Military Review

Anti missile attack

67
Anti missile attack
The sound of the ship's automata is impressive. 170 shots per second - a wild howl, intolerable to the human ear. Because of this, our naval officers prefer AK-306 installations with a lower rate of fire than AK-630 and Palash.


In October, the 1943 th near Yalta German bombers Yu-87 sank the leader "Kharkov" and the destroyers "Merciless" and "Able". Their anti-aircraft guns were useless against low-flying aircraft, and the 70K assault rifles had a low rate of fire and after the 80 – 100 shots they warmed up to 350 – 400С. After this battle, Stalin forbade the exit of large ships "without sufficient aviation cover." The admirals were reinsured, and until the end of the war, not a single ship from the destroyer or higher left the ports into the Black Sea.

The first Soviet anti-aircraft gun AK-230. The rate of firing of 1000 rounds per minute was not sufficient to reliably destroy anti-ship missiles.

Forest trunks

American 40-mm automatic machines "Bofors" were no better than our 70K, and the Yankees decided to take a number. On their ships, wherever possible, they ran anti-aircraft guns. On the battleships of them was over a hundred, and on cruisers - up to 60, with half being 40-mm caliber, and half - 20-mm. A forest of trunks created a sea of ​​fire. Nevertheless, the kamikaze broke through him and hit the decks and superstructures of ships. They managed to sink relatively few ships, but dozens were turned into huge bonfires, which, although they remained afloat, were only suitable for scrap.

With the advent of jet aircraft and cruise anti-ship missiles (RCC), which operated at low and ultra-low altitudes, the role of classic anti-aircraft guns has practically come to naught. The 1967 photo of the year crashed into my memory: the Egyptian MiG-17 flies over the Israeli anti-aircraft gunners, and they do not even react to it. The faces show that they do not see or hear anything.

Installation AK-306 - a simplified version of AK-630

Drummers

Fully automated installations with a rate of several thousand rounds per minute were required to effectively protect the ships. In them the fire opens and is conducted without any participation of the calculation. The fire control system itself detects the target, the “friend – foe” auto-request works, the most dangerous target for the ship is selected, its trajectory and gun preemption are calculated, the barrels are guided and fire is opened automatically.

A further increase in the rate of fire is associated with almost insurmountable technological and constructive difficulties. Therefore, the designers decided to move away from the classical scheme of the “single barrel - one breech” machine gun and move on to other schemes: a revolving (drum) and with a rotating block of barrels. In such schemes there is a combination of operations that are impossible for the classical scheme.

The Soviet AK-230 two-barrel installation was created using the drum pattern. But even her maximum rate of fire was only 1000 shots / min. on the trunk, which was not enough to guarantee the defeat of a small-sized target flying at near-sonic speed. Meanwhile, in the 1982 year, one relatively small Argentine rocket “Exozet” was enough to sink the newest British frigate “Sheffield” with a displacement of 4200 t.

30-mm gun mount AK-630, firing 5000 rounds per minute, still remains the main means of self-defense fleet

Six barrels

As a result, all the leading maritime powers set about creating self-defense systems with a rotating block of barrels.

In 1963, in the USSR, the design of the six-barreled automatic machine AO-18 (GS-6-30K) began. Six trunks, enclosed in a block, have a single automation. Characteristic feature of this weapons - continuous operation of automation in the process of firing, which is provided by a gas exhaust engine using the energy of powder gases. Food - continuous tape.

A serious problem with the rate of fire 5000 shots / min. becomes cooling shafts. Several methods of cooling were tested, including the manufacture of a special cartridge with coolant. In the final version, all methods of internal cooling of the barrel were abandoned and only external cooling was left, which occurs by sweeping water or antifreeze between the casing and the trunks.

Installation AK-630 is fully automated. Shooting is determined by the Vympel system. Here, for example, one of the options for shooting. Vympel calculates the time when the target and projectiles fired from AK-630 will be at a point remote to 4000 – 3800 meters from the ship (the maximum range of the installation in automatic mode). At the moment when fire is opened, the target may be at a distance of 5 – 6 km. Initially, shooting is carried out in short bursts of 40 shots intermittently in 3 – 5 seconds, and then, if the target is not knocked down, the installation switches to continuous fire before hitting the target. After that, it automatically begins to fire the next target.

Initially, 30-mm assault rifles were completed with high-explosive fragmentation projectiles weighing 390 g and fragmentation tracer weighing 386 in. The six-barrel 30-mm domestic AK-630 gunfire was adopted in 1980 year. AK-630 and its simplified version of the AK-306 still remain the main means of self-defense of our fleet.


