T-90 Main Battle Tank

Thanks Garry. So in essence, the T-90MS is a slightly downgraded export version of the T-90AM?

Yes, almost certainly.

The T-90AM was an upgrade response to the rejection of the Burlak upgrade proposed a while back that failed because it had an autoloader in the rear turret bustle and was deemed by the Russian army as being too vulnerable to enemy fire.

The T-90MS is an export model presumably with all the top secret stuff removed, but with all the solutions created to make the T-90S a better tank... is no ammo loose in the crew compartment, new battle management system, new communications, new French thermal sights for gunner and commander, new ERA (Relict), new more powerful engine and new transmission, new roof mounted remote control machinegun, and better vision from the commanders position.

Regarding peacekeepers... it is Ironic that much of the West refuses to sign the CFE treaty because of Russian peacekeepers in regions where the west would prefer they weren't (it would have made the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia much easier if there were no Russian troops there).

What makes it ironic is that Russia would rather that NATO troops of KFOR weren't in Kosovo, and that EU forces weren't there either...

Are all previous T-90 models in Russian service going to be upgraded to AM standards, or is the T-90AM different from the T-90A that such an upgrade is not feasible.

The AM has a larger turret, so I suspect any existing T-90 series that is upgraded wont have exactly the same features of the AM.

The critical stuff is the new communications system that includes data transmission, and the battle management system which will basically get data from HQ and other platforms and display known current enemy and friendly things around the tank.

It will also allow full two way communication without voice transmissions.

The new ERA can be applied to the older models... including any upgraded T-72s or T-80s.

I kinda get the feeling that what will happen for now is that they will take the cheaper option of upgrading their late model T-72s and just leave upgrading their T-90s, or producing new T-90s till about 2015.

By then they will have some idea of what the Armata will be in terms of cost and performance.

If the Armata is a generation ahead and is not too much more expensive than the T-90 is then they might just decide to spend all their money on T-72 upgrades, keeping the T-80s in service till they are worn out and building new Armatas till it is the only tank left in Russian service... by about 2025 or so.

The Armata will likely have an external gun with no crew in the turret so it will be quite different from current in service tanks.

If it costs 6-8 million a vehicle then by 2015 when they find that out they will likely have a fleet of about 6-7,000 tanks of which about 1,000 will be T-90s, 2,000 will be upgraded T-80s and likely the rest will be upgraded T-72s.

If it is 8 million per Armata tank then they will likely revive the T-90AM and have Armatas in important units in high risk places and have the T-90AM as a numbers tank... by 2015 of course it will likely be T-90AM2 because by then it will likely be new thermal sights and perhaps new Russian communications equipment and possibly modified to use the Armatas new engine which would be useful for commonality.

There might even be an attempt to change the T-90AM2 design to take as many components from armata as possible to reduce the numbers of different parts etc.


The T-80s will be replaced as they are worn out... shifting them to Navy units will also remove them from the books quicker as the 6-7,000 tanks I am talking about are Army tanks.

What will likely happen is that new Armata vehicles will likely be introduced as complete Brigades and being the latest and the best will likely replace vehicles in important or prestigious roles/locations, so these units will get armatas and their T-90s and T-80s will be transferred to less important units operating in less important regions likely using upgraded T-72s.

If the Armatas are expensive and the T-90AM2 is also produced (note the T-90AM2 is simply a T-90AM now with the upgrades and improvements likely developed between now and 2015... which in my opinion should include MMW radar homing diving top attack gun launched fire and forget ATGMs... but I am an optimist... just like the Su-27M first flew in 1988, but the Su-35 that will enter service is a totally different aircraft that has benefitted from several decades of advancements, and also technology being developed for its replacement (PAK FA/Armata)).. then it could be the case that the Armata enters service a Brigade at a time in the high priority units and the T-90AM2 replaces upgraded T-72s in lesser units first.

ali.a.r wrote:Are all previous T-90 models in Russian service going to be upgraded to AM standards, or is the T-90AM different from the T-90A that such an upgrade is not feasible.

