Military Review

Shock "Armata"

100

The replacement of the Minister of Defense from Anatoly Serdyukov to Sergei Shoigu led to a revision of the weapons procurement system. If the first one spoke about the inability of the domestic defense industry to create products that meet the requirements of the military, then the second one, without denying the existing problems, nevertheless decided to rely on the Russian industry. A blank check was issued to manufacturers of military equipment and weapons for the ground forces, one of which was the Uralvagonzavod corporation with the Armata heavy armored platform project.


Prototype

Create a new primary tank over the past decade was perhaps one of the most pressing issues for the army. The Ministry of Defense supported the existing tank fleet, which, according to various estimates, was about 10 thousand units, waiting for new offers from Russian industry and looking closely at foreign-made products. Back in 2003, the military assured that Russian designers had developed the look of a new generation tank. What kind of constructive changes he will have, it was not reported, nor was it reported on the date of its adoption.

As of today, it is planned to allocate 2020 trillion rubles for the rearmament of the ground forces under the state armaments program up to 2,6. This money will be spent on the purchase of brigade anti-aircraft missile systems C-300В4, about 2 thousand self-propelled artillery systems and guns, as well as more 30 thousand units of automotive vehicles. In addition, the Russian army should get 2,3 thousand tanks over seven years. Including tanks on the Armata platform. On its basis, Uralvagonzavod creates the main tank to replace the existing T-72, T-80 and T-90 fleets in the armed forces.

The show "Armaty" was held in September at the exhibition Russian Arms Expo 2013 in Nizhny Tagil. It was closed to the public, since all the tactical and technical characteristics of the new tank are still classified. “Of course, we don’t want to show it to everyone, because we need to bring the equipment to mind, but there are already prototypes. And this is a big victory for the Russian defense industry,” said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, adding that it is planned to be adopted at the turn 2014-2015's.

However, even on the basis of the information available to date, it’s quite realistic to get a general idea of ​​what the new tank will be like and how it differs from its predecessors. In an interview with BG, Oleg Bochkarev, deputy chairman of the military-industrial commission, confirmed that part of the decisions used in the development of "Armata" were taken from the T-95 project. This decision was partly forced, since in a few years it was impossible to create a really new product, either technically or technologically.

T-95 (aka "Object 195"), contrary to its abbreviation, should not just continue the linear series, but become an independent model of armored vehicles. The exact date of the start of work on the creation of T-95 was not called, but it is known that they started shortly before the collapse of the USSR. After examining the shortcomings of the previous models, the designers were given the task of increasing the degree of protection of the crew, as well as enhancing the firepower of the tank. By 2007, the specialists of the Ural Transport Engineering Design Bureau completed the creation of a prototype, hoping that the technical specifications of the military would be fine.

Initially, the bases for this were - in particular, the then head of armaments, General Nikolai Makarov, said that in 2009, the tank would be accepted for service. However, two years later, his words were disavowed by his replacement, General Vladimir Popovkin, who announced the cessation of funding for the development work on the project. The most likely reason was the high final price of the product. The open military preferred not to talk about the incompatibility of the perspective tank with the required products.

One way or another, the military didn’t give up the idea of ​​creating a new combat vehicle. Some time later, the Ministry of Defense reported on the start of work on the Armata project, which was to become the main tank of the armed forces. It all happened against the backdrop of harsh criticism from the military department, who believed that American tanks such as Abrams, German Leopard or Israeli Merkava were superior to Russian developments in their characteristics. "Those samples of weapons and military equipment that we receive from the nomenclature of ground forces, including armored vehicles, rocket artillery weapons, do not quite correspond to Western models. The vaunted T-90 is the 17-I modification of the T-72 tank," the commander-in-chief stated Army Alexander Postnikov. General Makarov also joined him, sincerely believing that the Russian defense industry was not able to accomplish the tasks set in practice. And already the ex-head of the Ministry of Defense, Anatoly Serdyukov, announced that the department did not plan to purchase domestic tanks until they met modern requirements.

The situation changed a year ago, when, together with Sergei Shoigu, Yury Borisov came to the military department to the post of deputy defense minister for armaments. He came from industry to implement the state armaments program as the first deputy chairman of the military-industrial commission under the government. Already in the autumn of this year, he declared that for the Russian army the first experimental batch of Armata tanks would be acquired by the military for testing in the 2014 year. According to official data, funds were spent on the development of the project in accordance with the LG.

Tank copier

During the exhibition Russian Arms Expo 2013, the deputy general director of Rosoboronexport Igor Sevastiyanov outlined the main features of the future combat vehicle. According to him, in the "Armat" the crew will be in the armored capsule, and the ammunition will be located outside the area where people are located. These innovations should primarily provide increased crew protection in combat conditions. The car will be implemented inline location of all people in it - this will allow them to make decisions more quickly. In addition, the tower "Almaty" will be uninhabited. In tanks, this is one of the most vulnerable places: a direct hit by an artillery or anti-tank projectile guaranteed to lead to the death of a crew member. In the "Armata" process control tower and firing will be automated. Oleg Sienko, general director of Uralvagonzavod, specified at the same time that completely different protection technologies would be used for the crew at Armata: special steels, individual elements of ceramic protection, multi-layer armor. According to the idea of ​​the developers, a new principle of automatic supply of ammunition and their removal will also be implemented. In addition, the Ammata ammunition will contain 32 projectiles for various purposes (on the same T-90, the ammunition of the gun consists of 42 shots: the 22 are in the automatic loader, another 20 is in the tank and tank turret) aimed fire from a 125 caliber mm gun in motion.

At the same time, it cannot be said that the Armata is a simplified version of the T-95. The uniqueness lies in the fact that it is not just a tank, but a single combat platform, which in theory can carry about 30 types of weapons. The level of unification declared by the developer has no world analogues: on the basis of the Armata platform, not only combat vehicles will be assembled in the future, but also combat control vehicles, artillery and rocket armament vehicles, military air defense vehicles and rear support vehicles. It is known that the Armata will shoot both traditional projectiles of various types (high-explosive fragmentation, armor-piercing, cumulative) and missiles.

Unlike the tank, it provides for both the front and rear engines - in fact, Uralvagonzavod now creates a kind of designer, on the basis of which promising samples of military equipment will be laid for many years to come. Possessing a single diesel engine A-85-3А 1,2 thousand l. with. and the lifespan of at least 2 thousand hours, the platform has all chances to become in the future the basis for all heavy equipment of the ground forces.

Such an approach fully fits into the existing concept of the Ministry of Defense, according to which the military profess the principle of introducing advanced weapons systems into ground forces, enhancing the combat and operational and technical characteristics of the models being created. "Implementing this principle, we must ensure that the range of purchased weapons and military equipment by 2025% is reduced by 25 and increase their serial production," the deputy minister said at one of the meetings.

