ZSU-23-4 and ZU-23-2 AA Guns: Views

first of all this kind of equipment would need to have a tracking sistem...else is useles...... being radar , IR , video , you name it.....
it would need a target analysis software (estimate of speed and direction....and ofcourse point of interception)
then all those data must be transformed into a turret moving coresponding to the data's ..... this would mean to know how to make a corelation between the movement and the data ....and this is a software engineer bussines ......

ofcourse that those kind of old manned manipulated sistems are obsolete for the obvious reason that you will end your ammo before you can really hit the target ......

but also lets mention that a rocket like the tomahawk or something are hard shielded for a projectile like bullets (even being big sized)......

victor1985 wrote:first of all this kind of equipment would need to have a tracking sistem...else is useles...... being radar , IR , video , you name it.....
it would need a target analysis software (estimate of speed and direction....and ofcourse point of interception)
then all those data must be transformed into a turret moving coresponding to the data's ..... this would mean to know how to make a corelation between the movement and the data ....and this is a software engineer bussines ......

ofcourse that those kind of old manned manipulated sistems are obsolete for the obvious reason that you will end your ammo before you can really hit the target ......

but also lets mention that a rocket like the tomahawk or something are hard shielded for a projectile like bullets (even being big sized)......

so what your saying is a tomahawk has better armour than an IFV???? as 57mm, are more than capable of penetrating IFV, and to some extend so does 37mm, 23.5mm, i highly doubt a tomahawk could deflect 14.5mm never mind the rest, but i could be wrong,

d_taddei2 wrote:

I like the "Serbian "motorised" ZSU-23 highly mobile which is ideal, also like the Chinese LD-2000 thats looks pretty mean, and the BOV3 thats a hell of a lot of MANPAD missiles.

In similar manner Serbs offered their 3x20mm towed guns modernisation:

victor1985 wrote:first of all this kind of equipment would need to have a tracking sistem...else is useles...... being radar , IR , video , you name it.....
it would need a target analysis software (estimate of speed and direction....and ofcourse point of interception)
then all those data must be transformed into a turret moving coresponding to the data's ..... this would mean to know how to make a corelation between the movement and the data ....and this is a software engineer bussines ......

ofcourse that those kind of old manned manipulated sistems are obsolete for the obvious reason that you will end your ammo before you can really hit the target ......

but also lets mention that a rocket like the tomahawk or something are hard shielded for a projectile like bullets (even being big sized)......

Most of these modernisations and hybrid guns do have various aiming assistance updates, laser markers, thermal imaging, radars, depends on country and extense of modernisation. Those are anyways stuff that can be bought "of the shelf" on the market.

Not really, Tomahawk is not armored at all, its just thin sheet with filling similar to foam inside. Our 20mm AA guns were used to shoot them down in 1999. with no problem. Adding armor weight to cruise missiles would greatly affect its payload, speed and rage. Mark 143 Box Launchers are armored but they are on ships.







In Serbian Airforce Museum

I remember a towed trailer designed for the SOSNA-R hypersonic short range missiles... it had a single twin barrel 30mm cannon (2A38M from Tunguska) and a quad launcher for 4 SOSNA-R SAMs with two stage missiles and a range of 10km. The trailer had a ball turret with an EO targeting system but no radar.

I was thinking at the time that it would be an ideal base system for whatever gun missile combination you wanted... the twin barrel 30mm gun could be replaced with 12.7mm, 14.5mm, 23mm or the 30mm calibre weapon fitted and the missiles could be SOSNA or Igla or Igla-S or Verba. The auto tracking ball turret would allow 24/7 all weather engagement of targets no matter what the EW equipment used by the enemy.

It could be tied into the AD network or used on its own and would be cheap and light and relatively mobile.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f86/15/11/39/27/abwa4p10.jpg

Such a towed trailer would be ideal for use against enemy ground forces and aircraft... or mounted on an armoured vehicle.

GarryB wrote:I remember a towed trailer designed for the SOSNA-R hypersonic short range missiles... it had a single twin barrel 30mm cannon (2A38M from Tunguska) and a quad launcher for 4 SOSNA-R SAMs with two stage missiles and a range of 10km. The trailer had a ball turret with an EO targeting system but no radar.

I was thinking at the time that it would be an ideal base system for whatever gun missile combination you wanted... the twin barrel 30mm gun could be replaced with 12.7mm, 14.5mm, 23mm or the 30mm calibre weapon fitted and the missiles could be SOSNA or Igla or Igla-S or Verba. The auto tracking ball turret would allow 24/7 all weather engagement of targets no matter what the EW equipment used by the enemy.

