Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Because without guided shells the KS-19s shot to kill ratio is very poor, you will fire about 8,000 rounds for each hit on a bomber sized target.

BTW you don't need AHEAD type rounds for 100mm guns, proximity fuses are much more effective in that regard.

The main problem is that when a shell is fired it is on a fixed trajectory from the muzzle of the gun so in the 10-15 seconds it takes that shell to reach the target area any variation in the targets movement will result in a miss... any inaccuracy in the tracking, and cross wind through various layers of atmosphere...

Guns in this regard are totally obsolete unless the velocity can be greatly inceased (ie EM guns with muzzle velocities of 5km/s or more)

With that logic, against 30K feet targets KS-19 should be only a 'sky denial' value at average, at best it might score a kill or two. May be cluster shells breaking and spreading wide into pieces and then exploding might increase a probability of hit.

However, will a modified or upgraded guided KS-19 vrs Jdams flying at subsonic speeds and in the proximity of 3-5 Kms offer little more potentials? Iran has modfied KS-19 and boast of precision hits by Safir, but then ME countries like to thump their chests even before production lines are in place.

Can a KS-19 type platform be first used to lobby an Igla at say 20K feet and then manpad fires in and does its 15K feet chasing? Similar to your idea of UCAVs armed with Iglas

GW1, Kosovo should not be considered given today's technology.

Today technology?

Lybia conflict has nothing to do with today technology (the most "successful" weapon employed against ground vehicles was a....redesigned AGM-114 Hellfire ), it instead had anything to do with an internal insurrection -obviously guided and aided by foreign forces- in a third world nation with a very limited military structure mostly more than 35 years old ,several cities risen against the government with theirs linked military assets and strategical positions present,lost without that even a battle happening.
No military structure of any nation can win a war against its own people.
For example, insurrecting people in the French revolution was ,under a purely military value, immensely less powerful than French Army but that don't prevented the Nation established structure to collapse ,growing military defections ,loss of defensive deepness and strategic positions are enemies and progressive disintegration of all the civilian assets supporting the same military structure's existence are enemy far, far, far more dangerous than even an invasion by part of militarily superior enemy forces (as well proved in any pasted conflict)

Libya Conflict most of the damage to heavy machines was done by NATO bombs.

Oh True? Well therefore i am all ears and very impatient to know those impressive figures




Victor7 leave out of your mind those odd ideas on how to defend against Air Forces and try to ask to yourself ther question that any serious analyst ask to itself 24/24 any day of the week 12 months at year : in what way is possible to defend Air Forces in theirs classical roles from complete obliteration (both against very advanced IAD or for the effect of destruction of theirs prerequisite structures) in a modern conflict against an advanced enemy ?
In fact today, Air Forces, in a full scale war against a very strong opponent, would result ,by a very long margin, the branch of Armed Forces more frail and vulnerable .
Theirs high "popularity" in the wars of last 30 years has been dictated merely by the scale of those conflict (regional at best),by the level of sofistication of the enemy involved (small ,third world nations, devoid of any offensive and defensive weapons capable to render this type of approach not simply wrong but even suicide) and ,above all, by the political acceptability (Attack by air, against those inferior opponents, generate very low or even null friendly losses ,an element that render a military intervention politically acceptable by part of pubblic opinion on the nations proposing it and even a good internal "promo" for the Government figures ; moreover the lack of a direct "invasion" of the territory of a foreign sovereign state is considered in the international diplomatic chessboard much more politically acceptable).
The problem is that almost any

Air Forces are a very ,very ineffcient way to deliver military power . In the same time window of an Air Operation ,Ground Forces for the same value deliver not some dozen...not some hundreds .....,but some thousands of times more destructive power at a little fraction of the costs and them are also virtually immune to those type of early "beheading attacks" capable ,conversely, to completely cripple or rule out Air Forces in a modern war.

No military structure of any nation can win a war against its own people.

Is that why in one month Gaddafi's forces ran up all the way from Tripoli and were on the outer suburbs of Benghazi ready to take it in few days of time. Then what happened? NATO bombing started Then what happened? G's forces conducted a stiff retreat and by August, Tripoli was in the hands of the rebels. So who made the difference? We all know the answer, so no point in argument.

Air Forces are a very ,very ineffcient way to deliver military power .

Using precision guided munitions, Air Forces can take out tanks, artillery, BMDs and then what is left? Try taking a city without these big machines. Not happening easily.

