Prospective anti-aircraft self-propelled gun with 57-mm gun: an attempt to forecast

66
Work continues on the creation of new weapons and military equipment. In particular, the design of new combat modules for vehicles of different classes equipped with various weapons is being conducted. Recently it became known that in the foreseeable future, the fleet of equipment of the domestic armed forces could be replenished with a new artillery anti-aircraft complex. The development of such a system is currently underway at the Petrel Research Institute.

15 July RIA News published an interview with the director general of the Petrel Research Institute Georgy Zakamennyh. The head of the company spoke about various aspects of work and new projects. Among other things, he mentioned the work on the project of the advanced anti-aircraft artillery complex. Such equipment, created in the interests of military air defense, will be equipped with a caliber 57 mm. A characteristic feature of this complex will be a combat module, which is rendered outside the vehicle. Management of all systems in this case will be carried out remotely.

Unfortunately, the CEO of the developer organization did not disclose the details of the new project. Only the caliber of the gun, the purpose and some features of the layout of the new complex for military air defense became known. However, previously published information about the projects of the Petrel Research Institute and other related organizations can serve as clues when trying to predict the appearance of a promising anti-aircraft artillery self-propelled gun. The fact is that Burevestnik specialists are currently engaged in the development of combat modules designed for use as part of equipment based on the latest unified platforms. In addition, several months ago, a draft combat module with an 57-mm automatic cannon was presented.

According to G. Zakamennykh, the new project is developing an 57-mm self-propelled rapid-fire anti-aircraft artillery complex. This information, as well as previously published information may be the basis for assumptions about the various features of a promising combat vehicle. Let's try to collect the available data and imagine what a new anti-aircraft complex could be.



Currently, the Russian army is composed of several anti-aircraft complexes of military air defense, equipped with artillery guns. First of all, it is self-propelled guns "Tunguska" and "Pantsir-С1". They carry 30-mm automatic guns designed to destroy short-range air targets. In addition to guns, these complexes are equipped with guided missiles, which increase the radius of action and increase the probability of destroying targets. Having a certain similarity at the level of the concept of armament, the Tunguska and Pantsir-С1 complexes are distinguished by basic chassis. They are based on tracked and wheeled chassis, respectively.

At the moment, one cannot even speak with confidence about the chassis class that will be used in the new project. However, the most likely option is to use a tracked chassis. This technique surpasses the wheeled technique in cross-country ability and other characteristics, which should provide high mobility to the new car. In addition, in this case, it will be possible to work in the same battle formations with tanks, BMP and other equipment.

Information on the use of tools caliber 57 mm is of greatest interest. For several decades, such weapons have actually been forgotten and were not used on the new equipment. Now there is a tendency to return such weapons. It is believed that 57 mm caliber guns are of great interest, since their power makes it possible to effectively deal with armored vehicles designed to protect against artillery of smaller calibers, mainly up to 30 mm. Thus, in the near future, the emergence of a number of guns, surpassing in caliber now common samples.

It should be noted that such weapons have already appeared in our country. At the beginning of this year, the Petrel Research Institute for the first time presented the new AU-220M combat module. This system is intended for installation on modernized and new combat vehicles of various types, which is expected to significantly increase their firepower. In addition, according to the developer, the AU-220M combat module can be used to attack air targets, which will lead to the expansion of the scope of combat vehicles.

Attention should be paid to the overall architecture of the new combat module. It is made in the form of a system installed on the roof of the body of the base machine, outside the habitable volume. A few days ago, the director general of the Petrel Research Institute was talking about this kind of architecture. Thus, there are grounds to believe that the module AU-220М or, rather, its modified version can be used as part of a promising anti-aircraft complex.

The combat module AU-220М is a special turret with weapons, fully mounted outside the internal volume of the combat vehicle. All the main equipment of the module is mounted on a support platform that is installed on a basic combat vehicle. An armor cover is provided on the upper surface of the platform, covering the breech of the gun and the automatic loader. In front of the casing there is a window for the gun. The 57 mm caliber gun has an uncharacteristically long mask that covers not only the breech, but also almost half of the barrel. The total length of the combat module reaches 5,82 m, the maximum width - 2,1 m, height, taking into account all units - up to 1,3 m.

The body of the combat module is assembled from armor plates of various thickness. Declared vserakursnaya protection units from bullets caliber 7,62 mm. The frontal projection of the module, in turn, is able to withstand the impact of a projectile caliber 30 mm. Thus, the combat module AU-220М is protected from most of the threats that arise on the battlefield at the present time, primarily from small arms and small-caliber artillery of the enemy.

To the left of the gun and on the upper surface of its casing two blocks with optical-electronic equipment are installed to search for targets and aim weapons. According to the developer, the sighting system includes optical and thermal imaging channels. The field of view of the equipment is stabilized in two planes. Laser rangefinders are also provided. The combat module is equipped with a fire control system that processes all the necessary information. It is possible to detect and attack targets in any weather conditions at any time of the day. The same sighting equipment is used to control the shooting of a cannon and a machine gun.



