The Pantsir-SMD air defense missile system enters service with the troops

The Pantsir-SM air defense missile system on Red Square, June 24, 2020.

Last year, Russian industry presented a promising anti-aircraft missile for the first time. missile complex "Pantsir-SMD". Soon after, all necessary measures were taken, and it received a recommendation for adoption into service. By now, such an air defense system has entered serial production and entered the troops.

Latest news

August 1 marked the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Russian Aerospace Forces. To mark this anniversary, the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper published an interview with the Chief of the General Staff and First Deputy Commander of the Aerospace Forces, Lieutenant General Alexander Maksimtsev. The general spoke about the latest achievements and the development paths of the Aerospace Forces.

In particular, they touched on the topic of rearmament and improvement of air defense forces. According to the general, their units are currently receiving modern equipment of various types. For example, there are active deliveries of the new Pantsir-SMD air defense missile system. By purchasing such equipment, the capabilities for the defense of important facilities and areas are being increased.

It should be noted that the Ministry of Defense had previously not disclosed its plans for the purchase and delivery of the new Pantsir series air defense missile system. Now it has become known that such decisions have been made and are already being implemented. However, the department cannot yet disclose all the details. The volumes and rates of Pantsir-SMD deliveries, for obvious reasons, remain unknown.

The Pantsir-SMD-E complex at the Army-2024 forum

One way or another, the troops Defense receive new equipment with its own features and advantages. "Pantsir-SMD" enter combat duty and complement other anti-aircraft weapons. Apparently, the deliveries of these air defense systems began recently, but in the future it will be possible to create a fleet of sufficient size with the required capabilities.

Modern modifications

In the mid-1s, the Instrument-Making Design Bureau, part of the High-Precision Systems holding company of the Rostec state corporation, modernized the existing Pantsir-SXNUMX missile and gun system. The result was the Pantsir-SM air defense missile system, which received a number of improved components and a new small-sized missile.

It was first openly shown to the public at the Army-2019 forum. The following year, combat vehicles of this type took part in the parade on Red Square. It was reported that in the near future, the Pantsir-SM would go into production and be delivered to the troops. Orders from foreign countries were also expected.

Last year, at the Army-2024 forum, a new model of the existing line was premiered under the export designation Pantsir-SMD-E. In essence, it was a modified version of the SM complex, which provided for the installation of units not on a car chassis, but on a frame. Such an air defense system can be installed on various carriers or operate in a stationary version.

TPK with two types of missiles

Last year, the plans for the Pantsir-SMD project were not specified. It was assumed that the system would soon undergo the necessary tests and confirm its design characteristics. Then, orders from the Russian and foreign armies were expected, but the details remained unknown.

Only now, a year after the first public demonstration, it became known that the Russian Ministry of Defense not only became interested in the new version of the Pantsir, but also ordered the delivery of such equipment. Finished products are "actively arriving" to air defense units and have a positive effect on their potential.

In February of this year, the export version of Pantsir-SMD-E was shown abroad for the first time – at the IDEX-2025 exhibition in the UAE. Like other new products, it attracted the attention of visitors and received good reviews. Probably, foreign armies did not limit themselves to general statements and initiated negotiations on the topic of future contracts. How soon such agreements may appear is still unknown.

Complex on the platform

According to known data, the Pantsir-SMD air defense missile system was created on the basis of the previously developed SM product. It has the same or similar composition of the main units and similar tactical and technical characteristics. The main differences are in the method of installation and placement of units.

Unlike other "Pantsirs", the exhibition sample of the "SMD" product was made on the basis of a rectangular frame made of a metal profile. A base with a combat module and a container with other units were installed on it. A complex of such a layout can be mounted on different chassis or placed on a stationary base.

The combat module retained its previous design. It is made in the form of a fully rotating tower, on which there are two launchers with missiles, radars for surveillance and target tracking, as well as an optical-electronic station.

With the help of standard radars, the system can detect targets with an RCS of less than 1 sq. m at distances of 40-45 km. The automation simultaneously tracks 40 targets and ensures the firing of several. In terms of such characteristics and speed, the Pantsir-SMD is no different from the previously presented Pantsir-SM.

Like its predecessor, the Pantsir-SMD SAM system does not have barrel armament. Due to this, it was possible to increase the ready-to-use ammunition load of missiles. In addition, an expanded range of ammunition is used - unlike the first versions of the Pantsir, two missiles with different parameters and capabilities are used.

The main ammunition of the Pantsir-SMD remains the 57E6E anti-aircraft guided missile with a launch range of 20 km. It was also reported that a new similar product with twice the range was being developed. Such missiles should work against various aerodynamic targets, from UAVs to full-size aircraft.

For the destruction of light and small-sized objects, such as Drones popular models, a new missile 19Ya6 was developed. It is smaller and lighter than existing ammunition, and also has reduced flight characteristics. Nevertheless, its appearance is fully consistent with the nature of typical targets.

The combat module's two launchers have mounts for 12 transport and launch containers with missiles. A standard-sized TLC can hold one large 57E6E missile or four smaller 19Ya6 missiles. The standard ammunition load must include different types of ammunition to expand combat capabilities.

Optimization issues

In terms of combat and technical characteristics, the Pantsir-SMD air defense system should not differ from the product with the letters "SM" on which it was created. However, it has differences in architecture and layout that can be used in practice. Probably, it is precisely these differences that are responsible for the simultaneous purchase of the two types of systems.

Unlike other systems of its family, Pantsir-SMD can be relatively easily mounted on various chassis or installed on stationary objects. Perhaps it was the latter feature that interested the Ministry of Defense and is now being used in practice.

Presentation of Pantsir-SMD-E at IDEX-2025

It should be recalled that in 2022-23, active deployment of additional air defense missile systems and anti-aircraft gun systems began to strengthen the protection of military and civilian facilities. Thus, special towers were built for the Pantsirs, and some of them were placed directly on the roofs of important buildings.

The new Pantsir-SMD, built on a platform frame, can also be mounted on towers or buildings. This provides some advantages over similar placement of equipment on wheeled chassis. In turn, the combat qualities of such air defense remain at the same high level. In addition, if we are talking about replacing the Pantsirs of early modifications, they even grow.

Thus, the Pantsir-SMD project not only expands the existing line of modern anti-aircraft weapons. It also provides for the optimization and simplification of some issues related to deployment, operation and combat use. Such an air defense system should occupy a very specific niche and bring to it all the advantages of the Pantsir family and its latest models.

As it has recently become known, the Russian army is now using all these capabilities. After the necessary tests, the Ministry of Defense began purchasing Pantsir-SMDs and began deploying them in positions. All the details of such processes are, for obvious reasons, unknown, but they should yield positive results.

Comments

[ved_med12]

thank you, quite informative, and without unnecessary "water"
no need to google and search!

[Ross xnumx]

I want to add:
Some technical characteristics of the Pantsir-SMD-E anti-aircraft missile system:
Armament: fully missile system, without anti-aircraft guns. Two types of missiles are used:
57E6-E — two-stage, launch range — up to 20 km, destruction altitude — up to 15 km.
TKB-1055 — compact, designed to intercept small air targets, such as drones. Its range is up to 7 km, the altitude of destruction is up to 5 km.

Ammunition: various configuration options for the complex are possible - up to 12 containers with 57E6-E or up to 48 with TKB-1055, or both together.

[storm]

I think it is worth organizing mass production of inexpensive short-range Pantsir anti-aircraft missile systems with a pair of 30 mm anti-aircraft guns with remote detonation ammunition and 16 launchers for the TKB-1055 mini-ZUR.

[Olegi1]

I think it is worth organizing mass production of inexpensive short-range Pantsir anti-aircraft missile systems with a pair of 30 mm anti-aircraft guns with remote detonation ammunition and 16 launchers for the TKB-1055 mini-ZUR.

What other fantasies?

[smart ass]

I think we need to produce more Su 35 and not make a fuss

[storm]

One Su-35 is worth as much as a regiment of Pantsirs. If we were to compare who would win, the Pantsirs would win without a doubt.

[smart ass]

The Su-35 can drop a bomb from a UMPK on a Pantsir or launch a missile beyond its range. The Su-35 is versatile. It can be instantly deployed to any airfield, whether to Vladik, or even Syria. It can cover thousands of kilometers of ground attack as an air defense system.

[storm]

A regiment of Pantsirs (4 batteries with 6 launchers) can destroy a squadron of Su-35s along with their ammunition, and then travel by train to Vladik or Murmansk, and an airfield for deploying an air defense regiment is not needed; where they are stationed, there is a deployment site.

[smart ass]

The Iranians thought the same thing))))))))

[Free]

The S-35 itself is very expensive and difficult to produce, and the cost of a fighter flight hour is incomparable to an hour of duty for the Pantsir.

[Okko777]

So, now to the point. "Pantsir-SMD" is built according to the scheme of a semi-separated complex and is an intermediate option. Yes, the control link is located outside the complex and can be located at a distance. But the locator and launch containers and the power plant do not provide for separation. In addition, it is not clear how the installations interact with each other in the battery. With a distributed scheme, the locator, launchers, power element and control point function separately and as part of the battery. This design allows maintaining operability when individual units are damaged, reducing the number of locators and power plants. It becomes possible to use more powerful detection and information processing systems because they are not limited in size. Great potential for modernization and installation on ships and other objects. So there is a lot of work and we should not stop at semi-options. It depends on the military. And they are often stupid ... In 2024, I talked to the developers of "TOR" - they did not have any military orders for distributed schemes of the complex ...

