Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Share
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:42 pm

    hi all,

    I was looking to see what peoples views are on the ZSU 23-4.
    designed in 1957-1962
    In service in 1962
    Produced intill 1982
    6,500 built
    adopted by many countries,
    with 1,000's of vehicles still in service,
    upgrades available.
    still in use by Russian armed forces (need to confirm this or if anyone knows any info please share)

    So whats peoples view on upgraded ZSU-23-4 against aircraft on todays battlefields? are they of any use or have they had their day?
    How many does Russia still have in reserve? and should they upgrade and sell them off to other countries?
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11918
    Points : 12391
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  George1 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:56 pm

    I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:16 pm

    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe


    i think against fixed wing aircraft they are pretty useless, but against helicopters and slow moving transports they are still pretty useful but i think there more useful in the ground support role, a ZSU 57-2 or a ZSU 23-4 would be pretty devastating against ground troops and APC etc.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:46 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe


    i think against fixed wing aircraft they are pretty useless, but against helicopters and slow moving transports they are still pretty useful but i think there more useful in the ground support role, a ZSU 57-2 or a ZSU 23-4 would be pretty devastating against ground troops and APC etc.

    There is a modernization of ZSU-23-4 which also includes Igla-S and Igla-S nowdays regulary comes with systems of automation. Venezuela has bought a lots of those and

    this modernizations gives back life in ZSU-23-4 as it makes it capable to deal with much wider range of threats like CM/helicopters/PGM and low flying planes.

    Cheap yet could prove to be very effective.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:20 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:
    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe


    i think against fixed wing aircraft they are pretty useless, but against helicopters and slow moving transports they are still pretty useful but i think there more useful in the ground support role, a ZSU 57-2 or a ZSU 23-4 would be pretty devastating against ground troops and APC etc.

    There is a modernization of ZSU-23-4 which also includes Igla-S and Igla-S nowdays regulary comes with systems of automation. Venezuela has bought a lots of those and

    this modernizations gives back life in ZSU-23-4 as it makes it capable to deal with much wider range of threats like CM/helicopters/PGM and low flying planes.

    Cheap yet could prove to be very effective.

    yeah this was the upgrade i was talking about that is available for it. I think it makes sense if you already have the system to have it upgraded, obviously Pansir and Tunguska are better but i think the ZSU 23-4 upgraded is still a good asset. Thanks for replying to thread.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:37 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:Yeah this was the upgrade i was talking about that is available for it. I think it makes sense if you already have the system to have it upgraded, obviously Pansir and Tunguska are better but i think the ZSU 23-4 upgraded is still a good asset. Thanks for replying to thread.

    I have very little time lately but still trying to keep up Very Happy

    Based on what I have read so far about AD systems I think that many even old system with cheap upgrades cab effectively be put back to life but you need to add them

    eyes (radar sets) and brains (command posts). Im not sure how familiar are you with both but just for these small AD systems (as well as for all others Very Happy) Russia has

    already developed and modernized (even new ones in making) radar and command post that can both fit in a single BTR-60 for instance. Giving mmodernized ZSU-23-4

    ability to see well in advance a coming threat and thus command post enough time to analyze and distribute targets according to optimal solutions you are further

    increasing efficiency of the whole system by a factor of 2-3 or even further.
    avatar
    Airbornewolf

    Posts : 360
    Points : 420
    Join date : 2014-02-05

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Airbornewolf on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:36 pm

    George1 wrote:I dont think that AA guns have any use in modern battlefield. Only in 3rd world countries maybe

    they are still very effective actually, its their mobility and ease of operation thats their "win" factor.

    the downside of AA missile systems is their ammunition they use...being missiles is very expensive. and they can at most engage an limited number of targets before their crews need to manually reload the system. i guess most AA systems has 4 rounds in their system before they require an timely reload.

    our Dutch Cheeta's, witch is the dutch name for the German Gepard SPAAG (Self Propelled Anti Air Gun) is being sold like hot-cakes by saudi-arabia and Qatar. and these two countries can definatly afford the high-tech expensive missile systems.

    with SPAAG systems its that with modern-day tracking systems are just as deadly as an missile. their 30 MM bullets rattle out an stream of projectiles in an aircraft's predicted path as precise an missile would predict to intercept it. but instead of an one-shot missile attempt at an aircraft an SPAAG keeps engaging the aircraft as long its tracking is active and guns are firing. and usually the gun ammunition is more available and easier to handle than missiles. these SPAAG systems suddenly appear out of an barn or shelter, activate their systems and cause a lot of mayhem for aircraft or helicopters. even their purchase and maintenance costs are a lot lower than missile systems.

