Armata tank

  • "Armata" - the tank of the future
  • "Armata" — the tank of the future

A few days ago the Israeli online publication Defense Updatepublished an article, dedicated to the promising Russian battle tank on the unified combat platform "Armata", which stated that the new machine, "designated as T-99, will be less revolutionary and ambitious in terms of technology than a failed "Object 195" (T-95). It will weigh less, so that will be more mobile and cheaper than its predecessor, more ambitious. " Thanks to the massive influx of the tank and other armored vehicles of the family, the newspaper writes, Russia plans to upgrade its armored forces.


Provides figures that the first admission "radically new main battle tank" (MBT) to the troops scheduled for 2015, and only in 2020 it is planned to put the T-99 in 2300. In this case, the article also states that "Russian building their armed forces not only against NATO, but, more importantly, to protect its southern borders extended from the radical Islamic countries, which can build up its military power, and the growing power of China in the East … The level of sophistication required to combat these threats not as high as in the confrontation advanced U.S. and NATO forces. "

In other words, according to the author, the modernization of Russian armored troops would be sufficient for the weak militarily in Asia. And to the level of the armies of the West promising Russian military machine is still far. As far as the allegations are true? This is the "SP" saidone of the leading experts in the field of armored vehicles, Reserve Colonel Victor Murakhovski:

"SP": — First of all, why the Ministry of Defence and was not allowed into a series of "Object 195"?

— This tank was at one time almost completed state tests and was not adopted for the reason that, on the one hand, the Ministry of Defence during its development have changed the requirements for our tank. On the other — the industry was not prepared for his series production. She took a few years for the technology to carry out the modernization of production and begin to produce those key components that are required for the "Object 195".

"SP": — What is meant by "changed the requirements?"

— The content of the technical project of the Ministry of Defense to conduct research and development work is secret, so I can only answer in general. For example, the requirements for protection of the tank against the destruction of ammunition in the upper projection of the machine, and by landmines and improvised explosive devices, as well as the all-aspect protection from portable hand-held anti-tank weapons, etc.

"SP": — The authors of a foreign publication put forward the theory that the tank on the basis of "Almaty was" would only be a simplified and less option "Object 195". Is that right?

— "Armata" absorbed all the achievements of "Object 195". On circuit layout and the vast majority of units, assemblies and systems, it is almost similar to the 195-th object, but performed at a higher technological level. For example, there is a fully "digital" side, which allows small enough effort to make improvements and adding new components and assemblies. But there are some notable differences. The Ministry of Defence has not found possible to put in a series of large-caliber gun. Because it requires not only the production of guns, but release of hundreds of thousands of brand new shells that our industry is not issued, the creation of mobilization reserves, etc. At that time it was considered not too important. Therefore retained gun, 125-mm. But by the layout, the fire control system, engine performance transmission, suspension, on the main elements of the dynamic armor and active protection "Armata" fully inherits those developments that have been achieved at "Object 195". Therefore, I see no reason to conclude that the "Armata" will be worse.

"SP": — A few months ago, one of the engineers' Uralvagonzavod "in an interview with" SP "said the" Object 195 "did not start in the series because of the time it exploded important development cooperation links. Therefore, they say, although the tank and was designed for serial production of such high-quality military equipment has already been lost.

— Work on the 195-th object began after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So did some of the technology and cooperation links had to be created anew. But this is successfully done. That is for the work on the "object 195" they were not lost, but rather re-established. In the 90 years were working in parallel on the creation of the T-90A and creation of "Object 195". Restore cooperation ties had in both cases, but the task is successfully managed and for one, and for the second tank.

"SP": — What is the fate of the companies that were part of a chain of cooperative after decided not to run into a series of "Object 195"?

— The vast majority united in Research and Production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod".

"SP": — How are the work on the creation of the tank on the basis of "Almaty was?"

— "Uralvagonzavod" has already said he would speed up their progress over the calendar development work, which has set the Ministry of Defence. In particular, the following year, two prototypes will be ready, "the iron" and start over again to the factory, interagency, and then the state tests.

In addition, the Government has allocated funds under the federal development of the defense-industrial complex in the technological modernization of production and the preparations for a new generation of machines as a matter of "Uralvagonzavod", and the allied enterprises that provide a complete set. There are hundreds of them.

"SP": — The Western press to refer to the MBT based on the "Almaty was" used code T-99. It is official?

— No, as well as code T-95 has never been formally "Object 195". Code number is assigned only after the order of the Minister of Defence for admission to the engineering service. Prior to that she wears in-plant ciphers called "Object". T-99 — it is an invention of Western authors.

"SP": — Not so long ago, was actively discussed topic of possible purchases abroad or to develop their own tanks on a wheeled base. What do you think about this?

— Purchasing foreign samples were not going to. We got to the site in Kubinka some samples of the Italian wheeled vehicles, including a tank with a powerful weapon. Got them for testing of weapons — the study of how this issue is resolved abroad. In Soviet times, too, have made such experiments. In particular, we had a prototype of a tank gun on a wheeled chassis "Sting". But at that time, due to the fact that future large-scale war assumed it was unclaimed. Now the situation is quite different. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence, which sees the main threat to local wars and border conflicts arose the problem dramatically increase operational and strategic mobility of a large part of the Land Forces. Hence the idea to do some average teams entirely in wheelbase. Includin
g samples that will be part psevdotankov. That is — to have a little tank weapons on a wheelbase. But, of course, to the battlefield under enemy fire, such machines can not work. To do this, they have too little protection compared to conventional tank.

"SP": — As far as the conversion of some of our teams on wheeled vehicles is justified in view of our natural environment?

— It all depends on the region. The country is so vast, natural and climatic conditions are so different that they can not speak clearly. For example, in the western theater of war, the south and the Central Asian sector wheeled equipment is acceptable. On the west road network allows you to make operational maneuvers in great depth, and the Central Asian conditions permit, even off-road terrain. As for the Far East, there wheeled brigade apply. Just as in the north-west. There needs tracked vehicles. But I think that the Ministry of Defence and the General Staff work very smart and professional people to distribute the "wheel" Brigade on the right direction.

"SP": — The press has long been discussed reducing the number of tanks in our army to 2,000 units. In your opinion, it is justified?

— First of all, I do not know where did the figure at 2,000 tanks. Second, in the current situation, I think that's enough. In fact, in permanent readiness units is about 2,500 tanks. If you add the military-educational institutions, base storage and repair of weapons and military equipment, that is the first stage of the reserve — is already more than 3000 cars. If we add the mobilization reserve stocks of the second phase, that is the central base of the reserve tanks, that figure will rise much more significant. They are designed to deploy the army in wartime 1.7 million people.

At the moment we have about 40 teams, manned by tanks — is an adequate number. But in the coming years it will still be subject to review and revision by the fact that we will move into three brigades: heavy, medium and light. So now the desired number to call is difficult. Heavy and medium brigades will have tanks, light — no. But it's all lies within the global trends. Reduced the number of tanks in the armed forces of Germany, France, the UK, some countries have abandoned them completely. As a result, thousands of armored forces remained in those countries whose geopolitical situation forces them to have as a base order of battle and the organizational structure of the Army: Russia, USA, China, Turkey and India.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: