Military Review

Indonesia acquired Zak Skyshield

27
The head of the supply department of the Indonesian Ministry of Defense, rear admiral Rachmad Lubis, told 28 on May 2013 of the Indonesian newspaper Tempo that Indonesia had signed a contract to purchase six 35-mm anti-aircraft artillery systems Rheinmetall Defense Skyshield, and that these systems are now "located during production. " The systems are designed for the defense of the airfields of the Indonesian Air Force, and must be integrated with portable air defense systems of unnamed type. The contract value is 202 million, while, according to Rakhmad Lubis, four Skyshield complexes must be supplied in the 2015 year, and two more in the 2017 year.


Thus, the situation with the first customer of the Skyshield complexes became clearer. Concern Rheinmetall in January 2013 of the year announced the receipt of a foreign order for six Skyshield complexes from an "Asian country", but did not name it specifically.

The Skyshield 35 AHEAD complex was developed by Rheinmetall Defense division of Rheinmetall, which is using a оль оль оль оль option. 2000 rate of fire 35 shots per minute. This artillery system is also used in the semi-stationary ZANT MANTIS (in the amount of two batteries acquired by the German Air Force), ZSU Skyranger (supplied by Saudi Arabia) and the ship ZAK Millennium MDG-35. The Skyshield complex includes a fire station control module and two or three RGM fire modules.


35-mm anti-aircraft artillery complex Rheinmetall Defense Skyshield 35 AHEAD
Originator:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. il grand casino
    il grand casino 31 May 2013 10: 37 New
    0
    The Germans were smart. It is interesting to compare it with the Iron Dome - efficiency / price
    1. Mitek
      Mitek 31 May 2013 10: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: il grand casino
      The Germans were smart. It is interesting to compare it with the Iron Dome - efficiency / price

      Only real battles will show. Everything else is marketing. In general, a long time ago (while still at school I was studying and preparing for a military school), the idea of ​​stationary air defense points with an increased number of barrels in the block and a huge BC went around in my head. To cover stationary objects a la plant or nuclear power plant for example)))) But Nemchura embodied)
      1. astra
        astra 31 May 2013 11: 32 New
        +5
        Indonesia acquired Zak Skyshield

        Certainly not the last role in the success of the sale of this complex was played by design. Something like the guns from the movie Star Wars)))
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 31 May 2013 11: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Mitek
        In general, a long time ago (while still at school I was studying and preparing for a military school), the idea of ​​stationary air defense points with an increased number of barrels in the block and a huge BC went around in my head. To cover stationary objects a la plant or nuclear power plant for example)))) But Nemchura embodied)

        Nemchura embodied in WWII.

        "Luftwaffe anti-aircraft towers (German: Flakturm [flakturm]) - large ground concrete bunkers, armed with air defense artillery, used by the Luftwaffe during the Second World War to concentrate the deployment of large-caliber anti-aircraft gun groups in order to protect strategically important cities from anti-aircraft aerial bombardments."

        As practice has shown, they did not become supernatural even for piston aircraft.
    2. Professor
      Professor 31 May 2013 11: 29 New
      +2
      Compare the possibility of using and barrel systems, preferred LCD.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 31 May 2013 13: 56 New
        +1
        The Swiss, it seems, were tested.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 31 May 2013 14: 07 New
          +1
          They would be for us to ashuluk tests there so tests and full-height electronic warfare and different goals.
    3. Siberian German
      Siberian German 31 May 2013 12: 10 New
      0
      Soviet designers had such ideas a little bit before implementation and the Germans did great work
    4. Pimply
      Pimply 31 May 2013 13: 55 New
      +1
      Different tasks - different area
    5. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 31 May 2013 14: 12 New
      +1
      In general, the trend is not very. Brazil, instead of the "Shell", the German junk ordered, and Indonesia (our client) from Switzerland. Did they collapse from the oak ?.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 31 May 2013 14: 18 New
        +1
        so modern air defense is not very cheap.
        1. MilaPhone
          MilaPhone 31 May 2013 14: 53 New
          +3
          Quote: astra
          Certainly not the last role in the success of the sale of this complex was played by design. Something like the guns from the movie Star Wars)))

          Yeah, but if you remove the external panel it will look like a Terminator.
      2. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 31 May 2013 21: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
        In general, the trend is not very. Brazil, instead of the "Shell", the German junk ordered, and Indonesia (our client) from Switzerland. Did they collapse from the oak ?.