Apparently, the desires of the Ministry of Defense and Uralvagonzavod to launch “Armatu” in the series as soon as possible coincide. As the deputy general director of the corporation, Vyacheslav Khalitov, stated at a press conference, the parties reached an agreement on the priority financing of the development work on the project. "It was decided before the completion of the development work to begin putting the Armata product into mass production," he said, stressing that such an approach would make it possible to complete the task under the state armament program before the 2020 year. It is logical to assume that purchases of military equipment based on the Armata armored platform will be continued during the implementation of the state armaments program until 2025 of the year.

***



Production and combat mission

Alexey Kharnas, editor of Business Guide "Military Industrial Complex"

The new main tank is one of the fetishes of the modern Russian army. How small weapon, which should replace the various modifications of the AK or Makarov pistol, as the fifth-generation fighter. The colossal achievements of the Soviet period seem to create a feeling that we still have to tense up, clothe them in new forms and materials - and now it is ready, a modern innovative weapon. But in practice, everything is not so simple. And the fighter seems to have already flown, and various versions of the new machine guns were demonstrated, but it never came to real rearmament. Tank "Armata" of all types of modern Russian "weapons of the future", perhaps more than others closer to real life. Firstly, there are people who saw him live (they were not shown to the general public because of secrecy), secondly, there is a plan for purchasing this equipment. Finally, the date of the public demonstration of the new tank has been announced - and such that it is simply impossible to disrupt this premiere. NPK "Uralvagonzavod", I must say, a great example of how to dispose of the legacy of the military-industrial complex, inherited from a country that no longer exists. You can have different attitudes towards manifestations of the political will of the country's leadership in relation to individual industries, but the UVZ honestly won the competition for increased attention of the authorities to their problems and tasks. After all, strictly speaking, tanks and armored vehicles were produced not only by this enterprise, and obtaining the actual carte blanche for the monopolization of armored production can be considered the most significant management victory for the current management of the company.


Who will we arm?

Vladimir Gutenev, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee for Industry, First Vice-President of the Russian Engineering Union:

- Do not sell weapons in small batches. For example, China has recently expressed its desire to acquire piece copies of modern technology, which in recent years has increasingly appeared on the Russian market. Given the danger of compiling, borrowing the results of intellectual activity, it is necessary to exercise some caution. You also need to take into account the interests of our armed forces. Their rearmament is a priority, and only then it is necessary to supply weapons to strategic partners, the immediate environment, the SCO countries. It is necessary to develop new markets, which Rosoboronexport is now successfully demonstrating. This is Venezuela, and Brazil, and Panama. The supply of Russian weapons to the Middle East is indeed a big problem. A big problem for competitors, defense industry enterprises of Western countries. As a rule, where we succumb to exhortations and agree with certain sanctions, after a while the sanctions are lifted, and the countries of advanced democracy begin to supply arms.

Anatoly Aksakov, President of the Association of Regional Banks of Russia:

- Indonesia, India, Vietnam, these countries are traditional buyers of our weapons. Once I was on the government delegation in India, where a military parade was held in our honor. So there I saw only our equipment and our weapons. So we have strong old ties with India, and they need only be strengthened. We have the same ties with Iran. As soon as all restrictions on deliveries with this country are finally lifted and, most likely, they will get the right to buy weapons, we will also have to return to this market again. And taking into account not only economic, but also political and geopolitical interests, it is extremely necessary for us.

Mark Zakharov, member of the presidium of the independent organization Civil Society and the national fund Public Recognition, member of the Board of Trustees of the Moscow English Club:

- The world has long been the concept of "civilized countries" and "uncivilized countries." To uncivilized countries, whose policies are very difficult to predict, and sometimes not at all clear or unknown, I would not sell weapons. Of course, now Russian weapons are no longer so popular as they were in Soviet times, but nevertheless, we have sales markets, and we just need to maintain them. And for this we need competitive types of military equipment and reasonable prices. After all, the arms market operates on the same conditions as any other market — price and quality matching. I am sure that our gunsmiths have not yet lost their skills and may well produce modern products that meet all international standards.

Vladimir Rubanov, vice president of the Association for the Advancement of Defense Enterprises Association:

- The sale of weapons is regulated by international documents, and we are not entitled to violate them, even if there is a huge benefit to our budget. Who can sell weapons, who can not - it is in these documents listed. In addition, despite some benefit to the budget from the sale of weapons, we must clearly realize that under no circumstances can chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons be sold: such transactions are dangerous for the entire world community.

Hovhannes Ohanyan, First Deputy Head of the Fair Russia faction:

- Arms export strategy should include two aspects. The first is political, connected with international sanctions, with international legislation, with decisions of international organizations on those who are prohibited from supplying weapons. Including various gangs, terrorist organizations, etc. There is a special list that is regularly updated. And all this, of course, Russia must adhere to. In addition, we must evaluate the countries that want to buy weapons from us in terms of security for our state. The second aspect is economic. Everything is simple here: if it is profitable for us, we must supply weapons. There can be no other restrictions. Our main competitor in the arms market is the USA. And we have a ruthless struggle for this market. And sometimes this fight reaches such a heat, compared to which all detectives and adventure films look faded. In particular, harsh criticism of Russia for arms supplies to the Middle East is an echo of this competitive struggle.

Nikolai Ryzhkov, a member of the Federation Council, in 1985-1991 the chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers:

- Back in 1989, while I was still Prime Minister, I made a report at the 2nd Congress of People's Deputies on the economic situation and on the prospects for economic development. I then famous people, and some of them are still alive, said that I was the culprit of all conflicts, because I sell weapons abroad. And I have always defended the point of view that since everyone is selling arms, we must trade. For this we get money to solve our internal problems. And at that time we owned 50-60% of the total world arms market. And the Americans then occupied on the strength of 20% of the market. The rest of the market was divided between France, Germany, Belgium. And then new competitors, such as Israel and China, appeared on the market, and we very much lost our positions, and now our share of the world arms market is about 15-20%. Conflicts, however, did not disappear anywhere without our weapons, and the vacated niche was occupied by the United States, tremendously increasing its share. So, of course, I advocate returning our positions on the world arms market or at least try to increase our share.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.kommersant.ru/
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mirag2
    mirag2 24 December 2013 08: 34
    +5
    But how to create a modern tank in the absence of technology?
    After all, it’s the same as during World War II to demand that the T-34 missiles shoot through the barrel, and have active defense.
    When technologies reach the modern level, then there will be a new tank - "Armata" or "not Armata" - it is not important, but for now there will be the same "modernization" as with "Ak12" - purely external changes.
    Well, although the engine and suspension may be improved, but a modern OMS on the existing imported element base create for a serial car the same sabotage and error as the "Sharks" cut in the 90s, the destruction of nuclear trains at the same time ...
    You can only create some experimental machines to test new concepts, nothing more.
    I think this would be a more far-sighted decision than spending money (large) on "pseudo-modernization".
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 24 December 2013 09: 26
      +17
      Quote: mirag2
      But how to create a modern tank in the absence of technology?

