T-17. Multifunctional missile tank based on the Armata platform

The T-17 Multifunctional Missile Tank (MFRT) is a concept designed to consider the feasibility of creating this type of weapon. The heavy infantry fighting vehicle (TBMP) T-15 is supposed to be used as the MRFT chassis. The main reason for this decision is the presence in the T-15 of a large compartment for the transport of troops, which will house missile weapons.

Armor

One of the main differences between MFRT and existing self-propelled anti-tank missile systems is in the presence of powerful armor, which provides a combat vehicle with the ability to work in close combat conditions - in direct contact with enemy forces.

Article “Protection of ground combat equipment. Reinforced frontal or evenly distributed armor protection? " We considered the advantages and disadvantages of ground combat vehicles with a classic booking scheme, as well as combat vehicles with evenly distributed armor. All the arguments and objections discussed in this article fully apply to the MFRT, including the formulated conclusion:

It is possible that the creation of two types of armored vehicles will be the optimal solution: with a classic reservation scheme, with the most protected frontal part, and with uniformly distributed armor protection. The former will be used mainly on flat terrain, and the latter in mountainous-wooded areas and during battles in settlements. In this case, the optimal booking scheme or the optimal ratio of armored vehicles of both types will help to identify the practice.

That is, the best option could be the release of two versions of the MRI - with a reinforced frontal and with evenly distributed armor.

MFRT can be developed in versions with reinforced frontal or evenly distributed armor protection

We take the T-15 as a platform, so the engine located in the front of the combat vehicle will provide additional protection in any case.

As in tank T-14, the MRFT crew should be housed in an armored capsule that isolates it from ammunition and provides additional protection in the event of a combat vehicle being hit.

Armored capsule of the crew of the T-14 tank

Weapon compartment and ammunition dimensions

There is no information on the exact dimensions of the TBMP T-15 assault compartment in the open press, but it can be indirectly determined based on the available images, for example, knowing the length of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile (ATGM), which in the transport and launch container (TPK) is about 1200mm, and using the available troop compartment configuration images.

TBMP T-15 has an impressive troop compartment that can comfortably accommodate nine infantry in full combat gear

The dimensions of the TBMP troop compartment, reconfigurable into the MfRT T-17 weapons compartment, can be roughly determined based on the dimensions of the Kornet ATGM

Based on the above, taking into account the dismantling of the seats and life support systems, the dimensions of the weapons compartment will be (length * width * height) from 2800 * 1800 * 1200 to 3200 * 2000 * 1500 mm. This immediately limits the maximum length of MPRT ammunition in a container with a length of about 2700-3000 mm. In the future, for simplicity, we will consider the length of the TPK equal to 3000 mm.

The volume of ammunition will be determined by the maximum permissible diameter of the TPK, which should be about 170-190 mm. Initially, we consider 170 mm for the formation of ammunition. The estimated maximum mass of ammunition in the TPK should be in the range of 100-150 kilograms.

The upper and lower parts of the TPK should contain fasteners used to capture the TPK by ammunition supply systems and a launcher (PU). Taking into account the significant dimensions and mass of ammunition, these must be large enough units that can withstand significant loads that will occur when ammunition is quickly moved in the TPK when they are removed from the weapons compartment and placed on the launcher, as well as the launcher is aimed at the target. Presumably, the mount should include several shells rigidly connected to the slots for the gripper locks.

Transport and launch container with attachments

Depending on the final selected dimensions of the TPK, the actual dimensions of the weapons compartment, as well as the type of ammunition storage and supply system used (drum or in-line), the ammunition load can include from 24 to 40 standard-size ammunition. With the mass of one ammunition 100-150 kg, the mass of the entire ammunition load will be 2,4-6 tons.

Possible layouts of ammunition in the weapons compartment of the MfRT

It should be borne in mind that some ammunition can be placed in several units in a container, as it is implemented in the case of small-sized missiles for the Pantsir-SM air defense missile system, or in the format of reduced-size ammunition - these are ammunition, the length of which will be slightly less than half the maximum length of the standard ammunition. For example, as mentioned earlier, the length of the Kornet ATGM TPK is approximately 1200 mm, respectively, most of the MfRT ammunition will be ammunition of reduced dimensions, about 1350-1450 mm long, which will allow them to be placed in two units instead of one standard ammunition.

The use of ammunition with a TPK length half the length of a standard TPK, as well as ammunition packing, will significantly increase the volume of the MfRT ammunition

Ammunition storage and supply system

As we have already seen in the image above, the placement of ammunition in the weapons bay of the MPRT can be organized in two ways: using drum sets and in-line placement with a linear feed. Presumably a linear feed will allow for the placement of a larger number of ammunition, but the ability to simultaneously use different types of ammunition will be limited by the number of vertical rows. That is, if we have five vertical rows for storage, then we can have ten types of ammunition in the ammunition - four available types on the right and left, not counting half-length ammunition, the presence of which doubles the number of types of ammunition in each row.

Row placement with linear feed, each color is a possible type of ammunition - cumulative, high-explosive fragmentation, anti-aircraft, etc.

The use of drum mounts allows even more flexible configuration of the ammunition load, but allows the placement of a smaller ammunition load in the same dimensions of the weapons compartment.

Placement of ammunition on drum mounts allows you to configure the ammunition as flexibly

The final choice of the ammunition placement system should be carried out at the development stage.

A large number of different kinematic schemes can be considered for supplying ammunition. Within the framework of this article, two supply schemes are considered for the in-line placement of ammunition: with ammunition fastening at the top point (in a suspended state) and with fastening at the bottom point. The capture of ammunition must be carried out by electromechanical fasteners (opening of the capture at the moment of power supply).

Mounting and ammunition supply options

Ammunition feeders are, in fact, Cartesian robots. Presumably, they should use linear drives (rod actuators) with a travel speed of 1-2 m/s.

Rod Actuator 08AKAP Series

In the variant with the suspension of ammunition, two three-axis Cartesian robots are required to supply ammunition to the capture line of the launcher (the third axis is a carriage moving along the second axis).

Diagram of two three-axis cartesian robots for feeding ammunition. The moving carriage is blue

In the variant with the lower placement of ammunition along each row of ammunition, there should be a mechanism for removing the ammunition from the row to the center of the compartment, and two separate lifting mechanisms with a movable carriage. The horizontal mechanism captures the ammunition and transfers it to the elevator, which brings it to the grip line of the launcher.

As mentioned above, these are just a few options for the ammunition supply schemes; the choice of the optimal option should be carried out at the development stage.

The loading of ammunition should be carried out through the launcher, by the reverse feed method, or using a crane of the transport-loading machine (TZM), which ensures the movement of ammunition from the TZM without using the MfRT launcher.

When placing ammunition, an intelligent logistics system (ILS) must be used. Before loading the ammunition, the commander of the MfRT enters its nomenclature into the on-board computer. All ammunition must be marked with bar / QR codes at several points of the TPK, RFID identifiers can also be used additionally. Knowing the nomenclature of ammunition, the intelligent logistics system automatically distributes the ammunition among the rows in such a way as to ensure the fastest possible delivery of the highest priority ammunition, which is necessary to repel sudden threats, i.e. places them closer to the launcher window. While lower priority ammunition is placed further from the launcher, in order of priority. Of course, there should be a possibility of "manual" placement of ammunition and standard schemes for typical ammunition.

With a row placement of ammunition, to accelerate the supply of ammunition to the launcher, the ILS moves the unspent ammunition closer to the center of the weapons compartment.

Launcher

The launcher is supposed to be located to the left of the ammunition supply window (as seen from the rear of the combat vehicle). To the right of the ammunition supply window is an armored flap / cover that automatically closes the weapons compartment from being hit from above. At a linear actuator operating speed of 1-2 m / s, the opening / closing of the ammunition supply flap should occur in 0,2-0,4 seconds.

Layout of the launcher and the ammunition supply window, closed by an armored sash

The main requirements for the launcher are to provide high turning speeds, at 180 degrees per second, and the protection of the structure from small arms fire weapons and fragments of exploding shells at a level not less than that of the barrels of tank guns. This can be achieved by using powerful high-speed servo drives similar to those used in modern industrial robots, redundant power and control cables, protection using modern materials - armored ceramics, kevlar, etc...

An image of the launcher on MRI based on the image of "Products-149", the conceptual predecessor of the T-15 (used because of the similarity with the platform in question and the presence of an image in three projections)

The mass of the launcher can be estimated based on the mass of an industrial robot with a similar carrying capacity. In particular, the KUKA KR-240-R3330-F, with a rated load capacity of 240 kg, has a dead weight of 2400 kg. On the one hand, on the launcher, we need high speeds of movement, the reservation of important nodes will be added, on the other hand, we do not need six axles and the removal of cargo by 3,3 meters, the kinematics will be much easier. Thus, it can be assumed that the mass of the launcher will not exceed 3-3,5 tons.

Characteristics of the industrial robot KUKA KR-240-R3330-F

From above and from the sides, the ammunition on the launcher should be covered with protective elements. A similar solution is used on the Kornet anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) launchers in the Epoch-type weapon modules. To reduce the likelihood of hitting ammunition, the launcher should be in the lowest possible position at all times, excluding the moment of aiming at the target and firing a shot. In this case, armor elements can be installed along the perimeter of the launcher, additionally covering the ammunition on the launcher from the sides.

Additional armor elements around the launcher, protecting it and ammunition from the sides in the lower position

Additional PU protection will be provided by the elements of the active protection complex (KAZ) and the auxiliary weapon module.

Three algorithms for supplying MfRT ammunition can be implemented:

1. Ammunition is on the racks, if the target needs to be attacked, a full cycle of ammunition supply "from the shelf" to the launcher takes place, the launcher is raised and guided to the target. Taking into account the declared speeds of the servos, overcome when moving the ammunition distances and parallelizing processes (at the same time, ammunition is fed, the launcher is lowered and the cover of the weapon compartment is opened), the estimated time for supplying ammunition until the moment of firing will be about four seconds.

2. The two selected ammunition is on the feed system directly under the armored flap covering the weapons bay, the launcher is in the lower position. In this case, the time of supply of ammunition until the moment of firing will be about three seconds.

3. The two selected ammunition is on the launcher in the down position. The time for aiming the ammunition until the moment of firing will be about one second.

The reload time can be approximately doubled by returning unused ammunition to its place to change the type of ammunition.

Auxiliary weapons

As with main battle tanks (MBT), auxiliary weapons should be installed on the MRT. The best solution would be to create a remotely controlled weapons module (DUMV) with a 30 mm automatic cannon. As we covered in the article "30-mm automatic cannons: decline or a new stage of development?", such modules can be created in a fairly compact size.

Automatic cannon M230LF caliber 30 mm on an armored car, ground-based remote-controlled robotic complex and on a stationary turret with manual guidance

If the gun is with selective ammunition, from two shell boxes, as is implemented on the domestic 30-mm automatic cannons 2A42 and 2A72, then this will allow you to choose, if necessary, armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectiles (BOPS) or high-explosive fragmentation ammunition (HE) with remote detonation ...

30-mm automatic cannon with selective ammunition feed 2A42 in the bow turret of the Mi-28N combat helicopter

In the event that it is not possible to implement a DUMV with an automatic cannon of 30 mm caliber, or such a module will have limited ammunition, an acceptable solution is to install a DUMV with a 12,7 mm heavy machine gun.

Presumptive appearance of MFRT with raised PU and DUMV

Examples of the formation of ammunition

Article "Unification of ammunition for self-propelled anti-tank systems, military air defense systems, combat helicopters and UAVs" we examined the possibility and methods of creating unified ammunition for various types of carriers, including a rocket tank. One of the most important advantages of unification is the ability to develop and manufacture ammunition by several manufacturers, which not only increases competition, but also reduces the risk that the required ammunition will not be in service. With regard to the missile tank, the creation of a line of unified ammunition will allow you to get a combat vehicle with unprecedented functionality.

Let's consider several examples of the formation of ammunition for the MRF. Based on the maximum assumed values ​​of the number of standard-length ammunition from 24 to 40 units, we will choose the average value of 32 standard ammunition located in the weapons compartment. Not forgetting the half-length ammunition, which can be stowed two at a time in place of one standard ammunition, and the stacked ammunition, which can be placed three-at a time in both standard ammunition and half-length ammunition.

Military conflict in Syria
In Syria, the main task of the MFRT will be direct fire support for ground forces. At the same time, there is a likelihood of a clash with the armed forces of Turkey or the United States, which may require the solution of tasks to destroy modern military equipment. Based on this, the MfRT ammunition in Syria may look like this:

An example of the formation of an MFRT ammunition for the conflict in Syria

Placement of ammunition in the MFRT for the conflict in Syria

Military conflict in Georgia
Speaking about the military conflict in Georgia, we mean the war on 08.08.08. On the one hand, the enemy did not have the latest models of armored vehicles, on the other hand, there were relatively modern modernized samples of Soviet equipment, army aviation and UAV.

An example of the formation of an MFRT ammunition for the conflict in Georgia

Placement of ammunition in the MFRT for the conflict in Georgia

Military conflict in Poland
A hypothetical limited conflict of the Armed Forces (AF) of the Russian Federation against the Armed Forces of Poland and the United States. There are modern ground and air combat equipment on the battlefield.

An example of the formation of an MFRT ammunition for a limited conflict with the armed forces of Poland and the United States

Placement of ammunition in the MRF for a limited conflict with the armed forces of Poland and the United States

Speaking about the MfRT ammunition, we can say that many types of ammunition from the previously considered nomenclature are not needed for the tank, because the tank is a melee weapon. This is so, and weapons for close combat are present in the presented nomenclature. But if we are talking about the unification of missile weapons for ground forces, then why should a tank be deprived of a "long arm"? Moreover, a variety of situations arise on the battlefield, somewhere in the desert or in the mountains a distance of 10-15 km can be quite real (for example, when fighting from a dominant height).

The range of ammunition that can be created and loaded into the MfRT ammunition shows the highest flexibility in the use of this type of weapon, combined with the maximum survivability provided by tank armor and active protection systems.

Conclusions

Initially, the MfRT project was planned to be considered on the basis of electrically powered platforms, capable of providing a promising combat vehicle with increased stealth capabilities, maneuverability and power supply promising self-defense complexes... It was also planned to consider the use of advanced intelligence systems in MRF, significantly increasing the situational awareness of the crewincluding application integrated unmanned systems.

However, later, it was decided to first of all consider the option of creating an MFRT based on the TBMP T-15 platform, since it will be possible to create platforms with electric propulsion, defensive lasers and other high-tech solutions in twenty years, and the MfRT project based on the TBMP T-15 can be implemented within 5-7 years old.

The MFRT project based on the heavy BMP T-15 can presumably be implemented within 5-7 years.

Once again, we highlight the key requirements for MRF:

- the presence of tank armor. Without it, the MfRT is simply an oversized SPTRK that absolutely does not need melee ammunition;
- the presence of high-speed drives for ammunition supply and guidance - without them, the MfRT will not have the advantages in the speed of reaction to threats that it can have over cannon tanks with their bulky and massive turret with a gun;
- the presence in the ammunition of unguided close-range ammunition with high-explosive fragmentation and thermobaric warheads, developed on the basis of the NAR, and capable of replacing cheap HE shells when solving the most demanded tasks of direct fire support.

The main advantage of the MfRT over the MBT of the classic layout will be its highest versatility, provided by the use of a unified ammunition, ammunition for which can be developed by a large number of Russian companies. In turn, unified ammunition for MFRT can be used by self-propelled ATGMs, military air defense systems, combat helicopters and UAVs, which allows significantly expanding the serial production of their production, and therefore reducing the cost.

The MFRT project is all the more important because the Russian Federation has a significant lag both in the development of tank guns (in terms of resource) and in the creation of ammunition for them. In turn, after the creation of the MFRT and ammunition for it, the caliber of the guns of the tanks of a potential enemy will no longer have any value. The dimensions of ammunition for MFRT are obviously larger than any projectile that can even theoretically be shoved into a tank, which means it will have more explosives, more fragments, a larger cumulative funnel diameter, and there is where to put the KAZ breakthrough means.

Upgrading MFR ammunition is easier than cannon ammunition because they are not limited by the maximum barrel pressure. It is easier to adapt the MFRT to the changing conditions on the battlefield: the enemy installed a KAZ - ammunition with a set of means for overcoming it is being developed for the MFRT, the enemy switched to light tanks - heavy ATGM and unguided projectiles from the ammunition load are excluded in favor of increasing the ammunition load by equipping it with reduced ammunition.

Does this mean that the MBT with a gun should be abandoned? Not at all. The question is in the ratio of MBT / MPRT, which can only be determined experimentally. According to the author, if the above requirements for MRI are met, the optimal ratio will be 1/3 in favor of MRI.

Due to the high reaction speed of the MRF and the presence of powerful high-explosive fragmentation and thermobaric ammunition in the ammunition, it will have significantly greater capabilities to defeat tank-hazardous targets. Nevertheless, no matter how effective the MRF is in solving various problems, it may need to be accompanied in the form of a tank support combat vehicle (BMPT). However, as we discussed in the article "Fire support of tanks, BMPT" Terminator "and John Boyd's OODA cycle", the existing BMPTs do not have any advantages over the same heavy BMP T-15 or the reinforcement of the auxiliary weapons modules of the tanks themselves.

In the next article, we will consider the concept of an BMPT, capable of significantly increasing the protection of tanks operating in a battlefield saturated with anti-tank weapons with difficult terrain.

Comments

[The leader of the Redskins]

PICTURE!
I am sure that it will not even come to a ceremonial calculation.

[Alien From]

An interesting and detailed article! Thanks to the author!

[Stalllker]

This is an article from the section if my grandmother had ****

[engineer74]

First, you need to invent ATGMs and small-sized missiles vertically launching, and not shove the prom. robots in BMP.
IMHO

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: engineer74

First, you need to invent ATGMs and small-sized missiles vertically launching, and not shove the prom. robots in BMP.
IMHO

If we are talking about a rocket tank, then:

Once again, we highlight the key requirements for MRF:

- the presence of tank armor. Without it, the MfRT is simply an oversized SPTRK that absolutely does not need melee ammunition;
- the presence of high-speed drives for ammunition supply and guidance - without them, the MfRT will not have the advantages in the speed of reaction to threats that it can have over cannon tanks with their bulky and massive turret with a gun;
- the presence in the ammunition of unguided close-range ammunition with high-explosive fragmentation and thermobaric warheads, developed on the basis of the NAR, and capable of replacing cheap HE shells when solving the most demanded tasks of direct fire support.

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch, in addition, they can not make a BOPS of large elongation, which is impossible to do in tank guns. Maybe even a tandem BOPS.

[engineer74]

Quote: AVM

Quote: engineer74

First, you need to invent ATGMs and small-sized missiles vertically launching, and not shove the prom. robots in BMP.
IMHO

If we are talking about a rocket tank, then:

Once again, we highlight the key requirements for MRF:

- the presence of tank armor. Without it, the MfRT is simply an oversized SPTRK that absolutely does not need melee ammunition;
- the presence of high-speed drives for ammunition supply and guidance - without them, the MfRT will not have the advantages in the speed of reaction to threats that it can have over cannon tanks with their bulky and massive turret with a gun;
- the presence in the ammunition of unguided close-range ammunition with high-explosive fragmentation and thermobaric warheads, developed on the basis of the NAR, and capable of replacing cheap HE shells when solving the most demanded tasks of direct fire support.

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch, in addition, they can not make a BOPS of large elongation, which is impossible to do in tank guns. Maybe even a tandem BOPS.

Guided munitions are getting cheaper and the future belongs to them. Certainly not tomorrow they will displace "cast iron", but MFRT is also still a sketch. Why do you need a high aspect ratio BOPS if you can hit a target in the roof?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: engineer74

Quote: AVM

Quote: engineer74

First, you need to invent ATGMs and small-sized missiles vertically launching, and not shove the prom. robots in BMP.
IMHO

If we are talking about a rocket tank, then:

Once again, we highlight the key requirements for MRF:

- the presence of tank armor. Without it, the MfRT is simply an oversized SPTRK that absolutely does not need melee ammunition;
- the presence of high-speed drives for ammunition supply and guidance - without them, the MfRT will not have the advantages in the speed of reaction to threats that it can have over cannon tanks with their bulky and massive turret with a gun;
- the presence in the ammunition of unguided close-range ammunition with high-explosive fragmentation and thermobaric warheads, developed on the basis of the NAR, and capable of replacing cheap HE shells when solving the most demanded tasks of direct fire support.

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch, in addition, they can not make a BOPS of large elongation, which is impossible to do in tank guns. Maybe even a tandem BOPS.

Guided munitions are getting cheaper and the future belongs to them. Certainly not tomorrow they will displace "cast iron", but MFRT is also still a sketch. Why do you need a high aspect ratio BOPS if you can hit a target in the roof?

And if they make an effective KAZ to counteract the impact on the roof? How to aim, IR seeker? PMSM their prospects are sad, I wrote about this in the material: The Great Extinction. Why can certain types of weapons disappear? https://topwar.ru/173207-velikoe-vymiranie-pochemu-mogut-ischeznut-otdelnye-tipy-vooruzhenij.html

MFRT in the proposed layout offers a choice: if you want - shoot a BOPS of large elongation, if you want a cumulative warhead with 3-4 craters, if you want a shock core or HE ammunition from above (raised the launcher and use a ballistic ammunition such as a mine Edge with a rocket booster), if you want, you can do what is a type of Spike loitering ammunition.

[Vovanya]

And if they make an effective KAZ to counteract the impact on the roof?

It is easy to fight KAZ with projectiles, for example, A3B-T and GPR-AB-T with trajectory blasting, developed for the 40 CTAS cannon. They contain 200 tungsten ready-made submunitions and, when detonated, create a cloud of debris: the first is directed forward, which is especially effective for hitting unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters and low-speed aircraft, and the second creates a spherical field, which leads to the coverage of a large area on the ground or behind protective barriers, and also provides the possibility of damage to the optical systems of vehicles.
The uniqueness of these shells is that they are also dangerous for tanks, because the scattering of fragments in the direction of the tank turret will destroy or damage all attachments on it: an active protection system, sights, rangefinders, sensors, cameras, triplexes, a machine gun, launchers and even headlights, completely "blinding" the tank, and counteracting bursts at a rate of 200 shots per minute, especially after the rupture of the first shell, when the space is filled with debris that create interference, the KAZ tank will not be able to.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Vovanya

And if they make an effective KAZ to counteract the impact on the roof?

