Russian Excalibur article & 2S35 Koalitsysa-SV video

[John Kettler]

Happened to see this. Yes, it's Sputnik, but it's citing an interview from Rossikaya Gazeta with the Minister of Defense Osyko. He says GLONASS guided projectiles for the 2S35 Koallitsya-SV SPH are in test. The article is from April 2016, so the acceptance tests could well be already done.

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160424/1038522310/russia-gun-missile-satellite.html

Embedded in the original Russian language article is this Koalitsya-SV episode featuring our favorite Red Army weapon show reporter.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 6, 2016 by John Kettler

[cbennett88]

@John Kettler Great video! Thanks for posting!

Any idea John at the purpose of those 2 large boxes on the front serve?

Seems unlikely they'd be some sort of APS. They remind me of some of the newer phased array radar on the Pantsir. I'm thinking...radar tracking of rounds to improve accuracy?? Just a wild guess...

Chris

[cbennett88]

Btw...is this like the Russian version of "Top Gear" 

The way the host is riding on the front of the SPH while it is at speed, reminds me of the sort of crazy antics Jeremy and the boys would do...

[John Kettler]

cbennett88,

Glad you found it worthwhile! Was quite surprised no one had replied to this point. You'd think the arrival of what we would've called colloquially in military/intel/defense contractor circles "Excalibursky" would be a big deal here on the CMBS Forum. Instead, you could hear the snoring on the Moon and watch the tumbleweeds blow through.

I've thought quite a bit about those boxes, including some notion of possible sensors. If all that's needed to measure projectile velocity, then you build a gun chronograph into the muzzle assembly. Ultimately, I plumped for something prosaic: equipment stowage. Here's my reasoning. The entire rear of the vehicle is tied up on way or another in access doors, reloading gear and the like, so no stowage there. The interior of the fighting compartment is jam packed with gun, loading gear and lots of shells. There may be one or more men present, but I've had 2.5 hours sleep and don't recall. No room inside the fighting compartment. While there may be some stowage built into the hull sides, I doubt it would be enough. For starters, the Koalitsya-SV, like all its SPH brethren, must carry a complete bore brush kit. It must carry tools at the very least for the vehicle's automotive maintenance. It must carry aiming stakes for Indirect Fire. these I deem to be the bare minimum.

That guy is all over the place. He's been inside UVZ on the production line where various Armata vehicles are being built, not to mention in the T-14 with the displays on and near it when it fired on the boresighting range! He's been out to a T-90 unit, where he is talking a mile a minute while perched atop the turret as the tank goes charging about the Poligon and he hangs on to the very substantial wind sensor mast, which I believe also has a LWR. He's at the Tupolev works, I think, as Tu-160s are upgraded and Putin's pride the Su-34 is on display. Sad to say, but I think most of our military shows are dreck by comparison. Sure wish I knew Russian. I can pick up words here and there, and what I can hear is enough to make me practically scream in frustration.

Regards,

John Kettler

[cbennett88]

@John Kettler

Totally agree that an English translation would be fantastic!!

I can definitely see your point about the storage but I'm not convinced.I'll explain further down below.

I watched as he demonstrated the compressed air powered bore brush. Since I'm not a "cannon cocker" (only a grunt! ) I can't really comment on how much of an improvement that would be. My thoughts are...with their industry's history of inconsistent workmanship, I'm not sure that wouldn't be more of a liability once away from base. 

Felt the same way with the neat looking artillery loading vans. Cool to watch, but why would the Russians go away from the one things they traditionally have easy access to...ample unskilled manpower?? From what I observed...why not just bring a group of conscripts to reload? They certainly would seem faster than what the video showed...

One of the only reason I'm not convinced those particular boxes are just tools, etc is...the Russians are completely obsessed right now with incorporating "the latest technology". Just look at Armata and the other new vehicles. If you watch when they use earlier footage,  the Koalitsya does not have the boxes(I think the smoke dischargers were there and are now re-positioned to the side). Since neither of us speaks the language, my feeling is that the host talks about how this version has "advanced technology" over the previous version and that those boxes play a role. A gun chronograph would tell you muzzle speed but wouldn't tell you anything about shell trajectory variation outside the barrel. I know somewhere in my studies I read about some military artillery units using a dedicated radar vehicle to track outgoing shells so that adjustments could be made for wind, barrel wear, and other minute factors that affect the shell. Still...just a guess though. 

