BMPT "Terminator"

I think the T-15 Armata with the 57mm RCWS is a good starting point for a next gen Terminator.

You need something a lot more portable than a 48t vehicle to accomplish these things, and the BMPT simply doesn't have enough people onboard to properly conduct close combat on dismounted.

That´s why the original concept of the BMPT had it accompany a heavy BTR-type vehicle.

23x152, not 23x115.
And showing it all over the planet as the smallest programmable ammo that exists.
I said that already - don't count on 23x115 programmable ammo any time soon, as it is simply too small for the task. If you put the electronics there, there will be no space left for explosives worth bothering.

I will let that brain fart slip by without comment because normally you are so right, and Mir liked what you said so perhaps it is spreading.

You both understand that the 23 number is the calibre of the shell and the 152/115 is the length of the propellant case in mms, so the 23 x 152mm is a 23mm calibre cannon shell with a propellant case 152mm long that is high velocity and used in AA guns like Shilka and ZU-23-2 towed mounts while the 23 x 115mm is a low recoil low velocity 23mm cannon for weapons that need a very high rate of fire but are light and compact, so fighter aircraft like the MiG-21 and MiG-23 carry it, but also the Su-24 and MiG-31 use a 6 barrel gatling gun chambered in the same round for use against ground targets and small fast air targets respectively.

Of course you already know that.

The 23mm cannon shell... projectile in the 23 x 115mm is the same as the projectile in the 23 x 152mm shell so if they developed the programmable ammo for 23 x 152mm round then that does not go into the propellant case... it goes into the 23mm shell, which is the same shell that goes into the 23 x 115mm cannon round.

They have said they have programmable shells for 23 x 152mm ammo but all the electronics and complication and design is in the projectile and the 23 x 115 and 23 x 152 are both anti aircraft guns... the former is mounted on aircraft like the late model Hinds and MiG-21 and MiG-23 and also a defensive gun like the Il-76 and Tu-22M3, while the Su-24 and MiG-31s also use the same round in gatling guns... not to mention various gunpod mounted 23mm guns, while the latter are used in ground based guns for anti aircraft use, like the Shilka and the ZU-23-2... the targets are the same and the projectiles are the same too.

The propellent capacity has nothing to do with it... in fact the 23 x 115mm round has less g imposed on the round at launch, but other than that they they would be the same... the less powerful round just moving slower and taking longer to get to the target area.

I think the T-15 Armata with the 57mm RCWS is a good starting point for a next gen Terminator.

Especially if they rejigger the rear troop compartment for extra ammo.... but actually it has room for like 8 soldiers so perhaps you could have versions with drone operators (air and ground drones), or an auto loading rack system for tons of extra ammo.

You could raise the turret upwards so there is a 50-70cm gap between the hull and the bottom of the turret itself and in that gap you could put extra external turret mounts for grenade launchers and rifle calibre machine guns or light cannon with crew in the rear controlling them independently.

Eventually you would have AI finding targets and aiming, perhaps with a human deciding whether the shot is taken or not.

That´s why the original concept of the BMPT had it accompany a heavy BTR-type vehicle.

That would be something different wouldn't it?

I mean a BMPT with a heavy BTR-T (which is a tank based fire support vehicle that does not carry troops and a tank based troop transport respectively) would mean unless there was a serious reason you needed a 125mm gun there you really don't need actual tanks... especially in COIN type situations like the Soviets in Afghanistan or Russian forces in Syria where the enemy does not have tanks or a lot of tanks.

I would add that the reason the 23 x 115mm shell has such a low muzzle velocity of 710m/s is because of its very heavy projectile, that is the same as that used in the 23 x 152mm round with rather more propellant, but that was a concious decision.

If the Soviets wanted a high speed 23mm cannon round like the American 20mm they use in their gatlings if they used a projectile of the same weight the 23mm round would have higher muzzle velocity than the American 20mm round (which is designed to be a high velocity round).

The Soviets were more interested in rate of fire and the effect each round would have on impact so they went for low recoil low velocity heavy 23mm projectiles... the same projectiles that are used in the Shilka and ZU-23-2.

@GarryB

The only ammo types available to the 23mm family is HEI, HEIT and APIT.
Only the 30mm GSh-30 family of guns for aircraft and the Mi-24P have a airburst cargo type round as far as I know?
Besides the ancient 23mmX115 is slowly on it's way out with no real development future, but you can wake me up once the 115 have something similar as in the picture below.

