Inhabited towers: pros and cons. Inhabited towers

The LCTS 90MP turret has a digital stabilized day/night fire control system for firing a 90 mm cannon

Despite the widespread use of remotely controlled combat modules in lately, crewed towers still have a future.

Advocates 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 complement them to a limited extent.

The fact that to this day there are companies offering manned solutions, 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 manned towers, is confirmation of the demand for their capabilities.

dividing line

However, the tower market is diverse and Belgian manufacturer CMI believes there is a division between wealthier NATO countries, which can afford more sophisticated technological systems, and the rest of the world. CMI is focusing on the second market, spending a lot of time and effort to conquer it.

CMI CEO James Caudle said that in non-NATO countries there is very little interest in remote systems, on the contrary, due to “faith in the eye” and due to a lack of trust in the image on the screen, manned systems remain integral integral part combat vehicles of the armies of these countries.

However, he believes that the mass efficiency advantages of remotely controlled weapon stations (RCWS) are “so significant that the trend of developing and integrating uninhabited systems will continue for a long time.”

Weight is a critical factor in less developed countries where infrastructure and physical features terrain means that it will be difficult to support the 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 weight and therefore developed the XC-8 turret system, which can accept a gun from 105 mm to 120 mm caliber and which can be mounted on an 8x8 configuration vehicle, such as General Dynamics' Piranha III or AMV from General Dynamics. Patria.

And at this year's Eurosatory exhibition, the XC-8 turret was installed on the CV90 tracked infantry fighting vehicle and the very similar K-21 vehicle from the Korean Doosan DST, although Caudle noted that in Asia interest was "almost exclusively in wheels" it is clear that there is also initial interest in installing manned towers on tracked platforms.

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

Eurosatory 2014 exhibition. XC-8 turret on the CV90 tracked infantry fighting vehicle

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 the CMI company still produces these towers. Also at the Eurosatory exhibition, the 90-mm CSE 90LP (low-pressure) turret from CMI was shown on a Textron Commando 6x6 vehicle, which the manufacturer exports to Colombia and Afghanistan.

At the Eurosatory exhibition, CMI showed its CSE 90LP turret mounted on a Textron Commando 6x6 armored personnel carrier

The CSE 90LP was also installed on the BTR-3E 8x8 as a test balloon in the upgrade market to see if customers would want 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 turret is installed in the Indonesian army on Doosan Black Fox 6x6 armored personnel carriers and was officially adopted into service at the beginning of 2014. "I can guarantee you'll see it on a lot of cars in the next year or two," Caudle said.

CMI also offers the same caliber LCTS 90MP (medium pressure) turret, which mainly differs from the CSE 90LP in initial energy, which allows it to fire armor-piercing fin projectiles. “This turret can be mounted on Pandur 6x6 or Piranha II 8x8 vehicles with a total mass of 15 tons, which can now destroy a T-55 tank with this type of projectile.”

However, he noted that the market for 90-mm towers is not so huge: “This is the case when the mere desire of companies like, for example, GD is not enough to develop a 90-mm tower, 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 entrant or anyone else."

The 105-120 mm XC-8 turret was shown on various platforms, including the CV90

As for tower technology, here the most important system, on which the mass of the entire turret depends, is the automatic loader. According to Caudle, in order to obtain a 105 mm turret that would have a low enough overall mass to increase tactical mobility, it is necessary to replace manual loading with an automatic system.

“Automatic loaders are by no means new, but in the context of the 105 mm system being sold, I think we are the first. There were others experimental systems. But the difference is that we make it to sell to the consumer for actual use,” he said, noting that CMI has secured the first customer for its CT-CV 105HP tower system. In the area of smaller calibers, namely manned medium turrets in the 25-40 mm 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 launched it into wide distribution, but it’s actually finalized, it exists and it works,” Caudle noted, although he would not say whether CMI has the first customer for this special product.

“In particular, with regard to the 105-mm gun, it makes no sense to install a new expensive turret on an old vehicle, the cost of one significantly exceeds the cost of the other and then there will be an inconsistency of capabilities. If you look at all the towers, the case for modernization is not as strong,” Caudle said.

The largest markets for the company are the Middle East and Asia, with South America and Africa also being no less important. Caudle said those markets other than the West are "concerned about the complexity of the user interfaces that our advanced systems use."

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

“Most of the global market is looking for simpler and less complex control interfaces between human and system, and I think that’s a big challenge.”

Improved Features

For the Western and other modern defense markets, multi-year complex programs are underway and companies are competing for the opportunity to add technologies that enhance the capabilities of the towers.

German manufacturer Rheinmetall produces the Lancer turret. The head of the tower production division, Andreas Riedel, 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 line of sight for the commander and gunner. The control system of this tower includes additional information awareness and target recognition and tracking systems.

During the latest tests, the Lancer turret was installed on a Boxer 8x8 infantry fighting vehicle

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

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

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

Minimal modifications

The Lancer turret was proposed for the Canadian close combat 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 modernize older Rheinmetall Marder-type infantry fighting vehicles and install this turret on other armored vehicles.

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

He added that most customers want upgraded firepower, which means larger calibers, more types of ammunition with different effects, plus a modern fire control system. Moving towards more large calibers– this is the use of special types of ammunition, such as armor-piercing and universal air blast.

