Arms 2009 2

2(49).2009

C O N T E N T S NAVY 2

French flagship of the Russian Navy

WEAPONS 22 Tank-busters: A short view on modern anti-tank grenade-launchers

Director General Evgeny Osipov Executive Director Alexander Kiryanov Production Editor Eduard Voytenko Editors Alexander Gudko Svetlana Komagorova Marketing Director Vadim Isaev

LAND FORCES

WEAPONS

10 Russian Tank Export Does the T-80 have any outlook?

32 The PP-2000 Submachine Gun

Translation Ilya Balkanov

INDUSTRIES

TECHNOLOGIES

Photos and graphics in this issue: Marina Lystseva, Alexey Mikheev, STT Group, osk.ru, testpilots.ru, flickr.com

20 STT Group: Special-Purpose Equipment & Technologies

36 Industrial undersea robotics: Russia and the West

Sales Director Vladimir Zilinko Sales Manager Yana Zhvirbo Dmitry Kuprin Maria Balanuk Art Director Alvina Kirillova Designers Alexander Cheredayko Alexander Strelyaev Elena Shishova IT Manager Pavel Chernyak

Circulation: 8000 The magazine is registered in the Committee for Press of the Russian Federation. Certificate № 016692 as of 20.10.1997. Certificate № 77-15450 as of 19.05.2003.

Any material in this publication may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. The editorial staff’s opinion does not necessarily coincide with that of the authors. Advertisers bear responsibility for the content of provided materials.

ARMS, 2009 ADDRESS P.O. Box 77, Moscow, 125057, Russia Tel.: + 7 495 626-52-11 Fax.: + 7 499 151-61-50 E-mail: af@airfleet.ru

MILITARY AVIATION 44 Military Transport Aviation’s resource is nearly used

NAVY

FRENCH FLAGSHIP OF THE RUSSIAN NAVY 2

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

NAVY

Col. Gen. Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the General Staff, said that Russia was going to buy French Mistral-class helicopter carrier and he added that Russian shipyards would then produce more such carriers with France's aid. So the Ministry of Defense officially confirmed the information about the negotiations between Russia and France. The purchase, if successful, would be the first largescale arms import deal concluded by Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Ivan Konovalov military analyst of the Commersant newspaper for the Arsenal magazine

HISTORY OF NOT COMPLETED YET DEAL At the 21st Euronaval international show in France Russian Navy chief Adm. Vladimir Vysotcky first expressed interest in buying foreign military equipment for the Russian Navy. The admiral said then that the Russian Navy was interested "in joint research and also direct purchases of French naval equipment." As the reporters noticed Navy Chief was especially interested in the models of L-90 French universal amphibious assault ships – Mistral and Tonnerre exposed by the DCN State Shipbuilding Company from France.

In the result the Russian Defense Ministry started to negotiate with their French colleagues on purchasing of this class French universal amphibious assault ship (Mistral). There were only rumors on the subject. The Ministry of Defense and the Naval Commander remained silence. In the beginning of August La Tribune published several details of the ongoing negotiations. According to the newspaper the Russian party presented a proposal to the French military that Russia was going to purchase a French ship of this class and produce three more such ships at the Russian shipyards when technology transfer was made.

The French newspaper also quoted French Minister of Defense Herve Morin who in the middle of June wrote to his Russian counterpart Anatoly Serdyukov that “shares his (Serdyukov) opinion on the bilateral interest in the immediate beginning of the technical consultations between Russian and French experts” on the issue. He supposed then that the special group of experts from both countries and representatives of the defense industry should have been created “to initiate operational and technical dialogue”.

According to La Tribune Mr. Morin suggested that the talks be started at the naval show in St. Petersburg in June this year. We do not know whether the consultations took place. But in a month everything was confirmed at the top level.

Col. Gen. Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the General Staff, officially confirmed that Russia intended to purchase a Mistral class amphibious assault ship a type of helicopter carrier and on receiving a license produce at least 2(49).2009

●

3

NAVY

four more ships of this type. Mr. Laurent Tessier, the official representative of the French Ministry of Defense, confirmed the Russian interest in such a universal amphibious assault ship and noted that “the Russian inquiry is general”. As noted by Arnaud Kalik, the chief editor of the French TTU military strategic newsletter, the Elysée palace, the French Defense Ministry and DCNS waited for the Russian final decision, namely political decision, on the agreement. But there was no such a decision.

UNIVERSAL AND ASSAULT The USA was the pioneer in the development of the universal assault amphibious ships. The war in Vietnam was an incitement to it. Pentagon decided that they were needed in the ship able to decide its own tactical tasks during the amphibious operations. The US Navy received into operation five Tarawa universal amphibious assault ships in 1970s. The Wasp ships succeeded them. Eight ships of this type entered the service in the US Navy in 1989-2007. They are very similar to Mistral amphibious assault ships but they are twice as large as Mistral. The Wasp displacement is 40500 tons.

These ships are one of the key elements of the US strategic force demonstration doctrine. The American allies in NATO followed the US example a bit later. The necessity of such ships was 4

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

very topical for France who conducted operations in its overseas possessions and African colonies. In whole the military and humanitarian activity including amphibious, transport and evacuation operations significantly increased in the end of XX - beginning of XXI centuries. That is why more universal amphibious assault ships were built.

The Mistral designation started in the late 80s. In 1992 the DCN French Shipbuilding Department exhibited the perspective project of the universal amphibious assault ship called BIP (Batiment D'Intervention Polyvalent – universal interventional ship) with the displacement of 15 000 tons. In fact that was a light aircraft carrier which was capable to carry helicopters and VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircrafts along with amphibious troops and military equipment. The French Naval Commander met a problem of writing off two Ouragan class landing platform docks (displacement 8 500 tons) – Ouragan and Orage built in the 60s. Foudre and Sirocco landing platform docks of the Foudre class were built in the 1990s (displacement 12 400 tons). In 1997 within the Army Model 2015 national program the French Naval Commander started NTCD special program (Nouveau Transport de Chalands de Debarquement –new landing platform dock). Under the program two new universal amphibious

assault ships were to be built for the French Navy.

Actually they could continue the building of the Foudre class vessels.

But after a long parliamentary debate between the parties concerned it was solved that the French Navy needed new more modern BIP project ship.

Based on the project four variants were designed (BIP 8, BIP 10, BIP 13 and BIP 19). The main difference was in their dimensions. BIP 8, the smallest one, had a length of 102 meters and displacement of 8 000 tons. BIP 19, the largest one, had a length of 190 meters and displacement of 19 000 tons. According to the French Naval Commander’s demands BIP 19 was chosen in the middle of 2000.

The new ship’s type was classified as “amphibious assault carrier (ship)” (Bâtiments de Projection et Commandement - BPC). L9013 Mistral, the first ship of the class, was constructed at various French shipyards in two major and several minor components, which would be united on completion. DCNS, which was designated the head of construction, made the front half of the ship in Brest. ALSTOM Marine-Chantiers de l'Atlantique constructed the forward half of the ship in Saint-Nazaire and was responsible for transporting it to the DCNS's shipyard in Brest for the final assembly. Some Polish companies were also involved

NAVY in the construction. Finally the first Mistral ship was commissioned into the French Navy in 2006. Following the start of the 2006 Lebanon War, Mistral was one of the four French ships deployed into the waters of Lebanon.

Jean Bart and Jean de Vienne Frigates and landing platform dock were also deployed. These ships were to protect, and if necessary evacuate, European citizens in Lebanon and Israel. L9014 Tonnerre amphibious assault ship was built soon after Mistral and entered the service in February, 2007. It was predicted that these two helicopter carriers would take 34 months to complete, with design and construction for both ships costing 685 million Euros, 30% less than it was planned because of the different engineering innovation decisions and component building.

In December 2008 new contract was signed. According to it a new Mistral ship will have been built by 2011-2012.

STX Company (former ALSTOM MarineChantiers de l'Atlantique) will build the main part (75 % of the contract) and DCNS will work with the ship combat system. This ship costs 420 million Euros. The French Naval Commander considers the possibility of the 4th ship building by 2020.

32 meters (100 ft) Draught: 6.2 meters (21 ft). Speed: 18.8 knots (35 km/h) Range: 19 800 nautical miles.

The flight deck of the ship is approximately 199 meters long and 32 meters wide. The deck has six helicopter landing spots. The 1,800-square-metre (19,000 sq ft) hangar deck can hold 8 helicopters, and includes a maintenance area. The ship can carry 16 helicopters maximum (half of the air group of the Mistral is to be constituted of NH90s transport helicopters, the other half being composed of Tigre assault helicopters). The flight and hangar decks are connected by two aircraft lifts, one on the left and second on the right side, and the main lift located near the aft of the ship, on the centerline.

The difference with the basic BIP 19 project is the absence of the front skijump. That is why Mistral is not capable to carry VTOL aircrafts.

The Mistral class ships can accommodate up to 470 soldiers, although this can be doubled for short-term

deployments. The 122 meters long and 13.5 meters wide vehicle hangar can carry 1200 tons of cargo - up to 13 tanks or 60 armored vehicles or 70 cars. The 57.5 meters long and 15.4 meters wide 885-square-metre (9,530 sq ft) well deck can accommodate four landing crafts. The ship is capable of operating two LCAC hovercrafts or four middle landing crafts (French LCMs or Russian 11770 Serna crafts).

The French ship is not well armed.

Its armament is limited by the tasks of self-defense against point air targets and terrorist vessels. The Mistral class ships were armed with two Simbad launchers for Mistral Air Defense missile system and four 12.7 mm M2-HB Browning machine guns. Two Brenda Mauser 30 mm guns are also included in the design. The ship is also equipped with electromagnetic warfare assets, improved systems of communication, command and control. Information from the ship's sensors is centralized in SENIT 9 system, the modernization

UNIVERSAL FRENCH HELICOPTER CARRIER A universal amphibious assault Mistral class ship is capable of transporting and deploying landing troops and equipment and is able to be used as a command ship. Displacement: 16 500 tones (empty), 21300 tones (full load), 32 300 tones (with ballasts).

Length: 199 meters (650 ft) Beam:

2(49).2009

●

5

NAVY

Mistral (L9013)

6

●

of SENIT 8 used by the French aircraft carriers. The ship is equipped with a 69-bed hospital. There are two surgery blocks and a radiology room fitted with a scanner. Capacity is 69 beds, but it can be extended. The Mistral class ship can be used as command and control ship, with a command centre for 150 personnel.

Mistral is powered by modern electric power plant controlled by the special automatic system. Main propulsion motors are installed inside the steerable propellers. Mistral is the first ship in the world to use steerable propellers (14 MW). The propellers are powered by electricity from four Wartsila Company diesel alternators (21 MW) and can be oriented in any angle. The alternators also produce power supply for all the ship systems. This propulsion technology gives the ships significant maneuvering capabilities, as well as freeing up space normally reserved for machinery and propeller shafts. The Mistral ship is additionally equipped with front azimuth thrusters. On the sides there are also two wing rudders used at a strong rolling. When the water is still the rudders are kept inside the ship’s hull.

When started the main priorities of the Mistral class were universality, multitask capability, usage of the civil shipbuilding standards and complete automation. It allowed the complement to be reduced and the command and control on the ship and air group to be improved. The complement is 177 persons (20 officers) excluding air group personnel. SIC-21information exchange system can be easily integrated into the analog systems of the West European and American Navies.

As far as civil standards are concerned it is worth saying of ecological component. So the Mistral has a biological wastes collecting and processing

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

system. All the wastes are thrown into the sea.

RIVALS However when such a purchase is being planned Russia is to announce a tender. It was officially confirmed

by Russian Navy chief Adm. Vladimir Vysotcky on September 11. According to Mr. Vysotcky France, Spain and the Netherlands will participate in it. There are no talks with the USA by obvious reasons. But the Dutch interfered in the sensational deal much earlier. On September, 11 Hein Van Ameiden, the Director of Damen Schedle Shipyard, said in his interview to the Dutch NRC Handelsblad newspaper that Russia was interested in the Dutch Rotterdam class ship.

Its type is very close to the Mistral class. Johan de Vitt Landing Platform Dock or LPD amphibious warfare ship (the second ship of the Rotterdam class) was exhibited at the international naval show in St Petersburg in the end of June. Mr. Van Ameiden said that the Russian Navy representatives saw the ship and “fell in love with it design”. The Dutch ship builder avowed “If the agreement is made the Russians will purchase four such ships”.

If the ships are built by the license the total cost of the contract will be about 1-1.5 billion Euros. And the Dutch Damen Schelde is going to rival French DCNS, the Mistral builder, in the tender.

The Spanish Navantina Shipbuilding Company may participate in the tender too. In 2008 DCNS rivaled Schedele in the Moroccan corvette tender. The contract was signed with Schedele in spite of the fact that the French defense industry is traditionally very strong on the North African arms market (Morocco ordered DCNS a FREMM class Frigate later). In 2007 Navantia rivaled and won DCNS in the Australian tender for the universal amphibious assault ship.

However it is known that the Dutch Rotterdam ship is not a universal amphibious assault ship. It is a Landing Platform Dock or LPD amphibious warfare ship. As Mistral Rotterdam is capable to transport and land equipment and troops and it can be operated as a hospital or a command and control ship. But Rotterdam belongs to the lower class than the Mistral assault ship. Rotterdam carries fewer helicopters. There are two ships in this class. L800 Rotterdam, the first one, was commissioned into the Dutch Navy in 1997. Modernized L801 Johan de Witt entered the service in 2007. It is interesting that the hulls of both ships were built by the Rumanian Damen Shipyard. The displacement of Johan de Witt shown to the Russians during the international naval show in St Petersburg is 16 800 tons. Length: 176.35 meters. Beam: 29.0 meters.

Draft: 5.5 meters.

The flight deck of Johan de Witt is approximately 58 meters long and 25 meters wide. The deck has two

Johan de Witt (L801) Rotterdam

NAVY helicopter landing spots. It is capable to carry up to six helicopters (Mistral – sixteen helicopters). This ship can accommodate up to 611 soldiers. The vehicle hangar can carry different cargo - up to 30 tanks or 170 vehicles.

The 900-square-metre well deck can accommodate six LCVP middle landing crafts and up to four of LCU or LCM type. That was a bilateral project of the Netherlands and Spain. Spain built two Rotterdam class ships – L51 Galicia and L 52 Castilla.

I doubt whether Navantina will participate in the Russian tender as it has its own shipbuilding order which is larger than the Mistral one. Juan Carlos I is the universal amphibious assault ship building for the Spanish Navy. It is planned to be the largest ship in the Navy and is demonstrated as Buque de Proyección Estratégica (ship of the strategic force demonstration). Its displacement when the landing troops and equipment is onboard is 27 079 tons, when carried helicopters – 24 600 tons. Length: 230.8 meters. Beam: 32 meters. Draft: 7 meters. The well deck can accommodate four LCM-1E middle landing crafts or two such crafts and one LCAC hovercraft. It can transport up to 925 landing soldiers including shore reconnaissance group of 23 soldiers. The vehicle hangar can carry up to 46 main battle tanks; on the top deck different vehicles can be located too. In the nearby hangar 12 NH90 medium transport or 8 CH-47 Chinook cargo RW-aircrafts can be carried. Instead of helicopters the ship can also carry up to AV-8B Harrier II or F-35B 7 VTOL FW-aircrafts. Flight deck can be used for transporting of additional aircrafts.

In this case the ship is capable to carry up to 30 NH90 helicopters or 20 VTOL planes. The main feature of Juan Carlos I is its flight deck (203.2 meters length and 32 meters beam) able to operate Harrier II and F-35В FW-aircrafts. It has four landing spots for four cargo and six for medium transport helicopters.

So Juan Carlos I excels Mistral in a great number of characteristics. And the Spanish won the Australian tender with this project and will build two Canberra class universal amphibious ships.

After long negotiations the Australian Ministry of Defense neglected the French Armaris (DCNS и Thales joint company) in building the Mistral class

universal amphibious assault ships. It was announced in June, 2007 that Australian Tenix Defense Company (BAE Systems’ Australia since 2008) in cooperation with Navantina will have built Canberra and Adelaide universal amphibious assault ships based on the Juan Carlos I project by 2013. The hulls of both Australian ships will be built in Spain. The contract total cost is $3 billion.

On the other side unique Juan Carlos I is still being tested and Navantia’s participation in the Russian tender for universal amphibious assault ship has not been officially confirmed yet. Until recently the Spanish company had said nothing. But its officials declared not long ago that the company was going to become “European leader in the military ships export”.

