Anti-aircraft artillery complex Korkut in the ranks and in battle

76
Anti-aircraft artillery complex Korkut in the ranks and in battle
Means of the Korkut complex. Photo by ASELSAN

The ground forces of Turkey have a large number of various missile and artillery systems of military air defense. One of the newest designs is the Korkut anti-aircraft artillery system. It entered service several years ago and remains in serial production. The troops managed to master this technique and even tested it in a real operation.

Replacement Issues


At the turn of the two thousandth and tenth years, the Turkish army was concerned with the issue of updating self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery. At that time, obsolete American-made M42A1 Duster ZSU was in service, which needed replacement. It was decided to develop its own project of a similar combat vehicle with modern equipment and improved characteristics.



In June 2011, a contract was issued for the development of a project with the Korkut code. ASELSAN A.Ş. was chosen as the main contractor. The chassis for the new complex was to be provided by the FNSS company, and the armament and related equipment were ordered by the MKEK corporation.

Since 2013, prototypes from the promising complex have been demonstrated at Turkish exhibitions. Testing of the technique continued until the fall of 2016, when Korkut was recommended for adoption and production. By this time, a contract for the production of several dozen complexes had already been signed.

Purchases and supplies


The first agreements on the serial production of "Korkut" date back to the end of 2014. Then it was announced plans to purchase 14 anti-aircraft systems, each of which includes three Korkut SSA self-propelled guns and one Korkut KKA control vehicle. At the expense of 42 ZSU and 14 control vehicles, it was planned to re-equip 14 anti-aircraft platoons of the ground forces.


Fighting vehicle Korkut SSA. Photo by ASELSAN

The Ministry of Defense and ASELSAN signed a firm contract for the serial production of self-propelled guns only in May 2016. At the end of the year, ASELSAN and FNSS agreed to supply the required number of tracked chassis for several years. In March 2017, a new contract appeared from the military department, clarifying the features of the program.

In accordance with the final version of the contract, ASELSAN was to deliver 56 units. vehicles of two types or 14 platoon sets. The first products were planned to be accepted as early as 2018, and the latter will be sent to the customer only in 2022. Thus, production continues right now, and a significant part of the contract has already been completed.

The exact number of complexes built is unknown. IISS's The Military Balance 2020 indicates the presence of at least 13 combat vehicles. Other sources give others, incl. differing data. At the same time, they all agree that the deliveries have not yet been completed, and in the foreseeable future, the Turkish army will receive new complexes consisting of two types of vehicles.

In 2017, it was reported about the possible purchase of "Korkutov" by the armed forces of Pakistan. Soon, Pakistani specialists were able to study this technique during testing. However, these events were not continued. The supply contract has not yet been concluded, and the possibility of its appearance remains in question.

Complex means


The anti-aircraft complex includes two main means: the Korkut KKA control machine and the Korkut SSA SPAA itself. They are built on the unified ACV-30 amphibious tracked chassis and are capable of operating in the same battle formations with other armored vehicles of the Turkish army, providing it with protection from various air attack weapons. The possibility of combating aircraft and helicopters, cruise missiles and other types of guided weapons, i.e. with the main threats to troops on the march or in positions.


Korkut KKA control machine. Photo by ASELSAN

On the roof of the Korkut KKA control vehicle, a mast with radar and optoelectronic stations is installed. The main means of tracking the situation in the air and on the ground is the three-coordinate circular-view radar developed by ASELSAN with a target tracking range of up to 70 km. There is a friend or foe identification equipment. In the near zone, it is possible to use an optoelectronic unit with day, night and rangefinder channels.

The equipment for data processing, control and communication is installed inside the building, as well as two workstations for the commander and operator. The Korkuta control vehicle is capable of finding and tracking targets, determining the degree of their danger to guarded objects, transmitting data about them to a higher headquarters, and also issuing target designations to subordinate ZSUs. One control vehicle is capable of servicing up to three self-propelled guns.

The crew of the control vehicle consists of three people: the driver, the commander and the system operator. Access to the inside of the machine is provided by a standard stern ramp. In case of collision with the enemy, the crew has a rifle caliber machine gun.

