Military Review

Terminator-3 will be primarily adapted to the T-72 and T-90 platforms.

55
The new Terminator fire support vehicle (BMOP) primarily involves a platform tanks T-72 and T-90, the version on the Armata platform is also being developed, but so far in an initiative manner, it is transmitting TASS a message from Vyacheslav Khalitov, deputy general director of Uralvagonzavod.




“Terminator-3” assumes not only the Armata platform. This is, above all, the platform of the tank T-72 and T-90. Because the idea was to put combat modules on the tank chassis, which are in large quantities with our foreign customers. “Terminator-3” is more intended to adapt it to the T-72 or T-90 tank, which our foreign customers have ”,
told Halitov.

He noted that specialists “are considering the possibility of installing various combat modules on a new machine, including those with 30 or 57 caliber millimeters.”

According to him, this will allow the use of a combat vehicle "both against medium and heavy targets, as well as against light equipment, as well as low-flying helicopters and UAVs."

Touching on the Armata platform, Khalitov explained that everything would depend on the customer in this matter.

“We will do whatever they tell us. We, on our own initiative, developed a very large type series on the Armata platform. We have been working on the type-series on the Armata platform for a long time, in which, among other things, there is a BMOP, ”added Khalitov.
Photos used:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 4 June 2016 08: 30
    +28
    The 57th cannon will soon take its rightfully lost niche. Unique caliber, and “takes” many targets.
    1. Kostyar
      Kostyar 4 June 2016 08: 45
      +6
      True perfection!!!
      God forbid, see her in action ...., spot horror !!!!
      1. Alex_Rarog
        Alex_Rarog 4 June 2016 09: 54
        +22
        At urexpo, Arms saw in the Terminator !!! The thing I'll tell you is cooler than BMP4 at times! and he has more than opportunities for the city !!! it would be rolled into Syria for a break-in! can minus! but there he would have shown himself no worse than the t-90 and others !!!
        1. gg.na
          gg.na 4 June 2016 10: 36
          +6
          Quote: Alex_Rarog
          can minus!

          So what is there to minus what ?! There is definitely only + yes not one! A 100500 ++++ yes good !!!! good
    2. da Vinci
      da Vinci 4 June 2016 11: 55
      +2
      Ammunition, rate of fire and fire density of 30 mm and 57 mm guns are different. And why can’t you make a combat unit on the basis of the T-72 consisting of: 5-7 tanks + 4-5 terminators with a combat module based on 30 mm + 2-3 with 57 mm guns OR 4-5 BMPs with a Bahcha-u complex + 2 -3 BMP with a gun 57 mm? Providing the unit with only a different range of ammunition and spare parts for the combat complex is a simple matter, the basis of the unit - the base of the T-72 or T-90 tank (which anyone likes) - will not cause maintenance problems, but the combat power will increase and the use of the unit will be more flexible when performing various combat missions what wink
  2. Stranger03
    Stranger03 4 June 2016 08: 33
    0
    It seems to me that one of the main advantages in these machines is unification. God forbid military operations, with unification, you can quickly commission new equipment. Tore off the tower at T-72, brought, put the tower of the Terminator and forward, again into battle.
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 4 June 2016 08: 45
      +5
      What about the OMS Electronics is all different and electrics.
    2. K-50
      K-50 4 June 2016 08: 51
      +12
      Quote: Stranger03
      Tore off the tower at T-72, brought, put the tower of the Terminator and forward, again into battle.

      You probably think that apart from the "flying off" of the tower, nothing will suffer? When the tank's ammunition explodes, only the tracks remain. request
      1. gg.na
        gg.na 4 June 2016 10: 43
        +1
        Quote: K-50
        With an explosion of ammunition from the tank, some tracks remain.

        This Stranger03 generally brought an example, so to speak! It’s not necessary that it broke a tower ..., there are various damages in a battle when you can exchange one for another and go back into battle!
      2. Stranger03
        Stranger03 4 June 2016 11: 10
        +2
        I'm not talking about "head off" in the natural sense, but about the unification of use, in contrast to the German and sky technology. This is what fundamentally distinguishes our approach from all others. And I must say it is very advantageous.
        1. cherkas.oe
          cherkas.oe 4 June 2016 15: 28
          0
          Quote: Stranger03
          I'm not talking about "head off" in the natural sense

          Be careful, my dear, otherwise the star will blow away. laughing
    3. pv1005
      pv1005 4 June 2016 08: 59
      +2
      Quote: Stranger03
      It seems to me that one of the main advantages in these machines is unification. God forbid military operations, with unification, you can quickly commission new equipment. Tore off the tower at T-72, brought, put the tower of the Terminator and forward, again into battle.

