2S38 Derivatsiya-PVO 57-mm SPAAG

Conformation for the development of a gun anti-aircraft complex for Shilka Replacement

https://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/2158423.html

George1 wrote:Conformation for the development of a gun anti-aircraft complex for Shilka Replacement

https://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/2158423.html

do you mean this?

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12157092@egNews  ?

A new anti-aircraft artillery complex is being developed in the Army
New anti-aircraft artillery complex will replace the anti-aircraft artillery systems "Shilka".

This complex is designed to engage air targets such as tactical UAVs, cruise missiles, single MLRS missiles, precision weapons and tactical aviation aircraft, fire support helicopters as well as lightly armored sea and land targets.

A special feature of the complex is its low radio visibility, achieved through the use of passive means of reconnaissance, detection and tracking of air targets.

it looks like 57mm is in. The only question is what with cooling. After short burst of 57mm ammo how many minutes it has to cool down? water cooling?  2 barrels?

The Tunguska has water cooled barrels, as does the ZSU-23-4, so I would expect some sort of cooling system for the barrel too.

I rather think after combining the missiles and guns together on one platform in the Tunguska, that they have now gone the other way and put the radar and expensive bits on the missile vehicle that deals with the air threats (ie Pantsir-SM) out to 40km or so, while the gun system deals with closer threats and last second threats like UAVs, UCAVs and of course cruise missiles and stealthy threats that might not be detected until they are close anyway.

By leaving off the radar and other heavy expensive bits and pieces they will make the gun armed vehicles lighter and cheaper but modern EO sensors and datalinks will make them just as effective if not more so against some threats.

A problem they found in Georgia in 8 8 8, was that UAVs flying at over 4,000m were out of reach of 23mm cannon, and so small an IR signature that MANPADS had little chance of a good missile lock. They were left with sending up MiG-29s using R-73s or firing BUK missiles... both of which were expensive and not very efficient as both systems would be better used against other threats.

The Pantsir or Tunguska could have been one solution with a missile, but being able to deal with a few at a time like a gun can with accurately aimed shells that detonate when close to the target is much more efficient than firing up hundreds of rounds in the hope of a hit in the case of 23mm or 30mm rounds.

A single guided 57mm shell that explodes right next to a fragile UAV might not be as cheap as a single 30mm cannon shell but it will do the job quickly and efficiently and with different ammo types can be used in other roles too including anti cruise missile use and a powerful secondary anti armour use.

Radar silent they could be used to devastating effect against enemy CAS aircraft like A-10s and Apache helos... of course missiles will deal with such targets at much greater ranges but when an Apache pops up from behind a tree 3km away and scans with its radar and then pops down behind that tree a rapid shot of a 57mm shell to the point where the helo was to detonate the round directly above where the helo is now sitting thinking it is safe would be a nasty surprise... as would a much faster APFSDS round going straight through the tree... or a SAPHEI round for that matter.

If I am not wrong, the new 57mm Spaag still have a radar on the left side of turret right?

Just at a glance I would say the pod on top of the turret is the commanders 360 degree optics system and the larger pod at the turret front is the equivalent EO pod for the gunner.

Not sure what the thing on the side of the turret is, or that flat plate thing... it could be the equivalent of the portable radars used by Soviet and Russian infantry, which would be interesting in terms of effective range for targets... probably a bit short ranged to detect small UAVs at more than 3km or so.

I would expect with modern EO systems it could detect targets easily out to about 10km, which should be plenty for the calibre.

A MMW radar related to those fitted to new attack helos might have been useful for night and all weather use though.... but probably not cheap.

I think it should have both radar & EO to support each other and to deal with any kind of targets such as low IR signature targets, low RCS targets, etc. in any condition of ECM in battlefield. The good thing is we see it has 2 separated EO systems for commander and weaponer.

