Uncontrolled aircraft missile S-5U. New version of the old product


S-5U unguided missile at the Army-2019 exhibition. Photo Rg.ru


In the nomenclature of domestic aviation weapons, a special place is occupied by uncontrolled air-to-ground missiles of various types. The most popular at the time was the S-5 rocket, however, in its characteristics, it was seriously inferior to other samples. This year, an option was presented for deep modernization of such a product called S-5U. Updated rocket retains a minimum of basic features weapons and thereby acquires new opportunities.

The need for modernization


Unmanaged aviation missile (NAR) C-5 basic version entered service in 1955. A 57 mm caliber rocket with a length of 880 mm and a mass of approx. 3,8 kg flew 1,5-1,8 km and delivered to the target a warhead weighing hundreds of grams. In the future, its modernization was repeatedly carried out, as well as new modifications with various differences were created.

During the war in Afghanistan, it turned out that the effectiveness of the C-5 is insufficient for such a theater. Light warhead fragments retained the lethal effect at a distance of not more than a few meters and sometimes could not break through the walls of adobe structures. Also known are stories of varying degrees of reliability about the cotton robes of the Mujahideen, who protected against fragments at the end.

Even during the Afghan war, the S-5 ceased to be the main NAR of Soviet aviation and ceded its place to more effective weapons of a larger caliber. Then in 1990, the S-5 family missiles were discontinued. A considerable supply of such weapons remained in the warehouses, but their replenishment was no longer planned.

It was obvious that to ensure the required combat qualities, the S-5 NAR needed a deep modernization. However, carrying out such work no longer made sense. Attempts were made to create an improved C-5, but none of them interested our air forces.

New 2019


This summer, for the first time, the Army-2019 exhibition showed a new version of deep modernization of the NAR S-5. The Novosibirsk Institute of Applied Physics (IAP) has been developing and modernizing NAR for several decades and has now introduced a new version of the existing weapon - the S-5U (“universal”) missile.

Uncontrolled aircraft missile S-5U. New version of the old product

Stand of the Institute of Applied Physics. Photo Aex.ru

S-5U can be considered as a modernization of the old NAR, but in fact it is a completely new product in the old form factor. While maintaining the dimensions and mass, other components are used, and the architecture is noticeably changed. In particular, instead of the old feather stabilizer used curved parts lying on the body before starting. In addition, the new missile has become longer (1090 mm) and heavier (6 kg).

In a cylindrical body with a diameter of 57 mm with a conical head part, a combined-action warhead and a solid-fuel engine are sequentially placed. The nozzle is brought to the tail section of the housing. Next to it are folding stabilizers. The design of stabilizers, according to the developer, improves accuracy.

The rockets of the S-5 family used engines with a ballistic charge. The S-5U project uses modern mixed solid fuel. Due to this, it was possible to double the ratio of gas energy and engine mass. The engine charge has become smaller and lighter, but provides high traction and allows you to fire at ranges up to 3-4 km.

The increase in engine performance allowed to increase and strengthen the warhead. NAR S-5U received a universal warhead with three damaging factors. In this case, the product itself is made in the form of a single unit with several components. Cumulative, high-explosive and incendiary impact is provided. Warhead made on the basis of an explosive charge weighing 800 g.

The charge of the warhead has a cumulative funnel, which allows punching up to 150 mm of homogeneous armor. In case of undermining, the warhead scatters around itself 490 ready-to-use striking elements weighing 2,5 g. Together with the fragments, incendiary elements scatter. Thus, a rocket is capable of hitting both the target itself and the objects around it. Declared the possibility of defeating manpower with individual armor.

The S-5U missile is fully compatible with existing unified launch blocks. It fits freely into the 57mm rails and uses the same launch controls. At the same time, rocket ballistics data must be entered into the carrier’s weapon control system. In this regard, the new NAR is significantly different from the older ones.

Advantages and disadvantages


The new “universal” NAR has significant advantages over older products of the S-5 family. Due to a complete restructuring of the design, the IAP specialists managed to increase both the flight and combat characteristics of the rocket. The resulting sample may be of interest to customers.