The Korkut SSA anti-aircraft self-propelled gun is built on the same chassis, but carries different equipment. An uninhabited tower with a pair of 35-mm Oerlikon GDF-002 automatic cannons, produced under license at MKEK factories, is installed on the pursuit. The gun mount is stabilized in two planes. There are magazines for 400 rounds with a linkless feed, providing a quick change of the type of shot. The guns are compatible with programmable fuses.

Search for targets and fire control are carried out using radar and OLS on the tower. The radar from ASELSAN provides target tracking and automatic weapon guidance. The locator is duplicated by optics, which protects the ZSU from electronic warfare. There are separate programmers for working with shells.


Turkish anti-aircraft complexes in Libya, August 2020 Graphics Twitter.com/safsata14

The crew of the Korkut SSA SPAAG includes three people: the driver, the commander and the gunner-operator. All systems and weapons are controlled remotely; combat work is performed in semi-automatic and automatic modes. The main method of work involves interaction with the control machine and firing at its target designation. In this case, it is possible to use the ZSU independently.

The total rate of fire for a pair of Oerlikon cannons is 1100 rds / min. Effective range for air targets - 4 km. It is possible to defeat due to a direct hit, however, to combat air targets, the firing mode with programmed detonation of the projectile on the trajectory is the main one.

In formation and in battle


In 2018-2020. the Turkish army received at least 10-13 combat vehicles of the Korkut complex, and deliveries continue. No later than 2022, 14 ordered sets will be built and delivered to the troops. Apparently, this will be followed by a new contract for a comparable amount of equipment, which later will allow bringing the number of ZSU to an acceptable level.

It should be noted that now "Korkut" remains the only anti-aircraft artillery self-propelled gun in the Turkish army. In previous years, in parallel with the process of creating this complex, the old "Dasters" were withdrawn into the reserve. Now at least 260 of these ZSU are at storage bases, and, most likely, they will soon begin to be dismantled as unnecessary.

Despite the small number, ZSU Korkut have already managed to take part in a real operation. In mid-January 2020, it became known that several complexes of this type were transferred to Libyan territory to cover the Turkish contingent and friendly local formations. In mid-August, new messages appeared in this regard, incl. satellite images of deployed complexes.


Shooting at an unknown target, presumably November 2020. Still from a video from Youtube / Vedat Kaplan

It is curious that, until recently, reports on the combat use of anti-aircraft systems were not reported. Only a few days ago a video, several seconds long, showing the use of "Korkut" in Libya, got into the public domain. It depicts a combat vehicle firing at an air target. It is unknown what object came under fire and how this episode ended.

Interim results


Apparently, the plans for the Korkut anti-aircraft complex are being carried out without significant deviations from the schedule and allow solving the assigned tasks. The Turkish army has already received a certain number of combat vehicles and control vehicles, but their number is still much lower than the needs of the ground forces - and less than the number of decommissioned equipment of its class. In addition, new ZSUs are already being used in war zones, but so far without any noticeable results.

Thus, the real prospects of the Korkut complex still look ambiguous. In technical terms, this is a fairly good system with good characteristics, quite capable of coping with the tasks set. On the other hand, there are still few such complexes and they cannot independently provide full protection for troops. Whether it will be possible to change this situation for the better is unknown. The plans for the coming years still allow us to count on such changes, and everything depends on their successful implementation.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    17 November 2020 18: 15
    At the moment, against small UAVs and kamikaze drones, there are no adequate alternatives to such systems. Perhaps laser systems will provide an alternative, but for military systems, the ability to work on the ground is important.
    1. 0
      17 November 2020 19: 29
      Well, now lasers for 2,5 km can work a maximum ... so you have to create a complex with a laser, microwave and a gun ..
  2. +7
    17 November 2020 18: 18
    "Oerlikons" are a good thing. Here you can not argue against.
  3. +3
    17 November 2020 18: 21
    A similar analogue of YENISEI was created simultaneously with Shilka. But the military did not take it. I think in vain.
    1. +1
      17 November 2020 18: 46
      ZSU-37-2 "Yenisei" is a worthy device. It was not the standard caliber of the guns that ruined him. Although an intermediate caliber between 30 and 57 mm is straightforward.
      1. +12
        17 November 2020 19: 12
        Something you got entangled in three pines - then 37 mm guns were quite in service with both the ground forces (Gun 61 K) and the Navy (70K and V-11). And there were a lot of them, very much.
      2. +10
        17 November 2020 19: 15
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        ZSU-37-2 "Yenisei" is a worthy device. It was not the standard caliber of the guns that ruined him.

