Multilayer combined armor. Tank armor Ceramic armor based on composite ceramic elements

For any military equipment, there are three main characteristics - mobility, firepower and protection. Today we'll talk about defense, how modern main battle tanks can confidently and successfully counter the threats they encounter on the battlefield. Let's start with the most important and important thing - the armor.

When the shell almost defeated the armor

Until the 60s of the last century, the main material for armor was steel of medium and high hardness. Need to improve your tank's protection? We increase the thickness of the steel sheets, place them at rational angles of inclination, make the upper layers of the armor harder, or create such a tank layout to be able to make the thickest possible armor in the forehead of the combat vehicle.

However, by the mid-50s of the last century, new types of armor-piercing cumulative projectiles appeared, characterized by extremely high penetration rates. So high that these shells were not supported by armor of either medium or heavy tanks of that time. But on the way there were also anti-tank guided missiles (or ATGMs for short), whose penetration reached 300-400 millimeters of steel. And conventional armor-piercing or sub-caliber shells were not far behind - their penetration rates were rapidly increasing.

For all their advantages, the T-54 and T-55 did not have a sufficient level of security by the end of the 50s and early 60s.

At first glance, the solution to the problem seemed simple - increase the thickness of the armor again. But by adding millimeters of steel, military equipment also gains tons of extra mass. And this directly affects the tank’s mobility, its reliability, ease of maintenance and manufacturing cost. Therefore, the issue of increasing tank protection had to be approached from a different angle.

Anti-missile sandwich

Reasoning in this vein, the designers came to a logical conclusion - they need to find a certain material or combination of materials that would provide reliable protection against a cumulative jet with a relatively low mass.

Developments in this direction advanced the furthest in the Soviet Union, where in the late 50s they began experimenting with fiberglass and light alloys based on titanium or aluminum. The use of these materials in combination with medium-hard steel gave a good gain in armor weight. The results of all these studies were embodied in the first main battle tank with combined armor - T-64.

Its upper frontal part was a “sandwich” made of an 80-mm sheet of steel, two sheets of fiberglass with a total thickness of 105 mm and another 20-mm sheet of steel at the bottom. The frontal armor of the tank was located at an angle of 68°, which ultimately gave an even more substantial armor thickness. The T-64 turret was also perfectly protected for its time - being cast from steel, it had voids in the forehead to the right and left of the gun, which were filled with an aluminum alloy.

Ceramics vs tungsten

After some time, designers discovered the advantages of ceramics. Possessing 2-3 times less density than steel, ceramics excellently resist penetration of both a cumulative jet and the core of a finned sabot projectile.

In the Soviet Union, combined armor using ceramics appeared in the early 70s of the last century on the T-64A main battle tank, where corundum balls filled with steel were used in the turret instead of aluminum alloy as a filler.

T-64A turret armor scheme. The round elements are the same corundum balls that filled the niches in the forehead of the turret to the left and right of the gun.

But it was not only the Soviet Union that used ceramics. In the 60s, the Chobham combined armor was created in England, which is a package of many layers of steel, ceramics, polymers and binders. Despite its high cost, Chobham showed excellent resistance against cumulative projectiles and satisfactory resistance against finned sabot projectiles with tungsten cores. Subsequently, Chobham armor and its modifications were introduced on the latest Western main battle tanks: the American M1 Abrams, the German Leopard 2 and the British Challenger.

Special mention should be made of the so-called “uranium armor” - a further development of the Chobham armor, which was reinforced with depleted uranium plates. This material is characterized by very high density and hardness, higher than steel. Also, depleted uranium, along with tungsten alloys, is used to make the cores of modern armor-piercing finned sabot projectiles. Moreover, its resistance against cumulative and kinetic armor-piercing projectiles per unit mass is higher than that of rolled homogeneous steel. This is the reason for the use of depleted uranium plates in the frontal armor of the turret of the M1 Abrams tanks in the M1A1NA modification (where HA is Heavy Armor).

Semi-active armor

One more thing interesting direction development of combined armor - the use of packages of steel plates and inert filler. How are they built? Imagine a package consisting of a fairly thick steel plate, a layer of inert filler and another thinner steel plate. And there are 20 such packages, and they are placed at some distance from each other. This is exactly what the filler for the T-72B tank turret looks like, called a package of “reflective sheets”.

How does this armor work? When the cumulative jet pierces the main steel plate, high pressure arises in the inert filler, it swells and pushes the steel plates in front and behind it to the sides. The edges of the holes punched by the cumulative jet in the steel plates bend, deform the jet and prevent its further passage forward.

A niche for the combined armor of the T-72B turret, in which those same packages of “reflective sheets” are located.

Another type of semi-active combined armor is armor with cellular filler. It consists of blocks of cells filled with a liquid or quasi-liquid substance. A cumulative jet, breaking through such a cell, creates shock wave. The wave, colliding with the walls of the cell, is reflected in the opposite direction, forcing the liquid or quasi-liquid substance to counteract the cumulative jet, causing its braking and destruction. A similar type of armor is used on the T-80U main battle tank.

On this, perhaps, we can complete our consideration of the main types of combined armor of modern armored vehicles. Now it’s time to talk about the “second skin” of main battle tanks - dynamic protection.

Protecting a tank with explosives

The first experiments with dynamic protection began in the middle of the twentieth century, but for many reasons, this type of protection (abbreviated as DZ) was first used in combat much later.

How does dynamic protection work? Imagine a container containing one or more explosive charges and metal throwing plates. By piercing this container, the cumulative jet causes the detonation of the explosive, which causes the throwing plates to move towards the projectile. In this case, the plates intersect the trajectory of the cumulative jet, which is forced to pierce them over and over again. In addition, due to the throwing plates, the cumulative jet takes on a zigzag shape, is deformed and destroyed.

The first models of dynamic protection worked according to the principle described above: the Israeli Blazer and the Soviet Kontakt-1. However, such a remote sensing device was unable to withstand finned sub-caliber projectiles - these types of projectiles, passing through the explosive, did not cause its detonation. Therefore, the best minds in defense design bureaus began work on a new type of universal dynamic protection that could deal equally well with both cumulative and sub-caliber projectiles.

T-64BV, equipped with Kontakt-1 dynamic protection.

An example of such protection was the Soviet remote control "Contact-5". Its characteristic feature is that the lid of the dynamic protection container is made of a fairly thick steel sheet. Penetrating it, the finned sub-caliber projectile creates a large number of fragments, which, moving at high speed, cause the detonation of the explosive. And then everything happens in the same way as on the first samples of the remote sensing device - the explosion and the thick throwing plate destroy the sub-caliber projectile and significantly reduce its penetration.

Schematic device of universal dynamic protection.

