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.

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.

Comments

[Thrifty]

More than sure that there the ammunition has been updated taking into account, so to speak, modern combat.

[samaravega]

The ammunition load has not been updated unambiguously. It is not a BKP with a gas turbine generator to replace, it is a complicated and expensive business, institutes have to be involved, a lot of R&D should be carried out, and then it will take a long time to conduct tests at the test site. It is unlikely. The 1983VO3 and 15VO3 rounds with a 16-mm 203O3 cluster projectile (code "Sklad"), which were put into service in 14, have never been seen among the troops until now. And the promoted shootings themselves look very interesting, even in the presentation of official channels. They fired a battalion at one stationary target with active-rocket projectiles at a distance of 50 km. It was not my idea, but in all the news. Now let's go on the "blunders" of our "zhurlyadov" and "prostzhur". Rocket projectile is a NATO term. In the USSR and the Russian Federation, these ammunition are called longer, but more correctly (in my opinion) - a shell with a bottom gas generator. But these are trifles. Further - more interesting. A shot with such a projectile is marked 3VOF35, the projectile - 3OF44 (code "Petrel-2"), was put into service in 1975. There is also a special ammunition, but the data on it is secret. The firing range of the indicated projectile, which is from 2S7, which from 2S7M is 47,5 km. How did you manage to shoot 50 km? Due to certain fundamental design features, these ammunition fly "wherever God sends", which is why they have never been used in any of the conflicts. By the way, in news materials everything ends with a shot, about the defeat of a training target - not gu-gu nowhere. They filmed how the "big guns" shoot, and to drive the unfortunate 50 km along the road and remove the torn up dugout (and the 110-kg "suitcase" would blow a concrete building even in inert equipment, nobody canceled the E = M (C squared) formula) ? It doesn't work that way. Prompts certain thoughts.

[Lopatov]

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 gasifier does not create a jet thrust, it prevents the appearance of a "bottom effect", that is, a low-pressure area with air vortices in the zapoyaska space. Which reduces the speed and hence the range.

By the way, we prefer shells with a bottom cone. Which removes the "bottom effect", although not so effectively, but cheaper and, more importantly, with less dispersion along the range

[samaravega]

I have been following your comments for a long time and (REALLY) respect you very much. I don’t want to speak negatively about you, I ask you to just think about it, if I haven’t thought of it, explain. 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 is very interesting, but, to my regret, in the firing tables for different SA guns, there are no shells with a bottom cone (perhaps they are called differently there, 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. Desirable with reference to the literature.

[Lopatov]

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:
3OF30 is active-reactive to "Hyacinth"
3OF61 is a projectile with bottom gas generators for "Mste"
3OF45 is a projectile with a bottom cone also for Msta. Unified with 3OF61

[Uncle lee]

for solving special problems

This is the artillery reserve of the Supreme High Command (ARVGK)

[rocket757]

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!

[Nikolaevich I]

And still....

MA-LO-VA-TO!
That's when the main ammunition will be corrected "bonbs", tady is just right!

[hwostatij]

It would be better to rivet more calibers with iskanders than to deal with these useless rarities

[Lopatov]

Quote: Hwostatij

how to tinker with these useless rarities

"Tulip" is very useful. An extremely convenient and effective tool for military operations in populated areas.
I agree on "Peony" / "Malka". Useless thing

[karabass]

depending on why, to suppress armed riots with the help of nuclear weapons - it’s suitable

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

I agree on "Peony" / "Malka". 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.

[garri-lin]

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.

[chenia]

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).

[Alexey RA]

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.

[samaravega]

I agree with you about "attach at least somewhere", although in BO 2S7 there is nothing to do from the word "absolutely". As for the "Shore". I read an article in the recent "TV" devoted to the A-222, and finally understood why it is so difficult for him to "go to the troops." It's simple: he is, by and large, not needed there. Outrageous dimensions and weight, low tactical mobility and cross-country ability of all means of the complex, manual loading, out-of-the-box calculation of self-propelled guns, low range of ammunition (only 3, of which 2 anti-aircraft guns do not make sense to use), extremely low flexibility of fire due to unitary loading, inability to create special ammunition in this caliber, the lack of adjustable projectiles - all these PRINCIPAL and NON-ELIMINABLE shortcomings make this complex a very expensive and stupid "toy". During the Soviet era, money was often spent on unpromising weapons, this is inevitable, it was the same for everyone: Americans, British, French, etc. But now it is pointless to spend money on it, it seems that even the "above" realized this. They were adopted for the sake of "showing off", periodically they "shoot" for the same, but they do not try to develop, praise be to Allah: a waste of money. So you don't have to think about the 152-mm "Shore". But the target detection and guidance system from the current one would be worth adopting: it is good in any mode.

