Military Review

Fighting vehicles of the future: a look beyond the horizon

71
Does the concept of development of armored vehicles correspond to the realities?


February 26, under the leadership of the President of the Club of Military Commanders of the Russian Federation, General of the Army Anatoly Kulikov, held a "round table" where problems of developing and creating promising platforms for armored vehicles were touched. The discussion participants discussed the performance of new machines, the conditions of their production, a number of other topical issues that should have been put before the Ministry of Defense and the military-political leadership.

From “Almaty” to “Kurgants-25”

It is necessary to discuss the procedure for the formation of tactical and technical tasks (TTZ) for the creation of combat armored and other equipment for combined arms combat. This is due to the fact that in recent years in our country, unfortunately, this issue has not been given enough attention.

K promising BMP

The emergence of new means of warfare is a consequence of resolving the key contradiction: what is new in its tactical qualities is able to bring a model on the battlefield and technically ensure the implementation of the required capabilities.

This compromise is allowed in the formation of tactical and technical tasks for the development of warfare based on the priority tactical capabilities of units in order to achieve superiority over the enemy in fire and strike, and in security and maneuver, including by increasing command controllability.

Fighting vehicles of the future: a look beyond the horizon

Thus, when developing a TTZ for a model of armament, you first need to ask yourself: what is new in the nature of a clash does it give, how will the course of the battle change based on the tactical properties of this sample?

To answer this question, a detailed analysis of the development of an all-arms battle, including at the lowest tactical level (squad, platoon, company) is necessary.

Today, it is possible to predict and ensure the development of such features of an all-arms battle as the desire to maximize fire superiority without engaging in contact clashes, a significant increase in tactical autonomy of lower tactical units, and effectively implement the existing intelligence resource provided by the TU ES.

The solution of these issues is possible through the creation of an armament complex for a combat vehicle capable of solving the firing tasks of a general arms battle. Providing combat vehicles with such tactical capabilities makes it possible to give them the role of a system-forming fire weapon in the motorized rifle squad, platoon, company, creates the prerequisites for a significant increase in tactical autonomy of the lower echelon, which does not have any contactless means of destruction.

Another trend has also manifested itself: the increasing role of the tactical autonomy of lower-level units (platoon, company). But in our country they still implement intelligence information in part. Having left, say, a gap, a company, having a huge amount of information, cannot independently work on it. Why? Because the capabilities of an infantry fighting vehicle again remain the same. There is a contradiction. But the BMP must ensure maximum implementation of the intelligence information that it receives in the intelligence information network.

At present, contactless commanders are able to conduct a battle. aviation, full-time artillery and mortars - from the battalion and above.

A more detailed analysis of the structure of an all-arms battle conducted by a lower tactical unit (detachment, platoon, company) will make it possible to form other tactical qualities of promising combat vehicles of an all-arms battle.

How to provide it?

A serious analysis is required of the role of the military authorities in the development of projects for the performance of technical characteristics for the conduct of R & D to create promising equipment for combined arms combat. The TTZ for R & D should prioritize the emergence of combat vehicles capable of dominating the battlefield with their tactical capabilities.

We do not have the right to form a TTZ, relying only on old concepts. BMP badly needed new tactical properties. Then the tactic itself, based on weapon. A new battle pattern will appear.

Another negative tendency that hinders work is the problem of attracting private capital in solving R & D tasks. The President of Russia and the Chairman of the Government have set such a task. But how to do this? All R & D goes through tenders and tenders, where the head performer is selected, he is paid money, the work algorithm is determined. At the same time, players who are able to do alternative projects remain on the sidelines. Although many of them are ready to solve these things even proactively, at their own expense. The main enemy in this situation is the non-confidentiality of the process. One does one, the other - something parallel. And there is a body that begins to conduct a public comparison. In this case, there is no complete competition.

I believe that, along with the winners of R & D competitions, it is necessary to give the right to work to the so-called initiators. Give them the TTZ and, according to GOST, ask them. Then there will be a variety of solutions.

Weapons on new principles

Great work is underway today on the creation of weapons on new principles of defeat. A prerequisite for its placement on board the machine - the presence of the energy base and large sources of energy produced in a matter of seconds. Here you can go two ways. The first is to put an auxiliary power unit on board, pump energy and then throw it away (beam, electromagnetic, optoelectronic weapon). The second is to create cars with electric transmission and energy storage function.

The search for and resolution of the problem of energy storage is a rather complicated matter in terms of technology. The solution of this technical problem will allow you to create base machines, weapons systems which will make it possible to expand the aspect of impact on the enemy.

In a word, you can go in different ways. But without solving this problem, we cannot yet talk about the transport base (unified platform). Therefore, it is advisable to start work on the creation of new platforms (different in mass) and potentially capable of using serious weapons without serious rework on new damaging principles requiring large energy flows.

Peek at 2020 year

No matter how today the implementation of the tasks of the three main R & D for the Ground Forces (Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets-25) goes, I think that all efforts of the MIC and the customer should be aimed at ensuring qualitatively completed. Because these are the first machines that are created, being inscribed in the ESU TK. These are the first cars that meet the new requirements for the level of security.

In addition, the achieved technical reserves on these R & D can be the basis for the creation of promising technology - the machines of the future. For this, it is also necessary to fully comply with the requirements of HPV-2011 – 2020 for the implementation and commissioning of this type of equipment, which will allow to gain experience in operating motorized rifle brigades with a single transport platform. Of great importance in the future will be experience in creating diverse (combat, supporting) equipment on a single platform.

The main advantage of these machines is that they are created within the framework of the ESU TK - the unified tactical command and control system. These brigades will, firstly, look different in matters of command controllability. Secondly, it will allow to gain experience, to teach the troops to work in the ESU TZ.

Key player - Glavcom

Improving the development methodology of TTZ for R & D should ensure that evolving “new” machines with the same tactical properties evolve, create conditions for equipping all-armed units with combat equipment capable of changing the pattern of general combat, primarily in the unit - platoon - company unit.

The required tactical properties of combined-arms combat vehicles are the result of an analysis of its development. Such an analysis is a matter of the main command of the Ground Forces of the RF Armed Forces, which means that the key player in this field is the Commander-in-Chief of the Land Forces of the RF Armed Forces.

Sergey Kizyun,
ex-chief of staff of the Leningrad Military District, Colonel-General



New - well forgotten old?

The T-95 TTZ tank was approved by the Chief of the General Staff, and not by the Chief of the Central Board and signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces. No sedition in this. The tactical appearance of the vehicle was always determined by the commanders, demands were made, the central board together with its institutions formed the TTZ, etc.

The problem is different. You just need to remember the well-forgotten old and restore the role of the cupola. I, for example, do not understand how now the current Glavs with the staff of 30 – 40 people (there were 300) and in the logistics system (where they entered together with the rear personnel) solve the problem of working out the TTZ. I think in any way. Currently, TTZ is working on the industry. And we know that very well. We see that today the military-technical policy is determined not by the Main Committee, not even by the General Staff, but by industry. That is the question.


And here much depends on the personality of the commander in chief, who must raise the flag and say: I am ready to deal with this issue. And the business of the industry is technical as a security body. Now command control in connection with the inclusion in the architecture of the ESU TK acquires the fourth property.

Today, as already noted, work is underway to create "Almaty", "Kurgants-25", "Boomeranga." All of them are associated with the creation of a new unified platform for weapons. “Armata” - heavy weapons, “Kurganets-25” - light, “Boomerang” - medium (wheelbase). But how much will the TTZ in them meet the requirements we are discussing? Therefore, it is necessary to talk about the compatibility of the new platform and the weapon system placed on it.

