Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    From that link from Chief Designer

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:44 am

    Speaking to a RIA Novosti press conference, Director of the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s
    (Minpromtorg) Defense-Industrial Complex Development Department, Igor Karavayev answered Postnikov this way:
    “Unfortunately, we are encountering unwarranted criticism of the tactical-technical characteristics of Russian military equipment lately. Allegedly, it doesn’t match its international counterparts.
    An objective evaluation of the characteristics and tests conducted, but also the pace at which our exports are growing, attest to the contrary.”
    He said more than a few countries buy Russian tanks, and the T-90A got a positive evaluation from testing in difficult climatic conditions, including in Saudi Arabia, India, and Malaysia. In Saudi Arabia, according to Karavayev, the T-90A was the only tank to destroy more than 60 percent of its targets after a road march. Karavayev continues:
    The tests conducted in Saudi Arabia as part of an open tender fully and completely contradict the Glavkom’s [Postnikov’s] assertions.”

    One of the goals behind the T-90T is to address the survivability issues already identified.The fact that the Army has been to cheap to pay for the survivability enhancements for the tanks suggests a whole new design is a waste of time because they wont buy that either.ERA is cheap yet Russian tanks went into combat without it in Chechnia in the mid 1990s, or with the blocks fitted but no explosive installed.T-90s are bought but not with their full equipment like Shtora and Arena or Drodz because they say they are too expensive.An M1A2 would be expensive too.As mentioned in your post Austin they designed the T-95 to address the survivability issues raised and the Army called it obsolete.Pretty clear the Army knows more about what it doesn't want than what it does want, and the media is hardly the best method of telling the defence industry what it does or does not want.The Russian industry has worked hard to get export orders in a time when the Russian military has been useless in supporting it financially with little or no orders.All this public whining will only undermine all that hard work and result in a loss of income for the Russian industry.... so who will pay for the next generation of weapons if the exports dry up?The Russian military will pay of course... which means the next gen of weapons will be even more expensive and the Russian Military will have no one to blame but themselves.

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Nice Interview

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:14 am

    Nice Interview http://vpk.name/news/50883_sergei_maev_glavkom_suhoputnyih_voisk_dolzhen_naladit_svyaz_s_voennoi_promyishlennostyu_a_ne_delat_neprodumannyie_zayavleniya.html

    ( use translation )

    He says he was personally involved with T-95 and if it got adopted it would have given Russian Army a 20 year advantage over Western system, there were refinments planned for T-95.
    avatar
    Pugnax

    Posts : 90
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:43 am

    The t-72 through t-90 have the inherent carrousel/cassete ammo detonation problems ,hence a 99% crew mortality when the turret pops like a cork.T-95 was the answer but the real troopers know to leave the carrousel unloaded,leaving a combat load of 3 minutes sustained fighting ammo.Gimmicks will only delay the fact that with a small ammo supply even t-90S is a death trap.Start building tanks for the physical European build(men of 6 ft or more),even if the tanks are 8 ft high at commanders periscopes,armour them well,make room inside so not every penetration scores a kill.If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war winning ,crew saving tanks again.
    avatar
    Pugnax

    Posts : 90
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:00 am

    Nathan Bedford Forrest,premiere mobile warfare soldier without a doubt would say the t-72 species sacrifices armour for speed and size in a dog "chasin" his own tail methodology.Make it small,hard to hit ...oops mod sights are to good,make it faster...again modern turret speeds and computerized gunnery offset this.So small as to offer no internal integrity,but fit conscript asians...well isnt the role of this forum to say Russia needs a new army built for and served by Russians?While a 1985 soviet army could smack down a contemporary Russian one with ease ,Russia no longer boasts 330 million peoples and large throw away soviet assets.Build the army of quality that a current and future Russia not only demands but has so well long deserved.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:18 am

    The t-72 through t-90 have the inherent carrousel/cassete ammo
    detonation problems ,hence a 99% crew mortality when the turret pops
    like a cork.

