Military Review

Does the "hang more" principle work?

26
Literally, just on the Web, including at VO, there was a material about the next improvement of the BM "Terminator", the model of which was presented at the exhibition "Innovation Days", which was held in October in Yekaterinburg. A fashionable word, a spectacularly painted model, literally spiked with various types of weapons. But is it as effective as it seems to put various means of destruction on a combat vehicle and thus increase its damaging power by several times?


Does the "hang more" principle work?

Layout BMPT "Terminator". Photo by Denis Peredrienko from “Messenger of Mordovia”

It is not easy to give an unequivocal answer to this question, but you can try it by first turning to stories. But how did the improvement of the existing serial models of BTT go? What ideas and principles guided the designers? After all, the Terminator BMPT is also an improvement, so all this will be correct in its attitude.



For example, a German project tank LK-III with a 57-mm cannon in a cylindrical tower. How does it differ from the LK-II tank, which, incidentally, didn’t hit the battlefield, although it was tested? It differs only in that it was deployed "backwards." In the base model, the tower was aft. This limited the driver’s field of view right on the course and again didn’t allow him to shoot straight ahead in the trenches. At that time, shooting from a tank almost point-blank was very important, so the Germans decided to rearrange the tower forward, and the engine back! Good idea, but never implemented in practice.

The Swedes in 1932 decided to create an “unobtainable” armored car, covered with armor from all sides. And created! Moreover, they closed all their wheels with armor, including spare ones, which, turning, helped to overcome obstacles on the battlefield. A cannon forward, a machine gun back, a machine gun in the turret ... And what is the result? As a result, the turning angle of the wheels was severely limited by the bronelists and the car lost its maneuverability and could act only on the roads. Of course, on the roads, especially in Sweden, you also need to fight, but isn't it too luxurious: a special BA only for roads? And it ended with the fact that these BA did not go! They were replaced by much more traditional Landsverk machines.



Colossal importance is played by the layout of the tank. Here is the traditional layout of three tanks of the Second World War: М3, Т-III, and Т-34. It is an axiom that the longer a tank is, the greater its agility with all its other characteristics, although it will overcome wide moats. Hence the compromise: a very long tank is bad on the one hand, and very short on the other! Of these three tanks, the shortest T-III, and its "briskness" has always been an unpleasant surprise for the gunners and the Soviet and Anglo-American tanks. In T-34 a lot of space is occupied by the engine and transmission. It is obvious. No wonder it was already then that the T-34M planned to put the engine across to make it shorter. So if the war had lagged a bit, we would have seen a completely different legendary tank on the battlefield!



About the American car can not be repeated. Due to the unique location of the engine, the tank came out very high, which means it was a good target!

And now let's see what the installation of an American type air-cooled engine would give to all these tanks. Well, on the M3 this engine could be rearranged and ... what then? Let's start with the M3. It was enough to install it horizontally, and not obliquely, at an angle, as the height of the car would immediately go down. Not much, but dropped. Motor maintenance would also be facilitated. True, a coupling with bevel gears would be needed, but technically it would not be very difficult to make one. In any case, the level of development of the American technology allowed it. For the T-III, replacing the engine in terms of dimensions would not have played any role, but since the American engine was more powerful than the German one (340 hp vs. 285 hp), the speed qualities of the German tank would increase even more!



For T-34, such a replacement at first glance would be a blessing. The size of the engine compartment would be reduced. The tower could be moved back. Transfer hatch to the roof of the hull. The centering would also improve, that is, the maneuverability too, but ... The Continental engine power was 340 hp, whereas our B-2-34 had 500 hp. And although some of these forces were eaten by an imperfect gearbox, the replacement would clearly be unequal. Although very profitable in all other respects! That is, the engine would need to be forced to 500 l. with. And this would be reflected in his resource! And then what is the gain?



