Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:16 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

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:34 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.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3193
    Points : 3283
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  medo on Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:01 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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Deputy General Director of JSC Scientific Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod Vyacheslav Khalitov

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:12 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.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3193
    Points : 3283
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  medo on Sat May 14, 2011 11:12 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?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 7:33 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?

    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.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon May 16, 2011 12:17 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?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 16, 2011 4:41 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.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 21, 2011 7:54 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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 22, 2011 7:32 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

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Sun May 22, 2011 12:18 pm

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

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 23, 2011 2:35 am

    AFAIK it is called T-90M, and though I have read that the machine gun is PKT, just looking at it I would say it was Kord.

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Tue May 24, 2011 7:00 am

    Via Andy_UA

    Insight from ovtaga on heavy and support platform -
    Its not 100%, however chances are Armata'(heavy platform) is not going to be hybrid-electric driven or using electric transmission. They decided not to risk and use this unproven technology for a frontline machine, instead they opt for a advanced next gen diesel and hydrostatic drive transmission(that is new for Rus.tech)
    HOWEVER the intemediate platform is gonna be all-electric for extra power as many radio-electronic, radar, SAM, artllery, C4 variants are planned... It is developed by Uraltransmash

    vim
    "Uraltransmash makes a unified platform for air defense, artillery, electronic warfare, etc. Choosing an electric power explain the need for generation of a electric power, without any additional power plants. These machines most of the time work to feed the systems, rather than movement. **** said that the SAM people are very satisfied"


    Armata according to GUR KHAN(guy from UVZ):

    "...controlled suspension with blade dampers, the differential rotation mechanism with the hydrostatic drive, front like a ob.187/195 capsule for the crew of 3 people, external weapon like the 195 but the caliber is 125mm, FCS - symbiosis between developments on the 195 and 90m. H-APCs and H-BMP with front engine and rear hatch. In the variant of APCs armed with 12,7 mm machine gun. BREM - crane as BREM-1M, but with the "right" side, a pile of all sorts of useful tools and adjusted (do something resembling to BREM and logistics all in 1,

    Engine - not know yet either 2V12-3 or T series or V-99"

    T-90AM, SM, - Gur Khan story -
    In the picture a machine that was offered for export to one country. T-90M and T-90AM, it's the same thing.
    She has an index 188M - but it applies only to the turret, for now this is not a turret but a UBM (unified fighting module). There is a demonstrator of the tank with this turret, which has no official name yet. Conventionally, personally I coined the name "T-90M." Anyway ... somewhere in the 2004-05 year a proactive R&D "Breakthrough"was conducted, which has two sub-themes: "Advance 1" and "Advance 2. 1 - is an upgrade of the T-90A, 2 - modernization of T-90S. Accordingly here are the roots of "T-90AM" and "T-90SM" (II). Those pictures, which have been seen where the machine with a panoramic view and the open MG turret - it's sketches from 2006. These machines, among other things were offered to Algerians. Then they were issued a passport as a T-90SM. Over time, the design was changing. In particular - APU appeared and much more. I have already said here that since the first show show in the machine has recieved some upgrades. Now it is being issued a new ad passport. But its not ready yet. How it will be called according to it - only God and the MoD knows. Morevor ... now practically guarantee that our MOD won't take the T-90M. No claims to the bad desing of MG turret - there are options to choose from - what customer wishes and what he is willing to pay. If the customer is willing to pay for remote controlled turret - he will get a machine with one, no - will be clasic ZU or even do without it. Just one of the wishes of our MOD was exactly the installation of this MG turret. And this requirement was not yesterday, it was born when they issued RFP for "Burlak" and, accordingly, Tagil, while working on "breakthrough" as an option used it too. Mentioned in an interview a period of 5 months - this is nonsense! Oleg(SIenko - CEO of UVZ) consciously or unconsciously confused some things. In fact, over these 5 months was made a a new chassis for the demo machine, but it is new only by birth, structurally it is a selial T90A chassis.

    ammo as per the project was supposed to be on the outside. It remained only a stash on a motor partition as the most secure. In fact, the demonstrator chassis has everything in its place. Regarding the niche - there isn any! There on the butt of a turret hanging out is the armored box with the ammo. designer - Cherepanov NV, right now he is deputy Director. The demo has standard V-92S2 with 1000hp. On the stand is driven V-93. It has previously reported power of 1100 hp. Actually achieved - 1130 -1150hp. (Sienko cautiously called the lower figure). This engine is designed to further modernize the T-90 and can be installed without replacement and changes in the other systems for the T-90S andT-90A to replace 92. When V-93 is ready - turn comes up for the V-99. UBM provides a embedding of 2A46M-5 or2A82. 2A82 - this gun is a high ballistics and muzzle energy higher than the German L-55.

    Just a little more and you can stick X-type chelyabisk, there like in 1350 hp?
    They 1350 hp draw type for the civilian version, or more precisely as misinformation - really a 2V12-3 has 1500hp.

    http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=335&p=27#p84376

    Info from GUR KHAN on advanced heavy vehicles engines -

    In Russia, there are at least three (3) promising motors of a heavy class with a capacity of 1500-2000 hp. In Ukraine there is no such thing. There is a 6TD-2 in 1200hp. - thats it. We have 2V12-3 - 1500hp (passed state test, less powerful engines in this family are long time in the series), we got XXX-XXX 1800hp. - it is now worked on in Barnaul. There are new T-Series - xxxxxxx with the stated 1500 - 2000hp. - it has recieved all papers and is ready for initial production and is now perfected . Besides we continue series V-2 - V-93 (1100 1150hp) and V-99 (1200 1300hp.)


    More- http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=335&p=29#p85761
    So the perspective engine situation is better than was known.

