Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Share

    solo.13mmfmj
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 118
    Points : 141
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:06 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs&feature=related
    Is the t90 close to the m1a2 abrams or not?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:46 am

    Some would say yes, but the T-90 achieves it in different ways.

    With the right ERA the level of armour protection on the T-90 is comparable.
    The Abrams with its gas turbine main engine has a serious heat signature and needs a robust and capable support network to keep it operational.

    The Abrams has a battlespace management system that allows the vehicles to operate as a team... it is like AWACS for ground vehicles... remember the AC of AWACS stands for ...and control.
    Only the latest model of the T-90 has a BMS. The T-90 Burlak. The Russian Army has reportedly bought some Burlak simulators for training crews so there is a good chance they will adopt the upgrade.

    Much has been made of Soviet and Russian tanks blowing up, but that is really an issue with storing tank gun ammo in the crew compartment. Most western tanks actually do that, but the Burlak upgrade includes a turret bustle in addition to the underfloor autoloader. This allows for long penetrators being stored in the rear turret bustle separate from the crew compartment and it means 40-50 rounds can be carried, all in armoured autoloaders.

    Every tank has good an bad features and you really cannot rate a tank as better than another unless you explain what you mean.

    If you are fighting in paddy fields where the ground is flooded most of the time then a 70 ton Abrams might not be much good. Equally in an open desert environment where visibility is good out to very long range then tanks that can fire guided anti tank missile through their main guns and have good optics have an advantage.

    Needless to say if the Iraqis had Abrams and the US had T-72s the US would still have won because most Iraqi tanks were destroy by airpower anyway.

    The Iraqis would probably have lost less crewmen and the US would have lost more, but then the Iraqi Abrams would have been base models with 105mm guns and the US models would have had all sorts of sophisticated equipment on them.

    The main reason the US did so well was because they fought as a team using their BMS's. Excellent communciation and working as a team make all the difference... it was one of the reasons the Germans did so well with their tanks in WWII even though their tanks were inferior to many Soviet and French tanks.

    solo.13mmfmj
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 118
    Points : 141
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:49 pm

    "Needless to say if the Iraqis had Abrams and the US had T-72s the US would still have won because most Iraqi tanks were destroy by airpower anyway."
    The iraq war is irrelevant in this discussion because iraq had no spare parts and modern ammunition.
    "but the Burlak upgrade".
    The t90 is going to get an upgrate?
    Interesting. Do you have any links?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:29 am

    The iraq war is irrelevant in this discussion because iraq had no spare parts and modern ammunition.

    Every war is relevant, but you need to be aware of other factors, like the ones you mentioned, plus all the others, like the quality of night vision, the T-72s had image intensification that was effective out to mayby 1,000m while the US forces had thermal sights able to see 3 times that far and also through smoke and dust which was common in Iraqi battlefields.
    The Iraqi tanks themselves were not top of the line T-72s with new armour or ammunition.
    No doubt the Americans listened in to Iraqi communications and knew their plans.
    Air superiority would mean that no tank battles would have been necessary at all if they wanted to avoid them.
    Armour could have simply been used to make the enemy form into a large enough force to repel the attack and then airpower could have been used to deal with that bunched up force.

    Both vehicles can be immobilised with a hit that destroys a track. Both vehicles are vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire or heavier from directly behind into the engine bay.

    An Iraqi Abram would have been a pill box because even with their abundance of oil they probably wouldn't have been able to keep the engines running.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:59 am

    solo.13mmfmj wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs&feature=related
    Is the t90 close to the m1a2 abrams or not?

    Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology. The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition. This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away. Most tanks in the Russian Army do not even carry missiles, it is only a select few in each battalion that do. The tanks that do not incorporate the French thermals are practically blind compared to the Leclerc. A single Leclerc can engage an entire company of tanks in less than one minute at 95% accuracy. The computations are already loaded by the time its ready to fire. The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get. The M1A2 has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to the Leclerc, but against the T-90 the result is the same. It isn't close.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:40 am

    The T90`s accuracy is not so poor. The t90 even holds an unofficial record for accuracy and rate of fire:
    7 targets placed in 1.5 - 2.5km while moving at 25km/h in just 54 seconds. Leo 2 got only 6. The T90`s gun is both longer(6678 mm) and larger than the L44 and in the same time as long as the latest german L55 or the leclerc`s one and of course this makes it more accurate and the muzzle velocity it`s good too
    There is nothing wrong with the T80. The T90 isn`t older than it`s counterparts.
    Just look at some of the T90`s advantage over most western MBT:
    1-Excellent patency, reliable operation in a wide temperature range
    2-Low weight and size, contributing to the strategic mobility, overall patency, invisibility on the battlefield and reduce the likelihood of defeat
    3-High security - armor in conjunction with armor protects the tank from the confident modern western anti-tank shells (already tested against the most modern russian AT weapons which are better than NATO`s)
    4-Significantly lower price (approximately 2.35 million dollars).
    I would`n worry for the ammo compartiment issue. It`s ulikely for the T90 to get penetrated in the same place when the ammo is stored and even the Leclerc tank has ammo stored inside the autoloader
    What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported
    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that
    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all

    Yes, it needs a few improvements whcih can be builed domestically or imported. If they get all of this parts the T90 might just become equal if not better than the Leclerc.

    Reagarding to Abrmas, it has it`s own probelems:
    1-very weak side and rear armor (as demonstrated in Iraq)
    2-the secondary tracking unit of the tank is not protected against MG fire. This could result on a power failure of the tank (as demonstated in Iraq) This also disables the switch that opens the door when ammo is stored
    3-The abrams much more heavier
    4-relativly short range
    5-turbine engine, just as the T80. This consumes a lot of fuel and is more likely to overheat. The Abrams has a huge IR signature
    6-not as reliable than T90
    and what`s worse it dosen`t hold any advantages over the T90, except for having better target aqquistion devices

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:14 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    solo.13mmfmj wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs&feature=related
    Is the t90 close to the m1a2 abrams or not?

    Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology. The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition. This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away. Most tanks in the Russian Army do not even carry missiles, it is only a select few in each battalion that do. The tanks that do not incorporate the French thermals are practically blind compared to the Leclerc. A single Leclerc can engage an entire company of tanks in less than one minute at 95% accuracy. The computations are already loaded by the time its ready to fire. The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get. The M1A2 has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to the Leclerc, but against the T-90 the result is the same. It isn't close.

    A couple of things Vlad.

    First, please provide proof about accuracy, cause I have heard very different.

    Second, the ballistics computer is basis of multiple of things. Hardware wise, it may be outdated but that means diddly squat if the software works and works good. Also, with the Catherin FC sights, it is supposed to be quite effective. Something like Combat management systems can be put in place, just like new suspensions and muzzle references. T-90 isn't a new system, and is constantly being worked on (Burlak as example, T-90M). If you want, you can simply tell your government to stop work on it and buy the Leclerk, but do not be surprised if the models you end up with are not as good as the T-90M and are more expensive.

    Protection wise:
    During a reported test conducted by the Russian military in 1999 the T-90 was exposed to a variety of RPG, ATGM and APFSDS munitions. When equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA the T-90 could not be penetrated with any of the APFSDS or ATGM used during the trial and outperformed a T-80U which also took part
    Wiki

    Pretty good, as M1A1's have been destroyed by RPG-29's various of times during the current wars. So they are not much better (probably less so in armor by area squared).

