Military Review

Unification of ammunition for self-propelled anti-tank systems, military air defense systems, combat helicopters and UAVs

39

Tasks and problems of unification



Modern weapons are extremely expensive to develop, purchase and operate. Let us paraphrase Woland from the novel by M. A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita": the fact that the carriers of weapons (Tanks, airplanes, helicopters) the roads are still half the trouble, much worse is that the consumables and supplies - ammunition for almost all types of weapons - have become extremely expensive. One of the ways to reduce the cost per unit of production is to increase the volume of its output.

An increase in production volumes can be achieved both by complete unification of products for different markets / market segments, and by unification of individual manufactured components. An example is the automotive industry, where many different cars for different markets are built on a single platform, or the computer industry, where the components are strictly standardized and the consumer can assemble the configuration he needs from components from different manufacturers. (it is clear that in practice, compatibility does not always work, but nevertheless).

In part, this unification also exists in the field of ammunition. Within the same caliber of a rifle or cannon, cartridges / shells from different manufacturers can be used. In the field of missile weapons, everything is much more complicated. Anti-tank guided missiles, anti-aircraft guided missiles, and many types of unguided weapons produced by various manufacturers are almost completely incompatible with each other.

In principle, there are certain reasons for this: different design schools, the use of different control systems, etc. At the same time, the task of unification one way or another arises when it is necessary to integrate several weapons on one carrier.

For example, you can recall a complex the history of the creation and confrontation of the Ka-50/52 (M) and Mi-28A (N / NM) helicopters... Initially, the Ka-50/52 helicopters planned to use the Whirlwind anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) developed by the Tula State Unitary Enterprise KBP, and the Mi-28 helicopter was supposed to use the Attack ATGM developed by the Kolomna Machine Building Bureau. Later in the process of modernization ATGM "Attack" was integrated into the Ka-52 helicopter. The promising Hermes ATGM is also likely to be installed on the Ka-52 (M) and Mi-28N (NM).


Combat helicopter Ka-52 simultaneously with ATGM "Whirlwind" (pictured on the left) and ATGM "Attack" (pictured on the right)

An important consequence of the introduction of standardization and unification is an increase in competition between different enterprises that can supply ammunition with similar parameters for any type or group of weapons. In this case, the customer gets the opportunity to choose: to buy one of the offered ammunition or to buy several types of ammunition in the optimal ratio. For example, one ammunition has the best characteristics, but is expensive, the other is simpler, but cheaper.

The ability to supply ammunition by several manufacturers significantly reduces the risk that an anti-tank missile system (ATGM), a combat helicopter or an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) will be left without ammunition due to delays in the development or development of mass production of ammunition for them.

In other words, it does not have time to go into the series of ATGM "Whirlwind" - ATGM "Attack" is purchased. The "Attack" does not satisfy the military - the "Whirlwind" or the newest "Hermes" "matured", replaced the ammunition with them. It turns out that, regardless of the failures in the state defense order, combat helicopters are always armed with guided missiles.

Could it be possible to simplify the integration of ATGMs from different manufacturers into combat helicopters by introducing certain uniform requirements for this type of weapons? Of course, yes, the same ATGM "Attack" would be registered on the Ka-52 much easier and faster, and the ATGM "Whirlwind" could be included in the Mi-28N (NM) ammunition load.

The situation is different with self-propelled ATGM (SPTRK). For example, the Russian army has the Kornet-T SPTRK and the Chrysanthemum SPTRK, which solve the same tasks. The ammunition between these SPTRKs is not interchangeable. They differ in size, in ATGM "Chrysanthemum" combined guidance is used: radio channel + laser trail, in ATGM "Kornet" - only "laser trail". In the case of unification in a number of parameters, the Kornet ATGM could be used with the Chrysanthemum SPTRK without restrictions, and the Chrysanthemum ATGM could be used with the Kornet-T SPTRK with guidance only along the "laser path".


SPTRK "Kornet-T" (above) and SPTRK "Chrysanthemum" (below). Ammunition for them could well be partially unified.

It is even more difficult with short-range and short-range air defense systems. In the Tunguska anti-aircraft missile and cannon system (ZRPK), as well as in its conditional "successor" ZRPK "Pantsir" (ZRPK "Pantsir" is not quite a complete replacement for the ZRPK "Tunguska", since it refers to the object air defense, and not to the military ), radio command guidance is used, while in the Sosna air defense system there is laser guidance, the same "laser path", therefore, the unification of their ammunition can only be implemented in promising complexes with standardized requirements for guidance systems.