Vladislav Polonsky,
Advisor to the General Director of OJSC KamAZ, ex-head of GABTU, Colonel-General



We must seek a compromise

I am the former chairman of the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Main Armored Directorate. In 1987, he was chairman of the commission for approving the drawing documentation of the BMP-3 and BMP-3F. From the report, I realized that the state, unfortunately, was removed from solving this problem. Weird competitions, outsourcing, etc. are taking place. We know all the players in this field: Tula (Shipunov), Kurgan (Salnikov), Rubtsovsk (Prokopovich) - everyone who could do something. We simply do not have other KBs that are able to create something. But many simply do not exist. KB and production in Rubtsovsk are in a depressed state. And they made good CMM and BRM.

In no case do not detract from the role of the General Staff and the Main Command of the Ground Forces in determining the appearance of a new combat vehicle. Nonetheless, I think it is necessary to return to the old IWT development system, in which everything was painted down to the details. The Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) worked in each type and type of troops, which determined the prospects for the development of this technology. Including in the Grau, GABTU. There were even four such NTK in the GRAU. And what can the GABTU do in its current form? Now there are fewer people in it than I had in NTK (56 officers in the department), plus the serial order department (40 people).

BMP-3 is a good car. And today we first need to decide how to use those 10 of thousands of machines that are in the army, including the BMP-2, BPM-1. What to do with them?

Now they are talking about "Kurgants". But many years ago we looked ahead when we developed the BMP-3. We used its platform and under the "Chrysanthemum", and under the machine fire control, and under the PDU - everything was provided. It’s just that a new problem came to the same problem, and not in the best way. Why? Because the organizational structure of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation (its technical services) does not now allow solving such voluminous tasks that we solved at one time.

The first and main task today is to upgrade the BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3. Although from the previous commander-in-chief of the Ground Forces I heard the opinion that we allegedly do not need the BMP-3 in any way. New commander in chief 13 January 2012, visited the plant in Kurgan and offered to decide on the modernization. But what was meant was not completely clarified.

What does it mean to develop a new car? Even in Soviet times, in the sweat of our brow, you had to work for this for five to seven years. Now, the task of allegedly armored infantry fighting vehicles against bullets of 12,7 caliber of a millimeter and from undermining a charge equivalent to six kilograms of explosives is allegedly set. You can, of course, write any requirements, but how to fulfill them?

Here, I think, it is necessary to look for a decent compromise and proceed from the tasks that the BMP performs on the battlefield. She, for example, does not need to set targets for firing from closed positions. It acts in line of sight of the enemy and on the identified targets.

If we talk about the tower, then I think we need the one that was developed by the CPB (Tula). But here it is necessary to develop a unified opinion, determine the methods of modernization and unify the BMP-3 and BMD-4 in terms of weapons. The main conclusion, I think, is that it is necessary to do one machine in the state system. We have already sucked in with tanks T-64, T-72. It's time to learn. But for now, apparently, we are not making any conclusions from our own mistakes.

And another very important issue - technical support. Now he was completely handed over to the organizations of Oboronservis. It is not right. I think the troops should provide both military and major repairs, as was done before. Plus carry out technical support in all types of combat.

Leonid Kolesnikov,
ex-chairman of the Scientific and Technical Complex of GABTU, advisor to the president of RosAerosystem, Major General



What will the commanders say

The expenditure of ammunition in the Great Patriotic War was eight cars per day. In Afghan - 11 wagons. During the Chechen campaign - 16 cars. In the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, the 58 Army required up to three combat kits. Therefore, if we talk about the creation of a new BMP, then we must proceed from the fact that this will be a complex machine, which should first of all arrange a general commander not as an artillery weapon of destruction, but as a mobile fire complex.

Nikolay Svertilov,
Counselor of Turboholod JSC, ex-head of the Main State Institution of Ukraine, colonel general



Criterion: cost-effectiveness

Here a whole range of issues have been raised, which, however, are a bit unbalanced. The first is the construction of the Armed Forces and the concept of the use of fire weapons. The second is the role and place of specific weapons and military equipment in the battle formation. The third is the technical implementation of the idea of ​​creating a new car.

We are talking about the system of protecting personnel and ensuring the seizure of a certain territory on the ground during an all-arms battle. Tanks provide seizure of territory, heights, a breakthrough of defense, protection of personnel. The backbone in this fist is always a tank. The BMP, like the armored personnel carrier, is the means of delivering personnel to a predetermined line. BMP is necessary for us in order to ensure the advancement of personnel.

Next is the issue of fire damage. Means of destruction on the BMP can, of course, hang a lot. But when we talk about mass armament, the cost-effectiveness criterion comes to the fore. It is also associated with the concept of maximum damage. If the BMP together with its unit causes damage of one million dollars, then building such a machine for 10 million dollars is pointless. I repeat: we are talking about mass production with unification in all positions, calibers, engines, energy supply.

In addition, we are talking about weapons of the fifth generation. And this is a single information space, an automated system for managing troops, armored objects, projectiles. But then, in an automated mode, we must also receive target designation. So, we need a single KP. And all this should be determined by the General Staff Public Educational Establishment together with the Main Command of the Ground Forces.

I agree with the speakers that we have always strived to reduce the type and unifications in order to ensure the survivability of the object on the battlefield, the shortest period of its restoration, the minimum variation in parts, etc. But let's see who will do all this: Kurgan plant, Arzamas? I'm not at all sure that they are ready for this. Welding of buildings, for example, can now be carried out only at factories in Volgograd and Kurgan. A body on the armored personnel carrier to cook only in Arzamas. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to do this in Rubtsovsk, Podolsk, Vladimir.

We again return to the problems of our defense industry, which, it turns out, writes for itself the TTZ. I do not mind, but only for the creation of a new infantry fighting vehicle, if it fits into the overall system of armored weapons. And still will meet the concept of building the Armed Forces. No questions. But this should be coordinated between the General Staff, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces and the Military Industrial Commission under the Government of the Russian Federation. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The question is specifically: will the machine meet the requirements of the fifth generation or not?

It seems to me that it will not. And that's why. In World War I, 25 – 27 percent of the data was explored, of which 50 percent is reliable. In World War II, 50 – 55 percent of intelligence data 50 percent reliable. Now air, space, electronic intelligence work on it, which allows us to completely reveal information about the enemy. Contactless war allows you to detect and destroy all objects not only on the battlefield, but also deep in the rear. Therefore, we must do BMP with high survivability, good protection. A fire, figuratively speaking, the BMP will never be beyond the horizon. Its task is to follow tank orders and solve specific tactical tasks.

As for the new propellers (electromechanical, electromagnetic), then this is only a version. It would be good to make an air cushion BMP and thereby achieve the highest maneuverability, even in the swamps. But what will it cost?

Many are talking about new armor, which we supposedly will buy abroad if necessary. But understand, nobody will sell our armor. We have a new aluminum armor with a specific gravity 2,3, but it does not take. There is another brand, but there is no one to roll it. You can, of course, attract "Zaporizhstal", but this is another state.

Professor Alexander Yelkin, who created the first dynamic defense for tanks, addressed me. Now he and his colleagues have developed a new one, having received the Zhukov Prize for it. There are other organizations like Zenith that create a system of active protection of objects. Due to this, armor penetration decreases several times. But are these inventions always in demand?

We can not make a BMP mobile home. Studies have shown that reducing the height of the BMP on the 0,5 meter increases the survivability of the crew immediately by 25 percent. That is, only a change in silhouette immediately by a quarter improves the survivability of the machine. For comparison: the height of our tank is 2,107 meters, and the “Leopard” or “Abrams” - 3,3 meters. And today the question is not how to pierce armor (in combat with a projectile, armor loses), but how to get.

