Military Review

Increase the range of barrel artillery. ERCA Program (USA)

49
One of the main characteristics of artillery guns that have a great influence on the results of firing is the range of the projectile. All the leading developers of artillery weapons are trying to increase this parameter, which should have a positive effect on the combat qualities of weapons. In the United States, the task of increasing the range of fire is solved within the framework of the ERCA perspective program. In the course of work on this topic, necessary studies were carried out and several new systems were prepared.


As the American military and armaments specialists have repeatedly noted, modern 155 mm caliber artillery guns can send conventional projectile to a range of about 30 km. The use of a number of already known and new solutions, according to calculations, makes it possible to increase the firing range by two or more times. It is for this purpose that the development of a new ERCA project (Extended Range Cannon Artillery - “Long-Range Barrel Artillery with Increased Range”) is underway.

Project, layout and prototype

The proposal to create a promising sample of howitzer artillery with increased range appeared at the beginning of this decade. The program, which later became the current ERCA project, was launched in 2015. Arsenal Picatinny, who is part of the Center for Military Development, was appointed the lead contractor. The defense industry in the program was represented by BAE Systems and other organizations responsible for the supply of certain components.

Increase the range of barrel artillery. ERCA Program (USA)
Model howitzers M777ER. Photo US Army


The ERCA research work showed that the new artillery complex with enhanced characteristics should include several components of various kinds. First of all, it is a weapon with a recycled barrel and advanced controls. In addition, it became necessary to develop a new projectile and a propellant charge for it. The resulting multi-component system could be produced in a towed version or mounted on self-propelled chassis.

All components of the artillery complex ERCA received their own working designations. The howitzer of the new type is designated as XM907. The controlled active-projectile for it is called XM1113, the propellant charge is XM645. Also in the course of the program some other samples were created with their own designations, including indications of their origin.

In March, 2016, Arsenal Picatinny and BAE Systems told about the completion of part of the work and the transition to a new stage. To carry out the first checks on the ERCA project, a prototype model of a promising howitzer was built. This product was made on the basis of the M777A2 serial gun and was named M777ER - Extended Range. The product with the letters “ER” retained the serial gun carriage and part of the artillery units. In this case, an updated stem group was applied. The main difference between the base gun and the prototype was the increased length of the barrel. As part of the M777ER instead of the standard barrel length 39 calibers used elongated - 55 calibers. Due to this, the length of the towed gun increased by 1,8 m, and weight - by 1000 pounds (about 450 kg).


Experienced gun M777ER at the site. Photo US Army


The M777ER mockup could not be fired and used in full-fledged testing. Nevertheless, with its help, the project developers were able to carry out part of the necessary checks and identify all the main technical and operational features of the updated tool. Apparently, according to the test results of the prototype, the existing project was finalized with the elimination of the main drawbacks. All this work took about a year.

At the beginning of 2017, BAE Systems built the first full-scale prototype of the M777ER towed howitzer, capable of solving all the tasks. The prototype was tested, during which showed its capabilities. Due to the lack of new shots during testing, existing projectiles and variable charges such as MACS were used, however, in this case, it was possible to obtain remarkable characteristics. According to the Pentagon, an increase in the maximum range of fire of several kilometers was shown. However, the exact distance indicators were not disclosed.

After testing the start of the 2017, the M777ER gun was sent back for refinement and refinement. A few months later, in the middle of the summer, new tests took place in the conditions of the landfill. The military once again went without details, but reported that the activities were a success. At the end of the autumn passed new tests. This time artillerymen from army units and the Marine Corps were attracted to the works. The howitzer should have been evaluated by its future operators.


In preparation for the shot. Photo US Army


Last year it was reported that construction of new prototypes of various kinds was planned for 2018-19 years. In addition, during this period, the Pentagon was going to test the future M777ER gun with a new shot. Checks of the artillery system in full force made it possible to count on obtaining all the desired characteristics and combat capabilities. However, the details of future activities until a certain time remained unknown.

Self-propelled version

In October, the regular annual exhibition-conference of the Association of the US Army was held. As part of this event, various news and showcasing promising designs. This year, for the first time, the conference showed materials on a new project under the ERCA program. This time it was about creating a promising self-propelled artillery, armed with an improved howitzer. A prototype had already been built, which during tests was able to show very high combat characteristics.

As the basis for the ERCA ACS, the chassis of the M109 serial machine is used. Instead of a standard turret on a new self-propelled gun, a different combat module with advanced equipment is used. Inside the turret of a new type are placed the gun installation, the laying of ammunition and crew jobs. Replacing the old howitzer with a new model using other ammunition led to the need to restructure the entire turret, including its armored dome. In some sources, the re-armed combat vehicle is designated as M109A8, but this name is not used in official reports.


