Military Review

The US Army is testing a new target designation system for artillery.

73
The US armed forces have begun the final stage of testing the JETS (Joint Effects Targeting System) system, reports businessinsider.com


The US Army is testing a new target designation system for artillery.

JETS system


JETS is a new target designation system for artillery. A compact device the size of army binoculars and a mass less than 2,5 kg is able to determine all the necessary target data and transfer them to real-time gunners. Together with a tripod and additional batteries, the kit weighs less than 10 kg - this is several times less than the target designation system used by the American army now.

This is a completely new advanced technology that is a paradigm shift in how field artillery can be used on the battlefield. JETS can turn a howitzer or self-propelled artillery gun into a giant sniper rifle
- said Lieutenant Colonel Michael Frank, Head of Soldier Precision Targeting Devices.

The US Army ordered JETS systems in September 2016 of the year, and over the past year they passed a series of tests, including strength (for landing). All tests were successful, and now the US armed forces have begun final testing of the system. If it is successful, then in the middle of this year, the American gunners will begin to receive JETS for service, reports "Warspot"
Photos used:
businessinsider.com
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hankey Bannister
    Hankey Bannister 9 January 2018 14: 13
    +7
    Maybe even now they will hit the target, not hospitals and weddings?
    1. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 9 January 2018 14: 18
      +3
      Well this is just not dependent on technology, but on nationality.
    2. marlin1203
      marlin1203 9 January 2018 14: 22
      +2
      Transmit target data to gunners in real time? Is that a breakthrough? The target has 2 main parameters: view and coordinates. And if they continue to shoot at gps, then there’s no sense in the case of counteraction by means of electronic warfare. So the map, pencil, ruler)))
      1. The black
        The black 9 January 2018 14: 34
        +5
        No targeting anywhere laughing
      2. Cube123
        Cube123 9 January 2018 16: 35
        +1
        Judging by the windows on the front panel, there is also a laser illumination of the target for guided projectiles.
    3. Professor
      Professor 9 January 2018 16: 42
      +5
      Quote: Hankey Bannister
      Maybe even now they will hit the target, not hospitals and weddings?

      Bourgeois have no problems with accuracy. You would have such accuracy. Everyone has a problem with targeting. Or are you able to distinguish a wedding procession consisting of bearded men on off-road cars racing along a dusty road and scorching in all directions from small arms from bearded militants on off-road cars racing on a dusty road and scorching in all directions?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 9 January 2018 18: 08
        +5
        Quote: Professor
        Bourgeois have no problems with accuracy. You would have such accuracy.

        ??
        Do they have their own, special physics and mathematics, which are accessible only to "democrats"?
        1. Professor
          Professor 9 January 2018 18: 23
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: Professor
          Bourgeois have no problems with accuracy. You would have such accuracy.

          ??
          Do they have their own, special physics and mathematics, which are accessible only to "democrats"?

          Not. They have a printing press and precision weapons by default. I don’t remember in the last 20 years of the case when bourgeoisie used cast irons.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 9 January 2018 18: 37
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            Not. They have a printing press

            Does the printing press affect physics and math? More interesting ...
            1. Professor
              Professor 9 January 2018 20: 20
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: Professor
              Not. They have a printing press

              Does the printing press affect physics and math? More interesting ...

              The printing press affects
              1. The ability to attract the best physicists and mathematicians in the world. It is yours who strive for them, and not vice versa.
              2. The ability to equip your troops with high-precision weapons, and not to open a line that doesn’t have an analogue in the world for the production of cast irons of the early 1930's.


              Quote: APASUS
              Professor, do not pray nonsense!

              Are you able to distinguish a wedding procession consisting of bearded men on off-road cars racing along a dusty road and scorching in all directions from small arms from bearded militants on off-road cars racing on a dusty road and scorching in all directions?

              Quote: APASUS
              They managed to launch a bomb in the window, but it turned out that they had old cards. They use cave paintings!

              You confirm my words.
              Quote: Professor
              Bourgeois have no problems with accuracy. You would have such accuracy. Everyone has a problem with targeting.


              PS
              http://pfc-joker.livejournal.com/17374.html
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 9 January 2018 20: 41
                +4
                Blah blah blah...
                Everything is much simpler. For example, 12 degrees are divided by 6000 without a remainder and we get 0-02 cases. goniometer. And if divided by 6400, we get a fractional number, which we are forced to reduce.

                And this cannot be fixed either by a money machine, or by cries of democracy, or by hiring millions of mathematicians.

                And all due to the fact that once the Anglo-Saxons decided that their artillery soldier was so stupid that he was not able to introduce a five percent amendment, and the Russians were confident in their ...

                So I don’t need to tell about accuracy, with which there are no problems, and "we would like that"
                1. Professor
                  Professor 9 January 2018 21: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  Blah blah blah...
                  Everything is much simpler. For example, 12 degrees are divided by 6000 without a remainder and we get 0-02 cases. goniometer. And if divided by 6400, we get a fractional number, which we are forced to reduce.

                  And this cannot be fixed either by a money machine, or by cries of democracy, or by hiring millions of mathematicians.

                  And all due to the fact that once the Anglo-Saxons decided that their artillery soldier was so stupid that he was not able to introduce a five percent amendment, and the Russians were confident in their ...

                  So I don’t need to tell about accuracy, with which there are no problems, and "we would like that"

                  Don’t need so many letters. Here you have the link again. Enlighten yourself.
                  http://pfc-joker.livejournal.com/17374.html
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 9 January 2018 21: 24
                    +4
                    Quote: Professor
                    Don’t need so many letters. Here you have the link again. Enlighten yourself.

                    Yes, even a million links. 0)))))))))))))))) Mathematics is an exact science, and not a single link will cancel this.
                    By the way, one question: and from which side is there an old article about aviation in general? What can she prove?
                    We, damn it, discuss artillery 8)))))))))))
                    Speaking of her: there is such a funny thing, PGK. costs "just" $ 10. The old one had a KVO of 000 meters, the new one - 50 meters. An old Soviet howitzer D-30, firing at maximum range, has a Wb = 30 meters. That is, it is more accurate.

                    We need to dream how to get less accuracy for 10 thousand bucks than for free?
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 10 January 2018 08: 02
                      0
                      Quote: Spade
                      Yes, even a million links. 0)))))))))))))))) Mathematics is an exact science, and not a single link will cancel this.

