Military Review

The deadlines for the end of state tests of the ZAK "Derivation-PVO"

139
The deadlines for the end of state tests of the ZAK "Derivation-PVO"

Concern "Uralvagonzavod" plans to complete state tests of the newest anti-aircraft self-propelled artillery complex "Derivation-Air Defense" in 2022. This was reported by the press service of "UVZ".


As part of the Army-2020 military-technical forum in the Moscow region, the UVZ press service reported that the planned completion of state tests of the Derivation-Air Defense complex is scheduled for the first quarter of 2022. At the same time, it is emphasized that the enterprises of the concern are ready to start mass production of the anti-aircraft gun.

The tests are scheduled to be completed in Q1 2022. And serial deliveries will begin after the appropriate conclusion of the State Commission. But we are ready to immediately start serial production

- TASS leads the text of the message.

The Derivation-Air Defense complex was first presented at the Army-2018 forum. The self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was created on the BMP-3 chassis, equipped with a module with a 57-mm automatic cannon. The new ZAK is to replace the Shilka and Tunguska artillery anti-aircraft systems developed during the Soviet era.

The complex is designed to combat aviation and cruise missiles, aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as with single MLRS shells, it is also possible to use it against ground and surface lightly armored targets. The complex includes a combat vehicle with a high ballistic cannon, a maintenance vehicle and a 9T260 transport and loading vehicle, which can quickly reload a combat vehicle right on the battlefield.
139 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pereira
    Pereira 24 August 2020 09: 13
    -1
    It turns out that the Tunguska concept did not justify itself.
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 24 August 2020 09: 17
      15
      As far as I understand, one of the reasons is the fashion for various drones.
      The need for remote detonation.
      And in a 57mm projectile you can push a lot of things.
      1. Fmax
        Fmax 24 August 2020 15: 33
        +1
        I don’t understand why only air defense? For ordinary BMPs (for the same Kurgan), such a gun just asks.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 25 August 2020 00: 05
          +3
          Will a landing party with such a cannon and its ammunition be deployed in the same vehicle? Are they compatible? In general, there is a module "Baikal" or something for the T-15.
          1. Fmax
            Fmax 25 August 2020 09: 48
            -2
            yes it seems to fit. Pictures on the Internet show that there is still room for the landing in the old hull from BMP 3. And in a new one with a dviglom in front and a ramp, I think it will fit no less.
    2. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 24 August 2020 09: 20
      13
      Shell C is a continuation of the Tunguska concept.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 24 August 2020 10: 34
        +5
        Quote: Pessimist22
        Shell C is a continuation of the Tunguska concept.

        The second name is Pantsir-Tunguska-3.
    3. qQQQ
      qQQQ 24 August 2020 09: 21
      10
      Quote: Pereira
      It turns out that the Tunguska concept did not justify itself.

      Most likely a journalist's jamb, for them everything is the same, that Shilka, that Tunguska. If Derivation will replace something, then most likely only Shilka. It is painfully tempting to have a short-range cannon and a 10 km missile in a single complex.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 24 August 2020 09: 52
        +2
        No, not a joint. Everything is correct. At Tunguzka, by our time, the artillery unit is outdated, Mass-dimensional restrictions do not allow the installation of larger guns. The shell mentioned here is, in principle, too massive by the standards of military air defense.

        It is painfully tempting to have a short-range cannon and a 10 km missile in a single complex.

        It's tempting to have that, but if only it could work for real goals ...
        But in general, Tunguzka will not be replaced soon. At the current delivery rates, and in the presence of older complexes in the troops, the Tunguzkas still serve and serve.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 24 August 2020 10: 20
          +4
          Quote: alexmach
          But in general, Tunguzka will not be replaced soon.


          They do not need to be changed - it is enough to modify the radar and SUV
        2. qQQQ
          qQQQ 24 August 2020 10: 24
          10
          Quote: alexmach
          Tunguz women still serve and serve.

          I myself am Shilochnik, I saw Tunguska only out of the corner of my eye, but in my opinion, for the first line, the complex is very successful, missiles with almost 100% hit, and 30 mm cannons will last a long time. If Shilka is still "tortured", then God himself ordered Tunguska.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 24 August 2020 22: 10
            0
            the problem is that there are few missiles, and the main goal is attack helicopters and attack aircraft fly beyond the effective range of an anti-aircraft machine gun ... I personally would not be very surprised if I find out that as a result, an additional anti-aircraft machine gun will be put on the Derivation tower, say GSh-23L, for especially close contact.
            1. qQQQ
              qQQQ 25 August 2020 08: 53
              +1
              Quote: Boris Chernikov
              the problem is that there are few missiles there, and the main target is attack helicopters and attack aircraft fly beyond the effective range of an anti-aircraft machine gun.

              There are 8 missiles. , if you take two missiles on the target, then 1 Tunguska will clear a circle with a radius of about 8 km from aviation, which is quite enough for the battlefield.
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 25 August 2020 09: 11
                0
                the problem is that the Helfires fly 10 km and the Brimstone 2 11,5 km.
                1. qQQQ
                  qQQQ 25 August 2020 09: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  the problem is that the Helfires fly 10 km and the Brimstone 2 11,5 km.