    I would suggest any explosion powerful enough to lift the several tons of metal that is the turret would kill 100% of those inside the tank.

    .If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few
    hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war
    winning ,crew saving tanks again.

    Hahahahahahaha... might interest you to know that neither the Centurion nor the Leopard 2 have ammo separated from crew positions and when penetrated in combat they will both blow their turrets too... the Centurion had a petrol engine!

    The problems of the T-72s exploding violently when penetrated was the ammo that wasn't in the autoloader, it was the extra ammo carried by the T-72 in the crew compartment that was manually loaded into the autoloader in combat. The T-90 has been in combat in the 1999 invasion of Dagestan by Chechen rebels and I look forward to your posts showing a single destroyed T-90 with its turret on the ground next to it.

    The Russian tankers had learned from previous conflicts in the Caucasus that if you don't carry the extra ammo in the crew compartment then any penetration will not lead to an internal explosion.

    That is the reasoning behind the T-90 upgrade that adds an external turret bustle autoloader to add a further 20-30 rounds, which in addition to the armoured underfloor autoloaders 22 rounds means the tank will have 42-52 ready to use rounds.

    T-95 was the answer but the real troopers know to leave the carrousel
    unloaded,leaving a combat load of 3 minutes sustained fighting ammo.

    Hahahahahaha... the real troops knew to leave the carousel unloaded? The underfloor armoured carousel that protected the main gun ammunition from the effects of any penetration of the front, side, or rear armour...
    Where would they put the ammo that wasn't going into the autoloader? Would it be safer sitting it on their laps?

    The crews knew the armoured carousel autoloader was the safest place to put the ammo and they didn't carry the extra loose ammo normally stored in the crew compartment.

    Gimmicks will only delay the fact that with a small ammo supply even t-90S is a death trap.

    Duh. The thing that makes any tank a death trap... highlighted by the turret being blown off from an internal explosion of ammo and fuel... is an internal explosion of ammo and fuel. Shifting all the available ammo to the armoured carousel autoloader will certainly leave the vehicle short of ammo, but has the effect of making it NOT a death trap because the penetration needs to hit ammo to make the tank go boom.

    Also the T-90S is simply an export version of the Russian Armys T-90A.

    Start building tanks for the physical European build(men of 6 ft or
    more),even if the tanks are 8 ft high at commanders periscopes,armour
    them well,make room inside so not every penetration scores a kill.

    Excellent solution... make tank bigger target. The problem all that extra space means extra armour to protect... empty space. Why?

    If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few
    hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war
    winning ,crew saving tanks again.

    WTF would Britain or Germany know about war winning tanks?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:38 am

    Nathan Bedford Forrest,premiere mobile warfare soldier without a doubt
    would say the t-72 species sacrifices armour for speed and size in a dog
    "chasin" his own tail methodology

    The T-72 was in service in the early 1970s and in comparison with tanks in service in other countries at that time is sacrifices nothing. Your suggestion of British or German tanks... lets compare the statistics of the T-72 compared to their contemporary British and German tanks shall we?

    The German contemporary to the T-72 was the Leopard 1... clearly what did you call it? A dog that chases its tail? A tank that sacrifices Armour for speed? But surely the Germans wouldn't make that sort of mistake would they?

    The British contemporary to the T-72 was the Chieftain tank... a tank known for its powerful main gun and heavy armour. Except that the T-72 had a more powerful gun and heavier armour and had a much more reliable engine... the Chieftains main weakness was its engine...

    Funny that really. You claim the T-72 is under armoured, yet it was better armoured than a Chieftain, which at the time was considered well armoured. The 70mm frontal armour of the Leopard 1 makes it guilty of all the things you claim for the T-72 but you think the Russians would be better off with a German or British tank.

    Make it small,hard to hit ...oops mod sights are to good,make it
    faster...again modern turret speeds and computerized gunnery offset
    this.