MXNUMHUK howitzer (foreground) and base M777A777 (rear). Photo US Army


The ERCA prototype is equipped with an XM907 155 caliber mm. Unlike the previous M777ER, the new howitzer has a barrel length 58 caliber. It is equipped with a developed muzzle brake, but it does not have an ejector on the barrel. The charging chamber is optimized for the application of promising shots in the composition of the XM1113 projectile and the XM645 charge. Experienced howitzer XM907 complies with all the basic provisions of the ERCA program and is fully capable of solving the tasks.

Together with the self-propelled gun of a new type, the XM1113 controlled active-projectile was launched for testing. This product is an ammunition caliber 155 mm with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead and its own solid-fuel engine. Control and guidance is carried out by the system of inertial and satellite navigation, as well as with the help of aerodynamic control surfaces. The projectile can be used as a promising tool, and the existing ACS family M109. At the same time, a howitzer with a barrel of 39 calibres of length sends it to a distance of more than 40 km.

At the AUSA-2018 conference, the military told about the beginning of fire tests of the promising self-propelled gun ERCA / M109A8. During the firing with the use of all the components of the new artillery complex, it was possible to obtain a shot range at the level of 62 km. It was noted that such indicators are not the limit. In the future, the system in the form of XM907, XM1113 and XM654 should show a firing range of more than 70 km. When exactly such results will be obtained was not specified.


Experienced ACNUMX based ACS with a new turret and XM109 gun. Photo Thedrive.com


Plans for the future

According to several reports in recent years, the current stages of the ERCA program will continue until the beginning of the next decade. Over the next few years, Picatinny Arsenal and related organizations will have to complete development work, and then new products will be able to go into the series, after which they will go to the troops. At the same time, the process of mastering the latest material part will be delayed in some way.

The initial plans of the ERCA program, compiled in the 2015 year, included the launch of full-scale trials in the 2017-18 years. In the second quarter of 2019, the launch of mass production of one of the new products was scheduled. Apparently, already in 2020, the US Army will be able to receive the first serial howitzers M777ER or similar towed systems created under the ERCA program. Exact plans to launch the production of self-propelled artillery installations with new turrets and XM907 guns have not been published yet.

A key element of the artillery complex ERCA are promising shots with an active-projectile. These products will enter the series only in the 2022 year, since they need time to be refined and improved. The XM1113 guided projectile, capable of attacking targets at long distances and striking them with high accuracy, is pinned great hopes in the context of re-arming land artillery. Because the army can not afford to order a "raw" product, although it is ready to sacrifice time for its fine-tuning.


Upgraded M109 on trial. Photo Militaryleak.com


Technology issue

The main task of the program Extended Range Cannon Artillery, as its name implies, is a radical increase in the firing range of the barrel artillery. As its solution, it is proposed to use several well-known principles in combination with a completely new material part. The result of this approach has already become a shot at a distance of 62 km. It is quite possible that the M777ER and XM907 guns are already storming the line into the indicated 70 km, and soon the Picatinny Arsenal or the Pentagon will tell about such successes.

It should be noted that the use of obvious ideas did not save the authors of the ERCA project from the need to develop various components that meet current requirements. So, at first glance, howitzer M777ER differs from the basic M777A2 only in the barrel length. However, according to representatives of the American army, the creation of a new trunk was not the easiest thing. It took to find the optimal material and design of the trunk, providing the necessary strength.

In the next project, XM907, a propellant charge is applied, giving greater pressure in the bore, resulting in the creation of a new pipe with enhanced strength and stiffness characteristics. At the same time, both guns, having relatively long barrels, are distinguished by a great return. For the compatibility of such stem groups with existing carriages and chassis needed new recoil devices and muzzle brake. Thus, the unification of the two prototypes, the M777ER and the M109A8, with the base products is much lower than it might seem.


M109 with a standard turret (left) and an upgraded prototype (right). Photo Militaryleak.com


However, such efforts make sense. The new towed howitzer can now be built on the existing gun carriage without its serious processing, and the advanced fighting compartment for self-propelled guns is compatible with the serial chassis. In this case, two samples of artillery weapons show a significant increase in combat performance.

Unfortunately, American organizations have not yet clarified the cost of a promising project and the economic features of its results. In 2015-17, the ERCA program spent about 5 million dollars, but in the future, according to the plans, the costs should constantly grow. The main part of the program budget will eventually be spent on the purchase of mass-produced weapons. The total cost of a promising program, including the release of new weapons, may exceed several billion dollars. However, such expenses may be considered acceptable - given the advantages of new designs.

