Military Review

30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?

94
Since about the middle of the 20th century, the 30 caliber mm has de facto become the standard for automatic guns. Of course, automatic caliber guns of other calibers, from 20 to 40 mm, also became widespread, but the 30 mm caliber received the most widespread distribution. Especially widely-fired 30 mm caliber guns are common in the Armed Forces of the USSR / Russia.


The scope of the automatic guns of 30 mm caliber is huge. it aviation guns on fighters, attack aircraft and combat helicopters, quick-fire guns of infantry fighting vehicles (BMPs) and short-range air defense systems (air defense systems), and air defense systems of the near zone of naval surface ships fleet (Navy).

The main developer of 30-mm automatic guns in the USSR / Russia is the Tula Instrument Engineering Design Bureau (“KBP”). It is because it came such remarkable 30 mm automatic cannon as product 2A42 installed on BMP-2 and Ka-50 / 52, Ni-28, this product 2A72, installed in the tower module BMP-3, together with 100 mm cannon and 12,7 mm machine gun, 2А38 rapid-firing double-barreled guns mounted on Tunguska and Pantsir anti-aircraft cannon-missile systems (ZPRK), aircraft GSH-301 for Su-27 and MIG-29 aircraft, 6-AI-AI-18 aircraft, 6-AI-AI-AI-AI-AI-AY-6 aircraft -YN-30 -GN-XNUMX and MIG-XNUMX, shipboard 6 -N-XNUMX -GN-XNUMX aircraft for Su-XNUMX and MIG-XNUMX aircraft; -XNUMXK) and other models.

30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?

30-mm gun 2А42 - probably, “Kalashnikov assault rifle”, among automatic guns


- caliber: 30 mm, cartridge - 30 × 165 mm;
- length: mm 3027;
- full mass: kg 115;
- rate of fire variable: 550-800 shots / min. or 200-300 shots / min;
- gun power: two-tape (selective ammunition);
- barrel survivability: 9000 shots;
- effective manpower range: up to 4000 m;
- effective firing range for lightly armored vehicles: up to 1500 m;
- effective range of air targets: to 2000 m / 2500 m.


At the same time, in the 21st century, complaints about 30 mm automatic guns began to appear. In particular, combat armored vehicles of the ground forces (SV) were equipped with enhanced armor protection capable of withstanding 30 mm cannon fire in a frontal projection. In this regard, the words began to sound about the transition to automatic guns caliber 40 mm and more. In Russia, more and more, you can see samples of armored vehicles with 57 mm automatic gun 2А91, the development of the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik".


BMP-3, equipped with combat module AU-220М, with automatic gun caliber 57 mm


- length: 5820 mm, width: 2100 mm, height: 1300 mm;
- cartridge: 57 × 348 mm SR;
- gun firing rate: 120 shots / min;
- firing range: 12 000 m;
- ammunition: 80 shells.


However, with increasing caliber dramatically reduced ammunition. If for 30-mm guns BMP-2 ammunition is 500 shells, for 57 mm guns AU-220М module, which can be installed on both BMP-2 and BMP-3, ammunition is only 80 shells. The overall dimensions of the modules, with 57 mm caliber guns, do not always allow them to be placed on compact samples of armored vehicles. The 57 mm cannon is also unlikely to be installed on a helicopter or aircraft, even if it is placed close to the center of mass, like on the Ka-50 / 52, or to build an airplane around the cannon, like the American A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft.


Automatic 30-mm seven-barreled attack aircraft A-10 Thunderbolt II


In aviation, the very necessity of installing an automatic gun is often questioned. A significant increase in the power of radar and optical location stations (radar and OLS), the improvement of air-to-air missiles (in-in) long, medium and short range, in combination with all-guidance systems, minimize the likelihood that the situation in the air will reach the “dog dump” ", I.e. maneuverable air combat with the use of automatic guns. Technologies to reduce the visibility and electronic warfare (EW) are unlikely to change this situation, since in any case the growth of the capabilities of modern radars and OLS will most likely make it possible to detect and attack an aircraft with “stealth” technology beyond the range of automatic cannons.

At present, automatic guns on multifunctional fighters remain rather due to a certain conservatism of the air force.

For combat helicopters, the use of an automatic cannon means an entry into the zone of destruction of hand-held air defense systems of the short-range “Igla” / “Stinger” type, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and small-arms guns of ground-based combat vehicles.

The use of automatic guns in the composition of ground-based anti-aircraft missile systems also raises questions. As part of one complex, automatic cannons are used on the Soviet / Russian anti-aircraft missiles “Tunguska” and “Pantsir”. According to the results of the hostilities in Syria, all real combat targets were brought down by missile weapons, not automatic guns. According to some reports, automatic 30 mm guns do not have accuracy and accuracy sufficient to defeat small-sized targets, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or guided / unguided ammunition.


Table of targets affected by the C1 Shell Armor in Syria


This leads to the fact that often the cost of the downed target exceeds the cost of the anti-aircraft guided missile launched on it. Large targets, such as an airplane or a helicopter, try not to fall into the range of automatic cannons.

The situation is similar in the fleet. If subsonic anti-ship missiles (RMS) can still be hit by multi-barreled automatic guns, then the probability of hitting supersonic maneuvering RCC is significantly lower, not to mention hypersonic RCC. In addition, high flying speed and a significant mass of supersonic / hypersonic anti-ship missile can lead to the fact that even if it is defeated at a short distance from the ship, the remnants of a half-destroyed anti-ship missile will reach the ship and cause significant damage to it.

Summarizing the above, it may turn out that in Russia, in the ground forces on infantry fighting vehicles, 30 mm, automatic guns with high probability will be replaced by automatic guns of the 57 mm caliber, on airplanes most of the time the automatic gun free of charge takes place in anti-aircraft missiles As both ground forces and the Navy, the role of automatic guns of the 30 caliber mm is also decreasing, which can lead to their gradual abandonment and replacement by the RIM-116 air defense system. Can this lead to the gradual oblivion of 30 mm weapons, and what are the areas of development and scope of use for rapid-fire cannons of this caliber?

The use of automatic guns of 57 caliber on the BMP does not mean that there is no place for their 30-mm counterparts on other samples of ground combat vehicles. In particular, NGAS presented the concept of installing modules with the M230LF gun on armored vehicles, small-sized robotic complexes and other vehicles, as well as stationary structures, as a replacement for 12,7 mm machine guns.


Automatic gun M230LF caliber 30 mm on an armored car



Automatic gun M230LF caliber 30 mm on ground-based remote-controlled robotic complex



Automatic gun M230LF caliber 30 mm on a stationary turret


Similar remotely-controlled weapons modules (DUMV), for use on light armored vehicles and ground-based robotic complexes, can also be developed on the basis of Russian automatic guns of the 30 caliber mm. This will significantly expand their scope and market. Significant recoil 30 mm guns can be reduced by limiting the rate of fire of automatic 30 mm guns at 200-300 shots / min.

An extremely interesting solution could be the creation of compact remote-controlled weapon modules based on 30 mm cannons, for use on the main combat tanks, as a replacement for the anti-aircraft 12,7 mm machine gun.

It is worth noting that the issue of equipping tanks with an auxiliary gun of 30 mm caliber was repeatedly considered both in the USSR / Russia and in the NATO countries, but it never came to large-scale production. For the T-80 tanks, an installation with an 30-mm 2-42 automatic gun was created and tested. It was intended to replace the machine gun "cliff" and was mounted in the upper rear of the tower. The pointing angle of the gun is 120 degrees on the horizon and -5 / + 65 degrees on the vertical. The ammunition should have been 450 shells.


Experienced placement of 30-mm guns 2А42 on the T-80 tank (photo Dmitry Semenov)


The prospective 30-mm remote-controlled weapon module should have a circular view horizontally and a large vertical pointing angle. The power of an 30-mm projectile, compared to a 12,7 mm caliber bullet, combined with maximum visibility from the roof of a tank turret, will significantly increase the tank's ability to combat tank-dangerous targets, such as rocket launchers and armored vehicles with an anti-tank missile, to increase the capabilities of hitting aircraft assault weapons. the adversary. The massive equipment of tanks DUMV with 30 mm guns can make such a class of armored vehicles as a combat vehicle support tanks (BMPT).

Another promising direction in the use of 30 mm cannons as part of tank armament can be joint work with the main weapon in the defeat of enemy tanks equipped with active defense complexes (KAZ). In this case, it is necessary to synchronize the work of the main gun and 30 mm guns so that when firing at an enemy tank firing the 30-mm round of projectiles was carried out a little earlier than the shot of an armor-piercing projectile (BOPS) of the main gun. Thus, the hit of 30-mm shells initially causes damage to the elements of the active protection of the enemy tank (radar detection, containers with striking elements), which allows the BOPS to easily hit the tank. Of course, shooting should be carried out in an automated mode, i.e. The gunner leads the crosshair to the enemy's tank, selects the “against KAZ” mode, presses the trigger, and then everything happens automatically.

The option of 30 mm equipment for shells can also be considered by some aerosol or other filler, and a remote-explosive fuse. In this case, the 30 mm projectile line detonates in the zone of operation of the active protection of the enemy tank, preventing the operation of its radar detection equipment, but not interfering with the BOPS flight.

