Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Share
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:42 am

    Tank force reductions or statistical juggling

    MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Russia is currently undergoing a controversial military reform. The entirely new troop structure and tables of organization are being hotly debated. Recent media reports concerning planned tank force reductions have triggered various comments, including panicky predictions.

    Media articles quoting Interfax reports involving an anonymous Defense Ministry source say the tank force will be reduced more than ten-fold, namely, from over 20,000 tanks to just 2,000 tanks. The news has sparked off a heated debate.

    However, all sensational aspects disappear if we study the situation more closely. Although the tank force will be reduced and overhauled substantially, the reform does not envision ten-fold cuts.

    At present the Russian Army has about 22,000 tanks, including more than 15,000 at storehouses. This makes up for just over 6,000 combat-ready tanks. Permanent readiness units have between 1,000 and 1,500 tanks.

    In the next ten years, army divisions will be replaced with permanent readiness brigades and battalions operating 2,000 to 2,300 combat-ready main battle tanks whose number will increase somewhat. Training units will have several hundred more tanks. Another 3,000-4,000 tanks will remain at storehouses. Consequently, the Russian Army will have a total of 6,000 to 7,000 tanks.

    Although the Russian tank force will be reduced three-fold, the specifications of operational tanks, the qualitative and quantitative gap between Russia and its theoretical enemies and the reform's long-term effect on national defense capability remain unclear.

    The Russian industrial situation makes it possible to clarify the first aspect. The T-90 main battle tank, a modified version of the T-72 tank, is currently being manufactured for the Russian Army. The T-72 modernization program will bring these tanks up to the current standard. As a result, T-64 and T-80 tanks featuring numerous Ukrainian-made components will have to be scrapped.

    The T-72 and its successor, the T-90, will probably form the mainstay of the Russian tank force. Production of the T-95 tank, due to be unveiled in 2009, could be launched in the next two or three years.

    But how will Russia's tank force compare with those of neighboring countries? Virtually all major powers plan to reduce their tank units many times over.

    NATO forces in Europe will retain about 2,000 combat-ready tanks and will store another 2,000 by 2020.

    China will have about 4,000 to 5,000 tanks, including 2,000 modern tanks, by 2020. Although the Russian tank force will be dwarfed by those of its two most powerful neighbors, NATO and China, it is highly unlikely that Moscow will have to simultaneously fight both of them. Such a hypothetical conflict would inevitably escalate into a nuclear war. Consequently, the role played by tank units would diminish greatly.

    Although anti-tank weapons are being improved all the time, tanks still dominate the battlefield due to their firepower, mobility and thick armor. Tanks remain a vital asset enhancing the flexibility, mobility and firepower of army units during local conflicts.

    http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090703/155424380.html
    avatar
    Vladislav

    Posts : 121
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladislav on Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:46 am

    T-80/T-64/T-55 is going to be sold in big bonanza. That should help pay for new tanks.

    tunguska

    Posts : 5
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2009-08-13

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  tunguska on Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:31 pm

    ARE YOU SERIOUS? WILL THE RUSSIAN ARMY REDUCE ITS TANK UNITS 10 TIMES OVER?!! THAT´S INSANE, I AM NEW IN THE FORUM AND I AM NOT A STRATEGY MAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALTHOUGH I STUDY MILITARY HISTORY. BUT REDUCING THE TANK UNITS 10 TIMES OVER IS CRAZY, WHY WILL THEY DO IT? WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF RUSSIA HAS TO GO TO WAR IN A MAJOR CONFLICT IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS? I THINK THEY SHOULDNT DO IT AND IF THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THE CHIORNY ORIOL TANK IN THEIR LINES THAT WAY THE NUMERICAL INFERIORITY WILL BE COMPENSATED WITH QUALITY!! ANYWAY I WAIT FOR AN ANSWER TO DISCUSS ABOUT ANXIOUSLY!!
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:04 am

    tunguska wrote:ARE YOU SERIOUS? WILL THE RUSSIAN ARMY REDUCE ITS TANK UNITS 10 TIMES OVER?!! THAT´S INSANE, I AM NEW IN THE FORUM AND I AM NOT A STRATEGY MAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALTHOUGH I STUDY MILITARY HISTORY. BUT REDUCING THE TANK UNITS 10 TIMES OVER IS CRAZY, WHY WILL THEY DO IT? WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF RUSSIA HAS TO GO TO WAR IN A MAJOR CONFLICT IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS? I THINK THEY SHOULDNT DO IT AND IF THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THE CHIORNY ORIOL TANK IN THEIR LINES THAT WAY THE NUMERICAL INFERIORITY WILL BE COMPENSATED WITH QUALITY!! ANYWAY I WAIT FOR AN ANSWER TO DISCUSS ABOUT ANXIOUSLY!!

    Firsts things first, rule #3 of this forum is, do not write in all caps.


    The reason behind the reduction is for several things.

    1) to get kombat units 100% readiness
    2) to get rid of T-80s who can no longer be maintained in Russia but have to rely on Ukraine for parts.
    3) to reduce maintenaince cost of outdated equipment
    4) to find part commanality as T-72/90 have similar components
    5) to bring fully modernised or upgraded brigades into service
    6) to get rid of ridiculously old tanks like T-55/64
    7) with cost reductions will be able to train tank crews year round
    8} will be able to afford Catherine Thermals and GLONASS recievers on all active tanks for night fighting capability

    Active brigades will have around 2,300 tanks with another 2,000 in reserve.

    If Russia finds itself in a major conflict, we will have fast reaction brigades that take little time to mobalise and can crush any incursion. We can follow it up with reserve equipment for an offencive that is up-to-date. Logistics will be simple and completely independent of foreign suppliers (Ukraine). We will be able to fight at night and at greater ranges than our enemies. The way it stands now, a NATO invasion would simply out-shoot our tank divisions at night and China can go tank for tank during the day. An invasion from two fronts was how we viewed it before, but this is unlikely. Now we are directing to a one front war that can be fought and won in a short period of time. Fighting in Georgia cost us $100 million per day. We cannot afford a prolonged war so we intend to end it quickly with quality equipment.

    "CHIORNY ORIOL", also known as "Black Eagle" is nothing but a heavily modified T-80 tank chassis. The factory that made them and the T-80 line is now out of business. Uralvagonzavod plant is close to unveilling the T-95 which will be far superior. This tank will become the backbone of the future tank fleet.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:10 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    tunguska wrote:ARE YOU SERIOUS? WILL THE RUSSIAN ARMY REDUCE ITS TANK UNITS 10 TIMES OVER?!! THAT´S INSANE, I AM NEW IN THE FORUM AND I AM NOT A STRATEGY MAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALTHOUGH I STUDY MILITARY HISTORY. BUT REDUCING THE TANK UNITS 10 TIMES OVER IS CRAZY, WHY WILL THEY DO IT? WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF RUSSIA HAS TO GO TO WAR IN A MAJOR CONFLICT IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS? I THINK THEY SHOULDNT DO IT AND IF THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THE CHIORNY ORIOL TANK IN THEIR LINES THAT WAY THE NUMERICAL INFERIORITY WILL BE COMPENSATED WITH QUALITY!! ANYWAY I WAIT FOR AN ANSWER TO DISCUSS ABOUT ANXIOUSLY!!

    Firsts things first, rule #3 of this forum is, do not write in all caps.


    The reason behind the reduction is for several things.

    1) to get kombat units 100% readiness
    2) to get rid of T-80s who can no longer be maintained in Russia but have to rely on Ukraine for parts.
    3) to reduce maintenaince cost of outdated equipment
    4) to find part commanality as T-72/90 have similar components
    5) to bring fully modernised or upgraded brigades into service
    6) to get rid of ridiculously old tanks like T-55/64
    7) with cost reductions will be able to train tank crews year round
    8} will be able to afford Catherine Thermals and GLONASS recievers on all active tanks for night fighting capability

    Active brigades will have around 2,300 tanks with another 2,000 in reserve.

    If Russia finds itself in a major conflict, we will have fast reaction brigades that take little time to mobalise and can crush any incursion. We can follow it up with reserve equipment for an offencive that is up-to-date. Logistics will be simple and completely independent of foreign suppliers (Ukraine). We will be able to fight at night and at greater ranges than our enemies. The way it stands now, a NATO invasion would simply out-shoot our tank divisions at night and China can go tank for tank during the day. An invasion from two fronts was how we viewed it before, but this is unlikely. Now we are directing to a one front war that can be fought and won in a short period of time. Fighting in Georgia cost us $100 million per day. We cannot afford a prolonged war so we intend to end it quickly with quality equipment.

