Centurion C-RAM anti-aircraft gun: dubious performance against claims of success

128
Although this publication is about the American 20-mm rapid-fire small-caliber artillery anti-aircraft gun, I want to start it with a confession - a declaration of love for the Military Review.

Our relationship, like that of most lovers, was not always simple. Nevertheless, "VO" became a part of my life, and it was doubly pleasant on the eve of Defender of the Fatherland Day to learn that the authoritative Israeli-British project SimilarWeb, engaged in web analytics, in-depth data analysis and Internet research, recognized Topwar.ru as the most visited resource in the world among sites writing on defense topics. This became possible largely due to the editorial policy, which allows authors with a wide variety of views and levels of knowledge to submit their publications to the readers' judgment. Each user registered on the site has a real opportunity to publish an article reflecting his views on various topics related to defense. But sometimes the flip side of such openness is the appearance of fantastic stories that talk about the Russian missile defense system in the Kuril Islands or predict the appearance in fleets leading naval powers of modern counterparts of heavily armored battleships.



It was such publications and excessive “appearances” of individual visitors of “VO” that caused me, despite being teased by my “second half,” engaged in “writing”. So, quite recently, a dispute with a group of site visitors, who spoke extremely unflatteringly about the capabilities of Chinese industry to build modern fighter jets and air defense systems, led to the creation of a very protracted cycle of defense of the PRC. However, despite the invitation to take part in the discussion, commentators, who had previously stated that “a copy is always worse than the original” and “the Chinese cannot design anything on their own,” unfortunately, I did not consider it possible to present evidence that was confirmed by the facts.

On the creation of this publication, dedicated to the American anti-aircraft artillery complex, I pushed the article "The threat coming from the sky"in which the author proposes to create on the basis of pictures published in 50-60 magazines of old prescription and American comics weaponwhich will give potential aggressors a “asymmetrical response”. But I was not interested in the “funny pictures” of the “Murzilka” magazine level, but in the description of the use of a completely specific type of weapon, which is literally the following:
Where the Soviet troops (in Afghanistan) suffered casualties, the Americans learned how to quite successfully fight the shelling from mortars and mobile multiple launch rocket systems. Rapid fire machine guns simply knocked down all the flying mines and missiles.


Being interested, I asked the author, speaking under the pseudonym Arkady Gaidar, the question of what kind of sample, what are its characteristics and real achievements? I received the following answer:
Let's start with the fact that real numbers are unlikely to be found. For the publication of such statistics will identify the weaknesses of such anti-aircraft technology. Actually, the Americans, the Israelis, declare that the equipment of this class is applied quite effectively and quite successfully. But how successful? Keep silent. So what do you want from the article about politics, where technical aspects are inserted precisely to attract readers' attention to the problems of countering the American military doctrine ...


Not having gotten a distinguished answer from the respected author of the “article on politics”, I decided to find out for myself what these “rapid-fire machine guns” are that effectively protect American military bases from massive MLRS strikes and artillery mortar attacks. Soon it became clear that we were probably talking about the 20-mm Centurion C-RAM X-gun rapid-fire artillery installation — a land modification of the widely used American naval Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS anti-aircraft artillery complex. The abbreviation C-RAM stands for: Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortars - against unguided missiles, artillery shells and mortar rounds.

After the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, the American forces managed to quickly suppress the resistance of the regular Iraqi forces. But soon a guerilla struggle began on the territory seized by the American coalition. Since the allied forces suffered serious losses from regular rocket and artillery shelling of their bases, the American command was concerned about countermeasures. The situation was complicated by the fact that mortars and launchers of the MLRS rebels were often located in residential areas, and the return fire of American artillery led to large civilian casualties. Under these conditions, Raytheon offered to use the Mark 20 Phalanx CIWS shipborne artillery system, adapted for use on land, to intercept NAR and mortar mines for use on land.

Centurion C-RAM anti-aircraft gun: dubious performance against claims of success


In the basic version of ZALK "Falanx" is intended to protect warships from anti-ship missiles, airplanes and helicopters at short range, small size high-speed combat boats and the destruction of floating mines. 20-mm six-barreled guns with 4500 firing rate / min rate of fire are controlled by radar, which detects and carries out tracking of missiles and airplanes and surface targets. The Phalanx Marine is a 20-mm rapid-fire six-barreled artillery unit with a rotating block of barrels mounted on a single gun mount with two radar detection and tracking. Also in the composition of ZAK includes a rack with electronic units and a remote control. The mass of the artillery system is about 6 tons.

Initially, the Centurion C-RAM anti-aircraft artillery complex was a naval installation, with minimal changes, rearranged on a towed platform designed for carrying heavy armored vehicles. Since on the trailer, in addition to the artillery installation itself with ammunition, they placed detection and guidance equipment, as well as power supply equipment - the weight of the ground complex exceeded 24 tons. This made the Centurion C-RAM immobile. The complex did not fit into the required standards, according to which short-range anti-aircraft complexes should be able to be transported by military transport aircraft C-130J Super Hercules. “Centurion” could be transferred over long distances only by heavy C-5В / М Galaxy or sea transport. The towing speed on a paved road does not exceed 20 km / h.



The Centurion anti-aircraft artillery complex is designed to cover important ground targets from air attack weapons at extremely low and low altitudes, MLRS missiles, artillery shells and mortar shells, as well as to destroy enemy forces and lightly armored targets of the enemy in difficult conditions of the situation and in any Times of Day. When creating the Centurion C-RAM, Raytheon’s specialists used the experience and combat experience gained in the creation and operation of the M163 Vulcan ZSU based on the M113 BTR and the latest modifications of the Phalanx CIWS marine ZAK. Compared with the self-propelled anti-aircraft installation "Vulkan" it was possible to significantly reduce the reaction time of the complex, increase the degree of automation and increase the accuracy of shooting.



With a high degree of continuity with the maritime Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS, the dimensions and weight were subsequently reduced, which made it possible to place all the elements of ZAK on a heavy army truck. In connection with the changed specificity of the application and other types of air targets, the sighting and viewing complex was substantially reworked, hardware and software changes were made to the control and guidance systems.

As is known, the ship Falacs is mainly intended to counter anti-ship cruise missiles, for which the ammunition contains 20-mm projectiles with a U-238 core. This uranium isotope has a density of 19,1 g / cm ³ (7,8 iron g / cm ³). A depleted uranium shell has a smaller diameter than an equivalent projectile of another metal, and less aerodynamic resistance. Due to the higher specific pressure at the moment of hitting the target, it is able to penetrate thicker armor. In addition, uranium dust, which is formed during the partial destruction of the pyrophoric core, has a high incendiary effect. Thus, shells, with a core of U-238, with a high armor-piercing effect and cause significant damage after overcoming armor. This is especially important when firing anti-ship missiles, which can be equipped with additional protection of the head part. At the same time, the use of projectiles containing depleted uranium against mortar mines, artillery and rocket projectiles was considered ineffective and unjustified. Since destruction with a high degree of likelihood of unguided artillery ammunition can be achieved as a result of the detonation of an explosive contained in a solid hull, it is necessary to get into its head part. In addition, artillery shells and mines, in addition to being less susceptible to external influences, have much more modest geometries in comparison with cruise missiles.

During the fighting in the Middle East and the Balkans, it became clear that U-238 particles scattered on the ground, when ingested, due to their high toxicity and alpha radiation, pose a great threat to human health. The danger of contamination of the territory with depleted uranium, the risk of shells falling from a height and the inefficiency of armor-piercing shells against small-sized ballistic targets — all this caused the M246 fragmentation tracer and the M940 high-explosive fragmentation kit to be used in the artillery installation. For the safety of people on the ground, all the shells are equipped with self-killers, undermining them at a given time interval. The total ammunition is 1500 shots.

Since the ground-based ZAK Centurion C-RAM was functionally very different from the Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS marine installation, it used a different radar and optoelectronic equipment, as well as a different algorithm of actions. The ground-based Centurion, as well as the ship's anti-aircraft complex, searches for and defeats targets automatically. The functions of the operator when performing combat duty are reduced to performance monitoring, confirmation of the request for the defeat of a target that has entered the protected perimeter and the prevention of emergency situations. Unlike the sea ZAK, for calculating the ballistic trajectory of an artillery or missile and determining whether it poses a threat to the object being hidden and whether there is a need for its shelling, Centurion is attached to the AN / TPQ-36 Firefinder counter-battery radar. Information on detected targets in real time is transmitted to the control center of anti-aircraft and artillery complexes via radio-relay communication channels at a frequency of 2,4 GHz or via a fiber-optic cable.


Counterbattering radar AN / TPQ-36 Firefinder


Compact towed radar with phased array AN / TPQ-36 Firefinder is capable of detecting MLRS missiles and missiles at a distance of 18-24 km, simultaneously tracking up to 20 targets and determining the coordinates of artillery positions with high accuracy. From the 2009 of the year, the AN / TPQ-53 Target Acquisition Radar radar is used for the early detection of mines, missiles and shells on the trajectory, with a maximum range of 122-mm missiles - 60 km.


