Anti-aircraft complex "Derivation-Air Defense". Ammunition issue

Self-propelled unit 2S38 from the Derivation-Air Defense complex. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

In the interests of military air defense, a self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery complex 1K150 "Derivation-Air Defense" is being developed. The main focus in this project is directly on the 2S38 anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with a 57-mm automatic cannon. In addition, new ammunition and means of ensuring combat work are being created.

Ammunition issue

The "main caliber" of the 1K150 complex is the modern 57-mm 2A90 automatic cannon. This weapon was developed by the Nizhny Novgorod Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" (part of the NPK "Uralvagonzavod") and is proposed for use on a new family of combat modules along with different platforms.

The 2A90 product is based on the design of the S-60 gun, created in the forties. The new gun retains the old-design chamber for unitary 57x348 mm SR rounds. Due to this, full compatibility with existing shells is ensured, which allows the use of accumulated warehouse stocks. In addition, completely new ammunition is being developed with certain features.

The first in the 2A90 and 1K150 ammunition were the existing shots with the 53-OP-281 fragmentation tracer grenade and the 53-BR-281 armor-piercing tracer, developed in the past for the S-60. Such shots have a mass of 6,6 kg; the projectile weighs 2,8 kg. Shrapnel ammunition carries a charge of 153 g of explosive, armor-piercing - only 13 g, but is capable of penetrating up to 100 mm of armor at a distance of 1 km.

Shells of the "281" family for the S-60 guns. Photo Russianarms.ru

The rounds of the "281" family are still in the army warehouses, and "Derivation-Air Defense" can use this stock. However, old ammunition has limited performance. First of all, the claims are caused by the characteristics of accuracy and accuracy. The disadvantages of old shells do not allow to fully realize the advantages of modern guns and fire control systems.

A new generation of shells

Several years ago it became known that the KB of Precision Engineering. A.E. Nudelman is working on the appearance of a promising guided artillery shell (UAS) in 57 mm caliber. Later, some technical details of such a project became known.

The high-explosive fragmentation UAS with an unknown index in its dimensions was supposed to correspond to the existing ammunition and be used with a standard 348-mm sleeve. At the head of the projectile, it was proposed to place a single-channel steering machine and rudders that could be folded in flight. The central part of the hull was given under the warhead, and a folding stabilizer and a laser radiation receiver were placed in the bottom.

A projectile of this design should "fly along the beam" and hit the target due to the proximity fuse. According to calculations, the 57-mm product had to have a mass of just over 2 kg and carry up to 400 g of explosive. Such a charge made it possible to obtain power at the level of 76-mm artillery shells.

Possible shot scheme with a 57-mm guided projectile. 1 - protective cap; 2 - centering belt; 3 - sleeve; 4 - rudder drive; 5 - non-contact target sensor; 6 - warhead; 7 - stabilizer. Graphics Nevskii-bastion.ru

In parallel, the so-called. multifunctional projectile. He has no guidance, but gets a programmable fuse with the ability to set the point of detonation. Such ammunition can be effectively used when firing at ground and air targets.

Previously appeared news about testing new shells. So, last year, new products were tested by firing at UAVs. At the end of January, NPK Uralvagonzavod again spoke about the work on three new shells. Multifunctional, guided and sub-caliber armor-piercing projectiles have been created and are being tested. The exact characteristics of such products have not yet been disclosed.

Take and charge

To speed up and simplify preparation for combat work, the 9T260 transport-loading vehicle is included in the Derivation-Air Defense complex. She is capable of carrying a large number of various ammunition and transfer them to the 2S38 anti-aircraft self-propelled gun. The 9T260 model was first shown at one of the exhibitions of the past, and by now a full-fledged prototype has been brought into testing.

ТЗМ for 1K150 is built on the Tornado-U three-axle chassis from the Ural plant. A protected cab and a large armored hull are mounted on the chassis to accommodate the payload. Access to cargo in several compartments is provided through hinged side doors, as well as through the aft door. For the convenience of the crew, folding side platforms are provided. The TZM kit includes a conveyor for transferring ammunition to a combat vehicle. All operations are carried out by a two-person calculation.

ТЗМ 9Т260 in the stowed position. Photo by Central Research Institute "Burevestnik"

The 9T260 vehicle carries in four compartments up to 592 unitary 57-mm shells. There is also space for 10 boxes with 2 thousand cartridges 7,62x54 mm R and for two packs of 24 ammunition for the 902 "Tucha" system. The prepared calculation is able to fully load the TPM in 2 hours. Preparation for reloading ammunition onto a combat vehicle takes no more than 5 minutes. The transfer of a full ammunition load takes approx. 20 minutes. One TPM can simultaneously issue shells and cartridges to two SPGs.

Artillery prospects

Currently, all components of the 1K150 "Derivation-PVO" complex undergo various tests and confirm the declared characteristics. Last summer, Uralvagonzavod announced the completion of preliminary tests of the 2S38 combat vehicle. After that, the production of a pilot industrial batch of equipment started.

The state tests of the complex are planned to be completed in 2022. Soon after that, a decision is expected to launch mass production and supply equipment to the troops. The first complexes will enter combat units no later than 2022-23, and then a full-fledged re-equipment of the military air defense will begin.

Obviously, a full-fledged anti-aircraft artillery complex with all standard elements will be involved in state tests. Both the 2S38 combat vehicle and the 9T260 transport and loading vehicle will go to the training ground. In addition, the entire proposed range of ammunition, both old types and currently being developed, must be tested with a new weapon.

A complex approach

It should be expected that the finished ZAK 1K150 "Derivation-PVO" will show itself well in testing and will be recommended for the series. Having entered the troops, it will give air defense units new advantages and provide a solution to a wider range of tasks. The increase in efficiency and the emergence of new opportunities are directly related to the development of promising ammunition and support equipment.

Transport and loading machine in working position. Photo by Central Research Institute "Burevestnik"

It is assumed that on the battlefield, the 2S38 machine will fight the front aviation, aviation weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles. In addition, shooting at ground targets is not excluded. The specificity of such work provides for active shooting and a significant consumption of ammunition. Accordingly, the anti-aircraft self-propelled gun must be accompanied by a carrier of ammunition.

The 1K150 complex includes a 9T260 TZM, which carries four full ammunition loads of artillery shells and is capable of transferring them to a combat vehicle in a minimum time. At the same time, the TZM, like a self-propelled gun, has protection against bullets and fragments, which reduces risks and is especially important due to the presence of a large number of shells on board.

Unlike anti-aircraft artillery of previous generations, the new "Derivation-Air Defense" receives effective digital fire control, which increases the effectiveness of fire. Also a positive factor is the use of modern means of communication, including the ZAK in the high-speed control loops of the military air defense.

Due to these measures, the complex, using even old types of shells, is able to show superiority over systems of a similar caliber of previous generations. For the further growth of characteristics, fundamentally new ammunition is being developed. For example, the announced UAS or a multipurpose shot with a programmable fuse can dramatically increase the effectiveness of fire against both air and ground targets.

Thus, in the development of a new small-caliber gun and artillery systems based on it, an integrated approach is used. It allows you to fully realize all the advantages of the increased energy of the 57-mm projectile and get the maximum possible characteristics. The result of this approach in the form of ready-made samples will go to the Russian army in the coming years.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

Yes, even refitting the casings will allow you to save a lot, let alone shells, refitting with new fuses is a common thing!

[infantryman2020]

Linking to the existing stocks of ammunition (and, accordingly, to their aging design) as an attempt to save money also has a negative side - the development of the weapons system is inhibited. "A double-edged sword". This solution is not a good one by default; each time you need to work it out separately.
History is full of examples. Offhand, the decision on the ammunition for the ZiS-3: they decided to stay on ammunition for the old cannon model 1902. The advantages are known, the disadvantages are also known (the massive divisional and, in fact, anti-tank gun turned out to be relatively weak against tanks).
Obviously, everything has been calculated, the old ammunition is suitable and no reloading is required? And, by the way, the old shot for the S-60 is quite technologically crap (in terms of the materials used).

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: infantryman2020

This solution is not a good one by default; each time you need to work it out separately.

Nonsense, what was before the war - is weakly connected with the current situation, Derivation was not created for old ammunition, just the ability to use old ammunition is a nice bonus. And 57 mm ballistic at the time of creation was close to perfection, why is it bad for a new, programmable fuse, for example, to screw into an old projectile? It's just that the shell's blank is not worth a penny, by no means.

[Civil]

And where about the radio fuse? Or height?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Civil

And where about the radio fuse? Or height?

Is the radio controlled fuse? Is it with a barometer in height? Seriously though, a normally programmable fuse goes up in a 57mm, and it makes the fuses you mentioned irrelevant. Especially "in height". ))

[Civil]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Civil

And where about the radio fuse? Or height?

Is the radio controlled fuse? Is it with a barometer in height? Seriously though, a normally programmable fuse goes up in a 57mm, and it makes the fuses you mentioned irrelevant. Especially "in height". ))

Sorry, not strong that's why I ask. I assumed that there are systems that undermine the projectile at the required height without course correction.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Civil

Sorry, recourse is not strong, that's why I ask. I assumed that there are systems that undermine the projectile at the required height without course correction.

The principle is approximately the following, the OMS sets (programs), taking into account the parameters of the target's movement, the time of the projectile detonation. They set the time in different ways, they can almost during))) the shot, and the time is counted in two ways, the actual countdown and the number of revolutions of the projectile.

[Civil]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: Civil

Sorry, recourse is not strong, that's why I ask. I assumed that there are systems that undermine the projectile at the required height without course correction.

The principle is approximately the following, the OMS sets (programs), taking into account the parameters of the target's movement, the time of the projectile detonation. They set the time in different ways, they can almost during))) the shot, and the time is counted in two ways, the actual countdown and the number of revolutions of the projectile.

Thanks, it's clear now. I'm going to read about ammunition for the memory on US ships in World War II.

[D16]

Why is it bad to screw a new, programmable fuse into an old projectile, for example?

The programmable fuse is good for working on stationary or slow ground targets. To ensure the defeat of fast maneuvering air targets, it must be controlled. That is, the command to detonate should be given by the SPAAG at the optimal moment to hit the target.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: D16

That is, the command to detonate should be given by the SPAAG at the optimal moment to hit the target.

Nonsense! The MSA has already guided the gun in height and ahead of time, which means it has calculated the time of the target's approach to the meeting place with the projectile, and it is also completely unnecessary to give a command to detonate, this is not even counting the very likely interference on the air.

[D16]

Nonsense! The MSA has already guided the gun in height and ahead of time, which means it has calculated the time of the target's approach to the meeting place with the projectile,

This will work when shooting at short distances, when the time for the projectile to converge with the target is minimal. If the distance is close to the maximum, and the target is constantly maneuvering in three planes, no OMS will calculate anything exactly. In order to hook the target with a conical fragmentation field, the moment of detonation must be selected based on the analysis of the real, and not the calculated position of the target in space and the direction of its movement.

this is not even counting the very likely interference on the air.

The command to detonate can be given by LL.

[D16]

A target such as a light UAV can change not only direction, but also speed.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: D16

If the distance is close to the maximum, and the target is constantly maneuvering in three planes, no OMS will calculate anything exactly.

For these purposes, they use not ordinary projectiles with any kind of fuses, but at least homing projectiles, or rockets in general.

Quote: D16

the target with a conical fragmentation field, the moment of detonation must be chosen based on the analysis of the real, and not the calculated position of the target in space and the direction of its movement.

Sorry, but this is just stupidity, you have given tasks for radar control of the position of both the target and the projectile, the so-called. "closed loop contour" none of this in "Derivation". And set the tasks as for the air defense system.

Quote: D16

The command to detonate can be given by LL.

Here's how to write this in response to "

Quote: Vladimir_2U

this is not even counting the very likely interference on the air

The optical channel does not even need to be pressed very much, it is like the weather, that dust and smoke are simply extinguished. Well, where do you propose to place the laser receiver in the 57 mm artillery shell? Analyze your own suggestions a little.

[D16]

minimum homing shells, or missiles in general.

This is if such a projectile exists. How will it homing? GOS in caliber 57mm ?.

Sorry, but this is just stupidity, you have given tasks for radar control of the position of both the target and the projectile, the so-called. "closed loop contour" none of this in "Derivation". And set the tasks as for the air defense system.

Given the principle: "I blinded you out of what was" most likely, the hardware part should be maximally unified with the "Pine". The position of the target and the projectile can be controlled using the OLS and laser rangefinder. ... I wouldn't be surprised if this is Pine, but in a somewhat castrated version for cheaper ammunition.

The optical channel does not even need to be pressed very much, it is like the weather, that dust and smoke are simply extinguished.

Yeah. "Cornet", "Palma" and "Pine" are shining with a laser pointer in the ass

Well, where do you propose to place the laser receiver in the 57 mm artillery shell?

At the bottom.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: D16

This is if such a projectile exists. How will it homing? GOS in caliber 57mm ?.

Have you read the article?
"the look of the promising guided artillery shell (UAS) in caliber 57 mm "

Quote: D16

The position of the target and projectile can be controlled using the OLS and laser rangefinder

The further the more stupid, for this you will need TWO rangefinders! And mismatched. And one of them must keep a projectile flying along a ballistic curve in the beam with inevitable dispersion.

Quote: D16

Yeah. "Cornet", "Palma" and "Pine" are shining with a laser pointer in the ass

Shine then shine, but only a few people write in advertising brochures

Laser homing heads are sensitive both to natural interference in the form of dust or smoke, and to artificial ones created by the enemy.

Well, for all that, with laser guidance, the command to detonate is given by the missile fuses, and not by the FCS.

Quote: D16

Well, where do you propose to place the laser receiver in the 57 mm artillery shell?
At the bottom.

At the bottom of a high-ballistic artillery shell? Oh well.

[D16]

Have you read the article?
"we are working on the appearance of a promising guided artillery projectile (UAS) in caliber 57 mm"

You fundamentally do not see the difference between a homing and guided projectile?

The further the more stupid, for this you will need TWO rangefinders! And mismatched. And one of them must keep a projectile flying along a ballistic curve in the beam with inevitable dispersion.

The projectile can be measured the real initial velocity at the exit from the barrel, and then read its range. And what religion does not allow the use of a second rangefinder in the final section?

Well, for all that, with laser guidance, the command to detonate is given by the missile fuses, and not by the FCS.

This is because the rocket has room for such a fuse and a cunning warhead. In a high-explosive shell, cal. 57mm this, by definition, cannot be.

Laser homing heads are sensitive both to natural interference in the form of dust or smoke, and to artificial ones created by the enemy.

Laser PAGSN perceives the signal reflected from the target. The goal extinguishes it, exposing the veil between it and PAGSN. This is a completely different story.

At the bottom of a high-ballistic artillery shell? Oh well.

What prevents to put on a protective cap on the bottom, blown away by the oncoming stream after the exit of their barrel?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: D16

You fundamentally do not see the difference between a homing and guided projectile?

There is a difference, but what I wrote

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and at least homing shells

So it's me for your understanding rather, especially since homing missiles are a special case of guided missiles.
http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/328/zenitniye-upravlyaemiye-raketi

Quote: D16

The projectile can be measured the real initial velocity at the exit from the barrel, and then read its range.

Yozhkin cat, that's what the LMS does, and the LMS calculates the lead and sets the time of detonation, and if the target does not hit the calculated place, then there is no sense in remote control of the detonation. The projectile is then uncontrollable, where it was shot there and flies, without options. Well, you forgot such a trifle as the error in measuring the range, + -3-5 m. Which is very noticeable for 57mm.

Quote: D16

And what religion does not allow the use of a second rangefinder in the final section?

Are you seriously? The second rangefinder is actually the second OES with means of tracking the projectile at an appropriate price tag. You are writing some nonsense.

Quote: D16

This is because the rocket has room for such a fuse and a cunning warhead. In a high-explosive shell, cal. 57mm this, by definition, cannot be.

Yeah, but is there a place for a bottom laser sensor of sufficient sensitivity and strength, and even with a protective cap? And what to do with the contact action head fuse? And he should be.

Quote: D16

Laser PAGSN perceives the signal reflected from the target. The goal extinguishes it, exposing the veil between it and PAGSN. This is a completely different story.

The laser beam is, in principle, extinguished by smoke, dust and fog, no matter whether it is reflected or directed at a projectile / rocket.

Quote: D16

What prevents to put on a protective cap on the bottom, blown away by the oncoming stream after the exit of their barrel?

What kind of a cap is it that must withstand the pressure of gases, not deform, and then while still in rear parts of the projectile deflated by the oncoming stream? No, well, you can think of something using the rotational force of the projectile, but this is some kind of sub-caliber projectile, where to get a place for all this?
To summarize: remote detonation of an artillery projectile using a laser beam is nonsense, why?
First, the projectile must be kept in the beam, and this requires another full-fledged projectile tracking channel in addition to the target tracking channel.
Secondly, the measurement error of laser rangefinders at distances greater than a kilometer 3-5 m.
Thirdly, the laser beam is subject to the influence of smoke, dust, fog (the smoke of your own shot and more than one, for example).
Fourthly, the complexity (and hence the high cost) of protecting the laser receiver from the action of powder gases on the bottom of the projectile.
Fifthly, the projectile changes the inclination of the body and at a great distance the input window of the sensor can simply be closed from the laser beam (unexpectedly, right?)
Well, sixth, a programmable fuse can be delivered both for an instant strike (which requires its head placement), and for detonation with deceleration, but how can this be implemented by a laser remote controlled detonation?

[D16]

So this is me for your understanding rather

thanks for work

The LMS calculates the lead and sets the detonation time, and if the target does not hit the calculated place, then there is no sense in remote control of the detonation. The projectile is uncontrollable, where it was shot there and flies, without options.

Well, don't tell me. The same light UAV or gliding bomb doesn't need much. Therefore, it is necessary to detonate the projectile at the moment when the target begins to leave the calculated fragmentation field, or not detonate at all, so as not to frighten the operator .

The second rangefinder is actually the second ECO with means of tracking the projectile at the appropriate price tag.

The same Pine or Palm safely tracks the target, missile with the optical station and guides the missile along the laser path. It is possible that in the variant with Derivation, the developers went further towards reducing the cost of ammunition, and not the complex.

And what to do with the contact action head fuse? And he should be.

And why is it needed if the MSA will detonate the projectile before contacting the target?

The laser beam is, in principle, extinguished by smoke, dust and fog, no matter whether it is reflected or directed at a projectile / rocket.

Important. No one complains about guidance systems along the laser path. The Vietnamese even use the Palm in the navy, although our navy doesn’t use such things. But that's understandable. Our weather is not Vietnamese ... I repeat that smoke, dust and fog have an even stronger effect on ASP and UAVs.

the projectile must be held in the beam, and this requires another full-fledged projectile tracking channel

I see no obstacles

Secondly, the measurement error of laser rangefinders at distances greater than a kilometer 3-5 m.

Not fundamentally.

the projectile changes the inclination of the body and at a great distance the input window of the sensor can simply be closed from the laser beam (unexpected, right?)

The projectile is swinging, not tumbling. This can be compensated for by the design of the photodetector. Therefore, in this thread I wrote that, ideally, the derivation should have been made smooth-bore, and the shells, respectively, feathered.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: D16

Thank you for your concern smile

You are always welcome, no more complaints in the terminology?

Quote: D16

The projectile is swinging, not tumbling. This can be compensated for by the design of the photodetector. Therefore, in this thread I wrote that, ideally, the derivation should have been made smooth-bore, and the shells, respectively, feathered.

And no one wrote about somersaults, and even about precession (swing))), it was about the position of the projectile on the ballistic curve, it's a pity you didn't understand this. And it doesn't matter whether it is a classic shell or a feathered one.

Quote: D16

The same light UAV or gliding bomb doesn't need much. Therefore, it is necessary to detonate the projectile at the moment when the target begins to leave the calculated fragmentation field

It seems that you are talking at least about a 100 mm projectile, but we are discussing 57 mm, I remind you. Well, he smiles about the "gliding bomb".

Quote: D16

The same Pine or Palm safely tracks the target, missile with the optical station and guides the missile along the laser path. It is possible that in the variant with Derivation, the developers went further towards reducing the cost of ammunition, and not the complex.

Sosna / Palma (this is actually one complex) has three separate channels for tracking and guiding the missile, and for some reason the command to detonate is given by onboard fuses, while the Sosna OES also has two laser rangefinders.

Quote: D16

And what to do with the contact action head fuse? And he should be.
And why is it needed if the MSA will detonate the projectile before contacting the target?

Do you understand in general what a multifunctional projectile is and what is it for? And for example, why does the Sosny missile defense system have a CONTACT fuse?

In parallel, the so-called. multifunctional projectile. ..... A similar ammunition can be effectively used when shooting ground and air targets.

I hope you just didn't read my remark

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, sixth, a programmable fuse can be delivered both for an instant strike (which requires its head placement), and for detonation with deceleration, but how can this be implemented by a laser remote controlled detonation?

Because if you read it but at the same time write this: "Why is it needed, if the LMS will detonate the projectile before contacting the target," then everything is sad, not for me.

Quote: D16

Important. Nobody complains about laser trail guidance systems. The Vietnamese even use Palma in the navy, although our navy doesn't like such things. But that's understandable

Here I will probably agree, the laser can be installed more powerful.

Quote: D16

the projectile must be held in the beam, and this requires another full-fledged projectile tracking channel
I see no obstacles smile

Of course you don’t see, it’s not out of your pocket to pay a sharp rise in the cost of the ECO You don't seem to understand the difference between holding a 57-mm projectile and an anti-aircraft missile in the beam. you know what size, too lazy to look. The SAMA rocket is kept in the beam, but even in this case, three separate channels are required for tracking and guiding the rocket, and one of them is thermal imaging, but the rocket's engine shines like a thousand devils and the sensors are probably installed on the tail, and where should all this be placed on a 57 mm projectile ? Here either put the tracer or the sensor.
By the way, I completely lost sight of it, but when firing in burst (series), how many shells can the missing range finder / tracking channel be able to accompany?

Well, you completely ignored this

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Fourthly, the complexity (and hence the high cost) of protecting the laser receiver from the action of powder gases on the bottom of the projectile.

And why?

Quote: D16

Secondly, the measurement error of laser rangefinders at distances greater than a kilometer 3-5 m.
Not fundamentally.

In principle, it is already possible to curtail the discussion, with a miss in the dispersion of the projectile or an error in determining the MPC, it is already ridiculous to spit on the error in measuring the range. Why then fence the garden with a remote laser command to detonate?

[1Alexey]

D16 (Ilya), you and a number of others who wrote here, are going (or suggest) to somehow control the Derivation-air defense shells. In particular, you write about the methods of aiming the projectile at the target, please explain to me: how do you propose to change the trajectory of the projectile depending on the maneuvering of the target?

If you propose to equip a projectile with drop-down rudders, then this is no longer a projectile, but a rocket.
If the projectile does not have rudders, then why all this talk about the methods of homing the projectile at the target, how does it maneuver at a maneuverable target?

[D16]

If you propose to equip a projectile with drop-down rudders, then this is no longer a projectile, but a rocket.

Today, there are and are used many guided projectiles with drop-down rudders. The same Krasnopol for example. It makes sense to use the UAS when shooting at long distances at actively maneuvering targets.

If the projectile does not have rudders, then why all this talk about the methods of homing the projectile at the target, how does it maneuver at a maneuverable target?

If the shooting is carried out at a short distance and the projectile flight time is not great, the error of the FCS will be minimal. You can shoot a conventional high-explosive projectile with controlled or programmable detonation.

[1Alexey]

Quote: D16

Today, there are and are used many guided projectiles with drop-down rudders. The same Krasnopol for example.

But you do not take into account that Krasnopol has a caliber of 152 mm and 155 mm, and in our case the caliber is only 57 mm. And nowhere else have I seen any information about equipping it with drop-down rudders (if you have seen such information somewhere - give a link, I will be grateful).
But then the control system should also be different (if the projectile continues to aim at the target during the flight) and the projectile itself is much more expensive.

In addition, in this case you actually get an anti-aircraft missile, by analogy with the Pantsir missiles. Then it's easier to shoot with new cheap anti-aircraft missiles-nails of the Shell, and with a close approach with its own cannons (30 mm).

Quote: D16

If the shooting is carried out at a short distance and the projectile's flight time is not great, the error of the FCS will be minimal.

The fact of the matter is that one of the main declared advantages of the Derevatsii-air defense caliber (57 mm) is the possibility of hitting a target at a greater distance than anti-aircraft artillery of smaller calibers (23 and 30 mm).
Only with this very low ammunition, only about 150 shells (compare with several thousand for Shilka or Pantsir), and reloading always takes a noticeable time in combat conditions (and air targets are usually high-speed), reloading can be tantamount to death (the installation itself or the protected object).

[DDZ57]

But you do not take into account that Krasnopol has a caliber of 152 mm and 155 mm, and in our case the caliber is only 57 mm. And nowhere else have I seen any information about equipping it with drop-down rudders (if you have seen such information somewhere - give a link, I will be grateful).

Have you read the article?

KBTM them. A.E. Nudelman has been offering his UAS in calories for 15 years. 57mm. This is written in the article.
The Kalashnikov concern also works in this size for the UAS.
In the west, they currently fly and show good results at least two variants of the UAS in this size. They have flying UAVs in smaller sizes.

In addition, in this case you actually get an anti-aircraft missile, by analogy with the Pantsir missiles. Then it's easier to shoot new cheap anti-aircraft missiles-nails of the Shell,

You did the feasibility study for the shell and missile of the Pantsir to state this so categorically.

Only with this very low ammunition, only about 150 shells (compare with several thousand for Shilka or Pantsir),

The presence in the 57mm ammunition load of ammunition with GGE and trajectory detonation completely eliminates this problem (the consumption of ammunition for hitting a typical target is significantly reduced, 23 and 30mm were not nearby.

If you are interested, look for articles by V. Zubov with SM MSTU. N.E. Bauman, he has been popularizing these topics for a long time.

[1Alexey]

You did the feasibility study for the shell and missile of the Pantsir to state this so categorically.

Have you done to refute this?

The presence in the 57mm ammunition load of ammunition with GGE and trajectory detonation completely eliminates this problem (the consumption of ammunition for hitting a typical target is significantly reduced, 23 and 30mm were not nearby.

The fact of the matter is that only at times, and the number of shells is less by an order of magnitude!

[DDZ57]

The fact of the matter is that only at times, and the number of shells is less by an order of magnitude!

To hit an air target with projectiles (manufactured in the Russian Federation) cal. 23 and 30mm require their hitting the target, tk. they lack proximity and proximity fuses.
In the 57mm BOFORS shrapnel-fragmentation projectile, only GGE - 2400 pcs. Plus there are fragments of natural crushing.
Therefore, the presence of fragmentation-shrapnel (fragmentation-beam) projectiles in the air defense BM ammunition, having a radial-axial diagram of the dispersion of striking elements and equipped with a multifunctional fuse, does not require a thousandth ammunition load. In addition, the 57mm has a long range and high firing range.

