2S38 Derivatsiya-PVO 57-mm SPAAG

They fitted two 30mm cannon to the BMPT on the T-72/90 chassis because of the low rate of fire of the 2A42 cannon.

Because the two guns were located so close together there was not enough room for the normal two feed belt system so one gun fired HE shells and one fired AP rounds.

Ironically this means that both guns cannot fire at one target when using high velocity sabot rounds because the ballistic trajectory of the APDS rounds is completely different from the standard full calibre HE rounds and the two guns don't seem to be able to elevate independently.

This means both guns aim at the same target so both rounds must have the same ballistic characteristics to hit that target.

A new vehicle armed with 57mm calibre ammo would rather more greatly benefit from a dual or even triple feed system that allows 2 or 3 or more different ammo types to be ready to feed into the gun with the push of a button.

Firing at about 300 rounds per minute a single barrel gun would be able to put up 5 shells in a single second burst... for most targets that is plenty of shell fragments to ruin someones day.

Against point targets with guided shells it is more about guidance channels than rate of fire... a high rate of fire just means more guided shells hitting each target at a time.

If they use laser homing shells each vehicle can mark one or more targets and fire a shell at each target being marked at once. With laser beam homing you are pretty much limited to however many laser beams you can point around the place... the latter being the most low emission and the hardest to deal with in terms of countermeasures.

I would expect any new vehicle to be a hybrid with both a gun and missiles... having two guns leaves little space for missiles or multiple ammo feed systems to load those guns.... let alone optics and radar and other sensors likely to be fitted as standard.

Between the publicly known projects of future equipment of Russia, with the Atom project of IFV, this is the project that is making me doubt most. The Atom project of IFV was fairly above the current Russian standards, but would be a little redudant with the Bumerang platform, then I understand to be not adopted.

Like it is now, this project called Terminator 3, would follow the military concept of the ZSU-23-4 and the ZSU-57-2, that I do not consider obsolete as military concept. Obviously the previous models in this military concept are marking the floor of what we can expect of a successor of these weapons. Nothing under what was done decades ago will be accepted now. A 57-2 configuration can be just in the low limit of what I would expect to be accepted, looking at the rest of the recent projects of Russia. Habitually Russia wants a more evident improvement of the new weapons over the old weapons (one example of what I mean is what happened with the AK-104 that leaded to the development of the AK-12, then the AK-104 was obviously an improvement over the AK-74, but not enough for a new generation of weapons in Russia).

At same time, this project has an interesting potential in the development of new weapons being addapted to the military concept of the SA-22 Pantsir, with the addition of a modern missile system. Likely a nice solution for the next generation of armament to be launched after 2025.

Without missiles, I would not expect to be adopted something under a 45-4 configuration (the 45mm caliber has a future in the aerial and anti-aerial equipment), or a 57-2 configuration, with a very improved weapon that reflects the improvement of the last 60 years, since the development of the ZSU-57-2.

Note that I see other projects clearly under the current Russian standards for new equipment, and as consequence only viable to export. This project would be above them.

I suspect they use 2 2A42 gun due to the limitation of gun turret design rather than they want to increase the rate of fire. Even firing 200-300 rpm in the low rate of fire mode is still enough to cope with ground target.

Actually the muzzle velocity of HE rounds (960m/s) is quite the same with AP rounds (970m/s) so they want, they still can use both gun simultaneously to attack 1 target.

Between the publicly known projects of future equipment of Russia, with the Atom project of IFV, this is the project that is making me doubt most. The Atom project of IFV was fairly above the current Russian standards, but would be a little redudant with the Bumerang platform, then I understand to be not adopted.

Not sure what you mean by above Russian standards... all we could see was a prototype and external only view at that.

To be honest I think it was well below Russian standards... there was no ERA, there was no APS, and there were not ATGM options present.

AFAIK the ATOM was a combination of a French vehicle with a Russian turret and was only ever intended for export to countries that used French armour but wanted some decent fire power.

Like it is now, this project called Terminator 3, would follow the military concept of the ZSU-23-4 and the ZSU-57-2, that I do not consider obsolete as military concept.

The whole purpose behind the BMPT concept is high fire power in a well armoured platform. In the past anti aircraft vehicles have been used because of their devastating fire power but their poor armour has been a serious weakness. The BMPT is supposed to fix that with anti aircraft level fire power with tank level protection by being based on a tank chassis.

A 57-2 configuration can be just in the low limit of what I would expect to be accepted, looking at the rest of the recent projects of Russia.

We need to clarify that we are talking about several different vehicles here... the BMPT is a tank support vehicle, they are talking about a 57mm gun for air defence and also for IFVs...

In the past air defence vehicles have been used in the BMPT role because of their fire power... indeed most of their gun based anti aircraft vehicles were fully dual role for ground to air fire and ground to ground fire for suppressing enemy forces.

In their future armoured forces the new 57mm gun will be a standard weapon on their IFVs as enemy IFVs will require something rather more powerful than a 30mm cannon to penetrate them.
It will also replace the 30mm cannon in the air defence role with cheap guided shells offering a much higher PK rate against very small targets.

It may also be used on a BMPT but then it might not.

We have seen a design of BMPT with a 120mm gun/mortar main gun with a turret mounted gatling gun like the 23 x 115mm cannon on the MiG-31.

Such weapons would be devastating to enemy ground forces... and when supporting tanks would easily be enough fire power to deal with almost any problem.

Habitually Russia wants a more evident improvement of the new weapons over the old weapons (one example of what I mean is what happened with the AK-104 that leaded to the development of the AK-12, then the AK-104 was obviously an improvement over the AK-74, but not enough for a new generation of weapons in Russia).

??? the AK-104 is the carbine version of the AK-74M... would be carried by VDV and special forces and tank crew instead of the shorter barrelled AKS-74U.

Without missiles, I would not expect to be adopted something under a 45-4 configuration (the 45mm caliber has a future in the aerial and anti-aerial equipment), or a 57-2 configuration, with a very improved weapon that reflects the improvement of the last 60 years, since the development of the ZSU-57-2.

