Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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.

    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 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 : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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

    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 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 : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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 ?

    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 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 : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    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.

    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 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 : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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 : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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 ?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    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.

    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 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.

    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 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 : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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.

    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 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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:03 am

    Vladimir79 wrote: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.

    Exactly what I was trying to convey , In India too Arjun too needs a special railway bed , the bridges on Indo-Pak border may not take any thing over 50 plus ton , pakistan like India operates T series , India infra like floating bridges etc are all designed to take T's

    Hence Arjun acknowledge superior in some parameters to T-90 will not see a short life.

    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.


    I would think the weight and logistics would have played its part in cancelling besides using a 152 mm Smooth Bore which is clearly not the standard with existing gun of 125 mm type.

    The only import Russia would need is on TI front and Netcentric/Communications equipment,something they might end up Lic manufacturing from France or Italy.

    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 Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:31 am

    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.

    Indeed that would fit their needs, there was a lot of talk in the west about tanks made out of various types of plastics that were light and easy to fix and the plastic acted as an effective armour.

    Perhaps automating the tank further to a 2 man crew might enable a tank be further reduced in size too.

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

    Or better armour. Currently western armour is bulky and heavy, while the Soviets/Russians have gone for all sorts of different types of protection including ERA to reduce armour weight and vehicle size.

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

    At the end of the day no tank is invincible and so it is a case of determining what the threats are and what can be done to protect your tank from them while still keeping it mobile and with a weapon that makes the whole vehicle useful.

    From a design point of view there are things you need and things you don't need. For example most western tanks have a human loader. The extra internal volume for one extra man plus their kit and that extra space in the turret. This has to be protected so you increase the size of the armour to protect the extra internal volume.

    In Russian vehicles the loader has been replaced by an auto loading mechanism. This reduces the size of the turret which means it needs less armour to protect the crew. Remember the armour on the front of the turret is the most likely hit in combat so it is also the thickest and heaviest armour on the tank. The smaller you can make the front of the turret the better.

    Also rather than having extra layers of armour on the exterior of the tank the Russians also use ERA of various types to increase the effectiveness of the existing armour plate.
    This is a bit like angling armour so with a minor increase in weight the armour protection provided is greatly improved.

    I would also add that the US has a program to design and build a 40 ton class tank... it has been shown on their future weapons programs on discovery channel. It looks like an Abrams that has been in a car crusher and crushed down by 1/3rd. The barrel is square on an angle so it looks like a diamond shape end on.

    We are going to have to import some technologies to build true modern tanks.

    I disagree. I think an upgraded T-90 will be fine for the next decade. In fact I believe it has been mentioned that when the T-95 program lost funding that they said they would concentrate on upgrades of the T-90. With new Armour and new FCS and new EO jammer and new ERA that covers it better, with modern French ESSM and Catherine Thermal imagers, with new communcations and battle management systems, with a new turret bustle autoloader that allows the tank to operate with no free ammo in the crew compartment and allowing longer penetrators to be used I think it will be an excellent front line tank for a decade or more.

    I would think the weight and logistics would have played its part in cancelling besides using a 152 mm Smooth Bore which is clearly not the standard with existing gun of 125 mm type.

    I would think when they get rid of the older tanks one advantage they will enjoy is that they will have standardised their tank fleet to 125mm calibre high velocity guns.
    A 152mm smoothbore will make fire and forget tube launched missiles a serious option because of the calibre with the added bonus of offering diving top attack threats to Russias enemies and the larger calibre HEAT warhead will be much more effective because of its extra calibre alone.
    I would think that the next gen tank will have a lot of the new technologies that were developed for the T-95. The difference will be that when it appears the new T-95 will be like the Su-35S... a totally new design in the sense that most of the internals are Russian, but also much better than the old aircraft in performance in every way.

    I would expect that 152mm calibre would allow a gun tube launched UAV with fold out wings that can be launched ahead of an armoured unit and the imagery could be watched by all the vehicles in the unit with one vehicle commanding the UAV to find targets or check for damage... it could even be fitted with a warhead if it finds a soft target.


