2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm

kvs wrote:

Supposedly the currently under development US XM1299 is superior to the Koalitsiya-SV.   That is not even just some fanboi
drivel, it is claimed by western official sources.   But the reality is much different.   The XM1299 retains the manual loading
approach of the M109.   Where the SV can fire off 12 rounds per minute at its pre-loaded peak.    The XM1299 appears to
be able to do at most 3 rounds per minute.    With existing shells the SV can hit targets 80 km away.   The XM1299 and US
long range artillery in general appears to be stuck in the range of 65 km to 70 km.  

The nominally bigger bore of the XM1299 gun (155 mm vs 152 mm) does not imply it can fire off shells with more kinetic
energy.   Similarly sized guns can have quite a spread in chamber pressure.   The type of shell propellant used and how
efficiently it is detonated is a critical variable as well.   Looks to me like Russian guns such as the one on the SV can handle
much higher chamber pressure than those of the US and minions.

US blowhards are also claiming they will easily develop autoloaders.   For some reason they never felt the need over the last 50+ years.

Even if the autoloader development for the XM1299 does pan out the fire rate would still be limited compared to the 2S35. Without liquid cooling the risks of overpressure firings increase tremendously with fire rate and the lack of microwave ignition does not help with cook-offs either. Another issue is the lack of a bore evacuator though they could've opted for a forced air ejection like the Leclerc instead which is still a bit funny since the 2S35 with no man in the turret has one and this one doesn't.

mnztr wrote:

Fires cannot go through containers. Are the charges stored in a microwave safe container during transport? I am sure they must have thought of this but would be interested to know what measures they took. The homogenious ignition is brilliant. I wonder why they have not come up with a more aerodynamic shell with a tapered rear, and use a sabot for firing. I wonder what gain would be from eliminating the flat rear.

Fires can burn through or just raise the internal temperature enough that it won't matter. And I'm sure they must have considered the question of microwave safe containers at least once during the years long development process. Not that it will stop us outsiders looking in from thinking we are better than the designers.

Russian self-propelled artillery will be built into a single command network


Russian self-propelled artillery mounts will be united under the Unified Tactical Control System (ESU TZ), the corresponding equipment is installed on all new vehicles. This was reported by the press service of Uralvagonzavod.

The concern explained that in accordance with the new tactical and technical tasks, all new self-propelled artillery installations are necessarily equipped with equipment that allows the introduction of military equipment into the network-centric control system on the battlefield.

Tactical and technical tasks for the development of promising samples of self-propelled artillery include a mandatory requirement for integration into the ESU TK. This integration is realized through artillery command vehicles. Onboard fire control systems of the mentioned samples fully ensure interaction with control machines

- TASS leads the message of the concern.

It is emphasized that a unified digital set of on-board equipment (OBE) has been developed for the ACS, which makes it possible to transfer the entire fleet of self-propelled artillery to a single hardware base.

In January of this year, the Ministry of Defense reported that during the exercises of the Elninskaya motorized rifle division of the combined arms army of the Western Military District, the artillerymen united the division of the Msta-SM2 self-propelled guns in a single control system of the ESU TZ.

The ESU TK system is a unified combat control system, which includes 11 subsystems. It allows real-time data exchange between various combat assets, and also creates a unified information network, data from which can be used by the crew of any combat unit. In addition, the system forms a single picture of the battle space, making it possible to clarify the most dangerous directions and deliver strikes that at the moment can become the most relevant and effective.

https://en.topwar.ru/180237-rossijskuju-samohodnuju-artilleriju-vstrojat-v-edinuju-set-upravlenija.html

With an 80 km range can you imagine the amount of area just 3 of these can dominate? holy smokes 80425 Sq KM!!!! Insane.

How much have russians mastered production of guided artillery shells compared to NATO?
I know the koalitsiyas guided shell is superb and the russians held a technological advantage even when only the Krasnopol was still around and the US even tried to bribe russian engineers to get its tech. However are these shells being mass produced? What is their availability per SPG?

Do you think russuan SPGs the koalitsiya and msta, have more guided shells in their magazines than NATO SPGs do?

They are pretty well advanced but those shells are for high value targets. They cost too much to use them like normal shells.

Contrary to NATO they have various guided shells for different guns of different size.

limb wrote:How much have russians mastered production of guided artillery  shells compared to NATO?
I know the koalitsiyas guided shell is superb and the russians held a technological  advantage even when  only  the Krasnopol was still around and the US even tried to bribe russian engineers to get its tech. However are these shells being mass produced? What is their availability  per SPG?

