130-mm shipborne artillery mount A-192M went into series

The qualification tests of the 192-mm A-130M shipborne artillery mount have been successfully completed, the artillery mount has entered the stage of serial production, which has already been launched. This is reported by "Korabel.ru" with reference to the press service of the St. Petersburg machine-building plant "Arsenal".

As stated in the material, development work on the new gun mount A-192M was completed in 2018, followed by the production of prototypes and comprehensive tests. At present, the enterprise has already launched the serial production of the units, having carried out all the preliminary preparations for this.

To date, three A-192M gun mounts have already been manufactured, contracts have been signed for the manufacture of three more. Several contracts are at the stage of approval, the number of units to be manufactured under them has not been reported.

The A-192M gun mount is designed for installation on ships with a displacement of over 2 thousand tons. It was the A-192M that was installed on the lead and first serial frigates of project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov" and "Admiral Kasatonov". It is planned that this gun mount will be installed on all Project 22350 and 22350M frigates, as well as other ships of this and larger classes under construction.

The installation has a fully automated system for feeding shots, capable of delivering all 478 shells to the tower without human intervention. Due to the modular design, this system can be tailored to a specific type of ship. Depending on the size of the underdecks allocated for the gun mount, the number of projectiles can be either increased or decreased.

Comments

[tralflot1832]

So the artillery is already on the stream, it's up to the engines and gearboxes.

[Alien From]

It’s necessary, everywhere it would be!

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Alien From

It’s necessary, everywhere it would be!

The news is pleasant already in that - already on stream, and not the usual - "will be manufactured in the near future."

[YOUR]

Yes, the flow is powerful since 2018, 3 pieces and for three more contracts for another 3 years.

[1976AG]

Quote: YOUR

Yes, the flow is powerful since 2018, 3 pieces and for three more contracts for another 3 years.

Do we have many higher class frigates and ships?

[mvg]

ships of a class above

e *
Have you tried reading the article? Anything over 2000 tons. Just at the UDC, such a thing is more needed.

[Viktor Afanasev]

UDC
this is + 8 years minimum ... If it is planned, they will have time to do it ...

[mvg]

+ 8 years minimum ...

Delivery of the head 27 year, promise. State armaments program 18-27
But I really meant 11711 Gren and Morgunov

[Viktor Afanasev]

I must add to the promises ...
When was the lead ship of a completely new design built so quickly?

About 11711, a moot point. They alone will not go to a foreign shore, there will be fire and planes and helicopters. The weapon will not play a role ...

[mvg]

The weapon will not play a role ...

To plow the coast, before landing, from two Grens, almost 1000 shells for 25 km is very tasty. 3-4 helicopters will not provide this. And there is no one else to plow the coast.

a completely new project was built so quickly

yes, I agree here, 101% This is not Mistral in 2.5 years

[max702]

And whose coast is to plow, at least in theory? Well, is it real? What kind of country is that?

[mvg]

at least in theory? Well, is it real?

We still have one real enemy. Black Sea and Azov coast. It is not known how the fresh confrontation between the LDNR and Ukraine will end.
They needed 08.08 in Georgia, and went there ... when the missile boats were blown up.
God forbid, of course, the Kuril Islands will have to be recaptured. Unlikely, but possible.

[max702]

Quote: mvg

They needed 08.08 in Georgia, and went there ... when the missile boats were blown up.

Uh .. And where was the naval artillery used in that conflict? It seems like most of the pennants were drowned by the land special forces without any naval priblud .. You gave an example completely inappropriate.
Regarding the 404th, I can even argue that if the conflict begins, then the fleet will not participate in it, unless the transports will bring something up, but there will be no 100% database!
Yes, and with the Kurils by completely different means, everything will be solved 130mm pukalki and other anachronisms will not reach the point with the same 100% probability .. Although again I am 100% sure that there will not be any databases in principle, Yapi are not fools with them without The Kurils live well, and all the rhetoric is so at the request of the American host ..

[YOUR]

Ivan Gren and Morgunov is not a UDC, it is a large landing ship.
UDC - Ivan Rogov and Mitrofan Moskalenko. Laid down in July 2020 Expected completion in 2027 and 2028.

[mvg]

Ivan Gren and Morgunov is not a UDC, this is a large landing ship

Did I say yak? UDC 23900 delivery in 2027, there AK-192, almost a new development, not yet 40 years old. And it ALREADY had to be put on BDK 1171 and 11711. Do not skip comments.

[YOUR]

Explain why this weapon is needed on the BDK and on the UDC?

[mvg]

Why do BDK and UDC need this weapon?

And how do you imagine the landing from 11711 Ivan Ivanych? 3-4 helicopters (1-2 drums), Grad and that's it ... Let's say the enemy (Ukraine, Georgia) has no DBK on the shore, but there is a dug-in motorized rifle battalion. Who or what will suppress the emplacements? What can be given to support the BDK? Frigates 11356 or 636.6? Nothing else.

[YOUR]

Those. you need to develop the fleet so that there is at least normal fire support.

[YOUR]

Why is this weapon on the UDC?

[seregatara1969]

Lada, too, began to make one by one

[vadivm59]

it is written in 2018 OCD COMPLETED. then tests, elimination ... fine-tuning ... tests again. and after all with the letter M. means changes in production technology, changes in equipment, etc. etc.

[venik]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

The news is pleasant already in that - already on stream, and not the usual - "will be manufactured in the near future."

=========
EVERYTHING today "on stream", it was yesterday"soon"....

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: venik

EVERYTHING that is "on stream" today was "in the near future" yesterday ....

That you sho? True? I thought ...

[antivirus]

and on what plane will it be installed?

[A1845]

It is planned that this gun mount will be installed on all project 22350 and 22350M frigates, as well as others ships under construction of this and larger classes.

Please remind us that we are building from the marked?

[GTYCBJYTH2021]

Quote: A1845

It is planned that this gun mount will be installed on all project 22350 and 22350M frigates, as well as others ships under construction of this and larger classes.

Please remind us what is being built from the marked?

So ... there is no buoy and anchor ... But the cannon will be ... and it will be installed ... too ...

[alexmach]

22350 is still being built in series. Again, a mass-produced weapon will clearly come in handy when designing any new ship.

[Alex777]

I am glad that this long-term construction has finally come into operation.
One less problem and that's good.

[Dart2027]

Quote: A1845

what we build from the marked

5 frigates and one more with an already installed cannon.

[vdowin.sergei2012]

frigates 22350 under construction and soon Help Mil.Press FlotProm

Severnaya Verf and Metrostroy signed a contract for the construction of a new slipway and slipway at the end of December 2017. The two-span boathouse will be equipped with overhead cranes with a lifting capacity of 350 tons and modern transmission equipment based on self-propelled ship trains. The new complex will make it possible to build large-capacity vessels and ships with a displacement of up to 25 thousand tons. The dimensions of the two-span boathouse are 250 × 140 × 75 meters. At the second stage, it is planned to modernize the hull-processing and assembly-welding production of the plant.

The commissioning of the facility was planned for 2019.

In December 2018, the St. Petersburg government admitted that work on the construction of a new boathouse was behind schedule. In March 2019, the completion of the construction of the facility was postponed to 2020. Simultaneously with the completion of the boathouse, a decision on the laying of project 22350M is expected, so the epic with the ships of the ocean zone should be resolved this year. Moreover, the delivery of the first two ships is expected no later than 2027, because by that time our newest compact aircraft carriers / UDC of project 23900 will appear in the fleet.

[Cananecat]

AU total mass, kg: 25 000
Caliber, mm: 130
Maximum range, m: 23 000
Reach in height, m: 18 000
Barrel rise angle, °: −15 / + 85
According to "Vicki".

[mvg]

130-mm naval artillery mount

A-192M "Armat" has been developed by the Arsenal Design Bureau since the end of the 1980s, the chief designer is Yu.P. Prokofiev.

The first field tests of a prototype at the Rzhevka test site began in the first half of the 1990s.

PS: Asilili!

[yehat2]

Interestingly, after the construction of 2 Kirovs in 1935, was at least one ship launched with guns, at least equal in caliber to 180mm?

[Constanty]

At least two more ships of the 26bis project - "Maxim Gorky" and "Voroshilov", and the second slightly modified pair - "Kalinin" and "Kaganovich".

[Machete]

Is it okay that the age of artillery ships is long gone?
Now guns are only secondary weapons. And there is no need to equate with Kirov, where the guns are the GK. Now the GC is the KR.

[yehat2]

nobody levels anything. I just asked about the facts of the launching of the ships.

[Sahalinets]

An excellent weapon! It remains to build ships for him ...

[Narak-zempo]

Great news.
But for the Leaders it would be nice to develop a pair or look towards 152 mm.

[garri-lin]

So the spark is just the same. And great. Its a little to rethink under the realities and it will be nice. And there is no point in pulling 152 mm in the sea. The unitary is good at sea. And making 152 mi unitars is a whole epic. For a secondary weapon, it's expensive and pointless.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

So the spark is just the same. And great. Its a little to rethink under the realities and it will be nice. And there is no point in pulling 152 mm in the sea. The unitary is good at sea. And making 152 mi unitars is a whole epic. For a secondary weapon, it's expensive and pointless.

