A very large game hunter: a twin-barreled self-propelled howitzer "Coalition-SV"

A very large game hunter: a twin-barreled self-propelled howitzer "Coalition-SV"



Russian gunsmith designers managed to create a self-propelled gun, which is twice as effective as all the other modern self-propelled guns

Participants in the Victory Parade in Moscow 9 May 2015 were self-propelled howitzers “Coalition-SV” - worthy successors of the ACS “Acacia” and “Msta”. Heavy-duty, powerful-looking 152-millimeter self-propelled guns impressed everyone who watched the passage of a column of new Russian armored vehicles. But this impression would be much stronger, appear on the Moscow parade, these cars in their original form - with high towers, from the frontal armor of which two massive trunks looked into the sky. The 152-millimeter self-propelled howitzer “Coalition-SV” should have become such. And it is possible that in the end, in this form, it will also be put into service. After all, this unusual arrangement is not determined by the whims of the designers, but by the urgent need - and the fact that the novelty has outstripped its time.


Self-propelled artillery installation "Coalition-SV" during the final rehearsal of the Victory Parade on Red Square. Photo: Stanislav Krasilnikov / TASS


More trunks - denser fire


Multiple artillery systems appeared in the armies of the world not by chance. Always the main - and often the only - reason was the need to provide much more than other samples, power and rate of fire.

Before the advent of automatic firing systems, thanks to which automatic weapons, machine guns and submachine guns appeared in the arsenals of armies all over the world, it was precisely due to the multiplicity of barrels that a high rate of fire and the density of fire were achieved. It was this principle that was used as the basis for the mitraleza, known in Russia as a "canister" (although these guns were fired not with a canister, but with rifle cartridges), capable of firing a salvo from several or even several dozen barrels.

The further development of mitraleza (by the way, this word in French today is called the system, in Russia bearing the name “machine gun”) was the Gatling gun, which for the first time loudly declared itself on the battlefields of the American Civil War. Charged with the breech block of several barrels mounted on a single rotating bed, allowed to fire with tremendous speed, which, in turn, ensured the highest density of destruction. While the drive of the Gatling gun was manual, she shot at speeds from 200 to 1000 shots per minute, and after the drive shaft was able to adapt the drive to the 3000!

However, by the beginning of the First World War, single-barrel machine guns began to arrive in the troops, providing though not such a high rate of fire, but differing in a much simpler and easier construction. But Gatling’s guns moved to planes and ships - to where no one had to carry them in their hands, and in place for the construction it was possible not to save. It is the continuation of the Gatling gun that are such famous multi-barrel automatic fire systems, as the Russian shipborne installation "Dagger", which includes the six-barrel 30-mm gun GSH-6-30K, or the American six-barrel aviation 20 mm gun M61 "Volcano".

Large-caliber heiress "Shilka"


A similar approach prevailed in the field of large-caliber artillery. Only guns remained, which did not need to be carried anywhere and which could be placed in several tiers vertically. Thus arose and developed shipboard multi-barreled turrets - and similar coastal artillery installations.

Attempts to attach a multi-barrel large-caliber system to tank the chassis failed for a long time. They simply explained: in order to make a structure with more than one large-caliber barrel move, an extremely high power engine was required, which inevitably entailed an increase in the total mass of the structure and a decrease in the ammunition load - and so on. Only small-caliber multi-barrel self-propelled guns took root - such as the Shilka self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, armed with a quad automatic 23 mm gun, and its heirs Tunguska and Pantsir-S, which have two and four 30 mm automatic anti-aircraft guns, respectively.

The great surprise was the military experts, when at the very beginning of January 2006, for the first time, the unique Russian development was presented to the general public - a promising twin-barreled self-propelled howitzer “Coalition-SV”. The designers from Nizhny Novgorod, Perm, Yekaterinburg and St. Petersburg managed to do the impossible: to create a mobile rapid-fire two-gun self-propelled unit, and capable of firing at a record distance - up to 70 km!

Three main qualities of self-propelled guns


Skeptical readers will certainly notice: “Well, again, we are developing and trying to smelt our already not very well-equipped army of kunshtuki, which, because of their futility, have long been abandoned abroad, and we are presented with the last word of technology!”. They will notice - and they will be fundamentally wrong, because such an artillery system, like no other, meets the requirements of modern self-propelled artillery installations.

According to the concept of modern ACS, its main characteristics are the rate of fire, mobility and firing range. All three basic requirements are associated with a simple condition. Modern self-propelled guns in the current development of systems for detecting and destroying armored vehicles should change position after almost every shot. On average, the self-propelled gun can stay in place for no more than a minute, after which it will have to leave the position so that it will not be destroyed.