Do you think  russuan SPGs the koalitsiya and msta, have more guided shells in their magazines than NATO SPGs do?

The convention with nationalities is that you capitalize the first letter. You being butthurt about the Russians does not change this.

limb wrote:How much have russians mastered production of guided artillery  shells compared to NATO?
I know the koalitsiyas guided shell is superb and the russians held a technological  advantage even when  only  the Krasnopol was still around and the US even tried to bribe russian engineers to get its tech. However are these shells being mass produced? What is their availability  per SPG?

Do you think  russuan SPGs the koalitsiya and msta, have more guided shells in their magazines than NATO SPGs do?

The question should be the other way around - how much has nato mastered production of guided artillery shells compared to Russia?

The first attempt was the Copperhead of the 70's which is apparently still in use but it has been a failure since it's inception, much like the Shellilagh missile. The next attempt came about in the early 2000's as the Excalibur with a range of between 20-40kms. Latest test range was up to 70kms. The Excalibur can be regarded as a successful design but is out ranged by the latest offerings from Russia.
The Germans also have the SMart 155 which is similar to the discontinued SADARM system.

Russia on the other hand - unlike nato - has several very successful guided artillery shells in various calibers, with many of them dating back to the 80's.

The latest one is for the Koaltsiya, but probably the most well known is Krasnapol and Krasnopol-M1 developed for Soviet 152mm guns and 120mm mortars (Krasnopol-M). There is even a nato 155mm version.
The Santimetr was developed for older systems like the 2S3 and D20 artillery pieces.
Next in line is the Kitolov for 120 mm gun mortars and the Kitolov-2M for 122mm artillery pieces.
Another one is the KM-8 Gran for the Sani 120mm mortar.
Last but not the least is Smelchak specially developed for the Tyulpan 240mm mortar.

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:How much have russians mastered production of guided artillery  shells compared to NATO?
I know the koalitsiyas guided shell is superb and the russians held a technological  advantage even when  only  the Krasnopol was still around and the US even tried to bribe russian engineers to get its tech. However are these shells being mass produced? What is their availability  per SPG?

Do you think  russuan SPGs the koalitsiya and msta, have more guided shells in their magazines than NATO SPGs do?

The convention with nationalities is that you capitalize the first letter. You being butthurt about the Russians does not change this.

He sounds like an Ukr who is trolling this forum with stupid, leading questions and reposts of hack photoshop jobs attempting to paint
the Su-57 as a fail in design and manufacture.

I doubt he is someone from the west, he would be acting more like the SS troll in that case.

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:How much have russians mastered production of guided artillery  shells compared to NATO?
I know the koalitsiyas guided shell is superb and the russians held a technological  advantage even when  only  the Krasnopol was still around and the US even tried to bribe russian engineers to get its tech. However are these shells being mass produced? What is their availability  per SPG?

Do you think  russuan SPGs the koalitsiya and msta, have more guided shells in their magazines than NATO SPGs do?

The convention with nationalities is that you capitalize the first letter. You being butthurt about the Russians does not change this.

I'm typing from my phone and I won't check for capitalization when I'm doing so. It's pathetic to make a completely  off topic reply over something  so inane simply because you have something  personally against  me.

Please   off

He sounds like an Ukr who is trolling this forum with stupid, leading questions and reposts of hack photoshop jobs attempting to paint
the Su-57 as a fail in design and manufacture.

I doubt he is someone from the west, he would be acting more like the SS troll in that case.

What exactly is stupid about asking I'd Russia has larger stockpiles of guided shells than NATO? Since the russian army isn't relying on air support it would make sense for it to make an effort to have ubiquitous guided shells, instead of being a rare asset only used for special missions like in NATO.

Btw someone posted the rivet video of the Su-57 before me asking for a debunk, but I'm suddenly a troll for bringing into attention the "faulty" bay door picture?

PapaDragon wrote:

Is there anybody on this forum who doesn’t sound Ukr to you?  

Sounds like something an Ukr would say to cast doubts and deflect suspicion of being an Ukr - you sure you're not one?

limb wrote:

I'm typing from my phone and I won't check for capitalization when I'm doing so. It's pathetic to make a completely  off topic reply over something  so inane simply because you have something  personally against  me.

Please   off

You were able to type 'US', 'NATO', and 'SPG' in all caps just fine.

Pull the other one.

