Guided artillery shells and mines in Special Operations

Self-propelled guns 2S19 "Msta-S" are involved in the demilitarization of Ukraine. Frame from the video from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

In the current Special Operation, a variety of guided high-precision weapons are actively used. Samples of this kind are also in service with artillery units. Guided projectiles and mines of several types allow existing guns to hit their intended targets with high accuracy, with less ammunition consumption and without collateral damage.

Arsenals in action

In connection with the goals, objectives and specifics of the current Special Operation, our army is actively using high-precision systems of various kinds. The results of their application are regularly demonstrated by the Ministry of Defense. So, in the first weeks of the operation, it became known that artillery units were using the Krasnopol guided projectile.

On July 8, TASS published new information about high-precision artillery weapons. According to his source in law enforcement agencies, the Kitolov guided projectile and the Gran mortar mine are now being used together with Krasnopol. However, there is no official confirmation of such information.

The source revealed some details of the use of such ammunition. So, the shells of the listed types are equipped with semi-active laser homing heads. To illuminate the intended target, laser rangefinders-designators of various types are used.

Undermining the projectile "Krasnopol" and the destruction of the camouflaged object. Frame from the video from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

The targets for guided munitions are most often small targets and enemy positions. These are various firing points, weapons and equipment, as well as weak points in the fortifications. TASS recalls that reconnaissance of such targets, target illumination and guidance of ammunition, as well as monitoring of the results of firing and adjustment are carried out from the air using UAVs such as Orlan-10.

Earlier, the Ministry of Defense has repeatedly published videos showing the combat use of Krasnopolya. These projectiles always land directly on the target or at a minimum distance from it. Large caliber and mass provide high power and reliable target engagement. With the help of guided projectiles, artillery systems, equipment, warehouses, etc. were hit. The combat work of Kitolov and Grani has not yet been shown. However, it is clear that this process has no fundamental differences from the Krasnopol firing.

Complex "Krasnopol"

The 2K25 guided weapon system with the 3OF39 Krasnopol projectile was developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau and put into service in 1995. It is designed to hit small targets with the first shot and is compatible with all existing domestically developed 152-mm artillery systems. An export version was also developed in caliber 155 mm.

The 3OF39 product is a 152 mm caliber projectile, 1,3 m long and weighing approx. 51 kg. For ease of storage and operation, the projectile body is divided into two compartments, connected immediately before being fed into the gun. The head compartment includes the seeker, control equipment and rudders that can be deployed in flight. The projectile compartment accommodates a warhead weighing 6,5 kg in a crushed body, a solid propellant engine and a block of stabilizers.

Projectile "Krasnopol" in flight configuration. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

"Krasnopol" is equipped with a semi-active laser seeker 9E421. It receives the radiation of the rangefinder-target designator reflected by the target and controls the operation of the head rudders. When firing, even at a maximum range of 20 km, a deviation of no more than a few meters is provided.

The original Krasnopol underwent several upgrades. So, the 3OF39M projectile is smaller in size and weight, and also has a monoblock body and receives a new bottom gas generator. All this made it possible to increase the range to 25 km while maintaining the same accuracy and power.

"Kitolov" of two calibers

The Kitolov complex was also developed at the KBP and built on similar solutions. At the same time, the shells of such a complex are distinguished by a smaller caliber and are intended for other artillery systems. So, SAO "Nona" or "Vena" should use a 120-mm shot "Kitolov-2" of separate-cartridge loading, and for 122-mm howitzers, a separate-sleeve "Kitolov-2M" in caliber 122 mm is intended. Both projectiles were put into service in 2002.

Kitolov shells are built in an elongated cylindrical body with a rounded head, folding rudders and stabilizers. Product length - approx. 1,2 m, weight 28 kg. In terms of layout, the Kitolovs are similar to the Krasnopol. The head compartment accommodates the GOS and the steering system, the main volume of the hull is given over to the warhead weighing 12 kg with a charge of 5,3 kg. At the bottom is a gas generator.

Product "Kitolov" with unfolded planes. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

"Kitolov" is equipped with a semi-active laser seeker, giving an accuracy of up to several meters. The firing range of shells of both calibers, regardless of the gun used, reaches 12 km. The defeat of manpower, equipment and structures is ensured.

Mortar "Front"

Another modern guided weapon system is the KM-8 Gran. It was also developed at the KBP, but is intended for systems of 120 mm caliber. First of all, these are mortars of the main types. In addition, the Gran mine is compatible with the Nona universal systems, etc.

"Fringe" is a projectile in a cylindrical body with a conical nose fairing and protruding rudders and stabilizers. The propelling charge is in a cap of limited volume. The length of the mine is 1,2 m with a mass of 27 kg. Like other guided missiles, the KM-8 uses laser guidance. GOS type 9E430 is used. A warhead weighing 11,2 kg with a charge of 5,3 kg is provided.

The firing range of the Granyu reaches 9 km. Guidance is carried out on the highlighted target. Depending on various factors, the illumination can be carried out by the combat vehicle that fired, the reconnaissance spotter or the UAV. An interesting feature of the mine is the ability to transfer fire only due to the seeker. So, without changing the aiming angles and mine settings, you can hit targets 300 m apart.

The "Kitolov" projectile and a laser designator-rangefinder from the "Malachite" complex. Photo KBP

The modern approach

Systems of calibers 120, 122 and 152 mm are the basis of our ground artillery and are intended for solving various fire missions. For all these guns, there is a wide range of shots for various purposes, incl. several types of guided munitions.

It is curious that almost all the needs of ground artillery in guided weapons are currently covered by only three complexes in different designs. These are Krasnopol, Kitolov and Gran, compatible with a wide range of existing and promising guns of various kinds. At the same time, the development of this direction continues, and the emergence of new guided missiles with other capabilities and characteristics, as well as in other calibers, is expected.

An interesting fact is that modern guided munitions, despite differences in design and purpose, are built on the basis of common ideas. So, Krasnopol, Kitolov and Gran are equipped with laser seekers and equipped with engines or gas generators. Due to this, all of them are characterized by increased range and improved accuracy.

The ammunition in question works according to external target designation. Initially, it was assumed that the coordinates of the target would be sent by ground reconnaissance, and illumination was also assigned to it. However, now the main means of reconnaissance in the interests of artillery are UAVs. "Orlans" and other equipment are able to accurately determine the coordinates of the target, transmit them in real time, provide illumination and adjust the fire.

The mortar operator prepares the "Gran" mine for firing. Photo KBP

Thus, due to guided munitions, modern means of reconnaissance and control, almost any weapon or battery turns into a full-fledged effective reconnaissance and strike complex. Reconnaissance UAVs and communications equipment ensure its speed, and guided missiles will increase the range, accuracy and effectiveness of strikes.

Such a reconnaissance-strike complex retains the possibility of using "blanks" and firing at areas. At the same time, reconnaissance and control tools make it possible to improve the performance of such shooting. This, in a known way, increases the flexibility of the battery or gun for various tasks.

Proven by practice

The Krasnopol and Kitolov guided missiles, as well as the Gran mine, entered service a long time ago and were repeatedly used in training firing. In the conditions of landfills, they confirmed their characteristics, and also helped to develop methods for the most effective application. Now the accumulated experience is being used in a real operation.

The development and adoption of just a few guided munitions has significantly improved the combat capabilities of our ground artillery. In addition, its potential is positively affected by the development of auxiliary areas - reconnaissance and control facilities. The benefit of such an integrated approach is obvious and is again being confirmed in practice.