The rate of fire in modern ACSs of the traditional single-gun scheme is ensured by the use of increasingly faster automatic loading machines and guidance systems. But both of them have purely physical limitations: there is a speed threshold, which is simply impossible to overcome while classic powder shots are used - whether it is separate or unitary. Mobility is also limited to purely physical: the ratio of the weight of the self-propelled (which is determined by its design, caliber of the gun and the mass of ammunition) and the weight and engine power. As for the firing range, it is achieved mainly due to two indicators: the power of the charge and the length of the barrel. And here again the very compromise that determines mobility also comes into play: it is difficult to install a long-barreled weapon with a powerful charge on a tracked chassis so that the final design moves quickly enough and at the same time has a decent ammunition.

From this point of view, the double-barreled "Coalition-SV" turned out to be a completely unique system, which nobody has yet been able to create analogs of. It was not possible, although attempts to do something similar are known. Russian gunsmiths managed to make it so that with dimensions and mass comparable to the characteristics of most modern self-propelled guns of the same caliber, this installation has twice the barrels - and therefore is capable of firing twice as fast and twice as dense. That is, the actual one “Coalition-SV” replaces two single-barreled installations similar to it, which makes it unprecedentedly effective.

New, new and again new


In 2003, as a result of unhurried research work since the late 1980s on the topic "Uninhabitable" and the study of the possibility of interspecific unification of promising large-caliber artillery weapons of the Ground Forces and the Naval fleet the idea of ​​self-propelled guns "Coalition-SV" was born. By this time, weapons designers managed to create a 2A86 double-barreled gun, which, with two barrels, had a weight comparable to the weight of a traditional single-barrel gun system of the same caliber. This was achieved through the use of completely new materials for the trunks and breech, which provided the required strength characteristics with much less weight.

The second finding, which allowed the Coalition-SV to be born, was the new pneumatic automatic loader. He not only ensured a high rate of loading and, accordingly, shooting, but also allowed him to make the conning tower uninhabitable. Due to this, it became possible to make it more compact and, accordingly, easy - which means that there was a reserve for installing a double-barreled gun.

The same automatic loader allowed to implement the concept of an armor capsule for the crew, which was located in front of the car. A similar layout has the new multifunctional tracked platform “Armata”, on which the T-14 “Armata” is built (it should also in the near future become a platform for the ACS “Coalition-SV”). Accordingly, due to the compact placement of the crew won some more weight, also spent on strengthening the firepower.

"Coalition-SV" in facts and figures


The resulting design was first presented to the public in January 2006. And she immediately made a real sensation: the mobility demonstrated by the novelty, the rate of fire and the firing range could not be compared with other systems currently in service in the world. Coalition-SV demonstrated firepower comparable to the power of multiple rocket launchers, while maintaining the accuracy of hitting traditional for barrel artillery. There is nothing of the kind in any army in the world to this day - and it is not expected.

Here is how it looks in numbers. The mass of the double-barreled installation turned out to be within 48 tons (the most modern single-barrel SAU "Msta-S" weighs only six tons less), the ammunition load - 70 shells ("Msta-S" - 50 shells), rate of fire - up to 23 shots per minute against 10 at "Msty-S". The maximum travel speed on the highway is 80 – 90 km / h (“Msta-S” - 60 km / h), the power reserve is 500 km, which is usual for most modern ACS. At the same time, the range of the shot at the 2А82 gun is from 40 to 70 km, depending on the type of projectile, while the 2А64М2 howitzer on the Msta-S finishes a maximum of 25 – 29 km. At the same time, the crew of the Coalition-SV is only three people, and the same Msty-S has five.

If we compare the “Coalition-SV” with such the most promising foreign SPGs, like the American M1096 “Paladin” and the German PzH2000, then the Russian system surpasses them in all the main combat indicators: shooting rate (23 shot per minute against 4 and 10, respectively) firing range (40 – 70 km versus 30 and 40, respectively), ammunition (70 projectiles versus 39 and 60, respectively). In addition, the Russian novelty also surpasses them in maximum speed and range on the highway - 80 km / h and 500 km versus 61 km / h and 299 km in American SAU and 60 km / h and 420 km in Germany, respectively. By the way, the crews of the western art installations are also bigger: six people from the “Paladin” and five from the PzH2000.


American self-propelled artillery installation M109A6 "Paladin". Photo: bemil.chosun.com

On land and at sea

Why, then, the inquisitive reader will ask, if the double-barreled version of the Coalition-SV is so good, at the Victory Parade did they demonstrate the traditional single-barreled one? The answer is quite simple and, alas, predictable: the lack of money in the military budget and the lack of proven technologies to produce a new artillery system quickly, in large quantities and with proper quality are to blame. As for the Russian army, new self-propelled guns were required as soon as possible, and they were fairly inexpensive, as reliable and simple as possible - and that means that they were using already developed elements and technologies.

