Military Review

Crusade upgrades: the West intends to extend the life of their military equipment

40



At Eurosatory 2016, KMW unveiled the Leopard 2 tank, upgraded to the Leopard 2A7 + standard, which is expected to become the base of the German Army’s Leopard 2A7V version

In parallel with new projects, the NATO armies and other European countries will modernize most of the existing fleets of armored combat vehicles, from light 4x4 armored vehicles to main combat vehicles tanks, in order to increase combat capabilities and extend the life of the unit.

Olifant tanks of the South African army have dubious dignity, being the oldest armored vehicles in the world, still in service. Olifant, which is a modernization of the British Centurion tanks, developed in 1943 – 1945 years, was made from 1945 to 1962 years. Since the British Army at the end of the 60-s has withdrawn its Centurion tanks, three generations of British main battle tanks (MBT) have passed. When developing the Centurion, its designers would be very surprised that their brainchild would be in service with the British 25 for years and another four decades with foreign operators. But manufacturers of modern combat armored vehicles (BBM) immediately lay down the life of their products 40 and more years.


South African tank Olifant

The US Army plans to leave the M1 Abrams OBT, first deployed to the troops in 1980, in service until 2050, while in May 2015, the German Ministry of Defense announced that Leopard 2, adopted by the German army in 1979, will remain in operating until about 2030 year. In order to maintain the combat effectiveness of the BBM throughout the life of the 40 years, constant technological implementations are necessary.

Strong warrior

The British Army considers the modernization of the tracked BMP Warrior manufactured by BAE Systems as one of its most important projects in the field of military equipment. The first BMP Warrior, designed to perform specific tasks of the army, entered service in the middle of the 1987 year, and the last 789-I machine was delivered in the 1992 year. Most machines (489) are made in the configuration of the FV510 Infantry Section Vehicle. The car housed seven paratroopers and three crew members; it is armed with an unstabilized 30-mm L21 Rarden X-gun mounted in a two-seat turret.

Also in service with the British army are the following options: command FV511 Infantry Command Vehicle (84 manufactured), repair FV512 Mechanized Combat Repair Vehicle (105), repair and evacuation FV513 Mechanized Recovery Vehicle (Repair) (39), artillery observers FVXNMHM (514) and mobile artillery command post FV52 Battery Command Vehicle (515).



BMP Warrior FV510 Infantry Section Vehicle

The British Warrior vehicles were severely tested in the Gulf War in 1990-1991, the former Yugoslavia, during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were the heaviest armed British vehicles.

The Warrior armored vehicles deployed in these operations received specific improvements needed for these military theaters. For example, the company upgraded Warrior 80 machines to the standard Theater Entry Standard (Herrick) for service in Afghanistan, which included the order of 30 new elements.

Among them: a modular reservation system that can be adapted to changing threats and which allows you to reduce the weight of the car; improved seat design with shock absorption system to further increase the level of mine protection and comfort; improved driver vision system with three periscopes instead of one, providing a wider field of vision and night vision capabilities; increased passability in lower gear and improved ability to overcome the climbs; carbon fiber brakes significantly reduced braking distance; air conditioning more power; and cut-offs to protect the driver, commander and equipment on the machine from various interferences.

Militants in Afghanistan quickly realized that the Warrior should stop to fire from the Rarden cannon, and therefore the replacement of the armament complex became the basis for a comprehensive modernization of the average service life. After a difficult competition, the British Ministry of Defense chose Lockheed Martin UK (LMUK), rather than the original manufacturer BAE Systems, to implement the WCSP program (Warrior Capability Sustainment Program), the goal of which is to keep the Warrior combat effectiveness up to 2040. In October, 2011, LMUK received a contract for a WCSP demonstration stage worth 300 million dollars with an option to manufacture 380 WCSP machines, including an 245 BMP.

The WCSP program includes the Warrior Fightability & Lethality Improvement Program (BMP), Warrior Enhanced Electronic Architecture (BMP), Warrior Modular Protection System, and other enhancements. The destructive effect of the Warrior weapons complex is significantly increased by replacing the Rarden cannon with a 40-mm weapon system with telescopic ammunition CTAS (Cased Telescope Armament System) developed by CTAI, a joint venture formed by BAE Systems and Nexter Systems.

According to CTAI, the CTAS cannon occupies "the volume of a conventional 25-mm gun inside the turret, but it also has the power of an 45-50-mm system." In July, 2016, the UK placed an order worth 150 million pounds at CTAI on 515 CTAS cannons for the WCSP program and the new Ajax reconnaissance vehicle manufactured by General Dynamics UK.

LMUK abandoned its original plan to upgrade the existing Warrior tower, which was not considered big enough, in favor of manufacturing new models at its plant in Emphill, which was officially opened on June 9 of the year 2016. The new towers will be delivered to the Babcock International plant in Donnington, where they will be installed on the upgraded chassis.

For the demonstration stage, LMUK will supply 12 WCSP prototypes, including seven compartment vehicles, two commander vehicles equipped with new towers, and one evacuation, repair and artillery observer each. They must complete an extensive test program scheduled for the first quarter of 2018. The upgraded Warrior machines are scheduled to go into service at the start of 2020.

Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems offer Kuwait to upgrade its 254 machines in the Desert Warrior version, which are equipped with a two-seat tower manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems, equipped with a Bushmaster 25-mm cannon.

Crusade upgrades: the West intends to extend the life of their military equipment

BAE Systems Haglunds company supplies the Norwegian 103 army with upgraded 41 new machine CV9030N

Machine options

Under a separate contract, part of the Warrior excess fleet is scheduled for conversion to support vehicles of the ABSV armored groups (armored battlegroup support vehicle). The goal is to replace the 45-year-old versions of the FV430 series of armored personnel carriers and the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) family of reconnaissance vehicles used by British motorized infantry brigades.

The army wants four options for ABSV: the 81-mm mortar conveyor; Armored personnel carrier; sanitary / medical machine; and control point. At Eurosatory 2014, BAE Systems showed the Warrior BMP converted into an ABSV mortar conveyor, armed with the same 81-mm L16 mortar on a turntable, which is located in the existing FV432 mortar complex, as well as a remote-controlled combat module (EnFactor) from an Enforcer from a Leonard at that time Selex ES).

