The “Derivation-Air Defense” anti-aircraft complex will replace the Shilka and Tunguska ZSU in the troops

The “Derivation-Air Defense” anti-aircraft complex will replace the Shilka and Tunguska ZSU in the troops

Serial deliveries of the new Derivation-Air Defense anti-aircraft artillery complex to the Russian army will make it possible to abandon anti-aircraft installations of this class developed even in the Soviet Union. This is reported by "interfax" with reference to an informed source.


According to the publication, a new anti-aircraft complex "Derivation-Air Defense" is intended to replace the Shilka and Tunguska artillery anti-aircraft systems developed in the Soviet era. The new complex is capable of shooting down cruise missiles and drones.

This complex is capable of fighting cruise missiles and drones. A large batch will be purchased, which will replace the Tunguska and Shilka complexes in the troops

- said the source of the agency.

The Derivatsiya-PVO complex was first presented at the Army-2018 forum held in the Moscow region. The self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was built on the BMP-3 chassis, equipped with a module with an 57-mm automatic cannon.

The complex is designed to combat aviation and cruise missiles, airplanes, helicopters, drones, as well as with single shells of MLRS, it is also possible to use on ground and surface lightly armored targets. The complex includes a combat vehicle with a high ballistic gun, a maintenance vehicle, and a transport and loading vehicle.

According to open data, the range of destruction of the gun - 6 km, height of destruction, - up to 4,5 km, rate of fire - 120 shots / min. The maximum speed of the targeted objects is 500 m / s. The optoelectronic detection and aiming system of the combat vehicle allows to carry out panoramic observation of the terrain on 360º, as well as to conduct a sector review.
Photos used:
https://bmpd.livejournal.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mountain shooter 9 February 2020 11: 19 New
    • 58
    • 9
    +49
    No radar system? Rather, it will not replace, but complement! The gun is powerful and there are no questions about it. But ONLY optoelectronic aiming systems are perplexing. Do we always have a clear sky? There is no fog and smoke (on the battlefield)?
    1. dvina71 9 February 2020 11: 32 New
      • 25
      • 11
      +14
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      No radar system?

      But is it necessary at such distances? Now every army in the world has a system for determining the point of radiation .. How long will the firefly live at such a distance?
      In addition, who said that this system cannot use tsu from the outside?
      1. Shurik70 9 February 2020 11: 35 New
        • 32
        • 7
        +25
        Any air defense should be comprehensive.
        Radar far and near detection.
        Long-range missiles.
        Near-range missiles.
        Cannon air defense, and at least two calibers, like Derivation-air defense with a caliber of 57 mm and smart shells with remote detonation, capable of hitting a target at an altitude of 6 km, with a rate of fire of 120 high / min, and Shilka. Let Shilka have a caliber of 23 mm, the shells are simple cheap blanks, and effectively hit only 1,5 km, but the rate of fire is 3400 h / min.
        And on ground targets, Shilka also showed herself very well.
        Well, about the "Relight" can not be forgotten.
        From small drones, I think it is most effective (and it will come out cheaper)
        And all this MANDATORY should work in a complex, under a single control, with automatic distribution of goals.
        1. krot 9 February 2020 16: 40 New
          • 4
          • 6
          -2
          But ONLY optoelectronic aiming systems are perplexing.

          Have you heard anything about photon radars? Optoelectronic - this does not mean that the operator of the weapon observes through binoculars. laughing And night and clouds are not a hindrance! Clean radar - the last century. Computers and those trying to translate into a quantum (photon) level. But there is a little different.
          Radio-photon radar is a radar station (radar), the equipment of which is made on the basis of radio-photon technologies, involving the use of radio frequency modulation / demodulation of optical (photons) carrier signals [1]. This will increase the range and resolution, create three-dimensional portraits of targets.
          1. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 11: 02 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Quote: krot
            Optoelectronic - this does not mean that the operator of the weapon observes through binoculars.

            No, of course, there are a TV camera and a thermal imager, do not consider everyone as idiots but yourself as a guru. Do not give the crown?

            Quote: krot
            Have you heard anything about photon radars?

            we heard a lot about that. Where is all this except laboratories? We are talking about real technology, not about what will happen sometime. And the second one. This thing will cost more than the Tungusok regiment. A military air defense machine should be as cheap as possible, should not cost like an atomic missile carrier
            1. krot 12 February 2020 15: 24 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              we heard a lot about

              You call yourself on? )) Gregory the tenth?)) And for the others you do not need to speak, I think everyone here has his own head on his shoulders.
              This thing will cost more than the Tungusok regiment.

              How do you all know that? )) How much is it and what will it once be and not eat already?
              TV camera and thermal imager? )) Well, that’s not a smartphone though ..)))
              Do not give the crown?

              Even here your words will be down the drain, if I agree laughing
              1. Grigory_45 12 February 2020 18: 12 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: krot
                How do you all know that? )) How much is it and what will it once be and not eat already?

                Can't you read? Then specifically for the gifted:
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Where is all this except laboratories? We are talking about real technology, not about what will happen sometime.


                Photon radar, if any, will be much more expensive than radar with AFAR. Know what it is?

                Everything else is water. Would not be dishonored, her writings. And so it is clear that you are not able to answer reasonably. It would be better if they were silent, for their own reputation
                1. krot 12 February 2020 19: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Photon radar, if any, will be much more expensive than radar with AFAR. Know what it is?

                  The feeling is that even at school they skipped physics, not like studying physics in high school. The matrix of the photon radar is identical to the principle that they stand on the thermal imager. Only the thermal imaging matrix catches infrared radiation, and the photon matrix - photons of the visible spectrum. And then everything is exactly the same, electronic converters. And these are pretty good already. You march on the parade ground, march on) Do not even climb into production.
                  And it’s good to pour water .. Where is my crown? I said I want to! They promised, Gregory. laughing
                  Radar with AFAR. Know what it is?
                  Or did you ask about AFAR? laughing You are 10 years late to be clever with this)) At least
        2. infantryman2020 9 February 2020 19: 44 New
          • 13
          • 0
          +13
          You give the further expansion of the zoo (multi-brand) of the domestic military air defense!
          You can already get fucked up by de-unification of the equipment fleet in the army, yeah ...
      2. YOUR 9 February 2020 13: 03 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        How to be in the dark?
        External control is necessary so that the anti-aircraft complex does not spend time searching for a target, but more accurate guidance will already be at the expense of its detection tools.
        1. eburg1234 9 February 2020 13: 45 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          The thermal imager works at any time of the day. Only precipitation and fog can interfere.
          Again, they will interfere with the battlefield aviation ...
      3. Old tanker 9 February 2020 16: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        She does not radiate anything! In fact of the matter! Tolko passive television mode.
      4. Nikolaevich I 10 February 2020 10: 43 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: dvina71
        No radar system?

        But is she needed at such distances?

