Modernization of high power artillery. Coming to an end

Modern Russian artillery of high power is built on several samples of equipment. These are self-propelled guns of the caliber 203 mm 2С7 "Peony" and 2С7М "Malka", as well as 240-mm self-propelled mortars 2С4 "Tulip". Currently, the Malok and Tulip modernization program is being implemented, aimed at improving their fighting qualities and ensuring compliance with modern requirements. According to recent reports, the technology upgrade process is nearing completion.


Modernization of high power artillery. Coming to an end
2С7М Malka fires


Modernization Progress


The first reports of plans to upgrade the 2С7М and 2С4 systems appeared in January last year. By the time of their publication, the Ministry of Defense and enterprises from the NPK Uralvagonzavod managed to complete the development of the project and begin work on real equipment. At the same time, some details of the begun modernization were disclosed.

At the end of September 2018, NPK Uralvagonzavod published new technical details of the ongoing modernization. In addition, the deadlines for completing the work were announced. It was planned to complete the modernization of the 2X7M Malka guns in 2019. The work on the 2X4 Tulip mortars will last a little longer and will be completed in 2020.

6 October 2019 RIA News again touched on the topic of modernization of artillery systems. It is alleged that work on Malka and Tulip is coming to an end and will be completed in the very near future. In addition, information was provided on the first use of modernized self-propelled guns using modern reconnaissance and target designation tools.

Thus, in the very near future, the armed forces will receive the latest upgraded 2С7М and 2С4 machines, and with them a number of new opportunities. High-powered artillery will become more mobile, will be able to hit further and more accurately, and will also increase its effectiveness through new controls.

Principles of modernization


The technical details of the two projects were published last year. Overhaul of equipment is proposed with the aim of restoring its availability. It also provides for the replacement of parts of units and assemblies due to moral and physical obsolescence, as well as due to the need to abandon foreign components. Finally, the equipment must receive new tools that ensure the growth of combat characteristics.

The project for the modernization of 2С7 / 2С7М machines offers quite serious work. In addition to the repair of equipment, the gearbox and other transmission units are replaced with modern products of the domestic industry. Energy supply facilities are being updated in accordance with the new composition of equipment and increased requirements. The atomic defense system is being finalized. It also provides for the replacement of viewing instruments at crew workstations.

The most important and interesting innovations affect the on-board electronics complex. Under the replacement are means of communication, reception and processing of target designation from external sources. With the help of new devices, Malka will be able to fully work within the framework of a single tactical management system. Data will be provided from the higher command, from intelligence, etc. In addition, it becomes possible to introduce intelligence tools fundamentally new to 2С7М.

The self-propelled mortar 2С4 "Tulip" is built on a fairly successful tracked chassis, which so far does not need to be modified. Power plant, chassis, housing, etc. remain unchanged, although they undergo the necessary repairs. The main weapons also remain the same. At the same time, part of the on-board systems are replaced and new devices are installed.


Mortar Shot 2С4 "Tulip"


For “Tulips” new viewing devices and an improved system of protection against weapons mass destruction. Alteration of additional weapons was reported. In the basic version, 2С4 carries a turret with a PKT machine gun. After modernization, another weapon is used on another installation.

As in the case of Malka, Peony receives new means of communication and data processing to work as part of a unified tactical management system. As a result, the modernized mortar receives all the advantages provided by modern means of communication and control.

Consequences of modernization


Repair and modernization of tracked chassis used in the 2С4 and 2С7, allows to keep the mobility of equipment at the required level. Such characteristics of high power systems meet the requirements associated with their tactical tasks. Updating observation instruments and self-defense weapons leads to obvious consequences. The main armament of self-propelled guns remains the same, which allows you to save some of the combat characteristics and build up others.

The most important element of the ongoing modernization is the replacement of communications with the integration of military vehicles in a single command and control system. This greatly simplifies getting information about targets from different sources.

In open sources, it was repeatedly mentioned that now Malka and Tulip can receive target designation from ground reconnaissance units, from satellites and aircraft, as well as from units using unmanned aerial vehicles. Integration into a single circuit simplifies and accelerates the transfer of data from reconnaissance to gunners. Accordingly, the time from the detection of the target to its destruction by gunfire is reduced.

Check Upgrade


The new principles of target search and target designation for high power artillery have already been tested in practice. 23 September press service of the Ministry of Defense announced the first use of self-propelled guns "Malka" in conjunction with an unmanned reconnaissance.

During the exercises at the training ground of Trekhrechye (Amur Region), the self-propelled subunit 2С7М from the Eastern Military District received the training task of hitting targets of a conditional enemy. The range to the targets was 40 km. To clarify the location of the targets, it was decided to use the Orlan-10 reconnaissance UAV. Its operator in real time received intelligence data and the exact coordinates of the targets. Using them, the gunners on the Malki successfully hit the underground command post and warehouses of the conditional enemy.