To summarize, we, of course, support the creation of a new machine as a new model of weapons. But when shaping its appearance, it would be necessary for the veterans of the GABTU, specialists of other departments to participate in writing the TK, and then lobbying it. To do this, it is necessary to prepare a good engineering note with a reasoned justification of all the technical characteristics and proposals for their implementation.

We are now preparing a new concept of the system of provision and technical readiness. After all, the functions of repairing equipment were transferred to Oboronservis and now nothing works, no one is responsible for anything. Complex repair is not, as there is no and its elements. It is interesting that in the internal troops the old system of maintenance and repair of weapons and military equipment was preserved and works perfectly.

Anatoly Sitnov,
President, Chairman of the Board of Directors of CJSC VKMS, Member of the Public Council under the MIC, Colonel-General



BMP-3 - a good car

I will express the opinion of a man who in Afghanistan exploited the BMP as a battalion commander, chief of staff and regiment commander, division commander, which had four motorized rifle regiments and everything on the BMP.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of this car? I had to fight on it, sleep in it, repair it with the help of Rembat and even install additional equipment. For example, special mounts for DShK, KPV, NSV "Cliff", AGS-17, "Cornflower", "Tray", on which the life of the crew and landing forces sometimes depended on board. But where and how was it all located? We were engaged in amateur activities, and we would like the designers to take into account our wishes in further development of the machine. After all, the BMP is not a two-man crew, but a motorized rifle squad, which is further enhanced in combat operations by flamethrowers and mortar-gunners.

Special fastenings for boxes with ammunition, PG-7 grenades, fumes and explosives, which are also necessary for combat, turned out to be extremely necessary in battle. But for some reason designers never paid attention to this. Not to mention the equipment of the armored back for the commander of the BMP or the fastening of sandbags, on which the infantry and machine gunner of the PKK and the PC could be placed, located in front on the armored car of the BMP.

Finally, it is a device for storing knapsacks, which, when conducting combat operations in the mountains, can have weight under 52 kilograms, for OZK, dry rations, and water tanks. In none of our cars, no one invented a simple water tank; one could boil water for tea and feed the soldier with hot food in the field. No rear of the soldier in battle will feed.

And how to relax in the BMP at night and at the same time constantly keep in touch with the commander? To do this, you must always be in the headset to be able to listen to all company and regimental networks. But the speakerphone inside the BMP is not provided, although it is easy and simple for the industry to make it. A voice and flags in battle not noupravlaesh. It would seem a trifle, but you can not do without them.

Of course, the machines must be of several types for combat in different conditions: mountains, desert, in the marshland, in the northern regions. But in general, BMP-3, I repeat, the car is good. I started with the BMP-1 and even the battalion commander became a master of driving. Then there were the BMP-2, the BMP-3 and the impression of their operation in combat conditions was excellent.

Viktor Barynkin,
Chief Military Inspector of the Western Military District, Chairman of the VAGSh doctoral dissertation council, former deputy chief of the General Staff, Colonel-General



Restore the deputies for armament

Speaking from the position of the internal troops about the TTZ, when the need arose to create special police equipment, the General Staff of the VV took part in its development. And we first talked about the tactical characteristics, and then about the technical. At the same time, we closely cooperated with the Ministry of Defense. Only then did they make tactical and technical tasks. So the application was made for 5-th class of protection. Therefore, the communication of staff commanders and techies should be the most durable.

And today, on whom to rely the same, say, Commander of the Ground Forces, if he does not even have a deputy for armaments? All the same, by Grau, GABTU not pass. Is that why sometimes we see such a difference of opinion on this issue of the various commanders who replace each other at the posts? The commander-in-chief himself should not and cannot write TTZ to this or that machine. But then who?

I do not know how much we can recommend, but we have the right to express our point of view on this issue. I think that in the Ministry of Defense it is necessary to revise the organizational structure of the high command authorities. In particular, to restore the post of deputy for armaments in the types of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Strengthen the role of headquarters.

In this connection, we must initiate a scientific-practical conference, and not only within the framework of the Club of military leaders, but on the scale of the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defense. And the deputy minister of defense for armaments must necessarily take part in it, and the recommendations and conclusions of the conference are reported to the minister of defense.

As for the BMP, even after the first Chechen campaign, we concluded: it showed itself very well. And not only BMP, but also BMD, MTLB, BTR, other combat vehicles. Now in the internal troops there are about 300 BMP, which are in reserve. But I stress, it is too early to write them off, they are needed.

New BMP will appear only after some time. Therefore, the immediate task is to subject the machines in the formation (especially the BMP-3, BMP-2) to a deep modernization. To do this, our defense industry, the deputy minister of defense with the appropriate structures should be connected.

Regarding the creation of a promising infantry fighting vehicle, here I agree with those colleagues who believe that it should not break through the defenses of the enemy. This became clear even during the implementation of special operations by internal troops to combat gangs. First, a mortar and artillery strike, an air strike, and only then special forces from the BMP.

Peter Rovensky,
Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, Ex-Deputy Commander of the Army for Armaments, Lieutenant-General



Early written off BMP-3F

BMP-3F - very good car. She provided everything: movement afloat, and the landing of troops, and firing on the move. I wrote right through to the commander-in-chief: let's restore its production. Even today, it meets the necessary requirements, and given the possible modernization - even more so. Let's say it loads onto a BMN 15 BMP. But sometimes they can not go ashore, as shown by the events in Yemen in 1989. The ship then could not approach the shore. It was possible to do this only with the help of TCP. And the BMP-3F could. So her potential has not been exhausted today.

Pavel Shilov,
ex-chief of coastal troops of the Navy, lieutenant general



Need BBM XXI century

Summing up, I would like to thank everyone for the substantive conversation. Of course, for each direction and type of hostilities, different weapons and military equipment are needed. I remember that in the Chechen campaign after the very first explosions on anti-tank mines, all the commanders asked for the “Urals” in which the engine was brought forward and it was the force of the explosion that occurred (unlike the KamAZ vehicles), and the crew remained alive. And when even in the body began to put an armor sheet, sew on the side, close the cockpit, then the best shelter did not come up.

In Chechnya, our BTR-80, in which there were several other generals, followed the BMP. It so happened that the BMP exploded a mine. Unfortunately, not everyone survived in her, but she thereby saved our BTR from death. Therefore, it was absolutely correct here that the BMP should ensure not only transportation, but also protection of personnel. Otherwise, why is it needed.

Today we need, apparently, a different infantry fighting vehicle. With an effective power plant, high fire capabilities and maintainability, more spacious troop compartment, where there is everything necessary for combat and recreation of personnel. That is, you need a car of the XXI century.

But from whom should TTZ come to her? Apparently, from the one who formulates the plan of the battle. And this, apparently, the commander in chief of the Ground Forces. These problems, which are well identified practices of the troops and industry representatives, it seems, very relevant and timely. Therefore, I propose to prepare to the address of the Chairman of the Military Industrial Commission under the Government of the Russian Federation Dmitry Rogozin and the Minister of Defense General of the Army Sergei Shoigu a note outlining our proposals on the results of the discussion of the problems of organizing work on the development of military equipment for general arms combat, taking into account the prospects for improving the forms and methods of its conduct .