    To create a next gen tank you will need a next gen army for it to operate within, so C4IR needs to be much further developed before a new tank will likely be needed.

    Personally I am more interested in the medium brigades, because with BMP levels of armour and mobility it will make the further development of the BMP-3 with the UAE very interesting. Will they retain the layout and preserve amphibious capability, or will they go for the 30-35 ton Bradley approach and give up gun ports and amphibious capability.

    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 Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:43 am

    You could argue that experience from recent conflicts that the purpose of a tank is no longer huge massed tank force fighting another huge massed tank force, and that mobile accurate gun platform that is very well protected could be more useful.

    Soviet use of 73mm and then 100mm guns on their APCs suggests direct fire support is considered valuable. During WWII most vehicles the west considered artillery or tank killers like the Su-76, ISU-122 and ISU-152, were actually used in a direct fire support role most of the time.

    Based on this it could be argued that enormous fleets of heavy tanks is a waste of resources and if the Russian armed forces ever faces huge masses of enemy tanks then the solution is not large masses of its own tanks, but air power and of course heavy artillery firing anti tank cluster munitions. Helos and CAS aircraft.
    Even Tu-22M3s with cluster munitions like the MMW radar and IR sensor fused submunitions.
    These very simple devices are dropped over areas with armoured vehicles with a parachute that makes them spin as they fall. As they fall and spin they stare at a point on the ground with an IR and MMW radar sensor that can detect heat and metal respectively.
    Metal targets with engines running will set off the main charge which is a flat metal disc with a huge explosive charge behind it that accelerates the flat metal disc towards the target at about 6km/s. The aerodynamic forces reshape the disc and it impacts the top of the tank at very high speed punching though and doing damage.
    An IR sensor that detects the target is already on fire will look for another target.
    As it falls the circle it searches in gets smaller and smaller till it hits the ground... where it rolls over and becomes an anti tank mine pointing upwards.

    Fairly cheap and in production since 1996. The older model with the radar only entered production in 1987 in SMERCH units.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:36 pm

    Thanks Garry , Does russia have such a shell with MMW and IR seeker ?

    I believe US is going for a much heavier model of MBT compared to M1A2 to M1A2SEP

    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 Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:18 pm

    The Soviets standardised their cluster munitions so artillery and airborne cluster bombs and release units use some of the same munitions.
    The munitions include the BETAB-B which is a rocket propelled spike with a small HE payload that is released over airfields. At a certain height the rocket motors drive the spikes into the ground and a HE charge makes a deep crater.
    The SPBE-D is the MMW Radar and IR guided munition and can be put in the standard RBK-500 500kg cluster bombs, PBK-500U gliding cluster bomb. The SPBE-K is still available for targets that are not thermal contrast objects.

    For the Smerch system the 9N152 is the specific rocket with the sensor fused submunitions... it carries 5 munitions per rocket. For the 500kg cluster bombs above each carries 15 munitions.

    For the Grad rocket system the 9M217 is the specific rocket that carries the sensor fused submunitions and it carries 2 per rocket.

    This means an aircraft dropping two cluster bombs releases 30 sensor fused submunitions. A Smerch vehicle can launch 60 sensor fused submunitions into a launch area, and a single Grad vehicle could launch 80 sensor fused submunitions into a launch area.

    A battery of Smerch launchers is 6 vehicles so that means 360 sensor fused submunitions over a target area up to 90km from the launch area.

    A battery of Grad launchers is 6 vehicles so that mean 480 sensor fused submunitions over a target area up to 30km from the launch area

    I have read that in absence of fire and forget guided anti tank missiles like Maverick for the Su-25 its most potent anti armour loading is 8 RBK-500 cluster bombs with sensor fused submunitions.

    I should also add the KGMU-2 which has no real direct analogs in the west... apart from the large munition dispensers for the Tornado.
    It looks like a bomb but it contains cluster munitions and is not designed to be released from the aircraft after use.
    In many ways it is like a rocket pod, except instead of containing rockets it contains cluster munitions.
    When used it opens belly doors and releases the munitions over the target area but the container itself remains attached to the aircraft.