S-5 missiles and launch blocks. Wikimedia Commons Photos

As a positive feature of the project, first of all, the main approach used in its development should be noted. Unlike previous C-5 modernization options, the new one does not provide for the preservation of the main components of the rocket. The body, stabilizer, engine and warhead are newly developed, but in the given dimensions. This approach allowed us to get rid of a number of limitations that impeded the development of the design.

The obvious advantages are the use of new components built using modern technology. This is best manifested in the case of an engine that has received a mixed fuel charge. The resulting power plant is lighter and more compact, but shows higher performance.

S-5U is equipped with warhead with three damaging factors. A number of old modifications of the S-5 were equipped with cumulative and cumulative-fragmentation warheads. In terms of armor penetration, warheads of the S-5U product do not exceed older products, but have an advantage in the number of fragments, and also differ in the presence of incendiary effect. Thus, one can expect a noticeable increase in combat effectiveness across a wide range of targets.

At the same time, the project to modernize the 57-mm unguided missile may not be practical. The S-5U can indeed show enhanced performance and in this respect is ahead of older versions of the S-5. However, even with the help of new technical solutions, she is not able to compete on equal terms with the 80-mm NAR of the S-8 line.

S-8 products are characterized by large dimensions and weight, which creates a certain reserve for achieving higher characteristics. However, large sizes lead to a reduction in possible ammunition. In this regard, the 57 mm system compares favorably with the larger ones.

For yourself and for export.


The main tasks of the S-5U project were successfully resolved. In the existing form factor, they made a new NAR, capable of replacing older products that are not distinguished by perfection and high characteristics. The resulting weapons may be of interest to certain customers. However, certain factors can interfere with the realization of the full potential of such NAR.


Launch of the S-5 rocket of the old type. Photo US Air Force

Russian VKS may be interested in new weapons, but this is not guaranteed. According to the experience of the Afghan war, the main NAR of our aircraft became the S-8, showing sufficient characteristics. A return to less efficient 57mm systems may not be practical.

Regardless of the opinion of the VKS, the S-5U product should be promoted on the international market. NAR of the S-5 family remains in service with many countries that still consider them to be convenient and effective weapons. These states may be interested in the latest project and order such weapons. Moreover, real interest from a foreign customer is already noted.

Earlier, the IAP reported that the Ministry of Defense of Bulgaria became interested in the S-5U missile. This country still produces under license, operates and sells NAR S-5. In this regard, the modernization project could not go unnoticed. What will result in the interest of the Ministry of Defense of Bulgaria is not yet clear. Perhaps the appearance of a contract for the supply of finished products or the purchase of a license.

The interest of other foreign countries has not yet been reported. However, such news may appear at any time. Soviet / Russian NAR was actively supplied to foreign countries, and any of them may wish to update their arsenals.

Project Perspectives


Thus, the S-5U unguided missile so far has mixed prospects. From a technical point of view, it has several advantages and surpasses its predecessors. At the same time, in all the basic parameters, the missile is inferior to weapons of other types. As a result, a potential customer needs to carefully study the capabilities of various types of NAR and decide whether he needs a modernized universal S-5U.

A rocket of this type was first shown just a few months ago, and potential buyers still could not decide on their opinion. Whether it will become the subject of supply contracts, and who will order such weapons, time will tell. In the meantime, the S-5U looks like a very curious example, not without a real future.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Flooding 7 January 2020 07: 12 New
    • 19
    • 1
    +18
    While maintaining the dimensions and mass ... the new missile has become longer (1090 mm) and heavier (6 kg)

    He stumbled at this moment and wondered whether to read further.
    1. svp67 7 January 2020 07: 22 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: Flood
      He stumbled at this moment and wondered whether to read further.

      In general, how much does such a rocket need now? It may be unlikely for the Bulgarians, as a NATO country, as an arms exporter, but we need to protect this modernization project well with international patents to prevent another unauthorized copying. And honestly, I don’t see much sense for our VKS to re-equip this missile, it’s better to produce more Hermes.
      1. loft79 7 January 2020 07: 40 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        IMHO unnecessary. The article itself says this. Plus if "the new missile has become longer (1090 mm) and heavier (6 kg)" then new PUs are needed. Like a fish needs a bicycle. hi
        1. Nikolaevich I 7 January 2020 11: 14 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: loft79
          "the new rocket became longer (1090 mm) and heavier (6 kg)" then new PU needed. .

