Military Review

Aviation Base Hamime could securely cover ZSU 2C38 "Air Defense Derivation"

126
The newest Russian 57-mm anti-aircraft self-propelled unit 2С38 "Air Defense Derivation" can reliably cover the VKS Hmeimim base in Syria from small-sized combat drones that extremists are trying to use in recent days, writes Messenger of Mordovia.


Aviation Base Hamime could securely cover ZSU 2C38 "Air Defense Derivation"


According to military experts, the best opportunity to experience this system in real conditions is difficult to find.

“The unit, based on the BMP-3, has high mobility characteristics. It is also capable of shooting down missiles, not to mention such purposes as airplanes, helicopters and cruise missiles. Considering the local specifics, the “Air Defense Derivation” would also be useful for the destruction of highly mobile targets on the ground and in water, ”the article by Lev Romanov says.

The maximum range of destruction of the installation - 6 km, height - 4,5 km. Rate of Fire - 120 shots / min. Full ammunition - 148 shots. Crew - 3 person.



The 2C38 is equipped with a modern optoelectronic detection and aiming system, which is able to see, without unmasking itself, day and night in all weather conditions.

According to the author, this system "can rightfully be considered the best in the world: there is nothing like this in any foreign army yet."
Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru
126 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: 27
    24
    Would ... Again, this is our "would" ...
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 9 January 2018 14: 35
      11
      This is precisely the test. So the Shell worked for 5+.
      1. User
        User 9 January 2018 14: 51
        20
        The carapace is good, but you get golden drones. And the material issue is quite significant, and it is not for nothing that the military-industrial complex works with so many foreign customers. Nobody says that since it’s expensive, you don’t have to shoot it down. The author proposes to consider the option with the same outcome, but at a lower cost.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 9 January 2018 15: 10
          18
          In fact, the shell has a 30mm gun. They just come out cheaper than 57mm ...
          1. Gartny
            Gartny 9 January 2018 15: 42
            +7
            In fact, the "Shell" is not able to identify and shoot down mortar shells. And about this "Derivation". so if grandmother had ..., then it would be grandfather.
            1. faiver
              faiver 9 January 2018 16: 28
              +9
              and who is able to identify and bring down mortar shells?
              1. Sevastiec
                Sevastiec 10 January 2018 06: 17
                0
                The Americans seem to have something.
                1. faiver
                  faiver 10 January 2018 06: 49
                  +3
                  the only thing left is to ask the Americans ....
                  1. Gartny
                    Gartny 10 January 2018 12: 03
                    0
                    Americans will help. After all, they saved Russia from hunger three times. Just do not forget “thank you” to say, at least.
                    1. Captain Pushkin
                      Captain Pushkin 10 January 2018 14: 59
                      +5
                      Quote: Gartna

                      0
                      Gartny Today, 12:03 ↑
                      Americans will help. After all, they saved Russia from hunger three times. Just do not forget “thank you” to say, at least.

                      In fact, the famine in the USSR was just a consequence of the famine in the USA - grain from the USSR went straight to the USA, saving Americans from hunger (in the USA up to 7 million people died from starvation at that time, the exact numbers are classified), in exchange for recognition of the USSR the United States and the flow of industrial equipment and machinery at the price of scrap metal.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Valery Saitov
                Valery Saitov 10 January 2018 12: 47
                0
                Today's so-called "asymmetric" military conflicts require the emergence of new types of weapons that can detect or prevent terrorist attacks using missiles, artillery and mortars. Such defense systems are called C-RAM (Counter Rockets, Artillery and Mortar, which means abbreviation for rocket-artillery and mortar attacks).
                Today, the most real way to combat mortar shelling, paradoxically, is anti-aircraft artillery. Barreled artillery has a sufficiently high range and accuracy, and its ammunition has power, guaranteeing the effective destruction of RAM in the air. But the gun alone cannot solve such a difficult task as "getting into a flying fly from a rifle." This also requires high-precision means of detecting and tracking flying small targets, as well as a high-speed fire control system for the timely calculation of firing, pointing and programming fuses. All these components of the C-RAM system already exist, although they did not appear immediately, but during the rather long evolution of the air defense and missile defense systems.
            2. alexmach
              alexmach 9 January 2018 18: 00
              +6
              And this thing, without a radar, will not beat them anyway.
              And why bother them at all? Isn’t it easier to organize a counter-battery struggle and, in rare cases, for Heimim, to control the surrounding territories?
              1. Okolotochny
                Okolotochny 10 January 2018 09: 32
                +5
                And even simpler ... Ben Gurion Airport. As the knowledgeable told, forum users from Israel will confirm or refute, this is a fortress. The secret is simple, about a radius of 20 km. a security zone has been created where an unauthorized appearance is an emergency. Maybe it's worth taking over this experience?
              2. RobertZone
                RobertZone 10 January 2018 23: 03
                +1
                It’s ridiculous. Aiming on a thermal imaging channel, an optical channel. Did not hear?
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 10 January 2018 23: 28
                  0
                  At night? In the fog? In the presence of smoke on the battlefield.
                  IMHO, a modern air defense system needs both radar and optics ...
                  The other side of the coin - the radar unmasks.
            3. co-creator
              co-creator 10 January 2018 03: 20
              +2
              Quote: Gartna
              In fact, the "Shell" is not able to identify and shoot down mortar shells.