        But what after "some years" of the operation of the ZSU-57-2 anti-aircraft gunners did not feel enthusiasm for this installation ?! Among the "decent" list of shortcomings was the absence of a "radar system"!
    2. URAL72 9 February 2020 11: 39 New
      • 39
      • 4
      +35
      The year (contract) served on the 10M3 boom in the DPR, so the radio sight was never used, it was forbidden. Stealth is more important now, and any aircraft will detect radio emission, and then you are a corpse. Derivation is a great thing, but it seems to me that it will be used more often on the ground, especially in LANs. And this will lead to unjustified losses. Let us recall how the Tunguska burned in Grozny. But be that as it may, and the news is excellent, we will rely on the wisdom of the commanders.
      1. sivuch 9 February 2020 12: 03 New
        • 9
        • 3
        +6
        Radio sight on Arrow-10M3? There is only a passive detector
        1. 113262a 9 February 2020 12: 21 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Even in dill, the radio sight on the arrows is He-his-alien!
          1. YOUR 9 February 2020 13: 10 New
            • 7
            • 1
            +6
            At the Strela-10 air defense system of all modifications there is not any radar equipment. Designed for shooting at visually visible targets. Has a thermal imaging sight
            1. icant007 9 February 2020 13: 27 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              And what kind of antenna is parabolic on it between blocks of missiles?
            2. eburg1234 9 February 2020 13: 47 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              The radio range finder is EMNIP.
    3. Hermit21 9 February 2020 13: 56 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The philosophy of the complex is in its secrecy. Target detection in difficult weather conditions provides a set of multispectral optical sensors
    4. NEXUS 9 February 2020 14: 12 New
      • 6
      • 6
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      No radar system? Rather, it will not replace, but complement

      But nobody writes off Shilka and Tunguska, but there is a tendency to modernize these systems. As for the radar, it will work in conjunction with other air defense systems, which have complete order with the radars. Essentially, Derivation is a near-air defense complex and it doesn’t really need a radar, in light of the above.
      1. YOUR 10 February 2020 05: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        TTX Derivations-Air Defense are not disclosed, the main conversation is what is her cool gun, and what equipment and how it works ......? It is written equipped with an optoelectronic system, what kind of system is not written anywhere. Most likely there is a thermal imaging system, a target acquisition and tracking machine and a scanning unit, as on the Strela-10MN air defense system. At night and with poor visibility, the thermal imaging channel, with good visibility, the visual channel, i.e. regular TCEs
    5. Amin_vivec 9 February 2020 14: 16 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      and does the optoelectronic system see only in the visible spectrum? UV, IR ranges remove the problem of smoke, clouds.
    6. lucul 9 February 2020 15: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But ONLY optoelectronic aiming systems are perplexing.

      Well why bewilderment)))
      Maybe something is being said, and in addition to optoelectronic, there is also panchromatic and infrared and
      multispectral mode. Ours so take ultra-high-definition images from satellites in different modes - they could also be filmed here.
    7. Old tanker 9 February 2020 16: 49 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      No radar. Only an optical television system and a friend or foe builder.
      I don’t know how to Shilku, but he definitely won’t replace Tunguska. More likely to Arrow-10.
    8. Shelest2000 9 February 2020 18: 24 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Yes, complete nonsense! Either the author or the optimizer got to the army (like there is no money, but you’re fighting there yourself, as you want?). How can it replace a purely artillery system (something OESP didn’t notice on it) with a rate of fire of only 120 rounds per minute (or forgot about a missed target at close distances at high angular speeds?), A missile-artillery system with the ability to operate a missile up to 8 km in range and 3,5-4 in height, and a cannon with a highest fire density of 4-5t rounds per minute up to 4 km.
      Okay, Shilka is outdated, but there is also a Shilka-M4 option with Needles. Which also write off in the scrap - a big mistake, because. Front-line and object-based air defense should be comprehensive.
      Or is this the mistake of the optimists of the Arbat Military District? Then you need to take action.
      Each error has a name and surname. (C) I.V. Stalin.
    9. Bar2 9 February 2020 18: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      two trunks had to be left that normally replaced.
    10. EnGenius 9 February 2020 23: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      A common misconception that fog and smoke is an insurmountable barrier to OLS. Depending on the range of infrared waves, you can "see" even through light walls.
    11. Dmitry V. 10 February 2020 12: 51 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      No radar system? Rather, it will not replace, but complement! The gun is powerful and there are no questions about it. But ONLY optoelectronic aiming systems are perplexing. Do we always have a clear sky? There is no fog and smoke (on the battlefield)?


      The target is tracked in the IR range, which ensures the daily use of weapons in the optical mode of operation - The thermal imaging channel allows you to detect targets measuring 2,3 x 2,3 m with a probability of 80% at a distance of 10 m and recognize them at a distance of 000 m .
  2. Cowbra 9 February 2020 11: 23 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Vsezh would like to know how it is with programmable undermining
    1. Sergei 777 9 February 2020 11: 29 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      It seems like they promise. Indeed, without such shells, it would be of little use against it against air targets that are at a distance of more than 2 km.
      1. 1959ain 9 February 2020 11: 36 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Sergey 777
        It seems like they promise. Indeed, without such shells, it would be of little use against it against air targets that are at a distance of more than 2 km.

        On these shells, you can install electronics, for example, radio fuses, laser fuses, this is when if the shell flies a few meters from the target, the warhead is blown up and the object can be shot down by fragments, this did not seem to be 30 mm
      2. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 11: 30 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Sergey 777
        Indeed, without such shells, it would be of little use against it against air targets that are at a distance of more than 2 km.

        without such shells from her for any air target it will be of little use
    2. figwam 9 February 2020 11: 30 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Cowbra
      how's it going with programmable detonation

      Without it, it makes no sense.
      1. vadimtt 9 February 2020 11: 55 New
        • 2
        • 8
        -6
        Programmable detonation is useless without a radar or lidar. So darken as you go laughing
        1. Cowbra 9 February 2020 12: 21 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          The radar is unlikely because it, Derivation, is sharpened sharply against drones - almost the main goal. And they are all completely plastic. IMHO. because there is no radar in principle. But the laser rangefinder-er ... KVM by default is there. Vsezh is not uncommon smile
          1. sen
            sen 11 February 2020 06: 24 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And they are all completely plastic.

            But there are metal parts inside. A centimeter range radar will not take them, but a millimeter one can. In addition, it is lighter and less overall.
            And for the smallest UAVs in Russia, submillimeter radars are being developed.
            https://riafan.ru/1244019-submillimetrovye-rls-dlya-obnaruzheniya-malykh-bespilotnikov-izgotovyat-v-rossii
        2. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 11: 31 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: vadimtt
          Programmable blasting is useless without radar

          What does the laser range finder not suit you? It’s important to know the exact distance to the target in order to calculate the time before undermining
          1. vadimtt 10 February 2020 15: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            It suits me (except for cases with aerosols / smoke / precipitation), but who will direct it for sure? Yes, even in motion. He probably didn’t quite arrange the creators of the Derivation, since they did not just a programmable projectile, but in fact an analogue of an air defense missile without an engine with a non-contact fuse, traveling along a powerful control beam to the target area. The success of such a decision is doubtful:
            1. The cost of a single shell is fantastic. And at a rate of 120 rounds per minute - count yourself laughing
            2. Single-channel - while we are conducting shells we can’t fire at another target;
            3. The aerodynamics and strength of such a projectile noticeably lose disc. What kind of "high" ballistics can we talk about with aerodynamic rudders?
            4. The fragmentation effect of such a compact (the control system ate all the volumes) warhead raises doubts both in the quantity and energy of the damaging elements;
            This is so offhand.

