Military Review

How will the main battle tanks change in the near future?

75
The idea of ​​the army of the future for many is formed by science fiction films and popular literature. However, military professionals are confident that in the next quarter century, we certainly will not see hordes of walking combat robots armed with blasters on the battlefield. For example, it’s very difficult to come up with an alternative to the main combat tanks.


At the same time, there is no need to talk about any stagnation in military affairs: representatives of military science, engineers and designers are currently working on determining the possible appearance of the Russian armed forces for the coming decades. The concept of development of armored vehicles is being worked out.

About the “armor of Russia 2040 of the year,” that the editor-in-chief of the magazine Arsenal of the Fatherland, member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky told the RG in an exclusive interview with RG.

Will robots replace people for armor?


Tank T-14 on the Armata platform.

The tanks of the near future will be to the maximum extent robotic systems, says Victor Murakhovsky. But a lot depends on how much progress is made in the creation of artificial intelligence:

“As technology develops, people will gradually leave the battlefield, including members of the crew of the tank. The commander will follow the first“ way out ”- a single tactical level control system will take over. Integration of all elements of the tank will continue, a single complex will be created on a common digital bus, and the combat vehicles themselves will merge into the same system at the division level.

Already, it is beginning to transform into a single control system, a single information field and a single reconnaissance-fire circuit. This is a new quality of improvement of command controllability of both individual machines and small subunits, as well as the primary all-arms team at the battalion level.

The second, probably, the tank will leave the gunner. We are gradually approaching the fact that pattern recognition systems begin to reach the level of a person of average readiness. Suppose that in the medium term, the future robotic systems will learn to distinguish one object from another, their own from others, even indirectly, reaching the level of an average gunner. "

But the driver in a tank is a long time, Murakhovsky believes, without presenting the prospects for its complete replacement.

"The robotic system alone will not be able to eliminate various problems on the battlefield for a long time. For example, a stuck tank for unmanned armored vehicles is still a stalemate. The usual crew of a tank can get out of such situations without problems by using standard means of self-pulling. Similarly with combat damage, like broken caterpillar.

However, the automation of the movement of machines in a column is a solution that can be implemented now. In Soviet times, they tried to do this, but the level of technology of that time did not allow achieving stable work. The fact is that the column is moving at a speed that can be maintained by the “slowest” driver. The introduction of the same automation will lead to the most skilled and fast driver, and the rest of the machines will simply automatically repeat its route and control algorithms.

This solution can increase the average speed of troop columns on tracked vehicles by 30 percent and increase the march rate from the current 300 to 500 km per day at no extra cost. "

How the firepower will rise


Fighting robot "Uranus-9".

It is not known whether the current powder gun will remain on the tank of the near future. Perhaps its place will be taken by an electrothermochemical instrument or an electromagnetic method of throwing will be chosen. It is known that the creation of the EPCP at the present time is considerably advanced and is at the stage of development work.

"The development of an electromagnetic method of throwing a projectile has been going on for a long time, but no one has yet achieved any particular success in this area. Here, the problems of power sources and the properties of materials come to the fore - with such accelerations they wear out extremely quickly.

The electrothermochemical gun proved to be a much more realistic option, but here we are waiting for the stability of the shot. We have already done this on systems with liquid propellants or with a sleeveless cartridge, when stability is not ensured even in a hand gun weapons.

Of course, promising developments have a number of advantages - a higher initial velocity of the projectile, as well as compact placement of ammunition. With all this, the reliability of weapons is reduced, it becomes much more dependent on environmental conditions, it requires perfect logistics, so all this is still at the stage of experimental work and has not been released into the series, "says V. Murakhovsky.

Caterpillars are forever



Viktor Murakhovsky expressed the opinion that there would hardly be any fundamentally new propulsion for armored vehicles: an air cushion or something else more exotic.

"I think the caterpillars are forever. Maybe in the very very distant future something will replace them, but so far no alternative is even visible. Development will go on by improving the suspension, primarily through the use of intelligent control systems.

If we talk about propulsion systems, then everything still comes up against one global problem - the lack of an energy source comparable in energy intensity and ease of use with hydrocarbon fuels. Currently, the best, most efficient batteries in terms of specific energy consumption are an order of magnitude inferior to gasoline and diesel fuel. This is absolutely not a variant of the engine for a battlefield technique. "

Armor is strong!


Intelligence-impact ground-based robotic complex "Whirlwind" based on the BMP-3.

Security remains the key and determining factor for heavy platforms of armored vehicles and the main tank in the first place.

“I think something revolutionary that will allow a fundamental change in the situation will not appear in this topic. The current defense systems will continue to evolve,” says Viktor Ivanovich, referring to passive armor protection in its multi-layered design.

"Work will also continue to improve the dynamic protection characteristics. Active protection, air curtain systems, and optical-electronic suppression systems will become an indispensable attribute of the new generation armored vehicles. Currently, they are working on this in all advanced countries of the world.

However, the competition between armor and projectile will continue with the varying success of one party or another.

As for the use of adaptive masking tools (chameleon cover), I do not really believe in them. It works in the laboratory, but not on the battlefield.

In order to get a qualitatively new defense, you need to look at what new trends in physics we have, on the basis of which you can think of something. Do promising developments provide a qualitative increase, that is, at times? No, the maximum will provide 15-20% ".

Tanks are immortal?

