"Pantsir-S Competitor": China Unveils New Version of Yitian II Drone-Killer

China has unveiled a model of a new version of the Yitian II 8x8 short-range air defense system, which its developers position as a "worthy competitor" to the Russian Pantsir-S system and Western air defense systems such as the German IRIS-T SLS.

The mobile system, being designed to counter UAVs, helicopters and other low-flying threats, is intended to provide cover for maneuverable units from high-precision strikes and enemy reconnaissance assets in the form of drones.

Mounted on the chassis of the 8x8 VN-1 armored vehicle (export version of the ZBL-08) with a travel speed of over 100 km/h, the Yitian II combines on a single platform a 3D search radar (with a target detection range of up to 18–20 km), a target tracking radar with an AESA, an electro-optical station with a thermal imager for passive guidance in radio silence conditions (operating range up to 10 km) and 8 ready-to-launch missilesThis allows it to detect and engage targets without external support, operating completely autonomously. Threat response time is less than 7 seconds.

The new TY-20 SAM has a firing range of up to 18-20 km, three times greater than its predecessor, the TY-90 (based on helicopter air-to-air missiles), which had a range of 6 km. Its operating altitude is 4,000 meters. The missiles can be equipped with either infrared (TY-20I) or active radar seekers (TY-20R modification), enabling fire-and-forget operation.

The Yitian II is being actively promoted by NORINCO in the Middle East and African markets. For example, the "junior" version, the Yitian-L (based on a 4x4 jeep), was already seen in service with the Malian army in April 2026.

The Yitian II "drone killer" is a further development of the Yitian (first introduced in 2004), based on platforms such as the WMZ-551 6x6 armored personnel carrier. The Yitian and Yitian II complement more powerful systems (such as the HQ-16 or HQ-9) that operate against high-altitude targets.

Compared to the American AN/TWQ-1 Avenger and the older French SANTAL-type SAMs, the Yitian II has a longer range and a more advanced onboard sensor suite.

Unlike the Russian Pantsir-S, it lacks a cannon armament and an impressive ammo bank (eight SAMs versus 12 or 48 compact ones on the latest versions). However, its main advantage is its fire-and-forget guidance, thanks to a combined seeker (active radar or thermal imager). The Pantsir, on the other hand, uses radio command guidance, requiring the vehicle to "illuminate" the target with its radar until the very moment of impact.

Comments

[Xroft]

Rather a more modern version of the wasp

[Voenoboz]

It might be fine in the field, but I'd have to see what other landscapes I could use. I fired and forgot about the 4km altitude. What if it's a "waiter"? (Drone).

[Captain Pushkin]

Its main advantage is its fire-and-forget guidance, thanks to a combined seeker (active radar or thermal imager). The Pantsir, on the other hand, uses radio-command guidance, requiring the vehicle to "illuminate" the target with its radar until the very moment of impact.

The active seeker is too expensive to target drones. It appears this SAM is designed for aircraft. Lighter and cheaper missiles, like those on the Pantsir, are needed to target drones.

[bayard]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

It looks like this SAM is against aircraft.

More likely against cruise missiles, but also against aircraft. Against drones, the SAMs are too expensive and complex; we have similar ones in the S-350 system (MD SAMs with AGSN). The Pantsir is better in every respect, while its SAMs are an order of magnitude cheaper. But everyone does what they can or see fit.

[topol717]

Quote: bayard

"Pantsir" is better in all respects and has an order of magnitude cheaper SAMs

That's true, but it would be nice to have a TKB1055T equivalent, but with a primitive fuel system, at least thermal or optical, or let Pantsir generate the IR illumination itself and have the missile guided by it. Otherwise, if the UAV is equipped with electronic warfare, the Gvozdik might not work in time.

[bayard]

The Pantsir doesn't use radio illumination. Its SAMs use a radio-command guidance system, not a semi-active seeker. Its millimeter (actually, "extremely centimeter") radar provides very high guidance accuracy in AUTOMATIC mode. The operator simply gives permission to launch or engages automatic attack repulsion mode. The SAMs have no seeker at all, only rudder actuators, a control signal receiver, and a radio fuse. They say they've stopped using the radio fuse in recent years, and instead use controlled detonation based on a signal, because the radar is VERY accurate, and the combat algorithms are perfect. So the missiles for the Pantsir aren't just cheap, they're VERY cheap. This means they can produce not just a lot of them, but a LOT of them. War, especially a protracted war of attrition, is always about economics.

Quote from: topol717

If electronic warfare systems are installed on the UAV, the Gvozdik may not work in time.