[Lopatov]

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 with 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" may be able to achieve this, and using modular loading. That is, for a separate-sleeve, this is, in principle, not possible.

Quote: samaravega

and finally understood why it is so difficult for him to "go to the troops"

He is just dear. Because of its highest capabilities.

[samaravega]

Where am I wrong? Is it manual loading? Read "TV", No. 7 of 2019, p. 27 or give your sources.
For the sea, there may be no need to "play with trajectories", so I write that I received a very expensive and highly specialized "toy". Even the BO guns of the 2nd World War were more versatile in terms of targets, the same TM-180 GREATLY proved itself as counter-battery weapons and support for the ground forces. Neither one nor the other "shines" on the "coast" - a narrow specialization, one shell and a 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 didn't know that the rate of fire is measured in meters per second. Revelation. I strongly disagree about the "Unitars". I am a tanker by training, a simple example: "unitars" 120-mm rh-120, the same "unitars" 105-mm L-7, 115-mm 2A20 provide a maximum rate of fire of 4 v / m. At the same time, all reference books (even for the T-62) "are modestly silent" that this rate of fire is possible ONLY when firing FROM PLACE and strongly depends on the loader's fatigue and where ammunition has to be removed from (I personally encountered this on the T-62 as a loader ). But the separate-sleeve ones on the T-64, T-72, T-80 REALLY give 6 - 8 w / m thanks to AZ or MZ. As a gunner and tank commander, he not only studied these models, but also "shot at the real". The rate of fire of these vehicles is limited ONLY by the capabilities of the gunner and the control system. If you just "hit the white light" (and it happened, Ichkeria is not a place for walks and charter), 8 v / m will give at least "standing", at least "on the go."
I didn’t come across Msta-S in a combat situation, but when 2S3M (code “Akatsiya”) came to our aid, we clapped our hands and went to drink tea (figuratively). Mechanized ammunition racks allowed them to REALLY shoot for 10 minutes at a rate of 4 w / m on an ACS. Not much, it seems. But after a 7 - 8 minute artillery attack, not like us, even the infantry had no "work" left. Moreover, the shooting was carried out according to the principle of the old Soviet cartoon: "What do you need a new owner?" For 4 km flat - please. For 3 km mounted (hit the reverse slope) - please. Even for 1 km mounted, through the city block to suppress 120-mm mortars - please, just a little longer for preparation. Separate-sleeve loading with the ability to change charges. I already wrote for another article, I repeat - it was the A-222 self-propelled guns - an expensive, very large, inactive and low-pass highly specialized "underfloor". Here is the detection and guidance system from this complex - this is the topic. Nobody in the world really has this.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

Where am I wrong? Is it manual loading? Read "TV", No. 7 for 2019, p. 27

And where did you manage to dig up "manual loading" there? Semi-automatic in its purest form. The loader takes the projectile from the ammunition rack and places it on the tray. And that's all.

Quote: samaravega

that they received a very expensive and highly specialized "toy".

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

Quote: samaravega

I strongly disagree about the "Unitars".

You never know what you do not agree. It is a fact.
The fastest-firing self-propelled guns in the world "Bandkenon 1A" reached a record 20 V, min. unitary.
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.

[samaravega]

Where did you manage to dig up a "semiautomatic device in its purest form", when on 130-mm unitary loading, firing exclusively from the spot 4 (!) Loaders? In your understanding, "semi-automatic" is on the T-62, when you take a "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. "Coast" shoots ONLY from the spot and there are 4 (!) Loaders in it. What are you talking about "The cleanest semiautomatic device"? Confused nothing?

Quote: Spade

Using a microscope to hammer nails is also inconvenient.
Field artillery is learning to shoot at surface targets, but it will not be able to achieve 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-firing self-propelled guns in the world "Bandkenon 1A" reached a record 20 V, min. unitary.

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.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

Where did you manage to dig up a "semiautomatic device in its purest form", when on 130-mm unitary loading, shooting only from the spot 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 the Swedes, the original guys. They spent several years without artillery pieces at all. The old ones were removed from service and sold, but the Archers were delayed in development / testing / production
Moreover, this is not a "NATO standard" with their caps 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 "Coast" appeared. The automation level of which has actually been reached only now, on 2С19 of the latest modernization and "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 the "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.