                  Well, the Tunguska rocket is also 10 km, but at the maximum range it is unlikely that someone works like us or them. In any case, this is much better than a projectile, even 57 mm at the same range, albeit with a radio fuse, to an armored helicopter these fragments are like grain to an elephant.
    4. Oleg1263
      Oleg1263 24 August 2020 09: 22
      +5
      Why didn't you justify it? Development of "Tunguska" is "Pantsir".
    5. We are for our
      We are for our 24 August 2020 09: 26
      -6
      Tunguska is a well-known and recognized air defense system, albeit somewhat outdated in 40 years of operation.
      And from these 57mm handicrafts, the army has been fighting off with its feet as best it can for 10 years, but lobbying pressure does not care.
      1. lucul
        lucul 24 August 2020 10: 06
        +1
        And from these 57mm handicrafts, the army has been fighting off with its feet as best it can for 10 years, but lobbying pressure does not care

        What will Tungusska do with a swarm of small drones?
        1. qQQQ
          qQQQ 24 August 2020 10: 26
          +3
          Quote: lucul
          What will Tungusska do with a swarm of small drones?

          Only electronic warfare can cope with a swarm of unobtrusive drones, everything else is expensive and ineffective.
          1. lucul
            lucul 24 August 2020 10: 33
            +3
            Only electronic warfare can cope with a swarm of unobtrusive drones, everything else is expensive and ineffective.

            The wall of shrapnel in front of the nose of the drone will be better)))
            1. qQQQ
              qQQQ 24 August 2020 10: 45
              +4
              Quote: lucul
              The wall of shrapnel in front of the nose of the drone will be better)))

              Look how many anti-aircraft guns were needed, the same C60, to hit one target, that's where a wall of shrapnel was created, and even an aircraft of the appropriate size, the efficiency is very so-so. Therefore, only electronic warfare, and not just jamming, but specifically disabling electronics.
              1. lucul
                lucul 24 August 2020 10: 47
                +2
                Look how many anti-aircraft guns were needed, the same C60, to defeat one target, this is where a wall of shrapnel was created, and even an aircraft of the appropriate size

                Do you realize the difference between a projectile with remote detonation (at the right time and in the right place) and a conventional projectile? )))
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 24 August 2020 11: 05
        +1
        Quote: We are for our
        And from these 57mm handicrafts, the army has been fighting off with its feet as best it can for 10 years,

        I agree that the value of "Derivation-Air Defense" is too much, and not justified, overestimated! And about the replacement of "Shilka" and "Tunguska" ... a statement from the "ceiling"! Well, if about "Shilka" - still here and there ... (although they are trying to improve "Shilka" by equipping with missiles ...), but for "Tunguska" then for what? Firstly, "Tunguska" and "Derivation-Air Defense" are different "ranks" of weapons ... each has its own "niche"! Secondly, the "Tunguska" can be improved (!) ... how many people know that for the "Tunguska" a missile defense system has been developed with a range of up to 10 km and an altitude reach of 6 km? (The question remains about production and adoption in service ...) The meaning of "Derivation" is more interesting for the purpose of fire support of ground units against the ground enemy! The "anti-aircraft" role of "Derivation" will turn out to be, in the end, more modest than it is painted! Her lot will be anti-helicopter combat, the fight against UAVs ...
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 24 August 2020 11: 18
          +3
          Well, as if initially said so. Means of attack and UAVs. The rest, in theory, should not reach the Derivation.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 24 August 2020 11: 33
            +2
            Quote: garri-lin
            Well, how would they initially say so

            They spoke and speak in different ways! There are those who are trying to present "Derivation" almost as an absolute air defense weapon! Replacement of "Tunguska" "Derivation is still" flowers "!
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 24 August 2020 13: 21
              +1
              Well, he's a narrow special. You can't do without a car with near-field missiles. System element. And there are many UraWunder Vafenov. From any squiggle "Weapon of Retribution" are ready to do.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 24 August 2020 15: 27
                +3
                created on the BMP-3 chassis, equipped with a module with a 57-mm automatic cannon. The new ZAK is to replace the Shilka and Tunguska artillery anti-aircraft systems developed during the Soviet era.
                Stupidity is written. Multi-barreled installations with a monstrous rate of fire, + missiles equipped with radars, optics, automation - replace with a single-barreled, one-eyed something?
                As a means of supporting the infantry, it may be suitable. But not air defense, for sure.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 24 August 2020 16: 10
                  +5
                  Those multi-barrels with a monstrous rate of fire could only hit with a direct hit. And then a programmed detonation and a swarm of GPO flies towards the target from which there is nowhere to go. And in the future, there is also a projectile capable of compensating for guidance errors or unpredictable maneuvers on command from the complex. You know the steering wheels.
      3. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 25 August 2020 09: 19
        0
        funny, especially considering that all developments from 57 mm are ordered by the military)
      4. YOUR
        YOUR 25 August 2020 14: 36
        0
        How can the army fight off what is not?
    6. asua164
      asua164 24 August 2020 12: 15
      +1
      Tunguska has nothing to do with it. This is a continuation of the ZSU-57-2
    7. sivuch
      sivuch 24 August 2020 16: 21
      +2
      I think the author got excited about the replacement of Tunguska. Firstly, the existing ones are being modernized, and secondly, other sources speak of Shell-SV. Rather, to replace Shilka and Strela-10
    8. venik
      venik 24 August 2020 16: 50
      +1
      Quote: Pereira
      It turns out that the Tunguska concept did not justify itself.