    Modern sights and modern turret speeds don't help overweight western tanks travel over bridges do they?

    Most medium transport aircraft can carry a 45 ton tank. Only the half billion dollar C-17 or a heavy strategic transport can carry an Abrams.

    So small as to offer no internal integrity,but fit conscript
    asians...well isnt the role of this forum to say Russia needs a new
    army built for and served by Russians?

    If you mean big fat westerners can't fit in Russian tanks... you are probably right but I don't see why this is important.

    [quote]While a 1985 soviet army could
    smack down a contemporary Russian one with ease ,Russia no longer
    boasts 330 million peoples and large throw away soviet assets.[quote]

    Actually they probably couldn't. The T-90 of today even in tiny numbers is better than the T-80 of 1985, and of course air defence has greatly improved since then. Also the numbers of Mig-29s and Su-27s would be less in 1985 than now, not to mention the difference in performance of MANPADS and ATGMs and of course artillery has moved forward too.
    A modern digital R-27 AAM would be far more potent a weapon than any 1980s Russian or Western AAM.

    The reality is that the old Soviet Army was certainly much bigger than the Russian Army is now, but the old system of three standards of readiness meant that only first line troops would actually be manned units with equipment, second line units would have most of its equipment but have a skeleton manning level and third line units would need a month to get manning and equipment levels to the point where they were functional forces.
    The modern Russian Army structure greatly reduces force sizes but it is the third and second line troop units that are disbanded and the first line ready troops have actually been enlarged so when they are fully equipped with all new gear they will actually be better able to operate and act than Soviet forces. They will be more like NATO units of 1985 except their gear will be 21st Century.


    Build the
    army of quality that a current and future Russia not only demands but
    has so well long deserved.

    By buying Centurions and Leopard 2s?
    avatar
    Pugnax

    Posts : 90
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:52 am

    Never said build them ,i intended the engineers to learn to build crew friendly vehicles,not pyroclastic death traps.Check crew survivability,Russia cant afford to squander crews any.longer.Soviet era engineers ,hence Russian engineers with tenure are plodding out 3rd world war stuff when thats not even an option unless you consider China,guarentee ,if china goes west Nato be there before Russian main forces,ministry or interior will stall them an hour or two
    .
    avatar
    Pugnax

    Posts : 90
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:58 am

    Kiwi ,i understand you want to defend your reputation ,so admit GRU or that a western soldier knows just how good the sovs were and what the rusians are at...billions spent to tach canninbals and muslims oops we were wrong, politburo
    avatar
    Pugnax

    Posts : 90
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    FIrst photos of T-95 and T-90

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:24 am

    Hanging hats on an old design, T-95 old ,new american tank will be out to show you the path,1 brigade cut through an army with tac air ,no russian response unless the peasants are suposed to shoot crews with moisin nagant 91/30 .ak rounds bounce off kevlar.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    The t-72 through t-90 have the inherent carrousel/cassete ammo detonation problems

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:48 am

    Never said build them ,i intended the engineers to learn to build crew friendly vehicles,not pyroclastic death traps.

    There is nothing wrong with the T-72 design as such, the real problem is the combustible propellent stubs the 125mm gun uses.
    The solution is separating those propellent stubs from the crew compartment.
    The solution is not found in a Leopard 2 because 120mm NATO rounds use one piece ammo with metal shell casings.
    The solution is not found in post WWII British tanks that were in several ways not even superior to the contemporary T-54/-55 series.

    Check crew survivability,Russia cant afford to squander crews any.longer.

    Making tanks smaller so they are less likely to be hit is squandering crews?
    At the time the T-72 entered service Soviet infantry were transported in BTRs and BMPs, while western troops were in M113s and trucks... or they walked. Who cares about whose people?