      I think the problem is not the lack of technology, but the incomprehensible lobbying and total theft of money in the current military-industrial complex ...
      1. mirag2
        mirag2 24 December 2013 12: 38
        -2
        No, it’s precisely in the absence of technology, but because of what they are missing, this is our question for lobbying in the economy and liberal economists!
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 24 December 2013 22: 38
          +3
          Quote: mirag2
          No, it’s precisely in the absence of technology, but because of what they are missing, this is our question for lobbying in the economy and liberal economists!


          "..... the Russian developer brought a series of new armor materials and protective structures for lightly armored vehicles, since this is the direction that is most in demand in this area today.

          So for the first time a sample of economically alloyed high-strength titanium alloy VST-2, obtained from secondary titanium, was shown. Research conducted in conjunction with VSMPO showed that the armor properties of this titanium alloy are no worse than those of expensive high-strength alloys, and the cost is an order of magnitude lower. That cost was the barrier that does not allow the use of titanium in armor protection and structural units of combat vehicles. VST-2 alloy will overcome this barrier. The use of this alloy will reduce the cost of Lynx-T helmets and its analogs, which are popular with special forces, by almost one and a half times and this is not the only application of the new alloy.

          Also, a sample of the new aluminum alloy 1565ch was shown for the first time. Unlike traditional armored alloys ABT-101 and ABT-102 (by the way, also developed by the Scientific Research Institute of Steel), the new alloy has 2 times higher corrosion resistance, slightly inferior to the above alloys in armor resistance. This greatly simplifies the manufacturing technology of welded hull assemblies for such vehicles as BMP, BMD and others using aluminum armor, and increases the reliability of the design during operation in any conditions. The use of the new aluminum alloy will make it possible to solve many problems of the corrosion resistance of the aluminum BMP and BMD hulls, which are especially used in naval units.

          It is not the first year that the institute has shown new armored steel 44S-sv-Sh. This ultra-high-strength steel was specially developed to protect against armor-piercing bullets of 7,62 ... 12,7 mm caliber. Already, it has been successfully used on promising LMEs and tanks. Today, steel is already on the verge of introducing a new generation of products such as Kurganets, Armata, and others. Only it can solve the problems of reducing the mass of these products.

          ......... So a structure based on flat corundum profiled ceramics provides protection against a B32 bullet of 7,62 mm caliber at an areal density of 65-72 kg / m32, a protective structure based on roller ceramics provides protection against bullets B14,5 of 150 mm caliber with a surface density of 176-30 kg / sq., and the structure using new ceramics based on silicon carbide already protects against 205-mm armor-piercing projectiles with carbide cores, having an areal density of only XNUMX kg / sq. .m. Today these structures are planned to be used both in the modernization of serial infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, and on newly developed promising products - "Kurganets", "Armata", "Typhoon", "Boomerang", "Platform", etc. ........ . "

          And so on....
          Development shaft.
          http://warfiles.ru/show-42831-noveyshie-razrabotki-nii-stali-dlya-kurganca-armat

          yi-bumeranga.html
    2. rolik
      rolik 24 December 2013 14: 51
      +4
      Quote: mirag2
      as with "Ak12" - purely external changes.

      As I understand it, from the 12th, unlike specialists, you did not shoot and did not hold in your hands ???? So, in your opinion, a smaller return (almost complete absence thereof), are these purely external changes ???
    3. ikrut
      ikrut 24 December 2013 15: 19
      +7
      Quote: mirag2
      But how to create a modern tank in the absence of technology?

      I think you are not entirely right about the "lack of technology". The phrase "lack of technology" is a certain journalistic cliché, since journalists hardly imagine what "technology" is in general. "Heard the ringing," as they say. What technologies are you talking about? Metallurgical? Machining? Assembly? Measuring? Check if you know, plz. You spoke about the absence of a domestic element base for the LMS. However, the very technology of designing such systems as LMS provides for knowledge about the existing and future technologies of these systems and its elements. This, in turn, allows for their systemic modernization. There will be opportunities, there will be upgrades. It is impossible to do what you cannot do, no matter how you jump out of your pants. But even what you can do is much better than projection and tears over inability. IMHO.
    4. Basarev
      Basarev 24 December 2013 21: 44
      0
      But the T-95 ... It already existed, and not in single copies ... What was it worth to finance so globally and take it into service?
    5. Corsair
      Corsair 25 December 2013 02: 47
      0
      Quote: mirag2
      But how to create a modern tank in the absence of technology?

      It’s easy to create a car based on EXISTING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, applying Russian technical ingenuity and resourcefulness ...
      And nothing else is needed, you will get a "unit" for many years inaccessible to repeat Western developers.
  2. malikszh
    malikszh 24 December 2013 08: 38
    +2
    Photo tank Armat?
    1. Krilion
      Krilion 24 December 2013 09: 08
      +28
      ned ... armata tank resembles a gopher, which is not visible, while it is ...
    2. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU 24 December 2013 11: 47
      +3
      In an interview with BG, the deputy chairman of the military-industrial commission, Oleg Bochkarev, confirmed that some of the solutions used in the development of the "Armata" were taken from the T-95 project. This decision was partly forced, since it is not possible to create a really new product in a few years, either technically or technologically.


      1. luiswoo
        luiswoo 24 December 2013 12: 06
        +5
        Maybe all the same 195 Object?

        The Black Eagle is, like, a modernization of the T-80.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 24 December 2013 20: 47
          0
          Quote: luiswoo
          The Black Eagle is, like, a modernization of the T-80.

          Base machine T-80 seven-base

          In life 640 object .

  3. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 24 December 2013 09: 14
    +3
    it is likely that there will be no pictures until the victory parade 2015. There are pictures and video 95ki.
  4. Crang
    Crang 24 December 2013 09: 22
    -2
    Soon, soon already. We will see him at the Victory Day Parade. T-99 "Aramata". A monster that will crush and shoot all the enemies of Russia in the future.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 24 December 2013 10: 23
      +11
      Or maybe it's enough to wave a club, "crush and shoot"? Tea, has long been climbed from the tree.
      It is necessary to make the best club in the world, hold it in your hand, but at the same time learn to solve all problems peacefully.
      1. rolik
        rolik 24 December 2013 14: 55
        +4
        Quote: Prokhor
        but at the same time learn to solve all issues peacefully.

