Military Review

The Coalition-SV howitzer combat module will be equipped with ships of the Russian Navy

92
The Coalition-SV howitzer combat module will be equipped with ships of the Russian Navy

There was information that the "Coalition-SV" howitzer will also have a marine "brother". This was stated by the head of the Central Research Institute "Petrel" Pavel Kovalev.


"Coalition-SV" - Russian self-propelled howitzer caliber 152 mm. It has been in service with the Russian Armed Forces since 2015.

According to Pavel Kovalev, who gave an interview to the news agency TASS, the characteristics of the Coalition-SV combat module are such that such weapons can also be installed on ships of the Navy fleet.

It is noted that even at the design stage, the issue of the interspecific version of the artillery system was considered. In essence, the approach implemented in the design of the Coalition-SV combat module allows a range of different weapons to be produced. Pavel Kovalev noted that this approach is also explained by the name of weapons - “Coalition”.

The self-propelled howitzer "Coalition-SV" ammunition reaches 70 ammunition. The total mass of this equipment is 48 tons. Firing range - up to 80 km (for certain types of ammunition). Engine power - about 1 thousand hp In addition to the main gun, the self-propelled howitzer is armed with a 12,7 mm machine gun.

Earlier it was reported that on the basis of this development a coastal defense complex will be created.
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757
    rocket757 3 July 2020 10: 09 New
    +3
    But do they put guns on ships? If this is not a river monitor, for artillery support of land operations.
    1. Oleg1263
      Oleg1263 3 July 2020 10: 22 New
      +9
      Well, it’s not clear why they call it a howitzer (maybe the gunners tell me). By all characteristics, this is a gun. The barrel is 52 caliber long.
      1. Nick
        Nick 3 July 2020 12: 42 New
        +3
        She can shoot like a howitzer, on a hinged trajectory. IMHO for this she was called. Universal gun in general.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 3 July 2020 15: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: Nick
          She can shoot like a howitzer

          And, apparently, there is the possibility of "mortar shooting."
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 3 July 2020 18: 16 New
            +3
            And there is also the opportunity - a "flurry of fire."
            6 shells arrive almost simultaneously at the expense of a different elevation angle of the barrel and a variable charge.
            1. seregatara1969
              seregatara1969 4 July 2020 00: 36 New
              -1
              A marine shell is somehow more reliable than a rocket
      2. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 3 July 2020 19: 17 New
        +1
        Probably more correct "gun-howitzer", two in one, so to speak.
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 3 July 2020 10: 23 New
      +4
      Quote: rocket757
      But do they put guns on ships?

      2A88 is no longer a "howitzer" - the barrel length is 52 caliber!
    3. Alexander Samoilov
      Alexander Samoilov 3 July 2020 10: 27 New
      10
      2A88 is more of a multifunctional system than a howitzer in the classical sense.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 July 2020 10: 36 New
        +2
        Not an artilleryman, in general, although he started with anti-aircraft barrels ... just what was written in the text surprised me.
        If the system is universal, then in general it is clear how it can be installed on ships.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 3 July 2020 10: 56 New
          +8
          Quote: rocket757
          how it can be installed on ships.
          There are not only cannons for the sea, but also for rivers. Tank towers have long been placed on armored boats, river monitors, small artillery ships, for example, on the Danube, Ussuri and Amur. In the photo is a ship of project 1248 (Moskit), the Russian coast guard (in the bow installation of a tower from T-55).

          Maybe the tower with the "Coalition" will fit for the support of marines from landing ships.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 3 July 2020 11: 26 New
            +1
            Everything is clear about river monitors. They are mainly for "work" along the banks.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 3 July 2020 13: 04 New
            10
            So this option has long been proposed (Coalition-F):
            Or is this another suggestion?
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 3 July 2020 13: 25 New
              +3
              Another option, from them (it was proposed during the development of the "Coalition")
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 3 July 2020 14: 41 New
          +7
          Quote: rocket757
          If the system is universal,

          It used to be easier with definitions (at the moment I don’t know).
          --------- Barrel length in calibres -------
          gun --------------- 40-80 calibers
          Howitzer gun - at least 30 calibers
          howitzer ------------- 15-30 calibers
          mortar ------------ less than 15 calibers

          According to this qualification, “Tsar Cannon” is not a cannon, but a mortar.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 3 July 2020 14: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: Bad_gr
            According to this qualification, “Tsar Cannon” is not a cannon, but a mortar.

