Turkish army received the first ALKAR mortar systems

At the end of the tests, the Turkish army received the first automatic mortar systems ALKAR (AHS-120) with a caliber of 120 mm. The first batch of these artillery systems was integrated into Ejder Yalçın armored vehicles

This is reported by the Turkish edition of Defense Turk.

The Aselsan company is engaged in the development and production of ALKAR mortar systems. Its first public demonstration took place in February 2017 at the IDEF international defense industry exhibition. Less than a year later, Aselsan announced successful tests of the AHS-120.

ALKAR is able to rotate 360 ​​degrees and fire in any weather conditions at any time of the day. This automatic mortar system has a loading system, which, in combination with guidance systems, ensures high efficiency and safety of firing.

The 4x4 Turkish armored vehicle Ejder Yalçın was first introduced by Nurol Makina in 2012. Its gross weight is 14 tons. The vehicle has a high level of protection and is capable of carrying up to 11 people. Due to the modular body structure, as a result of reconfiguration, the armored car can hold up to 4 tons of payload. For example, it could be the ALKAR automatic mortar system.

Comments

[The leader of the Redskins]

And when that mortar was created as an INEXPENSIVE system, complementing the trench artillery ... What was it turned into after a hundred years ...

[Vasyan1971]

As the saying goes: easy to complicate, difficult to simplify.

[Catfish]

Hi, hi.
And what kind of automation is there? The mine is still manually placed in the tray.

[voyaka uh]

Transformed into an accurate mobile weapon.

[XXXIII]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

And when that mortar was created as an INEXPENSIVE system, complementing the trench artillery ... What was it turned into after a hundred years ...

Now the UAV, and once it was a children's aircraft model fun.))

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: XXXIII

Once upon a time it was a model aircraft for children.

It was never fun, only in the minds of some of the local commentators. IN percussion variants began to be applied with 1944 year.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

when the mortar was created as an INEXPENSIVE system complementing the trench artillery ... What was it turned into after a hundred years ...

[Normal ok]

If we talk about the destruction of bunkers and important communication facilities, then there are bells and whistles. But for the undisguised infantry, my, "Vasilek" is the most it. Cheap and effective.

[Thrifty]

It was necessary to do it on a tracked chassis. Wheel recoil when firing will be worse, the stops need to be set, the bottom should be strengthened, and the armor of the tracked chassis is better.

[Cananecat]

Quote: Thrifty

Wheel recoil when firing will be worse to hold, the stops need to be set

Do you think they have not guessed to put expansion joints, for uniform damping of recoil and load distribution?

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Thrifty

It was necessary to do it on a tracked chassis.

So they have. Based on M-113 / ACV-S.

Quote: Thrifty

you need to put emphasis

Not necessary. All of them shoot without them.

Quote: Thrifty

strengthen the bottom

MRAP is already strong.

Quote: Thrifty

better armor for tracked chassis

Reservations are independent of wheels or tracks. Boxer and Eitan provide better armor protection than most tracked armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles.

[lucul]

So they have. Based on M-113 / ACV-S.

And how many km is the range? Nona hits 13 km.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Nona's range is 8.8 km, further non-standard methods.

[lucul]

Nona's range is 8.8 km, further non-standard methods.

Anyway, but in a mortar duel, the firing range decides.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Maybe he decides, in self-propelled howitzer artillery, but "Nona" cannot boast of this very range, nothing outstanding. Want to challenge the figure?

[lucul]

Maybe he decides, in self-propelled howitzer artillery, but "Nona" cannot boast of this very range, nothing outstanding. Want to challenge the figure?

It's about mortars, isn't it? Why are howitzers here?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The mortar is convenient because it is simpler, has less weight and dimensions. It makes no sense to compete with other mortars and howitzers in range, in range it will still lose to the howitzer. And "Nona" has value as a self-propelled gun, which can fire and direct fire. And this miracle of Turkish engineering cannot be hit with direct fire.

[lucul]

And "Nona" has value as a self-propelled gun, which can fire and direct fire. And this miracle of Turkish engineering cannot be hit with direct fire.

And I mean too.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Thrifty

It was necessary to do it on a tracked chassis. Wheel recoil when firing will be worse, the stops need to be set, the bottom should be strengthened, and the armor of the tracked chassis is better.

Azerbaijanis were quite satisfied with Cardom.

[OgnennyiKotik]

He fought in Karabakh.

[TerraSandera]

Ie here even without auto charging. And in which case (hello hammer), minus people and mrap. Well, such a version of pocket artillery. In one article they criticize TOC, it is close, ineffective, in another they praise the mortar, which has no comparable effect in terms of coverage and the radius is smaller. But in the version with auto-charging and touchpad control, of course it is impressive. The downside is, of course, a decent (probably) price in comparison with the usual 120).

