Military Review

"Tunguska" and "Shilka" will be replaced by a new anti-aircraft complex

205
In the Russian Federation, a new anti-aircraft artillery complex is being developed, which will replace the Tunguska and Shilka complexes, reports RIA News report of the head of the air defense forces Alexander Leonov.


"Tunguska" and "Shilka" will be replaced by a new anti-aircraft complex

Anti-aircraft complex "Tunguska"


“In place of our Tunguska and Shilka complexes, a new promising anti-aircraft artillery complex in the caliber 57 mm is being developed,” Leonov said, without specifying any development timeframe or new name. weapons.

Help Agency: “Shilka” is a Soviet anti-aircraft self-propelled gun armed with a quad automatic 23-mm cannon, which is designed to directly cover ground troops, destroy air targets at distances up to 2,5 thousands of meters and altitudes up to 1,5 thousands of meters flying at speeds up to 450 meters per second .

The Tunguska anti-aircraft missile and gun system provides for the detection, recognition, tracking and destruction of various types of air targets (helicopters, tactical aircraft aviation, cruise missiles, drones), as well as the destruction of surface and ground targets. "
Photos used:
Sergey Fadeichev / TASS
205 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 24 December 2015 19: 48 New
    21
    Maybe it’s better to upgrade TUNGUSKU to an APACH range of 10 km ... it's cheaper than building a new installation ... there’s not much money in the budget for a new development.

    Amazing news of the day ...


    In Syria, the Russian army threw battle robots into battle

    http://warfiles.ru/show-104009-vpervye-v-sirii-armiya-rossii-brosila-v-boy-boevy



    h-robotov.html


    Is it really true ????
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 24 December 2015 19: 52 New
      29
      Quote: The same Lech
      it’s cheaper than building a new installation ... there’s not much money in the budget for a new development.

      But 57 mm is better than 23 mm bully Yes, let the designers design - for that they are the designers. Maybe it's true that someday such an installation will go into series.
      1. Maxom75
        Maxom75 24 December 2015 20: 44 New
        +4
        57mm fleet gun standard?
        1. aleks 62 next
          aleks 62 next 25 December 2015 11: 28 New
          +5
          ..... 57mm fleet gun standard? ...


          .... Not really .... there was such a "spark" ZSU-57 .... A good thing, but a small rate of fire .... hi
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 34 region
        34 region 24 December 2015 20: 51 New
        +2
        When using an UAV, is caliber important? To shoot a drone what caliber is needed? More less? Or drones yesterday? What is the most optimal caliber against drones?
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 24 December 2015 21: 06 New
          28
          Quote: Maxom75
          57mm fleet gun standard?


          Quote: 34 region
          When using an UAV, is caliber important? To shoot a drone what caliber is needed? More less? Or drones yesterday? What is the most optimal caliber against drones?


          This 57mm caliber was already used on the ZSU 2-57 1955-1960, but the aiming systems of that time could not ensure acceptable aiming accuracy, and the rate of fire was 100-120 h. in minutes was insufficient to ensure fire density for an acceptable probability of defeat (with existing aiming systems), so "shilka with its 4000 rds. in minutes. had better efficiency.
          Today's SLAs are able to eliminate the aforementioned drawback, and therefore the high rate of fire has lost its relevance, and the 57mm power is an order of magnitude higher .... request since that.
          1. lukke
            lukke 24 December 2015 22: 12 New
            +6
            I add that the upgraded PT-76 was equipped with a 57-mm automatic and now the BMP-3m has one of the modifications with the same caliber. The increase in caliber and range is a consequence of the need to combat air and ground targets, as the development of the latter also does not stand still. This is a pattern
          2. svd-xnumx
            svd-xnumx 24 December 2015 22: 12 New
            27
            and the power is 57mm an order of magnitude higher .... request since that.
            I also think that a 57 mm shell can be equipped with a remote fuse and hit targets not with a shell but with a hail of splinters, which is difficult to do at 23 mm
            1. AlexAl
              AlexAl 24 December 2015 22: 56 New
              +2
              In fact, a guided projectile is planned in 57mm caliber. Apparently something from the zrs-57.
              There will be ptrs management.
            2. goose
              goose 25 December 2015 11: 25 New
              +1
              Quote: svd-xnumx
              I also think that a 57 mm shell can be equipped with a remote fuse and hit targets not with a shell but with a hail of splinters, which is difficult to do at 23 mm

              The only reason 57 mm can be used.
            3. aleks 62 next
              aleks 62 next 25 December 2015 11: 35 New
              0
              .... I also think that a 57 mm shell can be equipped with a remote fuse and hit targets not with a shell but with a hail of fragments, which is 23mm difficult to do so far ...

              ... Now this is not a problem ... Even in WWII, amers and British had compact radar fuses for anti-aircraft artillery .... On a modern element base, making such a caliber for 23-30mm is not a problem .... hi
          3. aleks 62 next
            aleks 62 next 25 December 2015 11: 32 New
            +2
            .... and a rate of fire of 100-120 height. in minutes was insufficient to ensure fire density for an acceptable probability of defeat (with existing aiming systems), so "shilka with its 4000 rds. in minutes. had better efficiency ....


            ..... Everything is correct ... But you do not take into account the inevitability of the dispersion of shells at a certain range ... But it will still be .... The 23mm caliber compensated for this with its rate of fire (power of a second volley) .... And now the main caliber of combating the Kyrgyz Republic in the Navy, what we have, what they have is a 23-30mm caliber ..... For example, the AK-630 ... hi
            1. yehat
              yehat 26 December 2015 13: 31 New
              0
              the fleet does not have to deal with small spotters
          4. yehat
            yehat 26 December 2015 13: 29 New
            +1
            rate of fire has not lost relevance, but 57mm has become more relevant.
            I add that 57mm already easily penetrates easily armored targets, as well as
            has a wider radius and height of the lesion. With an UAV, this is just what is important.
        2. Koshak
          Koshak 24 December 2015 21: 13 New
          +7
          Quote: 34 region
          When using an UAV, is caliber important? To shoot a drone what caliber is needed? More less? Or drones yesterday? What is the most optimal caliber against drones?

          And what is wrong with Panzer?
          1. Viking
            Viking 24 December 2015 21: 24 New
            +5
            I am joining. There is also a "Shell".
            1. yehat
              yehat 26 December 2015 13: 33 New
              0
              the shell, alas, looks cooler on paper than in life
              There are claims to the quality of fire and guns, and missiles.
          2. kote119
            kote119 24 December 2015 21: 29 New
            +6
            about the carapace on tv they showed a plot: they shot guns at a light drone and couldn’t shoot down, I had to shoot a rocket, frankly it surprised me
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 04: 40 New
              +5
              Quote: kote119
              about the carapace on TV they showed the plot: they shot guns at a light drone, and could not shoot down,

              Actually, if you think about it, you might not be surprised ..... Unmanned aerial vehicles "in most cases, are small-sized targets, and the 30-mm shells of the" Shell ", as I assume, had only a remote self-destruction unit ... And “guessing” the self-destructive action of an 30-mm projectile next to the target is a problem. I assume that the main dream of the “shooters” from the 30-mm anti-aircraft guns is to hit the projectile “directly at the target!” And to get “directly on the forehead” into the small drone is a problem ! To “equip” an 30-mm projectile with a non-contact fuse is technically feasible, but not economically feasible (very expensive!); And practical effectiveness cannot be compared with the 40-45 (mm) “non-contact” projectile. I suppose that small-caliber shells with “instantly” programmable fuses-“timers” would be “useful” for fighting drones, given that most of the time drones fly at a constant altitude and at a constant speed. For this, anti-aircraft guns must be equipped with systems fire control (LMS) with a laser rangefinder, a computer-programmer, an actuator (for example, on the trunk)
              1. Lex.
                Lex. 25 December 2015 08: 39 New
                +3
                Expensive, but no more expensive than a downed drone
              2. Bersaglieri
                Bersaglieri 26 December 2015 10: 32 New
                +1
                The point is not only the high cost, but the size. A sophisticated fuse, and even more so, a gos, even the most compact and modern ones will “eat out” too much volume, and, in fact, there will be no place left for a small caliber on the explosive charge.
              3. yehat
                yehat 26 December 2015 13: 35 New
                +1
                perhaps simple high-explosive shells of medium-caliber 76..100mm guns would be effective against drones
          3. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 24 December 2015 22: 18 New
            17
            Quote: Koshak
            And what is wrong with Panzer?

            The carapace is a stationary ZRAK of the extreme frontier of air defense. Those. covers for example a nuclear power plant or C-400.

            Tunguska - Army Air Defense. This device can work with trunks of a descent, for which it has a strong respect among the land explorers.
            Those. to cover the columns on the march or when deployed in battalion and company columns, as well as in direct contact with the enemy, there is NO replacement of the Tunguska.