Anti-Battery Radar AN / TPQ-53


All elements of the counter-battery radar AN / TPQ-53 are placed on the chassis of the 5-ton FMTV armored truck, which is able to move on a highway at a speed exceeding 80 km / h.

In the first version of ZAK Centurion C-RAM, the AN / TPQ-48 radar was used to detect mortar mines and shells in the immediate vicinity of the protected zone. The station equipment kit weighs 220 kg, the detection range of 120-mm mines is 5 km. However, after a series of incidents, when the AN / TPQ-48 apparatus missed several enemy projectiles, it was replaced by the AN / TPQ-49 station. In fact, AN / TPQ-49 is an improved version of the AN / TPQ-48 radar designed for use by expeditionary forces. In addition to improving reliability and reducing weight to 70 kg, the detection range of 120-mm min has been increased to 10 km. Raytheon has developed a Ku-band radar (10,7-12,75 GHz) MFRFS (Multi-Function RF System) with a scan sector of 360 degrees for use in ZAK Centurion C-RAM. Its characteristics were not disclosed, but after the introduction of the MFRFS radar into the composition of the hardware of ZAK “Centurion”, the effectiveness of the complex increased significantly. In addition, optoelectronic equipment with a thermal imaging channel (FLIR) and automatic tracking of trapped moving objects is intended for searching and firing at air and ground targets of the type. This makes it possible, in addition to destroying artillery shells at any time of day and in difficult weather conditions, to counteract cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, low-flying aircraft and helicopters, as well as use the complex for self-defense in the event of direct attack by enemy forces on the position.



The rate of firing of the Centurion C-RAM ground anti-aircraft complex compared to the marine Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS is reduced approximately 2 times and is 2000-2200 rds / min. Apparently, this was done to save the resource of the block of barrels, since on land the artillery part of the installation had to work in much more difficult conditions.



In November, 2004 of the year, before sending the Centurion to the combat zone, the complexes passed a test cycle at the Yuma test site in Arizona. During the test, conducted day and night, it was found that the anti-aircraft artillery complex is really capable of intercepting single 81-120-mm mortar shells. The highest efficiency was achieved when several installations were firing at the same target.

The first Centurion C-RAM units were deployed in Iraq in the summer of 2005. They defended the Green Zone in Baghdad with a total area of ​​about 10 km², an area in the international airport area known as Camp Victory, Balad Air Base and British stationary facilities in southern Iraq. By the year 2008 in Iraqi territory there were more than 20 artillery complexes "Centurion". A spokesman for Raytheon in an interview with the Navy Times said that 20-mm defensive artillery systems had destroyed 105 ballistic targets and about 2 / 3 of them were mortar mines. During combat use, it turned out that one ZAK is capable of covering an area of ​​1,3 km². Reportedly, in September 2008 of the year was additionally ordered by another 23 installation of the Centurion C-RAM. In addition to Iraq, the Centurions defended American facilities in Afghanistan.



Based on the experience of the Centurion C-RAM combat use, the US Marine Corps ordered a mobile version on the four-axle all-wheel drive 14-ton Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) four-wheel drive chassis. In February, 2019, the company Raytheon announced the signing of an agreement for the supply of anti-aircraft artillery systems "Phalanx" in the ground version. The total contract value was $ 205,2 million. The contract should be fully executed by December 27 2023.

However, in the USA there were quite a few critics of the concept of intercepting artillery and rocket projectiles with the help of an 20-mm rapid-fire artillery installation. It is reliably known that, in the past, the Phalanx anti-aircraft complex could not guarantee, with a sufficient degree of probability, the destruction of supersonic cruise anti-ship missiles. He showed quite decent results when intercepting subsonic targets that imitate Soviet anti-ship missiles P-15 or French Exocet. For testing and test firing in 1996, the US Navy purchased in Russia a batch of X-NUMX M-34 target missiles based on the X-31A anti-ship missiles.

The results of shooting involving M-31 missiles are still not reliably known. However, in 1999, the American admirals began talking about the need to improve the near-air defense of warships. Against the background of information about the existing difficulties with the protection against PKR, the statements about the success of the Centurion are surprising. After all, an artillery shell, a mortar mine or a MLRS rocket are more difficult targets than anti-ship missiles. Although artillery shells do not maneuver after a shot, they fly along an easily calculated ballistic trajectory, because of their much smaller dimensions and their robust corps, it is more difficult to hit them. Hitting even one 20-mm projectile in an anti-ship missile, stuffed with sophisticated electronics, is more likely to lead to its failure. And the impact on the tail section of the 122-mm rocket of the MLRS Grad will only change its trajectory, and this does not mean that it will not be able to damage the hidden objects and manpower. Moreover, the media leaked information that the Centurions were able to shoot down a little more than 30% of the targets that had been fired, while fire was often fired at single mines and 107-122-mm missiles at the same time with 2-3 anti-aircraft guns. To repel a simultaneous strike of an 120-mm mortar battery or a BM-21 combat vehicle with 40 guides. ZAK Centurion C-RAM has no possibility. In Afghanistan, there was a case when, due to the uncoordinated actions of the early warning radar operator and the control officer and the incorrect assessment of the situation, information about the 122-mm Grad missiles launched by the Taliban from artisanal launchers was not brought to the on-duty calculation of ZAK Centurion C-RAM. installations. As a result of the fall of two shells in the territory controlled by the Americans, there were dead and wounded.



The reliability of the complexes also left much to be desired. In 2009, the mean time to failure was 356 hours. During the first three months of operation, 22% AN / TPQ-48 radars were faulty. Subsequently, the coefficient of technical reliability was not less than 0,85. The electronics and mechanical part of the complexes designed to be placed on warships turned out to be too gentle for the harsh conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The average time required for repair and restoration after ZAK failure, taking into account the delivery of spare parts was 8,6 hours.

Thus, to assert that “the Americans have learned quite successfully to deal with shelling from mortars and mobile multiple launch rocket systems. Rapid fire machine guns simply knocked down all the flying mines and missiles "too optimistic.

At the same time, there are no grounds to consider “probable partners” frankly “stupid people”. Thinking readers may wonder, what is the purpose of the Centurion C-RAM, which then requires the army and the USCM? For the answer it is worth taking a look at the structure and armament of the units of the US military air defense. At the moment, the only means of dealing with low-altitude aerial targets are FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS and the M1097 Avenger SAMs, which also use Stinger missiles. After the last 1990 Vulcan ZSU M163 Vulcan was written off in the middle of XNUMX, the US ground forces were left without a barrel-mounted anti-aircraft gun.

As you know, fighters play the main role in providing air defense in the United States. The relatively few long-range air defense systems MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3 should provide protection against enemy bombers and operational-tactical missiles of troop concentrations and especially important objects. At the same time, it is not always possible to protect troops along the entire length of the front line from attacks by attack aircraft and combat helicopters that have broken through with MANPADS alone. Obviously, having initiated the development of ZAK Centurion C-RAM, the US military decided to "kill two birds with one stone" - to get a tool capable of intercepting mines and shells with a certain degree of probability, as well as fighting aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles at low altitudes. In addition, in recent years, remotely piloted aircraft have become more widespread. They appeared not only in the armies of technologically advanced states, but also at the disposal of various irregular formations, sometimes of an openly terrorist persuasion. Having demonstrated not too brilliant results when intercepting mines and rockets, the Centurion anti-aircraft artillery system leaves no chance of survival dronesthat fall within its area of ​​effect.

Based on:
http://peoc3t.monmouth.army.mil/cram/cram.html
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/p/future-force-2020.html
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/03/raytheon-ku-band-rf-radar.html
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/mk-15-vulcan-phalanx/
https://gizmodo.com/the-c-ram-centurion-tears-up-warheads-with-a-stream-of-5907237
https://alternathistory.livejournal.com/1030017.html
https://www.zcomity.com/2015/10/suc-manh-cua-he-thong-chong-rocket-c.html
http://factmil.com/publ/strana/germanija/zenitnyj_artillerijskij_kompleks_mantis_vvs_frg_2013/41-1-0-288
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    3 March 2019 06: 06
    More effective shells with remote detonation. For example, the 35-mm "Oerlikon Skyranger anti-aircraft missile-gun system (Switzerland-Germany)"
    https://topwar.ru/151448-zenitnyj-raketno-pushechnyj-kompleks-oerlikon-skyranger-shvejcarija-germanija.html
    For us, the caliber of 57 mm is more relevant.
    For solving narrow problems, a multi-barreled heavy machine gun according to the Gatling scheme is suitable. For example, to defeat self-aiming ammunition.
    1. +6
      3 March 2019 07: 58
      Quote: riwas
      For solving narrow problems, a multi-barreled heavy machine gun according to the Gatling scheme is suitable. For example, to defeat self-aiming ammunition.

