Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:33 am

    I wonder if any modernized PT-76 with this turret is received in army or
    naval infantry unit and if russian army have any plan to equip new
    vehicles with those new turrets.

    I remember reading somewhere that the main user of the PT-76 was the Naval Infantry and that this upgrade was directed at both them and export for foreign users of the PT-76. AFAIK the Naval Infantry are getting new vehicles rather than existing vehicles upgraded but your point about the 2S1 is interesting.

    Because they have so many chassis they want to continue to use the platform though the 122mm gun is becoming a little obsolete and if they could remove it from service they would be able to remove the 122mm shell calibre from the inventory which will save money.
    The 2S34 Hosta is a 2S1 with the 122mm gun replaced with a 120mm gun howitzer mortar weapon that is so popular with airborne units and units fighting in mountains.

    A 57mm anti aircraft gun vehicle would be another way to use the 2S1 chassis while still getting rid of the 122mm calibre.
    The 2S1 carried about 40 rounds of 122mm ammo so I would guess it should be able to carry 100-120 rounds of 57mm ammo.

    I guess it comes down to what they want to do... scrap everything and make everything new... which would be very expensive and wasteful, or using a mix of upgrades and new vehicles and scrapping which will be more complex to manage but will allow some technologies to get into production and use faster and more time to work on the totally new solutions which can be delayed till the technology in Russia matures and becomes cheaper, or is developed in Russia rather than imported.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6023
    Points : 6435
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:06 am

    Strelets

    High Res link http://i74.servimg.com/u/f74/15/54/62/79/strele11.jpg

    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:40 pm

    Interesting picture of Strelets. Placed on MT-LB it more looks like modified Strela-10 than to prototype of Strelets placed on Vodnik 4x4 vehicle. I wonder if any of them is in actual service or it is only naval version Gibka, which is in service.


    Interesting the number of sand coloured Pantsir-S1 systems there are... I remember comments for naysayers that most of the production Pantsirs were that colour because they were all going to the Middle East and the Russians weren't getting very many at all.

    Nice to see Russian sand coloured systems... Smile
    [quote]

    It was interesting, that in May 9th parade in Tula, there were Pantsirs in sand color. I was thinking, they were just Pantsirs from KBP, which will be latter send to Arab customers. I know the first ten Pantsirs for russian army were green and then colored in new camouflage colors for Moscow parade. Maybe one Arab customer cancel the order or was not able to pay and Pantsirs stay at home as Algerian Mig-29SMTs.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:55 pm

    The turret with 57 mm gun is very useful, be it placed on older modernized chassis or on new build ones, like BMP-3 chassis. In combination with autoloader, modern FCS and C4ISR it is very effective gun against most less armored targets on the ground and even in the air. Even armored helicopters could not survive a hit from 57 mm gun.

    I think naval infantry will more like to see BMP-3 armed with this turret than old PT-76.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:23 am

    Just looking at the fundamental design of an Infantry Combat Vehicle... the main gun has the priority of penetrating the enemy equivelent plus a secondary requirement to defeat heavier armour.

    For the BMP-1 it was the long minimum range of the AT-3 that mandated a main gun that could defeat the frontal armour of a tank... which therefore should be able to penetrate enemy ICVs too. When newer missiles became available the main gun no longer needed to cover the anti MBT performance over short range so they adopted the long barrel 30mm cannon that could engage aircraft at short range as well as light armoured vehicles.
    It was found that the HE power of the BMP-1s gun was a useful compliment to the high velocity auto cannon so rather than upgrade the BMP-1s with the turret of the BMP-2 the older vehicles kept their larger calibre gun with the more effective heavier HE shell.
    The replacement vehicle is the BMP-3 which kept the 30mm gun and added even more HE power than the old 73mm smoothbore with a 100mm rifled gun.

    Now this is vital... it is a rifled gun. It is clear its primary ammo is HE. Spin stabilisation degrades the performance of HEAT and APFSDS rounds can't be spun fast enough to stabilise them because they are long and narrow so they need fins to stabilise them anyway. The only shells that benefit from spin stabilisation are HESH and HE. HESH are rendered obsolete by ERA or spaced laminated armour... so that means its purpose is HE shells.

