Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Share

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:04 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]Found this post on a website and wanted to post it here:



    Cross Posting



    That just Turned out to be a Whole lotta BS ,
    that post from aviation week was just a blog , that too someones first blog safe to say it was not accurate and deliberate.

    here are few links to the actual press conference that happened on that day , and none of it mentions anything, i dunno where did kommersant came up with it from , when all other newspapers reporting the same press conference havent said anything.


    http://lenta.ru/news/2010/04/07/t90/

    http://www.argumenti.ru/army/2010/04/56001/

    http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=351545&cid=549


    These links are Russian so I wonder if anyone who can read Russian could look through these threads and see if we can sort this out.

    Source for the above quote:

    I`ve already seen this. Well none of them says nothing about the T95 at all. All of them are almost the same thing and say that the T90 modernisation will finish in 2010. The first one mentioned something like constructing new plants and reducing the number of tanks in service. It also said that the real need of Russia`s tank fore is 10.000 while there are 20.000 tanks in service

    The second and third had some info about T90`s upgrade having better firepower and armor etc. They mentioned something about a meeting when Putin said that many russian weapons are superior to their foreign counterparts. the third one said that the production of weapons in russia increased by 13% and that 40 percent of RD do not result in anything. In the final part it said that by 2015 there will be 22 batallions armed with T90`s, 60 Iskander missiles, 18 batallions of S400, 116 aircraft, 156 helicopters and some other weapons

    Edit: no links to outside forums

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:09 pm

    take a look at Popovkin`s interview (Russian only)


    I nearly forgot about it. Popvkin never said that the T95 was cancelled. He only said that they stopped funding the project in 2009 and that the T95 was a tank build for the soviet (not for the russian army) and that it was based on older soviet technology


    Last edited by Stalingradcommando on Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:23 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Adding some info I forgot to mention the first time)

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:33 am

    He said "Work on Object 195 has been stopped since 2009 having paid off the enterprise for the suffered expenses."

    That means it is dead.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:52 pm

    Yes, but in late March 2010 the head of the design burreau which worked on the T95 projected said that work was almost finished and that they had fulfilled all requiments put forward by the military. That does not make much sense, does it?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:42 pm

    Stalingradcommando wrote:Yes, but in late March 2010 the head of the design burreau which worked on the T95 projected said that work was almost finished and that they had fulfilled all requiments put forward by the military. That does not make much sense, does it?

    That isn't exactly what he said... CEO UVZ Oleg Sienko: "If the government gives the green light, then this tank can be displayed in public this summer at the Russian Arms Expo 2010." According to him, the designers managed to fulfill all the requirements of the military on this tank.

    So they are ready to run around a concept demonstator. As we all found out with Black Eagle, it was just an old T-80U with a lengthened barrel and some camo netting over it. Doesn't seem like MoD wants that joke happening again.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:05 am

    Well it sounds to me like the problem is that the Russian defence department has changed its mind about what it wanted for the T-95 program.
    It always said that the T-95 program was too expensive and that the T-90 would form the backbone of the Russian tank forces, so I would interpret this as being a case that they want to get the T-90 into a model that can be the standard model for the next 5 or so years worth of production with older model T-90s being upgraded to this standard and older vehicles being withdrawn from service. This is not going to be cheap because of the expensive vision devices and electronics involved so delaying funding for the T-95 for 2-3 years or so will allow its technology to mature and any remaining problems be resolved.

    I don't think you could compare the Black Eagle with the T-95, as the Black Eagle was a concept tank that had an autoloader that worked but the rest was a mockup.
    The T-95 has been in development for some time, though without much money for most of the time.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:11 am

    GarryB wrote:

    I don't think you could compare the Black Eagle with the T-95, as the Black Eagle was a concept tank that had an autoloader that worked but the rest was a mockup.

