Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

"The Puma IFV with maximum level of protection is even heavier than the T-72 main battle tank. It can be even considered as a heavy IFV. It seems that the most protected variant withstands 120- and 125-mm projectiles over the front arc. "



oh boy.... Good laughs.

wow.

And bradley over kurganets and BMP-3??? really???

   

Yeah, this list is a joke, and like 98% of things on internets, wastes server space.


Edit:

They have the same for MBTs... prepare the popcorn

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/top_10_main_battle_tanks.htm

Yeah, Armata is 5th, behind CHALLENGER 2


Better YET! APCs list!
http://www.military-today.com/apc/top_10_armored_personnel_carriers.htm

Bumerang is down bottow behind the SRYKER!!!! HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The first places are occupied by obscure and unknown finish or swiss things... ok!!! Hahaha. BTR-82A thrumps almost everything on this list to begin with, but hey, they are experts right?

Abrams over a Merkava Mk4?.

Boy, talk about a fanboy's list....

Wikipedia says BTR-90..

Armour and protection
The armour of the BTR-90 comprises welded steel armour plates. The armour can withstand hits from 14.5 mm rounds over the frontal arc. The side armour can provide protection against large caliber machine gun fire and shrapnel.

(ignoring the anti tank missiles active defenses and smoke defenses)

How BTR-90 steel armor protection compares with bumerang in terms of protection vs heavy machine guns? Can BUmerang or Kurganets armor protect against 14.5mm rounds frontal arc and sides? Is there any information how much better are Russia new BUmeran and Kurganets passive real steel armor vs heavy machine guns fire?  can it survive a 22mm round? a 30mm round in the front and sides?

 is there any info released about how better is the passive real steel protection of bumeran and kurganets vs heavy machine guns anti armor heavy caliber 14.5 mm or 30mm or higher heavy machine guns ?

Base BMP-3 is 30mm frontal, 14.5mm sides.

Kurganets must be at least 30mm all-round, while staying amphibious, having APS & ATGMs. (lol at that 'top 10')
Bumerang might not be 30mm all-round but likely at least that frontally.

If I recall correctly the testing of the Typhoon MRAP was showing all-round 25-30mm protection & that was designed for 14.5mm protection.

George1 wrote:Boomerang with a "snorkel"



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1997387.html

I heard that this one would be very useful replacing BTR-80/82s at the Russian Naval Infantry and/or Coastal Troops

hoom wrote:Base BMP-3 is 30mm frontal, 14.5mm sides.

Kurganets must be at least 30mm all-round, while staying amphibious, having APS & ATGMs. (lol at that 'top 10')
Bumerang might not be 30mm all-round but likely at least that frontally.

If I recall correctly the testing of the Typhoon MRAP was showing all-round 25-30mm protection & that was designed for 14.5mm protection.

cool then.. thx

hoom wrote:Bumerang might not be 30mm all-round but likely at least that frontally.

The Bumerang`s engine plant is supposed to be located in the front of the vehicle. The AFV is probably protected at Level 6 (K) NATO STANAG 4569 (all-round protection against 30 mm steel/tungsten alloy armour-piercing round at 500 m distance).

http://bit.do/cbhfc

Some further news about the Boomerang tests, and about the feasibility of mounting the 57 mm Baikal turret:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.hu/2016/07/blog-post_8.html

MIC start of preliminary tests of the new APC "Boomerang"





Leading manufacturer of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and armored cars for the Russian Army Military Industrial Company (LLC "MIC") has begun preliminary testing of the latest BTR, established on the basis of a unified platform wheeled armored "Boomerang". The new machine is not only able to move around on the ground, but also to force the water obstacles. According to "Izvestia" official representative of the military-industrial complex Sergei Suvorov, "Boomerang" will be a completely new word in the family of Soviet and Russian wheeled armored personnel carriers - it is built on a unified combat platform used which can be for the benefit of the Ground Forces and the Navy .


As previously reported, the decision to adopt the new wheeled armored personnel carriers is planned in 2017.


- With previous models of armored vehicles 80 and 82, standing on the arms of the army, "Boomerang" in common only the presence of the eight wheels, - said Sergey Suvorov. - In the other is a brand new unified platform designed to solve various problems in the interests of both ground units of the Russian Army and Navy - in particular, the Navy Marine Corps.