Come on guys... @Alamo, you said they couldn't use the air burst round they developed for the 23 x 152mm in the 23 x 115mm shell because the latter is too small... and now you are saying the 23mm projectiles they actually use are half a centimetre in difference?

Did you know 303 british cartridges are the same .311 diameter as all Russian 30 calibre weapons, including the 7.62x25mm Tokarev pistol and SMG round, the 7.62x39mm AK and SKS calibre, and the 7.62x54mmR rifle and machine gun cartridge?

If you hand load you can use 180 grain 303 bullets in AK cartridge cases. The ballistics will totally change but considering to use an air burst round you need modifications of the system including a very decent ballistic computer and laser range finding and possibly even radar tracking system then working out the new ballistics for the slightly heavier slightly longer shell is not a real problem.

I am not saying they do have this shell, I am saying the hard part has already been solved and they don't need to develop a whole new projectile to load it into the different case.

They already have different 30 x 165mm shells for air and ground and sea use... AFAIK the army weapons are percussion while the aircraft used rounds are electrically fired so you can't take a 30x165mm shell from the ammo box on a MiG-29 and load it into a BMP-2 ammo box and fire it, and vice versa... but if the projectiles for aircraft cannon rounds were loaded into ground based cannon it wouldn't matter at all.

They are advertising their 23mm calibre ammo as the smallest calibre in the world to have air burst rounds... 23 x 152mm and 23 x 115mm are the SAME CALIBRE.

The size of the propellent case is irrelevant.

The 152mm gun on the Coalition can fire any 152mm projectile made before it... do you think they all have the same propellant charge, do you think the propellant charges used with each of those different rounds matters when you put the shell in the Coalition gun?

The key is that they developed all the bits and pieces needed to create an airburst round and fitted it into the Projectile of a 23mm cannon, so any 23mm weapon that could fit this projectile should be able to use this projectile.

I understand that there are some issues... as I mentioned above the 7.62x25mm pistol cartridge is a .311 calibre but its tiny size means if you try to put a 220 grain 303 bullet there will be no room for any propellant at all and the projectile will still stick out too far to fit into the standard magazines of the pistol that fires the ammo.

That is not an issue when talking about 23 x 152mm and 23 x 115mm ammo... the 23 x 115mm projectile is already very heavy for its calibre ... as I already stated.

The only ammo types available to the 23mm family is HEI, HEIT and APIT.

Correction: The only ammo type currently in the 23 x 115mm family is HEI and HEIT and APIT.

The 23 x 152mm has a new round added that is airburst capable and what I am saying is that the hard work is already done because what fits in a 23 x 152mm round will also fit in a 23 x 115mm round without any problems.

If they decide that the muzzle velocity of the 30x165mm is not needed for the BMPT, or that they want to get that velocity by other means (like a T-15 with the 57mm grenade launcher firing APFSDS rounds that will be rather better anti armour than any 30mm cannon round) they could replace the 30mm cannon with a combination of a 23mm gun and a 57mm gun, where the 57mm rounds supply superior AP performance and superior HE fire power for hard structure targets like bunkers, while the 23mm offers low recoil compact ammo so you can carry a lot and it would be more useful for area targets like groups of troops spread out... using air burst or just HEI rounds that can be fired in very short bursts because of the very high rate of fire of the twin 23mm cannon that will land around a point of aim like a shotgun blast of HE rounds that rapidly spread death.

23 x 115mm shells are smaller and lighter and cheaper than 30mm shells, and create a fraction of the recoil... with the projectiles used in the 23x152mm shells they can be air burst as well when needed.

I would say if they adopt these in numbers they could also create a SLAP round with an APFSDS round much like the Browning 50 cal SLAP round but with the 23x115mm round being very much like a 14.5x114mm round with a larger calibre its potential for a longer heavier penetrator would make it rather more effective in the role if required.

You say the  23x115mm is on the way out but I have seen mockups of unmanned ground based vehicles and also MTLB upgrades with 6 barrel gatling 23mm cannon and also twin barrel 23mm cannon respectively... the latter is also carried on the Hind in a chin turret and seems to be rather effective.

If they can fit air bursting technology (whether timer or command) in a 23mm cannon shell projectile then they should be able to make a new 40mm grenade projectile with airburst capacity too, which would be rather interesting and effective.

You could actually get rid of most of the missiles on the T-15 and mount a remote weapon station on the rear of the T-15s turret mounting a twin barrel 23mm cannon that elevates and depresses with the main 57mm grenade launcher gun and turns independently so the gunner can engage with the 57mm gun while the commander might engage targets with the 23mm gun mount like drones or a Javelin team, or whatever...

The 700m/s muzzle velocity of the 23mm weapon could be used to lob rounds over frontal cover at extended ranges like a grenade launcher... some sort of feed system that allows separate belts of different ammo types would be useful.

That is why the 2A42 guns on the Terminator are so useful because they have dual belt feed systems, so you essentially have four belts of ammo for the two guns.

What you can do is load HEI in two belts, one for each gun so you can select HEI for both guns and fire HEI at the target from both guns at once, which would be devastating against troops in the open or in a stand of trees as we have seen. But if an armoured target appears then having one belt of APDS rounds or APFSDS rounds means you can effectively engage that target, or if the enemy troops are behind logs or barricades then armour piercing rounds could be used to destroy the structure and allow the HE inside. You would not want both guns firing AP at once so one belt on one gun makes sense. The other threat would be drones or air targets for which air bursting shells would be ideal but you don't need a huge rate of fire for air burst shells... if they work as advertised then you track the target and fire a burst of air burst rounds... maybe 3 to 5 rounds to explode in the path of the target to fill the air with lots of fragments.... again, you don't need two guns firing fast to do that... so the single remaining belt feed on the other gun could be used for that.

So you have two belts of HEI, one for each gun, while on one gun you have APFSDS and the other gun air burst ammo, and that should give you the choices you might need.

For instance in your modern thermals you might see the blades of a helicopter behind a large tree... lasing the tree and adding 10-15m to the range and then firing over the tree might lead to airbursting shells directly above the helicopter... but equally just firing a burst of APFSDS straight through the tree might be just as effective.

GarryB wrote:
Correction: The only ammo type currently in the 23 x 115mm family is HEI and HEIT and APIT.

Yes this recent development has been mentioned here a couple of times. However in my post I referred mainly to the 115 round. The 115 is the one you believe can be developed with an air-burst cargo warhead. I can't see that happening as the round itself is ancient and on it's way out as far as I am concerned. The only modern aircraft to utilize this round is the Mi-35M that was a cheaper version mainly developed for export. Russia did acquire a fair number of these helicopters (for marketing reasons) but only managed to be exported in fairly small numbers. I believe Brazil actually ordered but in the end rejected the helicopter. Russia's main attack helicopters favour the 30mm ammo, effectively closing any future chapters on the 23x115.

All other 23x115 ammo in Russian service are being used by the Su-24 and the Mig-31 - also in the tail-gun of several large aircraft but all modern designs have sadly no room for a tail-gun. So again - very soon no more 23x115 in the modern Russian military

PS - even if the Mig-31 remains in service for some time - there is no need to develop a cargo round for this interceptor.

The development of a cargo round for the 23x152 is another story and definitely has some good prospects for a long term future. We'll see

I forgot about the gun pods!

But still - wake me up when they have developed a cargo round for the 115

No, I said that woundn't count on 23x115 airburst ammo any time soon, as it is smaller than 23x152 which Russkie advert as the smallest in the world of a class.
It is smaller, which closes the case.

Calibre means the internal diameter of the barrel... 23 x 115mm and 23 x 152mm are the same calibre, they just use a different cartridge.

The 9x39mm round based on the necked up 7.62x39mm AK and SKS cartridge is not a smaller or bigger calibre than a 9x19mm or 9x18mm pistol bullet... they are the same calibre but different type of round.

Now I agree that if you developed a special round with electronics and other complex bits that fitted into a 9x39mm round that does not guarantee that such a round could be loaded into a 9x18mm or 9x19mm round... as I have already explained the 9x39mm calibre uses very large and heavy projectiles in the 250 plus grain weight range so a 265 grain 9mm projectile that is designed for use in a 9x39mm round would be too big to be used in a 9x18mm or 9x19mm case because they would have no volume left for propellant with such a large projectile... ie long projectile despite it being the right calibre to fit down the barrels of the same weapons.

That is not a problem with the 23x115mm and 23x152mm rounds because the projectiles each shell uses are very very similar in size an weight.

If the 23x115mm was like the American 20mm round and was intended to be a high velocity round, then it would use much much lighter shells to achieve that increased velocity, but it doesn't, it specifically goes for heavy HE rounds for effect on target and gives up the 1,000m/s plus muzzle velocities of the vulcan type weapons and achieves a much slower 700m/s muzzle velocity and achieves its excellent anti aircraft performance via its heavy projectiles (for its calibre) and its amazing rate of fire for its calibre (3,500rpm in twin barrel and 12,000 rpm in a 6 barrel gatling version).