Tanks still remain the main striking force of the ground forces, the only type of military equipment that can make a tactical maneuver on the battlefield under direct enemy fire: break through defenses or, conversely, deliver a counterattack on the attack. This is a unique property, I am sure Victor Murakhovsky.

“Who would not say anything about the" death of tanks ", there are no other machines that can replace them on the battlefield, in nature. Talk that soon there will be light and fast anthropomorphic robots fighting each other like laughter.

I would send the inventors of such equipment to the battlefield, where the combined arms battalions, saturated with armored vehicles, are fighting on a full scale with the support of artillery and aviationso that they personally feel the absurdity of such fantasies.

And most importantly - do not forget that the main detail of any weapon is the head of its owner, no matter how trite it sounds. Exactly the same applies to the tank crew, pilots, infantry, and so on. The technique is becoming more and more perfect, but in the end, a man fights and wins, "he concluded.

How will the main battle tanks change in the near future?










Author:
Originator:
https://rg.ru/2017/12/07/kak-izmeniatsia-osnovnye-boevye-tanki-v-blizhajshem-budushchem.html?utm_source=rg.ru&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=928
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. zzdimk
    zzdimk 11 December 2017 05: 38 New
    +2
    How? No financing - no way!
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 11 December 2017 05: 49 New
      0
      How will the main battle tanks change in the near future?
      "mihan"recently declared pro:" armature thrown into the trash "(c) recourse it means, they will not change in any way ... everyone will repair what is. yes lol
      1. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 11 December 2017 07: 33 New
        +2
        do not worry about Almaty, nothing will happen to them .... they will be in the army, maybe not quite the same as in the parade, and not very much, but how much will be needed so much ....
        and the content of the article surprised me a little, because I read the same thing in the journal Science and Life in 1968 (yes, SIXTY-EIGHT!) a year ... Only there, moreover, the question of the use of liquid, two or more components was considered, throwing compounds .... An interesting topic: an increase in ammunition, and fire and explosion safety, and simpler loading ...
        1. seos
          seos 11 December 2017 16: 33 New
          0
          T-14 This is not an MBT but a command tank capable of detecting an enemy and giving target designation to other vehicles ... I see nothing wrong with the fact that it will act in symbiosis with older vehicles ...
          Our opponent regularly upgrades equipment - in terms of efficiency-cost, this is a profitable option .. The T-72, T-80 and T-90 platforms have not used up their potential.
          An ideal upgrade for them would be a complete replacement of the tower with an automatic loader ... unfortunately the last attempt to carry out such an upgrade failed ... (OCD burlak)
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 December 2017 17: 49 New
          +3
          Quote: DanSabaka
          and the content of the article surprised me a little, because I read the same thing in the journal Science and Life in 1968 (yes, SIXTY-EIGHT!) a year ... Only there, moreover, the question of the use of liquid, two or more components was considered, throwing compounds .... An interesting topic: an increase in ammunition, and fire and explosion safety, and simpler loading ...

          Heh heh heh ... In the ZVO of the late 80s, the iron ore missiles were considered as the immediate prospect of the barrel artillery. Literally just a little more - and the gunners will have the opportunity to adjust the initial velocity of the projectile and select the trajectory, and not discretely, in beams, but continuously and with great accuracy. Moreover, when using HMW with two or more components, it will be possible to select the composition of these components so that individually they are low-viscosity and difficult to detonate. And how placement of charges is facilitated ... tanks with components can be shoved in such places of self-propelled guns. where the charger for the usual charge never reaches.
          However, in the same ZVO and Osprey was ready to enter service in the near future. smile
    2. Chertt
      Chertt 11 December 2017 06: 28 New
      +1
      Persistent rumors are circulating that they are going to install a prototype of an electrothermochemical gun on the Coalition. Allegedly, the results obtained by shooting, the range and rate of fire by another method are not achievable
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 11 December 2017 12: 52 New
        +2
        These are not rumors, this is reality. Capsule sleeves and other similar tools were abandoned in favor of microwave initiation of the propellant charge.
        However, until the end result, as before Beijing in reverse. When the propellant charge in the combat unit will be completely inert, and its burning during the shot will be completely controlled.
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 11 December 2017 05: 51 New
    +1
    I would send the inventors of such a technique to the battlefield, where combined-arms battalions, saturated with armored vehicles, are fighting in full swing with the support of artillery and aviation, so that they personally feel the whole absurdity of such fantasies.

    And imagine if hundreds of operators with TOUs and Javelins will sit on the battlefield in ambush ...
    and if it will be robotic installations sharpened for the destruction of tanks ... not so simple ...
    today throwing tanks into battle without processing enemy firing positions with artillery and aircraft .... without covering with death infantry, it’s like.
    On rollers from SYRIA and IRAQ it is clearly visible that the tank without the cover of other arms is just an excellent target for the enemy.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 11 December 2017 06: 23 New
      +3
      Quote: The same Lech
      that a tank without cover for other branches of the army is just an excellent target for the enemy.

      So this is what they mean when they talk about a “network-centric war”. Such a part of a combat group that will destroy the enemy as efficiently as possible will immediately respond to each of the threats. Whether it be aviation, artillery, snipers, etc.
    2. svp67
      svp67 11 December 2017 08: 22 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      On rollers from SYRIA and IRAQ it is clearly visible that the tank without the cover of other arms is just an excellent target for the enemy.

