Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
robognus wrote:robognus wrote:
These data about range are fairly more interesting.
+44
kvs
lyle6
Begome
jhelb
Rodion_Romanovic
thegopnik
Big_Gazza
TheArmenian
medo
bolshevik345
dino00
volna
LMFS
Hole
The-thing-next-door
hoom
flamming_python
ZoA
0nillie0
franco
PapaDragon
GunshipDemocracy
Interlinked
Cyberspec
T-47
Luq man
magnumcromagnon
Tyranus
miketheterrible
kopyo-21
Isos
Rmf
DerWolf
d_taddei2
eehnie
higurashihougi
max steel
Mindstorm
George1
nemrod
JohninMK
Project Canada
GarryB
Austin
48 posters
2S38 Derivatsiya-PVO 57-mm SPAAG
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
These data about range are fairly more interesting.
GarryB- Posts : 40488
Points : 40988
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
9km altitude is very useful.... and over 12km range is also very interesting...
Interlinked- Posts : 160
Points : 162
Join date : 2017-11-07
The machine gun ammo capacity for both turrets is concerning. 500 rounds is not enough at all, and you need more machine gun ammo if your main gun has only 80 rounds. 1000 rounds is decent, but it could be more. Most importantly, both of the turrets have external ammo boxes for the machine gun so it can't be reloaded from inside the vehicle. It could be a drawback.
Looks like guided rounds will be used at 9km for drones and gunships. At least, it is advertised as such:
KBTochmash article that talks about 57mm guided rounds. Very interesting read. This is an early 57mm guided round with a maximum altitude of 6 km. The page claims that the projectile weighs 2 kg and has an explosive filler of 0.4 kg that is apparently equal to the explosive charge of a "standard 76mm shell". I don't know of any 76mm shell with 0.4 kg of explosives, so it must be talking about the older type of shells that were used in the PT-76 and had TNT for explosives. Standard HE shell weighs 2.5 kg and has 0.15 kg of explosives, so probably more shrapnel while the guided rounds rely on blast effect.
Most interestingly, this graphic shows the effectiveness of 57mm guided rounds when considering the speed of the target:
An air target travelling at 500 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 1 km. An air target travelling at 100 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 6 km. Since basically all drones and most gunships have a top speed of a few hundred km/h, they can be engaged at the maximum altitude allowed by the system. Great stuff.
GarryB wrote:
9km altitude is very useful.... and over 12km range is also very interesting...
Looks like guided rounds will be used at 9km for drones and gunships. At least, it is advertised as such:
KBTochmash article that talks about 57mm guided rounds. Very interesting read. This is an early 57mm guided round with a maximum altitude of 6 km. The page claims that the projectile weighs 2 kg and has an explosive filler of 0.4 kg that is apparently equal to the explosive charge of a "standard 76mm shell". I don't know of any 76mm shell with 0.4 kg of explosives, so it must be talking about the older type of shells that were used in the PT-76 and had TNT for explosives. Standard HE shell weighs 2.5 kg and has 0.15 kg of explosives, so probably more shrapnel while the guided rounds rely on blast effect.
Most interestingly, this graphic shows the effectiveness of 57mm guided rounds when considering the speed of the target:
An air target travelling at 500 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 1 km. An air target travelling at 100 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 6 km. Since basically all drones and most gunships have a top speed of a few hundred km/h, they can be engaged at the maximum altitude allowed by the system. Great stuff.
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1389
Points : 1445
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
Interlinked wrote:
An air target travelling at 500 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 1 km. An air target travelling at 100 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 6 km. Since basically all drones and most gunships have a top speed of a few hundred km/h, they can be engaged at the maximum altitude allowed by the system. Great stuff.
6 km range is not enough as helicopters and drones use hellfire missiles with a range of 8-10 km. But that said its range is still superior to that of the 30mm 2a38.
I wonder if they make a heavy AA vehicle based on the Armata platform would they maybe use a 76mm gun with guided shells.
Also will the Derivitsiya turret have ATGMs and an automatic grenade launcher?