    It means the pilot can control the release height and therefore also the spread of the submunitions simply by altering the height at which they release the submunitions.
    Anyway, it can carry the SPBE sensor fused submunitions too.


    Whether they actually have large numbers of these weapons in service or not is another matter but the older K model has been available since the late 1980s and the newer more sophisticated D model with MMW and IR sensors has been available for export since 1996.

    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 Jan 05, 2011 6:42 pm

    I guess Garry was right all the time. We have a prophet on our forum. Very Happy

    Here is pic of T-90M on testing.


    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 Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:04 am

    Damn, I wish there was a closer clearer image of that stuff sticking up from the turret... is it a new tower with sensors for an upgraded ARENA? Or is it something else...

    Very pleased to see the turret bustle autoloader... removing loose ammo from the crew compartment will save lives and also allow longer more effective penetrator to be used and assuming 22 in the turret bustle loader and 30 in the turret bustle this tank will have the most ready to use ammo of any Russian or Soviet tank since the T-26.
    (Yes, I know the T-34 has more than 50 rounds but they are stored all over the place and are not "ready to fire").

    It makes good sense for them to improve the T-90 design to a standard where it can be produced and the components unified.

    This is good for the crews and the maintainence costs.

    It has long been a Soviet tradition in the tank crews to keep the best tanks in storage and use older vehicles for training so that the more expensive tanks are in good condition if they are needed.
    Having a unified upgrade for existing T-90s, existing T-72s and new build T-90s means that the new build T-90s can be kept for when needed and the upgraded T-72s can be used for training and exercises.

    Remember that under the old system there were three standards of readiness... first, second and third (very imaginative really). First were the operational units in important places in the Soviet Union and in foreign deployments like Germany. They were pretty much ready to go and were basically the standing Soviet army. They trained on previous generation vehicles for the basics but if push came to shove they would get the latest kit from storage... have a quick refresher and then go into battle so to speak. The second line units had perhaps half their manpower and all their kit so it would be a week or so before they were mobilised and ready.
    The third level units had skeleton manning levels and incomplete equipment stores and they would likely get much of their equipment from the in use stuff the first line units were using. It would take a month to man and equip such a unit.

    With the new structure there is no 2nd and 3rd level forces, it is all first line forces which means in the short term in a surprise attack the Russian military will actually be better able to act with a larger force than the Soviet forces. The problem is that the second and third reserve forces will take much longer to put together.
    Of course with a modern first line and tactical nukes I would think most conflicts will be over in a week anyway.
    A smaller, faster acting force, with high tech equipment and C4IR gear should be much better suited to the job.

    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 Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:26 pm

    There has being no word about any new Russian new long penetrators witch is essential. We dont want T-90 become F-35 do we?

    Ability to see first matters cozz you can destroy first and for that you need high RHa penetrators because every fool today adds more armor to its armored forces.

    btw ... glad to se Terminator still alive. I always liked that monster and would be nice to see it on the battlefield.

    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 Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:11 pm

    Well lets not jump to any conclusions, for all we know this is just a continuation of testing for both vehicles.

    Obviously for their future plans to make sense they need a new revised and improved production standard T-90 to form the bulk of their fleet.

    They will want as much as possible of the components to be Russian made so current plans for French communications systems to be licence produced will mean a least a 2-3 year delay to get these and the C4IR gear sorted and for production facilities to be set up and start production so that time can also be used for updated ARENA and updated SHTORA and other updated systems to be worked on and sorted out.

    There was supposed to be a new improved gun being designed for the new upgrade and with that will be new ammo perhaps.

    With a new main gun you introduce problems where new ammo might be higher pressure that will damage older guns, but by making the new ammo with penetrators so long they wont fit into the older auto loaders you eliminate the chance of barrel damage. As the old tanks get the new auto loaders they should also get the new guns as well.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:04 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:04 pm