[ved_med12]

As far as I remember correctly, the Pantsirs were developed to protect the S-300, as the last link! An absolute plus was the ability to work both in the entire air defense system and autonomously, for example, during a march... Having both a radar and a launcher on one platform is also considered a "plus", since the radius of action is relatively small. The guns did not perform very well in Syria...
But I think you know all this well without me!
With respect!

[ved_med12]

Not minusSil...

The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: ved_med12

As far as my memory serves me, the Pantsirs were developed to protect the S-300, as a last resort!

"Pantsir was developed as a further development of the Tunguska, to cover tank columns on the march. But to please the Arabs, its characteristics were inflated, and later, in general, it was installed on a KAMAZ chassis, which led to the loss of firing guns on the move (the vehicle sways a lot). Due to the high center of gravity of the installation on the KAMAZ chassis, it can easily lie on its side when turning. Therefore, the Pantsir must be installed taking these features into account.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Bad_gr

"Pantsir was developed as a further development of the Tunguska, to cover tank columns on the march. But to please the Arabs, its characteristics were inflated, and later, in general, it was installed on a KAMAZ chassis, which led to the loss of firing guns on the move (the vehicle sways a lot). Due to the high center of gravity of the installation on the KAMAZ chassis, it can easily lie on its side when turning. Therefore, the Pantsir must be installed taking these features into account.

No, you are mistaken. ved_med12 is right, only he made a mistake with the complex, for the S-400. They are still being produced as a set: a standard number of Pantsirs are produced for each S-400 complex.
And Pantsir was never made for the army, much less for protecting tank columns. Even the customer for Pantsir was different - the USSR Air Defense Forces. As you understand, the air defense forces did not have tank columns. The army was and is quite happy with Tunguska, that's why it was made on a tracked chassis. And how are you going to accompany tracked vehicles on a wheeled chassis - that's the question.
Moreover, initially Pantsir was not able to fire on the move at all.

This is a stationary complex for the protection of air defense systems and important facilities. Perhaps that is why the military ignored it for so long.

Quote: Okko777

In addition, it is not clear how the installations interact with each other in the battery. In a distributed scheme, the locator, launchers, power element and control point function separately and as part of the battery.

In theory, Pantsirs should operate under the control of the computer of the "large" SAM system. Approximately the same as Buks. They receive the primary targeting instructions from the "large" one and use their radars for precise guidance in the final section.
But that's how it was planned. How exactly this modification will work is unclear. KBP are some real jokers. Let's say they despaired of finishing the artillery "channel" and decided to remove it. Although how they are now going to protect the complex from danger from land if something happens is a question. But let's say.
But I don't understand at all why such a strange design of the missile arsenal. Why endless garlands of TPK on the outside? Why not make a normal launcher with a conveyor?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: abc_alex

No, you are mistaken.

I have presented the version that I heard from the developers of the "Thor" (video). Brief summary of the video: an exhibition somewhere at the Arabs. The "Thor" showed itself very well at the shooting range. The Arabs began to ask about it. Shipunov intervened in the process and promised the Arabs that the "Pantsir" characteristics would be better than those of the "Thor". And the "Pantsir" was still in development at that time, only exhibition samples existed. In general, the Arabs switched from the "Thor" to the "Pantsir" promised by Shipunov, which did not work for them right away. There were problems with a locator ordered from outside, which they later abandoned and decided to make their own (it is now on the "Pantsir"), etc. In general, Shipunov managed to pre-sell something that was not yet available. I have not come across any information about the consequences of these agreements.

Quote: abc_alex

Moreover, initially Pantsir was not able to fire on the move at all.

On tracks, led. And on the MAN chassis it has this function.

[Bad_gr]

I didn't finish my thought, I'll add.
The new requirements for the "Pantsir" that Shipunov introduced expanded its capabilities, and if earlier it occupied a place (in its parameters) between the "Sosna" and "Thor" (hereinafter S-300-400-500), then after the modifications it climbed into the clearing where the "Thor" was the master. And so it turned out: we lost the successor of the "Tunguska", and created a duplicate of the "Thor" (in terms of tasks).
PS
Not the ultimate truth

[abc_alex]

Quote: Bad_gr

I have presented the version that I heard from the developers of the "Thor" (video). Brief summary of the video: an exhibition somewhere at the Arabs. The "Thor" showed itself very well at the shooting range. The Arabs began to ask about it. Shipunov intervened in the process and promised the Arabs that the "Pantsir" characteristics were better than those of the "Thor"

Understandable. Only the technical specifications for it were issued in the mid-80s, when nothing was offered to the Arabs. At the same time, the concept of its use was formed. And "offers to the Arabs" began after the collapse of the USSR, when the concept "hung" in the air along with the cessation of development of new large air defense systems and the Tula people decided to make it an independent combat vehicle.

Quote: Bad_gr

On tracks, led. And on the MAN chassis it has this function.

Until 2019 I could only do it in theory. They were refining it, apparently they improved it.

[bayard]

Quote: abc_alex

The technical specifications for it were issued in the mid-80s, when nothing was offered to the Arabs. At the same time, the concept of its use was formed.

At that time, it was ordered and developed on a tank chassis as a continuation of the Tunguska. When they returned to the topic in the late 90s - early 00s, these two systems competed with each other. And then the Tor was chosen for the Air Defense Forces. And Shipunov offered his Pantsir, which was still in development, to the UAE. But they wanted to get an air defense missile and gun system on a wheeled base, for which MAN was chosen, and then Tatra. When the system was already completed and sent to the customer, the VKS Air Defense became interested in it for the protection of the near zone of the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems. Then it was further modified and installed on a KAMAZ chassis, which is not at all optimal for such an air defense missile and gun system. The experience of the Air Defense Forces showed the need to have an effective air defense missile and gun system on a tank/tracked chassis, so a version of the Pantsir-SM on a seven-wheel chassis from the T-80 has already appeared. And if it goes into production, it will be just great. Right now we have a hole in this segment. There are few "Tunguskas" and they are no longer up to par with their SAMs... and we still haven't gotten 30mm projectiles with programmable detonation. And conventional projectiles usually miss reconnaissance and attack UAVs (the target is too small for a direct hit)... including I myself have seen a picture of a reconnaissance UAV circling over an area for almost half an hour (at least 20 minutes for sure) looking out for future targets, and they are firing at it with small arms and ZU-23, ZRPK... and missing. We need the right projectiles. You can't get enough SAMs alone for such swarms of UAVs.
A truncated (without artillery) "Pantsir" on a frame for stationary air defense positions is a long-awaited and correct solution. Guns are definitely unnecessary, and ineffective without programmable shells. And even with them, only a heavy tank chassis will have an effect. So, on a wheeled chassis, guns are definitely not needed; additional "Gvozd" SAM launchers for work against UAVs are better. Without guns, the SAM will become significantly cheaper and lighter, and a larger SAM ammo BC will allow repelling massive attacks without reloading.
My friend was present at the meeting when they were choosing between the "Pantsir" and the "Tor" for the Air Defense Forces, and both were on a tank chassis. So don't confuse people and don't confuse yourself. They only got on wheels at the request of the Arabs, and only after that did the Air Defense Forces (formerly the Country, and now the Object) become interested in the "Pantsir" to cover heavy long-range SAMs in the near zone.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

Guns are definitely unnecessary for him, and besides, they are ineffective without programmable shells.

And what will happen with programmable shells? How many times will the costs of hitting a typical target be reduced?

[bayard]

There is no point in a cannon on a wheeled chassis - the platform is unstable, it sways a lot, so it is only for a tracked tank chassis and for military air defense.

Quote: Comet_1

And what will happen with programmable shells? How many times will the costs of hitting a typical target be reduced?

At least an order of magnitude. But for this to happen, such shells must appear.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

At least an order of magnitude. But for this to happen, such shells must appear.

Where can I see the calculations that give the result "by an order of magnitude"? According to my calculations, it turns out differently...

[bayard]

Quote: Comet_1

According to my calculations, it turns out differently...

It all depends on the cost of such shells, and the cost depends on the serial production and the debugging of the technological process. The effectiveness is calculated not only by the ratio of the cost of a conventional HE shell and a shell with programmable detonation, as well as the consumption of both to hit a typical target, but also the time to hit one target and the damage that this unhit target will cause. The assessment of the effectiveness must be comprehensive. Strike drones are very small targets, they are not an airplane and not even a cruise missile, but they are capable of hitting very valuable military equipment or infrastructure, personnel. All this is included in the comparative assessment of the effectiveness. So such shells need to be produced in very large batches and make a good stock of them, because there will be more and more drones over the battlefield and in combat use in general and you can't stock up on SAMs for them. Especially on FPV. And it is very difficult to hit them with conventional shells and bullets. But shot and grapeshot don't fly far. German "Gepards" with 35 mm. projectiles of controlled detonation are very effective and have proven this in the SVO. In the Russian Federation such 30 mm. projectiles have been shown at exhibitions for a long time, but they did not go into production, and now we really lack them.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

It all depends on the cost of such shells.

bayard, well, I didn't expect that from you. You were always specific. It was about "an order of magnitude". I asked where I could see the calculations, and in response... I calculated based on Polish data (there was material on VO) and based on data from the Kiel Institute on the cost of a shot for the Puma and Bradley IFV cannons.