I agree that radar compliments EO systems, and the idea of having separate EO systems for commander and gunner is excellent in the sense that the commander can be searching for targets and prioritising while the gunner uses their optics presumably with better zoom but narrower field of view to engage specific targets as directed by the commander... much like a MBT.

However the last article I read regarding the new 57mm gun armed SPAAG for the Russian Military seemed to suggest no radar, which would reduce costs and emissions, though as we agree reducing performance too.

If it is linked to the network it should be able to receive data and target information from other platforms however and if it is operating with TOR or Pantsir-SM then they would have rather powerful and effective radars already so it would be a bit redundant also having them on the gun vehicles.

The laser ranging system on the MiG-29SMT is effective to 15km against air targets which should be plenty for a ground based vehicle to engage targets to 6-8km range effectively.

This is more of an anti swarm vehicle attached to SAM sites than a general vehicle to operate in Army units in my opinion.

In GDs post below he quotes:

A special feature of the complex is its low radio visibility, achieved through the use of passive means of reconnaissance, detection and tracking of air targets.

The SA-13 didn't have radar as such but had all sorts of radar antenna boxes that could detect the radar on enemy aircraft including ground mapping radar and terrain avoidance radar and of course low power altitude sensing radar. These sensors were enough to give the SA-13 system a bearing to look for incoming threats...

In Syria, the S-60 installing on the trucks and the Zsu-57-2s have shown their self very effectively in the ground fighting roles, both in rebel's side and SAA's side. SAA regreted for retiring many Zsu-57-2 before the war.

Through the Syrian war, I thing many countries who are owning Zsu-57-2 also see their potentials in ground fighting roles. Just modernize them with day/night E-O/LRF system, upgraded FCS, strengthen amore and etc, we will have a powerfull weapon that can destroy targets from 6km, the distance is out of most ATGM firing range. I think they should create modernization packages for Zsu-57-2 instead of somethings unaffodable like AU-220M or Valhalla's 57mm gun turret.

The ammo for the S-60 was not nearly as powerful as it could have been... the figures were limited to ensure its usefulness in air defence.

In other words the armour piercing rounds only needed to penetrate aircraft so they didn't have the best possible penetration... they were designed to have the same flight trajectory as the HE rounds so you could fire a mix of both rounds and both would hit around the point of aim.

Using them in the ground role means more HE and therefore less velocity, but also more penetration and more velocity so firing an HE round and then an AP round would mean a big shift in the point of aim.

That would mean one sight setting for HE and one for AP.

Which is not impossible but it would need an optics upgrade and a fire control system too.

the first upgrade of the ZSU-57-2 would be to remove one of the guns to allow more ammo to be carried and to remove one crewman from the crew.

With a decent fire control system you wont need to fire as many rounds and they will be more accurate and effective when you do.

Yes, I think removing 1 S-68 gun will save more space and make it less vibration and more accuracy when firing. Besides that, they should install a 57mm grenade launcher, attach it on above of the remained S-68 gun to use in the case the indirect fires are needed. Equipping more 4 ATGMs is also good option to increase the fire power.

Just imagine how powerfull the fire support vehicle with 300 of 57x347mm rounds, 200 of 57mm grenade rounds and 4 ATGMs is.

Just imagine how powerfull the fire support vehicle with 300 of 57x347mm rounds, 200 of 57mm grenade rounds and 4 ATGMs is.

Well actually you could go for a mix of vehicles.... one with 300 57x347mm rounds with APFSDS rounds for armour piercing and an improved HE round plus the ATGMs for the anti armour role, and another vehicle with the 57mm grenade launcher... the rounds of which look much smaller and much more compact so you could probably carry 600 or more rounds in its own vehicle.

