The Russian-Italian joint venture (JV) plans to produce a pilot batch of light armored vehicles LMV M65 "Lynx" in 2011. This was announced on the air of the Vesti-24 TV channel by the head of KAMAZ, Sergei Kogogin. The armored vehicle will be created on a parity basis by the Russian KAMAZ and the Italian company Iveco. Simultaneously with the release of the first experimental batch of machines, it is planned to prepare their serial production. As noted by Kogogin, the LMV M65 "Lynx" is one of the best cars in its class, which is now actively used by the coalition forces in Afghanistan.
According to the general director of KAMAZ, a similar vehicle could be created in Russia, but it would take 5-6 years to develop and organize production. Further, this idea, according to PRIME-TASS, he confirmed with the words: "How many lives of our soldiers and officers could we lose during this time?" Earlier it was reported about the intention of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation within the next 5 years to purchase about 1,775 of these machines at a price of about 300 thousand euros per unit. In connection with the plans of the Ministry of Defense and the statements of Sergei Kogogin, a number of questions arose, which are partially answered in Vasily Semenov's article "The Golden Rake or Why Iveco is Better than the Tiger, Published in the Technics and Armament Magazine" 12 for 2010. Text of the article is given below.
Those who use the subway probably paid attention to the announcement over the loudspeakers about vigilance against advertising and that "… advertising may contain deliberately false information." Unfortunately, our high officials from the military department do not ride the subway and, apparently, do not even assume that advertising is not always true. Therefore, hasty decisions are made on the procurement of supposedly "supermodern" foreign equipment. Although, perhaps there are other reasons for this, including a poor idea of what they buy abroad and what we have.
Indeed, in recent years, the idea of purchasing weapons and military equipment (AME) abroad has been increasingly and persistently promoted in the speeches of high-ranking representatives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. This idea is argued by the fact that the domestic defense industry is not able to create weapons and military equipment that meet all modern requirements. In turn, both Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at all meetings with the leadership of the RF Ministry of Defense have repeatedly stressed that the Russian Armed Forces should be equipped only with the most modern weapons, if necessary, then purchase such samples of weapons and military equipment abroad, and purchase " the best”, no matter how much it costs. The decision is absolutely correct, but there are several "buts".
At first … Before deciding on the purchase of a particular model of weapons and military equipment abroad, it is necessary to clearly understand where and how it will be used in the armament system of our Armed Forces (AF), whether there is a need to purchase such a model.
Secondly … Evaluation criteria and performance indicators for weapons and military equipment should be defined. Since we are talking about purchasing "the best", then you need to make sure that this or that sample is really the best.
Thirdly … We are talking about the procurement of military products, not consumer goods. And they plan to buy these products in countries that, to put it mildly, do not harbor much friendliness to Russia. Until now, Russia is a "potential adversary" in the military doctrines of these countries. In this regard, the question arises: “Is it possible that due to some political circumstances (disagreement with the fact that Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia or recognition of a violation of some international norms in helping to build a nuclear power plant in Iran, for example) Will the supplying countries suspend the delivery of samples of weapons and military equipment or their components at the most inopportune moment? Will this equipment stop working properly overnight at the most inopportune moment, as was the case, for example, in 1991 with the anti-aircraft missile systems delivered to Iraq from NATO countries? " But what about Iraq, something similar took place in the modern history of the Russian state two years ago, when the United States announced sanctions to our enterprises or blocked the supply of already paid units and components for national economic equipment.
Fourth … All over the world there is a practice of using foreign, including military-technical, achievements in the national interests, but abroad such actions are regulated by tenders and competitions with strict defense of national interests. Tender committees are being created, accountable to the top leadership of the country and bearing responsibility up to the criminal one. The supply of equipment for tender tests is carried out on the principle of "no payment and no obligation", and the tests themselves are carried out on the territory of the country, on a competitive basis, by independent commissions. These are the conditions that Russian manufacturers face in tenders for the supply of military products to India, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Malaysia and other countries.
Suffice it to recall the recent hype, raised in Indian and several foreign media, about the superiority of the Indian Arjun tank over the Russian T-90S. Anyone who has ever had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the device and equipment of these two combat vehicles will immediately understand what is the matter: the engine and transmission are German, the French fire control system, the English cannon, the weapon stabilizer with a hydraulically driven turret of local development, and all together do not fit well together. with a friend. In this regard, it is not entirely clear why hasty decisions are made in Russia to purchase certain samples of foreign-made weapons and military equipment?
