Is it necessary to install the T-90M tower on the "Armata"?

Development and testing of a new tank “Armata” is being delayed for various reasons. There is no tank in the troops yet, in connection with this, some exotic ways are beginning to be proposed to speed up the issue of introducing the tank into the troops. One such way is publicationin which, in connection with possible problems with the uninhabited tank tower, it is proposed to install the inhabited T-90M tank tower on the Armata platform or return to the unified tower, which was previously developed on the already forgotten Burlak theme.


Is it necessary to install the T-90M tower on the "Armata"?


How serious this is and what is behind it is not entirely clear, at least it is proposed to create a new tank on a modular basis using a set of modules from both existing and developing tanks. This issue has already been discussed several times and it is more relevant when creating special purpose vehicles on the basis of the tank.

Does the tank need modularity? This issue must be considered in several aspects, from the point of view of the production, modernization, repair and operation of tanks. In tank production, modularity is important to simplify and reduce the cost of production. When upgrading tanks, modularity allows with minimal modifications to install more advanced modules. For simplicity and ease of repair, interchangeability of components and parts of the tank is important. When operating the tank, modularity does not matter. With what modules the tank left the factory conveyor, with which it lives until it is decommissioned, no one at the same time replaces the combat units or power plants.

Another thing is when special-purpose vehicles are developed on the basis of the tank: anti-aircraft, missile, flamethrower, repair and evacuation and other purposes. For this, the fighting compartment module is removed and another target module is installed in its place.

Modularity of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 family of tanks


In the tank of the classic layout, two main modules can be distinguished: the fighting compartment (turret, armament, sighting system and automatic loader) and the power plant (engine, engine systems and transmission). The question of the interchangeability of these modules was repeatedly considered at various stages of the development of Soviet tanks, which is typical for the example of the formation and development of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 family of tanks.

This family was created as modifications of one T-64 tank, almost the same interchangeable module of the fighting compartment was installed on all tanks, on the T-72 it differed only in automatic loader. The power plant modules were three options with 5TD, B-45 and GTD engines, which, with minimal structural modifications, were installed in any tank hull.

On this family of tanks it was forbidden to change borrowed units and parts without the consent of the documentation holder. For example, when I was a young specialist in design bureaus, in 1973 I was instructed to consider a letter from N. Tagil asking me to change one size in the detail of the sighting system of the T-72 tank commander. I was surprised then that, despite the fact that the T-72 tank was already mass-produced there, in order to exclude unification of borrowed units and parts, the tank designer did not have the right to change something in the design of the unit that was installed on another tank, and that was justified. This approach persisted for a long time, although three tank modifications were already produced in serial production at different plants. Subsequently, this principle was violated. Instead of three modifications of one tank with different power plants, three different tanks appeared with the same tactical and technical characteristics.

The towers on these tanks were also interchangeable in seats and docking nodes through the same type of rotating contact device through which control signals were transmitted from the tower to the hull and vice versa.

This principle made it possible in 1976 at the request of senior management to remove the turret from one of the T-64B tanks, which passed the first stage of testing with the Ob and Cobra sighting systems and put it on the T-80 body. So, after the second stage of testing, the T-80Б tank appeared with the most advanced weapon system at that time.

On tanks of this family, serious attention was paid not to the ability to change these modules during the operation of the tank, but to the possibility of mass and cheap production of tanks and the possibility of quick and cheap repair and modernization of tanks by maintaining the interchangeability of components and assemblies. Then, under the modules, for example, the power plant, we mean the monoblock of all power plant units, which can be quickly replaced during the repair of the tank.

Why does the Armata tank need the T-90M and Burlak towers?


Returning to the proposal to install an inhabited T-90M tank tower on the Armata platform platform, we must first understand the purpose for which all this is being conceived, the technical capabilities of this implementation and the possibility of achieving this goal.

They try not to advertise the reasons for delaying the adoption of the Armata tank. Surely there are also technical problems with certain components and systems of the tank, which have not yet been brought to the required level. There are also conceptual issues of a fundamentally new layout of the tank with an uninhabited tower.

I have already written that the uninhabited tower is one of the most problematic issues in this tank layout. In the event of failure for any reason of the tank’s power supply system or damage to the device that provides control signals from the crew from the tank’s hull to the tower, the tank becomes completely unworkable, there are no duplicate fire systems in the tank. Tank - weapon battlefield and should provide high reliability for firing at possible system failures, and in this direction we must continue to search for ways to increase the reliability of the tank during operation in real conditions.

The proposal to put a tower on a new tank from a serial tank looks somehow frivolous. Firstly, the Armata tank is of a fundamentally different, non-classical layout, and when I created it, as I understand it, no options were provided for “crossing” with tanks of the existing generation. Of course, you can consider any options and realize them is possible, but what it will result in, how much it will cost and whether the required efficiency will be achieved, the big question. Secondly, as I understand it, the main task is to return to the inhabited tower, but there are other much more effective design solutions for its solution.

When implementing this proposal, a number of purely technical questions arise: how close are the docking units of the Armata hull and the T-90M turret, what is their diameter of the shoulder strap and the design of the turret turning mechanism, is the height of the Armata hull enough to accommodate the turret mechanisms and automatic loading system, how compatible are the control signal transmission systems from the hull to the tower.

Just installing such a tower does not solve many problems with the layout of the Armata tank, in this tank the entire crew is placed in an armored capsule in the tank’s hull, and the T-90M has two crew members located in the tower. Therefore, the hull of the tank will have to be re-arranged and decide what to do with the capsule, and one of the advantages of the Armata tank will be lost - placing the entire crew in a well-protected armored capsule.

The installation of such a tower can lead to a change in the mass of the tank and a displacement of the center of mass, and how this will affect the power plant and chassis, it is necessary to calculate. So far, such a proposal is very crude and in many aspects it is not justified. If a problem with an uninhabited tower really arose, then in order to increase the reliability of firing from a tank, it is easier to work out a backup version of the layout with an inhabited tower that solves this problem. If this is the case, then the designers in this direction will probably already be working and it will be much more productive than making any palliatives with an incomprehensible result.

An attempt to "cross" the tanks of the new and previous generations with a fundamentally different layout will not lead to anything good. This problem was easily solved on the T-64, T-72 and T-80 family of tanks. There the tank towers were interchangeable and easily installed one instead of the other.

On the new generation of tanks, modularity, of course, is needed in terms of creating a family of special-purpose vehicles on this basis. At the same time, the accepted concept of the layout of the tank should not collapse.

Even more exotic is the proposal to put on the Armata platform a tower developed in the 2000's on the theme of the Burlak as a unified fighting compartment for the modernization of the T-72 and T-80 tanks. This search work ended in nothing, only a paper project, and had no further development. The principal difference was the new overloaded tower with the ammunition delivered to the stern of the tower and a new automatic loader, and this mythical tower is completely incomprehensible what will bring new to "Armata".

So, there is no urgent need to install a tower from a T-90M tank or a tanker developed on the topic of Burlak on a new generation tank, this gives little and the goal is very doubtful.

Possible perspectives of the Armata tank layout


It should also be borne in mind that the Armata tank has a lot of new things besides the layout. This is a power plant with a fundamentally new engine, a gun with high muzzle energy, active protection of a new generation, a tank information-control system, a radar system for detecting targets on the battlefield and a system of all-round visibility from the tank. All this goes through a cycle of testing and refinement and should not die if the accepted concept of the layout of the tank is unsuitable.

Now the military is thinking about the future of the Armata tank, the wave of euphoria has subsided and the stage has come when it is necessary to carefully weigh everything, conduct tests and, having their results in hand, decide on the fate of this tank, and not look for some palliative solutions that fundamentally do not solve this problem.

The most optimal here is the development of two options for the layout of a new generation tank with an inhabited and uninhabited tower, the manufacture of batches of such tanks, their military tests, including in real combat conditions in one of the hot spots, which is now more than enough. Based on the results of such tests, to conclude which layout is most rational for a new generation tank, and to implement it in mass production.
Author:
Photos used:
3.bp.blogspot.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhail Malakhov 6 September 2019 05: 22 New
    • 24
    • 62
    -38
    **** They try not to advertise the reasons for delaying the adoption of the Armata tank. ****
    Because this is a PR project to increase patriotism among the electorate ..
    Tractor with a gun ..
    Now everything is done with us ..
    People are happy and good
    1. Cyrus 6 September 2019 06: 21 New
      • 34
      • 23
      +11
      And you, as I understand it, are very well-informed people, although there is probably no balabol.
      1. Alekseev 6 September 2019 07: 03 New
        • 16
        • 8
        +8
        Quote: Cyrus
        not likely balabol.

        That's right!
        And various discussions of Armata acquire, at times, absolutely "fabulous" shades.
        T-90 tower on the T-14. Although the whole point of the project is the presence of an uninhabited tower. laughing
        The lack of mass production of new heavy vehicles is explained by the fact that Russia has no desire to go bankrupt in the arms race. At the same time, the tasks of tank troops at the present stage are quite possible to carry out using the T-90 and other modernized vehicles from the old stock.
        But it is necessary to prepare the production, the hour of the new generation of BTT will still come.
        1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 6 September 2019 07: 37 New
          • 13
          • 3
          +10
          About Almaty:
          Alexey Krivoruchko: “Today we have signed a contract for 132 T-14 and T-15 machines. We will receive the first nine machines this year”
          https://ria.ru/20180822/1527030365.html
          Alexander Potapov: “Uralvagonzavod” today produced about 30 Armata combat platforms, some of which participated in the parade on Red Square and in the tests of the Ministry of Defense "
          https://ria.ru/20180822/1527034073.html
          Total it turns out 132 + 30 = 162.
          There is also the T-72Б3, which was created on the basis of the task assigned to the plant - at the lowest price, to ensure the entry into the army of the maximum number of tanks with modern weapons and thermal imaging sights. T-72Б3 began to be delivered in the 2011 year, but was adopted in the 2012th. Over 9 years, at least 800-830 vehicles + another one and a half hundred T-72Б3 arr. 2016
          The T-80BVM is also being upgraded. Most likely, they will replace the existing T-80BV / U and UE-1, which in many ways have already exhausted their resources or are simply hopelessly outdated.
          Link: "Omsk Tank Plant drove a disabled boy on the new T-80" https://ngs55.ru/news/more/66066421/
          1. eburg1234 7 September 2019 07: 58 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            For 2016, about 1000 T-72B3 were modernized:
            https://ria.ru/20160908/1476388731.html
            Now, it can be assumed that there are at least 1300-1500 of such tanks in the troops, including the T-72B3 "improved" (UBH).
        2. AUL
          AUL 6 September 2019 10: 52 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Alekseev
          T-90 tower on the T-14. Although the whole point of the project is the presence of an uninhabited tower.