      So you need to make it so that already in the tank it was all .... and arriving at the clash site, he could let himself out as "scouts", "foot soldiers", "spotters", etc., etc. ...
      1. cannabis
        cannabis 11 December 2017 09: 20 New
        +1
        I have a 50-gramophone in my garage. Works. But the “combine” bought in the mid-70s from a tape recorder, player and radio is not stored, because it was thrown into a landfill at the same time, at 70. It didn’t work, palda!
        1. svp67
          svp67 11 December 2017 09: 29 New
          +2
          Quote: cunning
          I have a 50-gramophone in my garage. Works. But the “combine” bought in the mid-70s from a tape recorder, player and radio is not stored, because it was thrown into a landfill at the same time, at 70. It didn’t work, palda!

          Gramophone ... take a little piece from the 9th century that was found by archaeologists at a historical landfill, then threw it away .... playing, but the trouble is not to perform one symphony on it, the possibilities are not the same ....
          1. cannabis
            cannabis 11 December 2017 09: 44 New
            +1
            The argument is not accepted! Ancient muses. instruments - strings and winds, give rise to sounds at the behest of the soul, and symphonies, this is a Western invention, as one of the options for "spiritual" church music. We do not whistle while Shostakovich is walking, but The shadov of your smile is easy!
            1. svp67
              svp67 11 December 2017 09: 49 New
              +1
              Quote: cunning
              The argument is not accepted!

              Free will. Simply, the older something is, the more it is, in overwhelming cases, EASIER and MUCH MORE, but also less broken. But it also has significantly fewer features.
              1. cannabis
                cannabis 11 December 2017 10: 05 New
                +2
                A weapon is a tool. How and when to apply it is decided by the owner. The scout knife НР-43 is a rather primitive thing, but it is trouble-free and multi-functional. According to your decision, they can shave, open canned food, remove sentries and set mines in frozen ground. Not at all if you have a Swiss officer knife. A little red one with a cross, with nail files, hrenushes. "But they can’t shave and set mines. And with regards to electricity, everything that is more complicated than a flashlight will fail mercilessly and at the most inopportune moment. If the illumination lamp burns out in the BMP -1, then you can still shoot from a machine gun while aiming at visible ricochets and tracers, but not from a cannon! In the mountains, being at a distance of visibility, it is sometimes impossible to negotiate by radio.
                1. Astoria
                  Astoria 11 December 2017 11: 57 New
                  0
                  A weapon is a tool.
                  don't worry - Shoigu already understood everything, everyone will be given a sword and a bow with arrows. wink
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 December 2017 18: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        So you need to make it so that already in the tank it was all .... and arriving at the clash site, he could let himself out as "scouts", "foot soldiers", "spotters", etc., etc. ...

        What the military just won’t come up with, if only the personnel would not be taught interaction. smile
        If you estimate the dimensions of the tank, which can disguise itself as “scouts”, “foot soldiers”, “spotters”, as well as the crew required to manage all this wealth, we will get another T-35. Each additional crew member is an increase in the reserved volume, and this, in turn, is an increase in weight and dimensions. With Karitna modules the same.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 11 December 2017 23: 32 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          If we estimate the dimensions of the tank, which can produce “scouts”, “foot soldiers”, “spotters”, as well as the crew required to manage all this wealth, we will get another T-35.

          And you estimate the dimensions of the transport in which "hundreds of operators with TOU and Javelins" ride
    3. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 December 2017 23: 27 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      And imagine if hundreds of operators with TOUs and Javelins will sit on the battlefield in ambush ...