Preliminary findings

Currently, howitzer artillery of the US Army, both towed and self-propelled, is capable of hitting targets at ranges of no more than 30-35 km; and for this it needs to use active-reactive and / or guided projectiles. In terms of range, modern versions of the M109 self-propelled gun or the M777 towed howitzer, as well as other weapons, have almost no advantages over foreign models. Moreover, in some cases, American artillery even lags behind them.



To maintain parity or even gain benefits, the Pentagon launched the ERCA program. In just a few years, it has led to the desired results, although it has so far only been observed at the test sites. New artillery complexes could show a range of more than 60 km, and this, it is said, is not the limit. Work continues, and in the future long-barreled guns will have to launch active-missiles at a distance of more than 70 km.

In general, while the program Extended Range Cannon Artillery looks very interesting. Its technical part shows its viability, and prototypes demonstrate the desired characteristics. Thus, in just a few years, the US Army will be able to become the world leader in terms of the range of artillery fire. However, the financial features of the current program are not yet clear. The development of new projects, the construction of finished samples and their operation in the troops can be very expensive, which may have a certain effect on the results of the entire program.

The ERCA program in recent years regularly shows new successes, and the Pentagon takes the opportunity to boast of them. Thus, new reports on the development of promising artillery guns may appear in the very near future. In addition, we can already expect news on the launch of mass production and the purchase of weapons. Unless, of course, the US military decides to complain about the excessive cost of the new howitzers and the impossibility of their mass purchase.

On the materials of the sites:
http://army.mil/
https://defense-update.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
https://janes.com/
http://armyrecognition.com/
https://defensemaven.io/
https://militaryleak.com/
Author:
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. jonht
    jonht 25 December 2018 07: 05 New
    -1
    As far as I remember, MSTA-S hits 40 km with an ordinary projectile, and a bit further active-reactive, the COALITION is already active-reactive hit 70 km and this is, according to open data, available in the public domain.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 25 December 2018 08: 10 New
      +5
      Quote: jonht
      As far as I remember, MSTA-S hits 40 km with an ordinary projectile, and a little further active-reactive

      You remember wrong. Krasnopol, it seems, didn’t fly at 25 in reality, and the Centimeter is even smaller.
      Quote: jonht
      The COALITION is already active-reactive hits 70 km and this is according to open data, available in the public domain.

      The coalition can even beat Berlin from Red Square, not toss the bags.
      Quote: rocket757
      Something after all will get there where it is necessary.

      Not once an artilleryman, but your ideas about using artillery are outdated. The task of art, relatively speaking, is to get into the right house in a city building and NOT to get into the neighboring one, this is no less important. Area-based systems are not in demand.
      1. jonht
        jonht 25 December 2018 08: 41 New
        0
        Especially for you from open "sources", so to speak, not I came up with:
        Link to TTX MSTA-B https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A119;
        Link to TTX COALITION ST https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A135.
        Although I must admit in the first part I wrote not quite right, up to 40 km, but I did the opposite. Here I apologize for this, but about the rest there are other open (closed) data you share, it's interesting to compare.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 December 2018 09: 01 New
          +4
          Quote: jonht
          Link to TTX MSTA-B

          If you read the entire text, you will find out that the figure of 29 km refers to the 3VOF91 shot with a gas generator. He is uncontrollable. The number 40 there applies to the canceled project 2C19M. A remote analogue of the American controllers are the shells I mentioned.
          Quote: jonht
          TTX COALITION ST

          The SV coalition, and this is also indicated by your link, belongs to the category of cartoon-ceremonial weapons that have dominated Russia in recent years. It can be compared with ER (while the latter is not in reality), but not with the existing paladin and escalibur.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 December 2018 18: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            belongs to the category of cartoon-ceremonial weapons

            ??
            This is a breakthrough topic, at the moment no one has analogues
            Americans and Germans could overtake, but couldn’t
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 December 2018 18: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Area-based systems are not in demand.

        Quite the opposite, they are in demand first of all. Moreover, the stronger and more technologically advanced the enemy, the work on the areas is in higher priority.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Krasnopol, it seems, didn’t fly at 25 in reality, and the Centimeter is even smaller.

        And this is too much in modern conditions. The problem is the projectile.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 December 2018 18: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          ??
          This is a breakthrough topic, at the moment no one has analogues

          You write it like it’s as if Russia has it.
          Quote: Spade
          Moreover, the stronger and more technologically advanced the enemy, the work on the areas is in higher priority.

          The stronger the enemy is developed, the less likely it is that the barrel artillery will be able to reach the position at all.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 December 2018 18: 59 New
            +3
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            You write it like it’s as if Russia has it.

            Definitely.