Quote: bayard

German "Gepards" with 35 mm. projectiles of controlled detonation are very effective and have proven this in the SVO.

Where can I see the results of this efficiency? What is the average consumption of shells per destroyed target?
P.S. The Arabs indicated a firing range of 30 mm cannons against small UAVs of 1.5 km for their complex.

[bayard]

Quote: Comet_1

bayard, well, I didn't expect that from you. You were always specific. We were talking about "an order of magnitude".

Here everything depends on the type and quality of the ammunition, on the quality of the sighting system of a specific artillery mount. For different systems and different ammunition, the consumption of shells for one typical target can vary greatly. Let's say this - with a good sighting system, one short burst is enough to hit a low-speed UAV. And how many conventional shells can fly at a small target depends on many things. It can be an order of magnitude, it can be two orders of magnitude, or it may not hit at all and the UAV will hit the designated target. So we need to take a specific ZPU and do a comparative analysis for both types of shells. Western systems have probably done such a comparative analysis and since they have massively switched to programmable ammunition, this means that it is more than justified not only in terms of combat effectiveness, but also in terms of economic feasibility. It's night outside now and I'm definitely not going to look for their analytics on this topic in Western sources. And I gave my evaluative opinion "by an order of magnitude" taking into account not a banal comparison of the consumption of shells and the time to hit the target, but also taking into account the cost of such ammunition and the cost of the sighting complex + automatic programming system. That is, this is an evaluative opinion on the total increase in combat effectiveness. And at a glance.
And now we really need a production line of such projectiles that can be programmed to detonate. And a tracked version of the "Pantsir-SM" on a tank chassis. And programmable projectiles on the "Tunguska".

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

Here everything depends on the type and quality of the ammunition, on the quality of the sighting system of a specific artillery mount. For different systems and different ammunition, the consumption of shells for one typical target can vary greatly.

For at least some specific artillery system, specify the manufacturer's declared probability of hitting a typical target for a burst of no more than the specified number of shots in a burst (or simply the specified number of shots in a burst). A common characteristic of an anti-aircraft artillery system. Otherwise, the discussion is pointless. If you don't find it, then doesn't it seem strange that no one specifies this?

Quote: bayard

...since they have switched en masse to programmable ammunition, this means that it is more than justified not only in terms of combat effectiveness, but also in terms of economic feasibility.

Maybe it just provides more profit for the manufacturer. Remember the ozone hole?

Quote: bayard

And I gave my evaluative opinion “by an order of magnitude” taking into account not just a banal comparison of the consumption of shells and the time to hit a target, but also taking into account the cost of such ammunition and the cost of the sighting system + automatic programming system.

Here, according to Polish data, the shell consumption is reduced by 3.7 times, and according to the Kiel Institute, the cost of a shot for the Puma IFV is 1000 euros, and the cost of a shot for the Bradley IFV is 100 dollars. At the rate of 1.17, we get that hitting a target with a probability of 0.98 with shells with remote detonation is 3.16 times more expensive than with conventional ones. And if the production rate of shells with remote detonation turns out to be more than 3.7 times lower than conventional ones, then things are really bad...

[bayard]

Quote: Comet_1

For any specific artillery system, please indicate the manufacturer's declared probability of hitting a typical target for a burst of no more than the specified number of shots in a burst

We don’t have such shells in our arsenal, but you can find them yourself among foreign ones.

Quote: Comet_1

Maybe it just provides more profit for the manufacturer. Remember the ozone hole?

Not only. When a cruise missile flies towards a ship, or a UAV approaches its target/protected object, the time to aim and hit the target is usually very limited. If you make it in time, you save the ship/protected object, if you don't make it in time, you sink together with the ship, the protected object is hit. Let's say, an operational ammunition depot. So the price of the issue is not in the cost of the projectile (although this is also important), but in the damage caused/prevented. When acting against UAVs, such a projectile is much more effective, because it hits the target without a direct hit. Simply by creating a field of fragments for a fairly light and low-speed UAV.
In the case of a ship and a cruise missile, this is already questionable - even if the cruise missile is a colander, there is a high probability that the cruise missile or its fragments will still reach the side of the ship, along with the warhead. And they will do their job. Therefore, for ship artillery systems, a direct hit with the probability of warhead detonation is preferable. But these are already details. We were talking about UAVs after all. And about hitting a target flying past. And here, shells with controlled detonation are much preferable. But the Germans, for greater effect, specially increased the caliber to 35 mm on the Gepard. And this gives an advantage over the Tunguska.

Quote: Comet_1

The cost of a shot for the Puma IFV is 1000 euros, and the cost of a shot for the Bradley IFV is 100 dollars.

Bradley has a 25 mm caliber, but it is still much cheaper, probably due to mass production. Mass production always has the effect of reducing the cost price. And a strong reduction.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

We don’t have such shells in our arsenal, but you can find them yourself among foreign ones.

Found only in Poles. All others are silent. It is possible, because it will turn out like Poles.

Quote: bayard

Not only that. When a cruise missile flies towards a ship, or a UAV approaches its target/protected object, the time to aim and hit the target is usually very limited. If you make it in time, you save the ship.

1. Shipborne ZAKs used armor-piercing sub-caliber shells.
2. The ZAK is removed from ships and replaced with a SAM.

Quote: bayard

When used against UAVs, such a projectile is much more effective, since it hits the target without a direct hit.

bayard, what's wrong with you? I wrote above that according to Polish data, the shell consumption is only reduced by 3.7 times. There is no "much more effective" there. On the contrary, if you add data from Kiel, then "less effective".

Quote: bayard

Simply by creating a field of debris for a relatively light and low-speed UAV.

These remote-detonated projectiles do not create a fragmentation field.

Quote: bayard

And about hitting a target flying past. And here, projectiles with controlled detonation are much preferable.

This is an unfounded statement.

Quote: bayard

But the Germans, for greater effect, specially increased the caliber to 35 mm. on the "Gepard".

But the rate of fire is lower. 35 mm was originally installed on the Gepard.

Quote: bayard

Bradley has a 25mm caliber, but it is still much cheaper, probably due to mass production.

Bradley doesn't have a remote detonation, so it's cheaper.

[bayard]

Quote: Comet_1

Found only in Poles. All others are silent. It is possible, because it will turn out like Poles.

Maybe, but if the Poles' shell consumption has decreased by 3,7 times, then instead of three or four bursts, it is enough to fire one. With an equal number of shells in each. Do you understand? There is little time to react when flying past such a target, there may not be enough time for 3-4 bursts, and here, in essence, the very first burst.
This is not my specialization at all, I am a former combat control officer of the RTV PVO and am quite far from anti-aircraft artillery, after all, I served in the Air Defense of the Country, and not in the military air defense. Therefore, I look at all this as a combat control officer who makes decisions and distributes targets. The reaction time (time to hit the target) is very small and if there is an opportunity to hit the target with the first (or at least the second) burst, this is a huge advantage, even if the shells are more expensive. The damage from a missed target will be orders of magnitude greater than the cost of all the ammunition. Therefore, efficiency is not in the price, but in the speed of destruction.
If you mean that a direct hit is preferable, then I certainly agree, it is a guaranteed defeat... but for that you have to hit. Because there may not be a second chance. It's like during WWII, German pilots tried to get as many downed planes as possible and therefore preferred free hunting. But our pilots had strict orders - not to let bombers and attack aircraft reach their target. That's why ours shot down fewer (at first), but very often thwarted enemy attacks. They suffered losses, split into groups to cover fighters and groups to attack bombers. And our tactics eventually won. The same is true for modern air defense - the main thing is not saving ammunition, but disrupting and/or repelling an enemy attack, hitting targets. It may cost more, but missiles, planes and UAVs should not fly to their target.

Quote: Comet_1

These remote-detonated projectiles do not create a fragmentation field.

How come they don't create it? Any ammunition creates a field of fragments when detonated. The question is in the size of this field and in the destructive capabilities of the fragments themselves. The fragments of a 30 mm projectile are small, light and have limited destructive capabilities. Therefore, a direct hit is preferable for aircraft and cruise missiles. But for fairly small, light and "delicate" UAVs, their energy is quite sufficient. And right now there are more and more such UAVs. Therefore, the role of programmable projectiles is growing, because it is much more difficult to achieve a direct hit on such small targets, the consumption of conventional projectiles increases, and the target itself is sometimes cheaper than the spent projectiles. But the main thing is that it can pass through air defense fire and reach its target. And programmable projectiles are capable of hitting it in the first burst, even without direct hits. And we immediately switch to the next target, because they often fly in groups and quite large.

Quote: Comet_1

But the rate of fire is lower. 35 mm was originally installed on the Gepard.

It was specially reduced to avoid overspending. Because the target is hit by fragments, not a direct hit. And yes, I expressed myself incorrectly, I meant that the caliber for the "Gepard" was specially chosen to be larger, so that the projectile would form a larger field of fragments when detonated, and would have a larger radius of destruction when detonated.
We also decided that the 30 mm. projectile was too small for this, but we didn't have any others, and then we remembered the 57 mm. caliber. Here the rate of fire is generally low, but the 57 mm. projectile, when detonated, hits the target at a much greater distance from the detonation point - a larger field of fragments and you can generally shoot single shots. The main thing is to accurately determine the distance to the target and introduce it into the projectile. In this case, the effect of the detonation of such a projectile is like that of a small or even medium-sized SAM warhead.

Quote: Comet_1

Bradley doesn't have a remote detonation, so it's cheaper.

