Nizh developed to pull off Pakistani tank deal
[Khytryk] The project to develop an explosive reactive armour system that is now known as Nizh (Knife) was launched in 1997-98 as part of an effort to supply a consignment of T-80UD tanks under a contract with Pakistan. Russia, in the person of the Moscow-based Scientific Research Institute of Steel had reservations about that contract, saying the tanks being supplied to Pakistan were equipped with an ERA system one of whose elements, the 4C22, was of Russian design. For that system the Russian side demanded a huge sum in royalties that would equal almost 10 per cent of the entire contract value. By that time Ukraine had accumulated enough ideas of its own. So a decision was taken to create an explosive reactive armour system that would be of entirely Ukrainian design. To order from the Defence Ministry of Ukraine and in partnership with the Morozov design bureau in Kharkiv (who in fact came out as customers in that project), a fundamentally new ERA system had been developed within a very short period of time. In 2003, by the defence minister's decree, the ERA system that we designed was commissioned and commercialized by a factory near Kiev.
[Correspondent] How much money did it take to develop that system?
[Khytryk] The Defence Ministry only covered half of the costs. The remainder came from designer companies involved in the project, first and foremost the Morozov design bureau. Interdepartmental trials, too, had to be conducted at the cost of participating companies.
Nizh profiled
[Correspondent] What makes this system so unique?
[Khytryk] The system works on the principle of the directed concentrated effect of individual speciality charges contained by the Nizh module on an antitank projectile that hits tank armour. Once the projectile hits an ERA module, a pin-point blasting of individual charges takes place to destroy the projectile. Employing the principle of directed destructive effect allowed the creation of an explosive reactive armour system that efficiently destroys incoming ordnance, no matter what type of charge it may carry - armour-piercing rounds or hollow-charge shells or striking-nucleus-type impact shells. The ERA system that we've designed is equally efficacious against Soviet-era-vintage projectiles and Western-designed ones. On top of that, the new-generation Nizh ERA modules that are accommodated in specialized Morozov-designed sections mounted on the outside of the tank allow it to keep adjacent ERA modules intact, thereby increasing the entire system's survival by 200 to 300 per cent. In case of earlier versions of ERA systems, subject to destruction were considerable numbers of adjacent modules that were not directly hit by an incoming projectile. There were occasions of about 50 per cent of ERA modules on the given side of the tank being destroyed by an explosion resulting from a projectile hitting just one module on the same side of the tank. That meant to say that, for that side of the tank (tank body or front or turret), the protection system was nonrecoverable.
Russian competitors lagging behind
[Correspondent] Is the Ukrainian-designed ERA system better than Russia's?
[Khytryk] At the present time, Russia employs ERA systems with 4C20 and 4C22 elements that provide reliable protection against non-tandem-type hollow-charge projectiles. But in case of armour-piercing sub-calibre rounds, that system is impotent. Neither does it save from striking-nucleus-type impact rounds. As far as we know, the Scientific Research Institute of Steel is conducting research and development on a general-purpose ERA system to be known as KontaktV. That system would provide reliable protection against armour-piercing sub-calibre shells, like the 105-mm M833 or 120-mm M829, as well as hollow-charge rounds T0W-2 and T0W-2A. The Russian institute offers us cooperation in research and development on a general-purpose second-generation ERA system that would be highly efficacious against armour-piercing sub-calibre shells (120-mm M829A2) and hollow-charge rounds (HOT-3 or SADARM). We have achieved this level already, and manufacture the ERA system Nizh in commercial quantities. We also are working on a project to develop a multi-layer built-in ERA system that would provide protection against prospective types of shells. In that effort we are at least five years ahead of our Russian counterparts.
[Correspondent] Have the Russians showed any interest in acquiring the Nizh?
[Khytryk] No official suggestions or requests have come from Russia. Though, in private conversations some degree of interest has been shown indeed. They apparently consider themselves pioneers in that type of work, and therefore, do not deem it necessary to communicate with others working in this field. As for us, we equip the T-84 tank with an ERA system that provides parameters that they (the Russians) are so far from attaining that they are just offering cooperation in developing an equivalent system to foreign partners.
Foreign analogues
[Correspondent] How efficient is the Ukrainian system compared with foreign-designed equivalents?
[Khytryk] Neither the German Leopard-2, nor the American Abrams M1A2, nor the British Challenger 2 are comparable with the ERA system. The French have an ERA system of their own. It is worse noting that the French Leclerc that is in service in the army of the United Arab Emirates has been adjusted to carry an ERA system, yet the system as such is yet to be installed on the tank. We estimate that by its performance parameters the French-designed ERA system is no better than the Soviet-designed system with the 4C20 element.
[Correspondent] What about the Merkava tank of Israel?
[Khytryk] The Israelis were the first to put an explosive reactive armour system onto a tank and test it in combat operations in the early 1980s. The result surpassed all expectations. Development work on ERA systems were pioneered by the Soviet Union. Yet, die to some subjective reasons, ERA systems had never emerged on Soviet tanks: there were some high-ranking commanders in the Soviet armed forces who warned they would never tolerate a tank in a shell of explosive. For that matter it should be pointed out that the ERA system for tanks in Israel, and subsequently in more countries, was only designed to provide protection against hollow-charge shells, as at the time that kind of ordnance was the most powerful anti-tank weapon. But the situation changed in the mid-1980s with the emergence of box-frame armour-piercing sub-calibre kinetic energy (KE) rounds (like DM-23 or M-111). Those projectiles - which over time have become the principal anti-tank weapon - pierce the tank armour to a depth that is practically equal to their own core. Besides, tandem-type hollow-charge shells have come to be employed to counter ERA protection. This brought about a challenge to provide protection against that type of rounds. And that challenge has been successfully handled in Ukraine.
