Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

The company that designed the Palma CIWS for the Russian Navy and also created a new turret for Russian navy PT-76s that replaced the manually loaded 76.2mm gun with an automatic 57mm gun based on the S-60 towed anti aircraft gun is currently working on a new vehicle to replace the Tunguska.
The issue they are trying to address is the low number of guided missiles the Tunguska can carry so it can't be overwhelmed with pure numbers.
The solution is to use a 57mm automatic main gun firing at a modest rate of about 2 shells per second, but firing special guided shells.
The fire control system will aim the shells to fly to an interception point and the shells will manouver to hit a manouvering target.
It is laser homing using optical detection and tracking to find and attack targets with another platform potentially using radar and passing early warning data to the gun armed vehicles.
The guided shell uses a reduced propellent charge which gives more volume within the shell for a longer projectile with fins and wings to enable it to manouver to hit the target.
The reduced charge means the projectile travels at about 700m/s instead of the usual for the 57mm shell of about 1,000m/s, but it is still rather rapid for a guided gun fired round.
Max range is expected to be about 8km, which is shorter than the Tunguska in service with 10km range missiles or the new missiles for Pantsir that can hit targets at 18-20km, but the capacity of the magazine of the new vehicle could be up to 100 shells with a mix (in my personal opinion) of perhaps 60 guided shells plus 40 unguided shells for shorter range aircraft engagements and anti armour use.

For more info:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kbtochmash.ru%2Fpress-centre%2Farticles%2Farticles_2.html&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate
is a babelfish translation, and :

http://www.kbtochmash.ru/press-centre/articles/articles_2.html

for original Russian.

The replacement for Tunguska is the Panstyr.

I don't think this 57 mm AA gun could be replacement for Tunguska, but more additional AAA capabilities to Tunguska. With modern FCS and data links could be very deadly to all targets in its range.

I am thinking in terms of new US proposals of swarm attacks with UCAVs.

Remember a UCAV is an armed UAV so you really can't ignore it, it is a direct threat that must be dealt with (and would be difficult to be dealt with by tanks).

If you get 50 UCAVs attacking a unit then you suddenly start looking at available ammunition and ready to launch missiles. For Tunguska that is 8 ready to launch and just under 2,000 rounds of 30mm ammo.

Of course with a modern fire control system and 70 degree elevation of its 30mm cannon the BMP-3M would actually be rather dangerous to air targets too.

With a decent C4IR system the threats could be labelled and so all the BMP-3Ms would not be firing at the same target, they could have their own target assigned to them and more efficiently deal with the threat

Of course with guided 57mm shells an armoured vehicle could carry 100-150 shells.

I don't think such a vehicle would replace Tunguska, but for a unit that is facing a potential swarm attack then replacing some of the BMP-3Ms with vehicles with the same chassis but a new turret with a 57mm gun some sort of detection and tracking and lasing equipment and 75-100 rounds of laser guided 57mm shells might be a good solution.

Perhaps a further development with a dual feed system with two 20 round ready to fire racks, one with standard high velocity HE Frag rounds and the other filled with laser homing shells for hitting point targets that include aerial and ground targets.

Depending upon the cost of the 57mm guided rounds these could supplement gun tube fired rounds like those fired from the 125m guns of the tanks and the 100mm rifled guns of the BMP-3s.

Perhaps even use the BMP-3Ms to lase the targets for the 57mm shells using its sophisticated thermal sights and auto tracking systems.

BTW it is another area where the Russian Army and Russian Navy could work together to develop a useful system for both.

BMP-3 engaging aerial targets is mostly for show. That cannon is not very good at shooting anything down. Having Panstyr and TOR-M2 would be enough air cover. It just has to be deployed to the Army in enough numbers to make up for retiring SAMs.

Well KBP certainly agree with you, the 2A72 was the original gun mounted on the Pantsir but it is replaced in the current model with the 2A38M twin barrel guns.

I would however think that the 2A72 would be good enough for engaging some aerial targets, it uses the same rather powerful ammo as the Tunguska and the gun is fully stabilised.