        The caliber was just the standard - 61-K and B-11. The shot was unusual.
        However, in those days it was no longer such a problem - in the USSR, in 1955, a new caliber was completely gash. And the Richter R-23 with a unique shot was mass-produced.
        1. -1
          17 November 2020 19: 30
          Thanks for the clarification. At the end of the 50s, the production of 37 mm anti-aircraft systems ceased, respectively, in the 60s, the Yenisei would have been the only representative of this caliber in production. Therefore not standard.
          1. +3
            18 November 2020 10: 17
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            At the end of the 50s, the production of 37 mm anti-aircraft systems ceased; accordingly, in the 60s, the Yenisei would have been the only representative of this caliber in production. Therefore not standard.

            Production ceased, but these systems were in service until the 90s of the last century.
      3. 0
        17 November 2020 19: 29
        rather, there were questions about the effectiveness of the defeat
    2. 0
      17 November 2020 21: 34
      And that the Yenisei had a programmable shell?
  4. 0
    17 November 2020 18: 23
    The Turks are actively creating UAVs, of course, it is necessary to develop equipment for its destruction.
  5. -3
    17 November 2020 18: 38
    there are still few such complexes and they cannot independently provide full protection of troops. Whether it will be possible to change this situation for the better is unknown

    It's just a matter of time.
    1. 0
      17 November 2020 20: 34
      It's just a matter of time

      Quite right. Oerlikon no longer produces this model ...
      Sincerely
      1. +3
        17 November 2020 23: 01
        GDF-002 is still produced in Turkey under license at MKEK factories This was clearly stated in the article.
  6. +1
    17 November 2020 19: 03
    Back then 37mm was standard.
  7. +5
    17 November 2020 19: 18
    So the range is too small. Attack drones can work from a distance, and a small, nimble rocket can be shot down on approach!
    1. 0
      17 November 2020 19: 25
      Quote: rocket757
      Shock drones can operate from a distance,

      Short-to-medium-range systems are needed against them. 12 km in height, up to 40 km in range.
      1. +2
        17 November 2020 19: 44
        Well, yes, and these are not artillery systems.
        All serious armies complete their air defense in this way.
        1. +3
          17 November 2020 20: 43
          Quote: rocket757
          Well, yes, and these are not artillery systems.
          KS-19, in range - 21 km, in height - 15.4 km.
          KS-30, in range - 27.5 km, in height - 20.6 km.
          The speeds of Baykatars and others like them are not high, controlled detonation for anti-aircraft ammunition of this caliber was the norm, the price of a shot, compared to a rocket, is low, one could try to revive.
          1. +3
            17 November 2020 21: 08
            Sho then, apart from minke whales, no one is torn to use cannon artillery against an air enemy, at long ranges .... why?
            1. +1
              17 November 2020 21: 21
              Quote: rocket757
              Sho then, apart from minke whales, no one is torn to use cannon artillery against an air enemy, at long ranges .... why?
              There is no talk about long ranges. And about the air enemy too. Only about slow, cardboard and cheap drones. When controlling the radar, the same KS-19 after the war very successfully defended some strategic bridge in Southeast Asia from the Americans (unfortunately, I don't remember the details, I read it for a long time).
              1. +2
                18 November 2020 08: 10
                The means of attack can now be too diverse, the tasks facing the air defense ... a large heavy gun does not fit into the concept of modern air defense.
                P.S. My father started his service just like that .... I did not find them at work anymore, rocketry went ahead!
      2. -1
        17 November 2020 20: 29
        Short-to-medium-range systems are needed against them. 12 km in height, up to 40 km in range.

        Manufacturers of Bayraktar TV 2 somewhere on Ali bought a laser diode that can illuminate a target in the near infrared range for 40 km? Do attack drones have a radar that can work on the ground? Have you started to mount an aiming container on drones? Yes, it is more expensive than this drone!
        With importance
        1. -2
          17 November 2020 20: 45
          Quote: nobody75
          which can illuminate a target in the near infrared range at 40 km?

          GPS, inertial, optical, radio guidance canceled already?
          Quote: nobody75
          Do attack drones have a radar that can work on the ground?

