Military Review

The Americans decided to fire missiles from cannons

88
The US Army is looking for an inexpensive replacement for interceptor missiles. According to breakingdefense.com portal, the Pentagon’s strategic capabilities management is working to create an artillery missile defense system.


According to the head of the artillery anti-missile system development program, Vincent Sabio, the “art-air defense” testing will take place this year. The US military believes that artillery as an air defense will be significantly cheaper than traditional rocket systems.

The Americans decided to fire missiles from cannons

M777ER howitzer


One solution to the problem could be the adaptation of existing 155 mm caliber artillery systems (M777 and M198 howitzers, M109 ACS, and also shipboard artillery systems) under the HVP (Hyper Velocity Projectile) projectile. This munition was originally designed for railguns, but after the cessation of funding for their development, the military is looking for a new application to the projectile.

After some adaptation (including an increase in barrel length), existing gun mounts will be able to shoot at air targets with adjustable HVP ammunition. In this case, the cost of such a shot will be about $ 85 000, while the Patriot interceptor missile costs the US military budget $ 3 million, reports "Warspot"
Photos used:
marines.mil
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. hotrod
    hotrod 29 January 2018 14: 59
    +6
    Cool! Howitzer on drone! Russia is lagging behind :)
    1. Kars
      Kars 29 January 2018 15: 04
      +8
      A remote radar fuse of increased sensitivity and all matters.
      It is unclear why, even from automatic zpu tanks, they did not learn how to shoot down birds, because electronics and speed have advanced so much.
      1. svp67
        svp67 29 January 2018 15: 19
        11
        Quote: Kars
        It is unclear why, even from automatic zpu tanks, they did not learn how to shoot down birds, because electronics and speed have advanced so much.
        The fire density of 12,7 mm ZPU does not allow this to be guaranteed. To do this, it is necessary to sharply increase the rate of fire, which means introducing liquid cooling and a different system for supplying cartridges ... It is easier to use the Clouds mortars, which, in principle, are now being done.
        1. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 29 January 2018 17: 38
          +2
          Deprecated Now the fire of this density is not required, but the technology for processing the trunks is time to modernize. Computers cheaper, wiser ...
          1. svp67
            svp67 29 January 2018 17: 42
            +3
            Quote: Mikhail3
            Now the fire of this density is not required, but the technology for processing the trunks is time to modernize. Computers cheaper, wiser ...

            Yeah, then it remains only to stabilize this system in two planes, you have such a not large STV, then put it on, let's see what it can
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 29 January 2018 19: 57
              0
              And how is the task fundamentally different from stabilization of the cutter cartridge in the machining center? Even less accuracy is required). Is the vibration higher? So it’s standardized by parameters ...
            2. Tusv
              Tusv 29 January 2018 20: 05
              +2
              Quote: svp67
              Yeah, then it remains only to stabilize this system in two planes, you have such a not large STV, then put it on, let's see what it can

              And in what planes does Krasnopol work? in principle, what is the difference to work on land or by air. True FIG knows that cheaper. 3OF39 projectile or 57E6E missile. But! Everything flows. Everything changes.
              About seven years ago, the Americans showed the flight of a bullet, which dramatically changes direction in the horizontal plane so two meters. Purely theoretically, nothing is impossible. Stupidly there are opening and closing holes that regulate lateral pressure, that is, a deviation in the right direction. Miniature calculators are already there. It remains to screw the miniature GOS hi
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 29 January 2018 20: 25
                +4
                Quote: Tusv
                And in what planes does Krasnopol work? in principle, what is the difference to work on land or by air.

                The whole difference is in speed. Ground and surface targets do not run as fast as air targets (with the exception of simple UAVs and helicopters). The corrected projectile may not have enough stock of maneuverability to adjust the trajectory for maneuvering or high-speed targets. He doesn’t have an engine! The stock of available overload is limited. The number of maneuvers (adjustments) is also limited
                Quote: Tusv
                Stupidly there are opening and closing holes

                in fact, the control goes for triggering mini-charges (drafts), which give the projectile a small impulse in one direction or another.
                1. Tusv
                  Tusv 29 January 2018 20: 34
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  in fact, the control goes for triggering mini-charges (drafts), which give the projectile a small impulse in one direction or another.

