Priority Directions for the Systemic Development of Armored Weaponry in Modern Conditions
MILITARY THOUGHT • No. 11 — 2023
G.I. Golovachev, Doctor of Technical Sciences
Colonel V.V. Kuzhev, Candidate of Technical Sciences
Colonel E.V. Gubanov, Candidate of Technical Sciences
ABSTRACT
An analysis of trends in the development of foreign and domestic tank manufacturing at the present stage is conducted, and priority directions for the systemic development of armored weaponry in modern conditions are examined.
ANALYSIS of trends in the development of means of armed struggle in modern conditions indicates that the battlefield of the future will not involve individual weapon systems but entire systems capable of simultaneously impacting all elements of the combat order of forces and the entire infrastructure of adversaries. Consequently, the relevance of fully implementing a systemic approach to planning the prospective development of armaments and military equipment (AME) is increasing. This approach involves transitioning from improving AME through the creation of individual new models to developing integrated weaponry systems for military formations at various levels, ensuring the complete and effective resolution of assigned combat tasks.
This approach is already applied in the planning practices for the development of both domestic and foreign armaments. Due to the increasing complexity and variety of tasks assigned to prospective weaponry systems, military, and special equipment (AMSE), there is a trend toward the emergence of new types of AMSE within these systems.
Armored weaponry and equipment (AWE) are part of the AMSE system of General Purpose Forces (GPF), representing an organized and structured set of AWE kits for military formations, providing them with high mobility and striking power in offensive operations and resilience in defense.
The baseline data for determining the priority directions for the systemic development of AWE include:
Information on trends in the development of armored weaponry in foreign countries;
Characteristics of the future battlefield;
Tasks assigned to AWE models.
In leading foreign countries (the USA, UK, Germany, France, China, Turkey), since 2015, large-scale, science-intensive, and costly research and development (R&D) programs have been underway to develop next-generation AWE for ground forces. Simultaneously, these countries are implementing comprehensive measures to modernize existing AWE models.
A leading trend in the development of foreign armored combat vehicles is the shift from creating individual models to developing unified families of combat vehicles and systems integrated into automated command and control systems (CCS) for tactical-level combined-arms formations (brigade and below). Key features of prospective models developed under many foreign programs include:
Creation of unified families of armored vehicles with a high level of standardization;
Adaptability for transportation by all types of transport (rail, air, sea, river);
High level of command controllability.
However, during the development of unified families of combat vehicles and systems, plans for their creation undergo significant changes. For instance, in the USA, the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program was terminated in 2009, and the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program was suspended in 2014. In the UK, the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) program was canceled, and in France, plans for the Scorpion program were adjusted. The common reason for these changes is the significant evolution of views on the combat use of AWE, based on their application in local wars and armed conflicts, as well as the substantial financial costs of these programs.
In the USA, several priority programs for the modernization and development of next-generation AWE continue. These developments are part of a large-scale comprehensive program called "Next Generation of Multi-Purpose Armored Combat Vehicles." The program includes the creation of the following types of AWE:
A next-generation main battle tank (MBT) (MBT NG program) to replace the M1A2D (M1A2 SEPv4) Abrams;
A multifunctional tracked infantry fighting vehicle (Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle – OMFV program) to replace the M2A3 Bradley IFV;
An armored multi-purpose tracked armored personnel carrier (APC) (Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle – AMPV program) to replace the M113 APC;
Mobile protected firepower systems (Mobile Protected Firepower – MPF program), which includes the creation of a next-generation light tank (LT) and a family of combat and support vehicles based on it, including fire support vehicles, command and staff vehicles, armored recovery vehicles, and others;
A robotic combat vehicle of the future (Robotic Combat Vehicle – RCV program), representing a strike robotic complex and a new type of AWE for U.S. Army ground forces.
Alongside the development of a new tank, the USA continues work on modernizing the M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams to the M1A2C configuration.
