Military Review

Bochkarev: Armata tanks that took part in the parade will be handed over to the military

54
Party tanks "Armata", who took part in the Victory Parade, is preparing at the defense enterprises for transfer to the troops, reports MIC With reference to the deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission Oleg Bochkarev.




“At the moment, those cars that have passed through Red Square have returned to industrial enterprises. This batch of vehicles will be delivered to the army in 2016, ”said Bochkarev.

According to him, "in the Red Square was not the whole batch of cars that will come to the army." “Several dozens of units of this equipment will be supplied to the troops,” he added.

“Tank“ Armata ”is capable of performing tasks both in hot climates and in arctic conditions. The T-14 developed and produced by Uralvagonzavod is the only tank of the third post-war generation in the world, ”noted Bochkarev.

“This is a fundamentally new and completely Russian development. The machine used unprecedented design solutions, in particular, the tower T-14 uninhabited. For the first time in the world, the crew is placed in an armored capsule, separated from the ammunition. This measure allows tankers to stay alive even if they hit the turret directly and the ammunition was ignited, ”he said.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. cniza
    cniza 16 December 2015 16: 16
    +9
    “At the moment, those cars that have passed through Red Square have returned to industrial enterprises. This batch of vehicles will be delivered to the army in 2016, ”said Bochkarev.


    Of course, the army also needs to train the crews, just a sufficient batch for training.
    1. Terrible_L.
      Terrible_L. 16 December 2015 16: 19
      13
      just like in 41, from the parade to the battle ...
      it doesn’t seem like war, but it smells of gunpowder
      1. Vita vko
        Vita vko 16 December 2015 16: 28
        +6
        It would be nice to run in real combat conditions in Syria. The car is expensive, and the responsibility assigned to it to ensure the country's defense capability in the coming decades is not very calm. Therefore, tests and real combat conditions are simply necessary. The military-political situation very much resembles the development and launch of the T-34 in the 40th year.
        1. TsUS-Air Force
          TsUS-Air Force 16 December 2015 20: 17
          0
          it is necessary to run in correctly and modify while there is where
      2. LukaSaraev
        LukaSaraev 16 December 2015 19: 46
        +1
        The war ... And it does not smell already, but it stinks a lot. Around. And judging by the reaction to our relations with the CSTO partners Turks, we are alone. If needed...
      3. Nick
        Nick 16 December 2015 23: 37
        +1
        Quote: Scary_L.
        just like in 41, from the parade to the battle ...
        it doesn’t seem like war, but it smells of gunpowder

        The war is going on, thank God that the "hot" component is not on our territory.
    2. 3315061
      3315061 16 December 2015 16: 23
      16
      "Of course, it is necessary to train crews in the army, just a sufficient batch."

      I completely agree with you that it is necessary to prepare the required number of crews for the "Armata" so that it does not work out as in 41: new T-34 and KV entered the troops, but there were not enough trained crews for them, so they had to abandon the latest technology even because of minor breakdowns.
      Even the most modern tank without an experienced crew is nothing more than a pile of iron!
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 16 December 2015 17: 06
        0
        Quote: 3315061
        so that it wouldn’t work like in 41: the new T-34 and KV entered the army, but there were not enough trained crews for them, so they had to drop the latest equipment even because of minor breakdowns.

        In fact, the technical training of the crews did not play the most important role. When retreating in the summer of 41, the equipment was abandoned, mainly due to lack of fuel and spare parts. Will you fight a lot without the rear, which are destroyed by enemy aircraft?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 December 2015 18: 00
          +2
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          In fact, the technical training of the crews did not play the most important role.

          Ahem ... actually, technically unprepared crews somehow managed to ditch 3 brand new T-34s, filling them with gasoline. smile
          But this is an extreme case, a statistical outburst. On average, insufficient technical training of the crews led, for example, to the fact that when shifting gears to the T-34, an inexperienced mechanic could burn the friction clutch or even drown out the engine. Right on the battlefield.
          Switching gears from I to II and from II to III without the use of special techniques (gas leakage, etc.) is always associated with the danger of turning off the engine, as shockless shifting requires a reduction in engine speed to almost idle.

