Uninhabited tower. Inhabited towers: pros and cons. Revolution in tank building

Despite the recent widespread use of remotely controlled weapon stations, crewed turrets still have a future. Defenders of manned towers argue that there is no substitute for direct visual surveillance on the battlefield and that the use of video and optical surveillance systems can only supplement them to a limited extent.

The fact that there are still companies offering habitable solutions to this day, and that new armored vehicles and upgrades developed by first-line armies, such as the British WCSP (Warrior Capability Sustainment Program - ) and Scout SV programs, receive habitable towers, is a confirmation of the demand their capabilities.

The LCTS 90MP turret is equipped with a digital stabilized day / night fire control system for firing from a 90-mm cannon

Demarcation line

However, the market for towers is multifaceted and Belgian manufacturer CMI believes there is a divide between wealthier NATO countries that can afford more sophisticated technological systems and the rest of the world. CMI focuses on the second market, having spent a lot of time and effort to conquer it.

CMI Executive Director James Caudle said that in non-NATO countries there is very moderate interest in remote systems, on the contrary, because of "faith in the eye" and due to a lack of confidence in the image on the screen, habitable systems remain an integral part of the combat vehicles of the armies of these countries.

However, he believes that the mass-efficiency benefits of Remotely Operated Weapons Modules (RWMSs) are "so significant that the trend of developing and integrating uninhabited systems will continue for a long time to come."

Mass is a critical factor in less developed countries, where infrastructure and physical terrain means it will be difficult to maintain with a total mass of 60-70 tons. Hence, the emphasis is on tactical mobility.

Caudle noted that CMI wanted to offer high lethality at a lower mass and therefore developed the XC-8 turret system, which can accept a gun from 105 mm to 120 mm and can be mounted on an 8 × 8 configuration machine, such as the Piranha III from General Dynamics or AMV by Patria.

And at this year's Eurosatory, an XC-8 turret was fitted to a very similar Korean Doosan DST K-21, although Caudle noted that in Asia the interest was "almost exclusive to wheels" and it is understandable that there is also initial interest in installation of inhabited towers on tracked platforms.

“They are interested in having something much lighter than MBT, but with the same firepower,” said Caudle.

Historical interest

Mr. Caudle added that historically turrets with 90 mm guns were the most popular among large calibers and, although some may have written them off, but objectively there is a need for them and CMI still produces these towers. Also at Eurosatory, CMI's 90mm CSE 90LP (low-pressure) turret was shown on a Textron Commando 6×6 machine, which the manufacturer exports to Colombia and Afghanistan.

The CSE 90LP was also installed on the BTR-3E 8x8 as a "trial balloon" in the upgrade market to see if customers wanted more firepower in combination with lighter vehicles.

CMI has already delivered a batch of CSE 90LP towers and continues to respond to market needs. This tower in the Indonesian army is installed on Doosan Black Fox 6 × 6 armored personnel carriers and was officially put into service in early 2014. "I can guarantee you'll see it on many machines in the next year or two," Caudle said.

CMI also offers the same caliber LCTS 90MP (medium pressure) turret, which is basically different from the CSE 90LP in initial energy, which allows firing armor-piercing feathered projectiles. "This turret can be mounted on Pandur 6×6 or Piranha II 8×8 vehicles with a total weight of 15 tons, which can now destroy a T-55 tank with this type of projectile."

However, he noted that the market for 90mm turrets is not so huge already: “This is the case when the mere desire of companies such as GD is not enough to develop a 90mm turret, so this is to a large extent a niche where CMI has monopoly. It's a good business for us, but too small for a new member or anyone else."

Fully charged

As for the technology of towers, here the most important system, on which the mass of the entire tower depends, is the automatic loader. To get a 105mm turret that has a low enough overall mass to increase tactical mobility, Caudle says manual loading would need to be replaced by an automatic system.

“Automatic loaders are by no means new, but in the context of the 105mm system being sold, I think we are the first. There were other experimental systems. But the difference is what we manufacture to sell to the consumer for real use,” he said, noting that CMI secured its first customer for its CT-CV 105HP tower system. In the field of smaller calibers, namely manned medium turrets in the 25-40mm range, there is still room for improvement, here CMI has developed a two-man turret that can also be controlled remotely.

“We haven't formally released it to the general public, but it's actually finished, exists, and fires,” Caudle said, though he didn't say if CMI had a first customer for this particular product.

New Options

“In particular, with regard to the 105-mm gun, it does not make sense to put a new expensive turret on old car, the cost of one significantly exceeds the cost of the other, and then there will be an inconsistency of opportunities. Looking at all the towers, the case for modernization is not so strong,” Caudle said.

The largest sales markets for the company are the Middle East and Asia, also equally important South America and Africa. Caudle said those markets (other than Western) are "concerned about the complexity of the user interfaces that our advanced systems use."

Modern fire control systems can be easy to use, but the problem often arises when an unexpected malfunction occurs and the characteristics of the system change completely. The crew then needs to figure out what went wrong. “That's why in industrialized countries they buy big and expensive simulator systems, so the instructor can simulate an error in the system when the crew is firing. But in many other parts of the world, this presents a challenge, a whole new paradigm in terms of training and the ability of the operator to deal with the problem,” said Caudle.

"Most of the global market is looking for simpler and less complex control interfaces between a person and a system, and I think this is a big problem."

Improved Features

For the Western and other modern defense markets, there are multi-year comprehensive programs and companies compete for the opportunity to add technologies that increase the capabilities of the towers.

The German manufacturer Rheinmetall manufactures the Lancer turret. Andreas Riedel, head of the tower manufacturing division, said that it has modern system fire control (FCS) with a third-generation thermal imager, a high-resolution camera and a 10 km laser rangefinder with a fully stabilized aiming line for the commander and gunner. The SLA of this tower includes additional systems of information awareness and recognition and tracking of targets.