To cool the barrel, they tried to use cartridges with coolant, which evaporated when fired, not reaching the muzzle

Armor-piercing - fire!

However, firing at cruise anti-ship missiles at landfills and during local wars showed that a missile that had flown several hundred or even tens of meters to the target ship was not sufficiently damaged — it was necessary to destroy its warhead. But the combat units of many RCC armored. Therefore, abroad, ammunition of a number of shipboard automatic small-caliber installations included shots with sub-caliber armor-piercing shells. Among them are 20-mm American six-barreled artillery “Vulcan – Falanx”, 30-mm Anglo-Dutch seven-barreled “Goalkeeper” and others.

The Pryvner and Trident armored-piercing shells designed for 30-mm army 2А38, 2А42 and 2А72 automatic artillery shells were built at the PnPP. These shells are able to pierce 25-mm armor at an angle of 60 degrees from a distance of 1000 – 1500 m. Given the standardization of 30-mm shots, this sabot projectile can be easily completed and shots for marine 30-mm automata of the GSH-6-30К type.


Naval automated anti-aircraft missile system "Palma", he also "Palash" is suitable for placement on ships of small displacement and boats. Two six-barreled automatic machines AO-18KD launch 10 000 projectiles per minute with an increased initial velocity of the projectile from 900 m / s to 1100 m / s.

Multiply by two

In 1970, the development of anti-ship cruise missiles flying at supersonic heights at supersonic speeds began, which should have a multi-layer warhead protected by armor and the ability to perform complex anti-aircraft maneuvers on the final trajectory. With such maneuverability, it is almost impossible to calculate the aiming point with the required accuracy, therefore, to reliably repel attacks of such missiles, it is necessary to significantly increase the rate of firing of the installation in order to create a sufficiently dense field of projectiles in the estimated “window” of the anti-ship missile. Studies conducted at KBP, NII-61 and other organizations have shown that the maximum rate of fire for a six-barreled automatic machine of the AO-18 type is 5000 rds / min. To further increase the rate of fire, there could be two ways: first, to apply new structural schemes of the machine — for example, to combine a multi-barreled scheme with a revolving, and second, to use a liquid explosive as a propellant charge, which immediately solves a number of problems, including including extraction sleeves. There were studies of telescopic ammunition, where the projectile was placed inside the sleeve, surrounded by an explosive propellant. Abroad, and we have considered other options for the design of the machine gun and ammunition. But the simplest way to increase the rate of fire was to increase the number of blocks of 30-mm trunks from one to two.

Modern systems of rapid-fire guns almost reached its limit - 5000 rounds per minute. A further increase in the rate of fire is achieved by increasing the number of artillery modules.

In one cradle

The development of the 30-mm AK-630M1-2 two-automatic installation was launched in June of the 1983 year. The AK-630M1-2 characteristics allowed, with its adoption by the Navy, to cease production of the AK-630М, as well as to place it on the previously built ships instead of the AK-630М artillery unit, without changing ship constructions, except for mounting the second store on the 630 in AK-2000M ship barbet of the second store on the 6 cartridges. This was possible due to the rational placement of two full-time GSH-30-630K automata in the vertical plane, as well as due to the maximum possible use of parts and assemblies from AK-70М (about XNUMX%).

Aiming at the target is carried out remotely from the MP-123AM2 radar system or from the FOT optical sight station. The MP-123 / 176М2 is the upgraded MP-123 / 176 system, into which a new anti-missile mode has been introduced. The control system has KM-11-1 laser spotlights and a laser cruiser LDM-1 "Cruiser". Both machine GSH-6-30K located in the same cradle, in the lower and upper planes. The shooting mode of one machine GSH-6-30K - 6 400 bursts of shots at intervals of 5 – 6 seconds or 200 shots at intervals of 1 – 1,5.


The main means of combating the American fleet against anti-ship missiles is the 20-mm Vulcan Phalanx unit of the MK.15 (USA) has a block of six barrels, the rate of fire of 4500 rds / min. Installation weight 6,18 t

Death imitators

From 19 March to 30 November 1984, the prototype AK-630М1-2, manufactured at the Tula Machine-Building Plant, passed factory tests. Subsequently, it was installed on the X-NUMX P-44 torpedo boat, the AK-206.6M being replaced with the AK-630М630-1 in the factory, not in the factory. During the shooting in the summer of 2 on the Black Sea, AK-1989М630-1 proved to be quite an effective tool. As targets were used LA-2K and ATGM "Phalanx-17", imitated RCC "Harpoon". The installation successfully hit the Phalanx, flying at a height of about ten meters, spending about two hundred shells per missile. However, the installation did not go into mass production and remained in service with only one boat.