Another direction in the development of the field of application and increasing the efficiency of 30 mm automatic guns is the creation of projectiles with remote disruption on the flight trajectory, and in the future the creation of 30-controlled projectiles.

Shells with remote undermining developed and implemented in the NATO countries. In particular, the German company Rheinmetall offers 30 mm projectile air blasting, also known under the designation KETF (Kinetic Energy Time Fused - kinetic with a remote fuse), equipped with an electronic timer, programmable inductive coil in a muzzle.

In Russia, 30-mm shells with remote explosions along a trajectory were developed by the Moscow NPO Pribor. Unlike the inductive system used by Rheinmetall, the Russian shells used a system for initiating a remote blasting using a laser beam. Ammunition of this type will be tested in the 2019 year and in the future should be included in the ammunition of the latest combat vehicles of the Russian army.

The use of shells with a remote undermining on the flight path will increase the capabilities of the air defense missiles equipped with 30-mm automatic guns to combat small-sized and maneuvering targets. Similarly, the air defense of ground combat vehicles equipped with 30 mm automatic cannons will increase. Opportunities for the defeat of enemy personnel in open areas will increase. This is especially important for tanks, if they are equipped with a DUMV with an 30 mm automatic cannon.

The next step could be the creation of guided projectiles in caliber 30 mm.

At the moment there are developments of guided projectiles caliber 57 mm. In particular, BAE Systems Corporation at Sea-Air-Space 2015 for the first time introduced the new 57-mm guided projectile ORKA (Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft), designated as Mk 295 Mod 1. The new projectile is designed for firing from 57-mm naval universal automatic artillery mk 110. The projectile must have a dual-channel combined homing head - with a semi-active laser channel (guidance is carried out using external laser targeting) and an electron-optical or infrared channel using memory of the target's appearance.


Developed by BAE Systems 57-mm guided projectile ORKA


According to some data, a 57 mm caliber controlled projectile is also being developed in Russia for the anti-aircraft defense module. The development of a guided projectile is carried out by the “A. Nudelman Design Bureau Tochmash”. The developed guided artillery projectile (UAS) is stored in a battle pack, launched from a rifled gun barrel and guided by a laser beam, which allows hitting targets in a wide range of ranges - from 200 m to 6 ... 8 km to manned targets and to 3 ... 5 km to unmanned .

Glider UAS is made by aerodynamic scheme "duck". The plumage of the projectile consists of four rudders, laid in the sleeve, which are deflected by the steering actuator located in the nose of the projectile. The drive works from the oncoming air flow.

UAS is fired with a high initial speed and almost immediately has the necessary lateral accelerations for guidance. The projectile can be fired in the direction of the target or in the calculated pre-empt point. In the first case, the guidance is carried out by the method of three points. In the second case, the guidance is carried out by adjusting the projectile flight path. In both cases, the tele-orientation of the projectile in the laser beam is made (a similar control system is used in the Kornet ATGM of the Tula “KBP”). The photoreceiver of the laser beam pointing at the target is located in the end part and is closed by a pallet, which is separated in flight.


Anti-aircraft 57-mm UAS: 1 - protective cap, 2 - centering corbel, 3 - sleeve, 4 - steering gear, 5 - non-contact target radio sensor, 6 - explosive, 7 - plumage


Is it possible to create guided projectiles in caliber 30 mm? Certainly it will be much more difficult than the development of UAS in caliber 57 mm. The 57 mm caliber projectile is in fact closer to the 100 mm caliber projectile, the guided ammunition for which has been built for a long time. Also, the use of 57 mm UAS is most likely planned in a single shooting mode.

Nevertheless, there are projects to create managed weapons in significantly smaller dimensions, for example, a controlled cartridge caliber 12,7 mm. Such projects are being developed both in the United States, under the auspices of the notorious DARPA, and in Russia.

Thus, in 2015, the US Department of Defense conducted tests of promising EXACTO bullets with a controlled flight path. The bullets developed under the Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance program will be used in a new high-precision sniper rifle complex, a special telescopic sight and guided cartridges. Technical details about the ammunition are not disclosed. According to unconfirmed reports, a small battery, a microcontroller, a laser sensor and folding steering wheels are installed in the pool. After the shot, the microcontroller is activated and starts to drive a bullet to the target with the help of released air rudders. According to other information, the correction of the flight is carried out by the deflected tip of the bullet. The guidance system is presumably telecontrol in a laser beam.


Supposedly, this is Exacto's controlled bullet.


According to the Russian Advanced Research Foundation (FPI), Russia also began testing the “smart bullet” in a controlled flight mode. In parallel, it was suggested that the basis could be taken 30 mm ammunition, which can accommodate the control unit, the source of the movement, the stabilizer unit and the warhead. However, according to the latest data, Russia has postponed for an indefinite period the project of creating guided bullets capable of correcting its flight. This is not necessarily due to the technical impossibility of their creation, often the limiting factor is the financial factor, or changing priorities.

Finally, the closest project, in relation to the 30 mm guided missile we are interested in, is the Raytheon project - MAD-FIRES (Multi-Azimuth Defense System, Interception Round, Rapid Interception and All-Round Attack). The MAD-FIRES project is an attempt to combine the accuracy of the missiles and the “let's shoot more of them because they are cheap” approach. Projectiles must be suitable for firing from automatic guns of caliber from 20-ti to 40 mm, while MAD-FIRE ammunition must combine the accuracy and controllability of missiles with the speed and rate of fire of conventional ammunition of the appropriate caliber.


MAD-FIRES guided missile


Based on the above examples, we can assume that the creation of guided ammunition in the caliber 30 mm is quite a feasible task for both the Western and Russian military-industrial complex (MIC). But how much is it necessary? It goes without saying that the cost of guided projectiles will be significantly higher than the cost of their uncontrolled counterparts, and higher than the cost of projectiles with remote disruption in the trajectory.

Here it is necessary to consider the situation in the complex. For the armed forces, the cost / efficiency criterion is decisive, i.e. if we hit a tank, cost 10 000 000 $ with a rocket for 100 000 $, then this is acceptable, but if we hit a jeep with a 100 000 $ jeep with a large-caliber machine gun, the total cost of 10 000 $, then this is not very good. However, there may be other situations, for example, when an anti-aircraft missile for 100 000 $ intercepted a mortar for 2000 $, but this did not destroy the aircraft at the airfield for 100 000 000 $, the pilot and support staff did not die. In general, the question of cost is a multifaceted question.

In addition, the development of technologies makes it possible to optimize the manufacture of many components of promising products - high-precision casting, additive technologies (3d printing), MEMS technologies (microelectromechanical systems), and much more. It’s hard to say what the cost of the 30 managed projectile mm will ultimately be for developers / manufacturers - 5000 $, 3000 $ and maybe the entire 500 $ apiece.

Consider the impact of the appearance of 30 mm projectiles driven by shells on increasing the efficiency and expanding the scope of use of high-speed guns.

As mentioned earlier, in aviation, maneuvering combat with the use of guns became extremely unlikely. On the other hand, it is extremely important to create a kind of "active protection" of the aircraft against attacking missiles. In the west, they are trying to solve this problem by creating highly maneuverable CUDA interceptor missiles developed by Lockheed Martin. Such missiles do not interfere with our country.


CUDA interceptor missile


As a means of active protection against attacking missiles in-in, you can also consider the use of 30 mm guided projectiles with remote disruption in the trajectory. Ammunition of a modern fighter is about 120 pcs. 30 mm shells. Replacing existing standard ammunition with 30 mm shells with a remote undermining will allow high-precision fire on guided air-to-air or enemy ground-to-air missiles on oncoming traffic courses. Of course, this will require the aircraft to be equipped with an appropriate guidance system, including the 2-4 laser channels, to ensure the simultaneous attack of several targets.

In the event that a maneuverable air battle does take place, an aircraft with 30 mm guided projectiles will have an undeniable advantage due to the greater aiming firing range, no need to precisely orient the fixed cannon of the aircraft to the enemy, and to compensate, within some limits, the maneuvers of the enemy by adjusting the flight path of the aircraft shells.

Finally, when solving such a task as repelling a raid of long-range high-precision cruise missiles (KR), the pilot, after exhausting the missile ammunition, can spend several 30 mm projectiles guided on one conventional Tomahawk, i.e. one fighter can destroy the entire salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic which may be a Virginia-type submarine, or even two.

Similarly, the use of controlled 30-mm projectiles in the ammunition armament of an air defense of a surface ship will allow to push the line of destruction of anti-ship missiles. Now for official Kashtan anti-aircraft missile complex (ZRAK), the official sources indicate the zone of destruction by artillery weapons in the range from 500 to 1,5 thousand meters, and in fact the destruction of the anti-ship missiles is carried out at the turn of 300-500 m, at the range 500 m probability defeat PKR "Harpoon" is 0,97, and at a distance 300 m - 0,99.

The use of 30 mm guided missiles, as well as the use of any guided weapons, will increase the likelihood of damage to the missiles at a significantly greater distance. Also, it will reduce the size of the ship's artillery installations, by reducing the ammunition and the abandonment of the Duet type monstrous items.