[1Alexey]

Quote: DDZ57

To hit an air target with projectiles (manufactured in the Russian Federation) cal. 23 and 30mm require them to hit the target

As for the 30 mm shells, you are not entirely right, Shells shells are detonated without contact with the target with the scattering of fragments, due to which Shell can put an artillery curtain on the target's path (from fragments of exploding shells).

[DDZ57]

As for the 30 mm shells, you are not entirely right, Shells shells are detonated without contact with the target with the scattering of fragments, due to which Shell can put an artillery curtain on the target's path (from fragments of exploding shells).

An artillery curtain on the target's path in 30mm shells of the Shell can appear only in the process of self-destruction of shells (dangerous, but not entirely fragments, fall on the ground, and not an OFS with a cocked fuse, so that friendly fire from Shell does not kill its own people and civilians).
There is no ammunition in the Carapace of shots with trajectory detonation.
If only the self-destruction of the projectile is considered a trajectory detonation.

[1Alexey]

Quote: DDZ57

They have flying UAVs in smaller sizes.

Then the question arises: why, for example, the Pantsir anti-aircraft guns, with their large ammunition, not be equipped with 30 mm shells with UAS?

[DDZ57]

Then the question arises: why, for example, the Pantsir anti-aircraft guns, with their large ammunition, not be equipped with 30 mm shells with UAS?

They, i.e. in the west, there are flying UAS in 57mm caliber, there are also smaller ones, i.e. in 50mm, it is quite possible that they will soon appear in a size of 40mm. They probably consider it appropriate, since the fire control system cannot always calculate the lead point of impact. Their EEE allows you to do this.
My commentary did not talk about UAS in 30mm caliber, they probably think that placing the control unit in a 30mm projectile will lead to the disappearance of explosives in it, which will exclude area damage, an exact hit (kinetic defeat) will be required. The result is a super-expensive 30mm projectile, short-range and high-altitude. Accurate kinetic defeat is implemented in their missile defense missile. In the 12,7mm caliber, this is still an advertisement of possibilities.
The question of equipping the Armor of the Armor with the UAS should be directed to the KBP and the Device.
And if you think about it (at present, the Russian Federation does not have a projectile with a trajectory detonation) and additionally look at your cell phone and computer (whose production they are), then the question about the UAS produced by the Russian Federation in small calibers will immediately disappear.

[1Alexey]

Quote: DDZ57

They, i.e. in the west, there are flying UAS in 57mm

Tell me, how is the UAS 57 mm controlled in the West: the GOS or from the "ground"?

[DDZ57]

Tell me, how is the UAS 57 mm controlled in the West: the GOS or from the "ground"?

As per your question (only without or): both the GOS and from the ground.

[D16]

And nowhere else have I seen any information about equipping it with drop-down rudders (if you have seen such information somewhere - give a link, I will be grateful).

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Краснополь_(управляемый_снаряд)#/media/Файл:2K25_Krasnopol.jpg
Smaller calibers need to hit the target, 57mm can be detonated remotely and cover it with a fragmentation field.

In this case, you actually get an anti-aircraft missile, by analogy with the Shell missiles. Then it's easier to shoot new cheap anti-aircraft missiles-nails of the Shell

Armor is an air defense facility complex. Derivation is military. The question of the price of the complex and consumables. And if the UAS is cheaper, but comparable to the price of a "nail" from the "Pantsir", then a conventional high-explosive shell with remote detonation is much cheaper. Such a projectile is heavier than small-caliber shells, retains its speed longer with less dispersion. Thanks to the large fragmentation field, the 57mm consumption will be minimal.

[1Alexey]

Thanks for the link, but I actually asked for a link about the 57mm projectile, but thanks anyway!
[quote = D16] [quote] Shell is an air defense object complex. Derivation - military [/ quote]
This is of no fundamental importance (for example, in Tartus, our facility is protected by the military S-300V4, and Khmeimim, in addition to the Armor, also installed the military TOR-M2).
[quote = D16] And if the UAS is cheaper, but comparable to the price of a "nail" from "Pantsir", then a conventional high-explosive shell with remote detonation is much cheaper. [/ quote]
So the fact of the matter is that a conventional projectile with remote detonation can often smear on a maneuverable target, and the ammunition is low.
As for the missiles-nails of the Shell, they, in addition to accuracy, have a long range, and at a shorter range, guns are turned on.
[quote = D16] [quote]. Due to the large fragmentation field, the consumption of 57mm will be minimal. [/ Quote]
The 30 mm projectile also has a fragmentation field and it is used by the Shell, for example, to expose an artillery screen in the path of the target.
The concept of "minimum" consumption is from the category of emotions (provide specific data (for example, based on test results) on the consumption of anti-aircraft shells against a maneuverable target at maximum range for Wood-AA defense).

[D16]

This does not matter in principle

Even as it has. We need to sell not only the S-400, but also the Antey 2500. Both Shell and Thor. Therefore, they all work together in Syria.

(provide specific data (for example, based on test results) on the consumption of anti-aircraft shells against a maneuverable target at the maximum range for Wood-AA defense).

Ten years for the correct answer? Don't be so naive

[1Alexey]

Quote: D16

D16 (Ilya)
This does not matter in principle

Even as it has. We need to sell not only the S-400, but also the Antey 2500. Both Shell and Thor. Therefore, they all work together in Syria.

For the needs of air defense - it doesn't matter!
Also for your information, the Pantsir was developed to replace the Tunguska, and the Tunguska is the military air defense, so it is likely that later (when we produce it in sufficient quantities) it will be transferred to the military air defense.

Quote: D16

Ten years for the correct answer? Don't be so naive

So, if you do not know the projectile consumption, then why do you claim that it will be minimal ?!
It may well be that when firing conventional shells with remote detonation (not UAS), Derevatsiya-Air Defense can use up all its ammunition and never hit a maneuverable target.

Regarding the UAS (57 mm), firstly they are still being developed, and secondly, this article does not clearly set out the principle of their control ("fly along the beam" is the seeker or control from the "ground").

[D16]

Also for your information, the Pantsir was developed to replace the Tunguska

Open wikipedia about "Shell C1" and read the second paragraph. The purpose of the complex is absolutely clearly described there. I will add on my own that, firstly, it was developed with money from the United Arab Emirates, which never had Tunguska in service, and secondly, they really tried to make an advanced Tunguska from the Pantsir, rearranging it on a tracked chassis, but in the military air defense it is and didn't get it.

So, if you do not know the projectile consumption, then why do you claim that it will be minimal ?!

Nobody will tell you this, since the question was asked incorrectly. Not everything depends on the projectile and the ZAK control system, but also on the characteristics of the target:
Speed, permissible overload, range. It should not be forgotten that while performing somersaults in the air, the target must perform some kind of combat mission. Otherwise, there is no point in shooting at her. .

this article does not clearly set out the principle of their control ("fly along the beam" is the GOS or control from the "ground")

There is a very big difference between "Fly along the beam", or rather "fly in a program-controlled light information field using electronic laser beam control technology" and aim at the reflection of the LL from the target. The source of LL in the case of air defense is usually on the ground. There is not a word about any PAGSN in the UAS in the article.

[1Alexey]

Quote: D16

For your information, the Shell was developed to replace the Tunguska

Open wikipedia about "Shell C1"

I am giving you a quote from Wikipedia: "Pantsir-C1 (GRAU index - 96K6, at the development stage had the verbal name" Tunguska-3 "
The article should be read in full, and not ripped out individual words. As for the words about covering military facilities, the military air defense also covers military facilities (for example, S-300V4 and TOP-M2 in the Kaliningrad region and in Syria).

I also advise you to read the article about the Carapace at the following link:
https://avia.pro/blog/pancir-s1
I quote some of her passages:

“The first stage is the 70s. XX century - the beginning of the development of "Pantsir-C1",

A new prototype called "Tunguska-3" appeared in 1994.
2002 - representatives of the UAE military department showed interest in technology.
Then all the main units and assemblies of the complex were changed. Deliveries ended in 2009.

2012 Year - The Pantsir-C1 ZRPK was adopted by the Russian army. Signed a contact for the manufacture and supply to the army of 38 systems for the 2016 year.

2016 year - a new modernization "Pantsir-С2" from KB engineering. He was supposed to replace the short-range air defense systems "Tunguska".

[D16]

I am giving you a quote from Wikipedia: "Pantsir-C1 (GRAU index - 96K6, at the development stage had the verbal name" Tunguska-3 "

Iiiiii ..... He ended up in the military air defense?

2016 year - a new modernization "Pantsir-С2" from KB engineering. He was supposed to replace the short-range air defense systems "Tunguska".

5 years later. Replaced?

[1Alexey]

Quote: D16

So, if you do not know the projectile consumption, then why do you claim that it will be minimal ?!

Nobody will tell you this, since the question was asked incorrectly.

The question was asked absolutely correctly. If a person does not possess information, then there is no need to make emotional statements about the alleged "minimal" expenditure of shells! On a maneuverable target, the AA defense deorevation may not hit at all.

Quote: D16

There is a very big difference between "Fly along the beam", or rather "fly in a program-controlled light information field using electronic laser beam control technology" and aim at the reflection of the LL from the target. The source of LL in the case of air defense is usually on the ground. There is not a word about any PAGSN in the UAS in the article.

In my opinion, the expression "fly along the beam" can be interpreted in two ways. But, if we accept your interpretation (I do not mind, since this is at least some kind of clarity), then the question arises of how many targets the system can lead and how many of them can simultaneously fire? After all, several targets can attack an object at the same time and having shot one at a time, you can immediately (without waiting for the moment of defeat, switch to another (if the guidance system allows), and if you wait every time for the moment of defeat, then you may not have time to shoot at all targets (taking into account possible modern speeds of air targets).

[D16]

Your interpretation (I do not mind, since this is at least some kind of clarity), then the question arises of how many targets the system can lead in this case and how many of them simultaneously fire?

Pfff ... There is a lot of shooting within my sector. It is necessary to track the projectile only at the terminal site, and the machine must work as part of the unit.

On a maneuverable target, the AA defense deorevation may not hit at all.

Or maybe get in. And it all depends on who is being shot at. You are a drone operator that illuminates the target for artillery. Can he actively maneuver? With what overload he can maneuver at the same time And with what overload does the gliding bomb maneuver

[DDZ57]

Considering the principle: "I blinded you from what was" laughing, most likely the hardware should be maximally unified with the "Pine".

The first principle about "sculpting" works, the second principle "unification" is a very big question.
Thus, during the modernization at Tunguska, an OLS was installed to solve problems similar to those of Derivation. OLS manufactured by "Elins". They are not interchangeable with "Peleng" even in terms of mounting. See # 5 ARMY 2020.

[garri-lin]

In the case of the C60, everything is somewhat different. The ballistics of the gun are almost ideal for their business. Why fence something new? There are examples in history that unconditionally confirm your words. But in this particular case, this is not the case.

[igor_sabadah]

Well, if you look at history, then Grabin made the F22 with a view to modernization, and if necessary, it was possible to do what the Germans did as a result, but we could not, it was not before that, but the old stocks of shells helped out a lot. so here, if there is a margin for modernization or the power of the shot can be raised by a banal replacement of gunpowder, then the decision is correct

[Alexey RA]

Quote: infantryman2020

History is full of examples. Offhand, the decision on the ammunition for the ZiS-3: they decided to stay on ammunition for the old cannon model 1902. The advantages are known, the disadvantages are also known (the massive divisional and, in fact, anti-tank gun turned out to be relatively weak against tanks).

With the "three-inch" it was not so much about the stocks of ammunition for the gun mod. 02, how much of a physical impossibility to produce a mob-reserve of ammunition for new more powerful divisional guns. The reason is simple - more powerful ammunition required a heavier cartridge case, which increased copper consumption.

Sleeve 76mm guns arr. 1902/1930 (as well as subsequent divisions of this caliber) weighed 830-850 grams.
But the anti-aircraft gun sleeve of the 1931 3-K model weighed 2 kg 760 grams already.
Those. 3,1 times more copper.
The 85mm anti-aircraft gun barrel weighed 2,85-2,92kg and was slightly thicker, but in geometric terms it was almost identical to the 1931 3-K gun barrel.

That is, even switching to shots from a 76-mm anti-aircraft gun increased copper consumption threefold. And this at a time when the GAU, in order to save non-ferrous metal, required caps loading for large-caliber guns.
"The copper question" hacked to death before the war and 85-mm division, and 95-mm. During the war, the transition to 85-mm caliber in tank guns was provided by Chilean copper.

[Private-K]

Quote: infantryman2020

Linking to the existing stocks of ammunition (and, accordingly, to their aging design) as an attempt to save money also has a negative side - the development of the weapons system is inhibited.

In this case, this is all unacceptable. Nobody will use old unitary shots, except in all sorts of "Africans" - and even there they are already twisting their nose.
All available stocks of 57-mm unitars for the S-60 are too old - the warranty period for normal operation has long passed.
Modern high-energy propellant propellants can dramatically reduce the size of the case - that is, by 30% accurately - while maintaining the required level of initial speed.
The use of brass in the casings - and all the unitars for the 57-mm S-60 are exactly like that - is a nightmare waste. Especially in the presence of technologies of many times cheaper steel sleeves.
In short: it is clearly not worth dancing with joy from the 2A90 cannon. If we talk about the prospects (and the entire Derivation-Air Defense system "is aimed precisely at the future), then it would be absolutely logical to develop a new unitary shot for the 57-mm autocannon, with a reduced steel sleeve.

[DDZ57]

Modern high-energy propellant propellants can dramatically reduce the size of the case - that is, by 30% accurately - while maintaining the required level of initial speed.
The use of brass in the casings - and all the unitars for the 57-mm S-60 are exactly like that - is a nightmare waste. Especially in the presence of technologies of many times cheaper steel sleeves.

Where have you seen modern high-energy propellant propellants in Russia?
They are not even for the shooter.
I will disappoint you - the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation pointed to brass in a 57mm sleeve.

[Private-K]

Quote: DDZ57

Where have you seen modern high-energy propellant propellants in Russia?

Technologies were purchased already in the 90s and applied. (Fundamental increases in the firing range of NURS and missiles dance from this.)
In the shooter, everything is constrained by the established dimensions of the cartridges.

Quote: DDZ57

I will disappoint you - the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation pointed to brass in a 57mm sleeve.

Oh, and figs with them. Let them do what they want.

[DDZ57]

Technologies were purchased already in the 90s and applied. (Fundamental increases in the firing range of NURS and missiles dance from this.)

NURSs and rockets fly further due to the fact that they began to use higher-energy mixed propellants, have worked out their technologies and engine designs. And on this the Russian Federation is again stuck.
That even China has already gone before.
A striking example - the Belarusian Polonaise is based on a Chinese rocket, and not on the Russian Smerch, and Old Man dances the Beijing dance on this topic, not the Tula one.
And a small forecast for China (from Haytek) (2020): "China will seize the lead in the production of solid-fuel rockets by 2025" - The Chinese state enterprise for the design and manufacture of spacecraft and rockets CASIC announced at the VI International Conference on Commercial Space, which began October 19 in Wuhan, a five-year development plan for launch systems, satellite constellations and reusable spaceplanes. CASIC is confident that in many areas of space exploration, China will have no competitors in 5 years. -
Look. Read it.

In the shooter, everything is constrained by the established dimensions of the cartridges.

Restrained not only in the rifle, but also in the barrel artillery.
And it is restrained not by the "well-established dimensions of cartridges" (a cool phraseological unit, I have not yet heard, will go down in history, almost like Chernomyrdin's), but by the absence of gunpowder, that is, there are no propellants with the required parameters in the Russian Federation (if the meaning of the word "NO" is clear).

Modern high-energy propellant propellants can dramatically reduce the size of the case - that is, by 30% accurately - while maintaining the required level of initial speed.

If you solve the problem of drastically reducing the size of the sleeve by 30% while maintaining the required level of initial speed, you in the Russian Federation will be given a state prize, and on a global scale, pull for a Nobel prize.
Only it is not clear what size to reduce - diameter or length, and where to get this modern high-energy propellant powder?
There is no phrase in the Russian language for high-energy gunpowder, there is a phrase for high-energy gunpowder.
And what about propelling powder, or is it again "according to Chernomyrdin"?

And where to find modern alchemists who have the Philosopher's Stone, which will transform "shit" into modern high-energy gunpowder?

[DesToeR]

Quote: infantryman2020

History is full of examples. Offhand, the decision on the ammunition for the ZiS-3: they decided to stay on ammunition for the old cannon model 1902. The advantages are known, the disadvantages are also known (the massive divisional and, in fact, anti-tank gun turned out to be relatively weak against tanks).

Tell me, how do you assess the German divisional howitzer of 105mm caliber? Was she "relatively" powerful against tanks? And another question: why was the design bureau under the leadership of Grabin created before the war on the instructions of the Motherland of the 57mm anti-tank gun? Maybe there is logic (quite reinforced concrete) in the actions of the "grandfathers"?

[DDZ57]

And another question: why was the design bureau under the leadership of Grabin created before the war on the instructions of the Motherland of the 57mm anti-tank gun? Maybe there is logic (quite reinforced concrete) in the actions of the "grandfathers"?

The logic behind the development of the 57mm gun was in 40, the 45mm anti-tank gun, which was the main anti-tank gun of the spacecraft, did not take the armor of a German tank of that time.
But what was on paper at Grabin could not be executed at the ordinary weapons factories of the USSR at that time. The PT 57mm cannon was sold in the USSR in 43, when lend-lease equipment for the production of barrels began to arrive
Read "Alternative History", tk. the myth that there were no targets for 57mm in 41 is very tenacious.
There were no worthy goals for him, and they could not make a barrel, the length required for him.
100% went to marriage.

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

But what was on paper at Grabin could not be executed at the ordinary weapons factories of the USSR at that time.

Why write a lie?

Quote: DDZ57

The PT 57mm cannon was sold in the USSR in 43, when lend-lease equipment for the production of barrels began to arrive

371 pcs. 57mm anti-tank guns fired in the USSR before the end of 1941 strongly disagree with you. Regarding "could not be executed ..." - ask how many 88mm long barrels of 70 calibers the Nazis rejected in the production of their guns. To understand the massiveness - the number of armored vehicles that had "on board" 88 / L70 was for the entire war the Germans had something of the order of only 1000 pieces.

Quote: DDZ57

Read "Alternative History"

Read at least the official one.

Quote: DDZ57

100% went to marriage.

Once again: https://topwar.ru/125314-rasskazy-ob-oruzhii-57-mm-protivotankovaya-pushka-zis-2.html. Check out at least the official version. And lastly ... what about the anti-tank capabilities of the 105mm howitzer from the Germans. Will you present it to the Nazis for this?

[DDZ57]

Read at least the official one.

The ZiS-2 cannons were made in Gorky. In the production of the barrel, it turned out about 30 ÷ 60% of the scrap (and sometimes up to 100%). The trunk could be made by the 8th plant near Moscow, but its capacity was loaded with other weapons. The production of the ZiS-2 arr. 1943 was resumed only after the equipment was received under Lend-Lease.

371 pcs. 57mm anti-tank guns fired in the USSR before the end of 1941 strongly disagree with you.

The result of spacecraft combat operations in 41-42, including the use of 371 pieces. 57mm anti-tank guns, produced in the USSR before the end of 1941, are very "good".

Once again: https://topwar.ru/125314-rasskazy-ob-oruzhii-57-mm-protivotankovaya-pushka-zis-2.html. Check out at least the official version.

And if this is the official version, then what kind of account it is and which government agency presented it.

And lastly ... what about the anti-tank capabilities of the 105mm howitzer from the Germans. Will you present it to the Nazis for this?

And this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
And I have no complaints about the German Gehlen, on which I ride, respectively, and presenting it either

[DDZ57]

Colleagues sent us about the prospects of artillery in the Russian Federation:
http://www.moscow-post.su/politics/poligony_dlya_zabav_alberta_bakova34900/
http://news3day.ru/obshhestvo/v-tsniitochmash-uvolyat-kazhdogo-pyatogo-sotrudnika.html

https://rucriminal.info/ru/material/vor-na-milliardy-predatel-ili-dva-v-odnom

Read, somewhere better, somewhere worse. Many questions disappear at once.

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

The ZiS-2 cannons were made in Gorky.

Yeah, all the same, the guns were made by the forces of the USSR factories without the use of lend-lease equipment ... not bad for a start. Let's continue your educational program.

Quote: DDZ57

The trunk could be made by the 8th plant near Moscow, but its capacity was loaded with other weapons.

Yeah, it means that the leadership of the USSR deliberately refused to release 57mm anti-tank guns in favor of other systems. Even better...

Quote: DDZ57

The production of the ZiS-2 arr. 1943 was resumed only after the equipment was received under Lend-Lease.

And in 1942, what did they not start? Lend-Lease has already been - order special equipment if "hot". Maybe not really bothered? Considering that the carriage of the ZiS-3 and ZiS-2 is the same. Well, the "cherry" on the cake:

Quote: DDZ57

The result of spacecraft combat operations in 41-42, including the use of 371 pieces. 57mm anti-tank guns, produced in the USSR before the end of 1941, are very "good".

And what about the "result" is not it? Was it necessary like the Poles in 1939? Maybe on the way of the French with their 5 million. army and the Maginot line should have been walked? This would not have happened with such a "road", tk. plans of the 3rd Reich regarding us were different, to put it mildly.

Quote: DDZ57

And this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Well, how ?! You blame the Soviet leadership for the 76mm ammunition "unsuccessful" from the point of view of PT capabilities. Not realizing that the 76mm divisional gun was not an anti-tank gun. And the fact that it was sometimes used de facto is a "bonus", not a minus. So now answer how the divisional 105mm howitzer weighing 3,5 tons in the Wehrmacht performed the role of the PT?

[DDZ57]

Quote: DDZ57
The production of the ZiS-2 arr. 1943 was resumed only after the equipment was received under Lend-Lease.

And in 1942, what did they not start? Lend-Lease has already been - order special equipment if "hot". Maybe not really bothered? Considering that the carriage of the ZiS-3 and ZiS-2 is the same. Well, the "cherry" on the cake:

Maybe not really bothered?

The answer to your question is straining and very strong. Therefore, in 42g. and there were no deep hole drilling machines and other technological equipment for the production of long barrels.
Because it was necessary to conduct what was needed in the first place - explosives, gunpowder, etc. it was the primary lend-lease. As soon as the turn of the technological equipment came, it was brought in, which made it possible to produce the caliber 76mm and 57mm without stress (i.e. without reducing the production of other guns).
But the complexity of manufacturing a 57mm barrel was several times higher than that of a 76mm barrel.
This is evidenced by the fact that the output of 76mm guns was several times higher than the output of 57mm guns, despite the fact that the need for 57mm guns was higher than for 76mm guns.
A 57mm PT gun 43g. this is a bit not quite the same anti-tank gun as it was in 41g. And the reason is just that it was put on a machine from the ZiS-3.

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

The answer to your question is straining and very strong.

You have nothing to do? Boring? Are you all right with "L" (logic)?

Quote: DDZ57

But the complexity of manufacturing a 57mm barrel was several times higher than that of a 76mm barrel.

Do you even understand that you are comparing warm with soft? A divisional gun with an anti-tank gun. Compare then the complexity of manufacturing the barrel of the PPSh and PTRS, for example. I am sure the prices will greatly surprise you.

Quote: DDZ57

This is evidenced by the fact that the output of 76mm guns was several times higher than the output of 57mm guns, despite the fact that the need for 57mm guns was higher than for 76mm guns.

Why do you think so? Why in 1941 a 57mm cannon? What kind of tank the 45mm PTP could not handle in 1942, apart from the Tiger of course?

Quote: DDZ57

Those. it was the primary lend-lease. As soon as the turn of the technological equipment came, it was brought in, which made it possible to produce the caliber 76mm and 57mm without stress (i.e. without reducing the production of other guns).

Once again, is your logic okay? In one post you point out that 57mm was desperately needed 76mm, but the release was adjusted in 1943 so as not to reduce 76mm !? Do you understand that 76mm in 1942 ... 1943 is a kapets for any tank at almost all valid firing distances in any projection? Why make the same gun by weight, but with a "narrow" specialization, not capable of firing a sane OFS? "L" - logic. The USSR leadership had it, unlike you.

[DDZ57]

Do you even understand that you are comparing warm with soft? A divisional gun with an anti-tank gun. Compare then the complexity of manufacturing the barrel of the PPSh and PTRS, for example. I am sure the prices will greatly surprise you.

I compare the ZiS-2 anti-tank gun with the ZiS-3 anti-tank gun.
Read IN
https://topwar.ru/79209-divizionnaya-pushka-zis-3-biografiya-rekordsmena.html

Suffice it to say that in 1942 and 1943, 8143 and 8993 guns were delivered to the anti-tank artillery, and 2005 and 4931 guns, respectively, to the divisional artillery, and only in 1944 the ratio becomes approximately equal.

And about the prices.
And the prices will surprise you very much when you compare the production of the 91 / 30g sniper rifle and the 91 / 30g rifle.

"L" - logic. The USSR leadership had it, unlike you.

Do you mean the logic of Marshal Kulik?

[DDZ57]

Once again, is your logic okay? In one post you point out that 57mm was desperately needed 76mm, but the release was adjusted in 1943 so as not to reduce 76mm !? Do you understand that 76mm in 1942 ... 1943 is a kapets for any tank at almost all valid firing distances in any projection?

Where did you find that 76mm in 1942 ... 1943 is a kapets for any tank at almost all valid firing distances in any projection.

Note 43d. says something else:

"....
Note of the Military Council of the Armored and Mechanized Forces of the Red Army on the test results of the German T-VI tank.

May 4, 1943 Top secret.

TO THE PEOPLE'S DEFENSE COMMISSIONER MARSHAL OF THE SOVIET UNION Comrade Stalin.
Reporting: on the results of the shelling of the German heavy tank T-VI.
In the period from 24 to 30 April this year. at the GBTU KA scientific test armored range, tests were carried out by shelling a German T-VI tank from artillery systems in service with the Red Army, and also firing from an 88 mm T-VI tank gun at the armored hulls of T-34 and KV- one.
T-VI tank shelling results
Side, aft and turret armor of a tank 82 mm thick breaks through (when a projectile meets armor at a right angle):
1. Submunitions of a 45 mm anti-tank gun of the 1942 model from a distance of 350 meters.
2. Submunition shells of a 45 mm tank gun of a sample of 1937 from a distance of 200 meters.
3. A continuous armor-piercing projectile of 57 mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 from a distance of 1000 meters.
4. An armor-piercing shell of an 85 mm anti-aircraft gun from a distance of 1500 meters.
5. Armor-piercing (solid) shell of an English 57 mm tank gun from a distance of 600 meters.
6. Armor-piercing (solid) shell of an English anti-tank 57 mm gun from a distance of 1000 meters.
7. Armor-piercing (solid) shell of a 75 mm American tank gun from a distance of 600 meters.
8. The frontal armor of the T-VI tank 100 mm thick is pierced by an armor-piercing shell of an 85 mm anti-aircraft gun from a distance of 1000 meters.
The shelling of 82 mm of the side armor of the T-VI tank from the 76 mm F-34 tank gun from a distance of 200 meters showed that the armor-piercing shells of this gun are weak and, when they meet the tank’s armor, are destroyed without penetrating the armor.
Subcaliber 76 mm shells also do not penetrate 100 mm of the frontal armor of a T-VI tank from a distance of 500 m..