Actually, I have learned about that only a few years ago, being pretty sure the same you are - that it is the same projectile with a different and less powerful case.
And I was quite shocked why the Polish military is carrying tenders for 23x115 that Bulgarian middlemen are usually winning delivering crap for inflated prices after. While we have 23x152 production running at Mesko.
So I have asked a few questions at Mesko, only to be informed that it is a different ammunition. Not cases, but the projectiles are different either. And while Polish orders are small, like 120-130 thousand rounds to be delivered in 5 years, nobody considers opening a new production flow.
Especially as the systems using it are considered outdated and exist in small numbers - here of course.

So in Poland they did not unify the production of the projectiles between the different rounds. Does that mean it is the same for Russian and Soviet producers of the round?

My understanding is that the 23 x 152mm is a modified and improved version of the same round used during WWII on Il-2 ground attack aircraft that was produced post war and used by the ground forces... which is unusual because normally the air force and army had different ammo and weapons for that ammo.

Firing at aircraft that are moving quickly muzzle velocity was required to make it easier to hit fast moving targets and heavy projectiles used to knock down harder and harder targets made of metal, as opposed to previously made of wood targets.

The 23x115mm rounds were developed specifically for aircraft use where muzzle velocity was not important but rate of fire and projectile weight were considered the important factors. The targets in this case being firing from aircraft at other aircraft, and from aircraft at targets on the ground.

The 115 is the one you believe can be developed with an air-burst cargo warhead.

No. The cargo warhead was only ever used against ground targets from aircraft. The only 30x165mm rounds were used by the 30mm cannon of the MiG-29 and Su-27 and had fixed timing to be fired from fixed distances at targets on the ground like troops in an open field or other soft area targets.

I can't see that happening as the round itself is ancient and on it's way out as far as I am concerned.

The round is not as old as the 23 x 152mm round.

The only modern aircraft to utilize this round is the Mi-35M that was a cheaper version mainly developed for export. Russia did acquire a fair number of these helicopters (for marketing reasons) but only managed to be exported in fairly small numbers. I believe Brazil actually ordered but in the end rejected the helicopter. Russia's main attack helicopters favour the 30mm ammo, effectively closing any future chapters on the 23x115.

They wanted a chin turret based weapon but the 30mm cannon were just too big and with too much recoil to be mounted in a chin turret so they delayed the chin turret while they worked on a design that would work.

The twin 23mm cannon was the solution with a high rate of fire and heavy projectile for its calibre and low recoil, the 23mm twin barrel cannon allowed the Hind to be a gunship again. Previous models with the fixed 30mm cannon were a pain in the arse... they shook the whole aircraft when they fired so you could only get short bursts on target... it took a lot of work to get 30 x 165mm gun turrets to work and only one is used on the Mi-28. The Ka-50/52 model is a semi fixed gun mount with very limited traverse mounted near the aircraft cg to deal with the recoil (making it rather more accurate incidentally).

All other 23x115 ammo in Russian service are being used by the Su-24 and the Mig-31 - also in the tail-gun of several large aircraft but all modern designs have sadly no room for a tail-gun. So again - very soon no more 23x115 in the modern Russian military

Never say never the 23 x 115mm twin barrel cannon is a light weight compact weapon that is very interesting and useful and is used in current model Hinds in a useful chin turret arrangement.

It is widely used in gunpods for targets where muzzle velocity is not so important but HE payload and rate of fire is.

There was even suggestion of converting the KPV heavy machine gun in 14.5 x 114mm calibre to a light cannon in 23 x 115mm calibre... the ammo size is similar and the new aiming systems for external gun mounts are computer based so you don't need armour piercing rounds with the same ballistics as the HE rounds so a 23 x 115mm round can have a much bigger and more effective HE payload than a 14.5mm HMG round, but an APFSDS round could also be much higher velocity and heavier and longer than that which could be fitted into the smaller calibre round.

There is an African anti material rifle that uses 14.5mm as its high velocity anti armour projectile and a 20mm calibre barrel for delivering of HE rounds... a 23 x 115mm version would actually be a good compromise if you took the time to develop an APFSDS round (SLAP) for the 23x115mm round.

They haven't made such a round because it was not used in an anti material rifle before, but as I said with the 23 x 152mm round getting a command detonated round then if they want to use the 23x115mm round in a  BMPT like role it would make sense to develop APFSDS rounds and air burst rounds too.

PS - even if the Mig-31 remains in service for some time - there is no need to develop a cargo round for this interceptor.

