Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Share
    avatar
    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 544
    Points : 668
    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
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    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.
    avatar
    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 3068
    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.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1171
    Points : 2065
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    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?
    avatar
    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 3068
    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.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    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
    avatar
    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 3068
    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.


    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3131
    Points : 3223
    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.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    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.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-95 MBT Program

    Post  Austin on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:33 pm

    Found this interview published today , it states a follow on to T-95 is in heavy development and its states that it will be electric tank

    Check the whole interview but I am posting the relevant part.

    Oleg Sienko, director general of JSC "SPC" Uralvagonzavod

    Is based on T-95 to create a simplified car? It is often said that the car industry is very complex and it will not do.

    We are working to create a single combat platform, it is in heavy development, I can say that there is achieved a new quality, we are developing it, of course, at the request of the military.

    And it takes into account the experience of T-95?

    Certainly.

    And when will be shown this new platform, developed, apparently by the ROC "Armata": up to 2015 or later?

    Of course, we will not wait for 2015, it was too late. We are working on it, and on other platforms. Design and new engines - power of 1500 hp. с. with. и 1800 л. and 1800 liters they are tested, the most important thing is that their production had no problems at komplektatorov.We are working on electric, it provides better fuel economy and smoothness. In general, the big advantage over traditional engines.

    — The new unified platform will be electric?

    Yes, it is likely.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:41 am

    I think I guessed here previously that they might go for a gas turbine electric powered vehicle.

    Gas turbine powered tanks are notorious for their fuel consumption, the first tank with gas turbine propulsion was the T-80 and it cost quite a lot to run, as did the later M1 Abrams.

    The situation there was made worse because the gas turbine was directly delivering power, whereas the ideal set up would have the gas turbine directly generating electric power with electric motors driving the vehicle. This means that the gas turbine can be continuously run at an efficient RPM instead a continuously variable RPM to meet the needs of the terrain being crossed and the gear the tank was in.

    Most power stations that use diesel fuel use gas turbines because they are compact and powerful and efficient at generating power.

    Once you separate them from the transmission they are efficient.

    BTW mention of ARMATA is interesting...:

    First, these are the level of protection of the main tank, designed for combat in direct contact with the enemy. They will come into service of heavy type formations.
    The second family of vehicles with a BMPs level protection the formations for action in difficult terrain and in areas of coastal waters will be equipped with these, also they may commission raids behind enemy lines, as well as fight with small-size (portable) anti-tank detachments of the enemy.
    The third family of vehicles is expected to be on the basis of military automobile technology in an armored version with mounted advanced types of weapons, including precision and based on new physical principles, systems and command, C4ISR, EW, etc.
    Planning the improvement of military equipment within the medium term, we clearly envision what should be the facing as the Army in 10-15 years. To this end, participating in drafting the state armaments program for 2011-2020, the main leitmotif of which should be to create a weapon system that meets the requirements of the XXI century.
    Now the Army plans to carry this out in two stages. In the first (2011-2015) the main focus will be on procurement of modern armaments and military equipment items, especially for rocket and artillery units, reconnaissance, electronic warfare and communications, and automated control systems for tactical level. While continuing to develop a new family of platforms such as light (Typhoon), medium ("Boomerang" and "Kurganets-25") and heavy ("Armata").

    Also comments on a thread Vlad posted about the E300 chassis made me take notice... the design was supposed to allow front, mid, or rear engine position. Think about it. An electric motor means no gears or transmission needed and you could place the Gas Turbine engine whereever you wanted... you could even put it in the back of the turret if you wanted a heavy APC with rear ramp doors.

    Things should be very interesting in the next few years to see what they come up with.

    The T-95 was said to be expensive because of all the foreign components... perhaps high power electric motors were one of those foreign expensive items?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:35 am

    Garry , I did not get what he was trying to say , what I understood is there is a new Tank which will have

    1500 hp engine
    1800 liters of fuel
    Unified platform will be electric

    Now exactly what do they mean by electric ? How does it differ from a normal tank like T-90 which probably uses hydraulics , can you please explain if you know what they are talking about ?

    Thanks
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:37 am

    Think of a normal petrol driven car.

    You have an engine that transfers mechanical energy via a drive shaft and a transmission and a differential to the wheels.
    The transmission allows you to use gearing so that you can go slow with the engine turning fast but the wheels go round slower and you can go fast with a high gear where the engine goes and the wheels go faster. You can also choose a reverse gear where the engine goes the same way it always goes but the wheels go backwards.
    The differential is for when you turn. If you think about it as you turn, the wheels on the inside of the turn do not travel as far as the wheels on the outside of the turn. If both wheels are powered that means both wheels will be turning at the same rate so the inner wheels will spin because they are forced to turn the same amount as the wheels on the outside of the turn.
    A differential simply allows the outer wheels to turn more and the inner wheels to turn less.