            The article slightly guarded what was being said about the new ZAK, and not ... ZRAK.
            57mm this is certainly not bad, but without rockets - nothing, only paired with Thor to work. However, cramming 57mm ammunition, missiles and radar into one machine will not be easy ...
            I hope that this is an oleaginous fat and they still prepare ZRAK.
            Good luck to them.
            1. Shmal_
              Shmal_ 24 December 2015 22: 46 New
              +9
              Shilka was used in Chechnya to work on the ground! Its four trunks give a terrible density of fire! You can mow five-story buildings. Fortunately, the trunks are lowered into the horizon!
              1. Drmadfisher
                Drmadfisher 25 December 2015 04: 11 New
                +5
                Shilka with such a macar was still used in Afghanistan. I have a friend in the Children's Art School served for 5 years, told something
                1. CTEPX
                  CTEPX 25 December 2015 05: 11 New
                  +7
                  Quote: DrMadfisher
                  Shilka with such a macar was still used in Afghanistan.

                  Shilka in the fifth regimen was used even before Afghanistan, in Vietnam, against the Chinese)).
                  1. PHANTOM-AS
                    PHANTOM-AS 25 December 2015 05: 33 New
                    +3
                    Quote: ctepx

                    Shilka in the fifth regimen was used even before Afghanistan, in Vietnam, against the Chinese)).



              2. PHANTOM-AS
                PHANTOM-AS 25 December 2015 05: 28 New
                +1
                Quote: Shmal_
                Shilka was used in Chechnya to work on the ground! Its four trunks give a terrible density of fire! You can mow five-story buildings. Fortunately, the trunks are lowered into the horizon!



            2. 1976AG
              1976AG 24 December 2015 23: 51 New
              +1
              More than once passed information about the "Shell" on a caterpillar track and capable of firing without stopping. What else does?
              1. yehat
                yehat 26 December 2015 13: 53 New
                0
                the shell is not a wheeled vehicle, it is a complex that can be shoved literally everywhere
            3. PHANTOM-AS
              PHANTOM-AS 25 December 2015 05: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Tunguska - Army Air Defense. This device can work with trunks of a descent, for which it has a strong respect among the land explorers.
              Those. to cover the columns on the march or when deployed in battalion and company columns, as well as in direct contact with the enemy, there is NO replacement of the Tunguska.

            4. The comment was deleted.
            5. PHANTOM-AS
              PHANTOM-AS 25 December 2015 05: 45 New
              +2
              Quote: Aleks tv
              The carapace is a stationary ZRAK of the extreme frontier of air defense. Those. covers for example a nuclear power plant or C-400.

            6. The comment was deleted.
            7. iAi
              iAi 27 December 2015 10: 28 New
              0
              It is ZAK. I suppose it will be a universal fire support vehicle. Corrected shells (against helicopters) and ATGMs will be launched from the barrel.
              There is no need to put rockets also.
              SAM will ride on another car.
        3. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 21: 34 New
          +3
          Yes, you are tormented by shooting down an artillery UAV installation! For fun, you can see the average ammunition consumption for the destruction of one air target. But the matter is not only in the consumption of ammunition, but also in how much time you spend on it. While you shoot down 1 drone, you yourself will be destroyed 5 times.
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 24 December 2015 22: 11 New
            +4
            Quote: 1976AG
            and you are tormented by shooting down an artillery UAV installation!

            That's why they want 57mm. A decent charge and a programmable fuse can already be crammed into them. An explosion in the vicinity of the UAV line of such guns is guaranteed to destroy him.
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 24 December 2015 23: 10 New
              +1
              Quote: dvina71
              Quote: 1976AG
              and you are tormented by shooting down an artillery UAV installation!

              That's why they want 57mm. A decent charge and a programmable fuse can already be crammed into them. An explosion in the vicinity of the UAV line of such guns is guaranteed to destroy him.


              But what, "Tunguska", "Shell", MANPADS will not cope with this task? Why keep 20 different weapons when you can do two or three?
            2. NEXUS
              NEXUS 24 December 2015 23: 11 New
              +5
              Quote: dvina71
              That's why they want 57mm. A decent charge and a programmable fuse can already be crammed into them. An explosion in the vicinity of the UAV line of such guns is guaranteed to destroy him.

              I’m thinking, but is it the gun that is on the Baikal module for the T-15 ... the caliber is the same ...
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 25 December 2015 12: 13 New
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                I’m thinking, but is it the gun that is on the Baikal module for the T-15 ... the caliber is the same ...

                And we do not have another 57 mm gun, except for the A-220 / 220M.

                "Petrel" has been rushing with her for about 40 years - but no one takes it. The fleet does not need it, since the same Petrel has a heavier, but more powerful AK-176.
                And the army did not need a 57-mm caliber. For a BMP, it’s a bit big (either a normal BC for a gun - or an airborne landing, plus recoil). For the ZSU, it has a low rate of fire and still lacks effective range: it was believed that the area of ​​possible ATGM launches from helicopters could be completely blocked only with the help of combined anti-aircraft missile-artillery vehicles, such as the Tunguska.
            3. yehat
              yehat 26 December 2015 13: 55 New
              0
              I wouldn’t be so sure about paper all UAV.
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 05: 11 New
            +4
            When the Americans “distinguished themselves” in Vietnam as “anti-tank” helicopters, the topic: “how to deal effectively with fire support helicopters” became one of the “first” ones. As a result of the experiments, it turned out that one of the most effective means of fighting helicopters was anti-aircraft guns of medium (and more) calibers. Therefore, the Italians in NATO developed (and, in my opinion, even adopted) an anti-helicopter self-propelled artillery mount of the 76-mm caliber ("Otto Mat"?); while in the USSR they seriously proposed to upgrade and keep the 57 in service -mm guns C-60 and ZSU-57-2 .... and even use the upgraded 100-mm anti-aircraft guns. (but in the latter case, the main obstacle is the worst mobility). “Everything flows, everything changes” and at present, the effectiveness of “medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns” may be under the “question” - “one thing” —fighting helicopters equipped with ATGMs with “range” of 4-6 km; and another "difference" - helicopter ATGMs with "range" of 12-14 km (and in the near future - and more ...)
            1. yehat
              yehat 26 December 2015 13: 57 New
              0
              it's already about 20-25 km
          3. Mexovoy
            Mexovoy 25 December 2015 10: 55 New
            +1
            To destroy small targets, the West will use laser weapons. Most likely, ours are developing something similar.
        4. avdkrd
          avdkrd 25 December 2015 01: 18 New
          +8
          the effectiveness of an anti-aircraft (fragmentation) projectile is 57 mm times 10 times higher than 30 mm, in addition, in caliber 57 mm it is possible to create a guided anti-aircraft projectile and work on this topic has already been carried out as part of the work of ZAK-57 Derivation of air defense. Another point is the effective firing range, even with a projectile with a programmable detonation for 57 mm, it will be 6-8 km for a helicopter type target and 3-5 km for a UAV, which is an unattainable range for 30 mm. Missiles to combat UAVs are a very costly option, and 30 mm does not provide the required range and the ability to create a US of reasonable cost and reliability.
          . Affected targets aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, KR, UR, UAB, PRR
          2. Range of destruction, km 0.2 - 6.0
          3. The probability of defeat by two UAS 0.6 - 0.8
          4. The rate of fire UAS, rds / sec two shots
          - single laser beam coding for 1.0 - 1.5 s
          - double coding of the laser beam four shots in 2 - 3 s.
          5. Ammunition. no less than 100 in any combination (determined by the base)
          6. Target detection automated sector search, external data center
        5. Mama_Cholli
          Mama_Cholli 25 December 2015 09: 10 New
          0
          Quote: 34 region
          When using an UAV, is caliber important? To shoot a drone what caliber is needed? More less? Or drones yesterday? What is the most optimal caliber against drones?

          The caliber 57 mm will not save the situation. since modern drones can rise to a height of about 16-18 km. Here, only missiles, and a small quadrocopter with a fitted iGo camera can also be visually shot down from a wearable automatic weapon. Just a 57 mm projectile can be made fragmentation (possibly even with a remote fuse), which will dramatically increase combat effectiveness when used against low-flying cruise missiles and aircraft at altitudes of 3-5 km.
          1. avdkrd
            avdkrd 25 December 2015 13: 47 New
            +2
            Quote: Mama_Cholli
            The caliber 57 mm will not save the situation. since modern drones can rise to a height of about 16-18 km. Here, only missiles, and a small quadrocopter with a fitted iGo camera can also be visually shot down from a wearable automatic weapon.

