Military Review

State tests of the tank "Armata" just around the corner

42
State tests of the tank "Armata" just around the cornerDoubtful preconditions of the Ministry of Defense to ensure verification of the combat characteristics of the new tank


The decision on the adoption of the Armata tank should be consistent with the positive results of state tests (GI). These tests are carried out in order to verify and confirm the compliance of the combat, technical and operational characteristics of the new tank with the requirements of the tactical and technical specifications (TTZ) for the conditions of contactless wars. Tests are organized by the customer responsible for their conduct.

The main feature of contactless wars is the defeat of our tanks on long-distance approaches. In this case, strikes will be applied by various ammunition to the least protected roof of the armored vehicle. Simultaneously, the enemy will use the microwave weapon, allowing to apply electronic strikes to disable the on-board information management system and other electronics of the tank "Armata", which will drastically reduce its combat capability. These features of contactless wars should be reflected in the TTZ for the development of a new tank, and in the GI program should contain the relevant test sections. The outdated Soviet-era GI methodology (see NVO, No.13, 2008; No.10, 2012) is unsuitable for testing the combat characteristics of the new Armata tank as applied to contactless wars.

ON MODEL MODERN BATTLE

Recently, the media paid considerable attention to the problem of the development of domestic armored vehicles. It is known that last year technical specifications were approved for the creation of a family of combat vehicles based on the Armata single platform. The General Staff also approved an appropriate program for the development of a new tank, infantry fighting vehicles and other vehicles for arming tank and motorized rifle brigades of the Ground Forces. The new tank "Armata" is planned to be commissioned in the 2015 year.

At the same time, statements, the articles of military leaders and specialists of the Uralvagonzavod research and production corporation, as well as the management of VNIItransmash, OJSC, do not link the characteristics of new armored vehicles to the conditions of contactless wars. The manipulation of technical characteristics (armored protection, firepower, mobility), which do not take into account the conditions of contactless wars, continues.

It can be foreseen that in non-contact wars the tank brigade will operate under the following conditions. Foreign space satellites of radar reconnaissance will detect “Armata” tanks even in the dark and in dense clouds. Their coordinates will be transmitted to ground and air weapons. The use of fire weapons will be preceded by an electronic strike based on the use of microwave radio emissions in order to disable key elements of on-board information control systems (CICS), active protection systems (KAZ) installed on Armata tanks, and electronics of military air defense systems, accompanying on the march and in combat conditions these machines.

An electronic strike will be followed by an attack by tactical missiles of the Ground Forces and ATACMS missiles (MLRS MLRS) with cluster warheads equipped with self-aiming (SPBE) and homing (SNBE) combat elements. Long-range anti-tank weapons will be simultaneously deployed aviation, artillery, which requires the availability of highly effective mobile air defense systems of short range and short range. Part of the tanks will be destroyed before approaching the line of contact. Bursts that break through will be fired by ATGM, BPS and RPGs. These conditions should be considered in the GI program. Since the existing methods of conducting the GI to the full do not allow testing of the Armata tank, the creation of new methods is required.

NEW METHODS FOR CARRYING OUT OF ATTECTS


The program and methods of GI are developed on the basis of TTZ and design documentation. If the program GI takes into account the conditions of contactless wars, then the following methods are required.

The first should be “The method of checking in typical combat situations the visibility (probability of detection) of Armata tanks by enemy radar reconnaissance satellites and other means of detection.” What we have today on this issue? The role of the “Cape” created by the Steel Research Institute using radio-absorbing and heat-insulating materials is still a mystery when our tanks are detected by foreign radar reconnaissance satellites and long-range radar detection aircraft (AWACS). No full test of the "Cape" was carried out, so it is necessary to establish the fact that Russian radar satellites of the reconnaissance brigade of our tanks equipped with the "Cape" detected.

It is known that the "Cape" was sold abroad, so we can assume that foreign organizations conducted large-scale tests of the "Cape" using reconnaissance satellites and DRLO aircraft.

In addition to passive means using radio-absorbing and heat-insulating materials, it is necessary to create active devices that block the functioning of foreign reconnaissance satellites. In this case, the methodology should be the appropriate section of the test.

The President, Director of Science at the Scientific Research Institute of Steel, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valery Grigoryan noted: “At present, it is necessary to apply large-scale efforts for conspicuity, since its further disregard makes the maintenance of tank fleets senseless because of their inability to conduct any serious military operations. 10 years have passed since then, and things are still there.

INSPECTION OF BIUS RESISTANCE

The second is the “Method of testing the resistance of the BIUS, KAZ and other radio-electronic means of the Armata tank from the effects of the enemy's microwave weapons”. Microwave weapons can have a disastrous effect on the electronics of the Armata tank, damaging and destroying electronic circuits (see “NVO” No. XXUMX, 13). It can affect electronics even when it is turned off. The defeat of microwave weapons, for example, the main element of the KAZ - a radar station detecting and tracking flying ammunition to the Armata tank ensures its reliable destruction of the ATGM with self-guided and self-propelled combat elements of aviation and artillery ammunition and rounds of anti-tank grenade launchers.

At the same time, when checking the improvement of electronics installed on the Armata tank, in terms of protection against electronic shocks, a microwave weapon simulator with characteristics corresponding to promising foreign models is required. It is alarming to use in the electronic filling of the Armata tank and in the military air defense system (protecting Armata) imported elements, which will not make it possible to increase the durability of these systems from electronic impact.