          Since the mid-90s, they are already standing, on M (R) Q-1 AN / ZPQ-1 TESAR, for example.
          Quote: nobody75
          Have you started to mount an aiming container on drones?

          What for? Everything you need is integrated. If something is not delivered.
          1. -2
            17 November 2020 21: 14
            AN / ZPQ-1 (TESAR) is operating in Ku-Band is a small, light, low-cost sensor for use on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), eg for the US Air Force's UAV “RQ-1 Predator”. It is a ground-sweeping radar which can detect objects as small as one foot in size and pick out those which are moving from those which aren't.

            Sorry, I forgot that the Turkish military academies do not study English:
            "AN / ZPQ-1 (TESAR) is a cheap, lightweight and compact Ku band radar designed for use by unmanned aerial vehicles. Such as the RQ-1 Predator. The AN / ZPQ-1 surveillance radar is designed to operate" on the ground. " and is capable of detecting static and moving objects on the order of one foot. "
            Do you know why it is being removed from service? Satellite TV works in this range and it is elementary to jam. The maximum range of this radar is indicated at 111 km. That, taking into account the interference, gives your 40 km. Placing a more or less decent radar on the drone is hampered by its low maximum takeoff weight, as well as the need for radar data processing at the ground control point. And such processing is problematic for reasons of irrational use of the communication channel with the UAV.
            Sincerely
          2. -1
            17 November 2020 21: 21
            GPS, inertial, optical guidance canceled already?

            Even our peacekeepers in Artsakh can cancel GPS. What inertial guidance do you mean? The drone itself or the ammunition? Calculate the KVO of an inertial-guided munition at 40 km ... What is "optical guidance"? Laser or television?
            Sincerely
    2. +3
      17 November 2020 23: 30
      On the roof of the Korkut KKA control vehicle, a mast with radar and optoelectronic stations is installed. The main means of tracking the situation in the air and on the ground is the three-coordinate circular-view radar developed by ASELSAN with a target tracking range of up to 70 km.

      And what fundamentally new did the Turks "invented"?
      Quote: rocket757
      So the range is too small. Attack drones can work from a distance, and a small, nimble rocket can be shot down on approach!

      I agree. Moreover, after the appearance of anti-radar weapons, it is more expensive for the radar to "operate". The optoelectronic station has certain operating restrictions.
      We have already gone through this.
      1. +2
        18 November 2020 08: 21
        Quote: kapitan92
        We have already gone through this.

        We passed, the main thing is to draw the right conclusions and carry out the right actions based on the results.
  8. +3
    17 November 2020 19: 18
    BK 400 rounds? For a cannon with a rate of fire of 1100 rounds per minute? Something I'm confused.
    1. +6
      17 November 2020 21: 11
      Like 400 plus 400. And by the way, most of these complexes have ammunition for about a minute.
  9. -3
    17 November 2020 19: 28
    The range of 4 km is short. The same Turkish attack drones, depending on the drop height, hit with an ATGM or a guided bomb at 8 km. So that they will not shoot down the carrier. I think kamikazes are just as useless against drones .... However, like all Russian air defense systems with guns. The only thing Torok has ammunition with programmable detonation is not in the Russian Federation ..
    1. -1
      17 November 2020 20: 18
      The carapace is not useless ...
      Sincerely
      1. -4
        17 November 2020 20: 50
        Cannons of Shell, Tunguska, Shilki are just as useless as this system ........
        1. +1
          17 November 2020 21: 46
          In fact, Shell also has missiles ...
          Sincerely
      2. 0
        17 November 2020 21: 45
        Quote: nobody75
        The carapace is not useless ...