Agree because the cargo round for aircraft is used against infantry on the ground and not against air targets.

The air burst round I am suggesting based on that developed for the 23 x 152mm round is intended for light aerial targets like drones... against a modern attack helicopter the splinters and fragments would not be heavy enough to do useful damage so you would be better off with conventional HE rounds.

The development of a cargo round for the 23x152 is another story and definitely has some good prospects for a long term future. We'll see

Cargo rounds, as they are implemented in the Russian Air Force, are for air to ground use only against soft targets like troops out in the open or trucks and logistics vehicles that are not armoured.

The airburst rounds I am talking about are optimised for ground to air use against targets like drones.

Now there is talk of optimising the Mi-28 for use against drones for which air burst 30mm shells would be very useful, and if it turns out to be a success perhaps they might try the same with Hinds armed with 23mm gun turrets for use against drones too.

But still - wake me up when they have developed a cargo round for the 115

The point I am making is that the projectile is already developed and ready to go... they just need to develop a platform with the right gun to use it in the 23 x 115mm calibre gun.

There are 6 barrel gatlings, twin barrel cannon and single barrel cannon, and a converted HMG single barrel weapon that could all use the round that are already developed... and if you have air burst rounds and APFSDS rounds developed then anti material rifles become an option too.

It is used in their current model Hinds and widely used in gunpods.

What I am suggesting is that if they analyse their experience from Ukraine and find the massive velocity and recoil of the 30x165mm calibre guns on the BMPT are not needed the 23 x 152mm might be good enough and is a smaller lighter round that could probably be cheaper to make and just as effective... they have been using ZU-23-2 guns on vehicles and they seem to be effective too... it might be that the 23 x 115mm rounds could be useful too and rather more compact and cheaper to make and carry with less recoil and much higher rate of fire.

The 30mm 2A42 cannons max out about 600rpm, so the two guns together are firing at 1,200rpm, at a weight of 130kgs for the two guns... the GSh-6-23M weighs about 75kgs and fires at about 10 times that rate... the GSh-23L is half the weight of one 2A42 with three times the rate of fire.

The point is that the ammo is much much smaller too, but the projectiles are still potent and effective...

You could fit a GSh-23L to an external remote weapon turret easily... the ammo is compact the recoil is low...

Mir wrote: The 115 is the one you believe can be developed with an air-burst cargo warhead.

GarryB wrote:No.

Ok I could be wrong but this is what you wrote in post 647:

GarryB wrote:The twin 30mm cannons are devastating but I wonder if a 23mm version firing 23 x 115mm shells was considered... especially now they have airburst shells for 23mm rounds..

With 23 x 115mm they could probably carry twice as much ammo for the same size and weight.

And the twin barrel 23mm gun mounted on the current model Hind has an excellent rate of fire of 3-3.5K rpm... a short burst leading to a cluster of HE rounds falling on the target at range like a giant shotgun blast.

Anyway the 23x152mm as we know it was only developed after WWII, whilst the 115 was designed in 1943. The 152 was developed from WWII ammo for the IL-2 but these were not interchangeable at all. Incidentally the 115 was a straight forward development from the 14.5mm round.

Ok I could be wrong but this is what you wrote in post 647:

I understand that could be misunderstood, so let me put more detail into what I said to make it clearer.

The twin 30mm cannons are devastating but I wonder if a 23mm version firing 23 x 115mm shells was considered... especially now they have airburst shells for 23mm rounds..

In the BMPT terminator the use of two 2A42 cannon is devastating but I wonder in comparison with the successful use of the ZU-23-2 firing 23x152mm high velocity shells means a smaller calibre could be as effective and if the high velocity of both rounds is critical to their effect because the 23 x 115mm shells with smaller cases and lower velocities have a much higher rate of fire and a relatively heavy HE round for its calibre so in comparison with the 23 x 152mm round with its very high muzzle velocity but rate of fire of about 800 rounds per gun that perhaps a GSh-23L firing 3,500 rpm the same projectile but at a lower muzzle velocity might be effective too.

The 23 x 152mm shells have an airburst round now which is the same calibre as the 23 x 115mm so loading that airburst shell into a 23 x 115mm cartridge should be fairly straight forward... no need to design a brand new projectile for that...

But obviously for them to want to do that they need to decide that the 23x115mm gun would be suitable for the role.

One of the very early prototypes for the Armata family included a large tank like vehicle with a 120mm smoothbore gun/mortar that seemed to have a large calibre grenade launcher but also a 6 barrel gatling.

