News of the project for the modernization of tanks M1A2 SEP v.3

79
During the nineties, US forces received a significant amount of the latest major tanks type M1A2 Abrams. In the future, the production of new equipment of this class was curtailed. It was proposed to solve the problems of updating the fleet with the help of new modernization projects for existing models. To date, several similar projects have been developed, and the newest, M1A2 SEP v.3, is getting closer to the full deployment of work.

The M1A2 SEP v.3 project (System Enhancement Package version 3 - “System Improvement Package, 3 version”) is developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. The official representative of this organization a few days ago made an important statement on the current progress of work. A spokeswoman for the company Ashley Givens said that the first pre-production tank in the updated configuration will appear this month. At the same time, he will become a part of the whole party, opening the process of modernization of equipment.



To date, the customer and the developer have identified plans for the further development of the fleet of armored vehicles. E. Givens recalled that the ultimate goal of the M1A2 SEP v.3 project is to repair and modernize all of the Abrams’s main tanks in the army. Thus, new devices will receive 1500 machines.

News of the project for the modernization of tanks M1A2 SEP v.3


According to known data, the current project of the modernization of the SEP v.3 was developed taking into account the developments under the previous programs of updating the equipment and takes into account the characteristics of the tanks that had been updated earlier. Thus, the M1A2 SEP v.3 serial tanks will be rebuilt from the existing M1A2 SEP v.2 tanks. Thanks to this technique will retain some of the positive features and features obtained earlier, as well as receive new features.

The newest project M1A2 SEP v.3 involves the replacement of a large number of onboard units, as well as the installation of some new devices. The proposed upgrade of tanks is aimed at improving fuel efficiency and obtaining new combat capabilities. As a result, the tank, while maintaining the hull, weapons, etc., will be able to show higher performance.

In previous modernization projects, it was proposed to use an auxiliary power unit that ensures the operation of various systems without starting the main engine. In the M1A2 SEP v.3 project, we were able to complete the introduction of such a device with maximum efficiency: now a compact low-power engine is placed inside a protected volume and is no longer an easy target.

The project provides for a certain increase in reservations, primarily aimed at increasing resistance to explosive devices. In this case, serious processing of the hull is not required, which greatly simplifies and reduces the cost of modernization.

The main weapon of the tank remains the same, but now it is proposed to use other ammunition. Earlier it was reported that the upgraded tank will be able to solve all assigned tasks with just two types of shots. Fighting enemy armored vehicles will be carried out using armor-piercing piercing pierced shells M829E4 AKE. For other purposes, is intended HM1147 АMP multipurpose ammunition, completed with a programmable fuse. Thus, the firepower of the tank will increase, and combat work and supplies will be simplified to a certain extent.

According to the experience of recent conflicts, the modernized tank loses an open machine gun mount on the roof of the tower. Instead, the CROWS-LP combat module (Commander's Remote Operated Weapon Station Low Profile - “Commander's remotely controlled armory low profile setting ”). With it, the crew will be able to use the standard machine gun without leaving the protected compartment.

The largest changes will undergo complex avionics. The project M1A2 SEP v.3 implies a cardinal reworking of this complex. The proposed rejection of the existing equipment in favor of quick-change modules for one purpose or another. Moreover, it is not just about replacing medium-sized units of equipment, but also working with individual printed circuit boards and other small items. It is assumed that the modular design principle of electronics will further simplify the maintenance of tanks in the new modification, as well as speed up the process of creating new modernization projects. In the latter case, it will be possible to take advantage of the possibility of replacing a separate product without processing other elements of the unit.

The use of new equipment for crew workplaces based on modern equipment is proposed. In particular, liquid crystal screens will be used to display information, one of which will be common to the commander and gunner. The armament system used by the crew introduced new thermal imaging devices that simplify the search for targets and the use of weapons in the dark.

M1 Abrams tanks of previous modifications have already received satellite navigation systems, and the new project again provides for the use of such means. At the same time, using modern developments and technologies, the developers of the project M1A2 SEP v.3 offered to equip the tank with more sophisticated positioning tools combined with other on-board electronics.

The United States continues to develop communications and control systems, and a new project for the renewal of tanks was created taking into account work in this direction. Thanks to the existing and new equipment, the tank version of the SEP v.3 will be able to work as part of the network-centric communications and control system of the Joint Battle Command Platform, built on the basis of the Blue Force Tracker 2 Satcom network. With its help, tankers will be able to transmit data about the current situation, or receive information about targets from other combat vehicles. An important feature of the new means of communication is reduced data update time.

