Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

First of all I would like to apologise Medo... I have looked through some past chats here between you and I and having reread some of your posts I realise you were saying some things I wasn't getting at the time.

I will try to take more time to read your posts and try to understand what you are trying to say before jumping into a great big long explanation of something.

IADS doesn't have only early warning radars, but also other passive
sensors like Kolchuga, Orion, etc, and a network of visual observation
posts.

I was thinking in terms of an attack by the west... I really don't think the Chechens or Georgians will have that many HARMS to spare in a conflict. As such I would assume the West would take advantage of night combat and of course any bad weather that might eventuate as they have a clear superiority anyway (in attacking forces), but in such conditions their superiority is improved.

If battery get a clear picture of air space from higher level, than
they don't need to turn on their radars, but just optically track
designated targets. You could also use radars, but for shorter period.

Agree, but the enemy will also likely be jamming and using decoy attacks and any other method to fool and defeat such a system. Up to and including hacking into the system like the Israelis did with the Syrian AD Network.
This obviously wouldn't be possible without "external help"... ie French assistance in the Syrian AD Network setup...
You really need to check the software and hardware components that you add to a network like that.

When you use optical mode for radio guided missiles, RWR will not detect emission of tracking radar.

But even in optical mode the missiles course corrections are sent via the tracking radar in a radio datalink... like ATAKA and SHTURM, or TUNGUSKA or TOR etc.
The incoming targets RHAWs and ESM suite would detect the missile launch from the IR plume and the course corrections transmitted from the launch platform... so optical mode is not totally silent... though not vulnerable to ARMs either.

I was thinking in terms of an attack by the west... I really don't think the Chechens or Georgians will have that many HARMS to spare in a conflict. As such I would assume the West would take advantage of night combat and of course any bad weather that might eventuate as they have a clear superiority anyway (in attacking forces), but in such conditions their superiority is improved.

[quote]

It's exactly in terms of an attack by the west (USAF, NATO,...). IADS could not rely only on early warning radars, because they will be too quickly out, by jamming, attacks, etc. In that case air defense batteries in lower level will soon be blind and have to rely on their own radar picture. Modern IADS have other equipment to detect targets in the air. Passive sensors like Kolchuga, Orion, etc detect any emission from airplanes, be it radar, voice comm, data comm, radio navigation, IFF, jammers and triangulate them. And don't forget on the net of visual observation posts, which cover the whole territory of your state. In older times they were ordinary soldiers, who lay under the tree and watch with their binoculars in the air and reporting targets through field telephones and in CPs soldiers draw their reports on big glass boards. This is still useful against weaker air force. But in modern times visual observation post could have day/night optic device with TI and laser range finder connected to GPS and laptop, from where they send through cable data link target info to CPs, where they compare this picture with radar and other pictures and directing air defense batteries or fighter planes against targets.

Agree, but the enemy will also likely be jamming and using decoy attacks and any other method to fool and defeat such a system. Up to and including hacking into the system like the Israelis did with the Syrian AD Network.
This obviously wouldn't be possible without "external help"... ie French assistance in the Syrian AD Network setup...
You really need to check the software and hardware components that you add to a network like that.

Orginized and trained IADS with excellent net of visual observation posts and optical cables connections between posts and CPs is actually impossible to hack and very difficult to jam. You have to destroy posts and CPs and cut optical cables. After all visual ID is the best option to check if target is decoy or a real enemy plane.

But even in optical mode the missiles course corrections are sent via the tracking radar in a radio datalink... like ATAKA and SHTURM, or TUNGUSKA or TOR etc.
The incoming targets RHAWs and ESM suite would detect the missile launch from the IR plume and the course corrections transmitted from the launch platform... so optical mode is not totally silent... though not vulnerable to ARMs either.

Only in Tunguska radio correcting signals are send to missile with tracking radar, that is why Tunguska could fire missiles only in optical mode and not in radar mode. In other systems tracking radar is one antenna and radio guidance have another different antenna, which send signals in different vawelenght and frequency. So, when pilot have radio guidance signal and no tracking radar emission, he knows SAM work in optical mode, so radar jamming is useless. When he have both signals, than missile could be in radar mode or maybe not.

