2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm

Well yeah I guess if its light enough for a Mi-17 that'd be worthy, MSTA-B is 7ton so that would be a pretty huge weight saving.

For anything else there will be the tracked and (heavy) wheeled versions.

Which will be considerably more costly/lower in number & more of a problem to lose.
Cheap & cheerful light truck version can get really high mobility at pretty low cost.

This is exactly like the systems in your pics. It has just greater range, more ammo and at least the same level of mobility.

For low level combats there are/will be this systems:

Plus

flamming_python wrote:

hoom wrote:Personally I'd rather they develop a light truck mount.

Something like this

or

is not much heavier than a conventional mount but able to shoot & scoot much more rapidly.

The whole point is that you can sling it with a Mi-17 or something up an elevation. Invaluable for mountain brigades and divisions.

Or attach it to some trucks or tracked vehicles, or even horses - and tow it to somewhere less accessible for heavier, self-propelled artillery vehicles

From the description it sounds like an analogue of the US M777

Given that the max load for a Mi-17 sling is 4.5 tons; they'll have to make sure that this Koalitsiya towed-gun weighs no more than that. Probably a good bit less actually; if they want to carry it into higher altitudes as well as the crew and supporting equipment in the same chopper.

They can just fly the main gun, a crank-jack on wheels, and the ammo with a trailer separately.

This is exactly like the systems in your pics. It has just greater range, more ammo and at least the same level of mobility.

Well yeah it is actually lighter than I was remembering.
The turret & jacks for 360deg (?!) firing makes it quite a bit more expensive & heavier than it could be.

Personally I'd rather they develop a light truck mount.

It will be their standard 152mm gun artillery vehicle, so there will be an Armata version, and a Kurganets version and a Boomerang version...

They will need a towed model for places trucks and light vehicles cannot go.

is not much heavier than a conventional mount but able to shoot & scoot much more rapidly.

An armoured vehicle would be able to shoot and scoot better than any towed model... half way up a mountain firing from mountain top to mountain side 10-20km away is what it will be used for, so moving rapidly after firing is unlikely... it will normally be near a base it is defending...

If they want mobile fire power.... Ka-52 with Hermes missiles...

Given that the max load for a Mi-17 sling is 4.5 tons; they'll have to make sure that this Koalitsiya towed-gun weighs no more than that. Probably a good bit less actually; if they want to carry it into higher altitudes as well as the crew and supporting equipment in the same chopper.

The Mi-38 is supposed to manage 6 or 7 tons I think with an external sling...

Either way you will need another helo for ammo and crew anyway... and some light vehicle to move it around if needed.

Which will be considerably more costly/lower in number & more of a problem to lose.
Cheap & cheerful light truck version can get really high mobility at pretty low cost.

If it is operating in an armata division it makes sense for it to be armata based etc etc.

This is exactly like the systems in your pics. It has just greater range, more ammo and at least the same level of mobility.

True, but the article we are talking about is a towed model...

They can just fly the main gun, a crank-jack on wheels, and the ammo with a trailer separately.

Weapons of this size means more than one helo will be needed unless you go for Mi-26s... and even then it makes sense to split the load into gun, ammo and crew, and towing vehicle to allow the weapon to be moved around easily.

Gur Khan take on the new gun https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5c154835b2d87b00acb731f7/d400--novaia-buksiruemaia-pushkagaubica-dlia-rossiiskoi-armii-5c17e7f1ca54dd00abe7c0c4?from=channel&fbclid=IwAR3gc14x1-0GOlQYtVyHx4ySBCg_XtKB0mP8vaCjQhG62EHQzw8NS1iPhns

Basically he has same complaints as me: gotta maximise the ability to shoot & scoot in a modern combat environment, from the pics its not obviously light enough for lifting by Mi-8.
Also wonders about how the loading is going to work since the main key to Koalition is auto-loader with modular propellant.

Pics of test gun

It would be rather easy to manually load such a weapon... just do it the same as any manually loaded gun.

Regarding the propellent... propellant bags are the traditional solution... after ramming the projectile in you load the propellant bags... calculated when you process the target data, so the number of individual propellant bags loaded is determined and then loaded into the gun manually...