    in case of the ZSU-23-4 i wouldnt write it away. its undergone great lengths of modernisation for short-range air defense. and as far i can judge its still worthy of doing its job.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4#Netherlands

    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:42 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:Yeah this was the upgrade i was talking about that is available for it. I think it makes sense if you already have the system to have it upgraded, obviously Pansir and Tunguska are better but i think the ZSU 23-4 upgraded is still a good asset. Thanks for replying to thread.

    I have very little time lately but still trying to keep up Very Happy

    Based on what I have read so far about AD systems I think that many even old system with cheap upgrades cab effectively be put back to life but you need to add them

    eyes (radar sets) and brains (command posts). Im not sure how familiar are you with both but just for these small AD systems (as well as for all others Very Happy) Russia has

    already developed and modernized (even new ones in making) radar and command post that can both fit in a single BTR-60 for instance. Giving mmodernized ZSU-23-4

    ability to see well in advance a coming threat and thus command post enough time to analyze and distribute targets according to optimal solutions you are further

    increasing efficiency of the whole system by a factor of 2-3 or even further.

    To be honest i havent kept up to date with radar and command system for quite a few years, don't get as much time as i would like to read and research info. But i am fully aware its not just a matter of having a AD system that makes a good anti air defence. I think a lot also has to do with a high level of training and continued training. But thanks again for the input, Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:36 am

    The ZSU-23-4 is a very capable system and with upgrades even more so.

    Out to about 2.5km they are very effective with their guns able to put up a wall of ammo that can't be dodged or outmanouvered.

    the modernisation included newer more capable radar systems and EO, but you could probably take out all the radar equipment and replace it with the EO turret of the Pantsir-S1. this would make it a fully passive system that only lacks performance in the absolute worst weather.

    With 4 Igla missiles or now 4 Verba missiles it would still be a very capable system against a wide range of targets and other missile options like SA-13 or even SOSNA-R laser beam riding missiles would further improve performance without making it too expensive.

    Tunguska is a level more capable with longer range harder hitting 30mm cannon and longer range missiles that can kill aircraft outside their ATGM range, but you could use modern datalinks and save money by upgrading Shilkas where you have a unit with 2 or 3 vehicles with radar and optronics and the rest fitted just with optronics and all the vehicles having Igla-S or Verba missiles.

    the sensors would give early warning with minimum emissions so the missiles and guns can be used to best effect.

    Of course it would not take much to take out those four 23mm cannon and replace them with a single twin barrel 30mm 2A38M cannon. 2,500rpm is still a very effective anti aircraft capability to perhaps just under double the effective range (about 4km). Have two quad Igla launchers on the turret roof and you are good to go.

    Fixed wing aircraft would have to treat you with respect and helicopters would have to give you a wide berth too.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:The ZSU-23-4 is a very capable system and with upgrades even more so.

    Out to about 2.5km they are very effective with their guns able to put up a wall of ammo that can't be dodged or outmanouvered.

    the modernisation included newer more capable radar systems and EO, but you could probably take out all the radar equipment and replace it with the EO turret of the Pantsir-S1. this would make it a fully passive system that only lacks performance in the absolute worst weather.

    With 4 Igla missiles or now 4 Verba missiles it would still be a very capable system against a wide range of targets and other missile options like SA-13 or even SOSNA-R laser beam riding missiles would further improve performance without making it too expensive.

    Tunguska is a level more capable with longer range harder hitting 30mm cannon and longer range missiles that can kill aircraft outside their ATGM range, but you could use modern datalinks and save money by upgrading Shilkas where you have a unit with 2 or 3 vehicles with radar and optronics and the rest fitted just with optronics and all the vehicles having Igla-S or Verba missiles.

    the sensors would give early warning with minimum emissions so the missiles and guns can be used to best effect.

    Of course it would not take much to take out those four 23mm cannon and replace them with a single twin barrel 30mm 2A38M cannon. 2,500rpm is still a very effective anti aircraft capability to perhaps just under double the effective range (about 4km). Have two quad Igla launchers on the turret roof and you are good to go.

