Military Review

In the Russian Federation developed a projectile with a jet engine

123
In Russia, a new artillery shell is being developed, which, more than 2 times, will increase the firing range of domestic self-propelled and towed guns, reports Rossiyskaya Gazeta.


In the Russian Federation developed a projectile with a jet engine


“By the time of putting it into service, it will not only significantly surpass the ammunition currently used, but will be at the level of the best foreign prospective developments,” the material says.

It is expected that the new product will appear in 2-x variants, one of which will have a caliber 152 mm.

According to experts, this will allow it to be used both on promising howitzer 2C35 "Coalition-SV", and on already used self-propelled installations "Msta-S" and towed guns "Msta-B".

According to some data, it is also planned to create a version of the projectile in caliber 203 mm for self-propelled guns “Malka” and “Peony”.

According to the newspaper, the firing range of 70 and more kilometers will be achieved “by adding an ammunition design with a straight-through rocket engine of the bottom or head location: the engine turns on some time after the shot, at the moment when the projectile is already stabilized by rotation, and increases its speed by trajectories.

Military experts suggest that to increase accuracy, the ammunition will be equipped with special modules of satellite guidance.

This development was demonstrated during the Army-2017 forum at the booth of the Baltic State Technical University "Voenmekh" named after D.F. Ustinov.
Photos used:
rg.ru, Alexey Moiseev
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrall
    Thrall 15 November 2017 11: 17 New
    +8
    This product already and the shell somehow to name the language does not turn.
    1. Jedi
      Jedi 15 November 2017 11: 23 New
      +5
      hi So name "missile." wink
      Seriously, it's an interesting development. Do competitors have similar projects?
      1. Zhelezyakin
        Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 24 New
        +4
        Good day, colleague! May the force come with you)))
        It seems that there are rocket-guided missiles at the armament of the MBT ?!
        1. Jedi
          Jedi 15 November 2017 11: 30 New
          +5
          Good day to you, fellow on a lightsaber! lol hi
          Quote: Zhelezyakin
          It seems that there are rocket-guided missiles at the armament of the MBT ?!

          There is, but in the article, as I understand it, we are talking about shells for howitzers, since "Coalition-SV", "Msta-S", "Malka" and "Peony" are already mentioned.
          1. Zhelezyakin
            Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 32 New
            +4
            Apparently yes. One of the options is just 152 mm. However, not a word about the second size ...
            1. Jedi
              Jedi 15 November 2017 11: 39 New
              +4
              Let’s wait until the work is completed - then we will find out with what this shell is eaten and from whom they shoot with such a shell.
              1. Svarog51
                Svarog51 15 November 2017 11: 54 New
                +6
                Lesha, Max greet you luminiferous warriors. hi drinks
                On the MBT, a guided missile is used - essentially the same ATGM launched through the barrel. And there is an armor-piercing sub-caliber - this is an ordinary projectile, not rocket. Yes, and tank caliber 125 mm. And these shells for large-caliber artillery are self-propelled and towed. Designed to increase the range and accuracy of the lesion. Something like this. drinks
                1. Jedi
                  Jedi 15 November 2017 11: 57 New
                  +4
                  Sergey, hello! hi drinks In your own words you only confirmed my thoughts on this topic.
                2. Zhelezyakin
                  Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 57 New
                  +3
                  Sergey, welcome!
                  Your truth ... Podkaliber, this is a bit wrong)))
                  1. Svarog51
                    Svarog51 15 November 2017 12: 08 New
                    +5
                    Yeah, both answered. good So give me the lightsaber? Otherwise I won’t enlighten you. lol
                    1. Zhelezyakin
                      Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 10 New
                      +3
                      Sure, not a problem! Only according to the tradition of the order, the young man himself must show his strength and skills!
                      1. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 15 November 2017 12: 22 New
                        +6
                        And I, and mine! I'll ride you on my bear. He knows how to play the balalaika and drinks vodka with me. Well how? wink
                      2. Jedi
                        Jedi 15 November 2017 12: 22 New
                        10
                        Quote: Zhelezyakin
                        Only according to the tradition of the order, the young man himself must show his strength and skills!

                        I feel the strength in your words:
                3. AUL
                  AUL 15 November 2017 20: 22 New
                  0
                  The idea is not new. For a long time there was already an active rocket. With a very significant increase in range, his accuracy dropped sharply, and his range increased. Now this idea has reached a new level - the correction of the trajectory in flight is involved. Let's see what happens in the end. But the cost will be clearly not comparable with a conventional projectile.
        2. hrych
          hrych 15 November 2017 11: 33 New
          10
          Quote: Zhelezyakin
          It seems that there are rocket-guided missiles at the armament of the MBT ?!

          Here is something else, a projectile with a ramjet nozzle for a large caliber. We have in our nomenclature a 152-mm 3BV3 nuclear shell (Msta-S, Acacia, Hyacinth), a 203-mm 3BV2 nuclear shell (Peony), a 240-mm 3BV4 nuclear mine (Tulip). Everyone has a range of 18 km, only Peony has 18 to 30. If you add an engine and reach a range of 70 to 100 km, then a very scary weapon turns the barrel artillery into something more. Early removed the crown from the queen of the fields.
          1. BAI
            BAI 15 November 2017 13: 14 New
            +4
            Early removed the crown from the queen of the fields.