I seem to remember the person who posted info about the grenade launcher early on in this forum mentioned the large projectile of the 57mm grenade launcher had as much punch as a 76.2mm round because of its size and weight...

robognus wrote:https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2018/01/ed624201af8da2ec7b27c510f9344972.png

Thanks

The prototype of the combat vehicle 2S38 of self-propelled antiaircraft artillery complex for "Derivation-PVO"

As reported in the press release of the JSC "Scientific and Production Corporation" Uralvagonzavod "on January 25, 2018, a member of the corporation" Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" (Nizhny Novgorod) on a working visit to the Deputy Chairman of the board of the Military Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkaryov. He inspected the commissioned production building and advanced models of military equipment.

Among these prospective models of military equipment, a prototype of a combat vehicle 2S38 of a self-propelled antiaircraft artillery complex for RDD "Derivation-PVO" with a 57-mm automatic cannon executed in the lead role of the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" can be seen in the photograph from the press release.



Recall that the materials of the 2S38 combat vehicle were presented in August 2017 at the International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017" at the stand of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. In the materials it was reported that this product is being created as part of the development work "Derivation-PVO", which implies the appearance in the troops of a prospective 57-mm mobile artillery complex with passive means of reconnaissance and escorting air targets.

The 2S38 combat vehicle is based on BMP-3 and is designed to defeat air targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, tactical aircraft, and fire support helicopters. The anti-aircraft system is also capable of shooting down rocket launchers, destroying ground and surface targets.

Main characteristics:

The maximum range of damage is 6 km.
The maximum height of the lesion is 4.5 km.
The rate of fire is 120 rounds per minute.
Full ammunition - 148 shots.
The vertical guidance angle is 5 deg / +75 deg.
Angle of guidance horizontally - 360 degrees.

The maximum speed of targets hit is 500 m / s

Calculation - 3 people.

The combat vehicle 2S38 is equipped with an optic-electronic system for detection and targeting of OES OP, the development of Minsk OJSC "Peleng". It allows you to carry out panoramic observation of the terrain by 360 degrees, as well as to conduct a sectoral survey. Detection range through one of the television channels of a small unmanned aerial vehicle of the Bird Eye 400 type in the survey mode is declared at 700 m, in the narrow field of view - 4900 m. The A-10 attack aircraft is detected in the first mode already at a range of 6400 m, and in the second - at 12,300 m. The thermal imaging channel makes it possible to detect targets with a size of 2.3 × 2.3 m with a probability of 80% at a range of 10,000 m and recognize them at a distance of 4,000 m.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3066156.html

GarryB wrote:I seem to remember the person who posted info about the grenade launcher early on in this forum mentioned the large projectile of the 57mm grenade launcher had as much punch as a 76.2mm round because of its size and weight...

The data of AGS-57 has not published yet. However some ones said that its AG-57 round mass is 3.1kg, the projectile mass is 2.6kg and the HE (А-IХ-2) content is 0.6kg.

The HE (TNT) content of FO-350 projectile of 76.2mm round is 0.71kg. If we consider that the А-IХ-2 is 1.5 times of TNT Strength Equivalent, the HE rounds of AGS-57 is at least on par with the 76.2mm HE rounds.

kopyo-21 wrote:

GarryB wrote:I seem to remember the person who posted info about the grenade launcher early on in this forum mentioned the large projectile of the 57mm grenade launcher had as much punch as a 76.2mm round because of its size and weight...

The data of AGS-57 has not published yet. However some ones said that its AG-57 round mass is 3.1kg, the projectile mass is 2.6kg and the HE (А-IХ-2) content is 0.6kg.

The HE (TNT) content of FO-350 projectile of 76.2mm round is 0.71kg. If we consider that the А-IХ-2 is 1.5 times of TNT Strength Equivalent, the HE rounds of AGS-57 is at least on par with the 76.2mm HE rounds.

AGS-57 sound well to me. I expect to see some day AGS-45 too.

For aerial threats they can use Something like that. Garry was talking about this type of rounds I think for new anti air artillery. But that doesn't look effective in 30mm maybe they will need Something bigger eeven buigger than 57 mm, maybe 76 or 100mm.

I wonder if the Syrian war will last long enough for us to see these new machines in action.