    "CHIORNY ORIOL", also known as "Black Eagle" is nothing but a heavily modified T-80 tank chassis. The factory that made them and the T-80 line is now out of business. Uralvagonzavod plant is close to unveilling the T-95 which will be far superior. This tank will become the backbone of the future tank fleet.

    It would actually be much cheaper and more efficient to turn a lot of these old tanks into IFV and APC's like BMPT and BTRT, or Air defense systems with unmanned tracking and engaging surface to air systems, as it would reduce the cost to produce the chassis severely, and providing upgrade armor and components would not be that hard (as there are facilities meant for upgrading tanks/apc's, etc).
    avatar
    soldieroffortune

    Posts : 54
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2009-08-07

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  soldieroffortune on Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:35 am

    Sounds like a strategic plan, but still much remains to be done, - like getting "Bulava" to work.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia's new Ground Forces chief urges drastic cuts in tanks

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:53 pm

    Russia's new Ground Forces chief urges drastic cuts in tanks

    RIA Novosti

    25/02/201013:59

    MOSCOW, February 25 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's newly appointed chief of Ground Forces said on Thursday Russia would do well with half the number of tanks it has today.

    "Currently, there are 20,000 tanks of all modifications in service but the actual requirement is half that number," Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov said.

    Postnikov said the country's Ground Forces needed new armor and new tanks to match the best foreign analogs.

    For this purpose, the Defense Ministry has purchased 261 T-90 main battle tanks for the army this year, Postnikov said, adding the tanks will be delivered to the North Caucasus military district.

    Postnikov said 1,000 tanks had been modernized last year to extend their service life but added that priority was given to the purchase of new tanks rather than to their modernization.

    The T-90 is equipped with 125 mm smooth-bore gun, 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun and 7.62 mm co-axial machine gun supported with high accuracy sighting systems, and automatic loader for higher firing rate.

    It also features sophisticated protection from chemical, biological and nuclear attacks.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100225-rianovosti02.htm


    Last edited by Russian Patriot on Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:01 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Viktor on Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:16 am

    Haha .. he is speaking about drastic cuts but at the same time revealing Russia buyed 260 T-90A for this year alone with 1000 of them modernized in 2009. LOL
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:44 pm

    Viktor wrote:Haha .. he is speaking about drastic cuts but at the same time revealing Russia buyed 260 T-90A for this year alone with 1000 of them modernized in 2009. LOL

    Russia gets about 50-60 T-90... not 260.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:14 am

    Here is the news article about it...

    Tanks for tank

    Defense Ministry announced a plan to buy this year, 261 tank. It does not really need the army, but can save «Uralvagonzavod

    Alexei Nikolsky
    Bulletin

    26.02.2010, 33 (2551)

    The new Commander of Land Forces, General Alexander Postnikov, said yesterday at a press briefing that the army needed new tanks and such a tank to develop a new generation of machines is a T-90 tank. This year, the general said, will be purchased 261 tanks of this type. The official said the Defense Ministry, is likely an error: the general was referring to the purchase of both new and upgraded tanks. According to him, the new T-90 tank production «Uralvagonzavod"Is now about 70 million rubles. But the allocation of this year, more than 18 billion rubles. their purchase documents have been received. This repair and partial modernization of the T-72, which was also carried out on «Uralvagonzavod, is several times less - about 10-30 million rubles. depending on the volume of work, said another source in the Defense Ministry. According to him, probably 198 out of 261 of the tank - a modernized tanks T-72BA. General Director «Uralvagonzavod Oleg Sienko said «Vedomosti "that the plant is ready to make a general named Postnikov number of tanks.

    Since 2008 operates a three-year contract with the Defense «Uralvagonzavod to purchase a total of 189 tanks (in 63 tanks per year), reminded the editor of Moscow Defense Brief Mikhail Barabanov, and it is highly unlikely that the order for no apparent reason was increased more than fourfold. This production capacity «Uralvagonzavod such that in Soviet times it produced up to 1200 T-72 tanks (T-90 is a development of this design) per year, like an expert, but now funds for the purchase of bulk tank is clearly not enough and the army has more important priorities. This reduction in tank continues - in the shape of the new army brigades, according to the officer's Defense Ministry plans to have about 2,000 tanks and as many more will be in training units and other units of the order of 5000-6000 and tanks - in storage. Now the army, according to the Postnikov, there are about 20 000 tanks, and half of that number will be utilized.

    Uralvagonzavod "suffered greatly during the crisis and reduce the avalanche of demand for rail cars, which before the crisis in 2008 gave about two-thirds of the proceeds (manufacture of tanks for Russia, Algerian and Indian armies in the year has less than a third of proceeds), by the summer of last year, work has lost nearly 20 000 people. Algerian contract for supply of 185 T-90 tanks and the delivery of the Indian Contract completed and now the factory supplying car sets for assembling T-90 in India of about 70 units a year, says expert at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Andrei Frolov. To save the city-forming enterprises of Nizhny Tagil, and the only manufacturer of tanks for a total government decided to provide assistance amounting to 28 billion rubles., About half are state guarantees on loans, like a member of the public council under Ministry of Defense Ruslan Pukhov. Purchase tanks valued at 18 billion rubles. itself will not save the plant, but may give a chance for his salvation when successfully carried out debt restructuring, said the expert. Most same army T-90 tanks are not needed, according to Pukhov.

    http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/2010/02/26/226705
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16405
    Points : 17016
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:28 pm

    The main problem is that much of the tank fleet is obsolete and that there are too many different types in service all with slightly different parts that are not interchangeable.
    With everything from T-54s and T-62s through T-64s, T-72s, T-80s and T-90s the problem is that the remaining tank producer in Russia makes T-90s/T-72s so ideally they need to get rid of everything except the T-90s.

    The T-95 probably uses lots of net centric technology that allows it to work with other assets as a team. Until that is all implimented and operational then it probably makes more sense just to make T-90s for numbers with some net capability (ie Burlak).

    The obvious solution to the obsolete tank fleet is to start offering them to allies who already have such vehicles in service. In fact offer a few thousand T-55s with upgrades like laser rangefinders and then offer to sell similar upgrades to that countries existing fleet to make money and help the customer save money by having a fleet of like vehicles.
    Another option that can be used as well as the above is of course the create heavy APCs like the BTR-T except using T-72s rather than T-55s and of course BMP-T vehicles based on existing tanks rather than new built.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16405
    Points : 17016
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:30 am

    This article is relevant to this thread I think:

    source: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100326/158321797.html

    Russian tanks: today and tomorrow

    The reorganization and re-equipping of the Russian army's tank force has become a high-priority military issue.

    Reductions in tank forces, the gradual expansion of T-90 tank production, the modernization of existing tanks and the development of the next generation T-95 tank - this gives much food for thought.

    RIA Novosti learned more about it during an exclusive interview with Oleg Siyenko, CEO of Uralvagonzavod, a Russian engineering company located in Nizhny Tagil, the Urals Federal District. Uralvagonzavod is the world's largest main battle tank manufacturer and the only tank manufacturer in Russia.

    The T-90 has undergone continuous upgrades since it was first developed in the early 1990s on the basis of the latest modifications to the T-72/T-72B. It is the only mass-produced main battle tank in Russia.

    Under the current state rearmament program, the Russian army is expected to receive about 1,500 tanks of this model. At present, the Russian Armed Forces have 500 T-90 tanks and receive 60 to 100 new tanks of this model each year.

    This month, General Alexander Postnikov, Commander of Land Forces, caused a sensation when he announced the order for 261 T-90 tanks in 2010. Although all news outlets reported a steep rise in T-90 procurement, Siyenko could not confirm the story.

    "There is no contract for such an order at present. Unfortunately, contracts between the Ministry of Defense and our company call for much fewer tanks. But I can say that we would be happy to receive such an order, as it would ensure the stability of our company and help it to expand," Siyenko said.

    The T-90 is currently the most commercially successful tank on the global market. The number of exported tanks, including tank-assembly kits, will soon reach 1,000, and more and more countries are beginning to import them.