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

Denel Land Systems, which manufactures the LCT 90 turret, focuses on providing a comprehensive combat system that also includes a carrier chassis

Pros and cons

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

Riedel noted that claims that DUBMs save weight and are lighter compared to their manned counterparts are false. “This is not entirely true. What people deliberately forget when making comparisons like this is that uninhabited turrets need a crew to operate them, and if you need a crew of two, then you have to put the commander and gunner, their full man-machine interface plus their seats somewhere inside the vehicle.”

“DBMs are cheaper because there are a significant number of subsystems built into these towers, but they have worse protection. If you require a certain level of capability, such as 24/7 search and strike capabilities, then two optical systems are required, one a panoramic vision system and one for the commander. This 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

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

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

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

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

The CSE 90LP offers 24/7 operation and a wide target range

Modular approach

From Burger's point of view, if the vehicle is involved in offensive operations, then manned turrets are preferable. If the vehicle is in the commander version and the turret is needed for self-defense, then the remote option is preferable.

“Modularity is very important and then two types of towers are needed. One high-end, fully stabilized with night capabilities, something comparable to a tank, but smaller and lighter. And also a tower of a lower technical level and they are both necessary.”

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

The vehicles should also be capable of dual use in order to function as a command option in this case as well. 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 manned towers.

Advances in gun system design mean more turret space for crew

Key Component

The most important part of the tower is its fundamental meaning - a weapon. 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 the 40mm gun had received full safety certification from the British Ministry of Defense for armor-piercing and practice rounds. Qualification of a high-explosive point detonation projectile is currently underway, the certification of which will be completed in mid-2015, followed by air-burst munitions. This will be followed by firing tests from the British WCSP vehicle and later the Scout SV.

“CTAI is working with the Ministry of Defense to issue a contract for mass production. 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,” he said.

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

After conducting assessments in 2008, the British Ministry of Defense found that 40 mm weapons were needed to combat large targets. A company spokesman said the problem is that when a weapon of this size is installed in the turret there is not enough space left for the crew. Even with a 35mm cannon mounted on a CV90 infantry fighting vehicle, the shooter's body is touching the turret on one side and the weapon on the other, and he cannot see another person until the barrel is raised and the breech inside the turret is lowered.

A company representative said that CTAI actually solved this problem by removing the rear of the breech, rotating it 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

T-14 "Armata" The first place is occupied by the T-14 tank - the newest Russian main tank with an uninhabited turret based on the Armata universal tracked platform. Presented at the Victory Parade in 2015, it attracted the attention of both Russian and foreign military experts. It should be noted that comparison of the T-14 with other tanks goes beyond just tables with performance characteristics. American magazine The National Interest tried to compare the T-14 and Abrams, but noted that the T-14 has many protective technologies that are not found not only in the Abrams, but in no other tank in the world. The Ministry of Defense ordered the first batch of 100 to the T-14 tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod combat vehicles. T-90 "Vladimir" Next on the top 5 list is the main battle tank. Russian army- T-90. The latest modification of the T-90SM tank is equipped with a fire control system that is superior to world analogues. The fire control system allows the crew to hit moving targets, including when the tank itself is in motion, with a high probability of hitting the target with the first shot in almost any weather conditions. In addition to traditional artillery weapons, the T-90 has the ability to fire Invar-M ATGMs . Missiles are launched using the main gun of the tank, missiles are guided by a laser beam in the floor automatic mode.
Between 2001 and 2010, the T-90 became the world's best-selling new main battle tank. T-72B3 Upgraded to the T-72B3 version, it occupies third place. It has a 125 mm 2A46M-5 smoothbore gun with improved ballistics and service life. Thanks to its modernization, it became possible to use new “extended” armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles of the “Svinets-1/2” type. The tank was equipped with the Belarusian “Sosna-U” sight and modern digital communication systems, as well as an automatic loader upgraded for the new projectiles. T-80U T-80 is a unique tank with a gas turbine engine. On the eve of the celebration of Tankman's Day in Russia, it was announced that a long-term contract had been signed to modernize the fastest and most maneuverable tank cars of the Soviet and Russian armies. The tank is equipped with a 1A33 fire control system, a 2A46-2 cannon, and a 902A "Tucha" smoke grenade launch system. Former Minister of Defense Syrian Mustafa Tlas, in an interview with a Shpiegel correspondent, highly praised the T-80 tank. “The new Soviet T-80 is not only comparable to the Leopard-2, but also superior to it, even according to Western observers... The T-80 is Moscow’s answer to “ Leopard-2". As a soldier and tank specialist, I consider the T-80 best tank in the world,” Tlas said.
Today, there are more than 3 thousand T-80 tanks of various modifications in storage. T-55 T-55 is one of the most popular Soviet tanks. Despite the fact that it is a medium tank, it became the world's first combat vehicle equipped with an automatic anti-nuclear defense system. The T-55 became for its time the pioneer of a new generation of combat vehicles capable of fighting in conditions of the use of nuclear weapons. The latest modernized version of the T-55M6 tank was equipped with a T-72B turret with a 125-mm cannon, and behind the turret was a container with an automatic loader for 22 rounds; built-in dynamic protection of the turret and hull; V-46-5M engine with a power of 690 hp; new fire control system. The body has been lengthened and a sixth road wheel has been added. It is possible to install road wheels from the T-55, T-72 and T-80. In total, over 20 thousand tanks were manufactured during the entire production of the T-55. More than 2,800 T-55 tanks are still in storage in Russia.

