Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:16 am

    I had assumed there were no new tank orders this year because of the trials of the T-90AM were taking place and the T-90AM was intended to be the new standard T-90.
    It doesn't make sense to build 60-70 new T-90As this year if the T-90AM passes and T-90AMs become the production standard.
    AFAIK the changes to the T-90AM like the larger turret and turret bustle autoloader should not require new machine tools, but will require new turrets be made to upgrade existing older models.

    I think an issue will be that because those suppliers that make things like Kaktus ERA will have been working like crazy to meet the needs of the Indian Army will have production capacity becoming available, but for example that new Russian air conditioner that was recently developed may have problems going from prototype and testing to full scale production and of course production of thermal sights will need to be boosted because so many air defence and other armoured vehicles and even aircraft are going to be wanting thermal sights.

    If they buy new machinery, than MoD will for sure buy new tanks. No one
    is buying new production lines, which will never work and pay money
    back.

    UVZ is a huge organisation with a cold war capacity to build thousands of tanks per year, but for the last 20 years they have been surviving on railway car production to keep going.
    Retooling and building new production lines is not really an option unless you know what you are actually building. A production line is just that... a line. Now currently they have lines to make T-90As but to make T-90AMs they will need to change that line. First the part of the line that makes turrets will need to change the turret design to make the turret bigger and to add a rear turret bustle to the construction and assembly line.
    The enlarged turret hatches will make things like installing equipment easier and if they do a good job they might effect other aspects of tank operation like making reloading main gun tank ammo easier and quicker, or the rear turret area where the autoloader feeds ammo in could also double as a convenient way to remove the main guns breach components if that were necessary for example.
    New electronics will mean new wiring layouts etc etc, but lots of stuff will be very similar... though Kaktus will largely be built in ERA so it will be different.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:34 pm

    New Tank "Armada" may appear in the Russian army in 2015

    MOSCOW, April 28 - RIA Novosti. Tank next-generation code-named "Armada" will appear in the Russian army in 2015, told reporters in Moscow on Thursday, former first deputy chief control of the Defense Ministry Yuri Kovalenko.

    "The new machine will be in the Army in 2015, if all goes smoothly," - said Maj. Gen. Kovalenko. According to him, in the tank "Armada" will be the new automation, new ammunition, he can shoot on the move, in motion, the crew will be separated from ammunition inside the tower.

    "Such development is already" - the general said. Kovalenko said that this machine will be used achievements of previous generations, particularly the tank, "Black Eagle", which was planned to install automatic loader 32 shells per tower.

    He also noted that the Defense Ministry refused to produce the T-95. Now, he says, goes further modernization of the T-90AM.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  medo on Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:01 pm

    After all, T-90 was modified from T-72 and if production line is from times of T-72, than maybe they need to buy newer machines to replace old ones to get needed quality and quantity of tanks.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:12 am

    This is quite true, they have been exporting T-90s but not in huge numbers and from what I have read it has been its rail business that has been subsidising its tank business and keeping it alive for some time.
    This can't continue for ever and the Tank side of the business has to start paying for itself.
    A decent order from the Russian Army of say 200 T-90AM tanks per year for the next 5 years plus upgrades of 800 T-72s per year for 5 years will mean that by 2015 they will have just under 1,500 T-90 tanks (assuming about 420 or so existing T-90s of various models already in service), plus 4,000 upgraded T-72s for their reserve force would set them up to the force they wanted and it would be good for UVZ as well.
    With that sort of order they could update their tools and retrain and keep working a skilled work force and would be ready for producing Armata in 2015.
    They would also have their own funds to spend on Armata and subsidise their train segment of their business too.

    The electric drive system would be beneficial technology to trains and armoured vehicles... and ship design too.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:22 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Analyzing Defense technologies is not akin to analyzing Space anomalies.
    Just because it can happen doesn't mean it has. Like I've asked, is
    there any Russian 125 mm round that has been developed after the BM-42M
    that we know of?

    That we know of? No.
    Does that mean there isn't a new round, or several new rounds developed in the last 10 years since the BM-42M was developed? No.
    The company that makes 125mm main gun ammo has probably just taken a decade long holiday... after all the period of 1990 to 1999 was so well funded.

    Did a quick search of Tanknet and found this comment:

    A comment on the current state of the art of Russian rounds. There are
    two rounds currently in trials, one that is limited by the dimensions of
    current autoloaders and another that isn't. Dimensions of the first,
    22x630, weight and velocity unknown, penetrator ratio about 85%. Of the
    second, 22x726, weight with sabot 8.1kg, velocity unknown, penetrator
    ratio about 92%. Both rounds' penetrators appear monoblock.

    This comment was from the 9th of July 2009 and was made by Vassily Fofanov.

    Remember that in addition to tanks there are towed 125mm smoothbore anti tank guns still used in Russia so long rod penetrators that are too long to handle in auto loaders can still be produced and used.

    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    The whole length of the round is 730 mm. The whole length of the penetrator is 570 mm.

    The projectile length is 730mm but the rear of the projectile contains tracer material and does not aide in penetration.

    You were talking about projectiles.

    You were talking about round lengths, I was talking about penetrator lengths. Refer to post #22, when you copied and pasted a paragraph from Vasiliy:

    "This round has a total length of 740mm"

    To which I replied in post #33,

    "You are referring to the round's total length. I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter. "

    To which you replied in post #37,

    "The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant."

    Which boils down to that you were referring to the entire round (penetrator + sabot + tracer) being 740 mm long, while I was referring to the penetrator specifically being 570 mm long.

    In any case, I think that the BS-long discussion about Russian arty has
    elongated itself far too much, I shall do the duty of simplifying my
    side of the discussion.


    1. The M270 can fire both guided Rockets (M-30) and long range tactical missiles (ATACMS)
    2. To accomplish this task, you will need 1 Uragan and 1 Tochka
    3. Since we do not know the cost of 1 Uragan or 1 Tochka, you cannot assume that the M270 costs more
    4. The Smerch and Grad are not comparable systems of tube arty
    5. The M270 is also more modular; which is 'fixed' with the future Tornado MLRS


    My reply would be that the Smerch is designed for area targets and counter battery fire use for which its range and accuracy are excellent.