The coalition will have guided rounds developed for it but the long range guided standard rounds are the ones that are more interesting.

The guidance system is included in the fuse for the round and it includes control surfaces to deliver the round to the point of aim... CEP over full range is 10m.

I will say it again...

The guidance system is included in the fuse, so all artillery shells fired by Coalition will be guided.

Excalibur, which is the US equivalent costs 90K per shot which makes it expensive so it will be kept for specific targets.

The smart fuse for standard 152mm shells costs 1K and can be used pretty much for any target.

The Russians are developing guided shells for ammo from 57mm calibre and upwards including for 76.2mm naval guns and 100mm tank guns and 122mm and 125mm and 130mm guns and 152mm guns and 180mm guns and 203mm guns and also for 120mm and 160mm and 240mm mortars.

The new guidance fuse for Coalition can be used in other 152mm guns and 160mm mortars and 180mm guns and 203mm guns and 240mm mortars too... they share the same fuse pocket size.

lyle6 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Is there anybody on this forum who doesn’t sound Ukr to you?  

Sounds like something an Ukr would say to cast doubts and deflect suspicion of being an Ukr - you sure you're not one?

limb wrote:

I'm typing from my phone and I won't check for capitalization when I'm doing so. It's pathetic to make a completely  off topic reply over something  so inane simply because you have something  personally against  me.

Please   off

You were able to type 'US', 'NATO', and 'SPG' in all caps just fine.

Pull the other one.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look? Talk about inaneness...

Yeah those are abbreviations. Imonly gonna press my shift key for more than 1 letter.

The coalition will have guided rounds developed for it but the long range guided standard rounds are the ones that are more interesting.

The guidance system is included in the fuse for the round and it includes control surfaces to deliver the round to the point of aim... CEP over full range is 10m.

I will say it again...

The guidance system is included in the fuse, so all artillery shells fired by Coalition will be guided.

Excalibur, which is the US equivalent costs 90K per shot which makes it expensive so it will be kept for specific targets.

The smart fuse for standard 152mm shells costs 1K and can be used pretty much for any target.

The Russians are developing guided shells for ammo from 57mm calibre and upwards including for 76.2mm naval guns and 100mm tank guns and 122mm and 125mm and 130mm guns and 152mm guns and 180mm guns and 203mm guns and also for 120mm and 160mm and 240mm mortars.

The new guidance fuse for Coalition can be used in other 152mm guns and 160mm mortars and 180mm guns and 203mm guns and 240mm mortars too... they share the same fuse pocket size.

So this means the russians already have massive stockpiles of 152mm guided rounds, far more than NATO combined. This is great.

This means a coalition can carry only guided rounds and a single SPG can destroy an entire moving armored vehicle formation if its observed by drones, or target multiple targets at the same time, something MLRSs can't do.

While NATO is focusing on only relying on guided air to ground munitions, russia is correctly focusing onhaving only guided smart munitions for its artillery, instead of primitive unguided ammo which NATO still uses.

The fuses that include guidance use GLONASS so hitting moving targets would be tricky... but a moving formation of HATO armour would be much easier to deal with using a Smerch battery firing sensor fused top attack submunition warhead rounds...

A single salvo on top of the force with a follow up salvo of anti tank mines on its main expected line of retreat...

The $1,000 GLONASS fuse for the artillery rounds should mean one or two shots per target which makes target engagement much cheaper and much faster because you are firing much fewer numbers of rounds.

The Coalition could fire a dozen rounds on different trajectories so they all land together denying the target the time to take cover when the first rounds start to arrive, making the rounds much more effective, but obviously with GLONASS guidance few targets would require 12 shots to be fired to deal with it.

I am hoping the main gun on the currently upgraded Orlan class cruiser will get a 152mm coalition gun turret, and that they adopt the calibre in the Bereg land based coastal gun system to replace the obsolete 130mm weapon they use now.

It would improve effective range, increase payload per shot, and of course increase accuracy of individual rounds fired by a large margin... meaning less rounds would be needed to do even more damage.

The Russians are developing guided shells for ammo from 57mm calibre and upwards including for 76.2mm naval guns and 100mm tank guns and 122mm and 125mm and 130mm guns and 152mm guns and 180mm guns and 203mm guns and also for 120mm and 160mm and 240mm mortars.

Should clarify, they are developing guided shells for the 57mm gun, but I am not sure about the 76.2mm guns.

