Military Review

Upgraded ACS 2S7M "Malka" will receive new ammunition

94
Upgraded ACS 2S7M "Malka" will receive new ammunition

The modernized self-propelled gun 2S7M "Malka" will receive a new generation of ammunition. Told about this in an interview with RIA News industrial director of the Rostec weapons complex Bekkhan Ozdoev.


According to Ozdoev, a variant of a deeper modernization of the 2S7M Malka self-propelled cannon, which also includes a new generation of ammunition, has already been developed and sent to the Ministry of Defense for consideration. However, he did not give details of the proposed modernization option.

We have worked out options for a deeper modernization of the weapon with the development of a new generation of ammunition, including guided ones. We have sent these proposals to the customer

- he said.

Recall that in the spring of this year, a new version of the modernized Malka was presented and the first modernized vehicles have already entered the army. The modernization was carried out at Uraltransmash (part of UVZ). At the ACS, work was carried out to replace the gearbox, distribution mechanisms and power supply units. Replaced observation devices and guidance system, intercom equipment and radio station. The complex of anti-nuclear protection has been updated. Now it is possible to aim at a target using a UAV.

The 2S7M "Malka", having a gun caliber (2A44) of 203 mm, is capable of firing various types of ammunition, including active-reactive and special ammunition with a nuclear warhead.

Large-caliber self-propelled guns at one time were developed as a means of possible tactical nuclear strike. The first modification - 2C7 "Peony" - has been in operation since 1975, the upgraded version - 2C7M - since 1986.

For reference: the 2S7M Malka combat mass in the previous layout was 46,5 tons, the crew was 6 people, the R-173 radio station was used, the transported ammunition was 8 rounds, and the self-propelled gun was put into combat position for 7 minutes.
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 09: 28
    +14
    We still have the most powerful artillery in the world.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 28 November 2020 09: 33
      +13
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      We still have the most powerful artillery in the world.

      It is a fact. The saturation of the RF Army with artillery, MLRS and OTR is the highest in the world. Although China is already approaching you by these indicators.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 16: 26
        -2
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Although China is already approaching you by these indicators.

        So they have both Chinese guns and shells.
        He shot once, shot twice, and on the third like this:
    2. Mouse
      Mouse 28 November 2020 10: 05
      +8
      We still have the most powerful artillery in the world

      hi
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 10: 49
        0
        It's time to resurrect this march - with a change of surname.
        Moreover, at that time our artillery was not the strongest in the world, much inferior to the Germans and the Naglo-Saxons both in gunpowder and in shells.
        1. Sailor
          Sailor 28 November 2020 11: 51
          +2
          Yes, we are still inferior in terms of gunpowder and shells, especially in BOPS, maybe thermobolic ammunition is at the level or even better.
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 12: 03
            +1
            Quote: Sailor
            thermobolic

            Which ones? laughing
            1. Paranoid50
              Paranoid50 28 November 2020 12: 20
              +10
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              Quote: Sailor
              thermobolic
              Which ones?

              Forcing the enemy to experience wild pain under the influence of tremendous temperature. fellow laughing
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 12: 30
                +6
                Quote: Paranoid50
                Forcing the enemy to experience wild pain under the influence of tremendous temperature

                Even without exposure, I got burnt from such a mockery of the word "thermobaric" laughing
                1. Paranoid50
                  Paranoid50 28 November 2020 12: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  burnt from such bullying

                  It is even worse here. wassat
                  1. volan
                    volan 29 November 2020 12: 02
                    0
                    special ammunition with a nuclear warhead .... no need to go far. where do the warheads come from?))
                2. Sailor
                  Sailor 29 November 2020 12: 06
                  +1
                  Well, I was mistaken, you know small letters in the phone, but vision is not the meaning, then you understand that to be clever, you are our linguist.
              2. Krasnodar
                Krasnodar 28 November 2020 13: 30
                +2
                Quote: Paranoid50
                Quote: Narak-zempo
                Quote: Sailor
                thermobolic
                Which ones?

                Forcing the enemy to experience wild pain under the influence of tremendous temperature. fellow laughing

                And also a deep psychological shock as a result of pain)).
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 28 November 2020 21: 11
            +2
            Quote: Sailor
            Yes, we are still inferior in gunpowder

            In terms of gunpowder, not everything is so simple. At us, at the request of the military, they must predictably burn at temperatures from -50 degrees. Foreign, if I remember correctly, from -30. So, in the winter in our northern regions, how the ammunition of the western comrades will behave is a question.
        2. Starover_Z
          Starover_Z 28 November 2020 13: 04
          0
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          It's time to resurrect this march - with a change of surname.

