Military Review

Self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S15 "Norov"

40
Self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S15 "Norov"
One of the experienced SPTP 2S15 is being tested. Photo Zonwar.ru


The combat qualities of any artillery system are determined by a number of different factors, incl. capabilities and parameters of sighting devices. Traditionally, aiming is carried out using optical systems, but other options are also possible with certain advantages. So, in the mid-seventies, the development of a self-propelled anti-tank gun (SPTP) equipped with a radar sight began in our country. This machine received the index 2S15 and the code "Norov".

Based on new principles


By the mid-seventies, there was a need to create new anti-tank self-propelled guns capable of fighting modern tanks probable enemy. The Main Missile and Artillery Directorate developed tactical and technical requirements for such a machine, which provided for several interesting ideas.

It was proposed to create a new SPTP on the basis of an existing armored vehicle with minimal processing. This made it possible to obtain high technical characteristics while simplifying operation. The combat vehicle should have been equipped with a 100 mm gun. To improve accuracy and accuracy, it was required to develop a fire control system with an optical and radar channel. The latter was supposed to ensure the detection of an armored object from a distance of 3 km, escort for 2 km and firing over the entire range of ranges.

In May 1976, the Military-Industrial Commission under the USSR Council of Ministers approved the requirements and launched the development of a new project, which received the code "Norov". The Yurginsky Machine-Building Plant was appointed the main contractor. The radar equipment was ordered from the Strela Design Bureau in Tula. The artillery system, according to some sources, was developed at the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik".


After years of storage in an open area. Photo Zonwar.ru

Several years were allotted for the development of the project: the start of state tests was scheduled for 1979. The design work was completed by the end of 1977, but after that difficulties arose. By decision of the Ministry of Radio Industry, prototypes were to be built at the Arsenal plant in Leningrad. For a number of reasons, the enterprise did not cope with this task, and the state tests had to be postponed to 1981. Then other co-executors had problems, which came to new transfers.

Unification and innovation


In accordance with TTT, the new combat vehicle was made on the basis of the 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzer. From the base sample, without significant changes, the body was borrowed with the internal units and the chassis. The existing tower underwent some revision, which was supposed to receive new weapons and instrumentation.

Thus, SPTP 2S15 "Norov" received a body made of rolled steel armor, which protects against bullets and shrapnel. A YaMZ-238N diesel engine with a power of 300 hp was placed in the bow of the hull. and a mechanical transmission with front-wheel drive. The chassis remained the same, with a seven-wheel torsion bar suspension. There was a control compartment next to the engine, and the entire feed of the hull was given to the fighting compartment.

A new smoothbore gun was developed for Norov, the basis for which was probably the 2A29 / MT-12 Rapier cannon. It differed from the towed gun by the presence of an ejector, but retained the characteristic muzzle brake and other units. The self-propelled gun could use unitary shots of existing types and did not have automatic loading. The exact characteristics of the gun for the 2S15 have not been published, but it can be assumed that the parameters are close to the Rapier.


MT-12R cannon with 1A31 "Ruta" equipment. Photo Militaryrussia.ru

The main innovation of the project was the so-called. automatic radar fire control instrument complex (ARPKUO) with index 1A32. It was developed on the basis of the existing 1A31 Ruta complex for the 2A29 towed gun, which generally met the customer's requirements. The use of ready-made components made it possible to speed up the development process - the 1A32 project was completed in just a few months.

The new ARPKUO included an antenna device located on the frontal sheet of the turret to the right of the gun, as well as data processing and information output devices. With the help of the radar, "Norov" could detect and track targets at specified ranges. It also provided the calculation of data for aiming guns with the highest possible accuracy.

The dimensions and weight of the promising 2S15 SPTP remained at the level of the 2S1 base ACS. The same applied to the calculated running characteristics. The self-propelled gun retained the ability to move over rough terrain with overcoming obstacles, and also remained floating.

Limited perspectives


According to the original plans, state tests of a new type of self-propelled gun were to begin in 1979. Due to production problems, the tests were postponed for two years to the right. Then new difficulties appeared for other participants in the project, and three experienced Norovs were able to be sent to the landfill only in 1983. State tests lasted about two years and ended with ambiguous results.