            Is this clear ...
            I wanted to write that the old, muzzle charging guns are a separate issue ... and then I remembered about dynamite guns on ships. With them, something else was. Why did they lower the trunks into a special niche?
          2. vadivm59
            vadivm59 3 July 2020 16: 26 New
            +3
            when creating the "Tsar Cannon" it was called a shotgun. she had to shoot a "stone shot"
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 3 July 2020 17: 16 New
              +2
              Quote: vadivm59
              when creating the "Tsar Cannon" it was called a shotgun. she had to shoot a "stone shot"

              Not really - it should have been fired with a stone core initially, like any normal bombard, and it was retrained into a shotgun later, when the barrel was already old and could be torn apart when fired with one large stone core - it was safer to charge with a stone shot
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 3 July 2020 22: 03 New
                0
                I mean old? She never shot! Like a shotgun-gambler, it was originally cast. To defeat manpower.
                1. Simargl
                  Simargl 4 July 2020 19: 44 New
                  +2
                  Quote: alexmach
                  Like a shotgun-gambler, it was originally cast. To defeat manpower.
                  It struck manpower as it should: when the "guests" of the sovereigns showed this "nuclear" weapon, it was not their legs that methodically beat off their jaws ...
                2. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 11 July 2020 20: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: alexmach
                  I mean old? She never shot!

                  Firstly, “I never shot” at the expense - there is still no consensus, and secondly, with the manufacturing technologies of the time, a gun that never even shot, after lying down, say, about 40 years old, was already recognized as old and recorded in “shotguns”.
                  1. alexmach
                    alexmach 11 July 2020 22: 14 New
                    0
                    Firstly, I’ve never shot at the expense - there is still no consensus

                    Not a punctured firing hole is not an argument in favor of not shooting?
                    1. Albert1988
                      Albert1988 12 July 2020 20: 47 New
                      +1
                      Quote: alexmach
                      Not a punctured firing hole is not an argument in favor of not shooting?

                      With the "impenetrability" of the pilot hole, not everything is clear either - there is an opinion that this is a later rivet, and very, very late. But some studies of the bore indicate that there are traces of a shot on it.
                      In general, the Egyptian cannon of myths was simply fenced off with the Egyptian pyramid, but studies, including recent ones, using already very modern technologies, are unknown to the general public from something ...
          3. Albert1988
            Albert1988 3 July 2020 17: 15 New
            +2
            Quote: Bad_gr
            According to this qualification, “Tsar Cannon” is not a cannon, but a mortar.

            The Tsar Cannon is generally a siege bombardment, not a cannon - it changes the diameter of the barrel bore from the muzzle to the "breech".
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 3 July 2020 18: 43 New
              +3
              Quote: Albert1988
              The Tsar Cannon is generally a siege bombardment,


              At the very beginning, the diameter of the channel into which the projectile is placed is 90 cm, and at the end it is 82 cm. At a distance of 31,9 cm, the channel is conical. Next is the charging chamber. The diameter at the beginning is 44,7 cm and at the end 46,7 cm. The length of such a chamber is 173 cm.
  2. BARKAS
    BARKAS 3 July 2020 10: 15 New
    +2
    A normal ship than they do not like?
  3. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 3 July 2020 10: 20 New
    +2
    Replace 130mm?
  4. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 3 July 2020 10: 20 New
    13
    A double-barreled vertical gun on a flat-bottomed reed river artillery boat .... But these are all dreams, dreams ... The A-1404 firing test stand is a 2-barreled 152 mm 2A86 from the Coalition-SV on a B-4 carriage:
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 3 July 2020 11: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      Double shotgun vertical

      belay We drove a double-barreled shotgun, for years ... In short, in 2015 a single-barrel was rolled out.
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 3 July 2020 11: 04 New
        +4
        On the boat you can and a shotgun. He has fewer restrictions on the mass. Two self-propelled guns are too complicated and not very convenient for the crew. It was originally called the Coalition-SV from the concept of "Coalition of Two Guns." Purely for aesthetic reasons, it is unfortunate that the shotgun was abandoned
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 July 2020 13: 12 New
          +9
          Quote: Bashkirkhan
          On the boat you can and a shotgun. He has less restrictions on the mass.