          And the updated cannons would be placed closer to the borders of old "friends" - to Poland and the Tribals!
          They say that "the Russians want war," they want to conquer them. Well, let them not be offended!
        3. Kuroneko
          Kuroneko 28 November 2020 13: 15
          +2
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Moreover, at that time our artillery was not the strongest in the world, much inferior to the Germans and the Naglo-Saxons both in gunpowder and in shells.

          You're in vain. Already during the Second World Soviet artillery was the strongest in the world, yielding to the West only in organizational matters of interaction with other troops. Nothing frightened the Germans so much as the monstrous Soviet shelling.
          And the Germans - if you know the history of the development of artillery - almost half of all barrels were actually from the time of the First World War. How could we yield to them?
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 16: 16
            -1
            Quote: Kuroneko
            You're in vain. Already during the Second World War, Soviet artillery was the strongest in the world

            No.
            They were inferior in terms of gunpowder, both in terms of recipes and workmanship.
            They were inferior in shells, first of all, armor-piercing (and the cumulative ones used by the Germans were generally so new that at first they did not fully understand the principle of their action, calling them "armor-piercing").
            They were inferior in terms of organization, tactics of use, interaction with other branches of the armed forces, and reconnaissance of targets.
            Unfortunately, I cannot give an exact link, but the highly respected military historian here Aleksey Isaev very reasonably explained the peculiarities of Soviet tactics of using tanks (and the reasons for their high losses) precisely by the fact that they were forced to replace artillery as the main means of breaking into defense. Due to its relative weakness.
            Quote: Kuroneko
            And the Germans - if you know the history of the development of artillery - almost half of all the barrels were actually from the time of the First World War

            For the Germans, a lot of new systems were labeled as "the model of 1918" in order to circumvent the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles.
            And not all of our "new" systems were so new. The same ML-20 - this is the imposition of the barrel of a Schneider gun on a new carriage.
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 28 November 2020 16: 44
              +1
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              Unfortunately, I cannot give an exact link, but the highly respected military historian here Aleksey Isaev very reasonably explained the peculiarities of Soviet tactics of using tanks (and the reasons for their high losses) precisely by the fact that they were forced to replace artillery as the main means of breaking into defense. Due to its relative weakness.

              He said this about the first year of the war.
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              They were inferior in terms of gunpowder, both in terms of recipes and workmanship.

              Lend-Lease gunpowders had a limited temperature range of stable characteristics, as well as a shelf life without loss of stable characteristics. Almost all formulations of weapons and artillery powders caused either a rapid heating of the barrel or a rapid formation of carbon deposits in the shooter. But the grandfathers very quickly learned to adapt to this.
            2. Kuroneko
              Kuroneko 28 November 2020 17: 48
              +2
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              For the Germans, a lot of new systems were labeled as "the model of 1918" in order to circumvent the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles.

              Much, but not artillery in its classical sense. Anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank guns - yes, they were new. And for some reason the artillery itself of the Germans generally suited it and they did not actively develop it during the Second World War (unlike the USSR). Yes, they improved the artillery, but that was all (we were really bad with the shells - for objective reasons - but the artillery systems themselves were pretty bad). Think of the monster sIG 33., at least. A fairly old interwar cannon was installed on the unit's chassis. And with the whole, with the gun carriage, Karl, with the gun carriage! Wheeled. And they managed to rivet these monsters in order. Not at all from a good life.

              And without the USSR, it could not even be done.
              In 1927, the Reichswehr adopted the light infantry gun 7,5 cm leichte Infanteriegeschütz 18 (leIG18). At the same time, the Rheinmetall design bureau developed a heavy 150-mm infantry gun - for several years this system could not win the confidence of the military, who considered it too heavy for the regimental level. The system could have sunk into oblivion if it were not for the Soviet order - on August 28, 1930, an agreement was concluded with the Byutast company (the front office of the Rheinmetall concern) for the supply of eight 150-mm mortars (this is how these guns were classified in the USSR), converted to caliber 152,4 mm, and assistance in establishing licensed production. The gun was adopted by the Red Army under the designation "152-mm mortar mod. 1931 ", in documents it often appeared as" NM "(" German mortar "). In 1932-1935, the Putilov factory produced a small batch of these guns, but the Red Army had 105 units of "NM" in total (including those supplied from Germany). Interestingly, in accordance with the artillery armament system of the Red Army, the 152-mm mortar was not a regimental artillery, but a divisional artillery.