        With a kind word, you can solve the problem, but with the help of a kind word and a revolver you can achieve more))))))
      2. Astrey
        Astrey 24 December 2013 21: 19
        -1
        Actively peaceful opponents for someone who has a set of quality "clubs" for each argument.
      3. silver_roman
        silver_roman 25 December 2013 15: 58
        -1
        Quote: Prokhor
        learn to resolve all issues peacefully.

        so that there is the very possibility of a peaceful resolution of the issue, you need a visible club in your hand. otherwise, no one will decide anything with us, but they will simply smear everything!
        No wonder it is said: "if you want peace, prepare for war!"
  5. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 24 December 2013 09: 34
    +3
    Quote: Krang
    Soon, soon already. We will see him at the Victory Day Parade. T-99 "Aramata". A monster that will crush and shoot all the enemies of Russia in the future.


    in 2015, so don’t boil boiling water ahead of time.
  6. Egor.nic
    Egor.nic 24 December 2013 10: 03
    +4
    I would like to wish you good luck in this matter.
    And God forbid that in the end it doesn’t work out: - they wanted the best, it turned out as always.
  7. stayer
    stayer 24 December 2013 11: 23
    +4
    If the main tank appears in the near future, then at least they would not be sold right and left to everyone. I understand that arms sales are a lucrative business, but there are products that cannot be sold for at least some time. Or sell with low performance. And it will turn out as always, the potential enemy has already developed countermeasures, but we have not yet received in parts of this technique.
    1. gallville
      gallville 24 December 2013 14: 57
      +2
      Quote: stayer
      Or sell with low performance.

      Low-selling double-edged stick. On the one hand, we hide technology. On the other hand, see how the product rating falls due to export options of the T-72.
      Export T-72 and our T-72 "two big differences" are different MSA and tower reservation(where lies part of the BC).
  8. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 24 December 2013 11: 29
    +8
    Twenty-five again, I see no reason to engage in empty chatter.
    When they’ll do it, they’ll test it, they’ll take it into service, and then you can talk, not earlier.
    And so all the speculation and guesswork (everything is "written with a pitchfork on the water" -popular wisdom), which have gotten everyone already.

    Here in the article more and more about the export of weapons, our "nightingales" sang, in the statement of one of them the following words are remarkable:

    If it is beneficial to us, we must supply weapons. There can be no other restrictions.
    Hovhannes Ohanyan, First Deputy Head of the Fair Russia faction.

    This reflects the reality of the mentality in the highest echelons of power, and everything else is empty bullshit. yes
  9. Tommygun
    Tommygun 24 December 2013 11: 30
    +4
    Nikolai Ryzhkov, member of the Federation Council, in 1985-1991, chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
    According to Vicki, in 1985 this gentleman was awarded the Order of the Patriotic War of the 1st degree. What are some interesting merits? He is the 29 year of birth. Even if we assume that he has the status of a participant in the war (he was the son of a regiment, a young partisan, etc.), the first degree in 1985 was awarded to veterans who were previously awarded the second degree, and he did not have any awards at all during the war.
  10. Fastblast
    Fastblast 24 December 2013 13: 31
    -10%
    Buy from us Strongholds and do not worry.
    That Armata surrendered to you! )))
    1. rolik
      rolik 24 December 2013 15: 41
      +6
      Quote: Fastblast
      Buy from us Strongholds and do not worry.

      Do not offer scrap metal))))
    2. iConst
      iConst 24 December 2013 19: 04
      +1
      Quote: Fastblast
      Buy from us Strongholds and do not worry.
      That Armata surrendered to you! )))

      The stronghold, of course, is not bad, but:
      a) we have similar tanks (sewed on soap), and
      b) (most important) the concept has become obsolete ...
    3. samoletil18
      samoletil18 24 December 2013 19: 10
      +1
      Quote: Fastblast
      Buy from us Strongholds and do not worry.
      Surrendered to you

      And why not abrams, leopards, leklers, challengers, merkavs?
      1. Fastblast
        Fastblast 24 December 2013 20: 07
        +1
        Every whim for your money! )))
      2. The comment was deleted.
  11. Leshka
    Leshka 24 December 2013 14: 43
    +2
    at least showed
  12. mango68
    mango68 24 December 2013 15: 35
    +2
    Quote: mirag2
    But how to create a modern tank in the absence of technology?
    After all, it’s the same as during World War II to demand that the T-34 missiles shoot through the barrel, and have active defense.
    When technologies reach the modern level, then there will be a new tank - "Armata" or "not Armata" - it is not important, but for now there will be the same "modernization" as with "Ak12" - purely external changes.
    Well, although the engine and suspension may be improved, but a modern OMS on the existing imported element base create for a serial car the same sabotage and error as the "Sharks" cut in the 90s, the destruction of nuclear trains at the same time ...
    You can only create some experimental machines to test new concepts, nothing more.
    I think this would be a more far-sighted decision than spending money (large) on "pseudo-modernization".

    What language do you think?
  13. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 24 December 2013 18: 31
    +2
    Mr. Aksakov is already aiming to sell new tanks. What should be idem in order to sell weapons that are not yet in the Russian army. Just a little, again these gre-indians are looming. Now they have a new tank, then they have a new plane, then a submarine. How much can someone weld on state security. Soon there will be nothing left for themselves — just talk about the uniqueness and significance of separately built units of technology.
  14. xomaNN
    xomaNN 24 December 2013 18: 33
    +1
    As far as PR for "Armata" is concerned, a campaign is being carried out according to the laws of the advertising genre: intriguing omissions over and over again. Hopefully, this combat vehicle will meet all our expectations. We are waiting for wink
    1. Armata
      Armata 24 December 2013 19: 11
      +1
      Quote: xomaNN
      Waiting for S
      Chevo s? Miracle sir?
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 25 December 2013 16: 00
        0
        and without a miracle, in 15 we won’t see the platform ???
        Eugene, in a nutshell ... how is the "baby" doing? from what you can scribble!
        Do you already have a tower?
  15. tank64rus
    tank64rus 24 December 2013 18: 40
    +1
    A modern tank must be capable of "over-the-horizon" detection and destruction of targets. He must have regular UAVs. Have active protection and concealment systems in all EMP ranges. Be able to operate in automatic mode and remote control, etc. Soviet military science approached this at the end of the 80s. Unfortunately, "perestroika" has begun. Probably Armata is a good tank, but without this there will be no real breakthrough.
    1. iConst
      iConst 24 December 2013 19: 15
      0
      Quote: tank64rus
      A modern tank must be capable of "over-the-horizon" detection and destruction of targets. He must have regular UAVs. Have active protection and concealment systems in all EMP ranges. Be able to operate automatically and remotely