It could be tied into the AD network or used on its own and would be cheap and light and relatively mobile.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f86/15/11/39/27/abwa4p10.jpg

Such a towed trailer would be ideal for use against enemy ground forces and aircraft... or mounted on an armoured vehicle.

that i like,

the great thing about this system as you rightly said is varieties/combinations can be tailored made to customers needs or what calibre they currently use. As always there is some great ideas out there its a real shame they never get put into production or get pushed on the export front

Here is an interesting report of the ZSU-23-4 conserved as monuments or museum pieces:

http://www.massimocorner.com/afv/Surviving_ZSU-23-4.pdf

Despite it this is a weapon that remains powerful and useful.

Does anyone know if Russian zsu 23-4 currently in service received the zsu 23-4M5 upgrades?

Also does Russia have in service any versions of the ZU-23ZOM etc etc

I always thought that it might be useful for airborne forces and could also be mounted on BTR-D or BTR-MDM. Although I believe that the BTR-D ZD was similar design but not as good or upgraded as ZOM versions

Does not quite related to the topic but this Ukrainian project seem to be the best upgraded and modernized Zsu-23-4M ever.







https://zloy-odessit.livejournal.com/2222296.html

d_taddei2 wrote:Does anyone know if Russian zsu 23-4 currently in service received the zsu 23-4M5 upgrades?

Also does Russia have in service any versions of the ZU-23ZOM etc etc

I always thought that it might be useful for airborne forces and could also be mounted on BTR-D or BTR-MDM. Although I believe that the BTR-D ZD was similar design but not as good or upgraded as ZOM versions

Don't think so....I'd say it's aimed at foreign Shilka operators as an upgrade package....same as the Ukr one posted by kopyo-21 above

Cyberspec wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Does anyone know if Russian zsu 23-4 currently in service received the zsu 23-4M5 upgrades?

Also does Russia have in service any versions of the ZU-23ZOM etc etc

I always thought that it might be useful for airborne forces and could also be mounted on BTR-D or BTR-MDM. Although I believe that the BTR-D ZD was similar design but not as good or upgraded as ZOM versions

Don't think so....I'd say it's aimed at foreign Shilka operators as an upgrade package....same as the Ukr one posted by kopyo-21 above

As read that some zsu -23-4 were still in use with marines so wondered if they had upgraded. As for zu-23 haven't seen or heard anything

No matter what upgrades you apply... and most of them revolve around adding MANPADS and improving the electronics performance of the vehicle...

At the end of the day most MANPADS have a range of 6km or less which is less than the range of most helicopter launched ATGMs.

The Tunguska made sense because its 8km and then 10km and now 12-20km range missiles means enemy CAS aircraft and helos are vulnerable and can't attack from outside its range.

Shilka is a potent vehicle against both ground and air targets but spending more money to make is slightly more effective is not a great use of available funds.

Improve the electronics... make them smaller and cheaper and more effective, but don't spend too much money on something that wont be in service for much longer in Russia.

GarryB wrote:No matter what upgrades you apply... and most of them revolve around adding MANPADS and improving the electronics performance of the vehicle...

At the end of the day most MANPADS have a range of 6km or less which is less than the range of most helicopter launched ATGMs.

The Tunguska made sense because its 8km and then 10km and now 12-20km range missiles means enemy CAS aircraft and helos are vulnerable and can't attack from outside its range.

Shilka is a potent vehicle against both ground and air targets but spending more money to make is slightly more effective is not a great use of available funds.

Improve the electronics... make them smaller and cheaper and more effective, but don't spend too much money on something that wont be in service for much longer in Russia.

Even the SA-19 2S6 is being upgraded now to the use of one of the variants of Pantsir missiles, that will give to the weapon a range over the SA-8 and the SA-15. The weapon will continue for long.

In the case of the ZSU-23-4, it would be possible to take the upgrade way of the SA-13, and to ad to the system some Sosna Air Defense missiles. This would put both systems again above the range of the MANDPADS again. It would be likely the way for the ZSU-23-4 to remain modern enough. And very likely above the SA-13 because the platform of the ZSU-23-4 is bigger and surely allows the use of Sosna missiles in a little bigger amounts.

MANPADS advance with the time, but to remain above the MANPAD level (range) is a must for the air defense weapons mounted on heavy platforms.

SOSNA is much smaller than SA-19/22 so carrying a lot of them is easy but not to big and bulky... the issue I would have is that the SOSNA trailer I have seen looks rather better than a ZSU-23-4 mount... it had a single person covered position with four missiles and one twin barrel 30mm cannon from Tunguska fitted to it.

the 30mm weapon has better range and hitting power than the 23mm guns, so actually fitted a single twin barrel 30mm cannon to a ZSU-23-4... which would actually make it a ZSU-30-2, but add Sosna-R missiles... you could easily fit a dozen or more missiles there with 10km range and very high flight speed would make it a very useful upgrade.

