Soviet era AA guns/AT guns/Artillery pieces. Uses??

180 mm gun S-23 being used in the Syrian conflict, still used by Eygpt and India (100 in service) to name a few countries.
160mm Mortar M1943 still in current service with Syria, Eygpt, Vietnam, Georgia (was still being produced intil 2011).

With artillery range is king and the 180mm gun has excellent range... even today.

In addition to range is hitting power and the 40kg mortar bombs of the 160mm mortars really hit hard and as far as I know they are still used in mountain units in the Russian forces... they hit with the power of a light aerial bomb.

Regarding anti tank guns and recoilless rifles... cheap guided systems like Metis-M1 make them largely obsolete, but if you already had some they would be better than nothing.

the Soviets used recoilless rifles in the mountains of Afghanistan as they had better reach than small arms fire and when you can see a group of enemy 3km away your MG fire is not so effective but a 73mm calibre HE round will get their attention...

I personally think that majority of the equipment in Russian reserves/service should be replaced the equipment either sold of cheaply or scrapped. Although some could be upgraded and be used, or used by reservists, or even sold in upgraded form.

Most of the anti aircraft guns are potent anti personnel weapons and would have an effect on enemy ground vehicles and navy vessels as well as aircraft, but I agree most of it is not worth keeping... giving it a slight upgrade and selling or donating it to allies that will find it useful would make sense.

the main problem is that the cheapest thing to do with this stuff is often nothing.

In addition to each weapon there will be a store of parts and ammunition otherwise it is useless.

Some of the ammo is still in use but a lot of it is out of production so gifting it to an ally often means setting them up with ammo production capacity... which can earn money too.

Not every ally wants old hand me downs, while others might already have some in stock so more is useful and upgrades useful too.

I rather suspect with the sale of equipment to Burma and leases of Su-24s to Argentina that old stock is being used up...

I agree that the S-23 and 160mm mortar has good range and hitting power, i just didnt see the point in keeping them when Russian forces have the 2S7 and Tulpan, the 160mm mortar would still need to be towed by a capable vehicle in mountainous areas to which a Tulpan being tracked would be more suited.

Well they really are spoiled for choice and can be selective about what they want to keep using and what they want to keep in storage.

They have developed a GLONASS based electronic fuse with steering fins for ammunition of greater calibre than 152mm ammo, which means obsolete weapons like 160mm mortars and 180mm big guns can become very effective with guided shells they become very powerful systems.

The large calibre means lower rate of fire, but the precision accuracy means fewer rounds will be needed, but certain heavy structures can withstand multiple hits from lighter calibres and the only solution is a much heavier projectile.

For instance in Afghanistan a pile of rocks in front of a cave will generally stop small arms fire even including HMG fire but 30mm grenade launcher rounds can blow those rocks away and enter the cave.

Larger rocks and even RPG fire wont be as effective, but a direct fire large calibre round... especially with a delayed fuse so it detonates inside the wall and you have a very effective round that will use the mass of the wall and shrapnel against the occupants.

As I mentioned previously recoilless rifles are useful for extended range engagements that are relatively cheap. In many countries they are used with HE rounds in mountainous country to set off avalanches to make areas safe for skiing. In Afghanistan the Soviets used them to pick off groups of enemy at extended ranges... the direct fire recoilless rifles much more accurate than mortars out to fairly long range with the rounds being much cheaper than ATGMs of the time... compared with Javelin even an SPG-9 has better range and you could buy 10,000 rounds for the cost of one Javelin missile and launcher... and one javelin missile is not more effective than 10,000 projectiles.

The anti-tank guns i think have had their day, the SPG-9 mounted on a 4x4 pick up or truck could still be useful for a quick shoot and scoot attack, and like you said theirs cheap ATGW on the market now and older stocks of AT-4 and AT-5 could be sold, hell even AT-3 would be even cheaper and would be better than anti tank guns, i remember reading that the unit can be produced for less $1,000 (and thats not a typo lol)

The missile for the Kornet EM is not that expensive as it only has a rear looking laser sensor, yet it can kill tanks at 8.5km and UAVs at 10km or point ground targets... Few anti tank guns could match that performance for any price.

Unfortunately I don't have a price for Kornet missiles... old or new, but they are designed so all the complex expensive stuff like thermal sights and computer bits are in the guidance system in the launcher, so the missile itself can be simple and cheap.

