Serbian Defence Industry and Arms Exports

George1 wrote:The Serbian company DLS Specijalni sistemi doo Beograd is developing a light tank on the chassis of the Soviet 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns. A turret with a modified 100-mm T-12 / MT-12 Rapier anti-tank gun is used as a combat module.

It looks cool...but I wonder if this combat module could be put on new Lazar3 vehicles?

George1 wrote:The Serbian company DLS Specijalni sistemi doo Beograd is developing a light tank on the chassis of the Soviet 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns. A turret with a modified 100-mm T-12 / MT-12 Rapier anti-tank gun is used as a combat module.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f95/17/13/61/45/48011110.jpg

Interesting

Production of tracked vehicles is a huge weakness for Serbia so I guess reusing Gvozdika chassis is one way to get around it (Lord knows there plenty of them worldwide and are easy to acquire)

But it would still need plenty of additional armor to make it practical, fortunately armor plates are easier to make than tracked vehicles

littlerabbit wrote:It looks cool...but I wonder if this combat module could be put on new Lazar3 vehicles?

Would it be able to carry that weigh? Or handle recoil?

If yes then I'm sure they are already working on it but this thing really looks massive so I dunno...

Would be at a disadvantage against other tanks of the last few decades, but against older tanks in Africa like T-54s and T-55s and indeed T-34s it might get away with a lot simply by having better optics and better night vision gear.

The 100mm gun is reasonably good against tanks of its generation, and would be plenty for use against most BMPs and BTRs as well as having good performance against bunkers and enemy firing positions.

Once you start up armouring you will enter a spiral of needing a new engine and improved suspension etc etc and pretty soon you end up with something still less capable than you would have if you started with a T-72.

I would say start with a T-72 if you want a tank... better gun, better armour, just as cheap and widely available.

If this design is supposed to be amphibious and mobile on soft ground then used correctly it should be on its own in terms of armour... the only other tanks it will come across will be something like Sprut which would not have an enormously large amount of more armour or some light Chinese tank which again wont be heavily armoured either.

I would say ERA, and really emphasise spaced armour for protection from ATGMs and RPGs but also for buoyancy... the 100mm smoothbore gun is fine... good penetration and good HE round.... anything heavier than that then buy Kornet missiles to engage...

GarryB wrote:Would be at a disadvantage against other tanks of the last few decades, but against older tanks in Africa like T-54s and T-55s and indeed T-34s it might get away with a lot simply by having better optics and better night vision gear.

The 100mm gun is reasonably good against tanks of its generation, and would be plenty for use against most BMPs and BTRs as well as having good performance against bunkers and enemy firing positions.

This is not something that would be used to fight actual tanks, it would be idiotic

During wars here there was almost zero cases of tanks fighting other tanks, they were alsmost universaly used for infantry support

This is most likely intended role for this vehicle while MBTs would be reserved for bigger things

GarryB wrote:Once you start up armouring you will enter a spiral of needing a new engine and improved suspension etc etc and pretty soon you end up with something still less capable than you would have if you started with a T-72.

There is no way they would leave it on stock Gvozdika chassis, it's too thin and would never get even close to any serious requirements

Additional armour is definitely coming

Just compare Lazar-1 and Lazar-3

GarryB wrote:I would say start with a T-72 if you want a tank... better gun, better armour, just as cheap and widely available...

Why not just buy whole T-72 then?

Why not just buy whole T-72 then?

That is what I am saying... if you want a light amphibious tank then the 2S1 is ready made and ready to go, but if you want to up armour it then you will find you start adding extra weight which means you need a bigger engine and new transmission and new suspension but it still wont be anything more than a light tank that most ATGMs will cut through like a hot knife through butter.

Thicken the armour a little bit but no so much you need to change everything... rely on spaced armour... several light layers of armour are good for stopping HMG and very light cannon rounds... especially if you fill the cavities with useful stuff like fuel or just water or ceramic materials.

If you are demanding decent levels of armour then start with a T-72 instead.... put a smaller lighter but still useful gun... if it is not going to be used against enemy tanks then use the 100mm gun of the BMP-3... tiny rounds you can carry in large numbers and includes a missile if something more dangerous turns up, but with a good HE punch.

Lazar 3 on military parade in Turkmenistan.

As we know, they bought 24 vehicles, so far.

Another interesting article, considering the future of Lazar 3 in Turkmenistan...apparently, they need to renew a lot, according to Russians, check out comments.

