The front needs SAO "Lotos", ZAK "Derivatsiya-PVO" and TOS-3 "Dragon"

17

In the foreseeable future, Rostec plans to send three new armored vehicles to the front at once, two of which are long-term construction, and the third is a new product, a response to the modern challenges of the North Military District. To what extent can they really be in demand on the front line?

"Lotus"


The first “new product” is the SAO 2S42 “Lotos” self-propelled artillery gun, developed specifically for the needs of the Airborne Forces, as well as the Marine Corps of the Russian Navy. Some foreign publications wrote that with the help of this SAO, the legal successor of the legendary “Nona,” the Russian Ministry of Defense allegedly intends to break through the defenses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.



In fact, the Lotus cannot be considered a front-line weapon due to its extremely weak bulletproof armor, which does not protect against large shell fragments, much less from a direct hit from an ATGM or an FPV drone strike. Then why is this self-propelled artillery system even needed in the NWO zone?

The self-propelled gun is built on the BMD-4M chassis and retains the ability to sail and airdrop. Diesel engine 2B-06-2 with a power of 450 hp. With. provides speeds of up to 70 kilometers per hour on roads and up to 40 on rough terrain. The high mobility of a combat vehicle significantly increases its chances of surviving a counter-battery fight. And its main advantage is its unique weapon, capable of serving as a cannon, howitzer and mortar at the same time.


Yes, like the Nona-S, the Lotos can fire artillery shells, conventional and active-reactive, as well as 120 mm mortar shells, that is, perform a wide range of combat missions. At the same time, the barrel length has increased compared to its predecessor, which also increased the firing range. It is also important in the Northern Military District zone that the Russian Northern Military District can use captured NATO-style ammunition used by Ukrainian militants.

An important advantage of the Lotus is the maximum automation of the turret fighting compartment, which gives some grounds for making rather bold predictions. Thus, Rostec has already begun experimenting with the creation of optionally unmanned versions of the BMP-3 and the Sprut self-propelled anti-tank gun. It is possible that Lotus could eventually turn into a remote-controlled ground drone. Time will show.

"Derivation-Air Defense"


The second “new product” that Rostec promises to send to the front in the very near future is the Derivation-PVO ZAK. The industrial director of the state corporation, Bekhan Ozdoev, told the media about this:

Last year we completed the development of several new systems. Among them <...> the 57-mm anti-aircraft artillery complex “Derivation-PVO”.

“Derivation” was developed to replace the “Shilka” and “Tunguska” anti-aircraft systems in the tactical air defense units of the Russian ground forces. Its main purpose is to combat cruise missiles and MLRS shells, airplanes and helicopters, as well as enemy drones and even ground lightly armored targets using a 57 mm caliber projectile.


The ZAK is built on the BMP-3 chassis, the engagement range of its gun is 6 km, the engagement height is up to 4,5 km, and the rate of fire is 120 rounds per minute. Given its high mobility and ability to overcome water obstacles, this is what the doctor ordered for covering Russian troops on the front line from enemy kamikaze drones and landing artillery spotter drones. This combat vehicle can really make a significant contribution to achieving victory while reducing losses on our part.

TOS-3 "Dragon"


Finally, the third new product that we are waiting for at the front is a heavy flamethrower system called “Dragon”. In February 2024, it became known that the trademark TOS-3 “Dragon” was registered by the Omsk Transport Engineering Plant.

Mr. Ozdoev told the media that Rostec is working on creating an improved version of Tosochka:

We are currently working on creating a new heavy flamethrower system TOS-3. The promising tracked vehicle will be equipped with a new launcher. This will increase the firing range and use new ammunition.

The heavy flamethrower systems that Russian troops have are among the most feared conventional weapons. The thermobaric and smoke-incendiary rockets they fire with the help of high temperature, fragments and excess pressure are capable of destroying enemy personnel both in open areas and in fortifications.


It would seem that these “Pinocchio”, “Solntsepek” and “Tosochka” could easily burn out all the enemy fortified areas in the Donbass. But it's not that simple.

The problem lies in the missiles' flight range, which is 4,5 km, 6 km and 10-15 km, respectively. This means that these TOCs, with all their terrifying power, are a legitimate target for counter-battery warfare by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. If Rostec specialists in TOS-3 can significantly increase the range of the “Dragon”, then it will become a truly terrible weapon on the front line, burning through any enemy fortifications.
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    April 9 2024 12: 16
    1. Good system.
    2. Shit that no one needs, even if it floats and doesn’t sink.
    3. Great systems, give me two.
    1. -2
      April 9 2024 19: 05
      And what is so good about “Lotus”?
      1. +3
        April 9 2024 20: 34
        Quote: UAZ 452
        And what is so good about “Lotus”?

        Omnivorous for its caliber and versatility. You can't imagine anything better as a mobile mortar battery.
        1. -1
          April 9 2024 22: 05
          These are the characteristics of the gun, but not the chassis. And taking into account the bulletproof “reservation”, restrictions on all performance characteristics related to the requirements of airborne capability (which, as everyone already understands, will not be in demand in the foreseeable future), it would be much more effective (and, importantly, significantly cheaper) to place the gun on any other chassis , with the only requirement - representatives of the landing lobby should not have been allowed anywhere near the approval of its performance characteristics.
          1. 0
            April 9 2024 22: 23
            Don't write nonsense. The gun determines the capabilities of the artillery, and the chassis is responsible for mobility, and one self-propelled gun does not have a chassis with armor higher than anti-fragmentation. And as for the airborne lobby, tell the Americans your FUCK when they put hard pressure on the mass of the 777 to allow rapid transfer by helicopters)))
            Any other kind? Do you have something better? I know something.
            1. -1
              April 10 2024 06: 57
              If you do not distinguish between air mobility and airborne parachute landing, then further discussion becomes pointless.
              1. -1
                April 10 2024 18: 22
                Yes, the whole conversation with you is meaningless, because you yourself don’t know what you want. And the words “airmobility and airborne capability” were simply inserted to raise their emergency response. Yes, they just played the clown, because again they inserted it out of place. And to the question: what kind of chassis do you personally see in place of the BMP-3, you couldn’t answer))). How to justify why the BMP-3 is bad. Did a paratrooper kick you on August 2?))
                1. -2
                  April 10 2024 19: 03
                  It turns out that your Lotus is on a BMP-3 chassis?! Did you even read anything on the substance of the question before you decided to make everyone happy with your comments? Yeah... You clearly have deep knowledge about emergency situations and clowns. First-hand.
                  1. -2
                    April 10 2024 19: 50
                    Quote: UAZ 452
                    Did you even read anything on the substance of the question before you decided to make everyone happy with your comments?