The 45mm calibre seems to have failed. It would not make sense to introduce a 45mm calibre AND a 57mm calibre round... they are not really different enough to warrant the cost and added complexity of two different systems.

I suspect they use 2 2A42 gun due to the limitation of gun turret design rather than they want to increase the rate of fire. Even firing 200-300 rpm in the low rate of fire mode is still enough to cope with ground target.

The turret was specifically designed for the vehicle to offer little to aim for from the front... ie almost external mounted guns with a turret that does not protrude much.

The idea of the vehicle is to deliver intense fire power on specific targets... previously they used anti aircraft vehicles for this very reason.

If they were going to just use one cannon then a BMP-2 is already in service... transfer its turret to a T-72 chassis.

In many ways what they want is a powerful IFV armament on a tank platform... IFVs generally have the fire power to deal with infantry already.

Actually the muzzle velocity of HE rounds (960m/s) is quite the same with AP rounds (970m/s) so they want, they still can use both gun simultaneously to attack 1 target.

Only with standard AP and HEI rounds... trajectory is related to how streamlined the rounds are... the HEI is a 388 gramme projectile moving at 960m/s, while the AP round is a full calibre round that is 400 grammes moving at 970m/s. Ballistics will be similar, but against proper armoured targets you will want to use the APDS round which is a sub calibre round with less drag weighing about 305 grammes and moving at 1,120m/s... lighter and with less drag and moving faster its trajectory will be quite different to the other rounds.

The 2A42 gun in fast firing mode of 550 rpm produces a lot of smoke inside the BMP-2 hull so that may be one of reasons they designed a new turret with the guns completely in outside for BMPT.

I still think that the 2 guns are for firing 2 types of round, not for higher rate of fire because 550 rpm is too enough for ground and moving ground targest. Rate of fire of Bushmaster MK44 30mm gun is just 100/200 rpm up to firing mode.

Regarding to S60 57mm gun, I don't know if they can redesign it to have dual-feed like Italy Breda did with licensed Bofors fast forty gun? In that case they need only one gun instead of 2 for BMPT-3.

The 2A42 gun in fast firing mode of 550 rpm produces a lot of smoke inside the BMP-2 hull so that may be one of reasons they designed a new turret with the guns completely in outside for BMPT

But if that was a problem then the 2A72 was already developed to deal with that problem...

I still think that the 2 guns are for firing 2 types of round, not for higher rate of fire because 550 rpm is too enough for ground and moving ground targest. Rate of fire of Bushmaster MK44 30mm gun is just 100/200 rpm up to firing mode.

The 2A42 and 2A72 are dual feed weapons they can already fire two different types of rounds from two separate belts of ammo at the flick of a switch. Just look at the 2A42 gun mount on the Mi-28... two ammo boxes with two different ammo types with one gun.

Normally a low rate is all that is needed for ground targets, but for use against aerial targets a higher rate is needed and it is supposed to have a secondary ground to air capability.

the new airburst ammo in 30mm would make it rather effective against small light drones...

Regarding to S60 57mm gun, I don't know if they can redesign it to have dual-feed like Italy Breda did with licensed Bofors fast forty gun? In that case they need only one gun instead of 2 for BMPT-3.

Well it will be used for both anti aircraft use and also for use against ground targets on an IFV chassis so I would think that the ability to choose the type of round at the push of a button would be rather useful.

The new loading system for the A-220 had a 20 round auto loader from which rounds were fired... ie up to a 20 round burst and then a small delay while the next 20 rounds were loaded from the main ammo storage area.

The new vehicles will have unmanned turrets and automated ammo handling systems so a dual feed system allowing a couple of different types of rounds to be ready to fire would make a lot of sense.

Being one piece ammo a loaded round could be removed and returned to the ammo mag to change round types.

The 125mm, in comparison, needs the projectile to be loaded and then the charge component to be inserted behind it... if the gunner decides to engage a different target then there is no practical way of removing the projectile... the stub propellent charge can be removed the same way it is removed after being fired but the projectile has no rim to pull it out.

Obviously we dissagree about the 45mm caliber, that it is still present and used in some recent ships, but also is the natural successor, at the right time of the current 30mm caliber high fire rate weapons in the aircrafts and in land weapon. It is necessary to a apply an overall view on calibers, not only a view based on the land weapons. The step between the 30mm and the 57mm caliber is too big without the 45mm caliber in the middle. And high rate of fire weapons will continue being developed and used for long time. I'm sure new 45mm weapons will appear in the form of high fire rate weapons, and also in the form of grenade launchers (also used in the Navy recently and for planned for future ships).

We obviously dissagree too about the Atom vehicle. It was reported to be a STANAG Level 5 vehicle. Fairly over most of the current infantry vehicles, including all the US vehicles, if I'm not wrong, and fairly over the Russian standards. It were 31 tons. If it would not be redundant with the Bumerang I would support strongly to continue with this project after the French exit. I'm sure Russia applied in the development of the Bumerang many of the ideas developed in the Typhoon 6x6 and Atom projects.

For the example, surely it would be better to mention the AK-101 to 105 family instead of the AK-104 alone. But the example is valid, in the development of new weapons for Russia, it is not only about being better than the predecessor, it is necessary to reach modern standards that allow the new weapons to remain long time, helping with it to the standardization of the equipment.

Reading again the new, yes, it is possible that this concept is the update of the BMPT-72. In this case I think it is interesting, I would support the project with some weapon that allows the vehicle to work also outside of the range of the portable-man/portable weapons of the adversary. I always considered this project interesting because it was done over the right basis.

Obviously we dissagree about the 45mm caliber, that it is still present and used in some recent ships, but also is the natural successor, at the right time of the current 30mm caliber high fire rate weapons in the aircrafts and in land weapon.

You were referring to the old obsolete naval 45mm calibre... that is dead.

I thought you were referring to the new telescopic case 45mm that competed for the new IFV cannon for the Russian Army.

It seems to have failed in competition with the 57mm round.

It is necessary to a apply an overall view on calibers, not only a view based on the land weapons. The step between the 30mm and the 57mm caliber is too big without the 45mm caliber in the middle.