I agree SPG-9 cheap ammo does give it some use , and lik ei said shoot and scoot method would be ideal, and against buildings and bunkers, but as for the rest they could be scrapped, theirs just too many different calibres to keep it viable.

The main problem with a recoilless rifle is its length... but as I keep harping on, in Afghanistan they were used in remote outposts on the tops of small hills where soldiers would live for months isolated.

Perched up on a hill you could see for miles, but as I said an enemy group might form up 5km away and approach your position from several directions... small arms fire is only effective at fairly short distances yet in that barren landscape you could see them long before you could start hurting them.

With the RR you can start hitting them at extended ranges and could have hundreds of rounds in the small base because the ammo is so cheap... in fact i have also heard of them actually being used the same way civilians use them to clear avalanches except they are used in war to bring an avalanche down upon an enemy... they work at all sorts of altitudes unlike ATGMs.

It wouldnt take much to develop a nose mounted fuse with flight control fins designed to seek a laser target mark so that 1 in every 200 rounds you fire is guided for an anti armour hit on a point target that is a serious threat... even if it is an enemy team with an ATGM... your recoilless rifle rounds move rather fast...

the guided shells you mention would be ideal for Tulpan and 2S7 Pion, as these are self propelled and the S-23 and 160mm mortar need to be towed, so these could be scrapped as Tulpan and Pion are better and self propelled.

I agree... though the 160mm mortars I would keep for mountain warfare units, te 180mm guns I would withdraw and put 240mm mortars and 203mm heavy guns in reserve with a small stash of guided rounds ready to use when needed... and just focus on 152mm guns as standard artillery and replace the 122mm guns with 120mm hybrid gun/mortars and of course the 125mm smoothbores for tanks.

Firstly with the recent conflict in syria has highlighted that older systems have proved to still be effective from mig-21, T-55, anti aircraft guns being deployed as ground support role, anti tank guns/recoiless guns, sagger/konkurs, bm-21, m-46 130mm guns etc. To list a few. It's also highlighted soviet SAM system’s upgraded can still be effective and threats from cruise missiles and drones are a serious threat.

In this age of precision guided missiles, a direct fire gun of significant calibre can still get the job done from a safe range fairly cheaply.

But will we see new anti guns in the future? Or are missiles now king?

The Russians and Soviets see that guns and missiles are complimentary... a 57mm gun firing guided shells or air burst shells should be effective out to 10-12km with the right ammo against the right target, but with missiles there is no practical range limit and accuracy assures performance... the only issue is cost and effectiveness against certain types of targets.

Against an enemy light bunker or fortified room position a missile like Javelin is effective but also expensive overkill.

An SPG9 recoilless rocket launcher could also deal with the problem out to useful distances and cost a fraction of the price of one missile... even if you need two shots to hit the target with the recoilless rifle.

The SPG9 is relatively light and portable and cheap to use but can deliver a reasonable HE payload to a target out to useful ranges (ie beyond most small arms fire).

The HE payload is heavier and more effective than most standard grenade launchers, though the new Russian 57mm grenade launcher might change that... the question is how mobile will it be or does it need to be vehicle mounted.

the various RPG models offer a range of weapons to deliver HE warheads to a range of targets but generally only within about 500m.

The RPO family includes the RPOM which can engage targets to about 800m which makes it interesting, but I suspect accuracy at that range against point targets would not be great.

So is there a need to either continue upgrades on these or develope a cheap (cheap as sagger) for such kinds of long drawn conflicts?

Those upgrades offer to extend the usefulness of weapons otherwise not so useful. As anti tank weapons these systems are no so useful without upgrades against modern tanks, but lets face it... in real combat where there are not that many enemy tanks anyway half the time these systems will be engaging bunkers or buildings or enemy firing positions... often a better HE warhead would be of more value than a better HEAT round.

To be honest if I was in charge I would upgrade the older systems like Sagger to HE warheads and use them as fire support weapons, while the Konkurs I would upgrade the HEAT warheads and use them against vehicles other than tanks most of the time, with newer heavier weapons being used against enemy tanks.

Obviously a Konkurs can kill any tank from the side or rear, but should also be able to defeat any lighter armoured vehicle from any angle... leave Kornet for the heavier vehicles...