          Is not a fact ! You can use the "old" PU! Although, the question still remains relevant: "fig goat button accordion"? request
          1. letinant 7 January 2020 12: 29 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            A button accordion is simple, with the same characteristics of the defeat, the ammunition is greater. Now the S-5U is on par with the S-8. To the top comment, in Afghanistan S-8 was chosen because the warhead is larger (explosives are larger) and the defeat is correspondingly higher. And there is no more reason, although in those days everyone recognized that the S-5 suited everyone on the European theater. Read a book published by the Technique of Youth, Aviation in the Afghan War. Everything is described there and about transitions from one type of weapon to another, and what weapon is better for which theater of war, and methods of application and maneuvers.
            1. Nikolaevich I 7 January 2020 13: 56 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              And the hell with the "logistics"? All the "flyers" have long been accustomed to the S-8! Hotz more rockets? So, we already practiced the equipment of tubular guides of "gun blocks" of "2 pieces in one pipe" (!) ... (or maybe more ... I don’t remember now ...)! You can breed such a bootleg: "Long" S-8 one at a time ... and "short" S-8U two at a time!
              1. letinant 7 January 2020 14: 16 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Logistics which side will suffer ?! All parts are equipped with blocks UB-32, UB-16, UB-9, under S-5. There is also a supply of missiles themselves. And the increase in ammunition is the case, the caliber of 7,62mm and 5,45mm, a familiar topic?
                1. Nikolaevich I 7 January 2020 14: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: letinant
                  Logistics which side will suffer?

                  Are they really equipped? I have infa on "some" air units that they have neither S-5, nor "blocks" mute for them .... Well, I'm not talking about "storage depots" ... there, how in Greece, everything can be, but ... the road is a spoon for dinner ... (where are these warehouses? where are these air units?)! PS Although, if the S-5 - "heaps", then you can use "for training" (training "shooting" ...) crews ... and even then ... with a "reservation" ... for EW (warhead with "dipoles", thermal traps ...). For fire damage to targets, from S-8 and above.
                  1. letinant 7 January 2020 16: 51 New
                    • 4
                    • 1
                    +3
                    Twenty five again! UB-20 launchers 20pcs, firing range S-8 up to 4km. UB-32, respectively, 32 launchers. If the declared TTX S-5U is true (firing distance, accuracy, striking properties equal to S-8), I will prefer 32 missiles instead of 20. The coverage area is larger. And since the 8s, the S-90 is ready for modernization, a head with stabilizers is installed and it turns into the S-25, only of lesser power. But we are a peaceful people and we do not need NAFIG weapons, they told us so.
                    1. Nikolaevich I 8 January 2020 05: 09 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: letinant
                      Twenty five again!

                      Again ... again! yes
                      Quote: letinant
                      it turns into an S-25, only of lesser power.

                      Yoksel-Moksel! Comparing an 80-mm S-8 with a 340-mm S-25, even with reference to “less power” (!) ... is too much! Moreover, the corrected S-8 (90s) is made in RCIC technology, and the S-25L-in ACAGE technology ...
                      Quote: letinant
                      If the declared TTX S-5U is true (firing distance, accuracy, striking properties equal to S-8), I will prefer 32 missiles instead of 20. The coverage area is larger.

                      Oh ho ho, gosh! If the "new" S-5U was "leveled" with the S-8, then why not the "new" S-8 (not necessarily the "Monolith" ... maybe Monolith-M ...) with S-13? Yes, even the S-8 and in the corrected (!) Version will be! Therefore, what for you so much NAR, if you can get by with a much smaller number of correctable "products"? You "coverage area" need or point defeat all selected (!) goals ?
                      1. letinant 8 January 2020 06: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I agree, there is an opportunity to upgrade the S-8 (explosives in warheads, distance, accuracy), I will only be glad. But the point defeat for NAR, this is ridiculous wink The installation of a laser head and stabilizers reduces the number of missiles in a salvo to hit a target, but does not make the S-8 a high-precision weapon equal to an ATGM. It just makes it more economical to use ammunition and also stay longer in the battle area and away from air defense systems.
                      2. Nikolaevich I 8 January 2020 08: 28 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: letinant
                        But the point defeat for NAR, this is ridiculous