ZRK "Sosna", ZRPK "Tunguska" and ZRPK "Pantsir" are in many ways similar conceptually, but the unification of their ammunition is complicated by the use of different guidance systems

Not all types of weapons can be standardized. For example, the TOR SAM family uses ammunition, the placement and launching scheme of which is fundamentally different from those used in the Sosna air defense missile system, the Tunguska air defense missile system and the Pantsir air defense missile system, which makes the unification of their ammunition impossible, but this only means that that the missiles of the Pantsir air defense missile system can and should be unified within the framework of another type of ammunition intended for vertical launch complexes.


The concept of the TOR air defense system is very different from the concept of the Sosna air defense system, the Tunguska air defense system and the Pantsir air defense missile system, which makes the unification of their ammunition impossible

The unification of ammunition is most likely possible only within one, partially two generations of ammunition. Further, technology will go ahead and outdated standards will slow down the development of weapons. In some cases, the so-called backward compatibility is possible, when a new complex of weapons will be able to use obsolete ammunition, and the old complex will no longer have new ammunition. This situation often occurs in small arms weapons, when modern ammunition is forbidden to be used in outdated samples of the same caliber: they will simply burst from the increased pressure in new ammunition.


P08 Parabellum and Glock-17 pistols formally use the same 9x19 mm cartridge, but in fact the use of modern reinforced cartridges of this caliber in P08 Parabellum will lead to its destruction

Interspecies unification


When we talk about the unification of ammunition for combat helicopters or air defense systems of the same class, but from different manufacturers, then everything is clear. The unification between different types of weapons that solve similar tasks, for example, between combat helicopters and SPTRK, also looks justified.

The question arises: is unification necessary and possible between weapon systems performing different tasks on the battlefield, but within the same battlefield? For example, unification of ammunition between SPTRK, combat helicopters and air defense systems? And, according to the author, such unification may well be justified.

Let's abstract at the beginning from the technical side of the issue and talk about why the unification of ammunition for combat helicopters, SPTRK and SAM is needed.

For example, for ATGMs, by default, there is a task to destroy air targets. Sometimes the defeat of low-speed low-flying targets is carried out with standard ammunition, sometimes a specialized ammunition is developed for this purpose, in fact, an anti-aircraft guided missile (SAM), albeit with deliberately weak characteristics. In particular, there is a modification of the ATGM "Attack" 9M220O (9-A-2200) with a core warhead (CU) to destroy aircraft at a distance of up to 7 meters.

Another example is the Hermes guided weapon system (CWC), designed to engage ground targets, which is largely based on the solutions implemented in the Pantsir air defense missile system. The question arises: how difficult is it to implement the unification of the missiles used in the Pantsir air defense missile system and the surface-to-surface (s-z) guided missiles intended for the Hermes air defense missile system?

Unification of ammunition for self-propelled anti-tank systems, military air defense systems, combat helicopters and UAVs

KUV "Hermes" and ZRPK "Pantsir" were built by one enterprise on the basis of common technical solutions. Their ammunition may well be unified

Why do we need the possibility of placing the ground-to-ground ammunition load of the Hermes KUV on the Pantsir air defense missile system? This does not mean at all that the air defense system should be “driven” onto tanks. In the first Chechen war, there was an experience of using the Tunguska air defense missile system against ground units, but it cannot be called successful: fifteen of the twenty vehicles involved were lost. Nevertheless, in the conditions of a modern highly dynamic battle, air defense missile systems / air defense systems may well face a ground enemy, and in this case, the ability to work out anti-tank or anti-personnel ammunition may become decisive for the survival of air defense systems / air defense systems. At the same time, ammunition s-z can be located on a transport-loading vehicle, in a set of several units, without significant damage to the ammunition load of the missile defense system.

If missiles are created for the Hermes KUV with a range of about 70-100 km (as information periodically appears), then, in fact, this will turn it into an operational-tactical missile system (OTRK). And in the case of unification of missiles z-z KUV "Hermes" and missiles for ZRPK "Pantsir", the mentioned ZRPK is converted into OTRK.

Or consider the situation: our reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) detected the enemy's OTRK, but in the area of ​​operation where our strike assets are not currently available (OTRK, aviation, or other complexes), but there is a ZRPK. You can't wait, the enemy's OTRK can strike or change position. In this case, if there is a ground-to-ground missile in the ammunition load, the Pantsir air defense missile system can easily destroy the enemy's OTRK. This interaction pattern can be considered quite natural for a network-centric battlefield.

Another scenario for the use of surface-to-surface missiles with air defense missile systems is their inclusion in the ammunition load of the shipborne version of the Pantsir air defense missile system, more precisely, in this case, the missiles will be more likely to be a ship-to-ship or a ship-to-ground (depending on the installed Warhead). This will expand the capabilities of ships to engage surface and ground targets with highly effective and inexpensive missiles. For naval air defense systems, the task of hitting surface targets is quite typical: let us recall one of the Georgian boats destroyed by the Osa-M air defense system in the war on 08.08.08. Specialized missiles will dramatically increase the efficiency of such tasks by shipborne air defense systems / air defense systems.