          Hehehehe ... Designers of RCC also thought so.
          ... the dimensions of the missiles again directly "crawled out" through the ship. “Armed men” did not understand this at all: “Just think, they added“ just something ”(!) Less than a meter of length and less than a ton (!) Of weight” (meaning a new rocket). Looking ahead, we note that these “only something” cost the ship an additional 13 m in length, 2,3 m in width and 2700 tons of displacement.
          © V.P. Kuzin
          When installing a more powerful and more large-sized gun, dances immediately begin around the cutouts in the structures, loads during firing (statics and dynamics), increase in cellars, changes in the feed system, local reinforcements, etc., etc.
          1. Bashkirkhan
            Bashkirkhan 3 July 2020 13: 26 New
            +1
            I completely agree. So I write that all this is a dream. Most likely there will be nothing in iron.
            1. bayard
              bayard 3 July 2020 16: 26 New
              +2
              In iron, it could have appeared on new BDKs - to support the airborne assault, on the projected 22350M and on future larger ships (but not the atomic Leader - all of us).
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 3 July 2020 18: 33 New
                +2
                The main difference between 152 mm and 130 mm is that in the case of the first one it is possible to gasp for SBP, and from the second it is not, but it is possible to shoot at air targets. laughing
                I heard that there is a tacit agreement with the United States and did not put 152 and 155 mm on ships before. But with Zamvolt they circumvented this arrangement. Which ended up sideways for them. bully
                At first, the states also wanted 155 mm on Burke III, but then they returned to 127 mm.
                In the 70s, they even made an automatic 203 mm ship cannon.
                12 rds / min.! But then they all turned off. Allegedly in finance.
                IMHO - so that our did not do this and put on the ships. hi
                https://www.wikiwand.com/ru/8%22/55_Mark_71
        2. vadivm59
          vadivm59 3 July 2020 16: 30 New
          +1
          why regret it? the experts wrote that a technically very complex unit had turned out. that for maintenance and repair, a whole "battalion" of engineers and electronic engineers was needed. It was too expensive.
  5. Doccor18
    Doccor18 3 July 2020 10: 21 New
    +1
    True, to an extremely belated decision. Back in the 50s, all projects of medium-large-caliber naval artillery were cut off. To this day, they routinely put 100 mm. whose integrity is in doubt. And the largest “caliber” is 130 mm., Which is also frankly weak against the coast. 152 mm. - this is something.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 3 July 2020 10: 32 New
      +3
      Quote: Doccor18
      Back in the 50s, they cut down all the projects of medium-large-caliber naval artillery.

      Khrushchev needs to be thanked. He then practically buried the whole art, with his idiocy.
      1. Uncle Izya
        Uncle Izya 3 July 2020 10: 53 New
        +3
        But rocket weapons in priority was 128 mm in the United States, like the largest caliber on ships
        1. bayard
          bayard 3 July 2020 16: 30 New
          0
          Quote: Uncle Izya
          128 mm in the usa seems to be the largest caliber on ships

          155 mm. on the Zumwalt.
          1. Uncle Izya
            Uncle Izya 3 July 2020 18: 18 New
            0
            Well, so far they have big problems with zumwalt
            1. bayard
              bayard 3 July 2020 19: 33 New
              0
              But the guns are there. Simple, not electromagnetic.
    2. Kurare
      Kurare 3 July 2020 10: 55 New
      +4
      Quote: Doccor18
      True, to an extremely belated decision.

      Here, as always, there are two sides to the coin. The requirement for naval artillery systems is not only shooting at long-range / surface targets, but also at anti-aircraft. From that there are other requirements for rate of fire, from that and "smaller" calibers.

      In addition, the Moramen are very jealous of the "sea" calibers and do not give the move "land".