    India is the largest buyer of T-90 tanks, but they can also be found in the Algerian military according to media reports. Contracts have been signed with Turkmenistan, while preliminary agreements have been concluded with Cyprus, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

    In addition to the production of T-90 tanks, T-72 tanks continue to be modernized for the Russian Armed Forces. The T-72BA is currently the main modified version. Modernization programs streamline the fire-control system, enhance hull-bottom mine resistance by installing an additional armor plate near the driver's seat, standardize the platform and engine with the T-90 tank and improve the tank's armor.

    An upgraded T-72 tank has considerably greater potential and meets modern tank requirements, while at the same time being far cheaper to produce than a new T-90 tank.

    Nevertheless, the army is hoping for a next generation tank to replace older models and reinforce the current fleet of T-90. Known as "Item 195" and the T-95, this new model has been under development for many years. Details remain classified.

    During our exclusive interview, Siyenko commented on reports on the T-95, which was developed at Uralvagonzavod, where it will also be mass-produced:

    "We've been working on this project for many years. Unfortunately, we are having problems with our parts suppliers, who are falling behind both in terms of product quality and quantity. We are working to solve this problem on our own. Our engineers are developing new units and systems for this entirely new tank and for intermediate versions. With the approval of the government, the first tanks could be displayed this summer at the Russian Defense Expo 2010 in Nizhny Tagil.

    Although I can't reveal the tank's specifications, I would like to point out that we have met the technical requirements of the proposal in full as well as the requirements of the military.

    Let's wait until summer, when you will most likely be able to see the new tank for yourself."

    If the summer expo of the T-95 in Nizhny Tagil happens, Russia will become the first country to unveil a fifth-generation tank. This tank is expected to surpass all of its predecessors and rivals.

    Despite the secrecy surrounding the T-95, some information has been leaked. It appears that the new tank will weigh about 55 metric tons and that it will have a remote-controlled turret with a 152-mm cannon capable of firing conventional rounds and guided missiles.

    Tank design and performance, in addition to crew training, are becoming increasingly important at a time when Moscow has decided to reduce Russia's tank force from over 20,000 operational and reserve vehicles to 2,000 operational and 5,000-6,000 in reserve.

    It becomes even more important when you consider the vastness of Russia's borderland as well as a hypothetical land conflict with a superior enemy. Consequently, the success of army reforms in Russia will largely depend on the success of the T-95 R&D program and subsequent tests.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.



    MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik)
    dated: 26/03/2010

    Now note this part: This month, General Alexander Postnikov, Commander of Land Forces, caused a sensation when he announced the order for 261 T-90 tanks in 2010. Although all news outlets reported a steep rise in T-90 procurement, Siyenko could not confirm the story.

    This was a misunderstanding by the media. The general didn't say there would be 261 new T-90s, he said the Russian Army would get 261 'new' tanks and the media decided that because the T-90 was the only tank in production that he meant they were all T-90s. The figure of 261 'new' tanks includes older tanks like T-80s, T-72s getting upgrades and being returned to service. The figure for actual new T-90s has not increased and will not increase probably till the new upgrade for it has been completed. The main stumbling block is probably a lack of thermal sights because the production line for licence production is being set up and should only be starting producing Russian made sights soon.
    There is a video from 20/10/2008 showing the Russians seeing the sights delivered by Thales for Russia and they talk about setting up production taking one and a half years so I would assume that by the end of this year they might be ready for larger scale production so the new sights can be fitted to new build T-90s as well as upgraded older models to get the Russian Army more night capable quicker.
    (ie: http://en.rian.ru/video/20081020/117841689.html for video.)
    Of course the other stumbling block could be that they are simply waiting for the upgrade of the T-90 to be finalised so that production of new T-90s can be ramped up and upgrading older models can be reduced or stopped and older model tanks removed from the inventory. Most current modernisations of existing tanks seem to be applied to the newer models and seem to focus on making them more like T-90s for commonality and ease logistics problems.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:43 pm

    There is nothing to be impressed with the Burlak turret upgrade. Network centric... network it into what? A new radio set and GPS reciever can be had for a thousand euro. When Russian armour get GPS it is an American GPS that you put in your car. I have seen first hand the BMD-3M upgrade and it quite similar to what Burlak would be for the technology. 2nd gen night and IR sights that are only good to 1.5km. The biggest difference would be the improvement in survivability so the tank doesn't turn into a pop-top as seen in Iraq. The tank drivers won't even get new driving scopes. When I would drive my BTR around at night I could see less than a hundred metres. The reason for headlights on Russian armour isn't for traffic driving, it is the driver scopes are shit.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:25 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:There is nothing to be impressed with the Burlak turret upgrade. Network centric... network it into what? A new radio set and GPS reciever can be had for a thousand euro. When Russian armour get GPS it is an American GPS that you put in your car. I have seen first hand the BMD-3M upgrade and it quite similar to what Burlak would be for the technology. 2nd gen night and IR sights that are only good to 1.5km. The biggest difference would be the improvement in survivability so the tank doesn't turn into a pop-top as seen in Iraq. The tank drivers won't even get new driving scopes. When I would drive my BTR around at night I could see less than a hundred metres. The reason for headlights on Russian armour isn't for traffic driving, it is the driver scopes are shit.

    The Pop-can style explosion was disproved as a common concept, take a look at other websites (cannot post links, against forum rules). It is quite rare for the ammunition in the T-72 to just go off, but if it does, then yes, there is the possibility it explodes and takes out the turret.

    Also, the GPS is Glonass systems (with an constant up to date battlefield info), as well as Burlak is supposed to get SATCOM systems, not just standard radio's. It is supposed to also have a combat management system, being net centric, it will communicate with other vehicles like BTR-82, BMP-3M, aircrafts with similar systems. In the beginning, it may be a problem, but over time, with common parts, it will become cheap and effective. Also, you are wrong in the thermal sights used, because they are to use the Catherine-FP ESSA camera's for both BMP-3M and Burlak.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:23 am

    sepheronx wrote:

    The Pop-can style explosion was disproved as a common concept, take a look at other websites (cannot post links, against forum rules). It is quite rare for the ammunition in the T-72 to just go off, but if it does, then yes, there is the possibility it explodes and takes out the turret.

    Here are pictures of 7 T-72s in Georgia with their tops blown off... I think that is most of them.

    http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-pictures-from-georgia-of-t-72-and.html

    Pretty much ends that myth. Rolling Eyes

    Also, the GPS is Glonass systems (with an constant up to date battlefield info), as well as Burlak is supposed to get SATCOM systems, not just standard radio's.

    SATCOM... What is it going to communicate with, Haley's Comet? lol1

    The Glonass reciever in the BMD-4 is GPS/Glonass coordinate system. No map, no nothing. Sergeants who can afford it use the GPS on their mobiles or jack the ones out of their cars. We don't even have a chip plant yet that can mass produce them.

    The radios Burlak gets are low data-rate digital radios replacing the old analogues. It still only has enough bandwidth for audio signals... nothing net-centric there. Really, you don't know how bad the electronics are.

    It is supposed to also have a combat management system, being net centric, it will communicate with other vehicles like BTR-82, BMP-3M, aircrafts with similar systems. In the beginning, it may be a problem, but over time, with common parts, it will become cheap and effective.

    We are just getting into 1+ Mbit/s data-rates for tactical radios. France already has 43Mbit/s for tactical PR4G application, even dismounted, along with 11Mbit/s WIFI for each individual soldier at 3km. The Constellation command post only has 10 and that mounts in a large truck and requires two more vehicles, a generator and transmission. It is really just an ass-load of radios and receivers hooked together for microwave transmit. Our dive into net-centric warfare is really just to hide the fact we are just starting a network of secure digital communications. If you free up enough bandwidth you might be able to throw in data traffic from a handful of UAVs. And those two telecom satellites being built for us in Europe aren't even for the military but for "presidential communications and civilian application." So there won't be a net-centric system except in audio. Constellation has been tried and failed every time and it is damned ninties technology.

    Also, you are wrong in the thermal sights used, because they are to use the Catherine-FP ESSA camera's for both BMP-3M and Burlak.

    Catherine FCs aren't going on modernised tanks, only on T-90 and most of those are for exports. BMP-3M has Vesna 2nd generation thermals. Burlak will get some 2nd generation Russian camera. We can't afford to outfit 4 thousand T-72 reserve tanks with Catherine FC, it would double their cost.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:31 am

    I understand about lacking of communication hardware (digital radio's and other communication hardware. Current Constellation is lacking indeed, but there was already new requirements put into place, and we should be seeing something new in regards to the constellation (SATCOM) in the fall.