UAV "Orlan-10" - a means of reconnaissance of the entire army and artillery in particular


The Ministry of Defense indicates that the joint use of self-propelled guns and UAVs increases the effectiveness of artillery attacks. There is the possibility of using high power projectiles at long ranges with the effectiveness of high-precision weapons systems.

It is to be expected that in the near future the upgraded 2С7М guns from other units will again go to the training grounds for solving combat training tasks, including using new means of reconnaissance, communications and data transmission. Then similar events should take place with the participation of self-propelled mortars 2С4 "Tulip", who returned from modernization. Gunners have to master the improved technique, as well as test their skills in practice.

Modernization potential


Despite the emergence of various new weapons systems with high range and accuracy characteristics, artillery retains its potential and remains an essential component of the ground forces. High power systems, such as 2С7М or 2С4, have high characteristics and are an effective means of striking at considerable depths, which contributes to their preservation in the army.

Moreover, a self-propelled gun modernization program is being implemented and is nearing completion, aimed at expanding their capabilities and improving combat qualities. This means that the 203- and 240-mm artillery systems will remain in service and continue to serve as special tools for solving special problems. At the same time, the current update will ensure their compliance with modern requirements and extend the terms of effective operation.

According to the latest data, the modernization of self-propelled guns 2С7М "Malka" and 2С4 "Tulip" is coming to an end. A significant number of such equipment underwent repairs and updates, after which it returned to service - some combat vehicles have already managed to test new opportunities in practice. High-powered artillery continues to serve and tries to keep up to date.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrifty 9 October 2019 05: 23 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    More than sure that there the ammunition has been updated taking into account, so to speak, modern combat.
    1. samaravega 9 October 2019 12: 04 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Ammunition is NOT UPDATED unambiguously. This is not a replacement of a gas-turbine plant with a gas-turbine generator, it’s a complicated and expensive business, institutes must be involved, a lot of R&D must be carried out, then a long test period must be carried out. It is unlikely. The 1983BO3 and 15BO3 shots taken into service in 16 with the 203-mm 3O14 cluster shell (code "Warehouse") in the troops have never been seen before. And the actual firing themselves look very interesting, even in the filing of official channels. They fired a division at one stationary target with active-rockets at a range of 50 km. This is not what I came up with, as in all the news. Now we went along the "mistakes" of our "eagles" and "prostyzhurov". A missile is a NATO unit term. In the USSR and the Russian Federation, these ammunition is called longer, but more correct (in my opinion) - a shell with a bottom gas generator. But these are trifles. More interesting. A shot with such a projectile is marked 3ВОФ35, the projectile - 3ОФ44 (code "Petrel-2"), adopted for service in 1975. There is still special ammunition, but the data on it is secret. The firing range of the indicated projectile is that of 2C7, which of 2C7M is 47,5 km. How did you manage to shoot 50 km? Due to certain fundamental design features, these munitions fly "wherever God sends", which is why they have NEVER been used in any of the conflicts. By the way, in news stories everything ends with a shot, about the defeat of the training target - not gu-gu anywhere. They took off how the "big guns" shot, and the unfortunate 50 km to drive along the road and take off the uncovered dugout (and a 110-kg "suitcase" will smash the concrete structure even in inert equipment, nobody canceled the formula E = M (C squared)) ? This does not happen. Encounters certain thoughts.
      1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 13: 16 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: samaravega
        A missile is a NATO unit term. In the USSR and the Russian Federation, these ammunition is called longer, but more correct (in my opinion) - a shell with a bottom gas generator.

        Sorry, but these are different shells with different methods of increasing range.
        The bottom gas generator does not create jet thrust; it prevents the appearance of a “bottom effect”, that is, a low-pressure region with air vortices in the confined space. Which reduces speed and therefore range.

        By the way, we prefer shells with a bottom cone. Which removes the "bottom effect", although not as effective, but cheaper and, more importantly, with less dispersion in range
        1. samaravega 9 October 2019 14: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I have been following your comments for a long time and (REALLY) respect you very much. I don’t want to speak negatively towards you, I ask you to just think, if I haven’t figured it out, explain it. If the device (unit) is called a "gas generator", i.e. by definition, it "generates gases", how does it not create jet thrust? As for shells with a bottom cone, it’s very interesting, but, unfortunately, in the shooting tables for different SA guns, there are no shells with a bottom cone (maybe they are called there differently, for example, “long-range OFS”), nor “active-rocket shells” ", but shells with a bottom gas generator are present. I would be glad if you correct me and replenish my knowledge. It is advisable with reference to the literature.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Lopatov 9 October 2019 15: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: samaravega
            those. by definition, it "generates gases", how does it not create jet thrust?