In the creation of new and modernization of existing AWE models, the USA plans significant improvements in their primary combat characteristics. The technical design of the new U.S. tank is being developed with consideration of new and emerging technologies and the combat experience of U.S. ground forces in recent armed conflicts. The main task for developers is to find rational ways to enhance the tank’s primary combat characteristics while reducing its dimensional and mass parameters compared to the latest Abrams modifications.
It is claimed that, despite a significant reduction in combat weight, the new tank will offer better protection than the latest M1A2D Abrams modification. Recent armed conflicts have shown that the protection of future tanks must be all-aspect.
In 2017, open-source publications first disclosed details about the armament of the future U.S. tank, noting that its main armament will have a caliber of 130 or 140 mm.
In the UK, a program is underway to create a family of next-generation medium tracked armored vehicles, previously known as FRES-SV and officially named AJAX since September 2015. Under the AJAX program, a unified chassis has been developed, based on which the UK Ministry of Defence is creating a family of combat and support vehicles, including a combat reconnaissance vehicle (AJAX-ISTAR), an armored personnel carrier (ARES), a command and staff vehicle (ATHENA), an armored recovery vehicle (APOLLO), an evacuation vehicle (ATLAS), and an engineering reconnaissance vehicle (ARGUS). All six variants were developed, entered serial production, and began being supplied to the UK Army’s armored, infantry, and reconnaissance units starting in 2018, with deliveries expected to be completed by 2025.
The development of German AWE models is currently pursued in two independent directions: the modernization of the Leopard 2 MBT to the Leopard 2A8 configuration and the creation of a next-generation MBT. The latter direction is linked to the development of the Leopard 3 (Main Ground Combat System – MGCS), a joint German-French project. The MGCS will include several types of systems for various purposes, designed to address a wide range of combat tasks. Priorities in the development of the MGCS include maximizing crew survivability, combat effectiveness in various types of combat, and low production, repair, and operational costs. The development will leverage innovative technologies enabling network-centric operations within the tactical-level information networks of German and NATO forces. The tank’s firepower and mobility are planned to be significantly enhanced compared to existing MBTs.
France, since late 2014, with the launch of the Système d'Information du Combat Scorpion (SICS) program, has begun a profound transformation of its army, extending beyond the acquisition of new vehicles. The program has three main directions: the production of two new vehicles—a Griffon wheeled (6x6) APC and a Jaguar (6x6) combat reconnaissance vehicle, to be joined by a third lighter vehicle; the development and production of combat vehicles equipped with command and control (C2) systems; and the integration of the SEMBRA modeling system. The SICS represents a digital architecture for the combat control elements of French ground forces at the regimental level and below.
In several countries, including Japan, China, South Korea, India, and Turkey, new tanks and other armored vehicles are being developed to conduct symmetric combat operations against regular enemy forces. These efforts are characterized by the adoption of technical solutions implemented in leading Western models, such as the Abrams, Leopard 2, and Leclerc.
Analysis shows that the existing AWE system of the Russian Armed Forces was developed without sufficient consideration of unification principles, leading to the use of predominantly non-standardized components, the creation of models with low unification levels, and an unjustified increase in the variety of AWE types. The current range includes over 200 AWE model designations, significantly exceeding actual needs. Reducing the variety of AWE types is a pressing issue that must be addressed in the further development of the AWE system, which currently does not fully meet the requirements placed upon it. Key challenges include formulating a concept for the development of the AWE system and its components and identifying practical ways to implement it in modern conditions.
When developing this concept, the role of AWE in the AMSE system of General Purpose Forces must be considered. AWE models are currently in service with ground forces, airborne troops, marine corps, and units of other security ministries and agencies (FSB, МВД, МЧС, etc.). Thus, the AWE system is becoming an inter-service operational-tactical weaponry system, enabling force groupings to defeat adversaries through ground combat strikes, hold, and capture critical military, economic, and political objectives and terrain. There are prerequisites for creating an operational, combat, special-technical, and logistical support system based on AWE with high survivability and mobility, enhancing the overall resilience of military formations under enemy fire.