The main weapon of the military module AU-220M is a rifled gun caliber 57 mm. Tool mounting mechanisms provide vertical guidance within a sector from -5 ° to + 75 °. The rotation of the tower allows you to fire in any direction. An automatic cannon can fire at a rate of up to 200 shots per minute. Ammunition consists of 200 projectiles. The gun uses unitary shots with projectiles of several types. Depending on the tactical need, the operator of the combat module can use armor-piercing, high-explosive fragmentation or guided projectiles. The maximum effective range of fire reaches 12 km. To reduce the impact on the units of the combat module and the base machine, the gun is equipped with a muzzle brake.

To the right of the main gun on the combat module, in a special armored casing, a twin machine gun of caliber 7,62 mm is installed. Aiming the machine gun at the expense of mechanisms common with the gun. The power supply is made with the help of a flexible metal sleeve through which the cartridge belt passes. Inside the housing of the combat module are boxes on 2000 cartridges. Used machine gun allows you to attack manpower and unprotected equipment at distances to 1500 m.

According to available data, the project of the AU-220M combat module with a 57 mm caliber gun was developed specifically for the promising Atom wheeled infantry fighting vehicle being developed as part of Russian-French cooperation. After the recent events in the international arena, the combat vehicle development project was stopped, but work on the creation of a combat module, apparently, continued. The result was a "premiere" of the new system, held at the beginning of the year.

The well-known characteristics of the AU-220M system make it possible to give it a great future. Obviously, a combat vehicle with such weapons will have great advantages over all the armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc. Due to the larger caliber gun, a certain gain in the effective shooting range of all types of projectiles, including armor-piercing, will be provided. In addition, 57-mm gun with the appropriate ammunition will have increased rates of armor penetration, which also affects the combat capabilities.

According to the developer, the new combat module is equipped with weapon guidance systems, which allow firing with elevation angles up to + 75 °. Thus, a hypothetical armored vehicle with the AU-220M module will be able to fight not only with ground targets, but also with a certain success to attack air. For effective destruction of aircraft, however, some modifications may be required.

Domestic and foreign experience shows that for use as part of an anti-aircraft self-propelled unit, a combat module must have some specific features. Thus, the maximum possible angle of elevation at the level of 80-85 ° is required. In addition, radar systems are required for detecting and tracking flying targets, as well as information processing equipment and automatic weapon control. The presence of optical-electronic systems is also important, but they are not sufficient in themselves to solve the tasks assigned.

Also requires some refinement of the gun and ammunition for it. The most promising and effective means of defeating air targets are high-explosive fragmentation artillery shells with controlled undermining. Existing systems of this class include a special programmable fuse and device-programmer. During the shot, the programmer enters the necessary data into the projectile, so that the warhead is undermined at a predetermined distance from the gun. Due to the accurate calculation of the pointing angles and the time of explosion of the projectile, an explosion occurs in the vicinity of the target, as a result of which it receives numerous damage from shrapnel.



It can be assumed that the use of 57-mm guns will significantly improve the combat effectiveness of the anti-aircraft system in comparison with existing complexes. Currently, most of these systems are equipped with guns of no more than 30-35 mm, which accordingly affects the power of the projectiles.

Based on the available information, we can assume that the promising anti-aircraft self-propelled artillery mounts, mentioned by G. Zakamennykh, will be equipped with a new modification of the AU-220М combat module, modified for use in air defense. As the chassis for this machine can be used various domestic tracked vehicles. At the same time, taking into account the latest developments in this area, it cannot be excluded that the basis for the promising self-propelled gun will be one of the newest unified chassis, for example, the Kurganets-25.

For obvious reasons, while you can only speculate. Nevertheless, the available information makes it possible to put forward certain ideas with certain confidence. How true will all these assumptions be - time will tell. However, it is already clear that the use of the new 57-mm gun will significantly improve the performance of the new anti-aircraft complex and provide significant superiority over other similar systems. It remains only to wait for new messages on an interesting topic and wait for the organization-developer to be ready to submit open information about its new project.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://burevestnik.com/
http://vpk.name/
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    17 July 2015 06: 33
    10-12 km exceeds the range of most helicopter ATGMs. So such a module in the presence of a powerful detection system can be a serious anti-helicopter tool
    1. +13
      17 July 2015 08: 06
      Quote: alex-cn
      10-12 km exceeds the range of most helicopter ATGMs. So such a module in the presence of a powerful detection system can be a serious anti-helicopter tool

      10-12 km is the maximum range, and the aiming range is unlikely to be more than 6-7 km, or even less ... A lot of forces act on the projectile during the flight - this is derivation, density and humidity and wind speed, which after 100 meters may be different. The farther a projectile or bullet flies, the less likely it is to hit exactly on target ...
      1. +4
        17 July 2015 08: 30
        Maximum range effective fire reaches 12 km
        1. +3
          17 July 2015 15: 08
          Quote: Engineer
          The maximum effective fire range reaches 12 km

          AK officially has a maximum effective range of 1000 meters, only 500 meters away you can see the sight of a tank except for a tank, and we are not talking about accurate shooting.
          Here is the same story. S-60, for example, with the same shells and a longer gun could conduct effective fire up to 6000 m max and in later versions.
          1. +4
            17 July 2015 15: 28
            Quote: Großer Feldherr
            AK officially has a maximum effective range of 1000 meters, only 500 meters away you can see the sight of a tank except for a tank, and we are not talking about accurate shooting.
            Here is the same story. S-60, for example, with the same shells and a longer gun could conduct effective fire up to 6000 m max and in later versions.