Just the spark 130 as a secondary weapon is meaningless, the only plus is that the rate of fire is killed by the short range and mass of the installation.

Quote: garri-lin

Unitar is good at sea

The unitar is undoubtedly good, the 130 mm spark is redundant but at the same time weak, the single-barrel is nothing.

[garri-lin]

We have already discussed it with you. The range is just enough for artillery tasks at sea. The weight of a double-barreled gun for a large ship is quite normal. Single barrel for ships of medium displacement. And no one will start an epic with a 152mm unitary.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

And no one will start an epic with a 152mm unitary.

You seem to think so, 152 mm ammunition with manual caps.

Quote: garri-lin

The range is just enough for artillery tasks at sea.

And that's why they are developing active rockets, right? What tasks for 130 mm at sea are you aware of? Air defense / missile defense is solved by missiles with completions of small-caliber ZAK. Maybe anti-ship missions? At a distance of 23 km, very funny. So it turns out that the real task of 130 mm guns is to support coastal operations, which was one of the tasks of the 956 project, and here a 152 mm gun, even with a much lower rate of fire, is much preferable to 130 mm, at least due to twice the amount of explosives. but speaking about the range.

Quote: garri-lin

The weight of a double-barreled gun for a large ship is quite normal.

For the smallest (6500 tn. St. Vzm) 956, this double-barreled gun did not allow to place either a hangar or a full-fledged GAK destroyer.
And once again, 152 mm has a fundamental advantage over 130 mm - special ammunition. The number of anti-ship missiles or anti-ship missiles on a medium-tonnage ship is extremely limited, the "Coalition" BC, for example, only in a tower of 50 pieces or more.

[garri-lin]

Name 152mm unitar. The most adapted ammunition for high rate of fire in this caliber is the shots from the Coalition. And for the same coalition, the rate of fire is visible. But I honestly don't know if it can work in pitching conditions.
So we can't shoot at the ships, but can we shoot along the shore? Smiled. The range of 130 is because it is not visible further on the sea. Further, it is more rational to shoot missiles. The weight of the explosive is important to the target. But then it is not better to destroy everything with a rocket before the advancing landing.
Special ammunition is an important factor. Especially on a ship where it can be launched with a rocket. The Coalition on the ship will have all the same problems as 130mm, only multiplied by the difference in shot weight. Mechanized ammo rack for separate loading for a couple of three hundred shots will not be small. And by default it will have to work with strong rolling. Something tells me that the Coalition will not be able to do this, and what will replace it will be cumbersome.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

152mm unitar name

For you, the unitar and the rate of fire is clearly some kind of fetish. Now, not the 40s of the last century, air defense is provided with missiles and ZAK, or a maximum of 76,2 mm on boats or RAC. A192 has a rate of fire of up to 30 / m, and according to various sources, the Coalition has up to 16, with twice the weight of explosives, so that the fire performance is at the same level.

Quote: garri-lin

But I honestly don't know if it can work in pitching conditions.

What do you know?

Quote: garri-lin

So we can't shoot at the ships, but can we shoot along the shore? Smiled.

You can shoot, but what ship will let you, pirates of the Caribbean, 23 km? And to shoot along the coast from 23 km is to expose yourself to unpunished 155 mm fire of ordinary, not even particularly new guns, and only scratch the beach yourself.

Quote: garri-lin

The range of 130 is because it is not visible further on the sea.

Oh well, you are in your repertoire, even in WWII 100 cable is the normal detection distance by optical means of a ship by a ship.

Quote: garri-lin

The weight of the explosive is important for the target

152 mm carries twice as many explosives.

Quote: garri-lin

But then it is not better to destroy everything with a rocket before the advancing landing.

What kind of rocket is this? "Poplar"? Let me remind you that the 956 project is one of the main ones! tasks had the support of the landing.

Quote: garri-lin

Special ammunition is an important factor. Especially on a ship where it can be launched with a rocket.

Ay, how many missiles will fit on a corvette in 2000 tons? How many of them are anti-ship missiles, how many PLRKs and how many of them will there be special missiles that may never be needed? But the presence of a 152 mm machine gun on a small ship will mean the presence of nuclear weapons on board for the enemy.

Quote: garri-lin

The Coalition on the ship will have all the same problems as 130mm only multiplied by the difference in shot weight

The coalition with all the tracks as a single-barreled 130 weighs, the automated TPM for 1,5-2 BC was pushed onto Kamaz, do you think the designers will not be able to make all this work?

[garri-lin]

Good old-fashioned point-by-point: the coalition is losing the A 130 in a massive one-minute volley. This time.
2. The pitching at sea is a very important factor. Whether the mechanics of the automatic loader will be able to work in rolling conditions is a very important question. And if you have to redo what will be the changes.
3. Parity in range will also be when using a 152 mm gun mount. With unsuppressed resistance. Absolutely no matter what caliber. What is 130 what 152.
4 cable !!! You will see the distance to the horizon. As well as the flight time of the projectile at this distance.
5. 956 project this what year?
6. On a corvette with a capacity of 2000 tons to put a gun mount of 152 mm caliber? How much will such a gun mount with adequate ammunition weigh? I repeat with adequate. And this is just for the sake of pushing 80 kilotons for 5 km? It is cheaper to attach blue tape to an air defense missile.
7. Smooth only on paper. The sea has its own specifics. Own tolerances and requirements.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

Good old-fashioned point-by-point: the coalition is losing the A 130 in a massive one-minute volley. This time.

This is canceled out by a much shorter range and half the power of the projectile, and the A-130 is not the A-192, and the mass of explosives per minute is comparable with it. Well, nuclear weapons.

Quote: garri-lin

2. The pitching at sea is a very important factor. Whether the mechanics of the automatic loader will be able to work in rolling conditions is a very important question. And if you have to redo what will be the changes.

A completely contrived problem. There is experience in creating tank AZ, and there the conditions are much worse and nothing, adjusted for the caliber of course.

Quote: garri-lin

Parity in range will also be when using a 152 mm gun mount. With unsuppressed resistance. Absolutely no matter what caliber. What 130 what 152

Amazing! Parity (in fact, no) will be exactly 152 mm, and 130 mm is a whipping boy! 23 km, (but in fact, you need to approach even closer, is it clear why?) This is because of the coast, any dunce (artillery reconnaissance officer) can point anything at a ship with such a "range". That's what is not clear ?!

Quote: garri-lin

100 cable !!! You will see the distance to the horizon. As well as the flight time of the projectile at this distance.

What is this anyway? 100 cab is 18,5 km, with binoculars from such a range, ships were detected, in bad weather, and where does the time have to do with it? This is even if the artillery guidance radars are not remembered.

Quote: garri-lin

956 project this what year?

Why is this question? 1970, and helicopters, and even more so the SAC, were already used in the fleet for a very long time.

Quote: garri-lin

To put a 2000 mm gun mount on a corvette of 152 tons? How much will such a gun mount with adequate ammunition weigh? I repeat with adequate.

Don't know how to use search at all? But, okay, maybe you write from your phone. ACS with all tracks, dviglom, and other things plus ammunition of at least 50 high. weighs 48 tons, KamAZ-6560 TZM with at least one and a half (75 height) BK less than 40. Two KAMAZ is the smallest 150 rounds. In the worst case, the total weight at 200 h. less than 130 tons., This is with a chassis, an armored hull, the weight of the KAMAZ trucks themselves, the weight of the air in the tires of KAMAZ trucks, all exceeding less than 10 percent of the weight of the corvette. But there are also frigates and destroyers.

Quote: garri-lin

And this is just for the sake of pushing 80 kilotons for 5 km? It is cheaper to attach blue tape to an air defense missile.

Do you know a lot of missiles with a range of 80 km and based on a corvette? And how many such missiles are on the corvette? Is it possible to fire anti-aircraft missiles at coastal targets without nuclear weapons?

[garri-lin]

1. A 192 for light ships. This is a specially designed rig with the maximum reduced weight. 50 tons. It didn't work out any less.
2. The pitching problem is not far-fetched. It is permanent on the ship. That is why people are often rocked on ships and rarely in a tank.
3. Yes, just do not matter. What 130 what 152. Art will get it from the shore. Artduel in any case will not be in favor of the ship. And no one in the fleet will lead to this. Unless, of course, this is a spherocon in a vacuum.
4. Naval artillery is secondary. The tasks are secondary. Long range at sea is simply not needed. For more, there are rockets. And flight time is important for a simple reason. The projectile flight time to the maximum range can exceed a minute. Shooting at sea targets is pointless. The ship will have time to evade while the projectile is in flight. Why a range of 70 kilometers if you don't get there?
5. 70 years old? 50 years ago. Then it was relevant.
6. Based on a rough estimate of the weight, I have no complaints. 130-150 tons will work out. I think even the strengthening of the set of the case can be put into this weight. Three times more than A192. It's very hard for 2000 tons. Milking heavier ships, in principle, will go. Just what's the point. 50 tons of А ​​192 and 100 tons of Hermes-type missiles for ScBCH look much more logical.
7. SAM with a range of 80 km? For your beloved ScBCH? That it is easier to recycle a missile from the Shell or a new Artillery fence. And it makes no sense to multiply the nomenclature of those gun mounts.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

The pumping is not a far-fetched problem. It is permanent on the ship. That is why people are often rocked on ships and rarely in a tank.