Orginized and trained IADS with excellent net of visual observation
posts and optical cables connections between posts and CPs is actually
impossible to hack and very difficult to jam. You have to destroy posts
and CPs and cut optical cables. After all visual ID is the best option
to check if target is decoy or a real enemy plane.

Agree, and it needs the right weapons to be effective... as shown in Kosovo. They needed relatively light small missiles that were mobile but able to reach targets flying high... I often wonder about their attempts at fitting boosters to R-60 and R-73 missiles for ground launch... whether they were serious attempts at reaching NATO aircraft or if they were merely for scare tactics to make NATO even more cautious. A very desperate situation for the Serbs, but I think it would probably be useful for Russian and Serb specialists to get together and develop some weapons for countries in Serbias situation where the weapon needs to be relatively cheap and simple, small and mobile and easy to hide yet able to reach up to kill even high flying targets. Certainly the 9M100 as its design has been speculated so far would be ideal with a large booster to get it up and moving, as its lock on after launch should allow it to engage all sorts of high flying targets without radar scans.

For victims of NATO aggression the advantage... if you could call it that is that any aircraft flying around is likely to be enemy so IFF is less of an issue.

Perhaps some sort of single shot launcher that uses an open cannister so that the seeker of the missile itself could be used to scan for targets from a remote computer terminal/notebook. Then after launch unplug the USB cable and walk or drive away with the cannister being disposable.

Agree, and it needs the right weapons to be effective... as shown in Kosovo. They needed relatively light small missiles that were mobile but able to reach targets flying high... I often wonder about their attempts at fitting boosters to R-60 and R-73 missiles for ground launch... whether they were serious attempts at reaching NATO aircraft or if they were merely for scare tactics to make NATO even more cautious. A very desperate situation for the Serbs, but I think it would probably be useful for Russian and Serb specialists to get together and develop some weapons for countries in Serbias situation where the weapon needs to be relatively cheap and simple, small and mobile and easy to hide yet able to reach up to kill even high flying targets. Certainly the 9M100 as its design has been speculated so far would be ideal with a large booster to get it up and moving, as its lock on after launch should allow it to engage all sorts of high flying targets without radar scans.

The war over Yugoslavia in 1999 was very teaching if someone want to learn from it. Improvisations are big part of Balkan mentality and Serbs were very innovative in that area.

I think this could be quite good and cheap SAM system, with R-73 missiles placed in the way like on SPYDER or AIM-9 on Chapparal. I don't know, how far 9M100 project is and what capabilities it will have.

The war over Yugoslavia in 1999 was very teaching if someone want to
learn from it. Improvisations are big part of Balkan mentality and Serbs
were very innovative in that area.

They were very clever with what they had... at which point the pro NATO person will say "they lost" and ignore all lessons that could be learned. I say that is a good thing....

There was an article I have read by Carlos Kopp where he offers explanations about why Soviet air defence systems seem to fail in the Middle East yet seem so formidable on paper and he mentions the skill and flair of the Serbs with the limited tools they had at hand. Equally it is barely mentioned that lots of restrictions were imposed on NATO aircraft like a 20,000ft lower ceiling because of the tools they did have, from a NATO perspective it sounds like they could do as they wished and the problem was that the Serbs didn't stand and fight "fair"... as if NATO was fighting fair.

New posters, I believe might be from Aero India... or perhaps not.



This seems to be a rack storage system showing a variety of ammo types in different layers in what I would assume is a turret bustle autoloader. The bottom two sets of ammo are probably Armour piercing and HEFrag ammo types while the top row perhaps is a guided shell for specific targets. The green tip of the bottom and top rounds indicating perhaps HE warheads.
The shape is not symetrical and might be in the rear hull or an under deck magazine for a naval gun.
I just noticed that there is a row of the shells visible at the top down the centre of both the bottom ovals of stored ammo... are they acting as rollers?



