The implementation of projects for the development of promising tanks is always of interest, since at the same time an attempt is made to apply original technical solutions that allow to get a break from the existing generation of tanks. Promising tanks were developed in the 80s before the collapse of the Union and then in the 90s in Russia. None of these tanks went into production for various reasons.
The level of development and the efforts made by the industry and the military were at the same time different. For example, the development of the "Boxer" tank (object 477) was carried out by decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union with the involvement of many industries and under the strict control of the military.
The development of promising Russian tanks began in the late 80s within the framework of the Improvement-88 theme as the improvement of the existing generation of tanks and initiative work to find a concept for a promising tank without the involvement of specialized enterprises, and after the collapse of the Union moved to the development of promising tanks. In addition, these works were carried out in the 90s, a period of the collapse of the economy and industry, which also left its mark on the development.
It should also be noted that the design bureau for the development of a tank on its own, without subcontractors, is not able to develop a tank, it can only offer the concept of a tank, and other organizations are developing weapons, tank systems, engine and many other components. Therefore, a promising tank is the fruit of the work of many organizations, without whose participation a new car, in principle, cannot be born.
The development of the last Soviet promising tank "Boxer" was carried out in the early 80s and stopped in 1991 due to the collapse of the Union. Since the lead developer was Kharkov and other tank design bureaus did not participate in these works, the development of a promising Russian tank began with prospecting work and the development of their own tank concepts.
The most interesting projects were proposed in Leningrad (object 299), in Omsk (object 640) and in Nizhny Tagil (object 195). In this regard, the conceptual solutions of these tanks are interesting, how justified they were and what remains relevant and promising today.
Object 299
The project was based on the original layout of the tank, which was fundamentally different from the classic one. First, the tank had an uninhabited fighting compartment, a crew of two, housed in the hull of the tank, and a cannon removed. Secondly, the power plant based on the gas turbine engine was placed in front of the tank hull and was used as additional protection for the crew.
A 152-mm cannon removed from the fighting compartment and placed above the turret was used as a weapon. For this tank, the development of a cannon of an original design with a swivel chamber was started to ensure fast loading.
The removed gun made it possible to reduce the armored volume inside the tank, but at the same time such disadvantages as the complexity of the automatic loader, the unprotection of the gun from damage and problems with ensuring the protection of the internal volumes of the tank when loading from stones, dirt, branches, etc. that fell on the tank, appeared.
The two-man crew also raises many questions, since the performance of functional responsibilities for fire control, movement and interaction of the tank as part of a unit by two crew members is almost impossible. A serious problem was the provision of remote control of the fighting compartment using television and thermal imaging communication channels.
Placing the crew in an armored capsule, isolated from the ammunition and fuel, made it possible to save it when other zones of the tank were hit without detonating the ammunition. The preservation of the crew during the detonation of ammunition is very doubtful, since the tank turns into a pile of metal.
The development of the tank was not carried out in full, so it is difficult to judge its advantages and disadvantages. At least, in terms of the fire control complex, these are only the wishes of the tank developers, the full-scale development of such a complex by specialized enterprises was not carried out, and therefore the provision of the inherent characteristics is very problematic, especially with a crew of two people.
Work on the tank was discontinued in 1996 at the stage of manufacturing a chassis layout from the power plant in the bow of the hull, the rest of the tank's systems and assembly were worked out only on paper.
Object 640 "Black Eagle"
The concept of this project was based on the use of the classic layout of the tank with the creation of an isolated space for three crew members and the removal of ammunition for the internal volume of the tank.
The highlight of the project was an attempt to isolate the crew with the classic placement in the tank from ammunition, fuel and cannon with armored partitions.
This technical solution made it possible to eliminate a serious drawback of the existing generation of tanks with the classical placement of the crew next to ammunition and fuel.
The armament was a 125-mm cannon with ammunition in an automatic loader located in a removable armored module at the rear of the turret. With this technical solution, the developers sought to preserve the tank during detonation of ammunition, as far as realizable it requires confirmation by appropriate experiments.
The power plant of the tank was built on the basis of the existing gas turbine engine in order to increase the cross-country ability of the tank, a semi-support chassis with removable track extenders was used to reduce the specific pressure on the ground.
Serious attention was paid to the protection of the tank, it was modular and multi-level with the use of passive, dynamic and active protection, providing protection against most of the ammunition existing at that time.
The fire control complex was fundamentally not much different from the previous generation of tanks. It was planned to use the commander's panoramic sight and thermal imaging sight, but the development of these devices by specialized organizations for this tank was not carried out.
The development of the tank also ended with the manufacture of a running mockup with a new turret on the chassis of the T-80U tank. The development did not go further than the demonstration of the running layout, and in 1997 the work was discontinued.
Object 195 "T-95"
The project of this tank was developed in the late 80s on the topic "Improvement-88" to modernize the existing generation of vehicles. With the collapse of the Union and the cessation of work on the "Boxer" tank, the development of a promising tank began within the framework of this topic. During its development, individual elements of the Boxer tank (152-mm cannon, sighting complex, TIUS and a number of other systems) were used, the development of which was carried out by Russian organizations.