It is easy to fight KAZ with projectiles, for example, A3B-T and GPR-AB-T with trajectory blasting, developed for the 40 CTAS cannon. They contain 200 tungsten ready-made submunitions and, when detonated, create a cloud of debris: the first is directed forward, which is especially effective for hitting unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters and low-speed aircraft, and the second creates a spherical field, which leads to the coverage of a large area on the ground or behind protective barriers, and also provides the possibility of damage to the optical systems of vehicles.
The uniqueness of these shells is that they are also dangerous for tanks, because the scattering of fragments in the direction of the tank turret will destroy or damage all attachments on it: an active protection system, sights, rangefinders, sensors, cameras, triplexes, a machine gun, launchers and even headlights, completely "blinding" the tank, and counteracting bursts at a rate of 200 shots per minute, especially after the rupture of the first shell, when the space is filled with debris that create interference, the KAZ tank will not be able to.

Good example, but that doesn't mean it will always work, it's better to always have fallbacks.

I considered the joint work of an ATGM and an automatic cannon against KAZ here:
30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?
https://topwar.ru/154649-zakat-jery-30-mm-avtomaticheskih-pushek-ili-novyj-jetap-razvitija.html

Another promising direction in the use of 30 mm cannons as part of tank armament can be joint work with the main weapon in the defeat of enemy tanks equipped with active defense complexes (KAZ). In this case, it is necessary to synchronize the work of the main gun and 30 mm guns so that when firing at an enemy tank firing the 30-mm round of projectiles was carried out a little earlier than the shot of an armor-piercing projectile (BOPS) of the main gun. Thus, the hit of 30-mm shells initially causes damage to the elements of the active protection of the enemy tank (radar detection, containers with striking elements), which allows the BOPS to easily hit the tank. Of course, shooting should be carried out in an automated mode, i.e. The gunner leads the crosshair to the enemy's tank, selects the “against KAZ” mode, presses the trigger, and then everything happens automatically.

The option of 30 mm equipment for shells can also be considered by some aerosol or other filler, and a remote-explosive fuse. In this case, the 30 mm projectile line detonates in the zone of operation of the active protection of the enemy tank, preventing the operation of its radar detection equipment, but not interfering with the BOPS flight.

[sen]

It is easy to fight KAZ with projectiles, for example, A3B-T and GPR-AB-T with trajectory blasting, developed for the 40 CTAS gun.

I agree. But instead of the 30 mm cannon proposed by the author, the 57 mm cannon with a remote detonation projectile is better. And also missile defense missiles with a remotely detonated warhead are needed to intercept ATGMs and air-to-ground missiles.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: sen

It is easy to fight KAZ with projectiles, for example, A3B-T and GPR-AB-T with trajectory blasting, developed for the 40 CTAS gun.

I agree. But instead of the 30 mm cannon proposed by the author, the 57 mm cannon with a remote detonation projectile is better. ...

If we talk about MFRT, then I'm not sure that it will be possible to make a compact DUMV of 57 mm caliber, even 30 mm is questionable there.

[garri-lin]

For these purposes, a modified AGS with an elongated barrel and a more flat trajectory is perfect.

[leanid.gorban]

Right. The widespread use of projectiles with remote beam detonation, especially for automatic medium-caliber (45-80) guns, will multiply the effectiveness of * all * modern tanks and infantry fighting vehicles by zero.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: leanid.gorban

Right. The widespread use of projectiles with remote beam detonation, especially for automatic medium-caliber (45-80) guns, will multiply the effectiveness of * all * modern tanks and infantry fighting vehicles by zero.

Their energy is still not enough to penetrate tank armor, even from above. If there are still movements in this direction, then it will simply be made uniform, abandoning powerful frontal armor (which one hell breaks through both BOPS and powerful ATGMs) in favor of reinforced circular armor.

Protection of ground combat equipment. Reinforced frontal or evenly distributed armor protection? https://topwar.ru/172531-zaschita-nazemnoj-boevoj-tehniki-usilennaja-lobovaja-ili-ravnomerno-raspredelennaja-bronezaschita.html

But to abandon heavy equipment in favor of light equipment will not work, just because of the development of the ammunition you mentioned - no KAZ will stop a line of 57 mm shells.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: AVM

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch

It is because of such "horror stories" that the Russian Federation does not have (did not have ...) its own "javelins", "spikes" and other 3rd generation! When vertical launch systems become a NATO standard, only then the Russian Federation will start to be surprised and ask: "Why don't we have this? And when will we have this?" And again you have to catch up? Complex NLOS-LS - vertical start ... MNTK - vertical start ... Quick Kill - vertical start! And why not "diversify" the types of launchers? With the installation on the platform of the "tank destroyer" "bronekungs" both from the vertical launch launcher and the horizontal one .... Let the PU-GS on "for now and now" ..., and PU-VS - to a slightly more distant "near future"! Well, as the actor Kartsev said: let there be crayfish for 5 rubles. and 3 rubles each ....! By the way, PU-GS can be without that "clunker" that is present in the pictures ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: AVM

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch

It is because of such "horror stories" that the Russian Federation does not have (did not have ...) its own "javelins", "spikes" and other 3rd generation! When vertical launch systems become a NATO standard, only then the Russian Federation will start to be surprised and ask: "Why don't we have this? And when will we have this?" And again you have to catch up? Complex NLOS-LS - vertical start ... MNTK - vertical start ... Quick Kill - vertical start! And why not "diversify" the types of launchers? With the installation on the platform of the "tank destroyer" "bronekungs" both from the vertical launch launcher and the horizontal one .... Let the PU-GS on "for now and now" ..., and PU-VS - to a slightly more distant "near future"! Well, as the actor Kartsev said: let there be crayfish for 5 rubles. and 3 rubles each ....! By the way, PU-GS can be without that "clunker" that is present in the pictures ...

And I'm not against vertical launch, moreover, an article is also planned about this type of weapon, later. Looking ahead, even "spark" was considered, i.e. articulated tank for northern conditions, when the first link is the MRF, the second is a vertical launch missile support tank. They move, grappling together, to increase the cross-country ability in northern conditions, and in battle, the MfRT moves forward for direct contact with the enemy.

[svp67]

Quote: AVM

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles.

Why are such shells now?

Quote: AVM

And ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive,

But it is more effective, it will not be necessary to direct the guide to the target and the rate of fire will be much higher.
So, given the dimensions that the Armata BS provides, it is necessary to switch to a vertical launch

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: svp67

Quote: AVM

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles.

Why are such shells now?

One of the main complaints about the rocket tank is the high cost of ammunition. And indeed, given that nowadays a tank rarely meets an enemy tank and crushes the "Barmaleevs" with HE shells, why spend $ 10 ATGM on them? But they cannot be ignored either, since they can "turn around" this very tank from an RPG. And MFRT can do it better and cheaper than a tank with a cannon, unguided ammunition with HE or a thermobaric warhead.

Quote: svp67

Quote: AVM

And ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive,

But it is more effective, it will not be necessary to direct the guide to the target and the rate of fire will be much higher.
So, given the dimensions that the Armata BS provides, it is necessary to switch to a vertical launch

These two options, horizontal and vertical launch, do not exclude each other, but complement each other. I will write later about the UVP technique, the problems and benefits associated with it.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: AVM

One of the main complaints about the missile tank is the high cost of ammunition. ... crushes the "barmaleevs" with HE shells, why spend $ 10 ATGM on them?

Do you know ... sometimes a "set of teeth" in the mouth appears, hearing: "high cost of ammunition"! 21st century ... century of "progress and progression" (as A. Raikin once said ...) and not finding a way to solve the problem? Take, at least, what has already been done ... ATGM "Baby" ... To simplify and reduce the cost (!), The ammunition was deprived of power ... but a 3-wire cable was introduced ... the gyroscope was launched using a belt drive .. ATGM "Metis": the gyroscope was removed ... replaced by the rotation of the ammunition itself, tracers on the "tips of the wings" and a guidance device that reads the flicker of the tracer! Finally, the relatively inexpensive wired guidance system itself ... It used to be Oh ... But it's the past! Go to the "Children's World" ... electronic toys department! "Abundance" of electronic toys at moderate (!) Prices, containing microprocessors, video cameras, thermal sensors, miniature piezoceramic gyroscopes, miniature stepper motors, proximity sensors ... Maybe you shouldn't blame everything on the "high cost of ammunition", if it is is it about extremely simplified guided munitions? Maybe there is “something else?” And there is nothing to blame on the mirror, if the face is crooked?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: svp67

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles.

Why are such shells now?

That's it !

[Per se.]

Quote: AVM

If we are talking about a rocket tank

The Soviet Union had a mass-produced rocket tank known as the IT-1. Among the shortcomings of that time, there was a weak auxiliary armament (one PKT machine gun), small viewing angles, and the rocket armament ("Dragon") with a supply of 15 missiles was far from being as perfect as modern samples.

You generally propose a "tank-arsenal" on the chassis of an expensive and complex base, which is still under development, with a problem engine. In terms of dimensions, this monster is commensurate with the five-turret Soviet T-35 tank, and it is very doubtful that this "platform" will be in demand for direct use as a platform, where for this purpose they have always used a technological, industrialized and well-proven base among the troops. ... For example, platforms based on MT-LB or T-72 / T-90.

If we talk about a missile tank, then it could be just a model based on the T-72 / T-90, where the main armament of the "main caliber" would use missiles of the "Kornet" type, and the auxiliary armament would include an automatic 57 mm cannon ...

For unguided missiles, it seems much more effective to use such systems as "Solntsepёk" and "Buratino" on a tank base, and for a tank capable of hitting the enemy from a distance inaccessible to return fire, if we talk about the base of this mastodon T-15, probably a variant of a heavy anti-tank self-propelled gun with a 152 mm gun would be more suitable, since object 195 was ruined by PR "headset platforms".

[avdkrd]

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch, in addition, they can not make a BOPS of large elongation, which is impossible to do in tank guns. Maybe even a tandem BOPS. [/ Quote]
What is tandem. BOPS ??? Actually, why BOPS on ATGM? BOPS assumes hypersonic speed and such an ATGM will no longer be controlled, it will be NUR. With tandem BOPS, they were generally pleased))) Can you imagine the physics of the process? In general, with a caliber of 170mm, the cumulative ammunition will provide penetration under 2000mm. Why BOPS? Regarding horizontal launch, I agree that vertical launch is excessively high requirements for missiles.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: avdkrd

Actually, why BOPS on ATGM? BOPS assumes hypersonic speed and such an ATGM will no longer be controlled, it will be NUR.

About hypersonic ATGM with a kinetic warhead (in fact, BOPS):
Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?
https://topwar.ru/173607-perspektivy-razvitija-ptur-giperzvuk-ili-samonavedenie.html

Quote: avdkrd

With tandem BOPS, they were generally pleased))) Can you imagine the physics of the process?

This is rather an assumption. There are non-penetration and BOPS. If we have an ATGM of 2800-3000 mm in length, then it is possible to sequentially place two BOPSs of 1400-1500 mm each, engines and fuel in this case are placed along the perimeter.

Before collision, they are divided into two parts and enter the body 5-15 cm apart. I repeat, this assumption is "thought by ear", most likely of course there will be 1 BOPS, for the second place there will not be, you still need to accelerate the ATGM to hypersound ...

Quote: avdkrd

In general, with a caliber of 170mm, HEAT ammunition will provide penetration under 2000mm. Why BOPS?

The variability of weapons for different scenarios. Highest reaction speed. Replacement of IR seeker if they are vulnerable to lasers. Actually, this is also discussed here:
Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?
https://topwar.ru/173607-perspektivy-razvitija-ptur-giperzvuk-ili-samonavedenie.html

[vVvAD]

By the way, I completely agree.
However, it seems to me that MRI can hardly be expected to appear in both the short and medium term for several reasons. Two main ones: to reduce the cost, it is necessary to unify the power supply unit, and this is a question for a fairly long term; even shortened NARs will be more expensive than tank shells.
I do not have your knowledge, and I have no idea about the price of tank guns, but, probably, the launcher and the BP auto-feed system will be comparable in price to the tank gun and the AZ tank mechanism, which will increase the cost of the MRF in operation compared to the OT, despite all the advantages of MRI you have highlighted over the latter. MfRT will also have a blind zone at a distance of up to 50m, covered only by the DBMS. Well, the question of costs is the current tank fleet: you can't just take and replace many existing OTs. + a new concept - there will always be a skeptical attitude + dampness and flaws (and they, of course, there will be) new products, a long development period, complaints from the troops will add fuel to the fire. Under this case, you will have to open a new direction of design development, change the concept of using the Armed Forces, find a niche for them in the troops, up to the standard structure of military formations at the level of a brigade, regiment, etc. etc. (I apologize for the clumsy of the terms, you, as a journalist on military topics, will certainly correct me).
In short, too revolutionary. But the unification of missile launchers of helicopters, self-propelled air defense missile systems and anti-tank systems, DUBM and the expansion of the family of tank missile launchers for various purposes are quite likely.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: vVvAD

By the way, I completely agree.
However, it seems to me that MRI can hardly be expected to appear in both the short and medium term for several reasons.

Moscow was not built in a day)

Quote: vVvAD

Two main ones: to reduce the cost, it is necessary to unify the power supply unit, and this is a question for a fairly long term;

Initially, this can be done within one enterprise, for example, KBP JSC. They have competence in all types of ammunition required - anti-tank, anti-aircraft, thermobaric, ballistic (Edge). Plus the competence to create a DUMV.

Quote: vVvAD

even shortened NARs will be more expensive than tank shells.

NAR even long will not be much more expensive than shells. This is essentially an RPG, only of an increased size. And RPGs are not the most expensive type of weapon.

Quote: vVvAD

I do not have your knowledge, and I have no idea about the price of tank guns, but, probably, the launcher and the BP auto-feed system will be comparable in price to the tank gun and the AZ tank mechanism, which will increase the cost of the MRF in operation compared to the OT, despite all the advantages of MRI you have identified over the latter.

Even with the same cost of gun + AZ and PU + AZ, MfRT will win in operation due to the fact that the guns have a limited resource, they need to be changed.

Quote: vVvAD

MfRT will also have a blind zone at a distance of up to 50m, covered only by the DBMS.

Unguided shells with a cumulative, HE, thermobaric warhead "blind zone" will be 10-15 meters, how critical is it in battle? It's already necessary to go to the ram ...

Quote: vVvAD

Well, the question of costs is the current tank fleet: you can't just take and replace many existing OTs. + a new concept - there will always be a skeptical attitude + dampness and flaws (and they, of course, there will be) new products, a long development period, complaints from the troops will add fuel to the fire. Under this case, you will have to open a new direction of design development, change the concept of using the Armed Forces, find a niche for them in the troops, up to the standard structure of military formations at the level of a brigade, regiment, etc. etc. (I apologize for the clumsy of the terms, you, as a journalist on military topics, will certainly correct me).

This is 100% true

[Viktor Sergeev]

Vertical launch reduces the firing range, unprofitable. How will you direct?

[Klingon]

telescoping like Spike or IK, what's the problem? The dart also first flies upward at an angle of 60 ° - 80 ° and only then at the top of the trajectory does it bite and start comparing the IR image

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Klingon

telescoping like Spike or IK, what's the problem? The dart also first flies upward at an angle of 60 ° - 80 ° and only then at the top of the trajectory does it bite and start comparing the IR image

But what if the deployment of a COEC for armored vehicles with 5-15 kW lasers becomes a reality? Will this not close all the ICs of the GOS?

[Viktor Sergeev]

Only first, Jewelin's head should look at the target from 10 to 30 seconds, and your rocket should be inside the car. That is, it is necessary to provide radio guidance or by a laser beam, since IR guidance is excluded (there is no time for homing), you will have to make a very complex and expensive missile with a radio channel vulnerable to interference. Well, why fence a garden if the car is usually turned towards the target?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: engineer74

ATGM and small-sized missiles vertical launch

Well, well .... quite a "decent" remark! And do not be afraid of critics! They will pester them a lot, you are in

address!

[Observer2014]

What should he shoot? Under what ammunition he is sharpened. Under the "Grad" That he needs the protection of the tank's "attack aircraft" if it's simpler? Or "Solntsepёk" which is also .What is it for him to shoot that such protection is needed?
Or perspective interspecies as the article was recently? "Hermes" and again .What is the protection of a stormtrooper for him, roughly speaking? If he will not even see at whom he is shooting literally. Because of the range for the dull ones. Hello to the dreamers from Yandex Zen!

[Old Michael]

Is that what he should shoot with that such protection is needed?
Or perspective interspecies as the article was recently? "Hermes" and again

Well, you bring him down so quickly! It looks like the sophomore cadet was doing the coursework. Good job!

[Observer2014]

Quote: OldMichael

Is that what he should shoot with that such protection is needed?
Or perspective interspecies as the article was recently? "Hermes" and again

Well, you bring him down so quickly! It looks like the sophomore cadet was doing the coursework. Good job!

Well, what to do. We are on the website Voennoye Obozrenie. And not on the blog of a second-class cadet. There is a topic. There is an opinion. Everything is an adult.

[Old Michael]

We are on the Voennoye Obozreniye site, not on the second magic cadet's blog.

Yes sir. Therefore, in the future, when preparing the candidate's thesis, it will be counted as a publication.

[Observer2014]

Quote: OldMichael

We are on the Voennoye Obozreniye site, not on the second magic cadet's blog.

Yes sir. Therefore, in the future, when preparing the candidate's thesis, it will be counted as a publication.

The question is certainly interesting. But there is one big but. We are not the ultimate truth. We are just a website. With very different people. And here at stake is a future candidate with his ideas. Forging the shield of the country. Or trying to do it. I think it’s not fair. From the word in general. We are a publicly accessible site. With all the consequences. This is not the place where you can operate as preparation at least for the candidate. There will be a closed field on this site for the elite. Then we will gladly and impartially discuss any topic

[Old Michael]

This is not the place

On the whole, I agree with you. However, there are even more multi-letter articles on VO, where the authors manage to do without meaningful phrases at all. And here we see some, but the desire to creatively comprehend a certain phenomenon.
Flip through the comments - at least a dozen reviews “interesting and informative”.
Bottom line: demand creates supply. I'm afraid to even imagine the level of comments in three years ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Observer2014

What should he shoot? Under what ammunition he is sharpened. Under the "Grad" That he needs the protection of the tank's "attack aircraft" if it's simpler? Or "Solntsepёk" which is also .What is it for him to shoot that such protection is needed?
Or perspective interspecies as the article was recently? "Hermes" and again .What is the protection of a stormtrooper for him, roughly speaking? If he will not even see at whom he is shooting literally. Because of the range for the dull ones. Hello to the dreamers from Yandex Zen!

The key word here is "multifunctional".

[Observer2014]

The key word here is "multifunctional".

Well, that is. Nothing. Can you be specific? What exactly do you expect to shoot. And everything will fall into place. And the drawings. And all your work. I’ll tell you right away. I will support any sensible undertaking. We need your fine art (five ) justify.Nuzhno.What do you expect to shoot?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Observer2014

The key word here is "multifunctional".

Well, that is. Nothing. Can you be specific? What to shoot specifically you expect. And everything will fall into place. And the drawings. And all your work. I’ll tell you right away. I will support any sensible undertaking. You need to justify your fine art (five). Need. What do you expect to shoot?

Thirty Six Unified Missile Tank Ammunition
https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html

There is a section at the bottom of the article: Articles from this series:
There is a whole list of articles on the topic, which logically leads to the MRF.

[Observer2014]

Well, would you position your idea as a missile tank based on the T-15? And what does not suit you with the T-90? It is a tank and will hit a lung with a shell. In addition to missiles And machine guns, it will cover itself.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Observer2014

Well, would you position your idea as a missile tank based on the T-15? And what does the T-90 not suit you?

Bazoy.T-90 is well SHORT and there is no place for missiles there. But the armata shape is much longer and more spacious.
But in this keg of honey, I want to add a mug of tar ...
The first question is, why do we need such a tank, if there have been no tank battles for 70 years and will not be?
The second issue is to ensure the safety of the platform, that is, the protection of such a platform by an infantry squad. What's the point? Wait in the city zone for an enemy tank to appear?
In this context, I will ask you - against whom should such a tank fight? Against an enemy who has these tanks and in good numbers, right? Do the dushmans have them in good numbers? There are only Shahid-mobiles and they are very fast and mobile. And if you are talking about a serious adversary such as the USA or the EU, then forgive me, but there will be nothing there without a nuclear ending. Then why bother to fence?
And for the destruction of Shahid-mobiles, a simple tank and a Terminator and even Kurganets are suitable when it is adopted.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: NEXUS

Quote: Observer2014

Well, would you position your idea as a missile tank based on the T-15? And what does the T-90 not suit you?

Bazoy.T-90 is well SHORT and there is no place for missiles there. But the armata shape is much longer and more spacious.
But in this keg of honey, I want to add a mug of tar ...
The first question is, why do we need such a tank, if there have been no tank battles for 70 years and will not be?
The second issue is to ensure the safety of the platform, that is, the protection of such a platform by an infantry squad. What's the point? Wait in the city zone for an enemy tank to appear?
In this context, I will ask you - against whom should such a tank fight? Against an enemy who has these tanks and in good numbers, right? Do the dushmans have them in good numbers? There are only Shahid-mobiles and they are very fast and mobile. And if you are talking about a serious adversary such as the USA or the EU, then forgive me, but there will be nothing there without a nuclear ending. Then why bother to fence?
And for the destruction of Shahid-mobiles, a simple tank and a Terminator and even Kurganets are suitable when it is adopted.

The whole problem is that several martyrs, worth 0,5 kopecks in total, knock out a tank for $ 5 from an RPG for $ 000 apiece + the tank's crew is killed, i.e. philonite in this task is impossible.