Comments

[Ka-52]

there is not enough line of ammunition for cannon artillery with GLONASS adjustment. Illumination is not always feasible. By the way, nothing is said about 9M544 for RZSO, but there are both satellite and precision inertial navigation systems

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Ka-52

there is not enough line of ammunition with GLONASS adjustment.

Yes, but it's better than nothing.

[Ka-52]

Yes, but it's better than nothing.

UAS "Krasnopol-D" started sawing about 10 years ago, but something is not heard about it at all. But in addition to the satellite-inertial adjustment system, he also had an increased flight range - 43 km against 25

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Ka-52

UAS "Krasnopol-D" 10 years ago

Mentions from 17-18 years. seem to be going.

[Ka-52]

The author did not indicate another side of guided munitions - cost. For example, the price of UAS "Krasnopol" is about 1,8 million rubles. rub. Which is not very cheap for mass use on a wide front. But I remember in the early 2000s a more budget version of the UAS - "Sentimeter" was developed. It has more QUO (slightly), but the cost is 2 times lower, if not more. But the development died back in 2005-2006.

[DominickS]

This is a penny, by the standards of the military. In any case, the future belongs to high-precision guided weapons, which the current conflict shows.

[Ka-52]

This is a penny, by the standards of the military. In any case, the future belongs to high-precision guided weapons, which the current conflict shows.

separate local operations and full-scale wars. Yes, within the framework of a theater of operations measuring 500x500 km, it is possible to wage war only with the help of high-precision weapons (and even that is not a fact). And when you have a theater the size of a country of 600 thousand. sq. km of territory and only a front line of 1000 km, then there will not be enough UASs, KABs, UPABs and other Iskanders for all purposes. These "pennies" will result in such billions of dollars in expenses that you will go nuts. Even the Americans, with their budget at the end of the war in Iraq, scored a bolt on prettiness and poured ordinary primitive cast iron, for which they even dragged old B-52s. So high-precision weapons help to solve combat missions, but will not take them all out.

[New-pechkin]

Bombing with cast iron is one thing if the enemy's air defense is suppressed and there is no danger. Is this cheaper in your opinion? And this is just one photo, if you watch the video, then there is a lunar landscape around this position.

[Ka-52]

definitely cheaper. Will you spend a projectile worth 1,8 rubles for each fighter of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? This is with the number of APU in 200 thousand. approximately 360 billion rubles. It’s easier to write an announcement on tyrnet "to each prisoner in a lyam" and tomorrow all the Armed Forces of Ukraine will surrender

[Civil]

Is there a correction for GLONASS, are there enough satellites for the battlefield?

[Ka-52]

Is there a GLONASS correction?

we now have every third car in Russia drives with GLONASS.

are there enough satellites for the battlefield

23 satellites in operation, 2 in reserve. GPS has the same amount of work, though in reserve 7 units

[Gvardeetz77]

Quote: Ka-52

definitely cheaper. Will you spend a projectile worth 1,8 rubles for each fighter of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? This is with the number of APU in 200 thousand. approximately 360 billion rubles. It’s easier to write an announcement on tyrnet "to each prisoner in a lyam" and tomorrow all the Armed Forces of Ukraine will surrender

Mathematics is different, a more massive purchase of such ammunition can greatly reduce their cost, and if you still knock on the hat to the "haulers" at all involved levels, then you can reduce it by 2 times. As an example given in the photo, several hundred cast-iron shells were fired there, and they are also not 100 rubles each. for a handful, and each costs under 10 thousand, plus barrel wear (replacement of several million), plus logistics (bring 10 shells or 1000), plus a lot more ...
Therefore, in the end it may be more profitable for "Krasnopol" for each fighter, and if they are still driven by blows of ordinary cast iron into a blocked gap or dugout, in the UAV "peep" behind this and then cover it with a "controlled BP", then the consumption can be 1 shell per 10 showers, generally economical...

[Glory1974]

they fired several hundred cast-iron shells, and they were also not 100 rubles each. for a handful, and each costs under 10 thousand,

In the early 2000s, in Khankala, in Chechnya, the price of shells hung on the tent of the artillery department. Like, before calling artillery fire, think about how much it costs.
So at that time the cheapest projectile cost 12 thousand, lighting under 25000 rubles.
For 20 years, the cost of shells has risen by 2, or even 3 times.
Therefore, now I think that a 152 mm shell costs no less than 30 rubles.

[Bogalex]

The cost of a shot with a 152-mm OFS is about 100.

[Gvardeetz77]

Quote: glory1974

they fired several hundred cast-iron shells, and they were also not 100 rubles each. for a handful, and each costs under 10 thousand,

In the early 2000s, in Khankala, in Chechnya, the price of shells hung on the tent of the artillery department. Like, before calling artillery fire, think about how much it costs.
So at that time the cheapest projectile cost 12 thousand, lighting under 25000 rubles.
For 20 years, the cost of shells has risen by 2, or even 3 times.
Therefore, now I think that a 152 mm shell costs no less than 30 rubles.

Well, I wrote at a minimum, taking into account the "warehouse and temporary markdown."
After all, it’s not fools who sit in the “beloved AI”, they like to make money in the defense industry, but they also know how to count them and it’s not for nothing that they have been massively switching to “managers” for a long time, as a result, it turns out cheaper if everyone sits down, including minimizing their own losses.

[Ka-52]

several hundred cast-iron shells were fired there, and they also did not cost 100 rubles. for a handful

you have a sloppy economy. Conventional HE-munitions in Russia are disposed of annually in tons after the expiration of the storage period. The total amount of stored stock for a year of continuous bombardment is at least even without the involvement of their production. And UAS until 2022 was less than 15 thousand. units (somewhere came across a figure). that is, in order to start hammering exclusively with them, at the behest of the VO sofa experts (what nonsense), an explosive increase in production will be required. Do you know what that means? Let's count the mobilization of production at Izhmash, the mobilization of production at LOMO. And add the timing of mobilization.
Here is a paradox - the United States, with its military budget, does not withdraw m795-type shells for its 155mm howitzers from circulation. They probably don't read VO.

[Gvardeetz77]

Quote: Ka-52

several hundred cast-iron shells were fired there, and they also did not cost 100 rubles. for a handful

you have a sloppy economy. Conventional HE-munitions in Russia are disposed of annually in tons after the expiration of the storage period. The total amount of stored stock for a year of continuous bombardment is at least even without the involvement of their production. And UAS until 2022 was less than 15 thousand. units (somewhere came across a figure). that is, in order to start hammering exclusively with them, at the behest of the VO sofa experts (what nonsense), an explosive increase in production will be required. Do you know what that means?

Of course, the creation of jobs, an increase in enemy losses, a decrease in our own, and the "raisin on the cake" is the approaching end of "SVO".
There is one caveat, though, that if there were not 15 thousand, but 150 thousand at the beginning of 22, it is necessary not an explosive "now", but a gradual one, at least from the 14th year.
And, unfortunately, your economy is clumsy, the enemy has a well-established counter-battery fight, and such a number of recyclable ammunition fired by us threatens with losses of artillerymen from "responses", it is better to dispose of it with another enemy, in Syria for example.

[Ka-52]

Of course, job creation,

ek you suffered that ... I ask you again - can you calculate the costs of mobilizing production? You here sang to me about the economy like a nightingale. Come on, don't divert the conversation to "spaceships plow the expanses of the theater."