    Stalingradcommando wrote:The T90`s accuracy is not so poor. The t90 even holds an unofficial record for accuracy and rate of fire:
    7 targets placed in 1.5 - 2.5km while moving at 25km/h in just 54 seconds. Leo 2 got only 6. The T90`s gun is both longer(6678 mm) and larger than the L44 and in the same time as long as the latest german L55 or the leclerc`s one and of course this makes it more accurate and the muzzle velocity it`s good too
    There is nothing wrong with the T80. The T90 isn`t older than it`s counterparts.
    Just look at some of the T90`s advantage over most western MBT:
    1-Excellent patency, reliable operation in a wide temperature range
    2-Low weight and size, contributing to the strategic mobility, overall patency, invisibility on the battlefield and reduce the likelihood of defeat
    3-High security - armor in conjunction with armor protects the tank from the confident modern western anti-tank shells (already tested against the most modern russian AT weapons which are better than NATO`s)
    4-Significantly lower price (approximately 2.35 million dollars).
    I would`n worry for the ammo compartiment issue. It`s ulikely for the T90 to get penetrated in the same place when the ammo is stored and even the Leclerc tank has ammo stored inside the autoloader
    What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported
    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that
    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all

    Yes, it needs a few improvements whcih can be builed domestically or imported. If they get all of this parts the T90 might just become equal if not better than the Leclerc.

    Reagarding to Abrmas, it has it`s own probelems:
    1-very weak side and rear armor (as demonstrated in Iraq)
    2-the secondary tracking unit of the tank is not protected against MG fire. This could result on a power failure of the tank (as demonstated in Iraq) This also disables the switch that opens the door when ammo is stored
    3-The abrams much more heavier
    4-relativly short range
    5-turbine engine, just as the T80. This consumes a lot of fuel and is more likely to overheat. The Abrams has a huge IR signature
    6-not as reliable than T90
    and what`s worse it dosen`t hold any advantages over the T90, except for having better target aqquistion devices

    As for ballistic computers, you don't need to import that, as more like, you need to import the hardware/software from elsewhere, but can be made in Russia.

    And a question: Why is the 1V528 ballistic computer considered out of date or incapable like Vlad and you state? This is the first forums where I heard such blatant attacks on Russian military equipment, and yet, with no evidence of such.

    solo.13mmfmj
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 118
    Points : 141
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:21 am

    "Every war is relevant, but you need to be aware of other factors, like the ones you mentioned, plus all the others, like the quality of night vision, the T-72s had image intensification that was effective out to mayby 1,000m while the US forces had thermal sights able to see 3 times that far and also through smoke and dust which was common in Iraqi battlefields.
    The Iraqi tanks themselves were not top of the line T-72s with new armour or ammunition.
    No doubt the Americans listened in to Iraqi communications and knew their plans.
    Air superiority would mean that no tank battles would have been necessary at all if they wanted to avoid them.
    Armour could have simply been used to make the enemy form into a large enough force to repel the attack and then airpower could have been used to deal with that bunched up force.

    Both vehicles can be immobilised with a hit that destroys a track. Both vehicles are vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire or heavier from directly behind into the engine bay.

    An Iraqi Abram would have been a pill box because even with their abundance of oil they probably wouldn't have been able to keep the engines running."

    And how does this show the capabilities of the T90? Unless the T90 is a glorified T72 monkey model.

    "Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology. The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition. This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away. Most tanks in the Russian Army do not even carry missiles, it is only a select few in each battalion that do. The tanks that do not incorporate the French thermals are practically blind compared to the Leclerc. A single Leclerc can engage an entire company of tanks in less than one minute at 95% accuracy. The computations are already loaded by the time its ready to fire. The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get. The M1A2 has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to the Leclerc, but against the T-90 the result is the same. It isn't close."

    So basically russian soldiers will be happier if they could get Leclerc,Abrams,Challenger 2 maybe Leopard 2.

    "The T90`s accuracy is not so poor. The t90 even holds an unofficial record for accuracy and rate of fire."

    The record is unofficial cannot be confirmed.

    "What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported
    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that
    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all
    "

    But the T90 has not yet received this upgrades.

    "Pretty good, as M1A1's have been destroyed by RPG-29's various of times during the current wars. So they are not much better (probably less so in armor by area squared)."

    But the armour of T90 can resist a hit from RPG-29?

    "As for ballistic computers, you don't need to import that, as more like, you need to import the hardware/software from elsewhere, but can be made in Russia."

    Is the hardware/software capability equal to that of other tanks or not?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:32 am

    The Burlak upgrade covers all the problems mentioned.

    It has reorganised the frontal armour and ERA so there are no gaps.
    It has a muzzle reference system and the new gun (2A82) is said to be 25% better than the previous one, which already improved accuracy because of new machine tools and materials it was made from.
    The turret is increased in size and a commanders panoramic sight has been added with a three channel IR sight and improved protection from small arms and splinters with a 30 cal mg on top with the 50 cal HMG removed so that the commanders sight has full 360 degree view and it includes the Catherine thermal sight.
    The gunner has his own Methis (spelling) thermal sight that operates in a different IR frequency.
    A battle management system is added so the commander can see targets other platforms have detected and other vehicles in his unit can see targets he can see.
    There is a turret bustle auto loader with about 31 rounds which allows long rod penetrator rounds to be used. The original underfloor autoloader remains with the ammo in an armoured compartment separate from the crew with a further 22 rounds, which means 53 rounds ready to fire with no need for the crew to handle ammo or store ammo in the crew compartment.


    Note this news report:

    Russia is modernizing its T-90 tank and will finish the project before the end of 2010, a deputy defense minister said.

    “There is comprehensive work under way to modernize the T-90 tank, increasing its combat potential, fitting it with a night vision system, placing the ammunition compartment outside the crew section, and the armor, including the active armor, is being improved,” Vladimir Popovkin told reporters.

    The organization that is modernizing the tank is promising to finish the work by the end of the year, he said.

    From Interfax AVN.

    The new upgrade includes the latest ERA called Relict that has been positioned on the tank to minimise gaps and will be fitted to the turret and the chassis.

    Additional roof armour to protect against top attack weapons.

    Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-split/rounds protection.
    A fire control system with a net centric module.
    New Radio.
    New Navigation system with GLONASS receiver.
    Anti neutron layer replaced with Kevlar anti splinter layer.
    New fire suppression system.

    Being worked on, steering wheel controls and monoblock 1,200hp V-99 engine.

    And how does this show the capabilities of the T90? Unless the T90 is a glorified T72 monkey model.

    It doesn't say anything about the T-90, it explains the easy ride the M1 Abrams had and why its performance seemed so good.

    "Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology.

    The Burlak upgrade addresses all these things and more.
    And the Leclerc is not combat tested.
    Perhaps before claiming it is better than a T-90 perhaps you should have a guy from Bazalt have a few shots at it to see how it holds up against anti tank weapons designed in the last 20 years.

    The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition.

    Rubbish, it was a quick an easy way to upgrade all Soviet tanks from T-54 to T-80 with a round that could hit an enemy tank beyond 3,000m.
    If it was because of a total lack of accuracy each Soviet tank would only carry missiles. In practise between 6 and 8 missiles were carried simply because in most terrain types you are never going to see an enemy tank at that range let alone hit it.
    It was also adopted in the Early 1980s when only the T-80s and T-64s has laser rangefinders and fire control systems.
    The US and the French also developed gun tube launched missiles that were complete failures, but the fact that they developed them in the first place did not mean they were behind in FCS or accuracy.

    This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away.

    Then aim 50m above the tank you are trying to hit... when your missile gets close drop your aim onto the target. Most laser warning receivers are designed to detect target marking lasers. The laser for a beam riding missile is 5 orders of magnitude less powerful... the victim tank might never detect it. 5 orders of magnitude is 10,000 times less powerful because the laser seeker in the missile is looking directly into the beam that travels in one direction to the missile, not like a laser guided bomb where the laser reflects off the target back at the weapon which means that even with smoke fired the missile from the Russian tank will still be guided till it hits the smoke and has travelled through enough smoke so it can no longer see the laser beam. When it loses the beam it will more likely than not keep flying straight. The enemy tank might fire smoke 100m from itself and it might take 20m of smoke to hide the laser so for the last 80m the missile will fly straight. The gunner has a thermal sight that can see into smoke so his aim should still be good. So the missile that flys at an average of about 600m/s would probably still hit the target tank in most situations.