It's practically impossible. The SAM control channel can't be blocked by a rear-facing antenna, and it's VERY difficult to suppress the AESA radar with jamming. It tunes out jamming very quickly and easily. The Pantsir has highly developed and sophisticated software and hardware, but its SAMs are VERY cheap. For the MD SAM system, this is the perfect combination. Improving on it is almost impossible, and repeating it is very difficult. This is the best available in the world today, especially in terms of price/quality/effectiveness.

[topol717]

Quote: bayard

It's practically impossible. The SAM control channel can't be blocked by a rear-facing antenna, and it's VERY difficult to suppress an AESA radar with jamming.

There are no antennas pointing back, because the engine and the plasma plume from the engine are damaged. You're right that all missiles are guided by radio from the station, but jamming this radio channel isn't that difficult. For example, GPS satellites are very high and there are many of them; roughly speaking, the signal can be considered multidirectional, but it can be jammed easily. So jamming the SAM guidance isn't difficult at all. Another issue is that the missile flies very fast and very close, requiring almost no correction.

[bayard]

It has a highly directional antenna, and it needs to be targeted. The signal needs to be aimed precisely at the receiving cone of the radiation pattern. How can this missile get there with such a signal? Besides, it's a short-range air defense system, so there's very little time to take countermeasures, and doing so is extremely difficult. The missile is also very fast. And cheap.
The same "Tor-M2" is also no less effective.
But its missile is much larger, more expensive, and has a shorter range and altitude. So, based on its combined qualities and characteristics, the Pantsir is the optimal air defense system for a protracted war of attrition.

[ism_ek]

It is not difficult to jam one channel, but modern radio transmission systems use hundreds of channels simultaneously.

So, there are all sorts of "Comets" that can tune out jammers. Jamming over a wide range of frequencies and phases is unrealistic. Panciy is controlled using WiFi frequencies. Moreover, unlike home WiFi, it has a highly focused signal. Jamming it with a small drone-mounted jammer is impossible.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

Active seeker is too expensive to work against drones.

Maybe it's time to stop repeating this mantra, whether it's appropriate or not?! You're for old dogmas... I'm for "everything flows and changes!" With mass production of seekers, especially modular ones, for several types of weapons, seekers cease to be too expensive and scarce! I'm already reading that one NATO country has developed and is ready to produce a UAV interceptor with an active radar seeker, for which a very reasonable price has been promised! Such a radar seeker would be very useful for Russian Yolkas, Molots, Bolts, and other interceptor drones!

[isv000]

And how, I wonder, will this little gun compete with the Pantsir air defense missile and gun system, which has already been through fire, water, and copper pipes? Besides, the Pantsir is constantly being improved with combat experience. I wouldn't say the Chinese are churning out crap, but experience is experience, the son of difficult mistakes, and in our case, a genius, a friend of paradoxes...

[spectr]

There are three parameters on which there is room for competition:
- detection (range, and in principle, possibility);
- price of a shot;
- ammunition size.

[Xroft]

In my opinion, to defeat drones, you need to do something that is cheaper to produce.
There are no cheaper options than ammunition. Therefore, more automation is needed in cannon weapons, timed detonation options, etc.
You can't make a missile cheaper than a drone. The only way to do that is to launch a swarm of interceptors in response to a swarm of drones.

[Zaurbek]

China is doing everything well and correctly. But to boost sales, its vehicles need to fight. Currently, either the Arabs (but they're buying from the US) or Iran, but China itself doesn't want to do that.

[78bor1973]

A limited set of expensive missiles, plus, probably, a division of shooters with shotguns!

[faterdom]

This Vityana-2 needs to be tested somewhere under real conditions. We could send a few samples to North Korea—they know where, and they'll find the specialists.

[Evgeny64]

Advantages can also be disadvantages at the same time.

Its main advantage is its fire-and-forget guidance, thanks to a combined seeker (active radar or thermal imager). The Pantsir, on the other hand, uses radio-command guidance, requiring the vehicle to "illuminate" the target with its radar until the very moment of impact.

So, the Pantsir version with small missiles (48 of them) was created precisely to reduce costs. It's unlikely that such a missile would be able to accommodate a system with an active radar and thermal imaging, and its cost would again be the same as a hundred or so drones.
It is highly unprofitable; the radio command method is simpler and much cheaper.
In general, these are different systems; they are more like an analogue of the Osa.

[senima56]

Yes, unfortunately, the “fire and forget” principle has practically not been mastered anywhere in our country, neither in ATGMs nor in SAMs!