If it is a stretch to agree that at present the Russian military-industrial complex is not capable of building universal amphibious assault ships (UDC) or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), then we can agree that Russia cannot make wheeled armored vehicles. a technique similar to that created in Italy is by no means possible. Moreover, Italy has never been a "trendsetter" in the development of armored vehicles. And yet, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation "sunk" on the Italian car. It is on the Italian, although now similar machines are produced in the world, much superior to the one made in Italy.
There is, for example, Dingo 2 or Eagle IV, why not them, since the President of the Russian Federation spoke of "the best"? Probably, Italians advertise their products better than Germans or Swiss. No wonder they were always ahead in the production of noodles and pasta … The decision of the leadership of the Russian department poses a serious blow to the domestic engineering industry, because, as reported in the Kommersant newspaper, the adoption of Italian cars Iveco LMV M65 for the supply of the Russian army is intended to replace the Russian special vehicles supplied to it "Tiger". Why did the "Tigers" not suit our military?
The main advantages of the Iveco LMV M65 over their Russian counterparts are considered by the Russian Defense Ministry's leadership: better comfort and better security, especially mine resistance. All for the sake of saving the lives of our soldiers! In defense of the social interests of our population, such an argument is made as the possibility of organizing the production of Iveco LMV M65 cars at the production facilities of KAMAZ, which will create additional jobs. How beautiful, but how cynical! And that's why. Let's remember the announcement in the subway and look at it in order.
Comfort. According to the declared characteristics, the Iveco LMV M65 car is capable of carrying 5 people. Only now it is necessary to take into account that five fully equipped people (in uniform, in body armor, with ammunition and in helmets) will not be able to drive there for a long time. In the back row, the three of them are cramped, one will have to hang around in the open hatch all the time. Their placement in the car is carried out according to the 2 + 3 scheme in two rows across the car. At the same time, the front row (driver and commander) is practically isolated by a partition made of struts from the soldiers located in the second row. If the driver is deprived of the driver's ability to drive the car, his evacuation is possible only from the outside through the driver's door, which in a combat situation means being exposed to enemy fire.
Firing from a weapon mounted on a vehicle is possible only by one of the three crew members located in the second row, from a weapon mounted on the hatch, or only by the vehicle commander, using a remote-controlled weapon system. It is impossible to reload weapons under enemy fire, due to the placement of ammunition (including for personal weapons) on the roof of the vehicle and in the aft unarmored compartment. Firing from personal weapons is impossible due to the absence of loopholes and the inability to open windows. To justify this point, arguments are made about the low efficiency of firing through the loopholes.
In part, one can agree with this if one chooses the "necessary" criterion for evaluating that very efficiency. And if the criterion is chosen correctly, it turns out that the fire from the loopholes is quite effective. To make it clearer, I will give you one example. During the Second World War, after serious losses suffered by Allied sea convoys that delivered cargo to Soviet northern ports from German aviation, the British Parliament decided to install anti-aircraft weapons on transport ships. After a while, one of the members of parliament raised the issue of removing these anti-aircraft weapons from transport ships.
He argued for his decision by the fact that the funds spent on the installation of anti-aircraft weapons and spent on repelling air raids on ammunition convoys were several times higher than the cost of the destroyed German aircraft. It would seem logical. Thank God, there were still clever heads in the British Parliament who found the correct criterion for assessing the effectiveness of anti-aircraft weapons in transport. They proposed to calculate the cost of ships and cargo lost before and after the installation of anti-aircraft weapons, and then compare this figure with the amount spent on the installation of anti-aircraft weapons and spent on repelling air raids on ammunition convoys. It turned out that the installation of anti-aircraft weapons and spent ammunition paid off more than tenfold.
This is the same in the case of firing through the loopholes. If the probability of hitting an individual enemy when firing from personal weapons through the loophole is taken as a criterion for the effectiveness of fire, then it is scanty. But we must not forget that return fire on the enemy from the loopholes of the car does not allow him to fire aimed fire at the car, including from such means as a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher. I think there is no need to explain what the impact of an RPG grenade on an armored vehicle will lead to, be it a Tiger, Iveco, Dingo, or even an Abrams M1A2 tank, Merkava Mk IV or whatever. The result in these cases, as practice shows, is the same - the destruction of the vehicle and its crew.
But back to the comparisons. If, nevertheless, unlucky, and the Iveco LMV M65 car has lost mobility, the evacuation of the crew from it is possible: by a second-row landing on either side (left or right), as well as through the hatch on the roof of the car. The driver can leave the car only on the left side through his door, the commander - only on the right side through his door. In the event of a car overturning on one of the sides, which can happen when a mine is blown up, an explosive device, or simply when it hits an obstacle, the commander or driver (depending on which side the car falls on) are deprived of the opportunity to leave the car until help arrives in the form ARV or other machine with a crane or a powerful winch.
