Military Review

AU-220M "Baikal" (57 mm): prospects for practical use in future wars

182

Do you think that the "future" is behind the missiles with controlled detonation?

Yes, no doubt about it. - 261 (70.54%)
70.54%
Only a few types of weapons will be created; they will not receive mass distribution. - 92 (24.86%)
24.86%
No. This technology is not new and the fashion will soon pass. - 17 (4.59%)
4.59%

Photo: Vitaly V. Kuzmin, vitalykuzmin.net


Note. Since there can be many decisions on the basis of 57 mm caliber and projectiles with controlled detonation, a certain convention will be adopted within the framework of the article - to call them collectively "Baikal".

What is the advantage of guided blasting shells?


The fact is that to destroy an aircraft (aircraft), it is enough to destroy elements weighing only a few grams. As an example, we can consider the GGE (ready-made submunitions) of the BUK missile that shot down a Malaysian Boeing.

AU-220M "Baikal" (57 mm): prospects for practical use in future wars

As we can see, the largest elements weighing 8 grams are capable of piercing a large passenger airliner (taking into account the corresponding amount of explosives).

Of course, it is not planned to shoot at such large targets from the cannon air defense, and to defeat aircraft of a smaller size, striking elements weighing from 1 to 3 grams are quite enough.

With all this, the mass of the traditional 30-mm projectile used in the cannon component of the Pantsir is as much as 380 grams. The question is "why"?

The fact is that the less the mass of the projectile or striking element, the faster it loses its kinetic energy and the more it is exposed to external influences (wind, etc.), which has a detrimental effect on accuracy.

In order to hit any aerial target at an altitude of 2 m and the same distance, the projectile must fly about 000 km. And to destroy it, 3 PE with a mass of 10 grams is quite enough, that is, the final mass of the payload will be about 3 grams.

The rest of the mass of the projectile is, in fact, "ballast", the only purpose of which is to provide range.

Now let's consider an alternative solution from the German company Rheinmetall.


Photo: Oerlikon Contraves / rheinmetall-defence.com

A shell of a slightly larger caliber than that of Tunguska and Pantsir (35 mm versus 30 mm), is made in two versions with different mass and number of striking elements:

PMD062 - for larger targets, mass 1 GGE 3,3 g, and the total amount in one projectile 152 (it is noteworthy that the diameter of the "bullet" 5,45 - for understanding the scale),

PMD330 - for light drones, weight 1 GGE 1,24 g, which allows you to place inside already whole 407 pcs.

Moreover, both shells have the same total mass - 500 g.

The mass of the Baikal projectile in the caliber 57 mm is approximately 2800 g, which means that PE can be placed in it much more. In theory, one should focus on the quantity from 600 to 1 600 pieces, depending on the size of the PE. But for the sake of simplicity, you can take 1 as a number that is convenient for perception and close to the average. In this option, there is still a margin 300 g for explosives, which can be useful in a slightly different version of the ammunition when detonating and spreading PE in different directions, which can be useful for hitting manpower inside shelters.

Such a calculation allows you to take a fresh look at the effectiveness of the cannon complexes - Tunguska, Shilka and Pantsir (its barrel).

Since the defeat of an air target at such distances is a highly probabilistic event, classical cannon complexes achieve acceptable (at least somehow) performance by increasing the density of the salvo.

However, in terms of density, it turns out that where Shilka fires 1 rounds, only 000 projectile with a controlled detonation in 1 mm caliber will be needed.


Consequences of hitting a PE 35-mm projectile

Based on this, it is possible to evaluate in a new way the stock of BC announced in the presentations - from 80 pcs.

This is equivalent to 80 striking elements, while the armor of the Shell is only 000 shells.

Well, the legendary Shilka took maximum 4 shots with her.

In terms of practical rate of fire, traditional solutions also turn out to be much worse. So, for example, the total rate of fire of two Pantsir's cannons is 5 rounds per minute - the Baikal will send the same amount of PE to the target in just 000 seconds.

Syrian experience


Without a doubt, if "Baikal" existed by the time the operation began, then Syria would have become the finest hour of this module.

Among other things, the conflict in Syria is characterized by the widespread use of large calibers, as well as the use of artisanally modernized civilian models of vehicles as highly mobile firing points.

For example, installation in the back of a pickup truck ZU-23 (range 2,5 km) or ATGM TOW (4,5 km) is especially popular.


Statistics on the use of ATGMs is approximately as follows:

As of January 1, 2016, approximately 1 ATGM launches from anti-government groups were recorded in Syria, of which approximately 250 belong to the TOW ATGM and more than 790 to other systems.

According to other estimates

In January 2016, 46 launches were noted (of which 22 were TOW), in the period from February 1 to February 20, the militants used 64 ATGMs, which is the maximum figure for the same period since October 2015.

As a result, the fighters have the ability to quickly move into position, fire on government forces, and then leave just as quickly. At the same time, militants widely use homemade drones, which are also extremely cheap to manufacture.

Under such conditions, the Baikal module could become a very versatile tool, which would determine its tactical usefulness.

The combination of performance characteristics of the gun makes it ideal for destroying lightly armored pickup-type targets as quickly and cheaply as possible.

When using armor-piercing ammunition, the module is able to "shoot" almost any sample of light armored vehicles available to terrorists (and not only), and it is also more economically feasible than using an ATGM.

Protection from shahid-mobiles


The tactics of using shahidmobiles is especially popular among terrorists. Here is one of the illustrative episodes: Shahid-mobile blows up a soldier of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Federation (18+)

Both stationary targets (roadblocks) and small mobile units are attacked.

The artisanal armor of such shahidmobiles allows them to withstand hits from large-caliber machine guns. A gun tank and ATGMs can destroy it, but the chance to miss a maneuvering target remains great (as it happens in the video - the tank misses).
Of course, defense can be organized differently, when a tank and two ATGMs insure each other.

However, the energy and rate of fire of the 57th caliber solve this issue much more simply - the ability to penetrate, and at the same time provide a high density of fire, which guarantees the destruction of the Shahidmobile.

What is the rate of fire of the module?


The practical rate of fire of "Baikal" is of particular concern.

It is necessary to understand that it is technically possible to realize a rate of fire of up to 300 rounds per minute, as was done back in 2015 during the development of the naval version.

However, the first problem to be faced when realizing such a rate of fire is barrel overheating. In the marine version, it was planned to use outboard water as a coolant, since there is an abundance of it in the sea. Therefore, you can endlessly take a cold one, and simply pour a hot one overboard without bothering with the cooling system, as in the case of a closed-loop system.

Obviously, such a solution is not suitable for overland options.

Another problem that the land platform may face is the relatively large power industry.

So, for example, the variant with placement on the BMP-3 (weight up to 20 tons) has a declared rate of fire of 120 rds / min. But shooting does not mean hitting - if the carrier is not heavy and stable enough, and the height of the tower is too high, the gun will, in simple terms, swing the entire platform. That will make it impossible to target long-range (over 3 m) shooting at such a pace. As a result, aimed shooting will become possible only in the mode of fire with a low rate of 000–30 rounds per minute.

It will not be superfluous to mention that previously a 3-mm gun was installed on this platform (BMP-100) 2А70... A classic shell to which it has the following parameters.


That is, the muzzle energy does not exceed 470 kJ, while the 57 mm cannon gives out all 1 kJ.


BMP-3 with cannon 2А70

On the other hand, using a heavier and more stable platform solves this problem.

Therefore, one of the first applicants for the module can be considered BMPT Terminator.


Photo: Kirill Borisenko / Wikimedia

However, the problem of high muzzle energy, apparently, does not concern everyone. So, for example, Ukrainian gunsmiths welded a cannon from the S-60 to the 80's body (the vehicle weighs only 13 tons).


The module "Baikal" will look more organic on the BMP "Armata" T15. However, such a decision cannot be considered as an option for at least some significant saturation of the army with this weapons... At least for the next 5-10 years.


Another way to solve the problem of large energy is to implement the idea in the format of a stationary firing position, a variant of which is shown in the photo below.


A budget option is also possible in approximately the following design: on a gun carriage from the D-30, with 1 barrel and the possibility of manual guidance.


This solution will allow transporting the weapon on an external MI-8 sling, including to commanding heights, which will dramatically increase the firepower of the mobile airborne forces and special forces landing at these positions.

Sights


Various options and their combinations are also possible here. However, the following looks optimal - an optical-electronic sighting complex is installed on the machine itself, which captures and tracks targets, and in the absence of a radar station, detection.

The radar station is provided in two versions, installed on the complex itself and remote.

The operation of the optoelectronic complex cannot be detected, unlike the operation of a radar station, which can be very useful in a number of situations.

If the installations are used to protect an object from air attacks, the complexes are placed along the perimeter. Radar stations are also installed separately to provide target detection. And when the enemy uses ammunition that hits the radar stations, the installation itself remains intact, and after the destruction of one station, another can turn on, etc.

At the same time, something like this would be very useful to calibrate such an air defense system on the ground:Why the US Armed Forces use microplanes.

If the installation is supposed to be used as a mobile air defense system, the decision to turn on the radar station will be made by the commander based on the combat situation.

Tank support missions in Syria


With vast experience in urban battles, Syrian tankers speak very positively about Soviet tanks. However, one significant drawback was still identified - the lack of an internally controlled machine gun. In conditions when snipers are actively working on tanks, knocking out triplexes, there can be no question of leaning out of the tower.


Sniper Fire Damaged Triplexes

At the same time, experience has shown that tanks are extremely vulnerable between shots (about 8-10 seconds). This time is quite enough for the enemy to shoot at the tank from the RPG (though not always accurately).

Therefore, the tank is in great need of cover from the "second line" - for these tasks, a vehicle capable of firing 1-3 "preventive" shots at the supposed positions of the militants in the specified period of time, or aimed if, trying to burn the tank, the enemy himself will discover.

Thus, such a vehicle will have to have a BC that is 2-3 times larger than that of a tank, which is exactly what the versions based on Baikal would have.

Manpower work


Everything that was said before about work on air targets is fully true for the defeat of enemy manpower. The only difference is that the issue becomes more urgent.

The fact is that shooting at an air target is aimed. While a significant part of shots at a person are carried out rather "in the direction of the enemy."

Having discovered himself and realizing this, a person takes all actions in order to avoid defeat and leave the line of sight - he can fall to the ground, crawl to the bushes or to some kind of shelter.

Or another situation, more typical for the conflict in Donbass - the observation post discovered a sabotage group of the enemy and entered the battle, adjusting the fire of the main forces. In this case, the main forces will fire, again, in the direction of the enemy, working according to those landmarks that the advance group will tell them.

In such situations, a projectile with a controlled detonation, having inside 300 g Explosives (explosives), are much more effective than conventional shots, since they provide a large area of ​​destruction by shrapnel, including behind shelters (for example, by exploding behind a trench, or striking a person who is in a building out of line of sight, lying or to the side of the opening).

It will look something like this, only more powerful.


For comparison: defensive grenade F1 forms about 300 fragments with an average weight of 1,7 g.

Explosive in the amount of 60 g is enough to destroy manpower with these fragments within a radius of 100 meters.

In terms of the number of explosives and fragments, the projectile is close to the MON-50 mine, which provides a continuous defeat of enemy manpower at a distance of 50 meters. Of course, this result can only be achieved in the case of a directed explosion.

In our case, since the scatter will occur in all directions, it is appropriate to speak of a radius of 15 meters. At the same time, the lethal effect will remain up to 30 meters. The hit itself is simply not guaranteed.


Sniper position of militants in Syria. The easiest way is to throw a shell there.

Obviously, this is more than enough to destroy all living force located, for example, inside the room. Just like in MON-50, you can miss by 15 meters in a moving light vehicle and at the same time hit people inside. At such a distance, the effectiveness of light anti-fragmentation protection, designed, as a rule, to protect against fragments of RGD-5 and VOG-25, remains questionable.