You logic of heavily depleted, sanctioned and weakened Third World forces getting decimated by US..........has been accepted before. So no differences there. However, quality and quantity of USAF is very large. Other than Russia, no nation on this earth would be able stand and repel USAF beat down. Even main NATO allies like UK, France ran out of ammo against Libya and US ended up leading from behind by supplying weapons, air fueling, intelligence etc.

One place I read that Israel Air Force is confident of destroying main tank divisions of Syrian Army in 3 days using air assets. Going by the past performances of IsAF, I would not throw a denial or rebuttal to those claims.

Again here are the main tasks cut out for the RuAF:

a) Detect, Track and Kill F22s/F35s at a distance of 400 Kms or more in a hostile jamming environment.

b) For IRST capabilities, an ability to DTK, both legacy and stealth planes and missiles at atleast 150 kms.

c) Develop MANPADs that can reach 40K Feet and are resistant to jamming and diversionary tactics like flares etc.

d) Develop a CIWS type defense system using bullets, bombs or cheap missiles against JDAM/JSOW/SDB/LGB etc. within an envelop of 5 km, horizontal and vertical horizons. This system has to have multiple target tracking and engaging capability and should be resistant to jamming in addition to having IRST and Optical DTK capabilities. This system has to be inexpensive as it is going after JDAMs not the planes launching them. This will allow for wide range uses all round.

Is that why in one month Gaddafi's forces ran up all the way from Tripoli and were on the outer suburbs of Benghazi ready to take it in few days of time.

That is the motivation for which a "revolution" initially supported by a very small fraction and minority of the Libyan population (and obviously triggered and attentively guided by foreign forces) was in need of the intervention of NATO Coalition to succeed ; naturally ,in short time, became also very clear that a simple no-fly-zone too wouldn't have allowed the "insurrection" to reach the aim ,so a massive and protracted employement of cruise missiles and bombardments against Libyan major national assets was necessary to let the rebels to gain the momentum (in particular inducing a progressively greater percentage of Libyan population and military operative to desert or pass openly toward the side of theirs revolutionary countrymans).

This type of miserable ,engineered operations for civil wars (including a coverage simply criminal in majority of the so called free media ) against nations completely uncapable to defend themselves ,capitalizing the tensions and the partial interests and aims of theirs tribal and faction components to effectively disintegrate them, represent the most mean frontier of modern imperialist politic aimed at gain access to critical energy sources or at change the political geography in areas not "alligned" to western interests.

Using precision guided munitions, Air Forces can take out tanks, artillery, BMDs and then what is left? Try taking a city without these big machines. Not happening easily.

Now THIS is a perfect example of what i mean when a i say that an immense amount of confusion reign sovereign in those subjects.

1) Air Forces in ANY PASTED conflict ,in spite of heavenly environments (obviously impossibel to be found in a conflict against an advanced opponent where the environment in the air become from difficult to literally hellish) a ridiculous numerical ,technical and training advantage , have always failed by a very long margin to inflict any signbificative damages to enemy ground forces.

2) If we talk of damages to infrastructures the pictures become even more unbalanced.
For render the thing absolutely clear i will take as example just the actual situation in Sirya, if ,instead to be a Syrian city full of Syrian people Homs would be an enemy city in enemy territory it would have been flattened in a matter of hours by heavy artillery.
NATO aircraft coming from Decimomannu AB or Istres AB or Gioia del Colle AB in Libyan conflict to conduct theirs attack must : refuel ,mount the very limited ...and costly...amount of ordnances that is possible to carry in the air (fighting for hundreds of kilometers against a thing called gravity force) come in the area after some time some hundreds of kilometers far, guided by E-3 and with support of jammer (aircraft with same needs of those involved in the attacks), deliver the bomb/missile on the targets and return to theirs air base hundreds of kilometers far,likely after an in-flight refuelling .
Here them will receive technical maintenance ,refuel , mount other costly ordnances ,execute a turn-over of the pilots and a new mission can finally be executed (covering another time hundreds of kilometers both in the outward and the homeward voyage.
A pair of battallions of artillery and tanks coming in a particular area can station here and go on over and over, all the day long, at selectively destroy a fixed or mobile target after the other in a very small fraction of the time required to a much ,much greater amount of aircraft to obtain the same result .
Those two battallions in a single day (as proved in Gulf Wars) can obtain, at a tiny fraction of the cost of an Air campaign, the same military results that Air Force can obtain in a month .

The difference is in the doctrine to fight. West prefers air force to minimize losses on its side. Russia and China probably prefer the ground based offensives and more so because they like to keep the costs under control.

Regarding Libya, I still stick to the fact that NATO bombing was the main factor behind the reversal of tides. It was very obvious. Arguments have no end.