                      And biology is not an exact science. So what?

                      Quote: Spade
                      By the way, one question: and from which side is there an old article about aviation in general? What can she prove?
                      We, damn it, discuss artillery 8)))))))))))

                      We are discussing accuracy. Want about artillery? I have it. I will leave high-precision MLRS out of discussion so as not to kill your patriots on the spot, I will not discuss all sorts of UFOs with a point-to-point accuracy.

                      I’ll just show a video of the first combat use by the bourgeoisie of this device that has already become routine.

                      I look forward to hearing from you a similar video made by yours in Syria. wink
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 January 2018 09: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        And biology is not an exact science. So what?

                        I don’t even know how it can be explained that reducing digits after the decimal point is less accurate than getting integers when dividing. I give up. I agree, if a person has a lot of money in his pocket, then different mathematics work for him, in which the equal sign is less accurate than the approximately equal sign
                        Are you satisfied?


                        Quote: Professor
                        I’ll just show a video of the first combat use by the bourgeoisie of this device that has already become routine.

                        And this is even more fun than PGK. Also less accuracy than the Soviet D-30 conventional ammunition, but at the same time 16 times more expensive.

                        As in the joke about the "new Russians": One says "I bought a tie in this store for $ 1000." And the other in response to him: “Well, you, in a boutique around the corner, such for 6 thousand are sold”
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 10 January 2018 11: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        I don’t even know how it can be explained that reducing digits after the decimal point is less accurate than getting integers when dividing. I give up. I agree, if a person has a lot of money in his pocket, then different mathematics work for him, in which the equal sign is less accurate than the approximately equal sign
                        Are you satisfied?

                        Not satisfied. The laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of their bourgeois or proletarian origin. The only difference is that the proletarians, due to their high spirituality and, as a result, lack of funds, are forced to be content with "non-smart" weapons, justifying this with the ability to "reduce commas" or having no equivalent in the world of "Hermes". But the most interesting thing is that as soon as the proletariat has excess banknotes, it immediately runs to buy "so unnecessary" high-precision weapons. The rhetorical question "WHY"?

                        Quote: Spade
                        And this is even more fun than PGK. Also less accuracy than the Soviet D-30 conventional ammunition, but at the same time 16 times more expensive.

                        Yah. D-30 with difficulty beats on 15 km, and with APC on 22 km. The bourgeois with the projectile described above hit on 40, and in the battle of 92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target, regardless of range. What can the D-30 boast?
                        Here is what the Swedes write:
                        "To hit the target at a distance of 40 kilometers, it is usually necessary to use about 200 shots. With Excalibur, one is enough."
                        "To hit a target at 40 kilometers distance one usually needs to fire off around 200 shots. With the Excalibur, one is enough. This also minimizes the chance of injuries to innocent civilians", Henebäck told Ny Teknik.
                        https://www.thelocal.se/20080822/13880
                        But Lopatov disagrees with the Swedes. He also disagrees with Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine.
                      3. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 10 January 2018 16: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Yah. D-30 with difficulty beats on 15 km, and with APC on 22 km. The bourgeois with the projectile described above hit on 40, and in the battle of 92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target, regardless of range. What can the D-30 boast?
                        Here is what the Swedes write:
                        "To hit the target at a distance of 40 kilometers, it is usually necessary to use about 200 shots. With Excalibur, one is enough."

                        Professor, you’re misunderstood something, in war it’s not accuracy and range that matters, but the ratio “effectiveness of hitting a target” - “cost of hitting a target”, and there are two ways,
                        1) the first is the path of the US \ NATO \ etc is the path of maximizing the firing range, and the accuracy problem is solved by increasing the cost of the shot. That is, we have an artillery group that shoots far, precisely, but expensively.
                        2) The second way is the range limitation path. That is, we have more artillery (separation), part of which is located closer to the enemy and therefore it can shoot, even if not far, but precisely and cheaply. This is what Lopatov tells you.
                        There are other options for improving the voiced ratio. There are problems, advantages and disadvantages of all these options. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER that deficiencies in one can be compensated for by an advantage in another. In this case (I'm talking about comparing artillery in paragraphs 1 and 2), the Russian Federation is moving along a more efficient path, because it compensates for the short range of artillery with aviation (massively at the expense of Hephaestus and Co.) and high-precision weapons (rarely for important purposes where it is economically justified , or just to dispose of the ammunition).
                      4. iggrimnir
                        iggrimnir 29 January 2018 19: 47
                        0
                        Have you forgotten or didn’t intentionally talk about a guided projectile Krasnopol for example? And he is not alone .. well, why are you so hard licking that mattress? Although what am I ... everyone has their own truth. Ours from Msta calmly got straight into the bus with the Ishilovites, to the headquarters and to the sheds and to the armored vehicles and nothing, all the rules, no problem. Contact, in which case, you can throw shells, a lot is not required.
          2. rocket757
            rocket757 9 January 2018 19: 37
            +4
            When they applied a cast iron to someone, he certainly does not remember this.
            Well, how, with memory?
            You do not have to inquire about our well-being, do not care about our cast-iron forehead!
            By the way, you are aware that the states are making a bomb to cast iron, not without the bells and whistles as they should, but cast iron! By the way, for the war with Iraq, they already collected pig iron throughout the geyrop, now they do it themselves.
            Chugunyak, at something eternal!
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 9 January 2018 19: 07
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: Hankey Bannister
        Maybe even now they will hit the target, not hospitals and weddings?

        Bourgeois have no problems with accuracy. You would have such accuracy. Everyone has a problem with targeting. Or are you able to distinguish a wedding procession consisting of bearded men on off-road cars racing along a dusty road and scorching in all directions from small arms from bearded militants on off-road cars racing on a dusty road and scorching in all directions?