Missiles "ship-to-ship" and "ship-to-land", included in the ammunition of the MRK project 22800 "Karakurt", will save expensive missiles of the "Caliber" complex when attacking secondary surface and ground targets

Why KUV "Hermes" or another SPTRK need missiles? First, the battlefield is currently being rapidly saturated with UAVs, which provide the enemy with intelligence information and issue target designations and can themselves be used for attack. By integrating SAMs into SPTRK, we reduce their dependence on military air defense systems and at the same time reduce the load on the air defense systems themselves, which may not be distracted by every little thing.

Second, we create serious uncertainty for the adversary. For example, when planning a raid of attack aircraft at low altitudes, the enemy can study the location of the air defense system to bypass them or strike at them from the optimal direction. But if all SPTRKs are capable of using SAMs of the Tunguska air defense missile system, Pantsir air defense missile systems, or Sosna air defense missile systems, then route planning will turn into a “Russian roulette”. The absence of a radar can even be beneficial here: a low-flying aircraft detected by optical-electronic systems can be attacked suddenly and without warning. As a result, it will either be destroyed or abruptly change course and be exposed to the attack of "real" air defense systems.

The standardized ammunition will be useful in combat helicopters and UAVs. Moreover, both in the form of air-to-ground missiles (in-z), in fact, an ATGM, and in the form of air-to-air missiles (in-in), implemented on the basis of missiles. In the end, the creation of missiles based on air-to-air missiles has already been carried out, and the opposite is quite possible. The use of missiles from the ammunition load of the Pantsir or Sosna air defense missile systems as air-to-air missiles will allow the Ka-52M or Mi-28NM combat helicopters to hit rather complex air targets that are inaccessible to the Igla-V missiles currently in use. base of missiles for portable anti-aircraft missile systems.


Igla-V missiles on Mi-28N (above) and Mi-28NM (below) helicopters

And, finally, in light of the emerging positive trend in the development of Russian UAVs, for small and medium-sized UAVs, unified ammunition of all types can become the basis of ammunition, the advantages of which will be maximum versatility and relative cheapness compared to other guided aviation munitions.


Mock-up of the Sirius twin-engine reconnaissance and strike UAV of long duration of flight, created by the Kronstadt Group, with samples of aviation weapons

It should be noted that the United States has long been using the AGM-114 Hellfire ATGM with UAVs: they have already had hundreds, and possibly thousands, of destroyed targets on their account.


Start ATGM Hellfire with UAV MQ-9 Reaper

Unified ammunition format and development enterprises


What should ammunition unification look like? Initially, this is the standardization of weight and size characteristics, connection interfaces and software in terms of the "ammunition-carrier" exchange protocols, as well as many other parameters.

Different enterprises have different sizes of ammunition, sometimes they differ slightly, sometimes quite significantly. For example, the diameter of the Kornet ATGM and the Chrysanthemum ATGM is 152 mm, while these ammunition differs significantly in length: 1200 mm for the Kornet ATGM versus 2040 mm for the Chrysanthemum ATGM. Even greater differences in size exist between the Sosna air defense missile system and the Pantsir air defense missile system.

Ammunition unification will require certain strong-willed decisions, which may not please all developers. However, in the long term, this approach will pay off.

For example, unified ammunition in the dimensions of transport and launch containers (TPK) can be standardized:
- standard size No. 1 - full-size, approximately 2800-3200 mm long and 170-180 mm in diameter;
- standard size No. 2 - half size, approximately 1400-1600 mm long and 170-180 mm in diameter;
- standard size No. 3 - ammunition of reduced dimensions, placed in several pieces in one container, which can be realized in the same way as the missiles of reduced dimensions are implemented in the Pantsir-SM air defense missile system. Ammunition of standard size # 3 can be sold for both standard size # 1 and standard size # 2.


Unified TPK ammunition standard size No. 1 and No. 2

Accordingly, the seats, weapons bays, guides and launchers can be configured in such a way that carriers capable of using ammunition of size 1 could also use ammunition of size 2. At the same time, carriers capable of working with ammunition of size 2 will not always be able to work with ammunition of size 1 due to size limitations of the weapons compartment.


A package of four small-sized missiles in a container of a standard missile defense system ZRPK "Pantsir"

Of course, in addition to weight and size characteristics, physical and software connection interfaces, ammunition unification will require standardization and many other parameters.