However, the adoption of the single-barreled version of the “Coalition-SV” does not at all put an end to the double-barreled structure: work on it continues and expands. In particular, a variant of the Coalition-F artillery installation has already appeared (currently available to the public only in the form of 3D models and drawings). The index “F” means “Fleet”, as well as “SV” - ground forces, and denotes the scope of application of a unified installation. The naval version of the Coalition is intended for installation on medium and large warships of new projects, the development of which shipbuilders are now completing.

In contrast to the “SV” variant, the “F” variant will have a system for loading and supplying ammunition through the use of a structure that is layered in height. In other words, if in the land “Coalition” the shells are located slightly behind and to the side of the state-owned parts of the guns, then the naval shells have a traditional ship-to-ship system with a supply of ammunition from below. The same tower installation "Coalition-F" can - and almost certainly will! - used in coastal artillery, traditionally attributed to the competence of the Navy and as unified as possible with ship artillery systems.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrei.yandex 25 October 2015 07: 31 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Unfortunately, we saw at the parade apparently not the final result. Apparently they will bring to condition. The declared platform was apparently not from Almaty, as there were six rollers, not seven. But it seems that, nevertheless, the future lies behind the double-barrel Coalition-SV.
    1. Ruslan 25 October 2015 08: 26 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      yes, the double-barreled version is of course a unique sau. when I saw her for the first time I was delighted. I think, to some extent, they were also afraid to be original, they were afraid of questions from bosses like "what is more than one barrel, like normal guns?"
      1. crazyrom 26 October 2015 00: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        It is not clear where the "Author Sergey Antonov" took that there is no money and quality for a double-barreled gun (and due to lack of money and quality they made a completely new car and a gun, yeah). I read that the double-barrels were abandoned due to lack of reliability, the 2 autoloader in the 1 turret, shaken with 2 guns, were failing well. This left the 1 barrel, but shoots (from memory!) 15 per minute, and AZ only 1 but more kondovy and tenacious.
    2. Yars 25 October 2015 11: 35 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Apparently they will bring to condition

      apparently there’s so little information about it, and there’s practically no video, this is the only thing in my opinion ->
      1. kamil_tt 25 October 2015 18: 52 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Representatives of the plant last year said they had completely abandoned the double-barreled version. It’s just that the journalists and the layman liked it so much that they continue to write and talk about it as a finished project ..
        1. Bersaglieri 27 October 2015 16: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And there is. For the survivability of the installation was too small (load when firing, the mass of the barrels, etc.). But for the naval platform this can be solved, but for the land, alas. Therefore, a single-barrel (with the preservation of ballistics ... and the rate of fire was not particularly affected)
    3. Civil 25 October 2015 16: 09 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Uninhabited tower! Armored capsules for the crew! I did not know, thanks to the author.
      1. Bad_gr 25 October 2015 21: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        Uninhabited tower! Armored capsules for the crew! I did not know, thanks to the author.

        In my opinion, one of the best configurations for self-propelled guns is like the German Donar self-propelled guns.

        Convenient, relatively comfortable crew cabin, separated from the combat. The combat module is fully autonomous.
        Compare:
        our combat inside the case with the combat,
        the size of a long-distance truck cab.
        Of course, we have more protection, but how relevant is it (such protection) for self-propelled guns that shoot somewhere in 20km?
        1. silver_roman 29 October 2015 16: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          You have all correctly written. it is in defense. if the crew is slow, the self-propelled guns will be detected and a shell with a powerful high-explosive part will arrive in response, the cabin is unlikely to save. And sitting inside a heavily armored hull is not so scary.
          True, I do not know how much exactly now modern systems calculate the location of self-propelled guns. If a sub-caliber is shunned, then the hull of the tank will not save. I think so at least.
  2. War and Peace 25 October 2015 07: 36 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    Why, then, the inquisitive reader will ask, if the double-barreled version of the Coalition-SV is so good, at the Victory Parade did they demonstrate the traditional single-barreled one? The answer is quite simple and, alas, predictable: the lack of money in the military budget and the lack of proven technologies to produce a new artillery system quickly, in large quantities and with proper quality are to blame. As for the Russian army, new self-propelled guns were required as soon as possible, and they were fairly inexpensive, as reliable and simple as possible - and that means that they were using already developed elements and technologies.


