The Americans decided to fire missiles from cannons

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.

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"

Comments

[hotrod]

Cool! Howitzer on drone! Russia is lagging behind :)

[Kars]

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.

[svp67]

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.

[Mikhail3]

Deprecated Now the fire of this density is not required, but the technology for processing the trunks is time to modernize. Computers cheaper, wiser ...

[svp67]

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

[Mikhail3]

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 ...

[Tusv]

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

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Tusv]

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

[Tusv]

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

[Grigory_45]

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".

[sogdy]

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?

[Mikhail3]

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 ...

[sogdy]

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.

[Mikhail3]

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 ...

[sogdy]

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.

[Mikhail3]

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 ...

[sogdy]

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.

[Mikhail3]

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 ...

[Kars]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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

[Piramidon]

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

[Grigory_45]

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

[Kars]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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

[Kars]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Piramidon]

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.

[Grigory_45]

You read first what we with the esteemed Kars had a discussion about - the defeat of ATGMs from a machine gun

[Grigory_45]

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.

[Kars]

I read about the stronghold. And I think that with a modern hardware base can be implemented.

[mvg]

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.

[Alf]

Quote: Kars

A remote radar fuse of increased sensitivity and all matters.

And rate of fire like a ZSU.

[vlad66]

Moreover, the cost of such a shot will be about $ 85,

Then it will come out of the slingshot even cheaper (joke)

[cniza]

Vlad, this is quite real, I'm not joking.

[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.

[Vkd dvk]

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.

[Alf]

Quote: User

if they had money to spend it.

Here! Gold words ! Give money, give money !!!

[Alexanast]

To joke - so to joke ...
I suggest offhand ... with a shotgun ...
From four trunks, but a flock of parrots - you will not miss ...

[Andrey K]

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 ...

[novel66]

mounted fire !!!

[svp67]

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.

[Giant thought]

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.

[svp67]

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.

[Sanichsan]

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

[svp67]

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 ...

[Sanichsan]

and what will the swarm create? howitzer?
uh no respected 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.
in general success to them

[rice]

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 Shell-C for example. On the drone itself then. Although 155 mm is too much.

[Valery Saitov]

"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.

[Dormidont]

Crossbows will be cheaper

[dog breeder]

I can tell you, a four-barrel howitzer, shells in the tape! (Joke)

[Vard]

The cost of a shell in comparison with a rocket impresses ... We would have come in handy ...

[Herculesic]

Why trifle, then let the sparrows beat cruise missiles! Schizoid! !!

[astepanov]

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!

[Alex-a832]

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.

[KVU-NSVD]

It looks like nonsense - with shells for a railgun, lengthen the barrel, on missiles .....

[san4es]

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"

[rocket757]

It seems to me or it turns out that The tail twists the dog??

[san4es]

Quote: rocket757

, etc.The tail twists the dog??

... This "hvo $ t", at the trade (weapons), "ate the dog"

[rocket757]

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!

[win]

Jules Verne bombarded the moon with a cannon.
And here is some trifle ...

[voyaka uh]

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.

[tchoni]

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 ...

[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 on the moving ...

[tchoni]

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)

[Grigory_45]

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)

[tchoni]

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)

[Grigory_45]

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

[Grigory_45]

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.

[voyaka uh]

I agree. Without add. the mid-flight engine at the terminal end stage will not work.

[APASUS]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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

[APASUS]

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.

[Kerensky]

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 ....

[Alexey RA]

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.

[Kerensky]

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 ....

[hotrod]

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.

[axenm]

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?

[Grigory_45]

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)

[filatik]

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)

[Mustached Kok]

Welcome back to the first world)

[cormorant]

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 ...

[earloop]

You need to get acquainted with the experience of one eternally living literary character who shot from a cannon at sparrows.

[Mavrikiy]

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 ....

[bmv04636]

Well, as it happens during the journey, the dog could grow up. I’ll grow about the cost at least ten times

[Vkd dvk]

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.

[Horse meat]

Threw small gravels into the air, the rocket crashes and spoils.
The easiest way.

[DM51]

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