Anything is feasible with enough money.

No plans so far, and 99% no plans in the future. T-90AM isn't being procured, hell, T-90A isn't being procured right now either.

The have a fixed amount of funds to spend... it would look silly if they bought 500 T-90AM tanks now at 4 million each, and when 2015 comes around the Armata becomes available at 4.2 million per Tank vehicle but they can only buy 500 of those because they already spent their budget on T-90AMs.

It is going to be a waiting game to see how much Armata costs and its basic specs.

If it is a super tank that is cheap then upgrade T-72s but replace the entire tank fleet with armatas asap.
If it is a super tank that is expensive then produce armatas and T-90s to get the best compromise... many units wont need armatas, and T-90s will do.

Question. How are T-90's distributed among the Russian forces?

There are less than 1,000 T-90s in the Russian military, and many have been moved to be stationed in South Ossetia at the moment.

Based on the article above they seem to be happy with the T-90AM upgrade, so the tanks that are currently in service are T-90s, T-80s and T-72s. As I said less than 1,000 T-90s, while there are 2,000 T-80s and the remainder is T-72s of various models.

What they are basically saying in the article above is that the T-90 is a good tank but the T-80 is expensive to operate.

This suggests that between now and 2015 they might buy some T-90s, they will certainly upgrade a few T-72s but they will only maintain the T-80s and adopt upgrades that make them cheaper and easier to use. When the T-80s are worn out they will be replaced by other vehicle types.

If Armata is hugely expensive the future fleet will likely be a combination of T-90s and Armatas with T-72s upgraded.

Keep in mind they want a net centric force with data communications capability and battle management systems... in other words datalinks to share target data and orders between vehicles. The T-72 upgrade includes such things as well as thermal sights.

The upgraded vehicles will all be substantially more capable because they will work as an organised cohesive team able to call in air strikes and artillery etc.

ali.a.r wrote:Question. How are T-90's distributed among the Russian forces?

Do you read any Russian by chance?

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-294.html

Excellent break down, of known units and delivery numbers to RuMOD.

I can translate if people want/google translate is being crap.

Unfortunately Garry, not only are there less than 1000 T-90s in Russian service, but less than 500. The state of the early T-90s is questionable too.
We have well over 500 by the end of 2012 if the order of 60 units per year was continue for 2011 and 2012. But alas, twas not.

The problem with periods of financial stagnation, is that not only do upgrades stop, but maintainence is sometimes neglected too so things don't last as long as they should.

When I wrote less than 1,000 I had in mind a figure of 700-800, but if you say there are less than 500 then the issue becomes rather more serious.

The T-90 is a good tank and in the T-90AM form it is world standard.

Russian forces need net centric tanks with data communications and battle management systems and night vision equipment.

They can get that from a T-72 upgrade or a new T-90, but the former is 1/3rd the price of the latter, so for the moment perhaps the former will get the nod over the latter for a few years.

However the cost of making entire heavy brigades based on MBT chassis will mean an all Armata force is unlikely for the next two decades, so there is a strong chance that as Armata production starts then production of the T-90AM2 will start too.

The current T-72 upgrades, T-80 upgrades and T-90 upgrades share components to make them more compatible.

I would expect that the T-90AM2 which will be developed along with the Armata and share Armata components to reduce costs and increase production runs and of course both improve performance and increase commonality for training and maintainence and logistics.

They will likely mass produce the AM2 with the Armata simply to get numbers of new vehicles in service.

http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w8_2012/0007_t90.htm

Wow! Over 300 detailed photos of the T-90MS!

No doubt Tarsenko will make a bunch of dumb "weak zone" analysis from this, but forget that.

http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/xlopotov_1/t90ms/otvaga2004_t90_xlopotov_005.jpg

This photo shows what a well protected ERA profile the turret presents when turned.