      These "javelin operators" of yours are extremely vulnerable to simple artillery fire
  3. ImPerts
    ImPerts 11 December 2017 05: 53 New
    +5
    Everything goes to this:
  4. Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 11 December 2017 06: 24 New
    +4
    in my humble opinion, the future tank platoon is a coordination and control machine with a wide range of sighting and surveillance equipment and with the ability to obtain external target designation or data from other combat vehicles. for example, on the basis of some heavy non-floating BMP. The crew of such a machine can consist of five people - mech.-water., Platoon commander, three operators of detection and aiming platoon tanks.
    3 battle tanks should also be equipped with surveillance and guidance, but with lower characteristics, while sufficient to provide local situational awareness. I liked the idea of ​​the interviewee about the impossibility of the complete exclusion of the crew - truly in cunning, ingenuity and insight to the human mind, it’s not that far away from the lonic machine approach, but even the devil himself sometimes has to learn)))
    In general, if you do not read my stream of thoughts, the article is at least not utopian, soberly assessing the development of tank building as an evolutionary process. Repeatedly during the second half of the 20th century, revolutionary projects were proposed that promised a spasmodic increase in performance, but which were difficult to bring to operational readiness. As a result, only some of the components and assemblies of these machines were used in more conservative, but at the same time armed machines.
    1. Yarhann
      Yarhann 11 December 2017 15: 08 New
      0
      A revolutionary leap in armored vehicles will only occur when they are unmanned - the armored space will be much smaller (enemies). many components and assemblies will be modular - to implement various capabilities of equipment in battle.
      increase the main caliber - this is mandatory since the equipment must become either smaller or more armored. also large OFS will be able to provide technical glare for the drone - that is, the destruction of cameras, optics, sensors, radars.
      Naturally on board there will be a powerful computer (computer) for implementing a fully robotic mode - due to the fact that on board the tank there are a lot of detection means, active protection means (KAZ, smoke and other optical jammers, electronic warfare), attack means (main gauge, automatic guns, machine guns, anti-tank guns, mine-throwers, grenade launchers), as well as the organization of the safe movement of equipment along a specified route (recognition of technical barriers, characteristic traces of laying land mines and mines, etc.)
      That is, all of this must be managed on the basis of information received from technical intelligence on board the vehicle and according to external intelligence.
      Without robotization, moreover, not a partial, but complete revolution in tank building cannot be. the current development of tanks is a dead end and t14 is essentially a bullet in this annals of the development of tanks with operators on board
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 11 December 2017 21: 20 New
        0
        in the next hundred years, robots will not replace humans on the battlefield. For all one reason! Yes, the production of electronics is cheaper than human production. but her shelf life is shorter due to the diffusion of materials, and as a result, in terms of the “reserve provision in case of war” parameter, a person surpasses any electronics in the “cost-effectiveness” ratio.
        1. Yarhann
          Yarhann 7 January 2018 14: 48 New
          0
          this is in the papuan armies. in the armies of developed countries, a person already now plays the main role of an operator - such as a tank, plane, UAV, or air defense combat complex or ship’s missile system — most of this all that I have listed can operate either in fully robotic mode or in partially automatic mode.
          a person on the battlefield is the simplest and most vulnerable target, while it is limited by its biological capabilities to obtain information from the battlefield - that is, poor vision, hearing, etc.
          Naturally, modern warriors and warriors of the near future are improving - that is, they get the simplest armor (body armor, camouflage means from technical means of detection) and modern surveillance equipment (optoelectronic systems).
          The main drawback of a person is his dependence on the battlefield on the highest combat systems such as armored vehicles, aviation, artillery - without all these systems, a person simply does not play meat and doesn’t play a role - in the absence of equipment, no amount of meat will save from the complete destruction of all reserves.
          Look at the war in Syria in the Donbas what worked there - intelligence - by technical means. the destruction of the enemy was a matter of technology that was available - of what and what means of destruction will be relevant for many decades to come, and this is evident from the conflicts of this century.
          But whatever you say, equipment and its roboticization are becoming more and more part of the military system, and if before this was the lot of air defense systems, now robotic systems are used both in reconnaissance and in means of delivering strikes. fully giving the right to the system to search for the goal of breeding and its destruction, we will make the perfect combat vehicle.
          As for replacing a person on the battlefield - and why change him - man is an excellent biomachine whose efficiency is constantly being improved by new electronic means and, most importantly, by incorporating every modern soldier into a single combat network. Effectiveness is very noticeable in the same conflicts of our time - where often, to support regular armies, several detachments of soldiers of the SSO type are enough for which there is an intelligence processing system for information and the ability to remotely launch missile or artillery strikes.
          but for the same assault operations there’s no way to go without tanks - in the near future the tanks will have to change a lot for greater efficiency - because the clashes will take place exclusively in the city.
          Well, I don’t want to go deep into the characteristics of the technology of the near future - most of them will be limited by the capabilities of modern electronics and communication systems.
          But the fact that without electronic intelligence systems, man and any combat complex today is ineffective is obvious.
          At the expense of storage, sensors, fire detection systems, etc., etc. are constantly improving because it makes no sense to talk about long-term storage. For example, take the same T72 tanks removed from storage and upgraded to t 72B3 - well, these are simple machines in terms of their capabilities - and everything was changed precisely by means of optoelectronic reconnaissance and control of the combat systems of the machine.
          And yes, about providing a reserve in case of war - war is a permanent thing, it never ends because I keep xs there. BUT that reserve should be just as clear. It’s just not worth forgetting that the reserve in conflict with the modern strong adversary will also be destroyed in the first place. Therefore, in global conflicts it will steer exactly what remains intact for the most part and quantity - and these are armored vehicles and people with small arms and wearable reconnaissance and destruction systems for ground and air assets.
          I would like to add the main volzmozhnost of robotic technology is the ability to work 27/7 only refuel and change BC - that is, to receive information about the battlefield in real time mode and accumulate it for processing - humans are not capable of this because of limited physical and mental abilities.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 7 January 2018 19: 34 New
            0
            Well, you have a respected brain robotization. Not only do you confuse robots (those that operate themselves) and drones (those that are controlled). So also contradict yourself, especially in an attempt to dispel my claims about the reserve. In general, I advise you to compare the tank construction of the USSR and Germany during WWII. I especially advise you to pay attention to the drawings and designs by comparing the costs of man-hours for production, maintenance and field repairs. When you understand the essence of the plug cost-effectiveness of WWII tank construction, you can analyze your words about robots and realize your mistakes. If this is not enough for you to realize, then I advise you to start learning how to compensate for the shortcomings with the help of various practical / user tricks.
            1. Yarhann
              Yarhann 8 January 2018 17: 54 New
              0
              and I advise you to use brushes instead of a calculator and instead of an OT or a personal car a horse.
              you still say that in modern armies there are no robots))) the pancake knows any drone more or less decent works in robotic mode (if it has an onboard computer or a communication channel with a remote computer). With the development of AI, by the middle of this century, military operations will be carried out exclusively through drones controlled by AI.
              And you can continue as our generals prepare for the wars of the past Suvorov damn it.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 9 January 2018 03: 19 New
                0
                Well, a bad case, you better go read articles about the diffusion of materials in microelectronics. And then you will find out that to create an AI, you need to reduce the manufacturing process (this is subject to the existence of algorithms and architecture of the AI). But the smaller the process, the less durable the electronics. As a result, the military will have the opportunity to buy “super-duper” robots that will be stored for a maximum of 5 years in the “mid-century”, and then they can be thrown into the trash, because 90% of the price of this robot is brain that has failed. They (the military) will have a tremendous desire to buy these robots. laughing
  5. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 11 December 2017 07: 37 New
    +1
    I liked the ending of the article: "Technique is becoming more and more perfect, but in the end, a man fights and wins." You can’t argue in the army that right now we need competent personnel.
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 11 December 2017 07: 59 New
      +1
      It seems to me that for a long time not a single “intelligent” robot can replace a person in a non-standard combat situation.
  6. ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat 11 December 2017 08: 24 New
    +1
    Damn, well, you can’t, it is IMPOSSIBLE! to make JOURNALISTS and WRITER responsible for solving SUCH issues, because they earn money by chatter and writing, and well, if they wrote their thoughts, then no one else would rewrite others. I hope everyone remembers the tale of a broken phone? fellow And after all, what’s funny is that a reasonable person will write an article and write something useful and necessary in it, so these scribblers will then “scare” this for a hundred years wink. That's just the state of this scarecrow no good, only harm! Here again the next editor-in-chief! and EXPERT! declares with a clever air that "everything will be as before because they did not come up with anything new." yes three times HA! No one tried to come up with anything new! Take, for example, engines for Almaty and Kurgan, well, hell would be put ahead of him (I'm talking about BMP), hell would have problems with it by weight. but after the first shot the car will be immobilized! Well, tell me what is the problem instead of one large engine to make several small? Well, they knocked you two engines and to hell with them you have 8 more! and all the problem is solved! So no, we will listen to journalists and experts! which have nothing to do with the examination!
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 December 2017 23: 35 New
      0
      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      Well, tell me what is the problem instead of one large engine to make several small?