                        Duc, "point defeat" I did not "connect" with NAR! And with the "adjustable options"! Now the designers are looking for ways to reduce the cost of corrected ammunition, are working on relevant projects that "promise" the price of new "products" to set, not much higher than the cost of NAR !!
                      3. letinant 8 January 2020 13: 06 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Yes, they will not be able to reduce the cost of ATGMs, look at the dynamics of prices! With each new generation, the price rises. If we take into account the conflicts that are now occurring in the Middle East, then there will be enough ATGMs of the 2nd and 3rd generation. But if a full-fledged mess requires complexes, "shot-forgot," look at their prices. And about NARs with a laser head, they have a KVO, any weapon that uses the laser beam guidance principle has a KVO, on the basis of this the kit installed on the rocket makes it not high-precision but correctable, i.e. it reduces the radius of its Circular Probable Deviation. Thus, it gives a greater probability of defeat from the first salvo and fewer missiles.
        2. bk0010 7 January 2020 17: 19 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: letinant
          Now the S-5U is on par with the S-8
          What is it equal? 0.8 kg of warheads versus four times heavier 3.6 kg of warheads in the S-8. For the price, perhaps. But at a price it can surpass: mixed fuels are significantly more expensive than ordinary gunpowder, and it is more difficult to make them.
          1. letinant 8 January 2020 02: 44 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Why lie like that
            Quote: bk0010
            Quote: letinant
            Now the S-5U is on par with the S-8
            What is it equal? 0.8 kg of warheads versus four times heavier 3.6 kg of warheads in the S-8. For the price, perhaps. But at a price it can surpass: mixed fuels are significantly more expensive than ordinary gunpowder, and it is more difficult to make them.

            Weight of warhead С-8 / 3,6kg, mass of explosive in warhead С-8/1 kg. I agree 200 grams there is a difference, only the question is, what kind of explosive is used?
      2. loft79 7 January 2020 17: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        You can use the "old" PU!

        That's for sure? Still, the length increased by 200 mm. When you exit, the speed problems do not arise? As they say, vague doubts torment me). If conducted such tests and all the rules, then the question is removed.
        Established S-5, a new plus for another 200 mm looks that hedgehog still work.
    2. avdkrd 8 January 2020 04: 59 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The article just indicates that pu remain old and do not require changes.
  2. Vadim237 8 January 2020 17: 49 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    In service with several dozen countries of the world remained launchers for C 5 - they will need it.
  • Professor 7 January 2020 07: 55 New
    • 12
    • 16
    -4
    The interest of other foreign countries has not yet been reported.

    Which is not at all surprising. Who needs such junk as NUR when everyone is interested in smart ammunition?

    PS
    Bourgeois make smart ammunition from their NUR.

    1. mark1 7 January 2020 08: 30 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Professor
      Bourgeois make smart ammunition from their NUR.

      Duck, after all, they ripped us off - S-25L (LD, IRS, TV)
      1. Professor 7 January 2020 08: 45 New
        • 3
        • 9
        -6
        Quote: mark1
        Quote: Professor
        Bourgeois make smart ammunition from their NUR.

        Duck, after all, they ripped us off - S-25L (LD, IRS, TV)

        No. This is not a modernization of cheap NUR.
        1. mark1 7 January 2020 10: 59 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          But what then is called?
          1. Professor 7 January 2020 11: 38 New
            • 4
            • 9
            -5
            Quote: mark1
            But what then is called?