Interlinked- Posts : 160
Points : 162
Join date : 2017-11-07
The-thing-next-door wrote:Interlinked wrote:
An air target travelling at 500 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 1 km. An air target travelling at 100 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 6 km. Since basically all drones and most gunships have a top speed of a few hundred km/h, they can be engaged at the maximum altitude allowed by the system. Great stuff.
6 km range is not enough as helicopters and drones use hellfire missiles with a range of 8-10 km. But that said its range is still superior to that of the 30mm 2a38.
This is an old article that is describing an early 57mm guided shell for a proposed anti-aircraft gun platform based on the S-60 gun. It mentions this:
The possibility of combat employment of UAS at ranges of up to 8 km requires further study.
when of course, we already know that 57mm guided rounds for the Derivatsia have a range of at least 9 km from the marketing plaque.
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1389
Points : 1445
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
Interlinked wrote:The-thing-next-door wrote:Interlinked wrote:
An air target travelling at 500 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 1 km. An air target travelling at 100 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 6 km. Since basically all drones and most gunships have a top speed of a few hundred km/h, they can be engaged at the maximum altitude allowed by the system. Great stuff.
6 km range is not enough as helicopters and drones use hellfire missiles with a range of 8-10 km. But that said its range is still superior to that of the 30mm 2a38.
This is an old article that is describing an early 57mm guided shell for a proposed anti-aircraft gun platform based on the S-60 gun. It mentions this:
The possibility of combat employment of UAS at ranges of up to 8 km requires further study.
when of course, we already know that 57mm guided rounds for the Derivatsia have a range of at least 9 km from the marketing plaque.
What form will the Derivitsiya take when it is adopted by the Russian army Will it be an IFV cannon?
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6165
Points : 6185
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
GarryB wrote: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.
.
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.
Germans in Mantis used Oerlikon 35mm gun. Ammo has like 300 tungsten balls. This is IMHO best defense against small targets like UAV. Germans claim it can destroy also incoming mortar projectiles.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
robognus wrote:
The data of range published in this image is far better than the previously published data, that were fairly under MANPADS range, making the prospect of the weapon very hard.
With this range the weapon can have a future as main weapon mounted on the new land platforms. On the BMP-3 platform would be only to export at this point.
Air Defense + BMPT: With these data of range it would not require some missile acting as main weapon. Surely in a single barrel/single weapon configuration would not be enough for the bigger platforms, but can be right for the smaller. That said, weapons like these can be good as BMPT. Would make sense to unify both roles. It seems what Russia is doing. Taking into account that the most important feature of armament with this weapon would be the range in altitude, I think these weapons must be classified as air defense, air defense artillery. Land role as BMPT would be important but secondary.
GarryB- Posts : 40488
Points : 40988
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The machine gun ammo capacity for both turrets is concerning. 500 rounds is not enough at all, and you need more machine gun ammo if your main gun has only 80 rounds. 1000 rounds is decent, but it could be more. Most importantly, both of the turrets have external ammo boxes for the machine gun so it can't be reloaded from inside the vehicle. It could be a drawback.
It mentions the MG is optional... and I suspect judging by the ammo capacity they are external mount guns with one large box for the belt feed.
It seems to me to be a support vehicle to deal with UAVs and also ground targets... dare say ATGM teams and vehicles, as well as enemy helos and small ships/boats.
It would not operate alone and would have the support of other vehicles, but if you look at weapon range... 1 to 1.5km for MG and the range given for the main gun, this is only for close in self defence as an option based on customers wishes.
I rather suspect, considering the choice of the BMP mount that this vehicle might be used by the Russian Air Force and Navy to defend land installations from UAV or helo attack, or light vehicle... including suicide trucks attacks.
I would think the Navy will also put these turrets on river going and light patrol boats.
The Army might buy some to defend installations, but for proper air defence of its land forces will likely have Armata, Kurganets, boomerang, and Typhoon based models with a similar gun.