According to Suvorov, one of the main problems of the family of the BTR-80 is considered a relatively low level of protection against mines and roadside bombs. Therefore, men prefer to travel by car from the top, rather than inside it. That is the weakness of mine protection was one of the main reasons for the beginning of work on a new armored personnel carrier. "Boomerang" was first unveiled May 9, 2015: at the same time on Red Square for the first time demonstrated, and other new items of armored vehicles: heavy tracked platform "Armata" average Undercarriage "kurganets-25" and in fact the new APC. Their main feature is called ball modularity, it is possible to create a single platform the whole family of combat vehicles. For the "Almaty was" a new T-14 heavy infantry fighting vehicles T-15, T-16 ARV for "Kurgan-25" - a BMP and BTR. In this series, "Boomerang" stands somewhat apart, not least because, in contrast to the heavy machinery for weapons far more troops. On the basis of "Boomerang", for example, developed an APC and K-16 infantry fighting vehicle K-17. This allows us to offer a platform to virtually any of the Russian law enforcement agencies, whether the Land Forces, National Guard or Navy Marine Corps.

- Marines, like VDV - a rapid reaction unit, - said the editor of the magazine "Arsenal Fatherland" Viktor Murakhovski. - According to the plans in 2015 units of marines were to receive T-90 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3, BTR-82A combat reconnaissance patrol vehicle BRDM-3, 120-mm self-propelled artillery 2S31 Vena "Vienna", as well as modernized air defense weapons, small arms and grenades. However, only the BTR-82A is able to decide in full tactical problem for the amphibious landing on unequipped coast from all this arsenal.


The expert explained that the sailors ordered its own development perspective combat vehicle to replace the "classic" armored personnel carriers, but in the framework of budgetary savings, this work has never found its development.

- Ministry of Defense strictly adheres to the development of armored vehicles standardization and modularity, - explained Victor Murakhovski. - Therefore, the "Boomerang" can be considered a compromise, which will provide the Marines as the seaworthiness of the vehicle during the landing from the water, and increased firepower. For example, through the use of unmanned automatic weapon stations.


The most promising of the automatic weapon stations, according to him - is "Baikal". The module has a 57-millimeter gun, the maximum rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute, up to 200 shots ammunition, firing range of 12 km.


- Calibre 57 mm for today the most versatile, - said Victor Murakhovski. - It's more than 30-mm gun BTR-82, but less than the 100-mm gun of the BMP-3. The "Boomerang" has superior performance to overcome the water spaces, mobility on land and crew safety. For the first time the car engine is located in the bow of the hull. Because of this, the fighting compartment of troops was not only more secure, but it became more spacious. Landing-landing troops are now carried out in the stern of the hull on the ramp. This solution features a machine, in particular, from the Soviet BTR, where they had to go through the side door.

George1 wrote:

"As far as the K-17 IFV is concerned, in accordance with the objectives of [providing] fire support for infantry, it is necessary to equip it with a powerful combat module like the Bumerang-BM. Open-access information on this process is extremely limited, and sometimes contradictory." In any case, the analyst noted, the K-16's arsenal is likely to include smoke and possibly aerosol grenades.

Ultimately, according to Tuchkov, the next likely project to be developed on the basis of the Bumerang platform is a 120 mm self-propelled artillery system, along with a 57 mm self-propelled anti-aircraft system.

So, the K-16 would be the APC variant (armed with 12.7 mm Kord machine gun on an RCWS (Remote Controlled Weapon Station), and the K-17 would be the IFV variant (armed with the Boomerang-BM remote controlled turret), right?

As for the 120 mm SPG system, I think it would be more likely a mortar carrier, since AFAIK the standard russian howitzer calibres are the 152 mm (2S3 "Akatsiya", 2S5 "Giatsint", 2S19 "Msta, 2S35 "Koalitsiya-SV") and 122 mm (2S1 "Gvozdika), with a few exceptions like the 2S4 "Tyulpan" heavy mortar system (240 mm), or the 2S7 "Pion" heavy SPG (203 mm). The only 120 mm systems are the 2S9 "Nona" and the 2S31 "Vena", both of them are Self-propelled Mortars.

But if it will be completed, I think it would be look like this:

https://i.servimg.com/u/f35/19/50/14/04/stryke11.jpg

or, like this:

https://i.servimg.com/u/f35/19/50/14/04/rak_1210.jpg

As for the 57 mm SPAAG system, a dual configuration of 57 mm cannons would be logical

So, the K-16 would be the APC variant (armed with 12.7 mm Kord machine gun on an RCWS (Remote Controlled Weapon Station), and the K-17 would be the IFV variant (armed with the Boomerang-BM remote controlled turret), right?