    Soviet era engineers ,hence Russian engineers with tenure are plodding
    out 3rd world war stuff when thats not even an option unless you
    consider China

    Right, and the Challanger and Leopard II are post cold war 21st C designs?
    Please tell me what NATO country has a true 21st C tank... because most actually date from the early 1980s or before.

    guarentee ,if china goes west Nato be there before Russian main forces,ministry or interior will stall them an hour or two

    Why would China go west? Its economy is going well... invading a nuclear armed neighbour is not good for any ones economy.
    Suggesting that Russia needs Cold War Soviet levels of military power is just silly and would lead to Russia squandering a huge opportunity.
    They have managed to shed all the hanger-ons that just bludged and did little.
    It has resources and land and enough of a population to get by... BTW western countries have a problem with an aging population too.

    Kiwi ,i understand you want to defend your reputation

    What reputation?
    You have claimed Russian tanks are deathtraps and suggested they swallow their pride and copy British or German tanks.
    I have replied that they got the lesson that combustible ammo stubs are dangerous in tanks, they cancelled T-80 production and development because the way the ammo is stored even though it is better armoured than early model T-72s it is more vulnerable to exploding when penetrated because the design of the underfloor carousel offers no protection to the propellent stubs.
    The T-72 and T-90 design autoloader however does protect the propellent stubs from flames and sparks inside the tank from penetrations and makes the vehicles much safer in combat zones.
    They don't need you to tell them to buy foreign... the problem has been identified and the solution is the topic of this thread... the T-90AM and the T-95.
    The T-90AM will likely go into production, while the T-95 was deemed too expensive.

    so admit GRU or that a western soldier knows just how good the sovs were
    and what the rusians are at...billions spent to tach canninbals and
    muslims oops we were wrong, politburo

    Don't really understand what you are saying here.

    Hanging hats on an old design,

    With the threat of ammo inside the vehicle removed the T-90 is actually a very good tank. How old the design is is really unimportant. Look at the B-52. The job of the tank hasn't really changed in the last 50 years or so, so a brand new tank just for the sake of it is a waste of time and money.

    T-95 old ,new american tank will be out
    to show you the path,1 brigade cut through an army with tac air ,no
    russian response unless the peasants are suposed to shoot crews with
    moisin nagant 91/30 .ak rounds bounce off kevlar.

    American tank will only engage third world country, Taliban IED blow up super merican tank. Tac air useless against IED, but very expensive for taxpayer in form of F-35. US force ends up killing more of the people it goes in to save than it goes in to kill.

    Result poor country gets bombed and made poorer. Merican taxpayer spends lots more money but is no safer. People with dark skin die because the white man needs his oil supplies. And of course new industry created in the US around artificial limb development and production.

    Should add the only "new" US tank had its funding cut and the next US tank will be the M1A3.


    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Tue May 10, 2011 12:35 pm

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 12, 2011 3:02 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Austin on Fri May 13, 2011 5:30 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    video

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

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 13, 2011 5:52 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Austin on Fri May 13, 2011 5:59 am

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

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

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

    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    New tanks russian army

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:00 pm

    The Russian army will receive new generation of tanks in 2014

    The armored Russian tanks will be the next generation in 2014, announced Saturday the Russian Ministry of Defense.

    Without specifying the model of the new tanks, the spokesman of the Ministry Lt. Col. Sergei Vlasov told the press that Russia will replace the current group of tanks over a period of six years until 2020.

    According to Russian media, the new generation of tanks could include two models: T-95 and T-99 Suspect , improved models based on T-90.

    For now, Russian ground forces are equipped with T-72, T-80 and T-90.


    http://french.peopledaily.com.cn/International/7593717.html
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3220
    Points : 3306
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  medo on Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:08 am

    Why is T-80 considered as non domestic tank? As I know they were also produced in Omsk, which is in Russia.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  runaway on Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:07 pm

    medo wrote:Why is T-80 considered as non domestic tank? As I know they were also produced in Omsk, which is in Russia.