    The BMP-4 could certainly want to replace the 30mm gun that will no longer penetrate enemy ICVs, with a heavier gun and there have been rumours about 45mm and 57mm guns being tested.

    I think the idea of the 57mm round is very good if you have a lot of PT-76 vehicles in service and want to keep them.

    I think because they want to replace a lot of old vehicles that a brand new round using new telescopic cases and smoothbore barrels with high velocity rounds makes more sense than using old existing rounds.

    I think telescopic cases will minimise the size of the new rounds without compromising performance and I think some flexible thinking could be used to further expand the capabilities here.

    For example a standard telescopic cased round looks like a drinks can in basic shape, now one limitation of the 57mm guided round is the length is limited by the case size... well how about two standard rounds... one full length and one three quarters shell length so they are not confused where loading a guided missile into the chamber first which will leave room for the three quarters round that contains no projectile and just propellent so you can make the guided round as long as you need to and still blow it down the barrel with a useful amount of propellent. The standard rounds will be full length and will not chamber with a missile loaded.

    Either way the new BMP-4 will not be able to carry a useful load of 57mm rounds and 100mm rounds so perhaps there should be two BMP-4 models like they have two BTR models now... the BTR-82 and BTR-82A can operate with the BMP-4 and BMP-4A where the BMP-4 has a 57mm gun and the BMP-4A has a 100mm gun and a 30mm gun.
    Perhaps the BMP-4 could have a 14.5mm coaxial gun? Or perhaps the BMP-4A could have the 30mm gun replaced with a 14.5mm gun?

    Brand new 57mm ammo should be possible with much larger payloads of HE, and of course devastating APFSDS rounds too. A guided 57mm HE shell that can reach to 8km could potentially replace the idea of ATAKA missiles on infantry support vehicles. Often the main purpose of such missiles is to hit point targets at long range like MG nests or sniper positions... or a specific room in a building and a laser guided 57mm shell should fill that role as long as it is not too expensive.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:29 am

    Maybe one Arab customer cancel the order or was not able to pay and Pantsirs stay at home as Algerian Mig-29SMTs.

    Or maybe they knew the first S-400 would go to Moscow and the next might go to the far east because of North Korean missile tests so they ordered both camouflage coloured vehicles?

    UAE ordered 50 systems and AFAIK they seem happy with them... the sensors will not be cheap but operating costs will be very reasonable as a truck is cheaper to run than a tank/tracklayer with regards to fuel and maintainence, and the missiles themselves are very cheap as they are simply SACLOS missiles with autotrackers to track the targets and missiles as you know... like a remote control with the remote controlling being handled by a sophisticated computer with radar and IR etc.

    Interesting picture of Strelets. Placed on MT-LB it more looks like
    modified Strela-10 than to prototype of Strelets placed on Vodnik 4x4
    vehicle. I wonder if any of them is in actual service or it is only
    naval version Gibka, which is in service.

    If you look a page back I posted a vehicle photo from 2004 with no missiles mounted but it is clearly based on the SA-13 with the same operators position and missile positions and even the same ranging only radar above the crew position.

    Oops, I didn't post that pic on this thread...

    Here it is again:


    Having thought about it... it makes sense to adapt the MANPADS launcher to fit the SA-13 launcher as there are likely plenty of SA-13s that could be upgraded this way and kept in service with plenty more kept as spare parts... and when they run out a new chassis can be bought.

    It means the new chassis don't need to be in mass production right now to fill out all the needs. It delays production requirements while still upgrading.
    If they threw out everything right now production would not be able to cope so there would be a lot of units without any vehicles. By using existing chassis that can do the job you can dedicate new production chassis to other purposes first and then as the other platforms wear out they can be introduced to replace them and increase fleet commonality without needing to buy a lot of new vehicles straight away.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:36 pm

    30 mm guns is good against lighter armored APCs and other vehicles, but not enough against heavier ICVs like Puma or CV-90, which are as heavy as T-55 tank. 57 mm gun with HEAT or APFSDS projectile is good enough for those ICVs, for tanks it could still have additional ATGMs.