        1. +1
          17 November 2020 21: 48
          This video is a hundred years old at lunchtime. Since then, it has already been modernized twice! Especially the radar.
          Sincerely
          1. +3
            18 November 2020 14: 21
            The shooting video shows very clearly that the problem is not in the radar, but in the insufficient accuracy of the shells: too large a spread :(
            The phrase that "shell" cannons are the most effective against ground targets is generally beyond common sense, since cannons may be effective, but any infantry squad will be many times more effective against the "huge barn on wheels", which is "Pantsir", with its expensive unprotected radio-electronic equipment. In other words, if "Pantsir" (let me remind you that it is an air defense complex) has to shoot at ground targets, then something obviously went wrong, or there are big questions about the qualifications of the commanders who allowed this.
            1. -4
              18 November 2020 15: 17
              The shooting video shows very clearly that the problem is not in the radar, but in the insufficient accuracy of the shells: too large a spread :(

              This reminds me of a funny textbook. There often, in order to get around the controversial points of the proof, the phrase was used: "From the picture you can see ..." and then there was a pseudo-scientific heresy. How can you build a scattering ellipse from a video? It's not always possible to build this even on practical shooting! Only mat. modeling!
              Sincerely
              1. +2
                18 November 2020 16: 00
                And you do not notice that in the video "Pantsir" could not shoot down a low-speed drone from the cannons. The video shows a flying drone and shells flying past it, you can see their dispersion relative to the target. And, yes, this is practical shooting, it couldn't be more real. And when the practice does not correspond to the mathematical model, then you need to ask questions about modeling, not reality.
                1. 0
                  18 November 2020 16: 36
                  I already wrote. This video is a hundred years old ... It was discussed a hundred times !!!
                  Do you have a video of the world's best Turkish SPAAG shooting down 100 drones with one shot?
                  Sincerely
            2. -2
              18 November 2020 17: 44
              Yes, the carapace shit is already known to everyone ... but there is no accuracy during shooting due to the fact that the platform is not stable, the high center of mass + the recoil of the trunks when shooting (in total, I think 10 tons) shake the platform. put, but a friend of a nullified one drives there, so we are waiting for the dome of St. Basil the Blessed to be pierced with harops, and not the cathedral in Stepanakert.
              1. +2
                18 November 2020 18: 24
                So the simplest solution is to abandon the cannons on the "Pantsir" and increase the number of missiles, for example, as was done on the Arctic "Pantsir"
                1. +2
                  18 November 2020 20: 07
                  Tungusska quite coped with the UAV simulating the CD. And there are the same guns as on the Shells.
                2. +1
                  19 November 2020 10: 58
                  Why when there is a TOP, on different chassis. The turntable of the Shell does not allow firing at several targets of attackers from different directions, even theoretically, and also has a dead zone in the form of a heap and a long bicaliber missile.
                  1. +2
                    19 November 2020 13: 00
                    To be objective, Thor has the same disadvantages:
                    - it is required to turn the tower to orient the guidance radar towards the target
                    - it is not possible to fire multiple targets attacking from different directions
                    - there is a dead funnel above the combat vehicle due to the limited vertical pumping of the guidance radar (it is impossible to accompany and fire on targets diving on the air defense missile system at an angle of 65 degrees or more (according to other sources, 85 degrees or more).

                    These problems are solved by the mutual cover of several air defense systems of each other.
  10. +5
    17 November 2020 19: 38
    The thing is good, but the question arises about the range.
    Against the UAV, enough end-to-end. Already now, many will not reach it, and on the way there are even higher
    Against the helicopter. Already sla
    1. +1
      17 November 2020 19: 51
      Massive kamikaze drones are on the way. You need protection from them.
    2. -4
      17 November 2020 20: 22
      Forgive me, what is the "good" of this thing? They took an ancient artillery system and tried to attach a radar illumination to it, an opto-electronic station. Yes, the artillery system itself has a digital bus, but it's all with a pitchfork on the water ...
      Sincerely
      1. -1
        18 November 2020 17: 46
        To this I must add that the chassis there is from the M-113, which is most likely overloaded, be healthy ...
        1. -3
          18 November 2020 19: 50
          And all the same, the detection radar on a separate machine ... And what's the point with it then?
          Sincerely
  11. +2
    17 November 2020 19: 59
    If the vaunted korkats get into a real remake, then we will evaluate the effectiveness. So far, all the praise from the brochure.
  12. -4
    17 November 2020 20: 11
    The Oerlikon GDF-002 is an obsolete 1980 revision gun. What drones !? What drones ??? !!! The GDF-002 is the first model to be connected to a digital LMS! However, let's compare with 2a38M "Pantsir".
    Rate of fire (shots / min per 1 barrel): 2a38m - 1950, GDF-002 - 550
    Caliber (mm): 2a38m - 30, GDF-002 - 35
    Muzzle velocity (m / s): 2a38m - 960, GDF-002 - 1175
    Even remote detonation of ammunition for the GDF-002 is fiction! No, he is capable of shooting them, but to set the time of detonation correctly is not. This option GDF-005 has appeared. The attached third-party optical-electronic station should neutralize this drawback, but can it do it in practice?
    Sincerely
    1. +7
      17 November 2020 20: 57
      What bothers you?
      Oerlikon GDF is one of the most widely used and purchased MPAs in the world.
      Checked by time.
      The rate of fire for Oerlikon 1100, normal for projectiles with controlled detonation, the initial velocity is high, which means flatness.
      The Turks actually modified it to version 005, there is a controlled detonation, which greatly distinguishes the installation in a positive way in modern conditions, it is very useful against an uav.
      Another thing is that in a caliber even 35 mm, the effective range is too small for modern and future tasks.
      1. -2
        17 November 2020 21: 40
        Yes, everything confuses me ...
        Rate of fire for Oerlikon 1100

