What are tanks afraid of?
A modern army needs armored vehicles of a new type.During the reform of the Russian army, the military department reduces the number of times 20 tanks in the troops (from 40 thousand to two thousand) and does not plan new purchases of armored vehicles. First Deputy Minister of Defense Vladimir Popovkin announced that the modern T-90 is not far from the T-34. At the same time, the military decided to abandon further work on the promising tank project "Object-195". The designer of armored vehicles of the only remaining tank-building enterprise Uralvagonzavod Vladimir Nevolin spoke about whether tanks are needed in modern Russia.
Vladimir Mikhailovich, at the recent salon of armaments and military equipment of Eurosatory-2010 in Paris, the tanks were almost the main exhibits. For the first time Israel showed off its newest tank Merkava-Mk4 with the Trophy active protection system abroad. Germany has two projects at once: the modernized Leopard-2A7 + and the concept of a tank of the future, which was designated as the revolutionary MBT Revolution. And what about us? Why do the military have so many complaints about Uralvagonzavod products?
Vladimir Nevolin: I would not like to comment on the words of our military. But if we talk about domestic tanks, I personally see that in Algeria, in India, and in China, and in Pakistan - in countries where the military certainly know their business better than ours - they successfully exploit the tanks created on the basis of our T-72. This is the most massive tank in the world for a long time became a classic, a trendsetter in tank building: a gun with a caliber 125 mm, an automatic loader - carousel type with 22 shots. The same machine went to the tank T-90. It is bought by India and Algeria.
The Chinese at one time took the T-72 for the prototype and created two of their tanks - type-98 and type-99. These tanks have already made 2,5 thousand. Then, the Chinese, together with Pakistan, created an MBT-2000 tank, or Al Khalid, in which the automatic loader with the T-72 was also used.
Main battle tank T-72 Ural
Type 99 / ZTZ99, China
Office-2000, or Al Khalid, China-Pakistan
But for some reason, this automatic loader doesn’t suit our military any more - as if it is easy to hit it with anti-tank weapons. While in Chechnya there were T-72 tanks that withstood 6-9 hits from hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. The crew remained alive while the tank was combat-ready. I find it difficult to understand the logic of the military.
If the military publicly express their discontent, then it means that they have an accurate idea of what they would like to ideally get?
Nevolin: Unfortunately, all requirements are classified as secret.
But do they at least see some perspective?
Nevolin: Yes.
In that case, why does the Ministry of Defense refuse to further develop the "Object-195" program, which is based on a tank with an uninhabited tower?
195 object
Nevolin: I also have no right to comment.
Then explain how a tank should be to be called modern?
Nevolin: In principle, we believe that the T-90С tank is exactly modern. Not inferior to anything third-generation tanks. First, he has an automated fire control system that has equal opportunities to detect targets both day and night, in difficult weather conditions. It has a thermal sight, in the production of which France is involved. On the T-72 there was no such device. On the T-90C, it is there, which makes the sector for a wider overview of the terrain by tankers (this was not the case before).
Secondly - protection. It must ensure that the tank is unaffected by the main anti-tank weapons: an 120 mm anti-tank armor-piercing projectile and an anti-tank guided missile of all types. These requirements for our tank are also met. Thirdly - the movement over rough terrain at speeds up to 45 km / h and a power reserve of at least 500 km. Our tank goes exactly like that. Finally, the last thing that should be is the equipment of automated battle management: display of the current combat information about the enemy in real time. What is also implemented. That is, the T-90C is in every sense a modern and efficient combat vehicle.
How many years do you think the T-90С will be considered a modern tank? And when will Russia need to present a fundamentally new combat vehicle?