For ammunition with different guidance systems, for example, with guidance along the "laser path" or with radio command guidance, complete unification can be achieved only if the carrier has the appropriate guidance systems. Or partial unification is possible, if only one of these systems is present on the carrier and ammunition. Depending on the complexity, efficiency and cost of one or another guidance system, it can be chosen as the base one, used by default and supplemented, if necessary, with other unified guidance systems.

The unification of ammunition will make it possible to involve a large number of Russian enterprises involved in the development of guided and unguided missile weapons in their development. In particular, these may be the following enterprises of the Russian military-industrial complex (MIC):
- JSC KBP, Tula;
- JSC NPK KBM, Kolomna, Moscow region;
- JSC "NPO SPLAV" them. A. N. Ganicheva ", Tula;
- JSC NPO Bazalt, Moscow;
- JSC "GosMKB" Vympel "them. I.I. Toropov ", Moscow;
- JSC "GosMKB" Raduga "them. AND I. Bereznyak ", Dubna, Moscow region.

It is possible that this list can be significantly expanded. It is important that potential developers have access to information on the requirements and standards for standardized ammunition. Equally, this information should be available to the developers of promising carriers - so that they can integrate standardized ammunition into their products.

In the next article, we will consider the types of control / guidance systems, as well as warheads for promising unified ammunition.
Author:
Photos used:
zvezda.org.ru, rg.ru, btvt.info.ru, tvzvezda.ru, kbptula.ru, nevskii-bastion.ru, forums.airbase.ru, bmpd.livejournal.com
Articles from this series:
Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd
Armored vehicles against infantry. Who is faster: a tank or infantry?
Increased situational awareness of armored combat vehicle crews
A helicopter against the tank. Standoff more than half a century long
Russian military helicopters and their weapons. History, present and future
Great extinction. Why certain types of weapons may disappear?
Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?
Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 28 August 2020 18: 11 New
    -2
    Unification of ammunition for self-propelled anti-tank systems, military air defense systems, combat helicopters and UAVs
    The meaning is not only economics. fool Supply during air traffic. No.
    The ability to supply ammunition by several manufacturers significantly reduces the risk that an anti-tank missile system (ATGM), a combat helicopter or an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) will be left without ammunition due to delays in the development or development of mass production of ammunition for them.
    Exactly.
    And another delirium sucked from the finger
    An important consequence of the introduction of standardization and unification is an increase in competition between different enterprises,
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 28 August 2020 18: 28 New
      -3
      The biggest point is that the money would go to weapons, and not to personal pockets. Unfortunately, this is still the case.
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 28 August 2020 18: 57 New
        +2
        P08 Parabellum and Glock-17 pistols formally use the same 9x19 mm cartridge, but in fact the use of modern reinforced cartridges of this caliber in P08 Parabellum will lead to its destruction


        On the unification of ammunition ...

        In one of the dilapidated and abandoned houses on the contact line (front), some guys found the surviving 2x horizontal barre in excellent condition. And the gun is not made of consumer goods, but cool, with inlays, inlays and carvings on the stock and stock. One word is THING!

        But there are no cartridges what ... And try hunting ... Eerily.

        "Specialists" suggested that the caliber should "seem to fit" the squib to the mortar fellow
        Well, said and done, we're not used to backing down yes We rushed to the mortar gunners, collected squibs, more, in reserve yes

        Loaded and fired ... It would be better if they did not. laughing wassat

        Fortunately, the eyes, muzzles, hands, and everything else, more or less remained intact. yes
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 28 August 2020 20: 02 New
          +3
          Quote: Insurgent
          "Specialists" suggested that the caliber should "seem to fit" the squib to the mortar

          Well, the specialists may have been right! I also "heard" that the "expelling" charge for an 82-mm mine was made on the basis of a 12-gauge hunting cartridge ... Moreover, when firing from an 81-mm Stokes mortar (the founder mortars "classic" scheme: "imaginary triangle" ...) used a hunting cartridge of 12 caliber! And in general ... such 12-gauge cartridges were quite widely used when firing mortars (bombers) during WW1 ... And in the "unsuccessful" story with a gun, there could be an incident ..: the gun is designed for cartridges with black powder, and the "primary / zero" propellant charge to the mortar mine could be equipped with an enhanced charge of pyroxylin powder!
          1. Insurgent
            Insurgent 29 August 2020 08: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            in the "unsuccessful" story with the gun, there could be an incident ..: the weapon was designed for cartridges with black powder, and the "primary / zero" propellant charge for a mortar mine could be loaded with an enhanced charge of pyroxylin powder!