Another interesting example of dynamic protection is the Knife remote control. It consists of containers that hold many small shaped charges. Passing through one of these containers, the shaped charge jet or the core of the finned sabot projectile causes the detonation of the charges, which create many small shaped charge jets. These small jets, acting on the enemy's attacking cumulative jet or finned sabot projectile, destroy them and break them into separate fragments.

The best defense is an attack

“Why don’t we make a system that would shoot shells flying at a tank while still approaching?” This is probably exactly how about 60 years ago, in the depths of design bureaus, the idea of ​​​​creating KAZ - an active protection complex - was born.

An active protection complex is a set consisting of detection means, a control system and a destruction system. When a projectile or ATGM approaches a tank, it is detected using sensors or a radar system and special ammunition is fired, which, using the force of an explosion, fragments or cumulative jet, damages or completely destroys the projectile or anti-tank missile.

Operating principle of the active protection complex.

The Soviet Union was the most active in the development of active protection systems. Since 1958, several KAZs of various types have been created. However, one of the active protection systems entered service only in 1983. It was the KAZ “Drozd”, which was installed on the T-55AD. Subsequently, the Arena active protection complex was created for more modern main battle tanks. And relatively recently, Russian designers developed the Afganit KAZ, designed for the latest tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles on the Armata platform.

Similar complexes have been and are being created abroad. For example, in Israel. Since the issue of protection against ATGMs and RPGs is especially acute for Merkava tanks, it was Merkava tanks from Western MBTs that were the first to be massively equipped with Trophy active protection systems. The Israelis also created the KAZ Iron Fist, which is suitable not only for tanks, but also for armored personnel carriers and other light armored vehicles.

Smoke screens and optical-electronic countermeasures systems

If the active defense complex simply destroys guided anti-tank missiles approaching the tank, then the optical-electronic countermeasures complex (or COEP for short) acts much more subtly. An example of such a KOEP is the Shtora, installed on the T-90, BMP-3 and the latest modifications of the T-80. How does it work?

A considerable part of modern anti-tank guided missiles are guided by a laser beam. And when such a missile is aimed at a tank, the COEP sensors register that the vehicle is being irradiated with a laser and send a corresponding signal to the crew. If necessary, the COEP can also automatically fire a smoke grenade in the desired direction, which will hide the tank in the visible and infrared spectrum of electromagnetic waves. Also, having received a signal about laser irradiation, the tank crew can press the desired button - and the COEP itself will turn the tank’s turret in the direction from which the laser-guided missile is being aimed at it. All that remains for the gunner and commander of the combat vehicle to do is to detect and destroy the threat.

But, in addition to the laser beam, many anti-tank missiles use a tracer for guidance. That is, in the rear of the rocket itself there is a source of bright light of a certain frequency. This light is captured by the ATGM guidance system and adjusts the missile’s flight so that it hits the target. And here the KOEP searchlight installations come into play (in the game they can be seen on the T-90). They can emit light of the same frequency as the tracer of an anti-tank missile, thus “deceiving” the guidance system and leading the missile further away from the tank.

These “red eyes” of the T-90 are the KOEP “Shtora” searchlights.

Screens and grilles

And the last element of protection for modern armored vehicles, which we will talk about today, is all kinds of anti-cumulative screens, grilles and additional armor modules.

The anti-cumulative shield is designed quite simply - it is a barrier made of steel, rubber or other material, installed at a certain distance from the main armor of a tank or armored fighting vehicle. Such screens can be seen both on World War II tanks and on more modern armored vehicles. The principle of their operation is simple: when a cumulative projectile hits the screen, it fires prematurely, and the cumulative jet travels some distance in the air and reaches the main armor of the tank, significantly weakened.

Anti-cumulative grilles operate somewhat differently. They are made in the form of plates, with their edges facing the direction from which a threat to the tank may come. When a cumulative projectile collides with lattice elements, the latter deform the projectile body, the funnel of the cumulative warhead and/or the fuse, thereby preventing the projectile from firing and the cumulative jet from appearing.

Anti-cumulative grilles are especially often installed on light armored vehicles - armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles or tank destroyers.

And in conclusion, a few words about mounted modular armor. The idea itself is not new - 70 years ago or more, crews added a little protection where it was lacking. Previously, boards, sandbags, armor sheets from destroyed enemy tanks, or even concrete were used for this. Today, modern polymers, ceramics and other materials are used that show a high level of protection with low weight. In addition, modern modular armor is designed and manufactured so that its installation and dismantling occurs as quickly as possible. One example of such protection is the MEXAS mounted armor used on the Leopard-1 and Leopard-2 tanks, M113 and M1126 Stryker armored personnel carriers and many other types of military equipment.

That's all.

Use armor correctly, do not substitute weak points your tanks under enemy shells and good luck in battle!

Very often you can hear how armor is compared in accordance with the thickness of steel plates of 1000, 800mm. Or, for example, that a certain projectile can penetrate some “n” number of mm of armor. The fact is that now these calculations are not objective. Modern armor cannot be described as equivalent to any thickness of homogeneous steel. There are currently two types of threats: projectile kinetic energy and chemical energy. By kinetic threat we mean an armor-piercing projectile or, more simply put, a blank with a large kinetic energy . In this case, it is impossible to calculate the protective properties of the armor based on the thickness of the steel plate. Thus, shells with depleted uranium or tungsten carbide pass through steel like a knife through butter, and the thickness of any modern armor, if it were homogeneous steel, would not withstand such shells. There is no armor 300mm thick, which is equivalent to 1200mm of steel, and therefore capable of stopping a projectile that would get stuck and stick out in the thickness of the armor plate. The success of protection against armor-piercing shells lies in changing the vector of its impact on the surface of the armor. If you're lucky, the impact will only make a small dent, but if you're unlucky, the shell will pierce the entire armor, no matter how thick or thin it is. Simply put, armor plates are relatively thin and hard, and the damaging effect depends largely on the nature of the interaction with the projectile. In the American army, depleted uranium is used to increase the hardness of armor; in other countries, tungsten carbide, which is actually harder. About 80% of the ability of tank armor to stop blank projectiles occurs in the first 10-20 mm of modern armor. Now let's look at the chemical effects of warheads. Chemical energy comes in two types: HESH (High Explosive Anti-Tank Armor Piercing) and HEAT (HEAT). HEAT is more common today and has nothing to do with high temperatures. HEAT uses the principle of focusing the energy of an explosion into a very narrow jet. A jet is formed when a geometrically correct cone is lined with explosives on the outside. During detonation, 1/3 of the explosion energy is used to form a jet. Due to high pressure (not temperature), it penetrates through the armor. The simplest protection against this type of energy is a layer of armor placed half a meter away from the body, which dissipates the energy of the jet. This technique was used during the Second World War, when Russian soldiers lined the hull of a tank with chain-link mesh from beds. Now the Israelis are doing the same thing on the Merkava tank; they use steel balls hanging on chains to protect the rear from ATGMs and RPG grenades. For the same purposes, a large aft niche is installed on the tower, to which they are attached. Another method of protection is the use of dynamic or reactive armor. It is also possible to use combined dynamic and ceramic armor (such as Chobham). When a jet of molten metal comes into contact with reactive armor, the latter detonates, and the resulting shock wave defocuses the jet, eliminating its damaging effect. Chobham armor works in a similar way, but in this case, at the moment of the explosion, pieces of ceramic fly off, turning into a cloud of dense dust, which completely neutralizes the energy of the cumulative jet. HESH (High Explosive Anti-Armor Piercing) - the warhead works as follows: after the explosion, it flows around the armor like clay and transmits a huge impulse through the metal. Further, like billiard balls, the armor particles collide with each other and, thereby, the protective plates are destroyed. The armor material can, when scattered into small shrapnel, injure the crew. Protection against such armor is similar to that described above for HEAT. Summarizing the above, I would like to note that protection from the kinetic impact of a projectile comes down to a few centimeters of metallized armor, while protection from HEAT and HESH consists of creating detached armor, dynamic protection, as well as some materials (ceramics).