[samaravega]

In 2S19 there are TWO loaders, two more are involved when the shots are fed from the ground. In A-222, the supply of shots from the ground is not provided, all 4 loaders are in the tower. Why - I'll explain. You mentioned "semi-automatic", I gave an example with a tank, where 1 (one) loader. The fundamental difference in the loading system between the T-62 (one loader, "unitar") and the A-222 (FOUR loaders in the turret, "unitar") is that when loading a tank gun, it becomes at a fixed angle of loading, after "damage" shot into the tray, the loader presses a button on the side of the turret, the rammer sends a shot (as it is correctly called "unitar") into the barrel, the gun is aligned with the aiming angle. For the A-222, due to the specifics of the goals, it is critical to charge the AU at any elevation angle, there is simply no time for setting the loading angle and returning back. Hence, there are 4 loaders in the turret and the absence of a system for feeding shots from the ground, which was well developed for 2S3. It's just that in comparison with the "mother" Ak-130, from which the A-222 "originated", one can feel a significant step back: no automatic loading, no water cooling, no high-speed guidance. Honestly, I don’t understand why, apart from the detection and guidance system, the ACS of the "great" A-222 is better, for example, the SM-4-1 model, excuse me 1950? Real 12 v / m, separate-case loading and a wide range of ammunition, giving a much higher flexibility of fire, which is important when firing at coastal targets. And the experience of both the Russian-Japanese, the 1st World War, and the Great Patriotic War shows that our coastal batteries had to fire at ground targets much more often. And about the automation of the A-222, you are wrong. 2C3M will give him a hundred points ahead, although it was created much earlier. There, an automated guidance system and mechanized ammunition stowage make it possible not only to "direct" each ACS by the telecode from the NSh battery's vehicle, but also to "select" the projectile and charge corresponding to the firing task, which is not possible in the A-222 by definition, since there is only one shell (it is pointless to use anti-aircraft missiles from it), you understand about the charges. At Mstu-S, such systems were originally installed. So, excuse me, the A-222 is an expensive "nedopushka"; of the whole complex, the target detection and tracking system deserves attention.

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

The fundamental difference in the loading system between the T-62 (one loader, "unitar") and the A-222 (FOUR loaders in the tower, "unitar") is that when loading a tank gun

... no need to worry about setting the fuse. Okay drums ... "tap on" o "roll the cap" And if the 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 "select" the projectile and charge corresponding to the firing task

Let me remind you that the 2S3 has the same "spacer" between the ammunition rack and the ramming system as in the A-222 loader.

[pmkemcity]

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 ...

[Alexey RA]

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.

Hmm ... are the SM-2-1 and AK-130 shells unified? If this were so, the "Coast" would not have problems with the "narrowness" of the range of shells.

[samaravega]

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.

[Alexey RA]

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.

[samaravega]

1. The author confuses the terms "shot" and "projectile". It is unlikely that only shells without charges were stored - who needs 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-case loading.
2. Shells for unitary shots and separate loading shots differ significantly in design. There was no information about the facts of "alteration" anywhere, which means that it is either impossible or very costly technologically. In addition, the SM-2-1 and AK-130 (i.e., the A-222) are seriously different in ballistics.

[pmkemcity]

"Modern" was founded in the 76th, entered service 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 it is a "unitary" one for the AK-46 with a separate sleeve for the M-130.

[samaravega]

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" "non-cannon" because the automatic loading and the corresponding rate of fire from the AK-130 for it has been lost, and the flexibility in solving fire tasks required to defeat 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 it is wrong to make a "superweapon" out of a not very successful sample of the late Soviet period. 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 - the defeat of air (the rate of fire, water cooling, the guidance system and guidance drives allow, a fragmentation projectile with a radio fuse - to the same cashier), as well as small-sized sea (for which "Mosquitoes" or "Uranus" are sorry, or they suddenly appeared, but even the frigate "suddenly" will not 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 disable the destroyer, guaranteed to sink everything that smaller, and the fire support of the landing, and the project 956 was a PART of the fire support of the Marines, the main one was provided by the DC, which, starting with the KFOR, were equipped with options for ground-based MLRS, incl. with mechanized reloading. AK-130 in the "shadow" of the sea versions of the "hail" were intended to quickly suppress suddenly identified or "revived" targets, to which their MSA and high rate of fire fully corresponded. AK-130, like any weapon, has drawbacks, but fully complies with the requirements under which it was created. When it was transferred to the "Shore" (literally and figuratively), both conditions and requirements 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, and not a priori recognition of the A-222 as a "superweapon".

