Tenk T-14 "Armata"

4

Tenk T-14 "Armata"

offline
  • Pridružio: 12 Jan 2011
  • Poruke: 1557

Continuing the cycle of conversations with one of the leading experts in the field of armored vehicles Victor Murakhovski. This time it will be about issues, the immediate prospects of development of domestic tank development, the modernization of the existing fleet of armored vehicles.

- Viktor, now goes to the army modernized version of the T-72. It is known that it is installed Belarus sight "Pine-U", though no sensor navigation system GLONASS is not visible. And the engine - the old V-84 power 840 hp Is it possible, then, to call this a tank "upgraded"?

- In fact, it's just renovated with elements of modernization. Take, for example, a power plant, just now there is no way to ensure tysyachesilnymi engine B-92S2 in the right amount. Otherwise have to close the export, and these engines are going to India, will soon go back to Algeria and other countries.

To Chelyabinsk plant would be able to meet all application needs modernization. CTZ was in a program to modernize the defense industry, it, by the way, must be signed in February. Of course, the money will come even later. And, in my opinion, it will take at least a year to complete this upgrade, and then the production capacity for modern engines to grow significantly.

In the meantime, opportunities are somewhat limited. And so, as I mentioned above, the first export contracts are met.

- How many tanks will have to upgrade? From these figures, too, the mass discrepancy.

- Let us now, we'll stick with data on 170 machines at six billion rubles for three years. Yes, it repairs with a minimum of modernization, the new component in the tank - Belarusian sight. The plans have the option of installing a new tower, like the one that stands on the upgraded T-90C, which last year was first shown in Nizhny Tagil, as well as the partial modernization of the power plant and transmission. Such a modification, of course, much more expensive. But while this option is not passed state tests.

- How realistic is the emergence of a new tank "Armata" in 2013?

- I would really like to see it happen. Machine-it "in iron" yet. All training at the level of design documentation. Previously, it was decided as follows: build two cars, so they were a few thousand miles, had shot several hundred rounds, identify weaknesses, and then on the basis of these tests make the machine that is brought to the stage of state tests.

Walk this way in less than 2 years is very difficult. The problem may ease the fact that the "Armata" will be used a lot of elements that have worked on the tank object 195, and on "Break" "Break 2".

I think that the general layout of what is called the "wagon", and the tower should be no problems. The main issue - the first level of cooperation, the main systems of the tank. On the issue with the engine. I have already said that the engine for the 195 th had already worked out, the transmission of hydrostatic transmission also has been brought. It was only necessary to put them in series, as it was at ten - fifteen items. And companies need to attract substantial cooperation funds for the organization of these industries.

As for the fire control system, it is in the 195-m initial idea was never realized. Krasnogorsk failed, failed to realize the RF channel in the right quality, at the end of it all refused. And so the "Armata" on fire control system to stop at a level that was achieved on a modernized T-90 with the addition of what has been implemented in the object 195 at a good level.

There are issues to improve ballistic protection. Since the time of development of the first 195 already much has changed. You must implement at the present level of ballistic protection, was hit. There are two solutions: to make, based on aramid fibers, what is called Kevlar, is the level that is mastered by our industry, and it can provide the supply, or do on the basis of most modern non-woven materials - fiber-forming UHMW polyethylene, kotoryyobespechivaet much higher level of protection. But here the problem - in Russia there are only pilot plant, with small volumes, which can not satisfy all needs. Again the question of financing to expand production of such materials. Similarly, for armored structures, composites, dynamic and active protection. There remained a number of technological backlog, but to bring them to safely operate the serial products, will require considerable effort and resources.

And such a position on many issues. If you take a tank gun ammunition, there is need to modernize production, primarily at the St Petersburg plant, as well as for the production of propellants, explosives, and the development of new types of fuses and more. In short, there is a chain of problems that must be addressed if we really want to go to an advanced level and put into service the car, which by its characteristics will be superior to all that is in foreign armies.

Perhaps some things can go on temporary compromises, for example, for the same ammunition, according to their most advanced and expensive types. Or is the system of active protection, which can be added later through modularity. In general, unified platform facilitates the permanent modernization of the machine during production and operation. But in other ways, such compromises are impossible, for example, the same basic ballistic protection. This laid the basis for the design, layout machines. The same can be said about the means of automation, the so-called "digital board" where to lay the most advanced developments in the field of architecture and system interfaces.