ANTI-TANK FUNDS

“The method of assessing the security of the Armata tank when exposed to anti-tank weapons” is very important. It can be assumed that with the mass of the Armata 50 t (see fig. 1), the lower (1) and upper (2) frontal armor resistance and frontal armor of the tower will not exceed the armor-piercing projectile projectile (BPS) 600 mm , and for cumulative ammunition - 700 mm. The armor resistance of the 600 mm barrier for BPS means that this projectile with 600 mm armor penetration capability does not penetrate this barrier. At the same time, it is known that the armor penetration capability of foreign BPS DМ43 (Germany), М829А2 (USA) and others at a distance of 2 km exceeds the armor resistance of “Armata”. Therefore, it can be expected that the protection of the frontal zones of the hull and turret of the Armata tank will be enhanced by installing the Relict (5) complex, which, according to the developers, functions against modern tandem cumulative ammunition and BPS.

In the well-known metropolitan newspaper, it is reported that the basis of the Relikt complex is a new element of dynamic protection (EDS) 4-23 with a new composition of explosives. But the effectiveness of the DZ depends also on its design, and not only on the EHL. Overcoming the remote control "Relikt" can be accomplished with the aid of a shot-up precharge, having armor penetration 400 – 450 mm and providing detonation of two explosive layers (see “NVO” No. 45, 2011). Foreign experts own shooting precharges tandem warhead ATGM. Thus, the NOT2T rocket (FRG), which was put into service in 1992, provided for pre-charge shooting, which indicates the great potential of foreign experts in creating tandem warheads for reliably overcoming Relic.

With the weight of the tank "Armata" 50 t it is difficult to expect an increase in the reservation of the roof (4), sides and bottom. Obviously, the thickness of the roof armor will not exceed 50 mm, and the sides - 70 mm. On the whole, passive booking of the roof and sides in combination with the Relic Reactor will not provide reliable protection for the Armata tank. For this reason, a high level of reliability and effectiveness of the KAZ and military air defense in repelling attacks of long-range aviation and artillery anti-tank weapons is required.

Particular attention should be paid to foreign long-range anti-tank aircraft acting on the Armata tank from the upper hemisphere, which include the third generation of anti-tank anti-aircraft systems (“shot-forgotten”) AGM-114L “Hellfire” (USA), “Brimstone” ( UK) and PARS 3LR (FRG). The armor penetration rate of the main charge of the tandem warhead of these missiles is 1200 mm. The maximum firing range of the Hellfire and PARS 3LR is 8 km, and Brimstone is 10 km. The aircraft of the US Army in the 2016 year should come JAGM ATGM, in which the maximum firing range from a helicopter will be 16 km, and from an airplane - 28 km. The JAGM ATGM should replace the AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire and BGM-71 Tou missiles in service.

Over the past two decades, various publications have been advertising complexes that increase the security of Russian tanks. These complexes should prevent the second-generation anti-tank missiles from getting into the armored vehicle (Blind optoelectronic suppression system, the life cycle of which ended long ago due to the adoption of foreign third-generation missiles with radar and thermal homing). Complexes must strike flying anti-tank ammunition, including from above (the Arena active defense complex does not intercept BPS and attack nuclei). Finally, drastically reduce the armor-piercing action of cumulative ammunition and BPS. Landmark mounted complexes - “Kontakt”, built-in - “Kontakt-V”, universal - “Relikt” had shortened life cycles. They ended in connection with the adoption of weapons of ammunition capable of overcoming these complexes.

It would seem that the eternal problem of “projectile-armor” has acquired new outlines. The active struggle with anti-tank ammunition begins when you approach the armored vehicle and continues until the beginning of direct interaction with the tank's armor. But, unfortunately, the emergence of new anti-tank weapons today overtakes ongoing measures to protect tanks.

"Relic" protection

Ten years ago, Valeriy Grigoryan, summing up the activities of steel research institutes in the article below, noted: “Today, the institute has developed a universal protection for frontal projections of the Relikt tank, which has anti-tandem properties and exceeds the standard“ Contact- V ”five to six times. Also, the sides and the tank were protected from above from monoblock and tandem anti-tank grenades and light ATGMs when fired at normal. The so-called electromagnetic protection against mines and warheads of anti-tank guided missiles with magnetometric fuses and collective, local and individual protection of the crew against secondary fragments have been developed. “But of the above devices, only dynamic protection Relikt was adopted in 2006.

Valery Grigoryan's message about the protection of the roof and sides of the tank from monoblock and tandem RPG shots and light ATGMs during normal shelling can be perceived as very outdated. In service of the aviation of the Land Forces of Germany ATGM PARS 3 LR is from 2008 year. This rocket can be programmed to strike at an Armat tank from above with a meeting angle close to 90 degrees. With the 8 km firing range and the armor penetration capacity of the 1200 tandem warhead, the roof of the Armata tank (4) will be broken even if the Relic is mounted on it. At the same time, the overhead effect of the cumulative jet can be assessed by breaking through the armor plates 200 – 300 mm thick. In this case, a protective capsule (8) will not save the crew and equipment from destruction.

The need to protect the roof of tanks in scientific research institutes has been felt for a long time, but still our tanks remain virtually unprotected by the engine-transmission compartment and the roof of the tower, on which are mounted hinged DZ blocks that do not provide reliable protection against modern foreign anti-tank weapons. This policy has been retained since 1983, when there was a danger of top-down aviation cluster-type cumulative elements with 200 mm armor penetration.

In 1983, the All-Russian Research Institute of Steel organized an inspection of the protection of the roof of a promising foreign tank with the help of a simulator, the design of which is shown in Fig. 2. During the experiments, aviation cumulative 2,5 KO cassette elements were used, which were installed at the following meeting angle values ​​from the normal to the upper surface of the simulator: 0, 30, 45, 60 degrees. To determine zabronevogo action for the simulator installed a package of thin armor plates. Depths of penetration of cumulative jets into these armor plates determined the armor ‑ action. For the angles 0 and 30 degrees, the depth of penetration of the cumulative jets were 32 and 17, respectively, mm. At the corners of 45 and 60 degrees, the supergrade action was absent. Only such a super-dangerous action can save the crew of “Almaty”, which is in a special capsule.