    To which I will further reply that because the M270 can fire the ATACMS, it outranges the Smerch and it's smaller BM series brethren in counter battery fire.


    Point 2 doesn't make sense because having short range guided rounds and long range guided rounds is not a task.

    I don't see how you're confused? Having medium range guided rockets means that you can land cluster munitions closer to where you need them or land a unitary charge where you want it. To do this you'd require a Uragan to spam-fire a grid-square to ensure that the target(s) are hit. To compete with what the ATACMS brings to the M270 you need to bring the Tochka into the game.


    Point 3 Of course Uragan is a fraction of the cost of M270... just the same as if the M270 was mounted on a cheap mobile truck chassis and didn't have any expensive long range guided rounds it would be much cheaper too.

    But like I've said, you don't know the cost of the Uragan + Tochka so you're simply assuming. Also, like I've said, you need the Tochka along with the Uragan to be competitive with the M270, to which means more vehicles, more manpower, more logistics, etc, etc, which boils down to more cost, to which, like I've said, you still don't know.


    Point 4... trick point because Smerch and Grad are not tube artillery, they are rocket artillery.

    It's a simple matter of fact, one is 300 mm caliber the other is 122 mm caliber. Lets compare similar calibers of tube arty, 227 mm v.s. 220 mm.


    Point 5 M270 is multi role but less flexible than a choice of three significantly different unguided rocket calibres.
    As I have pointed out unless the M270 can reload while moving its rapid reload capacity is not that important tactically.

    I honestly don't think you understand the idea of multi-role then. If it's multi-role it means that it's flexible. Being specifically designed, the BM-series can only hit targets from 0.3-90 km. With the M270, you can hit targets from 3-300 km. Warhead options are similar save the thermobaric and UAV options for the BM series. As I have further pointed out, because the reload is still 6 or 7 times faster than their Russian counterparts, they M270 can fire another volley after relocating faster than their Russian counterparts, which basically means more power in less time.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 01, 2011 5:50 am


    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we
    e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then
    input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an
    RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know
    of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    But you also said that these new penetrators didn't exist and only the BM-42M exists.
    I am sure you can now suggest that the two new penetrators in testing almost 2 years ago (July 2009) will be the same as the BM-42M and will not be longer or have better performance or improved materials etc etc... and you are entitled to that opinion.

    You were talking about round lengths, I was talking about penetrator
    lengths. Refer to post #22, when you copied and pasted a paragraph from
    Vasiliy:

    "This round has a total length of 740mm"

    To which I replied in post #33,

    "You
    are referring to the round's total length. I am referring specifically
    to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22
    mm in diameter. "

    To which you replied in post #37,

    "The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant."

    Which
    boils down to that you were referring to the entire round (penetrator +
    sabot + tracer) being 740 mm long, while I was referring to the
    penetrator specifically being 570 mm long.

    Nope.

    We were both talking about projectile length. Now you mention penetrator length.
    In your comments about longer western rounds I don't remember you distinguishing between penetrator and projectile length.

    To which I will further reply that because the M270 can fire the ATACMS,
    it outranges the Smerch and it's smaller BM series brethren in counter
    battery fire.

    If ATACMS range and accuracy make it better than Smerch then Tenders range and accuracy makes it better than ATACMS.

    I don't see how you're confused? Having medium range guided rockets
    means that you can land cluster munitions closer to where you need them
    or land a unitary charge where you want it. To do this you'd require a
    Uragan to spam-fire a grid-square to ensure that the target(s) are hit.
    To compete with what the ATACMS brings to the M270 you need to bring the
    Tochka into the game.

    Don't you see how you are confused? Rocket artillery is not supposed to be used against pin point targets, it is a volume fire system that fills the air very quickly with dangerous splinters and fire and death.
    If you want long range precision you need missiles ie ATACMs, Tender, Tochka.
    If you want to rail death and destruction on a forming area for an armoured battalion getting ready to mount an attack you get Smerch or M270 or Uragan or even Grad. (BTW Grad can deliver 80 guided anti armour top attack submunitions to a range of 40km in 20 seconds and be rolling about 10 seconds later to a new position... but I guess it is still crap in your opinion...)

    But like I've said, you don't know the cost of the Uragan + Tochka so you're simply assuming.

    I don't need to know the purchase cost to know the difference between the operational costs of a BMP chassis and a light truck and how they compare. The operational costs will be 5-10 times the purchase price... why do you think the BTR series exists and why LAVs are used instead of Bradleys despite the clearly inferior armour performance of the Lav over the Bradley?

    Also, like I've said, you need the Tochka along with the Uragan to be
    competitive with the M270, to which means more vehicles, more manpower,
    more logistics, etc, etc, which boils down to more cost, to which, like
    I've said, you still don't know.

    Have a look at these photos:





    and this one:



    Notice how the top truck looks small and light?
    Notice how the second truck looks like the third truck?
    Is the penny dropping yet?
    The top light truck with a single pallet of 6 x 300mm rockets is the Tornado and is a replacement for the Grad.
    The second truck is based on the third truck used with the Iskander/Tender system and can be fitted with two pallets of 6 x 300mm rockets... the same as Smerch.
    Have you seen the version of Iskander that instead of having two long range ballistic missiles it has 8 long thin tubes that look like the vertical launch tubes on the USUK naval vertical launch system?

    I am beginning to suspect that Grad, Uragan, and Smerch will be replaced with two platforms... one a cheap light truck and the other the same truck the Iskander is based on.
    The Iskander vehicle can also be fitted with Iskander/Tender missiles or the USUK naval vertical launch tubes... which means it could fire the members of the Club family of land attack cruise missiles, plus Onix, Yakhont, and Brahmos, and also the Kh-101 and Kh-102 conventionally armed cruise missiles.

    Makes the system quite capable and interesting while still keeping the different roles separate (ie rocket artillery and precision missile targeting).

    It's a simple matter of fact, one is 300 mm caliber the other is 122 mm
    caliber. Lets compare similar calibers of tube arty, 227 mm v.s. 220 mm.

    Each calibre was developed for a specific role with the 220mm and 300mm being used in roles the US uses 227mm rockets for.... BTW if we ignore 300mm and 122mm because they are different calibres shall we also ignore ATACMS because it is certainly not 227mm calibre either?