Since the advent of armored vehicles, the age-old battle between projectile and armor has intensified. Some designers sought to increase the penetrating power of projectiles, while others increased the durability of armor. The fight continues today. A professor from Moscow State Technical University told Popular Mechanics about how modern tank armor works. N.E. Bauman, Scientific Director of the Steel Research Institute Valery Grigoryan

At first, the attack on the armor was carried out head-on: while the main type of impact was an armor-piercing projectile with kinetic action, the designers' duel boiled down to increasing the caliber of the gun, the thickness and angles of the armor. This evolution is clearly visible in the development of tank weapons and armor in World War II. The constructive solutions of that time are quite obvious: we will make the barrier thicker; if you tilt it, the projectile will have to travel a longer distance through the thickness of the metal, and the likelihood of a rebound will increase. Even after the appearance of armor-piercing shells with a rigid, indestructible core in the ammunition loads of tank and anti-tank guns, little has changed.

Dynamic protection elements (EDP)
They are “sandwiches” of two metal plates and an explosive. EDZ are placed in containers, the lids of which protect them from external influences and at the same time represent throwable elements

Deadly Spit

However, already at the beginning of World War II, a revolution occurred in the destructive properties of ammunition: cumulative shells appeared. In 1941, the Hohlladungsgeschoss (“projectile with a notch in the charge”) began to be used by German artillerymen, and in 1942 the USSR adopted the 76-mm BP-350A projectile, developed after studying captured samples. This is how the famous Faust cartridges were designed. A problem arose that could not be resolved by traditional methods due to the unacceptable increase in the mass of the tank.

In the head part of the cumulative ammunition there is a conical recess in the form of a funnel lined with a thin layer of metal (with the bell facing forward). The detonation of the explosive begins from the side closest to the top of the crater. The detonation wave “collapses” the funnel towards the axis of the projectile, and since the pressure of the explosion products (almost half a million atmospheres) exceeds the limit of plastic deformation of the lining, the latter begins to behave as a quasi-liquid. This process has nothing to do with melting; it is precisely the “cold” flow of the material. A thin (comparable to the thickness of the shell) cumulative jet is squeezed out of the collapsing funnel, which accelerates to speeds on the order of the explosive detonation speed (and sometimes higher), that is, about 10 km/s or more. The speed of the cumulative jet significantly exceeds the speed of sound propagation in the armor material (about 4 km/s). Therefore, the interaction of the jet and the armor occurs according to the laws of hydrodynamics, that is, they behave like liquids: the jet does not burn through the armor at all (this is a widespread misconception), but penetrates it, just as a jet of water under pressure erodes sand.

Principles of semi-active protection using the energy of the jet itself. Right: cellular armor, the cells of which are filled with a quasi-liquid substance (polyurethane, polyethylene). The shock wave of the cumulative jet is reflected from the walls and collapses the cavity, causing the destruction of the jet. Bottom: Armor with reflective sheets. Due to the swelling of the back surface and the gasket, the thin plate moves, running into the jet and destroying it. Such methods increase anti-cumulative resistance by 30–40

Layered protection

The first protection against cumulative ammunition was the use of screens (double-barrier armor). The cumulative jet is not formed instantly; for its maximum effectiveness, it is important to detonate the charge at the optimal distance from the armor (focal length). If a screen of additional metal sheets is placed in front of the main armor, the detonation will occur earlier and the effectiveness of the impact will decrease. During World War II, tank crews attached thin metal sheets and mesh screens to their vehicles to protect them from Faust cartridges (there is a widespread story about the use of armored beds for this purpose, although in reality special meshes were used). But this solution was not very effective - the increase in durability averaged only 9–18%.

Therefore, when developing a new generation of tanks (T-64, T-72, T-80), the designers used another solution - multi-layer armor. It consisted of two layers of steel, between which was placed a layer of low-density filler - fiberglass or ceramics. Such a “pie” gave a gain of up to 30% compared to monolithic steel armor. However, this method was not applicable for the tower: for these models it is cast and placing fiberglass inside is difficult from a technological point of view. The designers of VNII-100 (now VNII Transmash) proposed melting ultra-porcelain balls into the turret armor, the specific jet-damping ability of which is 2–2.5 times higher than that of armor steel. Specialists at the Steel Research Institute chose a different option: packages made of high-strength hard steel were placed between the outer and inner layers of armor. They took on the impact of a weakened cumulative jet at speeds when the interaction no longer occurs according to the laws of hydrodynamics, but depending on the hardness of the material.

Typically, the thickness of the armor that a shaped charge can penetrate is 6–8 calibers, and for charges with linings made of materials such as depleted uranium, this value can reach 10

Semi-active armor

Although it is quite difficult to slow down a cumulative jet, it is vulnerable in the transverse direction and can easily be destroyed by even a weak lateral impact. Therefore, the further development of the technology consisted in the fact that the combined armor of the frontal and side parts of the cast turret was formed due to a cavity open at the top, filled with a complex filler; The cavity was closed from above with welded plugs. Turrets of this design were used on later modifications of tanks - T-72B, T-80U and T-80UD. The operating principle of the inserts was different, but used the mentioned “lateral vulnerability” of the cumulative jet. Such armor is usually classified as “semi-active” protection systems, since they use the energy of the weapon itself.