I would suspect most of the units that use this weapon wont be airborne... they are more likely to be mountain units operating where standard armoured vehicles are not much use... such a long range powerful weapon might not be totally ideal for such a role... traditionally the mountain gun has a short barrel and a big HE round so if you see the enemy 5-8km away across a valley you can shoot a big HE round at him... you are not likely to be firing at targets 40km away... unless you are part of some sort of fire base set up like the US used in Vietnam...

I would think a D-30 type lighter gun would be more valuable even if shorter ranged... the new 152mm gun on the D-30 mount would be interesting... but it wasn't the new new 152mm gun, it was a shortish range (15km) weapon with a bigger heavier projectile than the D-30 it was to replace...

Regarding the propellent... propellant bags are the traditional solution... after ramming the projectile in you load the propellant bags... calculated when you process the target data, so the number of individual propellant bags loaded is determined and then loaded into the gun manually...

His point being the major advantage of Koalition being the RoF from autoloader will be lost doing that.

Rate of fire has never been a critical factor for towed artillery as far as I am aware... except for AA artillery of course...

"Coalition-SV" on trial set a record for range

New interspecific artillery complex "Coalition-SV" during the tests confirmed the possibility of firing at a greater range. This was reported by Interfax,  citing an informed source.

“Goals can be hit at ranges up to 80 km,” he said.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201901031335-8ca1.htm

dino00 wrote:"Coalition-SV" on trial set a record for range

New interspecific artillery complex "Coalition-SV" during the tests confirmed the possibility of firing at a greater range. This was reported by Interfax,  citing an informed source.

“Goals can be hit at ranges up to 80 km,” he said.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201901031335-8ca1.htm

let me guess those ramjet ammo is going into series

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

dino00 wrote:"Coalition-SV" on trial set a record for range

New interspecific artillery complex "Coalition-SV" during the tests confirmed the possibility of firing at a greater range. This was reported by Interfax,  citing an informed source.

“Goals can be hit at ranges up to 80 km,” he said.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201901031335-8ca1.htm

let me guess those ramjet ammo is going into series

That was probably with standard ammo. The Federation has already developed ramjet technology with shells, however this was most likely done with a standard shell aided by Koalitsya's new gun tech. Brand new barrel and rifling, but more importantly microwave ignition for doubling the range of shells from Msta-B to Koalitsya. Standard ignition of the propellant is at a hypersonic speed (roughly Mach 5-6) which seems fast to us humans, but in reality isn't fast enough to ignite the propellant completely, cleanly and uniformly, which leaves a uneven ignition of propellant thus a subsequent loss of range. However microwave ignition is different because microwaves are emitted at light-speed, which allows the entirety of propellant to ignite simultaneously, making a much cleaner and uniform ignition thus the subsequent result is greater range of the artillery shell.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
That was probably with standard ammo. The Federation has already developed ramjet technology with shells, however this was most likely done with a standard shell aided by Koalitsya's new gun tech. Brand new barrel and rifling, but more importantly microwave ignition for doubling the range of shells from Msta-B to Koalitsya. Standard ignition of the propellant is at a hypersonic speed (roughly Mach 5-6) which seems fast to us humans, but in reality isn't fast enough to ignite the propellant completely, cleanly and uniformly, which leaves a uneven ignition of propellant thus a subsequent loss of range. However microwave ignition is different because microwaves are emitted at light-speed, which allows the entirety of propellant to ignite simultaneously, making a much cleaner and uniform ignition  thus the subsequent result is greater range of the artillery shell.  

Pls forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask this question, I thought slow ignition is more preferable for propellant, since it allow the pressure to be slowly released and gradually increased, which reduce the risk and damage for the gun barrel. People change from black powder to brown powder and to Nobel powder just for the powder to burn slowly, isn't it

higurashihougi wrote: Pls forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask this question, I thought slow ignition is more preferable for propellant, since it allow the pressure to be slowly released and gradually increased, which reduce the risk and damage for the gun barrel. People change from black powder to brown powder and to Nobel powder just for the powder to burn slowly, isn't it

Im not sure if I can forgive you this question

There is  lot of things under Electrothermal-chemical (ETC) technology but generlly it is bout more muzzle energy / velocity and less pressure...