    A 100 mm gun from BMP-3 is more like a combination of mortar and ATGM launcher. It could give excellent artillery support to infantry and launch ATGM against tanks and ICVs. For other targets you have 30 mm gun.

    Both gun combinations 30 mm with 100 mm and 57 mm with ATGM are good, but it depend on tactical situation, which combination suite better. Smaller cal. with higher rate of fire or bigger cal. with smaller rate of fire. Let say in mountains 57 mm gun could reach higher than 30 mm guns and effect of 57 mm round is bigger than of 30 mm round. In a closer range 30 mm gun could give more rounds on target in shorter time.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:47 pm

    In one way it is good, that Strelets modules with MANPADs are options to upgrade / modernize Strela-10, that it could have more missiles on launchers. On the other way I was expecting, that Strelets will be a lighter version more suitable for lighter vehicles like Vodnik, Tigr, Vystrel, BMD, to get better strategical mobility.

    On the other hand I think, that Strela-10 turret could be placed in BTR-80. This could be good option for lighter brigades.
    avatar
    psg
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 21
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2011-02-19
    Location : united kingdom

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  psg on Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:42 pm

    the 57mm gun sounds very promising, especially because of the multirole capabilities with various ammunition. todays age is net-centric, with the right data links vehicles that are connected would support each other. the M1 Tunguska could actively scan the airspace around a friendly formation while simultaneously sending via data links and secured networks information on potential targets allowing vechicles with various firepower to train their weapons onto the targets passively, ie 57mm laser guided shells or 30mm cannons.

    the 30mm cannon is still very potent, yes new ifv's and apc's can withstand 30mm hits. but most vehicles are in trouble if you get off a good burst! even mbts will get damaged ie, tracks, optics, side armour, engine bay area. you may not destroy a tank but you'll definately spoil its day, IF YOU GET CLOSE ENOUGH! ('Smile')

    a combination of 57mm and missiles will be extremely deadly, with AHEAD type ammunition and guided shells.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:12 am

    I am sure as the newer lighter vehicles enter service this drop in mount could be adapted to them and as has been seen with the Igla-S that the next gen missiles can be added as they become available.

    Presumably by 2018 they will be making Vodniks and Vystrels with these mounts holding Igla, Igla-S, and Verba missiles depending on how many of the older missiles are left in stock it could have 4 Iglas and 2 Igla-S missiles and 2 Verbas as a standard load.
    I would assume reloads can be carried but I have no idea how many could be carried.

    Hopefully they will adopt a similar layout for Gibka with 8 ready to launch missiles.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:29 am

    30 mm guns is good against lighter armored APCs and other vehicles, but
    not enough against heavier ICVs like Puma or CV-90, which are as heavy
    as T-55 tank. 57 mm gun with HEAT or APFSDS projectile is good enough
    for those ICVs, for tanks it could still have additional ATGMs.

    Yes, against lightly armoured or unarmoured targets a burst of 5-10 rounds from a 30mm cannon would likely be more destructive than a single round from a 57mm round... just like a cluster bomb that weighs 500kgs is more effective against area targets than a single warhead 500kg bomb because it distributes the damage more effectively.

    Unarmoured targets however can be dealt with using 14.5mm HMG rounds too. The rate of fire of the 30mm and capacity for carrying hundreds of rounds are in its favour, but if you can have guided 57mm shells you don't need rate of fire or lots of rounds any more.

    A 100 mm gun from BMP-3 is more like a combination of mortar and ATGM
    launcher. It could give excellent artillery support to infantry and
    launch ATGM against tanks and ICVs. For other targets you have 30 mm
    gun.

    Indeed it offers direct fire accuracy and a heavy HE capacity that automatic cannons can't compete with... it is complimented by a 30mm cannon which can deal with small fast targets (aircraft or moving vehicles) or lightly armoured targets.

    Both gun combinations 30 mm with 100 mm and 57 mm with ATGM are good,
    but it depend on tactical situation, which combination suite better.