            The queen of the fields is the infantry. Artillery is the god of war.
            1. hrych
              hrych 15 November 2017 13: 16 New
              +4
              Quote: BAI
              The queen of the fields is the infantry. Artillery is the god of war.

              In heaven a coup. God of war ICBM, and the queen of the fields ... TNW laughing
          2. just exp
            just exp 15 November 2017 19: 03 New
            0
            The first two experimental 2A37 guns were delivered to SZTM at the end of 1972.
            In serial production of self-propelled guns "Hyacinth" launched in 1976 year.

            Subsequently, the shot was taken into service ZVOF86 / ZVOF87 with the shell OF-59 with a range of 30 km.

            Work on the creation of a guided 152-mm artillery shell "Krasnopol" began in the late 1970s in KBP.


            this topic has been over for years than more local commentators
      2. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 15 November 2017 12: 12 New
        +3
        Quote: Jedi
        Jedi Today, 11:23 ↑ New
        hi So name "rocket". wink
        Seriously, it's an interesting development. Do competitors have similar projects?

        Everything is as usual. Designers say they have developed a revolutionary product. And to the head’s question: “How do they do it?”, They answer: “They have only done it there for a long time.”
        This is a real dialogue at a meeting in KB Ilyushin about the wing with a laminar profile.
        With this shell exactly the same.
      3. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 15 November 2017 12: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: Jedi
        So name "rocket"

        RS-82 and RS-132 (from Russian rocket projectile, caliber 82 and 132 mm, respectively) - unguided aviation ammunition (reaching the target without correcting the trajectory during the flight) classes of air - air and air - surface equipped with a jet engine on smokeless powder . Developed in the USSR from 1929 to 1937 They were widely used during the Great Patriotic War.
      4. Alex777
        Alex777 15 November 2017 14: 26 New
        +2
        Seriously, it's an interesting development. Do competitors have similar projects?

        This projectile is everywhere called active-reactive (ARS). There are amers, and Italians, and Germans. The Italian naval gun of 127 mm per 100 km shoots.
      5. just exp
        just exp 15 November 2017 18: 57 New
        +1
        So name "missile." wink
        Seriously, it's an interesting development. Do competitors have similar projects?

        damn, the first time you went to military sites? at least served in the army in the department?
        people, these are ordinary active-rocket shells for more than half a century, here they simply made a higher range because of new fuel. Well, the GOS is probably new, either according to GLONASS or laser guidance, or have you never heard of Krasnopol? But about Excalibur? and I'm not talking about Arthur’s sword.
        damn, soon in the news about the new Kalashniki there will be koments in the style of "wow, what a reliable assault rifle, but there is one in the army? Do competitors have similar assault rifles? Do they also have gunpowder?" .
      6. The brightest
        The brightest 16 November 2017 11: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: Jedi
        hi Do competitors have similar projects?

        Yes there is a declared range of 60km
    2. NIKNN
      NIKNN 15 November 2017 11: 25 New
      +5
      Quote: Thrall
      This product already and the shell somehow to name the language does not turn.

      Well, there were active rockets before, and this is a modern modification of this device, sharpened by modern barrel artillery ... hi
    3. RASKAT
      RASKAT 15 November 2017 11: 42 New
      +1
      Well, let's see what happens in practice. It's too early to criticize.
      But as for me it would be better to fight for accuracy and not for range.
      And it’s better for that and for that, and tablets for me from greed wassat
    4. sir_obs
      sir_obs 15 November 2017 13: 24 New
      +1
      Active rocket, not news at all.
  2. Primoos
    Primoos 15 November 2017 11: 18 New
    +3
    I love all sorts of such iron things! I would have put them in my sideboard, but the police will scold them. But seriously, the artillery in Russia is at its best.
    1. Thrall
      Thrall 15 November 2017 11: 24 New
      +6
      Well, artillery is the god of war smile
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 15 November 2017 12: 20 New
        +2
        Quote: Thrall

        2
        Thrall Today, 11: 24 ↑ New
        Well, artillery is the god of war

        MT-12, it is almost always direct fire. Even in battles of low intensity, the calculation of the guns does not have a lot of chances to survive. It's time to remove it from service.
        1. just exp
          just exp 15 November 2017 19: 04 New
          0
          in the Donbass, the main role is played by artillery.
          so it’s too early to write off, although if you are talking about vocational training, then yes, now the main fiddle is played by the anti-tank systems.
          but with the spread of KAZ ATGMs will go down in history, and the VET will again begin to play a major role on the battlefield.
  3. askort154
    askort154 15 November 2017 11: 21 New
    +3
    And it all started with a core and buckshot. It is hard to imagine what will happen again in 100-200 years. (if the Earth survives).
    1. Primoos
      Primoos 15 November 2017 11: 44 New
      +2
      Quote: askort154
      And it all started with a core and buckshot. It is hard to imagine what will happen again in 100-200 years. (if the Earth survives).