Will be interesting to see the range of ammo they have developed and will develop for these guns.
kopyo-21- Posts : 203
Points : 203
Join date : 2013-08-21
Location : Bangkok - Thailand
Rumania is developing naval 76.2mm and 57mm airbrush rounds, applying the Oerlikon AHEAD concept/technology. Not sure the status now.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
The-thing-next-door wrote:Interlinked wrote:
An air target travelling at 500 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 1 km. An air target travelling at 100 m/s can be engaged at a maximum altitude of 6 km. Since basically all drones and most gunships have a top speed of a few hundred km/h, they can be engaged at the maximum altitude allowed by the system. Great stuff.
6 km range is not enough as helicopters and drones use hellfire missiles with a range of 8-10 km. But that said its range is still superior to that of the 30mm 2a38.
I wonder if they make a heavy AA vehicle based on the Armata platform would they maybe use a 76mm gun with guided shells.
Also will the Derivitsiya turret have ATGMs and an automatic grenade launcher?
6 Km of altitude would be for targets at 100 m/s, that is 360 Km/h. It seems that can engage UAVs and aircrafts at higher altitude going at lower speed. I think is enough for a single weapon that can asume also BMPT role. As air defense this weapon would be used to assume part of the work under massive attacks, but obviously need to be combined with weapons of longer range.
I expect three types of air defense weapons mounted on the new land platforms. For 4 platforms would mean 12 different models:
- SA-?? S-350 Armata
- SA-?? Pantsir Armata
- SA-?? BMPT 2S?? 57mm Terminator 3
- SA-?? S-350 Kurganets
- SA-?? Pantsir Kurganets
- SA-?? BMPT 2S?? 57mm Kurganets
- SA-?? S-350 Bumerang
- SA-?? Pantsir Bumerang
- SA-?? BMPT 2S?? 57mm Bumerang
- SA-?? S-350 BMD-4(M)
- SA-?? Pantsir BMD-4(M)
- SA-?? BMPT 2S?? 57mm BMD-4(M)
It would be possible to combine the Pantsir missiles with the 57mm weapon, but the combination would lose surely BMPT capabilities. We will see.
The S-400, S-500 and A-235 would be in separte units instead, like the S-300 until now.
PS: By the end the ZSU-23-4 and the ZSU-57-2 seems to be good predecessors for the BMPT role.
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1389
Points : 1445
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
The T-15 BMPT Terminator-3 (or whaterver they call it) Should have 2 57mm guns 4 heavy ATGMs and 4 short range SAMs and mabey an AGS-57 although a Vasilek would be a prefferable option as it offers anti armor and artillery performance aswell.
If you look at it the Uran-9 has better armamanent then the Kurganets 25 this is just ridiculous the K-25 should have more firepower than the Uran-9 and the T-15 should have the most firepower of them all.
Although I still do love the idea of 2 or 4 AO-18s... Just imagine you have 50 LAV-25s or Bradleys rushing your position and you rip with 4 AO-18s there will be nothing left of the enemy.
If you look at it the Uran-9 has better armamanent then the Kurganets 25 this is just ridiculous the K-25 should have more firepower than the Uran-9 and the T-15 should have the most firepower of them all.
Although I still do love the idea of 2 or 4 AO-18s... Just imagine you have 50 LAV-25s or Bradleys rushing your position and you rip with 4 AO-18s there will be nothing left of the enemy.
Isos- Posts : 11593
Points : 11561
Join date : 2015-11-06
Nice video explaining how smart rounds work. They are used against cruise missiles. It also shows impact.
GarryB- Posts : 40488
Points : 40988
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It would be possible to combine the Pantsir missiles with the 57mm weapon, but the combination would lose surely BMPT capabilities. We will see.
I suspect that for the swarm defence role that Pantsir might grow to expand the number of ready to fire missiles... we have already seen models and drawings of Hermes looking like a Grad with 40 odd ready to fire missiles.
Equally the size of the 57mm rounds means a 57mm gun on a vehicle would make also carrying sensors and missiles too much of a burden.