            And as it would be with a millimeter afar - at a distance of 5-6 km we already have a fire solution for the nearest 10-15 compact targets from any materials, we fire at the most dangerous of them with a burst with a programmed dispersion (both in angles and in range, each shell individually programmable). Without waiting for the defeat, we transfer the fire to the next target and so on. In the process, we control the defeat of the previous targets and if we missed for any - we fire again. From a distance of the same 5km, we manage to shell 4-6 nurses and up to 15 drones. Feel the difference with what rolled out?
            1. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 15: 54 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: vadimtt
              but who exactly will induce him?

              have you heard of a stabilized sight?

              Quote: vadimtt
              since they made not just a programmable shell, but actually an analogue of an air defense missile

              Yes, there is no domestic 57-mm UAS in nature, these are sweet dreams and Wishlist for the creators of the module

              Well, the fact that there is no radar on the car - and he is not happy. ECO comes out cheaper than radar - apparently, it seduced
    3. Constanty 9 February 2020 11: 56 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Anti-aircraft 57-mm UAS were shown in the figures at least in 2015
      1. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 11: 33 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        key phrase:
        Quote: Constanty
        57 mm UAS were shown in the figures
        1. Constanty 10 February 2020 11: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          But almost 5 years have passed since then !!! Probably enough to make something out of metal according to the drawings
          1. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 12: 25 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Constanty
            But almost 5 years have passed since then !!!

            So what? We have done so many shells with remote detonation, although it is an order of magnitude easier than UAE. And as far as I know the information, such a projectile has not yet been adopted

            Quote: Constanty
            Probably enough to make something out of metal according to the drawings

            Where are they, blueprints? A drawing is not a drawing. I can draw such a picture on my knee in 10 minutes.

            Perhaps, if there was a desire and financing, as well as a whip from the Moscow Region, then the matter might have moved forward. Only I have the impression that nobody cares, and this is just a marketing ploy. To cram a module with which no one really knows what to do.
            Remember, the Italians had ZSU OTOMATIK? With a 76 mm cannon that fired the UAZ. And ZSU also had a radar .. They played around and left. It turned out that to defeat even a low-speed target, one UAS is not enough. Need a queue of 3-4 guided missiles. And this is the cost of missiles. Is it worth breaking spears?
    4. Old tanker 9 February 2020 16: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Fine. But with URS is still tight.
  3. Gray brother 9 February 2020 11: 24 New
    • 11
    • 20
    -9
    Rave. Where is the radar? Where are the rockets?
    “Interfax” as it was a bad dump, and remained.
    1. figwam 9 February 2020 12: 24 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      During the development, the following basic principles were laid as the basis for the creation of a guided artillery system (KUAV) for the 57-mm ZAK: • A special anti-aircraft missile is used as a high-precision means of destruction, which is built according to the guided artillery shell scheme, stored in a combat unit, launched from a rifled barrel guns and is guided by a laser beam, which allows you to hit targets in a wide range of ranges - from 200 m to 6 ... 8 km for manned targets and up to 3 ... 5 km for unmanned. • The UAE fires at a high initial speed and almost immediately has the lateral accelerations necessary for guidance. The projectile can shoot towards the target or at a calculated predicted point. In the first case, guidance is carried out according to the three-point method. In the second case, guidance is carried out by adjusting the trajectory of the projectile. In both cases, the projectile is teleoriented in the laser beam. • For the detection, tracking of the target and guidance of the UAS, the telethermovision control system with automatic capture and tracking of the target, developed for the upgraded SAM Strela 10MZ (Strela-10ML), is also equipped with a laser range finder and laser guidance channel. Optoelectronic control system (OESU) provides all-day and limited all-weather use of the complex, as well as the ability to work from place and on the move. The laser channel of the OESU is equipped with a beam deflection system at lead angles. • Small UAS guidance errors are achieved due to the high accuracy of the target tracking system and the UAS laser guidance system with small errors in combination with an effective digital on-board rudder control system and acceptable aeroballistic and dynamic characteristics of the projectile.

      1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 12: 36 New
        • 3
        • 8
        -5
        Quote: figvam
        The following basic principles were laid:

        Not, if it’s true that a 57mm rocket was stuffed, with an amazing ability at least like a projectile, then this is of course credible.
        There is no radar, again, which makes the complex dependent on weather conditions and such things as a smoke screen.
        from 200 m to 6 ... 8 km for manned targets and up to 3 ... 5 km for unmanned.

        This bothers me, in terms of the literacy of the person who wrote it, it is not very clear how the presence of a strip of meat between the chair and the helm can affect the range of damage.
        In unmanned vehicles, by the way, the range will be greater, because they basically do not perform evasion maneuvers.
        1. figwam 9 February 2020 12: 40 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: Gray Brother
          There is no radar, again, which makes the complex dependent on weather conditions and such things as a smoke screen.

          The radar immediately gives out its location.
          Quote: Gray Brother
          how the presence of a strip of meat between the chair and the helm can affect the range of damage.

          Most likely, the main criterion here is the size of the target, manned always more than an unmanned one.
          1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 12: 54 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: figvam
            Most likely, the main criterion here is the size of the target, manned always more than an unmanned one.

            So they would write that "small". In any case, laser beam guidance is to some extent a flawed thing depending on external conditions.
            But in the passive detection system there are pluses - you can arrange ambushes, there will be a surprise.
            However, there are also disadvantages, for example, they will put TDM and that's it - smoke bamboo, there’s no radar.
          2. 1976AG 9 February 2020 13: 37 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            "The radar immediately gives out its location."
            as soon as a combat unit opens fire it already gives out its position. So the win is very controversial. And without a radar, it is like a car without headlights - it can drive, BUT ....
            1. figwam 9 February 2020 18: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: 1976AG
              as soon as a combat unit opens fire it already gives out its position.

              Are you laughing A working radar is destroyed by an anti-radar missile for 100-150 km, a 57 mm cannon is only in direct visibility.
        2. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 11: 35 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Gray Brother
          it is not very clear how the presence of a meat pad between the seat and the helm can affect the range

          you yourself answered:
          Quote: Gray Brother
          In unmanned vehicles, by the way, the range will be greater, because they basically do not perform evasion maneuvers.

          and the manned vehicle will perform anti-ballistic maneuvers
      2. dgonni 9 February 2020 15: 39 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        The question is that in this form it is not operational from the word vaabsche! And with such principles, missiles are cheaper and easier!
        P.S. Derivation in this form is a profanation of the very principle of air defense gun mounts. If compared with the same Erlikon, then Derivation quietly smokes on the sidelines.
        Already one use of the laser channel for guidance and commands to detonate is flawed!
        Blind and stick a programmable fuse into the shell or, in extreme cases, the radio fuse did not reach. Better stick a rocket. which has an initial speed after the shot of only 300m / s less and how it will fly is unknown. Loot drank and then how it goes.
      3. Magog 9 February 2020 16: 31 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        I'm trying to insert a movie on the topic:
        1. Grits 9 February 2020 17: 18 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Magog
          I'm trying to insert a movie on the topic:

          In the film, horses, people, terms ...
          1. Magog 9 February 2020 17: 21 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            I agree. But here we must listen more than watch. Basic: the fight against drones rests with electronic warfare systems, and if any of them broke through, then ...
  4. sabakina 9 February 2020 11: 25 New
    • 10
    • 8
    +2
    One trunk against four? Well, I don’t know ... Yes, more powerful, but is it more effective? ...
    1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 12: 38 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: sabakina
      One trunk against four? Well, I don’t know ... Yes, more powerful, but is it more effective? ...

