Russian military soon began to sharply criticize the products of the Russian defense industry. With the bad old review of the T-90 was made Commander of the Land Forces of the Russian Federation Alexander Postnikov. According to him, the T-90 does not meet the modern requirements of the military, and its cost is much higher than similar foreign-made armored vehicles. Later Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy. director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, imagined that our home recently may lose the leading position in the international market of armored vehicles, in this case does not offer its customers a truly competitive products. But amid all this, there is a range of fully informed of issues. What criticized Russian tanks? Indeed a Russian-made tanks are inferior in terms of technical features similar to NATO and Chinese cars? Real prospects for the T-90 in the international market? Will in the coming term, our motherland to offer customers zabugornom modern competitive tank? For whatever reason, the project was abandoned development of the tank "Object 195"?
The main reason that in Russia today there is not even such a thing as the terms of reference for the development of entirely new MBT for the Armed Forces, it is anti-state approach of the majority of officials to work with the defense industry. The main mechanism of work — is "give us quite finished car, and we'll figure out whether to take it and pay a cost of its development." Of course, none KB on criteria such work does not agree. Not the least of the country and the government's fault that the enterprises of the military-industrial complex fell into disrepair. Today, most of the previously massive companies are on the brink of survival, and what kind of development of modern armored vehicles may be involved. KB each and every manufacturer had their own unique approaches and schools, each had their own merits. In this case, if there is but a developer, leaving only its pros and its cons, but over time, the lack of competition in the domestic market can seem completely real danger of degradation. One might, of course, make the argument that the objection can be said to the paradoxical situation that was present in the USSR, with 3 main battle tanks of different designs, but all of this with similar features. Of course, this is true, but in this case the problem to a large extent was not connected with the designers and decision-making at the highest level of military and political control.
Many say that the main problem of the Russian tank development is that there is not only a clear policy of the country, and the military itself can not directly specify what they want, what should be tank in their opinion. In the 30-40s of the Soviet Union was, and whoever and whatever you read, the wisest Stalin which said is true, we need new tanks with such and such technical features and performance. Stalin said — the industry made them. We must admit that, much to the chagrin of at the moment is not far away at all those military and not addressing these issues. The reform under the "effective management" is usually limited to the optimization of monetary costs, and cost optimization — to reduce the number of vehicles under the theme properties. If you are using similar approaches in the coming term, see a massive reduction in tank units, including tanks and mobilization of supplies in Russia. But it will not be accompanied by a transition to significantly highest level of high-quality, on the contrary — machinery remains the same, but the personnel is very unmotivated.
From the time of stateliness Russian War Soviet army was built at the deepest significance of the impact of the theory of implementation, preferring flexibility, mobility and reliability of tanks, where they were, perhaps, was the main striking force of the Army. Unlike the Soviet Union, the smallest army of NATO since the 70's preference for more expensive and languid tanks to conduct tactical coming, and fire support.
It remains unclear, and the decision to wind up work on the "195 project". Many members of the army blame the creators of the new tank in a very prolonged period of development, but there is a living example — T-64 tank. Too many abused its developers for innovation, because of which the development took a very long time, the machine is worked out for a couple of years in production. But, generally, with all this is not enough people remember that this tank gave a real boost to companies, institutions and entire industries — systems, hydraulics, electronics, optics. Why then the T-72 as "just" made in the creation and running? Since the trials and testing of the BCP and eliminated the need for hydraulic box, sighting systems, surveillance systems and weapons have been, complexes PAZ, PPO available.
Of course the T-90 as the successor of T-72 is quite a nice car for every possible theater. But it has significant shortcomings. Does not meet the modern requirements of existing maneuverability in traffic, the lack of duplication control the direction of movement of the other crew members, and also of fire, obsolete chassis, which has a bad effect on the conduct of fire rally. The main problem — the virtual absence of integration into tactical modern information systems on the battlefield. Who in the media hot topic discusses the development of the new tank codenamed "Armat". It is entirely possible that, unlike all of the new "Object 195", it is an evolutionary path which continues the line T-72. However, the level of modernization it will be brand new machine, significantly ahead of the layout as the T-72 and its modification of the T-90. At the same time it is noted that if the present approach of the political and military control to work together with the industry, there are two possible variants of tank production. First option — to 2015 in Russia seem something really new, modern and truly worthwhile as experienced models, but to create them in the forthcoming and some will have no place. The second option — a brand new 2015 modification of the T-90 — T-90N (H — "with bells and whistles") — will be called "Armata", and in fact everyone will be happy.