      =========
      If it had not "justified", so many countries would not have adopted it!
      Just "Derivation" with the same efficiency - much CHEAPER and in production and operation!
    9. storm
      storm 26 August 2020 03: 11
      0
      is not a fact...
      could well combine on one chassis in a single combat module SAM Sosna and ZPK Derivation.
      it is more profitable for a manufacturer to sell two cars than one ...
  2. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 24 August 2020 09: 14
    +6
    Excellent to support the infantry on the offensive. Infantry, paratroopers will be happy.
    1. We are for our
      We are for our 24 August 2020 09: 21
      10 th
      As practice has shown, infantry support with a small-caliber rapid-fire cannon is much more relevant.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 24 August 2020 09: 44
        +5
        An anti-aircraft gun, if fired horizontally, allows you to hit firing points at long distances. And to get there with the help of optics is quite real. Unlike air targets.
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 24 August 2020 10: 02
          -1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And to get there with the help of optics is quite real. Unlike air targets.

          Yes, it's not clear where the radar is in this self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.
          1. Bodipancher
            Bodipancher 24 August 2020 13: 00
            +4
            No radar, optics and external target designation. The vehicle must be invisible to anti-radar missiles
        2. We are for our
          We are for our 24 August 2020 10: 44
          -2
          In temperate latitudes, these "long distances" are very rare, but for your desert the semblance of "derivation" is completely unsuitable.
        3. venik
          venik 24 August 2020 16: 53
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          An anti-aircraft gun, if fired horizontally, allows you to hit firing points at long distances. And to get there with the help of optics is quite real. Unlike air targets.

          ========
          Why is this? Can JUSTIFY?
          If guidance is carried out using the onboard processor ("3 points") and if the shells also have a "remote detonation" system (on the trajectory), then the question is "from what hangover" should this system be LESS effective than, for example, a radio command missile defense system? ?? request
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 24 August 2020 17: 13
            -3
            The projectile is uncontrollable, unlike the SAM.
            Ballistics. If you made a mistake in the calculations before leaving the barrel - that's it, a mistake.
            A missile defense system can be "trusted" to the target.
            1. venik
              venik 25 August 2020 09: 59
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The projectile is uncontrollable, unlike the SAM.
              Ballistics. If you made a mistake in the calculations before leaving the barrel - that's it, a mistake.

              ===========
              For this, there is a high-performance on-board computer complex in real time analyzing data from weather sensors, a laser rangefinder and an electro-optical system. Add to this shells with remote detonation and a fairly decent rate of fire = a very effective means of dealing with UAVs and helicopters at short (and not very short) ranges. Moreover, it is much cheaper than the air defense system!
              ------------
              Quote: voyaka uh
              A missile defense system can be "trusted" to the target.

              =======
              And you do not know that for this system they have been developing for a long time managed (adjustable) projectiles that can also be turned on the target? True, this already turns out to be more expensive, although cheaper than missiles!
        4. storm
          storm 26 August 2020 03: 27
          0
          a sort of sniper cannon for infantry with the ability to shoot at the turntables from an ambush.
      2. lucul
        lucul 24 August 2020 10: 05
        +5
        As practice has shown, infantry support with a small-caliber rapid-fire cannon is much more relevant.

        You also say that 2 km range (for 20-30mm) is better than 5 km (for 57mm)))))
        1. We are for our
          We are for our 24 August 2020 10: 38
          -2
          I will say that 2 kilometers is more than enough for the European terrain, and a completely different technique is needed for a war in the steppe and desert.
          1. lucul
            lucul 24 August 2020 10: 42
            +2
            I will say that 2 kilometers is more than enough for the European terrain, and a completely different technique is needed for a war in the steppe and desert.

            What are you? )))
            It's like saying that 600m range is enough for an assault rifle, and then see this 600m range on the ground.
            A long arm will be better than a short one)))
            1. We are for our
              We are for our 24 August 2020 10: 51
              0
              It's like saying that 600m range is enough for an assault rifle.
              effective range of fire from intermediate 5,45 and 5,56 rounds ~ 400 meters, 7,62 * 39 is even lower. Can you guess why?
              A long arm will be better than a short one)))
              Tell some wrestling brother this.
              1. lucul
                lucul 24 August 2020 10: 58
                0
                effective range of fire from intermediate 5,45 and 5,56 rounds ~ 400 meters, 7,62 * 39 is even lower. Can you guess why?

                You will also say that all soldiers will prefer a shorter range for a machine gun on the battlefield)))
                1. We are for our
                  We are for our 24 August 2020 11: 07
                  +1
                  But after all, already prefer with the transition from powerful rifle cartridges to intermediate, and sometimes pistol. The density of fire and its effectiveness will always be more important than the spheroponic characteristics, such as "range".
                  1. lucul
                    lucul 24 August 2020 11: 22
                    -2
                    But after all, already prefer with the transition from powerful rifle cartridges to intermediate, and sometimes pistol.