    Fixed wing aircraft would have to treat you with respect and helicopters would have to give you a wide berth too.

    pretty interesting upgrades to talk of, but the problem i see here is where you start to mention about changing barrels, and addition of SA-13 etc, i think some would they start to become more expensive and would it not be easier buying Tunguskas or pushing the budget to Pantsir-S1. I hear that chinese version for Tunguska FK-1000 is a 1/3 of the price of Pantsir, but how good it is i am not sure.
    but thanks for the input some interesting stuff Very Happy
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:41 am

    Of course it really comes down to your situation.

    For the Russians having Shilka and ZU-23 towed guns means having 23 x 152mm ammo in service.

    This is different from the 23mm rounds used on the cannon armed Hind, which is a 23 x 115mm much lower velocity round.

    As mentioned Shilka is an effective system, but using a 2A38M twin barrel cannon instead of 4 x 23mm cannon barrels it means if you also replace the Zu-23 with a towed single 2A38M twin barrel cannon then you can eliminate an entire calibre from your inventory and also gain the benefits of extended range and hitting power of the more powerful 30 x 165mm cannon round... which is also carried by the BMP-2 and BMP-3.

    Equally a good reason to withdraw the 180 S-23 and other similar weapons is again to reduce the diversity of calibres and support equipment.

    Having T-55s and T-62s and later T series tanks with 100mm, 115mm, and 125mm guns respectively is not really an advantage... I mean you could equip a few units with 100mm guns to take on enemy IFVs for example but really the 125 could also do that and eliminating two other main battle tank calibres would be useful.

    That is not to say all the old tanks need to be scrapped... a new T-72 turret could be fitted... for some countries where the enemy only has light armour you could upgrade their T-55s with a T-72 turret but fitted with a 57mm high velocity main gun with rather more ammo than any 125mm gun armed vehicle could carry.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:Of course it really comes down to your situation.

    For the Russians having Shilka and ZU-23 towed guns means having 23 x 152mm ammo in service.

    This is different from the 23mm rounds used on the cannon armed Hind, which is a 23 x 115mm much lower velocity round.

    As mentioned Shilka is an effective system, but using a 2A38M twin barrel cannon instead of 4 x 23mm cannon barrels it means if you also replace the Zu-23 with a towed single 2A38M twin barrel cannon then you can eliminate an entire calibre from your inventory and also gain the benefits of extended range and hitting power of the more powerful 30 x 165mm cannon round... which is also carried by the BMP-2 and BMP-3.

    Equally a good reason to withdraw the 180 S-23 and other similar weapons is again to reduce the diversity of calibres and support equipment.

    Having T-55s and T-62s and later T series tanks with 100mm, 115mm, and 125mm guns respectively is not really an advantage... I mean you could equip a few units with 100mm guns to take on enemy IFVs for example but really the 125 could also do that and eliminating two other main battle tank calibres would be useful.

    That is not to say all the old tanks need to be scrapped... a new T-72 turret could be fitted... for some countries where the enemy only has light armour you could upgrade their T-55s with a T-72 turret but fitted with a 57mm high velocity main gun with rather more ammo than any 125mm gun armed vehicle could carry.

    I quite agree, its best to get rid of calibre sizes to stream line things, i know going forward 30mm is the way their heading, as well as 125mm, thats why getting rid of the older equipment they could shift some of the ammo in the deal. T-55's with 57mm guns Very Happy sounds like death to AFV's Very Happy

    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 969
    Points : 1026
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Improvised Air Defence

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:57 am

    Modern AD systems are expensive and often hard to get for a non-state participants of armed conflicts but there is plenty of older stuff.

    I wonder - would it be possible to increase the efficiacy of old Soviet stuff (ZPU, ZSU-23-2 and the like) by linking it to some radar, then linking everything to a computer and using the whole system (it could be installed on two pick-ups) to shoot down easier targets like helicopters and incoming bombs/missiles?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Aug 14, 2015 4:31 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Modern AD systems are expensive and often hard to get for a non-state participants of armed conflicts but there is plenty of older stuff.

    I wonder - would it be possible to increase the efficiacy of old Soviet stuff (ZPU, ZSU-23-2 and the like) by linking it to some radar, then linking everything to a computer and using the whole system (it could be installed on two pick-ups) to shoot down easier targets like helicopters and incoming bombs/missiles?