      Accuracy versus fire density. Plus 57mm flies on.
      1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 13: 09 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Accuracy versus fire density. Plus 57mm flies farther ...... and Hellfire ATGM is twice as far as 57mm, with Apaches using the entire set of detection tools with impunity
        1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 13: 13 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          .a ATGM Helfair twice as far as 57mm,

          To do this, you need to rise higher, otherwise it will not work.
          There other systems are already working, for this purpose layered air defense was invented.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 13: 28 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            There other complexes are already operating, ...... there are no more besides which, when subdivided at the front, and not in the rear, here, for a swivel, any mound or any building is suitable, in short, any fold of terrain, right here from the Shell and the Tunguska flywalker couldn’t go away, since the control of missiles could be transferred to another operator, and darting a goal like a falcon on the battlefield and toothless with its 57mm fart, which goes out its ammunition spits out in 80 seconds in the amount of shots, not a lot
            1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 13: 36 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              There is no more than any

              “Thor” is, “Buk” is not on the “front”, but they don’t need it.
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              shorter than any terrain

              In order to launch a rocket 11 km (as written on Wikipedia) you need to gain altitude, because from a low altitude there is stupidly not enough sight - there it will crash.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 13: 44 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                There is a “Thor”, a “Buk” they are not at the “front”, ....... at the “Tor” and the range is almost like that of the Tunguska, practically it’s a new Wasp, and their minuscule, what do you have to transport -charging equipment, and specialized specifically for the complex, and a bug, it must be deployed in batteries and posts and so on. and even in this case, the range for low-flying targets is no more than 10-12 km, covered with nothing more than a universal air defense complex with a unit like Tunguska, and toothless derivation
                1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 13: 53 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  what does it take to pull transport-loading equipment,

                  Why pull it? She drives herself - the chassis is the same.
                  Tor-M2 up to 16 km can hit targets.
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  it must be deployed to batteries and posts, etc.

                  I’ll tell you more, they are generally combined into one system together with Shilki, Tunguska, Arrows, and MANPADs.
                  1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 14: 11 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    "Tor-M2" up to 16 km can hit the target ...... maybe it doesn’t mean hit, the terrain doesn’t allow you to go farther than 8-10 km, at a height of 10-12 km, the more you are inattentive to comments, I’m in my Russian on white printed literally "low-flying targets." that is, the cardboard Thor needs to be at the front in order to repel air attacks,
                    they are generally combined into one system together with Shilka, Tunguska, Arrows, and MANPADS calculations ....... well, and what’s combined, getting from the second echelon all the same will not be able to help the front end with anything cannot, for the reasons described above
                    1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 14: 25 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      the relief does not allow further 8-10 km to shmalnut, at a height of 10-12km

                      It works both ways.
                      Vopsche, it’s stupid to consider individual elements of air defense complementing each other.
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      they can’t help the front line,

                      They can give target designation.
                      Or they can buy it.
                      1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 14: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Vopsche, it’s silly to consider the individual elements of air defense complementing each other ....
                        They can give target designation. And they can also use Buk ... The insect works only due to its guidance station on 4 channels in the direct "visibility" of radio waves, unfortunately, even in the steppe, the target range at a target height of 20-30 meters is not more than 10 km, the blame for the distortion of the radar waves from the surface, so alas, target designation is about reading newspapers with accidents. that is, only infa without activity
                      2. Gray brother 9 February 2020 14: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        with a target height of 20-30 meters does not exceed

                        The goals of going at such a height will either have to rise higher, or ultimately communicate with near-range complexes
                      3. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 14: 48 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Going at such a height will either have to go higher, ..... it’s not necessary, for example, Apache Langbou with his helpers as well as the Mi-28 night hunter with his assaults and Ka-50 (52) with his whirlwinds, 30 are enough -40 meters in order to detect targets onboard radars and to fire with impunity from 10 -12 km, but for Bukashka to shrug off this situation, life should be exactly like the Torah in the thick of things, but this is not permissible. and toothless dervation, .... III, and truncated. there will be just a beating from the air of the child
      2. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 11: 40 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Gray Brother
        To do this, you need to rise higher, otherwise it will not work.

        the helicopter can fire at targets from a jump, the control center can issue other helicopters or UAVs, being outside the zone of destruction of the derivation. They can also conduct a missile launched by a helicopter and again hiding behind the folds of the terrain. Hi ZSU. And there is Hellfire with the principle of shot-forgot. ZSU with passive detection channels simply does not have time to respond to the threat
  5. Omskgasmyas 9 February 2020 13: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A 3-kg guided projectile with explosives of 400 g (as in the 76-mm OFS) versus 200 g of a steel bar from Shilka. Yes, and 57-mm OPBS can hit the tank on board at a distance of 2000 m.
    1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 14: 40 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      A 3-kg guided projectile with explosives of 400 g (as in the 76-mm OFS) versus 200 g of a steel bar ........ hahaha, but the cost is 23 mm, compared to 57 mm, this and that. 57mm minuscule, a drop in the ocean and is no longer expected. and 23mm everywhere and everywhere like a grain in the grain elevators of the world
  • Pereira 9 February 2020 11: 26 New
    • 10
    • 10
    0
    It looks solid. The question is, how many will be released? 10? 20?
    1. The leader of the Redskins 9 February 2020 11: 54 New
      • 9
      • 7
      +2
      Ek you "witnesses hundreds Armat" zamususuyut!)))
    2. sivuch 9 February 2020 12: 11 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      94 will do? by the number of remaining Shilok
  • Sergei 777 9 February 2020 11: 27 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Most likely she will replace only Shilka. Since it will be difficult to resist modern guided bombs and cruise missiles without a radar and zur.
    1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 11: 49 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Sergey 777
      Most likely she will replace only Shilka.

      Upgraded to "M4", as a separate combat unit, will not replace. Although the gun is better of course.
      Such a system can fully reveal itself only with external target designation.

      https://topwar.ru/147551-vtoraja-zhizn-shilki-novaja-modifikacija-shilka-m4.html
      1. sivuch 9 February 2020 12: 14 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        At M4, the range and altitude of the target both remained and remained. The UAV will fly at an altitude of 2 km - and you won’t do anything with it. So you still need to change.
        1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 12: 24 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: sivuch
          At M4, the range and height of the target both were and remained

          There are four "Needles" and a radar.
          1. Sergei 777 9 February 2020 16: 37 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            M4 is not so much in the army
            1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 16: 38 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Sergey 777
              M4 is not so much in the army

              It's a question of time.
          2. sivuch 9 February 2020 17: 07 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Then Verbu should be at least. How the Needle (even IS) will detect low-contrast targets is a very interesting question.
            1. Gray brother 9 February 2020 17: 42 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: sivuch
              How the Needle (even IS) will detect low-contrast targets is a very interesting question.