      As for camouflage and protection - I completely agree.
      But here, with regard to the first two points - it is doubtful. The first one is better handled by aviation (the same drone), but to have my own UAV - I have no idea how this is possible. In terms of service. Maybe some little dragonfly laughing
      Need here reliable control system different combat units and their interaction.
      1. tank64rus
        tank64rus 25 December 2013 13: 43
        0
        The Italians have already come to this. They have a standard UAV, and the tank has two of them launched through the barrel of the tank, most likely using compressed air. The possibility of "over-the-horizon" hitting the target is implemented in the South Korean tank Black Panther-2, although the toy turned out to be very expensive, and this tank can be controlled almost from the command post. In the United States, similar ammunition is being developed, a means of guiding them to a UAV target, although it is assigned to the unit. In China, these areas are of great importance, etc.
      2. tank64rus
        tank64rus 25 December 2013 13: 43
        0
        The Italians have already come to this. They have a standard UAV, and the tank has two of them launched through the barrel of the tank, most likely using compressed air. The possibility of "over-the-horizon" hitting the target is implemented in the South Korean tank Black Panther-2, although the toy turned out to be very expensive, and this tank can be controlled almost from the command post. In the United States, similar ammunition is being developed, a means of guiding them to a UAV target, although it is assigned to the unit. In China, these areas are of great importance, etc.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 25 December 2013 16: 05
          0
          As far as I understand, the only parameter that can be responsible for over-the-horizon target destruction is the angle of elevation of the gun to the horizon. The ammunition charge cannot be changed in any way, hence there is pure ballistics. It's just that the Koreans have created a "correct" OMS, backed up by readings from various sensors.
          In fact, all this is realized, but correctly noted: the price of the question !!!
  16. Power
    Power 24 December 2013 18: 55
    +1
    wink The main thing is to build not only Armata and Kurganets, but also Small and Full Armagedets, so that not one separatist-Zionist-cosmopolitan bastard could not only attack our Motherland, she was afraid to even think about it.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 25 December 2013 16: 05
      0
      Well, for this, a new Sarmat ICBM is being developed hi
  17. voliador
    voliador 24 December 2013 19: 17
    0
    We will wait when they show. Not long left.
  18. iConst
    iConst 24 December 2013 19: 28
    +3
    The main thing is that somehow our famous nano-technologists do not stick to the project.

    They will "invent" the nano-tank and say - it is not visible, because it is NANO! laughing
  19. Jager
    Jager 24 December 2013 21: 56
    +2
    The article is not bad, but:
    a) there is nothing new in it
    b) the list of "experts" is surprising and perplexing. How, excuse me, cancer "a member of the presidium of the independent organization" Civil Society "and the national foundation" Public Recognition ", a member of the board of trustees of the Moscow English Club" can say something about the new combat platform?
    We look forward to seeing "Armata" in public.
  20. I think so
    I think so 25 December 2013 20: 41
    0
    "Armata" is just another Manilov dream ... "Unified platform", "advanced solutions" - these words are just to SURVIVE the poor plant and save the worst of the designers and NOT MORE. In the situation created by the enemies of Russia, the complete defeat of the army and the defense industry, such attempts AT LEAST HOW TO SAVE the defense enterprise of course have a positive meaning, but everyone should understand that almost nothing will come of this venture. God grant that at least the plant would catch its breath and that is good, and even about "advanced weapons" in this particular situation, Russians should forget for a long time to restore the destroyed ...
  21. wanderer
    wanderer 25 December 2013 22: 15
    0
    Judging by the amount of cod and smoke around this armata - the mountain will give birth to a mouse.
  22. kplayer
    kplayer 29 December 2013 15: 57
    0
    Maybe, well, their all these dubious R&D on the T-95 (why? Since they launched the "legend" about the invulnerability of the T-90) and again wasted time, and already now saturate the T-90MS tank fleet in conjunction with the BMPT (because there is no infantry fighting vehicle worthy of it in terms of survivability, in the full sense of the word, i.e. a vehicle convenient for infantry in terms of landing, landing and habitation). The BTR-90 8x8 was "buried alive", although in terms of protection (21,5 t) it could have been the third link in the MBT-BMPT-BMP bundle. There is also the BRM-3, but a machine with its own specifics.
  23. kplayer
    kplayer 29 December 2013 17: 48
    0
    That Black Eagle is really sorry, handsome! And what was there to rush about with a voracious GTE that you couldn’t deliver a 1000-strong (at least) turbo diesel, or didn’t give it?
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 29 December 2013 18: 12
      0
      Quote: kplayer
      Black Eagle ... And what was there to rush about with a voracious GTE,

      And where does the turbine? And especially her gluttony?
      I think the expression _ is familiar to you
      Bolivar can not take two
      , only .
      Yes, _ Black Eagle, this machine is called Black Eagle and nothing else.
      Quote: kplayer
      turbo diesel does not put

      We still in the late 80s appeared T-80UD. Then, hmm, then perestroika and deeply modernized on the independent Ukraine in the T-84. There lives and lives _ Bastion / Cuirassier.
      1. kplayer
        kplayer 29 December 2013 23: 22
        0
        Exports were meant in the future, therefore "black eagle" (like "black shark") and not otherwise, "black eagle" is only a translation, the name was not meant to impress the domestic military.
        "turbo diesel can not be delivered" - of course! after all, the designs of the T-90S hulls (its TD of 1000 hp was meant) and the T-80 (GTD-1250 and 6TD are possible) have fundamental differences (engine-transmission compartments in particular) into which it was simply impossible to introduce any changes, i.e. the project 640 was able to extend the base to seven road wheels and no more. Maybe they just didn't provide this very engine? and where does the Kharkov T-80UD with the 6TD engine? In my opinion, the case in monopoly is similar to the situation with the Izhevsk and Kovrov automata.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. kplayer
        kplayer 30 December 2013 00: 08
        0
        The power reserve of just over 300 km (without additional drums) on the T-80U is the issue of the gas turbine.
        Bolivar can not take two
        About what ?, if applied to the best and worthy, I agree.
        By the way, removing all the T-80s from service and leaving the T-72 having somehow modernized it is simply darkness! those. the tank fleet will consist only of TWO Nizhny Tagil samples, and a larger number of MBT types coexisted before.
  24. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 17 January 2014 18: 51
    0
    Removing the t-80 from armament is obvious stupidity, they had to be modernized by installing a turret from the t-90ms and reduced in the division closer to Omsk and Peter, and not smeared like semolina on a plate.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 17 January 2014 19: 28
      0
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      installing a tower from t-90ms