            UR like Helfire.
            1. mark1 7 January 2020 11: 51 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Then I don’t see any logic at all
              Although this is actually a modernization of the NURS
              1. Professor 7 January 2020 12: 15 New
                • 5
                • 7
                -2
                Quote: mark1
                Then I don’t see any logic at all
                Although this is actually a modernization of the NURS

                Logic and I do not see. Bourgeois have not used NUR for 40 years, even among the Papuans. What is the point in them when there is a precision weapon?
                Logic in the new NUR and I do not see. Bourgeois have not used NUR for 40 years, even among the Papuans. What is the point in them when there is a precision weapon?
                S-25L is not a modernization, but a high-precision missile created on the basis of NUR. Modernization is Hydra, which is converted into a smart rocket at the airport.
                1. bk0010 7 January 2020 17: 24 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Quote: Professor
                  What is the point in them when there is a precision weapon?
                  Why do we need a high-precision weapon to process (say) a company’s position? Waste of money. Against highly protected single targets there are ATGMs, making guided NURs is some kind of cut.
            2. Nikolaevich I 7 January 2020 14: 04 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              UR like Helfire.

              There is a definition: "correctable ammunition "... Correction (control) is carried out within the" range of permissible miss "....! (20-600 m)
        2. Nikolaevich I 7 January 2020 13: 44 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Professor
          Duck, after all, they ripped us off - S-25L (LD, IRS, TV)

          No. This is not a modernization of cheap NUR.

          In 1999, the “Threat” complex was demonstrated at the arms exhibition: adjustable S-5core; S-8core; C-13core with a semi-active laser seeker and pulse correction RCIC ... But, alas, as "almost always" (!) ... then it’s a dime, then the high ranks "do not like it" ...
          1. Professor 7 January 2020 14: 18 New
            • 4
            • 7
            -3
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            Quote: Professor
            Duck, after all, they ripped us off - S-25L (LD, IRS, TV)

            No. This is not a modernization of cheap NUR.

            In 1999, the “Threat” complex was demonstrated at the arms exhibition: adjustable S-5core; S-8core; C-13core with a semi-active laser seeker and pulse correction RCIC ... But, alas, as "almost always" (!) ... then it’s a dime, then the high ranks "do not like it" ...

            But in vain. NUR is the 17th Century.
  • garri-lin 7 January 2020 09: 36 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The rocket has one plus. Compactness. Suitable for light UAVs. the question is whether there are NARs. But in the variant with LGSN is already better. Just for a point target such as a "rifle cell. So that more expensive missiles do not spend.
    1. knn54 7 January 2020 15: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The warhead is with three damaging factors. The cumulative head pierces armor 150 mm thick. A high-explosive fragmentation shell shoots 490 fragments weighing 2,5 grams each, which fly at tremendous speed and hit manpower, even protected by bulletproof vests.
      1. garri-lin 7 January 2020 16: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Why are you doing this? This is a quote from an article.
  • Private-K 7 January 2020 10: 24 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    There is no doubt - the century of “clean” uncontrolled NUR for aviation (and TSA in general) is passing. Or rather, it has already passed. Therefore, it is necessary to make simplified guided (adjusted) missiles, incl. by remaking old stockpiled.
    I will explain. NUR has a characteristic feature - very low accuracy. Low accuracy, coupled with a small range (up to 1,5-2,5-3 km, depending on the caliber) further worsens their combat potential. And if previously put up with this because lacked the technical ability to improve accuracy, now this is nonsense.

    Russian VKS about 57 mm caliber for NUR do not even want to hear. And rightly so. Than to produce dozens of NURs of 57-mm without a guarantee of the proper effect, it is better to launch a dozen of NURs of 80-mm with some guarantee of effect.

    If, for example, for some standard purpose, you need to release 10-12 NUR cal. In this case, an 80 mm only 1-2 missiles will fall into the target’s area of ​​damage (and this is not a fact, it’s good when the target is large in area), then if you add correction capability to the NUR, it’s enough to launch 4-5 NUR, and 2- 3 rockets. The profit is obvious.

    In addition, a miss or insufficient degree of destruction of the target will require an additional approach of the helicopter - and this significantly increases the chance of its destruction by anti-aircraft means, etc.

    In addition, with a significant improvement in accuracy, the risk of defeating your own troops will be reduced and you will be able to hit the enemy located close to your troops.

    In addition, improve the ability to defeat point targets (air defense systems, radar, cars, etc., all the way to tanks).

    In addition - to increase the range of possible use of NUR and expand the conditions for an attack (shooting).

    The Russian Federation has the technical ability to ensure the improvement of aviation NUR in firing accuracy. There are ready-made samples. Abroad also go this way. So you need to do and not sleep in the shafts.