        Professor, do not pray nonsense!
        The incident occurred on May 7, 1999 at 23:45 local time in Serbia during the NATO war against Serbia. On this day, the "high-precision" bomb destroyed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Xinhua News Agency journalist Shao Yunhuan, Xin Xinhu, journalist of the People's Daily newspaper, and his wife, Zhu Ying, were killed

        They managed to launch a bomb in the window, but it turned out that they had old cards. They use cave paintings!
        And about the fact that an Afghan wedding cannot be distinguished from a column of militants, a hospital from headquarters, do you yourself believe that?
        1. Cxnumx
          Cxnumx 10 January 2018 07: 31
          +3
          Quote: APASUS
          And about the fact that an Afghan wedding cannot be distinguished from a column of militants, a hospital from headquarters, do you yourself believe that?

          he really believes so that for him it goes into "knows." here are just links about how our bombed someone’s wedding doesn’t lead (although he threatened ... or it was about the reaction period of the Moscow Oblast ... it doesn’t matter), but how the ultra-precise Americans did it is complete.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 10 January 2018 08: 53
            +3
            Right. Ours are cunning, if a wedding, a hospital, a school, a mosque were bombed, they quickly leveled everything up and put it on the asphalt !!! No trace and will only from London, from some observatory there !!! Well they see through the asphalt !!!
            In short, no body, no business!
  2. Vard
    Vard 9 January 2018 14: 14
    +1
    It was smooth on paper .. yes, they forgot about the ravines ... and walk on them ... Good weather, in an ambush ... then maybe ... and so ... another gadget ...
  3. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 9 January 2018 14: 21
    +2
    We'll see in action, otherwise the USA is very good showmen and horseradish warriors .....
    1. Korax71
      Korax71 9 January 2018 18: 06
      +1
      Again, take it from the ceiling. Why are they bad warriors. Facts would be provided. And so we all know how to blame lying on the couch.
  4. Max golovanovo
    Max golovanovo 9 January 2018 14: 25
    +2
    In fact, everything remained the old fashioned way. The rear special indicates the target with a finger.
  5. anjey
    anjey 9 January 2018 14: 25
    0
    The U.S. Armed Forces have begun the final phase of testing the JETS (Joint Effects Targeting System),
    If in Syria, it would be nice to "calibrate" the Amer product in Russian ....
  6. max702
    max702 9 January 2018 14: 28
    +1
    The idea is excellent, the question is in implementation .. they will be able to achieve the given parameters, which means they will make a breakthrough in fire support, and they will be able to give target designation not only to arte. but also to tankers, aircraft, and indeed to increase situational awareness on the battlefield .. I wonder if we are developing analogues ...
    1. The brightest
      The brightest 9 January 2018 16: 08
      +2
      Breakthrough? For me they’re just catching up, because according to the description it’s not different from PDU-4 (time 1,04).
  7. Rusland
    Rusland 9 January 2018 14: 30
    +7
    Strength when landing. Throw from the plane, they did not throw him, then someone put him in a backpack instead of a parachute. smile
  8. cannabis
    cannabis 9 January 2018 14: 31
    +1
    The normal "corrugated scrap" is a mixture of jeepies navigator, laser rangefinder and calculator. Coordinates removed, sent. There they took it into their computer and swung at a distance of 30 km. But! The one who gave the coordinates of the target should adjust. At short range should it be effective, but at long range? There is wind in the surface layer, wind at altitude, barrel heating, charge temperature ..... Will it be a sniper rifle? Apparently the equipment was made specifically for the illiterate, who can only press buttons.
    1. chenia
      chenia 9 January 2018 15: 25
      +4
      Quote: cunning
      and on large? There is wind in the surface layer, wind at altitude,


      And ballistics (attracted guns) and meteo and rotation of the earth, etc. all take into account. Such systems are needed, they allow you to open fire in a matter of seconds, taking into account the ASUNO (here the processing of data - moreover, for each gun in the fan and taking into account the regional location of the OP, and testing the installations on the gun - it takes a split second). Here is the decision to fire (the nuance is their observers, and the commanders making the decision to defeat (unlike us are hidden in the OP)) will take more time (although also seconds). So, in this regard, artillery should be developed.

      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      modern difficult jamming conditions or God forbid "flash on the right" in


      Definitely. A normal gunner can (and should) fire when both the KNP and the OP are not tied. Both sober and drunk. and shaved and unshaven, even if only he crawled down from a woman, he was obliged to fire (as we were taught).
      Here it is already necessary not only to use gadgets.
      1. Normal ok
        Normal ok 11 January 2018 11: 48
        0
        Yeah, and when the young summers in 7 in the morning came from the disco, and in the morning we went up the battlefield)) True, we always knew in advance.
  9. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 9 January 2018 14: 35
    +6
    All of these gadgets are certainly good and necessary in the 21st century, but interestingly - American gunners are taught how to handle a compass, navigate on a map, find the north without a compass, manually calculate the sight and dovor or "meteo" or sound artillery reconnaissance with pom. stopwatch and so on and so forth. because in modern difficult jamming conditions, God forbid, “flash on the right,” all this equipment can immediately become rubbish
  10. Andvigor
    Andvigor 9 January 2018 14: 40
    +1
    Quote: max702
    The idea is excellent, the question is in implementation .. they will be able to achieve the given parameters, which means they will make a breakthrough in fire support, and they will be able to give target designation not only to arte. but also to tankers, aircraft, and indeed to increase situational awareness on the battlefield .. I wonder if we are developing analogues ...

    Hope so. The idea is interesting and useful, as built into the battle control system, I suppose.
  11. Normal ok
    Normal ok 9 January 2018 14: 49
    0
    The US Army is testing a new target designation system for artillery.

    Damn, but I still found a time when we were running to school with “wings”. "Secretly occupy KNP", damn it iron garbage behind. But this is still nonsense when they switched to the DACs - an iron box with very uncomfortable thin handles. So borrow "secretly" laughing
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 9 January 2018 18: 10
      +1
      Quote: Normal ok
      Damn, but I still found a time when we were running to school with “wings”.

      “Wings” with all their flaws absolutely do not unmask themselves.
      1. Normal ok
        Normal ok 11 January 2018 10: 28
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: Normal ok
        Damn, but I still found a time when we were running to school with “wings”.

        “Wings” with all their flaws absolutely do not unmask themselves.

        Now optics are detected one or two times.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 January 2018 10: 33
          +1
          Quote: Normal ok
          Now optics are detected one or two times.