The 45mm does not add anything though... it is just an extra calibre that does not have the shell weight of the 57mm round nor the high rate of fire of the 30mm round.

The main feature of the 30mm round is the much higher hit probability because of its high rate of fire. If the 57mm uses guided shells and a sophisticated capable guidance system then the high rate of fire becomes redundant and unnecessary.

Small fast targets will either be hit by a shell or not... if the rounds don't hit then they don't explode and blow past the target with no effect except hitting the water a few kms from the ship. A more sophisticated shell with a sensor fuse or guidance or both means even a near miss will result in fragments damaging the target, or a direct hit with one or two rounds instead of 200 or more of which one or two might hit.

And high rate of fire weapons will continue being developed and used for long time.

Their purpose was to improve the hit probability against small manouvering targets. Rounds that don't manouver after you fire them... like 30mm cannon shells... will miss the instant the target speeds up or slows down after the 30mm round has been fired. Firing a burst of 200 rounds with the natural inaccuracy of the round means a scatter of impact points in a large blob around the point of aim... like a shotgun blast. This means if the target climbs or descends or speeds up or slows down between the time the rounds leave the muzzle and the 30mm cannon shells arrive on target then there is still a chance of a few hits. The higher the rate of fire the denser the pattern of impact points the more likely a hit or multiple hits.

With guided rounds rate of fire becomes irrelevant... and even wasteful.

I'm sure new 45mm weapons will appear in the form of high fire rate weapons, and also in the form of grenade launchers (also used in the Navy recently and for planned for future ships).

Can you provide more info about this calibre and these weapons... AFAIK there is only the Balkan 40mm grenade launcher and the 57mm grenade launcher being introduced...


Ahhh, hang on... are you talking about the 45mm hand held anti saboteur grenade launchers of the Russian Navy.

They are low velocity grenades that have zero capability in fitting between a 30mm gatling and a 57mm gun.

They have an effective range of 400m... less than a PKM.

The old single barrel DP-61 is being replaced by the DP-64 which has two barrels one over the other. There are no automatic versions... they are used to engage enemy frogmen and to mark their position.

The larger models for deck mount use 55mm calibre grenades... they are all manually loaded and have one barrel per round, so you can't really call them automatic cannon.

It was reported to be a STANAG Level 5 vehicle. Fairly over most of the current infantry vehicles, including all the US vehicles, if I'm not wrong, and fairly over the Russian standards. It were 31 tons.

Were any even real or just mockups...

I doubt it was a functional ready for production vehicle... and even if it was... it was French... so no point in the Russians using it... they would make the factories and build 5 thousand and then France will refuse to deliver them and end up selling them to Paraguay.

I'm sure Russia applied in the development of the Bumerang many of the ideas developed in the Typhoon 6x6 and Atom projects.

I doubt it... typhoon was a parallel project.

Reading again the new, yes, it is possible that this concept is the update of the BMPT-72. In this case I think it is interesting, I would support the project with some weapon that allows the vehicle to work also outside of the range of the portable-man/portable weapons of the adversary. I always considered this project interesting because it was done over the right basis.

I still find it very confusing... the original purpose of the BMPT was a support vehicle that could move with tanks and provide support to those tanks against things the tanks were not very good at dealing with... 20 years ago that was helicopters, infantry with ATGMs, and also infantry with RPGs in the top floors of buildings or in basements where the main guns of MBTs could not elevate to engage.

Previously this role was performed by air defence gun vehicles where their extreme fire power was devastating... the US did much the same with the Duster AA vehicle armed with two 40mm cannon in Vietnam, later replaced by the M163 which was an M113 APC with a 6 barrel 20mm cannon mounted on the roof as a sort of anti ambush convoy protection vehicle.

The thing is that there is already a vehicle designed to take on targets a tank has problems dealing with... it carries troops into combat and is called an IFV (note not an APC which has much lighter armament).

The problem with the IFV is its lighter armour means they can be picked off leaving the tanks vulnerable.

One solution was the BMPT, but the other solution is the Armata family of vehicles where the IFVs have the necessary weapons and firepower and protection (the troop compartment in the armata IFV should be a separate comparment with the engine in front and crew in an armoured capsule with the turret next with no crew inside and then to the rear the troop compartment... the rear troop compartment could be filled with more ammo in a BMPT version... so there would be no need for an extra vehicle family type.

Of course you could argue that another family member just adds capability and flexibility... there will be an air defence model, there will be a mortar carrier model there will be an IFV model, and likely an APC model with external gun mount and larger troop compartment.

Adding a BMPT model could be a variation of the IFV model or the Mortar carrier model or the air defence gun model...

It is my personal opinion that the IFV model in its final version will have a 57mm gun and Kornet missiles so it can deal with most armoured vehicles except tanks with the gun and tanks with the missiles. The mortar carrier vehicle in my opinion will be like a super Vena with a long barrel 120mm gun/mortar, which would also be a potent anti infantry vehicle and a threat to enemy air power with guided rounds. The air defence vehicle in my opinion, will have a dual feed 57mm gun and a large supply of ready to fire ammo, and a light cheap simple missile... the SOSNA-R has a range of 10km and a high velocity and uses simple cheap beam riding technology.
Another vehicle I think will have more capable radar and sensors and carry Pantsir-SM missiles and operate with the gun armed vehicle... I don't think there is enough room on the Armata vehicle for a 57mm gun and ammo plus the Pantsir missile system and all its associated electronics and sensors... I do think a gun/missile mix makes sense and by putting sensors on the missile vehicle it keeps the gun vehicle a bit cheaper, but their use together gives the best of both worlds while keeping costs down.

Note the Tunguska was expensive, but combined the performance of the Shilka and the SA-13 and exceeded both systems in terms of performance while costing less than having both systems together.

There was a model of an Armata based BMPT vehicle with a 120mm gun/mortar, and a 40 or 57mm grenade launcher and what looked like a 23mm gatling gun... in my opinion that would be an ideal combination for such a vehicle... its addition into the Armata family would be very good... in low intensity conflicts where the chance of coming across enemy armour is low to zero then it could be used as an armoured gun platform like a tank but much more flexible and not so over powered... it would also be ideal as a convoy escort vehicle and a fire support vehicle for fighting in built up areas.