There is one truth nuance, so that there would be not 15 thousand, but 150 thousand

if a woman would have, then she would be a grandfather. In fact, there are as many as there are. At some point, it was considered that 225 billion rubles. it is better to spend on 10 Borey-type SSBNs (955A) than on 150 thousand. HE shells, even if they are UAS.

the enemy has a well-established counter-battery fight

why do the mourners "our army vayuit with paws" always have everything well done only with the enemy? Let's give statistics that the number of our artillery systems hit in artillery duels is greater than that of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Let's see what you can do besides minus))
ps why don't the Americans withdraw their simple HE ammunition so no ideas have appeared?

[ada]

Quote: Ka-52

why don’t the Americans withdraw their simple HE ammunition so no ideas have appeared?

So, everyone knows, this is a classic. Where without her? Here we have a group goal that is not observable (or has become not observable), then what? Apologize, curl up and dump into the depths? Or to complete a fire mission as it should be in handdocs? And what about other types of fire, with a large consumption of ammunition (escort, methodical, ...) or direct fire, than to provide? Or will they suddenly become redundant? Therefore, all types of ammunition have their own purpose and estimated need, including UAO.

Quote: glory1974

Saved money, but is it necessary?

Price - price, and resource-production, storage and transport capabilities, the availability of appropriate artillery systems is more important.
There is an easy-to-read article if someone is not familiar with controlled art. weapons: https://masterok.livejournal.com/4050065.html

[FIFA from Cardiff]

As for the end of the NWO, where should we rush? The EU and the US are already vibrating about peace talks and, as it were, hinting "let's get the Russians stuck again." Do we really need another piece of paper like Minsk - 3 of which, laughing happily, the USA. EU and Ukraine will wipe their asses in the toilet in 3-5 years? No no no . Only UNCONDITIONAL surrender, elimination of Ukraine from the world maps, demilitarization by destroying the egg-bearing part aged 11-65 years of the herd population now inhabiting Ukraine and permanent dispersal around the world of the WEST by hunger and cold of the sharovars who survived during the NWO. And here - time is working for us for another year . Now you will start me here about the destroyed cities, etc., but who told you that we will restore them, as well as bridges, dams and so on? For what? I remember in 2012 the IMF announced the figure of 18 million of the population of Ukraine desirable from the point of view of the economy, now, taking into account new technologies, I think 7-9 million will be enough for us to make the former Ukraine - the future Southwestern Federal District a world breadbasket and bring it to self-sufficiency and making a profit, and all sorts of factories - this is from the evil one, we will take out what is useful to Russia together with the engineers, and we will conduct tourist excursions to the destroyed cities from the growing up future liberals and communists, so that we can see what both the love for the West of demschizoids leads to, and stake on nationalists in building Soviet power in a single republic

[Glory1974]

definitely cheaper.

If you compare the cost, it is certainly cheaper.
But it may happen that artillery depots are destroyed by Himars, many shells cannot be brought, the lunar landscape at enemy positions does not lead to the destruction of concrete fortifications, as in Avdiivka. And as a result, the combat mission was not completed, the shelling did not stop, people continue to die.
as a result, the war is lost (hypothetically).
Saved money, but is it necessary? Everything goes to hitting the target with one or two shots and leaving the position, otherwise they will hit you. And this is possible only with high-precision weapons, limited to b / c, transported with you. And here there is no place for cast iron.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In addition to guided ones, there are also cluster shells that do not require great accuracy, but cover targets with quite acceptable efficiency.

[New-pechkin]

approximately 360 billion rubles

This is a little more than six billion dollars, how much the SVO costs, given the loss of equipment. If you have a plan how to break the Armed Forces of Ukraine for 6 billion. dollars,
inform the Kremlin. And about the price, I agree with Gvardeetz77. Yes, efficiency matters.

[NG inform]

Well, in general, CBO will cost a lot more.
As for the Krasnopoles, we generally have very poor unification. On a good note, it would be necessary to develop a single set of digital modules and sensors, and rivet them in millions, using the same blocks on tanks, planes, shells, and everything else.

[this]

And where did you get the idea that this is not?

[NG inform]

This would be a systematic approach. The current mentality directly contradicts this.

[this]

And you personally looked at all the shells. They are made by one company in Tula, why did you decide that the fillings there are very different?

[NG inform]

I said that one digital module should be used not in one projectile, but in general everywhere. The same in projectiles, quadrocopters, rockets, modern rifle sights, cruise missiles, KAZ.
I'm exaggerating a little, but electronic modules must be extremely widely scaled. And let them be too powerful for shells - a large batch will make it affordable, and unification will make it possible to do things that are now impossible.

[this]

What kind of digital module in question is generally a very broad concept. It is quite possible that the guidance head, in the projectile, or in the ATGM will be somewhat similar, all the same, the same company, but they can differ greatly, because their loads are not comparable.

[NG inform]

I'm talking about a chip like what is in a smartphone. Only weaker and in the military version.
The fact that it will be excessively powerful for the projectile is not important, a large batch is incomparably cheaper and can be more perfect than many small ones. It is clear that everything is not so simple, but it works quite well. Even large vendors selling a line of different devices actually produce the same thing, it's just that some of the functions are physically or even programmatically disabled for cheap versions.

[this]

You just compared the chips, but it's like comparing a Kalash cartridge with a ballistic missile. A percent for a smartphone will never become cheaper than an ancient controller for a rocket, like a mammoth shit, at least how many of them you launch there, well, the rocket has an extremely primitive garbage. Similarly, smartphone production will never exceed piece goods as a guided missile.

[NG inform]

You are now displaying incredible technological incompetence.
Of course it will become cheaper, there is even nothing to discuss here. It's cheaper right now.
I'm already silent that the power of the "smartphone" processor allows more, and most likely much more reliable than the old controller.
>exceed piece goods like a guided projectile
I didn’t quite understand here, but the guided projectile is unique because it comes with an ancient controller, which needs to be developed separately for each such projectile. And with all the rest of the hardware, it’s exactly the same: everything more or less advanced immediately costs 2-3 times more expensive due to an individually developed controller. And it’s more difficult to repair, and there are fewer opportunities, and for each device, set up your own production of controllers.

[Serg4545]

Quote from: New-pechkin

Is this cheaper in your opinion? And this is just one photo, if you watch the video, then there is a lunar landscape around this position.

You know, I've always been surprised by people who post photos with a lunar landscape. And at the same time, we are sure that hits far from the trenches are only misses. That is, these shells were wasted.
This would be true if Ukrainian soldiers dug a trench, got into it and sat there without getting out for several months.
But it is not.
Like any unit on the front line, it periodically rotates (changes) its composition, evacuates the wounded / killed / sick, delivers food and ammunition from the rear, and conducts regular reconnaissance of the surrounding area. By order of the command, he makes sorties and offensive actions.
All of the above requires leaving the trenches and moving away from them at a fairly large distance.
Why not assume that what you take for misses is actually shooting at an enemy who has left cover?
And given the fact that artillery fire on the enemy in open areas is ten times more effective than on the enemy in shelters, it is quite possible that these "misses" actually caused more damage to the enemy than hits near the trenches.

[ada]

I support. Not everything is so simple, of course, the range of tasks of fire destruction is much wider, and the conditions for performing the OZ are very changeable. Positions can exist for a long time and change hands and be exposed to fire all the time.