            There is a “small” contradiction in your reasoning - those drones that are capable of climbing to an altitude of 16-18 km are not small at all. For example, a traitor with a ceiling of 7900m has a wingspan of 14.8m, and a small quadrocopter with an fitted iGo camera, even if by a miracle reaches at least 6 km, will be useless in principle because the weight of the hardware will be very small. RQ-4 capable of climbing 20 km is not even a goal for Bukov, but for S-300 and 400, but we are discussing a self-propelled ZAK for direct cover of troops. Specialists recognized the 57mm caliber as more effective compared to small-caliber complexes, including for combating small-sized UAVs. It really seems to me that to combat such targets as a quadrocopter (in fact, just flying cameras), electronic warfare and lasers will be more effective, since the composition of the equipment on them is minimal and it is difficult to protect from such an impact.
          2. yehat
            yehat 26 December 2015 14: 00 New
            0
            at a height the drone is useless
            quadrocopter can be shot down from Kalash
            we are talking about those devices that are really dangerous, and such fly in the radius of good visibility of optics and start-up of petrochemical plants (up to 8 km).
        6. sedoj
          sedoj 27 December 2015 13: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: 34 region
          What is the most optimal caliber against drones?

          The one that is currently available. wink
        7. Razvedka_Boem
          Razvedka_Boem 27 December 2015 16: 12 New
          0
          Given that many drones are now armed, a larger caliber anti-aircraft guns will allow it to attack it at a greater distance when it detects a UAV.
      3. Marconi41
        Marconi41 24 December 2015 23: 31 New
        0
        57mm is certainly good, but the rate of fire will be significantly reduced, at times. And if you look closely, anti-aircraft artillery has long been obsolete. I personally don’t even understand why they are putting it on new complexes. The famous ZUShka is used almost exclusively for ground targets.
        1. avdkrd
          avdkrd 25 December 2015 14: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Marconi41
          The famous ZUShka is used almost exclusively for ground targets.

          What is the point of comparing warm with soft? Automated complex and gun mount with manual guidance? ZU-23-2 even compared to Shilka as a slingshot compared to a pistol. Tunguska is clearly unlikely to be better than the Shell in terms of the guidance system, and there are claims to the Shell specifically in the fight against UAVs. Missiles do not always have enough sensitivity, and they are expensive in comparison with adjustable shells, and the range of 30mm guns has a limit of 2 km. A 57mm rate of fire is not so important in view of the enormous power difference. The difference of 57 and 30 mm in striking action is not twice as it seems at first glance, but once every eight to ten, plus a guided projectile.
          ZUShka is used for ground targets in view of the fact that it mainly participates in conflicts of low intensity or on the side of a knowingly weaker enemy, whose air defense was suppressed by all the power of shit democracy. In general, on the account of ZU-23-2 there are even Tomogawks (in Iraq). In Afghanistan and Chechnya, the positions of small arms were suppressed in the first place and caused a lot of problems to our helicopters and dry guns.
        2. yehat
          yehat 26 December 2015 14: 02 New
          0
          issue price. a matter of effect and effectiveness
          we didn’t even get to nanotechnology capable of thickening clouds at the place of UAV flight)))
      4. Per se.
        Per se. 25 December 2015 06: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        But 57 mm is better than 23 mm
        Is 12,7 mm better than 7,62 mm? If we are talking about the addition, this is one thing, but the motivation that the “Tunguska” has exhausted itself with 30 mm guns is somehow not very good, especially since it also has missiles.
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Yes, let the designers design - for that they are the designers.
        Designers should have competent customers, and it’s good if they are military, and not “managers,” who only want to cut loot and use new means. Somewhere on the battlefield, the Tunguska has not yet been seen as a reasonable replacement, especially if in size with 57 mm guns and missiles it will not even turn out to be a van on a Kamaz, like a Shell, but something with a running gear, like at the "Poplar". Let them think all is well, which is not to the detriment of Russia's defense capability.
      5. mirag2
        mirag2 25 December 2015 08: 31 New
        0
        In my opinion, 57mm is redundant for an anti-aircraft gun, for BMPs, or similar light equipment, it’s the most. And for an anti-aircraft gun 57 is still a bit too much. Can the projectile speed for 30k be increased and be limited to this? ..
    2. kote119
      kote119 24 December 2015 19: 53 New
      +6
      it is possible and necessary to upgrade, but it is always necessary to move forward
      1. tol100v
        tol100v 24 December 2015 20: 42 New
        +4
        Quote: kote119
        but it’s always necessary to move forward

        In technology, without improvement it is impossible! Aircraft are being improved from generation to generation 3rd, 4th, 4+, 4 ++, 5th .... Apparently the term "Shilkam" and "Tunguska" is also coming to an end, although its task has been fully completed! Well, we will wait for "something" NEW!
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 21: 58 New
          0
          Quote: Tol100v
          Quote: kote119
          but it’s always necessary to move forward

          In technology, without improvement it is impossible! Aircraft are being improved from generation to generation 3rd, 4th, 4+, 4 ++, 5th .... Apparently the term "Shilkam" and "Tunguska" is also coming to an end, although its task has been fully completed! Well, we will wait for "something" NEW!


          And is replacing ZRAK with a memory an improvement?
    3. Nik_One
      Nik_One 24 December 2015 19: 55 New
      +5
      Honestly, a strange decision ... Why do we need it now? Than Tunguska or Shell is not satisfied?
      1. AdekvatNICK
        AdekvatNICK 24 December 2015 20: 17 New
        12
        Well, when? when it will be necessary to do it will be too late. Moreover, while it will be created then its "need" will come
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 21: 36 New
          0
          In the memory option, never.
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 24 December 2015 20: 26 New
        -3
        Quote: Nik_One
        Honestly, a strange decision ... Why do we need it now? Than Tunguska or Shell does not suit

        A little reminded of the "partners", where it is forbidden to fly.
        Today, as it is, massively massively advertises air defense. Probably someone was shot down today
        1. 34 region
          34 region 24 December 2015 20: 54 New
          +3
          Why advertise? It is purely economical. Airplane cost or air defense cost? War is a battle of economies. This is briefly.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 24 December 2015 22: 16 New
            0
            Quote: 34 region
            Why advertise? It is purely economical. Airplane cost or air defense cost? War is a battle of economies.

            That’s why the C300 hasn’t hit anyone in a quarter century. Advertising however and kamikaze transferred. Also in brief hi
            And purely economically, air defense is more expensive by default
        2. Sanya Terek
          Sanya Terek 27 December 2015 02: 18 New
          +1
          December 26 this year - The 100th anniversary of military air defense, and therefore advertise. And as regards the caliber of anti-aircraft weapons, firstly, the Tunguska’s height does not reach a UAV flying at an altitude of more than 2500 m (these are the poorest), Shilka - all the more, secondly, small-sized UAVs have electric motors with with minimal thermal radiation, Arrows and Needles, respectively, will not capture them. To shoot down such UAVs with Torov and Os missiles is too expensive a pleasure.
      3. seos
        seos 24 December 2015 20: 29 New
        10
        An air blasting projectile flying at a speed of 1000m / s for 8 km is cheaper than a rocket .... with modern technology, I think you can create a normal anti-aircraft gun.
        1. 34 region
          34 region 24 December 2015 20: 57 New
          0
          1km per second! And if a drone flies or freezes? How to be here? How to get into this fly?
          1. corporal
            corporal 24 December 2015 21: 18 New
            17
            Quote: 34 region
            And if a drone flies or freezes? How to be here? How to get into this fly?

            1-SLA determines the direction and range
            2-actuators aim the trunk
            3-MSA transfers data to a programmable shell
            4-shot
            5-shell explodes in the target area and covers with a cloud of fragments
            So, briefly and simply. hi
            1. Tusv
              Tusv 24 December 2015 23: 07 New
              -2
              Quote: Corporal
              1-SLA determines the direction and range
              2-actuators aim the trunk
              3-MSA transfers data to a programmable shell
              4-shot
              5-shell explodes in the target area and covers with a cloud of fragments
              So, briefly and simply.

              In kratsiya and simple. Imagine such a cannon that will deliver a smart shell to a height of 10 thousand meters with a center of striking elements. Presented?
              And imagine that the enemy aircraft easily flies in two and a half mach. That is, a deviation vector of 50 km. To cover such a radius is not a fig, not 300 shells, but for two missiles this is not a problem
        2. Tusv
          Tusv 24 December 2015 21: 09 New
          -1
          Quote: seos
          An air blast shell flying at a speed of 1000m / s for 8 km, cheaper than a rocket .... with modern technology, I think you can create a normal anti-aircraft gun

          What century do you live in? Do you want to say that 300 barrage shells are cheaper than one rocket?
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 24 December 2015 22: 05 New
            +2
            One missile will not replace three hundred barrage shots.
            1. Freeman
              Freeman 24 December 2015 23: 42 New
              +2
              Correctly. The standard report at KP is "The target is hit. The cost is two."
        3. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 21: 38 New
          +2
          Quote: seos
          An air blasting projectile flying at a speed of 1000m / s for 8 km is cheaper than a rocket .... with modern technology, I think you can create a normal anti-aircraft gun.