To date, the results of research institutes of steel on armor and dynamic protection of our tanks were obtained using analogues of foreign ammunition, which was taken as the Soviet ATGM, RPG shots with 700 mm armor penetration, as well as BNP 3BM22 (armor penetration - 170 mm / 60 deg.). ) and 3BM42 (armor penetration - 220 mm / 60 degrees.). Today, these characteristics of foreign ammunition have increased significantly. Thus, the armor penetration of foreign tandem warheads of the AGM AGM-114L Hellfire, Brimstone and others is 1200 mm, and the armor penetration of the BPS DM43 (core material is from a tungsten alloy) is 350 mm / 60 deg. The tandem warheads of the Kornet and Chrysanthem ATGMs can be taken as analogues of modern foreign vehicles, which are advisable to use in static explosions in fragments of frontal protection of the Armat tank. But with analogs of foreign BPS things are very bad. For evaluation of armor resistance of the new tank BPS 3BM42 (armor penetration - 220 mm / 60 degrees) and 3БМ48 (300 mm / 60 degrees) are not suitable. In other words, there is no analogue of a foreign BPS to check the armor protection of the Armat tank.

MISSILE ARTILLERY ARMAMENT

One of the most important is the “Method of assessing the effectiveness of the Armata’s missile and artillery armament”. It can be expected that an 135-mm smoothbore gun - launcher (3) with a host of associated problems will be installed on the Armata tank. One of them is the production of barrels of tank guns with spatial curvature and low durability. These drawbacks double the drop in BPS speed at a distance of 2 km compared to foreign models. The curvature of the trunk also increases the dispersion of BPS and reduces the likelihood of hitting the target. Thus, the production of high-quality barrels of tank guns remains an unresolved problem for our defense industry.

The decision to install the 135-mm cannon on the Armata tank can only be considered an attempt to achieve the level of BPS armor penetration characteristic of foreign 120-mm artillery systems of the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States, and France. Back in the late 80-x - the beginning of the 90-s, these countries carried out research and development to create 140-mm guns and BPS. The demonstration firing witnessed an increase in the armor penetration of 140-mm BPS by 40% compared with the armor-penetrating 120-mm BPS. But since foreign tank 120-mm guns still have sufficient potential to destroy Russian tanks, their life cycle continues.

The use of an ATGM fired from a barrel in an Armata tank seems to increase the target's range. However, according to employees of 38 Research Institute of Defense, Doctor of Technical Sciences Grigory Golovochev, Colonel Candidate of Technical Sciences Alexey Shevchenko, Colonel, Candidate of Technical Sciences Vladimir Shirobokov, a deterrent to the effectiveness of the use of ATGM is that in real combat the probability of direct visibility at distances greater than 2500 m, very insignificant ("Military Thought", № 1, 2012). In addition, our design bureau cannot create a third-generation ATGM.

With regard to anti-tank ammunition, this technique in the framework of the GI provides for obtaining experimentally the characteristics of armor-piercing and zabronevy actions. After that, the probability of destruction of a typical foreign tank is determined with the help of the System of Initial Data on the Vulnerability Characteristics of Typical Elementary Ground Armored Targets and the Defective Action of Anti-Tank Ammunition But the aforementioned Soviet LED does not contain the characteristics of the vulnerability of a typical foreign tank, defined and justified from a series of tanks M1А2 SEP, Leopard-2А6, Leclerc-2, М1А3 (see “NVO”, 28, 2011, М401.1.6А454 (see “NVO”, 85, XNUMX, МXNUMXАXNUMX) At the same time, experimentally obtained characteristics of armor piercing and zabronevy actions were previously carried out using simulators of the frontal (most protected) zones of foreign tanks, which were manufactured in accordance with the guidelines (RD XNUMX-XNUMX-XNUMX) "Composition of complex barriers for assessing the armor-piercing action of anti-tank ammunition" . This outdated taxiway does not reflect the latest protection achievements in foreign tank building. The absence of modern LEDs and taxiways, taking into account the development of foreign tank building, will not allow to give a reliable assessment of the missile and artillery armament of the tank "Armata".

INFORMATION TO THOUGHT

Tank "Armata" is created in the period of the advanced level of development of foreign technologies of reconnaissance, guidance and delivery of new small-sized with low radar visibility of guided anti-tank weapons operating on long-distance approaches from the least protected upper hemisphere of armored vehicles. In the conditions of the sixth generation of wars, the tank brigade can suffer heavy losses even at far approaches. In contactless wars, a new tactic of dealing with armored vehicles on long-range approaches can be seen by shelling the least protected roofs of armored vehicles. In the combat zone, the Armata tanks will no longer be attacked by old foreign tactical aircraft F-15, F-16 and A-10; Maverick missiles, which are planning to use Walley air bombs (see “NVO” No. 44, 2007). They will be replaced by small-sized high-speed anti-tank ammunition. In this situation, an Arena-type KAZ will no longer fully protect the Armata tank, for example, from SPBE with a warhead on the principle of a shock core. At the same time, in Germany, a KAZ is created for the Leopard-2А6 tank, which should provide protection against artillery and aviation munitions from SNBE, SPb by jamming their guidance systems and destroying them on the approach to armored vehicles at 20 – 150 m in the upper hemisphere. - 25 – 250 m.

The lag in the parameters of the domestic KAZ should be compensated by increasing the effectiveness of the action of the short-range and short-range air defense systems in the fight against promising anti-tank weapons. Unfortunately, this problem is not given due attention.