GarryB wrote:Because without guided shells the KS-19s shot to kill ratio is very poor, you will fire about 8,000 rounds for each hit on a bomber sized target.

BTW you don't need AHEAD type rounds for 100mm guns, proximity fuses are much more effective in that regard.

The main problem is that when a shell is fired it is on a fixed trajectory from the muzzle of the gun so in the 10-15 seconds it takes that shell to reach the target area any variation in the targets movement will result in a miss... any inaccuracy in the tracking, and cross wind through various layers of atmosphere...

Guns in this regard are totally obsolete unless the velocity can be greatly inceased (ie EM guns with muzzle velocities of 5km/s or more)

Depend of FCS system battery have. Old SON-9 system work only in radar mode, later it is modified with TV backup, but old analogue ballistic computer still need radar data to calculate firing parameters. Modern FCS systems, which also have day/night optical system with laser range finder could work in passive mode without radar and ballistic computer still could calculate firing parameters for gun battery. Iran connect its KS-19 batteries with FCS system like Skyguard, which have digital ballistic computer and day/night optical channel with laser range finder, so battery capabilities to hit target with first round without guiding rounds is greatly improved comparing to old ones. For firing on missiles and bombs, which don't do a lot of maneuvers in the sky, this is still quite effective weapon. Do't forget, ships still have large cal. guns, which are also used in air defense role.

medo wrote:

GarryB wrote:Because without guided shells the KS-19s shot to kill ratio is very poor, you will fire about 8,000 rounds for each hit on a bomber sized target.

BTW you don't need AHEAD type rounds for 100mm guns, proximity fuses are much more effective in that regard.

The main problem is that when a shell is fired it is on a fixed trajectory from the muzzle of the gun so in the 10-15 seconds it takes that shell to reach the target area any variation in the targets movement will result in a miss... any inaccuracy in the tracking, and cross wind through various layers of atmosphere...

Guns in this regard are totally obsolete unless the velocity can be greatly inceased (ie EM guns with muzzle velocities of 5km/s or more)

Depend of FCS system battery have. Old SON-9 system work only in radar mode, later it is modified with TV backup, but old analogue ballistic computer still need radar data to calculate firing parameters. Modern FCS systems, which also have day/night optical system with laser range finder could work in passive mode without radar and ballistic computer still could calculate firing parameters for gun battery. Iran connect its KS-19 batteries with FCS system like Skyguard, which have digital ballistic computer and day/night optical channel with laser range finder, so battery capabilities to hit target with first round without guiding rounds is greatly improved comparing to old ones. For firing on missiles and bombs, which don't do a lot of maneuvers in the sky, this is still quite effective weapon. Do't forget, ships still have large cal. guns, which are also used in air defense role.

I sometimes think that the good old WWII style heavy flak guns will one day make a comeback.
With the advances in radar location, fire control, shell technology etc, why not fire a large number of 100mm shells into the general area where a high flying aircraft is located and fill that part of the sky with shrapnel?

A six gun battery can input data from any search radar in the air defence network into a simple fire control computer that will constantly calculate (and update) where a target will be and come up with a firing solution. Shoot a half dozen shells at that point of the sky and let them disperse their deadly shrapnel. Reload and do the same again...
Because it won't have it's own search and fire control radars, this kind of low-tech ambush battery against mid and high level flying enemy aircraft will be virtually immune against SEAD missions, ARM strikes and jamming.

Because it won't have it's own search and fire control radars, this kind of low-tech ambush battery against mid and high level flying enemy aircraft will be virtually immune against SEAD missions, ARM strikes and jamming.

Can the cost of such a system can be limited to $1 to 2M. Russia might not be much willing to make such an item because it can compete with Tor/Buk/Pantsir/Tungaska etc. However, in defense industry most of the profit margins are 5% or around, so it would not matter if selling 6 Pantsirs for $90M or 45 KS-19 type system for same $90M amount. I bet the demand for the KS-19 type should be much higher, given the low cost of operations and low cost per kill of Plane or Jdams type entries in the envelop of the radar.

The difference is in the doctrine to fight. West prefers air force to minimize losses on its side. Russia and China probably prefer the ground based offensives and more so because they like to keep the costs under control.

Not victor7, the motivation is much more simple and direct : Ground forces are obviously capable to deliver, in the same time window, thousand of times the "punch" delivered by Air Forces AND at a small fraction of the cost.

