Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Share
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:24 pm

    I would think 500 rounds of 14.5mm ammo would take up less space than 500 rounds of 30mm ammo. Especially as the 14.5mm ammo would now be in a single continuous belt while the 30mm ammo will be in two separate belts for AP and HE.

    You are correct, 14,5 mm round is smaller than 30 mm round, and 500 14,5 mm rounds take less space than 500 30mm rounds. But if in both cases you have 500 rounds, than it is better to have 30 mm, which give you better firepower. I think difference in space they could get in two pylons, which hold a gun.


    Was thinking about 2-4 missiles on either side of the turret much like on the Phoenix or Strelets. Individual missiles are long and slim and could be stored in the hull behind the turret where the troops would normally sit in the troop carrying version.

    I think this is only logical placement for missiles. Active missiles on sides of turret and spare missiles inside vehicle. I was thinking you mean placing spare missiles inside turret, where gunner sit, but there is no room for them, one man turret doesn't have enough space.


    Its primary role will be shooting down aircraft but preferably at extended ranges... if a Helo gets within 30mm cannon range then there is something wrong and rather than shooting it out it should be running.

    I personally doubt, that jets will fly that low and near to get into range of 30 mm gun. If they will, that pilots are doing something wrong. Helicopters are other story, when they could come very close and pop up inside range of gun, specially in more forest terrain and with hills and mountains. They could be in cover behind the mask and come very close and radars could not see them. I think for quick reaction in that close range gun is better than missile, specially if there are also bushes and trees.


    Another option of course... if we think about it... this is the VDV... best of the best, so perhaps the longer chassis troop carrier with vertical launch tubes on the rear and a very small turret on the front with thermal and TV optics to fire Morfei missiles.

    The vehicle for Sprut-SD? Interesting option, for sure, but I don't know a lot about Morfei. When we know more about it, we could easier say if this is real option for that kind of vehicle.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16717
    Points : 17325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:26 am

    You are correct, 14,5 mm round is smaller than 30 mm round, and 500 14,5 mm rounds take less space than 500 30mm rounds. But if in both cases you have 500 rounds, than it is better to have 30 mm, which give you better firepower. I think difference in space they could get in two pylons, which hold a gun.

    My thinking is that the 14.5mm turret version could possibly fit the 500 x 14.5mm rounds and the 2000 rounds of 7.62mm round with the PKT machine gun inside the turret area which will free up the area below the turret for the seat for the operator and perhaps a few missiles lying on the floor.
    So the difference will be 14.5mm gun and space for perhaps another two Igla missiles, or extra range of the 30mm gun but less space for Igla missiles.

    The 30mm round is clearly superior in performance against aircraft and armour, but this vehicle will be tasked with air defence and will be operating with vehicles carrying ATGMs and 30mm cannons and 100mm rifled guns and 120mm mortars and 125mm gun armed light tanks. I think the lighter gun for close in self defence makes more sense, and in actual terms I think the 2-2.5km range against aircraft and light ground targets for the 14.5mm gun is enough for defence while reloading missiles which will be the primary weapons.

    I think this is only logical placement for missiles. Active missiles on sides of turret and spare missiles inside vehicle. I was thinking you mean placing spare missiles inside turret, where gunner sit, but there is no room for them, one man turret doesn't have enough space.

    Yes...
    I also am thinking that by removing the 30mm grenade launcher and by using the 14.5mm gun instead of the 30mm cannon the ammo can be reduced to a level where it fills the turret area with just the single persons position below the turret ring. This would allow internal Iglas to take some of the room under the turret ring for more internal storage. In the 120mm NONA vehicle it stores something like 60 x 120mm mortar shells.

    These are very small compact vehicles which is why I think the extended chassis troop transport chassis could be used for more internal storage space for missiles.

    I personally doubt, that jets will fly that low and near to get into range of 30 mm gun. If they will, that pilots are doing something wrong. Helicopters are other story, when they could come very close and pop up inside range of gun, specially in more forest terrain and with hills and mountains. They could be in cover behind the mask and come very close and radars could not see them. I think for quick reaction in that close range gun is better than missile, specially if there are also bushes and trees.

    There are still some jets that fly low and fast like the Su-24 and F-15E on some strike missions and with advanced warning and cueing from the AD network this system should be quite effective.

    If the turret of the BTR-80A is too big or takes up too much internal space then the same turret used on the Strelets on the MTLB could easily be used too, though it has no gun armament.

    There will also likely be UAVs and CAS types that this system will be effective against too.

    The vehicle for Sprut-SD? Interesting option, for sure, but I don't know a lot about Morfei. When we know more about it, we could easier say if this is real option for that kind of vehicle.