It is certainly no replacement for a dedicated air defence vehicle but having said that for a helo it would still be a significant threat.

It's true, that modernized BMP-3M, BMD-4, Krizanthema, etc could do limited air defense job against low flying helicopters and planes, but air defense guns and SAMs will still have their role in battlefield in protecting armored units. Smaller cal. guns with high rate of fire will be primarily used against bombs and missiles launched from planes and helicopters, bigger cal. guns could be more properly used against very low helicopters, because they have longer range to reach them and gun rounds could go through trees, behind which helicopters take cover.

The newer vehicles have optical auto trackers and laser range finders so a slow moving target like a helo should be a potential target as well as a threat... of course the commander has to see the target first, whereas a real air defence vehicle will have radar warning and information passed to it from the AD network.
With the new C4IR system however all vehicles will be made aware of aerial threats and could supply data to help to defeat them.

The best replacement for Tunguska will be tracked Pantsir. But Tunguska could also be upgraded with modernized or new radars, that it could be capable to shot down top attack ATGMs.

The Pantsir was a cheap version of a Tunguska.

The Pantsir was basically a truck or trailer mounted system with more missiles (two lots of 6 missiles instead of 2 lots of 2 on the first Tunguska (2S6) and 2 lots of 4 on the subsequent Tunguska (2S6M)) and cheaper guns (ie 2 x 2A72 single barrel 30mm cannon on the old Pantsir instead of the 2 x twin barrel 2A38M cannon of the Tunguska.

Over time and investment and improvement in the naval version of Kashtan and Kashtan-M the performance of the missiles improved and the makers realised that further improvement was possible.
The Russian military didn't have any funds but the United Arab Emirates did and they funded an upgrade of the Pantsir to basically double the range of the missile and refit the better 2A38M guns.
The 2A72 is a single barrel gun used in the BMP-3. It has a long recoil mechanism that reduced the amount of smoke in the turret compared to the 2A42 30mm single barrel cannon used in the BMP-2.
The BMP-2 normally fires its main gun at a lower 300 rpm to reduce smoke build up, but the BMP-3 doesn't have that problem.
Both can only fire at about 500-600rpm per gun compared to the twin barrel 2A38M which fires at 2,000-2,500 rpm per gun.

They all fire the same standardised 30 x 165mm shell.

I suspect, despite my comments above, that the real replacement for Tunguska will be Tunguska but with the new missiles and radars etc transferred from the new Pantsir back to the Tunguska chassis.

This new vehicle firing 57mm laser guided shells looks interesting and would be very useful against mass attacks... assuming you have plenty of laser target markers, but will most likely see service at sea first.
A new range of modern 57mm ammo might make it a good alternative to the 100mm rifled gun and a 30mm autocannon mix as used on the BMP-3, but then the advantage of the power of the 100mm gun in terms of HE power could not be matched by a 57mm gun.
Of course the APFSDS potential against enemy IFV of a new 57mm round should not be ignored. It is probably safe to say that a Bradley is armoured to be protected from HEAT rounds first and foremost so a new powerful APFSDS round might make western IFV need another round of armour increase which will make them more expensive to buy and operate.
Most tanks are designed to resist the oppositions main tank guns from the front 60 degree angle, while the side needs to be resistant to the enemies main IFV round. For the Russians that means 25-30mm western guns but also some 40mm. For the West it means 30mm guns, but adding a few 57mm gun armed vehicle into the armoury will greatly increase the armour requirements.

With a battle management system and net centric force having a range of weapons available offers flexibility. Right now the Russian forces are already more flexible because of the BMP-3... if a US commander wants heavy calibre HE direct firepower in a specific area he needs to send an Abrams. A Russian commander could send a T series tank (perhaps a T-62 considering the role) or they can send a BMP-3. A BMP-3 can direct fire a 100mm round out to about 7km where a tank will not be firing at targets much further away than that, but it also has soldiers that can protect the vehicle from anti armour threats and it has a 30mm cannon for a variety of targets. It has laser guided anti tank rounds for hard threats, but also relatively cheap 100mm shells able to deal with all sorts of targets.