        This is for 2 barrels. Carapace has 2 vzodit for 5000 stems. There, another firing mode is used and the initial velocity of the projectile is measured by an induction sensor and transmitted to the FCS.
        the initial speed is high, which means flatness.

        And, accordingly, less dispersion. At the Steklov Institute, back in the 40s of the last century, work was carried out that showed that the probability of hitting an air target when firing a burst with controlled dispersal is higher.
        The Turks actually modified it to version 005, there is a controlled detonation, which greatly distinguishes the installation in a positive way in modern conditions, it is very useful against an uav.

        Controlled detonation for close-range military air defense, which works on air targets while in combat or marching order, is a dubious thing ... During the movement, it is difficult to set forbidden zones for firing, in contrast to bp with contact detonation. Imagine you are moving along a mountain road in a column. A kamikaze drone appears from behind the mountain at an altitude of 400 m and a horizontal range of 800 m. The column stretches for 1 km ... And you start firing shells with remote detonation ... And in the column there is infantry under a tarpaulin, ammunition in boxes and a tank with diesel fuel ... Now imagine that you have a 57 mm caliber ... It's fun, isn't it?
        Sincerely
        1. +6
          17 November 2020 22: 29
          There is a caliber 35 mm, why should I introduce 57?
          The rate of fire when firing projectiles with controlled detonation, by definition, should be much lower.
          Controlled scattering and scattering are different things. The higher the flatness, the higher the probability of defeat.
          I don't see any particular flaws, to be honest, except for those that I wrote about.
          hi
          1. -3
            17 November 2020 22: 44
            There is a caliber 35 mm, why should I introduce 57?

            You wrote that 35 mm is of little interest to you!
            The higher the flatness, the higher the probability of defeat.

            I disagree! It will just increase the likelihood of constant (systematic) pointing error even if the scatter ellipse becomes a circle.
            I don't see any particular flaws, to be honest, except for those that I wrote about.

            Imagine the following situation. Infantry fighting vehicles are on the offensive, the infantry dismounted, loitering bp are working on them ... Svn shoots a ZSU with bp with remote detonation. All bp intercepted! But the fragments from your shells, even having lost their destructive power, will still fall to the ground ... Motorized riflemen on boom-boom-boom helmets. What will they do? That's right - they'll lay down ... And for them, sorry, hot shards on the "sugar bowl" vzhzhik!
            Is this not a disadvantage?
            Sincerely
            1. +6
              17 November 2020 22: 52
              Uh-huh. Disadvantage. Inherent in almost all anti-aircraft guns and missiles. Just because it is a virtue.
              And for the defeat of small-sized drones and UAVs, this is a double advantage.
              1. -2
                17 November 2020 23: 01
                Uh-huh. Disadvantage. Inherent in almost all anti-aircraft guns and missiles. Just because it is a virtue.

                I disagree, 30 mm shells without remote detonation, in the event of a miss at an air target, fly away "to infinity" and cause a forest fire ... somewhere out there ... And do not fall out in fragments on friendly infantry.
                And for the defeat of small-sized drones and UAVs, this is a double advantage.