Currently the 57mm gun armed turret is not ready, so at the moment the APC and IFV turrets have a HMG and a 30mm cannon and Kornet ATGM respectively.

When the 57mm gun turret is ready then the IFV will have a 57mm gun and the APC will have the small turret with the HMG.

Remember, by definition an APC is a troop transport with light firepower to support the troops... ie HMG. The IFV needs to be able to destroy the enemy equivalent, so a 57mm gun is needed to penetrate 30 ton class vehicles.

Note for every vehicle family see the quote below:

In the foreseeable future, the military expert added, the platform is expected to feature a 'full deck' of configurations. Prospective variations include a command vehicle, along with reconnaissance, electronic warfare, self-propelled artillery, armored ambulance and repair vehicles, making the Bumerang something like deadly Legos, configurable according to the military's needs.

This includes the Boomerang and the Kurganets and the Armata and Typhoon.

As for the 120 mm SPG system, I think it would be more likely a mortar carrier, since AFAIK the standard russian howitzer calibres are the 152 mm (2S3 "Akatsiya", 2S5 "Giatsint", 2S19 "Msta, 2S35 "Koalitsiya-SV") and 122 mm (2S1 "Gvozdika), with a few exceptions like the 2S4 "Tyulpan" heavy mortar system (240 mm), or the 2S7 "Pion" heavy SPG (203 mm). The only 120 mm systems are the 2S9 "Nona" and the 2S31 "Vena", both of them are Self-propelled Mortars.

The 120mm mortar carrier in the Boomerang family will be a mortar carrier like the VENA and NONA. It will likely look a lot like the 2S23... and likely nothing like the Stryker model you posted a link to.

As for the 57 mm SPAAG system, a dual configuration of 57 mm cannons would be logical

Not logical. The ZSU-57-2 had two barrels to increase rate of fire, but it did not have guided shells so a high rate of fire increased hit probability.

Otherwise a second barrel just increases weight an cost and complication.

The fire control system on the vehicle would be the limiting factor as to how many targets could be engaged at one time... rate of fire would be irrelevant in comparison.

GarryB wrote:

As for the 57 mm SPAAG system, a dual configuration of 57 mm cannons would be logical

Not logical. The ZSU-57-2 had two barrels to increase rate of fire, but it did not have guided shells so a high rate of fire increased hit probability.

Otherwise a second barrel just increases weight an cost and complication.

The fire control system on the vehicle would be the limiting factor as to how many targets could be engaged at one time... rate of fire would be irrelevant in comparison.

Actually rate of fire is relevant. But not for long series but bursts. Fire control with current state of electronics/optics is not limiting factor but ability to move barrel in stabilized way is.

I just wonder is 57mm based system swill have additional AGTMs?

cracker wrote:
Bumerang is down bottow behind the SRYKER!!!! HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The first places are occupied by obscure and unknown finish or swiss things... ok!!! Hahaha. BTR-82A thrumps almost everything on this list to begin with, but hey, they are experts right?

what else would you expect from Lithuanian "expert" they have one NATO battalion to hole all Russian Army and his level is almost same as Polish MoD.

As for the 57 mm SPAAG system, a dual configuration of 57 mm cannons would be logical

Not logical. The ZSU-57-2 had two barrels to increase rate of fire, but it did not have guided shells so a high rate of fire increased hit probability.

Otherwise a second barrel just increases weight an cost and complication.


The fire control system on the vehicle would be the limiting factor as to how many targets could be engaged at one time... rate of fire would be irrelevant in comparison.

First, rate of fire does make sense, it is an important factor to be reckoned with, so it is totally relevant.

I think that the 2*57 mm configuration would be similar to the 2K22 "Tunguska" (if it will be ever made).

This config would be useful for countering incoming bombs or other guided/unguided free-falling airborne projectiles that are posing direct threat to friendly troops or the system itself. This could be executed with the use of combined electro-optically/ radar guided 57 mm shells with a radio-controlled fuse and a HE-Frag (High Explosive fragmentation) warhead. And believe me, the high rate of fire and the guided shells combined would have an amazing hit probability.