    "lack of money" is nonsense, in Russia in bulk Glazyev speaks about this and there are also opportunities for domestic investment, a two-barrel Coalition is not the most expensive type of weapon. For example, the Armata project is much more expensive. "Spent technology"? the developed technologies need to be worked out, and not put into a long box. We put a lot of things into a long box, for example, ekranoplans, how many nasty things were poured, and now there is infa that not only was developed there, but even China is going to buy something . The engines of the second stage at Puck talk were that by the end of the 15th year there would be first samples, then 16, then 17g. Now what? to 20g will be only. Our long-suffering electronics are still releasing unmanned control based on Panasonic tablets, and when something really will change. Russia does not make destroyers and other large ships, just talking, why? It seems that Russia is allocated quotas for the development of new technology, what can be done now and what cannot ...
    1. max702 25 October 2015 13: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: war and peace
      It seems that Russia is allocated quotas for the development of new technology, what can be done now and what cannot ...

      It seems that this is so .. Otherwise, there is nothing to explain the inaction of the authorities in the economy .. Maybe there, in the dizzying tops, they agreed to play by the "rules" and try not to violate them? Like, here we have a quota for you, but you don’t climb here and do something .. Sounds of course delusional, BUT the other options are even worse (betrayal or incompetence)
      1. Nick 25 October 2015 22: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: max702
        Quote: war and peace
        It seems that Russia is allocated quotas for the development of new technology, what can be done now and what cannot ...

        It seems that this is so .. Otherwise, there is nothing to explain the inaction of the authorities in the economy .. Maybe there, in the dizzying tops, they agreed to play by the "rules" and try not to violate them? Like, here we have a quota for you, but you don’t climb here and do something .. Sounds of course delusional, BUT the other options are even worse (betrayal or incompetence)

        Again. The double-barrel can not shoot twice as fast due to technical problems with the automatic loader. No conspiracy theories
    2. Nick 25 October 2015 22: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: war and peace
      "lack of money" is nonsense, in Russia in bulk Glazyev speaks about this and there are also opportunities for domestic investment, a two-barrel Coalition is not the most expensive type of weapon.

      No conspiracy theories.
      Just the automatic loader does not provide an increase in the rate of fire of the double-barreled version of the coalition. no conspiracy theories, the usual technical difficulties.
    3. Bersaglieri 27 October 2015 16: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The top management of state-owned companies needs to be “pissed off" - and everything will become OK. Here, for example, they removed Yakunin, and Russian Railways broke even. ;)
  3. Evil Kind 25 October 2015 08: 01 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    I doubt the need for two barrels. We already said that we reached the rate of fire at the Coalition-SV 15 h / min. In my opinion, this is almost the limit, the gun should come to its original position after swinging from the recoil after the shot, and this is now a gap of 4 seconds. As it seems to me, not an expert, 20 rpm (the interval of 3 seconds between shots, but rather even too little to calm down) is the edge. Therefore, I doubt the need for two trunks on a mobile platform, if only in the fleet, although it seems for him they want to do exactly 2 receiver set ku.
    1. War and Peace 25 October 2015 08: 23 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Quote: Evil Kind
      I doubt the need for two barrels. We already said that we reached the rate of fire at the Coalition-SV 15 h / min. In my opinion, this is almost the limit, the gun should come to its original position after swinging from the recoil after the shot, and this is now a gap of 4 seconds. As it seems to me, not an expert, 20 rpm (the interval of 3 seconds between shots, but rather even too little to calm down) is the edge. Therefore, I doubt the need for two trunks on a mobile platform, if only in the fleet, although it seems for him they want to do exactly 2 receiver set ku.


      Well, how did you count? what if two trunks, then the car will swing twice as strong or what? No, not so. On the contrary, two trunks can mutually compensate for fluctuations from shots - this is the first. Secondly, the shock absorbers of the barrel (and much more) affect the rate of fire, so the return time to the starting point of the barrel is determined only by the technical characteristics of the barrel shock absorber. Therefore, your conclusion that two trunks is an unnecessary excess is not only a wrong conclusion, but also essentially harmful
      The artillery double-barreled shotgun is a big step forward in the development of art systems, and the fact that such ridiculous obstacles arise here says that it is not a matter of technology, but something else ...
      1. Evil Kind 25 October 2015 08: 41 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        It’s you who think out something on your own, what a difference it is how many trunks, it’s the rate of fire. No matter 2 barrel or 1 barrel Coalition-SV will send 15 shells to the target per minute, but you definitely need a Wunderwafer with two trunks to beautifully . The designers said that with the help of the new automatic loader they were able to achieve such a rate of fire with one barrel. I ask you why 2 barrel? Do you want 30 rounds per minute?
        1. War and Peace 25 October 2015 11: 39 New
          • -9
          • 0
          -9
          Quote: Evil Kind
          It’s you who think out something on your own, what a difference it is how many trunks, it’s the rate of fire. No matter 2 barrel or 1 barrel Coalition-SV will send 15 shells to the target per minute, but you definitely need a Wunderwafer with two trunks to beautifully . The designers said that with the help of the new automatic loader they were able to achieve such a rate of fire with one barrel. I ask you why 2 barrel? Do you want 30 rounds per minute?