                    It was imposed from above (UN) purely for humanitarian reasons (greater survival rate when injured), if that))) Read how AK-74 appeared)))
                    1. We are for our
                      We are for our 24 August 2020 11: 32
                      0
                      It was imposed from above (UN) purely for humanitarian reasons, if anything
                      Quite the opposite, by 5,45 and 5,56 the UN always had big questions, since the cartridges in these calibers are longitudinally unstable and fragmented, which seems to be prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
                      Read how the AK-74 appeared
                      An excellent machine gun for a great cartridge, I don't care how it came about.
      3. Alber alber
        Alber alber 25 August 2020 22: 37
        +1
        This is a kind of super-large-caliber sniper rifle on the chassis, in addition to the sobsno air defense of the close circle
        1. We are for our
          We are for our 26 August 2020 00: 17
          -2
          The role of "sniper rifle" has long been occupied by tanks, the effectiveness of a full-fledged 125mm gun is incomparably higher.
          1. Alber alber
            Alber alber 26 August 2020 00: 34
            0
            In your logic of a grenade launcher or a sniper, it is much better to destroy a Tornado-S, and why there, ICBMs. Can somehow reason in comparable terms of specific field conditions, which in terms of efficiency / cost ratio is more profitable in all aspects, and not only in the fact that a large rocket is better than a small cannon
            1. We are for our
              We are for our 26 August 2020 00: 49
              -2
              In your logic of a grenade launcher or a sniper, it is much better to destroy a Tornado-S, and why there, ICBMs.
              According to my logic, tasks need to be solved sequentially, using the most optimal means available. Long-range shooting is definitely the prerogative of "large calibers". At close range, a hail of 30 mm shells is best
              which, in terms of efficiency / cost ratio, is more profitable in all aspects,
              it is more profitable to have a limited assortment of large-scale specialized equipment than to interfere with a bulldog with a rhinoceros and produce mutants.
              1. Alber alber
                Alber alber 26 August 2020 00: 59
                0
                You need to develop a respected one, a projectile with a controlled detonation and sufficient filling will make it cheaper and faster than a 125mm cannon and better than 30mm blanks, besides, there is an external TSU in the form of KRUS "Strelets", and let alone the rate of fire, it's certainly not a 23 machine gun from Gryazev and Shikunov, but no worse than 30mm devices
  3. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 24 August 2020 09: 17
    +5
    You can also visit the blocks with missiles on the sides.
    1. We are for our
      We are for our 24 August 2020 09: 20
      +5
      And installation of vertical launch "calibers" in the stern.
      The adversary will be terrified.
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 24 August 2020 11: 22
      +1
      They ask for nails from the Shell. Although for Nails it seems like a different machine is being made.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 25 August 2020 00: 15
        0
        A radar and a guidance system from there asks for the nails from the shell, but there will definitely not be a place on them on this machine
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 25 August 2020 11: 14
          0
          I meant the concept. There will definitely be another vehicle with missiles. With lots of cheap rockets. And there, look and the guided projectile will go to the masses.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 25 August 2020 11: 43
            0
            I meant the concept

            Yes that's just the same and no. This is a completely different concept.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 25 August 2020 13: 14
              0
              Details, please?
  4. moreman78
    moreman78 24 August 2020 09: 17
    +4
    The new ZAK should replace the Shilka and Tunguska artillery anti-aircraft systems developed during the Soviet era

    With "Shilka" everything is clear, but how this ZAK can replace anti-aircraft missile-gun complex "Tunguska" is a mystery to me!
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 24 August 2020 09: 53
      0
      But how this ZAK can replace the Tunguska anti-aircraft missile-gun complex is a mystery to me!

      There is also a certain "rosemary pine"
      1. moreman78
        moreman78 24 August 2020 10: 14
        +2
        SAM Sosna is a replacement for the Strela-10 air defense system.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 24 August 2020 10: 20
          -1
          And together with the Tree, they cover the Tunguzka niche.
    2. lucul
      lucul 24 August 2020 10: 03
      +2
      With "Shilka" everything is clear, but how this ZAK can replace the Tunguska anti-aircraft missile-gun system is a mystery to me!

      Well, what's incomprehensible ???
      It will work from external target designation, the main goal is a small-sized drones.
      1. Alexfly
        Alexfly 24 August 2020 10: 19
        -1
        And the man began to shoot the sparrows with a cannon ... just like from a fairy tale ... For pigeons and sparrows, nothing better than a fraction has not yet been invented ...
        1. lucul
          lucul 24 August 2020 10: 22
          +4
          And the man began to fire a cannon at the sparrows ... just like from a fairy tale ... For pigeons and sparrows, nothing better than a fraction has not yet been invented.

          Derivation has shells with remote detonation calculated by the computer. A kind of wall of shrapnel in the air, at the right time and in the right place.
          1. We are for our
            We are for our 24 August 2020 10: 40
            0
            And what is the advantage of such shells over missiles?
            1. lucul
              lucul 24 August 2020 10: 45
              0
              And what is the advantage of such shells over missiles?

              The fact that the engine in the rocket is more expensive than the projectile this time, and secondly, the rocket takes up too much space (fuel for flight) - that's two.
              1. We are for our
                We are for our 24 August 2020 11: 01
                +1
                the engine in the rocket is more expensive than the projectile this time
                This is not the case, missiles without gsn cost pennies.
                the rocket takes up too much space (fuel to fly) is two
                The 57mm projectile is also not small, but it also needs a heavy, complex and expensive gun. And the effectiveness of the corrected zur will in any case be many times higher than that of unguided shells with remote detonation (in World War II, all this has already passed).
                1. lucul
                  lucul 24 August 2020 11: 10
                  -1
                  in World War II, all this has already passed

                  There it is, where is the catch)))
                  You are probably not good friends with a computer, and it is difficult for you to understand that all calculations (place / time of the explosion) will be done by the computer, that is, something that is impossible for a person)))
                  The 57mm projectile is also not small, but it also needs a heavy, complex and expensive gun.

                  Aha 148 shells (one target-2 shells) against 8 missiles on Tunguska
                  1. We are for our
                    We are for our 24 August 2020 11: 18
                    -1
                    that all calculations will be done by the computer
                    it will not be able to compensate for the spread in shooting accuracy and even the slightest change in the trajectory of the target, the effectiveness will be so-so in any case. And corrected missiles are a tried and tested, angry and effective solution.
                    Aha 148 shells (one target-2 shells) against 8 missiles on Tunguska
                    Tunguska was created to defeat completely different targets, and modern tasks require modern solutions. As far as I know, small-sized anti-drone missiles were developed for the "shell". I do not presume to argue about the implementation, but the idea itself is certainly good.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 24 August 2020 11: 27
                      +1
                      it will not be able to compensate for the spread in shooting accuracy and even the slightest change in the trajectory of the target, the effectiveness will be so-so in any case.

