The T-80s future in the Russian Army

The most serious attempt to make a tank with some serious AD was Slovakian Moderna, with one or two 20 mm Oerlikon cannons.

People keep bringing this vehicle up, but think about it for a minute... even if one tank is designated air defence for the position spraying 20mm or 30mm cannon shells trying to hit a fast elusive manouverable tiny drone is going to lead to your position and friendly troops being regularly sprayed with cannon ammo... even at close range aligning the sights with where the barrel is actually pointed is actually rather hard because most sights are not intended to be used at very close range.

What you need is a system that can be fitted to any vehicle because every vehicle needs to be protected, but the extent of that protection should not lead to all the vehicles around you being sprayed with lethal cannon fire because they will be firing too and you will get yours back as well.

Something like Arena was brilliant because the munitions were directional but covered a large enough area that they overlapped so it could defend from any single direction attack multiple times.

The Munitions were launched up into the air and directed their fragments directly down meaning they were lethal out to enormous distances like even a rifle calibre round let alone a cannon round.

Part of the irony is camouflage because hiding vehicles in amongst trees or inside buildings or rubble protects you from long range attacks by missiles and guns, but sitting a few metres behind a bush that you can't see through but the enemy has a drone hovering above at a decent height can see you clear as day... and with thermals even on the darkest night so the FPV drone that approaches your position hidden from you behind that bush knows exactly where you are and at the last second pops up and over the bush and straight into you... you might have 3s to realise you are under attack and respond.... good luck with that... where are your guns pointing? That high drone will see and so the FPV operator can skirt around so they are not pointing in the right direction.

Stuff like netting to stop drones and nakidka so they can't find you in the first place plus decoys so they waste time and energy, but make it count... when your decoy goes boom that means their is a drone up high spotting... killing that drone is a much higher priority than any suicide drone.

Having your own drone that can see the approach of an enemy suicide drone from a decent distance is also going to be part of the defence too.

Some sort of EM weapon that fries its electronics and even disables smart fuses would be worth looking at too, but recon devices and systems are more important than ever before, but equally drones reward the aggressive... the best way to stop their drones is to attack attack attack... send in waves of your own drones to chase them into buildings and into bunkers and if someone escapes follow up with other drones.

Having IFF systems for drones is important too because then you can dedicate some of your drones to hunt enemy drones.

The most useful drones to hunt, as I said, was the higher flying optical recon drones that they will use to find targets, though they might also use satellites for that too...

Flying at higher altitudes means you could carry a shotgun like weapon and fly at the target like a WWII fighter... higher flight speeds would be good to cover more airspace and move from one target to the next... obviously critical to distinguish friend from foe...

LIDAR would be best because it gives very precise range information (like a laser range finder) but can be used to scan a large volume of airspace and is not effected by temperature or radar cross section... a stainless steel target would appear the same as the same target made of cardboard or light plastic.

BTW if you want a tank to deal with drones....



Of course with two 30mm cannon each with dual feed systems one feed from each cannon could be HEAP-T as a general purpose round to spread destruction on area targets from both guns at one time, and then one gun can fire APFSDS to take on enemy armour if it appears... one gun would be enough fire power because accuracy is more important that all out high rate of fire in the anti armour role, which leaves one ammo bin in one remaining gun which of course would be air burst 30mm cannon ammo for air targets of all types... which makes it rather more effective and less collateral damagy.

Your own drones watching your own airspace over your own lines is still the most important thing and its air view of the battlefield can be transmitted to all forces so they know and can defend themselves if needed.

The T-14's RWS coupled with the close proximity CCTV cameras mounted around the vehicle should do it.

If you can see these drones with your naked eye then image recognition running 8k GoPros should as well. The T-14 already tracks infantry targets at close range autonomously; updating the threat library to include the common FPVs should be just a matter of downloading from a flash drive.

If you jam the control link then line of sight disrupters like multispectral smoke screens which the T-14 has so much of, would be excellent as well.

It seems the putting the T-80 back into production and new upgrades have spurred speculation that they might be actually producing something like the Black Eagle....



Even calling it the T-100 and speculating it might replace the T-14, but that ignores the fact that the T-14 is part of a family of vehicles and the T-80 has some variants but is not a complete family. (ie MSTA and also an armoured recovery vehicle but that is about it.)

Military hardware like MBTs are not phones that go out of production every year to be replaced by a newer model.

Multiple concurrent lines of production is normal for this biz.

sepheronx wrote:
T-14 may just end up as a test platform for a lot of new tech that gets trickled down so it ends up being rather extremely low production rate.

The point behind a clean slate design is that you can't add to existing designs anymore without running into some sort of issue that makes the effort kind of pointless. If new tech can be integrated to in service vehicles they would've already.

sepheronx wrote:Kinda not wanting this but at same time too, if it's too expensive, may be best method.