              The recognition received by the heavy infantry weapon abroad pushed the German military-political leadership to adopt it. In 1933, the Reichswehr received the 15 cm schweres Infanteriegeschütz 33 (sIG 33), a 15 cm heavy infantry gun of the 1933 model.

              Serial production of the sIG 33 began in 1933 at the Rheinmetall plant. The gun turned out to be quite expensive - it cost 20 Reichsmarks. The light infantry gun leIG18 cost three times less (6700 Reichsmarks), even the divisional 105-mm leFH18 howitzer, much more complex in design, was cheaper - 16 Reichsmarks.
    3. Navigator Basov
      Navigator Basov 28 November 2020 15: 52
      +2
      Only now this is becoming less and less relevant, since the war has long passed into tweets and Facebook, the enemy is hiring militant environmentalists and super minority shareholders who can survive the impact of the latest chemical warfare agents. Unfortunately, we have nothing to oppose in this field, so we develop artillery in the old fashioned way.
  2. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 28 November 2020 09: 29
    +2
    The complex of anti-nuclear protection has been updated.

    And what kind of anti-nuclear protection can this weapon have?
    1. Proton
      Proton 28 November 2020 09: 38
      +13
      In this ACS, the entire crew is inside the hull during movement. Apparently, it meant that the anti-nuclear protection operates while the vehicle is in motion.
      And while working on fire, there can be no talk of any anti-nuclear protection.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 28 November 2020 09: 40
        +6
        And while working on fire, there can be no talk of any anti-nuclear protection.

        This is what I had in mind.
        1. Proton
          Proton 28 November 2020 10: 04
          +5
          This ACS is certainly not bad, but with a serious enemy with a counter-battery system, there are not very many chances of a safe withdrawal from the position after a real volley.
          5 minutes for a volley, 5 minutes for packing, a total of 10. Really hit the road, but you have to hurry hard.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 28 November 2020 10: 30
            +14
            It was just for counter battery combat and was needed ... to suppress 155mm howitzers
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 28 November 2020 12: 45
              +2
              She was just for counter battery fight and was needed

              And for this, at the present time, we really need a new ammunition. hi
      2. Dmitry Makarov
        Dmitry Makarov 28 November 2020 09: 51
        +5
        Well, Cho, they zhahnuli Nuclear ammunition, destroyed some kind of Berlin or Warsaw, then quickly plunged into their "Saushka" and tick, and on top of a cloud of Radioactive, babble!
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 28 November 2020 10: 38
          +8
          Quote: Dmitry Makarov
          plunged into their "Saushka" and tick,

          And why immediately "tick"? Maybe just ahead - through the affected area, following the motorized infantry and tanks?
        2. faiver
          faiver 28 November 2020 11: 10
          +11
          your fantasies are very different from reality, with such a nuclear weapon you can destroy a rocket launch position, for example, or a village of yards for thirty maximum ...
          1. DAQ
            DAQ 28 November 2020 11: 38
            +6
            your fantasies are very different from reality, with such a nuclear weapon you can destroy a rocket launch position, for example, or a village of yards for thirty maximum

            Nuclear artillery shell Grable. Power 15 kt. As in Hiroshima (about 13-18 kt)
            Not a frail village can be leveled. It may be weaker here, but still not weak.

            In general, I think that they are not going to put any nuclear ammunition on it. Probably they will create smart shells. It's not a sin to create. Projectile weight 110 kg. If there is a correction by glonnas and / or laser, there will be a beast machine.
            1. faiver
              faiver 28 November 2020 11: 51
              +2
              The caliber is not the same, for a long time it was not with us ...
            2. 2 Level Advisor
              2 Level Advisor 28 November 2020 15: 02
              +2
              the projectile is about 2kt .. it is much weaker .. in destructive action, many times .. ie. not for a village, of course, but rather for a village of 100 yards or a division headquarters - that's enough ... well, a large city won't even have a hundred ...
    2. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 28 November 2020 09: 49
      +3
      Quote: Aviator_
      The complex of anti-nuclear protection has been updated.