    Edit: you would also add the complication of a gear box too, which becomes a little redundant for an electric drive vehicle.

    For this new tank rip out the engine, the drive shaft, the transmission, and the diff. On each wheel you put a powerful electric motor to turn the wheel and drive the vehicle forward or backward.
    Now to power this vehicle you need a reliable power source and the simplest way to get that is to take a small powerful gas turbine engine and connect it to another electric motor. The gas turbine doesn't need a transmission or gears or anything, just a direct connection to an electric motor. When you put an electric current through an electric motor it spins a shaft that you can put a wheel or propeller or whatever on. If you attach a gas turbine motor to the shaft and use the gas turbine motor to spin the shaft on an electric motor it becomes a dynamo that generates electricity. This electricity can be directly wired to a capacitor bank and a battery bank to store electrical charge and it can also be sent directly to the electric motors on the wheels to move the vehicle.
    The only connection between the power pack (which is the gas turbine and electric generator) is electrical cables so you can put the power pack in the front, the middle, or the rear of the vehicle.
    You could mount it in the roof or the floor or a turret position if you wanted... gas turbines can be quite compact things.

    Because there is no mechanical connection to the wheels the gas turbine can be kept at an energy efficent rpm which greatly improves fuel efficiency.

    Most hydraulic systems in the tank could be replaced with electric.
    The potential for electric armour, and even plasma guns suddenly becomes much more viable. Very simply a plasma gun replaces the solid propellent with a much hotter material that offers the potential enormous boost in muzzle velocities.
    The propellent could be a liquid made up of two or more components that might be poisonous separately but not flammable. You could store these liquids separately in the turret so there is little chance they will contribute to a fire (because they need to be mixed first). Squirt an amount of each fluid into the barrel behind a round and then zap it with an enormous charge of electricity to turn it into a plasma. Different rounds could have different charges depending on the weight of the round and the velocity required. A particular target might warrant a higher propellent charge, whereas most shots might even need a reduced charge which should extend the barrel life.
    The safety of moving such a dangerous thing as ammo propellent and separating it out into two non flammable materials would greatly improve safety for operations and for reloading the tank. An RPG hit on such a tank would not even cause a fire.

    Should also add that especially with wheeled vehicles if you drive up a hill you are using electrical power... when you get to the top of the hill and start down the other side, not only are you not using electrical power to go down, you actually generate power because your momentum and the down slope will allow you to stop supplying electricity to the electric motors to keep driving you forward. If the slope is steep enough you might be able to maintain speed by no sending any power to the electric motors... and an electric motor with its drive shaft spinning is a dynamo or electric generator adding power to your capacitors/batteries.
    The wheels can have brakes fitted or you can use electrical power for the equivelent of engine braking.

    An enormous benefit will be lack of noise... for a stealth approach turn off the gas turbine and use batteries to sneak around at night. A gas turbine is actually much quieter than a diesel engine anyway. Its main faults are it generates a lot of heat, and it uses much more fuel than a diesel because it lacks torque and compensates with rpm. This compensation is bad for fuel efficiency.
    Eliminating the mechanical stress of acceleration on the gas turbine however and just using it for power generation means it can be made much more efficient. Also increasing power of a gas turbine will be much easier than increasing the power of a diesel.

    An example would be the 11,500hp gas turbine in the Mi-26 could make a super tank power plant with lasers and defence shields to make luke skywalker cry. An 11,500hp diesel would need a ship to carry it.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:01 am

    Great Explanation Garry , this makes things much simpler Thanks.

    Wouldn't moving to Gas Turbine Engine over Diesel as used in T-90/80 would be complete change in the entire logistics that Army has been built.

    One of the argument against GT engine is you now need to carry the Liquid Gas fuel out in the battle field which are volatile compared to diesel.

    Plus as we have seen in Gulf War GT engine would suck up fine sand and this would put the system out of functioning.

    Probably the solution is they can go for a Diesel Engine ( 1500 HP ) and Electric Tank ?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:47 am

    The gas turbine used in the T-80 was a multifuel gas turbine and could run on petrol, kerosene, diesel, benzine or any mixtures of the above.

    The jet engines of the Su-25 can also run on diesel too.

    Regarding logistics a gas turbine is smaller and simpler to maintain and operate.