There is information about the introduction of electronic warfare equipment. Such equipment will allow the tank to reduce the risks associated with the use of radio-controlled explosive devices by the enemy.

The first M1A2 tank of the existing modification, re-equipped according to an earlier version of the SEP v.3 project, was introduced in October 2015 at one of the Pentagon events. Experts of the armed forces were able to review the finished sample, as well as examine the information provided. It is curious that already at that time the military department and General Dynamics Land Systems determined the schedule for further work. In addition, at the same time some details of a financial nature became known.

According to the plans for the end of 2015, the serial modernization of the front-end equipment on the new project M1A2 SEP v.3 was to start as early as 2016, with the delivery of the first finished machines in 2017. Having begun reworking tanks for the third version of the project, the land division of General Dynamics should have stopped the restructuring of armored vehicles to the state of SEP v.3. The defense budget for the last fiscal year provided for the allocation of 367,9 million dollars to carry out all the required work.



Last year there were reports of the release of several experimental tanks of the new modification. Nine serial "Abrams" received a complete set of equipment corresponding to the project SEP v.3, then went to the landfills to test and refine the new configuration. According to last year's reports, prototype testing will continue until the end of the decade. At the same time, the full-fledged operation of tanks rebuilt as part of serial orders will have to start.

Currently, the US Army has slightly less than 1600 main battle tanks M1A2 Abrams, previously upgraded by the SEP v.2 project. In the medium term, all this equipment will have to be upgraded according to a new project of the third version. The first pre-series M1A2 SEP v.3, following nine experienced machines, will be transferred to the customer in the very near future - until the end of September. Based on the results of testing this equipment, permission may be obtained for the further maintenance of the required work.

Recent statements by official representatives of General Dynamics Land Systems have mentioned plans for the further development of armored vehicles. Not having time to deploy a massive production of tanks SEP v.3, the project developer company plans to launch a new modernization. According to E. Givens, the next project should soon appear, designated as SEP v.4. To date, the customer and the developer have managed to identify some of the requirements for such equipment, as well as to form an approximate schedule of work.

According to the already signed contract, by the year 2020 a new project M1A2 SEP v.4 will be created, which is a logical continuation of the existing developments. Again, it is intended to improve protection and increase firepower. In addition, once again the tanks will have to get new radio-electronic equipment. First of all, the most serious sighting equipment upgrade is planned. Other devices included in the fire control system will also be replaced. It is proposed to use various new sensors of meteorological conditions, a more advanced laser range finder, improved means of communication and control, etc.

The current modernization project provides for the replacement of older ammunition with just two shells. If such an approach justifies itself during use in practice, then the appearance of new versions of AMP and AKE projectiles is possible. At the same time, the modernization of the M256 gun is not foreseen again. It is possible to use a new remote-controlled combat module with machine guns.

The project SEP v.4, the development of which has already been ordered by the Pentagon, will be created by the beginning of the next decade. On 2021, the year is scheduled to start testing pilot tanks configuration M1A2 SEP v.4. In 2023, it is planned to launch a serial modernization of existing tanks, and approximately two years after that, new vehicles will go into service.

The current works and announced plans show exactly how the United States intends to update the fleet of armored combat vehicles. Recent programs to create completely new tanks did not lead to the desired results, and all efforts were focused on upgrading existing machines. Over the course of several years, a number of Abrams projects have been created; the third of them has already been brought to production of pre-production samples. In addition, the US military has identified plans for the foreseeable future.

The consistent modernization of M1A2 Abrams tanks on a number of new projects, first of all, allows us to constantly update the fleet of armored combat vehicles and bring their capabilities in line with current requirements. In addition, in parallel with the modernization and installation of new equipment, repairs are being made to the main structural elements. As a result, the resource increases significantly, and the service life of equipment is extended.

According to recent reports, over the next few weeks, the US Army will receive the first pre-production main tanks M1A2 SEP v.3. In 2018-23, a full-scale technology upgrade will be carried out, after which the fourth modernization project will be put into production. Thus, the current plans of the Pentagon provide for a gradual upgrade of tanks until the second half of the twenties. The results of such work, in turn, will allow to keep the existing equipment in the army for a long time.

Current and planned modernization projects continue known trends and should lead to positive results. At the same time, as far as is known, there is no question of creating entirely new tanks. Perhaps the development of advanced equipment of this class will be launched in the foreseeable future, but for a long time the main way to maintain combat capability will remain the modernization of existing machines in service.