          So I’m completely at a loss - but what about the vegetable? Put the t-90 tower on the expensive chassis of Almaty and get a product with about the same performance characteristics from the T-90 plus hemorrhoids with the connection of diverse electronic and mechanical systems and modifications of the production process? For what reason to fence the garden?
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 6 September 2019 11: 05 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            The T-14 tower will not be made habitable by installing a tower from the T-90, this is not advisable. As for the rearrangement of towers from linear tanks, it seems that the Germans had such attempts because of hopelessness at the end of World War II. For example, the hybrid PzKpfw V "Panther" Ausf. D and PzKpfw IV Ausf. H fought on the Eastern Front in 1944 as part of the 653th battalion of heavy tank destroyers.

            [Center]
            [/ Center]
            1. Romka47 6 September 2019 12: 03 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              The first tank is more interesting in the photo, as I understand it is a TIGER PORSCHE, almost all of the finished hulls went to the Ferdinand / Elephants, and here the tank is right!
              1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 6 September 2019 12: 32 New
                • 8
                • 0
                +8
                Yes, the Panzerkampfwagen VI “Tiger P” was part of the 653th battalion of heavy tank destroyers. There it was used as a commander tank, had a tail number 003.
                1. Romka47 6 September 2019 13: 42 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Thanks for the info hi Do you happen to know his future fate? I can search it myself in the internet, but as I understand it, you are knowledgeable enough, and you can probably tell everything without too much "water"
                  1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 6 September 2019 16: 43 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    I don’t know about the fate of the tank. It makes sense to clarify that the 653th heavy tank destroyer battalion was the main recipient of the new vehicles. This unit was equipped with Ferdinand and Elephant self-propelled guns, and in September 1944, the first Jagdtigers arrived in the unit. After that, despite the catastrophic situation on the Eastern Front, the unit was sent west.
                    1. Romka47 16 September 2019 11: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Thank you for your response hi
          2. NEXUS 6 September 2019 11: 43 New
            • 8
            • 2
            +6
            Quote: AUL
            So I’m completely at a loss - but what about the vegetable? Put the t-90 tower on the expensive chassis of Almaty and get a product with about the same performance characteristics from the T-90 plus hemorrhoids with the connection of diverse electronic and mechanical systems and modifications of the production process? For what reason to fence the garden?

            I have a counter proposal - to put a tower from T-34 on the Armata platform. fellow
        3. svp67 6 September 2019 12: 05 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          hi Welcome
          Quote: Alekseev
          That's right!

          Yes, the author always raises a lot of questions, even when he tries to tell the story of the formation of tank troops, he largely turns out an “alternative story”, little supported by facts and examples. And now, I would also like to consider a few thoughts expressed by him

          The proposal to put a tower on a new tank from a serial tank looks somehow frivolous.
          But why not frivolous? Why not create a UNIFIED tower for all our tanks now, in order to simplify the process a bit during modernization. And to do it in two versions, both inhabited and uninhabited, but it’s better to immediately do so that it can be transferred from one state to another, simply by switching the toggle switch or doing it mechanically from the inside of the tower, translating the lever in the “handle” position from position "aut."
          What is this for? Consider the option when, for some reason, the automation refused, the crew should be able to penetrate the fighting compartment and act from the inside of the tower, both in semi-automatic mode and in manual mode. Otherwise, such tanks will simply have to be either immediately removed from the contact line or thrown there. Is such a modernization possible? Yes. It’s enough to recall that recently, at the Shoigu UVZ training ground, two robotic tanks created on the basis of the T-72 were shown, where the maximum was taken from the latter and special equipment was added. It is clear that such an upgrade will be expensive, but at the same time, the unification of the towers of all tanks will somewhat reduce this price.
          Firstly, the Armata tank is of a fundamentally different, non-classical layout,

          And this is not a hindrance, even if in the main mode the crew acts from the inside of the capsule, the transition to the tower is only in case of emergency.
          When implementing this proposal, a number of purely technical questions arise: how close are the docking units of the Armata hull and the T-90M tank turret
          Nevertheless, there are plenty of options for "crossing" the T-55, T-62 buildings with the T-64 and T-72 towers, as well as the same T-64 with the T-55 tower
          Just installing such a tower does not solve many problems with the layout of the Armata tank, in this tank the entire crew is placed in an armored capsule in the tank’s body, and in the T-90M tower two crew members are located in the tower.
          I do not agree, the transition to the tower, this is an emergency option.
          The installation of such a tower can lead to a change in the mass of the tank and a displacement of the center of mass, and how this will affect the power plant and chassis, it is necessary to calculate.
          It’s possible that the mass will change, since we don’t know the masses of the T-14 tower, but I don’t agree with the rest. Since the T-14 tower is located almost in the geometric center, any displacement of the center of mass will be insignificant and it is quite possible to compensate
          1. AUL
            AUL 6 September 2019 16: 10 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            But why not frivolous? Why not create a UNIFIED tower for all our tanks now, in order to simplify the process a bit during modernization. And to do it in two versions, both inhabited and uninhabited, but it’s better to immediately do so that it can be transferred from one state to another, simply by switching the toggle switch or doing it mechanically from the inside of the tower, translating the lever in the “handle” position from position "aut."

            At first glance, the idea seems tempting. But only at first! You estimate the level of redundancy of the equipment of the product, designed to operate in two completely different modes. This, firstly, leads to a completely unjustified complication of the design of the product, and as a result to a decrease in its reliability. Secondly - to increase the overall dimensions. Thirdly, the complication of training tankers, an increase in the number of errors from the "human factor". Fourth, a significant excess hemorrhoids for production. All these points are unacceptable for defense products.
            At one time, in my youth, I got out with a similar idea in production. How the designer was abused me then! And I only proposed to make a universal bus for exchanging information of a control device with several different types of managed ones. Roughly speaking - a bunch of wires ...
        4. samaravega 6 September 2019 15: 27 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          "The Russian Federation has no desire to go bankrupt at the arms race." Are you laughing Or are you dying for a voice? What about Poseidon and Petrel? There is only money for research and development there that would definitely be enough for 3-4 Armat regiments. I'm not talking about the Kyrgyz Republic for Iskander, which provoked the "funeral" of the INF Treaty. The question is different: if the USSR could not stand the "arms race", it went bankrupt, what is Russia hoping for? To "dancing with the chancellor"? Or thanks to Trump for helping with the election? Children's naivety. Installation on the "Armata" tower of the T-90 is not possible for layout reasons. The production of "Almaty", it seems, is not possible for production and technological reasons, I see no other explanation.
          1. shahor 6 September 2019 18: 41 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            Quote: samaravega
            The production of "Almaty", it seems, is not possible for production and technological reasons, I see no other explanation.

            Add a problem with financing - apparently, money was needed for something more relevant. Hopefully not for another Madura loan.
            1. Alexey Sommer 11 September 2019 00: 22 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              Lyat !!! As the "daughters of Soviet officers" were already tortured! negative
      2. Tatyana14 6 September 2019 08: 22 New
        • 7
        • 12
        -5
        And you look like from the witnesses of the KhPP
      3. Mikhail Malakhov 6 September 2019 08: 47 New
        • 7
        • 12
        -5
        Well, not everyone has enough pictures and characteristics of "superior to foreign analogues"
        Some people still know how to think with their own heads.
      4. Ehanatone 6 September 2019 22: 28 New
        • 0
        • 7
        -7
        "And you, as I understand it, are very well-informed people, although there is probably no balabol"
        Where did the armata come from was the mass of materials, including on the VO, ...
        This is the ambition of the new director of UVZ, not supported by anything, ...
        Prior to this, there was a multi-year program "Improvement-88" and on its basis was built a new OVT, ....
        and xp ... that they are trying to stretch out, it’s just the ambition of a failed ambitious ...
        1. dmmyak40 6 September 2019 23: 42 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          First, learn to write correctly, and only then post posts. Witness of the "Albanian language" unfinished!
    2. vladimirZ 6 September 2019 06: 46 New
      • 8
      • 8
      0
      Now the military is thinking about the future of the Armata tank, the wave of euphoria has subsided and the stage has come when it is necessary to carefully weigh everything, conduct tests and, having their results in hand, decide on the fate of this tank, - from the article

      It’s bad when top managers, for the sake of politics, a successful report report, run ahead of engineers who have not yet completed the car.
      "... a PR project to increase patriotism among the electorate .." - "People are happy and good," unfortunately. And so in many ways, why not touch. Against the backdrop of the collapse of industry and science, an inefficient government, some kind of indicators of "achievements" are needed. So they give out wishful thinking.
      1. carstorm 11 6 September 2019 06: 54 New
        • 14
        • 8
        +6
        which managers are running to? Have you taken new equipment into service at least once? Do you understand how difficult it is? what does the electorate have to do with it? in the environment that revolves in this yes. this is being discussed. 95 percent of the population knows nothing about this at all. the collapse of which industry? UVZ is falling apart?
        1. vladimirZ 6 September 2019 07: 09 New
          • 14
          • 16
          -2
          what does the electorate have to do with it? in the environment that revolves in this yes. this is being discussed. 95 percent of the population knows nothing about this at all. the collapse of which industry? UVZ is falling apart? - carstorm 11 (Dmitry)

          What about the "electorate"? With this “Armata” all the ears buzzed to the whole people, drove to the parade, where it stalled. For what? Maybe it would be necessary to bring the car properly without fuss and boast, and then beat it in timpani?
          For the collapse of "what kind of industry" do you not know? UVZ is only the final stage of tank production, and before it a whole chain of interconnected industrial and scientific industries, for your information. And in this system of the relationship between science and industry in Russia, not everything is successful. Entire industries, such as machine tools, electronics, etc., directly related to any production, can be said to have sunk into oblivion.
          Yes, what can I say the latest news about the termination of education in Russia since 2021 to such professions as locksmiths, turners, milling machines, does something tell you if you are even a little versed in industrial production? See a parallel article on this in VO.
          1. carstorm 11 6 September 2019 07: 43 New
            • 11
            • 7
            +4
            firstly, only those who are interested in the army topic hear about it. and believe me there aren’t as many people as you think. secondly they sunk into oblivion yesterday or what? about the profession, well, do not disgrace pancake. read carefully and not across. these professions will not disappear and are formatted into new ones. these are different things conceptually. it is strange that you are focusing attention on this. it's stupid.
            1. vladimirZ 6 September 2019 07: 55 New
              • 8
              • 10
              -2
              these professions will not disappear and are formatted into new ones. these are different things conceptually. it is strange that you are focusing attention on this. it's stupid. -
              carstorm 11 (Dmitry)

              What are they "reformatted" in the absence of industrial production (other than military defense)?
              No, the reduction of these professions on the list for training is indicative factindicating their lack of need in Russia. Unfortunately, the Russian industry has become scarce. Last tractor plants closed.
              Yes, what can I say, go to the store, see what lies there - all are Chinese-made, and some are under the Russian brand, but made in China. Elementary - screws, fasteners, tools, household appliances - everything is Chinese, not to mention the more complex.
              1. carstorm 11 6 September 2019 08: 56 New
                • 6
                • 5
                +1
                It is specified that the project will stop receiving outdated programs that do not meet the requirements of the modern labor market. Moreover, the training of specialists in specific professions will not be ruled out.