Who will hit the suddenly appeared target faster? A tank with a HE shell, with a turret / cannon turning speed of 45 degrees per second or MFRT, with a launcher turning speed of 180 degrees per second and two ammunition on a PU - HE or thermobaric, with a charge mass 3-5 times larger than fit into a shell ?

But in addition to shahidomobiles, MRF can work on a huge list of goals, and for this it will need support, much less than that needed by a cannon tank.

The article lists three types of ammunition for different types of conflicts. This is the advantage of MfRT, configuring the ammunition, you can adapt it to any battle scenarios.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Observer2014

Well, would you position your idea as a missile tank based on the T-15? And what does the T-90 not suit you?

The T-90 is too compact, the ammunition load will be reduced by 2 times, I did not choose the T-14 as a base.

Quote: Observer2014

He will hit a tank with a projectile in a light one. In addition to missiles And machine guns he will cover himself. Imprisoned at the front edge to be and fight.

I am not happy with cannon tanks in close combat for the following reasons:
1. Low speed of the turret turning, and it cannot be increased - the tank will fly away from inertia.
2. Low barrel elevation - do not shoot on the upper floors.
3. Limiting the size of ammunition - the BOPS was slightly lengthened at once, the problems, the MRF will simply have a huge stock of ammunition in terms of dimensions.
4. The size limitation reduces the variability of the ammunition that can be fired from them (guns). Yes, you can put a 152 mm cannon, even a cruise missile was shot down from a 155 mm cannon in the USA, but why, if you can do it with a rocket. As soon as the projectile becomes "smart", it immediately starts to cost like a rocket, we recall, again, American shells for Zamwalt, and as soon as the rocket becomes unguided, it stands like a projectile (for example, NURS).

[Lesorub]

the dimensions of the weapons compartment will be (length * width * height) from 2800 * 180 * 120 to 3200 * 200 * 150 mm.

I think with such internal dimensions it is interesting to consider a PU with a vertical start.

[Observer2014]

Quote: Lesorub

the dimensions of the weapons compartment will be (length * width * height) from 2800 * 180 * 120 to 3200 * 200 * 150 mm.

I think with such internal dimensions it is interesting to consider a PU with a vertical start.

That's it. We need a vertical launch ATGM on the front line capable of fighting. At a range of up to 7 - 5 km. With a large ammunition reserve. With the ability to fire at several targets simultaneously. On the basis of a heavy BMPT T15 "Armata". What kind of "Chrysanthemum" in armor will they give us? The original is mobile and can swim. And there are tanks for a fight near.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Lesorub

the dimensions of the weapons compartment will be (length * width * height) from 2800 * 180 * 120 to 3200 * 200 * 150 mm.

I think with such internal dimensions it is interesting to consider a PU with a vertical start.

If we are talking about a rocket tank, then:

Once again, we highlight the key requirements for MRF:
...
- the presence in the ammunition of unguided close-range ammunition with high-explosive fragmentation and thermobaric warheads, developed on the basis of the NAR, and capable of replacing cheap HE shells when solving the most demanded tasks of direct fire support.

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch, in addition, they can not make a BOPS of large elongation, which is impossible to do in tank guns. Maybe even a tandem BOPS.

[Lesorub]

Quote: AVM

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch, in addition, they can not make a BOPS of large elongation, which is impossible to do in tank guns. Maybe even a tandem BOPS.

Yet the line of sight of the battle is the tank niche. Anti-tank missiles based on this or that technology will increase the range of combat - for example, it is more expedient to launch by 20-100 km by vertical launch (the ammunition load is much more compact in this case).

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Lesorub

Quote: AVM

You cannot make unguided vertical launch projectiles. Yes, and ATGM vertical launch will be more expensive, ATGM horizontal launch, in addition, they can not make a BOPS of large elongation, which is impossible to do in tank guns. Maybe even a tandem BOPS.

Still, the line of sight of the battle is a tank niche ...

And what does "tank niche" mean? Why this stereotype?

If we use unguided shells in close combat, they will be comparable or cheaper than similar shells for a tank, especially taking into account the replacement of the gun after the barrel is worn out.

[Lesorub]

Quote: AVM

If we use unguided shells in close combat, they will be comparable or cheaper than similar shells for a tank, especially taking into account the replacement of the gun after the barrel is worn out.

It is not entirely correct to compare NURS and a tank shell - the accuracy of a tank shell is much higher.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Lesorub

Quote: AVM

If we use unguided shells in close combat, they will be comparable or cheaper than similar shells for a tank, especially taking into account the replacement of the gun after the barrel is worn out.

It is not entirely correct to compare NURS and a tank shell - the accuracy of a tank shell is much higher.

The question of sufficiency. Firstly, NURSs are launched from a vibrating aircraft platform (mostly), but the 2A28 “Thunder” cannon-launcher installed in the BMP-1 is closer to us in meaning - in fact, an overgrown RPG.

At a distance of up to 500-1000 meters, the accuracy will be sufficient, and then ATGMs or corrected ammunition, by the way, in the previous article examples of the same NAR with correction sides are given, which should be an inexpensive alternative to ATGMs.

[Lesorub]

Quote: AVM

Quote: Lesorub

Quote: AVM

If we use unguided shells in close combat, they will be comparable or cheaper than similar shells for a tank, especially taking into account the replacement of the gun after the barrel is worn out.

It is not entirely correct to compare NURS and a tank shell - the accuracy of a tank shell is much higher.

The question of sufficiency. Firstly, NURSs are launched from a vibrating aircraft platform (mostly), but the 2A28 “Thunder” cannon-launcher installed in the BMP-1 is closer to us in meaning - in fact, an overgrown RPG.

At a distance of up to 500-1000 meters, the accuracy will be sufficient, and then ATGMs or corrected ammunition, by the way, in the previous article examples of the same NAR with correction sides are given, which should be an inexpensive alternative to ATGMs.

Nursom can shoot at 1000m in a static state, when moving on this platform, a stabilizer is needed in two planes (or at least a supersonic speed of a nursa), correction blocks will not make a rocket cheaper - but without a doubt they will add accuracy.
It is necessary to understand its place on the battlefield - in the same ranks with tanks, the second echelon?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Lesorub

Nursom can shoot at 1000m in a static state, when moving on this platform, a stabilizer is needed in two planes (or at least a supersonic speed of a nursa), correction blocks will not make a rocket cheaper - but without a doubt they will add accuracy.
It is necessary to understand its place on the battlefield - in the same ranks with tanks, the second echelon?

Of course, stabilization is needed, and it is much easier to stabilize a launcher, even an armored one with a pair of missiles, than a tank cannon - there is an order of magnitude more mass + it is moved to the side.

[garri-lin]

You are wrong. An armored casing for your two missiles will weigh about as much as a weapon. And the gun has no mass to the side. It is balanced.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: garri-lin

You are wrong. An armored casing for your two missiles will weigh about as much as a weapon. And the gun has no mass to the side. It is balanced.

It depends on what we plan to protect them from. I do not think that there should be tank armor - bulletproof (from 7,62) and splinter resistance is sufficient. Look at the shrouds on the Terminator and other Cornet modules.

[garri-lin]

7,62 is not enough. Need more. 14,5, but not with the expectation of hitting from a machine gun and shrapnel.

[mvg]

This option already exists in nature, just on the basis of the Merkava, with a front engine. And PU for how many Spikes. To stop the tank avalanches of the Arabs.

[voyaka uh]

This tank is in training. Fires Spike's rocket from a retractable rocket launcher.
The gun is a fake.
It was used in combat.

[mvg]

This tank is in training

Yes, I spoke for him. The gun is not real, I don’t remember how many guides.

[Turist1996]

Thanks to the author at least for the fact that, in addition to proposing the idea itself, I was also so puzzled by quite specific thoughts about the design and implementation of the idea. It costs a lot!
It is possible that there are many controversial messages and ideas, but the article itself deserves respect, at least for a sufficiently detailed study of the technical details. Even at the stage of the sketch project.

[Aleks2000]

Picture. And the picture is ugly and, IMHO, non-functional.
flimsy, tall, slow.

In fact, IMHO, at the top there should be something similar to a regular armature or terminator. (going to the troops and so with a creak)
A rotating tower that allows you to launch a certain amount in one gulp and quickly change.
Since a similar functionality already exists with lighter vehicles, and BMPs, drones, tanks with terminators partially cover the niche, the missiles are more likely to become powerful and long-range missiles.
It means - little, very expensive, "there is no money, but you are holding on."

Conclusion: just protect designers from unemployment and wash some money for development.
No chance.

[agond]

Quote: Alex2000

then the missiles are more likely to become powerful and long-range.

Why long-range? a tank is a melee weapon within line of sight, so missiles can be "short-range" and therefore shorter, it is better to launch them vertically with a mortar method with any reasonable rate of fire, by the way, a mortar start significantly increases the missile's range.

[Aleks2000]

Tanks, terminators, tank drones on control and the like will do for close combat.

Especially drones are cheap and cheerful. Small, and carry a bunch of ATGMs. He fired, ran away, reloaded, repeated ...

Why still invent these same drones, only big ones? There are a lot of them, and so there is no place to produce ...

[Sancho_SP]

If very thesis, then:

1. A rocket tank does not particularly need heavy armor. It would be more interesting to cram ptura into Buratina instead of Nursa both from the point of view of rate of fire, and from salvo fire.
2. At the height of the armata, vertical launchers suggest themselves. Preferably with rockets hitting the roof.
3. You can shove Hermes into all this.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Sancho_SP

If very thesis, then:

1. A rocket tank does not particularly need heavy armor. It would be more interesting to cram ptura into Buratina instead of Nursa both from the point of view of rate of fire, and from salvo fire.

This is a completely different type of equipment, in fact an ordinary SPTRK.

Quote: Sancho_SP

2. At the height of the armata, vertical launchers suggest themselves. Preferably with rockets hitting the roof.

Many people talk about this option in the comments, as I already said:
UVP - only ATGM, no unguided missiles.
If there are no guided missiles, this is no longer MFRT, there will be no way to cheaply hit cheap targets.

I will consider a ground combat vehicle with UVP later.

Quote: Sancho_SP

3. You can shove Hermes into all this.

No, KBP does not make vertical launch rockets, so reworking Hermes will either not work at all, or it will be very difficult.

It is possible and necessary to adapt the Hermes missiles for horizontal launch with MRI.

[Sancho_SP]

And what is the essential difference between a "conventional" sptrk and a rocket tank? In fact, only in armor. And armor is needed for a close acquaintance with wearable anti-tank weapons and tanks.

Hence the question: what is the point of rolling out a long-range and accurate long-range system to the very front edge?

It is much more interesting when tanks are ahead, and the sptrk is two kilometers behind, or even in a closed position, is guided by the target designation of the tank.

ZY Read Hermes in quotes, because I’m here rather about the very concept of an over-the-horizon rocket.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Sancho_SP

And what is the essential difference between a "conventional" sptrk and a rocket tank? In fact, only in armor. And armor is needed for a close acquaintance with wearable anti-tank weapons and tanks.

First of all, it is in the armor. Without armor in close combat, the SPTRK is a corpse, but rather in the long-range, since the tank shoots well up to 7000 meters of the HE shell with a projectile, it will explode 5-10 meters from the SPTRK, and that's it ...

And secondly, the speed of the PU reversal. At the existing SPTRK, it can hardly toss and turn.

Quote: Sancho_SP

Hence the question: what is the point of rolling out a long-range and accurate long-range system to the very front edge?

It is much more interesting when tanks are ahead, and the sptrk is two kilometers behind, or even in a closed position, is guided by the target designation of the tank.

So we are not talking about a specifically high-precision system, but about a multifunctional system.

Why a rocket tank, and not an ordinary one, I considered here:

Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?
https://topwar.ru/174116-vooruzhenie-perspektivnyh-tankov-pushka-ili-rakety.html

[Sancho_SP]

Then it is clear what you have to convey.

On the whole, I agree, for one point: the rocket is more interesting than the cannon because it does not need a tank. Even a large ATGM can be dragged on yourself, in extreme cases - on a donkey. A 125mm cannon without the Urals is no way. Hence, the rocket tank does not have significant advantages over a heavy BMP, on which not only are there 4 ATVs, but also inside a couple of calculations with the same ATRVs that can be placed on the sidelines.

[cat Rusich]

I propose for "close combat" MRT according to the TOS-1 "Buratino" scheme ...

For "long-range combat", a variant according to the Tor air defense missile system with a vertical arrangement of "universal missiles" ...

The point is that in "close combat" you need "armor like a tank" and taken out of the hull of the BC. And for "ranged combat" - no armor is needed, devices for detection and guidance to the "target" are needed.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: cat Rusich

I propose for "close combat" MRT according to the TOS-1 "Buratino" scheme ...

For "long-range combat", a variant according to the Tor air defense missile system with a vertical arrangement of "universal missiles" ...

The point is that in "close combat" you need "armor like a tank" and taken out of the hull of the BC. And for "ranged combat" - no armor is needed, devices for detection and guidance to the "target" are needed.

The tower, like that of TOS-1 Buratino, cannot be protected by armor in any way, or this tub will tumble into a ditch with any maneuver. Will everything be open in front?

One of the advantages of this concept of MRI is the highest reaction speed. PU can be turned very quickly - up to 180 degrees per second. Try to twist the TOS-1 tower like this.

A vertical start, yes, you need something like NIOS-LS.

[cat Rusich]

1) Option "Buratino" - all the missiles are ready to fire, just select and press the "start" button, missiles are fired several kilometers before the target, detection devices are needed - to detect the target before the enemy you are - then you will have time to turn the launcher. 2) I already in the previous article suggested a variant of the "rocket tank" in the form of "Chrysanthemum-S" - adjust the dimensions of the rocket to the dimensions of the caliber 152mm, length 2000mm. 3) You can use "Kornet-T" - using "simple" ATGM "Kornet" with different warheads. 4) TOS-1 "Buratino" was put into service - they somehow adopted ... without armor on the launcher, everything is open in front, with the centering somehow resigned ... Cornet-T with bulletproof armor is designed to defeat "targets" for greater distance than MBT.

Here is "Kornet-T", in addition, you can put a turret with AGS and Kord for self-defense in the vicinity.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: cat Rusich

1) Option "Buratino" - all missiles are ready to fire, just select and press the "start" button, missiles are fired several kilometers before the target,

And if the target appeared 200 meters away?

Quote: cat Rusich

detection devices are needed - to detect the target earlier than the enemy you - then you will have time to turn the launcher.

Of course we need, there were three articles about this, about advanced detection systems, intelligent information processing:
- Increasing situational awareness of the crews of armored combat vehicles https://topwar.ru/159061-povyshenie-situacionnoj-osvedomlennosti-jekipazhej-boevyh-bronirovannyh-mashin.html
- Ergonomics of workplaces and combat algorithms of promising armored vehicles https://topwar.ru/159275-jergonomika-rabochih-mest-i-boevye-algoritmy-perspektivnyh-bronemashin.html
- Unmanned systems for advanced armored vehicles https://topwar.ru/159509-bespilotnye-sistemy-dlja-perspektivnoj-bronetehniki.html

But what if the enemy cannot be detected, since he is inside the building, and jumped out suddenly. MFRT can put a thermobaric or HE ammunition into it in 1-3 seconds, but a tank can? Or work with shrapnel. Plus, the tank has small elevation angles of the gun barrel. PU "pull up" is much easier.

Quote: cat Rusich

2) I already in the previous article suggested a variant of the "rocket tank" in the form of "Chrysanthemum-S" - adjust the dimensions of the rocket to the dimensions of the caliber 152mm, length 2000mm. 3) You can use "Kornet-T" - using "simple" ATGM "Kornet" with different warheads.

Is there any point in taking the Kornet-T or Chrysanthemum as a basis, when there is such an interesting chassis as the T-15, which will fit ATGMs of all types and many missiles?

Quote: cat Rusich

4) TOS-1 "Buratino" was put into service - it was adopted somehow ... without armor on the launcher, everything is open in front, with the centering somehow put up ...

Pinocchio then accepted, but he enters the position occupied by "his" and strikes at one point. MRI should be spinning like a pan. PMSM one of the most important advantages of a missile launcher over a tank is that it can be deployed in 1-2 seconds, while a tank turret has a turning speed of 45 degrees per second, i.e. aiming will be 2-4 times slower. Imagine what that means in close combat.

Quote: cat Rusich

Kornet-T with bulletproof armor is designed to defeat "targets" at a greater distance than MBT.

Here is "Kornet-T", in addition, you can put a turret with AGS and Kord for self-defense in the vicinity.

Chrysanthemum and Cornet cannot work in close combat, weak armor, not even a direct hit, a HE shell will explode nearby and that's it. By the way, a PF shell can fire a tank for seven kilometers.

[cat Rusich]

1) "... If the target appeared 200m away ..." - What is the "target"? - RPG? - BMP Bradley M2? - Abrams M1A2? - As an option BMPT "Terminator-2" - for infantry with RPG only AGS, for MBT - ATGM, against BMP - 30mm automatic cannon, all weapons are placed on an "unmanned turret", which can be rotated at a "breakneck speed" (with modernization of power drives). 2) "... If the enemy is in the building ..." - and will shoot out of the window, without leaving (as an example of the Javelin ATGM) - just notice it earlier, again - BMPT "Terminator-2" - ATGM ahead of time or accurate hit through the window from the AGS or 30mm automatic cannon. 3) We saw T-15 at the Victory Parade, Chrysanthemum-S is already 28 units in service with Russia, 37 units for Azerbaijan, 14 units for Libya (somewhere there ...), I don’t know how many Kornet-T there are in the Russian troops, but at the base BMP-3, they can be made (or altered) much more today, there would be a desire ... 4) My opinion: "The very concept of a" rocket tank "involves" work from afar "more than 3 km (in my opinion) - If MRT turns "like in a frying pan or under a pitchfork" - it means that the operation is tactically failed ... (and the "strategy" can send MfRT to the "slaughter"). 5) ACS М109 Paladin 155mm USA range up to 30 km, about other ACS and their range we can speak separately ... Paladins are part of the tank brigades of the USA - where there are Abrams, there are Paladins.You can increase the armor of Chrysanthemum-C and Cornet-T - sacrificing buoyancy and a new suspension is desirable.

For "close combat", you can hang 2 more ATGMs on the BMPT Terminator-4, bringing the number of ATGMs to 8, the tower at the Terminator will withstand.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: cat Rusich

1) "... If the target appeared 200m away ..." - What is the "target"? - RPG? - BMP Bradley M2? - Abrams M1A2? -

Any of them.

Quote: cat Rusich

As a variant BMPT "Terminator-2" - for infantry with RPG only AGS, for MBT - ATGM, against BMP - 30mm automatic cannon, all weapons are placed on an "unmanned turret", which can be rotated at a "breakneck speed" power drives). 2) "... If the enemy is in the building ..." - and will shoot out of the window, without leaving (as an example of the Javelin ATGM) - just notice it earlier, again - BMPT "Terminator-2" - ATGM ahead of time or accurate hit through the window from the AGS or 30mm automatic cannon. 3) We saw T-15 at the Victory Parade, Chrysanthemum-S is already 28 units in service with Russia, 37 units for Azerbaijan, 14 units for Libya (somewhere there ...), I don’t know how many Kornet-T there are in the Russian troops, but at the base BMP-3, they can be made (or altered) much more today, there would be a desire ... 4) My opinion: "The very concept of a" rocket tank "involves" work from afar "more than 3 km (in my opinion) - If MRT spinning "like in a frying pan or under a pitchfork" - it means the operation is tactically failed ... (and the "strategy" can send MfRT to the "slaughter") we can speak separately ... Paladins are part of the tank brigades of the USA - where there are Abrams, there are Paladins.You can increase the armor of Chrysanthemum-C and Cornet-T - sacrificing buoyancy and a new suspension is desirable.

For "close combat", you can hang 2 more ATGMs on the BMPT Terminator-4, bringing the number of ATGMs to 8, the tower at the Terminator will withstand.

“Terminator”, as a BMPT, I don't like at all, I wrote about it, according to the review there are no advantages over a tank, in fact, in its current form, it is not needed at all - it can easily be replaced by the same T-15 with DUMV with a 57 mm cannon. In terms of firepower, any modernized "Terminator" will be inferior to the MfRT, as well as in terms of versatility, it was not for nothing that I brought three types of ammunition for three types of military conflicts, but in fact there may be incomparably more of them.

I will return to the BMPT topic in the next article.

[Sancho_SP]

In this thread of dialogue, you somehow left the main thing: interaction on the battlefield.


Here's an example:

A platoon of rocket tanks based on armata: three vehicles, 150-160 tons, fuel consumption for a total of 4500 horsepower.

OR

An armored group of two platoons (2 vehicles each) for an BMP-3, a platoon (2 vehicles) of a sptrk based on the same BMP-3 and Commander BMP-3 and a fire support squad (one BMP-3): 8 vehicles, 160 tons, fuel oil 4500-5500 hp, 30 infantry.

There will be only one advantage of a rocket tank: the ability to plant a Very Large Rocket in a tank or bunker.

Is it worth it?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Sancho_SP

In this thread of dialogue, you somehow left the main thing: interaction on the battlefield.


Here's an example:

A platoon of rocket tanks based on armata: three vehicles, 150-160 tons, fuel consumption for a total of 4500 horsepower.

OR

An armored group of two platoons (2 vehicles each) for an BMP-3, a platoon (2 vehicles) of a sptrk based on the same BMP-3 and Commander BMP-3 and a fire support squad (one BMP-3): 8 vehicles, 160 tons, fuel oil 4500-5500 hp, 30 infantry.

There will be only one advantage of a rocket tank: the ability to plant a Very Large Rocket in a tank or bunker.

Is it worth it?

Not only, but also withstand several attacks from RPGs, all light vehicles are vulnerable not only to cumulative, but also to HE shells, which will not even hit directly, but will explode nearby.

And is there any point in measuring victory in fuels and lubricants?

If from three missile tanks three survive, destroying the enemy, and from the armored group based on the weakly protected BMP-3 there will be a bunch of corpses, then what's the point?