      And what kind of anti-nuclear protection can this weapon have?

      Greetings, given that this weapon can use Tactical Nuclear ammunition (2 CT) and bullet them at 30 km, maybe some special container was installed for the ammunition being transported ??? request
      1. bessmertniy
        bessmertniy 28 November 2020 10: 11
        +2
        There are no limits to perfection. Good luck to the modernizers! hi
    3. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 10: 12
      +4
      filter system and air injection ..
    4. Kerensky
      Kerensky 28 November 2020 10: 18
      +6
      And what kind of anti-nuclear protection can this weapon have?

      Pressure pumping device (like mine in the 469th Kozlopiton). The essence of this "reverse vacuum cleaner" is to create excess pressure inside the body. Then radioactive dust particles will not fly there.
    5. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 12: 08
      0
      Quote: Aviator_
      And what kind of anti-nuclear protection can this weapon have?

      Withstands the hit of its own projectile from a special warhead laughinglaughinglaughing
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 28 November 2020 09: 32
    +5
    "Atomic" cannon. I mean, very powerful. Not every target needs to be hit with Iskander ... You can point it, with this Malki ... Guided munition. And the DRON will "highlight" the target and "report" the results ... laughing
    1. Hwostatij
      Hwostatij 28 November 2020 09: 36
      -1
      As if in the end Iskander did not turn out cheaper ...
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 28 November 2020 09: 58
        +3
        Quote: Hwostatij
        As if in the end Iskander did not get cheaper

        Of course not. If missiles were cheaper, barreled artillery would have died out long ago ... All the same, the efficiency of the barrel is much higher. Compare the weight of the powder charge for the howitzer, and the weight of the projectile engine filling from the "Grad", for example ...
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 28 November 2020 10: 31
          +5
          There, most likely, up to some range, a gun and a projectile are cheaper ...
        2. Hwostatij
          Hwostatij 28 November 2020 14: 58
          0
          Well, if you take into account the cost of the barrel and its resource, then everything is far from so simple
          1. Mountain shooter
            Mountain shooter 28 November 2020 15: 00
            +3
            Quote: Hwostatij
            Well, if you take into account the cost of the barrel and its resource, then everything is far from so simple

            The resource of the barrel of such calibers is from 300 to 500 shots ... Not so little.
            1. Hwostatij
              Hwostatij 28 November 2020 15: 07
              +1
              Yes, I looked here on the net for the approximate cost of artillery guns - indeed, in terms of the economy, art is more budgetary than missiles.
        3. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 18: 41
          -1
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Compare the weight of the powder charge for the howitzer, and the weight of the projectile engine filling from the "Grad", for example ...

          And solid rocket fuel is much more complicated technologically and more expensive than artillery powder.
      2. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 28 November 2020 10: 12
        0
        Quote: Hwostatij
        As if in the end Iskander did not turn out cheaper ...

        No, Iskander is definitely not cheaper.
        This is a completely different story.
        Here it is necessary to compare with "Hurricane", or as it is now called "Tornado U". This is his size.
        And steering cars for the Hurricane will definitely be cheaper, and the "brains" too.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 28 November 2020 10: 33
          0
          "Brains there + - equal. Or Glonas guidance or laser control unit. Only a 300mm missile flies further and the launcher can start from a KAMAZ 8x8 for 6 pieces
          1. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 28 November 2020 10: 44
            +5
            Quote: Zaurbek
            Brains there + - equal

            Not, not equal.
            By function, yes. By design, no.
            On the missile, relatively speaking, at the start they hit with a hammer. On the cannon - with a sledgehammer.
        2. mat-vey
          mat-vey 28 November 2020 10: 42
          +2
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          No, Iskander is definitely not cheaper

          These are different "weight" categories, really how can you compare.
      3. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 12: 11
        -1
        Quote: Hwostatij
        As if in the end Iskander did not turn out cheaper ...