    Sure it had a working autoloader, it was a functional T-80U which has one.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:18 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Stalingradcommando wrote:Yes, but in late March 2010 the head of the design burreau which worked on the T95 projected said that work was almost finished and that they had fulfilled all requiments put forward by the military. That does not make much sense, does it?

    That isn't exactly what he said... CEO UVZ Oleg Sienko: "If the government gives the green light, then this tank can be displayed in public this summer at the Russian Arms Expo 2010." According to him, the designers managed to fulfill all the requirements of the military on this tank.

    So they are ready to run around a concept demonstator. As we all found out with Black Eagle, it was just an old T-80U with a lengthened barrel and some camo netting over it. Doesn't seem like MoD wants that joke happening again.

    Black Eagle (or T80UM2) was not just an old T80U. It was based on the more recent T80UM1 modernisation, although it had a bigger chassis and turret. Military officals said that the tank never existed and the turret of the protoype did not have anything inside. I can not understand what you were trying to do by bringing the T80UM2 to the subject. It has little, if not nothing in common with Obyekt 195

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:13 pm

    Stalingradcommando wrote:

    Black Eagle (or T80UM2) was not just an old T80U. It was based on the more recent T80UM1 modernisation, although it had a bigger chassis and turret. Military officals said that the tank never existed and the turret of the protoype did not have anything inside. I can not understand what you were trying to do by bringing the T80UM2 to the subject. It has little, if not nothing in common with Obyekt 195

    What doesn't it have in common? It was the direct competitor to the Nizhny Tagil tank project. It never existed because it never had the opportunity to get off the ground. Omsktransmash went bankrupt.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 03, 2010 1:40 pm

    What doesn't it have in common? It was the direct competitor to the Nizhny Tagil tank project. It never existed because it never had the opportunity to get off the ground. Omsktransmash went bankrupt.

    The Black Eagle never existed as a workable tank, though the turret bustle autoloader was completed and its design was handed over to the maker of the T-90 and it appears to be going to be part of the new turret.
    The T-95 on the other hand was a project at the only tank factory in Russia that is operational and building tanks.
    It should have better funding and is more likely to be closer to a production example for that reason.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 05, 2010 4:52 am

    I have spoken to someone on the internet who told me that the T-95 was rejected as being old fashioned cold war too heavy a tank and that the upgrade of the T-90 was to go ahead and the T-95 was going to be revealed for its export potential.

    I would extrapolate from that that if a foreign partner is interested in developing the T-95 further that the Russian Army might become interested in what results... like Pantsir.

    If the T-95 is too heavy and expensive then the Leclerc is just as heavy and probably just as expensive or more so.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Viktor on Wed May 05, 2010 12:18 pm

    Im somehow doubtful T-95 will pass away just like that.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed May 05, 2010 2:49 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    If the T-95 is too heavy and expensive then the Leclerc is just as heavy and probably just as expensive or more so.

    Those aren't the problems. T-95 is too obsolete.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Tank Force

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 06, 2010 2:53 am

    What does obsolete mean?

    The Russian Army is looking to become a more mobile force so a 55 ton tank will only mean they have to reinvest in logistics to support heavier vehicles, which will make those support vehicles heavier.

    The main concept of the T-95 was to move the crew to the front hull position under the heaviest armour of the tank and to use UAVs and other platforms as well as turret roof mounted optics and radar to provide situational awareness.

    That is not obsolete, that is future stuff.

    The problem is that the Russian Army has decided to become a much lighter and more mobile force.

    Even with the changes for the VDV, which is becoming a more wheeled force than it ever was the same changes are being made.

    Of course with what we know of the Burlak upgrade with the turret bustle autoloader and the underfloor autoloader the crew is separated from the ammo, so crew safety is still a feature, though clearly not the design focus as it is in the T-95.

    Im somehow doubtful T-95 will pass away just like that.

    There is only one tank maker in Russia now, so what they thought was state of the art 5 years ago or now may dramatically change in 5 years from now.