      Actually, it started with a wooden trunk with gravel instead of buckshot. It was a terrible weapon! Mostly for servants.
  4. Zhelezyakin
    Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 23 New
    +3
    I’m curious about the advantages of a once-through engine compared to a solid-fuel one. It seems to me that the TT will be more reliable in this case.
    1. Mikhail m
      Mikhail m 15 November 2017 11: 29 New
      +4
      Will the solid fuel charge withstand overload during firing?
      1. Zhelezyakin
        Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 30 New
        +3
        Does an explosive in an ordinary projectile withstand?
      2. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 15 November 2017 16: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Michael m
        Michael m Today, 11:29 ↑
        Will the solid fuel charge withstand overload during firing?

        Withstands. Since the 60s, when the Americans began the development of active rockets. Since the 70s, active rockets began to be adopted in many countries around the world, not only for guns and howitzers, but also for mortars.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 November 2017 11: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: Zhelezyakin
      what are the advantages of a ram engine compared to a solid engine.

      No.
      In general, all these ARSs are ordinary toys of big brutal boys for "popping in that direction." Waste of money and resources.
      Tactical missiles are capable of fulfilling the same task, and without any particular strain in the form of the need to pack everything into a shell of a fixed size, moreover under the condition of automatic loading.
      1. Zhelezyakin
        Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 39 New
        +4
        Yab said only the complexity of the wagon. TTRD has one mode, it is easier to start it than the PRD. Support too. The design is simpler, read more reliable. If you bother with the topic of UARS, I am for TRD.
        1. Svarog51
          Svarog51 15 November 2017 12: 01 New
          +4
          Alex, welcome hi The technology of fueling equipment is different, maybe they are considering it. The shells are experimental. Pouring liquid fuel is easier than solid. And there you know what will happen next.
          1. Zhelezyakin
            Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 27 New
            +3
            Solid fuel is equipped at the plant, but liquid fuel is a question. They can also be in position. Just as for me, ammunition from the warehouse, ready for use, so to speak, is more profitable.
            1. Svarog51
              Svarog51 15 November 2017 12: 44 New
              +5
              God forbid, pour liquid fuel into the projectile, fill all the production only in the factory. It is only on mortar mines that additional charges are hung. About solid fuel I only know that it should be homogeneous and evenly distributed in the tank so that it burns correctly.
              1. Zhelezyakin
                Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 48 New
                +3
                Right. It is also less toxic. On the issue of disposal after the shelf life of the PSU.
                Okay. We will see what happens in the end. A useful and necessary thing in my not professional opinion.
                1. Svarog51
                  Svarog51 15 November 2017 14: 26 New
                  +4
                  We will see what happens in the end.

                  We will definitely drinks
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 00: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Zhelezyakin
              Solid fuel is equipped at the plant, but liquid fuel is a question. They can also be in position

              "They can and in position ..." belay negative
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 01: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: Svarog51
            Liquid fuel is easier to fill than solid

            There are ramjets and with a "solid" gas generator ...
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 November 2017 11: 57 New
      +1
      Direct-flow runs longer and more economically than TT ... at short distances it is more profitable than TT, but long ramjet
      1. Zhelezyakin
        Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 29 New
        +3
        Debatable. The task is to fly 70 km, not 700. The big question is the size of the engine, specific consumption and necessary traction.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 November 2017 12: 37 New
          +1
          and in the uniformity of thrust for the flight period .... for greater range.
          1. Zhelezyakin
            Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 52 New
            +3
            I agree in general. TT compromise issue ...
    4. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 15 November 2017 12: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: Zhelezyakin
      Zhelezyakin Today, 11:23 AM New
      I’m curious about the advantages of a once-through engine compared to a solid-fuel one. It seems to me that the TT will be more reliable in this case.

      Direct-flow, this is most likely a journalistic pearl. I heard this word somewhere, so I decided to share my literacy.
      1. Zhelezyakin
        Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 51 New
        +3
        Well no! Pay attention to the photo. In the region of the warhead with a characteristic shape of nozzles ... The article also mentions two types of engines (pushing and pulling, so to speak)
    5. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 00: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: Zhelezyakin
      what are the advantages of a ram engine compared to solid fuel

      For ramjet engine there is no need to store an oxidizing agent ... you can charge more fuel ... the engine’s operating time and range (!) Increase.
  5. Lopatov
    Lopatov 15 November 2017 11: 25 New
    +4
    What's the point?
    Well, no, increasing the range of the barrel artillery is, of course, very good. But not at the same price.
    Option one is uncontrollable. Requires high precision jet engine performance. What will make such a projectile more expensive than a guided one.
    The second option is managed. It requires an engine and control equipment, firstly, very, very compact, and secondly able to withstand high loads when fired. What will make such a projectile more expensive than a tactical missile with a similarly powerful action when the target is a warhead.

    Question: why then goat button accordion?
    1. Zhelezyakin
      Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: Spade
      Military experts suggest that to increase accuracy, the ammunition will be equipped with special modules of satellite guidance.

      I think the second option. However, the bourgeoisie are armed with shells with ZhPS navigation. M982 Excalibur
    2. Thrall
      Thrall 15 November 2017 11: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      Question: why then goat button accordion?

