Military Review

"Derivation-Air Defense" and other new 57 caliber mm

177
Taking into account the current trends in the development of military technology, the Russian army and industry in recent years have been developing artillery systems in caliber 57 mm. Under current conditions, such guns are capable of solving a wide range of combat missions and fighting targets of various types. In recent days, new details have become known to create such weapons. As it turned out, not so long ago, another prototype of a promising combat vehicle was built, and work on new ammunition continues.


Last Thursday, 25 in January, the press service of the research and production corporation Uralvagonzavod reported on a recent visit by a distinguished guest. According to the published information, in January the Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev visited the Central Research Institute for Petrel Research Institute with a working visit. During the visit, industry experts and a high-ranking official discussed issues of production diversification and the possibility of producing civilian products.

"Derivation-Air Defense" and other new 57 caliber mm
New equipment in the workshop of the Petrel Research Institute. From left to right: the 9Т260 transport-charging machine, the 2C38 anti-aircraft self-propelled Derivation-Air Defense unit, the Whirlwind robotic complex with the AU-220М combat module (hit the frame partially). Photo NPK "Uralvagonzavod" / uvz.ru


The management of the Petrel Research and Development Institute showed the guest a new production building, recently commissioned. There was also a demonstration of promising models of weapons and equipment developed by the institute. Several “exhibits” of such an exhibition are of great interest in the context of the further development of national artillery of medium caliber.

The press service of the Uralvagonzavod Corporation attached a few photos taken during the show of the latest developments to the published report on the visit of O. Bochkarev. In one of the photographs, the company's leaders and the delegation were sealed next to several promising armored vehicles. What is important, one of them first hit the photo, which is subject to publication and distribution in open sources. This photo for the first time showed the general public a prototype of the new 2C38 armored “Derivation-Air Defense” vehicle. It also became possible for the first time to see the transport-loading vehicle for this self-propelled gun.

It is necessary to recall the known data about the project 2C38. For the first time its existence was announced last summer in the framework of the international military-technical forum "Army-2017". The main rocket and artillery department of the Ministry of Defense showed some materials on a new self-propelled anti-aircraft gun with artillery armament, developed within the framework of the project under the code “Derivation-Air Defense”. The goal of this project was to adapt the existing developments on new artillery guns for use in military air defense.


Image ZSU "Derivation-Air Defense", presented at the exhibition "Army-2017". Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com


The project "Derivation-Air Defense", like other developments with a similar name, provides for the use of the armored tracked chassis of an infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3 and a special combat module with an 57-mm automatic cannon. As stated last year, a new combat vehicle must have a set of passive means of observing and detecting targets. At the same time she will be able to fight with airplanes and helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles. There will also be the possibility of shooting at ground targets.

At the exhibition "Army-2017" for the first time the model of a future anti-aircraft self-propelled gun was shown, and now the general public was able to see a full-fledged sample of such a machine. As follows from the published images, the real “Derivation-Air Defense” is almost no different from the old layout. On the standard BMP-3 chassis, which provides high mobility, a new module with gun-and-machine gun armament is mounted. Having a similar weapon, such a module is markedly different from the well-known AU-220M “Baikal”. First of all, the differences consist in a different form of its body: the module for an air defense machine has different lines with a smaller width and an increased height.

According to known data, the 2C38 “Derivation-Air Defense” self-propelled gun will receive standard detection and tracking equipment of the passive type. It is proposed to use the OEC optic-electronic system developed by JSC “Peleng” (Minsk). Such equipment will provide a circular view with the ability to monitor individual sectors of space. The possibility of detecting a small-sized unmanned aerial vehicle by means of thermal imaging at distances of at least 700 m is declared. A full-size aircraft, depending on the operating mode of the optics, can be found at a distance of more than 6400 m.


Information about TZM 9Т260 for ZSU 2C38. Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com


The main weapon of the ZSU 2C38 should be the newest 57-mm automatic gun. The gun must work in conjunction with a fire control system built using the device ECO OP. The ammunition will consist of 148 projectiles with automatic feed to the gun. The design of the combat module provides a circular alignment horizontally with the possibility of raising the barrel at an angle from -5 ° to + 75 °. The technical rate of fire of the gun is 120 rounds per minute.

Additional weapons of the new combat module - a machine gun and smoke grenade launchers. A machine gun rifle caliber with a remote control is proposed to be installed on the right side of the module. It should be outside the main cap, inside its own swinging casing. On the sides of the module it is proposed to install several multi-barreled smoke grenade launchers aimed in different directions.

A promising combat module for the ZSU "Derivation-Air Defense" is made uninhabitable. The entire crew of self-propelled guns, consisting of three people, must be in front of the hull, in the general office of management. In the central place, as in the case of the base BMP-3, there will probably be a driver, and a pair of side jobs is intended for the commander and the gunner operator.

According to GRAU, the new anti-aircraft self-propelled gun 2С38 will be able to hit air targets at ranges up to 6 km. The altitude of destruction - to 4,5 km. The maximum speed of the attacked air target, which allows to conduct an effective attack, is declared at the level of 500 m / s.


Battle module AU-220М "Baikal". Photo NPK "Uralvagonzavod" / uvz.ru


Also on the photo from the workshop of the Petrel Research Institute, there is a promising transport-loading machine 9Т260, proposed for use with self-propelled 2С38 "Derivation-Air Defense". As in the case of the promising ZSU, the development of a new specialized TZM was announced last year, at the Army-2017 forum. The exhibition was attended by the information and the layout of such a sample of technology. Now, the developer has manufactured an experimental auxiliary machine.

The transport-loading vehicle for the anti-aircraft self-propelled unit is based on one of the latest Ural chassis. During the construction of the TZM on the back of the machine is set on-board body, which provides for the placement of four containers for ammunition. According to previously published information, one 9Т260 machine can transport 592 projectiles in caliber 57 mm: four full ammunition for the ZSU “Derivation-Air Defense”. 148 minutes are required to overload 20 shells with TZM to self-propelled shops. The possibility of simultaneous maintenance of two combat vehicles by forces of one TZM.

The third promising model, which fell on a curious photograph from the press service of Uralvagonzavod, was the Vortex robotic complex. The latest version of this project provides for equipping a remote-controlled armored vehicle with an AU-220M Baikal combat module. It is assumed that such weapons will allow the new combat robot to successfully fight against various targets, including armored vehicles of different classes and aircraft.

In the context of the further development of the new 57-mm artillery, the creation of promising shells for a given purpose has been repeatedly mentioned. So, on January 26, the Interfax news agency, commenting on the latest statements by the head of one of the promising armored vehicles projects, reminded about the creation of new guided munitions. This publication cited the famous words of a representative of an organization engaged in the creation of new products of this kind.


Prototype BMP-3 "Derivation". Photo Sdelanounas.ru


Interfax cited statements by Yuri Nabokov, Director General of the NPO Pribor, which is part of the Tekhmash concern and engaged in designing new types of artillery ammunition. According to the head of Pribor, at the first stage of the new program, prospective ammunition will be received by combat modules AU-220М, used on Boomerang armored personnel carriers, as well as infantry fighting vehicles Kurganets-25 and T-15. The main innovation of such shells was to be the use of a programmable fuse.

It should be noted that statements of this kind that can attract the attention of the general public are not new and were made for the first time back in October of 2016. Moreover, by that time the project of new projectiles had already reached the stage of testing and refinement. In the fall of 2016, new unitary shots with projectiles equipped with programmable fuses were submitted for testing. Such ammunition before the shot receives data from the fire control system installed on the armored vehicle, after which a shot is made. By executing a loaded command, a programmable fuse at a given point in time and at a specified distance from the gun produces an explosion of the projectile.

Undermining the projectile at a given point allows you to create a field of fragments, giving a high probability of hitting the target. First of all, such shells are of interest in the field of air defense. The field of splinters capable of damaging the enemy aircraft, slightly reduces the accuracy requirements of the fire, and also facilitates the defeat of small targets.


The BRM-3K reconnaissance vehicle with the Baikal combat module. Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


Thus, the 57-mm gun with a programmable projectile can show good results in the fight against unmanned aerial vehicles, including lightweight class. In addition, the use of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles with programmable detonation to destroy other targets or objects is not excluded. With their help, you can effectively attack unprotected buildings, unarmored equipment or the enemy's manpower, including those located in the trenches.

As of mid-autumn of the year before last, promising 57-mm shells had passed the necessary tests. Then it was stated that all the necessary work would be completed by the end of the current decade. Since then, medium-sized ammunition has been repeatedly mentioned in different contexts, but news about the progress of the work did not appear. Almost all the reports affected the development of 57 mm guns, combat modules for them and carriers of similar weapons.

The existing 57-mm gun from the Petrel Central Research Institute differs from other weapons for armored vehicles with increased range and power, which gives its carrier significant advantages over other military equipment. Taking into account such features of the new weapon, it is not surprising that over the past few years Russian industry has developed several options for using guns and combat modules equipped with it.

First of all, the combat module AU-220М “Baikal” and similar products are intended for use on prospective combat vehicles of infantry of the families “Kurganets-25”, “Boomerang” and “Armata”. In addition, several options for mounting such modules on the BMP-3 chassis are already presented. The result of this was the appearance of the “Derivation” infantry combat vehicle, a new modification of the BRM-3K reconnaissance vehicle, and now the 2 – XNNUMX “Derivation-Air Defense” anti-aircraft self-propelled unit. Separate mentioning is worthy of the Vortex robotic complex, also built on the BMP-38 chassis, but having a set of special equipment.


Robotic complex "Whirlwind" uses 57-mm gun. Photo of the Defense Ministry


Having a number of characteristic features, promising technology with 57-mm guns is of particular interest to the armed forces. One of the latest manifestations of such interest was the development of the project "Derivation-Air Defense", commissioned by the Main Missile-Artillery Directorate of the Ministry of Defense. The emergence of this project shows that the military intends to, at a minimum, explore the issue of using new powerful guns in all main areas.

As follows from the available data, in the near future such research work will be carried out using the C238 “Derivation-PVO” self-propelled self-propelled gun and the 9Т260 transport-charging machine. They will have to go to the training ground and show how effective the 57-mm automatic cannon can be in fighting aircraft. It is possible that in the course of such tests, the prospective ZSU will use the latest high-explosive fragmentation projectiles with a programmable fuse.

It should be noted that not all announced combat vehicles with the “Baikal” module or similar equipment have been shown to date. Some of these samples relating to the new families of military equipment, has not yet been demonstrated to the general public. This means that the first "public demonstration" of the prototype 2C38 can be followed by similar demonstrations of other combat vehicles of new models. When this happens is unknown. However, it is clear that new photos or videos may appear in the very near future. The first platform for the demonstration of the latest models of equipment with reinforced weapons can be a parade on Red Square or the upcoming Army-2018 forum.


On the materials of the sites:
http://uvz.ru/
https://defence.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://rg.ru/
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Author:
177 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Strashila
    Strashila 30 January 2018 06: 09
    +4
    A seditious thought ... to cross it with the Pine complex, in both cases a passive detection system, a pair of missiles in the complex would not hurt. For a purely ground, it would be necessary for the tank chassis and turret, so that at least a 30 mm projectile could hold the ability to install DZ and AZ.
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 30 January 2018 11: 37
      0
      And you get a truncated BMPT.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 30 January 2018 13: 12
        +6
        I don’t understand why you need a spark of 30 mm guns on the BMPT? Even in the Second World War it was proved that it is better to have fewer guns, but more caliber. With the same KV experimented, putting on it the first construction of guns from two 45-mm guns and one 76-mm guns, then put a pair of 76-mm guns, and eventually came to one 85-mm gun. On BMPT it would be better to put one gun with a caliber of 57 mm.
        1. Strashila
          Strashila 30 January 2018 18: 12
          +7
          This is rooted in the Soviet past, according to the results of the fighting in Afghanistan, they decided to modernize the BMP-1, the choice became the gun ... stopped for one simple reason ... could fire in bursts of infantry ... and after several bursts of tank .. ... no ... did not destroy, but swept everything over the armor, damaging optics and trunks ... causing damage.
        2. Aleks2048
          Aleks2048 30 January 2018 19: 42
          +3
          At the BMPT, the cannon pair is used to increase the rate of fire, because in fact the BMPT should protect the tank from infantry, anti-tank systems, helicopters, i.e. low-armored targets with high mobility, and these guns should not replace the tank one on the tank, and the gun has one more power.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 07
            +4
            Quote: Alex2048
            used to increase rate of fire

            and therefore these cannons shoot in turn? In fact, “Terminator” failed to realize selective nutrition, and one gun hits armor-piercing, the second - OFS.
            The British before World War II very peculiarly "increased the power" of the fire of their fighters - first they installed 4, and then a battery of 8 rifle-caliber machine guns, and then they were sincerely perplexed - why does all this not work properly?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 08: 48
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              then a battery of 8 rifle-caliber machine guns, and then they were sincerely perplexed - why did all this not work properly?

