Military Review

Project "Armata": information "first hand"

77



Several years ago, the development of a promising universal armor platform “Armata” began, on the basis of which it is planned to create a number of new vehicles: the main tank, self-propelled guns, heavy-class infantry fighting vehicles, etc. The Military Review managed to talk with a representative of the defense industry who is directly involved in the Armat project and ask him some questions about the new domestic armored vehicles.

- The “Armata” project attracts the attention of specialists primarily by the fact that it implies the creation of a single platform for equipment of different classes. How did this concept form and why did you start talking about it right now?

- First of all, the project of a single platform is created to facilitate communications with cooperators. It is no secret that after the USSR, these ties were broken, and their restoration takes a lot of manpower and resources. Secondly, a single platform will allow repairs in the shortest possible time, borrowing nodes, units (up to a partial replacement of body parts) from machines that cannot be repaired, or that require repair at the factory. This concept was promoted by engineers from the 80-ies, but the final look takes only now. The concept itself was formed at the junction of the requirements of various departments of the Ministry of Defense, the designs of designers, and the technological capabilities of various enterprises.

- It is clear what benefits the unification of various types of equipment promises. This simplifies the production and maintenance of equipment, simplifies the supply of spare parts, etc. What are the difficulties associated with the development of a universal platform for equipment of different classes?

- The main difficulties are connected with the production potential and technological capabilities of various enterprises. One of the requirements is the minimum re-equipment of existing facilities. The unification of the carrier platform is problematic in that the weapons are too different for all the models, different tactical tasks and, accordingly, different requirements for the performance characteristics.

- It is known that the project of a new armored platform is being developed by the Ural KB of transport engineering. However, the creation of such complex technology is hardly capable of only one organization. What are the KB, institutions and factories involved in the development of promising armored vehicles?

- UKBTM performs only the role of a general contractor. This design bureau has no experience in the development of heavy machinery. The main contractors are more than 20 KB (the list is too long to list it all). The conceptual idea belongs to the former Central Design Bureau "Uraltransmash" together with Omsk KBTM. At the moment, there is an assembly of test samples of the platform in the experimental workshops of UKBTM in Nizhny Tagil.

- The joint work of two dozen organizations is in itself a difficult task. Not easier and mastering the production of new technology. How difficult will it be for our defense industry to build tanks, Self-propelled guns and other armored vehicles based on the Armata platform?

- While no one knows. Judge for yourself, put the 1 combat module and 11 platform kits, or put on stream. With gun systems, nothing is clear yet. Tulyaki put 2 weapons on time. How other systems will be adapted, apart from paper, there is no information yet.

- Tanks, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles and other vehicles based on the Armata platform should have a great influence on the condition of the ground forces. This influence is primarily related to the characteristics and quantity of the equipment. Will Armata be able to influence the future of the army in any other way, for example, to determine the direction of further development of military equipment?

- There are no orders for T-90A, upgrading T-72 is necessary. The entire tank park Russia will not be able to upgrade in a short time. According to the results of tests T-72 to the project "B3" is necessary. Omsk and partly Nizhny Tagil report on successful modernization. I do not have numbers in number.
My opinion. Of course it can. But I have no right to make plans for the future. We try, we do, but only the operators can judge the finished product. We are ready to accept any comments and make a series of decent machines that determine the future tactics of our army.

- As a direct participant in the creation of the Armat platform and equipment based on it, how do you assess this project and its prospects?

- And how do designer T-50 evaluate? I can say a lot of self-serving words in defense of the project. Engineers are always a few maximalists. Let's see what the military will say about this project, now the testers are not quite happy with the MBT, while extremely restrained feedback on the ACS is so far. Let's talk about some particulars, and not about global issues.

- Everyone who follows new projects of armored vehicles is interested in one simple question: when? Last fall, information appeared about the premiere of the Armata tank at the Russian Arms Expo exhibition, but only the leaders of the country and the Ministry of Defense hit it. Already know when the new tank will show the general public?

- The final fine tuning will take at least another year of 2. All intrigue around “Almaty” is now being created only in order to increase the budget of the project. In reality, the readiness for state tests is no more than 15%. And to show, you must first do. Not a big secret in the appearance of ACS or MBT. Even if you see a photo, you can hardly understand anything. But when there is nothing to show (the platform is not the final product), they begin to impose an aura of secrecy. Themselves are not puzzled by the question, why did the exhibition show only the “Coalition” combat module based on KAMAZ? I can not talk about timing, as Mr. Barabanov. These terms are not known to anyone yet. And you can show anything, but it is not a fact that this machine will go to the troops.

- Yes, there are not many reasons for optimism. And this is in the light of last year's promises to show the new tank at the Victory Parade 2015 of the year.
What are the reasons for such a low rate of work (relative to some promises)? Is it a lack of funding, lack of necessary technologies and developments, or specific requirements for promising technology?


- The project budget is more than sufficient, the development of new technologies is always going on as the project changes, the requirements are set out in the TOR MO. And I can answer the question with the saying of our NITI director: “You tell us either how to do it or what to do. In the first case, get what you want to see, in the second - the finished product for use. " Timing has always been the main enemy of a good product. At the parade can show the technique, but it is not a fact that what they see will come into service.

- As soon as it became known about the new project of the universal platform and a tank based on it, various speculations began to appear on the subject of the technical appearance of this technology. The most widespread, probably, was the version about the widespread use of new ideas for our tank building - non-standard layout of internal volumes, various new systems or a completely new weapons. What platform and tank "Armata" will be different from the existing armored vehicles?