Anatoly Kulikov,
President of the Club of Military Commanders of the Russian Federation, Army General
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru
71 comment
Ad

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

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 19 March 2013 12: 14 New
    0
    Yes, without technology, I’m glad, what kind of future they began to think about
    1. bask
      bask 19 March 2013 12: 36 New
      +1
      The new equipment is simply necessary for the army. But new platforms will only be launched from the 15th year.
      It is necessary to equip the troops of the modernized BMP-3M and marines, BMP-3F is simply necessary
      The forces of both the army and the VV Ministry of Internal Affairs acting on the S. Caucasus need MDIs, in thousands of units.
      And the topic with the T-95, I think, should be continued. A specialized MBT is needed.
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 19 March 2013 19: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: Sasha 19871987
      happy that the future began to think

      Thinking specifically! belay
      Here is an example (I apologize right away for being almost off topic)
      [media = http: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = Xp2vqLZupX0]
      Here they declared that 80% will be from Russian components.
      And this is fresh:
      Russian Railways Logistics started transporting oversized aluminum structures manufactured by Jilin Midas Aluminum Industries Co., Ltd from a warehouse in Liaoyuan (Jilin Province, China) to the Ural Locomotives LLC plant (Yekaterinburg, Russia). The component equipment with a total weight of 134,5 tons will be used to manufacture the bodies of the Lastochka electric trains (Desiro RUS series), the press service of the company said.
      Delivery is organized through the border crossing Zabaykalsk-Manchuria.
      Until the end of 2015, about 100 such shipments are planned.
      From 2015 to 2020, Russian Railways OJSC, Sinara Group CJSC and Siemens AG concern will supply 1200 cars of the Lastochka electric trains (Desiro RUS gray) for Russian Railways. The companies signed a contract worth 2,1 billion euros.

      Therefore, the future is very worrying.
      How to buy the "Chinese" armor and accessories II.II.II.I. Alga-Ura! sad
  2. Dangerous
    Dangerous 19 March 2013 12: 17 New
    +3
    Honestly tired of reading about "what are our beautiful BMP." It’s time to open our eyes and say bluntly that no defense of our infantry fighting vehicles cancels all their advantages. If necessary, let the next combat vehicle be classified as heavy, the main life of soldiers should be preserved in case of danger
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 19 March 2013 12: 35 New
      +4
      because an infantry fighting vehicle is needed only to deliver soldiers to the battlefield, it does not need armor in fact, it’s the main requirement that it can pass through all sorts of mud and water lines and only in certain moments provide support to the infantry. And we saw a tower with a cannon in a car and everything, immediately did it with a tank in our imagination, the armor is bad, it doesn’t hold land mines, it doesn’t save from nuclear weapons.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 19 March 2013 12: 50 New
        +7
        That's why they call it the mass grave of the infantry
        1. stas52
          stas52 19 March 2013 15: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Krasnoyarets
          That's why they call it the mass grave of the infantry

          And you do not know how to decode BMW - the mass grave of extortionists, well, our people love to decrypt intricately and that it would be necessary that something related to death.
          1. Dangerous
            Dangerous 19 March 2013 15: 55 New
            +1
            No, BMW is a fraternal ransomware machine, not a grave. No need to juggle
        2. nickname 1 and 2
          nickname 1 and 2 19 March 2013 16: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Krasnoyarets
          That's why they call it the mass grave of the infantry


          The great Suvorov would have taught to use the machine so that no sage would have thought of calling it that!

          Yes, Zhukov would have these cars!

          What a trouble! It’s not necessary to eat sweet and sleep softly! We must understand military art, we must train our heads, we must think about every soldier!

          And by the way, what are their losses? What is THEIR technique better?
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 19 March 2013 16: 37 New
            +3
            The SU-76 went through the whole war with similar protection, and nothing, a cool car, it was enough to understand that it was not a tank and that it should not be used as a tank.
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 19 March 2013 14: 51 New
        0
        AK BMP is needed only to deliver the soldiers to the place of battle, she essentially does not need armor

        Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) if the combat is created for battle, but if clever:
        Infantry fighting vehicle, BMP - an armored fighting vehicle designed to transport personnel to the place of the mission, to increase its mobility, armament and security on the battlefield in the context of the use of nuclear weapons and joint operations with tanks in battle.

        Pay particular attention to:
        joint action with tanks in battle

        Armored TRANSPORTER (BTR) here it is just designed for the transport of people and goods.
      3. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 19 March 2013 16: 00 New
        -1
        Quote: Mikado
        she doesn’t even need armor,


        then on the "Urals", "Kamaz" substitute!
    2. evil hamster
      evil hamster 19 March 2013 13: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: Dangerous
      that no protection for our BMP
      What specifically are our BMP? Ball Level BMP1, 2 and BMP3M protection vary greatly, so who are you talking about?
      1. bask
        bask 19 March 2013 16: 59 New
        0
        Quote: evil hamster
        specifically our BMP? Ball Level the protection of BMP1, 2 and BMP3M varies greatly, so who are you talking about

        Yes, almost the same. Not counting the frontal armor. BMP-3
        In the article, the concept ,, asymmetric war ,, and ,, network-centric war ,,
        And such concepts for technology of the 5th generation are simply necessary.
        And most importantly, what kind of war are we preparing for? For a global, with the use of strategic nuclear weapons.
        Regional, using tactical nuclear weapons
        Local, only conventional, non-nuclear weapons.
        I think that special brigades should be created (((not just mountain ones))) for conducting local war. In the mountains, in the city limits. Up to 30 thousand people. ((Contract soldiers))
        Armed with appropriate armored vehicles.
        The basis of which should be 3 TTZ
        1 High security .MRAP, BTR-T ,, Assault tank ,,
        2. Fire power.
        3. Mobility, special forces groups, on multipurpose armored vehicles. JLTV type
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 19 March 2013 22: 11 New
          +2
          Quote: bask
          I think special teams should be created
          What will be in demand, and in which war, one can only speculate, but the military doctrine should not be likened to roulette - they guessed it or not with a stake in black or zero, so the solution should be comprehensive with an emphasis on the maximum threat, and it, - global war with the possible use of nuclear weapons. We are now more concerned about local wars, regional conflicts. Here’s the pearl from the article, “Today we need, apparently, a different infantry fighting vehicle. With an efficient power plant, high firing capabilities and maintainability, a more spacious landing squad, which has everything you need for combat and rest of personnel. That is, we need a car 21st century. " What is its 21st century, to create sleeping places with a dry closet, a shower and a refrigerator for beer in the airborne compartment, to plug this tanker into tank armor with powerful weapons? Yes, specialized units are needed, basically they already exist, as well as equipment for them (the same airborne forces, mountain brigades, marines), we do not have military equipment for the internal troops, this same military vehicle for the military, and vehicles for regional conflicts. For explosive fighting vehicles (or the national guard), mastodons such as Israeli are also suitable, to the delight of those who advocate thick armor with parking behind concrete blocks.
          1. bask
            bask 19 March 2013 22: 26 New
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            will be in demand, and in which war, one can only speculate

            Not any assumptions, the war is already going on in the North Caucasus and Dagestan. Mostly car bombings and armored vehicles. Not having mine protection.
            Quote: Per se.
            a dry closet, a shower and a fridge for beer, to close up this

            And a dry closet is needed and a good conder,
            Quote: Per se.
            cialized parts are needed, basically they are already there, as is the technique for them

            List the armored vehicles that they have, if not difficult.
            And is there any of the above that has at least one with mine protection.
            1. bask
              bask 19 March 2013 23: 03 New
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              mountain brigades

