Military Review

The project complex active missile defense tanks "Oplot-MO"

38
Anti-tank guided missiles that appeared in the fifties of the last century became a big problem for tank builders around the world. Such weapons made it possible to effectively deal with all existing medium and heavy tanks. Proper guidance of the missile on the target practically guaranteed the defeat of the enemy armored vehicle with the help of a cumulative warhead. The tanks of that time had nothing to oppose even the very first missiles, which were not perfect. Because of this, the leading countries of the world were forced to look for a suitable solution aimed at ensuring the safety of tankers. In the USSR, such works led to the appearance of a number of interesting projects, including the so-called the Oplot-MO active missile defense system.


Since the mid-fifties, Soviet designers have offered various options for dealing with modern ammunition, including guided munitions. In 1959, the list of proposals was supplemented with a new idea. Specialists SRI-61 (now the Central Research Institute of Precision Engineering, Klimovsk) proposed to use anti-aircraft artillery techniques to protect tanks. In other words, the new proposal implied the use of machine gun and cannon armament for the destruction of incoming missiles. Already in the spring of 59, the staff of SRI-61 conducted some theoretical studies that confirmed the fundamental possibility of implementing their proposal.

Calculations showed that the proposal, in general, is of interest and can be used in practice. However, some difficulties arose. It has been found that active anti-missile defense requires the use of rapid-fire weaponand also to allocate large volumes inside the tank for its ammunition. A large-caliber (12,7 mm) machine gun with a rate of fire at the level of 10 thousand shots per minute was considered as a means of active protection. To protect against attacks using four French-made SS-10 missiles with a probability of at least 0,7 in this case, it was necessary to spend 1100 cartridges.

The project complex active missile defense tanks "Oplot-MO"
Machine gun installation complex "Oplot-MO", side view. The dotted line shows the cartridge box.


Also, studies have shown that the placement of the necessary ammunition for the "anti-missile" machine gun will require to reduce the ammunition of the main gun by about a quarter. In addition, it required a place to place equipment to search for incoming missiles and control the entire defense system. Naturally, with such parameters, the proposed active missile defense complex could not interest the military.

Nevertheless, it was decided to continue work in a promising direction. February 18, 1960 issued a decree of the Council of Ministers, in accordance with which NII-61, VNII-100, Kazan aviation the Institute and the Military Academy of Armored Forces were to continue the development of initial ideas and create a workable version of an active missile defense complex. The research work was called "Oplot-MO". The project’s lead organization was the Military Academy of Armored Forces.

The joint work of several organizations has led to the formation of a full-fledged appearance of a promising anti-missile system. In accordance with the final version of the project "Oplot-MO", the tanks were to be equipped with a special automated machine gun turret mounted on the commander's hatch, as well as a set of electronics inside the fighting compartment. Thus, a machine gun, its ready-to-use ammunition, guidance systems, and target detection tools should be located outside the base tank. An automated fire control system was to be mounted inside the tank.

The algorithm of the perspective complex was determined as follows. The compact radar station located outside the tank was supposed to monitor the environment and detect objects moving toward the tank at a speed of about 600-800 m / s. Such restrictions on the speed of the target made it possible to identify a rocket or an anti-tank grenade and distinguish it from other objects. When the target approached a distance of the order of 200, the machine gun was aimed and the fire opened.


Machine gun installation, top view. Well visible overall layout


Calculations showed that a machine gun with a rate of fire at the level of 0,8-9000 shots per minute was required to hit a flying rocket with a probability of 11000. With 9 thousand shots per minute, it was possible to destroy missiles flying at a speed of 600 m / s. At a target speed of 800 m / s, a corresponding increase in the rate of fire was required.

As follows from the preserved materials, the main part of the units of the complex "Oplot-MO" was to be located outside the combat compartment of the base tank. At the commander's tower, it was proposed to mount a turntable with automatic guidance mechanisms in two planes. It was necessary to install a large-caliber machine gun with the required rate of fire and accuracy of fire. To the left of the machine gun provided for mounting box with ammunition. To reduce the dimensions of the machine-gun installation, the box was proposed to be placed parallel to the machine gun and equipped with a curved tray for feeding cartridges.