- First of all, the platform on 70% is made on the basis of previously manufactured objects. The platform is unified for all types of armored vehicles (including not only the replacement of units). The layout is brand new. Many technologists have foul language that it’s necessary to “shove in someone else's nevi” (of course it’s indecent to speak to a person with the education of an engineer), at the moment these problems are solved. We are waiting for the new engine (after it is received, the changes will go again). So far, of course, he has not been seen, but it is rumored that this will be a radial-piston pair, for the total of 12 cylinders. Believe me, the car will be great if they do not drive like wedding horses. Armament will depend on the destination. I can’t talk about Kurgan. Just do not own the information. But on the ACS and MBT will be put completely different weapons, and it will not be 2А64. On the "Coalition" provided the gun system with 2C5 "Hyacinth-C". Machines are assembled according to the achievements of gunsmiths and mechanics of past projects.

- Over the past years there have been rumors that the Armata tank will have an uninhabited fighting compartment. Will tankers really be separated from the guns and shells, or will they still have to be located next to them?

- The combat module will indeed be uninhabited. How far the crew will be separated from the ammunition is not clear for a simple reason. At the moment, only the 1 module has been tested, how many changes there will be is not clear. The armored capsule for the crew was originally incorporated into the design.

- It has long been talked about the lack of prospects for 125-mm tank guns. Do the military and the developers of the promising tank project agree with this idea? What should the Armata tank complex look like?

- I do not know why there are no prospects for 125-mm guns. “Rhentmetal” quite successfully puts its 120-mm worldwide. Regarding what there is no future? And who argues about this? In Russia, there is the only production of trunks art. guns. And alteration of it for a new caliber will incur a lot of problems. 152 mm put on the tank is also not an option. This entails an increase in the curb weight, a decrease in the ammunition load, a rather dubious advantage of the MBT on the battlefield, reload speed, transmission resource, rate of fire, problems with the equipment of the MBT from the ground, etc. That is why in the near future there will be no increase in caliber.

- In the summer of 2012, a model of a new armored vehicle was shown at one of the exhibitions, which was immediately calculated by the ACS based on the Armata platform. A year and a half has passed since then. What is the current appearance of promising self-propelled gun?

- “Armata” was originally developed as a promising platform for ACS. I did not see the layout, but most likely this was the layout of “Almaty” with “Coalition”.

- If you compare a promising domestic tank in the form in which it can enter the army with the latest foreign equipment of this class (for example, with the M1A2 Abrams or Leopard 2A7 +), what advantages will it have? What are the advantages over foreign counterparts will have a new self-propelled gun on the basis of "Almaty"?

- I will not undertake to say how one technique is better than another. Any sample technology has its pros and cons. It is really impossible to find out without a direct collision on the battlefield. And no one is going to compare our car. The advantage of SAU and MBT depends on the tasks assigned to the machine and crew, combat conditions, even climate. We make the machine to perform tasks, due to the tactics of using our aircraft.

- And the last question: what, in your opinion, will the Armata project and equipment based on this armored platform give the Russian armed forces?

- This question can only be answered by people who will operate this technique. None of the developers are competent to answer this question. But the refinement will be carried out in accordance with all requirements of the operators.

- Thanks for answers. I think our readers will be interested to get information about the new project “first-hand”.
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 28 February 2014 07: 47
    +9
    So much talk about Armata and no shows, not even layouts.
    Increased privacy or noodles on the ears of taxpayers?
    I want to believe that the first.
    1. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim 28 February 2014 09: 12
      +15
      Quote: Aristocrat
      So much talk about Armata and no shows, not even layouts.
      Increased privacy or noodles on the ears of taxpayers?
      I want to believe that the first.

      New technology is a long business and you should not wait for it right tomorrow. It is worth 1-2 years to forget about armature, now for us the main thing is the t-72, what kind of modernization it needs, as well as the timing of its implementation. Just not the modernization that is now being delivered to the army (a tank in a complete set of homeless people).
    2. luiswoo
      luiswoo 28 February 2014 10: 13
      +4
      - The main difficulties are associated with the production potential and technological capabilities of various enterprises. One of the requirements is minimal retooling of existing facilities. The unification of the carrier platform is problematic in that the weapons are too different for all models, different tactical tasks and, accordingly, different requirements for performance characteristics.

      It seems that, in addition to the new engine and uninhabited tower, there is nothing special to show. Although yes, the tower is really something new, it was possible to show on the digested 80-ke. Darken with something ...
    3. Doctorleg
      Doctorleg 28 February 2014 10: 23
      0
      But the second is more real
    4. Sambo russia
      Sambo russia 28 February 2014 10: 25
      0
      He will be shown in 2015 at the victory parade along with the new BMP 4 Kurgan!
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 28 February 2014 11: 49
        +4

        - “Armata” was originally developed as a promising platform for ACS. I did not see the layout, but most likely this was the layout of “Almaty” with “Coalition”.

        again, continuous fog and no specifics (((((
        generally incomprehensible phrase "" Armata "was originally developed as a promising platform for ACS."
        Why self-propelled guns, protivosnaryadny booking?
        if, initially, Armata was developed as an assault gun, with anti-shell armor and a cal. 152 mm cannon .., that was logical !!!!
    5. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 1 March 2014 01: 10
      0
      And what will show us even a reliable layout?
      The appearance of the new sample, as they say, only "rinses the eye".
      No one will lay out drawings, launch a person with video or photo equipment into an object.
      In any case, you will need to wait, as they say, "the official release".
    6. sub307
      sub307 10 March 2014 18: 41
      0
      In general - it is clear that the fig is not clear. The gun ("they say") - there is already 125mm, and we are ready (if necessary) to make 150mm. They threatened to show the platform last year.
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. buzzard
      buzzard 24 June 2014 04: 03
      0
      The layout seemed to flicker somewhere, the scale is unknown, but in a clearly larger scale than the models standing next to it.
  2. 2c5
    2c5 28 February 2014 08: 07
    +4
    they will put on the sau, as they say 2a37 from 2s5, is it interesting that they did a new automatic loader?
  3. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 28 February 2014 08: 13
    +15
    “You tell us either how to do it or what to do. In the first case, get what you want to see, in the second - a finished product for operation ”

    the car will be wonderful if they don’t drive like wedding horses.

    good good good

    GOOD LUCK!
    1. AVV
      AVV 28 February 2014 12: 04
      +2
      We are waiting for the receipt of new technology at the state. tests and the troops !!!
  4. saag
    saag 28 February 2014 08: 37
    +3
    on MBT MB will be 2A82
  5. AGM-114
    AGM-114 28 February 2014 08: 46
    .
    First of all, the platform is 70% based on previously manufactured facilities.