    PS Ches speaking, the 80 mm is also not enough. IMHO, better than 100 mm and increase the mass of warheads by 50% compared to 80 mm. This will reduce the ammunition load, for example from 20 80 mm NUR in the unit to 14-15, but in combination with the above factors should increase real efficiency. But there is reason for a reasoned discussion.
    1. 30hgsa 7 January 2020 12: 22 New
      • 10
      • 2
      +8
      1. Guided ammunition is usually useless for solving typical tasks performed by NARs. Typical battle situation. The baboons settled in the village, scattered across the buildings. How to smoke them? Guided missiles? So anyway, they will have to work on the area. And so with most situations. Usually there is no exact information that the adversaries are sitting right here, in this window. We need to work on approximate data - on the area.

      2. The guided munition has a developed and overall GOS, in the caliber of 70 mm (hydra) and even more it will occupy a significant part of the warhead, thereby significantly reducing the power of the munition. As you know, 155 mm (!) Copperhead weighs 60 kg and carries 7 kg of explosives, while the usual OFS in the caliber of 152 mm weighs 50 kg and drags 7,5 kg. Those. controllability cost him 10 kg of extra weight.

      3. ur roads. Much more expensive than NAR, as a result, where you could shoot from the heart with an area of ​​a couple of packets, you have to sit and think where to shoot, and this is not the fact that you can still successfully find the target. For khelfairom bullet on a moving tank is one thing, but on the same tank dug in the ruins of the village, with the engine turned off - is completely different.

      4. As for the calibers ... there is also such a thing. Cluster munitions were not just invented. If the work is not carried out on a solid construction, it will be possible to cover a much larger area with multiple small gaps than some large ones. Instead of one 122 mm of ammunition, you can hang 4 of 80 mm. Large calibers are needed for their tasks.
      1. Saxahorse 7 January 2020 20: 33 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: 30hgsa
        Usually there is no exact information that the adversaries are sitting right here, in this window. We need to work on approximate data - on the area.

        The trouble is that there is no accurate information. Such a trip is the cost of WWII times. Fire over areas makes it difficult to supply divisions with ammunition, and one-on-one infantry picks out the enemy from their positions.

        Today, this often does not work at all. Look at Syria, for years in the same Idlib they “bombed” the squares, and the barmalei still sit in their minks. Only moles learned to dig worse than moles .. And even a small offensive is given a lot of blood. Nafig such tactics .. Only bravura reports for flyers. Look for these minks and throw a personal gift to each barmaley.
        1. bk0010 7 January 2020 23: 01 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Look for these minks and throw a personal gift to each barmaley.
          If the barmalei have at least some kind of air defense, then with the concept of a "personal gift" your aviation will soon end. And if there is no air defense, then you can use the Amer’s ganship, which, again, is cheaper than guided weapons (I'm talking about a 105 mm shell).
  • bars1 7 January 2020 10: 58 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Private-K
    PS Ches speaking, the 80 mm is also not enough.

    The UR ,, Monolith "of 122 mm caliber is being developed. Based on S-13.
  • Kerensky 7 January 2020 11: 20 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The most valuable thing in the NURS is the “Nursik,” that same plastic cup. Here it must be deeply modernized. So that the wind does not blow off and measure the belts clearly do.
    1. dauria 7 January 2020 14: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The most valuable thing in the NURS is the Nursik,

      wink
  • Operator 7 January 2020 11: 48 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    IAS based on solid-state gyroscopes from smartphones - no, not heard laughing
    1. Zaits 9 January 2020 03: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      gyroscopes from smartphones


      Count how far he will take a couple of hundred meters, and calm down.
      True, the mathematics of estimating the calculation error in 6 coordinates, taking noise into account, is far from the sweetest. But can you handle it?

      And then, take my word for it, that the tactical class in smartphones did not lie close.