      And what is in that tower, namely the tower, and not in the body kit and canopy ?!
    2. kplayer
      kplayer 18 January 2014 03: 01
      0
      Why to Omsk and Peter? in the first case it is simply not explicable, but in the second swampy "threatening direction" we are apparently opposed by the "armored fist" of the Finnish and Baltic armored and mechanized divisions, if we really have something, then in Pskov (the selection for support of the 76th Airborne Division is enough).
      We need to think about the Far East and Transbaikalia, while in the Western and South-Western parts of Russia there is enough for a pair of combat-ready mezzanine divisions / td and then "dual-basing", ie. heavy equipment and weapons are stored in advance in the operational deployment area (DV and Zab.), and the l / s is transferred by air and railway.
      You need to understand that the acquisition, maintenance, PSU, MTO and equipment of the RA is still a challenge.
      1. Victor Wolz
        Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 03: 25
        0
        In Omsk and St. Petersburg they were produced, and repair is easier there. In Omsk, this is conditionally not in the city, but nearby and it is a good reserve in case of war in the Southeast direction to China through Mongolia. Well, under Peter we will reinforce the Balts and Psheks. Of course in Len. their area should be smaller than in the Omsk region. With China, of course, without atomic bombs and missiles, it makes no sense to measure strength. Well, of course, aviation must surely gain superiority in the air, then their 10-14 thousand tanks are no longer terrible.
        1. kplayer
          kplayer 18 January 2014 04: 35
          0
          In St. Petersburg, the T-80 was developed (pr-in: Kharkov, Omsk).
          Why atomic bombs? - One well-equipped "heavy" division (3 md, excluding the marines, airborne forces and the British) in 2003 walked through Iraq "like a knife through butter", of course, thanks to all the overwhelming air superiority.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  25. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 17 January 2014 22: 47
    0
    My friend, and what should our turret not have to include dynamic protection, a thermal imager, a wind speed sensor, and finally a new high-power gun 2A82 and suo? Are you suspecting me of a T-72B3-type modernization?
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 17 January 2014 23: 32
      0
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      My friend, and that our tower from the tank should not include dynamic protection, a thermal imager ...

      Oddly enough, for you, dear Victor Wolz but for me the concept of a tower of this YES does not include.
      Of Education techie and for me personally, these are two different things.
      A tank tower is a rather narrowly specific concept and is quite technologically and structurally complex in itself.
      For you, for example, these towers are different for me ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 18 January 2014 23: 44
        +1
        Quote: Cynic
        Strange as it may seem, for you, dear Victor Wolz, but for me the concept of the tower of this YES does not include ....

        Apparently, the "fighting compartment" was meant.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 19 January 2014 16: 59
          0
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Apparently, the "fighting compartment" was meant.

          Oh-ho-stinkers.
          Well, at least for the interest of the materiel occasionally remember.
          Tank tower It is a shaped cast of armored steel, the roof of which is welded to the upper part, as well as the right and left heads to protect the base pipe of the rangefinder scope. The tower has a monolithic structure with variable wall thickness.

          http://pro-tank.ru/brone-russia/316-tank-t-72?start=1
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 19 January 2014 21: 51
            0
            Quote: Cynic
            Oh-ho-stinkers.
            Well, at least for the interest of the materiel occasionally remember.

            Well, what should I read there? that the tower has nothing to do with the fighting compartment?
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 19 January 2014 22: 03
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              Well, what should I read there?

              That the tower is, at a minimum, a structural element, and not part of the armor space.
              crying
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 19 January 2014 22: 27
                0
                Quote: Cynic
                That the tower is, at a minimum, a structural element, and not part of the armor space.

                Maybe you are right. But I did not come across descriptions of the T-80 with the combat from the T-72 and vice versa, the combat from the T-80 in the T-72 box. If where to rearrange the tower, it is probably implied that with everything that is standardly placed in this tower: Automatic loader, protective equipment. OMS, communications - options are possible.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 19 January 2014 22: 39
                  0
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  If where to rearrange the tower, so for sure ...

                  Why move the tower!
                  Alien !!!
                  To turn a T-72 into a T-90 is almost as much as making a new one! And to inculcate, in another way, a strange tower in the 80's?
                  And for what ?
                  What do you think, leaving the old gun, and changing only the SLA and shots, etc. how much such a machine will be inferior to this latest MS?
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 19 January 2014 22: 52
                    0
                    Quote: Cynic
                    Why move the tower!
                    Alien !!!
                    To turn a T-72 into a T-90 is almost as much as making a new one! And to inculcate, in another way, a strange tower in the 80's?
                    And for what ?

                    Where am I arguing about this? I myself am of the opinion that while there is no Armata, the best at the moment should be procured into the Army.
                    Well, when a new generation of equipment goes to the Army, what is purchased now can be sent to slads as a reserve (or in cropped parts).
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Victor Wolz
            Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 22: 04
            0
            You gossip about trifles, you are hooked on either the tower or the fighting compartment, what the difference is the difference when it comes to the necessary modernization of the T-80 to the level of T-90ms and the continuation of its service. You can also build reconnaissance from the gas turbine T-80. a machine with intelligence systems and a 57 or 30mm gun. Or a tank destroyer without a tower with a 140-152mm caliber gun, it’s possible without a rocket, and so it will take any tower to 3km.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 19 January 2014 22: 42
              0
              Quote: Victor Wolz
              what nifig difference if we are talking about the necessary modernization of the T-80 to the level of T-90ms

              If you don’t understand what this is all about (the ways of modernization), then I can’t help with anything.
              request
              1. Victor Wolz
                Victor Wolz 20 January 2014 18: 33
                0
                That is, you think you can shove all the bells and whistles on the t-90ms into the old tower? But what about the characteristics of the new T-90MS tower, it differs, first of all, with a completely new tower design, the protection of which is practically devoid of weakened vulnerable zones and is all-perspective. Not only the frontal, but also the lateral projection and the feed are much better protected. The most relevant in terms of protection is improved roof protection.

                Much attention is paid to visibility - the vehicle has a significantly improved fire control system "Kalina" as part of the gunner's multispectral sight, the commander's panoramic sight with a digital ballistic computer and a set of meteorological and ballistic conditions sensors. The combat information and control system of the tactical level is integrated into the MSA. During the development of the LMS, we used the developments obtained in the course of the very successful R&D "Frame-99" and "Slingshot-1". Attention is drawn to the smaller dimensions of the sights and their very serious protection against small-caliber artillery fire, bullets and fragments of large-caliber shells. This is especially noticeable against the background of the Ukrainian Oplot-M tank presented in March 2009.

                A 2A46M5 cannon, which has already become standard for mass-produced Russian cars, can be installed on the tank, and a completely new gun with improved ballistic characteristics - 2A82. Ammunition is divided into three groups of stacks. Two groups are located inside the tank in the least affected areas: the mechanized one is located in the conveyor of a new automatic loader in the lower part of the hull (22 pieces), the non-mechanized one is located in the area of ​​the MTO partition. The third group of ammunition (10 rounds) is carried out in a compartment isolated from the fighting compartment, located at the rear of the tower. This ammunition is used to replenish the transporter AZ and non-mechanized warheads. The ammunition in the AZ has circular protection against fragments; fragmentation screens made of high-strength Armotex synthetic fabric are installed on the inner surfaces of the hull and turret.

                Auxiliary weapons are represented by a remotely-controlled autonomous machine-gun mount UDP T05BV-1, which replaced the ZPU. In addition, new secure communications and navigation systems are installed on the T-90MS, and integration into automatic control systems is provided.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 20 January 2014 19: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Victor Wolz
                  That is, you think you can shove all the bells and whistles on the t-90ms into the old tower?