Actually American wanted to develop the telescopic case gun but dropped that. The reason was the telescopic case contained more cartridge powder (than normal round) that made gun hotter and shorter life. IMO Russian have no point to spend for  immature telescopic case 45mm gun/rounds while they already have the S60 57mm gun/rounds.

I was talking about the 45mm caliber in overall terms. Not only about some weapons. And I said in my previous comment which are the areas where I see a future for the caliber.

In the refered to the current use, these are combat ships that are use and will use the caliber in different forms:

http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_22160.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warfareboats/project_12300.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_20380.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_11540.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_956.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_1155.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_1144.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_775.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_1164.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_1135.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_1171.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_1134b.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_61.htm

And this only checking warships, surely the caliber is present in more auxiliary ships (including low armed patrol and anti-saboteur ships), and in projects of the Russian coast guard. Then, it is easy to see, that while some uses of the caliber are declining, the timeline for the complete dissapparition of this caliber is very long.

In my view it is very likely that new weapons of this caliber succeed. The caliber is just in the middle of the 30mm and 57mm calibers, is a natural step in the sequence of calibers formed by the 30mm, 45mm, 57mm (near to 60) and the 76mm calibers, and this is very useful in the transition of weapons.

The caliber is today in the good range for grenade launchers. Is the caliber used for it in the Russian Navy, even in the most modern ships. This position will reamain longer. While Surface-Surface and Surface-Air ammunition (rocketts and missiles) have been out of the traditional sequence of missiles, there is not reason against to include the launched grenades in the traditional system of artillery calibers, to improve the standardization. The land forces have been using 40mm grenades. Theres in not reason against to go to 45mm grenades.

Also, while the 45mm is declining in its traditional use, there is a future for this caliber, following the line of calibers commented before, in a use of high rate of fire, which is the main use of the 30mm caliber today. When the aircrafts and the less armoured land vehicles begin to resist the 30mm caliber, it is likely to see weapons of 45mm like the current weapons of 30mm. To see it better with an example, it is like to see in the future, weapons of 45mm like this, with a similar rate of fire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-301

With likely applications on land, sea and air armament.

And for this is more difficult to go directly from the 30mm to the 57mm caliber. It makes the future of the 45mm caliber assured, in my view. Only redundant calibers will dissappear and the 45mm caliber is not one.

High rate of fire weapons will remain long time. Guided ammunition is better than unguided, but is expensive and a massive use of guided ammunition as needed for small calibers is very difficult and more expensive still. High rate of firing weapons work not only with the damage done by a single impact as the alone way to damage the enemy. High rate of firing weapons work also with the damage done by multiple impacts on the same adversary.

---

In the refered to the Terminator 3, in fact the BMPT concept would not be a different concept to the BMP (IFV) but it seems to have a difference. While the BMPT seems not able to transport soldiers, and would not be an infantry vehicle, the BMP can move soldiers in addition to the crew, and is an infantry vehicle. This is the main difference that I see as military concept between this BMPT Terminator 3 and the T-15. As consequence internally the BMPT should be far closer to the T-14 or to the 2S35 than to the T-15.

It is not easy to do a classification of this concept. Excluding engineering and infantry vehicles, the 4 main groups in land armament would be Surface-Air, Surface-Surface, Artillery and Tanks. While doing recently work vs land targets, the ZSU-23-4 and the ZSU-57-2 have been classified as Surface-Air weapons, but if the BMPT concept borns not with a main anti-air role, it would not be possible to classify it as a Surface-Air weapon. This was my first impression about this weapon, but if follows the BMPT philosophy, land targets are the main targets. Also with a double barrel weapon as main armament, the BMPT concept seems not in line with the Surface-Surface that includes rockets and missiles.

Taking into account that a tank is fact is an artillery vehicle, and with the BMPT following not exactly no-one of the two, it is not easy to classify them. By role and way of fighting, the BMPT would be more coincident with tanks that with other artillery pieces, this is why I actually lean to classify the BMPTs a new type of tanks with different and complementary weapons, but to fight in the same environments. This is why, surely the closest weapon to the BMPT Terminator 3, on internal and external structure and features would be the T-14, not the T-15.

I really have not a problem with this new military concept. I understand the two barrel weapon as a way to increase the fire power and the speed in the answer to threats in very contested environments. My main reserve would be with the fact that also the BMPT should be designed to find a way to work also outside of the range of the portable/man-portable weapons of the adversary, like a tank (of 125mm and 152mm) can do with the Rocket Assisted Projectiles, or the T-15 can do with its infantry transport role. In the case of the BMPT Terminator 3 surely to have some anti-air capability would be the way to achieve it.

Actually American wanted to develop the telescopic case gun but dropped that. The reason was the telescopic case contained more cartridge powder (than normal round) that made gun hotter and shorter life.

Then they are idiots... the whole point of the telescope case design is to minimise the case size and to optimise its size to get the most powder inside it as possible.

There are various gun cooling options available including water cooling, or if you need to have less powder then a smaller design.

Short gun barrel life is no real problem... just have two ammo streams... one for peace time with less powder and one for war... most standard gun barrels can be replaced in the field anyway so just have a few extra barrels.

IMO Russian have no point to spend for immature telescopic case 45mm gun/rounds while they already have the S60 57mm gun/rounds.

Using that logic they would never have developed the 125mm tank round when they have had 122mm since WWII.

The 57mm round is huge and bulky and not a very powerful round in terms of todays weapons. The HE shell is not that powerful and the AP round is not that great either.

Using a telescope case design the HE shell could be as powerful as a 76.2mm shell, while the APFSDS would probably be dangerous to all tanks from the side and rear.

IMO Russian have no point to spend for immature telescopic case 45mm gun/rounds while they already have the S60 57mm gun/rounds.