                “Modern skills and competencies of these professions and specialties in a more relevant format are laid down in training programs for the top 50 promising professions and specialties approved earlier by the Ministry of Labor of Russia and the Ministry of Education of Russia,” the press service said.
                damn well that's what is in this text of incomprehensible ah? you are an ordinary retrograde. all new or do not understand or simply do not want to understand.
                about screws and other small things - if they are cheaper there, you want to build factories to make this trifle expensive in three but buy ours? there is no way to surpass countries like China at a price. no and most likely will not. we do not have their main resource.
          2. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 6 September 2019 09: 40 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            You didn’t hit your head by accident ???
            1. carstorm 11 6 September 2019 09: 59 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              and you? Well, are we asking stupid questions to each other?
      2. VIT101 7 September 2019 09: 43 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: vladimirZ
        It’s bad when top managers, for the sake of politics, a successful report report, run ahead of engineers who have not yet completed the car.


        Rogozin, then vice prime minister for defense, noted here, who announced Armata in 2014 and promised Putin his show at the Victory Day parade in 2015. And he drove the factory a raw car to please the deputy prime minister and his promises. But they showed at the parade. The leadership of the defense industry has changed. We realized: what’s next? The situation once again shows what happens when industry is run not by specialists, but by random people.
    3. carstorm 11 6 September 2019 06: 50 New
      • 13
      • 9
      +4
      do not carry nonsense. what PR? a solid contract was signed last year first. people have no idea what this is and why.
  2. Strashila 6 September 2019 05: 28 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The Armata tank concept is new and interesting. But any transition to a new one is long and labor-intensive. To reduce them, it may be necessary to design a new machine according to the T-90 concept with the maximum use of components, materials, components, assemblies, weapons used in Armata. Yes, it will be the T-90 concept, but new technological solutions will allow you to get a cheaper car compared to Armata.
  3. Thrifty 6 September 2019 05: 34 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The lack of a real statement from the country's Ministry of Defense is striking all sorts of rumors and speculations about whether the armata tank will go into production. It is necessary, apparently as with Su57, to name the dates and the exact number of armatures purchased for the army in order to catch all kinds of rumors. ...
    1. carstorm 11 6 September 2019 06: 56 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      at the last forum, a contract for the first batch was signed with UVZ. cars will go from this year. serial.
    2. shahor 6 September 2019 18: 55 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      name the terms and the exact number of armatures purchased for the army in order to catch all kinds of rumors. ...

      And why buy them if they are also not brought close to mind? In my opinion, we have developed a vicious practice - the military-industrial complex comes up with another wunderwafel and without having worked it out, without having experienced it starts a noisy campaign like analogue. And if someone is against the purchases of this dear Tsatsk, he is not a patriot, a liberal, and in general ... I wouldn’t put these generals from the military-industrial complex for idle chatter ... no, I wouldn’t put him down, but I will fine me for the amount of mediocre expenses. Tested, accepted by the military, brag!
  4. Nikolaevich I 6 September 2019 05: 50 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    Inhabited tower? And sho we will have? Merkavu? Maybe it’s most likely (!), But not the “Armata”, which everyone has already got used to! And we, and our "damned friends" in the "wild west" and "thin east"! I do not exclude the possibility that if you catch a penguin at the South Pole and a polar bear at the North ... and ask very persistently about "Armata"; then they will lay out the T-14 scheme with highlighted color markers, an armored capsule and an uninhabited (!) tower! And who wanted to poke his ass? To get instead of the “innovative” “Almaty” “ersatz-Armata” - the “vicious child” of T-14 and T-90? belay Who is this "wise guy" who wanted to "tune" the T-14 due to the "details" and "technical solutions of the" yesterday's tank "? I still understand when the T-90 will try to "upgrade" due to the T-14, but why the other way around!? The “armored capsule” makes full sense when an entire crew is hiding in it ... but., If half the brave tankers are sent to the “zugunder”, that is, to the inhabited tower, the question will be: will there really be a need for a “casemate” in tank hull? Maybe his .... nafik of that? And what is the output? Merkava! And then maybe "budget" ... request
  5. Mooh 6 September 2019 06: 11 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    development of two layout options for a new generation tank with an inhabited and uninhabited tower
    Yeah, let's develop another tank, now with an inhabited tower. But we will not release, why is this? because we have Armata in pre-production.
    In short, the whole article is based on rumors and conjectures, almost nothing is said in the case, and the final thought of redesigning the T-14 is a terrible nonsense. In the presence of a fully operational T-90, the development of a simplified T-14 is economically and politically meaningless.
  6. mark1 6 September 2019 06: 47 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The Messenger of Mordovia is losing quality. If earlier his publications were almost the official opinion of the Ministry of Defense, now they are disseminating the dubious opuses of Lev Romanov. (And you could highlight a separate section, something like “Disputable” or “Curious” and no one would have worried)
  7. Old tanker 6 September 2019 06: 54 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    The author admits some inaccuracy regarding the interchangeability of caps (towers) on the T-64, T-72, T-80 tanks. Had a chance to serve on all three machines. And if the towers of the T-64 and T-80 are really of the same type and practically structurally copy each other. (As the author correctly noted on the T-80, during the development they stuck a cap on the perspective modification of the T-64 stupidly). That tower from the T-64 without re-arranging the internal layout of the hull and its refinement to the base of the T-72 will not rise. I doubt that this is even possible and the game is worth the candle.
    For engines in all three models, there is no close interchangeability, without significant alteration of the entire MTO and the rear of the case.
    1. Bad_gr 7 September 2019 00: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Old Tanker
      And if the T-64 and T-80 towers are really of the same type and practically structurally copy each other. (As the author on T-80 correctly noted, in the development they stuck a cap on the perspective modification of the T-64 bluntly). That tower from the T-64 without rebuilding the internal layout of the hull and its refinement to the base of the T-72 will not rise. I doubt that this is even possible and the game is worth the candle.

      On the T-64 / T-80 - cab-type loading mechanism. That is, it is attached to the tower. In the T-72-90, the conveyor itself with charges and shells is attached to the bottom of the tank, therefore the bottom of the T-72 (T-90) has a more rigid construction than the T-64.

    2. eburg1234 7 September 2019 08: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      That's right. There have been cases of MTO alteration, but relatively recently and rather for reasons when it is not possible to get native engines (cheaply).
      Ukraine had a small series of T-72UA for Ethiopians with 5TDFMA (but with fan cooling), and Uzbeks T-64 with B-84 (or similar) have recently been shown in exercises. The rest are isolated experimental tanks.
      Moreover, even the BKP T-64/72/80 are not interchangeable. The guns are slightly different depending on the AZ / MZ.
      Running different, etc. You can call T-64/72/80 unified VERY conditionally.
  8. Zaurbek 6 September 2019 07: 19 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The main thing is to establish the production of the 2A82 gun and upgrade the T90M and the rest of the T72B3, etc. with upgrades. And master the KAZ system.
  9. KVU-NSVD 6 September 2019 07: 27 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    I did not expect from the author a serious reaction to this nonsense from the network. To put an inhabited tower on Armata means to lose the whole meaning of the concept, it’s easier then to completely abandon it, make “classics” and not shag your grandmother.
    1. Hog
      Hog 6 September 2019 10: 20 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Well, you can still upgrade Object 187 in a series, it will clearly be better than the "classics".
      1. eburg1234 7 September 2019 08: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It is unfortunate that for 30 years they did not come to the corps according to the type of the 187th. If in the beginning of the 90s there was no money for it and an adequate diesel engine in terms of power, now nothing is stopping.
        Only internal competition with the T-14 ((.
        A T-90M with such a body, 2A82 and KAZ would be very good. But why then "Armata"? It is more promising, has its advantages, but is clearly noticeably more expensive ...
        1. Bad_gr 7 September 2019 10: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: eburg1234
          It is unfortunate that for 30 years they did not come to the corps according to the type of the 187th.

          Case with a characteristic nose as in 187

          first appeared at the facility 785 (Chelyabinsk).
          At object 195 (T-95) and 148 (T-14) it is the same, only covered with a DZ of a peculiar shape.
          1. eburg1234 7 September 2019 11: 17 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            This is all clear. I mean that such a corps should have appeared on our SERIAL tanks for a long time. Like it or not, the geometry, dimensions and the weakened zone of the frontal part, leading its history from the T-64, are already far from modern realities. And if the T-72/90 tower was seriously worked on and changed to a new one, then there is practically no scope for creativity with the original T-64/72/80 building. Only install a new DZ, but this is not a panacea.
            1. Bad_gr 7 September 2019 16: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: eburg1234
              I mean that such a corps should have appeared on our SERIAL tanks for a long time.

              At one time, even the case from the "Buffalo" did not go for the modernization of the T-72, and there, there was only another angle of inclination of the front sheet. The developments from the “Slingshot” - they also cut it off, although many years later something from it fell into the troops. And the body of the 187th is generally 30 cm longer than the 72th one, designed for an X-shaped engine and a hydrostatic transmission. In general, instead of adapting it to the T-72/90, it’s easier to launch the 187th fully into production. But then again, is it worth bothering with this if the production of the T-14th, which is more progressive, is being developed.
              1. eburg1234 7 September 2019 17: 54 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                No need to take the case from the 187th (the X-sampler on the T-90 is too bold), it is enough to take the shape of the frontal unit.
                At the same time, the T-90M is also in the series. And not the fact that “Armat” will be more than them).
  10. Ros 56 6 September 2019 08: 15 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    With all due respect to the author, he wrote a lot of stupid things, like
    With what modules the tank left the factory conveyor, with which it lives until it is decommissioned, no one at the same time replaces the combat units or power plants.
    It turns out, the power plant has failed, the tank body is under replacement? What nonsense. And a lot of different other mistakes. Parsing an article by the bones of the day is not enough. But respect to the author that worries about our defense.
  11. garri-lin 6 September 2019 08: 45 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    Today Armata is not needed in the troops. No one stands at the frontiers with tank wedges. Upgraded versions of old tanks for the needs of today are quite enough. The armature must be brought to perfect condition, and prepared for mass production for the future. Compromises are not needed here. The time of this platform will come in the future and by this time the machine should be ready for production, free from childhood and adolescent diseases. It’s not the old towers that need to be set up, but to think about improving the promising tank. Fortunately, there is time for this.
    1. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 6 September 2019 09: 47 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I absolutely agree.
    2. Bad_gr 7 September 2019 00: 33 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: garri-lin
      Today Armata is not needed in the troops. No one stands at the frontiers with tank wedges.

      And as soon as enemy tanks at our borders appear, we immediately have Armat divisions?
      Quote: garri-lin
      The armature must be brought to perfect condition, and prepared for mass production for the future.
      In order to identify all the jambs of the new equipment, this equipment must be ruthlessly exploited in the troops.
      1. garri-lin 7 September 2019 01: 10 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        When enemy tanks appear on our borders, our anti-tank equipment will hurt them and our valiant army on t 90 and t 72 will carry them home. We are polite people. We usually accompany guests to their homes. But to identify shoals before the mass !!!! production and create small batches of a hundred tanks, and not in an absurd configuration with a silencer from the Cossack and in normal. T 14 are driven by contract soldiers, then conscripts, then drunk conscripts, then drunk demobilization conscripts. And after that, the tank will be treated for sores. And it makes no sense to force production. Moreover, trimming the initial characteristics and removing the most highlights of the project.
  12. Hog
    Hog 6 September 2019 10: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    To put a tower on the T-14 from the T-90?
    I didn’t hear any more nonsense, there I’ll have to re-create the whole building because of its re-arrangement (you don’t put different towers in the “tanks”).
  13. abc_alex 6 September 2019 10: 30 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3

    The development and testing of the new Armata tank is being delayed for various reasons.