Honestly, I think the evolution will change again... from the Shilka and SA-13 to Tunguska they increased the range and power of the guns, and the SAMs and added sensors and systems on the Tunguska that exceeded the performance of either of the previous vehicles or the two combined.
The next step however wont fit on one vehicle IMHO, but to try to make both the missile vehicle and the gun vehicle as well equipped as the Tunguska was would be too expensive.
I suspect a missile vehicle and a gun vehicle will be developed separately, but fitted with radar sensors and optics on the missile vehicle and optics only on the gun vehicle.
When operating together they can share information and combine to be a formidable defence system, but independently they can also be used for other roles... the gun vehicle could be used for convoy escort, BMPT roles, and as a MBT where the enemy does not have MBTs so just accurate direct fire is needed like in COIN operations.
The missile platforms could deal with a range of air and land and sea targets.
The T-15 BMPT Terminator-3 (or whaterver they call it) Should have 2 57mm guns 4 heavy ATGMs and 4 short range SAMs and mabey an AGS-57 although a Vasilek would be a prefferable option as it offers anti armor and artillery performance aswell.
The BMPT is a tank support vehicle... it operates with armour and protects it from ground and air threats to armour... ie helos and ATGM teams, etc.
Having two barrels will reduce the internal space for ammo and will only double the rate of fire. For guided rounds rate of fire is not that important.
Odds are the IFV operating with the T-15 will also have a 57mm gun... either high velocity anti armour/anti aircraft, or low velocity grenade launcher.
In the Division there will be an IFV platoon tasked with air defence with a Verba grip stock and several missiles.... not to mention missile and gun/missile air defence platoons.... currently the missile platoons have TOR or OSA, while the gun/missile platoons have Tunguska or Shilka and SA-13.
Considering new Russian tanks will have tank gun launched guided missiles and auto trackers as part of their fire control systems, the airspace above a Russian force is in trouble.
franco- Posts : 7043
Points : 7069
Join date : 2010-08-17
I suspect that for the swarm defence role that Pantsir might grow to expand the number of ready to fire missiles... we have already seen models and drawings of Hermes looking like a Grad with 40 odd ready to fire missiles.
Equally the size of the 57mm rounds means a 57mm gun on a vehicle would make also carrying sensors and missiles too much of a burden.
Honestly, I think the evolution will change again... from the Shilka and SA-13 to Tunguska they increased the range and power of the guns, and the SAMs and added sensors and systems on the Tunguska that exceeded the performance of either of the previous vehicles or the two combined.
The next step however wont fit on one vehicle IMHO, but to try to make both the missile vehicle and the gun vehicle as well equipped as the Tunguska was would be too expensive.
I suspect a missile vehicle and a gun vehicle will be developed separately, but fitted with radar sensors and optics on the missile vehicle and optics only on the gun vehicle.
When operating together they can share information and combine to be a formidable defence system, but independently they can also be used for other roles... the gun vehicle could be used for convoy escort, BMPT roles, and as a MBT where the enemy does not have MBTs so just accurate direct fire is needed like in COIN operations.
The missile platforms could deal with a range of air and land and sea targets.
Perhaps the new "Sosna" SAM system would make a nice pair...
Equally the size of the 57mm rounds means a 57mm gun on a vehicle would make also carrying sensors and missiles too much of a burden.
Honestly, I think the evolution will change again... from the Shilka and SA-13 to Tunguska they increased the range and power of the guns, and the SAMs and added sensors and systems on the Tunguska that exceeded the performance of either of the previous vehicles or the two combined.
The next step however wont fit on one vehicle IMHO, but to try to make both the missile vehicle and the gun vehicle as well equipped as the Tunguska was would be too expensive.
I suspect a missile vehicle and a gun vehicle will be developed separately, but fitted with radar sensors and optics on the missile vehicle and optics only on the gun vehicle.
When operating together they can share information and combine to be a formidable defence system, but independently they can also be used for other roles... the gun vehicle could be used for convoy escort, BMPT roles, and as a MBT where the enemy does not have MBTs so just accurate direct fire is needed like in COIN operations.