    They might look at new lighter armour materials, including plastics etc.

    The guy doing all the program cutting is responsible for the current budget and he is probably looking at who is asking for money.
    There seem to be two schools of thought on the internet... first is: all Russian tanks are junk and will burn like the Iraqi T-72s in Iraq in Desert Storm, mainly from the US strong group who think all Russian and Soviet stuff was crap, and second: that the T-90 is comparable to modern western tanks in protection through the use of ERA, though the storage of ammo in the crew compartment is a design flaw that means crew survival potential is much lower than an Abrams, which stores its ammo separately from the crew and that the lack of a battle managment system means the Russian forces are not coordinated as well as a western army with a BMS. Other western tanks of course store ammo in the crew compartment and are just as vulnerable as the T-90 to internal explosions.

    The guy cutting the T-95 program described the T-90 as being an evolved T-34, which I find very illogical. Is he against evolutionary development? If he is then why is he cutting the non evolutionary T-95? It doesn't make sense to me.

    Previous plans were for the upgraded T-90 to form the backbone of the Russian Army while the T-95 was introduced in small numbers as an expensive but exponentially more capable vehicle... a sort of T-80 + T-72 situation where you are saying the T-80 is the best you can make but is too expensive to afford for everywhere so we make the T-72 for numbers to replace all the older models... obviously with the T-90 being the numbers tank and the T-95 being the top quality tank.

    Perhaps his solution is the upgraded T-90 becomes the expensive model and the cheaper model is upgraded T-72s but with cheaper older technology Russian Thermal Sights. The problem is that older thermal sights are not that much cheaper but have much worse performance.

    With everyone in the hull the situational awareness of the T-95 is going to be restricted so it needs to operate in a net centric environment to operate properly and effectively. This net centric environment doesn't exist at the moment within the Russian Armed forces so why fund a tank that needs that environment to be effective now? Upgrade the T-90 with a battle management system, create a net centric system piece by piece and introduce UAVs and high flying recon platforms and then introduce the T-95 when the technology is more mature and cheaper in Russia.
    What will be then introduced will not be the current T-95, but a newer better armoured more aware tank that is probably 10-15 tons lighter and will probably have a 125mm gun with newer better ammo initially and then a decision can be made to increase the calibre.

    Who knows... the solution might be that vertical launch missiles like TOR could be carried in a trailer with terminal guidance and diving top attack flight profiles might replace the gun tube launched missiles. Or these vertical launch weapons could be mounted at the very rear of the vehicle behind the engine and form a spaced armour area after they are launched to protect the engine from attacks from the rear.

    The missiles could be dumb command control missiles that were cheap like TOR, or they could be based on the Morphei short range SAM with IIR seeker that can also deal with aircraft or a range of point targets out to 10km or so.

    NOTE, This is my opinion based on what I have read on the internet.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Army will get no tanks in 2011

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:42 am

    Russia ripe for the purchase of armored vehicles abroad

    10/14/2010 - Analysis

    Russia's only manufacturer of tanks of NPK Uralvagonzavod can stay in 2011 without orders. Experts say that even a simple one year will cost technology and training. Degradation of the military-industrial complex, experts say, will force Russia to buy armored vehicles abroad. As found Browser RusBusinessNews, it will pay for defense enterprises formerly fraud and today's inability to promote their products in a fiercely competitive.

    The management of OAO "NPK" Uralvagonzavod, which produces T-72 tanks and T-90, the company informed the union about a sharp decline in production of military equipment in 2011. The absence of the state defense order will entail a reduction in staff. UVZ administration intends to reorient the part of specialists mechanoerecting production to civilian production. In particular, the possibility of production of railway equipment in the "tank" workshops.

