2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm

And more.

How about Russia sending a dozen of these to Syria for some real field trials....Russian units can man those units. There is nothing better than having it in combat condition.

Militarov wrote:Seems like suspension and other components regarding stability and dampening are dealing with recoil alot better than they used to on MSTA-S.

The difference probably is the lower (& more centered) CG of system due to the unmanned turret and the 7th road wheel among others.

Dima wrote:

Militarov wrote:Seems like suspension and other components regarding stability and dampening are dealing with recoil alot better than they used to on MSTA-S.

The difference probably is the lower (& more centered) CG of system due to the unmanned turret and the 7th road wheel among others.

I belive Koalistia is still on modified T90S platform, i see only 6 road wheels. But yeah CG is probably better positioned now compared to MSTA.

Militarov wrote:

Dima wrote:

Militarov wrote:Seems like suspension and other components regarding stability and dampening are dealing with recoil alot better than they used to on MSTA-S.

The difference probably is the lower (& more centered) CG of system due to the unmanned turret and the 7th road wheel among others.

I belive Koalistia is still on modified T90S platform, i see only 6 road wheels. But yeah CG is probably better positioned now compared to MSTA.

The current prototypes are on a modified T-90 platform which is confirmed in the videos. Apparently they chose it because they wanted an already tested platform although they plan to mount it on the Armata platform later on.....have to say it looks impressive...real beast

Cyberspec wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Dima wrote:

Militarov wrote:Seems like suspension and other components regarding stability and dampening are dealing with recoil alot better than they used to on MSTA-S.

The difference probably is the lower (& more centered) CG of system due to the unmanned turret and the 7th road wheel among others.

I belive Koalistia is still on modified T90S platform, i see only 6 road wheels. But yeah CG is probably better positioned now compared to MSTA.

The current prototypes are on a modified T-90 platform which is confirmed in the videos. Apparently they chose it because they wanted an already tested platform although they plan to mount it on the Armata platform later on.....have to say it looks impressive...real beast

Probably multiple reasons. Testing turret and subsystems on already fairly proven platform and they probably did not have time to make another 10 or what was the number of Armata hulls. Yeah i am aware in future it will be on Armata hull. It looks quite good, i am actually alot more interested in its ammunition, some countries are nearing or even already fielded impressive howtizer ammunition, some reaching over 100km even. Naturally rocket assisted, gas generators and similar solutions.

Cool, they added the radar/datalink antennas for the new drag fuses.

Damn TV Zvezda, quit posting those mouthwatering teasers about Koalitsiya and release the whole damn program already

Zivo wrote:Cool, they added the radar/datalink antennas for the new drag fuses.

I assume you mean those two box-like additions on the front of the turret? I am a neophyte when it comes to artillery, so what sort of capabilities would these add? What are the drag fuzes?

Acheron wrote:Damn TV Zvezda, quit posting those mouthwatering teasers about Koalitsiya and release the whole damn program already

Zivo wrote:Cool, they added the radar/datalink antennas for the new drag fuses.

I assume you mean those two box-like additions on the front of the turret? I am a neophyte when it comes to artillery, so what sort of capabilities would these add? What are the drag fuzes?

A while ago I wrote a few posts on the subject; I have included the main post in the following.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The key points about the design in the posted image are as follow.

1- Standard artillery projectiles are laterally very accurate but not in range. If you can bring the range error to the same level as the lateral error, the accuracy would surpass the accuracy of many of the guided round types; the controlled speed brakes on this design achieve this goal.

2- Standard artillery projectiles are "over-stabilized" for most of the latter part of their trajectory, reducing accuracy, range, and terminal effects. The spin brakes on this projectile increase accuracy, range, and terminal effects by despinning the projectile starting at the optimal moment for the despinning to commence. The picture of the correction module may be a variant that doesn't have the despin feature; however the graphics show one of the variants with this feature.

3- All these functionalities are contained in a module that replaces a standard fuse on a standard round.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Acheron wrote:Damn TV Zvezda, quit posting those mouthwatering teasers about Koalitsiya and release the whole damn program already

Zivo wrote:Cool, they added the radar/datalink antennas for the new drag fuses.

