Military Review

"Ilya Muromets": UVZ began the development of a new BMPT based on "Armata"

193
"Ilya Muromets": UVZ began the development of a new BMPT based on "Armata"

New variant of the support vehicle tanks (BMPT) is currently being developed at Uralvagonzavod. The new vehicle is being built on the basis of the unified Armata platform. This was stated in an interview with TASS by the general director of the Uralvagonzavod concern, Alexander Potapov.


According to the general director, the new BMPT will receive a combat module with 57-mm cannons. In addition, the name of the combat vehicle will be Russified in contrast to the previous version, which has a foreign name "Terminator". Potapov promised to think about the name of the new BMPT. Other details have not yet been reported.

If we talk about BMPT, then the next step could be the installation of such a combat module on the Armata platform in 57 mm caliber. We are working on this too. And in this direction we will continue our development and research. The only thing that has already grown strongly is the name "Terminator". I still want a Russian sound. Let the terminators be in the USA, and we will have Ilya Muromets, Vladimir Monomakh or someone else

- said the general director of UVZ.

Today, the Russian army is armed with the Terminator BMPT based on the T-72 tank. The armament of the vehicle is 30-mm automatic cannons and the Ataka-T anti-tank missile system. The main purpose of the BMPT is to support tanks in the offensive, neutralize enemy manpower.
193 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 31 August 2020 09: 24 New
    +1
    Interestingly, this technique was tested in Syria? what
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 31 August 2020 09: 27 New
      16
      Quote: The same Lech
      Interestingly, this technique was tested in Syria? what

      BMPT "Terminator" in the SAR was operated, and as a result it was finalized. "Ilya Muromets" is still at the design stage.
    2. Grits
      Grits 31 August 2020 09: 54 New
      +3
      Quote: The same Lech
      Interestingly, this technique was tested in Syria? what

      Most likely, it is not even in the gland yet
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather 31 August 2020 09: 56 New
        -18
        it is already beginning to seem that this is a simple way to cut the budget. there is no other explanation for "innovation" that does not go to the troops.
        1. Temples
          Temples 31 August 2020 10: 08 New
          -8
          Quote: Dead Day
          it is already beginning to seem that this is a simple way to cut the budget

          I agree with you.
          Daily reports on new developments and the subsequent oblivion of them.

          It looks like the whole modern system of government
          this is a simple way to cut the budget


          Someone from the ruling named the purpose of our existence and the purpose of their rule?

          I don’t remember.

          A little hindsight suggests that their goal is
          this is a simple way to cut the budget


          And our task is to live as long as possible after retirement age.
          Take revenge in this way to the ruling wink laughing
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Lionnvrsk
          Lionnvrsk 31 August 2020 10: 09 New
          +4
          In this case, I agree with you, this thought also slipped through. But even if he does not "go to the troops", then the experience of studies, developments will remain and I hope it will be useful in the future. hi
        3. svp67
          svp67 31 August 2020 10: 17 New
          16
          Quote: Dead Day
          already begins to seem

          Yes, here I am once again convinced that half the work "not very smart people" cannot be shown - they will not understand ...
          "Armata" has not even been accepted into service. But this is a normal process, when on the basis of a PERSPECTIVE base chassis, in this case, heavy and tracked, they begin to develop a whole series of combat vehicles, this is called - FOR PERSPECTIVE. And the work is now being carried out not for the STATE BUDGET, but at the expense of the concern itself.
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 31 August 2020 11: 31 New
            -2
            Not only was the "Armata" not accepted for service, but the "Terminator" itself, which is already quite a few years old, has not been put into service by and large, with the exception of a few pieces taken for a tick.

            By the way, the appearance of the combat module raises doubts about the sufficient armament of the project in terms of missile weapons. On the other hand, add a couple more missiles on each side, and you get a "Pantsyr" tracked.
            1. Temples
              Temples 31 August 2020 14: 24 New
              -5
              Quote: svp67
              Yes, here I am once again convinced that half the work "not very smart people" cannot be shown - they will not understand ...

              A fool does not need a knife.
              You will lie to him with three boxes,
              And do what he likes to him.

              Half work fellow
              Brilliant! good
              The main thing is to provide a line in the budget,
              and to the people (very smart) to show "half the work".
              The very smart will understand. wassat
        4. Ded_Mazay
          Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 11: 15 New
          12
          Quote: Dead Day
          ... a simple way to cut the budget. there is no other explanation for "innovation" that does not go to the troops.

          Then, following your logic, and numerous Soviet developments that did not go to the troops - drank dough. There is no other explanation ... laughing
        5. Piramidon
          Piramidon 31 August 2020 12: 06 New
          +5
          Quote: Dead Day
          this is a simple way to cut the budget

          Everywhere you see some "circulars". Directly some kind of mania.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 31 August 2020 17: 44 New
        0
        The most important thing is that there is a running gear - and a combat module is not a problem to make.
    3. lucul
      lucul 31 August 2020 10: 21 New
      -1
      According to the general director, the new BMPT will receive a combat module with 57-mm cannons.

      Why make a fence like that?
      Maybe it makes sense to leave one 57mm high ballistics cannon (with guided detonation shells) and install an 80-100mm mortar? If you really want to throw shells straight into the trenches (a stumbling block, as I understand it). And where the mortar should be placed - in the tower or in the hull, these are the details.
      1. Cat Kuzya
        Cat Kuzya 31 August 2020 11: 12 New
        -11
        Another "development" for the cloth. How many of them have already been together with "layouts", "models", "projects", etc. Some people are right here, all these "projections" a la "a tower from one to the chassis of another" are nothing more than a method of "knocking out and pumping out money for development "in the absence of orders ... And to be honest, we have already got these" lubkov-patriotic "" second "names of samples .... and how they did without them when creating the famous military equipment of the Second World War in the USSR. .. so I imagine - the famous T-34 "Ilya Muromets" .... or - "The Thunderstorm of Imperialism" .... or simply "Winner"
        1. Alexga
          Alexga 31 August 2020 11: 41 New
          -10
          It looks like a simple mastery of budget money. The money was allocated, the work was done, and the result is no longer the main thing. The main thing is that they do not go to jail for cutting public money.
      2. Ded_Mazay
        Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 11: 25 New
        +4
        Quote: lucul
        It might make sense to keep one 57mm high ballistics cannon (with guided detonation shells) and install an 80-100mm mortar

        Don't you think that for picking someone out of the trenches, 57 mm shells with remote detonation are much more convenient than a mortar?
        1. lucul
          lucul 31 August 2020 12: 30 New
          -1
          Don't you think that for picking someone out of the trenches, 57 mm shells with remote detonation are much more convenient than a mortar?

          "Doraga" say)))
          Here's something like the Swedish AMOS

          Just install a 2s41 Drok mortar, 82mm caliber, combined with a 57mm high ballistics cannon, the main thing is the ability to fire a mortar on the go.
          No, well, if, of course, all the ammunition is with remote detonation, then one 57mm cannon is enough.
          1. Ded_Mazay
            Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 15: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            Just install a 2s41 Drok mortar, 82mm caliber, combined with a 57mm high ballistics cannon, the main thing is the ability to fire a mortar on the go.

            Hmm ...
            Sorry, I almost choked on obscenities ...
            Let me ask you, how do you imagine placing all this wealth in the T-72 / T-90 hull?
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 31 August 2020 15: 41 New
              -1
              The chassis is different. T 15 is logical. Better than t 14.
              1. Ded_Mazay
                Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 17: 15 New
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                The chassis is different.

                It doesn't matter at all. There is not that much difference in available volumes.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 31 August 2020 17: 28 New
                  0
                  T 15 large compartment. T 14 is somewhat small. There is a difference.
                  1. Ded_Mazay
                    Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 18: 41 New
                    +1
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    T 15 large compartment. T 14 is somewhat small. There is a difference.