                  In fact, there are different management systems. The wing also works on the pressure difference on the plane and takes off, without any charges of checkers
                2. Tusv
                  Tusv 29 January 2018 20: 48
                  +2
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  The corrected projectile may not have enough stock of maneuverability to adjust the trajectory for maneuvering or high-speed targets. He doesn’t have an engine!

                  And who said that a cannon should be hit at high-speed targets? This is really not real. But let's put it this way. with a CVO of up to 50 meters for targets up to 3 thousand meters at a low speed, and with anticipation, it’s quite possible to handle the variable pressure. Difficult but possible
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 29 January 2018 21: 24
                    +3
                    Yes, actually, if you take a lot of restrictions - then yes, you can highlight a niche for such shells - UAVs and helicopters. Is it not expensive to shoot at drones with shells for 85 thousand evergreens? "Stigner" costs about 40 thousand, "Hellfire" - 65 thousand. It is in any way cheaper than the corrected "miracle projectile". Moreover, missiles are more likely to hit the target.
                    In general, this all seems to be another grandiose cut and an attempt to adapt at least somewhere their shells that were out of work.
                    Do not understand my such gestures. To combat UAVs and turntables, the optimum (and relatively cheap, which does not have to be thrown by the Patriots) is a 35-40 mm anti-aircraft gun and melee missiles. By the way, recently the Americans showed such a cart - a combat module for the "Stryker".
          2. sogdy
            sogdy 30 January 2018 09: 14
            +1
            Quote: Mikhail3
            But the technology for processing trunks is time to modernize.

            Funny
            Quote: Mikhail3
            Computers cheaper, wiser ...

            Do not state how you imagine it? Especially where to add a computer to a single-petal drill?
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 30 January 2018 15: 49
              0
              Well, let’s try. The computer must be used when aiming. Modern computing tools are capable of collecting and processing data millions of times faster than in the 60 of the century when the systems of military computers used today were developed.
              Therefore, in order to fall into a fast target such as a rocket, it is possible to fire many times less bullets than before, when the message was based on a bullet wall fired somewhere in the direction of the rocket’s flight. But the trunks of modern weapons for ultra-precise shooting are rather weak, since even older developments are massively used for their manufacture.
              So please leave a single-petal drill alone. No need to disturb honored veterans. Maybe instead take care of adaptive hone management? With good feedback, according to a well-thought-out algorithm ...
              1. sogdy
                sogdy 31 January 2018 14: 42
                0
                Quote: Mikhail3
                The computer must be used when aiming.

                Vashcheta, when aiming, they use a drive, which is an undoubted mechanics, even if they are electric, hydraulic or photonic. And what speed will give the computer with undoubtedly mechanical guidance?
                Quote: Mikhail3
                So please leave a single-petal drill alone

                But there is no other production technology. Analog, even crack. "Muzzle plants" appeared during the construction of the fleet, which later "took Azov." Those. since the mid 16th century. Peter tried to introduce European “progressive” methods, but everything came back, because forging and calibration are still better. It is abundant, but returned to the Persians.
                1. Mikhail3
                  Mikhail3 31 January 2018 16: 11
                  0
                  And when working, hands are used. Therefore, the head of the employee must be cut off, it is useless. And our guidance is mechanical. In the sense, the Lumberjack induces, who has a gear in his head. E-mine ...
                  1. sogdy
                    sogdy 1 February 2018 15: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Mikhail3
                    And when working, hands are used. Therefore, the head of the employee must be cut off, it is useless.

                    Misha, yes. And this is a physical limitation. Even for an ion-nuclear carrier (they recently confirmed that since 1967 we are not going to put them into operation, although we can).
                    And yes, the unfolded drives of Zakhar Zagadkin were drawn. In tricks. If you are lucky (or lucky), you can experience its power and speed yourself.