Obviously if you have a Konkurs and an enemy Leopard rolls in to view, then pick the weakest point on the vehicle and aim and fire, but if you know there are no enemy tanks take Sagger with HE warheads and have fun...

Once all the older missiles are used up then Metis-M1 is a powerful and relatively cheap system to use in enormous numbers.

Third question. With drones becoming a more serious threat and what we have seen not one method has been adopted but a selection of methods from missiles EW and AAA guns and I actually think that is the correct way to go about it many methods are better than eggs in one basket method. So would it be wise to invest in developing large calibre AAA guns? Using not just shrapnel but EW rounds as well. Or has large calibre guns had their day?

How about Sagger with a proximity fuse and a HE warhead?

The Russians have decided that 30mm is not good enough for very small targets... at 2km or more the gap between the shells is too big to assure a kill without firing thousands of rounds at each target.

Airburst 30mm and 57mm shells would make the job much easier and cheaper though.

Imagine an 80mm unguided rocket in a rocket pod with laser guided rocket seekers attached so they can be fired at small elusive targets like UAVs or even trucks on the ground... one shot hits... they don't need enormous range of big warheads... put it under the wing of an attack helo with a light cannon... or even under the wing of your own UCAV...

I would think the cheapest weapon for use against light enemy drones would be a 40mm grenade launcher that use air burst ammo with forward directed fragments like AHEAD rounds except these rounds go off after a short fixed flight period... the UCAV it is mounted on can be a light fast manouvering fighter like vehicle that chases enemy drones and when it gets to within range... say 60m away it can fire one or two 40mm grenades that will detonate at say 55m blowing a shower of fragments towards the target like a super shotgun. The short range means less time for the target to evade and having it explode short of the target with a wide spray of fragments increases the chances of a decent hit... firing 2-3 rounds per target makes it even more effective as the rounds would be relatively cheap compared with missiles or rockets, yet the spray of fragments increases the chance of a solid hit and kill.

Long drawn conflicts need cheap effective systems. So do you think new systems in this category will be developed in future?

You really have to justify each calibre, so I would probably give up the 160mm mortar calibre and replace it with a 152mm mortar calibre so they can have a light gun/mortar system that could share missiles with 152mm weapons (tank and artillery), and a 152mm mortar bomb could be used in shorter range engagements where a 120mm is not enough and 240mm is too much.

The problem I see is that with a vehicle platform the 240 is very powerful... the 160 has 40kg projectiles that are very powerful but are very like 152mm shells.

For most targets most of the time the 120mm rounds are accurate and powerful enough... when you need more there would be 152mm artillery support anyway, but if even that is not enough then 240mm makes sense for those very hard nuts to crack but I suspect it would be rare.

Over time an armata based vehicle could have a 240mm mortar... perhaps with an autoloader in an unmanned turret, but for the moment on the occasions where it is needed the 2S4 should do the job.

And last question. In Afghanistan small hand held mortars such as 50-60mm proved to be useful and in syria mountain areas the use of mortars and small artillery proved very useful. Small artillery systems of calibre of 76mm and 85mm and 82mm automatic mortar have proved to have sufficient range, high rate of fire and reliable but such systems have not be produced since the 40's, 50's and 60's so do you think we could or do you think should see development of newer systems or upgrade older systems?

50mm mortars faded from use in the Soviet Union because they were relatively expensive and complicated for what they were and were able to do.

In Afghanistan rocket weapons like the RPG-7 and RPO-A engineer rocket launchers generally replaced them... along with 30mm grenade launchers.

New weapons on the way include a new 40mm auto grenade launcher, and new 57mm grenade launchers are also in development, while the 82mm mortar is still in use and demand in Russia... I suspect the 120mm mortar will be vehicle based in future though for mobility.

On the points of konkurs spot on use it on other armour and keep kornet for the heavy stuff.

Konkurs was not expensive, and 4km range is reasonable against most targets and the 800mm penetration with a standard warhead will penetrate any tank from the side or rear that it hits... so using it as is means you have a useful medium range weapon.

The Kornet is a very powerful and capable system and the newer model has even better performance in terms of range and penetration.

At short range for the Russians the Metis-M1 is the best... it is compact enough to be truly manportable, with three men able to carry the launcher and 5 ready to fire missiles... and its effective range of 2km is good enough for most targets much of the time... especially in a busy environment.