                    And she influences something, is such a difference? laughing It would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on this matter.
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 31 August 2020 18: 52 New
                      -1
                      In fact, the body is one. The T 14 has an additionally formed crew armor capsule. That it is easier to reshape the old armored capsule for plus two more people, or in the "empty" T 15 to form a new armored capsule and place the weapons on the roof? Plus, the T 15 was originally an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier better covered from the sides. And for BMPT it can come in handy. Plus, the front-engine layout frees up the stern for, for example, airborne projectiles in which ATGMs with a quasi-balestic trajectory or kamikaze UAVs can be placed. Protecting them from enemy fire.
                      1. Ded_Mazay
                        Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 19: 19 New
                        +1
                        You generally went to some wrong steppe. It's not about the crew, but about the weapons. Specifically, the impossibility of adequately shoving a 57mm gun and an 82mm mortar, as someone above suggests:
                        Quote: lucul
                        ... put a mortar 2s41 Drok, 82mm caliber, combined with a 57mm high ballistics cannon ...
                        .
                        Actually, I asked you how the size of the T-15 fighting compartment helps to solve it? What is the fundamental difference for this task in the T-72 / T-90 and T14 / T15 combat compartments?
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 31 August 2020 20: 03 New
                        0
                        I will say at once I see the point in Drok + 57 mmVB. Two 57 mm NB is possible. 57 mm WB + NB is also possible. The T 15 is a really big car. And the most logical for the future. For BMPT, the number of channels of destruction is fundamentally important. It is quite possible to exchange 9 paratroopers for a second combat module.
                      3. Ded_Mazay
                        Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 22: 09 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        For BMPT, the number of channels of destruction is fundamentally important

                        It is not important how many weapons you have, otherwise you saw the enemy and managed to shoot on time or not.
                      4. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 31 August 2020 22: 22 New
                        0
                        This is a question of another level. Even multilevel. Intelligence at the headquarters level. Information from neighboring cars. Own surveillance equipment. Modern surveillance equipment can do a lot. The question is whether such expensive complexes will be installed on cars. Or, as usual, they will buy an economy option.
                      5. Ded_Mazay
                        Ded_Mazay 1 September 2020 06: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Modern surveillance equipment can do a lot. The question is whether such expensive complexes will be installed on cars
                        And without them, there is no point in BMPT, how many weapons and armor you can't hang on it.
                      6. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 1 September 2020 10: 28 New
                        +1
                        I agree to all 100. It's bad that sometimes truncated versions are accepted for arming. Samples devoid of their main advantages.
  2. lucul
    lucul 31 August 2020 20: 00 New
    +1
    Let me ask you, how do you imagine placing all this wealth in the T-72 / T-90 hull?

    The Gorse mortar solves problems with infantry in shelters, a 57mm high ballistic cannon solves problems with UAVs and helicopters (close combat), like a good support for tanks should be obtained ...
    Ammunition or 57mm cannon or 82mm mortar can be carried out behind the turret if there is absolutely no room for ammunition.
    1. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 20: 23 New
      0
      lucul, it is much easier to abandon the idea of ​​cramming something unproductive than engaging in engineering perversions.
  • Alf
    Alf 31 August 2020 19: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Ded_Mazay
    Quote: lucul
    It might make sense to keep one 57mm high ballistics cannon (with guided detonation shells) and install an 80-100mm mortar

    Don't you think that for picking someone out of the trenches, 57 mm shells with remote detonation are much more convenient than a mortar?

    And if the mass of warheads are compared?
    1. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 31 August 2020 19: 52 New
      0
      And if you think about the principle of action?
      1. Alf
        Alf 1 September 2020 18: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Ded_Mazay
        And if you think about the principle of action?

        Or maybe the cannon break through the dugout cover or throw the shell over the wall? And again, the mass of the warhead of 120-mm mines and 57-mm guns is incomparable. I don't even mention the difference in high-explosive action.
        1. Ded_Mazay
          Ded_Mazay 1 September 2020 20: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Or maybe the cannon break through the dugout cover or throw the shell over the wall? And again, the mass of the warhead of 120-mm mines and 57-mm guns is incomparable. I don't even mention the difference in high-explosive action.

          Or maybe then immediately put a 203 mm mortar, so that from one species they faint? laughing
          For projectiles with air detonation, in principle, there is no problem in destroying targets, both behind obstacles and trying to hide in the terrain. And for dugouts and other rubbish there are ATGMs with cumulative warheads and BOV.
          1. Alf
            Alf 1 September 2020 21: 16 New
            0
            Quote: Ded_Mazay
            For projectiles with air detonation, in principle, there is no problem in destroying targets,

            The shell flies in a straight line.
            Quote: Ded_Mazay
            And for dugouts and other rubbish there are ATGMs with cumulative warheads and BOV.

            How much is an ATGM, and how much is a 120-mm mine?
            Again. Give the numbers, how many explosives a 57-mm projectile contains and how many 120-mm mines.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Ded_Mazay
              Ded_Mazay 2 September 2020 15: 37 New
              0
              Oh, ohh ...
              In short, so.
              1. There is no room for a mortar on BMPT, neither for 120mm, nor for 82mm.
              2. It is not part of the BMPT's tasks to throw behind five-story buildings and smoke dugouts.
              3. Everything that should not, but rustles behind obstacles - in trenches, craters, ditches, behind small houses, walls and other rubbish in the line of sight - is "multiplied by zero" by the explosion of a 57mm projectile with an air blast, right over the head of the barmaley. Fortunately, modern control systems allow you to determine the range to the target with an accuracy of a meter.
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 31 August 2020 15: 39 New
    -1
    If we talk about a heavy platform, then two independent installations of a 57 mm grenade launcher are better. With controlled disruption.
  • Doliva63
    Doliva63 31 August 2020 19: 44 New
    0
    Quote: lucul
    According to the general director, the new BMPT will receive a combat module with 57-mm cannons.

    Why make a fence like that?
    Maybe it makes sense to leave one 57mm high ballistics cannon (with guided detonation shells) and install an 80-100mm mortar? If you really want to throw shells straight into the trenches (a stumbling block, as I understand it). And where the mortar should be placed - in the tower or in the hull, these are the details.

    Why is it needed at all? No one knows.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 31 August 2020 09: 27 New
    +6
    "Ilya Muromets": UVZ began the development of a new BMPT based on "Armata"
    The name is certainly beautiful, but .... not for BMPT, what is here from Ilya? ARPL - it would be nice to call it that. repeat
    1. NIKN
      NIKN 31 August 2020 10: 21 New
      +5
      In addition, the name of the combat vehicle will be Russified in contrast to the previous version, which has a foreign name "Terminator"
      Well, that's not serious like that ...
      The terminator is a dividing line separating the illuminated (light) part of the celestial body from the unlit (dark) part.
      Terminator is a DNA nucleotide sequence recognized by RNA polymerase as a signal to stop the synthesis of an RNA molecule and dissociation of a transcription complex.
      Terminator - an energy absorber (usually a resistor) at the end of a long line, the resistance of which is equal to the characteristic impedance of the line.
      and what does America have to do with it?
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      The name is of course beautiful, but .... not for BMPT, what is here from Ilya?

      Here for an amateur smile Someone in the names is trying to emphasize some feature, someone invests advertising meaning. For me, "Ivanushka" is also not bad. smile
      1. Dinic
        Dinic 31 August 2020 11: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: NIKNN
        and what does America have to do with it?

        The Hunter Killer Tank looks like a terminator tank from the American movie of the same name. That is why it was named so.

      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 31 August 2020 12: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: NIKNN
        and what does America have to do with it?

        Well, this word is not associated with a person, except with Schwarzenegger. laughing
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 31 August 2020 09: 28 New
    +4
    Development is certainly good, but when will serial production of equipment based on the Armata begin?
  • Alexga
    Alexga 31 August 2020 09: 28 New
    -3
    Is BMPT in service with the RF Armed Forces?
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 31 August 2020 09: 31 New
      +4
      Quote: AlexGa
      Is BMPT in service with the RF Armed Forces?

      Yes, the vehicle was put into service with the Russian army on May 5, 2018. The only thing I am at a loss to say is which chassis - T-72 or T-90 what .
      1. Alexga
        Alexga 31 August 2020 09: 39 New
        -3
        As part of which units it is in service, is there a training program, a course of firing and so on. So far, there are BMPTs for Parades, but I have not seen any mention in the troops. Share information. It seems to me that lately there is a tendency, first to create a new model, and then to come up with a task for it.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 31 August 2020 09: 56 New
          +5
          90 tank. the training program and the application concept are tested there. no need to search or wait for reports from the media. at this stage, no one will print to you.
        2. Insurgent
          Insurgent 31 August 2020 09: 57 New
          +5
          Quote: AlexGa
          As part of which units it is in service, is there a training program, a course of firing and so on.