As a problem for loading, far-fetched, but the motion sickness of people on the ship and in the tank is completely far-fetched and has nothing to do with the automatic loader.

Quote: garri-lin

Yes, just do not matter. What 130 what 152. Art will get it from the shore. Artduel in any case will not be in favor of the ship. And no one in the fleet will lead to this. Unless, of course, this is a spherocon in a vacuum.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the topic, modern 152 mm artillery can and does shoot beyond the horizon at reconnoitered targets whose targets are not visible, there are only their coordinates. So, out of sight of the coast, a ship with 152 mm can unobservable and impunity strike at a depth of at least 15 km from the coast and this with simple shells, the 155 mm battery simply cannot respond to it without the use of radar, even if it is near the coast.

Quote: garri-lin

The naval artillery is secondary. The tasks are secondary. Long range at sea is simply not needed

130 mm artillery in this case is generally meaningless.

Quote: garri-lin

Why a range of 70 kilometers if you don't get there?

Shelling of coastal targets, and if you remember that the 21st century is in the yard, then the sea with shells from the seeker, and these are already being developed for 152-155 mm, think.

Quote: garri-lin

70 years old? 50 years ago. Then it was relevant.

Is the shelling of coastal targets already irrelevant? Gosha.

Quote: garri-lin

On a rough estimate of the weight, I have no complaints. 130-150 tons will work out.

But I have! Are you working like a fool?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

In the worst case, the total weight at 200 h. less than 130 tons., This is with the chassis, armored hull, the weight of the KAMAZ trucks themselves, the weight of the air in the tires of the KAMAZ trucks, all more than 10 percent of the corvette's weight.

In your opinion, that the shells will be loaded onto the ship without taking them out of the KAMAZ trucks? Will the coalition be welded to the deck right on the tracks? Yes, this weight can be safely divided into two, 75 tons maximum for a fundamentally more powerful weapon.

Quote: garri-lin

SAM with a range of 80 km? For your beloved ScBCH? That it is easier to recycle a missile from the Shell or a new Artillery to fence

Stunned, rework the missile from 20 km range to 80? Are you okay? With such genius, any rocket corporation will carry you around! Naturally, there are no words. Oh yeah, you still have to remember to screw the special warheads with the "blue tape".

Quote: garri-lin

50 tons of А ​​192 and 100 tons of Hermes-type missiles for SecBCH look much more logical

Hermes, maybe, but for fire support of the landing force, he is very expensive in itself, and a special warhead for him still needs to be developed, which is not a fact, but 130 mm is insufficient in range.

Quote: garri-lin

to fence a new Artustanovka. And it makes no sense to multiply the nomenclature of those gun mounts.

There is a Coalition, and a naval installation based on it is an excellent attempt at unification. And the rejection of 130 mm double-barreled guns is a great way to reduce the range of gun mounts.

[garri-lin]

I will probably answer in two steps.
1. Shells in the tank, in the cells of the automatic loader just lie. And you take a look at how the shells are located in the artillery arms of the ships. Maybe you will realize that the sea is a continuous movement. At sea, everything is fixed. So the pitching problem is not far-fetched.
2. That is, you say that the enemy will put up cover artillery batteries on the shore, not bothering to provide them with the necessary means for guidance? Nonsense. Alternative reality. Then let's already assume that ordinary scopes will be taken away. And the shells from the warehouses will not be given out. You are in your repertoire. I remember you had a destroyer ashore to shoot at Malky.
3. Caliber is not important. What is 130 mm what is 152 mm. This is a secondary weapon.
4. A projectile with a seeker when firing at a sea target is meaningless. The price is like a rocket. Target damage is less than that of a rocket. Along the coast, pointwise, it will go. But it is insanely expensive, for the sake of rare shots along the coast with an expensive projectile to fence an expensive and heavy artillery mount.
5. Artillery shelling of coastal targets is always relevant. Question how to approach this and what to use for this.

[garri-lin]

6. 130 150 tons think a lot? Artillery unit. Mechanized ammo rack. All this is booked. Everything is duplicated. Ammunition. For heavy installation and strong recoil local reinforcement of the set of the body. Later I will estimate the weight of the ammunition alone.
7. 75 tons, well, you just can't do it. A192 costs 50 tons. And here the shell is twice as big.
8. The missile from Pantsir, the one that is at 40 km range, will fly off at 80 km along a ballistic trajectory. It was fierce sarcasm about the blue duct tape. Your desire to make a carrier of nuclear weapons out of each corvette still does not evoke such feelings.
9. For pinpoint and important purposes, Hermes is not expensive. The poisonous warhead was sarcasm again. Sori, but I can't put emoticons. The program is stupid. A range of 130mm at the time of disembarkation is sufficient. The landing party, too, will not go ashore empty-handed.
10. There is no Maritime Coalition yet. It will have to be done completely from scratch. And only the eternal barrel-projectile pair will remain from the current one. Everything else will be new. Heavier, more massive and more durable than a regular one. And no need for barrel cooling. Actually, cooling has an indirect relationship to the barrel itself. I meant a grooved pipe. And what is there outside dressed is not important.

[garri-lin]

I estimated the weight of the ammunition. I did not find the exact data on the shots of the Coalition, but I figured it out on the basis of Msta. Shot 65 kg. Of which 45-50 are the projectile itself. I think understated. Since the msta chamber has 23 liters and the shots are tzhe water and therefore weigh more than 23 kg. The required ammunition load is admissible 300. Less was rarely when it was on the ships. 300 will multiply by 65. 20 tons out of 150 is just ammunition. And in my opinion, this is very underestimated.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

The shells in the tank, in the cells of the automatic loader, just lie. And you take a look at how the shells are located in the artillery arms of the ships. Maybe you will realize that the sea is a continuous movement

You are mistaken, not just lying, but just lying around! Why don't you realize that both the tank and the SPG have stricter ammo rack requirements! You are not able to understand the difference between shaking, jerking, hitting and HITCHING?

Quote: garri-lin

That is, you are claiming that the enemy will put up cover artillery batteries on the shore, not having taken care of providing them with the necessary means for guidance?

Where am I saying this ?! And what means do you, in principle, imagine?

Quote: garri-lin

I remember you had a destroyer ashore to shoot at Malky.

What kind of idiocy is this? I don’t need to ascribe this.

Quote: garri-lin

Caliber is not important. What is 130 mm what is 152 mm. This is a secondary weapon.

Quote: garri-lin

Artillery shelling of coastal targets is always relevant. Question how to approach this and what to use for this.

That is why land artillery is being transferred to 152-155 mm caliber, right? After all, there are MLRS and OTRK on land, there, too, artillery is secondary. This is your logic, I follow.

Quote: garri-lin

A projectile with a seeker when firing at a sea target is meaningless. The price is like a rocket.
But it's insanely expensive, for the sake of rare shots along the coast with an expensive shell to fence an expensive and heavy artillery mount

You are just writing nonsense now, even if you do not take the difference between gunpowder of a shot and a jet engine with a rocket body, the GOS projectile is needed for additional targeting, and the anti-ship missile for SEARCH and guidance. And this is not recalling the much cheaper satellite correction head for working on point fixed targets.

Quote: garri-lin

130 150 tons think a lot? Artillery unit. Mechanized ammo rack. All this is booked. Everything is duplicated. Ammunition.

Are you real or are you pretending? 130 tone is EVERYTHING! The chassis with rollers and tracks, the engine and fuel from the SPG, KAMAZ with everything that a heavy truck and TZM mechanisms have, you do not equal the designers by yourself, they will not shove ALL of this on the ship! And what do you think ALL is duplicated? Maybe a loading mechanism? Show me a duplication of EVERYTHING on any single-barrel gun mount?

Quote: garri-lin

Well, you won't be able to keep up with 75 tons. A192 costs 50 tons. And here the shell is twice as big.

The shell contains twice as many explosives, the weight itself is one third heavier.

Quote: garri-lin

All of this is booked .. .. Ammunition. For heavy installation and strong recoil local reinforcement of the set of the body

You seem to be imagining that this is all included in the weight of the A-192 ... I don't even ask, I state.

Quote: garri-lin

The missile from Pantsir, the one that is at 40 km range, will fly off by 80 km along a ballistic trajectory.

This is such a rocket, there is no such rocket for the Shell. Well, this is your nonsense about the trajectory! Even if you shove it into fully reworked missile YABCh what range will remain from and so 20 km?

Quote: garri-lin

Your desire to make a carrier of nuclear weapons out of each corvette still does not evoke such feelings.

You are not the doves of the world наших do you want to make ships?

Quote: garri-lin

there is no Maritime Coalition yet. It will have to be done completely from scratch.

It is nonsense! The most important part - the tower with a turret is, and your fabrications about the terrible pitching and unreliability of everything land on the sea are fabrications and remain. Land-based self-propelled guns with their loading mechanisms operate in much more severe conditions, this is a fact.