                    And yet, yes, the natural oscillation at 500 meters BESM-6 in the Madlen code calculates with an accuracy of 1 sigma (60%) in 10 minutes. Million full operations per second with 48-bit cells. The i7 has 5400 up to 7000 full operations.

                    This is the reality given to us in the axis.
                    1. Mikhail3
                      Mikhail3 1 February 2018 16: 14
                      0
                      Yeah. And why are you calling Kant, Hegel and all your gang? Or do you need a little more - a grouping? I am writing about the fact that modern computer tools make it possible to aim and hit almost one bullet.
                      And even hint at how. And you tell me that the drive has reached its limit for a long time. Well yes. Drive reached. It's time to think further! And you are all at the BESM-6 level, and you don’t want to go any further.
                      I won’t write any more, it’s enough that I, such an idiot, shoved hypersonic engines from the hummock, on which they sat dead frame. There will be no more of this, think for yourself ...
                      1. sogdy
                        sogdy 2 February 2018 10: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        I am writing about the fact that modern computer tools make it possible to aim and hit almost one bullet.

                        Quote: sogdy
                        And yet, yes, the natural oscillation at 500 meters BESM-6 in the Madlen code calculates with an accuracy of 1 sigma (60%) in 10 minutes. Million full operations per second with 48-bit cells. The i7 has 5400 up to 7000 full operations.

                        So yes, 60% - 2 sigma, I apologize for the typo
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        It's time to think further! And you are all at the level of BESM-6, and do not want to go any further.

                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        it’s enough that I, such an idiot, shoved hypersonic engines from the bump,

                        personally? or is it in the team of co-authors? If personally, then this is to Yanenko. He died at 76m.
                        Let's talk about computing capabilities. Type one bullet 3 sigma. What do you suggest?
                        So far, as said, a person is faster.
                      2. Mikhail3
                        Mikhail3 3 February 2018 12: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Mikhail3
                        personally? or is it in the team of co-authors?

                        Yes personally, personally, what really there, carried away. There were still cons on the site then ... Remember, there was a period when all countries announced their incredible successes in the construction of hyperdrive, but failed tests over and over again?
                        Well, the developer once cried on the site, saying that everything is fine, a wonderful marquise, but only inside the working chamber everything collapses when you enter the mode. Especially bad is the deal with such partitions that are needed to mix the mixture.
                        The stronger they were made, the more their decay products spoiled the engine and disrupted the operating mode. I laughed, and I asked the poor fellow, why do not they make these partitions out of fuel? I meant, of course, not fuel, well, yes, clever enough ...
                        In general, after three months all three countries involved in hyper-rockets launched working samples. And I got on the site a flock of silent fans, not commenting, but steadily passing any mention of this incident. Apparently, people were fatly rewarded for "their" idea ...
        2. Kars
          Kars 29 January 2018 20: 06
          +3
          To defeat the ATGM, one 12,7 bullet is enough and the barrel is unlikely to overheat in five ten short bursts, and then if the tank misses the machine gun it may not be needed. And I still believe in modern electronics and servos.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 29 January 2018 20: 19
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            To destroy ATGM, one bullet is enough 12,7

            Who would argue. The whole problem is how to get there! See how ATGM flies - not one of them goes smoothly, the rocket constantly "dives", then exceeds the median trajectory. It is impossible to calculate the amplitude and period of this movement. Therefore, it is required to create a density of fire - no matter what perfect and accurate drives you have
            1. Piramidon
              Piramidon 29 January 2018 21: 33
              +1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The whole problem is how to get there!

              Fill 40 kg of buckshot into the shell and undermine it on the flight path of the UAV or RS
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 29 January 2018 22: 00
                +2
                Quote: Piramidon
                Fill in the projectile .... buckshot and undermine it on the UAV flight path

                in fact, they do so. Undermine the fragmentation of ammunition on the trajectory of the approach of ATGMs or grenades. This creates density
            2. Kars
              Kars 29 January 2018 21: 48
              +3
              But the ATGM flies much slower than a bullet. And so I did not say that it would be easy. But for me it is quite real.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 29 January 2018 22: 03
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                But ATGM flies much slower than a bullet. And so I did not say that it would be easy. But for me it’s quite real