This pic is interesting because it shows a variety of turret designs with the left most design some sort of air defence vehicle with radar for the PVO that weighs 4 tons.
The centre turret comes in several versions which appear to include from left to right a small light 2.5 ton turret for BTR-80, BMP-1 (which has a small turret ring and a small single man turret), and BMP-2. The BKM-49111 I guess must be a new APC?
In the 3.2-3.6 ton range there are two turret models, one for BTR-90, BMP-3, and BTR-T, and one for PT-76B, BMP-3, and BPM-3K.
And lastly there is the 4 ton turret for the 2S25 Sprut, Object 502TB and BTRT.
Note Object 502TB is supposed to be the replacement for the MT-LB.

And finally there is the naval 57mm gun turret in a 3 ton turret model.

To be honest with vertical launch 9M100 missiles that are in many ways similar to SEA RAM on their way a couple of semi stealthy Duet turrets and this 57mm gun firing guided shells together these three systems might knock Kashtan-M off some new ships unless it can be made more stealthy I think a stealthy 57mm gun turret, twin 30mm gatlings and vertical launch short range missiles should be much more stealthy than a Kashtan-M mount and with fewer problems regarding deck penetration.
Obviously these are just their proposals and the only concrete products so far is an upgrade for the PT-76.

The vehicle with PVO modul looks like the vehicle for 2S1 122mm SP gun. Maybe this vehicles could be even better to equip with 57 mm gun, than old PT-76. After all, the turret with D-30 122mm gun is heavier than turret with S-60 57mm gun. Anyway it remind me on air defense version of CV-90 with 40mm Bofors gun. Idea is very good, we will see if it will come into real life. Around 100 those vehicles will be good supplement to Shilka and Tunguska AA guns.

I wonder if any modernized PT-76 with this turret is received in army or naval infantry unit and if russian army have any plan to equip new vehicles with those new turrets.

There was an article I have read by Carlos Kopp where he offers explanations about why Soviet air defence systems seem to fail in the Middle East yet seem so formidable on paper and he mentions the skill and flair of the Serbs with the limited tools they had at hand. Equally it is barely mentioned that lots of restrictions were imposed on NATO aircraft like a 20,000ft lower ceiling because of the tools they did have, from a NATO perspective it sounds like they could do as they wished and the problem was that the Serbs didn't stand and fight "fair"... as if NATO was fighting fair.

I also read Carlo Kopp's articles, which are very good and very informative. It must be read with some reserves, because he write more in a way of a lobbyst to favourise some planes comparing to others. But some conclusions he wrote are correct about air defense capabilities. Arab air defenses are not in the norm to measure real air defense capabilities. Lybia and Iraq also have western air defense systems and they have even worse results that russian ones.

Serbs were fighting by russian school, which said that air defense is combination of all active and passive measures to protect people and equipment from air attacks and they did exactly that.

I wonder if any modernized PT-76 with this turret is received in army or
naval infantry unit and if russian army have any plan to equip new
vehicles with those new turrets.

I remember reading somewhere that the main user of the PT-76 was the Naval Infantry and that this upgrade was directed at both them and export for foreign users of the PT-76. AFAIK the Naval Infantry are getting new vehicles rather than existing vehicles upgraded but your point about the 2S1 is interesting.

Because they have so many chassis they want to continue to use the platform though the 122mm gun is becoming a little obsolete and if they could remove it from service they would be able to remove the 122mm shell calibre from the inventory which will save money.
The 2S34 Hosta is a 2S1 with the 122mm gun replaced with a 120mm gun howitzer mortar weapon that is so popular with airborne units and units fighting in mountains.

A 57mm anti aircraft gun vehicle would be another way to use the 2S1 chassis while still getting rid of the 122mm calibre.
The 2S1 carried about 40 rounds of 122mm ammo so I would guess it should be able to carry 100-120 rounds of 57mm ammo.

I guess it comes down to what they want to do... scrap everything and make everything new... which would be very expensive and wasteful, or using a mix of upgrades and new vehicles and scrapping which will be more complex to manage but will allow some technologies to get into production and use faster and more time to work on the totally new solutions which can be delayed till the technology in Russia matures and becomes cheaper, or is developed in Russia rather than imported.