          Certainly cheaper IF IF GETS.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 24 December 2015 23: 21 New
            0
            Quote: 1976AG
            Certainly cheaper IF IF GETS.

            Women say that dinosaur is 50 to 50, and probability theory says that 0,00000000001. We need to learn mathematics so as not to talk nonsense about a super-super-large anti-aircraft gun, which shoots down planes with smart shells, whose initial speed is comparable to the maximum speed of the thirty-first Mig
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 24 December 2015 23: 44 New
              0
              [quote = Tusv] [quote = 1976AG] Of course it’s cheaper IF IF GETS. [/ quote]
              Women say that dinosaur is 50 to 50, and probability theory says that 0,00000000001. We need to learn mathematics so as not to talk nonsense about a super-super-large anti-aircraft gun that shoots down planes with smart shells, whose initial speed is comparable to the maximum speed of the thirty-first Mig [/ qu

              I agree! And half of the members of the forum for some reason believe that anti-aircraft guns are more effective than ZRAK. Some kind of mass insanity.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 25 December 2015 22: 08 New
                +1
                This is because you invented a stupid black and white world for yourself and believe in it, anti-aircraft guns and missiles do not replace each other, but complement each other.
            2. Freeman
              Freeman 24 December 2015 23: 48 New
              +1
              The main enemy of tanks on the march, and even when deployed in battle formations, is helicopters, so you need to get them at maximum distance. And from the plane, at its speeds, you still need to get into the tank.
              1. 1976AG
                1976AG 25 December 2015 00: 01 New
                +1
                Quote: Freeman
                The main enemy of tanks on the march, and even when deployed in battle formations, is helicopters, so you need to get them at maximum distance. And from the plane, at its speeds, you still need to get into the tank.


                Correctly. It is only necessary to clarify that missile weapons on attack helicopters, whose range is much larger than ZSU. And if SPRAK like "Tunguska" or "Shell" has a chance to destroy it, then "Shilka" has no chance.
      4. Alf
        Alf 24 December 2015 20: 34 New
        +9
        Quote: Nik_One
        Honestly, a strange decision ... Why do we need it now?

        Usually after adopting one model, the design bureau immediately begins to develop the next. This is normal practice. This is the only way to stay in the favorites of an exciting, albeit expensive race.
      5. SSeT
        SSeT 24 December 2015 23: 19 New
        +1
        range, reach in height and power consumption. Only in caliber 57 can this be solved
      6. sivuch
        sivuch 25 December 2015 01: 18 New
        +4
        In the 57mm you can stick UAS
      7. iAi
        iAi 27 December 2015 11: 00 New
        +1
        Make a universal fire support vehicle. It is the anti-aircraft artillery complex (without missiles) (without missiles on this platform, the missiles will be on another machine)
        Tunguska and Shell are not satisfied with the effectiveness of the fight against UAVs. There will be clouds. The 30mm projectile range is not that long, and the rocket is too expensive.
        On the new 57mm shells there will be an air blast, so the rate of fire is not needed. Enemy infantry can be shot in the trenches, in the mountains, in the city; on lightly armored vehicles.
    4. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 24 December 2015 20: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: The same Lech
      Is it really true ????

      The source is incomprehensible, I would wait for a statement from the MO.
    5. hydrox
      hydrox 24 December 2015 20: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: The same Lech
      Is it really true ????


      He didn’t believe his eyes :: only 70 “200” Syrians in an offensive battle on 4 “300” ISIS.

      WE ARE THE FIRST IN A ROBOTIC NETWORK WAR !!!!!!!
    6. GRAY
      GRAY 24 December 2015 20: 23 New
      +8
      Quote: The same Lech
      Is it really true ????

      Sources are too yellowish.
      But in general, it is possible that in Syria there are a lot of bearded experimental rabbits, it’s a sin not to use them.
    7. 1976AG
      1976AG 24 December 2015 20: 30 New
      -4
      Not true. There are no combat robots in the Russian Army yet.
      1. tol100v
        tol100v 24 December 2015 20: 45 New
        +6
        Quote: 1976AG
        no combat robots.

        But there are BATTLE Soldiers!
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 23: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Tol100v
          Quote: 1976AG
          no combat robots.

          But there are BATTLE Soldiers!


          And what are not military soldiers?
      2. 1976AG
        1976AG 24 December 2015 21: 49 New
        +2
        What are you minus? Or do you think radio-controlled modules are robots? So it is possible to call any children's radio-controlled toy a robot! Think what a robot is?
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 05: 35 New
          +3
          Yes, modern “uninhabited” combat platforms cannot yet be called “full” robots; but now it’s not just “a radio-controlled module (like a toy).” Already, developers are trying to equip their products with “elements of artificial intelligence” - (as they “express”). And the fact that they equip their “cars” with remote control is known since the last century, it is: 1. "just in case"; 2. Many do not immediately get rid of "conservative thinking". I am sure that in 20 years, when fully robotic, uninhabited tanks, air defense systems and other things appear, they will provide for "just in case" manual control.
      3. shans2
        shans2 24 December 2015 21: 54 New
        0
        "platform m" has already serialized began to be released ....
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 22: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: shans2
          "platform m" has already serialized began to be released ....


          So what, what started to be released? Platform M is a conventional radio-controlled module. What kind of robot is this?
      4. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 05: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: 1976AG
        Not true. There are no combat robots in the Russian Army yet.

        And here, perhaps, you are wrong! On TV channels, remote-controlled, robotic platforms ... 1. "Engineer" for detecting and clearing; 2. Patrolling ... and so on.
    8. vodolaz
      vodolaz 24 December 2015 20: 38 New
      +2
      My father served in the air defense in the late 60s and talked about Shilka, I think it's time to replace her.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 24 December 2015 20: 53 New
        +2
        I hope the new anti-aircraft self-propelled gun will not be a simple modernization of the ZSU-57-2.
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 24 December 2015 23: 02 New
          0
          Quote: Basarev
          I hope the new anti-aircraft self-propelled gun will not be a simple modernization of the ZSU-57-2.

          Most likely they will take the AU-220M as the basis, make a twin and hang the missiles.
    9. SSR
      SSR 24 December 2015 20: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: The same Lech
      Maybe it’s better to upgrade TUNGUSKU to an APACH range of 10 km ... it's cheaper than building a new installation ... there’s not much money in the budget for a new development.

      Amazing news of the day ...


      In Syria, the Russian army threw battle robots into battle

      http://warfiles.ru/show-104009-vpervye-v-sirii-armiya-rossii-brosila-v-boy-boevy




      h-robotov.html


      Is it really true ????

      It is very embarrassing that the operators were in Moscow, the connection should be perfect without delay, ours, with obvious successes, will not hide such information, I hope that we will see confirmation.
    10. Homo
      Homo 24 December 2015 21: 01 New
      +7
      The words "... with the support of Russian paratroopers ..." reduce the news to a "stuffing"!
    11. APASUS
      APASUS 24 December 2015 21: 32 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      In Syria, the Russian army threw battle robots into battle

      Description of the battle on http://beriozka-rus.livejournal.com/431194.htmlmixed feelings after reading, in theory you should be proud, but I can’t believe that we have reached such a level
      1. yehat
        yehat 26 December 2015 14: 05 New
        -2
        battle description smile
        http://www.animespirit.ru/anime/rs/series-rus/84-mobilnyj-voin-gandam-00-pervyj-
        sezon-mobile-suit.html
    12. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 24 December 2015 22: 01 New
      0
      Maybe it makes sense to modify the "Shell" on the tracked platform?
      Quote: The same Lech
      Maybe it’s better to upgrade TUNGUSKU to an APACH range of 10 km ... it's cheaper than building a new installation ... there’s not much money in the budget for a new development.

      Amazing news of the day ...


      In Syria, the Russian army threw battle robots into battle

      http://warfiles.ru/show-104009-vpervye-v-sirii-armiya-rossii-brosila-v-boy-boevy




      h-robotov.html


      Is it really true ????
    13. I am Russian
      I am Russian 24 December 2015 22: 05 New
      +5
      This device is working in New Russia. And not very bad.
      1. I am Russian
        I am Russian 24 December 2015 22: 08 New
        +4
        A bit more.
        1. family
          family tree 24 December 2015 22: 34 New
          0
          Well, okay, "Shilka" is 23-4, all the same artillery, but the "Tunguska" is artillery-rocket. Yes, even 85 with POISO, homing heads, and missile maneuverability, will not replace. 57, shoot higher, but less often. Either the author did not dop, or grunted at his amateurism, urya, they say
          Even, it seems to me garbage. Waiting for comments from specialists from air defense. Hopeless, but "Nadyusha will live beyond us"
        2. family
          family tree 24 December 2015 23: 53 New
          +1
          Quote: I-Russian
          A bit more.