    I honestly don't think you understand the idea of multi-role then. If it's multi-role it means that it's flexible.

    Except that it isn't. Iskander forces don't operate with Smerch batteries because their roles are different. Their targets are largely different.

    Being specifically designed, the BM-series can only hit targets from 0.3-90 km.

    The BM series like most artillery units operate with friendly units though not right on the front line.
    The 90 km range of the Smerch means it can operate a little further back than other rocket artillery units and still reach deep inside enemy territory.
    This makes them safer but also means they can still do their job.

    An M270 battery operating the same distance back from the front line could only use ATACMS against enemy artillery units. Operating a normal distance from the front line will make them vulnerable to attack from Smerch without necessarily being able to hit the Smerch battery with more than ATACMs. It should be able to hit enemy armour but not Smerch batteries with the rocket barrage it is supposed to be able to deliver.

    It has turned from a Rocket artillery battery to a missile artillery battery with two missiles per vehicle.... and to be honest in that role Tender kicks its butt.

    Jack of all trades but master of none... the problem is that it is inferior in the extreme as Rocket artillery.

    There is an old saying... if the only tool you have is a hammer... treat every problem as if it were a nail.
    But then another saying is the difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional uses the right tool for the job.

    Different tools for different armies... I am sure if the Chinese become a problem a hoards of armour start moving into Russian territory that Smerch and Tender together will be rather more use than M270 would be to them.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun May 01, 2011 6:57 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we
    e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then
    input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an
    RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know
    of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    But you also said that these new penetrators didn't exist and only the BM-42M exists.
    I am sure you can now suggest that the two new penetrators in testing almost 2 years ago (July 2009) will be the same as the BM-42M and will not be longer or have better performance or improved materials etc etc... and you are entitled to that opinion.

    Oh yes, so if they're in testing they aren't in service. We're not here to predict the future we're here to discuss facts.

    You were talking about round lengths, I was talking about penetrator
    lengths. Refer to post #22, when you copied and pasted a paragraph from
    Vasiliy:

    "This round has a total length of 740mm"

    To which I replied in post #33,

    "You
    are referring to the round's total length. I am referring specifically
    to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22
    mm in diameter. "

    To which you replied in post #37,

    "The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant."

    Which
    boils down to that you were referring to the entire round (penetrator +
    sabot + tracer) being 740 mm long, while I was referring to the
    penetrator specifically being 570 mm long.

    Nope.

    We were both talking about projectile length. Now you mention penetrator length.
    In your comments about longer western rounds I don't remember you distinguishing between penetrator and projectile length.

    That was a definition problem. What should of been established was the Round assembly and the Penetrator, the former has a length of 730 mm and the latter has a length of 570 mm. They are also designated BM-44M and BM-42M respectively. Any problems?

    To which I will further reply that because the M270 can fire the ATACMS,
    it outranges the Smerch and it's smaller BM series brethren in counter
    battery fire.

    If ATACMS range and accuracy make it better than Smerch then Tenders range and accuracy makes it better than ATACMS.

    But like I've discussed, Tochka/Tender only adds to the cost.

    I don't see how you're confused? Having medium range guided rockets
    means that you can land cluster munitions closer to where you need them
    or land a unitary charge where you want it. To do this you'd require a
    Uragan to spam-fire a grid-square to ensure that the target(s) are hit.
    To compete with what the ATACMS brings to the M270 you need to bring the
    Tochka into the game.

    Don't you see how you are confused? Rocket artillery is not supposed to be used against pin point targets, it is a volume fire system that fills the air very quickly with dangerous splinters and fire and death.
    If you want long range precision you need missiles ie ATACMs, Tender, Tochka.
    If you want to rail death and destruction on a forming area for an armoured battalion getting ready to mount an attack you get Smerch or M270 or Uragan or even Grad. (BTW Grad can deliver 80 guided anti armour top attack submunitions to a range of 40km in 20 seconds and be rolling about 10 seconds later to a new position... but I guess it is still crap in your opinion...)

    I do see how you are confused. If you can hit the target with one rocket instead of destroying the grid square than you can thus, destroy 12 targets with your rocket load compared to having to use 144 rockets for the same task. It's all about maximizing efficiency. As I've said before, the Grad is crap, paper rockets, dumb paper rockets, and long reload. Might as well buy a Smerch.

    But like I've said, you don't know the cost of the Uragan + Tochka so you're simply assuming.

    I don't need to know the purchase cost to know the difference between the operational costs of a BMP chassis and a light truck and how they compare. The operational costs will be 5-10 times the purchase price... why do you think the BTR series exists and why LAVs are used instead of Bradleys despite the clearly inferior armour performance of the Lav over the Bradley?

    So if you don't know the costs why are you even talking...like I've said before, more equipment means more money, that is quite simple. Because the M270 packs all that equipment on a common frame, it's actually quite cheap, compared to placing equipment on multiple frames, which means more and more maintenance.

    Also, like I've said, you need the Tochka along with the Uragan to be
    competitive with the M270, to which means more vehicles, more manpower,
    more logistics, etc, etc, which boils down to more cost, to which, like
    I've said, you still don't know.

    Have a look at these photos:

    and this one:

    Notice how the top truck looks small and light?
    Notice how the second truck looks like the third truck?
    Is the penny dropping yet?
    The top light truck with a single pallet of 6 x 300mm rockets is the Tornado and is a replacement for the Grad.
    The second truck is based on the third truck used with the Iskander/Tender system and can be fitted with two pallets of 6 x 300mm rockets... the same as Smerch.
    Have you seen the version of Iskander that instead of having two long range ballistic missiles it has 8 long thin tubes that look like the vertical launch tubes on the USUK naval vertical launch system?

    I am beginning to suspect that Grad, Uragan, and Smerch will be replaced with two platforms... one a cheap light truck and the other the same truck the Iskander is based on.
    The Iskander vehicle can also be fitted with Iskander/Tender missiles or the USUK naval vertical launch tubes... which means it could fire the members of the Club family of land attack cruise missiles, plus Onix, Yakhont, and Brahmos, and also the Kh-101 and Kh-102 conventionally armed cruise missiles.