      Another question is that the price tags for decent ANNs do not stand still.
      The topic is hot, and now there are a lot of people who want to make a sweetie out of Mr.
      And they will do the same. Not after 5 years, but after 10.
      And even if not for a couple of dollars, but for a couple of hundred evergreens, but with a deviation, for example, 1m / 10km, the arms market will simply explode. Although now it sounds like science fiction. But the people are digging ....
      1. Operator 9 January 2020 07: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The accuracy of the ISN is proportional to the flight time, not the distance. The best solid-state gyroscopes already have an accuracy of 10 cm / second. The cost of solid-state gyroscopes of a smartphone class is measured in a few dollars per unit.
  • 30hgsa 7 January 2020 12: 02 New
    • 11
    • 3
    +8
    The idea that the age of unguided missiles has passed is crazy nonsense. Nothing went anywhere.

    Adjustable ammunition is good when you know exactly where to shoot. When there is a specific goal and target designation. It rolls for stationary objects (for example, stationary launcher) or for quite expensive and dimensional objects (such as a tank or an important motorcade). In 90% of combat situations, these conditions are not met.

    1. Fast moving infantry on the ground. How to cover it? Guided missiles? How will you issue target designation for it? If the infantry scatters in different directions, occupies different trenches, natural shelters? No, beat over the area, calculated on the cover with fragments. The spread of ammunition here increases the chances of defeat.

    2. The building occupied by the enemy. Ura again? But what is the point if from one URA with a caliber of even 70 mm, like a hydra, it is neither hot nor cold, and it is not known where exactly they are sitting in it? Again the massive launch of NARS. By principle, let at least one hit.

    3. Add the textbook version here. We know that the enemy is somewhere here. But the enemy itself is not visually observed. Suppression fire than to lead? Helpers?

    No, really. In 90% of real combat situations, NARs are needed. And the simpler and cheaper the better. keep in mind that all kinds of GOS are still robust in small calibers eating volume, displacing warheads. Add the high cost of SDs here (which means they will be produced less) and get that by switching to SDs you can deliver to the enemy many times less fragments and explosives than using the NAR package. War is not a computer game. It occurs in conditions of a categorical lack of information and time for reaction. Guided weapons are suitable for tank destruction (again, on a march or in the field, a dug, camouflaged tank with the engine turned off, your helicopter will find horseradish), important goals. For the rest, the good old work on the squares remains.

    And when there are a dozen huts over there with a dozen babes, for the same helicopter pilot of the infantry that he supports, it is better that he has a good such package of NARs for 20 pieces to be released for a group purpose. What will he try to do something with a pair of three warped warp corrected with half power.
    1. JD1979 7 January 2020 12: 42 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: 30hgsa
      Adjustable ammunition is good when you know exactly where to shoot. When there is a specific goal and target designation.

      Umm ... I understand that you are still a fan of shooting at squares, how often fire is opened on the principle - plow me that forest, it seems there is someone there but we do not see.
      1. Fast moving infantry on the ground. How to cover it?

      It depends on the order in which it moves and the means of destruction. You can leave 122-152 suitcases, you can launch a rocket if the group is compact and does not expect an attack. And the phrase: Fast moving infantry on the ground, it sounds somehow ...
      Quote: 30hgsa
      2. The building occupied by the enemy. Ura again? But what is the point if from one URA with a caliber of even 70 mm, like a hydra, it is neither hot nor cold, and it is not known where exactly they are sitting in it? Again the massive launch of NARS. By principle, let at least one hit.

      Again, do not bother all in a bunch. A building of the type “rustic toilet” is also a building))), as to where it is unknown, it feels like you need to level this building right this very second and you don’t intend to use surveillance equipment, well, there’s a thermal imager, you know this? they say it helps (well, with a few exceptions)
      Quote: 30hgsa
      3. Add the textbook version here. We know that the enemy is somewhere here. But the enemy itself is not visually observed. Suppression fire than to lead? Helpers?

      Add brains here and if you know that somewhere here, but definitely not, how are you going to suppress it at all?))) Shells in echelons in white light?))) And if it just seems to you that someone is there?))) If the enemy does not conduct active actions, then you have the opportunity to further investigate the situation, well, there are UAVs, scanning of the radio range and so on. And in general, no one is going to give up all other means of destruction directly, but having an additional tool is not bad.
      1. 30hgsa 7 January 2020 12: 47 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Well imagine the task. A kishlak of several dozens of adobe and partially brick buildings, a battle of his infantry ensued with the barmales occupying the buildings, several fires, smoke. Tell me how you will support the infantry and suppress the barmalei with guided weapons. Especially in the caliber 57 - 80 mm, when the low efficiency of a single ammunition of these calibers against natural shelters is reliably known.
        1. JD1979 7 January 2020 13: 02 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Quote: 30hgsa
          Well imagine the task. A kishlak of several dozens of adobe and partially brick buildings, a battle of his infantry ensued with the barmales occupying the buildings, several fires, smoke. Tell me how you will support the infantry and suppress barmaley guided weapons.

