Military Review
Sign In Register

We are waiting for a solution. UVZ is ready to create a tank on the Armata platform with an 152-mm gun

50
Uralvagonzavod, part of Rostec, is ready to create a new heavy tank on the Armata platform, equipped with a 152-mm cannon, while creating tank will not be conducted from scratch, TASS reports with reference to the press service of UVZ.


We are waiting for a solution. UVZ is ready to create a tank on the Armata platform with an 152-mm gun


According to the information provided by the UVZ, there is a technical reserve for building a heavy tank on the Armata platform with a gun of increased muzzle energy. If the Defense Ministry makes such a decision that such a tank is necessary in the Russian army, it will be created.

At present, the Armata T-14 tanks equipped with 125 mm caliber guns are being tested in the Russian army. According to the preliminary plans of the Russian military department, 100 of such vehicles should come to the troops at the first stage.

Earlier in the Soviet Union, 152-mm guns were developed to equip tanks. In 1990, the 292 Object, equipped with an LP-83 LP-152 experimental cannon of the 2007-mm caliber, was tested. During tests, it was possible to prove the viability of using these weapons, but the collapse of the USSR led to the closure of the project. Since 292, the XNUMX Object is located in a museum in Kubinka.

The second model of the tank, equipped with a large-caliber gun, was the "195 Object", created at the beginning of the 90-x in the Urals. The 2А83 152-mm caliber gun, specially designed for the project, was mounted on it. Tests of a promising tank were, according to some information, until the middle of the 2000-s, after which information about it was no longer available.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Military Reviewin Yandex News
Military Reviewin Yandex Zen
50 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 22 August 2018 09: 42
    +5
    As I understand it, it all depends on the customer (Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation). If there is a reserve, then the creation will certainly take less time than starting from 0.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 22 August 2018 09: 55
      +7
      Quote: rotmistr60
      it all depends on the customer (Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation). If there is a backlog

      It has long been called for a heavy machine with a 152 mm gun to be made on the Armat platform.
      And, perhaps, with a howitzer cannon, like Msta’s cannon, or even a smooth-bore gun, like Nona, albeit with a lower elevation angle, but allowing you to confidently hit not only armored vehicles, but the enemy behind cover. A certain drop in the initial BOPS speed will be completely compensated by its increased mass, but there is nothing to say about the power of 40 kg of HE or ATGM of this caliber.
      Such a heavy vehicle will be the support vehicle for the MBT T-90, T-80, T-72 of various modifications while they are in service with the army.
      1. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint 22 August 2018 10: 09
        +1
        That is an armored self-propelled gun, which will also work in tank orders?)
        1. Vladimir 5
          Vladimir 5 22 August 2018 10: 55
          -2
          You are absolutely right, this will already be self-propelled guns supporting tanks at the forefront. Msta and other 152mm, work as the rear rear artillery closest to the front, and Armata with 152mm howitzer cannon will crawl in the second echelon of tanks ... tactics are not new, they used it in WWII ...
      2. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 22 August 2018 10: 50
        +2
        Quote: Alekseev
        Quote: rotmistr60
        it all depends on the customer (Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation). If there is a backlog

        It has long been called for a heavy machine with a 152 mm gun to be made on the Armat platform.
        And, perhaps, with a howitzer cannon, like Msta’s cannon, or even a smooth-bore gun, like Nona, albeit with a lower elevation angle, but allowing you to confidently hit not only armored vehicles, but the enemy behind cover. A certain drop in the initial BOPS speed will be completely compensated by its increased mass, but there is nothing to say about the power of 40 kg of HE or ATGM of this caliber.
        Such a heavy vehicle will be the support vehicle for the MBT T-90, T-80, T-72 of various modifications while they are in service with the army.

        God, what nonsense is a howitzer tank.
        It has long been proven - universalism will not lead to anything good!
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 22 August 2018 13: 29
          +1
          Well if a 152mm barrel, what not to use a corr shell?
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 22 August 2018 18: 36
            0
            UVZ is ready to create a tank on the Armata platform with a 152-mm gun
            ..one...? what
    2. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 22 August 2018 22: 43
      0
      Quote: rotmistr60
      As I understand it, it all depends on the customer (Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation). If there is a reserve, then the creation will certainly take less time than starting from 0.