                It's not about the speed of a bullet. The fact is that it is necessary to cover the entire area of ​​a possible ATGM location at every moment in time.
                The British did not succeed on their TAMS. Although the SLA was digital with radar guidance. And modern ship-borne machine guns spend a hundred or more rounds on shooting down anti-ship missiles. Nobody learned to hit with one shell
                1. Kars
                  Kars 30 January 2018 01: 34
                  +2
                  Compare tams mobile phones and those now.
                  And as for the destruction of the anti-ship missiles, we would have to look at the statistics.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 30 January 2018 10: 45
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    Compare tams mobile phones and those that are now

                    Which one you are, however, difficult. Maybe you should read the interlocutor carefully? ATGMs during flight make oscillatory movements, which are impossible to calculate. Therefore, the space where the ATGM is supposedly located needs to be filled up with bullets or fragments. It would be as simple as you write - each tank would have already acquired KAZ, since there are anti-aircraft machine guns on all armored vehicles. Cheap and cheerful, and what additional features!

                    Quote: Kars
                    And as for the shooting of the anti-ship missiles, it would be necessary to look at the statistics.

                    During tests of the ship’s 30-mm ZAK AK-630 by firing at a transonic target, it took 540 rounds to shoot it down in four bursts. One shell no one gets.
                2. Piramidon
                  Piramidon 30 January 2018 12: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Nobody learned to hit with one shell

                  In this case, no one is talking about a direct hit. A cloud of fragments is created on the flight path of the rocket. Something will get.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 30 January 2018 14: 50
                    +2
                    You read first what we with the esteemed Kars had a discussion about - the defeat of ATGMs from a machine gun laughing
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 29 January 2018 16: 48
        12
        Quote: Kars
        It is unclear why even from automatic zpu tanks did not learn to shoot down

        They tried. There were at least two projects, Soviet and English. In the USSR in the 60s they proposed for this purpose a six-barrel 12,7-mm machine gun installed as a memory with a pace of about 6-9 thousand rds / min. Further research (it was called "Oplot-MO") did not advance - the six-barreled machine gun was not created, they considered the destruction of ammunition (grenade, ATGM) as a fragmentation field more effective.
        The second was the British with their TAMS (tank anti-missile system) by Marconi. In the 80s, they decided that with a digital radar gun control system they would need only two (!) Single-barrel 7,62 mm machine guns, and they were very disappointed when it turned out that this was far from the case. The rate of fire of the two trunks, even with the most accurate system, was stupidly not enough to shoot down ATGMs (because they do not fly strictly straightforwardly). Electronics alone is not enough - fire density is also needed.
        1. Kars
          Kars 29 January 2018 20: 07
          +2
          I read about the stronghold. And I think that with a modern hardware base can be implemented.
      3. mvg
        mvg 29 January 2018 17: 04
        +3
        Good. Are you seriously? Here, according to anti-ship missiles, from AK-630 or Goalkeeper, they do not fall at 4000-6000 alt / min, and ATGMs do not fly as smoothly as a rocket. And the rounds / min of the 155 mm gun are only 12-15, and it spins more slowly. And the power of ammunition will not help.
      4. Alf
        Alf 29 January 2018 22: 38
        +2
        Quote: Kars
        A remote radar fuse of increased sensitivity and all matters.

        And rate of fire like a ZSU.
    2. vlad66
      vlad66 29 January 2018 15: 10
      +9
      Moreover, the cost of such a shot will be about $ 85,