No they don't. They use what is pretty much a 45mm mortar grenade fired from a portable launcher like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DP-64

In my view it is very likely that new weapons of this caliber succeed. The caliber is just in the middle of the 30mm and 57mm calibers, is a natural step in the sequence of calibers formed by the 30mm, 45mm, 57mm (near to 60) and the 76mm calibers, and this is very useful in the transition of weapons.

There is no value in having a middle calibre between the 30mm and 57mm calibre... the difference is not great enough. It makes sense to have a middle calibre between 30mm and 76.2mm for lighter vessels where the 76.2mm is too heavy but the 30mm is too light.

The 45mm is too close to the 57mm in calibre to be useful... the 57mm would have better range and power and payload and its rate of fire would be very similar.

there is not reason against to include the launched grenades in the traditional system of artillery calibers, to improve the standardization. The land forces have been using 40mm grenades. Theres in not reason against to go to 45mm grenades.

Land forces seem to be going from 30mm grenades to either 40mm or 57mm grenades, but they are totally different. The land forces grenades are designed for automatic weapons to be fired in bursts at targets. The 45mm grenades in the navy are like mortar rounds that are loaded into a tube and fired like a rocket launcher... there is no automatic loading system... even the deck based 55mm grenade launchers are hand loaded.

When the aircrafts and the less armoured land vehicles begin to resist the 30mm caliber, it is likely to see weapons of 45mm like the current weapons of 30mm. To see it better with an example, it is like to see in the future, weapons of 45mm like this, with a similar rate of fire:

No. Aircraft wont get so well armoured they can resist 30mm shells... the armour would just be too heavy to fly.

The most likely calibre to replace the 30mm anti aircraft guns and 30mm IFV weapons is the 57mm calibre weapons. There is no point in developing another 45mm calibre weapon... just like now that they have a 152mm tank gun they wont develop a 135mm tank gun too.

And for this is more difficult to go directly from the 30mm to the 57mm caliber. It makes the future of the 45mm caliber assured, in my view. Only redundant calibers will dissappear and the 45mm caliber is not one.

The 57mm calibre can do anything a 45mm calibre round could do but with a heavier projectile over greater ranges. It also has more room for larger guided projectiles.

The 45mm is the redundant calibre.

High rate of firing weapons work not only with the damage done by a single impact as the alone way to damage the enemy. High rate of firing weapons work also with the damage done by multiple impacts on the same adversary.

Small manouvering targets need even higher rates of fire and even then will need rather more rounds to be fired at the target to get a hit. The 30mm cannons on the Tunguska tend to fire bursts of 200 rounds to hit small targets like cruise missiles. A single guided 57mm shell will be rather cheaper than 200 57mm shells.

Also with a double barrel weapon as main armament, the BMPT concept seems not in line with the Surface-Surface that includes rockets and missiles.

The description of the BMPT says it needs to be able to engage battlefield aerial targets like drones and helicopters. It wont be shooting down planes flying at 15,000m.

classify the BMPTs a new type of tanks with different and complementary weapons, but to fight in the same environments. This is why, surely the closest weapon to the BMPT Terminator 3, on internal and external structure and features would be the T-14, not the T-15.

The BMPT is a tank support vehicle. Tanks cannot operate alone because they are too vulnerable to enemy infantry. An IFV brings your infantry to support and operate with tanks. The purpose of the BMPT is to provide that same anti infantry support to the tanks when enemy fire is too heavy for infantry to operate outside the vehicles.

It is therefore like an IFV but instead of a squad of troops on board it carries its firepower with it to support tanks without dismounting humans.

Ironically with a name like Terminator in the future it could carry robots to perform the role of infantry in environments too dangerous for humans.

I always used to think that the best armament for the BMPT would have been the armament of the BMP-3 except with the 30mm single barrel 2A72 cannon replaced with the GSh-30-2 cannon from the Hind in an unmanned turret and front hull mounts for two turrets each with a PKM MG and a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher.

The 100mm gun provides powerful direct fire fire power at a range of angles to hit all sorts of threats and can also fire guided missiles... instead of just four ATAKA missiles you have 40 x 100mm shells accurately delivered in direct fire mode plus 8 or so guided weapons able to hit aircraft and point ground targets.
The 30mm twin barrel cannon has plenty of fire power for ground and air targets and is common with the Hind.

After seeing the Armata BMPT model with a 120mm gun/mortar plus a 23mm gatling and a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher I came around to that idea... the 120mm gun/mortar has better range and more powerful shells and bombs, can use 120mm and 122mm missiles, as well as shells and mortar rounds and would already be operating in the unit in the mortar carrier vehicle.

The 23mm gatling uses small compact rounds not much bigger than HMG rounds but with a big projectile and decent HE payload and is the same round as used on the latest model Hinds.

The 40mm or 57mm grenade launchers would allow indirect fire with powerful HE rounds out to extended ranges.

A very impressive package IMHO.

The telescope case design is shorter and bigger diameter so it takes more space in the ammunition boxe than normal case. For the same ammunition box volume, the number of telescope case rounds are less than number of normal case rounds.

No, the telescope case rounds are not powerfull than normal case design and no way the 57mm telescope rounds are powerfull as 76.2mm rounds. The very clearly example is CTA 400mm round that is the same powerfull as Bofors L70 40mm round, both HE and APFSDS.

I don't understand how the HE 2.8 kg projectile of S60 57mm HE round is "not powerfull"? The AP round of course is not powerfull because its design is from 1960s. With new designed 57mm APFSDS round, it is much more than the 130mm stell penetration of old API round.

About the BMPT, to say that some anti-air capability would be good, is not to say that must engage aircrafts at 15000 m.   I was talking clearly about some anti-air capability but not as main role of the vehicle. Hability to engage drones and helicopters can be enough, would be fine for me, enough to allow to the vehicle to work also outside of the range of the portable/man-portable weapons of the adversary (where will be most of its life as weapon), in adition to its main purpose as BMPT.