I assume you mean those two box-like additions on the front of the turret? I am a neophyte when it comes to artillery, so what sort of capabilities would these add? What are the drag fuzes?

A while ago I wrote a few posts on the subject; I have included the main post in the following.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:The key points about the design in the posted image are as follow.

1- Standard artillery projectiles are laterally very accurate but not in range. If you can bring the range error to the same level as the lateral error, the accuracy would surpass the accuracy of many of the guided round types; the controlled speed brakes on this design achieve this goal.

2- Standard artillery projectiles are "over-stabilized" for most of the latter part of their trajectory, reducing accuracy, range, and terminal effects. The spin brakes on this projectile increase accuracy, range, and terminal effects by despinning the projectile starting at the optimal moment for the despinning to commence. The picture of the correction module may be a variant that doesn't have the despin feature; however the graphics show one of the variants with this feature.

3- All these functionalities are contained in a module that replaces a standard fuse on a standard round.

Thanks for that. I do remember watching a military program where it was revealed that for ballistic munitions range errors typically dominate azimuthal errors resulting in an elliptical impact distribution.
The lateral error is decreased by imparting angular momentum to the projectile (the projectile effectively becomes a "gyroscope"), while the range error is primarily caused by the variations in muzzle velocity (due to variations in propellant properties and burn times).

However, what I do not understand is how reducing the spin of the projectile at a certain point in its trajectory will decrease the range error. Also, if you reduce the spin via drag as shown in picture, you will effectively decrease the range of the projectile and also increase the azimuthal error due to larger impact of atmospheric effects on the now lesser spin-stabilized projectile. If the radio-triggered drag fuze projectile works as advertised, this will mean that it will have less range and its impact probability will be circularised, with an increase of lateral error and a decrease of range error. I still don't understand how the range error can be mitigated solely with the radio-triggered drag fuze.
The only way in which I can foresee this happening is if this despinning is somehow coupled to some other guidance method+control surfaces.

Acheron wrote:
Thanks for that. I do remember watching a military program where it was revealed that for ballistic munitions range errors typically dominate azimuthal errors resulting in an elliptical impact distribution.
The lateral error is decreased by imparting angular momentum to the projectile (the projectile effectively becomes a "gyroscope"), while the range error is primarily caused by the variations in muzzle velocity (due to variations in propellant properties and burn times).

However, what I do not understand is how reducing the spin of the projectile at a certain point in its trajectory will decrease the range error. Also, if you reduce the spin via drag as shown in picture, you will effectively decrease the range of the projectile and also increase the azimuthal error due to larger impact of atmospheric effects on the now lesser spin-stabilized projectile. If the radio-triggered drag fuze projectile works as advertised, this will mean that it will have less range and its impact probability will be circularised, with an increase of lateral error and a decrease of range error. I still don't understand how the range error can be mitigated solely with the radio-triggered drag fuze.
The only way in which I can foresee this happening is if this despinning is somehow coupled to some other guidance method+control surfaces.

Here is my explanation.

The reason that this works is due to the fact that the projectiles intended for this correction technique are those types of projectiles, which under nondestabilizing flow conditions, are aerodynamically stable, e.g., intended for a projectile with suitable mass and area distributions.

The aerodynamic destabilizing effect of the spin-brakes would not be an issue, because I think the spin-brakes will optimally get ejected after they have despun the projectile to an optimal spin rate.

The reason for a need to spin these projectiles to begin with is that any gun projectile has to deal with destabilizing flow conditions as it leaves the muzzle, because at that stage the propulsion gasses flow from the tail to the tip of the projectile, tending to tip the projectile over. Actually the more aerodynamically stable a projectile (like a mortar bomb), the more pronounced this effect would be. The massive spin resolves this problem, but then it becomes part of another problem.

The artillery projectile is fired at a positive angle of elevation; let's say a 45° angle of elevation. As the trajectory flattens and then becomes descending, the spin stabilization causes the projectile to have a positive angle of attack, which is draggy and error-inducing. By removing the extra spin, the projectile becomes more accurate and can attain a longer range.

