Jump to content

Recommended Posts

After watching those videos showing Buk and Pantsir, I'm wondering why they decided on that particular chassis for the Pantsir and didn't mount the upper works (guns, missiles etc) on a BTR-80 or similar instead. Would that have worked?

 

There have been some interesting posts as far as how the Pantsir was supposed to be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    3224

  • Simon Tan

    1633

  • Stuart Galbraith

    1215

  • Josh

    889

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Pansir was designed to be operationally mobile, not tactically mobile (as Simon mentioned). For its intended use no armor or treads are necessary.

 

The missile I believe is much longer, and longer ranged, than Tunguska. I don't know much about the intricacies of the fire control but I assume Pansir benefited from being developed much later. They do both rely on the vehicle accurately tracking the target and updated the missile, which as someone noted is supposed to allow for a much lower cost missile. I suspect it also allowed for a smaller/more narrow missile as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Static SHORAD, mostly... Why BTR-80 with all the baggage, when a solid military truck is good enough, provides more space and you probably do not lose out that much mobility vs. BTR chassis?

 

I was wondering along the lines of a different chassis, at least one that would give the system a bit more off-road capability perhaps. Perhaps something like MT-LB might have been a better idea to suggest? However as you say, since it is mostly a static system, then 8x8 truck-mounted does seem to be the best idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please elaborate Gargean?

FCS is much better, utilizing much stronger radar and better EOTS. Provides capability to intercept much smaller and faster targets than Tung. Missile is much faster and longer ranged, with bigger warhead. In whole Pantsir-S1 is better in anything by really meaningful margin, not comparable with Tung>Tung-M switch. Only drawback of system is deadzone for missiles due to two-stage missile, albeit it's not too big and covered by cannons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Same building was inspected in 2017 by OPCW and not found to be cranking out CW.

If you think about it, it was probably the most expensive demolition of a redundant building ever undertaken.

 

If British report of their submarine prevented from launching cruise missiles by Rus Navy are true, then it was planned to be even more expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't believe those reports. Also UK boats only have torpedo tubes, so I suspect its contribution would have been pretty limited.

The TLAM, Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (BG-109) is 21" in diameter precisely so they can be launched through torpedo tubes. I don't see why the Brits wouldn't have the same capability. Actually, I'm pretty sure they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“And I hope that this time, the Assad regime got the message,” Mr. Mattis said.

 

What message, Mr. Mattis? Exactly what message was supposed to be delivered with a milque toast response? If you, as I, don't believe that the US should be conducting military diplomacy with respect to Syria, then it is your responsibility, nay obligation, to resign if you can't back the president.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still don't believe those reports. Also UK boats only have torpedo tubes, so I suspect its contribution would have been pretty limited.

The TLAM, Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (BG-109) is 21" in diameter precisely so they can be launched through torpedo tubes. I don't see why the Brits wouldn't have the same capability. Actually, I'm pretty sure they do.

 

Just to support your point.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

 

I think the UK boat would have got a lot from this interaction and enjoyed the hunt. People are assuming that the UK boat was being hunted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't believe those reports. Also UK boats only have torpedo tubes, so I suspect its contribution would have been pretty limited.

 

Astutes have 6 tubes, but no VLS, so agreed. The Media have suggested there was 2 submarines present, which I dont personally believe.

 

My own view, the reason why we didnt use a submarine was not due to Russian submarines (cos I dont believe a Kilo could track an Astute, or even a Trafalgar). It wsa either a surface warship (which an other account, which I dont really believe either, claimed) or Theresa May would have reflected the use of a submarine would have meant considerably more assets being introduced, which would have warranted a vote in politics. For 8 Bombs and 4 aircraft, its a considerably lighter commitment than 98 seaman.

 

Actually that reminds me of a rather good joke, but perhaps Ill leave that for another time. :)

 

 

 

 

I still don't believe those reports. Also UK boats only have torpedo tubes, so I suspect its contribution would have been pretty limited.

The TLAM, Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (BG-109) is 21" in diameter precisely so they can be launched through torpedo tubes. I don't see why the Brits wouldn't have the same capability. Actually, I'm pretty sure they do.

 

Just to support your point.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

 

I think the UK boat would have got a lot from this interaction and enjoyed the hunt. People are assuming that the UK boat was being hunted.