              Excuse me, where did you get this from?
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 09: 52
                +4
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Excuse me, where did you get this from?

                Are you also perplexed? Then it’s better to know the materiel and its development since the Second World War.
              2. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 10: 29
                +3
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Excuse me, where did you get this from?

                Actually, there were no more questions. Hurricane. During its design, four 7,7-mm machine guns were laid, then the military asked to strengthen the armament. It was strengthened by putting another four 7,7-mm barrels, although it was clear to everyone that machine guns of a rifle caliber didn’t roll against the aircraft of the time. The battle of Britain fully proved this. The British generals grabbed their heads and asked again to strengthen their weapons. Designers trumped "eat!" and offered the Hurricane Mk.II with ... 12 (!) 7,7 mm machine guns. A truly English approach to the problem. Almost everyone knows this story with a Hurricane machine gun battery. Is it a curiosity for you?
                Then it dawned on the British that the frail machine gun, even in a breathtaking amount, wasn’t sensible, and they began to put a 20-mm “Spanish”
            2. Aleks2048
              Aleks2048 31 January 2018 11: 08
              0
              About selectivity I agree completely. Respect. But I disagree about the example with the British. More precisely, I found information about the British’s attempts, but it’s more likely the wrong choice of means of hitting the target, of course, the machine gun fires more often than the tank gun, but rarely it’s better to shoot the enemy’s tank or targets behind the obstacle, but certainly the tank gun is clearly preferable to the machine gun. But for the goals that the BMPT should hit with the support of the tank, 30mm is enough for him and so they didn’t understand why the BB gave the shells, because in fact the tank should understand the armored targets.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 11: 27
                +1
                Quote: Alex2048
                why did they give BB shells to him?

                to combat lightly armored targets - infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. Only the 30 mm cannon (I can’t say anything bad about 2A42, for its time it’s a great thing) is already rather weak today. However, at the time of the creation of "Terminator" the developers had no alternative to it. Well, do not put "Thunder", really?))
                Quote: Alex2048
                More precisely, I found information about the available attempts of the British, but here it’s rather the wrong choice of means of hitting the target

                Namely, inadequate. The British did not have a large-caliber machine gun. From the word at all. And it was scary to put guns right away - the British are terribly conservative people.
                An example is indicative. You can put two, three, four 30-mm guns, and there will be less sense from them than from one or two 40-mm guns, for example. The power of 30-mm shells no longer corresponds to reality
        3. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 04
          +2
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          I don’t understand why you need a spark of 30 mm guns on the BMPT?

          because there was nothing more to set. The answer is as simple as three pennies.
        4. ruslann004
          ruslann004 31 March 2018 10: 40
          0
          I'm just a flashlight from people like you !!
          How can one not understand that there is a need for the existence of a machine gun, but of a larger caliber than 12-14? Even from Afghanistan, shoot at the spirits with a machine gun burst with a caliber of over 14 that's it!
  2. Graz
    Graz 30 January 2018 06: 38
    +2
    there was a purely cannon shilka, suddenly decided to return to this concept, is there any sense if only to drive drones, and even then the yard assembly, which do not work from a height
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 30 January 2018 10: 22
      10
      Quote: Graz
      there was a purely cannon shilka, suddenly we decided to return to this concept, is there any sense

      Absolutely natural result. Aircraft weapons are becoming increasingly long-range. As a result, it is necessary to increase the range of the work of army air defense systems. Which makes complexes increasingly bulky. Compare the sizes of the Tunguska and the Shell
      Therefore, the idea of ​​combining itself has become obsolete.

      Quote: Graz
      if only to drive drones

      Unmanned aerial vehicles, precision munitions, ammunition barrage. In the future, artillery shells, mines and RS (controlled by RS)
      The goals for this kind of purely artillery systems on the modern battlefield are not many, but very many.

      Here, for example, the notorious "Javelin." What prevents this low-speed rocket from shooting down when trying to hit a target from above? For this she rises almost 200 meters up.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 30 January 2018 13: 43
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Here, for example, the notorious "Javelin". What prevents this low-speed missile from being shot down while trying to hit a target from above?
        "Javelin" uses a thermal head of guidance, and, far from being the most "advanced", and there may well be relevant protection already used for a long time in aviation, like shooting heat traps (the whole question of how to do it). They, in principle, can be put on any tank or BMP (BTR). Another important element of protection could be a complex for reducing thermal radiation, such as the Cape. It is much more difficult to bring down the "Javelin", which is already making a "slide," before the tank's roof is defeated, especially since it is a very short period of time, and next to it there is no supply for every tank "Shell" or new "Shilka".
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 30 January 2018 13: 55
          +4
          Quote: Per se.
          “Javelin” uses a thermal guidance head, and by no means the most “advanced” one, and here protection may have been relevant for a long time already used in aviation

          Javelin is just an example.
          I wrote about a much wider range of precision munitions. It's like with cruise missiles. Ideally, bring down the media before they start. But to do it with 100% efficiency is unlikely. Especially with massive shock. Therefore, one must be ready to shoot down the Kyrgyz Republic themselves.
        2. Simargl
          Simargl 30 January 2018 16: 04
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          "Javelin" uses a thermal head guidance, and, far from the most "advanced"

          Do you think this is the end of development? Can't you come up with a better one?
        3. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 18
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          "Javelin," who is already doing a "slide," before hitting a tank roof

          “Javelin” or “Spike” do not “slide” in front of the target. They initially fly along a special path
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 31 January 2018 05: 59
            +2
            Quote: Gregory_45
            They initially fly along a special trajectory.
            This I called the "slide", especially when the rocket is launched from a minimum distance. I did not think that it was this not entirely successful expression, so fundamentally in all the comments. About "Javelin" I was quite interested in my time, but thanks for the comment.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 31 January 2018 10: 01
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              I didn’t think that it was this not entirely successful expression that was so important in all comments.

              Well, it’s precisely on this maneuver that you emphasized, talking about the “invulnerability” of “Javelin”
              Quote: Per se.
              Shoot down the "Javelin" who is already doing a "slide," before the defeat of the roof of the tank, much harder

              Quote: Per se.
              but thanks for the comment.

              This is a significant clarification) In order to speak with the others in the same language and not complain that you are understood to be "somehow wrong", you should use generally accepted terms. not those. What did you mean". Telepaths among us, as it were, are not enough
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 31 January 2018 12: 23
                +1
                Quote: Gregory_45
                you did emphasize this maneuver, speaking about the "invulnerability" of "Javelina"
                I said that the already launched “Javelin” (making a “slide” in its trajectory), before hitting the tank roof, it is more difficult to knock off from the same “Shilka” or “Carapace” (as was voiced by Lopatov, whom I respect professionalism) than any system of the tank itself, destroying (KAZ), interfering with the thermal head of the missile, or reducing thermal visibility. In my edition, this is an example with heat traps and a thermal insulation wrap. That's all. Do not be so meticulous, Gregory. There are different men here, I can still “razisisto” paint, though not without possible misprints and speech mistakes (and, of course, without a claim to “Captain Obvious”), but there are people who have experienced fire and water, who have a harsh experience, but cannot speak fluently, like some techies, is far from humanities in writing. Remember this in your creative ambitions on the site, I sincerely wish you success.
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 12
        +1
        able to work on low-speed air targets almost all anti-tank systems
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 11: 03
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Therefore, the idea of ​​combining itself has become obsolete

        yeah, but to have a 12,7-mm machine gun or a 20-mm machine gun, and on the other machine a few pieces of missiles - is that sensible? That's just the concept of highly specialized tools have not shown themselves well. Remember the Soviet fleet - they built specialized submarine hunters, who, because of their helplessness before the aircraft and the surface enemy ("toothless handsome men"), were supposed to be used in tandem with the destroyer, which was more sharpened specifically for fighting the latter. As a result, they had as many as two instead of one ship, each of which alone is not capable of effectively solving a combat task. Optimum is just a cannon-rocket system. When the guns complement the missiles cover their dead zone and, due to the fact that have shorter reaction times and cheaper ammunitioncan work on goals on which missiles spend unprofitable, for firing at a suddenly appearing target or for firing at ground targets. Following your concept, again it is worth releasing tanks only with machine gun and only cannon weapons))
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 31 January 2018 11: 36
          0
          Quote: Gregory_45
          Yeah, but to have a 12,7-mm machine gun or a 20-mm machine gun, and on the other machine a few pieces of missiles - is that sensible?

          Absolutely sound.
          For example, if it were possible to install remotely controlled modules on armored vehicles under the external control of KSA Barnaul, this would greatly increase the ability to combat UAVs and ammunition barrage.

          Quote: Gregory_45
          Optimum is just a cannon-rocket system.

          8)))))
          Either such a system will have to be placed far in the rear because of its size, or it will be practically useless because of the range of effective fire with missile weapons much less than the range of the "work" of aviation weapons. Do not forget, at the moment, even “Helfaer” can work for 11 km. Not to mention those systems that go to replace them.

          Quote: Gregory_45
          Remember the Soviet fleet

          Ground forces are not a fleet. The latter is not particularly limited in the size of ships and their displacement. In addition, there are not many local items on the sea that limit the shelling sectors.
          And on land a completely different calico.
          The ideal is not a wagon, but specialized machines. Because firstly, they have a different place in battle order. Secondly, they have normal weight and dimensions. Thirdly, such a system has greater combat stability.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 January 2018 12: 19
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Or such a system will have to be placed far in the rear because of its size

            You probably decided to fasten the rockets from the S-400 to self-propelled guns, or even more so the "flying logs" from the "Circle"? And the cannon “weaving” to them in addition?

            Quote: Spade
            Thirdly, such a system has greater combat stability.

            Truth? That is, the air defense system, defenseless in front of a helicopter that suddenly appeared, or does an armored personnel carrier have much greater combat stability? Or is the barrel anti-aircraft gun in front of an air-to-ground missile with a launch range of, say, at least 10-15 kilometers, also much more stable? In your opinion, when a machine cannot respond to a threat - is this “combat stability”? Perhaps the SAM, which has both missiles and guns, can handle worse in these situations? How about logic, have you not let her go to the Canaries?

            Quote: Spade
            It’s not the wagon that’s ideal, but specialized machines

            Few in the world will agree with you. A narrowly specialized car is too expensive. How much, for example, to "Shilki" with their modernization screwed missiles? Nonsense?

            Quote: Spade
            Ground forces are not a fleet.

            about the fleet, you did not understand anything from what I said. Can't draw an analogy?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 January 2018 17: 48
              +1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              You probably decided to fasten the rockets from the S-400 to self-propelled guns, or even more so the "flying logs" from the "Circle"? And the cannon “weaving” to them in addition?

              Have to. Otherwise, the complex will be useless.

              Quote: Gregory_45
              Truth? That is, the air defense system, defenseless in front of a helicopter that suddenly appeared, or does an armored personnel carrier have much greater combat stability?

              Definitely. He is in the rear, he has a sufficient range so that nothing "suddenly" appears.

              Quote: Gregory_45
              Or is the barrel anti-aircraft gun in front of an air-to-ground missile with a launch range of, say, at least 10-15 kilometers, also much more stable?

              Definitely. Although it is much closer to the enemy than an air defense system, it is capable of shooting down this air-to-ground missile. Actually, this is one of its main tasks, because it can’t work on aircraft that use this kind of weapon, for this there is an air defense system.

              Quote: Gregory_45
              Few in the world will agree with you. A narrowly specialized car is too expensive.