      I'm afraid that is not good ... No. Especially considering the firing range, mass, dimensions and cost of multi-bar installations.
      1. 0
        4 March 2019 07: 47
        Self-aiming ammunition is parachuted at an altitude of about 50 meters. So the range is enough. The caliber of 10,56 mm in weight, dimensions and cost is quite suitable. Such a machine gun is a universal weapon, the United States installs three-barrel 12,7 mm machine guns on BM for good reason.
        1. 0
          April 2 2019 19: 46
          It seems to me it makes sense to consider the option of a smooth-bore 12-gauge Gatling with multi-bullet munitions. Only use a package of elongated rods with a caliber of about 6 mm each as a missile projectile. I think the density of fire and the damaging effect will be sufficient.
  2. -3
    3 March 2019 06: 12
    And what's new, the action of the American installation Volcano in Vietnam.
    1. +9
      3 March 2019 07: 59
      Quote: Strashila
      And what's new, the action of the American installation Volcano in Vietnam

      Excuse me, but how many in South-East Asia did the ZSU Vulcan fire shoot down mortar mines and rockets?
      1. 0
        4 March 2019 19: 39
        In those days, the mines were not trying to shoot down, technology did not allow, and in the picture Vulkan is trying to cover the Vietnamese sniper.
        1. +2
          5 March 2019 02: 11
          Quote: Strashila
          In those days, the mines were not trying to shoot down, technology did not allow, and in the picture Vulkan is trying to cover the Vietnamese sniper.

          The article is about the complex designed to deal with mines and shells. And you write:
          Quote: Strashila
          And what's new, the action of the American installation Volcano in Vietnam.
  3. +3
    3 March 2019 07: 05
    The idea is not new. There were experiments in Germany (I don’t remember the name of the installation), but there were several cannons, and not a multi-barrel installation. The Germans allegedly achieved 90% shot down of flying mines and shells. But if these were real combat conditions, and not greenhouse then could be considered successful. Plus, the price and mobility of such complexes leaves much to be desired.
    1. +5
      3 March 2019 08: 09
      The system really drastically reduces the losses from artillery fire.
      But not due to the destruction of mines / RS / shells, but due to the possibility of warning about an artillery strike. Even a 20-30 second "lag" is enough for the personnel to find themselves in shelters.
      Well, plus a return fire on the positions. It forces to minimize the time of the fire raid, which also contributes to increased security.
      1. +7
        3 March 2019 08: 17
        Quote: Spade
        The system really drastically reduces the losses from artillery fire.
        But not due to the destruction of mines / RS / shells, but due to the possibility of warning about an artillery strike. Even a 20-30 second "lag" is enough for the personnel to find themselves in shelters.

        For this purpose ZAK is not needed, but rather counter-battery radar AN / TPQ-36 and AN / TPQ-53 associated with the warning system.
        Quote: Spade
        Well, plus a return fire on the positions. It forces to minimize the time of the fire raid, which also contributes to increased security.

        Lopatov, you usually read carefully for whom it is said in the publication:
        The situation was complicated by the fact that mortars and launchers of the MLRS rebels were often located in residential areas, and the return fire of American artillery led to large civilian casualties.
        1. +1
          3 March 2019 08: 30
          Quote: Bongo
          For this, the ZAK is not needed, but the AN / TPQ-36 and AN / TPQ-53 counter-battery radars associated with the warning system are enough.

          Well, yes, it is basically done on most FOBs.

          Quote: Bongo
          Quote: Spade
          Well, plus a return fire on the positions. It forces to minimize the time of the fire raid, which also contributes to increased security.

          Lopatov, you usually read carefully for whom it is said in the publication:
          The situation was complicated by the fact that mortars and launchers of the MLRS rebels were often located in residential areas, and the return fire of American artillery led to large civilian casualties.

          So what? Does this interfere with promptly dispatching UAVs with precision weapons on duty in the air, actively used by the Kiowa with a shooter on board, to the place of firing?
          And artillery is capable of shooting very, very accurately. If you aren’t on duty at all, but a cannon / mortar with a sufficiently advanced ASUNO, which allows you to minimize errors.


          Reducing the time spent on fire, and the general nervousness of the calculations, which leads to errors and reduces accuracy, is a medical fact. It is difficult to keep cool, knowing that it is spotted after the first fired mine.
          1. +5
            3 March 2019 09: 01
            Quote: Spade
            Well, yes, it is basically done on most FOBs.

            So, the article seems to be about ZAK Centurion C-RAM or not? If there is a desire, we can talk about battery radars and methods for reducing losses from shelling. I am sure you can share very much on this topic.
            Quote: Spade
            So what? Does this interfere with promptly dispatching UAVs with precision weapons on duty in the air, actively used by the Kiowa with a shooter on board, to the place of firing?

            Lopatov, who else but you must know that the shelling of bases in most cases is very short. PCs are generally most often run on a timer, and those who set them up at the position, in most cases at the time of launch, are already far away.
            Quote: Spade
            Does this interfere with promptly dispatching UAVs with precision weapons on duty in the air, actively used by the Kiowa with a shooter on board, to the place of firing?

            Lopatov, do you want to talk about the effectiveness and methodology of the use of combat helicopters in Iraq? I’ll probably make an article on this topic especially for you. hi
            Quote: Spade
            And the artillery is able to shoot very, very accurately.

            For residential areas? In this case, the militants won even more.
            Quote: Spade
            Reducing the time spent on fire, and the general nervousness of the calculations, which leads to errors and reduces accuracy, is a medical fact. It is difficult to keep cool, knowing that it is spotted after the first fired mine.

            It should not be assumed that among the forces opposing the Americans were completely "stupid people". You know very well from your combat experience that there are talented commanders among the Islamists. It was with the aim of avoiding retaliation strikes that the firing positions of mortars in most cases were located in residential areas. And it was very difficult to oppose something to this.
            1. -3
              3 March 2019 10: 06
              Quote: Bongo
              So, an article like about ZAK Centurion C-RAM or not?

              An article about the system, or about the spherical horse in a vacuum?
              As far as I know, "Centurion" is not capable of working without preliminary external target designation.

              Quote: Bongo
              Shovels, want to talk about the effectiveness and methodology of using combat helicopters in Iraq?

              Only not about Iraq, but about Afghanistan. And not in general, but about specific Kiowa helicopters, and about a specific task - the fight against "demolition men" identified with the help of UAVs and who had a habit of shedding from the scene on motorcycles.

              Quote: Bongo
              Do not assume that among the forces opposing the Americans were completely "stupid people"

              Wouldn’t be smart, would not take into account the high risk of a retaliatory strike

              Quote: Bongo
              firing positions of mortars in most cases were located in residential quarters.

              8)))))
              It should not be assumed that the population of Afghanistan is completely "stupid people" who do not understand what is fraught with the placement of militants' mortar near the dwelling. In addition, do not forget that "location in residential areas" is a very vague expression 8)))
              1. +5
                3 March 2019 11: 39
                Quote: Spade
                An article about the system, or about the spherical horse in a vacuum?

                The article is about the means of fire damage which is called Centurion C-ram. This artillery complex is theoretically capable of working together with any modern radar intended for notching artillery positions. Also, without the help of radars, systems of similar purpose cannot function: Iron Beam and MANTIS. But this is outside the scope of this publication.
                Quote: Spade
                Only not about Iraq, but about Afghanistan.

                The bulk of the Centurion C-RAM was used precisely in Iraq.
                Quote: Spade
                And not in general, but about specific Kiowa helicopters

                If you are about OH-58D, then you probably should know what losses they have suffered, as well as how many of them are left in the American army?
                Quote: Spade
                It should not be assumed that the population of Afghanistan is completely "stupid people" who do not understand what is fraught with the placement of militants' mortar near the dwelling. In addition, do not forget that "location in residential areas" is a very vague expression.

                And someone asks the population? Residential neighborhoods - a place where there are houses in which people live constantly.
                1. -1
                  3 March 2019 12: 38
                  Quote: Bongo
                  The article is about a weapon of fire called Centurion C-RAM

                  About the horse. Accepted

                  Quote: Bongo
                  The bulk of the Centurion C-RAM was used precisely in Iraq.

                  Is it all the same? Huge experience has been gained from working with helicopters on highly maneuverable targets.

                  Quote: Bongo
                  as well as how many are left in the American army?

                  There were a hundred in the Army a year ago. One Kiowa or Kiowa Warier for six Apaches. Quite a lot

                  Quote: Bongo
                  Does anyone ask the population?

                  Here I am about that. No one asks the population. Neither militants nor Americans.

                  Quote: Bongo
                  Residential neighborhoods - this is the place where houses are located

                  And also large yards, wide streets, large wastelands.
                  Do not forget that for accurate shooting you need a lot of space. For example, putting a compass for orienting the mortar closer than 20-30 meters is not worth it. Pickup points - the closer, the less accuracy. Well and so on.
                  And shooting from a "well" with a mortar is almost guaranteed to lead to the detection of a firing one. Due to the fact that the "torch" will illuminate the buildings around.
                  Not everything is as simple as it seems.
                  1. +3
                    3 March 2019 12: 55
                    Quote: Spade
                    One Kiowa or Kiowa Warier for six Apaches. Quite a lot

                    You have outdated data, all Kiowas are written off.
                    Quote: Spade
                    And shooting from a "well" with a mortar is almost guaranteed to lead to the detection of a firing one. Due to the fact that the "torch" will illuminate the buildings around.
                    Not everything is as simple as it seems.