One of the options for such systems is cellular armor, the principle of operation of which was proposed by employees of the Institute of Hydrodynamics of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The armor consists of a set of cavities filled with a quasi-liquid substance (polyurethane, polyethylene). A cumulative jet, having entered such a volume limited by metal walls, generates a shock wave in the quasi-liquid, which, reflected from the walls, returns to the axis of the jet and collapses the cavity, causing deceleration and destruction of the jet. This type of armor provides a gain in anti-cumulative resistance of up to 30–40%.

Another option is armor with reflective sheets. This is a three-layer barrier consisting of a plate, a spacer and a thin plate. The jet, penetrating into the slab, creates stresses, leading first to local swelling of the back surface and then to its destruction. In this case, significant swelling of the gasket and thin sheet occurs. When the jet penetrates the gasket and the thin plate, the latter has already begun to move away from the back surface of the plate. Since there is a certain angle between the directions of movement of the jet and the thin plate, at some point in time the plate begins to run into the jet, destroying it. Compared to monolithic armor of the same mass, the effect of using “reflective” sheets can reach 40%.

The next design improvement was the transition to towers with a welded base. It became clear that developments to increase the strength of rolled armor were more promising. In particular, in the 1980s, new steels of increased hardness were developed and ready for mass production: SK-2Sh, SK-3Sh. The use of towers with a rolled base made it possible to increase the protective equivalent of the tower base. As a result, the turret for the T-72B tank with a rolled steel base had an increased internal volume, the weight increase was 400 kg compared to the serial cast turret of the T-72B tank. The tower filler package was made using ceramic materials and high-hardness steel or from a package based on steel plates with “reflective” sheets. The equivalent armor resistance became equal to 500–550 mm of homogeneous steel.

Operating principle of dynamic protection
When a cumulative jet penetrates a DZ element, the explosive contained in it detonates and the metal plates of the body begin to fly apart. At the same time, they intersect the trajectory of the jet at an angle, constantly substituting new areas under it. Part of the energy is spent on breaking through the plates, and the lateral impulse from the collision destabilizes the jet. DZ reduces the armor-piercing characteristics of cumulative weapons by 50–80%. At the same time, which is very important, the DZ does not detonate when fired from small arms. The use of remote sensing has become a revolution in the protection of armored vehicles. There is a real opportunity to influence the penetrating destructive weapon as actively as it previously affected passive armor

Explosion towards

Meanwhile, technology in the field of cumulative ammunition continued to improve. If during the Second World War the armor penetration of cumulative shells did not exceed 4–5 calibers, then later it increased significantly. Thus, with a caliber of 100–105 mm, it was already 6–7 calibers (in steel equivalent 600–700 mm); with a caliber of 120–152 mm, armor penetration was increased to 8–10 calibers (900–1200 mm of homogeneous steel). To protect against these ammunition, a qualitatively new solution was required.

Work on anti-cumulative, or “dynamic” armor, based on the principle of counter-explosion, has been carried out in the USSR since the 1950s. By the 1970s, its design had already been worked out at the All-Russian Research Institute of Steel, but the psychological unpreparedness of high-ranking representatives of the army and industry prevented it from being adopted. Only the successful use by Israeli tank crews of similar armor on M48 and M60 tanks during the 1982 Arab-Israeli war helped convince them. Since the technical, design and technological solutions were fully prepared, the main tank fleet of the Soviet Union was equipped with the Kontakt-1 anti-cumulative dynamic protection (DZ) in record time - in just a year. The installation of remote protection on the T-64A, T-72A, T-80B tanks, which already had fairly powerful armor, almost instantly devalued the existing arsenals of anti-tank guided weapons of potential enemies.

There are tricks against scrap

A cumulative projectile is not the only means of destroying armored vehicles. Much more dangerous opponents of armor are armor-piercing sabot shells (APS). The design of such a projectile is simple - it is a long crowbar (core) made of heavy and high-strength material (usually tungsten carbide or depleted uranium) with fins for stabilization in flight. The diameter of the core is much smaller than the caliber of the barrel - hence the name “sub-caliber”. A “dart” weighing several kilograms flying at a speed of 1.5–1.6 km/s has such kinetic energy that upon impact it is capable of piercing more than 650 mm of homogeneous steel. Moreover, the methods described above for enhancing anti-cumulative protection have virtually no effect on sub-caliber projectiles. Contrary to common sense, the tilt of the armor plates not only does not cause a ricochet of a sub-caliber projectile, but even weakens the degree of protection against them! Modern “triggered” cores do not ricochet: upon contact with the armor, a mushroom-shaped head is formed at the front end of the core, playing the role of a hinge, and the projectile turns towards the perpendicular to the armor, shortening the path in its thickness.

The next generation of remote sensing was the Kontakt-5 system. The specialists of the Research Institute of Steel did a great job, solving many contradictory problems: the explosive ignition had to give a powerful lateral impulse, allowing to destabilize or destroy the BOPS core, the explosive had to reliably detonate from the low-speed (compared to the cumulative jet) BOPS core, but at the same time detonation from hits from bullets and shell fragments were excluded. The design of the blocks helped overcome these problems. The cover of the DZ block is made of thick (about 20 mm) high-strength armor steel. When it hits, the BPS generates a stream of high-speed fragments, which detonate the charge. The impact of the moving thick cover on the BPS is sufficient to reduce its armor-piercing characteristics. The impact on the cumulative jet also increases compared to the thin (3 mm) Contact-1 plate. As a result, installing the Kontakt-5 ERA on tanks increases anti-cumulative resistance by 1.5–1.8 times and provides an increase in the level of protection against BPS by 1.2–1.5 times. The Kontakt-5 complex is installed on Russian serial tanks T-80U, T-80UD, T-72B (since 1988) and T-90.

The latest generation of Russian remote sensing is the Relikt complex, also developed by specialists from the Steel Research Institute. In improved EDS, many shortcomings were eliminated, for example, insufficient sensitivity when initiated by low-velocity kinetic projectiles and some types of cumulative ammunition. Increased efficiency in protection against kinetic and cumulative ammunition is achieved through the use of additional throwing plates and the inclusion of non-metallic elements in their composition. As a result, the armor penetration of sub-caliber projectiles is reduced by 20–60%, and thanks to the increased time of exposure to the cumulative jet, it was possible to achieve a certain efficiency with cumulative weapons with a tandem warhead.

Aluminum composite armor

Ettore di Russo

Professor Di Russo is the scientific director of the Alumina company, part of the Italian MCS group of the EFIM consortium.

Aluminia, part of the Italian MCS group, has developed a new type of composite armor plate suitable for use on light armored fighting vehicles (AFV). It consists of three main layers of aluminum alloys of different composition and mechanical properties, joined together into one plate by hot rolling. This composite armor provides better ballistic protection than any standard monolithic aluminum alloy armor currently in use: aluminum-magnesium (5XXX series) or aluminum-zinc-magnesium (7XXX series).