The Lancer tower has digital systems and electric drives, the tower no longer has hydraulics. The armor provides STANAG Level 4 protection, which can be upgraded to Level 5 or 6 to enhance frontal protection. The tower can also be equipped with anti-tank missile systems in order to increase firepower to destroy targets with enhanced protection.

The tower was deployed by the Spanish marines on four Piranha IIIC machines, which were delivered at the end of 2012.

“Originally, the program wanted to install OTO Melara Hitfist medium-caliber turrets on four of these vehicles, but they looked at what Hitfist had to offer in terms of performance and level of technology, and then the Spanish infantry decided to install Lancer turrets,” boasted Riedel.

Minimum Modifications

The Lancer turret was proposed for the Canadian melee vehicle program before it was cancelled. Rheinmetall offers it for the ARTEC Boxer platform, although it is also compatible with other 8x8 chassis.

It is possible to upgrade older BMPs of the Rheinmetall Marder type and install this turret on other armored vehicles.

“You don't need to modify the machine other than maybe space for the turret and basket,” Riedel said. “The Marder has a 20mm turret and you can easily replace it with minimal modifications to the machine and without modifying the turret.”

He added that most customers want to upgrade the firepower, which means larger calibers, more types of ammunition with different effects, plus a modern SLA. Movement to more large calibers- This is the use of special types of ammunition, such as armor-piercing and universal air blast.

Rheinmetall also offers additional features, such as increasing the ammunition capacity of ready-made ammunition in the turret to 252 pieces. The turret also allows you to meet the needs of the 40-mm caliber by installing the ATK MK44 Bushmaster cannon.

Inhabited towers: pros and cons

Like CMI's Caudle, Mr. Riedel also believes that the crew turret market has a bright future, as the need for a direct view of the battlefield will remain paramount for fighters for a long time to come. He argues that there are not as many advantages to using remote turrets as is commonly believed.

Riedel noted that claims that DBMs save mass and are lighter compared to their habitable counterparts are false. “That's not entirely true. In comparisons like this, people deliberately forget that uninhabited towers need a crew to operate them, and if you need a crew of two, then you have to place the commander and gunner, their full human-machine interface plus their seats somewhere inside the vehicle.

“The DUBM is cheaper because there are a significant number of subsystems built into these towers, but they have worse protection. If you need a certain level of capability, such as 24/7 search and strike capabilities, then two optical systems are needed, one for the panoramic view system and one for the commander. This is what determines the price level.”

“There are many subsystems and the same can be said about protection. Uninhabited towers are not cheaper just because there are no people in them.”

Various options

The South African company Denel Land Systems does not consider the market as a purely market for towers, rather it provides complex combat systems that include and vehicle for the tower. Chief Executive Steven Burger said that there are markets for remote and manned towers and this is often a matter of doctrine and customer preference.

He noted that customers are quite savvy and know what they want regarding tower solutions, while noting the contract with Malaysia for the Badger machine, which is a combination of an FNSS 8 × 8 chassis, a Thales control system and a Denel tower.

“I have a large order in Malaysia for the supply of turrets for infantry fighting vehicles and there are three solutions: a 30mm cannon in a manned turret, a combination of 30mm and ATGM, and the third is a remote system. As part of the IFV user requirement, they recognized the fact that they needed all solutions.”

The Malaysian Badger fleet will consist of 69 vehicles with 30mm turrets, 54 vehicles with ATGMs and 30mm guns, and 54 vehicles with remotely controlled turrets.

Modular approach

From the point of view of the Burger, if the vehicle is involved in offensive operations, then inhabited towers are preferable. If the vehicle is in the command variant and the turret is needed for self-defense, then the remote variant is preferable.

“Modularity is very important and then two types of towers are needed. One high end, fully stabilized with night capability, something comparable to a tank, but smaller and lighter. As well as a tower of the lowest technical level, and both of them are necessary.

He added that firepower today is not the only requirement for a tower. Stabilization, night sights, integrated FCS and the ability of sights to conduct reconnaissance for identification with the correct coordinated operation of all systems are very important.

The vehicles must also be able to be dual-used to operate as a command variant, in which case the software must also be functionally flexible. In addition, protection, accuracy and ease of replenishment of ammunition should be taken into account, which, according to Burger, is very important for inhabited towers.

Key Component

The most important part of the tower is its fundamental meaning - the tool. A joint venture between BAE Systems and Nexter, CTAI is in the process of qualifying weapons for the British Ministry of Defense and the French Arms Procurement Authority, which will be installed on the next generation of armored vehicles.

A CTAI spokesman said that the 40mm cannon has received a full safety certificate from the British Ministry of Defense for armor-piercing and practical rounds. Qualification of the high-explosive point detonation projectile is currently underway, the certification of which will be completed in mid-2015, followed by an airburst munition. This will be followed by firing tests from the British WCSP and later the Scout SV.

“CTAI is working with the Department of Defense to issue a serial production contract. According to the plan, the vehicles should be delivered in 2017 and we need to have weapons ready for integration so that Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics can do their part of the work, ”he said.

The company will be ready next year for a mass production contract, then around 2018-2019, CTAI will begin deliveries for the French EBRC machine.

After conducting assessments in 2008, the British Ministry of Defense found that 40 mm weapons are necessary to deal with large targets. A company representative said that the problem is that when weapons of this size are installed in the tower for the crew, there is not enough space left. Even in the case of the 35 mm cannon mounted on the CV90 BMP, the shooter's body touches the turret on one side and weapons on the other, and he cannot see another person until the barrel rises and the breech inside the turret lowers.

A spokesperson for the company said that CTAI actually solved this problem by removing the back of the breech, turning it around and moving the inductor to the side.

I will not analyze in detail all the already identified shortcomings of this supposedly newest tank. I will just list them. It's weird, cardboard looking armor. This is an unfinished transmission. This is an ancient smoothbore gun. This is an unfinished optical guidance system. It is the presence of an overly powerful radar station(radar). This is an outrageously high price. This is generally a non-compliance of the tank with the requirements of the Ministry of Defense.