    And I say - UKBTM is incapable of developing anything yourself from scratch. All their shares have Kharkov origin, these degenerates themselves came up with only the fuck not needed IT-1 and BMPT.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 28 February 2014 09: 04
      +11
      Well, yes, in the USSR there was no LKZ and Omsk, only Kharkov. The interview says whose concept it is.
      1. AGM-114
        AGM-114 28 February 2014 09: 09
        .
        Quote: Basileus
        In the interview

        And with whom interview? With a random Vasya at the UVZ checkpoint?
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 28 February 2014 09: 24
          +12
          Well, you, too, are not our chief designer, you know. So what I have written in the article is trusted more than sofa experts.
    2. svp67
      svp67 28 February 2014 18: 16
      +3
      Quote: AGM-114
      All their works are of Kharkov origin

      The Kharkovites also made their objects not "from scratch", but using the developments of other design bureaus, including those of Chelyabinsk and Leningradskiy ... There was a unified system that made it possible to issue very good samples of weapons and military equipment, now the system has changed ...
  6. just exp
    just exp 28 February 2014 08: 48
    +4
    On MBT emnip 2a82 should go.
  7. inkass_98
    inkass_98 28 February 2014 08: 51
    +4
    Quote: Aleks tv
    “You tell us either how to do it or what to do. In the first case, get what you want to see, in the second - a finished product for operation ”

    the car will be wonderful if they don’t drive like wedding horses.

    good good good

    The idea is quite sane, if you hurry, you make people laugh. But, PPR (sat, pop..have, parted). It is known that work is underway, and that the storming is not needed - it is also understandable. The purpose of writing an article from the series "conversation with an interesting person."
    The developers would like to wish success in their work, and the military - finally get a working model of technology.
  8. EvilLion
    EvilLion 28 February 2014 08: 59
    -5
    Verbal diarrhea is about nothing, not an article. Minus.
  9. Tankomaster
    Tankomaster 28 February 2014 09: 02
    +4
    If 45 shells in the Ministry of Defense provide (full ammunition,) then Armata is a revolutionary tank.
    And if there will be frequent in the Ministry of Health and then part will need to be shifted, then this is the last century.
    The HCBM has already solved this problem ...
    1. Argon
      Argon 28 February 2014 11: 49
      +7
      Agree dear Tankomaster, KMDB has solved a lot of issues, but most of them theoretically, when it comes to practice (series), these solutions are evaluated extremely ambiguously. The article put a minus, there is nothing new, (it is understandable that the topic is still secret), in fact, it is summarized, deliberate " editor of "all publications on" Armata "
  10. Basileus
    Basileus 28 February 2014 09: 05
    +1
    So, it turns out that for the Coalition they are not developing a new artillery system, but using a gun from Hyacinth? Or is this just a workaround?
    1. Genry
      Genry 28 February 2014 18: 03
      +2
      A coalition is not only a barrel, (but also three or four kilograms of dietary meat) - it is a combat unit, automation, electronics, pairing with a complex of target designation and control of the battlefield ....
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 28 February 2014 18: 27
        0
        This is understandable, but it turns out that the trunk will be left old?
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 4 May 2014 12: 32
          0
          Is it really impossible to create a completely new main battle tank in isolation from the old developments? With a titanium submarine, it rolled. And here - 70% of the old trash. And I really wanted a really new tank ...
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 4 May 2014 17: 23
            0
            Quote: Basarev
            With a titanium submarine, it rolled.

            Who ?
            Not those times.
  11. Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 28 February 2014 09: 07
    +3
    That there is a lot of water in this article, everything around and around and no specifics, in my opinion for so much time, it's time to decide, the ISs were put into operation as soon as possible and there was no funding (there was a war), our "Armata" Stalin and Beria would be in help!!!
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 28 February 2014 09: 26
      +4
      Now compare with the T-64. A modern tank is not an IS-2, it is a very complex machine.
      1. AGM-114
        AGM-114 28 February 2014 09: 38
        .
        Quote: Basileus
        it is a very complex car.

        In the performance of the degenerates from Nizhny Tagil it will be a cheap armored box with a wretched FCS, a wretched MTO and holes between DZ blocks.
        1. bracket
          bracket 28 February 2014 11: 21
          +6
          you have a poor knowledge of the subject ...
          1. AGM-114
            AGM-114 28 February 2014 11: 38
            .
            I am fairly well acquainted with the divisions of UVZ and declare: UVZ does r # obviously.
        2. Colonel
          Colonel 28 February 2014 11: 35
          +8
          Quote: AGM-114
          Performed by degenerates from ...