                      Like two fingers on the asphalt)))
                      You will be horrified if you find out how deep the computer is capable of performing physical modeling)))
                      I will even say more - computer modeling is now so advanced that not a single engineer in the West has been calculating anything manually for a long time (calculations of internal combustion engines, aerodynamics, ALL Strength, etc.)
                      .....
                      He enters only the initial data - then the computer is all by itself)))
                      Read about CAD SolidWorks and more ...
                      1. We are for our
                        We are for our 24 August 2020 11: 51
                        +1
                        At the moment, the computer is capable of calculating ballistics, but will not help in any way to improve the accuracy. And there is no way to find out the meteorological conditions along the entire trajectory, and therefore the "derivation" cannot just physically hit the bull's-eye with each projectile.
                        I know of the ubiquitous use of digital modeling, but I also know that the end result is the result of an endless variety of simulations. Only for a 100% guarantee, an anti-aircraft gun, unlike a virtual machine, cannot simultaneously release many shells, taking into account all existing errors.
                      2. lucul
                        lucul 24 August 2020 12: 19
                        0
                        and therefore the "derivation" will not be able to hit the bull's-eye with every shell simply physically.

                        But the bull's-eye is not necessary)))
                        It is enough to explode nearby))) the rocket also explodes nearby)))
                  2. Alber alber
                    Alber alber 25 August 2020 22: 51
                    0
                    Why argue, there is a fairly obvious example with the installation on the Su24 of a certain analogue of a computing system on derivation, exaggerated of course, so the computer turned the accuracy of hitting conventional FAB of various modifications into a practically high-precision weapon, without installing hinged taxiing systems on the ammunition itself, which the KST went to Yankees and laid out a decent amount. Well, one more plus, the shells are not affected by the reb systems and the size is smaller, it is difficult to intercept, and the ammunition is larger
                    1. We are for our
                      We are for our 26 August 2020 00: 15
                      -2
                      there is a fairly obvious example with the installation on the Su24 of some analogue of a computer system

                      Automated bomb sights are already a hundred years old at lunchtime, even in the case of the "hephaestus" you mentioned, there is no question of any high-precision bombing of cast iron. It is ridiculous to compare high-precision weapons that can literally be thrown into the window and cast iron from the KVO hundreds of meters away.
                      Now Russia is following the same path as everyone else - the Aerospace Forces are saturated with guided bombs and missiles.
                    2. Alber alber
                      Alber alber 26 August 2020 00: 26
                      0
                      I didn’t understand what the laugh was, I kind of wrote that it’s exaggeratedly similar, i.e. not exactly, but according to the principle, the principle is the same, to compare the calculations of a computer system and what was previously used to automatize aiming, it's like comparing my clock on the wall with the atomic chronometer of Greenwich, sobsno you have written about this before, the more it really is a multiple increase in the accuracy of hitting bombs, but somehow you didn’t get into it, well, and to argue that a zur for close combat is cheaper than a projectile throughout the component under consideration is definitely fun
                    3. We are for our
                      We are for our 26 August 2020 00: 41
                      -2
                      especially since there really is a multiple increase in the accuracy of hitting bombs,
                      the fact of the matter is that no "multiple increase" (in comparison with what?) the effectiveness of the bombing is not observed, in practice "hefest" even the declared 50m did not hold stable.
                      Ballistic computers ALREADY now have almost all guns from 30 mm to 152 mm. In this regard, the newly emerged "derivation" will not have any advantages.
                    4. Alber alber
                      Alber alber 26 August 2020 00: 51
                      0
                      You link to these your "did not keep" throw? And then as soon as I start googling about SVP 24, then both Surovikin and Borisov, and a bunch of other sources assert about the multiplicity of increasing the accuracy, i.e., if you are talking about more than 50m, then it was therefore more than 100 before?
        2. garri-lin
          garri-lin 24 August 2020 11: 29
          +3
          Oddly enough, but near-field missiles are almost shells. A second of engine operation at the start and flight by inertia. Roughly speaking, a projectile is a dynamo-reactive weapon. And the speeds are comparable to the speed of the projectile. Only now the projectile initially flies towards the target and the rocket needs to be adjusted. Radio command control will make a complete analogue of a rocket out of a projectile, but cheaper and many times easier. BC is larger. At the same time, the cannon can hit simple targets with cheap shells. And the rocket cannot be cheap.
          1. We are for our
            We are for our 24 August 2020 11: 59
            0
            But their overloads are many times less, making such an ammunition corrected is much easier and cheaper. An unguided projectile flies approximately in the direction of the target, for at least some efficiency you need to launch a lot of them, and with an adjustable missile defense system, everything is much easier.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 24 August 2020 13: 25
              +2
              The overloads of Shell missiles and 57 mm shells are comparable. And here and there we need an elementary base that is resistant to overloads. Plus, the rocket is experiencing overloads during correction, and not small. If a couple of degrees of the correction angle is enough for the projectile, then these indicators are much higher for rockets. TPK will not aim exactly at the target. But the trunk is possible.
  • sivuch
    sivuch 24 August 2020 17: 01
    0
    This is understandable, only this unit will not replace Tunguska anyway. And, NYAZ, no one is going to. On the current Tunguska, the 2nd mode is added on SOTSK + TPV is added. And in the future - Pantsir-SV (although this, IMHO, is in vain)
  • cost
    cost 24 August 2020 09: 21
    +6
    The vehicle's ammunition consists of 148 charges, which are automatically fed to the cannon shots. The special design of the combat module allows the vehicle to have circular guidance over the entire horizon, and the gun can also change its position at an angle from -5 to 75 degrees. The rate of fire of the machine is 120 rounds per minute. Agree, this is not very weak
    According to experts, this ZAK has the power to hit targets in the air at a distance of six kilometers, and the projectiles can fly 4,5 kilometers in height. The highest speed for destroying targets, creating an effective attack - 500 meters per second!
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 24 August 2020 09: 22
    +2
    Well, the gun is very wonderful. The heiress of the ZIS-2. How it will be used as an anti-aircraft gun - time will tell, but on the battlefield it will definitely not be superfluous. wassat
    1. moreman78
      moreman78 24 August 2020 09: 29
      +1
      Why suddenly? Or if the caliber is the same, then okay? So then it is necessary to dig deeper to the origins - the 57-mm Hotchkiss cannon (1885) is a rapid-fire 6-pounder Hotchkiss gun.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 24 August 2020 10: 09
        +2
        The "mother" of all anti-aircraft guns is considered to be the Swedish 40 mm Bofors of 1929 L60 (length 60 calibers).
        Everything was copied from it, improved and installed on combat vehicles.
  • Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 24 August 2020 09: 29
    0
    I was surprised that only one anti-aircraft gun ... against a flying and maneuvering target, this is unlikely to be effective. The same "Shilka" had 4 machine guns and they created a "protective cloud of lead". Maybe I'm wrong - new times, new technologies ...
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 24 August 2020 09: 32
      +3
      Vitaliy Tsimbal - nothing to yourself, "machine guns" of 23mm caliber! belay
      1. Genry
        Genry 24 August 2020 10: 20
        +1
        Quote: Thrifty
        wow, 23mm machine guns!