              With ICE it will detect normally - they are all warming up. With electric detail, things will be worse of course.
  • maidan.izrailovich 9 February 2020 11: 28 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    The maximum speed of the affected objects is 500 m / s.

    1800 km / h Normally so. Attack aircraft do not fly faster.
    1. Crimean partisan 1974 9 February 2020 12: 49 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      1800 km / h. That's normal. Stormtroopers, ..... but stormtroopers and troopers can play pranks on armored vehicles by Helfaers and all kinds of meverics from 10-12 km. that is, from a distance of twice the effective fire 57mm, and choose the detection system of your choice with impunity. with SAM missiles and shells such a chip will not work, so derivation is not clear how it will be brushed aside, the campaign is about replacing only Shilok
  • Smuta 9 February 2020 11: 31 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    This complex is capable of fighting cruise missiles and drones. A large batch will be purchased, which will replace the Tunguska and Shilka complexes in the troops

    Well, the new is good, but still we love the "shilka and tunguska" I hope to leave .. One volley and all in ruin ..! soldier
    1. maidan.izrailovich 9 February 2020 11: 35 New
      • 5
      • 7
      -2
      ...., but hopefully we love "shilka and tunguska" I hope to leave

      They have long been a replacement. What do you want in dust ..... yes
      1. Smuta 9 February 2020 12: 33 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: maidan.izrailovich
        They have long been a replacement. What do you want in dust ....

        This air defense is already modern (I remember the Turk was soaked in the coastal zones of Syria, but they didn’t find any, all in ruin))
        But shilka is also air defense, but also mochilovo in suppressing everything before the infantry ..

        A good machine was and is now available .. soldier
        1. Lontus 9 February 2020 14: 23 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          Quote: Smuta
          shilka is also air defense, but also mochilovo in suppressing everything before the infantry

          57mm even more wet!
          Especially with programmable detonation.

          And what’s important, with 57mm high ballistics, a fundamentally higher accuracy and range - at 2 km, Shilka is already useless, and Derivation will destroy any LBT and work as efficiently as possible on the accumulation of manpower.
          Together with a much lower silhouette and better security
          Derivation is an order of magnitude better for actions on ground targets than Shilka.
        2. 1976AG 9 February 2020 14: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          So let them transfer Shilka from the category of air defense systems to the category of mochilovo before infantry in order to clarify its purpose
  • knn54 9 February 2020 11: 31 New
    • 13
    • 11
    +2
    In place of "Shilke" came "Tunguska." In place of "Tunguska" - "Shell-S".
    To combat high-speed, low-flying targets, a SUFFICIENTLY 30 mm gun with the NECESSARY rate of fire which cannot be achieved with a 57 mm caliber is primarily due to the impossibility of deploying a sufficient amount of ammunition.
    And at such a rate of fire, the barrel of the Derivation will quickly fail.
    1. Tiksi-3 9 February 2020 11: 44 New
      • 13
      • 7
      +6
      Quote: knn54
      to replace "Tunguska" - "Shell-S

      no, it didn’t exist .... you first study the question of what is “Military Air Defense” and what is “object air defense”, you will learn a lot of new things, that military complexes cannot be changed as object systems!
      1. Alexga 9 February 2020 12: 04 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Well, you do not scare people with such terms. Now the Internet will fall, everyone on Wiki will rush.
      2. maidan.izrailovich 9 February 2020 12: 20 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        .. what is a "Military Air Defense" and what is an "object air defense" ....

        Blah blah blah....
        "Shell c1" can also work on the go.
        The main complaint from the ground forces was not to the complex itself. He was just arranging for the explorers. The claim was to the chassis.
        According to the deputy general director of the Instrument Design Bureau (Tula), where the “Shell-C1” was developed, Yu. Savenkova, at present the main claim of the Ground Forces is the chassis of the complex. The military doubts the quality of the wheeled chassis and wants to get a tracked one.
        https://topwar.ru/19072-sensacionnye-izvestiya-teper-i-pro-pancir-s1.html
        1. Tiksi-3 9 February 2020 12: 37 New
          • 3
          • 6
          -3
          Quote: maidan.izrailovich
          Blah blah blah....

          learn the materiel, then turn on Mozzichek, then try to write!
        2. alexmach 9 February 2020 13: 12 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The main complaint from the ground forces was not to the complex itself. He was just arranging for the explorers. The claim was to the chassis.

          Does this somehow cancel the fact that he never got on the armament of the land explorers and didn’t replace the Tunguzka?
      3. knn54 9 February 2020 12: 52 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Sami Dmitry ... study. I advise you to start with the concepts of mobile and stationary air defense systems. And not "military" and "object".
        1. Tiksi-3 9 February 2020 14: 34 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Quote: knn54
          I advise you to start with the concepts of mobile and stationary air defense systems

          Thank you)) .... I served in the air defense, you need to understand that you are not aware of what you are asking

          Threat may still need to understand rocket, artillery, rocket artillery ??? wassat repeat
        2. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 10: 41 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: knn54
          I advise you to start

          and I advise you to enlighten that air defense systems are divided into military and object. The first, as a rule, are made on a caterpillar chassis and are armored, since they follow in the battle formations of troops. The second does not need this, they protect the rear objects, therefore they are often performed
          on a wheeled chassis, and often based on commercial trucks. And the carapace will never go in battle formations, because it was not intended for that originally.
    2. abc_alex 9 February 2020 21: 12 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      In place of "Shilke" came "Tunguska." In place of "Tunguska" - "Shell-S".