Quote: garri-lin

And a range of 130mm at the time of disembarkation is enough

155 mm will roll out both the landing and the ship with impunity. It is a pity that you do not understand this.

Quote: garri-lin

Shot 65 kg. Of which 45-50 are the projectile itself. I think understated

This is the upper limit for Msta, the Coalition has a cartridge charge, which means that it is lighter than a sleeve one, even at maximum weight.

Quote: garri-lin

The required ammunition load is admissible 300. Less was rarely when it was on the ships. 300 multiplies by 65 tons out of 20

In general, on cruisers, 200 rounds per barrel went, well, not two KAMAZ TZM, but three we will count. With a 130 mm projectile, two times less powerful than 152 mm, in order to reach the equivalent in explosives, 600 130 mm projectiles will be needed with a weight of ... 52 kilograms (fifty two) of one 130 mm projectile. Well, the nonsense about 150 tons continues to be nonsense, excuse me.

[garri-lin]

Sori for the long answer. Job.
1. I perfectly understand the difference. You probably do not understand that at sea there can be such jerks and shakes about which on land it is scary to even think about. And everything on the ship must be ready for them.
2. You said above that there is no parity in the duel between the coastal battery and the artillery ship. The artillery gunner was mentioned on the shore. I say that there is no point in such a duel.
3. If you make a mistake then litter. There was an opponent who, in the discussion of Malok in Kaliningrad, asserted that NATO destroyers would be able to fire at the Malok batteries standing in the depths of the defense and firing at the landing force.
4. Since when did land artillery become secondary? Who translates artillery to 155-152? You are delusional.
5. Everything is confused with you. For firing at ships, you need expensive seeker on the projectile. The rocket is preferable because, being also expensive, it has a long range. And warheads. That is why all air defense missiles on a ship can also hit a surface target. And when firing at coastal targets at a long distance, in any case, you need to get close to the coast. And again, the captain will not agree to this. It can be attached to artillery pieces with guns on the shore. This does not fit into the concept of a horizontal landing that the whole world has come to.
6. Tobish, in your opinion, when placed on a ship, all the necessary equipment will not have hulls? Will there be no communication lines that are not needed on Kamaz trucks? Will there be nothing but the mechantisms themselves? You are wrong. And a lot of things are duplicated. From cables to drives and motors. It's all weight.
7. I have already given an approximate weight calculation above.
8. This is all originally incorporated in the design. And redesigning for a new installation will definitely cause an increase in mass.

[garri-lin]

8. Now I have to prove to you that this is possible? No nefig. The idea with YABCh on each corvette is yours, so you develop it. As for me, it is so absurd.
9. I don't want to make doves of peace from warships. I just don't see the point in nuclear weapons on low tonnage ships.
10. And again they returned to pitching. Have you been at sea at least once? At least what kind of cruise?
11. If at the time of the landing of 155 mm trays are not suppressed, then the landing force will suffer greatly. That is why enemy batteries will be a priority target. For rockets. For no one will bring ships to the shore for shelling. I repeat it for the hundredth time. No one will bring ships to the shore and risk them. They will hit with rockets from over the horizon.
12. Why is the charge of the Coalition easier than the charge of MSTA? You can get more details.
13. Calculating the weight of the projectile on your part does not make sense. Do you lead to the fact that the amount of explosive delivered to the target does not change? Why then fence the garden? For one single purpose? For the sake of increasing the firing range at coastal targets? An extremely rare task? Which does not fit well into the concept of the Russian Armed Forces? Huge costs and many disadvantages for the sake of a priority that is not needed? I have no words.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

Sori for the long answer. Job.

Yes, and besides work, there are enough cases, so with understanding!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

with a weight of .... 52 kilograms (fifty two) of one 130 mm projectile.

Quote: garri-lin

Calculating the weight of the projectile on your part does not make sense. Do you lead to the fact that the amount of explosive delivered to the target does not change?

You understand that this phrase of yours crosses out all your digital calculations and is so unfounded. As soon as it became clear that the 130 mm projectile is not much lighter than the 152 mm round, you no longer want to count the weight of the projectiles at all.

Quote: garri-lin

You lead to the fact that the amount of explosive delivered to the target does not change

The power of the HE shell is determined by the weight of the explosive, do not pretend that you do not understand this. So the 152 mm projectile is twice as powerful as the 130 mm.

Quote: garri-lin

I understand the difference perfectly. You probably do not understand that at sea there can be such jerks and shakes about which on land it is scary to even think about. And everything on the ship must be ready for them.

Jerks and shakes of spherical pitching at sea? With a mass of 2000 tons, these are very smooth jerks and shakes, here the physics is simple and you don't have to argue with it. Certainly not sharper than the recoil of the weapon.

Quote: garri-lin

You said above that there is no parity in the duel between the coastal battery and the artillery ship. The artillery gunner was mentioned on the shore. I say that there is no point in such a duel.

At 130 mm the ship will be shot, and at 152 mm the battery will be shot, I did not write anything about the duel, these are strictly your words. Once again, 152 mm allows for over-the-horizon shelling, but 130 mm does not.

Quote: garri-lin

Since when did land artillery become secondary? Who translates artillery to 155-152? You are delusional.

This is your logic about the secondary nature of artillery, I just developed it. The RF Armed Forces abandoned the development of 122 mm guns and howitzers, leaving 152, 120 and 82 mm as promising, while 120 mm is the battalion level and mainly mortar rounds.

Quote: garri-lin

Everything is confused with you. For firing at ships, you need expensive seeker on the projectile. The rocket is preferable because, being also expensive, it has a long range.

This is stupidity, the rocket is much more expensive, do not pretend that you have not read it:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

even if you do not take the difference between the gunpowder of a shot and a jet engine with a rocket body, a seeker projectile is needed for additional targeting, and an anti-ship missile for SEARCH and guidance.

Quote: garri-lin

That is why all air defense missiles on a ship can also hit a surface target.

This is if they had not previously been shot at anti-ship missiles, UAVs, and attention: at shells! Just do not pretend that large-caliber shells are not trying to intercept.

Quote: garri-lin

And when firing at coastal targets at a long distance, in any case, you need to get close to the coast.

How long can you write the same thing? Do not squint like a fool

Quote: Vladimir_2U

So, out of sight of the coast, a ship with 152 mm can strike unobservedly and with impunity to a depth of at least 15 km from the coast, and this is with simple shells

Quote: garri-lin

Tobish, in your opinion, when placed on a ship, all the necessary equipment will not have hulls? There will be no communication lines that are not needed on Kamaz trucks?

Sorry, but if you really don't understand this, then this is a diagnosis.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

130 tone is EVERYTHING! Chassis with rollers and tracks, motor and fuel for SPG, KAMAZ with everything a heavy truck has and TPM mechanisms

Quote: garri-lin

I have already given an approximate weight calculation above.

You took the figure from the bulldozer, without confirming it in any way. Well Calculating the weight of the projectile on your part does not make sense. ... .... you understand that this your phrase crosses out all your digital calculations and so unreasonable.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

For heavy installation and strong recoil local reinforcement of the set of the body
You seem to be imagining that this is all included in the weight of the A-192 ... I don't even ask, I state.

Quote: garri-lin

All this was originally incorporated in the design. And redesigning for a new installation will definitely cause an increase in mass.

Yes, you are simply lying or do not understand what you are writing, nobody counts the reinforcement of the deck in the weight of the AU, and the booking of the artillery cellar too. no need to invent.

Quote: garri-lin

Now I have to prove to you that this is possible? No nefig. The idea with YABCh on each corvette is yours, so you develop it. As for me, it is so absurd.
9. I don't want to make doves of peace from warships. I just don't see the point in nuclear weapons on low tonnage ships.

Unfortunately, you don't see a lot of things. And there is a need, but more on that below.

Quote: garri-lin

And again they returned to the pitching. Have you ever been to the sea? At least what kind of cruise?

No, have not been on cruises, and you are an avid sailor in any way?

Quote: garri-lin

For no one will bring ships to the shore for shelling. I repeat it for the hundredth time. No one will bring ships to the shore and risk them.

Do not confuse your obstinacy with reality, I remind you that 152 mm allow for over-the-horizon shooting, in contrast to 130 mm.

Quote: garri-lin

Why is the charge of the Coalition easier than the charge of Msta? You can get more details.

And why, the figures of the weight of the projectile suddenly ceased to interest you, have you forgotten already? So what case charge Msta and modular caseless Coalition charge is worse than 52 kg of 130 mm projectile, you wanted to count it?

Quote: garri-lin

Which does not fit well into the concept of the Russian Armed Forces?

What kind of concept was used? To turn warships into doves of peace?