It might be cheaper to give a T-90 currently in service an upgrade to T-90AM level than to build a T-90AM from scratch and if it is then the in service T-90s need to be looked after.
[/quote]

Well, in fact it's the contrary. It is not cost-effective to overhaul elder vehicles into a totally different variant. Because 3rd to 4th generation is a world apart. You need to replace all component systems and refurbish a completely stripped old bath tub that suffers from corrosion etc. Which is really not worth the money and effort if there is little service life left anyway. You could buy a factoryfresh tank for practically the same amount of money spent. The T-90 fleet has been in service since the mid 90's. So they have been pretty roughed up by all those conscripts. And besides of rough handling, wear and tear takes it's toll on every weapons system. A tank simply doenst live for 30 years. Maximum technical life is 20 years. Operational life is even far less, but is constantly extended due to upgrades and innovation as technology moves on and operational lessons are learned.

There are still 2 things I don't like about the AM though. And that is the fact that it still is underpowered and underarmered. Russia has a 1250hp engine. Why not install that? The more powerful a tanks' engine is, the more fuel efficient and thus economically and operationaly sustainable the vehicle will be. Exploitation costs have to be kept as low as possible. And a tank simply needs to be resilient, it must be able to sustain serious beatings. More armour, it is simply too thin. IBD Deisenroth AMAP applications would be great. Everything else about the T-90AM is perfectly fine. Like all Russian ladies, she is a beauty.

How is the armor simply too thin?

Because 3rd to 4th generation is a world apart. You need to replace all component systems and refurbish a completely stripped old bath tub that suffers from corrosion etc.

There is no great difference between late model T-72s and T-90s. There is probably more difference between T-90S and T-90AM. The point is that the more you equip each vehicle with the same equipment and systems the easier and cheaper it is to operate them in groups.

The addition of Relict will make more difference to improve the armour protection of late model T-72s than anything else you might do. The protection on late model T-72s is actually very good... and has been discussed earlier in other threads.

The problem with the T-72 is mainly with the very early models exported. The domestic vehicles' main problem was ammo storage and these issues are dealt with in upgrades, as well as thermals and communications.

Which is really not worth the money and effort if there is little service life left anyway. You could buy a factoryfresh tank for practically the same amount of money spent. The T-90 fleet has been in service since the mid 90's. So they have been pretty roughed up by all those conscripts. And besides of rough handling, wear and tear takes it's toll on every weapons system. A tank simply doenst live for 30 years. Maximum technical life is 20 years. Operational life is even far less, but is constantly extended due to upgrades and innovation as technology moves on and operational lessons are learned.

I am well aware of all that, but my point is that if you upgrade existing tanks to T-72 upgrade level you end up with tank X. If you upgrade them all to T-90S standard then you end up with tank X+2. If you upgrade all the tanks to T-90AM level then you get tank 2X.

Obviously... there is Armata on the way, which is tank Y. Eventually many of the systems for Aramata will be fitted to the existing tank force leading to tank Y-2, and eventually the Armata numbers will increase eventually to the point where all heavy tracked vehicles will be armata chassis based vehicles, but until then, a fleet of Ys and X+2s and Xs makes rather more sense. When the Ys become available then switch from X and X+2 to 2Xs and Ys.

And that is the fact that it still is underpowered and underarmered. Russia has a 1250hp engine. Why not install that?

Who says it is underpowered? At 48 tons, with a 1,150hp engine it should have a better power to weight ratio than a Challenger II that is 63 tons with a 1,200hp engine.

High power to weight ratio is not everything.

The VDV in Afghanistan had BMDs with a power to weight ratio of something like 35Hp/t, yet they preferred the much lower horsepower to weight ratio of the BMP-2... largely because of its better firepower and the fact that when driven roughly cross country their hulls didn't split open.

Fitted with relict the T-90AM has armour as good as any western tank in practical terms. Anything that can penetrate a T-90AM from the front would also penetrate any western tank.

The more powerful a tanks' engine is, the more fuel efficient and thus economically and operationaly sustainable the vehicle will be.

