruction of aircraft, the cost of which exceeds the cost of missiles, i.e. planes, helicopters and very expensive drones.
      1. +1
        27 February 2021 12: 07
        Quote: ccsr
        So for the "punks" this complex simply cannot be used - it is not even worth five cheap drones of one Thor rocket.

        =======
        Here I am with you, my colleague (alas, I don’t know the name and patronymic) do not quite agree. Yes, the interception of the target with the "Thor" is more expensive than the "Shell" ... But, "Thor" - extremely reliable system! But when it comes to comparing the cost of interception / cost of possible damage (from a missed target), then the cost of interception fades into the background!
        ------
        Quote: ccsr
        for the Thors, better crew training and more serious maintenance are needed.

        =======
        In the latest modifications "Tor" has a very high level of automation (comparable to "Pantsir"), which certainly reduces the requirements for preparing calculations. But about maintenance - alas! request I can not say anything. This question can only be answered by specialists who are well acquainted with both "Thor" and "Pantsir" .....

        PS Somehow it so happened that both members of the forum and "specialists" were divided into two categories: supporters of "Torah" (actively pouring slops on "Shell"), and supporters of "Shell" (no less actively kicking "Torah"). I personally have a "shell" like it more! But if someone "Thor" will obhaisat - "I will tear my mouth, I will blink, I will break off the horns!"

        laughing
        PPS The fact that in Khmeimim they added "Torah" to the "Shells" (note - ADDED, not replaced) - I think it is an extremely wise decision! This bundle: "Shell" - "Thor", in my opinion the MOST EFFECTIVE in the near zone against ALL types of air (and not only air) attacks (from small punks to rockets)! Nothing better no country in the world has come up with!
        drinks
        1. +1
          27 February 2021 13: 19
          Quote: venik
          Here I am with you, my colleague (alas, I don’t know the name and patronymic) do not quite agree. Yes, interception of a target with Thor is more expensive than with Shell ...

          This is the main thing - the enemy will specifically want their cheap drones to be shot down with expensive missiles, so that later those who have these systems in service will be left without pants.
          Quote: venik
          But, "Thor" is an extremely reliable system!

          Our strategic bombers are also very reliable, but they do not replace ground attack aircraft - each weapon has its own niche.
          Quote: venik
          In the latest modifications "Tor" has a very high level of automation (comparable to "Pantsir"), which certainly reduces the requirements for preparing calculations.

          Here you are mistaken - the more complex the system, the longer it takes to train the commanders for such weapons. It is not for nothing that the majority of higher educational institutions have switched from four years of study to five years in order to have commanders with an engineering education. Otherwise, they simply will not know and understand all the capabilities of the latest weapons systems.
          1. -1
            27 February 2021 14: 25
            Quote: ccsr
            This is the main thing - the enemy will specifically want their cheap drones to be shot down with expensive missiles, so that later those who have these systems in service will be left without pants.

            ========
            Well, that's already - how it goes! Ultimately, in addition to the "Thors", there are also "Armor" and "Derivation" and electronic warfare and ..... (ultimately, it is not individual complexes that are fighting, but the SYSTEM!) ... Although, of course, the question of all sorts of "swarms" - this is the same question!
            -------
            Quote: ccsr
            You are mistaken here - the more complex the system, the longer it takes to train the commanders for such weapons.

            =======
            To be honest, I did not mean the command staff, but the private! When I was a SA "jacket", I saw enough of the miracles of stupidity (I had 4 soldiers and a warrant officer at the station). There were no problems with the ensign - Petrovich knew his business and helped as best he could. But with the fighters - I have suffered! “Automation” was at the level of the early 60s of the last century. Which means that there was no automation at all as such - everything was "manual"! It was here that all the "miracles of nature" appeared, which the Lord God (and parents!) Very generously endowed these idiots!
            1. +1
              27 February 2021 18: 13
              Quote: venik
              Ultimately, in addition to the "Thors", there is also "Armor" and "Derivation" and electronic warfare and ..... (ultimately, it is not individual complexes that are fighting, but the SYSTEM!) ..

              If we start from the very beginning, then everything is determined by the economic possibility of the country, because someone can buy only Armor, and someone can buy the entire line up to S-400. That is why many countries have multi-tier air defense capabilities, and the Carapace is on the lowest of the mobile devices, but this does not mean that it is useless.
              Quote: venik
              Honestly, I did not mean the command staff, but the private! When I was a SA "jacket", I saw enough of the miracles of stupidity (I had 4 fighters and a warrant officer at the station). There were no problems with the ensign - Petrovich knew his business and helped as best he could. But with the fighters - I have suffered!