    Also, in regards to Burlak, the program hasn't even completed yet, nor do we know what it will fully consist, so at current time, it is really hard to say what it will be. Actually, research isn't finished yet either.

    As for the chip plant you are talking about (semiconductors), in even most cases to the US or other nations, they are forced to buy such chips from countries like China, Indonesia, or Taiwan. So if Russia is faced with issues in terms of quantity, then I can see facilities using components from other places to make the receivers.

    Also, this is what I would gather in terms of a Glonass system along with a BMS using communications: Since it is the receiver obtaining the Latitude and Longitude from satellites (a communication between the two), and then the receiver is to then create the position location in a rendered map. In case of a battle management system (and to see who is who and such), it would be in the software also, as to other vehicles in the same communication link with the satellites. This stuff isn't new, nor is it difficult to make for most companies, take a look at the Iphone for goodness sakes (I have one), has a same system if I am trying to find my friends location.

    As for satellite communications, Russia has the Raduga (Globus-1) sats, which are military communication (and very very little is known about them). As there isn't currently enough in terms of numbers (coverage), it is still the start of a constellation. Chances are, receivers will be in place in command vehicles (for a complex array), and basics for the regulars. The country won't stand by and let their communications to further degrade, especially when they acknowledged to the nation about the problems they face (good way to fix it, to make it public).

    All in all, it is the Receivers that are the major problematic prospect. Lack of the hardware (like you mentioned) are the problem, but that problem can be fixed over time. May include only 90nm technology, but as long as they can shrink the Die size, and still have it working to the specs, then the problem can be fixed. Maybe this is why Russia is heavily investing in the development of Semiconductors and Micro-processors.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:38 pm

    sepheronx wrote:I understand about lacking of communication hardware (digital radio's and other communication hardware. Current Constellation is lacking indeed, but there was already new requirements put into place, and we should be seeing something new in regards to the constellation (SATCOM) in the fall.

    Have you seen anything about us launching our own military communication SATs? All it is more talk of spy SATs and GLONASS.


    Also, in regards to Burlak, the program hasn't even completed yet, nor do we know what it will fully consist, so at current time, it is really hard to say what it will be. Actually, research isn't finished yet either.

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive. Catherine FC costs $400k, that is the value of a well preserved T-72 needing modernisation. When you have 4000 tanks to upgrade, you aren't going to spend more than $100-200K per. We have already seen the turret upgrades on our BMP-3M and BMD-4 in regards to optics and communications, there is nothing netcentric about them nor do they get imported French optics. They include 2nd gen optics, digital radios, GPS/GLONASS reciever, and a newer ballistic computer. It brings them up to 90s western standards.

    As for the chip plant you are talking about (semiconductors), in even most cases to the US or other nations, they are forced to buy such chips from countries like China, Indonesia, or Taiwan. So if Russia is faced with issues in terms of quantity, then I can see facilities using components from other places to make the receivers.

    We don't have any intention of doing that. We have spent billions of dollars to license produce our own chipsets and aren't going to buy abroad when the intention is to make it here.

    Also, this is what I would gather in terms of a Glonass system along with a BMS using communications: Since it is the receiver obtaining the Latitude and Longitude from satellites (a communication between the two), and then the receiver is to then create the position location in a rendered map. In case of a battle management system (and to see who is who and such), it would be in the software also, as to other vehicles in the same communication link with the satellites. This stuff isn't new, nor is it difficult to make for most companies, take a look at the Iphone for goodness sakes (I have one), has a same system if I am trying to find my friends location.

    Its possible to see your friend on the Iphone because whoever has a NETWORK to do so. Military doesn't have a network, it will only be vehicles knowing where they are. The radios aren't tied into the navigation system to broadcast that information. Unlike the French who have GPS receivers in their radio sets.

    As for satellite communications, Russia has the Raduga (Globus-1) sats, which are military communication (and very very little is known about them). As there isn't currently enough in terms of numbers (coverage), it is still the start of a constellation. Chances are, receivers will be in place in command vehicles (for a complex array), and basics for the regulars. The country won't stand by and let their communications to further degrade, especially when they acknowledged to the nation about the problems they face (good way to fix it, to make it public).

    You think the two Raduga-1M satellites we have are for a network? Razz They are to replace the two Globus 1Ms that have passed their short service life. Those were used for communications to remote regions of the RF, not a military satellite network. It has like 1-2 SuperHF spotbeams. Compared to France's Syracuse that has 4 SuperHF and 2 UltraHF spotbeams.

    All in all, it is the Receivers that are the major problematic prospect. Lack of the hardware (like you mentioned) are the problem, but that problem can be fixed over time. May include only 90nm technology, but as long as they can shrink the Die size, and still have it working to the specs, then the problem can be fixed. Maybe this is why Russia is heavily investing in the development of Semiconductors and Micro-processors.

    All in all, it is our lack of electronics that is the problematic prospect. We make obsolete satellites, obsolete radios, obsolete computer chips and that effects everything else. Fixing the electronics industry is the single greatest hurdle we face in modernising our military capabilities. No one ever said Russian mechanical engineers are slouches, we have the best, but electronics is 15 years behind. When you live in a world where the next generation becomes obsolete in 3 years, it is impossible to keep up. When we get our LICENSE produced 90nm wafers, the West will be well entrenched in 20nm, 10nm... who knows they go so fast. Even then we still have to learn how to integrate that technology into our military applications which takes even more time. The only way I see getting out of this mess in the short-term is to buy more communications gear from Thales and cancel that 90nm factory and upgrade it to 45nm. Then we have to go about restructuring our education system so the next generation of engineers won't fail us as this one has. It might not be a bad idea to hook up with South Korea for a technology exchange either, their semi-conductors are pretty good.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:10 pm

    In the world of technology, it isn't 3 years that the stuff becomes obsolete Vlad, it is 3 months. Also, the info regarding COMSAT's are vague and small to begin with, so it is very interesting you know very much about it, as others do not.

    Also, if Glonass had a communications link, then yes, it would be easy to have GPS along side of communication with receivers. But your assertion about the sats being outdated, I question as there is little info about them to begin with.

    The other thing I would like to touch bases on is that you keep mentioning about wafer size, but it isn't as if the wafer size will make all the difference. More or less, the advancement in wafer size is the coming of multicore systems, cause you need to pack more in the same die size, which calls for smaller electronics. These systems end up in small based systems like desktop computers and or laptops/other mobile devices. In military applications, the die size isn't as important, as the systems they use will be big and can take a computer with a large die sized chip. If the technology behind it is 90nm, that doesn't mean that it is automatically slower and crappier, it just means you will have to have a much bigger chip in order to fit the performance. Also (A quote I found on another forum):


    GLONASS receivers have advanced greatly over the last few years. There was a photo somewhere comparing the sizes of the GLONASS receiver chips over the years. The most current ones are almost as small now as the GPS ones. But for military equipment that isnt an issue anyway, who cares if it doesnt fit nicely into a mobile phone, as long as itll fit on a tank. In terms of the quality of localisation data it should be as good as GPS on the territory of Russia, to make it good worldwide will take a little while longer as more sats are put up.

    The statements regarding the thermal sights is imho kind of weird. A modern top line thermal sight (such as the Catherine FC) will cost upwards of $1million (maybe more). It makes no sense to put those onto BTRs or BMPs, since the thermal camera will end up costing 2x the cost of the rest of the vehicle. It makes more sense to get the appropriate sights for the vehicle. So top of the line for MBTs, and second tier for BMPs, and third tier maybe for BTRs, otherwise the cost structure will be completely skewed.

    If Russia wanted the top of the line wafer technology, then they should have gone with Taiwan who produce 45nm chips and have the equipment to make them.

    As for the COMSAT's, if you do not mind, please post your info about this. Here is my info:
    Like its predecessor and a number of other application satellites, the Raduga-1 spacecraft was developed by NPO PM (later ISS Reshetnev) in Zheleznogorsk but built by PO Polyot in Omsk. The satellite was intended primarily for providing military communications from the geostationary orbit. A number of transponders onboard of a follow-on Raduga spacecraft was increased to six and their immunity to interference was reportedly improved. (207) According to an official publication of NPO PM, the first Raduga-1M version of the satellite, introduced in 2007, was "developed and built" by the organization. "The satellite is equipped with the advanced multichannel repeaters operating in centimetric-wave and decimeter-wave bands thus ensuring a stable communication with mobile stations including some hard-to-reach mountain regions," the NPO PM publication said. (373)

    Russian Space Web

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive. Catherine FC costs $400k, that is the value of a well preserved T-72 needing modernisation. When you have 4000 tanks to upgrade, you aren't going to spend more than $100-200K per. We have already seen the turret upgrades on our BMP-3M and BMD-4 in regards to optics and communications, there is nothing netcentric about them nor do they get imported French optics. They include 2nd gen optics, digital radios, GPS/GLONASS reciever, and a newer ballistic computer. It brings them up to 90s western standards.