The Leonardo opto-electronic camera module provides an all-round view. The ABSV prototype was equipped with a passive booking kit that includes lattice screens to protect against anti-tank grenades.

In accordance with the SDSR 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review, the core structure of the 2020 army was to be made up of three armored brigades with two armored battalions with Warrior machines. However, the number of brigades in accordance with the SDSR 2015 was reduced from three to two, and the Ministry of Defense should also explain how this reduction will affect the number of WCSP and ABSV.

SDSR 2015 also created uncertainty about how much the Challenger 2 MBT MBT will be upgraded from the total number of 227 tanks. One regiment of Type 58 with 58 tanks is assigned to each brigade, so due to the exclusion of one brigade, the need for three operating Challenger 2 regiments remains in question.




British tank Challenger 2

Negotiations on modernization

Tank Challenger 2 production BAE Systems entered service with Britain in the 1993 year. The supply of 386 tanks was completed in 2002, and 38 machines were also sold to Oman. The Challenger 2 is the only MBT in NATO, armed with an 120-mm L30 high-pressure rifled gun, forcing the UK to develop its own tank ammunition.

As in the case of other British vehicles, the tank was upgraded for specific operations. To invade Iraq in 2003, BAE Systems supplied the 137 kits for the Challenger 2 tanks. Also on these tanks, which took part in the subsequent stabilization operation, further improvements were made, including the installation of the DBMS Enforcer.

Five companies / groups responded to an invitation to negotiate a Challenger 2 CR2 LEP (Challenger 2 Life Extension Program) tank life extension program, which aims to extend the life span from 2025 to 2035.

According to previous modernization plans, the 2005-mm Rheinmetall L / 2006 X-gun, a bore gun, was installed on the Challenger 2 for testing in 120-55 years, which would allow the use of ammunition from various suppliers. However, this program was later closed due to lack of funding.

In the CR2 LEP program, emphasis will be placed mainly on replacing outdated systems. The request indicated that the number of tanks being upgraded will depend on the final review of SDSR 2015, but added that "an additional option may be obtained for the supply and / or integration of the selected solution in the fleet of 38 MBT operated abroad" - a clear reference to the Omani tanks Challenger.

Warrior and Challenger 2, as well as Ajax and the planned Mechanized Infantry Vehicle wheeled armored infantry vehicle, are likely to be equipped with an active protection complex (KAZ). In July, 2016, the British Laboratory for Defense Science and Technology (DSTL) announced that it had contracted 7,6 million pounds with Qinetiq for the Medusa assessment program.

Qinetiq will work with several subcontractors, including Airbus Defense and Space, which has been awarded a supply contract for the evaluation of several systems based on the MUSS (Multifunctional Self-protection System) multispectral self-defense system, mass-produced for the new Puma German BMP.

According to the DSTL, “a technical assessment will show how well the system protects against different weapon systems; Also, the installation of the MUSS complex at the OBT Challenger 2 will demonstrate its potential capabilities. ”

In April, the British Marine Corps 2016 received the latest Viking 99 armored all-terrain vehicles restored by BAE Systems Haglunds under a contract worth 37 million pounds, issued in September of the 2012 year. The first 108 machines were produced in the 2005 year; about a third of the park was deployed in Afghanistan, where they were intensively exploited until the withdrawal of the British contingent.


Viking armored all-terrain vehicle manufactured by BAE Systems Haglunds

The 99 machines have been upgraded to the Mk 2 common mine-protected configuration, which also received improved brakes and suspension. A secure turret was installed on the front module of this machine, on which you can install either a large-caliber 12,7-mm machine gun M2 or a universal 7,62-mm machine gun.

The rear module has been modified so that you can shoot from the 81-mm mortar. According to the Ministry of Defense, the modernization program "allows extending the service life of vehicles to 2024 of the year with the possibility of further extending this period to 2034 of the year."



A prototype for demonstrating Rheinmetall's technology is based on the Leopard 2 MBT, but many of the new elements can be integrated into other MBT.

Leopard Competition

Armed with 18 armies, the Leopard 2 is the most popular MBT armed with an 120-mm cannon.

The Leopard 2 fleet of the German army, which reached the 2300 units, was reduced to 225 vehicles, although in April 2015, the government announced an increase in the fleet to the 328 tanks Leopard 2. The tank has become the object of numerous upgrades for both Germany and foreign customers. The German Army fleet is currently a mix of 2A6 2A6M, 20X and 2 tank models supplied by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) since December 7.

The German army is currently planning to upgrade 100A2 4 tanks and bring them to the new standard Leopard 2A7V (verbessert - advanced). At Eurosatory 2016, KMW presented a version of the Leopard 2A7 + tank, which could become the prototype for the 2A7V standard.

The new standard, in particular, includes a new passive armor in the front of the case, improved optics for the commander and gunner, as well as an Airbus Spectus night vision system for the driver. On the sides can be installed additional armor. A more powerful auxiliary power unit with a capacity of 20 kW (instead of the 17 kW of the previous version) is provided for.

MBT can be equipped with an SDS, for example from a KMW FLW 200, which can be armed with an 12,7-mm machine gun or an 40-mm automatic grenade launcher, or a new SDM FLW 200 +, which can accept, for example, an 20-mm Rh 202 cannon. The army is also considering the possibility of installing a KAZ, for example MUSS, which is already on the new Puma BMP.

The company Rheinmetall Defense, collaborating with KMW in the development of Leopard 2, offers foreign customers a modular upgrade package, presented at the Eurosatory 2016 exhibition under the designation ATD (Advanced Technology Demonstrator - an advanced prototype for the demonstration of MBT technology).

Customers can choose whether to keep the original Rheinmetall L44 smoothbore gun installed on previous Leopard 2 models or replace it with a more powerful L55. According to the company, “the revolutionary aspects of the Rheinmetall concept include a protection kit, a digital turret concept, an ECDM, an auxiliary power unit, climate control and an extended set of intelligence and observation systems with a relatively modest increase in mass.”