            That's it!
            It generates gases for a very long time to compensate for reduced pressure. And it takes, not to lie, 1 / 4-1 / 5 of the volume of the shell
            And the active-jet has a nozzle, it is larger in size, from a third to half the volume. And besides, a short time works on the active part of the trajectory.
            Soviet ARS:

            Shell with a bottom gas generator

            Cone shell


            Quote: samaravega
            I would be glad if you correct me and replenish my knowledge.

            Google:
            3ОФ30 is an active-reactive to "Hyacinth"
            3OF61 is a projectile with bottom gas generators for Mste
            3OF45 is a shell with a bottom cone also to Mste. Unified with 3OF61
  2. Uncle lee 9 October 2019 05: 42 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    for solving special problems
    This is the artillery reserve of the Supreme High Command (ARVGK)
  3. rocket757 9 October 2019 06: 42 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    In general, in combination with EVERYTHING ELSE, our line troops become very formidable, breakdown precisely on the ground theater!
    Good artillery of all kinds and calibers, but good cover from everything volatile .... this is strong and let the enemy \ aggressor be afraid of us!
  4. Nikolaevich I 9 October 2019 07: 58 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    And still....
    MA-LO-VA-TO!
    That's when in the ammunition the main will be adjusted "bons", tads just right!
  5. Hwostatij 9 October 2019 08: 07 New
    • 1
    • 9
    -8
    It would be better to rivet more calibers with iskanders than to deal with these useless rarities
    1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 08: 26 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Quote: Hwostatij
      how to tinker with these useless rarities

      "Tulip" is very useful. Extremely convenient and effective tool for military operations in settlements.
      According to "Peony" / "Malke" I agree. Useless thing
      1. karabass 9 October 2019 09: 11 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        depending on why, to suppress armed riots with the help of nuclear weapons - it’s suitable
      2. chenia 9 October 2019 09: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        According to "Peony" / "Malke" I agree. Useless thing


        So don't throw it away. So they want to attach the remains, at least somewhere. Recently, they put it into the coast, it makes sense to use special ammunition .. And if the Coast is transferred to 152 mm, then for Malka there will be no place there.
        1. garri-lin 9 October 2019 10: 26 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Why translate the coast in 152 mm? It is easier for Mste or the Coalition to provide target designation tools for naval targets. It will be cheaper. And unification.
          1. chenia 9 October 2019 10: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: garri-lin
            And unification.


            So it will be so. The shore is a complex (it has its own characteristics that are different from ground artillery), and the gun with the corresponding elements will be at the base you specified (preferably the Coalition).
        2. Alexey RA 9 October 2019 11: 32 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: chenia
          Just recently stuck in the coast, the meaning of the use of special ammunition.

          Yes, they did not put 2S7M in the coastal artillery. It’s just that the journalists don’t see the difference between coastal artillery и artillery of coastal troops.
          The Kaliningrad 2S7M organizationally are part of the corps artillery brigade of the army corps subordinate to the Special Design Bureau of Defense, intended for the defense of the Kaliningrad region from land. It was just that the Navy cut defense sections on land, but did not expand the classification of naval land units. So the army corps became Coastal troops, although coastal defense is not their main task. Accordingly, the regular artillery of these army and navy regiments, divisions and corps became the artillery of the coastal troops - and they immediately began to mistakenly call it coastal artillery.
        3. samaravega 9 October 2019 11: 40 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I agree with you about "attaching at least somewhere," although in BO 2C7 there is nothing to do from the word "absolutely." As for the "Beach". I read an article in the recent TiV, devoted to the A-222, and finally understood why it is so difficult to "go into the army." It's simple: he is, by and large, not needed. Outrageous dimensions and weight, low tactical mobility and cross-country ability of all the complex’s weapons, manual loading, outrageous ACS calculation, low ammunition nomenclature (3 in total, of which 2 anti-aircraft use it makes no sense), extremely low fire flexibility due to unitary loading, inability to create special ammunition in this caliber, the lack of adjustable shells - all these PRINCIPAL and NOT ELIMINABLE flaws make this complex a very expensive and stupid "toy". In the days of the USSR, money was often spent on futile weapons, which was inevitable, and it was the same for everyone: Americans, British, French, etc. But now it’s pointless to spend money on it, it seems that they even realized it “upstairs”. They adopted it for the sake of "window dressing", periodically "shoot" for the same, but they are not trying to develop, praise be to Allah: a waste of money. So you can not think about the 152-mm “Beach”. But the system of target detection and guidance from the current one would be worth adopting: good in any mode.
          1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 13: 09 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: samaravega
            manual loading

            You are not right.