          So far I know that BMPTs are in service with the 90th Guards Tank Vitebsk-Novgorod Division of the Central Military District in the Chelyabinsk Region, the permanent deployment point of the compound is the city of Chebarkul.
          From the training program / military tests, I can only report that the BMPT was used during the West 2017 exercises, that is, even before the official adoption.
          1. Alexga
            Alexga 31 August 2020 11: 31 New
            -4
            I didn't ask in which division, I ask in which division! Well, since you mentioned 2017, I'll tell you what I saw. at the final stage of the exercises at the 227 range, the GDP arrived. Lukashenka was at the stage near Baranovichi. I had the opportunity to look from the outside, I tell you. 400 meters from the central tower there was a trench in which the BMP was placed, the crew was factory. At 1900 they raised the target tank, two ATGM launches were made on it, then at 1200 they raised one of the targets for the 30s. Shoot and that's it! In terms of fire as 2 BMP-2. Not impressed, 2 IFVs can do more damage. All this was in an open field. I understand that it was a window dressing for the GDP. And then the offensive exercises themselves began. When the Urals were loading, I looked at this unit from the outside, although it was already on the platform. Interestingly, the equipment was loaded from a collapsible ramp, which was a rarity in Soviet times. Back to BMPT, I will say that ATGMs are absolutely not protected from the front. Access to the tape for AGS only outside the car, what to do in case of an elementary skew of the tape (which often happens) is to climb out under enemy fire. The car is very big, I don't think it has a future.
            1. Insurgent
              Insurgent 31 August 2020 11: 42 New
              +4
              Quote: AlexGa
              I didn't ask in which division, I ask in which division!

              ABOUT! Yo-my what ... And a division is not a unit in the structure of the Armed Forces? belay Or am I not aware of something about the structure of the aircraft, the elements (connections and parts) into which they are subdivided?

              Open up new horizons of knowledge, if you can yes
              1. Alexga
                Alexga 31 August 2020 11: 58 New
                -4
                And a division is not a unit in the structure of the Armed Forces?

                That's right, this is a connection. Let's decide, I didn't ask you a question, you didn't answer me. It's just not interesting!
        3. Grits
          Grits 31 August 2020 09: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: AlexGa
          As part of which units it is in service, is there a training program, a course of firing and so on.

          I think that is why the introduction of BMPT is going so hard. Because you will have to redo, rebuild and rewrite all instructions, regulations, all tactics of the units. Which has already been worked out and to do this, oh, how I do not want to.
        4. svp67
          svp67 31 August 2020 10: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: AlexGa
          As part of which units it is in service, is there a training program, a course of firing and so on.

          Everything is there, but in the form of temporary instructions. The tactics of using these combat vehicles are being worked out.
          For me, it's good that the unit will have a single base chassis for all combat vehicles, but for this heavy BMT, with its size and capabilities, the question of equipping it with detection and aiming devices for small-sized flying objects such as "kamikaze drones" immediately becomes , then the importance and necessity of this TBMPT will become relevant
          1. Alexga
            Alexga 31 August 2020 11: 35 New
            -2
            Colleague, maybe you know which unit of the BMPT military unit is intended for? Somewhere there was information that they were like command vehicles for 9P148, 149, but somehow I couldn't believe it. At the training ground near Borisov in 2017, I saw how she shoots, absolutely not impressive.
            1. svp67
              svp67 31 August 2020 12: 21 New
              +1
              Quote: AlexGa
              Somewhere there was information that, like command vehicles for 9P148,

              Honestly, I don't really imagine her in this role. As far as I know, this vehicle is positioned in the reinforcement of tank battalions, and it should operate in their battle formations. Although in Syria it operated both independently and very successfully, it has its own specifics.
              1. Alexga
                Alexga 31 August 2020 12: 36 New
                -1
                Honestly, I don't really imagine her in this role.

                Totally agree with you. It gives the impression that the Tunguska was created for ground targets. It's good that they tried it in Syria, but there is a desert. And we need a car for the conditions of our theater. Let's see, R&D has not been canceled yet.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 31 August 2020 12: 48 New
                  0
                  Quote: AlexGa
                  It's good that they tried it in Syria, but there is a desert.

                  She showed herself best of all in their villages and towns, with clay duals and houses. Two rapid-fire cannons, with a good angle of elevation, ATGMs ... certainly "shaitan-arba"
                  1. Alexga
                    Alexga 31 August 2020 13: 11 New
                    0
                    certainly "shaitan-arba"

                    Better yet, the raid of the Mi-24 flight, 1 Grad ammunition load and support for the Shilok platoon. And all this for the motorized rifle battalion.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 31 August 2020 14: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: AlexGa
                      Better yet, the raid of the Mi-24 flight, 1 Grad ammunition load and support for the Shilok platoon. And all this for the motorized rifle battalion.

                      Then the battalion tactical group ... From it is more sense, in modern conditions
                      1. Alexga
                        Alexga 31 August 2020 14: 52 New
                        0
                        This is from a past life.
        5. Doliva63
          Doliva63 31 August 2020 20: 22 New
          -1
          Quote: AlexGa
          As part of which units it is in service, is there a training program, a course of firing and so on. So far, there are BMPTs for Parades, but I have not seen any mention in the troops. Share information. It seems to me that lately there is a tendency, first to create a new model, and then to come up with a task for it.

          Here for parades and "adopted", probably laughing In other matters - absolutely useless in the army crap, on which UVZ wants to earn money.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 31 August 2020 09: 35 New
    +1
    this class of equipment (BMPT) has proven its effectiveness in modern combat conditions ... use in combination with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers gives an increase in the effectiveness of hoisting on the battlefield (including urban conditions ...
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 31 August 2020 09: 43 New
      +4
      Quote: silberwolf88
      this class of equipment (BMPT) has proven its effectiveness in modern combat conditions ... use in combination with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers gives an increase in the effectiveness of hoisting on the battlefield (including urban conditions ...

      And note, this first serial "swallow" from the Russian defense industry became the ancestor of a whole class of such machines.
      Russia's priority in creating a heavy BMPT is beyond doubt. There are simply no vehicles of this level of armament and capabilities in the armies of other countries.
      1. Alexga
        Alexga 31 August 2020 09: 52 New
        -9
        You took this from the brochure. Who and where has proven its effectiveness? What the fuck is a city fight? How much l / s is needed in a city battle to guard it? With road blockages, with its dimensions and weight, how will it move? Get down to the ground. We created something, and now the question is who to sell it to. I repeat the question, in which units is it in service?
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 31 August 2020 09: 59 New
          +3
          all this was checked and confirmed in 17 in Syria. taking into account that experience, the Ministry of Defense decided to purchase them.
        2. Insurgent
          Insurgent 31 August 2020 10: 02 New
          +6
          Quote: AlexGa
          I repeat the question, in which units is it in service?

          Take the trouble to read the comments.
          1. Alexga
            Alexga 31 August 2020 11: 38 New
            -2
            Take the trouble to delve into the question, I am not asking in which military unit, I am asking in which division of the military unit. Then you can at least roughly assume about the tasks facing this unit.
      2. L-39NG
        L-39NG 31 August 2020 10: 49 New
        -3
        This is not the case in the armies of other countries. You have noticed this correctly. And this is due to the fact that the armies of other countries have a slightly different philosophy of military operations. They do not consider a solid front to be the main prerogative in modern warfare. There, for now, the emphasis is on highly mobile groups of different composition and divided by tasks. And for the goals set by the Russian military commanders, in front of the BMPT, other armies have other means, which, so far, are enough and there is no point in throwing money on something new, in addition to what is already there and works great. For example 30mm projectiles with controlled detonation. Well, everything else. Financial and technological issues arise here, not everything is done in China. And in the field, the tactical mind of the commanders is all about. Let the strategy be dealt with in the General Staff, But with the mind, and not with how to make money.
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 31 August 2020 11: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: L-39NG
          This is not the case in the armies of other countries. You have noticed this correctly. And this is due to the fact that the armies of other countries have a slightly different philosophy of military operations. They do not consider a continuous front to be the main prerogative in modern warfare. There, for now, the emphasis is on highly mobile groups of different composition and divided by tasks.

          BMPT and it can yes Be part of a highly mobile group, being its shock core yes
          1. L-39NG
            L-39NG 31 August 2020 12: 20 New
            -5
            Maybe only if you have a powerful support infrastructure behind you - transport and production capabilities, including logistics and personnel, of course, but your republics cannot solve this on their own. And we somehow manage with what we wear, or rather I no longer wear, I am already resting on retirement. But, in questions, I am smart. I don’t know what schools you have behind you, and I’m not interested, but you must have been told that first of all it is necessary to focus on eliminating the most dangerous target, which is the BMPT, which used to be BMP-3, in close contact. And not because of a possible conflict with Russia, but because these Soviet vehicles may appear in the most unexpected places. Unexpected, even for Vneshtorg or whatever it is called now.
            1. Insurgent
              Insurgent 31 August 2020 12: 21 New
              +2
              Quote: L-39NG
              Maybe only if you have a powerful support infrastructure behind you - transport and production capabilities, including logistics and personnel, of course, but your republics cannot solve this on their own.

              I have not "tried on" BMPT to our conditions no
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 31 August 2020 10: 15 New
      +3
      The BMPT has a maximum gun lift angle of 45 degrees. Somehow not enough for urban conditions.
    3. Doliva63
      Doliva63 31 August 2020 20: 25 New
      -1
      Quote: silberwolf88
      this class of equipment (BMPT) has proven its effectiveness in modern combat conditions ... use in combination with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers gives an increase in the effectiveness of hoisting on the battlefield (including urban conditions ...