            And that the radar sight to use "not kosher" belay
            Or so you want to "in the old-fashioned way" through the barrel?
            1. +5
              17 July 2015 18: 33
              Quote: K-50
              And that the radar sight to use "not kosher"
              Or so you want to "in the old-fashioned way" through the barrel?

              6000 meters and there is a radar guidance, optics 4000 m limit !!!
              1. +2
                18 July 2015 14: 47
                The number of exclamation points does not add affirmative weight to your words. feel
                Quote: Großer Feldherr
                Quote: Engineer
                The maximum effective fire range reaches 12 km

                AK officially has a maximum effective range of 1000 meters, only 500 meters away you can see the sight of a tank except for a tank, and we are not talking about accurate shooting.

                Can you imagine a small flock of 57 mm birds that do not lose most of their energy at a distance of 6 ... 10 km? With the current rate of fire and energy of the shot, "super-duper-accuracy" is somehow not really needed ... request
          2. +2
            19 July 2015 00: 35
            correction ... the aiming range of ak is 1000 meters and not the most effective ... and the aiming range, as you know, can be whatever it wants, it does not depend on how far the weapon is effective ...
      2. +6
        17 July 2015 08: 43
        in the presence of a shell with remote detonation, the probability increases, and then, just not letting the helicopter carry out targeted launch is expensive.
        1. +3
          17 July 2015 11: 07
          In my opinion, the flat design of the combat module (for installation on the roof) is relevant only for infantry fighting vehicles, where the internal space must be saved for the landing. A BMP does not have powerful means of detecting enemy aircraft. That is, a helicopter in direct visibility can still hit, but no more. What a 30mm gun can handle. But when shooting at enemy armored vehicles - here, yes, 57mm is preferable to 30mm.

          In other words, the combat module standing on the BMP should not be presented as anti-aircraft, it will not be able to cope with this task, and the combat module standing on a specialized machine designed to deal with aviation has nothing to be flat for it, since the air defense airborne technique carries (in this case, it is better to store large ammunition inside the machine, and not on its roof)
          1. +3
            17 July 2015 15: 31
            Quote: Bad_gr
            In my opinion, the flat design of the combat module (for installation on the roof) is relevant only for infantry fighting vehicles, where the internal space must be saved for the landing. A BMP does not have powerful means of detecting enemy aircraft

            Take as a basis the design of the combat module from "Tunguska" or "Pantsir-S", but instead of paired 30-mm machine guns install 57-mm automatic cannons, you only need to adjust the ballistic evacuator, and everything else can be left the same, or improved.
            1. +2
              17 July 2015 21: 05
              Quote: K-50
              Take as a basis the design of the combat module from "Tunguska" or "Pantsir-S", but instead of paired 30-mm machine guns install 57-mm automatic guns,

              What's the point? To shoot down a 30mm caliber helicopter is enough. The main thing to get here. A 30mm cannon fires faster, more ammunition (for the same volume). And where one projectile of 57 mm caliber can fly, 2 30 mm will fly, moreover, displaced in space relative to each other. Chances to hit the target more.
            2. 0
              18 July 2015 03: 51
              ..only instead of paired 30 mm machine guns, install 57 mm automatic guns..
              and even if, according to the author, this is .. accordingly affects power shells..
      3. +1
        17 July 2015 11: 32
        6-7 is a lot. 3-4 most likely maximum effective firing range. and this is a good indicator for tanks 4-5.
      4. 0
        17 July 2015 13: 27
        10-12 km is the maximum range,
        In fact, the maximum range of the French prototype is 16 km. If it were possible to achieve such an aiming range, then the problem of small UAVs in the fleet would be removed with the use of UAS.
        1. +2
          17 July 2015 18: 44
          Quote: Tektor
          In fact, the maximum range of the French prototype is 16 km.

          What kind of miraculous judo did the French create and what is his QUO?
      5. +2
        17 July 2015 15: 26
        Quote: Rebus
        The farther a projectile or bullet flies, the less likely it is to hit exactly on target ...

        Well, nobody canceled ballistic calculators and programmable fuses, so you can hope that it will be no worse than with 30-mm machine guns.
        1. +2
          18 July 2015 01: 38
          Quote: K-50
          Well ballistic calculators

          What will BV give for unguided ammunitionif the aerial target maneuvers?
          nothing

          target range 10-12 km, this is 10 seconds of flight time
          360 km / h = 100m / s it is 1200m
          ===========================
          The German anti-aircraft artillery had the same problems during the Allied raids. So there were SAM
    2. +2
      18 July 2015 01: 32
      Quote: alex-cn
      10-12 km exceeds the range of most helicopter ATGMs.

