2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm

Not sure if there is a thread, tried searching but the search engine seems to be....less than performing.
Anyways, new test pic:

http://s004.radikal.ru/i207/1108/cb/ccf5a1ffea7e.jpg

http://s016.radikal.ru/i336/1107/b0/8aedc0058d07.jpg

http://i006.radikal.ru/1107/63/868a6c50d35e.jpg

Nice photos... thanks for posting.

Do you have any more info?

Here are some relevant drawings of the self propelled and naval versions of the system:






And the Naval system:



Note in the self propelled model the enormous turret is unmanned with all three crew in the front hull in an Armata tank chassis.

The Tank is likely to have a similar arrangement with the crew under the thickest armour in the front hull and an external gun with ammo stored in the turret separated from the crew below the turret ring.

Thanks for the the photos and thread TR1.
We should add this video:

Talk about a beast. Makes Pz2000 look downright mild.

It is awesome... have read talk of standard rounds to 40km+ and extended range rounds to 80km... with GLONASS guidance of course.

I just voted for that video you posted TheArmenian because I just watched it again and realised that the footage of the crew inside the vehicle is of the cancelled T-95 vehicle so those three screens in front of each crew position are likely to be similar to the arrangement in the Armata tank.

The idea I believe was for all three positions to have multifunction controls.

In a normal T series tank there are three crew... the Gunner who spends his time with sights that dont turn very far (maybe 20-30 degrees left of right, but because he is in the turret he gets a good view forward.
The Driver is down in the hull and has a not so good view forward and can only see what is directly in front of the tank.

The commander on the other had is also up in the turret and has a hatch to open for a good all round view.

When you change to a tank design with an unmanned turret with all three crew in the front hull down where the driver sits you need technology to give the tank commander back his wonderful view.

You do that with cameras and turret roof mounted sights and even UAVs.

The thing is that all these are electronic so to display them at one position in the hull down crew positions you can actually display them in any or all of the crew positions.

This leads to a serious change in ways to use the vehicle.

Previously the crews position was based on their function, so while the commander could aim and fire the gun the driver could not command the tank because if his crap visibility from so low down in the vehicle.

With all three crew side by side in the front hull you can standarise the controls so that any of the three positions can drive, fire the gun and command the tank. The driver gets the same all round view of the commander... as does the gunner.

Ideally you might want to limit what the crew2man acting as gunner can see so he is not distracted.

What normally happens in a conventional tank is that the commander with his excellent view of the battlefield looks around for threats and targets. He might see an enemy mortar unit and he would push a button to get the turret to turn to what his cuppola and sight are looking at and say target xyz degrees "enemy mortar team"... engage, and the gunner will select a HE Frag shell and use ANIET to fuse the shell to explode directly above their heads after lasing the target. While the gunner is engaging the target the commander is looking around and might see an enemy tank... to which he will order hold fire and redirect the turret to the new target that is a real threat to his tank and order the gunner to engage. The gunners job is to select the ammo for the target and hit the target and keep hitting it till it is destroyed. The commanders job is to select targets and prioritise threats to the tank.
When the enemy tank is spotted the commander might order the driver to turn the vehicle to present the heaviest frontal armour to the enemy tanks gun, or he might order the tank to move to a better position to fire or that offers better cover.

The point is that if all three crew gets that excellent view then most of the time you don't need three crew.

99% of tank operations are driving from one place to another... sometimes very fast, and other times not so fast.

In actual combat then it will pay to have all three awake, but with all round sensors that should enable the three man crew to get a much better idea of things around them.

The commander was also driver in that he picked places for the driver to drive to, from cover to cover. With the driver getting the same view as the commander the driver can take a bit more responsibility and with information about where the threats are can decide themselves where to go and when. If the centre guy is the driver then the commander can tap him on the shoulder and use handsignals (if it is too noisy... though with the engine at the rear it shouldn't be).

In fact with virtual reality goggles and the tanks roof mounted sensors you could artificially generate a 3D virtual turret roof view so the commander could have excellent vision without leaving his position down in the hull.

The external 7.62mm machine gun mount on the T-90AM could have optics fitted and made to rise up a couple of metres to give a god like view (as in the above and behind view you get in computer games).

A UAV with one of the crew managing it could do the same of course... perhaps the commander could be gunner as well and the gunner could control the UAV and operate a roof mounted grenade launcher/MG mount

What makes you think the inside is from Obj 195?

Coalition is based on the Object 195 chassis.

Remember the family vehicle concept?

Coalition is the turret... the vehicle it was going to go on was the tank.

Before the T-95 got cancelled that was going to be the T-95 chassis... it is why the Coalition has an unmanned turret, because the T-95 and the T-99 (armata) both have unmanned turrets.

If the coalition goes ahead it will be based in the Armata chassis just like all the other vehicles in a heavy brigade... the Pantsir-S1 replacement for Tunguska will be on Armata chassis in heavy brigade, and Boomerang and Kurganets-25 in medium and Typhoon in light.

Well.. obviously Coalition will not fit on medium and light brigade vehicles so they might have 120mm mortar artillery... Pantsir-S1 might be too big for Typhoon too and the Typhoon might mount Morfei or SOSNA-R.