            That's it ! yes The 2x barrel in the hands of the shooter was torn to pieces, and what I noted, only by a miracle, the shooter escaped with a slight concussion, bruises, several scratches and burn marks on the skin of the face and hands ...
        2. Speedy
          Speedy 28 August 2020 22: 32 New
          0
          About "on the contrary" I heard, really fit from 82mm. More precisely, the mortar is suitable from 12 gauge. Ampuloguns in WWII fired 12 caliber. Only with an enhanced charge of black powder.
          1. Insurgent
            Insurgent 29 August 2020 08: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: Sorrow
            heard, really fit from 82mm

            About him, a squib from the 82nd, and wrote yes .
    2. DrEng527
      DrEng527 29 August 2020 16: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      And another delirium sucked from the finger

      why nonsense? very reasonable - if there is a GOST or OST for a product, then different factories can make it ...
  2. rocket757
    rocket757 28 August 2020 18: 15 New
    +3
    The question is interesting and important from any point of view.
    But, if we go to unification, then not from complicated, expensive, to cheaper but simpler and cheaper !!! Here you can save up to .... undesirable!
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 28 August 2020 18: 53 New
      +1
      That's it. Ammunition is not made for business, but for war.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 28 August 2020 19: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        That's it. Ammunition is not made for business, but for war.

        Everything is somewhat more complicated ... all military equipment, property, has features of peacetime / wartime, use.
  3. Borik
    Borik 28 August 2020 18: 18 New
    +1
    [Quote] Something, but we always had a problem with the unification of military products. And they spent a lot of time and resources on fitting one or the other so that the troops or the navy would work normally.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 28 August 2020 20: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Borik
      Something, but with the unification of military products, we always had a problem. And they spent a lot of time and resources on fitting one or the other so that the troops or the navy would work normally.

      not only between the army and the navy, but even between the same Air Defense Forces and the Air Defense Forces (air defense of the country) and this is not only in terms of ammunition, but also in terms of the element base of the complexes, in terms of use - as, for example, happened with the S-300P, S- 300V and S-300F in theory sort of everything is the same, but in practice - figurines ...
    2. Aag
      Aag 29 August 2020 18: 10 New
      +2
      Maybe it's not a secret for you, but let the youth take a caliper (if anyone remembers) and measure the diameter of a cigarette (7,62), and a thin one (5,45) ... Coincidence? Ask the people who produced pasta in the USSR, in how many hours could they convert production to the production of artillery powder? Even in the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons ...
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 31 August 2020 08: 51 New
        0
        Quote: AAG
        Maybe it's not a secret for you, but let the youth take a caliper (if anyone remembers) and measure the diameter of a cigarette (7,62), and a thin one (5,45) ... Coincidence?

        I don't think ©
        I don’t know how with pasta, but with cigarettes everything is solved in 2 simple steps:
        1. Dismantle the line that forms the whitefish in FIG.
        2. We mount and set up a line for cartridges.
        Do you seriously don’t understand that machines for working with paper and tobacco and machines for working with brass and steel are completely different machines, and the diameter of the product does not play a major role here? Moreover, in addition to the bullet, there is also a sleeve, which does not fit into any diameters of tobacco products.
        1. Aag
          Aag 31 August 2020 10: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Quote: AAG
          Maybe it's not a secret for you, but let the youth take a caliper (if anyone remembers) and measure the diameter of a cigarette (7,62), and a thin one (5,45) ... Coincidence?

          I don't think ©
          I don’t know how with pasta, but with cigarettes everything is solved in 2 simple steps:
          1. Dismantle the line that forms the whitefish in FIG.
          2. We mount and set up a line for cartridges.
          Do you seriously don’t understand that machines for working with paper and tobacco and machines for working with brass and steel are completely different machines, and the diameter of the product does not play a major role here? Moreover, in addition to the bullet, there is also a sleeve, which does not fit into any diameters of tobacco products.

          How simple it is! In two steps! Then, to speed up the process, it is more logical to exclude item 1. Here is only the second item ... a problem. For installation and commissioning requires the presence of that very line (or the possibility of it quickly, under various restrictions , or deliver).
          So maybe it's the other way around? First, a line was built for the production of cartridges (or their individual parts), then on this base (its part) civil production was launched, with the possibility of deconversion?
          Let me remind you that we are talking about unification.
          Under the Soviet Union, any serious enterprise (plant, factory), and then, perhaps, all were such, had a production plan, including in a special period, both civil and military. Both in terms of nomenclature and in quantity In this regard, they strove, or were forced to strive for unification.
          Agree, it is easier to establish production when at least part of the equipment is already available. As an example of the Second World War, the production of RG-42 at canning factories. An article on this resource, EMNIP, at the beginning of last year ... hi
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 31 August 2020 11: 25 New
            0
            The example with the RG-42 does not roll.
            1. A canning plant is already working with metal.
            2. The grenade was specially developed taking into account the technological capabilities of such factories.
            And what do tobacco products have in common with cartridges (well, except that a cigarette and a cartridge have a sleeve laughing)?
            1. Aag
              Aag 31 August 2020 21: 15 New
              0
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              The example with the RG-42 does not roll.
              1. A canning plant is already working with metal.
              2. The grenade was specially developed taking into account the technological capabilities of such factories.
              And what do tobacco products have in common with cartridges (well, except that a cigarette and a cartridge have a sleeve laughing)?