C

[TheForwardObserver]

@cbennett88 HA "Cannon Cockers", pull string, get cookie.  Music to my ears.  I like to say "Gun Bunnies" for 13Bs, but 'Cannon Cockers' has always been a close second.

I looked into those boxes and from what I gather they're for 'sensors' though of what nature I'm not sure.  Possibly relating to the metrics of the individual gun's performance as has been suggested, but Electronic Target Acquisition housings for individual howitzers is kind of a stellar idea and miniature systems exist.  Localizing this capability would probably enhance your edge in the counter-battery fight if you're networked effectively enough to capitalize on the speed of acquisition advantage, or are operating under permissive clearance of fires conditions and don't have to worry about lengthy clearance ie shooting into an FFA.  Also good for cross referencing submitted grids with actual POOs.

Our stuff is good enough, as is, where we probably won't pursue that route in the near future, as we are fast enough with centralized radars and small teams and it is only clearance that holds us back.  I can recall one example in early 2007 where we were cordoning off some villages in an RSA in Zaidon and we had contact from an AIF mortar team that set-up and launched remarkably near us.  The counter-battery radar acquired the POO and POI and G Battery 2/11 Marines were spinning their wheel of death ready to fire, but our close proximity meant COF was delayed long enough where I was able to send my own grid before they let 'em buck.  The GT line was probably 15 km and the radar target line was probably 16 or 17km so even at that distance a gun operating with its own target acquisition radar (and permissive clearance of fires enviroment) could do it's job faster than relying on an observer for targeting.  Had we not been there near the POO, the guns could have fired in response before the enemy's rounds even landed, such is the power of our radars, and speed of our networks.

As for automation of reloading-- it's the trend in modern SPHs.  I like simplicity, and reliability.  I never send a mission digitally that I can send with voice, and never use an LRF if I can use a pair of binos.  That being said, results can sway me, so it'll be interesting to see which direction we end up going.  I personally like the Swedish archer system, which incorporates a considerable amount of automation.

John- I have a tough time tracking developments on multiple threads so I mostly keep my comments relegated to a couple topics.  I do of course try to read everything about modern artillery that comes across the board.  Feel free to ping me or post anything and everything related to fire support (cannons, rockets, missiles, cas, cca etc) on the FOs Conduct of Fires Net topic.  It is a warm, welcoming thread.

[cbennett88]

@TheForwardObserver

Appreciate your insight! 

Now...we just have to wait till we find someone who understands Russian fluently...or for some western military source...to find out what those boxes actually do...

I'm willing to buy John a beer if he turns out to be right. 

[John Kettler]

TheForwardObserver,

Have read, with interest, what you had to say, but I see some fundamental problems with the technical arguments you present. Also, I would very much like a magic decoder ring in order to translate into clear text an important paragraph from your post. Let's begin with the sensor argument.

You posit that the boxes are sensors and seem to be leaning toward some sort of radar, waxing lyrical upon this idea. With very few exceptions, radar is Line Of Sight, and it's not at all difficult to calculate the radar horizon of a Koalitsiya-SV sitting on the steppe. If we use the Msta-S SPH as a reasonable stand-in, the turret roof height is 3 meters.