Germany, France and the USA. So the famous Varyag was built at the American William Cramp & Sons Shipyard. In 1930s the Soviet Union bought Tashkent Destroyer built by Italian Odero Terni Orlando. Kirov and Dzerjinsky border guard cruisers were built in Italy too. In 1940 the USSR bought from Germany Lutzow non completed heavy cruiser later renamed in Petropavlovsk (in Tallinn in 1944) but it was not finally completed. As a part of land-lease the USSR got more than 600 British and American ships including Royal Sovereign (Arkhangelsk) warship and Milwaukee (Murmansk) cruiser. After the Great Patriotic War the Soviet Union did not deal with NATO countries on buying military ships.

But the Warsaw Pact shipyards built a great number of ships for the USSR.

Juan Carlos I

As far as the Dutch Rotterdam is concerned the Russian defense industry is able to design and built its own ship of this class. And all the rumors on the Dutch talks are a simple tender formality when the Mistral contract is so close to de signed. And the French party has a significant priority as the bilateral negotiations have started long time ago.

Why does Russia need this helicopter carrier?

Russia has bought military ships abroad since the reign of Peter I. By the beginning of 1917 Russia bought or ordered several hundreds of military ships in Holland, England,

In Gdansk (Poland) several dozens of medium landing ships (770, 771, 773 projects) and 28 large landing ships of 775 project were built and still act as a part of the Russian Navy. The GDR built a line of 12 submarine hunters of 1331M project. A great number of auxiliary vessels were ordered by the USSR in the GDR, Poland, Rumania, Hungary and Finland.

The Director of the Strategy and Technology Analysis Center Ruslan Pukhov believes that the military export will increase as the Russian defense industry cannot satisfy all the requirements of the Russian Armed Forces.

In several areas foreign analogs are 2(49).2009

●

7

NAVY

Tonnerre (L9014) Mistral

8

●

cheaper and have advantages in price and quality. They can be produced and delivered in the shorter period of time.

However as the expert says this deal is very puzzled: the necessity of such a purchase and the opportunity of the further technology transfer are doubt-

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

ful. A French official working on the contract confirmed it in his interview to La Tribune saying that “the technology transfer must be strictly limited”.

If assigned the Mistral contract will be the first large-scale Russian military order abroad. The Mistral class displacement is only less than the displacement of Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft carrier. A purchase of one ship may be about 400 million Euros. It is twice as large as the total cost given for surface ship contracts

by Russia. The producing of the whole line may reach 1.5 billion Euros.

Michael Barabanov, the famous independent expert in the sphere of naval arms, says “In the situation when we do not have enough money to repair our ships and the Navy is not able to finance the building of corvettes and combatant crafts the purchase of such a ship seems to be really strange”.

There is no sense in neglecting the fact that the Russian defense industry is unable to build the ship of the Mistral class. We do not have any engineering developments. And as the Russian shipbuilding industry does not have enough money every project will finally become a protracted construction. Rather small Stereguschyiy corvette was built for seven years. St Petersburg submarine of project 667 was built for ten years and Severodvinsk submarine of project 885 has been building since 1993. At the same time the Russian Navy does not have any analogs of the French universal amphibious assault ship. We could have hardly called three Russian ships of project 1174 as amphibious assault ships. But Mitrofan Moskalenko and Alexander Nikolaev, the last two of them, were written off by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

NAVY

But the absence of such a ship in the Russian Navy is not the only reason of its purchase. What we all hope is when the tender starts the Ministry of Defense will design a special program where the Mistral class ship’s tasks in the Navy will be described.

These ocean helicopter carriers were designed as expeditionary ships for long-term missions. The Russian strategic interests are mainly in the postSoviet territory where such a ship will not be able to demonstrate all its advantages. When the operation is concerned it will look like a white crow among all the other ships as they are very different in its standards. Its combat importance will be extremely questionable.

Officials of the Russian Ministry of Defense seem to like the command and control feature as the main one.

It is rather difficult to find more com-

fortable flagship for the Navy. If purchased the first one Mistral class ship will be delivered to the Pacific Fleet and the second one to the Black Sea Fleet where its landing and air capacities may be used because of a tense situation in the Caucasus. On the other side such missions can be completed be the Russian amphibious assault ship if we will start to build them.

The only impartial reason of the Mistral universal amphibious assault ship class purchase is the economic one. If the contract is signed (though that will be a political decision) the precedent will be established because the large sum of money will be transferred as a lump-sum payment for one military ship. The Russian Ministry of Defense and the Naval Commander realize the market situation and understand that they

will manage to ensure a large or regular sum of money to be transferred for the naval purchase of at least one military ship. At the same time they know the Mistral class ship is to operate as an integrated part of an amphibious assault group. That is why additional Destroyers, Frigates and auxiliary vessels are to be built.

And according to some information the Russian air industry may soon get an order for a new carrier-based helicopter for the Russian Navy. There is no sense in the initiating of such a program for acting Russian carriers.

And if the contract is assigned the Russian mariners will be trained in France where they will gain the Western training and service experience. They will study the maintenance of modern ship systems. That is what the Russian naval personnel extremely needs.

2(49).2009

â—?

9

LAND FORCES

RUSSIAN TANK EXPORT Oleg Zheltonozhko Vladislav Belogrud

DOES THE T-80 HAVE ANY OUTLOOK? Our battle tanks are the best in the world. Is it truth or not? There is no need to explain to both opponents what the T-54, the T-72 or the T-80 is. Experts and specialists are still arguing on it. Why is the list of enthusiastic customers not so large if our tanks are the best? And why are they sold if they are the worst? Where is the root of the Russian tank strength? Why did the Soviet Union simultaneously build three main battle tanks? Is it luxury or foolishness? How did it happen? Which of these tanks is better?

Where do we go and what armor will protect Russia?

BRIEF HISTORY REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUSSIAN TURBINE POWERED TANK Tank is one of the symbols of the Russian Armed Forces. It is not only the main striking force of the Army but at the same it is the realization of that small part of the Russian technologies which we can be proud at.

Nevertheless even in this sphere we are not as good as we were in the Soviet epoch. As in the other areas of Russian defense industry production of export models is the main condition of surviving for the developers of Russian armor shield. Defense industry losses in the hard times were really great and it is not the fact that those times are over for tank builders.

10

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

Quantitative and qualitative tank superiority over the enemies gained by the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War caused many years’ nightmares of “the sudden tank strike directed to the English Channel”.

Beginning with the T-64 those were the Soviet tanks which became the standard for the tank builders of Great Britain, the USA and France…

When the Soviet Union collapsed the Russian Federation inherited the major part of quite modern Soviet tanks as well as a great number of old-fashioned military equipment.

Those were the T-64, the T-72 and the T-80 main battle tanks. Russia also managed to hold three of the four tank developing centers in Leningrad, Omsk and the Urals. But the most

celebrated Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau in Kharkov with all its products and the best manufacturing capabilities on the Soviet territory was given to Ukraine which also got the production of the powerful two stroke tank diesel engines 5TD and 6TD and the only repairing facility for such engines. That is why Ukraine started the serial line production of the dieselpowered T-80UD main battle tank, the most modern tank at the moment of the collapse of the USSR. The Soviet tank building industry was also inherited by the former “ideological allies” of the USSR which managed to handle their own tank production. Polish, Czechoslovakian, Rumanian, Yugoslavian plants produced their own the T-72s. They had

LAND FORCES lighter armor and referred to as the T-72M (M means “modernized”). The name itself showed the developmental lag of that model form the Soviet T-72A and T-72B models. The USSR gave its technical achievements to the Warsaw Pact allies cautiously creating significant developmental lag.

Nevertheless Yugoslavian developers managed to create a high-performance fire control system for their T-72-M-84. The system was highly appreciated by the Soviet specialists.

The Rumanian developers tried to make more simple improvements and proudly called all their “gismos” as the TR-125! Any bauble of folly will keep the ally jolly…

In fact when we speak about the tank export our tanks compete with their foreign clones of the T-72 Russian main battle tank.

There are two biggest serial plants producing tanks with different power plants in Russia. Omsk Transmash plant produced gas turbine powered the T-80 tank and Uralvagonzavod produced the T-72. The fact that Russia has three main battle tanks (the T-64, the T-72 and the T-80) is usually laughed at. Nevertheless bungling and evil intent were not the reason of it.

The powerful compact engine is the main problem when any tank is being designed. The Soviet tank building industry could not make a decisive breakthrough in the development of four-stroke diesel V-2 engines after the Great Patriotic War. The increasing of the specific output and decreasing of the power plant dimensions were badly needed. The Post-war T-54 and T-55 tanks caused no sensation in it.

The development of two-stroke diesel engines with opposed cylinders 4TD (later 5TD and 6 TD) based on the

Germany technology of aero diesel engine could become a real breakthrough. When designing new medium the T-64 tank A. Morozov gambled on it. But the delay in the creating of such an engine could be calculated in decades not years. Tank could not become as reliable as it was needed by different reasons and the line was delayed. Even forward units were not equipped with the T-64 tanks. The Armed Forces used the T-55 which became more and more unreliable in comparison with new NATO tanks.

Т-64

Т-64

1(48).2009

●

11

LAND FORCES Т-72С, India

Т-72 & Т-64

12

●

The reserve variant was needed. The T-64 powered with B-45 engine, less powerful and compact than 5TDF Kharkov one, could be accepted as such a variant. But B-45 succeeded B-2 and it was cheaper. New tank known as “object 172” was planned to be manufactured at Uralvagonzavod plant producing the T-54, the T-55 and their successor the T-62 for the Armed Forces. The large-scale production was to compensate the shortage of new high quality vehicles.

The designers of UVZ were not satisfied with the idea of being a jour-

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

neyman of Kharkov as it was when the T-54 had been designed. After criticizing a great number of Kharkov technical ideas UVZ convinced the customer in the necessity of changes.

They criticized the lightweight running gear, vertical tank automatic loading mechanism and 115-mm gun. UVZ started to design and manufacture not Morozov “object 172” but Kartcev and Venediktov “object 172M” with its own running gear, horizontal tank automatic loading mechanism and 125-mm gun. New tank was marked as the T-72. But the Ural vehicle was

reserve and the Kharkov the main one in the Soviet period. New achievements were first tested and fixed on the T-64 and then on the T-72. It happened with composite armor, missile munitions, active armor and fire control system. However the T-64 was equipped with 125-mm gun.

In the result unlike the T-72, the T-64 was only used by the Soviet Army and never exported even to the closest allies.

Even in the conditions of continuous redesigning of the T-64 the problem of tank engine did not disappear. The two stroke engine cost a lot of money and was modernized very slowly. Its maintenance was still as difficult as the maintenance of the aero engine. The further power increasing was a real problem. The only one plant could produce and repair them in the Soviet Union.

In 60s the decision of the given problem seemed to be in equipping tanks with gas turbine engines. In 1968 the government regulation said that “the designing of the tank powered with gas turbine is the main national goal”.

Gas turbine engine was mounted on the tank by Leningrad SKB 2 under the leadership of the chief designer N.

LAND FORCES Popov. Working on “object 219” they managed to solve the dust filtration problem in gas turbine engine when it is used on a ground combat vehicle.

But they had to accept increased fuel and air consumption and some dust passing through the system.

In the result Klimov R&D designed GTD-1000D gas turbine engine of 1000 horsepower. They managed to fix it in the engine compartment of 2.8 m3. At the same time the T-72 tank was powered with B-46 diesel engine of 780 horsepower fixed in the compartment of 3.1 m3.

Leningrad designers were not satisfied with Kharkov running gear.

That is why they designed the gearbox with five forward and one reverse sprocket. Suspension was reverted from pneumatic to torsion bar, with six forged steel-aluminum rubbertired road wheels on each side, with the tracks driven by rear sprockets.

At the same time the Leningrad tank succeeded the Kharkov loader, armor, and turret construction for a start.

Tank called the T-80 was started to manufacture at Omsk Transmash.

In the end the forward units were equipped with the T-80 not the T-64.

The tank was being gradually modernized to B and BV variants. Its U variant was powered with new 1250 horsepower gas turbine engine and equipped with active armor, new armored turret and better SUO – 1A45 fire control system.

Kharkov plant was let down because of its long work on “perspective” T-64. In the result the T-80 was given for adoption to HKBTM. However Kharkov designers managed to power the T-80 U (modernized T-80) with improved 1000 horsepower two stroke diesel engine. New T-80 UD, D means diesel, was started to manufacture. That was the last tank designed in the USSR.

Т-80B & Т-72А

in the arms trade was made. No one T-80 had been sold abroad even to the Warsaw Pact allies before the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is known that the GDR asked for the T-80 instead of Slovak and Polish the T-72M many times but the USSR always declined.

Former Soviet enemies from NATO were also interested in the new unique samples of military equipment. And Russian Spetcvoentekhnika was eager to cooperate.

Great Britain purchased one T-80U and one Tunguska Air-Defense system with their munitions packages in 1992.

Total cost of 10.7 million USD was really small for the opening of our military secrets. That was a cynical deal for one side and a fool one for the other side.

And the Ministry of Defense got less than a third of the sum. At the same time the USA with the help of Oman bought six T-72Cs. Later in 1994 four

T-80Us were delivered from Morocco to the USA but the information was not officially confirmed.

Because of such scandalous deals new and more effective Rosvooruzhenie was created.

Gas turbine T-80U also known as “flying” tank because of its cross-country and highway mobility seemed to be highly exported …

Cyprus was the first foreign country to officially obtain the T-80 tanks for its national guard. Russia sold 27 T-80Us and 14 T-80UKs for $172 million to Cyprus. The contract was signed in April, 1996. The tanks arrived in three batches of 27, 14 and 18 MBTs in 1996 and 1997. In the result Cyprus officially obtained fourteen T-80UK command MBTs additionally equipped with special assets, 27 standard T-80Us, 4 ARVs (armored-recovery vehicle) and 2 bridge-laying tanks. This significant-

Т-80U, Sweden

NEW TIME – READY TO EXPORT When the Soviet Union collapsed and “the great capitalistic revolution” took place there was no need in confrontation with western countries any longer. And there was no need in the thousands of tanks built in the USSR. We did not have to keep military secrets any longer and the first success 1(48).2009

●

13

LAND FORCES Т-80UК (Cyprus, 2007)

Т-80U

14

●

ly reinforced the army of that country. In 1995 a new unit was formed form those tanks and BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles which had been bought earlier. The platoon, company and battalion COs received command UK tanks. They could be easily recognized by the TShU-1-7 Shtora countermeasures system on the front of the turret. The average price of one tank bought by Cyprus was $ 3 million.

South Korea was officially given 6 T-80Us in 1996, followed by 27 T-80Us in January, 1997 to pay Russian debts to that country incurred during the

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

time of the USSR of $ 210 million.

According to the other information South Korea had eighty T-80U MBTs in 2007.

Russia has also tried to export T-80 MBTs to Turkey, Greece and Sweden whose armies were at the time looking for new tanks. Those attempts, however, failed. Make matters worse the Greek tender of 1998 turned out to be the most unsuccessful one for the T-80. Thanks to well-known unofficial report we found out several unpleasant details of the new T-80UE participated in that tender. The T-80UE had

new hydrostatic drive and control elements. That variant of the T-80 UM specially designed for the tender had a few “lacks”. And Ukrainian T-84, successor of the T-80UD, was not better. So the tanks produced in the Commonwealth of Independent States (the CIS) did not manage to destroy 80% “tank” targets at the distance of 2 km when going with the speed of 40 km per hour. The practical munitions were to blame as their ballistic performance did not correspond with the performance of real munitions. Russian and Ukrainian tanks could capture laser emission of each other but failed to capture the NATO one. Hydrostatic drive and tracks were so worn out that the T-80UE had to stop its test demonstration. No one of the drawbacks was fatal and could be remedied after the necessary modernization. However “the nightmare of Europe” reputation was not enough to compete with the best models of foreign tank industry.

The mass media information of the selling of 150 – 200 T-80Us to the Chinese Republic turned out to be wrong. The Chinese really examined the vehicles and we had photos which could confirm the fact but refused to purchase them. It must have happened because the Chinese realized that they

LAND FORCES would not be able to copy the T-80’s gas turbine engine in the near future.

The fact that they were designing their own tank made a great influence on the decision too. In designing of that tank the Chinese used the T-72 documents received from Eastern Europe.

2A46M smoothbore gun and automatic loader were successfully assimilated in China but they considered German diesel engine to be the best tank power plant.

Anyway such a major customer did not need any T-80s.

Nevertheless the T-80’s customers go on using the tank.

Universally recognized weak point of the entire Soviet and post-Soviet tanks is the absence of IR Imager.

Some of the T-80UKs were equipped with “Agava 2” devices but they were extremely outdated. We should thank the Cypriots who solved the problem.