      Where did you get so much nonsense, I wonder? laughing Can you throw off the staffing of the unit on the BMPT? Do not offer ceremonial calculation!
    4. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 01: 04 New
      -4
      Where and what did he prove? The car has a lot of flaws. Which are somehow not too eager to correct. In general, the very concept of such a machine has raised strong doubts in me lately.
  • Mouse
    Mouse 31 August 2020 09: 48 New
    +1
    We do not stand still ... and it pleases!
  • bogart047
    bogart047 31 August 2020 09: 54 New
    0
    Bogatyr? Knight?
    1. Mouse
      Mouse 31 August 2020 10: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: bogart047
      Bogatyr? Knight?

      Volot! good
    2. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 31 August 2020 10: 20 New
      +2
      Bayun cat I would call smile
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 31 August 2020 10: 01 New
    -6
    Ilya Muromets was sitting on the stove for 33 years. So this project will be procrastinated for years.
  • Slon1978
    Slon1978 31 August 2020 10: 05 New
    +7
    The need for two barrels in the 2mm caliber looks overkill. It is necessary to make 57 barrel with separate loading. The power of a 1 mm shot is much higher than 57 mm, fewer shots are required - the second barrel is clearly redundant, it is better to take more ammunition. Well, KAZ is asking for a car, it will work at the forefront. As well as heavier armor for ATGMs. A lot of things will fly into the car from all sides - now the ATGM booking looks like it will not protect anything more serious than small fragments. Missiles are expensive, they need to be better protected.
    1. Livonetc
      Livonetc 31 August 2020 10: 19 New
      +3
      Again, it should be viewed from the perspective of the tasks being performed.
      Two barrels will provide a denser fire at the same time.
      Hypothetically, if we consider it as a vehicle to support tanks, and not to conduct defensive actions in position.
      To ensure the safety of the tank group, you will need:
      -As soon as possible, detect the target of the threatening group and
      - Destroy as soon as possible.
      Only in this case will the goal of ensuring the security of the tank group be fulfilled.
      With less dense fire, the target may not be suppressed and damage to the supported tank group is caused.
      The above is as a version only.
      hi
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 31 August 2020 10: 34 New
        -1
        Two barrels will provide a denser fire at the same time.

        You don't need to shoot a lot, but for sure! When they cannot shoot accurately, then you have to shoot a lot.
        1. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 1 September 2020 05: 28 New
          0
          Quote: Cympak
          You don't need to shoot a lot, but for sure! When they cannot shoot accurately, then you have to shoot a lot.

          Yes, shooting EXACTLY is a dream! As on a range, when a plywood target from a shooting course is perfectly visible in the middle of an open area of ​​terrain without any vegetation. I measured the range with a laser rangefinder and covered the target with the first round of the OFS, and if it didn’t cover it, it could be corrected, all the gaps are visible. But on the battlefield, the PU ATGM is not open, but disguised in the bushes. And here is the situation for you - an ATGM launched from a group of bushes in your direction. Further, two options are possible. The first is that the ATGM is guided by the operator (TOW, Milan, etc.) and therefore it remains in place, but you do not see the launcher, you only see an area of ​​terrain overgrown with bushes, and therefore you cannot measure the range to the target. The second option is even worse - an ATGM with a seeker (Javelin, Spike) and therefore the operator, having launched a missile, already changes position somewhere in the middle of these bushes. Where will you shoot EXACTLY? Exit one to shoot a LOT! Cover the entire area with several rounds of OFS, that is, fire to suppress. So you can disrupt the operator's ATGM guidance or prevent the second missile launch from the seeker (well, with the first hope only for KAZ). And for this you need to have a large ammunition load for the gun, which means that the caliber is still smaller - 30-35 mm just right.
          1. Cympak
            Cympak 2 September 2020 13: 27 New
            +2
            If an ATGM with homing was launched at the tank, then it is not necessary to target the operators (it is too late), to put an aerosol curtain.
            It is extremely difficult to visually notice the launch of an ATGM from bushes or a properly equipped shelter (unless the engine smokes a lot, as on some of our ATGMs). Therefore, electronic means of warning about starting and laser irradiation are needed. Then you can automatically turn the tower towards the serif with several shots of the OFS or MFS in the direction of launch.
            There is no need to mow the greenery with autocannons (as Chechnya has shown, this is not effective) when you know from where a shot was fired at you with an accuracy of +/- several degrees.
            1. Ded_Mazay
              Ded_Mazay 2 September 2020 15: 41 New
              0
              Quote: Cympak
              need electronic means of warning about start-up and laser irradiation

              With language removed.
            2. Thomas N.
              Thomas N. 3 September 2020 06: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: Cympak
              If an ATGM with homing was launched at the tank, then it is not necessary to target the operators (it is too late), to put an aerosol curtain ...

              The tank will put up an aerosol curtain for its protection, and you will remind the gunner in the BMPT (since we are discussing here an article about the BMPT), which supports these tanks. Those. Your task, having detected the launch of the ATGM (including from the seeker), is to prevent the second shot from this ATGM calculation. And in the "direction of launch" to shoot the OFS (especially the MFS with air detonation) will not work, you still need to know the range to the target.

              Quote: Cympak
              There is no need to mow the greenery with autocannons (as Chechnya has shown, this is not effective) when you know from where a shot was fired at you with an accuracy of +/- several degrees.

              "+/- a few degrees"? Something like +/- 3 degrees is okay? Then at a distance of 2000 m (the normal range for Javelin, and for all others it is much larger), the width of the section from which the ATGM was supposedly launched will be equal to +/- 105 m (D * TAN (angle)), i.e. only 210 m! No fragments, even a 57-mm OFS, will not be enough to compensate for the deviation of the shell burst points by 100 meters from the true position of the ATGM launcher.
      2. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 01: 14 New
        -2
        Quote: Livonetc
        Two barrels will provide a denser fire at the same time.

        Do you have enough BC for this dense fire? Whom are you going to fill there with tons of? One cannon is enough for itself. And 57 mm are redundant on the one hand and insufficient on the other. You need a 45mm cannon, but it isn't. Because the military-industrial complex, which has no analogues, is still not shmog. But our sworn western friends somehow managed to do it in CTAS, which is also with telescopes.
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 31 August 2020 10: 22 New
      0
      Two 57-mm guns are nonsense, primarily due to the limited ammunition load.
      As an option: install a 57-mm cannon from the "Epoch" made by KBP on the basis of LSHO-57, and add a 30-mm 2A42 to it, but only with armor-piercing tape. The problem is that the KBP will not give UVZ its weapon without its module. A combat module is the most expensive (and, as a consequence, the most cost-effective) in a combat vehicle.

      By the way, BMPT has 2 30-mm cannons, but each of them is powered by only one tape. And from the opus "The principle of the designer Yakovlev", it follows that 2 guns were set to fight air targets. In this case, the maximum vertical guidance angle is 45 degrees.

      Some misunderstanding
      1. lucul
        lucul 31 August 2020 12: 16 New
        0
        https://youtu.be/D7kbS43-M6s

        24 minutes - complains about the lack of feedback. Difficulties in defining objective opinion and subjective feedback.
        The problem has long been known - it is treated by sending a company representative (KB) directly to the scene (battlefield) in order to see everything with your own eyes directly on the spot.
        In fact, it is necessary to study the Western experience in the implementation (maintenance) of new industrial models of equipment / technology, they have everything there is detailed, what and who should do how.
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 August 2020 15: 50 New
        0
        Oddly enough, the LSHO / ballistic grenade launcher in its last performance has a good BOPS. 30 mm with armor piercing is absolutely unnecessary.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 01: 24 New
          -2
          The question here is how effective it will be as a whole. By the totality of characteristics. And 30 mm must be changed to 45 mm. But the patriotic military-industrial complex has only got camouflage robes. In contrast to the spiritless western military-industrial complex, which smogged a 40 mm cannon with telescopes.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 1 September 2020 01: 37 New
            +1
            In addition to the robes, the military-industrial complex creates a lot of other interesting things. 45 mm is good. But why if there is a used 57 mm telescope is also good. Only telescopes themselves are controversial designs.
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 01: 53 New
              -2
              And why 57 mm crap, which has sharply less ammunition than a 30 mm gun, which weighs much more, which has more recoil from the shot. The rate of fire is lower, which in terms of armor penetration is excessive for the destruction of infantry fighting vehicles. In terms of its characteristics, the 45 mm cannon is just that. But it is not there, but there is a 57 mm misunderstanding that they are trying to foist on the army. And which stupid patriots wildly rejoice because she still bangs stronger. Yes, there are questions for telescopes. But in general, I was not talking about telescopicity. And about the fact that the West has a new serial cannon for infantry fighting vehicles, and we have only one projects and not an optimal 57 mm cannon.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 1 September 2020 03: 11 New
                0
                The west has several versatile guns with different calibers and different capabilities. There are also 50 mm. There are fewer. The West is going its own way. Russia is its own. 57 mm caliber is certainly not perfect. But it's worked out. And this is now the main argument. There is no redundancy in the BMP in 57 mm. Partners book their cars very well. 57 mm BOPS can try and tuck the sides of the tank. If you bother to create. The mere fact that, in fact, 3 guns are being created in this caliber, with different ballistics and different nomenclature of ammunition, speaks of promise.
                1. IS-80_RVGK2
                  IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 12: 34 New
                  -2
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Russia is its own.