It is older article, from March, this year.

littlerabbit wrote:Lazar 3 on military parade in Turkmenistan.

As we know, they bought 24 vehicles, so far....

They already delivered them?

Holy shit, I thought​ they were still in negotiation phase

Who are these guys and what have they done to our defense industry?

PapaDragon wrote:

littlerabbit wrote:Lazar 3 on military parade in Turkmenistan.

As we know, they bought 24 vehicles, so far....

They already delivered them?

Holy shit, I thought​ they were still in negotiation phase

Who are these guys and what have they done to our defense industry?

Apparently, a new factory in Kursumlija is already making a shit load of Milos M-16 vehicles, I saw only a glimpse of factory and there were at least 6 or 7 unfinished vehicles.

Factory in Velika Plana can produce up to 100 vehicles per year, so (as I understood) only Lazar 3 and NORA B-52 howitzer will be produced there.
That should be enough for our needs and for export, I think. I've heard some talk about delivering 2 Lazar 3 every month to Turkmenistan.  

Btw, they have 900 BTR 60/70/80's and want to replace them all .

New Serbian IFV, Lazanski.  




Apparently, it has basic protection STANAG 4546 level 4 on all sides and armed with Russian AU220M 57mm turret.

This thing is looking bloody good.

I guess we officially graduated from MRAPs to full IFVs  

Little windows are out, big guns are in

It's namesake would have loved this


We gonna be finishing Boomerang before Russians do (kidding, kidding...)

littlerabbit wrote:...Apparently, a new factory in Kursumlija is already making a shit load of Milos M-16 vehicles, I saw only a glimpse of factory and there were at least 6 or 7 unfinished vehicles....

I remember that too, it was 6 or 7 on just one work station, there was definitely way more than that in total

Apparently Lazanski is not Lazar-3 modification but a brand new platform:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/partner_2021_news_online_show_daily_defense_exhibition_serbia/yugoimport_unveils_new_lazanski_8x8_armored_vehicle_armed_with_57mm_cannon.html

....
...The LAZANSKI is a completely new armored vehicle and is not based on the Lazar family of 8x8 armored vehicles. The hull of the LAZANSKI is of all-welded steel construction and is combined with Ceramic armor to reach standard ballistic protection of STANAG 4569 Level 5, against the firing of 25mm caliber weapons. The vehicle can be fitted upgraded to Level 6, offering ballistic protection against 30 mm APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) or AP (Armor Piercing) ammunition at 500 m. The vehicle incorporates a V-shaped monocoque hull providing mine protection Level 4 STANAG 4569 to withstand an explosion of 10 kg of TNT under the wheels and the center bottom part.

The layout of the new LAZANSKI consists has the power pack front right, driver front left and the whole of the remainder of the hull rear being left free for the troop compartment. The vehicle has a crew of three including a driver, commander and gunner while the rear part of the vehicle is able to accommodate up to 10 infantrymen that are seated on anti-mine blast seats. A hydraulic ramp is located at the rear of the hull allowing the infantrymen to quickly enter or leave the vehicle.
........
The LAZANSKI is powered by a Turbocharged Caterpillar C13 engine developing 711 hp coupled to a 6-speed automatic Allison 4000SP transmission. The drive train consists of SISU axles with electro-pneumatic locks on all sub-elements. The vehicle has a gross vehicle weight from 26 to 36 tons depending on the armor configuration.....

That's a serbian system I think. Anyway looks much better than previous versions.

They should have added 2 more missiles.

Those passive radio sensors were also used on SA-13 and SA-9 and were used to detect the weak signal from radio altimeters used on aircraft and missiles to fly low while avoiding terrain.... and also of course terrain following radar.

They look like they have lengthened the missiles, which is a bit excessive considering the SOSNA is intended to replace it in Russian service.

AFAIK the current model Strela-10M already has a thermal channel with its seeker to improve performance against small targets that are not hot jet engine exhausts.

GarryB wrote:Those passive radio sensors were also used on SA-13 and SA-9 and were used to detect the weak signal from radio altimeters used on aircraft and missiles to fly low while avoiding terrain.... and also of course terrain following radar.

They look like they have lengthened  the missiles, which is a bit excessive considering the SOSNA is intended to replace it in Russian service.

AFAIK the current model Strela-10M already has a thermal channel with its seeker to improve performance against small targets that are not hot jet engine exhausts.