    Makes the system quite capable and interesting while still keeping the different roles separate (ie rocket artillery and precision missile targeting).

    "If it looks like a duck it has to be a duck".

    Like I've said, I want actual figures, not pictorial guesstimates, when it comes to cost.

    It's a simple matter of fact, one is 300 mm caliber the other is 122 mm
    caliber. Lets compare similar calibers of tube arty, 227 mm v.s. 220 mm.

    Each calibre was developed for a specific role with the 220mm and 300mm being used in roles the US uses 227mm rockets for.... BTW if we ignore 300mm and 122mm because they are different calibres shall we also ignore ATACMS because it is certainly not 227mm calibre either?

    No. The difference with the ATACMS is that it's capable of being fired from the same platform, thus it's apart of the unitary system. The difference with the BM-30 and BM-21 is that they are not on the same platform, they are based on different trucks, thus you'd require more than 1 truck to do the same task as the M270.


    I honestly don't think you understand the idea of multi-role then. If it's multi-role it means that it's flexible.

    Except that it isn't. Iskander forces don't operate with Smerch batteries because their roles are different. Their targets are largely different.

    Not so. The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with accuracy. The Iskander is designed to hit stationary targets at long range with accuracy. The ATACMS does the same thing. When you isolate your systems, like what the Russians did with their BM-series and "large" caliber rockets-series, a strategic strike will effectively neutralize your capability to do one or the other. With the M270, a multi-role, flexible platform, take one out and the other can do it's job. It's spreading your beans out instead of putting them in single baskets. It's smarter, safer, and overall, more cost effective. The Russians have realized this and thus they've created the Tornado, a step closer to the M270.

    Being specifically designed, the BM-series can only hit targets from 0.3-90 km.

    The BM series like most artillery units operate with friendly units though not right on the front line.
    The 90 km range of the Smerch means it can operate a little further back than other rocket artillery units and still reach deep inside enemy territory.
    This makes them safer but also means they can still do their job.

    An M270 battery operating the same distance back from the front line could only use ATACMS against enemy artillery units. Operating a normal distance from the front line will make them vulnerable to attack from Smerch without necessarily being able to hit the Smerch battery with more than ATACMs. It should be able to hit enemy armour but not Smerch batteries with the rocket barrage it is supposed to be able to deliver.

    It has turned from a Rocket artillery battery to a missile artillery battery with two missiles per vehicle.... and to be honest in that role Tender kicks its butt.

    Jack of all trades but master of none... the problem is that it is inferior in the extreme as Rocket artillery.

    There is an old saying... if the only tool you have is a hammer... treat every problem as if it were a nail.
    But then another saying is the difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional uses the right tool for the job.

    Different tools for different armies... I am sure if the Chinese become a problem a hoards of armour start moving into Russian territory that Smerch and Tender together will be rather more use than M270 would be to them.

    But like I've said, the M270 won't be the same distance from the Smerch, it'd be farther from the Smerch than the Smerch can fire from. Thus the Smerch becomes useless. I've also stated that you can fit 3 configurations for the M270, 12 rockets, 2 missiles, or 6 rockets and 1 missile. Jack of all trades, it is, kill a Grad, bomb the Smerch, safe from all BM-series. Like I've said, Russia will not use Smerch or Tender if a Chinese tank rush occurs in Far Eastern Siberia. They'd use Tornado and it's rapid reload capability to spam guided AT munitions in and around where the Chinese tanks are. That rapid reload capability is something the BM-series nor the Tochka/Tender has, but the M270 does have. The M270 is like a Swiss knife and the BM-series/Tochka/Tender are like everything in it. Multi-purpose, flexible, gold-plated tube arty; but still best arty.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun May 01, 2011 1:46 pm

    Armor Penetration ... well i would really like to know what kind of "complex formula" discussed above ..

    So far i found around 3 available, starting from ol friend Zraver's extension of Kinetic energy/11.000 till the one i found from "Tactical Missile Design 1st Edition by Eugene Fleeman" dealing with Kinetic energy warhead.

    Well let's start by ol friend Zraver's fun

    P=1/2M*V^2/11000

    P=Penetration (mm)
    M=Mass of Penetrator (Kg)
    V=Velocity in m/s


    So.. let's say we have a penetrator with mass of 8,9 Kg travelling at speed of 1750 m/s

    plugging the variables above would give penetration result of 1236.9 mm

    Another formula is from old discussion in world affair board (Zraver is mod there..)

    T * (1/cos@)^0.75 = (M/D^3) * (D/L)^0.3 *(v^2/U^2)

    T = plate thickness (cm) or equvalent thickness (RHAe)
    @ = angle
    u = Penetrator Material constant (Depeleted Uranium is 3400, Steel is 4200)
    L = penetrator length (cm)
    M = penetrator mass (g)
    D = penetrator diameter (cm)
    v = penetrator velocity (m/s)


    more complex but consider more variables ..like obliquity and penetrator materials .However the one who come up with this does not state where did he get this magnificent work of maths .. so i can't trace it .. and that for me..just BAD..BAD and BAD

    Well however i did some "improvements" at the u variables so other materials can be calculated too as long as it have density (Kg/ meter cubic).

    here is my table of material constant .. how do i get the value ? Excel give a good feature of extra and interpolation Very Happy



    Well for Real world use.. ignore the Ragnite, Special Treated Ragnite and Alfon Heavy Alloy.. as they're from Valkyria Chronicles Anime and my own material, used for RP (Role Playing) only .


    The last one is this ..from Tactical Missile Design.. haven't try this one but i think it's good






    So which one give most realistic result ?

    or perhaps there are other, better formula out there which i could add to my collection ? Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 02, 2011 1:22 am

    Oh yes, so if they're in testing they aren't in service. We're not here to predict the future we're here to discuss facts.

    I have shown you two rounds you previously knew nothing about and assumed did not exist.

    It puts in perspective your claims they have not and will not create penetrators that are longer than those they currently use.

    But like I've discussed, Tochka/Tender only adds to the cost.

    And ATACMS is free?

    Precision missile attack capability is separate in role and requirement from barrage Rocket artillery and the Russians have kept it seperate.
    This means that its precision missile attack capability is completely independant from their rocket artillery and can be positioned where it is most useful and also a safer distance from the front line.