          Passive means no. And laser rangefinders are detected by them.
          In turn, the scanning laser of the optical notch system is even easier to recognize.
  12. NEXUS
    NEXUS 9 January 2018 15: 46
    +2
    It remains to prepare spotters who will give directions to arte, while being near the enemy. And now the question is, do the mattresses, in this situation, when the war is going on, and not "beating babies" find such soldiers?
    1. Korax71
      Korax71 9 January 2018 23: 58
      +1
      And for fun, you read, look for what is included in the training of military personnel in America.
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 9 January 2018 16: 14
    0
    I remember pulling a laser rangefinder on my back, another student walkie-talkie, the third - PAB-2M ....
    1. Normal ok
      Normal ok 11 January 2018 11: 21
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      I remember pulling a laser rangefinder on my back, another student walkie-talkie, the third - PAB-2M ....

      Wings - optical range finder. There were two types of 1 meter and 2 meter base.
    2. Normal ok
      Normal ok 11 January 2018 11: 41
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      PUB-2M ....

      PUB -2 = this is a compass, not to be confused with a range finder.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 11 January 2018 19: 23
        0
        You have not rubbed your eyes?
        I remember pulling a laser rangefinder on my back, another student walkie-talkie, the third - PAB-2M ....

        An optical rangefinder is lighter, while a laser rangefinder is around 10kg without a tripod
  14. viktorch
    viktorch 9 January 2018 16: 36
    0
    well, actually they did a fine job before that, the artillery at the sights in Avgan showed themselves very seriously, in fact nothing new is being done, just all the old devices were packed in one, they reduced weight, they increased usability - which means speed and mobility,
    all the same as it was only faster and more accurate, well, plus they probably screwed some sort of digital whistles.
  15. BAI
    BAI 9 January 2018 16: 39
    0
    Now they will transfer to Ukraine, and from there they will go to Russia. It will be interesting to study.
  16. Dart
    Dart 10 January 2018 16: 40
    0
    Professor,
    You have already shown your knowledge in identifying shell-like remains in Syria, with foam at the mouth.
    When your nose was poked repeatedly and very very clearly, you simply merged.
    PS A lot of your "knowledge" and calculations here are similar to that situation. laughing
    You can’t be very expert in all matters of military subjects and you are not a guru. laughing what you periodically claim.
    1. Professor
      Professor 11 January 2018 11: 37
      0
      Quote: Dartys
      just merged.

      Give a link where I supposedly "merged".
  17. Professor
    Professor 10 January 2018 18: 54
    0
    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
    Quote: Professor
    Yah. D-30 with difficulty beats on 15 km, and with APC on 22 km. The bourgeois with the projectile described above hit on 40, and in the battle of 92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target, regardless of range. What can the D-30 boast?
    Here is what the Swedes write:
    "To hit the target at a distance of 40 kilometers, it is usually necessary to use about 200 shots. With Excalibur, one is enough."

    Professor, you’re misunderstood something, in war it’s not accuracy and range that matters, but the ratio “effectiveness of hitting a target” - “cost of hitting a target”, and there are two ways,
    1) the first is the path of the US \ NATO \ etc is the path of maximizing the firing range, and the accuracy problem is solved by increasing the cost of the shot. That is, we have an artillery group that shoots far, precisely, but expensively.
    2) The second way is the range limitation path. That is, we have more artillery (separation), part of which is located closer to the enemy and therefore it can shoot, even if not far, but precisely and cheaply. This is what Lopatov tells you.

    Why choose between “health” and “wealth” if you can have both? Bourgeois shoot not only far, precisely and expensively, but close, precisely and not expensively. I understand that there are situations, accuracy is not needed at all, but there are fatal inaccurate shells that change the history of not only the region, but also the whole world. Such a shell was fired on April 18 of the 1996 of the year. If it were accurate and the whole BV and not only it would be different.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 10 January 2018 22: 05
      0
      Quote: Professor
      Why choose between “health” and “wealth” if you can have both?

      Again, back to the same two concepts "target hit efficiency" - "target hit cost" Let's calculate, in the “excibrary” there is a hardware-software complex for adjusting that increases accuracy and an engine that increases range, and the MLRS Smerch has exactly the same complex and engine, only the tornado’s shell has more fuel, it flies even further, the warhead he has more, therefore, where dozens of shells will be needed for an excalibur, a tornado will handle one. Okay, and move on, you need to destroy the house in the city center without damaging the neighboring ones, the Americans suggest that they do this with an excalibur, but they need LOTS for one reinforced concrete pillbox, but there’s only one thing that’s needed for an aircraft corrected bomb, or there’s an OTRK, or the same calibers. And again they will be more effective because for 1 kg of the warhead they spend less money because there are fewer correction systems, and it is 90-95% of the shot.
      Here the excalibur should not be perceived as "know-how", but as "know-cut" or "know-howl", our warriors have a budget ten times smaller, so they have to move their brains more and get into the Christmas tree and not pin , ours just have no other option. And so yes, I agree with you, as soon as our warriors got more money, they immediately launched a bunch of child prodigies and squandered the saving of money. It’s just that our people have already begun to understand and correct it (albeit not in all areas), and here the Amers do not even have to tear off the chair .... hi
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 January 2018 08: 10
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Again, we return to the same two concepts of “target hitting efficiency” - “target hitting cost” Let's count, in the “ekkalibur” there is a hardware-software complex for adjusting that increases accuracy and the engine increases range, and the MLRS Smerch has exactly the same the complex and the engine, only the tornado’s shell has more fuel, it flies even further, its warhead is larger, therefore, where there will need to be a dozen shells, the tornado will handle one.

        Not. Under combat conditions, 92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target. A tornado cannot boast of such a result.

        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Okay, and move on, you need to destroy the house in the city center without damaging the neighboring ones, the Americans suggest that they do this with an excalibur, but they need LOTS for one reinforced concrete pillbox, but there’s only one thing that’s needed for an aircraft corrected bomb, well, or there’s an OTRK, or the same calibers.

        Not. The Americans do not propose destroying with excalibur what he is not capable of destroying.

        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Here the excalibur should not be perceived as "know-how", but as "know-cut" or "know-how", our warriors have a budget ten times smaller, so they have to move their brains more and get into the Christmas tree and do not prick , ours just have no other option.

        Clear business cut. Back to the Swedes. This ammunition at a distance of 40 km on average replaces 200 conventional. Which is cheaper? Further along the Swedes, this ammunition allows you to put it in 150 meters of your own strength. In this case, what are your options? How in Syria to call fire on yourself and fall a hero? Is your fighter really not worth $ 68'000?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 January 2018 10: 38
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          Under combat conditions, 92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target. A tornado cannot boast of such a result.