The scheme of its use would look like this:

1. The surveillance radar detects the incoming threat.

2. The radar adjusts the electro-optical aiming system (and the guns) onto the target.

3. The aiming system measures the target's distance, height, speed and direction of flight, thus calculating its predicted flight path.

4. When the necessary calculations were made, the fire control system fires the cannons.

5. The electro-optical aiming system (likely with the help of a laser rangefinder), measures the shells' distance from the cannons, and also the shells'distance to the target in every split second, thus fine tuning the fuse before impact/explosion.

6. In the close proximity of the target, the fuse detonates the HE-Frag warhead, creating a cloud of fragments, which is surely obliterates any incoming bomb, and severely damages or even immediately kills enemy attack helicopters/drones or even low flying CAS (Close Air Support) aircraft, maybe even cruise missiles etc.

I think that the 57 mm cannon has many advantages over its smaller caliber counterparts:

1. Bigger shell/warhead size. The bigger shell can deliver more explosive pover, which equals bigger destruction upon impact/close proximity.

2. According to my aforementioned statemnent, the more powerful shells are surely reducing the need for a bigger ammo reserve, thus the system can carry less ammo, and can destroy the same amount of targets.

And the dual configuration has its own advantages too:

1. Two simultaneously fired HE-Frag shells can cover a much wider area with fragments, and are more likely to destroy the target than a single one.

2. If one barrel fails, the second one will still be operational, but with severely reduced firing rate. It's needless to say that if a single barreled system fails, the whole system is completely out of service.

But nothing is perfect, both systems have almost the same disadvantages:

1. The fast firing 57 mm cannons are sure to be producing an immense amount of heat during firing, so the weapons will surely need a monster of a cooling system.

2. Low rate of fire. Even the ZSU-57-2 had a fire rate around 120 rpm, and the single barrel AZP S-60 had an even less, around 105-120 rpm cyclic, and a 70 rpm sustained firing rate.

My last thoughts are that the whole concept of a modern 57 mm SPAAG system is a little bit risky, but on the other hand it is quite promising.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Actually rate of fire is relevant. But not for long series but bursts. Fire control with current state of electronics/optics is not limiting factor but ability to move barrel in stabilized way is.  

Well, actually, this is what i was talking about

Isn't it most likely that the 57mm version would be with the Baikal turret or a version based on it?

AA isn't the primary task so twin barrels is not necessary.
Killing other modern APC/IFVs & infantry behind/through cover would be main task. (but also better range & bigger bang can be better AA than a 30mm)

Actually rate of fire is relevant. But not for long series but bursts. Fire control with current state of electronics/optics is not limiting factor but ability to move barrel in stabilized way is.

I disagree... this gun is supposed to be able to fire at about 300rpm, so we are talking about 5 shells a second... with guided shells unless the targets are very close together firing in a burst just means if the first shell gets a direct hit the other shells would need to be guided to targets very close to the previous target or wont have the energy to manouver and hit a different target in the time available... it is rather more likely that a single shot or two shot burst will be fired at a single target... two shells should be plenty for almost any aerial target in terms of damage.

I just wonder is 57mm based system swill have additional AGTMs?

On the IFV it would need an anti tank capability so I would suspect yes.

Equally the Kornet-EM has been adopted by air defence units in its HE version as a cheap simple light missile for targets like small drones that don't require a full power SAM. Now the 57mm rounds might make more sense but I suspect a combination of a 57mm gun and either Kornet-EM and or SA-22 missiles might be a standard loadout.

First, rate of fire does make sense, it is an important factor to be reckoned with, so it is totally relevant.

I think that the 2*57 mm configuration would be similar to the 2K22 "Tunguska" (if it will be ever made).

This config would be useful for countering incoming bombs or other guided/unguided free-falling airborne projectiles that are posing direct threat to friendly troops or the system itself. This could be executed with the use of combined electro-optically/ radar guided 57 mm shells with a radio-controlled fuse and a HE-Frag (High Explosive fragmentation) warhead. And believe me, the high rate of fire and the guided shells combined would have an amazing hit probability.

High rate of fire is only useful for fire and forget guided munitions.

With laser beam homing or laser beam riding guidance with relatively high velocity shells you would likely only be firing one or two shells at each target engaged... you would then wait for a result before firing further shells... Having two guns only makes sense if each target requires multiple hits... and considering the size of the 57mm rounds I rather doubt that.