In a combat situation, this means that some of the crew members of the Iveco LMV M65 will remain in this vehicle forever … This begs another question: “Why is the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry so zealously criticizing domestic armored personnel carriers with access for personnel on board and is fighting for development in Russian armored personnel carrier with a stern exit, but at the same time decides to purchase a foreign vehicle with the same drawbacks, in their opinion, as on domestic armored personnel carriers? The notorious double standards or something else? The small distance between the row of seats and the transverse tubular struts leaves little room for the legs of the paratroopers located in the second row, which, if accidentally hitting a bump (pit, detonation on an explosive device), can lead to broken legs.
To understand this, you just need to get into the car and sit, not in the driver's or senior car's seat, but in the second row - everything becomes clear. Of course, if the car will be operated only on good roads, then there is no particular danger in such an arrangement, unless you brake very sharply or crash into something. The driver in the Iveco LMV M65 car is practically isolated from other crew members, in fact, like the vehicle commander.
And what about the placement and evacuation of the crew in the Tiger car? It should be noted that the shortcomings of the Iveco LMV M65 layout and their possible negative consequences in the conduct of hostilities, which are obvious in a comparative analysis, were not allowed even at the design stage of the Tiger. In a car in a one-volume armored capsule, the internal volume of which exceeds this parameter of an Italian car by more than one third, 6 people are transported, quite comfortably arranged according to the 2 + 2 + 2 scheme. In this case, any of the crew members can easily take the driver's seat after his evacuation inside the car. Also, any two crew members can take a seat at the vehicle's weapon to fire at the enemy simultaneously in two different directions.
All other crew members can return fire in all directions, including towards the stern, from any type of personal weapon (including under-barrel grenade launchers) from inside the vehicle through opening armored windows or loopholes. I think that it is not worth talking about the importance of such an opportunity. Accommodation of 4 people (in addition to the driver and commander) in the troop compartment of the Tiger car is more than spacious and comfortable, even in full gear, even without it.
A few words about the tactical capabilities of the compared vehicles. Transporting a maximum of 5 people in an Iveco LMV M65 car (in the optimal version - 4 people) requires at least two such vehicles to transport one squad or at least 6 cars per platoon (the cost will be at least 75 million rubles). At the same time, the aggregate combat potential of the squad and platoon will be significantly reduced due to restrictions on fire capabilities and in connection with the need to organize additional interaction within one squad and platoon.
Taking this into account, it is not possible to talk about the high protective properties of the vehicle, since in the event of being ambushed, it becomes an easy target for grenade launchers and heavy machine gun crews due to the fact that it will not be able to prevent them from retaliating fire, even non-aimed or ineffective - as you please. The situation is no better with the use of Iveco LMV M65 armored vehicles to equip combat, technical and logistical support units. The limited booked volume of the Iveco LMV M65 vehicle does not allow it to be used as a command and staff vehicle or a special vehicle for electronic warfare (EW), radio and electronic reconnaissance (RRTR), armored medical vehicles and for other purposes.
In other words, it is extremely problematic to provide the possibility of equipping light brigades of the Russian army with a "new look" with the same type of vehicles, and the niche for the use of Iveco LMV M65 armored vehicles in the RF Armed Forces is extremely narrow. At the same time, the artificial planting of these machines in the structures of the RF Armed Forces will increase the de-uniformity, complicate the solution of supply issues and make their operation directly dependent on the supply of spare parts and operating materials from abroad (NATO countries). Thus, the general purpose of such a machine in the Russian army becomes incomprehensible.
The positive thing about the Iveco LMV M65 is that the car is equipped with more comfortable seats for the crew than in the Tigers. However, as representatives of the Military Industrial Company, a developer, manufacturer and supplier of Tiger cars, explained, all their attempts to offer more ergonomic and comfortable seats in the Tiger car were met with a categorical refusal by the RF Ministry of Defense leadership. Such a refusal was motivated by the fact that the car is military, comfort is not required, fire safety is more important. As a result, the manufacturers installed the chairs selected by the customer, the RF Ministry of Defense, in the "Tiger".
Now the presence of comfortable seats in the Iveco LMV M65 by the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is interpreted as one of the advantages of the Italian car. Speaking of fire safety, in the Iveco LMV M65 the fire extinguisher is located outside the vehicle in the rear (there is no place for it inside) and in case of a fire inside it, it is not possible to use it in a combat situation. In "Tiger" fire extinguishers are located inside the passenger compartment, and the power compartment is equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system.