For 100mm and 115mm tank guns as well as 100mm towed guns and 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and also the 122mm guns and 125mm guns and 130mm guns and 152mm guns and 180mm guns and 203mm guns and 120mm and 160mm and 240mm mortars they also have guided missiles already developed decades ago.

Not sure about 82mm mortar calibres or 76.2mm gun calibres, but the rest all have tube launched guided missiles in service...

The Bastion/Sheksna is a family of missiles called 9M117M that are used in the T-55 and T-62 as well as the MT-12 towed gun and BMP-3 100mm gun... note the T-55 has a 100mm rifled gun and the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 is also rifled but the shell case size is completely different and of course the 100mm smoothbore MT-12 and 115mm smoothbore of the T-62 are different to, but the missile is of the same type.

There is also the Gran guided 120mm mortar round, and the Svir and Reflex 125mm guided missile rounds for tanks.

Then of course there is the Santimetr `152mm guided artillery round and of course the Krasnopol and Krasnopol-M guided 152mm missiles and the Smelchak 240mm guided mortar bomb.

And also the Kitolov -2M  122mm guided missile.

Presentation on Artillery robotics, featuring our boy Koala:
https://soyuzmash.ru/docs/prez/prez-krrt-230818-2.pdf

Don't these images suggest an Armata chassis?

Yes, the intention from the start was to move everything to Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang chassis where practical...

The MSTA uses the T-80 chassis with T-72 engine and parts but of course the crew are in the turret except the driver on that vehicle.

I presume the first coalitions used T-90 chassis extended and with the crew in the front hull... because the Armata wasn't finalised and in serial production.

Obviously there are two different Armata chassis types... the tank model with the rear engine central turret and front crew positions, but the other model used for the T-15 BMP with the forward engine and crew then turret and rear troop compartment with rear ramp entry/exit.

I suspect the Coalition will use the tank chassis... the ammo is loaded into the rear of the turret rather than the rear of the hull.

It makes sense to unify the MSTA and Koalytsia on the Armata platform. No point keeping a separate chassis and engine production line.
It simplifies maintenance and logistics as well.

I suspect an Armata version for Armata divisions but suspect that truck mounted version might be used for the lighter vehicle families... Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon.

The truck based system will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate and be much faster across good roads.

Its eventual firing range should mean it can support the units it operates with from quite a distance...

The truck based system likely uses Boomerang/Kurganets engines and Boomerang wheels and parts for commonality.

It would be interesting to see which way they go with this.

The Ministry of Defense approved the schedule of state tests of the 152-mm self-propelled howitzer 2S35 "Coalition-SV"

The newest self-propelled artillery unit "Coalition-SV" is entering the stage of state tests; the Ministry of Defense has already agreed on all the schedules.

State tests of the ACS "Coalition-SV" begin early next year and should be completed by September 30, 2022. After their completion, the final documents will be prepared, giving permission to start the serial production of the ACS. On their basis, the Ministry of Defense will adopt a self-propelled howitzer into service. It is noted that within the framework of the creation of the "Coalition-SV" ACS, several more products were developed that make up the complex, in particular, the transport-loading vehicle (TZM). All of them have already successfully completed state tests.

As they say "News" With reference to military sources, the adoption of the "Coalition-SV" into the arsenal of the Russian army is planned at the end of the year, as they say "under the Christmas tree".

For our part, we note that the state contract for the supply of serial 152-mm howitzers 2S35 "Coalition-SV" to the troops was signed in August this year. The parameters of the agreement were not disclosed. Before that, a pre-production batch of 10 self-propelled guns "Coalition-SV" was produced, which in May last year was delivered to the first tank army ZVO for experimental military operation. For the first time officially ACS "Coalition-SV" was shown at the Victory Day parade on May 9, 2015.

The self-propelled howitzer 2S35 "Coalition-SV" is designed to destroy command posts, communication centers, artillery and mortar batteries, armored vehicles, including tanks, anti-tank weapons, air defense and missile defense systems, as well as manpower of a potential enemy. The shooting of the newest SAO is more automated and computerized, the howitzer can operate in the "Flurry of Fire" mode, in which several shells fired from the gun at different angles simultaneously reach the target.

The basis of firepower is a 2 mm 88A152 gun with a firing speed of more than 10 rounds per minute, which is higher than the firing speed of other artillery systems

https://en.topwar.ru/189868-minoborony-utverdilo-grafik-gosudarstvennyh-ispytanij-152-mm-samohodnoj-gaubicy-2s35-koalicija-sv.html

Super Dolly Parton gets a new meaning