    [Dull and sad]. There is no Armata tank in nature. There is a heavy tracked platform "Armata". The tank on this platform is designated T-14. And the author, I suspect, is from Ukraine ...



    Tank families T-64, T-72 and T-80.

    This family was created as a modification of one T-64, ....
    , on the T-72, it differed only in automatic loader. The power plant modules were three options with engines 5TD, V-45 and GTE, which with minimal structural modifications were installed in any tank building.
    On this family of tanks it was forbidden to change borrowed units and parts without the consent of the documentation holder.

    Everything is fine in this text. For example, the idea of ​​installing a gas turbine engine in the T-64 "with minimal modifications" looks highly artistic.
    And the author somehow gracefully kept silent about the suspension issue ...

    The author’s suspicion in Ukraine is increasing.


    They try not to advertise the reasons for delaying the adoption of the Armata tank. Surely there are also technical problems with certain components and systems of the tank, which have not yet been brought to the required level. There are also conceptual issues of a fundamentally new layout of the tank with an uninhabited tower.

    Or maybe there are none, problems? Maybe there is a process of military trials and identifying "childhood diseases" design? Which, incidentally, the T-64 dragged on for almost 20 years. Is the model in the process of training crews and developing a methodology for the combat use of these conceptually new combat vehicles?

    Suspicions in Ukrainians grow stronger from paragraph to paragraph ... wink



    Now the military is thinking about the future of the Armata tank, the wave of euphoria has subsided and the stage has come when we must carefully weigh everything, conduct tests


    What wave of euphoria is the author talking about? The implementation of the platform is very careful, with a goose step, one might say.


    The most optimal here is the development of two layout options for a new generation tank with an inhabited and uninhabited tower, production of batches of such tanks ...


    Tip from the category: "Russian, kill against the wall." To develop two conceptually different tanks and even produce lots and test them in hot spots ... Class!
    The States need the same ingenious plan to throw for their new products. Let them do the F-35 with stealth and without stealth. Aircraft carriers with steam and electromagnetic ejection ...


    Not well, the truth is, the author is from Ukraine. Such an anxious "care" ...
    lol
  14. beeper 6 September 2019 10: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Honestly, before reading this Article I didn’t even know about this, I can’t find words for expression, a “proposal” for replacing the uninhabited “Armata” tower with an inhabited “T-90”!
    If so, then the whole "meaning" of the concept of "Almaty" is completely lost. IMHO

    As for me (as I imagine the coming battlefield, the fleeting logistics of the "front-end rear" and the general scheme for using tanks in "contact" with the enemy), the future tank of the "Armatov" concept should not be built according to the "classical scheme (" captured stereotypes "which the Ural pioneer designers clearly stayed during the development of their debut" promising tank "!)" - the ammunition of the loading mechanism and the breech of the gun (possibly and not necessarily "circular guidance"? winked ) with guidance mechanisms should be located in the stern of the wedge-shaped (to ensure optimal angles of descent when aiming the gun) hull, and the crew in the middle, in the "comfort zone", subject to the least "motion sickness". Most likely, the transmission should be electric, driven by a diesel generator and the rear drive wheels of a caterpillar mover (you can think of a lot of designs and layouts of the engine and transmission, I don’t want to “spread out too much on this subject (not a typo!” Is the ancient Slavic name for squirrel smile , where did this poetic comparison come from) on the tree ") ...
    On the battlefield, after the ammunition is used up, a low-profile, squat, armored transport-loading vehicle drives up to the tank from behind and (possibly right on the move) in a matter of seconds “sticks” an equipped module with ammunition for machine guns and equipped blocks into the aft sunroof active protection systems.
    In the same way, without withdrawing a tank from the battlefield, a squat armored tanker with a powerful turbopump docked, without crew members getting out, and in a few minutes refuel the combat vehicle with the necessary fuel and lubricants ... while this is “das is fantastic” yes , but any issues of the use of military equipment (not only land!) must be addressed comprehensively, "infrastructure", to create the appropriate technical and organizational "prerequisites", taking into account all the nuances of the use, supply and support, with the conceptual "priority of the comprehensive care of the combat and support personnel units ", but not" as always "! winked
  15. armata_armata 6 September 2019 11: 53 New
    • 1
    • 8
    -7
    Yes, even a nuclear reactor is stuck there, a purely parade tank which the troops do not have and do not dream of
    1. Albert1988 6 September 2019 20: 37 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: armata_armata
      Yes, even a nuclear reactor is stuck there, a purely parade tank which the troops do not have and do not dream of

      Oga - and those 30 pieces that passed the tests are also "ceremonial"?
      And the production of the first series of 134 cars - also for parades? Apparently, in all major cities it was possible to roll out for parades wassat
      1. armata_armata 7 September 2019 11: 18 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        And the production of the first series in 134

        This is only enough to protect the Kremlin, and the Kremlin bots you, so that people would not immediately tear laughing
        1. Rey_ka 13 September 2019 13: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Are you the people?
  16. Per se. 6 September 2019 12: 39 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    The most optimal here is the development of two layout options for a new generation tank with an inhabited and uninhabited tower
    If we are talking about the T-14 tank, then we must remember that the work on the 195 object was initially going on, where the layout with an uninhabited turret and a separate armored capsule were the result of the transition to the 152 mm caliber. The rejection of the 152 mm gun casts doubt on the layout and dimensions of the T-14, with its complexity and high cost, especially if you create a “platform” on this expensive and complex base. It would be reasonable here to return to the idea of ​​the T-95 (object 195), with a powerful 152 mm gun and 30 mm automatic auxiliary, as it were.
    Now another layout option that would be useful to use on the T-90, as it was on the 640 (Black Eagle) object.

    A distinctive feature of the Black Eagle tank (640 object) from both domestic and foreign counterparts is the placement of the entire tank ammunition separately from the crew, this is realized due to the capacious TZM (self-contained removable transport-loading module) located behind the turret. The mechanized ammunition of the Black Eagle tank was increased compared to previous models of domestic and foreign tanks.
    The automatic loading mechanism (AMZ) of the tank’s turret gun includes a magazine, a belt conveyor, a conveyor rotation drive, cartridges for transporting a shot, a shot holding mechanism, a receiving tray, conveyor stopper drive mechanisms, opening of cartridges and chambering, as well as two hatches with covers for blasting waves in case of emergency explosion inside fueling complex
    The loading mechanism allows the gun to be automatically fed with shots with the removal of its ammunition from the fighting compartment to the outside through the use of an autonomous removable armored transport-loading container.
    An autonomous armored transport-loading container is fixed on the rear wall of the tower, in which a conveyor with shots, drive mechanisms for rotating and locking the conveyor, fixing and unlocking shots in conveyor cassettes and sending a shot to the gun are fixed.
    On the inner surfaces of the front and rear walls of the tower structure, due to the choice of the optimal forms of armor parts, their relative position and dimensions, the security is increased by 1,7-2 times with an increase in the total mass by 20-30%, and the specified level of protection is achieved at the course angles of firing + 35-40 °.

    This is what these two schemes need to talk about.
    1. Albert1988 6 September 2019 20: 35 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      If we are talking about the T-14 tank, then we must remember that the work was underway on object 195, where the layout with an uninhabited turret and a separate armored capsule were the result of the transition to a caliber of 152 mm.

      Sorry, but fundamentally wrong! The Kharkov "rebel-hammer" had a caliber of 152, but there was no complete separation of the crew from the fighting compartment and, especially, the BC! The idea of ​​completely isolating the crew from the fighting compartment and fully automating the latter was born precisely as the idea of ​​maximizing the protection of the crew and the comfort of their stay in the car. This was also mentioned by General Sergey Maev, curator of the project "Improvement 88" in the framework of which the 195th and created.
      As for the dimensions of the same T-14, its tracked base is only 20 cm longer than the tracked base of the same abrams / leopard! So the car is not so big it comes out, given that it has a much more powerful dvigun installed, thick roof armor, thick frontal armor and the crew is in its own separate compartment.
      Quote: Per se.
      The mechanized ammunition of the Black Eagle tank was increased compared to previous models of domestic and foreign tanks.

      There is one small detail - it was all just floodlights! Nothing existed in the metal. And the “object 640” itself was nothing more than a model - the “real” was perhaps the elongated chassis of the T-80, the tower was for the most part a “tin” props with fake devices.
      Omsk rolled out this car as a demonstrator - they say give money and we will do it. But at the same time, Tagilians were already creating their 195th and they were ready for it: instruments, weapons, a new chassis, etc. So in the early 2000s Tagil rolled out the first fully functional samples of object 195, while Omsk residents remained with the models of the “black eagle”.
      Quote: Per se.
      On the inner surfaces of the front and rear walls of the tower structure, due to the choice of the optimal forms of armor parts, their relative position and dimensions, the security is increased by 1,7-2 times with an increase in the total mass by 20-30%, and the specified level of protection is achieved at the course angles of firing + 35-40 °.

      Strongly debatable. when you consider that the same BOPS do not really care about booking angles ...
      1. Bad_gr 7 September 2019 00: 57 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Albert1988
        ut one small detail - it was all just floodlights! Nothing existed in the metal. And the “640 object” itself was nothing more than a mock-up - the “real” was perhaps the elongated T-80 chassis, the tower was for the most part a “tin” props with fake devices.




        1. eburg1234 7 September 2019 08: 33 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          There is no complete set of tower equipment. Running layout, unfortunately.
      2. Per se. 7 September 2019 09: 21 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Albert1988
        Sorry, but fundamentally wrong! The Kharkov "rebel hammer" had a caliber 152, but no complete separation of the crew from the fighting compartment and, especially, the BC was not observed!
        What are you talking about, what kind of “Kharkov” project did you see from me if it was exclusively about the brainchild of UVZ (object 195 or T-95, it was originally called “Improvement 88”)? For your information, the Kharkov “Rebel” originally looked like (object 490 and 490А)
        So originally looked Kharkov “Boxer” (“Hammer”), an 477 object.
        This is what the T-95 (object 195) looked like, the brainchild of UVZ, the development of which was directly led by Colonel-General Sergei Mayev.
        You should at least first study the topic better, as well as read the comment carefully. I emphasized two technical solutions, the allocation of a crew to an armored capsule (object 195), and the allocation of an automatic loading machine to an armored capsule (object 640). Also, the Omsk "Black Eagle" is a very interesting project that could significantly enhance the power of our tanks, like the T-95 with the 152 mm gun.
        1. Albert1988 8 September 2019 17: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          What are you talking about, what kind of “Kharkov” project did you see from me if it was exclusively about the brainchild of UVZ (object 195 or T-95, it was originally called “Improvement 88”)? For your information, the Kharkov “Rebel” originally looked like (object 490 and 490А)

          I mean, you declare that the movement of the crew into an uninhabited capsule at object 195 is connected with the transition to a 152 mm caliber! And I give you an example of the fact that the transition to 152 mm does not require isolation of the crew from the ammunition and the fighting compartment - as an example, the same rebel with a boxer and a note.
          And I know very well how these cars look, not only from the outside, but also from the inside.
          Quote: Per se.
          You should at least first study the topic better, as well as read the comment carefully.