On the materials of the sites:
http://scout.com/
http://nationalinterest.org/
http://armyrecognition.com/
http://army-guide.com/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    22 September 2017 07: 34
    All these innovations, especially the strengthening of the reservation, inevitably lead to a tank becoming less attractive, and the chassis is already very heavy! No matter how the new version of the tank began to crumble in the literal sense of the word, like their "strikers" from a significantly overloaded chassis.
    1. Maz
      +2
      22 September 2017 07: 40
      The very existence of Almaty does not let the US military and the military-industrial complex sleep
      1. +7
        22 September 2017 07: 49
        Quote: Maz
        The very existence of Almaty does not let the US military and the military-industrial complex sleep


        “Armata” seriously raised the bar, but what always bothered me about tanks was that they could be “blinded” by destroying sighting devices, sights, etc. with aimed fire from small-caliber weapons. Those. if the "Almaty" remained the same shortcomings, then in fact the tank, even the most modern, can turn into a blind piece of iron with a gun. This is a serious problem for all armored vehicles today. However, in the battle between tanks and Armata tanks, it is certainly out of competition now.
        1. +2
          22 September 2017 07: 52
          Thanks to the existing and new equipment, the tank of the SEP v.3 version will be able to work as part of a network-centric communication and control system of the Joint Battle Command Platform, built on the basis of the Blue Force Tracker 2 Satcom network. With its help, tankers will be able to transmit data about the current situation, or receive information about targets from other combat vehicles. An important feature of the new means of communication is a reduced time for updating data.


          Perhaps this is the main advantage of the new upgraded version. Seeing the firing points that the "neighbors" noticed online is a major advantage. It may be more convenient for a neighboring combat vehicle to hit a target. It is also useful when one tank distracts the attention of enemy fire weapons, shines them, and neighbors destroy these fire points with impunity. The enemy here will not even know that the battle with him is not the same tank that he is firing at.
          1. +6
            22 September 2017 09: 04
            Abrams have been seen online for a long time. moreover, computers distributed targets so that two cars did not hit the same target
        2. +3
          22 September 2017 10: 15
          but there is no choice. and such a filling makes it possible to work at such distances at which aimed fire from small-caliber weapons is simply impossible. here more and more like aviation, earlier notice earlier strike.
        3. ZVO
          +4
          22 September 2017 15: 05
          Quote: Orel
          However, in the battle between tanks and Armata tanks, it is certainly out of competition now.

          Based on what such conclusions?
          Are there any facts?
          1. +1
            23 September 2017 22: 54
            He has no facts. Because Americans are not in a hurry to change guns on the Abrams, then Armata is not very scared of their invincibility.
        4. 0
          29 May 2018 15: 43
          Quote: Orel
          but what always bothered me in tanks was that they could be “blinded” by destroying sighting devices, sights, etc. with aimed fire from small-caliber weapons.

          And who will hang a bell on a cat’s neck?
      2. +6
        22 September 2017 12: 08
        Quote: Maz
        The very existence of Almaty does not let the US military and the military-industrial complex sleep

        Yes, they sleep peacefully. The Americans have long turned the tank into a means of supporting infantry, and not into the main tool for breaking through enemy fortifications. Hence all that they do.
        1. +2
          22 September 2017 12: 51
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Yes, they sleep peacefully. The Americans have long turned the tank into a means of supporting infantry, and not into the main tool for breaking through enemy fortifications. Hence all that they do.

          This is enough for a war with a weak adversary. But if it’s against a country that has a strong balanced army, I think the Abrashas are no good, from the word at all.
          1. +5
            22 September 2017 14: 17
            You can only feel the abrashas, ​​but the armata is still mythical
            1. +5
              22 September 2017 14: 32
              Quote: NordOst16
              You can only feel the abrashas, ​​but the armata is still mythical

              Seriously? Armata passes military tests and how much is their big question. According to some sources, about 100 pieces. At the same time, we have a completely non-mythical T-90, which if not better, then at least no worse than Leopolds or Abrash. At the same time, the price of the T-90 is much more acceptable than the aforementioned.
              And one more question for you. Where did the tank factory in Detroit go?
              1. 0
                23 September 2017 04: 19
                Quote: NEXUS
                At the same time, the price of the T-90 is much more acceptable than the aforementioned.

                here where does the price come from? Yes, it is 2 times less (at best, since it does not take into account R&D), but the budget of the Moscow Region is 6 times less than that of the United States ...
              2. +2
                23 September 2017 09: 31
                Well, the T90, or rather, all Soviet and Russian tanks have certain problems with the survivability of the tank, the survival of the crew and the BOPs. It seems like it’s also with armor because Western BOPSs are able to pass through DZ without activating it
                1. 0
                  26 September 2017 22: 29
                  Quote: NordOst16
                  there are certain problems with the survivability of the tank, the survivability of the crew and BOPs.