Naturally ,for the public opinion of the nation executing the mission, if in the Ground Campaign 90 KIA -Killed In Action -are suffered while in the Air Campaign the KIA are zero ,the second option will appear always the more desiderable ....even if the former option would in reality allow to the nation to resolve the conflict in only three-four days and a cost of 350-400 millions of dollars while the latter will require three-four months and expenses in the order of 4-5 billions of dollars
Do you know, those type of decisions are taken by politicians and for them the FIRST concern is always public opinion adhesion and support to the operation,thinking to a possible reelection

Regarding Libya, I still stick to the fact that NATO bombing was the main factor behind the reversal of tides. It was very obvious.

The only thing obvious for me is that you have put the enphsasis on the wrong word in the meaning of your statement .

"the fact that NATO bombing was the main factor behind the reversal of tides. "



Clear ? The central element was that it was an intervention of....N A T O....against a third world enemy completely incapable to defend itself.
Do you have even a pale idea of how many HOURS ....clear ? not months or days ,but hours !!....would have been required to NATO, carrying out only a full ground operation (with M1A2 Sep and Challenger2 MBTs heavy brigades ,Striker brigades, MLRS and light and heavy and artillery divisions, NATO motorized infantry brigades and special forces attacks) to conquer Tripoli and other major western Libyan cities ? . Moreover the costs of a similar operation would have been a very tiny fraction of the Air force option , the only disadvantage of a similar approach are .obviously not linked to military effciency but only to political convenience (the 80-100 deaths of a simialr ground operation would have a much greater impact on public opinion and the "invasion" of the territory of another sovereign nation would be much difficult to be accepted on the Unites Nation political level, simple like that).

Naturally in a large scale conventional war against a major enemy the first option would be not only totally inefficient and unsustainable on the long but even self-defeating; a single stand-off ballistic/cruise missile attack against airfields not protected by a very strong multi-layered IAD, would render in a matter of minutes/hours the Air Force a...silent smoking option.

Ground Forces are not only immensely more resilient but also not vulnerable to those type of "beheading" stand-off attacks.

a cost of 350-400 millions of dollars while the latter will require three-four months and expenses in the order of 4-5 billions of dollars

The whole six month Libya operation cost NATO $1B to $1.5B tops. These were also not one single theater but several cities one at a time.

ut hours !!....would have been required to NATO, carrying out only a full ground operation

I would agree to that which brings me to previous quote of doctrine of fighting. West does not like to lose men and extra costs incurred in war fighting is considered a consumption boost to the defense industry which creates more jobs and fuels further economic consumption. Also agree to political aspect of air war where causalities if any against a defenseless third world nation are very few. There is however also a fear factor of US/NATO bombing from air. A practical person would stop fighting and start looking to run to a place which has peace and protection. This did happen to some extent in Libya, where some soldiers not only deserted, they infact joined the rebels.

However, do not discount the air superiority factor between even two balanced opponents. Once the big equipment is gone there is little to fight for and with.

Russian navy use very modern 100 mm AA gun A-190, but I doubt ground forces will again start producing 100 mm cal. gun KS-19. It is towed gun and it work only stationary. More real could be modernized S-60 57 mm AA gun, which was already tested in modernized PT-76 swimming light tank. It already have autoloader, stabilization and modern FCS with ballistic computer. With modified FCS for AA role, data link and future laser guided rounds could become capable air defense system, specially against helicopters. But to fire on bombs and missiles it need tracking radar for quicker lock on and tracking.

Iran is different story, it produce both Oerlikon 35 mm AA gun together with Skyguard FCS and modified KS-19, which, as I know, is also connected on Skyguard FCS. Combination of both guns could give Iranian air defense high altitude capabilities with KS-19 top reach high flying UAVs, while Oerlikons will fire on incoming bombs and missiles. SAMs will in that way more concentrate on enemy airplanes. Gun rounds are cheaper than missiles and are available in larger amounts than missiles. Although there was a lot of jokes on Iranian account for producing guns, it was not so stupid decision as it could seems on the first sight. Guns in compination with FCS as Skyguard are the same effective when they work in radar mode or when they work in passive optical mode. Only important factor is, than when guns work in passive optical mode they are absolutely immune on jamming and electronic warfare and this is very important when you have to deal with US or Israeli air force.