Rubbish. The gas turbine in the T-80 is rather more powerful than the T90AMs engine but uses more than 3 times more fuel. Inefficient engines simply require larger fuel tanks.

More armour, it is simply too thin.

Based on what?

In my opinion the T-90AM is a very good compromise between weight, protection, firepower, and mobility.

TR1 wrote:How is the armor simply too thin?

Well, just look at it's weight. I don't see how a vehicle weighing in at around 45/50 tons can possibly be superior to a counterpart with an MLC70.

There is no great difference between late model T-72s and T-90s. There is probably more difference between T-90S and T-90AM.

They share virtually the same bath tub, but that is all.

The addition of Relict will make more difference to improve the armour protection of late model T-72s than anything else you might do. The protection on late model T-72s is actually very good... and has been discussed earlier in other threads.

That's my whole point in resilience. If you chew away enough ERA you'll eventually get to touch the bath tub.

Obviously... there is Armata on the way, which is tank Y. Eventually many of the systems for Aramata will be fitted to the existing tank force leading to tank Y-2, and eventually the Armata numbers will increase eventually to the point where all heavy tracked vehicles will be armata chassis based vehicles, but until then, a fleet of Ys and X+2s and Xs makes rather more sense. When the Ys become available then switch from X and X+2 to 2Xs and Ys.

And that is the fact that it still is underpowered and underarmered. Russia has a 1250hp engine. Why not install that?

Who says it is underpowered? At 48 tons, with a 1,150hp engine it should have a better power to weight ratio than a Challenger II that is 63 tons with a 1,200hp engine.

High power to weight ratio is not everything.

If you go study the rationale behind the development of the Leopard series you'll understand that high power to weight ratio is fundamental for every MBT.

The VDV in Afghanistan had BMDs with a power to weight ratio of something like 35Hp/t, yet they preferred the much lower horsepower to weight ratio of the BMP-2... largely because of its better firepower and the fact that when driven roughly cross country their hulls didn't split open.

A BMD is a whole other vehivcle with a different mission. The tank's role is different, so you have to see that in another light.

Fitted with relict the T-90AM has armour as good as any western tank in practical terms. Anything that can penetrate a T-90AM from the front would also penetrate any western tank.

Ever been in a Leopard 2A6 vs Leopard 2A6 exercise? We used LIVE ammunition. Nothing happened. The Leopard has an MLC70, T-90AM is MLC50. I highly doubt it would survive a confrontation with a Leopard/Challenger/Abrams/Leclerc/Merkava. All of which are MLC70.

The more powerful a tanks' engine is, the more fuel efficient and thus economically and operationaly sustainable the vehicle will be.

Rubbish. The gas turbine in the T-80 is rather more powerful than the T90AMs engine but uses more than 3 times more fuel. Inefficient engines simply require larger fuel tanks.

Well, not rubbish because I'm talking about the V-96 12 stroke Diesel.... Btw: the thing about a turbine is that you can fuel it with whatever, that's what it's a turbine for!

More armour, it is simply too thin.

Based on what?

See answer @ TR1

In my opinion the T-90AM is a very good compromise between weight, protection, firepower, and mobility.[/quote]

Firepower is superb, mobility can be improved, armour protection remains doubtful. Not based on my opions but on my professional first hand experience.

Bthebrave wrote:

TR1 wrote:How is the armor simply too thin?

Well, just look at it's weight. I don't see how a vehicle weighing in at around 45/50 tons can possibly be superior to a counterpart with an MLC70.

Weight has nothing to do with armor. The important thing is weight to volume. T-90 has far less vollume to protect than most other MBTs.

TR1 wrote:

Bthebrave wrote:

TR1 wrote:How is the armor simply too thin?

Well, just look at it's weight. I don't see how a vehicle weighing in at around 45/50 tons can possibly be superior to a counterpart with an MLC70.