The scheme of its use would look like this:

1. The surveillance radar detects the incoming threat.

2. The radar adjusts the electro-optical aiming system (and the guns) onto the target.

3. The aiming system measures the target's distance, height, speed and direction of flight, thus calculating its predicted flight path.

4. When the necessary calculations were made, the fire control system fires the cannons.

5. The electro-optical aiming system (likely with the help of a laser rangefinder), measures the shells' distance from the cannons, and also the shells'distance to the target in every split second, thus fine tuning the fuse before impact/explosion.

6. In the close proximity of the target, the fuse detonates the HE-Frag warhead, creating a cloud of fragments, which is surely obliterates any incoming bomb, and severely damages or even immediately kills enemy attack helicopters/drones or even low flying CAS (Close Air Support) aircraft, maybe even cruise missiles etc.

I would expect search and tracking radar for all weather day night use and for the most part (for the air defence model) with EO backup and alternate detection and tracking.

So it would be more like:

1. The surveillance radar detects the incoming threat and continues to scan for other targets while the turret turns to the target to be engaged thereby pointing the tracking radar at the target.

2. The tracking radar acquires the target and projects the targets location when fired shells arrive on target. It then aims the barrels to direct the shells to that intercept point. It would also allow the EO system to view and confirm the target as a valid hostile target.

3. The cannons can then be fired with guided shells able to manouver to compensate for any flight path changes made between firing the rounds and impact.

5. There is no need to fine tune the fuse... it can simply be set to go off when the shell gets within a certain range.

6. When the target is being tracked the EO component can examine the target to determine the type. A bomb or missile target would require a direct hit or very near miss to ensure destruction... a large aircraft target could use proximity fuse with broader settings. Terminal guidance should ensure direct hits are normal against all but the smallest targets.

2. Low rate of fire. Even the ZSU-57-2 had a fire rate around 120 rpm, and the single barrel AZP S-60 had an even less, around 105-120 rpm cyclic, and a 70 rpm sustained firing rate.

The ZSU-57-2 had AZP S-60 cannon... of course each gun will fire at a lower rate than a system with two cannon.

The main limit to the firing rate was the huge 4 round clips the ammo was loaded into the guns with and the manual loading. The new gun reportedly fires at a cyclic rate of 300 rpm which is better than the ZSU-57-2s 240rpm.

But again it does not need a high rate of fire... it gets its high hit probability from having guided shells not from its rate of fire.

Isn't it most likely that the 57mm version would be with the Baikal turret or a version based on it?

That is the proposed IFV turret... it would need search and tracking radar for air defence roles...

AA isn't the primary task so twin barrels is not necessary.
Killing other modern APC/IFVs & infantry behind/through cover would be main task. (but also better range & bigger bang can be better AA than a 30mm)

AA is not the primary task of that turret... for use on an IFV its primary task is to be able to penetrate enemy IFVs and to support infantry and to be able to kill tanks in self defence.

With the BMP-1 the 500m minimum range of AT-3 meant the main gun had to be able to kill tanks so the 73mm gun was primarily the short range anti tank weapon... and it could kill M60 tanks easily enough.

With the BMP-2 the AT-4/-5 launcher had a minimum range of about 30m so the main gun just needed to support infantry and kill M113s.

It was found the 73mm gun had heavy HE capacity while the light 30mm cannon was good against other targets so both systems were kept in service and their replacement combined decent HE capacity and light auto cannon in the 100mm/30mm combination.

For the next gen IFV the 30mm is not powerful enough against NATO IFVs so the 57mm gun has been developed.

The fact that the 57mm calibre makes guided shells possible and practical means that not only will it be used with the new IFV, but will likely also be used for air defence to replace the 30mm calibre guns.

The 30mm lacks armour penetration for use against enemy IFVs but it also lacks performance against very small targets like drones where large numbers of rounds would need to be fired to assure a hit on a small target, whereas a single proximity fused HE shell in 57mm could probably do a much better job... especially if it has guidance.

hoom wrote:Isn't it most likely that the 57mm version would be with the Baikal turret or a version based on it?

AA isn't the primary task so twin barrels is not necessary.
Killing other modern APC/IFVs & infantry behind/through cover would be main task. (but also better range & bigger bang can be better AA than a 30mm)

Actually this is the BMP-3 "Derivatsiya", which is I think a mobile testbed for the 57 mm Baikal turret, or maybe a prortotype of a future BMP-3 upgrade. Here no radar can be seen, so it will most likely to be an IFV turret. I heard that an air defense system with 57 mm gun(s) are in development.