---

Historically the Surface-Air and the Surface-Surface weapons, including missiles, rockets, rocket propelled grenades and launched grenades have been using free dimensions out of the conventional system of calibers. We must analyze what you call 40mm caliber in this environment. This is not something new, it is something that comes from the time where the standardization was less important. Here is the origin of the current 40mm grenades. Until now, if I'm not wrong, this measure has not been used on independent weapons, it has been used only in the following tool to add to assault riffles:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%9F-30

This is the alone thing of 40mm in use in Russia today. To think that this basis can make some serious competition or even can displace  a complete caliber inside the caliber system of Russia seems weird to me.

To see the unique weapon nature of the 40mm grenades used today, and the low attention to the standardization until now on launched grenades caliber measures, we only need to look at the existence of grenades of 43mm, another unique measure used only by the following weapon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM-94 (present in tis LPO-97 variant

In the rest of the countries, the same. If we have to begin to consider a caliber, a unique measure used for a specific missile, rocket, rocket propelled grenade or launched grenades, there is a problem.

Other question is that in the case of the launched grenades in Russia, the use of the 30mm, 45mm and 73mm measures can make possible the integration of the entire group of launched grenades in the overall caliber system of Russia. The 73mm caliber is redundant and is likely to disappear in 8-13 years, but the 30mm and the 45mm are key to achieve the caliber standardization on launched grenades. It is a question about if Russian wants it or not. Having the chance of it, I think Russia will consider it seriously.

And your comment about aircrafts and the less armoured vehicles (a group that moves with the time in their features), being perpetually vulnerable to the high rate of fire of 30mm caliber weapons is not serious. It can take more or less time but the 45mm weapons of high rate of fire wil come in the mold of the modern 30mm weapons, in the mold of GSh-301:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-301

And will come to be important.

Personally i think the move from 30mm to 57mm is a move backwards, when you consider the effect the zsu23-4 shilka had on Israel's air force in the Arab Israeli wars.
The shilka was more effective than the Syrian sams and 57mm aaa. Arab sams did not have the reaction time to target the Israeli air attacks and 57mm aaa had too low rof and poor shot density, where as she shilka's had the rof and tactical mobility that proved to be a major pain in the ass for the iaf. So i am of the opinion that a 57mm lack's the ability to deal with fast mover's (cas) due to in low rof and low ammo pool, a laser guided shell is no good if the target is coming in low and fast from a short distance.

Tyranus wrote:Personally i think the move from 30mm to 57mm is a move backwards, when you consider the effect the zsu23-4 shilka had on Israel's air force in the Arab Israeli wars.
The shilka was more effective than the Syrian sams and 57mm aaa. Arab sams did not have the reaction time to target the Israeli  air attacks and 57mm aaa had too low rof and poor shot density, where as she shilka's had the rof and tactical mobility that proved to be a major pain in the ass for the iaf. So i am of the opinion that a 57mm lack's the ability to deal with fast mover's (cas) due to in low rof and low ammo pool, a laser guided shell is no good if the target is coming in low and fast from a short distance.

They once again use the 57mm AAA because now they have owned the technic of laser guided round and airbust round that help to increase the hit probability. This is cheap solution to deal with UAVs, precise ammunitions, aircrafts and ground targets.

Tyranus wrote:Personally i think the move from 30mm to 57mm is a move backwards, when you consider the effect the zsu23-4 shilka had on Israel's air force in the Arab Israeli wars.
The shilka was more effective than the Syrian sams and 57mm aaa. Arab sams did not have the reaction time to target the Israeli  air attacks and 57mm aaa had too low rof and poor shot density, where as she shilka's had the rof and tactical mobility that proved to be a major pain in the ass for the iaf. So i am of the opinion that a 57mm lack's the ability to deal with fast mover's (cas) due to in low rof and low ammo pool, a laser guided shell is no good if the target is coming in low and fast from a short distance.

1960's =/= 2010's, Just take a look how Gefest-T has been utilized in Syria, thanks to that cheap dumb iron bombs now have comparable accuracy to PGM's, something completely unthinkable back in the 1980's.

The telescope case design is shorter and bigger diameter so it takes more space in the ammunition boxe than normal case. For the same ammunition box volume, the number of telescope case rounds are less than number of normal case rounds.

No.

The telescope case round is just a more efficient way of shaping a round. A pure cylinder is a more efficient way of storing the propellent and the projectile than a bottle neck shape like the old 57mm cannon shell.

If you look at the shape of a standard shell you have two main types of projectile an thin dart for armour penetration called an APFSDS round, and you have a HE or HEAT round with a large calibre heavy projectile that does not need to be high velocity to do its job.

By burying the projectile in the case both rounds can be the same cylinder shape but the APFSDS round can have a front mounted Sabot to drag it out of the chamber and along the barrel which means on either side of the projectile there is plenty of room for more powder propellent... which is what you want to get max velocity for the APFSDS round which relies on velocity for effect on target.

With the HE and HEAT round velocity is not so important and there is much less room inside the shell case for propellent but that is OK because muzzle velocity is not important for a HE or HEAT round.

With a standard bottleneck shell case there is not much difference in propellent capacity with different rounds because most of them poke out the front and to make HE or HEAT rounds that go deep into the case would make them too long to properly stabilise in a rifled barrel.

Note it is the extreme length to diameter ratio that means an APFSDS dart needs fin stabilisation and not spin stabilisation.

No, the telescope case rounds are not powerfull than normal case design and no way the 57mm telescope rounds are powerfull as 76.2mm rounds.

Telescoped rounds offer more compact round designs with easier handling in automatic ammo handling systems... they can be as powerful as you want them to be.

If you have a look on this page:

http://quarryhs.co.uk/WLIP.htm

You will find this photo:



Which shows how much smaller the 40mm and 50mm telescoped rounds are compared with similar rounds including the Russian 57mm which is huge.

I don't understand how the HE 2.8 kg projectile of S60 57mm HE round is "not powerfull"? The AP round of course is not powerfull because its design is from 1960s. With new designed 57mm APFSDS round, it is much more than the 130mm stell penetration of old API round.

A more modern design can carry rather more explosive that is more powerful and has a more effective fragmentation pattern to have rather better effect on target.