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/plans-for-new-us-super-tank-with.html

Pls forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask this question, I thought slow ignition is more preferable for propellant, since it allow the pressure to be slowly released and gradually increased, which reduce the risk and damage for the gun barrel. People change from black powder to brown powder and to Nobel powder just for the powder to burn slowly, isn't it

If you think of it as blowing something through a straw... the best distance is achieved by getting maximum pressure as soon as possible and maintaining that pressure for as long as the projectile is in the straw... once it leaves of course the pressure is relieved rapidly.

In this example however things are simplified because no set of human lungs could burst a straw with too much pressure.

A gun on the other hand could easily be destroyed with too much pressure.

If you replace the propellant from an artillery piece with HE then it will not act as a gun... it will act like a bomb.

The rate of expansion and pressure will burst the barrel.

Any artillery piece barrel has a pressure limit and a physical length.

For the developers of the propellent the key goals are to reach the pressure limit but not exceed it as quickly as possible and maintain that pressure level for as long as the projectile is inside the barrel.

If the propellant does not burn evenly then the pressure wont be any where near the max operating pressure and the remaining powder will burn after the projectile has left the barrel and create a pretty and enormous muzzle flash.

The propellant will be formulated to generate the right amount of pressure for the right amount of time to achieve the required performance so using microwave energy to ensure the propellent burns thoroughly and completely inside the barrel means it achieves its max pressure faster, pushing the projectile to higher speeds and maintains that pressure to the end of the barrel, which should reduce muzzle flash, and maximise muzzle velocity (and also therefore range).

My understanding of the reasons for the shift from the original twin gun configuration to the single gun layout was that the turret could be made much smaller and simpler with only one gun and the loss of rate of fire could be solved very simply by using two guns (ie two vehicles). The fact is that these guns don't operate on their own and the rate of fire of the new single gun system is significantly better than the previous weapon so doubling it seems a bit redundant.

The extra complication of two guns is based around the double feed system that allows the guns to each fire one of two types of ammo at the flick of a switch, so you might have guided shells and normal shells loaded for each gun... the thing is that the new fuses include cheap guidance systems in them so missiles like the Krasnopol become rather less in demand as most targets will be engaged with standard rounds.

By removing one barrel you remove two separate ammo feed channels and simplify the ammo storage arrangements that previously had to be fed by four automatic loading systems that kept the two loading trays for each gun topped up and ready to load.

The reduction in weight and size was important in terms of transport in aircraft and rail... the loss of rate of fire was not critical as long as the first few rounds hit the target any extra rounds are redundant.

I have read a few different things for the gun... over 20 rounds a minute for the naval twin gun model, but about 14 rounds per minute for the single barrel ground model...

Now if you assume 14 rounds a minute and that there will be 6 guns firing on the same target, and of course the fact that these are not ancient cannon, but modern guns with variable propellent and ballistic computers that allow these guns to fire at different elevations with different propellent charges so that it can fire probably 8-10 rounds per gun that all land on the same target at one time... then you have to ask yourself why you need a second gun per vehicle...

At 14 rounds per minute that is one round every 4.2 seconds so in 42 seconds time you fire 10 rounds... and so do the 5 other vehicles you are operating with... so 60 rounds landing on one target all at once... at about 45kgs each that is 2.7 tons of HE and steel fragments landing on or around one target over a period of perhaps 1-2 seconds.... would it really be worth the cost and complication of adding an extra barrel to each of those vehicles to get slightly more ammo on target?

GarryB wrote:My understanding of the reasons for the shift from the original twin gun configuration to the single gun layout was that the turret could be made much smaller and simpler with only one gun and the loss of rate of fire could be solved very simply by using two guns (ie two vehicles). The fact is that these guns don't operate on their own and the rate of fire of the new single gun system is significantly better than the previous weapon so doubling it seems a bit redundant.

The extra complication of two guns is based around the double feed system that allows the guns to each fire one of two types of ammo at the flick of a switch, so you might have guided shells and normal shells loaded for each gun... the thing is that the new fuses include cheap guidance systems in them so missiles like the Krasnopol become rather less in demand as most targets will be engaged with standard rounds.