      There are problems, and here they wrote about this a lot earlier! Here are the links:
      https://topwar.ru/657-obekt-292-takim-dolzhen-byl-byt-t-95.html -
      Object 292, caliber 152,4 mm (December 2, 2011)
      https://topwar.ru/15750-obekt-292-novoe-orudie-dlya-t-80.html -
      "Object 292". New gun for the T-80 (June 26, 2012)
      And issues with AZ were resolved in the projects!
  2. Nikolai
    Nikolai 22 August 2018 09: 44
    +6
    In my opinion, a unitary shot was being developed for this gun ..., with such power, BOPS (essentially 1,5m long tungsten scrap) can penetrate a modern tank through ..., it will be difficult to defend itself ..., although here not worth it.
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 22 August 2018 09: 50
      +7
      1,8 meters ammunition itself and yes, unitary. I have 191 height, I can’t imagine this tank shot in active use)
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 22 August 2018 13: 29
        0
        Is unitary really 152mm?
        1. Nikolai
          Nikolai 22 August 2018 13: 52
          +1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Is unitary really 152mm?

          Unitary units were created for this gun as well, and they seemed to stop at them ... and AZ did, in my opinion, on Ob.477
  3. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 22 August 2018 09: 44
    +2
    How many different news about new developments, on the one hand it pleases, on the other you wonder how much all these ideas will come true, knowing how long everything has been implemented in our troops
    1. bessmertniy
      bessmertniy 22 August 2018 10: 06
      0
      UVZ, probably, it is necessary not to wait for the order, but to refine and begin to produce. And there is always a buyer for a standing product. hi
      1. spektr9
        spektr9 22 August 2018 10: 30
        +6
        UVZ, probably, one should not wait for the order, but finalize and start producing
        What kind of shisha? Or do you propose not to pay ZP to the worker, and to sell part of the equipment with a hammer so that there is something to buy raw materials?
    2. Dimka off
      Dimka off 22 August 2018 11: 06
      0
      shocked, how much money is needed for all these PAKs, ships, etc.
  4. OrcSWAT
    OrcSWAT 22 August 2018 09: 46
    +3
    Such a tank would make a potential enemy scurry around, at least.
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 22 August 2018 09: 53
      +3
      Yeah. And arrange dances with tambourines in case of failure of the AZ for the crew.
    2. RL
      RL 22 August 2018 09: 56
      +2
      On the Armata platform? And the weight of such a unitary, and its geometrical dimensions, and what will then be the dimensions of the turret of this tank with a "magazine" box and with an automatic loader? It will no longer be a tank, but an MSTA with an excellent projection to hit such a target located in the attacking order
  5. arhPavel
    arhPavel 22 August 2018 10: 04
    +2
    The new caliber is the new PSUs and their logistics, production ..
    Increase in caliber = decrease in ammunition, which means that greater accuracy, better target designation and guidance are needed. As a result, a new application technique. This is also additional work.
    Even if the modernized T-72 is more efficient than the tanks of potential opponents, there is also Armata already undergoing trial operation.
    I think in the Moscow Region they will direct UVZ towards optimizing costs and reducing the cost of T14, and these developments will continue to be researched like this.
    1. Smol79
      Smol79 22 August 2018 10: 34
      0
      enter an armored car for the transport of ammunition to the staff of tank units and let them fire 152mm.
    2. Xroft
      Xroft 22 August 2018 10: 47
      +2
      What kind of tanks is our poor t-72BZ serial superior to? Abrams in a Tusk kit? or LEO-2a7? and this is with serial options, not the latest. Armata was an attempt to surpass the main tanks of the NATO bloc on the theater. But judging by what they promised 1000+ vehicles by 2020, and in fact not a single one, will be content with the Moscow front company.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint 22 August 2018 11: 00
        0
        Which tvd? How many a7 sawed? Pieces 80?
        1. Xroft
          Xroft 22 August 2018 11: 37
          0
          all 2a6 are sawn into 2a7, but there are 2a7 +, 2A7V, Revolution just now there are over 400 of them and a bunch of different close modifications.
          Let's honestly say that the T-72BZ does not even reach 2a6. And the reservations from ATGMs of which our partners have are an order of magnitude larger than ours simply do not (holes in the remote control are the size of a motorcycle). You can’t say about Leo, which is protected by the third generation of composite armor, with additional reinforcement of the tower, frontal and side of the housing of the dynamic protection modules.
          Taking into account that we had no less and better options for modernization (t-72 Slingshot as the most example) Already so many copies about the BZ have been broken that it just makes no sense to discuss it.
          The upgrade is NOT SUCCESSFUL and was made only for saving ... but this saving was explained by the fact that Armats will be purchased in large quantities ... or at least the t-90 in breakthrough versions. But where is it all?
          1. cariperpaint
            cariperpaint 22 August 2018 11: 45
            +2
            Firstly, according to the Germans themselves, from their tank fleet, about a hundred wound up at the last gatherings. The rest were under repair. And after that, all statements about the cut to new modifications sound at least strange. I will repeat these statements of the Germans. Not mine. Secondly, only this year the first 30 breakthroughs were taken, with 10 of them from scratch and not modernization. I don’t know the reasons, but I think so divided. To find out exactly how to make it more profitable. Yesterday they signed a new contract for breakthroughs, which the UVZ press officer announced immediately. There is a statement on the star.
            1. Xroft
              Xroft 22 August 2018 12: 01
              0
              So leopards are not among Germans alone? And not Germany alone will be clearly on TVD, this is the essence of the fact that we are a competitor to the entire NATO block. And to put the t-72bz in a series in the western direction .... it's sad. Yes, they ordered breakouts, but it is an equal tank, and not superior to what the armata positions itself. And the question is how many same breakthroughs will be ...
              1. cariperpaint
                cariperpaint 22 August 2018 13: 36
                +1
                This is not the case. The Germans a7 barely barely do, and this is with their capabilities and money. Americans do not give out abrashek hundreds in a year sep 3 either. And only we suffer on a planetary scale that only 30 breakthroughs per year came, or only 100 t-14 tragedies zakzzali. And 72 arrive constantly, and units are ready, constantly in active study. Its advantages are now undeniable - the ability to quickly and not the most expensive way to rearm. In 2008, 62 fought in Georgia, but this is not a goal at all.
            2. Orkraider
              Orkraider 22 August 2018 14: 08
              +1
              Quote: cariperpaint
              Firstly, according to the Germans themselves, from their tank fleet, about a hundred wound up at the last gatherings. The rest were under repair. And after that, all statements about the cut to new modifications sound at least strange. I will repeat these statements of the Germans. Not mine. Secondly, only this year the first 30 breakthroughs were taken, with 10 of them from scratch and not modernization. I don’t know the reasons, but I think so divided. To find out exactly how to make it more profitable. Yesterday they signed a new contract for breakthroughs, which the UVZ press officer announced immediately. There is a statement on the star.