Indonesia became the first customer of this upgrade, and at the beginning of this year, Rheinmetall delivered the first eight of the 61 tank Leopard 2A4, upgraded to the standard Leopard 2 RI (Republic of Indonesia).

In February, 2016, the company Rheinmetall signed a contract with Bumar Labedy to collaborate on the modernization of 128 Polish tanks Leopard 2A4 to the new standard Leopard 2PL. In 2017, Rheinmetall will supply two prototypes to Poland for an extended assessment, produce the first batch of six tanks with Polish components and transfer Bumar Labedy technology to complete this project.

The company Rheinmetall stated that they can integrate elements of the ATD kit into other tanks. In confirmation of this, and in order to promote her application for the Challenger 2 tank, she showed her demonstration sample at the Defense Vehicle Dynamics event held last September.

French project

After signing a contract worth 370 million dollars in March 2015, the French defense procurement agency, Nexter, is working on upgrading the French army's Leclerc MBT. In the period from 1992 to 2008, the company supplied Leclerc 406 tanks and after several budget cuts, now about half of them are armed with four armored regiments.

Nexter also manufactured Leclerc 436 tanks for the United Arab Emirates; Some of these were fitted with the Nexter Action en Zone Urbaine (AZUR) kit for urban combat. It consists of additional frontal booking, lattice screens at the rear of the hull and tower, and other improvements.

The French project provides for the supply of 200 tanks Leclerc Renews (updated) - also known under the designation Leclerc XLR - and 18 BREM DCL Renove based on the Leclerc chassis in order to extend their service life to 2040 year. The government also said that in response to increased friction with Russia, 20 tanks could be upgraded.

As part of the digitization program of the French army SCORPION (Synergie du Contact Renforce par la Polyvalence et l'Infovalorisation), Leclerc tanks will be equipped with the information control system SCORPION and the tactical radio system Contact, which will allow the OBT to operate in digital battle groups. Vitality will be enhanced by installing the AZUR + kit, which increases protection against mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), as well as the integration of the IED Barage silencer.

The smoothbore 120-mm gun of the Leclerc F1 tank can fire a high-explosive fragmentation projectile M3M, currently being developed by Nexter Munitions. It is distinguished by a bottom fuse, which can be operated in three modes: shock, delayed, and air detonation.

The tank will also be equipped with a new remote-controlled T1 turret developed by Renault Trucks Defense, which will also be installed on reconnaissance armored vehicles Jaguar 6x6 and armored personnel carriers Griffon 6x6, currently being developed by the French army. In 2018, Nexter is scheduled to produce two Leclerc XLR prototypes at its plant in the city of Rohanna, then they will be tested, after which mass production should begin in 2020.



French tank Leclerc Rénovès at Eurosatory 2016

In Roanne, Nexter also upgrades the suspension and power transmission of the recently adopted 8x8 VBCI (Vеhicule Blindé Combat d'Infanterie) BMP, because the additional armor and the increase in the total weight of the machine from 29 to 32 tons should not affect driving performance.

Between 2008 and 2015 years, Nexter delivered 630 VBCI armored vehicles, although it is not clear how many of them will be upgraded. The VBCI 2 ton mass 32, which Nexter developed for the overseas market, was first shown at DSEI 2015. A new Volvo D13 engine is installed on the machine, the power of which is more than the power of the previous D12 engine by 70%.

For its lightweight reconnaissance armored car VBL (Vеhicule Blindе Lеger) 4x4, Panhard Defense also developed a retrofit kit. Four vehicles upgraded to VBL Ultima standard, the first of which was handed over to the French Defense Procurement Agency in December 2014, are currently undergoing evaluation tests. Improvements include a new power unit, a new braking system, a modified rear suspension and larger wheels. In order to extend the service life, at least until 2030, 800 (with funding) from VNL armor cars made for the French army can be upgraded from 1621.


New towers for the British Army's Warrior Capability Sustainment Program awaiting delivery at Lockheed Martin's new plant in Emphill, June 2016

Scandinavian modernization

The CV90 armored vehicle manufactured by BAE Systems Haglunds is the most popular tracked infantry fighting vehicle in Europe, as it is in service with seven armies. It was developed in the 1984-1992 years to meet the needs of the Swedish army. In 1995, Norway became the first overseas customer and by the year 2000 received the 104 CV9030N machines armed with an Orbital ATK Bushmaster 30-mm cannon. The Norwegian army became the first country to use its CV90 vehicles in combat operations in Afghanistan since the end of 2007. Norway was also the first operator of these machines to launch a comprehensive mid-life modernization project.

In June 2012, the company BAE Systems Haglunds received a contract worth 750 million dollars for the supply of 103 upgraded and 41 new machine in several configurations: 74 BMP; 21 reconnaissance with a specific optical reconnaissance station installed on the mast; 15 commanding; 16 engineering; 16 multipurpose; and two driving instruction machines. Two pre-production samples were delivered in February of the 2014 of the year for extended testing, and the delivery of serial machines began the following year, which will run until the 2018 of the year.

The BMP, reconnaissance, and command variants received the new Mk III corps, equipped with the upgraded Mk I twin-turret, which retained the original Bushmaster II gun, but equipped with the new paired 7,62-mm machine gun Mk52 Chain Gun from Orbital ATK. The remaining variants are based on the modified Mk I corps. All 30-mm turrets are mounted on the roof of the Kongsberg DBMS, armed with an M12,7 2-mm machine gun.

The MFDB can be used as an aiming system in the search and strike mode, in addition, it can be controlled from the aft troop compartment. Machines feature modular ballistic protection and improved mine and IED protection. The installed cameras provide all-view situational awareness, the machines have a digital architecture, and at the moment all of them are “shod” in rubber tracks from Soucy.

In March 2015, the Swedish defense procurement organization issued a contract to BAE Systems Haglunds worth 190 million dollars to upgrade 262 from the 509 CV90 machines delivered to the Swedish army in the 1994-2002 years. The project provides five options: 172 BMP CV9040; 40 commanding; 22 advanced surveillance; 16 anti-aircraft installations; and 12 BRAM.

