I am a bit skeptical about there being such a large difference between 57mm and 76mm effective range.  The usual numbers cited for the two suggest a difference of about 10% when comparing basic HE projectiles. (i.e., 76mm HE surface range about 18 km, 57mm HE surface range about 16 km, with similar ratios for air targets).  The comparison gets a bit muddied because of the sabot rounds on offer for the 76mm gun.  But MAD-FIRES is rocket-assisted, which should mean more range and a much faster/flatter trajectory than ballistic 57mm rounds and probably at least comparable to the saboted 76mm DART rounds.  The PR video that is out there seems to show MAD-FIRES as a hit-to-kill weapon, suggesting that "stopping power" isn't a huge differentiator-- no ASCM is likely to survive a direct impact from a 57mm round intact.

The use case for 127mm-155mm HVP is different, from these others.  It's seen as a potential ASBM/TBM killer, as well as an area defense against high-speed cruise missiles.  It actually plays in the same regime as much larger weapons like SM-6 or Patriot PAC-3. 

HVP may also retain an anti-surface capability, but the HE load is disappointingly small for that role.  OTOH, a smart fuze could make it interesting -- a round that detonates deep inside a ship after penetrating from above could be very nasty.)

gatnerd said:

Also makes me wonder about the potential for a 57mm armed Tank/IFV that could provide both ground attack and air defense capability...

Absolutely amazing no one has thought of that before. 

And let's not mention 57 mm auto grenade launchers with a dual feed APFSDS and airburst/Impact fragmentation/HESH rounds.

Red7272 said:

Absolutely amazing no one has thought of that before. 

Those are both really cool. What are the models of those respective machines?

T15 heavy IFV and Derivatsia SPAAG based on BMP3 hull.

The T15 57mm is really an awesome vehicle.

-Most of the protection of a Tank

-Can carry infantry like an IFV

-57mm cannon allows 'overmatch' against IFV armor, while HE shells allow superior anti personnel / anti structure effects compared to traditional 25-30mm cannons. Airburst ammo + high gun elevation allows IFV to protect troops from UAV's and helicopters. 

-Missile tubes for firing Anti Tank and (presumably) and option for MANPAD size AA missiles, for protecting the IFV from Tanks and/or aircraft 

-Assumed? some spare parts commonality with the T14 MBT for simplified logistics 

I haven't been able to confirm if the T15 has the same Radar system as the T14, but if it does, major wow, as that would allow it to track both incoming projectiles and aircraft. 

All in all it seems like one of the most versatile armored vehicles ever produced.

Radar on the side of the 57mm is not for detecting or searching of aircraft but for Ballistics measurements,similar radar can be seen on some of the 152mm cannon Coalitsia variants , its used to tracking and ranging the shot and correcting the fire solution.

The Armata program is currently suffering delays some due to cost but also due to huge issues developing the Engine for the platform. Since 1930's the evolved the V-2 engine powers most Soviet/Russian tanks, so i wouldn't be surprised if at some point someone decides to uprate the V-2 yet again to 1800HP , they want for Armata or easier jet fit a 2000hp gas turbine 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Radar on the side of the 57mm is not for detecting or searching of aircraft but for Ballistics measurements,similar radar can be seen on some of the 152mm cannon Coalitsia variants , its used to tracking and ranging the shot and correcting the fire solution.

I had thought that the Radar was used for the Active Protection System (APS)? That would make more sense, as thats the only type of system that could detect a rapidly incoming rocket / missile / shell. Presumably it could also detect nearby flying objects like helicopters or drones.

For firing solutions, I'd imagine they are using a laser range finder + ballistic calculator, as used by most other Fire Control Units.

Muzzle velocity radars are becoming quite common in the artillery world and also on ship guns.

Radar is pointed along the barrel .

You can get the next level of accuracy if you can correct fire in real time ,Radar is following the shell, measuring actual muzzle velocity and correcting the fire.

Koalitsia-SV also had MV radar with two big radar dishes till they 'streamlined the design ither for a lower cost or  a lower power unit is mounted somewhere else than original units

The longer the radar measuring range more accurate the corrections are but i reckon the went for smaller radars also because of the emissions these generate , you don't want the opponents detecting radars on every SPG

Tech is now cheap enough for us to use for MV measuring with rifles

''The ability to accurately measure and analyze muzzle velocity in real-time is critical when firing artillery. In fact, muzzle velocity data is as important as meteorological data and projectile characteristics to ensure the best possible firing accuracy, accounting for up to 40 percent of the error budget in artillery shooting.

Several factors can affect a round’s muzzle velocity, including weapon conditions, tube tolerance, ammunition lot variance, propellant conditions, crew performance, recoil system conditions and deployment. It is critical to compensate for these factors to achieve the desired accuracy by adjusting gun settings based on the actual muzzle velocity.

Artillery firing accuracy is described in terms of precision and bias. The objective is for multiple artillery rounds to strike a target with a small mean point of impact (MPI) and high precision.''

One part of the FCS program was a series of multifunction aesa panels which is looking increasingly more prescient as time goes by and we see what the military wants long term.

taschoene said...

In the same tests, they also fired HVP from a Navy 127mm deck gun and something that looks like a 155mm Advanced Gun System test rig.  

It's been intriguing to watch the pivot; when HVP was announced a few years ago, it was sold as an extended range anti-surface round, but this test shows the transition to air and missile defense has been fairly complete.

There was a press release about the test that came out yesterday.  The test was fairly extensive.  Let me quote:

"The main live-fire scenario took place at White Sands, where bombers launched six BQM-167 targeting drones to simulate a cruise missile threat. Multiple systems targeted the BQM-167s, including the HVP round from the Paladin and a U.S. Navy deck gun, along with an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile fired from an F-16, an MQ-9, and a ground launcher. The outcome of the other launches is not public, Roper [Will Roper, the Air Force’s assistant secretary for acquisition] said, but the HVP’s success is and was a success story for a relatively unknown capability started at the Strategic Capabilities Office in 2013."

I was updating my datapage on the 5"/62 yesterday to incorporate the HVP program pivot from anti-ship to air defense.  It's rare to see a recent DoD procurement program where the cost per shot has radically reduced rather than radically increased.  Basically, this is because the program has gone from perhaps a dozen railguns needing ammunition to having over a thousand 5" and 155 mm guns that need ammunition, thus amortizing development costs over a much larger volume.  If HVP lives up to its promise, I think that the railgun program will be mothballed in a couple of years, especially as funding has been greatly reduced in the past couple of years.