[DDZ57]

Once again, is your logic okay? In one post you point out that 57mm was desperately needed 76mm, but the release was adjusted in 1943 so as not to reduce 76mm !?

And once again about

the logic

1. The cost of one 57mm barrel was equal to 3-5 76mm barrels, and there was only one plant.
3. With a poor industry - you have to be a complete idiot to load a beggar machine-tool park for such tools in the 41st year. "The USSR was a poor country."

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

I compare the ZiS-2 anti-tank gun with the ZiS-3 anti-tank gun.

What for? Why compare two completely different specialized projectile-weapon systems? 76mm divisional weapons in PTO are a need, not a virtue. The lack of armor penetration of the 76mm shell of Soviet divisional guns against ADVANCED enemy tanks was obvious to the leadership of the USSR before the Second World War. Once again: compare the German 105mm howitzer in the Wehrmacht divisional artillery with the RAK38, for example.

Quote: DDZ57

Do you mean the logic of Marshal Kulik?

And that she was not?

Quote: DDZ57

Where did you find that 76mm in 1942 ... 1943 is a kapets for any tank at almost all valid firing distances in any projection.

A typo, of course: 1941 ... 1942. On VO, unfortunately, they removed the ability to adjust posts after publication ...

Quote: DDZ57

1. The cost of one 57mm barrel was equal to 3-5 76mm barrels, and there was only one plant.

And what does this prove? The fact that in 1941 ... 1942. 57mm barrels were not particularly needed. Yes - this explains the return to 45mm. Targets for 57mm in 1941 ... 1942. there were no decent ones, but the losses of the 76mm guns were enormous.

Quote: DDZ57

3. With a poor industry - you have to be a complete idiot to load a beggar machine-tool park for such tools in the 41st year. "The USSR was a poor country."

So all the same there was "L" logic (quite reinforced concrete) in the actions of the Soviet leadership?

[DDZ57]

"L" - logic. The USSR leadership had it, unlike you.
Do you mean the logic of Marshal Kulik?

Quote: DDZ57

Do you mean the logic of Marshal Kulik?

Quote: DesToeR (Anatoly) Today, 10:02

And that she was not?

I gave you a link to VO
https://topwar.ru/79209-divizionnaya-pushka-zis-3-biografiya-rekordsmena.html
Read about the ZiS-3. It is difficult to comment on the logic of idiots.

And here in the office of the marshal the following scene takes place, which Vasily Grabin literally cites in his book of memoirs "Weapon of Victory":
“Kulik rose. He smiled slightly, looked around the audience and stopped him at me. I appreciated this as a positive sign. Kulik was silent for a while, preparing to state his decision, and expressed:
“You want a plant of an easy life, while blood is shed on the front.” Your guns are not needed.
He fell silent. It seemed to me that I mishear or he made a reservation. I only managed to pronounce:
- How?
- And so, not needed! Go to the factory and give more of those guns that are in production.
Marshal continued to stand with the same victorious look.

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

I gave you a link to VO

What are you talking about? You answer about 57mm PTP. You can see completely unaware that the 57mm cannon with its own ammunition and the 76mm division are two PARALLEL stories in the development of the USSR artillery. You have mixed in a bunch of "horses and people." You "download" from Lend-Lease to Kulik without tying up the elementary in your thoughts. To understand Kulik's actions, elementary enough is enough:
- firstly, the knowledge of what kind of 76mm gun was used for recruiting divisional artillery at that time;
- secondly, the understanding that the ZIS-3 at the time of this conversation was not adopted by the Red Army. This meant this unpleasant fact of the need to go through a full cycle of tests (which is time), which could easily give a negative result. And the front needed 76mm cannons desperately TODAY. Those guns that are adopted by the Red Army. The fact that Grabin would take the risk and he would succeed was far from obvious for Kulik that day.
Take away the afterthought in your head and for you, perhaps the actions of people of that era will not seem so stupid.

[DDZ57]

Take away the afterthought in your head and for you, perhaps the actions of people of that era will not seem so stupid.

But it is very difficult to assess the actions of people who are guilty of disaster 41-42gg, which took place in the western part of the USSR.

The actions and inaction of the people (leaders) of that era will not seem stupid, but a crime against the population living in that territory at that time.

And remember what the discussion started about

infantryman2020 4 February 2021 07:20
Linking to the existing stocks of ammunition (and, accordingly, to their aging design) as an attempt to save money also has a negative side - the development of the weapons system is inhibited. "A double-edged sword". This solution is not a good one by default; each time you need to work it out separately.
History is full of examples. Offhand, the decision on the ammunition for the ZiS-3: they decided to stay on ammunition for the old cannon model 1902. The advantages are known, the disadvantages are also known (the massive divisional and, in fact, anti-tank gun turned out to be relatively weak against tanks).
Obviously, everything has been calculated, the old ammunition is suitable and no reloading is required? And, by the way, the old shot for the S-60 is quite technologically crap (in terms of the materials used).

The point was that the use of an old gun for an old ammunition in the absence of new ammunition and old ballistic solutions is not an optimal solution. And World War II confirms all this. And not only the 2nd MV, but also the events of 2. And all this applies not only to artillery systems, but also to other types of weapons and military equipment.

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

And remember what the discussion started about

Well, finally, otherwise I thought that you had already forgotten ...

Quote: DDZ57

It was about the fact that the use of an old gun for old ammunition in the absence of new ammunition and old ballistic solutions is not an optimal solution.

Do you have arguments for a "non-optimality" solution? I think that apart from VET there is no, from the word at all. Considering that the USV "sent" old shells 13 + km along a ballistic trajectory. Not enough for the divisional artillery of the 40s?

Quote: DDZ57

I can't tell you anything specifically about the German 105mm howitzer in the Wehrmacht divisional artillery, because The weapon of those times is not interesting to me, and its comparison with the PAK38 is also not interesting to me.

Q.E.D. Why do you then compare the divisional gun of the USSR with the PTP? Did it suddenly become "interesting" for you? Was the ZIS-3 insufficient for the role of the PTO? Then how "perfectly" did Soviet tanks hit Soviet tanks with a 105mm howitzer (suddenly divisional) in service with Wehrmacht divisions?

Quote: DDZ57

And the 2nd World War confirms all this.

WWII perfectly confirms that in the USSR the 76mm caliber in the DIVISION artillery was considered INSUFFICIENT for the late 30s. This is yes. But making demands on a 76mm cannon for fighting tanks in direct fire is strong. Considering that Comrade Grabin was given an assignment to design a new anti-tank vehicle, which he actually successfully coped with.

[DDZ57]

Do you have arguments for a "non-optimality" solution? I think that apart from VET there is no, from the word at all.

So you read the full comments to this article, so, maybe, questions about the "non-optimality of the 57mm caliber performed by the Petrel" for solving air defense problems will disappear.
There is absolutely no question about solving problems of anti-tank equipment with a caliber of 57mm. If you understand the meaning of the word "no"

WWII perfectly confirms that the USSR considered the 76mm caliber in the DIVISIONAL artillery to be INSUFFICIENT for the late 30s. This is yes. But making demands on a 76mm cannon for fighting tanks in direct fire is strong.

The logic is cool: they considered it, but did nothing.
And if you make demands on a 76mm div.cannon for fighting tanks in direct fire, this is strong.
How then to understand - 45mm anti-tank gunnery in direct fire with the ability to penetrate the frontal armor at a distance of 150m?

[DDZ57]

Quote: DDZ57
And remember what the discussion started about
Quote: DesToeR (Anatoly) Today, 12:36

Well, finally, otherwise I thought that you had already forgotten ...

And if you did, then what did you not recall?

[DDZ57]

About the logic of idiots

or zombie read in Tuning Fork:

https://webkamerton.ru/2020/02/novyy-chelovek-postchelovek?utm_campaign=auction

[DDZ57]

Targets for 57mm in 1941 ... 1942. there were no decent ones, but the losses of the 76mm guns were enormous.

Targets for 57mm in 1941 ... 1942. there were no worthy - complete nonsense, because armor penetration is never excessive. And to pierce through a German tank in 41-42. is a fairy tale or a complete zombie.
A 57mm projectile is less powerful when operating against infantry and firing points than a 76mm. But we are talking about anti-tank guns.
Taking into account the practice of the USSR to have universal, and not highly specialized weapons (for example, the use of ALL artillery available for this for anti-tank purposes), the ZiS-2 was constantly looked askance. It did not fit into the doctrine of the mobilization military industry, focused on the mass production of weapons with mediocre or satisfactory characteristics.

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

Targets for 57mm in 1941 ... 1942. there were no worthy ones - complete nonsense, because armor penetration is never excessive.

And what does this have to do with "L" (logic)? Why produce 57mm cannons in piece quantities when you can produce thousands of 45mm cannons? Especially if these anti-tank vehicles weigh half as much as the ZIS-2 and eliminate any enemy tank, if not into the bot armor. Why pay more? Moreover, the enemy tanks turned out to be so weakly armored that they considered it quite effective to launch the production of even cheaper anti-tank weapons than the 45mm anti-tank gun.

Quote: DDZ57

Taking into account the practice of the USSR to have universal, and not highly specialized weapons (for example, the use of ALL artillery available for this for anti-tank purposes), the ZiS-2 was constantly looked askance.

Again. USV, ZIS-3 are divisional guns. They have specific requirements. PTO for these guns is a bonus, not a main requirement. This was clearly understood in the USSR.

Quote: DDZ57

It did not fit into the doctrine of the mobilization military industry, focused on the mass production of weapons with mediocre or satisfactory characteristics.

It did not fit into the 1941 ravine. Such samples of non-mobilization military industry as the SVT-40 rifle, the DS-39 machine gun, the KV tank with 90mm armor, the MiG-3 fighter and much more did not fit into this "doctrine".

[DDZ57]

Quote: DesToeR (Anatoly) Today, 11:30

And what does this have to do with "L" (logic)? Why produce 57mm cannons in piece quantities when you can produce thousands of 45mm cannons? Especially if these anti-tank vehicles weigh half as much as the ZIS-2 and eliminate any enemy tank, if not into the bot armor. Why pay more? Moreover, the enemy tanks turned out to be so weakly armored that they considered it quite effective to launch the production of even cheaper anti-tank weapons than the 45mm anti-tank gun.

The enemy tanks were so weakly armored that they reached Moscow and Stalingrad; thousands of 45mm guns fired did not stop them.
You had the answer

strannik1985 (vladimir) Today, 11:00
Why in 1941 a 57mm cannon?
I mean why? 45-mm caliber armor-piercing took 40-mm armor Kts = 2600 (high hardness) from a distance of 150 meters along the normal.

Why pay more? But the payment for the mistakes of the leaders was millions of dead, millions of prisoners, tens of millions in the occupied territory, etc.
So what to pay more for?
It was not for nothing that they were called "Farewell to the Motherland" ... The logic of those leaders was simple: "Women will give birth."
But this is the logic of cannibals. And cannibals, devouring not the enemy, but their own people.

[DesToeR]

Quote: DDZ57

The enemy tanks were so weakly armored that they reached Moscow and Stalingrad; thousands of 45mm guns fired did not stop them.

We study two new letters: "C" - strategy in close connection with "T" - tactics. If the Panzerwaffe crossed the Bug on the same T-2 tank, the result would be similar. Some say that armored personnel carriers with machine guns would be enough, but this is not certain.

Quote: DDZ57

You had the answer

I have already read hundreds of such "answers" on VO. But where can we get 40mm of armor in 1941 ... 1942. in "commercial quantities"? Basically there were 15 ... 30mm.

Quote: DDZ57

But this is the logic of cannibals. And cannibals, devouring not the enemy, but their own people.

The logic of the cannibals is to kill over 13 million. unarmed people in the occupied territories. Just for fun. During the long years of the war, the entire Red Army, being in direct combat with the enemy, lost fewer people.

Quote: DDZ57

The logic of those leaders was simple: "Women give birth."

For this I take my leave - with you everything is clear to me.

[DDZ57]

It did not fit into the 1941 ravine.

We are talking specifically about the ZiS-2. It was at that moment in time, i.e. in 41, it was she who did not fit into the "doctrine".

Speeches about the SVT-40 rifle, the DS-39 machine gun, the KV tank with 90mm armor, the MiG-3 fighter and many other things do not go and they have nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

[strannik1985]

76mm divisional weapons in ATT

So the 76-mm division, in principle, out of need, in connection with permanent mobilization, it was urgently necessary to equip hundreds of rifle divisions / brigades with artillery (in the July SD 1941 32 76-mm cannons and 8 122-mm howitzers) - by December 31, 1941, from the beginning of the war, they formed and reformed the 821 equivalent of the division. The layout is simple - 1 Zis-2 or 3-4 Zis-3, so I had to choose

[DDZ57]

Once again: compare the German 105mm howitzer in the Wehrmacht divisional artillery with the RAK38, for example.

I can't tell you anything specifically about the German 105mm howitzer in the Wehrmacht divisional artillery, because The weapon of those times is not interesting to me, and its comparison with the PAK38 is also not interesting to me. And besides, this does not apply to the topic under discussion.
But caliber 105mm is interesting to me, tk. it could be a real alternative to the Soviet-Russian systems 100mm for BMP-3, 100mm naval and 122mm D-30 (and systems based on it). The dances would go around the same size 105mm, but different performances and with different capabilities, etc., but around 105mm ... But this, again, does not apply to the topic under discussion.

And the topic is that the mistakes of the 40s of the last century are repeated 80 years later.

[DDZ57]

I do not argue that the ZiS-3 was a normal weapon, but it also had a lot of problems.
The sun also has spots.
In general, the 76-mm ZiS-3 cannon proved to be an excellent artillery system, becoming the basis of Soviet divisional and anti-tank artillery. Nevertheless, as can be seen from the reports sent from the front, this excellent gun had a number of shortcomings, and their list was quite long.

Through the eyes of the front-line soldiers: 76-mm divisional gun ZiS-3, model 1942

https://warspot.ru/16475-glazami-frontovikov-76-mm-divizionnaya-pushka-zis-3-obraztsa-1942-goda

[DDZ57]

Why do you think so? Why in 1941 a 57mm cannon? Which tank the 45mm PTP could not handle in 1942,

The results of the Red Army company in 41-42 years eloquently give an answer to your question:
with those tanks that were in those years near Moscow and Stalingrad.
And 45mm "goodbye Motherland" as of the end of 42g. at least 40000 pieces were produced.

[strannik1985]

Why in 1941 a 57mm cannon?

I mean why? 45-mm caliber armor-piercing took 40-mm armor Kts = 2600 (high hardness) from a distance 150 meters along the normal.

[DDZ57]

Yes, even refitting the casings will allow you to save a lot, let alone shells, refitting with new fuses is a common thing!

.

It will hardly be possible to save practically, because demilitarizing the shot (observing safety rules) and aligning the muzzle of the case also cost money.
And to talk about the presence of 57mm old rounds at the bases of the Ministry of Defense after their cleaning by the previous Minister of Defense in the 10s is not entirely correct.
New fuses for cal. 57mm in the Russian Federation is not (as previously written - from the word no).

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: DDZ57

It will hardly be possible to save practically, because demilitarizing the shot (observing safety rules) and aligning the muzzle of the case also cost money.

But it seems much cheaper than making a new shot. Although this is a question for business economists.

Quote: DDZ57

And to talk about the presence of 57mm old rounds at the bases of the Ministry of Defense after their cleaning by the previous Minister of Defense in the 10s is not entirely correct.

Well, the nice bonus was not very big.

Quote: DDZ57

New fuses for cal. 57mm in the Russian Federation is not (as previously written - from the word no).

Yes? I think about ground targets, and I think it will go with old types, especially if there are not very many of them.

[DDZ57]

Yes? I think about ground targets, and I think it will go with old types, especially if there are not very many of them.

.
GSH projectile and its elements 25 years. 57mm ammunition is at least 50 years old. Name someone who will take responsibility for the explosion of a projectile in the barrel.
And what will be the reaction of the calculations, which will see that the projectile does not explode, because the initiating compounds in the detonator have decomposed, and the springs have lost their elastic properties. The same all took place under Tsushima and in 41 and 42 years at 45mm.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: DDZ57

GSH projectile and its elements 25 years. 57mm ammunition is at least 50 years old. Name someone who will take responsibility for the explosion of a projectile in the barrel.

That's why the shots are reloaded.

Quote: DDZ57

And what will be the reaction of the calculations, which will see that the projectile does not explode, because the initiating compounds in the fuse have decomposed, and the springs have lost their elastic properties

As I understand it, there are no new fuses, which means there are no new designs of fuses, and you are out there! Strange, naval with their 57-millimeter paper is not in the know.

[DDZ57]

That's why the shots are reloaded.

Replace the capsule sleeve, replace the propellant in the sleeve, this procedure is easy and can be performed at the army arsenal.
To remove the explosives from the hull chamber - here already questions arise and this procedure is already at the equipment factory. New equipment - at the equipment factory. The logistics costs are a plus.
Not everything is as simple as it seems from the outside.

As I understand it, there are no new fuses, which means there are no new designs of fuses, and you are out there! Strange, naval with their 57-millimeter paper is not in the know.

There are no new fuses either, but there are also problems with the old ones.
Look at how many explosive factories have been destroyed.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: DDZ57

See how many explosive factories destroyed

I don’t know, but somewhere they do fuses, right?

[DDZ57]

I don’t know, but somewhere they do fuses, right?

In a normal economy, mass production of products (and a fuse for caliber 57mm ammunition is mass production) - at a serial plant.
And in the Russian Federation - production only on TV and in Rostec press releases.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: DDZ57

In a normal economy, mass production of products (and a fuse for caliber 57mm ammunition is mass production) - at a serial plant.
And in the Russian Federation - production only on TV and in Rostec press releases.

But this is already verbal lace, what are you saying that fuses are not mass produced in Russia? For 30-mm shells, for 76,2 shells, but at least for 30-mm grenades, fuses are not produced? Gibberish let's not believe it!

[DDZ57]

Allow me not to believe it!

Do you know the amount of ammunition that KMZ and Pozis produces in caliber 30mm?
And the number of fuses (old), what is it for them, what does SPM do?
2-3 hundred thousand in this caliber - is this mass production?
And TsKIB SOO produces several tens of thousands of GPD-30 - is it mass production?
Ask the naval or manufacturer - how many 76,2 shells the fleet buys - it is unlikely that their number is measured at most 2-3 dozen thousand pieces.
As the classic said:
And "if you care about your digestion, here's a good piece of advice: don't talk about Bolshevism and medicine at dinner. And God forbid you, don't read Soviet newspapers before dinner!" To this you can add - don't watch TV.
And I will add, in order to talk about ammunition, visit at least an enterprise that develops or manufactures them, or an educational institution that trains specialists for them, or at a test site where they are tested, or at the Army 2021, or at a foreign weapons exhibition , talk to the RA officers who are exploiting "unparalleled", many questions and comments will disappear at once.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: DDZ57

2-3 hundred thousand in this caliber - is this mass production?
And TsKIB SOO produces several tens of thousands of GPD-30 - is it mass production?
Ask the naval or manufacturer - how many 76,2 shells the fleet buys - it is unlikely that their number is measured at most 2-3 dozen thousand pieces.

Undoubtedly this is a product of handicraft production, but after this nonsense of yours, what is below demagoguery like this one:

Quote: DDZ57

And in the Russian Federation - production only on TV and in Rostec press releases.

[Serpet]

Quote: DDZ57

visit at least an enterprise that develops or manufactures them, or an educational institution that trains specialists for them, or at a test site where they are tested

Of course it's not bad to visit, but who will let you in?
He himself had access to ammunition production - specialization, as a rule, is narrow. It will not work that way to judge the situation in the industry, but I agree that the number of key industries has decreased. Apparently, at the moment when they chose "oil instead of guns", "friendship with partners" and "unprofitable must be sold for construction"
Let's hope that the management will come to understand in the restoration of such enterprises, not on the same scale, of course.

[DDZ57]

It will not work out that way about the situation in the industry, but I agree that the number of key industries has decreased

.

And you don't need a permit, if the main factories are destroyed, the technologists are lost.
One conclusion suggests itself.
The zombie does not count, there the picture is what they need and they will draw.
And the Military acceptance will show.
Nadezhda died when Techmash was placed under the management of a private commercial structure Technodinamika. And read in the Charter of a commercial enterprise, which is the main task.
The main task is to make a profit.
From this, calculate how much the ammunition will cost with low release volumes.

[venik]

Quote: DDZ57

And in the Russian Federation - production only on TV and in Rostec press releases.

=======
What's this? Complete ignorance or silly joke?? And in that and in another case:

[smart ass]

Who will tell me the thread with what this thing will fight in modern realities?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Clever man

Who will tell me the thread with what this thing will fight in modern realities?

Against elite sofa experts, it is useless, which means it is useless in principle!

[smart ass]

Essentially have something to say?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Clever man

Essentially have something to say?

Well, excuse me, what a question, such is the answer, since you are too lazy to read the article on "Derivation".

[venik]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Yes, even refitting the casings will allow you to save a lot, let alone shells, refitting with new fuses is a common thing!

========
To effectively combat any small flying punks (like self-made drones, quadrocopters and loitering ammunition), nothing better in terms of cost / efficiency can be imagined ... (I'm not talking about electronic warfare systems, this is a bit "different song" .. .).

[DDZ57]

To effectively combat any small flying punks (like self-made drones, quadrocopters and loitering ammunition), nothing better in terms of cost / efficiency can be imagined ... (I'm not talking about electronic warfare systems, this is a bit "different song" .. .).

The desired result will be obtained if there are means of detecting these targets and ammunition to ensure the destruction of these targets.
On the first I will not say anything, but on the second, let those who wish try to hit a flying duck with a bullet at a distance of at least 20m from a smooth gun while hunting.
The same result will be obtained when shooting at a copter at close distances when firing OFS OR-281 with any fuse, because the fuse also has a long-range cocking distance (safety zone).

[Private-K]

Quote: DDZ57

those who wish, let them try to hit a flying duck with a bullet at a distance of at least 20m from a smooth gun while hunting.

Therefore, it is customary to shoot with a SHOT.

Quote: DDZ57

The same result will be obtained when shooting at a copter at close distances when firing OFS OR-281 with any fuse, because the fuse also has a long-range cocking distance (safety zone).

It's not so much about the fuse (although with it too), but about the design of the fragmentation projectile itself - it is completely outdated. To use now anti-aircraft shells where the fragmentation field is formed due to the destruction of the hull (and not in the form of a GGE) is a complete mess.
And in general - the whole family of ammunition "281" place in the remelting, and not in service.
And a brass sleeve is a nightmarish waste of expensive non-ferrous metal and is absolutely unacceptable in the presence of normal modern technologies for the production of steel sleeves.

[DDZ57]

Therefore, it is customary to shoot with a SHOT.

There is no projectile with shot in the Russian Federation.
At exhibitions neither in the Russian Federation nor over the hill, the Russian Federation did not show it.
Foreign fragmentation-beam projectiles (fragmentation-shrapnel - whoever wants, let him call it that) (with axial or radial or combined spread of the GGE) are presented at exhibitions and have been adopted in service in the west for almost 30 years.
Even in Turkey, they have already been developed and put into service.
They will probably appear in Azerbaijan soon.
One of the ideologists of this trend from Baumanka V.A. Odintsov. died several years ago.
So se la vie.

[rusboris]

The spoon is good for dinner. Derivation has been tortured for 5 years. The simplest art system was driven into long-term construction. For 2 years now, the trailed installation should be tested in Syria on drones. The air defense officers fell asleep in the MO, thanks to the Azerbaijanis and Turks for waking me up! Iosif Vissarionych's planes began to fly in 6 months, and here the antiaircraft gun was sawed for years by the parquet generals.

[Nikolaevich I]

Hmmm .... Earlier they wrote on the fences: Caution, Armenians! Tepericha, there is a "Chinese trace" everywhere! What will not be created in the "world"; how soon the Chinese appear! So in "this case" ... the Chinese are developing (developed ...) a 57-mm guided projectile with a dual-band seeker (semi-active laser + thermal imaging ...)! This turns out, in contrast to the Russian "remote-controlled" 57-mm projectile controlled by a laser beam ... (Actually, with radar detection and target tracking, it is advisable to develop an ammunition with radio command correction ...)

[Old tanker]

There is no radar on "Derivation". Optoelectronic devices only.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Old Tankman

There is no radar on "Derivation". Optoelectronic devices only.

No... so let it be!

[Old tanker]

In principle, no radar equipment is installed on Derivation, so as not to light up and catch an anti-radar missile.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Old Tankman

In principle, no radar equipment is installed on Derivation, so as not to light up and catch an anti-radar missile.

Well .... who loves fish, and someone is a pig cartilage ... Are you sure that there will not be any "Derivation-M" ... M2 ... or MU with a radar with specific "inclinations"?

[Old tanker]

I'm sure. If it does appear, it will be a different vehicle, but possibly with the same combat module. The weight limit on "Derivation" has already been selected. To comply with the requirements for buoyancy, it was even necessary to install volumetric floats along the sides, which are not on the BMP-3 (used as a base).

[voyaka uh]

"so as not to light up and catch an anti-radar missile." ///
-----
This is an interesting method.
Like: "I myself will not hit anyone, but you will find me."
This is roughly how the Syrian air defense works. They shoot very intensely and recklessly,
not really aiming and trying not to shine the radars ..
They do not bother anyone, but one cannot say that they are messing around.

[OgnennyiKotik]

There is a special term for this:
IBD - Imitation of violent activity

[Old tanker]

Do not worry. "Derivation" will also hit with confidence.

[voyaka uh]

A good vehicle to support the infantry.

[DDZ57]

There is no radar on "Derivation".

To the left of the weapon is a flat rectangular phased array - a radar antenna.

[Old tanker]

This is not radar. This is the friend or foe interrogator.

[DDZ57]

This is not radar. This is the friend or foe interrogator.

And what prevents to make it perform the function of a projectile initial velocity meter, fuse programmer, radio range finder to projectile and target, projectile and target angular misalignment meter, etc.?

There are two such devices in the Coalition and they do not act as an interrogator.

[Old tanker]

The purpose of the device interferes. It's just the interrogator. And the fundamental rejection of radar equipment on "Derivation" also hinders. She copes with her tasks without them and does not "shine" on the battlefield.

[DDZ57]

She copes with her tasks without them and does not "shine" on the battlefield.

And that the radio inquirer is not detected by means of RTR (does not light up with them)?

[Old tanker]

It works for a very short time. Can't track.

[DDZ57]

There is no difference between short and long operating modes for RTR stations, they will identify the "Derivation" in any case and determine their location. And then only making a decision on their destruction and choosing an instrument for these actions.

[Old tanker]

Wrong.

[DDZ57]

Everyone remains unconvinced
but ask the EW specialists how many seconds or minutes are needed for two RTR stations operating in a search (passive) mode to detect, identify and calculate the coordinates of a radio emission source operating in a short-pulse mode.