For the sake of argument (absolute best case), let's posit the notional signal is emitted from that height. What, then, is the distance to the radar horizon? Easily computed using this handy online calculator for radar and visual LOS. If we use 3 meters as the height of the radar signal emission and 2 meters as target height, what are the distances involved? The radar LOS is 12,976 meters, and the visual horizon is 11,237 meters. This may seem all well and good, but if you're doing things that way, you're not in covered fire positions, to use the Russian military expression. Ukrainian artillery has quite a few weapons which can reach out and smite your exposed SPHs. To me, direct engagement radar would seem a real nonstarter. Now, let's look at what might seem, in theory, to be a reasonable candidate sensor, a CB radar. Here is the skinny on the TPQ-36(V) CB radar, which I'm providing primarily for the other readers. If you look at the size of the beast and compare it to the dimensions of the boxes on the Koalitsya-SV, it's clear there is a problem, and as we know, miniaturization isn't one of Russia's strong suits. There's also the glaring one of expense. The SPH in question, if offered for export, must come in significantly more expensive than the Msta-S, and that's just for the SPH with all its bells and whistles, while completely disregarding the putative CB radar cost issues. To that hefty chunk of change, we're now going to add a full-on CB radar. If we shift focus to a radar which instead tracks outbound shells so that subsequent shots may be refined, then I don't see why something so elaborate would needed. Would imagine something about the size of the Kriz radar would work just fine and would be enormously cheaper and smaller in size than even one of thiose boxes. On to the decoder ring item!

3 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

Our stuff is good enough, as is, where we probably won't pursue that route in the near future, as we are fast enough with centralized radars and small teams and it is only clearance that holds us back.  I can recall one example in early 2007 where we were cordoning off some villages in an RSA in Zaidon and we had contact from an AIF mortar team that set-up and launched remarkably near us.  The counter-battery radar acquired the POO and POI and G Battery 2/11 Marines were spinning their wheel of death ready to fire, but our close proximity meant COF was delayed long enough where I was able to send my own grid before they let 'em buck.  The GT line was probably 15 km and the radar target line was probably 16 or 17km so even at that distance a gun operating with its own target acquisition radar (and permissive clearance of fires enviroment) could do it's job faster than relying on an observer for targeting.  Had we not been there near the POO, the guns could have fired in response before the enemy's rounds even landed, such is the power of our radars, and speed of our networks.

Am going to be playful at first, then switch over to serious. I have no idea why the CB radar people would need to acquire poo, never mind shout about it. And I must say that obtaining poi in that region was quite the feat. Am sure any Polynesians in the unit were thrilled! I believe the POO is Point Of Origin and suspect POI is Point Of Impact. Is this correct. Seems to make sense. I don't know what AIF and RSA are, so please explain. Also, I have decided COF means not Conduct Of Fire but Commencement of fire. Again, this makes sense. I find it of interest that the CB radar is so offset from the GTL. Is this because the radar is supporting multiple FS units and therefore isn't with any one in particular.

In closing, I take your point about the COF thread and its welcoming nature, together with your limited surveillance of other threads. I have posted there fore and guess I shall post similar topics as this one there, for the sake of reading simplicity. I thought the topic was a big enough deal that it merited its own OP, but that approach was so ineffective as to practically be useless. Perhaps the mods could simply move this entire discussion to the COF thread and make things easier for everyone?

Regards,

John Kettler

[TheForwardObserver]

John, I didn't hypothesize at all about what I think the boxes are.  I read that sensors can be housed on both sides of the main weapon so that is what I said.  Of the nature of the boxes I clearly said that I don't know.

I then went on to suggest that localized electronic target acquisition would be stellar and that miniature systems exist.  I provided zero technical analysis of how this could be done, nor did I use the word radar at this point. 

Now regarding radar and the tracking of simple objects; A radar need not track an object during it's full flight to determine with confidence the path of an object with a basic trajectory.  That means a shell can be briefly tracked during flight, well above the horizon and the system can then determine with confidence where that object originated and where it will land.  We call this Point of Origin and Point of Impact.  

Counter battery specifically relies heavily on radars of this nature.  

[John Kettler]

TheForwardObserver,

Regret errors and plead exhaustion by way of mitigation. Where did you read about the boxes? I see nothing in your statement about this.
 

7 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

I looked into those boxes and from what I gather they're for 'sensors' though of what nature I'm not sure.  Possibly relating to the metrics of the individual gun's performance as has been suggested, but Electronic Target Acquisition housings for individual howitzers is kind of a stellar idea and miniature systems exist.

What, exactly, do you mean by "Electronic Target Acquisition housings," please? We know the Koalitsya-SV is set up for GLONASS, and we already have Constellation entering/in service in the Red Army, so it would be unremarkable by its presence and certainly wouldn't take even a small fraction of the space those boxes represent. Since this SPH is an apex category FS weapon, it would be extraordinary if it lacked all the bells and whistles which would allow it to maximize its punch and associated combat leverage.