In addition, MfRT should also not act alone, they rely on BMPTs, about which in the following material, and TBMP T-15 with infantry. These are generally different concepts of units - heavy and light airmobile.

[Sancho_SP]

And in what case will it be? When the logistical possibilities of the attackers are endless and the defenders are bearded partisans in the village? Well, here, in general, guided missiles are not needed. Village grads will be multiplied by zero much faster and cheaper.

But what if the enemy has this century's ATGM? It is much easier to concentrate fire on three targets than on 40. And the extra 30 pairs of eyes from the grenade launcher will definitely help no worse than half a meter of armor.

Or do you propose to arm the division entirely with armatures alone? Where will there be tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and artillery on the same base?

[cat Rusich]

Quote: AVM

“Terminator”, as a BMPT, I don't like at all, I wrote about it, according to the review there are no advantages over a tank, in fact, in its current form, it is not needed at all - it can be easily replaced by the same T-15 with DUMV with a 57 mm cannon.

Will not replace - T-15 today only at the Victory Parade ... BMPT "Terminator-2" - to put modern sights and competently use in battle. I repeat: "Rocket tank" assumes "work" at a distance of at least 3 km, if "targets" appear 200 m before the MRF - the operation is tactically located "in the fifth point of the commander ". In fact - making an MRT with a vertical launch of missiles - it turns out a TRK - Tactical Missile Complex ... with a short range - up to 15-20 km. He needs to act from closed positions on external target designation and he needs armor from fragments of OFS 155mm (our enemy of NATO) Just remember the "progenitor of the MFRT" ...

IT-1 Dragon

[Aqr009]

For "close combat", you can hang 2 more ATGMs on the BMPT Terminator-4, bringing the number of ATGMs to 8, the tower at the Terminator will withstand.

The Chinese are now actively working on this topic. Their QN-506 vehicle carries twenty 70mm QN-201 missiles and four QN-502 anti-tank guided missiles with a combined control mode in two modules.

[Img]

[Papa Smurf]

The respected author claims that the scheme proposed by him will have a high reaction rate to a suddenly appeared target due to the high speed of the launcher's turn. I doubt it, and here's why.
There are 2 missiles on the guides of the launcher - for example, an ATGM and a missile defense system. And then suddenly a grenade launcher appears at 200 m. Or vice versa - anti-personnel and anti-bunker missiles on the guides, and the enemy MBT rolled out from around the corner.
And before deploying a weapon "at a speed of 180 degrees / s" on it, it will be necessary to unload unsuitable missiles into the storage compartment, load the necessary ammunition, push the launcher again and aim at the target.
In this scenario, the rate of turn is almost irrelevant at all. Here, in terms of reaction speed, it is precisely the installation of a vertical launch of the ship-like type that will have an unconditional advantage, from which you can almost instantly shoot out any of the loaded ammunition.

[Split]

is the author aware that stepper motors are used in industrial robots? Of course, the course of ptura can be adjusted, they are intended for this - but why does a goat need a button accordion and 5 foot?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Split

is the author aware that stepper motors are used in industrial robots?

Please reveal the message about stepper motors in more detail?

[Split]

Do you also jog to work?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Split

Do you also jog to work?

Perhaps the hint is too subtle for me, can you explain why, from your point of view, stepper motors are not suitable for aiming PU MfRT?

[Split]

It should be phased, the smaller the step, the more separate windings + electronics, unlike a switch on a conventional ... etc. What do you think, for example, t54-> 55? The simpler, the more reliable. And it is banal that the pace, in view of the possibility of targeting the rocket itself, is like a goat accordion, tk. such engines are corny more expensive and unrepairable in the field

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Split

It should be phased, the smaller the step, the more separate windings + electronics, unlike a switch on a conventional ... etc. What do you think, for example, t54-> 55? The simpler, the more reliable. And it is banal that the pace, in view of the possibility of targeting the rocket itself, is like a goat accordion, tk. such engines are corny more expensive and unrepairable in the field

And what is not the T-34? You can also turn the tower with your hands or pedals.

But seriously, can you imagine the field repair of an electric motor, pierced through by a cumulative jet? I think the type of drive will be completely unimportant, here you need the ability to easily replace the entire unit. Now the technique has become so complicated that there is no turning back, this weapon could be made in any forest from sticks, stones and animal veins 3000 years ago ...

I cited industrial robots as an example of achieving a high turn rate with high accuracy (repeatability) of movements. For an ATGM, high accuracy of primary guidance may not be so important, but it is extremely important for unguided ammunition, without which the MfRT will not be able to work normally at short range (up to 500-1000 meters). And a high reversal rate is extremely critical for an instant response to a sudden threat.

[Avior]

Industrial manipulators require high positioning accuracy, since they usually do not have feedback on the position of the working body.
For the mechanism for feeding and aiming aiming missiles, such accuracy is not needed - there is feedback through the sighting device.
That is, the position of the rocket will be determined by the sight, and not by the sensors of the manipulator.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

Industrial manipulators require high positioning accuracy, since they usually do not have feedback on the position of the working body.
For the mechanism for feeding and aiming aiming missiles, such accuracy is not needed - there is feedback through the sighting device.
That is, the position of the rocket will be determined by the sight, and not by the sensors of the manipulator.

In modern industrial robots, servo drives with feedback are installed, + additionally, when solving some tasks that require high accuracy, the position of the tool can be controlled by special equipment.

In MRI, there is no problem to do the same.

[Avior]

There is software control when the positioning accuracy is determined by the movement accuracy.
And there is control by deviation - in this case, the real position is compared with the given position value, and the control system tends to reduce this difference to zero.
With regard to this case, the aiming point in the sight is a given position, and the system will control the position of the rocket at this point, therefore, high accuracy of movements is not needed, all the same, everything will come down to the aiming point.
And by the way about the actuators.
In addition to the devices shown in the picture with the conversion of the rotational motion of the motor into a translational working body, there are linear motors that, in principle, do not rotate, their shaft immediately moves without rotation - linear motors.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

...
And by the way about the actuators.
In addition to the devices shown in the picture with the conversion of the rotational motion of the motor into a translational working body, there are linear motors that, in principle, do not rotate, their shaft immediately moves without rotation - linear motors.

Yes, but to be honest, I did not particularly go into this question, if real design had begun, then everything would still be selected anew. I needed to find a linear actuator with a travel speed of 1 m / s or more, with sufficient weight.

[Avior]

In manipulators, not only stepper motors are used, but also various types of synchronous motors, positioning in which is provided by feedback with an incremental encoder.
No problem. Moreover, high precision is not needed for guided missile technology.
PS And how do you think stabilization of the position of the gun barrel in the tank is ensured?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

In manipulators, not only stepper motors are used, but also various types of synchronous motors, positioning in which is provided by feedback with an incremental encoder.
No problem. Moreover, high precision is not needed for guided missile technology.
PS And how do you think stabilization of the position of the gun barrel in the tank is ensured?

Exactly!

[Momotomba]

Precisely not a synchronous motor ... And the stabilization of the tool should be carried out by rotating the horoscope, transmitting the deflection angle using something like a selsyn, connected according to a transformer circuit, and a power 3-phase asynchronous motor.

[Momotomba]

Quote: Avior

The manipulators use not only stepper motors, but also different types of synchronous motors.

Concerning synchronous motors (SD), I doubt the word VERY. Are you aware that power synchronous motors do not have direct starting capability? And that the SD needs time to get into synchronicity? And that it is impossible to adjust the speed? More precisely, it is possible, but difficult.
To turn something heavy, I would take a hybrid drive, and if I want to turn it with electricity, then an asynchronous motor or a collector machine. Well certainly not SD

[garri-lin]

The entire series of articles is well thought out. But !!!!! Not a tank. Battlefield Guided Missile Weapon Machine. In fact, a Chrysanthemum, but at the same time it is highly advanced and at the same time has primitive missiles for tertiary targets. A couple of cars for a tank company. Israel has been exploiting something conceptually similar for decades. The secrecy has recently been removed. You can evaluate their experience and study in depth.

[APASUS]

It starts to scare me, the number of ideas for the T-14 platform. There are many ideas, but the Moscow Region does not itch to buy this technique yet.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: APASUS

It starts to scare me, the number of ideas for the T-14 platform. There are many ideas, but the Moscow Region does not itch to buy this technique yet.

Bring to mind. In principle, this is the correct position, it is much better than buying "raw" equipment, as was the case with the T-64.

Actually, there is nowhere to rush, while the T-90MS is more than at the level, and for many tasks the T-72B3 will be enough. And when they are finished, the T-72B3 can be sold and the Armata can be purchased.

[APASUS]

Quote: AVM

Bring to mind. In principle, this is the correct position, it is much better than buying "raw" equipment, as was the case with the T-64.

Looking at the Americans and the history of the F-35, you can't tell!

Quote: AVM

Actually, there is nowhere to rush, while the T-90MS is more than at the level, and for many tasks the T-72B3 will be enough. And when they are finished, the T-72B3 can be sold and the Armata can be purchased.

Everything repeats itself as in the Second World War, we almost ran out of time and now it is the same. Yes, and Armata is not possible to buy 200 pieces at once, it takes time, but it is usually not enough ...............

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: APASUS

Quote: AVM

Bring to mind. In principle, this is the correct position, it is much better than buying "raw" equipment, as was the case with the T-64.

Looking at the Americans and the history of the F-35, you can't tell!

For Americans, the F-35 is vital as the most massive fighter and commercial project - not to lose customers.

Quote: APASUS

Quote: AVM

Actually, there is nowhere to rush, while the T-90MS is more than at the level, and for many tasks the T-72B3 will be enough. And when they are finished, the T-72B3 can be sold and the Armata can be purchased.

Everything repeats itself as in the Second World War, we almost ran out of time and now it is the same. Yes, and Armata is not possible to buy 200 pieces at once, it takes time, but it is usually not enough ...............

If we draw an analogy with aviation, then I would rather focus on the procurement of modern air defense missile systems with ARLGSN, modernize all 4 ++ radar fighters with AFAR, purchase modern AWACS aircraft and tankers.

For us, it would be more important than buying 50 "raw" Su-57s. It is the same with tanks - it is better to supply thermal imagers, KAZs and purchase new BOPSs for 1000-2000 T-72s than to put into service 100-200 "raw" Armats.

[Catfish]

A complete and detailed article written in good language. To the Author with gratitude.
Only now there are doubts about the soon implementation ...

[Free wind]

The Armata can't finish the engine in any way, they can't get 1500 horses.

[businessv]

In the next article, we will consider the concept of BMPT, capable of significantly increasing the security of tanks.

Thanks for the article, Andrey! A lot of work has been done, we look forward to continuing!

[Alber alber]

I wonder how quickly the manipulator will be disabled on the battlefield, and, accordingly, the main functionality of this brainchild

[garri-lin]

If done correctly it will be very tenacious. Armored casing from 14,5mm bb for two TPK. And the lifting "leg" without mechanisms outside the armor.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Alber Alber

I wonder how quickly the manipulator will be disabled on the battlefield, and, accordingly, the main functionality of this brainchild

After the guidance devices, KAZ and much more are disabled. PU is a fairly simple thing - it can be done with one "knee", ie. the lifting drive and the turning drive will be below and protected, only the drive at the top remains, at the TPK, designed for guiding missiles in elevation. Theoretically, if the dimensions and weight allow, two top drives can be installed, if they shoot one, the second will work, only the speed will decrease.

PU - steel I-beam, quadruple cable redundancy (square 2 inside the brand, 2 outside), then a wrap of several layers of Kevlar and outside a protective steel pipe. It can be assumed that such a structure will withstand even 12,7 mm, and even if there is a breakdown, at least one of the four cables will survive. From fragments and smaller caliber, the protection will work accurately.

[Alber alber]

It is clear that the rail can withstand multi-ton statics for decades and more, but here is a tank with melee missiles and a manipulator that sticks out of the hull for a meter and a half, open drives in melee vehicles are always closed, but here? Plus, it turns out that in order to feed the rocket, it will be necessary to open the compartment itself, and therefore the ammunition is under threat. Let's remember Abrasha, everyone knows his vulnerability in the frontal projection between the hull and the turret, sobsno a successful RPG shot and a lot of real pictures in social networks. The same is true here, the crane flew and the khan, the rocket feed rate will clearly be inferior to the automatic loader mbt. I’m talking about quick-fire guns on BMP, armored personnel carriers and other combat carts, I’m silent, due to the maneuverability, they will simply shoot him, because a rocket in close combat, one approach to the target at an angle of 90 will take several minutes, and then he led the turret through the joystick and ...
In my opinion, it would be better to have a scheme of paired or more guides a la terminator and the corresponding automatic feeder in the compartment.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Alber Alber

It is clear that it has a rail for decades and can withstand multi-ton statics more, but here is a tank with melee missiles and a manipulator that sticks out of the hull for a meter and a half,

For the most part, the PU "lies" pressed against the body and is additionally covered by an armored side. Firing cycle - raise / shoot / lower in just 2 seconds.

Quote: Alber Alber

open drives in melee vehicles are always closed, but here?

Only the PU tilt drive in elevation, the rest are covered with armor.

Quote: Alber Alber

Plus, it turns out that in order to feed the rocket, it will be necessary to open the compartment itself, which means that the ammunition load is under threat.

The speed of opening / closing the armored lid is less than a second, this should be a very strong match.

Quote: Alber Alber

Let's remember abrasha, everyone knows his vulnerability in the frontal projection between the hull and the turret, sobsno a successful RPG shot and a lot of real pictures in social networks. The same thing here, the crane flew and the khan,

In the same way, the tank can be damaged. It remains to be seen which is simpler.

Quote: Alber Alber

the rocket feed rate will clearly be inferior to the automatic loader mbt.

The missile feed rate to the launcher will be higher or comparable. Much has been written about this in the article, drives with a movement speed of the order of 1-2 m / s are considered.

Quote: Alber Alber

I’m talking about quick-fire guns on BMPs, armored personnel carriers and other combat carts, I’m silent, due to the maneuverability, they will simply shoot him, because the rocket in close combat will make one approach to the target at an angle of 90 for several minutes, and then he led the turret through the joystick and ...

Turning the launcher with the rocket 180 degrees - 1 second, why turn the rocket itself?

Quote: Alber Alber

In my opinion, it would be better to have a scheme of paired or more guides a la terminator and the corresponding automatic feeder in the compartment.

They will be even less protected, since they are always open, and the tower will be massive, the advantage in turning speed will be lost.

[Alber alber]

On your diagram, I did not see rotary pu, while I saw how long such reloading takes on a chrysanthemum, until I was convinced

[Al Asad]

They begin to wisdom.

[Pavel57]

The military won't accept the concept.

[Klingon]

Quote: Observer2014

Well, would you position your idea as a missile tank based on the T-15? And what does not suit you with the T-90? It is a tank and will hit a lung with a shell. In addition to missiles And machine guns, it will cover itself.

this is "Chrysanthemum" tucked into the body of the T-15 (for some reason). The author took a strange path, instead of improving ammunition (TV Link, IR, radar), he apparently decided to beat unguided rockets from close range to the forehead

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Klingon

Quote: Observer2014

Well, would you position your idea as a missile tank based on the T-15? And what does not suit you with the T-90? It is a tank and will hit a lung with a shell. In addition to missiles And machine guns, it will cover itself.

this is "Chrysanthemum" tucked into the body of the T-15 (for some reason). The author took a strange path, instead of improving ammunition (TV Link, IR, radar), he apparently decided to beat unguided rockets from close range to the forehead

The article Thirty-six unified ammunition for a missile tank https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html discusses all types of ammunition for MFRT, ranging from unguided, and ending with electromagnetic and special warheads.

Unguided ammunition is needed for "cheap targets", difficult for "expensive" and long range.

[Klingon]

I consider the T-15 base to be redundant for this, such a machine should be light and fast and shoot UR from hidden positions, launched a rocket and immediately change position. The operator guides the missile on TV Link after launching into the area of ​​the intended targets. And while you deploy 45t on you, a response will arrive, some kind of counter-battery Excalibur straight into the roof with a manipulator

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Klingon

I consider the T-15 base to be redundant for this, such a machine should be light and fast and shoot UR from hidden positions, launched a rocket and immediately change position. The operator guides the missile on TV Link after launching into the area of ​​the intended targets. And while you deploy 45t on you, a response will arrive, some kind of counter-battery Excalibur straight into the roof with a manipulator

This is the question of the concept of ground forces in general. Take light, airborne or heavy equipment as a basis. In my opinion, there is no question here, there must be both. Heavy in the ground forces, light in the landing.

45 tons will deploy as well as 25, if the engine power, the point is in the power density. Life in motion, this issue has also been addressed:

Protecting ground combat equipment: take cover and dodge
https://topwar.ru/172219-zaschita-nazemnoj-boevoj-tehniki-ukrytsja-i-uklonitsja.html

Hidden positions are great, but sometimes you have to climb into the heat. Not a single war has gone without a meat grinder. Apart from Iraq and Yugoslavia, of course, but it's like Tyson, and even with a support group, they kick off a ten-grader.

[Genry]

The author has very big problems .....

1. Where is the rationale for the need for this pipelazza? Usually, when a new development project starts, the first section describes what its need and usefulness is. Did it seem superfluous to the author?
2. What kind of "multifunctionality" does he mean. It is clear that the vehicle must replace the tank. And what else can she do "a lot"? Shoot like an air defense missile system or a MLRS, launch satellites into space or immediately shoot robots to Mars?
3. Why did the author decide that at a distance of direct visibility, it is necessary to shoot rockets. Isn't it clear to him that missiles are beneficial where you need to fire a couple of shots and for this you need less weight involved, since the launcher is lighter than barrel artillery. In the case of a large number of shots, it is more profitable to use barrel firing of shells, because the total weight of the gun and ammunition will be much less than that of a similar number of missile launches. The author did not notice the disappearance of the Grad system, which was supplanted by the 152mm Msta and Coalition self-propelled guns (and the Smerch MLRS in the case of a smart Armageddon). Yes, the Tornado-G has appeared - but this is already a high-precision system with a range of about 100 km and the cannons are not yet capable of this.
4. Does the author know how an industrial manipulator works, what foundation does it use and what power does it consume? If the author looked at how a container garbage truck works and how it is sausage during the operation of its primitive hydraulic manipulator, then I would immediately recall physics and mathematics.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

The author has very big problems .....

Only fools have no problems, they don’t care ...

Quote: Genry

1. Where is the rationale for the need for this pipelazza? Usually, when a new development project starts, the first section describes what its need and usefulness is. Did it seem superfluous to the author?

Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?
https://topwar.ru/174116-vooruzhenie-perspektivnyh-tankov-pushka-ili-rakety.html

Quote: Genry

2. What kind of "multifunctionality" does he mean. It is clear that the vehicle must replace the tank. And what else can she do "a lot"? Shoot like an air defense missile system or a MLRS, launch satellites into space or immediately shoot robots to Mars?

The flexibility of ammunition for different types of battlefield - in the mountains, in the field, in the city. For different opponents, with different levels of weapons - Syria, USA, Georgia, Poland. And yes, partly to work as an air defense system, if necessary, to work effectively against infantry, manpower, at short and long distances.

Quote: Genry

3. Why did the author decide that at a distance of direct visibility, it is necessary to shoot rockets. Isn't it clear to him that missiles are beneficial where you need to fire a couple of shots and for this you need less weight involved, since the launcher is lighter than barrel artillery. In the case of a large number of shots, it is more profitable to use barrel firing of shells, because the total weight of the gun and ammunition will be much less than that of a similar number of missile launches.

In general, this issue was also considered here.
Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?
https://topwar.ru/174116-vooruzhenie-perspektivnyh-tankov-pushka-ili-rakety.html

Let's take comparable ammunition:
The mass of the NAR S-13 is 70 kg.
The mass of the HE shot 3VOF36 is 33 kg.
It would seem that you are right?

But

For MFRT, the maximum ammunition under consideration will be 80 half-length ammunition, i.e. By weight 70 kg x 80 kg = 5600 kg, for 40 ammunition 2800 kg.

For 40 shells 3VOF36 - 33 x 40 = 1320 kg.

The estimated mass of the launcher is 3500 kg, the mass of the turret with a gun is about 10 kg.

Total for missiles with launchers:
40 ammunition - 6 300 kg.
80 ammunition - 9 100 kg.

For turret and shells:
40 ammunition 11 320 kg
80 rounds? And 80 won't fit into a tank ...

Those. for the same ammunition, the mass of the launcher + missile is almost 2 times less than the turret + shells.

And in the article, the estimated mass of the BC is indicated:

“Depending on the final selected dimensions of the TPK, the actual dimensions of the weapons compartment, as well as the type of ammunition storage and supply system used (drum or in-line), the ammunition load can include from 24 to 40 standard-sized ammunition. With the mass of one ammunition 100-150 kg, the mass of the entire ammunition load will be 2,4-6 tons. "

and PU:

"The mass of the launcher can be estimated based on the mass of an industrial robot with a similar load capacity. In particular, for the KUKA KR-240-R3330-F model, with a nominal load capacity of 240 kg, its own weight is 2400 kg. On the one hand, on the launcher, we need high travel speeds, armoring of important nodes will be added, on the other hand, we do not need six axles and a 3,3-meter load take-out, the kinematics will be much simpler. Thus, we can assume that the launcher's mass will not exceed 3-3,5 tons.

Quote: Genry

The author did not notice the disappearance of the "Grad" system, which was replaced by the 152mm self-propelled guns "Msta" and "Coalition" (and the MLRS "Smerch" in the case of a smart armageddon). Yes, "Tornado-G" has appeared - but this is already a high-precision system with a range of about 100 km and the guns are not yet capable of this.

Tornado-G is driving out the Grad just as the Coalition-SV will gradually oust Mstu and Acacia. It's just a new generation of every type of weapon. And at all on Msta and the Coalition ousted the Grad.

Quote: Genry

4. Does the author know how an industrial manipulator works, what foundation does it use and what power does it consume?

He knows very well. And I am sure that the steel foundation in the form of a T-15 chassis weighing 45 tons will not be sausage.