In the beginning of 2005 the Cypriot Ministry of Defense signed a developmental contract for the modernization of their Plisa fire control system. It cost $12.1 million. The IR imager was to be included into the system. The modernization was made by the consortium consisted of Rosoboronexport, Belarusian Peleng and French Thales Optronics

Т-80UЕ (Greece, 2001)

Company which delivered Catherine FC IR cameras.

Rosoboronexport gained $ 2 million, Peleng – $ 4.6 million and Thales Optronics - $5.4 million.

Thales Optronics was chosen as it had already delivered Catherine FC IR cameras for 52 Cypriots АМХ-30В2 tanks.

According to the Cypriot authorities they are very satisfied with the T-80U. As was known in June, 2009 the Greek Cyprus is going to obtain more Russian tanks for its national guard. They might be thinking about another battalion

set of 41 vehicles. As was announced the negotiations on the issue has been conducted since 2006.

The Cypriots studied prices from the papers on Leopard-1A5 given by the German Defense Acquisition Agency, the AMX-30B2 tank of French General Armament Delegation and the T-84UD of Ukrainian Ukrspetcexport.

In the result the Cypriot Armed Forces chose Russian vehicles.

As was reported earlier Cyprus was going to gain 41 T-90 MBTs for 115 million euro. But finally they decided to purchase well-recommended tanks

Т-80UK (Cyprus, 2007)

1(48).2009

●

15

LAND FORCES ed again. In the situation when B-92-C2 diesel engine gives 1000 horsepower there is no need to produce less economic gas turbines which cost more than four stroke diesel engines.

The number of rather old vehicles is big.

According to the officials Russia had 2818 T-80s of all the models in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe zone on January 1, 2002.

In general Russian Armed Forces had more than 6500 T-80s and T-80Us both in active units and in the reserve in 2009. If it is necessary Russia can operate as much T-80s as it needs.

After withdrawal of the Soviet troops from the GDR Belorussia got 92 T-80 BV MBTs. It has been trying to sell them for a few years but there is no result. Why is it so? It is clear that the main problem holding customers is a gas turbine tank engine.

Т-80UК (Greece)

Т-84-120 "Yatagan"

and economize on maintenance. The spare parts delivering will be included in the contract.

WHERE CAN WE TAKE THE T-80 FROM? Unfortunately even this contract will not save Omsk Plant. The plant mostly produced military equipment (about 80% of general production) has not obtained any orders for a very long time and finally bankrupted. In fact it cannot produce tanks any longer.

Nowadays it produces only main spare parts of the T-80 and track chains. Some territory of the plant was bought by Omsk Design Bureau where they repair

16

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

the equipment and manufacture only limited production. In fact there is no tank building plant in Omsk now.

The active plant repairs the T-80s under government order. Being included in armored holding company under the aegis of Uralvagonzavod Transmash is strictly limited in its activity. The new director of UVZ has already declared that there is no need in gas turbine tanks. He says that Omsk Plant will produce spare parts, tools and accessories for the T-90 and several special vehicles.

It is known that the production of gas turbine tank engines has been stopped and is not planned to be start-

LONG-STANDING RIVALS Ukrainian exports of the T-80UD have been moderately successful and allowed Ukraine to hold and develop its tank building industry. Ukrainian exports of the T-80UD have been moderately successful. Pakistan bought 320 T-80UD (Object 478BE) tanks from Ukraine.

Pakistan who damaged its relations with all western arms producers bought the T-80 UDs because no other country wanted to sell the third generation tanks to Pakistan. That was the beginning and end of the Ukrainian success. Pakistan building its own Al-Haled tanks with the help of China does not need in buying tank sets but they buy 6TDF power plants. There is no other variant of buying such powerful tank engines. It is not confirmed that the Ukrainians managed to interest China in their exotic engines. There are no grounds to suppose that the Pakistani luck will be repeated again.

There are only a few tank-customers and the unstable political situation will never increase the number of potential customers of the Ukrainian tank builders and allow expensive defense industry products to be sold. Kharkov Tank Repairing Plant suggested the T-80B and BV to be repowered from gas turbine to 6TD engines. But there was nobody who agreed on it.

“Ukrainianized” T-80UD was

LAND FORCES referred to as the T-84. The T-84 Oplot tank was specially adopted for hot weather and mountainous conditions.

The T-84-120 Yatagan tank mounts a 120 mm main gun which fires 120 mm NATO rounds. It also has automated gear shifting in the place of mechanical gear selector, driver's T-bar control replacing tiller bars, air conditioning and projectile muzzle velocity sensor as well as differences in the fire control system, communications, etc. It was also armored with dynamic protection, equipped with a new turret containing automatic loader in its back part and powered with 1200 hp 6TD-2 diesel engine. According to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Ukraine had 271 T-80 MBTs and 6 T-84 MBTs on January 1, 2003.

COMBAT USE While a number of T-80 MBTs were inherited by Ukraine, Belorussia and Kazakhstan, Russia still managed to save the majority of those tanks for itself. The perfectness of the T-80 has never been used I real combat. We cannot call the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis as the operational use when tanks were used against the Russian Parliament. On October 4, 1993 six T-80UD MBTs from 12th Guards Tank Regiment which is a part of 4th

Kantemirovsk Guards Tank Division took positions on a bridge opposite the Russian Parliament building. As in the shooting gallery the building was hit 12 times by Fragment-HE rounds and under caliber AP rounds. It is not the best page of the T-80 combat service.

T-80B and T-80BV and T-80U MBTs were used during the First Chechen War. This first real combat experience for the T-80 MBT was unsuccessful as it

was used for capturing cities, a task for which they were not very well suited.

T-62 MBTs were enough to complete the mission. T-80s were badly damaged during the campaign. When well –trained RPG operators fired from the sides or rear of the tank it had no chances in fact. The average of hits that each destroyed tank received ranged about 8 as eyewitnesses said.

A number of vehicles exploded when the autoloader with vertically

Т-90С (India)

Т-90СА (Algeria)

1(48).2009

●

17

LAND FORCES

Т-90А

placed rounds was hit: in theory it should be protected by the road wheel, but when the tank got hit on its side armor the ready-to-use ammunition exploded. The T-72 horizontal automatic loader fully closed by the road wheels was more efficient. When the crew was located inside the ammunition stowage a few centimeters made no difference. And unfortunately our tanks did not have efficient side protection though it would very effective protection measure.

URAL WINNER The main role among Russian main battle tanks belongs to the T-90. It was designed as a modernization of the T-72B in the late 80s - early 90s and called as the T-72 BU. As UVZ wished to be the main producer of the more modern than the T-80 Russian main battle tank and as the Ukrainians named their tank T-84 the new tank was first named as the T-88 and later renamed to the T-90. In 1992 it entered the service and was officially named T-90.

Short-scale production of the T-90 started in 1992. UVZ delivered 120 T-90 MBTs to the Russian Armed Forces in 1992—1996 and renewed the production only in 2004. 493 T-90 main battle tanks were delivered to the Russian Army by 2008. 63 T-90s are planned to enter the service in 2009. The status of the only one really being produced tank allows the T-90 to gain the best assets and shed off the reputation as “simplified” tank which associates with the T-72.

18

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

On the other side as it succeeded to the T-72 our tank builders could expect the former Soviet customers will be interested in this model too.

More than 500 T-90s have been delivered to India since 2000. At the same time India started its own licensed line production and is going to increase the number of T-90 tanks in the Indian Armed Forces up to 1657.

As it was announced in summer 2009 the T-90 will be additionally equipped with Catherine FC IR cameras produced by French Thales.

These cameras ensure effective target identification in any light conditions during day and night. They are fixed in compact optic electronic modules on any base and can be integrated into any difficult command and control systems.

Algeria and Saudi Arabia signed contracts for the T-90 delivering in 2006-2008. Turkmenistan and Venezuela are also interested in this main battle tank.

The T-90C was allowed to be exported in 1992 when the T-90 came into service of the Russian Armed Forces. But it was not advertised for a long time because of the possible competition with the T-72 C. It should be noted than when exported the T-90 is to compete more with the tanks of its own set than with other tank types.

Nowadays there is a great number of proposals to modernize the T-72 even from the countries where it has never been produced. India (EX tank), Poland (Tvardy PT-91 tank), Rumania (TR-125 tank), Slovakia (Moderna T-72M2 tank), Czech (T-72M3 CZ and T-72 M$ CZ tanks) and Ukraine

Т-90А

(T-72AG, T-72MP, T-72-120 tanks) offer their own variants. Most customers prefer modernization of their own T-72s to new T-90s. For example, Libya acted in this way.

Unfortunately tank export market is less than aviation or Air Defense ones. At the same time it is more competitive. Even in this situation UVZ has its own decision. It is the T-72 Rogatka model. The program will be chosen by the customer and depend on the finances he has. We hope that the T-72 modernization service will be needed for a long time.

INSTEAD OF RESUME The sphere of the usage of the most modern T-80 main battle tank is getting smaller and smaller because of its gas turbine power plant. The repowering may save the situation but it is very expensive. Because of the gas turbine engine, difficult maintenance and high personnel requirements the T-80 looks like a tank aristocrat and it is not quite suitable for usual life.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE GUNMISSILE LAUNCHER-ARMED T-80U MAIN BATTLE TANK Weight - 46.5 tones. Crew – 3 men.

3 shaft GTD-1250 (1250 hp) gas turbine engine. Speed 70 km/h (43 mph) in highway, 40-45 km/h (30 mph) in cross country. Primary armament – 125-mm 2A46M-1 stabilized smoothbore gun fed by automatic loader, 45 rounds.

Secondary armament - 7.62 mm PKT coaxial machine gun, 12.7 mm Utyos antiaircraft machine gun. It is protected with composite armor, built-in active armor and crew NBC collective defense system.

LAND FORCES

OUR GUESTS WILL BE WEARING DIFFERENT HATS FOR THE SAME OCCASION.

THE PREMIER MARITIME & AEROSPACE EXHIBITION

D AT E :

1 – 5 December 2009 VENUE:

The leading maritime and aerospace show in the region just got better!

Mahsuri International Exhibition Centre Langkawi, Malaysia

The Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition is now held at a single venue, the Mahsuri International Exhibition Centre. Taking you straight to the heart of Asia-Pacific's defense and civil growth markets. Network with over 250 delegations embodying key defence and civil decision makers and end users.

LIMA ’09 – the essential platform to showcase best-in-breed emerging technologies and equipment.

Don’t miss it.

SUPPORTED BY:

Government of Malaysia

Ministry of Defence

Royal Malaysian Customs

Department of Civil Aviation

Malaysian Armed Forces

Malaysia Airports Berhad

Royal Malaysian Navy

Fire and Rescue Department, Malaysia

Royal Malaysian Air Force

Department of Fisheries Malaysia

Royal Malaysian Police

Malaysia Maritime Enforcement Agency

Malaysian Defence Industry Council

Maritime Institute of Malaysia

HW LIMA SDN BHD 35F-1-6 Jalan 2/27F, KLSC II, Section 5, Wangsa Maju 53300 Kuala Lumpur T : +603 4142 1699 F : +603 4142 2699 E : hw5@hwlima.org W : www.lima2009.com.my

1(48).2009

●

19

INDUSTRIES

SPECIAL-PURPOSE EQUIPMENT & TECHNOLOGIES Latin America, India, Pakistan, and the CIS member countries –wherever the law enforcement bodies need qualitative and reliable search equipment.

Our enterprise has created the entire technological chain; from the high-tech research to the line production of our assets. We have collected the unique staff, huge experience in the practical use of the search equipment and valuable methods for employment of our devices in day-to-day running.

Existence of the preproduction allows us to respond the demands of our customers rapidly and flexibly. We fabricate our line products on the industrial enterprise in accordance with standard ISO 9000.

Non-linear radiolocation is our priority task now. We have managed to acquire outstanding achievements in this area: we are the single company that serially produces and supplies the state customers with portable non-linear radars used for the safety mine detection. Korshun devices helped

Vladimir N. TKACH President of STT Group (ECMC-1 & UTTA Protection Group) ussian IKMC-1 Group has been specialized on the development, production, supply and maintenance of hightechnology and effective security assets for 15 years. We develop and produce assets of mine terrorism prevention, data secure, and air transport security.

We supply our products under well-known STT Group registered trademark. Our customers and clients are the military, law-enforcement bodies, antiterrorism units, Federal Protection Service, security services of large state and private enterprises. Our instruments have a deserved reputation and find a quick sale not only in Russia but in Israel, Great Britain, Germany,

R

20

â—?

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

INDUSTRIES minesweepers from different agencies and countries to prevent the blasting of terrorist bombs and saved lives of the civilians.

Our best achievement is the creation of Amcord search system. It allows conducting the reconnaissance of explosion subjects on vast territories. The system can be mounted on the chassis of any vehicle and gives the possibility to exercise both search and move while driving at the speed of 30 km/h.

The deep modernization of the existing devices has led to the creation of Korshun M portable non-linear radar. The search capabilities of the device doubled together with the exploitation characteristics.

The variety of forms and methods of unsymmetrical war determined the necessity of designing of the wide spectrum of technical assets including Anker-4E multiplex time bomb detector and Route line locator which detects cable blow line.

Along with the solving the problems of counteraction to mine terrorism, our company successfully continues to develop non-linear radars for eavesdropping prevention. It’s necessary to note that EMS non-linear radar possesses unprecedented power and search specifications.

We work in close rapport with our customers and are always ready to solve new problems. Our company successfully assimilates new directions for the employment of our products.

The most important branch is the delivery of technical security assets to the civil airlines. These devices are designed for the prevention of unlawful interference acts.

Korshun, EMS, Anker-4E fit ICAO requirements and are certified for employment on the ground objects of the air transport. Aviaexport is our major partner in this area.

The reality does not leave a room for the by-gone patterns: the economy recovering demands new lead-ups, dynamic decisions and innovations. Our company is a steady leader and a reliable partner for everyone who appreciates quality, effectiveness and responsibility.

NR-900ЕК eagle Non-linear JUNCTION DETECTOR

NR-900емs PROFESSIONAL Non-linear JUNCTION DETECTOR 2(49).2009

●

21

WEAPONS

TANK-BUSTERS Vladimir Shcherbakov

A SHORT VIEW ON MODERN ANTI-TANK GRENADE-LAUNCHERS In August 2006, during an operation to arrest a leading insurgent in the town of al-Amarah, in southern Iraq, the British Challenger 2 main battle tank was seriously damaged when a Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade defeated the explosive reactive armour and penetrated the driver's cabin. According to the UK MoD, one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world, equipped with the top secret Dorchester armour, was hit by the RPG-29 grenade. The tank is also fitted with ERA at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull, but… nothing stopped the modern anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade. uring the attack Sean Chance, a 20-year-old serving with the Queen's Royal Hussars, lost half of his left foot; two other crew members were injured. The unit's commander described the moment the tank was hit by the missile in a letter he wrote to the wounded soldier in March. The officer wrote: "I recall seeing it and thinking, 'Oh Christ, that's bad.'

"As it slammed into the hull, I was picked up by the shock wave of the blast and thrown against the back wall of the turret. The explosion singed my eyebrows and burnt my face slightly.

The tank was full of acrid smoke and fumes… Daz [another member of the tank’s crew] and I looked at each other

D

22

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

in slight disbelief - after all, what could possibly breach a CR2's [Challenger's] armour?"

A spokesman for the MoD said: "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable. There is no question of a cover-up. Any suggestion that this was the first successful attack against a Challenger 2 tank was given in good faith based on the information available at the time.

The RPG-29 is a much more powerful weapon than the common type regularly used by insurgents to attack British and American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is specifically designed to penetrate modern tank armour, but the British military did not provide all necessary information and facts on this case. So many experts insist that

the Challenger 2 MBT was destroyed by an old Soviet-era RPG-7 rocket.

ROCKET-PROPELLED GRENADES: EARLY HISTORY AND MOST EFFECTIVE MODELS Hand-held, shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons capable of firing an unguided rocket equipped with an explosive warhead, frequently called rocket-propelled grenade or RPG (the latter is also the name of Soviet-eramade rocket system, which can be translated as "jet/hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher"), have their roots in the 19th century. The development of practical rocketry provided a means of delivering a warhead with a large amount of explosive, and such a weapon was invented just before

WEAPONS the end of World War I. Howevere, the end of the Great War led to the abandonment of that project. Later research and especially the World War II campaigns produced such weapons as the US bazooka, which combined portability with effectiveness against armored vehicles such as tanks (exept of heavy tanks and heavily-armoured self-propelled assault guns).