Pantsir is far away from cheap version of Tunguska. More missiles with longer range, PESA search and tracking radar, EO system with TV and TI is for sure more expensive and more capable than Tunguska. Tracked version of Pantsir (at least prototype, I don't know if it is in production) have different tracking radar than serial wheeled version, what mean it could not engage 4 targets simultaneously, but all other is the same. The mane difference between Pantsir and Tunguska from inside is, that crew of Pantsir is not in turret as in Tunguska. Anyone know, if Tunguska could be upgraded with radars from Pantsir or at least with EO system? Or if original Tunguska tracking radar could be upgraded, that both guns and missiles could work in radar mode.

Pantsir WAS the cheap version designed to be mounted on a truck or a trailer mounted version.

The money invested by the UAE greatly improved everything from electronics, sensors and missiles. Guns are now the same as Tunguska.
Electronics and sensors and missiles are better.

Anyone know, if Tunguska could be upgraded with radars from Pantsir or at least with EO system?

I would expect the replacement for the Tunguska will be the Tunguska chassis with a turret fitted with Pantsir sensors and missiles and guns.

Or if original Tunguska tracking radar could be upgraded, that both guns and missiles could work in radar mode.

In service Tunguska can already use guns and missiles in radar only mode. That capability came with the naval version for Kashtan and was retro fitted to the Tunguska. The range increased from 8km to 10km and the minimum range shortened from 2.5km to 1.5km through a faster acting higher velocity booster rocket.

In service Tunguska can already use guns and missiles in radar only mode. That capability came with the naval version for Kashtan and was retro fitted to the Tunguska. The range increased from 8km to 10km and the minimum range shortened from 2.5km to 1.5km through a faster acting higher velocity booster rocket.

If I understand you correctly, Tunguska-M1 could use both missiles and guns day and night in radar mode and both missiles and guns in day by optical mode. As I know (maybe this is for older versions), Tunguska could use missiles only in optical mode,where radar was used for radio guidance to guide missile to target. Tunguska-M1 already have data link to get target data from outer source when it is passive. The only thing to improve is to add night channel in optical sight, that Tunguska-M1 could work passively in optical mode day and night. With night channel Tunguska-M1 become perfect system as capable as similar western systems (ADATS, Rappier FSC, Crotale,...)

I would expect the replacement for the Tunguska will be the Tunguska chassis with a turret fitted with Pantsir sensors and missiles and guns.

We are talking about the same system, you just name it Tunguska with turret fitter with Pantsir sensors and missiles, I name it tracked version of Pantsir.

Service entry date was 31.07.2003 for TUNGUSKA-M1 anti-aircraft gun/missile system according to http://kbptula.ru/eng/kbp/rusarmy.htm

On this page:

http://kbptula.ru/eng/zencom/tung.htm

Note range of the missiles... uses the new (10km range) missiles developed for KASHTAN and KASTAN-M.

KASHTAN-M, like the TUNGUSKA-M1 adds thermal imaging channel to increase optical systems applicability by 100% (ie 24hr rather than 12hr per day).

To quote from a description of the Tunguska-M1:
High reliability and stability of the system during the joint use of the optical channel ad the radar channel owing to their mutually coordinated functioning, i.e., the possibility of switching from one channel to another or their joint use in the course of firing.
Pantsir, KASHTAN-M, and TUNGUSKA are all made by KBP so it is only a matter of time before features developed for Pantsir are transferred to the other systems simply for commonality.

Look a the pictures at the bottom of this page:

http://kbptula.ru/eng/zencom/panz.htm

and simply add the standard chassis of the Tunguska to the options to put that turret into.

We are talking about the same system, you just name it Tunguska with turret fitter with Pantsir sensors and missiles, I name it tracked version of Pantsir.

IN the trailer and truck versions of Pantsir (In other words the Pantsir versions) I believe there is a separate area for the radar operator to sit that is more spacious than the turret.
A Tunguska version will be a bit more snug if you know what I mean?

