The T-80s future in the Russian Army

Sending T-80UD from the storage means one thing only - they will refurbish them, too.
As a whole fleet of 80UD left in Russia was about 200 pcs, I hardly believe they would worry about such a homeopathic number. But that would mean that they are taking seriously the 6TD-1 restoration, and that is only a step from increasing the potential to rebuild ... T-64.
This decision would increase the reserves of tanks to be produced ... by some 30%. We talk a few thousand pieces.

In the link Arrow posted they mentioned the T-80UD being sent for upgrades, but as you mention they didn't get a lot of those, which suggests either they are going to put gas turbines in them or they have perhaps developed a diesel engine for replacement of the engine in the T-80UD, which has implications.

If they have a new diesel engine for upgrades they can put into T-80UDs then perhaps they can also put those engines in older model vehicles to replace the gas turbines.

Equally new production aircraft turbines the Russians have made have been better than the engines they received from Ukraine which suggests better quality materials and improved designs to improve performance and power and efficiency.

So will these vehicles get GTs or improved Russian made diesels?

are the same, just as the small parts that need
replacement the most, like all those screws and bolts that keep the tanks together.

Are you guys suggesting they created their own unique bolts and screws and nuts for this tank?

Really?

How stupid of them.

Considering they used cheap truck engines to power their BTRs and went to the trouble of using two in the BTR-60 to give it enough power, creating unique fasteners sounds a bit out of character.

They would be metric so I would understand western bolts and screws not being compatible at the time...

ALAMO wrote:
Do you see my conclusions? They will end up with existing production lines, that will have to be kept alive for the next 30 years. Those newly refurbished tanks will stay in ranks till the 2050s.

That's perfectly fine. NATO's armored forces will have to rely on modernized late cold war models until the 2050s as well.

Unfortunately for them, they don't have anything like the T-14 Armata that can serve as the tip of the spear - much like how the German Tigers were for the weaker Panzers, and inflict outsized damage that way despite their relative scarcity.

Realistically NATO will take until the 40s until they can get an MBT comparable to the T-14 Armata - that's if they don't collapse along the way.

The full Europe politician 720 degree turn?

So there is basically no reason to make new T-80s. If they want the gas turbine engine, then modify the T-90.

We might be missing something though.... and I would think if they do want a gas turbine engine tank for the future then a T-14 version makes more sense... I would expect rather more room for a GT.

On the T-14 thread the video that was posted recently that mentioned minor problems with the engine that have now been sorted out, also mentioned 8 forward gears and 8 reverse gears so going backwards shouldn't be a huge problem... of course going backwards fast is not easy or very safe but the internet trolls have moaned and complained so it has become a thing.

Except the Burlak (T-72/90) and the Black Eagle(T-80) turrets were rejected because the ammo was too exposed to enemy fire and would be too vulnerable to being taken out.

The turret bustle is exposed to three sides while the heavy armour only protects the direction the gun is pointed in.

I had long chats on another Blog about this... if they updated the ammo so that the bustle could be used for long rod penetrator rounds in sabots and no extra propellant, and the propellant could be in liquid form preferably binary or ternary and only mixed in the chamber just before being perhaps microwaved as a catalyst and then fired then you could store one component in the turret rear and one component in the hull and not mix them till they are in the chamber ready to fire, which means any enemy fire hitting the ammo in the bustle or underfloor loader will not ignite propellant...

The turret bustle would be ideal for long rod penetrators and the odd missile round and straight rammed into the chamber would be a fast uncomplicated loading procedure, while HE rounds and HEAT rounds can be shorter and loaded in an autoloader under the crew compartment.

The propellant is split into two components so it does not burn very readily and needs to be mixed and microwaved before it will function as propellant... making storage safe.

The bustle ammo stowage will not survive a battlefield filled with swarms of FPV drones, loitering munitions, laser guided shells, cluster AT munitions and other top attack regulars. Let it go.

And yes, NATO went all in on this particular design element and yes, their tanks are fucked.

ALAMO wrote:Currently, only T-14 construction provides some degree of safety against this type of threat. Yet it need to be supplemented with additional coverage and active jammers assisting hard kill kit anyway.

The robotic turret is also the only practical way you can physically keep up with the ever increasing ballistic requirements against horizontal threats posed by subcaliber shells and shaped charge missiles represented by the 3BM69/70 and 9M133M-2 respectively. The level of overmatch is simply insurmountable with no more room left for further add-ons without saying kaput to logistics.

A hardkill APS is not a substitute for a complex multilayer armor either, as it can be bypassed or outright destroyed with concentrated fire. And if you're going to rely on an APS anyway a robotic turret has all the prime real estate you need to integrate a higher density of sensors and effectors.

ALAMO wrote:
Even Leclerce and eastern tanks like Korean and Japanese will suffer the same disadvantages made of exposing weak parts.

These are all the same picture.

lancelot wrote:If the whole deal about the T-80 is the gas turbine being more suitable for the Arctic, why not just make a 1500hp gas turbine and put it in T-14 variants for the Arctic?

What makes you say they aren't?

If the whole deal about the T-80 is the gas turbine being more suitable for the Arctic, why not just make a 1500hp gas turbine and put it in T-14 variants for the Arctic?

The more powerful the engine the more fuel it burns.

Fuel consumption is based on horse power so a 1,500hp engine running at full power burns double the fuel of a 750hp engine with the same fuel burn rate.

The T-14 already has a 1,500hp diesel engine that will probably be running at 1,800hp pretty soon.

The T-14 is intended for urban warfare or against enemies with excellent anti armour systems so urban areas and heavily wooded areas would be the places they would be used the most so Kurganets and the DT-30 type vehicle families would be the vehicles used in the arctic the most.