[Old tanker]

The fact of the matter is that at one time he was repeatedly directly related to the organization of measures to provide electronic warfare, as an integral part of the combined arms battle of a tank brigade. But I don't understand what you mean by a radio source operating in a short-pulse mode. This source is the radar. So the military electronic warfare is not designed to detect and suppress radars.

[DDZ57]

The fact of the matter is that at one time he was repeatedly directly related to the organization of measures to provide electronic warfare, as an integral part of the combined arms battle of a tank brigade. But I don't understand what you mean by a radio source operating in a short-pulse mode. This source is the radar. So the military electronic warfare is not designed to detect and suppress radars.

I do not know what is in the troops in this direction.
But I had the opportunity to "nourish" people from JSC "STC REB".
I answered you with their words and told about modern technical capabilities. If you want to check my words, visit their booth at ARMY 2021.

The army reported on the presence of air defense in Armenia.
Azerbaijan checked it out.
Everyone knows the result.

[Old tanker]

There was no modern air defense in Karabakh. She practically did not exist at all. But in Syria, the Bayraktars quickly landed, pulling up modern complexes. Yes, and in Libya, they land.
At the expense of the development of various scientific and technical centers and the like. We develop a lot, which then the developers themselves cannot implement in the product. And even less goes into the series.
The words of people with STC about short-pulse radio emission refer to radars. And this principle has been applied for a long time. We talked about our alien interrogator, the speed of propagation of a radio wave is equal to the speed of light. The interrogator sends a coded signal in the direction of the target for less than a second. It is not possible to spot it.

[DDZ57]

The interrogator sends a coded signal in the direction of the target for less than a second. It is not possible to spot it.

The interrogator is a radar, the radiation pattern of the radar antenna has main and side lobes.
The radar emits electromagnetic energy, it must interrogate a target at a distance of at least 10 km. This power is enough for this source of EM energy not only to be detected and identified, but also to put a hindrance in the receiving path either along the main or side lobe of the diagram.
Something like this.
But let everyone remain in their opinion.

[Old tanker]

This radar emits less than a second! What kind of hindrance? There will be nothing to interfere. And such a short signal and a direction to it (I do not know if there is such equipment on smolets) can only be the object on which it triggered. And it is impossible to determine the exact coordinates with the help of two electronic warfare ground stations, as it was announced here!

[UA3QHP]

But I had the opportunity to "eat up" people from JSC "STC REB"

familiar office.

how many seconds or minutes are needed for two RTR stations operating in a search (passive) mode to detect, identify and calculate the coordinates of a radio emission source,

for the DME system one pulse. 32 μs. I don't know for ours

[DDZ57]

for the DME system one pulse. 32 μs. I don't know for ours

Explain to the dull ones - two stations (western) (ground or air) electronic warfare (RTR and RR) will be able or not to detect, identify and issue a target designation for defeat by the triggered Derivation interrogator.

[UA3QHP]

The duration of the request is 32 microseconds - this is for the western systems friend or foe, and all civil aviation works there. I don’t know if the PP system will have time to track a pulse of such duration, although its frequency is known in advance, this is most likely classified information.

[DDZ57]

If the frequency is practically known, then the signal is in the station library (PP and PTP),
as soon as the signal appears (fixed by the duty stations, subsequent analysis) and two spaced stations will give the BM location (marked with a certain icon).
And given that the request for reliability is made more than once, the result is predictable.

[UA3QHP]

There are also certain nuances here, in that the range of the interrogator along the ground is not very large. those. RR stations should be located close enough, by analogy with downstream communication, no further than 5-10 km. And they themselves are a very tempting object.

[DDZ57]

And they themselves are a very tempting object.

But it works only in passive mode.
The requester also works in active mode.

And CPP can sometimes be in the air.

[UA3QHP]

Eternal confrontation, there is no ultimate weapon.

[3danimal]

Measurement of the speed and programming of the projectile is done using coils at the barrel cut. It is more reliable and more accurate, why complicate it?

[DDZ57]

Measurement of the speed and programming of the projectile is done using coils at the barrel cut. It is more reliable and more accurate, why complicate it?

There are several options for measuring the initial speed and programming the fuse and are selected depending on the tasks to be solved.
On your top photo there is a variant of Rheinmetal, (formerly Oerlikon cotraves). In the 10s, Rheinmetal received several patents for its technical solutions on the territory of the Russian Federation, they support them annually and track which design decisions are made on the territory of the Russian Federation. Patents expire after 30 years. Taking into account the fact that new technical solutions are being patented and, accordingly, new terms.
In order to install this technical solution for Derivation, Petrel needs to buy a license from Rheinmetal. Otherwise, the court and fines. And this is on the territory of the Russian Federation.
The external market is even more problematic.
If someone wants to play with qualified lawyers in patent disputes, including in international courts, a flag in hand.
The deception and theft that are taking place against Russian designers and engineers will not work there.

[3danimal]

Petrel needs to buy a license from Rheinmetal

Until 2014 without problems, now there may be difficulties.
But you can develop sleep technology yourself.
In any case, it is better to program the speed measurement with coils. After all, this happens almost instantly.
In the variant proposed by you, the PAR (and not the “friend or foe” interrogator) makes a measurement (which is much more difficult), after which the projectile is already tens of meters from the “programmer”. Equip it with a suitable radio?
The cost of such a solution, even offhand, is much higher than the "reel" solution, but there are no benefits.

[DDZ57]

In the variant proposed by you, the PAR (and not the “friend or foe” interrogator) makes a measurement (which is much more difficult), after which the projectile is already tens of meters from the “programmer”. Equip it with a suitable radio?
The cost of such a solution, even offhand, is much higher than the "reel" solution, but there are no benefits.

Look at the ship's AU, even on the AU of the Russian Federation, flashlights begin to appear above the barrel.
Check out the Coalition.
Check out the Age of KBP.
Take a look at D-30 Kazakhstan.
Etc.
There are many different solutions. And depending on the whim and tasks of the customer, one or another solution is applied.
In one of the offices of the Russian Federation, this problem was solved (with rings, when there was no RF patent RM yet), the proposal was in 2005-2007, but they said they would do it themselves, they do it until now, but the end is not visible.
The solution to equip the AU with an individual radar with a projectile velocity meter was tested by J. Bull in the 70s in the "Loan Day" war and in South Africa. Now in France, this solution is used to measure the speed of the projectile and program the fuse with a trajectory correction system.

[3danimal]

Now in France, this solution is used to measure the speed of the projectile and program the fuse with a trajectory correction system.

Where, on what models of guns?

ship AU, even on the AU of the Russian Federation, flashlights begin to appear above the barrel.

Is this not a fire control system? So it is on both Falacns and the Goalkeeper (radar).
And the shells (large calibers) either with a contact or non-contact (radio, close to the target) fuse.

[DDZ57]

Where, on what models of guns?

Fuse with correction system Spacido 155mm (Nexter consortium
Munitions / JUNGHANS T2M / Zodiac Data Systems GmbH).

Is this not a fire control system? So it is on both Falacns and the Goalkeeper (radar).
And the shells (large calibers) either with a contact or non-contact (radio, close to the target) fuse.

Above the barrel of the ship's AU is a small radar, similar to a flashlight.
At ARMY 2020, this was the case for the models at Arsenal and Petrel. The Russian Navy does not, but the Chinese Navy does.
With this radar, you can measure the speed of the projectile, work with the drives before the next shot (the same principle is for the shell and the Tunguska - but with rings). And who is smarter then controls the operating modes of the fuse and the range correction unit.

[3danimal]

the same principle for the shell and the tunguska - but in rings

So this is it - why complicate it?
The shell is simpler, the system is cheaper.

[DDZ57]

So this is it - why complicate it?
The shell is simpler, the system is cheaper.

Shell and Tunguska (30mm) - measurement of the beginning. speed and working off the correction by the drives on the next shot (compensation for changes in the initial speed). And that's all. There is no fuse programming.
On systems of large calibers - a large erosion and force effect of powder gases on the elements (copper rings of the meter). 105-155mm - radar everywhere.
57mm-Bofors - contact input of information into the fuse (3P system) on the projectile feed path into the chamber - high-quality PZ provides a stable muzzle velocity - also revision by drives of minor changes beginning. speed. Measurement start. speed radar.

[Old tanker]

On "Derivation" the initial velocity sensor is installed at the muzzle of the barrel.

[3danimal]

Yes, seen in the photo.

[DDZ57]

BAE Systems - Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft - ORKA - aerodynamic controls works on a 57mm guided projectile.
57mm with impulse correction - ALaMO from L3 company.
(https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/119230-upravljaemye-57-mm-snarjady-bae-systems-orka-i-l3-alamo).
The US is also working on ammunition in the feces. 50mm - radio command pulse correction.

[3danimal]

Until 2014, it was possible to open production under a license without any problems, and then launch your analogue according to the "Chinese" version.

[The leader of the Redskins]

Actually, the title of the article is somewhat incorrect IMHO.
It was necessary not question, absence!)))

[sen]

Scope of 57-mm guided projectiles.
Small UAVs - certainly, but attack UAVs, helicopters and airplanes will use guided weapons with a greater range than the firing range of a 57-mm projectile. And the question is, to what extent will 57-mm guided missiles be effective against UAB, UR, and ATGM?

[Ros 56]

Have you not seen videos from the same Karabakh, how UAVs were hanging over positions and dropping their "gifts" to the enemy with impunity.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: sen

And the question is, to what extent will 57-mm guided missiles be effective against UAB, UR, and ATGM?

The answer to this question is in the article under discussion:

A projectile of this design should "fly along the beam" and hit the target due to the proximity fuse.

The GGE in the warhead is not visible in the diagram shown. So, without a direct hit, the effectiveness of the UAB, SD, ATGM when detonated by a proximity fuse will be none. And the beam will have to hold each such target, of which there are many over the battlefield, until the UAS hits it. In general, this UAS is suitable only against helicopters and kamikaze drones.

[Old tanker]

There is a target tracking machine. So a guided projectile at this stage will cope with SVN completely.

[voyaka uh]

This is what a modern anti-aircraft gun looks like.
Oerlikon 35 mm, but the barrel length is longer than that of the Derivation.
And, of course, a complete radar kit.

[3danimal]

Without shells with remote detonation from this caliber, it will be of little use.

[Thomas N.]

Due to these measures, the complex, using even old-type projectiles, is able to show superiority over systems of a similar caliber of previous generations.

Using shells of old types (OFS OR-281) "Derivation-Air Defense" will be able to fight only the aircraft of the 50s of the last century, when the ZSU-57-2 was created, i.e. unable to show anything. Without new ammunition, it was not even worth "making a fence".

[D16]

Without new ammunition, it was not even worth "making a fence".

And if you sharpen it for new types of ammunition, would it be more logical to make a cannon-CANNON? smoothbore.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: D16

Without new ammunition, it was not even worth "making a fence".

And if you sharpen it for new types of ammunition, would it be more logical to make a cannon-CANNON? smoothbore.

This is not a tank! 57-mm ammunition of new types is rifled and this OFS caliber cannot be different.

[D16]

Why do BOPS and UAS need rifling? They only get in the way. OFS can also be feathered by analogy with UAS.

[Genry]

Quote: D16

Why do BOPS and UAS need rifling? They only get in the way.

The shells are much simpler and cheaper.
Smoothbore is needed only to increase the speed of the projectile, while its size / weight falls in the square of the increase in speed - therefore, it is used on large calibers with subcaliber projectiles. In Derivation, the main shot will be OFS and the 57mm rifled dimension is optimal.

[DDZ57]

The shells are much simpler and cheaper.

Only OFS is cheaper and easier. And the OFS in the old ballistic solution of Burevestnik remained at the level of the early 60s.
UAS and BOPS for rifled barrels are more expensive. So the economy must be considered.
And smoothbore is still needed for the best performance of the shaped-charge projectile.
And the resource of smooth trunks at BOPS speeds is higher.
And the accuracy of rifled barrels is higher.
And this multifactorial efficiency / cost problem has never been analyzed at Petrel. They were blinded from what was at hand (there is just a process of mastering the budget), tk. other newer ones are no longer able to do or repeat what is available in the West.

[DDZ57]

The fuses are different. The rest is not important (indicate your ...).

The rest is not important - the length of the RF OFS is shorter by about 60-80mm, i.e. the amount of explosives in the chamber is noticeably less than Bofors, this is not essential.
There are no serial fuses (if the meaning of the word "no" is clear).

UAS (if the one about which the article is supposed) only adds a rotating seal ring. The projectile itself does not rotate

Not a rotating seal ring is added, but a whole assembly with a rotating VP. And the UAS body also rotates (not tens of thousands of revolutions per minute, but still rotates) due to the friction force in the contact between the "rotating VP - the UAS body".
The cumulative ammunition for the rifled barrel is also equipped with a rotating VP and also rotates like the UAS. But for CS, rotation also averages the miss.

BOPS in terms of efficiency / cost is not more expensive - but definitely weaker.

And so to count, where they teach: - BOPS in terms of efficiency / cost is not more expensive - a rotating leading belt - an additional unit (rather complicated) and ammunition is not more expensive, efficiency is definitely weaker - and in the aggregate - again not more expensive. Cool arithmetic.

Now they use plastic rings, so the difference is small. Swell wear ...

In caliber 57mm, in the west, in the Russian Federation, copper VP is used. There are no plastic rings in its design.
Plastic VP is used mainly in feces. 30mm.
In caliber 120 - 155mm, a plastic shutter is used (both in smooth systems and in rifled ones), its function in rifled systems of this caliber is obturation (but not at all in the case of ensuring the rotation of the power supply unit), smooth ones - obturation and centering.

[Genry]

Quote: DDZ57

the length of the RF OFS is shorter by about 60-80mm, i.e. the amount of explosives in the chamber is noticeably less than Bofors, this is not essential.

Let's compare specifically. Projectile weight, explosive weight, ... And then inflate 10% to ...

Quote: DDZ57

No serial fuses

There are guns, there are shells, fuses - forgot to report to you?

Quote: DDZ57

Not a rotating seal ring is added, but a whole assembly with a rotating VP.

One sliding piece you have a whole knot?

Quote: DDZ57

And the UAS body also rotates due to the frictional force in the contact "rotating VP - UAS body)

It rotates exactly as much as the control system needs to work the rudders in the right direction (in the right sector of rotation).

Quote: DDZ57

And so to count, where they teach: - BOPS in terms of efficiency / cost is not more expensive - a rotating leading belt - an additional unit (rather complicated) and ammunition is not more expensive, efficiency is definitely weaker - and in the aggregate - again not more expensive. Cool arithmetic.

Arithmetic without logic always counts in the wrong direction.
Why does BOPS need a rotating belt? To then unwind through the plumage, losing energy outside the trunk.
And is it really difficult to understand the ratio, for example: if it is two times weaker, but three times cheaper ...

Quote: DDZ57

In caliber 57mm, in the west, in the Russian Federation, copper VP is used. There are no plastic rings in its design.

Copper is more expensive than plastic. Copper plating and barrel wear in any caliber ...
And no one will show you new shells - only "sensation".
And obturation, it is not implemented purely on compression. The three dynamic bands are visible on many different systems ....

[DDZ57]

Let's compare specifically. Projectile weight, explosive weight, ... And then inflate 10% to ...

Take a look at the BOFORS 57 MK3 ammunition and compare their characteristics with the OFS OR-281.

There are guns, there are shells, fuses - forgot to report to you?

There is S-60 - no one argues, OFS OR-281 (which is more than 50 years old) - it is quite possible there is. And the wave fuse is possible for him (50 years old).
There is no new Penza shell in production.
They reported to me at exhibitions, I don’t know before you.

One sliding piece you have a whole knot?

Ask experts in the field of design and production of ammunition what is behind the replacement of the VP design and how much it costs.

The three dynamic bands are visible on many different systems ....

On which shells have you seen three dynamic belts and what is it?

[Genry]

Quote: DDZ57

Look at the BOFORS 57MK3 ammunition and compare their characteristics with the OFS OR-281.

BOFORS 57 shot 6,1kg, projectile 2,4kg 1035m / s
OFS OR-281 shot 6,61kg, projectile 2,81kg 1000m / s
Sources respectively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_57_mm_L/70_naval_artillery_gun#Variants
https://dubki-nk.ru/istoriya/moshhnoe-i-effektivnoe-sredstvo-pvo-57-mm-avtomaticheskaya-zenitnaya-pushka-s-60-1950-goda.html

And where is your power-advantage ???
And where is the smoothbore ????

Quote: DDZ57

They reported to me at exhibitions, I don’t know before you.

Are you Putin? Or even....

Quote: DDZ57

Ask experts in the field of design and production of ammunition what is behind the replacement of the VP design and how much it costs.

It always costs something, but everything is modernized in accordance with the level of development.

Quote: DDZ57

On which shells have you seen three dynamic belts and what is it?

Search for yourself!
About shells, with your ambition, I had to find myself.

[DDZ57]

OFS OR-281 shot 6,61kg, projectile 2,81kg 1000m / s

Explosive weight - 153g.

BOFORS 57 shot 6,1kg, projectile 2,4kg 1035m / s

PFHE: 5.3 lbs. (2.4 kg). Explosive weight - 380g
HCER: 6.2 lbs. (2.8 kg). Explosive weight - 410g
HE: 5.3 lbs. (2.4 kg). Explosive weight - 450g
57 3P: 5.3 lbs. (2.4 kg). > 2400pcs. GGE weighing 0,25 g.
Count the set of equipment from OFS OR-281 and from the Swedes.
Compare the firing range and height reach.
Read about the ZR fuse (used and mass-produced).
And you will receive my "power-advantage".
And yet, what are "dynamic belts" and what they are eaten with.

[Genry]

Quote: DDZ57

Explosive weight - 153g.

1. Source?
2. Don't compare warm and soft.
3. The weight limits are close and the design (explosive weight) depends on the purpose of the projectile.

Quote: DDZ57

Compare the firing range and height reach.

What can I tell you? About the slight difference in speed and mass with the same caliber .... And physics (as a science) is also the same.

Quote: DDZ57

Read about the ZR fuse (used and mass-produced).

I don't know what you are hinting at, no links.

Quote: DDZ57

And you will receive my "power-advantage".

Fog again ?!
Specifically: facts, figures !!!

[DDZ57]

Ammunition BOFORS 57 MK3. All this has already been on the VO website (repetition in progress)
For the land-based version for air defense, they lack shrapnel with axial dispersion of fragments. There are several options for this solution.
As for the BOPS, they have it, albeit not quite in this size, but still they have it, they will increase it a little, this is not to cut from scratch, but given that this is air defense, where BOPS is not at all critical.
Filling factors (equipment) - characterize fragmentation and high-explosive action:
PFHE 3P - set 0,158
HCER - set 0,146
PFHE - set 0,187
OFS Petrel ≈ 0,07
In this caliber, the best for the OFS KBP> 0,2

[DDZ57]

Advanced projectile 3P (Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity fuzed) - has a fuse with 6 installations. (Also all this was on VO).
It has 2400 GGE (tungsten alloy, Ø3 mm, affected area ≈400 m2), those who wish can count the number of fragments from two more surfaces of natural crushing (take into account different modality in the calculation).

[DDZ57]

For a complete bouquet, BOFORS lacks a shrapnel shell with a radial-axial expansion of the GGE to solve air defense problems. These decisions are all known. Time to solve the problem is no more than 2 years.
BOPS are available in similar sizes. Sawing is not long. This is not to be done from scratch.
A bottle sleeve can be used to shorten the shot length.
The Germans did this experiment in 1941 with the Grabinsky 76mm gun.

[DDZ57]

Those who wish can experiment with BOFORS cases, but in a telescopic design, like in STA (fortunately now computer programs allow doing this rather quickly). By varying the initial parameters (diameter, telescope height, gunpowder), you can reach the speed of the classic BOFORS without exceeding the permissible pressure.
You can get a pretty nice solution.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

And the OFS in the old ballistic solution of Burevestnik remained at the level of the early 60s.

There is no other ballistic solution for the 57-mm OFS anywhere in the world. Bofors has the same - Vo = 1035 m / s. More is not required.

Quote: DDZ57

UAS and BOPS for rifled barrels are more expensive. So the economy must be considered.
And smoothbore is still needed for the best performance of the shaped-charge projectile.
And the resource of smooth trunks at BOPS speeds is higher.

Get a head start on the economics of developing the world's first smooth-bore automatic cannon. Especially considering its uselessness. HEAT shells for automatic cannons are not being developed because of the low armor penetration of small-diameter shaped-charge craters. BOPS gives the best armor penetration at all real shooting ranges.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: D16

OFS can also be feathered by analogy with UAS.

Most of the volume of the projectile will be spent on this plumage, and a little bit will remain on the fragmentation body of the projectile with explosives, there will be a "pshik", and not a projectile in this caliber.

[DDZ57]

There is no other ballistic solution for the 57-mm OFS anywhere in the world. Bofors has the same - Vo = 1035 m / s. More is not required.

The question is not about speed, but about the ratio of ammunition equipment, which characterizes the quality (power) of fragmentation ammunition, all data are given above. The Swedish shells have a long body, as a result of which they have noticeably more explosives (the same solution for the 57mm OFS KBP).
The ballistic solution relies on the old steepness of the grooves.

Get a head start on the economics of developing the world's first smooth-bore automatic cannon. Especially considering its uselessness. laughing Cumulative shells for automatic cannons are not being developed because of the low armor penetration of small-diameter cumulative craters. BOPS gives the best armor penetration at all real shooting ranges.

I'm not talking specifically about a smooth-bore automatic cannon. We are talking about a decrease in the angular velocity, which is solved by a rotating VP or a smooth barrel and what is obtained in this case.
Cumulative ammunition for air defense (destruction of thick-hull AU, RS, mines, AB) is being developed in the USA. Check out the MEFP (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrator) Cumulative Fragmentation Warheads for the 50mm Course Corrected Projectile. And look at their results.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

The Swedish shells have a long body, as a result of which they have noticeably more explosives. The ballistic solution relies on the old steepness of the grooves.

Long hull of the new OFS -> less rifling pitch for projectile stabilization -> inability to use old projectiles due to their re-stabilization. Thanks for reminding me of this part of the ballistic solution.

Quote: DDZ57

Cumulative ammunition for air defense (destruction of thick-hull AU, RS, mines, AB) is being developed in the USA. Check out the MEFP (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrator) Cumulative Fragmentation Warheads for the 50mm Course Corrected Projectile. And look at their results.

Well, a very specific solution for protecting a base / temporary camp from a single terrorist bombardment with mines or RS. It will not save you from normal shelling or bombing with ordinary bombs. The ZAK can only be included in the ammunition load if it has absolutely nothing to do in this theater of operations, i.e. only occasionally shoot single mines / RS from terrorists who got close to the base. But still wondering what "And look at their results" means, link?

[DDZ57]

Long hull of the new OFS -> less rifling pitch to stabilize the projectile -> inability to use old projectiles due to their re-stabilization.

Choose for yourself what we spend money and time on - a new weapon, new shots (shells) with a longer range, greater altitude, greater projectile power, etc. The result is a modern artillery system capable of solving various tasks and competitive in the foreign market,

Or - a new (old) weapon - new (old) shots (shells), which have the same range, the same altitude, the same power, etc. and we get a 45mm gun in the 41g variant. and we wonder why the armor of German tanks did not penetrate and why then there were heavy losses, and in the modern version - why the Indians chose the South Korean anti-aircraft system instead of the Shell, and the Russian Ministry of Defense has doubts about the need for this artillery system.

But this is my point of view and I expressed it and substantiate it (not by demagogy, absurdity, patriotic slogans) and do not impose it on anyone else.
As always, time will judge.

Well, a very specific solution to protect a base / temporary camp from a single terrorist bombardment with mines or RS. It will not save you from normal shelling or bombing with conventional bombs. The ZAK can only be included in the ammunition load if it has absolutely nothing to do in this theater of operations, i.e. only occasionally shoot single mines / RS from terrorists who got close to the base.

Specific or non-specific, but this is still one of the modern solutions that together make it possible to destroy thick-walled hulls in flight (and they will solve this problem). Taking into account the fact that no one canceled a quick response to the position from which the shelling was carried out. Israel, however, is solving, albeit in its various ways, the task of protecting its territory from shelling.
And I will not be surprised when it turns out that the purchases of KAZ Trophy from the USA and Germany for the Abrams and Leopards are associated not only with protecting tanks from BOPS, ATGMs and anti-tank SBBs, but also protecting them from drones - komikadze and weapons fired at armored objects with UAV. In 2020. the number of tanks destroyed by UAVs was probably equal to those destroyed by SBB and ATGMs.

But still wondering what "And look at their results" means, link?

Type in the search engine - MEFP (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrator) for 50mm Course Corrected Projectile. In some search engine, more pops up, in some less.

[infantryman2020]

Additional "multifaceted" factors to consider.
1) did not master the 45 mm system with telescopes, yes. The result is the fable "The Fox and the Grapes": "We do not need the latest high-tech system, we have a perfect old one (60 years ago) in stock!";
2) the developers of A-220 (50 years ago) got in a hurry (no complaints, their right!) - there was an opportunity to promote their product;
3) the use of ancient morally and physically shots at ground targets is a very minor bonus for such a system. In addition, these shots will eat up part of the main purpose of the ammunition, which is already limited in the 57th caliber. And I did not find whether selective power is implemented on this installation, in general.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: infantryman2020

And I did not find whether selective power supply is implemented on this installation.

Any automatic cannon with a caliber of 40 mm and above does not use tape feed, only clips or mechanized feed from magazines. As a result, it provides not only selective power supply from two belts, as for smaller calibers, but functionality similar to a tank automatic loader - you can choose several types of ammunition for firing. Look for Bofors cannon ammo feed systems if you're interested. For example: https://www.bevfitchett.us/heavy-machine-guns/ammunition-feeds.html
Or here is the old system for PT-76 - http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/07/57mm-autocannon-turret-from-russia.html?m=1

[Old tanker]

In the 50s, there were no such sighting complexes and fire control systems.
The Hephaestus was installed on the Su-24, and free-falling aerial bombs of the very shaggy years began to fall with the accuracy of the corrected ones.
The situation is similar here. Well, the "Derivation" niche is mainly the fight against drones, and in terms of speed and maneuverability they are still inferior to aviation of the 50s of the last century, and various airborne weapons. With modern manned front-line and army aviation, other means of military air defense will be dealt with.

[Genry]

Quote: Old Tankman

Well, the "Derivation" niche is mainly the fight against drones

Well, let's be honest - only those below 4500m. Turkish Bayraktar at 7200 will not be enough.
The main targets for Derivation are cruise missiles and attack aircraft, plus everything else that flies low and at speeds up to 1,5M. Those. that you need to react quickly.