    Press secretary Alexei Uralvagonzavod Zharich said RusBusinessNews that in December 2010, ending a three-year contract with the Ministry of Defence to supply the Russian army for 63 tanks a year. New order has not yet been received. Since the end and export contracts, the company's management decided that we should be ready for mass release of personnel of tank production. Managers are confident that orders for rail cars in 2011 will only grow. According to A. Zharicha, the economy revives, a growing number of carriers, making the plant can not satisfy all requests for cars. Accordingly, the released manpower will fall by the way in civil proceedings. At the state defense company, apparently, no longer counts.

    Expert at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) Andrei Frolov believes that after the three-year contract at the plant planned to produce new T-95, but the project was closed, and now UVZ is likely to be engaged in the modernization of old T-72B. Such an assumption confirmed Deputy Director General of the artillery factory № 9 Nikolay Kozlov. According to the manager of the enterprise, delivering UVZ tank barrels, with a state order issue is not resolved, and producers aim at upgrading the tanks. However, no plants and the more orders from the Defense Ministry have been reported. Consequently, the upgraded equipment plants can at your own risk.

    No contracts with the military and Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Uraltransmash" - the manufacturer of self-propelled artillery units. According to Director of Marketing and Foreign Economic Affairs Nicholas Bednyakovin previous years, contracts also were not earlier than March, but then at least the end of the year was known quantity of products that is going to order the Defense Ministry in the next year. Now there is no such clarity: the numbers are called every month is different and no one can guarantee that your order will generally be because the military still undecided as to which they are preparing for war.

    Meanwhile, the chairman of the Defense Committee of the State Duma Viktor Zavarzin said recently that the cost of procurement of military equipment and weapons will grow next year by 25%. In 2011 will be spent 460 billion rubles in 2012 - 596 billion in 2013 - 980 billion. Separately, to be financed research and development work, the proportion of costs that the military budget of Russia has decreased somewhat, but in absolute numbers will increase from 107 billion rubles this year to 115 billion in 2011.

    The rising costs of military equipment and armament explained the decision to bring the country's leadership in 2013, the proportion of the cost of buying new weapon in the general defense budget to 70%. A similar setup has led to the fact that the Russian Defense Ministry has closed a number of unpromising research and sent the released funds for improvement of ballistic missile Bulava missile carrier "Angara" and "Russia", the new satellites, fighter T-50 and some other projects .

    The number of unpromising got all armored vehicles, as manufacturers of tanks and self-propelled guns could not offer anything new. Bednyakov Nicholas said that the emergence of new themes directly linked to funding. Now there is neither one nor the other, why all the previous years Uraltransmash is upgrading the same product. Update technique can be, if the share of R & D spending is at least 10% of the state order. Such claims manager, in post-Soviet years was never. What will happen to the research work in 2011, did not understand.

    Experts believe that in this situation industrials largely to blame themselves. Ph.D. Michael Rastopshin has published several articles in the media, which showed that the designers of the Soviet tanks misleading state, in essence, falsifying test results. In particular, manufacturers have argued that the armor of the T-72 (which later grew to T-90) is not penetrated by foreign projectiles from a distance of 1500 meters. However, experts say, back in 1983 shooting showed that an Israeli tank M48A5 breaks the 105-mm projectile frontal armor of the T-72 at a distance of 2000 meters. Ural developers tank managed to convince everyone in neprobivaemosti their armor just because at the time of acceptance tests of T-72 used a shell which is not synonymous with foreign armor-piercing projectiles.

    Tricks that have been applied in the Soviet era, today will not go. Ministry of Defence has openly stated that the T-90 - Tank outdated and useless even to upgrade. Years of work in the Soviet economy, however, interfere with JSC "SPC" Uralvagonzavod promote promising technique. In particular, the unclaimed military was already established in the market environment to support combat vehicle tanks (BMPT). According to the head of analytical department of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis Alexander Khramchikhin, managers UVZ could not lobby for this is quite a promising product in ministerial offices. It is obvious that all the new technology raises a legitimate question from the military, where and how they will use it. Leaders of the plant have not been able to explain the purposes for which created a new machine.