            Quote: samaravega
            extremely low fire flexibility due to unitary loading

            For the sea there is no need to “play the trajectories”. At the same time, it is the unitars that provide the highest rate of fire. 12-14 meters per second, only thirty years younger “Coalition” will probably be able to achieve this, using modular loading. That is, for a separate case, this is in principle not possible.

            Quote: samaravega
            and finally understood why he is so hard to "go into the army"

            He is just dear. Because of its highest capabilities.
            1. samaravega 9 October 2019 13: 54 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              What am I wrong about? Is manual loading? Read TiV, No. 7 for 2019, p. 27 or provide your sources.
              For the sea, it may not be necessary to “play with the trajectories”, so I write about the fact that they got a very expensive and highly specialized “toy”. Even the Second World War II guns were more universal in terms of goals, the same TM-2s MAGNIFICENTLY established themselves as tools for counter-battery combat and support for the SV. Neither one nor the other “shines” - the narrow specialization, one shell and the complete lack of flexibility of fire.
              "
              Quote: Spade
              it is the unitars that provide the highest rate of fire. 12-14 meters per second,

              I did not know that the rate of fire is measured in meters per second. Revelation. As for the "unitaries" I disagree categorically. I’m a tanker by training, a simple example: the “unitars” of the 120 mm rh-120, the same “unitars” of the 105 mm L-7, 115 mm 2A20 provide a rate of fire of a maximum of 4 v / m. At the same time, all directories (even on the T-62) "modestly remain silent" that this rate of fire is possible ONLY when firing from the PLACE and depends heavily on the loader’s fatigue and where ammunition has to be taken from (I personally came across this on the T-62 as the loader ) But the separate-shell on the T-64, T-72, T-80 REALLY give 6 - 8 in / m thanks to the AZ or MZ. As a gunner and tank commander, he not only studied on these models, but also “shot at the real one”. The rate of fire of these machines is limited ONLY by the capabilities of the gunner and the OMS. If you just “beat in the white light” (and this happened, Ichkeria is not a place for walking and charter), 8 v / m will give at least “standing”, at least “on the go”.
              I didn’t encounter Mstoy-S in a combat situation, but when 2C3M (the code “Akatsiya”) came to our aid, we clapped our hands and went to drink tea (figuratively). Mechanized warheads allowed them to REALLY shoot 10 minutes at a rate of 4 v / m on self-propelled guns. It seems not a lot. But after a 7 - 8 minute artillery strike, not only did we, even the infantry "work", were left. Moreover, the shooting was carried out on the principle of the old Soviet cartoon: "what is the new owner necessary?". At 4 km flat - please. At 3 km hinged (hit the reverse ramp) - please. Even for 1 km by hinged, through the city block to suppress 120-mm mortars - please, only a little longer to prepare. Separate-shell loading with the ability to change charges. Already wrote for another article, I repeat - it is the self-propelled guns from A-222 - an expensive, very large-sized, inactive and inaccessible highly specialized "underfloor". Here is the detection and guidance system from this complex - this is the topic. No one in the world really has this.
              1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 14: 58 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: samaravega
                What am I wrong about? Is manual loading? Read TiV, No. 7, 2019, p. 27

                And where did you manage to dig up "manual loading" there? Semiautomatic device in its purest form. Charger takes the shell from the ammunition and puts it on the tray. And that’s it.

                Quote: samaravega
                that they got a very expensive and highly specialized "toy".

                Using a microscope to hammer nails is also inconvenient.
                The field artillery is learning to shoot at surface targets, but it will not be able to reach the effectiveness of the Coast without specialized equipment and its rate of fire.

                Quote: samaravega
                As for the "unitaries" I disagree categorically.

                You never know what you do not agree. It is a fact.
                The fastest self-propelled gun in the world "Bandkenon 1A" reached a record 20 in, min. it is the unitaries.
                Because one operation is necessary for sending
                The following are self-propelled guns with automatic modular loading. That is two operations, but both mechanized
                And only the following are separate-shell. Type 2C19. With a machine gun and semi-automatic charging.

                Quote: samaravega
                Mechanized warheads allowed them to REALLY shoot 10 minutes at a rate of 4 v / m on self-propelled guns.

                This pace does not depend on the charging system and other things. With such a long shooting, barrel temperature matters

                Quote: samaravega
                highly specialized

                The microscope is also highly specialized. But replacing it with a more universal magnifying glass will not work.
                1. samaravega 9 October 2019 15: 42 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Where did you manage to dig up a "semiautomatic device in its purest form" when a 130 mm unitary loading, shooting exclusively from the place of 4 (!) Loaders? In your understanding, the “semiautomatic device” is on the T-62, when you take the unitar, drop it into the rammer, press the button and it is in the barrel, the wedge is closed, the gun returns to the aiming angle, the gunner can shoot. All this on the go and with one loader. "Beach" shoots ONLY from a place and in it 4 (!) Loaders. What are you talking about "Pure semiautomatic device"? Nothing messed up?
                  Quote: Spade
                  Using a microscope to hammer nails is also inconvenient.
                  The field artillery is learning to shoot at surface targets, but it will not be able to reach the effectiveness of the Coast without specialized equipment and its rate of fire.