In recent decades, tanks have been buried more often and more persistently than any other type of weapon. In recent years, marked by a sharp reduction in the tank fleet of most developed countries compared to the times of the Cold War, the question of the future of the tank has once again become one of the most discussed among specialists and amateurs. In Russia, interest in the problem especially grew after the reduction of the tank fleet in the first half of the 2010s from 23 to approximately 6-7 thousand units, and the demonstration in 2015 of the first vehicles of the new Armata family. The tank units of many other armies are also undergoing radical reductions along with attempts at modernization.

Thus, in Germany, the tank fleet, which numbered more than 2000 vehicles at the end of the 80s, was reduced to just over two hundred units, the number of tanks in service and in the reserves of the Army and the US Marine Corps fell from more than 10 thousand units to just over 5 thousand , a number of countries have abandoned tanks completely.

At the same time, despite the radical reduction in the number of tanks in general, the leading military powers do not intend to abandon them altogether. This is where seeing cuts can be a bad joke, much like someone looking at the dramatic reduction in the number of aircraft carriers in the US and British navies after the end of World War II and declaring that those ships would soon be retired.

In the case of tanks, based on the experience of recent conflicts, the current level of equipment of the armed forces of developed countries, as well as what can actually be achieved in the foreseeable future, it can be argued that, at least over the next 3–4 decades, the main combat tanks will retain their significance as the main striking force of units and formations ground forces. Tanks, being objectively the most protected, survivable and heavily armed combat vehicles on the battlefield, will continue to determine the combat stability of ground forces units in most types of combat operations.

Only fundamental discoveries and inventions in the field of physics can move the tank from this place - say, the creation of anti-gravity engines, which will make it possible to create combat vehicles of a completely different level - but so far nothing foreshadows such epoch-making changes.

Or, what is more realistic, a leap in the development of IT and robotics, which will make it possible to create robotic combat vehicles with advanced artificial intelligence. Such machines, unlike existing and future robots, will not depend on communication lines that are extremely vulnerable to modern electronic warfare and will be able to operate completely autonomously, displacing traditional tanks and other equipment. However, this task, taking into account the level of modern technology and promising developments, still seems insoluble, and, in addition, even in armies of robots, heavily armored multi-purpose combat vehicles with powerful weapons, which will become the heirs of tanks, will probably remain.

Obviously, among the machines that will operate on the battlefield 25-30 years later, there will be a lot of familiar names. Modernized T-72 and T-90, Leopard-2, M-1 Abrams, Merkava, Challengers and other achievements of design thought of the 70s, improved in the 80s, modernized in the 90s and those that continue to improve now, mainly in terms of filling and body kit, will continue to be in service with the armies of fully developed countries. Less developed countries also have older vehicles: T-55, early T-72, numerous modernized (and not so modernized) products of the Western tank industry: from the M-60 to the early versions of the second Leopard.

Heir to the T-34

Of course, new vehicles will also appear on the battlefield, but there will be very few of them, and literally only a few countries among those that today produce main battle tanks will be able to boast of new products. In this case, the first sign, which is already obvious, will be the Russian machine known as the T-14 “Armata”.

"Armata", created as part of the development of an entire family of vehicles on a unified platform, is built on a new layout with an uninhabited turret and placement of a crew of 3 people in an armored capsule, separated from the turret and automatic loader. This arrangement, firstly, sharply reduces the frontal projection of the tank, especially in its most vulnerable upper part, which makes the vehicle difficult to hit, and secondly, it significantly increases the crew’s chances of surviving in the event of an effective hit. Thirdly, the uninhabited turret makes it easier to equip the tank large-caliber gun. Currently, the Armata has a 125-mm gun, but it is known that, if necessary, it can be equipped with a 152-mm gun, which was created for the promising T-95 tank, which was not adopted for service due to excessive cost. The placement of such a weapon on a tank was studied back in Soviet times (for example, the Leningrad “object 292”).

The increase in the caliber of the main armament is dictated by the need to ensure reliable destruction of both existing and future enemy armored vehicles, including taking into account their possible modernization, but taking into account the cessation of the development of most of the new tank programs in Western countries, the military found it possible to make do with a modernized 125 mm gun.

All ammunition for the main gun is planned to be placed under the turret. Looking ahead, we note that this gives the T-14 a fundamental advantage over promising Western projects, in which it is planned to retain the placement of ammunition in the rear of the turret, which increases its size compared to the T-14 turret and increases the likelihood of instant destruction of the tank if it hits the compartment ammunition.

The tank’s protection, in addition to traditional combined armor protection and built-in dynamic protection, is provided by the Afghanit active protection complex, capable of destroying or knocking off course projectiles approaching the tank.

The capabilities of the fire control system have fundamentally increased. Taking into account the new layout, the crew has lost the ability to have a 360-degree view of the battlefield with their own eyes through the periscopes, and a significantly greater load falls on the detection and target designation systems. The detection and target designation system has optical, thermal imaging, and infrared channels. In addition, it will include a laser range finder and radar station, and information about the situation will be displayed on screens that will create the effect of “seeing through armor.”