    I never mentioned about upgrading 4K T-72's to Burlak system. It is far better to just build new ones, as they would be sufficient for the next while, compared to upgrading old rusted T-72's. Upgrading some though, will be cheaper as well. As for putting in the newest and greatest ESSA thermals in a BMP-3M or BTR would be a waste of money as these vehicles are not meant to engage tanks or other objects far away, but more or less, provide a medium armor fighting vehicle against infantry. So something that can see 1.2KM away is more then good enough. Also, as much as the equipment you guys are using is not comparable to western standards, it is pretty crappy and stupid to just compare it to the west as you should be comparing to the doctrine as well as who your next enemies going to be. Of course, you cannot leave the west out, as history has shown, they are not fond of Russia either. But Russia is still steps ahead then a lot other countries who have a decent military. Training and tactics can outmatch technology. If you just drop everything that Russia builds for their standards, and went with French NATO's standards, then it will not only cost Russia a ton of money and lose out in the industries altogether, but it will also make them vulnerable. Here is another quote that I liked as well:


    Think of GLONASS as of just another GPS -- the differences between them are entirely technical and largely inconsequential to the matter. The problem is, GPS is operational for almost two decades now, so everyone and their dog has a support for it, and you can obtain GPS receivers literally for the price of dirt, and the chips are tiny -- mainly because there was enough time to iron the designs out and shrink the dies. GLONASS, on the other hand, is a rather new system -- it started significantly later than GPS, and then the development hit a roadblock when the Soviet Union fell. The program eventually recovered, but it still has a complete coverage only over Russia, and will need a several more launches and at least a half dozen satellites more to achieve complete worldwide coverage. So the leading Taiwanese silicon developers seen little reason to invest int supporting it, which has left only domestic producers to design and manufacture the receivers and navigational equipment, and the Soviet/Russian electronic industry always was, ahem, problematic. Thus -- enormous size and the very basic functions of the very first GLONASS receivers, which were what all those complains are about. Now, luckily, the chips started to shrink, the third-party developers started to support the system, and the situation started to improve. But some people just want it all, and they want it NOW, and if they don't get it they start to b$%h around. ..

    Glonass A good site about Glonass and following the SATS positions.

    All in all, it is our lack of electronics that is the problematic prospect. We make obsolete satellites, obsolete radios, obsolete computer chips and that effects everything else. Fixing the electronics industry is the single greatest hurdle we face in modernising our military capabilities. No one ever said Russian mechanical engineers are slouches, we have the best, but electronics is 15 years behind. When you live in a world where the next generation becomes obsolete in 3 years, it is impossible to keep up. When we get our LICENSE produced 90nm wafers, the West will be well entrenched in 20nm, 10nm... who knows they go so fast. Even then we still have to learn how to integrate that technology into our military applications which takes even more time. The only way I see getting out of this mess in the short-term is to buy more communications gear from Thales and cancel that 90nm factory and upgrade it to 45nm. Then we have to go about restructuring our education system so the next generation of engineers won't fail us as this one has. It might not be a bad idea to hook up with South Korea for a technology exchange either, their semi-conductors are pretty good.

    I agree with you here for sure. I wouldn't say that your engineers failed initially, but with the lack of money, they did not have a lot to work with. 20nm and 10nm technology isn't even in the prospects yet, as they are still trying to break the 35nm barrier. If you are talking about SAMSUNGS 20nm flash memory wafers, then that isn't that impressive, as there are even better alternatives to that but cost plus performance isn't all there. Samsung is also not part of a western nation, but part of Korea (which is a derivative of Sony). As for the education, well, I wouldn't knock Russia's education as they have far better education then a lot of western countries. But I do agree with getting up to date facilities for the students to learn how to use the new equipment, and how they work so that in the future, they could design their own.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:44 am

    sepheronx wrote:In the world of technology, it isn't 3 years that the stuff becomes obsolete Vlad, it is 3 months. Also, the info regarding COMSAT's are vague and small to begin with, so it is very interesting you know very much about it, as others do not.

    Also, if Glonass had a communications link, then yes, it would be easy to have GPS along side of communication with receivers. But your assertion about the sats being outdated, I question as there is little info about them to begin with.

    In the world of military technology it is a matter of several years. Commercial technology doesn't get to it that fast.

    The reason I know about COMSATs is because I have journals.

    The other thing I would like to touch bases on is that you keep mentioning about wafer size, but it isn't as if the wafer size will make all the difference. More or less, the advancement in wafer size is the coming of multicore systems, cause you need to pack more in the same die size, which calls for smaller electronics. These systems end up in small based systems like desktop computers and or laptops/other mobile devices. In military applications, the die size isn't as important, as the systems they use will be big and can take a computer with a large die sized chip. If the technology behind it is 90nm, that doesn't mean that it is automatically slower and crappier, it just means you will have to have a much bigger chip in order to fit the performance. Also (A quote I found on another forum):

    Wafer size has to do with the size of electronics. If you want compact 4 gen radios and mobile network gear, the smaller the better. Especially if and when our soldiers are going to be hauling around something like FELIN, they can't cart 36kg on their backs plus the equipment, it is going to have to be miniaturised. This is important for all applications to how much processing power you want on fighter planes to how much a missile is going to weigh. Weight is one of the 4 death knells of military equipment.


    GLONASS receivers have advanced greatly over the last few years... blah blah

    The GLONASS receivers he is talking about are the ones for the 90nm dies that haven't set up production yet. Everything at exhibition is using foreign microchips.

    The statements regarding the thermal sights is imho kind of weird. A modern top line thermal sight (such as the Catherine FC) will cost upwards of $1million (maybe more). It makes no sense to put those onto BTRs or BMPs, since the thermal camera will end up costing 2x the cost of the rest of the vehicle. It makes more sense to get the appropriate sights for the vehicle. So top of the line for MBTs, and second tier for BMPs, and third tier maybe for BTRs, otherwise the cost structure will be completely skewed.

    Catherine FC is stated as 1/6th the cost of the T-90S, or $400k. It makes sense to put it on your frontline MBTs, not on reserve equipment. There are also lower tier 3rd gen thermals made by Thales such as Metis. Command BMPs and recon scouts should get those since they need to see better than your average infantry unit. If the rest of the equipment is upgraded with 2nd gen Russian thermals we will still have the ability to fight day/night/bad weather. Then the issue becomes getting night/thermals to the troops. Each soldier should have night vision goggles along with each platoon sergeant with thermal binoculars. It isn't FELIN but it gives the Army a modern capability it has long sought.


    If Russia wanted the top of the line wafer technology, then they should have gone with Taiwan who produce 45nm chips and have the equipment to make them.

    Russia already buys chips from Taiwan, the Zhuk AESA is full of them. It would be wise to get it just for being self-sufficient in radar's sake.

    As for the COMSAT's, if you do not mind, please post your info about this. Here is my info:

    Like its predecessor and a number of other application satellites, the Raduga-1 spacecraft was developed by NPO PM (later ISS Reshetnev) in Zheleznogorsk but built by PO Polyot in Omsk. The satellite was intended primarily for providing military communications from the geostationary orbit. A number of transponders onboard of a follow-on Raduga spacecraft was increased to six and their immunity to interference was reportedly improved. (207) According to an official publication of NPO PM, the first Raduga-1M version of the satellite, introduced in 2007, was "developed and built" by the organization. "The satellite is equipped with the advanced multichannel repeaters operating in centimetric-wave and decimeter-wave bands thus ensuring a stable communication with mobile stations including some hard-to-reach mountain regions," the NPO PM publication said. (373)

    It has 6 Tor C-band transponders operating in the 6 Ghz range with 1 Ku band transponder operating in the 22Ghz range with a large spotbeam and a secondary. It uses an upgraded, but obsolete, KAUR-3 based satellite bus at 1.8kW.

    My source is Military Space Forces, Volume 2 2006.

    Compare that to Syracuse 3 with 9 40MHz channels in the Super high frequency and 6 40MHz channels in the Extremely high frequency with 6 spotbeams. It uses the latest Spacebus-4000B3 at 16kW.