Strelets

High Res link https://i.servimg.com/u/f74/15/54/62/79/strele11.jpg

Interesting picture of Strelets. Placed on MT-LB it more looks like modified Strela-10 than to prototype of Strelets placed on Vodnik 4x4 vehicle. I wonder if any of them is in actual service or it is only naval version Gibka, which is in service.

Interesting the number of sand coloured Pantsir-S1 systems there are... I remember comments for naysayers that most of the production Pantsirs were that colour because they were all going to the Middle East and the Russians weren't getting very many at all.

Nice to see Russian sand coloured systems... Smile

[quote]

It was interesting, that in May 9th parade in Tula, there were Pantsirs in sand color. I was thinking, they were just Pantsirs from KBP, which will be latter send to Arab customers. I know the first ten Pantsirs for russian army were green and then colored in new camouflage colors for Moscow parade. Maybe one Arab customer cancel the order or was not able to pay and Pantsirs stay at home as Algerian Mig-29SMTs.

The turret with 57 mm gun is very useful, be it placed on older modernized chassis or on new build ones, like BMP-3 chassis. In combination with autoloader, modern FCS and C4ISR it is very effective gun against most less armored targets on the ground and even in the air. Even armored helicopters could not survive a hit from 57 mm gun.

I think naval infantry will more like to see BMP-3 armed with this turret than old PT-76.

Just looking at the fundamental design of an Infantry Combat Vehicle... the main gun has the priority of penetrating the enemy equivelent plus a secondary requirement to defeat heavier armour.

For the BMP-1 it was the long minimum range of the AT-3 that mandated a main gun that could defeat the frontal armour of a tank... which therefore should be able to penetrate enemy ICVs too. When newer missiles became available the main gun no longer needed to cover the anti MBT performance over short range so they adopted the long barrel 30mm cannon that could engage aircraft at short range as well as light armoured vehicles.
It was found that the HE power of the BMP-1s gun was a useful compliment to the high velocity auto cannon so rather than upgrade the BMP-1s with the turret of the BMP-2 the older vehicles kept their larger calibre gun with the more effective heavier HE shell.
The replacement vehicle is the BMP-3 which kept the 30mm gun and added even more HE power than the old 73mm smoothbore with a 100mm rifled gun.

Now this is vital... it is a rifled gun. It is clear its primary ammo is HE. Spin stabilisation degrades the performance of HEAT and APFSDS rounds can't be spun fast enough to stabilise them because they are long and narrow so they need fins to stabilise them anyway. The only shells that benefit from spin stabilisation are HESH and HE. HESH are rendered obsolete by ERA or spaced laminated armour... so that means its purpose is HE shells.

The BMP-4 could certainly want to replace the 30mm gun that will no longer penetrate enemy ICVs, with a heavier gun and there have been rumours about 45mm and 57mm guns being tested.

I think the idea of the 57mm round is very good if you have a lot of PT-76 vehicles in service and want to keep them.

I think because they want to replace a lot of old vehicles that a brand new round using new telescopic cases and smoothbore barrels with high velocity rounds makes more sense than using old existing rounds.

I think telescopic cases will minimise the size of the new rounds without compromising performance and I think some flexible thinking could be used to further expand the capabilities here.

For example a standard telescopic cased round looks like a drinks can in basic shape, now one limitation of the 57mm guided round is the length is limited by the case size... well how about two standard rounds... one full length and one three quarters shell length so they are not confused where loading a guided missile into the chamber first which will leave room for the three quarters round that contains no projectile and just propellent so you can make the guided round as long as you need to and still blow it down the barrel with a useful amount of propellent. The standard rounds will be full length and will not chamber with a missile loaded.

Either way the new BMP-4 will not be able to carry a useful load of 57mm rounds and 100mm rounds so perhaps there should be two BMP-4 models like they have two BTR models now... the BTR-82 and BTR-82A can operate with the BMP-4 and BMP-4A where the BMP-4 has a 57mm gun and the BMP-4A has a 100mm gun and a 30mm gun.
Perhaps the BMP-4 could have a 14.5mm coaxial gun? Or perhaps the BMP-4A could have the 30mm gun replaced with a 14.5mm gun?