Then I simply didn’t understand you in this part.
In a word, such shells are needed in the ammunition of modern ZAKs, but as part of the ammunition load, to be able to select ammunition depending on the type of target.

Quote: Comet_1

The ZAKs are being removed from ships and replaced with SAMs.

With such SAMs as "Gvozd" we can really do without artillery in most cases. Besides, these SAMs are quite cheap. But effective. Besides, even a low-sound anti-ship missile with an armor-piercing warhead is very difficult to destroy with a 20 mm or even a 30 m projectile, it can still fly and hit by inertia. Such effective and cheap, and therefore mass-produced SAMs as "Pantsir" allow us to hit anti-ship missiles quite effectively even during WWI.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

Maybe, but if the Poles' shell consumption has decreased by 3,7 times, then instead of three or four bursts, it is enough to fire one. With an equal number of shells in each.

Or one queue, but longer.

Quote: bayard

The reaction time (time to hit the target) is very short and if there is an opportunity to hit the target with the first (or at least the second) burst, this is a huge advantage, even if the shells are more expensive.

With a high rate of fire of the artillery complex, the firing time is insignificant in terms of the time it takes to hit the target.

Quote: bayard

How is it that they don't create it? Any ammunition creates a field of fragments when it explodes.

There are concentric sectors, the distance between which increases as the distance from the point of dispersion of the PE increases.

Quote: bayard

Therefore, the role of programmable projectiles is growing, because it is much more difficult to achieve a direct hit on such small targets, the consumption of conventional projectiles increases, and the target itself is sometimes cheaper than the spent projectiles.

I have provided data on the defeat of the target by the Poles. The rest are silent. And no one has any data on the comparison of either the cost or the speed of production of shots.

Quote: bayard

And programmable shells are capable of hitting it in the first burst, even without direct hits. And we immediately switch to the next target, ....

But for some reason there is no data on the comparison of firing cycles.

Quote: bayard

Then I just didn't understand you in this part.
In a word, such shells are needed in the ammunition of modern ZAKs, but as part of the ammunition load, to be able to select ammunition depending on the type of target.

But we don’t have a ZAK either in the country’s air defense or in the air defense of the ground forces.

Quote: bayard

With SAMs like "Gvozd" we can really do away with the artillery part in most cases. Moreover, these SAMs are quite cheap.

That's the point, instead of shells with remote detonation for Pantsir, it's better to make more nails. And use guns in the very close zone, where the presence of remote detonation is not so important.

[bayard]

For "Pantsir" on a wheeled base, it is better to completely abandon the artillery part, because it is ineffective (artillery) due to the rocking from the recoil. Without guns, the complex will become lighter, simpler, cheaper and it will be possible to increase the SAM BC, including the same "Nails".
ZAK and ZRPK should be made on a tracked base for military air defense. For a wheeled base and stationary/transportable modules of "Pantsir" for object air defense, only SAMs, including "Gvozd".

[Comet_1]

Quote: bayard

For the "Pantsir" on a wheeled base, it is better to completely abandon the artillery part, because it is ineffective (artillery) due to the rocking from the recoil.

The guns of the wheeled Pantsir do not fire at air targets on the move. And the issue of abandoning the guns cannot be resolved "on the fingers".

[storm]

The Pantsir was developed as a further development of the Tunguska, to cover tank columns on the march.

That's right, the Pantsir-SM-SV on tracks was developed for the ground forces, but it is not going into production.....

[Comet_1]

Quote: abc_alex

Moreover, initially Pantsir was not able to fire on the move at all.

Initially, Thor also didn't know how to fire on the move...

[SAG]

Why endless garlands of TPK outside? Why not make a normal PU with a conveyor?

Apparently because reloading requires time and a loading mechanism (additional weight). During mass shelling, the installation or whatever it covers is kaput. And so, simultaneous tracking, support and destruction.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Bad_gr

"Pantsir was developed as a further development of the Tunguska, to cover tank columns on the march.

No. "Pantsir" was originally developed according to the "Tunguska" concept - as a ZRPK - but for the Air Defense Forces.

The development of the promising Pantsir complex for the Air Defense Forces was assigned by the KBP in 1990.

And the air defense forces are stationary positions, between which divisions move along hard-surface roads, and work in the rear. Therefore, covering columns on the move was irrelevant for the "Pantsir". In extreme cases, a column of anti-aircraft missiles could be covered by rolling - like a towed anti-aircraft gun from the Great Patriotic War: they moved to a position, let the column pass through their sector, rolled up - and forward, to the next position in front of the column. The second anti-aircraft missile and gun mount does the same in antiphase.

[bbss]

The letter "Y" is missing...

[ved_med12]

Yes, unfortunately it's a thin laptop, not all letters are printed...

[Cympak]

Previously, a model of the TBM "Pantsir-SM" transport and combat vehicle was shown. It has 2 packages of 9 missiles, a tracking and guidance radar, but no detection radar. Data is apparently transmitted to the TBM from other vehicles, such as the "Pantsir-SM"

On joint work of the Pantsir air defense missile and gun system
Combat operations as part of a battery: one Pantsir operates as a combat vehicle and simultaneously as a command post. From 3 to 5 Pantsirs can be connected to it and receive target designations for subsequent mission execution.
In addition, the battery may include an additional command post and an early warning radar 1RL123.
It seems to me that the Pantsir-SDM is just asking to be "navalized" as our version of the Sea RAM air defense system, for installation on helicopter hangars or on the deck of ships when there is no possibility to allocate space for underdeck storage of the Pantsir-M air defense system.

[Cympak]

I recalculated the number of missiles on the TBM. It turns out that there are 2 packages of 12 missiles. And 2 packages of 9 missiles on the Arctic version of the "Pantsir-SA", which is installed on the two-link tracked snow and swamp-going vehicle "Vityaz". By the way, they also abandoned the cannons there.

[bayard]

Guns should only be left on the tracked chassis - for the Air Defense Forces, and even then with programmable shells. With the presence of the Gvozd SAM, the other versions do not need them at all, but they greatly complicate and increase the cost of the design.

[BAI]

Pantsir-SMD can be relatively easily mounted on various chassis or installed on stationary objects. Perhaps it was the latter feature that interested the Ministry of Defense and is now being used in practice.

Of course. Small size and weight. Can be easily installed anywhere. Just what is needed to fight drones. In Moscow, whole cars were installed on the roofs of houses. You can't install it everywhere, and a powerful crane, of which there are few even in Moscow, is needed.

[bug120560]

BAI, and if we put aside the enthusiasm from what we read, abandon the "yet another analogue has no analogues" and think a little broader. I will express a purely personal opinion. What are the "eyes" of all "Pantsirs"? The radar, which, due to its fundamental features, has a limitation on the size of the targets it can detect. I think there is no need to remind you what the strategic aviation airfields were attacked with? And now the most basic question - why remove the guns and equip the anti-aircraft system with missiles designed to destroy targets that it simply does not see? Maybe it was worth not abandoning the guns, but adding to the radar, a fire control system based on "machine vision and AI" to control the gun armament? And all the talk about a significant increase in the weight of the systems is an outright fantasy, for example, the American system developed to combat small UAVs ACS "Bullfrog" weighs only 180 kg, together with weapons and ammunition. But to include in the development in advance the use of missiles, the cost of which is many times greater than the cost of the target being hit, justifying this by the fact that the cost of possible damage will be significantly higher than the spent missile - is simply idiotic.

[alexmach]

First of all, who said that the mm-range radar doesn't see anything there? In Syria, the UAVs worked perfectly against plywood small ones.
Secondly, the Optical Station is also present there.
Thirdly, the problem with Pantsir's guns is not the ability to see, but rather the ability to hit targets. That's why they are being replaced with missiles.
And yes, the anti-aircraft automatic gun imposes rather large restrictions on the weight and recoil of the platform. Initially, Pantsir was designed for a tank chassis, and it is precisely this chassis that is preferable for an anti-aircraft gun.

[Vlad2012]

The issue is not that "the mm-range radar doesn't see something there", but that it sees from a kilometer or two. And you can't stick them in that often. It doesn't see low-flying and low-speed ones.
In Syria, everything was decided by the transfer of the Tor-M2U there. Objectively, it is the best air defense missile system in the SVO zone now.

[alexmach]

In Syria, everything was decided by the transfer of Tor-M2U there.

It seems they reported that the shells were tightened.

[Cympak]

During the SVO, the Pantsirs and Tors were repeatedly modernized to combat air attack weapons used in practice by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I remember one of the first modernizations concerned interception of GMLRS missiles. Most likely, many modernizations concerned reprogramming new software for the radar complex.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Vlad2012

The question is not that “the mm-range radar doesn’t see something there,” but that it sees from a kilometer or two away.

Where does this data come from?
The stated range of the radar against low-visibility targets is 14,5 km.
The main problem is humidity and rain, which reduce the range of operation for this particular range. But the complex has an optical channel.