          I understand the topic passably and your comment is what I read carefully!
          Quote: Per se.
          If we are talking about the T-14 tank, then we must remember that work was initially going on at facility 195, where the layout with an uninhabited tower and a separate armored capsule were the result of the transition to a caliber of 152 mm

          Pay attention to bold smile
          Quote: Per se.
          Also, the Omsk "Black Eagle" is a very interesting project, which could significantly enhance the power of our tanks, like the T-95 with a 152 mm cannon.

          If the 640th would be a full-fledged prototype, and not a running layout, and went into production in the early 2000s, then yes - I could. Now it will be just a repetition of the old, at that moment as the T-14 is a forward movement.
    2. Nikolaevich I 7 September 2019 02: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      If we are talking about the T-14 tank, then we must remember that the work on the 195 object was initially going on, where the layout with an uninhabited turret and a separate armored capsule were the result of the transition to the 152 mm caliber. The rejection of the 152 mm gun casts doubt on the layout and dimensions of the T-14

      It is absolutely not true that ideas with an uninhabited tower and armored capsule dawned on tank builders on the T-95 tank! If you have time, then “dig in” the bastings of the journal “Foreign Military Review”, starting from the 70-80-s ... And you will find various designs and descriptions of prototypes there ... with armored capsule and uninhabited towers (they were called "low-silhouetted" ...), and the installation of weapons "on a rotating platform" without a tower ... Moreover, there appeared "weapons" and 105-mm guns!
      1. Per se. 7 September 2019 09: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        It is absolutely not true that ideas with an uninhabited tower and armored capsule dawned on tank builders on the T-95 tank!
        Nikolaevich, spruce-burns! ... Where is my pretext for a "collision"? When using the new 152 mm gun, the 2A83 had to solve many problems, which is why the layout with an uninhabited tower was chosen. Where did I say that this was a "revolution", a project not previously considered by anyone? Here is the layout of the T-95, with an uninhabited tower and automatic loader.
        The layout of the tank is made in the form of a functionally interconnected nose highly protected fire and explosion-proof control module and weapons module, hermetically isolated from each other.
        Improving the crew’s security is achieved by transferring crew’s workstations located in the tower to a highly protected bow module of the hull, the protection mass of which can be increased by the amount of reduction of the tower’s defense mass due to the reduction of its dimensions and internal volume intended for crew workstations.
        Improving the security and survival of the crew in the module is achieved by reducing the total area of ​​the internal surfaces of the control module (compared with the habitable compartment of the tanks of the classic layout)
        The armament module is separated from the transverse partition control module, which reduces the probability of hitting the crew in the module.
        The fire and explosion safety of the module and the survival of the crew are achieved by the complete separation of the crew workplaces from the sealed amount of fuel and ammunition.
        In addition, the statistics of tank defeats recently shows more and more hits in the turret, so the transfer of crew jobs from the turret to the hull also contributes to its survival. Here is the automatic loader for the 2A83 gun.
        The armament module is an armored full-rotary platform with the main armament, an automatic loader, and cassettes with shots, mounted using a running device on the roof of the combat vehicle hull and a multiplex information exchange channel connected to it. The autoloader is placed with a gap from the bottom of the tank body to ensure the operability of the autoloader with deformations of the underbody, for example, with a powerful mine detonation.
        In the new version of the AZ development of UKBTM, the cassettes of the rotating conveyor are placed vertically, with a gap from the bottom of the tank, in contrast to the AZ of the T-72 and T-90 tanks.
        The use of such an AZ variant is possible only in promising tanks with a new layout, since such placement of the projectile and charge will not only not improve the security and ergonomics of the tank’s fighting compartment, but will also lead to the opposite result.
        This was discussed, it is necessary to compare two layouts, two solutions, both on the 195 object, and on the 640 object. Both layouts have the right to be, one with the 152 mm cannon (gain tank), the second for the mass tank, which could be the Omsk "Black Eagle". In the end, I expressed only hope that the T-95 would return instead of the adventurous “platform”, and that the T-90 would use a solution with a dedicated automatic loader. However, if the idea of ​​the Burlak module is revived, the same Breakthrough will be on the T-90, and that will be a plus.
        1. Nikolaevich I 7 September 2019 12: 13 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes there is no "collision"! What do you ! But didn’t the thought “slip through” you that “The layout with an uninhabited turret and a separate armored capsule was the result of the transition to the 152 mm caliber. The abandonment of the 152 mm gun casts doubt on the layout and dimensions of the T-14 .... In my opinion (that is, in your opinion!), A direct link: an uninhabited tower, a separate armored capsule, an 152-mm tank gun ... I just explained that tank projects with an uninhabited tower and an armored capsule were also considered with the “standard” 105- mm cannon; that is,without communication with a larger gun (140-152 mm), and quite a long time ago ...
          1. Per se. 7 September 2019 21: 40 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            Yes there is no "collision"! What do you !
            Vladimir, about the "hitting", this is a joke. As for your remark on the armored capsule, here I had to better express my thought, I will try to explain. Above was a comment from Eugene (Albert1988), I hope that he will read it too. The transition to the caliber 152 mm was not just given. For comparison, on the left is a BPS of separate loading of caliber 152 mm, and on the right is a BPS of caliber 125 mm.
            Not only the projectile and charge increases, but also the feed tray, in general, the automatic loader. By and large, there is less space for the crew. Nevertheless, we will compare the Kharkov object 477 (152 mm gun 2A73) and the object 195 from UVZ (152 mm gun 2A83).
            The difference is noticeable, on the T-95 the entire crew is in a separate armored capsule, the dimensions of the tank became larger precisely because of a separate armored capsule, a more powerful gun with a separate AZ layout. Now the T-14, which was "budgeted" as a tank (the "trimmed" T-95), but was made rich as a "platform" (on an expensive and complex base). The T-14 tank inherited the layout from the T-95, having lost the 152 mm gun, for the sake of which everything was started in the "Improvement 88", and not because of one armored capsule. Without a powerful 152 mm gun capable of hitting enemy tanks from a distance inaccessible to return fire, the armored capsule is more likely a minus than a plus. Therefore, I compared two technical solutions, either the allocation of the entire crew to an armored capsule, or the allocation of a loading automatic machine into a tight armored capsule (as at the Black Eagle object 470). Here, with the 125-140 mm guns, the Black Eagle scheme, in my opinion, is more reasonable. Therefore, it is foolish to make a dimensional, expensive and complex T-14 with an 125 mm gun, all the more, to create an expensive and complex "platform" on such a base.
            1. Per se. 7 September 2019 22: 01 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              (as at the 470 Black Eagle facility)
              I apologize, I noticed late, - like at the 640 Black Eagle facility.
            2. Nikolaevich I 8 September 2019 01: 19 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Now I understand you! Your arguments are well-founded and deserve attention! Regarding the Black Eagle ... I agree with you! At that time, when they “just started” talking about the T-95 and the “Black Eagle”, I expected that, in the end, both tanks would be adopted ... (well, like, for example, the T-72 and T-80 ... or earlier: "mass" T-55, and "special" T-10). The "presence" in the troops of two types of MBTs, which are two different concepts, would help determine which one is more "innovative" and would contribute to a more meaningful choice of the priority direction in tank building ... As one famous character used to say: you cannot embrace the vast ! Perhaps the further development of the two “branches” of tank building would have been justified when the “minuses!” Of one type were compensated, as it were, by the “pluses” of the other ... (Like Kartsev ... the cancers are large in 5 p. And small, but in 3 p.). I think that the rejection of the "former" concept of the development of tank building was caused by "objective" (really prevailing) reasons ... That is: 1. The increased "not childish" price of a modern tank; 2. The real economic situation of modern Russia ... hi
              1. Per se. 8 September 2019 09: 02 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                Perhaps the further development of the two “branches” of tank building would have been justified, when the “cons!” Of one type, as it were, were compensated by the “pluses” of the other.
                Vladimir Nikolaevich, many factors need to be considered. When they say that the Soviet Union had too many types of different tanks, they forget the main thing. Firstly, all models were the result of evolutionary development, for example, MBT from T-54. Second, there were different design bureaus, but in the USSR the unification of the main components and assemblies, weapons was widely used. Third, in our territory, which includes various geographical areas, God himself ordered to have a tank with a diesel engine and a gas turbine. Finally, there was an element of competition between design bureaus, safety net in the development of various technical solutions. Here, let’s take NATO, with all its standards, the hegemony of the United States, in the alliance’s tank fleet there are different tanks, both with a diesel engine and a gas turbine, both with a smooth-bore gun and a rifled one, with or without an automatic loader.

                Now, about the reasons you voiced in our current "concept of the development of tank building" ... Unfortunately, as you think, the main reason is our capitalism, the dependence of those in power on the masters of the world capitalism system. The alien lobby is very successfully pushing the interests of its overseas owners in our country, blocking the rational, and encouraging the harmful for us. The fact that they hacked the almost finished T-95, took the very promising development of the 640 facility, and actually brought the Omsk Tank Plant to bankruptcy by May 2015, is very clear. However, this applies not only to tank building. If the T-95 could already begin entering the troops after the 2005 year, undergo serial refinement, now it is the second half of the 2019 year, and the T-14 is still not accepted for service. Maybe this is for the best, what they did under the “platform”, claiming that they will destroy all T-72 reserves and produce the 2000 T-14, not even an adventure, but wrecking, betrayal, stupidity. He noted many times that the platform is not appointed in advance, the platform is a successful model already mastered by the industry, well-established, technologically advanced and relatively inexpensive. For example, the T-72 tank base, the MT-LB, BMD and BMP base became the platform for a whole family of equipment, this is justified and logical, but in no way an expensive and complex base should be assigned even before the adoption of the "platform".

                If to summarize, on the topic of the article, then if you put another tower on the “T-95 ub-man”, then on the T-14 it is better to put the tower on the T-95 with 152 mm guns.