For aerial threats they can use Something like that. Garry was talking about this type of rounds I think for new anti air artillery. But that doesn't look effective in 30mm maybe they will need Something bigger eeven buigger than 57 mm, maybe 76 or 100mm.

Did you not watch the video you just posted?

It clearly showed a vehicle shooting down a brick wall... the sort of wall that stops 7.62mm MG fire completely... and then firing air burst ammo to shower the targets in trenches with fragments... there was no blood but those air bursting rounds showered those trenches with fragments to the point where there would not have been any survivors...

More importantly most UAVs are not hiding behind brick walls and even the small fragments in a 30mm round would be devastating to almost any kind of UAV.

I would say that was evidence enough that existing 30mm airburst rounds will be good enough for most threats and any air burst 40mm grenades on the recently accepted Balkan grenade launcher will be even more effective. 57mm rounds will be devastating... whether in high velocity or grenade versions.

AGS-57 sound well to me. I expect to see some day AGS-45 too.

AFAIK they are introducing the Balkan 40mm grenade launcher... I have seen nothing about any grenade launcher in 45mm calibre.

They did have a telescopic round high velocity gun in competition with the 57mm gun shown on the vehicle above but I doubt they will go ahead with it as it seems to have lost.

Purported Photo Lifts Veil Off Russia's Next Generation Air Defense Gun


https://sputniknews.com/russia/201801281061135980-russia-gun-photos/

It clearly showed a vehicle shooting down a brick wall... the sort of wall that stops 7.62mm MG fire completely... and then firing air burst ammo to shower the targets in trenches with fragments... there was no blood but those air bursting rounds showered those trenches with fragments to the point where there would not have been any survivors...

I think the round explodes after penetrating the wall. But it would be enough against an aerial target.

The probleme of the 30 mm is range. For ground target it expose them to atgm. And for aerial targets its better to have a specialized system like a modern zsu 57 with those type of rounds to be able to hit higher.

Am I the only one seeing some very promising anti-infantry applications for this thing?

PapaDragon wrote:
Am I the only one seeing some very promising anti-infantry applications for this thing?  

Not really as this particular system was made for anti infantry use

I think the round explodes after penetrating the wall. But it would be enough against an aerial target.

You need to take a closer look... the first few seconds show rounds being fired. Then you see rounds hitting a fairly solid brick wall. Next you see a thin plywood wall where fragments are coming through, then from about 1 minute 15 seconds you see airburst rounds exploding above a trench... look close... there are yellow human analogs in there being sprayed with fragments.

The fragments are light and fast so they don't appear to do very much, but they are likely punching lots of holes through the human analog targets... these are targets with front cover standing in trenches... if you look carefully the airburst rounds are being detonated along the trench line so even lying in the bottom of the trench wont protect you.

The probleme of the 30 mm is range. For ground target it expose them to atgm. And for aerial targets its better to have a specialized system like a modern zsu 57 with those type of rounds to be able to hit higher.

What is this stupid fascination with long range?

Do you think just because you are using 57mm shells that are effective to 12km you will be safe from all ATGMs?

Might come as a shock but just because the weapon you are operating can hit targets at 12km does not mean you can see targets that far away.... in fact in an urban area a target might be less than half a kilometre away and you still can't see them because there are trees and bushes and 20 houses between you and them.

Pretty much every APC the Russians have will have a 30mm cannon or a 57mm calibre one so this airburst ammo is a great idea for use against a wide range of threats and targets.

Against super soft targets like a UAV a 30mm cannon shell is over kill... these Air burst rounds will shatter a UAV to shreds.

Am I the only one seeing some very promising anti-infantry applications for this thing?

Another reason to adopt it as standard ammo for a range of weapon types... it would be useful in a variety of situations against a range of target types.

In the last of the clip, I think they used the PABM-T rounds with point-delay detonation fuse. We saw quite clearly the projectiles went through the thin metal wall then explosive before the brick wall.