I heard the problem with Coalition was it was too big to fit in current and new cargo planes and air mobility is important... even if it is never used... they want the option.

I suspect if they took away one gun and its dual feed ammo system they could make the turret more compact and air portable.

The naval version might eventually go on cruisers and perhaps even destroyers... 80km range artillery shells would be very useful for warning shots against pirate ships...
Set it to airburst a few metres above the water a few hundred metres in front of one of their speed boats... you could use laser guided shells with a UAV or the ships helo marking the target... a helo 15km away using a laser to mark the water in front of a speed boat and the shell coming from 70km away over the horizon... awesome...

Note MSTA also uses the T-80 chassis so basing artillery on tanks is not new for the Russian Army.

Planned, but AFAIK the Coalition in the video is a modified, stop gap chassis, not the Obj 195 one. \

Just from a visual glance it doesn't look like the photos we have seen of Obj 195.

The internal video shots will be Object 195 because Armata does not exist in steel yet.

The still image displayed for the video could be a T-80 or T-72 chassis just used to mount the turret for firing testing with the cables out the back connected to a control van or something.

The drawings show 7 wheels, but the external vehicle views have 6 and is likely a normal T-72 or T-80 used as a platform for testing the guns.

A photoreport from GurKhan's blog about the Artillery Factory number 9 in Ekaterinburg:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ca/2012/08/blog-post_6.html

This is how the single barrel Koalitsya-SV-OP looks :



I am guessing the -OP suffix for the name means something like "Odin Pushka" or single gun (I could be wrong). The lower photo is a MSTA-S.

So why do we need this expensive thing if we already have the modern MSTA-S which also has 1 barrel and can probably do 95% of what the Koalitsiya can?

In fact I found the whole prospect of bringing out a new design for a self-propelled howitzer dubious from the start. The MSTA-S was one of the last vehicles to enter service in the Soviet army and as such is a newer design than 3/4 of Russia's other military equipment - much of which I'm sure would be a greater priority to produce a replacement for.

The main reason to developed a new system would be due to the adoption of Armata. Perhaps the army figured the amount they can save on logistics is justification for the more expensive SPG.

The single barreled artillery seems like an odd choice, it's just as big as the double barreled platform. I thought they wanted something more compact?

Looks good, can't wait to see it in metal.

Here are few reasons for the Coalition rather than the MSTA-S:

1)Once the Armata platform goes into production, I believe the T-72/T-90 chassis will no longer be produced.
MSTA-S may be modern, but there may not be enough of them to equip the new brigades.

2) The 152 mm gun on the Coalition is a new design and will probably not fit/work in the MSTA turret. Instead of redisigning a whole new turret for the MSTA chassis, might as well go for the Armata chassis for unification, standarization and logistics simplification reasons. Note that the Koalitsya shells are different too, they will have almost double the range of MSTA's gun.

3)The navy is also adopting a 152 mm gun in a naval turret that will share a lot of parts/mechanism as the Koalitsya. So, more standarization which also brings down costs.

TheArmenian wrote:A photoreport from GurKhan's blog about the Artillery Factory number 9 in Ekaterinburg:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ca/2012/08/blog-post_6.html

Looks good and also relieved that this is going to be the future. I certainly did not like the twin barreled version which looked too much weight being lugged around and complicated.

flamming_python wrote:So why do we need this expensive thing if we already have the modern MSTA-S which also has 1 barrel and can probably do 95% of what the Koalitsiya can?

In fact I found the whole prospect of bringing out a new design for a self-propelled howitzer dubious from the start. The MSTA-S was one of the last vehicles to enter service in the Soviet army and as such is a newer design than 3/4 of Russia's other military equipment - much of which I'm sure would be a greater priority to produce a replacement for.

MSTA-S unfortunately skipped more than a decade and is still with a 39cal gun, where as the 52 cal MSTA-S exists only in the 155mm form which could not make any market for itself. Essentially the MSTA-S is still inside the 39-41Km range which Koliation is going to change for the better.

Now eagerly waiting to see the 152mm version of the Bereg and Naval gun, both of these are long due.

So why do we need this expensive thing if we already have the modern MSTA-S which also has 1 barrel and can probably do 95% of what the Koalitsiya can?

New gun, new ammo... MSTA firing standard shell to 25km is a fairly short range weapon in its class.

The Koalition is supposed to be able to fire standard ammo to 40km, and that ammo can be fitted with a new electronic fuse/nose fairling that uses GLONASS to guide the round to within 10m of its target day or night in any weather.

New ammo being developed for the new gun reportedly reaches 80km and can also be fitted with GLONASS guidance.

The point is that this gun is a joint project with the Army and Navy and will result in an excellent weapon for both parties.

In fact I found the whole prospect of bringing out a new design for a self-propelled howitzer dubious from the start. The MSTA-S was one of the last vehicles to enter service in the Soviet army and as such is a newer design than 3/4 of Russia's other military equipment - much of which I'm sure would be a greater priority to produce a replacement for.