Modernization potential of Soviet cars


In Russia, in 2016, there were about 2 T-500 tanks in storage, armed with a 55-mm cannon (versus modern calibers of 100-120 mm). Serial production of cars ended in 125. It is no longer possible to pull this tank to a level comparable to modern models (in terms of armament and armor) by means of adequate cost (which, however, does not prevent the Syrians from continuing to fight on them). However, its parameters are excellent for a machine operating from the second line. Replace the 1979 mm cannon with controlled blasting, hang some remote sensing and screens, put a birdhouse on top with a 57 machine gun and you will get an excellent tank support chariot.

The tank is also notable for the fact that it does not have automatic loaders; for these purposes, a loader is provided, which in Syria will be an undoubted advantage - replacing a crew member is easier than repairing the automatics. Loading can take place in clips of 3-4 projectiles, the weight of the clip will be in the region of 20-25 kg, which allows one person to easily cope with this operation.


Example of a 4-round magazine for a 40-mm cannon

At the same time, there is enough space in the tank to accommodate more than 100 57 mm shells.

As you can see in the video below, there is a lot of space in the tower (especially for Soviet tanks), and if you replace the cannon with a 57 caliber, it will become even more.


Causes for Cautious Optimism


In one of the previous articles on aviation, I wrote that in this area Russia for a long time did not pay due attention to the issues of ground handling of its aircraft fleet: How military aviation works.

But in the case of "Baikal" in this direction there are clear shifts - a special transport vehicle has been developed to facilitate the process of recharging the modules.

The body of this self-propelled crew is chock-full of ammunition and means to facilitate their loading into combat vehicles. Among other things, there are 592 57 mm projectiles, 2 cartridges in a 000 tape (7,62 boxes), and two sets of 10 caliber assault rifles with ammunition battery (you never know someone will need it on the front line).

A separate item that raises questions is 24 "aerosol munitions" in two packages. It is not entirely clear what is meant. Perhaps "smokes"? (If someone knows more precisely, write).

And also there is a set of spare parts and accessories.

SPTA-O - consumables designed to keep each machine in constant readiness during its operation. Spare parts for a single (individual) set of spare parts and accessories can be used by the driver (driver-mechanic) on the way to troubleshoot.

Quote from www.compancommand.com

The entire body is armored in class 4, that is, 5,45 and 7,62 must hold, if not point-blank.
That is, it is better not to substitute the car once again. You need to understand that this machine is not intended for transporting personnel, as, for example, MRAPs... The body is completely filled with ammunition and the weight that can be allocated to armor is very limited because of this.

According to the developer, preparations for replenishing the bookmaker take 5 minutes, and the bookmaker itself is replenished in 20 minutes.

Loading of the transport vehicle itself takes two hours. Apparently, time is spent on opening the transport containers in which the shells are transported.


Photo of the 9T260 vehicle based on the Urals from the Central Research Institute Burevestnik website

conclusions


This module has great prospects for use in various options for solving a wide range of tasks:

Defense fleet - the installation has every chance to replace the AK-630.

Object stationary air defense system (protection of any important objects), which at the same time is capable of working against ground targets. Moreover, it is in the naval version that this system can reveal its maximum potential (in view of the issues of energy and cooling).

Such modules will allow you to replace:

- tank support vehicles;

- a universal vehicle for reinforcing subunits, capable of effectively shooting down light drones, working on manpower (ATGM calculations, prospective observation posts and sniper positions), capable of effectively destroying lightly armored enemy equipment (armor-piercing shells), due to a significant advantage in armament. At the same time, the defeat of weakly armored vehicles (often in artisanal conditions) such as pickups is possible with standard fragmentation ammunition;

- a fire aid on duty for checkpoints and border outposts, including a helicopter-transported version.
Author:
Photos used:
https://zen.yandex.ru/, wikipedia.org, https://zen.yandex.ru/, https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/, http://www.burevestnik.com/, http://oruzhie.info/
182 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 18 January 2021 06: 01
    +11
    It is a pity that they could not bring to mind the automatic 45-millimeter paper for the BMP. It would be the most!
    1. lucul
      lucul 18 January 2021 06: 13
      +13
      It is a pity that they could not bring to mind the automatic 45-millimeter paper for the BMP. It would be the most!

      45mm is also a good weapon, but 57mm loses in firing range.
      About the Baikal module, in my opinion, everything was discussed here, 2 years ago, and only now, for many, the obviousness becomes visible)))
      1. Profiler
        Profiler 18 January 2021 06: 52
        +14

        Sniper position of militants in Syria. The easiest way is to throw a shell there.


        Such a "city" and a ZU-23 will be blown apart, not to mention the 30mm 2A42 BMP-2, and 57mm "cucumber", simple, without remote detonation, will be even redundant. but mentally yes
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 18 January 2021 08: 54
          0
          Such a "city" and ZU-23 will be blown apart, not to mention the 30mm 2A42 BMP-2, and 57mm "cucumber", simple, without remote detonation, will be even redundant, but mentally
          well, if so! :)) then 40 mm. A shot, an automatic grenade launcher is enough to crush adobe walls in the "Palestinians" of all sorts, especially 40 mm. shots, their various types, we have done in the Union with a proper excess, you can't imagine cheaper ... :)
      2. Hagen
        Hagen 18 January 2021 07: 27
        +2
        Quote: lucul
        45mm is also a good weapon, but 57mm loses in firing range.

        Considering the altitude of modern UAVs, and they (some) are already taking over 10, one can think of a gradual return to 000 mm anti-aircraft guns, of course, with modern control systems and the nomenclature of BPs. For the notorious Bayraktar today, 85 mm is no longer a threat.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 18 January 2021 08: 32
          +7
          Quote: Hagen
          Considering the altitude of modern UAVs, one can think of a gradual return to 85 mm anti-aircraft guns,

          What is there to think about? Already thought before you .... by the Iranians! They did not start scrapping their 100-mm anti-aircraft guns, but modernized them ...: equipped them with new radars, a fire control system ... The main purpose of anti-aircraft guns is now to combat UAVs. The Vietnamese did their best with their 100-mm, 85-mm, 57-mm anti-aircraft guns ... They also upgraded similarly to the Iranians ... Purpose: to combat helicopters, UAVs, low-speed aircraft such as "anti-guerrilla attack aircraft" ...
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 18 January 2021 08: 41
            +2
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            Already thought before you .... by the Iranians!

            Well done! KS-19 can be brought to the modern level and take them targets up to 15 km, the Reaper, for example ...
        2. Intruder
          Intruder 18 January 2021 08: 43
          +4
          Given the altitude of modern UAVs
          what ??? High-altitude, all heavy class, of course, it is better to use URV already, but light and medium, plus loitering ammunition, you can shoot down with a similar system, only the question of the radar / OELS remains open !?
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 18 January 2021 08: 49
            +1
            Quote: Intruder
            what ???

            Well, at least a promising Bayraktar Akıncı ....
            1. Intruder
              Intruder 18 January 2021 09: 00
              +1
              only an airborne missile system, or some kind of air defense system ... :)))
              1. Hagen
                Hagen 18 January 2021 11: 57
                0
                Quote: Intruder
                only an airborne missile system, or some kind of air defense system ... :)))

                Is not a fact. It is necessary to calculate the economy ..... the prices of a shot, M&E systems of the product.
        3. Hermit21
          Hermit21 18 January 2021 10: 08
          +1
          The notorious "Bayraktar" has a shitty OES, from which he cannot see further than 2-3 kilometers. Therefore, it is feed not only for 2A91, but also for 2A38
        4. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 18 January 2021 15: 45
          +1
          Quote: Hagen
          For the same notorious Bayraktar today, 57 mm is no longer a threat.

          Well, in principle, it is possible to use sub-caliber projectiles in the future (40-mm combat elements in a 57-mm container ...) and thereby increase the height reach ...
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 18 January 2021 16: 12
            +1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            Well, in principle, you can use sub-caliber shells in the future.

            The trunk will be expensive and with little resource. Despite the fact that there are no obstacles to entering a new, larger caliber. You just need to rummage through the archives. And the OMS will need to be updated anyway. Again, if it is economically and technologically more affordable than using the ZR. Yet even Bayraktar TV2 has already been priced 5 lemons with greens in the market. Obviously, they will not use it in a swarm ...
            1. seregatara1969
              seregatara1969 18 January 2021 17: 15
              0
              Why until now has no one attached the finished 57 mm zenith to the truck platform? No trunks left? Wouldn't shoot bad
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 21 January 2021 18: 25
                0
                Patamushta will roll over wassat

                This is how ZU-23-2 pulls.
                And like this ZSU-57-2:

                I think it's easy to compare hi
              2. Alexander Vorontsov
                21 January 2021 20: 22
                0
                Quote: seregatara1969
                In fact, all these small-caliber guns are fast-firing and, accordingly, entering the program into the shells should be very fast, and I know from experience that programming is not a quick and capricious thing

                I am delighted by readers who write questions or statements in the comments indicating that they have not read at least half of the article - specifically in this episode that part of it, where it is written about muzzle energy and platform mass ...

                So, for example, the variant with placement on the BMP-3 (weight up to 20 tons) has a declared rate of fire of 120 rds / min. But shooting does not mean hitting - if the carrier is not heavy and stable enough, and the height of the tower is too high, the gun will, in simple terms, swing the entire platform. That will make it impossible to target long-range (over 3 m) shooting at such a pace. As a result, aimed shooting will become possible only in the mode of fire with a low rate of 000–30 rounds per minute.
      3. Sckepsis
        Sckepsis 19 January 2021 17: 54
        0

        the evidence becomes visible)))

        Is it obvious that this is a waste of resources?
      4. 3danimal
        3danimal 29 January 2021 00: 26
        +1
        The projectile is MUCH larger than 30mm. Accordingly, you need a telescopic ammunition.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 18 January 2021 12: 23
      +4
      Alexander Vorontsov, a lot of text, but they forgot to tell the main thing.
      How is the measurement carried out to the object where it is necessary to detonate the projectile?
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 18 January 2021 15: 10
        +1
        Quote: Bar1
        How is the measurement carried out to the object where it is necessary to detonate the projectile?

        Yes, as possible, and measured! And who likes it ... The range to the target is measured by radar or laser rangefinder, for example ... The speed of the projectile is known and is included in the program. The computer, based on the distance to the target and the speed of the projectile, and the given distance of the detonation of the projectile in front of the target, calculates the moment of detonation and the data is put into the projectile timer at the moment it leaves the barrel! Data transmission (programming) can be carried out by induction, a laser beam, an infrared beam, a radio channel. (Programming can be carried out not at the moment the projectile leaves the barrel, but while the projectile is placed in the chamber (loading) using even a contact programmer ...) But all this described applies when firing at stationary (short-term "stationary") targets! A more complex algorithm is obtained when shooting at moving (highly mobile) targets! I believe that in this case it is easier to use projectiles with a proximity fuse (infrared, laser, radio frequency ...) In the case of using a remotely programmable fuse of the above described type, the effectiveness of this, very expensive fuse is significantly reduced! We'll have to use a differential-rangefinder system with radio command detonation, for example ... In short, you can't do without a sufficiently advanced fire control system!
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 18 January 2021 15: 20
          -1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Yes, as possible, and measured! And how does anyone like it ..


          did you come up with it yourself? Is there a link to such actions?
          There are doubts about what, all these small-caliber guns are fast-firing and, accordingly, the input of the program into the shells should be very fast, and I know from experience that programming is not a fast and capricious thing, if there is no contact, but in the conditions of shooting this can be, then there is no programming .So it would be necessary to hear the opinion of a specialist.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 18 January 2021 15: 55
            +1
            Quote: Bar1
            did you come up with it yourself? Is there a link to such actions?