      IMHO, the installation of the "Coalition" on ships, for example, of the first rank will not meet the requirements of sailors. But to put such a system on ships that were originally designed to support the landing, - that's it! From 152mm you can shoot with special charges.

      By the way, in Germany, too, they tried to install the Pzh-2000 on a ship, and also the sailors rejected it.
      http://tonnel-ufo.ru/foto/images_stati/vernutsya_li_linkory_4.jpg
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 3 July 2020 11: 27 New
        0
        The requirement for naval artillery systems is not only shooting at long-range / surface targets, but also at anti-aircraft.

        Once there were such requirements and opportunities ...
        And in modern conditions, I can hardly imagine how the AK-130 can provide air defense of a ship. SAM can hardly cope with this.
        And to hit the ship ... If only to sink that RCC did not sink.
        Now the main task for artillery systems is to work along the coast.
        moreover, the moroman are very jealous of the "sea" calibers and do not give way to the "land".

        Unfortunately, sometimes all kinds and types of troops are captured by various covert games.
        By the way, in Germany, too, they tried to install the Pzh-2000 on a ship, and also the sailors rejected

        Of course, if you remove it from the self-propelled guns, you won’t put it on the ship. It requires fine-tuning, and preferably a specially developed system of caliber 152-180 mm is better. for ships of the Navy.
        And they rejected it, because there was insufficient rate of fire and a barrel resource. On the shore, these problems can be solved by the number of sau, not on the ship.
        Therefore, in my opinion, the ship should have at least 4 barrels, 2 two-gun mounts each, in the manner of the AK-130, only without such gigantic dimensions and prohibitive rate of fire. 15-20 rounds per minute is enough to work along the coast.
        1. Kurare
          Kurare 3 July 2020 11: 41 New
          0
          Quote: Doccor18
          Once there were such requirements and opportunities ...

          The fact of the matter is that these requirements have not been removed and with new control algorithms, for example, a 100mm gun with "smart" ammunition against subsonic anti-ship missiles is a very serious argument.
          Quote: Doccor18
          Unfortunately, sometimes all kinds and types of troops are captured by various covert games.

          Yes and no. Do not forget about logistics, i.e. the heterogeneity of ammunition, as well as special requirements for it in humid and salty environments.
          Quote: Doccor18
          It requires fine-tuning, and preferably a specially developed system of caliber 152-180 mm is better.

          So they tried to finish it. They set it up for experiments. If I’m not mistaken, it was the Bundesmarine that did not rate the rate of fire.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 July 2020 13: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: Doccor18
          And in modern conditions, I can hardly imagine how the AK-130 can provide air defense of a ship.

          Guided missiles - such as Italian DART. The Italians managed to make even a 76-mm guided projectile and tested it on a target simulating maneuvering anti-ship missiles. Of the 10 shells fired, the Sukanti Autonomous Okrug took all 10 to the target. Distance - started from 5 km, completed 3 km.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 3 July 2020 13: 52 New
            +1
            Of course you are right, the future is for guided munitions, but here is the 76mm caliber. too small ..
            The mass of the DART shell with a detachable pallet of 4,2 kg, without a pallet of 3,5 kg, the mass of a pre-fragmented warhead made of tungsten alloy 2,5

            Can such a projectile intercept a heavy supersonic pcb?
            How much can one art.system intercept PCR at the same time, taking into account the fact that it is alone on the ship. An exception, the frigates of the Horizon, which the Italians 3 set.
            Well, for the coast, a guided projectile is preferable (cheaper) to missiles, but again at least 152 mm.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 July 2020 14: 00 New
              0
              Quote: Doccor18
              Of course you are right, the future is for guided munitions, but here is the 76mm caliber. too small ..

              I cited it as an example - in what caliber are the serial guided projectiles currently packed.
              If you made a guided projectile in the caliber of 76 mm, then there should be no problems with the caliber of 130 mm.
              Quote: Doccor18
              How much can one art.system intercept PCR at the same time, taking into account the fact that it is alone on the ship.

              All alone? Nothing more, nothing? wink
              AU - this is only one of the components of the ship's air defense system and formations. Her task may be to shoot through what passed through the frontiers of an air defense system, but has not yet reached the turn of the ZAK fire.
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 3 July 2020 14: 10 New
                0
                All alone? Nothing more, nothing?