Shipboard two-automatic 30-mm automatic duo artillery mount


The same can be said about the use of 30 mm-guided shells in ground-based missiles. The presence of ammunition "Pantsirey", 30 mm shells, will save rocket weapons with the defeat of subsonic high-precision ammunition, leaving missiles for the aircraft carrier, which will reduce the likelihood of repetition of situations in Syria, when the air defense system with spent ammunition was destroyed with impunity.

From an economic point of view, the defeat of mortar mines and 30 mm balloons with guided missiles should also be cheaper than with anti-aircraft missiles.

Finally, the use of controlled 30-mm projectiles in the ground equipment and combat helicopters will allow you to destroy targets from a longer range, with a significantly higher probability and with less ammunition consumption. If there are high-quality sighting devices, it will be possible to work on the enemy's vulnerable points - observation devices, areas of weakening armor, air intake filters, elements of the exhaust system, and so on. For a tank with a DUMV 30 mm, the presence of guided ammunition will more accurately hit the elements of the active defense of the enemy tank, work on attacking helicopters and UAVs with a high probability of hitting the target.

The Russian 2А42 and 2А72 cannons have an important advantage over many others - the availability of selective ammunition from two shell boxes. Accordingly, in one box can be managed 30 mm ammunition, in the other ordinary, which will allow you to choose the necessary ammunition based on the situation.

The use of 30-mm guided projectiles in the interests of all types of armed forces of Russia will reduce the cost of a separate projectile due to the mass production of standardized components.

Thus, it is possible to formulate a conclusion - to extend the life cycle of high-speed automatic guns of caliber 30 mm will give the following directions of development:

1. Creation of the most lightweight and compact combat modules on the basis of 30-mm guns.

2. The massive introduction of shells with a remote undermining of the flight path.

3. Development and implementation of 30 caliber mm guided missiles.
Author:
Photos used:
kbptula.ru, burevestnik.com, otvaga2004.ru, bmpd.livejournal.com, vestnik-rm.ru, nevskii-bastion.ru
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. podgornovea
    podgornovea 27 February 2019 06: 18
    0
    Nevertheless, there are projects to create managed weapons in significantly smaller dimensions, for example, a controlled cartridge caliber 12,7 mm. Such projects are being developed both in the United States, under the auspices of the notorious DARPA, and in Russia.

    Well, this is already too much (if only with remote detonation :))
    Not for nothing that they switched from 7,62 to 5,45 (one of the advantages is a larger ammunition load) - it turned out to be cheaper than increasing the accuracy of 7,62
    1. AUL
      AUL 27 February 2019 07: 49
      +1
      If you stuff a 12.7 mm bullet with electronics, rudders and drives to them, then it will lose a good half of the mass, and with it all its advantages over 7.62 - range, flatness, power. So is it worth the fence?
      1. anzar
        anzar 27 February 2019 13: 09
        -1
        So is it worth the fence?

        Worth- for snipers. They will not carry guns heavier than .50 caliber, and the entire bullet filling is a deflectable nose and laser sensors at the rear.
        1. AUL
          AUL 27 February 2019 13: 56
          +4
          Quote: anzar
          and the whole bullet filling is a deflectable nose and laser sensors at the back.

          Just something?
          1. And who will reject this nose? Need some kind of drive. This is weight and volume. And who will manage this deviation? So, the chip. Weight and volume. Power to this chip? Weight and volume.
          And here both weight (small) and volume work against the ballistics of a standard configuration. This is not a 125 mm shell, where these factors affect slightly!
          2. But - let's say! Now please explain how and where this deviated nose will turn rotating bullet? Or do you offer to shoot a smooth-bore shotgun?
          1. anzar
            anzar 27 February 2019 14: 10
            +1
            And here both weight (small) and volume work against bullet ballistics

            The bullet will be made a little longer. In addition, in conventional ballistics, the excess-damaging effect on soft targets remains much further than accuracy — the ability to get there.
            ... please explain how and where will this deflected nose turn the rotating bullet?

            I don’t know, probably to the same place where the control surfaces turn the projectile at 30-57mm (also rotating by the way)))
            1. AUL
              AUL 27 February 2019 19: 55
              0
              Quote: anzar
              The bullet will be made a little longer.

              So, will a new rifle complex be created for this bullet?
              In addition, in conventional ballistics, the excess-damaging effect on soft targets remains much further than accuracy — the ability to get there.
              Since we are talking about a large-caliber sniper (antimaterial) weapon, let's not talk about the "destructive effect on soft targets." Ballistics cannot be redundant when it comes to accuracy.
              I don’t know, probably to the same place where the control surfaces turn the projectile at 30-57mm (also rotating by the way)))
              And what, 30 - 57 mm guided shells already exist?
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              Either a rotating abturator, as in rifled guns, or a system of angular correction, as on MANPADS Strela-2,3 and Igla with Verba missiles.

              Those. Do you offer to shoot a non-rotating bullet? And the angle correction system has nothing to do with it.
              Quote: AVM
              All Soviet / Russian ATGM rotate. Take into account the position of the body at each time of management.

              Have you seen the control unit in ATGM? And you propose to venture a similar one in a 12.7 mm bullet?
              PS About Krasnopol, Kitolov, etc. - I am in the know!
          2. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 27 February 2019 17: 03
            0
            Either a rotating abturator, as in rifled guns, or a system of angular correction, as on MANPADS Strela-2,3 and Igla with Verba missiles.
          3. Shopping Mall
            27 February 2019 17: 06
            +1
            Quote: AUL
            Now, please explain how and where this rejected nose will turn rotating bullet? Or do you offer to shoot a smooth-bore shotgun?


            All Soviet / Russian ATGM rotate. Take into account the position of the body at each time of management.
          4. alexmach
            alexmach 1 March 2019 19: 11
            0
            Rejected spout?
            As far as I remember, it was a question of shifting the center of gravity of a bullet with the help of gyro-like elements, which is exactly in the belts protruding on its surface.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 27 February 2019 11: 07
      +2
      The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2. But why our undertook to banish the BMP-3 - is not clear.
      . "... In 2019, the delivery of an experimental batch of BMP-3 with a promising combat module" Epoch "is expected ..........."

      In my opinion, the Bakhcha-U combat module is ideal: where the power of a 30mm projectile is not enough, it could always be supplemented with a 100mm one. And with the Epoch: somewhere a 57mm projectile will suffice in abundance, but somewhere it will be insufficient.
      The guided projectiles in the aircraft cannon kit may justify themselves, but in anti-aircraft systems there is doubt. For the price of a guided projectile, I assume that it is much more expensive than an ordinary projectile. Perhaps it will be more effective to shoot ten ordinary ones towards the target than one controlled one. It is necessary to look at the "cost-effectiveness".
      1. Shopping Mall
        27 February 2019 12: 28
        +6
        Quote: Bad_gr
        The guided projectiles in the aircraft cannon kit may justify themselves, but in anti-aircraft systems there is doubt. For the price of a guided projectile, I assume that it is much more expensive than an ordinary projectile. Perhaps it will be more effective to shoot ten ordinary ones towards the target than one controlled one. It is necessary to look at the "cost-effectiveness".


        The problem is that, as practice in Syria shows, they in general do not fall on modern small-sized precision-guided munitions and UAVs, it does not matter if there are ten of them or one hundred, therefore they spend all the missiles and remain without ammunition.
        1. gaudin
          gaudin 27 February 2019 21: 55
          +1
          Quote: AVM
          they generally do not fall on modern small-sized precision-guided munitions and UAVs

          The problem is not that they do not fall, but in fact they were not developed for this.
          1. Shopping Mall
            28 February 2019 10: 05
            +1
            Quote: gaudin
            Quote: AVM
            they generally do not fall on modern small-sized precision-guided munitions and UAVs

            The problem is not that they do not fall, but in fact they were not developed for this.


            And for what? Well, let's say a shell or a mine, they should not have shot down. But goals such as CD / PKR must necessarily. Medium-sized low-speed UAVs are also in this category. And in fact there are problems when intercepting such targets. The range of use of high-precision weapons by airplanes and helicopters is such that the carriers do not come close to ZPRK, it only remains for them to shoot down ammunition. And there may be many. Therefore, it is necessary to modernize projectiles, to combat high-precision ammunition and UAVs.
            1. gaudin
              gaudin 28 February 2019 10: 35
              0
              Quote: AVM
              But goals such as CR / RCC must be

              Specifically, the Shell has a large dispersion of shells in the cannon, so he can shoot down the tomahawk, but he will not be able to shoot down the quadcopter. The quadcopter passes through shells like a small fish through a net. When test firing on the shield, if 2 shells hit the same point, this is considered a bad result.
      2. self-propelled
        self-propelled 27 February 2019 13: 34
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2

        as a nonsense - why not try a caliber in 37mm? and the power of the armor-piercing projectile is higher than 30-mm, and the remote undermining of the OFS for 37-mm is still easier to set up than for the 30-mm, and you can put the aircraft on the helicopter ...
        1. Shopping Mall
          27 February 2019 17: 09
          +5
          Quote: self-propelled
          Quote: Bad_gr
          The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2

          as a nonsense - why not try a caliber in 37mm? and the power of the armor-piercing projectile is higher than 30-mm, and the remote undermining of the OFS for 37-mm is still easier to set up than for the 30-mm, and you can put the aircraft on the helicopter ...