[alexmach]

Wheel recoil when firing will be worse to hold, stops need to be set, reinforce the bottom

The video tells the exact opposite.

[lucul]

Controversial decision. The main plus is stealth. That is, it is impossible to determine before the shot whether it is a transport vehicle or a mortar system.

[alexmach]

Mobility is the main plus, not stealth. And an automatic guidance system.

[lucul]

Mobility is the main plus, not stealth. And an automatic guidance system.

Mobile mortar systems are now a dime a dozen, and all of them are visually visible beforehand.
ALKAR, until he opened the sash, is more difficult to determine.

[alexmach]

Well done Turks, it's enviable to be honest.
I wonder what kind of loading system does Nona have?

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: alexmach

I wonder what kind of loading system does Nona have?

[lucul]

Well done Turks, it's enviable to be honest.
I wonder what kind of loading system does Nona have?

But a hundred years at lunchtime - compare with the newest Lotus)))

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And what are such systems for, if there is already a "Grad"? Well, I don't understand why single-barreled large-caliber mortars on an automobile chassis.

[Anzhey V.]

And what are such systems for, if there is already a "Grad"?

Minuses were thrown to you in vain, of course, but your thought is amazing.

Is it okay that these are fire support of completely different levels?)
Or that it is not always necessary to release a bag over the area, when it is enough to carefully lay a few mines?

And finally, the range of application is completely different.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In order to lay down several mines, they invented a "Drok", albeit of a smaller caliber, but which can also fire with direct fire. And isn't the range of the Grad enough? And it is not necessary for the salvo system to empty all the barrels in one go. There may be questions about accuracy, but here I no longer see any advantages over howitzer artillery. In my, not too enlightened view, there are questions about the very concept of single-barreled large-caliber mortars on an automobile chassis.

[Anzhey V.]

To lay a few mines invented "Drok", albeit a smaller caliber, but which can shoot directly

The "Drok" is precisely for the small caliber of the mortar that the military criticizes. So you picked up a very bad example, especially since it is unclear whether it will be adopted at all: it still has not passed state tests)

I see no advantages over howitzer artillery

Again, you misjudge the level of fire support. Howitzers are at least a regimental level.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Quote: Anjay V.

Again, you misjudge the level of fire support. Howitzers are at least a regimental level.

And I don't understand this departmental disunity, when the support of howitzers is needed, it should be requested, and not trying to get out of it with strange systems like this cart.

[Anzhey V.]

try to get out with strange systems like this wagon.

Sergei, why is she strange?

When did our self-propelled mortars become strange and irrelevant?

I don't understand this departmental disunity

How should it be? A howitzer for each infantry squad and a Grad battery per company?)

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Quote: Anjay V.

Sergei, why is she strange?

When did our self-propelled mortars become strange and irrelevant?


How should it be? A howitzer for each infantry squad and a Grad battery per company?)

Strange in that, unlike the "Nona", it cannot fire with direct fire.
And the fire of howitzers and "Grads" is planned, of course, in advance, with the mediation of artillery gunners.

[Anzhey V.]

And the fire of howitzers and "Grads" is planned, of course, in advance, with the mediation of artillery gunners.

If everything were so simple, then machine guns would still be used exclusively as part of special machine-gun units, as it was once.

The entire evolution of weapons systems tends to maximize the saturation of the tactical echelon with fire weapons.

The infantry needs company and battalion-level fire support, and this is a fact. Heavy self-propelled mortars solve this problem perfectly.

Strange in that, unlike the "Nona", it cannot fire with direct fire

What is the point of driving a lightly armored vehicle into position in order to fire direct fire?

Such a concept has not been developed absolutely anywhere, except for our army - this also says something.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Well, some people even manage to make wheeled tanks for direct fire, even though they are lightly armored vehicles. So, about light armor, not an argument.
And the infantry is now well equipped at the company and battalion level with such firepower as the BMP-3. And howitzer artillery and multiple launch rocket systems will be more effective than wagons close to the front edge, which do not have the ability to fire direct fire, which will still need target designation, like other longer-range fire support means.

[Anzhey V.]

tanks for direct fire, even though they are lightly armored vehicles

Wheeled tanks have a different niche - their participation in battles against infantry is, by design, minimized.

artillery and multiple launch rocket systems will be more effective

Again, do you really think that with every request for fire support you need to spend expensive ammunition?

This is not to mention the speed of reaction to a request from a tactical echelon.

fire weapons like BMP-3

Well, this is already completely beyond good and evil, Sergei. We seem to have already passed this moment in Grozny, no?

And there are also Syrians who also drove tanks and infantry fighting vehicles as means of fire support for the front edge and lost them in the hundreds.

