PLA Anti-Air Gun systems


SteelBird

Major
If you look on the previous page, there is an option to equip 4 QW series SAM. However, we still haven’t seen gun-missile combo in service.

I think Pantsir’s poor performance in Libya has given the gun missile combo a bad name
I think Pantsir is a good system but just in a bad operator's hand who fights against a strong opponent. Can't really blame Pantsir.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think Pantsir is a good system but just in a bad operator's hand who fights against a strong opponent. Can't really blame Pantsir.
Maybe not, but PLA used to operate Type-95 SP-AAA/SAM combo before, but now it's on it's way out with gun-only PGZ-07 as the replacement.

PLAN operated Kashstan gun/missile CIWS, but there hasn't been any similar domestic systems except for models in export trade shows.

To me, this is showing that PLA is not interested in these types of systems. I don't have any concrete information on this matter, so this is my own hypothesis.

Similar to what I posted on the SAM thread. It could be that the engagement envelope of missiles and guns is too different. PLA SHORAD missiles are at least double the range of guns (Pantsir 57E6 is triple). If you combine the gun and missile together, you can only engage max 1 target. Something like Tor/HQ-17 as a VLS system can engage multiple targets, and I imagine is why they invested in an AESA radar on the HQ-17. Could be a similar situation for PLAN, where ships are operating as a cooperative engagement network. HQ-10 of one ship can be directed to help another ship while 1130/730 gun can still cover the mother-ship. The disadvantage of this system is the additional cost of sensors, extra crew, and additional vehicles.

Again, I have no real source for this, but just my observation that no new in-service systems have combined missile and gun, but we have seen prototypes/tests/export models.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
I think Pantsir’s poor performance in Libya has given the gun missile combo a bad name

The "poor performance" is not true when you compare the cost of attrition of the Panstirs vs the drones they take down.
From all we know they are highly cost effective. Of course, they aren't infallible. Which weapon system is?

If the Pantsir was crap like people say, the US would not be taking such huge lengths to acquire them for analysis.

I think China does not invest as much because the main focus in terms of spending is not on the army.
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
The “poor” performance has nothing to do with it being a gun missile combo. It probably has more to do with the fact pantir uses a small command guided missile that has a low lethality range no terminal homing. Pure Command guided missile works fine if the warhead has a large lethal range, or if the target is following a predictable course, preferable coming directly towards the guidance radar. It works less well if the target is maneuvering and it vector has a large cross component.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
I think the issue with Panstir and similar gun-missile combo systems is that the range of the missile and guns overlap. You don’t want to be using your gun unless the missile misses, but by the time you know if it’s a hit or not, you have lost a lot of time and now your gun only have a fraction of the engagement time it should have.

That’s why the PLAN went with a FL3000 and gun based combo, where the missile range is such that its success or failure has already been determined before the incoming has entered gun range, so both systems knows exactly where their respective cut offs are and neither’s effectiveness is degraded by the performance of the other.

Missile seekers might also have a hard time with small, low heat plastic drones, while guns have or at least could have optical guidance as a back up.

But such weapons are manifestly not suitable for taking on drones. Laser and EW systems are far more suitable.

If you are determined to have a gun based system, I think something along the lines of a giant automatic shotgun would work much better than traditional 20-30mm shells.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well, putting aside issues of operator competence (which are a distinct possibility)
Does the Pantsir not require to be pointed towards the target to engage it? As you mentioned, this will work best if you know the likely flight paths. Rocket attack and smallish drones (TB-2 or CH-3 size) can be launched off the back of a pickup truck which makes the flight path less predictable. You can get better coverage with multiple systems of course, but you would still run into the issue of tying up the guns while engaging with missiles.

Again, this is not to denigrate Pantsir, but in the context of why PLA is not pursuing such a complex.
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think the issue with Panstir and similar gun-missile combo systems is that the range of the missile and guns overlap. You don’t want to be using your gun unless the missile misses, but by the time you know if it’s a hit or not, you have lost a lot of time and now your gun only have a fraction of the engagement time it should have.

That’s why the PLAN went with a FL3000 and gun based combo, where the missile range is such that its success or failure has already been determined before the incoming has entered gun range, so both systems knows exactly where their respective cut offs are and neither’s effectiveness is degraded by the performance of the other.

Missile seekers might also have a hard time with small, low heat plastic drones, while guns have or at least could have optical guidance as a back up.

But such weapons are manifestly not suitable for taking on drones. Laser and EW systems are far more suitable.

If you are determined to have a gun based system, I think something along the lines of a giant automatic shotgun would work much better than traditional 20-30mm shells.


The overlap in missile and gun range is a bonus, not a detriment. There is nothing that says gun and missile has to both engage in the band where their envelopes overlap if the situation does not warrant it. But the availability of both gun and missile greatly extend the engagement envelop of the same set of fire control systems.
 

by78

Lieutenant General
The complete image of the gun and turret assembly. Note the MANPADS.

50804586337_f019ac849c_h.jpg


Some night images of the new AA gun. Does anyone know the designation?

51225706875_3d4ae9223c_o.jpg

51225400899_0b24df444c_o.jpg

51223926972_5c48861034_o.jpg

51224634856_fe162af39e_o.jpg
 

Top