But, of course, the most widely distributed rocket-propelled grenade in the world is the Soviet-era RPG-7 system, making the bulk of the anti-tank arsenals of dozens and dozens of countries in the World. And new rounds, developed to use with the RPG-7 launchers, provide their users with capability to defeat even advanced tank armor types such as ERA. A typical RPG comprises two main parts: the launcher and the rocket, which is equipped with a warhead.

The most common types of warheads are high explosive (HE) or high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. These warheads are affixed to a rocket motor and stabilized in flight with fins. Some types of RPGs are single-use disposable units similar to the US M72 LAW; others are reloadable, such as the Soviet RPG-7. All rocket-propelled grenade systems are similar in concept, however, there are significant differences in their operation.

The M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon, also referred to as the Light Anti-Armor Weapon or LAW) was a portable one-shot 66-mm unguided anti-tank weapon, designed in the United States by Frank Spinale. It replaced the bazooka as the US Army's primary anti-tank weapon after the Korean War. It was planned that M72 LAW will be replaced in the US service

by the FGR-17 Viper, but this program was cancelled and the M136 AT4 was introduced.

M72 LAW included a rocket, which was packed inside of a launcher made up of two tubes, one inside the other.

While closed, the outer assembly acted as a watertight container for the rocket and the percussion cap-type firing mechanism (the latter activated the rocket). The outer tube contained the trigger, the arming handle, front and rear sights, and the rear cover, while the inner tube included the channel assembly which houses the firing pin assembly, including the detent lever.

Armed weapon was no longer watertight even if the launcher was collapsed into its original configuration.

Once fired the launcher was no longer useful. Due to the single use nature of the weapon, it was issued as a round of ammunition by the Canadian Army and the US Army.

M72 LAW was issued as a prepackaged round of ammunition.

Improvements to the launcher and differences in the ammunition were

differentiated by a single designation.

The most common M72 LAW came prepacked with a rocket containing a 66-mm HEAT warhead, attached to the inside of the launcher by the igniter and activated by an impact sense sensor in the nose cone, connected to the fuse. The fuse then detonated a booster, setting off the main charge.

The force of the main charge forced the copper liner into a directional jet that was capable of penetrating up to 0.3 m of steel plate, 0.6 m of reinforced concrete, or 1.8 m of soil.

Iti is interestingly enough, that a

Finnish soldiers with Panzerfausts and a destroyed Soviet T-34 tank in the battle of Talilhantala

US M72 LAW

2(49).2009

â—?

23

WEAPONS

US M72 LAW

Afghan National Police officer ready to fire an RPG round at a training site

24

●

Vietnam War era anti-tank weapon got a new life in the operations in Iraq, being used by the US Army, and in Afghanistan, brought their by the Canadian Army. The low cost and light weight made it ideal for the urban combat. But M72 LAW is also extensively used today in the Finnish Army under the designation 66 KES 88 (US Army’s M72A5 model), while the Turkish Army uses a locally-built version (manufacturer – Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu) under name HAR-66, featuring the performance and characteristics of a mix of M72A2 and M72A3 (Ankara also developed an anti-personnel warhead version of HAR-66).

The Royal Australian Army also uses the M72A6 – as an anti-building and secondary anti-armour weapon.

According to the Australian MoD, it is normally carried by riflemen, while the heavier 84-mm Carl Gustaf and Javelin anti-tank systems are dedicated to anti-armour unit. M72 LAW is used as a secondary anti-armour weapon by the Taiwan’s Army too. And, of course, the M72 LAW rocket-propelled grenade became famous Hollywood star, when

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

featured in The Enforcer movie, made

by Clint Eastwood.

The Russian-made analogue to the US-designed M72 LAW is the RPG-18 short-range, disposable light anti-tank rocket system. It is similar to M72 LAW in both appearance and in functionality and fires a 64-mm PG-18 HEAT warhead mounted on a small rocket (it is capable of engaging any target within 200 meters). The PG-18 itself can penetrate up to 375 mm of conventional armor. However, performance is significantly diminished when the RPG-18 is employed against targets protected by HEAT resistant ERA or composite armor.

The former Soviet Union actively embarked on developing RPGs and during the first post-WWII decades fielded several systems, namely 40-mm RPG-2 with a reusable launcher and PG-2V shaped-charge spigot projectile, as well as 82-mm SG-82 heavy rocket system with PG-82 shaped-charge projectile and OG-82 rocket-assisted HE round. Later on, after the creation of the GSKB-47 State Special Design Bureau, the RPG-4 rocket-propelled grenade system with PG-4V munition was developed, but not introduced into service with the Soviet Army due to successful trials of the more powerful RPG-7 system.

The latter successfully pasted the State Trials in 1960 and was accepted by the Soviet military in accordance with the Decree of the USSR’s government Number 535-222 (issued on June 15, 1961). The heavier version of the RPG-7 system with tripod mounting, named SPG-9, was developed later on.

RPG-7 was first delivered to the

Soviet Army in 1961 and deployed at a squad level, replacing the RPG-2 system. The ruggedness, simplicity, low cost, and effectiveness of the RPG-7 have made it the most widely used RPG in the world. Nowadays as many as 40 countries use the weapon, and it is manufactured in a number of variants by nine countries minimum.

It is very popular with irregular and guerrilla forces, and has been used in almost all conflicts across all continents since the mid-1960s from the Vietnam War to the present day War in Afghanistan and Iraq War. RPG-7 proved to be a dangerous ‘enemy’ to the main battle tanks (in 1977 the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, or TRADOC, even published a Bulletin 3u, dedicated to the Soviet RPG-7 system and named “Soviet RPG-7 Antitank Grenade Launcher – Capabilities and Countermeasures”). However, the designers subsequently developed new types of armour, like multi-layer composite armour with fiberglass filling compounds, as well as spaced armour with armoured plates, and most useful explosive reactive armour (ERA). These developments resulted in improving protection of MBTs by 3.5-4 times. And in 1988 the new PG-7VR Resume tandem-charge rocket-propelled grenade, designed by now Bazalt company, was introduced into service with the Soviet Army, capable to penetrate up to 600 mm rolled homogeneous armour equivalence of explosive reactive armor and the conventional armor underneath. It is also capable of penetrating 500 mm of steel, two metres of brick or 1.5m

WEAPONS of reinforced concrete; this is the normal penetration of the main charge.

This type of grenade, according to foreign sources, was widely used by Iraqi insurgents and is considered

by American sources to have once achieved a mobility kill against a M1 Abrams MBT hitting the left side hull next to the forward section of the engine compartment, protected by Chobham armour. The grenade then penetrated a fuel tank, flooding the compartment with diesel fuel. In another incident the right side hull was hit injuring two crew members, no serious damage was done to the tank.

The current model produced by Russia is the RPG-7V2, capable of firing standard and dual HEAT rounds, high explosive/fragmentation, and thermobaric warheads, with a UP-7V sighting device fitted (used in tandem with the standard 2.7x PGO-7 optical sight) to allow the use of extended range ammunition. The RPG-7D3 is the equivalent paratrooper model.

Both the RPG-7V2 and RPG-7D3 were adopted by the Russian Ground Forces in 2001.

RPG-7 SHADOWS There is also the lighter Type 69 model, developed by the Chinese NORINCO company as the 85-mm copy of Soviet RPG-7 weapon. First introduced in the early 1970s, the Chinese copy-weapon became a common individual anti-armour weapon in service with the PLA (the Sovietmade RPG-2 anti-tank system was imported in early 1950s, copied as well and introduced into service with the Chinese Army in 1957 under the designation Type 56). New types of grenade rounds have been developed in the 1980-90s to meet the requirements of modern battlefields.

The reverse-engineering on the RPG-7 began in the early 1960s, made demonstrations to the senior military officials in 1964, and was successfully tested by 1970. First combat episode for the new anti-tank weapon was the famous 1979 Sino-Vietnamese border war. By our days the Type 69 RPG due to its robust, cheap and easy to operate features became a very popular antiarmour weapon system around the globe. From Afghanistan to Somalia,

from Chechnya to Angola, the weapon is especially liked by guerrillas and insurgents. It was also exported to the Mujahideens in Afghanistan under the covert co-operations between Bejing and the CIA in the 1980s against the Soviet military.

The Type 69 is a shoulder-launched, muzzle-loaded anti-tank and antipersonnel grenade launcher which launches a variety of fin-stabilised, over-sized grenades from its 40-mm tube. The launcher has an optical daylight sight and (optional) infrared night vision to provide increased fire accuracy. In general, the Type 69 is a low-cost, easy-to-use weapon with a significant firepower. A standard PLA infantry squad has two Type 69 RPG operators, each carrying one rocket launcher and three grenade rounds.

There are also two assistant operators, each carrying three grenade rounds. A squad has a total of two launchers and 12 grenade rounds.

By the mid-1980s the Type 69 system became almost obscolescent and less effective in modern battlefield, and its production line was stopped.

Currently an improved version of the Type 69 system named the Type 69-I is in the production. It has major improvements, including a shorter launch tube and modifications for the launcher to fold into two when not needed for mobility purposes.

Although the design of the grenade launcher hasn’t changed significantly since it was introduced nearly thirty years ago, many new types of grenade rounds have been developed over the years to provide enhanced capabilities: - Type 69 HEAT – basic type of the grenade, which was introduced in the PLA during the 1970s (not in store); - Type 69-I Hollow Charge HEAT – standard type of the HEAT grenade, developed for the PLA in the 1980s; - Type 69-II – the same type as Type 69-I HEAT grenade, except that it's improved to defeat modern armored vehicles that are equipped with antitank missile plating; - Type 69-III HEAT – the same type as Type 69-II, but with improved performances – increased range and further improved armor piercing abilities; - Type 84 HEAT – a lighter version of the grenade, developed in the

1980s and featured a lighter warhead and ability to be fired from long range (suitable for both Type 69 and 69-I rocket launchers); - 75-mm Type 69 Airburst AntiPersonnel HE – anti-personnel grenade, developed for engaging entrenched forces since the rocket, after gaining impact on the ground, bounces to a chest to 2-m height and airbursts over the target area, scattering about 800 anti-personnel steel balls over a lethal radius of 15 meters; - HE/HEAT – standard anti-armor and anti-personnel grenade, featuring 1,500 prefabricated fragments, which scatter over a 20-m radius on detonation; - Anti-Personnel High-Explosive Incendiary – new type of the grenade, created for use in certain environments such as jungles and mountains (has 900 steel balls and 2,000 to 3,000 incendiary pellets that scatter over a 15-m radius on detonation); - Tandem-Warhead Anti-Tank Grenade – designed in 1990s for killing combat vehicles with the Explosive Reaction Armor (ERA); - Illumination Grenade – developed for certain purpose and equipped with a small parachute to suspend it in mid air while being used (effective range is 600 m with the braking ring and 1,500 m without it).

The other foreign copy of the

An RPG-7V captured by the US Army

Type 69 RPG and Type 56

2(49).2009

●

25

WEAPONS

Shoulderlaunched Multipurpose Assault Weapon SMAW

Two HAMAS fighters present Yasin RPG

26

●

Soviet-era RPG-7 grenade launcher was developed in the late 20 century by Hamas' Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. It is named the Yasin, after the Hamas group's spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, who was assassinated by the Israeli Defense Forces on March 22, 2004.

Supposedly first used during the battle of Jabalya in October 2004, the Yasin was reportedly developed by Hamas' engineers under the direction of Adnan al-Ghoul, assassinated in Gaza by the Israelis on October 22, 2004. On June 19, 2005, an Israeli soldier was killed in the Gaza Strip by a rocket of this type near Rafah, and on October 2, 2005, a confrontation between Hamas and the Palestinian Police led to the death of the police commander of the Shati refugee camp in Gaza after a Yasin rocket struck the room where he was taking cover.

Finally at the end of 2005, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades released a video providing insights about the production of the Yasin anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The projectile is manufactured in two parts: the propellant is assembled in a cylindric tube, containing a solid fuel, and the head of the projectile is essentially made of metal, containing a yellow liquid explosive made from various chemicals. Folding wings

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

are then added to the propeller and coated with a plastic envelope so that they will unfold upon firing of the rocket. The head of the projectile is then assembled with the propeller and a safety pin is added. The whole process is made with basic installations in metal workshops using rudimentary tools, but the conception and engineering of the weapon seems to attain a high degree of sophistication and professionalism given the means used. The launching tube is also manufactured by the so-called "production units" of the brigades, using roughly the model of the RPG-7 system.

According to the Western experts, who took part in analizing the mentioned video-report, the Yasin weapon is largely ineffective against modern armor. However, it was effectively used in the raid on June 25, 2006 when a number of Yasin rockets were used in the attack of an Israeli tank near the Gaza Strip border, resulting in the death of two soldiers, the injury of another, and the subsequent kidnapping of another.

AMERICANS STRIKE BACK The successful story of the Sovietmade RPG-7 grenade launcher and good results of the combat use by British commandos of 66-mm M72 LAW and 84-mm recoilless rifles with rocket-propelled projectiles against Argentian bunkers and heavily-defended positions forced the US designers to develop the American equivalent, named Shoulderlaunched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) and based on the Israel Military Industries' B-300, with the primary function of being a portable anti-armor rocket launcher. It was introduced to the US Army in 1984, featuring a maximum firing range of 500 m against a tank-type target. But the system can be also used to effectively destroy bunkers and other fortifications.

SMAW has an 83.5-mm tube and fires 83-mm rockets. It is a man-portable weapon system consisting of the MK153 Mod 0 launcher, the MK 3 Mod 0 encased HEDP rocket, the MK 6 Mod 0 encased HEAA rocket, and the MK217 Mod 0 spotting rifle cartridge.

The launcher consists of a fiberglass launch tube, a 9-mm spotting rifle, an

electro-mechanical firing mechanism, open battle sights, and a mount for the MK42 Mod 0 Day Sight and AN/ PVS-4 night sights. The 9-mm spotting round is ballistically matched to the rocket and serves to increase the gunner's first-round hit probability.

Each round consists of a .22 Hornet blank cartridge, crimped into a 7.62mm NATO casing with a special 9-mm tracer bullet as the projectile. The system can be used in conjunction with the AN/PEQ-4 aiming light in place of the spotting rifle.

Rockets of three types were developed for SMAW system.

The High Explosive, Dual Purpose (HEDP) rocket is effective against bunkers, masonry and concrete walls, and light armor, capable to penetrate 20 cm of concrete, 30 cm of brick, or up to 210 cm of wood-reinforced sandbags.

The High Explosive Anti-Armor (HEAA) rocket is effective against current tanks without additional armor, and utilizes a standoff rod on the detonator, allowing the explosive force to be focused on a small point, allowing for maximum damage against armored targets. It is capable to penetrate 56 cm of armor steel.

Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen a thermobaric type of the rocket, designed as SMAW-NE (“Novel Explosive”), added. It is effective against caves and bunkers and uses a thermobaric warhead (PBXIH-135 explosive) which produces an overpressure wave capable of collapsing a building. The Naval Surface Warfare Center teaming with the US Marine Corps Systems Command, NSWC Dahlgren, and Talley Defense Systems responded to an urgent US Marine Corps need for a shoulder-launched enhanced-blast warhead in 2003. It was first time used in the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.

The SMAW system (launcher, ammunition and logistics support) was fielded in 1984 as a Marine Corps unique system. During Operation Desert Storm, 150 launchers and 5,000 rockets were provided to the US Army. Since then, the Army has shown increased interest in the system, while the USMC is currently running a program to develop a successor to the SMAW system. The system is in service with the Taiwan’s marines as well.

WEAPONS As for Israely B-300 prototype, it entered service in limited quantities within Israeli Defence Forces SF units in 1980s. During the late 1990s, IMI introduced an advanced multi-purpose shoulder-launched rocket system, designed as Shipon. It includes an advanced fire-control system, helping to aim and increasing effective range to 600 meters, and fires two types of rockets: HEAA Tandem, which penetrates 800 mm of steel armor after explosive reactive armor, and a bunker-buster rocket. This system is currently in service within Israeli Special Forces units in the IDF and the YAMAM (the elite police counterterror unit).

THE FRENCH CONNECTION The French Army started to use the anti-armour grenade launchers with the Americans Bazooka and 89-mm M20A1 Super Bazooka, but years later they were replaced by the indigenous-made 89-mm F1 anti-tank rocket launcher. This system was officially designated as the LRAC F1 or Lance-Roquettes Anti-Char de 89 mm modèle F1 (“89-mm anti-tank rocket launcher model F1”). It was developed

by French company “Luchaire Defense SA” and manufactured in cooperation with “Manufacture Nationale d'Armes de Saint-Étienne” and marketed by “Hotchkiss-Brandt”.