      1. 10-12 km from the receiver,Yes, even on a flying target you need to get, to manage
      3 km maximum
      2.Hermes- up to 20km






      3. From above you can always see further "
      4. Nadintovy helicopter radar, jump is now a trend
  2. +13
    17 July 2015 07: 07
    I would like to see such a 57-mm gun on a heavy BMP based on Almaty. All the same, for such a machine 30 mm is not enough
    1. +5
      17 July 2015 10: 26
      gespenst07
      I would like to see such a 57-mm gun on a heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle based on Almaty


      .... sooner appears on the terminator earlier.
      1. +2
        17 July 2015 10: 42
        Quote: EGOrkka
        rather, on the terminator appears earlier.

        twin 57 mm gun .... this is something very powerful)
        1. +1
          17 July 2015 12: 47
          Quote: Dimka off
          twin 57 mm gun .... this is something very powerful)

          Why paired? Enough selective loading, 200 rounds per minute, an incredible rate of fire for this caliber. At the Terminator, an economy class solution is applied, de facto shoots one barrel depending on the choice of ammunition, although it is possible this is a justified decision - switching the type of ammunition on a single-barrel gun takes time, and on the double-barreled one is always ready.
      2. 0
        17 July 2015 19: 41
        Quote: EGOrkka
        .... sooner appears on the terminator earlier.

        Or on the next version of the BTR-80 and BMP
      3. 0
        17 July 2015 20: 02
        Would prefer Bahchu.
    2. +5
      17 July 2015 15: 33
      Quote: gespenst07
      I would like to see such a 57-mm gun on a heavy BMP based on Almaty. All the same, for such a machine 30 mm is not enough

      Moreover, the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles of potential opponents are being built or designed with the expectation of protection against 30-mm ammunition, so that 57-mm will be "in the vein."
  3. +5
    17 July 2015 07: 39
    This is a very promising thing, especially since these technologies have long been developed in our country. The ZSU-57-2 was a very effective and powerful weapon, and even against lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, the most it. And the famous ZIS-2 was generally an outstanding anti-tank gun, even fighting the Panthers and Tigers. There is something to start from.
    At the same time, adversaries are only indulging with 40-mm guns, but we have a great reserve for the future.
    1. +10
      17 July 2015 07: 55
      Well? Why was such a successful ZSU-57-2 eventually replaced by a ZSU-23-4? Which became the nightmare of the NATO pilots. Whereas nothing is known about successes in the field of air defense of ZSU-57-2. But because it’s not about
      Currently, most of these systems are equipped with guns of caliber no more than 30-35 mm, which accordingly affects the power of the shells.
      the power of shells, and in that continuous shower of fire that can create a battery of quick-firing small-caliber guns. Hence the effectiveness. From the ship's 30mm lawnmowers, ships are calmly drowned. And this is the 57mm installation ... For BMP, LT and PT, yes. For ZSU - no.
      1. wanderer_032
        +4
        17 July 2015 08: 53
        Quote: Banson
        For ZSU - no.


        Never Say - Never. (Proverb)

        Once swung, it is "zhzhzhzh" - not casual. Let's wait and see what they will do there.
      2. +4
        17 July 2015 15: 36
        Quote: Banson
        Well? Why was such a successful ZSU-57-2 eventually replaced by a ZSU-23-4?

        There was no radar surveillance and aiming system. The calculations were made by a separate POISO, and with the growth of target speeds, there was no longer enough productivity in aiming and issuing target designation.
    2. +2
      17 July 2015 08: 34
      Actually, it wasn’t particularly effective in the role of air defense without radar detection and targeting.
      1. +2
        17 July 2015 09: 21
        It's not just about the radar. We saw the calculation of the Egyptian memory when the "Phantom" flew over it, and they did not even have time to turn their heads. In addition to the RLM, the ZSU must have an extremely high speed of response, which is achieved by very powerful and high-speed guidance drives in combination with a low mass or inertia of moving and rotating parts. Have you seen how the Shilka turns the tower or shakes the trunks? One gets the impression that you are watching a toy, everything is so fast and nimble. Pulling a 57mm bandura like that won't work.
    3. +6
      17 July 2015 13: 48
      Quote: inkass_98
      A very promising thing, especially since these technologies have been worked out for a long time. ZSU-57-2 was a very effective and powerful weapon,

      I'm afraid you are wrong. The ZSU-57-2 was not effective and was produced by the Union for only 5 years. The rate of fire (for anti-aircraft guns) is small, the recoil (by any measure) is simply monstrous. In none of the conflicts in which she participated, she did not show herself in any way well. In general, the same "Sergeant York", only in profile.
      and even against lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers
      - I don’t understand, are we talking about anti-aircraft guns, or about a PT-tool? Or do you have logic - if it can’t fulfill the main task, then even if it can at least something?

      And the famous ZIS-2 was generally an outstanding anti-tank gun, even fighting the Panthers and Tigers.