Quote: Genry

If the author looked at how a container garbage truck works and how it is sausage during the operation of its primitive hydraulic manipulator, then I would immediately recall physics and mathematics.

Are you seriously putting an industrial robot and a garbage truck on a par?

[Genry]

Quote: AVM

Only fools have no problems, they don’t care ...

So you deny having your own in your article?

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

1. Where is the rationale for the need for this pipelazza? Usually, when a new development project starts, the first section describes what its need and usefulness is. Did it seem superfluous to the author?

Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?
https://topwar.ru/174116-vooruzhenie-perspektivnyh-tankov-pushka-ili-rakety.html

The technical justification is done briefly, specifically and in the right place. And suffering on the topic "gun or egg", according to the link, can only be light reading.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

2. What kind of "multifunctionality" does he mean. It is clear that the vehicle must replace the tank. And what else can she do "a lot"? Shoot like an air defense missile system or a MLRS, launch satellites into space or immediately shoot robots to Mars?

The flexibility of ammunition for different types of battlefield - in the mountains, in the field, in the city. For different opponents, with different levels of weapons - Syria, USA, Georgia, Poland. And yes, partly to work as an air defense system, if necessary, to work effectively against infantry, manpower, at short and long distances.

Mountains (weight 30-40t, hydraulic suspension), steppe (50-60t, extended hull), wetland (floating), city (reinforced booking)? Do you believe it can be combined? You yourself are trying to differentiate according to the distribution of armor.
And where the word "multifunctionality" is drawn here, what will happen besides the tank set? So a person can be called multi-functional: he walks, lies, eats, poops, ... For me, a lot of functionality is: builds, grows, extracts, writes, ...
And in the city, the missiles are completely unsuitable: they have a minimum launch range (Chrysanthemum has 400m), which increases in proportion to the weight of the warhead.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

3. Why did the author decide that at a distance of direct visibility, it is necessary to shoot rockets. Isn't it clear to him that missiles are beneficial where you need to fire a couple of shots and for this you need less weight involved, since the launcher is lighter than barrel artillery. In the case of a large number of shots, it is more profitable to use barrel firing of shells, because the total weight of the gun and ammunition will be much less than that of a similar number of missile launches.

In general, this issue was also considered here.
Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?
https://topwar.ru/174116-vooruzhenie-perspektivnyh-tankov-pushka-ili-rakety.html

Let's take comparable ammunition:
The mass of the NAR S-13 is 70 kg.
The mass of the HE shot 3VOF36 is 33 kg.
It would seem that you are right?

But

For MFRT, the maximum ammunition under consideration will be 80 half-length ammunition, i.e. By weight 70 kg x 80 kg = 5600 kg, for 40 ammunition 2800 kg.

For 40 shells 3VOF36 - 33 x 40 = 1320 kg.

The estimated mass of the launcher is 3500 kg, the mass of the turret with a gun is about 10 kg.

Total for missiles with launchers:
40 ammunition - 6 300 kg.
80 ammunition - 9 100 kg.

For turret and shells:
40 ammunition 11 320 kg
80 rounds? And 80 won't fit into a tank ...

Those. for the same ammunition, the mass of the launcher + missile is almost 2 times less than the turret + shells.

And in the article, the estimated mass of the BC is indicated:

“Depending on the final selected dimensions of the TPK, the actual dimensions of the weapons compartment, as well as the type of ammunition storage and supply system used (drum or in-line), the ammunition load can include from 24 to 40 standard-sized ammunition. With the mass of one ammunition 100-150 kg, the mass of the entire ammunition load will be 2,4-6 tons. "

and PU:

"The mass of the launcher can be estimated based on the mass of an industrial robot with a similar load capacity. In particular, for the KUKA KR-240-R3330-F model, with a nominal load capacity of 240 kg, its own weight is 2400 kg. On the one hand, on the launcher, we need high travel speeds, armoring of important nodes will be added, on the other hand, we do not need six axles and a 3,3-meter load take-out, the kinematics will be much simpler. Thus, we can assume that the launcher's mass will not exceed 3-3,5 tons.

Quoting yourself to add weight to your own statement is just a duplication of your fallacy.
The tower at Armata, in fact, is missing. There is a compact supporting structure (let's call it "turret").

The weight of the gun is 2,5 tons, the weight of the turret construct is also in this area. This is confirmed by the comparative weight of the T-14 and T-15:
https://rg.ru/2019/06/28/ves-tanka-i-bmp-na-platforme-armata-rassekretili-na-armii-2019.html
Under the manipulator, you will also have to use approximately the same turret under the attachments. It turns out the weight parity of the gun and the manipulator.

As for the weight of the missiles .. You took the C-13 as an example (air-to-ground, a small warhead to engine weight ratio of 2,5, the initial velocity is given by the aircraft, plus the altitude adds energy for flight.). There is "Chrysanthemum" which is earth-to-earth. (Hail not to offer - this is an unguided mine). We scale it to a warhead weight of 20kg and get: weight 130kg, length 3m, diameter 180mm, more wings about a meter.

Total: we get a set of missiles with an excess of weight and volume by 2-3 times in comparison with shells.

You also incorrectly used different volumes of the "cellar" in your calculations - but it is the same.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

The author did not notice the disappearance of the "Grad" system, which was replaced by the 152mm self-propelled guns "Msta" and "Coalition" (and the MLRS "Smerch" in the case of a smart armageddon). Yes, "Tornado-G" has appeared - but this is already a high-precision system with a range of about 100 km and the guns are not yet capable of this.

Tornado-G is driving out the Grad just as the Coalition-SV will gradually oust Mstu and Acacia. It's just a new generation of every type of weapon. And at all on Msta and the Coalition ousted the Grad.

And here you are past the situation. The new generation is all highly accurate.
The military does not need a vehicle with the characteristics of the Grad - it is replaced by 152mm self-propelled guns, firing a salvo of up to 10 shells per 30 km, arriving at the target at once. For continuous coverage of areas, it is easier and more effective to use Tornadoes, which have a guided missile and a cluster head with a uniform division of the warhead over the area. Therefore, Tornado-G finally became a system for launching guided missiles up to 100 km, at firing points, to reduce the sorties of ground attack aircraft. It would be nice to unify it with the anti-tank Hephaestus.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

4. Does the author know how an industrial manipulator works, what foundation does it use and what power does it consume?

He knows very well. And I am sure that the steel foundation in the form of a T-15 chassis weighing 45 tons will not be sausage.

And how will it be, because the chassis is on shock absorbers !!!

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

If the author looked at how a container garbage truck works and how it is sausage during the operation of its primitive hydraulic manipulator, then I would immediately recall physics and mathematics.

Are you seriously putting an industrial robot and a garbage truck on a par?

The garbage truck manipulator is much lighter and slower! And your case is much more difficult and impulsive.
Do you need any conclusions?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Only fools have no problems, they don’t care ...

So you deny having your own in your article?

Because I do not agree with your arguments.

Quote: Genry

The technical justification is done briefly, specifically and in the right place. And suffering on the topic "gun or egg", according to the link, can only be light reading.

The phrase "The technical justification is short, specific and in the right place." to herself about nothing. If there is some kind of document format, then there must be GOST or STP for it, and if they are not there, then everyone is free to make a document at their discretion - everyone has their own understanding of brevity and necessity. And do not forget that this is an article, not a report, and it is not a fact that if you present it the way you like, others will like it to read it.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

2. What kind of "multifunctionality" does he mean. It is clear that the vehicle must replace the tank. And what else can she do "a lot"? Shoot like an air defense missile system or a MLRS, launch satellites into space or immediately shoot robots to Mars?

The flexibility of ammunition for different types of battlefield - in the mountains, in the field, in the city. For different opponents, with different levels of weapons - Syria, USA, Georgia, Poland. And yes, partly to work as an air defense system, if necessary, to work effectively against infantry, manpower, at short and long distances.

Mountains (weight 30-40t, hydraulic suspension), steppe (50-60t, extended hull), wetland (floating), city (reinforced booking)? Do you believe it can be combined? You yourself are trying to differentiate according to the distribution of armor.

First, there are different mountains - not all Everest. Secondly, we are talking about the versatility of weapons. It is clear that the permeability of the MRF will be the same as the T-15 or T-14. The question is that the cannon tank will not be able to work on the upper floors - the cannon will not be pulled up like that. In the mountains there are also restrictions on the guidance angle, incl. and down, i.e. if you shoot down the slope. MFRT can shoot down UAVs, helicopters, all types of armored vehicles at a distance of up to 8 - 000 meters, and much more that a tank with a cannon cannot.

Quote: Genry

And where the word "multifunctionality" is drawn here, what will happen besides the tank set? So a person can be called multi-functional: he walks, lies, eats, poops, ... For me, a lot of functionality is: builds, grows, extracts, writes, ...

What does a tank set mean? If about ammunition, then it is enough to compare the range of ammunition for a cannon tank and MFRT, and it is immediately clear that it is more multifunctional.

Do you know why fighters have become multifunctional? Because earlier there were airplanes, conventionally, "air-to-air" and "air-to-ground", and then their functions were combined. It's the same with MfRT, in fact, it can perform the functions of the Sosna air defense system.

And by the way, man has no equal in multifunctionality.

Quote: Genry

And in the city, the missiles are completely unsuitable: they have a minimum launch range (Chrysanthemum has 400m), which increases in proportion to the weight of the warhead.

With some joy, the minimum range increases in proportion to the mass of the warhead? For a cumulative or HE warhead, the carrier speed is not at all important.

And the article indicates unguided ammunition for MRF, both for cost reduction and for firing at short range.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

3. Why did the author decide that at a distance of direct visibility, it is necessary to shoot rockets. Isn't it clear to him that missiles are beneficial where you need to fire a couple of shots and for this you need less weight involved, since the launcher is lighter than barrel artillery. In the case of a large number of shots, it is more profitable to use barrel firing of shells, because the total weight of the gun and ammunition will be much less than that of a similar number of missile launches.

In general, this issue was also considered here.
...
The estimated mass of the launcher is 3500 kg, the mass of the turret with a gun is about 10 kg.

Total for missiles with launchers: 40 ammunition - 6 kg. 300 ammunition - 80 9 kg.

For turret and shells: 40 ammunition 11 320 kg 80 shells? And 80 won't fit into a tank ...

Those. for the same ammunition, the mass of the launcher + missile is almost 2 times less than the turret + shells.

And in the article, the estimated mass of the BC is indicated:

“Depending on the final selected dimensions of the TPK, the actual dimensions of the weapons compartment, as well as the type of ammunition storage and supply system used (drum or in-line), the ammunition load can include from 24 to 40 standard-sized ammunition. With the mass of one ammunition 100-150 kg, the mass of the entire ammunition load will be 2,4-6 tons. "

and PU:

"The mass of the launcher can be estimated based on the mass of an industrial robot with a similar load capacity. In particular, for the KUKA KR-240-R3330-F model, with a nominal load capacity of 240 kg, its own weight is 2400 kg. On the one hand, on the launcher, we need high travel speeds, armoring of important nodes will be added, on the other hand, we do not need six axles and a 3,3-meter load take-out, the kinematics will be much simpler. Thus, we can assume that the launcher's mass will not exceed 3-3,5 tons.

Quoting yourself to add weight to your own statement is just a duplication of your fallacy.
The tower at Armata, in fact, is missing. There is a compact supporting structure (let's call it "turret").

The weight of the gun is 2,5 tons, the weight of the turret construct is also in this area. This is confirmed by the comparative weight of the T-14 and T-15:
https://rg.ru/2019/06/28/ves-tanka-i-bmp-na-platforme-armata-rassekretili-na-armii-2019.html
Under the manipulator, you will also have to use approximately the same turret under the attachments. It turns out the weight parity of the gun and the manipulator.

That's just your "turret" revolves with all the ammunition and automatic loader. And it's not that compact. And the question of replacing 125 mm by 152 mm will definitely come up if the Germans or the French bring their gun, and they bring it, because the market. And at 152 mm, multiply the mass of the gun by 2 times, the turret and the ammunition load by 30-50 percent.

Quote: Genry

As for the weight of the missiles .. You took the C-13 as an example (air-to-ground, a small warhead to engine weight ratio of 2,5, the initial velocity is given by the aircraft, plus the altitude adds energy for flight.). There is "Chrysanthemum" which is earth-to-earth. (Hail not to offer - this is an unguided mine). We scale it to a warhead weight of 20kg and get: weight 130kg, length 3m, diameter 180mm, more wings about a meter.
Total: we get a set of missiles with an excess of weight and volume by 2-3 times in comparison with shells.

Well, no, it was the S-130, tk. roughly comparable in caliber and uncontrollable. An airplane has speed, but they are also used from a helicopter, where the speeds are noticeably lower. And I don't need a range of 5000 meters, a maximum of 1000 for unguided shells.

And if you are talking about Chrysanthemum, then compare it with Reflex. ATGM 9M123:
The starting weight of the 9M123 ATGM in the TPK: 54 kg, the mass of the warhead is 8 kg.
The mass of the shot of the Reflex-M 9K119M ATGM is 24/28 kg (according to various sources), the mass of the warhead is 4,5 kg.

And the fact that you counted 20 kg for a warhead is normal for such a warhead. Actually, in the article, such ammunition is designated as standard, but if such power is not needed, then you can double the ammunition load with ammunition of half the length and weight.

Quote: Genry

You also incorrectly used different volumes of the "cellar" in your calculations - but it is the same.

In the sense? I don’t think the T-14 and T-15 have the same weapons bay, if that’s what you mean.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

The author did not notice the disappearance of the "Grad" system, which was replaced by the 152mm self-propelled guns "Msta" and "Coalition" (and the MLRS "Smerch" in the case of a smart armageddon). Yes, "Tornado-G" has appeared - but this is already a high-precision system with a range of about 100 km and the guns are not yet capable of this.

Tornado-G is driving out the Grad just as the Coalition-SV will gradually oust Mstu and Acacia. It's just a new generation of every type of weapon. And at all on Msta and the Coalition ousted the Grad.

And here you are past the situation. The new generation is all highly accurate.
The military does not need a vehicle with the characteristics of the Grad - it is replaced by 152mm self-propelled guns, firing a salvo of up to 10 shells per 30 km, arriving at the target at once. For continuous coverage of areas, it is easier and more effective to use Tornadoes, which have a guided missile and a cluster head with a uniform division of the warhead over the area. Therefore, Tornado-G finally became a system for launching guided missiles up to 100 km, at firing points, to reduce the sorties of ground attack aircraft. It would be nice to unify it with the anti-tank Hephaestus.

What you say about "fly up at the same time", the so-called. "Firestorm", these are mostly unguided shells, and "simultaneity" is achieved here by modular charge and changing the angle of inclination of the barrel.

And about Tornado-G, then look at the ammunition:

Index Ammunition type Fuse type Warhead weight, kg Projectile weight, kg Range, km Armor penetration, mm
9M217 cassette with KOBE remote 25 70 to 30 60…70
9M218 cassette with KOBE remote 25 70 up to 30 up to 100
9M521 OFS 21 66 to 40 —
9M522 OFS remote/contact 25 70 to 37,5 —
9M538 OFS 34,5 70 to 20 —
9M539 OFS remote/contact 35 70 to 20 —
9M541 cassette with KOBE remote/contact 33,7 70 up to 20 at least 170

Are many of them managed? Most ammunition states:

“Equipped with a system of autonomous correction of the trajectory of the flight of rockets in the pitch and yaw angles, carried out according to the signals of the control system of gas-dynamic devices (corrected ammunition). The stabilization of the projectiles occurs due to their twisting along the launch guides, and the support in flight by the folding blades of the tail. When firing in a salvo, the dispersion of shells does not exceed 0,3% of the firing range. "

Glonass is only for some ammunition, as well as an inertial with increased accuracy, which, by the way, is also needed in unguided ammunition for MFRT.

And you for an hour "Hephaestus" and "Hermes" did not beguiled?

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

4. Does the author know how an industrial manipulator works, what foundation does it use and what power does it consume?

He knows very well. And I am sure that the steel foundation in the form of a T-15 chassis weighing 45 tons will not be sausage.

And how will it be, because the chassis is on shock absorbers !!!

How then do the guns stabilize?
There will be nothing. Industrial robots move along a complex trajectory, while they are placed on mobile platforms of much smaller mass (even if the robot's speed is lower there). What moments of inertia will affect the chassis? When lifting rockets up 1,5 meters? And what will the shock absorbers "sink"? Or with a circular rotation of the launcher - the carrier on the tracks in the opposite direction will begin to rotate, like a helicopter without a tail rotor?

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

If the author looked at how a container garbage truck works and how it is sausage during the operation of its primitive hydraulic manipulator, then I would immediately recall physics and mathematics.

Are you seriously putting an industrial robot and a garbage truck on a par?

The garbage truck manipulator is much lighter and slower! And your case is much more difficult and impulsive.
Do you need any conclusions?

The garbage truck manipulator is made "of shit and sticks", it is "sausage" because the design is cheap and primitive.

[Genry]

quote = AVM]

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

The phrase "The technical justification is short, specific and in the right place." to herself about nothing. If there is some kind of document format, then there must be GOST or STP for it, and if they are not there, then everyone is free to make a document at their discretion - everyone has their own understanding of brevity and necessity. And do not forget that this is an article, not a report, and it is not a fact that if you present it the way you like, others will like it to read it.

Don't you have the Internet? At all stages of development and production - there are GOSTs for all points.
But at least at the level of a training project, try ...

Quote: AVM

First, there are different mountains - not all Everest. Secondly, we are talking about the versatility of weapons. It is clear that the permeability of the MRF will be the same as the T-15 or T-14. The question is that the cannon tank will not be able to work on the upper floors - the cannon will not be pulled up like that. In the mountains there are also restrictions on the guidance angle, incl. and down, i.e. if you shoot down the slope. MFRT can shoot down UAVs, helicopters, all types of armored vehicles at a distance of up to 8 - 000 meters, and much more that a tank with a cannon cannot.

Mountains are inconvenient for a flat tank. The Armat family are steppe tanks where you need to drive quickly over bumps.
Raising the gun of 15 degrees allows you to aim at a height of 30m (11th floor) from a distance of 100m. Do you really need more?
In the mountains over the cobblestones - only on a hydraulic suspension and with it you can tilt the tank to the desired position.
The T-14 can hit both helicopters and aircraft at low altitudes: there are AFAR and explosive shells.
All types of armored vehicles at a distance of 8-10 km (and at 6-7 km too) you simply will not see: the ground is crooked. There is a huge reserve in the parameters of the gun.

Quote: AVM

What does a tank set mean? If about ammunition, then it is enough to compare the range of ammunition for a cannon tank and MFRT, and it is immediately clear that it is more multifunctional.

Do you know why fighters have become multifunctional? Because earlier there were airplanes, conventionally, "air-to-air" and "air-to-ground", and then their functions were combined. It's the same with MfRT, in fact, it can perform the functions of the Sosna air defense system.

And by the way, man has no equal in multifunctionality.

Do you have kinetic rockets? And what shells does the tank have now?

When fighters learned to work on the ground, then they became multifunctional. Has your machine learned to do something new?

Quote: AVM

With some joy, the minimum range increases in proportion to the mass of the warhead? For a cumulative or HE warhead, the carrier speed is not at all important.

And the article indicates unguided ammunition for MRF, both for cost reduction and for firing at short range.

Hint: if 200 grams of explosives falls next to you, then 1 kg should fall further ...
Uncontrollable - yes please. Only the weight and complexity of the launch is much higher and more expensive.

Quote: AVM

That's just your "turret" revolves with all the ammunition and automatic loader. And it's not that compact. And the question of replacing 125 mm by 152 mm will definitely come up if the Germans or the French bring their gun, and they bring it, because the market. And at 152 mm, multiply the mass of the gun by 2 times, the turret and the ammunition load by 30-50 percent.

Does this change the overall weight and volume?

When it comes to increasing power, then why should your missiles remain the same?
In general, the 152mm caliber will be very convenient: it is good to destroy heavily fortified bunkers and demolish buildings. The rockets can be thicker.

Quote: AVM

Well, no, it was the S-130, tk. roughly comparable in caliber and uncontrollable. An airplane has speed, but they are also used from a helicopter, where the speeds are noticeably lower. And I don't need a range of 5000 meters, a maximum of 1000 for unguided shells.

It is necessary to compare with the same power, i.e. the same range of applications.

The helicopter has slightly different missiles, with the addition of a letter, with a large engine or with an additional accelerating block in the launcher.
It's strange that you haven't read about it.

Range 1km? Those. you will calmly watch as you will be destroyed from the ATGM from the unfortunate 2km?

Quote: AVM

And if you are talking about Chrysanthemum, then compare it with Reflex. ATGM 9M123:
The starting weight of the 9M123 ATGM in the TPK: 54 kg, the mass of the warhead is 8 kg.
The mass of the shot of the Reflex-M 9K119M ATGM is 24/28 kg (according to various sources), the mass of the warhead is 4,5 kg.

And the fact that you counted 20 kg for a warhead is normal for such a warhead. Actually, in the article, such ammunition is designated as standard, but if such power is not needed, then you can double the ammunition load with ammunition of half the length and weight.

Are you comparing with a 125mm tank or what? From the side of the tank, I am not interested in warheads of 8kg, so I am considering 20kg. You can equip a 57mm cannon from Derivation or take the Epoch module with low ballistics, and compare in this class. Tanks do not fight alone.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

You also incorrectly used different volumes of the "cellar" in your calculations - but it is the same.

In the sense? I don’t think the T-14 and T-15 have the same weapons bay, if that’s what you mean.

Do they have different buildings?
All the stuffing is the same, so for the armament - the same volume.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

Don't you have the Internet? At all stages of development and production - there are GOSTs for all points. But at least at the level of a training project, try ...

This article, who will read the project?

Quote: Genry

Mountains are inconvenient for a flat tank. The Armat family are steppe tanks where you need to drive quickly over bumps.

What a twist. Have you heard anything - heavy, light, basic, but flat and steppe? Is there somewhere a link to such a classification?

Quote: Genry

Raising the gun of 15 degrees allows you to aim at a height of 30m (11th floor) from a distance of 100m. Do you really need more?