Guns and missiles are not in competition, but supplement each other. Russia have two combined systems, Tunguska and Pantsir, which have both missiles and two twin 30 mm guns.

victor7 wrote:Again here are the main tasks cut out for the RuAF:

a) Detect, Track and Kill F22s/F35s at a distance of 400 Kms or more in a hostile jamming environment.

b) For IRST capabilities, an ability to DTK, both legacy and stealth planes and missiles at atleast 150 kms.

c) Develop MANPADs that can reach 40K Feet and are resistant to jamming and diversionary tactics like flares etc.

d) Develop a CIWS type defense system using bullets, bombs or cheap missiles against JDAM/JSOW/SDB/LGB etc. within an envelop of 5 km, horizontal and vertical horizons. This system has to have multiple target tracking and engaging capability and should be resistant to jamming in addition to having IRST and Optical DTK capabilities. This system has to be inexpensive as it is going after JDAMs not the planes launching them. This will allow for wide range uses all round.

a) The have radars like Nebo-U, Nebo-SVU, Nebo-M, ELINT systems like Kolchuga, etc.

b) This is very long distance for IRST, maybe could be reached after a decade.

c) MANPADS now are just fine, there are other systems to reach that altitude. Air defense always work in cluster.

d) There are already Tor-M2 and Pantsir-S1 for this job.

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/ear.htm#wall

Does this WWII tech in combination with current sensors and FCS offer any hope to DTK an aircraft or group of them.

With that logic, against 30K feet targets KS-19 should be only a 'sky denial' value at average, at best it might score a kill or two. May be cluster shells breaking and spreading wide into pieces and then exploding might increase a probability of hit.

You and your cluster shells.

Cluster shells would not be effective.

Think of it in terms of capacity, you are trading a large heavy projectile for lots of smaller projectiles to increase the chance of a hit. In the case of a shotgun you wouldn't want a solid slug load for shooting at rabbits because the accuracy needed to hit a small fast object with one large blob of lead makes the chances of a hit very low. Also that huge blob of lead would make a real mess of the rabbit. The solution is instead of one blob of lead you use hundreds of small lead balls where one ball hitting the rabbit in the leg or whereever will not be effective, but because all the balls are thrown together and lots of hits at once are likely and your point of aim can be off by 30cm or more and you can still hit the rabbit with lots of the balls of lead with enough force to kill it then it makes sense to use the pellet load rather than the solid slug.

For a dangerous target like a wild pig or bear then a solid slug becomes the ammo of choice.

The problem with your ides of using cluster shells in anti aircraft artillery is that while in theory it should have all the benefits of a pellet load against rabbits in reality there is simply not enough shell capacity to have lots of little explosives that will spread out in the sky and create the area effect you are hoping for.

The most effective use of cluster munitions is found in bombs, where a 500kg standard bomb creates an enormous amount of damage near the centre of the explosion but its effect reduces rapidly as you move away from the centre.

If the target is soft and could be killed by a 2kg HE fragmentation device then it makes sense to put 200 2kg HE bombs in a 500kg bomb shell and release the bomblets over the target area so they spread out before exploding.

Despite only totalling 400kgs of HE the 200 bomblets will kill far more people out in the open and exposed than the 500kgs in the 500kg bomb.

The problem is area too... release the bomblets from too high up and they will spread too far apart and lots of people in the group on the ground will not be hit... drop them too low and they wont spread out far enough to cover the whole target group so again it will be less effective.

Even with a 100mm anti aircraft gun you will have the problem that the cluster mines are either very small in number, or individually too small to damage the target aircraft, and the problem of when they are released becomes an issue to.

At the end of the day just having proximity fused HE shells is the best solution found so far.

However, will a modified or upgraded guided KS-19 vrs Jdams flying at subsonic speeds and in the proximity of 3-5 Kms offer little more potentials? Iran has modfied KS-19 and boast of precision hits by Safir, but then ME countries like to thump their chests even before production lines are in place.

With guided shells the cost increases... I still say that Pantsir-S1 or TOR offer mobility and capability you are simply not going to get from any gun that uses conventional propellent.

EM guns might change this, but until they are viable the best choice is missiles.

Can a KS-19 type platform be first used to lobby an Igla at say 20K feet and then manpad fires in and does its 15K feet chasing? Similar to your idea of UCAVs armed with Iglas

The KS-19 is a high velocity weapon and the shells accelerate to mach 3+ in just the length of the barrel... I don't think a MANPAD would survive that.

A better solution could be an AAM or MANPAD with a booster rocket to make it two stage. The problem would be that it would need to acquire its target after the first stage has burned out. The Morfei is a short range SAM based on the 9M100 short range AAM that uses a sophisticated IIR seeker and full thrust vector flight controls and is lock on after launch.

Another option is the fact that the Pantsir-S1 missile and the Hermes ASM have a unified design so a MMW radar homing or IIR homing missile could be loaded into a Pantsir-S1 and fired at high altitude targets in a fire and forget mode.

Tripoli was in the hands of the rebels. So who made the difference? We all know the answer, so no point in argument.

Without ground forces air power is nothing... look at Kosovo... it was almost ineffectual.