    Basically the French satellite is 10X better than ours.

    I never mentioned about upgrading 4K T-72's to Burlak system. It is far better to just build new ones, as they would be sufficient for the next while, compared to upgrading old rusted T-72's. Upgrading some though, will be cheaper as well. As for putting in the newest and greatest ESSA thermals in a BMP-3M or BTR would be a waste of money as these vehicles are not meant to engage tanks or other objects far away, but more or less, provide a medium armor fighting vehicle against infantry. So something that can see 1.2KM away is more then good enough. Also, as much as the equipment you guys are using is not comparable to western standards, it is pretty crappy and stupid to just compare it to the west as you should be comparing to the doctrine as well as who your next enemies going to be. Of course, you cannot leave the west out, as history has shown, they are not fond of Russia either. But Russia is still steps ahead then a lot other countries who have a decent military. Training and tactics can outmatch technology. If you just drop everything that Russia builds for their standards, and went with French NATO's standards, then it will not only cost Russia a ton of money and lose out in the industries altogether, but it will also make them vulnerable.

    What do you think Burlak is for? It was originally going on T-80s but those are going to be sold or scrapped. They are redesign for T-72s and the first batch of T-90s but it is not even a formal proposal yet. Command IFVs need good thermals as well as recon vehicles. Pretty obvious why, the BMP-3M and BMD-4s also carry ATGMs which require thermal sights for long distance night fires so you can clearly tag your target with the laser. At this point I would be satisfied with the best of our own thermals for regular IFVs, better than none.

    Russian command wants the forces up to Western standards, ready to spend $200 billion on rearmament. Every year we wait means the less kit we can buy. Prices are going up faster in the RF than it is in Europe, it is getting cheaper to buy from France thanks to the sky-rocketing inflation in the MIC.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:06 am

    Hey vlad, do they have these magazines in English? Or is it Russian only (heard good thugs about your guy' mags)?

    Intersting info about those sats. As for the micro processors , I know that they buy from Taiwan (so does most countries for their microprocessors used in defense equipment), but I was talking about buying the fabrication units in order to make it themselves, rather then relying on others.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:53 am

    This magasine is not available in English. Most of the military journals are not, but some are.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16405
    Points : 17016
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:45 am

    There is nothing to be impressed with the Burlak turret upgrade.

    New ERA which is distributed better on the turret to give better coverage.
    Rearranged sights so the Commanders panoramic sight has a real panoramic view of the battlefield.

    Network centric... network it into what?
    So what do you suggest? Buy someone elses network and then buy all the integrated weapon systems they use to get a fully operational system?
    It makes no sense to bother with a net centric network if the new toys you make are not compatible with a network.
    It is like a home computer... you buy it first and then when you have a few that are network compatible you connect them up to each other and the internet.

    Even if you have 200 T-90 Burlak upgraded tanks in service that is 200 tanks that can work together as a team.
    Having network compatible tanks is more important than having night and all weather capable tanks, thermal sights can be added later during an overhaul, practising working in a net centric force is more valuable than practising working 24/7.

    A pack of hunting dogs can take on more powerful prey than a single dog working alone. Once that pack hunting technique is learned adding night and all weather capability is expensive but easier to practise when you can already hunt in a pack.

    A new radio set and GPS reciever can be had for a thousand euro. When Russian armour get GPS it is an American GPS that you put in your car.

    So they are wasting their money on GLONASS? Now that they have almost a full constellation coverage it makes more sense to introduce GPS/GLONASS receivers. The Burlak upgrade has what is described as a GLONASS receiver.

    I have seen first hand the BMD-3M upgrade and it quite similar to what Burlak would be for the technology. 2nd gen night and IR sights that are only good to 1.5km.

    You are making an assumption and from what I have read you are wrong. The Burlak is supposed to be the new Russian standard production T-90. I doubt they would expand the size of the turret and give the commander a new panoramic sight only to give him crap optics. The purpose of licence production of the Thales thermal sights was so they could be used in Russian T-90 tanks. AFAIK this hasn't changed.
    The commander will have the Catherine thermal sight, which I am told by someone who has used it can see blades of grass at 1km and some aircraft like helos out to 10km plus. The gunner will have a seperate thermal sight operating at a different wavelength optimised to see through smoke and dust.

    The biggest difference would be the improvement in survivability so the tank doesn't turn into a pop-top as seen in Iraq.

    That alone makes it worthwhile.

    The tank drivers won't even get new driving scopes. When I would drive my BTR around at night I could see less than a hundred metres. The reason for headlights on Russian armour isn't for traffic driving, it is the driver scopes are shit.

    Drivers in tanks sit so low their view is crap anyway. Most of the time it will be the commander that directs the driver where to go anyway.

    Bigger is better. Longer guns always have better accuracy at longer ranges.

    Bigger is not always better.
    Put an 8 inch gun on a modern tank and you will see my point. A 203mm round would require an autoloader. It would restrict the ammo load. It will make the tank very heavy to absorb the recoil in the turret ring.


    If an 44 calibres gun was really effective as an 51-52 or 55 calibres gun, the Leo2A6, Leclerc and Challeger2 would all be using 44 caliber guns today.

    The Abrams gets the same penetration as the 55 calibre guns from its 44 calibre gun by using specialised ammo. If you used that specialised ammo in an L55 gun it would be even better but they have obviously decided that the L44 gun with the better ammo is good enough. Whether they are right or not is a good question.

    It wouldn`t be any difference if the gun was 1-2 calibers bigger, but the T90`s gun is over 6 calibers longer

    The guns are different calibres, so you can't compare their lengths in calibres.
    The L44 calibre 120mm smoothbore gun is 44 x 120mm long, or 5.28 metres in length.
    A L55 calibre 120mm smoothbore gun is 55 x 120mm long, or 6.6 metres in length.
    The only figures I can find for the 125mm Soviet gun is 6678mm which I work out to be about 53.424 calibres in length and only marginally longer than the western L55 gun. (note 53.424 is based on the calibre of the gun so it is an 125mm L53.424 calibre gun... would probably be rounded to L53.)

    There is still plenty of growth potential in the 125mm gun.

    Changing to a different calibre is expensive and is not just about making lots of new gun barrels, but it is about developing all new ammo and buying enough to have ammo in stock in case of conflict etc etc. Then you have to train with it, new handling procedures, new ammo storage mechanisms etc etc, new autoloaders etc.

    T80BV`s autoloader is not the same thing as the T90`s

    I know, the T-90s was supposed to be found to be safer.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16405
    Points : 17016
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:45 am

    Here are pictures of 7 T-72s in Georgia with their tops blown off... I think that is most of them.

    http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-pictures-from-georgia-of-t-72-and.html

    Pretty much ends that myth

    I believe the myth revolves around T-72s losing their turrets instantly after being hit. These vehicles could have been burning half an hour before the ammo exploded.
    Of course you also need to take into account that storing ammo in the crew compartment, whether in the turret or the hull exacerbated the problem. The last tank to have such a bad reputation was the Sherman which the Germans called Ronson. Ronson made cigarette lighters and their motto was "lights first time every time". Great motto for a lighter, bad one for a tank.

    The radios Burlak gets are low data-rate digital radios replacing the old analogues. It still only has enough bandwidth for audio signals... nothing net-centric there. Really, you don't know how bad the electronics are.

    What are you expecting? Live video feeds from Putin to each individual grunt on the ground. You might not want to hear this but not having a high band width might actually be a good thing. Sending video back to commanders in Desert Storm led to commanders in the rear playing video games and micro managing battles they really should not have. The purpose is to let commands flow down to the troops in the field and information flow up to command.

    Eventually the bandwith can be expanded and the upload and download speed can be increased but while limiting as to what sort of info can be transmitted it really shouldn't effect the performance of the system as a force management system. It will make it a crap video game, but it is not supposed to be that anyway.

    We are just getting into 1+ Mbit/s data-rates for tactical radios. France already has 43Mbit/s for tactical PR4G application, even dismounted, along with 11Mbit/s WIFI for each individual soldier at 3km.

    I know a few soldiers and what that basically means is that their LAN parties will be better than yours.

    We can't afford to outfit 4 thousand T-72 reserve tanks with Catherine FC, it would double their cost.

    Upgrades will likely reduce and the focus will be on new build T-90s. As Medvedev said, why waste money upgrading old stuff that costs a large fraction of the new stuff. Why upgrade T-72s when you can make T-90s?