                  Do you really believe that the A-222 will give such a rate of fire? 15 v / m in the absence of barrel cooling, manual loading and a caliber of 130 mm? How many minutes can he shoot only at the physical factors of barrel heat? You have disappointed me. Previously, somehow your comments were close to scientifically sound.
                  Quote: Spade
                  You never know what you do not agree. It is a fact.
                  The fastest self-propelled gun in the world "Bandkenon 1A" reached a record 20 in, min. it is the unitaries.

                  Yes, I do not agree. Where is this SPG now? Who, besides the Swedes, used it? Record characteristics let us leave record samples. Fighting, armed with these samples, to put it mildly, is very inconvenient.
                  Quote: Spade
                  The microscope is also highly specialized. But replacing it with a more universal magnifying glass will not work.

                  Something stuck with you on a microscope. 4 times mentioned. Well, this is your business. If you do not know how to use a magnifying glass, a microscope will not help.
                  1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 16: 01 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: samaravega
                    Where did you manage to dig up a "semiautomatic device in its purest form" when a 130 mm unitary loading, shooting exclusively from the place of 4 (!) Loaders?

                    2C19. Semi-automatic charges, automatic shells. Also only from a place. Also 4 loaders.

                    Quote: samaravega
                    de now this self-propelled guns? Who, besides the Swedes, used it?

                    These are Swedes, original guys. They sat for several years without any artillery at all. The old ones were taken out of arms and sold, and the Archers were delayed in development / testing / production
                    Moreover, this is not a “NATO standard” with its cap loading

                    Quote: samaravega
                    Something stuck with you on a microscope. 4 times mentioned.

                    Because the way it is.
                    Field artillery can fire at ships, but with low efficiency. coastal artillery complex can be used for ground targets, but it is redundant for this. Like a microscope and a magnifying glass.

                    That's why the "Beach" appeared. On the level of automation which actually reached only now, on 2C19 of the latest modernization and the "Coalition"
                    Therefore, only now have we started talking about a new coastal artillery complex in 152 mm caliber.
                    That is, take a control system similar to “Feed” on a new element base, and pair it with a 2C19M3 or 2C35 battery doped for this with the installation of additional surveillance systems that are not needed in the “field” version.
                    1. samaravega 10 October 2019 15: 51 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      In 2S19 TWO loaders, two more are involved in the supply of shots from the ground. In A-222, the supply of ground shots is not provided, all 4 loaders in the tower. Why - I will explain. You mentioned "semiautomatic device", I gave an example with a tank, where 1 (one) is charging. The fundamental difference in the loading system between the T-62 (one loading unit, the "unitar") and the A-222 (FOUR charging units in the turret, the "unitar") is that when loading the tank gun it becomes at a fixed loading angle, after the "damage" a shot into the tray, the loader presses a button on the side of the tower, the rammer sends a shot (the so-called “unitar”) to the barrel, the gun is combined with the aiming angle. For the A-222, due to the specifics of the goals, it is critically necessary to charge the AU at any elevation angle, there is simply no time to set the loading angle and return back. Hence there are 4 loaders in the tower and the lack of a system for supplying shots from the ground, well developed on another 2C3. Just in comparison with the "mother" Ak-130, from which the "A-222" originated, one can feel a significant step back: neither automatic loading, nor water cooling, nor high-speed induction. Honestly, I don’t understand why, besides the detection and guidance system, the self-propelled guns of the "great" A-222 are better, for example, the SM-4-1 model, excuse me 1950? Real 12 V / m, separate-shell loading and a wide range of ammunition, giving a much higher flexibility of fire, which is important when shooting at coastal targets. And the experience is that of Russian-Japanese, that of the 1st World War, that of the Great Patriotic War shows that our coastal batteries more often had to fire at ground targets. And about the automation of the A-222, you are wrong. 2С3М will give him a hundred points ahead, although it was created much earlier. There, an automated guidance system and mechanized warheads make it possible not only to "direct" each self-propelled guns by telecode from an NS battery, but also to "select" the projectile and charge corresponding to the firing task, which in A-222 is not possible by definition, because there is only one shell (it makes no sense to use anti-aircraft shells), you know about the charges. On "Mstu-S" such systems were laid down initially. So, excuse me, the A-222 is an expensive "nedopushka", from the entire complex deserves attention and target tracking system.
                      1. Lopatov 10 October 2019 17: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: samaravega
                        The principal difference in the loading system between the T-62 (one loading unit, the “unitar”) and the A-222 (FOUR loading units in the turret, the “unitar”) is that when loading the tank gun

                        ... no need to worry about firing a fuse. Ok drums ... "tap on" o "cap cap" And if remote?