The article does not reflect the entire scope of work that must be carried out to ensure the GI of the Armata tank with appropriate methods, material and technical and metrological support of the tests. Much work should be done to substantiate and manufacture simulators for the protection of a typical foreign tank, as well as to select standard analogues of foreign ammunition intended to destroy the Armata tank. The main thing is not to repeat the main mistake of the past: to evaluate the protection of the Armata tank with old Soviet ammunition.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2012-09-14/1_armata.html
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 15 September 2012 07: 04 New
    +3
    I’m just waiting for a new tank with impatience !!!!! yes In the meantime, it remains only to observe the formation of a new tank!
    1. Redpartyzan
      Redpartyzan 15 September 2012 08: 38 New
      +4
      In addition to the praiseworthy speeches, it is sometimes useful to hear and a necessary portion of criticism is a good article makes you think. Although, anyway, I sincerely believe that the Armata will be the best tank in the world.
      1. Kars
        Kars 15 September 2012 11: 23 New
        +8
        Just like that
        for example
        Foreign space satellites of radar reconnaissance will detect Armata tanks even in the dark and in dense clouds

        And where does the tank? Or tank unit? This is the task of the VKS to bring down the enemy satellites.
        In the conditions of the sixth generation of wars, a tank brigade can suffer heavy losses even at distant approaches.

        It is understood that the tank brigade is at war with the enemy in a spherical vacuum, where there are no other combat arms except the tank.

        I do not like gurkhan, but it is worth reading his opinion on the article and the author.
        http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post_14.html
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 15 September 2012 11: 40 New
          0
          it's hell and israel
          And where does the tank? Or tank unit? This is the task of the VKS to bring down the enemy satellites.
          No one will search for satellites from tanks. Moreover, there are very few such satellites left.
          I do not like gurkhan, but it is worth reading his opinion on the article and the author.
          What about Tarasenko? laughing
          1. Kars
            Kars 15 September 2012 11: 44 New
            +2
            Quote: leon-iv
            No one will look from satellites Tanks

            is it true? but what will hinder this? at the same time it is not necessary to search as it is written in the radar range, there is still thermal.
            Quote: leon-iv
            What about Tarasenko?

            And I love reading Tarasenko. He, unlike Gurkhan, does not cancel the Thai contracts due to floods.
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 15 September 2012 11: 52 New
              +1
              and what will stop it?
              Yes, nothing bothers
              BUT
              1 satellite flight path.
              2 This is a microscope to hammer nails.

              And I love reading Tarasenko. He, unlike Gurkhan, does not cancel the Thai contracts due to floods.
              But whistles like Trotsky.
              1. Kars
                Kars 15 September 2012 11: 56 New
                0
                Quote: leon-iv
                1 satellite flight path

                Well, they are not enough
                Quote: leon-iv
                2 This is a microscope to hammer nails

                This is also not a hindrance, if they have a microscope, then they need to do something. Or will the satellites have something more important than transmitting a picture of the battlefield (on a full scale, and not just the field))))))))) in real time to their troops?
                Quote: leon-iv
                But whistles like Trotsky.

                Well, you’ll vryatli personally, you will be able to defeat him strongly. And who whistles more is a tough question. (Especially when he says troubles about Ukraine)
                1. leon-iv
                  leon-iv 15 September 2012 12: 03 New
                  +1
                  Well vryatli personally, you will be able to strongly defeat him
                  Duc stands for example courage and a gamble to read there, they poked it 100500 times with his nose. Yes, and he removes the posts as it was with the protection of the T-90 and T-80. It was just the same trash that drove there with pissed brooms.
                  Well, they are not enough
                  Few and all basically go as SPRN
                  (on a full scale, and not just the field))))))))) in real time to their troops?
                  Tales from films this battlefield a small satellite passes it extremely quickly. For this there is a UAV.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 15 September 2012 12: 06 New
                    0
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    So costs for example courage

                    read, read - I don’t remember something. Can’t you throw a link?
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    Little

                    how many? commercial geodesics take into account? double-triple purpose?
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    Tales from films this battlefield a small satellite passes it extremely quickly

                    vryatli it tales, and vryatli quickly - can you tell me the field of view of the satellite?
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    For this there is a UAV

                    for UAVs have air defense
                    1. leon-iv
                      leon-iv 15 September 2012 12: 13 New
                      0
                      - I don’t remember. Can’t you throw a link?
                      right now not at work she was with me there. If I do not forget, I will unsubscribe in PM on Monday Tuesday.
                      How much?
                      Emnip even about 15-20 + 25-30 which the whole world uses.
                      vryatli it tales, and vryatli quickly - can you tell me the field of view of the satellite?
                      which with radar or with optical and infrared sensors.

                      for UAVs have air defense
                      But it’s not so to bring down a small UAV is a VERY non-trivial task. No matter how funny it is. On a gamble there is a branch on UAVs there runs such a comrade as Ravil read his posts on this topic.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 15 September 2012 12: 27 New
                        0
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        If i don't forget

                        Do not forget.
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        Emnip even about 15-20 + 25-30

                        The fighting of NATO forces in Yugoslavia is accompanied by the widespread use of military and civilian space systems. As noted in the Western media, this operation is carried out using more than 50 American and European satellites for various purposes.
                        On the whole, the orbital constellation involved during the war contained, according to open sources, 50-59 military spacecraft for various purposes, 28 GPS systems, and a large number of commercial spacecraft communications and remote sensing of the Earth.

                        http://artofwar.ru/r/romanow_n_a/text_0330.shtml
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        which with radar or with optical and infrared sensors

                        both of those, I'm not picky.
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        But this is not so to bring down a small UAV is a VERY non-trivial task

                        Well, for every non-trivial task there is a Needle with a screw, or DShK, and no one says that they are in a fairy tale. Yes, and fighters also need something to do. We are not discussing Alkaids.
                  2. DIMS
                    DIMS 15 September 2012 12: 09 New
                    0
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    Tales from films this battlefield a small satellite passes it extremely quickly. For this there is a UAV.