          And you, actually who? What products did you participate in? Or grabbed abbreviations in the internet (MSA, MTO, DZ) and finely shit?
  12. Gagarin
    Gagarin 28 February 2014 09: 10
    +2
    There are more conversations than deeds, the word ARMATA itself is already becoming a common noun, implying a lot of chatter and over secrecy for doing nothing. Togo and look at the word will also become abusive.
    I want to believe, of course, that this miracle exists, and the enemies are already trembling.
  13. rugor
    rugor 28 February 2014 10: 59
    +2
    if they don’t drive like wedding horses


    Need to drive, this is the law of the economy: clear deadlines - clear execution.
  14. Salavatsky Ministry of Emergency Situations
    +1
    Well, as always. Everything is clear that nothing is clear.
    I feel in 2015, the hell is that they show us, or they show hell.
    I understand from the article that the "Coalition" will have 1 barrel instead of the proposed 2? Who knows?
  15. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 28 February 2014 11: 45
    +6
    Well, guys, if "Armata" is with a front MTO position, I will offer everyone who threw slippers into the "Merkava" to eat a lemon. tongue
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 28 February 2014 12: 38
      +5
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      I will offer everyone who threw slippers to the "Merkava" to eat a lemon

      In this case, your Merkava, this is Mouse.
      1. Argon
        Argon 28 February 2014 16: 07
        +2
        Dear Aron, well, how many arguments have already been given, how many have been explained and proved to you (fans of the Israeli tank industry) that the "Merkava" is essentially the most unsuccessful of Israel's attempts at technical creativity, because it is serial. And perhaps the most successful project from the point of view of "washed down" means. And all of you - "MTO ahead." Are the illusions not dispelled yet?
        1. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 28 February 2014 18: 30
          0
          Quote: Argon
          Dear Aron, well, how many arguments have already been given, how many have been explained and proved to you (fans of the Israeli tank industry) that the "Merkava" is essentially the most unsuccessful of Israel's attempts at technical creativity, because it is serial. And perhaps the most successful project from the point of view of "washed down" means. And all of you - "MTO ahead." Are the illusions not dispelled yet?

          Do not be offended, but weak arguments have been cited.
    2. CAMS
      CAMS 28 February 2014 16: 14
      +3
      I doubt very much the front location of the MTO, because even during the Second World War it was concluded that the transmission is very vulnerable in front (driving rollers and the like). in addition, if the armored capsule, then protection by the engine disappears
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 1 March 2014 08: 27
        0
        http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D1%83%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%
        8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%20%D0%B1%D0%BC%D0%BF&fp=0&pos=1&rpt=si
        mage&uinfo=ww-1349-wh-644-fw-1124-fh-448-pd-1&img_url=http%3A%2F%2Farmor.kiev.ua
        % 2FBattle% 2FChechen% 2FVulner2.gif - this was painted by American specialists for their soldiers (and tested Nokhchi on ours), the de facto engine still protects.
        Now they will begin to tackle the topic, de BMP is not a tank, it doesn’t have de frontal armor (up to modern PBSs) But, there were about the same tanks with a transmission in front of the Second World War as with a transmission in the back - remember Sherman, t-4 and other generals and stewarts — and all of him, according to the crew’s reviews, were very convenient in operation, and quite adequate in battle (we read a tanker in a foreign car, carius memoirs, and other literature of the same plan)
        therefore, transmission vulnerability is an excuse.
        1. small
          small 3 March 2014 20: 50
          -1
          I think the tank needs two diesel engines located on the front left and right, between which there is a driver. The armored capsule for the crew is located along the hull (better protection) with access through the hatches and in the stern. The tower is only uninhabited, completely isolated from the crew. Transmission at the rear. The most important thing in the tank is a well-coordinated, competent, trained crew that takes months to prepare, everything else can be repaired or replaced.
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 4 May 2014 13: 06
            0
            Personally, my opinion is this. The engines on the tank must be electric. Electric motors have a much higher efficiency - about 98% against a maximum of 40 for internal combustion engines. Therefore, while maintaining the previous diesel power, the electric motor can be made much more lightweight and compact. And while maintaining the previous dimensions, you can significantly increase engine power. I also find it interesting to place the entire ammunition in the automatic loader. And put the loader in an uninhabited tower. The gun is certainly a 152 mm caliber. Shells - Hyacinths, not interchangeable with pre-war trash. A 30 mm automatic cannon should be paired with the main gun. In addition to the tank should be extremely rear turret, to reduce the linear dimensions - when hiding in the relief is a very necessary thing. The electric motor and other near-engine nonsense will have to be placed in front to balance the tower. Bronekapsulu - in the middle, with the ability to quickly leave the tank through the side doors and the hatch in the bottom. Gadgets are behind. In addition to placing several additional towers with other weapons, so that there is some specialization of the towers. So, for example, it would be nice to add an ATGM tower and a mortar tower (82-mm!) And a machine-gun tower.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 4 May 2014 17: 31
              0
              Quote: Basarev
              while maintaining the previous dimensions, significantly increase engine power.

              Clericalism Will it be transmitted through the air or have eternal batteries already appeared?
              Quote: Basarev
              automatic loader placed in an uninhabited tower

              Well, if an electric motor is used, then the Gaussian gun, probably, or the LMW?
              And so on in the same vein, how many copies have already been broken ...
              drinks
        2. Basarev
          Basarev 4 May 2014 12: 40
          0
          Not the vulnerability of the transmission, but the vulnerability of the engine - these are not identical concepts. With the front engine position, anyone can stop the tank. A standing tank is doomed, you know.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 4 May 2014 17: 38
            0
            Quote: Basarev
            engine vulnerability

            You have respected professors ask how much so Merkav stopped.
            In my opinion, it’s somehow easier to break a caterpillar than to break through the frontal armor to damage the engine.
            And how do you prefer the _ failure of the engine or crew?
    3. Basarev
      Basarev 4 May 2014 12: 37
      0
      Personally, my preferences are as follows - the engine can be anywhere, but the tank should be absolutely rear turret. This will greatly reduce the size, which will be extremely useful during transportation - you will not have to turn the turrets with the gun back. (And for some tanks this is not provided for initially)
  16. ImPerts
    ImPerts 28 February 2014 11: 45
    +4
    Yes, they like to make us run ahead of the engine ... Let's hope that the director’s words will curb the official’s agility and he will not interfere)))
    ..........
  17. Pimply
    Pimply 28 February 2014 12: 34
    0
    Great stuff
  18. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 28 February 2014 13: 50
    +3
    In general, nothing unexpected happens. There is development, money is enough, they are trying to clear up the mess, there are people, there are production. After 5 years, it should work, but apparently it will not be exactly as planned at the beginning.
  19. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 28 February 2014 14: 19
    +3
    How many we do not discuss "Armata" - on the screensaver there is always a computer collage from "Popular Mechanics"! Looks like I liked the picture! I would like to ask the mechanic how things are going.
    1. alex86
      alex86 28 February 2014 18: 36
      +2
      Yes, and in "Popular Mechanics" he appeared from somewhere (either from courage, then from somewhere else), and he has a personal author (well done, by the way)
  20. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 28 February 2014 15: 15
    +5
    Not a fan of BTV, but highly RESPECT! ..
    There is not always enough time (or rather, there is always not enough time) to overlap with articles on an interesting topic and compose for yourself a kind of digest understanding "at what stage, what concept, what layout, tool, etc., etc." .. In this sense, the article is an interview, as a summing up of interim results, from my side an unconditional "+". Thanks to Kirill Ryabov. One senses from the publications that the author is sincerely rooting for our military equipment and the country's defense capability.
    Non-Comrade AGM-114:
    Young man, you, first of all, try to honestly answer the question for yourself, what in this life, specifically, with your own hands and your head, did, built, designed? And only then start "breeding the b.l.o.g.s.s.r.a.h." A mature person (and I am sure that on this resource the overwhelming majority of colleagues consider themselves to be in this category of temporarily living on planet Z.) will not stoop to throwing "kaka.sh.u. at the fan." Self-respect will not allow. You are welcome to Vkontakte!
  21. gallville
    gallville 28 February 2014 16: 35
    -5
    The platform is unified for all types of armored vehicles (including not only the replacement of units). The layout is brand new. Many technologists were obscene that it was necessary to “cram the unapproachable” (of course it’s indecent to say such things to a person with the education of an engineer), at the moment these problems have been solved.

    1. What types of armored vehicles except the BMP were not based on the t-72 and they were not unified by units and assemblies?
    2. "Push" as I understand it, the conversation was about the self-propelled gun, so on the T-72 and T-90 they pushed what's the point?
    The combat module will indeed be uninhabited. How far the crew will be separated from the ammunition depot is not yet clear for a simple reason. At the moment, only 1 test module has been delivered; how many changes will be in it is not clear. The armored capsule for the crew has already been incorporated into the design.

    Why is it incomprehensible? It has long been stated in the MBT engine at the rear means:
    1. Frontal armor
    2. Crew in an armored capsule
    3. Az
    4. The engine.
    And the crew, in the event of a loss in vehicle travel, again jumps chest forward onto the armor. Everything is very clear.
    The project budget is more than adequate

    The grand drank dough.
    Instead of bringing to mind the t-80 with a more sane chassis than the t-72.
    It’s not known how long the T-72 is in the army with the hope of releasing 2000 thousand wunderwafles.
    1. Armata
      Armata 28 February 2014 16: 46
      +4
      Are you again for the advantages of Oplot? And what's new in it? Old, well remodeled car. By the way, where T72 works, T80 just stalls. So Kharkiv modestly smokes on the sidelines (this is in order to fight about new tanks)
      1. gallville
        gallville 28 February 2014 16: 57
        -1
        Quote: Armata
        Are you again for the advantages of Oplot?

        Not at all. This flag near Nick probably confused you.
        Let's just say that I meant:
        a) Modernization of the T-80 to the side:
        - replacement of the MOH by AZ (at one time, by the way, there was a choice), by the way, in B3, the replacement of one AZ with another occurs;
        - Installation of more modern DZ;
        - Installing at least a set of B3 due to a more powerful commander’s sight, the car would be much more efficient;
        - By the way there are rumors that the towers from the decommissioned T-80UD were installed on buildings with a gas turbine engine, and so there should have been a managed ROM.
        b) Possibility of 2 engines.
        In addition, on the basis of the t-80, the same sau are more preferable shock absorbers of higher quality.
        Quote: Armata
        T80 just stalls.

        Let's not raise the "srach" T-80 with a gas turbine engine normally copes in any conditions, you only need normal service, not humming. With which we are often tight.
        Quote: Armata
        So Kharkov modestly smokes aside

        The engine in Kharkov has always been a weak spot, however in Pakistan with its far from ideal operating conditions, I am already silent about the quality of service I have chosen.
        Z.Y. I propose no longer to raise the theme of the stronghold.
        1. AGM-114
          AGM-114 28 February 2014 17: 49
          -4
          Quote: gallville
          - replacement of MOH with AZ

          This AZ at the MOH needs to be changed. The fact that in UKBTM they called AZ is a rare electromechanical knock-out.
          1. gallville
            gallville 28 February 2014 18: 10
            0
            Quote: AGM-114
            The fact that the UKBTM called AZ - a rare electromechanical

            Extremely incorrect.
            Quote: AGM-114
            This AZ at the MOH needs to be changed.

            Modern az allows the use of elongated ammunition mz due to the height of the internal volume of the tank so it is impossible to upgrade. First and foremost.
            Well, then the area relative to the sides of the tank and soft shells inside the car.
            1. AGM-114
              AGM-114 28 February 2014 18: 29
              0
              Quote: gallville
              due to the height of the internal volume of the tank, it’s impossible to upgrade

              MOH was not able to upgrade to long BPS only saloyed. I am sending you to read about the MOH of object 291.
          2. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 28 February 2014 18: 36
            +5
            Quote: AGM-114
            The fact that in UKBTM they called AZ is a rare electromechanical knock-out.