            Yes, God be with you (!) .. one more thing: invent or look for links! My comment is based on information posted on the Internet and not made up! And now there is no time to search for a link (especially since more than one may be needed!) ... another business needs to be urgently taken up ... I disappear temporarily from the pages of VO ...
          2. Tamer
            Tamer 18 January 2021 21: 28
            +3
            Quote: Bar1
            did you come up with it yourself? Is there a link to such actions?
            There are doubts about what, all these small-caliber guns are fast-firing and, accordingly, the input of the program into the shells should be very fast, and I know from experience that programming is not a fast and capricious thing, if there is no contact, but in the conditions of shooting this can be, then there is no programming .So it would be necessary to hear the opinion of a specialist.

            For 35mm Oerlikon - at a muzzle velocity of about 1050 m / s, the entire process of measuring the muzzle velocity, calculating and programming the projectile takes less than 0,002 seconds
          3. Devil13
            Devil13 25 January 2021 08: 34
            0
            And why did it not prevent the Americans at the age of 45 from making radio explosions of shells and liquidation in height, but in 2020 it does?
            And there is also a bunch of automatic equipment from 20 to 37mm foreign with a rate of fire up to 200 which does not interfere with?
            Explore world solutions. Only we are in the ass, we shoot like WWII. The whole world has long gone ahead, and believes that a slightly more expensive shell is better than 30 of the same but without detonation.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 12
              0
              The radio fuse reacts to the proximity of an object, and the sky is usually empty.
              Here it is necessary to ensure undermining strictly at a certain distance from the gun.
        2. Tcheluskin
          Tcheluskin 24 January 2021 17: 20
          0
          The projectile speed is known and is included in the program.

          It's still trickier there. Since the initial velocity of the projectiles in reality can vary somewhat, at the exit from the barrel there is first a pair of velocity measurement sensors, and then, taking it into account, the detonation time is programmed without contact.




          There is also a solution without measuring the speed - to program not the time before detonation, but the number of revolutions of the projectile around the axis.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 24 January 2021 17: 53
            0
            Yes, there are different solutions for effective remote programming! Measurement of the real speed of a given ammunition at the moment it leaves the barrel is carried out with the "induction" method ... otherwise, it is possible to take into account the programmed speed of the ammunition! But, even with the "other" method, there remains the possibility of improving this method ... programming is getting more expensive! You don't always need a "super-duper" shell (!) ... in some cases, just "super" is enough! yes
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 10
            0
            IMHO, it is safer to count the number of revolutions.
        3. avdkrd
          avdkrd 4 March 2021 10: 04
          0
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          We'll have to use a differential-rangefinder system with radio command detonation, for example ... In short, you can't do without a sufficiently advanced fire control system

          This is a vegetable garden. The radio command system is redundant and unreliable. And why? Having a distance to the target (in any way), the projectile is programmed at the moment of the shot. Calculating the distance to the target, taking into account its speed, is a long-time solved problem. There is an automatic target tracking even in BMP 3 and it makes all the corrections for speed. What is characteristic is that the projectile itself calculates the distance according to the number of revolutions around the axis, that is, the fuse is quite simple and cheap. I see no problem with replacing the standard fuse with a new one for old projectiles. In short, the scheme has been worked out, on the arms market there are many systems with controlled detonation, in Caliber 35-40mm, including modernization kits for old guns. Such a kit includes a laser rangefinder, a programmer and a projectile (fuse). I won't say exactly, but it seems from Bofors.
          Under 57mm there was a US project in Caliber 57mm for air purposes. There is a different principle and price. Perhaps it is necessary for the memory, and then not for every target, but for a universal artillery system, controlled detonation is more than sufficient.
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 18 January 2021 15: 38
      0
      Quote: Sahalinets
      could not bring to mind the automatic 45-millimeter paper for the BMP.

      Well, it's a moot point! The fact is that now we have to think about the export of weapons outside "the borders of our Motherland"! Who needs a 45mm caliber? 35 mm and 40 mm calibers are "popular" in the armies of the world! There is some tendency towards 50mm caliber (Germany, USA). This is what we can assume! It is possible to create bicaliber art installations: 40/45 mm ... 45/50 mm ... 40/50 mm ... and even tricaliber ... 35/40/45 mm or 40/45/50 mm .. ...
  2. Graz
    Graz 18 January 2021 06: 02
    -4
    I don't know a photo with the Consequences of being hit by a PE 35-mm projectile
    honestly not inspiring. the structure itself is not destroyed
    damage as for me is weak
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 18 January 2021 08: 30
      +1
      In the target area, he will not alone explode
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 18 January 2021 15: 19
      +3
      Quote: Graz
      I don't know a photo with the Consequences of being hit by a PE 35-mm projectile
      honestly not inspiring. the structure itself is not destroyed
      damage as for me is weak

      How to say, the penetrations are through. Various delicate electronics or a fuel tank on the other side of the plate would surely get sick. Such perforation will not add health to the wings and tail unit either. After a couple of such buns, a conventional UAV may well want to lie on the ground.
    3. Piramidon
      Piramidon 18 January 2021 22: 04
      0
      Quote: Graz
      I don't know a photo with the Consequences of being hit by a PE 35-mm projectile
      honestly not inspiring. the structure itself is not destroyed
      damage as for me is weak

      So they are not intended to destroy tanks. And imagine that instead of a shield with a target there will be an aircraft or a living organism?
  3. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 18 January 2021 06: 06
    +1
    Aerosol munition puts out an aerosol cloud. Disguise. Obstacle to aiming. Learn how aerosol grenades work with a curtain complex. Or type in the search -AEROSOL MEANS OF PROTECTING OBJECTS OF ARMORED MILITARY EQUIPMENT
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 18 January 2021 08: 49
      -3
      Aerosol ammunition puts out an aerosol cloud. Disguise.
      and ..., not in all climatic conditions the aerosol will hang in the atmosphere for a long time, then temperature, wind and other negative phenomena ...
      To the heap, well, you can increase the target consumption of the bookmaker, for a similar goal !?
      Or cancellation of interference in the optical range, if OELS is used, there is a lot that can be done to compensate in the field of aerosol types of protection ... Although if you also cover everything around with a metal-aerosol type ...
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 18 January 2021 08: 57
        +1
        Therefore, it is used in a complex. There is never enough protection)
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 18 January 2021 09: 02
          0
          I agree, security is always lacking in any option :) as well as money, time and health !!!
  4. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 18 January 2021 06: 11
    +5
    For 17 years, the number of tanks in service more than 3000 and in storage more than 10000.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 18 January 2021 06: 58
      +7
      and more than 10000 in storage.
      Here are the finished module carriers. What to be wise with Armat and others like them, everything has already been invented before us.

      Problems with the projectile or what? Or is it just necessary to decide how to hit the target - ready-made elements or fragments of the cut shell of the projectile? Radio blasting as such has been massively used by the Americans in anti-aircraft shells since 1942. What are our pitfalls ???
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 18 January 2021 07: 55
        +5
        Quote: NDR-791
        What are our pitfalls ???

        Obviously the same ones that forced the Americans to abandon anti-aircraft missiles with radio explosions and switch to guided missiles and small-caliber guns with a very high rate of fire.
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 18 January 2021 08: 12
          +5
          Obviously the same ones that forced the Americans to abandon anti-aircraft missiles with radio explosions and switch to guided missiles and small-caliber guns with a very high rate of fire.
          I don't quite agree. At that time, guidance systems did not allow a single projectile to be sent close enough to the target for sustained detonation, especially with the advent of truly high-speed aviation. The missiles seemed to be more suitable platforms for placing the guidance electronics and, in contrast to the projectiles, were controlled. Radio fuses were not inserted into the M-61 and GAU-8A small-caliber shells. But we're talking about modern times and about the 57mm caliber. And for the weapon, it is initially more accurate. And the anti-aircraft orientation of the module we are talking about is still secondary.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 18 January 2021 08: 31
            +1
            There is a fundamentally irresistible point here. An aerial target is capable of changing speed and trajectory. But the shell is not. Those. it is necessary to predict the position of the target even before the shot, and here no aiming accuracy will help. So I think that it will not work to hit combat UAVs with one shot - you will have to fire a volley.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 18 January 2021 08: 55
              +4
              Quote: SVD68
              An aerial target is capable of changing speed and trajectory. But the shell is not.

              On the one hand, yes. But not everything is so bad: the aerial target will not maneuver continuously (especially if it does not yet know that it was discovered and began to fire); UAVs and missiles, all the more, will not twist somersaults (in the general case). We add shooting in bursts, and the shells can be "left" in those directions where the target can potentially turn. And now it is quite.
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 18 January 2021 13: 28
                0
                We add shooting in bursts, and the shells can be "left" in those directions where the target can potentially turn. And now it is quite.
                the ballistic computer must be installed, and the RTR or OELS modules, with their sensors near the UAV, will just detect the fact of irradiation by stations of ground-based complexes ...
            2. Intruder
              Intruder 18 January 2021 13: 31
              0
              It will not work to hit the combat UAVs - you will have to fire a volley.
              why, a lead is taken and the ballistic parameters of the target are fired, without this there is no way at air targets ...
      2. Intruder
        Intruder 18 January 2021 08: 37
        0
        What are our pitfalls ???
        the cost of the ammunition itself and the detonation system on the chassis, the microelectronics there is overbearing ... :), plus mass production, you can't buy it separately, the products are not of civilian origin, so sanctions and other unpleasant questions arise ...
        1. Petro_tut
          Petro_tut 18 January 2021 13: 04
          0
          plus mass production

          Mass production is an indisputable plus, with it the output products are much cheaper
      3. Intruder
        Intruder 18 January 2021 08: 40
        +3
        Here are the finished module carriers. What to be wise with Armat and others like them, everything has already been invented before us.
        it is possible to put on the T-72 chassis, too many of them are stored, as a cheaper option and there is enough armor !? But it can be seen that then there is no way to achieve a significant rise in price, for the management of the corresponding structures :)
      4. 3danimal
        3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 14
        0
        There is NO radio detonation in the programmed projectile. This is a completely different technology.
  5. sen
    sen 18 January 2021 06: 32
    +3
    Now let's consider an alternative solution from the German company Rheinmetall.

    The 35-mm gun from Rheinmetall is capable of intercepting artillery shells, mines, missiles, UAB.
    I wonder if a 57-mm projectile with remote detonation can do the same thing? Can make a shell similar to PMD062 and PMD330.
    1. mark2
      mark2 18 January 2021 07: 00
      +1
      35 mm gun from Rheinmetall is capable of intercepting artillery shells, mines, missiles, UAB

      Popular Mechanics magazine?
      I wonder if a 57-mm projectile with remote detonation can do the same thing? Can make a shell similar to PMD062 and PMD330

      Sure, not a problem. Already doing. Soon they will write there. Wait.
  6. Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 18 January 2021 07: 49
    +2
    I wonder if the author knows what a 57 caliber is? The term “controlled disruption” is constantly used without explaining what it is. Do you mean a radio fuse or a remote fuse? These are two different things. It is pointless to shoot shells with a radio fuse at infantry, with a remote fuse it is very difficult and most likely also pointless, and in the aggregate it is insanely expensive. By the way, shrapnel has long been invented for firing at manpower, and a notch made from the inside is used to increase the effectiveness of the fragmentation effect of small-caliber shells.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 18 January 2021 08: 34
      +6
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      for firing at manpower, shrapnel was invented for a very long time, and a notch made from the inside is used to increase the effectiveness of the fragmentation effect of small-caliber shells.