                    Technologies for quickly creating a group of microsatellites launched in an endangered period and providing constant monitoring have long been developed
                    1. leon-iv
                      leon-iv 15 September 2012 12: 23 New
                      0
                      Technologies for quickly creating a group of microsatellites launched in an endangered period and providing constant monitoring have long been developed
                      I am in the know, but again I repeat about nails and microskim.
                      1. DIMS
                        DIMS 15 September 2012 12: 34 New
                        0
                        Running microsatellites is a relatively cheap thing. In addition, they do not require accurate data, there is always the possibility of additional reconnaissance by drones with simultaneous fire defeat. And satellites will still be used, since drones are not able to constantly control 100% of the territory occupied by the enemy
            2. PLO
              PLO 15 September 2012 13: 06 New
              0
              is it true? but what will hinder this? at the same time it is not necessary to search as it is written in the radar range, there is still thermal.

              that's the way RPM work Cape

              watch from the 6th minute
              1. PLO
                PLO 15 September 2012 13: 26 New
                +1
                strange .. the video is not being watched
                toga link

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpwPx--exs
                1. Armata
                  Armata 15 September 2012 13: 41 New
                  +1
                  PLO All this is cool. But there are facts of the supply of this to the troops?
                  1. PLO
                    PLO 15 September 2012 14: 02 New
                    0
                    I honestly do not know
                    but it’s like I read that all modernized T-72 tanks up to the T-72b2 level are equipped with this kit

                    at the moment it is known about 2 contracts for the modernization of the t-72 - 170 tanks from 2008 and 360 tanks from May of this year

                    by the way, Khlopotov’s article about the cape and its more modern version of Ternovnik

                    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post_344.html
        2. Evgen2509
          Evgen2509 15 September 2012 15: 50 New
          0
          I don't like gurkhan

          Why don’t you love him? As for personal opinion, everyone has his own opinion, but from a professional point of view, he is more competent than many experts, in particular, the author of this article.
          1. Kars
            Kars 15 September 2012 18: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Evgen2509
            Why don’t you love him?

            Quote: Kars
            .And who whistles more is a tough question. (Especially when he says troubles about Ukraine)
            1. Kars
              Kars 16 September 2012 18: 52 New
              0
              Earlier in the media, it was already reported about the desire of Indonesia to acquire German tanks, but second-hand, removed from service by the Dutch army. In addition to the "Leopards", the Indonesian military was also very interested in the Russian T-90S tanks. Our services for the supply of tanks imposed absolutely completely and Ukraine... However, as we can see, both Russian and Ukrainian tank builders were "in flight". At the same time, the "flight" of Ukraine was natural, but the insufficient efforts to promote their tanks to Indonesia on the Russian side can be explained by the fact that the production facilities of Uralvagonzavod have already been loaded for several years in advance, almost completely by a number of already signed but not yet announced contracts, as well as contracts in stage of signing. At the same time, we are talking not only about the supply of finished machines, but also about the deployment of a new licensed production on the customer's territory.


              This example of fresh creativity of the gurkhan doesn’t cause a desire to love him?
  2. VadimSt
    VadimSt 15 September 2012 07: 13 New
    +4
    And here, in the opinion of the layman, everything is simple! The development, financing and adoption of models that do not meet the conditions of modern warfare should be equated with treason.
  3. nycsson
    nycsson 15 September 2012 08: 10 New
    +4
    God forbid that these tests were successful and this tank was adopted!
    Yesterday I was shocked to learn that the Ministry of Defense would not purchase the Pantsir-C1 missile-cannon system, since it had not passed the test and did not meet the stated requirements! request We bought only 10 pieces, which participated in the parade! negative
    1. Flanker06
      Flanker06 16 September 2012 10: 45 New
      0
      Again an anonymous source in MO? laughing
  4. r.anoshkin
    r.anoshkin 15 September 2012 08: 31 New
    +2
    Khrushchev is a shit-once ordered to create the best, we will create and write "the best." Vbukhivanie and shit billions already for-e-bloo.
  5. Aeneas
    Aeneas 15 September 2012 08: 42 New
    +7
    the author of the article proposes to conduct state tests of the tank according to the "Armata against the entire royal army" method! For some reason, the tank must effectively resist radar reconnaissance satellites, AWACS aircraft, operational-tactical missile systems, etc. I already imagine Armata as a monster hung with many antennas of various ranges, air defense and missile defense missile systems ... Nooo, a tank cannot be like that, these functions should be performed by military air defense systems, RTR and EW stations on an armored base as part of tank columns.
    1. 1tankist
      1tankist 15 September 2012 10: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Aeneas
      the author of the article proposes to conduct state tests of the tank according to the "Armata against the entire royal army" method! For some reason, the tank must effectively resist radar reconnaissance satellites, AWACS aircraft, operational-tactical missile systems, etc. I already imagine Armata as a monster hung with many antennas of various ranges, air defense and missile defense missile systems ... Nooo, a tank cannot be like that, these functions should be performed by military air defense systems, RTR and EW stations on an armored base as part of tank columns.