It's this will be offered for export only to poorer nations who can't afford SOSNA, or offered as a cheap upgrade within Russian forces where the 10km.range is all they needed maybe offering such a system to airborne forces and if captured by enemy they won't be giving away SOSNA secrets lol. I think either way it's good cheap upgrade, the system is still pretty good and the warhead is more powerful than a MANPAD which can be useful against armoured helis or A-10 where a heavier warhead would be better. For info warhead weight
Verba 1.5kg
SOSNA 7kg
Sa-13 5kg
This newer longer missile could have bigger warhead.
And I suppose there will be costs per missile to consider as well.

The designation for the missile is wrong, and they have only recently upgraded the SA-13 in Russian service to a new model with better optical seeker... but while its range increased it hasn't doubled.

I suspect this is a Serbian upgrade and is in the wrong thread.

The 9M100 missile is likely to replace the SA-13 together with the SOSNA/Pine.

JohninMK wrote:Zoran Vukosavljevic
@ZoranVukosavlje
·
13 Oct
New improved Strela-10M with thermal camera, laser rangefinder, pasive radio-locators and modified 9M37M missile marked as RLN-S10, range 10 km/ 5 km on height!
@MihajlovicMike
@gunner_schmulke

This is Serbian modernisation of Strela-10.





They add a buster engine to original Strela-10 missile to increase the range to 10 km. Question is its IR/EO seeker/homing head, at which range it could detect the target. I know, Poland have some problems, when they developed their Piorun 2 missile for Poprad VSHORAD, which should have 10+ (12) km range. Piorun 2 missile use the same IR homing head as Igla (SAM-18) or Polish copy Grom MANPAD and have max detecting range at 8 km, so they use laser beam riding in the first phase to bring missile close enough for IR seeker to detect and lock the target.


Piorun 2 missile

Increasing range isn't only meant to hit at longer ranges. It also means that the missile has better kinematics in its effective range.

Makes vehicle design easier when the turret is non penetrating so it does not take up space in the hull.

Increasing range isn't only meant to hit at longer ranges. It also means that the missile has better kinematics in its effective range.

Not really... the extra booster is to extend flight range, but if it cannot lock at max range then that only works in a chasing engagement with the target moving away from the SAM... which would be ideal for an IR SAM as you would see the engine exhaust of the target, but shooting down approaching targets it usually more valuable than receeding ones.

I seem to remember during the HATO campaign that the Serbs used all sorts of missiles... including R-73s with solid rocket boosters to get them moving from a ground launch... this could be further applications of what they learned... but  for this thread.

BTW a solid rocket booster will improve performance but wont make it cheaper... and I suspect the extra weight means it can only carry four missiles instead of the original 6.

Interesting a laser rangefinder has replaced the radar rangefinder, but they retain the EW boxes either side of the gunners window that detect electronic emissions from the target avoiding the ground with radio altimeters and terrain following radar.

All in all its sensors seem to be passive except for its laser range finder, which will only be used on targets at extreme range to ensure they are in range of the weapon. I wont be horrendously expensive but will be passive so hard for most air forces to spot before it is too late and should have a reasonable chance for a kill... the two stages means it should have good energy attacking the target and the SA-13 missile has a much more substantial HE warhead than MANPADS which is important if the target is armoured or rather big. Would be excellent against ground attack aircraft and attack helicopters and likely would be cheap enough for most major drone types that would otherwise be serious problems for many air defence vehicles.

The passive EW sensors could locate datalinks to make finding drones much easier too...

Our president Vucic had a series of interviews, today and yesterday...and there are a lot of news.

Apparently, we already have 2(!) Pantsir S1 batteries and soon we are expecting more.

He also said that we are expecting to receive very soon 4 Mi-35M's, 3 Mi-175V's, 11 Mi-35P's (Cyprus) and 10 H-145M's

Also, we will soon receive Krasukha, Repellent, also Kornet rockets and who knows what...

He was also talking about another fighter-bomber squadron and that Air Force also needs more MIG figters (?!)

He explained that our military will anually order for 250 million euros worth military equipment from our factories, for the next 5 years. That means 1,25 billion of euros in 5 years.

That includes at least 54 NORA B-52 howitzers and a lot of other systems and vehicles.  

Our military asked him for a budget 700 million euro larger, anually...he agreed to 500 millions more.