              Able to identify, but most likely not to bring down.
            4. Konstantin Kiselev
              Konstantin Kiselev 13 January 2018 16: 03
              +1
              This is your grandfather, and so it is a tranny!
          2. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 9 January 2018 16: 20
            +4
            the ammunition consumption of the carapace for a target like a “mini-drone" is very large, you are tormented by changing the BC.
          3. Lexus
            Lexus 9 January 2018 16: 42
            10
            “Shell”, alas, doesn’t “work” with guns for small targets. Actually, due to the lack of shells with programmable detonation.
          4. Observer2014
            Observer2014 9 January 2018 18: 39
            +9
            Muvka
            In fact, the shell has a 30mm gun. They just come out cheaper than 57mm ...
            But this is all nonsense. The shell and this Air Defense Derivative need remote-detonated shells. Then, these cheap drones will literally crush one shell.
            1. kapitan92
              kapitan92 10 January 2018 23: 28
              +4
              Quote: Observer2014
              But this is all nonsense. The shell and this Air Defense Derivative need remote-detonated shells. Then, these cheap drones will literally crush one shell.

              OCD "Derivation" - the work is extremely relevant. According to the developers, the complex will not have equal in the world in its characteristics, which we will comment below. 57 enterprises take part in the creation of ZAK-10 “Derivation-Air Defense”. The main work, as was said, is carried out by the Central Research Institute "Petrel". He creates an uninhabited combat module. A very important role is played by Design Bureau of Tochmash named after A.E. Nudelman, who developed a guided artillery shell for a 57-mm anti-aircraft gun with a high probability of hitting a target approaching the performance of anti-aircraft missiles. The probability of hitting a small target with sound velocity with two shells reaches 0,8.

              http://interpolit.ru/blog/pushka_sposobnaja_soper
              nichat_s_zenitnoj_raketoj / 2016-06-07-7005
          5. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 10 January 2018 01: 04
            +3
            not a fact .. in a video from journalists, Star, it seems, couldn’t be shot down from one turn .. in fact, either they can wait for sub-caliber rockets for the Carapace (4 in one tube from a standard rocket) or really take 57 mm shells. taking into account modern electronics, to calculate and detonate a projectile in the right place, so that it is easy to shoot a drone with fragments or shrapnel, especially considering that the UASs already developed in 57 mm caliber.
        2. sergey32
          sergey32 9 January 2018 15: 17
          +1
          I apologize to the professional military for my civilian IMHO, but it seems to me that it would be effective to develop systems similar to the active protection of armored vehicles. So that in automatic mode, the systems located around the perimeter of the protected area can shoot down both drones and mines and other gifts.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 9 January 2018 16: 22
            +1
            the same shell shoots automatically.
        3. User
          User 9 January 2018 15: 18
          +1
          Although here I may have got excited. The shell of the same ZRПK, so cannon weapons must be compared. The shell has an 30-mm cannon 2А38, like the Tunguska, and the derivation 57-mm is a new development. So the meaning is wrong.
        4. Now we are free
          Now we are free 9 January 2018 17: 16
          +7
          B .... This development was supposed to be "tested" from Syria another "day before yesterday" as well as the entire nomenclature of 57 mm guns in the form of AU-220 complexes, etc.
          How many times have it been said to test / deploy guns under 57 mm ammunition urgently. They allow you to deal with all known types of armored vehicles with the exception of MBT (and even on board and in the stern all MBT of "probable partners" are taken completely) and with all flying objects (with the exception of high-speed jet aircraft) about the cost of a destroyed drone of 57 mm guns I am silent, in comparison with the Shell rocket or several bursts of 30 mm guns ...
          I really hope that the AU-220 and Derivation will finally begin to be tested at the Syrian training ground for the benefit of the “Shoot I Don't Want to” ...
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 9 January 2018 18: 40
            +2
            And on what Derivation? There is a S-60. Tighten to her OLS and cheers! So on it there are also two barrels and the reach in range and height is almost twice as high. Yes, and the tank base allows you to carry BK more.
          2. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 10 January 2018 01: 07
            0
            Well, yes, the tank won’t destroy it, but if you detonate a shell at a distance of 5 meters from the HE tank, and ideally shrapnel, especially with a burst of three to 4 shells, then all the attachments will simply be hit with shrapnel and shrapnel and the tank becomes an expensive armored mole rat.
        5. Star
          Star 9 January 2018 19: 44
          +3
          To combat drones, highly efficient electronic warfare systems and projectiles are not necessary.
          That's just the difficulty. Americans really want to take readings from our systems ...
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 9 January 2018 23: 32
            0
            The idea is interesting, but if the UAV is controlled via satellite, it is necessary to hammer the control channel from the AC located above the UAV. Otherwise, you need a very serious interference power. With a massive raid of advanced gadgets this makes sense. And for the Barmaleev’s, an explosive ordnance is needed. And then, if the raid is multi-station. And for individual UAVs, it’s more a maser gun. Burn electronic stuffing at a relatively short distance from the object. For long ranges, there are none.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 9 January 2018 15: 36
        11
        Quote: Muvka
        So the Shell worked for 5+.