      The problems are very serious, I would even say - insoluble, for example, they cannot be synchronized.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 12 December 2017 00: 47 New
        0
        Quote: KaPToC
        for example, they cannot be synchronized.

        And this does not need to be done, you just need to make a buffer drive and use it as an adder. For example, it can be a high-pressure tank or a supercapacitor or a battery.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 12 December 2017 17: 18 New
          0
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          And this does not need to be done, you just need to make a buffer drive and use it as an adder.

          amateur reasoning
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 12 December 2017 22: 03 New
            0
            Quote: KaPToC
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            And this does not need to be done, you just need to make a buffer drive and use it as an adder.

            amateur reasoning

            Well, yes, the "deletant" who, unlike any "non deletant", understands that in armored vehicles you need to abandon a clean mechanical transmission and go say hydraulic, and thereby get advantages. I could now list, paint and chew everything, but, you are not “deletant”, you should already know all this and understand it right? hi
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 12 December 2017 22: 20 New
              0
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              Well, yes, the "deletant" who, unlike any "non deletant", understands that armored vehicles must be abandoned

              Maybe you understand in armored vehicles, but I understand in internal combustion engines.
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              let's switch to hydraulic and thereby get advantages

              Which for example? Please clarify the benefits.
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              but, you are not a “deletant”, you should already know all this and understand it right?

              To answer something I need to know what exactly you consider an advantage.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 13 December 2017 01: 19 New
                0
                Quote: KaPToC
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                let's switch to hydraulic and thereby get advantages

                Which for example? Please clarify the benefits.

                of the most important giving a synergistic effect:
                1) increase the survivability of armored vehicles - the destruction of one "engine-generator-compressor" will not lead to loss of mobility, because there are 5-20 more of them.
                2) the solution of most problems with the weight distribution of the machine due to the uniform distribution of the propulsion system in the space of the machine. This also includes the possibility of rearrangement of the machine, and as a consequence, the lifting of restrictions on the weapons used, which is especially critical for the BTR \ BMP.
                3) increase maintainability, imagine that the nodes of the tanks \ BTR \ BMP \ MRAP will be interchangeable. For example, 3 generators were knocked out of you, you went to remove the damaged equipment, or borrowed these three generators from working equipment, so without external support from the repair services, you restored your combat readiness in one night (remember that there was a WWII with tigers and t34)
                4) increasing fuel efficiency and at the same time increasing masking, more precisely reducing unmasking factors, for example, during reconnaissance, it is possible to reduce engine noise by turning off the most noisy nodes. For example, when using generators based on internal combustion engines and gas turbine engines, you can turn off the latter to reduce noise. The same principle when using more economical and more powerful generators to save fuel.
                There are other advantages, much more important (in my opinion), but this is not the place to discuss them.
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 13 December 2017 18: 55 New
                  0
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  There are other advantages, much more important (in my opinion), but this is not the place to discuss them.

                  Do you understand that from each engine to the wheel you need to drive a transmission? Separate gearbox?
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  1) increased survivability of armored vehicles - the destruction of one "engine-generator-compressor" will not lead to loss of mobility

                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  of the most important giving a synergistic effect:

                  1. You will get such a complicated and expensive car that it just won’t be able to drive and fight.
                  2. fuel efficiency is greater - the larger the engine;
                  3. the torque of one large is higher than that of several small;
                  4. more engines - more likely to get into one of them;
                  In the end - there is the experience of using a twin-engine armored personnel carrier - and it is negative, the advantages are ephemeral and imperceptible, the disadvantages are real and tangible.
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  reduction of unmasking factors, for example, the ability to reduce engine noise during reconnaissance by disabling the most noisy nodes

                  For example, disconnect the connecting rod and piston group? What are they making noise? repeat Is everything all right with your head? Have you had a medical examination for a long time?
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 14 December 2017 04: 54 New
                    0
                    Dear KaPToC, Everything that you wrote, I know, I understand and I understand. It is precisely for this reason that I FINISHED MY POST PHRASE:
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    There are other advantages, much more important (in my opinion), but this is not the place to discuss them.

                    You understand, everything that you listed is TRUE, and it DOESN’T BE DISPUTED by me! Just unlike you and most other people, I, after stating these facts, went a little further. further in search of the root cause of these facts. And then in search of methods for solving the root cause, i.e. disease, not symptoms. And I found that all these symptoms are resolved, resolved by a variety of technical and engineering methods with a constant conceptual model. Briefly, I described this to you, but understand a simple thing, after reading my words you will not see this conceptual model, I need to spend a lot of time, effort and money to arrange everything in a form that is readable to you (but I won’t get anything from this sad ) And if you think about how many resources you need to bring it all to practical use, then it's time to get into the loop recourse Therefore, I think it’s stupid to discuss this in the comments under the next article. Do you have access to the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense? on KB? Do you have a source of funding? Do you have specialists from hundreds of areas? are you ready to finance niokra? Well, all right, do you even have hundreds of thousands of rubles for patent applications and tens of thousands more for taxes? I strongly doubt that you have at least one of this. Notice I don’t even ask you for money (in the sense personally for myself), I’m just 100% sure that the final result will replace what it is now, therefore I want a share of a percentage of sales. wink
                    but in general, all that verbal turbidity that I wrote above can be reduced to one picture! tadam lol
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 14 December 2017 19: 50 New
                      0
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      Just unlike you and most other people, I, after stating these facts, went a little further. further in search of the root cause of these facts.

                      And from modesty you will not die. What do you think others did not think of anything like this? No need to reinvent the wheel.
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      There are other advantages, much more important (in my opinion), but this is not the place to discuss them.

                      That is, the most interesting thing you decided to keep silent? Or do you just have nothing to say?
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 15 December 2017 02: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: KaPToC
                        And from modesty you will not die.

                        On their own people are not judged! wink My words are a statement of fact, and not an attempt to expose my FAQ. hi
                        Quote: KaPToC
                        That is, the most interesting thing you decided to keep silent? Or do you just have nothing to say?

                        See the picture above. If you do not understand the essence of the problem, then read the tale about a broken phone and then look again at the picture above.
                        I do not want to repeat myself and breed demagogy, but I will give a simple example. Earlier, you stated that “a high cost is due to the large number of gearboxes (a separate gearbox per wheel, instead of one common one)”. And your statement is confirmed by practice, again the same twin-engine armored personnel carrier. But! Attention Question: Is your statement true or true?

                        Is it true or true?
                        You think the truth, but I think the truth. And my proof is very simple. What does the gearbox cost consist of? and it consists of 90% of the process of turning parts of complex shape, primarily gears. Therefore, if you increase the number of gearboxes without increasing the number of complex parts for one machine (the number of gears), we get the same total cost.
                        Quote: KaPToC
                        What do you think others did not think of anything like this? No need to reinvent the wheel.

                        And it’s also unnecessary to fly into space, it’s cold there, radiation, there’s nothing to even breathe! not to mention eat and drink! lol And the Internet is also unnecessary, we lived without it and will continue to live! and cars and airplanes and heating and sewage. continue on yourself ... laughing
                        In general, I constantly encounter a very funny and offensive situation. A lot of smart and educated people do not know how to analyze information. They constantly refer to dogmas and dirty knowledge and, as a result, they lead themselves into a logical impasse, and since they have “pieces of paper” that they are “very smart”, they consider the problem completely unsolvable and thereby create new dogmas. You don’t even have to go far for an example, your predicate that
                        Quote: KaPToC
                        2. fuel efficiency is greater - the larger the engine;
                        It’s about how to say that “the bigger the tree, the stronger it is” (predicate), everything seems to be right? Yes? but this is true, not truth! because there are different types of wood, there are different forms of wood, there are different substances and radiation affecting the tree, and you can choose a combination of conditions under which the predicate will be false ...
  7. Cat Marquis
    Cat Marquis 11 December 2017 08: 25 New
    +2
    The "anti-tank gun" on the tank is no longer needed - complicated, expensive, takes up a lot of space, is inconvenient when maneuvering in cities and bottlenecks. In the future, the tank will be a multifunctional combat vehicle armed mainly with missiles located in containers like the Tor complex, machine guns and small-caliber cannons or large-caliber short-barreled low-energy guns with a large stock of shells with automatic reloading of ammunition from containers delivered to the battlefield by unmanned aerial vehicles and ground type.
    1. cannabis
      cannabis 11 December 2017 09: 33 New
      +1
      We do not need "multi-functional" tanks, we need "multi-functional" commanders! We need people who understand that tanks (armored vehicles) must destroy infantry and artillery fire weapons, and not fight head-on with enemy tanks.
      1. Irbenwolf
        Irbenwolf 11 December 2017 10: 55 New
        0
        Wait for this in 20 years ... subject to the return of the Soviet system of education, a certain degree of ideology and social protection ... Then gradually through millions of sifted grains of sand, talents will be taken away.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 11 December 2017 11: 04 New
          0
          Even the USSR could not do this, not to mention other countries ...
  8. cannabis
    cannabis 11 December 2017 09: 12 New
    +1
    The concept of armored riders on armored horses imposed on Russia cost our people very much! During World War II, we built about 2 tanks and almost 100 were leased out under lease lease. According to statistics for the year in the tank army (000 tanks), the fleet of combat vehicles was completely updated, each of them being knocked out by the enemy 30-000 times during the year, with corresponding personnel losses. But there was a period in the past of Russia when the generals were able to find "asymmetric" responses to threats. Without delving into the pantry of facts, I will say two things: luring German knights on ice and the invention of the RPG-1000 grenade launcher. It’s time to “turn on the brain” and in modern conditions to find simple solutions to complex problems. I advise designers and military theorists to re-read L.N. Tolstoy "As a man removed a stone from the square."
    1. Irbenwolf
      Irbenwolf 11 December 2017 10: 52 New
      +2
      Isn't RPG-7 a reprocessing of the German Faustpatron?
      Wasn't there armor on the Russian squad in the 13th century?

      The search for asymmetric solutions does not completely eliminate the need to look at the best from competitors ... well, for example, rockets from fascist Germany or jet planes.
      1. cannabis
        cannabis 11 December 2017 11: 02 New
        +1
        RPG-7 is a type of reusable weapon. Faustpatron, RPG type "Fly" - disposable anti-tank grenades. The difference is huge! The point is not the armor, but the tactics of the Russian commanders. Jet planes and ballistic missiles of Germany were a natural continuation of the revolution in Russia in 17 years and the subsequent destruction of the national elite of Russia. Well there was nobody to design! Then and now the main task for the West is the destruction of the Slavs as a species.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 December 2017 23: 39 New
      0
      Quote: cunning
      We built about 2 tanks during World War II

      The USSR did not produce 100000 tanks during WWII, where did you get this crap from?
      1. cannabis
        cannabis 11 December 2017 23: 43 New
        0
        Lord, you need to read books, then you don’t have to "mess around" with stupid questions.
  9. Irbenwolf
    Irbenwolf 11 December 2017 10: 45 New
    +1
    One driver? And how will he change the truck alone? Using AI?

    "Aviation-helicopter scheme" with a pilot and a shooter (commander, gunner) - the most suitable for technology. In Russia (in the USSR) quite a lot of tanks were "printed" ... They need to be tried to be upgraded to two crew members and it's desirable to the "safety capsules". Even by reducing ammunition.

    I’m writing preferably, because an amateur - crawling along a modern tank only in a museum ...
    1. Nikolay R-PM
      Nikolay R-PM 11 December 2017 11: 47 New
      +2
      And if you think about it, then you are right. A well-coordinated crew and a stuck car are easier to pull out and morale is better when you feel the shoulder of a comrade.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 December 2017 13: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: IrbenWolf
      One driver? And how will he change the truck alone? Using AI?

      One person is quite capable of changing the truck in the presence of appropriate equipment.

      But in general there is a huge "BUT". Murakhovsky is in principle mistaken. You can’t talk about who they’ll get rid of. We can talk about a certain amount of duties that will be performed by fewer crew members. The Germans were already practicing this principle on their technology demonstrator — two crew members did not have their clear responsibilities, and any of them could either carry out the driver’s work in manual mode, or in the same manual-gunner.
      That is, the commander will remain the last. Which, if necessary, will be able to "intercept" the control of the movement of the tank, or independently work out the automatic target tracking. And so the main job for him will be the identification of goals and building a "line" of their defeat.
  10. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 11 December 2017 11: 01 New
    +2
    Fighting robot "Uranus-9".
    Well for the city, the asphalt will go. And in the "field" he has nothing to do. Turning over from a close sneeze and only the rats will creak. It seems that uncles in childhood did not finish the game.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 11 December 2017 11: 20 New
      0
      in the city, he also has nothing to do, as an automatic firing point is unsuitable due to size, as an assault support is unsuitable due to weak weapons, as a vehicle of obstruction and suppression fire is also not suitable due to the small stock of shots, to fight armored vehicles again not suitable, due to the large size and the inability to arrange ambushes. In general, "some garbage, but it goes!" hi
  11. Cat Marquis
    Cat Marquis 11 December 2017 12: 09 New
    +1
    I was always pinned by "menacingly-beautiful" looking trailers from rocket blocks, machine guns, various sensors, sensors, "turrets" that stick to type towers to expand weapons. You look at the footage where the Syrian tanks maneuver on the streets of cities constantly climbing into houses, fences, tearing down the walls of buildings, dragging bundles of wire, wires along with poles and you think, really, all these "designers" who like to hook something on top of towers do not look at these frames? Is it really incomprehensible that either this or one mine explosion near the tank or the aiming line from the machine gun and even stray bullets will destroy all this "beauty, huh?
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 11 December 2017 12: 18 New
      0
      they have an excuse "an engineering machine for urban battles should do this," "for example, you can buy an X car from us, or a U car." bully
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 11 December 2017 16: 05 New
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        they have an excuse "an engineering machine for urban battles should do this," "for example, you can buy an X car from us, or a U car." bully

        .... or even better.
  12. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 11 December 2017 12: 40 New
    +4
    Work robots, not a man? Pretty utopian thought. It is much better to control the equipment remotely, but to people.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 11 December 2017 16: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Sands Career General
      Work robots, not a man? Pretty utopian thought. It is much better to control the equipment remotely, but to people.