                  Oha. It's the same as always. Unparalleled. But even this path in places strongly resembles an elementary handicraft and incompetence.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  There is no redundancy in the BMP in 57 mm.

                  There is. For BMP, the caliber is excessive in terms of armor penetration with a sharp reduction in ammunition.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  57 mm BOPS can try and tuck the sides of the tank.

                  It is better not to do this in your right mind, otherwise the tank may take offense and shoot back.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  The mere fact that, in fact, 3 guns are being created in this caliber, with different ballistics and different nomenclature of ammunition, speaks of promise.

                  This means that the 45 mm gun was not shmogled. And you have to saw through the old Soviet backlog from time to time yelling about how bad everything was and ineffectively soviet, but at the same time demonstrating at least not the best eref efficiency, but in fact the worst.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 1 September 2020 13: 00 New
                    +1
                    Well, the points are:
                    1. A different path from the path of others is not necessarily an attempt to create Wunderwaven. Just your way. The Jews are building their army strictly according to their own path. And it is effective.
                    2. The coaxiality of the BC is largely drawn behind the ears. There is enough ammunition. With such a caliber, it is necessary to beat single targets on armored targets and not fill the area in bursts.
                    3. Board of the tank. Board TBMP. Board TBTR. If you need to shoot, you can shoot. Maybe there will be no return. Due to the death of the enemy. The greater the power of the projectile, the greater the probability of death.
                    4. And who and when seriously engaged in guns of 40, 45, 37 and other millimeters? Erlikon has several calibers. Increase or decrease the details proportionally. Nobody bothers Russian designers to do the same with 57 mm. Not necessary. Do you know why? The main targets are not enemy armored vehicles. The main targets are covered infantry in PPE. And for the HE shell, the caliber is much more important than for the BB.
                    5. That is the very Russian Way about which I spoke at the beginning. The main targets are infantry.
                    1. IS-80_RVGK2
                      IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 18: 13 New
                      -1
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The Jews are building their army strictly on their own path.

                      More specifically?
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The calming of the BC is largely drawn behind the ears. There is enough ammunition. With such a caliber, it is necessary to beat single targets on armored targets and not fill the area in bursts.

                      And who said that the main purpose of this BMP cannon?
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The side of the tank. Board TBMP. Board TBTR. If you need to shoot, you can shoot. Maybe there will be no return. Due to the death of the enemy. The greater the power of the projectile, the greater the probability of death.

                      Well, ok, I persuaded to put a 125 mm gun at once. And yes, but what if there is a return line after all? Although, in principle, I agree with you, the death of such a stupid crew of this fabulous uberpantzer is not the biggest loss for this country.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Nobody bothers Russian designers to do the same with 57 mm.

                      Yes of course. It's so simple, we take a pistol, change the caliber, we get a tank gun.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Not necessary.

                      And I say there is.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Do you know why? The main targets are not enemy armored vehicles. The main targets are covered infantry in PPE. And for the HE shell, the caliber is much more important than for the BB.

                      What are you talking about, really. Doesn't it matter for you an ammo of one and a half rounds? We'll kill everyone with one shot. In one fell swoop, seven beats.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      That is the very Russian Way about which I spoke at the beginning.

                      Ah, got it. Patriotic schiz. As I did not immediately guess. One could understand by the degree of inadequacy.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 1 September 2020 18: 35 New
                        0
                        1. And what specifics do you need?
                        2. And who said that the main purpose is BMP? It is said that for such purposes the stem will be single.
                        3. 125 mm and this is an idea. So we will write it down. You need a tank to support tanks.
                        4. However, this is a fact. Even in WWII, guns were changed simply by changing their size.
                        5. Well, since you say that there is a need, then let it be so.
                        6. Ammunition of combat modules with a 57 mm gun, on average 120 rounds. This is far from one and a half. This is almost two orders of magnitude more than one and a half.
                        7. You got out with their arguments drawn for cat farming.
                        8. And most importantly. Once you say you know what you need. (See point 5) then describe your vision of the weapon needed to arm light armored vehicles. Let's see if there is a real breakthrough.
                      2. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 19: 11 New
                        -2
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        1. And what specifics do you need?

                        At least some so far there is absolutely nothing. Except "the artist sees it this way".
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And who said that the main purpose is BMP? It is said that for such purposes the stem will be single.

                        Well, it's extremely important for you to fight tanks with the BMOP cannon.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        125 mm and that's an idea. So we will write it down. You need a tank to support tanks.

                        I am glad that you understand the delusional nature of your statements.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        However, this is a fact. Even in WWII, guns were changed simply by changing their size.

                        No, not easy. For a variety of reasons. The energy of the shot, weight, materials and the like are little things of little significance for you fairy wizards, which, however, create problems for designers in the real world.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The ammunition load of combat modules with a 57 mm gun averages 120 rounds.

                        To begin with, where does this figure come from?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You got it with your arguments drawn for cat farming.

                        The patriot said.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And the most important thing. Once you say you know what you need. (See point 5) then describe your vision of the weapon needed to arm light armored vehicles.

                        45 mm high ballistic cannon. CTAS type.
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 1 September 2020 19: 17 New
                        0
                        And why do you call this telescopic misunderstanding an instrument of high ballistics? With 2,5 effective range. Learn materiel.
                      4. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 19: 29 New
                        0
                        And how much hardware expert do you need?
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 1 September 2020 19: 32 New
                        0
                        Well, at least at the level of the original erlikon. And then the weight of the ammunition is comparable or maybe much less. This is not progress, it is regression.
                      6. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 19: 41 New
                        -1
                        Which and what characteristics of the new gun do you dislike and why?
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 1 September 2020 20: 00 New
                        0
                        Well, at least a shot range of 2,5 km. What if honestly weird. Ammunition weight comparable in weight to conventional ammunition of a given caliber. The complexity of the weapon.
                      8. Thomas N.
                        Thomas N. 3 September 2020 04: 58 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Well, at least a shot range of 2,5 km.

                        Range effective shooting - 2,5 km. Effective, not maximized.
                        https://www.cta-international.com/the-40-ctas/40-mm-ammunition/gpr-ab-t/
                        https://www.cta-international.com/the-40-ctas/40-mm-ammunition/apfsds-t/
                        Those. the probability of hitting a target with one burst is at least 0,55. At 2,5 km it is very good.
                      9. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 September 2020 22: 45 New
                        0
                        The BMP 2 is about the same.
        2. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 3 September 2020 04: 41 New
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          The ammunition load of combat modules with a 57 mm gun averages 120 rounds.

          Ammunition load of the 57-mm cannon BM "Dagger" 80 rounds. http://www.burevestnik.com/products/au220m.html
        3. garri-lin
          garri-lin 8 September 2020 22: 53 New
          0
          That's why he said on average. Dagger compact DUM. For installation on BMP. Takes up a minimum of internal space. Therefore, BC is limited.
  • Cympak
    Cympak 31 August 2020 10: 32 New
    +3
    It is necessary to make 1 barrel with separate loading.

    For the 57-mm cannon of high ballistics from the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" it is planned 5 types of shells: 2 existing + 3 promising.

    An ammunition selector is indispensable
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 31 August 2020 14: 56 New
    0
    And between the trunks, a radar is asked. And then the car can be used in the field of air defense.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 31 August 2020 18: 15 New
      +1
      And between the trunks, a radar is asked. And then the car can be used in the field of air defense.