      Totally agree with you. According to the author, the tank unit operates in isolation from the rest of the troops, while the enemy uses satellites, aviation, artillery, microwave weapons, anti-tank weapons with combined arms units. He was surprised that he did not propose to consider nuclear weapons of the type one mine-based missile with a nuclear warhead on a separate tank. He clearly does not resist such a shelling. fool
      Following the author’s logic, all NATO forces and means will be used to combat the tank unit after being discovered by space reconnaissance equipment. But then this is generally stupid, since by sending false targets (a regiment of inflatable tanks), you can provoke them into retaliatory measures, and then win the war.
      In my opinion, the model of using the means of destruction is sucked from the finger and does not correspond to reality.
      In India, tank forces are the second deterrent after nuclear weapons. This assessment is given by Indian military experts. They use our tanks in real combat operations and are satisfied with their effectiveness.
      Undoubtedly, it is necessary to further improve military equipment, and not to stand still, but to break away from reality is useless.
  6. bask
    bask 15 September 2012 08: 55 New
    -1
    Requirement as a tank for frontal combat. What kind of frontal bore, what kind of ammunition shells. The militants do not have anti-tank guns. Rossi needs a tank with characteristics. Asymmetric warfare in the mountains and urban conditions. Armata does not meet these requirements, not by one parameter. Yes 20 years even for frontal warfare, it will clearly become obsolete. Before entering the army. The main attention for the future of the Russian tank should be given to the Mine, anti-cumulative reservation, Roof and side armoring. We don’t need another breakthrough tank. We need an assault tank! And the characteristics are needed for an assault tank.
    1. Alexey Prikazchikov
      Alexey Prikazchikov 15 September 2012 09: 14 New
      +1
      2 tanks and so will be, obt and assault tank.
    2. 1tankist
      1tankist 15 September 2012 10: 27 New
      +1
      In the mountains of India, t-90 tanks are used for clashes with Pakistan. Indians are happy.
      I do not think that you know the characteristics of Almaty to reliably state that it is already outdated. In addition, why do you exclude the use of other means of destroying the enemy in a war, such as missiles, aviation, artillery, fire support combat vehicles, assault forces, etc. The task of a tank is to use other firepower, maneuverability and defense to destroy other tanks and fortified fire position. While he coped with this task. It is necessary to improve it, but to reject, believing that it will soon become obsolete, is silly. So we generally will be left without tanks.
    3. Aeneas
      Aeneas 15 September 2012 11: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: bask
      .What frontal broray, what submunitions shells. The militants do not have anti-tank guns.
      Georgians have it all. Or, hypothetically, Azerbaijanis also have in stock and brute force. If the Kremlin decides to intervene for the Armenians ...
      1. Old skeptic
        Old skeptic 15 September 2012 12: 35 New
        +1
        This all needs more brains and fighting spirit ....
  7. 1976AG
    1976AG 15 September 2012 09: 11 New
    +1
    I hope the MO and KB have an idea of ​​what the new tank should be.
  8. lesnik.
    lesnik. 15 September 2012 09: 17 New
    +4
    Muddy article. According to the author, the tank (at the maximum possible mass - dimensional values) should defend itself from everything and destroy everyone. It is impossible to create a tank - all in one bottle.
    Even an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 50/100 thousand tons, no one is trying to transfer to self-service.
  9. bask
    bask 15 September 2012 09: 42 New
    0
    I agree. When we see in the metal, then it will be a bit of a discussion. MO can change its requirements anyway. As was the case with the BTR 90 Sprut BMP3F BMD4, etc.
  10. upasika1918
    upasika1918 15 September 2012 10: 36 New
    +2
    I'm a layman in tanks. I worry about the fate of the Motherland, the Army and its Soldiers. And I have questions. Are new tanks needed for the Army or for Weapons Dealers? The more complex the technique, the more reliable it is? How long does a tank live in modern combat? The air is filled with unmanned vehicles, maybe you need tanks without a crew? Are tanks even capable of withstanding attack helicopters and the Smerch? Is "Armata" a temporary machine for the period of industrial modernization and personnel training? For whom to build aircraft carriers, ships, planes, tanks while reducing the Russian People? Are we going to import Koreans?
  11. escobar
    escobar 15 September 2012 11: 03 New
    +5
    Ukraine does not have the requirements to create a tank on a new generation platform, but there is serious experience, scientific, technical and technological potential, competent working hands and engineering and design corps.
    It would be great and profitable to combine the efforts of our countries to create a competitive armored car. Ambition .. ambition ... Sorry ..
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 September 2012 11: 28 New
      -2
      Quote: escobar
      beneficial to combine the efforts of our countries to create a competitive armored vehicle


      as soon as Armata is launched, the Chinese and Pakistanis will come running to us.
      We do not need a new generation tank, but if Armata forms the market for new generation tanks, then the offer will not be long in coming.

      And joining forces - how many AN-70 are valnynye? If even under the USSR, Kharkov and Tagil were on knives, but what can we talk about now.
      1. Aeneas
        Aeneas 15 September 2012 11: 45 New
        0
        The Chinese will not come running to anyone ... Is it sho for a 1500-strong version of the 6TD dvigun, and the packs are also tied to the Chinese. In general, no one understands the appearance of the Armata, except for those who are knowledgeable (the drawing for the article and the photo of the model for Rogozin are two different things) The concept of the tank was created in the early 70s and the Kharkov T-74 was recognized as the most successful, but even then the problems were exposed that even Morozov could not overcome. And here it's not even a matter of observation devices or control systems, which have evolved significantly ... In general, this whole story is described in Tarasenko's LiveJournal. I do not see the prerequisites for a "leap" of Russian tank building to the level of the embodiment of Morozov's ideas, because they are too revolutionary. And in the world no one builds tanks according to the "non-classical" scheme. Most likely, Armata will be such an embodiment of the "ideas of the Merkava", as the most real embodiment of the "next generation".
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 September 2012 11: 58 New
          0
          Quote: Aeneas
          will not come running

          Quote: Aeneas
          Is sho

          It seems like everything speaks by itself. If they run across one, then maybe the second and third.
          Quote: Aeneas
          And in the world no one builds tanks according to the "non-classical" scheme.