          Gee .....
          A tornado can boast of the best result 8)))))))))))))))) He has all the missiles at the target. 8))))))))))) Patamushta is a MLRS 8))))))))))) And it is intended to hit targets with a large area
          You round off with such statements ... And then it comes to the point that you will begin to compare the accuracy of the American pistol and Russian ICBMs. 8)))))))))))))))))))
          1. Professor
            Professor 11 January 2018 11: 36
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Gee .....

            That's exactly "gee ...". I compared apples to apples, and you drag the tornado. How accurate is the D-30? Are the Swedes lying? wink
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 January 2018 12: 02
              +1
              Quote: Professor
              I compared apples to apples

              Yeah. 8))))))))))))
              Quote: Professor
              Are the Swedes lying?

              Rather, they strongly disagree. KVO officially 20 meters. Imagine an ideal but unlikely situation where the angle of incidence is 90 degrees. In this case, the “Swedes say” that it is absolutely safe to be 70 meters from the gap of the 155 mm HE shell. 8))) But Soviet sources claim that 70% of the “standing targets” defeat will be observed 152 meters from the site of the 50 mm shell’s rupture

              So what do they say? That either when shooting at 150 meters, the infantry should dig well, or the projectile should be without an 8 explosive)))
              1. Professor
                Professor 11 January 2018 13: 41
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Yeah. 8))))))))))))

                Yeah;)

                Quote: Spade
                So what do they say? That either when shooting at 150 meters, the infantry should dig well, or the projectile should be without an 8 explosive)))

                Duc is not only the Swedes "underestimate." So Global Security is lying:
                Excalibur would be the munition of choice when the following requirements or conditions might exist: Collateral damage must be minimized, complex terrain limits conventional projectiles' effectiveness, the target is beyond the range of conventional cannon projectiles, precise fires on an objective must be maintained to allow friendly assaulting troops to close to within 150 meters of their indirect fires, or tactical or survivability considerations require platforms to fire from compartmentalized terrain (forest, defiles, urban areas, etc.), in a direction other than directly on line with the target.
                https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/m
                unitions / m982-155.htm

                Armie Rekognishin is more modest than the Swedes. They say that based on combat use 700 !!! shells we can conclude that the wunderwaffle replaces the 10-30 conventional shells.
                With nearly 700 projectiles fired in theater to date, Excalibur is the revolutionary precision projectile for the US Army and Marines. Analyses have shown it can take 10 to 50 conventional munitions to accomplish what one Excalibur can.
                http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2014_glob
                al_defense_security_news_uk / us._army_raytheon_suc
                cessfully_fired_30_gps-guided_excalibur_projectil
                es_during_firing_test_0802142.html

                How is it with KVO at D-30? wink
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 11 January 2018 14: 27
                  +1
                  Blah blah blah. Again, "special democratic mathematics"? With a sufficient amount of money, the theory of errors and probability theory do not apply to their holder.
                  And in advertising capsules there is a lot that you can sprinkle. Some write about "having no analogues in the world", others at 150 meters from their target for the 155-mm HE shell choose.

                  Quote: Professor
                  Armies Rekognishin more modest than the Swedes. They say that based on the combat use of 700 !!! shells, we can conclude that the wunderwaffle replaces 10-30 conventional shells.

                  Replaces when? Correctly, in case of defeat PRECISE goals. Which a minimum on the battlefield.
                  The theme, by the way, was chewed up by the designers of Soviet adjustable shells even when the Excalibur existed only as an idea.

                  Quote: Professor
                  How is it with KVO at D-30? smile

                  I already wrote. 11 meters when firing at maximum range.

                  Apparently, the developers did not know that it was worth investing a lot of money to make its accuracy less, and thereby bring it to the Excalibur level
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 11 January 2018 17: 24
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    Blah blah blah. Again, "special democratic mathematics"? With a sufficient amount of money, the theory of errors and probability theory do not apply to their holder.

                    Distributed by. That is why they use an adjustable projectile.

                    Quote: Spade
                    And in advertising capsules there is a lot that you can sprinkle. Some write about "having no analogues in the world", others at 150 meters from their target for the 155-mm HE shell choose.

                    Global Security Advertising Site? lol

                    Quote: Spade
                    Replaces when? Correctly, with the defeat of SPOT targets. Which at least on the battlefield.

                    Yeah. And you and such targets will hit dozens of shots.
                    And there is no question of the close support of their troops. A soldier heroically dies due to the lack of precision weapons. By the way, do you even remember what your fighter’s name was?

                    Quote: Spade
                    I already wrote. 11 meters when firing at maximum range.

                    I do not believe. Give a link to the data.

                    Quote: Spade
                    Apparently, the developers did not know that it was worth investing a lot of money to make its accuracy less, and thereby bring it to the Excalibur level

                    Well yes. Dumb Americans do not know anything about artillery and shot more than 1000 shells at a battle of $ 70 000 for each for fun. And the Swedes are lying. laughing

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Lopatov has already told you that the MLRS is unnecessary, it is for areal purposes.

                    Tell this to the Chinese who created the guided missiles of the MLRS or the bourgeois who successfully sells high-precision MLRS from the KVO to 10 m. Why do they need accuracy? After all, they work in areas ... request
                    https://topwar.ru/9498-reaktivnaya-sistema-zalpov
                    ogo-ognya-lynx.html

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    "Maths are not mistaken, maths are mistaken" for details, go re-read my post above.

                    Refute the Swedes, not me. I’m hinting that the Swedes do not make escalambur.

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Quote: Professor
                    How in Syria to call fire on yourself and fall a hero? Is your fighter really not worth $ 68'000?
                    These words are simply advertising and thirst and bullshit. The whole essence of a real analysis of the differences in concepts I cited above, go re-read.

                    What was the name of your fighter in Syria who called fire on himself since "the terrorists were already very close"? What is his mother's name?

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    It seems that he wrote already in the post above, but I repeat, especially for you, at such ranges (40km) other means of destruction are used, or this range is reduced due to the separation of art positions.

                    And where were these funds when they were needed? Dust storm? It was like the weather was flying.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 11 January 2018 19: 04
                      +2
                      Quote: Professor
                      Distributed by. That is why they use an adjustable projectile.

                      And he has a QUO = zero, apparently? Or is it not so, there is some kind of CWO, but at the same time, does it absolutely affect the accuracy, yielding to the lights of democracy?