        The control and interception of small-sized drones should not be dealt with by the Armor or even this Derivation with 150 shells in the BC, but by electronic warfare systems. Even the same volley from the Derivation cannon will be much more expensive than the $ 50 drone bought at the store.
        I think we need an EW complex that covers our objects with a dome, entering which small drones would fall like green flies, under the action of dichlorvos, deprived of control and communication.
        1. svd-xnumx
          svd-xnumx 9 January 2018 22: 29
          +2
          I think we need an EW complex that covers our objects with a dome, entering which small drones would fall like green flies, under the action of dichlorvos, deprived of control and communication.
          But what about the existence of a base if you jam radio and GPS signals? Here you need highly specialized systems, and not stupid "jammers".
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 9 January 2018 22: 32
            +2
            Quote: svd-xnumx
            And how can the base exist if you jam the radio and GPS signals?

            As an option, the removal of receivers beyond the action of electronic warfare systems ...
            Quote: svd-xnumx
            Here you need highly specialized systems

            And they too ...
        2. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 10 January 2018 01: 08
          0
          the solution must always be comprehensive, this is an axiom
    2. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 9 January 2018 14: 43
      +3
      Quote: Hankey Bannister
      Would ... Again, this is our "would" ...

      The latest Russian 57mm 2S38 anti-aircraft defense “Air Defense Derivative” self-propelled gun can reliably cover the airspace base of Hmeimim in Syria from small-sized combat drones

      But is it in service with the Russian army? Or it also applies to her:
      nothing like this yet in any foreign army
      1. groks
        groks 10 January 2018 09: 30
        0
        We have been doing drive to it for about five years.
    3. max702
      max702 9 January 2018 14: 51
      +9
      As soon as they don’t try to shove this pepelats into the troops .. While there is no shell with a programmable fuse (for a sane price) there is nothing to talk about .. Hunting to shoot 57mm? it’s not a question we get from the storage of the ZSU-57 and into battle .. According to the mind, a somewhat modernized machine would be very popular when guarding bases, block posts, accompanied by columns ..
      1. huntsman650
        huntsman650 10 January 2018 00: 02
        0
        In marine artillery there is an out automatic tube installer. The digital computer calculates the length of the detonation of the projectile and sets the time of detonation in front of the sending line.
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 10 January 2018 01: 12
        0
        and who said that nothing is being done? The first sketches were in 2015, according to the Internet, in 2017 they showed the finished car, so now they are completing tests in the design bureau and on the gos, taking into account the mass UAV attack, they will now accelerate the development of a sub-caliber rocket for the Shell and this machine .
    4. Spartanez300
      Spartanez300 9 January 2018 15: 27
      +1
      It would be nice to test a self-propelled gun in a combat environment.
      1. Gartny
        Gartny 9 January 2018 15: 43
        +1
        in about thirty years maybe yes. )))
    5. Maz
      Maz 9 January 2018 17: 10
      +1
      And who is Leo Romanov?
  2. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 9 January 2018 14: 29
    0
    Specialists, enlighten, what kind of "beast" is this, they write the truth?)) Honestly, I have not even heard about him .. (
  3. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 9 January 2018 14: 30
    +3
    57 mm is not too much for wooden and plastic airplanes?
    1. novel66
      novel66 9 January 2018 14: 35
      +6
      By the way! on the same base to make an anti-drone version with a gatling caliber like this. 12.7
      1. Gartny
        Gartny 9 January 2018 15: 44
        +3
        you can add the "hyperboloid" of engineer Garin and then there will be VICTORY in general,
    2. midivan
      midivan 9 January 2018 14: 50
      +7
      Quote: _Jack_
      57 mm is not too much for wooden and plastic airplanes?