    So a basic IADS network command post with distribution of information and seperate radars, what russians are doing since decades. The problem here is, how far behind are those existing systems and how feasible is to upgrade them to a functioning IADS in comperision of buying respective new equipment that already have such capabilities with far higher capability, integration, performance and outgun aircrafts which is important. For ZSU-23-2 it is not feasible to be that effective to destroy bombs/missiles except if they use most modern Morphei, Igla-S which already cost quite a lot and maybe to expensive to mount them on an old plattform with limited performance.

    Like sometimes old cars when they break "total schaden" the costs to repair it, is very often far higher then their actual costs which makes a purchase of new car more economical solution. However i've no information on how far old systems can be upgraded to meet such needs for Anti-PGM capability with decentralized air defence network, but i highly doubt it is as cost effecient as buying more modern systems which already have such technology since decades and are not as expensive as most modern TOR, Panzir or a BUK komplex.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 969
    Points : 1026
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:54 pm

    I am talking about irregular units with limited ability to aquire modern weaponry, that want to have basic AD capability - ability to protect it's forces from enemy ordnance and maybe shoot down some helicopters and low flying drones.

    Large calliber (12.7mm and 14.5mm) machineguns and unguided AD artillery from 1950s-60s are among the most common stuff in armed conflicts worldwidde.and their cost does not exceed $10,000 per unit (Pantsir costs $13 mln per unit). How much would it cost to mount such system on a pick-up, connect it to another pick up with a radar and then connect both to a targeting system on a computer (may even be a laptop)? Alternatively install a thermal sight together with targeting software
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:54 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I am talking about irregular units with limited ability to aquire modern weaponry, that want to have basic AD capability - ability to protect it's forces from enemy ordnance and maybe shoot down some helicopters and low flying drones.

    Large calliber (12.7mm and 14.5mm) machineguns and unguided AD artillery from 1950s-60s are among the most common stuff in armed conflicts worldwidde.and their cost does not exceed $10,000 per unit (Pantsir costs $13 mln per unit). How much would it cost to mount such system on a pick-up, connect it to another pick up with a radar and then connect both to a targeting system on a computer (may even be a laptop)? Alternatively install a thermal sight together with targeting software

    Well in that scenario something similiar but little bit more optimized tactics like Serbs have done of concealing and deceicive exposure of dummies operations to limit own losses and lure enemy Air force for easy bait strikes which worked for a time untill they got desperate and started attacking not just military targets but infrastructure. The Serbs were unprepared, if you have limited capabilities but enough to assure protection to even some degree of infrastructure you can double tap their initial tactics. A very important role in Serbs case was that it is, unlike iraq, not an open flat environment with little to no visual and cognitive distraction of a dense and unhomogen environment, with lot urban are scattered across the country that may from air are not visible. Serbian soil and the mentioned high visual distractions had to push NATO aircrafts to relative low altitudes for assured target detection and engagement, this had left NATO aircrafts well within ground fire range of even sub 14.5mm weapons range and left them exposed in lethal zone for 23mm or higher cannon fire which is within 1.5km. This environment in the case of Serbia like it would be for many countries in that region with similiar limited military power and importance of the countries demize for political reasons like the AMBO pipeline for Serbian destruction and split of kosovo, the entire situation has made it unfeasible to operate ground units, meaning the US and NATO were completley deprived of any ground assets to achieve military relevant goals, which made the entire air strike campaign a farce that could be sustain over a relative short period of time without achieving anything military relevant of actual occupation or control of the enemies soil and their routes and therefor capability. Untill the last day of US air strikes the Serbian forces remained to great extent of their ADS capability uncomprimized with relative low amount of losses and a surprisingly high count of downed NATO aircrafts and lost land only due the illegal seperation of a NGO called ICC. However besides the political rant, the basic principle of limited resources is always to switch to an asymmetrical warfare to reshuffle the oppossing forces military strengths.

    Like Clausewitz said the best way to fight your opponent to lead his future decisions by your own planning and actions to basically liquidated other usually feasible or rational tactics for your enemy and bind him to a limited amount of reactions he can make, by that your own resources are greatly spared and you can reply with bound resources rather with split resources to assure any military feasible action from your enemy.