      Yes, it's good for a toy. And the interception of control? And she will hit the cross, accidentally drawn on the forehead of the operator.
      1. Sands Careers General
        Sands Careers General 11 December 2017 19: 37 New
        +4
        Likewise, this can be done with electronic brains - take control.
        They control drones and nothing, nobody intercepts anything. Shot down, yes.

        Yes, and EW funds for what?
  13. Metlik
    Metlik 11 December 2017 15: 21 New
    0
    The tank of the future will undoubtedly have much greater means of camouflage and reconnaissance. You will probably have to disguise yourself as a different, possibly civilian vehicle, and use a UAV for reconnaissance.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 11 December 2017 21: 25 New
      0
      one question, here’s the task of the tank "to maintain infantry in the first line on the offensive", now answer me how your "civilian-disguised tank" will do this? CTD: you’re talking about comrade! hi
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 11 December 2017 23: 43 New
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        one question, here is the tank’s task of “supporting infantry

        Where is your artillery, if your tanks support infantry? The tank has completely different tasks.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 12 December 2017 00: 49 New
          0
          Quote: KaPToC
          The tank has completely different tasks.

          what are these?
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 12 December 2017 17: 18 New
            0
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            what are these?

            Break through the enemy defenses and carry out an environment
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 12 December 2017 22: 07 New
              0
              Quote: KaPToC
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              what are these?

              Break through the enemy defenses and carry out an environment

              good Well done! take a pie from the shelf, and now, please, dear KARToS, explain to me how your statement contradicts mine? I will quote myself:
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              the tank’s mission is to “support infantry in the first line on the offensive”
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 12 December 2017 22: 24 New
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                Well done! take a pie from the shelf, and now, please, dear KARToS, explain to me how your statement contradicts mine? I will quote myself:

                You offer tanks to support the infantry, but everything happens exactly the opposite. They break through the defenses and surround the enemy not with tanks, but with armored units in which infantry is an auxiliary force.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 13 December 2017 01: 26 New
                  0
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  You offer tanks to support the infantry, but everything happens exactly the opposite. They break through the defenses and surround the enemy not with tanks, but with armored units in which infantry is an auxiliary force.

                  lol Well damn another fanatic. Well, maybe this nonsense is enough? Tanks, armored personnel carriers \ infantry fighting vehicles and infantry must act together! they are complementary sides of one process! Your words about who supports whom is just demagogy! Demagogy is only harmful!
                  1. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 14 December 2017 19: 53 New
                    0
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Demagogy is only harmful!

                    You have demagogy, I’m directly saying that tanks cannot be used at the front lines to support infantry, they weren’t created for that, you probably heard about hammering nails with a microscope - this is just such a case.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 15 December 2017 02: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      tanks cannot be used on the front line to support infantry, they were not created for that

                      and why were they created?
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 15 December 2017 19: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        and why were they created?

                        You repeat
                    2. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 16 December 2017 05: 45 New
                      0
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      You have demagogy

                      it’s your demagoguery, I’m directly saying infantry, btr \ bmp and mbt must act together! they complement each other, something that they may not be given to others. You're stubbornly repeating jagged phrases on a donkey. Here is a simple example, you wrote "Break through the enemy’s defenses and carry out the environment." Sorry, but this is nonsense, no, it’s not so. RAVE. Here's how you break through a tank defense? stupid through the trenches? Well, this is until the first grenade launcher. And having lost tanks during the “breakthrough” of defense, you will howl “tanks need to be covered!” and they will give you trash like “BMPT Terminator” for cover, and during the next attack you will break through the first, second and Nth echelons for BMPT will ensure the suppression of the grenade launcher due to the high density of fire. And here you are heroically breaking through the second echelon and go to your dream "operational space", and then what? and then you have no supplies, fuel and ammunition are running out and you are taken prisoner with your bare hands for the alternative is to die under artillery bombing. Well, yes now you are uv. kartos howl "well, how come we broke through the defense"and you looked into the houses, the trenches and the green stuff? Have you cleaned them up? NO! you stupidly drove by and later the infantry crawled out after your" breakthrough "spoiled your rear, and in the end it surrounded you, not you. And now we are back we come to what I said, we need a bunch of infantry + its armored transport + tank. And the infantry will organize a sweep of the territory, lines of defense to encircle and block the enemy, and block posts to protect transport routes. In general, as I said, "infantry , btr \ bmp and MBT must act together "and support each other.
      2. Metlik
        Metlik 12 December 2017 08: 38 New
        0
        The British disguised tanks as trucks in Africa in World War II, and did not consider this crap. In conditions when aviation and long-range high-precision artillery dominate on the battlefield, it is very difficult to survive the tank. At the right moment, the tank is indispensable, but 90% of the time it needs to hide.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 12 December 2017 08: 49 New
          0
          logically true correct, but not an argument, for then the pilots looked with their eyes, and now through the optics. so that all differences will be visible. And against infantry, disguise as a civilian vehicle is completely useless, because again distances and means of observation.
          The maximum is now possible camouflage under the terrain due to the nets (in the parking lot), or "bushes" to hang on the car. "Bushes" are artificial branchy wire-based camouflage systems.
  14. Earnest
    Earnest 12 December 2017 12: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    ... However, in the same ZVO and "Osprey" was ready to enter service in the near future. smile

    So it is in service with the 2005. 300 cars in the ranks.