Krajnje obeshrabrujući tekst kada je u pitanju proizvodnja zaista novog tehnološki superiornog tenka, Što zbog nedostatka fabrika koje proizvode poslednje generacije materijala za balističku zaštitu(u celoj rusiji postoji samo jedna "pilot" fabrika koja ni izbliza ne bi mogla da obezbedi potrebne količine(non-woven materials - fiber-forming UHMW polyethylene, kotoryyobespechivaet much higher level of protection. But here the problem - in Russia there are only pilot plant, with small volumes, which can not satisfy all needs)
TAgil ili T90SM nije prošao državne testove, kao što je još odmah posle predstavljanja rečeno, Kupola i nišanski uredjaji su na približnom nivou zapadnih pandana ali balistička zaštita je i dalje na nezadovoljavajućem nivou, tj, ispod je referenci zapadnih MBT-ova.......
http://vpk.name/news/65316_Svyishe_2_300_sovremenn.....0_let.html



Registruj se da bi učestvovao u diskusiji. Registrovanim korisnicima se NE prikazuju reklame unutar poruka.
offline
  • Pridružio: 08 Sep 2005
  • Poruke: 5746





http://indrus.in/articles/2012/02/29/armata_instead_of_t-90_15001.html



offline
  • Pridružio: 14 Jul 2008
  • Poruke: 3441

Moze li neko od moderatora da promeni naslov teme, projekat se zove Armata a ne Armada. Smile

offline
  • ruso  Male
  • Elitni građanin
  • sta stignem
  • Pridružio: 08 Avg 2011
  • Poruke: 1920
  • Gde živiš: Republika Srpska

Po slikama koje sam ja nasao i usporedio sa onim na temi moglo bi se zakljucit da neke poticu vjerovatno od nekog drugog projekta ili tenka ko ce ga znat ....





offline
  • Pridružio: 08 Apr 2011
  • Poruke: 783
  • Gde živiš: Loznica

Oce li Rusi ostati pri tezini tenka ispod 60 tona ili ce ipak nesto promeniti,gledajuci da su jedni od najboljih tenkova na svetu tezi od 60 tona(M1 Abrams,Leopard 2)

offline
  • Kibo  Male
  • Legendarni građanin
  • Pridružio: 03 Okt 2007
  • Poruke: 7498
  • Gde živiš: gde i mnogi Srbi pre mene

Rockic ne verujem da ce tenk biti toliko tezak ili tezi. Rusi imaju problem sa njihovim glibom, pogotovo u prolec kada se otapa sneg i kada padaju jake kise. Taj glib je jako specifican i zna da "zarobi" cak i gusenicara kao sto je tenk. Osim toga moraju da vode racune kako ce prebacivati te tenkove preko mostova, pa i preko pontonskih, tako da tezina igra veliku ulogu. Takodje velika tezina znaci i potrebu za jacim motorima a sa time ide obicno i veca potrosnja, ne mora uvek da znaci, ali obicno jeste tako. Da dodam jos jedan faktor, a to je vreme. Pronalaze se nove legure i sta ti ja znam sve, sve to postaje lakse, tako da ce mozda biti moguce napraviti veci i jaci tenk ali sa manjom masom. Tehnika napreduje jako brzo, ajde da vidimo sta ce Rusi da pokazu. Samo da ne prave neke nove igracke sa dzoj stikom a kad te zvekne RPG ti ostade bez mooda. To je najbitnije.

Ovo je samo moje razmisljanje, a ja nisam tenkista, i ne volim te sardine koje nemaju bas neki dug vek prezivljavanja na modernom bojistu. Svi protivnicki vojnici ih brate gadjaju, svi. Pitanje je koliko ce biti uopste biti isplativo praviti puno novih tenkova.

offline
  • 1199 
  • Počasni građanin
  • Pridružio: 29 Dec 2011
  • Poruke: 845

Khaless ::



http://indrus.in/articles/2012/02/29/armata_instead_of_t-90_15001.html


ako ja ove slike dobro razumijem: motor naprijed, municija iza oklopljenog djela turele...

sve pet. jedino me malo smeta sto je posada ispod municije... neznaci puno (vjerovatno), ALI. dodir kupole i tjela je na mjestu gdje se posada nalazi. vjerovatno je i otvoren. Neznam kako treba oklopiti skladiste municije da u slucaju izravnog pogotka i "ostecenja" municije posada ostane "funkcionalna"

offline
  • Pridružio: 23 Dec 2006
  • Poruke: 12561

The rock ::Oce li Rusi ostati pri tezini tenka ispod 60 tona ili ce ipak nesto promeniti,gledajuci da su jedni od najboljih tenkova na svetu tezi od 60 tona(M1 Abrams,Leopard 2)

Ispod 60tona Confused

Zadnji ruski tenk koji je bio tezi od 50tona je bio T-10 koji se proizvodio od 1966god (ako je wikipedija tacna).

Svi moderni ruski tenkovi nisu tezi od 50tona. Sobzirom da je T-10 ima masu od 52tone (mozda i malo vecu) mislim da Rusi mogu da idu do 55tona bez mnogo problema. Dakle po tezini u rangu francuskog, japanskog, j.korejskog i kineskog tenka.

offline
  • jazbar 
  • Legendarni građanin
  • Pridružio: 28 Dec 2009
  • Poruke: 16072
  • Gde živiš: Lublana

Kolko ja primečujem, na 3 crtežu kojeg je objavio Khaless radi se o novom vozilu (platforma Armata?) sa motorom odospreda i kupolom od T-90M.