                Better yet, return to the T-95 itself, reviving the project, completing it, putting an end to the adventure with the “platform”, from the era of Serdyukov’s “furniture sets”, with the “impossibility” of a major war, the expectation of military operations in some anti-terrorist operations, friendship with NATO and the United States.
                1. Nikolaevich I 8 September 2019 10: 48 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Per se.
                  The platform becomes a successful model already mastered by industry, well-established, technologically advanced and relatively inexpensive. For example, the T-72 tank base, the MT-LB, BMD and BMP base became the platform for a whole family of vehicles

                  Well said ! After all, the same thing I wanted to say in a previous comment, but "distracted"! If a certain "base" ... the chassis is called a "platform", then it is not necessary that it really will become such! But at the same time, for example, a successful tank can serve as the basis for a "set" of specialized vehicles ...
                  1. Albert1988 8 September 2019 18: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Nikolaevich I
                    Well said ! After all, the same thing I wanted to say in a previous comment, but "distracted"! If a certain "base" ... the chassis is called a "platform", then it is not necessary that it really will become such! But at the same time, for example, a successful tank can serve as the basis for a "set" of specialized vehicles ...

                    If this chassis was specifically designed for this, then it will be necessary. Do not consider yourself smarter than engineers.
                    A successful tank can be extremely inconvenient and expensive when remaking, say, in an infantry fighting vehicle, or self-propelled ... For example, to push the MSTU into the T-72 chassis, this chassis had to be extended by 2 rollers, and in the case of a “coalition”, by one rink. Alteration of such vehicles under BMP is not possible at all - a dvigun in the rear, and the rear should have just a fighting compartment. In the case of Armata, the chassis itself is not particularly redone.
                    1. Nikolaevich I 9 September 2019 02: 24 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: Albert1988
                      If this chassis was specifically designed for this, then it will be necessary.

                      Lord, why are you so "obligatory" ?! Indeed, if a technical task was issued for the development of a certain “platform”, then it is not at all “obligatory” that a successful machine will be able to become a “wide profile” base! Often, "home calculations with the market price do not agree"! An example of this is the GAZ-3937 Vodnik! It can be seen that in those years the "sweet word" ,, platform "was not yet in vogue; but, in fact, Vodnik was really planned as a unified (universal)" platform "! Well, where is this" platform "now? ! And at the same time, there are examples when on the "base" of the tank, produced in large quantities, "riveted", voluntarily or involuntarily, literally everything! An example, in particular, is the T-55 .. Now it’s worth thinking about T -72 ... This MBT was released in a "baaalsky amount"! As they assure, the T-90 is a "blocky" modernization of the T-72 ... What prevents many types of equipment from using the T-72? Many types of special equipment are “tractor with tools”, and military special equipment needs “armored tractors with tools”! T-72 and “provides” armor and power ... Like “rabbit is not only meat ..” . ", and the" base "(chassis) of the T-72 is MBT, self-propelled guns, self-propelled guns, ARVs, an engineering vehicle, a tractor, finally ...! Do I have to add rollers? So the Germans were not too lazy to add in the 2MV! They thought that it will still be cheaper, simpler, faster, more convenient than creating a chassis from scratch! And to make an armored personnel carrier out of the tank, there’s already 3 of the way (!), If you don’t “be lazy” and don’t “pay attention” to the location of the engine ... (Eyes are afraid, but hands are doing ... wink )
                    2. Bad_gr 10 September 2019 21: 22 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Albert1988
                      Say, to cram on the T-72 chassis, the MSTU had to lengthen this chassis by 2 rollers,

                      MSTA-S has an original chassis developed by the Omsk Plant. Used elements of the chassis of the T-80, but the engine compartment from the T-72.

                      The number of rollers is the same as that of the T72 / 80, only the arrangement is different.
                      1. Bad_gr 10 September 2019 21: 33 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Albert1988 (Eugene)
                        and in the case of a “coalition,” one rink.

                        The same number of rollers as the tank (six on each side).
                      2. Bad_gr 11 September 2019 00: 05 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Used elements of the chassis of the T-80, but the engine compartment from the T-72.
                        The number of rollers is the same as that of the T72 / 80, only the arrangement is different.

                2. Albert1988 8 September 2019 17: 56 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Better yet, return to the T-95 itself, reviving the project, completing it, putting an end to the adventure with the “platform”, from the era of Serdyukov’s “furniture sets”, with the “impossibility” of a major war, the expectation of military operations in some anti-terrorist operations, friendship with NATO and the United States.

                  Firstly, the “platform” is NOT Serdyukov’s adventure - they began to develop it at Uraltransmash BEFORE the stool minister ...
                  Two - and the point is to continue work on the 195th. if the T-14 is the same 195th, only with a digestible 125 mm cannon and much more advanced electronics? There is absolutely no difference between these machines! Armata even got the suspension from object 195! Otherwise, what do you think, could, starting in 2011, roll out the finished pre-production (!) Sample already in 2015? Naturally, the finished operating time for 195th was simply transferred to the armature and received the T-14 ...
                  And yes - an important point - the chassis of the object 195 was much more expensive and capricious than the armata you so disliked!
                  And in general - retrograde is very good in moderation. Armata and all machines based on it have a lot of time for practicing and treating childhood diseases. Moreover, I’ll tell you that just with the platform everything is fine there, but with the electronic stuffing it is just messing around - you need to work out the most complicated systems so that they are equal in reliability to Kalash ...
                  1. Per se. 8 September 2019 20: 47 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Two - and the point is to continue working on 195. if the T-14 is the same 195, only with a digestible 125 mm gun and much more advanced electronics?
                    I’m just repeating an interview with Sergey Maev here.
                    Colonel General Sergei Maev, chairman of the Central Council of ROSTO (DOSAAF), played a special role in creating the tank of the future. From 1996 to 2003, he served as the head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the T-95 tank (OKR Improvement-88). The chief editor of Rosinformburo Vyacheslav Prunov managed to talk with the patriarch of Russian tank building. Sergey Maev: “Armata” will need to be pulled up to the level of T-95
                    - It was planned, in 2005, to complete state tests and put it (a tank) into production. In the first year, 100 machines were to be made, then 300 machines. This is ahead of the development of the world tank building years at 15. Two years ago, at an exhibition in Paris, I saw a Leopard model in which German designers tried to somehow replicate the T-95 in locating the crew, ammunition, and the remote gun and technical vision elements. But it was just a layout.
                    - And we already had a new generation car in the metal.
                    - And we have two samples of T-95 already departed 15 thousand. Km. And the gun has already made 287 shots. The tank was ready. It was necessary to create a third option, conduct a full-scale revision, based on the first and second samples, and on the third option, conduct state tests, make some changes and launch the series. And we would have the best tank in the world.
                    - But what happened? Why abandoned the finished T-95 and opened a new work on "Armata"?
                    - What happened is difficult to explain. I was at one of the meetings of the military-industrial commission, when the customers spoke, and Nikolay Yershov was the head of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate, I told them that in order to finish this car, one more tank had to be made, to spend about 500 mln. rubles,
                    - Well, this is not fantastic money.
                    - Yes, they remained, the money. The creation of T-95 was not allocated a lot, total 2.2 billion rubles. And when I left, we had 700 million left. 400 million to make a third car and 300- for state tests.
                    But, I was objected that the machine is structurally too complicated and it will not be mastered and will be very expensive. And I said: “Yes, it is expensive and complicated, but now you will not spend 700 millions of rubles, but much more, simplify the specifications and make the car. Which class will be lower. " So I said: "You will do ... ka (ya-lu-ka)."
                    - So, creating “Armata”, did the designers take a step back?
                    - Creating T-95, we went to a new class of car. Unfortunately, it is lost. The paradox is that “Armata” will need to be dragged by characteristics to the level of “Improvement-88”. But the enemy is not in place.
                    - Do you think “Armat” will be worse than T-95?
                    - Well, of course, it will be worse than "Improvement-88". I think so. But the new just does not come. It was necessary to squeeze all the will into a fist and bring the T-95 to mind. In the 2005 year, we could actually begin to release a new tank. Now is 2013 year (at the time of the interview). Eight years have passed!
                    “And yet, why didn't the T-95 be adopted?” Why put an end to the already finished best tank in the world? Why undertook a new, dubious development work? Could it be money? After all, KB lives by development?
                    - Forgive me, Lord! It seems to me that there are only personal motives. I wanted Ershov to become an outstanding tanker. I warned him: "You will be kicked out in a year!" And so it happened.
                    1. Albert1988 8 September 2019 23: 12 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: Per se.
                      I’m just repeating an interview with Sergey Maev here.

                      I know this interview very well, Maeva really understand - a person worked for many years, one could say he burned with this project, worked in the most difficult years for the country, and now, when the project is literally ready, it is suddenly taken and closed ...
                      BUT! There is such a BUT - the first one is big problems with the electronics - the car was blind in the back hemisphere due to the use of optical fiber to connect the crew’s devices with the tower’s devices - they could not organize the normal operation of this system. In general, the 195th lagged behind during development in terms of electronics, which was fixed on the T-14. The second BUT is a gun, no matter what they say, but 2A83 had a resource of only about 200 shots, and then, the creators considered it a breakthrough that it would not at least tear after a couple of shots, that is, the de facto guns did not exist in the normal version. The third BUT came from the second - the need to create tank shells of 152 mm caliber. because howitzers were not suitable, because they are for rifled trunks, but feathered ones with different ballistics are needed. Trite we will not pull now the creation of such production - the Union would pull, and modern Russia will not pull. So for the T-14, we only need to create some BOPS and some modifications of the old 125 mm shells, but here everything is completely new.
                      That's what made, ahem, a "bastard", which is in many ways ahead of its ancestor, but it can also serve as a base for other machines. In the end, nothing prevents then bring 152 mm and put on the T-14, the benefit of all the characteristics remained the same.
                      So the words of General Maev about the direct readiness to produce a tank are just emotions - he still had to be brought up at least 10-15 years and at the end would have got a very controversial project. And with the T-14 you can first bring, and then jump to 152 mm.
                      For some reason, I’m sure that in the end it will be so - they will gradually finish 2A83 and when the NATO team rolls something with a caliber of 130-140, ours will stick a 14 mm monster on the T-152 ...
                      1. Per se. 9 September 2019 06: 41 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Eugene, undoubtedly, is impressed by the fact that you are arguing your arguments, so it is interesting to talk with you. Perhaps the topic has tightened up, I'll try to answer as a whole. Above, you told Nikolayevich that, -
                        A successful tank can be extremely inconvenient and expensive when remaking, say, in an infantry fighting vehicle, or self-propelled ... For example, to push the T-72 MSTU into the chassis, it was necessary to extend this chassis to the 2 ice rink, and in the case of a "coalition" - one ice rink.
                        To this I will say what they did in the “platform” for the T-14, it is as if the T-72 immediately began to produce two rollers longer (the “platform” with self-propelled guns). A tank will initially be flawed with this approach than in a purely tank version. This is the fundamental difference between the “Armata” and the T-95, and the whole “chip” in the “platform” is in throwing the engine back and forth, using the hull for the tank and heavy infantry fighting vehicles. About the mastodon T-15, with its dubious necessity, it is necessary to speak separately. For me, the BMPT based on the T-72 / T-90 will be cheaper and more efficient in specialized fire support, and a heavy armored personnel carrier, such as a modified BMO-T, in transport function.