[stankow]

What don't you like about the photo? Led a barrage fire, but more than once. The target is flat, platoon OP. Nacrita for sure, completely suppressed. The center of the dispersion ellipse abs.
coincides exactly with the center of the target (trench). The enemy clung to the bottom of the trench while the infantry attacked him. And finally left her, smoked. The combat mission has been completed, what more to demand from artillery? Razrivov counted 320, exactly one ammunition load of a 6-gun battery of 152 mm. Great job.

[Maverick1812]

Yeah, and the trunk resource ....

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Ka-52

For example, the price of UAS "Krasnopol" is about 1,8 million rubles. rub.

At the beginning of the century, if I'm not mistaken, the Compass company offered the Dynamics guidance module for "old" artillery shells, which made it possible to use them already as guided ones ... The cost of the module is 1000 bucks. They made some noise about the module then ... and that's it! The company was soon successfully bankrupt ... There are statements by competent comrades that the "Dynamics" module really existed ... that this is not "fantasy"!

[Ka-52]

The company was soon successfully bankrupt ...

MKB is Rostekhov, "it's a tree, who will plant it"? ))

the "Dynamics" module really existed ... that this is not "fantasy"!

enthusiastically made an experimental game and a mustache. In those years, our Defense Ministry was more interested in the Mistral. There were no penny modules

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Ka-52

in the early 2000s, a more budget version of the UAS - "Sentimeter" was developed.

"Centimeter" ("Centimeter-M") and "Krasnopol" - shells related to different concepts ...

[Bogalex]

UAS "Sentimeter" was put into service in 1983, but after the advent of "Krasnopol" was not used.
Although it is cheaper, it is much less accurate and requires zeroing, which negates its lower cost compared to OF39.

[Ka-52]

UAS "Sentimeter" was put into service in 1983, but after the advent of "Krasnopol" was not used.

it not only was not used, but was not even purchased. And the modernization of his "Sentimeter-M) was not even sent to the state. All because the authorities wanted an analogue of the American M712. We have always had a strong love for monkeying.

Although it is cheaper, it is much less accurate.

what does "much" mean? For example, they took and compared 18 targets by shooting. It turned out that the defeat required only 20% more 2K24 ammunition than the analogue 3OF39. Is it "much"? Then what can we say about the usual non-adjustable ammunition? As for cheaper - the cost of 2K24 is several times less, and the efficiency is only 20%. So where is the "reduces"? For an accurate hit on a stationary target such as a dugout, this is an excellent ratio. 2K24 has a minus only in range, but a large range of artillery systems can use it

[Bogalex]

Please, no promotional songs about "many times cheaper." I had the good fortune to communicate with representatives of STC "Ametech" when Vladimir Vishnevsky was still alive and actively promoted the idea of ​​his RCIC technology. Yes, cheaper, yes, not for interest. But far from "at times".
I don't know where you got the figure of 20% from, and I won't dispute it. But, judging by the described conditions of the experiment, we are talking about a very small sample and only about stationary targets. And "Krasnopol", by the way, also successfully works on moving targets, which is inaccessible to the "Centimeter" in principle. Based on the experience of using the conceptually identical "Smelchak" mine, I can say this: the accuracy of the corrected ammunition is such that it requires mandatory zeroing. Those. the consumption of these VTBs for guaranteed hitting the target is 2 ... 4. Krasnopol, on the other hand, usually hits the target from the first shot and in any case does not require more than two VTBs per target.
From the "Centimeter" refused not at all stupidity.

but it can be used by a large range of artillery systems

What other artillery system can use the Centimeter, but cannot fire the Krasnopolye?

[stankow]

Yes, VTB is also being shot. But with conventional shells.

[Bogalex]

Yes, VTB is also being shot

In no case, if we are talking about "Krasnopol" or "Kitolov".

[stankow]

Exactly them. The range of their correction is narrow, only a few hundred meters. In this range, you need to get there. If there is no time for full preparation, then they shoot the benchmark and transfer the fire.

[Bogalex]

Please don't write nonsense.
Installations for firing guided projectiles are determined only by methods of full (which is usually impossible) or reduced training.
The use of zeroed corrections, determined by the usual OFS, is absolutely meaningless for the Krasnopols, since they have completely different ballistic characteristics from the standard OFS and use their own firing tables.
Corrected mines "Smelchak", unlike "Krasnopole", shoot. But not with regular mines, but with the same "Daredevils".
Well, if you do not agree with me, then please give the rules for determining the calculated correction, for example, in range, when switching from firing with a standard projectile to a guided one. I am happy to expand my horizons and replenish my knowledge base.

[stankow]

What are the "perfect differences" in ballistics, if the mass, respectively, the initial speed differs by less than 10%? Yes, there are other tables, but the wind corrections also differ by no more than 10%. So, you correct the range of 100 m and are mistaken by 10%, but already from the error. That is, 10 m. From the entire range. The translation of one into another correction is in the same tables. Zeroing gives the main correction - for the wind and air density. Taking into account the distribution in height and distance. And the result is applicable for projectiles with close ballistics.
It is especially necessary at low cloud cover. The projectile shoots out of the clouds and has 3 seconds to capture the spot and work out corrections. Therefore, you need to hit with a deviation of less than 100 m. The easiest way is through the zeroing of the benchmark. Ordinary OF.

[Bogalex]

Well, please provide the rules for determining the calculated amendment, since everything is so simple.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

UAS "Krasnopol-D" 10 years ago

Mentions from 17-18 years. seem to be going.

And I heard about him "recently"! By the way, at the VO, some time ago, "Krasnopol-D" was mentioned ... moreover, some "comrades" categorically stated, almost switching to "mat", that there was no laser seeker in the ammunition! Everything may be, but it may not be ... but on the Internet I came across 2 articles that provided rather detailed data on Krasnopol-D with a mention of a laser seeker ...

[Ka-52]

Krasnopol D has a laser seeker.

[Two]

There was something about him in the Syrian topic. About 3 years ago. Maybe still in work?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In my opinion, a slightly different line is missing. There are not enough cumulative-fragmentation 82-mm mines for the Vasilek 2B9 automatic mortar. There is also no automatic grenade launcher in caliber 40-57 mm with cumulative fragmentation ammunition for it. And there are not enough means of increasing mobility and automated guidance for such weapons.
Having automatic grenade launchers with cumulative fragmentation ammunition, it will be possible to hit the detected equipment with mounted fire immediately, with available means, without involving higher-level means.

[moscowp]

It’s great that such ammunition still exists, despite the internal information wars that we had both with respect to UAVs and precision-guided munitions. Now it's up to small: the presence and quantity of such ammunition in each calculation and the presence of a UAV with the ability to highlight targets.

[Bogalex]

... adjustments are made from the air using UAVs such as Orlan-10

"Orlan-10" cannot be equipped with laser illuminators, therefore, in principle, they are not capable of firing guided projectiles with PLGSN.

The 2K25 guided weapon system with the 3OF39 Krasnopol projectile was developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau and put into service in 1995.

С 1984 year "Krasnopoli" in service with the Soviet army.

mine "Fringe" is compatible with universal systems "Nona", etc.

No, not compatible.

[Ka-52]

"Orlan-10" cannot be equipped with laser illuminators, therefore, in principle, they are not capable of firing guided projectiles with PLGSN.

they cannot, but did not have it in the configuration until 2020. In 2020, a laser designator-rangefinder was included in the equipment of Orlan-10.

[Bogalex]

This is about Orlan-30. "Orlan-10" could not carry such a load as before, and cannot now. And it's not about the configuration - performance characteristics are not allowed.

[Ka-52]

oh well, so he can carry a bullshit from Leer, but not a 3-kilogram dalmer?

[Bogalex]

I can not name the exact reasons - not an expert.
But the fact that only Orlan-30s (if we talk about the Orlan family) is used to illuminate the VTB is absolutely certain. "Orlan-10" are used only for surveillance reconnaissance, artillery and MLRS fire adjustment and control of its results. To ensure the firing of the UAS, they absolutely do not apply.

[Ka-52]

But the fact that only Orlan-30s (if we talk about the Orlan family) is used to illuminate the VTB is absolutely certain.

Eagles are not used for bombing either. But some craftsmen decided to make a bomber out of Orlan. The idea is stupid (without aiming equipment), but the fact took place))

[Bogalex]

Why are they not applied? As far as I know, "Orlan-10" has a version with a load of discharged fragmentation shells.
Well, about artisanal craftsmen - just shrug. They can do everything. Including undermine on their crafts.

[Ka-52]

As far as I know, "Orlan-10" has a version with a load of discharged fragmentation shells.

Orlan-10 is a reconnaissance UAV. What kind of fairy tales about the load in the form of ammunition? Write me the aiming mechanism? Does Orlan have something like an optical sight for bombing from level flight? something like the ancient OPB-1? Why they were going to make a drummer out of it is not clear. Looks like a tribute to fashion

[Bogalex]

Didn't you write the next passage yourself?

But some craftsmen decided to make a bomber out of Orlan. The idea is stupid (without aiming equipment), but the fact was the place to be

And now you ask me

What kind of fairy tales about the load in the form of ammunition?

Well, such are they, fairy tales ... you also told them.
As for the standard version, I can not describe any details. Again, I'm not an expert.

[Ka-52]

I wrote that this is an initiative of some needleworkers. And you wrote"Orlan-10" has a version with a load of discharged fragmentation shells". What does standard factory performance imply. Where is it written? Let's understand that there is a design execution, but there is handicraft. Design means that both the load is calculated and all aerodynamic characteristics with the load and standard mounts, standard SUV, etc. are provided. And you can drink any nonsense on your knee, but this does not mean "provided for"

[stankow]

You are confusing a rangefinder with a backlight. For the latter, a very accurate, weighty, gyro-stabilized platform is needed. Yes, a fast TV channel, that is, a powerful transmitter, a directional antenna, a short delay for commands, etc...

[Glory1974]

Everything seems to be there, but why is there information in telegram channels from military correspondents that our artillery is going to fire for a very long time, up to several hours, and therefore we cannot hit mobile guns. It turns out that the question is not in technology, but in organization.

[landromat]

152mm are not effective against solid reinforced concrete structures, UAS of 203mm caliber are needed, they are not heard at all.
Even recently, cases of shell depots being hit by high-precision systems are not uncommon, in this light, warehouses with guided missiles that are orders of magnitude smaller in area are the only way to somehow survive on the battlefield.
But in general, cannon artillery, like tanks, aircraft have become obsolete in the 21st century, the future belongs to kamikaze drones, in fact, mini and micro cruise missiles guided from UAVs and penny cubesat microsatellites

[Bogalex]

"Sound reinforced concrete structures" are also different. For some, the 152 mm caliber is enough. Even during the First World War in the German army, for example, it was considered reliable protection against 6-inch shells, covering as much as 8 meters thick. How many of these do we see today?
As for highly protected targets, they are not for artillery of the divisional brigade level. For such "Iskanders" there are.
The absence of 203-mm UAS, from my point of view, is a direct consequence of the doctrines of the 90s - 2000s. At that time, high-powered artillery was generally abandoned and, accordingly, no work was done to create new ammunition for it.
And, honestly, there is a healthy grain in this even today, when the Malki and Tulips have again found their place in the ranks. How many of them for all the Armed Forces? Even the massive 152-mm Krasnopol costs fabulous money, but how much will the UAS cost for the Malka, being a real piece product?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

That's why I propose to improve the 82-mm "Vasilek" and 57-mm LShO to increase mobility and guidance. If the target is within reach of automatic mortars, then it is quite possible to get by with cumulative fragmentation ammunition, against which not only equipment will not resist, but also small concrete structures.

[Bogalex]

To tell the truth, I am very skeptical about "Cornflower". Yes, if you need to create a high density of fire to reflect the waves of the Mujahideen running at you, it is wonderful.
But for everything else...
However, today it is pointless to talk about "Cornflower" in any case - as far as I know, it is not in the promising weapons system of the RF Armed Forces. Battalion artillery is switching to 120 mm caliber, 82 mm remain only in the Airborne Forces, but there will probably be newfangled Droks. I can assume that 82 mm caliber will be left in the mountainous parts (and even that is not a fact), but even more so, "Cornflowers" will not be registered there - they are too voracious.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A cumulative-fragmentation 82-mm mine, in a caliber almost identical to the RPG-7 warhead, is quite suitable for opening most field fortifications. And the 120-mm caliber is certainly better, but with its help automatic shooting is difficult, somewhat. In addition, it is impossible to place an effective cluster munition with cumulative submunitions in a 120-mm caliber. This means that it is impossible to replace automatic fire of 82-mm caliber with 120-mm.

[Bogalex]

But is she definitely needed - automatic shooting?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

As a replacement for large-caliber cluster munitions, I believe it is needed.
Moreover, it is possible to destroy dugouts with cumulative mines without resorting to fire with expensive ATGMs.

[Bogalex]

Sergei, the artillery of the battalion level should not carry out the tasks assigned to the funds of the senior commander. The battalion commander does not have echelons, the times of the USSR are long gone.
ATGMs, like the UASs discussed here, seem expensive only as long as the damage averted is not counted.
To destroy the dugout with ATGMs, you need one ATGM. How much for this you need to hammer 82-mm "Cornflowers", you can estimate. "Cornflower" will have to be pulled out for direct fire, otherwise (when shooting as if at an unobserved target), the entire ammunition load will not be enough. A certain time will be spent on deploying the mortar on the firing line ... The first cassette will have to be spent on zeroing in and then at least two or three more will be spent on shooting to kill. Least! Then withdraw from the firing position ... And all this time hope that the enemy did not see you, and when he saw, he did not want to do anything to you.
Only something tells me that the ending of such an operation will be sad not for the bunker at all ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Of course, the 82-mm mortar is more difficult to deploy, for this it is necessary to increase its mobility, but not in the Chinese way, when they put it in a jeep, but to put it on the Ural chassis, modeled on the Phlox self-propelled guns, or on a 4-wheeled chassis like C -60.
And it was not in my mind to hit the dugouts from Vasilok with direct fire, there the range of a direct shot does not allow this, and where it makes it easier to set up the SPG-9 "Boot". On dugouts and armored vehicles, it is necessary to conduct mounted fire, on the area, with cumulative fragmentation ammunition.

[Bogalex]

And why is it needed on the Ural chassis, if 120-mm systems are already installed on it like the Phlox you mentioned? For automatic shooting? Let it go to hell - a waste of ammunition!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

They put MTLB and BMP-1 on the chassis, but you even feel sorry for the chassis from the Urals (self-propelled guns Phlox). Again, there are also the possibilities of a towed four-wheel chassis.

