Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-AA-Helos-Naval guns)

d_taddei2 wrote:I agree that for Afv that 30 mm and 57mm will be kept 23mm will be phased out but as long as other countries use it it will be produced. 160mm, 180mm and 240mm are in Syria but haven't heard of any use of them unless anyone else has info on syrian army use???. Not sure if Russia has been providing ammo for them or not.  

d_taddei2 wrote:I know that 160mm and 180mm but I never said they were still in production I asked if anyone had reports on Syrian art using them as they have them in stock. And I wouldn't be surprised if Russia still had ammo in a warehouse somewhere Georgia still produces 160mm mortar rounds.

George1 wrote:152-mm cannon 2A89

At the International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017" JSC "Plant No. 9" (Ekaterinburg, the former special production of Uralmash) demonstrated the model of 152-mm gun 2A89. Presumably, the 2A89 gun was intended for a prospective self-propelled artillery unit 2C36 for the Zaurales-D missile system, developed for the Airborne Forces of Russia with the leading role of JSC Central Scientific Research Institute of Precision Engineering (JSC TSNIITOCHMASH). In 2016 it was reported that the ROC "Zauralets-D" was suspended in favor of the RK "Lotus" creating a self-propelled artillery gun in a caliber of 120 mm.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2802076.html

eehnie wrote:It means the basic self propelled mortars on the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms will be have very likely this new 2A89 weapon of 152mm instead of the also recent 2A80 weapon of 120mm.

eehnie wrote:I think it would be room for a new weapon of 152mm in the mold of the 2A80 weapon of 120mm, that can be used as mortar perfectly.

GarryB wrote:

would be room for a new weapon of 152mm in the mold of the 2A80 weapon of 120mm, that can be used as mortar perfectly.

Why? Why develop a brand new calibre? A 240mm mortar can't outrange a 122mm gun, so any 152mm calibre mortar wont outrange existing 240mm mortars and wont come close to current 152mm guns let alone outrange them.

Why would a 70km range Coalition in 152mm calibre adapt to firing 152mm mortar rounds likely with a range of 12-14km.... especially when existing 120mm gun/mortars can reach 13km range targets already.

There is no value in introducing a new calibre of Mortar round inferior to already existing calibres (160mm and 240mm).

Project Canada wrote:

eehnie wrote:It means the basic self propelled mortars on the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms will be have very likely this new 2A89 weapon of 152mm instead of the also recent 2A80 weapon of 120mm.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

GarryB wrote:They have clearly developed a 152mm calibre gun mortar... not to be confused with the 152mm tank gun, or the 152mm artillery gun.

The purpose of this weapon will be short range infantry and armour support with heavy HE projectiles.

Without any actual details on the system we can assume a projectile weight in the range of 40kgs because that is the mortar bomb weight of the 160mm mortar.

The firing range is unknown but unlikely to be more than 15-20km because this is a low to medium pressure gun/mortar.

The only serious purpose for this calibre would be to enlarge the fuse area to enable guided rounds to be cheaper.

The problem will be weight of the round but as all new guns have unmanned turrets ammo handling will be automatic anyway.

The other problem is the number of rounds that could be carried on any given vehicle.

AFAIK the 120mm is good enough... the airborne have chosen the 120mm calibre as their standard replacement for the 120mm NONA.

For the time being I suspect the smaller calibre will be used because smaller rounds are getting the job done and there is no urgent need for a larger weapon... the same situation as with the 152mm tank gun vs the 125mm tank gun.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

To replace the 120mm gun/mortar calibres.

flamming_python wrote:

GarryB wrote:They have clearly developed a 152mm calibre gun mortar... not to be confused with the 152mm tank gun, or the 152mm artillery gun.

The purpose of this weapon will be short range infantry and armour support with heavy HE projectiles.

Without any actual details on the system we can assume a projectile weight in the range of 40kgs because that is the mortar bomb weight of the 160mm mortar.

The firing range is unknown but unlikely to be more than 15-20km because this is a low to medium pressure gun/mortar.

The only serious purpose for this calibre would be to enlarge the fuse area to enable guided rounds to be cheaper.

The problem will be weight of the round but as all new guns have unmanned turrets ammo handling will be automatic anyway.

The other problem is the number of rounds that could be carried on any given vehicle.

AFAIK the 120mm is good enough... the airborne have chosen the 120mm calibre as their standard replacement for the 120mm NONA.

For the time being I suspect the smaller calibre will be used because smaller rounds are getting the job done and there is no urgent need for a larger weapon... the same situation as with the 152mm tank gun vs the 125mm tank gun.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

To replace the 120mm gun/mortar calibres.

I'm thinking that maybe it's a replacement for the 2S4 Tyulpan?

A similar sort of specialized weapon.

With modern guided shells of course, there's less need for the massive 240mm mortar shells of yesteryear. The calibre is now downsized, and that allows for a faster rate of fire and more ammo onboard.

Also, compared to a standard 120mm mortar shell, a 152mm shell might be able to house a thermobaric mixture significant enough to equal the destructive power of a 240mm HE shell against softer targets.

Such vehicles will probably be equipped with both HE and thermobaric shells. Gonna be a real urban-warfare and anti-bunker shocker.

GarryB wrote:Actually precision means you need less explosive and less shots at target.

Being able to directly hit exactly where you what means penetrating heavy structure can be performed with shaped charge warheads instead of just lots of HE and a strong shell case.