                    So more 3-4 mines and usually did not release. Then immediately faded.
                    1. 0
                      3 March 2019 12: 58
                      Quote: Bongo
                      You have outdated data, all Kiowas are written off.

                      link

                      Quote: Bongo
                      So more 3-4 mines and usually did not release. Then immediately faded.

                      As required.
                      1. +3
                        3 March 2019 13: 06
                        Quote: Spade
                        link

                        And do not believe the word?
                        Quote: Spade
                        As required.

                        And where I claimed that the shelling lasted for hours?
                      2. 0
                        3 March 2019 13: 14
                        Quote: Bongo
                        And do not believe the word?

                        Considering that I took data from The Military Balance 2017 of the year? Not.
                        Withdrawing as many helicopters from the combat crew in a year, even for rich Americans it is too much.


                        Quote: Bongo
                        And where I claimed that the shelling lasted for hours?

                        Hand face.
                        No. I originally said that "Well, plus return fire on positions. It makes it possible to minimize the time of fire raid, which also contributes to increased safety. "
                        And some people decided to challenge it.

                        Well, by joint efforts, we finally came to the conclusion that these fire raids were really short. Q.E.D.
                      3. +3
                        3 March 2019 13: 20
                        Quote: Spade
                        Considering that I took data from The Military Balance 2017 of the year? Not.

                        Well then you risk nothing. On a bottle of White Horse we argue?
                        Quote: Spade
                        And some people decided to challenge it.

                        We probably speak different languages wassat
                        I wrote this to someone:
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Lopatov, who else but you must know that the shelling of bases is in most cases very short
                      4. 0
                        3 March 2019 13: 25
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Well then you risk nothing. On a bottle of White Horse we argue?

                        Clear. Links will not be.

                        Quote: Bongo
                        We probably speak different languages

                        Probably..
                      5. +3
                        3 March 2019 13: 29
                        Quote: Spade
                        Clear. Links will not be.

                        Lopatov, are you afraid of losing? wink
                        Quote: Spade
                        Probably..

                        Or someone carelessly reads that they answer ...
                      6. -2
                        3 March 2019 13: 35
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Lopatov, are you afraid of losing?

                        I already have one warning for using the word "balabol"

                        Quote: Bongo
                        Or someone inattentively reads

                        Bingo!
                        You are sometimes very clever.
                        Next time try to read carefully so that it does not work.
                      7. +4
                        3 March 2019 14: 10
                        Quote: Spade
                        I already have one warning for using the word "balabol"

                        I sincerely sympathize with you! crying
                        But you have not answered: bet or word believe?
                        Quote: Spade
                        You are sometimes very clever.

                        You flatter me, in fact, I, like any retiree, is very stupid. But of course this does not apply to you. No.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Next time try to read carefully so that it does not work.

                        You will not believe, but communicating with you, I am attentive as far as possible.
                      8. -3
                        3 March 2019 16: 30
                        Quote: Bongo
                        You will not believe, but communicating with you, I am attentive as far as possible.

                        Yes, drop it ... 8)))))))
                        Here, you turned out to be completely inattentive. Rushing to challenge my thesis "Plus, return fire on positions. It makes the time of fire raid to be minimized, which also contributes to increased safety."
                        Was it, after all?
                        Or is it you did not write?



                        Quote: Bongo
                        I sincerely sympathize with you!
                        But you have not answered: bet or word believe?

                        If I were waiting for you ... Well, you understand me ....
                        I had to look for myself. But what I found you will not like. Because after being convinced of the decommissioning of the Kiowa helicopters, I found 461 light helicopters remaining in service. Including brand new UH-72 Lakota in the amount of 396. There is a wealth of experience, there is strength, there is money. The ability to destroy mortar crews from helicopters remains. No matter how you try to chat it up.
          2. +2
            4 March 2019 08: 57
            Quote: Spade
            Does this interfere with promptly dispatching UAVs with precision weapons on duty in the air, actively used by the Kiowa with a shooter on board, to the place of firing?

            You can direct something ... but won't it be too late? (They installed a mortar "in Chihara" ... they fired in a quick way several times ... and disappeared into the city block ...)
      2. +1
        3 March 2019 08: 51
        Quote: Spade
        The system really drastically reduces the losses from artillery fire.
        But not due to the destruction of mines / RS / shells, but due to the possibility of warning about an artillery strike. Even a 20-30 second "lag" is enough for the personnel to find themselves in shelters.
        Well, plus a return fire on the positions. It forces to minimize the time of the fire raid, which also contributes to increased security.

        Effective range of destruction of "Centurion" up to 1,4 km. "Grad" hits up to 20 km., The same "Vasilek" - 4-5 km. In a normal battle, it does not reach the enemy before the calculation. VO has already discussed this "device". If anyone is interested: https: //topwar.ru/137864-c-ram-opasnyy-konkurent-russkogo-pancirya-iz-ssha.html#comment-id-8024905.
        For me, a useless thing in combat conditions with a trained opponent.
        1. +6
          3 March 2019 09: 35
          Quote: vvvjak
          Effective range of destruction of "Centurion" up to 1,4 km. "Grad" hits up to 20 km., The same "Vasilek" - 4-5 km. In a normal battle, it does not reach the enemy before the calculation.

          As I see it, the purpose of the "Centurion" is not to "reach the enemy's crew," but to intercept the shells in the protected area.
          Quote: vvvjak
          If anyone is interested: https: //topwar.ru/137864-c-ram-opasnyy-konkurent-russkogo-pancirya-iz-ssha.html#comment-id-8024905.

          In my opinion, today's article is much more interesting and informative.
          Quote: vvvjak
          For me, a useless thing in combat conditions with a trained opponent.

          Agree! Yes With a massive shelling - "Centurion" is absolutely useless. But when placed on a mobile chassis, it can be good for destroying drones, helicopters and cruise missiles.
          1. +4
            3 March 2019 10: 07
            hi
            Great article, put a plus! A respected Bongo does not make a small comparison between Centurion and MANTIS? Is it possible to carefully and imperceptibly feel look at the monitor, and if it doesn't, start the sentences "Compared to the Centurion, MANTIS has the following advantages .... However, its real application does not allow ..." - further, I think, he will write himself! Yes
            1. +6
              3 March 2019 11: 15
              Quote: Wildcat
              A small comparison of Centurion and MANTIS dear Bongo does not

              Then you need to write a whole cycle, and this is for most of the readers, as practice shows will not be interesting.
              1. +2
                3 March 2019 20: 14
                Quote: Bongo
                Then you need to write a whole cycle, and this is for most of the readers, as practice shows will not be interesting.

                Then maybe a tiny article "Direct hit of a projectile or shrapnel? Or maybe a missile? Centurion, MANTIS, Iron Dome and RIM-116". Here you can also talk about Tunguska / Shell and Derivation-Air Defense ... feel
                hi
          2. -2
            3 March 2019 10: 10
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Agree! With a massive shelling - "Centurion" is absolutely useless.

            Not the fact that it is useless. With guided projectiles and mines to fight quite capable.
            1. +3
              3 March 2019 11: 16
              Quote: Spade
              Not the fact that it is useless. With guided projectiles and mines to fight quite capable.

              With what efficiency? Statistics on interceptions, cost and reliability ZAK in the publication is given.
              1. -2
                3 March 2019 12: 39
                Sorry, but where did this come from: "Moreover, information was leaked to the media that the Centurions were able to shoot down a little more than 30% of the fired targets, while the fire was often fired at single mines and 107-122-mm rockets simultaneously 2-3 anti-aircraft guns. "? I ran through the links (I confess, it was diagonally, but here:
                https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm
                https://www.zcomity.com/2015/10/suc-manh-cua-he-thong-chong-rocket-c.html?m=1
                https://gizmodo.com/the-c-ram-centurion-tears-up-warheads-with-a-stream-of-5907237
                It says roughly the same thing: "All told, the Centurion can reportedly defend a 1.2km square area from airborne threats with a 60 to 70 percent shoot-down rate."
                PS and transportation. In Hercules will not fit, approx. But, in addition to the C-5, there is also the C-17.
                1. +2
                  3 March 2019 13: 02
                  Quote: ares1988
                  "All told, the Centurion can reportedly defend a 1.2km square area from airborne threats with a 60 to 70 percent shoot-down rate."

                  Another question is what is meant by the "air threat"?
                  Quote: ares1988
                  Sorry, but where did this come from: "Moreover, information leaked to the media that the Centurions were able to shoot down a little more than 30% of the fired targets, while the fire was often fired at single mines and 107-122-mm rockets at the same time 2-3 anti-aircraft guns

                  The list of sources is indicated. Sorry, but now I will not look from where exactly it is taken. The source is the same, where it is said about the time between failures and the time for the restoration of working capacity.
                  Quote: ares1988
                  In Hercules does not fit, ok. But besides C-5 there is also C-17.

                  I agree. Yes
                  1. +3
                    3 March 2019 22: 43
                    Quote: Bongo
                    Sorry, but now I will not look from where exactly it is taken. The source is the same where it says about MTBF and recovery time.