      Apparently the matter is in the range, the Zu-23 seems to hit only 2 km, and probably in the size of the projectile, it should burst, as I understand it, and the bullet is not so easy to get to 4 km request IMHA
      1. User
        User 9 January 2018 15: 07
        +2
        The anti-aircraft shell has a high-explosive fragmentation effect, because distance, speed, maneuverability and the relatively small size of air targets make conventional bullets fire ineffective. Yes, there is no reservation for the purposes as such.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 9 January 2018 16: 27
          +2
          there are contact action OFs, not remote ones. These OFSs were intended to destroy planes and helicopters in order to give a transverse field of fragments upon breaking through. But such a system is not effective against drones.
  4. assa67
    assa67 9 January 2018 14: 35
    16
    it is necessary to pull out the quadruples from the Maxima warehouses .. decent optics on them ....))))))))
  5. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 9 January 2018 14: 35
    +2
    It is definitely necessary to test in Syria. As I understand it, our Ministry of Defense already has views of this machine ("Air Defense Derivation") .... it’s a little expensive to mock plastic drones from the "Shell", maybe it will be better
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 9 January 2018 14: 46
      13
      It is necessary to mock at the launch points.
      It is advisable even before the launch or immediately after!
      Then the desire to run and the number of people who want to run will sharply decrease.
      A pair of three shells from Grad or NURS will be enough.
    2. Chichikov
      Chichikov 9 January 2018 14: 54
      +3
      Since when did a 30-mm shell become cheaper than 57? Not to mention the ammunition of shells, 1400 against 148!
      1. fan_
        fan_ 9 January 2018 15: 41
        0
        where the information went through that they had already made a light rocket to shoot down drones .... for a shell, instead of one ordinary rocket ... a container with 4 small missiles inside would be put. I don’t want to hit.
        1. the most important
          the most important 9 January 2018 18: 00
          0
          Quote: fan_
          where the information went through that they had already made a light rocket to shoot down drones .... for a shell, instead of one ordinary rocket ... a container with 4 small missiles inside would be put. I don’t want to hit.

          YAB will be ??? wink
  6. midivan
    midivan 9 January 2018 14: 42
    +4
    [/ quote] Rate of fire - 120 rounds / min. Full ammunition - 148 rounds [quote]
    Why so small b / c. can anyone explain? This is complete crap, twice clicked on the trigger and rattled for shells.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 9 January 2018 16: 29
      +3
      there is a remote detonation therefore less shots are needed
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 9 January 2018 18: 17
      +1
      Why yes why. It doesn’t fit anymore, especially with the observance of the requirements for the absence of ammunition in the inhabited compartments.


      Cartridge length - 536 mm
      Sleeve length - 348 mm
      Cartridge weight - 6,61 kg
      Projectile weight - 2,8 kg
      The mass of the sleeve - 2,23 kg

      Here you can see them in the picture.
      http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?topic=6
      353.0
      1. midivan
        midivan 10 January 2018 00: 06
        +4
        Quote: alexmach
        Why yes why.

        Nervous? It’s not worth it, you need to protect your health smile not all here are "svidomye", there are also lay people like me.
        Quote: alexmach
        It doesn’t fit anymore, especially with the observance of the requirements for the absence of ammunition in the inhabited compartments.

        It feels like a bream got an answer instead laughing It would be easier for me to hear the answer, the tank does not live for a long time and this is enough. Well, since I opened (profane), I’ll allow one more stupid question: why not make a tank like a tank at the back and for what reason the tower looks like an Eplov stub well, and even to the heap then, why “Armata” in the tower in front a niche, so that the enemy’s shell doesn’t slip, but how did he get in?
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 10 January 2018 00: 39
          0
          So the tank chassis and engine at what weight ground? And here is an aluminum box with, by the way, a crewless tower (that's why it was nibbled so that it weighs less and has a smaller moment of inertia).
          What bo tower of Almaty - they say the Russian Aegis will put on it. That's just the place for the headlights and left a place. And the Missiles will be in the second trailer car. He is being tested on the Arctic Shell.
          Only you to anyone! Ts, the enemy is eavesdropping!
          1. midivan
            midivan 10 January 2018 01: 15
            +2
            Quote: Vlad.by
            And here is an aluminum box with, by the way, a crewless tower (that's why it was nibbled so that it weighs less and has a smaller moment of inertia).

            Why is the luminous box the same BMP and not BMD? I liked about inertia smile save on shells to facilitate equipment, and if a normal tower and a more powerful drive, so you are not so afraid of inertia? Not something wrong. request
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 10 January 2018 01: 20
              0
              Why is the luminous box the same BMP and not BMD?

              Well, why is this? for relax. Well this is not a heavy tank but a BMP. Although not BMD, it is also floating and air transportable. She is the same "luminous".
              An advanced solution with aluminum alloy was.
        2. alexmach
          alexmach 10 January 2018 01: 08
          0
          Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. It didn’t work out well. I, too, if that is an ignoramus, and my reasoning is profane. But the projectile for the 57 mm high-ballistic gun is really large, and where to store the ammunition is one of the problem points of installing this gun on light armored vehicles.
          why does “Armate” have a niche in the front of the tower, so that the enemy’s shell doesn’t slip, but how did he get in?