This is the alone thing of 40mm in use in Russia today. To think that this basis can make some serious competition or even can displace  a complete caliber inside the caliber system of Russia seems weird to me.

It is a bigger and heavier round that has more range than existing 30mm grenade launchers and a heavier payload.

The thing is that we don't know if they will choose this or the heavier 57mm grenade launcher...

The 73mm caliber is redundant and is likely to disappear in 8-13 years, but the 30mm and the 45mm are key to achieve the caliber standardization on launched grenades. It is a question about if Russian wants it or not. Having the chance of it, I think Russia will consider it seriously.

I agree regarding the 73mm calibre, but I suspect the 30mm grenades will be replaced with either 40mm or 57mm grenades. the underbarrel grenades will remain 40mm in my opinion.

It can take more or less time but the 45mm weapons of high rate of fire wil come in the mold of the modern 30mm weapons, in the mold of GSh-301:

To be effective to penetrate armour that is too heavy for 30mm ammo to penetrate a 45mm calibre round is going to need very high velocity and it can only get that by having a large shell case.

Look at the size of the shell case of the 57mm round above to see what I mean.

An increase in calibre alone wont increase penetration... the increase in calibre means it needs to carry a heavier projectile which means it needs much more propellent than in the 30mm round to get that extra velocity.

The 30mm round has a 165mm shell case... a 45mm round would need to be at least a 250mm shell case and now you are starting to look at a large round, both in terms of ammo handling and recoil.

Personally i think the move from 30mm to 57mm is a move backwards, when you consider the effect the zsu23-4 shilka had on Israel's air force in the Arab Israeli wars.

The 23mm rounds the Shilka fired in the Arab Israeli wars was effective because of the number of shells the system could put up in the air at one time. Firing hundreds of rounds at once with them scattered all around the actual point of aim means it acted like a shotgun blast... it means if the target sped up or slowed down or turned left or right or climbed or descended after the shells were fired but before the shells arrived on the target intercept area then it still might be hit by the rounds that are not hitting in the centre of the point of aim.

the extremely low rate of fire of the 57mm gun means it cannot fill in the space around the point of aim quickly enough before the target blows through so any change in flight by the aircraft will cause the rounds to miss.

What has changed is that the 57mm shells can now be guided... which means instead of firing 200 shells all around the point of aim to ensure a kill the shells fired can be directed to follow any change of flight path of the target making a kill or even a hit rather more likely.

With the increase in hit probability based on guided shells then the rate of fire is no longer a problem and the advantages of shell weight and gun range start to make it look rather better.

The 30mm shells of the Tunguska replaced the 23mm shells of the Shilka because they could get a better rate of fire and therefore heavier pattern of hits and better hit probability with a heavier longer ranged round which improved kill probability too.

These 57mm guided shells make sense because they extend effective range even further and no aircraft in service can shrug off a hit from a 57mm shell.

So i am of the opinion that a 57mm lack's the ability to deal with fast mover's (cas) due to in low rof and low ammo pool, a laser guided shell is no good if the target is coming in low and fast from a short distance.

A laser homing shell needs constant target illumination and  would follow the target like a tail chasing IR guided missile.

A beam riding shell on the other hand can be directed to where the target is heading on an intercept course and would not be effected by the colour or reflectivity of the target.

Remember this 57mm gun system wont be on its own and will operate with Pantsir type missiles, TOR type missiles, and likely SOSNA-R and Verba and Morfei type missiles as well... not to mention medium and long range missiles too.

The modern target is a tiny UAV and to get a shot density effective enough to get a reasonable chance of a kill would need thousands of 30mm shells to be fired per target... which is no longer practical.

A sensor fused 57mm shell that explodes within 1-3m of the target can shatter a light little UAV with a shower of lethal fragments with one shot.

1960's =/= 2010's, Just take a look how Gefest-T has been utilized in Syria, thanks to that cheap dumb iron bombs now have comparable accuracy to PGM's, something completely unthinkable back in the 1980's.

With a modern fire control system and laser ranging and a modern accurate cheap time fuse in the tail base of a 57mm shell with a modern effective HE charge and designed fragments that can be blown forward at the target like a claymore mine means even unguided shells can be detonated a few metres in front of a target and shower the target area with lethal tiny fragments.

Previously if the shell didn't hit it just blew past and landed somewhere else with no effect but with sensor fused rounds you can have an automatic fuse setting setting a time fuse as the rounds leave the muzzle of the gun to detonate a few metres short of where the target is to create in effect a sort of shotgun type blast able to damage or kill targets efficiently without even having to hit them.

All the complex sensors and computers can be on the vehicle and only the cheap simple timers and fuses on the ammo making the ammo cheap to use in enormous volumes... the way ammo should be.

The comments refered to the BMPT Terminator 3 would not be better placed in the topic for the armata platform?

1960's =/= 2010's, Just take a look how Gefest-T has been utilized in Syria, thanks to that cheap dumb iron bombs now have comparable accuracy to PGM's, something completely unthinkable back in the 1980's.[/quote]

I agree on your view of the progress of tech Garry b, however using a guided 57mm shell on simple drone seems over the top and maybe a gshk 30-2/gshk 23-6 as a coax would be a good compromise.
It would be a good armament to deal with small drone's and fast mover's, leaving the 57mm to ranged defense+missiles.
Last thing any spaag want's is to be caught with its pants down.

The comments refered to the BMPT Terminator 3 would not be better placed in the topic for the armata platform?

I don't think so... we are talking about the 57mm gun and its suitability for the role.

1960's =/= 2010's, Just take a look how Gefest-T has been utilized in Syria, thanks to that cheap dumb iron bombs now have comparable accuracy to PGM's, something completely unthinkable back in the 1980's.

I appreciate what you are saying, but when shooting at aerial targets if you miss then you do no damage at all. When dropping a bomb if the bomb lands 5 metres away from a target the explosion will still destroy the target.

More importantly most ground targets are stationary and have no idea they are under attack and are therefore unlikely to move between the time the bomb is released and the bomb impacts.

An air target on the other hand has to move to stay airborne and any change in speed or direction between the time a round is fired and when it arrives will move the target outside the intercept point calculated when the rounds were fired.