            Here's like a man "in the subject" according to comments.
            Like in Kantemirovskaya noted ...

            And what is so much dirt in comments?
            Was life more difficult than other tankers?
            All "drank" in due time, but the poison is some kind of one-sided - in one gate ...
            request
            I do not understand. There is no such thing.
        2. Evgen_Vasilich
          Evgen_Vasilich 28 February 2014 21: 51
          +2
          if it’s no secret, why should the Ministry of Health change to AZ?
          and the packs chose him because the Indians chose the t-90 bully
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 28 February 2014 17: 22
        +1
        Quote: Armata
        where T72 works, T80 simply stalls.

        And actually WHERE stalls? More specifically, please.
        1. AGM-114
          AGM-114 28 February 2014 17: 29
          +2
          Now there will be something about the desert. Only now, Russia is a little not a desolate country. Yes, and the turbine does not have the ability to stall and act up in the cold, like the T-72.
          Under which in the winter you have to make a fire so that this trough goes somewhere.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 28 February 2014 17: 38
            0
            Quote: AGM-114
            Now there will be something about the desert.

            Yes, there she did not stall, completely dead!
            True modernization were, at least two, precisely to eliminate such a scenario.
            And no one has yet come up with protection against sand in oil.
          2. landromat
            landromat 28 February 2014 18: 17
            +1
            At the abrams, they replace the turbine with a new diesel. Yes, and on civilian engineering that GTD is not visible. The complexity and high cost of a gas turbine engine is 3 times higher than a diesel engine, it eats fuel twice. At the same time, there is no compact advantage over a diesel engine due to the huge amount of fuel and filters. But the device for heating a diesel engine is a very real thing is not complicated and not expensive.
            1. Jin
              Jin 28 February 2014 21: 18
              +1
              Quote: landromat
              Yes, and on civilian engineering that GTD is not visible.


              Advertisement:

              "Land Cruiser 200" GTE "- do not stand behind me, behind in a traffic jam, better manage your dream like me!"

              How to "squeeze money" from insurance ??? The cork and the "Land Cruiser 200" GTD "standing in front will help you !!!

              "Land Cruiser 200" GTD "is an enemy of insurance companies! WANT INSURANCE? STEP IN THE CORK !!! Behind the" Land Cruiser 200 "GTD"!!! Phones ....

              A breakthrough in the field of fixed-route taxi transportation, only here !!! Gazelle with gas turbine engine !!! ... Come in don't be afraid, come out don't cry !!! To everyone who arrives, a free return ticket !!!
            2. flanker7
              flanker7 28 February 2014 23: 32
              +1
              You know, regarding the complexity and high cost of a gas turbine engine compared to a diesel engine, I will say this: it’s more expensive, but it’s as much as reliable. It's my opinion. As for fuel consumption, this is a machine for war, and war is expensive. Always. And fuel in these costs is flour.
      3. Pashhenko Nikolay
        Pashhenko Nikolay 28 February 2014 17: 37
        +1
        How does the turbine stall? Something new has been presented to us.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 28 February 2014 17: 47
          0
          Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
          How does the turbine stall?

          Having swallowed sand, any engine does not want to work. That's the truth HOW, this is a different conversation.
          I don’t remember exactly, but it was in the tender report. After that, additional filters were introduced to the existing ones and very good, but the fact was! Swallowed and ...
          Once again I repeat, but HOW swallowed through the filters _ There is a great mystery! A lot happens at tenders.
        2. Jin
          Jin 28 February 2014 21: 19
          +1
          Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
          How does the turbine stall? Something new has been presented to us.


          The image of the crooked hands of the mechanical drive ... Or the lack of maintenance of the filters of the gas turbine engine itself ... well, there are still a lot of "craftsmen" who can break glass horseradish ... And who is to blame? Yes! T-80! And his GTE!
      4. Evgen_Vasilich
        Evgen_Vasilich 28 February 2014 21: 49
        0
        And where does the T-80 "stall"? and where does the stronghold? are moving different! at least read the materiel ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  22. Cynic
    Cynic 28 February 2014 17: 20
    +1
    Thanks for answers. I think it will be interesting for our readers to get information about the new project “first hand”.

    And what was actually said there that was new?
  23. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 28 February 2014 17: 40
    0
    First hand is an unknown nameless representative of the defense industry. Reminds news from British scientists.
  24. The comment was deleted.
    1. Jin
      Jin 28 February 2014 21: 29
      0
      Quote: CAFNS
      .................................................. ..............................



      .................................................. ..............................



      ..............................................................


      And what is this flood for? What would you notice?
      What would you notice, say something in the subject, that would be interesting for communication, or lay out ... On the fig you’re clogging the air, clogged without you sad ?
  25. Leshka
    Leshka 28 February 2014 18: 00
    +1
    it is desirable to see a photo
  26. family tree
    family tree 28 February 2014 20: 06
    +2
    Well, how would it be
  27. Evgen_Vasilich
    Evgen_Vasilich 28 February 2014 22: 01
    +1
    here you read, sometimes, an article and it seems like a good start and the person tried, but when you come to pearls like: "UKBTM performs only the role of general contractor. This design bureau has no experience in the development of heavy equipment"I do not want to continue reading at once. Dear author, I have read, at one time, similar opuses, adherents of a diesel engine - about tanks with a gas turbine engine, adherents of a gas turbine engine - about a diesel engine ... in general, read books where there are many bukaf, it says who The USSR, in addition to Kharkiv and Leningraders, developed several products that were called MBT, well, engineering and others on their basis.I did not put a minus, I do not minus almost, a person may not be out of malice, I probably just forgot ... hi
    1. Armata
      Armata 1 March 2014 10: 49
      0
      Quote: Evgen_Vasilich

      Evgen_Vasilich


      Yesterday, 22: 01

      ↓ New


      here you read, sometimes, an article and it seems like a good start and the person tried, and when you come to pearls like: "UKBTM plays only the role of a general contractor. This design bureau has no experience in the development of heavy equipment" I don't want to continue reading right away. Dear author, I read, at one time, similar opuses, adherents of the diesel engine - about tanks with a gas turbine engine, adherents of a gas turbine engine - about a diesel engine ... in general, read books where there are many bukaf, it says who in the USSR, apart from Kharkiv and Leningraders, developed several products that were called MBT, well, engineering and others based on them. I didn't put a minus, I don't minus almost, a person may not be out of malice, I just forgot probably ...

