You got me hooked, I will do some homework on the Pantsyr. But would have to agree with Waylander as far as mobility and tactical uses.
Air Defense for Armored Formations
- Thread starter .pt
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
Nice system. UAE uses wich version, the tracked one, or the truck based one?
Also, this system can work standalone, right? On the site they mention only battery style configuration...
Besides tungushka, gepard, and this, what are the other similar systems in the world?
The pantsir-s1-o is a optical tracking, passive missile system..is it comparable to the Ukranian one that generated all the controversy a while back?
.pt
Also, this system can work standalone, right? On the site they mention only battery style configuration...
Besides tungushka, gepard, and this, what are the other similar systems in the world?
The pantsir-s1-o is a optical tracking, passive missile system..is it comparable to the Ukranian one that generated all the controversy a while back?
.pt
Last edited:
there wouldnt be much difference in terms of mobility ,just marginal.
by the way here is a link of the site containing the info on the pantsyr:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/
A 8 wheeled truck is for sure not going to be as mobile as a tracked system.
And a AA system which is intended to work really together with mech forces has to be able to go everywhere they go and as fast as they go.
This is just not possible with such a wheeled truck system.
And a AA system which is intended to work really together with mech forces has to be able to go everywhere they go and as fast as they go.
This is just not possible with such a wheeled truck system.
i have to agree with waylander .....
a wheeled vehicle out of the street,no way can it hold up with the tracked vehicles.....
a very interesting system to be recognize is the chinese Type 95 SPAA vehicle,equipped with 4x25 mm canons and 4 QW-2 IR guided missiles,possibly based on the italian SIDAM system...for further infos,check out the link
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/type95.asp
IMO a capable system,for sure not so as the Tunguska,but not as expensive as the Tunguska or Pantsir.
a wheeled vehicle out of the street,no way can it hold up with the tracked vehicles.....
a very interesting system to be recognize is the chinese Type 95 SPAA vehicle,equipped with 4x25 mm canons and 4 QW-2 IR guided missiles,possibly based on the italian SIDAM system...for further infos,check out the link
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/type95.asp
IMO a capable system,for sure not so as the Tunguska,but not as expensive as the Tunguska or Pantsir.
Thank you for the link.
wittmanace
Active Member
at the link above it says that half of the uae pantsyr systems will be tracked and half will be wheeled. perhaps this means that half will be fixed point aa defence and half will be used in a mobile role? this seems a plausible explanation...and adresses the mobility issue
FutureTank
Banned Member
This is Corps AD asset
FutureTank
Banned Member
Pantzir' are the same weapon systems mounted on a truck. Its a post-USSR solution because the turret was made by one manufacturer and the chassis by another. The maintain production the turret manufacturer teamed up with a truck manufacturer to design the wheeled vehicle, including for export. It also allows the Russian Army to continue acquiring them at low rate thus preserving manufacturing base.
FutureTank
Banned Member
a little explanation.
Units are tactical groups of troops up to division in strength.
Formations are larger groups.
When these units and formations transit between Areas of Operation (AO), they do so in a march configuration called Order of March. During this movement the AD elements are deployed to provide AD envelope over the route.
When the force reaches an area close to where the combat is taking place, it assumes an area where the various parts of the force form up into sub-groups according to the overall plan of deployment. From this area the sub-groups Manoeuvre independently to achieve their missions and tasks in securing planned objectives. AD assets are at this time attached to various sub-groups.
It is very rare to have AD assets attached to a group smaller then a company. Even in the case of a company, the group will usually be made up of various other arms and combat support elements so the group is rarely less then two reinforced companies in strength, and usually a battalion group.
The systems used even by NATO countries are only standardised in terms of digital battle information sharing and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) signal transmission. In general the NATO forces use more surface to air missiles (SAM) then guns. The reason is that modern attack aircraft can deploy their weapons out of effective gunnery range.
Most tactical units deploy in teams of two, or batteries of four, usually mixed missile/gun.
At higher echelon of command (above division), the AD units are usually static, and deploy by batteries with four to eight launchers and a fire control centre (FCC) which includes much more powerful radar and target acquisition and tracking systems.
The above is a start.
AD is a vast area of defence science. It would be very difficult to summarise it here.
There are some useful books you can begin with.
Guided Weapons (Land Warfare, Brassey's New Battlefield Weapons Systems and Technology Series Into the 21st Century, V. 5) (Hardcover)
by T. K. Garland-Collins, C. A. Sparkes, R. G. Lee (Editor), J. F. Rouse (Editor)
You should be aware that AD of ground units is part of an integrated multi-service doctrine. NATO forces in general expected (during Cold War) to not have to face the full brunt of air attacks without air cover from their air forces.
There was, and is a greater reliance on short range man-portable missiles and longer range vehicle mounted systems such as Roland used by German and French armies. German Gepard was designed based on German experience in WW2. American Army took a leaf out of the Air Force book by mounting what is essentially an aircraft weapon in a Gatling configuration atop one of the most used APCs in the World, the M113 to come up with the M163 Vulcan. The new Linebacker combines a 25mm auto cannon with a SAM system. The French used a tank chassis to design the AMX30 DCA twin 30 mm AFV. The variety of self-propelled AD vehicles is truly astounding.