          To install sighting equipment in it. Look, the T-72-b3 has a whole cudgel on the tower with a pine sight, here I suppose a similar sight, only in the niche of the tower it is located and is protected from falling from the side. And what kind of reservation scheme is there in Armata, in the tower itself, in the building, I think we generally will not know soon.
          why not make a tank for a b / c

          I mean in the stern of the tower or what?
          For what reason, the tower is similar to an Eplov stub

          Advertising is the engine of trade, what if Medvedev will be the next Minister of Defense?
          But more seriously - I’ll express a profane guess that, unlike the tank, since this thing is air defense, it has the working position of the gun — the gun looks at the sky, while the breech of the gun is quite low, lower than this aft tower would be . But this is all my reasoning exclusively on the fingers.
    3. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 10 January 2018 01: 15
      0
      Will you wait a minute? To hit typical targets, 3-4 shells are needed to create a fragment area in the motion vector of an enemy object.
      1. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 10 January 2018 11: 40
        0
        I believe the BM provides for the supply of ammunition when firing bursts of up to 3-5 shells at any elevation of the barrel. Otherwise, why such an aggregate.
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 10 January 2018 21: 16
          0
          yes, it’s more likely that it’s a tape warhead, just 120 rounds per minute, that’s two rounds per second, the firing will be automatic at air targets taking into account the pilot operation at the firing ranges .. more simply, they will determine how much is needed and what projectiles to hit the target .. Of course, the closer the target, the more shells, but I think that they will hit with deuces
  7. Andvigor
    Andvigor 9 January 2018 14: 43
    0
    Quote: Alexey-74
    It is definitely necessary to test in Syria. As I understand it, our Ministry of Defense already has views of this machine ("Air Defense Derivation") .... it’s a little expensive to mock plastic drones from the "Shell", maybe it will be better

    Yes, definitely "nada correct"!
  8. Slon1978
    Slon1978 9 January 2018 14: 44
    0
    Such a system is good for fighting helicopters - relatively slow and oversized targets - cheaply, angrily, and quite efficiently. It can also be multifunctional and work on the ground. But as a basic system for protection against drones and especially missiles ... I don’t know ... missiles are clearly more reliable, long-range and more effective when working from all angles, including aftertaking.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 9 January 2018 18: 57
      0
      Firstly, modern helicopters cannot be reached in range.
      Secondly, it would be very desirable that any system be multifunctional - that is, it could shoot down a small drone at the same time efficiently and at an affordable cost and an adult cruise missile - read without missiles in the BC in any way.
      The next question is how to optimally assemble such a system. The shell and Tunguzga were once brilliant systems. It is necessary to repeat something like this .. and it is desirable so that it would fit on one chassis ...
      Well .. you can of course bring in a battery of Shell or Tori and supplement it with special "anitidron" technique.
  9. svp67
    svp67 9 January 2018 14: 45
    +3
    She is also able to shoot down rockets, not to mention targets such as airplanes, helicopters and cruise missiles.
    And can mortar mines? But until she learns - she has nothing to do there
  10. san4es
    san4es 9 January 2018 14: 46
    +3

    ... the detection range through one of the television channels of the Bird Eye 400 type unmanned aerial vehicle in the overview mode is 700 m, in the narrow field of view - 4900 m. The A-10 attack aircraft will be visible in the first mode already at a range of 6400 m, and in the second - at 12 300 m


    Optoelectronic detection and aiming system of the OEC OP developed by Peleng OJSC (Minsk), installed on a 2C38 combat vehicle of a self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery complex in the Derivation-PVO OKR
    The thermal imaging channel allows you to detect targets measuring 2,3 x 2,3 m with a probability of 80% at a range of 10 m and recognize them at a distance of 000 m
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 9 January 2018 15: 13
      +4
      и
      Quote: san4es
      The thermal imaging channel allows you to detect targets measuring 2,3 x 2,3 m with a probability of 80% at a range of 10 m and recognize them at a distance of 000 m

      So they with such characteristics want to shoot down drones and shells ?! - let them walk with this fishing rod ...
      1. san4es
        san4es 9 January 2018 15: 16
        0
        Quote: tchoni
        ..with such characteristics ....

        request ... Looks have improved fellow
        ... then the article from 29.08.2017/XNUMX/XNUMX
        http://ya-russ.ru/besposhhadnaya-2s38-noveyshaya-
        derivatsiya-pvo-raskryivaet-sekretyi-2 /