              On the contrary. The higher the specialization, the higher the efficiency. And the lack of universalism is "cured" by the control system.
              After all, no one is outraged that the machine gun in the hands of an infantryman cannot destroy tanks, and for this they need specialized anti-tank equipment.

              A Swiss knife can never cut a tree better than a hacksaw.

              Quote: Gregory_45
              about the fleet, you did not understand anything from what I said. Can't draw an analogy?

              Well, where does the fleet ... There are completely different conditions.
              Imagine the size and weight of an anti-aircraft “station wagon” that can simultaneously hit several targets at the turn of 10-15 km with missile weapons and with dozens of small ones at ranges of up to 6 km. To be sufficiently protected for use in first-tier infantry combat formations, to have a detection system that is resistant to interference and protected from the use of anti-radar ammunition.

              The size of the articulated "Knight", the weight of a hundred tons?
              1. chenia
                chenia 31 January 2018 18: 55
                0
                Quote: Spade
                On the contrary. The higher the specialization, the higher the efficiency. And the lack of universalism is "cured" by the control system.


                This is indisputable, but does not fit this case.

                Construction of air defense, when there should already be a squadron with MANPADS in the companies (or part-time), in a platoon battalion with an artillery rocket (such as Tunguska -2 pcs).
                Moreover, it should be possible to use additional means in air defense (it used to be everything that shoots and fired. Up to the rifle). On a dedicated channel, an alert indicating the azimuth and approximate range.

                In the regimental link (zen. Division) there can be a division into art (that's just 57 mm and it is requested but two barrels with a radar.) And missile components. but here they must be autonomous. Air defense formation melee can not be divided into a cabin-start. Well, the above division is the norm.

                The presented sample is completely unsuitable for the regimental unit.

                Even in the company, as an additional tool can be, at the same time, other functions can be hung.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 31 January 2018 19: 13
                  +2
                  Quote: chenia
                  This is indisputable, but does not fit this case.
                  Construction of air defense, when there should already be a squadron with MANPADS in the companies (or part-time), in a platoon battalion with an artillery rocket (such as Tunguska -2 pcs).

                  This is, to say the least, uncomfortable. And in terms of controllability, and in terms of combat training.
                  It is much easier to have in the brigade / regiment two anti-aircraft battalions under the wise control of Barnaul, which will create a layered direct air defense of the battlefield. Covering the entire brigade / regiment.
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 31 January 2018 20: 49
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    And in terms of controllability, and in terms of combat training


                    I agree. The specifics of air defense is that the higher the link, the more it is informed about the situation (this is followed by artillery infantry fire call).
                    And two divisions (missile and artillery) will also be able to cover the regiment’s area under the same control and combat training in their system.

                    For individual tasks (for example, if the battalion is in the cover zone (they can put a regiment there), the air defense unit will strengthen it, and here autonomy is needed.

                    But we are talking about the fact that this system is clearly not completed - we’ll crawl to the level of half a century ago in a slightly more modern interpretation - POISO- and guns.

                    Agree - the radar and two barrels in a larger tower (with a large BC) are more suitable for zen. division.
              2. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 18: 55
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: Gregory_45
                You probably decided to fasten the rockets from the S-400 to self-propelled guns, or even more so the "flying logs" from the "Circle"? And the cannon “weaving” to them in addition?
                Have to. Otherwise, the complex will be useless

                Before you answer everything you wrote. I have one pressing question. Are you all that you wrote above - seriously? Or is it such a not very thin trolling and banter?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 31 January 2018 19: 22
                  +3
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Are you all that you wrote above - seriously?

                  Absolutely.
                  You see what the ficus picus is ... I have a fundamentally different attitude from yours towards all this. I'm used to the fact that the system is much more efficient heaps of generalists.
                  I am not perplexed because, to put it mildly, of the weak capabilities of artillery guns for reconnaissance. Can't the commander see the target in 30 kilometers? Well, to hell with him, there are other means for this, that's okay.
                  Cannot mortar shell a column 50 km from its firing range? Let him deal with his tasks, for this there is an MLRS. Is a single self-propelled gun in a modern war almost useless? It's okay, we will spud the target with "one or more" (c) division.

                  In artillery, the system rules. And no one has been trying for a long time to make a wagon out of every weapon, capable of fighting alone. And nothing bad happens. On the contrary, efficiency only increases. Like combat stability.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 19: 35
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Understand what ficus picus is

                    In this case, if you are serious, you simply do not understand what they are talking to you about. And they started on their own wave to discuss completely different things. Sometimes it’s very nice to listen to what the other person is saying, and not just the adored one. This is what leads to grotesque conclusions, a misunderstanding of the interlocutor. not that he smashes nonsense.
                    Roughly speaking, you propose to divide the same "Shell" into two independent units - ZSU and self-propelled air defense systems, and you are trying to prove that, individually, they are more effective than air defense systems. And talking about long-range air defense systems and heavy artillery. Maybe re-read the comments more thoughtfully?
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 31 January 2018 20: 58
                      +1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      In this case, if you are serious, you simply do not understand what they are talking to you about.

                      I understand perfectly. Since sometimes you have to unscrew something, it is imperative to provide a retractable Phillips screwdriver in each hacksaw. Otherwise, it is a useless tool.

                      The option of sawing with a hacksaw, twisting the screws with a screwdriver is pure retrograde and inefficiency.

                      Well, the fact that the "anti-aircraft defense" for firing rockets and firing artillery rifles must be in different places of the battle formation, these are such trifles ...

                      Roughly speaking, you propose to divide the same "Shell" into two independent units - ZSU and self-propelled air defense systems, and you are trying to prove that, individually, they are more effective than air defense systems

                      For 4 independent units. SAM, ZAK, a detection system machine and a control system machine.

                      And they will not work alone. They will be elements of a single system.

                      By the way, the 82-mm mortar does not belong to the "heavy barrel artillery." But at the same time it enters the system.
  3. Victor_B
    Victor_B 30 January 2018 06: 55
    +2
    Hmm ...
    At one time, they once took me and took me to study (on our VK) and we studied the S-60 cannon, 57 mm.
    That's when I realized what anti-aircraft gun shooting is. This is just a zoo! There are so many parameters for calculating ..., so that the probability of hitting is low (for S-60).
    Let's hope that modern calculation methods provide new opportunities.
    But here is the initial data for firing, and this is the “meteo average” - the approximate distribution of pressure and temperature over the height and the direction and strength of the wind, while all values ​​are variable, the air goes in layers.
    The captain who taught us was in love with this gun.
    For example, the standard for a helicopter seems to be a target of 1 km, the trunks are turned away - 1 minute! If the first shot did not hit, the score is reduced.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 30 January 2018 10: 55
      +2
      Victor
      Not so long ago I threw an article about spare parts with S-60. Maybe you will have additions / amendments / comments?
      Airbase Forums »Military Specialist» Air Defense »Soviet Air Defense Division
      http://forums.airbase.ru/2017/12/t100581--pvo-sov
      etskoj-divizii.2258.html
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 30 January 2018 11: 30
        0
        Alas, I’m never an artilleryman. I'm a radar.
        Partisan 2 times in the Air Defense, ZNSh reconnaissance divisions.
        We deployed the division, K-19 100 mm guns and went to shoot at the firing range. At the same time, I only looked from the side and equipped shells with fuses.
        And then I was forced to go to the VK at our institute (DVPI) for a month and study S-60. But I didn’t see them alive.
        1. Grits
          Grits 30 January 2018 17: 00
          0
          I used to study at DVPI
    2. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 30 January 2018 13: 14
      +1
      Now computers are everywhere. So, probably, the calculations are done automatically.
      1. wachmann
        wachmann 30 January 2018 19: 33
        +2
        but how does it hang? I remember, back in the days of the USSR, the Japs were very surprised that our maritime columnists were able to consider illegally caught seafood as a column;)
        1. LastPS
          LastPS 30 January 2018 21: 21
          0
          Modern army computers are a pretty reliable thing, and even when they didn’t have such reliability, the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. When the reagents appeared, the air defense artillery practically outlived itself in a theoretical global conflict, too high altitudes, too high speed - it is impossible to calculate manually - very low efficiency, and the number of calculations is such that you break your brain.
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 31 January 2018 00: 58
            +2
            The capabilities of the barrel air defense showed Vietnam. The air defense missile systems drive aviation to the PMV, and only the gunmen can frolic. One problem is alert and guidance.
            In Vietnam, even with a warning from a tower with a fighter with binoculars, the U.S. Air Force suffered nearly 70% of losses from gunners, Shiloks and machine guns.
            So the thing is right
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 31 January 2018 01: 32
              +2
              there were no shilka
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 31 January 2018 12: 53
                +1
                This is figurative. Shilok was not there, but there were a lot of things both ours and not ours in different calibers. It is necessary to rummage - something quadruple in a photo archive of the father saw. He participated in person from 68 to 72nd.
                Perhaps ZPU-4.
  4. Herculesic
    Herculesic 30 January 2018 07: 28
    +4
    I thought that at least BMPs with the Baikal module had already joined the army, and things didn’t go beyond prototypes! Bad, very bad, that we are so slow!
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 30 January 2018 08: 50
    +7
    It is proposed to use the optoelectronic system of the OES OP developed by Peleng OJSC (Minsk). Such equipment will provide all-round visibility with the ability to monitor individual sectors of space.
    If we look at the "carapace" - "tunguska" - we will see that these machines have radars for viewing the space. In connection with this, I’m very interested in how the question has been resolved on a “tree”? Should the commander twist, relatively speaking, “head off” trying to narrow the sector of the sight (I suppose it is unlikely that the field of vision is more than 40 degrees) to find the enemy aircraft. ? And, how should the identification of detected targets be carried out? Prioritization? Escort?
    There are no answers to these questions in the article, but there are diframbs to the cannon, which is not a hundred years old. And there is also a TZM (why would it be for such a dead caliber?) On a wheelbase (read, unable to drive where a tracked infantry fighting vehicle goes) and not yet armored?
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 30 January 2018 09: 34
      +3
      there it seems like an optical surveillance system is being proposed, But all this is in any case stupid without radar fire adjustment and actually cheap ammunition for remote detonation. And about the fact that creating a new car purely against UAVs is complete insanity, we can talk endlessly.

      My opinion: you need to create another tool.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 30 January 2018 10: 06
        +1
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        And about the fact that creating a new car purely against UAVs is complete insanity, we can talk endlessly.

        But do you think that it is capable of fighting UAVs with a detection range of 700 m? Shaw, then I doubt it ...
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 30 January 2018 11: 31
          0
          Quote: tchoni
          But do you think that it is capable of fighting UAVs with a detection range of 700 m?

          Of course, it’s incapable, the point is different, even if you put radars (survey + correction), there will be no sense anyway. Because this machine will not be where it is needed, that is, at the forefront. But it will not be there because this weapon is effective (by this word I mean "better than what is") only against UAVs, therefore it will not replace existing models, because it will not be effective (worse than what it is) compared to existing machines and weapons in the fight against other goals. Consequently, these guns will be few.
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 31 January 2018 12: 57
            0
            And why is it not capable? Already at such a range, it can spread UAVs into molecules. Pointing accuracy and rate of fire are more than enough.
            But at a distance of 6 km and an altitude of 4000 - this is a question.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 30 January 2018 10: 44
      +3
      Quote: tchoni
      In connection with this, I’m very interested in how the question has been resolved on a “tree”?