      Then it will come out of the slingshot even cheaper (joke) laughing
      1. cniza
        cniza 29 January 2018 15: 18
        +1
        Vlad, this is quite real, I'm not joking.
        1. User
          User 29 January 2018 16: 02
          +3
          A joke is not necessary. You can try to shoot down rockets by the power of thought. It is generally free. Here you need to understand that the more reliable the interception method, the more expensive it is. It would be interesting to know the best way in terms of efficiency / price ratio. But this requires a lot of practice, with all the ways. The Americans decided to do something like that. Even if the experiment shows the inefficiency of this method, it will be proved by practice, and not in theory. Any correctly set experiment is beneficial, if there was money to carry them out.
          1. Vkd dvk
            Vkd dvk 29 January 2018 22: 14
            +1
            Quote: User
            A joke is not necessary. You can try to shoot down rockets by the power of thought. It is generally free. Here you need to understand that the more reliable the interception method, the more expensive it is. It would be interesting to know the best way in terms of efficiency / price ratio. But this requires a lot of practice, with all the ways. The Americans decided to do something like that. Even if the experiment shows the inefficiency of this method, it will be proved by practice, and not in theory. Any correctly set experiment is beneficial, if there was money to carry them out.

            What antenna should be screwed to the head so that megawatts in an impulse would not burn the thinker himself, but pump out all the energy and send it to the target?
            From the developer's own experience, I know that a negative result teaches better than a positive one.
          2. Alf
            Alf 29 January 2018 22: 39
            0
            Quote: User
            if they had money to spend it.

            Here! Gold words ! Give money, give money !!!
      2. Alexanast
        Alexanast 29 January 2018 15: 35
        +4
        To joke - so to joke ...
        I suggest offhand ... with a shotgun ... laughing
        From four trunks, but a flock of parrots - you will not miss ... wassat
    3. Andrey K
      Andrey K 29 January 2018 15: 11
      11
      Quote: hotrod
      ...Cool! Howitzer on a drone! Russia lags behind :)

      In Russia, there is even a name for this action:
      From a gun on sparrows ...

      Soon, as the "barmalei", all the stuff at hand will begin to fit ...
    4. novel66
      novel66 29 January 2018 15: 19
      +3
      mounted fire !!!
    5. svp67
      svp67 29 January 2018 15: 21
      +4
      Quote: hotrod
      Cool! Howitzer on a drone!

      The new is just the well-forgotten old. Artillery has long been used to combat a flying enemy
      Quote: hotrod
      Russia is behind :)

      Scha ... we have never forgotten this practice.
      1. Giant thought
        Giant thought 29 January 2018 15: 27
        0
        It is unlikely that an effective missile defense based on artillery will turn out, there may be successful experiments, but it seems that this system will not go into series.
        1. svp67
          svp67 29 January 2018 15: 29
          +3
          Quote: Thought Giant
          It is unlikely that an effective artillery-based missile defense will turn out

          Completely, of course NO, but as one of the echelons, of course YES. Every weapon has a place in battle formations.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 29 January 2018 17: 33
            +3
            which echelon? as far as I remember guided anti-aircraft missiles just appeared in view of the low efficiency of artillery against piston aircraft. it is interesting in connection with which suddenly artillery will become effective now, against hypersonic targets.
            IMHO this is cut in its purest form, in connection with which I want to wish our partners success in this matter laughing
            1. svp67
              svp67 29 January 2018 17: 40
              +2
              Quote: SanichSan
              it is interesting in connection with which suddenly artillery will become effective now, against hypersonic targets.

              Like a swarm of small meteorites, against any object ...
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 29 January 2018 18: 05
                0
                and what will the swarm create? howitzer?
                uh no respected No. not an option. Do you remember what you wrote here recently? even at short distances at a rate of 6-7k rounds per minute, the probability of defeat is not 100%, but at a long distance, over 10km (and you need over 200km), it is almost zero. this is at a rate of 6-7 thousand rounds per minute. By the way, a few calculations .. with the cost of ammunition of $ 85000, 1 minute of firing this dubious system at 6 rounds (let's take the minimum) will cost $ 510000000 without taking into account equipment wear and with very dubious effectiveness. belay
                in general success to them wink
        2. rice
          rice 29 January 2018 20: 34
          +1
          Quote: Thought Giant
          It is unlikely that an effective artillery-based missile defense will turn out

          How part of the missile defense system will pull smile Shell-C for example. On the drone itself then. Although 155 mm is too much.
    6. Valery Saitov
      Valery Saitov 1 February 2018 06: 42
      0
      "Derivation-air defense."
      The new ZAK will be able to shoot smart bombs of terrorists and support infantry with fire.
      Yes, in solving air defense problems, the complex can effectively work in the near zone with all types of air targets, including drones, cruise missiles, and multiple rocket launchers. But it is capable of hitting not only air targets, but also ground ones. What is achieved by using a gun of such a serious caliber in comparison with the "traditional" for air defense - 23 mm. There is the possibility of defeating ground-based armored targets, as well as enemy manpower, using both armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation shells.