    The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get.

    This is really dumb. It is networked with the French armed forces. Unless you buy all the other French networked stuff like Helos, artillery etc etc then in Russian service they will just be networked with each other. The Burlak is networked too but likely networked with existing Russian stuff.

    But the T90 has not yet received this upgrades.

    And the Leclerc has not received these upgrades either... these are all planned features of a foreign tank... most of which are already planned for the T-90 upgrade.

    A bit like saying the F-35 has all the features of T-50... why not forget T-50 because the Su-27 is not low observable and buy F-35s.

    Mistral made sense because it is a finished product that is proven and ready to go and Russian ship designers don't have anything on paper that could compete.

    The T-90 upgrades have been worked on for some time and are the combined work of both the design bureaus in Russia that build tanks (the turret bustle autoloader is straight from Black Eagle).
    The T-90 is not perfect, there a lots of things that need correction.
    The T-90 Burlak upgrade seems to solve most of those problems very effectively in a way that existing T-90s can be upgraded to the new standard... in fact it can be applied to T-72s and T-80s as well so it is a very good idea.

    But the armour of T90 can resist a hit from RPG-29?

    More like can it resist a hit from an RPG-28.
    In reply from the front, a shot to the turret, probably.
    From the side, not tank on the planet could reliably survive such a hit.

    What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported

    Of course the T-90 has gunner sights and ballistic computers.
    All versions have them.

    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that

    Burlak upgrade.

    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all

    The new Burlak upgrade will be ready by the end of 2010... and will likely be in production well before any Leclerc would be available for Russian service.

    There is no evidence that the Leclercs armour is any better than Western Chobham or Chobham II armour, or for that matter the armour fitted to the T-90.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:26 pm

    Now, returning to topic, I have no doubts that the T90 is a better tank than the Abrams

    Basically comparing the T90`s to the L44 gun:
    -the 2A46M is 5 mm wider and over 1m longer
    -the 2A46M is ATGM capable

    Comparing protection:
    -T90 has updated k-5 (ERA) which offer complete protection against APFSDS such as the M829, as demonstrate during US army-bunderswehr joint exercies
    -T90 has Shtora and Arena offering it better protection against RPG`s and ATGM`s
    -T90 is much smaller making it harder to see

    comparing mobility;
    -T90 has a diesel engine which is less fuel hunger and this means longer operational range
    -The T90 has better off-road mobility
    -T90 has more hp/t (V92 and V96 engines only) thus having a higher speed

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:39 am

    Better?

    No.

    In most areas they are comparable, in some areas one or the other is better.

    To say which is better, you need to give a context.

    What terrain?

    What budget?

    What enemy and what enemy equipment?

    The Abrams has the huge advantage of a battle management information system.
    It is like having AWACS support for a fighter, it means in practical terms a much smaller force can take on a larger force without such a system and defeat them efficiently.
    The Burlak upgrade includes a battle management information system, but existing Russian tanks do not.

    Basically comparing the T90`s to the L44 gun:
    -the 2A46M is 5 mm wider and over 1m longer
    -the 2A46M is ATGM capable

    The Burlak upgrade is supposed to include the 2A83 gun that is 25% better than the 2A46M. Improved accuracy and velocity.
    In addition the rear turret bustle autoloader for the Burlak operates faster than the turret ring autoloader and can handle more efficient long rod penetrator rounds.

    Comparing protection:
    -T90 has updated k-5 (ERA) which offer complete protection against APFSDS such as the M829, as demonstrate during US army-bunderswehr joint exercies
    -T90 has Shtora and Arena offering it better protection against RPG`s and ATGM`s
    -T90 is much smaller making it harder to see

    The Abrams has very good crew protection, with no rounds in the crew compartment.

    The T-90 has 22 rounds in the turret ring autoloader so the remaining 20-22 rounds are stowed in the crew compartment. The Burlak upgrade adds a turret bustle autoloader with a further 31 rounds that don't need to be stored in the crew compartment so all ammo is in armoured autoloaders seperated from the crew compartment.

    comparing mobility;
    -T90 has a diesel engine which is less fuel hunger and this means longer operational range
    -The T90 has better off-road mobility
    -T90 has more hp/t (V92 and V96 engines only) thus having a higher speed

    Actually a gas turbine is more efficient as a power supply, which is why gas turbines are used in tanks to power systems when the main engine is off.
    The T-95 will probably use a gas turbine to supply electricity with electric motors moving the vehicle around. This means no transmission is needed which saves a lot of complexity and weight and space in the tank.
    In such a role the gas turbine is run at its most fuel efficient speed to generate electricity efficiently.
    On the Abrams, and the T-80 which was the first tank to have a gas turbine as its only means of propulsion the engine needs to be run at high revs to generate torque for acceleration which makes it very very inefficient and a real gas guzzler.
    If you can afford to run it however some might suggest it is worth the cost.

    At the end of the day a Javelin will probably kill both...

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:10 am

    No, you`re wrong. Ammo is not stored inside the turret, but inside the hull. Carusel type of autoloader is placed on best place as possible, because according to doctrine of armor combat, that is safest place for storing ammo. Explosion and cook-off effect never happens instantly, but after some time when flame catch CCC, and explosion is never cause by ammo stored in autoloader, but by extra ammo who is on right side of autoloader on "wall" of hull, also, there is no ammo stored in turret. That famous weak spot is by protected by side skirt and road wheels, and armor of course, and chance of making instant explosion is very little
    Penetration of turret have nothing to do with cook-off effect, but PENETRATION OF LOVER HULL CAN CAUSE THAT.
    Here comes another disadvantage of the Abrams:
    It`s secondary tracking unit is not proteced, even against MG fire. This directly leaves the M1 without power and causes the doors, which open the ammo compartiment section to operate manuaually.

    M1 has very reliable fornt armor? Indeed, but what about it`s side armor? Pathetic. Thousands of Abrams tanks suffered mobility kills in Iraq when hit on sides or rear by RPG7`s. When you becomne a satationary target, the best thing you can do is leave the tank. Some of the Abrams were recovered, some destroyed by the American themselfs and some other were set on fire by the Iraqis
    Not only that, but several M1`s were completly destroyed short after being hit by RPG7 when they were set on fire and slowly consumed
    T90 does not have that issue, because it employes K-5 and Arena which can shot down RPG`s, ATGM`s and even top-attack weapons like Javelin, TOW and Hellfire

    Gas turbines are not better than diesel engines. Gas turbine engines spend much more fuel than diesel ones. The M1 carries 1900l of fuel, much more than T90 and has 100km+ shorter range. T95 was intended to use an diesel X-shaped engine, not a turbine one

    T90 does not need 2A83 gun to compete with the L44 (which isn`t american at all) The germans already upgraded to the L55 gun. L44 guns are the shortest guns today: see for yourself 5.28m (L44) against 6.6 (2A46M, L55, CN120-26) Longer guns are more accurate than shorter one, even when not using laser guided ATGM rounds. From the pictures below you could easily see the difference of their guns:



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:01 pm

    Ammo is not stored inside the turret, but inside the hull.

    There are three crew in a T-90.

    Commander, and gunner in the turret and driver in the front centre of the hull.

    After the 22 rounds in the carousel auto loader are used up the autoloader has to be reloaded by the crew.
    I rather suspect the gunner will be doing that job so the extra rounds will need to be handy to his position for him to be able to do that.
    Whether the extra rounds are in the turret or the hull doesn't matter, they are an extreme fire hazard and you really don't want them anywhere near your crew.