By removing one barrel you remove two separate ammo feed channels and simplify the ammo storage arrangements that previously had to be fed by four automatic loading systems that kept the two loading trays for each gun topped up and ready to load.

The reduction in weight and size was important in terms of transport in aircraft and rail... the loss of rate of fire was not critical as long as the first few rounds hit the target any extra rounds are redundant.

I have read a few different things for the gun... over 20 rounds a minute for the naval twin gun model, but about 14 rounds per minute for the single barrel ground model...

Now if you assume 14 rounds a minute and that there will be 6 guns firing on the same target, and of course the fact that these are not ancient cannon, but modern guns with variable propellent and ballistic computers that allow these guns to fire at different elevations with different propellent charges so that it can fire probably 8-10 rounds per gun that all land on the same target at one time... then you have to ask yourself why you need a second gun per vehicle...

At 14 rounds per minute that is one round every 4.2 seconds so in 42 seconds time you fire 10 rounds... and so do the 5 other vehicles you are operating with... so 60 rounds landing on one target all at once... at about 45kgs each that is 2.7 tons of HE and steel fragments landing on or around one target over a period of perhaps 1-2 seconds.... would it really be worth the cost and complication of adding an extra barrel to each of those vehicles to get slightly more ammo on target?

I think you read some bad information about the RPM of Koalitsiya. The single gun configuration is likely 16-20 RPM, and we have no information about the tracked mounted double barreled version, let alone the naval version. However a 20 RPM for the double barreled naval version would be ridiculously pathetic when you consider 20 RPM can be achieved with the weight-restricted track based single barreled version. If we look at the 130mm AK130 naval gun, which has two barrels, its capable of having a RPM of 90 (45 per barrel), and it's design is from the mid-1970's, a brand new design like Koalitsiya could easily greatly exceed it. The naval version would have the great advantage of having no real weight restriction, and direct water-cooling of the barrel. The AK190 (100mm) single barreled naval gun, which entered service 1997, had a RPM of 80, so a good RPM goal for the double barreled Koalitsiya should be 160 RPM.

Previously, various unofficial sources reported that its mass is 48 tons. However, the accompanying materials that appeared at the exhibition indicated that the Coalition-SV weighs only 45 tons - lighter than the T-90A or the upgraded T-72B3.

It is confirmed that the maximum firing range is 70 km. The rate of fire 12-15 shots per minute. Ammunition - 60 shots. The crew consists of 3 people.

https://rg.ru/2019/07/05/koaliciia-sv-okazalas-na-3-tonny-legche-chem-ozhidali.html

Wow, those numbers are impressive... especially the weight being less than a T-90 tank... early estimates were for 65 tons...

Currently, the Armed the forces of the Russian Federation have some artillery systems whose shells, when shooting at maximum range, reach great heights. Of the flight trajectory can be found in the upper layers of the stratosphere where the air is very tenuous and its resistance is minimal. This factor has a positive effect on the range. With such systems, the shells of which overlook the stratospheric heights today are Coalition-SV AND 2c7m Malka. According to domestic and foreign experts, it is planned to within three years to complete the development of long-range high-precision artillery ammunition (DVAB) with a range of up to 170 km.

Page 8-9:

http://opp.gp-media.ru/images/nomera/OPP_4-19.pdf

170km range...

With precision guidance... ie the GLONASS guided fuse system, plus a slight reduction in HE payload for a ramjet motor and a small fuel supply you could easily increase range.

For many targets a really big warhead is not needed if you can get a direct hit, but the greater the miss distance the exponentially bigger the warhead needs to be to compensate.

For instance a cruise missile from the 1980s with a CEP of 200m means a nuclear warhead is the only realistic option, but reduce that CEP to 10m and a 400kg HE warhead is fine...

BTW page 9 on that pdf at the bottom right corner... image 3 is it?

It shows the Armata chassis with the 2S35 Koalition, and below it the 2S35-1 wheeled truck mounted version, but to the left there is a tracked Kurganets version and a wheeled Boomerang model as well, which is very interesting to me... I was a little unsure if those platforms could handle the 152mm gun, but it clearly seems they are working on it. (drawings not photos of course).