Weight has nothing to do with armor. The important thing is weight to volume. T-90 has far less vollume to protect than most other MBTs.

True. It has a much lower silhouette, is smaller and thus more agile than the other MBT's I mentioned. I'm just seriously worried about it's survivability. UNLESS the bath tub isn't made of RHA but is a composite including boron carbide and tungsten. That is material of a whole other nature. If that's the case I have no doubts whatsoever. But we don't know what it's armour package comprises. T-90AM is first rate where it comes to firepower and C4I. No other tank in the world can fire both different types of rounds and missiles, the T-90AM is unique for that matter. It's gun is better suited for MOUT than any other tank, since in MOUT it's diameter that counts. Plus it utilizes a RCWS for secondary armament. As for C4I, Leopard is voice commands only, where T-90AM has the full package of 21st century means of warfare such as a BMS and a well-developed sensors infrastructure. But it still lacks mobility in comparison. Leopard runs at 72 kilometers per hour. T-90AM cannot match that unless you install a more powerful engine.

If you go study the rationale behind the development of the Leopard series you'll understand that high power to weight ratio is fundamental for every MBT.

I suggest that you get a calculator and check your figures... an Abrams is 72 tons in battle configuration and with its 1,500hp engine comes in at 20.8 hp/ton. The T-90AM with its 1,150hp engine and 48 ton combat weight comes in at 23.95hp/ton... so what is the problem? The Challenger II at 63 tons and a 1,200hp engine comes in at 19.04hp/t.

...is it worth even doing the calculation for the Merkava?

I mentioned the BMD because of its 35hp/t power to weight ratio... which certainly didn't make it better than other IFVS.

Well, not rubbish because I'm talking about the V-96 12 stroke Diesel.... Btw: the thing about a turbine is that you can fuel it with whatever, that's what it's a turbine for!

Russian T series tanks of the T-72 and T-90 series use multifuel diesels. The V-96 can use diesel, petrol, kerosene, benzine or their mixtures. Part of the advantage of a digital fuel control system...

The main problem with gas turbines is lack of low speed torque. The stopping and starting and acceleration is the worst way to use a gas turbine engine because it needs to be operating at high revs to generate the torque to accelerate.

Optimally a gas turbine will have an efficient RPM at which it will out perform a diesel engine in fuel efficiency, and will be much smaller and more compact than a diesel engine of similar power. That is why APUs are almost always gas turbines on tanks and aircraft... connect them to an electric motor and run them at efficient speed and you have an efficient power supply. Try to move a 50-70 ton vehicle around rough country and you have a fuel vacuum that will cost more in fuel than any other part of the tank.

And that is the fact that it still is underpowered and underarmered. Russia has a 1250hp engine. Why not install that?

Because it is a custom designed engine, designed for Armata, which can take a larger engine.
The X shaped diesel engine for the Armata is going to start at about 1,400hp, but has potential to operate at 2,400hp at the expense of engine life. Through the life of the engine with improved design and new materials the engine power will increase and engine life will increase too. At the moment it is very new.

The T-80U is in the same boat and as it has a gas turbine engine that guzzles fuel it would be much more cost effective to replace that with pretty much any engine. The problem of course is that the Gas Turbine engine fitted is tiny so no diesel engine currently available will fit, so they wont just scrap them because they are still good tanks, so they will use them till they are worn out and then discard them.

I mentioned. I'm just seriously worried about it's survivability.

Its problems with survivability are not centred around armour protection... but ammo storage.

in real combat against modern anti tank weapons used by professionals that have served in the Soviet Military the T-72 fared better than the T-80 when it went into combat without the extra ammo in the crew compartment.

In urban warfare the threat can come from anywhere and a sensible enemy will attack from the rear and the top.

Perhaps instead of looking at Leopards in NATO training you should look at the combat record of the T-72s in Chechnia or Georgia/South Ossetia.

But it still lacks mobility in comparison. Leopard runs at 72 kilometers per hour. T-90AM cannot match that unless you install a more powerful engine.