    By putting ATACMs on the M270 you have created the problem that your precision missile attack capability has to operate well forward with your rocket artillery if you want to be able to use both. Using one or the other reveals the position of both so a move is needed which totally negates the reloading advantage of either.

    I do see how you are confused. If you can hit the target with one rocket
    instead of destroying the grid square than you can thus, destroy 12
    targets with your rocket load compared to having to use 144 rockets for
    the same task. It's all about maximizing efficiency. As I've said
    before, the Grad is crap, paper rockets, dumb paper rockets, and long
    reload. Might as well buy a Smerch.

    And if the target is spread out and dug in... a barrage of rockets is just what the doctor ordered.

    And you are showing your ignorance... GRAD is a delivery system. Its dumb paper rockets deliver smart GUIDED anti armour top attack sub munitions that use radar and IR sensors to find armour targets and specifically target their top armour with a self forging fragment... a payload superior in performance to any anti armour payload the M270 can deliver.

    Comparing individual vehicles the Grad can take out an armoured unit with 5-6 rockets from 40km range and then move and then take out another unit with another 5-6 rockets from 30km range and then move and then take out another armoured unit with another 5-6 rockets from 35km range and then move... and guess what... it still has 22-25 rockets left.
    In actual practise a Grad unit would be used and each vehicle would fire one or two rockets each so after taking out 3 armoured units each vehicle will still have more than 35 rockets left...

    More importantly when the Grad units are reloading... the Russians will still have their tube artillery as well as other rocket assets that can deal with problems that come up because they didn't replace their tube artillery with rocket artillery... they recognise that rocket artillery has good features and bad features and tube artillery has good features and bad features and together you get the choice that can result in the Russian Army being able to do a better job because when they need a hammer they have several types, and if they need a scalpel then they have those too.

    Because the M270 packs all that equipment on a common frame, it's
    actually quite cheap, compared to placing equipment on multiple frames,
    which means more and more maintenance.

    Fine for the US but no other NATO country uses Bradleys do they? So it means an extra chassis and engine type added. If they could put it in a truck chassis it would be much cheaper... but they would make less profit.

    So if you don't know the costs why are you even talking...like I've said
    before, more equipment means more money, that is quite simple.

    Like I have said before... American made = gold plated but not necessarily a better tool.
    The purpose of rocket artillery is a cheap barrage weapon system that can deluge an area with HE or something more insidious (ie chem or bio). It is also useful for laying quick remote minefields.
    For either role an ATACMS or Tender doesn't make sense. Grad, Smerch, and Uragan on the other hand are ideal.

    Like I've said, I want actual figures, not pictorial guesstimates, when it comes to cost.

    The pictures are not about cost. They are about Russian rocket platforms becoming much more flexible and capable and also unification of the heavy rocket and precision missile vehicles, and finally the precision missile vehicles getting improved capabilities. Adding land attack cruise missile and of course anti ship capability. If it can use Kh-101/-102 then that extends the range to 5,500km for land targets.

    No. The difference with the ATACMS is that it's capable of being fired
    from the same platform, thus it's apart of the unitary system. The
    difference with the BM-30 and BM-21 is that they are not on the same
    platform, they are based on different trucks, thus you'd require more
    than 1 truck to do the same task as the M270.

    The photos I posted above show a Smerch replacement that can fire 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rockets in fast reloading pallets with the same chassis as the Tender/iskander... which can also use the USUK vertical launch system which means it can also fire in addition to Iskander and Tender ballistic missiles, the Brahmos/Onix/Yakhont land attack and anti ship missiles, the Klub series of land attack and anti ship cruise missiles, and the torpedo armed and sub missiles similar to ASROC, and of course the Kh-101 and Kh-102 strategic cruise missiles.

    How about that for multi tasking/extra capability?

    Not so. The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with accuracy.

    That is their claim but can you prove that M270s unguided rockets are more accurate than Smerchs unguided rockets?

    I think the reverse is actually true... the unguided Smerch rockets should be rather more accurate than the M270s unguided rockets. With unguided rockets I am talking about concentration of HE and I think the Smerch rockets with their built in gyros will group rather better than M270 especially at extended ranges.

    The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with
    accuracy. The Iskander is designed to hit stationary targets at long
    range with accuracy. The ATACMS does the same thing.

    Except Smerch with unguided rockets has more than twice the range of M270 with unguided rockets, and Tender has a longer range than ATACMS.

    When you isolate your systems, like what the Russians did with their
    BM-series and "large" caliber rockets-series, a strategic strike will
    effectively neutralize your capability to do one or the other. With the
    M270, a multi-role, flexible platform, take one out and the other can do
    it's job.

    The range advantage of the Russian systems means they are less vulnerable to attack. The separation of missions means the support vehicles needed for one role are not duplicated in every unit. A strike that takes out Smerch will still have to look for the Uragan and Grad units closer to the front line. A strike that takes out an M270 battery just greatly reduced the US Armies capabilities in that sector because there is no Pershing battery or Honest John battery or tube artillery battery there because the M270 battery replaced them all.

    It's spreading your beans out instead of putting them in single baskets. It's smarter, safer, and overall, more cost effective.

    Don't keep all your eggs in one basket is the saying and it is the opposite of what you are trying to say. It is certainly cheaper, but if something goes wrong it is not safer or smarter or better... it was just cheaper.

    The Russians have realized this and thus they've created the Tornado, a step closer to the M270.

    The purpose of Tornado is the same as the purpose of Grad. Grad was cheap and light and could be bought in large numbers... and rocket artillery is most effective when used in large numbers.
    Tornado is a modern more capable replacement for Grad and will be widely deployed and used. It is more flexible than Grad because there is a much wider choice of rocket types, but its low cost (especially with 122mm rockets) and light weight will allow it to be deployed in large numbers and used in places where bigger heavier systems will have trouble operating.

    But like I've said, the M270 won't be the same distance from the Smerch,
    it'd be farther from the Smerch than the Smerch can fire from.

    What? How will the M270 battery even know where the Smerch battery is till it opens fire?
    If the Smerch battery is operating 20km behind the Russian armoured units it is supporting that means that the M270 will be operating 70km or more away from the Russian armoured unit... to remain outside Smerch battery range.