The missile platforms could deal with a range of air and land and sea targets.
Perhaps the new "Sosna" SAM system would make a nice pair...
Isos- Posts : 11593
Points : 11561
Join date : 2015-11-06
This future new air defence system based on 57 mm gun will be really deadly. It is perfect specially for small countries like serbia. I would buy hundreds of them to cover all the territory with pantsirs and Buks. Far more dangerous than 2 S-400 for the same price and much more easy to use and more survivable.
If they manage to use a passive FCS with optics and passive radar it would be a game changer. Anyway a simple radar for its FCS like on shilka will allow it to engage more precisly targets.
I don't see why you are talking to make it a bmp-t. They already have ordered the bmp-t based on t-72 and will get t-15 equiped with 57mm gun probably with normal rounds that are cheaper than smart ones. They also have thousands of vehicles with 30 mm guns which can carry more rounds than 57mm.
If they manage to use a passive FCS with optics and passive radar it would be a game changer. Anyway a simple radar for its FCS like on shilka will allow it to engage more precisly targets.
I don't see why you are talking to make it a bmp-t. They already have ordered the bmp-t based on t-72 and will get t-15 equiped with 57mm gun probably with normal rounds that are cheaper than smart ones. They also have thousands of vehicles with 30 mm guns which can carry more rounds than 57mm.
Interlinked- Posts : 160
Points : 162
Join date : 2017-11-07
@Isos
You can cover a wide area with hundreds of smaller short range anti-air systems, but you can't cover much altitude. An easy way to bypass such a system would be to just fly higher. Don't forget that the original reason for the existence of ground-air missiles was to take out bombers that could fly above the maximum altitude of anti-aircraft guns.
You can cover a wide area with hundreds of smaller short range anti-air systems, but you can't cover much altitude. An easy way to bypass such a system would be to just fly higher. Don't forget that the original reason for the existence of ground-air missiles was to take out bombers that could fly above the maximum altitude of anti-aircraft guns.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
Isos wrote:I don't see why you are talking to make it a bmp-t.
The same gun seems to be selected for both roles. Same gun on same platforms, leads to the same weapons solving both roles. Very likely auxiliary equipment can be combined without problem. The use of different variants of ammunition would depend of the mission, like in other cases, but the vehicle will be very likely the same.
The example most known is the BMPT on armata platform called Terminator 3. With the same weapon is very unlikely to see other armata vehicle with 57mm weapons for "antidrone" role. An "antidrone" design:
- Without air defense missiles would lead again to a double weapon configuration, because the platform is big enough to allow it, and then basically you have the same Terminator 3 again.
- With air defense missiles, Russia would consider only recent missile designs which means Pantsir missiles (Sosna missiles would be of lower range than the 57mm weapon and would not make sense), and then you go the Pantsir armata (where the 57mm weapon would be secondary armament).
The fact that the Terminator 3 goes forward makes likely 3 air defense weapons based on armata platform, like explained before. And the same for the rest of platforms.
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1389
Points : 1445
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
eehnie wrote:Isos wrote:I don't see why you are talking to make it a bmp-t.
The same gun seems to be selected for both roles. Same gun on same platforms, leads to the same weapons solving both roles. Very likely auxiliary equipment can be combined without problem. The use of different variants of ammunition would depend of the mission, like in other cases, but the vehicle will be very likely the same.
The example most known is the BMPT on armata platform called Terminator 3. With the same weapon is very unlikely to see other armata vehicle with 57mm weapons for "antidrone" role. An "antidrone" design:
- Without air defense missiles would lead again to a double weapon configuration, because the platform is big enough to allow it, and then basically you have the same Terminator 3 again.
- With air defense missiles, Russia would consider only recent missile designs which means Pantsir missiles (Sosna missiles would be of lower range than the 57mm weapon and would not make sense), and then you go the Pantsir armata (where the 57mm weapon would be secondary armament).
The fact that the Terminator 3 goes forward makes likely 3 air defense weapons based on armata platform, like explained before. And the same for the rest of platforms.
Since when did the Russian army say they were producing a sequel to the BMPT-72?
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
The-thing-next-door wrote:eehnie wrote:Isos wrote:I don't see why you are talking to make it a bmp-t.
The same gun seems to be selected for both roles. Same gun on same platforms, leads to the same weapons solving both roles. Very likely auxiliary equipment can be combined without problem. The use of different variants of ammunition would depend of the mission, like in other cases, but the vehicle will be very likely the same.
The example most known is the BMPT on armata platform called Terminator 3. With the same weapon is very unlikely to see other armata vehicle with 57mm weapons for "antidrone" role. An "antidrone" design:
- Without air defense missiles would lead again to a double weapon configuration, because the platform is big enough to allow it, and then basically you have the same Terminator 3 again.
- With air defense missiles, Russia would consider only recent missile designs which means Pantsir missiles (Sosna missiles would be of lower range than the 57mm weapon and would not make sense), and then you go the Pantsir armata (where the 57mm weapon would be secondary armament).
The fact that the Terminator 3 goes forward makes likely 3 air defense weapons based on armata platform, like explained before. And the same for the rest of platforms.
Since when did the Russian army say they were producing a sequel to the BMPT-72?
Earlier in this topic earlier there are references to the development of the new armata based BMPT. Not producing, but yes developping
https://www.russiadefence.net/t5780p50-new-automatic-57mm-gun-development#181106
Austin wrote:"Terminator 3" will receive two powerful 57-mm automatic gunThe latest fighting vehicle fire support "Terminator 3" based on heavy tracked "Armata" platform will receive as the main armament just two 57-mm automatic cannon.
Information about this is available in the blog of the famous Russian historian and expert Alexei Hlopotova tank. He, in turn, as a primary source refers to the book "Ural Railway Car Plant 80 years" S.V.Ustyantseva.
Also doubles powerful 57-mm guns, advanced anti-tank guided missiles will be installed in "Terminator 3". Perhaps it is a third-generation products, which operate on the principle of "shot - forgot", ie, have a homing systems.
Military experts ambiguously received this information, there is the opinion that weapons of "Terminator 3" is redundant and one 57-mm gun on the combat unit "Baikal" type would be enough. In any case, the new version of the combat vehicle fire support firepower will not be equal.
http://vpk-news.ru/news/33827Подробнее: http://vpk-news.ru/news/33827
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1389
Points : 1445
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
eehnie wrote: Not producing, but yes developping
I was parodying the name "Terminator" as in the films.
What will this new vehicle look like?
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
The-thing-next-door wrote:eehnie wrote: Not producing, but yes developping
I was parodying the name "Terminator" as in the films.
What will this new vehicle look like?
I saw not images. I'm not sure how would look.
Also Im curious about if the turret with 2 57mm weapons/barrels can be applied also to the Kurganets platform. The original ZSU-57-2 was only of 28-29 tons.
GarryB- Posts : 40488
Points : 40988
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Perhaps the new "Sosna" SAM system would make a nice pair...
Good point... a battery of 8 or even 16 SOSNA-R missiles on the 57mm gun mount would be very interesting because the missiles are laser beam riding so the same laser beam riding guidance for the 57mm guided rounds and airburst munitions would be very useful.
SOSNA missiles are cheap and small and relatively simple and do not have a huge footprint on the platform they operate from, yet offer excellent performance out to about 8-10km.
the problem is that I think the company that makes them is pretty much in competition with the company that makes Pantsir missiles...
The company that makes Pantsir missiles also makes Kornet EM and I suspect they would like to see their cheap light missile used instead.
I don't see why you are talking to make it a bmp-t. They already have ordered the bmp-t based on t-72 and will get t-15 equiped with 57mm gun probably with normal rounds that are cheaper than smart ones. They also have thousands of vehicles with 30 mm guns which can carry more rounds than 57mm.
Actual guided shells would be rather more expensive than dumb shells, but airburst shells would be vastly more effective than dumb shells, so even if they were 15 times more expensive it makes sense to use the more expensive rounds... shooting at aerial targets a round that explodes before it gets to an air target and showers the target in fragments can be effective with one shot... a dumb round that misses by 5cms will not explode at all and will carry on down range while the UAV is untouched.
The example most known is the BMPT on armata platform called Terminator 3. With the same weapon is very unlikely to see other armata vehicle with 57mm weapons for "antidrone" role. An "antidrone" design:
There are pretty much 3 roles where the 57mm gun would be useful... traditionally replacing the 30mm cannon.
The IFV needs a larger gun because enemy IFVs have armour that is becoming too heavy for 30mm round to penetrate... the question is whether they will go for a gun solution with APFSDS rounds to penetrate enemy IFV, or if they will go for a 57mm grenade launcher and deal with enemy armour using a mix of heavy ATGMs (krisantema and Kornet) and light anti armour missiles (bulat).
The air defence problem is small fast targets which requires too many 30mm shells to be used per target so the 57mm has advantages here in range as well as target coverage per round.
And thirdly, the BMPT role where the enemy is a mix of ground and air targets threatening friendly armour... there is potential for a single high velocity 57mm gun or perhaps a 57mm grenade launcher.
The obvious issue is that the BMPT concept is fire support vehicle for tanks operating without deployed infantry... basically an IFV with the troops replaced with extra ammo...
It is not an accident that previously used vehicles included Tunguska, Shilka, and the BTR-40 with 14.5mm twin HMGs or 23mm twin barrel cannon.
- With air defense missiles, Russia would consider only recent missile designs which means Pantsir missiles (Sosna missiles would be of lower range than the 57mm weapon and would not make sense), and then you go the Pantsir armata (where the 57mm weapon would be secondary armament).
SOSNA has very fast very accurate missiles that would be effective against light aircraft and UAVs, but 57mm cannon shells would be cheaper.
Suffice to say if the target was a cruise missile or UAV flying straight and level or a hovering helo then 57mm cannon shells detonating in front of them is the best and cheapest option.
If the target is manouvering a lot then a guided missile has a much better chance of a kill and I would suspect a SOSNA missile would be cheaper than a 57mm guided shell and more effective most of the time.
Also Im curious about if the turret with 2 57mm weapons/barrels can be applied also to the Kurganets platform. The original ZSU-57-2 was only of 28-29 tons.
As mentioned in the article you posted it would be unlikely that it would have two 57mm guns... unless it had a high velocity 57mm gun and a 57mm grenade launcher... but even that would be a bit redundant.
I still like the idea of a 120mm gun/mortar and a 57mm grenade launcher and a 23mm gatling gun.
I would suspect two 57mm grenade launchers could be used to increase rate of fire and maximise effect on target... but at the end of the day I suspect the whole idea becomes moot.
The original purpose of the BMPT is a vehicle with tank level armour able to deal with targets tanks are not great at dealing with... so an IFVs armament in a tank.
the armata concept is all sorts of vehicle armament in a tank chassis, so an IFV with more ammo in the troop compartment could easily be a BMPT... or the gun based air defence vehicle could do the same job...
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1389
Points : 1445
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
GarryB wrote:
I still like the idea of a 120mm gun/mortar and a 57mm grenade launcher and a 23mm gatling gun.
I agree although you do always seem to suggest a few too many weapons. While it would be nice to have 2 Ao-18s a 120mm gun mortar 4 ATGMS 4 short range SAMs and 2 57mm cannons I just don't think you will be able to put that on a vehicle weighing less than 120 tons.
I would say the best weapons for a BMPT would be
- 57mm high velocity cannon
- 2b9 Vasilek
- 120mm gun mortar
- 30mm AO-18
- 4 short range SAMs
- 4 heavy ATGMs
Choosing between them is difficult maybe the BMPT could be designed so that you can swap out its weapons depending on the mission requirements?
Interlinked- Posts : 160
Points : 162
Join date : 2017-11-07
What's with the obsession with mortars?