          And on HF, an inexperienced driver could jam the brake when turning.
          Moreover, inexperienced drivers did not know how to fix minor breakdowns that do not require the intervention of a rembat. And they stood on the sidelines waiting for the brigades, pulling on themselves already small repair capacities. Or abandoned tanks requiring minor repairs or general maintenance.

          And worst of all, inexperienced crews could not use the strengths of their tanks and did not know how to prevent the enemy from using their weaknesses.
          1. Ami du peuple
            Ami du peuple 16 December 2015 18: 43
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And worst of all, inexperienced crews could not use the strengths of their tanks and did not know how to prevent the enemy from using their weaknesses.

            In general, the Russian Ivan-D. Hurak did nothing but ruin the latest cars, right? And the fact that "when shifting gears to the T-34, an inexperienced mechanic could burn out the clutch or even drown the engine" - did not in any way relate to design defects? You know, in battle it is not up to a smooth gear change, and making it as easy and efficient as possible for the crew to complete a combat mission is the main task of the designer.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 December 2015 12: 47
              0
              Quote: Ami du peuple
              In general, the Russian Ivan D. urak only did that he was ruining the latest cars, right?

              Imago.
              Quote: Ami du peuple
              And the fact that "when shifting gears to the T-34, an inexperienced mechanic could burn out the clutch or even shut down the engine" - did not in any way relate to design defects?

              At the beginning of the 40s, there are no other machines and other designers. In the drawings you won’t go into battle. Waiting for the final refinement of the T-34 and KV to mind is to stay with the obsolete and worn BT and T-26.
              And it’s not a fact that there will be machines without structural defects at all - well, in 1940, our industry could not get on something like the T-54.

              For some reason, the same tanks with the same problems successfully fought in 1943-1945. And even in 1941 - if the crews knew the strengths and weaknesses of their tanks and were able to use them.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 16 December 2015 18: 16
          +8
          "" Actually, the technical training of the crews did not play the most important role. "////

          Played like that. And Hitler never asked his generals at all: "how much
          tanks knocked out? "Only:" how many crews were killed? - build a new tank,
          easier than preparing a crew.
          1. Rusich is not from Kiev
            Rusich is not from Kiev 16 December 2015 19: 11
            +4
            Quote: voyaka uh
            And Hitler never asked his generals at all: "how much
            tanks knocked out? "Only:" how many crews were killed? - build a new tank,
            easier than preparing a crew.

            Leave this tale for yourself. Maybe at the beginning of the warriors it was, but after the first big defeats, he considered tanks.
    3. GHOST29RUS
      GHOST29RUS 16 December 2015 16: 24
      +6
      Good service to our tanks and speedy entry into the army!
    4. vodolaz
      vodolaz 16 December 2015 17: 19
      +1
      Still, beautiful cars turned out.
      1. lis-ik
        lis-ik 16 December 2015 17: 44
        +4
        Maybe I'm a conservative, but in my opinion the T-90SM is much prettier!
      2. The comment was deleted.
    5. Uran
      Uran 16 December 2015 20: 21
      0
      great car! happy for Russia! and armament of the country's heavy equipment! fellow
  2. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 16 December 2015 16: 17
    +6
    "... the cars that passed through Red Square returned back to industrial enterprises. This batch of cars will be delivered to the army in 2016."

    E-mine, what are you doing ?! They are cardboard - Ukrainians will not let lie!
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 16 December 2015 16: 29
      +1
      She didn’t .... They all were burnt with RPGs ... Anyway, Armata didn’t impress them)))))
  3. inkass_98
    inkass_98 16 December 2015 16: 17
    +1
    Six months could not transfer to the troops? I thought that the whole batch of testing was already undergoing. So with the construction of new will be pulled.
    1. kil 31
      kil 31 16 December 2015 16: 26
      +3
      Quote: inkass_98
      Six months could not transfer to the troops? I thought that the whole batch of testing was already undergoing. So with the construction of new will be pulled.