This project is less ambitious than the project of modernization of the Norwegian cars. The chassis will be improved, and the outdated twin machine gun Ksp m / 39 will be replaced by a more reliable 7,62-mm machine gun FN Herstal FN MAG. The CV9040 armored vehicles will also receive updated software for their fire control systems, while advanced observers' machines and anti-aircraft installations will receive the same thermal imagers, which are installed on the BMP version, instead of their thermal imagers.

In addition, the existing tactical operational control system will be replaced by the Strids Ledning Bataljon battalion-level battle management system based on the Saab 9Land system. BAE Systems is planning to start the delivery of upgraded machines in 2018.

Materials used:
www.kmweg.com
www.gdls.com
www.baesystems.com
www.lockheedmartin.co.uk
www.leonardocompany.com
www.rheinmetall-defence.com
www.nexter-group.fr
www.panhard-defense.eu
www.cta-international.com
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Author:
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 25 October 2016 06: 06 New
    +6
    There is nothing unusual in this. The old equipment is full and it is better to modernize it than it is spent on something new ..
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 25 October 2016 06: 20 New
      +3
      Totally agree with you. These are not gadgets that change every year, with dubious benefits, price and quality.
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 October 2016 06: 21 New
      +4
      Yes, we, "Kalasha" 70 years "modernize"! tongue
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 09: 02 New
        0
        Yeah, the last modernization of the jamb turned out, almost the same as the modernization of Western MBT
    3. Urfin
      Urfin 25 October 2016 09: 19 New
      +8
      Ruin ... satisfied with the modernization of Western technology!
      Here, after all, what should be paid attention to. Any system, let the most prosperous one, exist in conditions of limited resources. Therefore, if money is allocated for modernization, then less will be spent on creating a new one. We have a rather modest modernization of the T-72, almost none of the BTR-80 and generally no modernization of the BMP-2 (and even BMP-3), but absolutely new platforms "Armata", "Kurganets", etc.
      And in the west, tank indices will not be in the same line of M1A2SEP2ABYRVALG100500 ...
      It is good if the modernization reduces or at least does not increase the load on those elements that are not being modernized. But weight and volume are increasing! So the sheepskin itself will ruin the entire dressing.
      This is a dead end.
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 10: 12 New
        +4
        I don’t know, I’m from Crimea, and Crimea is a Russian outpost, all kinds of flags are on the conscience of the site’s moderators and hosts, I personally see what they’re sculpting on the drum, here, even from Norway and other countries, the flags are Russian citizens. so to the topic ....
        T-72 .. does it need modernization? Only the presence of the Sheksna KUV makes it possible to fire at the enemy with extremely accurate fire at a distance of 4-5 km, in case of extreme measure, you can "fill" the entire "carousel" in 22 shots with tank URs, and they can fire with a curved barrel, with a jammed tower , lack of parameters - alignment, ballistics, wind direction and strength, barrel and ambient temperature, humidity, humidity, aimed fire on the move and when the target is moving, and what can we say about its deep modernization of the T-90, the whole world has seen a video of defeat T-90 from TOU, the tank remained intact even without activating the Curtains, meanwhile, the merkava bridge is "killed" by the one-year-old TOU "Cornet",
        BTR-80 .. what kind of modernization does he need? a wonderful machine, installation of modules .. please, but the BTR-90 is already new, the machine in which it is realized that you are not realizing during the modernization of the BTR-80, the same applies to the BMD and BMP
        but the last paragraph is not clear, if possible explain, because all your text has one meaning and the last paragraph is diametrically opposite
        1. Urfin
          Urfin 25 October 2016 10: 44 New
          0
          ))) the whole text has one meaning)) Which is the first phrase)
          Just in the end, there is a choice to upgrade or build a new one. On the issue of heavy and medium armored vehicles in the west, they have taken the path of modernization, and in our case, the path of creating new equipment.
          And judging by the fact that modernization leads to an increase in volumes and weight, modernization at this stage in the development of technology is a dead end.

          PS This, of course, is about major upgrades, not about upgrading equipment.
          Although we also have an example of modernization, in fact, this is the t-90. This is essentially a modernization of the t-72, albeit a little deeper than that of the abrams and leo-2. Those. we can say that we have passed this stage.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 11: 52 New
            +3
            this is exactly what I expressed in text form, it’s another matter, because they are modernizing armored vehicles in the West so it is not the main DB instrument relying solely on aviation and the fleet itself, while on our one sixth part of the land armored vehicles have the main DB instrument, its native and they protect both from the sky (army aviation) and from the earth (air defense), but the equipment is also being improved, that's right, but in the west let them fly while they fly, and on armored armchairs they change the climate control, blacks charge small growths clone me this is very convenient, because there is a deep conviction that they will definitely not wave a nuclear club, but they will invade aviation, it’s like death, because they don’t need advanced armored vehicles
          2. One of you
            One of you 25 October 2016 13: 36 New
            0
            Quote - "... It's just that in the end there is a choice to modernize or build a new one. On the issue of heavy and medium armored vehicles in the West they took the path of modernization, in our country they took the path of creating new equipment ..."
            ------------------

            The question of choice - to modernize or build a new one - is secondary. Primary
          3. gallville
            gallville 25 October 2016 15: 40 New
            0
            Quote: Urfin
            On the issue of heavy and medium armored vehicles in the west, they have taken the path of modernization, and in our case, the path of creating new equipment.

            Maybe because the backlog of modernization is not enough? BMP-1,2 and armored personnel carriers structurally can not increase weight.
            Quote: Urfin
            And judging by the fact that modernization leads to an increase in volumes and weight, modernization at this stage in the development of technology is a dead end.

            It all depends on how much the chassis will pull. The next question is the specific pressure on the ground and the engine.
            Quote: Urfin
            Although we also have an example of modernization, in fact, this is the t-90. This is essentially a modernization of the t-72, albeit a little deeper than the abrams

            Here you are fundamentally wrong. Abrams as a belated response to the t-64 was upgraded deeper than the t-72 turning into a t-90. What is the transition from 100mm caliber to 120mm. With all the alterations of the mechanisms of the tower, structure and chassis. And in warehouses m1 they have abrams. And they rivet the new tanks for the US Armed Forces precisely from them.
            Quote: Urfin
            along the way of creating new technology.