      The notch only orders the size of the fragments. Shrapnel, i.e. ammunition with a large number of ready-made striking elements, dramatically increases the effectiveness of shooting, which, in fact, the author writes about.
      But it doesn't make sense without controlled disruption.
      Previously used a remote fuse in the form of a pyrotechnic retarder
      - analogue of a fuse in a hand grenade. Then came electronic, radio command and radar fuses.
      And the price depends only on the production technology.
      With a circulation of millions, all this, even with modern technologies, will cost tens of rubles.
      The only question is whether there are such technologies in Russia.
      But here, unfortunately, there are doubts.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 18 January 2021 10: 15
        +3
        Everything is correct, but there are nuances. Small-caliber ammunition has almost no room for placing submunitions inside the projectile. The question immediately arises - what to give preference to - the number and size of the striking elements, or the mass of explosives. In the first case, the density of PE increases, in the second, the range of damage. But you still need to leave a place for the fuse. And the problem becomes multifactorial, because it also depends on the guidance accuracy, rate of fire, ammunition ready for firing (in the clip / in the tape), the speed of the gun pointing, etc. It's not just that all countries of the world have focused their main efforts on FORA small caliber and SAM.
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 18 January 2021 12: 57
          0
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          It's not just that all countries of the world have focused their main efforts on FORA small caliber and SAM.

          Previously, the radio fuse did not stupidly fit in a small caliber, so they made missiles.
          Now the Americans have made it in 35 mm caliber.
          Ours mastered 57 mm. I do not know what is there, a radio command or just a timer, but they mastered it.
          The author calculated everything about the density of the PE.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 18 January 2021 17: 52
            0
            If the timer, then it's about nothing, it's cheaper to shoot with conventional contact fuses. If it is a radio fuse, then it must be counted. By the way, they switched to missiles not for this, their main advantage over the projectile is that they are controlled. Well, the range, of course.
            1. Jacket in stock
              Jacket in stock 19 January 2021 06: 12
              -1
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              If the timer, then it's about nothing, it's cheaper to shoot with conventional contact fuses.

              Not, not cheaper. Even with our poor electronics.
              Even missiles do not hit the target, and some do not even try. Therefore, there is always a proximity fuse.
              And getting into a small maneuvering target with a cannon is a matter of luck. Therefore, they beat with bursts of six barrels, at least one, but accidentally hit.
              A smart projectile increases the hit probability by several orders of magnitude.
              And the programmable timer takes into account the real speed of the projectile at the exit from the barrel, which also increases the accuracy of detonation.
  7. garri-lin
    garri-lin 18 January 2021 08: 05
    +2
    When working on infantry, most of the GGE goes into the air. Why not take care of a controlled detonation so that most of the fragments flew into the lower hemisphere. Technically it is possible. Economically sound
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 11: 32
      0
      You'd better attach such a thing to a mortar. The mine is already heading down towards the target, and if it is blown up at a height of 20-30 meters ...
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 18 January 2021 12: 10
        0
        Mine nose rests against the ground and sweeps everything around with fragments. At the projectile, most of the fragments go into the sky. The GGE can be placed in the central part of the projectile, along the longitudinal axis. And three explosive charges in flat tiles between the shards and the hull. One of the charges will be detonated by the sensor signal. So that all the fragments go in a beam in one direction. A 45 degree angle is almost ideal. Thus, most of the mass of the projectile will "fly away" in the desired direction.
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 15: 47
          0
          Well, blow up the mine before contact with the ground and that's all. Shrapnel shirt, respectively, only from the side of the muzzle. Accordingly, the fragments will not go straight into the ground, but along a cone of a given radius.

          The mine does not rotate, it's easier to count. If only a laser range finder could be screwed into this mine and exploded 20 meters above the ground. And no remote blasting is needed.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 19 January 2021 01: 05
            0
            Laser rangefinder in every mine?
            1. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 19 January 2021 01: 31
              0
              Why not? In these conditions it is not expensive, because 30 meters and a single actuation.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 19 January 2021 07: 32
                0
                Overload and noise immunity. It won't be cheap.
                1. Sancho_SP
                  Sancho_SP 19 January 2021 19: 03
                  0
                  I believe it is much cheaper than a guided projectile. And with overloads, the mortar is simpler, and the use is still massive, even 10% of failures are not critical.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 19 January 2021 19: 24
                    0
                    It can be so.
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 21 January 2021 18: 54
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      Why not take care of a controlled detonation so that most of the fragments flew into the lower hemisphere.

      There was a number of works on this topic (though not for small-caliber artillery, but for normal artillery) - they also considered options with a controlled blasting in one direction, and "deploying" two halves of the projectile towards the target, there was also an option with the "opening" of the projectile as in flower.
      But all the options were found to be unnecessarily complex and expensive. I think, and with small-caliber artillery, there will be the same verdict.
      Cheaper, easier and more reliable to shoot 2-3 cheaper shells.
      Although, it is really easy to implement this, and even easier - take at least the same 3P Boforsky, and add a module with micro nozzles in the head part - the fire is fired 2-3 m above the target, the micro nozzle is triggered above the target, and "turns" the projectile in front of blasting down - in the cut, the fragments will go almost vertically down.
      Well this is me, purely as a warm-up for the mind repeat
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 21 January 2021 19: 14
        0
        This is not a warm-up. A quite working option. The path taken by the projectile in flight is often measured by the projectile speed. Consequently, there are sensors for the position of the projectile in space. According to their data, it is quite possible to form an idea about at what moment and in which direction the projectile should be turned.
  8. Ros 56
    Ros 56 18 January 2021 08: 07
    0
    Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you rework the Shilka (increase the caliber to 30-45 mm, diversify the ammunition, etc.), then this machine against UAVs at altitudes up to 2000-2500 m will be the very thing. Yes, and I think it will pull on lightly armored ground vehicles.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 11: 30
      +2
      That will be Tunguska)

      On the other hand, on small ones, something like Vulcan or ShKAS is more interesting.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 16
      0
      Why 4 barrels?
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 29 January 2021 07: 29
        0
        To increase the density of the fragmentation field, which is exactly what is required to destroy small UAVs.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 29 January 2021 08: 07
          0
          Why only 4? Not 3 or 7? And not gatling?
          Why not increase the accuracy of the weapon?
  9. mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 18 January 2021 08: 23
    0
    The rate of fire of the AU "Baikal" is 120 rounds per minute, the mass of a second salvo is 2 * 2.800 = 5.600
    The rate of fire of the Shell is 5000 rounds per minute, the mass of a second salvo is 810 * 0.3 = 54.30
    The numbers do not beat, the Carapace has a fire density 10 times higher.
    1. mr.ZinGer
      mr.ZinGer 18 January 2021 09: 18
      +2
      Morning, I apologize for the error in the calculation 81 * 0.3 = 24,3 kg. The weight of a second volley from the Shell is about 5 times more.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 11: 21
        +1
        It is not the mass of a second salvo that is more important here, but the density of damage in the dispersion zone and the size of this zone at a distance.

        Roughly speaking, at a certain distance, a small UAV will simply "pass between the drops." With a certain probability, again.
        1. mr.ZinGer
          mr.ZinGer 18 January 2021 11: 27
          +1
          And how to assess the density of the lesion, this value is again a derivative of a second salvo. The author somehow manipulates numbers very freely, with a minimum of explanations.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 11: 45
            +1
            And here you have to dance from the accuracy of aiming. A huge second salvo is generally needed to compensate for the low accuracy.


            Moreover, if the target is any large, it is also necessary to take into account how many hits it will need on average.
          2. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 18 January 2021 13: 00
            -1
            Quote: mr.ZinGer
            how to estimate the density of the lesion, this value is again a derivative of a second salvo.

            Shell has one projectile = one PE.
            Baikal has one shell = 1000 PE.
            So much for the density.
            The author chewed everything up quite intelligibly.
            1. mr.ZinGer
              mr.ZinGer 18 January 2021 13: 39
              -1
              Do you think that this is a 300 g projectile and a striking element weighing 1 ... 2 grams.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 18 January 2021 14: 10
                0
                It depends on why. For an armored attack aircraft or a helicopter, of course, incomparable. And for "weapons of destruction" in the form of rather flimsy missiles or UAVs, it is quite comparable.
                1. mr.ZinGer
                  mr.ZinGer 18 January 2021 15: 08
                  +1
                  About this speech, the author compares incomparable things.
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 18
                  0
                  A cruise missile with local armor (a la Granite)?
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 29 January 2021 01: 56
                    0
                    Granite has no reservation. And there is a solid case for breaking through the target's body and resisting overloads. A massive rocket with such a body will not be cheap. And the future road would be a worthy target for other interceptors.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 29 January 2021 02: 01
                      0
                      When there are 10+ such flies, decent funds may not be enough and ZAK goes into business. A 20mm sub-caliber can detonate a warhead, but what will 1-3g GGE do in 1-2 km from the ship's side?
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 29 January 2021 07: 24
                        0
                        It is almost impossible to detonate a warhead. Fuel is available. 20-30mm versus solid target is preferred. As I wrote.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 29 January 2021 08: 04
                        0
                        Fuel can

                        How? Fuel vapors detonate.
                        It is almost impossible to detonate a warhead

                        I met information that at a BOPS speed of 1100+ m / s it is just possible.
          3. 3danimal
            3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 17
            +1
            There is a nuance: the size of the PE for Shell and Baikal.
        2. Tamer
          Tamer 18 January 2021 22: 02
          +3
          Quote: mr.ZinGer
          And how to assess the density of the lesion, this value is again a derivative of a second salvo. The author somehow manipulates numbers very freely, with a minimum of explanations.

          The author just didn't tell much))
          Photo "Consequences of hitting PE 35-mm" without specifying the type of projectile)) PMD062, PMD330, PMD375?

          For PMD062 (152 GGE) - at a distance of 30 m, a cloud of striking elements with a diameter of 5,25 m, an area of ​​21,6 m2 is formed, and there are 1 striking elements per 2 m7.
          As the striking elements move away from the point of detonation of the projectile, the density of the fragmentation field, the speed of the fragments and their penetrating ability change.
          The developer estimates the consumption of PMD062 for the destruction of anti-ship missiles - about 25 pcs.

          The author did not tell about the 30 mm air blast ammunition from Erlikon))

          If interested, read
          http://btvt.narod.ru/4/rarn_airburst.htm
  10. 3danimal
    3danimal 29 January 2021 08: 11
    +1
    At Carapace, the cannons are 2m apart, which reduces accuracy. A solution like Vulcan or Shilka is better.
    IMHO, it is necessary to use separately ZAK and SAM in a single bundle.
    Separately, there is the problem of Pantsir with the need to accompany missiles to the target.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 18 January 2021 08: 33
    +1
    However, the following looks optimal - an optoelectronic sighting system is installed on the machine itself, which captures and tracks targets, and in the absence of a radar station, detection.
    excuse me, however .... :))) Controlled detonation of the projectile, which means there is a radio module in the projectile and in the airborne armament complex, and yet it still "shines" when fired, in the radio spectrum !? :))) OELS, of course, it can also "shine" in a pulsed mode by controlling the time of detonation of the ammunition on the trajectory .... but it is unlikely that this will be put there .., plus, again, illumination on the target and the subsequent detection of laser radiation with all the ensuing consequences for this installation. ..
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 18 January 2021 08: 34
    -1
    For tank support, 37mm and 45mm can be considered. The BC will be bigger and everything that needs to be punched and amazed. 57mm is good for anti-aircraft fire. Moreover, these are different machines and different shells. By air - with remote detonation (mainly), by land - PF and BOPS and some part with remote detonation.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 18 January 2021 08: 53
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      you can see 37mm and 45mm.

      Nonsense is complete!
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 January 2021 09: 33
        0
        Well, you can look at the main calibers of competitors. Maximum on BMP - new American - 50mm Bushmaster. And so - 35mm-50mm
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 18 January 2021 10: 51
          -2
          And ours are better. The Pakinsty train was shot
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 21 January 2021 19: 33
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      you can see 37mm and 45mm.