Its launching tube is made of glass fiber and plastic. The shoulder piece and pistol grip can be moved to fit individual users. The 3× APX M 309 sight on the left side of the weapon is graduated in ranges from 100 to 1,000 meters and can be replaced with a night sight. The launcher is normally operated by a crew of two, a loader and a gunner. The launcher is loaded by attaching a rocket container to the rear of the launcher. When the container is attached, the electrical firing circuit is connected. The rocket container is 626 millimeters long and weighs approximately 3.2 kilograms.

Just before firing, the rear plug of the rocket container is removed, this is left in place to maintain a waterproof seal. Removing the plug completes the firing circuit and allows the rocket to be fired. The motor burns out before the rocket leaves the launcher at a velocity of approximately 300

meters per second. As soon as the rocket leaves the launcher, nine fins fold backwards from the rear. A safety device in the fuze of the rocket prevents detonation until the rocket has travelled at least 10 meters from the launcher. The rocket reaches a range of 330 meters in about 1.25 seconds, and 360 meters in 1.36 seconds. After firing the rocket container is removed, and a fresh one is reinserted. The launcher has a life of approximately 130 firings, after which, the optical sight is removed and the launcher is discarded. The optical sight can then be fitted to a fresh launcher.

The rocket itself weighs 2.2 kilograms and has a 80-mm diameter shaped charge warhead. The warhead can penetrate 400 millimeters of armour at straight on, and is capable of penetrating NATO single heavy, double medium and double heavy targets while still having enough energy to penetrate multiple 10 millimeter thick steel witness plates. Effective range of the system is between 200 and 400 meters (dependently of target and grenade type). Normal rate of fire is 3-4 grenades per minute.

In addition to the anti-tank round, the rocket can also fire an anti-personnel/light vehicle round with warhead containing 1,600 steel balls along with a hollow charge – to an effective range of 1,000 m (steel balls have a lethal radius of approximately 20 meters, while the hollow charge is capable of penetrating 100-mm steel plate), and two types of smoke round, liquid and phosphorous (lifetime of up to 35 sec-

onds). There is also a 300,000-candella illuminating round with a parachute flare that burns for 35 seconds.

SWEDEN’S “DIAMOND” The next country, penetrated the World’s market of anti-armour shoulder-launched rocket systems, was Sweden. Engineers of the Karlskronabased Bofors company, established

by Alfred Nobel, designed famous 84-mm Carl Gustav multi-role recoilless man-portable, which became for many years a real threat to any MBT or AFV. The key to its versatility is the new generation of ammunition that was developed to give the man in action the ability to defeat most types of target. A two-soldier crew of gunner and loader can challenge an MBT equipped with the latest advances in armour protection, destroy landing craft and bunkers, blast a mansize hole through brick and concrete walls, knock out concealed troops, send out a smoke screen and even turn night into day. As armour protection continues to improve, SAAB Bofors Dynamics (previously Bofors Anti Armour Systems) continues to develop armour-piercing ammunition and the latest types of the current Carl-Gustaf M3 light-weight version can penetrate the main armour of an advanced MBT, exceeding 500 mm behind the ERA protection.

The Carl Gustaf is breech-loaded by releasing the venturi fastening strap and rotating the venturi sideways. The weapon can be fired from the shoulder or from the prone with the use of A French soldier holding an LRAC F1 in 1983 LRAC Lebanon

2(49).2009

●

27

WEAPONS Lmaw-02

M136 a flexible bipod. It is best served by a crew of two, though it can be fired by a single operator. The rocket system has a 17-degree field of view provided by two iron sights and a 2x power optical sight. For night maneuvers, luminous front and rear adapters can be fitted, as well as a temperature correction device. The launcher fires the following types of ammunition: high explosive FFV 441B, high-explosive anti-tank FFV 551, smoke FFV 469B, illuminating FFV 545, rocket-assisted HEAT FV 597 and dual-purpose HE FFV 502.

Another example of the Swedish anti-armour weaponry is the AT4 system, which is a 84-mm portable one-shot anti-tank recoilless system, designed by the Saab Bofors Dynamics AB (Sweden) with additional help from the ATK Incorporated (USA). In the US and NATO inventory, it replaced the M72 LAW system and was intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armoured vehicles and fortifications, although it is not generally

28

â—?

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

sufficient to defeat a modern MBT. The launcher and projectile are manufactured prepacked and issued as a single unit of ammunition, rather than as a weapon system, with the launcher discarded after use.

Even before the AT4 had been adopted by Sweden, it participated in a competition for a new anti-tank weapon for the US Army: in 1980 the US Congress got extremely upset at the US Army over its one man disposable Viper anti-tank rocket program to replace the M72 LAW and canceled it, ordering the US Army to test off-theshelf (in production) light anti-armor weapons and to pick ONE and report back to Congress for funds for production. Runners up were the AT4 and the German Armbrust. In 1981 the US Army picked the Swedish FFV AT4 for funding and production, designating it the M136 LMPW for "light multi-purpose weapon". However, impressed with the AT4, the US Army saw room for improvement, specifically the sights and slings, which were redesigned. Thereafter, the AT4 was adopted by the US Army as the M136 antitank grenade launcher. The Swedish Army recognised these improvements and subsequently adopted the Americanized version of the AT4 as the Pansarskott m/86 (Pskott m/86).

The AT4 is a typical recoilless weapon, which uses a charge of propellant (gun powder), located inside the open barrel. Both front and rear ends of the barrel are closed with covers, which are destroyed when gun is fired. When weapon is fired, the gas pressure pushes the projectile (fin-stabilized warhead) out of the barrel, while the backblast from the rear part of the open barrel counters any recoil. To allow the soldiers to fire such weapons from confined spaces, SAAB Bofors developed the AT4CS version of the weapon. AT4CS features a countermass (some amount of liquid) in the rear part of the barrel, which is pushed back and partly evaporated upon the fire, compensating for the recoil, and effectively blocking the backblast. The standard sights are mounted on folding bases and are factory preset for 200 meters range, with single diopter rear and front post with two additional lead posts for firing at moving targets. For transportation, sights are

WEAPONS folded and protected by sliding covers. The firing unit is mounted at the top of the barrel, with manual cocking lever, manual safety switch and a button-type trigger. The projectile itself has a warhead and a tail unit, with front-folding stabilizator fins and a tracer unit. Standard warhead is of HEAT type, with shaped charge high explosive filling. There are other types of warheads available for AT4, such as HEDP (used against vehicles with thin armor and infantry, available as AT4 LMAW).

Basically the AT4 was developed by the Swedish Ministry of Defense arms firm FFV, which took the anti-tank munition developed for their famous 84-mm Carl Gustaf M2 crew served anti-tank recoilless cannon and developed a cheap, one-man/disposable version. The AT4 uses the same principle as the Carl Gustaf where a propellent charge is set off in the casing and when pressure reaches a certain level a blowout plug made of plastic in the rear of the casing disintegrates giving a recoilless effect on firing. It also uses the same simple mechanical side firing pin and primer as the Carl Gustaf. This system makes the AT4 extremely rugged to the point it can be immersed in water for hours and still be fired effectively.

One big difference between the Carl Gustaf HEAT round and the AT4 is its so called "behind the armor effect".

While never stated it is understood that FFV engineers achieved this by replacing the warheads copper liner with an aluminum liner – or combination copper and aluminum – and a special trumpet shaped liner form.

Either way in testing by the US Army they were impressed by this special "behind the armor effect". Armor penetration is given by FFV to be 450 mm, but many report it to be more near 550 mm. Almost double of the M72 LAW which it replaced. In the US Army the system has been adopted under the designation M136 LAW (Light Antitank Weapon) and currently it is the primary light anti-tank weapon of the US infantry and marines. Under different names this 1,480.64-dollars anti-armour weapon is widely used in Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, Denmark (under designation PVV

M/95 or Panservaernsvaben Model 1995), Estonia, France (under name ABL or Anti Blinde Leger), Greece, Iraq, Ireland (called SRAAW or Short Range Anti Armour Weapon), Latvia, Lebanon (around 1,000 pieces), Lithuania, Malaysia (in special forces), Netherlands, Taiwan, Venezuela and the UK (under name L2A1 ILAW – the AT4 CS modification with high penetration warhead; British Aerospace (later BAE Systems) also combined the AT4 with its AJAX fire control sensor to create an anti-tank mine. Its range is 20-200 meters and its active life is up to 40 days. It can engage targets at any angle between 45 and 135 degrees of its firing axis. The AJAX sensor consists of an acoustic and seismic alerting system and an array of passive IR sensors).

Recently the AT4 system was modernized and the AT4 CS (Confined Space) model was put in serial production, being the World’s only anti-armor weapon fully operational in confined spaces. According to the Western experts and weapon-designers, it is safely and effectively fired from confined space to defeat various military targets, including lightly armored vehicles, at both near and extended

ranges. Research and development of the AT4 CS began in Sweden in the late 1980s to meet the Army’s operational needs to engage targets in urban settings and it was fielded quickly in response to the global war on terrorism.

AT4

Irish Army soldier preparing to fire AT4

2(49).2009

●

29

WEAPONS

RPG-18

The USSOCOM Advanced Demolition Weapons project, initiated in FY 2001 with a two phase approach, is evaluating candidate shoulder-fired weapons developed by Diehl/Dynamit Nobel of Germany and SAAB Bofors Dynamics of Sweden. The first phase (Anti-Tank 4 Confined Space High Penetration (AT4CS HP)) provided the urgent confined space capability to SOCOM units. The second phase (AT4CS RS, RS for Reduced Sensitivity) made significant improvements to the Phase I systems (AT4CS HP) with fuze and explosive upgrades to meet safety review board requirements. Both phases of this project provide a critical capability to special operations forces missions, including, engagement of targets from a confined space, military operations in urban terrain, antiarmor and direct engagement of targets in protected/covered areas. In FY 2003 the project completed all safety tests and limited safety confirmation obtained; testing demonstrated the system to be effective and can be safely fired from confined spaces; systems were procured and immediately deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and Milestone “C” production approval received in August 2003. Swedish company received an award for AT4CS from the US Army as one of the top ten innovations in 2003.

RPG-18 SUCCESSORS It is worth to mention about, that Soviet weapon-designers did not forget about the single-use anti-armour rocket grenade launchers and developed a family of systems of the kind on the basis of RPG-18 system. The first one was the RPG-22 one-shot disposable anti-tank rocket launcher first deployed with the Soviet troops in

30

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

1985. It is based on the RPG-18 rocket launcher, but fires a larger 72.5-mm fin-stabilised rocket-assisted projectile. RPG-22 can be prepared to fire in just 10 seconds, and can penetrate at least 400 mm of standard armour.

Then the RPG-26, the futher development of RPG-22, disposable antitank rocket launcher emerged, featuring a single-stage rocket with jackknife fins, which unfold after launch.

The rocket carries a 72.5-mm-diameter HEAT single-shaped-charge warhead capable to penetrate 440 millimeters of standard homogenous armour, or at least one meter of reinforced concrete, or 1.5-m brickwork or not less than 2.4-m wood and ground fortification. RPG-26 has a maximum effective firing range of around 250 meters and is very easy-to-handle and reliable in operation. The rocket with shapedcharge warhead is placed in the barrel and fixed by a special device, which disintegrates when the weapon is fired. The barrel is also a container for storing and transporting the rocket.

It is made of glass-reinforced plastics and sealed by rubber lids on both ends. Only three simple steps are required to bring the weapon into firing position and back into carrying one. The booster burns only when inside launcher. After that the rocket flies along a ballistic trajectory, being fin-stabilised.

RPG-26 has a length of 770 mm, weight of 2.9 kg and is capable of operating in temperature between -50 to +50 °C. An assault variant of the RPG-26, called the RShG-2, is armed with a thermobaric warhead and is heavier than the RPG-26 (4.0 kg instead of 2.9 kg), and has an effective firing range of up to 350 meters. The warhead has a multiple effect – HE,

fragmentation and incendiary – and effectively destroys light armoured vehicles, weapon systems installations, as well as personnel in open terrain or behind shelters or in confined shelters of up to 200 cubic meters.

The next model is a RPG-27 manportable disposable anti-tank rocket launcher developed by the Soviet specialists in two versions, each of similar construction, but containing a different warhead. The first one contains a tandem-charge HEAT warhead for penetrating modern heavily armored vehicles at range of up to 200 meters, while the other, RShG-1, fires a thermobaric warhead for antipersonnel and urban warfare use at range of up to 600 meters, featuring a kill radius of up to 10 meters. The weapon has a calilber of 105 mm, lenghtg 1135 mm, weight approximately 8.3 kg and aiming combat range of at least 200 meters. RPG-27 can effectively operate in temperature conditions from - 50 to + 50°C and is capable to penetrate of up to 600 mm of homogenous armour after reactive armor. But the most powerful weapon was released by Russian designers under the name Vampir.

VAMPIR’S STRIKE It is supposed that most modern main battle tanks are largely immune to hand-held unguided anti-tank weapons due to advances in armor design requiring more precise aiming to hit vulnerable weak spots. However, rocket-propelled anti-armour grenades are still used very effectively against lightly-armoured vehicles such as armored personnel carriers or unarmored wheeled vehicles, as well as against buildings and bunkers. And they can still be a threat to modern MBTs under certain tactical conditions.

One exception is the Russian RPG-29, the most advanced model, which uses a tandem-charge HEAT warhead to penetrate ERA. For example, in August 2006 an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA of a British Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in alAmarah, Iraq.

RPG-29 is a portable anti-armour tube-style rocket launcher designed to be carried and used by a single soldier and supplied with the PG-29V rocket grenade. On the top of the launch

WEAPONS tube is the 2.7x optical sight of the 1P38 model (a 1PN51-2 night sight can be fitted as well). On the bottom of the tube is a shoulder brace for proper positioning along with a pistol grip trigger mechanism.

RPG-29 entered into service with the then Soviet Army in 1989 and currently employs two projectiles: the PG-29V anti-tank/anti-bunker round and the TBG-29V thermobaric antipersonnel round. The PG-29V round has a tandem-charge HEAT warhead for defeating explosive reactive armour. Eight fins pop out as the rocket leaves the launch tube and stabilize the missile in flight. The combat weight of the launcher without optical sight is 11.5 kg, while the rocket weight is not more than 6.1 kg.

RPG-29 has an effective range of fire not less than 500 meters and capable to penetrate at least 600 millimeters of standard homogenous armour behind the ERA armour, or 1.5 meters of the brick and reinforced concrete or over 3.7 meters of the log-and-earth fortifications.

Claims were made by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that significant numbers of the RPG-29 were passed on from Syria to Hezbollah and were reportedly a major source of IDF casualties in the 34-day Lebanon War in 2006. Not surprisingly, Israel's claims that Hezbollah fighters used Russian missiles during the war have clouded improving relations between Israel and Russia, and were discussed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during his visit to Moscow in October 2006.

Russian Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Defence denied the fact that Russia had supplied arms directly to Hezbollah. And after the Israeli Prime-Minister’s visit, in October 2006, then Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that Kremlin has settled its differences with Israel over concerns that Hezbollah militants used Russian missiles during their recent fighting in southern Lebanon.

"In my view, this subject in general is closed," Sergei Ivanov said in comments to TV-station. He said that he could not reveal details, but that "exhaustive answers were given to the Israeli side". Olmert would not say after the talks whether Russian

officials confirmed Israel's claims, but he said he was "satisfied" that they would "do all in their power to take steps so we don't have to worry in the future." However, according to the Russian Kommersant newspaper, unidentified Russian sources involved in the talks acknowledged the possibility of a weapons transfer between Syrian officers and Hezbollah during the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.

As mentioned earlier, in 2007 several British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA and hull of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, injuring a crew member. And in May 2008 the New York Times newspaper disclosed that an US Army’s Abrams main battle tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq during the battle for Sadr City in spring 2008.

Sadr City has long been a simmering trouble spot, a haven for Shiite militias and a conduit for what American commanders say are Iranian-supplied arms, including explosively formed penetrators, a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb. And the main military question now is whether Iraqi soldiers can solidify their hold over Sadr City in the coming days. And the main political one is whether the Maliki government will cement its gains by carrying out its long-promised, multimillion-dollar program of economic assistance and job creation to win over a still wary population and erode the militias’ base of support.

But “American and Iraqi forces had little choice but to fight their way in to suppress the rocket fire. They pushed their way to Al Quds Street, which gave them a measure of control over the southern quarter of Sadr City. A

In the article “Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far”, published in The New York Times on May 21, 2008, Michael R. Gordon and Alissa J. Rubin states that “in one instance not previously disclosed, an American M1 tank was damaged by an RPG-29, an advanced anti-tank weapon. Even less powerful types of rocket-propelled grenades could pose a threat to some Iraqi vehicles, which are generally less heavily armored than those employed by the Americans”.

American military officials cited reports that Mahdi Army and Iranianbacked commanders were sneaking out of Sadr City and perhaps even Iraq.

People close to Mahdi leaders in Sadr City said they knew some who were leaving for Lebanon by way of Iran.

massive concrete wall was erected along the thoroughfare to try to keep the militants out”, authors state in their article.

Thus, an RPG is an inexpensive way to deliver an explosive payload a distance of 100 meters with moderate accuracy, while the more expensive wire-guided rockets are used when accuracy is very important or the target is heavily armoured. The latter rockets trail a thin wire behind them during firing and can be steered by the operator while in flight. Anyway, the low-cost and easy-to-operate rocket-propelled grenade launchers are still effective against main battle tanks and will grab their death-tolls in near future. There is no opportunity to get safety against them.

RPG-29

2(49).2009

●

31

WEAPONS

THE PP-2000 SUBMACHINE GUN

Foto: Trifanichev, Mitrofanov, Amelin

ubmachine guns have nearly century-old history that sustained its own rises and falls.

Highly demanded and widely used during the World War II, after its end they seemed to be completely replaced in the Army inventories with automatic rifles developed in the middle of the 20-th century. They remained only in the police, gendarmerie and Special Forces inventories.

However, nowadays the role of subma-

S

Low weight and dimensions allow firing PP-2000 in pistol mode without using the butt stock.

32

â—?

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

chine guns is revised since this weapon type to the utmost extent meets current requirements imposed on a personal self-defence weapon that is in great demand in modern Army. Of course, submachine guns haven’t lost their position in the arsenals of Special Forces and law enforcement agencies.

The advantages of this weapon type are: low weight, small-size, high fire accuracy ensured by the buttstock, moderate recoil and a considerable ammunition load. Submachine guns

are widely used also due to their design simplicity, manufacturability and, as a consequence, low cost.

In 2006 the new superlight PP-2000 submachine gun was put into service with the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). The prototype of this weapon was shown to the public for the first time during EUROSATORY 2004 exhibition in Paris.

One of the main advantages of the submachine gun is its low weight and small size. Its dimensions are nearly the same as that of modern combat pistols. The PP-2000 design can be called a traditional one – a grip for fire control, located at the center of gravity, accommodates the box-shaped magazines for 20 or 44 cartridges. The front grip is connected to the fire control grip with the help of a crossbar that together form a spacious trigger guard providing for weapon holding with one or two hands and fire in thick gloves.

The main specification of small arms determining to a greater extent their combat capabilities is their ammunition. The PP-2000 fires standard 9x19 mm Parabellum cartridges.

WEAPONS 8 mm steel plate, penetrated by the bullets of the 7N31 armour– piercing cartridge.

However, nowadays individual protection means don’t belong to the exotic components of special-purpose units equipping. Today the body armor is included into the standard outfit of any soldier worldwide. It is also often found in gangster’s arsenal. The PP-2000 is capable of firing the 7N31 cartridges with armourpiercing bullet to ensure engagement of protected targets. The cartridges were also developed by KBP and have been adopted into service with the RF Army and MIA. Penetration capability of the 7N31 bullet surpasses that of all known counterparts and ensures engagement of an enemy protected with body armor, including the one with rigid elements as well. When fired from the PP-2000, the bullet ensures penetration of 3mmthick steel plate at the range of 80 m, 5mm-steel plate at 50m and 8mm at 15m-range!

In the conditions of an assault operation when the distance to the enemy may be the minimum one, availability of sufficient ammunition load is very important since it provides superiority in fire density. Capacity of the PP-2000 main magazine is 44 cartridges. Low recoil pulse of the pistol cartridge provides for using the spare magazine as a shoulder rest instead of a removable buttstock.

When the concealed weapon carrying is required, that is possible thanks to the dimensions of the submachine gun, the 20-shot magazine supplied along with the weapon is used.

Such configuration provides for firing in a pistol mode, from one or two hands, even in bursts.

Automatic fire accuracy and effectiveness are much dependent on rate of fire. High rate of fire has negative effect on accuracy and weapon control, especially in case of light sub-

Low weight and dimensions allow firing PP-2000 in pistol mode without using the butt stock. machine guns and automatic pistols.

Most similar models of weapon have very high rate of fire due to short travel of moving parts (Heckler & Koch MP5K and Steyr TMP submachine guns - 900 rounds per minute, MicroUzi submachine gun – 1250 rounds).

So, only high-skilled professionals can effectively use such weapons. Besides, high rate of fire prevents from control of ammunition expenditure.

A unique technical approach provides PP-2000 high fire rate of 600…800 rds/min that is optimum for handheld automatic weapon, despite its small size. Also, high accuracy and complete weapon control in the process of burst firing are guaranteed.

Practice firing with the PP-2000 submachine gun showed that even inexperienced firers were capable of firing bursts of 2…3 shots without any difficulty and, if desired, fired single shots.

The weapon is outfitted with traditional foresight and backsight for firing to a range up to 200 m. The upper part of the receiver is outfitted with a backsight leaf that allows mounting of various types of scopes.

The socket in the front grip can accommodate a special bracket for mounting tactical torchlight, laser rangefinder or a module with a combination of the said devices.

Safety catch changeover to ON/ OFF state and selection of fire mode are done with the help of a change lever located on the left side of the weapon. Cocking lever capable of being rotated to the left or to the right

doesn’t increase weapon dimensions in travel configuration.

Pushbutton retainer of the magazine is located at the bottom of the trigger guard and can be installed to any side. The main parts of the PP-2000 submachine gun (fire control grip, front grip, trigger-and-fire mechanism housing and a unit for mounting the shoulder rest) are made from high-ten-

A–44 cartridge magazine can be used as a shoulder–rest.

2(49).2009

●

33

WEAPONS

The socket in the front grip can accommodate a special bracket for mounting accessories (tactical torchlight, laser rangefinder, etc.).

34

●

sile plastic that contributed not only to weight reduction but also to the improvement in manufacturability.

Plastic parts are corrosion-resistant and don’t chill the firer’s hands in cold weather.

Reduction of revealing factors during fire is extremely important for any type of small arms, especially for special-purpose PP-2000. The weapon is equipped with effective flash eliminator to reduce the muzzle flash that not only discloses the firer’s position but can also be a serious obstacle for observing the target at night firing and for operation of the night sight.

But more efficient is the silencer that practically excludes the flash and reduces the sound level of firing. It’s not included into a standard set and is supplied under a separate request.

When cartridges with subsonic bullet speed are fired the maximum silencing is ensured, in case of supersonic bullet - the silencer is used in the so called “tactical” function.

PP-2000 disassembling for cleaning and maintenance is very easy and doesn’t require any tools. The weapon features blow-back action that allowed making the submachine gun very simple and reliable. The bore is chrome-plated. Prior to the shot the cartridge is located in the chamber, the bolt is in front position, in other words firing is done from “bolt locked”. Fire-and-trigger mechanism is of cock type and provides for single-shot and burst firing.

The super compact PP-2000 submachine gun developed by the Russian designers in combination with

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

the 7N31 armour-piercing cartridge is superior to the up-to date counterparts in a number of the most vital characteristics and can be an effective weapon in the arsenal of antiterrorist units, law-enforcement structures and security services. Also, it can be used as a personal defence weapon

(PDW) by the crews of combat vehicles and by the servicemen of Army support units. The main advantage of the PP-2000 in comparison to the PDW for new small caliber ammunition is its capability to fire both the 7N31 armour-piercing ammunition and 9x19 mm Parabellum cartridges which are adopted by the majority of armies worldwide.

A standard PP-2000 delivery set comprises 3 magazines with 44-cartridge capacity and a magazine with 20-cartridge capacity, SPTA kit, a belt and a pouch. As per the customer’s request a set can also comprise 9x19 mm pistol cartridges with the AP bullet (index 7N31), 9 mm 9x19 pistol cartridges with lead-core bullet, various sights, extra magazines, holster for PP-2000 concealed carrying, silencer, tactical torchlight or a bracket for torchlight mounting, common and repair SPTA kits (recommended for 20 and 60 submachine guns respectively).

9 MM PP-2000 SUBMACHINE GUN MAIN SPECIFICATIONS

Cartridge type

9x19 mm pistol cartridge with the AP bullet (index 7N31) 9x19 mm pistol cartridges of various types

Operation

blow-back action

Fire modes

single-shot, automatic

Fire rate, rds/min.

600-800

Magazine capacity

20, 44

Aiming fire range, m

up to 200

Weight w/o magazine and buttstock, kg

1.35

Dimensions with 44-cartridge magazine, buttstock folded, mm

375x54x309

Dimensions with 20-cartridge magazine, buttstock folded, mm

350x54x187

Length in combat configuration, buttstock unfolded, mm

582

WEAPONS

2(49).2009

●

35

TECHNOLOGIES

36

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

TECHNOLOGIES

INDUSTRIAL UNDERSEA ROBOTICS: RUSSIA AND THE WEST Mikhail Motsak Stanislav Proshkin Mikhail Kibalnii

Long-term experiment of sea resources industrial use in the whole sea oil and gas extraction in part decisively shows that this practice is referred to the most dangerous. It may go along with the unexpected environmental disasters fraught with financial losses in amount of hundreds of millions or milliards rubles. Industrial undersea robotics is the new direction of sea technologies development which reduces risks by an order.

ROBOTS THAT WILL CHANGE OUR LIFE It’s a question whether undersea robots can really replace the toil work of divers or it is still Jules Vern’s science fiction? The World’s practice shows that they can’t but they certainly should.

Obviously, in this century – undersea work is the function of unmanned technologies. It is the direct mission of undersea robots. The necessary conditions have matured in the World of undersea technologies development for the successful fulfillment of this mission.

Significant positive moves have happened during the recent decade in energetics, microelectronics, mechatronics, information technologies and program software of artificial intellect. Modern control systems have moved to the brand new stage of development. This stage is characterized with the employment of new microprocessor base and creation of the self-contained intellectual integrated network structures. Finally, it brought to the rampant development of multipurpose undersea robots, including military ones. The number of developments has 2.5 times increased.

Absence of on-board personnel allows this machine to: - Significantly decrease the robot’s price comparing with the manned ones (Mir, Rus, Piranha type mini-subs and etc.); 2(49).2009

●

37

TECHNOLOGIES - Eliminate the risk of losses; - Eliminate the limits, determined by the personnel’s physiologic capabilities (independent sailing length; steady stress, determined by the casualty-producing capacity).

Increased technical possibilities of modern undersea robots give a possibility to execute: - Survey-and-search works including search and examination of sunk objects, inspection of underwater constructions and communications (pipelines, cables, water pipes); - Geological survey works including topographic and photo-video exposure of sea bottom, acoustic profiling and terrain mapping; - Subglacial works, including laying of pipelines, cable on the Arctic bottom, maintenance of survey and undersea illumination systems; - Oceanographic research, water environment monitoring; - Military works, including antisubmarine reconnaissance, patrol, drill-

38

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

ing platform security and etc.

For the purposes of craft developments in Arctic Region of Russia it is necessary to use undersea robots for solving the next problems: - Examination of areas for future constructions; - Executing of complicated and hard underwater operations concerning pipelines laying and preparation of grounds for undersea construction and maintenance of occurred damages; - Protection of sea areas from illegal break-in against terrorists’ actions (detection of terrorists’ threat sources, its monitoring, neutralization, including destruction); - integrated monitoring of the current condition of craft development areas; monitoring of their condition, detection of the sectors that should be repaired, determination of damages.

Undersea robots of leading foreign developers

TECHNOLOGIES Large-scale state programs in underwater technologies have been unrolled by the West since the middle of the previous century in order to affirm the prospective oil-andgas regions of World Ocean as the spheres of its influence. A great number of leading water powers has been making the significant investments in the process of robotics creation for military and civilian systems.

Foreign robot enterprises conduct intensive and strong technological update. The USA, Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Norway and Japan are the leaders in the undersea robotics area. They make billion-dollar investments.

More than 300 projects of undersea robots exist nowadays. The production rate annually increases 1500 items. The EU member-states adopted the decision to pool their efforts in this direction in 2007.

Development of brand new decisions in microprocessor technologies, development of powerful supply sources, creation of new generations of propulsive system and their employment in the undersea robotics industries have resulted the possibility to produce machines both for surface and underwater carriers with operational depth 6.000m and more. The progress in undersea robotics industry has been increasing promptly. West countries have produced 7.500 models of multipurpose robots that are actively used in vast programs of underwater space developments.

The production ratio of heavy and super-heavy robots has reached 100 items per year.

Western undersea robots are in high technical readiness and are reliable for the direct employment. This fact allowed some western countries to participate in lifting the Kursk nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea, to provide seasonable aid for the AS-34 on the Far East in search of flight recorder of the airliner crashed in the Black Sea. The main result of research and development in the modern robotics is rejection from hydraulic components and passage to the electrodrive construction components in the control and move systems,

unified modular construction, application of self-testing system and selfimprovement of telemetry equipment.

Modern undersea robots are equipped with: - Manipulators and other special equipment for difficult underwater operations (dozer knives, dozer scopes, drilling cutters and etc.)

- High dimension TV systems; - Adaptive underwater illumination systems.

It is necessary to point out that the technologies applied for production of undersea robots are actually doubled. They are widely used for production of military undersea robots for the purposes of military agencies.

Summing up the results of brief review of conditions and prospects of underwater technologies development of leading water powers, we can reasonably say that the West

forms high-developed industries producing multipurpose robots and its carriers within the frames of national and transnational programs.

It is a purposeful, reasoned and provident state policy which is fueled by the necessary resources (financial, industrial and personnel) and which is led by Russia’s World opponents.

In fact, the parallel process is going in the West industry of underwater robots designed for sea bottom exploration and underwater mil-

2(49).2009

â—?

39

TECHNOLOGIES itary robots for protection of western crafts and forceful seizure of others.

RUSSIAN UNDERWATER ROBOTS Russia has the priority in the competition for the introduction of the notion “underwater robot” (V. Iastrebov, 1977). The USSR developed manned and unmanned underwater robots possessed different searchexamination equipment and had been widely used.

The most famous and reasonable operations: - participation in search-and-rescue navy operations: search and examination of the K-219 ballistic missile submarine sunk in the Sargasso Sea; detail inspection of the K-8 nuclear submarine sunk in North Atlantic, inspection of the K-278 Komsomolets nuclear submarine sunk in the Norwegian Sea; inspection of the K-141 Kursk nuclear submarine sunk in the Barents Sea. - Research and development work: ecological (hydrochemical) research of Lake Baikal, geological survey operations in The Pacific Ocean, geodesic research in The White Sea, special operations in embedded objects in remote areas of World Ocean.

The idea of underwater exploration by multipurpose underwater robots has long-standing native history.

When the postwar recovery period was finished, in 1966, in Leningrad – the main scientific and shipbuilding center of the country, the initia-

40

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

tive youth groups under auspices of experienced tutors designed the Crab2 deepwater robot- geologist and the Katran-2 underwater robot. The Katran-type robots (12 items edition) had been decades ahead the foreign inventions.

They hay-day of the native robot industries has rolled around in the 1970-80th of the bygone century. The significant number of Research and Development Institutes and industries, the Gidropribor Central Research Studies Institute (NPO Uran), Institute of Marine Technology Problems Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences (IMTP FEB RAS), Shirshov Institute of Oceanology RAS, Bauman

Research and Development Institute of Special Engineering, CRSI of robotics and engineering cybernetics. The example of this favorable activity is the work of IMTP FEB RAS. The personnel of the Institute have employed 20 types of underwater vehicles designed for the ocean, subglacial and shelf sea operation during the 40 years work.

In some cases the native items of undersea robots either outperformed the foreign items or, at least, were not inferior.

The significant work in development of special robots is done by Shirshov Institute of Oceanology RAS. The Institute offers the family of the Gnom pigmy survey robots. The robot has passed the successful tests and proved it practice availability.

The Gidropribor Sea Underwater Weapon Company has fundamental groundwork in development of industrial undersea robots.

Along with heavy underwater robots constructed within the frames of the SR-1 international cooperation with China and the OKRO-6000 with South Korea, a number of small vehicles have been designed for the shallow depth operations providing observation of water pipes (tunnels) – self- tethered TSL, so called the solar robot powered by solar cells, remotely operated, towed devices for shallow and deep water.