T-90S
Nevolin: The main complaints about the T-90С tank today are related to its insufficient survivability. Still, the placement in the same circuit of people, ammunition and fuel is fraught with the fact that if the armor is pierced, it can lead to a fire outbreak. Even with a fire extinguishing system, such options are not excluded. Therefore, the development of modern armored vehicles is on the path of separation of people and fuel from ammunition. Still one option - the use of remotely controlled weapons. In the "Object-195" it was practically implemented - the tank tower was without a crew, and it was concentrated in a protected circuit, separated from the fuel and the warhead. In principle, all countries of the world are just about to switch to such remote-controlled combat units, to separate manned and uninhabited compartments in the construction of modern tanks. But I repeat: no one has such machines yet.
and: Your company has already put into practice the "uninhabited tower" on a combat vehicle supporting tanks BMPT. Can it be considered a prototype of the tank of the future?
Nevolin: BMPT has other combat missions. In addition, the crew sits in the same place where the fuel and ammunition. Simply, they are more rationally placed.
How do you see the future of this car?
Nevolin: This is one of the types of combat vehicles that needs to be developed further. Modern BMP badly protected. If you try to protect this machine at the same level as a tank, then it will weigh about seventy tons. Which is clearly very heavy. Although such work is going in Germany. A new combat tracked infantry vehicle, Puma, weighing 40 tons with protection against anti-tank weapons, of which the most used are hand-held grenade launchers, was put into service there. More serious means of destruction - anti-tank guided missiles, missiles - this machine does not stand up.
BMP "Puma" is made according to the classical for infantry fighting scheme
But each country has its own path. For example, the Americans had a program for switching to light equipment - "Future combat system". It was planned to assemble eight combat vehicles and the same number of X-NUMX tonnage support vehicles so that they could be transferred by C-18 transport aircraft. But last year, the Americans also abandoned this program and recently launched a project to create a heavy armored personnel carrier with a crew of three and a group of nine paratroopers.
There is such a German specialist - Rolf Hilmis. According to his concept of the development of BMP, the machine is actually divided into two. One that hosts small-caliber weapons - a gun, a rocket system. The second is engaged in the actual transportation of infantry. Both have a high level of protection. As an example of such a separation, he cites our BMPT: it has small-caliber weapons, is equipped with a perfect fire control system that can detect small targets, and is capable of effectively hitting them, having a large ammunition load.
Why is this important?
Nevolin: Because today every infantryman is well armed with either an RPG or a portable missile system. The Americans in Iraq and in Afghanistan practically every soldier has a pipe behind their backs - this is precisely what anti-tank complexes are capable of hitting any BMP. And on BMPT placed a large ammunition. For example, only gun shots for 30-mm gun - 850 pieces (for comparison on the BMP-2 - 500). In addition, there are two more independent firing channels - two operators armed with AG-17D automatic grenade launchers, each with 300 grenades. Each of them has a defeat zone of seven meters in a square. That is, firing 300 grenades, I hit 2100 square meters. This is one grenade launcher! Two - 4200 square meters dotted with splinters. Even if a grenade doesn’t hit a fighter, the fact weapons will force the enemy to abandon the attempt to attack the car. In addition, to combat high-security targets at BMPT, there are two launchers with four Ataka-T guided anti-tank missiles with cumulative or thermobaric combat units capable of striking both tanks and enemy fortifications at a distance of five kilometers. In the field, one BMPT surpasses two motorized rifle platoons in efficiency - these are six infantry fighting vehicles and about 40 manpower. In cities, forests and mountains, the use of long-range tools is impractical. Therefore, multifunctional vehicles such as BMPT will represent the main strike force of the Ground Forces.
BMPT tank support fighting vehicle based on the T-72 tank
Why, then, do the Ground Forces consider the BMPT to be almost a whim of the Uralvagonzavod?
Nevolin: When this car was created, we gave it a bad name. Then it met the requirement of supporting tanks, but now the BMPT can have an independent combat use. Today we call it an infantry fire support vehicle. It behaves well in cities and in closed areas, for which a tank is too powerful a machine. You can’t download more 30-40 shots to it! And shooting a tank gun at an infantryman is like sparrows. That's when BMPT becomes a kind of sniper weapon.
Why our military do not understand this - I can not judge. BMPT has been tested, but since 2006, it has not been accepted for service.
In the current situation, "Uralvagonzavod" will again survive only at the expense of import contracts?
Nevolin: It seems so.
Information