      Most likely, external target designation will be the main method.
      Apparently, an error crept into the article. And the Peleng equipment is not used to detect a target, but to accurately determine the parameters of its trajectory.
    3. sivuch
      sivuch 30 January 2018 11: 19
      +7
      I believe that the issue is resolved at least no worse than that of Strela-10, which also does not have its own radar and, accordingly, it does not unmask itself. First of all, neither Tunguska, nor S-10, nor even a piece of wood will (at least, should not) work alone. Basically, a battery, less often - a pair of BM, i.e. 2BM + TZM. Accordingly, the sectors are cut by the battalion commander. He has his own PU and his own radar + information from the beginning of an air defense regiment or brigade. Identification systems (you meant it) were even on MANPADS, so what prevents it from being installed here.
      Further, 40 degrees is the strength of vodka, and the article talks about a 360-degree all-round view. Even a quick google gives the following results -
      The optic-electronic detection and aiming system of the OES OP developed by specialists of the Minsk OJSC Peleng became the keen “eyes” of “Derivation-Air Defense.” It allows panoramic monitoring of the terrain by 360 degrees, as well as conducting a sector review.
      For example, the detection range through one of the television channels of the Bird Eye 400 unmanned aerial vehicle in the survey 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 distance of 6400 m , and in the second - at 12 300 m.
      The thermal imaging channel allows you to detect targets with a size of 2,3 x 2,3 with a probability of 80% at a distance of 10 m and recognize at a distance of 000 m
      But the gun’s dierambs are well-deserved - her ballistics are beautiful.
      TZM - yes, they could do it on a goose, and, probably, they will. And is there somewhere armored TZM? I did not hear
    4. sentaniel
      sentaniel 30 January 2018 11: 19
      +1
      Probably integration with the same shell, no?
      1. Horse meat
        Horse meat 30 January 2018 23: 28
        0
        And the shell needs such a gun.
        Not bad idea.
        Just how will he launch his rockets into a cloud of steel balls?
        Or the computer will figure out what and when to shoot.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 31 January 2018 13: 01
          0
          The question is where and how many shells in the Shell are stored for such a caliber.
          It’s just right to hook the trailer with a separate power supply and storage b / p
  6. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 30 January 2018 09: 23
    +3
    Ammunition - 148 shells, in my opinion is not enough to perform the tasks of covering the columns on the march.
    If the installation fired off the ammunition, and this will happen very quickly in modern combat (barrage, suppression, defeat of small targets such as tactical drone), should the convoy wait 20 minutes for reloading air defense? This is unacceptable in modern combat.
    In addition, the launch range of modern ATGMs placed on helicopters is up to 10 km (in the future, the range will be higher), the range of 57 mm guns is declared at 6000 m.
    Those. under certain conditions, helicopters of a potential enemy will be able to hit armored vehicles, including air defense, without entering the zone of its destruction.
    It begs the equipment of this anti-aircraft defense, missile weapons with an interception range of more than 10000 m.
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 30 January 2018 09: 40
      +2
      Ammunition - 148 shells, in my opinion is not enough to perform the tasks of covering the columns on the march.
      And who promised that they ride one at a time?
      The word is such. Battery! Four pieces.
      1. chenia
        chenia 30 January 2018 10: 29
        +3
        Quote: Victor_B
        The word is such. Battery! Four pieces.


        Well, where do you propose to put this battery? In ZR, the division of SMEs (SMEs) will be weak.
        If you do, then with a well-developed tower in two barrels, a radar and additional missile weapons such as Shell, Tunguska.

        But the infantry 57 mm long requested. This is the ultimate caliber of high ballistics for BM with a landing.
        And in collaboration with Zen. by the platoon of the battalion (those must indicate where the threat comes from) they are able to drive away, scare (we’ll be realistic, why the hell will they kill) enemy attack aircraft and helicopters.
        Yet 12 infantry fighting vehicles in the company, a volley (firing in the direction of the target) may interfere with the performance of the aviation task.
        1. Victor_B
          Victor_B 30 January 2018 10: 54
          +2
          Well, where do you propose to put this battery?
          This is actually an anti-aircraft gun.
          Shooting in other directions is a necessary measure.
          And yes, the minimum tactical unit in anti-aircraft artillery is a fire platoon.
          These are just 3 or 4 guns (I forgot, however, how many we dragged them to the training ground).
          They really do not fight one at a time.
          1. chenia
            chenia 30 January 2018 11: 07
            +3
            Quote: Victor_B
            This is actually an anti-aircraft gun.


            With an optical guidance channel, without radar and automated control systems and single-barrel?
            This is not a candle to God. not a damn poker.

            Once again I’ll ask which link (platoon. Battery) to put?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 30 January 2018 11: 18
              +3
              Quote: chenia
              With an optical guidance channel, without radar and automated control systems and single-barrel?

              8))) Optical channel optical channel discord. http://peleng.by/products/optoelectronics/49.html
              In addition, why without ASUO? Is the lack of radar on the machine that prevents this?
              Everything else in the 57-mm caliber UAS has long been developed ... And judging by the figure of 6 km-developed.
              In general, it all started with this study:
              https://www.kbtochmash.ru/press-center/articles/a
              rticles_26.html


              Quote: chenia
              Once again I’ll ask which link (platoon. Battery) to put?

              Anti-aircraft artillery division brigade / regiment. At the same time, they will protect the radar from air defense systems, artillery and military intelligence from specific munitions.
              1. chenia
                chenia 30 January 2018 11: 41
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Anti-aircraft artillery division brigade / regiment. At the same time, they will protect the radar from air defense systems, artillery and military intelligence from specific munitions.


                And I did not deny the need for 57 mm in the air defense regiment. but

                Quote: chenia
                If you do, then with a well-developed tower in two barrels, a radar and additional missile weapons such as Shell, Tunguska.


                A system (with a smaller caliber -30 mm) at the rear of the battalion.

                And what they offer is not that, not se ...
              2. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 30 January 2018 12: 11
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Anti-aircraft artillery division brigade / regiment. At the same time, they will protect the radar from air defense systems, artillery and military intelligence from specific munitions.


                They will not provide - not the same rate of fire and too small a reserve for obstructive fire, without a radar they can only capture subsonic targets - such as an UAV / helicopter
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 30 January 2018 12: 38
                  0
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  They will not provide - the wrong rate of fire and too small a reserve for obstructive fire

                  And why barrage, and not UAS with laser beam, as originally planned?
            2. Victor_B
              Victor_B 30 January 2018 11: 34
              +1
              With an optical guidance channel, without radar and automated control systems and single-barrel?
              Therefore, one at a time and not effective.
              And target designation (at least a sector) can be given to them.
              Network centrism, however!
            3. sivuch
              sivuch 30 January 2018 13: 45
              +1
              But the question with OSH is really interesting. So far, it begs itself only as a replacement for motolig with ZU-23-2, Shilok and Strel-10. And who said that there is no SLA?
              Night optics + external DU
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 January 2018 14: 28
      +4
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Ammunition - 148 shells, in my opinion is not enough to perform the tasks of covering the columns on the march.

      I think the BK is small ... especially considering the rate of fire of the gun. I believe that a 300 round shell would be optimal. Maybe a different platform is needed, and not from the BMP-3?
      1. aristok
        aristok 17 July 2018 10: 48
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Ammunition - 148 shells, in my opinion is not enough to perform the tasks of covering the columns on the march.

        I think the BK is small ... especially considering the rate of fire of the gun. I believe that a 300 round shell would be optimal. Maybe a different platform is needed, and not from the BMP-3?

        Yes, the tank platform is better. - t-72, t-90, t-54-55
    3. Horse meat
      Horse meat 30 January 2018 23: 34
      0
      How a helicopter will launch rockets through a cloud of iron debris.
      Okay let it go, but the rockets then will not fly entirely.
      And the helicopter’s gun is only 30 mm, 10.000 meters away is not very scary.
    4. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 24
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      the convoy must wait for reloading the air defense - 20 minutes

      this car is not to cover the columns on the march
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 31 January 2018 09: 54
        0
        Quote: Gregory_45
        this car is not to cover the columns on the march


        Well, of course.
        And then the purpose, if the troops are either on the march, or on the defensive, or in attacking orders?
        If air defense does not provide protection on the move, the price is worthless.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 January 2018 12: 21
          +1
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          If the air defense does not provide protection on the move - it’s worthless

          Well, yes, the "Armor" and S-400 - bullshit
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 31 January 2018 17: 50
            0
            Quote: Gregory_45
            Well, yes, the "Armor" and S-400 - bullshit

            The S-400 has no barrels. Therefore, it is not universal, is it?

            Well, the problem of "shell" is due to an extremely unsuccessful base.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 31 January 2018 19: 00
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              S-400 has no barrels

              and there are no derivations of rockets. Hence she too
              Quote: Spade
              not universal, is it?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 31 January 2018 19: 25
                0
                Quote: Gregory_45
                and there are no derivations of rockets. Hence she too

                Well yes. Both the S-300 and the Derivations have no place on the battlefield. The S-30 has no automatic guns, the “Derivation” - missiles.
                In addition, the S-300 launchers have neither the means of detecting the enemy, nor the means of guiding missiles at the target .... So there is definitely an incorrect air defense system.
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 31 January 2018 19: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: Spade
                  So definitely the wrong air defense system

                  or something else wrong.
                  Everyone has their own tasks.
                  S-300/400 - to cover important centers and large groups
                  Derivation is essentially an anti-dron system. In the form in which she is now, without short-range missiles, she has nothing to do on the battlefield. Will come down to cover the same S-300, airfields, etc. - work in conjunction with other systems.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 31 January 2018 20: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Everyone has their own tasks.

                    In addition to the "Derivation", which without rockets is nothing?
                    1. Grigory_45
                      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 20: 56
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      In addition to the "Derivation", which without rockets is nothing?

                      Shovels, buy yourself glasses, by golly))
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Derivation "is essentially an anti-dron system. In the form in which it is now
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 31 January 2018 21: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Shovels, buy yourself glasses, by golly))
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Derivation "is essentially an anti-dron system. In the form in which it is now

                        Oh....
                        Dear, let's start with the origins. What are the objectives of modern air defense battlefield?
                        Drones, ammunition barrage, high-precision aviation ammunition, anti-radar ammunition ... They are not in the list of possible targets?
  7. viktorch
    viktorch 30 January 2018 10: 24
    +1
    from the article it is not clear in a programmable 57mm could or not?
    if the penguins have similar shells on the bushmaster for a long time, on much smaller hummingbirds
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 30 January 2018 11: 24
      0
      Quote: viktorch
      if the penguins have similar shells on the bushmaster for a long time, on much smaller hummingbirds

      We too. 30 mm
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 25
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: viktorch
        if the penguins have similar shells on the bushmaster for a long time, on much smaller hummingbirds
        We too. 30 mm

        do we have a 30mm remote blast shell? Give me a break!
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 31 January 2018 09: 17
          0
          There is. With a laser system for entering the time of detonation. Google, for example, TKN-4GA-02. Or "a complex of remote control time for detonating shells"
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 January 2018 11: 09
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Google

            In this case, I will advise you to read the Primer or Murzilka. Are you talking about what you don’t know? Then not worth it. The interlocutor will google without your advice. I thought that I saw in front of me a sane adequate person who does not just throw words into the wind.
            Quote: Spade
            for example, TKN-4GA-02

            it aim)) Learn the materiel
            Quote: Spade
            complex for remote control of the time of detonation of shells

            Undoubtedly, there are shells with remote detonation, here you did not open America to me. I asked you for shells of 30 mm caliber. Got something to say in essence?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 January 2018 19: 42
              +1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              this is a sight)) Learn materiel


              TKN-4GA-01 is a "sight"
              TKN-4GA-02 is a "sight" with placement in the product of an additional channel of the complex for remote control of the time of undermining shells (KPU VPS). ""
              TKN-4GA-03 is a "sight with an all-day thermal imaging channel"
              Well and so on ... 8))))))) Learn the materiel 8))))
              Sights - they are different. And sometimes you should pay attention to the numbers and letters in the indices.

              Quote: Gregory_45
              I asked you exactly for shells with a caliber of 30 mm. Got something to say in essence?

              In fact? Learn the materiel. 8))))
              There is TKN-4GA-02, there is a laser programmer for the "Terminator" "Foresight-O"
              Successful tests were conducted back in 2014
              http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/06/blog-post_8.ht
              ml
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 19: 47
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                In fact? Learn the materiel.

                advice referred to you. So what about the shells? You have already written so many comments, and domestic 30-mm shell with remote detonation show and you can not bring its designation. Secret is strong? lol
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 31 January 2018 20: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  advice referred to you. So what about the shells?

                  Are you sure that the system can be successfully tested without shells?
                  Cool.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Secret is strong?

                  Конечно.
                  This is purely Russian know-how. Therefore, his pictures for a very long time on the Internet will not be. The fact is that no one is engaged in laser data input in such fuses. Prefer induction.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 21: 07
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Secret is strong?
                    Конечно.
                    This is purely Russian know-how.