The finished chassis, well mastered in production and operation, provided the required level of protection and mobility. The characteristics of the gun, made on the basis of the existing model, were also, in general, predictable. ARPKUO, also made on the basis of a finished waste product, should not have encountered difficulties.


During the years of inactivity, the prototype lost part of the equipment, 2012 Photo Onepamop.livejournal.com

Tests of three experienced 2S15 Norov were completed in 1985 without any recommendation for adoption and production launch. By this time, tanks of the new 3rd generation with enhanced combined frontal projection appeared in the armies of the potential enemy. According to the estimates of the Soviet military, our 100-mm smoothbore guns could no longer effectively engage such targets. Accordingly, "Norov" in its current form was not of interest to the army. At the end of 1985, the project was closed.

Experienced equipment was partially dismantled and sent for storage. One of the prototypes for a long time was in the open area at the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik". Last year, it was restored and included in the permanent exhibition in the Nizhny Novgorod Victory Park. During the restoration, the experienced Norov was repainted and returned to its former luster, but lost its most recognizable detail - the radar casing.

Artillery locator


The SPTP 2S15 "Norov" was not brought into service, but this does not interfere with evaluating the project and its main ideas. At the same time, the main attention should be paid to a fundamentally new element for self-propelled artillery - ARPKUO 1A32, designed to determine the combat qualities of a new armored vehicle.

Optical sighting devices are known to face certain limitations. A number of factors such as night, rainfall, dust or smoke can make them difficult to use and negatively affect the accuracy of the fire. In addition, such a sight for accurate shooting needs the help of a rangefinder, optical or laser.


2С15 after restoration in Victory Park, Nizhny Novgorod. Photo Twitter.com/Ninja998998

The 1A32 type radar system is not negatively affected by precipitation or darkness, due to which the self-propelled gun becomes all-weather and all-day. In addition, the locator is capable of determining both the direction to the target and the distance to it with high accuracy. With the help of a ballistic computer, this information can be turned into data for precise aiming of the weapon.

ARPKUO and optical means can be used simultaneously, complementing each other and eliminating the need for other systems. The experience of some projects of modern military equipment confirms the high potential of this combination.

However, the radar fire control system is not without its drawbacks. So, the product 1A32 on "Norov" was supposed to have low survivability. The antenna device of the complex was quite large, was located within the frontal projection and did not have any protection. Accordingly, any bullet or splinter could disable ARPKUO, leaving only the optics to the crew of the vehicle.

Another threat to the radar and the SPTP was the enemy's electronic warfare. In addition, a constantly working transmitter could make a self-propelled gun a target for a controlled weapons with a passive radar homing head.

Unrealized potential


Thanks to the radar system, the new 2S15 self-propelled gun was supposed to show improved combat qualities. At the same time, the tool used no longer met the requirements of the time, which determined the prospects for the project as a whole. However, it is known about the development of new ARPKUO for use on promising tanks and equipment of other classes.

Soon after the completion of work on Norov, well-known events began, which seriously affected the further development of armored vehicles and the introduction of new solutions. The idea of ​​placing the locator on a self-propelled gun was abandoned for a long time. It was possible to return to it only in the recent past, within the framework of the "Coalition-SV" project. However, in this case, the radar is used to measure the speed of the projectile, and not to search for targets. Perhaps, in the future, there will be full-fledged combined sighting systems based on optics and radar. But so far the only domestic self-propelled gun with such equipment remains the 2S15 Norov.
Author:
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 16 May 2021 05: 00
    +14
    "Stop crying and sobbing, Dunya! You can't remember what has passed!" ... and "Life has invented new songs ... no need, no need to grieve about the song!"
    PS At present, the level of development of night vision technology is not the same as it was in the days of "Ruta"! Combined (multi-mode) optoelectronic stations can now be used: 1. thermal imagers in several ranges; 2. light amplifying devices (NVD); 3.UV devices ... plus you can add radiometers! Well, and a laser rangefinder, of course! And with the full-scale implementation of "network centrics", then the presence of ECO or radars will not always be necessary!
    1. Olddetractor
      Olddetractor 16 May 2021 06: 36
      +3
      Yes, Lidar asks for the radar complex, or rather Ladar
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 16 May 2021 09: 27
        +4
        Yes, it would not hurt! But here, as they say, “I’m not up to fat, I would live”! And you're right ... there is LIDAR, and there is LADAR! (Many people confuse these concepts, although in the literature, as it were, their "equivalence" is "legalized"! LADAR is a more "narrow" term ... laser "locator" ... LIDAR is a more "general" term .. . "light locator" ... wink )
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 16 May 2021 09: 31
        +2
        There is a quantum rangefinder on 6 guns
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 16 May 2021 07: 22
      +4
      And I, Nikolaevich, can you imagine, for the first time I hear about this development! I thought that I had "hooked" all the armored objects at least out of the corner of my eye, but then this slipped away!
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 16 May 2021 08: 57
        +7
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        and here it slipped away!