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive.

    The turret upgrade you are talking about is the T-90AK I think and is for export.
    The Burlak is for new build T-90s for the Russian Army. It is to be finalised at the end of this year, that is why only 60 something T-90s were ordered this year. Next year or the year after order numbers will increase for the finalised upgrade of the T-90. Or that is what they are planning.

    The only way I see getting out of this mess in the short-term is to buy more communications gear from Thales and cancel that 90nm factory and upgrade it to 45nm.

    90% of electronic devices work fine on 90nm technology. It is that 10% that requires high processing power that requires better and that can be delivered with parallel processing. Look at personal computers... they are not getting faster, about 4 GHz is the limit. They are going to multicore processors.
    The reality is that a serious issue with personal computers is bottlenecks. Just putting on faster CPUs will not make the computer faster by the same amount. Sometimes distributed processing is a much better solution.
    An example is an aircraft. You could put the latest multicore chip to manage all the functions on an aircraft, or you could use 100 486 processors in a network.
    One system will have a huge bottleneck sending information to and from the single processor chip while the other system will have much more slow processors that are used more because they are not doing everything but are not two controller chips away from the hardware.

    Then we have to go about restructuring our education system so the next generation of engineers won't fail us as this one has.

    That is kinda harsh. I would suggest you lost a lot of those engineers to higher paying jobs in the west simply because there was no paying work in Russia... perhaps the real solution would be to start buying what there is and they can use that money to improve. Your experience with what you buy can be used to direct them to what needs to be improved, but if you buy nothing they have no money to improve and develop.

    Wafer size has to do with the size of electronics. If you want compact 4 gen radios and mobile network gear, the smaller the better. Especially if and when our soldiers are going to be hauling around something like FELIN, they can't cart 36kg on their backs plus the equipment, it is going to have to be miniaturised. This is important for all applications to how much processing power you want on fighter planes to how much a missile is going to weigh. Weight is one of the 4 death knells of military equipment.

    I rather doubt it is all the computer chips making up the 36kgs weight.
    I suspect it would have more to do with battery weight and possibly body armour weight too.
    The difference in weight of a GPS receiver chip the size of your little finger nail and one the size of the palm of your hand would be very little, maybe a few grammes.

    It makes sense to put it on your frontline MBTs, not on reserve equipment. There are also lower tier 3rd gen thermals made by Thales such as Metis.

    That is it. The Metis is the gunner sight on the Burlak. It operates in a lower frequency band than Catherine.

    Then the issue becomes getting night/thermals to the troops. Each soldier should have night vision goggles along with each platoon sergeant with thermal binoculars. It isn't FELIN but it gives the Army a modern capability it has long sought.

    In the picture thread Seph has posted a photo of the Shakhin thermal weapon sight to be issued to the VDV. It is Russian made and will hopefully be mass produced in the future.

    [quote]What do you think Burlak is for? It was originally going on T-80s but those are going to be sold or scrapped. They are redesign for T-72s and the first batch of T-90s but it is not even a formal proposal yet. [quote]

    It is supposed to be the new production standard Russian service T-90. It might be applied in upgrades to some older vehicles but mainly for compatibility reasons.
    Upgrading older vehicles (for Russian use) is going to decline and new tanks will become the focus.

    Russian command wants the forces up to Western standards, ready to spend $200 billion on rearmament. Every year we wait means the less kit we can buy. Prices are going up faster in the RF than it is in Europe, it is getting cheaper to buy from France thanks to the sky-rocketing inflation in the MIC.

    Buying from Russia invests Russian money in Russia. Buying Russia gear is also investing in Russian R&D. It is also providing employment in Russia. It is upgrading factories. I agree where the gap is enormous like with Thermal sights that it makes sense to do what Russia did with Thales, with Catherine, Metis, and Damocles pods. Now however Russian companies are catching up with regard to thermal sights, at least at the prototype level if not production but that requires hard real orders.

    It is the right time to buy foreign stuff because when the economies of these countries recover properly prices will rise again.

    BTW I read the Russians are getting the South Koreans to build them a ship building port from the ground up. The South Korean ship yards are the most efficient in the world so this is a really good deal for the Russians and money well spent.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:30 am

    GarryB wrote:

    I believe the myth revolves around T-72s losing their turrets instantly after being hit. These vehicles could have been burning half an hour before the ammo exploded.
    Of course you also need to take into account that storing ammo in the crew compartment, whether in the turret or the hull exacerbated the problem. The last tank to have such a bad reputation was the Sherman which the Germans called Ronson. Ronson made cigarette lighters and their motto was "lights first time every time". Great motto for a lighter, bad one for a tank.

    No they couldn't burn half an hour before they exploded. When the cabin is filled with molten copper it doesn't take but a couple seconds to set the ammo box ablaze.

    What are you expecting? Live video feeds from Putin to each individual grunt on the ground. You might not want to hear this but not having a high band width might actually be a good thing. Sending video back to commanders in Desert Storm led to commanders in the rear playing video games and micro managing battles they really should not have. The purpose is to let commands flow down to the troops in the field and information flow up to command.

    Eventually the bandwith can be expanded and the upload and download speed can be increased but while limiting as to what sort of info can be transmitted it really shouldn't effect the performance of the system as a force management system. It will make it a crap video game, but it is not supposed to be that anyway.

    Desert Storm? There wasn't much bandwidth to play with back in 1991. France has already addressed the problem of too much information for the soldier by keeping the tactical maps down to platoon leaders and up. The unit leaders filter any data they want to upload to command echelons so they don't get a bunch of random nonsense. ROE really determines how much control the individual units have. Loosen it up and they are allowed to make the decisions they see as fit, make them too strict and opportunity slips through your fingers... aka Osama at Tora Bora. The idea of it is to bring situational awareness to the commanders on down to the units in the field. The more informed your decisions the better they will be.


    I know a few soldiers and what that basically means is that their LAN parties will be better than yours.

    Hardware won't take any new software without the source code... sorry no games.

    Upgrades will likely reduce and the focus will be on new build T-90s. As Medvedev said, why waste money upgrading old stuff that costs a large fraction of the new stuff. Why upgrade T-72s when you can make T-90s?

    Medvedev never said that. The government wants to modernise them and they don't really want more T-90s. They only build them because we don't have a next generation tank available. Serdyukov wants the best but modernisation is the only stopgap available. We are limited by are options as T-95 is a dud.

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive.

    The turret upgrade you are talking about is the T-90AK I think and is for export.
    The Burlak is for new build T-90s for the Russian Army. It is to be finalised at the end of this year, that is why only 60 something T-90s were ordered this year. Next year or the year after order numbers will increase for the finalised upgrade of the T-90. Or that is what they are planning.

    The turret we are talking about is Burlak and it was for upgrading old T-72/80/90. If you haven't been keeping up with this thread it is cancelled.

    http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1350456

    90% of electronic devices work fine on 90nm technology. It is that 10% that requires high processing power that requires better and that can be delivered with parallel processing. Look at personal computers... they are not getting faster, about 4 GHz is the limit. They are going to multicore processors.
    The reality is that a serious issue with personal computers is bottlenecks. Just putting on faster CPUs will not make the computer faster by the same amount. Sometimes distributed processing is a much better solution.
    An example is an aircraft. You could put the latest multicore chip to manage all the functions on an aircraft, or you could use 100 486 processors in a network.
    One system will have a huge bottleneck sending information to and from the single processor chip while the other system will have much more slow processors that are used more because they are not doing everything but are not two controller chips away from the hardware.

    You talking about PC bottlenecks yet you left out RAM. Not going to waste time networking more processors.

    That is kinda harsh. I would suggest you lost a lot of those engineers to higher paying jobs in the west simply because there was no paying work in Russia... perhaps the real solution would be to start buying what there is and they can use that money to improve. Your experience with what you buy can be used to direct them to what needs to be improved, but if you buy nothing they have no money to improve and develop.

    There is no argument our curriculum and facilities for electronics engineering are outdated, we must first fix the core of the problem before we offer more money to people unqualified for the work.

    I rather doubt it is all the computer chips making up the 36kgs weight.
    I suspect it would have more to do with battery weight and possibly body armour weight too.
    The difference in weight of a GPS receiver chip the size of your little finger nail and one the size of the palm of your hand would be very little, maybe a few grammes.