I will not dwell on the statements of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin that all tank-building countries (USA, Germany, France, Israel) are allegedly 15-20 years behind Russia. This enchanting nonsense has also already been commented on. Only very narrow-minded quilted jackets, accustomed to believing everything that pours out on them from the TV, can believe this nonsense.

New in the Armata tank is only the engine with transmission, radar and uninhabited turret. Here we are gradually approaching the main thing. I will touch on just one point, which, in my opinion, is the key to this "miracle", and which makes this tank a dull shit.

Automatic loader - disposable tank.

Why did they make an uninhabited tower in the new tank? The official answer reads: "an uninhabited tower and an armored capsule in which the crew remains intact even when the ammunition is blown up." And why should the ammunition explode? And from the fact that the designers of the tank left in it an ancient Soviet automatic loader, thanks to which the entire ammunition load of the tank is located in the turret compartment. In all previous Soviet tanks with an automatic loader (T-72, T-80, T-90), the commander and gunner actually sat on the ammunition load, and the driver in front of the ammunition load. If the ammunition was damaged when a projectile or rocket hit, then, depending on the degree of damage, it either caught fire or immediately exploded. In the first case, the tank crew has a chance to survive (and the driver has more of them), in the second case there is no chance. That is, the crew of a Soviet tank sits on powder keg ready to explode at any moment.

How often is the ammunition load of Soviet tanks damaged in battle? Look at the photos from Ukraine, how many wrecked tanks with the turret torn off on both sides. This is a standard situation for Soviet tanks. Actually, soviet tanks with an automatic loader - these are disposable tanks. They live in battle until the first (maximum - second) hit. Because after the explosion of ammunition, they are not repairable. During World War II, supposedly the world's best Soviet medium tank The T-34 had the nickname "Common Grave". With good reason, you can also call all Soviet tanks with an automatic loader. That is, all the tanks that are now in service with the Russian army.

Automatic loader - Soviet / Russian exclusive.

Do foreign tanks have a loading author? Not anymore. Used to be with the French. They abandoned it, returning to the old, time-tested, manual loading. That is, the clown Rogozin can rightfully say that all Russian tanks have no analogues in the world. Only this will not be a plus for our tanks, but a minus.

For all foreign tanks, the ammunition is actually located outside the tank turret, behind an armored curtain. The curtain opens for a short time while the loader takes the next projectile. The rest of the time, the armored curtain is closed, and the ammunition is separated from the tank and crew. In the event of an ammunition detonation, the energy of the explosion mainly propagates upward due to the specific design of the projectile storage. Therefore, the maximum that happens to a foreign tank when the ammunition load is blown up is the jamming of the turret. The tank itself does not lose mobility, and can leave the battlefield on its own.

The disadvantages of the automatic loader are unrecoverable.

And so we created an allegedly absolutely new and coolest Russian tank "Armata" in the world with a dense problem that has been around for several decades. How did the designers solve the problem of the explosiveness of the ammunition load? They put the entire crew into a special armored capsule. This is a half solution. Yes, the crew got more chances to survive. But the tank will still explode when a projectile or rocket hits it, and turn into a pile of scrap metal, in which (or next to which) an armored capsule with a crew will lie.

Great idea! A battle is going on around, bullets and shells are whistling, and the crew (if they survived and were not injured as a result of an explosion of ammunition) either gets out of it during the battle and gets to their own on foot, or sits until the end of the battle in an armored capsule, and then gets on foot to theirs.

Look at YouTube for a bunch of videos of the explosion of Soviet tank ammunition. Look there at the work of the American Javelin anti-tank missile against Soviet tanks. It explodes above the tank turret, exactly above the ammunition load, causing the ammunition to explode. The dynamic protection of the tank in this case is absolutely useless. The expensive Armata will be as disposable as all previous Soviet tanks. Only many times more expensive. Who needs this shit? Who will buy it in this case?

All other shortcomings of the "Armata" in comparison with the automatic loader seem ridiculous and not serious. Who came up with and approved this insanity? Who is responsible for this, and how? The case with "Armata" is another proof of the degradation of the Russian elites.

The LCTS 90MP turret is equipped with a digital stabilized day / night fire control system for firing from a 90-mm cannon

Despite the recent widespread use of remotely controlled weapon stations, crewed turrets still have a future.

Defenders of manned towers argue that there is no substitute for direct visual surveillance on the battlefield and that the use of video and optical surveillance systems can only supplement them to a limited extent.

The fact that there are still companies offering habitable solutions to this day, and that new armored vehicles and upgrades developed by front-line armies, such as the British WCSP (Warrior Capability Sustainment Program) and Scout SV programs, are getting habitable towers, is a confirmation of the demand for their capabilities.

Demarcation line

However, the market for towers is multifaceted and Belgian manufacturer CMI believes there is a divide between wealthier NATO countries that can afford more sophisticated technological systems and the rest of the world. CMI focuses on the second market, having spent a lot of time and effort to conquer it.

CMI Executive Director James Caudle said that in non-NATO countries there is very moderate interest in remote systems, on the contrary, because of "faith in the eye" and due to a lack of confidence in the image on the screen, habitable systems remain an integral part of the combat vehicles of the armies of these countries.

However, he believes that the mass-efficiency benefits of Remotely Operated Weapons Modules (RWMSs) are "so significant that the trend of developing and integrating uninhabited systems will continue for a long time to come."

Weight is a critical factor in less developed countries, where infrastructure and physical terrain means it will be difficult to support a Leopard 2 MBT with a total mass of 60-70 tons. Hence, the emphasis is on tactical mobility.

Caudle noted that CMI wanted to offer high lethality at a lower mass and therefore developed the XC-8 turret system, which can accept a gun from 105 mm to 120 mm and can be mounted on an 8x8 configuration vehicle, such as Piranha III from General Dynamics or AMV from Patria.