        hi Then you will probably be interested to watch this "vidos"!
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 16 May 2021 09: 23
      +2
      RUTU was put in view of the lag behind NATO countries in thermal imaging technology ..... Now, of course, there is not much sense. In the sight (not much larger than a thermal imaging sniper) there will also be a laser rangefinder.
      1. Doliva63
        Doliva63 16 May 2021 18: 34
        +4
        Quote: Zaurbek
        RUTU was put in view of the lag behind NATO countries in thermal imaging technology ..... Now, of course, there is not much sense. In the sight (not much larger than a thermal imaging sniper) there will also be a laser rangefinder.

        In '76, were there thermal imagers on NATO tanks? belay
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 16 May 2021 22: 17
          +1
          Illuminated night light, apparently ...
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 17 May 2021 18: 09
            0
            Quote: Zaurbek
            Illuminated night light, apparently ...

            Well, in the 76th night light, glory be to Allah, and we had it. So where are they ahead?
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 17 May 2021 08: 56
        +3
        Quote: Zaurbek
        RUTU was put in view of the lag behind NATO countries in thermal imaging technology ..... Now, of course, there is not much sense. In the sight (not much larger than a thermal imaging sniper) there will also be a laser rangefinder.


        I do not know why this particular device was installed, but the need for a radio channel was explained to me as follows. Contrast. Place a wooden fence next to it and a tank painted with the same paint and you cannot separate one from the other. Means automatically. You will have to add one more channel, combine, select. And the radar will provide contrast in this case. Simply because metal reflects radio waves differently than wood. And since there is a contrast, that is, auto guidance. Azimuth at the center of the "screen" range with the same radar with high accuracy. And for optics, a rangefinder is also needed, which in the tank version, for some reason, does not fit in the "sight (not much larger than a thermal imaging sniper)" neither ours, nor the staff members.
  2. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 16 May 2021 05: 52
    +2
    I think now we need to develop unmanned armored vehicles, including tanks and self-propelled guns. If already now they are making flying drones that successfully show themselves in battles, then it is time to create their ground-based counterparts. Whether a flying drone or a ground one can be used with equal success in combat with today's level of electronics without any problems at all. Thus, even if the armored vehicle is destroyed, the tank operators will not suffer, which will give a huge advantage in the experience of the operators, and huge savings in their training, since they will be required a little, due to the absence of combat losses.
    1. Snail N9
      Snail N9 16 May 2021 06: 40
      +6
      Unfortunately, ground-based equipment, unlike air and sea, is rather difficult to control on the battlefield if it is in an unmanned version. The failure of our "Uranus" (if I am not mistaken with the name) in Syria has clearly shown this. Reasons: 1- shielding the signal by ground obstacles, 2- the enemy's use of directional signal jammers, 3- the rapidly changing situation on the battlefield, which the operator could not keep up with, 4-massive directed impact of various enemy fire weapons leading to the destruction of observation and information exchange , 5- the lack of tactical training of the operator, as it turned out, in order to conduct a ground battle, the operator, in addition to knowledge of his profile, must also have the same knowledge that a real tank commander possesses, 6-the need to reload and replenish ammunition and resources, which requires take the controlled vehicle to a safe zone, and move a supply group to it, which is difficult and unsafe in a ground battle, 7 - mines.
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 16 May 2021 19: 19
        -1
        The reasons 3 to 7 you listed are also relevant for conventional tanks, so they cannot be attributed to the disadvantages of only remotely controlled tanks.
      2. Intruder
        Intruder 17 May 2021 15: 35
        +1
        Reasons: 1- signal shielding by ground obstacles
        The same as that of the inhabited types, in service, for everyone ... wink
        2- use of directional signal jammers by the enemy,
        REB affects on-board systems also in the habitable version of the AFV, and they are now packed with everything that microelectronics and radio engineering can give!
        4-massive targeted impact of various enemy fire weapons leading to the destruction of observation and information exchange
        , similar...
        5- the lack of tactical training of the operator, as it turned out, in order to conduct a ground battle, the operator, in addition to knowledge of his profile, must also have the same knowledge that a real tank commander has
        And the crew of a combat vehicle should not have knowledge while sitting in a modern armored combat vehicle !?
        6-the need to reload and replenish ammunition and resources, which requires taking the controlled vehicle to a safe zone
        Limitation of ammunition, with the need to replenish the manned version, is also available.
        7- mines
        a hundred years, used ... against all types of habitable technology on the planet and without exception! good
      3. Fast_mutant
        Fast_mutant 4 August 2021 23: 27
        0
        I'm not a specialist in drones, so the question is: what prevents the repeater drone from being suspended at a height of, say, a kilometer? You won't see it much, you won't hear it, and even from a third person you can get a picture. Comfortable. Or are there fundamental "impossibilities"?
  3. garri-lin
    garri-lin 16 May 2021 07: 58
    0
    A strange decision for the late 80s to use the 100mm gun. Very strange.
    1. svp67
      svp67 16 May 2021 08: 11
      +4
      Quote: garri-lin
      A strange decision for the late 80s to use the 100mm gun. Very strange.