The speed-brakes get deployed based on the actual measurement of the trajectory (or just components of projectile velocity); this reduces the range error. Of course, the projectile is intentionally overshot slightly, with the speed-brakes reducing the range to achieve the desired point of impact.

There is a more optimal approach that I am sure Russia uses in some of its weapon systems, where deployable tail-fin/spin-brakes are used; however, this technique is not possible by just replacing a nose fuse.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:...

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
1- ...

2- ... The picture of the correction module may be a variant that doesn't have the despin feature; however the graphics show one of the variants with this feature.

3- ...

It maybe that the version in the picture, the one without the spin brake feature, is intended for projectiles that have aerodynamic instablility modes (like most artillery projectiles), while the one in the graphic, the one with the spin brake, is intended for those types of projectiles, which under nondestabilizing flow conditions, are aerodynamically stable, e.g., intended for projectiles with suitable mass and area distributions (possibly one stabilized with a stabilizing boat-tail attachment as the one that is possibly shown in the graphic here, or am I seeing too much in the graphic shown).

Just watched the doc on Koalitsiya, super impressed with the cleaning system and barrel health inspection system.

It's always interesting to see how far designers go to shave off that bit of time, from cleaning, to loading, to crew numbers, it all adds together.

All that remains is for it to be put on Armata, hope there isn't anything seriously wrong that is preventing that, or MOD doesn't cheap out and instead just put it on the T-90 chassis, that would be disappointing.

I wonder if there are plans for it to be tested in Syria, we already know that Russian arty is present in Syria. Would be nice if it could get tested in combat conditions right after its induction, I am sure that its systems would be something of a game changer on the battlefield.

The 2s35 would change nothing in syria, honestly... 2s3M1 are sufficient over there.

But just for testing, a battery of 4, hell yeah !

The crooks won't know what hit them, 60km away, at 16rpm x4... That'll leave a mark.

But for the long-term, wearing down work, usual 152mm is far better and cheaper.

By the way, here are some ridiculous comments made by the infamous "Damian" polish guy on tank-net (used to be on MP and also writes on indiadefense, chinadefense, pakidefense forums...)... He is n°1 c*ckgobbler of US tech and thinks polish military industries are more developped than Russians... LMAO.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&page=237


"There's so much hype about 2S35, but in the end, it's nothing special about it... XM2001 done this, and probably more and better 15 years ago when first SPH was delivered for tests.
Same with T-14, when I read about all that automation and stuff... nothing special, for example it's autoloader compared to Meggitt TTB autoloader that was made in the 80's, so around 35 years ago, and still far more impressive in capabilities."

+

"I would be very carefull with official Russian statements, they like to overhype their equipment, and in reality it's not as good as they want us to believe in."

Sure, as opposed to polish statements that are totally credible... I wonder if this guy ever had an account here... Somehow he tends to defend soviet/russian tech when some really retarded fools spit on them, but on the other hand, he delivers messages like those above all too often..

Isn't he polish? He has to play the game of balancing on a very fine line, being slavic and being pro-western.

About Koalitsiya, I did say that it would be sort of a gamechanger, although not really.

The increase ROF, Precision, Range, and other sorts of exotic ammunition would certainly help in giving much better flexibility to the air force, not having to waste time bombing outside their own base and leaving it to the artillery.

I love how he says that XM2001 managed to do all of this, and yet one thing that it will never be able to do is get into service. That and 2S35's superiority is rather obvious.

He does have an account here, never came back after his showdown with Mindstorm in some tank thread about the armor thickness of a leopard.

LOL Mindstorm ran Damien and his boyfriend Militarypasta out of town, and after that psychological beatdown those two lovers never posted here again LMAO!!! BTW why does Militarypasta follow Damien like a tail? Militarypasta is either Damien's 2nd account, or they're 'very close' friends.

cracker wrote:The 2s35 would change nothing in syria, honestly... 2s3M1 are sufficient over there.

But just for testing, a battery of 4, hell yeah !