        This is politics. Sometimes to lobby for your interests you need to buy something that in general is not necessary ...
    6. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 31 May 2013 21: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: il grand casino
      The Germans were smart. It is interesting to compare it with the Iron Dome - efficiency / price

      In general, it smells like the middle of the 20th century, the radius of action, and what are these complexes against? Shoot down a helicopter landing?
      I remember the advertisement of this system of the year since 2008, like it was supposed to shoot down artillery shells. It turned out at the Germans, who knows?
      And as I understand it, the system is completely autonomous or is staff still needed?
  2. Yozhas
    Yozhas 31 May 2013 10: 38 New
    +1
    From whom are you going to defend yourself ??? From the rebels or something ??? so they have nothing flying except grenades.
  3. USNik
    USNik 31 May 2013 10: 47 New
    +2
    Of the pluses, the complex of 6 35mm cannons is fully automated and works around the clock, also, the shells programmed for remote detonation, the time of firing 5 seconds. Of the minuses - the store is of limited capacity and its reload speed is extremely low, the complex is stationary and requires a lot of time to bring into combat condition and wide infrastructure. In general, a good thing is to protect the bases from poits. Although, if the popoids drag in not 1 mortar, but 10 pieces and shoot at once, skyshit will not cope.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 31 May 2013 12: 50 New
      0
      IMHO, it will cope. But only what Papuans can attack Germany, who will let them pass to these objects and allow them to fire?
  4. fisherman
    fisherman 31 May 2013 10: 54 New
    +4
    It seems to me that in a modern warfare, stationary air defense systems are doomed to be destroyed in the first place.
    1. Jin
      Jin 31 May 2013 11: 21 New
      0
      Quote: fisherman
      It seems to me that in a modern warfare, stationary air defense systems are doomed to be destroyed in the first place


      I agree, colleague, I’ll add from myself that this complex is effective only when integrated with missile launchers, because it can be destroyed by an air-to-ground missile, from a distance exceeding the range of destruction by cannon weapons. Well, for Indonesia, however, a ride!)
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 31 May 2013 12: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: Jin
        destroyed by an air-to-ground missile, from a distance exceeding the range of destruction by cannon weapons.


        This, excuse me, how? How will a rocket destroy this stationary garbage without going into its radius of destruction?
        1. Jin
          Jin 31 May 2013 12: 58 New
          -1
          Quote: patsantre
          This, excuse me, how? How will a rocket destroy this stationary garbage without going into its radius of destruction?


          And this is so! The range of missiles (those that operate on an air defense facility) exceeds the radius of action of cannon weapons! For example, Pencir-1C, namely missile-cannon.
          1. Melchakov
            Melchakov 31 May 2013 13: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Jin
            Quote: patsantre
            This, excuse me, how? How will a rocket destroy this stationary garbage without going into its radius of destruction?


            And this is so! The range of missiles (those that operate on an air defense facility) exceeds the radius of action of cannon weapons! For example, Pencir-1C, namely missile-cannon.

            And he does not know how to knock down rockets?
            1. Jin
              Jin 31 May 2013 13: 16 New
              0
              Quote: Melchakov
              And he does not know how to knock down rockets?


              Colleague, looking at what kind of missiles. Some can and can, although with a rate of 1000 rounds / min, even with a remotely detonated warhead .... Here are the characteristics of the new Russian missile, judge for yourself whether this mechanism can bring down several of these missiles launched into it:

              The main characteristics of the X-38 rocket:
              - body length / diameter / wing span: 4,2x0,31x1,14 m;
              - rocket launch mass: 520 kg;
              - warhead mass: up to 250 kg;
              - launch range: 3-40 km;
              - missile flight speed: not more than Mach 2,2;
              - angle of the bearing of the target at the time of launch in the horizontal plane: ± 80 °;
              - probability of hitting the target: 0,8 / 0,6 (without opposition / with opposition of the enemy);
              - rocket resource:
              take-off and landing: 15/30 (airplane / helicopter);
              on the fly under the carrier: 75/75 h;
              operating hours of equipment: 90/90 hours
              - service life: 10 years;

              - explosive device: contact;
              - range of launch heights: 200-12000 m;
              - range of launch speeds: 15-450 m / s.

              I don’t think that this anti-aircraft gun will have time to react and bring down a small-sized target flying at a speed of about 755 m / s or 2693 km / h
              1. patsantre
                patsantre 31 May 2013 15: 32 New
                -1
                Quote: Jin
                And this is so! The range of missiles (those that operate on an air defense facility) exceeds the radius of action of cannon weapons! For example, Pencir-1C, namely missile-cannon.

                So what? Does this somehow prevent him from shooting down a rocket?
                And can he shoot down missiles of the X-38 type can only be found out in practice. As long as all your argumentation is just “I don’t think”.
                1. Jin
                  Jin 31 May 2013 15: 44 New
                  +1
                  Quote: patsantre
                  So far, all your argumentation is just “I don't think so.”


                  You know, I look noble anti-aircraft gunner! so why in the Navy, for example, to combat missiles use 6-barrel automatic guns with a rate of fire of several thousand rounds per minute and much more ammunition ??? I will answer you, to ensure maximum density of barrage shells! To really destroy the threat! and here 1000 only, albeit several installations and ammunition with remote detonation! Do you seriously think that any one stupid person with one single missile will fly to bomb something, knowing about the means of counteraction ??? You then I look at all their conclusions do not argue
                  1. 11 black
                    11 black 31 May 2013 18: 59 New
                    0
                    Quote: Jin
                    So what? Does this somehow prevent him from shooting down a rocket?
                    And can he shoot down missiles of the X-38 type can only be found out in practice. As long as all your argumentation is just “I don’t think”.