The main reason for the failure of the AK-630М1-2 was the emergence of serious competitors - the 3М87 Kortik and Palash artillery-missile systems, which were to take the place of the AK-630М. Nevertheless, in the 1993 – 1995, AK-630М1-2 art installations were successfully advertised by various Russian export organizations.


30-mm installation "Goalkeeper" (Netherlands, 1984) has seven trunks, the rate of fire 4200 shots / min. Installation weight 5,9 t

Under a pseudonym

At the end of 1970-x in the KBP under the leadership of General Designer A.G. Shipunova began work on the creation of the rocket-artillery complex "Dirk" 3М87, later received the "pseudonym" "Kashtan". Who started the fashion to come up with "pseudonyms" - remains unknown. I note only that this was not even under Stalin.

The Kortik complex is designed to hit targets with missiles at the turn from 1,5 km to 8 km, and then completed the surviving targets with 30-mm machine guns at a distance from 500 to 1500. Kortik includes one command module and from one to six combat stations. The command module consists of a radar target detection and information processing systems, distribution targeting and target designation. Combat rocket and artillery installations are equipped with its own control system consisting of a radar and television-optical channel.

The artillery part of the complex consists of two 30-mm six-barreled 6K30GSh machine guns with a total rate of fire around 10 000 shots / min., Created on the basis of the GSH-6-30К and using the same shots. Ammunition is not in the turret room, as in the early installations, but in two drums for 500 cartridges located next to the blocks of barrels. Tape feed machines replaced by auger (bezblevenevoe).

On the rotating part of the complex two blocks of four rockets are mounted, placed in cylindrical transport and launch containers. The 9М311 rocket is unified with the 2K22M “Tunguska” air defense missile complex. Semi-automatic rocket control system with radio command communication line.

The 9М311 is the only domestic ship-based missile defense system with frag-core warhead. When the warhead breaks, the rods form something like a ring of radius 5 m in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the rocket. At a distance of more than 5, the action of rods and fragments is ineffective.

The small size allows the complex to be placed on any ships, from missile boats to aircraft carriers, as well as on ground targets.


The main advantages of western competitors over domestic systems are better guidance systems, faster speed drives of guidance, as well as the use of sub-caliber projectiles capable of penetrating the armored warhead of a cruise missile and causing detonation of an explosive

Admiral with eight dirks

In service "Dirk" entered the 1989 year. Eight 3М87 modules were installed on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, six modules on the 1144 Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered cruiser, two modules were installed on two FSSs of the Fearless type 1154. By the end of 1994, the production of the Kortika ceased. Initially, it was supposed to replace most of the AK-630 artillery systems with the “Dirk” both on the ships under construction and on the ships in service, for which the ball shoulder strap and other AK-630 and 3М87 mounting parts were unified. However, on ships of a number of projects, the “Dirk” does not pass in height (2250 mm compared to 1070 mm in AK-630).

Precision Engineering

At the beginning of 1990, information about the development of the Tochmash Central Research Institute, the Palash rocket and artillery complex, also under the name Palma, was discussed. The "sword" favorably differs from the "Dirk" in half the weight and size, which allows it to be placed on ships of small displacement and boats. The rate of fire is the same as that of AK-630М1-2 and "Dirk" - 10 000 rds / min. with an increased initial velocity of the projectile from 900 m / s to 1100 m / s. In the Palash, two six-barreled automatic machines AO-18KD developed by KBP are used.

Optical electronic guidance systems of automata are located in the balloon above the setup. The system has a television and infrared channels, a laser range finder. The shooting module of the Palash complex provides for the possibility of installing eight light hypersonic Sosna P rockets, which are induced by a laser beam using a laser beam channel. In this case, the combat capabilities of the firing module doubled, the range increases to 8 km on the aircraft and to 4 km on anti-ship missiles.