[Old tanker]

Just the main requirement for the developers was the defeat of the UAVs, including their swarms and loitering ammunition.
Hence the use of massive cheap ammunition. Cruise missiles are an additional option.
The fight against cruise missiles in the military air defense is assigned to the "Thor"
as a basic tool.
And UAVs are not living alone with Bayraktars. Nowadays mini and micro UAVs are getting huge distribution in NATO countries. With a very limited range and flight altitude, which are practically not captured by the homing heads of anti-aircraft and aircraft missiles. Therefore, in "Derivation" and made an emphasis on powerful optoelectronic means. By the way, the tests of "Derivation" were delayed due to problems with electronics. It took a long time to bring it to mind.
The launch range of the AGM-65 Maverick rocket used in NATO attack aircraft is 28 km!
Here "Derivation" cannot fight the attack aircraft in any way.

[Genry]

Quote: Old Tankman

Just the main requirement for the developers was the defeat of the UAVs, including their swarms and loitering ammunition.

"From a Cannon to Sparrows"
This little thing is more efficiently detected and choked by electronic warfare means.

Quote: Old Tankman

Cruise missiles are an additional option.

And the electronic warfare does not take this reptile, flies along the relief and is very secretive. While Thor starts up and then turns down ... CD will leave the radar view.

Quote: Old Tankman

Nowadays, mini and micro UAVs are getting huge distribution in NATO countries. With a very limited range and flight altitude, which are practically not captured by the homing heads of anti-aircraft and aircraft missiles.

GOS sees without problems. The cost of a UAV and a rocket is simply not comparable. The economic loss is enormous.
But the smaller the UAV, the more effective the electronic warfare or laser.

Quote: Old Tankman

By the way, the tests of "Derivation" were delayed due to problems with electronics.

There are no problems with electronics, just in 5-10 years it becomes outdated and requires modernization (transition to a new element base) or overhaul. But with the logic of control, inclusion in the general tactical system, which is only now finally settling down ...

[Genry]

Quote: Old Tankman

The launch range of the AGM-65 Maverick rocket used in NATO attack aircraft is 28 km!

It is included in the range of characteristics of the Derivation goals.

[Old tanker]

Do not confuse a rocket (an air attack vehicle) and an attack aircraft (an attack aircraft, that is, a carrier of air attack weapons), which you spoke about.
Understand the conceptual apparatus.

[Genry]

Quote: Old Tankman

Do not confuse a rocket (an air attack vehicle) and an attack aircraft (an attack aircraft, that is, a carrier of air attack weapons), which you spoke about.
Understand the conceptual apparatus.

I immediately gave a final conclusion regarding Derivation.
The target "airplane" at a distance of about 20 km is not included in the range of this ACS.
Such a target can be easily destroyed by BUK, TOP, Pantsir, etc. systems.
Don't make me chew on a spoon with added bile.

[Old tanker]

The main targets for Derivation are cruise missiles and ground attack aircraft,

Your words. STORM AIRCRAFT! Henry! And this is an airplane 20 km away, not a rocket.
I repeat, understand the conceptual apparatus and apply it correctly.

[Genry]

Quote: Old Tankman

Your words. STORM AIRCRAFT! Henry! And this is a plane for 20 km

You need to really estimate the range of 6 km and not attract too much.
By assault aviation, I mean helicopters, aircraft and UAVs that carry out strikes against ground targets in the front zone.
If such a "attack aircraft" pops out from behind trees or a mound with bombs, NURSs or a 6-barreled cannon, then this will be the target for Derivation, since more distant air defense will not notice and will not have time to react.
To use more long-range weapons, the attack aircraft needs to have a greater height and immediately falls into the capture of the air defense.
There are also missiles (air-to-ground, ground-to-ground, single MLRS) and gliding bombs that have the likelihood of appearing in the affected area of ​​the Derivation, which it can selectively destroy according to the criterion of danger.

[Old tanker]

It doesn't matter what you personally mean. There is an established classification. And assault aviation is an integral part of front-line aviation or tactical aviation in the West. And it includes only attack aircraft .. Helicopters belong to the army aviation and have no relation to the attack. UAVs are not singled out as a separate type of aviation, but they have nothing to do with attack aircraft.
All missiles, patrolling ammunition, bombs of various types are air attack weapons.
So before writing something, you need to understand the conceptual apparatus and the definitions established in the military sphere, in this case. And then the interlocutors will not need to guess what you mean, and you will not look ridiculous.

[Genry]

Quote: Old Tankman

It doesn't matter what you personally mean. There is an established classification. And assault aviation is an integral part of front-line aviation or tactical aviation in the West. And it includes only attack aircraft .. Helicopters belong to the army aviation and have no relation to the attack. UAVs are not singled out as a separate type of aviation, but they have nothing to do with attack aircraft.
All missiles, patrolling ammunition, bombs of various types are air attack weapons.
So before writing something, you need to understand the conceptual apparatus and the definitions established in the military sphere, in this case. And then the interlocutors will not need to guess what you mean, and you will not look ridiculous.

Such discrepancies are not resolved in such a tone.
I'm used to talking specifically, temporarily shortening long lists of objects by declaring / announcing it.

Pride is when a person simplifies a relationship. And pride makes it difficult.

[Old tanker]

It is from the cannon to the sparrows. For example, the cost of the most massive reconnaissance micro-UAV PD-100 is about 40 thousand dollars. A 57mm projectile is less than 1000 rubles.
Unfortunately, electronic warfare has the ability to deafen not only strangers, but also our own. And you can't cover everything with electronic warfare means, it's a very expensive pleasure. In addition, the same PD-100 is capable of flying in automatic mode in the absence of a GPS signal. So it will be problematic to crush him with electronic warfare.
Unfortunately, the same Sitcblade kamikaze drone has very little acoustic, radar and IR recognition. And not all missile seeker can see it. As well as the means of ground guidance. "Wasp - AKM" does not see him at all. True, the Syrians write that they managed to shoot down such 20 pieces. But they do not write what means of detection and destruction they used.
Well, the "Derivation" has an open architecture, so there will be no problems with updating the blocks. But during the tests there were problems, both with software and stupidly with contacts. Which stopped connecting when shooting. But these problems seemed to be successfully solved.

[Genry]

Quote: Old Tankman

It is from a cannon to sparrows. For example, the cost of the most massive reconnaissance micro-UAV PD-100 is about 40 thousand dollars. A 57mm projectile is less than 1000 rubles.

1000 - This is the cost of a rifle sniper cartridge. Here, too, but a sniper shell.
And micro-drones in mass are already less than $ 100.
https://hypertechz.com/intl?prod=dronexpro&net=1673&aff=AFFID&sid=SUBID&cid=CLICKID

Quote: Old Tankman

Unfortunately, electronic warfare has the ability to deafen not only strangers, but also our own.

You confuse zonal electronic warfare (in the A2 / AD zone) with continuous suppression (for "their" communication systems, free channels / frequencies are dynamically organized) и directed to specific aircraft formed by emitters with a fixed (manual or mechanical guidance) or synthetic aperture (for example: a digital antenna array). And a trifle can not be choked but burned.

Quote: Old Tanker

the same drone-kamikaze Sitcblade has very little acoustic, radar and infrared recognition

It is afraid of electronic warfare because the operator indicates the target and is visible due to wires and metals. EW countermeasures at a range of a couple of hundred meters will generally disable it.

Quote: Old Tankman

And not all missile seeker can see it. As well as the means of ground guidance. "Wasp - AKM" does not see him at all.

It's too late to discuss old systems. They work for "their audience".

[Old tanker]

The fact of the matter is that there are practically no directional emitters in the electronic warfare systems of the military link now. If you know, then indicate the name of the complex and in what quantity in which staff structure they are located.
I will tell you a great secret for you. Electronic warfare equipment is a very expensive toy. Therefore, in motorized rifle / tank brigades there is only an electronic warfare company. which presses zonal, and not directionally, VHF / HF, satellite and cellular communications, as well as GPS signals. There are no electronic warfare equipment in the shelves. They are covered by the division's electronic warfare battalion. Through the same communication channels. Electronic warfare means are emitting, and therefore are quite easily detected by means of electronic warfare and, accordingly, are hit in the first order. Therefore, they are used quite limitedly and at certain stages of the battle, and not continuously.
The production of a sniper cartridge is much more complex and time consuming compared to the production of a bulk projectile. Therefore, more expensive.
About microdrones for 100 bucks - this is your Chinese toy store. The most massive reconnaissance micro-drone PD-100 costs about 40 thousand dollars!
About wires and metals. EW means see frequencies, not metals and wires. I did not say that the kamikaze drone is not afraid of electronic warfare. I said that it is quite difficult to detect it by air defense reconnaissance means. Don't be confused.
About old systems. Unfortunately, in our troops, "Osa-AKM" is much more than "Thors" of all modifications. Karabakh showed what "Wasp" is in modern war.

[DDZ57]

A 57mm projectile is less than 1000 rubles.

Do you mean the price of a shot that has been in a warehouse for 50 years or a modern one?
And how are you going to hit the PD-100 micro-UAV, which is invisible for 100m (including the OLS) and is not audible with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile?

[Old tanker]

I did not say that micro-UAVs should be hit by the OFS. I compared the price of the projectile and the micro-UAV. And even they are not comparable. And the price of the larger ones, which can be targets for "Derivation", is generally out of the ordinary compared to the projectile. Even new.

[DDZ57]

The Hephaestus was installed on the Su-24, and free-falling aerial bombs of the very shaggy years began to fall with the accuracy of the corrected ones.

"Hephaestus" only partially compensates for aiming errors, but does not compensate for the technological spread of ABS, does not compensate for weather conditions.
It is not necessary to consider the whole world, which is switching to adjustable (controlled) AB, for idiots.
The same Basalt wears "bras" - correction blocks on his free-falling aerial bombs.

The situation is similar here. Well, the "Derivation" niche is mainly the fight against drones,

.
"Derivation" does not solve the problem with patrolling drones.
Two UAVs and no "Derivation". This, as well as the "Doublet" mode of Kornet, allows in some conditions to overcome the active protection system of the tank.

[Old tanker]

"Derivation" does not solve the problem with patrolling drones.
Two UAVs and no "Derivation". This, as well as the "Doublet" mode of Kornet, allows in some conditions to overcome the active protection system of the tank.
Reply

Grandma said that for two. Derivation is not alone in the field. She covers a bunch of armored vehicles of the combined arms unit. And loitering ammunition does not care who to hit, Derivation or a tank, BMP. Almost two shots per second and the automated reconnaissance-guidance complex will be able to crumble enough drones-kamiaadze, which will not understand who is bringing them down and from where. The armor is dark under them.

[DDZ57]

Almost two shots per second and an automated reconnaissance-guidance complex

And where did you find an automated reconnaissance-guidance complex on "Derivation"?
It has only 2 OEP - commander and gunner with a rather small viewing angle.
It does not have a wide-angle optoelectronic station.

And loitering ammunition does not care who to hit,

.

The loitering munition operator doesn't care who gets off first. First, they will finish the air defense systems, and then they will finish off the rest without problems, which was demonstrated in Karabakh.

[Old tanker]

The loitering munition operator doesn't care who gets off first. First, they will finish air defense systems, and then they will finish off the rest without problems, which was demonstrated in Karabakh.

The Switchbade has two modes, manual and completely offline. The main method for hitting groups of targets is autonomous. I agree that some of the vehicles can be allocated for the destruction of air defense systems in manual mode. But here, as they say, someone will. Well, the operator will still have to figure out where the BMP is, and where the "Derivation" is, especially with skillful disguise. Well, the flight range of 10 km is the cutting edge. And there the operator will not be as comfortable as the guy in Arizona managing the Global Hawk.

[Old tanker]

There were no modern air defense systems in Karabakh. Therefore, the Azerbaijanis staked on Bayraktars. But in Syria, the same Bayraktars have successfully felled and felled.

[DDZ57]

especially with skillful disguise.

.

Read how the MLRS of Armenia were destroyed with their skillful camouflage in the forest.

But in Syria, the same Bayraktars have successfully felled and felled.

.

After in January-March 2020. they destroyed more than 300 weapons and military equipment of Assad.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: DDZ57

more than 300 units of weapons and military equipment

Not 300, but 30000
Not VTT, but only fighters
Not Syrians, but Turks.

And if it's no joke, then the Turks did not provide evidence of such a number of affected units of equipment. But even on the b / d map you can clearly see how the "political" map has changed. In addition, there is no confirmation of losses in such a huge volume for Lostarmor. But there is a fairly large number of photos and videos of Turkish-made armored vehicles destroyed from the air.

Quote: DDZ57

Read how the MLRS of Armenia were destroyed with their skillful camouflage in the forest.

The fact of the matter is that these RZSO constantly hit only one square. Already on the same Lostarmore, they posted an analysis. And in general, to believe that some bayroktar ensured a victorious and lossless march of Azerbaijani troops means ignoring the rather tangible losses of the latter in manpower and equipment (which already hints at a rather serious work of artillery and other systems of the defenders).

[Old tanker]

And where did you find an automated reconnaissance-guidance complex on "Derivation"?
It has only 2 OEP - commander and gunner with a rather small viewing angle.
It does not have a wide-angle optoelectronic station.

It's enough. You forget that each installation does not act on its own, but for the air defense system of a unit, less often a unit when operating in a btgr, for example. And accordingly, it conducts reconnaissance of targets in the sector assigned to it.
Well, 2 OEPs are not just monitors.

For detection, target tracking and guidance, a tele-thermal imaging control system developed by the Peleng enterprise with automatic capture and target tracking, also equipped with a laser range finder and a laser guidance channel, is used. The optoelectronic control system (OESU) provides all-day and limited all-weather use of the complex, as well as the ability to work from a place and on the move. The OESU laser channel is equipped with a beam deflection system for lead angles. • Small errors of guidance of the UAS are achieved due to the high accuracy of the target tracking system and the laser guidance system of the UAS with low errors in combination with an effective digital onboard rudder control system and acceptable aeroballistic and dynamic characteristics of the projectile.

Pay attention to:
tele-thermal imaging control system with automatic capture and target tracking ...

[DDZ57]

Pay attention to:
tele-thermal imaging control system with automatic capture and target tracking ...

Go to the Peleng website and look at the detection and aiming system of the OES OP, which is installed on the BM "Derivation". Look at the fad: The detection range of a Bird Eye 400 UAV (700m) (this is in standardized conditions) and the recognition range of a Bird Eye 400 UAV (200m) (and again in normalized conditions) (wide field of view) (in the optical range).
In the warm range, they give a detection and recognition range not for UAVs, but for a target of 2,3m x2,3m (and the area of ​​komikadze is 5-8 times smaller). And again the normalized parameters. A little smoke, dust, fog and "komikadze" sit on the roof of the "Derivation".

[lucul]

In the warm range, they give a detection and recognition range not for UAVs, but for a target of 2,3m x2,3m (and the area of ​​komikadze is 5-8 times smaller). And again the normalized parameters. A little smoke, dust, fog and "komikadze" sit on the roof of the "Derivation".

And how does the drone aim at the target? )))
with "Small smoke, dust, fog and" UAVs in Karabakh did not fly AT ALL)))

[DDZ57]

And how does the drone aim at the target? )))
with "Small smoke, dust, fog and" UAVs in Karabakh did not fly AT ALL)))

The picture on the thermal imager "up" and the picture on the thermal imager "down" through small smoke, dust, fog are slightly different, the sizes of UAVs and BMs and their thermal background contrast are also different.

[Ros 56]

The question is certainly interesting, but old shells should be used to teach calculations when mastering this Derivation, to bring skills to automatism. They will get the old ones, I think they won't miss the new ones. And muscle memory is a great thing.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: Ros 56

The question is certainly interesting, but old shells should be used to teach calculations when mastering this Derivation, to bring skills to automatism. They will get the old ones, I think they won't miss the new ones. And muscle memory is a great thing.

I wonder why you need "muscle memory" in the presence of automatic target tracking?

[Ros 56]

If only in order to correctly and quickly jump into the car, and there will be something to do, not to mention practical shooting. After all, the adversary will not hang in the sky, waiting for you. And you yourself need to get out of the blow in time, because this will not be a training ground.

[DDZ57]

If only in order to correctly and quickly jump into the car, and there will be something to do, not to mention practical shooting.

And where is the old ammunition and quickly jump into the car.
"Muscle memory" is also not needed, because a system with automatic feeding of ammunition into the barrel, and the choice of the type of ammunition is carried out from the remote control.
The abandoned old ballistic solution in the gun (for ammunition from the early 60s) is more than a mistake.
OFS OR-281 is inferior in power to ammunition for BOFORS 57 MK3 by at least 30%.

[alexmach]

And where is the old ammunition and quickly jump into the car.

Both have something to do with crew training

[DDZ57]

Both have something to do with crew training

.

And there will be a picture of how a well-trained aboriginal with asegai was destroyed from a TRG rifle at a distance of 1200m.
This is what everyone went through when they were going to beat the enemy on his territory.
And when an armor-piercing projectile from a 45mm anti-tank gun did not take a German tank almost point-blank (and what happened to the calculation of this gun, which was well trained and showed excellent results in range firing).

[alexmach]

This is what everyone went through when they were going to beat the enemy on his territory.
And when an armor-piercing round from a 45mm anti-tank gun did not take a German tank

And what does this have to do with the described situation?
Training with "training" ammunition is much better than not training at all, or than doing "hands-on" exercises. And exercises with a combat vehicle have a lot of things that need to be practiced besides hitting a target with a controlled supply. The alleged availability of cheap training ammunition by the commentator above is a big plus.

With 45mm ammunition, as far as I remember, there was a constructive miscalculation. In addition, the opposite situation took place, when there was nothing to penetrate the KV-1 tank.

Well, and the last to cite not connected with the discussion but emotionally "hot" episodes is the lot of the demagogue.

[DDZ57]

The alleged availability of cheap training ammunition by the commentator above is a big plus.

Exercise only in loading and unloading from the car. Nobody trains in combat, there are training ones for these purposes.
Shooting at the range is practical, sometimes combat in a certain situation.
But at present there is no modern ammunition (from the word no).
Also, there is no BM in the troops.
And the described situation is no different from 41 years old in technical terms. Then, too, everything was and about it they hung up on the ears as well as now.
The result is Syria January-March, Libya-March-June, Karabakh autumn.

[alexmach]

But at present there is no modern ammunition (from the word no).

The article does not seem to agree with you very much.

Also, there is no BM in the troops.

Well, the car is in development like. As well as ammunition. What are the moans about?

And the described situation is no different from 41 years old in technical terms. Then, too, everything was and about it they hung noodles on the ears as well as now

Stop pulling on the completely wrong analogy. Firstly, if we talk about the supply of troops and industry, the situation is now much more similar to 1914 and not to 41, Secondly, in 41 there were still a lot of things, this is why there were not only 41 but also 45, and the last in 41 is not which is special, since they did not speak now.

[DDZ57]

Stop pulling on the completely wrong analogy. Firstly, if we talk about the supply of troops and industry, the situation is now much more similar to 1914 and not to 41, Secondly, in 41 there were still a lot of things, this is why there were not only 41 but also 45, and the last in 41 is not which is special, since they did not speak now.

Explain what is the difference between 14 and 41.

Result 41 is well known.

And the result of 45 has not yet been calculated.

[alexmach]

Explain what is the difference between 14 and 41.

In the fact that in the first case, the country was fundamentally not ready for war either in terms of equipping the army, or in terms of its supply capabilities, or in terms of the capabilities of the economy and industry, to pull out such a large-scale war, and in 41 everything was exactly the opposite, and we did pull out this war despite the fact that the situation during the Great Patriotic War as a whole was much more difficult.

[DDZ57]

The article does not seem to agree with you very much.

Well, the car is in development like. As well as ammunition. What are the moans about?

No groans.
And writing articles and press releases are not tossing bags.
And the presence of an article or a press release is not the presence of a spent BM and shots to it, and it is not an established serial production of competitive products.
It's like releasing gases into a puddle ,,,

[alexmach]

And the presence of an article or a press release is not the presence of a spent BM and shots to it, and it is not an established serial production of competitive products.

All modern technology first appears in the form of "concepts", press releases and exhibition samples, this is normal.
Yes, the argument is correct about the fact that Derivation is not in the series and by the way it is not clear whether it will be there yet, and you should not get too excited about its supposed but not yet confirmed characteristics.

[DDZ57]

All modern technology first appears in the form of "concepts", press releases and exhibition samples, this is normal.

The "concept" (a combat module in 57mm caliber on a tracked chassis) is almost 30 years old - and it is still a "concept" (see project 57mm for PT-76) in press releases and in exhibition samples.
The above "new concept" is based on a chassis which is more than 30 years old, uses a gun which is almost 60 years old, and has at least 50 years of ammunition for this new (old) gun.
Nobody explained to me why this "new concept" BM has an infrared projector, which is almost 40 years old.
New - OLS, but it is produced by Pelenga (Belarus).
And you call all this normal?

It looks like the Indians were frightened of such "novelty" and normality from the Russian Federation and the modernization of their BMP "Sarath", made on the BMP-2 platform and associated with the installation of a thermal imaging sight, a third-generation panoramic commander's sight, a modern fire control system, an automatic target tracking system and a stabilization system guns in two planes were given to Peleng in company with an Indian enterprise.
And the fleet of these cars in India is more than 2000 pieces.

[alexmach]

Okay, are there any projects of Russian armored vehicles that you would approve of? How about these crafts with 57mm LSHO small ballistics?

[DDZ57]

Okay, are there any projects of Russian armored vehicles that you would approve of? How about these crafts with 57mm LSHO small ballistics?

The OFS in this system is currently one of the best in fragmentation action (contact fuse) (3-4 times higher than discussed in this article), good range and accuracy. This BP completely covers the tasks of the company (like the OFS), for which it is done ..
But there is no fuse for trajectory detonation, there is no ammunition for this function, which complicates the fight against tank-hazardous targets and UAVs.
It is not clear whether the KBP will be able to resolve the issue of BOPS for this system and the timing.
The KBP could resolve the issue of the UAS for this system, but for some reason they followed the path of external Bulat.
The problems here are above the roof. The problems of piece production are one thing, but the problems
high-volume (mass) is completely different and nightmare.
There is no large-scale production of ammunition in the Russian Federation, except for the shooter, which can be reported.
LSHO was discussed here somehow.
For some reason, the military did not agree to the unification of 57mm dimensions. But KBP and Petrel did not come to an agreement, each blowing into his own pipe.
The question is not only about the tool, but also about the platform.
The modernization of old machines (1-2) and their release (3), in a less serious even regional conflict (for example, Karabakh) will in any case lead to the production of smoked-fried canned goods in rather serious volumes.
When discussing an article about a light Israeli tank, I gave pictures of the defeat of light armored vehicles by SBB with a multi-factor warhead.
This does not happen with heavy protected vehicles of Western production, which are mass-produced.

[DDZ57]

With 45mm ammunition, as far as I remember, there was a constructive miscalculation.

And now I say that the adoption of the ballistic decision 60 years ago is even worse than that constructive miscalculation.
Your right to agree with me or not, but time will tell who is a demagogue or ...

there was nothing to penetrate the KV-1 tank

How many times did the Germans have this task?
And they could solve it without coming into direct contact with armored vehicles.

The task of defeating German tanks from spacecraft fighters with 45mm guns arose up to 43 regularly
(and the orders of these tasks are completely different than those of the first). And it was decided only in direct contact, the price of this decision is known, or it was not decided at all.

[alexmach]

And now I say that the adoption of a ballistic decision 60 years ago is even worse than that constructive miscalculation

Well, we started with old shells, and ended up with a ballistic solution. As far as I understand, everything should be in perfect order with what with what and with the ballistics of the original anti-aircraft gun.
How rational is it to use guided projectiles from it in general (maybe you can do only with programmed detonation?) And use cannon artillery in our time as an air defense is a separate question for me, but personally to me the concept of Derivation itself seems very, very interesting.

[DDZ57]

Well, we started with old shells, and ended up with a ballistic solution. As far as I understand, everything should be in perfect order with what with what and with the ballistics of the original anti-aircraft gun.

All together.
And the concept of complete order in artillery is different for everyone, because it depends on the level of knowledge in this area.

[alexmach]

since it depends on the level of knowledge in this area.

Well, share your knowledge, what does this weapon do not suit you?

[lucul]

OFS OR-281 is inferior in power to ammunition for BOFORS 57 MK3 by at least 30%.

A shell from 50 years ago against a new shell? Not surprisingly, the new land mine will also surpass.

[DDZ57]

A shell from 50 years ago against a new shell? Not surprisingly, the new land mine will also surpass.

Explain how new with the characteristics of the old one (short 240-250mm and with a filling factor ≈ 0,07) can surpass the Swede (309-340mm long and 0,14-0,18 filling factor).
Although the AU caliber 57 mm BOFORS is the same age as the C-60.

[Zaurbek]

Several years ago it became known that the KB of Precision Engineering. A.E. Nudelman is working on the appearance of a promising guided artillery shell (UAS) in 57 mm caliber. Later, some technical details of such a project became known.

The high-explosive fragmentation UAS with an unknown index in its dimensions was supposed to correspond to the existing ammunition and be used with a standard 348-mm sleeve. At the head of the projectile, it was proposed to place a single-channel steering machine and rudders that could be folded in flight. The central part of the hull was given under the warhead, and a folding stabilizer and a laser radiation receiver were placed in the bottom.


Will it be single shoot? How will the automatic gun work? Is there less gunpowder than usual? And how will the rudders be combined with the rotation of the projectile?

[DDZ57]

Several years ago it became known that the KB of Precision Engineering. A.E. Nudelman is working on the appearance of a promising guided artillery shell (UAS) in 57 mm caliber. Later, some technical details of such a project became known.

This news is not a few years old, but noticeably more than 10 years old. And it is still news in the Russian Federation to this day and will be it for at least 5 years, and maybe even more.

Will it be single shoot? How will the automatic gun work? Is there less gunpowder than usual? And how will the rudders be combined with the rotation of the projectile?

.

Everything you write about has a solution and is doable.

[lucul]

This news is not a few years old, but noticeably more than 10 years old. And it is still news in the Russian Federation to this day and will be it for at least 5 years, and maybe even more.

The same was said about Caliber - "will appear, at best, in 30 years")))

[Genry]

Quote: Zaurbek

Several years ago it became known that ...

This is an assumption.

Quote: Zaurbek

How will the automatic gun work? Is there less gunpowder than usual?

How is automation related to the powder in the projectile? The charge in the case gives energy, which must be the same for all types of projectiles.

[Zaurbek]

You have 5 rounds in a cassette or tape ... one automatic, designed for a specific charge. And in one shell, one charge is more powerful in the other.

[Genry]

Quote: Zaurbek

And in one shell, one charge is more powerful in the other.

The charges in the case are the same !!! They burn up in the trunk.
The projectile (which flies out of the barrel) can contain any content ...
Are you the grandson of the account owner?

[Zaurbek]

Well, on a tank gun - on a Corr shell - a charge of one power and after it the shutter is manually opened. On a regular one, it is more powerful - the sleeve itself flies out. Do you learn the meaning? And in the machine - from the clip in a row, reloading goes.

[Genry]

How do I manually open the shutter in a deserted tower?

[Zaurbek]

You see ... and people who are far from progress are visited by such questions. So I asked a question. In automation, the same charge is important.

[Genry]

Quote: Zaurbek

In automation, the same charge is important.

Finally came.

[Zaurbek]

I'm happy for you. Thought not to learn.