      Damn, guys, you just got your ignorance.
      Each "expert" on 57mm guns tries to compare it with the ZIS-2, but none of them bothered to find out that the ZSU-57-2 had a 57 × 348 mm SR projectile, and the ZIS-2 had a projectile from a 76-mm divisional gun with re-squeezing the muzzle of the sleeve from 76 to 57 millimeters.
      It will probably be a shock to you that the anti-aircraft gun, it turns out, does not shoot with bursts of shells from a three-inch shell, but has its own ammunition ...

      At the same time, adversaries are only indulging with 40-mm guns, but we have a great reserve for the future.

      I will disappoint you a little - your "groundwork for the future" comes from the mid-50s, production of the ZSU-57-2 was discontinued in 1960. Accordingly - the ammunition is outdated like mammoth shit. And the weapon itself, too.
      The adversaries are actively exploiting their Beaufors in dozens of countries, regularly carry out modernization, develop and produce new shells.

      And this is if we take only the old Swede, and not recall the development of telescopic ammunition, and guns for them, in caliber from 45 to 60 mm.
      This is what you need to develop, and not try to revive an outdated weapon of the middle of the last century. And then something about our "telescope" has not been heard for a couple of years already, it can be seen that everything has died out.
      1. +3
        17 July 2015 15: 41
        Quote: psiho117
        Accordingly, the ammunition is outdated like mammoth shit. And the gun itself too.

        Nobody even offers to shoot old ammunition from a new cannon, all the more so since only the caliber makes it compatible with the S-60. The fleet for 57-mm machine guns has long been using new shells, and the AU-220M is based on a ship’s gun. hi
    4. +3
      17 July 2015 14: 05
      Quote: inkass_98
      A very promising thing, especially since these technologies have been worked out for a long time. ZSU-57-2 was a very effective and powerful weapon, and even against lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

      Against lightly armored ZSU-57-2 was certainly effective Yes But with her main purpose of covering troops from an air enemy, she coped poorly. The combat effectiveness of the ZSU-57-2 depended on the skills of the crew, the training of the platoon commander, and was due to the lack of radar in the guidance system. Effective fire to defeat could be conducted only from a stop; firing "on the move" at air targets was not provided.
      In terms of combat effectiveness, the 57 mm C-60 anti-aircraft guns were much higher, which was demonstrated in various local conflicts.



      The anti-aircraft battery had a set of ESP-57 tracking drives designed for guidance in azimuth and elevation angle of C-60 guns. When firing, the PUAZO-6-60 and the SON-9 gun guidance radar were used, and later the RPK-1 VAZ radar instrument complex.
    5. 0
      17 July 2015 20: 12
      I do not agree with you. At close range, 57mm is redundant, inferior to ags and 30mm. And less ammunition. At long distances inferior to other systems, including ATGM, at least by the criterion of shot / efficiency.
  4. +3
    17 July 2015 08: 41
    57 mm projectile creates a large reserve for the creation of controlled ammunition, the presence of which the question of rate of fire fades into the background, again, this caliber can create a directed "cloud" of damaging elements, thereby significantly increasing the area of ​​destruction.
    1. 0
      25 July 2015 15: 19
      Guided ammunition for such a caliber is very complicated, expensive and inefficient, better remote air blasting.
  5. +1
    17 July 2015 08: 45
    The effectiveness of this and many other systems depends on many factors acting in the complex. Due to higher-precision systems, you can increase the caliber, but at the same time reduce the ammunition. What our engineers are going for, the main thing is that this efficiency is not on paper, but in deed. In addition, at the expense of accuracy at large distances, a larger caliber has higher indicators in this regard than a smaller caliber. Also, much depends on the ammunition, more precisely on the inside, of a new generation of explosives, for example, with higher emission energies.
  6. +1
    17 July 2015 08: 47
    Quote: Banson
    And this is the 57mm installation ... For BMP, LT and PT, yes. For ZSU - no


    I completely agree. A promising direction is precisely in this regard. Replaces both 40 mm AG and 30 mm cannon; a tank can also board a ship. When attacking, it allows (when firing a HE grenade), the supported compartment will be much closer to the object (you need to deal with ammunition). Well, and on occasion, if you don’t shoot down helicopters, you can drive them away.
    1. wanderer_032
      +1
      17 July 2015 08: 57
      Quote: chenia
      Well, and on occasion, if you don’t shoot down helicopters, you can drive them away.


      It would be better to bring down all the same. And preferably with one or two shots.
      At least the guys from "Petrel" have something to strive for.
  7. wanderer_032
    +1
    17 July 2015 08: 51
    However, it is now clear that the use of the new 57-mm gun will significantly improve the characteristics of the new anti-aircraft complex and provide significant superiority over other similar systems. It remains only to wait for new messages on an interesting topic and wait for the development organization to be ready to present open information about its new project.

    All this seems to be good ...

    Still, it is interesting for what air targets it is planned to fire from the designed memory? request After all, even though a semi-automatic 57-mm gun and powerful, but its rate of fire is an order of magnitude lower than that of automatic 23-mm and 30-mm guns.

