In the first step had the idea of creation "unified fighting compartment", with minimal modifications which could be set in tanks, receiving a complete renovation and modernization (T-80, T-72, T-90) and in series production of the T- 90 and then the T-95. In connection with this GABTU Defense Ministry announced a competition to host the ROC under the code "Bourlak." Winning the contest Omsk won a "Design Bureau of Transport Engineering." The determination of the favorite impacted several reasons. In 1-x KBTM announced in advance is very understated amount. And it's nothing that the next by various manipulations of the price of the ROC has grown many times, and according to some reports, the Russian has cost taxpayers about 0.8-1 billion. rubles. His main rival — UKBTM — said the price of work "to be honest", and means immediately left himself seems to be "out of competition". The second factor — the presence, and increased promotion of past developments on the identical theme ("Unified tower", "Black Eagle"). Third — the government in the face of ordinary GABTU provided financial support to the company in difficult economic conditions. Taking into account the last two incidents, the creator there is a strong suggestion that at first the whole OCD "Burlak" was "sleplena" under KBTM in order not to allow this organization does die.
Either way, in the framework of the ROC "Burlak" design bureau in 2005 to 2009. measures were taken to create a "unified fighting compartment" (UBS) to upgrade the tanks of the T-72B, T-80BV, T-90 and T-95 even. In 2008-09, the Web has posted a series of patents that protect the intellectual development of Omsk. If a double-flow automatic loader development KBTM many were already familiar from previous publications and full-scale demonstration of the standard "Object 640" then other solutions produced memories and everyone who, one way or another, was interested in the development of Russian armored vehicles.
Among other, it is one hundred percent brand new tower with modular protection in frontal projection, autonomous remote-controlled installation of additional weapons, "hint" to the new MSA with panoramic sighting and observation complex commander.
Particularly violent ecstasy showed the so-called "Experts" from the Ukraine. Why? Yes, simply because almost immediately with a demonstration of Project on "Burlaku" in Ukraine came to the pseudo-state tests tank BM "Hold" (otherwise "Hold-M") in which observed very identical technical solutions, the principal of which, of course, is a modular passive armor protection. The fact of the introduction of modular protection to "Barge Haulers" seems to be confirmed emerging trend, correctness elected Ukrainian designers BBT way and at the same time, in terms of promoting good occasion gave declare that "the Russians as" stupid and not that they can not ", which ordinarily borrow "advanced" Ukrainian technical solutions. "
But, first in 2010 at the press briefing, Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General arms VA Popovkin stated that the topic of OCD "Burlak" was closed in late 2009. Project Closure "Burlak" coincided with the first demonstration of an alternative solution to upgrade aging tanks from UKBTM. By publishing the article "Happy New Year — with a new tank" creator did not know and did not think out how he was right in the estimates as "Burlaka" and UBM "Breakthrough" from UKBTM though have to experience for yourself a barrage of criticism, instigated Ukrainian propagandists. Here are just a very small example:
Obviously, the creator of the publication knew a few more than I could write, and even more so openly publish. But his opponents were guided only by the beautiful patterns of patents Omsk, where "Burlak" which looked as presentable, some very vague photos and news on the rollers submitted Nizhnetagilskom UBM, but personal experience operating production machines. Because criticism of article creator took a fairly quiet — the future is not once demonstrated that he was right.
In this case, once further represent and 'advertise' new Russian tank T-90ms and UBM made in the framework of the ROC "Break-2" special needs do not. The creation of the Ural designers were ecstatically received in the world, except that of Ukraine, which is a demonstration of T-90ms seriously complicated plans to push forward on the external markets BM "Hold." But as for "Burlaka" …
Even such "brilliant writer" as Gur Khan could not imagine what was all that was bad! Oh very very "nice theory" was divorced from reality. So, in 2011, the social network "VKontakte" have been found photos of "some of the tank to the chassis is not the T-90 is not the T-72B", with
a covered tower, where the tarps were sticking out from under a very unusual type of reactive armor modules. The photos were made in osoborezhimnoy zone "A" central test base BTVT in Kubinka (creators of images M.Komarov, D.Telov).