                Well, why, there’s something repeat
                with a caliber of 130 mm there should be no problems.

                Where are they just ...?
                And with the caliber in more, there would also be no problems ..
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 3 July 2020 14: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: Doccor18
          I can hardly imagine how the AK-130 can provide air defense of a ship

          Anti-aircraft missile ZS-44R plus radar MR-104 at a range of 20 km with a radius of destruction of 8 meters fully provides air defense in the complex.
        4. Starshina
          Starshina 3 July 2020 14: 26 New
          -1
          The rate of fire this past century the fleet needs smart ammunition - one shot one hit .... And you all want to work on the areas ..
          1. Rzzz
            Rzzz 3 July 2020 20: 31 New
            0
            Smart shells are good. But expensive.
            In any mosquito boat, you can put a dozen conventional shells, if there is good guidance. It will be cheaper.
  6. Galleon
    Galleon 3 July 2020 10: 26 New
    21
    I believe that some kind of news filter on VO should still be present! Either Pavel Kovalev is made of this news as an asshole, misinterpreting his words, or it was not worthwhile to post this note because this leader is somewhat unaware of issues of marine artillery systems. It’s one thing when the entire artillery system in one compartment on the chassis and b / c 70 pcs, and another thing - cellars, carousels, automatic loaders with b / c 15000 pcs and a total height of 15 meters with the tower, like the AK-130. In naval artillery, the approach to designing systems is different.
    Well, you do not need to catch and publish every official word. Why set up a crazy house for ourselves?
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 3 July 2020 10: 32 New
      +4
      The most sober koment.
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 3 July 2020 11: 35 New
        +4
        Alas, I made one mistake in the AK-130 b / c recourse there are one and a half thousand. Just noticed. repeat
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 3 July 2020 13: 03 New
          0
          This is not important. This is more than 5 minutes of firing inherent in the Coalition.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 July 2020 13: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Galleon
      In naval artillery, the approach to designing systems is different.

    3. Starshina
      Starshina 3 July 2020 14: 21 New
      +1
      AK-130 is outdated both in range and in accuracy this past century ...
  7. Pavel57
    Pavel57 3 July 2020 10: 46 New
    -6
    The AK-130 is a failed system.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 3 July 2020 11: 17 New
      +1
      How is she unsuccessful?
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 3 July 2020 11: 19 New
        -4
        A compromise, in fact, does not solve a single problem well. Ergonomics is absent as a concept. The first is recognized by the Chinese.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 3 July 2020 11: 21 New
          +1
          Chinese authority. The question is what the operators will say.
          1. Pavel57
            Pavel57 3 July 2020 11: 24 New
            -1
            I spoke not with the Chinese, but with domestic experts. The Chinese can recognize this more simply, our authorities do not give them a decree.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 3 July 2020 12: 55 New
              0
              It is a working system and this is the most important thing.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 3 July 2020 11: 33 New
      +5
      For its time, it was an exceptionally powerful ship artillery system with unprecedented rate of fire for a similar caliber. Soviet designers were able to solve complex, almost impossible tasks, sometimes beyond common sense.
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 3 July 2020 11: 36 New
        -1
        Rate of fire is impressive, range is not impressive. It would be interesting to know its effectiveness in air defense.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 3 July 2020 13: 15 New
          +4
          What do you dislike about a 20+ km range? This is a marine system. By moving targets, far from shooting. Dodge during the flight. And on the shore purely for finishing. Density is more important than range.
          1. Pavel57
            Pavel57 3 July 2020 16: 06 New
            -1
            And how much do you need to shoot the main caliber at planes and missiles?
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 3 July 2020 17: 43 New
              +1
              There is already a difficult question. I doubt the effectiveness of the aircraft. In the effectiveness of attacking missiles, it is not the ultimate range that matters, but the density at the optimum range.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 3 July 2020 14: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: Pavel57
          range - not impressive.

          What range do you need?
          Quote: Pavel57
          It is interesting to know its effectiveness in air defense.

