Mobile reconnaissance station PRP-5 "Mars-2000". An integrated approach to artillery reconnaissance

PRP-5 vehicle on the BTR-82A chassis. Tula, 2020 Photo Vk.com/milinfolive

In the interests of the Russian army, a promising mobile reconnaissance station PRP-5 "Mars-2000" has been developed. Vehicles of this type are capable of conducting optical and radar reconnaissance in the interests of ground forces, identifying enemy targets and directing artillery fire weapons at them. Due to the modern complex of reconnaissance means and different chassis, a high level of tactical, technical and operational characteristics is provided.

At parades and exhibitions

According to known data, the development of the future PRP-5 began in 2012, when the Ministry of Defense opened the Mars-2000 development work. The Tula NPO Strela (part of the Almaz-Antey VKO Concern) was chosen as the lead contractor. Also, manufacturers of armored chassis, special equipment, etc. were involved in the project. Already in 2013-14. the first tests of individual components took place, and then the integration of the complex elements began.

The first result of the Mars 2000 ROC was first shown openly on June 24, 2020, at the Tula parade dedicated to Victory Day. The mechanized column included several interesting samples, incl. experimental reconnaissance station PRP-5 on the wheeled chassis of the BTR-82A. In the wake of the festive events, some information about the project and plans of the industry and the Ministry of Defense was disclosed. In particular, it was reported that the product is already undergoing state tests.

View from a different angle, you can see the "tower" on the roof. Photo Popmech.ru

PRP-5s were again seen in Tula at the beginning of May this year, during preparations for a new parade. Among the parade participants, both the already well-known armored vehicle on a wheeled chassis and a completely new modification of Mars based on the tracked BMP-3 were noticed. The two samples have significant differences, but they carry a unified reconnaissance complex.

The next demonstration of new technology took place at the Army-2021 forum. At the open exhibition site, the PRP-5 was shown in a wheeled modification, and the tracked version was present only in the form of a mock-up. It is noteworthy that the technique was shown for the first time in a working configuration - with a raised mast of the optoelectronic module.

Later, from official sources and the media, the main technical features and characteristics of the new technology and its intelligence complex became known. Separate pieces of equipment were also shown, designed to solve reconnaissance and data processing tasks.

Technical features

As reported, the PRP-5 project provides for the creation of a unified complex of reconnaissance equipment for its installation on suitable chassis. As the latter, the BTR-82A armored personnel carrier and the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle have already been used. Mars-2000 on a wheeled chassis is indexed 1В1018, on a tracked chassis - 1В1017.

Mast for PRP-5. Photo Group "RG"

Regardless of the base, PRP-5 has high characteristics of mobility and cross-country ability on the highway and on the ground. The possibility of overcoming land obstacles and crossing water obstacles by swimming is still possible. Also, the protection remains at the same level. Depending on the type of chassis, the crew and key units of the PRP-5 are covered from bullets, shrapnel or shells. New units of the reconnaissance complex also received a reservation.

The project provides for the installation of an optical-electronic countermeasure system with radiation sensors and smoke grenade launchers. For active self-defense, there is a large-caliber machine gun with 1000 rounds of ammunition and remote control.

In place of the standard fighting compartment, a new reconnaissance module is mounted on the chassis; its outer part looks like a large armored tower of a characteristic shape. Ahead on such a tower is mounted a large-caliber machine gun with remote control. In the center is a telescopic hydraulic mast with a platform with equipment. It rises to a height of 6 m and has automatic leveling means to compensate for deviations of the mast from the vertical up to 15 °.

The platform contains optical and radar reconnaissance equipment. The optoelectronic unit includes a high-resolution daytime camera, a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder. The block is full-revolving and swinging. The optics are complemented by a small radar. The latter is equipped with a phased array antenna with a mechanical rotation by 180 ° in azimuth and electronic scanning within 90 °.

Information leaflet with two versions of PRP-5. Photo by NPO Strela / Bastion-karpenko.ru

The range of the optics depends on the external conditions. The radar can detect human targets from a distance of about 6 km or equipment from 15 km. Intelligence tools can be used simultaneously, complementing each other and providing more efficient data collection. As an additional means of observation, the optics of the combat module can be used.

The PRP-5 complex includes a developed digital information and computing system with three automated workstations for the commander, operator and gunner-radio operator. The system includes navigation aids, computers for data processing, and communication devices for exchanging data about the target situation. Data on the identified targets are automatically processed and plotted on a map of the area, after which they are transferred to a higher command post.

If necessary, the Mars-2000 crew can use a remote reconnaissance point. This kit includes a portable reconnaissance, control and communications complex "Strelets", an all-day reconnaissance device, and an unmanned aviation complex with light aircraft. All these products are intended for use outside of an armored vehicle and allow the collection of the necessary data with subsequent transfer to the top.

"Mars-2000" on the chassis of the BMP-3. Tula, 2021 Photo Nikolay RED_YELLOW Denisov / youtube.com

In both known modifications, the PRP-5 is operated by a crew of four. In its regular place in the bow of the hull is the driver. Behind him are the commander, operator and gunner.

Project Benefits

The wheeled version of the PRP-5, product 1V1018, was first shown in the middle of last year. Then it was reported that this car had already coped with preliminary checks and went to state tests. It can be assumed that over the past time these events have been completed, and now the army is determining their results and making plans for the future.

It is likely that, based on the test results, the PRP-5 Mars-2000 on a wheeled chassis will receive a recommendation for adoption. The prospects of the tracked vehicle 1В1017, in turn, remain uncertain. It was first shown just a few months ago, and no trials have been reported yet. However, this version of the reconnaissance point may also be of interest to the customer.

It is obvious that the PRP-5 in the near future will go into service with the ground forces and will supplement other reconnaissance assets operating in the interests of artillery and other types of troops. The fact is that the new mobile reconnaissance points have a number of important advantages that make them a more effective tool for ensuring the work of artillery and other troops.

Technics layouts in working configuration. Photo Bastion-karpenko.ru

Like its predecessors, the new Mars-2000 is capable of searching for and identifying various ground objects at any time of the day and in any weather conditions, determining their coordinates and providing information to command posts. At the same time, the use of new components allows you to improve all the main characteristics. In particular, the lifting mast has a positive effect on the viewing range, and modern computing means speed up the processing and delivery of data.