Its not price that limits the adoption of the T-14 - its the limited pool of skilled operators. Bleeding edge tech like that requires years of training to master and the manpower pipelines are only just starting to churn out crews.

You can't download skills and experience in an instant (yet). Green crews will always lose even with significantly better equipment than their opponents.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Is there any indication of to what degree the new T-80 will be improved? I know there were plans to use it's chassis as the bassis for a tank with a 152mm gun some time ago. I hope they do not just merely place an adapted T-90M turret on it.

That's funny because a T-90M turret with maybe the Arena-M is what a new build T-80 has to be. Little point in adopting a 152 mm gun when the 125 mm gun is more than enough.

My guess is that T-14 will be a backup in a case of revealing some serious western project in the next decade.
Maybe with 140mm gun already.
At the moment, they forerun the west by more than a decade.

There is a huge amount of work to be done yet, the T-14 is a tank, the T-15 is the BMP, the T-16 is the tank armoured recovery vehicle.... every other vehicle in an armoured division needs to be developed and likely will be in the background.

There is no point wasting an advantage waiting for your opponent to catch up.

The new Ratnik 3 stuff should be ready next year and this will further improve communication and interaction with Russian forces, and their new vehicle families will also be a part of the upgrade.

I would hope the Boomerang and Typhoon families of vehicles will get into service first and fastest because their wheeled design means lower maintenance and operational costs. Drive a truck 2,000km and you can turn around and drive 2,000km back with no problems. A tracklayer would need multiple refuels and after 2,000kms on roads it will need some serious maintenance before it goes anywhere else.

T-14 may just end up as a test platform for a lot of new tech that gets trickled down so it ends up being rather extremely low production rate.

Kinda not wanting this but at same time too, if it's too expensive, may be best method.

You could say the same about the T-64 and T-80 but they made them and used them... but not every role required such levels of fire power and protection so they also made the T-72 as a numbers tank to fill the other gaps.

In this case there will be Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 based tanks using the T-14 turret most likely, in places where they don't need that level of armour or they need something lighter and more mobile.

The point behind a clean slate design is that you can't add to existing designs anymore without running into some sort of issue that makes the effort kind of pointless. If new tech can be integrated to in service vehicles they would've already.

Yes, if they could make the F-15 as stealthy as the F-22 using add ons then there would be no point in the F-22 and the same with the F-16 and F-35.

Conversely developing new technology for your best platform that can also be used on older platforms to make them better makes good sense, but no level of upgrade could make a T-55 better than a T-72 because you normally start by fitting the T-72 turret and the T-72 engine and wheels and tracks and suspension and lengthening the hull and you end up with a rather expensive T-72.

Starting with a T-72 makes sense.

But having said that having upgraded T-72s and T-90s and T-80s and T-14s is not a bad thing.

When the older types haven't got good enough armour you use them as robots and suicide drones.

As they develop their vehicle families they will replace more and more types in an Armoured division and it is not like they have to start from scratch every time.

The T-14 turret could be fitted to the other vehicles to give a tank or gun platform, the 57mm grenade launcher with Kornet and Bulat ATGMs seems to be the standard BMP turret which can be fitted to all the new vehicle types. There is the 30mm Epoch turret that can be used by the BTRs and the Kord mini turret that can be used by the BRDM-2 type replacements. All the other different types like the 2S35 coalition for the Armata divisions, there was a truck based Coalition vehicle that could operate with Kurganets and Boomerang vehicles... it could share the engines those two vehicle families use.

As they upgrade all the existing vehicles in an armoured division to a new vehicle family those systems and turrets can be fitted across the vehicle types to make new vehicles.

The important thing is that when upgrading existing older vehicle types to wherever possible to use standardised parts and systems. All tanks use the same gun for example and where possible use the same engine and wheels and tracks etc etc.

Its not price that limits the adoption of the T-14 - its the limited pool of skilled operators. Bleeding edge tech like that requires years of training to master and the manpower pipelines are only just starting to churn out crews.

I understand what you are saying, but I suspect most things in the T-14 will be automated, making it much much easier to operate. In terms of maintenance however all these automatic systems will be complex and you will need a laptop with diagnostic software to find problems so support will be harder because you can't fix everything with a sledge hammer.

This is not new of course... when Russian troops in Chechnia decided all that electronic shit in the BMP-3 was getting in their way and more ammo would be more useful instead (like they did with the Shilka) when they ripped out the electronics the vehicle stopped working because it needed those electronics to work.

Is there any indication of to what degree the new T-80 will be improved? I know there were plans to use it's chassis as the bassis for a tank with a 152mm gun some time ago. I hope they do not just merely place an adapted T-90M turret on it.