    Lack of state orders for tanks Uralvagonzavod not kill, but the consequences will be serious for the company: skilled professionals leave, and equipment failure. According to A. Khramchikhin, everything goes to the fact that Russia will buy armored vehicles abroad. It will happen regardless of whether, according to this Russian leadership or not. There will be soon in Russia and their military vessels. Patriotic remain only aviation technology, because in this industry on R & D money has been spent productively, which predetermined high potential leaders lobbying airlines. Already announced that 2015 will be purchased 70 T-50 fighter jets and about 400 new and upgraded military transport and assault helicopters. The military also purchase Il-112 Il-476 Il-76M and AN-70.

    Executive Director of the Union of enterprises of defense industry of the Sverdlovsk region, Vladimir Kukarskikh believes that specific orders will be only after the approval of the state armaments program for 2011-2020. But today it is clear that the bet is placed on the rocket-space and aviation technologies.

    Such a solution, experts say, absolutely does not imply a complete renunciation of the manufacture of tanks: Melee armor is always needed. Lack of public procurement and "tank" of prospects - the defeat of managers and specialists of JSC "SPC" Uralvagonzavod, which could not operate in a fiercely competitive arms market.

    Vladimir Terletsky

    http://www.rusbiznews.ru/news/n936.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:07 am

    The Russian military are fools.
    What they should be doing is sitting down with their last company able to make tanks and talking to them about their future plans.

    What has happened to date is pathetic... for a decade they promised to spend money and the Russian MIC waited for orders that didn't come.

    In the last 2 years or so they actually have spent real money and their returns are not what they expected.

    Perhaps it is the Russian military that needs to go to business school?

    First of all nothing will happen with the promise of money.

    You can't buy new tooling, or hire staff, or buy the raw materials you need to start mass production with promises.

    When the money finally comes... there are probably outstanding debts to be paid off and re-equipment takes time and money, retraining takes time and money... an order for 62 tanks per year means do you keep the capacity for making hundreds a year available, or do you save a few million roubles and close off half the factory... knowing that if you get a big order next year it will cost even more to reopen it.

    I was under the impression that the BMPT was designed for the Russian Army specifically to support tanks against targets tanks are not good at dealing with like in cities.
    They wait till it is nearly finished and then they say they don't want it and don't know what it is for?

    Just as well Venezuela has just signed a deal for modernised T-72s.

    What the Russian Army should do is have a full and open (and obviously classified) discussion with Uralvagonzavod about what their plans are.
    If they don't want tanks for the next 5 years well that is fine, but if they think there will still be a Russian tank maker in 5 years when they know what they want they might get a shock unless they tell that tank maker what the situation is.
    The tank maker... if told, can reduce tank making capacity now to save money keeping facilities that will not be needed and diversify into trains and other areas and then in 4 years it can set up for mass production/conversion to meet the Russian Army's needs.
    Otherwise waiting and hoping will waste money and possibly lead to the demise of last Russian tank making company Uralvagonzavod going the same way the Omsk factory went.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:58 am

    WoW that will be a shock to us; the engineering community who happen to maintain the Russian armour in high privileges

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:38 am

    This communication issue will undermine confidence in Russian Armour too.

    The simple reality is that the T-90 is well armoured.

    It has a few weaknesses that were to be addressed in an upgrade that it seems has been completed for the T-72 (to make it more compatible and cheaper to operate with T-90s) so the upgrade for the T-90 can't be that far away from complete either as they are related one could safely assume. (It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you are going to upgrade a T-72 to be more like a T-90 for commonality of parts and use etc, that it would not make sense to independently upgrade the T-90 and undo all that work by changing items in the T-90 upgrade.

    There seem to be mixed signals from the Russian Army... the T-90 is not good enough but its replacement has lost funding and its upgrade is cancelled?
    When they cancelled funding for the T-95 they said the role of the tank has diminished and that more mobility was needed so a 55 ton tank was not the answer.