      Let partners over the puddle worry and spend money on reciprocal developments smile
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2017 11: 33 New
        +2
        Everything is exactly the opposite. In this case, we repeat the stupidity behind the partners. But for some reason we are not in a hurry with clever decisions of partners like the subcaliber HE shells of the Vulkano family.
        1. Thrall
          Thrall 15 November 2017 11: 36 New
          0
          To say that you are developing does not always mean that you are doing it.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 November 2017 11: 37 New
            +1
            I don’t think they will pay attention. They have their own existing programs with very, very high prospects.
      2. Zhelezyakin
        Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 36 New
        +3
        Yes, they have 155mm Excalibur. This is us catching up
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 November 2017 11: 55 New
          +1
          Moreover, massive and mastered ....
        2. Svarog51
          Svarog51 15 November 2017 12: 13 New
          +4
          We also have adjustable shells, only there another principle is used. Googled “Daredevil” and “Krasnopol”, but something else seems to be there. I am not an artilleryman, therefore I know superficially.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 15 November 2017 12: 19 New
            +1
            this is another song and another generation and different ranges. There were analogues in the West too.
    3. Mikhail m
      Mikhail m 15 November 2017 11: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      Question: why then goat button accordion?

      The initial acceleration is given due to an external source, without the expense of fuel on board, which will significantly increase the firing range.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2017 11: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Michael m
        The initial acceleration is given by an external source, without the expense of fuel on board

        The first, booster stage of the rocket can perform the same function, and cheaper.
        1. hrych
          hrych 15 November 2017 12: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          The first, booster stage of the rocket can perform the same function, and cheaper.

          No, not cheaper. Each product has its own technical specifications, it has a price and technological costs. Stabilization system. The system of shooting the spent stage and weighting the product and adding dimensions. Also, part of the energy of the first stage goes to the first stage itself. The receiver only has a charge, well, there’s a sleeve. Stabilization due to rotation due to rifling of the barrel. Direct-flow taxiway is very simple and cheap, it makes it possible to get away from the ballistic trajectory in the barrel artillery. The nozzle easily upgrades ready-made shells. A large number of self-propelled guns and howitzers standing in service receive superpowers for striking power, their survivability increases due to the range of application. And so forth
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 November 2017 12: 28 New
            0
            Quote: hrych
            No, not cheaper. Each product has its own technical specifications, it has a price and technological costs. The system of shooting the spent stage and weighting the product and adding dimensions.

            Cheaper. Because for a tactical missile, dimensions are not particularly important. Unlike shells, where the dimensions are as tight as possible. It is enough to recall the dances with tambourines around the UAS "Krasnopole" of the first series, which had to be done by teams, and then started by means of special belts in the breech 2C19. And in the "Coalition" in general, fully automatic loading, without the possibility of a manual option.
            Quote: hrych
            Also, part of the energy of the first stage goes to the first stage itself.

            Is not a fact. For the same Bassoon / Competition missiles, the first stage / booster engine remains in the TPK
            Quote: hrych
            Direct-flow taxiway is very simple and cheap, it makes it possible to get away from the ballistic trajectory in the barrel artillery.

            Modern UAS have already moved away from the ballistic trajectory even without any engines. Like, for example, Krasnopole. Well, any engine is absolutely unnecessary weight after working out the active section. Which drags a rocket or projectile on itself only so that it does not drop them on the heads of its troops.

            Quote: hrych
            The nozzle easily upgrades ready-made shells.

            8))) And if they are not?
            1. hrych
              hrych 15 November 2017 13: 09 New
              0
              To put it another way, there are tactical missiles, there are MLRS, but the barrel artillery was in stagnation, it occupied its niche in the range of 18 km, well, under 30, that's all. In modern warfare it has become an anachronism, with direct fire it has nothing to do, anti-tank missiles rule there. The anti-tank work was taken away. In the overseas, unemployment is also due to missiles. Okay, self-propelled guns, but the same towed howitzers and large-caliber mortars, cheap and a lot of them, well, were left completely without work. And then a second wind, and nuclear shells, and range, and cheapness. In short, give the trunks a job wassat
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2017 13: 19 New
                0
                Quote: hrych
                To put it another way, there are tactical missiles, MLRS are, but the barrel artillery was in stagnation

                Tanks are also "in stagnation", because they do not know how to shoot at 70 km 8)))
                In general, the receiver has a completely different niche. Moreover, in modern conditions, it should shoot at the minimum possible range with a minimum charge.
                Otherwise, the C-RAM class radars already in service will be warned by the enemy unit that is firing, long before the first group of shells arrives. Such systems are already operating in Afghanistan.
                That is, it is necessary to minimize flight time, otherwise the effectiveness of the fire will be reduced.
            2. Mimoprohodil
              Mimoprohodil 15 November 2017 17: 17 New
              0
              And what do you say about missiles with air defense systems for MLRS?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 November 2017 17: 40 New
                0
                Quote: Mimoprohodil
                And what do you say about missiles with air defense systems for MLRS?