      This desire to add more air defense functions to the BMPT led to the existing misunderstanding with the BMPT.
      The problem with the radar is its high cost and vulnerability to shrapnel and bullets and cannot be booked. And the BMPT should act at the forefront ... I think this is the case when it is necessary to separate the anti-aircraft functions and the function of fire suppression of enemy infantry.
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 31 August 2020 10: 37 New
    0
    We take the T-14, remove the turret, set up the BM "Dagger", increase the ammunition for the gun to 150-200 rounds, install 4 ATGMs with cumulative / HE / thermobaric warheads in the required proportions, if desired, 2 AGS or Korda - and you're done. Another option is based on the T-15 with similar modifications and the removal of the landing
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 31 August 2020 12: 21 New
      -2
      The 57-mm cannon BM "Dagger" does not have and is not planned to carry shells in a cumulative // ​​thermobaric warhead. Both types of projectiles are elementary ineffective in 57 mm caliber. Instead of them, a subcaliber (BPS) and a multifunctional projectile with programmable detonation are planned
      1. Hermit21
        Hermit21 31 August 2020 12: 25 New
        0
        The 57-mm cannon BM "Dagger" does not have and is not planned to have shells in a cumulative // ​​thermobaric warhead


        AND? Although it is not a fact about cumulative
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 31 August 2020 12: 28 New
          -1
          Basic spaced armor, not to mention DZ, will stop the cumulative stream of a 57-mm projectile. The effectiveness of a cumulative projectile is directly proportional to its caliber.
          1. Hermit21
            Hermit21 31 August 2020 12: 34 New
            +1
            It seems to be clear from my comment that the mention of thermobaric and cumulative warheads refers to ATGM. But, apparently, not all
            1. Cympak
              Cympak 31 August 2020 12: 37 New
              +1
              Yes, was inattentive: (
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 31 August 2020 15: 53 New
      0
      T 15 fits better. The BMPT needs several weapons operators. Crew of 4 or 5 people. It is difficult to fit into T 14.
      1. Hermit21
        Hermit21 31 August 2020 23: 58 New
        0
        Well, somehow, two people, not counting the mechanic drive, cope with almost the same weapons in the T-15. :) In my version, the only difference is in the number of ATGMs and additional machine guns / automatic grenade launchers. With the built-in level of automation, a crew of 4-5 people and nafig is not needed
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 1 September 2020 00: 32 New
          0
          BMPT need multiple channels of weapons. 1. Basic. 57 mm is almost optimal. 2 self defense. The range is less than that of the main one, but the reaction rate is several times higher. 3. For suppression. DUM 7,62 or 12,7 mm synchronized with the commander's observation device. He saw, pressed the button, the automatic equipment instantly began shelling. 4. Guided weapons and remote reconnaissance assets. Rockets in UVP. UAV KAMIKADZE. Total 4 channels, 4 operators plus mechanical drive. The commander mainly performs basic duties. Controls the weapon only if it detects a direct threat.
          1. Hermit21
            Hermit21 1 September 2020 07: 51 New
            0
            4 people and fuck it is not necessary. Some of the tasks will be successfully taken over by electronics. TGUP "Armata" was developed, inter alia, with the prospect of reducing the crew and complete unmannedness as a result. And you, on the contrary, offer to spit on it
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 1 September 2020 10: 32 New
              0
              Well, firstly, the tank and the BMPT are different machines. Secondly, crew reduction and unmannedness are different things. In Armata, there was no question of reducing the crew. And electronics do not yet have the AI ​​necessary to perform a number of functions.
              1. Hermit21
                Hermit21 2 September 2020 07: 58 New
                -1
                It is already possible to reduce the crew of the T-14 to two people, and the unmanned version has already been tested.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 2 September 2020 10: 08 New
                  +1
                  And who to remove? Gunner probably. Passed on t 34. There is nothing good about that. Moreover, most of the time, the gunner, in parallel with the commander, surveys the battlefield. The unmanned crew is exactly the same. Only sits not in a tank but "around the corner"
                  1. Hermit21
                    Hermit21 2 September 2020 10: 23 New
                    -1
                    What automation and weapons were in the T-34?
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 2 September 2020 10: 55 New
                      0
                      And what are there in Armata? Only a full-fledged AI can replace a crew member. This is still a long way off. And you didn't answer who to clean up?
                      1. Cympak
                        Cympak 2 September 2020 13: 56 New
                        +1
                        As it was correctly noted, everything depends on the channel of weapons. You can put many types of weapons on one car, but who will control all of them, at least assign a target (of several) and give the command to defeat?
                        On the other hand, there is the usual OShS, in which the crew of the tank is 3 people.
                        Mekhvod controls the vehicle, there was an attempt to give him forward armament, but this experience was found to be ineffective
                        Gunner - controls the targeting of the main weapon system. Main gun + coaxial machine gun + ATGM. But that's all - 3 types of weapons, 1 channel.
                        Commander - analyzes the battlefield, chooses targets for defeat. I agree that the commander needs to add a machine gun to the panorama for self-defense + you can add an ATGM control channel with target tracking. This will allow an independent launch of the ATGM from the gunner (the gunner can rotate the turret after launch). This is another 1 channel for 2 types of weapons.
                        Crew of 3 people = 2 independent channels.
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 2 September 2020 14: 02 New
                        0
                        You couldn't say better.
                      3. Ded_Mazay
                        Ded_Mazay 2 September 2020 15: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: Cympak
                        you can add an ATGM control channel with target tracking.

                        The main task of the commander, as you correctly noted, is to control the environment and the situation on the battlefield. And loading it with anything else is not the best idea. Even a moment's delay can be very costly.
                      4. Cympak
                        Cympak 2 September 2020 20: 15 New
                        0
                        Here you are sitting in the commander's place, observing the surroundings in the panorama and, suddenly, you see that a martyr has got up from the starboard side from behind a bump, and he has a "pipe shaitan" on his shoulder, and he is aiming at you on the side ... That is how I would take it and cut it off with a short burst from a machine gun coupled with a command panorama ...
                        But Ded_Mazay forbids the commander to use weapons, and the "eyewitnesses of the dream-grenade launcher" said that the car was already high, and the Ministry of Defense decided to save ...
                        Look at the western equipment: many are already putting on the roof the armored vehicles of the DBM with a machine gun, and the commander controls them.
                      5. Ded_Mazay
                        Ded_Mazay 2 September 2020 21: 01 New
                        +1
                        Cympak, did I say something about a machine gun?
                      6. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 2 September 2020 21: 15 New
                        0
                        The coolest thing is that on the Armata, according to rumors, ATGM control is possible from the commander's place. In this case, the gunner can continue firing from the gun. I don't know how true, but such infa surfaced.
              2. Hermit21
                Hermit21 2 September 2020 23: 02 New
                -2
                A computer with machine vision and sufficient speed. To replace a crew member, this is enough, since it is already possible to reduce the crew of the T-14 to two people
              3. garri-lin
                garri-lin 2 September 2020 23: 36 New
                0
                And what will this system do? Replace the gunner? Can replace ALL gunner functions?
  • IS-80_RVGK2
    IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 01: 35 New
    -1
    Quote: Hermit21
    With the built-in level of automation, a crew of 4-5 people and nafig is not needed

    Generally needed. It is difficult for one person to manage all these weapons. Track and decide on a bunch of goals. But more than 4 people are already too much.
    1. Hermit21
      Hermit21 1 September 2020 07: 53 New
      0
      Well, how does this differ from the tasks of the T-15 crew? By and large - nothing. There, electronics are already tracking and making decisions
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 12: 45 New
        0
        And the crew then why if the decisions are made by electronics? Take a ride?
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 2 September 2020 07: 38 New
          0
          Then, that completely unmanned version will be a little later.
  • IS-80_RVGK2
    IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 01: 27 New
    0
    And we get a car with almost the functionality of an infantry fighting vehicle, but without the ability to carry MCOs. And then you yourself understand what a natural question arises.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 31 August 2020 10: 50 New
    0
    We have already made missile tanks, nothing good came of it. It is a support vehicle for infantry rather than tanks. But then you will have to introduce new units into the infantry. UVZ is trying to push this car to the military, but they valiantly resist, do not know what to do with it.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 31 August 2020 10: 55 New
    0
    Already in the news hangs that soon the troops will receive another batch of Armat. Good discipline at Uralmash. No one expected such news.
  • Pacifist
    Pacifist 31 August 2020 11: 11 New
    +1
    hmm ... when the platform is protected, two 57mm barrels, shells with remote detonation and optics + location ... just some kind of hurricane looms what
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 31 August 2020 12: 01 New
      -2
      And how many 57-mm shells will there be? How many seconds?
      1. Pacifist
        Pacifist 31 August 2020 16: 16 New
        0
        The question is not only in the number of shells, but in the overall effectiveness of the platform. Something tells me that in 2x57 it is a cut higher than in 2x30. In any case, the GABTU will decide.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 01: 37 New
          -1
          And if you put a 152 mm howitzer it will be even higher. And if in 200 mm so generally wow.
          1. Pacifist
            Pacifist 1 September 2020 11: 20 New
            -2
            Driving to the point of absurdity is not a very correct method of discussion. This is a commonplace manipulation.
            57 mm is the optimal, from the point of view of performance characteristics, installation, both in terms of firing range and effective fragmentation field for remote detonation projectiles, high-explosive impact, armor penetration of BB and BPS. Technically, such a system can withstand on equal terms, including the main tanks. The muzzle velocity is 1000 m / s. Plus a significantly greater effective range. I doubt that with a rate of fire of 60-100 rounds per minute there will be a tank capable of maintaining full combat capability. In any case, you need to look at the implementation. I have no doubts that the firepower and efficiency for the main purpose will not fall, but we will see how this is implemented in metal. 30mm guns become obsolete due to the increased protection of enemy equipment, no one says that 30mm guns are bad, they are simply not enough.
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 1 September 2020 12: 50 New
              0
              Quote: Pacifist
              57 mm optimal, from the point of view of performance characteristics, installation,

              She's not optimal. Much heavier, with a sharp decrease in ammunition transport, with greater recoil when fired, with a lower rate of fire.
              Quote: Pacifist
              Technically, such a system can withstand on equal terms, including the main tanks.