MSTA is a very capable system, but when you are designing all new armour, plus when you get the opportunity to share costs with the Navy that will also greatly benefit from a new gun that is their largest calibre since the old Sverdlov class Battleships were retired, I think it is a good move.

MSTAs will likely remain in service for quite some time as Armata will not likely be produced in numbers to replace all existing T series tanks in service and reserve, let alone all the BMPs and BTRs and command vehicles and all the other vehicles it will be replacing before 2025, so there is plenty of scope for the MSTA to remain in service in upgraded T-72 units with BTRT and other T-72 based vehicles.

The single barreled artillery seems like an odd choice, it's just as big as the double barreled platform. I thought they wanted something more compact?

AFAIK there were dimension issues with the larger turret used with the twin gun arrangement, but I also suspect there would be weight issues as well.
I don't know, but rather suspect that removing one gun and its support structure and stabilisation system and its dual belt feed autoloader would free up a lot of weight and space for extra ammo and also a significant weight and size reduction.

Remember in terms of costs these were being shared with the Navy too, so it might be the cheapest artillery piece in the Army from a development standpoint...

Looks good, can't wait to see it in metal.

Totally agree... I wonder what sort of rate of fire they can acheive... Russian Naval guns generally have a high rate of fire...

Now eagerly waiting to see the 152mm version of the Bereg and Naval gun, both of these are long due.

It is nice to see standardisation being applied where it is sensible and will save money while improving performance.

I think 80km range guided 152mm artillery shells will be a significant step up from the 20-23km range 130mm shells the Bereg fires as standard.

The larger shells should result in more potential for terminal guidance options...

The 152mm Bereg will much better compliment the Kh-35 or Onyx missile batteries they operate with.

Garry,

Is there any more info on the 152mm rounds and guns, both naval and land based artillery?

I think I read about the new ammo here on this forum actually.

I think it was in a thread created by Andy-UA... I will have a look.

Oops... Andy-Wiz on this forum...

Out of curiosity, is the twin gun system on the Coalition prototypes feasable on any other system? Perhaps twin 125mms or 57mm's mounted on the Kurganets or Armatas?

It is feasible of course, but the real question is not can you do it, but is it worth doing.

As the Australian makers of Metal Storm have found... rate of fire is critical really only in two or three applications.

For artillery it is important because after the first round has hit your soft targets start trying to take cover... and once they are in cover you pretty much need a direct hit to do real damage.

That is why rocket artillery is popular... lots of range, and with a volley launch there is much less time to take cover. For chem or bio weapons it builds up concentrations rapidly, which makes it more lethal.

For air defence rate of fire is important too.

The general problem for artillery is weight, and when that is not a problem like at sea you will see two or three or more guns in a single turret.

For use against aircraft then you also see multiple barrel arrangements like twin barrel Gast action weapons and of course the multiple barrel Gatling guns.

Vehicles with multiple guns are generally anti aircraft guns like the Soviet ZSU-57-2 and the US Duster with twin 40mm guns.

In the case of the BMPT the twin gun mount is to increase rate of fire to compensate for the small round in ground use and to make it more effective in use against aerial targets.

There is also a mortar called AMOS or something that uses a twin barrel system, but otherwise it is very old vehicles when armour piercing ammo was small calibre stuff so a large calibre HE round was needed as well.

At the end of the day when it comes down to it you wont see a dual gun tank because of the size and weight of the gun doesn't justify itself in terms of performance... it is better to have a light gun arrangement with better stabilisation and more ammo and sighting and aiming equipment to make sure a second shot is not needed.

I liked the 2 barrel system, since logistically, it combined the power of 2 vehicles into one vehicle, maintaining the same volume of fire. With the removal of the crew from Armata turrets, it would be interesting to see them utilisng the internal volume possibities to utilise perhaps a vertical or horizontal layout.

Another thing i liked about the 2 barrel system was increased chance of hit probability, as the Koalitsiya video showed i think that it could fire 2 rounds at once, which would prove effective in situations where expensive Krasnopol shells are unavailable and normal rounds are abundant.

They have guidance kits that replace the fuse of standard rounds.

The US equivalent is Excaliber, but the Russian version is 40 times cheaper.

It is a fuse with control surfaces with a Glonass receiver to guide the shell onto targets in 3D space.

Basically you select a target and calculate its coordinates and then feed those coordinates to the shell as it is loaded via a fuse setting machine (much like the ANIET system).

Firing the shell results in the shell "flying" to the target. CEP is something like 10m.

AFAIK the reason the two gun Koalition had such a huge turret was the requirement for a dual feed mechanism. This didn't make it shoot faster... it meant you could load two different types of ammo and select one or the other to be rammed to fire.

Removing one barrel greatly reduces weight and complication and cost. These vehicles will likely be able to vary the propellent and the angle and likely fire 4-5 shots and have all those rounds hitting at one time.

With 6 vehicles in a unit there is no need for two barrels per vehicle.

Using guided shells is the best way to increase hit probability. Firing two shots increases the damage, but does not necessarily increase kill probability.

Here it is in both tracked and wheeled versions.
Range is said to be 70 km.
Video:
http://ria.ru/arms_mm/20121008/769372259.html

Stillshots: