Military Review

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation continues work on substantiating technical requirements for armored personnel carriers for the period up to 2030.

16
In the Main Automobile-Tank Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (GABTU), research continues to substantiate and develop the tactical and technical requirements for samples of armored weapons and equipment (BTWT) for the period up to 2030, reports Messenger of Mordovia.


The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation continues work on substantiating technical requirements for armored personnel carriers for the period up to 2030.


Military technology is constantly being improved, and therefore those samples that today seem to be the height of perfection will not fully meet the requirements through 10 for years.

“You can recall the legendary T-72, which was launched in a series in 1973 year. The following year, the commander's version went to the troops. In 1975, an export version was created. Four years later, a significantly modified T-72A with a laser sight with a rangefinder was put into service. For export deliveries, T-72М and T-72М1 are created, ”the article says.

In 1985, the T-72AB appeared with dynamic protection and the deeply modified T-72B with the Cotankt DZ, the Svir guided weapons complex and the 840 HP engine.

After the “zero” the Russian army received the T-72BA, later the Slingshot T-72B2 was created and successfully tested, then several versions of the T-72B3 T-XNUMX.

"We can assume that now the same intensive work is being done to determine the appearance of cars based on the Armata, Kurganets-25 and Boomerang platforms, and other promising machines, including robotized ones," the newspaper writes.

In addition, the conceptual image of the main product samples is also being developed for the period after 2030.
Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Methane
    Methane 24 November 2017 12: 49
    +3
    Well, what is it all the same with “Armata”?
    1. Shurik70
      Shurik70 24 November 2017 12: 52
      +6
      We can assume that now the same intensive work is being carried out to determine the appearance of the machines on the basis of the Armata, Kurganets-25 and Boomerang platforms.

      One can assume, one can not assume ...
      Damn, how is the article called? About technical requirements for armored vehicles for the period up to 2030 year.
      What is the text of the article about? About the T-72 line.
      MINUS to the author!
      1. Jedi
        Jedi 24 November 2017 13: 03
        +3
        Quote: Shurik70
        MINUS to the author!

        I am joining. The article is the seventh water on jelly.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 24 November 2017 13: 58
        +2
        Quote: Shurik70
        Damn, how is the article called? About technical requirements for armored vehicles for the period up to 2030 year.
        In order to have technical requirements, it is necessary to provide for what and for whom the product is developed, where, who and how it will produce (serve) and so on. Most importantly, in our case, if we talk about armored weapons and equipment, which war we are preparing for, which weapon we would like to use. Nothing about it. If we recall the creation of the 195 object, then its appearance determined first of all the transition to a new caliber of tank guns in 152 mm, as it was noted that the existing 120-125 mm tank guns had exhausted their potential, and they are no longer able to effectively deal with promising protection patterns . The installation of a powerful gun led to the development of an uninhabited tower, the transfer of the crew into a separate armored capsule. In April, the 2010 of the practically finished T-95 tank (195 object) was abandoned, since the tank was "morally obsolete", was too expensive and difficult for conscripts, moreover, the State tests had already been passed, and its serial production was expected. Well, what's next ... Then everything Soviet was reproached, extensive purchases of imported equipment were supposed, including before the UDC of the Mistral type. The new "concept" of our army began to assume its compactness, the transition to a contractual basis and outsourcing, the main enemies were the militants and terrorists, with whom local anti-terrorist operations were to be conducted in alliance with the United States and NATO. Of course, in order to save and for new tasks, appropriate equipment was required based on the principle of transformers, military headsets, "platforms". What was done, in the guise of "Boomerang", "Kurgants-25", and the platform, known as "Armata". If the T-95 tank (195 object) had an 152 mm gun and an auxiliary 30 mm automatic 2A42 gun, weighed about 55 tons, and was estimated at 450 million (not to a small extent due to the wide use of titanium and the overall novelty of the product), T-14 "Armata", the basis of which was taken T-95 in a processed form, turned out when 125 mm tools, without the wide use of titanium, and at an estimated cost of 400 million. At the same time, the tank was definitely not for conscripts, but, most importantly, the base of the tank served as a "platform", truly, a "golden platform" for other equipment. What conclusions should be made here, if we return to the topic of the article? If we talk about platforms, then raw samples are not born or assigned to them, the platform becomes a time-tested, technologically advanced, industry-accredited technology that has worked well in the army. They did not come up with platforms at Serdyukov, the same T-72 served as the basis for a huge amount of equipment, self-propelled guns, TOC, BREM, and so on, including BMPT ("Terminator-2"). There are stocks of T-72 tanks, on the basis of which you can create heavy armored personnel carriers, BMPT, self-propelled guns, other equipment with new requirements and with new weapons. The fact that they spawned as "platforms" from the era of Serdyukov, rather, counterinsurgency, police equipment, which in this form can hardly be considered the future basis of the army. For me, it would be better to return to the basic idea of ​​the T-95, in its updated form on the T-14, and the sooner the better.
        1. okko077
          okko077 24 November 2017 14: 51
          +2
          Even before the technical requirements, it is necessary to understand the nature of modern warfare and the use of tanks in it .... Why do we need so many tanks? When waging modern warfare using conventional weapons, tanks go partially in the second echelon for guarding and defending support bases, and mainly in the third for destroying pockets of resistance .... Our army leadership and the General Staff are cowardly silent, watching how the avalanche of tanks is stamping the military-industrial complex. ..Let these clowns tell how they are going to use tanks ... Maybe I'm wrong? When using blind tanks in the first echelon, they turn into mountains of burning iron, given modern anti-tank weapons .... Even the T-14 does not see further 7 km, and the latest JAGM 3rd generation ATGMs have a range of up to 16 km. We do not have combat information systems in general and in the battle formations of tanks in particular .. So the tank units are blind and defenseless, they don’t have their own information means and tank attacks in the 1st echelon cannot be used a priori ... To use tank formations they need modern information systems, and ours - it is possible, but not with us and not now ... Then, why do we need so many tanks? In addition, pi_ndos tanks are not in the first echelon ....
          1. NKT
            NKT 24 November 2017 17: 37
            +1
            So since the days of the Second World War, it was understood that tanks should not be used in the first echelon. They are the development of success when the defense is broken and only then they are introduced into a breakthrough. This was well learned in the second half of the war, when tank corps appeared. The only thing that they can be used behind the first echelon, for support: shot, changed position. I don’t know if the tactics of using tanks have changed now. It is clear that there will be no second Lutsk-Brody-Rivne and Prokhorovka.
            But here, as practice shows, experience is quickly forgotten and uncles with big stars on shoulder straps bring tank battalions into the city, where they are as if burnt in a shooting gallery.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 24 November 2017 21: 13
              0
              Quote: NKT
              So since the days of the Second World War, it was understood that tanks should not be used in the first echelon. They are the development of success when the defense is broken and only then they are introduced into a breakthrough.

              Using tanks to support infantry is like ... hammering nails with a microscope.
          2. Bastion Eagle
            Bastion Eagle 24 November 2017 20: 56
            +1
            Russia is not the USSR. We are not going to sow progressive communism all over the world. So, that in defense and counterattack on its territory, and in connection with other parts under the general leadership and with pre-trained tactics ... how else they fit!
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 24 November 2017 21: 20
              +1
              Quote: Hold Eagle
              Russia is not the USSR. We are not going to sow progressive communism all over the world. So, that in defense and counterattack on its territory, and in connection with other parts under the general leadership and with pre-trained tactics ... how else they fit!

              all you wrote is populist nonsense that has nothing to do with tanks.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 24 November 2017 13: 05
      +6
      Quote: Methane
      Well, what is it all the same with “Armata”?

      In 18 he will go to military tests, as the T-14, and T-15 and T-16. Training of crews will begin, refinement of products to the series.
      This year, after 6 years of failure, the Moscow Region purchased a batch of T-90M (Breakthrough-3). Slowly 72s will be replaced by the 90s, and they will also saturate our T-14 armored units.
      1. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 24 November 2017 14: 54
        +1
        I'd like to believe that it will be so. drinks
      2. alexmach
        alexmach 24 November 2017 16: 44
        0
        YES, after all, did not purchase, but ordered the modernization of existing ones, and then only 64 pieces.
  2. Sergey53
    Sergey53 24 November 2017 12: 56
    0
    The appearance of the entire promising range of machines planned for development was shown back in 2015, during the show to D. Rogozin.
  3. Methane
    Methane 24 November 2017 13: 13
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    In 18 he will go to military trials, as T-14, and T-15 and T-16

    The landfill is ready. You are welcome-)))
  4. starogil
    starogil 24 November 2017 13: 19
    +1
    "The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation continues to work on the substantiation of technical requirements for BTVT for the period until 2030"
    You do not know whether to envy the optimism of those who can fantasize within 15-20 years of life
    in the future, or look at these eccentrics as talkers. Another thing that has not been acquired for 5-6 years
    practically no final form, or at least an experimental, labor consignment of products in the troops, already
    pyzhitsya imagine non-existent as it will be in the 2030th. Shame, guys.
    1. RL
      RL 24 November 2017 13: 48
      +4
      Competition for specialists announced? I am applying! I also want to do nothing and get paid. And to me, as a NATO specialist and with a premium bonus!