                    Quote: Jin
                    You know, I look noble anti-aircraft gunner! so why in the Navy, for example, to combat missiles use 6-barrel automatic guns with a rate of fire of several thousand rounds per minute and much more ammunition ??? I will answer you, to ensure maximum density of barrage shells! To really destroy the threat! and here 1000 only, albeit several installations and ammunition with remote detonation! Do you seriously think that any one stupid person with one single missile will fly to bomb something, knowing about the means of counteraction ??? You then I look at all their conclusions do not argue


                    Listen, you are arguing on an empty topic - this complex is NOT PRINCIPLED TO FIGHT ALONE (in 1 - sooner or later a fixed target will be destroyed by the enemy anyway, in 2 several (3-4) attack aircraft will oversaturate the capabilities of this system), this just the last frontier of the air defense / missile defense system, which should intercept something that has made its way through the main echelons of defense and I think he will cope with this task IMHO.
                    1. Jin
                      Jin 1 June 2013 00: 38 New
                      +1
                      Quote: 11 black
                      Listen, you are arguing on an empty topic - this complex is NOT PRINCIPLED TO FIGHT ALONE (in 1 - sooner or later a fixed target will be destroyed by the enemy anyway, in 2 several (3-4) attack aircraft will oversaturate the capabilities of this system), this just the last frontier of the air defense / missile defense system, which should intercept something that has made its way through the main echelons of defense and I think he will cope with this task IMHO.


                      If you carefully read what I wrote in the posts above, or rather, what I started with, you will understand that I cut for the same thing ... that is, this complex with cannon armament is viable only in integration with complexes, with a missile ... it is he (this complex) that is, as you rightly noted, the last frontier ... without a missile component, this is a blast from the first minutes. Not?
                  2. patsantre
                    patsantre 2 June 2013 12: 35 New
                    0
                    Do you even read what I'm writing?
                    At the expense of rate of fire, why not take into account caliber, muzzle energy, and scatter?
                    1. Jin
                      Jin 2 June 2013 12: 47 New
                      +1
                      Quote: patsantre
                      then do not take into account caliber, muzzle energy, scatter?


                      Consider if you read carefully! The caliber of this fool and the caliber of anti-aircraft guns differ slightly, and where does the muzzle energy do not cut, what is the spread ??? Here is the fact that the ammunition has a remote detonation, it is important, because a continuous zone of destruction is created in the path of the rocket. But! The speed of the X-38 is significant and knocking it down is therefore extremely difficult without a high rate of fire !!! That's what I mean! Compare the speed of the projectile fired at the rocket and the counter speed of the rocket, i.e. at their intersection, an anti-aircraft shell must explode and destroy the rocket. Given the speed of the X-38, this is not easy. Also, if you read the posts, I started by saying that a missile can be launched without entering the anti-aircraft gun’s strike zone ...- probability of hitting a target: 0,8 / 0,6 (without opposition / with enemy opposition), and if missiles several and not from the same plane and from different directions ???; i.e. I’m saying that there’s still a high probability, but this little one will not be able to bring down an airplane !!! Stupidly "imperfect" !!! drinks
                      1. patsantre
                        patsantre 4 June 2013 22: 51 New
                        -1
                        So it was a question of destroying a rocket, not an airplane) Especially for aircraft, they have something heavier.
                        Quote: Jin
                        Compare the speed of the projectile fired at the rocket and the counter speed of the rocket, i.e. at their intersection, an anti-aircraft shell must explode and destroy the rocket. Given the speed of the X-38, this is not easy.


                        What about proactive shooting?
                      2. Jin
                        Jin 4 June 2013 23: 12 New
                        +1
                        Quote: patsantre
                        So it was a question of destroying a rocket, not an airplane) Especially for aircraft, they have something heavier.


                        So, it was about the destruction of this anti-aircraft guns actually! Just, without how you write “heavier”, this “mechanism” is the goal for suppression by aviation in the first minutes of the battle, and the rest of the discussion “stuck” along the way ... Colleague, read the discussion about anything, post with beginning to end, maybe restore the picture for yourself, otherwise it turns out started for health, but finished, you know ...
  • Strashila
    Strashila 31 May 2013 12: 52 New
    0
    Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages.
  • Vtel
    Vtel 31 May 2013 13: 35 New
    +3
    It uses Revolver Gun Mounts (RGM) firing modules with a single-barrel 35 mm Oerlikon KDG35 / 1000 revolving gun at a rate of 1000 rounds per minute.

    All the kopecks are Indonesian mosquitoes, crows and Boeings.
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 9 June 2013 21: 57 New
    +2
    Look cool