              Well, maybe the first World War II. But it is extremely doubtful that the West will switch to the Shermans and Pz4 for the sake of war with us.
              Quote: Pacifist
              I have no doubts

              And it causes me and not only me.
      2. Cympak
        Cympak 2 September 2020 13: 36 New
        0
        For those who have not mastered the multiplication table because of the "humanitarian mindset" I give the calculation:
        1. The BM "Dagger" has 80 rounds, the rate of fire of the 57-mm cannon is 120 rounds per minute. The ammo will last for 40 seconds of continuous shooting (we will not take into account the thermal load on the barrel)
        2. The "Derivation-Air Defense" has 148 rounds. So many because the turret space is used, in contrast to the BM "Dagger", the rate of fire is the same - 120 rounds per minute. BC will last for 1 minute and 14 seconds.
        And if you put 2 barrels? The turret space will not increase, the ammo will remain the same, then the duration of continuous fire will be only 37 seconds!
        ..
        1. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 3 September 2020 03: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Cympak
          1. The BM "Dagger" has 80 rounds, the rate of fire of the 57-mm cannon is 120 rounds per minute. The ammo will last for 40 seconds of continuous shooting (we will not take into account the thermal load on the barrel)

          The rate of fire of the 57-mm cannon BM "Dagger" 80 rds / min http://www.burevestnik.com/products/au220m.html
          1. Cympak
            Cympak 3 September 2020 14: 39 New
            0
            To be clear, there are different types of rate of fire.
            Combat rate of fire Is the number of rounds per minute that can theoretically be fired taking into account aiming and reloading operations.
            Technical rate of fire Is the number of rounds per minute that the weapon fires, excluding aiming and reloading operations.
            80 rounds per minute is combat rate of fire for the BM "Dagger", limited by its ammunition load, equal to 80 shells.
            And the technical rate of fire for the 57 mm 2A91 cannon is 120 rounds per minute.
            1. Thomas N.
              Thomas N. 6 September 2020 08: 11 New
              0
              First, about the terms - technical and combat rate of fire.
              In accordance with the current GOST 28653-2018 "Small arms. Terms and definitions.":
              319 Rate of fire small arms: Rate of fire of small arms when firing continuously.
              320 Practical rate of fire small arms: Rate of fire of small arms, taking into account the time required for reloading, aiming and aiming.
              At the same time, the Introduction states that:
              "There is one standardized term for each concept.
              The use of terms - synonyms of the standardized term is not allowed. "
              In the previous version of GOST 28653-90, it was also added:
              "Unacceptable synonymic terms are given in Table 1 as a reference and are marked with the mark" Ndp "." And marked as inadmissible for use: 321. ... Ndp. Technical rate of fire 322. ... Ndp. Combat rate of fire.
              Of course, the ban on the use of these terms can be regarded as a curiosity, nevertheless I like "rate of fire" more than "technical rate of fire".

              And now on the merits.
              The use of the term "practical (combat) rate of fire" is possible only for weapons in which cartridges are fed from the magazine / tape / manually and the magazine / tape can be changed during the battle, for example, as in a machine gun / machine gun. If it is impossible to replace the magazine / tape in battle, this term loses its meaning. In BM "Dagger" 80 rounds of ammunition when firing at the rate specified by you 120 rds / min is not enough even for the first minute of firing. So, the "rate of fire" is 80 rds. in 40 seconds, not 80 shots / min.
              80 rounds / min. - can not be "combat rate of fire for BM "Dagger", limited its ammunition load equal to 80 rounds. "If you have only one cartridge left, this does not mean that the combat rate of fire of your weapon has decreased to 1 rds / min. The combat rate of fire as a characteristic is not limited by the amount of ammunition load and depends only on its division into" portions " :-), i.e. on how often you need to recharge.
              You may be right about the combat rate of fire of the 2A91 BM "Dagger" cannon only if the vehicle carries an additional amount of 57 mm ammunition (equal to the cannon's magazine capacity) and can be loaded into the magazine directly in battle. Moreover, in this case, in order to obtain a combat rate of fire of 80 rds / min, it is necessary to load the entire magazine in 20 seconds remaining until the end of the first minute of firing, and continue firing at a rate of 120 rds / min. I strongly doubt that it is possible to load the store in 20 seconds from the troop compartment of the vehicle in battle, taking into account the fact that even the 9T260 transport-loading vehicle (http://www.burevestnik.com/products/9T260.html) for ZAK "Derivation -PVO "loads her store in 20 minutes!
              The rate of fire of the 2A91 cannon was indeed repeatedly indicated in different sources and 80 and 120 rds / min. I think both values ​​can be correct, since you can get 80 out of 120 by simply introducing a time delay into the electric trigger, as is commonly done in 30-mm cannons when changing the rate of fire from large (for air targets) to small (for ground targets).
        2. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 3 September 2020 04: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Cympak
          And if you put 2 barrels? The turret space will not increase, the ammo will remain the same, then the duration of continuous fire will be only 37 seconds!

          If you put 2 barrels, then the turret space will increase because The 2 barrels are BMPTs based on the T-15, and not the heavy BMP T-15 with the landing force and not the ZAK "Derivation-Air Defense" based on the BMP-3. Accordingly, instead of the landing in the T-15, you can place additional ammunition. And continuous fire for firing a 57-mm cannon at ground targets is not needed, only short bursts. When shooting for suppression, there are several such bursts.
  • strelokmira
    strelokmira 31 August 2020 11: 12 New
    -1
    As I understand it, they will go into the series in the same quantity as the current BMPT? winked
  • Hagen
    Hagen 31 August 2020 11: 29 New
    +2
    It would be better to tell than plans to strengthen the reconnaissance of targets, especially with infantry anti-tank weapons.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 31 August 2020 12: 16 New
      +1
      KAZ allows you to get the azimuth for the fired shot / launch.
      If you look at the western partners, then their equipment is equipped with acoustic systems for detecting means of firing, which make it possible to obtain an azimuth and an approximate range by the sound of a shot.
      Here is an example of our acoustic fire detection system "SOVA"
      https://topwar.ru/8976-sistema-obnaruzheniya-ognya-sova.html
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 31 August 2020 12: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Cympak
        KAZ allows you to get the azimuth for the fired shot / launch.

        More interested in the means of identifying targets even before the shot. For example, enemy soldiers observing through optical instruments. Or a disguised technique. In short, something that is not visible to a tanker through standard observation devices.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 31 August 2020 12: 35 New
          +3
          There is a laser optical direction finder "Sprut-3", which is capable of "seeing" binoculars, an optical sight or a complex optical-electronic object day and night, in any weather, one glare at a distance of several kilometers. electronic card "
          https://topwar.ru/133235-podrazdeleniya-specnaza-poluchat-pelengator-optiki.html
          But to use it, you first need to know where to look.
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 31 August 2020 12: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: Cympak
            There is a laser direction finder for optics "Sprut-3"

            Yes, something like that. In any case, BMPT should be more eyed than those it supports. Perhaps even through a UAV. The saved volumes and weight from the removal of the main gun should lead to an increase in other combat capabilities of the vehicle. Otherwise, the whole point of such support is lost.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 31 August 2020 16: 01 New
              +1
              I will add that the BMPT should be more eyed than other tanks. Plus, an unmanned aircraft was predicted for Armata. They will unify and put on BMPT too.
        2. lucul
          lucul 31 August 2020 12: 51 New
          +1
          More interested in the means of identifying targets even before the shot. For example, enemy soldiers observing through optical instruments. Or a disguised technique. In short, something that is not visible to a tanker through standard observation devices.