Security. The third level of protection declared by the developers of the Iveco LMV M65 car according to STANAG 4569 (as if it should correspond to the 6a class of protection according to GOST R 50963-96) has not yet been checked by anyone in Russia and requires confirmation. Two Italian cars, purchased at the request of the Russian military department by KAMAZ, allegedly for testing, the Italians did not allow either to shoot or blow up. During the visit of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation A. Serdyukov to Bolzano (Italy) in the spring of this year, the developers of the Italian vehicle demonstrated its ballistic resistance as follows.
The leader and some representatives of the Russian delegation were invited to the shooting range, and a fragment of the defense was brought there. Only Italians know for sure whether this fragment was in fact an element of the LMV M65 design. They also made several shots according to this model - from which weapon and which cartridges (it is possible that the cartridges were not with armor-piercing bullets, and it is not difficult to pour gunpowder out of the cartridges for a spectacular display), too, none of the present members of the Russian I did not know the delegation. The fragment was not penetrated, which delighted the head of the delegation. However, the technical subtleties for assessing compliance with the stated requirements were unimportant for such "large specialists", and those who understood such subtleties were simply not included in the delegation.
The assessment of the level of security of the Iveco LMV M65 car, carried out by experts through an external inspection of the car and study of the available documentation, raises serious doubts about the protective properties of the car declared by the developers - the 3rd level of protection according to STANAG 4569 (not to mention the compliance of its 6a protection class according to GOST R 50963-96). And that's why. First of all: armored glass is no more than 60 mm thick, while even domestic armored glass for protection class 6a has a thickness of about 70 mm. At the same time, it is believed in the world that Russian-made armored glass is, today, the most durable and usually 1, 2-1, 5 times thinner than imported samples with the same ballistic resistance.
This has been repeatedly stated by foreign experts who have carried out ballistic tests of armored glass. It is believed that a high level of protection for the Iveco LMV M65 car was achieved due to the use of a certain "armored capsule" with ceramic armor panels in the vehicle structure, made in the form of protected places (door, front panel, side panel, etc.). Upon careful study of even Italian advertising materials, the author could not find any "armored capsule" in the design of the Italian vehicle. There is a certain structure such as a frame made of pipes, on which ceramic and steel armor panels are installed with the help of fasteners. Ceramic armor is an advanced western technology. Moreover, this technology is joint development. Italians in this are considered the foremost on the planet.
But, ceramic elements are still half the battle. The ceramics ordered by Iveco are made by the German company Barat Ceramics and assembled into a panel according to the shape of the part. The shapes of the details were agreed in advance in the contract. There is no need to cut or adjust anything, the ceramics are made in several sizes and fit exactly into place. After that, the ceramic panels go to Italy, where they are bonded to a high-strength polyethylene backing made in Holland by the Dyneema company - a ceramic armor panel is obtained. Without a backing, a ceramic panel is nothing more than a decoration for the kitchen interior. Thus, it is unlikely that with the production of Italian vehicles in Russia promised by the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the technologies for the production of ceramic armor, belonging not only to Italy, will be transferred to Russia.
As noted in the media, these technologies are not even passed on to the Americans. The beauty of ceramic armor panels is that with the same durability as armor steel, they are 40 percent lighter. But on the other hand, it is also an order of magnitude more expensive and cannot in any way be used to provide or increase the mine resistance of the vehicle. Each Iveco LMV M65 armor panel (made of ceramic or steel) is attached to its own body part (mainly bolted), which, in turn, is made of ordinary sheet iron on a pipe frame, such as a buggy design. On this body, you can put the usual elements (doors, roof, windows, etc.) and you get an ordinary off-road vehicle, if the armor panels are screwed on, you get a "super-protected" LMV M65.
Even from the branded "Ivekovsky" booklet it is clear that there is no armored capsule in the LMV design and cannot exist in principle! External examination of the car by experts also revealed that the panels of ceramic armor are available only in some places and do not cover the entire protected area, so persistently everywhere called "armored capsules" of the LMV M65 car. In those places where it is difficult (and ceramic armor panels can only be flat) or in terms of dimensions it is impossible to provide protection with ceramics, inserts of ordinary steel armor are installed. However, the ballistic resistance of these inserts does not correspond to the 3rd level of protection according to STANAG (especially the requirements of GOST R 50963-96 according to 6a protection class), thus many weakened zones are formed in the vehicle's armored structure. The Italians respond quickly to questions on this topic: "Our technical documentation allows up to 15% of weakened zones from the area of the protected projection"!