      Moreover, the Derivations combat module also has a 12,7 mm machine gun and the Kornet anti-tank missile system. This means that the ZAK-57 is a universal machine capable of hitting both air targets, covering troops from air attacks, and participating in ground operations as a support weapon.
  2. Dormidont
    Dormidont 29 January 2018 15: 01
    +1
    Crossbows will be cheaper
  3. dog breeder
    dog breeder 29 January 2018 15: 01
    +3
    I can tell you, a four-barrel howitzer, shells in the tape! (Joke)
  4. Vard
    Vard 29 January 2018 15: 01
    0
    The cost of a shell in comparison with a rocket impresses ... We would have come in handy ...
  5. Herculesic
    Herculesic 29 January 2018 15: 04
    +3
    Why trifle, then let the sparrows beat cruise missiles! fool Schizoid! !! fool
    1. astepanov
      astepanov 29 January 2018 16: 52
      +2
      This was already suggested by Volfych when there was an epidemic of bird flu: along the borders where migratory birds migrate, put air defense systems in place and horseradish until the last bird. Volfych - he is a titan of thought and the father of Russian liberal democracy!
  6. Alex-a832
    Alex-a832 29 January 2018 15: 08
    +3
    Well, yes, very cheap ... One shot from a howitzer as an anti-aircraft gun - almost 100 kilobaks. They only count on blitzkrieg. Otherwise, not a single budget, even the Amer’s budget, will pull such "economical" weapons in a long war.
  7. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 29 January 2018 15: 08
    +8
    It looks like nonsense - with shells for a railgun, lengthen the barrel, on missiles ..... fool
  8. san4es
    san4es 29 January 2018 15: 17
    +6
    HVP projectile (Hyper Velocity Projectile). This ammunition was originally developed for railguns

    The development of the HVP project (Hyper Velocity Projectile - "Hyper-velocity projectile") began in 2012. BAE Systems was selected as the project contractor

    ... In the absence of the railgun, even the "classic gunners" will boil ... Here are the hucksters ... "They will not eat, so they bite me" bully
  9. rocket757
    rocket757 29 January 2018 15: 19
    +2
    It seems to me or it turns out that The tail twists the dog??
    1. san4es
      san4es 29 January 2018 18: 33
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      , etc.The tail twists the dog??

      ... This "hvo $ t", at the trade (weapons), "ate the dog" fellow
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 29 January 2018 23: 05
        +2
        Everything is relative.
        Look carefully so you can notice that the bosom partners of the minke whales have no particular choice - they buy what they are sold to! And for the quality of what they sell there are considerable doubts. Not for everything of course, they know how to do cool things.
        In principle, it doesn’t matter, because the money doesn’t smell, so sell a frank gd wrapped in a striped piece of paper, DEAR, they can!
  10. win
    win 29 January 2018 15: 23
    +2
    Jules Verne bombarded the moon with a cannon. good
    And here is some trifle ... fool
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 29 January 2018 15: 25
    +9
    As I understand it, a howitzer should only throw a missile projectile to a great height.
    Without accurate aiming - approximately. And then the GOS missile projectile will capture the target.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 29 January 2018 15: 52
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      As I understand it, a howitzer should only throw a missile projectile to a great height.

      why then do you need it? An extra link in the system? If you use a howitzer as an anti-aircraft gun, then only with the option of a radio fuse or an adjustable projectile. Alternatively, there may be a situation with volley fire ...
      And, to be honest, comparing a Patriot missile with a howitzer shell is incorrect. All the same, a slightly different class ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 29 January 2018 16: 30
        +3
        I can’t believe that this HVR can be hit by a rocket. Even with GPS on a stationary target of 150 km, as planned on the railgun - this is real. But on the moving ... belay
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 29 January 2018 19: 08
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I can’t believe that this HVR can be hit by a rocket. Even with GPS on a stationary target of 150 km, as planned on the railgun - this is real. But by moving ..