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Tue May 24, 2011 5:50 pm

    Some thing about T-90AM ammo

    Gur Khan wrote (a):

    "Strengthening the firepower provided by the introduction of new ammunition, the so-called" long »(L = 740 mm) of BPS. Instead of a shot from the BPS 3VBM17 3BM42 Mango introduces high-power shots 3VBM22 with BPS 3BM59

    Lead-1 and 3VBM23 with BPS 3BM60" Lead-2. The use of these weapons gives the increase in armor penetration while increasing the distance of the actual shooting. "(CFV number 10 of 2009) be amended: in GABTUshnyh papers from 2004 for these shots was registered 4ZH63 charge, but in the" open "then the T-90A - already 4ZH96.

    APU for T-90


    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Tue May 24, 2011 6:56 pm

    Wouldnt L=740mm shorted then similar american rounds ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 25, 2011 1:56 am

    Wouldnt L=740mm shorted then similar american rounds ?

    Yes, but the American rounds are not being fired from the German L/55 gun.

    The new American rounds are to get similar performance from the L/44 that standard ammo gets from the newer L/55 gun.

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

    How does the T-90 gun stand up viz a viz German L/55 gun ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 25, 2011 9:32 am

    You just posted this claim:

    UBM provides a embedding of 2A46M-5 or2A82. 2A82 - this gun is a high ballistics and muzzle energy higher than the German L-55.

    Higher muzzle energy means heavier faster moving projectiles.

    Quite a claim.

    Of course the Russian gun needs more energy because heavier western tanks have heavier armour and so Russian tanks need to penetrate more armour than western guns do.

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Wed May 25, 2011 11:10 am

    From one of the poster above that I came across they are also working on advanced next gen diesel and hydrostatic drive transmission

    Although initial batch of Armata could be Hybrid model.

    What is the advantage of hydrostatic drive transmission and what could constitute advanced diesel engine ?

    Would a Hybrid Tank be more ambitious thing to do then a proven diesel system ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 26, 2011 3:11 am

    I suspect what they are talking about is like cars.

    Going straight to an all electric car is tricky because of range and speed/power issues.

    Instead of going from a petrol engine to an all electric system, they went for a hybrid that might change to a diesel engine together with an electric engine.

    This means that driving around town you can use the electric drive and save fuel and operate quietly and have all the low emission benefits of an electric car.

    When you get onto a highway however the fuel powered engine kicks in with real power to get high speed and relatively long range while likely charging the electric system a little too.

    What is the advantage of hydrostatic drive transmission and what could constitute advanced diesel engine ?

    A hydrostatic drive transmission uses hydraulics to transfer power from an engine to a wheel or electric motor instead of using the conventional transmission of gears, clutches and plates. It should be able to handle heavier loads without losing speed and be able to greatly increase torque without having to change gear if heavy equipment stalls... so it would be very useful on heavy machinery like a tank.

    Regarding Advanced Diesel... I don't know, but would guess a combination of more power with lower fuel burn and more compact size.

    Would a Hybrid Tank be more ambitious thing to do then a proven diesel system ?

    It is a half step toward an all electric tank. In that sense it seems more advanced than tank programs elsewhere that are talking about inservice dates before 2015.

    It adds some of the benefits of electric drive but with the performance from a fuel powered engine when the electric drive lacks the overall performance of a diesel engine.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:38 pm

    Austin wrote:Wouldnt L=740mm shorted then similar american rounds ?

    The M829A3 projectile is about 900 mm long, and it's penetrator is about 800 mm long.

    GarryB wrote:
    Wouldnt L=740mm shorted then similar american rounds ?

    Yes, but the American rounds are not being fired from the German L/55 gun.

    The new American rounds are to get similar performance from the L/44 that standard ammo gets from the newer L/55 gun.

    Actually, the newest rounds we have surpass (by a bit) German rounds from their L/55. Some speculate that this is because we're using 3rd generation DU monoblocks which outperform WHA at under 2km, and that, the DU drives the M829A3 home compared to the DM66 despite having a slower muzzle velocity.

    Austin wrote:How does the T-90 gun stand up viz a viz German L/55 gun ?

    AFAIK, the T-90's gun is 125 mm L/48 while the Leopard 2's gun is 120 mm L/55, which means that respectively their barrel lengths are 6 m and 6.6 m long respectively. Despite a slightly larger muzzle bore and being almost 800 mm longer than the M256 120 mm L/44 that the Abrams uses, the main problem with the T-90's armament has been it's lack of utilization of long rod penetrators, which is attributed to the T-90's use of autoloaders. The problem has been slightly fixed in the newest models but the longest Russian penetrators are not as long as the Western ones, which bring down their penetrative powers.

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:44 pm

    Ok so longer rod seems to be an issue although the T-90 gun has better muzzle velocity and slightly larger caliber , does the slightly larger caliber (thicker rod ) in any way offsets the longer rod advantage of 120 mm gun ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:53 pm

    A thicker rod is actually bad v.s. most tanks (unless they're using Kontakt ERA). The ideal "shape" of a penetrator is basically, long and skinny. Soviet and Russian APFSDS rounds tend to be shorter and fatter compared to their Western counterparts (although, Russian rounds have been getting longer and skinnier as of late, but not as longer or skinnier than their Western counterparts). The T-90's Muzzle velocity does not offset the superior penetrator design that the Western rounds have.

    Austin

    Posts : 6233
    Points : 6639
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:59 pm

    Superior because they are skinnier and longer and use DU compared to Russian Tungsten or do they have other virtues ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:28 pm

    Pretty much sums it up. Just for reference, the German DM66 is made out of Tungsten and to get similar performance to the U.S.'s M829A3 which uses DU, it has to be fired from the L/55.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:28 am