[Genry]

Quote: Zaurbek

I'm happy for you. Thought not to learn.

I do not advise you to be rude!
From the comments you can see who and what ...

[DDZ57]

In automation, the same charge is important.

.

Not the same charge, but the same amount of motion (momentum).
Not in automation, but for the operation of an automatic system (closed), which consists of a weapon and a projectile.

[DDZ57]

You have 5 rounds in a cassette or tape ... one automatic, designed for a specific charge. And in one shell, one charge is more powerful in the other.

For the automatic tool to work, it is necessary to maintain momentum (momentum).
To ensure the strength of the barrel, it is necessary not to exceed the permitted pressure of the powder gases.
These two conditions are met in 57mm UAS. And there are no problems here.

[Zaurbek]

You have electronics on the projectile:
1. The projectile is larger
2. It will not survive the impulse needed for a blank.

If this issue is resolved, then I'm glad. Alternatively, external drives can be used.

[DDZ57]

Alternatively, external drives can be used

.

What is meant by external drives ???

It will not survive the impulse needed for a blank.

Who will not survive?
And what impulse and what kind of blank are we talking about?
I was talking about the momentum (the amount of motion of a closed system - in relation to the law of conservation of momentum) necessary for the operation of the automatic tool.

Larger projectile

.

And what follows from the statement that "the projectile is larger"?

There is an electronic element base that can withstand overloads of more than 20000g in the west, the presence in the Russian Federation is a big question.
The power supply for the fuse for these overloads in the Russian Federation is a big question. IP for UAS - probably there.
The solution to the question of inductive programming in the Russian Federation is also a big question (it was written about a little earlier).

[alexmach]

Will it be single shoot?

probably yes

How will the automatic gun work?

This is a very good question. Selective ammunition is not heard anywhere, and there are already 3 types of shells ...

And how will the rudders be combined with the rotation of the projectile?

Special freely rotating guide belts on the projectile will eat up some of the rotational energy.
But in general, first of all, this cannon would develop a projectile with a programmable detonation, and the rotation will only benefit it. Managed is the next step.

[ares1988]

Some nonsense: the old HE shell weighed 2,8 kg and contained 150g of explosives. New - weighs "a little more than 2 kg", and holds 400 g of explosives. Moreover, they also pushed the controls / guidance into it. Wonders. "Power at the level of 76mm shells" is again miracles, since HE shells contain 800g of explosives (shell for ZiS-3 as an example). That is, now 400g should burst like 800 earlier.

[lucul]

That is, now 400g should burst like 800 earlier.

Well, here's an example for you, let's say - 800g of dynamite or 400g of TNT in the same shell. Do you think dynamite will have more explosion energy or not? ))))

[ares1988]

Believe it or not, dynamite is superior to TNT both in explosiveness and blasting.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: lucul

Well, here's an example for you, let's say - 800g of dynamite or 400g of TNT in the same shell. Do you think dynamite will have more explosion energy or not? ))))

Dynamite in art. projectiles are not used, because the projectile can explode in the gun barrel when fired - dynamite is sensitive to overload see https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite

[igor_sabadah]

The explosives were replaced, what's the problem then?

[ares1988]

The problem is that Russian scientists, apparently, secretly developed some kind of explosive that is twice as powerful as TNT, while maintaining the same performance properties.

[Castro Ruiz]

Tayno razrabotali HMX? :)

[ares1988]

HMX has a TNT coefficient of 1,6, not 2. In addition, it is used in mixtures, that is, as a result, the coefficient will be even lower. Plus, do not forget about the first part of the commentary: the weight of the projectile has decreased, additional ones have appeared. elements that also occupy the volume inside the projectile, and the weight of the explosive, allegedly increased by more than 2 times.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: ares1988

Some nonsense: the old HE shell weighed 2,8 kg and contained 150g of explosives.

The old OFS weighed 2,8 kg and contained only 153 g of explosives because it had thick walls to receive heavy fragments to destroy bombers and attack aircraft of the 50s of the XX century.

[chenia]

As I understand it, this is for the battalion level (the anti-aircraft missile platoon should have been formed long ago). But I don’t understand why to economize on the volume of the tower (well, it does not go in the first line). But you can cram a lot of useful things.

[Narak-zempo]

Well, well.
ZSU was named "Derivation".
In this case, the ROC codes for new shells should be "Misfire" and "Miss"

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Narak-zempo

Well, well.
ZSU was named "Derivation".
In this case, the ROC codes for new shells should be "Misfire" and "Miss"

Or "Lingering" and "Premature".

[Radical]

Anti-aircraft complex "Derivation-PVO" ...

In general, who came up with the idea of ​​calling an anti-aircraft complex BMP with a single-barreled large-caliber semi-automatic cannon?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Radikal

In general, who came up with the idea of ​​calling an anti-aircraft complex BMP with a single-barreled large-caliber semi-automatic cannon?

The gun is automatic there - another version of the ship's A-220, the eternal loser competitor of the so beloved Russian Navy AK-176.
And the semiautomatic device with the uninhabited module is somehow poorly combined.

[Zaurbek]

57mm Derivation and module from 57mm to BMP .... these are different machines

[Scharnhorst]

It is not entirely clear what niche in the military air defense they plan to fill with this product: will it be like a new standard unit or are they planning to remove something from the existing one? Tunguska or Carapace cannot replace; ZU-23 is too expensive; the Shilka and Arrow-10 bundle should be replaced with the Derivation and Wasp bundle; maybe in addition to the divisions of the Torahs? Or maybe both the tankers of the Terminators and the motorized infantry Derivation? How do you see its use of tactics on the battlefield?

[Zaurbek]

30mm does not reach the UAV at altitudes of 3-4000m ..... Missiles are expensive.

[iouris]

As always: shells (yet) of the wrong system ...

[Emil mamedoff]

In my opinion, this machine will work just fine both on the ground and on high mountains, and it hits the bull's-eye, judging by the large electro-optical systems of the sight on the tower.
By all means, it is necessary to complete and start mass production. Obligation to produce this car.
57mm and without detonation will shoot very far and hurt any ground armored vehicles, even tanks. And as an anti-aircraft gun, yes, alas, you need to detonate shells.

[DDZ57]

In my opinion, this machine will work just fine both on the ground and on high mountains, and it hits the bull's-eye, judging by the large electro-optical systems of the sight on the tower.
By all means, it is necessary to complete and start mass production. Obligation to produce this car.

In the 30s, this was already under way - they created a universal weapon: an anti-aircraft howitzer (and other options, but still with an anti-aircraft gun) - a lot of financial, material and human resources were spent. Result: see the USSR 41-42 years of the last century.

[Castro Ruiz]

Novaya sistema so snariadami 2MV eto ne oshibka, eto prestuplenie.
Bez snariadov s distancionnim podrivom efektivnost Derivacii-PVO nul.

[Zaurbek]

.50cal ...... Browning then what? Or Swedish Bofors ...?

[Castro Ruiz]

A eto novoe oruzhie?

[Zaurbek]

Produced, put on modules ....... A 57mm - on the Navy was put as anti-aircraft. when the USSR was installed on the ZSU-2-57.

[Castro Ruiz]

Eshcho raz. Est Derivacia-PVO novoe oruzhie / sistema ili net?

[Zaurbek]

This is a system ...... now we have selected the right caliber for it and for promising armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. And they chose 57mm. What's new in cannon and automation?

[Castro Ruiz]

Navedenie, electronics, optika.

[Zaurbek]

It's all new ...

[Radical]

Quote: Zaurbek

57mm Derivation and module from 57mm to BMP .... these are different machines

What is the difference? Just don't talk about special anti-aircraft sights.

[Zaurbek]

Angles, scopes, prog razrevatel ..... what that is. Maybe a connection with radar systems.

[Blackgrifon]

Nuuuu ... On one module there is a power supply, but on the other - no :)

[D16]

What is the difference?

The module for the Epoch BMP has a 57mm low ballistics gun.

[3danimal]

Generally, IMHO, you need to finish off the 45mm cannon with telescopic shells. Not exchanging for different 57mm outdated on the base.

Comparison of the French CT-40 with Bushmasters 30 and 35mm (and 40mm of WW2).

a feathered armor-piercing sabot projectile (flight speed 1500 m / s, penetration of 140-mm homogeneous rolled armor is declared at a distance of 1500 meters)

This will be a really noticeable qualitative improvement in performance. And, importantly, the 45mm telescope ammunition will be much larger (than for the old 57mm), with better performance.

[DDZ57]

Generally, IMHO, you need to finish off the 45mm cannon with telescopic shells.

The Russian company that developed the 45th with the telescope is in a pre-bankruptcy state, its covid saved from bankruptcy. There are delays in the payment of wages, some of the people left for Orsis.

[3danimal]

“Why am I not surprised,” hand-face ...
It’s bad that way.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

Generally, IMHO, you need to finish off the 45mm cannon with telescopic shells. Not exchanging for different 57mm outdated on the base.

Comparison of the French CT-40 with Bushmasters 30 and 35mm (and 40mm of WW2).

a feathered armor-piercing sabot projectile (flight speed 1500 m / s, penetration of 140-mm homogeneous rolled armor is declared at a distance of 1500 meters)

This will be a really noticeable qualitative improvement in performance. And, importantly, the 45mm telescope ammunition will be much larger (than for the old 57mm), with better performance.

The 40-mm cannon 40 CTC (as it is called in the CTA International catalog) is English (BAe Systems), and the telescopic ammunition for it is French (Nexter Munitions). And this is what they got with the ammunition load of these "telescopes" ready for battle: 42 rounds in the T40M turret, 52 rounds in the Toutatis module, 70 rounds in the turret for wheeled infantry fighting vehicles of the VBCI type (https: //ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi. net / ndia / 2009 / gunmissile / 7961leslie.pdf, slide 17). Compare this with the 57mm ammunition load: 80 pcs. in BM "Dagger" and 148 in "Derivation-Air Defense". How is it that "the 45mm telescope ammunition will be much larger" if it did not work out for 40mm?

[3danimal]

The telescope is more compact, no doubt about it.

42 rounds per tower T40M, 52 rounds in the Toutatis module, 70 rounds in the tower for wheeled infantry fighting vehicles VBCI type

Obviously, in Derivation, the shells are located not only in the tower.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

The telescope is more compact, no doubt about it.

42 rounds per tower T40M, 52 rounds in the Toutatis module, 70 rounds in the tower for wheeled infantry fighting vehicles VBCI type

Obviously, in Derivation, the shells are located not only in the tower.

Do you think that the cartridges are located in the vehicle body under the Derivation-Air Defense turret? If so, so what - the turret basket is also part of the tower. Nothing interferes with such a traditional placement of ammunition - there is no landing in the ZAK. And in the indicated towers for 40-mm CTAS, only the Toutatis DBM does not take up space under the shoulder strap, the rest of the towers have it. And besides, the BM "Dagger" still has 57-mm ammunition (80 pcs.) Turned out to be more than that of a 40-mm cannon with telescopic ammunition in any specified turret.
The telescopic cartridge is certainly more compact than the usual one with a bottle sleeve, but what was the result with the ammunition load? The idea with telescopic ammunition was good - the compactness of the cartridge and the gun in the turret, the simplicity and elegance of the automation scheme. But everything was spoiled by the system of ammunition supply with cylindrical cartridges, which are not adapted to tape feed. As a result, the place in the manned turret is occupied by complex mechanisms for reloading cartridges from the magazine into one feed sleeve, from there into the other, then turning into the feed to the gun. In uninhabited modules, the supply system is simpler, but the modules themselves are smaller, so that the ammunition ready for use is still too limited.

[3danimal]

And besides, the BM "Dagger" still has 57-mm ammunition (80 pcs.) Turned out to be more than that of a 40-mm cannon with telescopic ammunition in any specified turret.

Well, that's what the argument is about? Take a similar part of the internal volume of the vehicle with ammunition and get ~ 120 shells (tell me, why do you need a large ammo? ).
Notice how compact the French telescope cannon is.
There is a clear tendency for uninhabited modules in all promising infantry fighting vehicles.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

And besides, the BM "Dagger" still has 57-mm ammunition (80 pcs.) Turned out to be more than that of a 40-mm cannon with telescopic ammunition in any specified turret.

Well, that's what the argument is about? Take a similar part of the internal volume of the vehicle with ammunition and get ~ 120 shells (tell me, why do you need a large ammo? ).
Notice how compact the French telescope cannon is.
There is a clear tendency for uninhabited modules in all promising infantry fighting vehicles.

BM "Dagger" does not occupy the internal volume of the machine. Inside view of the BMP T-15, photo on topwar.ru:

And the manned turrets for 40-mm CTAS already occupy the internal volume of the vehicle with exactly those 42 and 70 rounds of ammunition, so 120 will not work.
I won’t say “Why do we need a big bookmaker?” I’ll say on the contrary - it is very necessary! And where is it at the 40mm telescopic system? But today it is not, and work on it has been going on for almost 30 years.

[3danimal]

Let's go simple: compare the sizes of 40mm telescopes and 57mm.

[DDZ57]

A little for clarity.
And a request: it is necessary to clarify the size along the bottom of the case for the 57x348SRmm shot.

[3danimal]

The point is, how can you deny the obvious?

[DDZ57]

And we must also take into account that the rate of fire of 40mm STA is 200 rpm, which is useful for air defense.

[DDZ57]

And a little about the 45mm RF telescope.
Information from old sites, I tried to find something, I could not find it, maybe someone will succeed.

[DDZ57]

Additional dessert:
what's going on in Klimovsk ("All is well, beautiful marquise").

The exploits of Albert Bakov | Business | RUCOMPROMAT
Albert Bakov - "Trojan horse" of "Rostec" "Compromising GROUP (compromat.group)
Albert Bakov is the best "milkmaid" of Rostec - RUCRIMINAL Truth loves to act openly.
Highlight - copy - paste into a search engine - read - share your impressions on VO. Everything opens and reads for me. Klimovskie "" carried out validation and variation. 100%.
Something like that.
Those interested can continue to discuss "Lotus", a bulletproof vest that stops .50BMG (20kJ) and other products of this office, discuss: the result is guaranteed.
Only where.
I confirm: in a press release, concept, article, website, etc., but not in serial production.

[DDZ57]

I almost forgot:
you can still see their products and products of other companies of the Russian Federation, including the one under discussion, at exhibitions, including at ARMY 2021, but only before this procedure or after it you need to go to the main temple of the RF Armed Forces so that the heresy that was or will be voiced and seen on the stand deeply and firmly settled in the horny compartment.
It is a pity that the clear-faced ones were torn off the walls in the temple, then the effect of fooling would be even steeper.

[DDZ57]

I already wrote earlier that
In 2016, NORINCO Corporation introduced the CS / AA5 combat module with a 40-mm automatic cannon for a telescopic shot. Together with the module, models of two ammunition were demonstrated, as well as armor with penetrations.
https://army-news.org/2016/11/kitajskaya-40-mm-avtomaticheskaya-pushka-s-teleskopicheskimi-boepripasami/amp/

All this was already on the VO website. And it was discussed here, but it looks like only "Moses" will achieve the result .....

[3danimal]

I agree. In addition, this gun has an external drive, which has a positive effect on reliability and compactness.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

And we must also take into account that the rate of fire of 40mm STA is 200 rpm, which is useful for air defense.

200 shots / min useful for air defense ?! This is a joke? The 35-mm Oerlikon (now Rheinmetall) cannons of the KD series for air defense of ground forces and object air defense have a rate of fire of 550 rds / min, and the last (revolving) KDG - 1000 rds / min. The exception is the KDE 35mm cannon with tempo 200 shots / min., which NOT designed for air defense, KDE was designed to arm BMP / BRM, as well as 40mm CTAS. 35 mm is not 40? Here are 40: 40-mm cannon Bofors L / 70 in anti-aircraft mounts - 300 rds / min, modification for the Italian naval ZAK Fast Forty - 450 rds / min.
The maximum rate of fire for a 40-mm CTAS cannon is 200 rds / min, this is the reverse side and a clear limitation of the technical solutions used for it: an external electric drive and a telescopic cartridge. Designed to arm BMP / BRM, air defense missions for it are "not according to Senka hat".

[DDZ57]

200 rounds / min is useful for air defense ?! This is a joke?

If 200 rds / min is a joke for air defense (considering that the ammunition contains OShS with MFV),
and then what is 120 rpm for air defense (53-OR-281U with MGZ-57)?
Delirium?

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

200 rounds / min is useful for air defense ?! This is a joke?

If 200 rds / min is a joke for air defense (considering that the ammunition contains OShS with MFV),
and what then is for air defense 120 rpm (53-OR-281U with MGZ-57)?
Delirium?

About "200 rds./min is useful for air defense" this is your "joke", not the CTAS developers, who were not going to solve air defense problems in 1994. For air defense, both then and now there were 35-mm Oele guns of the KD series and 40-mm L / 70.
(and not the fight against UAVs, which over the battlefield in the modern sense in 1994
Rate of fire 120 rds / min for air defense

[Thomas N.]

The tablet is frozen and the comment editing / deleting time has expired. Further corrected and supplemented text of the previous comment.

Quote: DDZ57

Quote: Thomas N.

200 rounds / min is useful for air defense ?! This is a joke?

If 200 rds / min is a joke for air defense (considering that the ammunition contains OShS with MFV),
and what then is for air defense 120 rpm (53-OR-281U with MGZ-57)?
Delirium?

About "200 rds./min is useful for air defense" this is your "joke" about 40-mm, not CTAS developers, who were not going to solve air defense problems in 1994. For air defense, both then and now there were 35-mm Oerlikon cannons (temp 550, 1000) and 40-mm L / 70 Bofors (300, 450). The A3B-T projectile (renamed in the latest CTA International catalog to KE-AB) with a GGE for countering UAVs (and not for full-fledged air defense *) in the CTAS ammunition appeared last and most recently, when shock and loitering drones became very popular.
120 rds / min for a 57-mm cannon in the ground forces (for the A-220 Navy - 300 rds / min) is not "nonsense", but a normal rate of fire, taking into account the mass of the cartridge and the 57-mm OFS with MFV and the presence of ammunition UAS. And for the 40-mm CTAS UAS did not do it, although initially they were going together with Thales to make UAS CTGP similar to Starstreak, but without an engine and with one arrow. OFS OR-281U with MGZ-57 in the "Derivation-Air Defense" ammunition, of course, can be used, but without the new 57-mm OFS with MFV and UAS, this ZAK would not have been created. And since he is, then there will be new ammunition for him. Your only argument here is that the new shells right now are only in the "pictures". So the whole complex was relatively recently in the "pictures" or in your opinion the projectile is more difficult to develop than the entire ZAK?
By the way, about the "pictures" - can you explain what this cutout is in the case of a 40-mm Osh shell with an MFV:

Perhaps this is a split layout for showing the GGE, but for some reason there is a cutout in all published photographs of this projectile, so maybe there is nothing else besides this layout?

* The KE-AB ammunition is particularly effective against Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), swarming drones, UAS helicopters and low speed aircraft. (BrochureA5v2018Sept_planches_interactive.pdf, p.8)

[DDZ57]

OFS OR-281U with MGZ-57 in the "Derivation-Air Defense" ammunition, of course, can be used, but without the new 57-mm OFS with MFV and UAS, this ZAK would not have been created.

So the whole complex was relatively recently in the "pictures" or, in your opinion, is it more difficult to develop a shell than the entire ZAK?

What was in the shooter, what in artillery was previously the norm: first, the creation of a shot and ballistics, and then the creation of an artillery system.
Now all this has been broken, which is why the former Minister of Minmash V.V.Bakhirev and his deputy, who was responsible in Minmash for "stuff" AA Callistov, in coffins from the current "lawlessness" in the ammunition production (which is almost non-existent) they got cancer.

Everyone can see the result, the process of finishing takes decades.
Just sawing: budget or "WEIGHT".

STAI saws its own weight. I agree that it takes a long time to saw. But at the end, they have a high-tech product.
What's at the exit at the Petrel? And the question is very HUGE.
I watched for STAI somewhere before 2013.
They had a lot of problems. And they solved them.
They had a lot of solutions covered by patents, but now they flew in with them, tk. expired. China took advantage of this, but Russia did not.
China has thrown its product on the market and it will find its niche there.

Integral solutions STAI (up to 2013).

[Thomas N.]

Of the combat modules you have specified, work is now being carried out only on habitable ones: WCSP for Warrior, turrets for Ajax, EBRC Jaguar and VBCI-2.

[DDZ57]

Of the combat modules you have specified, work is now being carried out only on habitable ones: WCSP for Warrior, turrets for Ajax, EBRC Jaguar and VBCI-2.

Of the modern ones, you missed the uninhabited marine module RapidFire 40mm, which was already discussed.
And I can add another uninhabited air defense module on a wheeled chassis.
And by the way, he has a "glove compartment" with an additional 80 shots.
Pay attention to the optics (lens size) and compare them with the Pelengovsky ones (in whose favor the comparison).
And also the Sofradir company (France) - is one of the leaders in the production of cooled and uncooled infrared receivers (the bolometric matrix of this company was installed in the T-90 sight).
And yet - the French have an OEL station with a circular view (with a large lens), operating in the optical and thermal ranges and which can act as a passive SRC.

[DDZ57]

See the video about the extreme land vehicle STA.
And now you can organize a tote:
who after the events in Karabakh will be the first to buy it - Armenia or Azerbaijan?

[DDZ57]

And another note:
the carrying capacity of the chassis allows you to increase the "glove compartment" by 5 times.

And nothing prevents to put on the roof of the cabin a lightweight rifle DBM.
And including OELS circular view.

[DDZ57]

And as I wrote earlier: the French can optionally equip their 40mm RapidFire artillery system with 6 STARStreak short-range air defense missiles.

[DDZ57]

By the way, about the "pictures" - can you explain what this cutout is in the case of a 40-mm Osh shell with an MFV:

I can't say anything about the cutout in the case. I don't know anything about it.

Perhaps this is a split layout for showing the GGE, but for some reason there is a cutout in all published photographs of this projectile, so maybe there is nothing else besides this layout?

Regarding the "layouts" and cutting as well. Conclusions are made by everyone for himself.

Or about how it is customary in the West to carry out marketing (PR) activities:
November - December 2019 At the VO there was a discussion of the tests carried out by the RDM test site Alcantpan.
In this regard, it was written: The tests were organized by the RDM company together with the companies Rheinmetall Waffe Munition (RWM), Rheinmetall Norway and Nitrochemie.
This event was attended by representatives of many Western weapons manufacturers, as well as representatives of potential customers. The main purpose of the tests carried out in early November in the South African edition of "DW" is the need to show in practice the capabilities of modern artillery, new nuclear power, propelling charges, etc. Control over the course of the tests was provided by local and international military observers and representatives of the defense industry, the official website of the RDM company notes.
Approximately 7 months prior to the November event (March 19-20, 2019), at the Denel Dunes Overberg Test Range (OTR) near Ariston, South Africa, RDM hosted The Ammunition Demonstration Capability 2019 "(ACD2019). The event was attended by about 800 existing and potential customers from 53 countries. Static exposition and dynamic display, day and night shooting ...

[DDZ57]

And a little more about marketing (this was also written on VO) (or as is customary in the west):

In June 2017. Rheinmetall Denel Munition held an event for the military attaché, at which he made an overview of the products produced and their capabilities were demonstrated at the test site. The left one in the picture does not remind anyone what conclusions he made, and further along Boyd's loop….

One measure does not fit all.

[DDZ57]

And more about marketing, press releases, models, concepts, etc.
For example, RDM.

Rheinmetall Denel Munition holds a large-scale ammunition demonstration event "The Ammunition Demonstration Capability" once every four years.
March "ACD2019" was the third. This event is a very important point in the RDM marketing strategy. The category of the November event is noticeably lower. Conducting a high-cost aggressive marketing policy to promote its ammunition product line has made RDM a leader in this market.

And on the example of the Russian Federation.

Shooting TOURS at ARMY 2020.
https://topwar.ru/174472-polovina-raket-ne-popala-v-cel-v-seti-razocharovany-strelbami-na-armii-2020.html
Half of the missiles missed their target: the web was disappointed by the shooting at the "Army-2020".

And where did the Russian Federation end up?

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

The left one in the picture does not remind anyone what conclusions he made ...

You like to make riddles. How do I understand who is left in the picture in the photo with such a negligible resolution?

[DDZ57]

How do I understand who is left in the picture in the photo with such a negligible resolution?

How not to recognize a native pixel, which glows like a "flashlight" in a night light and a native cut
(everything can be seen even in the picture with such a negligible resolution).

[DDZ57]

Perhaps this is a split layout for showing the GGE, but for some reason there is a cutout in all published photographs of this projectile, so maybe there is nothing else besides this layout?

Additionally looked at A3B-T - (Anti Aerial Airburst Tracer - anti-aircraft, air blast).
This seems to be the reincarnation of the 30-35mm Rheinmetall Air Defense (Oerlikon Contraves AHEAD - fragmentation-beam with axial expansion of GGE) at 40ST.
The striking elements are cylinders, tungsten alloy, the amount is 200 or a little more, the mass is about 3,3 g.
His qualification process is scheduled for 2022.
In the photo of AHEAD, if you make a cutout on the cylindrical part of the case, it will be the same picture as on the 40mm A3B-T (Anti Aerial Airburst Tracer) CTA.

[DDZ57]

GPR-AB-T (Air Burst Tracer - air blast, tracer) compared to A3B-T has a radial diagram of the scattering of fragments. Its weight is 980 grams, it has a pre-fragmented body filled with 115 grams of insensitive explosive. Created to fight ground targets behind cover, it is capable of penetrating a reinforced concrete wall 210 mm thick from a distance of 1-1,5 km (??), has some armor-piercing capabilities, since it can penetrate rolled armor 15 mm thick from the same distance, the maximum range of the actual fire is 2,5 km, and the initial speed is 1000 m / s. His qualifications were expected in 2019.
The maximum range of actual fire for A3B-T is declared at least 6 km.
The figure shows a comparison of damage between a 30mm air blast (left) and a 40mm GPR-AB.

[DDZ57]

Impact of GPR-AB-T on obstacles (reinforced concrete slab, aluminum sheet).

[DDZ57]

In an article on VO "Limited prospects for telescopic ammunition"
https://topwar.ru/174852-ogranichennye-perspektivy-teleskopicheskih-boepripasov.html#comment-id-10766851
there is a picture with telescopes, which clearly shows the cylindrical GGE in A3B-T (which is discussed above).

[DDZ57]

[quote Rate of fire 120 rds / min for air defense] [/ quote]

The presence of an external electric drive for 40STA allows you to set any pace in the range up to 200 rpm. Including 120 shots / min.

[Thomas N.]

Read not this truncated comment, but the following one.

[3danimal]

Inside view of the BMP T-15, photo on topwar.ru:

A small nuance: the T-15 has a module with a 30mm cannon by default, which is much more compact (like its ammunition).
There are no miracles: a smaller projectile means more ammo with the same volume.
And 40 CT is almost half the size.

[DDZ57]

BM "Dagger" does not occupy the internal volume of the machine. Inside view of the BMP T-15, photo on topwar.ru:

Some have illusions, some have reality.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

Some have illusions, some have reality.