          Here on this and all hope for armature.
    2. Darck
      Darck 15 September 2012 14: 18 New
      -2
      Ukraine has no requirements for creating a tank on a new generation platform
      At first, Ukraine should at least launch its Oplot into a series, then think about tanks on the new platform.
      the author of the article proposes to conduct state tests of the tank using the "Armata against the entire royal army" method!
      In general, for each generation of tanks, they have their own requirements and will be checked in accordance with these requirements, if they say that he must withstand the direct hit of a nuclear warhead, then they will conduct tests.
      But then this is generally stupid, since by sending false targets (a regiment of inflatable tanks), you can provoke them into retaliatory measures, and then win the war.
      Now you can’t fool anyone with inflatable tanks.
      Are tanks capable of withstanding attack helicopters and the Smerch?
      Theoretically capable, but a tank is a means of fire support and suppression, and other types of troops should be engaged in helicopters and a tornado.
      1. escobar
        escobar 15 September 2012 19: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Darck
        At first, Ukraine should at least launch its Oplot into a series, then think about tanks on the new platform.

        Well .. I’m saying ambition. A black eagle, a white parrot, an armata, but there’s no new armor. And it could be:
        "Friendship of Peoples Reliable POLOT"
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 15 September 2012 21: 29 New
          0
          "Friendship of Peoples Reliable POLOT"
          Why do we need a non-serial sample?
          If you need intermediate, then they would take the T-90AM
          We need new tanks that are in the development and modernization of the T-72 to the T-72B2 level, which they are doing now.
          http://twower.livejournal.com/864556.html
          1. escobar
            escobar 15 September 2012 23: 16 New
            +1
            "Friendship of Peoples Reliable POLOT"
            Well this is an allegory, here it’s not about a particular tank, dear))
  12. bask
    bask 15 September 2012 11: 05 New
    0
    Why Russia’s experience with T90 against Pakistan, We have our own, bitter .. EXPERIENCE, Chechnya 1.2. And only based on our own combat experience to build a new tank. And it turns out again for export. The first and main requirement is the life of the crew. 2 Combat effectiveness.
  13. Darck
    Darck 15 September 2012 11: 20 New
    -2
    as well as the frontal armor of the tower will not exceed 600 mm for armor-piercing projectiles (BPS), and for cumulative ammunition - 700 mm
    It’s cotton wool for the frontal armor, the M829A3 will flash it like a hot butter knife. And if by that time the M829E4 comes out, you can forget about this tank. Any modern BPS and ATGM will hit it in the forehead.
    DZ "Relic" (5), which, according to the developers, operates against modern tandem cumulative ammunition and BPS.
    The relic is designed for M829A3 (maybe) how it behaves against E4, no one knows, but E4 was specially made against the new generation D3. It is better to build armor normally than to make cotton from D3.With such protection, as if the old tank didn’t come out again under a new name.
    The maximum firing range Hellfire and PARS 3LR - 8 km
    Actually, the 114L has a range of 12km.
    In addition, our design bureau cannot create a third generation ATGM in any way.
    This is bad because other countries are already testing them.
    KAZ type "Arena"
    The arena seems to have failed the tests, it has many dead zones, etc.
  14. leon-iv
    leon-iv 15 September 2012 11: 50 New
    +1
    O5 HBO of the old senility released on the Internet.
    And now the most fat
    The use of fire weapons will be preceded by a radio-electronic strike based on the use of microwave radio emissions in order to disable key elements of on-board information and control systems (BIUS), active defense systems (KAZ) installed on Armata tanks, as well as electronics of military air defense systems, accompanying these vehicles on the march and in combat conditions.
    But nothing that the electronics on the tanks should work even after the YaV. And this is one of the basic conditions.
    It is known that the "Cape" was sold abroad, so we can assume that foreign organizations conducted large-scale tests of the "Cape" using reconnaissance satellites and DRLO aircraft.
    AWACS does not work on the ground in principle. And the cape is a disguise in the Ik area.
    Particular attention should be paid to foreign long-range anti-tank aircraft acting on the Armata tank from the upper hemisphere, which include the third generation of anti-tank anti-aircraft systems (“shot-forgotten”) AGM-114L “Hellfire” (USA), “Brimstone” ( UK) and PARS 3LR (FRG). The armor penetration rate of the main charge of the tandem warhead of these missiles is 1200 mm. The maximum firing range of the Hellfire and PARS 3LR is 8 km, and Brimstone is 10 km. The aircraft of the US Army in the 2016 year should come JAGM ATGM, in which the maximum firing range from a helicopter will be 16 km, and from an airplane - 28 km. The JAGM ATGM should replace the AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire and BGM-71 Tou missiles in service.
    So at first it is necessary to fly.
    + And why then they squeeze everyone into a capsule)))))
    It can be expected that the 135-mm smoothbore gun - launcher (3) with a host of related problems will be installed on the Armata tank.
    The sheet is already known that there will be an elongated 125 with the possibility of installing 152 mm.
    The lag in the parameters of the domestic KAZ should be compensated by increasing the effectiveness of the action of the short-range and short-range air defense systems in the fight against promising anti-tank weapons. Unfortunately, this problem is not given due attention.
    Who is behind whom? The new KAZ "Afghanit" will be. And here about the military air defense, he turned down.