      Tell us how many KG are left in Tagil? Who works there? What projects are you involved in? The magazine "Young Technician" will not help in this matter.
    2. Armata
      Armata 1 March 2014 10: 49
      -1
      Quote: Evgen_Vasilich

      Evgen_Vasilich


      Yesterday, 22: 01

      ↓ New


      here you read, sometimes, an article and it seems like a good start and the person tried, and when you come to pearls like: "UKBTM plays only the role of a general contractor. This design bureau has no experience in the development of heavy equipment" I don't want to continue reading right away. Dear author, I read, at one time, similar opuses, adherents of the diesel engine - about tanks with a gas turbine engine, adherents of a gas turbine engine - about a diesel engine ... in general, read books where there are many bukaf, it says who in the USSR, apart from Kharkiv and Leningraders, developed several products that were called MBT, well, engineering and others based on them. I didn't put a minus, I don't minus almost, a person may not be out of malice, I just forgot probably ...

      Tell us how many KG are left in Tagil? Who works there? What projects are you involved in? The magazine "Young Technician" will not help in this matter.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 1 March 2014 14: 07
    -1
    Quote: alex86
    Yes, and in "Popular Mechanics" he appeared from somewhere (either from courage, then from somewhere else), and he has a personal author (well done, by the way)

    3D designer Dmitry Sayapin created a computer model. Three such collages in the magazine. And serious ones! goodCollage on T-95, by the way.
  30. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 2 March 2014 01: 12
    0
    From Almaty it is required to get rid of the shortcomings of Soviet tanks of type T 72. AZ, not removable engine. block
    torsion bar suspension. And it seems to me nothing revolutionary will be in it.
  31. Russkiy53
    Russkiy53 2 March 2014 18: 45
    -1
    The torso is an ionic suspension, far from a drawback, the engine in the t-72 can be changed without problems:))) ... the real flaws are the unmasking sound of the power plant, the outdated target detection and weapon system guidance, the absence of fire extinguishing systems ... complete absence any ground-based equipment for combating aviation :)))! the fuel tank is in an inhabited building ... and this is especially dreary ...
    1. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer 3 March 2014 00: 12
      -2
      Quote: Russkiy53
      The torso is an ionic suspension, far from a drawback, the engine in the t-72 can be changed without problems:))) ... the real flaws are the unmasking sound of the power plant, the outdated target detection and weapon system guidance, the absence of fire extinguishing systems ... complete absence any ground-based equipment for combating aviation :)))! the fuel tank is in an inhabited building ... and this is especially dreary ...


      Torsionka has long been inferior to hydropneumatics in compactness and mine safety.
      The engine is changing not without problems)) and as an example, Western tanks, where the engine and gearbox
      combined into one power unit. With the help of a Bram, it changes in 1 - 1,5 hours.
      Fire extinguishing systems are absent due to the placement of AZ in the inhabited compartment, do not poison
      the same crew))) Anti-aircraft machine gun is present, and tanks with advanced anti-aircraft weapons))
      they are simply equipped with guns, but because of the firing range, only a serious threat
      for helicopters with an outdated short range firing system.
      The rest is not significant.
      1. Armata
        Armata 3 March 2014 08: 07
        -1
        Quote: Sledgehammer
        Torsionka has long been inferior to hydropneumatics in compactness and mine safety.
        And for reliability? Suppose a cuff pierced between the olive and pneumatic cavities. Minus one rink at least. And it punches them at a time, I wrote a report about it in Uraran at the time.
        Quote: Sledgehammer
        The engine is changing not without problems)) and as an example, Western tanks, where the engine and gearbox
        combined into one power unit. With the help of a Bram, it changes in 1 - 1,5 hours.
        What is meant? Do our tanks have a guitar separate from the engine? Rave.
        As for the rest, it’s just nonsense, I don’t even want to comment.
        1. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer 3 March 2014 18: 04
          0
          Quote: Armata
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          Torsionka has long been inferior to hydropneumatics in compactness and mine safety.
          And for reliability? Suppose a cuff pierced between the olive and pneumatic cavities. Minus one rink at least. And it punches them at a time, I wrote a report about it in Uraran at the time.
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          The engine is changing not without problems)) and as an example, Western tanks, where the engine and gearbox
          combined into one power unit. With the help of a Bram, it changes in 1 - 1,5 hours.
          What is meant? Do our tanks have a guitar separate from the engine? Rave.
          As for the rest, it’s just nonsense, I don’t even want to comment.


          Even if it gets, which is unlikely, minus one rink maximum, so what?
          The tank can be disassembled for metal))) Changing the roller with the assembly will not take much time. It is better not to run into a tank with a torsion bar suspension
          on mines, in the explosion of the torsion itself is striking
          element inside the case.

