A modern army needs a new type of armored vehicle
In the course of the reform of the Russian army, the military department is reducing the number of tanks in the troops by 20 times (from 40 thousand to two thousand) and is not planning new purchases of armored vehicles. First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin announced that the modern T-90 is not far from the T-34. At the same time, the military decided to abandon further work on the promising tank project "Object-195". Vladimir Nevolin, the designer of armored vehicles of the only remaining tank-building enterprise in the country, Uralvagonzavod, spoke about whether modern Russia needs tanks.
Vladimir Mikhailovich, tanks were almost the main exhibits at the recent exhibition of weapons and military equipment Eurosatory-2010 in Paris. Israel for the first time showed abroad its newest Merkava-Mk4 tank with the Trophy active protection system. Germany has two projects at once: the modernized Leopard-2A7 + and the concept of the tank of the future, which was designated as revolutionary - MBT Revolution. And what about us? Why do the military have so many complaints about Uralvagonzavod products?
Vladimir Nevolin: I would not like to comment on the words of our military. But if we talk about domestic tanks, then I personally see that in Algeria, and in India, and in China, and in Pakistan - in countries where the military is certainly no worse than ours know their business - they successfully exploit the tanks created based on our T-72. This most massive tank in the world has long become a classic, a trendsetter in tank building: a 125 mm cannon, an automatic loader - a carousel with 22 rounds. The same machine gun was transferred to the T-90 tank. It is bought by India and Algeria.
The Chinese at one time took the T-72 as a prototype and created two of their tanks - Type-98 and Type-99. These tanks have already been manufactured 2, 5 thousand pieces. Then the Chinese, together with Pakistan, created the MBT-2000, or "Al Khalid" tank, which also uses an automatic loader from the T-72.
Main battle tank T-72 Ural
Type 99 / ZTZ99, China
MBT-2000, or "Al Khalid", China-Pakistan
But for some reason, this automatic loader no longer suits our military men - supposedly it is easy to hit it with anti-tank weapons. Although there were T-72 tanks in Chechnya that withstood 6-9 hits from hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. At the same time, the crew remained alive, and the tank was combat-ready. It's hard for me to understand the logic of the military.
If the military publicly expresses their dissatisfaction, then it means they have an accurate idea of what they would ideally want to get?
Nevolin: Unfortunately, all the requirements are classified as "secret".
But do they see any perspective?
Nevolin: Yes.
In this case, why is the Ministry of Defense refusing to further develop the Object-195 program, which is based on a tank with an uninhabited turret?
Object 195
Nevolin: I also have no right to comment on this.
Then explain, what should be a tank to be called modern?
Nevolin: In principle, we believe that the T-90S tank is exactly modern. Not inferior in anything to third-generation tanks. Firstly, it has an automated fire control system that has equal capabilities to detect targets both day and night, in difficult weather conditions. It has a thermal imaging sight, in the production of which France is involved. There was no such device on the T-72. On the T-90S it is, which makes a wider field of view of the terrain for tankers (this was not the case before).
Secondly, protection. It should ensure that the tank is immune to the main anti-tank weapons: armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile 120 mm and anti-tank guided missiles of all types. These requirements for our tank are also met. Thirdly - movement over rough terrain with a speed of up to 45 km / h and a power reserve of at least 500 km. This is how our tank drives. Finally, the last thing that should be is the automated combat control equipment: displaying the current combat information about the enemy in real time. Which is also implemented. That is, the T-90S is, in every sense, a modern and efficient combat vehicle.
How many years, in your opinion, will the T-90S be considered a modern tank? And when will Russia need to present a fundamentally new combat vehicle?