                    Honestly, I did not expect such trash from you.

                    Not from your list, as far as I can understand. From here, probably.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar
                    The article confirms that even editors from Anglo do not get their hands on timely sawing out such crafts. The text you copy-pasted does not contain links to the primary, but it contains turns like this system is a Logistics nightmarecharacteristic of Internet experts.

                    Unfortunately, using, apparently, anonymous letters as a source, you decided to sprinkle battle fiction and breakdown in the best style of other constant authors of VO.

                    Obviously, by initiating the development of ZAK Centurion C-RAM, the US military decided to “kill two birds with one stone” - to obtain a means capable of intercepting mines and shells with a certain degree of probability, as well as fighting aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles at low altitudes


                    Without denying the grandiose problems associated with the bureaucracy of the American army, it should be noted that the defense in 2Q19 american ground forces from attack aircraft through Mza - And on althistori you will not meet every day.
          3. +2
            3 March 2019 10: 16
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            As I see it, the purpose of the "Centurion" is not to "reach the enemy's crew," but to intercept the shells in the protected area.

            That's right. Only the zone is very small, the author indicates only 1,3 km.sq. (according to my estimates about 6). For the destroyer (150 m long) this is still acceptable, but on the ground - except that you can only protect yourself.
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            In my opinion, today's article is much more interesting and informative.

            Here, I also completely agree with you. For which I already put the author +.
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            But if placed on a mobile chassis, it can be good for destroying drones, helicopters and cruise missiles.

            But this is unlikely. Too cumbersome and inert. And it is positioned as a complex for covering objects. On a helicopter, only a blind man can fly into the "Ceturion" zone of destruction, and he cannot physically shoot down the "Caliber" (according to his own performance characteristics).
            1. 0
              3 March 2019 11: 14
              Quote: vvvjak
              but on the earth - except that he can only protect himself.

              This is more than the vast majority of FOB-Forward Operating Bases deployed in Afghanistan.
            2. +3
              3 March 2019 11: 46
              Quote: vvvjak
              But this is unlikely. Too bulky and inert. Yes, and is positioned as a complex cover objects.

              For KMP created a mobile version based on HEMTT. In the absence of better, it can be used against aerodynamic purposes.
              Quote: vvvjak
              On a helicopter, only a blind person can fly into the zone of destruction of the "Ceturion"

              Nobody has canceled the means of masking, and the sighting systems on many helicopter gunships are not so perfect.

              Quote: vvvjak
              but the same "Caliber" he cannot knock down physically (according to his performance characteristics)

              How did you decide this? Would you like to say the subsonic CD is "too tough" for "Centurion"?
              1. 0
                3 March 2019 12: 18
                Quote: Bongo
                For want of a better one, it can very well be used against aerodynamic targets.

                Well, only if so.
                Quote: Bongo
                Nobody has canceled the means of masking, and the sighting systems on many helicopter gunships are not so perfect.

                Like to plunge into a single "piece of shit" walking across a hectare field. It happens in life and so.
                Quote: Bongo
                How did you decide this? Would you like to say the subsonic CD is "too tough" for "Centurion"?

                And since when did "Caliber" become subsonic? When approaching the target, he issues 3 M.
                1. +4
                  3 March 2019 12: 50
                  Quote: vvvjak
                  Like to plunge into a single "piece of shit" walking across a hectare field. It happens in life and so.

                  Well, the dimensions of the "Centurion" on the truck chassis are not so great. The Chinese have a ZAK of a similar size.

                  Quote: vvvjak
                  And since when did "Caliber" become subsonic? When approaching the target, he issues 3 M.

                  Are we talking about CD or PKR? Moreover, as having in the past some relation to air defense, I will tell you that the main struggle with the CD is on the route.
                  1. +2
                    4 March 2019 01: 49
                    Sergei, call me that I'm getting on with the dialogue, but how can you calculate the route of the cr? If you are talking about a "desert storm" and axes were shot down, then it seems that this was due to the imperfection of the inertial system with an ax, as a result of which their tracks were tied to certain landmarks on the ground. It seems like in the last modification it was fixed feel Well, the question is of such a plan, but is it realistic to lay your own flight route in each cr, so that they appear almost simultaneously at the target ???
                    1. +4
                      4 March 2019 02: 17
                      Quote: Korax71
                      Sergey, call me a dialogue, but how can I calculate the route?

                      "Anchor points" - areas where the inertial is disabled. Although a satellite positioning system is used on modern modifications, the question arises, how efficient will it be in the event of a conflict with a technologically advanced enemy? In addition, in areas with difficult terrain (mountains, hills). There are not many places where CDs can go unnoticed. In the past, during exercises, this was always taken into account, and anti-aircraft batteries were located in the gullies and valleys between the hills.
                      Quote: Korax71
                      But is it possible to lay your flight route in every cr, so that they appear at the target almost simultaneously ???

                      In theory. Yes
                      1. +2
                        4 March 2019 02: 41
                        Pasib drinks as always, the devil is in the details, or rather in the terrain. In the event of a conflict with a technologically powerful adversary, it’s most likely that the Americans will completely cut off the FGPs, I don’t think that they wouldn’t work out such an option when they created a satellite constellation, and how many gods know in orbit of dual-use satellites, and it seems like there was information that GPS satellites hang in a rather high orbit. I can’t imagine how all of them can be landed. Complicate the work, I agree, but completely eliminate it request Well, the fact that they are constantly improving inertial guidance systems, too, plus a piggy bank. You look over time to finish to such a state that the quo will be the size of a sewer.
                      2. +4
                        4 March 2019 13: 01
                        Quote: Korax71
                        In a conflict with a technologically strong adversary, it is likely that the Americans will be completely problematic to completely cut off the same Americans, I don’t think they don’t work this way out when creating a satellite constellation, and how many dual-purpose satellites are in orbit, God only knows, and ZHPS satellites hang in a fairly high orbit. I can not imagine how all of them can land. To complicate the work, I agree, but to completely eliminate

                        Alexander, I am not a member of the "omnipotent electronic warfare sect", but the systems that we have in the troops and without hitting satellites are quite capable of disrupting the operation of satellite positioning navigation equipment at a considerable distance from the covered objects.
                        Quote: Korax71
                        Well, the fact that they are constantly improving inertial guidance systems, too, plus a piggy bank. You look over time to finish to such a state that the quo will be the size of a sewer.

                        Even the inertial on laser gyroscopes accumulates a significant error at the Ax's maximum flight range. no particular progress in this area is foreseen yet.
        2. +2
          3 March 2019 10: 08
          Quote: vvvjak
          Effective range of destruction of "Centurion" up to 1,4 km. "Grad" hits up to 20 km., The same "Vasilek" - 4-5 km.

          Uh ..... You mix warm with soft, square kilometers with linear range. This is not worth doing.
          1. 0
            3 March 2019 10: 24
            Quote: Spade
            Uh ..... You mix warm with soft, square kilometers with linear range. This is not worth doing.

            And where did you see the square kilometers. The effective firing range of the Flanks is 1,47 km. Look at performance characteristics.
            1. +1
              3 March 2019 10: 37
              Quote: vvvjak
              The effective firing range of the Flanks is 1,47 km.

              And what side is she here ????
              8)))
              1. +1
                3 March 2019 10: 50
                Quote: Spade
                And what side is she here ????
                8)))

                Who is she? If you mean "Flanx" it is the same as "Centurion" only sea-based. The only difference is in the rate of fire (5000 rpm versus 2000). Have you read the article?
                1. 0
                  3 March 2019 11: 12
                  Quote: vvvjak
                  Who is she?

                  Effective firing range of "Flanx"
                  Is this ship ZAK designed to destroy shells, mines and RS?
                  What is the effective firing range of the Flanx against an 81mm mine target?

                  Quote: vvvjak
                  Have you read the article?

                  And you? We are discussing the C-RAM system and its "executive part" called "Centurion". From which side is the ship's ZAK?
                  1. +1
                    3 March 2019 11: 41
                    Quote: Spade
                    What side is ship ZAK here for?

                    "Under these conditions, Raytheon Corporation proposed to use the Mark 20 Phalanx CIWS, a 15 mm naval artillery system adapted for use on land, to intercept NAR and mortar mines.".
                    "The rate of fire of the land-based anti-aircraft complex Centurion C-RAM compared to the naval Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS is reduced by about 2 times and is 2000-2200 rds / min. Apparently, this was done to save the resource of the barrel unit, since on land the artillery part of the installation has to work in much more difficult conditions ".
                    "C-RAM "Centurion" is a ground-based version of the famous American shipborne anti-aircraft complex Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS"
                    "The six-barrel 20-mm gun M61А1 has two modes of shooting: 4000 and 6000 rounds per minute. However, for a ground modification of the complex, its rate of fire was reduced to 2000 shots / min. At the same time, C-RAM "Centurion" is equipped with high-explosive fragmentation projectiles for greater damage efficiency."
                    Hopefully enough. In view of the futility of further dialogue, I probably bow hi
                    1. +3
                      3 March 2019 11: 58
                      Quote: vvvjak
                      Hopefully enough. In view of the futility of further dialogue, I probably bow

                      eight)))))))))))))))))))))))))
                      You are in a hurry to run away so I don’t ask you "Do you even know what effective firing range is ????"