 

At the risk of being perceived as gingoistic, after having read 'The Silent Deep', I pity any Kilo submarine skipper that had to go up against an RN skipper in an Astute. Well I guess we will discover the truth in a couple of decades or so. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still don't believe those reports. Also UK boats only have torpedo tubes, so I suspect its contribution would have been pretty limited.

The TLAM, Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (BG-109) is 21" in diameter precisely so they can be launched through torpedo tubes. I don't see why the Brits wouldn't have the same capability. Actually, I'm pretty sure they do.

 

 

They do, but the limit is the number of tubes, and the speed of reloading. I read somewhere modern submarines can load torpedos in 3 minutes in a rush, but that is usually one at a time. Im not quite sure why, either equipment reasons, or maybe even for trim. So you have 3 minutes x 6 tubes which is 18 minutes. It would be a great challenge, unless you put in a massive dogleg, to get all 12 of the missiles to TOT that being the case. Im sure we could, but that would mean launching earlier than anyone else which probably wouldnt be popular.

 

Personally Id have liked VLS in the Astutes for this reason, but you cant have everything. if nothing else have some good facilities for SF which we might find more useful.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This morning, there are reports that the Israelis tried to hit some airfields yesterday without any effect.

The Syrians have since change their story to 'false alarm', and not 100% success in defending against the Zionists.

 

The line now is "the Zionists and imperialists made us fire our missiles at phantoms". No statement on how many phantoms were successfully intercepted.

 

Syrian claims of missile attack on Homs airbase were 'false alarm'

State media reports that Syria’s air defences were mistakenly activated overnight at Shayrat

 

Oliver Holmes and agencies

Tue 17 Apr 2018 11.26 BST

 

Syrian air defences were mistakenly activated overnight in response to a false alarm at the Shayrat airbase near Homs, state television has announced.

 

State media had earlier reported that incoming missiles were shot down by the country’s anti-air batteries on Monday night. It showed pictures of a missile shot above the base.

 

Later on Tuesday, however, state television said “there was no foreign assault on Syria” and that the missiles had been fired in response to a false alarm.

 

The reports of a fresh attack were made at a time of heightened alert after US, British and French forces bombed Syria at the weekend. Syria previously claimed Israeli warplanes had targeted another airbase near Homs.

A commander in the regional military alliance that backs the Syrian government said the air defence malfunction was due to “a joint electronic attack” by Israel and the US on the radar system. Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, he said that Russian experts had dealt with the issue.

 

Responding to the initial report, Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesman, said: “There is no US military activity in that area at this time. We do not have additional details to provide.”

 

Hezbollah militia’s media unit said on Tuesday that Syrian air defences had intercepted three missiles aimed at Dumair airbase, north-east of Damascus.

 

Syrian state media made no mention of the strike on Dumair. Opposition forces say Dumair was used in the military campaign to regain eastern Ghouta.

 

[...]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/17/syria-missiles-fired-at-air-base-near-homs-state-tv

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Syria False flag - Admiral Lord West Casts Doubt on Syria Attack Intelligence - BBC NEWS 16/04/2018" But winning information war against Russia is priority :)

 

Pity they couldnt have found anyone whom was less than 8 years removed from intelligence issues to comment really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_West,_Baron_West_of_Spithead

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This morning, there are reports that the Israelis tried to hit some airfields yesterday without any effect.

The Syrians have since change their story to 'false alarm', and not 100% success in defending against the Zionists.

 

The line now is "the Zionists and imperialists made us fire our missiles at phantoms".

 

Are there any Phantoms still flying. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Syria False flag - Admiral Lord West Casts Doubt on Syria Attack Intelligence - BBC NEWS 16/04/2018" But winning information war against Russia is priority :)

 

 

Pity they couldnt have found anyone whom was less than 8 years removed from intelligence issues to comment really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_West,_Baron_West_of_Spithead

 

Note he is not saying he got any intelligence data and use something more than common sense. But journalist reaction of "Given we are in information war with Russia on so many fronts, do you think perhaps it is inadvisable to be stating this so publically given your position and your profile? Is't it a danger you are muddying the waters? " is remarkable for me. Wasn't he invided to express his opinion? I do not think he was banging BBC doors asking to interview him....

Link to post
Share on other sites

"One America's Pearson Sharp visited the war-torn town of Douma outside the capital of Damascus, looking for evidence of a chemical attack. However, residents there deny the claims of an attack, and say it was staged to help the rebels escape."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...