      2. alexmach
        alexmach 9 January 2018 19: 32
        +3
        In my opinion, the anti-drone air defense system needs both a radar and an optical channel + a radar of early detection, taken up on the boom, is mandatory.
  11. Rusland
    Rusland 9 January 2018 14: 47
    +7
    And the caliber and rate of fire, somehow alarms such a combat use.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. senima56
    senima56 9 January 2018 14: 53
    +1
    The Khmeimi airbase has long been "reliably covered" by the S-1 Shell Shell! So "could ..." let's leave. But "try it in action" is a good idea. Moreover, this installation is still being tested and it is not only in foreign armies, but also in Russian! Because it has not even been accepted by us for the invasion.
  14. viktorch
    viktorch 9 January 2018 15: 03
    +2
    Th for nonsense in the article, is this mandlet inferior to the armor in everything that it should reliably cover there?: ??? with what armor this shushpanzer will not cope and moreover nothing can do
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 9 January 2018 19: 36
      +2
      He has one hypothetical advantage. The greater expansion of fragments and the higher explosive action of shells. There is an opinion that for 30 mm ammunition there is insufficient fragmentation effect in the case of remote or programmable detonation and it is not very effective. It is believed that to combat drones, you need to switch to a larger artillery calliber. But of course, this does not cancel out the necessity of having missiles for more serious purposes, nor the advantage of the Shell in guiding means.
      1. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny 16 January 2018 01: 02
        +4
        And the Bundesovo BMP "Puma"? There, in general, in my caliber 25 mm. However, there is a remote detonation.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 16 January 2018 09: 24
          0
          30 mm.
          Does Puma fight air targets, or does it have it for infantry?
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 16 January 2018 12: 44
            +4
            I’m not saying anything. That's why I asked, including with you, because it seems like you are more or less in the subject from the comments of the branch.
  15. assa67
    assa67 9 January 2018 15: 03
    +6
    Quote: san4es

    ... the detection range through one of the television channels of the Bird Eye 400 type unmanned aerial vehicle in the overview mode is 700 m, in the narrow field of view - 4900 m. The A-10 attack aircraft will be visible in the first mode already at a range of 6400 m, and in the second - at 12 300 m

    ..... always interesting info from Sanchez
    Optoelectronic detection and aiming system of the OEC OP developed by Peleng OJSC (Minsk), installed on a 2C38 combat vehicle of a self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery complex in the Derivation-PVO OKR
    The thermal imaging channel allows you to detect targets measuring 2,3 x 2,3 m with a probability of 80% at a range of 10 m and recognize them at a distance of 000 m
  16. tchoni
    tchoni 9 January 2018 15: 10
    +3
    The maximum range of destruction of the installation - 6 km, height - 4,5 km. Rate of Fire - 120 shots / min. Full ammunition - 148 shots. Crew - 3 person.

    That's about nothing! in the world there are 100500 zsu having similar or similar indicators. And here is what is really interesting:
    - the detection range of small targets (EPR of the order of 1 dm or less), and low contrast.
    - the number of simultaneously accompanied goals
    - the number of targets fired
    -reaction time
    shell characteristics
    - the number of shells needed to hit one target
    etc. etc.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 9 January 2018 18: 32
      +1
      Forgive me, how is the number of simultaneously fired targets?
      From one trunk then ?!
      With such a BC, it should be a walking forward patrol firing point. Kilometers 10-15 from the facility.
      For shelling a suddenly taken off UAV and followed by a take-off point in a short burst.
      Another, ADVANCED defense point. No more.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 9 January 2018 20: 40
        +1
        Quote: Vlad.by
        Forgive me, how is the number of simultaneously fired targets?
        From one trunk then ?!