                  Of the above, only the last is real. The problem with survivability is solved by refusing to load non-mechanized styling. About low crew survival - see above.
                2. 0
                  29 May 2018 15: 46
                  Quote: NordOst16
                  Well, the T90, or rather, all Soviet and Russian tanks have certain problems with the survivability of the tank, the survival of the crew and the BOPs.

                  All tanks have these problems, and not only Soviet ones.
                  1. 0
                    29 May 2018 18: 00
                    But only in Russian it is more pronounced.
                    1. 0
                      29 May 2018 21: 14
                      Quote: NordOst16
                      But only in Russian it is more pronounced.

                      This false opinion arose due to the fact that Russian tanks are fighting more.
                      1. 0
                        30 May 2018 08: 55
                        But the inability to load longer bops into the carousel is also associated with a large track record? In addition, when a bk is detonated in Soviet / Russian tanks, the likelihood of crew death is much greater than in Western ones.
          2. 0
            23 September 2017 11: 21
            Quote: NEXUS
            But if it’s against a country that has a strong balanced army, I think the Abrashas are no good, from the word at all.

            Excuse me, are you talking about a possible war between Egypt and Algeria (Abrams vs T-90) or what?
        2. +2
          22 September 2017 16: 05
          I agree with you ... and what they can’t sleep peacefully if the armata is not in the troops and it is not yet clear when it will appear at least in the amount of 1 to 10 to the abrams smile
        3. +1
          22 September 2017 17: 21
          The Americans have long turned the tank into an infantry support vehicle,

          Without high-explosive shells? I forgot there are 3 machine guns hi
          1. +3
            23 September 2017 04: 24
            Quote: spech
            Without high-explosive shells? I forgot there are 3 machine guns

            they have high-explosive shells, even with an adjustable detonation distance, and anti-personnel shells are ...
        4. The comment was deleted.
    2. +3
      22 September 2017 14: 24
      Quote: Herkulesich
      All these new items, especially the strengthening of the reservation inevitably lead to the tank becoming more comfortable,

      Half way to the "Mouse" is already passed. laughing
    3. +2
      22 September 2017 16: 23
      Herculesych has one oriental proverb: Like a donkey, don’t care, anyway, he won’t become a horse ...
      1. +5
        22 September 2017 22: 11
        It is supposed to install Active Defense, and therefore AFAR radar for detection. This is a major upgrade to protect the tank. Additional power plant - but is it not on Abrams !? I remember when the Soviet Union it was provided on the T-80 to reduce fuel consumption.
        But I agree, Duysenbay, that you can’t insert an AZ, you can’t make a deserted tower with a capsule. They had an experimental tank (with a 130-140mm gun, some strange, but in my opinion a triangular section), probably they will make a new one on the basis of it. In the meantime, they will upgrade Abrams. But surely this is because of Syria and the capabilities of the Russian T-72 and T-90. Then Armata got out, so the "allies" started to fuss.
        Also, the Germans and the French decided to create a new joint tank and fighter.
        A new arms race started. The root cause was the US withdrawal from missile defense and, as a result, the decision of the Russian Federation will be engaged in rearmament to overcome it. Well, then Georgia pushed for the rearmament of everything else. And they needed it, especially the Europeans? hi
        1. +1
          23 September 2017 04: 26
          Quote: Kasym
          And they needed it, especially the Europeans?

          until the "rising from his knees" began, then no, it was not necessary.
        2. 0
          23 September 2017 11: 30
          Quote: Kasym
          Installation of Active Defense, and therefore AFAR radar

          What is it?
          Quote: Kasym
          AZ can’t be stuck anymore; you can’t make a deserted tower with a capsule.

          Yeah. Americans change everything offal, but do not change everything that experts on the Internet sand for them
          1. Do not change the gas turbine engine to diesel (although there has been such a long time)
          2. Do not put the AZ and the more uninhabited tower.
          3. Do not introduce all kinds of Armatovskie chips like controlling a tank with google glass and additional reality.
          Either something is wrong with the Americans, or with experts. I don’t know what to think.
          1. +1
            24 September 2017 03: 12
            Look at the photo.
            Regarding the radar, just the other day I read for installing active protection on Abrams, and without it (radar) nothing. Who will be discovered. ATGM or projectile shot, calculate the path for the oncoming impact?
            It is impossible to install the AZ in Abrams - you need to change the design of the entire tower - the ammunition is in the stern, but it is necessary in the conveyor to supply the projectile. hi
            1. +1
              24 September 2017 08: 52
              Quote: Kasym
              without it (radar) no way

              Well, the radar will appear there, if not already. I got attached to AFAR.
              Quote: Kasym
              It is impossible to install the AZ in Abrams - you need to change the design of the entire tower - the ammunition is in the stern, but it is necessary in the conveyor to supply the projectile.