    Those. You can’t shoot a lot of air targets at altitudes from 3 to 5 km, even if you have an excellent radar on board. It’s what the SLA will stand there, which can simultaneously accompany aerial target, and aim the gun at her? request

    If only in short series to conduct fire and with the help of remote blasting shells compensate for the low rate of fire ... what

    In short ... This is an awesomely complicated LMS should be, with an awesome speed. Yes

    Well, the guys from the Central Research Institute "Petrel" can only wish them good luck in solving such a difficult task.
    As the saying goes: He who never fell - he never rose.
    1. +1
      17 July 2015 11: 20
      Quote: wanderer_032
      Those. You can’t shoot very quickly on air targets at altitudes from 3 to 5 km, even if you have an excellent radar on board. What kind of SLA will it be there, which can simultaneously accompany an air target and point a gun at it?

      Google OTO Melara Otomatik. The very beginning of the 90s.
      According to her, the whole article was in the Foreign Military Review.
    2. +1
      17 July 2015 11: 59
      Most likely - low-flying armored targets. The same helicopters, anti-ship missiles (if sea-based). It looks like a 30mm snapper arrow can no longer cope. Well, put the curtains. Again, the arrow has better aerodynamics than a caliber projectile. And range.
    3. +2
      17 July 2015 15: 45
      Quote: wanderer_032
      What kind of SLA will it stand there, which can simultaneously accompany an air target and direct a gun at it?

      And what do you dislike about "Pantsir" or "Tunguska"?
      1. wanderer_032
        0
        17 July 2015 22: 48
        Quote: K-50
        And what do you dislike about "Pantsir" or "Tunguska"?


        What is dear talking about?
        Neither "Tunguska" nor "Pantsir" FCS is suitable for this ZSU, because. the main gun has different ballistic parameters for firing, as well as a lower combat rate of fire.

        In addition, on both ZRAKs, the main armament is the SAM, and the 30-mm fast-firing automatic guns with a combat rate of at least 1950..2500 rounds / min (ZRAK Tunguska) and 5000 rounds / min (ZRAK Shell) are optional.

        For comparison, the combat rate of fire of the S-60 (S-68 ZSU-57-2) gun is 105-120 rounds / min.
  8. snc
    +1
    17 July 2015 09: 30
    It all comes down to the question of whether it will be possible to create a cheap, adjustable projectile of this caliber.
  9. 0
    17 July 2015 09: 44
    The ballistics of 57 mm is good, and the power of the fragmentation and shrapnel shell is low. Therefore, this caliber is unlikely to be more effective than 30 and 76 mm.
  10. +6
    17 July 2015 09: 48
    That would be put on Kurganets-25. It would be the most!
    1. +1
      17 July 2015 14: 02
      I, too, have this opinion and why do we need these Frenchmen-frogs with their "Atom"
  11. +4
    17 July 2015 10: 40
    Well, the guys washed down the module with the 57 mm gun - they can’t sell tapercha. and pop anyhow kuda without hitting .....
  12. +3
    17 July 2015 11: 19
    Follow in the footsteps of GRT Melara? smile
    1. +1
      17 July 2015 11: 34
      but in my opinion a dead end
      1. wanderer_032
        +1
        17 July 2015 15: 33
        Quote: tchoni
        Follow in the footsteps of GRT Melara?

        Quote: tchoni
        but in my opinion a dead end


        Interestingly, what kind of barrel cooling system is needed?
        What about the recoil system?
        On ship artillery systems, a water cooling system ...

  13. +1
    17 July 2015 11: 50
    Modern western helicopters are designed to protect against our 23-30 mm. shells. The increase in caliber, and hence the power of the shot is necessary. A heavier projectile flies more predicted (compare 5,45 and 7,62), which means it is more convenient for guidance automation. The only negative - more caliber - less ammunition.
    1. +6
      17 July 2015 13: 53
      Quote: Vasya
      Modern western helicopters are designed to protect against our 23-30 mm. shells.

      If possible, more specifically, which helicopter’s cabin holds a 30mm shell?
      1. -5
        17 July 2015 15: 45
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Quote: Vasya
        Modern western helicopters are designed to protect against our 23-30 mm. shells.

        If possible, more specifically, which helicopter’s cabin holds a 30mm shell?

        Apache is designed to protect against Shilka
        1. +2
          17 July 2015 21: 34
          Quote: Vasya
          Apache is designed to protect against Shilka

          Shilka 23mm caliber guns

          Pantsir-S
          Caliber: ------------------------- 30 mm
          Initial projectile speed: ----- 960 m / s
          Shell weight: ------------------ 389 g