With the introduction of the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), the infantry tactical formation has acquired a relatively lethal ‘hedgehog’ of short range anti-helicopter gunnery capability with a company at full strength being able to open fire with from 8 to 14 single barrel weapons.
Many other vehicles in a tactical formation have less powerful AD weapons in the shape of heavy machine gun (HMG) in the NATO standard 12.7mm or 0.5 inch calibre. These are last resort, very short range (1000m) weapons with Mark 1 eyeball for Fire Control
NATO tactic is to have someone in the group on helicopter overwatch. The battlegroup HQ depends on warning of approaching enemy aircraft from radars at higher echelon in the rear to be available via their battle management systems.
Forces are divided into units and formations.
Units are tactical groups of troops up to division in strength.
Formations are larger groups.
When these units and formations transit between Areas of Operation (AO), they do so in a march configuration called Order of March. During this movement the AD elements are deployed to provide AD envelope over the route.
When the force reaches an area close to where the combat is taking place, it assumes an area where the various parts of the force form up into sub-groups according to the overall plan of deployment. From this area the sub-groups Manoeuvre independently to achieve their missions and tasks in securing planned objectives. AD assets are at this time attached to various sub-groups.
When manoeuvring, the vehicles within the group are positioned within a given tactical formation appropriate to the combat situation, terrain or based on intelligence about the enemy. The place of AD assets attached to these groups of vehicles is determined by particular formation and situation, however in general the AD assets lack armour and are therefore not positioned as a forward element (proviso – unless there is solid intelligence on operation of enemy attack helicopters)
It is very rare to have AD assets attached to a group smaller then a company. Even in the case of a company, the group will usually be made up of various other arms and combat support elements so the group is rarely less then two reinforced companies in strength, and usually a battalion group.
There are no hard and fast ways to define tactical AD operations in ‘Western’ armies because these include NATO and non-NATO forces.
The systems used even by NATO countries are only standardised in terms of digital battle information sharing and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) signal transmission. In general the NATO forces use more surface to air missiles (SAM) then guns. The reason is that modern attack aircraft can deploy their weapons out of effective gunnery range.
However the threat of attack helicopter using tactics to negate missile capabilities are a serious threat, and so most armies combine missile equipped vehicles with automatic cannon vehicles (either tracked or wheeled) in the 20mm to 40mm calibre.
This is hard. Much of AD doctrine has to do with technology they employ. Both missile and gun vehicles use advanced radar, data, and computational systems which are always in transition due to development. Much of this has to do with developments in aerospace technology, air weapons, and jamming of all these systems, as well as countermeasures to negate the jamming, and counter-countermeasures in turn to negate the work of own electronic warfare supporting units.
Most tactical units deploy in teams of two, or batteries of four, usually mixed missile/gun.
At higher echelon of command (above division), the AD units are usually static, and deploy by batteries with four to eight launchers and a fire control centre (FCC) which includes much more powerful radar and target acquisition and tracking systems.
The above is a start.
AD is a vast area of defence science. It would be very difficult to summarise it here.
There are some useful books you can begin with.
Guided Weapons (Land Warfare, Brassey's New Battlefield Weapons Systems and Technology Series Into the 21st Century, V. 5) (Hardcover)
by T. K. Garland-Collins, C. A. Sparkes, R. G. Lee (Editor), J. F. Rouse (Editor)
You should be aware that AD of ground units is part of an integrated multi-service doctrine. NATO forces in general expected (during Cold War) to not have to face the full brunt of air attacks without air cover from their air forces.
There was, and is a greater reliance on short range man-portable missiles and longer range vehicle mounted systems such as Roland used by German and French armies. German Gepard was designed based on German experience in WW2. American Army took a leaf out of the Air Force book by mounting what is essentially an aircraft weapon in a Gatling configuration atop one of the most used APCs in the World, the M113 to come up with the M163 Vulcan. The new Linebacker combines a 25mm auto cannon with a SAM system. The French used a tank chassis to design the AMX30 DCA twin 30 mm AFV. The variety of self-propelled AD vehicles is truly astounding.
With the introduction of the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), the infantry tactical formation has acquired a relatively lethal ‘hedgehog’ of short range anti-helicopter gunnery capability with a company at full strength being able to open fire with from 8 to 14 single barrel weapons.
Many other vehicles in a tactical formation have less powerful AD weapons in the shape of heavy machine gun (HMG) in the NATO standard 12.7mm or 0.5 inch calibre. These are last resort, very short range (1000m) weapons with Mark 1 eyeball for Fire Control
NATO tactic is to have someone in the group on helicopter overwatch. The battlegroup HQ depends on warning of approaching enemy aircraft from radars at higher echelon in the rear to be available via their battle management systems.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Have you seen any tank shoot down a training drone with main gun?
I find it hard to believe
I find it hard to believe
It is constantly trained via simulator training and AGDUS (A more modern system like MILES)
Why is it so hard to believe?