[pmkemcity]

It was not by chance that I noted that the shells for the AK-130 were developed in the 86th, and the Modern was laid in the 76th. I think the blank and the sleeve are the same. Yes, I am sure of this, because I personally witnessed how in July or August 1991 ammunition was loaded on Frunze in canisters. I think that these were only shell casings, according to how briskly the sailors ran. Maybe they were equipped in the ship's arsenal? Himself had a chance to give "the best years" to the Discreet - com GAG. And he smashed his head about the AK-130 - the iron one turned out to be, did not even blur. Only the gunners will help to figure it out.

[garri-lin]

Along the shore". His jurisdiction is that which came out of the horizon and goes, no, flies at full speed to the surf. He does not need a long and measured artillery fire. The coast needs to hit high-speed and maneuvering targets as quickly and efficiently as possible. Here the rate of fire is of great importance. A 40-round ammo is a good indicator. 20 from the main position, another 20 from the spare. Tobish less than 2 minutes to shoot. And inflexibility is the result of specialization. It is very difficult to find "back slopes" and "terrain folds" at sea. The shore operates in direct shot mode.

[samaravega]

Again you got it all mixed up! The direct firing range of the Berega cannon at a target 2,7 m high is 1100 m. Will he manage to shoot a lot at moving targets, starting from such a range? Before writing

Quote: garri-lin

The coast works in a direct shot mode.

You will at least understand what "direct fire" is and how it differs from "direct fire".

[Lopatov]

Quote: samaravega

Direct firing range of the "Berega" cannon at a target 2,7 m high - 1100 m

And the range of a direct shot is generally from which side?

[garri-lin]

Here I do not deny the terms confused. However, this does not negate the rest of the post.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

So don't throw it away.

New ammunition is still needed, Soviet use will not work. So big expenses still lie ahead. And it's better to spend this money on something more adequate. For example, for ammunition for the upgraded Grad

[chenia]

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.

[Lopatov]

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.

[Orkraider]

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?

[samaravega]

It is currently impossible to bring peonies to a common level with Malka: such an alteration requires the use of equipment and specialists from the manufacturer, and it has been re-profiled for many years (LKZ). Judging by the fact that the work was carried out by the forces of the enterprises of "Uralvagonzavod", which previously supplied only engines and BKP for 2S7 and 2S7M, 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" variants (it uses, to put it simply, the Peony chassis), apparently, was brought to bankruptcy and destruction. God be with them, "Malkas" and "Peonies", in the current conditions those units that have remained combat-ready, only divert human and material resources in vain. But not the ability to produce the chassis for the S-300V is ".....". The S-300V is an expensive and complex complex, but it PRINCIPALLY surpasses the S-300P of ANY modifications, up to the S-400, by the same "two heads" by which the S-300P is superior to the Patriot. With regard to storage or operating. A simple option: to clarify the number of modernized machines (by the way, it is not available anywhere, not a single message in any channel, which already speaks for itself, apparently, there is nothing to brag about, to put it mildly). The option is more complicated, but quite realistic: to clarify exactly which observation devices were changed. If TVNE-4B or TKN-3 are replaced with more modern ones - vehicles from the troops. If TNPO-160 and others like it change - machines from storage, "triplexes" during our storage become cloudy for 10-15 years hopelessly.

[garri-lin]

You spoke several times about opaque triplexes. And you can clarify what is wrong with storage. And what exactly do you call triplex.

[samaravega]

Again you chew everything? Didn't you learn to read? Unfortunately, this is not the case with storage. According to the storage rules (read MOT and IE for ALL AFVE OBJECTS, from "object 172" to "object 478") ALL observation devices are removed from the AFV object and stored separately, in a standard package, in rooms with maintained temperature and humidity. I have never seen such a thing in my life, if you have come across somewhere - give you FACTS that you do not like. By "triplexes" I mean what in TO and IE is called "prism observation devices", they are different for each armored vehicle, for "object 184" (I wonder what it is?) For example, TNP-165A, TNPO-168V, TNPA- 65A, TNPO-160. Do you need to list them every time?

[garri-lin]

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]

It is necessary for the Hussites to plant tests. And look at the price of a barrel.
Then this modernization will pay off handsomely.

[Lopatov]

They will not take it. Too disposable even for fanatics

[Lexus]

So-so modernization, without any serious improvement in performance. Rather, repair with the addition of a terminal to receive data from the UAV.

[Lopatov]

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 electronics "obstetrics", facilitating the work of calculations. Which will still do everything manually. Less including the brain (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]

According to the latest data, the modernization of the 2S7M Malka and 2C4 Tulip self-propelled guns is coming to an end .....

... But if the conveyor rolls shells - the soldiers will probably be easier.

[aleev1957]

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]

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.