[garri-lin]

1. Well, as it were, the weight of shot 130 roughly corresponds to the weight of the 152 projectile. Therefore, the difference is equal to the weight of the 152 mm charge. Therefore approximately 25 kg. One and a half times the weight of 130 mm. Will this calculation suit you?
2. Controversial statement. High-explosive impact and High-explosive fragmentation impact on the target are different things. For fortifications, it is better to have more explosives. For dispersed targets, it is better to have more fragments and they are heavier. In the second case, a large amount of explosives is undesirable. Learn materiel.
3. 2000 tons for waves is a fluff. Sometimes 10 tons are so thrashing that it is not clear where the floor is and where the wall is. And the warship must be ready for this. Let not fight a battle, but survive like that without harm to combat effectiveness.
4. Shooting a battery sheltered on the ground? From a ship that is in the affected area and glows like a Christmas tree? There is one weapon on the ship. How much is in the battery? How many ships are in support of the landing? How many batteries with several guns in each in the defense of the coast? What are the specific guns on the shore? Caesar? Archer? Msta? Something older? There will be parity in the duel. Only now you can exchange an artillery battery for an expensive ship.
5. Artillery is secondary at sea. Distances for ANY callibre are just not the same. On land, cannon artillery is a component equivalent to missiles. 122 mm lost its meaning due to the development of 120 mm. Shots of 120 mm approached 152 mm in power.
6. A rocket is more expensive than a projectile. Only the Rocket Launcher plus the rocket is cheaper than the Artillery Plane plus the projectile. The benefit will be with a large number of shots. How often are you going to shoot 152mm at maximum range?
7. That is why 130 mm main ammunition is cunning anti-aircraft ammunition. So as not to waste an expensive rocket on a small target.
8. Are you talking about shooting at the beach or shooting at depth of defense? On the beach 130 is enough. In the depth of defense and 152 does not make sense. Conditions for opponents are too different.
9. I understand perfectly. That all mechanisms need foundations. And most of the weight of the chassis of the same KAMAZ is unnecessary weight and the body in which the mechanisms are assembled. And on the ship all this is also needed.
10. How much I wrote !!!! And from all this it follows that by removing an installation weighing 50 tons in its place without changing it is possible to safely put an installation weighing 130-150 tons? Without changing anything at all?
11. Nuclear weapons to the masses !!!! Overkill. Oh bust. The doctrine of Russia will not let you lie. If it is so massively to supply nuclear weapons to the troops, then let's put a couple of nuclear forces in the ammunition of each gun. In every Mstu in the troops.
12. Yes, I had to walk on the waves for a couple of years. Moreover, in a very calm area. And the experience is unforgettable.
13 mm allow for over-the-horizon fire. But they do not allow to fire outside the zone of destruction of enemy artillery. In this case, the enemy is covered and disguised. And the ship is shining.
14. I have not ceased to be interested in the figures of the weight of the projectile. Why do you think so. You'd better find out by the weights of the Msta and Coalition charges. How much is the second easier than the first? Is it just the case? Or is it your fabrications not confirmed by facts?
15. Write nonsense. Who is Russia going to attack that on each boat on YaB it is necessary to roll?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

Well, as it were, the weight of shot 130 roughly corresponds to the weight of the 152 projectile. Therefore, the difference is equal to the weight of the 152 mm charge. Consequently, approximately 25 kg. One and a half times the weight of 130 mm. Will this calculation suit you?

Figures sucked out of the finger. You have repeatedly demonstrated your bullshit calculations ignoring the real numbers. The weight of the OF-152 is 43 kg, the weight of the heaviest charge with the Msta sleeve is 17 kg, that's it!

Quote: garri-lin

Controversial statement. High-explosive impact and High-explosive fragmentation impact on the target are different things. For fortifications, it is better to have more explosives. For dispersed targets, it is better to have more fragments and they are heavier. In the second case, a large amount of explosives is undesirable. Learn materiel.

You don’t understand anything about this, judging by the "heavier fragments" and a 152 mm projectile 10 kg heavier than 130 mm, mainly due to metal, if we are clever about the fragments.

Quote: garri-lin

2000 tons is a fluff for waves. Sometimes 10 tons are so thrashing that it is not clear where the floor is and where the wall is. And the warship must be ready for this. Let not fight a battle, but survive like that without harm to combat effectiveness.

Did you have a lot of "deck breaks"? And "nagging" is not strikes and jerks, do not breed demagoguery.

Quote: garri-lin

There will be parity in the duel. Only now you can exchange an artillery battery for an expensive ship.

There will be no duel, the ship is over the horizon and is mobile, and why should it shine, it beats at the coordinates.

Quote: garri-lin

Artillery is secondary at sea. Distances for ANY callibre are just not the same. On land, cannon artillery is a component equivalent to missiles.

You contradict yourself. And 130 mm, the more double-barreled then in principle is not needed.

Quote: garri-lin

A rocket is more expensive than a projectile. Only the Rocket Launcher plus the Rocket is cheaper than the Artillery System plus the projectile. The benefit will be with a large number of shots. How often are you going to shoot 152mm at maximum range?

In general, a strange question, 130 mm has an even smaller field of application due to its half the range.

Quote: garri-lin

I understand perfectly. That all mechanisms need foundations. And most of the weight of the chassis of the same KAMAZ is unnecessary weight and the body in which the mechanisms are assembled. And on the ship all this is also needed.

At least half of the TZM machine is the machine itself, calculate the chassis weight for the KAMAZ and do not drag it into the sea. And once again the weight of 130 au is indicated without the foundation and reinforcements, no need to lie.

Quote: garri-lin

How many he wrote !!!! And from all this it follows that by removing an installation weighing 50 tons in its place without changing it is possible to safely put an installation weighing 130-150 tons? Without changing anything at all?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

130 tone is EVERYTHING! Chassis with rollers and tracks, motor and fuel for ACS, KAMAZ with everything that a heavy truck has and TPM mechanisms

You really want to stuff all this on the ship, oooh. And where did you get the figure of 130 tons? You saw it in my place and make sense without understanding.

Quote: garri-lin

If it is so massively to supply nuclear weapons to the troops, then let's put a couple of nuclear forces in the ammunition of each gun. In every Mstu that is in the troops.

You really don't know NOTHING:

152 mm 3BV3 nuclear projectile for self-propelled guns 2S19 Msta-S, 2S3 Akatsiya and
towed guns D-20.
- 180-mm shell ZBV1 for 180-mm gun C-23, MK-3-180 (coastal
artillery, formerly fleet), firing range up to 45 km.
- 203-mm shell 3BV2 to the self-propelled guns 2С7 "Peony", 203-mm howitzers B-4М,
firing range from 18 km to 30 km.
- 240-mm mines 3BV4 for mortars towed M-240 and self-propelled
2C4 "Tulip". Normal firing range 9,5 km in
Active Reactive Active Reactive 18 km.
In the 80s in the USSR there were artillery shells and mines to
mortars of caliber 152 mm, 203 mm, 240 mm - up to 2.000 pieces.

Quote: garri-lin

Yes, I had to walk on the waves for a couple of years. Moreover, in a very calm area. And the experience is unforgettable.

I'm glad for you, but it's unlikely that you grumbled about the shells and repaired the AU, so the conversation is in favor of the poor.

Quote: garri-lin

152 mm allow for over-the-horizon fire. But they do not allow to fire outside the zone of destruction of enemy artillery. In this case, the enemy is covered and disguised. And the ship is shining.

Repeat, repeat the ship is over the horizon and is mobile, and why should it shine, it hits the coordinates. And I will add: in the case of support for the landing, work on requests is a common thing and 152 mm allows you not to enter the line of sight of the coast, with ordinary shells.

Quote: garri-lin

Why do you think so. You'd better find out by the weights of the Msta and Coalition charges. How much is the second easier than the first? Is it just the case? Or is it your fabrications not confirmed by facts?

What kind of arrogance and stupidity, you, in principle, are not able to carry out the search yourself? Or do you not understand that the cartridge case is a dead weight, but weighs a lot, and the Coalition cartridges are pure gunpowder? In order not to look like a fool, find the weight of the case and the weight of the charge of the Msta self-propelled guns, there are numbers in the internet. Learn at least a little materiel, at least a little.

Quote: garri-lin

Write nonsense. Who is Russia going to attack that on each boat on YaB it is necessary to roll?

In the 80s in the USSR there were artillery shells and mines to
mortars of 152 mm, 203 mm, 240 mm caliber - up to 2.000 pieces
On the one on whom and the USSR, on no one. Nuclear weapons are in many ways a deterrent weapon.