    Regarding costs of seperate upgrade of ZSU-23-2, there are some units upgraded with FLIR and if i am not mistaken there is an upgrade option for a small sized Radar and FCS, not much bigger than the M113 Vulcan 2 radar which can recieve data, maybe full sharing, which i doubt. I do not know the exact costs but upgrades exist the only problem with such stationary targets is fielding them on suitable and formidable plattforms for mobility but with enough stability to actually benefit from FCS or Radar, not like those flimsy toyota trucks that almost get overthrown by a 14.5/4 gun system.

    However why not going for a ZUR-23-8? tongue
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 969
    Points : 1026
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:54 pm

    I would give you +1 and I can't... damn. I have exactly neutral reputation.

    Do you know general Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (amazing man) and his campaign? The idea of a somewhat crude but effective AD system came to me after reading about how he removed guns from a beached German cruiser and used them as artillery - then I started thinking about various wars (including Kosovo) and it occured to me that such a cheap combo may be effective for guerilla forces - you have a company/battalion of light infantry, you add a vehicle with a modernized AA gun and you can protect uour forces. Imagine that situation - somw guys in pickups are driving exposed and F-16s that fly above them can do nothing because some guy with a 1950s gun shoots down incoming PGMs. Laughing Idea
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:19 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:I would give you +1 and I can't... damn. I have exactly neutral reputation.

    Do you know general Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (amazing man) and his campaign? The idea of a somewhat crude but effective AD system came to me after reading about how he removed guns from a beached German cruiser and used them as artillery - then I started thinking about various wars (including Kosovo) and it occured to me that such a cheap combo may be effective for guerilla forces - you have a company/battalion of light infantry, you add a vehicle with a modernized AA gun and you can protect uour forces. Imagine that situation - somw guys in pickups are driving exposed and F-16s that fly above them can do nothing because some guy with a 1950s gun shoots down incoming PGMs. Laughing Idea

    No, never heared of that general. If i recall correctly either i've read somewhere or have heared that in Vietnam some dispearsed and isolated US troops have done something similiar after being cut off from own troops with ammunition scratching to zero but with a few destroyed vehicles among them Ontos M-50 an actually effective vehicle for that period of war (the chassis reminds me of Weasel) and they stripped it from its recoilless weapons and used them in the field while retreating to find back to some of their troops.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 969
    Points : 1026
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:07 pm

    Werewolf:

    Ok. Let's suppose we have an irregular army (like Houthis in Yemen, vs Saudi Arabia, Syrian rebels vs Assad, IS against coalition and Assad) that wants to have basic AD capability (like what I said - destroying PGMs, low flying helicopters/drones and maybe 1-2 fighters under ideal circumstances) - what equipment would you give them and what tactics would you propose to have maximally cost-effective AD? Imagine you're a millitary advisor to Houthi revels in Yemen and you have to build their AD so that they can render Saudi AF ineffective. You have a budget of around $50 mln

    Would a modernized ZPU/ZSU with either FLIR or a radar, mounted on a truck stand the test?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:54 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Werewolf:

    Ok. Let's suppose we have an irregular army  (like Houthis in Yemen, vs Saudi Arabia, Syrian rebels vs Assad, IS against coalition and Assad) that wants to have basic AD capability (like what I said - destroying PGMs, low flying helicopters/drones and maybe 1-2 fighters under ideal circumstances) - what equipment would you give them and what tactics would you propose to have maximally cost-effective AD? Imagine you're a millitary advisor to Houthi revels in Yemen and you have to build their AD so that they can render Saudi AF ineffective. You have a budget of around $50 mln

    Would a modernized ZPU/ZSU with either FLIR or a radar, mounted on a truck stand the test?

    50 mln USD?

    That is almost nothing, with such a budget you can forget anything advanced, no network no radars, no communication systems besides basic infantry radios. The US has spend more millions to provide Taliban with basic infantry ammuntion every year.

    With such a tight budget the only option for you to end up with any kind of effeciency against aircrafts is to by low calibre Anti Aircraft guns with some fewer higher calibre guns ZSU-23-2 the mere the better, because your asymmetric warfare will not be advanced by any kind of intel shared among your forces, meaning they are very reactionary and have to have necessary means for that but with basic tactics embeded as their doctrine as AD.