        Very simple: This is the number of shells that the fire control system can simultaneously track and undermine. This is an opportunity to transfer fire from one target to another BEFORE the actual defeat of the first. This is an opportunity to determine the priority of goals and the order of their defeat in automatic mode .. and much more
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 9 January 2018 23: 38
          +1
          Without the control of projectiles in flight and homing - this is utopia. Any UAV maneuver will lead to a miss, even with a radio fuse. And the likeness of Escalibur or Krasnopol in the anti-aircraft artillery system is comparable to the Pantsyr missile in value.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 11 January 2018 10: 11
            0
            Distances of 1-5 km are too small for the UAV to evade using active maneuvering. Firstly, for this they will not have enough thrust-weight ratio (except cr, of course), and, secondly, they are already on a combat course - and it’s not very possible for them to maneuver at such ranges.
            Do not forget that we are talking about a direct defense complex. It should not have a detection range of 100500 km, but what happens in a radius of 10 km should track 100%, even if it is a bird or a tennis ball that accidentally flies in from a nearby tennis club. And to be able to destroy these small targets in batches. (We recall the story of the New Year’s shelling of the himeim).
            It’s just that our industry and the army have an attitude towards such systems as a means of prohibition - like the pilot will see a couple of tracks nearby and get off course. And, in fact, the pilots no longer enter this close-range air defense zone. And now the main task of this very air defense of the near zone is to shoot not the aircraft themselves, but the means of destruction.
  17. cannabis
    cannabis 9 January 2018 16: 06
    +3
    Well, thank gods! At least 30 years later, they finally picked up the right weapon for the BMP-3. They will also install a drape hatch and self-digging knives, and then I will love the BMP-3 with passionate love!
  18. Nemesis
    Nemesis 9 January 2018 16: 21
    +1
    What is the point of writing about it now? After the fight, they don’t wave their fists. The Russian army and navy are experiencing an acute shortage of new workable weapons and competent senior officers capable of using them ... As long as Russian money is spent on the construction of Ulyukaev’s yachts with a displacement of 16000 tons, the development of Russia will not be real ...
  19. faiver
    faiver 9 January 2018 16: 33
    +1
    I don’t understand why this pepelats is better than the shell? the latter, in my opinion, is more functional and universal ...
    1. Kasym
      Kasym 9 January 2018 19: 21
      +2
      The firing range of the gun. hi
      1. faiver
        faiver 9 January 2018 19: 29
        0
        how will this gun see the target?
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 9 January 2018 19: 37
          +1
          Stick instead of 30mm (you can also without missiles - cheap and cheerful; you can work on infantry, etc.) on the Shell or develop a new car.
          Actually, you asked for the differences.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 9 January 2018 19: 50
            +1
            [quote] Stick instead of 30mm [/ quote]
            Will it fit? What about the ammunition? Will the chassis survive?
            [quote] without rockets - cheap and cheerful [/ quote]
            It’s impossible, the Shell is not a cheap thing, you need multifunctionality.
            [quote] possible on infantry, etc. work / quote]
            It is possible, but not worth it. After all, infantry can shoot back. It’s better for them from a BMPT or a tank ... Of course it would be nice to have something as universal as I want to shoot at, but in my opinion the next wunderwaffle just won’t take off.
            1. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 10 January 2018 00: 11
              0
              Already have an apparatus on a tank chassis with two 57-mm barrels - S-60. And the trunks are longer (shoots further and higher), and carries the BC more. It remains to fasten the radar or OLS and it will be cooler than the overbmp or underdrive.
              1. Mimoprohodil
                Mimoprohodil 10 January 2018 10: 40
                0
                But nothing that ZSU-57-2 has no roof?
                1. faiver
                  faiver 10 January 2018 16: 16
                  0
                  Putin will protect laughing
                2. alexmach
                  alexmach 10 January 2018 23: 33
                  0
                  On the contrary, it’s good - there is where to mount the guidance equipment :)
              2. alexmach
                alexmach 10 January 2018 23: 33
                0
                On the issue of small ammunition
                The ammunition load of the ZSU-57-2 was 300 unitary shots, of which 176 in 44 stores were placed in stacks in the tower, 72 in 18 stores were located in the bow of the hull, and another 52 rounds were loaded under the tower shelf [5] .

                Here the ammunition per barrel is less than that of the "derivation" we are discussing, despite the fact that this thing was intended to conduct obstructive fire "over the areas" and squeeze enemy aircraft to a height. The guidance systems have since improved significantly and the modern gun will be able to conduct more targeted fire and cost fewer shells to hit the target.
          2. faiver
            faiver 9 January 2018 20: 08
            +1
            or maybe all the same, let it be the beck becko, or else we’ll get to 152mm - this one can shoot even further, though it’s unlikely to shoot hi
        2. alexmach
          alexmach 9 January 2018 19: 47
          0
          Well, there is some kind of optical pipka ..
          1. faiver
            faiver 9 January 2018 20: 08
            0
            where is the locator?
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 9 January 2018 21: 46
              0
              Well, no.
              By the way, this is not the first concept discussed here over the past 3 years without a locator. If I was not mistaken, the willow was still on the MTLB chassis and with guidance over the optical channel.
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 10 January 2018 00: 12
                0
                Pine. And why was it? Adopted.
  20. Maz
    Maz 9 January 2018 17: 09
    +1
    Quote: Muvka
    This is precisely the test. So the Shell worked for 5+.