But self-propelled mortars are stupid and bad, really.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Well, the discussion went beyond reason, since we began to frighten opponents with Terrible and complain about the inadequacy of the BMP-3.
And trying to replace howitzer artillery with carts with a limited firing range is indeed somewhat strange. In addition, mortar fire is more easily detected and received in response as quickly as possible, and not only by means of counter-battery warfare.

[Anzhey V.]

mortar fire is detected more easily and can be received in response as quickly as possible, and not only by means of counter-battery warfare

Here you answered your question about why self-propelled mortars are needed)

began to frighten opponents of Grozny and complain about the unsuitability of the BMP-3

Modern tactics of using armored vehicles at the forefront are generally a very complex topic. There are no unequivocal decisions, and everyone is striving to remove their weapons of destruction as much as possible.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The howitzer is inaccessible to front-line firepower, such as helicopter and other ATGMs, and the mortar, albeit self-propelled, is a much more vulnerable weapon, and even limited in use, due to the lack of direct fire from this model.
The Russian concept, which favors long-range howitzer artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, looks much smarter.

[Anzhey V.]

The Russian concept, which favors long-range howitzer artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, looks much smarter.

It seems to me that you misunderstood something)

Nobody proposes to replace howitzers and MLRS with self-propelled mortars. These are generally means of fire destruction of different tactical levels)

The howitzer is out of reach for front line fire weapons

In conditions of active counter-battery combat (since the enemy has combat helicopters, heh) it will be purple. Everything in the same way will depend on the speed of changing positions - they managed to play enough of this game during the Gulf War in 1991.

The Iraqis thought approximately as you describe - and the result was deplorable.

These are all, I repeat, absolutely difficult questions ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You shouldn't attribute to me the thoughts of the Iraqis, otherwise it looks as if, in your opinion, they lost because they did not have mobile mortars on a car chassis.

[Anzhey V.]

as if you think they have lost because they do not have mobile mortars on a car chassis.

Not so literally, but you got the general principle right.

The Iraqis were extremely weak on a tactical level, both in firepower and maneuverability.

The Americans, without too much sophistication, took advantage of this factor and staged a massacre.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

This is ridiculous, mobile mortar systems are practically not in demand, most likely precisely because of their limited range and the need to approach the enemy not only within the reach of his howitzer artillery, but even substituting for ATGMs. The Finns were not really able to promote their much more successful mortars for sale. This is an inferior weapon, increased vulnerability, and even without the possibility of direct fire. It is no coincidence that we have Nona only in service with the landing force; for motorized riflemen, heavy weapons with a longer firing range are preferable.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You have a misunderstanding of the importance of moving the gunners away from the leading edge. The helicopter will only be able to reach a howitzer located 20 km away or a multiple launch rocket system by entering the airspace controlled by the enemy, and in order to hit a mortar on a vehicle chassis, the helicopter will only need to rise above its territory and launch an ATGM. With all this, the mortar is also spotted much easier due to the low flight speed of the mine and the predictability of its trajectory. In fact, you are strenuously advocating under-weaponry with limited capabilities and insufficient secrecy and security.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Anjay V.

Such a concept has not been developed absolutely anywhere, except for our army - this also says something.

Not really. It is necessary to consider direct fire as an additional opportunity for self-defense. Good and necessary systems, with their own ±.



Concerning ALKAR, I have questions about loading. The mechanism shown is not credible. It is clear that they borrowed the AZ scheme from the United States, but manual or official loading looks preferable. With breech loading, you can make a full-fledged automatic loader with several mines in a drum or tape.

[Anzhey V.]

It is necessary to consider direct fire as an additional opportunity for self-defense. Good and necessary systems, with their own ±.

This significantly increases the cost of the mortar complex. Still, the mortar should be massive and as cheap as possible, but on the basis of an armored personnel carrier and with a tower - this is a completely different conversation.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Anjay V.

This significantly increases the cost of the mortar complex.

This is the main disadvantage. Both the M-120 and the Lotus have equal firepower, rate of fire and range. They will do the same tasks 99% of the time. M-120 on UAZ and the same maneuverability, only time to deploy / fold. By the way, he was put on MTLB, called Tundzha.
Well, the question arises, why pay more?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Beautiful videos, nothing to say. Only again it is not entirely clear how the mortar system is superior to the howitzer or multiple launch rocket systems.
Here we should recall the history of the mid-60s, when the creation of Nona was discussed. One of the options was the use of a 122 mm howitzer based on the M-30 as a weapon for an amphibious assault rifle.
Install a shortened smooth-bore howitzer on a wheeled chassis in the turret, install an automatic loader and get a slightly longer firing range and higher charge power. A projectile to use high-explosive feathered, from a tank gun.
What is a mine for? Moreover, the mortar itself is more like a gun.

[OgnennyiKotik]

A very strange discussion. The significance and importance of 82 \ 120 mm mortars simply cannot be overestimated. The most dangerous weapon in all wars that have been, since the beginning of their use. The machine gun and mortar are the main infantry weapons, all other weapons of self-defense or support.