And finally, weapons. The desire to "hang on a bigger tank" has always been. This is how tanks with two guns were born in one turret, so tanks with three guns were born in three turrets, and the strange thing is that the designers did not teach the experience of these cars! Already at the end of the war, German designers prepared the design of the Maus-2 tank. Probably they didn’t like “just the“ Maus ”and they decided to“ improve ”it. Together, the turrets with two guns (128-mm and 75-mm) were asked to put a tank from the Panther-II with an 88-mm tool and a tower with an 150-mm short howitzer on the tank. Needless to say, nothing came of this project, since the German industry was breathing its last. But even if these tanks had gone, then again they would manifest the same drawback as the previous multi-turret machines: what goal should be considered a priority, and which one should we choose for which tool? In theory, the upper tower hits the infantry, the lower one on the tanks, but in a real combat situation, the human psyche is often simply incapable of adequate solutions based on choice! The fewer opportunities to choose, the faster the reaction! And then ... as long as they decide "from what to whom", while choosing the position "I prefer this way", some single-barreled "St. John's Wort" would surely sneak up on this monster and slap him only one projectile, but 152-mm , very powerful and ... no choice!




Modern technology has untied the hands of designers, so that tanks can now be made very different. Fig.1 is the layout of the Armata tank, but with an electric propulsion system. Why? Because the Americans very loudly announced that they were working on a fundamentally new chassis with electric propulsion. And this car was supposed to be the basis for the new BMP, but ... it did not! That is, the arrangement of the three-person “shoulder to shoulder” thing is a good thing, but with electric propulsion, as from the time of “Saint-Chamonix” and “Ferdinand”, the matter hasn’t been solved, so there is still no breakthrough today. Figure 2 shows a tank with two crew members, robotized to the limit. While this is just an idea, whether it will be embodied in metal, time will show.

“City Tank” is an obsessive “fixed idea” of very many… near-scientific journalists. The military themselves are generally silent. That is, “yes, it would be nice,” but what about the budget? And in theory ... the main crew is in front, and two arrows with turrets on either side of the tower are firing on the roofs and upper floors of the six-barreled Minigun machine guns.



And here again, the possible layout of tanks and combat vehicles of the future. Fig. 1 - the main battle tank with two "arrows on the roofs" or it can be the operators of some systems like UAVs. Fig. 2 - almost completely robotic SAU. Fig. 3 is just something similar to the promising BMTP Terminator, which is reported by the Messenger of Mordovia: the driver in the middle, left and right are the operators of grenade launchers and machine guns in the hull. Behind are two weapon operators in the turret. And then two UAV operators or what is supposed to be put on it? And the situation is about the same as with a multitude of towers - only instead of towers are people who control various weapons systems. And there will not be so many people? Then the very choice will be a hindrance! The last two drawings are heavy infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armored personnel carriers. Why is there no motor in front? And to maintain mobility in any situation! Let it be better to have armor in front, and the engine, in order not to be hit, is behind! Again, these are only ideas; they have not been tested by practice.




Maybe it is easier to do? Create a "tank of support tanks" (or call it the old-fashioned "tank fighter") without any towers, automatic cannons, grenade launchers and missiles in launch canisters vulnerable to bullets and debris. And to place in the hull several heavy high-speed rockets (the variants of their launch are shown in the figure), which only at the expense of their mass will take everything out of their way. Putting on a rocket a kind of cast steel cylinder with TNT inside weight in 100 kg and accelerate it to a decent speed ... Such a “piece” from the flight path will not be easy to shoot down, and if it hits the target, it will demolish the tower from the same “Abrams »Only due to its shock force.



BMPL on the "Terminator" ... well, that is a good thing. By the way, it is interesting that even in 1942, the British created a strange fighting machine called the Praying Mantis with a rising warhead, so as to overlook, so to speak, the terrain and simultaneously comfortably bombard the upper floors and attics of buildings. "Do not go!" Do you know why? The crew, located inside lying, rocked!


BMPT "Terminator" to the subsequent improvements.

It is clear that in the "Terminator" operators will sit, and they will not rock them, but ... and which UAVs are planned to be installed on this machine? Disposable scouts, battle drones, universal vehicles ... what exactly? Much depends on their purpose. Meanwhile, the hybrid BMP with "Bogomol" has been known for a long time! This is the BMP (project), which has a UAV in the back, connected by cable to the machine and powered by it. It seems that the cable is inconvenient, but it gives you unlimited time in the air. And most importantly - such a UAV will be easy and will be able to carry a lot of weapons.


The combat helicopter module seems too large today. You can reduce it at times. And so quite modern design.