                But this is a good idea. If I understand correctly, they work simultaneously. And you can choose the thrust in such a way that the air defense system located on the nose of the rocket compensates for the "inadequate" reaction of the RS to the wind. And it will not be necessary to separately calculate and introduce corrections for the active part of the trajectory
    4. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 15 November 2017 12: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Spade

      2
      Shovels Today, 11: 25 New
      What's the point?
      Well, no, increasing the range of the barrel artillery is, of course, very good. But not at the same price.
      Option one is uncontrollable. Requires high precision jet engine performance. What will make such a projectile more expensive than a guided one.
      The second option is managed. It requires an engine and control equipment, firstly, very, very compact, and secondly able to withstand high loads when fired. What will make such a projectile more expensive than a tactical missile with a similarly powerful action when the target is a warhead.

      Question: why then goat button accordion?

      And why do you need an artillery gun with a firing range of 70 km with an unguided projectile?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 15 November 2017 12: 29 New
        0
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        And why do you need an artillery gun with a firing range of 70 km with an unguided projectile?

        Do not know
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 November 2017 12: 43 New
          0
          It is already no more than 30km ... you will not get.
          1. hrych
            hrych 15 November 2017 13: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Zaurbek
            It is already no more than 30km ... you will not get.

            I repeat, this is a large caliber with a nuclear nomenclature, you need to get into the city laughing
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 15 November 2017 13: 31 New
              0
              In YaBCh he is also needed .. that instead of 10ktn it would be possible to shoot 1ktn .... and not expose your advancing units to radiation.
        2. Tektor
          Tektor 15 November 2017 18: 38 New
          0
          Quote: Spade
          And why do you need an artillery gun with a firing range of 70 km with an unguided projectile?

          Quote: Spade
          Do not know
          Not carefully read the material!
          Military experts suggest that to increase accuracy, the ammunition will be equipped with special modules of satellite guidance.
          This means that this ammunition is controllable, i.e. It belongs to the category of precision weapons. And Malka will be able to close the range under 100 km and even a little more than that.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 November 2017 19: 02 New
            0
            Quote: Tektor
            This means that this ammunition is controllable, i.e. It belongs to the category of precision weapons. And Malka will be able to close the range under 100 km and even a little more than that.

            A tactical missile will accomplish the same task much cheaper. It is practically unlimited in size, it has a much softer start in terms of congestion, and so on. Including the possibility of using promising warheads such as the fragmentation-thermobaric fragmentation patented by Alloy
            You do not forget the dimensions of the projectile - a fixed thing. And each "refinement", even a powder checker, to reduce the bottom effect, "steals a degree". That is, it reduces the power of action at the goal. And then a guided projectile, and even with an engine on the nose ...
            Interestingly, there will be at least a little BB? Probably, like a mine to 82-mm mortar 8)))
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 01: 49 New
              +3
              Quote: Spade
              A tactical missile will accomplish the same task much cheaper. It is practically unlimited in size, it has a much softer start in terms of congestion, and so on.

              The reasoning does not at all take into account the “universality” of artillery! "Your" tactical missile, "practically unlimited in size" (and weighing, for example, approx. 3 tons), with an 500 kg warhead, where (when) will it be used? Or maybe it’s easier to assume when it will not be used: against a “lonely” tank, a machine-gun “nest” ...? And for art, this is a nice thing! But artillery cannot hit targets at a distance, for example, in 70 km ... put on tactical missiles. That is: both artillery and missiles. And this is a complication of the structure, an increase in the number of troops (and demographic problems?), A complication of logistics, an additional item of expenditures in the defense budget .. Of course, I will exaggerate the "topic" to a certain extent, but if you try to make out the "rational kernel" ?. Should a greater emphasis be placed on increasing the combat effectiveness of artillery? To give her the opportunity to hit some targets "characteristic" of tactical missiles? There will be no need (in some cases) for the troops to have both artillery and missile systems. The presence of missile systems causes the enemy special interest and close attention, concern ... with all the "ensuing" consequences. Artillery can have a very diverse "assortment" of ammunition ... creating, producing a new ammunition is cheaper, easier than a tactical missile warhead .. "hide "artillery equipment is simpler than a fuel dispenser ... because of the greater availability of artillery in the troops, tracking the entire artillery is very problematic ...
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 16 November 2017 08: 29 New
                0
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                That is: artillery and rockets.

                Only artillery. In her submission there is also a MLRS. Which are great for tactical missiles. There, in general, when firing at long ranges, the use of guided RSs is preferable, including in terms of saving ammunition.
                Here, for example, such a common task as the defeat of the columns. In its implementation, it is necessary or to use RS with SPBE, which are no less expensive than managed. Or try to find a stretch of road perpendicular to the direction of fire (at MLRS at large ranges, the dispersion ellipse is “deployed”, the dispersion in the direction is greater than in range). Or apply managed, which will create a beautiful "dotted line" that repeats the "line" of the road.

                In relation to the barrel artillery, there is no need for these “frills” with super-range at such a price, at the cost of reducing the power of action at the target
      2. BAI
        BAI 15 November 2017 13: 20 New
        0
        And why do you need an artillery gun with a firing range of 70 km with an unguided projectile?