And at Eurosatory this year, the XC-8 turret was mounted on a CV90 tracked IFV and a very similar Korean Doosan DST K-21 vehicle, although Caudle noted that in Asia the interest was "almost exclusively in wheels" it is clear that there is also initial interest in installing habitable towers on tracked platforms.

“They are interested in having something much lighter than MBT, but with the same firepower,” said Caudle.

Historical interest

Mr Caudle added that historically turrets with 90mm guns were the most popular among large calibers and although some may have written them off, objectively there is a need for them and CMI still produces these turrets. Also at Eurosatory, CMI's 90mm CSE 90LP (low-pressure) turret was shown on a Textron Commando 6x6 machine, which the manufacturer exports to Colombia and Afghanistan.

The CSE 90LP was also installed on the BTR-3E 8x8 as a "trial balloon" in the upgrade market to see if customers wanted more firepower in combination with lighter vehicles.

CMI has already delivered a batch of CSE 90LP towers and continues to respond to market needs. This tower in the Indonesian army is installed on Doosan Black Fox 6x6 armored personnel carriers and was officially put into service in early 2014. "I can guarantee you'll see it on many machines in the next year or two," Caudle said.

CMI also offers the same caliber LCTS 90MP (medium pressure) turret, which is basically different from the CSE 90LP in initial energy, which allows firing armor-piercing feathered projectiles. "This turret can be mounted on Pandur 6x6 or Piranha II 8x8 vehicles with a total weight of 15 tons, which can now destroy a T-55 tank with this type of projectile."

However, he noted that the market for 90mm turrets is not so huge already: “This is the case when the mere desire of companies such as GD is not enough to develop a 90mm turret, so this is to a large extent a niche where CMI has monopoly. It's a good business for us, but too small for a new member or anyone else."

As for the technology of towers, here the most important system, on which the mass of the entire tower depends, is the automatic loader. To get a 105mm turret that has a low enough overall mass to increase tactical mobility, Caudle says manual loading would need to be replaced by an automatic system.

“Automatic loaders are by no means new, but in the context of the 105mm system being sold, I think we are the first. There were other experimental systems. But the difference is what we manufacture to sell to the consumer for real use,” he said, noting that CMI secured its first customer for its CT-CV 105HP tower system. In the field of smaller calibers, namely manned medium turrets in the 25-40mm range, there is still room for improvement, here CMI has developed a two-man turret that can also be controlled remotely.

“We haven't formally released it to the general public, but it's actually finished, exists, and fires,” Caudle said, though he didn't say if CMI had a first customer for this particular product.

“In particular, with regard to the 105-mm gun, it does not make sense to put a new expensive turret on an old machine, the cost of one significantly exceeds the cost of the other, and then there will be an inconsistency in capabilities. Looking at all the towers, the case for modernization is not so strong,” Caudle said.

The largest sales markets for the company are the Middle East and Asia, South America and Africa are also equally important. Caudle said those markets (other than Western) are "concerned about the complexity of the user interfaces that our advanced systems use."

Modern fire control systems can be easy to use, but the problem often arises when an unexpected malfunction occurs and the characteristics of the system change completely. The crew then needs to figure out what went wrong. “That's why in industrialized countries they buy big and expensive simulator systems, so the instructor can simulate an error in the system when the crew is firing. But in many other parts of the world, this presents a challenge, a whole new paradigm in terms of training and the ability of the operator to deal with the problem,” said Caudle.

"Most of the global market is looking for simpler and less complex control interfaces between a person and a system, and I think this is a big problem."

Improved Features

For the Western and other modern defense markets, there are multi-year comprehensive programs and companies compete for the opportunity to add technologies that increase the capabilities of the towers.

The German manufacturer Rheinmetall manufactures the Lancer turret. Andreas Riedel, head of the turret manufacturing division, said that it has a modern fire control system (FCS) with a third-generation thermal imager, a high-resolution camera and a 10 km laser rangefinder with a fully stabilized line of sight for the commander and gunner. The SLA of this tower includes additional systems of information awareness and recognition and tracking of targets.

The Lancer tower has digital systems and electric drives, the tower no longer has hydraulics. The armor provides STANAG Level 4 protection, which can be upgraded to Level 5 or 6 to enhance frontal protection. Anti-tank missile systems can also be installed on the tower in order to increase firepower to destroy targets with enhanced protection.

The tower was deployed by the Spanish Marine Corps on four Piranha IIIC vehicles, which were delivered at the end of 2012.

“Originally, the program wanted to install OTO Melara Hitfist medium-caliber turrets on four of these vehicles, but they looked at what Hitfist had to offer in terms of performance and level of technology, and then the Spanish infantry decided to install Lancer turrets,” boasted Riedel.

Minimum Modifications

The Lancer turret was proposed for the Canadian melee vehicle program before it was cancelled. Rheinmetall offers it for the ARTEC Boxer platform, although it is also compatible with other 8x8 chassis.

It is possible to upgrade older BMPs of the Rheinmetall Marder type and install this turret on other armored vehicles.

“You don't need to modify the machine other than maybe space for the turret and basket,” Riedel said. “The Marder has a 20mm turret and you can easily replace it with minimal modifications to the machine and without modifying the turret.”

He added that most customers want to upgrade the firepower, which means larger calibers, more types of ammunition with different effects, plus a modern SLA. The movement towards larger calibers is the use of special types of ammunition, such as armor-piercing and universal air blast.

Rheinmetall also offers additional features, such as increasing the ammunition capacity of ready-made ammunition in the turret to 252 pieces. The turret also allows you to meet the needs of the 40-mm caliber by installing the ATK MK44 Bushmaster cannon.

Pros and cons

Like CMI's Caudle, Mr. Riedel also believes that the crew turret market has a bright future, as the need for a direct view of the battlefield will remain paramount for fighters for a long time to come. He argues that there are not as many advantages to using remote turrets as is commonly believed.

