Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Share
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Viktor on Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:40 pm

    India and Russia are planning to jointly develop a futuristic 'smart' battle tank, having higher speed and better firepower, reports quoting Nikolai Malykh, director general of Russia's biggest battle factory Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), as saying.

    The two sides had preliminary discussions on the issue and defence ministry experts in India will discuss the new project when a delegation of the (UVZ) tank-building factory visits India this week to participate in an international seminar on the future main battle tank (FMBT) organised by the Army along with the Confederation of Indian Industry, according to Malykh.

    ''We put forward this idea (of developing the tank) at the turn of the 21st century. The Indian side has now come up with a similar proposal," the Moscow Defence Brief (MDB) magazine quoted Malykh as saying.

    ''We will take the first step when our experts go to India to attend a conference on the future tank and prospects for the tank-building industry," Malykh said on the sidelines of a defence expo.


    The new tank will have higher speed, better firepower, sophisticated armour protection and a smoother ride and improved armour protection for crew, the report said.

    Armour-protected crew compartment will be sealed from the unmanned turret equipped with an automatic loader, to ensure the survivability of highly trained human assets, it said.

    Information for the crew will be networked using a virtual-reality command information system linked to reconnaissance aircraft and satellites.

    The move comes even as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) had suggested a joint assessment with the Indian Army to save the main battle tank (MBT) Arjun and keep the project alive.

    The rmy, however, has rejected by the idea. The army is also ambiguous on a suggestion by the DRDO that the tank be assessed head-to-head with the T-90 MBTs the army currently operates.

    A leading Russian defence expert says it makes good sense for India and Russia to join hands in building a futuristic tank.

    India has purchased over 1,600 T-90S MBTs from the UVZ of which 1,000 will be manufactured at the Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi. Uralvagonzavod has for a long time been cooperating with the Avadi plant in the production of T-72 and T-90S MBTs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:15 am

    So how is this effected by the plans to stop development of the T-95?

    One would assume that the Indians would not be interested in development if the T-95 was obsolete Soviet Era junk.

    Perhaps the comment 'smart' is the key.

    Perhaps the T-95 didn't have enough Cs in its C3.

    C3 is Command, Control, and Communications.

    Battle management is C4ISR or Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.

    Of course the Brits call it C4ISTAR (command, control, communications, computers), I (military intelligence), and STAR (surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance).
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:15 pm

    The biggest reason T-95 was cancelled is because India and Saudi Arabia didn't want to fund its development.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:34 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:The biggest reason T-95 was cancelled is because India and Saudi Arabia didn't want to fund its development.

    So the cat is out of the bag.

    It was obvious that the concept of closing a lot projects wasn't because of their technology, it was because it probably did not meet most others expectations in an MBT in terms of cost and capability. In other words, they will build the next MBT's around India's, Vietnams, and other countries military apsects.

    Oh well.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:39 am

    sepheronx wrote:

    So the cat is out of the bag.

    It was obvious that the concept of closing a lot projects wasn't because of their technology, it was because it probably did not meet most others expectations in an MBT in terms of cost and capability. In other words, they will build the next MBT's around India's, Vietnams, and other countries military apsects.

    Oh well.

    The cat is out of the bag, it never left the concept stage.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Viktor on Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:42 am

    So mutch talking about T-95. I tought it finished.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:49 am

    The T-95 being cancelled doesn't seem to be official yet.

    I remember a while back the Hermes missile was cancelled too.

    That made sense at the time... who needs a helicopter launched missile with a range of 15km-20km when the in service helos had no radar and no means to detect targets beyond about 6km. ATAKA was cheaper and fit the role, plus there were plenty in stocks.
    Also very few Mi-28Ns were in service and their radar was not fully operational yet.
    Now that Mi-28Ns are entering service and Ka-52s are coming on line in small numbers it makes sense to switch to Hermes missiles.

    The same with the Su-27M or the first Su-35. Didn't get a customer and so died as a project, but will never enter service now. Lots of bits developed for it became part of the Su-30MKI and even Su-34, but by the time the Su-35BM was developed most of the bits and pieces were more related to the T-50 than the Su-27M.

    I would expect the same with the T-95, right now many of the technologies it is using are brand new and are probably not mature technologies yet so why bother introducing it now when you already have too many tanks. Step one is to finalise the T-90 design, which will be something based on the Burlak upgrade. Step two is to increase production of the upgraded T-90 and to start removing from service older model tanks starting with those that have not been upgraded at all and also those that don't have the same calibre main gun like the T-54/55 and T-62s. This will allow the withdrawl of the stocks of ammo for those calibres and perhaps gift or sale of them to a country that you might be targeting for a sale. ie country x is thinking about buying aircraft y or air defence missile system z has T-55s in service so if they buy more than 20 systems they can have 500 T-55s and an ammo factory to make as much ammo as they want.
    The point is that T-55s that are used to save wear and tear on new tanks in Russian service are not a good training model because no autoloader and ammo is different.
    Training on T-72s makes more sense.

    Perhaps to continue the Russian tradition of using old tanks for training they should make a T-90 light that weighs 25 ton without most of the heavy armour, with a less powerful cheaper to run engine that troops can practise in but use less fuel with maybe a 57mm gun with ammo especially made to match 125mm gun trajectories to reduce the cost of training. With the Yak-130 it will be done with aircraft.
    With armour removed and a smaller main gun you could fit instructors in the hull next to the driver and behind the gunner and commander to assess their performance cross country in the field.

