Project "Armata": information "first hand"
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”.
Information