And the tactic of using it is simple: he picked it up, looked at it, saw the enemy, launched missiles at it and ... "dive" back into the bushes, I mean, reload onto the BMP site.

Well, as a conclusion: in philosophy there is the principle of "Occam's razor". All redundant entities are "cut off." A tank or a BMP is also a collection of entities, and adding more and more to us ... is it worth it?

Fig. A. Shepsa

Link: http://warfiles.ru/show-103112-bmpt-stanet-superterminatorom-s-bpla-i-sposobnostyu-unichtozhat-celi-na-dalnosti-v-15-km.html
Author:
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Waltasar
    Waltasar 21 December 2015 06: 34 New
    +6
    I did not understand what the article was about and where such conclusions came from.
    The fact that excess weapons can harm I do not agree. To increase the cost and complicate the design is yes.
    Multi-tower tanks at the time of their appearance coped with their task. Over time, the tasks have changed, and the tanks have changed.
    1. dokusib
      dokusib 21 December 2015 08: 06 New
      +1
      I agree with you. Changing the nature of hostilities requires changing the design and composition of weapons. And Terminator is generally a new concept in real conditions that has hardly been tested. This is the method of trial and error. It is tempting to have a heavily armored vehicle with medium armament giving a high density of fire for urban combat. But questions of combat effectiveness and economic feasibility remain open. Will Terminator be better than Shilka in a city? How justified is the creation of a new type of combat vehicle? Here, the author of the rights useful remains unnecessary eliminated.
    2. qwert
      qwert 21 December 2015 11: 23 New
      0
      The findings are somewhat controversial, but the article is a plus.
    3. max702
      max702 21 December 2015 13: 29 New
      +3
      In my opinion, BMPT should look something like this
      1. max702
        max702 21 December 2015 13: 59 New
        +1
        It goes without saying to remove the AGS together with the arrows, protect the tank hull with hinged screens of the T-90MS type, the task of this machine is mainly to operate in urbanized areas and the load per cm2 of soil is not particularly critical, therefore the weight of the machine can be increased to 55 tons, the engine should be left the maximum speed is not important for this tank, but a quick dash from 0-25 km / h both forward and backward, this problem can be solved by playing with the box, the Bakhcha-U complex installed in the tower will cope with any tasks in urban combat the ability to hit a tank at 3-4 km (which allows the presence of an ATGM in ammunition) and aiming angles and various weapons, this complex is controlled by the gunner, we will give the commander a crossbow-type module only with 7.62 and AGS, thus, in addition to observation, it is capable of destroying tank-hazardous infantry enemy. In total, there are three crew members and two independent fire posts.
        1. max702
          max702 21 December 2015 14: 17 New
          0
          This is if we consider the budget option, if you aim at a more advanced one, then you can completely replace the tower (leaving the hull practically without alterations) and focusing on the defense primarily on countering CUMULATIVE means of destruction, it is no secret that the main armor in the tower is the forehead + \ - 30 * exactly there is thick and heavy protection from the BPS of powerful tank guns, in recent conflicts, like other BMs, tanks are hit in 99% of cases by cumulative ammunition, this is RPGs, ATGMs and tank shells. Therefore, it is necessary to make a tower with an emphasis on protection against this the type of defeat, but practice suggests that, first of all, hinged screens, DZ and the thickness of the armor and it is not particularly important what kind of armor is the main thing so that the distance of operation of the ammunition was as early as possible, therefore, it can be made of aluminum armor of the type that goes to the BMD -4 s filler between two sheets, this design will save weight at the same time will make it possible to increase the size of the tower thatwill give better habitability and an increase in ammunition, it will hold such a sandwich 30mm BPS, and okay .. The saved weight will allow you to install such a module as "Epoch" on the tower under the command of the commander, which will dramatically increase the combat capabilities of the vehicle
  2. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 21 December 2015 06: 58 New
    +4
    not a bad article. thank. and unnecessary universalization does not lead to good - again it shows ........ everything such a machine does is equally bad.
  3. heal
    heal 21 December 2015 07: 39 New
    +5
    "Cuts" the eye the word in the pictures "companion". The spelling dictionary should have been read by the one who made the inscriptions.
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 21 December 2015 13: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: heal
      "Cuts" the eye the word in the pictures "companion"

      And it discourages all to read the contents of the article for fear of running into even more colorful errors.
    2. AK_TriGGeR
      AK_TriGGeR 21 December 2015 21: 17 New
      +1
      It's like that. I didn’t read further companions ...
  4. Boos
    Boos 21 December 2015 10: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: Waltasar
    I did not understand what the article was about and where such conclusions came from.
    The fact that excess weapons can harm I do not agree. To increase the cost and complicate the design is yes.
    Multi-tower tanks at the time of their appearance coped with their task. Over time, the tasks have changed, and the tanks have changed.