      You can't. These calibers are not in service. There are no weapons for shooting, there is no production and development of shells in such a caliber.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 21 January 2021 20: 30
        0
        And where did you get the 57mm from? You can get 37-45mm from there. And with shells, too.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 21 January 2021 20: 58
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Where did you get 57mm from?

          This projectile is in service, the Navy uses 57mm gun mounts, the Burevestnik has been offering its AU220M for many years, now others (UVZ, for example) have joined this topic and are actively developing combat modules and projectiles in this caliber.
          37mm and 45mm calibers have died many, many years ago.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 18 January 2021 08: 57
    +1
    The author and who told you that Boeing was shot down by Buk? Stop repeating this nonsense. Not a single real Buk missile was found.
    1. KCA
      KCA 18 January 2021 09: 45
      0
      And what was Almaz-Antey doing then?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 January 2021 11: 40
        +1
        I did it ..... and showed that it was not from the DPR's position that they fired and the wrong Buk missile, which is in service with the Russian Federation.
      2. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 19 January 2021 09: 27
        +1
        Almaz proved that the Buk could not hit the Boeing (taking into account the nature of the destruction of the cockpit and the principle of the missile's operation, the angles of attack of the target). The Buk rocket would fly up from the other side, plus the warhead details would lay down completely differently. The case materials contain several details that are incomprehensibly similar, resembling terribly crumpled elements of the Buk warhead, but the chemical composition seems to be not the same, and there remains a modest question: how could a part made of alloy steel be crumpled when meeting with soft duralumin and a human body. Everything is far-fetched.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 21 January 2021 20: 33
          0
          And they don't really spread about the striking elements ... that is, then no ... then one form, then another. Although, when an anti-aircraft missile explodes, its fragments should be a shaft
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 23
          -1
          And what about the joyful Strelkov, who talked about the “birdfall” and specifically about “another shot down Ukrainian transport ship” that day? And they also spoke on our TV (I was interested in events then).
          The transports were NOT shot down that day.
          (And with the help of MANPADS this cannot be done at a higher altitude)
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 29 January 2021 15: 11
            +1
            Could you give a link about Strelkov's statement, this time. Secondly, do a little investigation and find out who Strelkov was at that time. In three, maybe remember who was the first to talk about the downed plane, and even a day before?
            Like to list fakes? Strelkov never wrote about the downed transport worker as information, but only took it from the forum and actually reposted the idea stated there. The main thing is not to double-check, this does not suit the Ukrainians and do not blame "ours".
            The woman blurted out something in the Internet, and people like you refer to this woman.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 29 January 2021 17: 01
              0
              With people like you, the problem is: you don't like someone's opinion, the questions you ask - you immediately try to look for answers in nationality. Of course, a true (Aryan) Russian cannot have a view of the event different from Soloviev TV laughing
              Having found out that the interlocutor is of the same nationality, you draw the following conclusion - he is a "wrong Russian" (in Nazi Germany, even the term was - "white Jew"). negative
              Like to list fakes?

              https://youtu.be/Ar4xmYbwmqY
              Remind me, what can you use to shoot down a transporter flying 6+ km?
              Strelkov never wrote about the downed transport worker as information, but only took it from the forum and actually reposted the idea stated there

              How convenient smile
              That is, did he write all the same ?? Justification, all of this together leads to certain conclusions.
              My version? - We gave weapons to monkeys (yes, they can be of Slavic appearance, speak the same language as you), who began to shoot at everything that flies. Foolishly shot down something wrong.
              And we began to justify them, to justify our military (of course, there were no military traders either). But not very convincing, there are too many traces in that story.
              1. Reiter
                Reiter 5 February 2021 15: 16
                0
                In war, everything must always be checked, the aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine then went astray one after the other, and if someone launched a rumor about another downed aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, it is not surprising that this rumor was immediately picked up, as, for example, without understanding, they picked up fake gossip about a "crucified boy ". But you seem to be a specifically oriented person on one side. You absolutely completely ignore other information, for example, what the Ukrainian Armed Forces could have shot down, full of data that Ukraine's BUKs were also present there. You also completely ignore the version about the plane, which could also shoot down MH17, although there is more evidence than the fact that a couple of militia commanders, in joy, picked up that another one was shot down, although none of them stood there and knew directly could not, besides, Khmury later said that his perezvaanny conversation about the plane and that his record was only partially published by the SBU, in fact there was a talk about another plane, shot down earlier. Evidence for the version that MH17 was shot down by the militia is simply not there, and their credibility is seriously inferior to the aggregate of the other side. The data is already just wagons and a small cart. An indirect half-belief that this was a special operation of the United States and Ukraine, a very quick reaction and unequivocally that only the militia were shot down and shot down, the main evidence was only an audio recording, which was later taken apart as compiled and not related to this aircraft. The question is, how did the SBU get in touch with her so quickly, apparently they prepared it in advance. Then they began to strenuously pull the owl on the globe with Billingket, as Beech was traveling there from Russia. And even if he was there, then they have no real proof of his participation in the shooting down of the flight, there is evidence that Buk from the militia, if he was, could not have shot down me.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 5 February 2021 15: 24
                  -1
                  Once again: with the help of MANPADS it will not work to shoot down a transport aircraft flying 6+ km.
                  So there was something to do it. And even, "one by one" (the miners turned out to be capable, or their military advisers).
                  ignore the version about the plane that could also shoot down MH17

                  Yes, there was a story about a Su-25, a kilometer or more in size. But this is already a flying super fortress to conquer the planet smile
                  Only she disappeared without a trace ..
                  1. Reiter
                    Reiter 5 February 2021 19: 45
                    0
                    Are you sure that the An-26 was shot down at an altitude of 6 km? Do you believe everything that was reported from the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? They said that they did not have Bukovs in service and that they were not there in the Donbass, but it turned out that Buks were also in service and they were deployed there at that time. Could they have shot him down at an altitude of 3 km and then, knowing that there would be an ovakation, declare an altitude of 6 km? Who will prove what the height was there, is there objective control data on the An-26 or black boxes ?! At that time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lied as they breathed. As for the Su-25, you fake a photo from the Su-27 does not interfere here, this is a different plane and a different story. I'm talking about Voloshin, about how he and another colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who was in charge of a part of the RTR at that time in that area. The guys suddenly decided to cut themselves out of this world at once. I will also remind you of the instant disappearance of the air traffic controller. Well, such and such, guilty, crooked militias, and the Ukrainians are covering their tracks!
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 5 February 2021 20: 52
                      0
                      Are you sure that An-26 was shot down at an altitude of 6 km

                      Airplanes have already been shot down several times, all (especially transport workers) flew above the action of MANPADS.
                      Back then, Strelkov said that more high-rise complexes were needed.
                      guilty crooked militias

                      They are always crooked, what kind of contingent (though not local miners).
                      Look, we're not discussing this in court. Objectively, there are many reasons for the transfer of Buk to Strelkovsky “guerillas”. It is interesting that the news about another downed vehicle was immediately removed from the TV channel's website.
                      And there were a lot of ridiculous versions, for example, that the "corpses are stale" (from Strelkov).
                      1. Reiter
                        Reiter 5 February 2021 21: 18
                        0
                        I reviewed a lot of material on this topic from both sides, now it is not so interesting, at first I considered it as a 50/50 probability of who shot down, but as I analyzed the materials (indirect evidence, since neither side has direct evidence) for myself concluded that this was a special operation by the United States and Ukraine. There are too many indirect factors here, not to mention that it brought them great benefits in terms of black PR for both Russia and the militia. I will not even say with confidence that the militia did not have more powerful air defense systems, maybe they did, but neither Russia nor the Strelkov had anything to do with M17, or rather they had as objects at which the operation was directed. As for the desire to have powerful weapons on the part of Strelkov, he asked a lot, he asked for tanks and ATGMs, he had them, but he fired 1 out of 10, they had such weapons then, so the version about the presence of more powerful something something than MANPADS not dressed, because there is not enough data, but I do not think it is very likely, and even more so having anything to do with the disaster. If you like the version about krivorukost, then I propose to consider the version of krivorukost ukrovoennykh, although they really showed themselves and repeatedly "experts" in this case. I think you remember the Tu-154 "Siberia", as well as the OTR Tochka-U in a residential building in Brovary, you can add more deliberately or not deliberately fired at the Luhansk regional administration with the Su-25. By the way, no one was punished for this.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 6 February 2021 00: 20
                        -1
                        I will not even assert confidently that the militia did not have more powerful air defense weapons, maybe they did, but neither Russia nor the Strelkov had anything to do with the mn17

                        Partiality is the enemy of objectivity.
                        The version with "monkeys" is the most ... commonplace. And they had a Buk, transport aircraft shot down at high altitude indirectly (but rather reliably) confirm this.
                        People (especially poorly trained) screw up, that's okay.
                    2. Reiter
                      Reiter 5 February 2021 21: 41
                      0
                      The corpses were fresh or not, in this case it is not so important, maybe someone had a reason to say so, but something else is interesting here, let's say the day before the disaster an An-26 was actually shot down there at an altitude of 6.5 km, then the question is, what hu. closed the airspace? After all, even a no brainer understands that if they were shot down at 6.5, then this weapon will reach up to 10 km. Well, there is no such air defense system that would shoot at 6.5 and would not finish off up to 10 !!! This natural question very well confirms the version of the special operation. If flights in that area were banned, then provacation would not work. But they not only did not ban it, they also adjusted the route in that direction. Therefore, we will never see the air traffic controller.
                    3. 3danimal
                      3danimal 6 February 2021 00: 38
                      -1
                      If flights in that area were banned, then provacation would not work.

                      This is a "jamb" of the Ukrainian side.
                      But they didn't pull the trigger. And the weapons "militias" (in fact, pro-imperial-minded volunteers, supported by the state), were not found in the mines.
                      The problem is that the Dutch understand this too. And to say: "You will not prove, and I do not believe in your evidence" - will only aggravate the situation. It spoils the reputation even more, in the future there will be property arrests (by court decisions).
                      In my opinion, the optimal solution would be to put up the switch-general (who handed over the Buk), together with Strelkov (nominally, he was in charge of everything). Suddenly judge and close them away (and there anything can happen).
                      To tell the Dutch - “local excesses” are to blame, the guilty are punished. Pay compensation to the victims (0,5 million per person, as an option). And the topic is closed.
                      An analogy is the story of the murder of journalist Khashogi by the Saudis.
                      They all beat it.
                    4. Reiter
                      Reiter 6 February 2021 03: 55
                      0
                      It seems that for you the question of who is to blame is a matter of religion, faith. Anrumentations are zero, but it doesn't matter. Those who transmitted are to blame for you. Transferred what? Beech? Or s-300? There, as many as three pieces of beech fragments were found, it seems where the rest is. About Beech it is quite well proven that he could not leave such a pattern from the fragments if he shot from the place that your Dutch people attribute to him. Why is so much crap from Bellingket accepted as evidence, and then something that is even too incongruous is put aside, but the evidence of the other side with great difficulty can occasionally be sewn to the case, and then at a level for review and not as evidence? Maybe it’s all that it’s not important to figure out if there really was a hundred there, but it’s important to pull the owl onto the globe, because that was the order. Does it bother you that nothing was known in essence, but the perpetrators were immediately identified and even the West had no doubts? Isn't it strange that with an obvious jamb of Ukraine to reserve space, she was taken to the commission, but Indonesia (the owner of the plane and citizens died there) was given a place there, it seems, even six months later. Everything is so rough and tense that even without going into the testimony of a bunch of non-anonymous, unlike the Dutch, witnesses and technical details of the destruction of the plane, one can say who is to blame. Well, believe further, your right, perhaps this is how the picture of the world looks familiar to you, the good west is an evil rashka. There are people who believe that the earth is flat.
                    5. 3danimal
                      3danimal 6 February 2021 04: 23
                      -1
                      Beech? Or s-300?