Calculations showed that for effective destruction of flying up anti-tank missiles, a large-caliber machine gun with a rate of at least 9 thousand shots per minute is required. Serial samples with the required characteristics at that time were absent. For this reason, in the draft "Oplot-MO", as far as is known, no ready-made machine gun was considered. On the contrary, it included in the complex a hypothetical sample for a large caliber cartridge. In order to increase the rate of firing, it was proposed to equip it with a rotating block with six trunks.

One of the main tasks in the framework of the project "Oplot-MO" was the creation of electronic components of the complex. In the course of the work, a variant of the radar station and some other elements of the system was proposed. So, for the detection of incoming missiles it was proposed to use an automatic small-sized radar, the antenna of which was to be located on the roof of the tower or on the fastenings of a machine-gun installation. The total height of the antenna unit was 40 cm, the device area in the plan is 0,15 sq. M. The developed radar could operate in two modes. In the search mode, a circular review in azimuth and sector tracking from -5 ° to + 15 ° in elevation was provided. When switching to tracking mode, the radar “inspected” an 90 ° sector in azimuth. The parameters of the elevation remained the same.


Heavy tank T-10M with a complex "Oplot-MO" on the commander's hatch


Inside the fighting compartment, according to the project, it was necessary to mount the power supply unit, the converter and the calculating device. Due to the high speeds of the incoming missiles and the need to ensure a minimum response time, the Oplot-MO complex was supposed to operate in automatic mode during the battle. In this case, the electronics had to independently monitor the surrounding space and make a decision about the attack of the detected rocket. However, the manual control mode was also provided, which allowed the use of a machine gun installation as an anti-aircraft weapon or for firing at enemy manpower.

The complex of active antimissile defense "Oplot-MO" was made in the form of several blocks installed inside and outside the tank. Due to this, in particular, no serious restrictions were imposed on the base machine. As a result, it became possible to install complexes on armored vehicles of various types. The preserved drawings depict the medium tank T-55 and the heavy T-10M, equipped with the Oplot-MO. Perhaps in the future, this complex could be installed on other domestic tanks.

The Oplot-MO complex was of great interest, since it made it possible to significantly increase the level of protection of existing tanks without the need for serious reworking of their design. At the same time, however, he had several significant drawbacks. The main thing is the lack of a suitable machine gun. In the Soviet Union there were simply no multi-barreled large-caliber machine guns with the required rate of fire. Probably, the development of the necessary machine gun could have begun when a decision was made on the further development of the anti-missile system, but such work, as far as is known, did not begin. In addition, there could be complaints about antenna survivability and other features of the complex.


Medium tank T-55 with active missile defense complex


According to reports, the project "Oplot-MO" was stopped shortly after the completion of the design. In the future, the developments on this project were used in the research work "Protection". Work on the new project was carried out from 1961 to 1965 years. Within the framework of the new project, certain components of the complex were improved, which led to a slight increase in its design characteristics.

However, in 1965, all work on active anti-ballistic missile defense systems was stopped. Despite the progress made, such weapons had several problems, some of which could not be solved in principle. In addition to the lack of the necessary machine gun, it was possible to note the large size and overall cumbersomeness of the proposed equipment, as well as the difficulty with locating the required ammunition. In addition, the effectiveness of the systems left much to be desired.

Complexes "Oplot-MO" and "Protection" existed only in the form of design documentation. In the course of these two projects, Soviet designers created and studied an interesting and, as it seemed, a promising option for additional protection for armored vehicles. Further work led to the identification of a number of serious flaws that led to the closure of projects. In the future, attempts to create active missile defense systems based on machine-gun armament were not undertaken. The main means of increasing the survivability of tanks for many years have become a dynamic protection system.