The AWE system is designed to ensure the resilience of General Purpose Forces groupings in maneuverable forms of armed struggle, their ability to defeat adversaries through ground combat strikes in close combat while holding and capturing key objectives and terrain, and to provide tank-technical support during preparation and conduct of combat operations.
The goal of AWE system development is to align its quantitative and qualitative composition (variety, level of combat and operational-technical characteristics, resource consumption, and service life) with assigned tasks, conditions, and methods of combat use within military formations across various theaters of military operations.
Key factors to consider when determining the directions for the systemic development of AWE include the conditions of their combat use and the nature of the future battlefield, shaped by analyzing the capabilities of modern and prospective weapon systems, forecasting their forms and methods of combat use, and advancing troop and weapon control systems. The sharp increase in the capabilities of modern and prospective weapon systems enables opposing sides to inflict significantly greater losses across the entire depth of operational formations, rapidly alter the balance of forces, and transition between types of combat.
The future battlefield, according to both domestic and foreign experts, will be characterized by increased dynamism and maneuverability, blurred lines of contact, fragmented force groupings, simultaneous combat to defeat adversaries attacking from the front and rear, and a predominantly focal nature of combat operations.
A defining feature of the future battlefield is the implementation of the network-centric warfare concept, which ensures coordinated and synchronized operations of all main elements of weaponry systems (combat, reconnaissance, and control systems) through the development and deployment of a unified network-centric command and control system. This system facilitates real-time data exchange vertically and horizontally, integrating dispersed forces and assets (personnel, command posts, combat and technical support, armaments, and equipment) across vast combat spaces, providing timely and comprehensive battlefield information, and significantly enhancing combat effectiveness.
These battlefield characteristics translate into the tasks assigned to military formations, which are directly used to develop AWE requirements. AWE system development should focus on creating and improving next-generation combat armored vehicles and support vehicles for effective combat use on the future battlefield by qualitatively enhancing the combat and operational characteristics of developed models. Emphasis should be placed on preempting adversaries in reconnaissance and engagement, ensuring high survivability, mobility, autonomy, and independent action, integration into a unified information space, reducing AWE variety through increased universalization, expanding the range and conditions for task resolution, maintaining AWE at the required level of modernity and readiness, and developing families of armored vehicles on unified chassis.
The development of the AWE system is directly linked to meeting the following key requirements:
The AWE system structure (by subsystems and types) must align with the list of tasks it addresses;
AWE kits for military formations must ensure effective task resolution;
The characteristics of AWE types and models must meet the requirements placed upon them.
The development of AWE system requirements aims to ensure its alignment with assigned tasks. When justifying the system’s structure, the full range of tasks must be considered.
AWE models typically operate within General Purpose Forces’ armed formations. Thus, when determining the AWE system structure, the tasks assigned to these formations must first be considered. The most general classification of tasks for ground forces’ armed formations is their nature, divided into combat tasks, command tasks, comprehensive support tasks (combat, technical, logistical, etc.), and tasks related to personnel training.
Analysis shows that the existing AWE system structure (by subsystems) generally aligns with the tasks assigned to General Purpose Forces’ armed formations. The AWE system comprises subsystems of armored weaponry (AW) and armored equipment (AE). Armored weaponry includes combat assets, command, and combat support assets (tanks, IFVs, BMDs, tank support combat vehicles, APCs, airborne APCs, command and staff vehicles, reconnaissance vehicles, and armored patrol vehicles).
Armored equipment includes tank-technical support assets (mobile maintenance and repair workshops, mobile evacuation means such as tank recovery vehicles and armored recovery vehicles), logistical assets (armored medical vehicles), and training assets (simulators, training classrooms, and operational training stands).
Further consideration is given to the development of AW, while AE development has its own specifics and is addressed in separate studies.
The key challenge in AW subsystem development is selecting a rational range of types. This issue is addressed using the principle of aligning the range of AW types with the tasks and conditions of their execution, ensuring each task is supported by one or more AW types capable of resolving it.