    I agree. However the 30mm and the 57mm over lap in performance however. There is also some overlap with the 100mm gun for example a sniper position in a building 6km away is slowing the advance. In a total war situation then a 100mm HE shell would be used and will probably bring the side of the building down. The 57mm guided shell could be placed to hit the lower part of the window with a delayed fuse to penetrate to where the Sniper is actually sitting before the detonation of maybe 1.2kgs of HE that would kill anyone no matter how much body armour they are wearing.

    It all comes down to the performance and cost of the new 57mm ammo. Can the guided ammo be made cheap enough to use as a standard round? I am sure the navy will want this ammo as a hit by a round that weighs almost 3kgs will ruin most anti ship missiles day... and the extra stand off range makes it even better.

    I have mentioned in the past that a stealthy 57mm gun turret along with some vertical launch IIR missiles like 9M100 and perhaps even the twin barrel 30mm Duet in stealthy turrets will be interesting inner layers for new Russian boats.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:49 pm

    Agree with you, that combination of both ICVs, armed with 30 mm gun and with 57 mm gun have a great potential in battlefield. The question is more in how many ICVs would be equipped with standard configuration with 30 mm gun / 100 mm gun and how many with 57 mm gun inside battalion or brigade. Maybe the ones with 57 mm gun could be in smaller number, but more extensively used, where they are more proper.

    In air defense a vehicle with 57 mm gun could be excellent supplement to Tunguska, where Tunguska could engage smaller targets with high rate of fire, While 57 mm gun could engage helicopters behind the trees or very low on longer distance and also higher flying planes and UAVs.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:35 am

    They are going for mobile forces and I think having a mix of weapons on their vehicles would give them more flexibility in the forces they deploy. In rough forested country a vehicle might not spot targets at more than 3km or so which means 30mm would be fine for many target types except for very hard ones like concrete bunkers or heavy IFVs or tanks. In more open terrain an increase in numbers of vehicles with 57mm guns might allow engagement of targets at much longer range and of course heavier targets.

    In the air defence role laser guided 57mm rounds could be lofted towards enemy helos and either UAVs or forward spotters could mark helos with lasers even if the helo is on the ground. The helo could try to engage the platform with the laser marker... but modern laser target markers can be used from 15-20km or more so the UAV marking targets could be at 15,000m which means no air to air weapon a helo could carry could reach it.

    With a proper C4IR system set up the location passed back to the 57mm calibre weapon equipped vehicle could task the UAV or forward spotter that detected and IDed the target to lase the target for the last 2-3 seconds of flight of the rounds he is about to fire so the helo might get only a very short warning before rounds start impacting.

    Evasive manoeuvres at 10m altitude are dangerous.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6023
    Points : 6435
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:57 pm

    Nice thread Garry

    After reading through the original link and to what best google translates , it seems the 57 mm Guided Round uses Laser Beam pointed at the target to guide to its target. So the target is illuminated by Laser and the guided round simply follow the beam , not sure if it has proximity fuse but it would a lot good.

    I would say the replacement for Pantsir would be

    1 ) Platform Based on Armata Chasis or Kamaz Trucks.
    2 ) Twin 57 mm Guns on either side , Missile on either side of gun like pantsir
    3 ) Using Command Guidance like Existing Pantsir missile out to a range of 30-35 km from the present 20 km or using automonous guided rounds based on RVV-MD/RVV-SD missile they should give a range of 20 km and provide F&F capability
    4 ) Tracking and Guidance radar fully AESA plus EO and Thermal system , a laser range tracker and marker to be used for guiding the 57 mm projectile

    I would say in future warfare where UAV/UCAV/PGM/JDAM/SDB would be rule of the day a guided round like 57 mm would do a better job then a wall of 30 mm round , fewer rounds can achieve better kill with 57 mm.

    I hope they can further improve the ballistic characteristics of 57 mm round by using better propellent or even a GLONASS receiver to be use against land target based on known position but not in LOS of Laser.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 494
    Points : 516
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:41 pm

    Wait...I didn't know Russia had guided bullets?