              1. And where is she in Leclerc with a Korean?
              2. And what's the trouble to change the design of the tower?
              https://topwar.ru/45964-proekt-m1-abrams-block-ii
              i-ssha.html
          2. 0
            29 May 2018 15: 48
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            They don’t introduce all kinds of Armatovskie chips like managing a tank with google glass and additional reality.

            Is it your envy black or white?
        3. 0
          26 September 2017 22: 34
          Quote: Kasym
          hence radar AFAR for detection

          ?! What does KAZ and AFAR have to do with it?

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Do not put AZ and even more uninhabited tower

          They put, but in serial only on the Fri on the basis of Stryker. And so, he stood on all projects of light tanks and on experimental versions of Abrams. Yes, and on the new Griffin again going to put.
  2. +1
    22 September 2017 10: 02
    On 80 bmw))) put the remote module zpu and Abrams will smoke aside.
    The nomenclature of shells is of course a problem, but it is easily solved.
    1. +2
      22 September 2017 10: 09
      this is how is it solved?
    2. +2
      22 September 2017 11: 35
      A new shell for a 125 mm cannon will cost at least one hundred thousand rubles and their introduction in droves is problematic from a financial point of view.
      1. 0
        22 September 2017 14: 18
        Well, it would be problematic for our budget, I do not think that there will be problems with money
        1. 0
          23 September 2017 18: 28
          And I'm talking about our budget.
  3. mvg
    +7
    22 September 2017 11: 41
    Armata, armata ... did she already fought somewhere? Or is it only judged by the TV Star? Why such a "puppy" delight? How many Black Eagles and Bastions were. But the "abrashki" managed to fight, and it’s serious.
    Interestingly, how much% of the OMS remains operational in Armata after the “arrival” of TOU-2A or Javelin? If, say, Spike "Tamuz" from Rafael, flies km, say with 20 ..
    1. +2
      22 September 2017 13: 26
      If they break through Afghanistan, then ...... it will be seen.
      1. +5
        22 September 2017 14: 18
        If at all armatures appear in the army.
        1. 0
          23 September 2017 18: 31
          Given how much heaped up on Armata, it will cost as much as the floor of a fighter, 500 million rubles apiece.
          1. 0
            23 September 2017 23: 28
            Well, I heard that about 5 North American lamas. But it is not exactly.
            1. 0
              24 September 2017 18: 55
              There is only one combined sight worth 40 million.
      2. +2
        22 September 2017 15: 11
        Quote: mvg
        Armata, armata ... did she already fought somewhere? Or is it only judged by the TV Star? Why such a "puppy" delight? How many Black Eagles and Bastions were. But the "abrashki" managed to fight, and it’s serious.
        Interestingly, how much% of the OMS remains operational in Armata after the “arrival” of TOU-2A or Javelin? If, say, Spike "Tamuz" from Rafael, flies km, say with 20 ..

        If TOU - then immediately upon the fact of irradiation with a range finder, an aerosol cloud will be delivered. If Jevy - the same cloud will be delivered upon the launch of the rocket.
        If the cloud didn’t help, then Afghanistan will come into play. Afganit did not help - Armata in a circle is protected by Malachite. Malachite could not cope - the latest armored steel of Almaty is extremely difficult to damage for cumulative warheads. So do not worry about “Armatka” - it is protected in the same way as abrashka and leoperd did not dream of in the wildest fantasies. Although of course - there is no indestructible tank in nature, there are survivable tanks and not so.
        PS - it’s interesting about the attack from 20 km, SOAR of Almaty will detect a missile a few km before the tank, put up an aerosol defense, and how will the missile see the target then? No, it’s clear that you can remember the coordinates of the target, but Armata will see ATGM earlier than ATGM Armata and hide automatically - there will be nothing to remember.
        1. mvg
          0
          22 September 2017 18: 12
          PS - it’s interesting about the attack from 20 km, SOAR of Almaty will detect a missile a few km before the tank, put up an aerosol defense, and how will the missile see the target then? No, it’s clear that you can remember the coordinates of the target, but Armata will see ATGM earlier than ATGM Armata and hide automatically - there will be nothing to remember.