    [qutoe]Carusel type of autoloader is placed on best place as possible, because according to doctrine of armor combat, that is safest place for storing ammo.[/quote]

    I have been told that only storing ammo in the armoured carousel autoloader was what reduced casualties during the second Chechen campaign... in addition of course to better tactics in using tanks.

    ...but by extra ammo who is on right side of autoloader on "wall" of hull, also, there is no ammo stored in turret. That famous weak spot is by protected by side skirt and road wheels, and armor of course, and chance of making instant explosion is very little...

    It really doesn't matter if the tank gun ammo is in the turret or the hull, when fire reaches it it will explode and as long as it is inside the tank it will all detonate at once when it goes so hatches and turrets will suffer.

    The Burlak upgrade keeps the carousel autoloader and adds a turret bustle autoloader that keeps both lots of ammo separate from the crew compartment and is much safer and probably easier to load.

    Penetration of turret have nothing to do with cook-off effect, but PENETRATION OF LOVER HULL CAN CAUSE THAT.

    Any penetration of a tank can kill or injure crewmen and start fires. The inside of tanks is small and lots of flammeable stuff is stored in there, like fuel, ammo etc.

    M1 has very reliable fornt armor? Indeed, but what about it`s side armor? Pathetic. Thousands of Abrams tanks suffered mobility kills in Iraq when hit on sides or rear by RPG7`s. When you becomne a satationary target, the best thing you can do is leave the tank. Some of the Abrams were recovered, some destroyed by the American themselfs and some other were set on fire by the Iraqis

    There has only really been one tank in history that attempted to have strong armour all round and it was a German tank called the Maus. It weighed about 180 tons and had 250mm of armour all round. Pathetic by todays standard regarding armour thickness. Impossibly heavy too. Its top speed was 6mph and it broke windows as it drove past buildings...

    T90 does not have that issue, because it employes K-5 and Arena which can shot down RPG`s, ATGM`s and even top-attack weapons like Javelin, TOW and Hellfire

    AFAIK Russian T-90s are not fitted with ARENA.

    No tank is invincible... a simple land mine can cut a track and immobilise any tank ever made or on the drawing board.

    Gas turbines are not better than diesel engines. Gas turbine engines spend much more fuel than diesel ones. The M1 carries 1900l of fuel, much more than T90 and has 100km+ shorter range. T95 was intended to use an diesel X-shaped engine, not a turbine one

    You didn't read what I said. Gas turbines are an efficient way to generate electricity. They are not good for directly powering a tank because to generate high torque they need to operate and very high revs which burns enormous amounts of fuel. If they were generating electricity to store in batteries or power electric motors to drive the vehicle they could be run at a very efficient RPM while under no load. The gas turbines in the M1 Abrams on the other hand has to accelerate 70 tons of dead weight around the place.

    T90 does not need 2A83 gun to compete with the L44 (which isn`t american at all) The germans already upgraded to the L55 gun. L44 guns are the shortest guns today: see for yourself 5.28m (L44) against 6.6 (2A46M, L55, CN120-26) Longer guns are more accurate than shorter one, even when not using laser guided ATGM rounds. From the pictures below you could easily see the difference of their guns:

    I am sorry, you have lost me???

    When comparing tanks it is not a dick measuring competition.
    The tank with the biggest gun doesn't automatically win.
    The T-34s 76.2mm gun was never as good as the 75mm gun of the Panther, and the 85mm gun of the T-34/85 was only comparable in penetration and better in HE shell capacity.
    At the end of the day the gun of the T-90 is not for comparison with the gun on any other tank... it is for comparison with the armour of other tanks because its job is to defeat that armour so its performance would be rated in the distance it can kill opposing tanks from. ie the range it can penetrate the frontal armour of the other guys tanks.
    The Burlak getting a bigger better gun means it can kill enemy tanks from further away.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:43 pm

    There is nothing to be impressed with the Burlak turret upgrade. Network centric... network it into what? A new radio set and GPS reciever can be had for a thousand euro. When Russian armour get GPS it is an American GPS that you put in your car. I have seen first hand the BMD-3M upgrade and it quite similar to what Burlak would be for the technology. 2nd gen night and IR sights that are only good to 1.5km. The biggest difference would be the improvement in survivability so the tank doesn't turn into a pop-top as seen in Iraq. The tank drivers won't even get new driving scopes. When I would drive my BTR around at night I could see less than a hundred metres. The reason for headlights on Russian armour isn't for traffic driving, it is the driver scopes are shit.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:22 pm

    The fact that T90 can catch fire when hit by AT weapons dosen`t mean anything. Abrams can catch fire too. All MBT`s can catch fire. How many Abrams tank caught fire when hit by RPG-7 in Iraq?

    Bigger is better. Longer guns always have better accuracy at longer ranges. If an 44 calibres gun was really effective as an 51-52 or 55 calibres gun, the Leo2A6, Leclerc and Challeger2 would all be using 44 caliber guns today. It wouldn`t be any difference if the gun was 1-2 calibers bigger, but the T90`s gun is over 6 calibers longer

    T90 has some kind of EMP minesweeper by the way. It offers great protection against magnetic mines

    T80BV`s autoloader is not the same thing as the T90`s

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:25 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:There is nothing to be impressed with the Burlak turret upgrade. Network centric... network it into what? A new radio set and GPS reciever can be had for a thousand euro. When Russian armour get GPS it is an American GPS that you put in your car. I have seen first hand the BMD-3M upgrade and it quite similar to what Burlak would be for the technology. 2nd gen night and IR sights that are only good to 1.5km. The biggest difference would be the improvement in survivability so the tank doesn't turn into a pop-top as seen in Iraq. The tank drivers won't even get new driving scopes. When I would drive my BTR around at night I could see less than a hundred metres. The reason for headlights on Russian armour isn't for traffic driving, it is the driver scopes are shit.

    The Pop-can style explosion was disproved as a common concept, take a look at other websites (cannot post links, against forum rules). It is quite rare for the ammunition in the T-72 to just go off, but if it does, then yes, there is the possibility it explodes and takes out the turret.

    Also, the GPS is Glonass systems (with an constant up to date battlefield info), as well as Burlak is supposed to get SATCOM systems, not just standard radio's. It is supposed to also have a combat management system, being net centric, it will communicate with other vehicles like BTR-82, BMP-3M, aircrafts with similar systems. In the beginning, it may be a problem, but over time, with common parts, it will become cheap and effective. Also, you are wrong in the thermal sights used, because they are to use the Catherine-FP ESSA camera's for both BMP-3M and Burlak.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:23 am

    sepheronx wrote:

    The Pop-can style explosion was disproved as a common concept, take a look at other websites (cannot post links, against forum rules). It is quite rare for the ammunition in the T-72 to just go off, but if it does, then yes, there is the possibility it explodes and takes out the turret.

    Here are pictures of 7 T-72s in Georgia with their tops blown off... I think that is most of them.

    http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-pictures-from-georgia-of-t-72-and.html

    Pretty much ends that myth. Rolling Eyes

    Also, the GPS is Glonass systems (with an constant up to date battlefield info), as well as Burlak is supposed to get SATCOM systems, not just standard radio's.

    SATCOM... What is it going to communicate with, Haley's Comet? lol1

    The Glonass reciever in the BMD-4 is GPS/Glonass coordinate system. No map, no nothing. Sergeants who can afford it use the GPS on their mobiles or jack the ones out of their cars. We don't even have a chip plant yet that can mass produce them.

    The radios Burlak gets are low data-rate digital radios replacing the old analogues. It still only has enough bandwidth for audio signals... nothing net-centric there. Really, you don't know how bad the electronics are.