Riedel noted that claims that DBMs save mass and are lighter compared to their habitable counterparts are false. “That's not entirely true. In comparisons like this, people deliberately forget that uninhabited towers need a crew to operate them, and if you need a crew of two, then you have to place the commander and gunner, their full human-machine interface plus their seats somewhere inside the vehicle.

“The DUBM is cheaper because there are a significant number of subsystems built into these towers, but they have worse protection. If you need a certain level of capability, such as 24/7 search and strike capabilities, then two optical systems are needed, one for the panoramic view system and one for the commander. This is what determines the price level.”

“There are many subsystems and the same can be said about protection. Uninhabited towers are not cheaper just because there are no people in them.”

Various options

The South African company Denel Land Systems does not see the market as purely a turret market, rather it provides integrated combat systems that include a turret vehicle. Chief Executive Steven Burger said that there are markets for remote and manned towers and this is often a matter of doctrine and customer preference.

He noted that customers are quite savvy and know what they want regarding tower solutions, while noting the contract with Malaysia for the Badger machine, which is a combination of an FNSS 8x8 chassis, a Thales control system and a Denel tower.

“I have a large order in Malaysia for the supply of turrets for infantry fighting vehicles and there are three solutions: a 30mm cannon in a manned turret, a combination of 30mm and ATGM, and the third is a remote system. As part of the IFV user requirement, they recognized the fact that they needed all solutions.”

The Malaysian Badger fleet will consist of 69 vehicles with 30mm turrets, 54 vehicles with ATGMs and 30mm guns, and 54 vehicles with remotely controlled turrets.

Modular approach

From the point of view of the Burger, if the vehicle is involved in offensive operations, then inhabited towers are preferable. If the vehicle is in the command variant and the turret is needed for self-defense, then the remote variant is preferable.

“Modularity is very important and then two types of towers are needed. One high end, fully stabilized with night capability, something comparable to a tank, but smaller and lighter. As well as a tower of the lowest technical level, and both of them are necessary.

He added that firepower today is not the only requirement for a tower. Stabilization, night sights, integrated FCS and the ability of sights to conduct reconnaissance for identification with the correct coordinated operation of all systems are very important.

The vehicles must also be able to be dual-used to operate as a command variant, in which case the software must also be functionally flexible. In addition, protection, accuracy and ease of replenishment of ammunition should be taken into account, which, according to Burger, is very important for inhabited towers.

Key Component

The most important part of the tower is its fundamental meaning - the tool. A joint venture between BAE Systems and Nexter, CTAI is in the process of qualifying weapons for the British Ministry of Defense and the French Arms Procurement Authority, which will be installed on the next generation of armored vehicles.

A CTAI spokesman said that the 40mm cannon has received a full safety certificate from the British Ministry of Defense for armor-piercing and practical rounds. Qualification of the high-explosive point detonation projectile is currently underway, the certification of which will be completed in mid-2015, followed by an airburst munition. This will be followed by firing tests from the British WCSP and later the Scout SV.

“CTAI is working with the Department of Defense to issue a serial production contract. According to the plan, the vehicles should be delivered in 2017 and we need to have weapons ready for integration so that Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics can do their part of the work, ”he said.

The company will be ready next year for a mass production contract, then around 2018-2019, CTAI will begin deliveries for the French EBRC machine.

After conducting assessments in 2008, the British Ministry of Defense found that 40 mm weapons are necessary to deal with large targets. A company representative said that the problem is that when weapons of this size are installed in the tower for the crew, there is not enough space left. Even in the case of the 35 mm cannon mounted on the CV90 BMP, the shooter's body touches the turret on one side and weapons on the other, and he cannot see another person until the barrel rises and the breech inside the turret lowers.

A spokesperson for the company said that CTAI actually solved this problem by removing the back of the breech, turning it around and moving the inductor to the side.

Materials used:
www.shephardmedia.com
www.cmigroupe.com
www.rheinmetall.com
www.denellandsystems.co.za
www.cta-international.com
www.baesystems.com

In the 80s - early 90s in the leading tank-producing countries - the USSR, the USA, Germany, France, the development of a promising tank was actively carried out. At the same time, active search decisions on the layout, composition of the crew and the distribution of its tasks. Improving the characteristics of the tank could be achieved by reducing the crew by installing an automatic loader, this decision was made in all promising developments in Western countries. This made it possible to reduce the internal volume of the tank, strengthen the armor without a significant increase in mass.

The development of electronics and automation tools made it possible to go even further in the development of the layout, reducing the crew to two people. Reducing the crew to two people allows solving a number of problematic issues: increasing protection, duplicating the work of the crew, better meeting ergonomic requirements, reducing the weight and dimensions of the tank. At the same time, there are a number of unresolved issues related to crew congestion and unit management.

The choice of tank layout and crew composition was a very topical issue, both in the USSR and in Western countries, and the final point on this issue has not yet been set.

The material considers a number of concepts for the layout of a promising tank in the United States, studied in the late 80s, early 90s by the tactical and technological department of the agency for the development of promising projects DARPA and their comparison with some well-known developments carried out in the former. THE USSR.

Tank variant with a crew of 2 and an uninhabited turret
A tank with a crew of two has high mobility, low silhouette. The ratio of the length and width of the hull along the tracks in this variant is close to the ideal 1.5:1, which ensures good agility.

The tank is made according to the six-support scheme of the chassis. The height of the turret corresponds to the height of the Abrams tank turret, but its area is reduced by 50% in the front projection and by 40% in the side view. Reservation of the frontal part of the uninhabited tower provides high protection for the crew compartment from ammunition attacking from above (if the tower is turned forward), in addition, there are additional anti-fragmentation screens above the crew seats.