[Vlad2012]

A low-visibility target can be 0.1 m² at altitude in ideal conditions, and the UJ-22 and "Beaver" already have an RCS of 0.007-0.005 m². For such targets, the detection range decreases exponentially. That is, the detection range is associated with the physical limitations of radar and the tactics of using a drone. And it can be such that it flies low, falling into the "radar shadow" zone (50-100 meters), or even lower than the radar dead zone. So if not two in normal weather, then probably five. That's what I think.
And this was written by Murakhovsky in TG.
The calculated data for the detection range of micro- and mini-UAVs using radars in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces, with different values of the UAV's effective scattering surface (ESR), even in the low-altitude target mode, are:

Meter range radar - 8-14 km for UAVs with an RCS of about 0,1 sq.m and 0,1-1,5 km for UAVs with an RCS of about 0,01 sq.m;

Decimeter range radar - 9-16 km for UAVs with an RCS of about 0,1 sq.m and 0,8-2 km for UAVs with an RCS of about 0,01 sq.m;

Centimeter-range radar - 12-25 km for UAVs with an RCS of about 0,1 sq.m and 1,4-2,8 km for UAVs with an RCS of about 0,01 sq.m.

The traditional approach to detecting targets with an RCS of 0,01 sq.m or less does not solve the tasks set.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vlad2012

A low-visibility target can be 0.1 m² at altitude in ideal conditions, while the UJ-22 and "Beaver" already have an RCS of 0.007-0.005 m².

And what about 0,0001 m²? Do you really think that there will be those who will believe in 0,007 m² in any range of radar waves for a UAV of normal aerodynamic design with a nearly five-meter wing span, air-cooled piston engine and non-retractable landing gear? Well, maybe only on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. The population there is surprisingly gullible. And they believe in even more than that.

And this was written by Murakhovsky in TG.

A former tanker wrote about air defense. It happens.

The traditional approach to detecting targets with an RCS of 0,01 sq.m or less does not solve the tasks set.

https://bigenc.ru/c/pantsir-s2-9a677a

Main radar

maximum detection range
targets, km 80
including with EPR 0,1–0,2 m2, km 40

Target tracking radar
target detection range, s
EPR 0,1–0,2 m2, km 32–36
target tracking range, s
EPR 0,1–0,2 m2, km 24–28

The problems were not there. Previously, the problems of the Pantsir air defense missile and gun system with small UAVs were related to the fact that its detection radar simply did not consider air targets with a radial speed of less than 30 m/s as targets, and the non-contact fuse of the SAM often did not work when the SAM flew near a small target. Fixed.

[Vlad2012]

Quote: AlexanderA

Well, maybe only on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. The population there is surprisingly gullible. They believe in even worse things.

argument ad hominem

Quote: AlexanderA

A former tanker wrote about air defense. It happens.

argument ad hominem

Quote: AlexanderA

The problems weren't there.

And that's why they installed AFAR in the "corrected" car. Write more

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vlad2012

argument ad hominem

Are you a representative of the population of the former Ukrainian SSR and did you take my remark about the gullibility of the population of the former Ukrainian SSR personally?

Argumentum ad hominem (Latin - "argument to a person") is a logical fallacy in which in a dispute or discussion, not the opponent's arguments are criticized, but his personality, motives, origin, authority, etc.

Actually, I am not arguing with Murakhovsky, but with you. You referred to Murakhovsky as an authority in the field of air defense. But Murakhovsky understands air defense issues no more than he does the Air Force or Navy. You have made the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

To avoid this mistake, it is necessary to develop critical thinking, the ability to analyze and evaluate information regardless of the source. This includes finding additional sources of information, conducting your own research, and analyzing arguments from different points of view.

And that's why they installed AFAR in the "corrected" car. Write more

And here you switched to the slang "padonkaff". Is this some kind of "argumentation" for your theses?

You made the following statements: "The question is not that "the mm-range radar can't see something there," but that it can see from a kilometer or two away." и "A low-visibility target can be 0.1 m² at altitude in ideal conditions, but the UJ-22 and "Beaver" already have an RCS of 0.007-0.005 m²."

Now I will do a little calculation using the built-in Windows calculator. The 1RS1-1E detection radar operates in the S-band (the wavelength of the S-band radar is 7,5-15 cm). According to VNIIRT, this radar detects a target with an RCS of 2 m² at a range of 45 km.

https://web.archive.org/web/20141109162327/http://www.vniirt.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=20

The detection range is proportional to the fourth root of the RCS value. Therefore, for a target with an RCS of 0,0002 m² (10 times less than 000 m²), the detection range of this radar is ~2 km. By the way, some sources indicate exactly 4,5-2 cm² as the minimum RCS of targets for 3S1-1E.

For the target you stated with an RCS of 0.007-0.005 m² (which can only be attributed, especially in the S-band, to the UAV UJ-22 with a serious expression on the face of the territory still controlled by the Zelensky regime), the detection range of the 1RS1-1E is approximately 10-11 km.

And the last:

http://jre.cplire.ru/jre/jul25/7/text.pdf

"Overall, the median RCS values of the Chimera 7 Pro V2 UAV are in the range
frequencies of 2-3 GHz are approximately 0,010-0,031 sq.m for horizontal
polarization and 0,004-0,047 sq.m. – vertical."

Chimera 7 Pro V2 is a quadcopter with 7,5-inch propellers. You attributed a piston-powered UAV with a wingspan of under 5 m to the RCS of a 7,5" quadcopter with a flight weight of less than 0,7 kg.

I couldn't find a single plausible figure in your statements.

[Vlad2012]

You rejected the argument reference to the person or circumstances in which it was said. And this is a logical fallacy known to the ancient Greeks. Your childish attempts to somehow offend your opponent should somehow affect me? Why would that be?

[Alexandra]

Quote: Vlad2012

You have refuted the argument by reference to the person or circumstances in which it was said.

I know Murakhovsky very well. He has a broad military outlook, but he does not understand the details of air defense issues.

Your childish attempts to somehow offend your opponent should somehow affect me?

Attempts of your inner child, in fact, illustrated by the transition to the jargon "padonkof" beloved by boys of all ages. If there are no counterarguments to the figures given, allow me to take my leave.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Основное_уравнение_радиолокации

[stankow]

AleksanrA I agree with you in many ways, but the detection range depends on the 4th degree of radar power, not the target's EPR.

[Alexandra]

A little higher I calculated that the 1RS1-1E radar, which detects a target with an RCS of 2 m² at a range of 45 km (according to VNIIRT data), detects a UAV with an RCS of 0.007-0.005 m² at a range of 10-11 km.

I can also calculate that the 1РС1-1Е radar detects a ~600 gram Chimera 7 Pro V2 quadcopter (with an S-band RCS of 0,004-0,047 m²) at a distance of at least 9,5 km. All this is based on the following consequence of the basic radar equation: the detection range is proportional to the fourth root of not only the transmitter power, but also the target RCS. You can check it yourself with a transmitter power of Pt = const:

https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/ru-RU/calculator/radar-max-range/

Just increase the RCS by 10 times and see how many times the maximum detection range increases.

[Comet_1]

Quote: AlexanderA

https://bigenc.ru/c/pantsir-s2-9a677a

Main radar

maximum detection range
targets, 80 km
including with EPR 0,1–0,2 m2, km 40

Target tracking radar
target detection range, s
EPR 0,1–0,2 m2, km 32–36
target tracking range, s
EPR 0,1–0,2 m2, km 24–28

There are errors in the data provided.

[stankow]

Vlad2012 From your data it is clear that the detection range is decreasing. linearly with a decrease in ERP, but not exponentially.

[Comet_1]

Quote: Vlad2012

and UJ-22 and "Beaver" already have an EPR of 0.007-0.005 m²

This is only in a narrow sector on the course from the tail. The same (in the order of the EPR) for all similar UAVs.

Quote: Vlad2012

For such purposes, the detection range decreases exponentially.

This is in some other universe with different physics.

Quote: Vlad2012

And it may be such that it flies low, falling into the “radar shadow” zone (50-100 meters), or even lower than the radar dead zone.

There are no such things in radar based on the target elevation angle.

Quote: Vlad2012

And this was written by Murakhovsky in TG.

Murakhovsky is not the author of this. Murakhovsky, unfortunately, does not understand what this refers to, and does not realize that it is necessary to look at the calendar...

[bug120560]

alexmach(Alexander), but let's try to find the truth, without emotions and praise. According to open information, the smallest effective scattering area (ESR) for the Pantsir radar is 2-3 cm², and small UAVs have an EPR of 1 cm² and below. A completely scientific assessment of the radar's capabilities is presented in the article "Radar systems for detecting drones. Operating principle": ""For UAVs with an EPR of 0,01 m2, the actual detection ranges approach zero values. The conclusion is obvious: traditional radar methods are unable to ensure reliable timely detection of small UAVs with extremely small EPR values. In addition, in conditions of interference (for example, in urbanized areas), even these low capabilities will be significantly reduced. Thus, the traditional radars available today are practically incapable of effectively detecting small-sized and low-speed aerial targets such as UAVs, even in a noise-free environment."
As for the Pantsir optical station, the optoelectronic system (thermal imaging) channel of the Pantsir optical guidance subsystem was developed by the NPO State Institute of Applied Optics and is currently installed only in the Bastion naval version. And one more thing - small UAVs mainly have electric motors as a drive for their propulsion, which are practically invisible to a thermal imager. I kindly ask you, if you have any other information, please share it.

[Alexandra]

Quote: bug120560

alexmach(Alexander), but let's try to find the truth, without emotions and praise. According to open information - the smallest effective scattering area (ESR) for the radar of the "Pantsir" complex is: 2-3 cm², and small UAVs have an ESR of 1 cm² and below.

http://jre.cplire.ru/jre/jul25/7/text.pdf

METHOD OF ESTIMATION OF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EFFECTIVE SCATTERING AREA OF COMPLEX OBJECTS BASED ON A COMBINATION OF COMPUTER SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA

S.A. Klimov, A.V. Obysov, E.S. Bitaev, A.A. Kalacheva Military Order of Kutuzov Academy of Air Defense of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation named after Marshal of the Soviet Union A.M. Vasilevsky 214027, Smolensk, Kotovsky St., 2
The article was received by the editors on March 30, 2025.

"Overall, the median RCS values of the Chimera 7 Pro V2 UAV in the 2-3 GHz frequency range are approximately 0,010-0,031 sq.m for horizontal polarization and 0,004-0,047 sq.m for vertical polarization."

0,01-0,03 m² is 100-300 cm²
0,004-0,047 m² is 40-470 cm²

The Chimera 7 Pro V2 is a carbon fiber quadcopter with 7,5" propellers and a flight weight of just over 600 grams.

I don't know what UAVs with RCS of 1 cm² and below you are writing about. About the Black Hornet Nano with a flight weight of 18 grams? Well, maybe, maybe.

[bug120560]

Alexander, thank you very much for the link to an interesting article, I have already downloaded it and will definitely read it, then we can talk "on equal terms". I took my information from a similar article "Radar systems for detecting drones." on the website of the company "Aktualnye sistemy bezopasnosti", which is engaged in the development and production of these very systems. I think there are far from fools working there. And one more thing, if of course the topic is interesting, read about the composition of the detection stations of new anti-aircraft systems recently adopted by China and NATO countries, I think they just bet on "machine vision" with AI.

[Alexandra]

Quote: bug120560

Thanks for the link to an interesting article, I've already downloaded it and will definitely read it

Yes, please take a look.

And one more thing, if the topic is interesting, read about the composition of the detection stations of the new anti-aircraft systems recently adopted by China and NATO countries, I think they simply bet on “machine vision” with AI.

In the magazine "Foreign Military Review"?

Machine vision and AI are, firstly, simply cheaper than radar systems. Secondly, a system with machine vision does not emit or reveal the carrier of this machine vision in the radio range.

This is why machine vision with AI can be used as the main channel for detecting and tracking air targets for modern short-range military air defense systems (see, for example, the Sosna air defense system).

But today, the Pantsir is still NOT a representative of military air defense technology and in its latest versions takes on the role of a medium-range, rather than a short-range, air defense system.

As a result, the modern Pantsir has the corresponding radar characteristics, allowing it to detect even such a threat as a micro-UAV - a kamikaze quadcopter.

Moreover, machine vision with AI would allow detection in any weather and at any time of day at distances greater than what is possible to detect this threat.

What about nano-UAVs, devices with a flight weight of up to 300 grams - SAMs should clearly not be the means of combating them.

[bug120560]

Everything you write is correct, I never doubted the merits of the "Pantsir", I will say even more - I believed and believe that as an air defense system for protecting stationary objects it has no equal, even from small aircraft-type UAVs. But today other UAVs dominate the battlefield, both as strike and reconnaissance vehicles, and the main losses are caused by them. They are smaller in size and cheaper than the cheapest SAM. Perhaps that is why all developments "overseas" are primarily aimed at combating such UAVs directly over the battlefield and they are focused on barrel-based systems of destruction, with optical, not radar systems of detection and fire control (although they did not abandon radar there either). But our military-industrial complex seems to simply ignore the issues of protecting units on the march and in attack. Of course, it is much easier to apply the wisest tactics - when attacking "no more than three" and "move at a run and as quickly as possible." What can you say - the best protection from children's toys with a grenade strapped to them. But at the same time, in the hope of export orders, "lick" a wonderful complex, but useless directly on the battlefield, instead of developing and giving the troops something that will protect them and allow motorized riflemen to attack as it should be under armor and with the support of tanks, without incurring such losses. But this is already a business, where profit is more important.

[Alexandra]

Quote: bug120560

But our military-industrial complex seems to simply ignore issues of protecting units on the march and in attack.

Machines with 30 mm automatic cannons and shots with programmable shells with remote detonation can no longer change the current state of affairs. They are too late. In the photo is one of such machines, by the way, domestic. The situation can only be corrected by installing thousands of anti-drone APS of various types on armored vehicles + specialized air defense vehicles. True, it is more likely not with automatic cannons and shots with programmable shells with remote detonation, but with fiber lasers. Second photo.

[bug120560]

Alexander, I agree with your opinion one hundred percent and even more. Any armored vehicle participating in combat operations must be equipped with an active protection system that is capable of fighting drones, among other things. And specialized air defense vehicles of the battlefield are as necessary as air, only they must be able to work on the move, and not stationary, the principle of hitting the target can be anything, from a rapid-fire machine gun to a microwave pulse and laser (although today the latter is exotic). But look at what interesting information is coming: the Americans have installed and are testing on the turret of their Abrams, instead of the 12,7-mm Browning M2 machine gun with its 850 rounds / min., the M134 Minigun machine gun, with a rate of fire of 3000-6000 rounds / min. The American company Allen Control Systems has developed, tested and brought to serial production the autonomous robotic installation Bullfrog with a fire control system based on an electro-optical sensor and a computer with AI, for searching and aiming weapons at a target intended specifically for shooting down UAVs, the installation weight according to open sources is about 180 kg. It seems that they have thought very seriously and are working on ensuring that on the battlefield the equipment has the means to defend itself individually and independently. I think that very soon information will appear in the press that, based on the experience of combat operations, an automatic turret has appeared on serial American armored vehicles specifically for fighting UAVs.

[Alexandra]

Quote: bug120560

It seems that they have thought very seriously and are working on ensuring that the equipment has the means to defend itself individually and independently on the battlefield. I think that very soon the press will publish information that, based on combat experience, an automatic turret has appeared on serial American armored vehicles specifically for combating UAVs.

Such turrets, which can be considered as long-range APS, will certainly appear on armored vehicles in the coming years. It is noteworthy that such turrets could have appeared on tanks back in the 60s, if the domestic R&D project "Oplot-MO" had been transferred to the status of R&D and successfully completed. The fact that the mass appearance of APS on armored vehicles lagged behind the appearance of mass ATGMs by more than half a century is in itself an amazing historical phenomenon. And the fact that long-range APS with radar and automatic machine-gun turrets, which technically could have appeared on tanks back in the 60s, have not appeared on armored vehicles to this day is a textbook example of how technical narrow-mindedness and technical voluntarism can stop the development of "new means of (armed) struggle" for many decades even in a seemingly dynamic industrial era.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bug120560

I took my information from a similar article "Radar systems for detecting drones." on the website of the company "Aktualnye sistemy bezopasnosti", which develops and produces these very systems. I think there are far from fools working there.

And they took this material from Murakhovsky without even looking into it...

[bug120560]

Kometa_1, to whom and for what purpose did you write all this? There is nothing to say on the merits? It looks like you haven't even seen the article or the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland", let alone read it.

[stankow]

Thermal imager can see the difference in hundredths of a degree, so the motors, batteries and controller are very visible. Do not confuse with IR cameras and SN heads.

[bug120560]

stankow, do you have experience with a thermal imager? I think you don't, or at best you are "familiar" with thermometers that work on this principle from a visit to a clinic. Otherwise, you wouldn't be writing such outright nonsense. At long distances, a thermal imager simply sees a heat spot, and only under conditions where the object being observed is very "hot". But an IR camera sees objects equally at any distance it is designed for, regardless of their temperature, and this is its advantage, but it sees at much shorter distances than a thermal imager and is more susceptible to weather conditions. Rain, snow, and tree branches sometimes make observation simply impossible.

[stankow]

I've seen dozens of videos, drone camera recordings. Any object that is at least half a degree warmer than the environment is visible. And the drone's FPV engine heats up by tens of degrees.

[bug120560]

stankow, apparently you are not even able to determine what image you are seeing, from a thermal imager or from an IR camera.

[stankow]

I have the same doubts that you are also confusing them.

[bug120560]

You know, I have and use both (a digital day/night optical sight and a thermal imaging "peephole"), so your opinion is very far from the truth.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bug120560

A completely scientific assessment of the capabilities of the radar, presented in the article "Radar systems for detecting drones. Operating principle"

Scientific articles are published in scientific journals. And here is the information and analytical journal "Arsenal of the Fatherland", which is not scientific at all...

[bug120560]

Comet_1, I will explain to you as a "specially gifted" person - the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" is an information and analytical magazine, in which retired military personnel mainly work as employees, i.e. practitioners of using weapons and military equipment. The article "Radar systems for detecting drones" was published on the website of the company, whose employees conduct research, develop and manufacture these very systems.
I think both sources of information are equally worthy of attention.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bug120560

Comet_1, I will explain to you as a "particularly gifted" person - the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" is an information and analytical magazine, in which the employees are mainly retired military personnel, i.e. practitioners of the use of weapons and military equipment.

So what? This is not a scientific journal.

Quote: bug120560

The article "Radar systems for detecting drones" was published on the website of the company whose employees conduct research, develop and manufacture these very systems.

What you quote from the website of this company is a copy-paste of material from an article published in the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine 11 (eleven!!!) years ago, and has nothing to do with this company. The conclusions from that article that you quote do not coincide with the realities of the SVO. It also talks about calculations, but the calculations themselves are not given. And the close to linear dependence of the range on the EPR makes us assume that the authors simply extended a certain result for a specific radar to all the others. According to physics, in free space, the range is proportional to the fourth root of the EPR, in WWI with a flat Earth - to the eighth root of the EPR.