    36kg is the current weight of kit, there are no computer chips in that. I'm talking about the addition of. The better the die technology the less power required to run means smaller batteries and smaller gear.

    In the picture thread Seph has posted a photo of the Shakhin thermal weapon sight to be issued to the VDV. It is Russian made and will hopefully be mass produced in the future.

    You mean the Shaheen...

    http://www.cyclone-jsc.ru/shahin.html

    They have been showing this off at DefExpos for the last 4 years.

    Certainly would improve night fighting capability from nothing, but you aren't going to be running through the woods with your scope to your face all night. I'm talking about basic night vision goggles. Something that needs to be distributed to all infantry soldiers, not IR scopes only a few select units are going to receive. Once we all get night vision, then we can worry about thermal scopes. This thing is only going to end up in special purpose units just like our best assault rifle. Too expensive to manufacture is always the excuse.

    It is supposed to be the new production standard Russian service T-90. It might be applied in upgrades to some older vehicles but mainly for compatibility reasons.
    Upgrading older vehicles (for Russian use) is going to decline and new tanks will become the focus.

    See the kommersant link above... no Burlak.

    Buying from Russia invests Russian money in Russia. Buying Russia gear is also investing in Russian R&D. It is also providing employment in Russia. It is upgrading factories. I agree where the gap is enormous like with Thermal sights that it makes sense to do what Russia did with Thales, with Catherine, Metis, and Damocles pods. Now however Russian companies are catching up with regard to thermal sights, at least at the prototype level if not production but that requires hard real orders.

    Would have said the same thing about the auto industry. It isn't any harder to make a modern car but we failed to do that. Now we can thank France for saving 180,000 jobs at AvtoVaz. The same will happen throughout our ailing defence enterprises... they already save a thousand jobs at Ural Optics. They will also save tens of thousand jobs at Shipbuilding JSC if we get license for Mistral. In the long run it may save hundreds of thousands. There is method to this madness, it is all about jobs. If we don't manufacture modern products NOW these companies will go out of business tomorrow. We don't have 10 years to never waiting on products that are obsolete 15 years before they hit the shelf. We really have no choice. As far as catching up to their thermals, Sheheen is nowhere near their thermals. It is second generation, French are on third and developing 4th. FAMAS infrared has twice the range and 6X the battery life.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16405
    Points : 17016
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    There is nothing to be impressed with the Burlak turret upgrade.

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:30 am

    No they couldn't burn half an hour before they exploded. When the cabin is filled with molten copper it doesn't take but a couple seconds to set the ammo box ablaze.

    Supposedly in the second Chechen campaign the tank crews only stored ammo in the armoured autoloader, so yes the interior could burn for 5 minutes before getting to the ammo and exploding. With ammo stored within the crew compartment, like a Leo or Leclerc then yes it can be ignited immediately or after a short period of time depending on where the tank is hit and what hit it.

    The idea of it is to bring situational awareness to the commanders on down to the units in the field. The more informed your decisions the better they will be.

    Yes, I understand the concept and the potential pitfalls.
    The key however is timely accurate relevant information. If you get it too late or it is misleading, or not relevant then it is noise.
    The issues with the battle management are not bandwidth, they are data handling and processing that turns it into useful timely accurate relevant information.

    If your problem is bandwidth then you have a small problem that is straight forward to fix.

    Hardware won't take any new software without the source code... sorry no games.

    Never underestimate the power of the dark side... Twisted Evil

    Medvedev never said that. The government wants to modernise them and they don't really want more T-90s. They only build them because we don't have a next generation tank available. Serdyukov wants the best but modernisation is the only stopgap available. We are limited by are options as T-95 is a dud.

    Sorry but can you explain why the T-95 is a dud?

    Actual facts about the vehicle are rare, and all we have is the word of one guy who is a rocket and aircraft guy who sat in a T-90 and compared it with a T-34.

    Sounds like an idiot to me.... or is the T-50 like the Wright flyer because it used wings too.

    Medvedev said last year that upgrading old material when new models were ready was a waste of money, so we get orders for Mig-35s and Su-35s instead of orders for Mig-29SMTs and Su-27SMs.
    Upgrades will still be paid for at a lower rate but the focus is to get new equipment into service.

    The turret we are talking about is Burlak and it was for upgrading old T-72/80/90. If you haven't been keeping up with this thread it is cancelled.

    It was a new standard that could be applied to T-72/80/90 tanks and would be adopted as the new build standard to try to get some uniformity in Russias tank fleet. The T-72 and the T-80 and the T-90 tanks are actually rather different things despite external appearances so the point of the upgrade was to unify and consolidate the types in service to improve logistics and save money.

    Posts like this:

    http://www.russiandefenseblog.org/?p=997

    suggest to me that the program is real and that those working on the programs don't know they are cut yet.
    Until I see more information on this I don't believe it.

    As I said before too the Hermes was cancelled too.

    You talking about PC bottlenecks yet you left out RAM. Not going to waste time networking more processors.

    Indeed newer chips have more on chip RAM which helps them go faster, but distributed processors usually have a memory controller chip with its own RAM.
    The normal PC computer setup has two such controller chips called the chipset, and they consist of a memory controller chip called North bridge that is close to the CPU that connects the RAM and graphics card to the CPU. South Bridge is the other controller chip that handles I/O for stuff like PCI slots and hard drive and legasy floppy drive connections.
    A distributed CPU setup will have RAM colocated with the CPU with a North Bridge chip for communication. In the example I gave a CPU might be used to manage one engine control, which means that the CPU will be connected to a north bridge chip that connects it to however much RAM it needs and that North Bridge chip will be connected to a South bridge chip that connects all the input devices the engine system needs. It wont need a graphics card so north bridge will just handle RAM. It might have a few sensors connected to south bridge like temperature and pressure sensors, fuel flow rate sensors etc etc and a network connection so the numbers can be fed to the cockpit computer that will have a graphics component to display information from the other network nodes to display on the MFDs.
    Most of the functions of a digital engine control system do not require even pentium level processors let alone modern multicore chips that generate huge amounts of heat and use lots of power and are vulnerable to damage or dust or interference.

    The better the die technology the less power required to run means smaller batteries and smaller gear.

    Really? Cause my old 486 didn't need big complicated water cooling contraptions and enormous heat sinks like the new chips need. These days there are 1kW power supplies being sold for gaming computers because of the power requirements.

    This thing is only going to end up in special purpose units just like our best assault rifle. Too expensive to manufacture is always the excuse.

    The West has spent billions on its military to get where it is today, you think you can get it for free? You think this is going to happen overnight?
    Even with all the right choices it will take time, which is why it annoys me they might be dropping the Burlak upgrade. It makes a lot of sense to improve the best thing you have and delay the replacement till the technology to make it work well matures. What doesn't make sense is to cut everything because that is just a dead end.
    Sounds like this guy learned nothing from Russian tank experience and wants Russian tanks to carry a total of 22 rounds of main tank ammo because carrying more in a T-90 without a Burlak upgrade just kills crewmen.
    Great way to save money.

    I hope what they mean is that the Burlak upgrade will not be applied to T-72 and T-80 tanks and will just be the new production standard T-90 tank.

    Would have said the same thing about the auto industry.

    Not really the same thing. Buying foreign cars is not the same as buying foreign tanks.

    It isn't any harder to make a modern car but we failed to do that.

    Well clearly it is just as hard... or everyone would be making their own cars.

    If we don't manufacture modern products NOW these companies will go out of business tomorrow.

    But who will buy them? The Russian government can't afford to buy everything now, let alone the state of the art now. How many S-300V were sold on the international market? Is it a sh!t system? Why aren't those poor third world countries that accepted free SA-2s and SA-3s buying SA-10s and SA-20s?
    The sad reality is that most of your client states barely have money to upgrade what they have let alone buy brand new state of the art.
    All of a sudden your market has disappeared because you have become westernised, yet the western markets will reject your products on political grounds.

    We don't have 10 years to never waiting on products that are obsolete 15 years before they hit the shelf. We really have no choice. As far as catching up to their thermals, Sheheen is nowhere near their thermals. It is second generation, French are on third and developing 4th. FAMAS infrared has twice the range and 6X the battery life.

    I have read that Russian companies are working on cheaper QWIP technology that could lead to cheaper NVGs of better quality than even third gen II.
    Equally regarding getting stuck with an outdated design... Europe is just putting into service the Typhoon, which is not a stopgap modification 4++ fighter like the Su-35, but their future fighter... their T-50. Talk about behind!

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:20 am