          Familiar gusli, native sloth, judging by the photomord, leading, something reminiscent. But the supporting with horizontal depreciation what . Well, let's say "carrot" on the way begins to relax. Damn, Christie's improvisation, the only seventh add. Cars do not go this way in the sputum, Better there are more points of support, you can, of course, harder the harp, just not a tractor, tea, speed will not hurt her
          Inet slows down, tried to find it myself recourse From whom hodovka, then?
          Oh, I’m fighting off, I’m heading to work ... today, I’ve made it up, damn it!
      2. The comment was deleted.
    14. Dyagilev
      Dyagilev 24 December 2015 22: 53 New
      0
      Amazing news of the day ...
      It seems that they used the funds that Putin spoke about.
    15. cap
      cap 24 December 2015 22: 54 New
      +4
      Quote: The same Lech
      Amazing news of the day ...


      In Syria, the Russian army threw battle robots into battle

      The guy makes money on advertising. This is an ordinary stuffing, under the news.
      I got to the author is in 56 communities on the Internet. This work. bullyAt him. Not at me.
    16. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 25 December 2015 00: 51 New
      0
      Paired anti-aircraft gun 57 mm with S-60 ballistics. Well, with missiles, such as from the "Shell". It will be a very serious monster. Which is characteristic, both by air and by land. What will make the turn of such "shells", even if it hits the tank. This is practically an anti-tank ZIS-2, which did an excellent job with the Tigers during WWII. Yes with computer guidance, yes automatic, yes from two trunks. Radio fuse shells, like anti-aircraft missiles. And even with a passive GOS, when the target is illuminated from the installation. Anyway, a lot of things you can think of, having a pair of automatic guns with such ballistics.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 26 December 2015 13: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        This is practically an anti-tank ZIS-2, which did an excellent job with the Tigers

        Hurray, Tovarischi! 11 beat the tiger's bursts in the forehead!
        another nonsense about ZIS-2 from the next "expert". It’s already embarrassing to poke your nose and tell you that it’s completely different calibers.
        1. Raven1972
          Raven1972 26 December 2015 14: 22 New
          -1
          Quote: psiho117
          another nonsense about ZIS-2 from another "connoisseur

          Quote: psiho117
          It’s already embarrassing to poke your nose and tell you that these are completely different calibers.

          Doa, you’re certainly a “specialist”, why am I sorry the 57mm Zis-2 caliber is different from the 57mm S-60? Huh? Nothing beguiled?
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 26 December 2015 18: 26 New
            0
            Quote: Raven1972

            Doa, you’re certainly a “specialist”, why am I sorry the 57mm Zis-2 caliber is different from the 57mm S-60? Huh? Nothing beguiled?



            Nope, I didn’t beguiled. And for some, it would not hurt to learn a story, learn a materiel, and reduce the ambition: in a 57mm shot for the ZIS-2, a cartridge from a 76-mm divisional cannon was used with re-compression of the cartridge barrel from 76 to 57 millimeters. He had an armor-piercing shell weighing 3,14 kg, and a length of more than half a meter.


            A 57mm anti-aircraft gun is an independent caliber using a 57 × 348 mm SR projectile
            1. Raven1972
              Raven1972 26 December 2015 22: 11 New
              0
              well, to reduce the ambition: in the 57mm shot for the ZIS-2, a sleeve from a 76-mm division gun was used

              But the caliber of the gun remained 57 !!!! mm But for example, did not become 76.2mm, I’m talking about this to you !!! And who then does not know the materiel? You confuse the CALIBER with the SHOT, and the caliber here and there is the same - 57mm, so I can advise you the same thing - less ambition wink hi
              1. Raven1972
                Raven1972 26 December 2015 22: 29 New
                0
                Quote: Raven1972
                You confuse the CALIBER with the SHOT, and the caliber here and there is the same - 57mm, so I can advise you the same thing - less ambition

                P.S. did not have time to fix it (((The shot is different, the CALIBER is the same - 57mm))
    17. opus
      opus 25 December 2015 01: 08 New
      +6
      Quote: The same Lech
      Is it really true ????

      True and good!
      not only Kamchadalam have fun




      They brought in vain, what?


      Result:

    18. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 04: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: The same Lech
      Maybe it’s better to upgrade TUNGUSKU to the APACH range at 10 km ...

      In fact, the Tunguska can “bullet” up to 10 km ... for the Tunguska-M1 air defense system, an 9M311-1M missile with a range of up to 10-km was developed. "Available" and p. 9М311-1Е (though it was "created" for the ship "Kashtan-M") with a range of up to 10 km and "in height" up to 6 km. Also, one of the "destinations" of the Sosna-R missile (9М337) is the Tunguska air defense missile system ..... ("Pine-R" is incline distance = up to 10 km; reach in height = up to 5 km)
    19. vkl-47
      vkl-47 25 December 2015 08: 22 New
      0
      I imagine a shilka with 4 57mm cannons. Such an aggregate can be cut at home
    20. Ramzaj99
      Ramzaj99 25 December 2015 12: 31 New
      0
      Shilka in Syria showed herself off-profile well, like an excellent anti sniper and anti-PTR. A sort of cheap analog BMPT Terminator. She would have a new optics, but a newer target system, in my opinion it would turn out to be a pretty good and cheap version of the BMPT.
    21. The comment was deleted.
    22. SIvan
      SIvan 27 December 2015 09: 15 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      Amazing news of the day ... In Syria, the Russian army threw battle robots into battle

      http://warfiles.ru/show-104009-vpervye-v-sirii-armiya-rossii-brosila-v-boy-boevy
      h-robotov.html
      Is it really true ????


      This is <s> nonsense </s> blatant provocation. In this article, all the pictures from the exercises. And then, there was no information that our paratroopers were fighting there. This is a provocation of the ancient ukrosmi level.
  2. kostya-petrov
    kostya-petrov 24 December 2015 19: 49 New
    12
    Itself does not fly, and does not give to others!
    Good unit !!!
  3. izya top
    izya top 24 December 2015 19: 49 New
    14
    "Tunguska" and "Shilka" will not lose relevance for a long time. I hope that in connection with such a statement they will not be put to joke and will not be allowed for sale
    1. 1976AG
      1976AG 24 December 2015 20: 21 New
      -4
      And what is the relevance of Shilka as an air defense system? Kite paper kites? And what is bad about the "Shell"? It's not about caliber.
      1. seos
        seos 24 December 2015 20: 31 New
        -4
        The shell of the gun has useless processes ... only in case of self-defense if the missiles run out ... and then the range is like that of a shell but with Deshman shells.
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 20: 37 New
          +5
          First, God forbid you fall under these "useless processes"! Secondly, for whom in the modern war did you intend to hit with cannons (for which air targets)?
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 24 December 2015 20: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: 1976AG
            Secondly, for whom in the modern war did you intend to hit with cannons (for which air targets)?

            By helicopters and rockets
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 24 December 2015 20: 46 New
              +3
              I asked for whom in MODERN WAR? Look at the performance characteristics of modern helicopters, missiles and try to answer again.
              1. just exp
                just exp 25 December 2015 09: 32 New
                +2
                and? plz tell me which such performance characteristics prevent shooting at helicopters and rockets from cannons?
              2. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 26 December 2015 13: 41 New
                0
                Quote: 1976AG
                Look at the performance characteristics of modern helicopters, missiles and try to answer again

                A range of 57 mm guns will allow you to get your helicopters, and the use of proximity fuses does not require an accurate hit.
                Besides, do you seem to suggest not fighting helicopters at all?
                The same goes for Tomahawk missiles
          2. 34 region
            34 region 24 December 2015 21: 01 New
            0
            In the Patriotic anti-aircraft guns and tanks were beaten. Is it possible today? Are there any specialists on these issues?
            1. just exp
              just exp 25 December 2015 09: 32 New
              +2
              Well, the body kit will be demolished for sure, but no more, although if you feed in the stern, they can also burn the tank.
              1. yehat
                yehat 26 December 2015 14: 16 New
                0
                firstly, almost all NATO tanks will not be able to withstand even a short line to the side of the shilka so far.
                secondly, the secondary impact from the line of shells is so great - shaking, noise, fragments inside, etc., that the tank may not be destroyed, but for some time it will simply lose the ability to fight
                finally, the third - a dense line will literally destroy EVERYTHING that is beaten with a 20mm shell, i.e. the tank will be left without optics, active armor, headlights, night vision devices, etc. Most likely, the chassis will be damaged, it can jam the tower.
          3. SSeT
            SSeT 24 December 2015 23: 23 New
            +1
            For drones, missiles and helicopters, for example
        2. Tusv
          Tusv 24 December 2015 20: 43 New
          0
          Quote: seos
          The shell of the gun has useless processes ... only in case of self-defense if the missiles run out