    It is supposed to be a unified short range AAM/SAM with IIR guidance and lock on after launch capacity. In the naval and land based system (shared with Vityaz) it is going to perform a role similar to SEA RAM except with the lock on after launch capacity it can be vertically launched (or launched from a weapon bay on an aircraft) with inertial navigation directing it towards the incoming threat. When it faces the threat it will look at all the potential targets based on their IR signature and compare them with threats in a threat library. If it was launched at a Harpoon missile for example that is 10km away but as it flys out it detects an F-22 it might pass that info back to the launch platform and allow the operator to select a new higher priority target, or continue against the targeted threat.

    The threat library and the 3D thermal signatures in those libraries are already being used in auto trackers with thermal sighted systems. Older systems processed the video image to detect distinct objects like the night camera on a police helo following a suspect at night... often a box will appear around the target and that box can be locked so the operator can let the system automatically track the target rather than having to follow them themselves. The signature library is the next step and is for weapons to allow them to find their own targets.
    A modern example is Brimstone which uses MMW radar signatures to find potential targets in enemy territory.


    An older example was Granit which would be fired in large formations of 12 or more where one missile would climb to 300m or so and to a single radar scan of the target area. It would then drop down and analyse the radar return and determine which targets were visible and it would then assign priorities and determine which missile would engage which targets with the carriers getting more missiles targeting them. It would then transmit the target picture to the other missiles and pass on which missile was attacking which target. Later models also sent via satellite datalink the missiles radar scan of the target area, which would be useful for targeting follow up shots.

    The carrier group would detect one radar scan but then the missile would drop down below the radar horizon. A bit of datalink radio traffic for a few seconds and then the next thing the carrier group would see is a dozen or more enormous supersonic antiship missiles coming over the horizon at High speed not using their radars till they were very close as a final check they were on target.


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:15 pm

    Thank you for more informations about Morfei. This will be for sure very capable system, the only weak point is enemy equipped with DIRCM, which could blind IIR homing head, but their main targets, incoming missiles don't have them. In combination with other type of missiles it will represent very strong last line of air defense.



    The 30mm round is clearly superior in performance against aircraft and armour, but this vehicle will be tasked with air defence and will be operating with vehicles carrying ATGMs and 30mm cannons and 100mm rifled guns and 120mm mortars and 125mm gun armed light tanks. I think the lighter gun for close in self defence makes more sense, and in actual terms I think the 2-2.5km range against aircraft and light ground targets for the 14.5mm gun is enough for defence while reloading missiles which will be the primary weapons.
    [quote]

    This is true, that BMD-2/3/4 have 30 mm gun and could also engage flying targets, but this is not a reason that AD vehicle is not armed with 30 mm gun. After all in armor units there are a lot of BMP-2s and BMP-3s with 30 mm gun and they still have ZSU-23-4 Shilka and Tunguska with 23 mm and 30 mm guns. In battle BMDs could be fully employed with enemy ground units and targets and could not work against air targets, so AD vehicles will in that case work alone against them. After all, VDV could operate behind enemy lines, so they are outside of their own AD cluster. When they fire all missiles from launchers, they still have 30 mm guns to fire, before they are able to reload missiles. In that case 30 mm gun keep longer distance to enemy than 14,5 mm gun.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16717
    Points : 17325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:18 am

    Thank you for more informations about Morfei. This will be for sure very capable system, the only weak point is enemy equipped with DIRCM, which could blind IIR homing head, but their main targets, incoming missiles don't have them. In combination with other type of missiles it will represent very strong last line of air defense.

    Morfei for most units will be a load option on a Vityaz system with a range of 10-15km. The other two missiles on board will have a range of 40km and 120km and will likely be active radar homing.

    If a target uses DIRCM to defend themselves they have already gotten to within 10-15km of the vehicles.

    I rather suspect an enemy force equipped widely with DIRCM systems would lead to reduced payloads of Morfei and increased payloads of the larger radar guided missiles.

    Being a short ranged AAM it is perfectly possible that Morfei might even be given a combined ARH/IIR seeker to ensure lethality.

    I doubt the Russians will have a shortage of options to engage aerial targets... they tend to be very well equipped with air defence systems... on land and at sea.