And what is the illusion? And what is the reality? This is such a mystery, right?

[DDZ57]

And what is the illusion? And what is the reality? This is such a mystery, right?

First, you show the internal compartment of the BM with a 30mm module, talking about the 57mm gun, they tell you about it, silence in response.
I am showing you the mass-dimensional parameters of the 57mm module. They are very large both in weight and dimensions. 40mm STA has a high rate of fire, full and modern ammunition load. From which it follows that the 57mm module in this version of the Petrel loses to the 40mm CTA module.
But for some reason your conclusion does not take all this into account.
The consequence of which is the question, what is your conclusion justified by: "... air defense tasks for him (ie 40mm STA)" not according to Senka's hat.

[3danimal]

But everything was spoiled by the system of ammunition supply with cylindrical cartridges, which are not adapted to tape feed.

But here's your post three days earlier:

Any automatic cannon with a caliber of 40 mm and above does not use tape feed, only clips or mechanized feed from magazines.

How so?
But it was the calibers of 40 + mm that were discussed.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

Quote: Thomas N.

But everything was spoiled by the system of ammunition supply with cylindrical cartridges, which are not adapted to tape feed.

But here's your post three days earlier:

Quote: Thomas N.

Any automatic cannon with a caliber of 40 mm and above does not use tape feed, only clips or mechanized feed from magazines.

How so?
But it was the calibers of 40 + mm that were discussed.

Where do you see the contradiction here? Cartridges of automatic guns of caliber 40-57 mm, due to their weight and size characteristics, are not suitable for tape feeding, therefore, clips or mechanized feed from the magazine are used. As a result, it becomes possible to use not 2 types of cartridge, as with selective tape feed, but several types, as in a tank automatic loader or in marine installations. But with a caliber of 40-57 mm in such an ammunition supply system, a ready-to-fight ammunition load is placed, several times smaller compared to 25-30 mm cartridges. At the beginning of the development of a cannon system with telescopic cartridges, everyone (like you now) really liked all these ratios of sizes and volumes of telescopic and conventional cartridges of the same caliber, given above. And there were hopes that due to the compact form of the cartridge, it would be possible to increase the caliber (and, accordingly, the effect on targets) compared to 25-30 mm and increase the finished ammunition compared to 40x365 mm Bofors cartridges and to the existing volumes for 25-30 mm guns fit into standard towers with minimal modifications. In general, a fairy tale! And for 38 years of work (if we count from the patents of ARES J. Stoner in 1983, or 27 years since 1994 - CTA International), almost everything (i.e. the first and third) has turned out from the promised, except for the size of the ammunition load. Well, I can't do it under a cylindrical compact cartridge compact feeding system large capacity! And they do not want to increase the dimensions of the combat modules in order to preserve the ability to fit into any existing tracked and wheeled chassis without radical alterations of vehicles and without creating a heavy chassis like the fatherly heavy BMP T-15. Few potential customers are satisfied with the radical loss in ammunition - those who wanted to switch to 35-40 mm have already done this with conventional cartridges without "telescopes" and are unlikely to want to re-arm again without receiving an increase in the striking effect of shells or an increase in ammunition. Therefore, the results in terms of the volume of contracts for 40-mm CTAS are modest - so far only BRM Ajax and Jaguar.

[3danimal]

Where do you see the contradiction here?

The fact that you point out the disadvantage of 40mm telescopes (in the form of the inadequacy of the feed tape for a 40mm gun), but you do not notice this disadvantage for a 57mm.

Well, it is impossible to make a compact high-capacity feed system for a cylindrical compact cartridge!

And under almost twice the projectile (57mm) - it turns out, or what?

[DDZ57]

Compare this to the 57mm ammunition load: 80 pcs. in BM "Dagger" and 148 in "Derivation-Air Defense". How is it that "the 45mm telescope ammunition will be much larger" if it did not work out for 40mm?

It is not necessary to compare the ammunition load in a particular vehicle (this is a logistics problem), but the linear, volumetric and mass sizes of shots.
57x348SR - shot weight - 6,61kg; shot length - 538mm; sleeve welt diameter ≈97mm;
projectile mass -2,8 kg; explosive weight - 153g;
40x255mm CTA - shot weight - 2,4 kg; shot length - 255mm; sleeve diameter - 65mm;
projectile weight -0,98kg; explosive weight - 120g.
https://www.cta-international.com/the-40-ctas/40-mm-ammunition/gpr-ab-t/
The linear dimension of the 57x348SR shot can accommodate more than 2 40x255mm CTA shots.
The volumetric dimension 57x348SR (cylinder 538x97mm, ≈4L) will fit more than 4 rounds of 40x255mm CTA (0,9L).
The massive 57x348SR can hold more than 2,7 rounds of a 40x255mm CTA.

And what is the conclusion?

[DDZ57]

At the moment, there is no light armored vehicle in the Russian Federation, the armor of which withstood the 40x255mm CTA projectile. Strengthening armor protection (promising armored vehicles of the Russian Federation) will cause the appearance of a 45mm caliber (70x305mm sleeve size). This shot was the initial one, but it was abandoned because there were no tasks for him. And this is not a fairy tale 41g. about 57mm gun ZiS-2.
The 40mm CTAI gun is noticeably lighter than the 57mm gun, it has smaller dimensions of the feed mechanisms. It has a modern full ammunition load.
Due to the fact that CTA International's patents have expired, the PRC fussed in advance with its 40mm telescope system. In 2016, NORINCO Corporation presented the CS / AA5 combat module with a 40-mm automatic cannon for a telescopic shot. Together with the module, models of two ammunition were demonstrated, as well as armor with penetrations.

[DDZ57]

Thales is currently promoting the lightweight and compact RAPIDFire installation, which has an easily integrated and multifunctional solution for today's and future threats, in the form of an autonomous gyro-stabilized cannon installation equipped with a 40-mm CTA telescopic ammunition load (Nexter and BAE Systems), an optoelectronic sensor a unit mounted directly on the turret, with a total weight of 3 tons, including 140 ready-to-fire shots. The system can be installed on wheeled and tracked chassis, small ships and is being promoted to solve air defense problems.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

Thales is currently promoting the lightweight and compact RAPIDFire installation, which has an easily integrated and multifunctional solution for today's and future threats, in the form of an autonomous gyro-stabilized cannon installation equipped with a 40-mm CTA telescopic ammunition load (Nexter and BAE Systems), an optoelectronic sensor a unit mounted directly on the turret, with a total weight of 3 tons, including 140 ready-to-fire shots. The system can be installed on wheeled and tracked chassis, small ships and is being promoted to solve air defense problems.

3 tons is not very "light" ... And again, being inferior in caliber, they did not even reach the "Derivation-Air Defense" in terms of ammunition: 140 <148!, With all the ratios of the sizes, volumes and masses of cartridges indicated above.

[DDZ57]

3 tons is not very "light" smile. And again, being inferior in caliber, they did not even reach the "Derivation-Air Defense" in terms of ammunition: 140 <148!, With all the ratios of the sizes, volumes and masses of cartridges indicated above.

And how do you like 5t Derivation.
It’s easy for you.
This is probably your version of the solution brought the teacher?

The description of the Derivation contains 148 rounds of ammunition.
The RAPIDFire description contains 140 ready-to-fire shots.
Is the concept of "ammunition load" always equivalent to the concept of "ready-to-fire shots"?

With the same mass dimensions, RAPIDFire allows you to load more than 1000 pieces. 40mm shots that can then be fed to the feed elevators.

[DDZ57]

As the French also reported, they have 80 ammunition in a storage case, which can be loaded at the stop.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

As the French also reported, they have 80 ammunition in a storage case, which can be loaded at the stop.

More specifically: the name of the combat module or combat vehicle in which it is. Or give a link.

[DDZ57]

More specifically: the name of the combat module or combat vehicle in which it is. Or give a link.

The combat module is called RAPIDFire.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

At the moment, there are no light armored vehicles in the Russian Federation, the armor of which withstood the 40x55mm CTA projectile.

And NATO also does not have light armored vehicles with such armor, and when BOPS is developed for 57 mm, even more so there will be no.

[DDZ57]

and when BOPS is developed for 57 mm, it will not be.

And when will BOPS be made for 57x348SR?
KBP saws its 6 years, and the end and edge is not visible.
And here we haven't started yet.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

It is not necessary to compare the ammunition load in a particular vehicle (this is a logistics problem), but the linear, volumetric and mass sizes of shots.

Theoretical comparison of the linear dimensions and volume of telescopic cartridges i.e. Everyone loves their compactness compared to traditional cartridges. But do you like the resulting telescopic rounds of ammunition in the above specific combat modules? Do you think 42-70 rounds of ammo ready for battle are enough for modern combined arms combat? The battle will have to be carried out with this very limited ammunition load in a particular vehicle, and not with a beautiful ratio of volumes. And what did you mean by the "logistics problem"?

[DDZ57]

Do you think 42-70 rounds of ammo ready for battle are enough for modern combined arms combat?

42 rounds in the T40M turret, 52 rounds in the Toutatis module, 70 rounds in the turret for wheeled infantry fighting vehicles of the VBCI type

Compare this to the 57mm ammunition load: 80 pcs. in BM "Dagger" and 148 in "Derivation-Air Defense". How is it that "the 45mm telescope ammunition will be much larger" if it did not work out for 40mm?

Then compare 148pcs in the Derivation car and 140pcs in RAPIDFire ready-to-fire shots.
Only the module in Derivation weighs 5 tons, and RAPIDFire weighs 3 tons.
How many more can be loaded into the same mass dimensions of the car with RAPIDFire?
The Dagger module weighs 3,6t.
How many more can be loaded into the same mass dimensions of the car with RAPIDFire?

And what did you mean by the "logistics problem"?

The logistics problem is the same problem that is solved by the TZM 9T260 vehicle, which carries four full ammunition loads of artillery shells and is able to transfer them to a combat vehicle in a minimum time.
The minimum time is how much.
Is there a difference or not to carry 2 kg or 6,6 kg?
It is convenient or inconvenient to load ammunition into the vehicle.
But in any case, a light cylinder 65x255 mm fits better than a heavy 97x538 cone.
How long does it take to "register" a shot and is this operation convenient? etc.
It is necessary to compare in many ways.

Only in our case, the 9Т260 wheeled vehicle will create problems for the derivation tracked vehicle and consume its resource, because their permeability is different.
This drawback disappears if the OBD is on the roads.
It should also be borne in mind that the TZM 9T260 is a specialized vehicle and does not have protective weapons.

[3danimal]

Another important point: IMHO, it makes sense to switch to automation with an external (chain) drive. Due to its simpler operation and reliability.

[psiho117]

Our weapons with an external drive have not historically taken root - there has always been an emphasis on reloading with the help of powder gases, even for the YakB-12,7 - and then they invented a powder pseudo-gatling.
So there is no point in hoping for the development of the chayngan - it will simply not be developed in principle, like many others, traditionally "western" tech. solutions:
For example, as a 3rd generation ATGM.
Or the normal system for making corrections (for the Derivation projectile) in the breech or at the exit from the barrel - instead of this nonsense with a laser.
Alas, such is the Russian selyavi

[3danimal]

It is sad..
I suppose the idea was (about the YakB) that even if the helicopter's electrical and hydraulic systems died (the helicopter crashes or crashes), the machine gun will still be able to continue shooting?

[DDZ57]

And also "the cherry on the cake".
Who can explain the logic of the presence on a modern BM, which includes the "Derivation" [which has an old weapon (60 years old) and does not have a modern BC] all-round television cameras (in front with a thermal imager) and 40-year-old infrared searchlights (which are already 25 is not available on Western technology (since the appearance of thermal imagers and image intensifier tubes of the 3rd generation).
What is the meaning of this combination?

[3danimal]

Didn't see IR spotlights

[DDZ57]

Didn't see IR spotlights

In the top picture, in a niche above the drive gear of a caterpillar with black glass (to the right of the gun or to your left in the top picture).
This flashlight, as it turns on, is visible on 50 km of the UAV.

[DDZ57]

And what does the middle shot have to do with Derivation?

[3danimal]

I posted the wrong photo

[3danimal]

Can't it be regular headlights with caps on them?
Are cameras likely to improve the situational awareness of the crew?

[DDZ57]

On the right is an infrared searchlight, on the left is a conventional headlight with a blackout device.
At night, the UAV sees the BM (with the engine running) within the line of sight (and this is noticeably more than 10 km). At the same time, the BM does not see the UAV. The picture of the UAV operator will noticeably improve as soon as the IR illuminator turns on, this is a cool benchmark for the IR seeker.

The question is, what is the take for: infrared spotlight - situational awareness cameras? Or is it just another know how of the Russian Federation?

[psiho117]

Quote: DDZ57

this is another know how of the Russian Federation

The answer is quite trivial:
Nobody removed their application from the statutes - and once it is required, the developer sets it up.

[DDZ57]

The answer is quite trivial:
Nobody removed their application from the statutes - and once it is required, the developer sets it up.

Name the charter that did not remove their application.
Either the driver has forgotten to put the monitor on or there is no place for its installation at the M-B workplace (which is most likely). Therefore, the driver's device (night) was left, which is at least 40 years old and maybe even more.

[psiho117]

Quote: 3danimal

I suppose the idea was (about YakB) that even if the helicopter's electrical and hydraulic systems died ... the machine gun would still be able to continue firing

It may be so - only the specificity of the application (in helicopter and suspended gondolas) does not imply use in such conditions at all. This is a stationary weapon and not a "minigun" in the doorway - if the electrician with the hydraulics is dead, then the helicopter / plane has already fallen / fell, and there is no sense in that Yakb.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

Another important point: IMHO, it makes sense to switch to automation with an external (chain) drive. Due to its simpler operation and reliability.

How to shoot from a cannon with an external electric chain drive when there is no power supply, when the engine is damaged or the car is just on the defensive in a trench? Is the obligatory presence of a separate standby generating set this "simpler operation and reliability"? In the USA and NATO, probably in the case when the car has lost electricity, the crew has the right under the contract to dump from the battlefield - they say the car broke down and we are "free", then the repairmen's business. This won't work for us!

[3danimal]

How to shoot from a cannon with an external electric chain drive when there is no power supply, when the engine is damaged or the car is just on the defensive in a trench?

How do I use programmable shells? Thermal imager and modern guidance systems? Turn the tower and use the auto-tracking?
Modern vehicles stand in ambush using an auxiliary control system.
But: the probability of a misfire is zero (a defective projectile will be thrown away and a new one sent), there are no problems with the resource of the cannon's gas engine.

the crew has the contractual right to leave the battlefield

Hardly. Probably they will try to fix it, in case of failure they will return for a new BMP. The broken one will be evacuated or blown up.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

Quote: Thomas N.

How to shoot from a cannon with an external electric chain drive when there is no power supply, when the engine is damaged or the car is just on the defensive in a trench?

How do I use programmable shells? Thermal imager and modern guidance systems? Turn the tower and use the auto-tracking?

Are you proposing a transition to automatic cannon with an external drive for all combat vehicles or only for ZAK? Yes, the ZAK without power supply will not work at air targets, but at ground targets it can, and most importantly, can and should, in emergency mode, without power supply, shoot from an infantry fighting vehicle cannon.
If the BMP has no power supply at all:
"How to Use Programmable Projectiles?" - No programming , modern programmable fuses always have a contact detonation mode by default, the firing efficiency will be lower, but you can and should shoot, especially in defense!
"Thermal imager and modern guidance systems?" - We'll have to do without a thermal imager. If the enemy launched an attack at night, and the LMS does not have a backup sight with an image intensifier, you will have to ask for target designation from a nearby serviceable vehicle or from your own infantrymen with tracers, or to illuminate the terrain with lighting ammunition, there were ways to shoot at night even before the appearance of thermal imagers.
"Turn the tower and use the tracker?" - Turn the BMP turret with manual drives, follow the target yourself, the goal is not to "lead" with manual drives, but to direct immediately to a pre-emptive point determined according to the rules of shooting in target silhouettes (this is taught to every gunner). The combat module is unmanned and therefore it is very inconvenient to work with manual drives or are they not there at all? This is bad, but BMPs equipped with remotely controlled combat modules with automatic cannons have been adopted for service very little so far (only Puma and Stryker Dragoon BMPs come to mind at once, of course there are more) and new crewed combat modules continue to be developed and put into service. There are many machines with a DBM with machine guns, but just serial machine guns are all with traditional automatics without an external drive.
I repeat once again: of course, in the absence of power supply, the results of firing will be worse, but still you cannot be completely dependent on electricity - the gun must fire in bursts without it. Just as you cannot completely rely on a collimator sight with a battery on the machine, it is more convenient and faster to aim with it, but the usual mechanical sight still remains on small arms - the batteries always run out

Quote: 3danimal

Modern vehicles stand in ambush using an auxiliary control system.

BMPs are mostly not in ambush, but in defense. The difference is that they stand in defense for days / weeks, and in ambush for several hours. And just in an ambush, it is better not to turn on the auxiliary SU on the car until it is time to open fire - at least less than the main engine, but somehow the APU is warming up. And the advancing enemy is looking at the terrain through thermal imagers on combat vehicles and at UAVs - he is looking for ambushes. The approaching equipment from an ambush and without the APU is clearly visible because it is moving. In conventional defense, the Armed Forces can be turned on as needed, all the same, the enemy already roughly knows the main positions.

Quote: 3danimal

But: the probability of a misfire is zero (a defective projectile will be thrown away and a new one sent), there are no problems with the resource of the cannon's gas engine.

In case of a misfire, there are pyrotechnic reloading cartridges. In an extreme case, if the ammunition is completely unusable and the squibs run out, manual reloading is provided, this is of course quite an edge, so the cartridges must be checked.
The life of a gas engine does not come to an abrupt end, unlike a power supply.

Quote: 3danimal

the crew has the contractual right to leave the battlefield

Hardly. Probably they will try to fix it, in case of failure they will return for a new BMP. The broken one will be evacuated or blown up.

It was a joke about "getting off the battlefield under a contract when the electricity ran out" ... But you joked even better: "will return for a new BMP" Where will they return - to their military base or to a tank repair plant hundreds of kilometers away? Even if there is a repair battalion nearby and there is a repaired vehicle from the last battle, how long will they go for this "new" BMP? Several hours? As soon as the battle ends, this is called "dumping" to the rear
However, the joke is a joke, but with irrevocable! the loss of the tank was a very real situation, several times told in the memoirs of our tankers in the books of the series "I fought in the T-34". Sometimes the crews left without a tank were sent on a business trip to the rear to a tank factory for a new tank, participated in its assembly, ran it in, received it, and then returned with it to the front in an echelon. All this could take 2-3 months - such a kind of "vacation" from the war for those who survived when the tank burned down. But not everyone was so lucky with a business trip to the rear, they could have sent them to the tank landing along with the infantry with a machine gun removed from a wrecked tank. Such is the "Russian roulette" for a crew that has lost a tank: either for a new tank in the rear or in infantry hell, while there is no tank for them.

[3danimal]

Even if there is a repair battalion nearby and there is a repaired vehicle from the last battle, how long will they go for this "new" BMP? Several hours? The battle is over, this is called "dumping" into the rear smile

Examples from the 2003 Iraq War. The crew of the disabled vehicle returned to the rear for a new one, and did not continue (it is not clear why) to fight (it is not clear with whom - the offensive forces went further) on the broken equipment.
The times of WW2 are irrevocably gone, the battles are very fast.

And the advancing enemy just looks at the terrain through thermal imagers on combat vehicles and at UAVs

Including from helicopters and drones. So, he will make out.

but infantry fighting vehicles equipped with remotely controlled combat modules with automatic cannons have so far been adopted very little

This is for now. All promising infantry fighting vehicles (not modernization of old ones) have an unmanned combat module. It has too many advantages.
It seems that their developers are not considering the defense of the disabled BMP.
(Pointless loss of crew)

If the enemy launched an attack at night, and there is no backup sight with an image intensifier in the LMS, you will have to ask for target designation from a nearby serviceable vehicle or from your own infantrymen with tracers, or highlight the terrain with lighting ammunition

The times of WWII are irrevocably gone. So this is again about the senseless loss of the crew. (Against you will be a serviceable Puma or what is more serious). A medal for everyone ...

of course, in the absence of power supply, the shooting results will be worse

How do you propose to fire without cameras and thermal imagers from the back-crew module?

Are you proposing a transition to automatic cannon with an external drive for all combat vehicles or only for ZAK?

On BMP / BMD, for starters. The "chain guns" will also have higher accuracy.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

Quote: Thomas N.

but infantry fighting vehicles equipped with remotely controlled combat modules with automatic cannons have so far been adopted very little

This is for now. All promising infantry fighting vehicles (not modernization of old ones) have an unmanned combat module. It has too many advantages.

Here are examples of promising machines with crew combat modules: BMP VBCI-2, BRM Ajax, BRM Jaguar. And in the company to them BMP Warrior, yes modernization, but what!
All of these vehicles are armed with a 40-mm CTAS cannon with telescopic cartridges, which, as I understand it, you consider a role model. So, what are the most promising, but with inhabited towers. And also the new South Korean BMP K21, too, with the usual two-man turret with a 40-mm Bofors.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

The "chain guns" will also have higher accuracy.

Quote: 3danimal

Quote: Thomas N.

... does the drive provide easier operation and more reliability

Provides, among other things, greater accuracy.

Accuracy (as part of accuracy) of automatic cannon firing is determined NOT by the external or internal drive of the automation, but by the following factors.
1. Quality of ammunition: stable powder charge + small tolerance for the mass of the projectile = stable Vo; small technological tolerances for the geometry and mass of the projectile = the trajectory of the projectile is close to the nominal.
2. The rate of fire of the gun: the lower the rate - the higher the accuracy, because the vibrations of the barrel attenuate until the next shot. From technical, i.e. maximum possible, the rate is reduced to the required by introducing a time delay into the electric trigger. Therefore, it has long been implemented in all guns where it was needed, for example, in the 2A42 250 rds / min when firing at ground targets, 550 at air targets. Those. the rate of fire for guns with external (100, 200 rds / min) and gas (250) drives when firing at ground targets is practically the same.
3. Vibrations of the barrel during firing, on which the deviations of the projectile departure angles depend. They depend on the rate of fire (see above) and on the design of the projectile, barrel and gun mount.
Conclusion: it is useless to replace the automatic drive of the gun from a gas-operated or retractable one to an external one to increase the accuracy of fire!

[3danimal]

3. Barrel vibrations while shooting

Analogy with self-loading and bolt-action rifles (which is more accurate?): The gas engine adds vibration.

[3danimal]

when the engine is damaged or the car is just on the defensive in the trench?

About the trenches: I suggest recalling the recent events in Karabakh. There, too, there were cars and soldiers in the trenches. Where they were destroyed.
Without modern means of observation / guidance, it will not be possible to fight with a technically equipped enemy (people and equipment will quickly run out).

[Thomas N.]

Quote: 3danimal

Without modern means of observation / guidance, it will not be possible to fight with a technically equipped enemy (people and equipment will quickly run out).

I did not offer to fight "without modern means of observation / guidance" just answered your question, what to do when the BMP was left without electricity. There are reserve / emergency modes of operation of weapons in all modern combat vehicles and their use is the responsibility of the crew. In your opinion, it turns out that there is only the option "the car broke down, we cannot fix it, so we went to the rear, then it is not our business", but the jokes about the contract and electricity dragged on.
It is not necessary to expand the original topic of the question of an external drive automatic cannon - whether the electric drive provides easier operation and reliability.

[3danimal]

Does the drive provide easier operation and reliability?

Provides, among other things, greater accuracy.

[DDZ57]

For the horizon:
the drive on the Russian telescope is hydraulic.
And the caliber 45mm is due to the fact that there is no gunpowder in the Russian Federation to pull out the figures obtained by the French in 40mm.

[3danimal]

No problem. I wrote about external drive unit.

And the caliber 45mm is due to the fact that there is no gunpowder in the Russian Federation to pull out the figures obtained by the French in 40mm.

It happens
Then the question arises about the characteristics of BOPSs for 125mm tank guns.

[DDZ57]

And to the pipe resource.

[DDZ57]

How can modern high-tech ammunition be made here?
It's about the Russian ideologist of the system and the telescope (the only one).
Read:
http://www.moscow-post.su/politics/poligony_dlya_zabav_alberta_bakova34900/
http://news3day.ru/obshhestvo/v-tsniitochmash-uvolyat-kazhdogo-pyatogo-sotrudnika.html
https://rucriminal.info/ru/material/vor-na-milliardy-predatel-ili-dva-v-odnom

[3danimal]

Links do not work

[DDZ57]

Links do not work

This, in the sense of "that the cartridges are not of the same system" or that "something is interfering with the dancer".
Select the link, copy, paste it into the search engine and everything works.
It's not my fault that the site does not directly open the link.

[3danimal]

I about it:

This, in the sense of "that the cartridges of the wrong system"

Don't jump to conclusions. Do you seriously think highlight-copy-paste to browser is such a unique skill?

[DDZ57]

Don't jump to conclusions. Do you seriously think highlight-copy-paste to browser is such a unique skill?

Sorry to hurt you, but .....

[DDZ57]

Or should I act as a teacher after the test ...

[Voenoboz]

Apparently there are a lot of shells of this caliber and this is money and people's money.

[nnz226]

Maybe the old samples of shells will not allow to shoot down a cruise missile, but they will certainly be able to pierce the BMP "Bradley" or "Puma", as well as the M113.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: nnz226

Maybe the old samples of shells will not allow to shoot down a cruise missile, but they will certainly be able to pierce the BMP "Bradley" or "Puma", as well as the M113.

This is true for TBMP T-15 with BM "Dagger". For ZAK "Derivation-Air Defense" it is tertiary.

[3danimal]

The cougar will be able to be booked in front to hold the old 57mm projectile.
The question is in the small BC, have you seen 57mm versus 30mm? So, a 45mm telescope will be exactly in the middle, having a penetration greater than 57mm.

[JD1979]

I have two questions:
1. Does the Moscow Region know about its interest in this complex? And that something they are silent for how many years, some sellers praise their goods.
2. And the front-line aviation itself is aware that it must necessarily enter the effective destruction zone of this complex, and not how the Israelis - to shoot from the territory of neighboring countries?))

[DDZ57]

Read about the state in the ammunition industry on the website of JSC NIMI im. Bakhirev.
ON THE PROBLEMS OF OPTIMIZING THE PROPERTY COMPLEX
HEAD ARTILLERY SHOT DEVELOPER
IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING
https://nimi.su/documents/nts-public-2016-2-gorch.pdf
The optimization variant of the head institute has practically followed the "normal Russian path."

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ENGINEERING INSTITUTE
(NII-24): FOR A GREAT VICTORY, FOR PEACEFUL LIFE
https://nimi.su/documents/nts-public-75pobeda.pdf
After reading the second article, ask your friends from Verkhnyaya Tura (HOLE) (regional center) what is going on with them. And which of the normal young will go there to work (put yourself in their place).
Also ask your friends at the press plant (Ryazan). Let them tell you how their abs in the Upper Hole works.
Their response will be a twirl of a finger to the temple and inadequate emotional comment.