            The truth is somewhere in between. The t-80 and t-72 platform can quite effectively fulfill their functions for a long time to come. Their replacement is rather an impulsive decision. (plus rollback and lobby).
            Especially in terms of the t-80 (development in St. Petersburg, production in Omsk). With the undoubted advantages of the chassis compared with the t-72/90. And in any case, the installation of new engines on modernized models.
            In terms of another BTT, the BMP-1,2 concept showed its failure even in Afghanistan. Well, at the union failed to solve this problem. And then it was not until then not in the Russian Federation or in other republics of the USSR.
            Although the BMP-3 in its modern form solves many issues especially in the version of Dragoons. [i] [/ i]
            With btr-80. Again, the legacy of the USSR. We made a wheeled armored vehicle, forgot to make a wheeled armored vehicle. Hence, the "legs" of the problems of the entire line grow. The BMP had tracked mtlb (they are tractors for mortar guns, they are armored personnel carriers for calculations, they also carry ammunition on the roof).
            1. Urfin
              Urfin 26 October 2016 12: 15 New
              0
              Quote: gallville
              Maybe because the backlog of modernization is not enough? BMP-1,2 and armored personnel carriers structurally can not increase weight.

              May be. But there would be a desire ... Mass M2 Brady increased by 30%. I think that with the modernization of the BMP-2 units it would be possible to throw 2-4 tons. But no one really tried (there were options, but they were not implemented).
              So if they wanted to, they would modernize.
              Quote: gallville
              Here you are fundamentally wrong. Abrams as a belated response to the t-64 was upgraded deeper than the t-72 turning into a t-90. What is the transition from 100mm caliber to 120mm.

              Yes, I agree. I forgot about that. I meant upgrading the M1A1.
              1. gallville
                gallville 26 October 2016 17: 29 New
                0
                Quote: Urfin
                Mass M2 Brady increased by 30%. I think that with the modernization of BMP-2 units it would be possible to throw 2-4 tons. But no one really tried (there were options, but they were not implemented).

                Why didn't he try. In Afghanistan, there were BMP-2D at the bottom, they added a plate from mines, like the sides were reinforced. The car eventually lost its "buoyancy". However, the result was not achieved.
                The fact is that in the NATO block machines, high booking characteristics were originally laid. Accordingly, this is also running i.e. if for BMP-2 armor enhancement by 30% is ~ 4 tons, then for a 30% bradley it is ~ 7-8.
                Separately, the thickness of the sheets of armor. The thicker the sheet, the more likely it is to hang DZ. The thinner the greater the chance that the armor will crack. Hence the alterations of the BMP-2, mainly with grilles. In BMP-3 they were already able to do with DZ.
                Quote: Urfin
                Yes, I agree. I forgot about that. I meant upgrading the M1A1.

                All this only says that the development of the t-72 in the t-90 is not the limit. And the running t-80 has a backlog even more since more technological. And replacing them is a controversial decision. Both in terms of necessity and finance.
                Nothing prevents the t-72 or t-80 from pushing electronics from the armata and putting 2a82. At the exit, the tanks will differ only in layout. Which of course is in favor of Almaty. But is it worth the scale of the tank fleet of such states as the Russian Federation or the USA?
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Urfin
              Urfin 26 October 2016 12: 29 New
              0
              Quote: gallville
              Maybe because the backlog of modernization is not enough? BMP-1,2 and armored personnel carriers structurally can not increase weight.

              May be. But there would be a desire ... Mass M2 Brady increased by 30%. I think that with the modernization of the BMP-2 units it would be possible to throw 2-4 tons. But no one really tried (there were options, but they were not implemented).
              So if they wanted to, they would modernize.
              Quote: gallville
              Here you are fundamentally wrong. Abrams as a belated response to the t-64 was upgraded deeper than the t-72 turning into a t-90. What is the transition from 100mm caliber to 120mm.

              Yes, I agree. I forgot about that. I meant upgrading the M1A1.
              Quote: gallville
              The truth is somewhere in between.

              Here, it seems to me, the question is not to modernize or build something new. And in what and when to upgrade. When it comes to a qualitative change in weapons, then no modernization will help. Also, each model has a limit of modernization, when it can no longer "withstand" the next changes and when it is easier to create a new one.
              Now is just such a moment for Western armored vehicles. Almost all the models mentioned in the article have been modernized for +/- 30 years. At the same time, comparisons of 1980 and 2016 can speak of qualitative differences: both of a technical level and in combat missions. In such circumstances, modernization is a dead end. Our very well kept up to the moment and created universal platforms of different weight categories with a reserve for modernization of 20-30 years.
              By the way, the Americans conceived the same in the early 90s. But they didn't succeed. Perhaps here the financial and political aspect worked to a greater extent: by zero to modernize the old, which is in good condition and, on average, technically better than the main enemy, is more profitable than creating a new one - the new may simply not "go", and the failure will be obvious, in differences from modernization. In our country, as a result of the crisis of the XNUMXs, a situation developed when little was done and was very poorly maintained. And by zero there was simply nothing to modernize. And we had no choice - we had to do something new. There would be no happiness, but misfortune helped.
              1. gallville
                gallville 26 October 2016 17: 37 New
                0
                Quote: Urfin
                Also, each model has a limit of modernization, when it can no longer "withstand" the next changes and when it is easier to create a new one.

                This is what we are talking about. In this case, the BMP-2 and BTR-80 have nowhere to upgrade.
                Quote: Urfin
                By the way, the Americans conceived the same thing at the beginning of the XNUMXs. But they did not succeed.

                It really happened. True with huge financial difficulties. They identified those BTT samples that they needed to either do for the first time or upgrade.
                As a result, we have:
                1. Upgraded:
                - abrams;
                - Bradley;
                - sau.
                2. Created from scratch:
                - strikers;
                - family of scraps.
                Although with the strikers they got a huge amount of cones.
                Those. this indicates the sequence of platform changes. What else has a backlog remains and is being modernized. What took its limit is replaced.