          Yes, easy and relaxed. In addition to the infrared seeker, there is a “TV” on the spikes. The operator sits and he doesn’t care, an aerosol cloud or just someone farted. I have a different question, but what is Afghanistan already running around somewhere? How is Trophy? Does he have really shot down ATGMs? By the way, he is powerless against BOPS. And about Afghanistan / Malachite / and the Steel Research Institute, we also know exclusively from advertisements.
          1. +1
            22 September 2017 21: 16
            Modern aerosol IR also blocks pretty well, like radar. Having burned out the camera with a laser, there will be no problems either.
            1. 0
              23 September 2017 04: 30
              Quote: garri-lin
              Having burned out the camera with a laser, there will be no problems either.

              right through the aerosol cloud will not make up? laughing Star wars retaliation angry .
              1. 0
                24 September 2017 10: 26
                Or or. You can hide, you can fight back.
          2. +2
            23 September 2017 07: 01
            Quote: mvg
            In addition to the infrared seeker, there is a “TV” on the spikes. The operator sits and he doesn’t care, an aerosol cloud or just someone farted.

            Bullshit - Russia is not a banana republic, and EW funds are among the best in the world, so no.
            Quote: mvg
            I have a different question, but what is Afghanistan already running around somewhere? How is Trophy? Does he have really shot down ATGMs?

            Once upon a time, Trophy did not have them either. Afghanite is created according to the same scheme as the long-tested and adopted for service Drozd. Afghanite is its further development.
            Quote: mvg
            By the way, he is powerless against BOPS.

            Where does the information come from? On tests, Afghanite confirmed the ability to catch BOPS.

            My dear - if we were operating with unverified information, I would add here the ability of Afganit to shoot ATGM from a machine gun and an electromagnetic gun / laser jammer (insert the necessary one) as one of the elements of the BKO of Almaty, there are assumptions, but there is no evidence, so let's do it without imagination.
            1. mvg
              +2
              23 September 2017 09: 18
              [quoteso let's go without fantasies.] [/ quote]
              I am completely "for without imagination." No one has yet shot down BOPS, this time. If Drozd is so good, what roll he wasn’t set anywhere (except for the T-55, a couple of pieces), these are two. And in two Chechen wars he would have helped. Afghanit never fought, only handouts that even India was not interested in, these are three. Fourth, by means of electronic warfare: do you really believe that in our parts, wherever you rub, rubella, etc., and ready-made, trained operators stand everywhere? Something in Syria, as they hit the ATGM tanks, and they beat it.
              I want to look at the laser, which “burns out” the camera from 2.5 km, gee-gee wink and a Russian soldier, as the operator of this laser ...
              PS: I then somehow looked more or less in detail at the T-72B3 and T-90A control systems. I can say with confidence (self-confidence) that if Armata was not from the “star warriors” we got, then most of her charms are greatly exaggerated. And the price tag will be like a small "millennium Falcon" from the same "star"
              1. +3
                23 September 2017 10: 31
                Quote: mvg
                I am completely "for without imagination." No one has yet shot down BOPS, this time.

                Everything happens for the first time. No one shot down ATGMs before Drozd appeared ... Afghanit stopped BOPS during testing - this is a matter of trust in the developer.
                Quote: mvg
                If Drozd is so good, what kind of roll did he not put anywhere (except for the T-55, a couple of pieces), these are two.

                As I said, everything happens for the first time. The thrush is a test of the pen. The world's first serial KAZ. You lied about a couple of pieces again - I’ll believe a few hundred more quickly, there were only two T-55 modifications equipped with KAZ.
                Quote: mvg
                Afghanit never fought, only handouts that even India was not interested in, these are three.

                Afghanit or Arena. These are completely different complexes.
                Quote: mvg
                Fourth, by means of electronic warfare: do you really believe that in our parts, wherever rubbish stands, rubella, etc., and ready-made, trained operators?

                Wherever you spit, we don’t need it, where we need it - they are there.
                Quote: mvg
                Something in Syria, as they hit the ATGM tanks, and they beat it.

                Syria has become a "technologically powerful opponent"?
                Quote: mvg
                I want to look at the laser, which “burns out” the camera, gee-gee and the Russian soldier as the operator of this laser from 2.5 km ...

                The word "burns out" should be replaced by "blinding" - see the tests of the "President-C" system. As I said - there is no evidence of the existence of such a system in Armata, only assumptions and guesses.