As it turned out, it was a photo of the upgraded T-72B "I-02" — the most experienced reference made in KBTM on "Bourlak." But, this is the most experienced so different from the standard schemes, placed Pat KBTM that could identify him far not once. For example, your faithful servant, even initially claimed that there has been some tampering with the introduction of art "Photoshop" — a hunt to believe in the best. Of course, under a tarpaulin that, there's what is difficult to make out, but at the disposal of the creator of a photo where there is no tarpaulin and clearly visible above the hidden details of the design. On some disk imaging, secrecy of the topic "Burlak" at the moment, after its closure has already been removed, but not the creator of the rights to publish photos in full, something not to disclose and not to discredit its own power. For this reason, had to make here is that of a collage.
How out of it perfectly clear — the degree of an experienced mining products just depressing. It is understandable that not looking at significant monetary loss, a theme covered. Its extension would require a huge new infusion of currency is not fully apparent from the final result. Yes, even against the background of a very successful development Tagil.
In fact, the circumstances of the failure of "Burlaka" a few, and some of it has already been written by us. At this time, focus on them slightly more.
The main reason — weakness KBTM as a developer of large weapons systems. Omsk KB — not very bad technological KB designed to produce mass production of products support armored vehicles. It is able to carry out work on the conversion and modernization of armored vehicles, but with a very limited degree of novelty. So order KBTM lead theme "Burlak" was initially a failure from the standpoint of technical policy.
It is wrong and is a key design decision — The modular armor protection. This scheme has a number of positive parameters, among which, of course, the main thing — it is an opportunity frisky elimination battle damage (PD) and the ability to maintain a long life cycle the armor piece in peacetime by spoofing protection modules with more modern. But all this is in theory. In practice, these advantages are offset significant drawback — increasing the metal structures and as a result of excess weight, as well as rising costs. With all of this utility actually quite yavna modularity. So completely clear that the platform modernized by installing UBS "Burlak" type tanks T-80, T-72 and T-90 is obsolete and does not make sense to extend their current cycle of "infinity." Upgrading over time protection UBS, on the specifics of the assembly we do not have the ability to raise the level of similarly Enclosure chassis, for in the case of modernization of unpleasant body poured out in virtually creating the modern machine. Surprisingly, introducing a modular tower defense BM "Hold" about it for some reason did not think the designer Kharkov, despite the fact that the concept of an assembly that Russian, Ukrainian tanks that one and traces its history from the beginning of the concept of sinful assembly is very poor T-64 tank . It is also not fully yavna usefulness of modularity and elimination of battle damage. It should be taken into account, first, the economic aspects. On the one hand we have processed the abatement technology PD for traditional towers, on the other hand, the introduction of modularity, theoretically we will have to create some groundwork for plug-in modules to bear the cost of storing it in peacetime, and the cost of transporting it in case of hostilities. And this is the difficulty of providing additional transport, personnel, fuel, and so on. Now multiply it all on the scale of Russian Armed Forces, which has need of the number of tanks is determined by a few thousand units. Cover a "virtual" dignity modular passive armor protection so long as the same "virtual" cost? In our opinion the answer is straightforward — no. Modularity armor useful pawn in the design of a fundamentally new machines, and complex — both for the tower, and for the case. An example of this approach — French tank "Leclerc". But at the moment we can say that, "Leclerc", some solutions which currently kutso try to copy and propagate the Ukraine — it is also conceptually obsolete tank 1990s. Russian designer gone far ahead in this direction in the development of the T-95, and currently continue to evolve in the same direction, working on a heavy platform "Armata".