    The suggestion that a foreign solution could be found is a poor joke as most western tanks weigh far more than 55 tons and would hardly improve the situation. Most of the weapons that threaten a T-90 would probably also destroy any western tank anyway.

    Seems to me that the Russian Army should stop communicating to its defence suppliers via the media and start talking to them at a high level behind closed doors and tell them exactly what they do or do not want and what their requirements are for the next decade.
    The one remaining tank maker in Russia was set up to build 1200 tanks per year so building 60 or none is an enormous waste of resources. If they can say right now that they want to finalise their C4I system and get it working and then decide what level of electronics are needed in tanks and armoured vehicles to implement that command and control and computers and communications and intelligence system and in the mean time just upgrade 6,000 T-72s and then we will want 1,500 T-90s built and the existing 500 or so upgraded so they are all at the same standard for the next x number of years I am sure the tank makers can make some long term planning for the 500 odd T-90 tanks India wants and the 300 odd T-90 tanks Algeria wants and now the 50 or so T-72s Venezuela wants and it can maintain a workforce big enough to complete the orders efficiently without wasting reserve production capacity just in case.
    Being able to make 1200 tanks per year yet only making 100 and upgrading 500 a year is an enormous waste of potential capacity.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:47 pm

    It is Popovkin driving the decisions. He made his feelings clear at the round table. T-90 is a "deep modernisation of the T-34." Of course he was exaggerating to make a point, but he did raise serious issues. It lacks modern transmission, power packs, horsepower, and C4I. The guts of the tank are obsolete and the armour is insufficient to survive top-attack and the latest AFSPDS. ammo. He wants a tank on par with Leo2A6/M1A2-SEP/Leclerc-2010... that is what T-95 was supposed to be. It is clear that our suppliers are not able to make a tank to these standards. He is shopping in France and Germany for technologies to bring back to Russia that can be applied to the armour industry to meet these issues. I highly doubt if he is going to attempt to buy a license production of a NATO tank, but does want the ability to make the guts and composite armour to bring a future tank to its level.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:25 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:It is Popovkin driving the decisions. He made his feelings clear at the round table. T-90 is a "deep modernisation of the T-34." Of course he was exaggerating to make a point, but he did raise serious issues. It lacks modern transmission, power packs, horsepower, and C4I. The guts of the tank are obsolete and the armour is insufficient to survive top-attack and the latest AFSPDS. ammo. He wants a tank on par with Leo2A6/M1A2-SEP/Leclerc-2010... that is what T-95 was supposed to be. It is clear that our suppliers are not able to make a tank to these standards. He is shopping in France and Germany for technologies to bring back to Russia that can be applied to the armour industry to meet these issues. I highly doubt if he is going to attempt to buy a license production of a NATO tank, but does want the ability to make the guts and composite armour to bring a future tank to its level.


    Popovkin should get reprimanded , this is insult that NATO uses all time about our armored divisions and we do nothing?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:28 pm

    I don't have a problem with him hunting for technologies, but gutting UVZ with no orders is an outrage. It is the only tank factory we have left and we need stop-gap tanks, even if it is not modern enough for him.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:15 am

    T-90 is a "deep modernisation of the T-34." Of course he was exaggerating to make a point, but he did raise serious issues. It lacks modern transmission, power packs, horsepower, and C4I.

    First of all what is wrong with the T-90 being a deep modernisation of a T-34?
    Is he expecting the T-90 to be a deep modernisation of a cherry tree?

    The modern transmission and powerpack and C4I system are supposed to be part of the expected upgrade of the T-90... which he cut.

    The guts of the tank are obsolete and the armour is insufficient to survive top-attack and the latest AFSPDS. ammo. He wants a tank on par with Leo2A6/M1A2-SEP/Leclerc-2010... that is what T-95 was supposed to be.

    And which of those western tanks can currently survive a Javelin top attack missile? Or even a Bofors BILL 2 from the 1980s?