                PS - you are absolutely right in only one thing. - Armata never fought.
                “Afghanit” / “Malachite” / “What else” also didn’t fight anywhere, which means there is not a single reason to use this tank for nothing. In Armata, bold technical solutions are implemented that theoretically give high characteristics - this is a fact. And there is nothing more to add or reduce.
                On this I take my leave hi
                1. 0
                  23 September 2017 18: 38
                  "Afghanit stopped the BOPS in testing - it's a matter of trust in the developer." I don’t believe it, kill it - to bring down a core of several kilograms with shrapnel, flying at a speed of 1700 meters per second - this is from the realm of fantasy.
                  1. +1
                    24 September 2017 10: 35
                    The term transverse load heard? It is enough to slightly knock down the position of the “arrow” on the trajectory and it will crack against the armor.
                    1. 0
                      24 September 2017 19: 02
                      Modern cores have a special tip that would just eliminate the skew when meeting with inclined armor. And how much this shrapnel will move him at a distance of 50 or 20 meters from the tank - by 1 - 2 degrees. And against the new weapons of "kinetic missiles" this shrapnel wakes up generally useless.
                      1. 0
                        24 September 2017 19: 29
                        Well, a rocket is a separate article. The meager distribution levels their power. In addition to the United States, where is it in service?
                        As for how much the axis of the “arrow” should be deviated from the trajectory for sure destruction, I can’t say, but the tip will definitely not help. Destructive effects will come from within due to changes in speed at the time of impact on the armor.
        2. +2
          22 September 2017 18: 49
          You should write fairy tales ... with pictures
        3. 0
          23 September 2017 09: 33
          Well, petur is allowed just when the operator sees the tank. And we do not yet know how the armature is protected because it did not participate in the hostilities.
      3. mvg
        0
        22 September 2017 18: 14
        If they break through Afghanistan, then ...... it will be seen.

        Afghanite from the 80's is afghanit, but it’s not worth it anywhere .. like Drozd. And when they break through, it will be too late to think, and nothing.
        1. +5
          22 September 2017 20: 38
          - Imagine, Gogi - you’re walking through the woods, and towards the bear. What will you do?
          - Wah, Givi, I'll shoot him with a gun!
          - Uh, Gogi, you don’t have a gun.
          - How is there no gun?
          “You went without a gun into the forest.”
          - It's strange: I never went to the forest without a gun. Then I will stab the bear with a dagger!
          - No, Gogi, a dagger.
          “How is there no dagger?” I am always with a dagger!
          - There is no it - the wife carried away to clean.
          - Wah, Givi, I'll kill him with a stone.
          - Uh, Gogi, there are no stones.
          - I'll run away!
          - And he will catch you, he runs faster.
          “Then I will climb the tallest tree; I won’t get there.”
          - Eh, Gogi, there are no trees around.
          - What is this forest without trees?
          - Well, here is a forest caught that there are no trees.
          “Listen, Givi, whose friend are you — mine or bear?”
  4. +3
    22 September 2017 13: 26
    HE Shell on Abrams! Are you kidding! They did it all the same!
    1. 0
      23 September 2017 18: 41
      Well, this shell is four in one, high-explosive fragmentation - armor-piercing-cumulative, with a programmable fuse.
  5. +2
    22 September 2017 16: 08
    The loader’s workstation will be equipped with an MP3 player to accelerate the reloading process of the 40 kg gun. bandura, as Negroes charging on Abrams then you give REP !!
  6. +5
    22 September 2017 16: 57
    Great tank. Excellent shells for the tank, allow you to fight in the forehead with any enemy from any reasonable distance. Great MSA, will Armata reach her? We’ve got it, if objectively. Protection against RPGs Also showed itself well, the Americans react very quickly and flexibly, we would have such kits for fighting in the city, like Abrams. The survivability of the crew, when breaking through the armor, is also solved better + a large tank volume. In general, the most "sighted" tank in the world with the most advanced SLA and the most killer bunch of gun + shell. But can our 2A46M-5 take Abrashu in the forehead? Or is the armor thicker with us? Or is an SLA better? Can a hodovka engine cooler? Rhetorical questions. Waiting for Armata
    1. +4
      22 September 2017 23: 43
      "RPG protection has also proven itself," ///

      Mounted DZ? Do you mean her? The sides of the hull Abrams are very, very weak.
      An RPG shot between the rollers pierced the armor.
      Therefore, I am surprised that they did not put KAZ.
      And the SLA - yes - Abrams is wonderful. He shoots for sure.
      1. 0
        23 September 2017 11: 45
        Quote: voyaka uh
        An RPG shot between the rollers pierced the armor.