    And really, no one is going to put a GPS receiver in a 57 mm round unless it was from a rail gun.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:46 am

    I hope they can further improve the ballistic characteristics of 57 mm
    round by using better propellent or even a GLONASS receiver to be use
    against land target based on known position but not in LOS of Laser.

    No point in putting a GPS receiver on the rounds... rather pointless for such a weapon.

    This gun will be for penetrating heavy armour that the 30mm can't deal with, or using its extra energy and range to hit point targets at longer ranges (like aircraft or light vehicles, or at sea incoming anti ship missiles like Harpoon for example).

    For artillery it would make some sense, but not for an anti armour/anti aircraft round.

    Wait...I didn't know Russia had guided bullets?

    Is it really that much of a jump from Svir et al?

    I would say in future warfare where UAV/UCAV/PGM/JDAM/SDB would be rule
    of the day a guided round like 57 mm would do a better job then a wall
    of 30 mm round , fewer rounds can achieve better kill with 57 mm.


    I agree.


    1 ) Platform Based on Armata Chasis or Kamaz Trucks.

    1) I would expect each brigade will have its own air defence vehicle and therefore I would expect each brigade chassis will be different, plus the extra trailer version for fixed positions like HQs and airfields.

    2 ) Twin 57 mm Guns on either side , Missile on either side of gun like pantsir

    2) The 30mm Tunguska and Pantsir-S1 layout of two twin barrel guns is to get a certain density of fire at a specific range. The Shilka had 4 single barrel guns for the same reason.
    I don't think the same would apply to guided shells of a 57mm gun system. The ammo is large and bulky and the ammo handling system is also bulky.
    I would think a single barrel gun mounted in the turret with the addition of missiles mounted on each side of the turret would be enough. Even a worse case rate of fire of 120 rpm means for a single target you might want 2-3 shells guiding at once at most... one gun can achieve that easily with a 1.5 second burst. The flight time of the projectiles will then give up to a 4-5 second break and the reacquire the next target and fire upon that... it should be capable of destroying up to 6 targets a minute with guns alone.
    With a single gun you could have a dual feed with two autoloader mechanisms which means you can have 20 guided shells in one autoloader and 20 HE shells with AHEAD type fuses in the other for helos popping up from behind trees etc.

    3
    ) Using Command Guidance like Existing Pantsir missile out to a range
    of 30-35 km from the present 20 km or using automonous guided rounds
    based on RVV-MD/RVV-SD missile they should give a range of 20 km and
    provide F&F capability

    Well the Hermes and PantsirS1 missile are unified in design... and the Hermes is being designed with MMW radar, IIR, and other guidance options... so a PantsirS1 SAM with MMW or IIR guidance is F&F isn't it?

    4 ) Tracking and Guidance radar fully AESA
    plus EO and Thermal system , a laser range tracker and marker to be
    used for guiding the 57 mm projectile

    Would make sense. Smile

    Of course it all comes down to the 57mm gun itself and whether they think it is needed yet or not.
    Certainly the 30mm calibre systems are very capable and relatively cheap.

    I think the BMPs will get 57mm guns first in the Army as an anti IFV weapon like the 30mm used to be.

    The Navy will get them first and likely use them as anti aircraft and anti ground and CIWS.

    With guided shells small fast moving boats which are actually quite tricky to hit with large calibre guns at range will be much easier. A large gun like a 100mm gun can of course track targets moving as fast as a small boat but at a distance projecting the target position by the time the shell gets there is very hard because of their erratic manouvers. Usually you end up firing a barrage and hope something makes contact.
    Using 30mm is an option but means you need to get within 4-5km of the target and most 30mm gatlings are designed to create a spread of shells like a shotgun blast to improve hit probability if the target moves at the last second.
    In comparison a 57mm shell guided by laser beam has a very good chance to hit out to 8km or more. I think the ballistic range of the shell is something like 12km but that is with a full propellent charge and a standard shell.