        1. The first stage - shooting at remote areas.
        2. The second stage is the development of homing.
        An example is the reincarnation of Tornado in a Tornado.
        Not all at once.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 November 2017 13: 56 New
          0
          to destroy point targets at long ranges (such as air defense and radar, com points, jump airfields)
  6. Romanenko
    Romanenko 15 November 2017 11: 40 New
    +1
    Most likely, a busy lesson will use it. Storage “with a full tank” probably will not work, and refueling before firing is a rather rhetorical question, even with a clear from 152 mm, you won’t attach a normal tank lid with a filling neck to it.
    It’s probably possible to make an internal tank that is shot when fired, but another topic arises. A fuel system, an orientation-guidance unit, and once guidance, steering machines and, where to go, power sources, will be added to the usual projectile loading.
    In the standard body of the projectile, the space for explosives will become much less, increasing the projectile we seek the need to make changes to the design of the guns ... and went one after another to lead to a common denominator ...
    I think so far such a hoe is not very feasible in mass production, and it can probably be replaced by traditional missiles operating at ranges up to 100 km.
    There, all that is required is present and engines and rudders and fuel, and most importantly not in such cramped conditions.
    Is it worth it?
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 November 2017 11: 54 New
      +1
      Theoretically, a shell will be cheaper and will do less damage ...
    2. hrych
      hrych 15 November 2017 13: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Romanenko
      It’s probably possible to make an internal tank which is shot when fired.

      Sami on the go and answered their own question laughing
      Quote: Romanenko
      guidance, then steering cars and, where to go, power sources.

      Everything is simpler, there is a jet stream, there are gas-dynamic rudders, the nozzle is not large, the same ATGMs and MANPADS have modest dimensions and solve the guidance problems successfully. In the case of the nuclear option, all this is not necessary, only an increase in range is needed.
      Quote: Romanenko
      In the standard body of the projectile there will be much less space for explosives

      The projectile will not change, an additional nozzle will appear
      Quote: Romanenko
      Is it worth it?

      Big heads are sitting there, everyone will calculate, especially the number of nuclear shells, as the Soviet legacy will make a decision. A rocket is always expensive, both the product itself and the features of use, transportation and storage. Artillery is always cheaper, more reliable, more compact. The number of shots is always in favor of the barrel. Even the use of MLRS is much more expensive than cannabis ... Yes, the price of the shell will increase, but it will not even reach the shot of the MLRS, not like a tactical missile.
      1. Romanenko
        Romanenko 15 November 2017 20: 30 New
        +1
        One thing is clear, you have to think and count, count and think winked
        Not everything is as simple as it seems.
        1. hrych
          hrych 15 November 2017 20: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Romanenko
          Not everything is as simple as it seems.

          Say, by analogy, Caliber brought the watchdogs and diesel engines to a new, strategic level. Those. the temptation is there. So this device will take the barrel artillery to a new level, with non-nuclear ammunition again thanks to the capabilities of GLONASS, and with nuclear, well, it’s clear that Iskander has a minimum range of 50 km, of course there are MLRS, but high-precision weapons have a gap here. This guided projectile will close the high-precision chain from ATGM to Iskander.
          1. Mimoprohodil
            Mimoprohodil 15 November 2017 22: 37 New
            0
            Quote: hrych
            there is of course MLRS, but high-precision weapons here have a space
            There are also 300 mm guided missiles for the Smerch / Tornado-S. And this one rocket carries explosives like 5 shells of Peony
            1. hrych
              hrych 15 November 2017 23: 15 New
              0
              Quote: Mimoprohodil
              this rocket carries explosives like 5 peony shells

              If it is not 2,5 kilotons laughing then yes. Unfortunately, in the nomenclature of the MLRS there are no nuclear ones, and this is very relevant today, both against NATO and against neighbors in the East. We still do not forget about towed howitzers without any protection, which would be very resistant to enemy fire from the front and vice versa. MLRS all wheeled, insecure, except Pinocchio with Solntsepek who have their own responsibilities. At least such shells will not be amiss on the battlefield.
              1. Mimoprohodil
                Mimoprohodil 16 November 2017 10: 45 New
                0
                Quote: hrych
                If he is not 2,5 kilotons laughing then yes. Unfortunately, in the nomenclature of MLRS there are no nuclear
                Maybe there is, but classified. Tornado has 0.3% dispersion from the firing range (And these are unguided missiles), it is quite suitable for nuclear weapons. And if they are managed, and even with ramjet. 350 km is not a joke
          2. SpaceCom
            SpaceCom 16 November 2017 10: 12 New
            0
            Let’s forget about the “GLONASS capabilities”, especially in conjunction with the use of nuclear weapons. When it comes to all the satellite signals will be drowned out in FIG!
            1. Tektor
              Tektor 16 November 2017 10: 51 New
              +1
              Here you are immediately considering the war with NATO. And for a war with any other enemy, a guided range projectile on which the enemy cannot answer will guarantee victory !!!
              Well, the question, of course, is the cost of guided ammunition: without correction, controlled by GLONASS, controlled by a map of the area, such as TERCOM. Because, spending a missile with a range of 500 km on a target of 100 km does not make sense if the cost of the Malki shell is 5 or more times cheaper than a missile.
              1. SpaceCom
                SpaceCom 16 November 2017 14: 18 New
                0
                Firstly, I do not propose a rejection of the correction. At a distance of 100 km (flight time of about 100 s), any inertial navigation system will provide the required accuracy.
                Secondly, it became terribly interesting to me, what kind of country is this where the use of ammunition of such a caliber at such a range is required with a guarantee of the absence of a retaliatory strike? Moreover, a country that is not a developed country that is not able to drown out (or even correct) a satellite navigation signal.
                1. hrych
                  hrych 16 November 2017 16: 31 New
                  0
                  Quote: SpaceCom
                  What kind of country is this where the use of ammunition of such a caliber at such a range is required with a guarantee of the absence of a retaliatory strike?