    The high amount of 12.7-14.5mm will be necessary to keep at least the presence of some very basic and very limited but in biggest numbers possible to compensate the disadvantage of not having an actual integrated Air defence system or any kind of advanced technologies for such jobs. The problem for such weapons are jet fighters striking down with hit and run tactics, but that is not their job anyway, they will be mere assets of representing a threat, but their job will and must be based on concealed tactics similiar to what taliban did against Mig-23 and Hinds in Afghanistan, which had hard time to effectivley fight taliban that had used tarps with ZSU-23-2 and 12.7-14.5mm MG's, they were particulary weighting near convoys untill one group was engaging the convoy and the ZSU-23-2 and KPVT where weighting for air assault that either was escorting or came for support. This was the first and biggest problem for hinds and some Mig-23's.

    The other issue is, today FLIR's are rather wide spread even for such countries like Saudi Arabia, that will make some tactics less effective but concealing against aircraft isn't hardest job since some insurgents have been educated well enough to conceal themselfs against Aircraft based FLIR's by placing Glas sheets in a relative flat angle so the glas sheets are reflecting the sky back to whatever could be watching you from the sky. The trick behind this is that glas is not and never used in aviation to protect or cover FLIR's. Light in the thermal spectrum is mirrowed by glass to 99% degree which is one of the reasons why thermal imaging googles can not or have not been deployed by aircraft crew, even tho some could due the acryl plastic glass lot of aircrafts use, but that is different story. I do not know how often such strategy was used, but it is a very simple solution to conceal yourself from FLIR's.

    I don't know if your proposed means of example include only one time this budget of 50 mln USD, because ammunition will be used and needed in very great numbers for relative long time and 50 mln USD won't cut it, but lets not break heads about logistics of ammunition, it is unrealistic but you have to cheat somewhere to get effeciency from such circumstances, anyways...

    The big issue here is that the environment is less favorable then compared to lot of european countries or Serbia, the concealment of ADS units of all types was not a big problem, from the urban to forests and hills they had enough concealing possibilities and used them. It was very effective and due the environment the NATO Airforce was forced to strike from low altitude to identify anything as a target to have capability to engage it, by the time they could identify a target dummy or real target they usually have already entered the enemies envelope of even basic Anti Aircraft guns of 23mm or less and helicopters usually have entered lethal zone of 1.5-1km before they could effectively see or engage their targets. This is not the same for the locations in the ME, at least such beneficial environments are rare and not often already dragged far back to important assets or interests for you and enemy which can be already quite dangerous for your defending side.

    To be honest 50 mln USD, i personally couldn't think under such circumstances of much effeciency even when you would spare some of that money to buy advanced modern MANPADS as an important mean to protect most vital military assets on the field or to keep an enemy airforce long enough away from such assets, but that is the highest efficiency, i can think off for such circumstances. I would assume Mindstorm, SOC and GarryB can give you far better examples to make it more effective, especially SOC since this is his field of profession, but unfortunatley he hasn't posted in quite long time.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 969
    Points : 1026
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 27
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:03 pm

    So let's assume it's $500 mln at once and a smaller but fixed amount each year for ammo and spare parts.

    Though it's doubtful that Iranians would spend so much on AD for Houthis. They could equip and train a eliten infantry division for so much money. Hezbollah receives max. 200 mln USD from Iran annually.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:19 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Modern AD systems are expensive and often hard to get for a non-state participants of armed conflicts but there is plenty of older stuff.

    I wonder - would it be possible to increase the efficiacy of old Soviet stuff (ZPU, ZSU-23-2 and the like) by linking it to some radar, then linking everything to a computer and using the whole system (it could be installed on two pick-ups) to shoot down easier targets like helicopters and incoming bombs/missiles?

    ZU-23/30M1-3 (images by Vitalij Kuz'min)





    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:38 am

    what is peoples views on the effectiveness of ZU-23/30M1-3 (rmed with strella-10) or ZU-23M1 (armed with Igla-S/Sa-24) and ZSU-23-4M5, is it worth the upgrade??? of course they are nowhere near Pantsir.

    I personally feel its still worth an upgrade if A) you currently have them in inventory. B) need air defence on a shoe string budget.

    the good thing about these systems they also double up as ground fire support if needed. There also cheap and could be ideal for taking out drones(within range) as it would be more cost effective than using BUK or Tor for the same job.