    That makes the M270 a useless piece of crap because operating 70km away from the Russian units it is supposed to be attacking means even the 60km GPS guided rocket it fires is useless. The only effective rocket it would have is 2 ATACMS... that is hopeless.
    The purpose of the M270 is to provide fire support to the armoured units it is supposed to be supporting... that means it must get to less than 40km range from the enemy... preferably less than 30km really for a proper barrage.
    It will be well within range of Smerch... but big deal... Smerch batteries wont detect it till it fires or it is spotted by recon.

    It seems you think the US Army fights from a safe distance... and I am sure they would like to... but reality is something different.

    This threat to the M270 is largely ignored by the US Army because they have never fought a decent enemy before.

    Like I've said, Russia will not use Smerch or Tender if a Chinese tank
    rush occurs in Far Eastern Siberia. They'd use Tornado and it's rapid
    reload capability to spam guided AT munitions in and around where the
    Chinese tanks are.

    Of course they would use Smerch and Tender and Tornado. Tender would be hitting SAM sites and HQs and ammo dumps and front line airfields... and enemy rocket artillery batteries. Smerch and Tornado would be hitting enemy troop and armour concentrations and mining the ground in front of the chinese forces.

    hat rapid reload capability is something the BM-series nor the Tochka/Tender has, but the M270 does have.

    You make it sound like the BM series takes a week to reload. When it comes to putting down minefields 20 minutes either way is not that important. The low cost of the Tornado will mean they will likely have large numbers of these vehicles, but the Smerch is still potent anyway.

    The M270 is like a Swiss knife and the BM-series/Tochka/Tender are like
    everything in it. Multi-purpose, flexible, gold-plated tube arty; but
    still best arty.

    Swiss Knifes are crap. The scissors are rubbish and WTF do you need a nail file for? The reality is that you would be much better off with a decent sharp fixed blade knife with a decent edge. If you find you can't use this knife to get the job done use it to make a tool that will do the job better.
    Swiss Army Knives are junk and are best left for Boy Scouts.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 02, 2011 1:28 am

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that during actual practical testing that it was found that there is a speed limit for penetrators that is about 2.5km/s.

    They found that at speeds above 2.5km/s it was more efficient, energy wise, to increase the mass of the projectile than to increase the speed.

    Something about the projectile losing strength at the tip from aerodynamic heating so that when it hit the target the point is squashed and has to be reformed which reduces its penetration performance in addition to the fact that increasing the propellent didn't increase velocity by the same rate.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Tue May 10, 2011 11:35 am

    Controversy around the tank: Ilya Kramnik

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 12, 2011 2:02 am

    That article seems to just outline what we have discussed already.

    T-72/T-90 was picked over the T-80 because of the expense of the T-80s gas turbine engine (fuel and maintainence), and also because most of the components of the T-80UD.. the diesel model were made in the Ukraine... including the new engine.

    The T-72/T-90 (known in the rest of this post as the T-90) also was found to have better ammo storage in that the stub propellent case is horizontal and inside the armoured autoloader, so when extra ammo is not stored in the crew compartment (as tested in the second chechen conflict) the tanks did not brew up when penetrated.

    The T-80 almost always brewed up because the stub propellent charges are stored vertically and are exposed. Their caseless design making them horribly vulnerable to heat and sparks and of course fire.

    The Cold war solution was the T-95 which has since been cancelled.

    The current situation is that the T-90AM has been developed to fix the obvious faults by adding a turret bustle autoloader to remove ammo from the crew compartment to make it safer.

    The mention of a 32 round autoloader for the Armata suggests it is derived from the system used in the Black Eagle design which from memory was a 31 round capacity system.

    So it seems the solution will be a mix of T-90AM and Armata with Armata arriving after 2015.

    This suggests to me that instead of the old plan of T-90s and with upgraded T-72s in reserve that they will go for T-90s and T-72s in reserve for now but after 2015 they will start making Armatas to replace the T-90s in service with the T-90s replacing the upgraded T-72s in storage.

    The Armata is a family of vehicles so it will likely take a while to make enough Armata chassis to replace all the T-90s and all the T-90 based vehicles in service like the APC/Artillery/Air Defence/etc. Once that is achieved then they can continue to make Armatas to replace any remaining T-72s and T-90s in the reserve.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Fri May 13, 2011 4:30 am

    Indeed it is what we have discussed , I think if all goes well Armata would usher in a revolution in Tank development where new technologies are being tried.

    So far Russian tank development has taken an evolutionary approach where each version was better then previous in many aspect but it was an improvement keeping within the 40 T limit.

    Now with Armata they would move to a 50 T tank with a new form of engine for Tanks which is Hybrid Engine and an entirely new crew protection system where crew will be protected by armored capsule and the turret will remain crew less and remotely automated.

    I think Armata is being developed looking at the next 30 to 50 years life cycle where new technologies development like hybrid engine will evolve and keep getting better.

    The fire power too could evolve into 140 mm Gun in the future coupled with Anti-Aircraft gun.

    Here are some good pictures of T-90 in IA exercise that going on

    http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/05/photos-3-at-ex-vijayee-bhava.html

    http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/05/photos-2-at-ex-vijayee-bhava.html

    video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn5HX9g62vI&feature=share


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 13, 2011 4:52 am

    Now with Armata they would move to a 50 T tank with a new form of engine for Tanks which is Hybrid Engine and an entirely new crew protection system where crew will be protected by armored capsule and the turret will remain crew less and remotely automated.

    Is there evidence that it will have an unmanned turret?
    Personally I think an unmanned turret design is problematic because it crams all the crew into the hull.

    I rather suspect they will lose the underfloor autoloader which in the Black Eagle added 200mm of vertical height to the turret crew compartment.

    One of the complaints is lack of internal space so that change alone will increase space without increasing the size of the vehicle.

    I would expect the first in service Armata tanks will likely have 125mm guns to start off with and have turret bustle auto loaders with the crew completely separated from fuel and ammo.

    Not carrying extra ammo in the crew compartment allows the crew areas to be enlarged and made more comfortable.

    Having crew in the turret is not ideal but retains the best situational awareness.

    I think Armata is being developed looking at the next 30 to 50 years life cycle where new technologies development like hybrid engine will evolve and keep getting better.