                      It doesn't even matter if the air defense system is capable of reaching up to 10 km.
                      Previously downed transporters confirm its presence. And Strelkov happily hinted with all his might at his appearance (interested in the topic, tracked it then), however, BEFORE the downed Boeing.
                      Well, believe further, your right, perhaps this is how the picture of the world looks familiar to you, the good west is an evil rashka. There are people who believe that the earth is flat.

                      They all screw up. Having such a powerful weapon (SAM) at their disposal, and even in a military conflict, "guerillas" can easily do such things.
                      And I even understand why this air defense system was handed over to them: the aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine began to fly 4 + km so that the MANPADS would not reach. Well, who could have guessed that the "militias" would set us up like that? (It will just be worse for the citizens of the Russian Federation)
                      The military sometimes cannot imagine a lot of things, for example, that the Tu-22M3, sent without reconnaissance to bomb targets in Georgia in 2008, can (think scary) ... shoot down. One of the fitters of the Air Force then said in an interview: “we couldn't imagine” fool (not speaking for everyone, but ..)
                      There, as many as three pieces of beech fragments were found, it seems where the rest is. Pro Beech is quite well proven

                      More fragments were found.
                      Pro Beech has been "proven" by a party clearly interested in justifying themselves.
                      I repeat, I am not partial to any of the parties. I'm interested in facts and nothing more.
                      A separate topic is the desire of the military, so understandable to everyone, to take a picture against the background of equipment on which they are traveling along a certain route. And a large saturation of car DVRs on the roads.
                    6. Reiter
                      Reiter 6 February 2021 05: 25
                      0
                      I do not dispute the possible presence of more powerful air defense systems at that time there. However, the "interested" party argued not that it was Buk shot down, but only that if it had been Buk, he could not shoot it down from the side of the militia. There would be a different pattern of fragments. And why is the version of ukrovoyak's curvature not being considered again? Is it unlikely? There were Ukrainian BUKs, even Billinget showed it on his website. Why is it not allowed that the United States can organize, together with Ukraine, a provocation to shoot down an aircraft? This is unlikely? After 9/11 !? Or after Colin Powell's test tube of white powder ?! And after the shootings of the Maidan and before that other shootings such as the Vilnius shopping center, the Syrian Maidans, the Yugoslav ones, by unknown snipers - this option seems at least no less probable than the curvature of the miners? Is not it so? But this version has much more argumentation, and in different directions, from different sources and not so anonymous. And the Dutch investigators for some reason do not want to bring their evidence, neither witnesses nor satellite images, you have to take their word for it ?! How are the Dentelmen? After everything that has happened in the world !? Even if the pictures with Buk on the trailer had no traces of editing and did not refer to different times and machines, even this would not be proof of the guilt of that party. This is only a version, probable but no more, one cannot but take into account the version of the setup. And Ukraine and the United States had the motive to substitute the other side. The USA does such things all over the world and at home all the time, much more often than crooked miners mess up with something like Beeches. Sent without problems 3000 of their citizens in towers and planes to the next world, is that not enough ?! Once again I will ask, where is the dispatcher, why were the probable witnesses removed, for which Voloshin received the star of the Hero of Ukraine, what was wrong with the debris that they did not want to take away, the Dutch needed only a part of them? Yes, there are dozens of "Why", too lazy to dig, old material I do not remember everything. Why are there holes that are not suitable for beech fragments, why are there such damages that indicate internal excess pressure? Why did many people hear and see in the sky besides Boeing planes? These people did not interest anyone from the commission. So serious disasters are not investigated, they do not sweep away part of the evidence outright without even considering and from the first hours they do not speak only one version with 100% certainty. And yes, European justice compromised itself very much when the Hague Tribunal was. Only Serbs were tried. Friends of the United States were pure like angels, and when Carla del Ponte retired, her conscience tortured her and she published a book with the testimonies that she had about the Kosovars, but she did not give them a move before because it was impossible to go against the owner. Let's wait, maybe here someone will tell what over time, if not everyone who knows what is in the grave. A Dutch court would never dare to investigate in such a way that Uncle Sam suffered, even if 100 witnesses and a bunch of evidence shout about it. Recently they wanted to try the American military at the ICC for crimes in Afghanistan, do you remember how it ended? This is the problem, this is the simplest and most probable explanation for the Mn-17 disaster and everything that happened next. A false flag operation to discredit, that's what it's called. She squeaked, but succeeded. With a scratch, because already 7 years have passed, and there is still no evidence, it would have been, everything would have ended long ago and Russia would have paid compensation, but they cannot be, since Russia has nothing to do with it. This is the simplest explanation, Obama's razor straight.
                    7. Reiter
                      Reiter 6 February 2021 15: 13
                      0
                      And now the cherry on the cake. Everything you need to know about the objectivity of Dutch justice. The Netherlands decided not to investigate the open airspace over eastern Ukraine on the day of the Malaysian Boeing crash in 2014. This is evidenced by a document published on the website of the Dutch government. The authorities' decisions are based on a 176-page report produced by the Aviation Safety Foundation, which analyzed 34 civilian aircraft crashes over conflict zones. One of the findings of independent experts is that insufficient evidence has been established to indicate that the Ukrainian authorities responsible at that time for flight safety over eastern Ukraine were aware or could have been aware of the threat to civil aviation above that part of the airspace. which has already been closed. On the basis of this conclusion, the government said on Friday that "it sees no reason to revise the previously outlined position that at the moment there is no sufficient reason to hold Ukraine accountable for incomplete closure of the airspace." The case study on open airspace was initiated by the Dutch parliament in 2019. I think this is enough to form an opinion about the farce that is taking place in the Netherlands about M17. Or maybe the Netherlands is not aware of cases of destruction of aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine above the upper zone of destruction of MANPADS, Strela-10, Osa AKM? Here, either someone is lying or someone is clearly not competent, but in any case it plays into the hands of Russia and the rebels.
                2. Reiter
                  Reiter 6 February 2021 15: 03
                  0
                  It is no coincidence that Dutch prosecutor Ward Ferdinandus was appointed prosecutor in the Malaysian Boeing MH17 crash.

                  The media revealed the hard-hitting biography of the prosecutor in the MH17 case, Ward Ferdinandus. It turned out that before taking part in this high-profile trial, he had already tarnished his name. The Dutch edition nrc.nl writes about this.

                  Ferdinandus jailed the former Argentine-Dutch pilot Julio Alberto Pochu for allegedly flying the Argentine military dictatorship to eliminate opposition politicians. Pocha was arrested in 2009, but the case was reconsidered in 2017. All three judges acquitted the former pilot, noting that there was no evidence against him. Thus, the innocent man spent eight years in prison through the fault of Ward Ferdinandus.
                3. The comment was deleted.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 18 January 2021 08: 59
    -1
    So, for example, the total rate of fire of two Pantsir's cannons is 5 rounds per minute - the Baikal will send the same amount of PE to the target in just 000 seconds.

    I like how the author easily and naturally equates three-gram PE with projectiles weighing 400g)) Still, a lonely figurine the size of an automatic bullet is unlikely to be able to disable a rocket (in general), but a collision with a 30-mm projectile can even spoil health.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 18 January 2021 10: 38
      0
      Quote: Kalmar
      spoil health.

      Alika Zarivova Read
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 18 January 2021 11: 43
      0
      The Shell has 30mm - the finished shot of what came after the missiles were launched ... and here 57 is the main and only weapon. We must also compare. As with the BMP3 100mm and 30mm gun with 1x57mm
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 18 January 2021 13: 54
        0
        Quote: Zaurbek
        and here 57 is the main and only weapon

        Well, it does not exist by itself, but, I believe, will become one of the components of air defense. For example, shoot down particularly arrogant UAVs or finish shooting missiles that have passed the air defense system.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 27
        +1
        The problem is that the completion was extremely ineffective.
        Watch the issue of the Military Acceptance - everything in milk for a flying small-sized target, I had to launch a rocket.
    3. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 18 January 2021 13: 05
      +1
      Quote: Kalmar
      a lone figurine the size of an automatic bullet is unlikely to disable a rocket (in general), but a collision with a 30-mm projectile

      And what is the probability of meeting with the target of a single projectile from a hundred or several "bullets" out of tens of thousands?
      It is better to hit the target with a few small PEs than nothing.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 18 January 2021 13: 58
        0
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        And what is the probability of meeting with the target of a single projectile from a hundred or several "bullets" out of tens of thousands?

        I read somewhere that about 400 rounds are relied on to finish the anti-ship missile. It is believed that a sufficient number of targets will be met. Plus, the range and accuracy of the gun play a role.

        Quote: Jacket in stock
        It is better to hit the target with a few small PEs than nothing.

        It depends on what the goal is. For a small-sized UAV, even a few small holes can be enough to break down. But with the same anti-ship missile, everything is much more complicated: even if it completely destroys the glider, the warhead will fly several hundred meters by inertia and can hit the target. Those. such a rocket must literally be unwound to shreds along with the warhead; light PE is simply not enough foolishness for this.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 18 January 2021 16: 20
          +1
          American 20mm Falax shoots with armor piercing. Based on our Granites
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 21 January 2021 19: 35
            0
            Quote: Zaurbek
            American 20mm Falax shoot armor piercing

            All shoot armor-piercing. And, thank God, even ours realized this, and re-equip 30mm naval artillery guns with sub-caliber ammunition.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 21 January 2021 20: 29
              0
              NATO has no such mastodons as granite.
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 21 January 2021 20: 48
                0
                Do you think that the usual "Penguin" or "Exocet", just like that, are just fragile and vulnerable, and they can be knocked down with OFZ?
                I assure you, this is unlikely. All anti-ship missiles are equipped with at least a semi-penetrating warhead, and as a rule - a full-fledged armor-piercing one, and it is on the drum when "pshikan" 30mm fragmentation is used.
                Only BOPS, only hardcore - you need to physically "crumble" the warhead of the missile, otherwise it will fly to the ship, and given the general fragility of modern ships, it will be bad.

                And Sheffield generally had 1 Exoset.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 21 January 2021 23: 19
                  0
                  Moreover, it did not explode.
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 30
                  0
                  There was another example of MRK Monsoon. Which "shot down" an anti-ship missile without a warhead from the "Wasp", and then received the same anti-ship missile on board.
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 29 January 2021 01: 28
              0
              Ours are just re-equipping, Phalanxes have long been shooting sub-caliber weapons.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 18 January 2021 10: 47
    +5
    The main problem of Derivation is a flawed principle of programming a detonation by a laser beam! Unlike the same Erlikon, which uses a muzzle programmer. For understanding, I give you a link! (https://topwar.ru/163286-35-mm-programmiruemye-snarjady-oerlikon-contraves-ahead.html)
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 18 January 2021 11: 06
      -1
      Quote: dgonni
      Erlikon, which uses a muzzle programmer. For understanding, I give you a link! (https://topwar.ru/163286-35-mm-programmiruemye-snarjady-oerlikon-contraves-ahead.html)

      Where is it?
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 18 January 2021 11: 08
        0
        Where do you mean? This is already in the series in the west!
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 18 January 2021 11: 11
          -1
          Quote: dgonni
          This is already in the series in the west!

          Where exactly?
          1. dgonni
            dgonni 18 January 2021 11: 23
            0
            Germany Switzerland in the series. And also export
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 11: 17
    0
    All this is quite complicated, you can't put it all together.

    In the air, it is more difficult to detect and aim a target than, in fact, to hit. The same BMP-2/3 in the air can work very conditionally, because only visually.

    An air defense vehicle needs a radar, and more than one. And this is expensive, and so expensive that small-sized guided missiles do not particularly affect overall costs.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 18 January 2021 16: 21
      +1
      Woodworking based on BMP3 and BMP3 with 57mm cannon - different vehicles with different suo
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 17: 16
        +3
        The owl will not stretch over the globe. Either the air defense capabilities will be severely limited, or it will be a machine the size and price of the Shell.