Tanks, as universal means of armed struggle, are designed to address diverse tasks across a wide range of conditions. The inability to create a single, highly effective universal combat asset has led to the development of several AW types (tanks, IFVs, APCs, BMDs) with varying degrees of task specialization.
Specialized combat assets can be better adapted to specific tasks compared to universal ones, but an AW system comprising only highly specialized assets leads to an excessive expansion of types, complicating the system and increasing creation and operational costs. Thus, developing the concept for each AW type requires finding an optimal balance between specialization and universalization. This issue should be addressed systemically, defining the role and place of each type in the AW system, the tasks assigned to it, and its development concept based on the overall vision for the AW system, analysis of combat experience in armed conflicts, including the Special Military Operation (SMO).
Effective resolution of the issue of forming a rational AW type range is possible through the application of adaptability principles, a harmonious combination of universalization and specialization levels, rational development of AW model characteristics based on modern integration approaches, and other methods.
The current AW subsystem includes main battle tanks (linear and command variants), tank support combat vehicles (TSCVs), infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs, linear and command variants), airborne combat vehicles (BMDs, linear and command variants), armored personnel carriers (APCs), command and staff vehicles (CSVs), armored reconnaissance vehicles (ARVs), and armored patrol vehicles (APVs). However, analysis shows that the existing AW type system does not fully meet the needs of forming ground forces’ armed formation kits.
Key requirements for AW kits include a unified level of mobility and survivability achieved through unified chassis, full autonomy of formations, and informational-energetic unity of all models and subsystems, implying a common information structure and energy integration. AW models within a kit must complement each other in addressing fire tasks, ensuring timely target engagement during combat tasks.
These requirements are met through the joint combat use of tanks and IFVs (APCs), which complement each other in fire tasks. Tanks primarily engage enemy tanks and infantry in fortifications, while IFVs (APCs) target medium- and lightly armored AMSE and tank-threatening personnel.
To meet these requirements and align with the principle of creating integrated families of General Purpose Forces’ combat armored vehicles on unified platforms, the prospective AWE system for ground forces is developed on one unified inter-service heavy tracked platform (UIHTP), two medium platforms (unified medium tracked platform – UMTP, and unified medium wheeled platform – UMWP), and the AWE system for airborne forces on unified airborne chassis.
Families of vehicles developed on unified inter-service platforms will enhance unit and formation interoperability on the battlefield, survivability, and mobility regardless of road or climatic conditions, season, or time of day. Interchangeability of components will enable effective restoration of damaged equipment, a critical factor given that, based on SMO experience, damaged tanks are restored 3–4 times before being deemed irreparable.
Unification ensures informational-energetic unity of kit models, autonomy of combined-arms formations, and significant cost savings in production and operation through reduced serial production costs and streamlined supply of repair kits and spare parts.
Prospective AW models employ a new design ideology based on progressive principles, including modularity, chassis load-bearing capacity redundancy, and open-architecture onboard equipment complexes, addressing key development challenges (modernization).
Adaptability to diverse combat conditions remains a complex issue but can be achieved through modular design and removable modules tailored to specific tasks and conditions. Another progressive design principle is the use of “remote armament,” enhancing crew protection.
The application of progressive design principles, new layout solutions, and innovative military technologies will significantly enhance the core characteristics of developed models: firepower, protection, mobility, and command controllability.
Tank units may be equipped with prospective AW models (tanks, IFVs) developed on the UIHTP, while motorized rifle units may receive AW models developed on the UMTP and UMWP. To ensure a unified level of survivability for tank unit models, a highly protected IFV based on the main battle tank (UIHTP) should be developed. Although IFVs are not a new AW type, creating a highly protected IFV based on the MBT is a fundamentally new step in the development of the ground forces’ AW system.
