True. But for a BMPT vehicle, it has lower firepower (missiles) compared to the existing version.
Would have to disagree there.
The BMPT has two 30mm cannon, plus coaxial PKT and two front fender mounted 30mm grenade launchers and finally two ready to fire ATAKA ATGMs.
Lets assume that this new vehicle has a 120mm rifled gun related to the Vena, a 23mm gatling gun firing 23 x 114mm rounds and a long barreled version of the 40mm Balkan AGL. Add to that a PKT coaxial MG which we can assume is fitted.
Certainly the 23mm gatling beats the 30mm cannons in terms of rate of fire, but the ammo is much lower velocity so its penetration will be worse. The 23mm rounds are far more compact so it will be able to carry a far larger load of 23mm ammo.
The point is that against most soft targets the heavy projectile of the 23mm round will be just as effective, and the difference in effective range will not be significant.
The job of getting 10 small cannon shells on target rapidly would be more efficiently done with the gatling than with the two single barrel 30mm guns and the two single barrel guns weigh 230kgs compared with the 73kgs of the 23mm gatling!
The long barrel 40mm grenade launcher will likely have a range of 2-3km and the larger grenades will likely make up for only one weapon being fitted.
In terms of making up for the loss of 4 ATAKA missiles.... I rather think a 120mm rifled gun able to fire HE shells and mortar bombs to 13km and 7km respectively more than makes up for those 4 missiles with a flight range of 6km.
For precision the 120mm gun should be able to fire the Gran and Kilolov laser guided artillery rounds to ranges beyond 6km in a diving top attack profile...
In fact I suggested that to improve the BMPT they should replace the two single barrel guns with a twin barrel GSh-30K with a higher rate of fire, and fit the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 so missiles could be fired down the main gun without any crew needing to leave the inside of the vehicle. I also thought it would be better with a couple of independently operated turrets... but with a crew of three there would not be the two dedicated gunners to operate them so they make less sense.
How about the 4-barrel 7.62mm? It is very light and would make good asset against infantry.
The best use of the 4 barrel 30 cal gatling is from a fast moving vehicle like a helo for use against enemy ground forces and it would be used to hose an area down to suppress enemy fire.
Against infantry it would actually be much more effective to use exploding ammo like 40mm grenades.
But when we talk about two multi-barrel guns, this vehicle is sort of approaching the BMPT level, but without the missiles that exists on the current BMPT.
Multi barrel guns offer very high rates of fire, which is critical when trying to hit small fast moving targets so for CIWS and as a gun for a fighter aircraft they might be very useful, but most of the time very high rates of fire just wastes ammo. To suppress an enemy position like a building where lots of sniper fire is located then a 50 round spray burst of 23mm cannon shells is just as effective as a 50 round burst of 30mm cannon shells, but in this case it takes the 23mm cannon less time to deliver that burst so it will arrive in a shotgun blast like effect rather than a stream or two.
If rate of fire was everything then metal storm would be the number one gun company in the world.
But we do agree that 6-barrel gun is for air-targets. And that is exactly what I mean, a significant improvement in capability against air-targets with this 6-barrel gun to include wider range of targets than just aircrafts. This I believe is for engaging the top-attack missiles.
If this is the GSH-6-23 then it is the wrong gun... the projectiles are heavy and the muzzle velocity is low... about 710m/s... these are not good features for shooting at moving targets.
Don't think of this gun as being a Shilka with two extra barrels... this weapon is a very fast firing KPV with the projectiles stretched to 23mm calibre and filled with a lot more HE... the cost is a reduction in muzzle velocity of about 400m/s.
Not great for penetrating armour but excellent for delivering a hell storm of fragments and HE.
Against a group of enemy forces in the open this gun would be particularly deadly. Equally for ripping up light armoured vehicles it would also be deadly.
For shooting at aircraft the density of fire would be great, but the low muzzle velocity would seriously count against it.
The crew is going to be shifted to the front hull, but that does not mean the turret need not be protected from top-attack missiles. Since this is an early model, there is quite a scope to change my view as things gets clearer. But as of now I believe and want to believe that this gatling gun is for engaging top-attack threats.