      It's a pity that you can't put the torn down "tower" back in place. wassat
    4. mvg
      mvg 4 June 2016 10: 29
      -4
      Do you believe in Lego constructor? Or did you play "tanks"?
    5. gg.na
      gg.na 4 June 2016 10: 40
      +1
      Quote: Stranger03
      Tore off the tower at T-72, brought, put the tower of the Terminator

      Interchangeability must be present! This should generally be a design feature of all kinds of armored vehicles! Not only with regards to tanks. Then such a technique will not be priced at all! good !!!
    6. Lieutenant Izhe
      Lieutenant Izhe 4 June 2016 14: 46
      0
      Tore off the tower at T-72, brought, put the tower of the Terminator and forward, again into battle.

      kindergarten, damn it!
      This is for you ..- "sand cakes" to sculpt?
      If the "tower has been torn off", then this is SCRAP!
    7. HERMES
      HERMES 5 June 2016 16: 56
      -1
      Quote: Stranger03
      Tore off the tower at T-72, brought, put the tower of the Terminator and forward, again into battle.

      It would be so simple ...
  3. Magic archer
    Magic archer 4 June 2016 08: 44
    +6
    That's right. The platform of Almaty in the first has not yet been verified, in the second it’s expensive, and in the third it’s not so common.
  4. K-50
    K-50 4 June 2016 08: 49
    +3
    And what did KAZ regret to deliver? Or is it meant that with tanks and BMPTs on the battlefield, only tanks would be attacked? This is wrong. BMPT also needs protection from anti-tank missiles. Some "mujahid" will come out from some basement, the crew will not have time to find him and that's it. request
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 4 June 2016 08: 55
      +2
      Quote: K-50
      And what did KAZ regret to deliver?

      in this matter everything will depend on the customer.

      “We will do everything they tell us.
  5. volodya
    volodya 4 June 2016 08: 50
    +3
    It seems to me that the Terminator is made mainly for foreign customers.
    1. Vladimir 1964
      Vladimir 1964 4 June 2016 08: 56
      +1
      Quote: volodya
      It seems to me that the Terminator is made mainly for foreign customers.

      Yes, for some reason it seems, colleague, that "not basically" the same. The opinion is of course subjective. hi
    2. avt
      avt 4 June 2016 09: 05
      +6
      Quote: volodya
      It seems to me that the Terminator is made mainly for foreign customers.

      Thank God, yes. Mutates slowly to the forgotten Chelyabinsk object 782. Now from 30mm to 57mm and already modification number 3 has been squeezed out of itself. laughing When it comes to the version "Bakhchi" with "Vienna" in the main caliber, then probably an assault self-propelled gun will turn out and, you see, they will be adopted.
  6. novobranets
    novobranets 4 June 2016 08: 53
    +5
    How many disputes, BMPT is needed or not needed. I remain at my place, I need it, I just need to develop the right tactics for her, all the same a new thing that has not been used before.
    1. Camel
      Camel 4 June 2016 09: 06
      +3
      I will add:
      In addition to technology, you need to update the tactics of applying this technology. Those. BMPT is not a child prodigy in the city and field, but with proper use it can provide significant support to tanks. (c) K.O.
    2. Vladimir 1964
      Vladimir 1964 4 June 2016 09: 16
      +5
      Quote: novobranets
      How many disputes, BMPT is needed or not needed. I remain at my place, I need it, I just need to develop the right tactics for her, all the same a new thing that has not been used before.