[Bogalex]

Bet on anything, at least not the Ural, at least the KamAZ, at least the BAZ!
Just explain to start clearly - why? What benefits, besides the spectacular general "pooh-pooh-pooh", will you get?
The accuracy of shooting will be lower than that of the wearable "Tray" or "Drok" there, if about the future.
Power - below the 120-mm "Sled" or "Phlox".
Reliability, especially in the hands of a modern soldier, is beyond criticism. Who served on the "Cornflowers" knows perfectly well.
Ammunition wasted - you live great.
The ability to perform the tasks of lighting and smoke - refuse.
The possibility of destroying the DZOS, in comparison with the ATGM, is hardly distinguishable from zero.
The ability to observe the fact of hitting a target, even if KOBE hits the envelope, compared to an ATGM or a 120-mm mine, is doubtful.
And now let's pluses - maybe they will outweigh everything named?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Why on earth would the accuracy when mounted on a Phlox chassis be lower than that of a Tray or Drok?
The power of a single ammunition is lower than that of 120 mm, and the probability of an accurate hit on the target with a burst will be higher.
Ammunition consumption? There should be a place on the Ural chassis.
A single lighting mine can also be launched through the barrel.
ATGM type "Fagot" or "Competition" is very expensive and allows you to fire only direct fire.
If an 82-mm cumulative mine flies from above through the DZOS, will there definitely be zero penetration? Then the RPG-7 has zero penetration.
And now they are watching from drones, it is quite possible to track hits.
And about the hands of a modern soldier, no comment at all.

[Bogalex]

Why on earth would the accuracy when mounted on a Phlox chassis be lower than that of a Tray or Drok?

With such that "Cornflower" shoots bursts. The accuracy of firing the queue is obviously lower than when firing single shots. If you shoot them "Cornflower" only single, then why is it needed?

the probability of an accurate hit on the target with a burst will be higher.

Not at all. Below.

There should be a place on the Ural chassis.

What about warehouses? You don’t think that the entire second-hand 82-mm mortar is designed to solve just a couple of fire missions?

A single lighting mine can also be launched through the barrel.

And to me, as a commander, why then do I need such a "Cornflower"?

ATGM type "Fagot" or "Competition" is very expensive and allows you to fire only direct fire.

But just one missile with a quick escape from fire. And "Cornflower" ... Well, I have already described how it will look. So yes, it's expensive. But not more expensive than the lives of calculation.

If an 82-mm cumulative mine flies from above through the DZOS, will there definitely be zero penetration?

Maybe it will, maybe not. How do you check? Have you ever seen a cumulative fragmentation munition hit a target? I've seen. And I'll tell you this - it's not at all obvious what the purpose is. The hit was, the gap was fixed. What's inside is not known.

And about the hands of a modern soldier, no comment at all.

And very wrong. Not to understand that we now do not have a Soviet army is the greatest mistake of our designers and military officials involved in the development of weapons.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Are you so sure about the safety of launching ATGMs and quickly leaving the position? I want to disappoint you. The launch of an ATGM is observed visually or by means of detecting flashes of a shot, the enemy does not even need ultra-modern means of artillery reconnaissance. ATGMs are used at distances from 1 km, approximately, otherwise it is easier to set up the SPG-9 heavy grenade launcher. The flight speed of the ATGM is about 250 m / s, the target must be kept in sight during the entire flight, and this is already more than 4 s. The location of the launcher is found easier and faster than mortar positions.
The rest is just too lazy to answer, the transfusion from empty to empty has already begun.
And it’s not at all clear about the Soviet Army, now contract soldiers are fighting, why are they worse?

[Bogalex]

And it’s not at all clear about the Soviet Army, now contract soldiers are fighting, why are they worse?

Alas, Sergey, worse.
As for my alleged confidence in the safety of ATGM firing, yes, it is unsafe. Everything you described is correct. But it's still safer than direct fire from the "Vasilok". And in another way, I emphasize once again, 2B9 will not be able to complete the task of defeating the DZOS with an acceptable ammunition consumption.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And if an RPG-7 grenade hits the DZOS from above, will it be able to?

[Bogalex]

And how will a grenade from an RPG-7 hit the DZOS from above? Tell me.

[garri-lin]

You are fundamentally wrong. Small caliber as a concrete breaker is ineffective. The barrier action is weak.
Better a pair of 120mm mines than their weight equivalent in 82mm.
Plus, the focus of the funnel matters. For metal and concrete they are different.
In fact, you propose to create a new system that has no advantages over the existing one.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

No new system, I just propose to develop a cumulative fragmentation mine for an automatic 82-mm mortar. And use these mines with mounted fire on armored vehicles and enemy fortifications.
And it’s even strange to hear about low efficiency. To begin with, familiarize yourself with the caliber of the available cumulative fragmentation submunitions in cluster munitions and the size of their charge. And something is not heard about the weak concrete-piercing effect of the 73-mm BMP-1 gun (the same SPG-9) or RPG-7, moreover, the caliber of 82-mm mines is superior to the rather weak grenades available.
Why compare in weight, 120mm and 82mm ammunition when hit probability is more important.

[Bogalex]

Why compare in weight, 120mm and 82mm ammunition when hit probability is more important.

Excellent! What is the probability of hitting an 82-mm mine when firing from a "Vasilok" in a DZOS? Preferably with calculation methods and data sources.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

What are you doing with this DZOS. The effectiveness of armored vehicles must first of all be looked at. At least, according to eyewitnesses, it is not possible to hit the tank with howitzer mounted fire from 122-mm guns, the tank has time to leave. Cornflower in this particular case can do much more.
And calculation methods and data sources are also not expected from you.

[Bogalex]

What are you up to with this DZOS

I got hooked??? Yes, this is your only argument to justify the usefulness of 82-mm cumulative fragmentation mines! Well, no, no, let's talk about other goals.
Tank?
The probability of its defeat by the means proposed by you is equal to zero. "Cornflower" in this particular case will be able to do no more than the usual "Tray". Well, except that it will spend 4..8 times more minutes.

And calculation methods and data sources are also not expected from you.

Be kind enough to first answer a direct question to you personally. And everything that concerns "also not expected" you will see in the answer.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Personally, then, get the dispersion tables for "Cornflower" and then there will be a substantive conversation. And I also know how to ask questions.

[Bogalex]

TS No. 083 are freely available on the Internet. The seeker will find.

And I also know how to ask questions.

No doubt. Do you know how to answer questions? Or will you continue to dodge?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And where is there about dispersion? Until there is information on dispersion, statements about a zero result when shelling armored vehicles and DZOS are empty chatter, and not an axiom at all. The desire to confirm your words did not appear?

[Bogalex]

Dear, where can you not see information about the dispersion of mines? In the shooting tables?
Maybe you didn’t find the shooting tables?
And if you didn’t find it, then how did you even make such a statement a little earlier:

Why compare by weight, 120mm and 82mm ammunition when hit probability is more important

Well, having said "A", finally say "B" - so what is the probability of hitting 120- and 82-mm ammunition, since it is so important?
I emphasize - it was you who started this topic, not me!
So answer for your words! Is it really weak?
Or don't you have the courage to admit that you can't do it?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I can refresh my memory!