                    Clear. In fact, you had nothing to say. Zilch out) It was not worth shaking the air.
                    Now we follow your links about "top-secret" shells, and we read mentions there of 30x165-mm cartridges under indexes 3UOF8 и 3UOF23. From memory I’ll tell you that the usual (and quite old) OFZS self-destructive. What is the difference between self-liquidator from remote detonation in the know?
                    Quote: Spade
                    Prefer induction

                    because it’s simpler and more efficient. Almost any existing cannon can be equipped with them, and not put an overly sophisticated sight.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 31 January 2018 21: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Clear. In fact, you had nothing to say.

                      Bye bye bye, not so fast. You still haven’t explained how you can successfully test the system in the absence of shells

                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Now we follow your links about "top-secret" shells, and we read mentions there of 30x165 mm caliber cartridges under the 3UOF8 and 3UOF23 indexes.

                      This is unlikely. There is either a ground fuse, or a fiber in the "point" of the projectile to the head fuse.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 30 January 2018 11: 25
      +1
      As I understand it, the creation of shells with a programmable fuse (something like the Swedish 3P) is being completed and there are no special technical problems. But not a word is said about UAS. Moreover, when using them, you can increase the range to at least 8 km.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 30 January 2018 11: 35
        +1
        According to UAS. Initially, it was for him that they indicated a range of 6000 meters. Laser beam, two shells per line, non-contact radar fuse.
        Shooting with conventional shells even with a remotely programmed DV at such a range ... I do not think it will be effective. Due to the regular dispersion and flight time of the projectile. Unless at the same time dozens of cars gasping to create a sufficiently large "cloud of gaps" that can block all possible trajectories of the target.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 30 January 2018 14: 24
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Due to regular dispersion

          and what about dispersion at such a range?
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 26
        +1
        Quote: sivuch
        Moreover, when using them, you can increase the range to at least 8 km

        due to what? A shell is a shell, without an engine. Why would he count extra kilometers?
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 31 January 2018 12: 39
          +1
          Actually, the ballistic range of the S-60 is about 12 km, if sclerosis does not change, so the restriction is only on the scope and self-eliminator capabilities. And at one time, comrades from Burevestnik just wrote that when using UAS, you can work out an increase in range up to 8 km.
          RELEVANCE AND PROSPECTS FOR CREATING 57 MM ANTI-ARTILLERY COMBAT FIELD COMPLEX
          Authors:
          Doctor of Technical Sciences O. V. Korotkov, Ph.D. A.F. Chubar, Ph.D. A. B. Korneev, S. N. Voropaev
          As a high-precision means of destruction, a special anti-aircraft missile is used, which is built according to the scheme of a guided artillery shell, is stored in a combat station, launched from a rifled gun barrel and guided by a laser beam, which allows you to hit targets in a wide range of ranges - from 200 m to 6 ... 8 km for manned targets and up to 3 ... 5 km for unmanned
          The possibility of combat use of UAS at ranges up to 8 km requires additional study.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 January 2018 13: 36
            +1
            Quote: sivuch
            In fact, the S-60 ballistic range is about 12 km

            and a bullet from Mosinka flies 4 km, and a shell from a 125-mm tank gun - 10 km. And what does this give us? Only the effective (at the edge of the sighting) range matters. On which the projectile can be sent to a point very close to the aiming point. Otherwise, the GOS will simply not see the target.
            Quote: sivuch
            And at one time, comrades from Burevestnik just wrote that when using UAS, you can work out an increase in range up to 8 km.

            No one forbids writing. We saw on the fences - which is just not written! Let them work it out. There are two answers - either it is possible or impossible.
            You still haven’t explained why "extra" kilometers are "added"
            The problem of firing at targets with a large parameter of ammunition flying by inertia is known - this is their extremely low available overload at a range close to the maximum - the speed has dropped, there is no kinetic energy. In particular, take the rockets of the same "Shell". The second step - this, in fact, is UAS. She doesn’t have an engine, flying by inertia. At the maximum parameter, the characteristics of the available target overload and its speed are sharply reduced. In fact, only hovering helicopters can be fired at. But the rocket of the universal marine complex "Storm" had a feature - engine operating time was commensurate with the maximum range missile flight time, which means the rocket is practically did not have a passive portion of the trajectory and its attendant effects reduced maneuverability and handling
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 31 January 2018 16: 05
              +1
              In principle, I could redirect your question to the authors of an article that you did not bother to read. After all, they are doctors with candidates.
              Firstly, no one offers any GOS - only command control along the Lazar beam. And then they, i.e. authors write
              UAS shoots at a high initial speed and almost immediately has the necessary lateral accelerations for guidance. The projectile can shoot towards the target or at a calculated predicted point. In the first case, guidance is carried out according to the three-point method. In the second case, guidance is carried out by adjusting the trajectory of the projectile. In both cases, the projection is carried out in the laser beam.
              Small UAS guidance errors are achieved due to the high accuracy of the target tracking system and the UAS laser guidance system with small errors in combination with an effective digital on-board rudder control system and acceptable aeroballistic and dynamic projectile characteristics
              And I would like to clarify - they talked about 2 km range (and so far very hypothetical - the authors themselves do not promise), but not a parameter, these are very different things.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 16: 26
                +1
                Quote: sivuch
                which you did not bother to read

                in fact, it was you in your comment who did not bother to correctly quote the words of respected doctors and candidates.
                Quote: sivuch
                Moreover, when using them, you can increase the range to at least 8 km

                while now
                Quote: sivuch
                talked about 2 km range (and so far very hypothetical - the authors themselves do not promise)

                Well, nothing more, and in fact you did not report. Whatever guidance method (even GOS, even teleorientation along the laser beam, at least on the radio beam), the problem remains the same - at long range due to the lack of the projectile’s engine, in all its glory, the effects of reducing the maneuverability and controllability of the projectile, and therefore the ability to hit target
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 31 January 2018 18: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  reduce projectile maneuverability and controllability

                  ?
                  Due to what?
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 19: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Due to what?

                    due to the fact that there is no engine.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 31 January 2018 20: 24
                      +1
                      And why does he need an engine, if he already has a very high kinetic energy?
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 January 2018 17: 53
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Otherwise, the GOS will simply not see the target.

              Why GOS?
              For example, the Swedish RBS-70 does fine without it. This, on the contrary, makes the complex much more resistant to interference.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 19: 02
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Why GOS?

                bother reading the comments above first. Or for you to write another comment that has already been answered - an end in itself?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 31 January 2018 20: 40
                  +1
                  I re-read, and did not see any revelations there. Well, in addition to the very, very controversial statements about "the GOS will not see the target" and the fall in maximum speed.

                  At the same D-30, the final speed at a range of 5000 meters is supersonic. With an initial of 690 m / s
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 20: 54
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    I re-read, and did not see any revelations there.

                    in this case, it's time to think about whether to resort to optical devices)
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Quote: Spade
                    Why GOS?

                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Whatever guidance method (even GOS, even teleorientation along the laser beam, at least on the radio beam), the problem remains the same - at long range due to the lack of the projectile’s engine, in all its glory, the effects of reducing the maneuverability and controllability of the projectile, and therefore the ability to hit target

                    In particular, on the Pantsira rocket: “the maximum firing range of 20 km is provided for aerial targets flying at a speed of no more than 80 m / s, since the available SAM regiments at this range do not exceed 5 units”
                    For information, the initial velocity of the rocket is 1300 m / s, the caliber of the second stage is 76 mm. A projectile with only a larger elongation, which loses less in speed. You realistically do not understand why maneuvering (guiding) a rocket (projectile) lose energy and speed?
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 31 January 2018 21: 25
                      +1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      In particular, on the rocket "Shell"

                      Good. Wrong rockets "Shell", 12 rockets 1,12 tons. Right rocket "Storm". 12 missiles - 22.1 tons.
                      What will be the right choice?

                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      You realistically do not understand why maneuvering (guiding) a rocket (projectile) lose energy and speed?

                      I do not understand why it should lose energy as much as you say.
                      UAS to "Derivation" will fly to a maximum speed of 6 km about six seconds. And even if he loses two-thirds of the initial, by this time he will still fly at supersonic.
                      I somehow faintly imagine that the same “helper” will be so active in maneuvering in flight that the control system will not be able to bring the projectile to the firing range of a non-contact fuse.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 21: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        I do not understand why it should lose energy as much as you say.

                        This is not me claiming. This is from the report. "Evaluation of the characteristics of the Pantsir-C1 ZRPK at one of the open scientific and technical conferences of the Ministry of Defense of Russia and the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences. The authors of the report are V.V. Belotserkovsky, PhD in Military Sciences, Associate Professor (Air Force Air Force) and I.A. Razin (VA VPVO VS). "
                        But it loses speed because of why the plane loses speed when performing maneuvers. Physics should not be forgotten.
                        That is why UAS more correctly sounds like adjustable, not controlled. It cannot be controlled in the full sense (like a rocket with a working engine)
                      2. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 21: 57
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        Good. Wrong rockets "Shell", 12 rockets 1,12 tons. Right rocket "Storm". 12 missiles - 22.1 tons.
                        What will be the right choice?

                        pretended to not notice the lumbar. And you pretended, or really didn’t notice. What have you been given for comparison?
                      3. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 21: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        I somehow faintly imagine that the same "helphaer" will be so active in maneuvering in flight

                        ATGM when the engine stops working? A running engine allows you to make up for energy losses during maneuvering. Lopatov, Semyon Semenych! .. (s)
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 31 January 2018 22: 15
                      +1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      That is why UAS sounds more correct as being corrected, not controlled.

                      In the "shell business" managed called shells, controlled throughout the flight path. Adjustable shells controlled only in the final section. Type "Centimeter" and "Daredevil" with a pulse correction system. And you should never confuse them with each other.

                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      pretended to not notice the lumbar.

                      He pretended not to notice another attempt to escape from an unpleasant question.
                      Weight issue.

                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      A running engine allows you to make up for energy losses during maneuvering.

                      No, my friend. It's not about maneuvering at all. And in the need to prevent the fall of the rocket.
                      And, for example, in the American hypersonic ATGM SCEM there is an active section of the trajectory where the rocket accelerates and is controlled. Well, then passive uncontrollable. Moreover, the final speed of such a rocket is higher than that of a sub-caliber projectile. That allows you to do penetrator instead of a cumulative charge.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 22: 32
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        He pretended not to notice another attempt to escape from an unpleasant question.
                        Weight issue

                        Count as you like. Wrote what I wrote. An example was not given to you for comparing weights, but as an indicator of the need for a working engine to make up for energy losses during flight to maintain controllability. But you, due to crooked thinking, noticed only weight. On that and we will solve. You know where they are humpbacked?
                        Quote: Spade
                        No, my friend. It's not about maneuvering at all. And in the need to prevent a rocket from falling

                        Only in this? Nu-nu .. You present me the truths, as if I was born yesterday. Now figure out how much the planing plane will spend in the air, and the same glider, but making maneuvers. Any maneuver is a loss of energy, it is the creation of resistance on either side of a flying object to change its trajectory. You are either an ignoramus or diligently pretending to be. Which, however, is the same for me. I have the honor.
  8. demiurg
    demiurg 30 January 2018 10: 39
    0
    The S-60 gun is just good.
    But in the department she is not needed. The gun + BC will devour the entire volume of the BMP.
    In air defense, she needs a radar.
    1. chenia
      chenia 30 January 2018 10: 52
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      But in the department she is not needed. The gun + BC will devour the entire volume of the BMP.


      So not an assault rifle for an infantry fighting vehicle. And the volume of 121 shells is 57 mm. 0,5 kb m. True, with a usable volume of 10 .kbm of BMP itself, it is also fucked, then 81 units. in cassettes of 3.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 30 January 2018 11: 00
        +1
        Well, why is it to the department? Better something mortar-shaped.
        The same 82mm semi-automatic mortar will bring much more benefit to the compartment, and at the same time it can support fire from a closed position.
        1. chenia
          chenia 30 January 2018 11: 27
          +2
          Quote: demiurg
          Well, why is it to the department? L


          BMP universal system.
          As a firearm in defense, there can be 203 mm (just kidding). there in a fire ambush, an armored group in the car there will be mechanical water. the operator and the maximum one more fighter (on the grab) can fill the BMP to the eyeballs. On the main and spare, you can lay out BC in advance.
          And in the offensive it’s also a “taxi”, which means the volume for infantry. and after the transfer of fire by artillery, it is necessary to have calibers that would allow their infantry to approach.
          40 mm AG is excellent, but at 57 mm you can have composite telescopic (three in one) low-ballistic projectiles (here you get automatic fire).