For effective task resolution by motorized rifle units equipped with wheeled IFVs (APCs), interaction with units equipped with floating fire support combat vehicles (FSCVs) developed on a wheeled base and fitted with high-ballistic guns is necessary. These vehicles represent a new AW type that may emerge in the Russian ground forces’ AW system. Such vehicles are already in service with several countries’ armies.
Studies have been conducted to assess the feasibility of creating FSCVs and defining their role in the structure of ground forces’ AWE kits. Results indicate that replacing a tank battalion in a motorized rifle brigade equipped with wheeled IFVs (APCs) with a fire support battalion equipped with FSCVs ensures a unified level of mobility but increases personnel and equipment losses due to low survivability and limited ammunition capacity. Thus, using FSCVs in place of tanks in existing motorized rifle brigade structures is deemed impractical.
However, the increasing importance of ground forces’ tasks in armed conflicts and local wars highlights the relevance of creating a highly mobile component within the ground forces, based on prospective mobile motorized rifle brigades adapted for rapid deployment over long distances to address sudden tasks. These brigades are intended for operations in armed conflicts and local wars, primarily against irregular enemy formations lacking modern, powerful weapons.
SMO experience has shown the relevance of employing tank support combat vehicles (TSCVs) within ground forces’ AWE kits. These vehicles, based on the main battle tank, feature a multi-channel armament complex suited for effectively engaging tank-threatening personnel at short and medium ranges and armored targets at medium and long ranges. Given the enemy’s use of effective anti-tank weapons, such as Javelin ATGMs and combat/reconnaissance-strike UAVs capable of targeting the upper hemisphere, timely suppression of these threats is critical.
With protection levels equivalent to tanks, TSCVs can effectively operate alongside them in the same combat line during offensives, offering higher armament effectiveness compared to floating IFVs, which typically operate in the second line. Organizational options for joint tank and TSCV use include integrating a TSCV company into a tank battalion or a TSCV battalion into a tank brigade.
Thus, the prospective ground forces’ AW system (combat and support subsystems) should include tanks, highly protected IFVs (developed on the UIHTP), TSCVs, IFVs (on the UMTP and UMWP), APCs, BMDs, armored reconnaissance vehicles (ARVs, APVs), and command vehicles (CSVs).
Tanks, IFVs, APCs, and BMDs possess a unique combination of combat characteristics: firepower, protection, mobility, and command controllability. With appropriately prioritized development of these characteristics, AW models can be created to address complex tasks in diverse combat conditions, meeting modern challenges.
Analysis of modern combat operations shows that in pre-combat situations (during movements, regroupings, and maneuvers), the increased intensity of enemy weapon impacts elevates the role of AW model protection. In close combat, the combination of firepower, protection, command controllability, and mobility remains critical.
Under strict weight constraints, high AW model effectiveness can be achieved through a rational balance of core characteristics. However, a key contradiction arises between requirements for high mobility, air transportability, and amphibious capability (via displacement) and the required level of protection. Resolving this depends on the adopted model concept: mobile forces require models prioritizing mobility and air transportability, while other formations need models with high protection. The firepower of AW models must be sufficient to address assigned fire tasks.
Determining AW development priorities must account for evolving combat tactics, combat experience in modern conditions, particularly the SMO. Experience shows that large-scale AW use in battalion tactical groups during offensives against echeloned enemy defenses without adequate engineering support (e.g., clearing minefield passages) and suppression by aviation, artillery, mortars, MLRS, heavy flamethrower systems, and other means results in significant personnel and equipment losses. Loss reduction can be achieved by enhancing AW model functional characteristics and adapting combat tactics. Tactics have evolved significantly during the SMO, with increased use of assault mobile tactical groups (AMTGs) comprising a motorized rifle platoon or squad, one or two tanks, an engineer squad, and supporting artillery.
The primary requirement for tanks in AMTGs is autonomy, particularly effective target reconnaissance using UAVs and subsequent engagement. When penetrating enemy defenses, tanks are likely to face ambushes targeting their sides and rear, making all-aspect protection and enhanced mine resistance critical.