          what nonsense? if you manage to achieve a certain rate of fire, then with two trunks it will be TWO TIMES FASTER in any case - only full fool and still insists, theoretically, three trunks THREE TIMES FASTER. "no difference" nnda.
          What are the designers? link to the studio ...
          1. Evil Kind 25 October 2015 15: 09 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            The jumping “Fool” with a rate of fire of 45 h / min, as you can imagine, is still trying to make fun of me. By shooting the second barrel you can’t compensate for the shot of the first barrel. This will result in a shot in the movement of the gun, which then can be expected from the gun’s accuracy. due to the number of trunks you can increase the rate of fire, but you cannot shoot at that frequency, you will not have time to stabilize the gun in such a short period of time. Do you even understand this or it is useless to waste time on you !? Then you need to develop supports with a good damping system, and you also have to improve the barrel stabilizer. How will this affect mobility, remove the supports you need time (precious), for which you could also shoot. How will this affect the price? As a result, the military and developers may come to the conclusion that it is better to make two mobile Coalitions than one Wunderwaflu. There are no fools to calculate everything. I also like the look of the Coalition with 2 trunks, but I'm for pragmatism.
            1. dmi.pris 25 October 2015 15: 59 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              I completely agree with you, that's the reason why the double-barreled version did not go.
              Quote: Evil Kind
              The jumping “Fool” with a rate of fire of 45 h / min, as you can imagine, is still trying to make fun of me. By shooting the second barrel you can’t compensate for the shot of the first barrel. This will result in a shot in the movement of the gun, which then can be expected from the gun’s accuracy. due to the number of trunks you can increase the rate of fire, but you cannot shoot at that frequency, you will not have time to stabilize the gun in such a short period of time. Do you even understand this or it is useless to waste time on you !? Then you need to develop supports with a good damping system, and you also have to improve the barrel stabilizer. How will this affect mobility, remove the supports you need time (precious), for which you could also shoot. How will this affect the price? As a result, the military and developers may come to the conclusion that it is better to make two mobile Coalitions than one Wunderwaflu. There are no fools to calculate everything. I also like the look of the Coalition with 2 trunks, but I'm for pragmatism.
            2. War and Peace 25 October 2015 18: 23 New
              • -10
              • 0
              -10
              Quote: Evil Kind
              It is necessary then to develop supports with a good damping system, and also probably have to improve the barrel stabilizer