                      Here we take, for example, the same “Excalibur” with a CWO equal to 20 meters. The angle of incidence of the projectile is most likely, 45 degrees or 27-00 (well, we are not Anglo-Saxons, everything is accurate) We bring the CVO to the surface. Wb = 20 m, Wd = 28 m
                      That is, when shooting a sufficiently large number of shells, 100% of them will fit in an ellipse with a large axis of 224 meters, with a small 160 meters.
                      This is a fact, and using their own data.
                      But the tales of the Viennese forest about a target 150 meters from their troops are not at all a fact.

                      Quote: Professor
                      I do not believe. Give a link to the data.

                      A link to "download D-30 shooting tables"?
                      Here is a leaf for you:



                      Quote: Professor
                      Well yes. Dumb Americans do not know anything about artillery and shot more than 1000 shells at a battle of $ 70 each for fun.

                      Exactly! How did you guess?
                      There is, however, another reason: Raytheon and BAE Systems, like all self-respecting large companies, need income.
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 11 January 2018 20: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        And he has a QUO = zero, apparently? Or is it not so, there is some kind of CWO, but at the same time, does it absolutely affect the accuracy, yielding to the lights of democracy?
                        Here we take, for example, the same “Excalibur” with a CWO equal to 20 meters. The angle of incidence of the projectile is most likely, 45 degrees or 27-00 (well, we are not Anglo-Saxons, everything is accurate) We bring the CVO to the surface. Wb = 20 m, Wd = 28 m
                        That is, when shooting a sufficiently large number of shells, 100% of them will fit in an ellipse with a large axis of 224 meters, with a small 160 meters.
                        This is a fact, and using their own data.
                        But the tales of the Vienna forest about the target in 150 meters from their troops, is not at all a fact

                        Tree sticks. Which of us is an artilleryman? When firing with "not smart" shells, the accuracy of their hit is described by the normal distribution law (AKA Gaus). Smart shells do not obey the normal law of distribution. This is the first year of the second semester, by golly. Learn the materiel and recount again. negative
                        http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a199190.p
                        df

                        Quote: Spade
                        A link to "download D-30 shooting tables"?
                        Here is a leaf for you:

                        How wonderful. From excalibur, you take the maximum value of CVO at a distance of 40 km, and from D-30 the minimum value at 15 km. And why didn’t they take 28 meters? Why are you dumping a normal and "not normal" distribution? If the distribution were normal, then despite the fact that 92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target QUO would be 1.3 meters. Do not want to use this figure in your further calculations? wink

                        Quote: Spade
                        There is, however, another reason: Raytheon and BAE Systems, like all self-respecting large companies, need income.

                        Well yes. The Pentagon received bribes, and the Congressional Defense Commission is entirely engaged in cutting. Just do not understand who bribed the government of Australia, Canada, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands? Who brought the authorities of France, Great Britain, Israel, China and other unconscious comrades spending millions and millions of dollars on precision artillery weapons when the D-30 completely copes?
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 11 January 2018 20: 38
                        0
                        PS
                        50.7 km wink


                        PPS
                        The name of your fighter who caused the fire on himself is Alexander Prokhorenko. He was only 25 years old.
                    2. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 11 January 2018 20: 48
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      "Maths are not mistaken, maths are mistaken" for details, go re-read my post above.

                      Refute the Swedes, not me. Hint, Swedes don't make escalambur

                      It’s like a professor, but you need to chew everything like a child. wink
                      Okay, so according to mathematicians 2 + 2 = 4, I argued that mathematics is not mistaken, that is, the predicate "2 + 2 = 4" is true, but mathematicians are mistaken, that is, the predicate "2 plus 2 is always four" false, because the predicate " 2 drops of water plus 2 drops of water is equal to 4 drops of water "will be false because the correct answer is" one drop of water. "
                      A classic example, who did not even understand it, I advise you to go read books on mathematical logic, especially about predicates and sets.
                    3. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 11 January 2018 20: 51
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      And where were these funds when they were needed? Dust storm? It was like the weather was flying.

                      What is the firing range in km in the case you are describing?
                      Although it doesn’t matter, spending billions of dollars to develop adjustable shells and trilliards to purchase them to save a couple of special forces is simply unprofitable. I explain for children who want to start an OR about "corpses", I explain that for special forces helicopter carriers BBM and "aviation gantraki" are needed. Which is successfully applied by the USA.
                    4. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 11 January 2018 22: 01
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Smart shells do not obey the normal law of distribution.

                      N. yes ...
                      Well, I actually wrote about it. Bourgeois, unlike the rest of the undemocratic, unfasten the money to someone who repeals the fundamental laws. And therefore the normal law does not apply to their humanitarian ammunition 8))))))))))
                      And they indicate the KVO, which is a product of approximation of the normal law, stepwise for shells for which the control system failed 8)))))))))))
                      Normal obeys everything. Including missile guidance system errors.

                      Quote: Professor
                      How wonderful. From excalibur you take the maximum value of CVO at a distance of 40 km, and from the D-30 the minimum by 15 km. Why didn’t they take 28 meters?

                      And here, the difference between the uncontrollable and the managed is just manifested. In uncontrolled dispersion depends on the range. But the managed ones don’t. And when the D-30 shoots for a kilometer, KVO will have 0.2 meters, and the “excalibur” will have the same 20 meters

                      Quote: Professor
                      92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target

                      How interesting. In the bravura report they wrote this nonsense, but did the KVO reasonably indicate in 20? Because advertising is one thing, but can you run into sanctions for deception? And people, he shatters (which, by the way, I am observing very well), he is not aware of what the QUO is, and what it means in reality.

                      Quote: Professor
                      Well yes. The Pentagon received bribes, and the Congressional Defense Commission is engaged in a cut.

                      I admit that too. It’s hard to find other reasons for such stupid things as choosing a much more expensive option and refusing a cheap, but with greater accuracy.
                      The second option, maybe they are just not sure about the ability of the US military to count?
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 12 January 2018 08: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Normal obeys everything. Including missile guidance system errors.

                        Why do you write such nonsense in public? I brought you a link. You should at least read the wiki. Guided ammunition obeys the law of Gaussian distribution only when it flies like a blank along a ballistic trajectory. Which of us in the end is a gunner? request

                        Quote: Spade
                        And here, the difference between the uncontrollable and the managed is just manifested. In uncontrolled dispersion depends on the range. But the managed ones don’t. And when the D-30 shoots for a kilometer, KVO will have 0.2 meters, and the “excalibur” will have the same 20 meters

                        And here you juggle the numbers taking in one case a larger diameter ELLIPSEand in another smaller.