That is, it turns out 1/6 part on each side and from the roof too. In total, it turns out that about 2-3 square meters of "armored capsules" Iveco LMV M65 are not protected by anything! But since the standards allow this, then the Italian engineers did not really try to solve the problem of excluding weakened zones. However, they learned how to make pasta cool and even better mastered how to wind them around the ears of some. In Russia, GOST also allows the presence of weakened zones in armored vehicles, but this does not apply to military equipment! For example, it is possible to use cash-in-transit vehicles, or when booking private "jeeps" and executive cars. Elements made of ceramic armor panels on a non-metallic substrate do not splinter when the armor is pierced; therefore, there is no need to make an anti-splinter coating inside the vehicle.
The fragments, which are produced by the ceramics, are trapped by its polyethylene backing. But in those places where there are elements of ordinary armored steel, especially in weakened areas, an anti-splinter coating would not hurt. But in Iveco LMV M65, it is absent everywhere. Recently in the newspaper "Nezavisimoye Voennoye Obozreniye" in the article "The armor is strong, but the West is dearer to us" Sergei Suvorov revealed another secret of the Iveco LMV M65 ceramic armor. It turns out that the polyethylene backing of the armor panels at subzero temperatures turns them from just protection into a coating - it cracks when hit by a bullet, and the ceramic elements simply fly away without it. Whoever folded plastic wrap from a greenhouse or greenhouse in late autumn knows how difficult it is to do it - it stakes, breaks easily, like glass. Imagine what will happen in a frost like last winter.
However, for the Italian winter, such ceramic armor will do just fine. By the way, in Russia, ceramic armor panels are made on an aluminum substrate. It turns out about 10-15% heavier than on polyethylene, but they work more reliably in the cold. If the current leadership of the Ministry of Defense cares so much about the lives of our soldiers, for which they are ready to pay any means, would it not be easier to order panels for the "Tigers" based on domestic aramid thread? Such a panel is even lighter than a ceramic one (1 square meter weighs a little more than 4 kg, versus 20 kg of only one polyethylene substrate without ceramics), provides good ballistic protection, fire safety and sound insulation. One drawback is more expensive.
For such a package, at least 4 kg of aramid thread is needed, and its price today is about 14 thousand rubles. per kg. Imported Kevlar and Twaron are of course cheaper, but thicker and heavier. The second drawback - for the leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, production in Russia is not interesting - it is one thing to go to sunny Italy on a business trip, another to the damp suburbs of Moscow. And to make it completely clear to the reader, a few more words about the standards. Comparing the level of protection, Iveco and "Tiger" often use a certain correspondence of protection classes according to STANAG and GOST. However, there are nuances. The fact is that when determining the correspondence of the resistance of protection in the West, it is considered that the protection corresponds to the declared standard, if not pierced by fifty percent (!) Of bullets (shells, missiles, etc.) plus one.
That is, if 20 shots were fired at the car with the appropriate type of ammunition from the corresponding weapon and 9 bullets pierced it, but 11 did not, then the level of protection would be considered normal, appropriate! In other words, if you shoot at Iveco LMV M65 from SVD with cartridges with a B-32 bullet from 100 meters or more and 4 bullets from a shot magazine pierce its protection and kill 4 crew members out of five, then, by Italian standards, the protection of the vehicle corresponds the norm. Unfortunately, some of our military leaders want to convince all of us that this is normal. They care about the lives of Russian soldiers! According to Russian GOSTs, this is unacceptable. In our country, by the way, the formation on the inner side of a bulge with a microcrack, through which kerosene seeps (does not flow, but seeps!) Is considered to be a breakthrough. And if this happens after at least one hit out of 100, the protection will not correspond to the norm. So, it is not yet known which is better: Italian grade 6a or Russian grade 5.
The special vehicle (STS) "Tiger" was originally designed with 100% protection, so the design of the vehicle's armored capsule (just in the "Tiger" is the armored capsule) was developed taking into account these requirements. As the creators of the car said, at the Tiger, for example, special technical solutions in difficult-to-protect places (hinges, handles, door locks, etc.) made it necessary to increase more than 200 kg of the car's weight. Iveco engineers saved on this, and at the same time on the safety of the crew. In this regard, it will not be correct to consider the level of ballistic protection declared by the developers of the Iveco LMV M65 car corresponding to the 6a class of protection according to GOST R 50963-96 (or the 3rd level according to STANAG 4569) only because there are ceramic armor panels in some places. since many weakened zones remain in the armored structure of an Italian car, first of all - bulletproof glass, which are likely to be penetrated not only by the 7, 62-mm bullet B-32 of the SVD rifle, but also by bullets of weaker weapons (for example, M80 bullets of cartridge 7, 62 x 51 NATO, bullets with TUS cartridge 7, 62 x 39 for the AKM machine gun, etc.).