              I see uncle you understand everything, but you don’t want to admit for some reason, that’s how you have to improve the depreciation of returns, but don’t worry about state money, you better worry about your own, and even better about your own brains, because you think that there are two cars cheaper than one is definitely in the ward number 6 ...
              1. Evil Kind 25 October 2015 20: 51 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                I look at your emotions, you try to insult everything, leave it. You don’t bring any arguments, you understand everything probably superficially (grabbed the top), and not the point. We also had enough programs on REN-TV, where we lamented about super developments with stunning characteristics that did not go into series in the USSR and in Russia, attributed both betrayal and intrigues of competitors. And when you start to figure it out everything is easier. The cost of such super developments high, frequent failures of individual nodes, poor maintainability, short service life, low mobility on a theater of war, incompleteness, etc. etc. In general, they stick out high performance, without negotiating at what price it was achieved and that the product is not finalized and perhaps it cannot be modified at all, and further work is not cost-effective. And why do you think that two cars cannot be more expensive than one. It's like in Formula 1 for the sake of a little acceleration, speed, handling, a lot of money is spent, because the maximum is squeezed out of these technologies, further improvement of the characteristics does not make sense, the money spent is not worth that result. It is necessary to switch to another technological mode, for example, an electric motor and a battery, but these technologies have not yet been finalized. Everything usually rests on the materials (materials science), and not on the development itself. Material appears, a lot of new developments appear, which develop and again run into a shortage a certain material with the desired properties, which reappears or a material with similar properties, again spurring development, etc. I said that in this variant the rate of fire was almost exhausted, I didn’t say that it couldn’t be increased. We need support with a good damping system that will be taken out of the car’s dimensions, but the car may cease to be mobile. And we assume that the Coalition must quickly shoot and quickly leave the place of fire. And what do you mean by "I see Uncle, you understand everything, but you don’t want to admit for some reason, that’s how you have to improve the depreciation of the return" The firing range of the Coalition has greatly increased compared to Msta, and the recoil has decently increased. The designers have decided your “shock absorption”, and you still want to increase their rate of fire, the metal will withstand it. You need everything at once, but there are laws of physics, as well as economic feasibility.
                1. Bad_gr 25 October 2015 21: 08 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I think that in the ship's execution a double-barreled version is possible, but not because of the rate of fire, but because of the duration of the art installation. Overheating of the trunks. In the land version, after a volley, you need to quickly wash off, otherwise they will cover it with a return volley, so overheating the trunks is not relevant, but mobility is relevant.
                2. War and Peace 25 October 2015 23: 58 New
                  • -9
                  • 0
                  -9
                  why so many words, a verbal eruption is neither a sign of truth, nor a sign of mind. Are you special on artillery systems? No, of course, well, do not blather, the Kolitsiya was conceived, created and tested, and everything worked and was inexpensive and effective. Other forces that were not interested in creating a new model of weapons intervened, because with such an artillery system our army received a tangible advantage, and the owners of money and the world order did not like it ...
                  1. Evil Kind 26 October 2015 01: 17 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Thanks, laughed."masters of money and world order" allowed us to create Armata, Borey, Ash, Caliber, S-400, PAK FA (t-50), Sarmat on the way, Yars, Boundary, powerful electronic warfare (kraucha, etc.), most importantly, Rosatom will soon launch new almost non-waste, safer, almost two times cheaper reactors that can still process nuclear waste from around the world will dispose of them (this is really scary for them). And you think that they put some kind of double-barreled shotgun in their pants, and a single-barreled barrel with almost the same characteristics for them on the drum (somewhere better, somewhere worse). If the 2 barrel Coalition was so good, it would have been adopted. Stop talking with slogans and pompous words. Here many arguments lead, you - "It’s just cool, it has two trunks, nothing like that, now we’ll definitely capture the World" Yes ... and I'm not special in artillery systems, like you probably
                    1. morozik 26 October 2015 14: 26 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I will express seditious thought ...
                      the owners of money and the world order, having failed for some reason to deprive Russia of nuclear weapons, could well be aware that a weak, without a sufficient number of conventional weapons, Russia with a nuclear weapon in a critical case (attack from a likely enemy) will use this same nuclear weapon and then kerdyk to all and America and the owners. Therefore, in order to wage war and reduce the population on the planet, there should not be weak powers with nuclear weapons.
          2. kamil_tt 25 October 2015 19: 26 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            and if 10 trunks?
            1. Bad_gr 25 October 2015 20: 57 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Quote: kamil_tt
              and if 10 trunks?

              1. kamil_tt 26 October 2015 09: 34 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                MLRS turns out)
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. pimen 25 October 2015 08: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        a decrease in recoil on two trunks is real if you use it to reload, here it’s unlikely,
        increased rate of fire - only in a series with two charged barrels, because reloading during the firing of one barrel is also unlikely
      3. Forest 25 October 2015 11: 32 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        If two barrels were on different sides from the axis of the self-propelled guns - then yes, the return would be reduced. And so the car will have to be made less mobile, come up with supports. It is necessary to strengthen the chassis, create other materials that are less susceptible to fatigue, another OMS, which, with hellish shaking, could lead the gun.
        1. Bayonet 25 October 2015 18: 28 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Forest
          If two barrels were on different sides from the axis of the self-propelled guns - then yes, the return would be reduced.

          I can imagine how she would twist her ass! A shot from the right trunk turns the car to the right, from the left - to the left! Well and so on smile
          1. Forest 25 October 2015 19: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            It would be if they were leading a simultaneous volley to fractions of a second.
    2. luiswoo 25 October 2015 12: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Therefore, I doubt the need for two trunks on a mobile platform,if only in the fleet, although it seems that they want to do exactly the 2 barrel installation for him.

      The fleet kicks back from 152 mm as soon as it can. For those tasks where 130 mm is used, they consider it redundant. For more, there are rockets.
      1. BMW
        BMW 25 October 2015 15: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: luiswoo
        The fleet kicks off from 152 mm as soon as it can.

        Yeah, they put Zamvolt, so we also need to add somewhere. And if two trunks, so steepness.
        1. Bayonet 25 October 2015 19: 19 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: bmw
          And if two trunks, so steepness.

          As in a joke, one on holidays, another for every day! wink
    3. venaya 25 October 2015 12: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Evil Kind
      ... the gun should come to its original position after swinging from the recoil after the shot, and this is now an interval of 4 seconds. ...