                        Quote: Spade
                        How interesting. In the bravura report they wrote this nonsense, but did the KVO reasonably indicate in 20? Because advertising is one thing, but can you run into sanctions for deception? And people, he shatters (which, by the way, I am observing very well), he is not aware of what the QUO is, and what it means in reality.

                        Aviation Week & Space Technology are laymen, and Lopatov knows better. By the way, Raytheon Missile Systems did not write about the CEP at 20 meters. Https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ex
                        calibur /
                        The Petnagon in Afghanistan, after the use of 200 shells, received a "KVO" in 2.86 m at a distance of 40 km. Materiel:
                        https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2010/10/27/excal
                        ibur-use-rises-in-afghanistan

                        So we will take for QUO 1.3m times his distribution is normal and 92% of the shells lie in 4 m from the target? wink

                        Quote: Spade
                        I admit that too. It’s hard to find other reasons for such stupid things as choosing a much more expensive option and refusing a cheap, but with greater accuracy.

                        Definitely stupid. We chose a shell striking with KVO in 1.3 m wink at a distance of 50 km from an airborne cannon, but they could buy the old D-30.

                        Well, the fact that the US military does not know how to count is also a fact. After all, everyone knows that they are stupid. For whom do they only print manuals?
                        http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476368.p
                        df

                        Can I ask a personal question? In the service, did you intersect with precision weapons?
                    5. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 12 January 2018 10: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Why do you write such nonsense in public? I brought you a link.

                      And after your "deportation" I was lying under the table. Are you a humanist? In our first year at any technical university, students at the laboratory in physics for the first time encounter the fact that any mistake obeys the normal law. 8)))))))) Looks like Israel really has problems with education.

                      Quote: Professor
                      And here you are juggling the numbers, taking in one case a larger ELLIPSE diameter, and in the other a smaller one.

                      And here you already have problems with geometry.
                      The scattering ellipse is the projection of the CVO onto the surface, taking into account the angle of incidence. The only value that does not change and is equal to KVO-Vb

                      Quote: Professor
                      By the way, Raytheon Missile Systems did not write about the KVO at 20 meters.

                      The Petnagon in Afghanistan, after the use of 200 shells, received a "KVO" in 2.86 m at a distance of 40 km. Materiel:

                      Again, advertising murders and bravura reports as "Materiel" ... Damn, should I start to believe that our weapons are really "unparalleled in the world", because they write in our circumnavigation press and on the websites of office developers?


                      Quote: Professor
                      Definitely stupid. We chose a shell striking with KVO in 1.3 m

                      They chose 20. Then they took a new figure from the ceiling to justify the enormous cost of stupidity and justify the continued allocation of such money.
                      Interestingly, they themselves did not laugh with those simpletons who would believe in the very possibility of determining the CWO of ammunition in the course of hostilities?
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 12 January 2018 15: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        And after your "deportation" I was lying under the table. Are you a humanist? In our first year at any technical university, students at the laboratory in physics for the first time encounter the fact that any mistake obeys the normal law. 8)))))))) Looks like Israel really has problems with education.

                        Do not tell tales. For such pearls, I always put students at a loss. I will conduct a educational program for you too. In the world, not a single error complies with normal law. NOT ONE. There are some who approaching to the normal distribution, just not one for it. Even a freshman knows that the Gauss law (AKA "Normal Distribution" or AKA "Bell") does not have "chopped off tails." In other words, with a normal distribution, there is always the possibility of getting the magnitude of the error from minus infinity to plus infinity. In your example, this means that by measuring the accuracy of a projectile hitting a target, you are likely to get an error of minus a trillion kilometers. (Normal distribution say? laughing )
                        With a normal distribution of measurement errors, let's say temperature (climb out from under the table), there is a probability of an error of minus a million degrees. Russian scientists have shifted an absolute zero? wink

                        If you want, I will demonstrate this to you on the formula. Get out from under the table and go learn the tower.

                        For QUO and precision weapons, go to the wiki first. It says why Gauss and precision weapons are "not friends." Do not overpower, I’ll explain on the fingers.

                        Israel really has problems with education. We know that the error not only approaches the Normal law, but there are errors described by other laws: the logarithmic distribution law (a log-normal, AKA lognormal), there is a uniform distribution and others. It all depends on the specific case. Give examples?

                        Quote: Spade
                        And here you already have problems with geometry.
                        The scattering ellipse is the projection of the CVO onto the surface, taking into account the angle of incidence. The only value that does not change and is equal to KVO-Vb

                        ... and therefore you take a smaller ellipse radius in D-30, and a larger one among the bourgeois? Do they have different physical laws? wink

                        Quote: Spade
                        Again, advertising murders and bravura reports as "Materiel" ... Damn, should I start to believe that our weapons are really "unparalleled in the world", because they write in our circumnavigation press and on the websites of office developers?

                        It turns out that not only Americans are dumb, but also the military of Australia, Canada, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands who believed in advertising and bought this product for their hard-earned money. On the tests and in real application, they see the roulette broke. I don’t understand one thing. If you are so smart, why are you so poor? request

                        Quote: Spade
                        They chose 20. Then they took a new figure from the ceiling to justify the enormous cost of stupidity and justify the continued allocation of such money.
                        Interestingly, they themselves did not laugh with those simpletons who would believe in the very possibility of determining the CWO of ammunition in the course of hostilities?

                        So do we count on the Normal distribution or not? If not, see above. If so, then the QUO turns out to be 1.3 meters. Curtain. fellow

                        In general, what are you so worried about? Let the stupid bourgeoisie beat with artillery, regardless of range, at a distance of 150 meters from their troops. Let them kill all of their own. And you will cause fire on yourself and give the Heroes posthumously.

                        Have a nice weekend. hi
                    6. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 12 January 2018 19: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      In your example, this means that by measuring the accuracy of a projectile hitting a target, you are likely to get an error of minus a trillion kilometers. (Normal distribution say?)