Quote: Bogalex

All right.
We will talk about a mortar with accuracy characteristics 2B14-1 "Tray" or 2B9 "Cornflower" (with your permission, at my choice).
Range, if you don't mind, let's take the average - 2150 m.
Mortar - one, i.e. aiming point at the center of the target, sight jump and goniometer offset are not assigned.
The number of mines per sight is three. After the transition to shooting to kill with adjustment, if necessary, after each fire raid, three mines.
Taking into account the working week, tomorrow evening I will try to give you the result.

Is it the memory that is so short, or a way of not fulfilling the given promises, by outweighing?
After all, I didn’t receive an answer, but now I see an attempt to “roll the watermelon”.
But a bad memory is a sign of low intelligence.

[Bogalex]

Here I will not even make excuses - I am certainly guilty. Work then spun recklessly, leaving not a single free minute, which, however, is not important. I really did not keep my promise then, but I am ready to improve. Now there is time for calculations - I can answer either in that thread, or here, or in a personal message - whatever you like.
That's just not really relevant to this conversation, is it?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Not so, the question was exactly on the same topic.

[garri-lin]

In armored vehicles, even 40 mm cumuls show themselves well. The question is that armored vehicles snarl well. And he maneuvers.
But for the bunker, a few holes from 82 mm cumulus mean little. Moreover, a fixed bunker can protect much easier than armored vehicles limited by weight.
The cumulative jet does not like a lot of things and you can safely use it. Not too difficult to build.
The same spaced screens from all sorts of rubbish.
The barrier action of the jet remnants will be near zero.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I can offer a video, to clarify mental activity, and a weak behind-the-barrier action of a shot from an RPG-7, there is almost the same caliber. https://youtu.be/_J-uKNb6TaI

[garri-lin]

Old video. And what does it prove? What if you play giveaway then it's easier to win? Then a question. And if there would be another package a meter in front of the glass package. Thin, 3 sheets. What would be the result then?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And what is the conclusion about the weak behind-the-barrier effect of the cumulative jet of 82-mm caliber based on? Is this a conjecture to keep the conversation going?

[garri-lin]

This is my own practice. I saw RPG7 shooting at concrete walls as a teenager. The main harm is from concrete crumbs pulled out from the inside of the barrier. But if this wall is lined with sandbags, then just a small hole. And the walls were 40 cm, the so-called foundation blocks.
Personal experience.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

About the practice, more reminiscent of far-fetched memories, we will not.
The PG-7V grenade has a penetration of 260 mm of metal with a caliber of 85 mm, respectively, a cumulative mine of 82 mm will have similar characteristics.
And now, attention, the main question, what will be the percentage of dugouts (DZOS) capable of withstanding a vertical hit from above by an 82-mm cumulative fragmentation mine without serious consequences?

[garri-lin]

Depends on how the cover is made. If in a few, as they used to say, "rollups", then with minimal consequences.
Concrete slab and top soil and logs alternately.
And there will be a small hole in the roof into which maximum rain will flow. And even if the fighters in the room suffer, they will be replaced by other warriors.
Heavy, strong fortifications are the knots of defense. If you disable them for 15 minutes, nothing will change. They must be completely destroyed. And 82 mm is unsuitable for this. And no cornflower will give the desired density of fire. And if you shoot for a long time, then the return line will fly in and Khan Vasily.
I understand that water wears away stone. But this takes a lot of time.

[landromat]

The Serbian winged kosava 250kg 100kg bch shows that 203mm uas for small guns is really not needed, like similar artillery systems themselves, it’s cheaper, easier, more inconspicuous.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Anything winged is completely knocked down by air defense systems, and a 203-mm projectile is somewhat more difficult to shoot down and its cost is lower.

[landromat]

The battery is not detected by counter-battery radars, unlike.

[Bogalex]

There is one "but": a cruise missile can be shot down by means of military air defense, and a 203-mm artillery shell is practically impossible.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Bogalex

The absence of 203-mm UAS, from my point of view, is a direct consequence of the doctrines of the 90s - 2000s. At that time, high-powered artillery was generally abandoned and, accordingly, no work was done to create new ammunition for it.

Actually, in the "voicing" of plans for improving the 203-mm artillery systems, the development of guided (adjusted) artillery shells was mentioned ...

[Bogalex]

There were indeed proposals from the industry. But, as far as I understand, having calculated the costs and the expected increase in efficiency, the Moscow Region did not finance them.

[garri-lin]

In price analysis, do you proceed only from a smaller "mass character"? In fact, the filling of Krasnopol should be transferred to a caliber of 203 mm and the rudder drives should be strengthened. The price of brains will not change much. The price of the Malka projectile itself is of course more due to the size.
I think the difference in price will be proportional.
But about the mass can be calculated. 203 mm is used quite actively. The projectile will not be piece. There will be parties.

[Bogalex]

In fact, the filling of Krasnopol should be transferred to a caliber of 203 mm and the rudder drives should be strengthened.

You are deeply mistaken. Even just the transition of "Krasnopol-2M" from caliber 155 to caliber 152 required a full-fledged development work, the costs of which will logically merge into the cost of shells of the first batches. The development of UAS for "Malka" is not just a "scaling" of "Krasnopol". And it won't be very cheap.
As for the mass character, I will once again draw your attention - a truly massive "Krasnopol", as they voiced here, costs 1,8 million rubles. I believe this is at the end of its production (early 2000s). Now it costs more.
No matter how actively they use "Malki", "Msta" is used by orders of magnitude (not by an order of magnitude, but by orders of magnitude) more actively. The cost of a 203 mm UAS will not only be several times more expensive than a 152 mm counterpart, but many times...

[garri-lin]

I agree with R&D. Not scaling. But the components are the same except for the rudder drives. It will be expensive but not prohibitive.
The price of a shot will also not be small. But unification of the components of the "smart" part with the same Krasnopol is possible and this will reduce the price.
As a result, we will have ammunition with a range of about 50 km and a warhead mass of 100 kg.
Malka is actively used. Not like 152 mm, but not alone. Plus, in the same Kaliningrad they were introduced into the "coastal defense".
It will be very convenient to work from the depths of the coast on enemy landing craft with a guided projectile.
There is a niche for the use of guided projectiles in caliber 203 mm.
The need for them is several times less than 152mm, but not orders of magnitude.

[Bogalex]

We are invading the realm of fantasy, which in itself is a thankless task.
I would not at all be against the development of the 203 mm UAS. Very even "for". Only not with PLGSNs of the Krasnopolye type, but rather with autonomous heads, or at least those reaching the target according to the signals of satellite radio navigation systems. Still, sending reconnaissance rangefinders or UAVs to the front line to organize the light of the UAS is not a task at the level of RGK artillery.
But it’s not for you and me to cut the sovereign’s budget and count money in the treasury. So let's wait what happens in the end for those who are entitled to it by salary.

[garri-lin]

Dreams Dreams. There are qualified people. And there are accountants who usually destroy the initiative of competent people.

[ada]

I'm sorry to intrude, but it's very interesting. It is purely speculative, if we take as the main task of BM systems - shooting to destroy, then, provided that the strength characteristics of the projectile body, similar power and firing range, equipping it with an engine, system and advanced controls, will the ammunition look like something in between ballistic and cruise missile in a mini size to ensure stable control in flight? The elongation of the body will certainly become significant.

[ada]

Well, for "Tulip", that is, adjustable mines.

[stankow]

For Tulip there is a Daredevil. Seen in action, Azovstal noted, with a victory.