    It is supposed to also have a combat management system, being net centric, it will communicate with other vehicles like BTR-82, BMP-3M, aircrafts with similar systems. In the beginning, it may be a problem, but over time, with common parts, it will become cheap and effective.

    We are just getting into 1+ Mbit/s data-rates for tactical radios. France already has 43Mbit/s for tactical PR4G application, even dismounted, along with 11Mbit/s WIFI for each individual soldier at 3km. The Constellation command post only has 10 and that mounts in a large truck and requires two more vehicles, a generator and transmission. It is really just an ass-load of radios and receivers hooked together for microwave transmit. Our dive into net-centric warfare is really just to hide the fact we are just starting a network of secure digital communications. If you free up enough bandwidth you might be able to throw in data traffic from a handful of UAVs. And those two telecom satellites being built for us in Europe aren't even for the military but for "presidential communications and civilian application." So there won't be a net-centric system except in audio. Constellation has been tried and failed every time and it is damned ninties technology.

    Also, you are wrong in the thermal sights used, because they are to use the Catherine-FP ESSA camera's for both BMP-3M and Burlak.

    Catherine FCs aren't going on modernised tanks, only on T-90 and most of those are for exports. BMP-3M has Vesna 2nd generation thermals. Burlak will get some 2nd generation Russian camera. We can't afford to outfit 4 thousand T-72 reserve tanks with Catherine FC, it would double their cost.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:31 am

    I understand about lacking of communication hardware (digital radio's and other communication hardware. Current Constellation is lacking indeed, but there was already new requirements put into place, and we should be seeing something new in regards to the constellation (SATCOM) in the fall.

    Also, in regards to Burlak, the program hasn't even completed yet, nor do we know what it will fully consist, so at current time, it is really hard to say what it will be. Actually, research isn't finished yet either.

    As for the chip plant you are talking about (semiconductors), in even most cases to the US or other nations, they are forced to buy such chips from countries like China, Indonesia, or Taiwan. So if Russia is faced with issues in terms of quantity, then I can see facilities using components from other places to make the receivers.

    Also, this is what I would gather in terms of a Glonass system along with a BMS using communications: Since it is the receiver obtaining the Latitude and Longitude from satellites (a communication between the two), and then the receiver is to then create the position location in a rendered map. In case of a battle management system (and to see who is who and such), it would be in the software also, as to other vehicles in the same communication link with the satellites. This stuff isn't new, nor is it difficult to make for most companies, take a look at the Iphone for goodness sakes (I have one), has a same system if I am trying to find my friends location.

    As for satellite communications, Russia has the Raduga (Globus-1) sats, which are military communication (and very very little is known about them). As there isn't currently enough in terms of numbers (coverage), it is still the start of a constellation. Chances are, receivers will be in place in command vehicles (for a complex array), and basics for the regulars. The country won't stand by and let their communications to further degrade, especially when they acknowledged to the nation about the problems they face (good way to fix it, to make it public).

    All in all, it is the Receivers that are the major problematic prospect. Lack of the hardware (like you mentioned) are the problem, but that problem can be fixed over time. May include only 90nm technology, but as long as they can shrink the Die size, and still have it working to the specs, then the problem can be fixed. Maybe this is why Russia is heavily investing in the development of Semiconductors and Micro-processors.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:38 pm

    sepheronx wrote:I understand about lacking of communication hardware (digital radio's and other communication hardware. Current Constellation is lacking indeed, but there was already new requirements put into place, and we should be seeing something new in regards to the constellation (SATCOM) in the fall.

    Have you seen anything about us launching our own military communication SATs? All it is more talk of spy SATs and GLONASS.


    Also, in regards to Burlak, the program hasn't even completed yet, nor do we know what it will fully consist, so at current time, it is really hard to say what it will be. Actually, research isn't finished yet either.

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive. Catherine FC costs $400k, that is the value of a well preserved T-72 needing modernisation. When you have 4000 tanks to upgrade, you aren't going to spend more than $100-200K per. We have already seen the turret upgrades on our BMP-3M and BMD-4 in regards to optics and communications, there is nothing netcentric about them nor do they get imported French optics. They include 2nd gen optics, digital radios, GPS/GLONASS reciever, and a newer ballistic computer. It brings them up to 90s western standards.

    As for the chip plant you are talking about (semiconductors), in even most cases to the US or other nations, they are forced to buy such chips from countries like China, Indonesia, or Taiwan. So if Russia is faced with issues in terms of quantity, then I can see facilities using components from other places to make the receivers.

    We don't have any intention of doing that. We have spent billions of dollars to license produce our own chipsets and aren't going to buy abroad when the intention is to make it here.

    Also, this is what I would gather in terms of a Glonass system along with a BMS using communications: Since it is the receiver obtaining the Latitude and Longitude from satellites (a communication between the two), and then the receiver is to then create the position location in a rendered map. In case of a battle management system (and to see who is who and such), it would be in the software also, as to other vehicles in the same communication link with the satellites. This stuff isn't new, nor is it difficult to make for most companies, take a look at the Iphone for goodness sakes (I have one), has a same system if I am trying to find my friends location.

    Its possible to see your friend on the Iphone because whoever has a NETWORK to do so. Military doesn't have a network, it will only be vehicles knowing where they are. The radios aren't tied into the navigation system to broadcast that information. Unlike the French who have GPS receivers in their radio sets.

    As for satellite communications, Russia has the Raduga (Globus-1) sats, which are military communication (and very very little is known about them). As there isn't currently enough in terms of numbers (coverage), it is still the start of a constellation. Chances are, receivers will be in place in command vehicles (for a complex array), and basics for the regulars. The country won't stand by and let their communications to further degrade, especially when they acknowledged to the nation about the problems they face (good way to fix it, to make it public).

    You think the two Raduga-1M satellites we have are for a network? Razz They are to replace the two Globus 1Ms that have passed their short service life. Those were used for communications to remote regions of the RF, not a military satellite network. It has like 1-2 SuperHF spotbeams. Compared to France's Syracuse that has 4 SuperHF and 2 UltraHF spotbeams.

    All in all, it is the Receivers that are the major problematic prospect. Lack of the hardware (like you mentioned) are the problem, but that problem can be fixed over time. May include only 90nm technology, but as long as they can shrink the Die size, and still have it working to the specs, then the problem can be fixed. Maybe this is why Russia is heavily investing in the development of Semiconductors and Micro-processors.

    All in all, it is our lack of electronics that is the problematic prospect. We make obsolete satellites, obsolete radios, obsolete computer chips and that effects everything else. Fixing the electronics industry is the single greatest hurdle we face in modernising our military capabilities. No one ever said Russian mechanical engineers are slouches, we have the best, but electronics is 15 years behind. When you live in a world where the next generation becomes obsolete in 3 years, it is impossible to keep up. When we get our LICENSE produced 90nm wafers, the West will be well entrenched in 20nm, 10nm... who knows they go so fast. Even then we still have to learn how to integrate that technology into our military applications which takes even more time. The only way I see getting out of this mess in the short-term is to buy more communications gear from Thales and cancel that 90nm factory and upgrade it to 45nm. Then we have to go about restructuring our education system so the next generation of engineers won't fail us as this one has. It might not be a bad idea to hook up with South Korea for a technology exchange either, their semi-conductors are pretty good.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:10 pm

    In the world of technology, it isn't 3 years that the stuff becomes obsolete Vlad, it is 3 months. Also, the info regarding COMSAT's are vague and small to begin with, so it is very interesting you know very much about it, as others do not.

    Also, if Glonass had a communications link, then yes, it would be easy to have GPS along side of communication with receivers. But your assertion about the sats being outdated, I question as there is little info about them to begin with.