Commercial prospects
[Correspondent] Is the Nizh fit for mounting onto the Polish tank PT-91 that is bound for export to Malaysia?
[Khytryk] Yes, it is. We had meetings with Polish officials, and conducted a few rounds of negotiations. They have their own ERA system with its own parameters. But the thing is that the Polish do not believe it practicable to create an ERA system that would be potent enough to protect against an armour-piercing sub-calibre projectile. During a trial conducted at a proving ground in Ukraine in April 2002, we "neutralized" a Mango-type Soviet-made 125-mm sub-calibre shell fired from 100 meters, and in May 2003 we demonstrated our system in the United Arab Emirates in a duel with a 120-mm French-made armour-piercing sub-calibre round.
[Correspondent] What is the demand for the Nizh?
[Khytryk] You know, the road is long from advertising to selling. We demonstrated that system to Turkish military commanders at a firing ground here in Ukraine in 2002, during a competition for a contract to supply tanks to Turkey. Though, for the time being, talks on the sale of the system as such and the Ukrainian tank as a whole have been rather difficult. We received inquiries from the UAE about the possibility of installing the ERA system onto the Leclerc tank which they have in their inventory. That tank has already been adjusted to carry an ERA protective system. So no trouble is bound to crop up there. But there is one but: installing an ERA system on the Leclerc previously requires getting the go-ahead from the French. The Leclerc tanks operated by the UAE's army are with an indefinite guarantee of free service. That means that the tank cannot have any of its parts, even a bolt, replaced. There is fear the French will never agree to the Leclerc's being fitted out with our ERA system.
A certain amount of interest is being shown in a project to develop an ERA system for light-weight armoured combat vehicles. The challenge is to provide protection against 20-30-mm gun shells and anti-tank grenades. One of the subtypes of the Nizh system provides efficient protection against 23-mm and 30-mm rounds called MAR as well as PG-7 and PG-9 grenades.
[Correspondent] Does that mean that we are now able to offer our ERA systems for installation onto Soviet-designed armoured infantry fighting vehicles RMP-3?
[Khytryk] Yes, that's true. But first we have to work out a concept of protection for light-weight armoured combat vehicles and test it. For the time being, such a concept in pure form is nonexistent. We are looking for investors, conducting negotiations on creating that variant of protective system. We have some ideas, and are going to solve that problem within the next 12 months.
[Correspondent] Are you going go supply the Nizh to Pakistan?
[Khytryk] Negotiations are in progress with many countries. As far as Pakistan is concerned, they have recently bought new tanks, and, from our perspective, it now does not make economic sense to replace existing ERA systems on the vehicles. An enhanced version of the T-55 tank with the Nizh ERA protective system has recently been demonstrated in Turkey.
Domestic demand
[Correspondent] Is an explosive active armour system for tanks available to Ukraine?
[Khytryk] Not yet. The explosive active armour called Zaslin [Russian: Zaslon, English: Barrier] is now being developed to order from the Ukrinmash firm with funds provided by the Immersion company. That system is designed to protect stationary facilities or entities in motion from anti-tank projectiles with flat or diving trajectories fired using whatever type of sighting systems or guns. That system is without an analogue in the world. Most importantly, in contrast to the existing Russian-designed explosive active armour systems Drozd and Arena, the Zaslin provides protection against artillery shells with velocities of up to 1,200 metres per second. One more very important defining feature of the Zaslin is that is can be interfaced with an explosive reactive armour system. Neither the Drozd nor the Arena is capable of that, as they both are designed for accommodation on the tank turret, leaving no room for an ERA system there. Because those two systems are impotent in providing protection against armour-piercing shells, the vehicle, instead of obtaining better protection as designed, becomes even more vulnerable.
[Correspondent] When will the work on the Zaslin be finished?
[Khytryk] Now we are in serious preparations for testing that system in field conditions. We estimate that the Zaslin would be ready for full-rate production in the not very distant future. Elements comprising the system will be of entirely Ukrainian make.
[Correspondent] Are there any orders for the technology from the Defence Ministry of Ukraine?
[Khytryk] Thus far, there are no orders. But they at the Defence Ministry are thinking seriously about advancing research work in this field. Much interest in the Zaslin system is being shown on the part of the Americans. The military of China want to obtain that technology as well, yet in parts. They are working with a number of Ukrainian companies, meaning to obtain a radar. There have been no contacts with the Chinese thus far concerning the explosive active armour system. China is known to have been engaged with Pakistan in a large-scale project for the manufacture of the Al-Khalid tank there. We might be able to penetrate the Chinese market precisely by way of that project. The more so because that project already involves Ukrainian-made products in big enough amounts (engine-transmission blocs, optics). So issues of common concern and common interest are already there to stay.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-20245068_ITM
.