              Are you a maniac technologist of the 50s?))
              Or do you just want to overthrow someone?) So I "insured myself" - return to my comment, which, apparently, did not suit you. (There is a question mark).
              However, this in no way begs my previous theses about the unification of production. hi
  4. We are for our
    We are for our 28 August 2020 18: 27 New
    -3
    Reducing the range of ammunition will lead to a significant reduction in development costs. Russia cannot afford it, since many organizations live only at state expense.
    Better to stay stable.
    1. Eug
      Eug 28 August 2020 19: 10 New
      +1
      ROC should not be reduced in any case! The more organizations and departments are executors - the more chances are to implement reasonable unification before serial production, reducing the cost and maintaining the highest performance characteristics. The role of a competent TTZ sharply increases, in which both mass dimensions, and power standards, and exchange protocols, and the possibility of transferring control to another similar complex, and much more should be set.
      1. Leha667
        Leha667 29 August 2020 13: 53 New
        +1
        About ttz to the point.
        Unfortunately, ttz are often written by performers based on the capabilities of the organization, and are simply brought for signature to officials of the Ministry of Defense.
  5. Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev 28 August 2020 19: 14 New
    0
    You have already distinguished yourself with an opus about missiles and shells, and continue in the same spirit.
    The impulse and aspiration is commendable, but you climb into an area where you absolutely do not understand.
    Having read books does not mean being a specialist.
    This requires a comprehensive knowledge and approach, not superficial.
    "ATGM Hellfire" - a special adapted version is produced for the UAV, as well as a mini version.
    "For naval air defense systems, the task of hitting surface targets is quite typical: let's recall one of the Georgian boats destroyed by the Osa-M air defense missile system in the 08.08.08 war" - typical from the point of view of what?
    They are sometimes used and used primarily because of their response times. Yes, and for low-armored and small-sized targets, you can "launch" such a missile.
    "capable of using size 1 ammunition, could also use size 2 ammunition." - in aviation, in fact, this has been used for a long time (in secret).
    "The possibility of supplying ammunition by several manufacturers significantly reduces the risk that an anti-tank missile system (ATGM), a combat helicopter or an anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) will be left without ammunition due to delays in the development or development of mass production of ammunition for them" - just the risk will increase. Even a small number of enterprises are not supervised, and for a large number, working samples can generally be obtained. In addition, now is not the time of the USSR, there are just one or two enterprises.
    Etc. etc.
    Sadness is shorter.
  6. ccsr
    ccsr 28 August 2020 19: 44 New
    +2
    A very relevant and informative article for those who do not understand what problems they face in the troops because of the huge number of weapons and military equipment, and why unification is important, at least from the point of view of operation, not to mention the reduction of defense costs. Because I know this problem very well after the collapse of the USSR, when money was scarce, and I myself dealt with the issues of unification, nevertheless, I note that this idea of ​​the author is not entirely correct:
    What should ammunition unification look like? Initially this is the standardization of weight and size characteristics, connection interfaces and software in terms of the "ammunition-carrier" exchange protocols, as well as many other parameters.

    So, FIRST, you need to carry out work in the Ministry of Defense, issuing a directive where they will set the task for the armed men to determine promising equipment and weapons for ten to fifteen years ahead in all sections of the weapons program. And only after that, having reduced the range of ordered equipment and determined the lead developers, by order to prohibit the independent activities of the armed forces in the branches of the armed forces, no matter what good intentions they did not cover and no matter what colorful pictures they presented to the leadership of the Ministry of Defense.
    And only then they will get to the unification of ammunition, because their number is just a consequence of the fact that they did not seriously deal with the unification of weapons. You just have to take into account that the industry has smelled the smell of budget money, and is ready to do anything to get it, but our armed men often play along with them in this, which leads to depressing consequences.
    On the whole, the article correctly raises the problem of our armed forces, especially taking into account the fact that the cost of weapons is many times higher than the costs of maintaining servicemen and the rational use of budget money will allow solving other problems in the troops.
  7. dzvero
    dzvero 28 August 2020 19: 50 New
    0
    Unification of missiles is good, but having a wide range of them is also not bad. It is better to unify containers, suspension assemblies, connections, data exchange protocols, weapons control systems ... so that different carriers can "carry" and "use" everything available at the moment.
  8. garri-lin
    garri-lin 28 August 2020 20: 23 New
    +1
    Modern digital ammunition. An analogue of the notorious YUSB / usb military suggests itself. So that food and information go through one unified connector. At least this. The size will certainly be bigger. But at least the first step of unification.
  9. PSih2097
    PSih2097 28 August 2020 20: 30 New
    0
    ZRPK "Tunguska" and ZRPK "Pantsir" are in many ways similar conceptually, but the unification of their ammunition is complicated by the use of different guidance systems