I understand pretty well how CB radar works, having sat through the SECRET level lecturer from the Firefinder program manager based at what was then Hughes Aircraft Company, Ground Systems Group, which designed and built both the TPQ-36 and TPQ-37. Am also aware that radars to assess the trajectory of outbound fire have been in service for decades. Here, for example, is a US Army report from 1982.

US Army Technical Evaluation Command

Test Operations Procedure

"Projectile Velocity Measurements"

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a119554.pdf

The relevant passage is from Appendix B, page B-1, the first two paragraphs. These describe two separate and distinct radars used in the tests being reported. One is quite small and is used for initial velocity measurements, while the other is kind of a reverse CB radar based on a modified HAWK CW illuminator, normally used for semiactive missile guidance.

I suppose the Russians could do something like this, but I very much doubt it would take so much space to have something which, as you correctly point out, would need only a few hits early in the shell's flight to determine its impact point.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[SeinfeldRules]

An accurate point of impact - and by that, I mean an accurate enough location to compute corrections for future rounds - would require far more then a few tracks in the initial part of the ascending branch. And thus the great weakness of fire finder radars - an accurate location is highly dependent on where (and how long) the round is tracked. A radar that accurately computes the location of a round's impact needs tracks in the descending branch - as close to the impact plane as possible. Similarly, computing the POO requires the radar to track in the ascending branch - as close to the firing tube as possible. Rounds beyond apogee can not be used to calculate a point of origin accurate enough for effective counterfire. Once the round reaches apogee, the effects of meteorological conditions grow and the trajectory is most effected at this point.

US radars can certainly track friendly rounds and compute accurate points of impact - we call it radar registration. However, it requires coordination between the firing unit and the radar, and the radar must be located in such a way that it can track the round as close to the point of impact as possible. Tracks along the descending branch are required. A radar as small and presumably under powered as the one depicted would have a hard time reaching out and tracking the round as it nears impact. Met has the most effect on the round at apogee and beyond. Tracks before apogee would produce a trajectory, yes, but one that is highly suspect and can be greatly effected if conditions are poor.

Edited August 18, 2016 by SeinfeldRules

[c3k]

I, too, was surprised by the dangly bits hanging out the back end of the turret for the reloading operation. That seems a bit too easily damaged, whether by enemy action, weather, or just mechanical operation. Also, the reload times seemed a bit long. There was one image of it firing in a snowed in scoop, with a fence to the left. It fired 3 times, with about 2-3 seconds between firing...but the snow which fell from the fence with the first muzzle blast was exactly the same as the next two times. Meaning, it was an edit showing the same firing, but spliced to make it look like 3. I wonder why?

A minor point: at another part of the video, our host was walking to the rear of the vehicle along the track cover, next to the turret. The welds looked rough. Certainly sufficient to join the metal, which is what they're used for. Just an observation...

Boxes on the front: They could contain the gun cleaning system, a radar (although, I didn't see an aperture on the front or anything else which made it LOOK like a radar), or some other fiendishly clever device. (It'll probably be discovered that it holds spare gear, since the rear of the turret is taken up by the reloading mechanism.) If it is radar, than, as mentioned above, you don't need to see the target, you just need to see your round's ballistic performance. As the round gets to the top of flight and starts down, the radar will give all sorts of real performance data which can be compared to theoretical performance data. This will help to get second round accuracy spot-on.

Ken

 

[TheForwardObserver]

John- Apologies if I sounded sharp in my response.  The boxes out front on the howitzers are mentioned here;
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_vehicles_system_artillery_uk/2s35_koalitsiya-sv_152mm_tracked_self-propelled_howitzer_technical_data_sheet_specifications_intelligence_pictures_video.html
"A rectangular box is mounted on each side of the main armament, which can be monitors able to provide combat mission information."

There are other sites with the same nondescript description nearly verbatim.  I feel like I came across the line originally in a Sputnik article.

