Prospects for the development of artillery
Almost all classes of military equipment used in the current armed forces were born in the twentieth century. Only artillery appeared in the middle Ages. Now it is even difficult to determine exactly when and where it happened. At the same time, the importance of artillery does not decrease, only the concepts of its use change.
Reaching the limit
Towed artillery reached the limit of development in the 50s of the twentieth century, so since then, new models of it practically do not appear. The exception is the American 155-mm howitzer M777 (it enters service with the ground forces of the United States, Australia, Canada, and India). Due to its light weight, this howitzer can be carried on an external suspension by most transport and multi-purpose helicopters. But most likely it will remain the only one of its kind. In Asia, there is a tendency to give mobility to old towed guns in a simpler way-by installing them in the bodies of trucks and even jeeps. Given the General increase in the popularity of armored vehicles and just combat vehicles ("Infantry does not walk", "HVO", 23.10.20), this may become another military mainstream (especially since such "automobile self-propelled guns" will be air transportable).
While, of course, traditional self-propelled guns dominate. In the class of barrel artillery, only they are now developing, and here, too, wheeled self-propelled guns on automobile chassis have appeared. Only they are not improvised, but are initially created as wheeled vehicles. At the moment, the most famous French wheeled self-propelled gun "Caesar", it seeks to compete with the Swedish" Archer " and the Chinese SH-1. Naturally, wheeled self-propelled guns are suitable for countries with a well-developed road network.
As for the classic tracked self-propelled guns, the United States has been improving the M109 For 60 years (!), and in Russia for more than 30 years (that is, since the Soviet era), 2c19 "Msta-S" ("the God of war is still in favor", "HBO", 18.01.19), is also constantly being improved. At the same time, the most powerful 203-mm 2S7 is being" reanimated", the first 2s35"Coalition" self-propelled guns were received by the troops of the ZVO and CVO.
The only more or less modern European tracked self-propelled gun is the German PzH-2000, while the Scandinavians and poles acquire the South Korean K-9 self-propelled gun (30 years ago, a person who assumed that Finland and Norway would buy South Korean self-propelled guns would be considered crazy). Several new types of self-propelled guns are created in China, and this country is gradually moving from the Soviet 152 mm caliber to the Western 155 mm.
The United States recognizes its lag in artillery from Russia and China and will strive to make up for this lag, as the American army urgently refocuses from wars against a deliberately weaker enemy to wars with an equal enemy. In this regard, the us is currently discussing an amazing project to create a slrc (Strategic long range cannon) with a range of up to 2 thousand km! Moreover, this gun must be created in both land and ship versions.
When creating new self-propelled guns, designers strive to increase the ammunition carried, the range and accuracy of fire and the rate of fire. These are the main and quite natural ways to improve these systems, and it is hardly possible to create any new concepts here.
To improve the accuracy of shooting, self-propelled guns should be interfaced with means of reconnaissance (first of all, of course, air). In addition, regular attempts are being made to create guided missiles (the most famous example is the domestic Krasnopol). However, this is much more difficult to do than in the case of aviation ammunition, since for an artillery shell there are significantly more restrictions on weight and dimensions and much higher overload. In addition, there is a danger that the projectiles may become too expensive, comparable in price to the price of the targets being hit, which is completely unacceptable for economic reasons (for example, the American guided projectile "Excalibur" costs 250 thousand dollars, and the even more advanced LRLAR – 1 million dollars, which is why the US Navy refused it).
To increase the firing range, in addition to improving propellant charges, so-called active-reactive projectiles are created. But here there are all the same problems of mass, size, overload and price. In addition, the longer the firing range, the greater the scattering of projectiles. Accordingly, it is most expedient to make active-reactive projectiles manageable, but in this case all the problems described are even more aggravated.
Does not spoil the furrow, plowing deep
For artillery, the problem of aging and reaching the limit of development is much less acute than for armored vehicles, especially for tanks and IFVs. Outdated tanks and IFVs from some point become dangerous only for their crews, and in the current era, such a moment comes quite quickly. A projectile from an outdated gun will hit the enemy in the same way as from the newest one. The use of tanks created in the 1940s is now possible only in Tropical Africa, and even there it is already rare. The use of 70-year-old guns is the norm even for the most advanced armies. The war in the Donbas is very significant in this regard. The Ukrainian army, which is in a state of complete collapse, was able to fight for several months in 2014 and even achieve some success, primarily due to the massive use of artillery (self-propelled, towed, jet). Of course, there was no question of any guided ammunition: all the artillery used was Soviet-made. The lack of accuracy was compensated by massing fire, especially since the Ukrainian command did not care at all about the problem of losses among the civilian population of its own country. If you remove this limiter, artillery remains the "God of war". The Ukrainian army also suffered the greatest losses from artillery. That is, the Donbass war completely revived the "divinity" of this class of equipment, almost at the level of both world wars.
And then it was confirmed by the second war in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the success of the Azerbaijani army is due to the widespread use of combat UAVs and long-range artillery. It is very symptomatic that the main target for Azerbaijani attack drones (Turkish and Israeli production) was also artillery – they destroyed up to 90 different artillery systems of the NKR army. The suppression of the Armenian artillery, combined with the use of its own, greatly contributed to the success of the Azerbaijani offensive.
Perspective jet
In this regard, it is becoming increasingly clear (this was also confirmed in the Donbass and Karabakh) that rocket artillery wins over barrel artillery in most parameters. In some ways, it even wins over aviation. MLRS shells are much cheaper than aviation ammunition, and there is no risk of losing the aircraft when they are used. Insufficient accuracy of the MLRS is compensated by a large number of shells in the salvo. Moreover, no conventional weapon system has such a high destructive power as MLRS.
At the same time, it is much easier to make a rocket projectile controllable than a barrel artillery projectile, since the size, weight, and overload restrictions for a rocket projectile are much less. It is much easier to provide air reconnaissance vehicles with MLRS than with barrel artillery, since it is possible to launch a drone from the MLRS itself. Finally, for MLRS, it is very convenient to apply the modular construction principle, installing different packages of projectiles of different calibers or even tactical missiles on the PU. The range of shells used by MLRS is also extremely diverse: for example, they can set minefields. In General, the limit of the development of MLRS, unlike barrel artillery, will not be reached for a very long time.
The undisputed leader in the development of MLRS is China, which successfully overcomes the main drawback of this class of weapons – insufficient range. Chinese MLRS of the WS family shoot at 200-400 km. Moreover, this family went beyond the borders of China, its representative was the Belarusian MLRS "Polonaise", which was also successfully used by the Azerbaijani army in Karabakh.
It is in China that MLRS are being created with replaceable packages of projectiles of different calibers and with the possibility of using them as PU for tactical missiles. However, as a PU for tactical missiles, the only existing Western MLRS can also be used – the American M270 MLRS (and its wheeled lightweight version of the M142 HIMARS). But in General, the Chinese are confidently winning over everyone in the development of this extremely promising weapon. The PLA ground forces are better equipped than any other army in the world with MLRS.
The USSR gave China a kind of "baton" in the development of MLRS on the island of Damansky ("Damansky: half a century later", "HVO", 15.03.19), where Chinese troops were defeated primarily due to the use of Soviet MLRS BM-21 "Grad". Russia surpasses the West in the development of this class of artillery weapons, but it is already significantly behind China (which is why the Belarusians chose the Chinese MLRS for themselves, and not the Russian Tornado).
A mass lesion with no side effects
At the same time, Russia has such a unique weapon as the flamethrower MLRS TOS-1, which has already been successfully used in combat by the Russian army itself, as well as the armies of Syria, Iraq and again Azerbaijan. In terms of its striking capabilities, this system is actually equal to the WMD. The combat stability of the vehicle is increased due to the fact that it is installed on the tank chassis. This is determined by the concept of its use as a means of breaking through the enemy's fortified defenses.
The range of fire even in the latest modification of the TOS-1A is only 6 km, this is the main drawback of this system. It is still unclear whether this concept will be developed in the direction of a radical increase in the range of fire, that is, a fundamental expansion of the scope of application. In this case, a full-fledged substitute for tactical nuclear weapons would have been obtained, without all its harmful side effects. It would be extremely disappointing not to implement such an opportunity.
Alexander Khramchikhin
Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin-Deputy Director of the Institute of political and military analysis.