T-14, despite more weight compared to modern ones Russian cars(more than 50 tons versus 46.5 tons for the T-90), has no less mobility. The tank is equipped with a 1,500 horsepower diesel engine, which provides an energy output of almost 30 horsepower per ton of weight and excellent mobility characteristics. In general, if the designers manage to fully realize their plans, then the T-95 can become for the new, fifth generation of combat vehicles what the T-34 became in its time - a role model.

What do they have?

Surprising as it may be in today's environment, Russia is currently the clear leader in the development of the latest battle tank. Most other developed countries prefer to modernize existing machines. The United States also followed this path after the global economic crisis forced richest country Western world abandon the ambitious Future Combat System (FCS) program, within which various combat vehicles were developed, including the main battle tank. The fact that none of the FCS tank projects provided radical superiority over the possible modernization of the M1 tank, which would justify a sharp increase in price, also played a role.

It should be noted here that the United States, in principle, was somewhat luckier than Russia. Argue about comparative characteristics Soviet vehicles of the later generation and the Abrams can make you hoarse, but one advantage of the American remains undoubted - a much simpler modernization, which allows, in fact, to build a new tank on an existing basis. The same can be said about other modern Western tanks.

As a result, in 2009 it was announced that in the coming decades the US armed forces would be equipped with the M1A3 tank (for now having the “experimental” E3 index). The new vehicle will have less weight - within 55 tons versus today's 62. This reduction will be achieved due to a new turret with an automatic loader, modeled after the French Leclerc tank. The tank is also expected to be equipped with a diesel engine, the latest fire control system and, possibly, a new gun/launcher developed as part of the FCS program. These tanks, which are planned to be built on the basis of the M1 and M1A1 vehicles located at the storage bases, will be in service at least until the 40s in parallel with the M1A2 tanks.

The crisis also affected the plans of other countries, which led to another round of unification of efforts.

In Germany, at the beginning of the 2010s, the “Neue Gepanzerte Platforme” (NGP) program was frozen, where, just like on a promising Russian vehicle, it is planned to place weapons in an uninhabited turret. The successor to the Panthers, Tigers and Leopards was supposed to be armed with a 140-mm smoothbore gun/launcher.

France, which currently has one of the most modern main battle tanks, the Leclerc, created in the 80s and 90s, also plans to modernize it in the coming decades - mainly by installing a more powerful gun and a more advanced control system fire.

However, the appearance of the Armata forced European tank builders to think about creating a promising vehicle. In the summer of 2015 it became known that two European manufacturer armored vehicles - the German company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and the French Nexter Systems - agreed to create a joint concern on a parity basis.

The new company will be called KANT (KMW and Nexter Together), and the concern's headquarters will be located in Amsterdam. The deal will be completed by January 2016, both participants will receive a 50 percent share in the project.

The merger was one of the largest such transactions in the EU defense market and creates a new strong player in the sector of weapons for ground forces. The resulting concern has an order book worth 9 billion euros, with total annual sales of more than 2 billion euros. About 6 thousand people will work at its enterprises.

One of the reasons that prompted the companies to merge, according to the French military department, was the desire to strengthen the export direction of both companies. In Nexter's sales structure, the share of deliveries to foreign customers is 56 percent; in KMW's sales structure it reaches 80 percent. In a number of tenders for the supply of ground forces equipment (say, for the Baltic countries or Qatar), companies until recently acted as competitors.

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is a German engineering concern whose major shareholders are the Bode family (Wegmann group) and the Siemens corporation. Sales in 2014 amounted to 747 million euros. The main types of products include, in particular, Leopard 2 tanks, Puma infantry fighting vehicles, Boxer armored personnel carriers, and PzH 2000 self-propelled artillery mounts.

A month earlier, information appeared about the desire of the Germans and the French to jointly create a new combat vehicle, as reported by the newspaper Die Welt.

The new tank should be created by 2030 - by this time the service life of the Leopard-2 tanks, which are in service with the armies of several European countries, will expire. “The technical requirements for the system have already been presented and determined within the framework of German-French cooperation,” said Markus Grübel, Secretary of State of the German Ministry of Defense. According to him, within three years - from 2015 to 2018 - technologies and concepts must be developed with the participation of German industry.

The publication suggests that the decision to create a new tank was preceded by a report from the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) on Russia’s buildup of combat power. In addition, T-14 tanks on the Armata platform presented on May 9 at the Victory Parade in Moscow, according to German intelligence, were prototypes, but mass production of two thousand tanks will begin only in a few years.

Die Welt notes that when the development of the new vehicle is completed, it will be a very high-level tank.

In June 2016, perhaps one of the first samples of weapons for a future European tank was demonstrated. A sample of a smooth-bore 130-mm gun with a barrel length of 51 caliber was shown by Rheinmetall Weapon and Munition at the Eurosatory-2016 arms exhibition held in Paris.

A gun of this type has been created since 2015 own funds companies. The sample on display was completed in May 2016. According to company representatives, testing will begin after the exhibition.

The gun is equipped with an enlarged charging chamber, the inner surface of the barrel is made with a chrome coating, and the outer surface has a heat-protective casing. Muzzle brake not observed in the presented sample.