    Not only that, the shell was tested for years running around bases, bugs removed.
  21. axiles100682
    axiles100682 9 January 2018 17: 23
    0
    I’m certainly not special, but I think if in addition to the shell-cannon armament add a large-caliber machine gun (for fighting precisely artisanal drones, etc.), then in local conflicts this air defense system will not cost
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 9 January 2018 19: 57
      +3
      And than a machine gun is better than a 30 mm gun?
      Shorter firing range, no general OB action.
      Here lies the opposite idea - to increase the caliber and not to reduce it.
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 9 January 2018 22: 44
        +2
        All the same, it seems to me, the case is about the return of buckshot ..
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 9 January 2018 22: 53
          0
          Short range and large dispersion. I still vote for shrapnel.
        2. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 10 January 2018 00: 16
          +2
          No, there you need to attach an electron gun, a laser to the left behind the laser and a second such small reactor. And the third KAZ trailer to protect the reactor. And on the fourth mandatory DShK. For protection against the fool.
          Fear the enemy!
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 10 January 2018 01: 14
            +1
            Actually, you have now described in one sentence the problems of building a modern integrated air defense system. On the one hand, it would be necessary to defend itself against everything; on the other hand, it would be good to have the smallest possible range of air defense systems. With the third - the goals are very diverse, from large planes and space objects to wooden crafts from the "house of bearded pioneers", which, although with limited characteristics, can be used massively - which means that protection against them should be massively accessible. Something like this.
            1. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 10 January 2018 01: 23
              0
              Well, like this...
              specialized education, after all :-)
              It’s a pity not a flyer, I would suggest that all this also fly ...
  22. Nikolai Passerby
    Nikolai Passerby 9 January 2018 17: 29
    +3
    With the advent of such drones, a new problem arose for air defense ... And this problem must be resolved urgently.
  23. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 9 January 2018 19: 54
    0
    As you can understand, shells must be "smart" for more than two on the target - wasteful.
  24. Sergey Cojocari
    Sergey Cojocari 9 January 2018 20: 20
    +2
    The charter must be executed, not a fool to drive. They slept or drank bearded men, now they will demand a devil in a mortar in justification. Base commander, strip ranks, awards and pensions. Walk through the services not with a broom, but with a barbed wire broom, only this way and not otherwise. The next commander, will blanch service daily using gramophone needles! And believe me, the "bearded men" will forget where this base is located.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 10 January 2018 00: 18
      +3
      Give a saber? Or can you handle your pen?
  25. Radikal
    Radikal 9 January 2018 20: 26
    0
    Quote: alexmach
    And this thing, without a radar, will not beat them anyway.
    And why bother them at all? Isn’t it easier to organize a counter-battery struggle and, in rare cases, for Heimim, to control the surrounding territories?

    Here! That's right - counterintelligence work in the "environment" of the base, obtaining proactive information about impending terrorist attacks, and other bad actions! sad
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 10 January 2018 00: 22
      +1
      Right, right! Base, so base - ten lines of defense with eviction, 10 km in depth each line. And to be sure with a thorn, minefields and patrols with a dog. Yes, and fighting falcons, so that they chased the dons.
  26. tforik
    tforik 9 January 2018 20: 31
    0
    Does this “novelty” have self-detonating projectile fuses when approaching a target?
    And the shell?

    In terms of knocking down occurs by fragments of a shell or a kinetic blow?
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 9 January 2018 23: 23
      +3
      The Shell, of course, has only contact fuses for shells. At S-60 (where the legs of the current Derevation come from) - too. If the latter is accepted into service, then new shots must appear for it, in addition to the UAS
  27. Zomanus
    Zomanus 9 January 2018 23: 44
    0
    Well, what’s up?
    The only thing against drones and ammunition
    special need. In the sense of more effective.
    Or maybe soon we will see this Derivation on tests in Syria.
  28. Star
    Star 10 January 2018 09: 22
    +1
    Here is the proof about the possibility of using drones as cruise missiles, and therefore the proof is that the Americans violated the agreement on medium and short-range missiles !!!!!!!
  29. groks
    groks 10 January 2018 10: 32
    0
    1. Let me remind you that at Arm 2016, the picture of the navigators was shifted by about 5 km from the real one. So there is the possibility of electronic countermeasures.
    2. The helicopter brothers said that it’s enough to just go by any helicopter and the homemade product will fall apart. But somehow it never occurred to me.
  30. Ivanov IV
    Ivanov IV 10 January 2018 15: 52
    +1
    But didn’t you think that the “derivation of air defense” is the day before yesterday. And the “Armor” on drones is ridiculous. It's like a gun on sparrows. Of course you can accidentally get into it. Have you seen duck hunters with a large-caliber carbine ???? Obviously, in principle, the approach should be different. And we are bred advertising another mortars .....
    1. vrazhin
      vrazhin 10 January 2018 17: 50
      +1
      This is of course nonsense.
      The shells work in automatic mode. They have a radar.
      And then the author gave the idea that the BMP would come down, and not only that, against drones, it’s also able to shoot down the PC !!!!
      The alcohol brain sucked for the holidays seems
  31. Gosh goshin
    Gosh goshin 10 January 2018 17: 51
    0
    Send to Syria the armored car on which Ilyich stood. It will also work 5 ++, only the warriors will continue to change the Syrian troops to bandits until the Americans leave. And it’s time to shut off oxygen, that this crow was scattered everywhere. Its beak pops a UAV over the Black Sea, the Baltic, our far east, Syria are our bases. Disable their UAV and Poseidon in the air at an altitude of R E B system. Poseidon turn off and turn on after 3 seconds and so 2 times, like "Donald Cook". The Turks will definitely not let this flying latrine to the base, let them fly with shit to their states, to McCain! :))))
  32. Savignon
    Savignon 11 January 2018 00: 28
    0
    LTD! Again, this all-seeing Eye from Mordovia, this all-knowing messenger of Mordor! Dislike!
  33. panzerfaust
    panzerfaust 15 January 2018 19: 08
    0
    And I still found the AZP-57, ZSU-57-2. Here we go back to the 57mm caliber, only on the basis of the BMP-3.