When I said electronic target acquisition housings, I was using generic language to describe literal housings for theoretical electronic target acquisition equipment.  Radar is not the only method of electronically acquiring targets, which is why at that point I chose to avoid using the word radar.  When I brought up my anecdote about my experience racing against a radar I was attempting, although perhaps unsuccessfully, to re-enforce the concept which I'd explored aloud above about the benefits of layered target acquisition.  My point was electronic acquisition can be faster than the guy, in this case me, observing the target 500 meters from the point of origin.  If there are technical reasons why target acquisition equipment of any sort could never be mounted to howitzers, than on that I will gladly defer to the experts, engineers, and operators.

RSA is regional security area.  A regional security area is an area of operations where no single unit has complete responsibility for daily security, and the connotation is that you will be entering the wild west.

AIF is Anti-Iraqi Forces.  

When I said COF I meant Clearance of Fires, rather than Conduct of Fires.

@SeinfeldRules Will be disappointed if you're not a past/present Redleg.

 

[John Kettler]

SeinfeldRules,

When I was at Hughes the VuGraph showed the Firefinder was taking several cuts on the inbound artillery shell as soon as it broke radar mask. In the presentation, we were told these very low angle cuts were sufficiently good, using Los Angeles City Hall as a familiar example to us, that not only was artillery fire coming from City Hall, but which corner of the building! Unsurprisingly, we were agog. We were also told that counterfire could be sent before the inbound shell impacted. This was circa early 1980s, I believe. The small radar was for MV measurements pretty much. The heavy lifting was done by the modified  IHAWK HPIR (High Power Illuminator Radar). As you can see from the photo here, it is a very substantial radar. The short video below shows the radar, together with some range data. Please understand that for an intercept to occur at 40 km range, the system must initiate detection and tracking well before that and must also illuminate the target so the missile can guide on the signal. That is the core radar which was reconfigured as described and could see the outbound projectile practically to impact. It is my contention that something like the Firefinder CB radar or the modified HPIR would be required to provide the range to do what you describe. Not only don't I see such evidence, but I would further observe that radars don't take kindly to walloping shock loads which first strike the turret to which such a system would be presumably attached if those boxes house such a system/s.

c3k,

Good catch on the video editing, and you have reached the same conclusion I did regarding the probable function of the boxes. I was thinking the Koalitsya-SV could do MRSI, but now I'm not so sure. Would've expected the Russians, given their doubtless extensive knowledge of NATO SPHs, especially the not recent PzH 2000, would have this super valuable capability.

TheForwardObserver,

I screwed up in describing what you said. You screwed up by erring in confusing what you'd read with what you wrote. Your handsome apology accepted, but really NBD. Grogs get swept up in technical debates sometimes, and we don't always write under the best of conditions--on either end at times. Thanks for providing the link to what you'd read. I find it rather galling ArmyRecognition provided what you wrote but had absolutely zero data on the Koalitsya-SV's dimensions! Contrariwise, I see my memory was a bit off, in that there are two boxes on either side of the loading area. Strongly suspect one of them is a generator.

On the Russian FC end of things, they already have systems such as the BRM-3K mobile BSR which can quite effectively not just find and report targets but also adjust fires. With Constellatation-2M fitted to it and the SPH, it seems to me you already have a high tech version of you in place, theoretically obviating the need for heavy duty sensors on the SPH's turret. Thanks for clarifying the acronyms. As things stand, I now know three separate terms under COF, the two named in this thread and Correlation Of Forces. Context is all, and I got caught in the definition minefield!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 18, 2016 by John Kettler

[Kinophile]

Tbh,  I find Bfists and the equivalents are highly vulnerable to be being spotted and killed.

I tend to park the vehicle behind a crest, shove the fat ass FO up the hill into a decent OP,  watch, call it in the roll his size XXXL lard butt back down the hill into his cocoon to garner that extra faster TOT. 

[cbennett88]

11 hours ago, John Kettler said:

I would further observe that radars don't take kindly to walloping shock loads which first strike the turret to which such a system would be presumably attached if those boxes house such a system/s.

@John Kettler

That's a good point that I hadn't considered(although the length of that barrel is huge!), so I decided to re-watch some of the video for things I might have missed. 