The architecture of the intelligence complex provides important advantages. It is designed as a set of tools suitable for mounting on different chassis. This allows you to create mobile posts that best meet the requirements of the customer and the characteristics of the fleet of armored vehicles in the army. So, two actual armored vehicles have already been used, and in the future, new modifications may appear on a different base.

Way to the troops

To date, NPO Strela and its subcontractors have not only developed a reconnaissance complex and two versions of PRP-5 armored vehicles, but also carried out at least part of their tests. The wheeled version of Mars 2000 is approaching acceptance into service, and a tracked version may follow. In addition, both products are already on display at public events.

Thus, there is every reason to believe that in the very near future our defense industry will master the production of mobile reconnaissance posts of a new generation, and then such equipment will enter the troops. Its appearance will give artillery new opportunities and certain advantages in the short and long term. However, the exact dates for the completion of all the necessary measures and the start of supplies have not yet been named.

Comments

[Proton]

Judging by the description - a very decent device, inspires!
In dreams, it is possible to supplement it with an acoustic reconnaissance system (ideally with spaced-apart sensors) and a night vision device, and you can go to the troops.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Proton

Judging by the description - a very decent device, inspires!

In my opinion, the chassis is large for the scout, but this is more than redeemed by the mast.

[Zaurbek]

Here, depending on what the military laid down in the requirements ... if you swim and cross the trenches, then there are no other chassis ... so then you can put on the Tigers and Typhoons

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Zaurbek

if you swim

Exactly! I remember I was just criticizing Typhoons for intelligence for this very reason, but here I missed it.

[Zaurbek]

Typhoons and Tigers also have something similar.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Zaurbek

Typhoons and Tigers also have something similar.

Reconnaissance complexes? I do not argue. Swimming? Absolutely not.

[Reaktivshik]

The Typhoon has a profile too high for the front end. Indeed, the wheeled carrier has a greater fuel range, resource and reliability indicators than, for example, BMP-3. But from the floating, wheeled only armored personnel carriers.
I would consider an alternative chassis, for example, on serial components and assemblies KAMAZ-43114. I think, if necessary, it is possible to provide equipment for overcoming water obstacles. But we have an artificial monopolization of the military products market ... all hope is for proactive work

[Barberry25]

it is impossible, there is so much equipment that it barely fits into the armored personnel carrier

[SID]

In my opinion, the chassis is large for the scout, but this is more than redeemed by the mast.

- too heavy a complex for a typhoon
- reconnaissance must and swim across the rivers and have increased cross-country ability
- a large internal volume is also needed for equipment, crew members, and the deployment of reconnaissance UAVs.

Other reconnaissance systems are installed on typhoons - of a smaller "caliber",

[ada]

Quote: SID

In my opinion, the chassis is large for the scout, but this is more than redeemed by the mast.

- too heavy a complex for a typhoon
- reconnaissance must and swim across the rivers and have increased cross-country ability
- a large internal volume is also needed for equipment, crew members, and the deployment of reconnaissance UAVs.

Other reconnaissance systems are installed on typhoons - of a smaller "caliber",

There is nothing particularly heavy there. The chassis is selected from what will be produced for different theaters and troops. For artillery units on a wheeled chassis - armored personnel carriers. A car is a shed, it is not needed for KNP. Should swim - yes. No large internal volume required. The complex is not much larger than the PRP-4, the crew is the same. The mast is needed for work because of the ridge of the shelter, local objects, from the shelter, at a long distance. But the fact that the periscope large clean optics on the tower is not visible is byada! Perhaps it was supplemented with a portable device, but the fact that a large observation device with a high magnification and wide angles was put there is hard to believe.

[SID]

So, do you think a suitable complex for the Typhoon platform?

Of course not. In addition to the small internal volume and lower cross-country ability, Typhoons also have lower survivability. A scout who is not operating in his rear but along the leading edge or in tactical depth will not be superfluous and bulletproof armor and one more engine and extra 4 wheels so that he has a chance to carry his carcass if he suddenly came under fire.

The Typhoon platform is definitely not suitable for such a reconnaissance complex.

[ada]

Quote: SID

So, do you think a suitable complex for the Typhoon platform?
...
The Typhoon platform is definitely not suitable for such a reconnaissance complex.

I don't know anything about Typhoon. I think the choice of two base chassis for the artillery reconnaissance complex PRP (mobile reconnaissance point) is sufficient and this is always a compromise in different parameters.

[svoroponov]

There, on a lifting mast next to the antenna, an all-weather survey camera with infrared illumination with anti-glare optics can be placed. I saw a similar module somewhere with a description. True, he was on a tripod instead of a mast.

[Barberry25]

but why? there are big doubts that the sensors will be more effective than the radar and the OES, and installing / assembling the sensors is generally a hassle .. It is more optimal to provide a quadrocopter on the control cable so that it can rise to a height of, say, 100 meters and conduct reconnaissance

[Proton]

I can argue a little.
Acoustic reconnaissance is practically the most "invisible".
An optical device (especially with a large aperture) tends to glare during the day.
Radar and laser immediately after switching on are quite easily detected.
Yes, I agree, it is not very convenient to move the acoustic sensor out to 200 ÷ 300 meters. But on the other hand, there are very interesting opportunities for target reconnaissance.

[Barberry25]

it is easy to spot if the enemy is at the head of the column and there are countermeasures everywhere ... and there are not very many of them.

[ada]

Quote: Proton

Judging by the description - a very decent device, inspires!
In dreams, it is possible to supplement it with an acoustic reconnaissance system (ideally with spaced-apart sensors) and a night vision device, and you can go to the troops.

Sound reconnaissance of firing batteries is a separate complex complex and not for deployment as part of the KNP.

[this]

Sieysmo and audio system are already different equipment.