          The question here is that 30 mm is very much where it stands. 57 mm also worked out. Under 37, everything must be re-developed, they have not been used for a long time. And if you do something fundamentally new, it is probably better to consider some telescopic ammunition 40 mm, but there are no resources for this, the task is not a priority. And again, will these telescopic munitions give a radical advantage? And it is easy to collect stocks as pioneers.
      3. Shopping Mall
        27 February 2019 14: 45
        +3
        Quote: Bad_gr
        The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2. But why our undertook to banish the BMP-3 - is not clear.
        . "... In 2019, the delivery of an experimental batch of BMP-3 with a promising combat module" Epoch "is expected ..........."

        In my opinion, the Bakhcha-U combat module is ideal: where the power of a 30mm projectile is not enough, it could always be supplemented with a 100mm one. And with the Epoch: somewhere a 57mm projectile will suffice in abundance, but somewhere it will be insufficient.


        The 100 projectile on the BMP-3 has low ballistics, the armor penetration is low, there is no BOPS at all, active defense systems can intercept it - the initial projectile speed is of the order of 350 m / s. For AU-220M with a 57 mm cannon, the initial velocity of the 1000 projectile is m / s.
        I think of them (guns 100 mm) refuse gradually.
        On the photo that you published, there is no 100 mm at all - the Cornets stand. But the ATGM is also not a panacea, KAZ can work on them and stand almost openly, catch fragments with splinters.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 27 February 2019 15: 22
          +1
          Quote: AVM
          Projectile 100 on BMP-3 low ballistics, low armor penetration,

          Nobody argues with this. But if from this gun to shoot at the BMP, the armor of which could not be pierced by a 30 mm shell, then the explosion of a 100 mm shell on the armor of this BMP is unlikely to harm less than a 57 mm projectile with high ballistics.
          1. anzar
            anzar 27 February 2019 16: 43
            +2
            But if a BMP was fired from this weapon, the armor of which could not be pierced by a 30 mm shell, then an explosion of a 100 mm shell ...

            The flight time is long, if the BMP is moving, it is difficult to get further than 600-800 meters. 100mm PF is good for group targets (favorite journalists "clusters" of militants / fascists / etc) which are not very observed on modern battlefields)) And 57mm is large enough for effective air. detonation, its BOPS pierces EVERYTHING, and the MBT side too.
        2. superpodliva2000
          superpodliva2000 27 February 2019 16: 45
          +3
          The photo is not 220. LSHO57- low ballistics.
          1. Shopping Mall
            27 February 2019 17: 12
            +2
            Quote: superpodliva2000
            The photo is not 220. LSHO57- low ballistics.


            Yeah, 57 mm KBP grenade launcher.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 27 February 2019 20: 51
              0
              Quote: AVM
              Quote: superpodliva2000
              The photo is not 220. LSHO57- low ballistics.


              Yeah, 57 mm KBP grenade launcher.

              Is he. Link to the description of the "Epoch" module https://topwar.ru/123372-boevoy-modul-epoha-s-novym-kompleksom-vooruzheniya.html
        3. alexmach
          alexmach 1 March 2019 19: 33
          0
          Projectile 100 on the BMP-3 low ballistic, armor-piercing low, no BPS at all, active defense systems can intercept it - the initial velocity of the projectile is about 350 m / s.

          In the photo that you posted, there is no 100 mm at all - Cornets are

          Yeah ... but there is a 57mm gun _Low balistic_
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Vadim237
        Vadim237 27 February 2019 19: 32
        0
        Well, probably thanks to this module, they want to remove the ammunition from the habitable zone. A 100 mm gun will not do this.
      6. alexmach
        alexmach 1 March 2019 19: 15
        0
        But why ours undertook to bunk BMP-3 is not clear.

        What would remove 100mm shells from the body?
    3. Diverter
      Diverter 1 March 2019 16: 26
      0
      well yes. chased, as often happens in the west, and now it has come and we are going back to 7,62.
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 27 February 2019 06: 21
    0
    As a result, we rely heavily on the development of microelectronics in the country. The dispute itself is not new, back in the prewar years of the last century the replacement of 37 mm by 45 mm in field artillery is an example of this. So we are missing out on a 45 mm caliber. as one of the options, it is certainly not 57 mm, but its penetrative abilities will be enough for most armored vehicles, even in the near future.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 27 February 2019 11: 23
        +1
        Quote: superpodliva2000
        Why not 46mm or 43,22mm? 45 is already completely lost.

        There is rationalism in your statement ... Indeed, "resuming" the production of 45-mm barrels and ammunition is the same as starting the production of a "caliber" of 40 mm or 50 mm! Everything needs to start from scratch! The "opponents" may mention "the old stocks of 45-mm shells since the Second World War ..." But that is why they are "old", that "the end of their existence" should come! All in good time and at a "certain age" they are not "recommended" to be used. In NATO, the possibility (feasibility) of the development and adoption of the 50 mm caliber is "considered" (the German development of the 35/50-mm system is known ...). Russian reports also "slipped" the desire of some companies to start developing guns in caliber 50 mm ... (as well as adjustable artillery shells in the same caliber). So, we ask for consideration, namely, caliber 50 mm! It is this caliber that will have good export prospects ... It is not excluded that attention to bicaliber art installations: 30/40 mm, 40/50 mm, 50/57 mm (along with the 57 mm caliber ...).
        1. superpodliva2000
          superpodliva2000 27 February 2019 12: 01
          +2
          Yes, bicaliber is a very good solution in terms of unification and the possibility of installation on light chassis (smaller caliber). But, as always, there is a "but" - time for the development of new guns with new ballistics, shells (and not imitating the old, grandfather's drawings, but those that meet the requirements of our time are needed), carrying out R&D, series ... and the price of all this.
          Against the background of all this, a 57mm installation looks robust, taking into account the development of BPS and ofs with a programmable detonation. According to BPS, there are developments in 30mm caliber, and ofs are now experiencing 125mm.
          And as a plan today, there are attempts to install LSHO57 in modules and 82mm in BMP 3.
  3. Konatantin 1992
    Konatantin 1992 27 February 2019 06: 27
    +2
    Did you spend 2 missiles on the "drifting balloon"? .... something clearly went wrong)))
  4. riwas
    riwas 27 February 2019 06: 50
    0
    Everything needs a measure. The use of a guided 57-shell leaves little space on the warhead.
  5. svp67
    svp67 27 February 2019 07: 03
    +7
    30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?
    Yes, they will live for more than one decade, but the 23-mm seems to be all in reserve ....
    An experimental version of the placement of the 30-mm gun 2A42 on the T-80 tank
    An interesting attempt to increase the firepower of the "Rage", but I can only imagine it as the commander's cupola and the main tower of the "sausage" when firing. ZPU with such a powerful recoil, for accurate shooting, it is necessary to place as close to the center as possible, otherwise there is no need to talk about any targeted shooting, or like this, as the Slovaks did on their "Modern" ...

    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 February 2019 08: 09
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, they will live, yes, not one decade

      Is not a fact. The "first bell" should be considered equipping BMPshki with a 100-mm gun even during the Soviet era.

      We have big problems with a caliber of 30 mm. First of all, there are problems with ammunition.
      1. chenia
        chenia 27 February 2019 10: 26
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Is not a fact. The "first bell" should be considered equipping BMPshki with a 100-mm gun even during the Soviet era.


        It is acceptable for the Airborne Forces (where the main task of defense is), when the BMD will be mostly without landing. For motorized rifle BMP-57 mm, BTR -45 mm.

        But for the tank, as an additional really -30 mm, that’s it, well, for the combat support units (reconnaissance).

        Quote: Spade
        We have big problems with a caliber of 30 mm.


        Creating a remote fuse with electronic installation? It seems they’ve already decided, for a long time after all they were engaged.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 February 2019 10: 32
          +2
          Quote: chenia
          Creating a remote fuse with electronic installation?

          He has long been there.
          Moreover, its value is greatly exaggerated.
          Our main problem in the 30-mm caliber is armor-piercing shells.

          Quote: chenia
          It is acceptable for the Airborne Forces (where the main task of defense is), when the BMD will be mostly without landing. For motorized rifle BMP-57 mm, BTR -45 mm.

          23 mm, 30 mm, 45 mm, 57 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm .... Are there too many calibers ???
          1. chenia
            chenia 27 February 2019 10: 58
            0
            Quote: Spade
            30 mm caliber is armor-piercing shells.


            So on the same tank. Mainly for the infantry, you can use the AG as well. And for armored (lightly armored), when 125 mm "gift" is a pity, and to drive the helicopters away from the tank unit (naturally, as an additional means).

            23 mm, 30 mm, 45 mm, 57 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm .... Are there too many calibers ???