      And what was it? And why "late 80s" and not "70s"?
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 16 May 2021 17: 11
        +1
        I made a reservation with the year. Of course the 70s. And it was necessary to put a tank gun. 2A46 for example. With manual loading, probably.
        1. svp67
          svp67 16 May 2021 19: 53
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          2A46 for example. With manual loading, probably.

          No, you are tortured to load this weapon manually, this is definitely not for a tank destroyer
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 16 May 2021 21: 14
            +1
            The choice of the parameters of the tank gun at the time of the creation of the T 72 corresponds to the protection of the tanks of a potential enemy. 100 mm is clearly not enough. Moreover, the "long" BOPS for some reason was not even thought about.
            And the tank could be delivered if desired. MZ / AZ for 4-5 rounds with manual reloading from non-mechanized ammunition rack. As an option.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 16 May 2021 09: 30
      +3
      This is the most powerful of the 100 and 115mm AT guns, and it has been produced in the form of the T-12 since the late 60s, if I'm not mistaken. Then the MT-12 version, then "Rapier" and to them ATGM and guidance from a rangefinder (such a heavy one). The next gun is already 2A46 ..... it is now put on the SPRUT. conceptually they are the same thing.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 16 May 2021 17: 12
        0
        And then it was necessary to put the tank. The chassis allowed it. And the only advantage of MT 12, a unitary, if my memory serves me, and did not use it.
  4. svp67
    svp67 16 May 2021 08: 27
    +2
    Perhaps, in the future, there will be full-fledged combined sighting systems based on optics and radar.
    Well, this is partially embodied in the Chrysanthemum ATGM sighting complex
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 17 May 2021 08: 44
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Perhaps, in the future, there will be full-fledged combined sighting systems based on optics and radar.
      Well, this is partially embodied in the Chrysanthemum ATGM sighting complex

      Chrysanthemum doesn't seem to have a combined sight. And two independent channels. Either that or that ...
  5. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 May 2021 09: 27
    +1
    A new smoothbore gun was developed for Norov, the basis for which was probably the 2A29 / MT-12 Rapier cannon.

    I did not know that they had put this gun on tracks ..... 100mm, already in the 80s it was rather weak for tanks like T80 and T90 .... but then there were no necessary BOPS in the USSR and in the Russian Federation. The shot there is unitary and you can put a "LONG" crowbar and bring the armor penetration to very decent values. But the time of such PTs is gone. Its competitor is Kornet-D on the Tiger chassis with 8 Kornets.
  6. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 May 2021 09: 54
    +2
    ... It was possible to return to it only in the recent past, within the framework of the "Coalition-SV" project