              Greetings! Something I missed. This is when set and accepted 30 units of breakthroughs? You probably wanted to write put? Judging by the available information, the first batch will enter the troops in early 2019
              1. cariperpaint
                cariperpaint 22 August 2018 14: 23
                0
                No. Last year's contract with UVZ for the supply was. At 62 t-80 bvm and 30 t-90 m. There was nothing about his failure or cancellation. All this was in tenders and can be seen. And what a strange choice, as I wrote above for the construction of 10 new and 20 modernization. Most likely installation party. My opinion
                1. Orkraider
                  Orkraider 22 August 2018 19: 32
                  0
                  I’m aware of the contract signed, but you wrote about accepted, which was surprising since they had not yet left the factory. These tanks are not yet delivered, so your statement about adopted by incorrectly. They are not yet in the army, a contract unfulfilled. And about a strange choice - I don’t see anything strange. Everything is logical, it’s cheaper to upgrade the ones available in the drill to the Breakthrough version and from storage. My opinion is that further the ratio will change even more in the direction of increasing the number of modernized in relation to new ones.
              2. cariperpaint
                cariperpaint 22 August 2018 14: 27
                0
                Recall that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and NPK Uralvagonzavod on August 24, 2017 at the Third International Military-Technical Forum "Army-2017" signed contracts for the supply of new T-90M tanks and BMPT vehicles, as well as contracts for overhaul and modernization of tanks T-72B, T-80BV and T-90. The total amount of the contracts amounted to over 24 billion rubles.

                Now the tender documentation of NPK Uralvagonzavod has been published to ensure the implementation of these purchase contracts from the "sole supplier":
          2. cariperpaint
            cariperpaint 22 August 2018 12: 02
            0
            By the way, in the wiki there are a quantity of 7 last year 20 pieces
          3. Doliva63
            Doliva63 22 August 2018 18: 08
            0
            Quote: Xroft
            all 2a6 are sawn into 2a7, but there are 2a7 +, 2A7V, Revolution just now there are over 400 of them and a bunch of different close modifications.
            Let's honestly say that the T-72BZ does not even reach 2a6. And the reservations from ATGMs of which our partners have are an order of magnitude larger than ours simply do not (holes in the remote control are the size of a motorcycle). You can’t say about Leo, which is protected by the third generation of composite armor, with additional reinforcement of the tower, frontal and side of the housing of the dynamic protection modules.
            Taking into account that we had no less and better options for modernization (t-72 Slingshot as the most example) Already so many copies about the BZ have been broken that it just makes no sense to discuss it.
            The upgrade is NOT SUCCESSFUL and was made only for saving ... but this saving was explained by the fact that Armats will be purchased in large quantities ... or at least the t-90 in breakthrough versions. But where is it all?