Based on:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/
Pavlov M. Pavlov I. Domestic Armored Vehicles 1945-1965 // Technique and weapons, 2009. No.4
Author:
Photos used:
Equipment and weapons / Ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. inkass_98
    inkass_98 17 December 2015 07: 38
    0
    The idea is an interesting but cumbersome embodiment. And the ammunition should be huge, not just one designed missile. In the Navy, this idea has taken root, at least among the States, but there and the ship’s dimensions make it possible to place such installations as air defense and missile defense systems.
    1. Rus86
      Rus86 17 December 2015 08: 21
      +2
      in the article, T&V 11 or 12, the queue length is up to 75 shots. in the box 300, another 600 in the installation. so quite
    2. qwert
      qwert 17 December 2015 10: 37
      +5
      The IMHO caliber is redundant. 7,62 would be enough. Then the installation would have turned out less. But, they probably didn’t make it because of the requirement to have a large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun on Soviet tanks
      1. vadimtt
        vadimtt 17 December 2015 11: 56
        +5
        And for me, a shotgun in a caliber of 30-40 mm with a buckshot speed of 900 m / s is even better smile
      2. Serg koma
        Serg koma 1 January 2016 16: 50
        0
        Quote: qwert
        7,62 would be enough

        In this case, there would be a need for the installation of an anti-aircraft machine gun = weapons against lightly armored targets (in the case of the use of appropriate ammunition). The article says (most likely it was 12.7 that was part of the terms of reference)
        manual control was also envisaged, which made it possible to use a machine-gun mount as an anti-aircraft weapon or for firing at enemy manpower.
    3. Kars
      Kars 17 December 2015 10: 50
      +4
      If there are specialists in casting resin, an excellent device can be made for sale. Many would buy one for the T-10 / T-55 models
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 17 December 2015 11: 37
        +5
        Quote: Kars
        If there are specialists in casting resin, an excellent device can be made for sale.

        Who about what, and naked about the bath ...)))
        Greetings, Andrew.
        Glad to hear that.
        hi

        It seems like your dream is to place a 23mm twin on the roof of the tower and "something else" ...
        I'm not mistaken?

        Here is just an example of calculation:
        1100 rounds of caliber 12,7mm and weapon control equipment throw a quarter of the main caliber of weapons from the tank.
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 December 2015 11: 45
          +7
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Who about what, and naked about the bath ...)))

          Well, not quite naked - Ilyich gave me the T-10M. But I was able to buy an air defense system Cube for the task.

          Quote: Aleks tv
          Here is just an example of calculation:
          1100 rounds of caliber 12,7mm throw a quarter of the main caliber of weapons out of the tank.

          so it’s possible to take the task from 4 missiles with 0.7 easier, even if it’s from two missiles. And let them carry boxes from the bk. It’s a cool idea anyway. Now with modern aiming systems and computers I personally think that the anti-aircraft machine gun of the same Armata can and should knock down the birds in auto mode.

          Quote: Aleks tv
          It seems like your dream is to place a 23mm twin on the roof of the tower and "something else" ...
          I'm not mistaken?

          you are not mistaken.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 17 December 2015 12: 30
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            so it’s possible to take the task from 4 missiles with 0.7 easier. although it would be from two missiles. And let it carry boxes from the BK from the outside. Still, the idea is cool.

            Of course - not bad.

            But still...
            Placement of BC is not even the first problem, but the second.
            The main problem is management and application.
            Multi-station - can bring down the crew in priority goals and ... confuse in the implementation of the main task.
            For me (tank weapon):
            - The main caliber is paired with "anything else", it can be anything, at least 23, at least 30, at least 57. At least a mammoth tusk. This twin is controlled by the gunner in the sequence mode, the commander has a double control.
            - The weapons of the commander should not prevent him from fulfilling his main task - control of space and command of the crew. That’s what he needs to give into the hands of the tank’s WEAPONSELF.
            He is very lacking ..................... The simplest defense without any frills there. This weapon has the very place on the roof of the tower, and nothing more needs to be placed there. KAZ will solve other issues.
            Automation is not a panacea, it is vulnerable and breaks often, radish.
            IMHO, of course.

            And the multi-vector calibers (necessary for this theater) should be reasonably distributed on several platforms combined into a single tactical unit.

            ..........

            Lana, something I talked sedna))).
            Arbeiten went.
            hi
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 December 2015 13: 08
              +2
              Quote: Aleks tv
              The main problem is management and application.
              Multi-station - can bring down the crew in priority goals

              The difficulty here is what exactly to discuss - this device, maybe the commander, maybe the loader. On the IS-7 it would look cool, there are two loaders.