                        What you said about the "problems with electronics" at T-95, they must be assumed, and now these problems, especially in the light of sanctions. These problems had to be solved by finalizing the 195 facility, at least in the 2005 year, and now the 2019 year will end. In an interview with Maev there are words about money, you read and you know, you didn’t find them, but only to OKRs and R&D for Armata, according to V.V. Putin, they spent 64 billion, and, I repeat, there is the second half of 2019 of the year, time, that’s the most pity. And the electronics and fine-tuning of the guns will not fall from the sky, we must do this. Finally, who prevented the T-95 in the initial series from making an 125 mm gun? There is a good saying, the one who wants is looking for opportunities, and not the one who wants reasons. They found one reason for the T-95, be it electronics, the barrel of the 152 mm guns, the shells themselves, no one will solve these problems for us, but they still need to be solved. Yes, I personally am very sorry for the T-95, like the Black Eagle object 640, I really hope that the time will come, they will ask those who caused the country its defenses and harm.
                      2. Albert1988 9 September 2019 20: 09 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Eugene, undoubtedly, is impressed by the fact that you are arguing your arguments, so it is interesting to talk with you.

                        Thank you!
                        Quote: Per se.
                        To this I’ll say what they did in the “platform” for the T-14, it’s as if the T-72 immediately began to produce two rollers longer (“platform” with self-propelled guns). A tank will initially be flawed with this approach than in a purely tank version.

                        How to say, the T-14 is very much more complicated than the T-72. which was as simple as an ax. Yes, and the situation has changed now - with high-precision roof-killers and other "smart weapons" somehow put on the dimensions of the machine - the main thing for them is to take the target for thermal radiation, etc. So size doesn't matter that much. As for purely tank execution - there is one point here - the armata as a platform, according to some suspicions, is only an optimized chassis of the Object 195, so there should not be any fundamental difference.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        About the mastodon T-15, with its dubious necessity, it is necessary to speak separately.

                        Yes, this is an interesting question, although more and more evidence is in favor of such machines.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        For me, the BMPT based on the T-72 / T-90 will be cheaper and more efficient in specialized fire support, and a heavy armored personnel carrier, such as a modified BMO-T, in transport function.

                        They turn out to be extremely uncomfortable - proven by Israeli counterparts.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        What you said about the "problems with electronics" on the T-95, they must be assumed, and now these problems, especially in light of the sanctions.

                        Just sanctions have nothing to do with it - the electronics are put purely domestic. For some time there were problems with IR matrices, but then this problem was solved.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        In an interview with Maev there are words about money, you read and you know, you didn’t find them, but only to OKRs and R&D for Armata, according to V.V. Putin spent 64 billion

                        The problem here is that the money was for the car itself, but the money for the construction of an entire industry for the production of shells for it? Here they were not ... And not only money, but technological capabilities then. For the T-14, only BOPS to make a new, longer one and that’s all, in fact, but then I would have to do a whole line.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Finally, who prevented the T-95 in the initial series from being made with a 125 mm gun?

                        That's the problem that Sergey Alexandrovich himself interfered! Maev initially insisted on 152 mm and no 125! He explained this by the fact that NATO was approaching large calibers. Only this his desire led to the delay of the project - if they had taken a very old and already well-tested 2A82 - already by 2005 the project would have been completely ready! So what happened is what happened ...
                        Quote: Per se.
                        They found some reasons for the T-95, be it electronics, the 152 mm gun barrel, the shells themselves, no one will solve these problems for us, but they still need to be solved.

                        A whole bunch of reasons destroyed the car ... And the T-14 is essentially the solution - cutting this Gordian knot ...
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Yes, I personally am very sorry for the T-95, like the 640 Black Eagle object, I really hope that the time will come, they will ask those who have caused the country its defenses and harm.

                        I am also really looking forward to this moment - because. that half of our elite will have to judge and imprison. and the second half - in the colony of the settlement ...
                      3. Per se. 10 September 2019 07: 07 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        So size doesn't matter that much.
                        It seems that size will always matter. It’s not only dimensions, as a target, where, in addition to homing missiles, gunners will also work (here, it’s definitely easier to get into an “elephant” than into a “donkey”), but it’s also dimensions, like weight, like protection over a large area, it’s general visibility. In any case, the "mastodon" will be more expensive, and more noticeable, and harder, and less maneuverable, and in this, it is not a fact that it will turn out better, more secure, even with the thickest armor. It’s already useless to argue about T-14 and T-95, thank you for investing money in this at UVZ, otherwise, I consider the “platform” on an expensive and complicated base stupidity, sabotage.

                        To yours (heavy armored personnel carrier on a tank base), - "They turn out to be extremely uncomfortable - proven by Israeli counterparts", I would like to object," Ahzarit "type cars converted from T-54 / 55 are not quite what I had in mind. For the IDF, remaking the captured T-55 or obsolete" Centurions "ultimately gave rise to" Namer ", about which you certainly cannot say that it is inconvenient for the Israelis, in our case, we are talking about the BMPT tandem (which Israel did not have and does not have) and a heavy armored personnel carrier on a single tank base (T-72 / 90). "tandem" heavy infantry fighting vehicle, where the specialized fire function is performed by the BMPT, and the transport heavy APC. Of course, the BMO-T is not ideal, as Valuable armored personnel carrier, but as a machine for an assault group, quite suitable on the battlefield.Here 5-6 fighters are better than 10-12 paratroopers in a traditional armored personnel carrier, that is, 10-12 paratroopers will not be in one vehicle, but in two. , we are only talking about supporting our tanks, supplemented by BMPTs and armored personnel carriers with assault infantry groups.First of all, paratroopers can be more conveniently deployed, they will dismount faster, starting to perform tasks as a battle group. Secondly, the defeat of such a heavy APC with a landing on board minimizes losses. Thirdly, the BTR itself is more compact, cheaper, being well protected. Well, and importantly, you can use the stocks of old T-72, both for BMPT and heavy armored personnel carriers. BMPT can go near or even in front of its tanks, heavy armored personnel carriers with assault groups in the second line. This seems better than a T-15 mastodon. In general, an infantry fighting vehicle is needed only as a universal, maneuverable vehicle (BMP-3), a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, as a solution, at best it is a "police tank", a vehicle against terrorists and militants.

                        Thank you, all the best.
                      4. Albert1988 10 September 2019 20: 22 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Thank you, all the best.

                        And thank you for the interesting discussion. hi
                        Let's wait and see what will grow out of all this)
                    2. Revival 13 October 2019 15: 12 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      That is, after reading your correspondence it turns out: 1) we need a caliber of 152mm, but we can’t. Then 125mm production is a failure.
                      Or
                      2) 152mm is not needed, then continue to produce 125mm normally.
                      ?
  • Albert1988 8 September 2019 17: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    tank builders dawned on the T-95 tank!

    I repeat - there is NO such a tank in the nature! This is a fictitious designation of newspaper men for object 195, which some unconscious then later transferred to object 640 "black eagle".
    1. Per se. 8 September 2019 20: 56 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Albert1988
      I repeat - NO in the nature of such a tank!
      Yes, now there is no such tank, on April 7 of the 2010 of the year Mr. Popovkin, being then deputy Anatoly Serdyukov and chief of armaments, announced the cessation of funding for the development of the T-95 tank and the closure of the project. According to him, the design of the car is "morally obsolete." To all, the tank was called too expensive and difficult for conscripts. As for the name, T-95, it’s not the newspaper men came up with. In March 2000, Russian Minister of Defense Igor Sergeyev visited Uralvagonzavod. Then Igor Sergeyev first voiced this name, saying after visiting the defense industry enterprises in Nizhny Tagil and Yekaterinburg that he created a fundamentally new main battle tank (MBT) T-95. The leading tank-building enterprise of Russia, Uralvagonzavod, presented to the marshal a full-scale model of the new machine, which he appreciated, noting the highest technical level and combat characteristics of a promising tank. The fact that the head of the military department called him T-95, then allowed me to conclude that it is possible for a new tank to enter the army, since similar names are assigned to equipment already adopted for service, and experimental and developed vehicles are usually indicated by the word “object” with the number assigned to it.

      So the unknown “195 object” became the T-95 tank for the public. Alas, the hope that the T-95 will become a new serial tank was not destined to come true.
      1. Albert1988 8 September 2019 23: 16 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Per se.
        So the unknown “195 object” became the T-95 tank for the public. Alas, the hope that the T-95 will become a new serial tank was not destined to come true.

        This happened even earlier, in the years 2001 - 2002 - then the Israeli press began to spread rumors about the new T-95 tank in its own corporate style "heard the ringing, but we don’t know where it is," and our newspaper men pulled themselves together . I remember a lousy little article in one of the many newsagents that the deceased grandfather and grandmother were reading at that time, saying that the "no-analogue world T-95" being developed was already outdated at the development stage and no 152mm gun would save him from the wrath of the democratic abrams ... In general, the abomination was rare, then I used this newspaper for kindling ... It's funny that about the same people are now writing about the same about the T-14 ...
    2. Nikolaevich I 9 September 2019 01: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Albert1988
      tank builders dawned on the T-95 tank!

      I repeat - NO in the nature of such a tank!

      Well, you are already on the "little things" spread! Yes, it doesn’t matter now, what is the proper name for the tank ...: T-95 or "object 195"! Journalists are "to blame" or not ... but to the "broad masses" he is better known as T-95 ... And is the "essence" of a dispute a name? stop It doesn’t matter what ice cream is called ... semifredo or parfait ... the main thing is to eat it, or not ...!
      1. Albert1988 9 September 2019 19: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Well, you are already on the "little things" spread! Yes, it doesn’t matter now what is the proper name for the tank ...: T-95 or "Object 195"! Journalists are "to blame" or not ... but to the "broad masses" he is better known as the T-95 ... And is the "essence" of the dispute a name? It doesn’t matter what ice cream is called ... semifredo or parfait ... the main thing is to eat it, or not ...!

        I completely agree with you, there is only one problem with the name "T-95" - some mean by this index object 195, and others the object 640 is a black eagle. here it turns out in disputes confusion - he personally witnessed many times ...
        1. Nikolaevich I 10 September 2019 04: 07 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Albert1988
          some refer to this index as an 195 object, and others as an 640 black eagle. confusion in disputes

          This is really strange! So confuse the once widely discussed "objects"!? belay Was it worth paying attention to people showing such ignorance? request
          1. Albert1988 10 September 2019 20: 23 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            This is really strange! So confuse the once widely discussed "objects"!? Was it worth paying attention to people showing such ignorance?