Using precision guided munitions, Air Forces can take out tanks, artillery, BMDs and then what is left?

Using precision guided munitions in over 2 months NATO took out perhaps 12 Serbian tanks... and that is with uncontested air control.

One place I read that Israel Air Force is confident of destroying main tank divisions of Syrian Army in 3 days using air assets. Going by the past performances of IsAF, I would not throw a denial or rebuttal to those claims.

The USAF was going to save the people of Kosovo in a couple of days... a week tops, and who would argue with the USAF?

Again here are the main tasks cut out for the RuAF:

Sorry, but that is rubbish.

The main tasks for the RuAF are to protect Russian territory from hostile external forces and to cooperate with the Aerospace Defence forces and the Army.

They don't need that crap you are suggesting, what they need is improved hardware in terms of aircraft and weapons, to improve training systems and procedures, to replace obsolete equipment and sensors, and to raise the standard of their C4IR to the level where they can perform the mission stated above.

The difference is in the doctrine to fight. West prefers air force to minimize losses on its side. Russia and China probably prefer the ground based offensives and more so because they like to keep the costs under control.

Well I would say that the West prefers air power because it makes it easier to fight around the world on the territory of other countries. Russia and China have no global empire to maintain and therefore are focused on protecting their own territory, for which an Air force is largely optional, though can greatly reduce losses and improve the effectiveness of ground forces.

For firing on missiles and bombs, which don't do a lot of maneuvers in the sky, this is still quite effective weapon. Do't forget, ships still have large cal. guns, which are also used in air defense role.

But they are big labour intensive systems... can you really see them replacing MANPADS and Medium and long range SAMs?

With the advances in radar location, fire control, shell technology etc, why not fire a large number of 100mm shells into the general area where a high flying aircraft is located and fill that part of the sky with shrapnel?

Well the Italians have gone for a 76mm SPAAG, and GLONASS guided artillery shells offer potential for possibly hitting aerial targets... They really need a big change, like an EM powered gun that fires heavy shells at very high velocities... like 4-5km/s and then it might become viable.

Most likely for ships before land based...

I bet the demand for the KS-19 type should be much higher, given the low cost of operations and low cost per kill of Plane or Jdams type entries in the envelop of the radar.

But the point is that it will still be firing quite a lot of shells for each kill. It will require lots of men to man the systems. And of course as soon as it opens up its position will be easy to plot.

The thing you need to understand Victor is that there are no easy cheap solutions... the West has carefully developed its capability to steal resources from the damn natives for hundreds of years and spent an enormous fortune honing its abilities, making it globally mobile... taking over islands here and there for bases.

The whole six month Libya operation cost NATO $1B to $1.5B tops.

To turn a functioning country into a shthole... I hear the leaderships first law will be to legalise polygamy...

West does not like to lose men and extra costs incurred in war fighting is considered a consumption boost to the defense industry which creates more jobs and fuels further economic consumption.

Which is why Russia doesn't need to worry too much about F-22s because it has the capacity to inflict ENORMOUS casualties on NATO.

But to fire on bombs and missiles it need tracking radar for quicker lock on and tracking.

a 360 degree AESA with 4 faces would offer continuous 360 degree target detection... and you could put a hemisphere IIR optical sensor for complete radar and optical coverage. With such a vehicle passing data to Pantsir-S1, TOR, and BMP-4s (Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets-25, and Typhoon based IFVs) equipped with either 57mm guns or 45mm guns with laser guided shells a single shot against a bomb would suffice as the guidance will allow for deviations from the time the shell leaves the muzzle of the gun to impact.

The 57mm shell would offer the best performance.

Note Phalanx uses armour piercing shells because Soviet anti ship missiles had angled armour plates to protect their warheads, most other CIWS used HE shells to try to detonate the warhead of the incoming missile. This was the most effective way to destroy such a weapon...

Guns and missiles are not in competition, but supplement each other. Russia have two combined systems, Tunguska and Pantsir, which have both missiles and two twin 30 mm guns.

Guns can be very capable and compliment Missiles and can work together to make defences more effective.

The Shilka is a devastating system in the ground to air role and the ground to ground role and the Tunguska is just a step better.

Congratulations to whomever sold the idea of JDAM to victor... you really did an outstanding job...

But they are big labour intensive systems... can you really see them replacing MANPADS and Medium and long range SAMs?

Where did I say guns would replace MANPADS and SAMs? They could supplement each other in cluster.

Big guns are hardly cheap and big shells are a threat to things on the ground... what goes up must come down remember and pumping hundreds of shells up... well a fraction will be duds and come down intact...