    I hope they can further improve the ballistic characteristics of 57 mm
    round by using better propellent or even a GLONASS receiver to be use
    against land target based on known position but not in LOS of Laser.

    To get the GLONASS position of the target you would need an observer to precisely locate the target out of line of sight of the gun. In such a situation it makes more sense to get that observer simply to illuminate the target and to give firing instructions to the gun battery.

    The initial work was based around upgrading the PT-76 with its 76.2mm gun by fitting a 57mm S-60 type gun and developing new projectiles.
    Personally I think as the PT-76s will be withdrawn and replaced and that the 57mm shell was not designed for guided shells and the extra space the guided shell takes up reduces its muzzle velocity to 700m/s that instead of using an existing shell that a brand new 57mm round should be developed from scratched.
    A telescoped case round with a much more compact shape with much more powerful ammo could be developed that stores more efficiently inside a vehicle and is easier to handle and stack should be made so that the guided projectile has much better performance and the AP and HE rounds are significantly better than any that could be shoehorned into the old 57mm shell.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:54 am

    Of course having thought about it for a few minutes... perhaps rather than create a Pantsir-S1 like vehicle to replace the Pantsir-S1 what you could do is simply equip BMP like vehicles with a 57mm gun with thermal sights and laser target market capability without the SAMs and without the expensive AESA.

    You could have a Pantsir vehicle operating behind the armoured unit using its radar to scan the airspace above itself and the unit it is protecting and use its missiles to shoot down threats and its guns to shoot down any targets that threaten it, but it is capable of tracking a lot more targets than it can shoot down at once, so extra targets could be handed to some of the BMPs that are within range of the targets with their own guns using guided shells. A bit like how all BMP-2s were equipped with gripstocks for Igla missiles and would also fire on targets they spot.

    During WWII air power and enemy armour were such threats that any and all guns were trained to fire on enemy aircraft and armour when they could. It was mostly morale back then but now with modern laser range finders and guided shells and modern fire control systems in IFVs that offer excellent accuracy at extended ranges the threat to airpower has increased just as much as the threat of airpower has.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:17 am

    You could not build something similar to Pantsir-S1 with 57 mm guns, because those guns are to large and they/it have to be placed in the middle of the turret not at sides. For system like Tunguska or Pantsir, 30 mm gun is the best option to be placed at side, maybe 37 mm gun, but I think 37 mm gun is no more in use in Russian military.

    57 mm gun is excellent option to be placed on BMPs and could have air defense as secondary role. They could also produce specialized 57 mm SP AA gun, with radar, TI, laser rangefinder and marker, datalink, etc, to supplement other air defense systems in ground units. It could be also equipped with some Iglas at sides.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6023
    Points : 6435
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:21 am

    medo wrote:It could be also equipped with some Iglas at sides.

    Yes thats looks good , you can simply replace Igla-S with Verba Smile
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:37 am

    You could not build something similar to Pantsir-S1 with 57 mm guns,
    because those guns are to large and they/it have to be placed in the
    middle of the turret not at sides. For system like Tunguska or Pantsir,
    30 mm gun is the best option to be placed at side, maybe 37 mm gun, but I
    think 37 mm gun is no more in use in Russian military.

    I agree. Without making a really huge turret two 57mm guns is too much... especially if you want a dual feed weapon with the ability to choose between two different types of rounds quickly.
    57mm is enough of a jump up in power from 30mm to make the extra reach worth it.
    The 35mm guns on the Gepard are not actually that much longer range than the 30mm of the Tunguska and have a fraction of their rate of fire and so rely on accuracy... which is good for straight and level targets but not for small or manoeuvring targets.
    The 57mm round has an extra 2km range over the 30mm (6km vs 4km) with standard ammo and with guided ammo perhaps 8km -10km effective range.
    The ability of the 57mm round to follow targets as they manoeuvre means they don't need rapid fire capability.

    The 37mm round previously used by the Russians is probably not that much more effective than the 30mm as its slightly extra range advantage is negated by its reduced rate of fire.

    Having said all that I think a modern telescoped round of even better performance is worth developing.