    That is right, i think Gary related to the fact that Ukraine has had parallell production and keeps upgrading the design. They sell it now as "their" tank T-84.
    Noenthenless, Gary was wrong using the word "non domestic".


    Although the T-80 production has stopped for the Russian Army, the Omsk plant still makes the tank for export. As of 2011 the Russian military has upgraded some T-80s to prolong their service lives,[19] and the T-80 will serve in the Russian army for years to come.
    In October 2009 Cyprus ordered an additional batch of 41 used T-80Us and T-80UKs from Russia for €115 million. Deliveries are expected to be completed in the first half of 2011.

    About 500 T-80UD tanks were built in the Malyshev plant between 1987–91. About 300 were still at the Ukrainian factory when the Soviet Union broke up, so the T-80UD tank and its design was far more welcomed in Ukrainian Military service
    Ukrainian T-80UDIn parallel with the T-80U and Russia in general, the Morozov Bureau in Ukraine developed a diesel-powered version, the T-80UD


    Russia protested that they held the rights to the tank and that Ukraine couldn't export it. Nearly 70% of T-80UD components were produced outside of Ukraine (mainly in Russia). Under the guise of keeping good relations with India, one of its most important military customers, Russia withheld 2A46-2 125 mm smoothbore guns, cast turrets and other technology, which forced Ukraine to make its tank industry independent. It developed domestic components, including a welded turret which was in use on the new T-84.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-80 Production

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:47 pm

    Omsk was more of a repair factory for the T-80, though a design centre was there... if given the funding they could have produced the T-80 at the rate they eventually built the T-90s at.

    The main problem that while many of the components for the T-80 were made in Russia the facilities for mass production were in the Ukraine.

    Also combat experience had shown that because of the design of the autoloader with the propellent stubs stored vertically any hull or turret penetration would lead to an explosion on the T-64 and T-80 (both shared the same sort of autoloader).

    The autoloader for the T-72 was different as both propellent stub and projectile were horizontal under armour plate which stopped sparks and hot metal fragments reaching the ammo in the autoloader.

    Due to combat experience the frontal armour of the T-72 had been radically increased as well, to the point where it was comparable to the T-80, so when Russia stated they wanted one tank instead of two the makers of the T-72 basically put all new stuff into the T-72 that previously they had avoided to keep costs down and simplify production.

    The result was called the T-90 and it won against the T-80 put forward by Omsk. In many ways it was similar to the Flanker Fulcrum fight however as the T-90 got an Indian order while exports of T-80s were largely political in nature (ie South Korea was as payment for debt, and Cyprus was to annoy the Turks.)

    Another problem with the T-80 was that the T-80U model had a powerful but gas guzzling engine. The solution was an investment in much more powerful diesel tank engines which payed off with new engines that went into the T-80UD, where D is for diesel.

    The problem for Russia is that the factory that made the much more powerful diesel engines was located in the Ukraine too and in the mid 1990s they didn't have extra funds to develop another new tank engine. In the last decade they have developed a few new engines.

    After loosing to UVZ, Omsk went bankrupt and it primarily maintains T-80s in service... the design part of their company was transferred to UVZ... the Burlak T-90 upgrade combined the T-72 underfloor autoloader with the turret bustle autoloader of the Black Eagle, so the vehicle had about 53 rounds of ammo ready to fire, but the Russian military thought the turret bustle ammo was too vulnerable to enemy fire so they rejected it.

    To be clear many of the T-80s in Russian service are old T-80B tanks. The T-80, T-80U, and T-80UD are Soviet tanks, as is the T-72. After the split the Ukraine continued to further develop the T-80, while the Russian military held a competition for a new tank to be their MBT and the Russian T-90 won. The T-90 is a Russian tank because it was developed after Russia and the Ukraine split. Omsk still produces limited numbers of tanks for export when it gets orders, but its primary role in Russia is maintainence for the T-80s in Russian service.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10517
    Points : 10994
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  George1 on Tue May 01, 2012 7:32 am