        And we must check.
        We are now peacekeeping in Karabakh, this is a reason to slap a hat on the participants in the conflict.
        For example, in Yerevan to shoot from "Malok", and in Baku - "Iskander".
        How it was in the advertisement:
        "I shaved one leg with a regular machine, and the other with a woodworking machine." laughing
  4. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 28 November 2020 09: 33
    +2
    Well, well .... it could be, it could be ... chat, don't dig holes! The Americans, for example, once developed a guided 203-mm projectile: with an active radar seeker, with a ramjet engine, cluster ... Then, however, they changed their minds! Simply, then they decided to abandon the caliber 203 mm ...
    1. Sidor Amenpodestovich
      Sidor Amenpodestovich 28 November 2020 09: 47
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      could be, could be ...

    2. Dmitry Makarov
      Dmitry Makarov 28 November 2020 09: 55
      +3
      The Americans developed a lot of things, the loot sawed only the noise stood, and then they safely refuse, supposedly they say something is wrong, but in real life they did nothing except the layout, and spent hundreds of $ Billions somewhere.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 28 November 2020 10: 41
        +2
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        The Americans developed a lot of things, the loot sawed only the noise stood, and then they safely refuse, supposedly they say something is wrong, but in real life they did nothing except the layout, and spent hundreds of $ Billions somewhere.

        Well, it could be ... it could be! In any case, the Americans once assured that they had advanced far in development; but they call the refusal of the US military command from the 203 mm caliber to be the decisive argument for stopping development ...
    3. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 10: 14
      +5
      at the moment Malka needs suo by analogy with the Coalition, i.e. determination of coordinates for an attack and preferably automatic guidance + active-rocket projectiles of increased range, even with some damage to power + corrected ammunition ... if they can shoot "a la Krasnopol" at 50-55 km .. it will be tough
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 28 November 2020 10: 35
        +3
        Malka needs a projectile with Goonnas and a barrel that will send 203mm to 100-120 km ... otherwise 152 / 155mm howitzers have already reached 70 km
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 28 November 2020 11: 11
          +4
          More range means more projectile speed. This is the longest barrel. This is more of a return. Can you imagine the recoil for a 203 mm caliber? Malka needs to be maintained at a level until the resource is depleted. And then move away from these rare solutions. With a developed counter-battery, Malka is not a tenant at the enemy.
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov 28 November 2020 11: 35
          +4
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Malka needs a projectile with Goonnas and a barrel that will send 203mm to 100-120 km ... otherwise 152 / 155mm howitzers have already reached 70 km

          What for?
          The caliber used to compensate for the low accuracy. Now a high-precision projectile hits the BMP with 1 shot on guidance from a drone.
          For this, the mass of the explosive needs only a few KG, i.e. 152 is enough for the eye.

          The enlargement of the trunk is associated with a number of problems - the mass of the trunk and the platform itself increases nonlinearly.
          Due to the increase in size and weight, the rate of fire decreases.

          The electronics that are in the projectile does not tolerate the large overloads that the projectile is subjected to at the time of the shot.

          Those. modern art can throw a blank for tens of kilometers you mentioned 70 ...
          But the guided projectile is only 20 because electronics can't stand it.
          You also need to understand that the design of the projectile itself is changing - the walls must be thicker so as not to deform when fired in the barrel.
          Therefore, a guided projectile is certainly good, but in practice it is a dubious decision.
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 12: 26
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            The caliber used to compensate for the low accuracy. Now a high-precision projectile hits the BMP with 1 shot on guidance from a drone.

            The caliber starts to play when it is necessary to hit highly protected targets.
            A tank will have enough 155 mm, but no pillbox. And chasing attack aircraft with high-precision concrete-piercing bombs can be very expensive, especially if the enemy has air defense.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            The electronics that are in the projectile does not tolerate the large overloads that the projectile is subjected to at the time of the shot.

            Come on.
            Radar fuses for anti-aircraft missiles were created and produced by the millions back in World War II. On the lamps. ON LAMPS, CARL! For anti-aircraft guns, in which the muzzle velocity has never been low. What can we say about modern solid-state electronics.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            You also need to understand that the design of the projectile itself is changing - the walls must be thicker so as not to deform when fired in the barrel.

            If we are talking about concrete-piercing ammunition, then there is already a super-strong case with a relatively low filling of explosives.
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              Alexander Vorontsov 28 November 2020 13: 04
              -1
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              The caliber starts to play when it is necessary to hit highly protected targets. The tank and 155 mm are enough, but there is no pillbox.