T-90S
Nevolin: The main complaints about the T-90S tank today are related to its insufficient survivability. Still, the placement of people, ammunition and fuel in one circuit is fraught with the fact that if the armor is broken, it can lead to fuel ignition. Even with a fire extinguishing system, such options are not excluded. Therefore, the development of modern armored vehicles follows the path of separating people and fuel with ammunition. Another option is the use of remotely controlled weapons. In "Object-195" this was practically realized - the turret of the tank was without a crew, and it was concentrated in a protected circuit, separated from the fuel and warhead. In principle, all countries of the world are just going to switch to such remotely controlled fighting compartments, to separate habitable and uninhabited compartments in the design of modern tanks. But I repeat: no one has such machines yet.
and: Your company has already implemented in practice the "uninhabited tower" on the BMPT tank support combat vehicle. Can it be considered the prototype of the tank of the future?
Nevolin: The BMPT has other combat missions. In addition, the crew sits in the same place as the fuel and ammunition. They are just more rationally placed.
How do you see the future of this car?
Nevolin: This is one of the types of combat vehicles that should be further developed. Modern infantry fighting vehicles are poorly protected. If you try to protect this car at the same level as a tank, then it will weigh seventy tons. Which is clearly overwhelming. Although similar works are going on in Germany. A new combat tracked infantry vehicle "Puma" weighing 40 tons with protection against anti-tank weapons was adopted there, of which the most used are hand grenade launchers. More serious means of destruction - anti-tank guided missiles, missiles - this machine does not withstand.
BMP "Puma" is made according to the classic scheme for infantry fighting vehicles
But each country has its own path here. For example, the Americans had a program for the transition to light equipment - "Future combat system". It was planned to assemble eight combat vehicles and the same number of support vehicles weighing up to 18 tons, so that they could be airlifted by a C-130 transport aircraft. But last year, the Americans also abandoned the program and recently began a project to create a heavy armored personnel carrier with a crew of three and a group of nine paratroopers.
There is such a German specialist - Rolf Hilmis. According to his concept of BMP development, the vehicle is actually divided into two. One, which houses small-caliber weapons - a cannon, a missile system. The second is engaged in the actual transportation of the infantry. Both have a high level of protection. As an example of such a division, he cites our BMPT: it has small-caliber weapons, is equipped with a perfect fire control system, which allows detecting small-sized targets, and is capable of effectively hitting them, having a large ammunition load.
Why is it important?
Nevolin: Because today every infantryman is well armed with either an RPG or a portable missile system. The Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan have a pipe hanging behind almost every soldier - these are just anti-tank systems that are capable of hitting any BMP right through. And the BMPT has a large ammunition load. For example, only cannon shots for a 30-mm cannon - 850 pieces (for comparison, on the BMP-2 - 500). In addition, there are two more independent firing channels - two operators armed with AG-17D automatic grenade launchers, each carrying 300 grenades. Each of them has an impact area of seven meters squared. That is, by firing 300 grenades, I hit 2,100 square meters. This is one grenade launcher! Two - 4200 square meters, dotted with shrapnel. Even if the grenade does not hit the fighter, the very fact of using such a weapon will force the enemy to abandon the attempt to attack the vehicle. In addition, to combat highly protected targets, the BMPT has two launchers with four Ataka-T anti-tank missiles with cumulative or thermobaric warheads capable of hitting both tanks and enemy fortifications at a distance of five kilometers. In the field, one BMPT is more effective than two motorized rifle platoons - these are six BMPs and about 40 personnel. In cities, forests and mountains, the use of long-range weapons is impractical. Therefore, such multifunctional vehicles as BMPTs will represent the main striking force of the Ground Forces.
Combat vehicle support for BMPT tanks, created on the basis of the T-72 tank
Why, in this case, the Ground Forces consider the BMPT almost a whim of Uralvagonzavod?
Nevolin: When this machine was created, we gave it an unfortunate name. Then it met the requirement to support tanks, but now the BMPT can have independent combat use. Today we call it an infantry fire support vehicle. It behaves well in cities and in closed areas, for which a tank is too powerful a machine. You can't load more than 30-40 shots into it! And firing a tank gun at an infantryman is like shooting at sparrows. That's when the BMPT becomes a kind of sniper weapon.
Why our military do not understand this - I do not presume to judge. The BMPT has been tested, but since 2006 it has not been put into service.
In the current situation, will Uralvagonzavod again survive only through import contracts?
Nevolin: It seems so.