          Well, why? Sea guns both shoot and fall. Including large caliber. In particular, during the exercises, one of the Baltic corvettes intercepted the termite with exactly 100 MI.
          After all, all Soviet-made and Russian-made shipborne anti-aircraft guns (including 130 mm twin monsters) moonlight and have in their arsenal shells with radio fuses (well, with the exception of very dead caliber type 30mm)
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 29 January 2018 19: 30
            +2
            Quote: tchoni
            After all, all Soviet and Russian shipborne AUs (including 130 mm paired monsters) moonlight

            look at the rate of fire of shipboard ACs, at the speed of their guidance along the HV and GN, as well as the fact that they are controlled by a well-developed radar MSA. Which of the above is on a self-propelled howitzer? Correctly, nothing)
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 30 January 2018 04: 17
              +2
              Quote: Gregory_45
              look at the rate of fire of shipboard ACs, at the speed of their guidance along the HV and GN, as well as the fact that they are controlled by a well-developed radar MSA. Which of the above is on a self-propelled howitzer? That's right, nothing)

              And what prevents them from putting it on an anti-aircraft machine, equipping the whole Poiseau business, and tying 4 guns in a bunch. All use)
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 30 January 2018 10: 50
                +1
                Quote: tchoni
                And what prevents them from putting it on an anti-aircraft machine, to equip the whole thing with POISO, and to tie 4 guns in a bunch

                Have you read the article? It talks about howitzers M777, M198 and self-propelled guns M109
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 29 January 2018 16: 56
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      As I understand it, howitzer should just throw a missile projectile at high altitude.

      and then what will he do? The range of the seeker is small, the projectile does not have an engine, maneuverability is very limited. All the same, you need to shoot accurately
      To calculate how much such an adjustable projectile will cost (taking into account that the electronics must withstand overload when fired) - it turns out that a cheaper (and more efficient) missile (of comparable range, of course). Remember why large-caliber anti-aircraft guns left the scene after the Second World War.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 29 January 2018 17: 29
        +2
        I agree. Without add. the mid-flight engine at the terminal end stage will not work.
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 29 January 2018 19: 17
        +2
        Quote: Gregory_45
        and then what will he do? The range of the seeker is small, the projectile does not have an engine, maneuverability is very limited. All the same, you need to shoot accurately
        To calculate how much such an adjustable projectile will cost (taking into account that the electronics must withstand overload when fired) - it turns out that a cheaper (and more efficient) missile (of comparable range, of course).

        In my opinion, the material is clearly written
        This ammunition was originally developed for railguns, but after the cessation of funding for their development, the military is looking for new uses for the projectile.

        These issues do not bother the Americans at all, the problem is financing, although if you shoot a piece of gold you get approximately the same.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 29 January 2018 19: 34
          +1
          Quote: APASUS
          In my opinion, the material is clearly written

          truth? And what is written there?

          Quote: APASUS
          This ammunition was originally developed for railguns, but after the cessation of funding for their development, the military is looking for new uses for the projectile.
          These issues do not bother the Americans at all, the problem is financing, although if you shoot a piece of gold you get approximately the same.

          but this is not for me, for the quote is not mine. Be careful with addressing
          1. APASUS
            APASUS 29 January 2018 19: 58
            +1
            Quote: Gregory_45
            but this is not for me, for the quote is not mine. Be careful with addressing

            This piece is from the text of the article, (if you have read it completely), it is written quite clearly that they want to find funding for the projectile capabilities of this projectile.
  12. Kerensky
    Kerensky 29 January 2018 16: 02
    +3
    After some adaptation (including an increase in barrel length)

    Is it the finished howitzers barrel extended? There was such a cartoon about an elephant, as they pulled its trunk ....
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 January 2018 19: 05
      0
      Quote: Kerensky
      Is it the finished howitzers barrel extended? There was such a cartoon about an elephant, as they pulled its trunk ....