              And where is the guarantee that 205 will be enough for "DotA" (abstract in a vacuum "highly secure")?
              Rough numbers ...
              Weight 152 - 50 kg
              Weight 205 - 100 kg
              According to modern (!) Concepts, 100 kg is not enough for any "highly protected". Enough only 50 years ago.
              For comparison, the mass of modern concrete-piercing aerial bombs, designed to defeat highly protected objects, 500 and 1500 kg.

              Come on.
              Radar fuses

              Iiii? Does this mean that they can withstand any overloads?
              In my opinion, it is obvious that if they could, Krasnopoli would already fly not 20 but 120 km. I do not think that the idea of ​​making the barrel "longer and thicker" so that it can be fired with a large charge and farther away is so complex and conceptually original that it never occurred to gunsmiths.

              We are talking precisely about launching a projectile at 120 km.
              How's the anti-aircraft guns in which "the initial velocity of the projectile was never small" hit 120 km?


              And chasing attack aircraft with high-precision concrete-piercing bombs can be very expensive, especially if the enemy has air defense.

              Artillery is in any case much cheaper than aviation.
              It is not clear only why then the principle of aviation exists, if "expensive and air defense".

              Your logic is clear - ideally it is to combine the cheapness of artillery with the possibility of aviation.
              So that from 1 barrel it was possible to shoot at 1000 km and produce the effect of a 1500 kg aerial bomb.
              But ... in fact, no one has yet succeeded in this, for reasons partially voiced by me above.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 13: 41
                -1
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                In my opinion, it is obvious that if they could, Krasnopoli would already fly not 20 but 120 km. I do not think that the idea of ​​making the barrel "longer and thicker" so that it can be fired with a large charge and farther away is so complex and conceptually original that it never occurred to gunsmiths.

                So you answered yourself.
                Krasnopol does not fly beyond 20 km, not so much because it cannot withstand overloads, but because the existing artillery systems are unable to throw it so far.
                And "the barrel is longer and thicker" - this is, excuse me, a new weapon. Which, due to the price, mass and limitations of mobility, will have another level of subordination.
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  Alexander Vorontsov 28 November 2020 13: 54
                  0
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  And "the barrel is longer and thicker" - this is, excuse me, a new weapon.

                  Excuse the same "Coalition".
                  And with a different barrel length.
                  And with another method of undermining the propellant charge, providing a different efficiency.
                  But Krasnopol did not fly further.

                  [b] Although I repeat, the idea of ​​such a "BAFA" of already known shells, such as increasing the gun and the range, is obvious and easy to implement.
                  For example, Malka's trunk is 11,2 meters. And thicker than Msta.
                  The Coalition and Msta have 7,9 and 7,14, respectively.

                  So to make a barrel under 152, in the dimensions of Malka, to throw high-precision Krasnopolis far away - well, that's not a problem at all.
                  But for some reason they didn't ...


                  I repeat - if it were possible - we would have flown 50 - 100 -120 -150 ...

                  Which, due to the price, weight and limitations of mobility, will have another level of subordination.

                  It is strange that these questions have never bothered you at all when it came to the defeat of pillboxes with a "different caliber".
                  Neither a question of mass, nor a question of rate of fire, when not one person is already carrying a 100-kg projectile, but three are carried on carts through the mud. You then wrote exclusively about the "shortcomings of aviation".
        3. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 11: 43
          +1
          and why should I shoot 120 km? the Americans tested LRLAP shells on Zumwalt, beautiful shells, they shoot at 140 km .. only sense if each shell costs 750 bucks, when the Tomahawk costs 000 million bucks .. Not to mention that that such a range requires a high flight profile, which makes it very easy to shoot it down ... the weapon should be not only effective, but also at a reasonable price .. stop So 55 km and adjustments will effectively crush enemy positions in the operational rear
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 28 November 2020 12: 42
            -1
            Quote: Boris Chernikov
            only good if each shell costs $ 750, when the Tomahawk costs $ 000 million