        Is it up to TUSK or already with it?
        1. 0
          23 September 2017 17: 48
          Before. In Iraq in 2004-2006
  7. 0
    22 September 2017 17: 42
    what specifically change? nothing is clear from the article.
    how and what exactly will the third sep sharpen the car, the city + anti-war fight? combined arms? what exactly are Americans preparing for? information content is zero.

    I don’t share the enthusiasm for the armata, the armata should have appeared twenty years earlier and called T95, because of the fundamental superiority of the armata over modern OBTs, something is not particularly observed, it is rather a matter of closing the problems of the 72rd-90th, despite any the mass character of the car is out of the question.
    this despite the fact that the guns of great power 130-140mm have long been tested on the same abrash and leoperds, before there were no goals for them and there was no point in increasing the caliber, now the armata.
    1. 0
      22 September 2017 19: 54
      So Russia 152 in the tank run for a long time. Doshamanim goals will appear under the realities of peeling and series.
  8. 0
    22 September 2017 23: 38
    But there is no KAZ?
    1. 0
      23 September 2017 04: 30
      His own, and your "trophy" apparently is not camille wink .
  9. 0
    23 September 2017 04: 29
    Quote: Aron Zaavi
    When is this long ago? In Iraq in 2003, they broke through the defense with tanks and waged a maneuver war, breaking dozens of kilometers a day, and then they suddenly dulled and began to do the same with the tanks as the French against the Germans in 1940?


    When is this long ago? In Iraq in 2003, they broke through the defense with tanks and waged a maneuver war, breaking dozens of kilometers a day, and then they suddenly dulled and began to do the same with the tanks as the French against the Germans in 1940?
  10. 0
    23 September 2017 11: 26
    Please explain who understands why there are tablets on the forehead of the tower near the abrams and what do they mean?
    1. 0
      23 September 2017 17: 06
      If they are on the tower, then this is their alien recognition system
  11. 0
    23 September 2017 22: 35
    Of course Abrams, the little tank is not the last, all kinds of “electronic eyes”, “computer nose” are all good, but it seems to me that in our chernozems it will simply not go in the rain and snow - the Germans also encountered this problem at one time. Well, how he behaves in the deserts, it’s for me on the drum - we won’t go there to rest. The main thing is that he does not come to my house.
    1. 0
      24 September 2017 12: 05
      In the snow will ride but rammed
  12. mvg
    0
    24 September 2017 02: 39
    Quote: 11 black
    Quote: mvg
    I am completely "for without imagination." No one has yet shot down BOPS, this time.

    Everything happens for the first time. No one shot down ATGMs before Drozd appeared ... Afghanit stopped BOPS during testing - this is a matter of trust in the developer.
    Quote: mvg
    If Drozd is so good, what kind of roll did he not put anywhere (except for the T-55, a couple of pieces), these are two.

    As I said, everything happens for the first time. The thrush is a test of the pen. The world's first serial KAZ. You lied about a couple of pieces again - I’ll believe a few hundred more quickly, there were only two T-55 modifications equipped with KAZ.
    Quote: mvg
    Afghanit never fought, only handouts that even India was not interested in, these are three.

    Afghanit or Arena. These are completely different complexes.
    Quote: mvg
    Fourth, by means of electronic warfare: do you really believe that in our parts, wherever rubbish stands, rubella, etc., and ready-made, trained operators?

    Wherever you spit, we don’t need it, where we need it - they are there.
    Quote: mvg
    Something in Syria, as they hit the ATGM tanks, and they beat it.

    Syria has become a "technologically powerful opponent"?
    Quote: mvg
    I want to look at the laser, which “burns out” the camera, gee-gee and the Russian soldier as the operator of this laser from 2.5 km ...

    The word "burns out" should be replaced by "blinding" - see the tests of the "President-C" system. As I said - there is no evidence of the existence of such a system in Armata, only assumptions and guesses.

    PS - you are absolutely right in only one thing. - Armata never fought.
    “Afghanit” / “Malachite” / “What else” also didn’t fight anywhere, which means there is not a single reason to use this tank for nothing. In Armata, bold technical solutions are implemented that theoretically give high characteristics - this is a fact. And there is nothing more to add or reduce.
    On this I take my leave hi

    Blessed is he who believes .... It is practically possible to go to heaven without a pass
  13. 0
    24 September 2017 05: 38
    Quote: NordOst16
    If at all armatures appear in the army.

    You can’t see that the troll didn’t serve as a fool here, you turn on you can see that you don’t understand armored vehicles .. Stupidly Pin ..... you’re covering the camp.
  14. 0
    26 September 2017 20: 18
    He doesn’t look like a tank. Some kind of failed moon rover turned out.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"