          A drone over the battlefield - okay? ))) As helicopters are shoved into all our new corvettes and frigates, so small drones (1m-1.5m in length) - the "eyes" of the soldiers, need to be shoved into all our infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers.
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 31 August 2020 14: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            A drone over the battlefield - okay? ))) As helicopters are shoved into all our new corvettes and frigates, so small drones (1m-1.5m in length) - the "eyes" of the soldiers, need to be shoved into all our infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers.

            I have already said about the UAV. And you don't have to stuff it into the BMPT. It is possible to organize network surveillance by the operator from the BM through the UAV, which will be launched, controlled and maintained by a completely different, most likely unit in the interests of the front line. Or maybe the operator will be somewhere outside the BMPT (maybe not even close at all), but identify and distribute the identified targets and give each crew target designation.
          2. Genry
            Genry 31 August 2020 15: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            all our infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers need to shove small-sized drones

            A drone needs its own base machine. He doesn't care where to take off and where to circle. And there is no need to litter heavy armored vehicles.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 31 August 2020 16: 03 New
              0
              And if the drone is a kamikaze drone in the size of a Cornet? Or less.
              1. Genry
                Genry 31 August 2020 16: 29 New
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                And if the drone is a kamikaze drone in the size of a Cornet? Or less.

                Kamikaze drones, like anti-tank missiles, can be launched from the rear (Kornet-D 10km, Hermes 100km).
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 31 August 2020 16: 56 New
                  +1
                  This will reduce the "patrolling" time, plus the longer the distance, the greater the likelihood of loss of communication due to electronic warfare.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 August 2020 12: 42 New
    +1
    Why BMPT on such a platform? It is quite possible to make them on the basis of the T-72. Even with 2x30mm, even with 1x57mm.
    1. Genry
      Genry 31 August 2020 16: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Why BMPT on such a platform? It is quite possible to make them on the basis of the T-72.

      For urban battles, the Armata family is generally contraindicated: long cars designed for high-speed overcoming of large spaces and very clumsy in street conditions, where you need to constantly turn back and forth.
      And the T-72 chassis can, without any extra protective capsules, simply be converted into robots that will automatically destroy everything that moves in the specified sector.
  • prodi
    prodi 31 August 2020 12: 43 New
    -1
    in my opinion, BMPT needs to be sharpened against the "upper hemisphere": front-line aviation (helicopters and drones), ATGM
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 31 August 2020 14: 58 New
      +1
      If you work against helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles, then you need to install a good radar between the guns, like on the "Pantsir"
      1. prodi
        prodi 31 August 2020 15: 23 New
        0
        first of all, you need to work against ATGMs, which must be shot before they enter the "near zone" (KAZ) of the main tanks - this is ideally smile
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 31 August 2020 16: 06 New
          0
          Most ATGMs are controlled. No need to shoot down a rocket. Destroy the launcher with the operator and get a double benefit. And the rocket will not reach and there will be no one to fire again.
          1. prodi
            prodi 31 August 2020 16: 24 New
            0
            this, of course, too, and all three cars should intersect here, but it would be better to proceed from the worst case
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 31 August 2020 16: 54 New
              0
              It is difficult and expensive to shoot down an ATGM missile being at a great distance from it. KAZ is a cheaper solution.
              1. prodi
                prodi 31 August 2020 17: 13 New
                0
                the need for KAZ is beyond doubt, but it is powerless against a double attack (not to mention a massive one). It is necessary to shoot everything (that will turn out) flying up at least from the "front". We will miss BOPSs anyway, and even some of the "slugs"
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 31 August 2020 17: 26 New
                  0
                  It is not very clear, due to secrecy, whether the staggered launches pose a problem for KAZ. Mass represent. But I think shooting down missiles is not the BMPT's business. Hurry air defense. Dereviation is possible. If this is entrusted to the BMPT, then the car will greatly complicate it.
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 31 August 2020 17: 36 New
                    +1
                    "standard" even advanced air defense, such as ours - in the second echelon, it will not even see the approaching ground ATGM (if it will be there at all)
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 31 August 2020 17: 42 New
                      0
                      A new generation is joining the troops. The same Dereviation that are sharpened for UAVs and weapons.
                      1. prodi
                        prodi 31 August 2020 17: 44 New
                        -1
                        What base will this derivation - BMP-3 - be? Is this enough for the first line, at least in the first approximation?
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 31 August 2020 17: 53 New
                        0
                        A reasonable question. They won't be in the first.
                      3. prodi
                        prodi 31 August 2020 18: 10 New
                        -1
                        the summary is: in future conflicts, not tanks at all should become massive, but air defense, electronic warfare, drones, missiles and communications
                      4. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 31 August 2020 18: 40 New
                        0
                        Without tanks, the bunker will not destroy the electronic warfare. Hermes for every machine gun will ruin the country. It is the tank on the battlefield that is the main striking force. Chief hard worker.
    2. Genry
      Genry 31 August 2020 17: 27 New
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      No need to shoot down a rocket. Destroy the launcher with the operator and get a double benefit. And the rocket will not reach and there will be no one to fire again.

      And if it's "shot and forgot"? Better to first missile and then operator.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 August 2020 17: 37 New
        0
        For BMPT, the task of shooting down a missile is very difficult. This will hit the car hard. There are other means for this.
  • Old26
    Old26 31 August 2020 12: 50 New
    +2
    Quote: AlexGa
    Then you can at least roughly assume about the tasks facing this unit.

    And they are, these tasks ?? As far as my sclerosis does not change me, initially the development of such a machine called "mountain tank" began after Afghanistan. The colossal losses of armor in Chechnya, especially in the first Chechen war, led to the resuscitation of this idea for urban combat. But always and everywhere the question was asked: "why is it needed"? After all, only failure to comply with the regulations and instructions led to such losses in the Chechen war? When tanks were launched in front of the infantry in urban conditions, into streets and buildings "uncleaned" from militants.
    What will such a "Terminator" give now? In terms of armor protection, it is worse than a tank. The range of ATGM and RPG actions has increased. Maybe it's still better to use standard weapons: infantry fighting vehicles, combat vehicles of flamethrowers, in the end those TOSs, and not fence a machine for which you need to come up with tasks and which it cannot fully solve?
    1. prodi
      prodi 31 August 2020 13: 11 New
      +1
      there is no now acceptable standard armament for the front line
      three vehicles are seen on the same base (because you can't fit into one): an MBT in the classic form, an assault tank with an increased caliber and elevation angles (most in demand in current conflicts) and an BMPT, which somehow stops threats in the event of a mass ATGM attack and from the air
  • Denimax
    Denimax 31 August 2020 12: 52 New
    0
    It is desirable to reduce the cost of a projectile with an air blast as much as possible. I thought what could be done without any micro-electronics, by placing a coil in a projectile that will spark on the detonator from a narrowly directed antenna installed on a combat vehicle, according to the principle of induction.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 31 August 2020 13: 29 New
    -1
    Another cut of budget money. In fact, the BMPT niche is very narrow and the military, judging by the discussion in Technology and weapons, were not very enthusiastic about it. So instead of putting a new module with a 57mm cannon on the terminator's chassis, it is much more profitable to cut money on the armata platform.
    On the T-72 platform with a 57mm module, it would be much cheaper but no less efficient in terms of using budget money. But in terms of receiving income from the government order, of course, everything is sad for the developer
    1. Cat Kuzya
      Cat Kuzya 31 August 2020 13: 52 New
      0
      I absolutely agree with you. Moreover, considering how many such "chassis" we have stored (and not only on the basis of the T-72).
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 August 2020 16: 09 New
        +1
        The conversation is about the distant future. When Armata will be not dozens of troops, but many hundreds. New cars will go to them. Unified by chassis and units.
  • ximkim
    ximkim 31 August 2020 15: 47 New
    -2
    Hike, the speed of adoption of this model into service with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is due to the fact that: you can still think about what to do with this, from the beginning would sell to someone (because the dollar is better than gunpowder). There are a lot of options, and the enemies have not yet approached the capital ..
  • fa2998
    fa2998 31 August 2020 17: 23 New
    -1
    Quote: Temples
    And our task is to live as long as possible after retirement age.
    Take revenge in this way to the ruling

    Unfortunately, with our pensions, the damage will be small. And they will "saw through" one project, like the pensions of the residents of our city for 10 years. wassat
    RS-like "Terminators" for 25 years flicker, at different bases, have exhausted so much money, I wonder how much is in service-5-10? Or is it a terrible secret? In general, we all have a secret where the taxpayer's money goes. uncles to share "their" money.
  • Klingon
    Klingon 1 September 2020 00: 50 New
    0
    well, given that "Terminator" is a Latin term, then in a good way: lepo you are you, you brethren wassat let's rename everything in Old Russian .. Buratino is Italian, but it would be demanding to call Perun however wassat