          Not SAM, of course, but completely!
          1. Pavel57
            Pavel57 3 July 2020 16: 10 New
            -1
            Compare with analogues - the range of Mark 45 mod. 4 -38 km. With a weight of 4 times less than the AK-130.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 3 July 2020 17: 49 New
              0
              Skorostrelnrst many times less. Ammunition is many times less. Range by the way incomprehensibly indicate. Maximum 38. Optimal 15. And with an active projectile up to 115. The installation is certainly good but not a child prodigy.
      2. Starshina
        Starshina 3 July 2020 14: 14 New
        0
        In range, all naval artillery systems are out of date forever ...
    3. Galleon
      Galleon 3 July 2020 11: 40 New
      +6
      Oh, comrade !! ... You should have been at her shooting once, to feel the power ... Although in some ways you are right.
      This system absolutely does not tolerate (or did not tolerate) the maintenance of incompetence. Dozens of periodically failing contact switches are a serious challenge for the combatant’s brains. If this KP scheme (which one is responsible for what) - the multiplication table is learned by the battalion commander - the AK-130 will work like the AK-47.
  8. czes
    czes 3 July 2020 11: 31 New
    +1
    What a stupid photo?
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 3 July 2020 13: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: czes
      What a stupid photo?

      The rest is classified.
      laughing
  9. Pavel57
    Pavel57 3 July 2020 12: 10 New
    -1
    Earlier it was reported that on the basis of this development a coastal defense complex will be created.

    SHORE it is time to change.
    1. Grits
      Grits 3 July 2020 17: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      SHORE it is time to change.

      Shore and Kaolitsiya are completely different systems. You forget that the Shore is for hitting ships. And all its systems, from target designation to this are sharpened. The coalition will never fulfill the task assigned to the Coast.
      Yes, and what to change? How many of those shore complexes are we - a few on the Black Sea coast and that’s it.
  10. Desperado
    Desperado 3 July 2020 14: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Pavel57
    Earlier it was reported that on the basis of this development a coastal defense complex will be created.

    SHORE it is time to change.


    What is the point of changing the "Beach"? Money nowhere to spend?
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 3 July 2020 16: 13 New
      0
      “Shore”, in addition to firing at ships, must also shoot at land targets. Now the range is 25 km. it will not be enough.
  11. Starshina
    Starshina 3 July 2020 14: 10 New
    -1
    It’s time to coax the Coalition and Derivation for a long time and install them on ships. It’s better to unify land and naval calibers and shells for them. A modified Coalition will give the fleet fantastic power. And if you modify shells like Krasnopol using moving sea targets and shells with remote air-blasting goals, it would be just fantastic !!! I’m not saying how much money can be saved for the Russian state ...
    1. Galleon
      Galleon 3 July 2020 15: 24 New
      +3
      Quote: Starshina
      And it is better to unify land and sea calibers and shells for them.

      The unitary projectile for the installation of the AK-130 130 mm caliber weighs 75 kg, together with a stretcher for carrying - 84 kg. But we have a high degree of automation of loading and shooting, which is necessary for marine artillery systems. What will you do with separate loading of the Coalition?
      Quote: Starshina
      And if we modify shells like Krasnopol using moving sea targets and shells with remote detonation of air targets, it would be fantastic!

      Shells with a radar fuse have existed ... for quite some time. "Krasnopol" ?? What armored naval targets do you want to hit them with?
      Quote: Starshina
      I’m not saying how much money can be saved for the Russian state ...