                      Goals are different, firing conditions are different, ammunition is different, even the rate of fire is different. And the effective firing range, it turns out, has remained the same.
                      Miracles! .. 8)))))
                      Materiel ....
                      1. +2
                        3 March 2019 12: 48
                        Quote: Spade
                        You are in a hurry to escape so that I don't ask you "Do you even know what an effective firing range is ????"

                        As I understand it, trolling is already starting.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Goals are different, firing conditions are different, ammunition is different, even the rate of fire is different. And the effective firing range, it turns out, has remained the same.

                        The effective range of the Centurion should be less than that of the Flanx. The author also writes about this in the article. Before trolling others, I would still recommend that you carefully read the articles.
                        PS Since you apparently don’t understand the hints, I can say directly - I’m not interested in continuing to communicate with you.
                      2. 0
                        3 March 2019 12: 53
                        Quote: vvvjak
                        As I understand it, trolling is already starting.

                        No, this is not trolling, this is doubt.
                        So you know what "effective firing range" is?

                        Quote: vvvjak
                        The effective firing range of the "Centurion" should be less

                        Well, finally 8))))))))))))))))))))))
                        The next question: why then are you pointing it to me? For this "effective firing range is not known for what targets", besides, for a different complex, firing at a different rate and other ammunition in different conditions?
                  2. +4
                    3 March 2019 12: 01
                    Quote: Spade
                    We are discussing the C-RAM system and its "executive part" called "Centurion". From which side is the ship's ZAK?

                    As far as I understood from this publication, we are not talking about C-RAM in general, but about "Centurion" in particular.
                    Quote: Spade
                    What side is ship ZAK here for?

                    The publication clearly states on the basis of what the Centurion was created.
                    1. -2
                      3 March 2019 12: 18
                      Quote: zyablik.olga
                      The publication clearly states on the basis of what the Centurion was created.

                      So what?
                      Have you heard of a C-RAM complex like KMW Smart Camp Defense? There, 155-mm howitzers are used as "executive" ones.
                      But we will not put an "equal" sign between the maximum firing range of the PzH 2000 and "the average temperature in pain ... sorry, the effective range of Smart Camp"

                      You never know what it was created on the basis of ....
                      1. +4
                        3 March 2019 12: 28
                        Quote: Spade
                        So what?

                        Never mind. Somehow you have become rude to behave. sad The article is called:
                        Anti-aircraft gun mount Centurion C-RAM: dubious performance against statements of success
                        Moreover, the author unambiguously replied to you in the comment:
                        Quote: Bongo
                        The article is about the means of fire damage which is called Centurion C-ram.

                        Strange you show yourself.
                      2. -1
                        3 March 2019 12: 48
                        Quote: zyablik.olga
                        Strange you show yourself.

                        You know, instead of trying to find out my mythical "impoliteness", it would be worthwhile to think about the question "what are you trying to prove, in fact?"

                        If you or the author are able to prove that the radius of the zone covered by the "Centurion" is equal to the effective range of the ship's ZAK "Flanx" - then present this data. In total, it's business ...
                      3. +4
                        3 March 2019 12: 57
                        Quote: Spade
                        If you or the author are able to prove that the radius of the zone covered by the "Centurion" is equal to the effective range of the ship's ZAK "Flanx" - then present this data. In total, it's business ...

                        Where is the author trying to prove it? what
                      4. 0
                        3 March 2019 12: 59
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Quote: Spade
                        If you or the author are able to prove that the radius of the zone covered by the "Centurion" is equal to the effective range of the ship's ZAK "Flanx" - then present this data. In total, it's business ...

                        Where is the author trying to prove it? what

                        Fair? I do not know. But I am am assured of this in 8)))
                      5. +2
                        3 March 2019 13: 08
                        Quote: Spade
                        Fair? I do not know. But I am am assured of this in 8)))

                        And why did you mention the author then?
                      6. 0
                        3 March 2019 13: 36
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Quote: Spade
                        Fair? I do not know. But I am am assured of this in 8)))

                        And why did you mention the author then?

                        Patamushta.
                      7. +4
                        3 March 2019 14: 12
                        Quote: Spade
                        Patamushta.

                        I am very grateful to you for an adequate and comprehensive answer! hi
                      8. +3
                        3 March 2019 15: 06
                        Namesake hi I read it with great interest, especially the comments. good
                        Spring, March, Sunday, mention of the White Horse - how to work in such conditions? request
                        For endurance and composure! drinks
                      9. -3
                        3 March 2019 15: 25
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Quote: Spade
                        Patamushta.

                        I am very grateful to you for an adequate and comprehensive answer! hi

                        Yes, not at all.
                        At least someone should remain adequate in this show.
                      10. +2
                        3 March 2019 13: 04
                        There the most important projectile is different. Not a uranium arrow but a land mine. Weight is greater, speed is less, dispersion is greater. Effective range is less.
                      11. 0
                        3 March 2019 16: 12
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        There the most important projectile is different. Not a uranium arrow but a land mine. Weight is greater, speed is less, dispersion is greater. Effective range is less.

                        Are you explaining this to whom? AK-74 has an effective range of 650 m (according to TTX). The AK-74M made structural changes (added mounts of a grenade launcher and an optical sight). Now the question is from Mr. Lopatov: what is the effective range of the AK-74M when shooting at chicken (links to sources are obligatory)? laughing
                      12. 0
                        3 March 2019 16: 30
                        Are you adequate? What does Kalash have to do with it?
                      13. 0
                        3 March 2019 16: 42
                        Yes. AK 74 is a phalanx, AK 74m is a centurion. Lopatov is the nickname of the person who trolls me for a day (see correspondence above).
                      14. 0
                        3 March 2019 19: 11
                        Lopatov is a practitioner. And a practitioner just in the trunks and shells. I completely agree with him. The term "effective range" has strictly one definition, which is evident from the name. The centurion's shell is different, the target size is smaller. The range with which you can confidently hit is also correspondingly less. I will say more. The range of confident destruction of a mine for Folnax will be less than the range of a confident destruction of an anti-ship missile. It is for falnax and only by reducing the size of the target. So uv. Shovels do not troll anyone. He shares his experience.
    2. +4
      3 March 2019 11: 13
      Quote: Magic Archer
      The idea is not new. There were experiments in Germany (I do not remember the name of the installation)

      ZAK "Mantis", the complex consists of a detection radar, a control panel and 4 turrets of 35mm rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns Oerlikon. The complex really showed good results, somewhere in the region of 75-80% of shooting down small-sized ballistic targets, but unfortunately it is not mobile
      1. 0
        3 March 2019 12: 04
        Quote: Klingon
        but unfortunately it’s not mobile

        He is not mobile.
        But there are mobile ZSU Skyranger (for the Saudis) and ZSU Skyshield 35 (for the Indonesians)
        Everywhere they write that they can also be used for C-RAM
      2. +3
        3 March 2019 12: 09
        Oerlikons are better. Long range. But the shell is many times more expensive. And they have - installation separately, radar separately, control separately.
    3. +4
      3 March 2019 12: 43
      Quote: Magic Archer
      in Germany (I do not remember the name of the installation), but there were several guns, and not a multi-barreled installation.

      hi
      Accidentally not ZAK MANTIS from Rheinmetall (Mantis)?
      1. 0
        4 March 2019 09: 28
        Shards can hit a mine? Don't you need a direct hit in the projectile / mine for destruction?
  4. +2
    3 March 2019 08: 35
    The dimensions are as if a whole air defense system but in practice. performs a specific function and even works doubtfully.
  5. BAI
    +2
    3 March 2019 09: 54
    Something the idea of ​​repelling mines with quick-firing guns is not very impressive. How much does a mine cost and how much shells are spent? The cost of the protected object is not considered.
    1. +3
      3 March 2019 11: 28
      Here you can calculate how many Grad shells are needed to destroy this fool. It seems to me that a dozen is enough if in one gulp. And then you can hammer an object with impunity. And there are ATGMs and large-caliber sniper rifles ...
      1. +3
        3 March 2019 16: 45
        Quote: meandr51
        large-caliber sniper rifles ...

        I agree that they are anti-material.
        Disabled radar antenna - and this is a pile of iron.
    2. +3
      4 March 2019 11: 10
      Quote: BAI
      Something the idea of ​​repelling mines with quick-firing guns is not very impressive. How much does a mine cost and how much shells are spent? The value of the protected object is not considered.