Brand new 57mm ammo should be possible with much larger payloads of HE, and of course devastating APFSDS rounds too. A guided 57mm HE shell that can reach to 8km could potentially replace the idea of ATAKA missiles on infantry support vehicles. Often the main purpose of such missiles is to hit point targets at long range like MG nests or sniper positions... or a specific room in a building and a laser guided 57mm shell should fill that role as long as it is not too expensive.

Maybe one Arab customer cancel the order or was not able to pay and Pantsirs stay at home as Algerian Mig-29SMTs.

Or maybe they knew the first S-400 would go to Moscow and the next might go to the far east because of North Korean missile tests so they ordered both camouflage coloured vehicles?

UAE ordered 50 systems and AFAIK they seem happy with them... the sensors will not be cheap but operating costs will be very reasonable as a truck is cheaper to run than a tank/tracklayer with regards to fuel and maintainence, and the missiles themselves are very cheap as they are simply SACLOS missiles with autotrackers to track the targets and missiles as you know... like a remote control with the remote controlling being handled by a sophisticated computer with radar and IR etc.

Interesting picture of Strelets. Placed on MT-LB it more looks like
modified Strela-10 than to prototype of Strelets placed on Vodnik 4x4
vehicle. I wonder if any of them is in actual service or it is only
naval version Gibka, which is in service.

If you look a page back I posted a vehicle photo from 2004 with no missiles mounted but it is clearly based on the SA-13 with the same operators position and missile positions and even the same ranging only radar above the crew position.

Oops, I didn't post that pic on this thread...

Here it is again:


Having thought about it... it makes sense to adapt the MANPADS launcher to fit the SA-13 launcher as there are likely plenty of SA-13s that could be upgraded this way and kept in service with plenty more kept as spare parts... and when they run out a new chassis can be bought.

It means the new chassis don't need to be in mass production right now to fill out all the needs. It delays production requirements while still upgrading.
If they threw out everything right now production would not be able to cope so there would be a lot of units without any vehicles. By using existing chassis that can do the job you can dedicate new production chassis to other purposes first and then as the other platforms wear out they can be introduced to replace them and increase fleet commonality without needing to buy a lot of new vehicles straight away.

30 mm guns is good against lighter armored APCs and other vehicles, but not enough against heavier ICVs like Puma or CV-90, which are as heavy as T-55 tank. 57 mm gun with HEAT or APFSDS projectile is good enough for those ICVs, for tanks it could still have additional ATGMs.

A 100 mm gun from BMP-3 is more like a combination of mortar and ATGM launcher. It could give excellent artillery support to infantry and launch ATGM against tanks and ICVs. For other targets you have 30 mm gun.

Both gun combinations 30 mm with 100 mm and 57 mm with ATGM are good, but it depend on tactical situation, which combination suite better. Smaller cal. with higher rate of fire or bigger cal. with smaller rate of fire. Let say in mountains 57 mm gun could reach higher than 30 mm guns and effect of 57 mm round is bigger than of 30 mm round. In a closer range 30 mm gun could give more rounds on target in shorter time.

In one way it is good, that Strelets modules with MANPADs are options to upgrade / modernize Strela-10, that it could have more missiles on launchers. On the other way I was expecting, that Strelets will be a lighter version more suitable for lighter vehicles like Vodnik, Tigr, Vystrel, BMD, to get better strategical mobility.