                For the technology of the USSR:
                Limit reached:
                - BMP1,2 and BTR-80;
                The limit is not reached;
                - BMP-3 and t-72, t-80.

                Separate topics for discussion are the American M113 and Soviet MTLB.
                1. Urfin
                  Urfin 27 October 2016 08: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: gallville
                  Well, why not try. In Afghanistan, there were BMP-2D at the bottom, they added a plate from mines, like the side was strengthened.

                  hmm ... Probably not quite right to equate "modernization", which consists in "welding" additional armor weighing 500 kg, and for example, the transformation of M2 into M2A1, where the gun and ATGM and other equipment have been significantly modified.
                  Moreover, from our speculative and diligent calculations, 3-4 tons settled down for the BMP for modernization. BMP-2D is a minor upgrade, rather, adaptation to realities. So the BMP has not been modernized in our country as it was with the Bradley - this is still a fact. Although the resource was. Perhaps if the military budget would not have collapsed in the 90s, then we would have had many modernizations.
                  Quote: gallville
                  Nothing prevents the t-72 or t-80 from pushing electronics from the armata and putting 2a82.

                  Nothing but money. In the 90s, the modernization of the t-72 and t-80 would be relevant, but now? Our equipment in the 90s and early 20s was not very well stored in many ways, at least compared to the west. As a result, the choice to upgrade the equipment whose modernization resource runs out by the age of 30-50 (+ the unsatisfactory state of the equipment itself) or to create a new one with a backlog in the XNUMXs and taking into account all the experience became the zero ones. Logically chose the second option - which is good news.
                  Quote: gallville
                  It really happened.

                  We are talking about the program "Combat systems of the future." It implied the creation of universal platforms for MBT, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. A direct analogue of Almaty and Kurgan. After all, the whole salt of Armata and Co. is a universal chassis of several weight categories: Armata, Kurgan, Boomerang and various MPIs. They will have BMPs, self-propelled guns, etc. With a backlog for a long modernization.
                  The United States did not work. From all this, they turned out only wheeled armored personnel carriers and Mraps. Agree, compared with what happened with us - this is a failure. But they already have it, and we will only have it - this is the main minus of creating new technology. The main thing here is to seize the moment when your experience and technological development allows you to make a platform for modernization for many years - like the Su-27 glider - a vivid example of an ideal platform (although in aviation, probably, there can be no talk of a single platform).
                  As a result, when our armata is cured of all childhood diseases and enters into a full-fledged series, all their heavy equipment will have exhausted their resources, and they have not really begun to make new ones, which means that by this moment they will not have it.
                  Quote: gallville
                  Limit reached:
                  - BMP1,2 and BTR-80;

                  The limit has not been reached, though. It is possible to completely increase the mass of the BMP-2 by 3-4 tons, as it seems to me. But why? After all, you can make a new BMP, taking into account all the experience. Therefore, the modernization of the BMP-3 for our army will come to naught and will remain only either in the export version or in exhibition samples. IMHO)
                  1. gallville
                    gallville 27 October 2016 15: 04 New
                    0
                    Quote: Urfin
                    Probably it would not be entirely correct to equate "modernization", which consists in "welding" additional armor weighing 500 kg, and for example, the transformation of M2 into M2A1, where the gun and ATGM and other equipment have been significantly modified.

                    The fact is that the refinement of the same gun and the replacement of the electronics does not depend on the platform as much as strengthening the reservation. Of course, if you change the say a 30mm speed gun to a 100mm gun, the question of the suspension will be raised, but in the Bradley, as it was, the 25mm gun remained. In addition, during the overhaul of the BMP-2 of the Russian Federation, there is also an easy modernization in the form of new gun stabilizers.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    Moreover, from our speculative and diligent calculations, 3-4 tons settled down for the BMP for modernization.

                    Here's how to take it. The fact is that the chassis in its form as it is, a load of 4 tons may not pull. It will have to be strengthened. The more it is strengthened, the less becomes the question of the relevance of its modernization, compared with a completely new chassis. If you want a platform.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    Perhaps if the military budget would not have collapsed in the 90s, then we would have had many modernizations.

                    Most likely would not be. In the USSR there was an approach instead of modernizing the stamping of a new one. For example, instead of upgrading the BMP-1, they just started stamping the BMP-2. With tanks, moreover, the release of 3 types at the same time, while the released modernization vehicles were rarely subjected.

                    Quote: Urfin
                    As a result, the choice to upgrade the equipment whose modernization resource runs out by the age of 20-30 (+ the unsatisfactory state of the equipment itself) or to create a new one with a backlog in the 50s and taking into account all the experience became the zero ones. Logically chose the second option - which is good news.

                    Nothing has been selected yet. About a thousand t-72b3 in the troops. It’s not only that overhaul is also the installation of new equipment. So why did you fail to carry out a full modernization? Or do you like to drive echelons of BTT across the vast expanses of Russia?
                    Quote: Urfin
                    Logically chose the second option - which is good news.

                    Just think a little how the T-72 will differ from the armata when installing the same equipment.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    After all, the whole salt of Almaty and Co. it is a universal chassis of several weight categories: Armata, Kurgan, Boomerang and various MDIs. They will have BMPs, self-propelled guns, etc. With a backlog for a long modernization.

                    But this is marketing PR. Moreover, in the capitalist style of vparivaniya. Remember the frame oil? So this is not butter, but in fact margarine, which was not considered a full-fledged product in the USSR. And they put the floor of the former union on this "frame".
                    Here's the same thing with "universal platforms". Tell me, what kind of machine, well, maybe there is no BMP on the T-72 or T-80 chassis?
                    What kind of vehicle is not found on the BMP-3 chassis? Or to understand the scale of the "divorce", count how many machines in the Arctic and mountain brigade of the Russian Federation are based on mtlb.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    Agree, compared with what happened with us - this is a failure.

                    In terms of technology, this is undeniably true, in terms of the need for certain issues.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    when your experience and technological development allow you to make a platform for modernization for many years - like the Su-27 glider - a vivid example of an ideal platform (although in aviation, probably, there can be no talk of a single platform).