                The projectile does not have a high explosiveness of 35 mm, and the striking elements of a 35 mm projectile retain a guaranteed damaging effect for a UAV at a distance of 1-1,5 m.According to my calculations, this is enough to reduce consumption, but this is only if you are accurate to 1 see determine the distance to the target, as well as its type
                Sincerely
                1. +9
                  17 November 2020 23: 54
                  Depends on the type of UAV.
                  In the case of a projectile without detonation, you need to hit with an accuracy of 30 mm.
                  In the case of a detonation, we are talking about meters, which greatly changes the situation, especially for small UAVs. In a 750 gram 35 × 228 mm projectile from 150 to 850 submunitions, detonation is directed, there are different methods of detonation, for example, in front of a target with a cone expansion or simultaneous detonation of several projectiles with the creation of a detonation thread, are set programmatically depending on the type of target. The reliability of defeat is hundreds of times higher than that of a shell without detonation. Against UAVs, the best option is explosive shells.
                  You are simply trying to pass off need as virtue.
                  The mass of striking elements is relatively small and loses the ability to inflict damage before arriving on the ground, therefore it is safe for its troops, in contrast to a shell without detonation, which will fall somewhere and not the fact that it is not on its own.
                  1. -3
                    18 November 2020 09: 10
                    Excuse me, do you have real shooting data or mathematical modeling? And I have ... Ammunition consumption is about the same ... To create a thread of detonation, you need to establish computer control of shooting, as in GDF-005. Let's dot all the i's. For Erlikon GDF there are trajectory blasting ammunition. It is NOT a FACT that the Turks who bought the OBDED, according to the manufacturer, art system were able to file it with a file for EFFECTIVE use of shells with remote blasting. If only because they know much less of the manufacturer about the projectile-weapon system.
                    About the fragments. I have already given an example with a column. Due to the high initial velocity of the projectile, its front and nose heat up to 200 - 250 degrees. It's not hard to guess what happens if the resulting debris falls onto flammable materials ...
                    Sincerely
                    1. +5
                      18 November 2020 09: 28
                      And what happens if the debris left in flight falls? Nothing. Hot will be, like all the fragments, and then to a lesser extent.
                      Regarding modeling, this is at Oerlikon Contraves AG, Zurich. They have not only simulation results, but also practical application analysis. And they strongly disagree with you.
                      I don’t know what kind of file you have, but the Turks were obviously professional. the base of the gun remained unchanged, the Swiss added a nozzle to the end of the barrel, and a control system. Nobody prevents the Turks from repeating this, especially with the help of the same Swiss, they have acquired a new buyer of expensive explosive shells. Alesan's level allows this to be done without the Swiss, there is nothing technically difficult in the programmer.
                      And as a result will be, so it is only practice can confirm.
                      1. -1
                        18 November 2020 13: 28
                        They have not only simulation results, but also practical application analysis. And they strongly disagree with you.

                        Tables in the studio!
                        I don’t know what kind of file you have, but the Turks were obviously professional. the base of the gun remained unchanged

                        And the developer of the artillery system - approached unprofessionally and released three more generations with a modernized gun! But the Turks - yes, they saw this weapon of 1980 and were already inspired. Without them, Oerlikon could not cope with the computerization of the ZSU ...
                        Sincerely
                    2. +5
                      18 November 2020 09: 48
                      The complex is the projectile, not the remote programming attachment for detonation.




                      The upper picture is a projectile, the lower one is a nozzle for remote programming.
                      For the modern level of Alesan, not such a problem
                      Further, the photo clearly shows why the statement that it is necessary to determine the range for one centimeter does not stand up to criticism in general, it is not even close. By the way, they have the function of detonating at one point, when shells alternately explode at one point on the target's flight path.
                      At the same time, this picture shows why, when the elements fall, they are not dangerous for their own - they initially have a different direction and they will fall down only after losing speed, and it is not a fact that this will not be far enough from the battlefield. They are not dangerous, in short, as you mistakenly thought.
                      Projectiles with 850 elements are used against UAVs, which means that in half a second, projectiles with controlled detonation can provide 8500 submunitions. Without detonating a projectile, the Pantsir's cannons will provide 2000 striking elements in half a minute, that is, for projectiles with detonation, the effectiveness will be 240 times higher against UAVs than without detonation.
                      The striking elements of the projectiles are sufficient to destroy the UAV, for example, the result of hitting a 15 mm plate is shown below.
                      There is no need to speculate about the alleged shortcomings of explosive shells, this is undoubtedly an effective thing against UAVs.
                      1. -3
                        18 November 2020 15: 28
                        Projectiles with 850 elements are used against UAVs, which means that in half a second, projectiles with controlled detonation can provide 8500 submunitions. Without detonating a projectile, the Pantsir's cannons will provide 2000 striking elements in half a minute, that is, for projectiles with detonation, the effectiveness will be 240 times higher against UAVs than without detonation.
                        The striking elements of the projectiles are sufficient to destroy the UAV, for example, the result of hitting a 15 mm plate is shown below.
                        There is no need to speculate about the alleged shortcomings of explosive shells, this is undoubtedly an effective thing against UAVs.