[Sergey79]

I would like to believe ... There are no questions about the work of individual reconnaissance assets. Whether it is PSNR, or KRUS "Sagittarius", or optoelectronic means .... Questions arise about the possibilities of their interface with the CMU and software. Good means and complexes are obtained only when the "breeders" maintain close contact with people who directly apply the complexes in practice. But "practitioners" need a good working sample of weapons and military equipment, and "breeders" - state. order (very often). This is the contradiction...

[Tavrik]

Quote: Proton

In dreams - to supplement it with an acoustic reconnaissance system (ideally with spaced sensors) and

Only in dreams. As far as I understand, other enterprises are engaged in acoustic reconnaissance. This is "their cow and they milk it."

[ccsr]

As reported, the PRP-5 project provides for the creation of a unified complex of reconnaissance equipment for its installation on suitable chassis. As the latter, the BTR-82A armored personnel carrier and the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle have already been used. Mars-2000 on a wheeled chassis is indexed 1В1018, on a tracked chassis - 1В1017.

Back in the eighties, the "Taran" complex was adopted on the basis of MTLBu for divisional reconnaissance battalions, which replaced wheeled vehicles for radio and electronic reconnaissance. The complex was developed by the Kursk Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, and there very smart people came to the conclusion that it was MTLBu that was the most optimal base for placing any reconnaissance equipment, including high-tech ones.
Why now the concept of the base has changed, I do not know, but something tells me that this was not done out of great intelligence, if only because the cost of MTLBu is less than that of an infantry fighting vehicle, and the permeability is higher than that of a wheeled armored personnel carrier. I believe that using MTLBu for intelligence units is much better than making two mobile prototypes at a different base.
Specialists from the armored forces will correct me if this is not the case, but I suspect that the ordering of two complexes on different bases is just the wish of the industry, not military intelligence officers, and why this happened, I can only guess.

[Bogalex]

"Why the concept of the base has changed now, I don't know."
Imagine, you are sitting in your reconnaissance complex on MTLBu somewhere on the front end or not far from it, in the midst of a crowd of "infantry" armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and (together with the attached battalion commander and divisional commander, by the way) are so terribly surprised - why all the "gifts "they fly first of all at you ...

[ccsr]

Quote: Bogalex

Imagine, you are sitting in your reconnaissance complex on the MTLBu somewhere on the front end or not far from it, in the middle of a crowd of "infantry" armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles,

Why did you decide that they should not disguise themselves, or should they go on the offensive together with combat units? Yes, and attachments, like telescopic masts, will give you out with giblets, so the question is most likely not in this, but in unification for motorized rifle units. And nevertheless, the question is open - why are two options being developed, if it is possible to decide in advance what is more important to us, and to rely on either wheels or tracks.
Well, as for the MTLB for the "Taran", there were ten of them, and at the same time, the reconnaissance battalion itself could have an armored personnel carrier, an infantry fighting vehicle, and even an AT, and somehow they were not afraid to place them together, they probably knew how to disguise themselves well.

[Bogalex]

That is, after all, the question is about the chassis, why in the 2000s the BMP-3 / BTR-82 option was chosen, and not the MTLBu, as it were, or not?
I'll answer the rest later - let's "eat the pie in pieces."

[ccsr]

Quote: Bogalex

That is, after all, the question is about the chassis, why in the 2000s the BMP-3 / BTR-82 option was chosen, and not the MTLBu, as it were, or not?

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to understand - what were the motives of those who ordered this development, because the continuity of weapons and equipment has not been canceled.

Quote: Eagle Owl

Question: where is the remote power supply unit located at these facilities? It seems that they have forgotten about him again.

By the way, the question is very interesting, especially since in MTLB it was hinged, if my memory serves me right, on the aft door. There, this is exactly what they ordered so that there were as few unmasking signs as possible and the engines did not waste the resource.

[Bogalex]

That is, it does not disappear ...
Okay, I'll come from the other flank. Remind me, who in the USSR was (and still is) the holder of design documentation for MTLB / MTLBu?

[ccsr]

Quote: Bogalex

holder of design documentation for MTLB / MTLBu?

In Soviet times, all this was microfilmed for a special period, so I don't see any problem in this, especially since the engine is Yaroslavl there. Finding production capacity is not a problem, given the reduction in military orders for our army - there will be those willing, I think so.

[Bogalex]

Quote: ccsr

In Soviet times, all this was microfilmed for a special period.

Of course. And now, having watched these microfilms (I suppose, because I myself do not know if there is a complete set of them in Russia or not), our designers suddenly realized that the entire CD is focused on production in the conditions of, say, the Kharkov steam locomotive plant, and not at all, again, let's say , Muromsky.
So, as it was said in one famous film "You don't see him, but he is."
Apparently it turned out that there was a problem with production facilities, a complete set of design documentation for organizing production, and a lot of other things. The people in the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Industry and Trade are no more stupid than you and me, and I think they also know all the advantages of MTLBu, but they have not found acceptable solutions to this problem in 30 years.
It first.
Secondly, you are writing about a certain "continuity of armaments". I don't really understand how she should "play" in favor of choosing MTLBu chassis in the context of our conversation. All previous versions of the PRP were created on the basis of the BMP-1/2. So even according to your logic, if I understand it correctly, the base of the main chassis of the means of supporting motorized rifle units should have been chosen for the PRP, i.e. namely BTR-80/82 and BMP-3.
And thirdly, simple common sense. How not to disguise, camouflage MTLBu under the BMP, if a real BMP-3 is present in the frame next to it, will never work. They have completely different geometric parameters. This means that any means of air / ground optical reconnaissance, our miracle tool, placed on the MTLBu chassis, will confidently isolate and who needs to be told about it. And that's all - "death to the enemies, the khan to the calculation." This misfortune has been shouted about for several decades in relation to artillery observation and reconnaissance vehicles. And finally, a reconnaissance device appears on an "infantry" chassis, and right there you appear to the world - "Why not on MTLBu"? Low bow to you from all the gunners.

[ccsr]

Quote: Bogalex

And so, having watched these microfilms (I will assume, because I myself do not know if there is a complete set of them in Russia or not),

Do not tell me - all such documents must have entered the archives of the ministry of the developer, that is why in Moscow there is just all the documentation, because it should have been kept for at least twenty to thirty years. As for the production base, it was the same in the USSR from the point of view of the machine tool park, which is why, for a special period, the deployment of weapons production was envisaged not even at defense enterprises.