[ada]

I saw a video and photo of the use of Daredevil at the training ground first-hand with details. The process is not easy, but the result of even a close hit on a buried protected structure is impressive, in fact, the complete destruction of the massive reinforced concrete structures of a separate DOS and their significant displacement in the ground. The "shishiga" definitely climbs into the funnel.

[Zaurbek]

They cover it, but how many are there? Who gives them CC? At what range does it all shoot.?

[Mustached Kok]

There is a lack of a light and compact laser target designation system with a universal interface. Whatever one complex, it could be easily used both from the hands, and installed on equipment and attached to a medium / heavy UAV. Also, based on the experience of observing the hostilities of the last 15 years, I thought about creating a simple wired / fiber optic launch complex for ATGMs, MANPADS, Mortars, etc.
The operators of such complexes are both a necessary element of control (the AI ​​will not be fully trusted to launch shells soon) and its most vulnerable part. At the same time, not always, shooting from such systems occurs as a promotion on the battlefield at the sight of a potential target. Sometimes this is a stationary position (either being in an ambush or at a conditional checkpoint or base). And in order to protect the operator at such moments, which means to increase the chance of a successful shot while saving the life of the operator himself. We are creating a complex that allows firing with standard infantry weapons (with a change in the carriage design, of course) from a distance of 5-10 m from the weapon itself. For example, a group, disguised, sat in an ambush and controls the road that the enemy can use. The group has anti-tank systems to destroy enemy armored vehicles. ATGM, covering with branches or a camouflage net, we install in position. But the operator does not hang out next to him, because modern detection tools can simply notice the warmth of a fighter. Instead, the operator sits in a closed and camouflaged trench at a distance of 5-10 meters from the complex and controls the ATGM through a laptop or a unified army tablet with this complex. Moreover, the connection, for the purpose of masking, is carried out by wire or even fiber optic. In a tablet / laptop, he sees the same thing he would see when observing through the eyepiece.

[stankow]

There is "Stugna", there is a Belarusian development with a remote control, too. But keep in mind - not a single display will show even close, like an eyepiece to the eye. Wrong resolution, wrong light power, wrong speed, wrong colors...

[Kostadinov]

If the enemy is not Indians with bows, then with proper counteraction, the accuracy of guided ammunition can hit worse than that of unguided ones.
With good reconnaissance devices and UO, uncontrolled ammunition can approach in accuracy the guided ones without counteraction.

[ada]

I support. Initially, accurate artillery systems, with the appropriate completeness and quality of training of the SIUO, in terms of firing accuracy, approach the accuracy of corrected ammunition. Guided projectiles are still out of competition in terms of accuracy and cost per target.

[wladimirjankov]

obviously there are few red fields, edges, and indeed high-precision weapons in our army. Modern means of counter-battery combat, reconnaissance and its efficiency are also not enough. Therefore, it is necessary to hit mainly on the squares and in the white light like a pretty penny. The video taken from the UAV clearly shows how our cannon artillery, MLRS works. mortars. The results and efficiency, to put it mildly, are not impressive. We plow with a huge number of shells empty fields adjacent to roads and forest belts, in which there are no trenches, no dugouts, no Bandera equipment, or at least traces of it. They shoot poorly even with direct adjustment from the UAV. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Nazis freely behave both at the front line and in their rear, mobilely move artillery, equipment, advance to combat positions, hit the cities and towns of the Donbas, Donetsk itself, and then leave with almost impunity. For almost 5 months now, the so-called "people's militia" of the DPR has been standing in one place near this damned Avdiivka and cannot knock out the adversaries from there, throw them away from Donetsk. And that says a lot.

[Sedoy]

So, even in the first weeks of the operation, it became known that artillery units were using the Krasnopol guided projectile .... the maximum range of 20 km is ensured by a deviation of no more than a few meters.
the 3OF39M projectile ... made it possible to increase the range to 25 km while maintaining the same accuracy and power.

there are few of them ... according to the Syrian experience, the effective range is up to 12 km, although according to the passport it is 20 (when firing at 20 km, Krasnopol deviates from the trajectory and does not find laser illumination), there is Krasnopol-D, but it is even less, because Krasnopol has been working in the warehouse since the 80s of the last century, and the newest ones were almost never bought ...
for the withdrawal of projectiles of the "Krasnopol" type to the target capture area by the homing head, a guidance system based on a mechanical gyroscope is used, therefore, Krasnopol at long ranges often do not reach the target capture area accurately and miss ...
to avoid this, it is necessary to modernize Krasnopol and replace mechanical horoscopes with combined ones with a microelectronic unit using GLONASS ...
this block was received only by the new Krasnopol-D, which are orders of magnitude (100 times) less

now the Kitolov guided projectile and the Gran mortar mine are used. However, there is no official confirmation of such information.

the key here is "there is no official confirmation of such information" ...

[Sedoy]

the development of auxiliary areas - reconnaissance and control facilities - has a positive effect. The benefit of such an integrated approach is obvious and is again being confirmed in practice.

talkers... :)
lead from the fields, i.e. proof in practice...
“Firstly, we need timely reconnaissance from the satellite and from the ground by all means, from radio equipment up to undercover reconnaissance. We must clearly understand what enemy means are located directly in this area, quickly obtain their coordinates in order to develop an algorithm and countermeasure options The sooner this information gets in, the sooner you can prepare for action.
Big questions about the management of forces and means ...
And not even on a tactical level. All structures should be closed to a single control system. They must have clear coordination and unity of command so that everything is in the hands of one commander. This will make it possible to ensure the most complete coordination and interaction of all forces and capabilities.
Those. we need to improve management and coordination from above"

[anykind]

For the infantry, the target illumination device is, to put it mildly, heavy. 3-4kg maximum is needed. We are silent that the same device should send data to the satellite and allow it to transmit the approach vector for aviation, etc. etc.

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

Interestingly, such shells in the West are already considered obsolete and removed from service. In the United States, the Copperhead (copperhead) projectile began to be developed in the 1970s, was adopted in the 1980s, was successfully used in the Desert Storm campaign, and disappeared from the scene by the early 2000s. The main claims of the American army were that the projectile required continuous laser illumination, which could only be provided by foot scouts or a drone. But they could also attack themselves with a wearable ATGM, without resorting to the help of artillery. After the rejection of the Copperhead, the Americans and Europeans went their separate ways. The American Excalibur required precise coordinates to land with an accuracy of 5-10 meters. Thanks to GPS guidance, it hit the target with an accuracy of up to 5 meters, and being lighter than a conventional projectile, it flew up to 60 km.

European developments - German SMART and Franco-Swedish BONUS - were much inferior in range (although they also flew 30 km with a bottom gas generator), but they did not need accuracy at all. Once about a kilometer above the landing site, these intelligent projectiles threw out two submunitions and began to scan the area below them in search of tanks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, trucks and other shit. As soon as something matched the memory, it was immediately destroyed.

[ZuekRek]

Quote: Ka-52

Here is a paradox - the United States, with its military budget, does not withdraw m795-type shells for its 155mm howitzers from circulation. They probably don't read VO.

There are targets at a depth of up to 60 km, which are affected by the new excalibur. There are tasks of "classic" artillery, which are solved by conventional supplies. And they also have an M1156 for the same M795, which can make, as they say now, "smart" from an ordinary projectile. Well, and most importantly, they have the ability to automatically receive target designation from drones / people / counter-battery radars and choose how to shoot: pointwise and far away, “smartly” and closer or to hell ..m pour cast iron over a mass concentration area.