The concept of the tank was based on the creation of an armored capsule for three crew members with its placement in the body of the tank and isolation from the crew compartment, fuel and power plant by armored partitions. The fighting compartment module was located in the center of the tank in the form of a full-revolving platform, which housed a 152-mm cannon, additional armament (12.7-mm machine gun or 30-mm cannon), a fire control complex and a carousel-type autoloader with vertically arranged shells and charges …
The module was controlled only remotely using television, thermal imaging and radar communication channels. This tank differed from the classic layout in the placement of the crew in an armored capsule in the tank hull with the advantages and disadvantages inherent in this layout option.
The power plant of the tank was based on a diesel X-shaped engine with a capacity of 1200-1500 hp. The tank had powerful differentiated and multilevel protection using combined armor, dynamic and active protection, and an optical-electronic countermeasures system.
In the process of implementing the project, two samples were made, on which individual units and systems of the tank were tested. Due to the absence in this project of a serious separation from the existing generation of tanks, work on the project in 2009 was discontinued. It is easy to see that object 195, in its layout, is a prototype of the Armata tank, on which they have been working in Nizhny Tagil for more than twenty years.
Object 477 "Boxer"
The concept of this tank is described in detail on "VO". It was built on the basis of a semi-extended 152-mm cannon located on the roof of the tower in the reserved volume, a crew of three people housed in a tank according to the classical scheme, and an automatic loader, consisting of two drums with ammunition in the body of the tank and one consumable in the tower.
Which tank concept is promising?
Comparing the concepts of promising tanks and the adopted technical solutions, it must be borne in mind that separation from the existing generation of tanks can be ensured only by taking unconventional design solutions as a basis. From the presented projects of promising tanks, the following main directions of such solutions can be distinguished:
- crew of two or three people;
- uninhabited tower and crew accommodation in an armored capsule;
- removed gun of 152 mm caliber;
- the design of the automatic loader and the placement of ammunition.
The rationale for the futility of creating a tank with two crew members at this stage is given in connection with the impossibility of fulfilling all the functional duties of the crew members.
It is impossible to perform the functions of controlling the movement of a tank, searching for targets, firing, as well as controlling one's own and subordinate tanks by two crew members without losing the quality of control. These functions are inherently incompatible, the performance of one leads to the termination of the performance of the other. That is, the crew of two people does not ensure the fulfillment of the tasks facing the tank.
The use of an uninhabited tower creates advantages in a significant reduction in the reserved volume of the tank and the possibility of creating an armored capsule for the crew in the tank hull. At the same time, the crew is deprived of optical channels for searching for targets and firing and the reliability of the tank as a whole is sharply reduced, when the tank leaves the standing power supply system, it becomes completely unusable.
An extended gun placed above the turret, on the one hand, reduces the reserved volume of the tank, on the other, it entails problems with the armor protection of the gun and structural difficulties in protecting the inner volume of the turret when loading the gun from foreign objects. In this regard, the most promising technical solution used at object 299 with a cannon with a swivel chamber placed above the turret. The use of a semi-extended gun leads to the introduction of an armored casing, blocking the field of view of sighting devices and a serious increase in the mass of the tank.
The use of a 152 mm cannon in comparison with a 125 mm cannon, along with an increase in the firepower of the tank, entails a significant complication of the design of the tank and especially the automatic loader and an increase in the mass of the tank. By all appearances, after all, the 125 mm caliber is more acceptable for the main tank, and with the 152 mm caliber it is advisable to develop a "breakthrough tank" for use as strike groups.
It is advisable to place ammunition in an automated ammunition rack in a separate module isolated from the crew. It is unlikely that it will be possible to ensure the viability of the tank during the detonation of ammunition. The most promising concept is the isolation of ammunition from direct fire and inevitable sources of ignition when armor is penetrated. In this sense, the layout of the object 640 tank with the placement of all ammunition in an isolated and removable module in the rear of the tower is the most acceptable.
Considering the concept of promising tanks of objects 477, 299, 640 and 195, which for various reasons did not go into series, one may ask the question: which tank concept is most promising, based on the experience gained in developing these tanks?
Taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of the concepts of the above tanks, it is most expedient to develop a main tank with three crew members, a 125 mm cannon, placing the crew in lightly armored and protected from fuel and ammunition capsules in the hull and turret under the cannon and an automatic loader with ammunition in an isolated module in the stern. towers.
Along with the main tank, it is advisable to develop a "breakthrough tank" on this base with a 152-mm cannon with a swivel chamber. Such a tank will be more complex in design and with reduced ammunition, but a limited number of such tanks for special operations may be justified.
The concept of the tank adopted in the Armata project gives a significant gap from the existing generation of tanks, but has a number of the above drawbacks and requires verification of the adopted technical solutions by military operation and testing in all climatic zones, followed by a decision on the future fate of this tank.