The center of mass of the tank is shifted forward (between the 2nd and 3rd rollers), since the bulk of the armor (about 9 tons) is placed in front of the hull. The total predicted weight of the tank is 50.3 tons, which, when installed with an engine with a capacity of 1500 hp. will provide high power density (27 hp/t).

The design of the hatches is implemented in such a way that the crew could leave the tank even with the gun lowered. Hatches have electric and manual drives and are equipped with glass blocks for stowed driving. In the bottom under one of the seats there is an emergency exit hatch, which is used in case of damage to the hatches and emergency situations. The crew compartment is quite cramped, allocated 70 cm for each crew member in width.

The total capacity of the fuel system of the tank is 1250 liters, the fuel is partially placed inside the hull in front of the engine, the rest is in the fuel tanks on the fenders in the rear of the hull.

Comparison of the area of ​​the frontal projection of a tank with an electromagnetic gun, a promising tank with a crew of 2 people and an uninhabited tower and M1A1 "Abrams".

For the first time, developments to create a promising tank with a crew of two were undertaken at the KMDB named after A.A. Morozov in the 70s, the work was continued by E.A. Morozov. The prototype of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people was made by the KMDB.

A project of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people, close to this ideology, was developed in Russia by Spetsmash OJSC in the 90s. At the same time, a front-engine layout was implemented, largely due to the reasons for the use of a gas turbine engine. A running chassis layout was made.

Tank variant with a crew of 3 and an uninhabited turret
The next considered option for the layout of the tank is a more traditional version with a crew of three. When creating this option, American experts offered two solutions:

The first involves placing 3 crew members in a line. With this option, it is possible to maintain the dimensions of the tank with a six-support undercarriage scheme, the crew is accommodated in a sufficiently comfortable conditions. But at the same time, it is not possible to realize sufficient protection of the onboard part of the crew compartment. Even with a reduction in the width of the space allocated for each crew member from 70 to 60 cm, the opportunities to provide protection during shelling in the side areas are minimal. At the same time, the railway dimensions do not allow increasing the width of the hull.

In the USSR, this option was proposed as part of the development of a promising medium tank by A. A. Morozov in the second half of the 70s.

The second option is to place two crew members in front and a third one behind them (placing one of the crew members in front is not rational to ensure equal reservation).

This option allows you to maintain a sufficient level of protection of the sides of the hull and satisfactory comfort conditions for the crew. Although the conditions are worse than in the first option, because the legs of the third crew member are placed between the two in front. The vacant volume on the sides of the third crew member can be used to accommodate a supply of food, a dry closet, etc.

At the same time, the length of the hull increases by about 80 cm, the mass of the tank increases by 5 tons. The tank is made according to the seven-support scheme of the chassis with an estimated mass of 55.3 tons.

The project of the T-95 tank, close to this ideology, was developed at the Russian OAO UKBTM in the 2000s.

A variant of a tank with a crew of 3 people with a classic layout and an automatic loader
In all proposed options with the placement of the crew in front of the hull, there are a number of disadvantages. One of the most significant of them, foreign experts call the lack of the possibility of all-round visual observation by the commander. On tanks with crew accommodation in the hull, the viewing angle with open hatches is no more than 270 degrees.

The layout with the placement of the commander and gunner in the turret and the driver in the hull allows for a circular visual overview of the commander. In addition, placing the gunner in a rotating turret eliminates disorientation problems, and there are also opportunities to eliminate a number of delays in firing.

This layout is closest to the French Leclerc tank, during the development of which a number of options for placing the crew in the hull were also considered, as a result, a more traditional version with a low-profile turret was chosen.

The disadvantage of this layout for a promising tank is big mass frontal armor, restrictions on providing protection from above, a large frontal projection area. Another layout disadvantage is the impossibility of using a carousel-type automatic loader due to the requirement for separate accommodation of the crew and ammunition.

When creating this option, two solutions were proposed:

The first involves a divided placement of ammunition, ready-to-use shots are placed in the automatic loader, additional ammunition is placed in an isolated compartment in front of the engine compartment.

The second option involves placing the entire ammunition load in a single volume of an automatic loader located in an isolated compartment behind the turret. This option will require a fairly large and wide tower. This ideology was implemented in a Russian tank developed by JSC OKBTM in the 90s and called the Black Eagle (object 640).

In this case, the commander, in order to ensure a circular view, must rise above the level of the tower to the waist. As the theorist noted combat use tanks R. Simpkin, tank "halfway to heaven" (i.e. very vulnerable to enemy fire). The view is hindered by the roof of the central part of the turret with a rise to provide the required descent angles of the gun.

Implemented the possibility of mutual access from the control department to fighting compartment(when the gun is in the forward position). Both crew members in the turret, commander and gunner, can provide all-round visibility by raising their heads above the level of the turret roof.

Due to the larger volume in the hull, it is possible to use armor materials with a lower overall efficiency, as well as a more powerful FVU due to the increased internal volume.

As in other options for the layout of a promising tank, problematic issue what remains is the implementation of the required angles of descent of the gun associated with the structural weakening of the turret.

The estimated weight of the tank variant with a manned turret was 67.4 tons.

A variant of a tank with a crew of 3 people, with the placement of the commander in the tower
This layout provides good review tank commander, while the ability to use a carousel-type automatic loader in the hull has been realized. Like all variants of the presented layouts, it is not without drawbacks. Among them are the unsatisfactory conditions for placing the commander, the impact on him of the recoil impulse of the main armament, the need to duplicate the systems of the FVU, PPO, etc.

Firepower
When modeling DARPA options for the layout of a promising tank with, the requirements were set to increase the muzzle energy from 9 MJ for the M256 to 20 MJ and an initial speed of up to 2 km / s.

The mass of the active part of the BPS with the master device is 10 kg, the mass of the core is about 5 kg. The length of the BPS with a ballistic tip and plumage is 750 mm. To achieve the required characteristics, a powder charge weighing 20 kg with a volume of 17 liters is required. The selected caliber of the 135 mm gun required the use of separate loading shots.