In addition, understanding the significant difference in the cost of steel armor and ceramics with a non-metallic substrate is not in favor of the latter (several thousand rubles versus 2000 euros per sq. armor (and after two, maximum three bullets hit the ceramic armor panel, it must be changed), our specialists made the "Tiger" from high-strength armor steel. The army version of the Tiger GAZ-233014 is made according to the 3 protection class in accordance with GOST R 50963-96 (or the first level according to STANAG 4569), that is, it is inferior to the level of protection of the Iveco LMV M65. However, as it turned out, it was the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation that defined the 3rd class of protection for the "Tiger" in the TZ. For example, for the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the vehicles "Tiger" GAZ-233036 are supplied, made according to the 5th class of protection according to GOST R 50963-96 (level 2 according to STANAG 4569).
Quite recently, friends from the industry told that our steelmakers and scientists made a new armor steel capable of almost the same thickness of the Tiger hull and with the same vehicle weight to provide the crew with a 6a class of ballistic protection in accordance with GOST (and not the 3rd level protection according to STANAG with Italian simplifications). Technologically advanced, simple and much cheaper than ceramics, and most importantly, reliable! Unconfirmed statements in advertising brochures about the ability of the Iveco LMV M65 car to withstand the detonation of an explosive device under the wheel or bottom of the corresponding 6 kg power (according to some sources up to 8 kg) TNT requires verification. Many Italian publications published a photo of the Iveco LMV M65 car blown up in Iraq (according to other sources - in Afghanistan). Everywhere it was accompanied by signatures stating that the car had been blown up by an explosive device with a capacity of at least 6 kg of TNT, none of the crew members was injured.
Careful examination of the photograph revealed that these statements are not true. This photo shows that the power of the explosion (according to experts) was no more than 1 kg of TNT (the place of the explosion is marked with a red circle). When the device exploded under the right front wheel of the car in the lower part of the so-called "armored capsule" of the car, a hole was formed with an area of at least 2-3 sq. Dm (the result of the frame assembly of the armored structure using fasteners without welding), through which the right front door was torn out by the excess pressure of the blast wave and a top hatch. With such an overpressure, the crew members of this vehicle had no chance of surviving. Although the developers of Iveco are trying to convince the opposite. Again, the standards in the West allow this.
For example, in accordance with them, a crew member is considered a survivor after a car explosion on an explosive device or mine if he breathes. If he dies a few minutes after his evacuation from the blown up car, then this is a completely different case … But most likely there was no crew in this car during the explosion. How else to explain the presence of incomprehensible wooden structures in the cockpit? The "delicate" suspension of the car led to the fact that the rear right wheel was also torn off. The front right wheel, under which the explosion occurred, flew away along with the suspension unit (the suspension arms were cut off at the bolts). The machine, with a small degree of probability, is subject to restoration at the manufacturer.
Ceramic armor plates are not protection against mines and explosive devices. In this regard, most likely, the mine protection of the Iveco LMV M65 differs little from this indicator of the Tiger vehicle. On the contrary, the welded armored capsule "Tiger" should better withstand the blast wave than the prefabricated frame structure of the Italian. The blast wave in the Iveco LMV M65 is opposed by only a flat sheet of armor steel (I want to believe that this is so, and not ordinary steel) a few millimeters thick. Behind it is the car frame and the tin floor of the cab. Everything! Interestingly, of all those who declare that the LMV M65 “holds” the explosion of 6 kg of TNT under the wheel and bottom, is ready to get into this car himself and so that these same 6 kg are blown up under it? I haven’t heard of such “heroes” yet.
And so they would sit down, put 6 kg of explosives under it, collect television, press and rush. Like, "we are responsible for the market." And immediately all the questions would be removed - they would remain alive - then everything is true about the durability of the machine, no - well, it means that another machine must be selected for the armed forces. It is clear that neither one nor the other of these vehicles will be able to save the crew when blown up by an anti-tank mine (from 6 to 11 kg TNT), since such mines often break through even the bottom of a tank during an explosion - and there are not millimeters, but centimeters of armor! They know how to advertise their equipment abroad, but we are all shy.
Mobility. As for the indicators of vehicle mobility, here the cars of the "Tiger" family have an absolute superiority over the Italian armored vehicles Iveco LMV M65. This was clearly shown by a video of comparative tests for cross-country ability in winter in Bronnitsy near Moscow, posted by the editorial office of the newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets" on its website. There you can clearly see how an Italian car, having driven 10-15 meters through the snow, buried itself in it and stood up. The "Tiger" ran away along the virgin snow, as if along a good dirt road. After that, any comparative tests of the Iveco LMV M65 car with Russian counterparts were discontinued.