      This is an old song about the main thing - the ERCA project. The Americans want to replace the “three axes” with an old barrel in 39 calibers with a new barrel in 52 calibers. But at the same time they want to stay in size and mass suitable for air mobility.
      It seems that the notorious Arsenal Picatinny reported that they managed to do this, increasing the mass of the howitzer by only 450 kg. But for some reason further everything died out.
      1. Kerensky
        Kerensky 29 January 2018 21: 44
        +3
        the old barrel in 39 calibres to the new in 52 caliber. But at the same time they want to stay in size and mass suitable for air mobility.

        But you can! Only the resource he will have ..... Make him thin, count the charges and the shooting tables and go ahead, destroy the rockets! A kilometer will hit and okay ..... five times ....
  13. hotrod
    hotrod 29 January 2018 16: 10
    +4
    Quote: svp67

    Scha ... we have never forgotten this practice.

    I joked, of course, in the first message. I lived in a military town, on our site there was a K-52 gun (anti-aircraft, 152mm caliber). Work on the serial production of guns was curtailed precisely because of the appearance of anti-aircraft missiles (s-75). History made another somersault and large-caliber anti-aircraft artillery returns again.
    1. axxenm
      axxenm 30 January 2018 00: 22
      +1
      Quote: hotrod
      I lived in a military town, on our site there was a K-52 gun (anti-aircraft, 152mm caliber).

      can all the same 52-K 85 mm?

      or KM-52 152 mm?
  14. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 29 January 2018 16: 31
    +3
    One of the solutions to the problem could be the adaptation of existing artillery systems of caliber 155 mm (howitzers M777 and M198, self-propelled guns M109, as well as ship artillery systems) under the HVP shell ...
    After some adaptation (including increasing the length of the barrel), existing gun mounts will be able to shoot aerial targets with adjustable HVP ammunition.


    From a howitzer for air targets - complete nonsense. Especially from a towed system. From the ship's it is clear - it is universal and was originally designed to combat air targets (both in rate of fire, and in angles and speed of guidance) and has the corresponding OMS)
  15. filatik
    filatik 29 January 2018 16: 35
    +4
    Good money laundering, however, in America they practice. First, the railgun will be built for a huge amount of money, and then they will refuse, now shells need to be put somewhere)
  16. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 29 January 2018 17: 15
    +1
    Welcome back to the first world)
  17. cormorant
    cormorant 29 January 2018 17: 18
    0
    What a joy! And it’s better to do it from small arms. Everyone is well, and we have less worries and the great democrats can sleep peacefully ...
  18. earloop
    earloop 29 January 2018 19: 57
    0
    You need to get acquainted with the experience of one eternally living literary character who shot from a cannon at sparrows.
  19. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 29 January 2018 20: 34
    0
    At the same time, the cost of such a shot will be about $ 85, while the Patriot system interceptor missile costs the US military budget $ 000 million

    Well done managery, digital see well. Now we’d learn to multiply by 100, and there maybe they will learn to think .... a monkey, and then there ....
  20. bmv04636
    bmv04636 29 January 2018 21: 14
    0
    Well, as it happens during the journey, the dog could grow up. I’ll grow about the cost at least ten times
  21. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 29 January 2018 22: 02
    +2
    It remains only to get into a moving object, a shell without explosive, without adjusting the movement. Shooting from an iron fist with a rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute.
    Loot saved on shots can be used to make coffins.
  22. Horse meat
    Horse meat 29 January 2018 22: 03
    +1
    Threw small gravels into the air, the rocket crashes and spoils.
    The easiest way.
  23. DM51
    DM51 30 January 2018 12: 01
    +1
    I don’t understand how this can be implemented in practice? Heavier servos will need to be attached to the howitzer or in advance to know where the threat is flying from, that is, the gun should be directed towards the missile, or to create a howitzer air defense field that will look barrels in all directions, if servos, then what kind of mobility can we talk about ? And also generators, radar. In my opinion, our solution is better