          Imagine another task: a group of barmaley on a pickup truck slowly moves along the road. Which is better, one rocket - one machine, or a plowed field, and it was still unknown whether the hit.
          Once again for those who are in the tank. For different situations - different solutions. A cheap guided missile is the best solution for a UAV that strikes suddenly. For combined arms combat - naturally larger calibers. Or do you think that you are one smart, and everyone around is fools, well, write to Kamovtsy, Milevtsy, Douglas))) how wrong they are, they need to put an exceptionally large caliber and only NURs))) or else they indulge in whether you manage.
          And in your task ... the infantry is back in the cordon of the area (personally, the village didn’t fall for me to storm it) and catch suitcases, wait for more aviation, if it doesn’t hang on top and spend NURS ...
          1. 30hgsa 7 January 2020 13: 05 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            As required, ur cannot provide infantry support in a typical infantry battle situation. In the case of an unhurried pickup, instead of adjustable ur, it is more convenient to work with IMPU.
            1. JD1979 7 January 2020 13: 11 New
              • 2
              • 6
              -4
              Quote: 30hgsa
              QED

              As required to prove, you do not have the flexibility to understand and apart from the typical infantry battle, you see nothing. And so after: MTR in Syria are typical infantry fighting?
              In the case of an unhurried pickup, instead of Ur it is more convenient to work IMHO with vpu.

              Hand face...
            2. Saxahorse 7 January 2020 20: 47 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Quote: 30hgsa
              As required, ur cannot provide infantry support in a typical infantry battle situation.

              Something you completely bent. NURS, all the more of a small caliber, is a weapon of aviation that still needs to be called, but wait until it arrives and take care that it’s not blundered in its own way ..

              To solve typical infantry problems in our time there is
              a) Shrapnel shells for infantry fighting vehicles with controlled detonation.
              b) ATGM both managed and homing.
              c) A tank or even Acacia ready to level the wrong structure, presumably with the enemy flush with the surface.
              d) MLRS, by no means a 57 mm caliber, ready to cover a given hectare “for general reasons”. Pinocchio for example laughing

              But the NURS and even the dimensions of the S-5, this is the armament of very light aircraft. It is not surprising that the Bulgarians became interested; they are supplying ammunition to all sorts of Africa to Soviet launchers. And these launchers do not hang on the Su-25 or Crocodiles, but on any self-made Sesn and Gazelles.
  • Aviator_ 7 January 2020 12: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In particular, instead of the old feather stabilizer used curved parts lying on the body before starting.

    In fact, such stabilizers were on the M-21OF projectile for the Grad system, adopted in service in 1963.
  • Zaurbek 7 January 2020 12: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I think that they will return to such missiles when they can make an option. For the UAV - just right. And there is not much collateral damage.
  • iouris 7 January 2020 22: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Spending resources on darts when the world is on the verge of a new technological order means that. Whoever does not have time in the new world will not be there (along with missiles).
    1. Vadim237 10 January 2020 22: 25 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      What is this new technological way expressed in - do not tell me?
  • SID
    SID 8 January 2020 21: 46 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    So, the prospects for the project, I think, are based on the fact that the S-5 family has long been discontinued, and their stocks are already catastrophically in stock. So, if not for native aircraft, then for aircraft of "budget-oriented" foreign customers, this project has its own interest. For Russia-very vryatli, if only interest, ts, cabinet ....
  • Aleks1973 26 February 2020 20: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: letinant
    All parts are equipped with blocks UB-32, UB-16, UB-9, under S-5. There is also a supply of missiles themselves.

    In no regiment of the Russian Federation for 20 years there have been neither blocks nor S-5! Learn the materiel!