            A lot of. Well, this is for different branches of the armed forces or certain specifics, well, for example, 57 mm (high ballistics) for armored personnel carriers is stressful), 45 mm will still stretch.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 February 2019 11: 01
              0
              Quote: chenia
              So to the tank

              And here is the tank ?????
              We need a NORMAL 30 mm gun for BMP / BTR / BRM.
              1. chenia
                chenia 27 February 2019 11: 08
                0
                Quote: Spade
                We need a NORMAL 30 mm gun for BMP / BTR / BRM.


                She is already at the limit, as the main infantry weapon is unpromising!
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 27 February 2019 11: 56
                  +9
                  Quote: chenia
                  She is already at the limit

                  There is no "limit" there, there is bad ammunition.
                  Why is the Belgian shell for this gun has twice as much armor penetration? (55 mm against our 27 mm at a distance of one kilometer).
                  We cannot make a normal projectile and a silly show on the topic "let's increase the caliber" begins. Without catching up with the Belgians in terms of armor penetration, we sharply increase the weight of the gun mount and reduce the ammo being carried ... a smart decision.
                  1. Sahalinets
                    Sahalinets 27 February 2019 12: 31
                    +1
                    Yes, we also have big problems with accuracy.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 27 February 2019 13: 25
                      +3
                      Quote: Sahalinets
                      Yes, we also have big problems with accuracy.

                      EMNIP, with accuracy in 2A72 with a single installation.
                      Because initially it was designed for a twin installation 100 + 30, in which the 30-mm barrel has additional support. They removed the support - problems with accuracy began, which they managed to solve only at the cost of reducing the rate of fire:
                      ... for more than a year, designers have worked to ensure an acceptable result: accuracy and accuracy should not be lower than that of 2A42 on the BMP-2. Without fulfilling this condition prescribed in the statement of work, the car was not taken into service. One machine was even made with a third fulcrum: a casing on top of the gun with a ring at the end in which the barrel walks.

                      But it didn’t help much either. The solution was found after watching ultra-fast shooting shooting. Some time after the shot, the gun barrel takes its initial position, so the rate of fire was adjusted so that the next shot occurred at that moment. Yes, the maximum rate of fire became slightly lower than what is indicated in the tabular values ​​for 2A72, but sufficient to solve the same problems.
                      © twower
                      1. Corn
                        Corn 27 February 2019 14: 51
                        0
                        2a72 with accuracy is a disaster, but just 2a42 has problems. Look at any shooting techniques with this gun and what a monstrous expansion cone draw tracer.
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 27 February 2019 15: 06
                      +3
                      By the way, this problem is much easier to solve than ammunition.
                  2. Corn
                    Corn 27 February 2019 15: 07
                    +1
                    The question is, if at all it makes sense to run into armor-piercing in small-caliber guns, if this niche is already tightly occupied by ATGMs?
                    BT-30 is quite capable of breaking apart brickwork, punching several concrete panels, riddling some kind of jihadmobile. I think that demanding more is simply unreasonable.
                    OFZ and a lightweight trunk, which is simply not capable of giving acceptable accuracy, need to be replaced.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 27 February 2019 15: 18
                      +3
                      Quote: Corn
                      if this niche is already densely occupied by ATGMs?

                      They did not take her .... Firstly, it took a long time. Secondly, ATGM on BMP / BTR by default is small.
                      Moreover, some of them will have to be allocated to hit particularly important targets at long range. Moreover, for some of them it will be necessary to use a "doublet start" to overcome the KAZ.

                      So it turns out that the PTRK niche is a particularly important target, primarily tanks, at long range.
                      And on "little things" like armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles and other light and medium armored vehicles, as well as buildings and structures, there is no one and nothing to shoot with.
                      1. Corn
                        Corn 27 February 2019 16: 13
                        +1
                        They did not take her ....
                        taking into account the total extermination that the birds made for the armored vehicles, I would say that they still occupied .... however, there is an exclusively subjective perception of information.
                        Firstly it's long
                        the same "attack" has a speed of over 500m / s, which is quite acceptable.
                        Secondly, ATGM on BMP / BTR by default is not enough
                        Ptury is on all machines of the "BMP" class without exception. The armored personnel carrier (in his Soviet vision) does not need either an ATGM, let alone a 30mm cannon. ( Exarch BTR82 I do not even want to remember)
                        Moreover, some of them will have to be allocated to defeat particularly important targets at long range.
                        Caesar Cesarean. The defeat of critical goals, this is not a task for the support machine. In our time of the universal penetration of automated means of communication and laser target designators, there is no problem giving target designation to aviation, artillerymen, and PTO units.
                        The same is true for KAZ.
                        You understand, in the epic heroes of one wicket, whole armies crumble, the reality is more complicated, military operations are a complex web of interactions from various forces. Universality and unification, without prejudice to basic speialization, will help to simplify this interaction to a considerable degree, but relying on them is simply irrational.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 February 2019 16: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Corn
                        Caesar Cesarean. The defeat of special goals, this is not a task for the support machine. In our time of the universal penetration of automated means of communication and laser target designators, there is no problem giving target designation to aviation, artillerymen, and PTO units.

                        Exactly. Caesar Cesarean.
                        To defeat particularly important point targets, direct fire is needed - cross out artillery. We delete aviation due to a problem with time. BT shells and mines with LGSN are not terrible for armored vehicles, even the Poles develop and produce means of fighting against them. Tanks will not reach. Anti-tank units are sitting in the rear and waiting for big problems on the part of the enemy in order to die heroically. It seems to have forgotten nobody?
                        Only BMPs remain
                      3. Corn
                        Corn 27 February 2019 17: 01
                        0
                        Direct targeting is needed to defeat critical point targets.
                        Firstly, it has not been needed for many decades.
                        Secondly, MBT is always at hand.
                        LGSN for armored vehicles is not terrible, the means of struggle against them are developed and produced even by the Poles

                        What kind of modern means of struggle are there, except for the curtains (which, it seems, have been recognized as ineffective and have ceased to be installed)?
                        Modern shells, this is not only lsn, but also jeepies, glonas, isn, and if you really get it right, then there are absolutely no problems adding laser / infrared beam / radio control to the projectile.
                        Fri units sitting in the rear
                        they are even at the battalion level, such a rear.
                        Only BMPs remain
                        and fight against particularly important goals, this is not their task at all. If it’s completely locked up, the birds have ended, and the allies have thrown one box to the edge of the enemy’s offensive, then it’s much more reasonable to retreat in an organized manner than to die heroically and uselessly.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 February 2019 17: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: Corn
                        Firstly, it has not been needed for many decades.

                        Always needed, time is not able to cancel probability theory
                        Quote: Corn
                        Secondly, MBT is always at hand.

                        There TOURS are also few in number, moreover, they are less effective than ATGM on BMP.

                        Quote: Corn
                        What kind of modern means of struggle are there, except for the curtains (which, it seems, have been recognized as ineffective and have ceased to be installed)?

                        Understand what a "curtain" is.

                        Quote: Corn
                        Modern shells, this is not only lsn, but also jeepies, glonas, isn, and if you really get it right, then there are absolutely no problems adding laser / infrared beam / radio control to the projectile.

                        These are all words. At the moment, the only tool that can hit a moving armored object is a projectile with LGSN. And it’s easy to defend against it with the help of CEP.

                        Quote: Corn
                        they are even at the battalion level, such a rear.

                        BMP battalions do not have such units. I hope you understand why.

                        Quote: Corn
                        and fight against particularly important goals, this is not their task at all

                        This is precisely their task. Read the charter.
                      5. Corn
                        Corn 27 February 2019 18: 21
                        +1
                        Always needed, time is not able to cancel probability theory
                        but let’s do it without demagogy, please, I seem to have quite adequately and in detail justified why this is not so
                        There TOURS are also not numerous, in addition, they are less effective than ATGM on BMP
                        125mm guided missiles, offshore missiles, bops - all of them with a "particularly important" target will cope better than a 30mm cannon.
                        Understand what a "curtain" is
                        Shtora-1 - a complex of electronic-optical active defense (a complex of optical-electronic countermeasures - KOEP) for protection against anti-tank guided missiles with a semi-automatic command guidance system or adjusted artillery ammunition

                        At the moment, the only tool that can hit a moving armored object is a projectile with LGSN.
                        ... and also guided missiles with infrared / radar / optical seeker or manual control along the laser path or in general via wires. The arsenal is simply huge.
                        And it’s easy to defend against it with the help of CEP.
                        those same CEPs, which are not massively present in any army in the world?
                        BMP battalions do not have such units.
                        you would have to pull a match ...
                        Read the charter.
                        your "read the charter" is especially in contrast to the outstanding knowledge of the structure and role of the ISP (and in general any modern combat units).
                        fight against especially important goals ... this is precisely their task.
                        it is in what charter such nonsense can be written?
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 February 2019 19: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: Corn
                        But let’s do it without demagoguery

                        Where did you manage to collect "demagoguery"? Direct aiming is more accurate and faster than shooting with PDO precisely for the reason that Probability Theory describes. "Wet water" is also "demagoguery" in your opinion?

                        Quote: Corn
                        Offs, bops - all of them with a "particularly important" purpose will cope better than a 30mm cannon.

                        Maybe. If the tank, one on a motorized rifle platoon, is not destroyed.