            I agree about protection against anti-tank weapons - it should be maximum (taking into account the reasonable, of course). But comparing tanks is pointless. If in the Russian Federation the BUS is the same as in the Union. I mean, if the same B 3 is able to carry out its task, then you need to spit on all Abrams and Leopards from the highest cypress of the Black Sea coast.
  6. Engineer
    Engineer 22 August 2018 10: 05
    +2
    A tank with a 152mm cannon is already there, but we are not looking for easy solutions, the more there is nothing to milk there ...
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 22 August 2018 10: 22
      +5
      There is no tank, there is a project. More precisely was.
  7. 452336
    452336 22 August 2018 10: 20
    +1
    Are tank battles relevant again?
    How many more will they ask for billions for the project, which will then be put under the cloth?
  8. spektr9
    spektr9 22 August 2018 10: 23
    0
    It’s okay to create, they won’t buy it again, because the T72 hasn’t completely decayed yet ...
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 22 August 2018 10: 28
      +1
      I can decide what to buy) yesterday at the 90th breakthrough the contract was signed. Not to our own Wishlist to respond and buy them, right?)
      1. spektr9
        spektr9 22 August 2018 17: 22
        +1
        I can decide what to buy) yesterday at the 90th breakthrough the contract was signed. Not to our own Wishlist to respond and buy them, right?)
        Of course, they are guided by their Wishlist when cutting the budget ...
  9. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 22 August 2018 10: 49
    +2
    Work on 152mm was suspended, but never completely stopped. Power, too, has never been challenged. The problem is how to "cram the inexpressible" into the rest of the MO requirements.
    And if you rummage around, you get a modern tuned "object 120" (ACS SU-152 Taran):
  10. Dimka off
    Dimka off 22 August 2018 11: 10
    0
    Need such a tank. It is such that the first time would destroy any of the enemy tanks.
  11. cordon332
    cordon332 22 August 2018 12: 07
    0
    We installed a 152mm cannon on the Armata platform using the existing groundwork. And then what? There are no shells, and where is this tank on the pedestal? They scraped up the money, made a batch of experimental shells on "knees", conducted firing tests of prototypes of the tank and feet, the car cannot be mass-produced, there are no shells. In order to create mass production of new shells, and the production of 125mm shells must be kept, money and time are needed not less, but much more than the development of a tank. Therefore, it is realistic to develop a tank with a 125mm cannon, meaning in the future the installation of a more powerful 152mm system, and in parallel to develop, test and prepare the serial production of new ammunition.
  12. Kerensky
    Kerensky 22 August 2018 13: 20
    0
    Isn't this gun on the tank redundant? Or do we still believe in "tank wedges on the battlefield"? After all, it will become pretty heavier, will lose in resource and other characteristics.
  13. bogart047
    bogart047 22 August 2018 13: 26
    0
    why can’t you make an intermediate option, for example, 140mm? 152mm a lot, 125mm a little
    1. An60
      An60 22 August 2018 14: 49
      0
      We take the average - 137.5 mm.
  14. san4es
    san4es 22 August 2018 14: 56
    0
    Earlier in the Soviet Union, 152-mm cannons were already being developed for equipping tanks. In 1990, the Object 292 entered trials, equipped with an experimental cannon LP-83 of 152-mm caliber.
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 22 August 2018 18: 36
      0
      Quote: san4es
      Earlier in the Soviet Union, 152-mm cannons were already being developed for equipping tanks. In 1990, the Object 292 entered trials, equipped with an experimental cannon LP-83 of 152-mm caliber.

      Quite to myself, by the way.
  15. Doliva63
    Doliva63 22 August 2018 18: 18
    0
    Quote: Dimka off
    Need such a tank. It is such that the first time would destroy any of the enemy tanks.

    For the destruction of tanks, if you are not in the know, there are many other, specially "sharpened" for this, means. The main task of the tank "our way" is to support the infantry. And already Armata, with his weight, will not be able to do this everywhere.
    1. Dimka off
      Dimka off 23 August 2018 13: 11
      0
      152 mm does not hinder the performance of the task of supporting infantry. Let 152 mm go along with 125 mm. For especially difficult purposes.
  16. Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 25 August 2018 02: 45
    0
    You see, T-95 with 152mm gun turned out to be too expensive, "Armata" with 125mm too, let's try "Armata" with 152mm! smile smile