    The problem is that the "shell" was intended to replace the "Tunguska" in the Air Defense Forces, but the then Minister of Defense said that the tracked base GM352M1E of the Minsk Tractor Plant is very expensive and will be made either in Bryansk or elsewhere.



    In the end, they either scored on this, or somewhere they are trying to collect something at a price that suits the Moscow Region, and the landowners, as a result, are left with Tunguska and Sosnaya, which should soon replace Strela.
    If you remember, at that time the generals were going to buy three Leopards in version 90 instead of one T-6 ...
    “It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards with this money (c) Colonel-General Postnikov-Streltsov.
  10. Pavel57
    Pavel57 28 August 2020 21: 14 New
    0
    We need to allocate money for research and development on unification, but who is able to carry it out?
  11. Pavel57
    Pavel57 28 August 2020 21: 46 New
    -1
    Quote: PSih2097
    and the landowners, as a result, are still with the Tunguska and the Sosnaya, which will soon replace the Arrow.

    So the arrow continues to be fired.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 28 August 2020 22: 10 New
    +1
    Well, well ... a comparison of the ammunition load of the Pantsir air defense system and the Hermes ATGM is not a bad example for the unification of missile weapons! Only there is a nuance! It is not clear ... why would the Author need to unify SAM and ATGM of this kind? "Harness a horse and a quivering doe in one cart?" Maybe the Author is better off reading articles about the unsuccessful "unification / universalization" in artillery in the 30s of the last century ...? What were the hopes of the tady! And it ended in zilch! But about the unification of anti-tank missiles and missiles of various ranges. Separately, you can talk! Although, what is there to talk a lot about, if the Hermes ATGM is already ... a "unified-universal" complex! Range from 15-20 km to 100 km! But, if you wish, you can "figure out" up to 10 km ... and over 100 km! In general, for every taste! You want a regimental structure or a divisional structure ... or even a "corps" one! And all thanks to its "architecture"! 130 mm ammunition is used, but with booster blocks with a caliber of 170 mm and 210 mm, other calibers of ammunition are possible! And if you think about 220-mm and 300-mm boosters for firing "Hermes" from MLRS "Uragan" and "Smerch"? It is also possible to use "short" and "long" upper stages of the same caliber ... It is possible to use upper stages not only with solid propellants, but also with LPRE, turbojet engine, PuVRD ...! Moreover, in all the examples given, the ammunition may "remain" the same! Something similar is happening with the Pantsir air defense system! "Pantsir-S1" is a short-range air defense system ... "Pantsir-SM" is a medium-range air defense system! When equipping the "Shell" with "anti-aircraft nails", the air defense system becomes a short-range complex! So should the Author live in sorrow ?! The dreams of the people come true! "The iron horse is replacing the peasant horse!" "At the samovar, my Masha and I ..." ... Well, in general, "... life has become better ... life has become more fun" and comrades designers are on the right path!
    1. Kostya Lavinyukov
      Kostya Lavinyukov 28 August 2020 23: 52 New
      0
      And all this can be put on a ground (tracked / wheeled) chassis, a ship (VPU / turret), used from helicopters, aircraft and UAVs + it is desirable to provide the possibility of firing through a tank gun.
      1. Aag
        Aag 29 August 2020 19: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Kostya Lavinyukov
        And all this can be put on a ground (tracked / wheeled) chassis, a ship (VPU / turret), used from helicopters, aircraft and UAVs + it is desirable to provide the possibility of firing through a tank gun.