    I think the ZU-23/30M1-3 and ZU-23M1 would be better mounted on top of MT-LB, or other suitable mount, pick up trucks don't provide a stable platform, and trucks could be used but would have to deploy supporting legs, I think MT-LB would be better provides some armour protection and Russia has loads in stock, this combination could be a good export market seller for poorer nations looking for air defence.

    in the last decade ZSU-23-4 were sold to: Egypt receive some in 2005, Jordan received 45 in 2008, Cameroon a contract was signed with Russia in 2011 for 300-350. And Poland has modernized most of its ZSU-23-4 to ZSU-23-4MP Biała (armed with 4 GROM missiles)

    Whats your thoughts?????
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Militarov on Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:15 am

    d_taddei2 wrote:what is peoples views on the effectiveness of ZU-23/30M1-3 (rmed with strella-10) or ZU-23M1 (armed with Igla-S/Sa-24) and ZSU-23-4M5, is it worth the upgrade??? of course they are nowhere near Pantsir.

    I personally feel its still worth an upgrade if A) you currently have them in inventory. B) need air defence on a shoe string budget.

    the good thing about these systems they also double up as ground fire support if needed. There also cheap and could be ideal for taking out drones(within range) as it would be more cost effective than using BUK or Tor for the same job.

    I think the ZU-23/30M1-3 and ZU-23M1 would be better mounted on top of MT-LB, or other suitable mount, pick up trucks don't provide a stable platform, and trucks could be used but would have to deploy supporting legs, I think MT-LB would be better provides some armour protection and Russia has loads in stock, this combination could be a good export market seller for poorer nations looking for air defence.

    Whats your thoughts?????


    Are they worth it? Depends. How old are you ZSUs and how much they were used, and how much money you have. If they are in good shape, but you lack money to obtain something more pontent... sure its worth it. It will increase their potential combat value alot but still it will be fairly cheap. On other hand they cant rly match modern hybrid AA systems, those are after all just MANPADs and possible added optoelectronical componenets etc. Its just giving new life to legacy systems. For poor countries its way to go.

    Some countries even developed such systems during last 2 decades... Polish LOARA for an example (can be outfitted with MANPADs on request).



    Or Chinese Type 95 AA:



    Or US Boeing Laser Avenger Bushmaster + Stinger + Laser



    MPCV:



    Chinese LD-2000:



    You had similar systems offered for an example by Yugoimport SDPR (Serbia) to modernise BOV3 AA gun systems.



    Or Serbian "motorised" ZSU-23



    Or some Russian BTR60 mod:



    Or at the end North Korean Lego:



    So yeah, its worth it if you lack money as similar systems are even developed now and put into service, with modernised old systems you can at least mimic their performance to certain extend.



    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1358
    Points : 1536
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:19 am

    Militarov wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:what is peoples views on the effectiveness of ZU-23/30M1-3 (rmed with strella-10) or ZU-23M1 (armed with Igla-S/Sa-24) and ZSU-23-4M5, is it worth the upgrade??? of course they are nowhere near Pantsir.

    I personally feel its still worth an upgrade if A) you currently have them in inventory. B) need air defence on a shoe string budget.

    the good thing about these systems they also double up as ground fire support if needed. There also cheap and could be ideal for taking out drones(within range) as it would be more cost effective than using BUK or Tor for the same job.

    I think the ZU-23/30M1-3 and ZU-23M1 would be better mounted on top of MT-LB, or other suitable mount, pick up trucks don't provide a stable platform, and trucks could be used but would have to deploy supporting legs, I think MT-LB would be better provides some armour protection and Russia has loads in stock, this combination could be a good export market seller for poorer nations looking for air defence.

    Whats your thoughts?????


    Are they worth it? Depends. How old are you ZSUs and how much they were used, and how much money you have. If they are in good shape, but you lack money to obtain something more pontent... sure its worth it. It will increase their potential combat value alot but still it will be fairly cheap. On other hand they cant rly match modern hybrid AA systems, those are after all just MANPADs and possible added optoelectronical componenets etc. Its just giving new life to legacy systems. For poor countries its way to go.


    Chinese LD-2000:



    You had similar systems offered for an example by Yugoimport SDPR (Serbia) to modernise BOV3 AA gun systems.



    Or Serbian "motorised" ZSU-23





    So yeah, its worth it if you lack money as similar systems are even developed now and put into service, with modernised old systems you can at least mimic their performance to certain extend.




    I like the "Serbian "motorised" ZSU-23 highly mobile which is ideal, also like the Chinese LD-2000 thats looks pretty mean, and the BOV3 thats a hell of a lot of MANPAD missiles.

    Sponsored content

    Re: ZSU-23-4 AA Gun: Views

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:22 pm