IF...we stay with the argument that they serve as tool boxes/generators, etc...

WHY did they go to so much trouble to mount them so far from the hull? Go to .51 and 1.12 mark. Notice how they are mounted with so much space from the hull? And...look at the angle of the boxes...WHY have them angled skyward along the line of fire?

Those details aren't substantial enough to prove anything, I admit. But I am still leaning toward "something electronic" related to enhancing the weapon.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:

But I am still leaning toward "something electronic" related to enhancing the weapon.

Or they could be a form of maskirovka of the sort that Russians love to play.

Michael

Edited August 19, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[John Kettler]

Further thoughts on the vexed boxes, presuming they're for maintenance gear  and probably crew kit, too. If you mount them on the inward lower part of the turret front, they jam the all-important hatches. If you mount them on the hull, they're certain to be ripped away by any number of hazards. If you mount them on the turret side, there's still a significant risk of being torn off, and you now need a ladder!  By contrast, if you put the boxes where they are, they're pretty well well protected by the gun barrel and barrel support and travel lock. The artillerymen can simply stand on the hull deck, too, no ladder required. Meanwhile, if GRU FSB (or whatever it's called) is on the ball and electronically monitoring everything said about Russian military affairs worldwide, especially since we have Russian nationals on this Forum discussing Russian military matters, the intelligence analysts there and at the GUSM (Strategic Deception Directorate) must be dying of laughter over this thread.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 19, 2016 by John Kettler

[Wicky]

Muzzle velocity radar (MVRS) hence the cables running to and from the boxes.

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

Don't know whether I was working from a different pic or was so swept up in the video that I misremembered what I saw, but judging from 1:02 and earlier, these do indeed apppear to be electronics, but I'm surprised their cabling isn't armored. We previously discussed discussed the possibilities of MVRS, but as I showed in the referenced US Army test document from 1982, the radar chronograph to do what you suggest is little bigger than a shoebox. Therefore, even allowing for Russian miniaturization ruggedized engineering, I just can't see it. Consequently, some long range projectile tracking radar seems more likely. But are we looking at something akin to the I-HAWK HPIR, where one antenna transmits and the other receives? Seems crude in light of phased array radar and such. Perhaps projectile tracking radar using split phased arrays to get the necessary antenna size? Firefinder, after all, which has the same reach as a projectile tracking radar has a fairly big antenna array.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

No extra charge for duplicated verb!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

Could be that the system is a prototype undergoing testing and not fully integrated.  Stereo system and size of units could be for short range/ intermediate three dimensional tracking position measurements.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 8/18/2016 at 2:52 PM, kinophile said:

Tbh,  I find Bfists and the equivalents are highly vulnerable to be being spotted and killed.

I tend to park the vehicle behind a crest, shove the fat ass FO up the hill into a decent OP,  watch, call it in the roll his size XXXL lard butt back down the hill into his cocoon to garner that extra faster TOT. 

This is an interesting tactic and I may put it on my list of things to test.  An arty/mortar unit has five possible status displays in the UI which are: Receiving, Preparing, Spotting, Adjusting and Firing.  In what status do you run your FO back the vehicle?  Adjusting and Firing of course would not apply so do they run for the vehicle during Receiving, Preparing or Spotting?  Also if the FO does not have eyes on the target for the spotting isn't the accuracy affected?  

Thanks for posting this.  I'm just trying to understand how to make it work since I might put it in a TACSOP.              

[Kinophile]

Receiving/preparing. 

If it's safe I pop them back out for the spotting,  usually a different position. I'm more of a carpet bomber than a guided missile type guy, so when I fire,  I fire for area effect over time so if it's not safe,  or I simply forget,  then an area effect is usually good enough. 

To clarify,  I use ordinary rounds on a point arget. Sometimes I'll use an area/line effect if I want to deny an area or access route. I play RUS/UKR and from experience I have very little faith in their so-called 'precision' rounds.... 

[ikalugin]

The boxes house radar, which measures external ballistics of the rounds fired to improve accuracy, as well as to transmit data to guided rounds in flight.