    It was obvious that the concept of closing a lot projects wasn't because of their technology, it was because it probably did not meet most others expectations in an MBT in terms of cost and capability. In other words, they will build the next MBT's around India's, Vietnams, and other countries military apsects.

    This vehicle needs to be netcentric and it needs UAVs to be operational to support it. This will take 5 years to mature so why introduce it now when you can suspend it for 5 years and let new technologies improve.
    It could be like the Su-30M and the Su-30MKI where the Su-30M was simply a two seat Flanker with a big expensive radar able to mini AWACS a formation of lesser fighters, whereas the Su-30MKI was a fully multirole fighterbomber that was much more capable.
    Or it could be the T-50 which will be developed for the Russian AF and a seperate aircraft based on the T-50 which Russian and Indian engineers will modify to Indian and export needs.

    In one case the Russian aircraft didn't really go anywhere, but the Indian collaboration greatly improved the aircraft.
    In the other case the Indian collaboration was simply for export and Indian use though some innovations might find their way back to the Russian version.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:58 am

    The biggest reason T-95 was cancelled is because India and Saudi Arabia didn't want to fund its development.

    So perhaps reading the title of this thread should suggest that India has changed its mind and is going to joint develop and presumably joint fund the T-95 program?
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:58 am

    GarryB wrote:

    So perhaps reading the title of this thread should suggest that India has changed its mind and is going to joint develop and presumably joint fund the T-95 program?

    The source of the OP came from a blog so it has no basis in fact. We have heard it out of the mouth of Popovkin T-95 will be obsolete the moment it comes off the shelf and that funding was suspended last year.

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:20 pm

    Viktor wrote:India and Russia are planning to jointly develop a futuristic 'smart' battle tank, having higher speed and better firepower, reports quoting Nikolai Malykh, director general of Russia's biggest battle factory Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), as saying.

    The two sides had preliminary discussions on the issue and defence ministry experts in India will discuss the new project when a delegation of the (UVZ) tank-building factory visits India this week to participate in an international seminar on the future main battle tank (FMBT) organised by the Army along with the Confederation of Indian Industry, according to Malykh.

    ''We put forward this idea (of developing the tank) at the turn of the 21st century. The Indian side has now come up with a similar proposal," the Moscow Defence Brief (MDB) magazine quoted Malykh as saying.

    ''We will take the first step when our experts go to India to attend a conference on the future tank and prospects for the tank-building industry," Malykh said on the sidelines of a defence expo.


    The new tank will have higher speed, better firepower, sophisticated armour protection and a smoother ride and improved armour protection for crew, the report said.

    Armour-protected crew compartment will be sealed from the unmanned turret equipped with an automatic loader, to ensure the survivability of highly trained human assets, it said.

    Information for the crew will be networked using a virtual-reality command information system linked to reconnaissance aircraft and satellites.

    The move comes even as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) had suggested a joint assessment with the Indian Army to save the main battle tank (MBT) Arjun and keep the project alive.

    The rmy, however, has rejected by the idea. The army is also ambiguous on a suggestion by the DRDO that the tank be assessed head-to-head with the T-90 MBTs the army currently operates.

    A leading Russian defence expert says it makes good sense for India and Russia to join hands in building a futuristic tank.

    India has purchased over 1,600 T-90S MBTs from the UVZ of which 1,000 will be manufactured at the Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi. Uralvagonzavod has for a long time been cooperating with the Avadi plant in the production of T-72 and T-90S MBTs.

    What`s the source of this?
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    India, Russia to jointly develop futuristic MBT

    Post  Viktor on Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:51 pm

    Cant remember now nor am I anywhere near my home computer so ...
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

    Russia ripe for the purchase of armored vehicles abroad

    10/14/2010 - Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Vladimir Terletsky

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

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

    This communication issue will undermine confidence in Russian Armour too.

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

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

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

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

    Seems to me that the Russian Army should stop communicating to its defence suppliers via the media and start talking to them at a high level behind closed doors and tell them exactly what they do or do not want and what their requirements are for the next decade.
    The one remaining tank maker in Russia was set up to build 1200 tanks per year so building 60 or none is an enormous waste of resources. If they can say right now that they want to finalise their C4I system and get it working and then decide what level of electronics are needed in tanks and armoured vehicles to implement that command and control and computers and communications and intelligence system and in the mean time just upgrade 6,000 T-72s and then we will want 1,500 T-90s built and the existing 500 or so upgraded so they are all at the same standard for the next x number of years I am sure the tank makers can make some long term planning for the 500 odd T-90 tanks India wants and the 300 odd T-90 tanks Algeria wants and now the 50 or so T-72s Venezuela wants and it can maintain a workforce big enough to complete the orders efficiently without wasting reserve production capacity just in case.
    Being able to make 1200 tanks per year yet only making 100 and upgrading 500 a year is an enormous waste of potential capacity.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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


    Popovkin should get reprimanded , this is insult that NATO uses all time about our armored divisions and we do nothing?
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Forever the optimist... Smile
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

    GarryB wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia ripe for the purchase of armored vehicles abroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-95 MBT Program

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

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

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

    Oleg Sienko, director general of JSC "SPC" Uralvagonzavod

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

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

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

    Certainly.

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

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

    — The new unified platform will be electric?

    Yes, it is likely.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

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

    Once you separate them from the transmission they are efficient.

    BTW mention of ARMATA is interesting...:

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

    Thanks

    Sponsored content

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:35 pm