True and I don't think anyone will go in reintroducing 76 mm or 100mm guns. Iran is special case here. But guns with cal. 30 mm, 35 mm, 40 mm and 57 mm could be very useful as ICV guns as well as AA guns or in dual role. Swedes made their CV-90 with 40 mm gun, search radar and higher elevation to do AA role and support armored units and they do well together with RBS-70/90 and BAMSE.

After all, more and more helicopters are equipped with DIRCM complexes, which work against MANPADS, but DIRCM is useless against gun rounds.

Nice summary of Russian air defense systems.

Big guns are hardly cheap and big shells are a threat to things on the ground... what goes up must come down remember and pumping hundreds of shells up... well a fraction will be duds and come down intact...

the point is to have a system within $2M each that will provide cover against PGMs against wide range points not just very valuable ones. Systems like Pantsirs/Tor/Spyder are there but they range from $15M to 25M each. One can buy good 10 upgraded T-72s for $15M and these 10 tanks can win a small to medium size battle for you. But they would only last 10 min. also if they are exposed to PGMs launched from 40K ft.

The system using guns will also be much resistant to saturation and decoy type attacks given the large number of shells available. Inexpensive, quantity response, added layer or cluster defense is the main point.

One of the faults in combat of MANPADS is that they have such short range that they pretty much need to be located right next to what they are defending. For infantry units that is not a problem, though it often means that when your MANPADS teams are engaging the enemy aircraft the enemy aircraft are engaging the thing the MANPADS teams are supposed to be protecting.

In fact the older model MANPADS could only get a good lock on the tail pipe of an aircraft so they could only engage the target after it has attacked and is leaving.

With a gun based defence you would have to buy thousands of systems if you just want to protect all of the land you occupy.

The light portable nature of MANPADS means wherever you have troops you can have a few gripstocks and a couple of dozen missiles, so in a battlefield you end up with a good coverage of missiles so enemy air power cannot rest.

With separate KS-19s the cost of buying enough to get the coverage you want... you end up spending more than with SAMs.

Just think for a few moments about the coverage you would get from one KS-19... sure you might get 150 guns for the price of a Single S-400 battery, but an S-400 battery can reach higher and several orders of magnitude further.

With its long range missiles a single S-400 battery can protect a circular area 800km across... you couldn't cover that with 1,000 KS-19s or any EM gun equivalent.

The secret to success with your idea is to make the gun multi purpose... look at the German 88 during WWII. It was nothing unusual, just a high velocity flak gun, and at the start of the war it would be far to big and cumbersome to even consider it for an anti tank role where tiny 37mm and 45mm guns were standard and new 50mm and 57mm guns were being introduced.

A new gun that is useful in enormous numbers because it is used for other roles makes sense.

A new 45mm gun or 57mm gun for BMP type IFV in new Russian Brigades becomes a possibility. To get the velocity to penetrate armour of current IFVs they will need mass and velocity and with guided shells they wont reach 40K feet, but they will certainly be a threat well above the threat height of 30mm cannon.

Perhaps the next gen guns using EM might be in the 50-60mm calibre range and use enormous velocities to achieve acceptable penetration performance while retaining the shell capacity to be effective against soft targets.

Once the impact velocity goes above about 1km/s you don't need to waste space with a large HE charge.

With a standard shell the HE filling is important because the more HE you put in the better the blast effect on target, but HE is not very heavy so the more HE content the lighter the shell and the faster it slows down.

Having more metal in the shell increases mass which improves sectional density which means it has more weight to push through the air in front of it so it maintains a higher speed and gets to the target faster and with more momentum.

A shell travelling at 4-5km/s doesn't need to explode as such, a very tiny HE charge in the centre to break up and spread the metal the shell is made of either just before impact (with a complex accurate and therefore expensive and large timing mechanism, or a small cheap simple impact fuse).

The large expensive and complex fuse increases hit probability by spreading the fragments before impact to spread the damage and increase the chance of a hit with a small target... it also makes the ammo more expensive and delicate.

The small impact fuse is small and cheap and simple, but requires a direct hit to function. The spreader charge will greatly increase internal damage to the target compared with a simple solid shot, and the velocity of fragments will still be very high because of the high impact speed.

At the end of the day it works out cheaper to have a few expensive long range SAMs than thousands of cheaper guns... especially in terms of manpower... The Russian military is shrinking, not growing.

The system using guns will also be much resistant to saturation and decoy type attacks given the large number of shells available. Inexpensive, quantity response, added layer or cluster defense is the main point.