                  Georgia, Ukraine, ISIS, etc.
  7. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 15 November 2017 11: 53 New
    +1
    [b] According to some reports, it is also planned to create a version of the projectile with a caliber of 203 mm for the self-propelled guns “Malka” and “Peony.” [/ b ... I wonder if this projectile will fly 100-120 kilometers?
    1. Zhelezyakin
      Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 11: 58 New
      +3
      The question is the volume of the tank, I think)))
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 15 November 2017 12: 00 New
        +1
        There is probably no tank there, but the charge on a 203mm projectile is powerful and can be reinforced ....
        1. Zhelezyakin
          Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 17 New
          +3
          The ramjet means the presence of a tank with liquid fuel ...
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 15 November 2017 12: 27 New
            +4
            or TT ....
            The engine consists of a combustion chamber into which air enters from the diffuser and fuel from the fuel nozzles. The combustion chamber ends with the entrance to the nozzle, usually tapering-expanding.

            With the development of mixed solid fuel technology, it began to be used in ramjet. A fuel checker with a longitudinal central channel is placed in the combustion chamber. The working fluid, passing through the channel, gradually oxidizes the fuel from its surface, and heats itself. The use of solid fuel further simplifies the ramjet design: the fuel system becomes unnecessary. The composition of the mixed fuel for ramjet differs from that used in solid rocket engines. If for the latter most of the fuel is an oxidizing agent, then for ramjet fuel it is added only in a small amount to activate the combustion process. The bulk of the ramjet mixed fuel filler is finely divided aluminum, magnesium or beryllium powder, the heat of oxidation of which significantly exceeds the calorific value of hydrocarbon fuels. An example of a solid propellant ramjet can be a marching engine of the P-270 Mosquito anti-ship cruise missile.
            1. Zhelezyakin
              Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 14: 48 New
              +3
              Thank you, I didn’t know!
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 01: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: Zaurbek
              An example of a solid propellant ramjet can be a marching engine of the P-270 Mosquito anti-ship cruise missile.

              Not only Mosquito ... you can take some SAMs ...
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 01: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: Zhelezyakin
            Ramjet means the presence of a tank with liquid fuel ..

            Not necessary ! There is a ramjet with a "solid" gas generator.
    2. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 15 November 2017 12: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek

      0
      Zaurbek Today, 11:53 PM New
      [b] According to some reports, it is also planned to create a version of the projectile with a caliber of 203 mm for the self-propelled guns “Malka” and “Peony.” [/ b ... I wonder if this projectile will fly 100-120 kilometers?

      At such a range, definitely, it will be cheaper to make a missile. Though not controlled (but why?), Even managed. Well. and the Germans, in World War I, for a range of 120 km made (or rather, built) a 150 mm gun.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 15 November 2017 12: 42 New
        0
        Well, the rocket is initially more expensive ... and in the projectile the main pulse comes from a charge in the cartridge case ... and the head + stands equally ... In the West, just barrel artillery is more common than MLRS ... if they make a shell, they will make a rocket for MLRS. Most importantly, they managed to put the electronics in 152mm (in the west they put it in 130mm and try to 105mm).
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 15 November 2017 12: 57 New
        0
        There is also the concept of BPS with ramjet ... the charge accelerates the blank to 1500-1700 m / s and the ramjet catches up to 2500-3000 m / s and over the entire range the speed only increases .... and penetration increases 1,5-2 times
  8. gorunov
    gorunov 15 November 2017 12: 13 New
    0
    Cancer is called, wah! )))
  9. Zhelezyakin
    Zhelezyakin 15 November 2017 12: 24 New
    +3
    Svarog51,
    Of the features of national hunting
    - The purpose of the hunt - Water and feed the beast
    - Yes, humanely!
    1. Svarog51
      Svarog51 15 November 2017 12: 51 New
      +5
      All right good How am I going to drink myself and not treat the bear? He may be offended. wink
  10. BAI
    BAI 15 November 2017 13: 13 New
    0
    So the answer to Escaliburu appeared. The whole question is when it will be delivered to the army.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 November 2017 15: 19 New
      0
      No. Escalibur has a GOS. He hits for sure. But it costs $ 50,000.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 02: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Escalibur has a GOS.

        Really? "Escalibur" was created according to the program. Where the satellite correction was planned, but without the GOS! True, it seems, then a “desire” appeared to equip Part (!) Of the “escaliburs” with an additional (!) Semi-active laser seeker ...
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 16 November 2017 08: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          True, it seems, then a “desire” appeared to equip Part (!) Of the “escaliburs” with an additional (!) Semi-active laser seeker ...