                    Let's just say a platform of a certain weight category. Su-27 successfully occupied the niche of a heavy fighter and bomber (su-34). In this situation, the use of the Su-27 platform is justified since the Su-24 glider was, to put it mildly, originally not a fountain (almost the most emergency aircraft of the USSR). On the other hand, an attempt to supplant the development of the Mig-29 replacing the Su-30 raises open doubts.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    As a result, when our armata is cured of all childhood diseases and enters into a full-fledged series, all their heavy equipment will exhaust its resource, but they didn’t really start to do a new one, which means that by this moment they will not have it.

                    Well, so do not scare until 2050 it is treated for diseases easier to immediately disconnect from the device. The joke is over. Actually, in 5-10 years of mass production, they will be cured. On a statewide scale of 5–10 years, there is very little difference. Therefore, there will be no global breakthrough in time.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    It is possible to completely increase the mass of the BMP-2 by 3-4 tons, as it seems to me. But why?

                    In the case of the BMP-2, this is too much of a cost and the release of new components and assemblies. Their introduction into the car. Therefore, there is no need.
                    Quote: Urfin
                    After all, you can make a new BMP, taking into account all the experience. Therefore, the modernization of BMP-3

                    Or bring to mind the car that has already been tested run-in and is in the series. That was what it was necessary to do initially. And first, it’s not going to start in Nyokr in Kurgan, and then rolling out the car brought to mind.

                    This is in addition to the fact that on the BMP-3 chassis all auxiliary machines are implemented (Bram, SAU, S-PTRK, BMD and BTR-D line).
                    Quote: Urfin
                    Therefore, the modernization of the BMP-3 for our army will come to naught and will remain only either in the export version or in exhibition samples

                    One way or another, but the Airborne Forces order about 1 thousand vehicles based on the BMP-3. (~ 70% of units and assemblies). So the modernization is likely to be carried out. Another question is how global they will be.
    4. NEXUS
      NEXUS 27 October 2016 14: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: dmi.pris
      There is nothing unusual in this. The old equipment is full and it is better to modernize it than it is spent on something new ..

      Modernization has its limits. Moreover, often, modernization does not solve the problem of lag in efficiency and capacity. An example, Armata and say Abrams. Of course, a new one at some stage is better than trying to create a breakthrough something from the old platform. A breakthrough is new. Armata is a breakthrough. PAK FA is a breakthrough. And Abrams is still the same ambush moody, excuse me, excrement today. It was a breakthrough in the 70s, in the 80s ... just like the T-72 was a breakthrough in the 70s ... but this is an evolutionary process. Remember the MIG-15, of which several thousand have made, and next put the same MIG-35.
  2. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 25 October 2016 06: 54 New
    +2
    Military equipment that showed excellent qualities has always been modernized. It's just that sometimes there is no need to reinvent the wheel with a good one on your "cart".
  3. 501Legion
    501Legion 25 October 2016 08: 25 New
    +3
    this is what the Life-Giving Armats do with Western technology
  4. Crimean partisan 1974
    Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 08: 49 New
    +3
    All these modernizations are being settled in the Western concept of the "duet theory", that is, the main databases are assigned to aviation, all armored vehicles have only an auxiliary tool for cleansing and police measures, they will take a cold shower when the enemy has a strong layered air defense, excluding aviation in the sky, then all Western armored vehicles will be negligible against the armored vehicles of the enemy whose MBT are equipped with automatic loaders that provide loading at full speed and tank guided complexes with a firing range of 5-7 km and a probability of hitting 99 percent, and even the ability to hit army aviation targets with them, so Western modernization suits me personally, there is nothing new, but they are gaining weight, considering that at the Turkish tender the leopard -2 was constantly bogged down in the mud, then the heavier Leo-2 + will sit tightly in it like its ancestor
    1. Forest
      Forest 25 October 2016 09: 43 New
      0
      The Leo-2 has one of the best cross-country ability among MBTs - the tracks are wide.
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 10: 29 New
        +3
        yeah, this is the western media sang to you, then I will suggest you do not tricky calculations, namely the specific load on the soil, there are initial parameters, go for it, physics cannot be fooled, unlike the layman, practice showed in the Turkish tender when Leo-2 is constantly from the swamp pulled out by tractors and even once it was pulled out by a Ukrainian yatagan, although it also got heavier during the discovery of the T-80, for a tiger the width of a gusli about 60 tons was almost 800 mm, for a Leo-2 with the same 60 tons a little more 600 mm, that's why I was sitting in Turkish mud "one of the best cross-country vehicles among MBT"
        1. Forest
          Forest 25 October 2016 13: 05 New
          0
          You are confusing with Challenger-2. The specific pressure of the 60-ton Leo 2А5 - 0,92 kg-sq.cm, Tiger - 1,03. The track width is 635 mm, the Tiger has 725 mm, but with Leo the length of the body and, accordingly, the supporting part is 1,3 m longer. With Leo 2A7, the tracks are still expanded. Challenger in full body kit 1,12 kg-sq. Cm.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 13: 59 New
            +3
            I don’t confuse anything, Leo-2A5 - in full "minced meat" pressure is 9.4 Newtons per centimeters square, which equals 0.958 kg per centimeters square, in comparison with T-90 in full "minced meat" -0.93, and with T-72B3 with full "minced meat" -0.901, nussss, and de that wonderful "one of the best cross-country vehicles among MBT" ????? and for the modernized Leo-2 +, the weight was tightened by 67 tons along the way, the hodovka was not changed, I tell you, physics can’t be fooled, no matter how hard you try, but the western media will get noodles at once
      2. Landing Station6
        Landing Station6 25 October 2016 13: 50 New
        0
        The Leo-2 has one of the best cross-country ability among MBTs - the tracks are wide.