            As if 750 thousand is much less than 2 million.
            Plus questions of logistics, and the size of the ammunition.
            And it is much easier to shoot down the Ax.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 13: 40
              0
              yes, BUT the difference is that in the projectile how many kilos of explosive will be? 7 kilograms of strength? and in the Tomahawk? 2-3 centers + the range is an order of magnitude greater .. at a distance of 140 km, no one will shoot at a single tank, i.e. large and important targets will be hit ... but here one shell is hardly enough
  5. infantryman2020
    infantryman2020 28 November 2020 09: 46
    +4
    Someday, our Ground Forces will also start calculating logistics. And, for now, you give more calibers, good and different!
    But Peter I at one time overcame this problem (de-unification of aotillery), yes. We are waiting for a dialectical turn in military history.
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 11: 46
      0
      at the moment we don't have a lot of barreled artillery, which can shoot at least 35+ km ... so the approach is correct ... if the Coalition is a mega-bending machine, then maybe Malka will be sent to the reserve ... but this is not soon
  6. Mouse
    Mouse 28 November 2020 09: 48
    +3
    Life does not stand still ... everything is growing, everything is improving ...
  7. Yves762
    Yves762 28 November 2020 09: 52
    0
    what Well, I don’t even know ...
    All the same, this is already an atavism from the concept of artillery units of a special power reserve of the Supreme Command.
    The idea itself is still alive, but "such" its "solution" is already direct "anachronism". request
  8. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 28 November 2020 10: 08
    +3
    In fact, it is no longer a fact that such a gun will be cheaper than a rocket.
    When it was done, at a distance of 30 km, missiles of the "Hurricane" type simply could not hit a point target. And making a small-caliber missile guided was not just expensive, but an unaffordable luxury.
    Now the progress of electronics has changed everything dramatically, the projectile for the cannon has to be made controllable. And this is obviously more expensive than a rocket, only the loads when fired are orders of magnitude different. So, maybe Americans are right that they abandoned their big guns.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 28 November 2020 10: 35
      +1
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      When it was done, at a distance of 30 km, missiles of the "Hurricane" type simply could not hit a point target.

      I strongly doubt that in those years they could have hit a point target at 30 km from it ... There should be such an ellipse that a simple projectile cannot hit a point target with a high probability ..
    2. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 11: 57
      +1
      cheaper, since you do not need to spend money on a rocket engine
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 28 November 2020 12: 14
        +1
        Quote: Boris Chernikov
        no need to spend money on a rocket engine

        Well, yes, the powder charge is cheaper.
        But if you count the total, it's not a fact.
        Unless the cannon itself is free, for it was made a long time ago, back in a big state.
        1. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 28 November 2020 13: 36
          +1
          well, the barrel and the frame will be the same, it seems like stocks ... but the drives need to be made already automatic
  9. Kerensky
    Kerensky 28 November 2020 10: 25
    -2
    The point is to defuse the air defense / missile defense system. Iron dome type. 8 shots are enough for everyone to fly to catch these blanks.
    Well, what can you do with 203 mm cast iron in flight?
    1. V.I.P.
      V.I.P. 28 November 2020 11: 12
      +3
      To defuse the iron dome? laughing Do you think that such a huge and sedentary target can be dragged 30 km to the Iron Dome system? ..... About the notorious shock drones, about kamikaze drones, about MLRS and barrel artillery (remember the last two on a tip from reconnaissance drones). She will not have time to fire a shot, they will burn her. Her range is only to drive the Papuans. ....... And the Iron Dome analyzes the flight of the rocket, if it does not threaten the objects, then the "dome" does not shoot it down, it just falls in a place where there is nothing to defend .... The same Americans are testing a 155 mm gun with a firing range 100 km and by the way. successfully. True, they have a huge barrel length)) ..
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 28 November 2020 11: 17
      +3
      It will take Malka 8 minutes to fire 3 shells. What kind of air defense can be strained with such a rate of fire?
      1. Kerensky
        Kerensky 29 November 2020 07: 56
        0
        It will take Malka 8 minutes to fire 3 shells. What kind of air defense can be strained with such a rate of fire?

        If these projectiles create EMP, then air defense and drones will end. For a long time there have been developments in the ability to burn everything where there is at least one transistor. And the calculations will work visually, through a wire sight. Do they know how?
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 29 November 2020 10: 00
          0
          Is Malka fundamentally needed for this? Or will any tool work?
  10. mamontenok
    mamontenok 28 November 2020 10: 27
    -3
    Artillery is the queen of our endless fields! It will come in handy, no matter how someone sarcastic .. wink
  11. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2020 10: 35
    +7
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Of course not. If missiles were cheaper, barreled artillery would have died out long ago.