The caliber of the main armament used for the analysis of promising developments was chosen on the basis of data available in the United States on the development in the USSR of a tank with weapons of this caliber.

In the USSR, the development of a tank with a crew of 3 people with a remote 130 mm caliber gun was really carried out (the commander and gunner were located to the left of the gun), but later (since 1984) a 152 mm caliber was adopted for a promising tank.

When modeling various options The layout of the tanks was chosen by the automatic loader of the company "Ares inc" consisting of a carousel mechanism in the "basket" of the tower. The lifting mechanism raises the container to the firing line, after which the projectile is sent, the container is lowered to send the charge, after which it is sent.

These decisions of the automatic loader of a promising tank are similar to those adopted for the automatic loader of a promising tank of OAO UKBTM.

The automatic loader is replenished with separate loading shots in cassettes in automatic mode through a hatch in the rear of the tower. This is a step forward compared to the manual loading of ammunition, reducing the existing labor intensity of maintenance.

Cannon descent angles -10, elevation +20 deg. To ensure the required angle of descent of the gun, it was proposed to implement a retractable version of the turret roof.

Controlled hydropneumatic suspension by changing the trim of the machine allows you to increase the gun pointing angles in the vertical plane by another -6 / +6 degrees.

Auxiliary armament includes a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun with 10,000 rounds of ammunition. It was supposed to install an additional 7.62 mm machine gun with independent guidance on one of the mast-lifting devices with an ammunition load of 3400 rounds

fire control system
The fire control system was considered taking into account ensuring a high probability of hitting a target (2 m high) at a distance of 4000 m. For this, the firing error should be no more than 0.2 mrad. The requirements for the possibility of defeating low-flying helicopters require turret guidance drives that provide rotation at a speed of 60 deg / s. It was proposed to install modules with sighting and observation systems on lifting mast devices with circular rotation. Each of the modules includes a thermal imaging, television daytime, laser ranging channel. In addition, it is planned to install acoustic sensors and in the future, millimeter-wave radar. In addition, an auxiliary sight can be installed on the turret. It was planned to transfer information via fiber-optic channels.

Protection
The estimated dimensions of the reservation were 1300 mm for the upper part of the hull (700 ... 380 for the lower). 1300 mm for the frontal part of the tower and the protection of the embrasure, a barbet was supposed in front of the junction of the hull and the tower, etc. At the same time, the frontal protection of the tower covers the crew compartment from an attack from above.

conclusions
Based on the analysis of various layout options, it turned out that each has both advantages and disadvantages. The choice of one or another version of the tank ideology depends on the planned features of its use. American developers (DARPA) presented an overview of possible layouts, showing the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

At the same time, it is noted that a tank with a crew of two people has the best indicators in terms of mobility, visibility, and cost.
At the same time, studies on the development of a tank with a crew of two people conducted in the 80s in the USSR did not show solutions that provide tank control for units with such a crew. If the gunner performs the functions of commander of a tank unit from a platoon to a battalion, his tank will be unable to fire. An analysis of the workload of the tank crew also testified in favor of a crew of three.

At the same time, a crew of three provides the ability to simultaneously fire, search for targets, communicate and control the battle of a tank unit. An advantage in this case is the possibility of simultaneous firing from additional weapons - a remote-controlled machine gun or a small-caliber gun.

Sources
1. The problem of reducing the number of crew of the main tank. Yu. M. Apukhtin, A. I. Mazurenko, E. A. Morozov, P. I. Nazarenko. Bulletin of armored vehicles ". No. 6 for 1980
2. An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions. Randall Steeb, Keith Brendley, Dan Norton, John Bondanella, Richard Salter, Teriell G. Covington. RAND, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 1991.
3. THE LAST SURGE OF THE SOVIET TANK BUILDERS (diary of a participant in the development of the Boxer tank). Yuri Apukhtin. Kharkiv - 2009 http://btvt.narod.ru/boxer/bokser_0.htm
4. R. E. Simpkin, Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, Brassey's, New York, 1984.

Since 2006, information has periodically appeared in the media about the creation and speedy entry into the fourth generation tank. Almost a decade has passed, and no one has even seen a prototype image. It is only known that the creator is the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering in Nizhny Tagil. At the parade on May 9, 2014, a new type of heavy weapons is expected to appear in public. For twenty years of development, the project was encrypted in different ways: “Improvement 88”, Object 195, T-95, T-99 "Priority". Sometimes the names “Black Eagle” and “Armata” are also included here. It should be noted that the "Armata" should not be identified with previous projects, and especially with the T-95, this is a completely new product.

In the late eighties, our engineers looked into the future

The design of a new type of combat vehicle began in 1988. The main idea was to increase the survivability of the crew and the possibility of upgrading weapons systems without fundamental modifications to the vehicle. To meet this requirement, it was proposed to make the tower uninhabited. That is, to carry out the aiming of a gun or small arms at a target, to choose the type of ammunition and to make a shot should have been automatic. The crew itself should have been placed in an isolated, well-protected armored capsule. It was supposed to be a tank with a completely new layout and powerful protection. The political upheavals of the last decade of the last century did not allow the full implementation of the plan. And the level of development of electronics of that time would hardly have made it possible to create a highly efficient combat system. This concept was embodied in metal a few years later by the Ural tank builders who created the Object 195. Photos of the tank covered with a tarpaulin cannot help to get an idea of ​​​​the design of an autonomous artillery mount.

Unfinished detective

Due to the high level of secrecy of the fourth generation tank project, confusion arose in the names of the vehicles. It is possible that the discrepancy was inspired by the customer himself, the Ministry of Defense. The details of many developments become known many years later, after the loss of their relevance or the release into wide circulation. There is still a lot of idle speculation about the reasons for the abandonment of the production of new cars two decades ago. In the 90s, domestic tank-building concerns were going through hard times. Each plant was looking for its own way of survival. Omsk tank builders based on the T-80 gas turbine tank developed the Object 640, called the Black Eagle. The car was presented at a private show in 1997 in Kubinka. A little earlier, in 1995, Uralvagonzavod started developing its own version. And this did not really triple the military.