      Not. You are wrong. Tunguska is the air defense of the ground forces. She is on the battlefield and as part of tank columns. Because on the tracks.
      The shell is an order of the country's air defense. It is in the rear, to cover the complexes S-300 and S-400. Or for the defense of rear facilities. She will never be on the battlefield. The shell is the rear echelon, Tunguska is the front line.
  • Fedor Sokolov 9 February 2020 11: 33 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Very interesting technique!
  • mark1 9 February 2020 11: 33 New
    • 10
    • 7
    +3
    Cannon-57mm, ATGM "Cornet", a machine gun 12,7mm ... What! Flamethrower, damn it, forgot!
    And all this should "replace" the "Tunguska"!
    It is more of a fire support vehicle.
    1. mark1 9 February 2020 11: 50 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      ABOUT! Power is felt! Authorities minus. Just as always, they didn’t fall below their own dignity - they didn’t justify it.
      1. The leader of the Redskins 9 February 2020 11: 57 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        They are for the fact that you still forgot the mortar and a silicon gun of the 17th century!)) laughing
        1. mark1 9 February 2020 11: 58 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Well then, to the point!
  • Alexga 9 February 2020 11: 42 New
    • 15
    • 6
    +9
    It looks more like they created a 57 mm module, and now they are thinking what it is for. Without the radar component, one cannot talk about efficiency at all, and ammunition is in question.
    1. Pereira 9 February 2020 11: 45 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      You think politically. Now zamusunut.
      1. Alexga 9 February 2020 11: 54 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Yes, for the sake of God, to be honest, they got empty talk, people have brains powder. Someone told someone something, and battles raged on the net. Well, there are those. The task of creating a new sample, create, as well as the transfer of state money. If R&D, then do not worry.
  • Xenofont 9 February 2020 11: 57 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Replacing the "Tunguska" is a pearl! Poor army men according to zhurnalyug and their sources unknown to the world.
    1. Hermann 9 February 2020 12: 05 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      This is really a replacement for the Tunguska, only paired with the Sosna air defense system, I heard that there will be a mixed battery 4 Derivation + 4 Sosna air defense system.
      Plus, in the division of a motorized rifle or tank regiment, according to some reports, there will be 4 Tor air defense systems and a MANPADS battery.
      1. Xenofont 9 February 2020 13: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It turns out that this battery will not have a radar?
        1. Hermann 9 February 2020 13: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I don’t know, maybe there will be a radar 1l122 Garmon.
          1. Xenofont 9 February 2020 13: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Then, it’s disastrous ... Well, I hope it will cost.
  • Thrifty 9 February 2020 12: 04 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    On ZSU 23'-4 Shilka, as Tunguska has its own locators! And here is a separate car with locators! Destroy any of the cars tzmku, radar go actually cannon, all the rest will be useless! This complex should include both weapons and radar!
    1. malyvalv 9 February 2020 14: 34 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      radar machines will try to destroy in the first place. Moreover, they are the easiest to destroy. And the combat vehicle itself in passive mode will be able to continue to protect. Not as effective as with a radar but better than nothing at all. Separation of a combat vehicle and a radar is the right move.
  • Pattor 9 February 2020 12: 20 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    We have all the troubles from the lack of professionals. Dominance of amateurs everywhere. That's the object or army air defense, they are all the same. Air defense. Pah
  • Ros 56 9 February 2020 12: 25 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    In plus to Shilka and Tunguska with all limbs FOR. The main thing is that the barmaley are beaten in the tail and mane.
  • 113262a 9 February 2020 12: 28 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Oh, I do not believe !!! From shilka to Tunguska they crossed with a creak, then from Tungusok to CHEPONOVE - and it’s completely sad! And here is a solid remake, a bunch of high-tech shells! And to direct in real conditions the battle, on the Matyuk from the trenches? Or to each chain mail trailer?
  • Doctor 9 February 2020 12: 29 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    61-by 1939 in a larger caliber and with a lower rate of fire.
  • Strashila 9 February 2020 12: 35 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    "The anti-aircraft complex" Derivation-Air Defense "will replace the Shilka and Tunguska ZSU in the troops," the new complex should replace what they are trying to present as a wunderwaf. Nonsense, supplement yes, help will be good.
    But Shilka and Tunguska need to be modernized, it is clear that technology does not stand still.
    Optoelectronic system will be a great addition.
    There was an experience with the use of the Shell. Therefore, proceeding from this, it is necessary to refine the refinement of the ERLS on Tunguska and the missile system as a whole.
    And there they will think and upgrade the ZSU-57-2, it will be exported.
  • brostem_2019 9 February 2020 12: 42 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Storytellers. As were the Shilka troops, so they will remain there. Without radar, this is simply an increase in infantry on earth.
  • Lamata 9 February 2020 12: 53 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Shilka on the ground is a terrible thing, I saw it in exercises in 1992, the armored personnel carrier just broke off from a couple of lines. It’s scary to think about infantry.
    1. Lontus 9 February 2020 13: 58 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Quote: Lamata
      Shilka on the ground is a terrible thing, I saw it in exercises in 1992, the armored personnel carrier just broke off from a couple of lines. It’s scary to think about infantry.

      57mm is even worse on the ground!
      Especially with a programmable gap.

      And what is important with 57mm high ballistics is a fundamentally higher accuracy and range.
      1. Lamata 9 February 2020 14: 00 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I did not see, thanks for the info.
  • Radikal 9 February 2020 13: 02 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    According to the publication, a new anti-aircraft complex "Derivation-Air Defense" is intended to replace the Shilka and Tunguska artillery anti-aircraft systems developed in the Soviet era.
    But it, this “edition” does not write, how can one barrel of the “Derivation” replace 4 barrel “Shilka”, or 4 barrel + 8 missiles “Tunguska”? Wise guys .... sad
  • Crystal of Truth 9 February 2020 13: 04 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    2 rounds per second at a target at a speed of 500 m per second?
    Oh well
    1. Amateur 9 February 2020 13: 55 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      2 rounds per second at a target at a speed of 500 m per second?

      The developers probably used the Olympic principle: "The main thing is not victory, the main participation". drinks
      1. Lamata 9 February 2020 14: 00 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        There are effective managers, and now there are effective development engineers.
  • Hermit21 9 February 2020 13: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    He would have another 4-8 missiles, would be an unambiguous imba
    1. Lontus 9 February 2020 14: 36 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Hermit21
      He would have another 4-8 missiles, would be an unambiguous imba

      SAM is better in a separate car.
      And in a mixed unit of these machines, they really will be "imba."
      1. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 10: 20 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: Lontus
        SAM is better on a separate car

        no better. Everyone had mixed connections, all this went through (we have Shilka and Strela), and everyone refused it. Starting from problems with the management of such a unit, and ending with logistics - one minus.
  • Laksamana besar 9 February 2020 14: 16 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Not the only, but the main task of Derivation-Air Defense is the fight against small UAVs of three or more km, at the price of a shot we have no analogues of the complex, missiles are expensive compared to 57-mm ammunition, about this, a month and a half ago , said the chief of weapons development at the Central Research Institute "Petrel". Also at the Defexpo India-2020 exhibition, it was reported that a ship version of the module for installation on promising and modernized Navy ships is being developed.
    1. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 10: 18 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Laksamana Besar
      missiles are expensive compared to 57 mm ammunition,

      now remember why missiles displaced in the air defense forces long-range barrel artillery. (anti-aircraft medium and large-caliber guns) It was cheaper to launch one missile on a bomb, so that it was almost guaranteed to be shot down, than to spend several hundred shells without a guarantee. Barreled artillery is effective short-range, and its effectiveness directly depends on the rate of fire, accuracy of guidance and ammunition.
  • Radikal 9 February 2020 14: 26 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Laksamana Besar
    The main objective (not to be confused with capabilities) of the Derivation-Air Defense is the fight against small UAVs of three or more km, at the price of a shot we have no analogues of the complex, missiles are expensive compared to 57-mm ammunition, about this, a month or so one and a half ago, said the head of weapons development at the Central Research Institute "Petrel". Also at the Defexpo India-2020 exhibition, it was reported that a ship version of the module is being developed for installation on promising and modernized Navy ships.

    And let's compare the battery, let’s say out of 4 “Derivation” air defense systems, and for example, “Shilok” when working on a UAV swarm - what kind of fire density (ie, “cloud”) can the first and the second create? And accordingly, what is the lesion ratio for those and others? winked
    1. Winnie76 9 February 2020 15: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Radikal
      And let's compare the battery, let's say out of 4 Derivation air defense systems, and for example, Shilok when working on a UAV swarm -

      You compare the range to begin with. 1,5 -2 km is now about nothing at all. And if you put MANPADS, then in general the meaning of Shilka is not clear, if you can take a naughty shoulder.
    2. Hermit21 9 February 2020 23: 14 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Let's. Let's start with the range / height, the effectiveness of 23-mm and 57-mm shells, penetration, ammunition consumption? Or is it not necessary?
    3. Laksamana besar 12 February 2020 01: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      When a bazaar from Kalash is completely in one fell swoop out of fear and seems to be on target, it’s no good or how lucky. When you "pull yourself together" already, if you can, you hit it pointedly and take care of the cartridges - it’s more effective at times.
  • Amateur 9 February 2020 14: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The sailors in the years 1961-1988 produced (and continue to be used) 57 mm twin art installation AK - 725.