        In fact, there is no difference here. Don't cling to formalities and conventions.
    2. lucul
      lucul 24 August 2020 10: 08
      +4
      I was surprised that only one anti-aircraft gun ... against a flying and maneuvering target, this is unlikely to be effective. The same "Shilka" had 4 machine guns and they created a "protective cloud of lead". Maybe I'm wrong - new times, new technologies ...

      Are you missing out on that 57mm Derivation shells will be remotely detonated)))
    3. Genry
      Genry 24 August 2020 10: 14
      +2
      Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
      The same "Shilka" had 4 machine guns and they created a "protective cloud of lead

      Derivation does not have any protective cloud, but there is an accurate calculation of the trajectory with a close approach of the projectile to the target and detonation. Those. strive for the concept: one projectile - one target.
  • Fibrizio
    Fibrizio 24 August 2020 09: 50
    0
    Something is not visible on her radar. Will she only shoot at visible targets? Then it's more of an infantry support vehicle than an air defense vehicle. At night, in the fog, everyone? I believe that there is a thermal imager, but this does not mean that you can see a small UAV with an electric drive in it. The body kit is really scanty in this regard.
    1. lucul
      lucul 24 August 2020 10: 09
      +2
      Something is not visible on her radar. Will she only shoot at visible targets?

      External target designation.
      1. Fibrizio
        Fibrizio 24 August 2020 10: 18
        0
        Then, unlike "junk", this is not a full-fledged machine and can cover in fact only a predetermined territory in which everything is "deployed". This thing will no longer cover the column and will not attack even in the second wave (at least in the role of a full-fledged cannon air defense).
        1. lucul
          lucul 24 August 2020 10: 20
          -2
          Then, unlike "junk", this is not a full-fledged machine and can cover in fact only a predetermined territory in which everything is "deployed". This thing will no longer cover the column and will not attack even in the second wave (at least in the role of a full-fledged cannon air defense).

          Don't live in the past war - the next war is a drone war, and Derivation was created against them.
          1. Fibrizio
            Fibrizio 24 August 2020 10: 57
            +4
            I just agree with this thesis (drones), but you yourself do not mind that it itself has limited capabilities without a radar. And the additional kung radar means stationary (the radius is 5 km of firing, and this is at the range). And if it was stationary, we could have brought the module on a trailer. What is the point of mobility without the ability to shoot without deploying other modules?
            I can still understand when there are large-radius air defenses, the same "C" series (300/400). Everything is clear there, they were brought in, set up in a camp and they work, covering 200 kilometers in all directions (they may continue to work in the old way). But here the idea is unclear.
            Why am I writing all this, not with the aim of arguing, but waiting for comments that will explain the role of this air defense system, because it does not pull as a "replacement". It is rather an infantry fighting vehicle with enhanced anti-aircraft capabilities than an air defense system.
            1. lucul
              lucul 24 August 2020 11: 01
              +1
              I can still understand when there are large-radius air defense systems, the same series "C" (300/400). Everything is clear there, they were brought in, set up in a camp and they work, closing 200 kilometers in all directions

              You don't quite understand the capabilities of modern drones - they are not only designed for attack, but also for surveillance. And a drone made of composites, and a little more than a meter in size, can effectively transfer information without fear of being shot down.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 24 August 2020 09: 51
    +4
    I don't understand at all how they are going to hit something without guidance radar.
    1. strelokmira
      strelokmira 24 August 2020 10: 02
      +2
      Absolutely the same question, otherwise in the comments they described how good it is to shoot down drones, and if the drone is behind a cloud or the weather has deteriorated, how are they going to see? Generally quite strange air defense
      1. lucul
        lucul 24 August 2020 10: 11
        +2
        Absolutely the same question, otherwise in the comments they described how good it is to shoot down drones, and if the drone is behind a cloud or the weather has deteriorated, how are they going to see? Generally quite strange air defense

        Far from the army? There is not only an optical channel ...
      2. D16
        D16 24 August 2020 13: 48
        +2
        if the drone is behind a cloud or the weather has deteriorated how are they going to see?