    The problems with them are they like clean air, they burn lots of fuel if they are the direct power source, and they generate a lot of hot air.

    Soviet helos had all sorts of complex dust filters fitted to them to operate in all sorts of environments and they seemed to be quite successful.

    Diesels generate heat too.

    Gat turbines are smaller, and lighter than diesels... which is why jet engines are so popular in aircraft... because their compact size and light weight are useful for aircraft... especially helicopters.

    Regarding a diesel engine with a generator as a power pack that would still work but the diesel will be much larger and heavier and actually less fuel efficient than a good gas turbine engine.

    The new electric drive system would be a complete change for the Army logistics system too.

    Many tanks already have auxiliary power units to provide power when the tank is not moving so that the main engine doesn't need to be running to power the optics and electronics. This saves a lot of fuel over the life time of the target and 99% of the time that APU uses a small gas turbine engine to generate the power to run the electronics etc. To generate electrical power the gas turbine is the most common solution.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:54 pm

    I think the only concern for Russian Army will be to gradually move the entire logistics supply to gas based fuel propulsion, it wont be easy because all the russians tank right now are on diesel and they will have to maintain dual supply chain of Gas and Diesel if the new tanks comes with GT and the newer T-90M and older T-72 operate side by side.

    But as a positive side as you have mentioned they are effecient and gas is one fuel that Russia has the largest in the world , so long term move to GT based engine would good for Russia.

    The other worry is export , if the new tank is to be exported then diesel engine provides the best option and world over most of the tanks are standardised on diesel engine.
    avatar
    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 3068
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:24 am

    Russia can't even make a hybrid car and backwards UVZ want to make a hybrid tank? That is called blowing smoke up our asses. We would have to import every battery cell.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:19 am

    Sorry Austin... I seem to have not been clear.

    The Gas Turbine the T-80 used ran on diesel.

    It can run on diesel fuel or Kerosene or Petrol (Gasoline) or any mixture of all three.

    Kerosene is aviation fuel, so if you happen upon an enemy forward airbase you can pour the kerosene aviation fuel you capture straight into your fuel tank and keep driving.

    The GTD-1250 is the most recently known about engine for the T-80 series and offers 1,250hp, so a 1,500hp engine wouldn't be a huge jump.

    There would be little logistic impact of using a gas turbine electric power pack. For commander tanks like the T-80UK they already have small gas tubine APUs that run all the radio equipment when the main engine is off and it runs on diesel from the main fuel tanks of the vehicle.

    Russia can't even make a hybrid car and backwards UVZ want to make a hybrid tank? That is called blowing smoke up our asses. We would have to import every battery cell.

    That sort of technology has wide applications... perhaps 15 years worth of investment hasn't been wasted?
    Remember they also work on trains, now an electric motor to drive a train is a powerful thing and would be ideal to drive a tank.
    The perfect camouflage... a Russian train making company wanting battery technology and electric motors for making electric train cars that is also using the technology to make electric tanks.

    As the experts from UVZ said they were unhappy with the performance of imported components and have started to make some of them themselves...

    I see this as positive.

    Considering Russia wants to go high tech then the applications for modern high energy batteries means investment would offer good returns. The Future Russian Soldier doesn't want to have to be supplied with as many AA bateries as bullets during a deployment.
    A large battery power supply that all his electronic kit can hook into to recharge built in lithium ion batteries in the various devices would be the best solution. This large battery could be rapidly charged in a vehicle or even a power point in an urban environment.

    Edit: I should add another advantage of electric motors is the fact that to reverse you just reverse the polarity of the electrical power supplied. With a diesel in a tank you need a gearbox with a reverse or several reverse gears. This means an electric tank can go backwards as fast as it can go forwards.

    In ships diesels are often stopped and started to run backwards to get reverse thrust, but some are now also electric drive so they can reverse with the flick of a switch and get as much reverse thrust as forward thrust (though because of their shape they don't go backwards as efficiently as they go forwards).

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:13 pm



    T-95 Tank

    More details link

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Gas Turbine the T-80 used ran on diesel.

    It can run on diesel fuel or Kerosene or Petrol (Gasoline) or any mixture of all three.

    Kerosene is aviation fuel, so if you happen upon an enemy forward airbase you can pour the kerosene aviation fuel you capture straight into your fuel tank and keep driving.

    Thanks Garry once again for your explanation.

    How can a Gas Turbine Engine run on Kerosene , Petrol , diesel where as a diesel engine would just run on diesel.