No tank in the world travels at 72km/h except on very flat good quality straight roads, and in combat a tank travelling at that speed will quickly leave their support vehicles and logistics tail behind and end up on their own.

Shturm and Ataka can easily hit targets travelling much faster than 72km/h... they can also hit low flying aircraft.

I would suggest that top speed is the least important factor for a tank, it is acceleration at low speeds from standing starts... moving from cover to cover. the less time the vehicle is exposed to the enemy the safer it will be to all manner of missiles and cannon fired rounds.

The real problem with more powerful engines is that even if they are more fuel efficient that doesn't mean the burn less fuel.

Compare the V-84MS engine of the T-72S with the V-92S2 engine of the T-90S.

The V-84 generates 618kW (840hp) and its fuel consumption is 247 g/kW.h. In other words it burns 247 grammes of fuel per kW per hour it runs. This means at full power (618kW) it burns 247 x 618 = 152646 grammes of fuel... or 152.6 kgs of fuel.

The V-92 generates 735kW (1,000hp) and its fuel consumption is 212 g/kW.h. In other words it burns 212 grammes of fuel per kW per hour it runs. This means at full power (735kW) it burns 212 x 735 = 155820 grammes of fuel... or 155.8kgs of fuel. It generates more power, but it also burns more fuel.

The V-46-6 of the T-72A is a 574kW (780hp) engine and its fuel consumption is 245 g/kW.h. This means at full power it burns 245 x 574 = 140.6kgs of fuel, which is clearly the most "efficient" in terms of logistics, but is also the least powerful.

As mentioned on another thread somewhere by Runaway... where he is the T-72 operates, but the Leopard can't operate on the terrain. In deep snow, bog, deep mud, and lots of other terrain types a lighter tank will pass and a heavier tank will sink.

Before desert storm there were actually fears that the Abrams might sink in certain sand conditions...

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/02/blog-post_5658.html

Good new post by Khlopotov, the T-90AMs turret!

Weight has nothing to do with armor. The important thing is weight to volume. T-90 has far less vollume to protect than most other MBTs.

Agreed. If weight = Armour then the T-90 should have armour as good as a KV-1 and the T-35 should have similar armour too...

Well, KV-1 had some phenomenal armor for the time , not the worst legacy to follow.

As loathe as I am to use anything from Harkonnen, he did some weight to vollume calculations a while ago, i believe T-90 actually had better numbers than the "western" heavy MBTs.

I actually have a lot of respect for the guy, he is very knowledgeable.

Like me however... it seems he is very biased too.

It is just like Carlos Kopp... excellent source of interesting information, but just be aware of his bias about the F-35/F-22 and F-111.

Of course always be suspicious about anyone talking about the best this or the best that.

The best tank depends on where and how you want to use it... in a bog in the middle of wetlands the best tank could be a PT-76 or Sprut... if nothing else is available except for Abrams tanks.

It you have extensive heavy transport capacity and fuel is cheap for you then an Abrams might be best, but personally I think the T-90AM manages similar enough performance potential at a lower cost and significantly less weight and fuel consumption. If Sokol turns out to be a fire and forget diving top attack weapon then I would think it will be even more capable.

The KV-1 would have been much better if it had a bigger much more powerful gun.

Its armour was awesome for its time... in many ways quite comparable to the Tiger, but its gun made it a much slower T-34... Pretty much anything that could take out a T-34 from any great distance could do the same to a KV from slightly closer.

Even if the KV had the same gun with a barrel 2-3 times longer to improve muzzle velocity... something like the 75mm of the Panther.

Still the IS-3 was quite a tank too.

http://cs10733.vk.com/u1431556/150592033/z_2703e1c3.jpg

nice photo of Russian T-90As.

http://www.galileo-tv.ru/node/9217
http://www.galileo-tv.ru/node/9238

Excellent T-90A footage.

Waiting for it to download as it didn't run smooth on the site...

Thanks for the links.