    Moreover, it was clearly better than Derivation, because it was paired, with a rate of 400 rpm and water-cooled trunks.
    Despite a number of positive characteristics, the AK-725 did not receive further development (by analogy with the AK-176, a single-barrel 57-mm AU A-220 was created, similar in design to it, but it was not accepted for service). The main reason was the low efficiency of the 57-mm anti-aircraft projectile with a non-contact fuse. Therefore, the 57-mm shell was inferior in effectiveness to the 76-mm shell, especially when firing at small-sized high-speed low-flying targets such as an anti-ship missile.

    The sailors! Who dealt with the AK-725 tell me, is it any good at all?
    Confirmation of this was the death of MRS "Monsoon" in 1987, when the target rocket was subjected to continuous bombardment from the AK-725 (gunners fired to the end), but never received a direct hit.
    recourse
    1. God save the king 9 February 2020 17: 39 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The main reason was the low efficiency of the 57-mm anti-aircraft projectile with a non-contact fuse.
      the AK-725 did not have a projectile with a non-contact fuse, only with an impact.
      The main problem of the gun was the difficulty of hitting high-speed anti-ship missiles.
      1. sivuch 10 February 2020 09: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, they already answered about the fuses. It would be worth adding that the firing range is quite important for a marine AC, which is 3 three-inches, of course, weight and dimensions are better and less critical - even for a boat.
    2. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 21: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Amateur
      The main reason was the low efficiency of the 57-mm anti-aircraft projectile with a non-contact fuse.

      a friend correctly noted that only one type of ammunition was used in the AK-725 - a fragmentation tracer shell with an impact fuse. And she became the last domestic ship installation caliber 57 mm.
      I am not a sailor, but I have heard few positive reviews about this system.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Lesorub 9 February 2020 15: 12 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The “Derivation-Air Defense” anti-aircraft complex will replace the Shilka and Tunguska ZSU in the troops

    I’m not sure that Derivation-Air Defense can replace the Tunguska missile-cannon system - and the Tunguska was replaced by the Shell - rather, Derivation-Air Defense would act as an addition to a cheaper and more effective way to combat UAVs.
  • senima56 9 February 2020 15: 29 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    "... Shilka and Tunguska artillery anti-aircraft systems" - of these two systems, only "Shilka" is artillery! The Tunguska is a missile-artillery complex and its capabilities lie on a different plane. If the "Tunguska" and change, then on the "Shell-C1."
    Avtor-learn materiel!
  • Hog
    Hog 9 February 2020 15: 34 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    As a replacement for Shilka, yes, but it will not replace Tunguska (there are no missiles, it can only be changed with Shells).
  • spectr 9 February 2020 15: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    IMHO, it’s more like fighting BMP vs Boomerang platforms. The developers offer a new modification so that they are not squeezed out of the military equipment market (or so that this happens gradually and there is time for maneuver).
  • Radikal 9 February 2020 16: 16 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Winnie76
    Quote: Radikal
    And let's compare the battery, let's say out of 4 Derivation air defense systems, and for example, Shilok when working on a UAV swarm -

    You compare the range to begin with. 1,5 -2 km is now about nothing at all. And if you put MANPADS, then in general the meaning of Shilka is not clear, if you can take a naughty shoulder.

    I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Yeryoma .... lol
  • viktor_ui 9 February 2020 16: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And heat and thermo belong to optoelectronic detection and guidance systems ??? What else can fit the definition of panoramic optoelectronic systems ???
  • vladcub 9 February 2020 16: 44 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Quote: Cowbra
    Vsezh would like to know how it is with programmable undermining

    It seems to me that besides you, someone else wants to know
  • Astra wild 9 February 2020 17: 37 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Colleagues, but I don’t understand the name: "wood"? Previous air defense systems were named after the Siberian rivers, and this one?
    1. Phil77 9 February 2020 17: 53 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      * derivatio * - Latin, translation-rejection, abduction. hi
  • Petrol cutter 9 February 2020 18: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And what is derivation? Who will tell me? ..
    So Comrade Astra was interested in this question. We will be very grateful.
    1. Phil77 9 February 2020 18: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yes, like the above has already answered. recourse From Latin- * derivatio *. Deviation, abduction, if in our opinion.
  • datur 9 February 2020 18: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, this gun and the infantry is determined well !! wink
  • Pacifist 9 February 2020 18: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Great news! good
  • ROSS_51 9 February 2020 19: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Pipifax, together with its informed source, can be sent for its intended purpose.
    Derivation does not have a radar for searching and tracking a target. If they buy the nth quantity, they will throw it into Syria, because they got stuck with expensive Shell missiles, cheap, knocked down the barmalei on the knee of an UAV. Actually, as developers are positioning it. There is no question of any fight against cruise missiles there.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. viktor_ui 9 February 2020 20: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Oleg, and a pair of cannons from the Shell does not have the very same guns (albeit smaller in caliber), or do the homemade beards of the bearded ones already not in their reach?
      1. ROSS_51 10 February 2020 01: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Somewhere infa flashed (now I don’t remember where), that almost all of the Barmalei UAVs were shot down by missiles. Something to see does not go well with the cannons of the Shell at medium altitudes (assumption).
        The Derivation has everything else a shell with a remote fuse, and most importantly, a guided missile (essentially a small anti-aircraft missile in an artillery shell).
        The idea is old, even outdated, the cannon is ancient, but with the advent of small-sized UAVs became relevant. And yes, cheap and cheerful.
        1. sivuch 10 February 2020 09: 50 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          So no one bothered - let's let a little closer to shoot down the gun. Usually, the matter simply did not reach her.
        2. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 10: 10 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: ROSS_51
          Derivation also has everything else .... a guided missile (essentially a small anti-aircraft missile in an artillery shell).

          we don’t have such a shell. With remote detonation - yes, but the domestic 57-mm UAS does not exist in nature
          1. ROSS_51 10 February 2020 17: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            At least in the public domain there is an infa-340 million. KBUtmash Nudelman was allocated for the development of UAS in 2014. There is a description and scheme of the UAS. At what stage of development, alas, I do not know.
            1. Grigory_45 10 February 2020 17: 15 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ROSS_51
              At what stage of development, alas, I do not know.

              So already answered this question:
              Quote: Constanty
              Anti-aircraft 57-mm UAS were shown in the figures

              the fact is that these shells were not even tested. Although yes, they have been talking about them for a long time, but things are still there. We also build aircraft carriers with destroyers - in the form of pictures and plastic models.
              1. ROSS_51 14 February 2020 03: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Gregory_45

                the fact is that these shells were not even tested. Although yes, they have been talking about them for a long time, but things are still there. We also build aircraft carriers with destroyers - in the form of pictures and plastic models.