The gun is designed to use two types of shots: an armor-piercing sabot projectile with an elongated tungsten core and a high-explosive fragmentation projectile with a programmable detonation.

According to the manufacturer, the power of the ammunition of the gun under development should exceed the power of their analogues used in the 120-mm Rheinmetall L55 tank gun by 50 percent.

The UK has its own development of a promising tank. This vehicle is also being created in line with general trends - reducing the crew, installing a larger-caliber gun, improving the fire control system, and so on. True, according to available information, the successor tank to the Challenger, developed under the Mobile Direct Fire Equipment Requirement program (requirements for a system for direct fire on the move), is planned to be equipped with a gun with electromagnetic acceleration of the projectile. It is possible that the British will become innovators in this matter, being the first to install such a weapon on a production vehicle.

The rest of the tank-building countries either do not yet have their own programs for the development of fundamentally new tanks: the bulk of promising vehicles, be it the Turkish Altai, the Indian Arjun or the Japanese Type 10, are a combination of already known technical solutions in a classic layout. China, which has been copying Russian and Western designs for the last decades, will apparently continue to do so in the future. The countries of the next echelon have even less chance of creating their own promising car.

What are the results?

Speaking about the main trends in world tank building in general, we can highlight the following main directions:

1. The growth in the mass of combat vehicles has stopped. All promising projects, except for the modernized Merkav - special vehicles for special theaters of military operations - have a weight in the range of 50–55 tons.

2. The growth of firepower continues. It is planned to equip promising tanks with heavy guns, and in the future with their improved versions with electromagnetic acceleration and so on.

3. Without exception, all promising tanks are planned to be equipped with guns with an automatic loader, which testifies in favor of this main path of development, which the domestic tank industry embarked on more than 40 years ago.

4. Main role Fire control systems, active protection systems and other additional equipment will play a role in increasing the combat capabilities of tanks. combat capabilities tanks already in service can be significantly increased.

What's cheaper?

It is obvious that the new generation of tanks, as well as the “ultimate” options for modernizing modern vehicles, will not be affordable for third world countries, while many of them have impressive reserves of old equipment, primarily the most common tanks cold war type M60 and T-72. Such a market requires the presence large quantity proposals for the modernization of these tanks, and such proposals are appearing more and more often.

One of the most recent proposals of this kind is the modernization option for M60 Patton tanks from Raytheon, better known as one of the main developers of air defense and missile defense systems. In fact, Raytheon acts as a system integrator for the program, which includes the use of developments from different companies. A key element of the upgrade, called The M60A3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), is an increase in the tank's combat power through the installation of a 120-mm M256 smoothbore gun, which should replace the previous 105-mm M68 rifled gun.

“You have hardware made in the 1960s and 1970s. The production of many of its components has long been lost,” explains Rimas Guzulaitis, head of the modernization program, “but many countries continue to operate these weapons and need to improve them, eliminate deficiencies, increase accuracy and lethality.”

“We are taking the gun from the M1A1,” he continues. “It is significantly more accurate, much more powerful, yet it is lighter and allows the use of a wide range of ammunition produced by NATO partners.”

As Raytheon notes, the improvement of the vehicle is not limited to the new weapon. During the modernization, the M60 will receive a new diesel engine, the power of which will increase from 750 to 950 horsepower, a new fire control system with a day laser sight and night thermal imaging, an electric drive for turret rotation and, of course, increased protection - both additional armor and dynamic fire units protection.

The market is already being partially developed by Uralvagonzavod, which is serially modernizing the T-72B of the Russian army into the T-72B3 variant, but this business is also of interest to other manufacturers. Former partners of the USSR under the Warsaw Pact offer their options - from Poland to the former Yugoslav republics, as well as the republics of the former USSR.

Improvement is taking place mainly in the same areas: improving armor protection - due to additional armor plates in the frontal part of the tank and modern versions of dynamic protection such as "Kontakt-5" or "Relict", modernization of the fire control system, installation of modern sights, in a number of cases - remotely controlled weapon modules.

Among the most notable options for improving the T-72 is the tank, demonstrated by Uralvagonzavod since 2013, with body kit for urban combat. It differs from the standard vehicle in significantly enhanced armor protection - additional armoring of the sides and rear of the turret, the presence of a bulldozer blade for clearing debris, enhanced armor protection of the anti-aircraft machine gun mount and an improved fire control system. The appearance of this vehicle right now can easily be explained by the fighting in Syria, where tanks are actively used as a means of supporting infantry, including in cities. The T-72 demonstrates high survivability even in its original version, and modernization will significantly increase the effectiveness of these vehicles in urban conditions unfavorable for armored vehicles.

The most radical option for upgrading the T-72 is to transform it into a vehicle of a fundamentally different class, a tank support combat vehicle (BMPT). Research in this direction has been ongoing since the 1990s. According to some experts, vehicles of this type sharply reduce the need for infantry escort of the tank, taking on most of the functions of destroying targets dangerous to the tank. The key advantages of the BMPT are the developed fire control system and the multifunctionality of the combat module.