      I completely agree. Infa from the factory has long passed that they almost mount them on railway platforms. It seems to me that just until every official says this, the same information will be thrown in. Every moron wants to blather about such a world-famous brand.
  4. Samen
    Samen 16 December 2015 16: 25
    +2
    Quote: inkass_98
    Six months could not transfer to the troops? I thought that already the whole batch of testing was passing.

    Duc, it was such information that was laid out in the media: that AFTER field tests and refinements, the cars will be transferred to the troops ... After the transfer, what tests can be? Only - combat break-in. I hope God has mercy!
  5. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 16 December 2015 16: 30
    -1
    The tank will be refined for a long time, but now this equipment is just a cut above the competition. And the fact that this is Russia is laudable!
  6. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 16 December 2015 16: 31
    +4
    Quote: inkass_98
    Six months could not transfer to the troops? I thought that the whole batch of testing was already undergoing. So with the construction of new will be pulled.

    So 20 cars for another 2 months were transferred to the troops, and this, apparently, the remaining dozens of tanks will be transferred! I wonder how many dozens? laughing
    1. cniza
      cniza 16 December 2015 16: 37
      +4
      You can’t, a talker is a godsend for a spy.
  7. eplewke
    eplewke 16 December 2015 16: 39
    -14 qualifying.
    400 pieces to rivet and you can roll Europe into the asphalt ... Let's make a solid highway from Moscow to the Cote d'Azur.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 16 December 2015 17: 15
      +7
      Quote: eplewke
      400 pieces to rivet and you can roll Europe into the asphalt ... Let's make a solid highway from Moscow to the Cote d'Azur.