              Mountain brigades should have such armored vehicles in their arsenal.
              As an M113 armored personnel carrier modernized by the Turks. Named in Turkey
              BTR ACV-15. Weight-14 tons, length 5,26, width 2,86. Mine protection 3 kg in t / e. When installing additional armor up to 8 kg. in t / e. 120 mm mortar based on ACV-15 .SPM -120mm.Carrier /
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 20 March 2013 00: 37 New
                +2
                Quote: bask
                Mountain brigades should have such armored vehicles in their arsenal.
                I completely agree with you, bask. So far, we can only be proud of such a gun as the M-99. However, for the mountains and "Nona" no worse than the modernized Turkish M113 will be, or even much better.
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 20 March 2013 00: 29 New
              0
              Quote: bask
              List the armored vehicles that they have, if not difficult.
              It’s not difficult, it’s a BMD from a “penny” to a 4M and a car on their chassis, the same “Nona,” for example. These are the obsolete "swimmers" of the PT-76 marines and the BMP-3F supposed to be armed, this is all the USSR equipment of the ground forces for global nuclear war and a throw to the English Channel, across rivers and fields. With mountain brigades - Your truth, we don’t have special armored vehicles, we can only recall artillery, such as mountain pack mortars and 76mm M-99 mountain guns. About mine protection, I’ll tell you so, as soon as it is strengthened, so immediately the subversive charges will become more powerful, the enemy is not a dunkoff either. The fact that the war is already going on in the North Caucasus, so this is a regional conflict, local hostilities, which require military vehicles for the internal troops, I, after all, talked about this. As for the dry closet ... Our men will not get rid of in battle, but in a lull, it’s better to spoil the air behind a bush than in an infantry fighting vehicle, let our enemies constantly cope with the need for tanks. You can’t cram everything without sacrificing combat qualities, although air conditioning, like the stove, will not hurt.
        2. s1н7т
          s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 23 New
          0
          Quote: bask
          I think that should be created

          Write Shoigu, "genius" laughing
          He’s just racking his brains to still “create”, only to “master” laughing
    3. opkozak
      opkozak 19 March 2013 13: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: Dangerous
      no protection for our infantry fighting vehicles

      Quote from the article: "Many talk about the new armor, which we supposedly buy abroad if necessary. But understand, no one will sell us armor. We have a new aluminum armor with a specific gravity of 2,3, but they don’t take it. There is another brand, but there is no one to roll it. You can, of course, attract Zaporizhstal, but this is another state.


      Yes, that's all nonsense. During World War II, hundreds of thousands of tons of armor plates were delivered to the USSR, of which both T-34 and IS-2 were brewed. Now Uralvagonozavod almost bought a metallurgical plant in Serbia, producing excellent armor, and negotiations are underway on the joint issue of Kurgan residents in Serbia for export. And about the quality of the APC - that in the bastard to take the license for the "Patria" from the Finns - the best APC in the world. Yes, it’s better to buy less paper from them, use their own more, all the more the quality is not worse, and to launch their “Patria” for the money saved, but call it “Karelia”, so that the patriots would not be offended. In Afghanistan, the Polish "Patria" withstood a blast of 25-40 kg of landmine and remained alive (three wounded).

      And the research institutes do not need to feed the loafers, otherwise they are sitting in the net instead of doing business.
      1. opkozak
        opkozak 19 March 2013 14: 22 New
        +4
        He wrote that the Uralvagonozavod almost bought a metallurgical plant in Smerdev, according to old data - they just looked. And the Serbs 13,03,2013 went to Turkey - to offer the Turks. (Ugljanin pozvao Tursku da investira and Smederevo. Ministar bez portfelja u Vladi Srbije, Sulejman www.blic.rs/Vesti/Ekonomija/372123/Ugljanin-pozvao-Tursku-da-investira-u-
        Smederevo)

        So that, as in Krylov’s fable: "And things are still there ..."
        1. bask
          bask 19 March 2013 17: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: opkozak
          to that, as in Krylov’s fable: "And things are still there ..."

          Now we will have to develop light ceramic armor ourselves.
        2. s1н7т
          s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 25 New
          0
          Quote: opkozak
          So that, as in Krylov’s fable: "And things are still there ..."

          And so beautifully and decisively began! laughing laughing laughing
      2. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 19 March 2013 16: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: opkozak
        In Afghanistan, the Polish "Patria" withstood a blast of 25-40 kg of landmine and remained alive (three wounded).


        Either a land mine .... or an oak language! You can lie three boxes,

        And if something like this, we will pay 45kg.

        And what are the parameters of these hfina what are? For example - cross? Weight?
        In Afghanistan, some soils and we have other swamps! So there is a TU and be nice! receive and sign. You won’t please everyone.
        1. opkozak
          opkozak 19 March 2013 17: 54 New
          +3
          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosomak
          Weight, kg: 16000 - 26000
          Engine type and model: DI 12 Scania Diesel 540 hp (405 kW)
          Power reserve, km: 800
          Pendant: 8 × 8 or 6 × 6
          Length, mm: 7700
          Width, mm: 2800
          Height, mm: 2300
          Crew (calculation), people: 3 (commander, driver, gunner)
          10 passenger

          1. bask
            bask 19 March 2013 19: 39 New
            +3
            Quote: opkozak
            tp: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosoma

            This is probably the Polish contingent in Afghanistan. Finnish ,, Patria AMV ,, nice car. But there is no worse
            Today, the Swedish SEP concept, The most rational on the GSH, and the wheeled chassis.
            SEP developed by GCS .. Hagglunds (BAE Sistems)
            SEP is a tactical multi-purpose modular platform on a general-purpose vehicle and a wheeled chassis 6/6 .8 / .8. In a variant 6/6 -17.5 tons. In 8/8 24-27 tons. GS-21.5 tons
            Crew 2 + 8 in option 6/6. And 2 + 10,8 / 8
            Modular design. The module can be changed in the field.


            1. Setrac
              Setrac 19 March 2013 20: 29 New
              +2
              The body of this papalatian is similar to the body of the new Polish “tank” (though I don’t know who it looks like on the contrary), the similarity is obvious.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 19 March 2013 20: 32 New
                +2
                On the contrary. Swedes have long been working on this topic.
    4. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 19 March 2013 15: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Dangerous
      that no protection for our BMP


      Does anyone have better?
      Quote: Dangerous
      soldier's combat readiness in case of danger


      and saves it. And what about march throws of 30 km or more. this is better? And fragments, stones, branches, ricochets, crazy bullets, etc. not be deprived of combat capability?
    5. s1н7т
      s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Dangerous
      If necessary, let the next combat vehicle be classified as heavy, the main life of soldiers should be preserved in case of danger

      Pi-pez! What have you read ?! laughing BMP - not a bomb shelter! And only a delivery vehicle to the dismounting line - on any terrain, on any ground, with a speed of at least tanks. Do not read the democratic press - there are lies and provocations! laughing Read BUSV, part 3 - everything is there, in my opinion.
      1. Dangerous
        Dangerous 20 March 2013 07: 31 New
        0
        But it’s just that, as the experience of wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya shows, the bulk of the bombings and attacks does not occur at all in battle, but with ambushes just when following to the convoy to the destination
  3. Ilya Gurenko
    Ilya Gurenko 19 March 2013 12: 19 New
    0
    the embodiment of this future will drag on for ten years
  4. erased
    erased 19 March 2013 12: 33 New
    +5
    Opinion about the article - no one really knows what the new infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, and tanks should be. What protection, weapons, weight.
    But if the assembled specialists do not know this, then who is doing what now in the factories? What will be Boomerang, Kurganets. Armata? Will it turn out that they will be scolded and not bought?
    The lack of a scientific, verified approach to military art in general, to the order and organization of the use of ground forces and military armored vehicles in particular, leads to what we have.