          Something tells me that the cannons in the Military Acceptance were missed on purpose to confirm the effectiveness of a single missile launch
    2. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 24 December 2015 20: 45 New
      +5
      Shilka lost its relevance at the dawn of its appearance, since there is no way at all to deal with jet aircraft with a firing range of less than 4 km. Even the old helicopter ATGMs have a 6km minimum range. As I understand it, our people do not just want to make a replacement for the Tungusks, but they will create a complex + new shells, and they will not be used on ships either. By the way, there were excellent articles about modern 57 mm anti-aircraft systems in the Navy like Italy.
    3. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 24 December 2015 20: 45 New
      0
      Shilka lost its relevance at the dawn of its appearance, since there is no way at all to deal with jet aircraft with a firing range of less than 4 km. Even the old helicopter ATGMs have a 6km minimum range. As I understand it, our people do not just want to make a replacement for the Tungusks, but they will create a complex + new shells (controlled sub-caliber bombs, landmines with remote detonation), and will not be used on ships either. By the way, there were excellent articles about modern 57 mm anti-aircraft systems in the Navy like Italy.
  4. moskowit
    moskowit 24 December 2015 19: 51 New
    +4
    I hope that the trend in honor of the East Siberian rivers will continue in the names.
  5. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 24 December 2015 19: 53 New
    +8
    The old woman "Shilka" from the 62nd year of arming! Proved its effectiveness in many local wars. The machine showed itself for the whole 100th I remember how the officers said who had been back in Vietnam — her appearance there was a shock for the Yankees. God forbid that the new ZSUShka just like her predecessors was an unpleasant surprise for the adversary.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 24 December 2015 19: 57 New
      +8
      Just the topic ....
      c
    2. seos
      seos 24 December 2015 20: 32 New
      +1
      And the club was an unpleasant surprise for Neanderthals ...
  6. Barakuda
    Barakuda 24 December 2015 19: 53 New
    11
    But is this not enough? I understand the concept of "direct cover" is changing quite a while already ..
    1. just exp
      just exp 25 December 2015 09: 49 New
      0
      the shell for the protection of stationary objects, they immediately want to make a replacement for the tunguska, this is military air defense.
      1. Dazdranagon
        Dazdranagon 25 December 2015 12: 10 New
        0
        Quote: just EXPL
        the shell for the protection of stationary objects, they immediately want to make a replacement for the tunguska, this is military air defense.
        - what is the difference? The shell seems to be able to ride.
  7. Blad_21617
    Blad_21617 24 December 2015 19: 55 New
    +6
    Is it they ZSU 57-2 they want to build in a new way?
    1. Signal
      Signal 24 December 2015 20: 01 New
      +3
      I don’t understand either. At one time, neither the Americans nor we had an intelligent complex with this (or a similar) caliber. What has fundamentally changed now to return to this decision?
      1. Barakuda
        Barakuda 24 December 2015 20: 09 New
        +3
        To ZSU 2-57 a couple of trunks are still added, and they will fasten the six missiles from the Thor-Shell smile
        I’m joking of course, but who knows, maybe the shell will be smart.
        1. just exp
          just exp 25 December 2015 10: 34 New
          0
          make a laser-guided projectile.
      2. seos
        seos 24 December 2015 20: 35 New
        +1
        The Germans 35mm guns shoot down mortar mines ... They are already moving from guns to lasers.
        1. Barakuda
          Barakuda 24 December 2015 20: 43 New
          +7
          Which computer game is this? laughing
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 24 December 2015 21: 45 New
            0
            http://www.bratishka.ru/archiv/2013/01/2013_1_3.php
      3. SSeT
        SSeT 24 December 2015 23: 26 New
        0
        Technology has taken several generations, for example. Explain or figure it out yourself?
      4. psiho117
        psiho117 26 December 2015 13: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Signal
        At one time, neither the Americans nor we had an intelligent complex with this (or a similar) caliber. What has fundamentally changed now to return to this decision?

        The microelectronic base has changed. At the same time, it has changed so much that any iPhone can now replace the entire stuffing of "tunguska".
        It was also possible to make shells controlled, correctable, laser-guided, radio-beam, any whim.
        And at the same time, not at the price of a car per shot.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. jovanni
    jovanni 24 December 2015 20: 08 New
    +1
    The challenge is for developers! That "Shilka", that "Tunguska" the bar in its segment very cool raised ...
  10. sober
    sober 24 December 2015 20: 12 New
    +3


    Platform m
  11. podgornovea
    podgornovea 24 December 2015 20: 37 New
    +4
    STRESSED!

    “In place of our Tunguska and Shilka systems, we are developing a new promising anti-aircraft artillery system in the caliber 57 mm,” Leonov said, without specifying the timing of development or the name of the new weapon. "

    Anti-aircraft artillery complex
    , i.e, not anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex, I understood correctly, or the "translator" :) was wrong?

    The goals of the 57-mm caliber are not clear: cruise missiles, lightly armored vehicles, airplanes, helicopters, light shelters what else? It is clear that somewhere it will be much more effective, but in other cases the opposite is true.
    Rate of fire falls by an order of magnitude, accuracy is a big question.
    Either these should be adjustable shells or very high accuracy is needed. The firing range as well as the height of the lesion certainly increases, but at what minimum heights will the detection and guidance means of this system work?
    1. 1976AG
      1976AG 24 December 2015 20: 43 New
      +3
      Blurred, as in due time with a double-barreled "Coalition"! As a result, they did, of course, single-barrel, but how many discussions were around! Maybe just disinformation.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 05: 50 New
      +1
      Lord! But what are you - “from empty to empty!” We'll wait and see! It is likely that the “promised” complex will turn out to be the 57-mm gun for the new BMP-3 modification ... all the more, in this case, “the promise sounded” give the gun an anti-aircraft shell.
  12. kirpich
    kirpich 24 December 2015 20: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Nik_One
    Honestly, a strange decision ... Why do we need it now? Than Tunguska or Shell is not satisfied?


    Maybe because the design idea does not stand still, but moves progress forward? After all, aviation is developing, introducing some innovations for breaking through the enemy’s defense. So why not contrast him with something more modern than Shilka, Tunguska, or Shell?
    1. Nik_One
      Nik_One 24 December 2015 21: 23 New
      0
      Quote: kirpich
      Maybe because the design idea does not stand still, but moves progress forward? After all, aviation is developing, introducing some innovations for breaking through the enemy’s defense. So why not contrast him with something more modern than Shilka, Tunguska, or Shell?

      Of course, the process moves forward and science develops. That is why in modern technology is not more important caliber, but the speed of detection and accuracy. With "Shilka" everything is clear, she served her age as an air defense. It is clear that the "Tunguska" and "Armor" can and should be modernized. But now, as already mentioned above, the only thing is not clear for what purpose it is necessary to increase the caliber to 57 mm.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 24 December 2015 22: 13 New
        +1
        Size matters
      2. corporal
        corporal 24 December 2015 22: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Nik_One
        for what purposes is it necessary to increase the caliber to 57 mm.

        1 greater ammunition power than 23-30-40-45
        2-under it is easier to make a programmable fuse.
        3-under this caliber, they try or already make guided tips (nose parts, or as they are called correctly there) that correct the flight of the projectile (it is clear that within some degrees, but still ..) that turn the "blank" in a guided projectile.
        Therefore, the advantages of the new system should be .. fellow
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 26 December 2015 13: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Corporal

          3-under this caliber try or already make guided tips (noses) that correct the flight of the projectile (it is clear that within some degrees, but still ..), which turn the "blank" into a guided projectile.

          in fact, the corrected shell was already with the Italian "Otomatika" in 76mm caliber. And they claimed that they could repeat the technology up to 35mm caliber - however, with miniaturization, the cost increased by orders of magnitude, and therefore they chose such a fairly large caliber.
          But this is the technological level of the 80s!
          Now, with a modern microelectronic base, absolutely any whim is possible, the already managed 12,7 bullets are being developed.
          So it’s time for a long time to switch from an extensive to an intensive development path of ZSU — instead of wasting hundreds of shells for nothing, cover with a short burst of 3-4 larger, but correctable ones, and from dist. undermining.
  13. ded100
    ded100 24 December 2015 20: 47 New
    +3
    What to argue itunguska and silk will serve as well as the new complex will come in handy and we need to come up with a newer one! good
  14. Skynet
    Skynet 24 December 2015 20: 50 New
    +2
    No, well, "Shilka" you have to replace for a long time!
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 24 December 2015 20: 53 New
      +1
      Well, schaz! Do not touch the shilka!
      1. Alexander 3
        Alexander 3 24 December 2015 21: 28 New
        +1
        Assad is greatly appreciated by the military Assad. In urban areas, an indispensable weapon. The Igilovites hide like rats under the ground from it.
  15. iouris
    iouris 24 December 2015 20: 59 New
    -5
    Shilka is an effective and multi-functional weapon. The Tunguska has just been put into service. There are probably questions to its effectiveness and versatility. The need for the third complex raises big questions and is not obvious in terms of the financial condition of the state. However, there can be no objection to R&D funding.
    1. 1976AG
      1976AG 24 December 2015 21: 11 New
      +4
      "Tunguska" has just been adopted ??? !!! It was adopted in 1982! 33years is it yours just? Then some general phrases- "Shilka" effective and multi-functional weapons. Effective, but not as a means of air defense. And what is its versatility?
      1. kirpich
        kirpich 24 December 2015 21: 27 New
        +1
        Shilka’s multifunctionality is that when two Shilka pulled a thread in Afghanistan, the spirits thought 100500 times that they would not attack.
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 24 December 2015 21: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: kirpich
          Shilka’s multifunctionality is that when two Shilka pulled a thread in Afghanistan, the spirits thought 100500 times that they would not attack.