        The primary target designation is issued by the Ranzhira-type surveillance radar. It indicates in which sector, height and distance to look for a target using an optical station. At the same time, an optical station is also located on the drone, but by definition it is better on a car due to the smaller restrictions on weight and dimensions. Hidden by the clouds, the drone itself sees nothing and is not dangerous. Weather strongly affects the operation of short-wave firing radars. "Derivation" and "Pine" does not emit anything, is more secretive and convenient for working from ambushes.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 24 August 2020 17: 12
          0
          A rank is not a radar, but an automated control system that receives information from an associated radar, for example 1RL123, from an Accordion, from the same Tunguska or from a senior chief and produces target distribution for BM
          1. D16
            D16 24 August 2020 19: 32
            0
            The rank is not a radar, but an ACS

            Choi-ta I'm chasing the radar. The rank gives out the CO.
      3. sivuch
        sivuch 24 August 2020 17: 06
        +1
        And how will the drone observe the cloud itself? And that after all, not all UAVs have radar stations, the little things definitely do not.
        1. strelokmira
          strelokmira 24 August 2020 17: 13
          +1
          And how will the drone observe the cloud itself? And then, after all, not all UAVs have radar stations, the little things definitely do not

          Those. is this complex only against homemade BLPA?
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 24 August 2020 17: 35
            0
            (surprised) why is that? On the contrary, against most of the UAVs, except for medium-altitude and high-altitude ones, against kamikaze drones, helicopters (when using ambush tactics) and, of course, NC, including armored targets.
        2. D16
          D16 24 August 2020 19: 38
          +1
          And that after all, not all UAVs have radar stations, the little things definitely do not.

          On UAVs with radar and from Buk, it makes sense to burn.
    2. lucul
      lucul 24 August 2020 10: 10
      -3
      I don't understand at all how they are going to hit something without guidance radar.

      External target designation from the drone.
      1. strelokmira
        strelokmira 24 August 2020 10: 13
        +3
        External target designation from the drone.

        Oh well, this will definitely ensure 100% target defeat, but the question is, do we already have a drone with a built-in radar, or again through an optical channel, but will it direct from above?)
        1. lucul
          lucul 24 August 2020 10: 16
          -4
          Oh well, this will definitely ensure 100% target defeat, but the question is, do we already have a drone with a built-in radar, or again through an optical channel, but will it direct from above?)

          Probably write strongly from afar)))
          Already now the MiG-31 can distribute target designation, and they want to re-equip all the Su for this, what's the problem with sticking it on the drone? )))
          1. strelokmira
            strelokmira 24 August 2020 10: 21
            +2
            Probably write strongly from afar)))
            Already now the MiG-31 can distribute target designation, and they want to re-equip all the Su for this, what's the problem with sticking it on the drone? )))

            Well, no matter how the MiG and SU are far from drones, and constantly hang over each column with a guarded derivation, well, it's strong)))
            1. lucul
              lucul 24 August 2020 10: 23
              -3
              Well, no matter how the MiG and SU are far from drones, and constantly hang over each column with a guarded derivation, well, it's strong)))

              I showed you availability. Once Altius goes into production, everything will be fine.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 August 2020 10: 57
        +3
        Quote: lucul
        External target designation from the drone.

        Target designation? Or issuing data for shooting?
        Target designation is a mark on VIKO. Roughly speaking - in which sector to look for the target with your own means and where to deploy the gun approximately.
        But in order to issue data for shooting, you need to detect, capture, determine its position relative to the ZAK (azimuth, elevation, range), change this position in time (course, speed, altitude change) and, based on these data, calculate the gun pointing angles and the point of detonation of the projectile. Moreover, to do this with an accuracy sufficient for the detonation to occur at an optimal distance from the target.
        Will the UAV be able to provide target data to the firing gun with the required accuracy? Especially considering that the position of the UAV relative to the weapon and target will also constantly change?
        1. lucul
          lucul 24 August 2020 11: 07
          -2
          Target designation? Or issuing data for shooting?
          Target designation is a mark on VIKO.

          Have you heard about the network centric? In theory (with a sufficient number of satellites above this place) military GLONASS should give an accuracy of up to 10 cm in height. But this is all in theory.
          The drone needs to transmit the coordinates of the target, and the computer itself will calculate the lead.
    3. sivuch
      sivuch 24 August 2020 17: 04
      0
      Generally speaking, optocouplers provide an accuracy higher than a CM radar.
  • Hey
    Hey 24 August 2020 10: 04
    0
    Well, I like her, LOVE!
  • Alexfly
    Alexfly 24 August 2020 10: 15
    0
    And explain to me the unlucky one, how can the rate of fire of one cannon be kept at the same level as two (Tunguska), or even three (Shilka) cannons, with a smaller caliber than that of Derivation-air defense? Vague doubts gnaw at me ...
    1. lucul
      lucul 24 August 2020 10: 32
      -1
      And explain to me the unlucky one how the rate of fire of one gun can be kept at the same level as two (Tunguska), or even three (Shilka)