[bug120560]

Comet_1, what are you writing about anyway? What does copypasta from some article have to do with the topic under discussion? Or did you just want to show off a new-fangled Anglo-Saxon word? Well, if you want to know the expression: "Everything new is well-forgotten old" appeared long before we were born.
From a practical point of view, it doesn't matter who said it first, but who did it first. What are you trying to talk about if you don't even understand the essence of the issue under discussion? What kind of realities of the SVO are you talking about? Today, the realities of the SVO are such that in the combat zone, the main losses of people and equipment are caused by mines and all sorts of small fry, with a grenade tied with duct tape that flies even into an open car window. And judging by everything, the magnitude of these losses is such that it has reduced the striking capabilities of artillery and mechanized army units to practically zero. And it is precisely because of all this that troops are forced to use tactics more suitable for special forces everywhere, i.e. tactics of assaults in small groups, without massive support from artillery and armor. And what we are trying to discuss here is, first of all, the issue of "urgent necessity and timeliness" of modernization and delivery to the troops of a system that is undoubtedly excellent, but is not capable of solving the issue of restoring the striking potential of troops on the battlefield due to its technical features and small (due to high cost) production quantities. Because this is being done, as always, with budget money and to the detriment of other means of combating UAVs. Personally, I believed and believe that our businessmen from Rostec and the military-industrial complex are engaged in, to put it very mildly, not exactly what the army needs today like air. And all these modernizations are nothing more than a competitive struggle for the international arms market. And in addition to the dough and the sacred veneration of the formula "money-product-money", we must also remember the lives of the soldiers, and not get rid of the needs of the front with shotguns and motor vehicles.

[Comet_1]

Quote: bug120560

What does copypasta from some article have to do with the topic under discussion?

This material in the article you link to is too ancient about even more ancient technology to be current in 2025.

Quote: bug120560

So, if you want to know the expression: “Everything new is a well-forgotten old” appeared long before we were born.

You would first find out where this expression came from and what it refers to. And then you would read the topic title again.

Quote: bug120560

What kind of SVO realities are you talking about?

On the discrepancy between the statements in the article material and the types of aircraft destroyed by different air defense missile systems and anti-aircraft gun systems.

Quote: bug120560

What we are trying to discuss here is, first of all, the question of the “urgent need and timeliness” of modernization and delivery to the troops of a complex that is undoubtedly excellent, but is not capable, due to its technical features and the small (due to high cost) quantity produced, of solving the issue of restoring the striking potential of troops on the battlefield.

Have you read what the complex in question is intended for? It is not a "battlefield" military complex. Why discuss the tasks of this complex?

Quote: bug120560

Because this is done, as always, with budget money and to the detriment of other means of combating UAVs.

What other anti-UAV weapon are you planning to replace Pantsir-SMD with?

Quote: bug120560

remember also the lives of the soldiers, and not dismiss the needs of the front with shotguns and motor vehicles

What else are you going to use to hit a fiber optic drone that took off 50 meters away from you?

[Soldatov V.]

First of all, the "Pantsir SMD" should appear on a stationary basis at the refineries. The question is that all refineries are private and who will pay for the installations? The private oligarchs themselves or at the expense of the state, that is, at our expense. The owners do not want to wrap the plants with chain-link fencing, and here there are millions in expenses.
There are still many places where stationary Pantsirs need to be placed, such as airports and to cover frontline cities. Here, cities can buy stationary Pantsirs at their own expense. Organize defense in a real way.

[Panadol]

I don't know where you saw it. But our oil complex has long been covered with a net. And in neighboring areas, too.
As for protection, I think even some Tunguskas would be good for a large separation from LBS. There is a radar, a couple of barrels. It is quite enough for maize growers.

[Soldatov V.]

UAVs fly where there is no protection at all. No production, no product storage. How many oil refineries have been set on fire recently? Even gasoline prices have skyrocketed due to shortages all over Russia.

[Panadol]

How much did you burn? Can you give an example to the studio?
As for the prices, someone just can't get enough. They started sending less to Europe. Accordingly, they're making money off their own.

[Soldatov V.]

Read the press, everything is written there about where and how much. I can tell you about the Ryazan Oil Refinery, two out of three units were damaged.

[Panadol]

It doesn't count. If one plant got it, it's not an indicator for the whole country.

[Soldatov V.]

Who are you that needs to justify myself or prove anything to you?

[Panadol]

I see. The panic-mongering granny can't hold it!

[Zaurbek]

And government orders have been removed from oil refineries; where does the army get its fuel?

[cmax]

Quote: Zaurbek

And government orders have been removed from oil refineries; where does the army get its fuel?

Two Belarusian gas processing plants are operating at full capacity
The main oil refineries are Mozyr Oil Refinery and Naftan. The complex is distinguished by its good technological equipment. These plants are in the top ten in the CIS, and in some positions - in the top 3. The production capacity of the two oil refineries reaches 22 million tons, the processing depth is 70-75%.

[Zaurbek]

They are great, what are you getting at? Should we blow up all our oil refineries and then Belarus will supply us?

[cmax]

Quote: Zaurbek

They are great, what are you getting at? Should we blow up all our oil refineries and then Belarus will supply us?

Ok, so you read my post.
I don’t know where the army gets fuel, but Belarus is trying to help Russia at this difficult moment, given the defeat of many Russian oil refineries.

[Zaurbek]

The fact that RB is helping is great and they are not being attacked because it is RB (NOT RF), and our refineries are being attacked. And despite the fact that they are private - fuel in tons must be supplied. No refineries - no fuel, in addition to this, logistics is a very important component in the supply of oil products. And our Front covers the South-East and North-East along an arc 404. Accordingly, each direction must be supplied either from a refinery or from storage (and this is 3-5-10 large capacities) and all this is under fire (even if they contain oil from RB refineries)

[Couchexpert]

The correct decision to get rid of the guns (without remote detonation of shells they are almost useless anyway) allowed to reduce the requirements for the base (recoil disappeared) and made the creation of such a modification possible. Now it would be desirable to develop a method of data exchange between installations so that it would be possible to transfer targets when they move from the field of view of one installation to the field of view of another. This will allow to build reliable air defense lines both along the front and in depth, and will increase the probability of hitting targets many times.

[storm]

The right decision is to get rid of the guns (without remote detonation of shells they are still almost useless)

Remote detonation shells of 30mm caliber have long been created, all that remains is to adapt the guidance systems and anti-aircraft automatic guns to these shells....

[Couchexpert]

Yes, a long time ago... they showed it at an exhibition in 2023. It seems like they even passed state tests. There is only one small nuance left: to set up production in commercial quantities and organize purchases for the Ministry of Defense. And for everything to work.

[alexmach]

And this will need to be done in any case.

[alexmach]

Now it would be desirable to develop a method for exchanging data between installations.

Here we can only shrug our shoulders. There is such a possibility there from the very beginning, Pantsirs operate as part of batteries, which in turn are part of the air defense system and have means of receiving external target designation.

[Uncle_Misha]

That's right. It can work autonomously and as part of a battery. But it needs an addition in a gun version, something like Gepard. Simply put, a complex is needed.

[storm]

but in the long term it will be possible to create a park of sufficient size with the required capabilities.

And when is this prospect expected?

The border with Ukraine is in reality like a sieve through which dozens and hundreds of Ukrainian UAVs fly.
Why, after more than three years of war, a reliable air defense line has not been created along the border with Ukraine and where all the previously produced Pantsirs, Tors and Buks have gone, only the commander of the Aerospace Forces knows, but he, unlike other residents of Russia, sits in a protected underground bunker...

[Paranoid62]

Quote: assault

The border with Ukraine is in reality like a sieve through which Ukrainian UAVs fly by the dozens and hundreds

Oh yeah. And there are also millions of ants crawling around.

Quote: assault

Why, after more than three years of war, a reliable air defense line has not been created along the border with Ukraine

No one has yet figured out how to create such a boundary from ants... ugh, UAV. If you've already thought of it, go to the General Staff immediately, they'll change your cardboard shoulder straps for real ones... probably

[storm]

urgently to the General Staff, they will change your cardboard shoulder straps for real ones... probably winked

You've definitely already been given shoulder straps made of toilet paper, like an honorary dove...

[Paranoid62]

Quote: assault

urgently to the General Staff, they will change your cardboard shoulder straps for real ones... probably winked

You've definitely already been given shoulder straps made of toilet paper, like an honorary dove...

As always, you didn’t deign to answer the essence of the matter.

So you have already figured out how to build a "reliable boundary from ants... ugh, UAV"? Share your thoughts, well, that's very interesting

[storm]

It is more important to build a line against such empty talkers...

[Paranoid62]

Quote: assault

It is more important to build a line against such empty talkers...

Are you being rude, kid? Well, I don't care...

So:

Quote: assault

Why, after more than three years of war, a reliable air defense line has not been created along the border with Ukraine and where all the previously produced Pantsirs, Toras and Buks have gone, only the commander of the Aerospace Forces knows, but he, unlike other residents of Russia, is sitting in a protected underground bunker...

- that is, to build a line from UAVs, in your opinion, is a piece of cake. However, you refuse to tell how to do it
- the commander who should do this "sits in the bunker". He is constantly there, and together with his family and pets, obviously.

From the above, a logical conclusion follows, in my opinion, that your comment is irresponsible chatter. And also a throw on the fan. How do you like this conclusion?

[storm]

What do you think of this conclusion?