Quote: Bogalex

So even according to your logic, if I understand it correctly, the base of the main chassis of the means of support for motorized rifle units should have been chosen for the PRP, i.e. namely BTR-80/82 and BMP-3.

The fact is that now a lot of new reconnaissance systems have appeared, which is why the internal volume of such a chassis is important, and it was specially made lengthened forty years ago.

They have completely different geometric parameters. This means that any means of air / ground optical reconnaissance, our miracle tool, placed on the MTLBu chassis, will confidently isolate and whoever needs to report it.

It's not about the size, but about the fact that the active means of reconnaissance of such a machine, for example, communication systems, antennas or laser emitters, already distinguish this complex from other machines, so the linear dimensions are a trifle.

"Why not MTLBu"? Low bow to you from all the gunners.

And we are talking about motorized riflemen, and there in the reconnaissance battalions they were very glad that their wheels were replaced with MTLBu.

[Bogalex]

Quote: ccsr

Do not tell me - all such documents must have entered the archives of the ministry of the developer, that is why in Moscow there is just all the documentation, because it should have been kept for at least twenty to thirty years. As for the production base, it was the same in the USSR <...>

Sorry, dear, but from your detailed message it is clear that you have not been involved in organizing production for a day and have no idea how everything is in reality ...

It's not about the size, but about the fact that the active means of reconnaissance of such a machine, for example, communication systems, antennas or laser emitters, already distinguish this complex from other machines, so the linear dimensions are a trifle.

I believe that the guys at the UAV operators' consoles are now giving you a standing ovation. There are far fewer active reconnaissance assets on the line of real contact than many people think. And the risk of being spotted by some ROP or RNDC radar is actually much less than being detected from the air. So this is no small thing.

And we are talking about motorized riflemen, and there in the reconnaissance battalions they were very glad that their wheels were replaced with MTLBu.

We are talking about the PRP, which have never had and never will have anything to do with the intelligence battalions.

[ccsr]

Quote: Bogalex

Sorry, dear, but from your detailed message it is clear that you have not been involved in organizing production for a day and have no idea how everything is in reality ...

I was not involved in production, I was in charge of the development and creation of prototypes. And everything that concerns the transfer of design and technological documentation for storage in Soviet times, I know not from anyone's words. I don’t think that now everything has radically changed in this matter, and the design and technological documentation is thrown into the trash heap as soon as the product is removed from service.

Quote: Bogalex

I believe that the guys at the UAV operators' consoles are now giving you a standing ovation.

And you were in their place, and do you know that they should be located there?

Quote: Bogalex

There are far fewer active reconnaissance assets on the line of real contact than many people think.

How can you hide different types of radio emissions and in different bands for communication and control? Or do you hope that the enemy will be stupid and will not be able to understand who is working in what mode? Well, okay, let's say we hide all the radiation, but how will you hide the mast?

We are talking about the PRP, which have never had and never will have anything to do with the intelligence battalions.

They are included in the divisional set of reconnaissance equipment, and therefore should be unified at least in terms of technology and base for automation and facilitating operation in the field. I see no reason not to take this into account.

[Bogalex]

I don’t think that now everything has changed dramatically in this matter.

Alas, it has changed. Although to tell the truth, I think that it was not otherwise. But these are my fantasies - I don’t insist.

And you were in their place, and you know that they should be located there.

I was, I know.

How can you hide different types of radio emissions and in different bands for communication and control? Or do you hope that the enemy will be stupid and will not be able to understand who is working in what mode? Well, okay, let's say we hide all the radiation, but how will you hide the mast?

You did not understand what I wrote to you. Yes, of course I will not hide it. But the whole ficus is that the means for detecting our point of reconnaissance and observation by means of non-optical reconnaissance is an order of magnitude (if not more) less than optical. They simply do not exist and there will never be as many at the forefront as "handicraft" and not very UAVs, TR-4/8, etc.

They are included in the divisional reconnaissance kit <...> I see no reason not to take this into account.

I see no reason to take this into account. We are talking about artillery reconnaissance means.

[ccsr]

Quote: Bogalex

But the whole ficus is that the means for detecting our point of reconnaissance and observation by means of non-optical reconnaissance is an order of magnitude (if not more) less than optical.

And how do you hide the radar from the enemy's electronic reconnaissance means?

Quote: Bogalex

I see no reason to take this into account. We are talking about artillery reconnaissance means.

As far as I understand, this item is intended not only for artillery, but at least for all combat assets of the division, including tank units, and in the future for attack UAVs, army aviation helicopters.

Vehicles of this type are capable of conducting optical and radar reconnaissance. in the interests of the ground forces, identify enemy targets and direct artillery fire weapons at them.

By the way, "Taran" was created just for this forty years ago, and it was precisely these tasks that it had to perform, and at the same time conduct radio intelligence. Moreover, even then, it included the possibility of an automated exchange of information, up to the command and intelligence center of the army.
So I understand something in this matter, and I know where the legs grow from, which is why I wonder why this base was used, although even then it was clear that the volume and quantity of reconnaissance equipment in the tactical echelon would constantly grow.

[Bogalex]

And how do you hide the radar from the enemy's electronic reconnaissance means?

No, we are not talking about it.

As far as I understand, this item is intended not only for artillery

Only.

By the way, "Taran" was created just for this forty years ago, and it was precisely these tasks that it had to perform, and at the same time conduct radio intelligence.
Moreover, even then, it included the possibility of an automated exchange of information, up to the command and intelligence center of the army.
So I understand something in this matter <...>

In no case do I want to offend you, but, apparently, all the same, you do not quite understand. What you are writing about is a means of reconnaissance of the AREA OF PURPOSES, and not of a specific OBJECT. And as a means of servicing artillery fire, it was not intended in principle.
Accordingly, the "Taran" had a completely different organizational and staffing affiliation and, as a result, completely different requirements for the base chassis.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Enough to discuss the chassis, just look at how technically a large-caliber machine gun is built in, and even with a very solid ammunition load of thousands of rounds.