          I asked about the usefulness of "Shilka" in the MODERN WAR, and you again about the events of 30-, 40-year-old!
          1. kirpich
            kirpich 24 December 2015 21: 59 New
            -1
            I repeat. Modern drones and quadrocopters, just fall into the range of confident destruction of "Shilka" ... well, and "Tunguska" naturally yes
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 24 December 2015 22: 53 New
              +2
              Quote: kirpich
              I repeat. Modern drones and quadrocopters, just fall into the range of confident destruction of "Shilka" ... well, and "Tunguska" naturally yes


              UAVs do not fall into the range of confident destruction of the Shilka. Again, in modern warfare, its effectiveness as an air defense system is close to zero, and given the availability of more effective means of destruction, it is simply wasteful.
          2. iouris
            iouris 24 December 2015 23: 05 New
            +3
            These are all examples of just "modern wars." We are no longer Marxist-Leninists, but imperialists. A nuclear war with "colleagues" is unlikely, but "conflicts of civilizations" along the North-South line cannot be avoided. In the meantime, there are mainly large masses of fanatics operating there, armed not with lasers, but with the AK-47 and the “shaitan pipe”.
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 24 December 2015 23: 21 New
              0
              Quote: iouris
              These are all examples of just "modern wars." We are no longer Marxist-Leninists, but imperialists. A nuclear war with "colleagues" is unlikely, but "conflicts of civilizations" along the North-South line cannot be avoided. In the meantime, there are mainly large masses of fanatics operating there, armed not with lasers, but with the AK-47 and the “shaitan pipe”.


              Collisions with bandits Do you consider a modern military conflict ?! By the term "modern" I meant high-tech. Only by preparing for war with a strong adversary can independence be maintained.
              1. Dewa1s
                Dewa1s 25 December 2015 12: 36 New
                0
                And what high-tech adversary are you going to fight without using nuclear weapons?
  16. Diviz
    Diviz 24 December 2015 21: 10 New
    0
    57 mm was shown at the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil Derivation.
  17. kirpich
    kirpich 24 December 2015 21: 20 New
    +2
    For some reason, it seems to me that Shilka will still serve. Now all the aircraft suddenly hooked on drones and quadrocopters. And, these byak fly not so high. Just in the range of heights available "Shilke" ... and "Tunguska" ... wink
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 24 December 2015 22: 15 New
      0
      Shilka to put it mildly redundant against most drones
    2. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 24 December 2015 23: 38 New
      -1
      With Shilka and the drone. Isn't it bold for a drone? I understand, if the percussion. But whack it is necessary to bring down easier. PC and a normal warrior, in addition, and "belly-handed", just do not save ammo - and that cuadrocopter died, ugh, e, you’ll break your tongue about these copters. Easier to knock than write.
    3. would
      would 27 December 2015 11: 47 New
      +1
      Purely for reference: Reconnaissance mini-UAVs can easily be up to 2 meters in size and can fly at an altitude of 2 km or even more. Question: How to get such a small-sized and low-emitting target at such a high altitude? In a number of conflicts, such goals were thrashed from anything, all large-caliber machine guns, all armored personnel carriers, all ZUShki were thrashed, and so the ground trembled. Huge density of fire, but all to no avail. Personally, it’s funny for me to read how some comrades write about how to use light machine guns against such goals.

      In order to bring down such a baby, completely different characteristics of accuracy of guidance, dispersion, and area of ​​damage are needed. I’m not talking about discovery yet.
  18. kapitan92
    kapitan92 24 December 2015 21: 21 New
    12
    Colleagues! When a promising model with a caliber of 57 mm appears, it is not clear, so the Tunguska and Shilka will still work.
    "Shilochka," I would pass to the infantry, an indispensable thing at heights and roadblocks. A small dismantling and a "terminator" is ready, only bring boxes of ammunition. soldier
  19. iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 24 December 2015 21: 45 New
    +1
    An instinct tells us that a big queue will be built behind b / y “Shilki” and “Tunguska”. Well, on those grandmothers and newcomers, you can sit in the long run. ALREADY. In stock . Sergei Kuzhugetovich - horror for the Pentagon, the fifth corner will be exhausted throughout the country, poor people.
  20. gla172
    gla172 24 December 2015 21: 45 New
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oOhy_mSugo
    1. TOR2
      TOR2 24 December 2015 22: 26 New
      +1
      This is a dill harvester ...
  21. egsp
    egsp 24 December 2015 22: 44 New
    +3
    Shilka for air defense in the 21st century is not needed, forgive me graduates of the Poltava School. but once praised in the infantry, let them take it for themselves. They will rename them “machine-gun self-propelled guns”, hang armor and forward: manpower, equipment and fortifications.
    How to bring down an UAV? You need to think, count and use your wit. Let the KBs rack their brains. Mini rockets, electronic warfare, laser, "Jedi sword" - everything will work.
    1. 1976AG
      1976AG 24 December 2015 23: 06 New
      -1
      Quote: egsp
      Shilka for air defense in the 21st century is not needed, forgive me graduates of the Poltava School. but once praised in the infantry, let them take it for themselves. They will rename them “machine-gun self-propelled guns”, hang armor and forward: manpower, equipment and fortifications.
      How to bring down an UAV? You need to think, count and use your wit. Let the KBs rack their brains. Mini rockets, electronic warfare, laser, "Jedi sword" - everything will work.


      One of the few sensible comments!
      And for the removal of UAVs and now there are much more effective means!
      1. kirpich
        kirpich 25 December 2015 00: 28 New
        +2
        Name at least a couple.
    2. kirpich
      kirpich 25 December 2015 00: 26 New
      +2
      Didn’t minus. So you think that at altitudes up to 1500 m, Shilka is not suitable? At heights of 3-3,5 km "Tunguska" is nonsense? About the "Shell" generally keep quiet.
      So answer, which UAV, or quadric will risk entering the affected area of ​​these "unnecessary"
  22. Barakuda
    Barakuda 24 December 2015 22: 50 New
    0
    Quote: sanya.vorodis
    Will gamers be called up to operators?

    Well, if on the horizontal bar it’s 15 times, it’ll run 3 km according to the standard .. The shooting standard, the polygraph test will pass ... smile I really hope for it...
  23. HARDDEN_KMV
    HARDDEN_KMV 24 December 2015 23: 14 New
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV-sPIBWWZ8 на траки поставить!
  24. Edvid
    Edvid 24 December 2015 23: 51 New
    +1
    Historical fact.
    Even before the Soviet troops entered Afghanistan in the USSR Ministry of Defense, it was decided to remove the Shilka artillery system from service as outdated. However, a small number of them were initially used against the Dushmans as ground cover. In this capacity, "Shilka" turned out to be the most effective melee weapon and showed itself very well. Dushmans called "Shilka" "Shaitan-arba." Based on the experience gained, a large number of these artillery systems were transferred to Afghanistan.
  25. Freeman
    Freeman 25 December 2015 00: 30 New
    0
    Something similar, only in the towed (actually stationary) version of the USSR was back in the 50s.
    Anti-aircraft artillery system S-60
    http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/zak_s-60.html
    Anti-aircraft artillery system KS-19
    http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/zak_ks-19.html
    And where it is written that 57 mm will be made according to the ZSU 57-2 scheme, but will not assemble another “gatling” on a self-propelled chassis, and even with “smart” shells.
  26. pilot bin-bom
    pilot bin-bom 25 December 2015 01: 50 New
    -1
    Found something to surprise. We make the request "Belarus. Tetraidr. Buy" and you will be happy.
  27. Donbass2014
    Donbass2014 25 December 2015 02: 03 New
    -1
    I think the best option would be to put on the conveyor production the Shell 1C with its installation on the Armata platform, and stuff it with an electronic warfare system ... :) :) :)
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 05: 54 New
      +5
      And on "Kira" "put" "Shell" on the expensive platform "Armata" ??? request Are you going to crush the city barricades with the “Shell”? belay negative
  28. Wolka
    Wolka 25 December 2015 05: 45 New
    -2
    Yes, let there be more and more of both new and old modernized ones, it’s not for nothing that they say everything new, well-forgotten old, and a shell of 57 mm. it’s better to make it thermobarric with a remote caller so that it burns out completely, and if, in fact, in my opinion it’s more efficient to deal with small-sized flying vehicles such as drones better with laser guns, the height and speed of movement of the flying machine will allow you to successfully hit it, visually everything is like a shooting gun stand, and in bad weather such doves do not fly, there are satellites for this ...
  29. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 06: 07 New
    +1
    In the last century, the French experimented with an 40-barrel anti-aircraft MLRS caliber 37-mm. Maybe there is something in this? Take the OB-20, hang it on the ZA-23-2 mount, equip the C-8 with high fragmentation warheads and “instantly” -programmed fuses- “timers” for air blasting (the use of corrected C-8 by the “RCIC method” is not ruled out) - and go against drones !?
  30. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 06: 21 New
    +1
    PSBy the way, there is such a "method" of guiding shells that is very suitable for use in small-caliber ammunition. "Developers" promise that it will be "cheap and great"! Such shells are used in "bursts". According to the principle of master-followers ... "It is taken", for example, a series of 5 shells — one shell "starts" with the electronics of the control system (homing) and therefore does not have explosives (no longer for this places); the remaining 4 shells have: GGE, explosives, a simple (maybe the simplest) guidance system for the "beacon" in the "lead" shell ....
  31. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 25 December 2015 06: 32 New
    +1
    In the last century, the French experimented with an 40-mm anti-aircraft MLRS caliber 37-mm. Maybe there is something to this? Take the OB-20, hang it on the gun mount ZU-23-2, add the C-8 with warheads with increased "shrapnel" and "instantly" -programmable fuses - "air-blasting timers" (you can "mention" С-8, adjusted for "RCIC method"); laser rangefinder, calculator-programmer, actuator for programming the C-8 fuse as part of the control system and go against drones !?
  32. vkl-47
    vkl-47 25 December 2015 08: 19 New
    +2
    Quote: 34 region
    When using an UAV, is caliber important? To shoot a drone what caliber is needed? More less? Or drones yesterday? What is the most optimal caliber against drones?

    Unmanned vehicles can jam electronic warfare and intercept control. And this is a machine for chopping rockets and planes like nuts. Yes, there will be armored aircraft in summer 57mm
    1. would
      would 27 December 2015 11: 36 New
      0
      In theory, EW can, but in fact it often can not and just shrug. Well, let's suppress it ... and all modern UAVs are automated and, after losing communication, begin to execute a given scenario, which may be a continuation of the task. The control interception of modern UAVs is now generally something from the field of phenomena for a number of reasons.
  33. yanus
    yanus 25 December 2015 12: 12 New
    +1
    Good news.
    I would prefer that a new chassis not be developed - to take the chassis from the T72, of which the shaft.
    With such a chassis, such a memory can be used to support troops at the forefront. At the same time saving - no need to do. The safety margin of the BU t72 is sufficient, in addition, this platform is worked out, reliable, and is known among the troops.
    You can try to use the chassis of the first batch of BMP-3. Protection is not so serious, but the cost of operation is much less.
  34. forumow
    forumow 25 December 2015 15: 22 New
    +1
    I think this installation is not needed as a specialized ZSU! But as a multifunctional tool, as part of the BMP, BMPT is another matter. For use with air targets, target designation should be taken from an air defense system or artillery reconnaissance radar, such as the Zoo. Here you should not be limited only to medium calibers, but also apply the same principle to tanks and self-propelled guns. Of course, the possibility of such integration should be provided for in the design initially or during modernization. Thus, all self-propelled artillery and armored vehicles with automatic guidance can, if necessary, be included in the firing calculation of the air defense of the SV group, which will significantly increase the complexity of the air attack task for the enemy.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 December 2015 15: 34 New
      0
      Quote: forumow
      For use on air targets, target designation should be taken from an air defense system or artillery reconnaissance radar, such as the Zoo.

      Target designation is, of course, good and blahododno ... but to conduct aimed fire at air targets, you also need your own sighting system with tracking radar, a set of fire control devices and powerful and accurate aiming drives. And it all weighs pretty well + takes up the volume of the fighting compartment.

      If everything was so simple, then BMPs based on "tunguska" or "shilka" would have appeared long ago. smile
      Quote: forumow
      Thus, all self-propelled artillery equipment can, if necessary, be included in the firing calculation of the air defense of the SV group, which will significantly increase the complexity of the air attack task for the enemy.

      Sumptuously. One demonstrative raid - and the positions of tanks and self-propelled guns opened.
      1. forumow
        forumow 25 December 2015 16: 00 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        If everything was so simple, then BMPs based on "tunguska" or "shilka" would have appeared long ago.

        So let's do the opposite - "Tunguska and Shilka" based on BMP. BMPT / ZSU based on the T-15 or "Kurganets", for example.

        Quote: Alexey RA
        Sumptuously. One demonstrative raid - and the positions of tanks and self-propelled guns opened.

        A change of position is not fate ?! SAMs deal with a similar problem somehow differently? Also, mind you! Taking target designation from external means, the bulk of the involved SV equipment will not impersonate radar radiation.

        The principle stated above will allow all modern military equipment to take an active part in defense against air attacks, and not just be a passive victim and an object of protection for relatively small air defense systems.
  35. MolGro
    MolGro 25 December 2015 16: 51 New
    +3
    In the picture "Central Research Institute" Petrel "ZAK-57


    On Vidio American gun 57 mm is quite effective)
  36. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 26 December 2015 10: 28 New
    0
    They will not replace, but supplement. So it will be more correct.
  37. Dinosaur1957
    Dinosaur1957 26 December 2015 13: 13 New
    0
    And what, "Shell", which is C1? Already all-all ground troops have provided them? Or does our valiant military-industrial complex not cope with foreign orders? Or, again, "they didn’t have time to build one, but immediately, right away ... they didn’t have time to build the second and third" © Or maybe he (the "Shell") is not at all as good as we were told from the blue screens . The last time, as I recall, is May 9th. As usual, unparalleled. Who knows what is there with the Shell, and how this new 57-mm projection will look from a purely economic point of view. In our conditions ...
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 December 2015 13: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Dinosaur1957
      And what about the "Shell" ... Or, again, "they didn’t have time to build one, but right there, they didn’t have time to build the second and third immediately"

      Well, actually this is normal practice - after taking the model into service, think about upgrading or replacing with a new generation. But the "Shell" is far from a young man, and there are serious complaints about the effectiveness of art. fire.
      But this is not the trick: the announced ZSU is not a possible replacement for the Shell, but for the Tunguska, and that one has indeed been for many years.
      From a combat point of view - in the presence of adjustable shells and distant detonation - this is a definite plus, as it is from the economic one - who knows, we need to ask our "effective managers".
  38. major124
    major124 26 December 2015 16: 58 New
    0
    57 mm good caliber .... Good range, excellent high-explosive action ...
  39. artwin
    artwin 27 December 2015 00: 12 New
    -1
    and if 57mm and a cumulative projectile, then the “derivation” will willingly cope with tanks.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 27 December 2015 10: 19 New
      0
      Quote: artwin
      and if 57mm and a cumulative projectile, then the “derivation” will willingly cope with tanks.

      Nonsense. Ammunition with a diameter of 130-150mm can often not cope with tanks, what can we say about a thin 57mm
  40. Aandrewsir
    Aandrewsir 27 December 2015 11: 43 New
    0
    He served in 1986-1988 in the KZakVO in military air defense at the Krug air defense missile system. I remember preparing for firing at the training center in Vaziani, and there I happened to see Shilka in action. Then their work impressed with its rate of fire. At the scene of the shooting there was a "waist-high" shot casings. But “Tunguska” outdid “Shilka” in many ways. I hope that the new complex will leave Tunguska behind. I am glad that due attention is being paid to military air defense! Good luck to the "defense" and "Pvoshnikov"!
  41. tupolev-95
    tupolev-95 27 December 2015 13: 53 New
    0
    In my opinion, the idea is with a 57 mm. with a gun, it’s completely nothing, of course, if there is a munition with a programmable detonation in the ammunition. Have complementary vehicles in anti-aircraft units - for example, with cannon
    1. tupolev-95
      tupolev-95 27 December 2015 13: 58 New
      0
      and with missile weapons (on a single chassis)
  42. Yak28
    Yak28 27 December 2015 15: 55 New
    0
    Old ZSU-57
  43. Gunther
    Gunther 2 January 2016 17: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: kote119
    about the carapace on tv they showed a plot: they shot guns at a light drone and couldn’t shoot down, I had to shoot a rocket, frankly it surprised me

    Strange, I also watched (TV channel Zvezda), missiles were not fired, the drone fell off by itself - the electronics died from a radar tip.