              And if you look at the present - it’s all about automation.
              Although I understand that you are more about the mundane, but about the ZPU that is now on the T-72 / 90
          2. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 17 December 2015 13: 32
            +1
            Quote: Kars

            Well, not quite naked - Ilyich gave me the T-10M. But I was able to buy an air defense system Cube for the task.

            good
            By the way:
            I was visiting Sani in Moscow (Alex241).
            So count up - he has half a balcony (really !!!) full of boxes.
            Wah, I’ve gotten in)))
            lol
            Well, guys, you seduce me, I blame the innocent defect, so tease Schaub, I wiped the dust from my airbrush ...
            wink
            Good deal, nothing to say.
            drinks
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 December 2015 13: 42
              +3
              Quote: Aleks tv
              So count up - he has half a balcony (really !!!) full of boxes.
              Wah, I’ve gotten in)))

              a hamster is a good thing. it is a pity that the Chinese breakthrough in modelism fell on the financial crisis. All this would have come up in 2010-2012 I would have had a floor of the balcony too.

              Quote: Aleks tv
              Well, guys, you seduce me, I blame the innocent defect, so tease Schaub, I wiped the dust from my airbrush ...

              Since there’s just a reason - Trump got your favorite turtle in several versions. And even on the 16 scale))
              1. 52
                52 17 December 2015 16: 47
                +1
                Do not poison the soul, villains! laughing Already six months with this fucking work I can not finish "Grant" to mind.
        2. Assistant
          Assistant 17 December 2015 12: 01
          +1
          Here is just an example of calculation:
          1100 rounds of caliber 12,7mm and weapon control equipment throw a quarter of the main caliber of weapons from the tank.


          And this despite the fact that the BC and radar are outside the reserved space. Electronics 60s, what can you do.
          My other question arose: were there step-by-step electric motors in the 60s (enough to shove tanks) that could in a split second direct the fool shown in the pictures onto a cruise missile (10-20 centimeters in diameter)?
    4. atalef
      atalef 17 December 2015 14: 17
      +2
      Quote: inkass_98
      The idea is an interesting but cumbersome embodiment. And the ammunition should be huge, not just one designed missile. In the Navy, this idea has taken root, at least among the States, but there and the ship’s dimensions make it possible to place such installations as air defense and missile defense systems.

      The idea is a problem, the question is, when firing an RPG from a distance of 200m, will the system work, with simultaneous shelling from several sides?
      In general, maybe for the 60s this was something new. Now it does not meet any realities.
      1. SIvan
        SIvan 17 December 2015 21: 12
        +1
        Now this is not relevant at all, because there are supersonic ATGMs such as Sturm, Attack, Chrysanthemum.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Shuttle
      Shuttle 17 December 2015 14: 33
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      In the Navy, this idea has taken root, at least among the States, but there and the ship’s dimensions make it possible to place such installations as air defense and missile defense systems.

      These are ours:
      AK-630
      AK-306
      AK-630M2

      http://topwar.ru/18761-shestipalaya-falanga-zenitnyy-artilleriyskiy-kompleks-pha
      lanx.html
      Interesting little article.
  2. Alexez
    Alexez 17 December 2015 09: 26
    +2
    I wonder why a heavy machine gun (12,7 mm)?
    Guided missile or missile with GOS, a fairly fragile object, IMHO enough and 7,62 caliber. As a result, the dimensions will decrease and the BC will increase.
    1. qwert
      qwert 17 December 2015 10: 38
      0
      Quote: Alexez
      I wonder why a heavy machine gun (12,7 mm)?
      Guided missile or missile with GOS, a fairly fragile object, IMHO enough and 7,62 caliber. As a result, the dimensions will decrease and the BC will increase.


      I have already explained hi
  3. ICT
    ICT 17 December 2015 09: 26
    0
    I read about it once

    For example, the Marconi company has manufactured an automatic paired 7,62-mm installation with a millimeter-wave radar, which is mounted on the Challenger tower. "
    The maximum range of fire from it reaches 600 — 900 m, and it is required to destroy the target. not
    more 20 rounds.
  4. Alexez
    Alexez 17 December 2015 10: 40
    +2
    Alternatively, this system can be easily upgraded to work proactively. For example, the tank’s electronics recorded the flare from the ATGM installation, transmitted the coordinates to the machine gun control unit, and it automatically or semi-automatically (with the permission of the tank commander or operator with weapons) suppressed it. Naturally, if the ATGM installation is in the range of weapons.
  5. rudolff
    rudolff 17 December 2015 11: 12
    +1
    A kind of analogue of KAZ. Machine guns with rotating barrel blocks, such as the American XM214 Microgan or M134 Minigun, would fit well here. Rate of fire up to 6 thousand in / m.
  6. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 17 December 2015 11: 22
    +8
    Thanks for the rare material, Cyril.
    hi
    Fine !