                  Not .
              2. The comment was deleted.
  26. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 00: 05
    0
    A new tower is needed to carry a new, more powerful gun from the AZ and all the other pribludy. What causes you a misunderstanding as a techie? Enlighten. Well, the concept of a gun probably will not suit you either, a 125 mm smoothbore gun - a launcher is probably more correct. Yes, and as a techie you should understand that it’s easier to install new towers than to sort out old ones, or am I mistaken?
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 18 January 2014 01: 59
      0
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      A new tower is needed to carry a new, more powerful gun from the AZ and all the other pribludy.

      And the result is _
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 18 January 2014 23: 39
      +1
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      you should understand that it’s easier to install new towers than to sort out old ones or am I mistaken?

      They have completely different automatic loaders: on the T-80, the conveyor is attached to the tower, and on the T-72-90, to the bottom of the tank. Therefore, the installation of a tower designed for the T-90 in the T-80 is possible, but not as simple as we would like
      1. kplayer
        kplayer 22 January 2014 21: 53
        0
        He meant the tower, and hence the T-90MS warhead.
      2. kplayer
        kplayer 22 January 2014 21: 53
        0
        He meant the tower, and hence the T-90MS warhead.
        1. Victor Wolz
          Victor Wolz 23 January 2014 19: 35
          0
          First of all, I meant a tower with a new gun, which could be installed on the T-80. And whose tower is New or from the t-90ms is not particularly important because by the 30-mm years the armata should replace the T-80 and T-90 tanks.
          1. kplayer
            kplayer 23 January 2014 22: 47
            0
            Well, if by the 30s? count tomorrow! so you can not scratch it and the whole fuss is not because of what. If the T-72B3 can somehow, tyap-blunder, then any other is not fundamentally the same, if only, but somehow.
          2. kplayer
            kplayer 23 January 2014 22: 47
            0
            Well, if by the 30s? count tomorrow! so you can not scratch it and the whole fuss is not because of what. If the T-72B3 can somehow, tyap-blunder, then any other is not fundamentally the same, if only, but somehow.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Cynic
      Cynic 20 January 2014 19: 40
      0
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      is it easier to install new towers than iterate over old ones or am I mistaken?

      Simpler, easier, but effective?
      For the umpteenth time I’m trying to say how effective the T-80 with a re-equipped tower from the same 90MS will be.
      The black humor of the situation is that the first 90s simply reached the level of 80-k! It’s interesting to evaluate how far he left, well, at least Tagil from Barca!
      The fact that the 90th is inferior to the same Black Eagle is not talking, especially the 95th.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Victor Wolz
        Victor Wolz 20 January 2014 19: 53
        0
        And on what basis is the t-90s inferior to the black eagle? Due to the new az and kick-off panels? After all, the cannon is in question which caliber, rather the cannons are the same as there, what is there. And the only question is the engines. The black eagle will probably be closer to the bulwark.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 20 January 2014 20: 06
          0
          Quote: Victor Wolz
          And on what basis is the t-90s inferior to the black eagle?

          One can only guess about this, because The eagle was frozen, but the fact that some customers, Oplot prefer the 90th fact.
          Quote: Victor Wolz
          . The black eagle will probably be closer to the bulwark.

          Compare the years of machine development, then say who is closer to whom.
          1. Victor Wolz
            Victor Wolz 21 January 2014 19: 01
            0
            I meant the idea of ​​an automatic loader located in the rear of the tower.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 21 January 2014 21: 45
              0
              Quote: Victor Wolz
              I meant the idea of ​​an automatic loader located in the rear of the tower.

              Oh really ?! I would never have guessed it myself
              1. Victor Wolz
                Victor Wolz 22 January 2014 17: 12
                0
                Yes, I’m always ready to help))) And generally without a glass it’s hard to figure it out here)))
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  27. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 02: 50
    0
    Yes, even if they put some, the main thing is that it conforms to modern tanks, and not like the t-72b3. The deeply modernized t-80 would last at least 30 years.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 18 January 2014 08: 21
      +1
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      . A deeply modernized T-80 would have served at least 30 years.

      Longer, much longer.
      But just right away, in my opinion, such a machine will raise the money issue. The budget is not rubber.
      Yes Holy cow MBT ARMATURE may suffer. Upgrade two old different models, produce one, like a new one, car and develop a new platform. This is something from the area _ The roof goes slowly, quietly slate rustling. Now Russia has neither the resources nor the personnel for all this.
      Already expressed and will support the heretical _ Optimal now,
      this is to upgrade seventy deuces and eighty (Minimum suo, dz, wiped. On all thermal imagers).
      In parallel, R&D in ARMATE, then compare. According to the results DECISION!
      And not like now Come on, Come on. Why come on, why come on ...
      The car for the parade or something, hmm, still tell me the date! But so it is by the age of 15, a good DATE! Round!
      Note to all spite!
      For victory !
      1. Victor Wolz
        Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 19: 53
        0
        Even the upgraded T-72 and T-80, if you do not fundamentally change them i.e. to put a new turret with a new gun, a weak gun and armor, and the fact that there is no money is for our athlete, it wouldn’t be enough for the Olympics to be in tanks with airplanes and even on an aircraft carrier.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 18 January 2014 20: 28
          +1
          Quote: Victor Wolz
          weak gun and armor,

          Compared to what? Only from the 95th, and the current opponents are quite achievable due to the already mentioned components _
          Quote: Cynic
          A minimum of suo, dz, wiped. On all thermal imagers

          Quote: Victor Wolz
          And the fact that there is no money is for our athlete, it wouldn’t be enough for the Olympics and for tanks with airplanes and even an aircraft carrier.

          And it’s some kind of resentment in you that says that the budget of the Olympics is a penny compared to what money is needed, but it’s not the main thing either _ Personnel decide everything, but where to get it?
          1. Victor Wolz
            Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 21: 14
            0
            Well, if 99 billion (only officially) rubles for fun, for you a penny. I think they are stolen from the pocket of Russian citizens. The opponents are still equal, but as it turned out trickier (the Iraqi battles in Iraq did not have thermal imagers at night.) Shots do not need to be taken; they must be grown! Service in the Army should be prestigious and interesting, this stimulates the growth of professionalism! Where did the defeated Germany get the talented tank commanders in a country where 15 years after the war, mention of tanks was banned? Grew up. The teachers of history and rural priests in Bismarck win the war. Our tanks are very explosive due to AZ, so you need to fight carefully using the tactics of reach and breakthrough of the flanks.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 18 January 2014 21: 25
              0
              Quote: Victor Wolz
              Well, if 99 billion (only officially) rubles

              Like talking about 300-odd was.
              Quote: Victor Wolz
              for fun, for you a penny. I think they are stolen from the pocket of Russian citizens.