          And which cabin (motor protection, gearbox, etc.) can withstand the impact of almost 400 from a gram projectile flying at a speed of 3 sounds?
    2. +2
      17 July 2015 15: 45
      Well, if the blades are considered a "helicopter", then yes. But no.
    3. +2
      18 July 2015 02: 28
      Modern helicopters will not stand the line of 30mm shells in any place. It is a fact. And after the first hit of a 30mm shell, the helicopter will fly off to the base - to be repaired.
  14. 0
    17 July 2015 12: 04
    The most for our new infantry fighting vehicles. It is not as heavy, bulky as 100mm 2A70 and with a more powerful high-explosive fragmentation projectile than 30mm 2A42, and the declared rate of fire is not bad either. although at the expense of 12 km there are very big doubts
    1. 0
      18 July 2015 02: 30
      The bullshit is, not an alternative. Soviet engineers knew a lot about weapons, and therefore created the Bakhcha-U module. Back in World War II, all countries of the world recognized that calibers 45/50/76 / and even 90mm are not enough for tanks. And then there will be hardly more than 57 snrads for a 100mm gun in the ammo rack.
  15. +1
    17 July 2015 12: 55
    I would put it on "Terminator" ...
  16. +2
    17 July 2015 13: 07
    A characteristic feature of this complex will be a combat module that is taken out of the vehicle body. The management of all systems in this case will be carried out remotely.

    Some crap, sorry for the harshness. A DBM is needed and justified if there is a troop compartment, but for an anti-aircraft gun it will be an unjustified complication, and at the same time it will be a shed in size as well as the Msta tower.
    It seems that our "generals" have heard something out of the way that DBM is cool, well, let's sculpt it where it is not needed.
    it can be assumed that the promising anti-aircraft self-propelled artillery installation mentioned by G. Zakamenny will be equipped with a new modification of the AU-220M combat module, modified for use in air defense

    Another nonsense - well, it’s unrealistic to make anti-aircraft from the BMP module, well, nothing! There are completely different requirements for the LMS, the reaction speed of the drives, stabilization systems. The anti-aircraft installation requires an additional large amount of equipment (and therefore space in the reserved volume), and at the same time, it does not need BMP-booking from 30 mm in the forehead. Yes, even the consumption of shells to defeat 1 target (and, accordingly, the ammunition load) of an anti-aircraft gun is several times higher.
    So the author bent it, a new tower is clearly needed here. And how it will work out with "Host" - they wanted it to be cheaper, but it turned out as always.
    1. +2
      17 July 2015 15: 59
      Quote: psiho117
      Another nonsense - well, it’s unrealistic to make anti-aircraft from the BMP module, well, nothing!

      And that the new module, in the anti-aircraft version, is too lazy to design, taking only the 57-mm machine as a basis. fellow
      1. +2
        17 July 2015 17: 53
        Quote: K-50
        And that the new module, in the anti-aircraft version, is too lazy to design, taking only the 57-mm machine as a basis.

        And they already have such a module, only a ship one. The very A-220 / A-220M from which the AU-220M was made for BMP and PT.
    2. 0
      17 July 2015 17: 14
      Quote: psiho117
      Another nonsense - well, it’s unrealistic to make anti-aircraft from the BMP module, well, nothing!

      I wang that when I try to install the AU-220M on the ZSU, the AU-220M will lose the letter "U" - and the design bureau will return to the ship A-220M (from which the AU-XNUMXM grew). smile

      I wonder if the Petrel will be able to stick a 57-mm gun somewhere? And then the topic has been going on since 1967 - with the A-220.
  17. +2
    17 July 2015 13: 28
    I read that a 100mm tank in the forehead is not enough. And the side confidently penetrates 57mm with a 70% higher probability of destruction than a 100mm gun due to its rate of fire. Also frontal armor armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc. all of our potential opponents are designed for a maximum of 30mm ammunition. Under 57mm, the armor will not increase. Well, for air defense, I strongly doubt that they will install it. For long distances there are missiles, guns are needed when missiles missed, i.e. at an effective distance of 30mm guns and here the rate of fire already plays a role.
    1. 0
      18 July 2015 02: 34
      You probably read poorly. Firstly, a 57mm shell can penetrate a tank’s tank only at a limited distance - after all, an armor-piercing shell will only be sub-caliber. Cumulative 57mm projectile is useless. But the 100mm cumulative projectile will surely hit the side of the tank AT ALL DISTANCE OF THE BATTLE.