With night channel Tunguska-M1 become perfect system as capable as similar western systems (ADATS, Rappier FSC, Crotale,...)

The radar works fine at night already, and ADATS and Rapier and Crotale don't have guns or 10km range missiles or are in service in the numbers of Tunguska.

KASHTAN-M, like the TUNGUSKA-M1 adds thermal imaging channel to increase optical systems applicability by 100% (ie 24hr rather than 12hr per day).

This is good, that Tunguska-M1 get thermal imager in its optical sight. Unfortunately I could not find any source to confirm this claim. Do you have any more data about this night clannel in Tunguska optical sight?

The radar works fine at night already, and ADATS and Rapier and Crotale don't have guns or 10km range missiles or are in service in the numbers of Tunguska.

[quote]

Of course in radar mode you could work day and night and in all weather conditions. I know mentioned western SHORADs don't have guns, but they are similar in their missile range. What I have in mind, is, that with radar mode for both guns and missiles, night channel in optical sight and data link make Tunguska-M1 as capable in working in passive or active mode day and night, same effective as mentioned western SHORADs. The point is, that Tunguska is not handicapped in a way, that it could work in passive optical mode only by day and that missiles could be used only optically in day time.

The 10km range missiles were developed for the Kashtan system... they needed their CIWS to work at night with missiles as well as during the day.

When the new model TUNGUSKA (the M1 model) gets that new missile it is pretty safe to assume that the missile can now be guided at night by the radar like the missile on the Kashtan... that is its purpose after all.

According the the book I have under system features it says:

combined missile and gun armament control radar-optical subsystem, which effects mutually coordinated tracking of targets and missiles both day and night in conditions of optical visibility.

In other words it wont work in a monsoon at night but it will work with radar and optics day and night.

KASHTAN-M added thermal imaging to its built in TV channel so I don't see why it couldn't have a thermal imager, though it could possible just be II.

According the the book I have under system features it says:

combined missile and gun armament control radar-optical subsystem, which effects mutually coordinated tracking of targets and missiles both day and night in conditions of optical visibility.

In other words it wont work in a monsoon at night but it will work with radar and optics day and night.

[quote]

You are quite lucky to find this book. It seems they upgrade tracking radar that it could simultaneously track a target and sending radio signals to missile to guide it to the target. For guns radar just need to track the target.

By those words I think night channel in Tunguska-M1 optical sight is image intensifier not thermal imager, that is why they talk about optical visibility. After all 3th gen II tubes are small enough to install inside optical sight and have enough intensifying power (30.000 to 50.000x), that they could, without any problems, work in moonless nights, just starlight.

For guns radar just need to track the target.

Yes, there is a muzzle velocity measuring system on one of the barrels for both guns that consists of two coils. The other gun has a shield to prevent rounds leaving that barrel from interfering in the signal. This means that the muzzle velocity is added to the ballistic computations as the guns are fired to improve accuracy.

Of course most people think a cannon firing at long range will hit one place but after travelling 2-3km the shell spread looks more like someone threw a bucket of water rather than a single laser beam of hits. This spread improves hit probability and makes it more effective in its role than a more accurate gun. It is the same reason that when shooting small fast moving targets that hunters prefer shotguns to rifles.

You are quite lucky to find this book.

It is actually getting a bit old now, it is "Russia's Arms 2004".
They released a newer version called "Russia's Arms 2007" which I will get around to buying some time, but they have promised a "Russia's Arms 2011" that will have lots and lots of all the new stuff that is being developed and will be available soon for sale, which I am really looking forward to.

Publishers webpage is http://www.milparade.com/

Keep in mind it is made up of information direct from the makers so the information is not guesses, unlike western publications I used to rely on, but of course they wont detail problems or even if they are able to mass produce the item yet or not. Just lists purpose and best features... which is good enough for me.

By those words I think night channel in Tunguska-M1 optical sight is image intensifier not thermal imager, that is why they talk about optical visibility. After all 3th gen II tubes are small enough to install inside optical sight and have enough intensifying power (30.000 to 50.000x), that they could, without any problems, work in moonless nights, just starlight.