Various versions modernization of old vehicles will inevitably be offered in the future - the price and time frame for the development of new generation tanks leave practically no other options for improving the tank fleet for those who are not willing to pay $5-6 million or more for new vehicles. And even countries that are developing and building new generation equipment, including Russia with its new product - the T-14 "Armata" and other vehicles on this platform, will spend quite a lot on replacing the main part of the fleet. long time. The result is not difficult to predict: many Cold War tanks will have to celebrate the centenary of the creation of their first version in service - it is possible that since the day of physical construction.

In the 80s and early 90s, the leading tank-producing countries - the USSR, USA, Germany, France - were actively developing a promising tank. At the same time there was active search decisions on the layout, crew composition and 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 of Western countries. This made it possible to reduce the internal volume of the tank and strengthen the armor without a significant increase in weight.

The development of electronics and automation 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 us to solve 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, a number of unresolved issues arise related to crew overload and unit management.

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

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

Tank variant with a crew of 2 and an uninhabited turret

A tank with a crew of two has high mobility and a low silhouette. The ratio of the length and width of the body along the tracks in this version is close to the ideal 1.5:1, which ensures good agility.

The tank is made according to a six-wheel chassis design.The height of the turret corresponds to the height of the turret of the Abrams tank, but its area is reduced by 50% in the front projection and by 40% in the side projection. Reservation of the front part of the uninhabited turret provides high protection for the crew compartment from ammunition attacking from above (if the turret 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 located in the front part of the hull. The total predicted weight of the tank is 50.3 tons, which when installing a 1500 hp engine. will provide high specific power (27 hp/t).

The hatches are designed in such a way that the crew can leave the tank even with the gun down. The hatches have electric and manual drives and are equipped with glass blocks for traveling. 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, with 70 cm of width allocated for each crew member.

Tank variant with a crew of 2 and an uninhabited turret

Front and side views.

The air intake from the filter-ventilation unit is carried out behind the left crew hatch; the FVU unit is located in the bow of the tank in a niche in the lower frontal part of the hull. Purified conditioned air is injected into the area of the crew's feet and then enters the niches of the electronic units.

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

Comparison of the side projection of the M1A1 tank and a promising tank with a crew of 2 people with an uninhabited turret.

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

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

A project of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people (object 299), 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 use of a gas turbine engine. A running mock-up of the chassis was made.

Tank variant with a crew of 3 people and an uninhabited turret

The next tank layout option under consideration is a more conventional version with a crew of three. When creating this option, American experts proposed 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 withsix-support chassis design, the crew is accommodated in fairly comfortable conditions. But at the same time, it is not possible to provide sufficient protection for 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 ability to provide protection when fired into the side areas is minimal. At the same time, 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 behind them (placing one of the crew members in front is not rational to ensure equal armoring).

This option allows maintaining a sufficient level of protection for the hull sides 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 freed volume on the sides of the third crew member can be used to accommodate food supplies, a dry closet, etc.

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

Tank variant with a crew of 3 people and an uninhabited turret

Front and side views.

The ratio of the length and width of the body along the tracks in this version is 1.7:1. Reservation of the frontal part of the uninhabited turret provides less protection for the crew compartment from ammunition attacking from above due to the lengthening of the hull by 80 cm.

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

Tank version with a crew of 3 people with a classic layout and automatic loader

All proposed options with crew placement in the front part of the hull have a number of disadvantages. Foreign experts call one of the most significant of them the lack of all-round visual observation capabilities for the commander. On tanks with crew accommodations 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 an all-round visual overview of the commander. In addition, placing the gunner in a rotating turret eliminates problems with disorientation, and it is also possible to eliminate a number of delays when firing.

This arrangement is closest to French tank"Leclerc", during the development of which a number of options with crew accommodation in the hull were also considered, in the end a more traditional option with a low-profile turret was chosen.

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

When creating this option, two solutions were proposed:

The first involves 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 all the ammunition in a single volume of the 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 the Russian tank, developed by OKBTM OJSC in the 90s and called “Black Eagle” (object 640).

Tank version with a crew of 3 people, a classic layout and an automatic loader

Front and side views.

In this version of the layout, a 360-degree view of the tank commander is implemented while maintaining the lifting-mast devices with observation systems for the commander and gunner.

In this case, to ensure all-round visibility, the commander must rise above the level of the tower to the waist. As noted by the theorist of the combat use of tanks R. Simpkin, “ halfway to heaven"(i.e. very vulnerable to enemy fire). The view is hampered by the roof of the central part of the turret, which is raised to provide the required descent angles for the gun.

The possibility of mutual access from the control compartment to the fighting compartment has been implemented (with the gun positioned forward). Both crew members in the turret, the commander and the gunner, can provide all-round visibility by raising their heads above the level of the turret roof.

Due to the larger volume in the body, it is possible to use armor materials with 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 gun descent angles associated with the structural weakening of the turret.

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

Tank version with a crew of 3 people, with the commander located in the turret

This layout option provides a good overview for the tank commander, while it is possible to use a carousel-type automatic loader in the hull. Like all variants of the presented layouts, it is not without its drawbacks. Among them are unsatisfactory conditions for placing the commander, the impact on him of the recoil impulse of the main weapon, the need to duplicate the FVU, PPO systems, etc.

Tank version with a crew of 3 people, with an unconventional layout

Front and side views.

In this version of the layout, the ground pressure is increased by 34% compared to the version of the tank with a crew of 2 people and an uninhabited turret, while the turret is 74 centimeters wider and 20 cm higher. The estimated weight of this option is 67.7 tons.