    [quote]57 mm gun is excellent option to be placed on BMPs and could have air
    defense as secondary role. They could also produce specialized 57 mm SP
    AA gun, with radar, TI, laser rangefinder and marker, datalink, etc, to
    supplement other air defense systems in ground units. It could be also
    equipped with some Iglas at sides.[/qutoe]

    We are in agreement... however instead of Iglas with a 6km range I would be tempted to use SOSNA missiles with an 8km range and using laser beam riding guidance.

    The main fault of the 57mm laser homing shells is that their optics is pointed at the target so they are vulnerable to DIRCMs. If a laser has to be on board the vehicle anyway a few SOSNA missiles that use beam riding technology could be used while the 57mm autoloader is reloaded, and also in case the target is blinding your rounds.

    Of course firing at 120 rounds per minute and remember because there is only one laser needed marking the target think of the scenario of a group of BMP-5s (made up but bear with me) with a mix of 100mm rifled 2A70 guns with 30mm cannon mounted coaxially for a range of targets and also vehicles with a single 57mm main guns as a dual purpose anti ground and anti air weapon that mixes a high rate of fire with a small HE payload and an incredibly high velocity anti armour round and of course a guided round for air and ground targets.
    An enemy A-10 appears over the hill and rolls in, the first BMP with a 57mm gun and laser marker directs a beam onto the A-10 and starts firing... two other BMPs in the unit with 57mm guns also train their guns in that direction and start firing too. The A-10 detects the laser and from its intensity can tell it is being marked for laser homing rounds and its DIRCMs are activated. The system starts dazzling the rounds as they approach but with three guns firing at potentially up to 240 rounds per minute the DIRCMs system is overwhelmed and the 2kg shells start hitting the A-10...
    In a second scenario lets say it is a flight of 8 Apaches in very open terrain but their DIRCMs collectively are able to deal with the number of 57mm shells being directed at them... if the BMPs fire 3-4 SOSNA missiles that DIRCMs can't do much about because the missile is travelling at over 1km/s and is looking back at the launch vehicle and not at the target then the flight numbers are suddenly reduced and the 57mm shells can overwhelm the remaining aircraft.
    Obviously these two examples are idealised to show what the new air defence vehicle could do.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:49 pm

    The main fault of the 57mm laser homing shells is that their optics is pointed at the target so they are vulnerable to DIRCMs. If a laser has to be on board the vehicle anyway a few SOSNA missiles that use beam riding technology could be used while the 57mm autoloader is reloaded, and also in case the target is blinding your rounds.


    In that case I think it is better just to switch to unguided 57 mm rounds and fire on plane / helicopter equipped with DIRCM, because they could not be jammed. If the gun have duel feed, unguided rounds are already ready to use.

    DIRCM could also jam laser guided missiles as RBS-70, ADATS or Sosna. The missile itself look in launcher, but IR missile locator in launcher's optics could be jammed by DIRCM and could not see a missile (as T-90 jam ATGMs with its IR lights).
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:15 am

    DIRCM could also jam laser guided missiles as RBS-70, ADATS or Sosna.
    The missile itself look in launcher, but IR missile locator in
    launcher's optics could be jammed by DIRCM and could not see a missile
    (as T-90 jam ATGMs with its IR lights).

    Don't know about RBS-70 or ADATS but SOSNA could not be jammed by DIRCM.
    DIRCM works by dazzling the IR or optical seeker of an incoming missile or by dazzling the optics of a launcher that uses command guidance that needs to know where the missile is to generate course corrections to manouver it into the target.
    SOSNA is a beam riding missile so the launcher vehicle uses an autotracker to follow the target in the visible light spectrum that directs a laser beam onto the target. When the missile is fired it rapidly accelerates to 1.3km/s and then the solid rocket booster falls away and the side angled rocket engine starts up to maintain that velocity while the rear end of the missile looks back at the launch vehicle at the laser beam. The laser beam is split into four quarters with 4 colours so top left is one colour, top right is another colour, bottom left is another colour and bottom right is the fourth colour. If the top right colour is blue and the missile sees blue it knows it is high and to the right of the beam and it will manouver down and to the left till the colour it sees changes. The centre of the beam it should be able to see all four colours so it knows it is on target.