      I liked your comment, colleague. From service experience, I agree that such a car is needed. But somehow I do not observe the military's desire for its "tactical adaptation". hi
    3. avt
      avt 4 June 2016 09: 46
      +1
      Quote: novobranets
      I stay at my place, I need it, I just need to develop the right tactics for her,

      Yeah - needed, but only heg knows what to do with it. laughing But don’t worry. As already said
      Quote: avt
      . Mutates slowly to the forgotten Chelyabinsk object 782

      Then the realization will come that you also need a place for the landing, and as a result, everything will come to a logical conclusion, which was realized in the USSR - BMP-3, but on the same platform with the tank, which is actually laid in the T-14/15 and a module with serious rocket-gun armament. Well, maybe it will turn off, like "Octopus" from BMP-3, armored
      Quote: avt
      will reach the option "Bakhchi" with "Vienna" in the main caliber, then you will probably get an assault self-propelled gun and you will see that they will be adopted.

      based on the T-72.
  7. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 4 June 2016 08: 57
    +2
    The question of price-quality has always been before the customer, having a platform from the tank you can always make BMPT.
  8. Sergey-72
    Sergey-72 4 June 2016 09: 08
    +2
    “We will do everything that they tell us ...

    It turns out a purely commercial project, "any whim for your money."
  9. air wolf
    air wolf 4 June 2016 09: 16
    0
    I think that Armata is a distant, expensive, really deep modernization of the T-72, to make the tower uninhabited and the crew of 2 people to move forward, dividing the armored plate from the compartment of the tower with a power supply soldier
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 4 June 2016 19: 12
      0
      For conscripts they build a cheap and massive tank by installing an octopus gun on the T-15.
  10. Number 17
    Number 17 4 June 2016 09: 16
    +7
    From 10 to 15 vehicles to be sent to Syria to the brotherly people as a help at the same time, they’ll break in on the matter, and the Syrian tankers are familiar with the T72, I think they will be happy. Unfortunately, war is the best training ground for testing equipment, where for all engineering flaws the price of human life. A confirmation of firepower and accuracy killed the enemy on the other side of the front.
  11. sergey2017
    sergey2017 4 June 2016 09: 25
    +1
    Quote: aszzz888
    The 57th cannon will soon take its rightfully lost niche. Unique caliber, and “takes” many targets.

    If you install a ship cannon of a caliber of 57 millimeters with a firing range of 16 kilometers on a new platform. It will be difficult to fight against such a machine!
  12. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 4 June 2016 09: 42
    +8
    We have already raised this issue. What is BMPT for? For urban combat? Or to suppress infantrymen with effective, but not too long-range anti-tank weapons "in the field"? To cover the tanks in front of the attack? And what kind of infantry is capable of defending in the field if the "correct" army is advancing and using "artillery? Yes, no infantry simply WILL RESPECT in the offensive zone if the artillery works as it can. For a long time we mastered the offensive of tanks" under an umbrella. " almost over the towers (at a height of about 50 meters) shrapnel shells burst, throwing out directed sheaves of steel arrows, piercing through the half-meter parapet. And this "umbrella" moves at the pace of the movement of tanks. the bottom of the trench and pray. And the tanks go on the attack at a rate of 6-8 meters per second. When a tank jumps over the trench and you, shaking off the ardor from your ears, are ready to plant something in the stern, it is already 200 meters away from you, and above you BMP with machine guns and submachine guns in the embrasures, and you have no time for tanks leaving the distance of destruction.
    And in urban conditions, a completely different car is required. In urban conditions, nimbleness is needed, protection only from low-speed cumulative ammunition and large-caliber rifles, an all-angle view (eyes on the back of the head), the same fire of various caliber, but varied ("Nona" immediately comes to mind), the use of all kinds of robots and drones to illuminate the situation , and the operator of all this machinery, hidden inside, is protected.
  13. vnord
    vnord 4 June 2016 09: 44
    +2
    The "Cheburashka" complex will be created on the basis of "Armata".
    In general, the "Terminator" project is a stillborn child for the RF Armed Forces. Although Khalitov writes here: "Terminator-3" is mainly intended to be adapted to the T-72 or T-90 tanks, which some of our foreign customers have. " And that says it all in the Russian Federation it will not be.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. creak
      creak 4 June 2016 09: 55
      +1
      Quote: vnord
      Terminator-3 "is more intended to be adapted to the T-72 or T-90 tanks, which some of our foreign customers have." And that says it all in the Russian Federation it will not.