    The other thing I would like to touch bases on is that you keep mentioning about wafer size, but it isn't as if the wafer size will make all the difference. More or less, the advancement in wafer size is the coming of multicore systems, cause you need to pack more in the same die size, which calls for smaller electronics. These systems end up in small based systems like desktop computers and or laptops/other mobile devices. In military applications, the die size isn't as important, as the systems they use will be big and can take a computer with a large die sized chip. If the technology behind it is 90nm, that doesn't mean that it is automatically slower and crappier, it just means you will have to have a much bigger chip in order to fit the performance. Also (A quote I found on another forum):


    GLONASS receivers have advanced greatly over the last few years. There was a photo somewhere comparing the sizes of the GLONASS receiver chips over the years. The most current ones are almost as small now as the GPS ones. But for military equipment that isnt an issue anyway, who cares if it doesnt fit nicely into a mobile phone, as long as itll fit on a tank. In terms of the quality of localisation data it should be as good as GPS on the territory of Russia, to make it good worldwide will take a little while longer as more sats are put up.

    The statements regarding the thermal sights is imho kind of weird. A modern top line thermal sight (such as the Catherine FC) will cost upwards of $1million (maybe more). It makes no sense to put those onto BTRs or BMPs, since the thermal camera will end up costing 2x the cost of the rest of the vehicle. It makes more sense to get the appropriate sights for the vehicle. So top of the line for MBTs, and second tier for BMPs, and third tier maybe for BTRs, otherwise the cost structure will be completely skewed.

    If Russia wanted the top of the line wafer technology, then they should have gone with Taiwan who produce 45nm chips and have the equipment to make them.

    As for the COMSAT's, if you do not mind, please post your info about this. Here is my info:
    Like its predecessor and a number of other application satellites, the Raduga-1 spacecraft was developed by NPO PM (later ISS Reshetnev) in Zheleznogorsk but built by PO Polyot in Omsk. The satellite was intended primarily for providing military communications from the geostationary orbit. A number of transponders onboard of a follow-on Raduga spacecraft was increased to six and their immunity to interference was reportedly improved. (207) According to an official publication of NPO PM, the first Raduga-1M version of the satellite, introduced in 2007, was "developed and built" by the organization. "The satellite is equipped with the advanced multichannel repeaters operating in centimetric-wave and decimeter-wave bands thus ensuring a stable communication with mobile stations including some hard-to-reach mountain regions," the NPO PM publication said. (373)

    Russian Space Web

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive. Catherine FC costs $400k, that is the value of a well preserved T-72 needing modernisation. When you have 4000 tanks to upgrade, you aren't going to spend more than $100-200K per. We have already seen the turret upgrades on our BMP-3M and BMD-4 in regards to optics and communications, there is nothing netcentric about them nor do they get imported French optics. They include 2nd gen optics, digital radios, GPS/GLONASS reciever, and a newer ballistic computer. It brings them up to 90s western standards.

    I never mentioned about upgrading 4K T-72's to Burlak system. It is far better to just build new ones, as they would be sufficient for the next while, compared to upgrading old rusted T-72's. Upgrading some though, will be cheaper as well. As for putting in the newest and greatest ESSA thermals in a BMP-3M or BTR would be a waste of money as these vehicles are not meant to engage tanks or other objects far away, but more or less, provide a medium armor fighting vehicle against infantry. So something that can see 1.2KM away is more then good enough. Also, as much as the equipment you guys are using is not comparable to western standards, it is pretty crappy and stupid to just compare it to the west as you should be comparing to the doctrine as well as who your next enemies going to be. Of course, you cannot leave the west out, as history has shown, they are not fond of Russia either. But Russia is still steps ahead then a lot other countries who have a decent military. Training and tactics can outmatch technology. If you just drop everything that Russia builds for their standards, and went with French NATO's standards, then it will not only cost Russia a ton of money and lose out in the industries altogether, but it will also make them vulnerable. Here is another quote that I liked as well:


    Think of GLONASS as of just another GPS -- the differences between them are entirely technical and largely inconsequential to the matter. The problem is, GPS is operational for almost two decades now, so everyone and their dog has a support for it, and you can obtain GPS receivers literally for the price of dirt, and the chips are tiny -- mainly because there was enough time to iron the designs out and shrink the dies. GLONASS, on the other hand, is a rather new system -- it started significantly later than GPS, and then the development hit a roadblock when the Soviet Union fell. The program eventually recovered, but it still has a complete coverage only over Russia, and will need a several more launches and at least a half dozen satellites more to achieve complete worldwide coverage. So the leading Taiwanese silicon developers seen little reason to invest int supporting it, which has left only domestic producers to design and manufacture the receivers and navigational equipment, and the Soviet/Russian electronic industry always was, ahem, problematic. Thus -- enormous size and the very basic functions of the very first GLONASS receivers, which were what all those complains are about. Now, luckily, the chips started to shrink, the third-party developers started to support the system, and the situation started to improve. But some people just want it all, and they want it NOW, and if they don't get it they start to b$%h around. ..

    Glonass A good site about Glonass and following the SATS positions.

    All in all, it is our lack of electronics that is the problematic prospect. We make obsolete satellites, obsolete radios, obsolete computer chips and that effects everything else. Fixing the electronics industry is the single greatest hurdle we face in modernising our military capabilities. No one ever said Russian mechanical engineers are slouches, we have the best, but electronics is 15 years behind. When you live in a world where the next generation becomes obsolete in 3 years, it is impossible to keep up. When we get our LICENSE produced 90nm wafers, the West will be well entrenched in 20nm, 10nm... who knows they go so fast. Even then we still have to learn how to integrate that technology into our military applications which takes even more time. The only way I see getting out of this mess in the short-term is to buy more communications gear from Thales and cancel that 90nm factory and upgrade it to 45nm. Then we have to go about restructuring our education system so the next generation of engineers won't fail us as this one has. It might not be a bad idea to hook up with South Korea for a technology exchange either, their semi-conductors are pretty good.

    I agree with you here for sure. I wouldn't say that your engineers failed initially, but with the lack of money, they did not have a lot to work with. 20nm and 10nm technology isn't even in the prospects yet, as they are still trying to break the 35nm barrier. If you are talking about SAMSUNGS 20nm flash memory wafers, then that isn't that impressive, as there are even better alternatives to that but cost plus performance isn't all there. Samsung is also not part of a western nation, but part of Korea (which is a derivative of Sony). As for the education, well, I wouldn't knock Russia's education as they have far better education then a lot of western countries. But I do agree with getting up to date facilities for the students to learn how to use the new equipment, and how they work so that in the future, they could design their own.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:44 pm

    sepheronx wrote:In the world of technology, it isn't 3 years that the stuff becomes obsolete Vlad, it is 3 months. Also, the info regarding COMSAT's are vague and small to begin with, so it is very interesting you know very much about it, as others do not.

    Also, if Glonass had a communications link, then yes, it would be easy to have GPS along side of communication with receivers. But your assertion about the sats being outdated, I question as there is little info about them to begin with.

    In the world of military technology it is a matter of several years. Commercial technology doesn't get to it that fast.

    The reason I know about COMSATs is because I have journals.

    The other thing I would like to touch bases on is that you keep mentioning about wafer size, but it isn't as if the wafer size will make all the difference. More or less, the advancement in wafer size is the coming of multicore systems, cause you need to pack more in the same die size, which calls for smaller electronics. These systems end up in small based systems like desktop computers and or laptops/other mobile devices. In military applications, the die size isn't as important, as the systems they use will be big and can take a computer with a large die sized chip. If the technology behind it is 90nm, that doesn't mean that it is automatically slower and crappier, it just means you will have to have a much bigger chip in order to fit the performance. Also (A quote I found on another forum):

    Wafer size has to do with the size of electronics. If you want compact 4 gen radios and mobile network gear, the smaller the better. Especially if and when our soldiers are going to be hauling around something like FELIN, they can't cart 36kg on their backs plus the equipment, it is going to have to be miniaturised. This is important for all applications to how much processing power you want on fighter planes to how much a missile is going to weigh. Weight is one of the 4 death knells of military equipment.