            Quote: Cherry Nine
            The stronger the enemy is developed, the less likely it is that the barrel artillery will be able to reach the position at all.

            Throws his hats?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 December 2018 21: 41 New
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Definitely.

              About this Mr. Zakamenny from the Central Research Institute Petrel told the Russian newspaper, if not mistaken.
              Quote: Spade
              Throws his hats?

              You guessed half. No caps, no.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 25 December 2018 22: 01 New
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Central Research Institute Petrel

                That is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Coalition"

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                You guessed half. No caps, no.

                And, I know, a document will be adopted recognizing the means of electronic warfare, air defense, camouflage and other measures to counter inhuman and violating the right to aggression
                So be victorious
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 25 December 2018 23: 33 New
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  That is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Coalition"

                  You may notice that news on weapons that have no global arms is usually delivered by people who have nothing to do with them. So questions to the WG.
                  Quote: Spade
                  And, I know, a document will be adopted,

                  It has long been adopted, and not one. These are the charters of the types of armed forces of countries - potential opponents.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 December 2018 07: 25 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    It has long been adopted, and not one. These are the charters of the types of armed forces of countries - potential opponents.

                    These are the times .... They have in their charters a prohibition of opposition ?????
  2. rocket757
    rocket757 25 December 2018 07: 14 New
    +1
    It is clear that the projectile is active, such as smart, it is aimed at the target itself, there are limitations and the price is not small .... which will be more effective in terms of the totality of parameters, a rocket, a drone or a projectile, while no one offers an answer.
    Just a bullet at a range, it’s relatively cheap, it’s not realistic to reflect, but accuracy is not ah! The dispersion cone, the same barrel wear, accuracy, range reduces!
    For any you can fill up with quantity! Something after all will get there where it is necessary.
    Gunners, you have the floor.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 25 December 2018 09: 26 New
        0
        If it’s just at a range, without a goal to get somewhere specifically, you can leave it “brainless”.
        Then I do not understand why the garden fence? The specific goal must be achieved, while increasing the cost of the product! Fly far, hit for sure!
        In short, it is not clear. Now everyone is preoccupied with creating super-precise weapons. Let dear, but irresistible and right on target!
    2. letinant
      letinant 25 December 2018 09: 28 New
      0
      That's the thing! They create a projectile at a distance, while CVO (circular probable deviation) suffers. With increasing range, the CVO increases. Such a problem with MLRS missiles, a gyroscope was put into the tornado missile to reduce the notorious CVO. To make the shell of an American gun also smart, you need to stick your brains in this way to reduce the warhead (warhead). Yes, I forgot, there is also a jet engine, because it is ACTIVE. The gunner should sit with the sight and aim, otherwise it doesn’t work, and this is the occupation of the DRG. And the above said: "getting into the house" from such a distance is ridiculous. Barreled artillery is created to shoot at squares, there are guided missiles for targeted work.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 25 December 2018 09: 38 New
        +1
        It is clear MLRS, aviation, missiles and shock drones now .... i.e. the arsenal of weapons is great, what else are they missing? Irresistibly and precisely on target, it’s understandable, but the PRICE ???
        In short, they are wise, can the babosiks want to earn money, on a not very fresh topic?
        1. letinant
          letinant 25 December 2018 23: 57 New
          +1
          Earn the wrong word, if they succeeded at least something worthwhile, would have trumpeted the whole planet, and here, from their words, everything worked out, but we won’t show you. Remember all their successful projects.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 December 2018 18: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: letinant
        . With increasing range, the CVO increases.

        KVO guided ammunition does not depend on range, this is their cimus
        1. letinant
          letinant 25 December 2018 23: 54 New
          +1
          For guided missiles, guidance is important. It can be issued in three ways by a GPS satellite, aviation, DRG (diversionary reconnaissance group). In a big war, navigation satellites will be destroyed, in addition, these are attacks only against stationary targets, you should not count on aviation, with a firing distance of 70 km, no one will allow it to enter such a range into the enemy’s defense for target designation. And the DRG, there are also many nuances, starting with casting and operational efficiency and ending with noticeability in target designation for optical reconnaissance.
          1. letinant
            letinant 26 December 2018 00: 01 New
            +1
            And if you create weapons only for guided missiles, look at the destroyer Zamvolt and the fate of its artillery installations.
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 26 December 2018 08: 12 New
              +1
              It is profitable for the manufacturer to make a "space fountain pen", heaped up and expensive. The military is not against efficiency and bells and whistles, but the price, this stumbling block will always be.
              1. letinant
                letinant 26 December 2018 08: 44 New
                +1
                I agree, the developer and he is the manufacturer, it is beneficial to create such a Crap. Which is in demand. But you need to create it as expensive as possible. In my youth, I thought that every bullet was a target. When I got into the armed forces, I realized that not everything is so simple. Sometimes the simplest weapon gives high efficiency.
                1. rocket757
                  rocket757 26 December 2018 08: 56 New
                  0
                  Quote: letinant
                  Sometimes the simplest weapon gives high efficiency.