    Glory to those who destroyed the mighty military-industrial complex of the USSR, glory to those who plundered and dispersed the army of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation !!! True, these words should be shouted out by our enemies. So I voiced their opinion.
    But I can’t voice the opinion of normal people. Even the keyboard will not print such words. A moderator kondraty enough.
    Although I want to pronounce them. Very ...
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 19 March 2013 12: 51 New
      -4
      Mat is a sign of limited mind, with respect hi
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 19 March 2013 13: 31 New
        +2
        The brevity of ordering is an important aspect of victory in battle. And the Russian mat is in this respect the most optimized. There has recently been an article on this topic on this site. I recommend google.
        1. Letun
          Letun 19 March 2013 16: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: Black Colonel
          The brevity of ordering is an important aspect of victory in battle. And the Russian mat is in this respect the most optimized.

          I don’t understand how inserting extra words into an order can make it shorter? This is from the field: "you cannot understand Russia with your mind, you cannot measure common arshin"?
        2. s1н7т
          s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Black Colonel
          And the Russian mat is in this respect the most optimized. There has recently been an article on this topic on this site.

          The argument is killer! laughing I did not swear in the army, my orders did not suffer from this laughing Culture, including language, is the difference between an officer and an "ordinary spar" laughing
      2. bask
        bask 19 March 2013 17: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Krasnoyarets
        I am a sign of a limited mind, with respect

        Mat, it’s a language for extreme situations.
        1. s1н7т
          s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 35 New
          0
          Quote: bask
          Mat, this is,
          - An obvious sign of lack of culture, definitely! laughing When a person cannot connect 2 words without a mat, did he go to school at all?
  5. asbaev
    asbaev 19 March 2013 12: 42 New
    +1
    Swan, cancer and pike
  6. Alexander-Tomsk
    Alexander-Tomsk 19 March 2013 12: 47 New
    +3
    Quote: Mikado
    because an infantry fighting vehicle is needed only to deliver soldiers to the battlefield, it does not need armor in fact, it’s the main requirement that it can pass through all sorts of mud and water lines and only in certain moments provide support to the infantry.


    I do not agree, the road to it often turns into a battlefield, and here the armor plays an important role. The experience of ambushes on the roads in Afghanistan and Chechnya do not teach anything?
    Is it really that hard to make heavy bmp, which is not necessary to swim.
    1. Egen
      Egen 19 March 2013 13: 28 New
      0
      Yes, here, and what will happen in the future :) For local wars, armor and equipment play an important role.
      But if we are talking about a future non-contact war, any infantry fighting vehicle will only be a good dear target :) On the other hand, the resources of the belligerents in the global war will probably someday end, and the war will again become contact, where this equipment will be needed .. .
    2. s1н7т
      s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 38 New
      -2
      Quote: Alexander-Tomsk
      The experience of ambushes on the roads in Afghanistan and Chechnya do not teach anything?

      Teaches - to read BUSV, everything is written there. To stupid commanders it’s all the same what to burn - light BMP will be or heavy. Brains cannot be replaced with armor laughing
  7. chistii20
    chistii20 19 March 2013 13: 00 New
    -1
    The people and the man are 100% right
  8. Zlyden.Zlo
    Zlyden.Zlo 19 March 2013 13: 13 New
    -1
    Opinion delitanta.Overview of the mechanics of the driver in the tank and other armored vehicles. I don’t think it’s very big. Put video cameras throughout the hull, both main and spare, with information output to the helmet of the driver’s mechanic. (And the tank commander with the possibility of increasing) There are many more ideas that are technically feasible.
    1. Zlyden.Zlo
      Zlyden.Zlo 19 March 2013 16: 38 New
      +1
      If not hard to explain - or +
      1. s1н7т
        s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 41 New
        -2
        Quote: Zlyden.Zlo
        If not hard to explain

        One turn on armor from BMP, and mech.vod. - blind. This is one of 1000 options. laughing
        1. Zlyden.Zlo
          Zlyden.Zlo 20 March 2013 10: 53 New
          0
          Well, the same turn from the BMP and re-scopes then get
          1. s1н7т
            s1н7т 21 March 2013 00: 27 New
            0
            Quote: Zlyden.Zlo
            Well, the same turn from the BMP and re-scopes then get

            You need to get into the triplex, which is unlikely. In addition, mechanical water. can replace damaged ones without leaving a place. And from shells getting into the armor a lot of "mounted" just sprinkled, incl. and cameras. If you drown them in armor, then another problem is dirt, dust. So, for that matter, mech.-water. stupidly with a hand will remove excess at the first opportunity. laughing I am not against progress in the army, but we must look realistically.
  9. Vanek
    Vanek 19 March 2013 13: 16 New
    +3
    The combat vehicle must also be beautiful.
  10. Avenger711
    Avenger711 19 March 2013 13: 21 New
    +2
    This scripture is abusive about anything however.
  11. gallville
    gallville 19 March 2013 13: 21 New
    +2
    About the article - I was always amazed at the ability to say a lot and nothing concrete.
    We need to analyze, we need to think and so on. So it is and so everyone knows what is needed.
  12. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 19 March 2013 13: 25 New
    +2
    Designers need to be sent to the actual use of the machines, and the warrior in the design bureau to participate in the design of the same machines. Then the end result will be a CANDY. good
  13. cumastra1
    cumastra1 19 March 2013 13: 35 New
    +1
    Take the experience of a sluggish war in Israel - 60 years of ambush, shelling in the back, etc., etc. - created a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, based on tanks. Yes, expensive, yes, uncomfortable with the partisans, but effective. mines, grenades, dshk - like peas on a wall. Because they take care of the Soldier. Why not make ours? I’m not talking about the whole army, but there should be special equipment for hot spots.
  14. washi
    washi 19 March 2013 14: 01 New
    +5
    There are no universal machines. There are machines for counterguerrilla operations and there are for military operations. If for the former the main task is to preserve personnel, then for the latter, to inflict the maximum defeat on the enemy. For counterguerrilla operations there is the Ministry of Internal Affairs. For the rest of the sun. Everyone should order the equipment that they consider necessary for themselves.
    And there is also climate and geography.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 19 March 2013 14: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: Vasya
      If for the former the main task is to preserve personnel, then for the latter, to inflict the maximum defeat on the enemy.

      But what, one prevents the second? Protected from bombings in mines, an armored personnel carrier is not capable of inflicting the same damage to an enemy as unprotected?

      You live in the past, training a modern soldier is a long and expensive thing. At the same time, there are no longer any options to replace it with one hundred disposable ones that have passed a week-long “training”.

      So, in both “counterguerrilla” and military conflicts of any other intensity, the reduction of losses is crucial
      1. bask
        bask 19 March 2013 17: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        , one interferes with the second? Protected from bombings in mines, an armored personnel carrier is not capable of inflicting the same damage to an enemy as unprotected?

        Now in RA, there are no armored vehicles with anti-mine reservations.
        The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB use armored Urals. Protected by detonation of 3-5 kg ​​in heat and 8 kg under the wheel. Project ,, Federal ,,
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 19 March 2013 20: 10 New
          +2
          I know. However, most modern and promising armored personnel carriers have it
          1. bask
            bask 19 March 2013 20: 29 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            I know. However, most modern and promising armored personnel carriers have it

            Similarly, I also know. The only attempt is to make an armored personnel carrier with mine protection. This is an armored personnel carrier-90, Rostock,
            But they chose and made again the unprotected BTR-82.
            Logic in the actions of the MO, in general, in my opinion, no. Again, everyone will sit on the armor.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 19 March 2013 20: 33 New
              +1
              BTR-90 is also without mine protection.
              1. bask
                bask 19 March 2013 20: 54 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                also without mine protection.