        Based on the available articles, the derivation-air defense does not have a radar and, apparently, does not carry an assault force (and if it does, then this is a BMP with an expensive thermal imager in fact). It turns out not a medium tank, and not an anti-aircraft gun in the modern sense, but it is expensive and it doesn’t feel sorry for the helfire, which it also won’t see or shoot down.

        Here you need to start either with a network-centric vegetable garden, when an adult air defense complex located a little further off simultaneously issues target designation to all the machines around, or we stop at the fact that this is an infantry fighting vehicle.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 18 January 2021 17: 49
          0
          They just mixed everything together ... and the 57mm BMP gun and anti-aircraft gun and BMPT ...
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 18: 03
            +1
            On the contrary, I started with the fact that, as an air defense, this toy is about useless.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 21 January 2021 19: 38
          0
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          Based on the available articles, the air defense derivation does not have a radar

          By the way, yes. How it will detect and how to aim at non-contrasting or non-radiating targets in the thermal range is unclear.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 18 January 2021 13: 13
    -1
    On the one hand, the author is right, it is much more effective to shoot shells with controlled detonation. And in some cases there is no alternative at all.
    On the other hand, the question of price arises.
    With our defective electronics industry, wouldn't it be cheaper to release a ton of "cast iron" into the enemy than a dozen "smart" shells.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 18 January 2021 18: 09
      +1
      The Strela rocket or the 125-mm offshore rocket may turn out to be cheaper, respectively.
      1. Aag
        Aag 20 January 2021 17: 09
        0
        Quote: Sancho_SP
        The Strela rocket or the 125-mm offshore rocket may turn out to be cheaper, respectively.

        I read it, I scratch my turnips ...)) Fearing that in most cases, it’s good if the “Strela” is at hand ... This I mean that I have not watched other air defense systems throughout my service in the Strategic Missile Forces ((... a specific area of ​​the Armed Forces, but in other types, branches of the Armed Forces, according to the estimates of servicemen (officers), this is also somehow not rosy.
        Former conscripts (even during the SA), now competent engineers highly appreciated the capabilities of the air defense of those times ("Neva", "Dvina"). And now, it seems, and I want to believe, the domestic air defense is at a height. , Unfortunately, a mass can form. TNW, SNW may be out of place.
        Returning to the article: apparently, after all, there is a problem with remote, controlled detonation of a projectile, - I think it is necessary to separate these two concepts; - in the sense that, as always, you want a lot and for cheap.
        Well, even if we (already) cannot do it ourselves, the head turns towards the military industry ..., sorry, intelligence. Are there also problems?
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 20 January 2021 18: 44
          0
          Why wouldn't that arrow be at hand? She must be in the battalion, if I'm not mistaken. A derivation-air defense machine is good if it is in the regiment. And the sighting range of the same arrow (what's the modern version called, Verba?) Is higher. Two times like that.

          To attach a simple radar and a good circular thermal imager to the armored personnel carrier of a MANPADS platoon from above would be cheaper and more effective, as I think.


          Or, on the same BMP, install a MANPADS missile on an external suspension (by analogy with an ATGM). Also cheaper than replacing a cannon. And ATGMs are getting smarter and smarter, soon there will be no special difference with the MANPADS missile.

          And with remotely controlled blasting, in general, one problem is the price. These shells need millions, and for this, the appropriate technological lines of components. And we are in trouble with electronic components. Absolutely.
          1. Aag
            Aag 20 January 2021 19: 00
            0
            "... Why shouldn't that arrow be at hand? ..."
            It seems that he clearly stated everything, - I saw only "Strela" in all the years of service (and then, - in the introductory version, - a cold start, well, theoretically, back in school ...)
            ... We are probably talking about different things. You, - about the development (hypothetical) of the topic set forth in the article. I agree, - it is curious, informative ... I, - about the practical application, which is necessary yesterday ... hi
            1. Sancho_SP
              Sancho_SP 20 January 2021 23: 39
              0
              Well, do you think that a whole vehicle based on an infantry fighting vehicle is more likely to be nearby than an anti-aircraft missile system? In modern realities, yesterday?
              1. Aag
                Aag 22 January 2021 16: 11
                0
                Quote: Sancho_SP
                Well, do you think that a whole vehicle based on an infantry fighting vehicle is more likely to be nearby than an anti-aircraft missile system? In modern realities, yesterday?

                Quote: Sancho_SP
                Well, do you think that a whole vehicle based on an infantry fighting vehicle is more likely to be nearby than an anti-aircraft missile system? In modern realities, yesterday?

                Do you think that "Topol" ("Yars") does not deserve personal guardianship of air defense, missile defense systems?
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 18 January 2021 15: 48
    0
    An informative, visual article, makes you think and creatively apply experience and knowledge. Only the conclusions at the end seemed to me crumpled and not convincing. What does the author call for? Completely replace the 30-mm caliber in the Armed Forces with 57-mm, or add another standard caliber to the list of weapons and ammunition? If the first, then I do not agree; if the second - then you also need to think hard. And if as a separate sample of weapons with a maximum export orientation, then why not! The 57 caliber is not destined to become completely universal for the army, aviation and navy. It is more expedient to expand the range of 30-mm ammunition. To increase the armor penetration, the creation of a sub-caliber projectile with a tungsten core (analogous to the 20-mm for the American Volcanoes) has long been suggested. Within the aiming range of existing guns, such a projectile at an initial speed of Mach 4-5 in the air will hit both an armored anti-ship missile system and a Su-25 with A-10 combined. Everything that crawls on the ground and survives from it must be destroyed either by a tank or ATGM. The second point is the creation in a 30-mm caliber of an analogue of the German 35-mm PMD 062 and PMD 330 ammunition mentioned in the article. If you do without excessive narrow specialization, like the Germans, it is quite possible to create a programmable ammunition with 2-gram GGE, 50 pieces in one projectile in the same standard weight of 380 grams.
    By the way, according to the material, it seems like an error: we multiply the number of striking elements by their weight, we get an overweight of a 500-gram projectile (3,3 g * 152 pcs = 501,6 g) and (1,24 g * 407 pcs = 504,68 g). request
    1. Tamer
      Tamer 18 January 2021 22: 25
      0
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      The second point is the creation in a 30-mm caliber of an analogue of the German 35-mm PMD 062 and PMD 330 ammunition mentioned in the article. If you do without excessive narrow specialization, like the Germans, it is quite possible to create a programmable ammunition with 2-gram GGE, 50 pieces in one projectile in the same standard weight of 380 grams.

      Oerlikon has 30mm (30 x 173mm) AHEAD similar 35mm - PMC308
      It seems that we should have 30 mm (30x165) 9-A-1611 - 28 GGE of 3,5 g. Only "smart" programming of detonation was not there.
      30mm "Russian" (30x165) BPSs and BOPSs are of domestic and foreign production.
  • Sergey Kulikov_3
    Sergey Kulikov_3 18 January 2021 17: 17
    0
    Quote: sen
    The 35-mm gun from Rheinmetall is capable of intercepting artillery shells, mines, missiles, UAB.

    Somewhere in the corner the boy Vanya was quietly crying and cursing Newton's laws, and the 3-gram elements knocked down and shot down artillery shells, mines, rockets, UAB, cruisers and starships :)
    The idea is not new, and quite suitable for the destruction of small UAVs and weakly protected objects, but nothing more. To successfully combat the sights of tanks, attack aircraft and even helicopters, it is better to use something more powerful, otherwise, God forbid, they will notice and use more serious weapons.
    1. Tamer
      Tamer 18 January 2021 22: 32
      0
      Not 3-gram elements, but ... drumroll ... elements weighing 0,64 g: "In this case, it is assumed that if the striking element does not penetrate the body of the mortar mine, then the high density of the fragmentation field created by several ammunition will ensure that one or more striking elements enter the fuse and disable the fuse . " http://btvt.narod.ru/4/rarn_airburst.htm
  • Klingon
    Klingon 19 January 2021 02: 08
    0
    As far as I know, Bofors has a cassette for 5 shells, in the ZSU 57-2 there were 2 loaders on each side and a cassette for 4 shells. 3 shells would be too small, but probably
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 21 January 2021 19: 42
      +1
      Quote: Klingon
      ZSU 57-2 had 2 loaders on each side and a cassette of 4 shells

      Aha, here she is, darling wassat
      1. Klingon
        Klingon 21 January 2021 23: 53
        0
        Vietnamese? they have even more dreshing machines in Saratov good
  • shinobi
    shinobi 19 January 2021 07: 15
    +1
    I do not quite understand from the article what has to do with the projectiles with controlled detonation. The projectiles shown are well-tested by time, only made using modern technology, shrapnel. Remote tube in high-explosive ordnance and used ubiquitously from the middle of the 19th century. Yankee know-how consisted of an attempt to cram a remote-controlled remote tube into small-caliber shells. It turned out to be expensive even for them. Radio-controlled remote fuses have been known since the middle of WWII.
  • Nross
    Nross 19 January 2021 07: 43
    +1
    And how much can an auto-detonation shell cost? Well, or in relation to the usual detonating.
    In the same place, a laser rangefinder is obtained with an accuracy of dm, line of sight - in the optoelectronic complex, and from the side of the projectile:
    1. If there is a time delay.
    - input / output of programmable parameters
    - and flight timer in nanoseconds.
    In this case, the production of tooling with gunpowder (or what is being charged now?) Is also accurate to the mg, the targeting of the barrel must have, well, cleaning / lubrication of the rifling - too. Even so, I'm not sure that with nanoseconds the accuracy will be at least up to 1m.
    2. which means we turn to the second: the fuse according to Glonass.
    - this is of course, more versatile, but much more expensive.
    - and five additional requirements for the accuracy of the shot.
    3. I doubt that the inertial guidance system can be shoved into such.
    If there is a price tag for the entire Shilka ammunition load, then the only benefit in saving space for the ammo?
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 20 January 2021 05: 35
      0
      The accuracy of the laser rangefinder in combination with a timer or projectile revolution counter is significantly higher than that of GPS / GLONASS.
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 21 January 2021 20: 17
      0
      Quote: Nross
      And how much can an auto-detonation projectile cost?

      EMNIP - only the Germans have a 30mm air blast projectile adopted for service, and is routinely present in the Puma BMP ammunition rack.
      The price there is about $ 5000 per shot. wassat wassat wassat
      35mm is cheaper, like 2,5-3 per shot.
      The Chinese once announced a universal fuse for shells with dist. undermining, allegedly from completely civilian components, with an allegedly incredibly low price (from 300 to 500 dollars). But believe the Chinese ...
      If the time delay.