    The T-90 would be better able to survive a top attack weapon if ARENA or DRODZ-2 had been put into service.

    The T-90 would be better able to survive frontal attacks of the latest APFSDS rounds if they were fitted with the new Relickt ERA that is part of the T-90 upgrade.

    It is clear that our suppliers are not able to make a tank to these standards.

    Clear from what? He cancelled all attempts to meet his needs.

    He is shopping in France and Germany for technologies to bring back to Russia that can be applied to the armour industry to meet these issues.

    That is a great idea, which I fully support... when designing something look at the stuff other people are doing and decide whether it is worth adopting yourself. Every design solution has good consequences and bad ones. For instance UK armour is very effective at stopping all sorts of things. The bad side is that it makes the tank weigh 70+ tons and as side armour it is not as effective as a front armour because M1A2s have been penetrated from the side by standard RPG-7 rounds available in Iraq that are comparable to Russian RPG-7 rounds of the 1980s.

    There is no such thing as an invincible tank... even 23mm cannon fire can smash all those expensive optics and shatter tracks.

    I would expect a large force of Leclercs and Leopard IIs and M1A2s and Challenger IIs would meet the same fate as people in bunkers if hit by a volley from a TOS unit... ie their lungs hanging out their mouths and burnt to a crisp.

    I just hope the plan is to stop production of the T-90 till the upgrade is finalised and for UVZ to spend the next 3-5 years starting upgrading T-72s (if they want 4,000-5,000 then it will take a while so 3-5 years of doing 800-1,000 tanks per year might keep them busy) to the new near T-90 standard and then to start production of the T-90s to the new standard and upgrading in service T-90s to that new standard then that will keep their production facilities busy.
    During this 3-5 year period they can work on a lighter more mobile T-95 and also develop the electronics that could be used in the T-95 domestically so in 2016-2018 when they want to start its production it will be more Russian than foreign.
    This might allow for more development time to make it even more revolutionary... ie electric drive with a gas turbine for generating electrical power. They could even add electrically powered armour like the British were working on some time back and other protection options that don't increase weight considerably.

    Forever the optimist... Smile

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:02 am

    GarryB wrote:

    First of all what is wrong with the T-90 being a deep modernisation of a T-34?
    Is he expecting the T-90 to be a deep modernisation of a cherry tree?

    He is expecting a radically new tank design, such as the US made from the M-60 to the M1.

    The modern transmission and powerpack and C4I system are supposed to be part of the expected upgrade of the T-90... which he cut.

    They were not part of the upgrade because domestic industry could not do it which is why it was cut.

    And which of those western tanks can currently survive a Javelin top attack missile? Or even a Bofors BILL 2 from the 1980s?

    Considering M1A1s have been hit by Hellfires and the crews survived is enough evidence for me that they can survive Javelin and BILL. M1A1 is considered obsolete now and the newer tanks are even better in protection.

    The T-90 would be better able to survive a top attack weapon if ARENA or DRODZ-2 had been put into service.

    The T-90 would be better able to survive frontal attacks of the latest APFSDS rounds if they were fitted with the new Relickt ERA that is part of the T-90 upgrade.

    ARENA won't do anything against a top-attack projectile, its angle of fire is lateral. Drodz isn't worth mentioning.

    K-5 ERA will not stop the LATEST APFSDS rounds, only Cold War models.

    Clear from what? He cancelled all attempts to meet his needs.

    If we could build it, he would buy it. 15 years is long enough to wait.

    That is a great idea, which I fully support... when designing something look at the stuff other people are doing and decide whether it is worth adopting yourself. Every design solution has good consequences and bad ones. For instance UK armour is very effective at stopping all sorts of things. The bad side is that it makes the tank weigh 70+ tons and as side armour it is not as effective as a front armour because M1A2s have been penetrated from the side by standard RPG-7 rounds available in Iraq that are comparable to Russian RPG-7 rounds of the 1980s.

    It took an RPG-29 to drill a hole in the side of an M1 and the lower front of a Challey 2, and then it didn't destroy it. RPG-7s where fired at a Challey 2 all day and didn't penetrate. It takes more than Soviet era weapons to take these tanks out. The weight makes logistics a pain, but the soldiers that ride them are great-full for the protection it provides.

    There is no such thing as an invincible tank... even 23mm cannon fire can smash all those expensive optics and shatter tracks.

    I would expect a large force of Leclercs and Leopard IIs and M1A2s and Challenger IIs would meet the same fate as people in bunkers if hit by a volley from a TOS unit... ie their lungs hanging out their mouths and burnt to a crisp.

    TOS is not accurate enough to hit a tank, nor would a near miss affect an NBC enclosed vehicle.



    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  medo on Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:56 pm

    I doubt Russian army will not buy new tanks and BMPs. After all, they will also produce Tiger-M and buy IVECO LMV, they buy israely UAVs and also order russian build UAVs Zala, Eniks and Orlan, they buy additional 30 Mi-28N, etc. I more think army want to buy modernized version T-90M and BMP-3M and all this is just to make process quicker to produce newer versions.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:06 am

    They have said they will not buy new tanks in 2011.

    I very much hope their communication with UVZ is not through the media and that they are directly talking with each other so that they both know what the Armies plans are.

    Hopefully to get them busy they might start the upgrade of T-72s, they have stated they want a force of 1,500 T-90s and a force of about 5-6,000 in reserve.

    The original difference between the T-72 and the T-80 was that the T-80 was the expensive and more capable tank while the T-72 was cheap and easy to make and mass produce. There was no commonality between the T-72 and T-80. The only company that makes T-80s is in the Ukraine so in the competition between the T-72 and the T-80 the makers of the T-72 dropped their low cost ease of manufacture focus and upgraded everything to as best they could manage. The resulting tank was called T-90, but now it has little in common with the T-72 or T-80. The T-72 upgrade is supposed to introduce most of the new parts developed for the T-90 into the T-72 to improve performance and greatly reduce the range of parts and components they need to keep in stock. Making the T-72 more like the T-90 means they can have the benefits of having all T-90s without the cost of building that many T-90s.

    With the Heavy Brigades operating vehicles of T-90 level weight and protection will be good for UVZ, because it means BTRT type vehicles for that unit.
    The question is what is holding up army production of tanks?

    If it is to save money on something that is not critical at the moment then UVZ need to know this, otherwise lots of money will be wasted keeping production capacity available if it is not needed.

    With their light brigades they will need large numbers of light wheeled vehicles, but the thing that was preventing Tiger-M production was the American engine. This has been sorted as a new Russian engine will be ready by the end of this year and production for the Russian Army starts next year. The Iveco deal was an opportunity to buy some production technology so although it is foreign designed it will be made in Russia. The Israeli UAV purchases were for testing and evaluation purposes and to create a starting point to define performance requirements for Russian UAVs. Russian companies had UAVs already, but the Israeli systems are proven in service systems that have been used in combat. Once they have trained on these and get an understanding of what UAVs can do well and what they have problems with they can start deciding how they want to use them and what features are important. It is for the airforce so long range and high altitude and high speed are all useful features for example.

    I more think army want to buy modernized version T-90M and BMP-3M and all this is just to make process quicker to produce newer versions.

    I agree, and hope talk of cancelling the T-90 improvements program called Burlak is just talk. A full improvement and upgrade to give it new equipment and new capabilities and to remove old problems like ammo in the crew compartment are all very important changes that greatly improve performance and survivability without greatly increasing cost.

    Here is a drawing showing the new turret on the right with the old turret on the left with the large round rotating mount for the HMG. On the right image this has been moved to the rear so that it doesn't obstruct the commanders external view. It is operated from inside the vehicle by remote control.


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:09 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:09 pm