      Find videos online and watch for yourself.
    2. D16
      D16 24 August 2020 13: 58
      0
      how is the rate of fire of one gun can be kept at the same level as two (Tunguska), or even three (Shilka) guns, with a smaller caliber

      Shilka has four cannons. "Derivation-air defense" does not need such a rate of fire, since there is no need for a direct hit on the target. The UAV is a fragile thing and it will be quite enough fragments and GGE from the explosion of a 57mm projectile nearby.
      1. Alexfly
        Alexfly 27 August 2020 13: 06
        0
        That is, a gun was specially created to deal exclusively with UAVs? Again, shooting from a cannon at sparrows ...
        1. D16
          D16 27 August 2020 18: 46
          0
          The same tomahawk is quite a drone. And flies at low altitude. A helicopter or some supertoucan, if substituted, is also enough. At least it will disable it for sure. Serious planes fly high and far. This anti-aircraft gun is not that level. But to shoot down gliding bombs and other ASP is the very thing.
  • Crash
    Crash 24 August 2020 10: 27
    +2
    the planned end of state tests of the ZAK "Derivation-Air Defense" planned for the first quarter

    It is a masterpiece!
    1. lucul
      lucul 24 August 2020 10: 38
      0
      It is a masterpiece!

      Outwardly unsightly, but not bad ...
  • senima56
    senima56 24 August 2020 12: 34
    0
    "Concern" Uralvagonzavod "plans to complete state tests of the newest anti-aircraft self-propelled artillery complex" Derivation-Air Defense "in 2022." This bodilyaga will last as with the SU-57, i.e. infinitely! While the new engine was being tested, a new avionics appeared, then a new weapon, then a "second stage" engine, etc. etc. Or the same "Armata" ... Money is flowing, the budget is being cut .... But for the first time this "Air Defense derivation" was announced two or three years ago! I understand that the technique must pass the tests, but why brag (!!!) in 2014 "Armata" (SU-57, etc.), and then six or seven years to "bring it up"? !!!
    1. spectr
      spectr 24 August 2020 15: 46
      0
      But for the first time this "Air Defense derivation" was announced two or three years ago!

      2-3 years is about nothing. For a good 5 years for the prototype and 2 years for the elimination of comments and pre-production preparation. The Ministry of Defense is trying to tighten the deadlines, only if it takes 10 years to develop a product, then there is no getting away from this period. And in the course of tightening the deadlines, either the developers receive fines, or the troops are very raw products at the initial stage.
      1. senima56
        senima56 24 August 2020 16: 40
        -1
        And where did you get the idea that "it takes 10 years to develop a product" ?! In 10 years any technique will become obsolete!
        But even if you imagine that you are right - why "brag" for 10 years of "raw" technology? !!! fool Develop, test, eliminate comments, and then show the serial (or "pre-production) sample at the Parade! And everyone will say:" What great fellows! "
        1. spectr
          spectr 25 August 2020 10: 44
          0
          10 years - I gave this as an example, but 7 years is the usual term for development, which is not given now (in the USSR they did). Now 3 years for development and a year for preparation for the series. It's just that each new product has stages of work associated with the introduction of new developments (blocks). These stages never go smoothly. Necessarily something "climbs" and there is a shift in terms. The amount of displacement depends on how much a gross error was made and the level of specialists who are involved in its elimination.
          If the error is too gross or there are no necessary specialists, then the work ends with a "zip". But since it is always tight with specialists (they are usually brought up on such jobs now), the decisive factor is the "size" of the mistake, which "effective" managers of the enterprise do not admit to the last, because their task is to look for money, not to spoil the image of the organization.
          And then they start looking for someone who would help to close the job for the remaining penny (or in general under the promise of participation in future work, since the payment may be purely symbolic). Such people also addressed us. The first time we helped under the agreement that we will participate in all their future work on our topic. They threw us. Now such sufferers are football
      2. Devil13
        Devil13 24 August 2020 22: 19
        0
        Mm, cars are produced a year according to the model, but here they cannot make different modules on the same chassis. Pts difficult, ten years to submit here.
        1. spectr
          spectr 25 August 2020 10: 17
          0
          If technical specifications for new models of cars were written in the Ministry of Defense, then the rate of production would slow down. laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Devil13
    Devil13 24 August 2020 22: 17
    0
    Make remote blast for 30mm and improve accuracy? Nah. Delirium, you think, the whole army is on them.
    We will make THREE 57mm systems, for T-15, Boomerang, etc. and also derivation, and all are different.
    No, if in the end we get a universal module, with remote detonation, (and no worse than Rainmetall) with any filling for missiles (both missiles and anti-tank systems) and with the ability to fire at any targets with good efficiency - great.
    But while there are a bunch of modules and zero sense - it's terrible.
  • Varaga
    Varaga 25 August 2020 03: 56
    +1
    Perfect for fighting UAVs. Cheap and cheerful, as they say.
  • sen
    sen 25 August 2020 04: 19
    +1
    In Syria, Shilka, when working together with tanks, is used to suppress grenade launchers. In Afghanistan, in the mountains for shooting at militants at heights - the same is not bad, but during the assault on the palace of Amina Shilka destroyed a heavy machine gun at a decisive moment.
    And "Derivation-Air Defense" with a 57-mm projectile with remote detonation and a thermal imaging device (for the operational determination of enemy manpower by body temperature) will be better than Shilka. Especially when fighting in the city when shooting at the windows of buildings.
  • Alexfly
    Alexfly 28 August 2020 10: 42
    0
    Why, I haven't found a single video of the destruction of uavs, unguided missiles, etc., so I don't believe ...