[ada]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Enough to discuss the chassis, just look at how technically a large-caliber machine gun is built in, and even with a very solid ammunition load of thousands of rounds.

A machine gun is certainly good if it is "of that system" and it was possible to untie it by vibration from the image intensifier, but the infantry squad is better at your side , and the tanchik over the hill on the phone is generally a fairy tale, if only we could take turns sleeping.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

When the machine gun is needed, it will no longer be up to vibrations. Better, nevertheless, to have it than to try to do without it.

[ada]

MT-LBu is a heavy machine, constantly beating with driving wheels with a characteristic terrain profile of sharp drops of low height - asphalt concrete and concrete, broken by explosions, dry dirt roads, shallow streams, irrigation ditches, etc. (light MT-LB and BMP-1-2 are not notice) and maintaining a constant speed is dangerous, especially on rocky ground. On good asphalt MT-LBu - yes, beauty, from a hillock - under 70 km / h, just do not pull the levers. For example, we almost did not keep up with the infantry and our barrels, the mech-water yawned a little and the blow. So the combat vehicle had to be left at the base camp due to cracks in the driving wheels. The CMU of units firing from the PDO is already mounted on them, the dimensions there are not particularly critical, but this has nothing to do with the PRP - they are in artillery reconnaissance units. The PRP on the BMP-1-2 cannot at all maintain the required speed to fulfill the tactical standard for the occupation of the RR for the PTA when driving on forest roads, which are characterized by a wavy profile commensurate with the body of the car along the length - very heavy blows piercing the suspension, "motorcycle skaters" with MT -12 and "assaults" always had to pass ahead and then catch up, but had to withdraw the column along the course plotter. Of these chassis, in terms of cross-country ability and versatility, MT-LB is the most suitable for the PRP.
The BMP-3 is a new car for me, probably it is good for the PRP. The APC base is most likely for the BRAV troops and the desert.
I did not understand about the detection of the KNP UAV - in what kind of tactical situation do you imagine it this way (more like a sluggish low-intensity conflict, where is the PRP for what?), In what kind of organization of combined arms combat?

[Yarhann]

artillery reconnaissance is now in great demand in any low-intensity conflicts. it is banal to guard the base from bearded saboteurs with mortars and PCs. It is clear that they can be found from drones, but this is if there is a drone in this square, and then not right away. And this technique will give out exact coordinates within a couple of minutes and there you can send an attack drone, aviation or suitcases with art. That is, such a technique is now more likely for localities (border conflicts) and police missions (Donbass, Syria).

[ada]

Quote: Yarhann

artillery reconnaissance is now in great demand in any low-intensity conflicts. it is banal to guard the base from bearded saboteurs with mortars and PCs. It is clear that they can be found from drones, but this is if there is a drone in this square, and then not right away. And this technique will give out exact coordinates within a couple of minutes and there you can send an attack drone, aviation or suitcases with art. That is, such a technique is now more likely for localities (border conflicts) and police missions (Donbass, Syria).

The structure of artillery units and subunits, for which the completion of the PRP is required, is not intended for this and is calculated according to other tactical standards. An army is a large, heavy and powerful machine that only works well as a whole; it is not suitable for a circus on one wheel. To press is to press. As part of the PRP there is a ground reconnaissance radar on the Doppler effect (type 1RL133). It has small dimensions, portable on a tripod (even my girls carried it according to the standard), with a visual indicator with a horizontal scan - the distance to the target by the strobe pulse and the direction along the scale of the sorted station, all mechanics, with a sound channel. The ranges are really small. But it all depends on the operator. At a friend in Afghanistan on a battery, an operator by ear using headphones determined who was walking along the road, a person, a donkey, a group of people on stones, a car, etc. It is quite usable, although the battery is expensive. And the best way to meet bearded ones is to meet and see off specially trained little men, or at once with the whole "machine" indiscriminately, otherwise it will be a quagmire for a long time.

[Yarhann]

Well Duc we are not talking about the army and intense hostilities. namely, the protection of the locations of both military and civilian personnel. For example, you can also cite various means of technical intelligence in Israel - everything there is stuck with technical intelligence and the most important warning - that is, civil defense means are also included in this system.
In Israel, there is a quagmire for a long time - but what can you do like this? The same bases (especially airbases) that ours are in Syria, Afghanistan and other places that the American ones are constantly firing at and firing from anything. The same contact line in Donbass - Donetsk lives under constant shelling and the threat of shelling as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
The task of such means in such conditions is, firstly, a warning, and secondly, the localization of the place of attack in order to adequately respond to an act of aggression.

[Pavel episkop]

It's good that you can hope for something new. During the service (11-12) they still stood at the base of BMP 1, without any repairs since the 80s .. Moreover, some were the best in the Central Military District and recognized as the best center in the exercises in 2011 ...

[Owl]

Question: where is the remote power supply unit located at these facilities? It seems that they have forgotten about him again. Try to stand at the position for a day and conduct observation, in the fight against a weakly armed enemy - engine wear and fuel consumption, and when operating against an enemy with more modern means of destruction - wait first for detection using IR equipment, and then defeat or conventional means (artillery or bomb strike), or guided complexes with IR observation-aiming systems, or ammunition with IR homing systems.

[Reaktivshik]

You're right. I think there are even two of them ... like 83t888, because all this "economy" needs power in the region of 5-6 kW. I met at 3,5 kW, but it is problematic to place it inside .. Look on the Internet for the car of the battery commander 9P157-4 on BMP-3 for "Chrysanthemum-S". There she was placed in a box outside the car ..

[Aag]

"... both products are already on display at public events ..."
"... in the very near future, our defense industry will master the production of mobile reconnaissance posts of a new generation ..."
"... this technique will fall into the troops ..."
Does this sequence bother anyone but me ?!
Maybe it should be, somehow the other way around?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

An original, unusual solution for placing a machine gun together with an antenna. The constructor is great, they did their best.

[Usher]

Couldn't the cable be laid inside the mast?

[Vladimir99]

This spotter is a vulnerable target, so he must be able to disguise himself, especially in between fights. It should BURGER in the ground among the bushes so that only one antenna would stick out from above! However, this also applies to armored personnel carriers.