This armor provides a combination of hardness, toughness and strength that provides high resistance to ballistic penetration of kinetic projectiles, as well as resistance to spalling of the armor from the rear surface in the impact area. It can also be welded using conventional inert gas arc welding methods, making it suitable for the manufacture of armored combat vehicle components.

The central layer of this armor is made of aluminum-zinc-magnesium-copper alloy (Al-Zn-Mg-Cu), which has high mechanical strength. The front and rear layers are made of a weldable, impact-resistant Al-Zn-Mg alloy. Thin layers of commercially pure aluminum (99.5% Al) are added between the two internal contact surfaces. They provide better adhesion and increase the ballistic properties of the composite board.

This composite structure made it possible for the first time to use a very strong Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy in a welded armor structure. Alloys of this type are commonly used in aircraft construction.

The first lightweight material widely used as armor protection in the design of armored personnel carriers, for example, M-113, is the non-heat-treatable Al-Mg alloy 5083. Three-component Al-Zn-Mg alloys 7020, 7039 and 7017 represent the second generation of light armor materials . Typical examples of the use of these alloys are: English machines "Scorpion", "Fox", MCV-80 and "Ferret-80" (alloy 7017), French AMX-10R (alloy 7020), American "Bradley" (alloys 7039+ 5083) and Spanish BMR -3560 (alloy 7017).

The strength of Al-Zn-Mg alloys obtained after heat treatment is significantly higher than the strength of Al-Mg alloys (for example, alloy 5083), which cannot be heat treated. In addition, the ability of Al-Zn-Mg alloys, in contrast to Al-Mg alloys, to dispersion hardening at room temperature allows you to significantly restore the strength that they may lose when heated during welding.

However, the higher penetration resistance of Al-Zn-Mg alloys is accompanied by their increased susceptibility to armor spalling due to reduced impact toughness.

A three-layer composite board, due to the presence of layers with different mechanical properties in its composition, is an example of the optimal combination of hardness, strength and impact strength. It is commercially designated Tristrato and is patented in Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Israel and South Africa.

Fig.1.

Right: Tristrato armor plate sample;

left: cross section showing the Brinell hardness (HB) of each layer.

Ballistic characteristics

Tests of the plates were carried out at several military training grounds in Italy and beyond. Tristrato thickness from 20 to 50 mm by firing with various types of ammunition (various types of 7.62-, 12.7-, and 14.5-mm armor-piercing bullets and 20-mm armor-piercing shells).

During the testing process, the following indicators were determined:

at various fixed impact velocities, the values ​​of the meeting angles corresponding to the penetration frequencies of 0.50 and 0.95 were determined;

at various fixed meeting angles, impact velocities corresponding to a penetration frequency of 0.5 were determined.

For comparison, parallel tests were carried out on monolithic control plates made of alloys 5083, 7020, 7039 and 7017. The test results showed that the armor plate Tristrato provides increased resistance to penetration by selected armor-piercing weapons with a caliber of up to 20 mm. This allows for a significant reduction in weight per unit of protected area compared to traditional monolithic slabs while ensuring the same durability. For the case of shelling with 7.62 mm armor-piercing bullets at an impact angle of 0°, the following reduction in mass is provided, necessary to ensure equal durability:

32% compared to alloy 5083

21% compared to alloy 7020

14% compared to alloy 7039

10% compared to alloy 7017

At an impact angle of 0°, the impact velocity, corresponding to a penetration frequency of 0.5, increases compared to monolithic plates made of alloys 7039 and 7017 by 4...14%, depending on the type of base alloy, armor thickness and type of ammunition. The composite plate is special -but effective for protection against 20mm shells FSP , when fired upon, this characteristic increases by 21%.

The increased durability of the Tristrato plate is explained by the combination of high resistance to bullet (projectile) penetration due to the presence of a solid central element with the ability to hold fragments that arise when the central layer is pierced by a plastic rear layer, which itself does not produce fragments.

Plastic layer on the back Tristrato plays an important role in preventing armor spalls. This effect is enhanced by the possibility of detachment of the plastic back layer and its plastic deformation over a significant area in the area of ​​impact.

This is an important mechanism for resisting slab penetration. Tristrato . The peeling process absorbs energy, and the void created between the core and the back element can trap the projectile and fragments produced when the highly hard core material breaks down. Likewise, delamination at the interface between the front (face) element and the center layer can contribute to projectile failure or direct the projectile and fragments along the interface.

Fig.2.

Left: Diagram showing the Tristrate slab's brow spall resistance mechanism;

right: results of a blow with a blunt-nosed armor-piercing weapon

a projectile on a thick Tristrato slab;

Production properties

Tristrato slabs can be welded using the same methods used to join traditional monolithic slabs of Al - Zn - Mg alloys (methods TIG and MIG ). The structure of the composite plate still requires that some specific measures be taken, determined by the characteristics of the chemical composition of the central layer, which should be considered as a “not good for welding” material, in contrast to the front and rear elements. Consequently, when developing a welded joint, one should take into account the fact that the main contribution to the mechanical strength of the joint should be made by the outer and rear elements of the plate.

Geometry welded joints should localize welding stresses along the boundary and in the fusion zone of the deposited and base metals. This is important for resolving the problems of corrosion cracking of the outer and back layers of the slab, which is sometimes found in Al - Zn - Mg alloys The central element, due to its high copper content, exhibits high resistance to corrosion cracking.

Rrof. ETTORE DI RUSSO

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE ARMOR.

INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW, 1988, No12, p.1657-1658

The use of non-metallic combined materials in armoring combat vehicles has been no secret for many decades. Such materials, in addition to basic steel armor, began to be widely used with the advent of a new generation of post-war tanks in the 1960s and 70s. For example, the Soviet T-64 tank had frontal hull armor with an intermediate layer of armored fiberglass (STB), and ceramic rod filler was used in the frontal parts of the turret. This solution significantly increased the resistance of the armored vehicle to the effects of cumulative and armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles.

Modern tanks are equipped with combined armor designed to significantly reduce the impact of the damaging factors of new anti-tank weapons. In particular, fiberglass and ceramic fillers are used in combined armor domestic tanks T-72, T-80 and T-90, a similar ceramic material was used to protect the British Challenger main tank (Chobham armor) and the French Leclerc main tank. Composite plastics are used as lining in the habitable compartments of tanks and armored vehicles, excluding damage to the crew by secondary fragments. Recently, armored vehicles have appeared, the body of which consists entirely of composites based on fiberglass and ceramics.