                There was an attempt.
                One of the prototypes of the German armored personnel carrier ,, Boxser ,, in 1991 created by the French Nexter ,, armored personnel carrier VEXTRA 8/8 .weight-; 34 tons ,, length 7500, width-300
                Then the French and the British left the BTR-BOXSER project.
                BTR -VEXTRA, prototype, but with mine protection.

      2. s1н7т
        s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 50 New
        -1
        Quote: Spade
        You live in the past, training a modern soldier is a long and expensive thing.

        In the past, a soldier was not taught to control an infantry fighting vehicle, to shoot from a cannon / machine gun, an ATGM, to control a unit? laughing And it lasted 2 years, not 1. Or just raised the price? laughing I had to “train” to prepare mech.-waters on the BMP. What changed? Hours added? Exercises? Serving increased? laughing
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 20 March 2013 10: 45 New
          0
          Nothing changed. But this is not normal, is it? This is another huge problem that needs to be addressed.
          1. s1н7т
            s1н7т 21 March 2013 00: 56 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Nothing changed. But this is not normal, is it?

            Why hasn't it changed? The soldier was prepared for 2 years (training - there is only initial training in the specialty), and now - 1. That is in terms of consolidation and development of skills, it became very bad. And what needs to be changed in the Soviet program? Content? There was nowhere cooler! Shape? But optionally the same mech.-water cannot be prepared laughing Another thing is the provision, life, etc. But it is costly. With a constant shortage of funds, the question arises - how to save? And to make it "modern." When I was introduced milk and chicken for soldiers, but cut the hours of driving, adding hours to park work. Okay? In my opinion, no. Because the main task is combat training, and not a well-fed belly (without it there is no way, but that is not the task of the army). I saw this balance between form and content only in the GSVG - always well-fed soldiers did not climb out of the training grounds. 2-3 days a week is the norm. And food, and engine hours, and BP consumption (usually they took 1,5 from the required, or even 2) - such training was expensive, but it paid for itself, and now what about the preparation of the “modern soldier”? So what will we change? laughing
            We compared the training of the Amer ranger with the preparation of the Soviet “analogue” - if we were approximately equal in the structure of the unit (here the role was played by the management of actions - according to their rules, they were constantly “led”), then the individual was higher. So what do you need to change?
            Pi-pez, I wrote a lot of letters laughing
            I hope you got what I meant.
  15. VadimSt
    VadimSt 19 March 2013 14: 07 New
    +1
    Ammunition consumption in the Great Patriotic War was eight wagons per day. In Afghanistan - 11 wagons. During the Chechen campaign - 16 wagons.


    Here are those times! What is it? The 100,000th contingent in Afghanistan, about the same group was introduced into Chechnya, “consumed” more than all the divisions (about 450) of the Red Army in the 1943 year, or is there a “special” arithmetic here?

    Is this fact not as far-fetched as the information from the same Nikolai Svertilov about the destruction of the GRAU archive?
    Maybe someone remembers and clarifies.
    1. s1н7т
      s1н7т 20 March 2013 00: 58 New
      0
      He did not say, counting on what. To the division? To the army? HZ, in short. I don’t get it either.
  16. Explore
    Explore 19 March 2013 14: 52 New
    0
    There is a dispute what should be the car of the future? Nobody knows that. In the projects, Boomerang and Kurganets did not even decide on the final BO.
    Here are some well-known options:
    1. Bahcha-U. Triplet from 100 mm + 30 mm + 7,62 mm systems from BMP-3 / BMD-4M. For unification it’s good, but I heard a lot of negativity about the "overabundance" of firepower.
    2. A remote complex with weapons from the Berezhka. 30-mm gun, ATGM, AGS-30.
    3. Promising 45-mm gun with telescopic shots. Little data, but some samples seem to be tested.
    4. The good old 57-mm gun S-60 from the upgraded tank PT-76-57.

    If we see the Kurganets-Boomerang platforms, then the platforms. So far, without weapons.
  17. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 19 March 2013 15: 35 New
    +2
    In the article, how many tanks Hitler had, it was said that the Germans had a lot of different equipment with specific tasks. so why not create some types of infantry fighting vehicles? so to speak, a light tank, a combat transporter, etc., for example, an LT will be on the tank’s chassis, but with automatic armament, a 30-37mm gun, 30-40mm grenade launcher, ATGM. and a combat transporter for ensuring the livelihoods of military vehicles with ballistic protection and light weapons.
    If you tackle this issue more tightly, then something can happen.
    1. s1н7т
      s1н7т 20 March 2013 01: 02 New
      -1
      Quote: cth; fyn
      If you tackle this issue more tightly, then something can happen.

      And what is stopping you? Look, Basque also came up with something, together and write to the Moscow Region or the General Staff laughing Or are you an engineer-designer on this subject? Then call hi
  18. d.gksueyjd
    d.gksueyjd 19 March 2013 15: 51 New
    +1
    Most of all I liked the Black Colonel, but in the USSR it was like that: “Designers need to be sent to the real use of machines, and a soldier in the design bureau to participate in the design of these same machines. Then the end result will be a CANDLET”
    1. s1н7т
      s1н7т 20 March 2013 01: 04 New
      -1
      Quote: d.gksueyjd
      Most of all I liked someone

      He simply amused me - the comrade is still young, and does not know how it was when we were respected / feared all over the world.
  19. IRBIS
    IRBIS 19 March 2013 15: 51 New
    +3
    I read the names of the "experts" and for some reason I got sick of reading the rest. I know many, so to speak "in person." One word - demagogues. Rate the "creative" pearl: "The consumption of ammunition in World War II was eight wagons per day." Who is this? At the regiment, division, army? What kind of comparisons? And it writes the "analyst"! The grandfathers in the stripes just wanted to pop on military topics, that’s the whole “great” meaning of the article.
    1. shurup
      shurup 19 March 2013 16: 36 New
      +1
      Precision munitions in pieces count, not in wagons. The "grandfathers" didn’t get away from 200 guns per km, and then they complained that the infantryman’s backpack was half a centner. Amerikosy meanwhile begin to use conveyor robots and exoskeletons
      .
    2. s1н7т
      s1н7т 20 March 2013 01: 07 New
      0
      Quote: IRBIS
      Grandfathers in stripes wanted

      In addition to the former. chief of staff OLVVO, all reasonably said, however. And as for "8 trains per day", this is the author stated, not a transcript.
  20. amp
    amp 19 March 2013 16: 05 New
    -2
    Electro - magnetic weapons can now be installed on warships. There is no problem of providing energy. This weapon can be used in 2 ways. Firstly, a powerful electromagnetic pulse can bring down planes and missiles. Secondly, you can install a magnetic gun. Such already exist in the experimental version with us and the Americans. The speed of the projectile is such that even a simple blank will pierce the ship through.
  21. shurup
    shurup 19 March 2013 16: 25 New
    -1
    The appearance of rifled weapons, especially automatic ones, led to the disappearance of armor and the final transfer of melee weapons to the category of auxiliary weapons.
    Experts continue to amaze with their backwardness, but claim to TTZ - development.
    Armored vehicles have reached the top of development and a qualitative leap is required, and not regular upgrades with outdated looks.
    But I, personally, will not try to turn the blinkered eyes of modern "checkers" - it is useless and treated by "Tsushima".
    1. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 19 March 2013 18: 34 New
      +1
      And it seems to me that LONG TIME thoughts have moved from the category of what kind of weapons is needed for the Army to the category of amenities when moving command personnel from one field kitchen to another!

      There are no scientifically built models of military events! Hence there are no concepts in how actions will occur.