    This is a different little system .....
  7. bk0010
    bk0010 16 May 2021 12: 38
    0
    Now instead of special. radar complex of active protection, we would make a universal tank radar for active protection, reconnaissance and guidance. Only it is expensive and it is not clear how to protect it.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 16 May 2021 15: 11
      +1
      On the French tanks from the "series" AMX were radars ... "Armata" dreamed of "charging" a tethered helicopter-unmanned aerial vehicle! In principle, there is "something" in this .... and, I think that it may be more expedient to place the UAV not on the T-14 MBT; but on a specialized BMPT ... Such a UAV can be "charged" with equipment of your choice: radar, rangefinder, target designator, thermal imager, TV camera!
      1. Snail N9
        Snail N9 17 May 2021 09: 15
        +3
        My friend is fond of cross-country trips in a jeep. So, in addition to all sorts of hermo salons, exhaust outlets and self-pulling winches, a storage and launch device for the drone, brought from the cabin, is installed on the roof of the jeep. Talking to him has become completely different. Now he knows exactly where to go and what he can expect on the way ...
    2. DDT
      DDT 17 May 2021 12: 04
      0
      And there is already. On Armata stands. But ... as they say, there are still more questions than answers. hi
  8. Konnick
    Konnick 16 May 2021 17: 01
    -2
    However, the radar fire control system is not without its drawbacks. So, the product 1A32 on "Norov" was supposed to have low survivability. The antenna device of the complex was quite large, was located within the frontal projection and did not have any protection. Accordingly, any bullet or splinter could disable ARPKUO, leaving only the optics to the crew of the vehicle.

    And Armata doesn't even have optics, but there are plenty of radars. Can you hear anything about the test of the Armata in Syria? How is it with the bulletproof protection?
    1. mister-red
      mister-red 16 May 2021 17: 34
      -2
      And Armata doesn't even have optics, but there are plenty of radars. Can you hear anything about the test of the Armata in Syria? How is it with the bulletproof protection?
      From a distance you can see a big sofa connoisseur of military equipment.
      Armata with different optics is all right. How is it with the anti-bullet protection of all these external devices is not in the know, but I think the large-caliber ones will not stand it. But that's not what you mean, is it?
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 16 May 2021 17: 41
        +2
        But that's not what you mean, really

        Don't poke me. Was your message an answer or so, did you decide to check in? Thinker. Better tell us about aiming optics without digital channels on the Armata.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 17 May 2021 00: 12
    +1
    The "Spitsa" combat module (on the "Shot" armored personnel carrier) is uninhabited.

    If I understand correctly, there is a locator on the right of the tower (if you look at the direction of the car). That is, the idea with a locator as a sight has not died out, it is found in new developments.
    1. DDT
      DDT 17 May 2021 12: 08
      -1
      God, this is the BTR-40 ?! What, still on the move? !!!! it is necessary to think of it, on a 20k car, a half-million module to sculpt? What is the "country of origin"? wassat
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 17 May 2021 12: 55
        +2
        Quote: DDT
        BTR-40 ?!

        This is KamAZ-43269 Shot. Here with combat module MB2-04
        1. DDT
          DDT 17 June 2021 20: 44
          0
          BTR-40. Da da ...
  11. Decimalegio
    Decimalegio 17 May 2021 10: 09
    0
    Thanks for the article and for introducing me to something new.
  12. kokhan_pg
    kokhan_pg 19 May 2021 09: 58
    +3
    Really quite a good article and the radar has no competitors in interference conditions. The trouble was different. All products "Ruta" (8 mm, the probability of hitting a tank at 2 km - more than 0,8, checked), "Competition-R" (8 mm, the probability of hitting a tank at 4 km - more than 0,8, checked), "Norov" (8 mm), "Chrysanthemum-S" (2 mm, the probability of hitting the tank at 5 km - more than 0,8, checked), "Bullfinch" (3 mm on the Sprut-B cannon, tracking errors are not worse " Chrysanthemums-C ", verified) were secret, which made life much more difficult even at test sites. Nobody came close to what was in the troops and therefore did not know, as well as others, for example, "Shturm-S". High-tech complexes did not fit in and do not fit into the combat training system now. By the way, of the above, the "Competition-R" was the best, especially since the missile is still quite relevant in terms of armor penetration. Ruined by the withdrawal from production of the BRDM, it was a pity. It is a pity that "Bullfinch", which was a continuation of "Ardon", did not go. Unified cannon and tank radar sight + obstacle control complex and tank driving support. The collapse of the union prevented. And the move of the team of the main developers from LNIRTI to Russia did not save.