          It will be unprofitable to have different infantry fighting vehicles for different types of military operations (and conditions).

          Quote: demiurg
          at the same time it can support fire from a closed position.


          Without them there is a bunch of artillery.
          Shoot with PDO infantry - a fresh joke, it is better to succeed with target designation ..
        2. Horse meat
          Horse meat 30 January 2018 23: 40
          0
          It is necessary to protect more important objects from tomahawks.
          The shot will be launched into the air as if from a smoothbore and tomahawks were cut there.
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 30 January 2018 11: 46
    +2
    According to GRAU, the new 2S38 anti-aircraft self-propelled gun will be able to hit air targets at ranges up to 6 km.

    Interestingly, this is the maximum or effective range. If the maximum, then live this ZSU - until the first Hellfire.
    In general, a ZSU without a radar is, to put it mildly, a controversial decision. Passive channels are good for air defense systems - where the ammunition itself is homing. But on the AU in SUAO it is still not bad to have a radar, moreover, in the millimeter range.
    In fact, everything has already been invented before us. And almost 30 years ago. Those who read the ZVO of the late 80s should remember this monster from the Apennine Peninsula:
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 30 January 2018 12: 20
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Interestingly, this is the maximum or effective range. If the maximum, then live this ZSU - until the first Hellfire.


      You are definitely absolutely right.

      In general, the concept of a 57 mm air defense reconnaissance vehicle is controversial - as air defense is a little effective:
      - cannot provide protection against helicopters with long-range ATGMs.
      As a support weapon, it is poorly protected, while it does not have the ability to support from a closed position.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 30 January 2018 12: 41
        +1
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        In general, the concept of a 57 mm air defense reconnaissance vehicle is controversial - as air defense is a little effective:
        - cannot provide protection against helicopters with long-range ATGMs.

        And if you consider it not as a lone machine in the field, but as one of the elements of the air defense / missile defense system of the battlefield?
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 30 January 2018 13: 03
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          And if you consider it not as a lone machine in the field, but as one of the elements of the air defense / missile defense system of the battlefield?


          It seems that the infantry fighting vehicles decided to give the gun more power and to give it the possibility of air defense. However, in modern realities, when Helfayer shoots from 10 km - 6000 m, this is not enough distance for effective air defense.
          Therefore, the detection of subsonic targets in the optical range is certainly not bad.

          Imagine 4 machines 57 mm air defense as part of a column. Helicopters first of all determine the means of air defense and the first thing Helfayers knock out this "under-defense".
          The remaining column, "touch" and from a short distance, outside the range of MANPADS.
          For operations in the European theater of operations, where forests limit line of sight - this is not so critical, but for operations in the steppes and forest-steppes - at a distance of 10 km of direct visibility - this is not effective.

          In my opinion, this is still a BMP with some air defense function. Than air defense in its purest form.

          I agree with you that the 57 mm guns in the battery have the ability to organize obstructive anti-aircraft fire, as S-60 did in its time.

          Chinese anti-aircraft gunners
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 30 January 2018 14: 04
            +1
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            It seems that the BMP decided to give the gun a greater power and give it also the possibility of air defense

            Rather, they decided to divide the "combines" like the "Tunguska" into separate artillery and rocket vehicles.
            At the same time giving the artillery complex additional features.

            Well, as for target designation, there has long been a tendency to "knit" all the air defense systems of the battlefield into a single system. Even MANPADS.
            Well, with a self-propelled artillery anti-aircraft gun, everything is much, much simpler. There are machine coordinates, there is a directional angle of the machine axis. Transmit target designation is a fraction of a second. You can immediately in the polar relative to the machine, you can in the rectangular, and the computer itself will recalculate in the polar-there program at the level of the calculator.
            Imagine 4 machines 57 mm air defense as part of a column. Helicopters first of all determine the means of air defense and the first thing Helfayers knock out this "under-defense".

            "Helicopters" will work on helicopters. With their much greater range. For the "Helfaers", which the helicopters will have time to release, and for the drones, which for these "Helphaers" will be highlighted, they will work out a 57-mm art. installation. Everyone is happy.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 30 January 2018 14: 30
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              Everyone is happy.

              Nope they’re not happy, all this is already now with shells only, it was used for soap, but to no avail, because this gun needs to be closer to the front line, where UAVs fly and where shells are useless.
            2. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 30 January 2018 15: 44
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              It seems that the BMP decided to give the gun a greater power and give it also the possibility of air defense

              Rather, they decided to divide the "combines" like the "Tunguska" into separate artillery and rocket vehicles.
              At the same time giving the artillery complex additional features.

              Well, as for target designation, there has long been a tendency to "knit" all the air defense systems of the battlefield into a single system. Even MANPADS.
              Well, with a self-propelled artillery anti-aircraft gun, everything is much, much simpler. There are machine coordinates, there is a directional angle of the machine axis. Transmit target designation is a fraction of a second. You can immediately in the polar relative to the machine, you can in the rectangular, and the computer itself will recalculate in the polar-there program at the level of the calculator.
              Imagine 4 machines 57 mm air defense as part of a column. Helicopters first of all determine the means of air defense and the first thing Helfayers knock out this "under-defense".

              "Helicopters" will work on helicopters. With their much greater range. For the "Helfaers", which the helicopters will have time to release, and for the drones, which for these "Helphaers" will be highlighted, they will work out a 57-mm art. installation. Everyone is happy.


              Something I’m not sure that even with the launch of only 4 Helpers at the same time, it is possible to select targets in the optical range and distribute air defense batteries between the machines.
              We will see.
            3. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 30 January 2018 16: 38
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              Well, with a self-propelled artillery anti-aircraft gun, everything is much, much simpler. There are machine coordinates, there is a directional angle of the machine axis. Transmit target designation is a fraction of a second. You can immediately in the polar relative to the machine, you can in the rectangular, and the computer itself will recalculate in the polar-there program at the level of the calculator.

              Yeah ... passed target designation. And then the car must detect the target and take it to follow. Only through the optical channel. And to determine the exact range - again, only through the optical channel. Determine exactly - for an error of 5 meters will lead to the fact that the target can go out of the projectile damage diagram. And all this will have to be done in motion. And remember about limited ammunition.
              In-line frequency response, centralized control of individual guns according to the data from a single radar and a special control system (for a towed storage system - one radar, a special control system and 4-6 guns) will not work - because in the movement it will not be possible to accurately determine the position of the vehicle relative to the radar.
              Quote: Spade
              For the "Helfaers", which the helicopters will have time to release, and for the drones, which for these "Helphaers" will be highlighted, they will work out a 57-mm art. installation.

              Do you propose to work against an ATGM with an optical channel? How to determine the range and speed of a target - to install a fuse?
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 30 January 2018 20: 37
                +1
                Do you think that the ECO does not have a laser length meter? And the accuracy in angular coordinates of the same ECO is quite sufficient. And for complex goals, they will most likely work with UAS and like all normal air defense systems - from a short stop, without extremes.
        2. chenia
          chenia 30 January 2018 15: 02
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          And if you consider it not as a lone machine in the field, but as one of the elements of the air defense / missile defense system of the battlefield?


          If we consider this system as an element of air defense. rather than a firearm having the ability to additionally (under certain conditions) perform the functions of air defense, then what prevents it from hammering two barrels into a larger tower. And the BC will be larger and the radar will crawl (40 year old 23 mm Shilke stood. If absolutely necessary, such a system could operate autonomously.

          And in this form, crap.

          The 57 mm caliber should return (standing in the tank regiments) to the regiment’s military air defense, in addition to the missile component. The smaller caliber (23 mm, 30 mm) is already weak, and you need to push it into the battalion unit.
          1. Spitfire
            Spitfire 31 January 2018 00: 31
            0
            Are we inventing ZSU-57-2? ;-) 2 S-60 and 300 rounds of ammunition. It remains only to attach the radar.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 32
              +1
              Quote: Spitfire
              Are we inventing ZSU-57-2? ;-) 2 S-60 and 300 rounds of ammunition. It remains only to attach the radar

              so attached in due time. But "Shilka" has already gone to the troops
      2. Simargl
        Simargl 30 January 2018 17: 07
        0
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        as air defense - little effective:
        - cannot provide protection against helicopters with long-range ATGMs.

        And if the goal is to protect against ATGMs themselves?
        If the goal is mosquito drones, ATGMs and other little things?
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 31 January 2018 10: 03
          0
          Quote: Simargl
          And if the goal is to protect against ATGMs themselves?
          If the goal is mosquito drones, ATGMs and other little things?


          Mosquito UAVs are cheaper to dazzle with a laser - much more efficient than bombarding it with a hail of shells, fragments of which can hit their own units (blasting projectile at low altitude - which can be shot) and the optimal height of a micro UAV is 300-500 m.

          ATGM does not intercept in the optical range - requires the height of the millimeter range.
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 1 February 2018 01: 12
            0
            Exploding a land mine, even 57 mm, at an altitude of 200+ m - is not dangerous.
            Impact UAV can be without optics at all.
            That ATGM shoot if - yes.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 30 January 2018 13: 56
      +1
      And bought a lot of these boxes?
      Why moot? Means of air defense without radar on the roof, like dogs uncut. Moreover, now TPV have quite acceptable detection ranges and at the same time they themselves do not shine like New Year trees. Before the first Helfire - it’s still necessary to determine that this is precisely a means of air defense, and not just BMP. Unlike the mastodon in the photo (and from the Tunguska, Thor, Wasp, etc.) it is not so easy. Despite the fact that there will generally be problems with finding targets on the battlefield - even without any clouds and snowstorms. But the range of the TSA is still not surpassed - you can always make a missile with a range of 2-3 km more than the enemy’s air defense.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 January 2018 14: 37
        0
        Quote: sivuch
        And bought a lot of these boxes?

        Who is to blame for the fact that the USSR died, and the military-industrial complex of the NATO countries began hard days. smile
        Quote: sivuch
        Why moot? Means of air defense without radar on the roof, like dogs uncut.