                  This is so, but they do it anyway, complicate it, COMFORT and will continue! Progress cannot be stopped and greed cannot be abated!
                  1. letinant
                    letinant 26 December 2018 12: 00 New
                    0
                    The whole point of the development is to push the enemy to a distance with which the enemy cannot answer. Even if the effectiveness remains the same. For example, a platoon stronghold is destroyed by 10 shells, but, you are from a distance of 45 km. and the enemy with 30km. But you need shells with better characteristics than the enemy and this is technology and price.
                    1. rocket757
                      rocket757 26 December 2018 12: 13 New
                      0
                      The way that military operations are being carried out now does little for advanced systems for development. Unless Israel, "trains" enemy air defense. And so, opponents have different support for advanced, most killer systems, like that. pieces are used here and there.
                      Serious, well-equipped opponents do not conflict with each other.
                      So there’s especially nowhere to test advanced technology, so Schaub was real, serious opposition to it! Hollywood movies are about nothing, these are continuous fairy tales!
                      Therefore, I can’t imagine how to evaluate it, so military manufacturers should find consensus themselves, but here there is room for ..... in short, room!
                      1. letinant
                        letinant 26 December 2018 13: 27 New
                        +1
                        According to the latest events in the world, the fic knows what awaits us.
          2. ty60
            ty60 3 February 2019 00: 57 New
            0
            and through which the DRG will give you the info if all the navigation satellites are eliminated?
            1. letinant
              letinant 3 February 2019 04: 48 New
              0
              UAV repeater, antenna repeaters, many options.
  3. Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 25 December 2018 07: 56 New
    +3
    "Crisis of the genre", in the words of the classics?
    Literally in June, there was an article exactly on the same topic, also from Ryabov, in fact, a similar retelling (and even most of the photos here remained the same). https://topwar.ru/143193-bolshaya-dalnost-i-vysokaya-stoimost-perspektivnaya-gaubica-m777er-ssha.html
    I am in some perplexity.
  4. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 25 December 2018 15: 10 New
    +1
    Well, it’s good that screams do not dominate in the discussion that has begun: but figs are long-range artifacts to us, if there are rockets ... "beautiful and different ..." But such a "point of view" begs! Oh, how they once abused Khrushchev ...! For spreading artillery ... But with the development of missile weapons, Khrushchev's “worldview” again “pops up”! Do modern armies need artillery if cheaper (than now ...) guided (adjusted) missiles go into mass production? More precisely ... is further high-tech development (improvement) of artillery necessary? Increasing the artillery firing range with unguided artillery shells is pointless ... Improving artillery through the development of guided (adjustable) ammunition? And how “easy” it is to squeeze into the artillery shell (limited in size!) GOS electronics, “inertial”, GPS, explosive charge effective enough for the military mission .. rocket accelerator (if necessary ...) or gas generator ... ? Moreover, this should withstand pressure, acceleration in the barrel of the gun ... Do you think it will turn out cheaper, also or more expensive than a tactical (regimental) missile, where there are no such restrictions on electronics, explosives .... pressure, etc. ? And what difference does it make if the same chassis is useful for self-propelled guns of the Msta-S type and for tactical missile self-propelled guns! Moreover, the tactical missile launcher is “easier” to perform in the form of a “module”, for transfer to the desired area by helicopters, with the possibility of “landing” on any turned up “self-propelled” platform.
    Self-propelled guns can take dozens of artillery shells ... (most likely, unguided ...), but how to evaluate the “sense” if all the ammunition goes to defeat 1-2 targets? An alternative is guided artillery shells ... but if tactical "infantry" missiles turn out to be cheaper? What saves art? The presence of old and large stockpiles of ammunition ... Of course, if some army buys both artillery and ammunition, then you have to take it, sometimes, every shell. And if the army has enough old stocks? Why part with guns if "free" shells are "unmeasured" to them? And to destroy the "Papuans" the possibilities of art with the "old" ammunition are enough. A definite "good" for the "traditional" artillery would be the creation (adoption of) of relatively cheap corrected artillery shells ... as it was dreamed of with RCIC technology .. The idea was promising, but in fact ..... At the same time , there are “prerequisites” for the creation of relatively cheap tactical (divisional, regimental, and, subsequently, battalion ...) missiles. If, once “inertials” weighed tens of kilograms, and now in electronic toys they pull by grams. It’s just that children's (electronic) toys (and smartphones too ...) became active “consumers” of miniature “inertials”. More recently, toys such as toy helicopters were sold without "inertia" (only the most expensive, "elite" helicopter toys were equipped with them!) Now, the problem is to find a helicopter toy without an "inertia"! But is it really impossible to “toy” inertials with a “comparatively cheap” rocket? And also, electric drives on miniature stepper motors, piezoelectric motors ...? Rockets with solid propellant rocket motors are very widespread. In such missiles, the following "minuses" can be noted, as the inability to repeatedly "on-off." difficulty adjusting traction. But this problem seems to be a thing of the past. There are ways to create solid propellant rocket engines with the ability to control thrust, with repeated on-off ... You can create rockets with ramjet, PuVRD, "new" rocket engines ... The production of turbo-charged engine engines gives turbines and compressors for "miniature" turbojet engines for winged mini - rocket. Representatives of such a "class" of missiles are, for example, "barrage ammunition", made as drones. In general, if you manage to create “cheap” tactical “infantry” missiles, then such missiles will greatly displace traditional artillery.
    1. chenia
      chenia 25 December 2018 16: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In general, if you manage to create “cheap” tactical “infantry” missiles, then such missiles will greatly displace traditional artillery.