[garri-lin]

1. The weight of the heaviest projectile for Msta is 50+ kg. There is no need to tell a fairy tale. The one you are talking about flies a little further than 130 mm shells. I will not argue about the charge. Let it be 17 kg.
2. And again you have everything in a heap? That is heavier due to the case. That is heavier due to explosives. Either the power is 2 times more, then the BB is twice as much. You just got confused.
3. Since you are such a dock for searching information on the Internet, then look at the records from ships in a stormy sea. You will discover many new things about what the wave can do.
4. The ship is several tens of kilometers from the enemy's coast and is not visible at the same time? Is it shelling the coast and is not visible at the same time? Who are you going to chase? Papuans? Colonize penguins? And not only the ship will maneuver, but the coastal guns will also change positions. Plus they are much easier to cover in the terrain.
5. Look at the tasks for the artillery. For 130 mm. And air defense as well. On a trough of 200 tons (two hundred) will you also let Onyx?
6. 130 is available and it is adequate for its tasks.
7. How much does the TMZ box itself weigh together with the filling? Will it retain sufficient strength when removed from the Kamaz frame? Do you need maintenance rooms around her inside the ship? Ammunition loading? ETC. ETC.
8. The fact of the matter is that this is a more or less adequate weight of a long-range gun mount of 152 mm with adequate ammunition and all the necessary stuffing. 130-150 tons.
9 units of nuclear weapons. Tactical. And they were permanently present in the ammunition sets? How often were they used? Or were they, like all other nuclear weapons in warehouses, waiting for a big war?
10. I didn’t move the shells. But the engines had to be serviced. Believe me, even standing on the waves is sometimes difficult without holding on.
11. Yes, do not care for line of sight. Don't care. For almost a hundred years now, ships without line of sight have been detected accurately enough and are being fired upon from over the horizon. And if the ship is in the affected area, then it will be hit. All that is. Because he is dangerous.
12. There is a charge of Msta in the Internet. But no matter how I look, I cannot find the charge of the Coalition. To compare.
13. Strategic nuclear weapons are a deterrent weapon. But the landmines on each ship are another annoying factor for partners. "

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

The weight of the heaviest projectile for Msta is 50+ kg. There is no need to tell a fairy tale. The one you are talking about flies a little further than 130 mm shells. I will not argue about the charge. Let it be 17 kg.

Yes, there are such cluster shells, but we are talking about a typical HE shell.

Quote: garri-lin

And again you have everything in a heap? That is heavier due to the case. That is heavier due to explosives. Either the power is 2 times more, then the BB is twice as much. You just got confused.

You did not master this, I will explain: either harder or harder this is your invention, I wrote unequivocally, the projectile is 10 kg heavier, the explosive weight is twice as heavy, 130 mm 3 kg, 152 mm 6 kg, therefore the remaining 7 kg difference - metal. More explosives, more power.

Quote: garri-lin

The ship is several tens of kilometers from the enemy's coast and is not visible at the same time? Is it shelling the coast and is not visible at the same time? Who are you going to chase? Papuans? Colonize penguins? And not only the ship will maneuver, but the coastal guns will also change positions. Plus they are much easier to cover in the terrain.

You really do not understand the simplest thing, how much is that possible? The visibility of the horizon at sea is about 20 (twenty km) with a ship height of 25, then the ship is INVISIBLE! 130 does not fit into these numbers, but 152 is easy! Coastal guns to maneuver is ridiculous. The ship fires on the move, guns, even self-propelled guns only from a place, and more, the landing force being on the shore can call for support and adjust the fire, but no one can direct the ship, it is not visible over the horizon, which is not clear.

Quote: garri-lin

View artillery missions. For 130 mm. And air defense as well. On a trough of 200 tons (two hundred) will you also let Onyx?

This is stupidity, 152 mm for what? Here is a trough can be launched from 40 km of some kind of "Penguin", so wait until he arrives or just hit 152 right away?

Quote: garri-lin

How much does the TMZ box itself weigh together with the filling? Will it retain sufficient strength when removed from the Kamaz frame? Do you need maintenance rooms around her inside the ship? Ammunition loading? ETC. ETC.

Well, exactly, you will shove Kamaz, but the fact that the mechanisms of the TZM can be screwed to the deck flooring while maintaining rigidity does not come? Do you need 130 mm of service room weight now? They are needed, but their weight is not considered in any way in the mass of AU, so why count them for 152?

Quote: garri-lin

The fact of the matter is that this is a more or less adequate weight of a long-range artillery mount of 152 mm with adequate ammunition and all the necessary filling. 130-150 tons.

This is a figure sucked out of the finger, not substantiated in any way. You did not answer where you got it from, from what place, stupid repetition is not an answer.

Quote: garri-lin

2000 units of nuclear weapons. Tactical. And they were permanently present in the ammunition sets? How often were they used? Or were they, like all other nuclear weapons in warehouses, waiting for a big war?

There were a lot of them, but you can think of a lot of stupid questions, such as: how many people were killed by them; but they were issued against a receipt or upon presentation by a soldier, etc.

Quote: garri-lin

But the engines had to be serviced. Believe me, even standing on the waves is sometimes difficult without holding on.

Often fell from your feet due to blows and jolts, or, for example, sudden braking?

Quote: garri-lin

Yes, do not care for line of sight. Don't care. Ships for almost a hundred years without a line of sight are accurately detected and fired from over the horizon.

Well, they constantly poke my nose into the small radio horizon of the Ekranoplan and the MRK, but with you it turns out to be the other way around, easy and simple.

Quote: garri-lin

There is a charge of Msta on the Internet. But no matter how I look, I cannot find the charge of the Coalition. To compare.

I found it, do not work.

Quote: garri-lin

Strategic nuclear weapons are a deterrent weapon. But the landmines on each ship are another annoying factor for partners. "

Is this not a deterrent factor? Any corvette, well, a couple, can legally accompany the AUG and hold back from nonsense. Because of this, the old, purely artillery cruisers were not written off from us, the American AUGs should be accompanied by weapons.

[garri-lin]

1. Krasnopol 50+ long-range land mine with a bottom gas generator is also 50+
2. Strange technology for calculating power. By weight. But what about 120 mm mines, which are equivalent to 152 in terms of impact on the target? What do they have more?
3. Tobish artillery of reconnaissance means will not have from the word vrbsche. Similarly, they were going to fight with the penguins.
4. Well, until the penguins "Penguin" have not launched on them, you can hit 152 mm just don't know how to get there? An expensive projectile with a seeker? I remember 08 08 08 they cost an air defense missile. Not carrying an expensive 100+ tonne rig.
5. Are you sure that doesn't count? There is an armored citadel with everything you need inside. So it will not be necessary to rearrange the filling of the kung, but the kung as a whole, plus a lot of other things. And by the way, there is one more nuance. The speed of the TPM is much lower than the rate of fire of the Coalition. She simply will not have time to recharge. How do you solve this problem?
6. Why do you need to clarify the truth.
7. Name the units in which nuclear artillery shells were on alert.
8. At sea, hard braking is almost impossible. But he will burrow himself into a wave so that the body can begin to sing easily.
9. Have powerful radars been installed on ekranoplans or RTOs long ago?
10. Really did not come across that plate that you posted. Thanks for her.
11. Does the Corvette graze AUG? Will he have enough autonomy at Avik's speed? Will it overstrain?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

Strange technology for calculating power. By weight. But what about 120 mm mines, which are equivalent to 152 in terms of impact on the target? What do they have more?

Can you read? The weight of explosives! 120 does not give range, battalion level, and where about 120 mm is the equivalent of 152, proof!

Quote: garri-lin

Tobish artillery of reconnaissance means will not have from the word vrbsche. Similarly, they were going to fight with the penguins.

And what means of intelligence? The radars were knocked out before the landing, they are glowing! Opticals are useless.

Quote: garri-lin

An expensive projectile with a seeker? I remember 08 08 08 they cost an air defense missile. Without carrying on yourself an expensive unit weighing 100+ tons.

Again the nonsense about 100 tons, and the high cost of the projectile, the rocket is more expensive, and 130 mm is not much lighter.

Quote: garri-lin

Are you sure that doesn't count? There is an armored citadel with everything you need inside. So it will not be necessary to rearrange the filling of the kung, but the kung as a whole, plus a lot of other things.

What a citadel, what kind of nonsense, local booking of a room and then at the request of the customer. And what a lot of things, give examples, what kind of understatement? Even if KUNG, which in general is nonsense, then the KAMAZ chassis weighs at least half of the total mass of the TPM with the ammunition vehicle.

Quote: garri-lin

The speed of the TPM is much lower than the rate of fire of the Coalition. She simply will not have time to recharge. How do you solve this problem?

You really don't know the simplest things! Even if the entire BC, which is from 50 to 70 high. shoot directly in the tower in one series, which is extremely unlikely, while the barrel cools down, the ammo is replenished, that's all, a common thing with naval artillery units.

Quote: garri-lin

Why do you need to clarify the truths.

Take the trouble to put quotes.

Quote: garri-lin

7. Name the units in which nuclear artillery shells were on alert.

That you are not asking a lot, I don’t remember any confirmation of the words from you at all, but here are units with nuclear weapons on duty. Did you shake your head off?

Quote: garri-lin

And have powerful radars been installed on ekranoplans or RTOs long ago?

Type in the search MRK or Lun and find out.

Quote: garri-lin

Corvette grazing AUG? Will he have enough autonomy at Avik's speed? Will it overstrain?

In addition to AB, there are non-nuclear escort ships, and besides the corvette, there are frigates and destroyers, on which 152 will also not be superfluous.

[garri-lin]

1. The statements of the creators confirmed by the data of the MO.
2. The radars were knocked out and the batteries were not knocked out? Only working radars are lit. As well as radars that are used by inept people.
3. A projectile with a seeker for the price of the same rocket.
4. Are the rooms in which all the filling will stand and weigh nothing? Communications weigh nothing?
5 can shoot the ENTIRE ammunition without cooling and reloading.
6. Tobish in warehouses? How will they then end up on the ship?
7. I did not find any over-the-horizon ones. Not on the Moon, not on RTOs. There is not enough height.
8. And on those frigates and destroyers there will be nothing other than 152mm to strike the AUG? if you are going to fight with the penguins. Tolley herself pushed to the penguins.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

The statements of the creators confirmed by the data of the MO

Not confirmed by anything other than your words
.