    In our time, there are no problems with the "redundancy" of weapons, the defeat of targets and their priority is in charge of electronics.
  5. podgornovea
    podgornovea 21 December 2015 10: 25 New
    +1
    To each BMP by helicopter, to each soldier by BMP?
    Probably all the same, it made sense that the fire support helicopters were reduced to squadrons and regiments, and not assigned to each BMP, tank, compartment?
    There is a rule - what flies does not last long, this helicopter with "unlimited stay in the air" will be knocked out of a machine gun or a sniper rifle, by the way, how long is the cable?
    And the last of this BMP only for fighting in the city, such as LK-III for fighting on the highway?
  6. snc
    snc 21 December 2015 10: 39 New
    +3
    BMPT in the form in which it is now generally irrelevant. On Armata, it is enough to replace the weapon module and that's it.
    1. AUL
      AUL 21 December 2015 13: 57 New
      0
      And get the same BMPT ...
      1. snc
        snc 21 December 2015 17: 42 New
        +1
        Yes, but more secure and on a single platform, and now for it you need to cook a separate armored hull.
  7. iConst
    iConst 21 December 2015 11: 04 New
    +2
    Quote: Waltasar
    I did not understand what the article was about and where such conclusions came from.
    The fact that excess weapons can harm I do not agree. To increase the cost and complicate the design is yes.

    Multi-tower tanks did not take root at one time. That says a lot.

    An article about stuffing weapons (money) into a machine that cannot use them effectively is stupid.
  8. tchoni
    tchoni 21 December 2015 14: 16 New
    +1
    One of the few grammatical articles about bmpt .... The author, clearly indicates that designers and customers lack a clear understanding of the role and place of this vehicle in battle ... It is also the fact that the multichannel and multitasking weapons complex is fraught with danger priority selection traps ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 22 December 2015 18: 51 New
      0
      Our practice has shown that in a city battle on a combat vehicle
      needs two independent firing points firing back and forth,
      with two arrow operators.
      So far no one has implemented this.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 22 December 2015 19: 20 New
        +3
        And this?
        And forward and backward ...
  9. Clueless
    Clueless 21 December 2015 15: 12 New
    0
    Reading the author, he probably also needs to remove a bunch of weapons from the ships, otherwise they will suddenly start shooting from just one boat :)
    1. kalibr
      21 December 2015 15: 47 New
      0
      A ship and a tank are different things and there are no ravines and bushes on the sea! There are no high-rise buildings either.
  10. Gunther
    Gunther 21 December 2015 15: 44 New
    +4
    Considering the high cost of a tank shot (the Excalibur projectile - 144 thousand raccoons, with serial production up to 75 thousand, 3VBM17 - 161t.r), let the tanks hunt for tanks, for helicopters and Pantsir-C1 aircraft, and BMPT for infantry ...
    In my opinion, the Ataka anti-tank missiles from the Ataka-T or Kornet KVV are redundant on the BMPT, machine-gun and grenade launcher power plus technical means, interaction with UAVs, and the placement of UAVs on the BMPT are excessive.
    The tactical group of the tank-BMPT-BMP-Shell-Mi-28-UAV, etc. should be combined by a communication system and interact as a whole.
    Something like this)))
  11. tank64rus
    tank64rus 21 December 2015 16: 09 New
    +1
    The tendency to use a standard UAV on armored vehicles has existed for a long time and not only here. The Italians showed at the exhibition a standard tank UAV launched by compressed air through the barrel. There are two of them per tank. In addition, it is planned to use UAVs for tanks in the United States and South Korea and in China. The only question is whether the UAV is one per tank or several. Now, abroad and in our country, the UAV has long become a link in the network-centric combat control system. Without the use of UAVs, the implementation of "over-the-horizon target destruction" by a tank is impossible. Therefore, the development of UAVs is carried out in parallel with tank homing ammunition designed to engage targets outside the line of sight at maximum distances. All this is very expensive, but work is underway. As for armament, the question is in the correct definition of priorities and the automation of weapons. It would be nice if the development was carried out in the direction of interchangeable weapon modules. The works are going on and the one will win. who will most correctly determine the tasks of this or that type of weapon in a future war.
  12. 31rus
    31rus 21 December 2015 20: 32 New
    0
    Dear, my version is simpler, but not cheaper, this is a 120mm cannon of the type on "Vienna", the next is a 57mm automatic cannon, on the sides of the conventional module there are 2 installations for missiles, one ATGM, the other volume-detonating, machine gun 7.62 or 12,7 with 360 shelling separately from the main module, like a tank, an anti-sniper, a rear camera, a bulldozer blade, all this should be combined and equipped with a perfect bius, with appropriate tank combat protection, I see no reason to "mold" the UAV, complicating the work of the crew. the same "troika", as on "Bakhcha", but with different weapons
  13. ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat 22 December 2015 04: 00 New
    0
    there’s zero sense in BMPTs, there is already deployed infantry in combat, self-propelled guns, MBTs, BMPs that are already performing BMPT functions, and on the march saboteurs will take out BMPTs with the first shot or they will shoot and throw them corny ...