Futuristic exterior

Tank Object 195 was brought to several prototypes. Models listed under the same cipher are far from identical. As conceived by military strategists, the height of the new combat vehicle should not exceed two meters. These parameters, in theory, should have corresponded to the Object 195. The photo, however, captured a car about three meters high with a massive gun mount covered with a tarpaulin. It is unlikely that this is a pre-production sample. An uninhabited tower must be very compact. Most likely, the future universal platform was tested as a mobile base for advanced systems weapons. After all, the military decided to create a universal chassis. One of the modules should be the Object 195 tank. So far no one has been able to get a photo of other designs, if they exist.

Requirements for a 4th generation tank

By the end of the first decade of the new millennium, the concept of a promising tank was finally formed. New fighting machine will be a revolutionary step in the development of land combat platforms. As such, it must comply with the following requirements:

• The possibility of the maximum probability of destroying the target with a projectile.
• Guaranteed survival of the crew in the event of a tank hit by cumulative or kinetic ammunition.
• The combat unit is a segment of the network-centric system of the ground armed forces.
• The chassis should be universal, to be able to place combat vehicles for other purposes on its base, as well as equipment for engineering support of the troops.
• Possibility of gradual modernization.

Weapons out of competition

Object 195 is supposed to be equipped with a 135-152 mm smoothbore gun with an initial projectile velocity of at least 1980 m/s. If the six-inch 2A83 gun is adopted as the main gun, then the ammunition will be 42 units of sub-caliber, high-explosive fragmentation and HEAT rounds. Traditionally, an exclusive feature of domestic vehicles is the ability to launch guided missiles from the gun barrel. Together with the gun, the entire ammunition load also rotates. The automatic loading system provides a rate of fire of at least 15 rounds per minute. Machine guns of 7.62 and 14.5 mm caliber with the ability to fire at as well as four small-sized 9M311 missiles will be mounted on the gun carriage. One of the options for light weapons is a 30-mm automatic cannon, paired with the main gun.

Fire control and countermeasures system

The completeness of the visual information of the situation on the battlefield will be received by tankers not only through observation through. Due to the fact that the crew is deprived of the possibility of all-round visibility (the tower will be uninhabited), the fire control system is supposed to be equipped with a complex of transmitting devices and several screens inside the cockpit. The monitors receive information from other machines of the unit. The crew will see "through the armor" in all directions. To ensure the high efficiency of weapons, the regular radar system and Na laser device the functions of active counteraction to enemy guidance systems are assigned. The active installation itself will find the enemy's optics and neutralize it with a beam of light. The vehicles will be equipped with a “friend or foe” recognition system that excludes defeat from friendly fire in highly maneuverable combat conditions. The complex consists of installations "Shtora-2" and "Arena-E".

impenetrable tank

Object 195 is a heavy tank (compared to its predecessors). The base model T-72 weighs 41 tons, the latest derivative of this series T-90 weighs 46.5 tons. A promising model is 10 tons more massive. Improving passive protection led to an increase in combat weight. Combined layered armor provides for an integrated dynamic protection new generation. The equivalent of the armor system against the impact of sub-caliber ammunition is 1000 mm, against cumulative projectiles - at least 1500 mm.

Power point

The designers equipped the Object 195 tank with the Chelyabinsk V-92S2F2 diesel engine. This is a temporary measure, the power plant does not meet modern requirements. Power is only 1130 hp. with., the mobility of a promising tank slightly exceeds the performance of the main combat vehicle of the previous generation. As a regular unit, it is planned to install a diesel engine 12N360T-90A. The engine is four-stroke, X-shaped, 12-cylinder, with gas turbine supercharging and intermediate air cooling. The cooling system is liquid. Working volume - 34.6 liters. Power not less than 1650 liters. With. provides a thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat vehicle of at least 30 hp. With. per ton. The engine is located along the combat vehicle and is aggregated with an automatic transmission.

The performance characteristics of the Object 195

If we identify a promising vehicle with the T-95, then the characteristics of the fourth generation tank are as follows:

• Maximum combat weight- 55 tons.
• Dimensions: case length 8000 mm, width 2300 mm, height 1800 mm.
• Crew - 3 (2) people.
• Engine - diesel1650 hp
• The speed on the roadway is more than 70 km/h.

The tank is dead. Yes, live the tank!

In 2008, it seemed that the moment was near when tank troops would begin to receive the world's best piece of equipment. Several prototypes of the T-95 (Object 195) were sent for state testing. Two years later, a benefit performance took place in the face of senior officials of the Ministry of Defense. The department has refused further funding for the project. At least this wording is official version within a few recent years. "Uralvagonzavod" at its own expense completed the creation of the project. One of the reasons for the refusal to adopt a new model of a promising tank was the moral obsolescence of the technological solutions adopted as the basis for its development. The general concept of the complex of heavy combat platforms was also revised. The time has come for the modular principle of shaping the appearance of a combat vehicle. The Object 195 was adopted as the basis for the future mobile battlefield system.

So, Object 195 - "Armata" or not?

Obviously, the current project has a different working index. It is also clear that the long-term developments of the 195th project and the Black Eagle will not be forgotten. The leadership of the Armed Forces set the task in 2015 to start production of a new machine. Taking into account the short deadlines for the implementation of the task, "Armata" will embody the main concepts of the experimental predecessors. The layout and technological solutions will be preserved. At the same time, to reduce the cost of production, some components of protection and weapons will have to be abandoned. The T-14 (this designation was given to the new main tank) is somewhat smaller, four to five tons lighter, more technologically advanced and cheaper to manufacture. In order to reduce prices and simplify production, they will abandon the widespread use of titanium passive protection elements.