Point was to illustrate the turret...

That is the proposed IFV turret... it would need search and tracking radar for air defence roles...

Which is why I don't know why people are talking AA.
The quote in question that mentioned a coming 57mm made no mention of AA at all -> is probably talking about an IFV with 57mm -> Baikal.

Which is why I don't know why people are talking AA.
The quote in question that mentioned a coming 57mm made no mention of AA at all -> is probably talking about an IFV with 57mm -> Baikal.c

There have been several quotes mentioning 57mm as the replacement for 30mm in AA guns...

one example from above:

Ultimately, according to Tuchkov, the next likely project to be developed on the basis of the Bumerang platform is a 120 mm self-propelled artillery system, along with a 57 mm self-propelled anti-aircraft system.

Note the Baikal turret is a proposed turret to upgrade the BMP-3 and other existing vehicles.

They have already revealed the Epoch turret and a further upgraded version is expected to be revealed in a few years time... it is that upgraded turret that is expected to have a 57mm gun plus Kornet and sensors for the IFV role on the armata, Kurganets, Boomerang and typhoon chassis.

For air defence use a totally different turret will be used that includes radar and probably missiles as the vehicle will likely replace the Tunguska/Pantsir type platform...

GarryB wrote:

Actually rate of fire is relevant. But not for long series but bursts. Fire control with current state of electronics/optics is not limiting factor but ability to move barrel in stabilized way is.

I disagree... this gun is supposed to be able to fire at about 300rpm, so we are talking about 5 shells a second... with guided shells unless the targets are very close together firing in a burst just means if the first shell gets a direct hit the other shells would need to be guided to targets very close to the previous target or wont have the energy to manouver and hit a different target in the time available... it is rather more likely that a single shot or two shot burst will be fired at a single target... two shells should be plenty for almost any aerial target in terms of damage.

i was not specific enough, I was talking about 1 barrel but the rate of fire is important as you already agreed with. Just with 200rpm you can have 1 second 2-3 rounds burst which should be more then enough for A-10 not to mention any Cobra derivative. The issue her eis high rate of traversing up-down left -right and stabilization to keep precision of shooting in case of mass attack (then probably some missiles would be a nice add on).

GarryB wrote: For air defence use a totally different turret will be used that includes radar and probably missiles as the vehicle will likely replace the Tunguska/Pantsir type platform...

and that is a good question iin which cases thy would need missiles? Tunguska missiles have actually less range then 57mm not to mention 30mm guns. Only reason to add missiles would be IMHO saturation attack but would they add extra missiles to very 57mm AAD vehicle or built specialized with Morfeyr this is another question.

There have been several quotes mentioning 57mm as the replacement for 30mm in AA guns...

Yeah ok my bad I actually missed that totally relevant bit on the end of that sentence
Not entirely convinced its not a mis-translation though.

and that is a good question iin which cases thy would need missiles? Tunguska missiles have actually less range then 57mm not to mention 30mm guns. Only reason to add missiles would be IMHO saturation attack but would they add extra missiles to very 57mm AAD vehicle or built specialized with Morfeyr this is another question.

Soviet and Russian divisions have in their air defence battalions gun/missile vehicles and missile vehicles currently.

Previously gun and missile were separate but as the most expensive components of light gun and light missile systems are duplicated when you have separate vehicles like Shilka and SA-9 or SA-13 then combining into a gun/missile vehicle makes sense.

Previously there was little overlap... guns were short range and cheap and all weather day night capable, while missiles were available in smaller numbers but had better range and hit probability.

With guided 57mm shells the range of the guns has increased significantly... as has its hit probability, but I suspect the lethal range for guided shells will likely be about 10km.

I rather suspect the use of Pantsir type missiles on a 57mm gun armed vehicle makes a lot of sense... with 20km range or 40km range missiles used against aircraft while the smaller 57mm guided shells could be used against cheap drones or incoming munitions like Hellfire or even Javelin...

The talk is laser homing 57mm shells but I like the idea of simple command guided shells like the command guided Pantsir missiles... cheap and simple... the main question is can it be made compact enough to leave enough space for a decent HE payload...

Having a vehicle with morfei and a 57mm gun would be an interesting turn of events... because it reverses the range capabilities of the current SPAAGAMSs...ie the missile will have a shorter range than the guns...