    The DIRCMs can dazzle the heck out of the missile but the missile is not looking at the target.
    Because the laser sensor in the missile is looking directly at the laser beam source then the laser can be 4 orders of magnitude less powerful than a laser beam that is reflecting off the target. The effective range of the system is not determined by how reflective the target is to a laser too.
    The very high speed of the missile greatly reduces the reaction time of the target.

    In that case I think it is better just to switch to unguided 57 mm
    rounds and fire on plane / helicopter equipped with DIRCM, because they
    could not be jammed. If the gun have duel feed, unguided rounds are
    already ready to use.

    Within 6km with laser range finding and high velocity shells and modern ballistics computers should make unguided 57mm shells more effective, but a whole unit would probably have to be shooting at some targets to get a hit.

    Of course a single 57mm shell hit would be devastating for most helos... the 2.8kg shell is heavier than most MANPADS warheads.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:23 pm

    Don't know about RBS-70 or ADATS but SOSNA could not be jammed by DIRCM.
    DIRCM works by dazzling the IR or optical seeker of an incoming missile or by dazzling the optics of a launcher that uses command guidance that needs to know where the missile is to generate course corrections to manouver it into the target.
    SOSNA is a beam riding missile so the launcher vehicle uses an autotracker to follow the target in the visible light spectrum that directs a laser beam onto the target. When the missile is fired it rapidly accelerates to 1.3km/s and then the solid rocket booster falls away and the side angled rocket engine starts up to maintain that velocity while the rear end of the missile looks back at the launch vehicle at the laser beam. The laser beam is split into four quarters with 4 colours so top left is one colour, top right is another colour, bottom left is another colour and bottom right is the fourth colour. If the top right colour is blue and the missile sees blue it knows it is high and to the right of the beam and it will manouver down and to the left till the colour it sees changes. The centre of the beam it should be able to see all four colours so it knows it is on target.

    Excellent explanation. I was thinking, that Sosna works in classical SACLOS with laser guidance, where IR locator in optical sight locate missile comparing to the line of sight and send correcting signals by coded laser signal, similar as with radio guidance. How much influence have weather on 4 color laser beam riding? If one color is more reduced than others, than missile could decline in direction of that color.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:24 am

    How much influence have weather on 4 color laser beam riding? If one
    color is more reduced than others, than missile could decline in
    direction of that color.

    First of all I am not totally sure they actually use colours exactly because if they did then they would be using visible light which is effected by cloud and mist and fog and smoke etc.
    I would suspect the "colours" used would have been decided on based on transmission performance through the atmosphere so perhaps blue or red might not be used because of the way they are absorbed by the atmosphere.
    The colours are basically specific frequencies of light so even if a minor amount of energy is lost it should still be able to detect the remaining energy as a specific colour. I would think they would use "colours" that don't mix like green and the beam does not allow the different colours overlap and form mixtures.

    Its range is only 8km and in clear sky operates at very low power but there is no reason why they couldn't crank up the energy in bad weather as the missile gets closer to the target.

    The target finding equipment is optical and IR so if they can't track the target it wouldn't matter if the missile can't see the guidance beam...

    The missile nose is very sharply pointed because it reaches a top speed of 1,300m/s when the booster burns out and its onboard rocket lights up and reduces drag to maintain a high speed till impact for a flight time of less than 8 seconds.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3138
    Points : 3236
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  medo on Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:26 pm

    http://vpk.name/news/53354_vozmozhnosti_voisk_protivovozdushnoi_oboronyi_sv_povyisyatsya_na_40_proc.html

    Air defense of Russian ground forces will in 2011 get 400 new missile and gun systems and also modernize 100 Osa and Tunguska systems. I wonder if those gun systems are meant tracked version of Pantsir-S1 for ground forces? Maybe majority of those 400 new systems could be MANPADs, but maybe also S-300V, Buk-M2, Tor-M2,...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tunguska gun/missile system replacement

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:57 pm