[Anzhey V.]

Very strange discussion

I am also surprised by such a sincere misunderstanding of the role of mortar systems, and even more so on such a successful chassis.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I would not be so categorical. I met with the opinion that a 57 mm automatic cannon would be superior to an 82 mm mortar in terms of efficiency. Roughly speaking, the AGS-57 or LSHO-57 may be more convenient than the 82 mm Vasilka. So with the 120 mm mortar, not everything is clear, the direct competitor was the project of the light assault gun M-392, which will be more effective when installed on a heavy wheeled chassis. And when a 120 mm mortar is put on wheels, then its advantage in compactness is lost.

[NKT]

The city on the area works

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

But faster and more convincing.

[alexmach]

It's hard to say something .. For some reason, the Russian army is already at the battalion level.

[Yujanin]

And what are such systems for, if there is already a "Grad"? Well, I don't understand why single-barreled large-caliber mortars on an automobile chassis.

The whole point is in the trajectory of the projectiles. The angle of incidence takes place. Mortar shells can be used to reach the entrenched infantry inside the trench. Well, it's also convenient to reach targets behind the hills.
In the mountains, these systems are the most.
In addition, mortar systems are much more accurate. The second shot hits the target almost 100%.

[Zaurbek]

We can't hear the modernizations of our "Cornflower" ... a terrible weapon

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

They are trying to escape from him to low ballistics guns with a caliber of 57 mm. There, automation promises to be more reliable and more convenient.

[voyaka uh]

The Turks quickly got their bearings.
120mm recoil expansion joints have become popular.
You can shoot from light platforms.
Here's an Israeli 120mm on a Humvee

[Prax1]

Turkey has more advanced developments than ours. Soon they will overtake us in the entire nomenclature, their pace is very good. While we are doing sawing, they are doing real work in Turkey.

[Anzhey V.]

That's why you can definitely respect the Turks - they do not strive to make all sorts of superwunderwales.

They have a very sane approach - they make quality weapons for mass production. It, accordingly, has a very nice price tag.

Almost all new developments are being prepared in the shortest possible time, quickly being tested and put into service - their Armed Forces are saturated very quickly.

And the massiveness and relatively low cost are good for pushing the Turks to foreign markets. It is worth noting that they went there quite recently, and they are very active in conquering a niche.

According to the Turkish Exporters Association, the volume of exports in the defense sector in the first quarter of 2021 increased by 74,6% compared to the same period in 2020 and amounted to $ 647,3 million.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Anjay V.

They have a very sane approach - they make quality weapons for mass production. It, accordingly, has a very nice price tag.

Almost all new developments are being prepared in the shortest possible time, quickly being tested and put into service - their Armed Forces are saturated very quickly.

One of the advantages of the periphery of the western world. You can copy the best decisions of older comrades.
Their own Armed Forces are not among the leaders in saturation with modern systems, there are a lot of clearly outdated equipment. The tank park is very tired, the M48 is only worth it, more or less modern tanks 2-3 hundreds. So in many ways. A mixture of old and new. A conscript army with an extremely professional command.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It is unlikely that a mortar on a car chassis can be called a mass weapon. Due to its low characteristics in range, visibility, limited cross-country ability and the lack of the possibility of direct fire, it will have very limited use. We stopped using self-propelled mortars for the Airborne Forces, and they did the right thing. Based on the appearance of this strange wagon, it is premature to draw deep conclusions about the conquest of any niche in the arms market, to put it mildly.

[Alexey G]

Everything is cool, but for some reason in the video, mines are still laid manually, which does not look like an automatic system! We have an automatic loading system in our tanks, which means we could create something similar and even better. In the future, the mines could have wings and steer in flight to the target, especially if it began to move like a gliding bomb, have, as an option, remote detonation in the air above the target, which would increase the effectiveness of the fight against infantry and have a shaped charge for firing at tanks in upper hemisphere!
Then such a thing would be a universal supergun.

[Pandiurin]

Quote: Alexey G

Everything is cool, only for some reason in the video mines are still laid manually, which does not look like an automatic system!

Mine is the cheapest shot option.
Breech-loading ammunition is more expensive.
Loading the charge from the barrel is most suitable for the manual method.
One loader can throw mines into the barrel at a very high rate.
Any machine for loading from the barrel will turn out to be very cumbersome, unreliable, heavy, and increasing in size. It will not be possible to exclude the loader altogether, even if there is a machine gun, then someone has to load the charges into the machine.
Bottom line: there is no point in automating the mortar charging process. If the system is breech-loading, then there may be options, but this is either not a mortar or not quite its classic version.

But to automate the aiming system is interesting. Because the guidance can be more accurate and faster, especially if there are coordinates.