Departing somewhat to the side, we note that the approach to the design of mounting removable body armor modules, implemented by an experienced swatch made in the performance of OCD "Burlak" is fundamentally different from that in the Ukrainian BM "Hold", and in the best possible way. So on the "Barge Haulers" module is attached to the bolt, while on the "stronghold", it all boiled welded joints, which means that the unit is losing money on the speed of substitution.
Subsequent bad time associated with modularity — increasing the metal and how to increased weight UBS. Upgraded T-90ms with established UBM "Breakthrough", which has a traditional tower, pull by weight 48-49 tons, but the modernization with the installation of UBS 'Bourlak ", only the first estimations of Omsk designers weight of the tank was about 49.5 tons . When working out the upcoming she almost exceeded the mark of 50 tons. Naturally tank chassis of the T-80, T-72 and T-90 can bear such a load, but with all this begin to show bad moments associated with the vio
lation of the alignment, reducing lift and tilt angles, the increase of the specific ground pressure and permeability, respectively, some performance characteristics (eg, seriously complicated access to the MTO). It is not that the designers did not understand Omsk likely consequences — is even aware of it out loud but never voices. At the same time, Omsk design bureau in 2005, in the most early stages of the creation of the UBS "Burlak" was put forward a proposal for an active GABTU to develop further and unified logistics (UMTO) as a diesel, and with the GTD-monoblock. As stated in the "Tehpredlozheniyah": "Set in the same casing turbine or diesel engine will allow a very unifying tank chassis, and when mounted on this chassis being developed at the present time a unified fighting compartment (UBO) is permitted to make a single tank in embodiments, the gas turbine or diesel engine. "
With all of this it was noted that additional benefits in this case will be the unification of the driver's compartment, box and chassis components. Do not be distracted by the analysis of this "zamanuhi", just to say that the proposal for increase in the length of the body of the wing tanks upgraded to 920 mm, the addition of the seventh track roller and thus increase the length and area of the supporting surface. All this was intended to make up for the shortcomings of first installation of the proposed UBS. But the extension of the body was drawn to an increase in the mass of the chassis immediately to 3.2 tons in dry weight — without additional fuel to appear very bulky internal fuel tanks, excluding additional protection in the form of suspended modules DZ, power or lattice screens. So Makar, from the first sketch study of the mass of the tank was upgraded to 52.5 tons, and really would have exceeded 55 tons, in the absence of constructive solutions for survivability machine and survival of the crew.
What's all the same significance for the Russian Defense Ministry and GABTU namely conservation of mass within the tank 50 tons? The answer lies in the preservation of the requirements for strategic agility. Indeed, except for the railroad, the principal carrier of tanks, particularly in terms of operational transfer to remote theaters, is a military transport aircraft, naval base which make up the IL-76MF capable of take-off weight at the limit just to raise cargo of 50 tons and carry it at a distance of about 3000 km.
Naturally, in such hands, so significant excess mass GABTU considered unacceptable by offering KBTM concentrate on work on the UBO. As a result, almost five years of work (not counting the time to establish a reserve), applicable solutions to bring the form to the requirements of UBS TK has not been found. In this context, the decision to close the subsequent development of the theme "Burlak" was fully justified reasons. This factor also contributed to the integration of design bureau in armored holding "Uralvagonzavod" ended by that time. The decision on joining the Corporation has transferred KBTM direct financial responsibility for the existence of the organization as a strategic principle for the Russian company specifically with government agencies (DoD, GABTU) on the shoulders of equity holding structure.
Of the smaller gaps "Burlaka" should emphasize the problem with finishing MSAs autoloader, the integration of KAZ, severe restrictions on the Gaza shelling control LSD (especially left), vulnerability and lacking combat survivability AZ.
Specifically, on the basis and taking into account all of the above, the creator of thought and considers OCD "Burlak" carried out by KBTM dead-end job, vain waste of time, money and resources. The only factor that somehow justifies the decision — save KBTM as businesses.