At the time I speculated the 120mm gun/mortar is basically replacing the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3, while the 6 barrel gatling used against ground targets would not benefit from high muzzle velocity so I assumed it would be a 23 x 115mm shell and the grenade launcher I speculated at the time was the 57mm grenade launcher but on reflection is probably too small so it might be a 40mm grenade launcher.

If they are considering 23x115mm weapons for ground use against ground targets then airburst as well as APFSDS would actually make a lot of sense to make the weapon more effective against drone and other light targets.

Anyway the 23x152mm as we know it was only developed after WWII, whilst the 115 was designed in 1943. The 152 was developed from WWII ammo for the IL-2 but these were not interchangeable at all. Incidentally the 115 was a straight forward development from the 14.5mm round.

The Russian Army seems to be adopting the 9x19mm pistol round which is much older still, the point is that in its modern form the 23 x 115mm makes sense... it uses a useful relatively heavy HE projectile from a small compact case that can be fired at enormous rates of fire without a lot of recoil.

The 23x152mm ammo was not interchangable in the sense that the 30x165mm ammo for the MiG-29 cannot be fired in the BMP-2 or BMP-3s 30mm cannon, which I already explained... the Soviet airforce and army have different forms of primers that are not compatible.

Ironically the 23x115mm is used by the Army (in Hinds in chin turrets and gunpods) and the Air Force (gun turrets on large aircraft and gun pods carried by attack aircraft) and is compatible with each other.

Most helicopters don't have high velocity guns... the main exceptions being Russian helicopters with 30mm cannon, and western helicopters with 20mm Vulcan cannon... normally with three barrels instead of 6. The most common attack helicopter, the Apache has a low velocity 30mm cannon with a low rate of fire and a heavy projectile.

Ironically Turkey has a new attack helicopter that I think should replace its 20mm vulcan cannon with a twin barrel 23mm cannon... much better HE round and high rate of fire too.

23x115 has one quite serious disadvantage if compared to even some smaller calibers. It is its effective range AND engagement altitude.

Its primary use in fighter aircraft means it is normally used at 300-400m.

The 23 x 115mm gun wont be the primary AD gun everyone uses... that would be the 2S38 with a 57mm cannon.

Most BMPs will have airburst 30mm cannon rounds to deal with drones they spot.

For a BMPT having a twin barrel 23mm cannon to engage mostly ground targets but also the occasional air target then a main gun of 57mm calibre might be useful too... the point is that 120 rounds of 57mm cannon ammo is not a lot and if you want to fire suppressive bursts of HE shells then a twin 23mm cannon firing 23 x 115mm rounds could probably carry two or three times more ammo than a vehicle carrying the much bigger 23 x 152mm rounds.

It is being used only for MiG-31 and Su-24. Having this ammo would be considered a gain, however, both of them are hardly considered as a gun platforms. All the others are using a different 30x165, and will use these in the future.

Mi-24 carries the gun too and seems to be quite successful in that role because the 23mm cannon is high rate of fire and good HE payload shells...
In fact I would say it would be interesting to fit the GSh-23L on the Hips where they put the Kord HMGs, and perhaps even on the Ansat attack helicopter version in place of the Kords too.





In fact the location of the Kord on the Hip above means you could have the belt feed lead into the cabin and carry as much ammo as you please and be a real gun ship.

You have it in the SPPU-6 pod carried by Su-24, but again, it is aimed only down and sides, designated to attack ground targets. Programmable ammo is irrelevant for the role.

You are missing the point... I am suggesting the 23x115mm ammo for the BMPT for the ground role... the programmable ammo would only be used in very short bursts against any drones that might be spotted.

Where is a point to put an effort to create a round in a type that is fading away, and the gun itself has quite limited effectiveness if transformed to ground based weapon because of its range/alt limitation?

It was optimised from the outset to hit ground targets but if you want to improve performance just look at the American Vulcan 20mm round... it has high velocity which is achieved by using rather lighter projectiles... an APFSDS version and a lightened HE round version for the 23 x 115mm could certainly boost effective range against aircraft and ground targets, but I think the extra HE payload makes it more effective despite limiting range.

And just for the records, this system has a sort off ammo you are addressing to. It is called ME, mnogo elementny. It is a thin steel body and 24 balls inside with internal fuze VM-23.

So it could be quite versatile...