In defense, tank effectiveness is ensured by precise target engagement with armor-piercing sub-caliber (APFSDS) and high-explosive fragmentation (HEF) rounds at medium ranges (up to 2,500 m) and guided tank missiles (ATGM) at long ranges (up to 5,000 m), as well as timely covert repositioning to avoid enemy counterfire. Covert repositioning can involve moving behind earthen berms with firing ports or along trenches between dugouts.
In cases where ammunition resupply at firing positions is not feasible, a “tank carousel” tactic is used, involving multiple tanks rotating between firing, resupply, and reloading positions.
High tank firing effectiveness from closed positions can be achieved through timely target detection using UAVs and coordinate transmission to tank crews. Tanks in defense enhance stability, particularly during nighttime enemy attacks, as observed during the SMO with Ukrainian forces. Thermal imaging sights enable timely detection and effective engagement of advancing enemy forces.
A key direction for tank improvement is increasing gun caliber to enhance APFSDS and ATGM penetration, HEF round effectiveness with programmable detonation, and engagement of exposed and entrenched personnel and lightly armored targets.
Addressing the critical issue of ensuring adequate AW protection requires a comprehensive approach, combining systemic protection of tank and motorized rifle units (through camouflage, air defense, missile-artillery, aviation, electronic warfare, and engineering support) with individual, multi-layered protection reducing enemy detection, targeting, and damage potential.
High AW protection can be achieved by integrating existing and prospective protection means, including advanced armor, optoelectronic suppression complexes, dynamic protection, active protection systems, upper hemisphere protection, electromagnetic protection, and localized protection of critical components and personnel.
Reducing irreparable losses from ammunition explosions or fires is critical and involves improving fire suppression systems and localized ammunition protection.
Preliminary assessment of AW protection development directions highlights the following scientific-technical tasks:
Protection against precision weapons and combat/reconnaissance-strike UAVs;
Development of modular armor with removable blocks adaptable to advanced threats using new barrier structures and materials;
Continued improvement of dynamic protection using active chemical, electro-, and hydrodynamic principles;
Refinement of electromagnetic protection systems to preemptively trigger mines, IEDs, and ATGMs with magnetometric fuzes;
Development of signature-distorting protection means;
Integration of electronic protection systems (active and optoelectronic) with passive detection;
Enhanced mine resistance;
Measures to reduce irreparable losses;
Improved fire safety;
Reliable crew protection from radioactive dust, chemical, and biological agents.
Priority directions for AW firepower development include expanding effective engagement ranges through improved accuracy and energy characteristics, increasing the range and speed of sighting-observation complexes with multispectral systems for all-weather, day-night operation, developing reconnaissance UAVs, and automating target search with systems for detection, recognition, and prioritization.
Key scientific-technical tasks for firepower include:
Development of multispectral all-weather, day-night sighting complexes;
Use of reconnaissance UAVs for AW target reconnaissance;
Development of high-ballistic systems using electro-thermochemical propulsion, transitioning to electromagnetic, impulse, and other novel defeat systems, and creating advanced propellants and bimetallic penetrators;
Development of precision-guided missiles with multispectral seekers and “fire-and-forget” capability;
Fire control systems with high-speed processors and precise stabilization;
Integration of AI for target search and recognition.
The challenge of ensuring reliable and responsive external control of AW and combined-arms units lies in the contradiction between slow control processes and the rapid pace of modern combat with overwhelming data flows. This can be addressed by enhancing AW command controllability and automating control processes for individual models and units.
Command controllability requirements can be met by integrating onboard information-control systems (OICS) using high-performance computers, high-resolution vision systems, electronic protection, communications, navigation, and data processing/transmission systems. Full OICS potential requires integration into tactical-level automated command systems (ACS).
Priority directions for command controllability development include:
Development of unified integrated information-control systems for AW integration with tactical ACS;
Use of comprehensive navigation systems (autonomous and satellite-based);
High-performance computers and high-speed data transmission systems;
“Friend-or-foe” identification systems;
Integration of AW data reception with systemic reconnaissance for real-time battlefield intelligence;
AI technologies for processing large heterogeneous data volumes and improving decision-making;
Development of remotely controlled and robotic AW models.