    This is true, that BMD-2/3/4 have 30 mm gun and could also engage flying targets, but this is not a reason that AD vehicle is not armed with 30 mm gun. After all in armor units there are a lot of BMP-2s and BMP-3s with 30 mm gun and they still have ZSU-23-4 Shilka and Tunguska with 23 mm and 30 mm guns. In battle BMDs could be fully employed with enemy ground units and targets and could not work against air targets, so AD vehicles will in that case work alone against them. After all, VDV could operate behind enemy lines, so they are outside of their own AD cluster. When they fire all missiles from launchers, they still have 30 mm guns to fire, before they are able to reload missiles. In that case 30 mm gun keep longer distance to enemy than 14,5 mm gun.

    I appreciate what you are saying here, but a couple of points... first BMP-2s and BMP-3s in the past have not be fitted with autotrackers in their optics. To fire on a target they lase the range which gives a specific fixed range which based on the ammo loaded and a lot of other factors generates an aim point so the gunner can put the elipse on the target and fire with a good chance of a hit. With a moving target like an aircraft however unless the target is heading directly towards or away from the vehicle the aimpoint becomes obsolete in a few seconds. The autotracker allows the gunners sight and gun to follow the continuously updated aimpoint for the target so a squeese of the target should result in a good chance for hitting the target... with an autotracker and laser rangefinder and ballistic computer the chances of an upgraded BMP-2 hitting a target is actually much better than the chances of a ZSU-23-4 despite the fact that the Shilka will likely be pumping out far more projectiles.

    The obvious problem is that the BMP/BMD gunners will not be looking specifically for aircraft.

    Second point is that with the right optics the Igla and later Verba will be effective out to 5km and its kill probability will likely be much higher than 30mm cannon, so I think rather than adding one more 30mm cannon to the force that the extra space carrying extra missiles makes more sense. The 14.5mm gun gives it some defense capacity without reducing the capacity of the primary weapon... the Iglas.

    VDV will more often than not in a full conflict operate behind enemy lines which means the ground forces they fight will not likely be top of the line, but the threat becomes light air power and artillery. Light air power would include helos and some UAVs and perhaps UCAVs tasked with defending whatever the VDV are trying to take.

    In such a situation Iglas/Verba would be acceptable, but something like Pantsir-S1 would be much better.

    Having said this I remembered this picture/slide:



    As you can see it is quite a small slide and the vehicle seems to be a Tunguska on a BMD chassis and the system is called "Roman". Translation of the other details might lead to more clues about this system perhaps?

    I think in the longer term another system or group of systems might be developed too.

    SOSNA is a good candidate for a light cheap but capable system for very mobile units and Morfei is the inter service short range self defence missile. With QWIP sensors it could potentially become very cheap but accurate.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:37 pm

    I appreciate what you are saying here, but a couple of points... first BMP-2s and BMP-3s in the past have not be fitted with autotrackers in their optics. To fire on a target they lase the range which gives a specific fixed range which based on the ammo loaded and a lot of other factors generates an aim point so the gunner can put the elipse on the target and fire with a good chance of a hit. With a moving target like an aircraft however unless the target is heading directly towards or away from the vehicle the aimpoint becomes obsolete in a few seconds. The autotracker allows the gunners sight and gun to follow the continuously updated aimpoint for the target so a squeese of the target should result in a good chance for hitting the target... with an autotracker and laser rangefinder and ballistic computer the chances of an upgraded BMP-2 hitting a target is actually much better than the chances of a ZSU-23-4 despite the fact that the Shilka will likely be pumping out far more projectiles.
    [quote]

    I agree with you here and would like to add, that today AD systems also have better FCS than Shilka.


    Second point is that with the right optics the Igla and later Verba will be effective out to 5km and its kill probability will likely be much higher than 30mm cannon, so I think rather than adding one more 30mm cannon to the force that the extra space carrying extra missiles makes more sense. The 14.5mm gun gives it some defense capacity without reducing the capacity of the primary weapon... the Iglas.

    VDV will more often than not in a full conflict operate behind enemy lines which means the ground forces they fight will not likely be top of the line, but the threat becomes light air power and artillery. Light air power would include helos and some UAVs and perhaps UCAVs tasked with defending whatever the VDV are trying to take.

    I agree with you here, but would like to add, that for VSHORAD system, like the one, about which we discuss here for VDV, future targets will also be bombs and missiles from helicopters and planes and top attack ATGMs, which fly high and slow. Of course, missiles are the main armament, so VDV could decide to have missiles only AD system. If VDV decide to have missile/gun AD system, than they will have also to decide, which gun to place in it. I think it is easier to develop AHEAD gun rounds for 30 mm gun than for 14,5 mm gun, which in combination with modern FCS could be more effective against those small targets. They could also go for 57 mm AA gun only, but this is something, about what VDV command have to decide. Maybe they have a decision, but we don't know yet.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:37 pm