    in my opinion, it is most reasonable to remake a bunch of self-propelled guns + MBT + BMP than to introduce another type of equipment from which there is no use.

    For example
    1) make uninhabited towers
    2) make a 152mm gun
    2.1) for the gun we make shells projectile + pallet (with a minimum powder charge) + "combustible powder pancakes" total length N
    2.2) for the gun we make an unguided active-rocket projectile of length N2 (N2> N)
    2.3) for the gun we make a guided active-rocket projectile of length N2 (N2> N)
    3) we make SAU-152mm with a long-barrel high-pulse gun, the number of pancakes can be from A to B depending on the type of projectile (stores and processes the computer)
    4) we make MBT-152mm with a low-pulse gun, the number of pancakes can be from A2 to B2 depending on the type of projectile (stores and processes the computer)
    4.1) add a 30mm gun (OF + BB) paired with the main one, to combat small things
    5) make a BMP with a module like an era (30mm + ptur_152mm)
    6) we make a commanding observational-combat module for installation on self-propelled guns \ MBT \ BMP inside of which optics + machine gun + grenade launcher
    6.1) we make conveyor power at the grenade launcher (in order to use several types of grenades (stores and processes the computer)), as a plan for the future remote detonation

    profit
    1) unification of BK-152mm in self-propelled guns and MBT
    2) unification of BK-30mm in MBT and BMP
    3) unification of optics, BK-machine gun and BK-grenade launcher in self-propelled guns \ MBT \ BMP
    4) in case of any unexpected attack, the commander looks around to see where the enemy is and sends a machine gun turn (if you can get it directly) or a grenade launcher (if the enemy is behind cover), of course from a single machine with a small BC grenade the chance of destruction is small, but if you take into account that the module costs on every technique, the death of a saboteur is guaranteed
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      Andrew Iwanow 2 January 2016 14: 53 New
      0
      The battles in the urbanized area, typical of the European theater of operations, remain among the possible prospects for our armored vehicles. The experience of the war in Syria, where, in addition to the peculiarities of the urbanized terrain, the enemy actively uses elements of "gallery defense", getting the opportunity to suddenly attack from a short distance, also raises the question of the survival of the BTT on the battlefield. In the conditions of Syria, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were unable to provide effective support to the infantry, and even talking about their role of BMPTs is completely inappropriate.
      In Syria, they are forced to use "Shilki" and "Akatsia" for direct fire. The first is an excellent anti-assault weapon and is capable of riddling a reinforced concrete structure, in which an ATGM calculation is noticed, is capable of firing on the upper floors of buildings, smoking grenade launchers. The second is capable of bringing down such a building with one shell, which is beyond the capacity of a 125-mm tank gun. Equally important is the howitzer ability to carry out mounted fire, quickly suppressing the enemy's mortar batteries, which pressed the assault infantry to the ground. There is no equal in the ability of 152-mm howitzers to destroy bunkers, and with the help of a tank cannon you will not block the exit from the underground gallery - here you need a hinged trajectory and a high-explosive projectile.
      I sincerely doubt that the BMPT, as we are shown it, combines the abilities of "Shilka" and "Akzia". I also doubt that BMPT is really in demand on the battlefield.
      If you really need something, then not an BMPT, but an Infantry Support Fighting Vehicle. Highly protected assault gun, capable of replacing the Shilka and Akatsiya, as a means of direct infantry support. At the same time, she does not need to have 4 small-caliber automatic cannons - this is already an excess, one, paired with the main weapon, will be enough. Yes, and a full-fledged howitzer is redundant here - a short-barreled 152-mm low ballistics gun with a high elevation angle and the possibility of hinged fire is enough. If you use the barrel of this gun to launch an ATGM, then the vehicle will not remain defenseless even when it encounters enemy tanks.