                        Quote: Corn
                        ... and also guided missiles with infrared / radar / optical seeker or manual control along the laser path or in general via wires. The arsenal is simply huge.

                        And where are they, dear? Private Pupkin in a duffel bag? Oops, they are in the amount of four pieces on the combat module of the BMP. Chef, it's all gone ...

                        Quote: Corn
                        those same CEPs, which are not massively present in any army in the world?

                        8))))
                        ALL BMP "Puma" is it massively, or not?
                        Now figure out what COEP 8 is))))))))))))

                        Quote: Corn
                        you would have to pull a match ...

                        Yes?????
                        eight)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                        Dear, here's the word, there are no anti-tank platoons in battalions on infantry fighting vehicles since the days of the USSR.
                        eight))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                      7. Corn
                        Corn 27 February 2019 20: 07
                        0
                        Direct fire is more accurate and faster than shooting with a PDO precisely because of what the Probability Theory describes.
                        and also the theory of probability must take into account the attendant risk, which significantly increases when the enemy enters the line of fire, and the rationality of immediate destruction. I think it is much more reasonable to give target designation and wait a bit, than to take risks in vain.
                        If the tank ... is not destroyed.
                        I agree, that's why I give priority to artillery support over "direct fire" ... just don't you think it's not a good idea to climb the BMP to the place where the MBT was just destroyed?
                        Private Pupkin in a duffel bag?
                        Yes. At the squad-platoon level, it’s almost the same as the ordinary bag.
                        ALL BMP "Puma" is it massively, or not?
                        I did not even suspect the existence of the MUSS COEP, prior to your comment, here is my omission. However, even she is unable to fight with
                        guided missiles with infrared / radar / optical seeker or manual control along the laser path or generally by wire
                        anti-tank platoons in battalions on infantry fighting vehicles have been missing since the days of the USSR
                        the full-time structure has never had anything to do with real combat personnel. If the need arises, motorized riflemen, demantics or marines will immediately be strengthened with everything necessary, from a UAV unit and a communications officer, to a technical support unit and the required number of MBT.
                        I repeat, Caesar's Caesar, the BMP should not even approach "especially dangerous targets", a commander who unnecessarily puts the crew of a combat vehicle at risk, with a high degree of probability, will go to court. (We had precedents).
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 February 2019 22: 03
                        +2
                        Quote: Corn
                        and probability theory must take into account the associated risk

                        Well yes. If a target is struck by direct fire immediately after its detection, safety is higher.
                        Quote: Corn
                        I think it's much wiser to give target designation and wait a bit

                        The loss of pace is completely unreasonable. You can wait for a company instead of a single target. For example, a tank.

                        Quote: Corn
                        I agree, that's why I give priority to artillery support over "direct fire"

                        Never give priority. Neither one nor the other. Different tasks, different goals performed simultaneously.

                        Quote: Corn
                        But, don’t you think that climbing onto the BMP to the place where the MBT was just destroyed is not a good idea?

                        And where to go? The task must be completed. So far, the enemy has not tightened reserves.

                        Quote: Corn
                        I did not even suspect the existence of the MUSS COEP, prior to your comment, here is my omission. However, even she is unable to fight with

                        With all of the above, she knows how to fight. Since it contains UV sensors.

                        Quote: Corn
                        the full-time structure has never had anything to do with real combat personnel.

                        We had two regiments in the garrison, on an infantry fighting vehicle and an armored personnel carrier. Anti-tank platoons were only in battalions on armored personnel carriers. And it is a reality.

                        Quote: Corn
                        I repeat, Caesar's Caesar, the BMP should not even approach "especially dangerous targets", a commander who unnecessarily puts the crew of a combat vehicle at risk, with a high degree of probability, will go to court.

                        Once upon a time in this way the American "Bradleys" massively raped the Iraqis. Shooting their tanks from their ATGMs. The "Abrams" next to them were just covering up the BMPs from a possible "jerk" of Iraqi tanks to the effective range of fire .. And no one was brought to court for this.
            2. Diverter
              Diverter 1 March 2019 16: 35
              0
              with which artillery is it necessary to direct fire? otherwise they do not know how ?!)))))))
    2. chenia
      chenia 27 February 2019 18: 31
      0
      Quote: Spade
      There is no "limit"


      You are looking at the complex, BMP universal tool (for ordinary motorized rifle).

      - By 30-ke will need a larger caliber AG, well, do not shoot the same (offensive) in the trenches in front of the BMP 100-300 m (and then there is someone to work) with a shell with a minimum of explosives and fragments. . 57 mm composite (3 in one) telescopic low ballistics (up to 2 km) will create a much larger fragmentation field, and, in principle, as an automatic machine. And its high-explosive effect is more significant (in the variant of high ballistics).
      - 57 mm for all easily and medium armored vehicles can work at extreme distances.
      - About BC,
      first- the task of the company is to take the GP, and further contribute to the immediate mission of the battalion. So, what -And eternal battle.We only need ...., this is not for the MS department. For tasks and expense, in defense there are no problems at all (there will be no landing).
      second- now there are 4 infantry fighting vehicles in the platoon (though a platoon of 28-32 people is needed here), then 7-8 people- KO, mech.vod., operator and 4 -5 gunner. a bit more space. more firepower, fewer people, however.
      third- volume 121 shell 57 mm -0,5 m3 (in cartridges there will be a bit more).

      To 57 mm, in addition to the 7,62 machine gun, there’s no need to sculpt anything (well, a guide and a couple of ATGMs in the zashashnik). individual weapons shooters do not count ..
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 February 2019 18: 56
        0
        Here I do not agree on ATGMs. Two is not enough. Two even for armored personnel carriers is not enough. Four and preferably six regularly. Cumulative and thermal bar to take on the situation. Still think of a vertical launch of the TPK mounted on the stern.
        1. chenia
          chenia 27 February 2019 19: 07
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          Here I do not agree on ATGMs


          Well, then a couple, another.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 February 2019 19: 22
        +1
        Quote: chenia
        - By 30-ke will be needed AG

        I agree. A high-speed AP needs to be supplemented with something with a more mounted trajectory.
        Quote: chenia
        - 57 mm for all easily and medium armored vehicles can work at extreme distances.

        As far as I know, no. Our 30-mm 57-mm Belgian projectile has not yet reached armor.
        1. chenia
          chenia 27 February 2019 19: 37
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          our 57mm has not yet reached.


          So this caliber, in this hypostasis (BPS) after ZIS-2 was not developed. a matter of time.
          But the elephant is still thicker.
        2. Shopping Mall
          27 February 2019 21: 51
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          As far as I know, no. Our 30-mm 57-mm Belgian projectile has not yet reached armor.


          Yes, the Belgians have worked. I hope their shell is worth as UAS)
          With cartridges / shells and other consumables, for example, with rockets in-in or cheap UAB, we generally always have problems. As if someone believes that you can make a plane for 100 000 000 $, equip it with free-falling 50-ies, and everything will be OK!
        3. alexmach
          alexmach 1 March 2019 20: 09
          0
          Yes, the Belgians have worked. I hope their shell is worth as UAS)

          On the contrary, I would hope that it is cheap and easy to copy and set up production
  6. CTABEP
    CTABEP 27 February 2019 18: 51
    +1
    Yes, I was also always interested in why the Oerlikon shells had many times more armor penetration. It seems that tank BOPS have learned to do what prevents normal projectiles from being fired?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 February 2019 19: 36
      0
      Probably more durable material - the core and more energy powder.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 February 2019 19: 41
        0
        Speed ​​can be compared according to the passport data. This will explain a lot. And about 57 mm there seems to be no modern bop. But the capabilities of the trunk allow you to create. If you attend, it should work out well.
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 1 March 2019 20: 10
      0
      Yes, I was also always interested in why the Oerlikon shells had many times more armor penetration.

      More than what? Steel "blanks"? Well, that's why he is BOPS.
  7. max702
    max702 27 February 2019 21: 18
    0
    What about BOPS BISON 11?
  • svp67
    svp67 27 February 2019 12: 15
    0
    Quote: chenia
    She is already at the limit, as the main infantry weapon is unpromising!

    And when was it positioned as the main one? The infantry had enough "calibers" even without it, from 5,45 to 152 mm
    1. chenia
      chenia 27 February 2019 18: 39
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      The infantry

      Quote: svp67
      up to 152 mm


      What are you talking about?
      So it is possible to attribute POPOLA to the infantry, they say support that the infantryman Vanya would step on the ground as an enemy.
      But I’m actually talking about a motorized rifle squad (I guess you could guess).
  • svp67
    svp67 27 February 2019 12: 13
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Is not a fact. The "first bell" should be considered equipping BMPshki with a 100-mm gun even during the Soviet era.

    Paired with 30 mm
    Quote: Spade
    First of all, there are problems with ammunition.

    Well, there is such a thing, minimalism is clearly not ours ...
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 27 February 2019 20: 41
    0
    Quote: Spade
    First of all, problems with ammunition

    But is there no way to increase their effectiveness? It seems to be some work in this direction.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 February 2019 22: 07
      0
      Quote: Blackgrifon
      But is there no way to increase their effectiveness?