The FCS don't know the difference between a moving ground target and a helicopter.
Do you know how helicopters behave when being on an attack run or searching for targets? It is not like they do very special maneuvers and often enough they hover.
So you laser the target, the FCS calculates and you fire. A KE round with more than 1750m/s does not gives you so much time to react.The important thing is to see the Helicopter first.
Why is it so hard to believe?
The FCS don't know the difference between a moving ground target and a helicopter.
Do you know how helicopters behave when being on an attack run or searching for targets? It is not like they do very special maneuvers and often enough they hover.
So you laser the target, the FCS calculates and you fire. A KE round with more than 1750m/s does not gives you so much time to react.The important thing is to see the Helicopter first.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Indeed. There is a new round being developed for the US and it's M1A1/S tanks, designed at least partially for the anti-helicopter role and features an 8K plus range, ie: beyond that of virtually all helo launched anti-armour missiles...
Yes - it has a prox fuse that will detonate when the round picks up the wash of the rotors, will detonate 15 feet from the helicopter, this a combo heat round which the tank crew has to set it at either air or ground.
Aussie - there is also the new Lehat round that is designed to do what you mentioned also.
WOULD THEY JUST PLEASE GIVE THE U.S TANKERS A BASIC HEP ROUND.
Yes - the German Army has gone with KE, while the U.S has gone with using Heat, both countries do practice this on their tank simulators.
Waylander - Does the German armor units use UCOFTs for their tank simulators.
Sorry - Unit Conduct Of Fire Trainer. It pretty much looks like the inside turret of your tank, should have room for the gunner and tank commander hooked up to one big computer, some of them are set up now for platoon strenght training.
I think Future Tank made an important point:
The best air defence of an armoured formation is to prevent the enemy from flying:
1. Hit their airbases, the Air Force would do that anyhow to protect their own base.
2. Shoot down the enemy in the air before they are in a position to attack.
Actually I see Air Defence as one of the great challenges for netcentric warfare. Not so much in distributing the information, as the data contents in an air situation is not very large.
The problems crop up when you assign assets to deal with the different threats.
1. Get every target assigned and avoid double assignments (see below).
2. As long as Air Defence pilots are uncomfortable (to say the least) with flying in their own SHORADEZ a valuable advantage is thrown overboard: The ability to engage with multiple weapons simultaneously.
I understand the reluctance, as the training in aircraft spotting is nothing to boast about. Given proficient aircraft spotters in charge of firing units, there should not be any reason for apprehension following a hostile into the teeth of own MANPADs. And it will be the case, as I have my reservations about shooting down helicopters BVR - these things fly between the trees - if they know what they are doing.
3. Covering a unit on the move is difficult and to ensure overlap between range and launch envelopes is difficult - especially if the armour is involved in combat. It is far easier to make set-piece demonstrations, but in real terrain facing multiple threats is quite a different matter.
If I were an insurance-salesman I would have severe reservations if the enemy could stand off with PGM, blaze in at 100' (no need for low level) and have choppers lurking in the background.
The best air defence of an armoured formation is to prevent the enemy from flying:
1. Hit their airbases, the Air Force would do that anyhow to protect their own base.
2. Shoot down the enemy in the air before they are in a position to attack.
Actually I see Air Defence as one of the great challenges for netcentric warfare. Not so much in distributing the information, as the data contents in an air situation is not very large.
The problems crop up when you assign assets to deal with the different threats.
1. Get every target assigned and avoid double assignments (see below).
2. As long as Air Defence pilots are uncomfortable (to say the least) with flying in their own SHORADEZ a valuable advantage is thrown overboard: The ability to engage with multiple weapons simultaneously.
I understand the reluctance, as the training in aircraft spotting is nothing to boast about. Given proficient aircraft spotters in charge of firing units, there should not be any reason for apprehension following a hostile into the teeth of own MANPADs. And it will be the case, as I have my reservations about shooting down helicopters BVR - these things fly between the trees - if they know what they are doing.
3. Covering a unit on the move is difficult and to ensure overlap between range and launch envelopes is difficult - especially if the armour is involved in combat. It is far easier to make set-piece demonstrations, but in real terrain facing multiple threats is quite a different matter.
If I were an insurance-salesman I would have severe reservations if the enemy could stand off with PGM, blaze in at 100' (no need for low level) and have choppers lurking in the background.
We have three types of simulators for tank crews.
The first is a basic turret trainer consisting of a turret strapped of the hull for training basic turret operations.
The two main simulators are the ASPT and AGPT.
ASPT consists of a gunner station, a commander station and a instrcutor station. Normally used for pure gunnery training.
AGPT consists of all four stations for the crew and they can be linked for platoon level training.
A not to forget the funny hydraulic driver simulator.
The first is a basic turret trainer consisting of a turret strapped of the hull for training basic turret operations.
The two main simulators are the ASPT and AGPT.
ASPT consists of a gunner station, a commander station and a instrcutor station. Normally used for pure gunnery training.
AGPT consists of all four stations for the crew and they can be linked for platoon level training.
A not to forget the funny hydraulic driver simulator.