              No, it’s your business.
              Quote: Victor Wolz
              Where did the defeated Germany get the talented tank commanders in a country where 15 years after the war, mention of tanks was banned? Grew up.

              She learned them for your information from us. It was like that in our shared story. After Hitler came, cooperation was curtailed, but the deal was done.
              By the way, without Germany and America, by definition, there would be no industrialization. Gold and jewels didn’t go measured, but ...
              Dialectic.
              1. Victor Wolz
                Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 21: 38
                0
                Well, if you think that the Olympics will pour for us a golden rain your right, 99 (this is officially only), but how much they really mastered, I can’t imagine. In order to learn tank aces at the training grounds near Kazan, they had to be learned in the lessons of the history of love for the motherland and confidence in revenge. And industrialization is what China is doing right now, while our selling blades are selling technology.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  28. kplayer
    kplayer 18 January 2014 03: 42
    0
    The T-80 / -90 tanks are by no means a single modular design and their turrets are not interchangeable; if necessary, adaptation of some subsystems is possible, but it is better to simply produce the T-90MC without "left-wing" experiments and unnecessary production and technological hemorrhoids.

    In the photo, an elongated chassis with seven pairs of road wheels, they did not even want to adapt the T-90 diesel to it, with a turret it was too much. German leopard diesels can be "stuck" in Abrams, Challenger, Leclerc, but no one tries to do this with MBT towers.
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 03: 49
      0
      And what about the T-80 for scrap? 4 thousand tanks. You do not rivet T-2ms so much in 3-90 years.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  29. kplayer
    kplayer 18 January 2014 05: 10
    0
    We do not decide on the T-80; the armed forces are ruled by a rescuer or a fireman (a general who did not graduate from the General Staff Academy), based on personal preferences.
    IMHO - to stretch out the maintenance of the park in 2,5-3 thousand. COMMUNITY tanks, and for the T-90MS crews there would still be a lot of poop and "rivet" them not necessary, "not the 41st!"
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 20: 11
      0
      The fact that it’s not 41 years old is good, but Hitler attacked not because 41 years have come, but because he knew that we were not ready. Yes, there are T-90ms in single copies (it’s good if 5. I think that in the European part of Russia 1,5 thousand tanks are enough, and in the Asian part 3,5. And 3 thousand reserves. Of course, they do not all have to stand along the Amur to be in strategic directions through Mongolia to Beijing. Probably the directions of strikes by the Soviet Army at 45 have not lost relevance today.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  30. kplayer
    kplayer 19 January 2014 21: 09
    0
    You are amusing to argue, operate with very serious figures and even aim at Beijing, you should not even talk about the seizure of foreign territories (you can get a guerrilla war to the front, but no one has won in it), you can only talk about well-planned preemptive strikes to deter aggression with maximum damage, the first word is not even for the army, but for aviation. And enough of this, they have already climbed into the jungle.
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 21: 37
      0
      I always believed that aviation had the first word in a possible conflict (except for missile forces with nuclear warheads.) And the strike in the direction of Beijing is not a seizure of foreign territories but a cut-off of a group in Manchuria. Well, do you seriously believe in the invincibility of the masses? If you do not bother with moral principles, then a guerrilla war can be won.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  31. kplayer
    kplayer 21 January 2014 21: 20
    +1
    Project 640 "Black Eagle" is not a tank, but a concept of a promising MBT that is insufficiently worked out in practice (including through testing). Everything suggests that the project included a resource for modernization in the future (as an example, an elongated base, it is known that the aft part of the tower was partly a design model), it was also likely that the tank was equipped with an option in terms of choosing a mounted gun, a dynamic kit and an active complex protection, engine, etc. By the way, the T-90MS tower is similar to the project 640 tower.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 21 January 2014 23: 25
      +2
      Quote: kplayer
      By the way, the T-90MS tower is similar to the project 640 tower.

      And in what place are they similar?


      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. kplayer
        kplayer 22 January 2014 16: 52
        +2
        If for a start you "strip your eyes", then read my last post again, you can clearly see the EDZ only with the difference "Contact-V / Relic" (+ the T-90MS has it on the roof, the pr. 640 shows the attachment points, but higher EDZ not installed), and the configuration of the aft boxes of spare parts for you is apparently fundamental, I am not personally interested in it (I seem to have mentioned the constructive layout in the stern of Project 640, believe me, it is mainly to generalize the shape of the tower). These preschoolers literally and without going into verifies the geometry of the forms and it is they poke their noses, if they want to "fight" for banality, then not to me.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 22 January 2014 17: 35
          +1
          Quote: kplayer
          If for a start "open your eyes" .....

          So "to strip my eyes", so that the community of these towers would seem to me, with all my desire, it will not work .... Yes, and there is no desire to force the sight like that.
          And on the internal design and filling of the towers in the net there are a lot of schemes, but if for you the commander with the gunner and the crew sitting on the conveyor and the entire tower below the shoulder strap with the ammunition taken out of the battlefield are almost the same thing, I won’t persuade.
          1. kplayer
            kplayer 22 January 2014 19: 02
            +1
            Apparently for you, the external COMPATIBILITY of the tower is one and the same that the internal layout of the crew in the fighting compartment, yes, it is known that the seats HAD two positions fighting and marching (I remind you not about the tank, but the conceptual model is not well developed in practice) , if the clearly noticeable absence of a real set of optical-electronic devices (assuming military MFPs was probably not with a periscopic, but fiber-optic transmission) did not push you to any conclusion, then not much, but I'm sorry.
            I admit that if the project was successful, it would be optionally proposed (perhaps such an opportunity was being worked out) the installation of a 120-mm cannon of the NATO standard of ammunition, with an increase in the crew of up to four people, with manual loading.
            Hinted, find yourself an opponent with the desire to rumble out of the blue.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 22 January 2014 19: 14
              0
              Quote: kplayer
              Hinted, find yourself an opponent with the desire to rumble out of the blue.

              It is clear that there were not enough arguments to prove your point of view (“the T-90MS tower is similar to the project 640 tower), so we will blame our opponent that he is not of the same level with you, so that he could prove something.

              I have no more questions.
              1. kplayer
                kplayer 22 January 2014 19: 55
                +1
                If we were talking about constructive borrowing or cloning (there would be something to clone! It's just a dream of Omsk people "buried alive", but time for MBT is lost), then I have the habit of calling things by their proper names, and all references to external similarity are information from the category , without any intrigue.

                I still didn’t have enough of your questions, I’m even afraid to present their contents.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  32. kplayer
    kplayer 22 January 2014 21: 32
    -1
    No matter how you resist the external similarity to you (thanks for the photo), it is obvious! after that, it made no sense for you to refer to the "stuffing", for the simple reason that it was practically not materialized for pr.640, if you have any data on the names / indices of the products used (from scopes to BIUS), then bring.