I don't give a damn about your conclusions and comments!!!
So don't bother and don't waste my time reading them...
How do you like this conclusion!!!

[Paranoid62]

Quote: assault

How do you like this conclusion!!!

Hysteria? Funny. Okay, keep sneezing. Storm. Kurochkin. Chetarzhu

[EpIvIaK]

Paranoid62 is right and his comments were on point.

[cmax]

Quote: Paranoid62

Quote: assault

The border with Ukraine is in reality like a sieve through which Ukrainian UAVs fly by the dozens and hundreds

Oh yeah. And there are also millions of ants crawling around.

Quote: assault

Why, after more than three years of war, a reliable air defense line has not been created along the border with Ukraine

No one has yet figured out how to create such a boundary from ants... ugh, UAV. If you've already thought of it, go to the General Staff immediately, they'll change your cardboard shoulder straps for real ones... probably

Everything is possible if you really want it. The LBS is approximately 1100 km. And you want to say that it is an impossible task for the Russian Armed Forces to close this opportunity for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to penetrate our territory? Most likely, the problem is in the production of a sufficient number of air defense systems.

[Paranoid62]

Good morning. I already wrote to you about this, I copy it here:

Quote: Paranoid62

Just in case - not a single army in the world was ready for the "drone war", all of them are now closely studying the experience of the BD in the SVO... and frantically trying to generate something. But so far, no silver bullet has been found for drones. The whole world has not found it, imagine, right?

Show / Hide text

https://topwar.ru/index.php?do=lastcomments&userid=239801

And also, not to you, but about the same thing:

Quote: Paranoid62

Smart people have already written here: air defense against drones (low EPR, ability to use terrain during flight, take off from anywhere, plus information from "partners" about the Russian air defense system) - in general terms, has not yet been invented

Show / Hide text

https://topwar.ru/269467-ukrainskij-bespilotnik-dobralsja-do-respubliki-komi-popytavshis-atakovat-npz.html#findcomment15439964

Well, that's enough for now, I guess.

[alexmach]

Why, after more than three years of war along the border with Ukraine, a reliable air defense line has not been created and where have all the previously produced Pantsirs, Tors and Buks gone?

Do you know how many of these previously released Thors, Panzers and Buks there are?

[storm]

Do you know how many of these previously released Thors, Panzers and Buks there are?

Even if I know, I won't write here on VO, every other one here is a spy and provocateur...
I know that a very significant portion of these air defense systems have left for the new air defense ring near Moscow...
That is why hundreds of UAVs fly into Russian territory every day.
The guys from Bryansk recently arrived, and they have arrivals every night, and it’s the same in Belgorod.
This is who needs to be closed down first by the air defense, not the capital's parasites...

[alexmach]

If I know, I won't write here on VO, every other one here is a spy and provocateur

Well, it was written in Wikipedia, more or less, a long time ago.

I know that a very significant portion of these air defense systems have left for the new air defense ring near Moscow.

Near Moscow? Not only near Moscow. There is also the SVO zone itself and there are tasks in this zone. And Donetsk and Crimea are covered by the same air defense systems. And in addition to them there are also airfields and generally a lot of other things that require air defense cover. And as a result, this air defense turns out to be almost nothing.

[Soldatov V.]

Here is the pure border with Ukraine is somewhere 2000 km, Pantsir can cover somewhere an area with a diameter of 40 km, the newest modification 80 km. This requires somewhere around 50 pieces of the old or first modification and 25 of the newest. This is only the first line of defense along the entire border. And there are also TORs and BUKs, not to mention the S-250, S-300, S-400 and S-500. The numbers are not exorbitant, they are affordable for the country and for the oil oligarchs to protect the oil refineries and for the country to protect the same frontline cities. Three or four lines of air defense defense and a mosquito won't fly past. All oil refineries that suffered from Banderovites' raids need to be nationalized. Otherwise, the army will be left without fuel. All this looks like a well-thought-out sabotage, not excluding the participation of the owners of these oil refineries in it. They have nothing to lose considering the rise in gasoline prices in all regions.

[alexmach]

The Pantsir can cover an area with a diameter of about 40 km, the latest modification - 80 km

This is very much not true.

[Soldatov V.]

I take official data from the Ministry of Defense and the manufacturer.

[storm]

Tula can produce up to 40 Pantsir systems per year (data for 22).
The cost of one complex was announced to be around 1-1,2 billion rubles.

In a year, one continuous air defense belt can be formed from Pantsirs alone along the border with Ukraine, taking into account the double overlap of detection zones (40 km for the air defense missile system).

Provided that the state is interested, of course...

[shocktrooper]

40 km of what? An open field without obstacles for the radar? Let's go further, in order to shoot down you also need to detect it, don't you think that drones flying at a minimum altitude will be detected much worse than 20 kilometers? That is, in addition to the Pantsirs themselves, you will have to build towers/embankments so that the air defense could at least see something and launch at it. Naturally Ukrainians not stupid people and will aim at such defenseless targets first of all, and the fate of such a shell will be very sad, if you do not arrange cover for it, that is, at least 4 pieces in one place. Besides, why do you have a shell working 24/7? What kind of terminators are sitting in this indestructible product, that is, you need to have at least one more replacement vehicle with a crew to be on duty in shifts. Well, plus a reserve just in case of at least 10%. In total, your 50 shells with an easy movement of the hand turn into 450, so that there is a really serious defense, and not a leaky pseudo-fence, which serves only for its own peace of mind. Well, again, there are no impregnable lines, and in addition to this air defense armada on the border, object air defense is definitely needed, and this is even greater costs.

[Soldatov V.]

Unfortunately, I am not a big expert on air defense, maybe the author on the site "Bongo" will explain to you personally how air defense works to protect objects, the country. He is an expert in this

[Maxim Davydov]

Here is the pure border with Ukraine, it is somewhere around 2000 km, Pantsir can cover somewhere around 40 km in diameter, the newest modification 80 km. This requires somewhere around 50 pieces of the old or first modification and 25 of the newest. This is only the first line of defense along the entire border.

And then, like the Maginot Line, it can be bypassed (over the sea, for example), or it can be broken through (rebooted, like in Israel) anywhere.

[Andrey VOV]

Where did the Buki, Pantzir, Tori go? Do you think there are no losses among them? There are. Both damage and complete destruction. If the monopoly USSR was able to make a continuous air defense belt around the Gtanitsas when there were air defense armies, then what about now? And what is flying and how do you know? For example, part of the flight through my area along the riverbed at the height of a 5-story building, then it goes higher and goes to the side. So, before you loudly broadcast something here, it would be nice to think.

[Volkhov M3]

Why did you suddenly decide that I need to report to you as well? Regardless of my status, I need to know my place.

[2al]

Without remote detonation of 30mm shells, it makes sense to replace them with 12,7 and 7,62mm machine guns. In fact, the effective range is the same and the cost is several times less, and as a bonus, a denser layout and as a self-defense weapon. By the way, machine gun modules can easily fit into the dimensions of the TPK 57E6E.

[storm]

By the way, machine gun modules can easily fit into the dimensions of the TPK 57E6E.

For example, the four-barreled YakB-12,7 or TKB-7,62 would be quite useful against drones.

[1Leningrad]

And install on ships.

[Dmitry V. Shmykov]

But I'm still wondering if the day is far off when a laser installation will appear on systems like Pantsir. It seems to be asking for it. Probably all that holds it is a sufficiently energy-intensive battery and powerful and compact energy sources to replenish it. Imagine how great it would be.

[Comet_1]

With the help of standard radars, the system can detect targets with an RCS of less than 1 sq. m at distances of 40-45 km. The automation simultaneously tracks 40 targets and ensures the firing of several. In terms of such characteristics and speed, the Pantsir-SMD is no different from the previously presented Pantsir-SM.

Pantsir-SM and Pantsir-SMD have different SOC and SSCR (MRLS).

Like its predecessor, the Pantsir-SMD air defense system does not have barrel armament.

The Pantsir-SM has barrel armament.

In terms of combat and technical characteristics, the Pantsir-SMD air defense system should not differ from the product with the letters "SM"

How is that possible? They have completely different radars.

Unlike other "Pantsirs", the exhibition sample of the "SMD" product was made on the basis of a rectangular frame made of a metal profile.

All land-based Pantsirs are mounted on a rectangular frame made of metal profile. And the frame itself is mounted on the chassis.

Unlike other systems in its family, Pantsir-SMD can be relatively easily mounted on various chassis or installed on stationary objects.

Any land-based Pantsir can be mounted on various chassis (with sufficient load capacity) or placed on a stationary object.
The essence of Pantsir-SMD is the separation of the combat module and the control compartment. Due to the separation of the combat module and the control compartment, the exclusion of cannon armament and the installation of other radars, the weight of the structure, which is installed on various structures, is significantly reduced.

[storm]

In February of this year, the export version of the Pantsir-SMD-E was shown abroad for the first time – at the IDEX-2025 exhibition in the UAE.

The new Pantsirs should have been used to protect oil refineries, not just for exhibitions.
After the massive Ukrainian drone strikes on oil refineries, the credibility of Russia's air defense has plummeted. It feels like it's either been destroyed or shut down to avoid complete annihilation.
There are hundreds of Tunguska air defense missile systems at military equipment storage bases that should be modernized and used to combat mass drone attacks; the modernized Tunguska M is practically the same as the Pantsir.

[air wolf]

We need AFAR as soon as possible. We're waiting, and please don't be stupid.