    Russian Defense Vice Premier Dmitry Rogozin Visits The Nizhny Tagil Proving Ground



    Vice Premier Dmitry Rogozin and the governor visited the Uralvagonzavod plant in Nizhny Tagil, where the legendary T-90 tanks are produced. Rogozin took a ride in a T-90A MBT, fired off several rounds, and was satisfied with the tank. The Vice Premier got to ride not only heavy armored vehicles, but light ones, as well, such as this motorcycle, and even took some passengers with him. Rogozin stated that these proving grounds are to become Russia’s center for testing and demonstrating new armored vehicles and that the grounds will be expanded and modernized. In addition, these grounds are where foreign tankers will be trained to use Russian tanks. “We have a huge export potential and we will expand it, and we will teach foreign crews to use the tanks here, who will then become instructors in the countries that operate our tanks,” stated Dmitry Rogozin. 23 trillion rubles will be allocated from the federal budget for the modernization of the Russian army. At least 10% of that money will go to the Uralvagonzavod plant.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Manufacturer

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 11, 2012 12:56 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zq_IbSk_GaQ#!

    Putin visits UMZ. You can see new T-90s for Algeria.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3220
    Points : 3306
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  medo on Fri May 11, 2012 4:15 pm

    http://www.itar-tass.com/c9/414065.html

    6 billions roubles will be for production modernization. But it is unclear if 6 billions mentioned in article is additional 6 billions for additional modernized tanks or new build tanks or they are the same billions for factory modernization.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 12, 2012 2:05 am

    I would expect the money is to upgrade the factories ready to make Armata vehicles, but of course the T-90 production facilities will benefit too.
    avatar
    Pugnax

    Posts : 90
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    Russia Tank Force: Present and Future

    Post  Pugnax on Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:08 am

    Guys kharkhiv was the premiere soviet tank factory,lets not rub salt in old wounds.With the dissolution of the 3cp some thing were lost,including the kiev armour school.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:36 am

    Guys kharkhiv was the premiere soviet tank factory,lets not rub salt in old wounds.With the dissolution of the 3cp some thing were lost,including the kiev armour school.

    Kharkov had nothing to do with the development or construction of the T-90 tank... any data they have is either estimates or speculation, and we have seen videos to prove their data is wrong.

    They were the premier tank makers of the Soviet Army, because that was their role... develop and produce expensive but state of the art tanks for breakthrough operations... T-64 and then T-80.

    The problem is a lack of funding for the last 25 years and separation from the rest of the Soviet Union republics.

    Generally new diesel engines came from the Ukraine, but most optics came from Belarus and plenty of components came from Russia.

    With the breakup of the Soviet Union the systems were broken up too, and Russia is really the only part of the Former Soviet Union that came has come out of the crisis with a functioning MIC. There were lots of areas they needed to work on themselves and they invested a lot of money on diesel engines and other components. For Thermal Imagers they were so far behind and the Soviet states were also so far behind they purchased French technology to catch up.

    Now they are making third gen Russian thermal imagers and investing on QWIP technology and moving forward themselves.

    Kharkov has been starved of funds and work and while their ability with modern armours and modern ERA is still better than many countries... they are falling behind because of a lack of investment by their own government.

    The sudden investment by the Russian military in late 2008 proved that years of neglect and prototypes don't prepare an MIC for mass production of modern products... that costs extra and takes time.

    I would suggest that details released by Kharkov regarding T-90s... Which they don't make nor have access to, is largely for the purposes of marketing, rather than a real comparison of performance, and their numbers are clearly wrong.

    BTW most tanks have a range of traverse speeds including backup manual speeds, and 16 degrees per second means over 20 seconds to turn the turret around once. I doubt even the manual speed is that slow, but for precise aiming a slow rate of turn allows the gunner to follow real world targets... a target doing 50km/h that is 3km away could easily be followed with a turn rate of 16 degrees per second.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)- Russian Tank Development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:43 pm