Quote: garri-lin

Radar knocked out and batteries not knocked out? Only working radars are lit. As well as radars that are used by inept people.

At least a little bit puzzled with the anti-radar combat tactics, learn the materiel. Otherwise, you are demonstrating blatant illiteracy over and over again.

Quote: garri-lin

A projectile with a seeker for the price of the same rocket.

Stupidity sucked out of the thumb and based on ignoring elementary things.

Quote: garri-lin

Are the rooms in which all the filling will stand and weigh nothing? Communications weigh nothing?

You have not confirmed in any way the AU weight of 152 mm taken from the ceiling on the basis of the Coalition, only the stretching of the room onto the globe. Communications are included in the weight of the AU, but there is no room, the premises have no weight, the weight is at the ceiling, flooring and bulkheads and they are not included in the weight of the AU, to think differently and persist in this is already stupidity.

Quote: garri-lin

130 can shoot the ENTIRE ammunition without cooling and reloading.

Another stupidity, you seem to be unable to use the search.

Quote: garri-lin

Tobish in warehouses? How will they then end up on the ship?

Like a backfill question? You wrote something about your ability to think, but you clearly exaggerated it. Well, okay, I'll chew for the last time. In the army, nuclear warheads were stored in special storage facilities and on alarm on special vehicles they were taken out together with batteries and divisions, when entering positions they were installed on the OTR, with shells it is even easier, it was enough to load them into the ACS packing. On ships, nuclear warheads were stored in special cellars or or directly on missiles, and during the threatened period were introduced into the BC. And if you still imagine that nuclear weapons are only strategic weapons, then I will tell you a secret, even helicopters could be armed with nuclear bombs in the Soviet Navy. The "SPETS" prefix does not carry anything terrible or terrible, just a special tempera is desirable for long-term storage of nuclear bullets. mode.

Quote: garri-lin

I did not find the over-the-horizon ones. Not on the Moon, not on RTOs. There is not enough height.

How wonderful, now the powerful ones have turned into over-the-horizon.

Quote: garri-lin

And have powerful radars been installed on ekranoplans or RTOs long ago?

However, this is your level, to ignore the obvious, forget your own words and mold unfounded inventions. Well, the nonsense about the height and over-the-horizon delivers, the height of the radar simply removes the radio horizon line, over-the-horizon radars are huge and inaccurate.

Quote: garri-lin

And on those frigates and destroyers there will be nothing more than 152mm to strike the AUG? if you are going to fight with the penguins. Tolley herself pushed to the penguins.

Well, yes, two hundred anti-ship missiles and a thousand air defense systems, why some kind of artillery complex with nuclear warheads and instant reaction.

[garri-lin]

turret, "beam" ammunition supply system. Allows not only to shoot without stopping, but also in the process of shooting, it is flexible to change the type of ammunition. As you can see, a rather massive and complex mechanism.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

5 can shoot the ENTIRE ammunition without cooling and reloading.

You nifiga do not know and do not want to know, and your picture is meaningless in the light of the stupidity about "no cooling"

A-192M-5P-10 "Armat-Puma" complex, A-192M installation ... ... Barrel cooling by pumping seawater through the barrel bore in between shooting

the rate of fire of the gun does not exceed 30 rounds per minute, while there is a limit on the length continuous burst - 45 shots... After such a load on the barrel, its cooling is required.

Your reflections after such blatant incompetence in the question that you have commented on for several days are simply ludicrous. You are not able to check the simplest things that you write about, let alone more difficult things.

[garri-lin]

Look at the time of that cooling. Just change the tip. And do not repeat the nonsense that cooled in between. Would you like to say that at the moment of shooting the cooling shirt was not full of water? And after heating the barrel, water was supplied there directly to the hot metal? Google where this will lead. Or do you want to say that the cooling jacket was filled with water, but the water was not pumped over? And therefore turned into steam, increasing the pressure? Causing the appearance of local vapor pockets? Disturbing the uniformity of barrel heating? Do not repeat nonsense for illiterate journalists. The process of pumping water went on continuously. Even on a cold barrel. And the length of the actual burst is less than 45 shells. Just because you need to correct the pickup. Which takes a short time. For which the barrel is cooled. And that counts as continuous shooting.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

Look at the time of that cooling. Just change the tip. And do not repeat the nonsense that cooled in between. Would you like to say that at the moment of shooting the cooling shirt was not full of water? And after heating the barrel, water was supplied there directly to the hot metal? Google where this will lead. Or do you want to say that the cooling jacket was filled with water, but the water was not pumped over? And therefore turned into steam, increasing the pressure? Causing the appearance of local vapor pockets? Disturbing the uniformity of barrel heating? Do not repeat nonsense for illiterate journalists. The process of pumping water went on continuously. Even on a cold barrel. And the length of the actual burst is less than 45 shells. Just because you need to correct the pickup. Which takes a short time. For which the barrel is cooled. And that counts as continuous shooting.

This is all just a set of words in response to official information that you have not mastered.

[garri-lin]

It is just knowledge. Not accessible to you. Like any person who believes only in what is convenient for him. Even in outright stupidity.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

It is just knowledge. Not available to you

What knowledge if you are not able to master the difference between Ak-130 and A192m

Quote: garri-lin

130 can shoot the ENTIRE ammunition without cooling and reloading

AK-130 can do so physically and in a condition, but the A-192 is not. You have not mastered a simple phrase

Quote: Vladimir_2U

A-192M-5P-10 "Armat-Puma" complex, A-192M installation ... ... Barrel cooling by pumping seawater through the bore in between shooting

Otherwise, they would not have fought:

Quote: garri-lin

the moment of firing the cooling jacket was not full of water

This applies to the AK-130, not the A-192, and not seeing and not understanding such a simple difference is not a sign of intelligence, but the opposite.
And yet, with your photo of the cellar mechanisms, you completely kill your own thesis about the inability of land-based loading mechanisms to sea conditions, you do not understand the simplest things, what should you talk about!

[garri-lin]

A130 is an outdated but up-to-date version. A192 is a stripped-down, lightweight version for installation on light ships. The main purpose of creation is to reduce weight. And you propose to replace it with a 152mm gun mount. Which will weigh about the same as the predecessor of the A 130. Tobish the meaning changes.
And 192 repeat is a stripped-down version. Defective. The main direction in which we moved when creating it is weight reduction. 50 tons at 30 rounds / min. Against 150+ tons at 90 rounds / min.
I can't say anything about pumping water from the A192. Nowadays, they can come up with a lot of "useful" things. But if you look at "Duet" then they have not forgotten how to design. And what "they say" you need to listen to assessing the adequacy of the speaker.
And how does the photo of the cellars contradict the thesis? Have you seen such mechanisms often on land?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

And you propose to replace it with a 152mm gun mount. Which will weigh about the same as the predecessor of the A 130

These are your inventions, you are so narrow-minded that you are not able to understand that the Coalition with a supply of shells of 50 pieces. and with all the armor and tracks it weighs 48 tons. no idiot would put an SPG with tracks in a tank hull and an engine on a ship. And all your thoughts are of the same level, the level of the designer who will put the ACS on the deck without removing the tracks.

[garri-lin]

It is you who, due to your limitations, are unable to understand that the land complex and the sea complex are two big differences. And for the sea, those 5x-70 shells are not enough. Even 250 is not enough for work along the shore.

[garri-lin]

MoD statements.
2. And you teach mate part of how radars hide from destruction. Working radars are hidden.
3. The GOS is the most expensive part. If you want to put a normal seeker on the projectile, the cost will be comparable to the rocket.
4. I posted the photo above. Where are you going to place such a filling? Under the keel?
5. OpaNa. Can not? Everywhere it is written what can and you say that it cannot.
6. What a bloodthirsty you are. Each soldier a nuclear grenade.
7. And in essence? On the shore, without any problems, you can raise the mast with a radar. Air defense systems have similar machines and there are many other places where. With masts of tens of meters. This is impossible on an RTO or an ekranoplane.
8. Well not put it that way. I hoped to understand. I forgot who I'm talking to.
9. A vicious frigate is sailing 80 km from the AUG. Out.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

That is why 130 mm main ammunition is a cunning anti-aircraft ammunition. So as not to waste an expensive rocket on a small target.

Believe it or not, the range of 152 mm projectiles is very, very large, and anti-aircraft projectiles can be injected into it once and for all, and the caliber allows you to use ultra-high-speed sub-caliber.

[garri-lin]

At 57 mm, they make it steerable. I think at 130 making the same problem will not be.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

At 57 mm, they make it steerable. I think at 130 making the same problem will not be.

Yes, but the ranges are completely ridiculous and the control is external.

[garri-lin]

For an average distance, AA defense is sufficient.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

For an average distance, AA defense is sufficient.