        And what are now ZSU without radar?
        The problem of the ZSU is that the shell (in the general case) in it is uncontrollable. And in order for the projectile to fall into the immediate vicinity of the target, it is extremely necessary to determine the parameters of the target (azimuth, elevation, range) and the rate of change. Otherwise, you can drop the entire BC into milk - or a cone of fragments (for a remote fuse) will pass by, or a couple of meters will not be enough for a radio fuse to fire.
        So the MMV radar for ZSU - a joke is extremely necessary. Moreover, EMNIP these radars have one generic feature - At some wavelengths, it is possible to achieve short range and fast attenuation of the signal in the atmosphere. So you won’t especially leave PRRs on them and you won’t scout positions with the help of RTR. smile
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 30 January 2018 20: 43
          +1
          And if managed? And you can accurately determine all 3 coordinates of the target without a radar
  10. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 30 January 2018 14: 08
    +1
    Let there be "Derivation-Air Defense", it will find its place in any in the Armed Forces of Russia.
  11. bk0010
    bk0010 30 January 2018 15: 50
    0
    Again, these “cover up, but not protect” ... ATGM “partners” have a range of 28 km, this thing - 6. Shoot down supersonic ATGMs with obstruction light, without automatic guidance on the radar? Too few chances. Now, if a control, reconnaissance and guidance vehicle is indeed made for them, then (provided that communication channels are available) it can turn out quite well: one expensive machine manages several fire engines, which it’s not a pity not only to use air defense tasks, but also against the “martyr’s” roll out for direct fire, without the risk of damage to the radar and other expensive components with “enemy machine-gun” fire.
  12. Curious
    Curious 30 January 2018 16: 22
    +1
    The author, in his usual habit, diluted a teaspoon of information in a barrel of water, as a result of which the article raises more questions than gives answers.
    The fact is that 57 enterprises take part in the creation of ZAK-10 "Derivation-Air Defense". And one of these ten is KB Tochmash to them. A.E. Nudelman. It was they who developed the guided artillery shell for the 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. Just this shell makes the ZAK-57 "Derivation-Air Defense" highly relevant.
    For those interested, not to copy-paste, http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/150162/.
    The author wishes - increase the content of information in your information solutions.
    1. Aleks2048
      Aleks2048 30 January 2018 21: 57
      0
      Interested in the price tag for a separate ammunition.
      1. Curious
        Curious 30 January 2018 22: 09
        0
        This, I think, to Lyaskovsky, Anton Viktorovich, commercial director of JSC AE Nudelman Design Bureau of Precision Engineering. Try phoning through the front desk.
  13. Megamarcel
    Megamarcel 30 January 2018 17: 25
    -1
    A little to make an analogue of the Swedish CV 90? She has a smaller caliber, but the accuracy and rate of fire is higher. And the network is full of videos of how she fires remotely detonated ammunition. Great car. And this derivation is some kind of horror. And yes, how will it hit the targets at a distance of 6 km. And where are the shells for her? Storytellers.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 30 January 2018 20: 40
      +2
      And where does the information about accuracy come from? And why the derivation will not hit the target at a distance of 6 km (the more so, you did not even bother to indicate which goals). Still, one needs to justify one's point of view.
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 43
      +1
      Quote: MegaMarcel
      A little to make an analogue of the Swedish CV 90? She has a smaller caliber

      I agree) Rate of fire more. BC transportable too. A shell with remote detonation in nature exists. There is no particular hope for UAS. It is better to supplement the receiver with a 40-mm pair of four SAM or ATGM. Then the machine will have much greater combat potential - and the UAV will reduce, and the helicopter will shugg, and will work on armored vehicles.
  14. demiurg
    demiurg 30 January 2018 17: 50
    0
    Quote: demiurg

    Without them there is a bunch of artillery.
    Shoot with PDO infantry - a fresh joke, it is better to succeed with target designation ..


    Okay, let's put it another way. Can support the fire without sticking out the tower for direct fire, or throw shells behind the house.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 45
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      Can support the fire without sticking out the tower for direct fire, or throw shells behind the house

      then you need a mortar laughing
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 3 February 2018 06: 53
        0
        Yes I need it. My opinion is that a fighter should not carry weapons on himself. It is simply a designator. And the department needs a car with 2-3 independent channels of destruction. 2 triples of fighters for each troika on the channel, plus a channel for the BM crew.
        (A tower with a gun and a machine gun, separately, the URs are cumulative and thermobaric, and an additional turret with an AGS or 82mm mortar). I’m for the mortar, since for 82mm you can implement the correction, or screw the inertial guidance system as the cheapest.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Aleks2048
    Aleks2048 30 January 2018 21: 53
    0
    I wonder ...
    Maybe you can take comments right from here ... https://topwar.ru/134834-amerikancy-reshili-strel
    yat-po-raketam-iz-pushek.html
    Yesterday's all the same article ...
    But in general, the use of barreled artillery against low-maneuverable non-high-speed air targets is quite acceptable ... especially if
    According to well-known data, the 2S38 Derivation-Air Defense self-propelled gun will receive standard means of detecting and tracking a passive type.

    all the same, if it is equipped with a radar ..
    In general, the issue of bases and their protection against UAVs needs to be addressed ... EW tools are good, but not a panacea.
    It seems to me that the concept should be something like this: you really need an automated module (to the filling it receives a radar automatic fire control system that issues data to an automatic gun with a caliber of 30 mm ... well, if you really want to, then probably 57 could also have a decent rate and a price tag on the ammunition was within reasonable limits, not like the amers with their idea of ​​smart ammunition with a trajectory corrected by the seeker) so that it could be installed on any chassis and that it worked in a stationary version. It is necessary that this module can also work with external target designation, for example, receiving data either from a neighboring module of the same type or from powerful air defense systems. So that these modules could work in the modes from manual control to fully automatic then stationary modules can be placed around the base, which will obviously be cheaper than the module on any chassis, and on the chassis so that they can be guarded in a mobile version.
    And so it turned out that UVZ doesn’t have fish or meat ... it also stands out as a novelty.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 48
      +1
      then you need a 35mm Zhek Rheinmetall Defense Skyshield. Everything is invented before us)
  17. Horse meat
    Horse meat 30 January 2018 22: 53
    0
    This cannon, air defense must be put on KAMAZ and shove tomahawks and drones.
    The cheapest way and very necessary.
    Throw balls or pebbles into the air.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 30 January 2018 23: 32
      0
      Not at all cheap. In World War II, air defense was spent breaking through shells, making very expensive and complex guns with a small resource, but rarely, to put it mildly, shot down. Bomb calmly, though they interfered. This was the main effect. As they used to say, "Air defense - like hair on a female organ - covers, but does not protect." And you won’t scare the drone. And here again for the old. Well, ours with 57 mm is still okay (although it’s already more expensive than a reasonable 35 mm), but the Americans generally want to make an anti-aircraft gun out of a 155 mm howitzer. They would attach a solid fuel accelerator to their "particularly smart" shells (they would make a regular rocket) and would not have to mess with an expensive and heavy gun (they would let them go from the pipe), would not have to spend money on electronics that are resistant to overloads.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 10: 02
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        They would attach a solid fuel accelerator to their "especially smart" shells (they would make a regular rocket) and would not have to mess with an expensive and heavy gun (they would let them go from the pipe), would not have to spend money on electronics that are resistant to overloads.

        Don't do this here. The Pentagon’s budget will not be mastered.
  18. Horse meat
    Horse meat 30 January 2018 23: 49
    0
    Near each tank to put a hunter with Izhevsk smoothbore, and let them score halfers.
  19. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 02: 00
    +2
    The main weapon of the ZSU 2S38 should be the latest 57-mm automatic gun

    How old is this "newest" gun? It was designed for the A-220 naval gun mount in the late 60s. And since then everything is newest? what
  20. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 31 January 2018 06: 11
    0
    It is possible that during such tests, the promising ZSU will use the latest high-explosive fragmentation shells with a programmable fuse.)))
    Drones will shoot down the very thing.
  21. race
    race 31 January 2018 20: 13
    0
    I don’t quite understand why we need a 57 mm anti-aircraft gun? Tungusks and armor caliber is not enough? Or is a 30 mm caliber small to handle a drone or a helicopter?
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 20: 38
      +2
      Quote: Rasen
      I don’t quite understand why we need a 57 mm anti-aircraft gun?

      many who do not understand.
      A helicopter air defense system is needed against the helicopter, which can fire it outside the zone of use of its weapons (guns, ATGMs). The 57-mm gun is already rather weak here.
      For a UAV, in principle, a 30-mm projectile will be sufficient.
      True, there are some buts.
      1. on armored vehicles 30 mm is already slabovat
      2. remote detonation is problematic
      3. A guided (adjustable) projectile in a 30-mm caliber cannot be made at all. The minimum caliber for him today is 57 mm. This was promised for the "Derivation", the British made their own - ORKA (Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft), or Mk295 MOD 1
      1. race
        race 31 January 2018 22: 18
        0
        Quote: Gregory_45
        many who do not understand.
        A helicopter air defense system is needed against the helicopter, which can fire it outside the zone of use of its weapons (guns, ATGMs). The 57-mm gun is already rather weak here.
        For a UAV, in principle, a 30-mm projectile will be sufficient.

        I agree completely.
        Quote: Gregory_45
        True, there are some buts.
        1. 30 mm already weak in armored vehicles
        2. remote detonation is problematic
        3. A guided (adjustable) projectile in a 30-mm caliber cannot be made at all. The minimum caliber for him today is 57 mm. This was promised for the "Derivation", the British made their own - ORKA (Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft), or Mk295 MOD 1

        1. According to armored vehicles ... depending on which: to penetrate an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle - a 30-mm caliber is quite enough, but it is not intended to be used against tanks. Yes, and the 57 mm against the tanks will be rather weak. But in general, the fight against armored vehicles is not a task for air defense, even if it is an army.
        2. 3. In the context of the use of “smart” shells, this makes sense, but so far, judging by the information, we do not have such shells. But if we specifically discuss "Derivation", then the effectiveness of a purely artillery anti-aircraft gun, not supplemented with SAM, and even more so with passive detection systems, causes me serious doubts. If I understand you correctly, then you do too.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 1 February 2018 10: 09
          +2
          Quote: Rasen
          According to the armored vehicles ..., depending on which: to penetrate an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle - a 30-mm caliber is quite enough

          Not against tanks, of course. Against light armored vehicles. This, of course, is a secondary task for ZSU, but still it is - as a means of self-defense. Unfortunately, Western armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles "build up the skin." They no longer make their way from the 30-mm gun into the forehead.
          Quote: Rasen
          the effectiveness of a pure artillery anti-aircraft gun, not supplemented by SAM, and even more so with passive detection systems, I have great doubts. If I understand you correctly, then you too

          I agree completely. Especially annoying lack of radar
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 31 January 2018 22: 36
        0
        1. For armored vehicles there are ATGMs
        2. Done (sort of)
        3. Americans made an adjustable bullet.
  22. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 31 January 2018 21: 16
    +2
    Lopatov,
    "Dear, let's start with the origins. What are the objectives of modern air defense battlefield?
    "Drones, ammunition barricades, high-precision aviation ammunition, anti-radar ammunition ... Are they not on the list of possible targets?"

    All this, of course, is. But the presence of goals and threats does not mean in any way that “Derivation” will be an effective means against each of them. Or argue too?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 January 2018 21: 32
      +1
      Quote: Gregory_45
      But the presence of goals and threats does not mean in any way that “Derivation” will be an effective means against each of them. Or argue too?

      No. I will ask why. All of the listed goals are low-speed, they also cannot be called actively maneuvering. Why ineffective?
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 January 2018 21: 45
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        Why ineffective?

        Mr. Lopatov, everything has already been said above. But since it gives you pleasure to pour from empty to empty, then:
        Each weapon has its own niche in which they are most effective. Some targets are more effective at hitting a projectile, others at a missile. The rapid-firing gun and SAM mounted on the same platform complement each other, leveling each other’s shortcomings, as if they were installed separately. The gun has a short reaction time, does not have a dead zone and relatively cheap ammunition, can work on ground targets. SAMs are more long-range and have a higher probability of defeat.
        Common truths, right?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 31 January 2018 22: 00
          +1
          Quote: Gregory_45
          Mr. Lopatov, everything has already been said above.

          Nothing is said there "above." Low speed, virtually no maneuvering target
          Why is it "inefficient"?
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 January 2018 22: 02
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Nothing is said there "above"

            Buy your glasses and take out your ear plugs. If a person does not understand - this is not so bad, if he does not want to understand - then you should not strain. All the best
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 January 2018 22: 31
              +1
              So will there be an answer to this question, or not?
              Here we go, absolutely specific.
              There is a 57 mm gun. There is a shell with remote entry of the time of detonation. There is a UAS with a non-contact fuse and laser-beam control (i.e. multiple shells can be fired at the same target).
              The most likely targets: aircraft-type UAVs, piston or with an electric motor, medium or heavy multicopter, Helfaer-type ATGMs, Orbiter-type munitions
              ZAK is in battle infantry. The angular velocities of these targets relative to ZAK are minimal.