    GLONASS receivers have advanced greatly over the last few years... blah blah

    The GLONASS receivers he is talking about are the ones for the 90nm dies that haven't set up production yet. Everything at exhibition is using foreign microchips.

    The statements regarding the thermal sights is imho kind of weird. A modern top line thermal sight (such as the Catherine FC) will cost upwards of $1million (maybe more). It makes no sense to put those onto BTRs or BMPs, since the thermal camera will end up costing 2x the cost of the rest of the vehicle. It makes more sense to get the appropriate sights for the vehicle. So top of the line for MBTs, and second tier for BMPs, and third tier maybe for BTRs, otherwise the cost structure will be completely skewed.

    Catherine FC is stated as 1/6th the cost of the T-90S, or $400k. It makes sense to put it on your frontline MBTs, not on reserve equipment. There are also lower tier 3rd gen thermals made by Thales such as Metis. Command BMPs and recon scouts should get those since they need to see better than your average infantry unit. If the rest of the equipment is upgraded with 2nd gen Russian thermals we will still have the ability to fight day/night/bad weather. Then the issue becomes getting night/thermals to the troops. Each soldier should have night vision goggles along with each platoon sergeant with thermal binoculars. It isn't FELIN but it gives the Army a modern capability it has long sought.


    If Russia wanted the top of the line wafer technology, then they should have gone with Taiwan who produce 45nm chips and have the equipment to make them.

    Russia already buys chips from Taiwan, the Zhuk AESA is full of them. It would be wise to get it just for being self-sufficient in radar's sake.

    As for the COMSAT's, if you do not mind, please post your info about this. Here is my info:

    Like its predecessor and a number of other application satellites, the Raduga-1 spacecraft was developed by NPO PM (later ISS Reshetnev) in Zheleznogorsk but built by PO Polyot in Omsk. The satellite was intended primarily for providing military communications from the geostationary orbit. A number of transponders onboard of a follow-on Raduga spacecraft was increased to six and their immunity to interference was reportedly improved. (207) According to an official publication of NPO PM, the first Raduga-1M version of the satellite, introduced in 2007, was "developed and built" by the organization. "The satellite is equipped with the advanced multichannel repeaters operating in centimetric-wave and decimeter-wave bands thus ensuring a stable communication with mobile stations including some hard-to-reach mountain regions," the NPO PM publication said. (373)

    It has 6 Tor C-band transponders operating in the 6 Ghz range with 1 Ku band transponder operating in the 22Ghz range with a large spotbeam and a secondary. It uses an upgraded, but obsolete, KAUR-3 based satellite bus at 1.8kW.

    My source is Military Space Forces, Volume 2 2006.

    Compare that to Syracuse 3 with 9 40MHz channels in the Super high frequency and 6 40MHz channels in the Extremely high frequency with 6 spotbeams. It uses the latest Spacebus-4000B3 at 16kW.

    Basically the French satellite is 10X better than ours.

    I never mentioned about upgrading 4K T-72's to Burlak system. It is far better to just build new ones, as they would be sufficient for the next while, compared to upgrading old rusted T-72's. Upgrading some though, will be cheaper as well. As for putting in the newest and greatest ESSA thermals in a BMP-3M or BTR would be a waste of money as these vehicles are not meant to engage tanks or other objects far away, but more or less, provide a medium armor fighting vehicle against infantry. So something that can see 1.2KM away is more then good enough. Also, as much as the equipment you guys are using is not comparable to western standards, it is pretty crappy and stupid to just compare it to the west as you should be comparing to the doctrine as well as who your next enemies going to be. Of course, you cannot leave the west out, as history has shown, they are not fond of Russia either. But Russia is still steps ahead then a lot other countries who have a decent military. Training and tactics can outmatch technology. If you just drop everything that Russia builds for their standards, and went with French NATO's standards, then it will not only cost Russia a ton of money and lose out in the industries altogether, but it will also make them vulnerable.

    What do you think Burlak is for? It was originally going on T-80s but those are going to be sold or scrapped. They are redesign for T-72s and the first batch of T-90s but it is not even a formal proposal yet. Command IFVs need good thermals as well as recon vehicles. Pretty obvious why, the BMP-3M and BMD-4s also carry ATGMs which require thermal sights for long distance night fires so you can clearly tag your target with the laser. At this point I would be satisfied with the best of our own thermals for regular IFVs, better than none.

    Russian command wants the forces up to Western standards, ready to spend $200 billion on rearmament. Every year we wait means the less kit we can buy. Prices are going up faster in the RF than it is in Europe, it is getting cheaper to buy from France thanks to the sky-rocketing inflation in the MIC.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:06 am

    Hey vlad, do they have these magazines in English? Or is it Russian only (heard good thugs about your guy' mags)?

    Intersting info about those sats. As for the micro processors , I know that they buy from Taiwan (so does most countries for their microprocessors used in defense equipment), but I was talking about buying the fabrication units in order to make it themselves, rather then relying on others.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:53 am

    This magasine is not available in English. Most of the military journals are not, but some are.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:45 am

    There is nothing to be impressed with the Burlak turret upgrade.

    New ERA which is distributed better on the turret to give better coverage.
    Rearranged sights so the Commanders panoramic sight has a real panoramic view of the battlefield.

    Network centric... network it into what?
    So what do you suggest? Buy someone elses network and then buy all the integrated weapon systems they use to get a fully operational system?
    It makes no sense to bother with a net centric network if the new toys you make are not compatible with a network.
    It is like a home computer... you buy it first and then when you have a few that are network compatible you connect them up to each other and the internet.

    Even if you have 200 T-90 Burlak upgraded tanks in service that is 200 tanks that can work together as a team.
    Having network compatible tanks is more important than having night and all weather capable tanks, thermal sights can be added later during an overhaul, practising working in a net centric force is more valuable than practising working 24/7.

    A pack of hunting dogs can take on more powerful prey than a single dog working alone. Once that pack hunting technique is learned adding night and all weather capability is expensive but easier to practise when you can already hunt in a pack.

    A new radio set and GPS reciever can be had for a thousand euro. When Russian armour get GPS it is an American GPS that you put in your car.

    So they are wasting their money on GLONASS? Now that they have almost a full constellation coverage it makes more sense to introduce GPS/GLONASS receivers. The Burlak upgrade has what is described as a GLONASS receiver.

    I have seen first hand the BMD-3M upgrade and it quite similar to what Burlak would be for the technology. 2nd gen night and IR sights that are only good to 1.5km.

    You are making an assumption and from what I have read you are wrong. The Burlak is supposed to be the new Russian standard production T-90. I doubt they would expand the size of the turret and give the commander a new panoramic sight only to give him crap optics. The purpose of licence production of the Thales thermal sights was so they could be used in Russian T-90 tanks. AFAIK this hasn't changed.
    The commander will have the Catherine thermal sight, which I am told by someone who has used it can see blades of grass at 1km and some aircraft like helos out to 10km plus. The gunner will have a seperate thermal sight operating at a different wavelength optimised to see through smoke and dust.

    The biggest difference would be the improvement in survivability so the tank doesn't turn into a pop-top as seen in Iraq.

    That alone makes it worthwhile.

    The tank drivers won't even get new driving scopes. When I would drive my BTR around at night I could see less than a hundred metres. The reason for headlights on Russian armour isn't for traffic driving, it is the driver scopes are shit.

    Drivers in tanks sit so low their view is crap anyway. Most of the time it will be the commander that directs the driver where to go anyway.

    Bigger is better. Longer guns always have better accuracy at longer ranges.