                        Quote: samaravega
                        2С3М will give him a hundred points ahead, although it was created much earlier.

                        This is not true. Even Russian modernization 2C3M has a lower level of automation. It has neither automatic guidance in elevation and turning angle, nor automatic recovery of pickup.


                        Quote: samaravega
                        but also to “choose” the projectile and charge corresponding to the firing task

                        laughing
                        Let me remind you that in 2C3 the same "gasket" between the ammunition and the sending system, as in A-222-charging.
                  2. pmkemcity 9 October 2019 16: 18 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Stupid argument. You forget that not the ammunition is made under the barrel, but the barrel is made under the ammunition. With the elimination of naval artillery as a class (and the ships themselves), the question arose - what to do with 130 mm shells (in this case), which have been in storage in large numbers since Stalin's time. As an example, talk about the charms of 57 mm artillery systems ...
                    1. Alexey RA 10 October 2019 10: 38 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: pmkemcity
                      With the elimination of naval artillery as a class (and the ships themselves), the question arose - what to do with 130 mm shells (in this case), which have been in storage in large numbers since Stalin's time.

                      Ahem ... but are the SM-2-1 and AK-130 shells unified? If this were so, the Shore would have no problems with the "narrowness" of the nomenclature of shells.
                      1. samaravega 10 October 2019 17: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Shots (more correctly, not shells, because there are still charges) to the SM-2-1 and AK-130 cannot be unified BASIC, because for the SM-2-1 a separate-shell loading is used, and for AK-130 and A-222 - unitary.
                      2. Alexey RA 10 October 2019 19: 33 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: samaravega
                        Shots (more correctly, not shells, because there are still charges)