                        And who is responsible for ensuring that your fuse is triggered before or during the flight, and not after the flight? This, excuse me, is PUAZO, which the Turks made themselves, since it is not included in the art system. And who determines the distance to the target? The radar and the wholesale station ... They are the same racially Turkish, they have nothing to do with the eerlikon ... And who told you that all this "system integration" works in the field, and not another Turkish cut? I ask you again, do you personally have any supporting data on the "undoubted effectiveness" of anti-aircraft projectiles with programmable detonation on the trajectory?
                        Sincerely
                      2. +4
                        18 November 2020 16: 47
                        yeah, "ineffective" Turkish drones arranged a "cut" for ground forces, first in Syria, then in Libya, and then in Nagorno-Karabakh. Moreover, "Baytracars" are the fruit of the "system integration" of the Canadian engine, the Canadian OELS, and other electronic filling assembled around the world in the body of the Turkish drone. Practice has shown that the Turks know how to do this.
                        The "undoubted effectiveness" of anti-aircraft missiles with programmable detonation on the trajectory is proved by the German system based on the 35-mm Skyshield ZAK: the Skyranger ZSU, the Millennium shipborne ZAK, the MANTIS air defense system.
                      3. -4
                        18 November 2020 16: 58
                        aha, "ineffective" Turkish drones arranged a "cut" for ground troops, first in Syria, then in Libya, and then in Nagorno-Karabakh.

                        "Assad must go" ... Is he gone? The Turks left the checkpoints ...
                        Khaftar left the same ...
                        Whose Stepanakert? Azerbaijan is so pleased with the "cutting" of the land forces of Artsakh that a demonstration took place in Baku ...
                        For these useless "Bayraktars" Azerbaijan will be occupied ... the whole question is who ...
                        Are there more "effective" examples? And the argument "You see a high spread of shells in the video" is for not very sophisticated people
                      4. +3
                        18 November 2020 18: 13
                        I see that you are living in an "alternate" reality ....
                      5. -2
                        18 November 2020 19: 47
                        And all the best to you
                      6. +1
                        19 November 2020 20: 58
                        Arguments? See a bunch of Soviet and Russian-built air defense systems destroyed by drones. By the way, Thor on a Kamaz chassis was also burned in Karabakh ... And it's strange to see an air defense system that is hidden from a drone in a barn !!!!!)))) Indeed, it has no analogue))))
                      7. -1
                        19 November 2020 21: 14
                        We are talking about the Turkish SPAAG in general
                        Sincerely
    2. +1
      17 November 2020 23: 09
      You somehow forgot to write about the effective range of fire and the mass of the projectile (not counting the fact that the Turkish GDF-002 has a controlled detonation)
      1. -2
        18 November 2020 09: 12
        The horizontal range of the two systems is the same 4 km. Controlled detonation is POSSIBLE! But only...
        Sincerely
  13. 0
    17 November 2020 20: 24
    In previous years, in parallel with the process of creating this complex, the old "Dasters" were withdrawn into the reserve. Now at least 260 of these ZSU are at storage bases, and, most likely, they will soon begin to be dismantled as unnecessary.

    If only disposal does not imply their transfer to all kinds of Turkish proxies in Syria or elsewhere.
    And then the Turks will become. Yes angry
  14. +1
    17 November 2020 21: 22
    Briefly the essence of the article:
    "Is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars - this is not known to science"
  15. 0
    18 November 2020 00: 24
    There are separate programmers for working with shells.
    and that is, not separate?

    Why is everything so huge? An antiaircraft gun the size of a house.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"