In November 2005, a prototype of the Palash complex in a purely artillery version (without missiles) was delivered to Sevastopol, where by February 2006 it was installed on a P-60 rocket boat. This spring, Р-60 spent behind Cape Chersonesos, where the first shooting took place: six bursts of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles on 480. Further tests, according to the assumption of Ukrainian experts, will be held at the Feodosiya proving ground, if, of course, the Ukrainian government allows it. The main intrigue is whether the “Palash” will be able to effectively use sabot projectiles and how effective its control system is.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru
67 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 April 27 2013 08: 27 New
    +5
    I just can’t understand why six-barreled guns are not used on land? If this is such power, then maybe they should be installed on tank platforms. Or on an armored personnel carrier, for example.
    1. Aiviar
      Aiviar April 27 2013 09: 01 New
      +8
      First of all, the weight and volume of ammunition, I think.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 April 27 2013 09: 19 New
        -8
        But in the Navy, weight and volume are much more important, so this is not the point.
        1. Alekseev
          Alekseev April 27 2013 09: 30 New
          +9
          Where less did you want to say?
          The most powerful, voluminous and heavy weapon systems are just naval ones.
    2. Civil
      Civil April 27 2013 09: 05 New
      +1
      expensive it's a pleasure because
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 April 27 2013 09: 20 New
        -1
        In the Navy it’s not expensive and on land it’s expensive, something is not logical. But the point is not even in money, but in efficiency. If the weapon is super-efficient, then don’t worry about the cost
        1. Commodus
          Commodus April 27 2013 10: 29 New
          +2
          The weight of the installation, the American phalanx, is almost 7 tons. It is used as a stationary anti-aircraft gun in Iraq. It covers their green zone. use the Soviet-Russian AK, with their insane rate of fire ... where and why?
          1. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 April 27 2013 10: 46 New
            0
            I didn’t mean exactly the same as in the Navy, you can use the reduced version. Why did I even have such a question. For example, Syria is a small block of posts, they are attacked by superior gangs, destroy, kill soldiers. If I installed such a module on the post unit, I’m sure no numerical superiority would have helped.
            1. bddrus
              bddrus April 27 2013 12: 08 New
              +5
              Broadsword - anti-aircraft gun !!! shoot down a cruise missile aimed at destroying a ship! on the ship from 100 to 1000 or more fighters, and the ship itself. And on land, a block post - is it expensive if you want to defend posts with anti-aircraft guns ?? during the war anti-aircraft guns were set against tanks, now also ZSU (I don’t remember exactly) are used on land. BUT to use such a fast-fire as a broadsword - thousands of rounds to kill enemy units?
              1. vladsolo56
                vladsolo56 April 27 2013 14: 26 New
                0
                Well, firstly, I didn’t write a broadsword, but something smaller, and then, according to your 10 or even 5 fighters, the post block is not worth putting up a module with which they are given the opportunity to repel any attack.
                1. bazilio
                  bazilio April 27 2013 16: 04 New
                  +4
                  Quote: vladsolo56
                  Well, firstly, I wrote not a broadsword, but something smaller in size,

                  There is a shell. And why is such a killer in the defense of roadblocks? Fend off enemy infantry? So there is a cord, ags 17 (30), you can put a zushka.
                  It's like killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer.
            2. Seraph
              Seraph April 27 2013 21: 20 New
              +1
              It’s better to put a universal Gorchak fire device (stationary) and a couple of good old Shilok (mobile link) at the checkpoint. I am sure that for a power supply unit for a reinforced squad-platoon, this is enough
            3. krot00f
              krot00f April 29 2013 23: 23 New
              0
              For such needs, 1000 rounds is enough, such are already on the APCs and are also in helicopters.
            4. papas-57
              papas-57 1 May 2013 05: 00 New
              +1
              Why such power at the checkpoint. Stop Shilka
          2. krot00f
            krot00f April 29 2013 23: 19 New
            0
            They did it for the tank, they didn’t find it, then they put it on the ship, They have trunks of electricity spinning.
            1. sergeschern
              sergeschern April 29 2013 23: 46 New
              +1
              Mistake, this is American equipment powered by an electric motor, and ours from a gas exhaust system (like AK).
        2. PN
          PN April 27 2013 10: 42 New
          +2
          The ground forces have their own good things, such as shell-s1.
    3. kotdavin4i
      kotdavin4i April 27 2013 10: 22 New
      0
      Good morning - they are used both on land and in the air, the Americans have almost released a manual version.
    4. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 27 2013 10: 58 New
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      I just can’t understand why six-barreled guns are not used on land? If this is such power, then maybe they should be installed on tank platforms. Or on an armored personnel carrier, for example.


      Applied, but not with us. There is no platform for such a gun, no goals, no tactics. Meaning?
      1. luiswoo
        luiswoo April 27 2013 16: 06 New
        +3
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Applied, but not with us. For such a gun no platform, no goals, no tactics. Meaning?