I would suspect the fact that they have anti sniper systems including laser dazzlers in a package the size of a pair of binoculars that for their new generation tank they could beef that up a bit so the diving top attack weapons like SALH or TV or IIR guided weapons will be dealt with both passively and actively.
If these turret mounted guns could do the job then BMPs should be safe from top attack weapons because its 30mm gun should actually be more effective than any of the guns fitted to this vehicles turret at engaging such threats.
And this could be to engage the top-attack missiles, which the current 12.7mm cannot counter with any amount of bursts.
I rather doubt the solution to incoming top attack threats will come in any form of gun... it just wouldn't be able to react quickly enough... you need something like ARENA that is ready to fire at any time to intercept an incoming threat...
For engaging a regular targets like helo, they don't need a 6-barrel gun.
For engaging helos there will be TOR and Pantsir-S1 vehicles in the brigade.
The 120mm gun with laser guided shells would likely be more use against a helo than the gatling gun.
The relatively low velocity of the 23 x 114mm round means it would likely not be much use against aerial targets outside of 2-2.5km... which makes the vehicle horrendously vulnerable to enemy helicopter weapons.
But the centre seat is going to be that of driver or the gunner?
If the 3rd seat is going to be further back, any exit hatch is going to be underneath the turret face.
I don't know. It is possible that the centre crewman gets out after one of the other crew gets out, or perhaps the turret has to turn 90 degrees sideways to let him get out his own hatch.
For all we know there could be a tunnel down a side of the vehicle to let all three crew out a hatch at the rear and the hatches in the front are fake.
As I said I don't know.
Then what is it for?
They don't need any sort of 6-barrel rapid-fire cannon to engage the helos.
If the vehicle is the armata BMPT then its two main roles are convoy escort... ie firepower to repulse an ambush, and tank support to protect tanks from dismounted infantry, in steep country or urban areas where threats can come from angles where standard MBT guns can't elevate to cover.
In that case its armament is fine... a 120mm direct fire gun/mortar plus a high rate of fire cannon with heavy HE projectiles for its calibre, and a 40mm AGL, plus coaxial PKT MG.
Long range targets can be engaged with guided ammo and close range targets obliterated with 10,000 rpm 23mm cannon shells.
A 23/30mm 6-barrel gun is a wastage on infantry. Better use smaller 4-barrel 7.62mm or 12.7mm for that role.
The 6 barrel gun in this case allows lots of targets to be engaged rapidly without overheating. 23mm packs rather more punch than rifle calibre MGs. Using fixed bursts of 5, 10, 20, 50, or even 100 round bursts means the very high rate of fire will not be a problem in terms of wasting ammo. Against a target like a light vehicle a 10 round burst would ensure it is put out of action rapidly. I would think a sweep of the barrel at a group of infantry would make them duck very rapidly and stay down...
I think its 7.6mm or a 12.7mm as Zivo mentioned. Maybe similar to what we see in this drawing.
Both PKT and Kord have muzzle flash hiders, while the far side weapon in the model is a straight tube that is too thick to be a rifle calibre machine gun. I would suggest it is either a 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher.
Look at the elevation of the main gun... with a coaxial PKT machine gun attached to its axis a separate 30 cal MG becomes unnecessary.
To be honest a 50 cal MG and a 23mm gatling would be relatively redundant as the ammo is a similar size while the cannon carries a much heavier projectile.
The only weapon that makes sense is a low velocity grenade launcher that can lob grenades over frontal cover into dead space.
Yes, itz a basic model no doubt. But it may be giving out signs of what sort of thing to expect..
In my biased opinion it has the ideal armament for a BMPT type vehicle... especially if the decision is taken to replace the KPV HMG with 23mm KPVB machine guns which trade high muzzle velocity for shell weight, which would make the 23mm gatling more useful as the round it fires would become much more common on ground vehicles.
AFAIK the 23mm gatling has been removed from aircraft for safety reasons as the vibration of firing led to problems in the Su-24 and Mig-31. The Mig-27 uses the 30mm 6 barrel gatling and has already been withdrawn with that aircraft.
Both guns can still be used in gun pods.