      There are too many possible methods of damping the buildup to focus on this point now. But the increase in rate of fire, in my opinion, is really a paramount task, directly related to the crew’s own safety, as well as to the installation itself. This is due to the permissible time spent by the self-propelled guns in a combat position, however, if you look closely, you can also find other advantages of high-speed self-propelled guns.
      1. BMW
        BMW 25 October 2015 15: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: venaya
        There are too many possible methods of damping the buildup to focus on this point now.

        This technique is such a bastard that it does not happen to be secondary, a simple bolt is also an important thing.
        In general, does the concept of economic feasibility exist or not?
        Any complication of the design and an increase in the number of parts leads to a decrease in reliability. Plus the complication of TO and an increase in its time. Too many restrictions for self-propelled guns.
        And why not use the released mass to enhance passive protection plus setting active. This approach should increase combat stability. Everything is simpler and cheaper than the second barrel.
        1. venaya 25 October 2015 20: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: bmw
          ... does the concept of economic feasibility exist or not? ... Any complication of the design and an increase in the number of parts leads to a decrease in reliability. And why not use the released mass to enhance passive protection plus setting active. This approach should increase combat stability. Everything is simpler and cheaper than the second barrel.

          Indeed: "concept of economic feasibility"- for me personally, the basic one, the economy should have strict accounting and control (there was such an object, the military economy)."Everything is simpler and cheaper than the second barrel"- I checked, I didn’t find anywhere my mention of the number of trunks, which I didn’t refer anywhere. I talked exclusively about the connection between the buildup and the rate of fire, nothing else, this is a clean economy. For example: if you increase the total rate of fire by at least 10 times, then you can reduce the number of self-propelled guns installations by the same number of times to perform the same combat mission. Here you have the whole housekeeper, calculate for yourself. How this will be realized is another, separate question. I wrote only about the need to combat the buildup, As for the crew’s protection, this automatic gun and ammunition ammunition are huge, so it’s advisable to keep people away, and it’s advisable to operate such a machine from a respectful distance, in semi-automatic mode, more reliably.
    4. Bayonet 25 October 2015 18: 21 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Evil Kind
      I doubt the need for two trunks.

      I also think, where will the projectile from the second gun fly if the shot follows the first? If the accuracy is worse than that of a single-barrel gun, then who needs such a rate of fire? For work on the area there is a MLRS - and cheaper and the density of fire is much higher. request
      1. skifd 25 October 2015 19: 47 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Damn I do not understand what "BAZAR" ?? Tests of the two-gun version showed that it is impossible to comply with those. requirements for self-propelled guns (in order to compensate for the return of two guns, it is necessary to refine the design of the guns, which leads to an increase in mass and, as a result, alterations, if not chassis changes) So we chose a compromise option. Why tear each other because of this ??? drinks
        1. Evil Kind 25 October 2015 21: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes, we do not tear each other, "TRUTH is born in a dispute." Someone is better informed in one, someone in another, more (information) is better! Sometimes you stupidly stupid, and a knowledgeable person could not stand your "darkness" in this matter, write such an article, put everything on the shelves, and think like a fool put himself, and not in vain! And here there are enough such knowledgeable people. Although there are "plus-tals" too.
    5. gladcu2 27 October 2015 00: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Zloydobryak

      Here it is necessary to take into account that on the ground it is also necessary to introduce amendments. It’s not for you to shoot from a 2 meter thick concrete platform.
      In other words, bullet is not aimed, it makes no sense.
    6. cheguevarazhiv 18 February 2016 16: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It would be interesting to look at the artillery cruiser of the type "Mikhail Kutuzov" in the version of the Coalition f ... 4 towers of 6 barrels ... total 24 barrels of 152 mm. Even if we take a rate of fire of 20 rounds / min, we get 240 shells per minute on a target at a distance of 70 km. The average weight of the shell is 45 kg - a total of 10800 kg of explosives and steel per minute. Yeah ... many battleships nervously smoke aside)))
  4. KBR109 25 October 2015 08: 41 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    For the Kunstkamera. Fast failure of the trunnions and shoulder straps of the tower. Have you ever wondered why multi-turret tanks became a dead end? But in vain ... So far, we have a decent lag in artillery shots. That's what you need to do, and not make the pyramids of cheops. The probability theory, again, has not been canceled - if the probability of uninterrupted operation of the trunk is 0.9, then the system of two trunks is not higher than 0.8. And what if one trunk is "in failure"? In repair or not? And the mad complexity of repair (replacement) during military repair?
  5. alex-cn 25 October 2015 09: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t know how there is for a howitzer, but the Swedish-Finnish self-propelled AMOS double-barreled mortar exists, and it seems to be pleased with it ... at least it boasted strongly.
    1. dokusib 25 October 2015 12: 07 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Yeah. Only the best-selling version of AMOS is for some reason single-barrel. Riddle what
  6. Cresta999 25 October 2015 10: 24 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The article runs counter to the opinion of the general designer. Was the author too lazy to open the video on YouTube?
  7. Old26 25 October 2015 11: 16 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: andrei.yandex
    Unfortunately, we saw at the parade apparently not the final result. Apparently they will bring to condition. The declared platform was apparently not from Almaty, as there were six rollers, not seven. But it seems that, nevertheless, the future lies behind the double-barrel Coalition-SV.