I don't, but the military yes:
"The disadvantage of the BMP-1 is the small elevation angle of the gun (only 15 degrees), while the BMP-2 was already 75 degrees."

Quote: Genry

In the mountains over the cobblestones - only on a hydraulic suspension and with it you can tilt the tank to the desired position.

MRF will not have to "bow down". The elevation of the PU about 1,5 meters above the body will allow not only to "lift" it up, but also to tilt it down.

Quote: Genry

The T-14 can hit both helicopters and aircraft at low altitudes: there are AFAR and explosive shells.

Than? Reflex? Maybe, but it will be much worse than an MRI. MFRT will be able to hit both UAVs and helicopters much more efficiently, at the level of the military air defense system of the Sosna type or better, with the appropriate ammunition.

Quote: Genry

All types of armored vehicles at a distance of 8-10 km (and at 6-7 km too) you simply will not see: the ground is crooked.

On flat terrain, with an observer height of 3 meters (our tank / MRF) and a height of the observed object of 2 meters (partially visible enemy tank), the visibility range will be 12 kilometers, and we can stand on a hill.

Quote: Genry

There is a huge reserve in the parameters of the gun.

What do you mean by this?

Quote: Genry

Do you have kinetic rockets?

So we are talking about a promising machine, I considered a hypersonic ATGM for it in the article
Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?

Quote: Genry

And what shells does the tank have now?

Check out the proposed nomenclature for MRF here: https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html
And look, what of this can be "shoved" into the tank? Thermobaric ammunition, for example, or SAM and IR seeker, EMP ammunition ...

The gun has only one plus - BOPS at short ranges. It turns out that the whole vegetable garden with a gun is only for the sake of an unlikely scenario of a collision of tanks at close range.

And the tank has more chances to be covered by an ATGM with a UAV or RPG from a couple of bearded men, which are much more likely to be destroyed by the MRF than by the tank due to the higher reaction speed, guidance angles and the presence of specialized ammunition.

Quote: Genry

When fighters learned to work on the ground, then they became multifunctional. Has your machine learned to do something new?

Offhand - air defense, expanded capabilities to support the infantry of the PF and thermobaric ammunition.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

With some joy, the minimum range increases in proportion to the mass of the warhead? For a cumulative or HE warhead, the carrier speed is not at all important.

Hint: if 200 grams of explosives falls next to you, then 1 kg should fall further ...

A cumulative warhead will not have 20 kg, it will have a larger funnel diameter sufficient to penetrate an enemy tank, and the minimum range will be meters, well, tens of maximum, because there are almost no fragments, and the energy of the explosion is concentrated forward. And if we are talking about a powerful HE shell, then we need to think about how to use it. If you shoot from the tank at point-blank range, there will be little joy either.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

That's just your "turret" revolves with all the ammunition and automatic loader. And it's not that compact. And the question of replacing 125 mm by 152 mm will definitely come up if the Germans or the French bring their gun, and they bring it, because the market. And at 152 mm, multiply the mass of the gun by 2 times, the turret and the ammunition load by 30-50 percent.

Does this change the overall weight and volume?

This does not allow it to rotate quickly, like the PU on MRI, and this is the basis for a fast response.

Quote: Genry

When it comes to increasing power, then why should your missiles remain the same?

Because I initially set the TPK diameter of 170-190 mm, which is slightly larger than even the promising 152 mm.

Quote: Genry

In general, the 152mm caliber will be very convenient: it is good to destroy heavily fortified bunkers and demolish buildings. The rockets can be thicker.

And I don't argue, only the ammunition load is less, and the resource of the 152 mm cannon is still for two days of the war ...

Quote: Genry

Range 1km? Those. you will calmly watch as you will be destroyed from the ATGM from the unfortunate 2km?
No, only for this will ATGMs be used, and not unguided ammunition.

Quote: Genry

Are you comparing with a 125mm tank or what? From the side of the tank, I am not interested in warheads of 8kg, so I am considering 20kg.

Does the tank have shells with a warhead of 20 kg? If we compare with 125 mm, then the ammunition is half size, and we compared them.

Quote: Genry

You can equip a 57mm cannon from Derivation or take the Epoch module with low ballistics, and compare in this class. Tanks do not fight alone.

However, the situation on the battlefield may turn out to be such that the tank will be without support. What's better if he can defend or he turns into a target?

Quote: Genry

In the sense? I don’t think the T-14 and T-15 have the same weapons bay, if that’s what you mean.

Do they have different buildings? All the stuffing is the same, so for the armament - the same volume.

They have a completely different layout. But here I am not 100% sure. If MRF can be implemented on the basis of the T-14, then this is even better.

[Genry]

Quote: AVM

What you say about "fly up at the same time", the so-called. "Firestorm", these are mostly unguided shells, and "simultaneity" is achieved here by modular charge and changing the angle of inclination of the barrel.

Ognevoy ... Is there such a term in the charter? But there is a natural phenomenon.

Quote: AVM

And about Tornado-G, then look at the ammunition:
.........
........
Are many of them managed? Most ammunition states:

“Equipped with a system of autonomous correction of the trajectory of the flight of rockets in the pitch and yaw angles, carried out according to the signals of the control system of gas-dynamic devices (corrected ammunition). The stabilization of the projectiles occurs due to their twisting along the launch guides, and the support in flight by the folding blades of the tail. When firing in a salvo, the dispersion of shells does not exceed 0,3% of the firing range. "

Glonass is only for some ammunition, as well as an inertial with increased accuracy, which, by the way, is also needed in unguided ammunition for MFRT.

And you for an hour "Hephaestus" and "Hermes" did not beguiled?

It is declared about high accuracy, which the old Grad does not have. With external correction, the issue of accuracy is fundamentally solved. And what exactly the army is buying is another fact.
Hephaestus-Hermes are both in the head, therefore ... - it is not fundamental, they could not pay attention.

Quote: AVM

How then do the guns stabilize?

Have you heard of hydraulic retractable devices? Energy is partially absorbed and converted into heat of the liquid - this is enough to prevent swinging.

Quote: AVM

There will be nothing. Industrial robots move along a complex trajectory, while they are placed on mobile platforms of much smaller mass (even if the robot's speed is lower there). What moments of inertia will affect the chassis? When lifting rockets up 1,5 meters? And what will the shock absorbers "sink"? Or with a circular rotation of the launcher - the carrier on the tracks in the opposite direction will begin to rotate, like a helicopter without a tail rotor?

Everything is aimed at rolling.

Quote: AVM

The garbage truck manipulator is made "of shit and sticks", it is "sausage" because the design is cheap and primitive.

What is made of - does not matter. A close ratio of mass and momentum is important.



I was very surprised by your requirement for a range of 1 km.

And to use rockets in the city ... The cannon accelerates the projectile due to the pressure in the barrel on the projectile bottom area in time. And the rocket is accelerated by the ejection mass gases at speed (impulse). And this mass of half a hundred kg at speed is directed at itself, that is, the infantry cannot be covered with armor, otherwise it will be like ...

sledgehammer on the neck.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

What you say about "fly up at the same time", the so-called. "Firestorm", these are mostly unguided shells, and "simultaneity" is achieved here by modular charge and changing the angle of inclination of the barrel.

Ognevoy ... Is there such a term in the charter? But there is a natural phenomenon.

Everything that is not in the charter does not exist? We are talking about reality, and it is exactly as I described it.

Quote: Genry

It is declared about high accuracy, which the old Grad does not have. With external correction, the issue of accuracy is fundamentally solved. And what exactly the army is buying is another fact.

The army buys various ammunition, incl. high-precision (if they already exist for Tornado-G, which I'm not sure about). And so, for the most part, it's all the same MLRS. And the inertial guidance system is needed in order to ensure acceptable accuracy at an increased range. It is one thing, the accuracy of uncontrolled 40 km, another - 80-100 km, completely uncontrollable, that artillery shells, that MLRS missiles, scatter absolutely indecent.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

How then do the guns stabilize?

Have you heard of hydraulic retractable devices? Energy is partially absorbed and converted into heat of the liquid - this is enough to prevent swinging.

Is this compensation for the recoil of the shot? For rockets, it is orders of magnitude less.
And the rotation of the turret with the cannon, and even on the move, how does the center of mass change? And the PU does not go beyond the dimensions of the case, it is almost in the center of mass of the MRF.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

There will be nothing. Industrial robots move along a complex trajectory, while they are placed on mobile platforms of much smaller mass (even if the robot's speed is lower there). What moments of inertia will affect the chassis? When lifting rockets up 1,5 meters? And what will the shock absorbers "sink"? Or with a circular rotation of the launcher - the carrier on the tracks in the opposite direction will begin to rotate, like a helicopter without a tail rotor?

Quote: Genry

Everything is aimed at rolling.

What is the side rolling? From a rocket launch? Even the ATGM tripod does not tip over from him.

When the rocket rises - rocket up, counter-movement down, what kind of pitch? When turning 180 degrees, torque is in the opposite direction, again, what kind of rolling? Is that when the angle of inclination of the launcher changes, when it is across the body, but again, these are scanty effects and they are right in the center of mass.

Quote: Genry

The garbage truck manipulator is made "of shit and sticks", it is "sausage" because the design is cheap and primitive.

What is made of - does not matter. A close ratio of mass and momentum is important.

Plays a huge role - drives, structural rigidity ...
The carrying capacity of the manipulator of the garbage truck is 500-700 kg, it is on the side of the car, the garbage truck itself on wheels, weighs 2-3 times less than the MRF. Can we leave them alone? Here is a reluctance to go deeper into the subtleties of loading garbage ...

Quote: Genry

I was very surprised by your requirement for a range of 1 km.

For unguided ammunition only.

Quote: Genry

And to use rockets in the city ... The cannon accelerates the projectile due to the pressure in the barrel on the projectile bottom area in time. And the rocket is accelerated by the ejection mass gases at speed (impulse). And this mass of half a hundred kg at a speed is directed at itself, that is, the infantry cannot be covered with armor, otherwise it will be like ... a sledgehammer in the neck.

The kick-out engine creates a not too strong "exhaust", and the main engine is turned on 5-10 meters from the MRF.

In the presence of KAZ, the infantry, and so next to the tank, it is hard.

[Genry]

Quote: AVM

This article, who will read the project?

The standard, in this case, reflects the generally accepted presentation of the material: expected and logically understandable.

Quote: AVM

What a twist. Have you heard anything - heavy, light, basic, but flat and steppe? Is there somewhere a link to such a classification?

You took my clear description for a classification. Flattered ... very much.
The official classification is by weight only, not by purpose.

Quote: AVM

I don't, but the military yes:
"The disadvantage of the BMP-1 is the small elevation angle of the gun (only 15 degrees), while the BMP-2 was already 75 degrees."

Are we talking about tanks?
And your carriage will be able to zhah on the close overhanging rock? Even if he can - only this is suicide. Therefore, BMPs need it - but tanks do not.

Quote: AVM

MRF will not have to "bow down". The elevation of the PU about 1,5 meters above the body will allow not only to "lift" it up, but also to tilt it down.

Your PU, without a hydraulic suspension, should be able to get there first ... And I have already said about the elevation.

Quote: AVM

Than? Reflex? Maybe, but it will be much worse than an MRI. MFRT will be able to hit both UAVs and helicopters much more efficiently, at the level of the military air defense system of the Sosna type or better, with the appropriate ammunition.

Reflex is cumulative. I'm talking about a shrapnel with a controlled detonation. But guided sub-caliber 70-99 mm projectiles for air defense can easily appear. With an initial speed of 1600 m / s, they can hit targets at an altitude of about 10 km (800 m / s effectively up to 5 km).

Quote: AVM

On flat terrain, with an observer height of 3 meters (our tank / MRF) and a height of the observed object of 2 meters (partially visible enemy tank), the visibility range will be 12 kilometers, and we can stand on a hill.

The tank is a direct contact vehicle. For long ranges, there is another technique with its own tactics (UAVs, long-range artillery, and even an ATV with a Cornet).

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

There is a huge reserve in the parameters of the gun.

What do you mean by this?

Ballistic range.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

Do you have kinetic rockets?

So we are talking about a promising machine, I considered a hypersonic ATGM for it in the article
Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?

Since when has self-written billboards become a supporting fact?
Hypper speeds are possible only when very high energies are expended: a quadratic dependence. For you, I specifically explain: if you increase the speed twice, you need to spend four times more energy than the previously spent and increase the engine power to overcome 4 times more air resistance (this is only to maintain speed). The size of the solid-propellant rocket engines is already too tense. But the main obstacle is acceleration time and distance.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

And what shells does the tank have now?

Check out the proposed nomenclature for MRF here: https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html
And look, what of this can be "shoved" into the tank? Thermobaric ammunition, for example, or SAM and IR seeker, EMP ammunition ...

Please do not give links to your landfills!
Thermobaric warhead of the same weight - please. Only it is more interesting for a tank to use a high-explosive one.
SAM can replace a projectile with a controlled detonation. If necessary, it is possible, on the basis of a guided projectile from Derivation, to make a sub-caliber guided projectile with an initial velocity of 2 times more. For air defense alone, there is no need to waste the internal volume of a tank (with an eternal deficit) intended for ground contact combat.

Quote: AVM

The gun has only one plus - BOPS at short ranges. It turns out that the whole vegetable garden with a gun is only for the sake of an unlikely scenario of a collision of tanks at close range.

Is 1 km a sufficient range for you, and 1,5-3 km is already small?
And you still do not understand that the rocket and the barrel are just different types of warhead delivery? The cannon at short distances is beyond competition and it perfectly shoots projectiles with all types of warheads. A 152mm cannon - even nuclear.

Quote: AVM

And the tank has more chances to be covered by an ATGM with a UAV or RPG from a couple of bearded men, which are much more likely to be destroyed by the MRF than by the tank due to the higher reaction speed, guidance angles and the presence of specialized ammunition.

What are you talking about unfounded nonsense. Where are the results of comparison of practical shooting?

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

When fighters learned to work on the ground, then they became multifunctional. Has your machine learned to do something new?

Offhand - air defense, expanded capabilities to support the infantry of the PF and thermobaric ammunition.

Air defense ??? To do this, reduce the ammunition for the main job?
And warheads can be any.

Quote: AVM

A cumulative warhead will not have 20 kg, it will have a larger funnel diameter sufficient to penetrate an enemy tank, and the minimum range will be meters, well, tens of maximum, because there are almost no fragments, and the energy of the explosion is concentrated forward. And if we are talking about a powerful HE shell, then we need to think about how to use it. If you shoot from the tank at point-blank range, there will be little joy either.

In a modern cumulative anti-tank projectile / rocket, there are several warheads: for deceiving KAZ, for triggering 2 layers of DZ and for breaking through armor. Such a piece of iron cannot be light.
And in the cumulative, the energy is concentrated only from a narrow aperture, the rest of the energy diverges spherically and you cannot avoid a shock wave (high-explosive impact).
They only shoot at close range ... - but even they don't shoot. And rockets can start badly, and this is often.

Quote: AVM

Quote: Genry

Does this change the overall weight and volume?

This does not allow it to rotate quickly, like the PU on MRI, and this is the basis for a fast response.

The increase in weight can always be compensated for by the drive power. But in pursuit of the tower it is easy to do this, but in the manipulator there are problems with rigidity and safety factor - you need to increase the weight, which again will require an increase in power.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

What a twist. Have you heard anything - heavy, light, basic, but flat and steppe? Is there somewhere a link to such a classification?

You took my clear description for a classification. Flattered ... very much.
The official classification is by weight only, not by purpose.

The question by what criterion did you classify these tanks as plain and steppe? And the PMSM steppe is a plain.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

"The disadvantage of the BMP-1 is the small elevation angle of the gun (only 15 degrees), while the BMP-2 was already 75 degrees."

Are we talking about tanks?
And your carriage will be able to zhah on the close overhanging rock? Even if he can - only this is suicide. Therefore, BMPs need it - but tanks do not.

Listen, according to the opinions of the military in Chechnya and Afghanistan, the problem of a small elevation of the barrel has taken place, I will not look, sorry, too many materials will have to be shoveled.

There will be no suicide when launching an unguided ammunition with a thermobaric warhead from 50 meters to the 10-15th floor, and there will be no grenade launchers there for sure. And shoot shrapnel ammunition even at close range.

Or your tank is moving down a slope of 20 degrees, and the enemy is on the opposite slope of the hill, opposite, higher than you, i.e. You need to raise the gun by 30-45 degrees - how will we decide?

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Than? Reflex? Maybe, but it will be much worse than an MRI. MFRT will be able to hit both UAVs and helicopters much more efficiently, at the level of the military air defense system of the Sosna type or better, with the appropriate ammunition.

Reflex is cumulative. I'm talking about a shrapnel with a controlled detonation. But guided sub-caliber 70-99 mm projectiles for air defense can easily appear. With an initial speed of 1600 m / s, they can hit targets at an altitude of about 10 km (800 m / s effectively up to 5 km).

With an unguided projectile, even with remote detonation, the probability of hitting air targets will be small. And the controllable is lower than that of the MRT with its range of types of missiles used.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

On flat terrain, with an observer height of 3 meters (our tank / MRF) and a height of the observed object of 2 meters (partially visible enemy tank), the visibility range will be 12 kilometers, and we can stand on a hill.

The tank is a direct contact vehicle. For long ranges, there is another technique with its own tactics (UAVs, long-range artillery, and even an ATV with a Cornet).

Once PAO Tunguska shot at short range at 15 km, and its "successor" Shell shoots at 45 km. Why did they plan to use Krasnopol with a range of 14 km in Armata T-95 and T-152 with 8 mm cannon?

If you are fighting in the desert, you have the ability to hit a target 10 km away, will you refuse this and will approach or call for support? Or the same ATV with Kornet shoots at you from 6500 meters, at you a maximum of 5000 meters, and what to do?

One of the advantages of versatility is the ability to configure the ammunition for specific conditions. You can load the MFRT only with "close" ammunition, you can take several "long-range" ammunition.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

So we are talking about a promising machine, I considered a hypersonic ATGM for it in the article: Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersonic or homing?

Since when has self-written billboards become a supporting fact?
Hyper speeds are possible only when very high energies are expended: a quadratic dependence. For you, I specifically explain: if you increase the speed twice, you need to spend four times more energy than the previously spent and increase the engine power to overcome 4 times more air resistance (this is only to maintain speed). The size of the solid-propellant rocket engines is already too tense. But the main obstacle is acceleration time and distance.

This series of articles has been written just to cover the topic. And in the given article there is a MERA rocket. Look at its characteristics. I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, but PSMS, it is possible to create a hypersonic ATGM, with access to a speed of 1500 m / s at a distance of 300-500 meters. Disputes and arguments on this topic are in the comments to that article.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Check out the proposed nomenclature for MRF here: https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html
And look, what of this can be "shoved" into the tank? Thermobaric ammunition, for example, or SAM and IR seeker, EMP ammunition ...

Please do not give links to your landfills!

Increasingly, you start to break into rudeness - a ball-boat, landfills ...

A series of articles was written "with a single purpose, according to a single concept," hence the links to them.

Quote: Genry

Thermobaric warhead of the same weight - please. Only it is more interesting for a tank to use a high-explosive one.

The point is that the same weight, and the weight of the warhead is not enough in 125 mm shells. The MfRT thermobaric projectile will have an effect almost like the "Solntsepёk" TOS projectile, it is clear that it is much more interesting to use it, for example, to suppress a firing point in a building.

Quote: Genry

SAM can replace a projectile with a controlled detonation. If necessary, it is possible, on the basis of a guided projectile from Derivation, to make a sub-caliber guided projectile with an initial velocity of 2 times more.

It is possible, probably with an efficiency of 0,01-0,1. For air targets, only missiles work normally.

Quote: Genry

For air defense alone, there is no need to waste the internal volume of a tank (with an eternal deficit) intended for ground contact combat.

There may be no need in the tank, but according to preliminary estimates, there is room in the MRT. I gave examples of ammunition. Try to "cram" comparable ammunition into the tank. And he took "on average", with a decent margin.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

The gun has only one plus - BOPS at short ranges. It turns out that the whole vegetable garden with a gun is only for the sake of an unlikely scenario of a collision of tanks at close range.

Is 1 km a sufficient range for you, and 1,5-3 km is already small?

The message was that the BOPS is important at close range, then its speed and accuracy drops, while at the ATGM it remains at the entire range.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

And the tank has more chances to be covered by an ATGM with a UAV or RPG from a couple of bearded men, which are much more likely to be destroyed by the MRF than by the tank due to the higher reaction speed, guidance angles and the presence of specialized ammunition.

What are you talking about unfounded nonsense. Where are the results of comparison of practical shooting?

How do you do the calculations, or should I collect the MRI myself from scrap materials in order to conduct tests?

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Offhand - air defense, expanded capabilities to support the infantry of the PF and thermobaric ammunition.

Air defense ??? To do this, reduce the ammunition for the main job?

The main work cannot be done if the tank is destroyed from the air. What is the point of launching a lightly armored "Strela" or "Pine" in the same ranks, when you can launch several MfRTs in which part of the missiles in the BC is SAM.

And no one forces you to take SAMs into the ammunition load if they are not needed. Multifunctionality is a feature, not a requirement.

Quote: Genry

And warheads can be any.

Of course, it can, but in the dimensions of the projectile, which are clearly smaller than that of ammunition for MRI.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

A cumulative warhead will not have 20 kg, it will have a larger funnel diameter sufficient to penetrate an enemy tank, and the minimum range will be meters, well, tens of maximum, because there are almost no fragments, and the energy of the explosion is concentrated forward. And if we are talking about a powerful HE shell, then we need to think about how to use it. If you shoot from the tank at point-blank range, there will be little joy either.

In a modern cumulative anti-tank projectile / rocket, there are several warheads: for deceiving KAZ, for triggering 2 layers of DZ and for breaking through armor. Such a piece of iron cannot be light.
And in the cumulative, the energy is concentrated only from a narrow aperture, the rest of the energy diverges spherically and you cannot avoid a shock wave (high-explosive impact).

In one comment they write to me that from an explosion of 44 kg of explosives at point-blank range the tank will survive, in another, that from a cumulative warhead, weighing 3-4 times less, there will be problems 20 meters away.

Quote: Genry

They only shoot at close range ... - but even they don't shoot. And rockets can start badly, and this is often.

That's right, just at the biathlon Reflexes fell to the ground, with the Cornets this was not ...
And so the shells are torn in the barrel.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

This does not allow it to rotate quickly, like the PU on MRI, and this is the basis for a fast response.

The increase in weight can always be compensated for by the drive power. But in pursuit of the tower it is easy to do this, but in the manipulator there are problems with rigidity and safety factor - you need to increase the weight, which again will require an increase in power.

Then the tank will definitely fly into the ditch if 15-20 tons rotate at a speed of 180 degrees per second.

[Genry]

[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] When it comes to increasing power, why should your missiles stay the same? [/ quote]
Because I initially set the TPK diameter of 170-190 mm, which is slightly larger than even the promising 152 mm.
[/ Quote]
The internal dimensions of the TPK will be smaller, and the rocket with folded or folded wings will be even smaller.
[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] Actually, the 152mm caliber will be very convenient: it is good to destroy heavily fortified bunkers and demolish buildings. The rockets can be thicker. [/ quote]
And I don't argue, only the ammunition load is less, and the resource of the 152 mm cannon is still for two days of the war ...
[/ Quote]
The resource is measured not in days but in shots. And more than 500 shots - how many enemy targets can you kill? After such work, the tank will have little to work with.
[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] Range 1km? Those. will you calmly watch how you will be destroyed from the ATGM from the unfortunate 2 km? [/ quote]
No, only for this will ATGMs be used, and not unguided ammunition.
[/ Quote]
Those. a relatively expensive, in relation to a projectile, do you exchange a rocket for an even multiple more expensive rocket? But you can just shoot the cannon.
[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] Are you comparing with a 125mm tank or what? From the side of the tank, I am not interested in warheads of 8kg, so I am considering 20kg. [/ quote]
Does the tank have shells with a warhead of 20 kg? If we compare with 125 mm, then the ammunition is half size, and we compared them.
[/ Quote]
Don't you know that a unitary warhead in certain dimensions is a projectile? But the projectile may contain several warheads.
[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] You can equip a 57mm cannon from Derivation or take the Epoch module with low ballistics, and compare in this class. Tanks do not fight alone. [/ quote]
However, the situation on the battlefield may turn out to be such that the tank will be without support. What's better if he can defend or he turns into a target?
[/ Quote]
Your device will definitely be a target. If the battle has gone on a losing path, then it is necessary to urgently withdraw from such a battle.
[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] What do you mean? I don’t think that the T-14 and T-15 have the same weapons bay, if you mean that. [/ Quote]
Do they have different buildings? All the stuffing is the same, so for weapons - the same volume. [/ Quote]
They have a completely different layout. But here I am not 100% sure. If MRF can be implemented on the basis of the T-14, then it's even better. [/ Quote]
The volume of the body is the same. And from a change in the places of the terms, the amount does not change.
[quote = AVM]
Everything that is not in the charter does not exist? We are talking about reality, and it is exactly as I described it.
[/ Quote]
I did not invent a term and you just found fault with me, wanting to put me "on the true path."
[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] Declared high accuracy, which the old City does not have. With external correction, the issue of accuracy is fundamentally solved. And what exactly the army is buying is another fact. [/ quote]

The army buys various ammunition, incl. high-precision (if they already exist for Tornado-G, which I'm not sure about). And so, for the most part, it's all the same MLRS. And the inertial guidance system is needed in order to ensure acceptable accuracy at an increased range. It is one thing, the accuracy of uncontrolled 40 km, another - 80-100 km, completely uncontrollable, that artillery shells, that MLRS missiles, scatter absolutely indecent.
[/ Quote]
MLRS are a thing of the past. Earth to them ..... There are rockets that immediately cover a large area on their own (there is no first Hail mine that arrived - no one will have time to escape, they cover at once).
Doing an inferior seeker with the implementation of complex control mechanisms in the rocket and only for stabilization - does it seem to you some kind of perversion?
[quote = AVM]
Is this compensation for the recoil of the shot? For rockets, it is orders of magnitude less.
[/ Quote]
What did you want?
[quote = AVM]
And the rotation of the turret with the cannon, and even on the move, how does the center of mass change? And the PU does not go beyond the dimensions of the case, it is almost in the center of mass of the MRF.
[/ Quote]
Why change if everything is centered and balanced? Even the floating weight of the projectile is close to the center of mass.
[quote = AVM]
[quote = Genry] You are all about rolling. [/ quote]
What is the side rolling? From a rocket launch? Even the ATGM tripod does not tip over from him.
[/ Quote]
How many seconds does the tripod take to recharge itself and aim at the target? Why introduce unnecessary entities into the conversation?
[quote = AVM]
When the rocket rises - rocket up, counter-movement down, what kind of pitch? When turning 180 degrees, torque is in the opposite direction, again, what kind of rolling? Is that when the angle of inclination of the launcher changes, when it is across the body, but again, these are scanty effects and they are right in the center of mass.
[/ Quote]
The manipulator is initially an unbalanced system!
Are you going to lift the rocket from the central hatch of the car? Or is it side? (And how is the sluice principle implemented there to exclude the leakage of gases in the event of a nearby explosion at the moment of ascent?)
The tank, having detected a target, simply turns the turret (with linear acceleration and deceleration), while simultaneously loading the cannon.
To charge the launcher, you will need a large number of fast and abrupt movements that are unbalanced in mass (and a variable mass of the rocket 0-200 kg), which will cause the buildup.

[quote = AVM]
The kick-out engine creates a not too strong "exhaust", and the main engine is turned on 5-10 meters from the MRF.

In the presence of KAZ, the infantry, and so next to the tank, it is hard. [/ Quote]

A knockout charge on unguided rockets is impossible - it is fraught with a loss of direction (the first RPG-7 grenades had a knockout charge - now it is not). Used only for guided missiles.
Of course, KAZ is impossible, so you need a very heavy booking, since a city tank does not need to rush over bumps.

[Genry]

Sorry! I didn't have time to fix it as it blocked ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

Because I initially set the TPK diameter of 170-190 mm, which is slightly larger than even the promising 152 mm.

The internal dimensions of the TPK will be smaller, and the rocket with folded or folded wings will be even smaller.

Less, but more than 152 mm even for TPK 170 mm, and even more for 190 mm. And the length is 2800-3000 mm.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

And I don't argue, only the ammunition load is less, and the resource of the 152 mm cannon is still for two days of the war ...

The resource is measured not in days but in shots. And more than 500 shots - how many enemy targets can you kill? After such work, the tank will have little to work with.

For the 152 mm cannon, a resource of 150 shots was declared !!! How will you train? And specify what was the expense in Chechnya. If every 500 shots a tank is transported to the factory to replace the cannon, then it will generally turn out to be "golden".

Quote: Genry

Range 1km? Those. you will calmly watch as you will be destroyed from the ATGM from the unfortunate 2km?

Quote: AVM

No, only for this will ATGMs be used, and not unguided ammunition.

Those. a relatively expensive, in relation to a projectile, do you exchange a rocket for an even multiple more expensive rocket? But you can just shoot the cannon.

You can, but you will most likely have to shoot a HE with remote detonation, otherwise you can wait for an ATGM in the side, and they will not be cheap either. At the same time, the article on 36 ammunition considered relatively inexpensive corrected ammunition based on the NAR.

The cost of hitting a crew from a cannon will certainly be lower, but how critical is this, given that we are hitting not only the crew, but also the expensive ATGM? The missile / target cost ratio will still be in our favor.

And we previously talked about advanced ANNs for MLRS. It is possible that their use will make it possible to implement relatively inexpensive unguided ammunition with trajectory correction.

Quote: Genry

MLRS are a thing of the past. Earth to them ..... There are rockets that immediately cover a large area on their own (there is no first arrived Hail mines - no one will have time to escape, they cover at once).
Doing an inferior seeker with the implementation of complex control mechanisms in the rocket and only for stabilization - does it seem to you some kind of perversion?

MLRS have not gone anywhere, and ammunition is made for them, independent of GLONASS, in case of failure of this system. ANN is almost invulnerable to external influences, although it has less accuracy.

Almost all Russian MLRS without GLONASS (binding only in the car).

Quote: Genry

Everything is aimed at rolling.

Quote: AVM

What is the side rolling? From a rocket launch? Even the ATGM tripod does not tip over from him.

How many seconds does the tripod take to recharge itself and aim at the target? Why introduce unnecessary entities into the conversation?

Quote: AVM

When the rocket rises - rocket up, counter-movement down, what kind of pitch? When turning 180 degrees, torque is in the opposite direction, again, what kind of rolling? Is that when the angle of inclination of the launcher changes, when it is across the body, but again, these are scanty effects and they are right in the center of mass.

The manipulator is initially an unbalanced system!
Are you going to lift the rocket from the central hatch of the car? Or is it side? (And how is the sluice principle implemented there to exclude the leakage of gases in the event of a nearby explosion at the moment of ascent?)
The tank, having detected a target, simply turns the turret (with linear acceleration and deceleration), while simultaneously loading the cannon.
To charge the launcher, you will need a large number of fast and abrupt movements that are unbalanced in mass (and a variable mass of the rocket 0-200 kg), which will cause the buildup.

This is a meaningless conversation without calculations, we will still hold our opinion.

Quote: Genry

Quote: AVM

The kick-out engine creates a not too strong "exhaust", and the main engine is switched on 5-10 meters from the MRF. In the presence of KAZ, the infantry, and so next to the tank, it is hard.

A knockout charge on unguided rockets is impossible - it is fraught with a loss of direction (the first RPG-7 grenades had a knockout charge - now it is not). Used only for guided missiles.

In general, the question of the danger of a rocket launching at 3-4 meters (tank hull + 1-1,5 meters of launcher) can be considered open, not so big a release. When firing from a cannon, the sonic boom hits the infantry rather well.

Quote: Genry

Of course, KAZ is impossible, so you need a very heavy booking, since a city tank does not need to rush over bumps.

But what about the Merkava with Trophy?

[AKS-U]

- "The T-17 Multifunctional Missile Tank (MFRT) is a concept designed to consider the feasibility of creating this type of weapon."
Here is the most important thing. The concept can be viewed endlessly. The expediency can be proved for years. And knock out, knock out the necessary funds from the budget. Oh, how sweet the rain of easy money is.
And what else to consider in a market economy and the second stage of the coronavirus.

[spectr]

Well, yes, so far the bullshit is complete. But in the long term, if ammunition operating on the "fire and forget" principle becomes commonplace, the idea can fire and the tank will be able to "butt" on equal terms with the same helicopter.

[Avior]

The designs of industrial manipulators are too complex, in my opinion. Not for military equipment.
It makes sense to simplify by reducing the amount of ammunition.
Two transport belts on both sides, in the middle on a telescopic retractable device, a launcher for 1-2 missiles.
When launched, the tapes are rotated, the selected required ammunition is pushed into the launcher assembly, fixed, and the doors open from above - the launcher rises to a height, aiming and launch occurs.
Observation and aiming devices should also be on the telescopic mast.
For self-defense, you can put a module with a rapid-fire cannon or large-caliber machine guns.
The result is a powerful means of supporting the battlefield.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

The designs of industrial manipulators are too complex, in my opinion. Not for military equipment.

Yes, but they are given as an example of the ability to achieve high turning speeds. An industrial robot is 6 axes, we need three:
1 - at the bottom, 360 degree rotation of the PU is the most powerful;
2 - below, lifting and lowering the launcher;
3 - top, target elevation angle - aim the missile up / down.

[serezhasoldatow]

Crap !!! In the USSR there was a similar one, they refused. On a new rake?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: serezhasoldatow

Crap !!! In the USSR there was a similar one, they refused. On a new rake?

Straight like that? Maybe there are at least some differences?

[Zementbomber]

Conceptually, it's almost like that.
"tank destroyer IT-1", in a prototype - "object" 150 ", the code of research and development work -" Dragon ". Formed two baht.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

Conceptually, it's almost like that.
"tank destroyer IT-1", in a prototype - "object" 150 ", the code of research and development work -" Dragon ". Formed two baht.

Didn't I write about him in the article: Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles? Https: //topwar.ru/174116-vooruzhenie-perspektivnyh-tankov-pushka-ili-rakety.html

But since that time, ATGMs have become a little more efficient and more compact.

[Zementbomber]

Certainly. But the barrel artillery and its ammunition did not stand still - they did not get bored.

[serezhasoldatow]

And who issued the TTZ? If it is an initiative, then ... maybe the West will be interested.

[Basarev]

Why are these complications with Cartesian robots and placement options? After all, you can simply make vertical launch cells.

[viktor_ui]

Promrobot hand for 3 tons ... what are they smoking there?

[aiden]

I would put GSh-6-23M on it to intimidate

[Zementbomber]

Author - you generally understand at least a little bit What "absolutely" indestructible "advantages does an unguided 140 / 152.4-mm projectile of any modern smooth-bore tank gun give in comparison with any missile launcher that can be fired from an armored vehicle ??

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

Author - you generally understand at least a little bit What "absolutely" indestructible "advantages does an unguided 140 / 152.4-mm projectile of any modern smooth-bore tank gun give in comparison with any missile launcher that can be fired from an armored vehicle ??

Explain in detail?

[Zementbomber]

1. You cannot create an SD that is as insensitive to interference as an unguided projectile.
2. You cannot create an UR with such a speed on the trajectory as a projectile of a tank gun within a direct shot. But this is far from the limit: on the way there are gel-like MW, electrothermochemical and electromagnetic guns.
3. You cannot create an SD even close with an elongation like a BTS core.
4. You cannot provide the same max. rate of fire with URami, like an unguided projectile.
5. You cannot fire URs at closed targets and areas.
6. You cannot shoot URs at high-speed air targets.
7. You cannot shoot URs at close range - at "pistol" (25-50-100 m) distances.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

1. You cannot create an SD that is as insensitive to interference as an unguided projectile.

At ranges up to 500-1000 meters, MRF can use unguided rockets (or with INS), which are as insensitive to interference as projectiles.

At a longer range, ATGMs with combined guidance will have a fairly high noise immunity, while the accuracy of the cannon shells is already beginning to gradually fall.

Quote: Zementbomber

2. You cannot create an UR with such a speed on the trajectory as a projectile of a tank gun within a direct shot.

It is possible, but difficult - Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?
https://topwar.ru/173607-perspektivy-razvitija-ptur-giperzvuk-ili-samonavedenie.html. Но вообще, БОПС единственное преимущество пушки на дальности до 1000 метров.

On the other hand, an ATGM of large elongation with a TPK diameter of 170-190 mm, allows you to place a cumulative warhead of such armor penetration, from which protection is not yet expected, and to supply two of them with two leading pre-charges to overcome the tandem DZ, and KAZ breakthrough means.

Quote: Zementbomber

But this is far from the limit: on the way there are gel-like MW, electrothermochemical and electromagnetic guns.

And I am not calling for abandoning cannon tanks in principle, only to supplement them:

"Does this mean that the MBT with a gun should be abandoned? Not at all. The question is in the ratio of MBT / MPRT, which can only be determined experimentally. According to the author, if the above requirements for MRI are met, the optimal ratio will be 1/3 in favor of MRI. "

The cannon is in any case limited by its caliber - there are a lot of explosives, fragments, a thermobaric mixture cannot be put into it. Narrow specialization.

Quote: Zementbomber

3. You cannot create an SD even close with an elongation like a BTS core.

On the contrary. Theoretically, in an ATGM with a length of 3000 mm, the BOPS can be in full length (engines, fuel and control systems are located in a "ring"). This cannons usually have a projectile length limitation.

Quote: Zementbomber

4. You cannot provide the same max. rate of fire with URami, like an unguided projectile.

First, MfRT can use unguided missiles at ranges of up to 1000 meters. Secondly, why? We can simultaneously launch 2 ATGMs, which a tank cannot. And I have described the ammunition supply cycles - in different situations, the rate of fire can reach 2 shots in 2-4 seconds. If you mean the need to escort an ATGM, then at a distance of 2500 meters, at an ATGM flight speed of 600 m / s, the tracking time will be 4-5 seconds, i.e. at the level of the ammunition supply cycle in the MRF. At the same time, the tank has a rate of fire of 7-8 rounds per second.

If we are talking about long ranges, then for firing with acceptable accuracy the tank also needs to use guided ammunition.

Quote: Zementbomber

5. You cannot fire URs at closed targets and areas.

The tank has a problem with this, with its cannon elevation angle of 15 degrees, while MfRT has:
Thirty Six Unified Missile Tank Ammunition
https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html

Ammunition 1.6, 4.8, 5.5 based on the Gran 'mine with a jet booster.

Quote: Zementbomber

6. You cannot shoot URs at high-speed air targets.

This, forgive me, you cannot, shoot from a tank cannon at high-speed air targets, and the MRT for this purpose must have specialized anti-aircraft ammunition of various types, in the article mentioned above they are numbered 2.1-2.5

Quote: Zementbomber

7. You cannot shoot URs at close range - at "pistol" (25-50-100 m) distances.

At short range, they should be used uncontrollably with a cumulative, thermobaric or PF warhead, the speed of a meeting with a target is not important for them.

[Zementbomber]

At a longer range, ATGMs with combined guidance will have a fairly high noise immunity, while the accuracy of the cannon shells is already beginning to gradually fall.

With the LMS level "Leclerc" - the probability of hitting the BPS when firing in motion on the ground at a stationary target of the "tank" type - 0.95 at 2000 m even at night.

The tank has a problem with this, with its cannon elevation angle of 15 degrees, while MfRT has:
Thirty Six Unified Missile Tank Ammunition
https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html

Max. the known elevation angle of the gun relative to the turret of the tanks is 65 degrees. + add the ability to install a tower swinging in a vertical plane. + the possibility of using a hydropneumatic suspension with an asymmetrically variable clearance in the longitudinal plane.

The gun is in any case limited by the caliber

max known caliber TP - 292.1 mm. Long-barreled - 173.2 mm.

This, forgive me, you cannot, shoot from a tank cannon at high-speed air targets, and the MRT for this purpose must have specialized anti-aircraft ammunition of various types, in the article mentioned above they are numbered 2.1-2.5

What are we going to do with the problem of the required velocity of anti-aircraft ammunition within the framework of your proposal?

At short range, they should be used uncontrollably with a cumulative, thermobaric or PF warhead, the speed of a meeting with a target is not important for them.

And how will you work with them at pistol distances against heavily armored targets?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

At a longer range, ATGMs with combined guidance will have a fairly high noise immunity, while the accuracy of the cannon shells is already beginning to gradually fall.

With the LMS level "Leclerc" - the probability of hitting the BPS when firing in motion on the ground at a stationary target of the "tank" type - 0.95 at 2000 m even at night.

The question is in the type of interference. If this is a high-quality smoke screen, then the Leclerc control system will not see the enemy's tank. And if the OMS discerns the tank, then the ATGM with guidance along the "laser path" will reach the target.

Quote: Zementbomber

The tank has a problem with this, with its cannon elevation angle of 15 degrees, while MfRT has:
Thirty Six Unified Missile Tank Ammunition
https://topwar.ru/174731-36-unificirovannyh-boepripasov-dlja-raketnogo-tanka.html

Max. the known elevation angle of the gun relative to the turret of the tanks is 65 degrees. + add the ability to install a tower swinging in a vertical plane. + the possibility of using a hydropneumatic suspension with an asymmetrically variable clearance in the longitudinal plane.

Where does this angle of 65 degrees come from? In my opinion, there is a maximum of about -10 / +20 degrees. Body swing is not suitable for dynamic combat.

Quote: Zementbomber

The gun is in any case limited by the caliber

max known caliber TP - 292.1 mm. Long-barreled - 173.2 mm.

On a tank? How much will such a gun weigh? How many shells will there be? What will be the resource of such a gun when firing BOPS.

I understand, small-caliber promising guns with LMW or electrothermochemical, albeit highly specialized, but in their niche "invincible". But snagging ship monsters on a tank ...

Quote: Zementbomber

This, forgive me, you cannot, shoot from a tank cannon at high-speed air targets, and the MRT for this purpose must have specialized anti-aircraft ammunition of various types, in the article mentioned above they are numbered 2.1-2.5

What are we going to do with the problem of the required velocity of anti-aircraft ammunition within the framework of your proposal?

SAM "Sosna", SAM "Pantsir", SAM "Igla", RVV-MD type rockets - all of them can be the basis for MfRT anti-aircraft ammunition. Compare the dimensions of their dimensions and the dimensions of a standard ammunition for MfRT. They have no problems with overclocking.

Quote: Zementbomber

At short range, they should be used uncontrollably with a cumulative, thermobaric or PF warhead, the speed of a meeting with a target is not important for them.

And how will you work with them at pistol distances against heavily armored targets?

And how will a tandem cumulative warhead work at short range? Just like the big one.

[Zementbomber]

Where does this angle of 65 degrees come from? In my opinion, there is a maximum of about -10 / +20 degrees.

T-80 (the first; which was during the Great Patriotic War).

Body swing is not suitable for dynamic combat.

The body is not. And the upper half-tower on the trunnions - so it is quite and yes. AMX.13 with this option was created specifically for dynamic combat.

On a tank? How much will such a gun weigh? How many shells will there be? What will be the resource of such a gun when firing BOPS.

11.5 "-" Churchill AVRE ". 17 cm KwK44 - E100. I was not interested in details.

And how will a tandem cumulative warhead work at short range? Just like the big one.

And what will you do with a tandem godfather DZ class ERAWA ??

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

Where does this angle of 65 degrees come from? In my opinion, there is a maximum of about -10 / +20 degrees.

T-80 (the first; which was during the Great Patriotic War).

How will this help us now?

Quote: Zementbomber

Body swing is not suitable for dynamic combat.

The body is not. And the upper half-tower on the trunnions - so it is quite and yes. AMX.13 with this option was created specifically for dynamic combat.

Again, why is it not done now? Dimensions, weight?

Quote: Zementbomber

On a tank? How much will such a gun weigh? How many shells will there be? What will be the resource of such a gun when firing BOPS.

11.5 "-" Churchill AVRE ". 17 cm KwK44 - E100. I was not interested in details.

In the dimensions of the E100, a promising MRF can already be armed with Iskander missiles.

Quote: Zementbomber

And how will a tandem cumulative warhead work at short range? Just like the big one.

And what will you do with a tandem godfather DZ class ERAWA ??

A standard ATGM can easily fit two cumulative warheads with two leading charges, or even three.

By the way, the developers of some types of DZ argue that it will be effective against BOPS. If this result is achieved, then the tank will lose its main advantage. And if we are talking about MFRT, then you can use ammunition with a high-explosive warhead. In the dimensions of the ammunition 170x3000 mm with the required range of up to 1000 m, the mass of the HE warhead can be about 40-50 kg. An explosion of such force, if it does not break through the tank's armor, then tears everything off it - instruments, tracks, the barrel of the gun will ruin. Perhaps the crew will die or be shell-shocked from the armored action.

[Zementbomber]

How will this help us now?

This is an illustration that the "anti-aircraft" elevation angles of a tank gun relative to the turret are a completely solvable technical problem. So now they do not do it only and simply because they do not consider it necessary from the point of view of application tactics.

Again, why is it not done now? Dimensions, weight?

Same. What for? Yes, you can. But while - not necessary.

In the dimensions of the E100, a promising MRF can already be armed with Iskander missiles.

Well, the study of BAE Land Systems in the last decade showed that the tank of the "next" generation "should be in the 80-ton class.

A standard ATGM can easily fit two cumulative warheads with two leading charges, or even three.

A hint question: why do tandem kumBChs do, but tridem do not?

By the way, the developers of some types of DZ argue that it will be effective against BOPS. If this result is achieved, then the tank will lose its main advantage.

DZ samples that significantly reduce the effectiveness of the BPS have been known for more than 35 years. But exactly reducing, а not making BTS useless.

And if we are talking about MFRT, then you can use ammunition with a high-explosive warhead. In the dimensions of the ammunition 170x3000 mm with the required range of up to 1000 m, the mass of the HE warhead can be about 40-50 kg. An explosion of such force, if it does not break through the tank's armor, then tears everything off it - instruments, tracks, the barrel of the gun will ruin. Perhaps the crew will die or be shell-shocked from the armored action.

1. Zabronevoe action without penetration - "treated" by anti-fragmentation-antineutron-electrically insulating lining.
2. Tiger B with a Henshel turret held a 6 "44-kg OFS shot to the ML-20 without disrupting the turret from the shoulder strap. Draw conclusions.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

How will this help us now?

This is an illustration that the "anti-aircraft" elevation angles of a tank gun relative to the turret are a completely solvable technical problem. So now they do not do it only and simply because they do not consider it necessary from the point of view of application tactics.

No, it is not solvable, because now the BOPSs are of large elongation, and it is impossible to "lift" the barrel as before, or the tower will be 2 times higher.

Quote: Zementbomber

In the dimensions of the E100, a promising MRF can already be armed with Iskander missiles.

Well, the study of BAE Land Systems in the last decade showed that the tank of the "next" generation "should be in the 80-ton class.

I would like to see it, honestly

Quote: Zementbomber

A standard ATGM can easily fit two cumulative warheads with two leading charges, or even three.

A hint question: why do tandem kumBChs do, but tridem do not?

Because there is no tandem remote sensing yet and this is not necessary? Or do you mean that they do not have time to consistently fire? In ammunition under 3 meters long, they can be carried apart from each other.

Quote: Zementbomber

By the way, the developers of some types of DZ argue that it will be effective against BOPS. If this result is achieved, then the tank will lose its main advantage.

DZ samples that significantly reduce the effectiveness of the BPS have been known for more than 35 years. But exactly reducing, а not making BTS useless.

Yes, but what will happen tomorrow? And now the Cornet also breaks through everything that is possible.

Quote: Zementbomber

And if we are talking about MFRT, then you can use ammunition with a high-explosive warhead. In the dimensions of the ammunition 170x3000 mm with the required range of up to 1000 m, the mass of the HE warhead can be about 40-50 kg. An explosion of such force, if it does not break through the tank's armor, then tears everything off it - instruments, tracks, the barrel of the gun will ruin. Perhaps the crew will die or be shell-shocked from the armored action.

1. Zabronevoe action without penetration - "treated" by anti-fragmentation-antineutron-electrically insulating lining.

And what will happen to the instruments inside?

Quote: Zementbomber

2. Tiger B with a Henshel turret held a 6 "44-kg OFS shot to the ML-20 without disrupting the turret from the shoulder strap. Draw conclusions.

What is meant by "holding". Move, aim and shoot then he could after that?

[Zementbomber]

No, it is not solvable, because now the BOPSs are of large elongation, and it is impossible to "lift" the barrel as before, or the tower will be 2 times higher.

You are confusing lengthening the BTS and lengthening its core. In addition: at "zenith" corners - they shoot not BTS.

Because there is no tandem remote sensing yet and this is not necessary? Or do you mean that they do not have time to consistently fire? In ammunition under 3 meters long, they can be carried apart from each other.

ERAWA was declassified about a quarter of a century ago and even the Malays already have it. You also communed her with us ("Relic"). And the Jews bought it.
But, despite this, they do not make tridem warheads to ATGMs, because during the delay time that must be maintained before the third warhead unit is triggered, it is destroyed. And by increasing the longitudinal dimensions of the ATGM (within acceptable limits), the problem cannot be solved. Even for subsonic ATGMs. And long-range subsonic ATGMs are already out of date.

Yes, but what will happen tomorrow? And now the Cornet also breaks through everything that is possible.

1. "tomorrow" is when? 5 years old, 10, 25, 50 years old? The answer will depend on this.
2. From VLD "Abrams" for example - the cumulative jet simply ricochets. In those rare cases when the fuse generally works, of course. And the "oblique" warhead - like the ATGM of the Swedish ATGM "Bill" - does not take through the uranium insert.

And what will happen to the instruments inside?

Nothing - they are designed to be shockproof.

What is meant by "holding". Move, aim and shoot then he could after that?

I do not know. These are the results of shooting at a stationary captured tank. But it was noted that there is a risk of disabling the chassis.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

No, it is not solvable, because now the BOPSs are of large elongation, and it is impossible to "lift" the barrel as before, or the tower will be 2 times higher.

You are confusing lengthening the BTS and lengthening its core.

Isn't the change in their size correlated? An increase in the length of the core leads to an increase in the length of the entire BOPS.

Quote: Zementbomber

In addition: at the "zenith" corners - they shoot not BTS.

The fact is that when designing a gun for using a BOPS of large elongation, it is necessary to increase the size of the chamber and breeches that are inside the tower. This leads to difficulties in the operation of automatic loaders and complicates the elevation of the barrel, because the breech will simply rest against the tower floor.

Quote: Zementbomber

Because there is no tandem remote sensing yet and this is not necessary? Or do you mean that they do not have time to consistently fire? In ammunition under 3 meters long, they can be carried apart from each other.

ERAWA was declassified about a quarter of a century ago and even the Malays already have it. You also communed her with us ("Relic"). And the Jews bought it.

Is there any experience of her real opposition to the same Cornets or RPGs like "Cranberry"? I'm really curious.

Quote: Zementbomber

But, despite this, they do not make tridem warheads to ATGMs, because during the delay time that must be maintained before the third warhead unit is triggered, it is destroyed. And by increasing the longitudinal dimensions of the ATGM (within acceptable limits), the problem cannot be solved. Even for subsonic ATGMs. And long-range subsonic ATGMs are already out of date.

I don't think this is a daunting task. The lead charge can be fired forward, before contacting the target. Here, in general, there is a large field for experiments - to put a shock core instead of a cumulative precharge, or to put 3-4 leading charges in parallel, with simultaneous operation, or to put not the main cumulative warhead and a precharge, but two full-size cumulative warheads - there is a place in large ammunition for MFRT for experimentation.

I wonder what warhead is in the Hermes announced on the Army?

Quote: Zementbomber

Yes, but what will happen tomorrow? And now the Cornet also breaks through everything that is possible.

1. "tomorrow" is when? 5 years old, 10, 25, 50 years old? The answer will depend on this.
2. From VLD "Abrams" for example - the cumulative jet simply ricochets. In those rare cases when the fuse generally works, of course. And the "oblique" warhead - like the ATGM of the Swedish ATGM "Bill" - does not take through the uranium insert.

And where does the information about the cumulative jet ricochet from the VLD Abrams come from? In all sources for ABrams there is data on resistance from the COP - 800 mm / 1100 mm, even 1600 mm, but nothing is heard about the ricochet.

[Zementbomber]

Isn't the change in their size correlated? An increase in the length of the core leads to an increase in the length of the entire BOPS.

You are confusing again. This time - the length and elongation. The lengthening of the standard 45 mm core of 140 mm BPS / 5.5 klb to TP KBA-096 will be 17.1. The elongation for a hypothetical 20-mm BPS core to the same TP (BPS cores do not make smaller calibers) will be 38.5. But length core - while not will change. and equally, all geometrical dimensions of the gun elements related to the length of the projectile will not change.

Is there any experience of her real opposition to the same Cornets or RPGs like "Cranberry"? I'm really curious.

The Malays in their tank tender fired at your products and our 2nd generation TOWs. Chose ours (PT.91M).

And where does the information about the cumulative jet ricochet from the VLD Abrams come from? In all sources for ABrams there is data on resistance from the COP - 800 mm / 1100 mm, even 1600 mm, but nothing is heard about the ricochet.

Well, just write in Yandex: "cumulative jet ricochet" and "minimum meeting angles of reliable operation of a cumulative ammunition fuse."
By the way, RCS is a rather interesting phenomenon. According to the theory of interaction of cumulative jets with an obstacle, it should not exist. But "there is a gopher!"
Here's an example of a good theoretical paper on this:
EV Proskuryakov, MV Sorokin, VM Fomin, "The Ricochet of the Cumulative Jet", NovosibVVKU Publishing House (Military Institute).
On the rest of the items - tomorrow.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

Isn't the change in their size correlated? An increase in the length of the core leads to an increase in the length of the entire BOPS.

You are confusing again. This time - the length and elongation. The lengthening of the standard 45 mm core of 140 mm BPS / 5.5 klb to TP KBA-096 will be 17.1. The elongation for a hypothetical 20-mm BPS core to the same TP (BPS cores do not make smaller calibers) will be 38.5. But length core - while not will change. and equally, all geometrical dimensions of the gun elements related to the length of the projectile will not change.

I understand that you mean elongation. But nevertheless, the length of the BOPS is growing, because of this and the problems with its combination with old guns. For example, BOPS "Lead-1" and "Lead-2" - 740mm, BOPS "Vacuum" - 900 mm

And this led to problems with AZ:
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/gurkhan/bps-vakuum-kak-vpihnut-ne-vpihivaemoe-5c3b7b9ebf238900a9aa8adb
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3493417.html

Quote: Zementbomber

Is there any experience of her real opposition to the same Cornets or RPGs like "Cranberry"? I'm really curious.

The Malays in their tank tender fired at your products and our 2nd generation TOWs. Chose ours (PT.91M).

TOW is in any case old, it has 1,5 times less penetration than Cornet.

Quote: Zementbomber

And where does the information about the cumulative jet ricochet from the VLD Abrams come from? In all sources for ABrams there is data on resistance from the COP - 800 mm / 1100 mm, even 1600 mm, but nothing is heard about the ricochet.

Well, just write in Yandex: "cumulative jet ricochet" and "minimum meeting angles of reliable operation of a cumulative ammunition fuse."
By the way, RCS is a rather interesting phenomenon. According to the theory of interaction of cumulative jets with an obstacle, it should not exist. But "there is a gopher!"
Here's an example of a good theoretical paper on this:
EV Proskuryakov, MV Sorokin, VM Fomin, "The Ricochet of the Cumulative Jet", NovosibVVKU Publishing House (Military Institute).
On the rest of the items - tomorrow.

Thank you, read it. But looking ahead and starting from the "minimum meeting angles of reliable operation of the fuse of a cumulative ammunition", we can assume that the problem here is not so much in the armor, but in the approach angle, and this makes it possible to compensate for the ricochet problem by approaching at the optimal angle (from an elevation). Moreover, the ATGM Kornet, in my opinion, is already flying with an excess of the trajectory above the line of sight, so that the tank does not detect the laser beam.

[Zementbomber]

TOW is in any case old, it has 1,5 times less penetration than Cornet.

Not less than 900 mm for DZ. And the degree of perfection of the ATGM is determined not only (and often - and not so much) by the nominal armor penetration.

it can be assumed that the problem here is not so much in the armor, but in the approach angle, and this makes it possible to compensate for the ricochet problem by approaching at the optimal angle (from an elevation). Moreover, the ATGM Kornet, in my opinion, is already flying with an excess of the trajectory above the line of sight, so that the tank does not detect the laser beam.

This has been in place since the late 1980s. The excess there for different ATGMs is -1-1.5 m. The angle of encounter is very (almost negligible) little affected, especially since they all decrease very gently.

[Zementbomber]

The fact is that when designing a gun for using a BOPS of large elongation, it is necessary to increase the size of the chamber and breeches that are inside the tower. This leads to difficulties in the operation of automatic loaders and complicates the elevation of the barrel, because the breech will simply rest against the tower floor.

It is possible to "deepen" the turret without changing the overall height of the tank. The swinging upper half-tower can be used. You can combine both solutions. You can compose a shot according to the cartridge scheme for the G11. You can completely abandon the charge by directly feeding LMV components from the tanks into the chamber before firing. You can go to ETP or EMP - and also get rid of the charge and the sleeve.
Quote: Zementbomber

But, despite this, they do not make tridem warheads to ATGMs, because during the delay time that must be maintained before the third warhead unit is triggered, it is destroyed. And by increasing the longitudinal dimensions of the ATGM (within acceptable limits), the problem cannot be solved. Even for subsonic ATGMs. And long-range subsonic ATGMs are already out of date.

I don't think this is a daunting task. The lead charge can be fired forward, before contacting the target. Here, in general, there is a large field for experiments - to put a shock core instead of a cumulative precharge, or to put 3-4 leading charges in parallel, with simultaneous operation, or to put not the main cumulative warhead and a precharge, but two full-size cumulative warheads - there is a place in large ammunition for MFRT for experimentation.

A charge of the "shock core" type for precharge is physically impossible. For the impact core, there are strict restrictions on the diameter of the funnel. and the "batch" precharge will give nothing.

I wonder what warhead is in the Hermes announced on the Army?

I don’t know, I wasn’t interested. If you wish, I can request the DRZ MO. Perhaps they own and want to informally share the info.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zementbomber

The fact is that when designing a gun for using a BOPS of large elongation, it is necessary to increase the size of the chamber and breeches that are inside the tower. This leads to difficulties in the operation of automatic loaders and complicates the elevation of the barrel, because the breech will simply rest against the tower floor.

It is possible to "deepen" the turret without changing the overall height of the tank. The swinging upper half-tower can be used. You can combine both solutions. ...

Here I can’t say anything, we need to delve into the drawings.

Quote: Zementbomber

You can compose a shot according to the cartridge scheme for the G11. You can completely abandon the charge by directly feeding LMW components from the tanks into the chamber before firing. You can go to ETP or EMP - and also get rid of the charge and the sleeve.

It is possible, but it may turn out to be more difficult than a hypersonic ATGM for MRI. At least until these developments even came out of the laboratories.

Quote: Zementbomber

But, despite this, they do not make tridem warheads to ATGMs, because during the delay time that must be maintained before the third warhead unit is triggered, it is destroyed. And by increasing the longitudinal dimensions of the ATGM (within acceptable limits), the problem cannot be solved. Even for subsonic ATGMs. And long-range subsonic ATGMs are already out of date.

I don't think this is a daunting task. The lead charge can be fired forward, before contacting the target. Here, in general, there is a large field for experiments - to put a shock core instead of a cumulative precharge, or to put 3-4 leading charges in parallel, with simultaneous operation, or to put not the main cumulative warhead and a precharge, but two full-size cumulative warheads - there is a place in large ammunition for MFRT for experimentation.

A charge of the "shock core" type for precharge is physically impossible. For the impact core, there are strict restrictions on the diameter of the funnel. and the "batch" precharge will give nothing.

A warhead with a shock core on SPBE "Motiv-3" less than 190 mm, it is quite possible to fit into the dimensions of the ammunition considered for MfRT. The question of its interaction with the remote sensing, this is an assumption, like a packet charge. You yourself said that theoretically there should not be a COP ricochet, but it is. Theory cannot explain everything, at least right away, it is necessary to check with practice.

Quote: Zementbomber

I wonder what warhead is in the Hermes announced on the Army?

I don’t know, I wasn’t interested. If you wish, I can request the DRZ MO. Perhaps they own and want to informally share the info.

I don't know what DRZ is, but I don't think it makes sense. According to preliminary data on Hermes "universal HE warhead" weighing 28 kg. What it is? A charge with several options for detonation is possible, depending on the type of target.

[Zementbomber]

It is possible, but it may turn out to be more difficult than a hypersonic ATGM for MRI. At least until these developments even came out of the laboratories.

Cartridges for the G11 - produced in the hundreds of thousands back in the 1980s. The rifle and ammunition for it were not accepted into service solely "in connection with the changed situation" (the end of the Cold War) - so the technology of "drowning in the charge" is fully developed.
And the EMP demonstrators are already shooting at real training grounds.

A warhead with a shock core on SPBE "Motiv-3" less than 190 mm, it is quite possible to fit into the dimensions of the ammunition considered for MfRT. The question of its interaction with the remote sensing, this is an assumption, like a packet charge. You yourself said that theoretically there should not be a COP ricochet, but it is. Theory cannot explain everything, at least right away, it is necessary to check with practice.

NNP, you talked about a precharge or a telescopic or fired initiating charge according to the principle of a "shock nucleus". And "this is different" (C) - there the diameters will not be at all like those of the main charges - many (several times) smaller. In the general case, a "shock core" cannot be formed in a charge with a smaller diameter than a conventional cumulative one. AND empirical experience in the creation and use of cumulative ammunition is huge. And it is unlikely by accident that cumulative ammunition with a caliber of less than 35 mm did not appear ...

I don't know what DRZ is

Department of Development Security of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

According to preliminary data on Hermes "universal HE warhead" weighing 28 kg. What it is? A charge with several options for detonation is possible, depending on the type of target.

I don’t know and don’t want to know this advertising newspeak of mentally retarded PR-specialists. On the website KBP them. Shipunova - it is written simply "28-kg OF" - without any additions or clarifications. If there is a plastic explosive, an easily crushed warhead body and there is a bottom fuse - then with the declared warhead mass and missile velocity, it may well work as an armor-piercing high-explosive. True, the question remains about the effectiveness of the BFS against tanks with splinterproof lining.

[Archon]

I didn't like the launcher, some kind of flimsy "hand" with such good armor. I imagined how the troop compartment would open up from above and a whole battery of multiple launch rocket launchers would emerge from it. Then the launch and immediately dozens of missiles fly to the target. Plus, I see in the security of delivery to the launch point of missiles, as well as in the additional use of the platform. I see the minus in the high cost and uselessness.

[Boris Chernikov]

What can I say .. well done, I tried, although it is unlikely to come to development .. in reality, will there be a scheme from Chrysanthemum .. or else. Air defense .. when the launch module is covered with armor, and, if necessary, the launch will stop and raise the launch module vertically in the style of the S-300/400

[Vlad Gore]

It is very similar to the Chrysanthemum anti-tank complex, only based on the Armata. Whether this is necessary or not is a question.

[kutuz]

Fantasies on a theme .......

[malyvalv]

Why bother with a reloading robot on such a decent-sized facility. Place the missiles vertically both on ships and forward.

[Selevc]

I apologize - I'm not an expert on the latest generation tanks, and in particular on Armata, but there is one but extremely topical question ... How will such a technique be protected from UAV attacks ??? And how resistant is it to such attacks or, on the contrary, vulnerable ???
And for now, Russia has managed to create "masterpieces" of the Armor type, which do not yet shine with effective protection against drones !!! The shell famously knocks down UAVs at exhibitions, but so far in a real war, its achievements are more modest. So Carapace is an air defense technique !!! - and sometimes it cannot cope with the UAV !!!.

What then can we say about promising tanks and their clones ??? Or is Russia designing new exhibits for tank dumps, cemeteries of broken and rusty equipment of which there are already enough around the world ???

[vik669]

The level of Photoshop is impressive, well, 3,14 to get rid of sacks, and then we took care of protection from UAV attacks: For fools I repeat once again - Walkie-talkie on ARMORED TRAIN!

[Alexander Vorontsov]

Multifunctional rocket tank (MfRT) T-17 is a concept

[A_lee_may]

Hello Andrey. Thank you so much for the interesting and detailed article.
Please reveal a few questions on this topic.
1. The problem of the extraction of spent transport and launch containers. How and where to put them after the shot?
2. Fire control system. Maybe it is worthwhile to concretize it and, for example, take the fire control system with the Chrysanthemum-S SPTRK as a basis? Or are there any other solutions in this area?
3. Platform. Wouldn't it be better to make a similar tank based on the tank of the "Leader 2000-2005" project (Object 299)?
4. Transport and launch containers. How much are they needed? After all, at IT-1 "Dragon" they did not seem to have been.
5. Modern tanks. How much is it possible to upgrade modern T-72, T-90 and T-80 tanks to accommodate the available missile weapons? For example, take the T-80UM-1 "Bars" as a basis, place an ATGM of the "Cornet" or "Metis" type there, take the launcher as on the "Chrysanthemum-S" SPTRK as a basis, place the crew in front of the tank, take the FCS from the same " Chrysanthemum-S "(I do not know how appropriate the radar will be), and at the same time abundantly spice up this tank with dynamic protection like the Ukrainian" Duplet ", KAZ" Drozd "or" Arena "and KOEP of the" Curtain-1 "type. And also, to place a module with a machine gun "Kord" or AGS-40 "Balkan" as an auxiliary weapon. To what extent is such an example valid and will it be effective in the future?
Thank you in advance.