      It is doubtful that foreign customers will rush to purchase the Terminator if it is not accepted for service in the RF Armed Forces. In this case, it will not be in the foreign armies either - who will need a semi-finished product abroad if it has not found application in Russia ...
  14. gg.na
    gg.na 4 June 2016 10: 47
    0
    In general, you need to ask about a technique such as BMPT from someone who knows about weapons, you can say absolutely all of this Igor Korotchenko! This is the person who can tell a lot of interesting things!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. creak
      creak 4 June 2016 13: 06
      0
      Quote: gg.na
      In general, you need to ask about a technique such as BMPT from someone who knows about weapons, you can say absolutely all of this Igor Korotchenko


      So, without question, he tells us everything every day and tells us - he jumps from one program to another, from one TV channel to another, and he knew everything and even did not know, he managed to tell us ...
      When only in time - only in a television studio he spends the night ...
      About such ubiquitous people in the old days they said that such a fellow at every wedding, the groom and at every funeral, the dead ... yes
      To say a lot does not mean to know much, much less to know everything ....
  15. samoletil18
    samoletil18 4 June 2016 10: 56
    +1
    I don't want to offend anyone, but in combat conditions in the city a platoon of trained infantry and a SUPPORTED tank, even a T-55 or a T-14, will be more effective than a bunch of "terminators".
    Other questions: how to use existing obsolete machines. Uralvagonzavod wants to work, the designer shouldn’t sit without delays, etc. In this situation, His Majesty is a foreign customer to help. But where to use this device to demonstrate the capabilities? LDNR is not an option. In Syria, tank battalions do not go lava through the desert. Demonstrate at a joint exercise in the framework of the CSTO - except for the Chinese with the purchase of a scanty batch, and preferably in 1 copy. There will be no buyers. And most importantly, our Defense Ministry does not take, this is a sentence.
    1. ARES623
      ARES623 4 June 2016 12: 31
      +5
      Quote: samoletil18
      I don't want to offend anyone, but in combat conditions in the city a platoon of trained infantry and a SUPPORTED tank, even a T-55 or a T-14, will be more effective than a bunch of "terminators".

      Maybe you have lived your whole life in low-rise buildings, in rural areas, without leaving for Morshansk, for example, or Tver? If the angle of elevation of the T-55 barrel is 18 degrees, then in order to remove the ATGM calculation (RPG, DShK, etc.) from the roof of a 9-storey building, you need to move 100 meters away from it, for "72" - about 150 meters. Judging by the footage from Syria, ATGMs are often hammered from "command" heights. And if you watched the military chronicle of the Battle of Stalingrad, the capture of Berlin, you would see that even then the cities were stormed not by infantry units, but by assault groups composed of different specialists (depending on specific goals and capabilities) - infantry, sappers, artillerymen, tankers, and today electronic warfare is appropriate, and aircraft controllers, and drones, and RChBZ, etc. You just need to present the subject of discussion at least a little. I remember how the ZSU-23-4 without a radar system helped us a lot on the "irregularities" with high barrels. And the BMP-2 was not created for nothing with the 2A42. And our MO does not take it, not because it does not like it, but because the budget is not rubber, and they will take what has a higher priority. And work will be required in the city (mountains) - we have anti-aircraft weapons and ammunition for them in a very fair amount in storage.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 4 June 2016 20: 43
      0
      Quote: samoletil18
      And most importantly, our Defense Ministry does not take, this is a sentence.

      Although all TTZ were developed by the MORP. In fact, one single mistake was made - it was something like an assault weapon of the WWII times - i.e. support for infantry and armored vehicles, not just tanks. Accordingly, this AFV is needed as a means of strengthening, and its expected 4th generation in the form of a "terminator-3" with a 57 mm anti-aircraft gun should, in theory, be able to fight drones at low altitude.
  16. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 4 June 2016 11: 09
    +1
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Already raised this issue. Why is BMPT necessary? For fighting in urban environments?