                    As I understand it, you just wanted to fart at the expense of the chassis and the Airborne Forces))) BPM-3/BMD-4 do not have significant differences in mobility and armor))

                    Quote: UAZ 452
                    Yeah... You clearly have deep knowledge about emergency situations and clowns. First-hand.

                    But Mr. ChSV was unable to demonstrate his knowledge and preferred to continue to clown))) Yes, you demonstrated first-hand))) They crap at the self-propelled gun base but never said why it was bad, they ran into the Airborne Forces again without evidence. And when asked to give reasons, all you hear is the sound of draining water))).
                    The drain is protected, as they say, you are a useless interlocutor))
                    1. 0
                      April 11 2024 16: 06
                      BMP-3: The frontal projection of the BMP-3 can withstand fire from a 30mm 2A42 automatic cannon. Other armor parts protect people and equipment from armor-piercing bullets of 12,7 mm caliber. Protection is provided against fragments of artillery shells and some explosive devices.
                      https://topwar.ru/143635-zaschita-otechestvennyh-bmp-serezney-tolsche-moschnee.html

                      The BMD-4M only found that the armor is bulletproof; on the Rosoboronexport website, the issue of security was generally diplomatically ignored.
                      But compare the security of combat vehicles of the same generation, one of which weighs 13 tons. and the other - 18... And what is also important, in 2019 prices, the BMP-3 cost 86 million, and the BMD-4M - 103 million. Plus 15% to the cost for less protection for the crew and the possibility of airborne landing, which has never been in demand!
                      What do you mean by mobility - I’m not interested at all. Any self-propelled vehicle is mobile by definition, and if you offer a comparison based on this indicator, then at least in what units of this very “mobility”?
                      And if we are talking about what kind of chassis I would suggest, then it would be an automobile one, without any armor, or with bulletproof cabin armor. With the ability to disguise the gun as a regular truck with an awning. Self-propelled artillery protection is the ability to quickly change position after a fire attack, and not armor at all.
                      And this is my last answer to you, if your teenage vanity (your age can be anything, your psychotype does not always correspond to it) wants to consider this a waste, then for God’s sake. Whatever the child amuses himself with...
                      1. -1
                        April 11 2024 16: 37
                        I knew that I would again see another nonsense from the sectarian Arttachanka....
                        Those. You offer connection to roads and limited mobility in the autumn-winter-spring period, i.e. from six months to 3/4... depending on the climate zone.
                        Those. you propose to protect only the cockpit, the least valuable component, so to speak.
                        Truck with a canopy? Are you kidding or teenage sexual fantasies based on excessive abstinence?
                        Is the ability to quickly change the only protection? you haven't been released for the last 2 years? Or are you not aware that a significant part of the artillery is not destroyed in positions at all?
                        Indeed, no matter what a child amuses himself with, they would read books...
                        And about the armor... are you bipolar or something? Either claims for bulletproof and fragmentation protection, or let's have a canvas truck without armor? How is that?
                        I also laughed about the price)) what to take from a person who doesn’t understand what the difference could be)) just as he doesn’t understand that different branches of the military have their own needs. As for the lack of demand, let it remain unclaimed, because when you need it, you most likely won’t care anymore. And it’s better to have it and not use it than to end up with your bare ass in front of a hedgehog. yes, folk wisdom.))
      2. 0
        April 10 2024 15: 22
        They simply forgot to write that the Lotos self-propelled gun is armed with an active-reactive guided projectile with a range of 25 km... And so, yes - nothing special.
  2. +3
    April 9 2024 14: 25
    When will all this chaos reigning in the minds of our military, responsible for supplying the army, end? When will there finally be a responsible person who will determine the nomenclature and performance characteristics of what is necessary and will take responsibility for issuing technical specifications to our military-industrial complex for the development of samples of weapons that the army really needs.
  3. +4
    April 9 2024 20: 14
    Why is it wrong to pack a Draconian warhead into a Smerchevsky shell?

    Minimum firing range
    20 000 m
    Maximum shooting range
    up to 70 km for main projectiles
    up to 120 km for the 9M542 projectile

    (from Wikipedia)
    1. +4
      April 9 2024 21: 00
      Just like building the Lotus on the basis of the BMP-3.
  4. 0
    April 9 2024 21: 40
    We now really need large armored vehicles based on old infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, armored personnel carriers, etc. create anti-drone self-propelled guns, and for this we need to modernize the Burevestnik module with a 30 mm cannon and 7,62 PKTM, adding modern fire detection and control systems, radar and electronic warfare systems, and only then will we achieve victory...
    1. 0
      April 21 2024 18: 29
      Anti-drone units will have to operate close to the front line; BMP-1,2 bases are poorly suited for this, not to mention completely cardboard wheeled reconnaissance armored vehicles