    Bigger is not always better.
    Put an 8 inch gun on a modern tank and you will see my point. A 203mm round would require an autoloader. It would restrict the ammo load. It will make the tank very heavy to absorb the recoil in the turret ring.


    If an 44 calibres gun was really effective as an 51-52 or 55 calibres gun, the Leo2A6, Leclerc and Challeger2 would all be using 44 caliber guns today.

    The Abrams gets the same penetration as the 55 calibre guns from its 44 calibre gun by using specialised ammo. If you used that specialised ammo in an L55 gun it would be even better but they have obviously decided that the L44 gun with the better ammo is good enough. Whether they are right or not is a good question.

    It wouldn`t be any difference if the gun was 1-2 calibers bigger, but the T90`s gun is over 6 calibers longer

    The guns are different calibres, so you can't compare their lengths in calibres.
    The L44 calibre 120mm smoothbore gun is 44 x 120mm long, or 5.28 metres in length.
    A L55 calibre 120mm smoothbore gun is 55 x 120mm long, or 6.6 metres in length.
    The only figures I can find for the 125mm Soviet gun is 6678mm which I work out to be about 53.424 calibres in length and only marginally longer than the western L55 gun. (note 53.424 is based on the calibre of the gun so it is an 125mm L53.424 calibre gun... would probably be rounded to L53.)

    There is still plenty of growth potential in the 125mm gun.

    Changing to a different calibre is expensive and is not just about making lots of new gun barrels, but it is about developing all new ammo and buying enough to have ammo in stock in case of conflict etc etc. Then you have to train with it, new handling procedures, new ammo storage mechanisms etc etc, new autoloaders etc.

    T80BV`s autoloader is not the same thing as the T90`s

    I know, the T-90s was supposed to be found to be safer.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:45 am

    Here are pictures of 7 T-72s in Georgia with their tops blown off... I think that is most of them.

    http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-pictures-from-georgia-of-t-72-and.html

    Pretty much ends that myth

    I believe the myth revolves around T-72s losing their turrets instantly after being hit. These vehicles could have been burning half an hour before the ammo exploded.
    Of course you also need to take into account that storing ammo in the crew compartment, whether in the turret or the hull exacerbated the problem. The last tank to have such a bad reputation was the Sherman which the Germans called Ronson. Ronson made cigarette lighters and their motto was "lights first time every time". Great motto for a lighter, bad one for a tank.

    The radios Burlak gets are low data-rate digital radios replacing the old analogues. It still only has enough bandwidth for audio signals... nothing net-centric there. Really, you don't know how bad the electronics are.

    What are you expecting? Live video feeds from Putin to each individual grunt on the ground. You might not want to hear this but not having a high band width might actually be a good thing. Sending video back to commanders in Desert Storm led to commanders in the rear playing video games and micro managing battles they really should not have. The purpose is to let commands flow down to the troops in the field and information flow up to command.

    Eventually the bandwith can be expanded and the upload and download speed can be increased but while limiting as to what sort of info can be transmitted it really shouldn't effect the performance of the system as a force management system. It will make it a crap video game, but it is not supposed to be that anyway.

    We are just getting into 1+ Mbit/s data-rates for tactical radios. France already has 43Mbit/s for tactical PR4G application, even dismounted, along with 11Mbit/s WIFI for each individual soldier at 3km.

    I know a few soldiers and what that basically means is that their LAN parties will be better than yours.

    We can't afford to outfit 4 thousand T-72 reserve tanks with Catherine FC, it would double their cost.

    Upgrades will likely reduce and the focus will be on new build T-90s. As Medvedev said, why waste money upgrading old stuff that costs a large fraction of the new stuff. Why upgrade T-72s when you can make T-90s?

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive.

    The turret upgrade you are talking about is the T-90AK I think and is for export.
    The Burlak is for new build T-90s for the Russian Army. It is to be finalised at the end of this year, that is why only 60 something T-90s were ordered this year. Next year or the year after order numbers will increase for the finalised upgrade of the T-90. Or that is what they are planning.

    The only way I see getting out of this mess in the short-term is to buy more communications gear from Thales and cancel that 90nm factory and upgrade it to 45nm.

    90% of electronic devices work fine on 90nm technology. It is that 10% that requires high processing power that requires better and that can be delivered with parallel processing. Look at personal computers... they are not getting faster, about 4 GHz is the limit. They are going to multicore processors.
    The reality is that a serious issue with personal computers is bottlenecks. Just putting on faster CPUs will not make the computer faster by the same amount. Sometimes distributed processing is a much better solution.
    An example is an aircraft. You could put the latest multicore chip to manage all the functions on an aircraft, or you could use 100 486 processors in a network.
    One system will have a huge bottleneck sending information to and from the single processor chip while the other system will have much more slow processors that are used more because they are not doing everything but are not two controller chips away from the hardware.

    Then we have to go about restructuring our education system so the next generation of engineers won't fail us as this one has.

    That is kinda harsh. I would suggest you lost a lot of those engineers to higher paying jobs in the west simply because there was no paying work in Russia... perhaps the real solution would be to start buying what there is and they can use that money to improve. Your experience with what you buy can be used to direct them to what needs to be improved, but if you buy nothing they have no money to improve and develop.

    Wafer size has to do with the size of electronics. If you want compact 4 gen radios and mobile network gear, the smaller the better. Especially if and when our soldiers are going to be hauling around something like FELIN, they can't cart 36kg on their backs plus the equipment, it is going to have to be miniaturised. This is important for all applications to how much processing power you want on fighter planes to how much a missile is going to weigh. Weight is one of the 4 death knells of military equipment.

    I rather doubt it is all the computer chips making up the 36kgs weight.
    I suspect it would have more to do with battery weight and possibly body armour weight too.
    The difference in weight of a GPS receiver chip the size of your little finger nail and one the size of the palm of your hand would be very little, maybe a few grammes.

    It makes sense to put it on your frontline MBTs, not on reserve equipment. There are also lower tier 3rd gen thermals made by Thales such as Metis.

    That is it. The Metis is the gunner sight on the Burlak. It operates in a lower frequency band than Catherine.

    Then the issue becomes getting night/thermals to the troops. Each soldier should have night vision goggles along with each platoon sergeant with thermal binoculars. It isn't FELIN but it gives the Army a modern capability it has long sought.

    In the picture thread Seph has posted a photo of the Shakhin thermal weapon sight to be issued to the VDV. It is Russian made and will hopefully be mass produced in the future.

    [quote]What do you think Burlak is for? It was originally going on T-80s but those are going to be sold or scrapped. They are redesign for T-72s and the first batch of T-90s but it is not even a formal proposal yet. [quote]

    It is supposed to be the new production standard Russian service T-90. It might be applied in upgrades to some older vehicles but mainly for compatibility reasons.
    Upgrading older vehicles (for Russian use) is going to decline and new tanks will become the focus.

    Russian command wants the forces up to Western standards, ready to spend $200 billion on rearmament. Every year we wait means the less kit we can buy. Prices are going up faster in the RF than it is in Europe, it is getting cheaper to buy from France thanks to the sky-rocketing inflation in the MIC.

    Buying from Russia invests Russian money in Russia. Buying Russia gear is also investing in Russian R&D. It is also providing employment in Russia. It is upgrading factories. I agree where the gap is enormous like with Thermal sights that it makes sense to do what Russia did with Thales, with Catherine, Metis, and Damocles pods. Now however Russian companies are catching up with regard to thermal sights, at least at the prototype level if not production but that requires hard real orders.

    It is the right time to buy foreign stuff because when the economies of these countries recover properly prices will rise again.

    BTW I read the Russians are getting the South Koreans to build them a ship building port from the ground up. The South Korean ship yards are the most efficient in the world so this is a really good deal for the Russians and money well spent.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:40 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:40 pm