    The idea of a family of vehicles is very good... if it has electric drive then all of a sudden you can explore all sorts of power generation methods because there is no transmission or gearing... just a complete engine generating power.

    The fire power too could evolve into 140 mm Gun in the future coupled with Anti-Aircraft gun.

    The only 140mm calibre gun I have heard of is a NATO weapon and I rather doubt they will share that technology with Russia... or if Russia wants to ditch the work it has done itself on its own gun.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Fri May 13, 2011 4:59 am

    GarryB wrote:Is there evidence that it will have an unmanned turret?

    They are certainly talking about crew in armoured capsule and using features of T-95 and Black Eagle in the new tank , the T-95 certainly has isolated the crew from turret.

    As far as situational awarness goes i think with Panoramic TI ,Gunner TI , perhaps even a small MMW radar and Netcentric Capability that this tank could offer , the awareness should not be a problem.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Fri May 13, 2011 6:54 pm

    An interesting interview

    http://lenta.ru/conf/chobitok/

    Flanky
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 193
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Flanky on Fri May 13, 2011 9:52 pm

    Guys we are here talking too much about Armata. The design specs can change very rapidly as it could very much be a slightly improved version of the current T-95. Please do not forget that basicalyl we don't know anything about T-95. Regarding it development what brought me to amaze was its official stop of development just weeks before the planned public introduction? With the official statement that the tank is already outdated to current army requirements this sounds to me as huuuuuge nonsense. You know i can't believe that a group of scientists were "shut to a remote room with no access for couple of years" and when they got out the officials will go thank them with the apology that they don't need their invention as it is already outdated. There had to be a project management in place overseeing the project development constantly updating requirements, and making sure that the end product will adhere to these requirements. In my opinion T-95 is ready for production with up to date technology and new high caliber gun and high penetration projectiles. The only thing that remains is the actual netcentric warfare capability. However what trully matters is that Russian army needs armored warfare capability that is as cheap as possible. And here comes to the stage the T-90AM. From what i understand what has been upgraded was the turret and its interior. Rest of the tanks subsystems were left. This can indicated that mosto f the existing Russian T-72/T-90 tanks can meet modern army requirements by upgrading only their turrets. Which is one helluva cost efficient solution to me. T-90 tank is agile and has good mobility characteristics. Its ERA protection makes is difficult to penetrate although in close range engagement the Abrams would be still better?
    But the doctrine of mass armoured vehicles deployment on both sides, the performance differrences might be not that significant to clearly predetermine the results of such engagement. However cost efficiency does matter significantly. When the AM version comes to play... based on the frontal section of the turret, im not sure if Abrams will be still safe Smile - even from closer ranges. If you look at the angle of the ERA bricks, it is big... even the DU round will have significant difficulties to NOT ricochet from a front turret aspect angle, let alone to penetrate through ERA. This coupled with the new penetrators - makes the T-90AM sort of a "phantom of opera", you never know when and how he can strike.
    When it comes to penetrator discussions - believing that Svinec 1 is the most capable russian penetrator is pure naivety. Just because we haven't heard or seen the new rounds, doesn't make it widely accepted truth that they don't exist. I personally know that Russians do love to hide their jokers for a very long time. Remember Squal torpedo? Remember the first Su-27 public appearance? Remember Beriev A-60? There is so much we don't know... And that is the ultimate strategy on their side. Without the precise knowledge of enemys units you cannot do precise military calculations and preparation on the western side in case of convetional warfare.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 14, 2011 7:51 am

    Why are you still on about penetrator discussions? We only care about KNOWN ones, because then we can gauge it's performance against everything else. If it makes you feel better, I'm quite sure the Russians collaborate with Aliens to put some sort of tachyonic gysmo onto their penetrators for an extra velocity boost. dunno

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  medo on Sat May 14, 2011 10:12 am

    So, production of Armata will start in 2015. Which tanks will Russian army buy in the mean time or they will wait to 2015?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 6:33 am

    They are certainly talking about crew in armoured capsule and using features of T-95 and Black Eagle in the new tank , the T-95 certainly has isolated the crew from turret.

    From the photos I have seen the T-95 has an enormous chassis which would be difficult to properly armour for all round protection.
    I suspect the electronics being used were likely not very compact either.

    I would think that the design will allow for a larger calibre gun for the future which should mean a large turret ring diameter.

    This potentially offers the possibility of one crew man on either side of the gun but reclined below the level of the turret ring with the driver front and centre of the hull and perhaps the engine around him or in front of him.
    The main gun ammo stored in the turret bustle and perhaps electronics and fuel in the rear hull separated from the crew.

    Putting the crew in the turret or not is based around the battlefield experience that enemy hits normally occur in the turret front armour, with the logic that if you move the commander and gunner into the hull they will be safe from a turret front penetration.

    Removing the turret underfloor autoloader means the crew can sit much lower and also be protected from a turret front penetration.

    From a design point of view having the crew in the front hull makes them safest because turret armour can be reduced and hull front armour maximised, but it also means a reduction in turret size which means the hull has to get bigger to contain all the extra stuff from the turret and the stuff that would normally be there.

    As far as situational awarness goes i think with Panoramic TI ,Gunner TI , perhaps even a small MMW radar and Netcentric Capability that this tank could offer , the awareness should not be a problem.

    I agree, but most tank commanders like to be able to stick their heads out of the tank and see all around the vehicle.

    Regarding it development what brought me to amaze was its official stop of development just weeks before the planned public introduction? With the official statement that the tank is already outdated to current army requirements this sounds to me as huuuuuge nonsense.

    From what I have read I believe the Russian military has changed to the idea of Brigade structures with a focus on mobility... which has made the T-95 obsolete as we can assume it was designed for 24/7 operation in a cold war type scenario.

    Also I believe it was going to be very electronic and very expensive with lots of experimental technology on board including sensor fusion with short, medium, and long wave IR thermal sights, IRST, MMW radar, and possibly Lidar as well all combined with digital TV to form a detailed view of the area around the tank. The MMW radar sensors were linked to a self defence suite with a conventional outer layer of ERA that was fired at incoming rounds like ARENA in a way that if the incoming weapon managed to penetrate the outgoing ERA munition it would then strike a built in ERA munition that would offer further protection before the penetrator hit the actual vehicle armour.