The crooks won't know what hit them, 60km away, at 16rpm x4... That'll leave a mark.

But for the long-term, wearing down work, usual 152mm is far better and cheaper.

By the way, here are some ridiculous comments made by the infamous "Damian" polish guy on tank-net (used to be on MP and also writes on indiadefense, chinadefense, pakidefense forums...)... He is n°1 c*ckgobbler of US tech and thinks polish military industries are more developped than Russians... LMAO.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&page=237


"There's so much hype about 2S35, but in the end, it's nothing special about it... XM2001 done this, and probably more and better 15 years ago when first SPH was delivered for tests.
Same with T-14, when I read about all that automation and stuff... nothing special, for example it's autoloader compared to Meggitt TTB autoloader that was made in the 80's, so around 35 years ago, and still far more impressive in capabilities."

+

"I would be very carefull with official Russian statements, they like to overhype their equipment, and in reality it's not as good as they want us to believe in."

Sure, as opposed to polish statements that are totally credible... I wonder if this guy ever had an account here...  Somehow he tends to defend soviet/russian tech when some really retarded fools spit on them, but on the other hand, he delivers messages like those above all too often..

Don't even need to click on the link i already know which Abramszky fanboy posted that garbage. His lies have very short legs the Armor inspector himself who saw the composition of Leopard 2 tanks. Tells you enough about that guy from his claims.

x_54_u43 wrote:Isn't he polish? He has to play the game of balancing on a very fine line, being slavic and being pro-western.

About Koalitsiya, I did say that it would be sort of a gamechanger, although not really.

The increase ROF, Precision, Range, and other sorts of exotic ammunition would certainly help in giving much better flexibility to the air force, not having to waste time bombing outside their own base and leaving it to the artillery.

I love how he says that XM2001 managed to do all of this, and yet one thing that it will never be able to do is get into service. That and 2S35's superiority is rather obvious.

He does have an account here, never came back after his showdown with Mindstorm in some tank thread about the armor thickness of a leopard.

He does not ballance anything he is one of the sorts of poles that reject being slavic and praises everything murican due the hardcore propaganda that is spewed in Poland. No wonder he is not here he  usually only goes where fanboyism is one sided to his favor.

Militarypasta is either Damien's 2nd account, or they're 'very close' friends

Alter Ego is what most asume due the very fact that they are always following each other to butter their own salmons and faking a "majority" complex in discussions.

Can you guys post that discussion were he gets wrecked?

sepheronx wrote:Can you guys post that discussion were he gets wrecked?

Enjoy the show here it starts.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1368p495-first-photos-of-t-95-and-t-90am#13137

i don't really understand how works the propellant selection thing... And they say it's a new propelant that burns more efficiently, right? (microwave test)

i love how the 2S35 brings a few support vehicles dedicated to him, it's about time the whole russian army gets modernised, really great to see.

I think this artillery system will remain unmatched for several decades.

cracker wrote:i don't really understand how works the propellant selection thing... And they say it's a new propelant that burns more efficiently, right? (microwave test)

i love how the 2S35 brings a few support vehicles dedicated to him, it's about time the whole russian army gets modernised, really great to see.

I think this artillery system will remain unmatched for several decades.

Koalitsiya uses a microwave initiated gun propellant. No ignition train is required.

"There's so much hype about 2S35, but in the end, it's nothing special about it... XM2001 done this, and probably more and better 15 years ago when first SPH was delivered for tests."



Oh ,please

A technically very badly conceived......and not surprisingly never realized......."dinosaur" system even only named in the same phrase with Коалиция-СВ, ostensibly what will represent, by a very far edge, the most advanced and efficient self propelled artillery at world for the next two or three decades at least, is madness in itself.

Practically do not exist a single cardinal parameter ,for not say the features of Коалиция-СВ without even a true corresponding anywhere abroad, where XM2001 could remain even in the same league with Коалиция-СВ.

If any it show one more time what level of low level impudence can reach PR (or money....) influenced people, even more when keeping a deeply buried grudge and masked inferiority complex, in defending gold plated powerpoint garbage systems.