    Threat grandfather rastopshin completely ill.
    1. xorgi
      xorgi 15 September 2012 13: 25 New
      0
      He was not very healthy before
  15. bask
    bask 15 September 2012 13: 54 New
    0
    Yes, the Georgian army has anti-tank guns. But this problem is in everything ,, civilized ... THE WORLD IS SOLVED BY AVIATION AND SHOCK HELICOPTERS. And the problem of viewing on Armata when the video surveillance channels are out of order remains. The crew visually controls only the front hemisphere. And everything !!! What is going on in the stern on the sides, in the upper hemisphere .. answer, nothing. Any action movie with, “rusty”, RPG 7 Will hit the uninhabited tower or stern and ... How long does Armata tank last in urban battle in mountains, minutes. And at boekviks grenade launchers will be on modern RPGs.
  16. Sober
    Sober 15 September 2012 14: 42 New
    +2
    what strange news .. this was mentioned earlier 6 months ago!

    units, that .. that finally they decided to put the DZ relic! and this cool thing, protection from BPS from 20% to 60%, from cumulative even higher to 90%, which is several times higher than contact 5 (from t80u to t90). the truth is somewhere, as it was said that the relic will also be on the t90, but I still did not understand. I put it or not! Well, so that we won’t see the relic on the armature, more than sure, yes this is the last known development of the DZ, but it has already existed for a long time .. and here it is said about it, that is. only assumptions .. we don’t know about others ... the stump is clear, while the military secret, in general this tank is under some kind of hard secret, the current of speculation is everywhere .. something out of 640 is taken from 195 objects .. for me that's all it's a race! yellow press .. MO promised a completely new tank, even made a new platform for it .. and the press relies on everything known before it, i.e. they took T90 +640 and 195 mixed and gave the result))) I think the MO needs to go out and give all these journalists the head, they’ll have enough to fantasize, confuse people with your fantasies))))

    there is still such a thing! just an assumption ... everything that was up to this point, everything was Soviet developments and made no secret of it! Well, more precisely, the secret was, but more than enough information .. and now they are doing something completely new and therefore it is very difficult to predict what will happen there! everyone is already drooling to see. WHAT THE SAME! and hell .. there will be either something old, but modernized or something super new, which no one has ever seen! take Putin, not long ago he said, here’s your grandmother and I need a breakthrough! It was? was ... he demanded a breakthrough! those. he wants, like all of us, in fact, that something supernova that was not there before ... all the news and the ax including .. they say, only about old development + not a lot of phasing! i.e. Upgrading in fantasies! they take various foreign means of destruction and draw conclusions from this .. so the Germans have such a missile, then they need 400mm of defense against it .. pff .. well guys, but it’s clear what you need without you! but what if the new tank comes out with 299mm new generation armor that you can’t penetrate with any of the latest ammunition, no one talks about it))) why? because they are based only on old designs! but no one wants to believe in science fiction about new, previously unknown developments, because no one will believe in it ... and so the question is, can I stop talking about what you don’t know? Mo promised a tank that would be 100% different about T-series tanks, i.e. completely new and with new tasks ... and this means that ghm ... if this is so, you can believe that what you write here is all crap and has nothing to do with new weapons systems)))

    ps
    maybe this is nonsense, I can’t believe it myself, but it all sounded more than once, and conclusions could be made and not like that ... but certainly not the ones described in this news))))
    1. Gakkoga
      Gakkoga 15 September 2012 15: 00 New
      +1
      There are some nurses alone in this news.
      1. Sober
        Sober 15 September 2012 16: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Gakkoga

        There are some nurses alone in this news.


        so the answer is still the same, they themselves do not know .. they fantasize the current! nothing, there is no information except the used platform-armata ... here they are sitting and hanging on their armature their fantasies sucked from the finger ... so they also draw some conclusions .. what is bad and what’s good .... it would be great if, after the tank’s release, if it’s still there, they’ll take this news and put it on reality .. we’ll laugh)))) no, there’s no option what might happen, as they say ... but% is minimal, why? because what they are talking about here is not a new tank, it’s a modernization of the T90, which in turn is an upgrade of the T72 .. which means that nothing new will happen except for the platform .. but the question is, was it worth it expensive project and make a platform for all this, if not a damn change in the end))

        who of course will say that you speak ... because the platform is unified .. for different types of armored vehicles .. well, I’ll say right away .. YES! this is great, huge cost savings, but why the hell the question is posed like this, and not so much that we took the T72b deeply upgraded and put it on a new platform and called this whole thing a supernova tank with super new capabilities ... sorry, but these are different things like would .. a new platform with an old thought, or a new platform with a new thought, these are different things! but the guys who write such articles are a little bit catching up and consider it one and the same! those. take a fret viburnum with Michelin wheels is one model, and with youkokham wheels is another model ...
  17. bask
    bask 15 September 2012 14: 55 New
    0
    If the Russian military-industrial complex gives out something perfect without analogues in the world, that’s one thing. And all that was written about the Armat project is disa. I would like to believe in it. But it looks like the Armata tank will be tested in the form that the press wrote. Then this the tank will be worse in combat characteristics than the T90s. In full, export bundle.
  18. Gakkoga
    Gakkoga 15 September 2012 14: 58 New
    0
    It seems to me that with the modern development of information technologies, the preemptive strike of the Russian cyber security group will create such a mess in the information systems of a SUPER - ULTRA-MODERN adversary that if their satellites remain in orbit, they will not show anything far, but here the classic tank design approach system will show itself oh how good. In addition, no one says that the designers are not going to protect our tank from new means of destruction of tanks.
  19. Andrey_K
    Andrey_K 15 September 2012 23: 24 New
    0
    Looked at the "Cape" - a cotton blanket.
    "Blackthorn" - already better - the blanket is already fur.
    Logic suggests that further development will look like branches of a tree or spruce (a camouflaged tank will look like a bush) - i.e. something like Christmas trees - which are stuck in holders.
    This means that the tank should be studded with many special holders where you can stick these "branches" or camouflage nets or hang additional armor plates and anything else - something like "picatinny rails" for a tank - where you can hang various attachments.