      Similarly in the Second World War, the use of tank wedges, followed by capture in ticks, surroundings and capture!

      If the strike is rocket, what are BMT? Where to go on them? The restoration of communications, the provision of information on the availability of combat-ready units, the provision of ammunition, etc. This is what we should first think about!

      Or this time Sorge will inform and get ready?
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 19 March 2013 20: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: shurup
      Armored vehicles have reached the top of development and a qualitative leap is required, and not regular upgrades with outdated looks.


      And what direction of this leap can you offer?

      And about the "top of development" to say the least, prematurely.
  22. bask
    bask 19 March 2013 20: 03 New
    0
    In the 80s, the 18th unit of the OF-40 tank was delivered to the UAE, developed by the Italian OTO Melara.
    In the 2000s, an attempt to make an infantry fighting vehicle based on an obsolete tank, with our 2-seater turret, triad,, for the UAE.
  23. Navy7981
    Navy7981 19 March 2013 20: 19 New
    +1
    And I think that with the existing CAD and operational statistics, no 5-7 years are needed. The greatest difficulty is most likely the search for materials with the desired properties, but here the problem is solved. We must stop relying only on reputable design bureaus, (and not because they are bad, it is impossible, I’m sure that our engineers and developers are in no way inferior to anyone) who, in order to stay with funding, “strangle” those who are not in them clip "designers. There has always been competition between our designers and not very good. I think it’s not necessary to give examples. But if the competition starts according to the result, then our developers with 100% result will really give out something breakthrough. Talent and mind they do not hold.
    The basic TTZ should be written by current officers, short and understandable, and then selecting the most real and competent of the received (let's call it) applications to start work already based on the achievements of engineering achievements and what the troops really need.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 19 March 2013 20: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Navy7981
      Basic TTZ should be written by current officers, short and understandable,

      TTZ should be determined by modeling. This is a difficult scientific work. Acting officers can participate only at the stage of military trials
      1. bask
        bask 19 March 2013 21: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Acting officers may participate only at the stage of military trials

        In determining the TTZ. Active officers ((past the war))) should take an active part.
        You yourself, that there is nothing to say to the designers. (If only, who asked)
        Project ,, drum tank ,, Boar ,, gun feces 152 mm.





        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 19 March 2013 23: 00 New
          +3
          What for? What does the current officer know about the possible nature of the clashes, for example, with the PLA? Nothing. Even at a military school he was taught exclusively the tactics and organization of NATO, and to the top.

          All this is not just that, all this is higher mathematics. Probability Theory, Game Theory, etc. other other I have a clue about TV. But try to calculate the probability of defeating an armored object on the battlefield with various means of destruction - thank you. But a lot depends on this.

          The creation of TTZ is the level of very rummaging scientists and very powerful komputer, rather than Vanka platoon, Petka company, together with the terribly smart battalion commander Pavel Petrovich. We can say "damn guys, to get out of this hatch in the unloading is not a fountain." But such remarks should be eliminated not at the stage of the TTZ creation, but at the development stage, and when the layout of the object is already being worked out. Not earlier.

          Quote: bask
          Project ,, drum tank ,, Boar ,, gun feces 152 mm.


          This is not a project, this is Gurkhan photoshopping. Interestingly, he is aware that the gun has a breech, as well as all sorts of unimportant things like recoil and balancing?
          1. bask
            bask 19 March 2013 23: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            The knowledge of TTZ is the level of very rummaging scientists and very powerful computers, and not Vanka the platoon, Petka company, together with an awful mind

            For 30 years ,,, rummaging scientists, and powerful computers have not created more than one model with mine protection.
            And simple South African soldiers, they took and together with just do-it-yourselfers created MRI. Buffalo. And they have become trendsetters. Now they produce thousands of MPIs, and we have 000


            Quote: Spade
            project, this is Gurkhan photoshopping. Interestingly, he is aware that the gun has a breech, as well as all sorts of unimportant things

            Let this craft, but the assault tank, with 152 guns needed.
      2. Navy7981
        Navy7981 19 March 2013 21: 58 New
        +1
        I completely agree with you, but who, apart from the current officers, imagines that, for what tasks, in what conditions it is necessary, I am talking about a simple collection of opinions and views. It cannot be that there are no bright thoughts among these opinions. Where to start. Further naturally serious and complex scientific and engineering work !!!
        I repeat in our design bureaus are not fools. A question of purpose and motivation.
        1. bask
          bask 19 March 2013 22: 35 New
          0
          Quote: Navy7981
          I’m going to bump into our design bureaus. They’re not fools. A question of purpose and motivation.

          It’s not anyone who doesn’t talk about this .MO gives TTZ for the development of a new model.
          As a rule, without asking those who will fight on this technique.
          1. s1н7т
            s1н7т 20 March 2013 01: 11 New
            -2
            Quote: bask
            MO gives TTZ for the development of a new model.

            Damn, stupid generals say the opposite - TTZ is preparing the military-industrial complex, and not the Moscow Region. And in this they see a mistake. Or article did not master? laughing
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 19 March 2013 23: 05 New
          +1
          They collect and so collect. Every time breeders come, you can write suggestions in the recall
  24. bask
    bask 19 March 2013 21: 54 New
    0

    BTR 6na 6 UAE. 20-ton
  25. Navy7981
    Navy7981 19 March 2013 23: 15 New
    +2
    Let's hope that Armata and the rest are well-designed projects and the result will be magnificent.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 19 March 2013 23: 23 New
      +1
      I have big doubts about this. It is enough to recall the "terminator". It was created according to the TTZ provided by the Ministry of Defense. And then it turned out that he was not suitable.

      We have big problems in military science, in theory. Therefore, all arms purchases are painfully reminiscent of the actions of a peasant with big money in a supermarket — they row what he likes. And it should be like a housekeeper who takes on household money and specifically knows why she came and why this product is needed in the house.

      Let's hope that with the "armature" guess ... But it should not be
  26. s1н7т
    s1н7т 20 March 2013 01: 22 New
    0
    A summary of their performances is all through us. Without an analysis of the needs of the general staff, the defense industry puts forward its TTZ - laughter! As with BMPT - they did it out of boredom, now they are imposing it on the troops, but where is it ?! To change BUSV for products of the military-industrial complex is a shopper! laughing But - capitalism, profit, money.
  27. gameover65
    gameover65 20 March 2013 17: 29 New
    0

    the article is so-so, I'm certainly not special, but I have to do with armored vehicles. this is clearly not a competence!
    A prerequisite for its placement on board the car is the presence of an energy base and large sources of energy produced in a matter of seconds.


    Another trend has also manifested itself: the increasing role of the tactical autonomy of lower-level units (platoon, company). But in our country they still implement intelligence information in part. Having left, say, a gap, a company, having a huge amount of information, cannot independently work on it. Why? Because the capabilities of an infantry fighting vehicle again remain the same. There is a contradiction. But the BMP must ensure maximum implementation of the intelligence information that it receives in the intelligence information network.


    a feeling that the translation promt worked))
    since when should an infantry fighting vehicle ensure the maximum implementation of the intelligence information it receives? what is it about?

    and all this is said by the Advisor to the Director General of KamAZ OJSC, the ex-head of the State Academic Technical University, Colonel General Vladislav Polonsky.

    But when we talk about mass weapons, the criterion of efficiency-value comes to the fore. It is also associated with the concept of maximum damage. If an infantry fighting vehicle together with its unit causes damage of one million dollars, then building such a machine for 10 million dollars is pointless.

    this is generally a masterpiece from the president, chairman of the board of directors of CJSC VKMS, a member of the Public Council under the military-industrial complex, and colonel general
    Anatoly Sitnov