        To protect the base from missiles and shells, as the Yankees use in Afghanistan - what's the point?
        1. krot00f
          krot00f April 29 2013 23: 27 New
          0
          Well, from shells. You bent it, Yes, And they won’t save from the rams of a guy with a long knife.)
    5. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 27 2013 11: 18 New
      +4
      Excess power, strong recoil, and most importantly - where to store the ammunition of shells?
    6. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 27 2013 15: 55 New
      +1
      About 20 years ago I watched (video) the first presentation of the AK-306. According to the designers, at this rate of fire, everything hinged from the tank is blown away, and internal destruction occurs in the tank, from the dynamic impact of shells from AK 306. One can imagine what the crew members will feel. But they do not install armored personnel carriers on tanks and probably because these weapons were originally developed as air defense at sea, against cruise missiles.
    7. T-100
      T-100 April 27 2013 21: 24 New
      0
      I just can’t understand why six-barreled guns are not used on land? If this is such power, then maybe they should be installed on tank platforms. Or on an armored personnel carrier, for example.

      Why such high-speed guns on land (for example, as you said, to an armored personnel carrier or tank) ???? An infantry that moves at a speed of 2500 km / hour (rather than a cruise missile or unguided or armored personnel carrier of the enemy, but this does not help against tanks. Such rate of fire is needed to create a solid barrier for missiles in the air. And against infantry it is like with an RPG on a bicycle) )))
    8. svp67
      svp67 April 28 2013 21: 13 New
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      I just can’t understand why six-barreled guns are not used on land? If this is such power, then maybe they should be installed on tank platforms. Or on an armored personnel carrier, for example.

      To solve the tasks of combined arms combat, these installations are powerful and complex, besides, unlike the sea elements, there is enough dust on the battlefield ...
    9. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa April 29 2013 01: 14 New
      0
      Cooling. The above domestic machines are cooled by water. Air cooling is possible with a decrease in caliber, or a decrease in rate of fire.
      1. krot00f
        krot00f April 29 2013 23: 30 New
        +1
        Yes, not with water, And nobody canceled alcohol -50 with water, later they replaced it with non-freezing slurry, Yes, and alcohol often disappeared.)
    10. krot00f
      krot00f April 29 2013 23: 18 New
      0
      There is no where to get food from, Hydraulics, Pneumatics, 6 trunk highly specialized AU, But 1, 2 barrels from the same designer are already universal.
      1. Witold
        Witold 29 June 2013 14: 08 New
        0
        Hydraulics and pneumatics are not there. Everything is pure mechanics and electricity.
  2. ramsi
    ramsi April 27 2013 09: 00 New
    0
    but I don’t understand, if they are so chasing the rate of fire, then why not use a dual (tandem) projectile. It seems that our people did this in the war.
  3. cyclist
    cyclist April 27 2013 09: 32 New
    0
    10 rounds per minute, apparently from the time of the USSR, domestic developments of naval artillery systems were ahead of those in NATO countries
    1. Sleptsoff
      Sleptsoff April 27 2013 10: 14 New
      -4
      The main thing is not the rate of fire but the electronics, the guidance system, which at the same amers is quicker and can shoot down a rocket in one burst.
  4. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 27 2013 09: 35 New
    10
    The author, although I respect him, has a lot of pretty serious mistakes. "Bofors" is not an American gun, but a Swedish one, produced under license. The Americans brought it to mind. They installed radio fuses on the shells and a fairly modern guidance system. At that time in its class, she was the best in the world. Our 37 mm artillery guns did not reach them and did not even stand close.

    "In October 1943, near Yalta, German Ju-87 bombers sank the leader" Kharkov "and the destroyers" Merciless "and" Capable ". Their anti-aircraft guns were useless against low-flying aircraft."

    Yu-87 was not a low-flying, but a diving bomber.
    Well, there are many other mistakes, which could be argued about.

    Because of this, our naval officers prefer the AK-306 with a slower rate of fire than the AK-630 and Broadsword.

    I think that an intelligent ship commander would prefer the more effective systems "Broadsword", "Kortik", "Duet", "Roy", AK-630, which are more suitable for destroying air attack weapons in the near zone, rather than suitable only for shooting mines and shooting at poachers and not having radar guidance AK-306.
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts April 27 2013 10: 32 New
      +1
      You are absolutely right.
    2. Dima67
      Dima67 April 27 2013 17: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Because of this, our naval officers prefer the AK-306 with a slower rate of fire than the AK-630 and Broadsword.