              That is why now they are making complexes where contract soldiers will sit, with the knowledge of warrant officers, but instead of four operators there will be two or three of them. And they will have to be trained longer than conscripts - this is a natural process for our armed forces.
              1. -1
                27 February 2021 18: 52
                Quote: ccsr
                and the Carapace stands on the lowest of the vehicles

                ======
                This is correct, but not quite! Not at the "lowest" link, but in the "short range" category! And this is a very serious moment: the "dead zone" of the S-400 is 2-5 km, and if the target is small, with a low ESR, and even slow-moving - even more! In addition, it is not a Camilfo to shoot at all "little things" with expensive missiles! Expensive! Here is the "Pantsiri", "Torah", "Shilki" and electronic warfare systems - this is what protects expensive long-range systems! And not only them!
                That is why I am not ready to agree with the term "lower"! Not "lower", but "near"!
                -------
                Quote: ccsr
                That is why now they are making complexes where contract soldiers will sit, with the knowledge of warrant officers, but instead of four operators there will be two or three of them. And they will have to be trained longer than conscripts - this is a natural process for our armed forces.

                ========
                good Here I am - only "FOR"! With "conscripts" in due time already worn out! By the way, this process is going on not only here, but everywhere! The more technologically advanced the weapon, the more confessional people have to sit at the consoles !!!
                drinks
  6. +5
    27 February 2021 08: 22
    Wow, the Americans have discovered another T 34.
  7. 0
    27 February 2021 08: 31
    And rightly so, let NATO members be afraid, maybe the little head will work better, but is it worth it ....... what
  8. 0
    27 February 2021 08: 31
    Harigyan is not an Armenian surname for an hour?
  9. +2
    27 February 2021 08: 34
    ZRPK "Pantsir-C1", developed at the Tula KBP named after A.G. Shipunov, received a rocket that has the ability to gain hypersonic speed. The chief designer of the Shipunov Instrument Design Bureau, Valery Slugin, told the Zvezda TV channel about this.
    According to the specialist, the new generation of air defense missile systems is equipped to engage small targets, including drones.

    - A new rocket is used here, it is the same size, but it has a much higher speed. Its maximum speed is hypersonic, the range is one and a half times greater, up to 30 kilometers. A completely different type of defeat - there is no contact sensor of the target in the missile ... a swarm of fragments opens up in front of the target, the target flies into the fragmentation field and dies. Moreover, the faster it flies, the higher the accent rate, and hence the efficiency.
    1. 0
      27 February 2021 08: 47
      Valery Slugin, chief designer of the Shipunov Instrument Design Bureau, did not announce the cost of a hypersonic missile without a contact sensor to destroy drones?
    2. 0
      27 February 2021 12: 49
      Quote: Guards turn
      A completely different type of defeat - there is no contact target sensor in the missile

      Did the "Pantsir" zur earlier hit the target with a "direct collision"? belay
  10. +1
    27 February 2021 08: 51
    Quote: Stranger
    Harigyan is not an Armenian surname for an hour?


    It looks like a purely Armenian trick. It scares its own people, we need even more money to resist the Russians. So such reports are not published in the public domain. Purely lobbying publication.
    1. +1
      27 February 2021 11: 06
      Quote: Konnick
      So such reports are not published in the public domain. Purely lobbying publication.

      Most likely it is, because such studies are always trying to hide, and only specialists are allowed to them. True, among those who research there are those who can sell their own mother, so sometimes there is a leak, and then it becomes known to the media.
  11. +1
    28 February 2021 09: 54
    in russia, as always, propaganda is a priority ... they take phrases out of context so that they fit into the channel of praising Russian weapons. The essence of that report is that the air defense missile system is a priority target (it would be strange to expect otherwise), and that this is a doable task (an example is given in Idlib where the shell did not see the attacking drone and was destroyed). there is no praise for the Russian air defense missile system. news inflated media grew like an elephant from a fly.
    1. -1
      28 February 2021 11: 13
      Quote: Vadim F
      in russia, as always, propaganda is a priority ... they take phrases out of context so that they fit into the channel of praising Russian weapons. The essence of that report is that the air defense missile system is a priority target (it would be strange to expect otherwise), and that this is a doable task (an example is given in Idlib where the shell did not see the attacking drone and was destroyed). there is no praise for the Russian air defense missile system. news inflated media grew like an elephant from a fly.

      in Idlib, the one who was sitting in the Pantsyr-arabs. And as fighters they are known to the whole world, they are donkey dung, they cut off their heads to captive giaours ... Don't talk disgusting about Russia, and I won't call you the son of a camel ...
  12. 0
    1 March 2021 00: 22
    "Ideal means for the destruction of UAVs" - from a cannon to sparrows.
    https://nvo.ng.ru/nvo/2020-01-30/100_panzirs300120.html
  13. 0
    2 March 2021 13: 52
    I saw, I saw on our TV, how at our exercises they used cannons to shoot a drone. We didn’t get there from three rounds. They fired a rocket from a rocket launcher ...
    1. -1
      3 March 2021 16: 11
      He also has problems with missiles ... when the Jews were killing the shell in Syria, the camera from the Delilah captured the launch of two missiles of the shell into her forehead, both by ... in words "impenetrable shell", but in fact "ordinary crap."