    How can one have such a multifuel engine and if this engine is indeed possible why dont we use GT engine in cars or trucks which can make it truly multifuel ?
    avatar
    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 3068
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:20 pm

    [quote="Austin"]
    GarryB wrote:

    How can a Gas Turbine Engine run on Kerosene , Petrol , diesel where as a diesel engine would just run on diesel.

    How can one have such a multifuel engine and if this engine is indeed possible why dont we use GT engine in cars or trucks which can make it truly multifuel ?

    It doesn't run on petrol. It uses petrol to heat up the kerosene then it switches valves. Fuel grade kerosene and diesel have similar viscosity and energy burn when heated. It isn't like you can dump kerosene from a lamp into the fuel tank, it has to be of a certain quality.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:13 am

    Well there have been pictures reported to be the T-95 prototype popping up all over the place and it is reportedly being tested... which kinda makes sense... after spending so long developing it they might as well give it a range of tests to see what it can do.

    That level of sophistication it will probably need to be delayed 5 years till the Russian Army is able to take advantage of its performance features... just like the Russian AF needs to upgrade to fully take advantage of the T-50 when it is ready for service.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:37 am

    How can one have such a multifuel engine and if this engine is indeed possible why dont we use GT engine in cars or trucks which can make it truly multifuel ?

    Obvious answer is that oil companies prefer you to buy their expensive petrol.
    During the 1970s when petrol prices went stupid a lot of cars here in NZ were converted to LPG, or Liquid Petroleum Gas. With a few electronic bits and a tank to hold the LPG... usually in the boot of the car, these converted cars could be fuelled by LPG or petrol. There were a few minor changes needed for the engine, but that petrol engine was able to operate burning gas instead of petrol.

    Most internal combustion engines can run on all sorts of fuels... including used vegetable oil.

    In the marketing brochure for the GTD-1250 engine it states "The GTD-1250 is a multifuel engine: it can operate on diesel fuel, kerosene, gasoline and their mixtures."
    Gasoline in this case means Petrol. Very simply it is designed to burn flammable liquid and it can handle the liquids listed above or their mixtures.

    The reason why not GT cars is for the same reason the T-80 and the M1 Abrams after it are fuel guzzlers. The GT has a specific rpm at which it is very efficient. Using it as a direct drive power source means it will be operating at variable rpms most of which will be inefficient in terms of fuel consumption.

    If you were designing a hybrid car from scratch then a small diesel up to about 100-150hp would be efficient, but if you wanted a hybrid truck or bus then a gas turbine would be much more efficient.
    Where space is limited a gas turbine is always an option and if car companies hadn't already spent large amounts of money on petrol and diesel engines making them cleaner burning and more fuel efficient you would probably see a lot more small gas turbines in such cars.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:37 am

    BTW Garry and Vlad I want to get your view on this

    Right now Russia is developing a new tank and highly likely mobility is the corner stone of new doctrine it will be in 40 T class [ 40 - 49 T ] much like T-90's.

    India too has similar new tank under development in 40T class , it has inducted new Arjun in 50- 60T class but that is not being considered by Army due to its heavy weight and only a small numbers will be inducted ,since india has nearly 3000 Tanks ( T-72/T-90 ) in 40T class , the entire logistic is build around it.

    Similarly the T-95 is said to be in 50T class ( ~ 55T ) and probably it is being cancelled for the same reason Arjun is which is it is heavy and probably in Russia too the entire logistics is build around the 40T T's

    But most of the tank around the world US,Western,Israel,China are in 50 - 60 T class.

    So heavy armour with powerful engine will mean better protection and mobility.

    So how does one justify having a 48T Tank like T-90 over say a 70T tank like Abrams.
    avatar
    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 3068
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:30 am

    The weight isn't a problem for Russian tank transporters, they can carry 60t. The issue is width, will it fit on the bed, will it fit through tunnels, can it role on a 55t capacity landed bridge? As long as it stays in the lower 50t range and width of current tanks, transport is not a problem.

    T-95 was canceled because of its lack of modern components. I suspect this new hybrid tank they are talking about meets those requirements. Truth of the matter is just a drawing board concept. We are going to have to import some technologies to build true modern tanks.

    40t tanks are justified when quantity is required over quality. Western tanks are so heavy because of all the composite armour, we skirted that weight and cost by adding ERA. Also lighter tanks require smaller engines, we do not make the big 1500hp engines the West uses. The uprated 1200hp we advert really only gets 1080hp. The 1000 closer to 880hp. Ukraine's gaz turbines are far better in the power ratings although they are maintenance intensive.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun May 28, 2017 10:21 pm