      This will never happen (well, except that in the era of blasters).

      Excluding local conflicts with barmales, the increase in range is due to some tactical changes.

      Firstly. The concentration of forces and means in the breakthrough areas is no longer secretly possible. And now (in principle, for a long time) they are talking about concentrating efforts on the offensive sections. So, it is necessary to reduce artillery fire on the corresponding targets in the breakthrough areas.

      Secondly. Theory of deep fire destruction - the defeat of the enemy to the entire depth including the operational area.

      third. Change in the formation of the battle order (it was, in principle, earlier, as desirable, or if the situation allows). Creation of a significant zone of support, when the main forces will be located at a considerable distance from the line of contact.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 25 December 2018 18: 19 New
        0
        Thank you for responding to my comment ... Alas, there is no time to "debate" with you. I will try to answer later ... hi
      2. ty60
        ty60 3 February 2019 01: 08 New
        0
        A massive artillery strike is several times cheaper than any missiles today. Besides Kuzkina’s mother. That’s why it’s in demand. Because it’s being improved. The range is increasing. It’s still very relevant.
    2. English tarantas
      English tarantas 25 December 2018 16: 44 New
      0
      I think that is unlikely. We must not forget that the artillery shell has a number of significant differences giving it (so far) some advantage, such as the impossibility of intercepting, the price, weight and size of the shell more convenient for transportation. An infantryman of the army of any country frankly does not care about a rocket, he will die or he will have a shell, but more shells can be brought to the battlefield. You yourself say that the size of the necessary units is getting smaller every month, the price is lower, and the efficiency is higher. And what if the rocket is redundant for a specific purpose, and the barrel artillery is near in bulk, it is easier to have several adjustable shells in each calculation. And increasing the firing range is a completely separate topic and regularity of the evolution of guns. So missiles will not completely (!) Replace guns up to regiments for many more years, but for now, corrected shells will be in demand.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 25 December 2018 18: 16 New
        0
        Quote: English Tarantas
        So the missiles will not completely (!) Replace the cannons up to the regiments for many more years, but for now, the corrected shells will be in demand.

        I do not claim, but only guess ... wait and see!
        Quote: English Tarantas
        more shells can be brought to the battlefield.

        ... which creates additional problems for the normal functioning of the logistics. What is the "charm" of the "large number" of shells if they are used to defeat one target that one rocket can destroy? This, if we keep in mind the "traditional" (unguided) shells. Correctable shells ... They can be taken more .... But is it not because such shells may not be powerful enough because of their limited dimensions and they will need more ... with a total cost significantly exceeding the "price" of one tactical missile. In addition, I do not urge to "throw out" the art at all! It's too early! But I try to look into some future and ask the question: is it necessary to improve (!) Art? Maybe, while you can get by with the old guns, mortars ... and there, you see, the tactical ("infantry") missiles will arrive in time? wink
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 December 2018 18: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Well, it’s good that in the discussion that started, screams do not dominate: but on us, long-range artifacts, if there are rockets ...

      It’s just that I was very busy in the morning.
      We do not need long-range receiver "art"
      fellow
      1. chenia
        chenia 25 December 2018 19: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        We do not need long-range receiver "art"


        Well, how not needed.
        And how will we carry out the artillery attack?
        Looking to occupy the OP at night? Already will not pass, secrecy will not provide.
        Yes, and with a tendency to reduce time on OH, it is desirable to occupy the fire (with movement) to the line of contact at the beginning of the offensive (it is easier to prepare everything), and this taking into account the depth of the task of the day of the division. (25-35 km) ..
        A maneuver of fire on the defensive?