          This is the influence of the Italo-German family of volcanoes. In the "basic" version of the ANN with correction according to the ZhPS. Plus, depending on the task being performed, it is possible to install either a semi-active laser "head" or passive IR before a shot.
          The Americans decided to follow the same path. That is, not the "part", but all the shells will allow the installation of LGSN
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 10: 33 New
            +1
            I do not understand what my previous comment contradicts to the American Wishlist? Excalibur is produced (made) in several modifications (“blocks”). Used by Americans from 2007, Excaliburs have (had) only GPS corrections! And only in 2014 did Raytheon offer the warriors the Excalibur S modification with an additional (!) Laser GSN. But, for example, I am not aware of the use of this modification in real combat conditions ... about the added "laser option" NOW available " Excaliburs of "previous modifications" heard "... but only" heard "(!) ... because there is no reliable information that the Americans have already used (are using) such artillery shells somewhere ...
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 16 November 2017 10: 45 New
              0
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              I do not understand how my previous comment contradicts the American "Wishlist"?

              There is a big difference between the production of a part of the CSS with LGSN and the ability to install LGSN on any of the “new version” shells.
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 11: 16 New
                +1
                I am forced to repeat: there is no real information that the Americans have already used, factory, “US with LGSN” or “optional” shells with “freshly installed” L-modules ... And as for the “Excaliburs” with only GPS information on combat use, there is enough .
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 16 November 2017 11: 26 New
                  +1
                  There’s just now some strife in this area. Promises to drastically reduce the cost of the US Escalibur remained promises. The Italo-German group created the CSS, significantly surpassing the "Escalibur" in its characteristics and capabilities. Well, to everything else, a relatively cheap, though less accurate control module appeared, screwed onto the place of an ordinary projectile fuse appeared.
                  As a result, the US military took the position of Buridan's donkey. Well, and accordingly, the "effective" from Raytheon are trying to push them in the right direction. As far as I know, there have been no new orders for their superfood;
                  1. Nikolaevich I
                    Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 12: 00 New
                    +1
                    Yes, you're right .... unfortunately no one on the page mentioned the PGK module! In some ways, Americans can understand ... "one thing" - the "factory" "Excalibur" with a bottom gas generator and other gadgets ... on the "other side" - they offer some kind of "homemade" to use ... the module in an old shell screw in (!). And the usual "conservatism" - what? On the side?
                    PSIf you continue to compare "with us" and "with them", it is worth mentioning that in Russia, prior to the mentioned artillery shell "with ramjet" there were (are) developments similar to the American ones ... These are modified Krasnopol, Gran "with" added "GPS correction ... Dynamics module ...
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 16 November 2017 12: 30 New
                      0
                      Quote: Nikolaevich I
                      unfortunately no one on the page mentioned the PGK module!

                      With him, everything is very difficult. In the old version, its KVO is 50 meters, in the new version - 30 meters.
                      The D-30 howitzer, shooting with absolutely uncontrolled shells, has a limit of Vd equal to 28 meters and Wb equal to 11 meters (firing at full charge at a maximum range of 15300)
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 15 November 2017 15: 18 New
    0
    Bottom boosters increase range but decrease accuracy.
    Usually they are used together with GOS and flight-correcting wings.
    That allows you to shoot far and accurately, but raises the price 10 times.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 00: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: Jedi
    So name "missile."

    Active reactive ......
    Quote: Jedi
    Do competitors have similar projects?

    There is .... In any case, it was .... Even at the end of the last century, the Americans announced the development of the 203-mm active-reactive artillery projectile with ramjet and ARGSN millimeter range ... By the way, the alleged range was "declared" as well. .... 70 km
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 16 November 2017 08: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      At the end of the last century, Americans announced the development of a 203-mm active-reactive artillery projectile with ramjet and ARGSN millimeter range ...

      You are confusing something. The Americans removed the 203-mm self-propelled guns from service in 1992
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 10: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        You are confusing something. 203-mm self-propelled Americans removed from service in the 1992 year

        Please: - Shells with ramjet engine (ramjet), which, according to foreign experts, will significantly increase the firing range of artillery pieces. Their main advantage is that the oxygen necessary for the combustion of fuel is taken directly from the air. However, they are complex in design and expensive. According to foreign press reports, in the USA in the beginning of the 80-s, they started work on the AIFS (Advanced Indirect - Fire System) program, which provides for the creation of a high-precision long-range projectile of 203,2 mm caliber with ramjet, which provides firing at a range of up to 70 km. Designed primarily to combat tanks, it will be equipped with a homing head and cluster warhead.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 16 November 2017 10: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          in the United States in the early 80s began work on the AIFS (Advanced Indirect - Fire System) program, which provides for the creation of a high-precision long-range projectile of 203,2 mm caliber with ramjet ramps, providing firing at a range of up to 70 km.

          That is, as a result, they refused in favor of GMLRS, which were developed since 1987. And the already unnecessary and unpromising SG was removed from service. Following the Germans, replacing the 110th with MLRS
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 16 November 2017 10: 40 New
            +3
            Well ... so ... "tin life"! Well, all of them, in the swamp! request