On the other hand I think, that Strela-10 turret could be placed in BTR-80. This could be good option for lighter brigades.

the 57mm gun sounds very promising, especially because of the multirole capabilities with various ammunition. todays age is net-centric, with the right data links vehicles that are connected would support each other. the M1 Tunguska could actively scan the airspace around a friendly formation while simultaneously sending via data links and secured networks information on potential targets allowing vechicles with various firepower to train their weapons onto the targets passively, ie 57mm laser guided shells or 30mm cannons.

the 30mm cannon is still very potent, yes new ifv's and apc's can withstand 30mm hits. but most vehicles are in trouble if you get off a good burst! even mbts will get damaged ie, tracks, optics, side armour, engine bay area. you may not destroy a tank but you'll definately spoil its day, IF YOU GET CLOSE ENOUGH! ('')

a combination of 57mm and missiles will be extremely deadly, with AHEAD type ammunition and guided shells.

I am sure as the newer lighter vehicles enter service this drop in mount could be adapted to them and as has been seen with the Igla-S that the next gen missiles can be added as they become available.

Presumably by 2018 they will be making Vodniks and Vystrels with these mounts holding Igla, Igla-S, and Verba missiles depending on how many of the older missiles are left in stock it could have 4 Iglas and 2 Igla-S missiles and 2 Verbas as a standard load.
I would assume reloads can be carried but I have no idea how many could be carried.

Hopefully they will adopt a similar layout for Gibka with 8 ready to launch missiles.

30 mm guns is good against lighter armored APCs and other vehicles, but
not enough against heavier ICVs like Puma or CV-90, which are as heavy
as T-55 tank. 57 mm gun with HEAT or APFSDS projectile is good enough
for those ICVs, for tanks it could still have additional ATGMs.

Yes, against lightly armoured or unarmoured targets a burst of 5-10 rounds from a 30mm cannon would likely be more destructive than a single round from a 57mm round... just like a cluster bomb that weighs 500kgs is more effective against area targets than a single warhead 500kg bomb because it distributes the damage more effectively.

Unarmoured targets however can be dealt with using 14.5mm HMG rounds too. The rate of fire of the 30mm and capacity for carrying hundreds of rounds are in its favour, but if you can have guided 57mm shells you don't need rate of fire or lots of rounds any more.

A 100 mm gun from BMP-3 is more like a combination of mortar and ATGM
launcher. It could give excellent artillery support to infantry and
launch ATGM against tanks and ICVs. For other targets you have 30 mm
gun.

Indeed it offers direct fire accuracy and a heavy HE capacity that automatic cannons can't compete with... it is complimented by a 30mm cannon which can deal with small fast targets (aircraft or moving vehicles) or lightly armoured targets.

Both gun combinations 30 mm with 100 mm and 57 mm with ATGM are good,
but it depend on tactical situation, which combination suite better.

I agree. However the 30mm and the 57mm over lap in performance however. There is also some overlap with the 100mm gun for example a sniper position in a building 6km away is slowing the advance. In a total war situation then a 100mm HE shell would be used and will probably bring the side of the building down. The 57mm guided shell could be placed to hit the lower part of the window with a delayed fuse to penetrate to where the Sniper is actually sitting before the detonation of maybe 1.2kgs of HE that would kill anyone no matter how much body armour they are wearing.

It all comes down to the performance and cost of the new 57mm ammo. Can the guided ammo be made cheap enough to use as a standard round? I am sure the navy will want this ammo as a hit by a round that weighs almost 3kgs will ruin most anti ship missiles day... and the extra stand off range makes it even better.

I have mentioned in the past that a stealthy 57mm gun turret along with some vertical launch IIR missiles like 9M100 and perhaps even the twin barrel 30mm Duet in stealthy turrets will be interesting inner layers for new Russian boats.

Agree with you, that combination of both ICVs, armed with 30 mm gun and with 57 mm gun have a great potential in battlefield. The question is more in how many ICVs would be equipped with standard configuration with 30 mm gun / 100 mm gun and how many with 57 mm gun inside battalion or brigade. Maybe the ones with 57 mm gun could be in smaller number, but more extensively used, where they are more proper.

In air defense a vehicle with 57 mm gun could be excellent supplement to Tunguska, where Tunguska could engage smaller targets with high rate of fire, While 57 mm gun could engage helicopters behind the trees or very low on longer distance and also higher flying planes and UAVs.