      If you are not in the know, the module "Bakhcha-U" was made for a reason. The 30mm cannon works there mainly for manpower. But the 100mm works both for armored vehicles and for fortifications with the FSM.
      1. +1
        18 July 2015 12: 46
        I don’t argue that the larger the caliber, the less restrictions, but again I emphasize that I wrote about tests that showed that a 57mm projectile has a 100% chance of hitting and breaking through the side more than 70mm. After all, you still have to get there. At the BMP, there was a 57mm gun, which fired a burst of 3 shells. So compare 3 shells fly or 1. What is the probability of hitting, albeit without penetration? The next stage will fly clearly faster than a 100mm gun reload. So it turns out 70% more efficient, given that it does not penetrate.
  18. +3
    18 July 2015 13: 36
    In the presence of MANPADS, many armies have long been no longer concerned with anti-aircraft artillery, but the combined missile and artillery systems are another matter, here we have a complete set (ZRAK "Tunguska", "Pantsir-S"). ZSU ("Gepard-1A2", SIDAM 25, CV-90/40 AAV, K30 Biho) and ZAU created in the 70-90s of the last century also remain in service and are being improved. proven their effectiveness against ground targets in urban and mountainous conditions, as an example, the experience of using the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" and ZU-23-2, respectively, the ZSU has a good reaction time.
    And why is there a DBM in the photo for an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier? a specialized SPAAG requires the installation of 2 radars. Do we need a new nomenclature artillery caliber 57 mm (23x152 and 30x165 mm are enough)? a similar one is offered by the Swedish "Bofors" for naval artillery systems, installed, for example, on corvettes of the national Navy and Canadian frigates.
    Some eksperty here, dreaming of a 57-mm ZSU, can not understand the elementary things that each air defense system has its own niche in the air defense system, i.e. dividing into complexes of long, medium, short range, and short-range air defense systems (MANPADS), supplemented with small-caliber cannons ZAU (ZSU), ZRAK "Pantsir-S" with its missile and artillery component combines the last two segments, i.e. medium-va short-range air defense (SAM) and close combat (art.). So, if someone in the dignity of a 57-mm ZSU wants to put it at a greater firing distance (conditionally - the level of a short-range air defense system) than the distances of 23-mm and 30-mm ZAU close combat, he does not understand that at a proactive greater distance is preferable An air defense system that can simultaneously fire and hit several air targets with a high probability, while the 57-mm and any ZSU work on the same target. For the fleet there are still 76-mm, 100-mm and 130-mm automatic guns, what is the next in line in the quality of the ZSU?

    Yes, indeed, the M30A165 / A2 "Bradley", "Marder-2A3 / A1", "Puma" *, CV-3S and CV-5/90 infantry fighting vehicles are conditionally protected from 90x35-mm ammunition, in the frontal projection - BMP ASCOD ("Rizarro "/" Ulan ") and MCV-80" Warrior "(without attachment armor set). Armored personnel carriers (8x8) "Stryker", VBCI and "Pandur II" are not protected from 2A42 / 2A72, only their frontal projection from 14,5х114-mm ammunition. But the DUBM "Epoch" combined, with 4 ATGM "Kornet", this is if we talk about highly protected armored targets. Any infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, having come under fire from 2A42 (1,5 km), will rush to retreat, without even breaking through the armor, shells cause damage or disable the armored vehicle, the "Cornet" hits on the spot (5,5 km), the first role is played by ATGMs (BMPs) Bradley "-" TOU ", BMP" Marder "-" Milan "). What's the point of a destroyed BMP with an unclaimed 1/35/40-mm cannon?
    The tendency to equip 35/40-mm BMP guns with no anti-tank ATGMs, more trenches to resist enemy BMPs with ATGMs, and of course, a bet on interaction with MBT and self-propelled ATGMs.

    * "Puma" with PU ATGM "Spike-LR" (photo): http://www.psm-spz.de/index.php?id=bewaffnung&L=1
    1. +1
      20 July 2015 05: 06
      plus completely ...
  19. +1
    20 July 2015 05: 22
    gentlemen a second ...
    and why not immediately put 76, 90, 100,105 125 mm ... on an infantry fighting vehicle or ZSU ... the range is greater, the destructiveness is lost ... Gentlemen !!!
    10-12 km - this is not the near zone - this is the TORm1 complex and no tricks will prove to me that the TOR ammunition is worse than a 57-mm shell or their turn ... I don’t know the characteristics of such a shot, but it’s obvious that it’s 7-8 km away (more for precision anti-aircraft turret shooting - fantastic and PR) the projectile will fly for 10 seconds ... given their number in the queue and the fact that the enemy, especially now is by no means stupid - it can be confidently stated that modern helicopters will simply leave the line fire or actively maneuver that will exclude effective fire at such a range ... and if closer, the existing complexes - the carapace and the tunguska can cope themselves ...

    for a similar reason, there was a rejection of 100-mm guns on a new generation BMP / BTR: its effectiveness in general combat with a BMP class machine is inaccurate - to defeat infantry it is worse than 30 mm, the power of a cumulative ammunition is not enough to hit a tank or a western BMP in the forehead (an attack on board from an area of ​​the same fiction - the car will be destroyed before it takes such a position) the sub-caliber is generally nothing ... but you know the price bites ... in conditions where there is support for artillery, tanks and aviation, 100 mm is an extra prodigy. .. BUT, it is sooooo necessary for airborne assault since they have to carry everything and they don’t have tanks with art and attack the enemy from the rear and flank.

    also shy to ask what will be the BC? 200 maximum 220 ... in addition, what is the optimal or combat shooting distance in combat? 7-8 km ..? Well, in the mountains or in the desert, maybe, where there is direct visibility ... and in other areas? in such conditions, there is nothing better than short-range missiles and better than two ...
    in addition to release a new nomenclature of BC is a scribe ... it is better to increase the power of existing ones, which by the way managed to make gloomy Swiss ...

    IMHO
  20. +1
    12 August 2015 13: 00
    "The ammunition is supplied by means of a flexible metal sleeve, through which the cartridge strip passes."

    Not a very reliable design. Will cut the sleeve with splinters and "farewell to arms" ?!