Priority directions for AW mobility development include:
Improvement of power plants for enhanced specific performance;
Development of hybrid power plants with electric transmissions;
Refinement of hydromechanical transmissions with high-power hydrostatic drives, hydrodynamic brakes, and improved brake and transmission reliability;
Enhanced power plant efficiency through electronic fuel injection, turbocharging, and reduced cooling/air purification power consumption;
Improved suspension with high-energy capacity, auto-adjusting shock absorbers, and increased roller dynamic travel;
Development of hydropneumatic suspension with auto-adjustable clearance, stiffness, damping, and hull stabilization for improved firing accuracy on the move;
Automated driver workstations with unified controls, information displays, visibility aids, and seats;
Creation of a scientific-technical foundation for multifunctional electrical systems supporting mobility, armament, and protection.
Timely maintenance and restoration of AW after combat damage depend on both model operational-technical characteristics and the effectiveness of the tank-technical support (TTS) system. SMO experience shows that existing repair and restoration units (RRUs) lack the capacity for timely and complete restoration of combat-damaged AW requiring current or medium repairs. Improving RRU capabilities is a pressing task.
Special attention should be paid to training repair specialists for unit repair companies and separate repair-restoration battalions and equipping them with modern mobile repair means. The primary principle for improving RRU structure is prioritizing restoration of AW requiring minimal effort, enhancing military-economic efficiency.
To enhance the effectiveness of mobile factories for major repairs of AW components and models, they should be positioned as close as possible to combat zones.
Key scientific-technical tasks for ensuring operational-technical characteristics include:
Transition to a mixed maintenance system combining planned-preventive and condition-based maintenance;
Improvement of methods and means for quality restoration and resource extension in field and stationary conditions;
Ensuring high reliability in extreme conditions;
Development of low-maintenance assemblies with extended service lives;
Use of block-modular design for rapid replacement of damaged blocks;
High unification and interchangeability of components, field repairability, and ease of maintenance;
Development of advanced training systems and programs.
Modernization of AW models to bring outdated models to modern standards is a key direction for fleet renewal. Modernized models, such as the T-72B3M, T-80BVM, T-90M Proryv, and BMP-2M with the Berezhok module, effectively used in the SMO, demonstrate comparable performance to new models at lower costs. On June 13, 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the T-90M Proryv is “undoubtedly the best tank in the world.”
The choice between procuring new models or modernizing existing ones is based on the “effectiveness-cost” criterion, with the cost of task execution as the target function and combat effectiveness as the constraint.
The outlined priority directions for AW characteristic development can guide R&D for new models and, where practically feasible, modernization of existing ones. Successful implementation will depend on the development and application of corresponding military technologies.
NOTES
Boryushin V.N., Sokolenko V.N. Priority programs for the development of U.S. armored weaponry and equipment // Foreign Military Review. 2017. No. 10. pp. 46–56.
Gorchitsa G. Implementation of the network-centric doctrine // Military-Industrial Courier. 2012. No. 36.
Golovachev G.I., Shevchenko A.V., Shirobokov V.G. Some problems of armored equipment development and solutions // Military Thought. 2012. No. 1. pp. 40–49.
Golovachev G.I., Dulepa V.V. Methodology for assessing the military-economic effectiveness of developed (modernized) armored weaponry models // Armament and Economics. 2019. No. 4 (50). pp. 21–30.
Golovachev G.I., Dulepa V.V. Methodology for assessing the military-economic effectiveness of developed (modernized) armored weaponry models // Armament and Economics. 2019. No. 4 (50). pp. 21–30.
Golovachev G.I., Panteleev A.L., Shirobokov V.G. Ways to implement priority directions for the development of armored weaponry characteristics using military technologies // Military Thought. 2017. No. 3. pp. 11–20.
.jpg)