      It's not like that there.
      There are several distant technologies. undermining:
      - On 35mm and 30mm Oerlikons (and their 40mm grenades), the muzzle programmer delay time is introduced, at the moment when the projectile leaves the barrel.
      - For 40mm and 57mm Bofors 3P - the projectile is programmed in the chamber.
      - On 25mm American grenades - implemented a version with a grenade revolution counter (later copied by the Chinese, of course).
      - On our 57mm "Derivation" -APO - there is a laser programmer (and on the projectile, accordingly, a receiver is installed in the bottom).
      The projectile is either programmed at the exit from the barrel, or it continues to receive corrections as it flies, like the signal for detonation - while the exact mechanism is unclear.
      If there is a price tag for the entire Shilka ammunition load, then the only benefit in saving space for the ammo?
      And modern war is such an expensive business.
      All this high-tech technology is more and more expensive every year ...
      And then, as one well-known character said - "You need to run as fast just to stay in place, but to get somewhere, you must run at least twice as fast!" fellow
  • Alexfly
    Alexfly 19 January 2021 12: 33
    0
    An interesting article and correct in theory, but similar ideas and developments have existed for fifteen years, and we still have NO. The problem, rather, is in the industry, which is unable to supply accurate measurement equipment ...
  • Forever so
    Forever so 19 January 2021 16: 20
    +3
    The fact is that to destroy an aircraft (aircraft), it is enough to destroy elements weighing only a few grams. As an example, we can consider the GGE (ready-made submunitions) of the BUK missile that shot down a Malaysian Boeing.
    What a provocative presentation of the material. That is, de facto and de jure, some Vorontsov assures us that the notorious Boeing was shot down by Buk, although this fact has not been confirmed by any documents or eyewitness accounts, well, except for the desire of the collective West to blame Russia for this crime.
    1. Drugov
      Drugov 19 January 2021 18: 27
      0
      I agree, this is at least not correct.
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 19 January 2021 17: 57
    +1
    I really liked how the author diligently avoided the opportunity to create a controlled blast in the 30 mm caliber. Probably because then his vaunted Baikal will become just garbage. The idea of ​​"recalculating" the number of fragments into the rate of fire of a traditional gun deserves a separate topic.
    1. Reiter
      Reiter 20 January 2021 03: 45
      0
      He wrote that even more is better, since a good range is needed, and 30 mm gives only 4 km no more, and so 3-3.5 km in height.
    2. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 20 January 2021 05: 00
      0
      Quote: Sckepsis
      I liked very much how the author diligently bypassed the opportunity to create a controlled blast in a 30 mm caliber.

      Why "opportunity"? Not an opportunity, but a fact! 30-mm OFS with remote blasting: PMC308 (RWM Schweiz AG), Mk310 PABM-T (Orbital ATK), 3UOF23 (NPO Pribor)
      1. petroff
        petroff 20 January 2021 12: 31
        -1
        So that's the point.
        30mm and easier and more convenient.
        The pace, density, again there are striking elements, bc is again higher. And pick-ups are normally sewn, and drones are fighting.
        The only advantage is the range.
        Which is not leveled by the stupid: let's take 76 and 100 mm. It will be promising for growth. Why waste half-measures !?
        In fact, you need a 30mm 2-4 barrel assault rifle. And a block of missiles in case of outrageous targets. Detection - guidance without radar, optical devices. Taki zhezh Pitselov - Roman turns out. Everything is already there, well, except for the 30mm domestic remote blasting shells.
        In general, all these 45mm perversions are only for export to the Zulus. And that they will not appreciate. In their conditions, 23mm is the top of dreams. Everything else that is too tough for 23mm is extinguished from guns, ATGMs, MANPADS, and shahidmobiles. Some kind of 45mm dick nobody needs.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 21 January 2021 20: 38
          0
          Quote: petroff
          30mm and easier and more convenient.

          It has never been easier.
          The 30mm air blast projectile is accepted for service, and is nominally present in the ammunition rack only for the German Puma infantry fighting vehicle, and the price there is about $ 5000 per shot.
          The Germans do not fight anywhere - they can. Puma has no conventional rounds in the ammo rack at all, only BOPS and programmable ones. What, a rich country, Germany bully
          But even for America, it turned out to be expensive - that is why no one uses them. In one line - we shoot an apartment in the suburbs, so no money will be enough.
          45mm perversion except for export to the Zulus

          Yeah, count how many countries have this magnificent 30mm caliber in service - and how many have already switched to 35/40 / 45mm, or will switch in the coming years.
          1. petroff
            petroff 22 January 2021 07: 47
            0
            Have you all read what I wrote !?
            That is why we need not a 45 and 57mm projectile, but a 76mm one. So it is simpler and cheaper and no less useless than 45mm will come out. Better yet, 100mm. Our nanobolts are the largest.
            If everything depends on the price, then why remote blasting at all !? It's not cheap by definition.
            So either 30mm remote detonation with missile launchers for outrageous purposes. Or nuclear weapons, but not the one that uses the decay of the atomic nucleus, but the one that shoots with nuclei, muzzle-loading.
            And 45mm is neither fish nor meat, but half measures with the only advantage are cheaper and easier to manufacture, but no efficiency at the output.
            So in the choice between efficiency, manufacturability and high cost, ours, as usual, chose something that is cheaper and simpler. And efficiency .... To hell with her ... Let's not fight this, we have atomic weapons in case of war.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 22 January 2021 20: 40
              0
              Quote: petroff
              If everything depends on the price, then why remote blasting at all !? It's not cheap by definition.

              The price of a projectile will not depend on its caliber, but on its type of fuse.
              You need to make a universal fuse, as the Belgians did - and then shove it into 35mm-30mm cannons and 40mm grenade launchers.
              Against this background, the 30mm caliber is too expensive - those results that are achieved by firing 3-5 small-caliber projectiles can be obtained with 1-2 medium-caliber shots. 30mm is simply weaker, and cannot fully meet current requirements - neither for armor penetration nor for creating a fragmentation field.
              in the choice between efficiency, manufacturability and high cost, ours, as usual, chose what is cheaper and simpler
              We chose what was - but there was only a 57mm anti-aircraft gun. After the project of a promising 45mm gun with telescopic ammunition bent, there was simply no other choice - 30mm no longer meets modern requirements
              45mm is neither fish nor meat, and half measures with the only advantage are cheaper and easier to manufacture, but no efficiency at the output

              We're not talking about those 45mm shells that our grandfathers used to shoot at the Germans from the "forty-five" No.
              We are talking about modern telescopic ammunition, similar to the English CTAS projectile, and a cannon designed for firing them, which, thanks to the new projectile, has a low mass, and a simple automation scheme.
              Ammunition and a gun in this caliber, provide whole the range of tasks performed, while there are a sufficient number of them in the ammunition rack.
              In short - the golden mean.
              1. petroff
                petroff 24 January 2021 12: 22
                -2
                Against this background, the 30mm caliber is too expensive - those results that are achieved by firing 3-5 small-caliber projectiles can be obtained with 1-2 medium-caliber rounds.

                What have you read? I'm talking about that, you need to increase the caliber even more. To make it cheaper, so to make it cheaper ... Straight up to 0.5 shots. After all, for us the price is a fundamental parameter.

                30mm no longer meets modern requirements

                Come on, did you write off all air defense weapons with 30mm machine guns to a landfill? And in the mine defense is in the know? These are now used anti-aircraft 30mm guns without remote detonation, and this meets modern requirements, this is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Ministry of Defense. And with remote blasting, it will correspond even more.

                And since you have already decided that the price is a fundamental factor, then we do not need any remote disruption.
                1. psiho117
                  psiho117 25 January 2021 00: 36
                  0
                  Quote: petroff
                  need to increase the caliber even more. To directly reduce the cost, so to reduce the cost

                  If there was a suitable projectile, maybe they would do something like the Italian Otomatik. True, it was not cheap nifiga.
                  And you are apparently not familiar with the fundamental principle:
                  "For a war you need three things - money, money, and more money." So your sarcasm is misplaced.
                  The failure of the current 30mm weaponry leads to the fact that for a single drone, you have to spend 1-2 expensive missiles.
                  Come on, did you write off all air defense weapons with 30mm machine guns to a landfill? And in the mine defense is in the know?

                  In the course - after all, it was they who started this initiative with "Derivation-Air Defense".
                  now anti-aircraft 30mm cannons are used without remote detonation, and this meets modern requirements
                  No, he doesn't answer.
                  In recent years, there have been enough cases when relatively new Shells (we will not even talk about the old Tunguska), in combat conditions, tried to intercept something there with the help of guns. Remind you of the result? Efficiency - zero.
                  Even in the greenhouse conditions of the prepared landfill - and even then regular fail.
                  But the requirements for the defeat of low-sized low-flying targets will only grow in the future.
                  Where is the compliance here? Outdated junk ...
                  And with remote blasting, it will correspond even more.

                  Will not be. With dist. undermining, these two capricious speed-shooters with a rather big ammunition are just unnecessary mass, wasted transporting and eating up the resource.
                  If we are to focus on air blast of 30mm shells, a single 2A42 is enough
                  since you have decided that the price is a fundamental factor, then we do not need any remote firing
                  For some reason you are flirting.
                  But we are talking about a very important issue on which the lives of our soldiers depend. When kamikaze drones, or some Brimstones, fall on the heads of the soldiers, the Shell will shoot its missiles in 5 minutes, and will be forced to switch to the cannons - and they, here's a plug, smeared point blank
                  love Will you wear flowers on graves?
  • Drugov
    Drugov 19 January 2021 18: 26
    -2
    And all the same it is all yesterday. The ammunition should contain UAV shells, as Israeli shots have recently been demonstrated. The ability to patrol for at least half an hour, observe and correct subsequent shots, and independently engage control targets. This is the future.
  • Thomas N.
    Thomas N. 20 January 2021 05: 49
    +3
    To call the shells discussed in the article, shells with "controlled" detonation, in my opinion, is too "luxurious" smile... All "control" is reduced to setting the time of the detonation of the projectile, corresponding to the measured range to the target. After that, there is no control anymore, and the set firing time cannot be changed either. So, the traditional name is a projectile with a remote control! air blast is better.
  • petroff
    petroff 20 January 2021 13: 26
    0
    Lots of words about nothing with interesting arithmetic.
    1 to compare a 45mm projectile with submunitions with 23-35mm projectiles without these elements, in order to justify the meager ammunition ...
    And then talk about the 45mm armor-piercing shells that jeeps sew ...
    Well this is.
    Let's just count 45mm armor-piercing with 1 striking element and 30mm with remote detonation ... And then it will turn out that 30mm over have a lot of elements, large bc, rate and density of fire, and 45mm is some kind of garbage without bq and sense. What was clear even at the stage of Shilka's creation. When 45 and 57mm anti-aircraft systems were written off to the devil.
    2, there are 30mm cannon systems to finish off the remote detonation and leave the launcher with 4 - 6 - 8 - 12 missiles for distances beyond cannon. Just don’t say that 12 missiles are not enough, especially since anti-aircraft vehicles don’t drive one by one ... This is more than enough. Therefore, it is not necessary to fence the forest.
    3 Based on T55 !? Really!? Adopt T21 in the 55st century !? Having no unification with the modern fleet of equipment !? We will build a plant for the production and maintenance of t55 !? We will produce the details !?
    4 Vietnamese von Shilki modernize well, new radars, missiles are hung on them ... Are we really going to design an anti-aircraft tank from T55. Why not on the basis of IS3 or T10? There is more mass, it will swing less. The answer is simple, our industry has failed in remote 30mm shells? Is it cheaper to make large ones and spend them less often? Well so let's make a 75mm antiaircraft gun. Better on the train chassis armor. I am beginning to understand Khrushchev. For complex and long-range targets, missiles are needed. For everything else, a 30mm machine gun, and if it comes with auto-detonation, grenades, aerosols and other sabot calibers from hafnium carbide and God forbid American nuclei, then God forbid.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 March 2021 12: 44
    0
    The main projectile of the HE (its various variations) and BOPS for guaranteed destruction of protected objects. The BMP is not an anti-aircraft gun and there is no need to focus on such complex shells. The question is different: will 57mm mass infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers pull, taking into account that you need 4 more Kornet ATGMs in the kit ... and if you already have a Kornet (and there are powerful OF and ODAB ammunition), do you need a 57mm cannon (heavy) ? Maybe a lighter system is enough .... 37 or 45mm or 50mm.
  • anykind
    anykind 15 March 2021 16: 00
    0
    Considering the wide range of targets hit, there is clearly a general purpose projectile. If a very different shell is needed to work on the ground, otherwise the density of the fire will be anti-aircraft .. it will not be enough;)
  • Basarev
    Basarev 19 March 2021 21: 24
    0
    Is it possible to do without electronics in the projectile? And leave only the executive mechanisms there. The shell should be as cheap as possible. Ideally, I see a large 57 mm bullet at all, hitting the target with a direct hit. This requires outstanding electronics at the Hephaestus level.