Actually the risk of firing large numbers of high velocity shells at very low firing angles would make gun engagement of low flying cruise missile type weapons rather a dangerous practise as your shells will likely do a lot of damage to the surrounding territory.

With its long range missiles a single S-400 battery can protect a circular area 800km across... you couldn't cover that with 1,000 KS-19s or any EM gun equivalent.

That's a good point. System speculated was more for protection of 5x5 km area where a small battle is taking place i.e. tactical vrs strategic. Also, main target is the PGMs that have entered the 5x5 envelope not the planes that have fired them and even from 20kms away. Also, intercepting PGM at the height of 2-3kms I think half a dozen Iran's Meshabh-1 type systems might be sufficient. I bet other nations have more accurate and lethal deals to kill off the PGMs at low altitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesbah_1

For the requirements you have outlined I would say a TOR battery is the ideal choice, despite its initial cost, the missiles are very cheap... they have no expensive seekers and are very simple command guided weapons.

The thing is that while the vehicles are expensive the radar and optics on these vehicles would be critical to shooting down low RCS targets like bombs and missiles, so you you might get your guns cheap but they only replace the missiles which are also very cheap. The radars and all weather day and night optics will be the same price for both systems so I rather doubt the gun option would be cheaper than the missile option.

More importantly the TOR system is highly mobile and can be track or wheel mounted or mounted in a shelterised trailer for protecting fixed things like airfields etc.

Don't get me wrong, I like gun anti aircraft artillery and I think it was a stroke of genius to combine the auto cannons of the Shilka type vehicle with the guided missiles of an SA-13 like vehicle to result in the Tunguska which is better than both vehicles... the two twin barrel 30mm cannon are more powerful, have a higher rate of fire, has a longer range than the Shilkas four single barrel 23mm cannon, and the SA-19 two stage SAM has better range and speed and lethality than the SA-13 and its missiles are cheaper too. The SA-13 has a range of about 5km, while depending on the model the SA-19/SA-22 has a range of 8, 10, 12, and 20km. The sensors on the Tunguska are better than the sensors of the Shilka and SA-13 combined, so you end up with a vehicle able to replace two vehicles with much better performance than either or both together.

In comparison the US equivalent is a Bradley with a 25mm gatling and Stinger missiles. The Tunguska outranges this system in guns and missiles which is not actually that important, what is important is that the Linebacker is barely able to outrange the ATAKA ATGM of the Hind with 6km range Stingers vs 6 km range ATAKA ATGMs, and with the new Russian helos getting 8km range Kristantema and 15km range Hermes it will be even more inadequate.

For the Tunguska the 8km missiles vs 8km range Hellfire was close, but the 10km range missiles solved that and the new 20km range missiles on Pantsir-S1 give it even more standoff range against western anti tank helos and attack aircraft.

BTW that Iranian system looks interesting but shows the weakness of wiki...

Mesbah uses 4 Iranian built Russian ZU-23-2 installed on a rotatable mount. Each autocannon has its own feed magazine. Each ZU-23-2 has a reported fire rate of 2000 rpm. But surprisingly the whole system is reported to have a rate of 4000 rpm instead of 8000. This is probably because developers wanted it to save ammunition. The mount can rotate in different angles but the exact degrees are unknown.[2]

As seen in the drawing the mistake the person doing this write up has made a mistake. The ZU-23-2 has two single barrel 23mm cannon which is seen in the designation of ZU-23-2.

The Mesbah doesn't use 4 Iranian built Russian ZU-23-2, it uses two of them, because a ZU-23-2 has two single barrels and the Mesbah clearly has 4 barrels.

The ZU-23-2 has two barrels with each barrel firing 1,000 rpm the same as the standard Russian model, so with two guns the ZU-23-2 mount fires at 2,000 rpm. The Iranian system with 4 barrels will of course fire at 4,000 rpm.

This is basically a towed version of Shilka except Shilka has liquid cooled barrels to enable it to maintain a high rate of fire.

I would think that the electronics and sensors in that trailer could be crammed into a relatively large vehicle based on the Shilka to make a much more mobile system would be better... or the Tunguska could be used with its more powerful 30mm cannon with a higher rate of fire of 5,000 rpm to a longer range.

In fact Pantsir-S1 would add 20km range missiles able to engage even medium altitude flying threats...

Iran is mass producing Mesbah and Sair (KS-19 based AAA) but then they have little choice as under sanctions they cannot go around the globe on arms shopping.

It would be however very tough to find a $2M replacement or even a near replacement for a $25M Tor or $15M Pantsirs.

The site below lists Mesbah at $5M each.

http://s9.invisionfree.com/21c/ar/t9008.htm