Well, looking at the wording they used, I am inclined to agree with your logic. Of course the Russian Army on paper has lots of night vision equipment but it is really only their special forces that actually operate at night AFAIK.

I would expect that thermal sights might be assured for the new Tunguska version with Pantsir radars and systems added. IN fact I think I have seen that model... because the Tunguska needs to fit crew inside perhaps they have moved the Thermal and optical system of Pantsir outside the turret... check out these two pictures of prototypes I found some time ago.
One has a new search (rear) radar and a new front tracking radar plus a module on the turret roof with some sort of missile guidance transmitter and thermal and TV optics in two windows... presumably the new tracking radar could guide to one or more targets (if it is a phased array it could possibly track 2-3 targets and guide missiles towards them) plus the transmitter on the new module would allow guidance of missiles at optically tracked targets too... perhaps one at a time?
The other picture shows a cheaper setup with the search radar (rear) replaced with a new phased array antenna and the front tracking radar removed completely and replaced with the roof module fitted to the other vehicle. This would mean that it could track and engage fewer targets, but also that it would emit much less radar waves and be less effected by jamming and ARMs. It would also be a lot cheaper with one less radar system.





And here is a third setup that has the new search radar, the roof mounted optical/thermal module plus another system that appears optical replacing the tracking radar...



Maybe it is a laser target marker and those missiles are SOSNA-R missiles, or perhaps it means the vehicle can use SOSNA-R and all the current missile types for Tunguska and Pantsir. The SOSNA-R missiles are supposed to be cheaper... here is a dedicated SOSNA-R vehicle:



-Edit- Just noticed that some of the vehicles are the standard Tunguska vehicles but one is a BMP-3 chassis and the SOSNA-R system is mounted on the MT-LB.
As far as I know the chassis for the Tunguska is made in Belarus...

Thank you for the pictures. Maybe you know what is official designation for this AA system? Some sources say it is Pantsir, that is why I say tracked version of Pantsir and you call it Tunguska.

May I ask, how do you upload pictures here? It seems it doesn't work for me to upload.

I quite like the hosting system for this forum... once you get used to it it is quick and easy, though the small dialog box you work from blocks part of the text area and can be annoying sometimes and there is no way to close it... but otherwise it is relatively quick and easy and you don't need to go to another website to do it.

Here are the instructions I used last time I was asked about posting pictures:

http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/military-multimedia-f60/russian-military-photos-t951.htm

From post 14 onwards.

If you can answer the question I pose in post 11, or have an opinion on the matter I would be interested in hearing your views.


Regarding Pantsir/Tunguska... I got the pictures from this site:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpvo.guns.ru%2Fpanzir%2Findex.htm&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Which as you can read starts in the first para about needing a rear area SAM to protect S-300 sites and other things that are mobile but not as mobile as a tank so they took the Tunguska as the design start and made a shelterised and truck based version.

Note Pantsir translates to armour which is perhaps a little ironic as it is not designed to support armour like the Tunguska is but as it turned out that the Pantsir got a lot of money invested into it and this in turn might be applied to Tunguska it is perhaps very ironic.

Anyway you can read it for yourself.

Personally I think with all the Tunguskas already in service they will get an upgrade of Pantsirs systems, while the actual Pantsirs will be built to replace things used currently to support the S-300s like the S-125s and S-75s etc.
This way the Tunguskas get improved performance and there are savings in commonality of radars and missiles and sensors, but the army get a mobile system able to keep up with pretty much anything they introduce.
The Pantsirs they introduce will either be truck or trailer based because that will make them cheaper. A trailer based system can be dropped off at an airfield and one tractor unit could shift several trailers around to make them hard to target. You might also have a truck based version with its own mobility driving around with its radar going all the time looking for targets and passing target data on to the shelterised systems.
This will maximise bang for buck.
Obviously if it is defending an S-300 then they all need the level of mobility of the S-300 so they all need a tractor unit each or to be truck based. (IMHO)

Actually reading that page again shows me a few misconceptions I was under.