              Question. What specifically makes this ZAK ineffective against these goals. Specifically.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 January 2018 23: 28
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                What specifically makes this ZAK ineffective against these goals. Specifically

                “Hellfire” he will not even see without external target designation. His speed is supersonic. Are you going to fire such a small-sized high-speed target from a cannon when aiming through optics? I wish you success)) You can immediately go to the Book of Records)) And sometimes something even more terrible "Hellfire" flies.
                "Arrow", MANPADS and so on - and those with external target designation usually managed to open fire on a subsonic target such as an airplane only after it.
                A combat helicopter in a duel with Derivation is more a hunter than a victim. If the pinwheel sees it earlier. then the northern furry animal of this ZAK. Ultimate and irrevocable.
                In total, we have that the goals for Derivation are UAVs. Those. essentially an anti-dron system. For those goals for which the missiles are sorry, but they must be shot down. Well, and what is her potential in battle formations? What they offer is even worse. than "Shilka", not to mention the "Tunguska" and "Shell".
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 1 February 2018 02: 15
                  +1
                  It is like - i.e. external control center for the arrows and MANPADS and do not need at all? who would have thought . By the way, what arrows? And what does a combat helicopter mean? there will be a battery on the battlefield, i.e. 4 BM seemingly practically indistinguishable from BMP. That's exactly what will not happen - duel one on one.
                  About Shilka, sorry, nonsense - that elementary did not have enough range and height of defeat to defeat drones.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 1 February 2018 09: 43
                    +2
                    Quote: sivuch
                    It is like - i.e. external control center for the arrows and MANPADS and do not need at all?

                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    "Arrow", MANPADS and so on - and those with external target designation

                    without external air defense target designation with passive detection and guidance means are blind
                    Quote: sivuch
                    there will be a battery on the battlefield, i.e. 4 BM externally almost indistinguishable from BMP

                    .. as well as SAM and SOC, "very similar to BMP"
                    Quote: sivuch
                    About Shilka, sorry, nonsense - that elementary did not have enough range and height

                    she had at least inferior, but PKK. As well as Tunguska and Shell. Those. could act autonomously. And the range and height - so it depends on what height the target goes, those funds work on it. You have all UAVs flying on the ceiling for 15 km, apparently. Let's say that Buk is bad, it can not shoot down targets in space and at a distance of 400 km. Byad .. ((
                2. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 1 February 2018 10: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  “Hellfire” he will not even see without external target designation.

                  In his sector, he will see. And there will be external target designation, because it’s not for nothing that the Barnaul’s troops went ...

                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  His speed is supersonic.

                  If ZAK will be in the battle formations of the infantry, then the angular velocity of the “Helfers” will be very small.
                  It is the angular that matters, not the absolute, right?

                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Are you going to fire such a small-sized high-speed target from a cannon when aiming through optics?

                  Uh ... What century are you living in?
                  Option One: Conventional Ammunition. The stabilized EOS EP sets a target for auto tracking, determines the parameters of the target trajectory by a series of serifs in polar coordinates, and transmits data to the ASUNO. That, based on data from the EOS OP and on the conditions of firing from an external source, determines the settings for creating a "cloud of gaps" in the path of the target
                  Option Two. Again, auto tracking, UAS management.

                  So I hasten to upset. There will be no gunner with an old telescopic sight trying to hit the Helfair

                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  A combat helicopter in a duel with Derivation is more a hunter than a victim.

                  Do you basically “bracket” the remaining elements of the battlefield air defense system? What kind of "duel"?

                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  In total, we have that the goals for Derivation are UAVs. Those. essentially an anti-dron system.

                  Verbally. Arguments confirming this you have not given.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 1 February 2018 11: 31
                    +2
                    Quote: Spade
                    So I hasten to upset. There will be no gunner with an old telescopic sight trying to hit the Helfair

                    in order to take the target for tracking it needs to be detected and recognized. In your opinion, all this will be done by a "smart" sight. Are you not a relative of Hans Christian?
                    Quote: Spade
                    Option One: Conventional Ammunition.

                    what is the probability of hitting the target and what is the ammunition consumption of the ship's ZAK, given that it has radar guidance and a much higher rate of fire, and the target is subsonic? (rhetorical question)
                    Quote: Spade
                    Option Two. Again auto tracking, UAS management

                    or one option - do not spend a few UAS (which is underdeveloped), but use specialized missiles
                    Quote: Spade
                    Do you basically “bracket” the remaining elements of the battlefield air defense system? What kind of "duel"?

                    Well, you, we are talking about stem Derivation. And all the other means, which are in the infantry orders, are extremely vulnerable, in your opinion. "Combine" with radar and missiles, which can get a turntable for 15 kilometers - this is bad. A barrel anti-aircraft gun with a maximum range of 6 km and optics - that's it. So we are talking about your child prodigy.
                    Quote: Spade
                    Verbally. Arguments confirming this you did not give

                    I can say the same about you.
                    The fact that the gun does not reach the range to the SAM - garbage. The fact that UAS does not reach the probability of defeat to missiles - also garbage. The fact that the car does not have a radar for detection and target designation is also garbage. These, of course, are not arguments for you. Who would doubt that. Those. For purposes such as UAVs, helicopters, ATGMs, it can effectively bring down only UAVs - this is not an argument, of course.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
  23. Lopatov
    Lopatov 31 January 2018 22: 47
    +1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Count as you like. Wrote what I wrote. An example was not given to you to compare weights, but as an indicator of the need for a working engine

    Damn, I can’t get an answer from you exactly on this issue, the question of weight. And on the issues of dimensions.
    "Correct" missile and artillery "combine". With the right rockets, enough for of protection firing range. Able to act autonomously, that is, with a station for detecting and tracking targets in a REP environment. Enough protected for being in battle formations of the infantry of the first echelon.
    What is the weight and dimensions.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 January 2018 23: 08
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      Damn, I can’t get an answer from you exactly on this issue, the question of weight. And on the issues of dimensions.

      You are like a child, by golly))
      Quote: Spade
      With the right rockets

      fasten any small-sized SAM with a firing range of 15-20 km.
      Quote: Spade
      with sufficient range to protect

      not with a sufficient firing range for protection (you yourself have come up with this and pass it off as my words), but with a reasonably reasonable 40 mm gun. having sufficient power to work on light armored vehicles, helicopters suddenly appearing, drones, still possessing quite a sufficient rate of fire and ammunition.
      Quote: Spade
      with a target detection and tracking station

      The carapace somehow did not break, having all this. And the Cheetah too. And 100 tons (as you say) they do not weigh)
      Quote: Spade
      Protected enough to be in battle formations

      bulletproof armor will not work, no? Armor is needed no less than tank, in your opinion? And DZ more, more on top))
      Now consider it yourself, and be surprised that all this will interfere with a conventional tracked chassis (not articulated and obviously not weighing 100 tons).
      But you, of course, it is better to have as many as four instead of one car. Have you ever thought about the disastrous effects of a radar spacer and a gun for a mobile system? Even ship trying to combine, not to mention self-propelled.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 1 February 2018 02: 05
        +1
        When all of the above is screwed, you will get a monster, which is found at ranges much greater than the range of its missiles. And with an external control unit (yes, it is unlikely without it), the same Helfire, not to mention subsonic drifts, will be destroyed by the same UAS. It’s just that the method and time of transmitting the control unit should differ from Vasya, some crap flies to the left of the bell tower.
        Yes, and probably enough to rinse the footcloth from 2013, with the help of which General Luzan heroically fights with the Shell. In modern conditions, the ability to shoot down maneuvering targets with a large parameter is far from the most important thing.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 1 February 2018 09: 58
          +2
          Quote: sivuch
          When all of the above is screwed, then you will get a monster

          I really didn’t think that a car on an average chassis weighing 40-50 tons is a "monster". All have their own concepts of superlative depth.
          Quote: sivuch
          the same Helfire, not to mention subsonic drift, will be destroyed by the same UAS

          UAS is an attempt to replace with something cheap SAM, with all that it implies, i.e. with reduced performance. Price in exchange for less efficiency. For me, it’s better to have specialized weapons that more effectively solve the task, and not use ersatz means. To defeat some targets, it is better than missiles, to hit others - a projectile. Accordingly, the ZRPK also has a fast gun and short-range missiles. Of course, you can try to unscrew the screws with a knife, and they can also cut the poles - at least it will work out. But it’s better to take a screwdriver and an ax for this
          Quote: sivuch
          and probably enough to rinse the footcloth from 2013

          Can you refute what is written there arguably? No? Then stoically accept the facts. In addition, what I cited was not given to defame the Shell, but solely to show that the UAE will always lose to the normal SAM (or the ATGM used instead)
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 1 February 2018 10: 30
        +2
        Quote: Gregory_45
        You are like a child, by golly))

        So will the answer be, or not? Or is the answer too uncomfortable?

        Quote: Gregory_45
        fasten any small-sized SAM with a firing range of 15-20 km.

        You stated above that not any. Defending the urgent need for a heavy rocket with a constantly running jet engine. To make the goal easier to defend against it.

        Quote: Gregory_45
        not with a sufficient range for protection (you yourself have come up with this and pass it off as my words)

        These are my words, not yours. There is no sense in ZRAK, which is not able to reach the target before it reaches the range of use of guided weapons. With this approach, you will destroy several motorized rifle battalions in their entirety with several “shelves” of the type “Tsesna Kombat Caravan”, without entering the zen strike zone. funds.

        Quote: Gregory_45
        Quote: Spade
        with a target detection and tracking station
        The carapace somehow did not break, having all this. And the Cheetah too.

        Do not forget ZRAK in infantry battle formations. It is exposed to enemy artillery fire. How much will a radar protected from fragments weigh? So with a high probability "breaks".
        Quote: Gregory_45
        bulletproof armor will not work, no?

        Arranges protection from 12.7 machine guns. Well, fragments of art. shells. Moreover, the protection of everything, including radar.
        Quote: Gregory_45
        Now consider it yourself and be surprised that this will all fit in with a conventional tracked chassis (not articulated and obviously not 100 tons in weight)

        That is, a very large machine is a sedentary vehicle with dimensions and weight greater than a tank.
        Somehow it’s scary coming out, don’t you?
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 1 February 2018 11: 16
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          So will the answer be, or not? Or is the answer too uncomfortable?

          the answer was given to you. If you didn’t see it, it’s your carelessness, don’t make your flaws public

          Quote: Spade
          Quote: Gregory_45
          fasten any small-sized SAM with a firing range of 15-20 km.
          You stated above that not any.

          Oh oh It would be nice to quote. so as not to be branded as a liar
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: Gregory_45
          not with a sufficient range for protection (you yourself have come up with this and pass it off as my words)
          These are my words, not yours. There is no sense in ZRAK, which is not able to reach the target before it reaches the range of use of guided weapons. With this approach, you will destroy several motorized rifle battalions in their entirety with several “shelves” of the type “Tsesna Kombat Caravan”, without entering the zen strike zone. funds.

          This is again your speculation. They invented it yourself - argue with yourself. I argued the following: the distant zone of destruction of the ZRAK will be provided with SAM, the nearest - with guns. Thus, covering the entire affected area, without dead zones, and having the ability to quickly respond to a sudden threat
          Quote: Spade
          Arranges protection from 12.7 machine guns. Well, fragments of art. shells. Moreover, the protection of everything, including radar.

          Where did you see the anti-bullet radar antennas? What nonsense are you talking about?
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: Gregory_45
          Now consider it yourself and be surprised that this will all fit in with a conventional tracked chassis (not articulated and obviously not 100 tons in weight)
          That is, a very large machine is a sedentary vehicle with dimensions and weight greater than a tank.

          Well, if for you 40 tons is more than a tank, then we will leave it on your conscience. The car turns out no more. than Cheetah with screwed missiles or Tunguska
          Quote: Spade
          Do not forget ZRAK in infantry battle formations. Exposed to enemy artillery fire

          you guess them even let the tanks go ahead. There were such flocks in Grozny
  24. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 4 February 2018 09: 14
    0
    The 57-mm caliber is very specific to both the fleet and the military air defense: it is inferior in rate of fire to any 30-mm system and cannot compete in firing range and the power of ammunition with the 76-mm caliber. The creation of the same programmable ammunition for these calibers will solve the problem. It seems the Italians were offering an 76-mm self-propelled anti-aircraft defense? And the optical system on the "Shell M" is hardly inferior to that considered in the article ...
  25. Forever so
    Forever so 4 February 2018 13: 00
    0
    Well, here the new spiral is closed)) We return to the reliable SHRAPNEL))) In general, the SHILKA, with its equipment, detected the luminous cup from the flare and hit it with the second shell. Although what am I talking about ??)) It's the same old stuff, WOOL !!!, where did you drink ?? where is the intrigue ??
  26. alexdolon
    alexdolon 11 February 2018 14: 15
    0
    An interesting article, I would like more information about this Baikal