      400 pieces? Hmm ... but the fact that you need PAK FA, Ash trees to lay new ones, to build ships, etc. does not bother you? And there is also a social part in addition to rearmament of the army, medicine, education and so on ... It is clear what you want, but look how many tanks do we have in general, and now they are assembling T-90S, and in the future, and T-90 MS "Breakthrough", and therefore everything will be done gradually. Most likely, they will equip the army with Armata and T-15 in small batches along with the entire line armored vehicles.
      Now the priority areas are military space, the Strategic Missile Forces (rearmament and the introduction of new missiles to replace Sarmat and Rubezh), and the fleet ...
    2. Voltsky
      Voltsky 16 December 2015 17: 17
      -6
      ?! That the red forbidden to trade, this is not even close to a reason for your statements
  8. fregina1
    fregina1 16 December 2015 17: 02
    -6
    Already in the Donbass! lolexperiencing! laughing
    1. Extraneous
      Extraneous 16 December 2015 18: 36
      +1
      Do you have any facts? Or just chatting?
      1. fregina1
        fregina1 21 December 2015 10: 42
        0
        Believe me, not just squabble! Minus why it was!
  9. Extraneous
    Extraneous 16 December 2015 17: 28
    +6
    Unfortunately - the more expensive and more complicated the military equipment - the lesser the role it plays in the event of large-scale and long-term military conflicts. This is proved by the World War and subsequent major conflicts.
    The T-34 was recognized as the best tank of the Second World War not because it was some kind of super tank. In many ways, it was inferior to foreign counterparts. Its only advantage was the simplicity and relative cheapness of manufacture, which made it possible to produce it on a gigantic scale and make up for losses on the battlefield.
    No matter how sophisticated the equipment is, in combat conditions its life span is short. and the loss of equipment will have to be made up in the face of a shortage of time and money.
    So "Armata" is a means of solving local conflicts, but not global wars.
    In Syria, for example, there are a number of T-72s that are practically not used in combat due to difficulties with the separate type of ammunition. Prefer older tanks with a unified shell.
    1. Forest
      Forest 16 December 2015 19: 18
      0
      72s in Syria were no longer used simply because they were knocked out during the 4 years of the war. And 55-ki and 62-ki all stood on BHVT, now they have re-opened.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 16 December 2015 19: 40
      +2
      Quote: Stranger
      No matter how sophisticated the equipment is, in combat conditions its life span is short. and the loss of equipment will have to be made up in the face of a shortage of time and money.
      It is difficult to disagree with you, today the "thirty-four" in our army is the T-72 / T-90 tank, and the T-14 is, rather, closer to what the Germans had "Tiger". Actually, when the T-95 was being created, it was supposed to be a reinforcement tank with a powerful 152 mm cannon, a super tank ("Abrams Kaput", "Russian Tiger"), and not a "platform". The base of the T-72 / T-90 tanks has long been used as a platform, from bridgelayers and repair and recovery vehicles to BMO-T, ACS, TOS, BMPT. Below you have compared "Armata" with a certain military "Lego" ... In general, taking an expensive and complex platform as a base is a dubious idea. There is no doubt that the capitalist manufacturer can profitably sell everything and everyone on the basis of an elite Lexus, up to a pickup-boot, pay only money, but this is hardly reasonable for the consumer. Under Serdyukov, the idea of ​​new "platforms" was born, where friendship with America, the impossibility of a global war, and reliance on a compact army in anti-terrorist operations were taken as a basis, as a reality. According to demand, a proposal was developed, where the theory of a compact army for local wars found an idea - a fix, a single economical platform, a kind of armored transformer headset. If one can step over common sense somewhere, then the laws of physics cannot be ignored, the platforms had to be divided into weight categories and decided on the tracked and wheelbase. So the hardest and most expensive was "Armata", medium "Kurganets" and "Boomerang", light "Lynx" and "Tiger", and, speaking of new platforms, their unification and modularity is no higher than what has already been achieved at various bases in still Soviet developments, and is relevant mainly inside its weighing platform. It was supposed to dispose of all stocks of old tanks when moving to new platforms. This is despite the fact that one T-14 (no longer with a 152 mm gun, like the T-95, but with a 125 mm) is more expensive than several T-90s, and in fact is already the only remaining center of tank building, piece production. The Omsk Tank Plant was made bankrupt just in time for Victory Day this year, having previously put an end to promising developments, the T-80U-M1 "Bars" and "Black Eagle". The figure shows a variant of the T-95 with a 152 mm 2A83 cannon.
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 December 2015 19: 57
        +3
        I’m still sorry that the Black Eagle didn’t go into the series. And I really looked forward to it as soon as I saw the article in the Encyclopedia of Tanks Kholyavsky for the first time.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 16 December 2015 22: 12
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          I’m still sorry that the Black Eagle never went into the series.
          I am also, Andrei, very sorry, in particular the Omsk Tank Plant, the T-80 was a reasonable addition, healthy competition, in general, a tank with great potential for modernization. And the "Black Eagle", as a new tank from the T-80, could become our best tank. If you look closely, then against the gas turbine and the T-80 in general, a long and extensive campaign was launched in the media to blame. NATO, with all their standards and unification, have several main tanks that complement each other (diesel turbine, rifled smoothbore gun, automatic loader - manual loading), and, most importantly, they have several tank building centers. Those who allowed the collapse of the Omsk Tank Plant should be considered enemies.
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 December 2015 22: 20
            +2
            Quote: Per se.
            A long and extensive campaign in the mass media on okhairovanie was promoted.

            chesno. here I don’t remember something like that. soon all the same, it’s more about Yeltsin’s fellowship. and they promised to do it cheaper. And the worst thing is that they didn’t take into service and didn’t finish - the time wasted.


            can someone in 35 do. not expensive))
            1. Paranoid50
              Paranoid50 16 December 2015 23: 33
              +3
              Quote: Kars
              can someone in 35 do. not expensive))

              Well, this is to individualist modelers, or to workshops such as Soviet Armor or Bronemir. But that's just about inexpensive ... 72nd scale they have from 2500 rubles. It’s easy to figure out how much the 35th will cost. And by the way, Kars, is there enough space under the 35th scale? And then I, with my 72m, already scratch my turnips, as if to expand, and this despite the fact that I collect only caterpillar equipment. request
              1. Kars
                Kars 17 December 2015 11: 15
                +1
                Quote: Paranoid50
                Well, this is to individualist modelers, or to workshops such as Soviet Armor or Bronemir

                We need to look more optimistic. The Chinese will soon release all that is possible, so there is hope.
                Quote: Paranoid50
                And by the way, Kars, is there enough space under the 35?