    At one time Nikita Sergeevich thought so and tried to replace all the "trunks" with missiles. History has shown that both are needed

    Quote: Dmitry Makarov
    The Americans developed a lot of things, the loot sawed only the noise stood, and then they safely refuse, supposedly they say something is wrong, but in real life they did nothing except the layout, and spent hundreds of $ Billions somewhere.

    At least they did not have such stupidity as we began to do thanks to Nikita Sergeevich in the mid 50s and early 60s. Artillery developments, incl. and were self-propelled. There were self-propelled guns and caliber 105, and 155, and 203 and long-range 175-mm. We even have work on new artillery systems slowed down.
  12. 113262a
    113262a 28 November 2020 10: 52
    0
    Alas, non-brothers also have peonies! And more! And they modernized them too. And they shoot at training grounds.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov 28 November 2020 14: 39
      0
      Quote: 113262
      Alas, non-brothers also have peonies! And more! And they modernized them too. And they shoot at training grounds.
      I am not in favor of underestimating potential threats, but there are a number of objective facts.
      1) Have you seen the report on how the Ukrainians modernized the 120 mm Molot mortar?
      2) As for shooting, in Ukraine there are problems even with 152-mm shells. After a series of "fires" at the ammunition depots, there was not that much ammunition left. It is not for nothing that the Ukrainians "attended to" the start of production. What are the results - you can also google it.
      1. 113262a
        113262a 29 November 2020 19: 54
        +1
        They have almost all the equipment and warehouses of the South-East Germany - Hungary and Czechoslovakia. He himself once participated in the unloading of platforms from there. Alas, shells for Peony, they have a shaft! As well as for Tulip and Hyacinth! Another thing is that all this is overdue, but Shostka works in three shifts! Including reloads.
  13. garri-lin
    garri-lin 28 November 2020 11: 20
    +2
    The new shells are very good. I hope they will be in the army and not on paper.
  14. bars1
    bars1 28 November 2020 11: 37
    +3
    Peony / Malka is good for destroying a surrounded enemy hiding in fortifications.
  15. rruvim
    rruvim 28 November 2020 12: 55
    +4
    Bekkhan Ibrahimovich does not even have an engineering education. Agricultural technical school does not count ...
    1. Note
      Note 28 November 2020 13: 45
      +5
      Bekkhan Ozdoev .. Ingush .. United Russia. From politicians to effective managers. Further along the knurled path. What is there to add
      1. rruvim
        rruvim 28 November 2020 15: 11
        +2
        which also includes ammunition of a new generation, has already been developed and sent to the Ministry of Defense for consideration. However, he did not give details of the proposed modernization option.
        Therefore, he did not bring that he did not know, but sent fellow
  16. Ros 56
    Ros 56 28 November 2020 14: 45
    -1
    And what about her range?
    Modernization is a good thing, of course, but twice a year, it is too much, it costs a lot.
  17. rruvim
    rruvim 28 November 2020 15: 45
    +5
    Here is Ozdoev - a typical Putin manager who cannot distinguish a milling machine from a lathe, but he industrial director from Chemezov. This is not Lavrenty Palych under socialism! Capitalism is now! And what does Ozdoev do in Chemezov's office, getting up from seven in the morning? Well, clearly not "Malkoy" ... Obviously - with his family and his costumes ... A simple question, a simple answer. And in the judiciary, he did it.
  18. rruvim
    rruvim 28 November 2020 16: 19
    +3
    That is why Bekkhan Ibrahimovich should broadcast anything at all. The number of "smalls" was classified even under the Peaceful Sky treaty, since part of them went to the rebels under the "Voentorg". Why does Ozdoev voice "some", I will note - SOME modernization these ACS. Does he lack money from the Ministry of Defense? Or Chemezov pays him little? Or other "comrades" pay Ibrahimovic if he decided to broadcast something. Who, in general, is in the system of "systemic" factories?
  19. yfast
    yfast 28 November 2020 18: 01
    0
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    Quote: Aron Zaavi
    Although China is already approaching you by these indicators.

    So they have both Chinese guns and shells.
    He shot once, shot twice, and on the third like this:

    Silumin barrel?
    1. 113262a
      113262a 29 November 2020 19: 56
      0
      It's okay! The consequences of sticking the trunk into the ground. From ancient times, tankers have scared spirits with such pictures!