As for sagger I am sure Russia could easily make improvements in terms of speed and accuracy speed is around 120-130m/s not the fastest but enough and range of 3km for the type of warfare and use we mentioned it's good enough.

Despite what Vann says in other threads even 120m/s is fast enough for most armoured targets... inside a tank you are unlikely to see the missile coming let alone be agile enough to jump behind cover when you see it.

The speed was originally because it was a wire guided and manually aimed missile... wire is spooled out the back as the missile flys through the air and it took a few seconds for the operator to gather the missile and control its flight and steer it onto the target... if it was moving much faster that would just mean an inner dead area of bigger than 300m because the missile would travel further before the operator got it under control... the extra speed of little help except making steering harder... and the wire length is what limits the missile to 3km so faster missiles run out of wire faster.

The main upgrade is SACLOS guidance which simplifies things quite a lot... better accuracy allowing more precise placement of the missile might even allow it to be effective without a warhead upgrade... but if you are upgrading it then I would say either a more powerful HEAT or a HE frag warhead would be natural options.

I am sure Russia could speak to Serbia and get any information on the upgrades they have done to save time and money Serbia do a tandem warhead improved penetration of 1,000mm against RHA and improved against ERA they also do the 2T5 radio guided 5km range.

It does not matter how you cut it any upgrade of Sagger will be inferior to Metis-M1... if you upgrade everything it is likely not even going to be cheaper and it certainly wont be lighter.

I would suspect the best thing Russia could do is upgrade it Saggers and pass them on to Syria and Yemen... they can be simple and cheap or capable and more expensive and if you agree on a HE warhead then extended range means they wont be interested in buying Konkurs or Kornet.

They actually have a version of Sagger used to simulate small targets... they tested the Igla MANPADS against Sagger missiles... flying very low and at 120m/s they were tricky targets.

The results were interesting... 5 direct hits and 4 near misses out of 9 engagements.

It was that test that led to the Igla-S which has a few improvements over the standard Igla, but the most noticeable improvement is the proximity fuse for engaging small targets so it can destroy them even if it does not directly hit them.

How about a proximity fuse for Sagger and use it against drones?

And the sagger would still be the cheapest on the market. A cheap ATGW also allows plenty live fire training.

Metis sights are not cheap because they include a thermal sight but the missiles themselves are super cheap... and the whole package is very portable.

The Russians actually sell an upgraded Sagger... called Malyutka 2, it is not much faster, but has a standoff nose probe with an 800mm penetration and 3km range... I would say it is more for existing users of Sagger rather than new users as new users tend to buy Metis-M1... a much newer and more reliable missile.

They likely have enormous numbers in storage, but their value is in low intensity conflicts... likely the number of duds is higher than with new or more recently made munitions...

Ironically an SPG9 RR could perform many of the roles a HE Sagger might be used for out to about 1km...

Different requirements.

The Russians have Kornet and Metis, and they are developing a new middle range weapon called Bulat... they don't need to compete with themselves using older missiles like Sagger and Konkurs...

Serbia on the other hands probably has Saggers and production capacity for Saggers and modified Saggers, but nothing in the Kornet range...

They have a tandem warhead improved penetration against ERA of 1000mm against RHA and for long range the 2T5 radio guided 5km. Thermobaric also available for buildings and light armour.

Well they claim it is 1m penetration, and that 5km range... at 130m/s that means almost 40 seconds waiting for the missile to reach the target... not a huge deal if the target is 5km away as it is not likely to notice the attack until it is too late... but still, not ideal.

I would assume it is rather heavier than standard Sagger...

My understanding of the Vasilek is that it was used by VDV forces and was intended to be used by a highly mobile force.... ie 6 weapons roll up to a position and deploy and in about 30 seconds are firing off rounds within the group at about 720rpm for a couple of clips and then they move off.

I am no expert, but I would assume they would be used to soften targets rapidly before an assault... something the 120mm mortar carriers probably superseded. Certainly NONA was a very popular vehicle. Of course in Afghanistan the BMD was often replaced by the BMP-2M with better armour performance as they were not used in the air delivered role...

I too cringe when US forces use a Javelin to engage targets they could easily engage even with RPG-7s, but if it isn't high tech and expensive it is not cool right?

Value for money from the soldier right up to the government... a culture of waste... and their goal is to make us all like them...