Here's the official information. But to understand it, you cannot watch a zombie, read the official press and press releases.

[DDZ57]

Sometimes the idea of ​​reality is sometimes more important than reality itself.

[DDZ57]

More correct so. Didn't have time to fix it and time was up.
Sometimes the idea of ​​reality is more important than reality itself.

[Angry]

Maybe they will still think of putting MANPADS on it. Anything can happen in life, and even more so on the battlefield.

[DDZ57]

The French can optionally equip their 40mm RapidFire artillery system with 6 STARStreak short-range air defense missiles.

[DDZ57]

The Turks were criticized here recently - the Korkut anti-aircraft artillery complex
https://topwar.ru/177157-zenitnyj-artillerijskij-kompleks-korkut-v-stroju-i-v-boju.html.
The Turk at least has a complete technical solution, this is not an artifact from the Petrel at the level of those who begin to visit KYuT and their glued pieces of mammoth tusk, and this is all written on the Derivation tower and the Dagger (i.e. the muzzle of the face), as a result of which there is no need to look into them giblets and study the instrumentation and ergonomics - there Kondrat will pinch it to the fullest and you won't get out of the car .. And the Turks come and are mastered by the troops and I will not be surprised that it was rolled in Syria, Libya and Karabakh.
The complex also includes a control machine (conditionally SRTs).

And something is no longer a laughing matter.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: DDZ57

I will not be surprised that it was rolled in Syria, Libya and Karabakh.

Syria and Libya, yes, not in Karabakh.
Video from Libya.

[DDZ57]

Need an educational program: how to insert a video into a comment?

[OgnennyiKotik]

Click on this icon.

Paste the link into the window and you're done.

[DDZ57]

And if the file is in the computer?

[OgnennyiKotik]

I don't know how to upload it to YouTube and insert a link from it.

[DDZ57]

Thank you.
The video is probably on YouTube. Searched not found. He was on the phone, transferred from the phone to the computer. And this task arose.
But since members of the cooperative "....... without a lake" set the junior the task of publishing this video for local participants promoting different ideas, and since the youngest is me, then I have to solve this problem, tk. the punishment will be deprivation of the People's Commissar's portion and deprivation of the right to shoot from a grenade launcher at the 60th anniversary of the RPG-7, which will be this year.
The cooperative is called "...... without a lake", but for some reason VO doesn't want to write this.
There is nothing like that in the word, it is not abusive, but it is not spelled.
This is sometimes called an old person, but also a young one.

[DDZ57]

This is what saw CTA International's partnership with the Korean group Hanwha.
Information as of 17 octobre, 2019.

[DDZ57]

This is what saw CTA International's partnership with the Korean group Hanwha.

This was the most likely reason that India preferred the Biho anti-aircraft missile-gun system (ZRPK) of the South Korean corporation Hanwha Defense, and not the Tunguska Almaz-Anteya or Pantsir complex of the Tula Instrument Design Bureau.

Well, after the Karabakh events in 2020. it can be assumed that the Indians will soon have a desire to acquire a ZRAK on a wheeled chassis of the RAPIDFire type.
Given the bilateral coordinated impact of the France-South Korea tandem on India, this event is very likely.
Especially after the Indians had the opportunity to compare SU and MiGs with the Rafale, and the tracked chassis of the T-72 and T-90 with the K9 Thunder.
In addition, the assembly of the all-terrain wheeled chassis on the platform of the Czech Tatra is carried out in India.

[DDZ57]

In the comments of the article, it was suggested to calculate

Get a head start on the economics of developing the world's first smooth-bore automatic cannon. Especially considering its uselessness. laughing Cumulative shells for automatic cannons are not being developed because of the low armor penetration of small-diameter cumulative craters. BOPS gives the best armor penetration at all real firing ranges.

So in the United States, they probably counted and began to saw the close interception complex under the following TK:
• the design and principles of the use of interceptor projectiles must ensure a high probability of hitting the target;
• the ability to use ready-made technical solutions (radar search and tracking targets, fire control system, etc.);
• use as a chassis of a heavy wheeled off-road vehicle type HEMTT (Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck);
• modular principle of the layout of the launcher (artillery gun or transport and launch containers of missiles);
• relatively low labor intensity and production cost of interceptor projectiles, amounting to no more than $ 16 per unit;
• the principle of open architecture, which allows replacement of individual elements without disrupting the entire system and provides a high potential for subsequent modernization.

Unlike all existing small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery systems that provide for firing rifled projectiles, the EAPS ARDEC ID complex for the first time used Orbital ATK's feathered adjustable 50-mm artillery ammunition (Plymouth, Minnesota). For firing, a twin automatic 50-mm smooth-bore artillery mount Bushmaster with a total rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute is used.

This has also been discussed on the VO website

[Thomas N.]

50mm XM913 rifled cannon! Look carefully at the image of the projectile being corrected on your slide - there is a leading belt.

[1Alexey]

Thanks for the link, but I actually asked for a link about a 57mm anti-aircraft projectile, but thanks anyway!

Quote: D16

Armor is an air defense facility complex. Derivation - military

This is of no fundamental importance (for example, in Tartus, our facility is protected by the military S-300V4, and for Khmeimim, in addition to the Armor, they also installed the military TOR-M2).

Quote: D16

And if the UAS is cheaper, but comparable to the price of a "nail" from "Pantsir", then a conventional high-explosive shell with remote detonation is much cheaper.

So the fact of the matter is that a conventional projectile with remote detonation can often smear on a maneuverable target, and the ammunition is low.
As for the missiles-nails of the Shell, they, in addition to accuracy, have a long range, and at a shorter range, guns are turned on.

Quote: D16

Due to the large fragmentation field, the 57mm consumption will be minimal.

The 30 mm projectile also has a fragmentation field and it is used by the Shell, for example, to expose an artillery screen in the path of the target.
The concept of "minimum" consumption is from the category of emotions (provide specific data (for example, based on test results) on the consumption of anti-aircraft shells against a maneuverable target at maximum range for Wood-AA defense).

[DDZ57]

Thanks for the link, but I actually asked for a link about a 57mm anti-aircraft projectile, but thanks anyway!

A link was given.
BAE Systems - Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft - ORKA - aerodynamic controls works on a 57mm guided projectile.
57mm with impulse correction - ALaMO from L3 company.
(https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/119230-upravljaemye-57-mm-snarjady-bae-systems-orka-i-l3-alamo).
The US is also working on ammunition in the feces. 50mm - radio command pulse correction.

In the Russian Federation - Relevance and prospects for the creation of a 57 mm anti-aircraft artillery complex of the battlefield
http://kbtochmash.ru/kbtm-news/articles/stati_114.html

[1Alexey]

Quote: DDZ57

Tell me, how is the UAS 57 mm controlled in the West: the GOS or from the "ground"?

As per your question (only without or): both the GOS and from the ground.

Thank! Only, if you can, please specify which of the 2 options:
1. at the first stage from the ground, and closer to the target, it switches to the seeker;
2. from the very beginning on the GOS, and from the ground they can make an adjustment at any time.

And yet, if you know how many targets it can fire at the same time (after all, having fired at one target, for example, 2-3 shells, the cannon, without waiting for the target to be hit, can switch to shelling another target)?

[DDZ57]

Thank! Only, if you can, please specify which of the 2 options:
1. at the first stage from the ground, and closer to the target, it switches to the seeker;
2. from the very beginning on the GOS, and from the ground they can make an adjustment at any time.

1. GOS UAS when approaching the target captures the reflected signal from the target (like Krasnopol).
2. UAS goes in the beam (almost like a Cornet, but not quite) (there is no GOS).
3. The radar from the ground guides the target and the projectile and, depending on the misalignment, issues the UASu commands to correct the trajectory (50mm USA) (no seeker).

And yet, if you know how many targets it can fire at the same time (after all, having fired at one target, for example, 2-3 shells, the gun, without waiting for the target to be hit, can switch to shelling another target)

By coding signals (keys) and HEADLIGHTS (multi-beam), you can aim several shells at one target, including several targets. This works in air defense missile systems.
And this is quite possible to implement in artillery, it all depends on the computing power on the ground (this is no longer a problem) and the capabilities of microelectronics for the projectile. They seem to implement it in 50mm shells.

[1Alexey]

Quote: DDZ57

As for the 30 mm shells, you are not entirely right, Shells shells are detonated without contact with the target with the scattering of fragments, due to which Shell can put an artillery curtain on the target's path (from fragments of exploding shells).

An artillery curtain on the target's path in 30mm shells of the Shell can appear only in the process of self-destruction of shells (dangerous, but not entirely fragments, fall on the ground, and not an OFS with a cocked fuse, so that friendly fire from Shell does not kill its own people and civilians).
There is no ammunition in the Carapace of shots with trajectory detonation.
If only the self-destruction of the projectile is considered a trajectory detonation.

At the Carapace, projectiles explode at a certain distance from the Carapace itself to create a veil. Therefore, he has two cannons, spaced at a certain distance between each other (not one or two side by side, like the ZU-23), because it does not require an obligatory accurate hit: the target must be hit by shell fragments (between the 2 cannons, like a wall from the fragments of shells is formed - an artillery curtain). This applies if the target is relatively small and flies directly at the Shell or an object nearby (for example, a missile, projectile, or UAV) - this is one of the "counters" of the Shell.

If the target is large (for example, a helicopter) and when shooting at ground (surface) targets, they use accurate hits.

[DDZ57]

At the Carapace, projectiles explode at a certain distance from the Carapace itself to create a veil. Therefore, he has two cannons, spaced at a certain distance between each other (not one or two side by side, like in the ZU-23), because it does not require an obligatory accurate hit: the target must be hit by shell fragments (between the 2 cannons, like a wall artillery curtain is formed from the fragments of shells). This applies if the target is relatively small and flies directly at the Shell or an object nearby (for example, a missile, projectile or UAV) - this is one of the "counters" of the Shell. If the target is large (for example, a helicopter) and when shooting at ground (surface) targets, they use accurate hits.

"At the Carapace, projectiles explode at a certain distance from the Carapace itself to create a veil."
This is another "know-how" in VO.
Who blew this "Blizzard" into your head.
30mm HE shells or OTS of Pantsir cannons are equipped with a contact fuse, which has a contact target sensor and a pyrotechnic self-destructor. The contact sensor is triggered on contact with the target, and the self-liquidator after a certain time (for the projectile to fire in the air, not on the ground - ensuring safety).
After reading your blizzard, I almost didn't feel bad (as in the video, but I don't know how to insert the video, so far only text and pictures are obtained).

As my acquaintance from Baumanka told me, if you have any questions about MK ammunition, contact Bora, i.e. B.I. Noskov or his book "Small-caliber shots for automatic guns" (Course of lectures).
I had to look for this work, but there is nothing about your chips.
So, read B.I. Noskov "Small-caliber shots to automatic guns" (Course of lectures).
And there will be no questions and the pensioners will not have health problems.
But if such a feature has appeared in the Russian Federation, then I apologize in advance both for myself and for Boris Ivanovich.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

But if a similar feature appeared in the Russian Federation ...

Not for "Pantsir", but 30x165 mm 3UOF23 (NPO Pribor JSC, Russia) is no longer news.
"Rain of Steel": the smart sight will tell the projectile when to explode - https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503291027-casm.htm

[DDZ57]

You can continue to watch tvzvezda, but ask the military who operates the Pantsir and other machines with Shipunovsko-Gryazevskiy automatic cannons, listen to their answer.
And I invite you to ARMY 2021, there you will see and ask.
At present, in the Russian Federation, 30x165mm shots with "Steel Rain" are neither in service nor in production.

There was already a recommendation from a classic: "If you care about your digestion, my good advice is: do not talk about Bolshevism and medicine at dinner. And, God forbid, do not read Soviet newspapers before lunchtime."
And I will add, to sleep well, do not watch TV ...
And the Supreme commander promised not to raise the retirement age, etc.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

You can continue to watch tvzvezda,

Well, you do not like TV and TV "Star", so do not look! Why torture yourself like that ?:

I also do not watch the Zvezda channel, but I read the pages on tvzvezda.ru if the search engine found the necessary text there. And you can read here:
https://www.romz.ru/ru/catalog/pricel-tkn-4ga-02.htm
https://topwar.ru/68983-smi-v-vs-rf-postupyat-pricely-upravlyayuschie-vremenem-podryva-snaryada.html
Do you trust this site? Do not pay attention to 3UOF8 in these texts - the usual journalistic blunder.

Quote: DDZ57

... but ask the military who is using the Pantsir and other vehicles with Shipunovsko-Gryazevsky automatic cannons, listen to their answer. And I invite you to ARMY 2021, there you will see and ask.

So what should you ask the military? What question to ask at the exhibition?

Quote: DDZ57

At present, in the Russian Federation, 30x165mm shots with "Steel Rain" are neither in service nor in production.

Allegation.

[DDZ57]

So what should you ask the military? What question to ask at the exhibition?

Ask the military what shots they use from the 2A38M, 2A42, 2A72 guns.
We predict the answer - shots 30x165mm from OFS, OTS, BTS.
About "Steel Rain" - a tale of a forest near Moscow.

Allegation.

Everyone remains unconvinced.

Well, you do not like TV and TV "Star", so do not look! Why torture yourself like that ?:

.
I don’t watch TV and don’t torture myself, but the video shows what the illusions (not mine and not me) lead to.
And each draws conclusions to the extent of his "depravity".

[DDZ57]

I also do not watch the Zvezda channel, but I read the pages on tvzvezda.ru if the search engine found the necessary text there. And you can read here:
https://www.romz.ru/ru/catalog/pricel-tkn-4ga-02.htm
https://topwar.ru/68983-smi-v-vs-rf-postupyat-pricely-upravlyayuschie-vremenem-podryva-snaryada.html
Do you trust this site? Do not pay attention to 3UOF8 in these texts - the usual journalistic blunder.

I can list for you a list of 4 companies who helped the Device "design", "rivet", etc. (call it whatever you want) KDUVPS in size 30mm. About the result, I propose to ask at ARMY2021.
Simultaneously read the book. Basalt "Creativity, labor, achievements". On pp. 198-199, what "Basalt" thinks about "Pribor".
14 years have passed and no one disputed it.
In the west, trajectory detonation is provided in at least 4 ways.
Regarding trust: I stick to the phrase of L. Bronevy from the film "17 Moments ..."

[DDZ57]

Regarding trust: I stick to the phrase of L. Bronevy from the film "17 Moments ..."

I will add: and even then not completely.

[Thomas N.]

Regarding "neither in service, nor in production" here is another article from the same site "Shells with controlled detonation. The way to the troops." (https://topwar.ru/158074-snarjady-s-upravljaemym-podryvom-na-puti-v-vojska.html)
Quote from there: "On May 20 (2019), the TASS news agency quoted the deputy general director of the Tekhmash concern, Alexander Kochkin. He said that his enterprise is currently fulfilling a new order from the Ministry of Defense. The military department has ordered the first pilot batch of promising 30- mm shells with controlled detonation. "
Doesn't that mean in production? What does "production" mean to you - millions of pieces at once? This will no longer be the case either with us or in NATO, it can only be in China.

[DDZ57]

Quote from there: "On May 20 (2019), the TASS news agency quoted the Deputy General Director of the Tekhmash concern, Alexander Kochkin.

Ask Kochkin why he is silent, about the fact that KDUVPS has problems when dust and smoke are in the air, why this complex almost does not work when BM uses the OES system from the WTO.
Also ask him why this complex was not shown at ARMY2019 and 2020.
And so the Device has been sawing it since the year 2009, including for AGS-17.
And they seem to be sawing for a long time, tk. they have them gold, not steel like Shura Balaganov from The Golden Calf.

What does "production" mean to you - millions of pieces at once? This will no longer be the case either with us or in NATO, it can only be in China.

Production is when GIs are carried out and the ammunition is put into mass production and when the ammunition begins to be supplied to the army.
And the combined universal sight TKN-4GA-02 will be in at least one RA regiment and at least someone cries out about it about normal shooting using this complex.
And the crowing should not be the same as it was after the shooting of TOURs at ARMY 2020.
https://topwar.ru/174472-polovina-raket-ne-popala-v-cel-v-seti-razocharovany-strelbami-na-armii-2020.html
Half of the missiles missed their target: the web was disappointed by the shooting at the "Army-2020".

[Thomas N.]

Quote: DDZ57

Ask Kochkin why he is silent about the fact that KDUVPS has problems when dust and smoke are in the air

I wonder how you found out about this, not you personally, but in general. Dust, smoke are combat conditions, but KDUVPS has probably not been used in battle yet. When firing, the 30-mm cannon also gives off a noticeable gas release, but if this KDUVPS does not work (as you say) through its own smoke, then it is generally inoperative. However, as you know, ATGM guidance systems in a laser beam successfully operate on the battlefield for several kilometers, despite dust and smoke. And here it is necessary to transmit the detonation time with a beam to a distance of only 100 meters and does not work? Just do not advise "to ask Kochkin", this is obviously impossible, and even useless because from the height of his position such "small details" are not visible.

[DDZ57]

However, as you know, ATGM guidance systems in a laser beam successfully operate on the battlefield for several kilometers, despite dust and smoke.

The principle of controlling an ATGM in a laser beam and the principle of programming a fuse with a laser are slightly different, despite the fact that both subjects are in a stream of photons:
1. By time.
2. The speeds of the subjects.
There are 3 and 4, etc.

And you yourself named the main reason why the military does not want to take this complex, I did not mention it.

But this principle works fine in the west on 40mm automatic grenade launchers. But this is only one of 4 methods (known to our cooperative, and there may be more) used for automatic grenade launchers and other artillery systems.

[DDZ57]

When firing, a 30-mm cannon also produces a noticeable gas release, but if this KDUVPS does not work (as you say) through its own smoke, then it is generally inoperative.

A little about the questions, who is "taught by history", in which case the "humpbacked grave will correct", who is "humpbacked" and who stepped on the rake once again. Think and draw your own conclusions.

You have correctly noticed that the cannon has smoke when firing, i.e. when fired from the barrel of a gun, in addition to the projectile, muzzle flame, solid ash particles, aerosols, and maybe something else also fly out ...
And now a little history: in the USSR in the 80s, against the background of the works of V.S. on the impulse correction of the AC and min and the positive results obtained by it, it was decided to apply the impulse correction to the NAR.
The principle is the same as that of Vishnevsky - target illumination by the carrier or from the ground, the reflected signal from the target is received by the photodetectors on board the NAR, the SRU on the NAR processes these signals and issues a command to operate the transverse correction pulse motor.
There is one transverse correction engine on board. Everything went smoothly. During ground tests, the transverse correction engine worked at the design point and the NAR hit the target with the deviations required by the TZ.
Hands were already scratching and holes in jackets could be drilled.
But there was one thing. All work was carried out with a laboratory laser. It took years of work, a lot of money, etc.
When working with a laser, which was installed on board the carrier, the whole structure was covered with a rusty basin filled with smelly liquid feces.
You can't fool nature: in the air, even where the carrier is flying, there are water molecules and fine dust (and on the ground there are many times more of it, and the muzzle of the gun has completely different orders when fired), and the reflection of the laser beam from these little things was enough to score the FPU on board the NAR. The head of the NAR went into a stupor.
And "finita la commedia", because "с'est la vie".
Almost 40 years have passed and what we see is the same rake.
The same ringing, etc.

[DDZ57]

Doesn't that mean in production? What does "production" mean to you - millions of pieces at once? This will no longer be the case either with us or in NATO, it can only be in China.

A little about the production of 40 STA shots.
The ammunition for the CTAI cannon is made in Great Britain and France, each country produces shells for its own army. Nexter Munitions has invested 4-5 million euros in a new fully automated line at its plant in La Chapelle-Saint-Ursen, which requires only three operators to operate, but which is capable of firing one round every nine minutes. It also makes it easy to switch from the production of one type of ammunition to another, the maximum production of the line is 300 thousand rounds per year. The line reached its maximum power in June 2018, starting the production of the first batches of shells for testing with the new Jaguar 6 × 6 reconnaissance armored vehicle.

[1Alexey]

Quote: DDZ57

Who blew this "Blizzard" into your head.

You write this to a blizzard!
If you know little about the Shell, then do not make illiterate statements.

[DDZ57]

You write this to a blizzard!
If you know little about the Shell, then do not make illiterate statements.

I do not say anything about Carapace, that I know anything about him.
The point is that the ammunition for the Armor produced by the Device does not have the properties that you are writing about.

[DDZ57]

There is nothing about this in the books of the KBP.
I read them very carefully and looked through them.

[DDZ57]

A little about "fragmentation fields" and about "fragmentation curtains", which supposedly appear when the OFS and OTS are triggered by cal. Shots. 30x165mm.
The fragmentation effect from these projectiles is weak and very weak. And this is about the buildings on which the MVP was. The use of PVU on the hulls led to a thickening of the wall at the OFS, and this reduced the filling rate and worsened the crushing of the hull.
Just an example. Someone will say that it is not entirely correct. But this is just a clear example, which gives only at least some initial and visual impressions of the fragmentation of the hulls. It compares the fragmentation action of 30mm VOG-30 and GPD-30 grenades (Device and KBP). KBP gives the fragmentation spectrum of its hull (does not hesitate, because the fragmentation is good and good repeatability, to - filling 16%, the number of useful fragments is more than 270 pcs.). I have not found the spectra of the Device anywhere. Maybe he was looking badly. But the diagram shows everything.

[DDZ57]

The fragmentation effect of the hulls manufactured by Pribor and KBP is given in the book Pistol and Sniper Cartridges. Grenade shots. " V.K. Zelenko et al. And this compares corpuses that have prefragmentation. But each manufacturer has “its own” prefragmentation - some of them get splinters from the body, some “sabers”.
And what happens on the cases of "Pribor", on which there is absolutely no "grid"? And what kind of "fragmentation fields" and "fragmentation curtains" can we talk about in this case. So, for example, in a 30mm OTS, the amount of explosives is 11,5 g, the amount of filling is 3,1%, the tail section. where the tracer is not crushed at all (dvn18mm, L 50mm) (see "Weapons and ammunition". MSTU.) How many fragments can you expect from this hull? The OFS is better, but still not enough ...
So, as one of the participants of the cooperative "PERDU N S without a lake" from the category of "dinosaurs" says (that is, he is over 80, but the "attic" does not "flow"), it is necessary to learn "Adequate physics and keep the score in the head, not the head in the score. "

[DDZ57]

And another example, but a good example of crushing the hull into fragments.
I spoke about it earlier.
THIS is a 57mm shot for the "Epoch" KBP. Even if this is not quite a pure OFS, but the pictures for crushing are the same.

So in the comments to the article "Epoch Fighting Squad: in patents and in metal" (topwar.ru)
https://topwar.ru/168291-boevoe-otdelenie-jepoha-v-patentah-i-v-metalle.html#comment-id-10164839

Lopatov (Lopatov) February 26, 2020 12:50 pm gave a drawing:

[DDZ57]

And this is crushing GPR-AB-T (Air Burst Tracer - air blast, tracer) 40STA. He has a filling rate of 11,55%.
The crushing is good, 3 weight (size) groups of fragments are visible.
With an air blast - the affected area is 125 m2.
At 40STA and 57mm KBP we can talk about fragmentation fields.
The coefficient of filling the OFS Burevestnik ≈ 7%. So, draw your own conclusions.

[DDZ57]

You write this to a blizzard!
If you know little about the Shell, then do not make illiterate statements.

Speaking of knowledge of something.
Ранее

1Alexey (First First) 13 February 2021 01:36

you stated:

Therefore, he has two cannons, spaced at a certain distance between each other (not one or two side by side, like the ZU-23), because it does not require an obligatory accurate hit: the target must be hit by shell fragments (between the 2 cannons, like a wall from the fragments of shells is formed - an artillery curtain)

But since I don't know "Shell", and I am not ashamed to say about it.
But I still remember arithmetic.
And since 30mm 2A38M anti-aircraft guns have two side-by-side barrels; in the ZRAK "Shell" of these machines 2, then if you recall the arithmetic of elementary school and count, then in total on the ZRAK "Shell" you get 4 guns and not two as you think.

This is about the knowledge of ZRAK "Pantsir" and about illiterate statements.

[DDZ57]

It is necessary to take a close look at canned food in metal cans, at cans of paint and varnish and other tin cans, which are produced in billions of copies.
It seems to no one that it has enough in common with the outer contour of telescopic ammunition.
Or this "illusion" is just me.
This is about the cost of the telescope sleeve and the question of its technology and, accordingly, the cost and technology of the entire telescopic ammunition.
The technology of jar-tare solves the issues (problems) of a two-component propellant charge, including the attached one. That in the aggregate improves the integral characteristic (pyrodynamic curve) "pressure-time / barrel length".

It should also be borne in mind that this design of telescopic rounds projectiles also has the ability and reserves to reduce the secondary reaction, which ensures that the projectile exits the barrel with small angles and reduces the oscillations of the AU barrel.

[DDZ57]

And a little about the timing of the development of ammunition in the Russian Federation.
And more specifically, the "simple assembly" of the projectile, as some believe, of the leading belt, namely, the plastic leading device (PVU) of 30-mm shots that are maximally unified for all combat arms.
Chizhevsky O. T. - Deputy Managing Director, Scientific Supervisor - General Designer of JSC NPO Pribor, D.Sc. n.
Here and about KDUVPS.
So, PVU appeared in the 70s from the United States during the war in the South. Vietnam.
And already in the 1980s. In the USA, the companies "Honeywell" and "Aerojet" (USA) mastered the mass production of 20mm and 30mm aircraft shells with PVU instead of traditional MEP. In parallel with the Americans, the German company "Mauser" (Germany) began the production of shells from PVU.
Now remember how many victorious reports there were from 2017 to the present in the Russian Federation about the development of this product in the Russian Federation.
Well, so, for almost 40 years they mastered, tried (and day and night, tirelessly, sawing).

[DDZ57]

And now what is relevant to the article.
Those. to the question of ammunition for the 57mm ZAK.
In the aforementioned collection, Chizhevsky OT stated that the Device is currently developing a shot with a remote-controlled 57-mm projectile for a promising anti-aircraft artillery complex. Those. The device fit into 57 mm.
But 57mm in the Russian Federation is NIMI.

Also in 2018-2019. Rosatom also got into the same topic, with their nuclear or vigorous prices for products, including consumer goods, which include 57mm shots. At one of the armies during these years, Rosatom showed semi-finished striking elements for a 57mm projectile, made using MIM technology.
Everything would be fine, but for almost some time the idea of ​​combining "Pribor" with "THEM" or "THEM" with "Pribor" has been hovering in the minds of "someone". This is within the framework of the previously outlined concept of "optimization" of the RF ammunition industry.
When in the Russian Federation many people begin to think a lot, it usually ends like Buridan's donkey, who wondered where to start lunch: with oats or barley, he thought so much that ...

[arhPavel]

Now I would like an anti-drone complex. Yes, and just like a BMP

[Sergei N 58912062]

Our 2S38 "Derivation-PVO" needs an ORKA Mk 295 type projectile.