[Reaktivshik]

At present, the range of command and observation vehicles for automated fire control of ground artillery is redundant Machines 83t888-1.10, 1V172, 83t289-1.3, 1.4, 83t501, 1V14, 1V14-3, 1V15, 1V15-3, 1V152, 1V1003, 1V185, PRP-3 , 4, 4M, 4A, including PRP-5, do not have significant differences in target recognition range, in the accuracy characteristics of reconnaissance equipment that affect the performance indicators. It should be emphasized that the personnel of operating organizations, due to the low reliability of communication and data transmission facilities, the need to manually enter a large amount of initial data, and most importantly, the inability to work with equipment, prefers to work in traditional ways. In addition, the redundancy of samples similar in purpose and capabilities, contradicts one of the principles of acquisition of weapons and military equipment: "the elimination of duplication of samples of weapons and military equipment"! All this complicates the training of personnel on complex and high-tech equipment, as well as the procedure for maintenance and repair! We need one single unified machine for automated fire control of artillery in the battery-division-regiment (brigade) link. Unification is an effective method of standardization, on which, among other things, QUALITY is based.

[ccsr]

Quote: Reaktivshik

We need one single unified machine for automated fire control of artillery in the battery-division-regiment (brigade) link. Unification is an effective method of standardization, on which, among other things, QUALITY is based.

I agree with you, though I am not sure that we will manage with one model, but you are completely right - excess funds only harm everyone, both the troops, and the country's budget, and repair agencies. Under Grachev, I had to deal with the unification of other means, but of a higher level, and I can say that this was a huge problem. Then there was simply no money and everything was shredded. And now it looks like money has appeared, and again they began to derail the budget, playing into the hands of the industry and not thinking about the problems of future exploitation in combat conditions.

[Bogalex]

Perhaps you have heard whether work is currently underway to create such unified controls?

[Reaktivshik]

We would make better reliable means of communication, which, at the same time, will not instantly reveal themselves (coordinates of the machine). Also, the software is noteworthy. All control vehicles in service usually solve geometric and ballistic problems. Despite the sufficient development of the mathematical apparatus, the fire control tasks are not automated! The machines of the 1B185 and 1B186 complex are just programmable calculators on tracks, only insanely expensive (gold)!
The drone can be installed directly on the catapult on the roof of the car, to save time on its assembly, etc.

[Bogalex]

Despite the sufficient development of the mathematical apparatus, fire control tasks are not automated.

Why do you think so? The solution of the OMS tasks has been automated since the days of the "Maneuver", if not earlier.

[Reaktivshik]

I'm talking about products 1В181, 1В198, 83t888-1.10, etc. By automation of control tasks, I mean the following.
The choice of targets, taking into account its importance, depending on how much damage it can inflict on our troops. The choice of the best method of firing at the target with the available means of destruction, taking into account the criteria for the effectiveness of firing (mathematical expectation of ammunition consumption or the probability of hitting the target), the time to complete the firing mission, assess the risks of return fire, cost, etc.
Just take the operator's manual for the AWP product 1B185 and the Manual for the study of shooting and fire control rules ... and compare what is automated and what is not. Find out the price tag for this car and compare at least with the price of your smartphone (there is an application that can replace 1B185, for example).

[Reaktivshik]

I do not scold the industry. They are great fellows in that we have at least this! When I served (on 1B12) my control cars just drove ..)))

[Reaktivshik]

And I considered everything in the traditional way: PUO-9U, prk-69, and a simple calculator with sin, until communicators appeared in the Euroset with a GPS module))

[Bogalex]

The choice of targets, taking into account its importance, depending on how much damage it can inflict on our troops. The choice of the best method of firing at the target with the available means of destruction, taking into account the criteria for the effectiveness of shooting <...>

And in which of the above-named KSAUO is this implemented?
PS I am a simple Internet user, and not an officer of the headquarters of the MFA of the connection. Please send me an accessible link to

operator's manual for the AWP product 1В185 and the Manual for the study of the rules of shooting and fire control

so as not to look idiotic.

[Reaktivshik]

This is not implemented. Of course, I will not send you the link; it simply does not exist. If you are interested, you can contact the developer of this product, maybe they will show you)))

[Reaktivshik]

The tasks that I have given as an example, I consider it appropriate to automate. I am not claiming that they are implemented in 1B181. When I read the operator's manual, I "did not find them" there)))

[Bogalex]

Well, you are empty talkers.

[Reaktivshik]

You can say whatever you like about me :) If you are used to examining the products of the AME using other people's pictures on the Internet or advertising brochures and did not touch them with your hands, which is confirmed by your request for a link to ED ..))) funny! You try to serve on this product, take part in its tests - touch the iron with your handles) Try to complete the task using the above product, without industry representatives ..)) and then we will talk to you

[Bogalex]

I just asked a question and received empty chatter from you instead of an answer.
Then you can talk about "try to serve on this product" and "... complete the task using the above product, without industry representatives" as many as you like - there are a dime a dozen such balabols in the network - one is "more professional" than the other.
You flaunted access to regulatory documents, you were asked to confirm this. You fucked up. Well, now eat your excrements, just don’t crap yourself.

[Reaktivshik]

I see you are directly touched by something .. Well, excuse me! "Calculator on tracks" ??))
You are trying to compensate for the lack of arguments on the merits of the issue with rudeness and a raised tone, like a hysterical ...)
You are trying to fish out something ... Are you wondering where the information comes from - from personal experience!
Are you either a provocateur, or maybe you are the author of the TTZ on the Ring? Or shipped and you are ashamed?)) So there is something to be ashamed of! I understand in that case ..
Your insults will not stick to me, you can throw more in my direction ..)) Now you do not look like a graduate of the Mikhailovsky Artillery School. Women were never allowed there.

[ada]

Quote: Reaktivshik

We would make better reliable means of communication, which, at the same time, will not instantly reveal themselves (coordinates of the machine). Also, the software is noteworthy. All control vehicles in service usually solve geometric and ballistic problems. Despite the sufficient development of the mathematical apparatus, the fire control tasks are not automated! The machines of the 1B185 and 1B186 complex are just programmable calculators on tracks, only insanely expensive (gold)!
The drone can be installed directly on the catapult on the roof of the car, to save time on its assembly, etc.