        The enemy in the areas of concentration and when nominating, it’s clear (we do not consider aviation) that it’s better to beat MLRS (cluster, correctable).
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 December 2018 19: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: chenia
          And how will we carry out the artillery attack?

          As always, reducing as far as possible the distance to the line of contact. No other way...
          Quote: chenia
          Looking at night to occupy the OP?

          ?
          Is it possible that if the Defense Ministry continues to persistently abandon ASUNO

          Quote: chenia
          A maneuver of fire on the defensive?

          Similarly. What is the point of useless firing unmasking firing?
          1. chenia
            chenia 25 December 2018 20: 51 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            As always, reducing as far as possible the distance to the line of contact. No other way...


            Create 3-5x superiority? AS ?
            Even if you focus art. units in the waiting areas (with the subsequent exit in front of OH to the OP), it is still not possible to hide the transfer of such forces) So, initially (until the enemy’s artillery is significantly suppressed, but it’s also necessary to work on infantry), you will have to concentrate the artillery forces of neighboring units, without special involvement of the artillery of the RGK (their bulk will be advanced after the start of the artillery bombardment (or, as it is now, the artillery cover of the extension).

            Quote: Spade
            Is it possible that if the Defense Ministry continues to persistently abandon ASUNO


            Here. I meant. that previously massing forces made it possible to relatively quietly carry out an occupation of OP under cover of night (50 years ago we were taught this. Now it will not work out).

            By the way, if before the line of contact it is possible without ASUNO. OP known coordinates, BP prepared, pegs driven in, VT marked (pile of knives), goniometer for each gun (orientation). Here is the movement beyond the line — then OH, without ASUNA not life(direct meaning).
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 25 December 2018 21: 30 New
              +2
              Quote: chenia
              it’s not possible to hide the transfer of such forces anyway

              Sorry, are you going to fight without infantry to go? The nomination of even several artillery divisions amid the advancement of one reinforced battalion MC is such a trifle ....

              Quote: chenia
              Here. I meant. that earlier massaging forces allowed relatively secretive occupation of the OP under cover of night

              Israeli self-propelled mortars are capable of firing closed or half-closed from short stops. That is, just crawl behind the TBTR and tanks, with the goal of stopping, a volley of fire units, and drove on.

              In general, for firing units equipped with guns with ASUNO, it is enough to send transport vehicles before the offensive to lay out ammunition for shooting from the ground, well, the guns can move in infantry battle formations.

              Quote: chenia
              the pegs are driven in, the VTs are indicated (pile of knives), the protractor for each gun (orientation). In

              This is a terrible anachronism.
              It used to work with all these ZiS-3s and Kulak sawn-off shotguns, but now the process of installing the gun with the exact panorama positioning over the peg takes so much time that it’s faster to reorient the gun
              1. chenia
                chenia 25 December 2018 22: 09 New
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Sorry, are you going to fight without infantry to go?


                When the infantry moves out of the source, the artillery has already begun to work (which means it should already be in place - OP).
                And already there should be the previously indicated superiority in forces and assets in the band of at least two divisions (for the army).
                Well, how to secretly provide?

                Quote: Spade
                Israeli self-propelled mortars capable of firing closed or half-closed from short stops


                And we have? Is it not up to 500 m from the chain? These are firemen. And the item is a little out of chain. So what?

                Quote: Spade
                equipped with guns with ASUNO it is enough to send transport vehicles before the offensive to lay out ammunition for shooting from the ground,


                Something from Hasek pulled. Everything was fine. The kitchens overtook the troops until the General Staff intervened.
                if ASUNO then the zone occupation of the OP, area 600X600, where the hell will we spread?

                Quote: Spade
                This is a terrible anachronism.


                Well. This is an example I gave when there is no money, but I really want to laughing
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 26 December 2018 07: 46 New
                  0
                  Quote: chenia
                  When the infantry moves out of the source, the artillery has already begun to work

                  Both begin to advance simultaneously. Now there is absolutely no need to accumulate artillery at the contact line
                  Quote: chenia
                  And we have? Is it not up to 500 m from the chain? These are firemen. And the item is a little out of chain. So what?

                  Not yet. But providing artillery with such means is orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to accurately shoot with long-range barrel artillery
                  Quote: chenia
                  where the fuck will we spread?