                This is the smallest problem. I specifically ordered a cabinet with a place on 55 tanks. And up to that amount a couple more hundred dollars. The problems can be with Tornado and dt, but it is solved simply, there is no money for them.
          2. gross kaput
            gross kaput 17 December 2015 14: 15
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            The T-80 was a reasonable addition, healthy competition, in general, a tank with great potential for modernization

            Yeah, and even with all of its spare parts, oils, fuel, and crew training, even the main armament of complete unification, the T-80 did not have its own version of the gun 2A46-1 or 2A46-2, etc. the only thing that they had in common with the T-72/90 was the class - MBT and the tasks that it should carry out on the battlefield, and also the ammunition.
            Quote: Per se.
            If you look carefully, then against the gas turbine and the T-80 in general, a long and extensive campaign in the media on cooling

            And if you don’t engage in conspiracy theology, the whole company called it wasn’t screaming, but simply stating the strengths and weaknesses as a result of the GTE’s flaws in the tank are much greater and more significant than the strengths, and those who continue to believe in conspirators from the Urals can look at other countries producing BTT - it turns out that no one else considers tanks with a gas turbine engine even in projects - smart people had enough information on the abrams and T-80 to understand that there was no place for a turbine in the tank.
            Quote: Per se.
            they have several main tanks that complement each other (diesel turbine, smooth-bore rifled gun, automatic loader - manual charging), and, most importantly, they have several tank building centers.

            Those. in your country, the NATO members gathered and played the lottery - you are developing a tank with a gas turbine engine, you are with a smooth barrel and you are with a rifled one at your loader and at your AZ? And then all of us will go on the attack and each tank, depending on its performance characteristics, will fulfill its task?
            Forgive me for the fact that you wrote frank stupidity, armored objects of different classes and with different tactical niches complement each other, but like no other class with different solutions, that's why we buried the T-80 project.
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 December 2015 22: 55
              +1
              Quote: gross kaput
              Yeah, and even with all of its spare parts, m

              So nothing prevented from abandoning the T-64 and T-72
              Quote: gross kaput
              As a result, the shortcomings of the gas turbine engine in the tank are much greater and they are much more significant advantages,

              Putting a diesel on the T-80 was much more effective than putting a filling on the T-72 from the T-80
              1. gross kaput
                gross kaput 18 December 2015 19: 26
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Put diesel on the T-80

                They put it already, and even adopted it in 87. T-80UD "birch" - have you heard? Only now, quite rightly, no one needed a backup for the T-72/90.
              2. gross kaput
                gross kaput 18 December 2015 19: 33
                0
                Quote: Kars
                what to put on the T-72 stuffing from the T-80U

                Do not bother to tell what is the difference between the filling of the T-80 and T-72? in terms of sights, communication armaments, there is no fundamental difference, in fact, everything is the same, only it has features that are not related to the performance characteristics but to placement in another facility and, accordingly, not much = it is interchangeable, the transmission of the T-80 has its own designed for gas turbine engine i.e. will not work with a diesel engine, AZ or MZ in terms of loading speed, etc. they don’t have a fundamental difference, but they have absolutely different designs, which is why out of the whole three T-64/80/72, the T-72 remained in service with the Russian Federation and the T-64 in Ukraine.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 20 December 2015 13: 46
                  +1
                  Quote: gross kaput
                  T-80UD "birch" - have you heard? Only now, quite rightly, no one needed an understudy

                  It was him who before the collapse of the USSR they wanted to make a single tank. But this option does not suit you, since the production of that diesel remained in Ukraine.
                  Quote: gross kaput
                  on sights, weapons of communication, there is no fundamental difference in essence

                  You are clearly superficial in this topic.