      If you want to save money - do not ruin the developers of marine artillery systems, their equipment is much more complicated than tower guns on the chassis, and these designers solve more serious problems.
      1. rusboris
        rusboris 3 July 2020 15: 49 New
        0
        Separate loading makes it possible to produce 10 rounds per minute. For sedentary purposes it is quite enough. It makes it possible to save barrel survivability on charges for a shorter range. Support for the marine corps in the near future will be the primary task of the fleet not included in the nuclear triad. Therefore, calibers of 152-180 mm have become relevant, and with them separate charging.
      2. illi
        illi 3 July 2020 16: 21 New
        +7
        Also ofigel from comments. Most do not understand the difference between unitary and separate loading. For marine systems, of course, only unitary loading is necessary, the weight of the projectile is not as critical as for the dryers, loading in the port and then everything is done by automation. But separate loading will greatly increase the complexity, weight and reduce the rate of fire.
        Well, shooting along the coast is generally IMHO beyond the bounds of common sense for a modern ship. 152 mm is the caliber for the destroyer cruiser. To drive a modern billionth destroyer into the coastal zone under mines and missiles to support the infantry is an idea. But to make a special ship for these purposes is also not an idea.
        1. rusboris
          rusboris 3 July 2020 21: 24 New
          0
          Reassessment of modern threats Spend money on stealth destroyers and then look for how to support the marines! This is a great strategic gap in the thinking of admirals. In 1940, aircraft carriers were underestimated. In 2020, were left without UDC, BDK and artillery armored cruisers. The nuclear and missile component of the Russian fleet is sufficient. There are not enough raiders and amphibious assault forces for a low-intensity war.
    2. Grits
      Grits 3 July 2020 17: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Starshina
      It's time to lull the Coalition for a long time

      There is a horse and a camel. And wallpaper can carry loads. Only one is fast and the other is in the desert. I propose to "desertify" the horse - it’s faster to convey the load in the desert.
  12. Shadow041
    Shadow041 3 July 2020 14: 12 New
    +3
    This is a normal move, since it will partially allow to unify the armament of the army and navy and increase the capabilities of the Russian fleet in artillery support for naval landing, if necessary.
  13. rusboris
    rusboris 3 July 2020 14: 18 New
    +1
    The world's advanced fleets are in a state of reassessment of the tasks and classes of ships. Our admirals need to guess and order ships for a future war. In my opinion, the United States is not going to hell. Therefore, the Russian Navy will not fight with the main "partner". Our fleet needs to provide, with fire and resources for the battle, the marines and airborne forces, lift the blockade from friendly coastal countries, and ensure a sea blockade of non-loyal states to Russia. There are good projects of 1958 for this. For example, the cruiser "Admiral Senyavin" there are two towers of the main caliber 152 mm. Armor 120 mm homogeneous steel. Displacement of 16000 tons. This is the real owner of future naval battles in a low-intensity war (centric network). These are not “cardboard” frigates, which turn into a sieve from the close gap of RCC. The squadron led by the modern version of "Admiral Senyavin", as part of the UDC, BDK, frigate, corvettes, submarine. It will free any port from blockade without drowning the destroyers of the "partners", only by carefully making them "bulk in the stern."
  14. NF68
    NF68 3 July 2020 16: 11 New
    0
    The self-propelled howitzer "Coalition-SV" ammunition reaches 70 ammunition.


    70 ammunition. Or is it 70 shells?
  15. Evil 55
    Evil 55 3 July 2020 18: 15 New
    0
    There is no certainty that the article was written by an Expert, and not by Pisak for the sake of publication ... neither relevance nor conclusions were considered ..
  16. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 3 July 2020 20: 52 New
    0
    Armed ships ...
    From something which is not specified. Are there suitable steamboats for such a caliber?! ..
  17. Nikolay2
    Nikolay2 3 July 2020 23: 26 New
    0
    What is being discussed here? There are no universal tools. The ship’s gun has its own specifics and sculpting a land gun on ships and boats is a madhouse. And again, there are no analogues, the best in the world, etc. Yesterday Roscosmos shouted that reusable space rockets were bullshit - and today it asks for money for their development. It will be the same with this howitzer.
  18. bk0010
    bk0010 4 July 2020 11: 15 New
    0
    Six-inch fleet is good, it's a classic. But a number of questions arise.
    1) Where to put it? We build a maximum of frigates (22350), it will not crack from 6 "?
    2) The coalition howitzer, the fleet needs a universal gun (on the surface and air defense), can they make a six-inch universal?
    3) For the fleet, you need to nullify the gun. This is not only increased corrosion resistance, but also water cooling (how will the barrel relate to it during long-term shooting?), And unitary firing (and with the unitar all these Coalition’s super-bangs, such as plasma ignition and others, will be able to prove themselves? And if not, then fuck goat button accordion?).