                        So I didn’t mean just complete shots, but shells. For about the difference between loading the new and old 130-mm, I know. And since unification is fundamentally impossible in terms of shots, can it even exist in terms of shot elements - shells?
                        Moreover, the author of the post wrote about shells:
                        Quote: pmkemcity
                        With the elimination of naval artillery as a class (and the ships themselves), the question arose - what to do with 130 mm shells (in this case), which have been in storage in large numbers since Stalin's time.
                      3. samaravega 14 October 2019 06: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        1. The author confuses the terms “shot” and “projectile”. It is unlikely that only shells without charges were stored - who would need them without them? So the shots were kept. In addition, he “forgets” that the destroyers of projects 30bis and 56 were in service before the collapse of the USSR, were actively exploited and sold abroad. So there was someone to spend ammunition 130 mm separate-shell loading.
                        2. Shells for unitary shots and separate loading shots vary significantly constructively. There was no information about the facts of the "alteration" anywhere, which means it is either impossible or very expensive technologically. In addition, the SM-2-1 and AK-130 (i.e., A-222) are seriously different in ballistics.
                      4. pmkemcity 15 October 2019 17: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        "Modern" was laid in the 76th, went into operation in the 80th. In the end, to the credit of the developers, a technical solution was found, and in 1986, 4 shots were fired at the USSR MV armament for the AK-130 130-mm naval assault rifle - http://conjuncture.ru/m-46-139mm-1953/ "caliber 13 cm." I think that the separate case for the M-46 is "unitary" to the AK-130.
                      5. samaravega 17 October 2019 13: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Sorry, I’m forced to disappoint you: only 130 shells were accepted for the 130-mm AK-2: a high-explosive F-44, fragmentation 3C44 and it with a 3S44R radio fuse. Compare with the nomenclature for M-46: OFS 53-OF-482M, 3OF3, 3OF33, BTS: 53-BR-482 and 53-BR-482B, I will not mention smoke, lighting and chemical ones. AK-130 and all its “children” were created for a specific project (956) and specific tasks, its ammunition is incompatible with any other 130 mm. This is a ship’s gun, it’s enough for a high-explosive shell (ground and sea targets, the benefit of armored sea targets no longer exists) and a fragmentation shell (air and small high-speed sea targets, which are unlikely to hit directly, and a close gap and fragments can damage them). M-46 - purely land, he needs OFS (with selectable fragmentation or high-explosive action) and, of course, armor-piercing. Since the the gun belongs at least to the hull, special ones are still needed: smoke, lighting, chemical. Separate-shell loading for such a gun is not a forced, but a well-thought-out solution: the ability to change charges gives the flexibility of fire, not needed by a ship (especially automatic) gun, but very useful for a hull (division or RGK) SV gun. That’s why I call the “Shore” “underperformance” because the automatic loading and the corresponding rate of fire from the AK-130 were lost for him, and the flexibility of solving fire missions required to hit ground targets and provided by a wide range of shells and the ability to use different charges is not provided initially. As an officer who was educated in the good old SA, I will say that the A-222 is better than nothing. But to make “superweapons” out of a not very successful model of the late Soviet period is wrong. Especially considering its cost and the difference in the defense budgets of the USSR then the Russian Federation now. AK-130 is a great AU for ships, but any weapon is designed for specific tasks (ideology). The tasks of the AK-130 are air damage (rate of fire, water cooling, guidance system and guidance drives allow fragmentation projectiles with a radio fuse - to the same box office), as well as small-sized marine ones (which Mosquitoes or Uranus feel sorry for, or they suddenly appeared, but even the frigate "suddenly" doesn’t appear, not those times), here the rate of fire and automatic switching of ammunition allows you to use at least high-explosive, at least fragmentation shells to choose from, and firepower - to destroy the destroyer, it is guaranteed to sink everything that smaller, well, fire support for the landing, and project 956 was part of the fire support of the marines, the main ones were provided by the DK, which, starting with the KFOR, were equipped with ground-based MLRS options, including with mechanized reloading. AK-130 in the "shadow" of the marine variants of the "city" was intended to quickly suppress suddenly identified or "revived" targets, which their SLAs and high rate of fire were fully consistent. AK-130, like any weapon, has drawbacks, but fully complies with the requirements under which it was created. When transferring it to the "Shore" (in the literal and figurative sense), both the conditions and requirements have changed. And this “transfer”, in my opinion, was not very successful. I already wrote, I repeat: heavily weighted, with low tactical mobility, incapable of firing at air targets, unsuitable for firing at ground targets, with an oversized crew (8 people, 4 of them charging), a highly specialized and very expensive wheeled self-propelled gun. One can and should argue with my assessment, but let's use facts and figures rather than a priori recognition of the A-222 as a “superweapon”, because nothing more to admit.
                      6. pmkemcity 22 October 2019 18: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It was not by chance that I noted that the shells for the AK-130 were developed in the 86th, and the Modern one was laid down in the 76th. I think that the blank and the sleeve are the same. I’m sure of this, because I personally witnessed how in July or August 1991, ammunition was loaded on cans in Frunze. I think that these were just shells, according to how smartly the sailors ran. Maybe equipped in the ship's arsenal? He himself had the opportunity to give the "best years" to the Prudent - com GAG. And he struck his head great about the AK-130 - the iron one turned out to not even blurted out. Here only artillerymen will help.
    2. garri-lin 9 October 2019 23: 17 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Along the shore". His jurisdiction is something that has gone beyond the horizon and is moving, no, it is flying at full speed to the surf. He does not need a long and measured artillery fire. The shore needs to hit speed and maneuvering targets as quickly and efficiently as possible. Here, rate of fire is of great importance. 40 rounds of ammunition is a good indicator. 20 from the main position another 20 with a spare. Tobish less than 2 minutes to shoot. And inflexibility is the result of specialization. At sea, it is very difficult to find “reverse ramps” and “terrain folds.” The beach operates in a direct shot mode.
      1. samaravega 10 October 2019 16: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Again you mixed everything up! The direct shot range of the Bereg cannon at a target height of 2,7 m is 1100 m. How much will he have time to shoot at moving targets, starting at such a range? Before writing
        Quote: garri-lin
        The coast works in a direct shot mode.

        You at least understand what a direct shot is and how it differs from a direct fire.
        1. Lopatov 10 October 2019 17: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: samaravega
          The range of a direct shot of the gun "Coast" at a target height of 2,7 m - 1100 m

          And the range of a direct shot is generally from which side?
        2. garri-lin 10 October 2019 21: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Here I do not deny the terms confused. However, this does not negate the rest of the post.
  • Lopatov 9 October 2019 12: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: chenia
    So don't throw it away.

    Ammunition is still needed new, Soviet use will not work. So big expenses are still to come. And it’s better to spend this money on something more adequate. For example, on the ammunition for the upgraded Grad
    1. chenia 9 October 2019 13: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Spade
      And it’s better to spend this money on something more adequate.


      What do you do? A suitcase without a pen. It’s a pity to throw out, it’s difficult to shake off, it’s hard to carry.
      1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 13: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: chenia
        What do you do? A suitcase without a pen.

        But how much regret is of high quality ... By the way, there not only new ammunition is needed there, but also not cheap trunks at all.

        You can also give the hydrometeorological center. Following the D-30. Avalanches will be able to lower even single. laughing
  • Orkraider 9 October 2019 09: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Interestingly, and after modernization, Peonies will be brought to a common level with Malka by unifying? Although nothing has been written about replacing engines, nor is it about replacing charging mechanisms, styling.