    We just saw the end result. The double-barreled version was tested in the amount of several copies, but most likely a decision was made on the inappropriateness of such an option. For the complexity of the SAZ put an end to the advantages of such a system, especially with a crew of 3 people
  8. Dan Slav 25 October 2015 11: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Ammunition must also be doubled. Otherwise, it's just pampering.
    For the ship, it may somehow work, although there is no such problem with compactness.
    IMHO! Just for show-offs! Send two SPGs and there will be happiness!
    1. luiswoo 25 October 2015 22: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      For the ship, it may somehow work, although there is no such problem with compactness.

      It will not work. Double-barrel AK-130 ("miserable" 130 mm, "miserable" 90 \ m, "miserable" 3 tons of shells per minute) for everything about everything 150 tons. Less than the cruiser did not set. Its lightweight, single-barrel version of the A-192 (30 in \ m, the mass of the AU 25 tons versus 89 tons of the "older" model) is already for frigates with a displacement of 4500 tons. Moreover, they plan to put the same A-23560 on the 12 Leader project destroyer (series of 18000 pieces) with a displacement of 192 tons. Larger ships are not planned yet. The question is, if the Coalition-F isn’t consumptive and disposable, where should I put it? Despite the fact that in Russia (USSR) the last ship with 152 mm was built either in the 40's, or in the 50's.
      1. BV330 15 November 2015 22: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yeah, and destroyers pr.956, where fervently sparkled with trunks as many as 2 of these towers - not otherwise super-battleships of the USSR ?? laughing
  9. runway 25 October 2015 11: 30 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The author often uses the term "powerful" in an article.
    There is no such thing in artillery. TTX "double-barreled" "Coalition" invented.
  10. Sars 25 October 2015 11: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Isn’t it easier to use a high-speed automatic loader than to fire a double-barreled shotgun?
    1. Siberia 9444 25 October 2015 13: 47 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Overheating of the trunk thereby reducing the survivability. (Resource)
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Balagan 25 October 2015 15: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    An interesting lineup. The crew outside the tower is good. I did not consider loading, the wedges of the shutters just flashed. I would like the mechanics in the tower to work properly.
  13. AUL
    AUL 25 October 2015 18: 41 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    IMHO, this is a harmful undertaking with two trunks!
    Firstly, a very significant weighting of the entire machine. Not only are two shafts, probably two roll-backs and a knurl, AZ at 2 positions ...
    Secondly, the complexity of the design, therefore, a decrease in reliability. No one has already done AZ for 2 loading positions, no one has experience and best practices.
    After a shot, the tank sways for 3 - 4 seconds. It's 125mm, and after 152 how much will it dance? And then why the heck is the theoretical rate of fire of 40 rounds / min?
    And another consideration. In case of combat damage to the double-barreled barrel, two guns at once cannot fulfill the assigned combat mission. It is safer to have 2 self-propelled guns on 2 barrel than 1 on 1 barrels. More expensive, of course, but reliability in battle is more important!
    1. Andrey77 26 October 2015 12: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I agree. I'm for 2 single-barrel than 1 double-barreled.
  14. Archon 25 October 2015 18: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    by the way, about multilateralism
  15. Zaurbek 25 October 2015 21: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It seems to me in a single-barrel version the tower is heavy for the platform from the T-90. For the necessary mobility, we settled on one trunk. Here it is also necessary to compare the howitzer with one barrel and advanced automation and new shells and two barrels and old Soviet automation. Probably all of this was considered and it turned out that the option with a single barrel is more profitable. Maybe our electronics developed faster than the gunners expected.
  16. rusik090 26 October 2015 14: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They may have already written in the comments, but the head of their factory said in an interview: there will be no double-barreled shotgun, that's for sure.
  17. Sobi 26 October 2015 15: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Now with the single-barrel version there are big problems ... I watched the video of the run there the tower (22 tons by the way) hits the hull aft ...