      Well, just who our officers asks about preferences. It seems, comrade, you drop what installation, this or that to put on your destroyer.
    3. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka April 28 2013 12: 17 New
      0
      Quote: VohaAhov
      I think that an intelligent ship commander would prefer the more effective systems "Broadsword", "Kortik", "Duet", "Roy", AK-630, which are more suitable for destroying air attack weapons in the near zone, rather than suitable only for shooting mines and shooting at poachers and not having radar guidance AK-306.

      The sensible commander would prefer not to stick his nose out without reliable air cover, and this is not cowardice but reality. The Second World War showed this clearly.
    4. krot00f
      krot00f April 29 2013 23: 34 New
      0
      Yes, here we jumped around, Bofors used to make an electronic fuse for a small caliber, For which we were ahead of the rest on a tank shot.
  5. Alex65
    Alex65 April 27 2013 09: 35 New
    +3
    On April 25, at the 86th year of life, the first deputy managing director of JSC Design Bureau of Instrument Making, the scientific director of the enterprise, Honorary Citizen of Tula and the Tula Region, Arkady Georgievich Shipunov.
    1. cyclist
      cyclist April 27 2013 09: 45 New
      +4
      talented designer! Eternal memory
  6. Bongo
    Bongo April 27 2013 09: 56 New
    +5
    With all due respect to Alesander Borisovich, the 40-mm Bofors were probably better than the 70K, at least in terms of quality. And the stabilizers were not "spiked" on them.
    1. krot00f
      krot00f April 29 2013 23: 37 New
      0
      This firing station and fuse is better at the moment, and then not for long.
  7. Alibekulu
    Alibekulu April 27 2013 10: 21 New
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8LaolvEzivg
  8. ImPerts
    ImPerts April 27 2013 10: 30 New
    0
    The article is informative, but a feeling of incompleteness remains.
    "The main advantages of Western competitors over domestic systems are a better guidance system, faster guidance drives, as well as the use of sub-caliber shells capable of penetrating an armored warhead of a cruise missile and detonating an explosive" - ​​was that the main message of everything?
  9. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 27 2013 11: 22 New
    +7
    Broadsword and similar cannon-missile systems and look impressive from the trill. But on the other hand, is it always advisable to combine missile and cannon armament "in one bottle", especially since missile and cannon armament can differ quite significantly in detection and guidance methods, interception lines, etc.? In installations of the Broadsword type, the axes of the gun and missile guides are mechanically aligned (at least in the azimuthal plane), which means that they provide independent shelling with projectiles and air missiles. targets located at different azimuths, these modules cannot. More promising, in my opinion, is the use of cannon and rocket launchers independent of each other for air defense ships. At the same time, the use of universal vertical launch systems for storing and launching missiles and other types of missiles provides firing at targets at any azimuth without using complex, cumbersome and inertial synchronous tracking drive systems, which have to be equipped with rocket cannon modules for turning to the desired azimuth and out of place. And the greater the weight of the weaponry of such a module, the more weight and actuators, and the longer the time required to turn the entire module to a new azimuth and elevation.
    1. PN
      PN April 27 2013 15: 46 New
      0
      Of course, I don’t know their principle of destroying the target, but I believe that a rocket is fired first, and then (if the missile didn’t hit the target), a meat grinder starts working from a hail of bullets at close range.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 April 27 2013 16: 36 New
        +6
        The air defense of modern ships is built as echeloned, when they try to intercept air targets at distant lines with the help of fighter aircraft (if there is one), then long-range missiles come into play, then medium and short-range missiles and finally cannon armament. But the fact is that air targets are not lined up to receive these gifts and a raid on a ship (s) can be simultaneously carried out in all ranges of altitudes and directions.In these conditions, it is advisable to ensure the independence of the use of all available air defense systems. There is no such independence in the Kashtan-type rocket cannon modules. Where the rockets look, the guns should also look there, and vice versa. And this reduces the speed of reaction of the air defense system to threats from other directions.
        1. krot00f
          krot00f April 30 2013 00: 06 New
          0
          Well written!
  10. Timeout
    Timeout April 27 2013 11: 40 New
    0
    Quote: VohaAhov
    At that time in her class she was the best in the world. Our 37 mm AUs did not reach them and did not even stand close

    Tell me, according to whose version was this AU the best? And which model? If it is MK3 then with a rate of 300 high / min. With all its electronic filling, it sucks. And about the barrel survivability, I generally keep quiet, 5000 shots. And how many anti-ship missiles will she bring down?
  11. pinecone
    pinecone April 27 2013 11: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: VohaAhov
    The author, although I respect him, has a lot of pretty serious mistakes. "Bofors" is not an American gun, but a Swedish one, produced under license. The Americans brought it to mind. They installed radio fuses on the shells and a fairly modern guidance system ...