    You know i can't believe that a group of scientists were "shut to a remote room with no access for couple of years" and when they got out the officials will go thank them with the apology that they don't need their invention as it is already outdated.

    I agree... this was a serious communication problem as this was an important funded program... the fact that they changed direction and rendered previous work obsolete resulted in the blame being directed at UVZ unfairly.

    I am sure the technology developed will not be put to waste.

    You can consider the Armata to be T-95 modified with new technology to meet new design goals of better mobility and lower cost through being a full family of vehicles based on the same chassis.

    And here comes to the stage the T-90AM. From what i understand what has been upgraded was the turret and its interior. Rest of the tanks subsystems were left.

    New ERA, new transmission, new engine, new suspension too I believe.

    Most of the new components that upgrade the T-90A to T-90AM can be applied to a T-72 just as well.

    Its ERA protection makes is difficult to penetrate although in close range engagement the Abrams would be still better?

    Abrams has the better armour... the US engineers are not idiots... they are not going to make a tank 20-30 tons heavier to no benefit just to fit in one extra crewman.

    I personally know that Russians do love to hide their jokers for a very long time. Remember Squal torpedo? Remember the first Su-27 public appearance? Remember Beriev A-60?

    And the Ka-50...

    They have developed a new gun (2A82) and a new design autoloader that allows for longer penetrators. To suggest that they have not bothered developing new ammo... well I think it is a little naive.

    We only care about KNOWN ones, because then we can gauge it's performance against everything else.

    The designers of the Russian gear don't care about having the most powerful gun or the best penetrator. What they care about is... will this round do the job at hand.

    The developed a new gun with better performance and they will likely develop an APFSDS round that they believe can penetrate any potential enemy armour from the front at 2,000m. For fun? No. Because that is its job.

    Previously their penetrators have been limited in length and chamber pressure etc etc.

    Now they are no longer limited by length and can increase penetration without going for higher pressures etc.

    So, production of Armata will start in 2015. Which tanks will Russian army buy in the mean time or they will wait to 2015?

    They will likely introduce the newly designed boomerang which will be a wheeled rear ramp entry replacement for the BTR-90 in the 25 ton class at a similar time (2015). In the mean time they gave the BTR-80 and BTR-80A a quick upgrade to fix the simple problems and they are in production now.

    So based on this I would suspect that they have done the same with the T-90s and will start production of T-90AMs once the trials are complete and start upgrading other tanks to that standard. (It is cheaper to upgrade a T-72 than to make a T-90AM, but it would likely be cheaper just to make a BTR-82A than upgrade a BTR-80A to BTR-82A standard).

    Note this is just my speculation BTW.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm

    But like I've said Garry, I don't care if that's what they aimed for I only care for what they have now, that I can measure and gauge it's performance. Because otherwise why don't we use the M829A4 or DM77 for all of our little OpFor chats?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 16, 2011 3:41 am

    But like I've said Garry, I don't care if that's what they aimed for I only care for what they have now, that I can measure and gauge it's performance. Because otherwise why don't we use the M829A4 or DM77 for all of our little OpFor chats?

    First of all I am interested in Russian equipment development and I am not hugely interested in what NATO is actually using in their guns right now.

    Second I am interested in what they have in development too because right now there is no threat to Russia that cannot be dealt with using existing resources... including tactical nukes.

    The T-90AM will not be being worked on in the hopes that they can match M60 tanks. They will be aiming at a tank that has a reasonable chance of defeating a modern tank like the current and near future projected models of the Abrams.

    I am not interested in it so I can say the T-90AM is better than this or that tank, I am interesting in knowing they have a tank that will do its job.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 21, 2011 6:54 am

    GarryB wrote:
    But like I've said Garry, I don't care if that's what they aimed for I only care for what they have now, that I can measure and gauge it's performance. Because otherwise why don't we use the M829A4 or DM77 for all of our little OpFor chats?

    First of all I am interested in Russian equipment development and I am not hugely interested in what NATO is actually using in their guns right now.

    Second I am interested in what they have in development too because right now there is no threat to Russia that cannot be dealt with using existing resources... including tactical nukes.

    The T-90AM will not be being worked on in the hopes that they can match M60 tanks. They will be aiming at a tank that has a reasonable chance of defeating a modern tank like the current and near future projected models of the Abrams.

    I am not interested in it so I can say the T-90AM is better than this or that tank, I am interesting in knowing they have a tank that will do its job.

    Unfortunately, because of the lack of info on all these "technologies", and not including the unproven nature of them, you can't truthfully say that. Like I've said, solid details only, speculation is irrelevant and even though this is a Russian Defense Forum, it is useless without something to compare it too.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 22, 2011 6:32 am

    Unfortunately, because of the lack of info on all these "technologies", and not including the unproven nature of them, you can't truthfully say that. Like I've said, solid details only, speculation is irrelevant and even though this is a Russian Defense Forum, it is useless without something to compare it too.

    Let me put it this way.

    We have clear evidence that they had two new rounds in testing in 2009.

    So we can say they are developing new stuff.

    Do you think they are developing new stuff to use against the stuff the US had in service in the 1970s?

    Any designer worth their salt will be looking at what the threats are now AND in the near future.

    They won't look at the M1A3 and say its turret front armour is 1.2m equivelent RHA so 800mm penetration is good enough. They will say it is 1.2m now and they have plans to add to that in the near future to 1.4m so I am going to develop something that will penetrate 1.4m of armour because by the time the round I develop has cleared all the tests and gets into service that will be the in service problem my round needs to deal with.

    The 2A82 gun is part of the solution with higher pressure and better performance, the new turret bustle autoloaders is another part of the solution by allowing any length penetrator I want, and the rest is research on materials and aerodynamics and above hypersonic speeds and shaping etc to get the best chance of a penetration that I can get.

    That is what I am interested in.

    (BTW the figures given for the Abrams were made up as an example... I don't know or care what the real figures are... I am not actually designing a penetrator so I don't need to know.)


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Sun May 22, 2011 11:18 am

    Is the above picture of T-90AM ? What is the new gun seen on commander turret ?

    Sponsored content

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:51 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:51 pm