I agree on your view of the progress of tech Garry b, however using a guided 57mm shell on simple drone seems over the top and maybe a gshk 30-2/gshk 23-6 as a coax would be a good compromise.

The problem is that at 3-4km range a burst of 200 x 30mm shells would cover a very large area and a small target like a little UAV could easily fly between the spread out shell impacts... no hit means no kill.

In comparison a single guided 57mm that explodes in proximity to a small UAV will shatter the target and take out a potentially serious threat... and UAVs are a serious threat giving away your position and potentially marking you for attack.

Different sized weapons have their advantages and problems... smaller calibre rounds are cheaper and can be carried and fired in much larger numbers, but there is a limit to how much HE you can pack into a small round which limits the effect of each round. this can be compensated with bursts of dozens of rounds and against infantry a burst of 30-40 rounds all landing around the point of aim over a very short period would be very effective... showering a large area in lethal fragments.

Sometimes however a guided round can be used where hundreds of standard rounds would be needed, which makes them cheaper overall.

57mm turret on bmp3 chassis

Russia working on new medium-calibre ammo

Christopher F Foss, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

http://www.janes.com/article/69809/russia-working-on-new-medium-calibre-ammo

Russia has confirmed that it is working on what it calls "special shrapnel" ammunition for use by 30 mm and 57 mm cannons, with the latter likely developed with a view to engaging unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The work is being carried out by Russia's NPO Pribor research and industrial association, which is affiliated with Rostec subsidiary TechMash (Russia's largest ammunition manufacturer), and is still in its early stages, with no projected initial operational capability (IOC) as yet.

The new Russian 57 mm ammunition will probably be along similar lines to the Rheinmetall Air Defence Oerlikon AHEAD (Advanced Hit Efficiency and Destruction) 35 mm ammunition, which is used by a number of air defence weapons. AHEAD 35 mm is programmed as it leaves the weapon and contains a number of small submunitions that are ejected at the correct time of flight in front of the target.

The Russian 57 mm round would be for a new mobile air defence weapon that is currently being developed as the Derivatsiya - PVO anti-aircraft artillery system, or ZAK-57. This is based on a modified BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle fitted with a brand new turret.

The Derivatsiya's 57 mm cannon is probably the same as that installed in the ASU-220M Baikal remote-controlled turret (RCT), which has been developed by the Burevestnik Central Research Institute, part of the UralVagonZavod group. The ASU-220M RCT is also armed with a 7.62 mm PKTM co-axial machine gun (MG) and the weapons are coupled to a computerised fire control system (FCS), with both crew members provided with stabilised day/night sights incorporating a laser rangefinder.

The AU-220M turret has already been shown installed on a modified BMP-3 IFV hull and has been marketed to a number of countries overseas, especially in the Middle East.

Russian sources have confirmed that in addition to firing conventional natures of 57 mm ammunition it was also fire a guided 57 mm round to enable targets to be engaged at ranges beyond the 57 mm weapon's direct-fire range, which is quoted as 12 km when fired horizontally and up to 8 km when fired vertically.

Air burst ammo in both calibres would be very useful against UAVs as most UAVs are fairly light structured vehicles that would be fairly vulnerable to shrapnel and blast damage.

Obviously the 30mm shells would have a much more limited effective blast radius, but the number of shells that could be delivered would make up for that.

Imagine a flight of 5 or 6 UAVs or UCAVs flying in formation to attack ground units... a burst of normal 30mm cannon shells would not be very effective as direct impact would be needed for any effect. Being able to detonate them at a point in space however means spreading lethal shrapnel around the intercept point making damage and destruction of the air targets rather more likely.

With 57mm calibre rounds the effective blast and shrapnel radius would be greatly increased and the level of damage increased too no doubt.

Even firing at a moderate rate of about 240 rpm means about 4 shots per second able to put up a screen of lethal shrapnel to knock down a UAV swarm attack fairly rapidly.

A 30mm system firing a burst of 200 shells in a 2-4 second burst would also be very effective too.

For individual targets a single guided shell would be very effective too.

Self-propelled antiaircraft artillery complex for R & D "Derivation-PVO" with a fighting vehicle 2S38

As reported by the web-resource "Messenger of Mordovia", at the International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017" the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation presented at its stand a 2C38 combat vehicle with a 57-mm antiaircraft artillery complex.

This product is created as part of the development work "Derivation-Air Defense", which implies the appearance in the troops of a promising mobile artillery complex with passive means of reconnaissance and escorting air targets.


Combat machine 2S38 self-propelled antiaircraft artillery complex for R & D "Derivation-air defense". Image from the presentation poster of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

This combat vehicle is designed to defeat air targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, tactical aircraft, and fire support helicopters. The anti-aircraft installation is also capable of shooting down missiles of multiple rocket systems, destroying ground and surface targets.


2C38 is based on the well-proven BMP-3.

-The maximum range of damage is 6 km.

-The maximum height of the lesion is 4.5 km.

-The rate of fire is 120 rounds per minute.
-Full ammunition - 148 shots.
-The vertical guidance angle is 5 deg / +75 deg.
-Angle of guidance horizontally - 360 degrees.
-The maximum speed of targets hit is 500 m / s
= Calculation: 3 people.

The developer of the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" (Nizhny Novgorod).

Earlier, the "Bulletin of Mordovia" already told about the optic-electronic system for detecting and targeting the OES OP, installed by this machine, which was created by the specialists of the Minsk OJSC "Peleng". It allows you to carry out panoramic observation of the terrain by 360 degrees, as well as to conduct a sectoral survey.

For example, the detection range of a Bird-Ai-400 unmanned aerial vehicle in one of the television channels in the overview mode is 700 m, in the narrow field of view mode it is 4900 m. The A-10 attack aircraft will be visible in the first mode already at a range of 6400 m , And in the second - in 12 300 m.

The thermal imaging channel allows you to detect targets with a size of 2.3 x 2.3 m with a probability of 80% at a range of 10.000 m and recognize them at a distance of 4.000 m.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2809618.html