If you dont have any real argument can you stop replying to my posts please, calling me "fool" doesnt rly help.
Who is arguing?
You presented your opinion and I responded point by point.
If you would like to discuss it further then by all means do.
If you want to dismiss my opinions as not worth your time then you are free to do so.
Actually making it cost more by investing into its equipment will make it much better, not sure are you trying to say we should to back to ZiS6 coz its cheap. Pull yourself together...
It is called cost benefit analysis... making something more complicated and more expensive to make it more effective in its primary or even secondary role is acceptable as long as the improvement warrants the cost and added complication.
As already mentioned... the Russian weapon has better range and better accuracy... adding assisted loading will increase rate of fire... but if rate of fire was so important then a Grad would be a better tool than a towed gun.
Srsly even Serbian snipers are issued sniper ammunition for M76, that is not even remotely comparable. Even IF they were issued standard ammunition its not such great decrease in performance specially not to frontline snipers which we use in Russia and Serbia.
So snipers will use accurate rounds to hit their targets but artillery units wont use guided shells because they think it is more fun to fire 50 rounds at a target area than one to kill a specific target...
Srsly even Serbian snipers are issued sniper ammunition for M76, that is not even remotely comparable. Even IF they were issued standard ammunition its not such great decrease in performance specially not to frontline snipers which we use in Russia and Serbia.
So it was PLANNED so you can mention it... great... T-15 is planned too and will enter service. Coalition is also planned so I can mention it too... both in its tracked and wheeled versions...
I said like 5 times MSTA-B has longer range with baseline ammunition, stop chanting it seriously, and only reason is its L52, if it didnt have longer range it would be somewhat a humiliation. On other hand FH77 B05 L52 is outperforming MSTA-B in that field too, but lets not even bring it here as its new device.
Of course you can bring it here... just like the towed model of Coalition is a new device and will likely replace MSTA-B...
- maybe coz it reduces response time to target change by.... 10 times?
But the fact that the battery will be firing guided shells suggests the requirement for a full battery salvo on one target might not be so necessary. When each gun gets its own target it can engage more targets faster... and considering it would be shoot and scoot... and of course the fact that the MSTA-B can fire jamming rounds that could be fired at NATO artillery radar positions to negate NATOs ability to find the towed guns in the first place are all factors you ignore.
Against the Muj in Afghanistan they wont know the difference between any of the guns mentioned.
Two main aspects of artillery warfare - mobility and counterbattery performing and evading it. MSTA-B is lacking in both comparared to most of the analogues.
So the two main aspects of artillery don't include actually hitting targets and supporting the units it is attached to... wouldn't that mean the best support artillery is nothing because it can never be defeated by counter battery fire...
So... wait.. making Armata platform/Boomerang/K25 to reply purely on optoelectronics and make it full of LCD displays, radars etc etc is great.... but doing same on towed howtizer is bad and it wont work on -30C? How so? Why wouldnt it work on -30C? You wont place of the shelf Android phone on MSTA-B but some ruggerised device. Do i feel some double standards here?
Systems inside a vehicle are better protected from the elements than something towed behind a truck across dirt roads.
I agree there, MSTA-B is sufficiently adequate for local wars, low intensity conflicts which Russia had previous 2 decades but as you said it is not modern piece suited for large scale war with formidable enemy. Not sure where are people picking this stuff how MSTA-B is "state of the art".
Perhaps the fact that you call it simple yet at the same time it has better range and accuracy than the state of the art western weapons you are so desperate to prove are perfect.
WWI and Space Age was your comparison.
M270 MLRS. M198 is also quite solid and offers cheap solution up to 40 km,
Hahahaha... M270 is a joke... a very expensive joke.
It is based on the Bradley IFV.... which is great for the US as they operate Bradley IFVs, but for the rest of NATO it is just another vehicle platform with new wheels and new tracks and new engine and transmission they need to add to their inventory.
Compared with Uragan the M270 is a 227mm calibre rocket system that has no range advantage, has 4 less tubes per platform, has no accuracy advantage and no obvious mobility advantage over the 220mm calibre Uragan, but it is much more expensive to buy and to operate.
what i am saying, exploit fkn advantage more. Put APU, BC with BMS so you can share data from artillery radar, velocity radar, some small hydraulic crane, burst loader... something.
Have you talked to Vlad about this?
Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with his introduction... specifically the company he works for and some of the products it makes...
Perhaps they have other things to focus on before upgrading something that will be replaced soon, or perhaps there are upgrades that you just don't know anything about.
What I am saying is that it is very stupid to complain about the bad state of things from the outside where you don't actually know the state of things except what you are told.
No type of Guided ammunition will never replace conventional artillery shells, at least not in 2 lifetimes. Sure, new fuses and new types of ammunition will be MSTA compatibile no reason not to, however MSTA as a piece is the target of my criticism not its ammunition range wich is more than fine.
The standard Coalition shell will be guided. The new fuses developed fit rounds of 152mm calibre and larger and include steering fins and a GLONASS guidance module.
they will start out at 1K US per shot and will likely get cheaper and will greatly increase the number of targets each vehicle can engage at one time... each shot a different target...
It is like the Gefest & T upgrade for Su-24s making them almost as accurate with dumb bombs as more modern aircraft are with guided weapons. Of course there will be cases where the specific location of the target is unknown so less accuracy and more volume is needed... but then a Grad would be much better suited...
For hot one on one artillery action You definitely want to have MLRS. Shortest deployement and fastest saturated kaboom delivery on target.
And with 300mm calibre Smerch 120km range to play with...
I can write you program that does the same to run on your laptop or Windows phone...you dont really need a vehicle for that. You actually can make it with Excel and some Visual Basic macros...you give way too much credit to it. If it was capable of feeding that data into atm unexisting artillery BMS then sure, since you still have to use field phone or paper... ty but no ty.
Haha... the Russians are moving to a net centric military force but their towed artillery units will be issued with abacus's for calculations... right.
I find it amusing all the upgrades they are applying to their rocket artillery like Grad and the new Tornado systems that are fully automated and even their MANPADS operators are getting sophisticated battle management systems like Barnaul, but Towed artillery get nothing... you are the one making the claims can you back them up.
I am not saying you are wrong here, but some proof with the whine would be nice.