They are going for mobile forces and I think having a mix of weapons on their vehicles would give them more flexibility in the forces they deploy. In rough forested country a vehicle might not spot targets at more than 3km or so which means 30mm would be fine for many target types except for very hard ones like concrete bunkers or heavy IFVs or tanks. In more open terrain an increase in numbers of vehicles with 57mm guns might allow engagement of targets at much longer range and of course heavier targets.

In the air defence role laser guided 57mm rounds could be lofted towards enemy helos and either UAVs or forward spotters could mark helos with lasers even if the helo is on the ground. The helo could try to engage the platform with the laser marker... but modern laser target markers can be used from 15-20km or more so the UAV marking targets could be at 15,000m which means no air to air weapon a helo could carry could reach it.

With a proper C4IR system set up the location passed back to the 57mm calibre weapon equipped vehicle could task the UAV or forward spotter that detected and IDed the target to lase the target for the last 2-3 seconds of flight of the rounds he is about to fire so the helo might get only a very short warning before rounds start impacting.

Evasive manoeuvres at 10m altitude are dangerous.

Nice thread Garry

After reading through the original link and to what best google translates , it seems the 57 mm Guided Round uses Laser Beam pointed at the target to guide to its target. So the target is illuminated by Laser and the guided round simply follow the beam , not sure if it has proximity fuse but it would a lot good.

I would say the replacement for Pantsir would be

1 ) Platform Based on Armata Chasis or Kamaz Trucks.
2 ) Twin 57 mm Guns on either side , Missile on either side of gun like pantsir
3 ) Using Command Guidance like Existing Pantsir missile out to a range of 30-35 km from the present 20 km or using automonous guided rounds based on RVV-MD/RVV-SD missile they should give a range of 20 km and provide F&F capability
4 ) Tracking and Guidance radar fully AESA plus EO and Thermal system , a laser range tracker and marker to be used for guiding the 57 mm projectile

I would say in future warfare where UAV/UCAV/PGM/JDAM/SDB would be rule of the day a guided round like 57 mm would do a better job then a wall of 30 mm round , fewer rounds can achieve better kill with 57 mm.

I hope they can further improve the ballistic characteristics of 57 mm round by using better propellent or even a GLONASS receiver to be use against land target based on known position but not in LOS of Laser.

Wait...I didn't know Russia had guided bullets?

And really, no one is going to put a GPS receiver in a 57 mm round unless it was from a rail gun.

I hope they can further improve the ballistic characteristics of 57 mm
round by using better propellent or even a GLONASS receiver to be use
against land target based on known position but not in LOS of Laser.

No point in putting a GPS receiver on the rounds... rather pointless for such a weapon.

This gun will be for penetrating heavy armour that the 30mm can't deal with, or using its extra energy and range to hit point targets at longer ranges (like aircraft or light vehicles, or at sea incoming anti ship missiles like Harpoon for example).

For artillery it would make some sense, but not for an anti armour/anti aircraft round.

Wait...I didn't know Russia had guided bullets?

Is it really that much of a jump from Svir et al?

I would say in future warfare where UAV/UCAV/PGM/JDAM/SDB would be rule
of the day a guided round like 57 mm would do a better job then a wall
of 30 mm round , fewer rounds can achieve better kill with 57 mm.

I agree.

1 ) Platform Based on Armata Chasis or Kamaz Trucks.

1) I would expect each brigade will have its own air defence vehicle and therefore I would expect each brigade chassis will be different, plus the extra trailer version for fixed positions like HQs and airfields.

2 ) Twin 57 mm Guns on either side , Missile on either side of gun like pantsir

2) The 30mm Tunguska and Pantsir-S1 layout of two twin barrel guns is to get a certain density of fire at a specific range. The Shilka had 4 single barrel guns for the same reason.
I don't think the same would apply to guided shells of a 57mm gun system. The ammo is large and bulky and the ammo handling system is also bulky.
I would think a single barrel gun mounted in the turret with the addition of missiles mounted on each side of the turret would be enough. Even a worse case rate of fire of 120 rpm means for a single target you might want 2-3 shells guiding at once at most... one gun can achieve that easily with a 1.5 second burst. The flight time of the projectiles will then give up to a 4-5 second break and the reacquire the next target and fire upon that... it should be capable of destroying up to 6 targets a minute with guns alone.
With a single gun you could have a dual feed with two autoloader mechanisms which means you can have 20 guided shells in one autoloader and 20 HE shells with AHEAD type fuses in the other for helos popping up from behind trees etc.