From a fast moving aircraft firing at a fast moving target... which is what it is designed for... fighter aircraft to fighter aircraft, the idea is not to have super high velocity light weight projectiles that punch neat holes in the target... the idea is enormous rate of fire and short bursts to deliver a cloud of projectiles all round the point of aim like a shotgun blast... the high rate of fire means they all arrive almost together rather than in a string of hits... which means they are impossible to dodge or evade and the spread of rounds and the density of hits makes a hit much more likely, while the heavy payload of each round means a couple of hits is all it will take.

Antony Williams covers it in his interesting books on cannons regarding their approach to designing cannon for different roles and different purposes...

https://quarryhs.co.uk/

(click on index for the original website).

I notice on the wiki website, so it might not be accurate but it says the Tegas uses the 23 x 115mm round.... so not totally obsolete...

GarryB wrote:If they are considering 23x115mm weapons for ground use against ground targets...

Somehow it brings up this image in my mind

One huge advantage over the old school FPV "open hatch" doctrine is that you can avoid the very brief but sharp pain from a Lapua piercing your skull

Instead of FPV drones I would prefer some bigger multicopter that can drop a lot of grenades/light bombs and take a looksie at the enemy
the whole time.

A tethered drone could get power via the tether and even get power for some decent equipment onboard like radar or lidar and night and all weather optics with the information delivered to the vehicle via fibre optics via the tether so there wont be a lot of communication datalinks an enemy could detect and track.

With the drone seeing most things around the vehicle and further afield it would make more sense to use weapons on the vehicle or nearby vehicles for attacking enemy forces because the drone would be fairly limited in how much equipment it could carry.

The fire power on the vehicle should be a combination of high velocity and low velocity to shoot through things or over things... with the drone to correct fire you should be pretty accurate with most weapon systems... and of course airburst rounds could be fired over frontal cover and still engage the enemy behind, while low velocity rounds like grenades could be lobbed over cover and be effective too.

They have shown this:





Which is described on Vitalys site as the ZAK-23E, which suggests a self propelled AA vehicle of the light variety and perhaps the cheap variety as the turret mounted optics seem minimal while the radar appears to be a battlefield portable radar sized set rather than something for looking to greater distances, but the interesting things I see is the small hemispherical instrument above the front crew position and also the other hemisphere with holes in it above and to the left of the side hatch.

I am guessing this is dedicated for an anti drone role and with airburst 23 x 152mm shells it should reach out to about 2km which is inferior to the reach of the 30 x 165mm or the new 57mm guns but good enough because it probably wont be detecting small drones at greater distances than 2km anyway.

I know.... WTF does this have to do with the BMPT, well the BMPT was supposed to provide protection to tanks from enemy infantry but also from drones, which are now too cheap and prolific to use Bulat mini ATGMs to deal with... airburst shells is the way to go with 23mm airburst shells perhaps being cheaper than larger calibre rounds and therefore a bit more cost effective.

In addition to airburst 23mm rounds you also need sensors (the two hull mounted balls and the optical ball and the radar could be fitted to the BMPT if you wanted though I think a LIDAR would be more useful than a radar in this situation as it would not give away the position of the vehicle over enormous distances pumping out radar waves and it is very precise and accurate against small targets no matter their thermal signature or radar cross section.

Russia already has drones using LIDAR for ground mapping in 3D so such a device for a vehicle like this or the BMPT shouldn't be too hard.

Replacing the two 30mm cannon with two 23mm cannon would allow rather more ready to fire ammo to be carried and uses the same ammo as used on ZU-23-2 cannon already being used, but with the Shilka guns instead of the guns for the ZU-23-2 it uses water cooled barrels for sustained fire and of course it has air burst rounds to improve performance against small airborne targets too.

Using airburst shells against small drones would reduce the need for a very high rate of fire to be effective where the shell splinters near the target increase the chances of a hit or hits rather than just pumping out shells at an enormous rate.

As I have mentioned an early Aramata prototype model shown combined a 120mm smooth bore gun/mortar barrel, a large calibre grenade launcher/gun, and a 23mm cannon on the one turret.

If you look in the Russian Army section in the first Armata thread there was an image posted showing some models:



Lots of discussion that really led nowhere because we never really heard much about the model of the vehicle again.

At the time the gun was described as being a 120mm rifled gun, which we assumed was a 120mm gun/mortar as used on the Vena, plus a large calibre longish barrel grenade launcher, which at the time we/I speculated would be a long barrel 40mm grenade launcher, but on reflection could be a 57mm grenade launcher, and a multibarrel gatling gun, which at the time I speculated would be the GSH-6-23 because it had more than four barrels so it wasnt the 12.7mm calibre gun on the Hind and a rifle calibre gatling would be unusual.