T-90M

offline
  • Pridružio: 18 Jan 2012
  • Poruke: 636
  • Gde živiš: Split

Napisano: 06 Mar 2012 21:44

jazbar ::Izgleda neće biti nekog revolucionarnog rešenja. Tenk koji će teško održati primat na duže vreme. Nešto u rangu Merkave IV, tim da ima Merkava nižu ukupnu silhuetu. Ova kupola na slici ćak je i dizajnerski nazadnija od Black Eagle kupole. Nego zanima me ona t.z. bezbednostna kapsula za posadu, nadam se da će tu Rusi naći neko originalno rešenje. Još sam uvek mišljenja da novi tenkovi moraju imati posadu smeštenu u trupu tenka i da mora biti kupola bez posade. Razlikom smanjene težine kupole ojaćati oklop gornjeg dela tenka.

1. Ovo na slici nije Armata već umjetnikova impresija T-95
2. Kupola T-95 je bezposade jednako kao i Armate no međutim zbog 152mm kalibra topa i municije koja se skladišti u posebnom odjeljku jasno je da kupola mora bit i mora bit velika. Opet ovdi govorimo o umjetnikovoj impresiji ne o gotovom produktu
3. Više puta je naglašeno čak i od strane menađera projekta u intevju da će posada bit unutar tijela tenka. Dapače ako si prati razvoj situacije oko Coalitia-SV te vidia nekakve simulacije onda bi zna da je kupola Coalitia-SV (koja se nalazi na testiranjima) bit na tijelu tenka Armata, a ako si vidia simulacije Coalitia-SV onda bi i vidia kako 3 čovjeka side u tijelu Coalitia-SV jedan kraj drugog u posebnom odjeljku unutar samog tijela Coalitia--SV te logično zaključia kako će identičan ili sličan raspored bit i kod Armate.
4. Kupolu nije tako jednostavno uklonit ako želiš municiju skladištit u posebnom odjeljku van tijela tenka a u tom slučaju kako najviše pogodaka ide upravo u kupolu mora bit dobro zaštićena.

Dopuna: 06 Mar 2012 21:50

The rock ::Oce li Rusi ostati pri tezini tenka ispod 60 tona ili ce ipak nesto promeniti,gledajuci da su jedni od najboljih tenkova na svetu tezi od 60 tona(M1 Abrams,Leopard 2)

Po čemu su tenkovi koje si nabrojia poviše bolji od Ruskog ekvivalenta?

Zapadni tenkovi imaju veću težinu jer imaju veći unutarnji volumen a veći unutarnji volumen imaju jer imaju 4 člana posade a ne 3 ka Rusi. Stoga da bi postiga ekvivalent zaštite moraš potrošit više materijala na oklop tenka odnosno povećat masu.
Zapadni tenkova imaju i do 80% veći unutrašnji volumen od Ruskih, zbog toga nastaje razlika u težini a ne zbog toga šta su bolje okopljeni.

Dopuna: 06 Mar 2012 21:53

wermez ::hehe ovaj put municija ne sme biti na nezgodnoj poziciji

Misliš da je municija T-90 na nezgodnom položaju? Pogledaj malo di je municija smještena kod Leoparda2/Leclera/Chalenger-2.

Na drugu stranu Merkava-4 i Abrams su jedini tenkovi koji imaju potpuno odjeljenu SVU municiju pa in se opet zna dogodit da in kupola odleti kao i kod slavnog T-72.

Dopuna: 06 Mar 2012 21:56

[quote="1199"]Khaless ::

ako ja ove slike dobro razumijem: motor naprijed, municija iza oklopljenog djela turele...

sve pet. jedino me malo smeta sto je posada ispod municije... neznaci puno (vjerovatno),


1. Municija za koju misliš da se nalazi sa stražnje strane kupole se nemože direktno pristupit iz tijela tenka već tenkist mora izać vanka tenka i ručno unit projektile u tenk.
2. Municija se kod T-90AM nalazi u dva zaštičena punjača u samom tijelu tenka tj maknuta je iz kupole.

Ko je trenutno na forumu
 

Ukupno su 874 korisnika na forumu :: 30 registrovanih, 9 sakrivenih i 835 gosta   ::   [ Administrator ] [ Supermoderator ] [ Moderator ] :: Detaljnije

Najviše korisnika na forumu ikad bilo je 3195 - dana 09 Nov 2023 14:47

Korisnici koji su trenutno na forumu:
Korisnici trenutno na forumu: A.R.Chafee.Jr., Aleksandar Tomić, Apok, Ben Roj, bojank, bokisha253, comi_pfc, doloress, draggan, Dukelander, HrcAk47, ILGromovnik, Krvava Devetka, ostoja, Parker, Romibrat, saputnik plavetnila, sasa87, Sir Budimir, Sićko, slonic_tonic, sovanova95, SR-3m, stalja, uruk, vaso1, VojvodaMisic, wolverined4, zlaya011, šumar bk2