    By the way, in the 80's, the Britons tried to stick an 7,62 pair with a locator on the tank.
    The work was discontinued.
    This was discussed in bursa - it seems the TAMS program (there were several of them).

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

    And about the "external" machine gun mounted on the tank:
    What just did not do with him ...
    - an additional machine gun,
    - anti-aircraft machine gun,
    - PRO machine gun ...
    Now he is called name-calling. They put the caliber 12,7mm.
    1. It should be recognized for a long time that with this caliber flying birds can only be threatened, and not even threatened. Moreover, shooting at an airplane and a helicopter requires quite sophisticated aiming equipment, who shot manually using a collimator and visual guidance from an angle, he will understand this whole ballet.
    So why should a good machine gun call ZPU?
    2. If not the anti-aircraft gun then ... to destroy GROUND targets? Why not ? Then what caliber?
    The options are:
    - 12,7mm.
    Pros: Very good, and it is perfectly attached to the tank (the main trouble of large-caliber). For this, for example, he was well respected at checkpoints. This caliber can keep at a safe distance the adversaries with the arrow, not allowing them to reach the effective range of the use of machine guns and RPGs. This caliber ... just to be afraid, it knocks down or tears off parts of the body. With this caliber, it is possible to break through any crap that the ordinary rifleman does not penetrate.
    Cons: Bulky. Low volume of ammunition transported. Limited availability of "one belt" equipment.
    - 7,62mm.
    Pros: filling at least 250 oil into one tape, plus the technical possibility of increasing the "one tape" to 1000-2000 shots. The PKTM barrel is reinforced. So we get a kind of "watering machine" with which you can generously irrigate the bearded nerds surrounding the tank with sevens and other pukalko.
    Cons:
    This is not a large caliber.
    Those. it would be good if the GABTU already decided, WHY and for what purposes a machine gun hangs on top of the tank?

    By the way, on the T-90AM (MS), the commander of the UDP-T05BV-1 caliber 7,62mm, Armata ... has 7,62mm too.

    For me it's better 7,62 with 1000 oil in one tape. And call it a weapon of self-defense, equipped with a good sight and two-plane stabilization.
    Allocate control of this machine gun to the commander, after all, he still constantly turns his headset 360 degrees (his job is like that), so let him casually crush everyone in a row: the bearded and striped and all the rest of the loitering people who consider the Kalash and the "seven" a piece of national clothing. And the gunner will not be distracted from the case, and at least it will be useful.
    This is just a personal opinion.
    ...........

    More about the article:
    They told us about this system at the BTViT department as an example that ... you can’t cram into it ... well, in general, it’s clear))). What is impossible to place on the tank a fig cloud of weapons of various calibers and uses. Those. it’s possible to place it, but ... practically without ammunition. And most importantly - the crew will just get a little trickier, the brain with a pretzel will curl up from the complexity of control and multi-station.

    And in this case (Oplot-MO) we get a significant reduction in the ammunition of the main weapon with a very low efficiency of its use.
    Although - cool of course)))
    wink

    T-64 with the Oplot-MO complex
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 December 2015 13: 32
      +1
      Quote: Aleks tv
      It should be recognized for a long time that with this caliber flying birds can only be threatened, and not even threatened. Moreover, shooting at an airplane and a helicopter requires quite sophisticated aiming equipment, who shot manually using a collimator and visual guidance from an angle, he will understand this whole ballet.
      So why should a good machine gun call ZPU?