GarryB wrote:Let me put it a different way... if rifle calibre bullets could be guided and guarantee a direct head shot every time do you think it would be better to have them in 14.5 x 114mm calibre or 5.45 x 39mm calibre?

If both will kill, then you would get lots of benefits from using a much smaller lighter round in a calibre more widely used and deployed...

magnumcromagnon wrote:Seeing how the Tu-22M3M's will be losing their rear mounted cannons in favor of a Su-34 styled ECM tail-boon, I think there's still a place for them in the ground forces. I like the 57mm Derivation for the T-15, as a modern equivalent of SPAAG it's a step in the right direction, but it could be improved on by adding the GSH-23M near the rear of the turret. Adding a unmanned GSH-23M cannon with a max rate of 3600-4000 rpm, near the rear with independent elevation, slaved to a radar and a electro-optical combo system, with the turret bustle acting as the storage for it's ammo. The turret bustle could be internally split in half, with 23x115mm HE-Frag rounds on one side (hardkill), and the Chaff shell equivalents on the other side (for defensive screens), with a dual feed mechanism for the GSH-23M cannon. The beauty of the system is that it's a point blank range system that could engage technicals, UAV's, infantry, as well as destroying ATGM's from a distance, acting as a bridge between the gap of APS and SHORAD. Instead of expending/depleting 57mm shells on those targets, the GSH-23M could engage them in quick fashion.

GarryB wrote:

Interesting idea, but the low muzzle velocity gives the gun a relatively short range of 2-3km only.

I rather think that the gun would be ideal for use on light unmanned vehicles and also as a replacement for the 30mm cannon on some light platforms where the enemy does not have armour like in COIN operations.

The enormous rate of fire means short bursts can put clusters of rounds on target rapidly... like a shotgun blast of exploding shells...

Ideal for enemy infantry suppression like use against snipers or machine gun positions or indeed ATGM teams.

The low recoil means light vehicles could carry it, and the relatively small ammo could be carried in enormous volumes... it has ammo commonality with late model Hind helos that have twin 23mm guns in chin turrets on the latest model.

30 or 40mm grenade launchers and rifle calibre machine guns and HMGs would compliment this gun for light an unmanned vehicles.

This twin barrel 23mm cannon is also widely used in Soviet and Russian gunpods and seems rather popular.

Oops, the above reply was referring to a post about 23mm cannon being used for air defence on the new 57mm air defence vehicle.... but it seems to have moved...

Its tilts vertically but its fixed in azimuth & small so its not a search radar, I presume its something like a ranger/shell tracker.

It might even transmit a command to detonate a round as it gets near its target as tracked by that antenna (ie tracking both the outgoing shell and the incoming target).

Or it might track the outgoing shell to track its trajectory and speed and update the fire control system to allow for that to improve accuracy in real time.

But I have seen ground radar that size that could track targets out to about 10-15km, so it should be able to track targets and outgoing shells out to the 14.5km shown in the poster.

GarryB wrote:

1.) I don't mean to use the GSH-23M as a CIWS system for PGM's, as you said the 2-3km engagement just won't cut it these days. When I meant by 'hardkill' I meant for the purpose of destroying ATGM's mid-air, like a extension of APS, as well as engaging technicals, infantry, UAV's as a point defense weapon.

If you mean you want it to act as an APS then why not just fit an APS?

They have DRODZ-2, ARENA-2, and Afghanist.

For engaging ATGM teams before or during missile launch, for engagement of enemy light vehicles that don't really need 57mm cannon shells, and for infantry it would be rather good... but against UAVs, air burst ammo is vastly superior because getting a direct hit is rather unlikely, which means requiring large numbers of shells to be fired for a kill.

Having airburst rounds means rather fewer rounds would be needed so you will be able to engage more targets.

I have mentioned a light UCAV armed with a 40mm grenade launcher with a grenade designed as a claymore type mine that has fragments in the nose and a small explosive charge in the rear to blow the fragments forward like a super shotgun blast... such a round with a fixed flight distance of say 50m would be excellent for shooting down enemy UAVs, but having a rear facing sensor in the grenade that detonates the grenade upon being lased by the platform that fired the round would mean it could be detonated at any range as it approached the target... including troops on the ground. A secondary fuse could detonate the grenade after it penetrated light cover... so say punch through a car window and then boom.

The advantage of the 40mm is it is a small light gun that will already be entering service. Its very low trajectory means you can lob it over frontal cover like a wall or small building, which would be a problem for a high velocity 57mm round.

"Armata" will shoot enemy shells with a machine gun
Changing the trajectory of the projectile should reduce its damaging force or not allow it to get into the domestic tank

The standard machine gun of the advanced tank "Armata" is planned to be used to fight the enemy projectiles flying up Relevant tests will be conducted at the Volga State Ammunition Test Site this year.

The technology being tested is designed to fight projectiles at longer distances. According to the terms of reference, it is planned to simulate the interaction of cartridges of automatic tank armament of several calibers with the body of anti-tank ammunition. It is assumed that a hit in the projectile will change its trajectory.

Tank locators operating in automatic mode will detect flying ammunition. The calculating device will evaluate the parameters of its flight and decide on the use of tank armaments.

“The weapons we are talking about should shoot the ammunition and, if not destroy, then make the projectile deviate and not hit the target,” says deputy chairman of the Duma defense committee Franz Klintsevich

https://iz.ru/news/568891