    There were no radio fuses on 40-mm rounds of rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns. Too small caliber for the "tube era". The Americans began to install such fuses on five-inch (127mm) shells of universal naval artillery guns from mid-1944.
    1. Waterfall
      Waterfall April 27 2013 18: 01 New
      0
      Quote: pinecone
      such fuses began to be installed on five-inch (127mm) shells of universal naval artillery guns from the middle of 1944.

      From the end of 42
  12. bddrus
    bddrus April 27 2013 12: 14 New
    +2
    as I understand it, the AK-630 m1-2 is a prototype of a more developed Duet, and it is not forgotten at all - it is put on the MRK pr.21631 Buyan-M and there will probably be work for it
  13. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city April 27 2013 12: 51 New
    0
    I do not think that the use of sub-caliber shells is a problem. You just need to arrange their mass production because the shells are the same for both land and sea guns.
  14. nnz226
    nnz226 April 27 2013 13: 37 New
    +1
    On the ship, even an MRK type, there is a place to place the ammunition of such a speed gun, and on what to place 10000 shells (2 minutes of continuous firing) in the land version? And the problem is not in weight, but in the volume of these 10000 shells. They must be transported by guns, and not by the pump conveyor ...
  15. Zomanus
    Zomanus April 27 2013 14: 38 New
    +2
    The brainchild of Gryazev-Shipunov ... In general, we are now losing more in control systems and target designation than in "shooters".
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 April 27 2013 16: 46 New
      +1
      BIUS of Russian ships may be more "voluminous" than "foreign" ones due to "the largest microcircuits in the world", but on the whole they are quite successfully coping with their tasks. But what is the use of the fact that the CIUS detects a new air target in time, which is, for example, at a zero azimuth, for example. if all the "shooters" are involved in the destruction of the "old" target located at a diametrically opposite azimuth. And while they shoot at their azimuth, but turn around at zero, there may already be no one to shoot.
      1. Andrey57
        Andrey57 April 27 2013 20: 32 New
        0
        Shooting is not involved at the same time - if there are several combat modules on the ship, then the BIUS will redistribute the targets between them according to the degree of danger to the ship.
    2. fatty
      fatty April 28 2013 11: 30 New
      0
      right, somanus, shooting games of Arkady Georgievich and Vasily Petrovich, you can’t shoot.
  16. Larus
    Larus April 27 2013 16: 22 New
    0
    Of course, one or a couple of six-barrels on an armored personnel carrier with a reduced pace would look very good, and the recoil would be faster and more reliable to knock down the attachment and even from the tanks if they come across. Of course, we modified it for that.
    1. krot00f
      krot00f April 29 2013 23: 46 New
      0
      Ha ha ,, Yes, and a sub-caliber of 30 mm, to knock down the hinged on the tank, and on the people, and on the sights the very thing, For 1 barrel of 1000 shots, more is not required for land, Without for some reason, but for obvious reasons. What the 30mm single-barrel gun really lacks is a full-fledged firing station with a remote electronic fuse.
  17. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 27 2013 16: 37 New
    -1
    Quote: Timeout
    Quote: VohaAhov
    At that time in her class she was the best in the world. Our 37 mm AUs did not reach them and did not even stand close

    Tell me, according to whose version was this AU the best? And which model? If it is MK3 then with a rate of 300 high / min. With all its electronic filling, it sucks. And about the barrel survivability, I generally keep quiet, 5000 shots. And how many anti-ship missiles will she bring down?


    And you ask the Japanese (who were filled with "Bofors" hundreds, maybe thousands) - whose system is better? I did not understand the question, what kind of anti-ship missiles were supposed to shoot down AU in World War 2? Well, for information, the slightly modernized (mainly for guidance systems) system "Bofors" is still in service with a large number of the Navy. Take South Korea for example.
    1. Timeout
      Timeout April 28 2013 02: 42 New
      +2
      Dear Bofors MK3 (L70) has been in service since the 80s. About MK2 (L60) I did not say a word. And do not forget that our 37 mm 61-K automatic machine was developed on the basis of the same Bofors and had practically no differences in performance. And what thousands of Japanese planes did they shoot down? Count how many planes were based on Japanese aircraft carriers, for that matter. You better ask how many German planes shot down 70-K and 66-K standing on cruisers during the siege of Leningrad? Or how many planes were driven down by the British and Americans by the Bofors accompanied by convoys in the USSR?
  18. Dima67
    Dima67 April 27 2013 17: 01 New
    0
    Quote: bazilio
    Quote: vladsolo56
    Well, firstly, I wrote not a broadsword, but something smaller in size,

    There is a shell. And why is such a killer in the defense of roadblocks? Fend off enemy infantry? So there is a cord, ags 17 (30), you can put a zushka.
    It's like killing a mosquito with a sledgehammer.