In terms of fire power a 120mm gun/mortar provides point engagement capacity out to 10km plus using standard ammo already used in the direct and indirect fire role and can also fire Gran 120mm and Kitilov 122mm guided missiles for armoured targets out to 10km plus range, while the 57mm grenade launcher gives a smaller more compact HE round that is still rather powerful compared with auto cannon rounds and also an APFSDS round that would be useful against enemy BMPs and BTRs and even enemy tanks from the sides and rear, while the 23mm round is compact and cheaper and its enormous rate of fire means a blast of shells would arrive spread out like a shotgun blast, but the 23mm HE rounds are quite decent in HE performance for their calibre so it would deliver a real storm of fragments against soft and spread out targets like troops in the open. The relatively low muzzle velocity means it would be good for use against troops in trenches or behind front cover too.

It will be interesting to see what technologies they can add to improve anti drone performance and transfer that to the BMPT.

Putting airburst 23mm rounds on a BTR-80 is a great way to make a cheap light highly mobile gun system to deal with the threat... being wheeled it can keep up with a truck convoy to provide direct fire support against ground and air threats, and adapting the BMPT to a similar role will be interesting.

Of course with the different vehicle roles... Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon, and DT-30 arctic tractor as well as Tigre like light vehicles the range of anti drone platforms could be huge and varied... with Armata vehicles perhaps having a turret more like 2S38 with a 57mm gun, while lighter vehicles using 30mm or 23mm weapons.

We have seen a towed 23mm cannon mount version and a multibarrel gatling type machine gun external turret for armoured vehicles to deal with drones too...

Interestingly they developed the KS-23 shotgun made from old 23mm cannon barrels... I believe it is an 8 gauge.... would be interesting to see a weapon based on the 23mm cannon that fire 8 gauge shotgun shells in self defence against drones... the barrel length might extend effective range... perhaps special shells could be developed with flechettes or other payloads that reach rather further than shotguns are traditionally used.

GarryB wrote:

As I have mentioned an early Aramata prototype model shown combined a 120mm smooth bore gun/mortar barrel, a large calibre grenade launcher/gun, and a 23mm cannon on the one turret.

If you look in the Russian Army section in the first Armata thread there was an image posted showing some models:



Lots of discussion that really led nowhere because we never really heard much about the model of the vehicle again.

At the time the gun was described as being a 120mm rifled gun, which we assumed was a 120mm gun/mortar as used on the Vena, plus a large calibre longish barrel grenade launcher, which at the time we/I speculated would be a long barrel 40mm grenade launcher, but on reflection could be a 57mm grenade launcher, and a multibarrel gatling gun, which at the time I speculated would be the GSH-6-23 because it had more than four barrels so it wasnt the 12.7mm calibre gun on the Hind and a rifle calibre gatling would be unusual.

In terms of fire power a 120mm gun/mortar provides point engagement capacity out to 10km plus using standard ammo already used in the direct and indirect fire role and can also fire Gran 120mm and Kitilov 122mm guided missiles for armoured targets out to 10km plus range, while the 57mm grenade launcher gives a smaller more compact HE round that is still rather powerful compared with auto cannon rounds and also an APFSDS round that would be useful against enemy BMPs and BTRs and even enemy tanks from the sides and rear, while the 23mm round is compact and cheaper and its enormous rate of fire means a blast of shells would arrive spread out like a shotgun blast, but the 23mm HE rounds are quite decent in HE performance for their calibre so it would deliver a real storm of fragments against soft and spread out targets like troops in the open. The relatively low muzzle velocity means it would be good for use against troops in trenches or behind front cover too.

That was a T-72 revision concept that went nowhere. It was to be armed with a 125mm 2A46 variant.

You may be confusing it with my suggestion for a rifled 120mm gun mortar to be used on BMPTs as a combination mortar, howitzer and tank cannon.

Though perhaps there is something to be said about such a gun firing 120mm guided airburst shells.

That is nothing to do with a T-72, the chassis is Armata like with the front profile and crew all in the hull.

At the time it was described as a 120mm rifled gun, so it is not a tank gun... the two best rounds for a tank are APFSDS and HEAT and the next best round for a Russian tank is a gun launched missile... none of which benefit from rifling.

The 100mm gun on the BMP-3 is rifled because its primary shell is a HE round that benefits from rifling for accuracy and for which muzzle velocity is of no value... or should I say that max velocity is of no value... unlike for an APFSDS round which does not engage the rifling anyway... and HEAT rounds reduce performance when they are spun so fin stabilisation is better for them.