                I do not presume to judge the level of your awareness and the degrees of tolerance. Perhaps you know what you're talking about.
                But as my personal life experience shows, those who really have secret information prefer to keep silent about it like a fish on ice, even in private conversations with trusted people, and imagine that they share it on information channels for amateurs ...
                But maybe you really work somewhere near Tula, at a sugar factory ..))
        3. Slon1978 11 February 2020 09: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Here it is necessary to clarify. The armor’s calculations probably established the procedure - first, at an acceptable range, fire rockets, if the target breaks through or the ammunition of the missiles ends, then with guns. To let the target 2 km away for the sake of saving the missiles, in order to fire it with cannons, no one will take such responsibility on themselves, because if such a drone drops a grenade on the Su-35, then then this saved rocket calculation is known where to put ...
    3. abc_alex 9 February 2020 21: 22 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: ROSS_51
      crouched by expensive shell missiles cheap, made on the knee of an unmanned aerial vehicle to shoot down barmalei.

      The economic balance of air defense is determined by the ratio of the price of the shot down and the price of the protected. And not at the cost of a shot down and a shell. The UAV will fly on the plane, and there will be a debit loan for you ...
      1. ROSS_51 10 February 2020 01: 32 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Naturally. Therefore, they do not spare the missiles while protecting the air base in Khmeimim.
        But this does not mean that if there is an effective, but cheaper solution, it should not be adopted, is not it?
        1. abc_alex 10 February 2020 19: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: ROSS_51
          Naturally. Therefore, they do not spare the missiles while protecting the air base in Khmeimim.
          But this does not mean that if there is an effective, but cheaper solution, it should not be adopted, is not it?


          Truth. But for now, even art. the shell system is not really able to drop UAVs. And there will be more targeted channels. There you need either really jewelry precision guidance, or projectile control over the entire trajectory ...
  • Cer59 9 February 2020 21: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree as an addition and only.
  • 7,62h54 9 February 2020 22: 34 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    They’ll drive a heel of cars at the Parade, and for another 5 years they will procrastinate, such as upgrading taking into account realities and all that.
  • Michal Potapych 9 February 2020 23: 09 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Rave! This tin can cannot fully replace either the upgraded Shilka or Tunguska!
    The disarming of these two systems is a big mistake!
    1. ROSS_51 10 February 2020 01: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Um .. Well, in general Tugnusk replaced Shilke, and Shell-C further its development.
      Derivation does not replace anyone, but simply complements in the light of new methods of managing local conflicts.
  • ljoha_d 10 February 2020 01: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How do they plan to replace the tunguska, the gun is excellent yes, but the rate of fire is low while the tunguska is covering a cloud of impenetrable lead as well as the silk, and besides, I saw how fast the towers rotate when hovering, but I didn’t observe large turret rotation speeds and this at a low rate of fire. But on ground targets, it will work fine.
  • lvov_aleksey 10 February 2020 01: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    finally I haven’t seen an advertisement for our weapons here on the site !!!
  • Konatantin 1992 10 February 2020 04: 42 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Well, let's say Shilka will replace, but not Tunguska, no 57 mm. will not replace 9M311 (SAM) with a range of up to 10 km. And yet, yes, what about ammunition with a radio fuse for Derivation? Silence....
    1. sivuch 10 February 2020 09: 52 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Why silence? there are timers, but how about CAS is a big question
  • Grigory_45 10 February 2020 10: 03 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    The “Derivation-Air Defense” anti-aircraft complex will replace the Shilka and Tunguska ZSU in the troops

    will replace? Compared to Tunguska, it does not have missile weapons; compared to Shilka, it does not have its rate of fire. And there is no radar on the car, which is a definite minus.
  • Romanenko 10 February 2020 11: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Something very bold statement about the replacement of Shilka and Tunguska, as Eugene rightly noted, no means of detecting and tracking the target are visible on the new machine, which is alarming in principle regarding the replacement of respected complexes.
    Even in comparison with Shilka, there are a number of issues, of course, the range and horizontal and height of the Derivation are twice as high as the shilka, but otherwise the advantages do not add up, the rate of fire per single barrel is 120 v / m. well, it’s obviously not enough for an anti-aircraft gun, take Shilka with her 4X800, in addition, a 57 mm shell is much more than 23 mm a shot, the question immediately is, what ammunition does a newborn fighter have with flying targets?
    To put the ammunition inside the BMP-3 (and this is the basic Derivative vehicle), at least for a couple of minutes of shooting, oh how much space it will take, and how much time it takes to "pump" this ammunition. For a 30 mm gun in an infantry fighting vehicle, this was not very fast. Here, it seems BC is also under the tower.
    Tunguska with its 30 mm sparks is also from the category of quick-shooters, how and how will they direct a new gun at fast-flying and low-flying (that is, inconspicuous) targets, to ensure a confident defeat with a low rate of fire and small ammunition?
    In addition, Tunguska also has “trump cards” - this is ZRAK, in addition to guns, there are rockets that provide an undeniable advantage for firing at maneuvering targets.
    In a word, holiday "panfares" to Derivation are either too secret at their core, or premature.
    The 57 mm barrel is certainly excellent, both for work on airborne and ground targets, however, information about the new anti-aircraft guns coming to open sources is most likely very limited by considerations of secrecy, and therefore causes great doubt.
  • Alexfly 10 February 2020 12: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    ineffective weapon, rate of fire is more suitable for infantry support weapons somewhere in the mountains ..... than for air defense
  • Sarkazm 10 February 2020 17: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It turned out to be a good complex on the BMP-3 chassis. Unfortunately, the crisis, and after it the collapse of the USSR did not make it possible to put a significant amount of BMP-3 and equipment on its chassis into the troops. The same age as the BMP-3 Swedish BMP Strf 90, which was supplied for its own Swedish troops with a 40mm gun, also had the Lvkv 90 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, additionally equipped with a radar, other thermal imaging and optoelectronic sights. Swedish shells have a programmable fuse. The use of a programmable fuse and a sufficiently large caliber, just allow you to abandon the multi-barrel installation, the density of the damaging elements is ensured by the detonation of the projectile at a given distance. This also increases the probability of destroying the target.
    Our gunsmiths used a larger caliber in Derivation, with the implementation of the same principles as the Swedes, the installation will not be inferior in effectiveness to the multi-barrel Shilke and Tunguska, including when working on ground targets, in the latter case Derivation will even have an advantage, so as programmable detonation provides target destruction behind shelters. It remains only to say “Better late than never,” and of course it is a pity that we have been going to this complex for so many years, we started at the same time as the Swedes, and we will only be adopting weapons. Unfortunately, many developments on the BMP-3 chassis, which were supposed to replace the previous generation models, will most likely never be put into service. This is a light tank, otherwise a self-propelled anti-tank gun, and a 120mm self-propelled gun, in my opinion there were only export deliveries, and much more. Only the BMP itself is in service, two types of self-propelled ATGMs, ARVs, and Lynx in single copies.
    In theory, with the arming of the Derivation, it would be logical for the next to expect the arming of an IFV with a similar projectile having a programmable fuse. Given the increased protection of BMPs of potential friends, the spread of active protection systems in tanks, a 57mm gun will be more effective in action for any purpose than a pair of 100mm and 30mm guns.