      But in vain. Because the latter is the most important thing. It’s cheaper to spend a hundred of the cost of a mine to bring it down — than to watch how burning fuel spreads around the base or ammunition explodes, or how doctors try to find the living in the shelter in which the mine flew.
  6. +5
    3 March 2019 09: 58
    He is huge for his radius of defeat. Huge, heavy and low-mover. So he threw, on his knee, from a volley of hail, he would intercept 3 or 4 missiles. And it is not entirely clear whether different installations can share goals, who will intercept whom.
  7. 0
    3 March 2019 10: 24
    and the shells scattering like fans in the sky - that didn't hit the target?
  8. +1
    3 March 2019 10: 48
    And there are statistics on the "Shell" in Syria, how many shot down / missed? It would be interesting to compare.
  9. 0
    3 March 2019 10: 53
    finally, the "hat" is cowboy, Tunguska and shoots on the move + rockets + weight I don't know, probably 2 times less
  10. +2
    3 March 2019 11: 03
    Thanks for the article the author! Conclusions on the use of Centurions will allow for long disputes. And there is something in it
    1. +2
      4 March 2019 09: 07
      Quote: Olddetractor
      Conclusions on the use of Centurions will allow for long disputes.

      Why argue there? Here "Tekhmash" promises a small-caliber MLRS against drones, eres, mines ... will release ... tady, let's talk!
  11. +2
    3 March 2019 11: 25
    Against the background of reports of the low effectiveness of the Shell armor against drones, there are doubts that Centurion will do better.
  12. +4
    3 March 2019 12: 05
    In Israel, the land phalanx against mortar mines was rejected, because the whole hail of shell fragments would fall on the living quarters of Gaza. And the international noise at the UN would rise such ...
    Therefore, we do not give up hope to build a laser with the FCS of the Iron Dome. But the Americans do not have a 70-100 kW laser for sale yet, and the one that is - 35 kW is rather weak for destroying mines.
    On the other hand, the Americans began to purchase J.K. from Israel this year. to protect their bases from Grad missiles. Here J.K. It works optimally, and the Phalanx - with difficulty.
    1. 0
      3 March 2019 15: 20
      the iron dome is probably not bad, but only for now, the attackers have fewer financial opportunities (not technical)
      1. +2
        3 March 2019 16: 21
        J.K. designed as a response to a specific threat of specific means of attack. When the means of attack change, they will have to develop new weapons. fellow
        1. -3
          3 March 2019 16: 56
          may you have nothing but carpet bombing. However, and not only you
          1. +3
            3 March 2019 16: 59
            We will not. There are no freely falling bombs. All redone for accurate.
            1. -3
              3 March 2019 17: 34
              that’s bad luck, but you’ll have to work mainly in areas
    2. +1
      3 March 2019 18: 59
      A laser, of course, is better, but it cannot completely melt a mine. She will fall on the roof anyway and break it. Or explode in the air with the formation of fragments.
      1. +2
        3 March 2019 19: 04
        Right. But so, only the mine will crash. They let them in — they are to blame. And the Phalanx will give hundreds more fragments from dozens of shells spent on this mine. And in this - in those wounded by these fragments - Israel is already blaming.
    3. +2
      13 March 2019 18: 57
      voyaka uh (Alexey)! You will buy Peresvet from Russia. Radiation power P rad. = 1 MW.
  13. +3
    3 March 2019 13: 24
    Sergei hi Thank you for the article. Zak is rather ambiguous, but the trouble is that they demand a lot from him. To combat the shelling of fire bases and strongholds, only a set of measures works well, which includes regular reconnaissance and reconnaissance and reconnaissance ambush operations in the area of ​​responsibility, in places of possible firing positions, which in itself is very expensive. If you stupidly sit in positions and firmly believe in the effectiveness of your objects, oh air defense, then you can wait for the fact that one day the attacker will overload it with means. In general, the installation itself is quite interesting, albeit bulky, it would be interesting to see its actions on ground targets in severe weather conditions, and for the fight against artillery ammunition it would be better something like an iron dome
  14. -2
    3 March 2019 14: 09
    I still do not understand what the article is about - ZAK "Falanx" sucks as a protection against mortar shelling? So it is and so everyone knows.

    The question is different - what is real protection from mortar fire, but this topic is not disclosed from the word at all.
    1. +6
      3 March 2019 14: 15
      Quote: Operator
      I did not understand what the article is about.

      Who would doubt, but it does not surprise me. No.
    2. +2
      3 March 2019 15: 55
      Quote: Operator
      The question is different - what is real protection from mortar fire, but this topic is not disclosed from the word at all.

      The complex is working.
      - To begin with, control over the places of possible placement of firing positions and, no less important, of possible spotters
      - Next - the engineering equipment of the placements, which minimizes losses
      - Next is the reconnaissance and reconnaissance reconnaissance system, firstly, which allows the detection and suppression of communication lines between fire and spotters, and secondly, that does not allow the use of radio fuses
      - Next is the notch system for firing guns / installations / mortars, ideally complex. At the moment, it is possible to do this using specialized radars, sound and infrared intelligence. In the future, seismic methods are also available. The same system is used to warn personnel about shelling.
      - Further - the system of protection of the most important objects by the "executive elements" of the C-RAM systems. At the moment, there are developments designed for this laser, missile and artillery installations. Moreover, artillery in calibers 20, 30, 76 and 155 mm
      - Next is the system of destruction of firing guns / installations / mortars at firing positions. Efficiency is important here, therefore, for this you can use either aircraft on duty in the air, including unmanned, or artillery, and again, not anyhow, but with modern ASUNO. To ensure the effective operation of the latter, it is desirable to use radar reconnaissance of moving targets

      This is so, to a first approximation. Without touching the work of special services.
      1. -3
        3 March 2019 21: 46
        Thanks for the information - the whole topic fits into one comment (learn, "experts").
      2. +2
        4 March 2019 02: 16
        All of what you said has more than sound grain, I can agree, especially since a number of measures have been tested in practice, with the possible exception of aviation that aviation, since we didn’t have it feel although they found another way, identifying promising positions for firing with subsequent mining, and of harassing fire in the dark with an arbitrary time interval by a mortar platoon. Not to say that the enemy suffered greatly from this, but the desire to carry out shelling even from Co was not so badly reduced. If in those days we had UAVs and even infrared equipment, then this would already be a huge help, but all with legs and legs lol
      3. +2
        4 March 2019 11: 14
        Quote: Spade
        - Next is the system of destruction of firing guns / installations / mortars at firing positions.

        The most important thing in the system. smile Because without the opportunity to get a quick response, the enemy can simply crush the complex with methodical fire.
    3. 0
      5 March 2019 06: 36
      It’s not yours!
  15. +1
    3 March 2019 14: 31
    Sergey, thanks for the next detailed and interesting article.
  16. 0
    3 March 2019 21: 36
    Here they offer the current thing, and if you also apply a controlled detonation, it seems to me that the effect will be higher
    1. +1
      3 March 2019 23: 59
      Remote-detonated shells are effective against weak targets, he will stop the mine.
  17. +2
    3 March 2019 23: 57
    You guys discussed a lot here - this is a means of protecting bases and military vehicles from various barmalei who have one GRAD installation, or several mortar calculations on UAZs, improvised missiles, improvised UAVs and so on. The task is to protect the base from just such attacks. No one sets the task of protecting against a massive artillery bombardment of self-propelled guns, MLRS and so on.
    Protection from mines already says that these are partisans, NBF and TP DRG.
  18. -6
    4 March 2019 01: 05
    The author is an eccentric. The Chinese could not make a normal Kalash, but he talks about airplanes. Yes, they have advanced in many areas, but what have they really made a breakthrough?
    1. +4
      4 March 2019 02: 57
      You are probably still in the 70s of the last century, and China landed a lunar rover on the opposite side of the moon, China makes 5th generation aircraft, China was able to make maneuvering warheads for ICBMs, following our Bulava, China made copies of Yars (also ICBM launchers, and ICBMs with MIRV with IN), which they ride in the taiga (the Americans did not manage) China produces the best electronics in the world, having already bypassed Japan in this area, even the computer at which you are now sitting is entirely made (even the keyboard! Not to mention the processor and video card) in China. And about the "Kalash" - the Chinese have long had their own 5.8mm assault rifle (according to our classification, automatic) with a 35mm underbarrel grenade launcher, to which, by the way, there are cumulative grenades with 80mm armor penetration (just the thickness of the sides of our tanks, coincidence? I think) At a time when our ground forces are still sitting on the AK-74 and cheers-patriots continue to praise it (the machine is good, but when it is new, and not 20 generations of soldiers, it passed through same)
      1. 0
        4 March 2019 09: 06
        Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_4
        You are probably still in the 70s of the last century, and China landed a lunar rover on the opposite side of the moon, China makes 5th generation aircraft, China was able to make maneuvering warheads for ICBMs, following our Bulava, China made copies of Yars (also ICBM launchers, and ICBMs with MIRV with IN), which they ride in the taiga (the Americans did not manage) China produces the best electronics in the world, having already bypassed Japan in this area, even the computer at which you are now sitting is entirely made (even the keyboard! Not to mention the processor and video card) in China. And about the "Kalash" - the Chinese have long had their own 5.8mm assault rifle (according to our classification, automatic) with a 35mm underbarrel grenade launcher, to which, by the way, there are cumulative grenades with 80mm armor penetration (just the thickness of the sides of our tanks, coincidence? I think) At a time when our ground forces are still sitting on the AK-74 and cheers-patriots continue to praise it (the machine is good, but when it is new, and not 20 generations of soldiers, it passed through same)


        In many ways, I agree, but not in everything. Processors are made in the USA. Even if it is AMD, which releases its processors on TSMC (Taiwan) (there are new Elbrus there, and Baikals), since Taiwan is the PRC only formally, in fact, everything is based on Western technologies.
        China has risen a lot, but in critical technologies it depends very much on the West, weaker than we, but depends. An example - look at how recently ZTE was "bent".
        1. +4
          4 March 2019 10: 27
          Quote: AVM
          since Taiwan is the PRC only formally,

          How long has Taiwan become formally China?
          1. 0
            4 March 2019 10: 37
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Quote: AVM
            since Taiwan is the PRC only formally,

            How long has Taiwan become formally China?


