Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

    Think of a normal petrol driven car.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

    Great Explanation Garry , this makes things much simpler Thanks.

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Diesels generate heat too.

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I see this as positive.

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

    Thanks Garry once again for your explanation.

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

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

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

    [quote="Austin"]
    GarryB wrote:

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

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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

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

    Vladimir79 wrote:The weight isn't a problem for Russian tank transporters, they can carry 60t. The issue is width, will it fit on the bed, will it fit through tunnels, can it role on a 55t capacity landed bridge? As long as it stays in the lower 50t range and width of current tanks, transport is not a problem.

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

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

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


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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:31 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:43 am

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:05 pm

    Some news for you Garry

    http://rian.ru/defense_safety/20110315/354123339.html

    He explained that the Army will consist of heavy, medium and light brigades of the new model. Heavy Brigade will be armed with heavy platforms (tanks) on the tracked chassis with heavy weapons - gun 125 mm and weighing up to 65 tons.

    Also, armed with heavy brigades will be a platform-type current infantry fighting vehicles. And on the same platform will be different types of weapons, such as anti-aircraft missile and artillery.

    According to the Commander, the average team will have the armored vehicles of "Boomerang." "I can say that they will be flying," - said Postnikov.

    Light Brigade, he said, will be armed with armored vehicles such as "Tiger" of up to 2,5 tons, which will be effective, including in mountainous and arctic regions.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:39 am

    He explained that the Army will consist of heavy, medium and light brigades of the new model. Heavy
    Brigade will be armed with heavy platforms (tanks) on the tracked
    chassis with heavy weapons - gun 125 mm and weighing up to 65 tons.

    This is interesting as for the first time they have mentioned an actual weight for this weight class.
    I have been thinking a bit and I wonder if they will merge the current very popular 120mm long barrel gun/mortars with the 100mm rifled gun fitted currently to the BMP-3.
    It would remove a calibre from the inventory but the 120mm rounds take up more space... especially for their exposed bag propellent charges.
    The 120mm gun/mortar has four standard rounds, a direct fire HEAT shell, a standard round with a range of up to 8km or so and a rocket assisted round with a range of 13km plus the laser homing GRAN. The 100mm round of the BMP-3 basically has two rounds, a standard HE shell, and a tube launched guided missile using beam riding guidance.

    Without a T-95 like crew in the front hull separated from the gun and ammo layout any vehicle with either of the two above weapons will be vulnerable to hits...

    The problem with what they are saying is that before they talked about rejecting the T-95 because it is not mobile enough... ignoring its focus is crew protection. Now they are saying 65 tons is OK?

    65 tons would make it the heaviest tank the Russians or Soviets ever (edit) put into service.

    I suspect 65 tons is the upper limit of the various type of vehicle, so it would likely be some enormous 152mm system like Coalition that is the 65 ton vehicle based on a chassis like the E3 that is a 25 ton class chassis empty that can take up to a 40 ton payload/turret.


    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:42 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:56 am

    Correction, the IS-7, at 68 tonnes, was the Heaviest tank the Soviets ever built.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:56 am

    GarryB wrote:The problem with what they are saying is that before they talked about rejecting the T-95 because it is not mobile enough... ignoring its focus is crew protection. Now they are saying 65 tons is OK?

    No body knows for sure why T-95 was cancelled and since it was radically different from existing T , there are many theories on the WWW as to why it got cancelled.

    My opinion on this would be time and money , it was conceived during the Soviet Era and it was a 20 years old approach held in the background of cold war , which may not suite the present doctrine , it could be more expensive and Russian had no funds to sustain its production when they could get a cost effective T-90.

    We really do not know how well the prototype worked and how will they manage the logistics of 152 mm MG.

    He says 65T and 125 mm MG , the latter makes sense to keep it in sync with the 10 thousand odd tanks , a 65T would raise eyebrow , come that with what the tank designer said 1500 HP engine and electric tank , so we can expect

    65 T Tank with 125 MG , 1500 HP engine , Electric Tank ,will have features of T-95 , thats the deal ?

    How capable is Russian logistics like Train/Rail Car etc that could transport a 65T tank , Vlad any idea ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:59 am

    Correction, the IS-7, at 68 tonnes, was the Heaviest tank the Soviets ever built.

    And never entered service because it was stupidly overweight. Correction made.

    We really do not know how well the prototype worked and how will they manage the logistics of 152 mm MG.