A new radar and EO system would complete the upgrade for low cost operations and make a very potent system and eleminate the 23 x 152mm calibre from the inventory... which would be useful too.

The 30mm shells are much more powerfull and range than 23mm shells. However, I think the main roles of 2A7M 23mm guns on Russian Zsu-23-4M4 are to deal with cruise missiles, guided ammunitions and UAVs. Due to that roles, its ROF 3,600 rpm is more advantage than 1 2A38M 30mm gun with ROF 2,500 rpm. 4 guns are also more reliable than 1 gun.

Actually when considering the new design to upgrade Zsu-23-4M, they tested many options of 30mm gun to replace 23mm guns. Those options were 2 NN-30 guns (Like Naval Ak-230), 1 Gsh-630 gun and 2 Gsh-30-2. Finally, the option of 2 Gsh-30-2 guns with ROF 5,000 rpm was the best.

In other countries, Zsu-23-4Ms have to deal with many kinds of targets and most of them are aircrafts and helicopters so they should upgrade them with 1 or 2 2A38M 30mm gun(s).

GarryB wrote:SOSNA is much smaller than SA-19/22 so carrying a lot of them is easy but not to big and bulky... the issue I would have is that the SOSNA trailer I have seen looks rather better than a ZSU-23-4 mount... it had a single person covered position with four missiles and one twin barrel 30mm cannon from Tunguska fitted to it.

the 30mm weapon has better range and hitting power than the 23mm guns, so actually fitted a single twin barrel 30mm cannon to a ZSU-23-4... which would actually make it a ZSU-30-2, but add Sosna-R missiles... you could easily fit a dozen or more missiles there with 10km range and very high flight speed would make it a very useful upgrade.

A new radar and EO system would complete the upgrade for low cost operations and make a very potent system and eleminate the 23 x 152mm calibre from the inventory... which would be useful too.

In the upgrade of the SA-13 system the option would be 12 tubes in 2 groups of 6.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0_(%D0%97%D0%A0%D0%9A)

For the ZSU-23-4, I would try with 18 or 20 tubes, not more. But even the 12 tubes system designed for the SA-13 would be good enough, and fairly cheap being shared with the SA-13.

The 30mm shells are much more powerfull and range than 23mm shells. However, I think the main roles of 2A7M 23mm guns on Russian Zsu-23-4M4 are to deal with cruise missiles, guided ammunitions and UAVs.

No, they are not.

Air burst 30mm shells have a much better chance of hitting small targets than 23mm shells fired at a lower rate of fire (the platforms that have 30mm cannons have two... firing between 4 and 5,000 rpm.

Due to that roles, its ROF 3,600 rpm is more advantage than 1 2A38M 30mm gun with ROF 2,500 rpm. 4 guns are also more reliable than 1 gun.

Actually no. They both have squibs that blow holes in the sides of the cannon shells to ignite rounds that misfire, but the 30mm guns are more reliable than the older 23mm guns which had a tendency to continue firing sometimes...

Actually when considering the new design to upgrade Zsu-23-4M, they tested many options of 30mm gun to replace 23mm guns. Those options were 2 NN-30 guns (Like Naval Ak-230), 1 Gsh-630 gun and 2 Gsh-30-2. Finally, the option of 2 Gsh-30-2 guns with ROF 5,000 rpm was the best.

When they made that decision they were mainly concerned about attack helos and CAS aircraft... which the 30mm calibre outperformed the 23mm round in every way.

Today however the problem is munitions and UAVs and cruise missiles... the solution for which is shell fragments with smart ammo... 57mm rounds being more effective and efficient than smaller calibre rounds even if the rate of fire has dropped dramatically.[/quote]
[/quote]

Currently, the remotely programming airbrush is only applied for 30mm shells fired from 2A72 gun on BTR-82A and 57mm shells fired from 2A90 gun on Zak-57 (in designing & testing process). Both of guns are low ROF (400 and 120 rpm responsively) so it is hard to say if this can apply for the very hight ROF guns like 2A82M. If it can, obviously only one 2A38M gun firing airbrush 30mm shells will be much more effective than 4 guns firing 23mm shells.

However if it can not, the ROF 3,600 rpm of 4 2A7M guns on Zsu-23-4M will have higher hit probability than ROF 2,500 rpm of 1 2A38M gun in short range firing. I said 4 guns are more reliable than 1 gun means if 1 or even 2 guns are broken down or damaged, Zsu-23-4M still have 3 - 2 guns to continue firing.

