Poland PL-01 Concept
During the International Defence Industry Exhibition in September 2013, there was presented a conceptual model of a named PL-01 CONCEPT. Certainly, this rather impressive-looking vehicle will attract attention in Poland and abroad, but it is fair to the reader (especially those who do not have a deeper knowledge of this subject) to clarify a few issues.
First presented mock-up is not fully functional, the second chassis PL-01 is actually slightly modified Swedish CV90 infantry fighting vehicle on which was placed a model, being developed in Poland unmanned turret. Another issue is whether such a structural arrangement for a tank is correct, i.e. the power unit in front of the hull.
Naturally, such a structural arrangement is desirable from the point of view of modularity, but survival. This is, unfortunately, over the years repeated myth, based on the experience of the Israel Defense Forces and developed there Merkabah tank. One must remember that from this point of view, the survival of the vehicle and its crew, this structural system is inefficient. First, the engine needs quite a lot of space, which means that there is no place on armor, and here it is worth to ask a question, which protects better against bullet designed for this purpose, having adequate hardness and density armor or motor whose role is, after all completely different.
Secondly, it also, by the mass of the vehicle, the mass itself is not an absolute determinant of the level of protection offered by the vehicle crew, with a history here you can cite many examples in support of this thesis. But weight is closely linked with the space inside the vehicle. In other words, the more space inside the vehicle, the heavier it will be if we want to protect it reliably armor. This makes it 30-35 ton PL-01 in this structural arrangement is much less protected in its front hemisphere, with little more than the mass, designed in the sixties in the USSR, having a weight of about 38 tons, the tank T-64.
In this case also, it wasted the chance offered by the unmanned tower. This tower may be smaller and lighter than the tower manned, hence, the vehicle of similar weight, but with an unmanned turret is better protected than its tower manned, because the weight saved can be used to better protect the hull. And unfortunately, all indications are that the new Polish tank, will be designed in just such a structural arrangement and the decision-makers responsible for formulating the assumptions tactical and technical, they decided to copy the de facto blindly thrown a long time the concept of a platform MGV program Future Combat Systems, which the author of this paper mentions above.
Those who cheer the implementation of the idea to equip the armed forces of the Republic of Poland, active defense systems of vehicles (ASOP), it is disturbing that they are regarded as a remedy for the threat. Firstly, has long been known that these systems are mainly effective only against relatively soft, heads cumulative. But research in the world, mainly in the former Soviet Union, showed that even if the active defense system will work properly, there is a chance that the detonating head cumulative, damaged by ASOP still can form in some degree of flux cumulative capable perforation especially lighter types of armor.
Another type of threat is the type of ammunition APFSDS, very difficult to neutralize by ASOP. One must remember that even if the effector system, correctly intercept flying at a speed of more than 1000 m / s penetrator, such colloquially speaking "piece of metal" even stamped on its trajectory, it is still dangerous, especially for lighter structures and hitting issued with one design, even your side surface, can inflict even greater damage than hitting the target at normal viewing angle for you.
And finally, the modern types, multi-purpose, programmable, HE ammunition. This type of ammunition can be programmed to explode at a certain distance from the target generating a cloud of debris, which can effectively paralyze the active elements of the defense system, whose delicate items like radar system and missile must be placed on the outside and thus quite sensitive to such measures destruction.
What's more, this type of ammunition is quite a thick crust and a lot of weight, and with a programmable zapalnikowi can be programmed in the mode of penetration cover and explosions after the puncture. This type of ammunition is therefore extremely dangerous for the lighter armored vehicles and it's less sensitive to active defense system.
This raises the question of legitimacy of the development of this type of structure as a light tank, medium or car direct support, as this car is called in the media.
Concern is the classification of the vehicle, once it is a light tank, one medium tank and once the car direct support. As for the light tanks, it is indeed still used, but a relatively small-scale auxiliary role. Tanks average but just as heavy tanks, made history in the sixties of the twentieth century, when replaced both of these classes, tanks basic or structures universal new generation having the armor, firepower and mobility at a higher level than tanks, medium and heavy, so the tank basic design is universal and today the most widely spread.
And finally the machine direct support, or what exactly? After tank basic, medium or heavy, it can be established so, so why create a new classification? It seems that this is a sign of emerging in Poland as fashion to create new names for existing weapons that already has the appropriate name. In the angelic formulated for this phenomenon very graceful term "tacticool", it has no Polish counterpart, but it can be explained as a desire to confer new names for weapons that these names were more effective, such a peculiar kind of jargon associated with marketing.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