Probably you meant geodetic tasks? About ballistics is not about PRP. The control machines of the KB and SOB are the same. For a drone, then a movable hangar is needed, which makes no sense for a PRP - the UAV will have to be removed and walked with it to the launch and landing site. In general, the combat work of artillery reconnaissance units is organized in accordance with the manual, which is developed by specialists and many other normative parameters are linked there.

[Reaktivshik]

I do not see a fundamental difference between "geometric" or "geodesic" ..))) do not cling to words)
The solution of the OGZ and PGZ is based on the solution of triangles (on the theorem of sines), that is, it is based on a trigonometric function)) I believe that trigonometry is a branch of mathematics ..))) I remember at school there was a textbook such an orange)) an author like Pogorelov. It's called: Geometry Grade 7-9)))

[ada]

Quote: Reaktivshik

I do not see a fundamental difference between "geometric" or "geodesic" ..))) do not cling to words)
...: Geometry 7-9 grade)))

Give it up, you understand that this is not "clinging to words", but a question about the terminology used. In artillery, the appropriate words and terms have been adopted, which are used in the documents and activities of specialists in the troops, specialized institutions, organizations and at industrial enterprises and are compiled into collections - dictionaries of military terms for the formation of a military technical language, equally understood by the participants, and this is a mandatory task to be solved. fight against "jargon" and discrepancy. I wanted to understand what exactly was meant and no desire to "cling".
Yes, trigonometry in the applied form of the science of geodesy is understandable, but the terminology? About the "ballistic problem", for example - I do not understand you.

[Reaktivshik]

PRP is designed to detect and recognize targets, observe the actions of the enemy and its units, target designation, incl. ATGM, artillery firing service. Similar tasks are assigned to the command and observation vehicles KD, KB. The issue of solving special tasks for organizing the determination of installations for firing and fire control is, of course, entrusted to the fire control machines.
I'm talking about UNIFICATION))
For example, in the artillery of the Airborne Forces, all these tasks are solved by one machine 1V119 "Rheostat", which is both a reconnaissance vehicle and the vehicle of the chief of artillery of the PDP, KD, KB and SOB. The nomenclature of control vehicles and the like in ground artillery, in my opinion, is EXCESSIVE.
The expediency of unification is also confirmed by the fact that 1В181 and 1В198 now include 2 types of machines: KNM and KShM, and not 4 as before: KD, NSh, KB, SOB ... and PRP more ..

[ada]

Unification is always tempting. In my opinion, the PRP is more specialized specifically for artillery reconnaissance units, the composition of the instrument complex differs from the CMU, as well as the tasks being solved. To create a universal machine without compromises, ensuring the solution of all tasks of various divisions, is probably not economically secured.

[Reaktivshik]

What does it mean "economically not provided"? Do you think that a single car will be very expensive? It seems to me, on the contrary, that the presence of a single unified fire control machine will provide an economic effect. Firstly, this will simplify the issue of maintenance and repair, providing spare parts for the G, simplify the training of l / s - you need to study only one machine, one instrumentation, one operation algorithm, and not 10 ... Today you are the commander of the 2nd fire platoon 2С1 , and tomorrow the commander of the reactive battery or vice versa))))) .. Besides, how much is the full life cycle, for example, of the 1V198 complex? Including the cost of R&D, the cost of a serial complex, the cost of maintenance and repair, disposal ??? How many options for the instrumental composition of the 1V181 complex .. ???!)) Do all artillery officers know how to work on it (I mean: completely complete the task in automatic mode) ??
Does the troops or the Mikhailovskaya Academy have a TCB for training to work on them ??

[ada]

What does it mean "economically not provided"? Do you think that a single car will be very expensive?
No, I don't think it will be much more expensive. I assume a certain degree of disunity among developers, manufacturers and their approaches to the issue, the presence of a production base. On the base chassis, the principled approach - the tracked and wheelbase is most likely justified. I believe that a unified machine is possible with an improvement in the quality of the instrument complex, a decrease in its overall and mass characteristics and modularity of its execution. With the simplification of the creation and improvement, production, maintenance and service, the development of l / s - I completely agree. TCB - I see no need. In general, the question is correct and requires research, in my opinion.

[Reaktivshik]

As for unification, I would start with the software. It won't take much work to make it unified for all types of artillery systems. Attention should be paid to automation of fire control - the ability for commanders to choose the best way to carry out an onne mission, taking into account the criteria that were noted above, including cost. For example, to destroy a 3x4m dugout, you need 2 drops from the D-30, for example .. for this at Vd = 25m, and Wb = 3m. For these 2 hits, you need to lay out 200 shells ... Let 1 OFS cost 500 USD, then the cost of completing the task will be 100 USD. At the same time, ATGMs can be involved in this task and, with a probability of 000, complete the task with one 0,8M9 product, costing, well, let's say 123 c.u. The difference seems to be obvious ... But in our country, the KPA-40 considers the decision of the commander justified if the flow rate does not differ by more than 000 times ... That is, if the commander sets the flow rate not 93, but 2, then such a decision will be justified ... .add here more labor costs for oxnization, PRR, the supply of ammunition and the life of the barrels ... (this is my opinion).
At the expense of the chassis, the question is also interesting. Take, for example, the "Covenant" complex 83t289-1.10. It was developed only on tracked BMP-3 carriers. At the same time, the SPTRK "Kornet" on the "Tiger", "Konkurs" on the BRDM, the SPTRK "Chrizantema-SP" and "Shturm-SM" on wheeled chassis have been worked out (although they don't exist yet .., but I think it's a matter of time). We do not have control vehicles for SPTRK on wheels. In the "old" OPTADn there were MTLBs for unit commanders, equipped only with communications equipment. But the tracks and wheels in one unit are "very bad")) It is impossible to march on public roads, the tracks are on trawls, the wheels are separate .. along different routes .., maintenance, range of spare parts, etc. ... Returning to the "Testament" only the advantage in mobility is obvious, namely, in the ability to swim, but at the same time, the indicators of reliability and autonomy are significantly lower than those of wheels. Below is the resource. The same "Tiger" has a fuel range of 1100 versus 600 for the BMP-3 .. Given that the RF Armed Forces have recently taken part not only in the European theater, but also where you do not need to swim, it would be reasonable to have control vehicles on wheeled carriers.