                  Quote: gross kaput
                  that is why out of the three T-64 / 80 / 72 in service in the Russian Federation, the T-72 remained and in Ukraine the T-64.

                  In Ukraine, the T-64 remained because the manufacturer remained. The T-80 was still in service with the Russian Federation, and the tank construction of the Russian Federation 15 stood still for years and only the T-90A 2006 was able to reach the T-80
      2. Extraneous
        Extraneous 16 December 2015 21: 02
        +1
        : o) And I agree with you! This is all true. What we have is what we will use. In my opinion, the promotion of "Armata" is a business project, which is designed to increase the sales of our weapons over the hill, on the one hand, and the cost of purchasing new weapons of the Ministry of Defense, on the other. At the same time, I do not think that Armata will really become the main vehicle. Neither in terms of production time, nor in terms of cost, nor in terms of crew training, it does not fit into the time required to prepare for the coming war. An advertising campaign designed to serve as a smokescreen for the real rearmament and modernization of the aircraft.
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 December 2015 18: 09
    -3
    Our technology suffers from a lack of design. The tank is expensive, but it doesn’t look so nice.
    1. Extraneous
      Extraneous 16 December 2015 18: 40
      0
      "Armata" is not a tank, but a platform for collecting various types of military equipment. Military "Lego", so to speak.
      Design is useless. The main thing is security and combat effectiveness.
      What they are - will soon be seen.
  11. Maksus
    Maksus 16 December 2015 19: 24
    0
    Can you tell us more about the "first tank of the third post-war generation"? The Japanese had three generations of MBTs - Type-74, 90 and 10. All different, not upgrades. The British have three MBTs - Chieftain, Challenger 1 and 2, also all different. So it sounds strange, maybe Armatur should be called the fourth generation?
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 December 2015 19: 29
      +1
      Quote: Maksus
      maybe Armature should be called the fourth generation?

      Better is 5 generation. I personally adhere to this classification
      http://w0rld0ftanks.ru/index.php/pokoleniya-tankov
  12. prohtank
    prohtank 16 December 2015 20: 16
    +1
    Armata to Syria stupidity no this is heresy
  13. andrei72
    andrei72 16 December 2015 23: 04
    0
    The more modern the tank is, the more expensive it is. Even the T-34, in comparison with the T-26 and others, was SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive to manufacture. But its combat effectiveness was many times higher than that of the T-26. The same is with the "Armata" (T14): if it gives significant advantages in battle, then you will have to make them, and not outdated tanks, since the loss of tanks and well-trained crews is the lives of our soldiers, quite a lot of money, and most importantly - TIME. which will no longer be, at the beginning of a large-scale war and the possibility of defeating large industries. centers in the first hours of the war.
  14. Old26
    Old26 16 December 2015 23: 58
    0
    Quote: Semen
    Duc, it was such information that was laid out in the media: that AFTER field tests and refinements, the cars will be transferred to the troops ... After the transfer, what tests can be?

    Ordinary, military. If there will be many comments - again to the factory. Refinement of weaknesses and repeated military tests. Tests in various climatic zones. I think in a year or two they will bring to the pre-production version
  15. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 17 December 2015 06: 11
    +1
    What is the ratio of cost and reliability ??? Electronic systems, in ground combat, are a very vulnerable thing !!! The power of the crew's defense is understandable, but the "failure" of the computer is a pile of iron, and even worse is a target for execution. Hopefully I'm wrong.
  16. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 17 December 2015 15: 27
    0
    Interestingly, Armatu was fired at at the range with the same Jewels and other real ammunition? I agree with tolmachiev51. that all the bells and whistles of electronics can fail at one moment. That is why Armata-Armata, and the troops need to supply the T-90MS and other more recent modifications, and not squander them right and left. It takes at least 3 years, or even more, to grind the Armata in the army. As it is proposed to send them to Syria, this is not correct. Amid the chaos that is happening there, there is a very high chance that after a successful operation by the American or some other special forces, something will not end up for "research" somewhere overseas.