Domestic experience

The main reason for using non-metallic materials in armor is their relatively low weight with an increased level of strength, as well as resistance to corrosion. Thus, ceramics combines the properties of low density and high strength, but at the same time it is quite fragile. But polymers have both high strength and viscosity, and are convenient for shaping, which is inaccessible to armor steel. It is especially worth noting fiberglass plastics, on the basis of which experts different countries They have long been trying to create an alternative to metal armor. Such work began after World War II in the late 1940s. At that time, the possibility of creating light tanks with plastic armor was seriously considered, since with a lower mass it theoretically made it possible to significantly increase ballistic protection and increase anti-cumulative resistance.

Fiberglass body for PT-76 tank

In the USSR, experimental development of bulletproof and projectile-resistant armor made of plastic materials began in 1957. Research and development work was carried out by a large group of organizations: VNII-100, Research Institute of Plastics, Research Institute of Fiberglass, Research Institute-571, MIPT. By 1960, the VNII-100 branch had developed an armored hull design for the PT-76 light tank using fiberglass. According to preliminary calculations, it was planned to reduce the mass of the armored vehicle body by 30% or even more, while maintaining projectile resistance at the level of steel armor of the same mass. At the same time, most of the weight savings was achieved due to the power structural parts of the hull, that is, the bottom, roof, stiffeners, etc. The manufactured model of the hull, the parts of which were produced at the Karbolit plant in Orekhovo-Zuevo, was tested by shelling, as well as sea trials by towing.

Although the expected projectile resistance was confirmed, in other respects new material did not provide any advantages - the expected significant reduction in radar and thermal signature did not occur. In addition, in terms of the technological complexity of production, the possibility of repair in the field, and technical risks, fiberglass armor was inferior to materials made of aluminum alloys, which were considered more preferable for light armored vehicles. The development of armored structures consisting entirely of fiberglass was soon curtailed, as the creation of combined armor for the new medium tank (later adopted by the T-64) began in full swing. However, fiberglass began to be actively used in the civil automotive industry to create wheeled all-terrain vehicles of the ZIL brand.

So, in general, research in this area was progressing successfully, because composite materials had many unique properties. One of the important results of this work was the appearance of combined armor with a ceramic front layer and a reinforced plastic backing. It turned out that such protection is highly resistant to armor-piercing bullets, while its mass is 2-3 times less than steel armor of similar strength. Such combined armor protection began to be used on combat helicopters already in the 1960s to protect the crew and the most vulnerable units. Later, similar combined protection began to be used in the production of armored seats for army helicopter pilots.

Results achieved in Russian Federation in the field of development of non-metallic armor materials, are shown in materials published by specialists of JSC Research Institute of Steel, Russia's largest developer and manufacturer of integrated protection systems, among them Valery Grigoryan (President, Director of Science of JSC Research Institute of Steel, Doctor of Technical Sciences, professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences), Ivan Bespalov (head of department, candidate of technical sciences), Alexey Karpov (leading researcher at OJSC Research Institute of Steel, candidate of technical sciences).

Testing a ceramic armor panel to enhance the protection of the BMD-4M

Specialists from the Research Institute of Steel write that recent years The organization developed protective structures of class 6a with surface density 36-38 kilograms per square meter based on boron carbide produced by VNIIEF (Sarov) on a substrate of high molecular weight polyethylene. ONPP "Technology" with the participation of OJSC "Research Institute of Steel" managed to create protective structures of class 6a with a surface density of 39-40 kilograms per square meter based on silicon carbide (also on a substrate of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene - UHMWPE).

These structures have an undeniable advantage in weight compared to armored structures based on corundum (46-50 kilograms per square meter) and steel armor elements, but they have two disadvantages: low survivability and high cost.

It is possible to increase the survivability of organic-ceramic armor elements to one shot per square decimeter by making them stacked from small tiles. For now, one or two shots can be guaranteed into an armored panel with a UHMWPE backing with an area of ​​five to seven square decimeters, but no more. It is no coincidence that foreign bullet resistance standards require testing with an armor-piercing rifle bullet with only one shot into the protective structure. Achieving survivability of up to three shots per square decimeter remains one of the main tasks that leading Russian developers are striving to solve.

High durability can be achieved by using a discrete ceramic layer, that is, a layer consisting of small cylinders. Such armor panels are manufactured, for example, by TenCate Advanced Armor and other companies. All other things being equal, they are about ten percent heavier than flat ceramic panels.

As a substrate for ceramics, pressed panels of high molecular weight polyethylene (such as Dyneema or Spectra) are used as the lightest energy-intensive material. However, it is only manufactured abroad. Russia should also establish its own fiber production, and not just press panels from imported raw materials. It is also possible to use composite materials based on domestic aramid fabrics, but their weight and cost significantly exceed those of polyethylene panels.

Further improvement of the characteristics of composite armor based on ceramic armor elements in relation to armored vehicles is carried out in the following main areas.

Improving the quality of armored ceramics. For the last two or three years, the Steel Research Institute has been closely cooperating with manufacturers of armored ceramics in Russia - NEVZ-Soyuz OJSC, Aloks CJSC, Virial LLC in terms of testing and improving the quality of armored ceramics. Through joint efforts, it was possible to significantly improve its quality and practically bring it to the level of Western standards.

Development of rational design solutions. A set of ceramic tiles has special zones near their joints, which have reduced ballistic characteristics. In order to equalize the properties of the panel, a “profiled” armor tile design has been developed. These panels are installed on the Punisher car and have successfully passed preliminary tests. In addition, structures based on corundum with a substrate of UHMWPE and aramids with a weight of 45 kilograms per square meter for a class 6a panel have been developed. However, the use of such panels in AT and armored vehicles facilities is limited due to the presence of additional requirements (for example, resistance to the side detonation of an explosive device).

Fire-tested cabin protected by combined armor with ceramic tiles

Armored vehicles such as infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are characterized by increased fire exposure, so the maximum damage density that a ceramic panel assembled according to the “solid armor” principle can provide may not be sufficient. A solution to this problem is possible only by using discrete ceramic assemblies of hexagonal or cylindrical elements commensurate with the weapon. The discrete layout ensures maximum survivability of the composite armored panel, the maximum damage density of which approaches that of metal armored structures.

However, the weight characteristics of discrete ceramic armored compositions with a base in the form of aluminum or steel armor plate are five to ten percent higher than the similar parameters of ceramic panels of a continuous layout. Another advantage of discrete ceramic panels is that they do not need to be glued to the substrate. These armor panels were installed and tested on prototypes of the BRDM-3 and BMD-4. Currently, such panels are used within the framework of the Typhoon and Boomerang R&D projects.

Foreign experience

In 1965, specialists from the American company DuPont created a material called Kevlar. It was an aramid synthetic fiber that, according to its developers, was five times stronger than steel for the same weight, but at the same time had the flexibility of a conventional fiber. Kevlar has become widely used as an armor material in aviation and in the creation of personal protective equipment (body armor, helmets, etc.). In addition, Kevlar began to be introduced into the protection system of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles as a lining to protect against secondary damage to the crew by armor fragments. Later, a similar material was created in the USSR, although it was not used in armored vehicles.