Firepower

When modeling DARPA Layout options for a promising tank were specified to increase the muzzle energy from 9 MJ for the M256 to 20 MJ and the initial speed 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 tail is 750 mm. To achieve the required characteristics it is required powder charge weighing 20 kg with a volume of 17 liters. The chosen caliber of the 135 mm gun required the use of separate loading shots.

The caliber of the main weapon used to analyze promising developments was chosen based on data available in the United States on the development of a tank with weapons of this caliber in the USSR.

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

Loading is carried out by a carousel-type automatic loader with a shot placed in a container. Container dimensions 850x160x340 mm. The main charge (BPS) is placed in one cell, the projectile with an additional charge is in another. The AZ carousel contains 35 cassettes with separately loaded rounds.

When modeling various tank layout options, an automatic loader from the company " Ares inc. "consisting of a carousel mechanism in a tower "basket". The lifting mechanism lifts the container to the dispensing line, after which the projectile is sent, the container is lowered to dispense the charge, after which it is dispensed.

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

Diagram of an automatic loader with a shot feed mechanism. Considering the dimensions of the system and the peculiarities of its placement, the possibility of manually duplicating the work of the AZ is not provided.

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

The gun's descent angles are -10, elevation angles are +20 degrees. To ensure the required angle of descent of the gun, it was proposed to implement a retractable version of the turret roof.

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

Secondary weapons include a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun with 10,000 rounds of ammunition. It was planned to install an additional 7.62 mm machine gun with independent guidance on one of the lifting-mast 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 shooting error should be no more than 0.2 mrad. The requirements for the possibility of hitting low-flying helicopters require turret guidance drives that provide rotation at a speed of 60 deg/s. The developers proposed installing modules with sighting and observation systems on lifting mast devices with circular rotation. Each module includes a thermal imaging, daytime television, and 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. Information transfer was planned to be carried out via fiber optic channels.

Protection

The calculated armor dimensions were 1300 mm for the upper part of the hull (700...380 for the lower part). 1300 mm for the frontal part of the turret and embrasure protection, a barbette was assumed in front of the junction of the hull and turret, etc. At the same time, the frontal protection of the turret also protects the crew compartment from attack from above.

Required armor thicknesses
plot		tank with crew in the hull (mm)	tank with crew in turret (mm)	Note
Crew section	Upper body part	1300	1300	Armor with high mass efficiency. (large size, small weight)
	Bottom body part	700…380	700…380	Variable thickness, see diagrams.
	Upper side belt			400 mm - high mass efficiency (small size, large mass), equal to 630 at low E m
	Bottom side belt
	roof			Top protection is provided by the turret forehead block
	Bottom
Tower	Frontal part	1300	1300
	Board
	Roof
Tower/hull (except crew compartment)	Side screens top.
	Side screens below.
	Stern
	Bottom

Mobility

In promising tank projects, it was assumed that a compact MTO with a gas turbine engine with a power of 1500 hp would be used. MTO was developed by the company according to the program Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) ), a version of the gas turbine engine was developed by the company General Electric diesel option - Cummins . The main requirement for the new MTO is a reduction in weight from 6400 (M1A1) to 5,000 kg, volume from 7 to 5.9 m 3. MTO according to the program AIPS developed for the modernization of the M1A1 Blok tank III and heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Name of MTO General Electric created by the program AIPS-

2800

FVU

Hydraulic system

Electronics

Tower components

1500

2000

Fuel

1200

1500

1200

AIPS

5000

Booking weight

25 200

28 800

37 800

38 300

Crew seats

1200

Suspension

9550

10500

12800

Total:

50 340

55 330

67 460

67 700

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.

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, research on the development of a tank with a crew of two, carried out in the 80s in the USSR, did not show solutions that would provide tank control to units with such a crew. If the gunner performs the functions of commander of a tank unit from platoon to 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, conduct communications 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 cannon.

Sources

1. The problem of reducing the number of main tank crew. Yu. M. Apukhtin, A. I. Mazurenko, E. A. Morozov, P. I. Nazarenko. Herald 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 BREAK OF SOVIET TANK BUILDERS (diary of a participant in the development of the Boxer tank). Yuri Apukhtin. Kharkov - 2009

4. R. E. Simpkin, Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, Brassey's, New York, 1984.

In the 80s - early 90s, the leading tank-producing countries - the USSR, USA, Germany, France - were actively developing a promising tank. At the same time, an active search was carried out for solutions to 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 of Western countries. This made it possible to reduce the internal volume of the tank and strengthen the armor without a significant increase in weight.

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

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

The tank is made according to a six-wheel chassis design. The height of the turret corresponds to the height of the turret of the Abrams tank, but its area is reduced by 50% in the front projection and by 40% in the side projection. Reservation of the front part of the uninhabited turret provides high protection for the crew compartment from ammunition attacking from above (if the turret 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 located in the front part of the hull. The total predicted weight of the tank is 50.3 tons, which is when installing a 1500 hp engine. will provide high specific power (27 hp/t).

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

Comparison of the side projection of the M1A1 tank and a promising tank with a crew of 2 people with an uninhabited turret.