    The makers said it passed all the tests and met the requirements set for it. It would not have been rocket science to replace a 152mm gun with a 125mm gun to start with and upgrade to a larger calibre later.

    65 T Tank with 125 MG , 1500 HP engine , Electric Tank ,will have features of T-95 , thats the deal ?

    If it is a tank that is 65 tons then where has the extra 10 tons come from? The T-95 was always described as a 55 ton class vehicle. Electric tank propulsion is not something they could do over night and I suspect that the T-95 was probably already electric driven. They said it was ground breaking in several areas.

    I suspect its design that allowed 24/7 operation with three crew led to expensive crew positions and to give the commander better vision down in the hull I would suspect a range of optics mounted in the top of the turret and perhaps even on extendible arms to improve visibility of the vehicle and the surroundings would likely have made it quite expensive.

    Going to a 65 ton class vehicle means all new power train, it would be very useful to go to electric drive because a conventional tank would need all new suspension and transmission and gearing.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:09 am

    GarryB wrote:The makers said it passed all the tests and met the requirements set for it. It would not have been rocket science to replace a 152mm gun with a 125mm gun to start with and upgrade to a larger calibre later.

    Its not a rocket science but it will cost them big money to regun the existing 125 mm MG , considering thousands of tanks there.

    And its not easy because of the weight issue , I read the Germans tried a Leo test platform with 140 mm gun and due to its weight they had to add a heavy counterbalance

    So for a small tank like T's it would be a major headache to move to 152 mm gun.

    Is the extra 10 tons come from? The T-95 was always described as a 55 ton class vehicle. Electric tank propulsion is not something they could do over night and I suspect that the T-95 was probably already electric driven. They said it was ground breaking in several areas.

    Well the T-95 is speculated at 55T , no one knows for sure how much it weighs because they did not go official with it and there are also speculations that the pictures shown is one of the prototypes of T-95. For all you know T-95 could be 60 or 65 T

    I dont think T-95 its electric driven , the designer mentioned in that interview that electric tank is something they are trying for the new tank.

    Certainly an electric tank with GT engine and 1500 HP has been mentioned in that interview.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S6q74nrz3iI/AAAAAAAAA88/yb6kPurK7dE/s1600/P5200036.JPG

    if you check that link the Abrams has a weight of 63 T and uses 1500HP engine and has a power to weight ratio of nearly 24 , so for 65 T I would expect a P/W ratio of 21-22 Tons comparable to T-90 Bishma.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    It seems this year will be the year of negotiations with UVZ for future tanks buying.

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:04 pm

    It seems this year will be the year of negotiations with UVZ for future tanks buying. I wonder what tank they will choose (T-90M, T-95 or any other new type) and for what price. I really doubt that Russian MoD will not buy new tanks in next years.

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:06 pm

    The would end up buying the T-90M they have already built and tested the prototype , the T-95 project is dead but the technologies will be incorporated in their new FMBT.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    It seems this year will be the year of negotiations with UVZ for future tanks buying.

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:49 am

    I wonder what tank they will choose (T-90M, T-95 or any other new type)
    and for what price. I really doubt that Russian MoD will not buy new
    tanks in next years.

    I agree... they need to make orders for next year or UVZ will only be able to make trains.

    I am guessing they are waiting for the T-90M to complete its trials and tests.



    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2011/03/tank-news.html

    Austin

    Posts : 6439
    Points : 6840
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Austin on Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:14 am

    From that link from Chief Designer

    Izvestiya talked to Uralvagonzavod’s chief armor designer, Vladimir Nevolin, who said:

    “The main complaints against the T-90 today are connected with its insufficient survivability. Its deficiency is the placement of people, weapons, and fuel in one compartment. In any case of armor penetration, the igniting of fuel is unavoidable. Even with a fire suppression system, such a possibility isn’t excluded. Therefore, the development of modern armored equipment is going the way of separating people from the fuel and munitions. Moreover, the employment of remotely-controlled armaments is essential. These principles were implemented in our future product – “item 195.” For example, on it, the tank turret no longer had the crew. But it turns out no one needed such a project.”

    Vesti FM asked Igor Korotchenko whether Postnikov’s claim that Russian arms aren’t up to snuff is true. He said there are objective problems with Russian-designed weapons, and some planned for introduction are really obsolete. But, according to Korotchenko, the Defense Ministry’s main criticism is that Russian combat vehicles don’t meet survivability requirements.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:03 pm