Currently, the remotely programming airbrush is only applied for 30mm shells fired from 2A72 gun on BTR-82A and 57mm shells fired from 2A90 gun on Zak-57 (in designing & testing process). Both of guns are low ROF (400 and 120 rpm responsively) so it is hard to say if this can apply for the very hight ROF guns like 2A82M. If it can, obviously only one 2A38M gun firing airbrush 30mm shells will be much more effective than 4 guns firing 23mm shells.

It is not rocket science... they don't have some manual fuse setter than grabs the rounds before they go into the 2A72 and set a time to explode before putting it into the gun for firing.

An induction coil could be used to set the time fuse on the rounds so they detonate at a specific distance and as rounds are fired that distance can be adapted to give better results during the engagement.

A tail fuse with mid mounted explosive charge and front facing fragmentation payload would be ideal for both rounds as they would effectively be shotgun type rounds that spread their payload a half second before intercepting the target... exploding short of the target means fragments have time to spread out to increase hit probability... with the 2A38M you would only need short bursts of 5-10 rounds to cover an area where a small UAV might be coming from.

However if it can not, the ROF 3,600 rpm of 4 2A7M guns on Zsu-23-4M will have higher hit probability than ROF 2,500 rpm of 1 2A38M gun in short range firing. I said 4 guns are more reliable than 1 gun means if 1 or even 2 guns are broken down or damaged, Zsu-23-4M still have 3 - 2 guns to continue firing.

Without airburst or guided rounds the chances of hitting a very small target make just using rate of fire pointless at any except very close range...

Two 30mm gatlings on Kashtan are effective to about 2km against small targets... a desperate measure indeed.

Of course 23mm and 30mm are still fine for larger targets and are very effective against helos and larger UAVs, but for hand held UAVs you need something new...

The current Russian 30mm airbrush shells use very different way to programe the detonation time. It is not programmed in chamber before firing (like ATK Orbital ABM 30/35mm) or at gun muzzle (like Rheinmental AHED 30/35mm). It is set by coded laser pulses sent from the FCS affter the shells leaving the barrel 50m. Sofar, just only Rheinmental confirms that their method (programing the shells at gun muzzle) can apply for high ROF gun that ATK Orbital's method can not. That is reason I said if this method can apply for high ROF gun.

The Russian method to program 30mm airbrush shells:
https://m.tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503291027-casm.htm

If they use a coded laser beam then logically rate of fire is irrelevant... whether there is one shell in the air or 200, when they receive the coded signal they will explode at a set time.

ANIET for 125mm rounds passes through an induction coil to set the fuse before it is loaded and fired... the muzzle velocity measurement induction coil on the outer barrel of the 2A38M could also serve the secondary function of fuse setting as the round travels out of the muzzle and down range to the target...

The zsu23-4 used in ground support role by SAA did they retain the radar etc? Or did they remove? The reason why I ask as we have many vehicles with various modifications and thought maybe they removed the radar etc to reduce the weight tof help compensate with maybe the addition of caged armour and sandbag baskets on the turret. Obviously keeping the radar also has the advantage of being used for air defence if the ground support zsu 23-4 needed but seeing Russia had airspace covered that they may have removed them kept them for when they are actually needed. I always thought that a shilka would be ideal for an anti VBIED unit as well as a zpu-4 mounted on a mt-lb or T-55 chassis. Even the zsu-57-2 could prove deadly no amount of bolt on pieces of metal etc that jihadis use would stop a burst of 57mm rounds.

Don't know about in Syria but in Afghanistan I understand that ZSU-23-4 vehicles often had not just the radar but also the extensive electronics inside removed to make room for more ammo.

I seem to remember that meant they could carry double the ammo which would make it about 4,000 rounds of 23 x 152mm ammo... which would be no minor achievement.

Using optical sights would effect accuracy but then when firing the target would be hidden by the blast and smoke of the guns firing anyway...

would be interesting to see a Shilka with the four 23mm guns replaced with a single twin barrel 30mm gun or perhaps the 6 barrel 30mm gatlings of naval design and use...

GarryB wrote:Don't know about in Syria but in Afghanistan I understand that ZSU-23-4 vehicles often had not just the radar but also the extensive electronics inside removed to make room for more ammo.

I seem to remember that meant they could carry double the ammo which would make it about 4,000 rounds of 23 x 152mm ammo... which would be no minor achievement.

Using optical sights would effect accuracy but then when firing the target would be hidden by the blast and smoke of the guns firing anyway...

would be interesting to see a Shilka with the four 23mm guns replaced with a single twin barrel 30mm gun or perhaps the 6 barrel 30mm gatlings of naval design and use...

I am sure that somewhere the Syrians have done something similar especially caged armour to the weak turret as they seem to have added caged armour to just about everything

I think if Tunguska hadn't came along we would have seen a zsu23-4 upgraded with 30mm guns

Zu-23-2 gun turret on BMD-2