I would not bother with the 152mm gun yet, the 125 seems to be getting the job done and it the standard tank round in the Russian Army now.

I would hope new versions of APS systems and perhaps a SHTORA upgrade for EW. Maybe something that can deal with drones.

Their might be a turret bustle autoloader, but after looking at western vehicles I suspect they think that is not so great with enemy drones around the place.

That's funny because a T-90M turret with maybe the Arena-M is what a new build T-80 has to be.

Or a T-90AM turret... it would be an upgrade...

Why does it have to be that? There is always room for improvement and a new version of a tank is the perfect excuse.

Is there room for improvement?

The Black Eagle design removed the underfloor autoloader and adopted a 31 round turret bustle autoloader instead.

The straight ramming design should in theory make the design easier and simpler and faster, and the removal of the underfloor autoloader means the height of the turret could be 20cm lower making it a harder target, but leaving the underfloor autoloader with 28 rounds in the T-80 version would allow almost 60 rounds of ready to fire ammo loaded in autoloaders.

The underfloor autoloader had propellant stubs and projectiles stored separately, so you could put the HEAT and HE frag rounds in the underfloor autoloader and of course any missiles you might be carrying, while the turret bustle autoloader could carry propellant stubs and APFSDS rounds lined up and ready to ram straight into the chamber... with a flap door opening and closing to allow the round to pass through.

Would be interesting for arctic ops where reloading might be less often...

The design of the Black Eagle bustle autoloader was reportedly designed so it could be loaded by crane like a rifle mag.

With clever design you could design it so you fitted a special loading magazine with 28 rounds of HE and HEAT and Missile ammo that is then transferred via autoloader to the underfloor autoloader. When the underfloor autoloader is full you remove that bustle magazine and replace it with a full 31 rounds of APFSDS.

The tank can then drive off fully loaded after about 5 minutes and the reloading crane can place the 28 round mag for loading autoloaders on a truck to be reloaded ready when the tanks come back and another bustle loader can be filled with 31 rounds ready to load onto another tank when it arrives.

GarryB wrote:
Is there room for improvement?

The Black Eagle design removed the underfloor autoloader and adopted a 31 round turret bustle autoloader instead.

The straight ramming design should in theory make the design easier and simpler and faster, and the removal of the underfloor autoloader means the height of the turret could be 20cm lower making it a harder target, but leaving the underfloor autoloader with 28 rounds in the T-80 version would allow almost 60 rounds of ready to fire ammo loaded in autoloaders.

The underfloor autoloader had propellant stubs and projectiles stored separately, so you could put the HEAT and HE frag rounds in the underfloor autoloader and of course any missiles you might be carrying, while the turret bustle autoloader could carry propellant stubs and APFSDS rounds lined up and ready to ram straight into the chamber... with a flap door opening and closing  to allow the round to pass through.

Would be interesting for arctic ops where reloading might be less often...

The design of the Black Eagle bustle autoloader was reportedly designed so it could be loaded by crane like a rifle mag.

With clever design you could design it so you fitted a special loading magazine with 28 rounds of HE and HEAT and Missile ammo that is then transferred via autoloader to the underfloor autoloader. When the underfloor autoloader is full you remove that bustle magazine and replace it with a full 31 rounds of APFSDS.

The tank can then drive off fully loaded after about 5 minutes and the reloading crane can place the 28 round mag for loading autoloaders on a truck to be reloaded ready when the tanks come back and another bustle loader can be filled with 31 rounds ready to load onto another tank when it arrives.

The Black Eagle turret was rejected then because the turret ammo is too exposed. It would still be rejected because the off angle attacks to the turret have not only increased exponentially, they are the primary means of attack nowadays.

GarryB wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but I suspect most things in the T-14 will be automated, making it much much easier to operate. In terms of maintenance however all these automatic systems will be complex and you will need a laptop with diagnostic software to find problems so support will be harder because you can't fix everything with a sledge hammer.

This is not new of course... when Russian troops in Chechnia decided all that electronic shit in the BMP-3 was getting in their way and more ammo would be more useful instead (like they did with the Shilka) when they ripped out the electronics the vehicle stopped working because it needed those electronics to work.

Automated rarely means simplified in practice. I mentioned this before, but the gunner position on the T-14 is de facto a robot, so in theory you can run the tank with just the driver and commander. They still need the third person because the crew will be observing the battlefield across the dazzling array of drones and onboard sensors, communicating along the fly while fighting as a tank. The cognitive load on each crew member would be intense, almost comparable to the mental stress for attack helicopter or fighter jet pilots.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Why does it have to be that? There is always room for improvement and a new version of a tank is the perfect excuse.