Acts of testing the Italian vehicle were issued with a positive result for it, although according to the test plan they were supposed to last until the fall of 2010. As Russian media later reported, in June 2010, by order of the RF Ministry of Defense, the vehicle was accepted for supply to the RF Armed Forces. The suspension of the "Tiger" car is borrowed from the armored personnel carrier BTR-80, which has been tested in numerous wars and battles. Iveco LMV M65 turned into a military vehicle from a civilian SUV, with all the consequences that follow from this. The power plant of the Italian car is equipped with a 3-liter diesel engine developing 190 hp. and having a torque of 456 Nm. The power compartment of the machine is packed so tightly that it is not possible to install another, more powerful engine in the machine.
Domestic "Tigers" are still equipped with a 5, 9-liter turbodiesel with a capacity of 205 hp. with a torque of 705 Nm. There is a Tiger model with a 420-horsepower diesel engine. There is information that a sample of "Tiger" with a 240-horsepower diesel engine of domestic production has been manufactured and is being tested. It was the Tiger engine, and it was the American Cummins 205, that did not allow this machine to become a full-fledged military vehicle in the Russian army for a long time. According to the requirements of the Ministry of Defense, all weapons and military equipment should be made from domestic components. I do not think that Italy has become a subject of the Russian Federation, nevertheless, a completely foreign vehicle is accepted for supply to the RF Armed Forces.
How does this happen? According to the characteristics declared by the developers of the Italian car, it remains operational under temperature conditions from -32 to +49 degrees Celsius. Even for the central European part of Russia, this range is clearly insufficient, not to mention the more northern regions. It is worth remembering the last winter, when temperatures of –35 degrees and below were stable in Moscow for weeks. The Ministry of Defense requires Russian engineers to ensure the operational range of the machine from -50 to +50 degrees. This is a standard requirement for all weapons and military equipment in the Soviet and Russian armies, and there is nothing new here. However, meeting this requirement costs a lot of money and time. Why is the Italian model, which does not meet these requirements, is being adopted for the armament of our army? If they are not so important, why do they continue to demand this from domestic designers?
About prices and production. Two samples of Iveco LMV M65 vehicles purchased by OJSC KAMAZ for the RF Ministry of Defense in autumn 2009 cost the company 300 thousand euros per car, excluding the cost of their transportation (the cost of the purchased cars was confirmed by the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation). Taking into account the fact that it will be necessary to fulfill the promise of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation A. Serdyukov about the production of cars in Russia, funds will be needed to designate at least the assembly production. This will only increase the cost of the vehicle for the army.
To this we must add the costs of training specialists, organizing service (and the Italians in our troops will do this for the first few years), the cost of navigation equipment and communications and Iveco LMV M65 will cost Russian taxpayers about 20-23 million rubles. for the car. "Tiger" today costs the army about 5 million rubles. for the car. In addition, a maintenance and service system has already been organized for the "Tigers" and is constantly expanding.
conclusions
The Italian-made Iveco LMV M65 armored vehicle cannot fully meet the requirements for multi-purpose armored vehicles in the Russian army. The characteristics declared by the manufacturers of the machine for the most part do not correspond to reality. The protective properties of the Iveco LMV M65 car are not confirmed anywhere and require careful testing. On the contrary, an analysis of the experience of the combat use of such vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq indicates that the vehicle has low protective properties and a high fire hazard. An attempt to convince Russian taxpayers by some "analysts" and "experts" that the Iveco LMV M65 is a car "recognized all over the world" is untenable.
The Italian vehicle is in service only in Italy, Great Britain, Norway, Spain and the Netherlands. At the same time, in the same Great Britain or Norway, it is used purely as a communication machine and not in the first echelons, but in the rear. At the same time, the Russian "Tigers", according to a representative of the "MIC" LLC, are already serving in 10 countries of the world, including Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. In which ones, he refused to tell, referring to the confidentiality prescribed in the contracts. However, it is known for certain from media reports that the "Tigers" have already mastered the territories of China, Israel, Jordan, and now the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Surely there are such machines in a number of CIS countries. In Russia, cars are already in operation in almost all climatic zones: from St. Petersburg to Khabarovsk from West to East and from Murmansk to Sochi from North to South.
Iveco LMV M65 cannot boast of such a geography of places of operation. Even the machines that Norway acquired for its army are operated not on the territory of their own country, but outside its borders - mainly in Afghanistan. The cost of an Italian car is three times higher than its domestic counterparts, while other indicators are equal or inferior to them. Based on the foregoing, the acceptance for the supply and purchase of Iveco LMV M65 vehicles for the RF Armed Forces is impractical and unjustified. Nevertheless, according to media reports, in accordance with the draft State Armaments Program (GPV), it is planned to purchase 1775 Iveco LMV M65 vehicles for the needs of the RF Armed Forces for a total amount of 30 billion rubles.