The successive operations of the Klavesin-1R autonomous underwater vehicle in the Arctic expedition of Russian scientists have become the

TECHNOLOGIES

brightest achievement of the IMTP FEB RAS’s personnel. The personnel’s robot operating in the North Pole together with the Mir manned robot has successfully fulfilled the appointed mission – demonstration of Russia’s seriousness in the Arctic Region. The item possesses artificial intellect and equipment that provides sustainable hydroacoustic communication channel with the carrier’s operator. These factors give a possibility to control the robot. While in free-running mode, the Klavesin-1R performs a number of operations; among them sea bottom high resolution view. Academician Mikhail Dmitrievich Ageev has a hand in creation, saving the scientific facilities of the Institute and successive development of exclusively important direction of undersea robots.

But, much to our regret, Russian modern reality is so, that no native undersea vehicle being necessary for oil-and-gas sea industry, navy, sea rescuers and others has not been serially produced. Moreover, our country, having a possibility to develop its own robotics had to call on foreign producers. The tragic example of this was shipwreck of the Kursk nuclear submarine in august, 2000. The deceased academician M.D. Ageev in his time commented on the authorities’ activities: “After the Kursk tragedy, our government set aside $30millions for buying different underwater equipment, from which $20millions received the Hydrovision Scottish Company for production and sypplying remote control

robots. It is difficult to understand the reasons of this disdain to our enterprises”.

It is hard to neglect the academician’s opinion. There have been no proper lessons or real practice activities. We had to call on the Scorpio undersea robot and specialists from Great Britain five years later, again in august, 2005, in rescue lifting operation of our bathyscaph from 200-m –depth which tied itself in knots of fish nets in the Berezovaia bay on Kamchatka.

The IMT-3000 robot is one of the latest developments of the IMTP FEB RAS’s personnel along with the legendary Klavesin. The Institute’s director,

L.A. Naumov, Doctor of Engineering is sure that this undersea item is unique and no country has it. It can be widely used in actual sea-shelf operations, having been created for 3-km-lowering. Applying various modules, we can construct special underwater robots as a derivative of this model. We have a hope fueled during Mr. Putin’s visit to the Far East that the Institute will continue to solve the fundamental scientific problems of underwater robotics and develop them in future. For this purpose a pilot-scale production and Center for designing and production of unmanned underwater robots is being constructed there.

The state developments being properly invested in can be used in full scale in the following ways.

In crafts’ exploration: - micro, mini and light – for the exploration of regions for future construction; geological survey works including topographic and photo-video exposure of sea bottom, acoustic profiling and terrain mapping; search and inspection of sunk projectiles on pipelines’ routes and cable communication lines; inspection and observation of pipelines, underwater parts of drilling platforms; inspection of underwater constructions and communications (pipelines, cables, water pipes) and their check; detection of the sectors that should be repaired; - Medium and heavy – for execution of technical, construction-engi-

2(49).2009

●

41

TECHNOLOGIES neering and repair-mechanical works on pipelines, underwater parts of drilling platforms, cable routes, including participation in rescue operations; repair-works of the occurred damages; - Super-heavy, self-propelled, for preparation of underwater grounds for construction of pipelines’ routes, cable routes laying, direct resources extraction, maintenance of survey and underwater illumination systems.

In protection of crafts: - Light to provide complex monitoring of the current situation of water crafts regions; - Medium, heavy and super-heavy for protection of sea areas from illegal break-in and preclusion of terrorist actions.

Our developments have been unique. Our equipment can do actions that are impossible for the World’s analogues. But it is very hard to organize serial or small-scale production. And very small amount of enterprises in our country can produce such high-tech equipment.

The other side of the problem is that we do not have training centers which will train maintenance specialists. The same trouble, equal to consequences of the Kursk disaster, was about to happen with the bathyscaphe on Kamchatka because the Venom Russian vehicle designed for these purposes was made inoperative by the amateur operators. Really, even the up-to-date equipment, being controlled by an unskilled operator – is a piece of iron. Nowadays, there are

42

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

only Bauman Moscow State Technical University and Saint-Petersburg State Academy MTU which train undersea robotics specialists but, nevertheless, there are no specialists who will work in, but those, who will develop it.

But altogether Russian developments are still experiment and mostly singular, but the hardware components as a rule are foreign-manufactured. And, as have showed the disasters mentioned above, we require not only the involvement of foreign equipment to solve the consequences of sea emergency situations but we have to buy some equipment for daily emergency needs.

The disintegration process of The Soviet Union has adversely affected the activities in undersea robotics creation. The process caused a deep system and financial-economic recession of military-industrial complex enterprises that led to: - lagging from the World’s level of processes of development, production and sale of underwater robots for reconnaissance and exploration of sea oil-and-gas resources; - falldown in technological level of production and designing; - ageing of main industrial funds; - Loss of cooperation links with the industries of former soviet republics and West Europe industries; - import dependence of oil-and-gas area from foreign machinery supplies; - Loss of cooperation and coordination among military-industrial complex areas, Russian MNR (Ministry of

Natural Resources), Russian Ministry of Economic Trade and Industry, Russian Industry and Energy Ministry and leading oil-and-gas companies; - Disinterest of native oil-and-gas companies in ordering the development and production of native robotics; - Lack of exploration technologies of Russian shelf; - Endeavors for technology’s transit which is inconvenient for the Russian shelf conditions and practically lead to loss of time and means; The events concerning the Soviet Union's collapse will celebrate 20 years soon and the situation hasn’t changed basically.

The analysis of the situation in technological provision of oil-andgas potential resources exploration of Russian shelf has showed that protraction of solving the problem of recovering the lost positions of native underwater robotics will lead to: - the groundless import dependence of oil-and-gas sector from foreign supplies of technologies and technical means for survey and exploration of oil-and-gas potential of the Russian shelf; - the groundless (social and economical points of view) non-employment of developmental potential of native industry and the loss of this potential due to the ageing of main industry funds, to the break-down and loss of existing native scientific and research specified personnel; - the loss of investment attraction for Russian oil-and-gas companies in exploration of sea resources in the water area of World Ocean and therefore the level of their sympathy with the solving of the World’s energy security problem.

Problems of research and exploration of oil-and-gas potential of the Russian shelf have been repeatedly considered at the meetings of the Marine Board of the Russian Government and at the meetings of the Russian Government. It has been pointed out that the geostrategic situation of Russia as the Sea Power in the 21st century will be determined by the increasing role of exploration of energetic and mineral resources of continental shelf in the economical and political security of the state.

TECHNOLOGIES

The basic requirement for Russia is sustainable development of its energy economy whereby in the new situation it will occupy and enlarge its niche in the World’s system of the extraction, consumption and sale of oil and gas.

The development will be determined by the provision of sea, transport and coastal infrastructure with ocean vehicles and technological equipment that provides reconnaissance and extraction of hydrocarbon material in extreme natural climatic conditions of the Russian shelf.

But the comparative analysis of the present-day condition of native and foreign robotics demonstrates that the comparison is not to our velvet.

Russian developers possessing doubtless priority in ideas and fairly good science-technological experience have always climbed down the toil-gained positions achieved before.

Certain advance and separate achievements, based on the developments of the previous century, does not allow to stop the increasing habit of Russia’s lagging from the West in modern underwater technologies. The allocated resources for their development are irregular to the scale of the forthcoming tasks appointed by the united state strategy of research and exploration of oil-and-gas potential of Russian shelf.

We have faced the time of changes.

Otherwise we will steep more deeply in to the black hole of the depreciative technologies dependence from foreign enterprises. And we will lose our toil-gained positions in the World energy area.

The necessity to boost the native industry processes of underwater robotics brigs the subject of exploration of the World Ocean’s bottom into the sphere of service interests.

These are interests of nationally ori-

ented Russian and Foreign leaders both civilian and military. It seems that the country is intended to solve this problem. The clean-up program scheduled till 2020 should vitalize the native robotics. The part of this program is technical re-equipment of enterprises, including on the Far East, that will develop and produce native underwater robotics.

Turning back to the beginning of the article it is necessary to admit that the strategy of the US and some of its allies in military and economy directly crosses over with Russia’s interests concerning the issues of access to the resources of World Ocean. As well as 100 years before the interests of monarchic Russia on the Far East got into an argument with interests of imperial Japan supported by the so-called democratic USA and Great Britain. Vice- president John Baiden speaking at the security conference in Munich on February, 7th, 2009 said that they were not against of some countries to limit their spheres of interests or influence. Evidently, he reflected not only his own confidence but the confidence of Obama’s administration represented by him. With reference to it, the USA, as the greatest power, has the sovereign power in space, on the surface, in the sea and under the water.

CONCLUSION Alexis II, patriarch of Russian Orthodox Church shortly before his death said that we knew what would await Russia in the new century, but we had to be ready to fulfill our duty.

The development prospects of the economical recession and possibility of it to overlap into politico-military conflict on account of shortage of energy, raw materials, provisions, water due to over-population, daily living needs for fulfillment of dwin-

dling ground resources determined in the beginning of the 21st century the significant activation of human activities on the sea and ocean shelfs. The results in the undersea technologies achieved by geopolitical and geostrategic opponents of Russia on the world arena indicate the necessity of adoption of urgent measures for the rapid development of native robotics.

Our scientists and engineers have faced the vital problem on the agenda concerning such underwater operations as geological survey, photo-video exposure and mapping of sea bottom in future craft regions; construction and inspection of engineering structures and communications, search and examination of objects in deep-sea accidents, ecological and biological researches in sea waters of continental shelf and craft’s protection. Russian oiland-gas industry should have the possibility to use native undersea robots for underwater exploration instead of wondering among foreign enterprises with its hand outstretched…

We speak about modern, reliable and effective neutralization of direct threat to national security.

Exploration of World Ocean is a large-scale complex problem that is complicated-like exploration of space and it certainly will require significant concentration of industrial and financial state resources, combination of efforts of both leading native producers of undersea technologies and other industries. Each step to the oceanic depth will require brand new innovations and significant expenditures. But they, as history reminds us, are worth of to be done if we do not want to be locked inside our land frontiers. These decisive steps should be done rapidly despite the load of evident financial, research and technology and organization problems..

2(49).2009

●

43

MILITARY AVIATION

Oleg Zheltonozhko Vladislav Belogrud

MILITARY TRANSPORT AVIATION’S RESOURCE IS NEARLY USED Aviation took an important role in the life of the Soviet Union and is still in the focus of the Russian public opinion. Having reached a lot in the Soviet epoch and lost even more during Perestroika and the following hard times of general collapse this country is still close to the leaders of the Aerospace industry. The Russian combat planes established and now preserve the reputation of the formidable rivals for the foreign aircrafts because of the reserves gained in the Soviet era. And it is still possible to catch up the chaos time delay. We only need to apply some force and use the help of our “sworn friends” competently.

Many of them are ready to make a market on the Russian modernization.

Unfortunately the total failure of the civil aviation which reasons are so different that can be discussed separately made a great influence on the transport aviation. Its area had a very civil Aeroflot look but it was traditionally oriented to the military tasks. It is the military transport aviation where Russian Air Force has a great number of problems. The resource of the operating aircrafts is nearly used. Most of the types are outdated now. These are the main problems. We can partially solve the problem using the Soviet 44

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

reserves of tools and spare parts.

Repair facilities and a huge number of acting aircrafts may help too.

The development concept for the Russian military transport aviation has been accepted in August, 2003 and it is being realized now. Under the concept four classes of perspective military transport aircrafts are to enter the service and become the base of the military transport aviation for a medium term outlook.

So the military transport aviation was to be equipped with the following aircrafts: tactical airlifter with the payload capacity of 6 tons to succeed the An-26, military transport aircraft with the payload capacity of 20 tons to succeed the An-12, strategic airlifter with the payload capacity of 60 and heavy strategic airlifter with more than 100-ton payload.

The problem is very sharp as in the Soviet period the transport aviation was considered as almost an exclusive business of Antonov DCB. First of all this is the merit of the DCB whose high level of work was recognized all over the world. However a glorified allied DCB is a subject to foreign state laws now. And Ukraine considers it good to disregard the Russia interests and show its "nezal-

ezhnost" (independence) which looks like a conscious provocation. We may doubt of the reliability of the Ukrainian designers and manufacturers not mentioning probable leaks of technologies and military equipment.

Though there is no doubt in good will of Antonov DCB or, for example, Zaporozhye MotorSich. Their readiness for the teamwork smoothes over contradictions and fears. However the last word of the Ukrainian companies will be said by their government.

In the USSR there was an example of the breakthrough of the Antonov monopoly and creation of the successful transport aircraft by Ilyushin DCB. That is the Il-76 airlifter, the main "workhorse" of the Russian civil and military transport aviation now. That is why Ilushin group receives the highest priority form the Russian military.

TACTICAL AIRLIFTER WITH A SIXTON PAYLOAD CAPACITY In this class the out-of-date An-24, An-26 and various special airplanes on their base are to be substituted.

The final results of the tactical airlifter for the Air Forces tender begun in 1999 were resumed in March, 2003.

The following projects participated in the competition: the MiG-110 of

MILITARY AVIATION MiG Russian Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation, the tactical airlifter on the base of the Su-80 (Sukhoi DCB), the Tu-136 of Tupolev Company, the Il-112V from Ilyushin group and the М-60 of Mjasishchev Experimental Engineering Plant. The majority of projects were deflected because of different reasons. The Il-112V and the М-60 projects competed in the final.

The advantage of the Il-112V was ТВ7-117СТ turboprop engine which was already mastered for "almost line" Il-114 project. Unification of the configuration of projects 112 and 114 in a number of units of the fuselage and wings was provided. Besides, the developer engineer undertook the obligation to complete the initial project of the Il-112V using its own means not the state subsidies.

According to the technical project, the Il-112 airplane was designed for the transportation of different cargoes in mass to 6 tons on the range up to 6 thousand kilometres. The Il-112 tactical airlifter should exceed analogues on range and flying speed. It was able to take off from short runways, in any geographical and climate conditions, at day and night, in any meteorological conditions. Among the advantages there were also a maintenance capability at the small, poorly-equipped airports which have both concreted and soil covers of their runways; high fuel efficiency; increased, in comparison with the aircrafts of the analog class, height and width of its cargo compartment.

The М-60 was the only project powered by the turbojet bypass engine. And the designer did not have its own means for working out even the preliminary design of an airplane and asked for the full scale state financing. The М-60 serial line was to be produced at Smolensk Aviation Plant. Kazan Engine Building Plant was to manufacture AI-22 engine.

The Il-112V was declared the winner of the tactical airlifter tender.

Then in March, 2003 Victor Livanov, Director General of Ilyushin Group, said: "Today we have started the preliminary project. It is expected that the first Il-112V will be delivered to

the Air Force in 2006. The necessity in these airplanes is approximately 150 aircrafts". The necessity of 150 airplanes was declared by the Air Force as the same number figured among all the proposals. So what?

Did the Il-112 really take off in 2006?

No, and let's speak about it a bit later.

In Russia airplanes for the military transport aviation were manufactured at two large plants in Ulyanovsk (Aviastar-SP) and Voronezh (Voronezh Aircraft Manufacturing Company, VASO).

The thoughtless conversion and the loss of "ideologically motivated" customers of military and civil aircrafts from the Eastern Europe and developing countries have almost killed the Russian air industry.

After 1992 Iljushin VASO was specialized in the Il-96, the Il-96-300 and the Il-96-400 wide-body long-haul liners. The difficulties of their sales did not allow contain the previous production not speaking of mastering the new products.

As a result, when Voronezh Plant tried to organize the line production of the modernized Il-76MF instead of the Uzbek monopolist on Il-76 (Tchkalov Plant in Tashkent), VASO did not manage it. Mastering of the Il-76Mf was transferred to Ulyanovsk.

Until 2006 the plant had been in crisis not having any own means for modernization and not receiving money from the budget. The investment program of Vneshekonombank for 11 million rubles started only for the mastering of the perspective An-148 medium-haul airplane highly demanded on the market. Only from that moment the opportunity of the new projects realization (Il-112) appeared.

Alexey Fedorov, President of UAC, said that VASO would be specialized in the manufacturing of the An-148 (four aircrafts in 2009) and the Il-112 light tactical airlifter which line production was planned to begin in 2011.

Vitaly Zubarev, VASO Director General, in his interview given on July 28, 2009 promised that the Il-112 prototype aircraft would be manufactured in December, 2010.

He said that at that time the aircraft "is to be ready for the beginning

of the certification test flights". It is "the dense schedule, but the plant personnel intends to execute it" Zubarev marked. However in March they started to make the rigging and the plant received only 50 % of the designer documentation form the DB. There are serious suspicions that the terms will be again removed for at least a year.

The Il-112 production delay led to the creation of the "interplant" rival.

In July, 2005 Ilyushin Finans leasing company declared that it negotiated with the Russian Air Force on the production of the An-148 airplanes in the military airlifter variant.