    Shilka in Afghanistan, this is a beast car. A ship installation is mainly (as described above) to combat cruise missiles. Hitting even one missile can be fatal, for example, for a destroyer.
  19. datur
    datur April 27 2013 19: 23 New
    0
    and what for land these miracles, because the infantry is- SHILKA, TUNGUSKA, YES, AND THE CRANIS IS FINALLY !!!!!
  20. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 27 2013 20: 33 New
    +1
    I will add a couple more kopecks about the air defense missile cannon systems of the ground forces. There, too, there is an excessive enthusiasm for "everything in one bottle". As a result, the stock of shells for the guns is limited, and the stock of missiles will not last for a long time, and you will get tired of twisting your heavy head in different directions. I'm not even talking about the more than solid dimensions of these "monsters". And being so visible on the battlefield is more than harmful. Therefore, it would probably be more rational to have as part of the air defense units of the SV and multichannel air defense systems of vertical launch and purely cannon rapid-fire complexes. At the same time, these complexes could receive target designation from the air defense system of the unit, and for aiming missiles and guns at the target, each type of shooter has its own "eyes", moreover, developed and optimized for their specific tasks. If the ACS "falls down" (which is quite likely), then the shooters will be able to cope with the solution of the tasks of detecting targets and target designation to themselves and to their nearest "neighbors", albeit not as efficiently as in the centralized control mode
  21. okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 27 2013 22: 38 New
    0
    The main difference between the AK-630M and Vulcan-Falanx naval artillery mounts is that in the first case, the barrel block rotates by venting powder gases to the pistons of the crank mechanism, and in the second case it rotates by an electric motor. But that's not the point either. In the first case, the defeat of the VC occurs with 30-mm OFZ projectiles, and in the second - with a 10mm bullet made of depleted uranium, designed to directly hit an anti-ship missile and cause it to trigger a warhead. This is done because we need a swarm of shells and by scattering them to select preparation errors and target tracking errors. The Americans, on the other hand, made the control system so that all systemic and meteoballistic errors are selected from the first projectiles of the track and subsequent projectiles hit the target. Those. the designers of each country went their own way.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko April 29 2013 12: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: okroshka79
      The Americans made the control system so that all the system and meteorological errors are selected from the first shells of the route and the subsequent shells hit exactly the target. Those. the designers of each country went their own way.

      If they are such "handsome fellows" then why should they have a rate of fire of 4500 !?
      The main emphasis is placed on the remote detonation of warhead ammunition with striking elements in a compartment with a high-performance computer and fast pickup drives.
      1. krot00f
        krot00f April 30 2013 00: 02 New
        0
        It is doubtful that at such a rate of fire they shoot a remote fuse, and even at 30mm, the contact there is mechanical. Maybe this is the case with Beaufors on 1 barrel, a system with nozzles, and the rate of fire there is much more modest.
    2. krot00f
      krot00f April 29 2013 23: 51 New
      0
      Well, all the shells are right on target, the Americans are so accurate. This does not happen.
  22. okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 29 2013 13: 08 New
    0
    Actually, my information does not contradict anything. Read http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2011-12-30/8_complex.html
  23. okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 29 2013 13: 10 New
    0
    I see no errors in my comment. Read http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2011-12-30/8_complex.html
    1. krot00f
      krot00f April 29 2013 23: 57 New
      0
      And I understood that there are only ALL "system" and "meteoballistic" errors. And the rest?
  24. Shkodnik65
    Shkodnik65 April 29 2013 13: 55 New
    0
    The article is informative. To the author +.
  25. ed1968
    ed1968 April 30 2013 13: 32 New
    0
    broadsword still shows itself angry
  26. saramb
    saramb 21 November 2013 01: 12 New
    0
    Yes, on the block post and on the armored personnel carrier it is necessary to put six 12,5-caliber barrel so that there will be real help, but there is a minivan on Apache type turntables.