          And where does the guitar? For more details. Do you know the standard for changing the T-72, T-90 engine in general?
          And do not write reports in URORAN, they will laugh, you need to understand what you are saying)))
          1. Russkiy53
            Russkiy53 12 March 2014 05: 53
            -1
            Aha-Ga:) !!! what is a guitar:)))? !!! standard for changing the engine:))) !!! yes double basses put on all the standards:) !!! anti-tank mine minus one rink and all:)))? !!! I look, you’ll get a damn about what: D !!!!!
        2. Russkiy53
          Russkiy53 12 March 2014 05: 44
          -1
          So he, apparently, is a strong "military" :)))))!
      2. Russkiy53
        Russkiy53 12 March 2014 05: 57
        -1
        Yes, an anti-aircraft machine gun against a normal anti-aircraft or a ground attack aircraft :)))!
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 12 March 2014 12: 17
          +1
          Quote: Russkiy53
          anti-aircraft machine gun against normal anti-aircraft

          Are you a supporter of duels ?! Wow!
          Like there, rephrasing _
          “With a good word and a machine gun, much more can be achieved than with one good word.”
          1. Russkiy53
            Russkiy53 15 March 2014 14: 22
            -1
            :))) "WOW" ... "ki" ... why do you need glamor :)?
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 15 March 2014 18: 21
              +1
              Quote: Russkiy53
              :))) "WOW" ... "ki" ... why do you need glamor :)?

              A question the answer !
              The echo here is strong, consider the future.
        2. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer 13 March 2014 14: 37
          0
          You are a master of useless koment tongue Three comments and nothing sensible laughing
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Russkiy53
            Russkiy53 15 March 2014 14: 35
            -1
            And you can write a separate person to the person who saw the current tanks in the pictures: D ?!
          3. The comment was deleted.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 15 March 2014 18: 48
              +1
              Quote: Russkiy53
              hydropneumatics alone doesn’t work :)))! each roller needs its own oil (or air, depending on type) high-pressure pump ... to understand what it is ...

              You are simply amazingly ignorant.
              Quote: Russkiy53
              you need to twist the nuts in order to argue what’s good and what’s ... nya complete :))) ... and, it would be nice to even imagine what a combined arms battle is

              Yes, as if twisting over twenty years ... And it’s tank.

              Reread your posts, well, after all, such a definition to the author as SCHOOL itself suggests itself.
              wink
            2. Sledgehammer
              Sledgehammer 16 March 2014 02: 43
              0
              Yes, you do not need anything but an electric wire, everything is inside.
              Therefore, it is called an individual hydropneumatic suspension.
              http://www.redov.ru/transport_i_aviacija/tehnika_i_vooruzhenie_2010_04/p10.php#u
              Bmk_584121
              http://topwar.ru/33618-bronya-chernoy-pantery.html

              Anti-aircraft machine gun standard armament of the tank
              I talked about them above. To repel air attacks create
              BM type "Tunguska", to provide air defense of tank columns, for example.
              It’s not necessary to stuff everything into a promising tank, it’s good
              will not end.

              Anti-tank mines are not very powerful.
              They mainly work on the tract and the rink.
              The weight of each mine for mining systems also matters.
              Confused with landmines where several shells explode
              close or under the tank.

              I already talked about the rest, I see no reason to repeat.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 16 March 2014 09: 02
                +1
                Quote: Sledgehammer
                Yes, no need ...

                Exactly _
                The Gospel of Matthew (ch. 7, v. 6) contains the words from the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ (Russian transl.): “Do not give sanctuary to the dogs and do not throw your pearls before the pigs, so that they do not trample it under their feet and, turning, did not tear you to pieces. ”
                And to avoid discrepancies
                not worth saying that the interlocutors can neither understand nor appreciate properly. A. S. Pushkin

                hi
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. alexpro66
    alexpro66 3 March 2014 22: 43
    +2
    Quote: cosmos111

    - “Armata” was originally developed as a promising platform for ACS. I did not see the layout, but most likely this was the layout of “Almaty” with “Coalition”.

    again, continuous fog and no specifics (((((
    generally incomprehensible phrase "" Armata "was originally developed as a promising platform for ACS."
    Why self-propelled guns, protivosnaryadny booking?
    if, initially, Armata was developed as an assault gun, with anti-shell armor and a cal. 152 mm cannon .., that was logical !!!!

    Everything is just like a Columbus egg! Nonsense about the fact that Armata was originally developed for the ACS was blurted out by the Mechanic, and according to the style of the letter given by the "interview" and the flattering reviews about the progress of work that the interviewee gives out - there is no doubt that this article is another nonsense of the Mechanic or some other unhealthy "involved "to the development of Armata. By a million percent I affirm that the author and his "source" from the design bureau do not have ANY relation to Armat.
  34. alexpro66
    alexpro66 5 March 2014 11: 13
    +2
    Well, to the heap))) The mechanic is now under the nickname Armata !!!)))) What happened ??? Made a lie one nickname began to mess up the second?))
  35. bender8282
    bender8282 7 March 2014 13: 55
    +1
    let's hope that it will come out no worse than the Israeli war chariot ...
  36. Tishka
    Tishka 24 October 2014 15: 46
    0
    Indeed, why drive horses, we and not so bad life! Money. they allocate for development, we successfully lay them in our pockets, but we don’t know what we will ultimately create! So, everything was just fine, as usual, they wanted the best, but it turned out, as always! behind a veil of secrecy, it’s very good to hide all your shortcomings, or even the absence of any results! I do not understand one simple thought. Every technique. There are a number of specific tasks for which it is being developed. Accordingly, both its protection and weight characteristics must correspond to precisely these conditions! It turns out that in one case. They try to shove it not into the shoved, and rejoice that it succeeded, but that what they shoved will not work is not important! Now the army refuses to buy the T-90, explaining that there will be an “Armata”, and therefore, the most massive tank in the units remains the T-72 and T-80, albeit in different modifications, the T-90 looks good on exhibitions, but here in the army, there are not so many of them, so rearmament stalled at full speed, instead. just words, and leaching money from the budget! We will create this for you that everyone will gasp, but only when we ourselves do not know. But everyone will be jealous, maybe, or fall from laughter!