First both versions of Pantsir (the first one with 12 x 12km range missiles and 2A72 single barrel guns, and the new one with the 20km range missiles and the twin barrel 2A38M guns) have radio command guidance... through the radars and thermal imager channels.

It seems Tunguska is radar and optical but comes in three versions with the last model having 10km range missiles with a 15m to 3.5km altitude range for all of them. The first Pantsir has an altitude increased to 8km and range to 12km and the current Pantsir has an altitude of 15km and range of 20km.

Here is the chart:

http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fpvo.guns.ru%2fpanzir%2fdata.htm

Actually the version I posted a picture above on the BMP-3 chassis is described as a lightened version. This might be for VDV units or the new medium or light brigades the Russian Army is planning on deploying.

The GM-xxxx chassis is made in Belarus so I guess it might depend on relations as to what happens. The original Tunguskas came on GM-352 chassis, whereas the new Tunguska that entered service in 2004 has a new chassis with the designation GM-5975.

Of course the Russian army might want to reduce the number of different types of vehicles it operates... if you look on the forum I believe Vlad posted a thread on a new standard base chassis based on the T-90.

Vehicle based on T-90 would be great for Pantsirs and Tors, specially if frontal armor will be on the level of those in tanks.

My previous thinking that the Pantsir started out as a Tunguska with different less potent guns is clearly wrong...

The first model Pantsir has 12km range missiles, so they are clearly different from the 8km and 10km range missiles used on the Tunguska.

The original missiles (8KM) were upgraded for the Kashtan system to new 10km range missiles with all weather capability where the tracking radar tracked the target and sent radio flight commands to the missile using a directional antenna.
These are clearly different from the 12km and 20km range missiles used in the two versions of Pantsir.

Even just the name Pantsir... armour... these systems are "to protect". Armour to protect SAMs sounds OK, but Armour to protect... Armour doesn't sound right.

Vehicle based on T-90 would be great for Pantsirs and Tors, specially if frontal armor will be on the level of those in tanks.

Of course the increased weight and cost would be a problem and all the delicate sensors and missiles it would still be very vulnerable to functional kills, but obviously an armoured search radar is not practical... I guess it comes down to cost if the commonality makes it viable. When you design a common chassis like that you do it to reduce compatibility issues and it is easier with a tank chassis because a tank chassis can take heavier payloads than IFV chassis.

The lightened turret on the BMP-3 above could be dispensed with using a tank chassis that can carry a full weight turret.

One option is, that Ataka-T is upgraded with guidance sistem from Khrizantema ATGM, which could be used with radio guidance in radar mode or with laser guidance in optical mode. In that case BMPT doesn't need radio guidance antenna, because it work only in optical mode with laser guidance. Other option is, that serial BMPTs could actually use Khrizantema ATGMs and 6 km range and high speed is very near of Khrizantema's caracteristics.

Well I would favour the latter choice. The problems of changing from radio command to laser beam riding would be such that even using the Kornet would be cheaper and at 5.5km range with laser beam riding and a bigger warhead mass would make it much simpler.
Of course the problem there is why adopt the Krisantema but not the primary SARH guidance? ARH guidance would be rather expensive for taking out point targets at up to 6km.

I guess with the BMPT program without funds it might disappear and we may never know...

Regarding Krisantema based on this sentence:

It is in 2005 returned for the armament of our army all-weather [PTRK] “Chrysanthemum- S”, which has the salient technical and combat characteristics.

I think it entered service in 2005... it is made by KBM who also made the Shturm/Ataka missiles and the Soviet shoulder fired MANPADS.
Quote above is from this page:
http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.kbm.ru%2fpredpriyatie%2fhistory%2f

With the production of thermal sights increasing in Russia it is only a matter of time before vehicles like this get them, though of course the question is would the system be more effective with radar improvements rather than optics improvements. The addition of mmw and cm wave radar might allow the use of this system in conditions where even thermal sights are useless... which only makes the system more useful.