      And what else to call a machine gun with large UVN, capable of shooting at the zenith? Only "anti-aircraft".
      Who is to blame that the word "anti-aircraft" has become synonymous with "anti-aircraft". smile

      Uv. M.N. Svirin wrote on machine gun mounts with DShK on IS and ISU that the test results revealed their complete unsuitability for firing at aircraft ... but nevertheless, the installations were strongly recommended for production precisely as "anti-aircraft" - for firing with large elevation angles at work in cities. These are the anti-aircraft anti-aircraft guns that are unsuitable for air defense. smile
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 17 December 2015 17: 58
        +2
        Regarding the unsuitability of anti-aircraft machine guns on tanks .... quite a long time ago I read an article in train. "Foreign Military Review", "dedicated" to the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. It was noted that despite the weak "power" of 12,7-mm machine guns, Israeli pilots preferred to attack those columns (parts of columns) where anti-aircraft tank machine guns fire was conducted poorly or not at all ..
    2. Rader
      Rader 17 December 2015 14: 14
      +4
      Ryabov "+" for a really interesting article good I have never heard of such an attempt to solve the problem.
      This is just a personal opinion.

      This is certainly true, Alexey, but your opinion is "worth a lot." wink Very much emphasized for yourself from your articles and comment hi But my opinion (the opinion of an amateur, of course winked ...) about 2 calibers in MBT, it doesn’t coincide with yours ...
      The main caliber is paired with "something else"

      As for me, on the new MBT with an uninhabited fighting compartment, it would be, at least as an experiment, to install a 30-mm cannon, but not paired with the main weapon. A 30-mm automatic cannon with large UVN, and which can be guided horizontally, regardless of the tower, over a wide range (200 min degrees) - isn't this a nightmare not only for Basmachi with an old RPG, but also for helicopter pilots on Apaches " last blocks ". Since such a weapon can be used independently of the main bang, we get the possibility of simultaneously firing at 2 targets. But this installation should be, first of all, defensive and integrated into the active protection system (I found a tank, say, a calculation of an ATR preparing to do its job, and the cannon is already being guided in a fully automatic mode ...). In general, such a design provides a number of advantages over a gun that does not have its own horizontal guidance drives. Disadvantages (which on tanks with a classic layout repeatedly overlap all the advantages) can be leveled at the T-14.
      Well, I completely agree that it is time to stop calling the machine gun of "tank self-defense" ZPU. Any helicopter more modern than the Cobra, you just scratch it out of it before you die ...
      P.S. I repeat, this is my personal, modest opinion. Sorry, people, that is a little messy, but shaking on the bus does not help to communicate thoughts. laughing
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 17 December 2015 14: 53
        +1
        Quote: Rader
        but shaking on a bus does not help to communicate thoughts.

        laughing
        If in a blunshnoyu - it is necessary to take a taxi.
        Tradition.
        drinks
      2. MaksoMelan
        MaksoMelan 9 May 2016 22: 56
        0
        What can you say about the modern t-72 tank! Just with such little balls! There is one with two!
  7. Hydrograph
    Hydrograph 17 December 2015 12: 45
    +1
    The father served in the tank forces as an officer (tanks T34, T54, T55, T62) said that from the first ATGMs (if they had time to notice a shot), they could have time to hide in the folds of the terrain. And with the later it’s hard. Words are not mine for what I bought for what I sold.
    1. avdkrd
      avdkrd 17 December 2015 22: 20
      +2
      Quote: Hydrograph
      The father served in the tank forces as an officer (tanks T34, T54, T55, T62) said that from the first ATGMs (if they had time to notice a shot), they could have time to hide in the folds of the terrain. And with the later it’s hard. Words are not mine for what I bought for what I sold.