    Well done, that's right! BMP second-tier machine, as it is in the city at a distance of a shot from the target of the same RPG, she has nothing to do. In general, it’s difficult to propose a universal concept of a car for fighting in the city; moreover, they must be created in reality, too many damaging factors will have to be taken into account. It was not for nothing that the Germans stopped at one time on different types of flamethrower systems, as on the most effective means of conducting combat in urban conditions against planted infantry. But this is so, by the way, progress does not stand still.
  17. APASUS
    APASUS 4 June 2016 11: 21
    +2
    I’m only interested in one thing: when BMPT units appear on the staff list of a tank battalion and our Defense Ministry begins to equip our army with them. In the meantime, orders for BMPTs are purely conditional, it’s more a commercial invention, everyone looks at the fact that they are not in the Russian army.
    This, unfortunately, concerns the TOS-1 "Buratino" (TOS-1A "Solntsepek"), which performed very well in Syria, but when they considered the presence of these systems in the army, they shed tears.
    1. Berkut24
      Berkut24 4 June 2016 12: 15
      +2
      It will never appear in the staffing table. For the staffing follows from the tactics of combat and the alleged enemy. BMPT is relevant for small regional armies, which, I suspect, are ready to fight with "meat" due to the lack of other means of short-range destruction and not having the ability to fight at long distances.
      One hundred percent concerns the TOS-1 "Buratino" (TOS-1A "Solntsepek"), then due to the small range (6 km), their use in full-scale military operations against NATO countries is not possible, especially considering that the attack helicopter has a radius of destruction anti-tank missile 10 km.
      6 km can only be approached in conditions where the enemy cannot answer. And this is, first of all, anti-terrorist operations. And the amount of equipment in the troops, respectively, should correspond to the frequency of the CTOs and their distribution by region. There’s just no reason to.
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 4 June 2016 12: 44
        +2
        I do not agree. Solntsepёk and Pinocchio systems of breaking through the defense, with a regular army deployment, are covered from air strikes by such systems as Tunguska, Pantsir. With their capabilities, helicopters still need to be able to get close to the launch distance. Plus air cover. In a "right war" these systems are a nightmare for infantry in positional defense. It is clear that without air cover they will be knocked out at once, like any other equipment.
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 4 June 2016 15: 11
        0
        Quote: Berkut24
        BMPT is relevant for small regional armies, which, I suspect, are ready to fight with "meat" due to the lack of other means of short-range destruction and not having the ability to fight at long distances.

        What the heresy?
        Tanks of large armies do not require additional protection or armies do not take cities.
        Well, unless the Americans first wipe the city off the face of the earth and then they go to investigate whether or not there were terrorists.
        Quote: Berkut24
        One hundred percent concerns the TOS-1 "Buratino" (TOS-1A "Solntsepek"), then due to the small range (6 km), their use in full-scale military operations against NATO countries is not possible, especially considering that the attack helicopter has a radius of destruction anti-tank missile 10 km.

        Hat again!
        To conduct combat operations at a distance above the specified distance, thermobolic shells are issued for the Hurricane and Tornado systems
  18. something like
    something like 4 June 2016 15: 03
    0
    If the T15 will soon go into the series, and its version with bmpt 2-3 baikal will not enter the Russian army 100%
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 4 June 2016 20: 50
      +1
      And what about the fleet of over 12000 old T-72s? Up to the level of T-72B3M (with Relic and gratings, as promised), they are expensive to upgrade, it is a pity to write off. And with 57 mm, contact and gratings - there’s nothing to yourself such a means to reduce the population of people who like to sit in the building with RPGs and machine guns and who dream of getting a social package from the guri. In addition, in conditions of an increase in the number of UAV-kamikaze in the armed forces of all our neighbors, it is necessary to provide cover for their tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. There will not be enough armor for everyone, and an old tank with 57 mm and detection means can still serve the homeland quite well.
  19. TOR2
    TOR2 4 June 2016 15: 09
    0
    As shown by the Syrian experience, a theater of operations may be oversaturated with anti-tank systems. “Terminator” must be able to detect and destroy such calculations in a timely manner, and for this, in addition to the IR channel, an optics detector is needed. Unfortunately, developers are not in a hurry to install such a device.
    Quote: K-50
    And what did KAZ regret to deliver? Or is it implied that if there are tanks and BMPTs, only tanks will be attacked on the battlefield? This is wrong.

    And how wrong it is. If the BMPT becomes a "bone in the throat" for the enemy, then for sure he will try to destroy it first.
  20. Berkut24
    Berkut24 4 June 2016 17: 37
    0
    Quote: shinobi
    I do not agree. Solntsepёk and Pinocchio systems of breaking through the defense, with a regular army deployment, are covered from air strikes by such systems as Tunguska, Pantsir. With their capabilities, helicopters still need to be able to get close to the launch distance. Plus air cover. In a "right war" these systems are a nightmare for infantry in positional defense. It is clear that without air cover they will be knocked out at once, like any other equipment.