                  Uh ... I don’t even know what to say. Have you heard anything about planning? Without it, it is simply impossible to ensure the normal operation of the guns from several positions replaced after firing raids
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 26 December 2018 14: 14 New
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    Both begin to advance simultaneously. Now there is absolutely no need to accumulate artillery at the contact line


                    The question is, who should deal with the cover of the advance of infantry? That is, that part of the artillery will be advanced with the infantry. This is clear. But the grouping should already be leading. having superiority over the opponent. And this is artillery of the formation, the battle formations of which are in the stripe of the strike division. And here it is. range and allows you to focus efforts.

                    There is no need, and there is no possibility to carry out this secretly, as I said -
                    not a massing of forces, but a concentration of efforts..

                    Further I did not understand, at the line.

                    Artillery is dispersed (OD) in depth from the contact line, usually no further than 1/3 of the firing range of this system.

                    .
                    Quote: Spade
                    Not yet. But to provide artillery with such means by orders of magnitude


                    Yes, like forty (almost) years ago, being by chance (seconded for 2 months) by the commander of a .min.battery, at exercises further than 500 m (or even closer to the circuit, they were not detached, well, this is already in the process of attack). Yes, it seems, and so is written in the charters.

                    Quote: Spade
                    Have you heard anything about planning?


                    Even very much than I know. You probably meant up to the line of contact? Then this is understandable, it was and will be done.
                    But beyond the line of contact. only possible areas of the OP are indicated.

                    And who (whose transport), for the battery still firing, will deliver the PSU to a future position behind the contact line? Moreover, laying out at each place guns.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 December 2018 16: 56 New
                      +1
                      Quote: chenia
                      The question is, who should deal with the cover of the advance of infantry?

                      Artillery moving with infantry. Modern ASUNO and ASUV allow this to be done.

                      Quote: chenia
                      Artillery is dispersed (OD) in depth from the contact line, usually no further than 1/3 of the firing range of this system.

                      I remember that the battalion commander teased us at the school that 2 hours is quite suitable for the statutory "no more than eight hours of sleep"
                      Artillery should be located as close as possible to the targets, and it is limited only by its own infantry

                      Quote: chenia
                      You probably meant up to the line of contact?

                      Naturally.
                      Quote: chenia
                      And who (whose transport), for the battery still firing, will deliver the PSU to a future position behind the contact line?

                      Those same TZM at the battery and division level. For which there is not enough money.
                      1. chenia
                        chenia 26 December 2018 18: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Artillery moving with infantry. Modern ASUNO and ASUV allow this to be done.


                        Well it is clear. to build effort. And initially, cover the deployment of infantry - the period of fire support of the advance (the initial line of 20-40 km). you must already have fire superiority.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Artillery should be located as close as possible to the targets, and it is limited only by its own infantry


                        There are more than 30 fire batteries in the MSD (more than motorized rifle companies), battalion artillery of the second-tier regiments also takes part in artillery training, if you occupy a 3 km zone to the line of contact, the density will be fake. Verified.
                        Fire control of the division (deployed, and not when one gun depicts a division), and taking into account mainly the M-30, D-1, sometimes D-30 systems (this is a range of 11-15 km) i.e. disperse in depth is not very possible. and reduced to a breakthrough site.
                        So here is the battery on the batteries (150 m) apart.
                        So this is 100 trunks per 1 km of the front (for a breakthrough). It will not be enough. And the attack of the neighbor, who will support? Another limited range artillery.
                        So for 2-3 km from the contact line there will be porridge (which was in the Second World War - but then this option passed).

                        And one more thing - the construction of battle formations (as in our country as well as in the enemy's) implies having a supply line of up to 10 km from the contact line to the main defense line.

                        Well, what will we get?

                        In short, systems with a range of - regimental up to 25 km, divisional up to 30-35 km are needed.
                        And the battalion is up to 15 km (VIENNA almost fits.)
      2. ty60
        ty60 3 February 2019 01: 11 New
        0
        Then you to Khrushchev
  5. rayruav
    rayruav 25 December 2018 18: 14 New
    0
    an increase in the firing range leads to a significant increase in the cost of barrel artillery, which contradicts its existence. if we want to shoot far and precisely for this there are rzso and tactical missile systems, and if we need to conduct a fire roll in front of the advancing troops, then something is cheaper
    1. UNSHOD
      UNSHOD 6 March 2019 22: 26 New
      0
      Yes, I am a dragon, I like to eat and drink.
      And don't stop me
      More food ... Yick, I can’t ...
      1. UNSHOD
        UNSHOD 6 March 2019 23: 14 New
        0
        Increased range leads to bending of the barrel during firing, if available, the barrel leads. A second shot is thrown there, throws your something there, at the point of no calculation. In fantasies, use what works in practice. Sometimes polygonal destruction of locations take priority.