      In principle, it’s quite possible for yourself - the Baby has a flight speed of 120 m / s, and a range of up to 3000 m. for flying time it was even possible to dig in))) Another thing is that it was possible to detect a missile from a tank only by accident, especially during a combined arms battle, when artillery was working, aviation could appear, both sides set smoke and quite often fired. Now the situation has not changed much, the most difficult issue is the situational awareness of the tank crew. I don’t know what prototypes are currently driving around landfills, but technically it’s possible to implement the review option in World of Tanks (third-person view) even on Android devices from the Euroset. Software processing of the image from external video cameras in conjunction with the video signal from the UAV and the thermal imager will not require any supernatural resources and processors, you can even superimpose on the synthesized picture and map and targets, during processing, identify and mark moving objects and highlight tank-hazardous ones - all this is easily achievable on commercial digital technology, unless you can buy high-resolution cameras in a stall. I look forward to a breakthrough in this regard in the near future.
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 19 December 2015 00: 35
        0
        Just cameras with high resolution in stalls in bulk, the real problem is the transmission of serious traffic in EW conditions.
  8. gla172
    gla172 17 December 2015 13: 36
    0
    Well, don’t tell me, but the system is interesting.
    Of course, at the expense of electronics of those years, it’s understandable ..... everything on the first transistors taking up a lot of space. But semiconductors have been leaps and bounds .... and still are. Actually, in principle.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 17 December 2015 18: 15
      +2
      Here we have already mentioned the "English experience." They experimented with a machine-gun "twin" of 7,62-mm caliber with radar control ... the results were so "sad" that they did not want to further "mess with" more multi-barreled Gatling machine guns. By the way, the Austrian, who is everywhere worn around the world with his guns (scheme - "Roman candle"; klikuha - "mega-storm") offers KAZ on the basis of his multi-barreled (and multiply charged) canister. It is a pity that we have "fucked up" KAZ "Arena" ....... while "Afghanit" is brought to mind - "Arena" in Syria would be very useful, especially since "Arena" has not exhausted all the possibilities for improvement and can be produced in various varmant.
  9. 2nd 12th
    2nd 12th 17 December 2015 15: 57
    0
    A machine gun must be taught to shoot. Will be what you need
    1. 52
      52 17 December 2015 16: 43
      +1
      And what will be the caliber of this machine gun? 23mm or more? Optimal for buckshot and shrapnel-76mm, a noble machine gun will be. laughing
  10. TOR2
    TOR2 17 December 2015 20: 09
    +1
    The article is interesting. The author is huge +. This direction I think will be in demand. Now the technology is ahead. As for the machine gun, the Kovrov plant can create an acceptable 7.62 prototype. As for the detection station, it is better to abandon it altogether. Optical detection modules detect the ATRA calculation. It turns out the shot has not yet been taken, and the onboard computer already knows where the danger is coming from (with RPGs it is somewhat more complicated). UV sensors detect missile launch. IR and TV channels will help in capturing the target. In this scenario, 7.62 will be enough because aiming will be more accurate. The development of a stable platform for industry will also not be problematic, since there are good results. If successful, such a KAZ can be used not only on tanks, but also on infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 19 December 2015 00: 38
      0
      It would be nice to think about how not to mow down your infantry during the application. wink
      1. MaksoMelan
        MaksoMelan 9 May 2016 23: 00
        0
        There where there will be no infantry in response to shooting.
  11. gla172
    gla172 19 December 2015 16: 27
    +1
    Quote: 52gim
    And what will be the caliber of this machine gun? 23mm or more? Optimal for buckshot and shrapnel-76mm, a noble machine gun will be. laughing




    It turns out that 125 mm wassat (Joke).
  12. MaksoMelan
    MaksoMelan 9 May 2016 23: 18
    0
    In general, I thought that it was worth trying to adapt the Makarov pistol cartridge so that they could finally be shot and come up with a modern pistol from scratch, a modern one, I mean. In short, a gatling-shooter from simple Makarov cartridges. No weight. Radar from the arena. The shotgun would certainly be interesting to watch. There is a vidio amateur to hunt on a pof level! In principle, shoot down low-flying drones from a shotgun. As they flew in Donbas, they tried to shoot them down with machine guns and it seemed they didn’t work. With a gun I think it would be better. And in general, you need to come up with a cartridge with a plastic sleeve. the Americans did nothing for the A-10 attack aircraft. They were going to use it against tanks. I don’t know how successful it is. The weight will be less for a machine gun or a large type 23-30. It seems to me that it is expensive to shoot down 12mm missiles! They probably wanted the grenade launcher to be immediately covered. Duck why not finish off the cannon? Another interesting defense was tested by amers. The camouflage jet cuts off the head from RPG7. It was assumed that it was attached around the perimeter of the car (the hamer seemed to withstand). For example, put this on a tiger around the perimeter of the roof. And from the front behind the bumper (there will be a stream to the top, unlike the one on the roof that goes to the bottom. And the automatics should be so that a person does not get cut like that when exiting. Another option in the bottom is to hide, too, along the perimeter at an angle. . Or K. Wave under 45 '.