Taking into account the experience of previous years, it is safe to say that the "object 195" could be really good reason to implement a breakthrough in almost all branches of the military-industrial complex. If you evaluate the effectiveness of management of the country only to minimize costs, administrative decisions, perhaps, correct, and if the term of the deposit in the country, as a major player in the international market of armored vehicles, it is unlikely. Although, of course, many countries live well and as a raw material appendage.
In the vast majority of armed conflict with the role of the American and Russian technology side, which used the South American, often the worst properties, equipment, won. The victory did not come at the expense of the property and perfect technology, and due to the ability to coordinate and the righ
t to use it acts to control troops and logistics. For example, the German tanks first World War and the Russian lost in quantity and in quality, but coupled with the fact by having prepared for prof level of the tank commander, communication and fine-tuned command of Germans have gained victories.
Our military leaders are fighting for what they were serving only modern technology — new superrazrabotki that need izderzhat huge amount of money (and drank). Is there a need for this? Americans in 1990, and till this day have not produced any of the 1st of the new main tank of its own army — "Abrams"!
Fully actually install on existing tanks T-80 and T-90 combat management system managers, new communication systems, systems review / aiming etc. Provide active protection of armored vehicles such as "blind", "Blackbird", that the crew was not in constant terror of the ability of the explosion of ammunition. There are a huge number of tanks that are not only possible, and must be upgraded. So do the Americans and the Germans, who do not develop and produce new tanks, and uniformly improve existing technology.
Especially since in the case of a global conflict with NATO or with those of the Chinese, the tanks are unlikely to play a decisive role. In the case goes "languid artillery." At the same time, the role of local conflicts in the image of the war in South Ossetia, for which a new RF tank, which in all characteristics will be superior to the German "Leopard"?
For example, Omsk design bureau developed the program from the renovation preserved the T-54. According to the statement of factory workers, the output will absolutely brand new car, which by his own military capabilities will not yield to modern tanks. Ultimately Russian army can get a modern fighting machine at low cost.
A lot of debate is going around and accessory rights of the author to create a brand of tanks T. According to a statement on the Russian side, the rights belong to the author of FSUE 'Ural Transport Engineering Design Bureau ", and Kharkov in the development of a modern tank" Citadel "in fact violated the rights of the author.
The book "War Machines Uralvagonzavod. Tank T-72" its creators, documentary focusing on the legal definitions, justify that of all should be spoken "… first of all, that, in accordance with current international and Russian law, all rights of the author designed to Nizhny Tagil tanks T-34-85, T-43, T-44 and T-54 belong only to the modern Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Ural Transport Engineering Design Bureau" made on the basis of division 520 and 540 of the pilot plant during 1971. More of UKBTM is the legal owner's rights to the fighting T-34-76, BT all modifications, T-24, in other words all the tanks designed in Kharkiv in 1930, as legally UKBTM is a direct and specific legal successor of the pre-war Panzer Kharkov KB plant number 183. " Of course, the formal, legal side, they're right, but keep in mind that the legal assessment — the lawyers in this field, and they almost always are heartless bastards. There are human grade and not only — there is a story. As a human being, made T-34, T-34-85, T-44 and T-54 as well Nizhnetagilskye as Kharkov. It is time to recognize that this is a common story, and take as an example for every bortsunov the "independence" is simply ugly.
But that's all we can say lyrics, but it still expects Russia as a state leader in sales of armored vehicles in the world? Cannon sell everything. In this case, if our homeland of refuse, the space immediately take others. And at first, it would be immoral only in relation to the families of Russian workers, who in the end the political games to lose their job. Limited only to the needs of the army and navy — that means to accept the fact that the current needs of 99% will satisfy zabugornye providers (the same project, "Mistral"). In most of its own defense industry stays afloat thanks to zabugornom orders without creating weapons and military equipment to the domestic market will be some.
Source: Interview Lente.ru Basil Chobitka, tanker, the captain of supplies and the creator of "Bronesayta"