    1) It is simply not realistic to hide the approach of multiple launch rocket systems from the enemy practically to the front line with current reconnaissance equipment. The column / deployed position will be destroyed before the first shot. Artillery, mortar battery, aviation, tanks - choose the method yourself.
    2) I think that you know little about Tunguska and Shell. Both are in fact air defense facility systems. Directly in hostilities, they can be used when escorting convoys and partially covering longer-range air defense systems. But only a scumbag can send these complexes to the front line. In the first half of the 90s of the last century, I served at the Kapustinoyarsk air defense test site. Tunguska even then asked for replacements, and I accompanied the first experimental launches of the Shell with my own crew. so I know what I'm talking about. So I can say one thing - they will be destroyed instantly as soon as the radars are turned on. Actually, these are the complexes of "last hope". For anti-radar missiles have a much greater range. In addition, you can be sure that in the upcoming war with a serious enemy, the entire front line will be crushed by electronic warfare means. So there is no need to promote the idea that everything you have listed here can be pushed into the heat of direct contact.
    Here you can use the usual multiple launch rocket systems closer to the front line, but they have a range of at least 40 km. Those. being 30 km from the front line, they can cover the target 10 km beyond the line of contact. And no helicopter will get them.
    Each type of weapon has its own application. Especially highly specialized.
    1. Parsec
      Parsec 4 June 2016 18: 13
      0
      Quote: Berkut24
      and I accompanied the first experimental launches of the Shell with my calculation. so I know what I'm talking about. So I can say one thing - they will be destroyed instantly as soon as the radars are turned on.


      You don’t know what you’re talking about, you didn’t either sit on the plane or use PRR.

      Well, remember, on which front is the MRP deployed, what is the distance between the BM, at what distance from the line of the attacking infantry. Now figure out at what angle two BMs will be observed, the distance between which is 200 m, from a distance of 50 km (preparation for launching PRR), and what resolution of the missile head you need to have, how many radar-contrasting objects will be in a 1 km section, and how many there will be radar-emitting means, and how many re-emitting.

      All underestimates imagine a battle against air defense in the form of a duel situation: one BM on a flat table and an airplane appearing out of nowhere with an unlimited supply of PRR. But this is not so.

      Regarding the complete suppression of electronic warfare - did you consider, simulate or conduct field tests? No? Then do not broadcast about objects inaccessible to you.
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 4 June 2016 18: 34
        +1
        I finish the argument, I can only say that I was a test engineer and the head of the laboratory of radar stations. Tests, scenarios, starts and interferences several times a day. so 7 years from morning until the next morning. I am by education an air defense officer and by service too. No need to tell me about this.
        1. Parsec
          Parsec 4 June 2016 19: 09
          0
          Need, Need.

          Remember, if you knew the difference between a point, interval and integral indicator. You worked at a point, and then the level of interference power flux density was measured with an order of magnitude errors.

          Quote: Berkut24
          starts and interferences several times a day. so 7 years from morning to next morning


          Aw, do not tell.

          Once again, refrain from generalizations, you are not ready for them.
  21. Verdun
    Verdun 4 June 2016 18: 27
    0
    All previous "Terminators" were absolutely opportunistic developments. When I saw the hatches for loading ammunition, located on the frontal projection of the vehicle, suspended on external hinges and locked with the help of external turntables, all doubts disappeared completely. At the same time, no one wants to explain how one mechanic and four operators feel inside such a machine. After all, out of the three people of the T-72 or T-90 crew, two are in the tower. Here the tower is uninhabited. Where does the free space in the case come from? We laugh at Ukraine, and sometimes we sculpt outright bullshit.
  22. Tektor
    Tektor 4 June 2016 18: 39
    +3
    It seemed to me that the obvious composition of Terminator-3 should be in the form of a T-15 platform, a Baikal combat module with a 57 mm cannon, up to 8 Chrysanthemum rockets, a pair of 40 mm grenade launchers with a range of at least 2,5 km, a 12,7 Kord machine gun turret machine gun 7,62. Everything is controlled remotely according to identified goals (including the crew) in automatic and semi-automatic (requires confirmation of a person to use weapons) modes. Type:
    1. Manul
      Manul 6 June 2016 00: 12
      0
      Quote: Tektor
      up to 8 Chrysanthemum missiles

      And why not the Pantsir missiles at the same time? Where will target designation come from?
  23. twister
    twister 5 June 2016 09: 01
    0
    And where can I get such a ship)?