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

For the first time, developments to create a promising tank with a crew of two people were undertaken at the A.A. KMDB. Morozov in the 70s, the work was continued by E.A. Morozov. A prototype of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people was manufactured by 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 use of a gas turbine engine. A running mock-up of the chassis was made.

Tank variant with a crew of 3 people and an uninhabited turret
The next tank layout option under consideration is a more conventional version with a crew of three. When creating this option, American experts proposed 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-leg chassis design, and the crew is accommodated in fairly comfortable conditions. But at the same time, it is not possible to implement sufficient protection for 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 ability to provide protection when fired into the side areas is minimal. At the same time, 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 behind them (placing one of the crew members in front is not rational to ensure equal armor).

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

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

Tank version with a crew of 3 people with a classic layout and automatic loader
All proposed options with crew placement in the front part of the hull have a number of disadvantages. Foreign experts call one of the most significant of them the lack of all-round visual observation capabilities for the commander. On tanks with crew accommodations in the hull, the viewing angle with open hatches is no more than 270 degrees.

This arrangement is closest to the French Leclerc tank, during the development of which a number of options with crew accommodations in the hull were also considered; in the end, a more traditional option with a low-profile turret was chosen.

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

When creating this option, two solutions were proposed:

The second option involves placing all the ammunition in a single volume of the 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 OKBTM OJSC in the 90s and called the “Black Eagle” (object 640).

In this version of the layout, a 360-degree view of the tank commander is implemented while maintaining the lifting-mast devices with observation systems for the commander and gunner.

In this case, to ensure all-round visibility, the commander must rise above the level of the tower to the waist. As noted by the theorist of the combat use of tanks R. Simpkin, the tank is “halfway to heaven” (i.e., very vulnerable to enemy fire). The view is hampered by the roof of the central part of the turret, which is raised to provide the required descent angles for the gun.

Due to the larger volume in the body, it is possible to use armor materials with 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, the problematic issue remains 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 version with a manned turret was 67.4 tons.

Tank version with a crew of 3 people, with the commander located in the turret
This layout option provides a good overview for the tank commander, while it is possible to use a carousel-type automatic loader in the hull. Like all variants of the presented layouts, it is not without its drawbacks. Among them are unsatisfactory conditions for placing the commander, the impact on him of the recoil impulse of the main weapon, the need to duplicate the FVU, PPO systems, etc.

Firepower
When DARPA modeled the layout options for a promising tank, the requirements were set to increase the muzzle energy from 9 MJ for the M256 to 20 MJ and the initial speed 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 tail is 750 mm. To achieve the required characteristics, a powder charge weighing 20 kg with a volume of 17 liters is required. The chosen caliber of the 135 mm gun required the use of separately loaded shots.

The caliber of the main weapons used to analyze promising developments was chosen based on data available in the United States on the development of a tank with weapons of this caliber in the USSR.

When modeling various tank layout options, an automatic loader from Ares Inc was chosen, consisting of a carousel mechanism in the turret “basket”. The lifting mechanism lifts the container to the dispensing line, after which the projectile is sent, the container is lowered to dispense the charge, after which it is dispensed.

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

The gun's descent angles are -10, elevation angles are +20 degrees. To ensure the required angle of descent of the gun, it was proposed to implement a retractable version of the turret roof.

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

Fire control system
The fire control system was considered to ensure a high probability of hitting a target (2 m high) at a distance of 4000 m. For this, the shooting error should be no more than 0.2 mrad. The requirements for the possibility of hitting low-flying helicopters require turret guidance drives that provide rotation at a speed of 60 deg/s. The developers proposed installing modules with sighting and observation systems on lifting mast devices with circular rotation. Each module includes a thermal imaging, daytime television, and 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. Information transfer was planned to be carried out via fiber optic channels.

Protection
The calculated armor dimensions were 1300 mm for the upper part of the hull (700...380 for the lower part). 1300 mm for the frontal part of the turret and embrasure protection, a barbette was assumed in front of the junction of the hull and turret, etc. At the same time, the frontal protection of the turret also protects the crew compartment from attack from above.

Mobility
In promising tank projects, it was assumed that a compact MTO with a gas turbine engine with a power of 1500 hp would be used. The MTO was developed by the company under the Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) program; the gas turbine engine version was developed by General Electric; the version with a diesel engine was Cummins. The main requirement for the new MTO is a reduction in weight from 6400 (M1A1) to 5,000 kg, volume from 7 to 5.9 m3. The MTO under the AIPS program was developed to modernize the M1A1 Block III tank and heavy infantry fighting vehicle. The name of the General Electric MTO, created under the AIPS program, is the LV-100 gas turbine engine.

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.

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, research on the development of a tank with a crew of two, carried out in the 80s in the USSR, did not show solutions that would provide tank control to units with such a crew. If the gunner performs the functions of commander of a tank unit from platoon to 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.

Sources
1. The problem of reducing the number of main tank crew. Yu. M. Apukhtin, A. I. Mazurenko, E. A. Morozov, P. I. Nazarenko. Herald 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 BREAK OF SOVIET TANK BUILDERS (diary of a participant in the development of the Boxer tank). Yuri Apukhtin. Kharkov – 2009 http://btvt.narod.ru/bokser/bokser_0.htm
4. R. E. Simpkin, Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, Brassey's, New York, 1984.