This is a short-range air defense, for a ship it is a self-defense zone (the term is such).

[garri-lin]

How much is it in kilometers?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

You'd better specify by the weights of the charge of Msta and the Coalition

The maximum comes out in 30 kg, which with a typical HE projectile comes out in 73 kg, the main one in 20 - comparable to Msta in weight and 63 kg, weakened in 53 (fifty three) kg, I'm naturally now in afiga myself, as well as 130 mm UF shot weighs in!

[garri-lin]

Interesting sign. Haven't seen it before. Therefore, for long-range shooting, you need a 30 kg charge and a long-range projectile with a gas generator which is 50+ kg. Well, or Krasnopol which is also 50+ kg. 80+ kg. More than one and a half times more than 130mm. Good calculation.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

More than one and a half times more than 130mm. Good calculation.

Well, yes, the weight is one and a half, and the range is almost four.

[garri-lin]

Range 80. Minus 30-35 for which the ship will not approach the shore. In total, 50 km deep into the coast. Best case scenario. According to the art correctors from the airborne assault force? At the risk of running into an answer. 200-300 rounds maximum. How many typical goals are there? At what cost per goal? Artillery shortage? What for?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

Now I have to prove to you that this is possible? No nefig. The idea with YABCh on each corvette is yours, so you develop it. As for me, it is so absurd.
9. I don't want to make doves of peace from warships. I just don't see the point in nuclear weapons on low tonnage ships.

Just to justify, without trying to convince you, purely to warm up the mind: Corvette 20380 with a crew of 100 people can carry up to 8 "Caliber", ie. can already be considered a carrier of nuclear weapons, while the number of missiles corresponds to two Iskander batteries. So the possibility of having nuclear weapons on a corvette is a harsh reality.
Now I'll play the game:
Given two equivalent ships of conditional opponents of the corvette class, but one with a 130 (130) mm gun, the other with 152 (152) mm. Conditions - detection of each other on a collision course, the task is to destroy the enemy.
The direct radio line of sight is 37 km, the corvettes identified each other by the characteristics of the radar and from a distance of 60 km they fired an anti-ship missile salvo without target designation, all the missiles were shot down or deflected by interference. Continuing the approach, the corvettes reached a direct radio line of sight and fired a salvo with the remaining anti-ship missiles, at the same time 152 began shelling the enemy from a gun at a rate of 16 high minutes, at an anti-ship missile speed of 800 m / s (Onyx). For a flight time of 50 seconds, "152" were fired at "130" 10 shells. Assuming the presence of nuclear warheads in one of the shells and the seeker in all shells "130" concentrated most of the anti-aircraft fire on incoming shells, as a result of which it missed and received 2 anti-ship missiles in the nose. The 130 mm gun of fire did not open until the semi-armor-piercing warhead of the anti-ship missile system was received in the artillery cellar.
152 targeting only 4 anti-ship missiles of the enemy shot down 2 of them, and deflected two of them with interference and traps.

[garri-lin]

Do you realize that in your example the 152mm shells will fly slower than the Onyx? You realize that when you see on the radar that the enemy has opened artillery fire, the ship that launched Onyx will stupidly change course and, despite the inertia and more, it will leave from under the blow just without any problems. And all 10 shells are the maximum that will muffle the fish. 10 shells with a seeker will definitely be effective. Only it is not clear how they will hit because a couple of minutes before that much steeper seeker of anti-ship missiles were deceived by interference and diverted to the side. A discrepancy in your fabrications. However, as usual. And the second thing. If you assume that you will be hit by nuclear weapons, then why exactly by a projectile? Why is this nuclear charge not to be launched in the first wave of anti-ship missiles? You don't even need to get there. Modern ships and not quite close detonation will be enough. Then come close and hit the temple with the butt. Your use tactics are illogical.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

Do you realize that in your example the 152 mm shells will fly slower than Onyx?

There are both slower missiles and AU fire can be opened earlier, plus the initial velocity of the projectile is equal to Onyx, and Onyx loses time to turn after a vertical launch and accelerate.

Quote: garri-lin

And all 10 shells, the maximum that the fish will muffle

In the case of nuclear weapons, the miss will be insignificant and the enemy understands this.

Quote: garri-lin

10 shells with a seeker will definitely be effective. Only it is not clear how they will hit, because a couple of minutes before that, much steeper seeker of anti-ship missiles was deceived by interference and diverted to the side. A discrepancy in your fabrications

No, the first salvo of anti-ship missiles was fired in a probable direction, and the artillery fire was opened in clear coordinates with already normal accuracy, and the shells would fly up from above, which dramatically increases the noise immunity of the seeker. By the way, the seeker for such a range can be made with semi-active radar, which is quite cheap.

Quote: garri-lin

If you assume that you will be hit by nuclear weapons, then why exactly by a projectile? Why is this nuclear charge not to be launched in the first wave of anti-ship missiles? You don't even need to get there. Modern ships and not quite close detonation will be enough.

Because the first wave was launched in the DIRECTION of the target with its unobvious capture - once, and not all anti-ship missiles can or will be equipped with nuclear warheads - two.

Quote: garri-lin

Your use tactics are illogical.

I don’t have to chew everything, and you don’t want to think.

[garri-lin]

1. The projectile will lose speed throughout the flight. Onyx some part of the flight time. The speed in the final section will be higher for onyx. As well as warheads.
2. In the case of nuclear weapons, many things will not matter.
3. Do you understand the difference between the capabilities of the seeker of a full-fledged rocket and the one that can be shoved into a 152mm projectile? And how does the approach from above increase the noise immunity of the seeker? As for the semi-active, I agree.
4. Expensive anti-ship missiles will not be equipped with nuclear charges and will not shoot at the target, but towards the target. And the shells are exactly the opposite. Very strange application logic.
5. I think regularly. Which is what I advise you, otherwise you are trying to pull an owl onto the globe.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: garri-lin

The projectile will lose speed throughout the flight. Onyx some part of the flight time. The speed in the final section will be higher for onyx. As well as warheads.

This is decided by the shot / firing time.

Quote: garri-lin

2. In the case of nuclear weapons, many things will not matter.

By the way, yes, for example, the difference in tonnage.

Quote: garri-lin

Do you understand the difference between the capabilities of the seeker of a full-fledged rocket and the one that can be crammed into a 152mm projectile? And how does the approach from above increase the noise immunity of the seeker? As for the semi-active, I agree.

You stubbornly do not notice the initial accuracy of the AU shot, the seeker is only needed to adjust the projectile, and in the anti-ship missile system, the seeker serves in many respects to find a target, this is actually the basics.
Due to interference, a curtain along the front or side that is easy to put up with smoke or dipoles, but to cover from above is no longer so easy, more precisely not easy.

Quote: garri-lin

Expensive anti-ship missiles will not be equipped with nuclear charges and will shoot not at the target, but towards the target. And the shells are exactly the opposite. Very strange application logic.

Correctly "exactly the opposite", it is not necessary for advertisers to repeat their deliberate illiteracy, excuse me, annoying. According to anti-ship missiles, not all types in principle can be equipped with nuclear warheads (I gave Yakhont for example), this is the first, second - launching anti-ship missiles towards the target is costly, but a common thing, and that is why the seeker is much more expensive for her to find the target, but according to YABCh, but how do you like the probable non-capture and flight to the maximum range of a missile with a nuclear warhead? This will be a cruel miscalculation, it is just that the RCC even got into someone "everyday business", but not this case.

Quote: garri-lin

I think regularly. Which is what I advise you, otherwise you are trying to pull an owl onto the globe.

Wonderful, but with an owl you can do just as well.

[garri-lin]

This can only be solved by the time it takes to develop the exact coordinates of the target. Before you aim to shoot, you will not be able to.
2. To direct nuclear weapons tonnage? And will a heavy ship let the sick ship? He has more opportunities.
3. And you do not notice the fact that during the flight of the projectile the ship will turn away at a sufficiently large distance. And with a large angle of approach of the projectile, it is initially difficult to distinguish the target against the background of the water.
4. Blah blah blah. A projectile with a nuclear filling that misses the target is returned to the arsenal by taxi.
5. I feel sorry for your owl. Do not torture, finish it off.

[spectr]

I do not know why, but to put a similar one on the IL-76 and you get an analogue of the AC-130.

[garri-lin]

If you really want an analogue of AC 130, then you need to put not A 192 but A 130. If Il does not fall apart, then it will be the most epic sight in the new millennium.

[Scharnhorst]

Six gun mounts in six years - the Chinese are nervously smoking around the corner! But two Su-57K airplanes a year would be a new thing for the Kuzi after repairs. For six years, 12 pieces would really have gone into the stream ... But this is me about my own, about my personal ...

[Dart2027]

Quote: Scharnhorst

Six gun mounts in six years

Don't we remember about cannons for corvettes and RTOs?

[Castro Ruiz]

Nebudu sebia stesniatsa. Mne nizhzhe 8 dyumov eto ne morskaya pushka. :)

[czes]

I don’t understand why they don’t standardize 152 / 155mm?

[Basarev]

With several such towers, you can even build an artillery ultralight cruiser, such a small analogue of Sverdlov.