    And for the Tulips, most of them were in storage, very curious, are they also being modernized or are they only talking about the 40 units that are currently in service?
    1. samaravega 9 October 2019 11: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It is currently impossible to bring peonies to a general level with Malka: such alteration requires the use of equipment and specialists from the manufacturer, and it has been reprofiled (LKZ) for many years. Judging by the fact that the work was carried out by the enterprises of Uralvagonzavod, which used to supply only engines and BKP for 2C7 and 2C7M, everything is not just “bad”, but “very bad”. It turns out, through the efforts of the "effective managers" of LZGT (part of the Tractor Plants concern), the ONLY current manufacturer of the chassis for the S-300V and all its "advanced" options (it is used, to put it more simply, the chassis of the Peony), apparently bankruptcy and destruction. God with them, “Malki” and “Peonies”, in the current conditions, those units that have remained combat-ready only distract human and material resources in vain. But the inability to produce chassis for the S-300V is ".....". The S-300V is an expensive and complex complex, but it is BASICALLY superior to the S-300P of ANY modifications, up to the S-400, by the same "two heads" that the S-300P is superior to the Patriot. As for storage or operating. A simple option: to clarify the number of machines being upgraded (by the way, it is not found anywhere, not a single channel in any message, which already speaks for itself, apparently there is nothing to brag about, to put it mildly). The option is more complicated, but quite real: to clarify which particular monitoring devices have changed. If TVNE-4B or TKN-3 are changing to more modern ones - vehicles from the troops. If TNPO-160 and the like change, the machines from storage, the “triplexes” during our storage become cloudy for 10-15 years hopelessly.
      1. garri-lin 9 October 2019 23: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You spoke several times about opaque triplexes. And you can clarify what is wrong with storage. And what exactly do you call triplex.
        1. samaravega 10 October 2019 16: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Are you chewing everything again? Did not learn to read? With storage, everything is not so, unfortunately. According to the storage rules (read maintenance and IE for ALL OBVT OBJECTS, from "Object 172" to "Object 478") ALL surveillance devices are removed from the BTVT object and stored separately, in standard packaging, in rooms with maintained temperature and humidity. I have never seen such a thing in my life, if you have encountered somewhere - bring your favorite FACTS like this. By "triplexes" I mean what is called "prism observation devices" in the TO and IE, for each BTVT they are different, for the "object 184" (I wonder what?), For example, TNP-165A, TNPO-168V, TNPA- 65A, TNPO-160. Do you need to list them every time?
          1. garri-lin 10 October 2019 21: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here I specifically clarified. I personally came across a technique that for a decade and a half just stands in the open air at the back of the treble. Clouded triplex bvl rarity. Technique BRDM2. Your statement about ubiquity surprised me. Therefore, he clarified.
  • faterdom 9 October 2019 12: 09 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is necessary for the Hussites to plant tests. And look at the price of a barrel.
    Then this modernization will pay off handsomely.
    1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 15: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They will not take it. Too disposable even for fanatics laughing
  • Lexus 9 October 2019 13: 37 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    So-so modernization, without any serious improvement in performance. Rather, repair with the addition of a terminal to receive data from the UAV.
    1. Lopatov 9 October 2019 13: 43 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: lexus
      So-so modernization

      A deeper is simply impossible. Technically.
      Even to the level of the Soviet unmodernized 2S19 with their rather unpretentious ASUNO, providing automatic guidance along the elevation angle

      Just the electronics of "obstetric aid", facilitating the work of calculations. Which all the same will do everything manually. Less including brain laughing (for example, the commander will not have to enter individual corrections into the range and turnaround on his own, this will be done by the electronics and will give ready-made numbers)
  • san4es 9 October 2019 23: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    According to the latest data, the modernization of the 2S7M Malka and 2C4 Tulip self-propelled guns is coming to an end .....


    hi ... But if the conveyor rolls shells - the soldiers will probably be easier. soldier
    1. aleev1957 23 November 2019 12: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I am horrified to imagine what a wild stress the human body experiences in shooting. The immune system can never stand this. The aging process of the body occurs 1 to 5-7
  • aleev1957 23 November 2019 12: 12 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    We are still very far from the heyday of arms. We are in the very infancy. In fact, the army is a wild noise, howl, crackle, shot, and the unbearable rumble of aircraft. One has only to shoot, take off, or start the engine, you are detected by the enemy. Artillery is generally a thunderous horror. So why do not we fight for silence. In our brains is not the time. The tank only fired, and immediately burned, the gun fired and was crushed by fire. The whole secret, even if small but silence, is hidden in the trunk itself. When fired, the projectile hits the air and a terrible crash. The channels on the rifled barrel should not directly go to the gun. They should end 50-70-100mm before the exit, having an exit angle of each cut that is collected by all the cuts already at 20-30-50mm after exiting from the trunk in the middle. Thus, the air flow will already discharge air when the projectile hits.