IFK Director General Alexander Rubtsov said "We negotiate the ramp version of the aircraft with Volga-Dnepr airline and the Russian Air Force. Working out and production of the An-148T transport version was to be taken by the joint company including Antonov DB, Ilyushin DB and IFK. However, even if not to take into consideration the cost and doubtful perspectives of the An-148, it is not inscribed in the set parameters of a light tactical airlifter with its take-off weight of 46 tons and payload capacity of 9 - 12 tons.

Therefore the Air Force will wait for the Il-112. There is no other option.

THE MEDIUM TACTICAL AIRLIFTER WITH 20-TON PAYLOAD CAPACITY In this class the out-of-date An-12 is to be substituted. Before the development of the Il-76 they transported the main air military cargos and also made the airborne troops really "winged". With the help of the An-12 Airborne Forces received the capabilities of delivering the diverse equipment to the drop zone. That was the perfect airplane, but it looked outdated in the end of the XX century. Antonov DB designed a "successor", the An-70 which first flight took place in Kiev on December 16, 1994.

At first received favorably the An-70 became a victim of its own perfection. The airplane designed in the closest cooperation of the Russian and Ukrainian plants had the unique take-off and landing properties, one of the features of all the Ans. A Power plant consisting of four D-27 prop 2(49).2007

●

45

MILITARY AVIATION fen engines designed at Zaporozhye Progress Plant (Ivchenko-Progress) though SV-27 fans were developed in Stupino, Moscow region has good efficiency. At the maximum take-off weight the fuel consumption per hour for all four engines is 3.5 - 4 tons.

In due course Oleg Konstantinovich Antonov admitted proudly that the excess of the set performances always allowed him to convince the military in the perfectness of his aircrafts. And in this case An-70 received a solid reserve in the cargo compartment cross section (4х4.1 meters, almost as Antej has, instead of 3,1х2,6 meters of An-12), and in the payload capacity (30 tons instead of demanded 20). In the result the An-70 has almost become the Il-76. It greatly exceeds the Il-76 in the cargo cross section and the overall dimensions of transported cargos, but yields in the payload capacity and the length of a cargo ramp which can be "easily treated" by the lengthening of a fuselage and increasing the engines power. Actually, such a version, under the name An-170 (171) was offered as a perspective strategic airlifter who was to succeed the Il-76 and the An-22 as far as at the development phase.

If the USSR had existed, the An-70 would have had replaced the An-12 and the Il-76. However the Russian Air Force needs the substitution for the An-12 which starts to "be strewed" in the air. Such substitution is necessary as soon as possible. But it is impossible to make it faster.

The solution of a problem with the An-12 was offered. The Il-214 was planned to be used as a medium tactical airlifter as it satisfied with the military transport aviation standard. The payload capacity of the developed airplane was about 20 tons. PS-90А-76 is considered to be the base engine for the Il-214 with the further substitution for PS-12.

At once the idea of the cooperation with India appeared. It is also interested in the aircraft. In the result at least two states will buy the new airplane. Risks will be divided between the two parties which is also very important.

"Ilyushin will participate in the tender with its Il-214 project. On the base of the Il-214 Irkut RDB and the 46

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

Indian space corporation HAL is going to design the multipurpose airlifter under МТА program. The common market of these aircrafts is of 120-130 planes" - V. Livanov said in 2003.

The Il-214 international version was called as Multirole Transport Aircraft and saved all the performances of the basic model. It was planned that the airplanes would be manufactured in both countries. 65 % of the activity was assigned to Russia, and 35 % - to India.

Ilyushin, Irkut and Rosoboroneksport will represent Russia in the project; India will be represented by HAL Corporation. Financing was planned in equal shares - 50 on 50.

However the idea of Multirole Transport Aircraft was embodied not as much as it was discussed at the different levels. Ilyushin DB did not have enough power for a high-grade project development and the Hindus were not ready to join the project.

The Russian-Indian agreement on the development of the Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) will be signed in two months, Oleg Demchenko, President of Irkut Vorporation promised on May 25, 2007 underscoring that the finance sources have already been determined and the business plan has been developed.

Head of UAC Alexey Fedorov said about the bureaucracy difficulties: "Indian-Russian international law agreement is postponed. It is a long-term bureaucratic procedure.

Nevertheless, the project is being realized, spadework is being carried on.

The fact of signing or declining of the agreement does not make any influence on the project development".

And at this time Fedorov did not eliminate the opportunity of the participation of new partners in the program of MTA "But it will be the companies working on outsourcing not the full partners".

Why do they need it if everything goes normally? The answer is obvious.

It was expected that the first flight of the МТА will take place in 2012, and the first deliveries will start in 2014. The airplane is the part of the Government Arms Program 2015 where the delivery of the five Il-214s to the Russian Air Force is planned.

On October 3, 2008 UAC President Alexey Fedorov promised that the

joint UAC and HAL Company would create and execute the design and production of the MTA "as soon as possible".

"We have already distributed the activity. And now we approach to the start of the program and the joint venture will be created as soon as possible. It will execute the project and control its realization" - Fedorov said.

In November, 2007 the intergovernmental agreement on the joint MTA project and the Russian-Indian project of the fifth generation fighter was signed. Outlook of the fighter served as an indirect support to the МТА project because it is a real intergovernmental program of the development of a new military technology.

By 2009 all the expenses were to be calculated. In February during the Aero India aerospace show Alexey Fedorov announced that the cost of the joint Russian-Indian MTA program was about $600 million "… this sum accommodates all the costs made before the moment of the beginning of the line production". So the investments of Russia and India in the МТА project is about $300 million It was supposed, according to Mr. Fedorov, that the maximum unification of the Russian and Indian versions of the MTA airlifter would be made and several subsystems would be designed to improve the possible export capabilities of the airplane on the markets of the third countries.

They also planned to use an industrial reserve of Irkut Company for the other perspective programs: "The MTA airlifter will be unified with the МС-21 perspective civil short-, medium-haul aircraft. As these are the airplanes of one type size, some separate systems can be tested on both of those projects".

The fine plan was complicated with one very small condition. In March Irkut RDC left the MTA project and stopped its financing. Iljushin Group on the other side left the МС-21 project.

Ilyushin and Irkut Companies finally separated these projects. President of Irkut Company Oleg Demchenko stated that the plant intended to focus on the development of the MC-21 next generation airliner together with Sukhoi Civil Airplanes as it would

MILITARY AVIATION have the higher export market and would be better supplied with the finance. It is said that 1.6 billion rubles were already given to the project. As Demchenko said the decision was taken in the beginning of the year.

Ilyushin Company may manage to realize the project itself. However there are serious suspicions that Ilushin does not have enough personnel for this purpose.

Good news for the Il-214 arrived in April, 2009. In Voronezh Victor Livanov, Director General of Ilyushin and Vice-President of UAC said "… we received the state finances given on the project and the governmental order on the MTA program was signed". In general the joint RussianIndian program of the MTA airlifter will get 2 billion 156 million rubles from the Russian budget. As V.Livanov said, «we plan to complete development works and enter the market with this airplane 8 years after the program starts».

So, now it is 2017. Will they be in time? If the "joint" МТА program will continue slowly, India will bring a question whether it costs to continue? The cooperation with the Russian UAC is not the only alternative on the planet. For example, Brazil. The United States are eager to cooperate with India and the American capabilities are not comparable with the Russian ones. But let's hope for the Il-214 project.

THE STRATEGIC AIRLIFTER WITH THE 60-TON PAYLOAD CAPACITY In Russia the best strategic airlifter is the Il-76. Its positions are very strong. However, as the payload capacity of the base version is about 40 tons, it will not be reasonable to use all the reserves of the aircraft.

The new version of the Il-76MF was designed for it.

The Il-76MF has a longer fuselage (in comparison with Il-76MD and TD) and is powered by PS-90A-76 engine fabricated on PMK Plant. PS-90 is more powerful than D-30KP engine.

Its payload capacity is up to 60 tons. In August, 1995 the first test flight of the Il-76MF prototype was made.

"The first stage of the SJTs (state joint tests) have been completed, the positive decision has been received,

the airplane has been recommended for the line manufacturing" - V. Livanov said in 2003.

In August, 2005 the first export contract was signed. Jordan ordered two Il-76MKs with the delivery in 2008-2009.

PS-90A-76 engine has been installed on the standard Il-76. The Il-76MD-90 has been produced since 2003. The usage of the Perm engines with the maximum thrust of 16 tons each increased the fuel efficiency for 12-15 % and the flight range for 15-20 % in comparison with the base Il-76MD. The maximum weight of the Il-76Td-90 transported cargo has grown up to 50 tons. When loaded with 40 tons the airplane is capable to fly 5.8 thousand km in comparison with 4.7 thousand km of the Il-76MD. So the different variants of the Il-76 are being produced. Everything depends on the customer's money.

In any case the Russian Air Force will not change 150 flying Il-76s for the other airplanes.

Certainly, the future outlook of the An-70 is under question again and again. The great sum of money has already been spent for the project.

Russia has inserted into the project more than 70 % of $300 million sum (2004, by the time when Russia left the project). The aircraft 80% consisting of the Russian accessories was certificated in 2007. It is really ready for the line production and is still modern … but it is not clear whether it is needed for anyone. Ukraine needs a few aircrafts and Russia has the Il-76 and the ideal for the Ukrainian elite, Europe, has been developing its own A-400 for a long time. After studying the Ukrainian project the Europeans decided to complete and modernize their own А-400. Ukraine should be satisfied with its deposit in the А-400М.

"We will correct our position on the An-70. We will look for the ways of its realization" - Vladimir Putin said to the journalists. He marked that it is necessary to combine the efforts of the Russian and Ukrainian companies which depend on each other.

"The cooperation level between the Ukrainian and Russian plants is so high that they may cease to exist without the cooperation. It concerns

the aviation industry" - the prime minister said and added that in this area the two countries had very good perspectives for the bilateral cooperation.

Does the An-70 program have any outlook?

Unfortunately, the capabilities of the An-70 such as its operation at the runways with soil cover and the technical features linked with it make the aircraft more expensive (An-70 twice as expensive as Il-76MF). The price will not allow an airplane to become very competitive in the civil market of the aviation transport. The former commander of the Russian Air Force Vladimir Mihajlov said that the possibility of the operation at the soil runaways was needed by the Soviet not Russian military. The performances of D-30KP engine developed 40 years ago strictly limits the flights of the Il-76 to Europe. It is a critical point as the main lines of the Il airlifters are between Europe and Russia.

There was no interest in the modernization of D-30KP engine to D-30KP3 variant proposed by Saturn RDC under the Burlak program. Under the program the engine thrust was increased up to 14 tons. The development was completed, the motor was successfully tested, but there were no orders for it.

Repowering of the civil Il-76TD to PS-90A engine meeting the European requests is mercantile unprofitable as the engines are very expensive.

But the military Il-76MD can be easily repowered because of a public finance.

Such activity began and in February, 2007 the first information about the scheduled purchases of the airlifters under the Government Arms Program GPV 2015 appeared. Victor Livanov gave concrete cost of the program: by 2015 18 Il-112V aircrafts and 4 Il-76MFs would be bought, and 14 Il-76MDs would be repowered to the Il-76MD-90A. Russian Aviastar-SP plans to begin the construction of the Il-76MF by 2010. Airplanes will be bought by the Russian and foreign Air Forces and several commercial customers.

It was planned that 6.4 billion dollars would have been given on the program by 2009 inclusively. Ilyushin is considered to be the project 2(49).2007

●

47

MILITARY AVIATION Coordinator. But the wing for the airplanes will be produced by VASO, the landing gear - by Aviaaggregate Samara Plant. Tchlalov Plant in Tashkent will produce several parts of the Il-76.

"The first serial Il-76MF for the Russian Air Force is planned to be built on Aviastar-SP in 2010" Alexander Pavlov, the deputy of Air Force Commander, said in January.

On the other side Victor Livanov announced that "in 2010 - 2015 the Russian Air Force is planned to be accommodated with one Il-76MF a year".

In the reserve Ilyushin has more modernized the Il-476 project. The airplane will be equipped with new wings and avionics. As well as in the other projects the UAC plans on the Il-476 are impressing … The prototype of the Il-476 is to be produced by Aviastar-SP in 2010 and the beginning of the line manufacturing is to be started in 2011. The UAC is going to produce up to 25 such aircrafts in Ulyanovsk by 2015.

So the An-70 chances to be produced and delivered to the Russian Air Force become more and more elusive … if the strong-willed solution will not accepted.

THE HEAVY STRATEGIC AIRLIFTER WITH 100-TON PAYLOAD CAPACITY In the heavy strategic airlifter class the An-124 Ruslan has no rivals.

The aircraft designed and delivered to the transport aviation in the late eighties - the early 90th is not outdated and answer all the demands.

The An-124 was manufactured on Kiev Aviante Plant and the line production was started by Ulyanovsk Aviastar. 24 aircrafts were produced in 1984 - 2004 and it has good perspectives in the civil aviation now.

The line was tried to be resumed in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Volga-Dnepr airline needs more than 100 airplanes of this class. Under the other Russian-Ukrainian agreement signed on MAKS air show in 2009 a new line of the An-124 will be produced.

But that might have been the civil An-124-100. After modernization it is not able to be used as a military airlifter. But the Russian Air Force is not 48

●

ARMS Defence Technologies Review

interested in the program and wants to sell its own aircrafts.

The An-22 Antej is the other veteran of the Russian Air Force. It had no rivals before the designing of the An-124 Ruslan. The An-22 has a huge cargo compartment with the altitude and width of 4.4 meters. That is why it is capable to transport the heaviest cargos. Besides the An-22 is one of the most cost-effective airlifters.

For example, the Il-76MD's fuel consumption is 20 percents less than the An-22's one. NK-12MA turboprop engines are produced in Samara Plant and the frequency of their noise is out of the EU limits. It means that An-22 can operate in Europe.

The An-22 debuted in Le-Burzhe in 1965. Its resource is limited too because of the fuselage service life.

In the early 90s the An-22 was to be substituted by the new strategic airlifter. In the tender of 1987 the Il-106 bet the An-170 and the Tu-330. <http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/ ilushin/il/106/img/106.jpg> The Il-106 model was first demonstrated at the Mosaeroshow-92 exhibition, the prototype was to be built by 1995, and flight tests were planned in 1997. However the project is not financed. And being somewhere between heavy strategic and strategic airlifter, the Il-106 exists only on a paper.

Twelve An-22s Remained in the Russian Air Force (according to some information only four of them can be operated) will probably serve at least till 2010. Only Ruslan can substitute them in maintenance as the crosssection of the fuselage of all the Il-76s is much less.

THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE AIR FORCE In the interview from August 11, 2009 Colonel general A. N. Zelin, Russian Air Force Commander, gave his vision of the situation with the military transport aviation: «...Now military transport aviation has An-124 and An-22 heavy strategic military airlifters, Il-76MD strategic airplanes, An-12 and An-26 tactical airlifters.

As their service life is nearly over the An-22, the An-12 and the An-26 will be written off the Air Force in the

near future. An-124 and Il-76 aircrafts are to be replaced soon enough too.

That is why we are to renew the park of military cargo aircrafts in the forthcoming decade. Some of the airplanes will be substituted by more modern; the other part will be greatly modernized. For example, the An-124 airplane. As a whole it is a modern aero complex capable to transport 100 % of the equipment and armament of the Armed Forces.

It does not have any analogues in the world and is capable to transport 100 % of the engineering and armament of different branches of the Armed forces.

The avionics needs to be renewed and is being renewed now. The situation with Il-76MD airplane is the same. Some airplanes of the class will be modernized too. Since 2011 Ulyanovsk Plant will start the production of the deeply modernized Il-76MD-90A airplane powered with new engines and equipped with the new avionics and airborne equipment. In the end the Air Force will order 40 such airplanes …

In the near future the Il-112V tactical airlifter is planned to be designed and delivered to the Air Force…

The prototype of the airplane is to be produced in 2010, and the flight of the Il-112V is scheduled on the beginning of 2011. The Russian Air Force is going to purchase more than 70 aircrafts in the forthcoming period.

The perspective medium tactical airlifter is being designed to substitute the An-12 aircraft. India participates in the project too. The airplane is designed for intra- and inter-regional troops, cargos and new generation military equipment transportation… Fuel efficiency of the airplane will match the world level... ".

There were a lot of talks on the necessity of the renewal of the combat and transport airplanes. They were carried on the different levels.

May be the point of non-return is coming and we will be able to say that the modernization of the Russian military transport aviation has started and that it corresponds with the demands of XXI century.