            Not to say that this is ignorance directly - just if the name is unofficial, then you can apply it to anything. For example, I would not be surprised if the same T-14 after taking into service will receive the T-95 index)))
            1. Bad_gr 10 September 2019 22: 02 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Albert1988
              For example, I would not be surprised if the same T-14, after being adopted, will receive the T-95 index)))

              T-14 tank of 2014, therefore, T-14
              1. Albert1988 11 September 2019 19: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Bad_gr
                T-14 tank of 2014, therefore, T-14

                Rather, the 15th ...
            2. Nikolaevich I 11 September 2019 01: 11 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Albert1988
              For example, I would not be surprised if the same T-14, after being adopted, will receive the T-95 index)))

              And here you are already late! laughing There is an article where the author calls T-14, as T-99 "Priority"! (There was also such a "name" as T-98 ...)
            3. Nikolaevich I 11 September 2019 01: 26 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Albert1988
              Not to say that it’s ignorance

              Actually, I was going to write: "ignorance", but in a hurry, slipped, quotes ...
  • samaravega 6 September 2019 16: 15 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    I don’t know which one of you is a tanker, I doubt very much that you really studied at least some tank from the “last Soviet” generation (T-64A, etc., T-72 and T-80 of any variants). It was no coincidence that the T-64A was indicated as the starting one: the 64-mm cannon was on the “clean” T-115. True, I have not seen such tanks. He graduated from the ChVTKU, drove all these models, fired from the T-72 and T-64B. About modularity and engines: firstly, the T-72 was not a B-45, but a B-46, later a B-84. Secondly, there was NO interchangeability of engines and it couldn’t be possible: not only the cooling systems (all three were completely different, from the ejector on the T-64 to the usual fan on the T-72), the transmissions and even the layout of the engine compartments were different (simple example: the installation angle of the aft armor plate on the T-72 and T-64 differs by 8 g, not to mention its thickness, shape and the hatches and stampings contained in it). To verify this, just look at the photos of these tanks "from the stern", the benefit of the photo on the internet is complete. I'm not talking about the different diameters of the track rollers, driving and steering wheels, respectively, the different gear ratios in the BKP, the presence of the “guitar” in the T-72 transmission, which is absent in other tanks (it occupies a place mentally), 7-speed main KP in T-72 and T-64 and 4-speed in T-80, completely different depreciation systems of track rollers T-64 and T-72 (T-80), etc. etc. About modularity and towers: there was no interchangeability of towers in sight, except for prototypes (but they are far from serial ones, like the Decembrists are from the people). MOH and AZ differ PRINCIPLALLY and, first of all, this is why you cannot rearrange the tower from T-72 to T-80. Not to mention the fundamentally different SLAs. Some continuity can be traced between the T-64 and T-80, but direct replacement of the tower is also not possible. The MSA of the T-64B tank was called 1A33, the Ob code was never assigned to it, the Cobra code had a CWB for the T-64B and T-80B with radio frequency guidance guided by UR, created in Nudelman Design Bureau, correctly called 9K112-1 for T- 64B and 9K112-2 for the T-80B. The functioning of the complexes was provided by DIFFERENT sights. After the creation in the KBP of more advanced HFMs with guided SD by the laser beam (9K119, 9K120), these complexes began to be installed on the T-72 and T-80 (from U and beyond). Again, the functioning of the complexes was provided by different sights, the interchangeability of the towers is excluded.
    Installing a tower from T-90M on Armata is hardly possible for layout reasons, plus such a modification completely discredits the very principle of building Armata. So let's not waste the air of stillborn ideas, but rather ask: what is in the way of the serial production of the T-14? Maybe, as in war, to raise money at least for the company? Or maybe "effective managers" to take and shake for one place? Our people will master both.
  • tank64rus 6 September 2019 18: 34 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It is not clear that this needs to be discussed. First you need to decide why Armata was created. In order to create a tank with a crew sitting in a separate capsule or create a tank as a tank control tank-robots as part of a robotic combat complex. A tank that can combine both a mobile advanced control center and a combat vehicle. As for the protective capsule, its first use was in RXM-4, although it protected the crew from radiation, but the crew was located in the same way as on Armata and there were already elements of equipment automation. It was already distant 1985. Now, in connection with the development of new types of weapons, much is already changing and there will be even more. change. Projects of tank robotization and BMOF have already been presented by the Moscow Region. It is unfortunate that they “optimized” the BTV Academy. World-class scientists worked there, but who thought about it. Therefore, this is not a matter of the tower, but of a new stage in the development of armored weapons. Whether we will be ahead or Russia will push back is the question.
  • Pavel57 6 September 2019 21: 39 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Armata has too much percentage of novelty, and therefore risk. Installing a tower, like phasing mining, makes sense.
    1. Albert1988 8 September 2019 18: 04 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      Armata has too much percentage of novelty, and therefore risk. Installing a tower, like phasing mining, makes sense.

      Oh, and for that you have to redo the whole tank! Novelty is less, and even more risks!
  • cat Rusich 7 September 2019 00: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Just a question for the author of the article: do we (Russia) have extra towers for the T-90M? Once such a "booze" has gone - cut the last "cucumber" ... why didn’t the author of the article offer to put a tower from the Octopus on the T-14? The Octopus’s weapon is also 125mm ... My opinion: they made a case for the T-14, make a tower for it - it’s easier to do yes
  • Bad_gr 7 September 2019 00: 45 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    ..... I already had to write that the uninhabited tower is one of the most problematic issues in this tank layout ....

    Why did it happen ? For a modern sight, where the image is displayed on the screen, and the commander’s panoramic device, it doesn’t matter where the screen is in the tower or the hull. AZ and MZ used to load the gun without the direct participation of a person: he only pressed the buttons. And if he presses the buttons not in the tower, but sitting in the case - what difference does it make.
    Another issue is the saturation of the T-14 with the electronics of Active tank defenses:
    where there are a bunch of locators, information processing tools, systems of counteraction to aiming devices and enemy ammunition. That's for sure the first time everything will not work perfectly and will require refinement.
  • nafanal 7 September 2019 01: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Hmm .. but what about the T-90? Or maybe the cannon with the "acacia" is just that .. And the caliber is not sickly and the ammunition for it is a trifling matter ... Dvigun is excessively powerful .. You can’t bother with a cannon with such caliber and armor ...
    1. Albert1988 8 September 2019 18: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Nathanael
      ammunition under it-to do a trifling matter ...

      Ogh, chuckling! Tank shells and howitzers, somehow very different. not to mention tank and howitzer barrels and their ballistics ...
      1. nafanal 9 September 2019 01: 02 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        But what .. the same anti-tank projectile-guided anti-tank missile is difficult to do ..? .. Change the caliber .. If you are confused by the changed dimensions of the tower .. then take a look at the tank of our eventual enemy ... Abram .. Well, there’s someone’s tower the dream of any anti-tanker
  • storm 7 September 2019 02: 34 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The situation with tanks in the RF Armed Forces is quite good and there is no acute need for mass replacement yet, but it’s time to start purchasing heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on the Armata T-15 platform, at least one regiment set a year.
  • nafanal 7 September 2019 11: 36 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Than they would have installed a gun at least with acacia ... who knows, they’ll understand ... Dvigun-an excess of power ... Pull the extra armor without tension .. Ammunition under the gun -develop -few thing ....
    1. Albert1988 8 September 2019 18: 01 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Nathanael
      Than a cormorant would a gun be installed even with acacia ...

      Og, specialists! What ballistics does she have? Read how the difference is howitzers, striking exclusively by a canopy, and tank guns, which should be hit primarily direct fire ...
      1. nafanal 9 September 2019 00: 52 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        And what about some other cannon standing on the howitzer .. He served in the GSVG ... On the same floor they lived with a division of acacias .. So they said that they hit direct from the hill on targets, the BTR-corps. So they flew into the wood chips .. Distance in 7-8 km ..
        1. eburg1234 9 September 2019 17: 12 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          7-8 km and direct fire? You yourself figure out how this is possible?
          Yes, the howitzer and the tank gun are different. Nobody shoots BOPS from a howitzer with an initial speed of 1800 m / s (and in the case of 2A83 even more).
          1. nafanal 10 September 2019 13: 44 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            There was a large bulk shaft at the Whitshtok training ground. So not only howitzers but all the equipment that had guns were fired from this shaft .. In good weather, visibility of 7-8 km is not a problem .. Everything can be clearly seen in the sight .. Then of course there was no such computing equipment as Today, but for a well-trained gunner, this is not a problem. We had one of the best gym in the regiment. Even the training was carried out by the whole group ... 60 msr Ravensbrück ..
      2. nafanal 10 September 2019 13: 51 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        But what can’t it be possible to modify the gun so that it could hit direct fire ... It’s a matter of installing a gun of greater power. How to reinvent the wheel, modify what we have .. It will cost cheaper .. Of course, the dimensions of the tower will change .. But look at the Amer Abram ... Well, whoever has the tower has an anti-tank dream ... And they don’t take a steam bath ...
  • 3danimal 9 September 2019 21: 38 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Based on the available information: there was a lot of PR and propaganda around the not yet finished machine.
    In addition, the decision with an uninhabited tower then (and now) looked somewhat reckless. Like it or not, the Russian Federation is not a leader in the field of microelectronics, production of thermal imaging arrays, etc. Element base is purchased abroad. And here is such self-confidence.
    I think the reason is the violated decision-making system, when the opinion of a high-ranking official is higher than the college of experts whom this official, a priori, considers himself “smarter”.
  • Brigadier 13 September 2019 05: 10 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    Everything is clear that the “Armata” is made in piece versions and for parades.
    The usual crude and unfinished project. Under the current government, it’s standard.

    Moreover, every year there are fewer and fewer people in the workplace.
    The country's economy today is like a steppe eagle diving to the ground!

    Thank you for this wise and far-sighted policy of the great Putin and his indispensable assistants - Medvedev, Kudrin, Nabiulina, Chubais, Gref and others. Like!
    It is under their strict guidance that the country confidently moves in the same direction as the diving eagle.
    And therefore, in every house today should be a portrait of himself - himself!


    The faithful path leads the people of Russia to a brighter future, our great Putin!
    1. Rey_ka 13 September 2019 13: 25 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Aren't you tired of living hastily with one foot in socialism with the other here under capitalism? Late to build a socially oriented state! It ended in 1991
  • kunstkammer 13 September 2019 17: 04 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Politically argue, honestly! And who told you that they made this tank for Russia? First you need to provide "Armata" for your friends-comrades like Erdogan, to sell to India ... China ... Malaysia. Next on the list. Well, then ... then build the 5 generation tank. And let the Russian army ride the T-72. It's already there! We have no enemies ... only partners around.
    Business however!
  • Diviz 21 October 2019 13: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Missiles there as on a terminator or a kamikaze dash, a couple of cans and 4.
  • Basarev 27 October 2019 00: 14 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    In my opinion, we are smoothly led to the fact that we will not stretch Armata. Because the capsule and uninhabited tower were exhibited as the main advantages of the new tank. Without them, there is no point. At all. But if Armata is not exported, then what alternative are we offered? T-90M. But the trick is that conversations about him subsided after a couple of colorful pictures, but they talked out loud about its high cost and complexity, about its not so breakthrough characteristics against the background of the T-72B3. That is, in fact, the T-90M is not exported, it turns out. And there are only budget-upgraded, in fact - rogue, T-72B3, not so much different from the base T-72A. But they technically become obsolete right before our eyes.
  • Alexander Bruyev 17 November 2019 22: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Everything goes to the point that military equipment will in principle become uninhabited. To foresee an option for such a control of the tank in advance would also not be amiss. And I consider the "cautious" deployment of such exclusive equipment as Armata in peacetime to be completely justified. Designers first need to accumulate new technologies. And when they are needed, these technologies will shoot.