American experimental CAV armored fighting vehicle with a fiberglass hull

Meanwhile, more advanced cumulative and kinetic weapons appeared, and with them the requirements for armor protection of equipment grew, which increased its weight. Reducing the mass of military equipment without compromising protection was practically impossible. But in the 1980s, the development of technology and latest developments in the area chemical industry allowed us to return to the idea of ​​fiberglass armor. Thus, the American company FMC, engaged in the production of combat vehicles, created a prototype turret for the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, the protection of which was a single piece made of fiberglass-reinforced composite (with the exception of the frontal part). In 1989, testing began on the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle with an armored hull, which included two upper parts and a bottom consisting of multi-layer composite plates, and a lightweight chassis frame made of aluminum. Based on the test results, it was found that in terms of ballistic protection, this vehicle corresponds to the standard M2A1 infantry fighting vehicle with a 27% reduction in hull weight.

Since 1994, in the United States, as part of the Advanced Technology Demonstrator (ATD) program, a prototype of an armored combat vehicle called CAV (Composite Armored Vehicle) has been created. Its hull was to consist entirely of combined armor based on ceramics and fiberglass using the latest technologies, due to which it was planned to reduce total weight by 33% with a level of protection equivalent to armor steel, and, accordingly, increase mobility. The main purpose of the CAV, the development of which was entrusted to the United Defense company, was to clearly demonstrate the possibility of using composite materials in the manufacture of armored hulls of promising infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles and other combat vehicles.

In 1998, a prototype of the CAV tracked vehicle weighing 19.6 tons was demonstrated. The body was made of two layers of composite materials: the outer layer was made of aluminum oxide ceramics, and the inner layer was made of fiberglass reinforced with high-strength fiberglass. In addition, the inner surface of the hull had anti-fragmentation lining. In order to increase protection against mine explosions, the fiberglass bottom had a structure with a honeycomb base. The chassis of the vehicle was covered with side screens made of a two-layer composite. To accommodate the crew, an isolated fighting compartment was provided in the bow, welded from titanium sheets and having additional armor made of ceramics (forehead) and fiberglass (roof) and anti-fragmentation lining. The car was equipped with a 550 hp diesel engine. and a hydromechanical transmission, its speed reached 64 km/h, and its range was 480 km. As the main armament, a rising platform of circular rotation with a 25-mm M242 Bushmaster automatic cannon was installed on the hull.

Tests of the CAV prototype included studies of the hull's ability to withstand shock loads (it was even planned to install a 105 mm tank gun and conduct a series of firings) and sea trials with a total range of several thousand km. In total, the program provided for spending up to 12 million dollars by 2002. But the work never left the experimental stage, although it clearly demonstrated the possibility of using composites instead of classical armor. Therefore, developments in this direction were continued in the field of improving technologies for creating ultra-strong plastics.

Germany has also not remained aloof from the general trend since the late 1980s. Conducted active research in the field of non-metallic armor materials. In 1994, this country adopted Mexas bulletproof and projectile-resistant composite armor, developed by IBD Deisenroth Engineering based on ceramics. It has a modular design and is used as additional mounted protection for armored combat vehicles, mounted on top of the main armor. According to company representatives, Mexas composite armor effectively protects against armor-piercing ammunition with a caliber of up to 14.5 mm. Subsequently, Mexas armored modules began to be widely used to improve the protection of main tanks and other combat vehicles of different countries, including the Leopard-2 tank, ASCOD and CV9035 infantry fighting vehicles, Stryker, Piranha-IV armored personnel carriers, Dingo and Fennec armored vehicles ", as well as the PzH 2000 self-propelled artillery mount.

At the same time, since 1993, work has been going on in the UK to create a prototype of the ACAVP (Advanced Composite Armored Vehicle Platform) vehicle with a body made entirely of fiberglass-based composite and fiberglass-reinforced plastic. Under the overall leadership of the DERA (Defense Evaluation and Research Agency) of the Ministry of Defense, specialists from Qinetiq, Vickers Defense Systems, Vosper Thornycroft, Short Brothers and other contractors created a monocoque composite hull as part of a single development work. The goal of the development was to create a prototype of a tracked armored fighting vehicle with protection similar to metal armor, but with a significantly reduced weight. First of all, this was dictated by the need to have full-fledged military equipment for the rapid reaction forces, which could be transported by the most popular military transport aircraft, the C-130 Hercules. In addition to this, the new technology made it possible to reduce the noise of the machine, its thermal and radar signature, extend the service life due to high corrosion resistance and, in the future, reduce the cost of production. To speed up the work, components and assemblies of the serial British Warrior infantry fighting vehicle were used.

British experimental ACAVP armored fighting vehicle with a fiberglass hull

By 1999, Vickers Defense Systems, which carried out the design work and overall integration of all subsystems of the prototype, submitted the ACAVP prototype for testing. The weight of the vehicle was about 24 tons, the 550 hp engine, combined with a hydromechanical transmission and an improved cooling system, allows it to reach speeds of up to 70 km/h on the highway and 40 km/h over rough terrain. The vehicle is armed with a 30 mm automatic cannon coupled with a 7.62 mm machine gun. In this case, a standard turret from the serial Fox BRM with metal armor was used.

In 2001, the ACAVP tests were successfully completed and, according to the developer, demonstrated impressive security and mobility indicators (the press ambitiously stated that the British were supposedly “the first in the world” to create a composite armored vehicle). The composite body provides guaranteed protection from armor-piercing bullets of caliber up to 14.5 mm in the side projection and from 30-mm shells in the frontal projection, and the material itself eliminates secondary damage to the crew by shrapnel when penetrating the armor. There is also additional modular armor to enhance protection, which is mounted on top of the main armor and can be quickly dismantled when transporting the vehicle by air. In total, the vehicle covered 1,800 km during testing and no serious damage was recorded, and the body successfully withstood all shock and dynamic loads. In addition, it was reported that the vehicle’s weight of 24 tons is not the final result; this figure can be reduced by installing a more compact power unit and hydropneumatic suspension, and the use of lightweight rubber track tracks can seriously reduce the noise level.

Despite the positive results, the ACAVP prototype turned out to be unclaimed, although DERA management planned to continue research until 2005, and subsequently create a promising armored vehicle with composite armor and a crew of two. Ultimately, the program was curtailed, and further design of a promising reconnaissance vehicle was already carried out according to the TRACER project using proven aluminum alloys and steel.