      Debatable is the issue of equipping the machine with a remote-controlled AGS. But a spark of remotely controlled heavy machine guns would not be an obstacle as an anti-storm weapon, as a means of fighting the enemy’s aircraft and as a means of suppressing the enemy on the upper floors of buildings.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 2 January 2016 21: 52 New
        0
        no! it should be exactly the machine gun + AGS! I explain that at the top of the building the enemy will shoot from the window and hide behind the wall (the part that is from the window sill to the floor), it will not penetrate the machine gun (it is useless to shoot higher at the ceiling of the room), the ACS can shoot higher at the ceiling and thereby cover the crouched enemy . It’s useless to shoot from the main gun, since the enemy saw that 152 mm of happiness is being brought to him quickly topple over. In mountainous / hilly areas, when the enemy is hiding behind a slope, the machine gun is useless, but the AGS can just shoot at the mounted. When there are a lot of bushes in the greenhouse and it is not clear exactly where the enemy is, it is important to quickly cover a large area with fragments. AGS is again useful.

        As for the AGS, for a start, you can put a standard modern 30mm. But it is much more rational to divide the AGS into "infantry" (AGS-30) and "stationary". Stationary to make 30-50mm with a maximum range not exceeding the "range of a sniper armed with a large-caliber rifle" as I understand it is about an average of 1000-2000m, and a maximum of 2500-3000 (at the maximum we work from the main 152mm gun). This should be done in order to build the grenade setting functions into the conveyor for the stationary. For example, the detonation range.

        Regarding shilka and acacia, I wrote above about the spark in the MBT 152mm + 30mm, the aiming angles are similar to self-propelled guns.

        What you described as BMPP is another geek due to obsession with the outdated concept of tank building called "Main Battle Tank" when the main goal of the tank was to destroy enemy tanks at the expense of the joint work of tank and infantry. I believe that this concept is outdated due to the appearance of a gigantic amount of means of destroying armored vehicles, as well as due to the decrease in the number of armored vehicles in modern local conflicts. Therefore, I repeat, there is no need to come up with new wunderwales! leave three types of technique:
        Self-propelled guns - the main task: the destruction of the enemy from long range in real time
        BMP - the main task: transporting infantry and supporting it in battle due to the density of fire
        MBT - the main task: supporting infantry in battle due to the strength and density of fire, the destruction of enemy shelters to which the self-propelled guns cannot reach
  14. tank64rus
    tank64rus 22 December 2015 12: 04 New
    +1
    I remember Buratino was tested in Afghanistan, the result was stunning. It was planned to create heavy brigades of front-line subordination. I personally heard this from the NGSh SA. But Humpback and so on. swol. buried the army. "Specialists" spoke sharply about the lack of prospects of the car, and the British immediately asked to sell. Not sold, but the car was buried for twenty years. Where are now those who shouted about the uselessness of the car. They sit still or whatever. It turned out "Weapon from Hell." Offer a car, see the challenges and opportunities. Why is the Terminator not in Syria, where he would have done an excellent job of escorting the Sonceepoks, instead of 3-4 tanks involved. Article minus. since following it the best option is Sturmtiger. And not taking into account the global trends in the development of weapons and military equipment, we will find ourselves on the sidelines.