                      And what confuses you with this? The probability of such an event is vanishingly small, but it is not equal to zero.
                      By the way, you stubbornly use KVO as a characteristic of guided projectiles, although judging by your own words this is illiterate, because they "do not obey the normal law"
                      Strange, right? At the same time, they obey and disobey, depending on the context?

                      Quote: Professor
                      For such pearls, I always put students at failure. I will conduct a educational program for you too.

                      Oh, thanks, don’t. I do not want to be as illiterate as your students, whom you put “unsuccessfully” for the correct answers


                      Quote: Professor
                      and therefore you take a smaller ellipse radius in the D-30, and a larger one among the bourgeois?

                      Where???? No need to slip into a lie, my friend.
                      I repeat: did you ask for a quo? I have indicated to you. For the D-30 KVO at the maximum range is equal to Wb and equal to 11 meters. For "Excalibur" of. KVO is equal to Wb and equal to 20 meters.
                      So everything is clear?

                      Quote: Professor
                      Dumb is not only Americans, but also the military of Australia, Canada, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands

                      But does this disprove the theory of probability?
                      The argument you have is just tin ... At the level of "many have a saucepan on their heads, which means it's normal, wear it like that" ...

                      Quote: Professor
                      So do we count on the Normal distribution or not? If not, see above. If so, then the QUO turns out to be 1.3 meters. Curtain.

                      What do you think? Data which during shooting can not be removed in principle?
                      Measure the height of the building by the number of pairs of shoes in the closet of a neighbor?

                      Professor,
                      I worry when some, having absolutely no idea about the subject, declare "You would have such accuracy"
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 13 January 2018 09: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        And what confuses you with this? The probability of such an event is vanishingly small, but it is not equal to zero.

                        That is, when shooting say 1 000 000 000 shells, one will fly away at a distance of 1 000 kilometers? Himself not funny? I'm sorry that you are not familiar with other distributions besides the “normal” one.
                        Can I ask another question as a "mathematician" "mathematics"? Why is there a standard check for the "normality" of the distribution, because according to yours (I quote) "any mistake obeys the normal law" and "Everything obeys the normal law. Including errors of the projectile guidance system"? For the sake of laughter carry out this test?
                        http://webspace.ship.edu/pgmarr/Geo441/Lectures/L
                        ec% 205% 20-% 20Normality% 20Testing.pdf

                        Do you want to give an example when the distribution of the accuracy of the fall of shells, even in the D-30 super, is far from "normal?" wink

                        Quote: Spade
                        By the way, you stubbornly use KVO as a characteristic of guided projectiles, although judging by your own words this is illiterate, because they "do not obey the normal law"
                        Strange, right? At the same time, they obey and disobey, depending on the context?

                        There is only one name left. The calculation formula is different. Remember, in your first year, you were taught that "calculating the CVO with a normal distribution implies a random process and the complete absence of controlled external intervention"? In precision weapons, external interference is present. You at least read the Russian wiki to replenish your horizons.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Where???? No need to slip into a lie, my friend.

                        As where? From D-30 you take the average lateral deviation (smaller value), and from the bourgeoisie the average deviation in range (large value). I don’t even ask you where you got the number in 20 from when I proved to you that the burst of a bourgeois with a normal distribution is only 1.3 meters.

                        Quote: Spade
                        But does this disprove the theory of probability?

                        You did not admit that they know this theory better than you? Maybe they have knowledge not only about the "normal" distribution and they are not complete?

                        Quote: Spade
                        What do you think? Data which during shooting can not be removed in principle?

                        This is if the D-30 disc in battle to shoot. And if the given coordinates (GPS) and the coordinates of the actual hit (aerial photograph) are known, then even you will calculate these numbers. Remember what they called the unit involved in this?

                        Quote: Spade
                        Professor,
                        I worry when some, having absolutely no idea about the subject, declare "You would have such accuracy"

                        You tell this to the mother of Alexander Prokhorenko who, in the presence of Hermes and the D-30, who has no analogue in the world, and the gunner was forced to cause fire on himself as a precision weapon. But they could put bombs and shells right around him.

                        PS
                        You would have such accuracy.
        2. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 11 January 2018 16: 28
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Not. Under combat conditions, 92% of the shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target. A tornado cannot boast of such a result.

          Lopatov has already told you that the MLRS is unnecessary, it is for areal purposes.
          Quote: Professor
          Not. The Americans do not propose destroying with excalibur what he is not capable of destroying.

          Read carefully, especially my post above.
          Quote: Professor
          This ammunition at a distance of 40 km on average replaces 200 conventional. Which is cheaper?

          "Mathematics is not mistaken, mathematicians are mistaken" go read my post above for details. hi
          Quote: Professor
          How in Syria to call fire on yourself and fall a hero? Is your fighter really not worth $ 68'000?
          These words are simply advertising and thirst and bullshit. The whole essence of a real analysis of the differences in concepts I cited above, go re-read.
          Quote: Professor
          In this case, what are your options?

          It seems that he wrote already in the post above, but I repeat, especially for you, at such ranges (40km) other means of destruction are used, or this range is reduced due to the separation of art positions.
  18. Professor
    Professor 29 January 2018 19: 59
    0
    Quote: iggrimnir
    Have you forgotten or didn’t intentionally talk about a guided projectile Krasnopol for example? And he is not alone .. well, why are you so hard licking that mattress? Although what am I ... everyone has their own truth. Ours from Msta calmly got straight into the bus with the Ishilovites, to the headquarters and to the sheds and to the armored vehicles and nothing, all the rules, no problem. Contact, in which case, you can throw shells, a lot is not required.

    You tell the mother of Alexander Prokhorenko how your from Msta calmly got straight into the bus with the Ishilovites and tell her why he had to call fire on himself, and not at 5, 6 meters nearby.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 30 January 2018 01: 22
      0
      when you prove to mother Prokhorenko that your shells could save him, do not forget attach maps: the place of his death, the location of the howitzers, and draw lines between these points indicating that the "super duper shell" hits this distance. Now, when you show me this map, and say that "if there was an excalibur \ Krasnopol \ etc" then he would be alive.
      Then, and only then, I personally agree with you. Until that moment, personally, I consider your words a pro-Western advertisement or thirsty delirium, hi
      1. Professor
        Professor 30 January 2018 12: 24
        0
        I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. I'm also not interested in what you think my words are. The fact remains that, not being able to accurately cover the terrorists attacking him, the fighter was forced to fire on himself, not on them.