The purchase of the same number of modified Tiger vehicles for the RF Armed Forces will save more than 20 billion rubles of budgetary funds and provide jobs for thousands of Russian, not Italian citizens. The recent statement to the press by Defense Minister A. Serdyukov that there will be no large-scale purchases of Italian cars, and that all this is being done only in order to spur domestic developers to develop new weapons and military equipment, looks like a bluff, judging by the chronology of previous events. So, for example, in March, “the official representative of the RF Ministry of Defense, Colonel Alexei Kuznetsov, denied information from some media outlets about the agency's intention to purchase a large batch of Italian Iveco armored vehicles. "The Ministry of Defense is not considering the acquisition of foreign armored vehicles," Kuznetsov told RIA Novosti on Wednesday. (RIA Novosti, 10.03.2010).
And on September 9, the following message appeared: “Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said that the Defense Ministry does not intend to import foreign armored vehicles, but in the near future it is possible to create a joint venture with the Italian company Iveco. According to him, the department was provided with two armored vehicles of the Iveco company, which have already been tested in Russian conditions.
One of the cars is planned to be blown up at one of the landfills in order to test it for explosion resistance. This procedure, according to Serdyukov, "will make it possible to establish whether the declared characteristics correspond to reality or not." He also added that if the characteristics justify themselves, a joint venture for the production of armored vehicles may appear on the territory of Russia, "within which the armored car will be brought to our needs." (KM. RU AUTO). It is worth noting that, judging by other media reports, the characteristics of Iveco "justify themselves" in any case. As far back as on August 6, “The Russian Technologies JSC, where the assembly of the machines will be organized, confirmed the information that the company was negotiating with IVECO.
According to a company representative, a trial batch will be created this year, and serial production will begin next year. It is assumed that the minimum annual turnover will be 500 cars per year. (NEWSru.com, 06.08.2010, 12:55). From this we can conclude that the issue with the purchase of Iveco was resolved even before the start of testing the machine! Whether the characteristics justify themselves or not is no longer important. There is no need to talk about the localization of the production of Iveco LMV in Russia, since this machine consists not only of Italian components: international armor, gearbox - German ZF, remote controlled weapon module - Norwegian. It is naive to think that all these technologies will be transferred to Russia by NATO countries.
Delivery of assembly kits and screwdriver assembly - this is what will happen to the maximum with an Italian car in our country. And quite recently this assumption was confirmed to journalists in Paris at the Euronaval-2010 exhibition by the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Vladimir Popovkin. He said that “the production of the first armored vehicles in Russia under the license of the Italian company IVECO will begin in 2011. A joint venture for the production of armored vehicles in Russia has already been created. " According to him, in essence it will be a "screwdriver assembly". “The plans are such that the use of Russian components should eventually exceed 50%,” V. Popovkin said. (https://rian.ru/defense_safety/20101026/289481046.html). And the order on the acceptance of the Italian armored vehicle for the supply of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation by the Minister of Defense A. Serdyukov was signed back in June 2010. The order is unclassified, but for a long time it was hidden behind “seven locks”.
A bit of history
Once we already bought a car from the Italians, but then in the USSR a plant was first built for it, then a few years later we mastered its production. We still produce, but the name of the plant and its products began to be used as a curse. Doesn't it seem that we are stepping on the same rake again? Only this rake becomes truly golden. Somewhat later, there was another attempt to cooperate with the Italians, but in the field of aviation. Together they created a training aircraft. Russian designers were developing the airframe project. The Italians had to make engines and some onboard equipment.
But when the Italians received the design documentation, they refused further cooperation. Now, the Italian M346 trainer aircraft, like two drops of water similar to the Russian Yak-130, is being successfully sold all over the world as an example of the Italian aircraft industry. Russia has received nothing from this cooperation except a bitter experience. And two more words about cooperation with Western companies producing military products. According to friends from the Ministry of Defense, all samples of military products purchased in the West go to Russia, so to speak, in a truncated form, which is far from what is depicted in advertising brochures.
For example, all UAVs that arrived from Israel were not fully equipped with control systems and data transmission. And mine armchairs of a well-known company came to Russia without a handing over link, the very one that dampens the force of the shock wave of the explosion. The “partners” explained this by the fact that the very link is “know-how” and they have no right to transfer it to Russia. Do not naively think that the Italians or the French, or someone else, will give up all modern technologies.