The T-90M turret is battle-tested survivable against the most common battlefield threats. The turret is rarely penetrated even from off angle hits - all failures of the T-90M so far have been against the less protected hull.

The-thing-next-door wrote: actually had the T-14's gun in mind, the 152mm design simply shows that the chassis is capable of mounting a bigger gun and autoloader than originally intended. The 2a46 series has almost reached it's limits and while western tank designers may not be able to effectively protect against its newest rounds in the near future it is important to avoid complacency and make improvements where you can.

Its all about balancing performance. No point in mounting an overkill gun that can destroy NATO MBTs for the next 30 years if the tank it will be arming will struggle to keep up with its own survivability regimen in the same period. The Russians never do glass cannons unlike in WT.

Automated rarely means simplified in practice. I mentioned this before, but the gunner position on the T-14 is de facto a robot, so in theory you can run the tank with just the driver and commander. They still need the third person because the crew will be observing the battlefield across the dazzling array of drones and onboard sensors, communicating along the fly while fighting as a tank. The cognitive load on each crew member would be intense, almost comparable to the mental stress for attack helicopter or fighter jet pilots.

The gunners job could essentially be automated with an AI controller following instructions from the commander, so the third person could be monitoring other systems.

Certainly helping the commander to monitor the feedback from nearby drones for awareness of local threats and targets would be useful too.

There is an article that stated that T-14 crew training was comparable to aircraft operating training due to the sophistication of the T-14's systems. It seems really ahead in technology.

I have seen VR goggle technology for tanks and armoured vehicles but also for helicopters and other aircraft where external fixed cameras create a video feed that is projected in real time to the headset that is stitched together so you can turn your head being able to see through the aircraft.

The big problem with the Armata is that the commander can't stick his head out of the top of the turret to see the battlefield, which would limit his situational awareness.

This VR system enables all three crew to see the terrain and airspace around the vehicle in real time offering them all a clear view of what is nearby.

There no way they will make it with lover turret then they have right now, because they need depression of gun bigger. This - 5-6° is to small and because of that they made it T14 with bigger/taller turret for greater depression ~10-11° if i am not wrong.

Sorry, my mistake... the removal of the underfloor autoloader what they did was lower the turret crew seats that gives them an extra 20cm headroom... they didn't actually lower the turret.

Of course if they wanted to spend the money they could have lowered the turret but as you mention the structure around the gun would have to allow for gun depression and elevation to remain the same, or perhaps take the opportunity to allow the elevation and depression across a wider range.

So perfect choice for new T80 is maybe this old turret but heigher then this one on black eagle for bigger depression of gun for 2-3° or even more....but this turret is right way to go...

I would say the best compromise apart from an unmanned turret like the T-14s, would be to remove the underfloor ammo and lower the crew positions below the level of the turret ring and then raise the gun a little and modify the rear of the tank turret to allow greater depression and elevation angles of the main gun.

The frontal turret cheek armour can be reduced in height because it will only be protecting the gun now and can be angle sharply over the heads of the crew in the turret beneath the turret ring with the new seriously angled (45 degrees or more) turret cheek armour is now the roof armour for the crew and heavy angled plate protecting the gun from the side. Except then the turret crew would have no way of getting in or out of the vehicle...

Maybe shift their positions to the back of the turret each side of the gun behind the newly angled turret cheeks with them behind the turret cheek armour with conventional hatches in the back of the turret roof near the turret bustle?

I suspect a T-90AM turret would be simpler and easier but it would be like Pepsi making Coke...

GarryB wrote:
I would say the best compromise apart from an unmanned turret like the T-14s, would be to remove the underfloor ammo and lower the crew positions below the level of the turret ring and then raise the gun a little and modify the rear of the tank turret to allow greater depression and elevation angles of the main gun.

The frontal turret cheek armour can be reduced in height because it will only be protecting the gun now and can be angle sharply over the heads of the crew in the turret beneath the turret ring with the new seriously angled (45 degrees or more)  turret cheek armour is now the roof armour for the crew and heavy angled plate protecting the gun from the side.  Except then the turret crew would have no way of getting in or out of the vehicle...

Maybe shift their positions to the back of the turret each side of the gun behind the newly angled turret cheeks with them behind the turret cheek armour with conventional hatches in the back of the turret roof near the turret bustle?

I suspect a T-90AM turret would be simpler and easier but it would be like Pepsi making Coke...

So the Object 477A:


Had the Soviet Union stayed intact it might have been their next MBT.

Developing a whole new tank is retarded. It will only complicate logistics. If they think a gas turbine engine is useful for conditions like in the Arctic, why not just develop a new powerpack for the T-14 Armata with the gas turbine and produce that?

Since the production facility at Omsk will have to be developed from scratch for production of new tanks, why not just produce the T-14 Armata there and be done with it?