      There is. As there are already finished samples abroad.
      But for some reason our people are not particularly keen to do this, preferring jumping around large calibers .... Maybe a "midlife crisis"? 8)))))))
  • VictorZhivilov
    VictorZhivilov 27 February 2019 10: 06
    -1
    ZPU with such a powerful recoil, for accurate shooting, it is necessary to place as close to the center as possible, otherwise there is no need to talk about any targeted shooting, or like this, as the Slovaks did on their "Modern" ...

    In current cases, why bother with a garden ... if you can go along the North Korean path to install MANPADS on a tank. Cheonma 216 is a great illustration of this.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 27 February 2019 11: 22
    +1
    There is another option for the location of the 30mm gun:
  • Walking
    Walking 27 February 2019 11: 00
    +1
    In the 60s, guns were also removed from planes, it was believed that since there are rockets, then guns are not needed. but as it came down to it, it turned out to be real fights without guns. How not to step on the same rake a second time.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 27 February 2019 12: 45
    +2
    At present, automatic guns on multifunctional fighters remain rather due to a certain conservatism of the air force.

    At the time of the creation of "Phantom" and the MiG-21, they also said so - with exactly the same arguments. And then I had to almost tape the gun to the fuselage.
  • anzar
    anzar 27 February 2019 13: 01
    +2
    +++ Very good stats. I especially liked the idea of ​​installing 30mm on MBT. The French used to have 20mm paired with 105 / 120mm
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 27 February 2019 13: 07
    +4
    There is a lot of "compote" in the article ... one gets the feeling that the Author, like that Agafya Tikhonovna in Gogol's "Marriage", does not know what he wants ... Arguments, both "contra" and "about" ... as a caliber 30 mm, and 57 mm have already "set the teeth on edge" ... they are banal and do not always take into account the latest modern realities of technical progress! Caliber 57 mm is often "reproached" for reducing ammunition, for increased recoil ... as a result, for increased "mass" characteristics. Is it necessary to "shed tears" over the "reduction" of ammunition? Well, you can take more 30-mm shells ... and "meet" targets that require 10 30-mm shells for each one to destroy ... When, 57-mm shells will be enough 1-3 (maximum). .. Moreover, if we talk about the prospects of corrected ammunition ... In the 57-mm caliber, it is a little easier and cheaper to make a corrected projectile, while maintaining acceptable power! In modern military conflicts, fighting in the city is "relevant" ... often, concrete buildings. Will 30mm shells be effective in such conditions? Maybe ! But again a situation will arise when to destroy the "machine-gun nest" you may need at least a dozen ammunition ... again, the question is: how long will the transportable supply last ...? In part, the "problem" can be solved due to the "sniper" shooting, but not always (!) ... a situation is always possible when it is necessary to fill up the "apartment"! And with ammunition with a programmable fuse (remote detonation) ... what "space" will be "covered" by a 57-mm projectile ... and 30-mm ...? Which ammunition can contain more "armor-piercing" striking elements that pierce body armor, gun shields, armor of light armored vehicles, helicopters ...? As for the recoil, weight, mass of 57-mm guns ... There is such a thing: "low-impulse guns"! Such weapons will be quite acceptable if the troops are equipped with a sufficient number of active-reactive corrected artillery shells! (Modern preconditions indicate that in the future the equipping of armies with corrected ammunition (their production) will be significantly increased ...). The development of low-impulse guns will make it possible to reduce recoil and "mass" characteristics ... I think that the 30 mm caliber, although it will be squeezed out, will not be completely squeezed out! This caliber has its own "pluses" .. (including the accumulated stocks of ammunition ...). It is possible that the 30-mm caliber will be further "improved" in bicaliber systems (30/40 mm, 30/35 mm). It can be assumed that 30-mm mounts will be quite effective in the future in the "sniper shooting" mode! Moreover, for this, 30-mm corrected projectiles are "not necessary" .., but improvement of the fire control system (fire control systems) is necessary: ​​laser rangefinder-sights, ballistic digital computers (with the introduction of a large number
    data; incl. m meteorological ...), associated with the "network-centric system" ... To reduce the cost of small-caliber corrected ammunition, a method of using corrected projectiles by the "master-slave" sequence is proposed, where the "lead" ammunition is more complex, expensive (by the way, it may not have a charge BB .. "everything" is given to management ...); the "slave" ones are simpler, cheaper ...
    1. Shopping Mall
      27 February 2019 15: 09
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      There is a lot of "compote" in the article ... one gets the feeling that the Author, like that Agafya Tikhonovna in Gogol's "Marriage," does not know what he wants ...


      The author clearly knows what he wants and tried to clearly convey it

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Arguments, both "contra" and "about" ... both the 30 mm and 57 mm caliber have long ago "set the teeth on edge" ... they are banal and do not always take into account the latest modern realities of technical progress!


      Just the realities of progress in the article are maximally taken into account based on the information that is available.

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Caliber 57 mm is often "reproached" for reducing ammunition, for increased recoil ... as a result, for increased "mass" characteristics. Is it necessary to "shed tears" over the "reduction" of ammunition? Well, you can take more 30-mm shells ... and "meet" targets that require 10 30-mm shells for each one to destroy ... When, 57-mm shells will be enough 1-3 (maximum). ..


      Can. And you can meet with 100 targets for which 80 shells in the 57 mm combat pack are not enough. These are all contrived situations. And in the article there are no tears in the reduction of ammunition, just a fact.
      The fact that the BMP larger calibers will displace 30 mm, there is little doubt. Maybe not all, as with the money will be. And with us it will most likely be 57 mm.

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Especially, if you talk about the prospects of adjusted ammunition ... In the caliber of 57-mm make an adjustable projectile somewhat easier and cheaper, while maintaining acceptable power!


      It is, and it is also written about it. But 57 mm on the plane can not be put, and not even on any ship.

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In modern military conflicts, fighting in the city is "relevant" ... often, concrete buildings. Will 30mm shells be effective in such conditions? Maybe ! But again a situation will arise when to destroy the "machine-gun nest" you may need at least a dozen ammunition ... again, the question is: how long will the transportable supply last ...? In part, the "problem" can be solved due to the "sniper" shooting, but not always (!) ... a situation is always possible when it is necessary to fill up the "apartment"! And with ammunition with a programmable fuse (remote detonation) ... what "space" will be "covered" by a 57-mm projectile ... and 30-mm ...? Which ammunition can contain more "armor-piercing" striking elements that pierce body armor, gun shields, armor of light armored vehicles, helicopters ...?


      Everything is correct 57 mm - wherever you can put it, 30 mm where you can not put 57 mm. If you pay attention, then the first point is the creation of compact combat modules, i.e. Install 30 mm instead of 12,7 where possible. Accordingly, everything that you described compared the capabilities of 57 / 30 mm is proportionally true for 30 / 12,7 mm.

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      As for the recoil, weight, mass of 57-mm guns ... There is such a thing: "low-impulse guns"! Such weapons will be quite acceptable if the troops are equipped with a sufficient number of active-reactive corrected artillery shells! (Modern preconditions indicate that in the future the equipping of armies with corrected ammunition (their production) will be significantly increased ...). The development of low-impulse guns will reduce recoil and "mass" characteristics ...


      And again we will get a senseless gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm cannon from the Bakhchi, which is just changed to a module with a normal 57 mm tool.

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      I think that the 30 mm caliber, although it will be squeezed out, is not completely squeezed out! This caliber has its own "pluses" .. (including the accumulated stocks of ammunition ...). It is possible that the 30-mm caliber will be further "improved" in bicaliber systems (30/40 mm, 30/35 mm).


      In the tank 125 mm + 30 mm, in my opinion, an excellent bikalibernaya system, plus a machine gun, of course)

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      It can be assumed that 30-mm mounts will be quite effective in the future in the "sniper shooting" mode! Moreover, for this, 30-mm adjustable projectiles are "not necessary" .., but it is necessary to improve the FCS (fire control systems): laser rangefinders, sights, ballistic digital computers (with the input of a large amount of data; including meteorological ... ) related to the "network-centric system" ...


      Yes, but accuracy does not improve, unfortunately. If the spread does not allow to get into a small-sized guided enemy ammunition or a UAV, then there are only guided projectiles.

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      To reduce the cost of small-caliber corrected ammunition, a method of using corrected projectiles in a "master-slave" sequence, where the "lead" ammunition is more complex, expensive (by the way, may not have an explosive charge .. "everything" is given to control ...); the "slave" ones are simpler, cheaper ...


      Interestingly, I would love to read about it.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 February 2019 15: 34
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        And again we will get a senseless gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm cannon from the Bakhchi, which is just changed to a module with a normal 57 mm tool.

        I would not be so sure ...
        Well, no, if by the term "57-mm gun" you mean not one, but two. an automatic cannon of high ballistics and a 57-mm automatic grenade launcher, then yes, the latter can compete with "Sotka" in hitting "flat" targets.
        But you are not talking about him, are you?
        High-speed problems are gigantic — high dispersion in range. As a result, they are able to normally shoot only at vertical targets.

        So what about "stupidity" is very controversial. Soviet developers were somewhat closer to real needs than modern ones, sinning more with a love of brutality.
        1. Shopping Mall
          27 February 2019 16: 58
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: AVM
          And again we will get a senseless gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm cannon from the Bakhchi, which is just changed to a module with a normal 57 mm tool.