        It seems that in the article the general contours of unification are indicated, - suspension points, connectivity with the OMS. Not special. I don’t know a lot. But with some systems of positioning, aiming, in general, familiar. How do you think to determine the initial data for shooting (start) from the surface (ground, water, also have differences), from the air? Maybe, in short, someone will remind you, will enlighten (if something has changed fundamentally)?
    2. Pavel57
      Pavel57 29 August 2020 09: 21 New
      0
      There are enough examples of attempts to unify. But more often they are unsuccessful. One of them led to the creation of the S-300 and S-300V.
      The second is to make a tactical anti-aircraft missile. It turned out to be a Point.
  13. Momotomba
    Momotomba 28 August 2020 23: 40 New
    -2
    I lie on the couch and cannot understand: if the rocket is guided along the "laser path", then what difference does it make where to direct this path? Even in a helicopter, even in a tank, even in a boat ...
    Unification is needed, I won't even argue, but then the rifle should be transferred to one caliber. Only the sleeves are different: different lengths, diameters, taper, etc. laughing
    Before unification, you first need to think about how to do it.
    1. Aag
      Aag 29 August 2020 19: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Momotomba
      I lie on the couch and cannot understand: if the rocket is guided along the "laser path", then what difference does it make where to direct this path? Even in a helicopter, even in a tank, even in a boat ...
      Unification is needed, I won't even argue, but then the rifle should be transferred to one caliber. Only the sleeves are different: different lengths, diameters, taper, etc. laughing
      Before unification, you first need to think about how to do it.

      Something quite all in a bunch ..
      1. Momotomba
        Momotomba 29 August 2020 21: 54 New
        0
        Well, what exactly is in the bunch? Unification is a good thing, only in the 30s they barely stopped.
        Any guided weapon must have multiple targeting methods. But each new method will complicate and increase the cost of this very weapon. I certainly want to have a single TPK for different missiles. But this will lead to a complication of the guidance system. This means more expensive, and the requirements for the qualifications of the operator will increase significantly.
        Unification is possible at the level of unguided ammunition: all guns are chambered for a single projectile / cartridge. But we will get a difficult modernization process in the future.
        We in Russia took a slightly different path: not so much a single cartridge as a single Kalash. Even SVD is a close relative of Kalash (and his problem with accuracy is the most basic).
        Whatever one may say, but unification is a utopia. Again we add up the minuses and reduce the pluses.
        1. Aag
          Aag 29 August 2020 22: 00 New
          +1
          "Of course, I would like to have a single TPK for different missiles. But this will lead to a complication of the guidance system."
          I don't see any connection, especially direct.
        2. Aag
          Aag 29 August 2020 22: 23 New
          +1
          "... We in Russia took a slightly different path: not so much a single cartridge as a single Kalash. Even the SVD is a close relative of Kalash (and his problem with accuracy is the most basic) ..."
          It's generally difficult to comment here, - you don't know where to start ... It seems, in part, everything is said correctly. On the other hand, everything is exactly the opposite!
          Unification, within the framework of the article under discussion, I understand as follows: I took a TPK (if required), or pulled out a rocket from the TC, hung it on a carrier (sea, land, air), the OMS automatically determined the type of power supply, chose the appropriate modes, launch algorithms, notified about this operator ..- EVERYTHING!
  14. abc_alex
    abc_alex 31 August 2020 02: 15 New
    0
    Well, for starters, I want to remind the author that "Storm" is already an interspecific unified complex. There is a version for a helicopter and a tracked chassis. A single missile 9М120 "Attack" is used. The same complex is mounted on the project 14310 Mirage patrol boat. What the author dreams of already exists in reality. Only I would like to ask the author, how is he going to unify not the dimensions, but the maneuverable-speed parameters of the rocket? To destroy ships and tanks, a little more than sound speed is enough. Faster is simply not necessary. But a modern fighter requires a missile defense system with a speed of at least a couple of swings and an overload of a meneuver of at least 20G. That is, either it will be too fast and expensive missile against tanks, or too slow and unmaneuverable missile against aircraft.
    Next, the question of the warhead. ATGM, of course, is equipped with a cumulative warhead. It doesn't make sense for an airplane. A high-explosive fragmentation is more likely to be needed here. And for ground targets, high-explosive or volume-detonating. Moreover, aircraft do not need warheads with 9,5 kg TNT equivalent. But you need a missile capable of homing. That is, the next question is the guidance system. To start unifying missiles, you must first create a unified sighting system. Moreover, it is suitable for tanks, and for helicopters, and for air defense systems, and for ships. Moreover, the author says that the complex is produced by different enterprises. This means that it should be at least standardized in terms of parameters.
    So, I'm afraid to combine a strike and anti-aircraft missile in one missile is not realistic. But is it necessary? In my opinion, no.
    But what is really real and in demand is the interspecific universalism of missile systems. The way it was done at KBM: Shturm and Igla are mounted on almost any carrier.
  15. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 2 September 2020 08: 08 New
    0
    Taking into account the fact that all manufacturers were driven to one roof - OAK, UEC, USC ... they simply have to standardize weapons. Of course it's nonsense - it's impossible to give birth to third-generation ATGMs, but 3 ATGMs of the 100500nd generation are riveted without interchangeability.