3
) Using Command Guidance like Existing Pantsir missile out to a range
of 30-35 km from the present 20 km or using automonous guided rounds
based on RVV-MD/RVV-SD missile they should give a range of 20 km and
provide F&F capability

Well the Hermes and PantsirS1 missile are unified in design... and the Hermes is being designed with MMW radar, IIR, and other guidance options... so a PantsirS1 SAM with MMW or IIR guidance is F&F isn't it?

4 ) Tracking and Guidance radar fully AESA
plus EO and Thermal system , a laser range tracker and marker to be
used for guiding the 57 mm projectile

Would make sense.

Of course it all comes down to the 57mm gun itself and whether they think it is needed yet or not.
Certainly the 30mm calibre systems are very capable and relatively cheap.

I think the BMPs will get 57mm guns first in the Army as an anti IFV weapon like the 30mm used to be.

The Navy will get them first and likely use them as anti aircraft and anti ground and CIWS.

With guided shells small fast moving boats which are actually quite tricky to hit with large calibre guns at range will be much easier. A large gun like a 100mm gun can of course track targets moving as fast as a small boat but at a distance projecting the target position by the time the shell gets there is very hard because of their erratic manouvers. Usually you end up firing a barrage and hope something makes contact.
Using 30mm is an option but means you need to get within 4-5km of the target and most 30mm gatlings are designed to create a spread of shells like a shotgun blast to improve hit probability if the target moves at the last second.
In comparison a 57mm shell guided by laser beam has a very good chance to hit out to 8km or more. I think the ballistic range of the shell is something like 12km but that is with a full propellent charge and a standard shell.

I hope they can further improve the ballistic characteristics of 57 mm
round by using better propellent or even a GLONASS receiver to be use
against land target based on known position but not in LOS of Laser.

To get the GLONASS position of the target you would need an observer to precisely locate the target out of line of sight of the gun. In such a situation it makes more sense to get that observer simply to illuminate the target and to give firing instructions to the gun battery.

The initial work was based around upgrading the PT-76 with its 76.2mm gun by fitting a 57mm S-60 type gun and developing new projectiles.
Personally I think as the PT-76s will be withdrawn and replaced and that the 57mm shell was not designed for guided shells and the extra space the guided shell takes up reduces its muzzle velocity to 700m/s that instead of using an existing shell that a brand new 57mm round should be developed from scratched.
A telescoped case round with a much more compact shape with much more powerful ammo could be developed that stores more efficiently inside a vehicle and is easier to handle and stack should be made so that the guided projectile has much better performance and the AP and HE rounds are significantly better than any that could be shoehorned into the old 57mm shell.

Of course having thought about it for a few minutes... perhaps rather than create a Pantsir-S1 like vehicle to replace the Pantsir-S1 what you could do is simply equip BMP like vehicles with a 57mm gun with thermal sights and laser target market capability without the SAMs and without the expensive AESA.

You could have a Pantsir vehicle operating behind the armoured unit using its radar to scan the airspace above itself and the unit it is protecting and use its missiles to shoot down threats and its guns to shoot down any targets that threaten it, but it is capable of tracking a lot more targets than it can shoot down at once, so extra targets could be handed to some of the BMPs that are within range of the targets with their own guns using guided shells. A bit like how all BMP-2s were equipped with gripstocks for Igla missiles and would also fire on targets they spot.

During WWII air power and enemy armour were such threats that any and all guns were trained to fire on enemy aircraft and armour when they could. It was mostly morale back then but now with modern laser range finders and guided shells and modern fire control systems in IFVs that offer excellent accuracy at extended ranges the threat to airpower has increased just as much as the threat of airpower has.