          I would not be so sure ...
          Well, no, if by the term "57-mm gun" you mean not one, but two. an automatic cannon of high ballistics and a 57-mm automatic grenade launcher, then yes, the latter can compete with "Sotka" in hitting "flat" targets. But you're not talking about him, are you?


          This was a response to a comment on the reduction of recoil due to the use of guns with a low recoil momentum.

          Quote: Spade
          High-speed problems are gigantic — high dispersion in range. As a result, they are able to normally shoot only at vertical targets.

          So what about "stupidity" is very controversial. Soviet developers were somewhat closer to real needs than modern ones, sinning more with a love of brutality.


          Due to what the dispersion in range? Is it possible to somehow compensate for this with modern means - a rigid mast construction, control of trunk bending, etc.?
          For AU220M, the firing range of almost 12 km is claimed, while for 30 mm, the maximum is 3-4 km. What then there accuracy and accuracy will be?
          And yes, 57 mm put for the sake of penetration of armor BOPS. If there is a low velocity of the projectile, what's the use of BOPS? Then it really is better to leave 100 m.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 27 February 2019 19: 34
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            Due to what the dispersion in range?

            Due to the trajectory.
            The higher the speed and the more flat the trajectory, the easier it is to hammer "vertical targets" and worse "horizontal" ones. And vice versa. The probability of hitting a low-speed HE shell "weave" on a moving tank is near-zero. And only a very "advanced" LMS can fix it

            High speed cannons are more difficult. Actually, dancing with tambourines around remote detonation occurs precisely in order to increase the likelihood of hitting "flat" targets. But do not forget that this is a "splinter", not a high-explosive fragmentation. And they learned to protect the trenches from the "splinter" and shrapnel back in the First World War.
            1. Shopping Mall
              27 February 2019 21: 41
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: AVM
              Due to what the dispersion in range?

              Due to the trajectory.
              The higher the speed and the more flat the trajectory, the easier it is to hammer "vertical targets" and worse "horizontal" ones. And vice versa. The probability of hitting a low-speed HE shell "weave" on a moving tank is near-zero. And only a very "advanced" LMS can fix it

              High speed cannons are more difficult. Actually, dancing with tambourines around remote detonation occurs precisely in order to increase the likelihood of hitting "flat" targets. But do not forget that this is a "splinter", not a high-explosive fragmentation. And they learned to protect the trenches from the "splinter" and shrapnel back in the First World War.


              Understood, stepped. Do you mean that a high-ballistic cannon has a flat trajectory, and you won't be able to throw shells into a trench using a mortar method? Well, in this case, it is easy to add an automatic 30 mm grenade launcher to the turret, or even a mortar, like on the Merkava, only automated, specifically for "flat" targets. AGS generally takes up little space.
              1. anzar
                anzar 28 February 2019 00: 39
                0
                ..and throwing shells in a mortar way into the trench will not work?

                A programmed undermining for what they do?)) Just for this. And in general, it is not clear what kind of "scattering by range" does not give rest to colleagues))
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 February 2019 15: 53
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        But 57 mm on the plane can not be put, and not even on any ship.

        1. Shopping Mall
          27 February 2019 17: 03
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: AVM
          But 57 mm on the plane can not be put, and not even on any ship.



          Yes, but it was the main, and in my opinion the only armament of the aircraft, now nobody will take such volumes under the air cannon, and the electronics will probably fall apart from the recoil.
          Developed it and 100 mm aviation ...
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 February 2019 15: 59
        +2
        Quote: AVM
        Yes, but accuracy will not improve, unfortunately.

        Easy. Modern MSA things are multifaceted 8))) For example, you can control the position of the barrel relative to the calculated throwing line and fire a shot at the right time. By the way, the "ragged" tempo will not allow resonance to happen.
        If we discuss the anti-aircraft option, it makes sense to introduce corrections for the time of undermining dist. fuse depending on the initial velocity of the projectile. This will create a denser fragmentation field.
        The use of radar measurements of wind parameters can greatly reduce dispersion due to inhomogeneities of the atmosphere
      4. chenia
        chenia 27 February 2019 18: 53
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        And you can meet 100 goals, for which 80 shells in the 57 mm ammunition rack will not be enough. These are all far-fetched situations. And in the article there are no tears to reduce ammunition, just a fact is indicated.


        There are no special problems for the BC for 57 mm
        First, the company’s task is to take the GP, and further contribute to the immediate mission of the battalion. So, what -And eternal battle.We only need ...., this is not for the MS department. For tasks and expense, in defense there are no problems at all (there will be no landing).

        second, now there are 4 infantry fighting vehicles in the platoon (though a platoon of 28-32 people is needed here), then 7-8 people- KO, mech.vod., operator and 4 -5 gunner. a bit more space. more firepower, fewer people, however.
        the third volume is 121 shells 57 mm -0,5 m3 (in cartridges there will be a bit more).

        And for a simple infantry does not need a 57 mm machine. There's a cassette, and you need a mechanism for accelerated loading. And unlike 30 mm, it is not worth watering with bursts.
      5. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 28 February 2019 11: 16
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        And again we will get a stupid gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm gun from Bakhchi,

        Well, about the "stupidity" ... It's like in a joke: "I don't like these" white "ones! You just don't know how to cook them!" ... We must take into account the "strong" and "weak" qualities of such a weapon and rightly apply it! I suppose that in practice this "rule" is not always observed! For a 100-mm low ballistic gun, it was necessary to immediately develop "own" ammunition, taking into account the qualities of the weapon for which they were intended! For example, active-rocket ... Of course, the ability to use "ordinary" shells should also be preserved, but in certain cases. About the same can be "projected" on the 57-mm caliber. "Low-impulse" 57-mm guns should have "their" ammunition (active-reactive, corrected ...) with the ability to use in certain cases "normal" from high-ballistic guns ... 57-mm low-ballistics guns can then be installed " both on airplanes and on boats. "... in short, where it is impossible to install 57-mm high ballistic guns ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 February 2019 15: 48
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Caliber 57 mm is often "reproached" for reducing ammunition, for increased recoil ... as a result, for increased "mass" characteristics. Is it necessary to "shed tears" over the "reduction" of ammunition? Well, you can take more 30-mm shells ... and "meet" targets that require 10 30-mm shells for each one to destroy ... When, 57-mm shells will be enough 1-3 (maximum). ..

      Ambush is that shoot и to fall - these are different things. smile
      If the 30-mm can afford to have a not very complicated sight and adjust the fire on the "stream" of tracers, then the 57-mm with its limited ammunition can not afford this. And this means that a decent SUAO is needed, and this is mass, volumes, energy consumption and money.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 28 February 2019 09: 51
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The ambush is that shooting and hitting are different things.

        And I thought that they were shooting to get there! request No ... I am ready to believe you that there are times when they shoot not at the target, but in the direction ... or "screwing up"! But, even in the event of a miss ... (and when the "shooter" is trying to hit the target, then this miss (KVO) is minimal ...), when the probability is higher that the projectile will still "reach" the target (with fragments, for example) , ... at 30 mm or 57 mm? There is also such a way of adjusting shooting as sighting "barrels-barrels" in various designs ...! (Back in the late 70s, a division of 130-mm M-46 guns, leaving for exercises, took with them "magpies" for "zeroing in"!) You can "modernize-improve" this method of zeroing ... and what about "complex , dear "LMS, so" everything flows, changes "! As one" philosophical "parable says: first they say:" this is not possible! "... after a while:" there is something in this! ".. more, after a while: "We must try!" ... and, finally: "How did we live without it?" That is, the time will come when "compact, economical," budgetary "LMS will be" everywhere "!
  • Bodipancher
    Bodipancher 27 February 2019 13: 34
    +1
    The following combination is quite logical: Tank 125 mm (tanks, fortified targets) +30 mm (air targets, lightly armored vehicles, tank dangerous targets), BMP 57 mm (air targets, fortified points, infantry clusters, armored targets) + 12.7 (infantry support), BTR 30 mm + 7.62 mm.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 27 February 2019 14: 07
    +2
    In my opinion, a more correct approach in the United States with a short 30 × 113 mm B on an attack helicopter AH-64 Apache and light armored vehicles 30 mm rounds: 30 × 173 mm on the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft and BMP / BTR, and the second option requires modern BPS (which are not available in the Russian Federation).
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 28 February 2019 22: 47
    0
    May consider the return of the infernal threshers of the chassis in storage in our bulk
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Shopping Mall
    10 May 2019 09: 52
    0
    The project is developing:
    Raytheon has tested the MAD-FIRES (Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System, or multi-azimuth rapid interception and all-round defense system) system for the Advanced Defense Research Agency (DARPA), the defenseworld.net reports on May 7.

    MAD-FIRES interceptor shells are designed to provide self-defense, the system strikes "multiple waves" of anti-ship missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other threats, the company said in a statement on Monday.

    If used, this capability will combine the rate of fire of the gun mount with the accuracy of the missile attack, reports Raytheon.


    MAD-FIRES interceptor

    http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=24595