[ada]

Introducing the economic component into the calculations for planning the execution of a separate fire mission for the commander of a unit equipped with one type of weapon, but having different types of ammunition (of different complexity and cost), is probably possible in the general case in a recommendatory form, unless otherwise established by the combat order. When planning a combined-arms battle, a military operation for the commander of an artillery unit, formation, NRVA of combined-arms units and formations, OVU, only in an administrative, directive manner determined by the senior commander. In different periods of time (peaceful, increasing threats, martial law, wartime - some month of war) depending on the scale and nature of the conflict, war (local, large-scale, etc.), their course and development forecast, availability of reserves ammunition, the possibilities for their transportation and storage, transportation, the state of the industry and the availability of reserve capacities, the raw material base, and other factors, the economic effect can vary from significant values ​​to zero. It is pointless to introduce these calculations into general governing documents, only an order, a directive.
About trawls at a more or less significant event is not realistic. The supply of airborne vehicles is only wheels, nothing else can be imagined for artillery. SPTRK is a complex, add KPM, TCB in support units to BM and CMU, and these are wheels. I can’t imagine serious ATGMs on wheels without armor and stabilization systems. But control vehicles on a wheelbase, for example, for the BRAV troops, desert theaters - yes.

[Reaktivshik]

Why is TTS not needed? I consider modern automated fire control systems to be complex science-intensive technology. Not everyone will immediately sit down and press the buttons correctly ... The training of personnel is one of the main criteria for the effective use of technology. No matter how high the quality indicators of the control machine are, if the personnel do not have confident skills, the effectiveness of its use will tend to zero .. and why then spend so much money on its purchase if no one knows how to work on it ..? From communication with a 2020 MBAA graduate, I realized that at the school they were not allowed to "break" simulators ...))) Is it justified to buy a separate simulator for each complex: for 1V181, 1V198 and for everyone else ???
I think not.

[Reaktivshik]

And I completely agree with you about the devices. Without imported CI, we now have nothing at all! And probably never will!
Everything that has been put into service over the past 20 years, without exception, contains foreign-made ERI, including NATO countries.

[ada]

To be honest, I can't even imagine the state. I can't say anything on this matter. But we have no one to “cooperate” with widely, we have to do it ourselves. Otherwise they'll eat it.

[Reaktivshik]

I am glad that there is a drone in the car, but it is a pity that it is part of the All-Union People's Congress. It is advisable to consider using it without getting out of the car. You can consider a tiltrotor (UAV with vertical takeoff). Then there will be no need to run around with boxes .. collect, disassemble it, etc. It is also of interest, what means of protection against the WTO are in the composition? In my opinion, interesting options (SPZ) are offered by "Electromashina", Chelyabinsk.

[ada]

Quote: Reaktivshik

I am glad that there is a drone in the car, but it is a pity that it is part of the All-Union People's Congress. It is advisable to consider using it without getting out of the car. You can consider a tiltrotor (UAV with vertical takeoff). Then there will be no need to run around with boxes .. collect, disassemble it, etc. It is also of interest, what means of protection against the WTO are in the composition? In my opinion, interesting options (SPZ) are offered by "Electromashina", Chelyabinsk.

Probably you meant GNP. We cannot implement GNP without leaving the car, taking positions, deploying and minimizing NP, changing and leaving is a tactical art. The desire not to walk with your feet and not get out of the technique is dangerous and impossible in practice. They wrote about the defense: "The project provides for the installation of an optical-electronic countermeasure system with radiation sensors and smoke grenade launchers." I have never dealt with this, nothing like this was on the previous machines.

[Reaktivshik]

I mean, it is impossible without getting out of technology ?? !!))
Why do you think that it is impossible to implement the use of UAVs directly from a ground carrier, without the operator leaving the vehicle? What's stopping ?? There are various UAVs with or without a catapult .., for example, with the possibility of vertical take-off - convertiplanes.
Whether the VKNP is needed or not is decided on the spot by the subunit commander based on the tactical situation. The presence of a UAV only as part of the VKNP forces, and does not provide an opportunity ...
Considering the overall and mass characteristics of reconnaissance assets and that the main type of battle is offensive ... it is probably advisable to study (investigate) such a possibility.

[ada]

A detachable set of artillery reconnaissance and communication devices is designed to organize an additional NP as part of the PRP to give stability to the point or increase its capabilities in conducting reconnaissance (additional sector, overcoming shelter ridges, using shelters and terrain folds, moving the position of emitting devices away from the vehicle, reducing general unmasking signs, protecting l / s, etc.). The nature of the deployment and curtailment of funds is secretive, the method of occupation and abandonment is on foot (stamping with your feet, crawling on your belly, dashing). The place of the PRP in the KNP-NP system is a lateral, forward OP, a separate OP (independent, for solving individual tasks) of the deployed artillery reconnaissance units. It may or may not be part of the KNP. The points are carried both along the front and in depth in the areas of the KNP, NP, in the reconnaissance zone overlapping the fire zone. That is, external - only with the exit from the car according to the definition of the method, the attitude to the KNP is indirect.
A UAV with reconnaissance and control devices is already a complex in itself, how is it classified - an air observation post? I do not know. It is included in the remote NP - then the deployment procedure is clear. The takeoff and landing of an object are clearly unmasking signs and in an occupied position for actions directly from the car - to the car are not acceptable. But in RS, RO, on the march and moving - taking off from a car and landing on a car or when moving to the lines - only takeoff, and landing in another place to remove unmasking signs, very interesting solutions, especially in automatic mode at short stops and low vehicle speeds without delaying the movement of units.

[Reaktivshik]

I agree with you, but taking off from a carrier saves time on deploying a remote control point, which means that such a solution will increase the efficiency of using this reconnaissance tool.