            The situation there is confusing, the PRC believes that Taiwan is the PRC

            The complexity of the political problems of Taiwan lies in the fact that the PRC considers itself the only legal successor to the Republic of China, proclaimed in 1911, and Taiwan considers itself the only legal successor. The position “there is only one China” means that the political recognition of Taiwan means automatically non-recognition of the PRC and vice versa. From the perspective of the PRC, the hypothetical “Taiwan Province” is necessary for the territorial integrity of China. From the standpoint of Taiwan, the territory controlled by Taiwan constitutes the Free Territory of the Republic of China, while the rest of mainland China does not belong to this free territory.

            The political system of either side does not include the concept of an “independent state of Taiwan”, which is constantly becoming a source of serious political complications, including military confrontation and even threats.

            Attempts are being made to untie this knot, in particular, Taiwan is attempting to join the UN as an independent state of Taiwan (and not as the “only China”), and there are political movements in Taiwan seeking to achieve radical political compromises. The Chinese side also receives proposals on the status of Taiwan (similar to the status of Hong Kong). However, no agreement has yet been reached.

            Since the nineties of the 20th century, political opposition has softened considerably. China stopped seeing Taiwan as a constant threat of invasion (which led to the rapid development of coastal areas, primarily Fujian Province), streamlined political language was found (such as Chinese Taipei) and economic relations were established, allowing citizens to visit and economic activities. Tunnel projects under the Taiwan Strait for high-speed rail between Beijing and Taipei are also being considered.
            1. +1
              4 March 2019 11: 17
              Quote: AVM
              China believes that Taiwan is China

              You see, the territory of the PRC according to the version of the PRC can be in rather unexpected places.

              Taiwan itself does not yet think so. And somehow it’s been very noticeable lately that you don’t need to rush to your home harbor.
              1. 0
                4 March 2019 11: 44
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Taiwan itself does not yet think so.

                Nonsense. They believed, and always. Even maps are drawn with territorial claims against all neighbors, including Russia
                This is how Taiwan represents its own territory:
                1. +3
                  4 March 2019 12: 13
                  Quote: Spade
                  Nonsense. They believed, and always.

                  You are inattentive.
                  Taiwan does not consider itself a part of the PRC. Taiwan considers territories controlled by communist rebels to be part of the Republic of China, that is, itself. There is some difference.
                  1. +1
                    4 March 2019 12: 18
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Taiwan does not consider itself a part of the PRC.

                    Taiwan considers itself a part of China. China considers Taiwan to be its part. The only contradiction between them is the question of who has the right to steer.
                    1. +2
                      4 March 2019 14: 27
                      In such matters, one must be precise in the wording.
                      Quote: AVM
                      Taiwan is China only formally

                      It is not.
                      Quote: Spade
                      Taiwan considers itself a part of China. China considers Taiwan to be its part.

                      You are confusing the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. I understand that you have one devil, but still. They are different Chinese. Approximately how to discuss "Is the CADLO part of Ukraine" and "Is Ukraine part of the CADLO". Moreover, ORDLO is the PRC. So there is a huge New Russia, liberated by the Russian world (the communist international) from the Bandera (so-called "kitnatsi") and a small proud Ivano-Frankivsk, where the spiritual heirs of the Maidan and European integration are held. On the other hand, the European integrators consider themselves to be the government, and the Novorossians as rebels. Moreover, this position had support in the West for a long time, and the Novorossians (Kitkomi), meanwhile, soon after the victory quarreled with the Great Russians (Sovkomi) and even fought a little. Before Nixon, nobody loved them at all.
  19. 0
    4 March 2019 02: 45
    The laser can be used from stationary platforms that have a constant power supply, for example, to cover dams of hydroelectric power stations from Tomahawks, or nuclear power plants from dronkamikadze. A stationary, fully automated system with a radar will allow you to organize automatic shooting of everything flying into the protected sector (civil aviation does not fly over such objects — if something flies, it is possible that terrorists are full of hexogen to the top and filled with hexogen better and better than outnumbered). before the anti-aircraft gun? The speed of light (2 300 km per second) tell me grandly in comparison with 000km per second with a conventional gun, ammunition does not run out, well, and I think combat efficiency — plastic Tomahawk from plastic composites (and so heated during the flight in a dense atmosphere) it is not difficult to burn through
    1. +1
      4 March 2019 09: 17
      Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_4
      The laser can be used from stationary platforms that have a constant power supply, for example, to cover dams of hydroelectric power stations from Tomahawks, or nuclear power plants from dronkamikadze. A stationary, fully automated system with a radar will allow you to organize automatic shooting of everything flying into the protected sector (civil aviation does not fly over such objects — if something flies, it is possible that terrorists are full of hexogen to the top and filled with hexogen better and better than outnumbered). before the anti-aircraft gun? The speed of light (2 300 km per second) tell me grandly in comparison with 000km per second with a conventional gun, ammunition does not run out, well, and I think combat efficiency — plastic Tomahawk from plastic composites (and so heated during the flight in a dense atmosphere) it is not difficult to burn through



      Not necessarily even with stationary. A mobile platform with a normal generator will suffice. The efficiency of modern lasers is quite high:

      IPG's high power continuous fiber lasers have a power range from 1 kW to 100 kW ...
      ... Among all types of lasers, IPG fiber lasers are the most efficient power combiners and brightness converters. IPG fiber lasers of a kilowatt class with a low order mode structure from the company IPG work with a typical efficiency of converting electrical energy into optical energy of more than 40%. The YLS-ECO series lasers provide the industry's best electric-to-optical power conversion efficiency by up to 50%, overtaking kilowatt class direct diode laser systems.


      https://www.ipgphotonics.com/ru/products/lasers/nepreryvnye-lazery-vysokoy-moshchnosti
  20. 0
    4 March 2019 11: 03
    Obviously, by initiating the development of ZAK Centurion C-RAM, the US military decided to “kill two birds with one stone” - to obtain a means capable of intercepting mines and shells with a certain degree of probability, as well as fighting planes, helicopters and cruise missiles at low altitudes.

    Ahem ... actually, the 20 mm M163 MZA with the same gun was withdrawn from the U.S. Army almost 30 years ago due to inefficiency. No SUAO will help if the shells simply do not reach the target that has already reached the launch range.
  21. +3
    4 March 2019 18: 12
    Wonderful article for Author +++++
  22. Sky
    +2
    4 March 2019 18: 55
    In 1996, the U.S. Navy purchased a batch of 34 M-31 target missiles, created on the basis of the X-31A anti-ship missiles, for testing and training tests.
    It turns out we helped the Americans learn to shoot down our missiles? Not, I understand, a target rocket, without GOS, etc. etc., but it’s 7 years before that it was adopted only and has already been sold to its potential enemy sad
    1. +2
      5 March 2019 03: 08
      Quote: Skye
      It turns out, we helped the Americans to learn to shoot down our missiles?

      Delivered not only targets based on X-31, but also much more. More details here:
      https://topwar.ru/147639-sovetskaja-i-rossijskaja-voennaja-tehnika-v-vooruzhennyh-silah-i-ispytatelnyh-centrah-ssha.html
      Soviet and Russian military equipment in the US military and testing centers
      hi
      1. Sky
        +2
        5 March 2019 19: 21
        Thanks for the link. It’s just tin. How, knowing all this, you can sell the S-400 to Turkey - a NATO member country ... Yes, the Americans, in order to get it and take it apart by a cog, can also give them Gulen.
  23. -1
    5 March 2019 12: 44
    The hit of even one 20-mm projectile in an anti-ship missile, stuffed with complex electronics, with a high degree of probability will lead to its failure
    Sergey, hello love . I'm a little late recourse
    So, with respect to anti-ship missiles - armored plates on heavy items were calculated precisely on the basis of the armor penetration of the Volcanoes. But even more unpleasant for the Americans was the simple fact that even the wreckage of a supersonic anti-ship missile, shot down at a distance of less than 1 km (i.e., the second phase of the Phalanx) safely reached the target, after which it, the target, ceased to be a combat unit for a long time. So we switched to goalkeepers.
  24. 0
    9 December 2023 22: 11
    The C-RAM anti-aircraft gun system was deployed tonight while repelling an attack by pro-Iranian forces on the American embassy in Baghdad and targets in Erbil.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"