Nevertheless, work on the study of non-metallic armor materials for equipment and personal protection continued. Some countries have their own analogues of the Kevlar material, such as Tvaron from the Danish company Teijin Aramid. It is a very strong and lightweight para-aramid fiber, which is supposed to be used in armoring military equipment and, according to the manufacturer, can reduce the total weight of the structure by 30-60% compared to traditional analogues. Another material, called Dyneema, produced by DSM Dyneema is a high-strength ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber. According to the manufacturer, UHMWPE is the strongest material in the world - 15 times stronger than steel (!) and 40% stronger than aramid fiber of the same mass. It is planned to be used for the production of body armor, helmets and as armor for light combat vehicles.

Light armored vehicles made of plastic

Taking into account the accumulated experience, foreign experts concluded that the development of promising tanks and armored personnel carriers, fully equipped with plastic armor, is still a rather controversial and risky business. But new materials turned out to be in demand when developing lighter wheeled vehicles based on production cars. Thus, from December 2008 to May 2009, a light armored vehicle with a body made entirely of composite materials was tested in the United States at a test site in Nevada. The vehicle, designated ACMV (All Composite Military Vehicle), developed by TPI Composites, successfully passed endurance and road tests, driving a total of 8 thousand kilometers on asphalt and dirt roads, as well as over rough terrain. Tests by shelling and explosion were planned. The basis of the experimental armored car was the famous HMMWV - “Hammer”. When creating all the structures of its body (including the frame beams), only composite materials were used. Due to this, TPI Composites was able to significantly reduce the weight of the ACMV and, accordingly, increase its load capacity. In addition, it is planned to extend the service life of the machine by an order of magnitude due to the expected greater durability of composites compared to metal.

Significant progress in the use of composites for light armored vehicles has been achieved in the UK. In 2007, at the 3rd International Exhibition of Defense Systems and Equipment in London, the Cav-Cat armored vehicle based on the Iveco medium-duty truck, equipped with NP Aerospace CAMAC composite armor, was demonstrated. In addition to the standard armor, additional protection for the sides of the vehicle was provided through the installation of modular armor panels and anti-cumulative grilles, also consisting of a composite. An integrated approach to CavCat protection has significantly reduced the impact on the crew and troops from explosions of mines, shrapnel and light infantry anti-tank weapons.

American experimental armored vehicle ACMV with a fiberglass body

British armored vehicle CfvCat with additional anti-bulking shields

It is worth noting that NP Aerospace has previously demonstrated SAMAS-type armor on the Landrover Snatch light armored vehicle as part of the Cav100 armored kit. Now similar kits Cav200 and Cav300 are offered for medium and heavy wheeled vehicles. Initially, the new armor material was created as an alternative to metal composite bulletproof armor with a high protection class and overall structural strength with a relatively low weight. It was based on a pressed multilayer composite, which allows it to form a durable surface and create a body with a minimum of joints. According to the manufacturer, CAMAC armor material provides a modular monocoque structure with optimal ballistic protection and the ability to withstand heavy structural loads.

But NP Aerospace has gone further and is currently offering to equip light combat vehicles new dynamic and ballistic composite protection of our own production, expanding our version of the protection complex by creating EFPA and ACBA hinged elements. The first consists of plastic blocks filled with explosives, installed on top of the main armor, and the second - cast blocks of composite armor, also additionally installed on the hull.

Thus, light wheeled armored fighting vehicles with composite armor protection, developed for the army, no longer looked like something out of the ordinary. A symbolic milestone was the victory of the industrial group Force Protection Europe Ltd in September 2010 in the tender for the supply of a light armored patrol vehicle LPPV (Light Protected Patrol Vehicle), called Ocelot, to the British armed forces. The British Ministry of Defense has decided to replace the outdated Land Rover Snatch army vehicles, as they have not proven themselves in modern combat conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a promising vehicle with armor made of non-metallic materials. As partners of Force Protection Europe, which has great experience in the production of highly protected MRAP vehicles, the automaker Ricardo plc and KinetiK, which deals with armor, were selected.

Development of Ocelot has been ongoing since late 2008. The designers of the armored car decided to create a fundamentally new vehicle based on an original design solution in the form of a universal modular platform, unlike other models that are based on serial commercial chassis. In addition to the V-shaped shape of the hull bottom, which increases protection against mines by dissipating explosion energy, a special suspended armored box-shaped frame called a “skateboard” was developed, inside which the driveshaft, gearbox and differentials were placed. New technical solution made it possible to redistribute the weight of the machine so that the center of gravity was as close to the ground as possible. The wheel suspension is torsion bar with a large vertical travel, the drives on all four wheels are separate, the front and rear axle units, as well as the wheels, are interchangeable. The canopy cabin, in which the crew is located, is hinged to the “skateboard,” which allows the cabin to be tilted to the side for access to the transmission. Inside there are seats for two crew members and four landing personnel. The latter sit facing each other, their places are fenced off by partitions-pylons, which further strengthen the structure of the hull. For access to the inside of the cabin there are doors on the left side and in the rear, as well as two hatches in the roof. Additional space is provided for mounting various equipment, depending on the intended purpose of the machine. An auxiliary diesel engine is installed to power the instruments. power point Steyr.

The first prototype of the Ocelot machine was made in 2009. Its weight was 7.5 tons, payload weight was 2 tons, maximum highway speed was 110 km/h, range was 600 km, turning radius was about 12 m. Obstacles to be overcome: - ascent to 45°, descent to 40°, fording depth up to 0.8 m. A low center of gravity and a wide base between the wheels ensures resistance to capsizing. Cross-country ability is increased due to the use of larger 20-inch wheels. Most of the suspended cabin consists of armored shaped composite armor panels reinforced with fiberglass. There are mounts for an additional set of armor protection. The design provides rubber-coated areas for mounting units, which reduces noise, vibration and increases insulation strength compared to a conventional chassis. According to the developers, the basic design provides crew protection from explosions and firearms above the STANAG IIB standard. It is also claimed that a complete engine and transmission replacement can be completed in the field within one hour using only standard tools.

The first deliveries of Ocelot armored vehicles began at the end of 2011, and by the end of 2012, about 200 such vehicles had entered the British armed forces. Force Protection Europe, in addition to the basic LPPV patrol model, has also developed variants with a WMIK (Weapon Mounted Installation Kit) weapon module with a crew of four people and a cargo version with a cabin for 2 people. It is currently participating in an Australian Department of Defense tender for the supply of armored vehicles.

So, the creation of new non-metallic armor materials has been in full swing in recent years. Perhaps the time is not far off when armored vehicles adopted for service, which do not have a single metal part in their body, will become commonplace. Light but durable armor protection is of particular relevance now, when low-intensity armed conflicts are breaking out in different parts of the planet, and numerous anti-terrorism and peacekeeping operations are being carried out.