        Yes, all European tanks have tracks for driving on ASPHALT !!! And our BMP-ha on narrow goose-hoppers will slip where the German does not have a nightmare!
        1. Forest
          Forest 25 October 2016 14: 01 New
          +1
          Bradley's cross-country ability is much higher than that of our BMP - 0,55 kg / sq.cm specific pressure. European and tanks, and BMP, and armored personnel carriers have always been with good cross, only here we like to throw all the comrades with their caps. In Sweden, in comparative tests, the T-72 was inferior to Leo on patency due to lower ground clearance and a weaker engine. Above our cross-country capacity is armored personnel carriers and trucks. Do not think that the designers are so stupid that they do not know the theater.
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 25 October 2016 18: 36 New
            +2
            Forest, and what Bradley? Those that are on paper or those on which you have hung everything that is possible? He used to swim at least a little bit; but after the "sheds" its water became contraindicated. hi
            1. Forest
              Forest 25 October 2016 23: 44 New
              0
              For A0 and A1. A3 with a full set of DZ, additional armor and an airborne mass of 34 tons - 0,7 kg / sq.cm, i.e. equal BMP-2 with a more powerful engine. The ability to swim has nothing to do with pressure on the ground.
          2. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 21: 27 New
            +2
            What physics lessons did you skip? or I didn’t find NVP at the councils? What kind of hatred? Where did you see such? Can it even popped out in my eyes?
            1. Forest
              Forest 26 October 2016 00: 04 New
              +1
              Dear, this photo you proved that you yourself do not understand physics. Pressure is the ratio of mass to unit area, i.e. the larger the supporting surface, the lower the pressure. Bradley has wide tracks - up to 500 mm depending on type. The length of the support part is about 5,1 m. In total, we take the standard 0,5 meter tracks and the M2A3 weighing 30 t. 30000 / (50 * 510 * 2) = 0,59 kg / sq. Cm. The BMD-2 8,2 has tons of mass, the track width I don’t know for sure - something about 360-380 mm with the length of the support part in 2,8-3 m. Any questions?
              1. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 27 October 2016 11: 40 New
                +2
                hoho. of course there is, the BMD-2 tracked sets have two sets of 360 and 600, depending on where they will be thrown, and the Bradley has how many-1, and for information, as a reminder, the mass of the BMD-2 is 7.4 tons (this is in full mincemeat), 8.2 tons are specialized BMDs with blocks of either Bakhcha or NONA, should not be confused with pure BMD, the support length of the BMD1 and BMD-2 is -3.8 meters in motion and 4 meters when overcoming paved ground, TOTAL, which we take as a basis -380 or 600 mm ???? in the projection 380 mm = 0.48, with 600 mm = ........ where your nonsense is, she even forgot how to cross water obstacles, so I don’t confuse anything, it’s probably you got lost in three pines
                1. Forest
                  Forest 27 October 2016 13: 17 New
                  0
                  600 mm does not fit on the BMD chassis at all. This is the width of the tank track with the corresponding rollers. Jump off small rollers at the first corner. 7,4 t is an empty BMD without anything, not a combat one, which, to be precise, 8,22 t. Empty Nona, without shells and fuel, 8 t weighs. Bahcha does not fit into the BMD-2 base at all. Then Bradley should take into account the empty mass in 27,4 tons. When moving on sand, the last Bradley is equipped with tracks with a width of 525 mm. More simply physically impossible to deliver. The ability to swim is generally not affected by patency. Amphibious Japanese tanks had simply disgusting patency, stuck, where even a laden truck passed. In general, it is not entirely correct to compare the airborne assault BMD with bulletproof protection and the average BMP.
  5. Stena
    Stena 25 October 2016 08: 57 New
    +2
    With this campaign, the ground armies of NATO countries are doomed to technological lag. Apparently, the tank design schools were lost, and there is no money to restore. That is, apparently they do not plan to fight on earth (or only with the help of natives or robots). They think everyone to level off the air from the ground ... But it will not work!
  6. dokusib
    dokusib 25 October 2016 12: 45 New
    +1
    Who saw how Abrams was covered under Mosul? Missile for missile defense. Kick panels certainly worked, but it’s very interesting what happened to the crew.
    1. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 25 October 2016 14: 17 New
      +2
      I looked, in the course of detonation at once and everything, if you quickly calculate the average abra ammunition load, then it should have sown about half a ton in TNT plus gunpowder added at least 200 kg of equivalent, hardly anyone survived, although the stripes will find four grimy children of sand will give on the cookie and those in the cell will whine as they survived in abre, however, the fact, and on your ears there’s not much you can hang
  7. ammunition
    ammunition 25 October 2016 13: 08 New
    +4
    Strange.
    -----------------
    Over the past 45 years, the material and monetary resources of the West (for example, the USA) have grown 5 times.
    That is, ceteris paribus, the United States has the opportunity to buy 5 times more metal, electronics, chemicals and other plastics.
    It would seem - Direct your old weapons at re-melting, and release new, perfect machines. No stress. Yes, and the economy would spin .. began to grow.
    But no. Che they do not grow together.
    ------------------------
    This is (of course) good for us. Insofar as real cash the military budget of the Russian Federation in 7 (approximately seven) times less than it was in the USSR in 1980. If you count on the dollars of those times.
    ---------------------------
    In addition, I think that the site needs to return to its previous form!
    1. uskrabut
      uskrabut 25 October 2016 15: 57 New
      +2
      Patching is always more profitable for a contractor than building a new road. It’s every year, and even twice a year, they will allocate money!
      Russian road know-how in the western defense industry! Stumble!
  8. dmitriyruss
    dmitriyruss 25 October 2016 21: 51 New
    +1
    nothing can replace the good old and cast-iron t-72, really - an immortal classic
    1. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 27 October 2016 11: 50 New
      +2
      it’s for sure, the most legendary along the way, and especially now, when I became a biathlete, of course I’ve come up with a spectacular sight, you must put up a monument in life who invented
      1. ammunition
        ammunition 28 October 2016 16: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
        a monument in life must be put up who invented


        repeat
        I invented the tank biathlon. Back in the 1976 year. And for many years I tried to convey this idea to big bosses.
        ----------------
        So cho .. laughing Place a monument.
        You can even have a simple home board. I am not proud. Such a statue as Zherinovsky was set up, is not necessary. winked