T-90 Main Battle Tank

TR1 wrote:Good pic- T-90A and T-90AM side by side.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6209/81237179.aa/0_71e51_40e43a6b_XXXL.jpg

GarryB wrote:APUs generate an IR signature so it makes sense to mount them next to the existing engine exhaust and your anti IR measures can be used to suppress both at the same time.

By mounting it where they have I rather suspect they are using the main engine exhaust for the APU exhaust though when the APU is running the volume of gas coming out the exhaust will be greatly reduced.

I rather suspect the Russian APU is of higher capacity to cope with all the extra electronics on board, rather than any engineering superiority.

To be honest when I first saw it I thought it was a battlefield telephone system to allow troops outside the vehicle communicate directly to the commander.

The value of having an APU, no matter how clumsy its installation far outweigh its omission.

An APU means the tank can spend days ready to fight, compared with the hours if it had to keep its main engine running to keep all the heating or cooling and electrics on for a long period.

The APU for the Abrams is an external system that sits on the rear engine deck of the standard model in Iraq.

TR1 wrote:Btw, there is speculation Putin's recent visit may not have just been to re-afirm the T-72 modernization contract (170 tanks) but something new.
Maybe T-90 modernization.

GarryB wrote:That would be interesting...

T-72 is definitely the cheaper option but in terms of what you are left with is a mixed fleet of Armatas, T-80s, T-90s of various models, and upgraded T-72s.

The reported cost of a T-90AM is about 4 million dollars... I wonder if they can do what they want to do with the BMD-4 and just make a bare bones T-90 without the expensive stuff fitted and then in 2015 or 2016 they can revisit the expensive stuff and start applying it to existing T-90s that have been produced and new production T-90s, and also produce Armata.

I am pretty sure that Armata is not going to be cheaper than 4 million per tank vehicle so when Armata is ready for production they will hopefully end up with a two tier system of Armata and T-90AM after all the older models get worn out and leave service or are sold. A further T-90AM2 upgrade can be formulated to add as many components of the Armata into its design to further simplify logistics and support and production...

GarryB wrote:Just looking at the cross section picture of the Russian APU I rather suspect fitting it where the Ukrainians fitted theirs would not have been an option as it is too tall to fit on the panniers and would have stuck up too far.

The issue is that it needs to be fitted near the main engine exhaust but is too tall to fit on the area above the tracks where traditionally Soviet tanks have had fuel cells and tool compartments.

As far as I can tell the other options would be to having it sticking out sideways or moving the engine exhaust to the rear. They seem to have taken the cheapest and simplest option.

Gas turbines tend to be smaller than their diesel equivalents.

Just looking at the engine exhaust on the T-90SM it is pretty clear they have designed it to minimise IR signature.

Diesels of that power (ie main engine power) generate a significant amount of heat, but a 1,500hp plus gas turbine generates a lot more IR. A tiny gas turbine for generating electrical power generates a lot less than either a gas turbine or diesel main engine, but a small diesel would likely produce even less heat signature.

The two main differences would be in compactness and IR signature as the small gas turbine will be smaller than a similarly powered diesel and both could be made to be very efficient at generating power but the gas turbine will generate more heat. I suspect the Russians decided a reduced IR signature was worth the increased size of a diesel generator.

GarryB wrote:My thinking is that if they save money and upgrade T-72s then when Armata is ready they will have to either build extra Armatas to replace the upgraded T-72s which will be very expensive or if they want a mixed fleet they will need to build T-90s... which will be cheaper than Armatas but still an added cost.

I think the best solution is a bargain basement version of the T-90 which is fitted for, but not with all the expensive stuff on the T-90AM... which is the domestic version of the T-90SM.

That means that they can save a lot of money by buying a lot of T-90s that can later be upgraded to a full T-90AM standard later on, rather than a cheap T-72 upgrade that will result in tanks that will be scrapped or sold and replaced by T-90s or Armatas.

In terms of sensors and systems they can be very similar, but we know the Armata has its own family of new powerpacks, and that means new transmissions and gearings etc. Also the Armata "tank" will have all three crew in the front hull with an external mounted gun in an unmanned turret which means it will need systems to give good situational awareness for the commander that the T-90 simply doesn't need.

I rather suspect there will be a range or sensors and instead of having a thermal scope and a digital video scope and IRST sensor display and MMW radar sensor display that all the information will be processed and improved and displayed on a screen to show the relevant info. For instance in a sunny clear day in the distance there might be several camouflaged soldiers... looking through the thermal sight they might stand out clearly and looking through the day time scope you might get an excellent view of everything else, but with sensor fusion a computer will compare the image from the Thermal imager and the daytime digital sight and combine them so the enemy infantry have a thermal glow so they stand out despite their camouflage and the rest of the image is the clear bright image from the day time scope...

It could be either... they might have a redesigned diesel that is flatter and longer, or a gas turbine that is smaller and fits too.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f41/15/11/39/27/t-90ms11.jpg

The problem there is that if you flatten it you might make it too wide. In its present configuration it does not stick out sideways and would not be a particularly vulnerable target.

I suspect the benefit of having a redesigned APU would not outweigh the cost of modifying it.

Pugnax wrote:Have they done anything to upgrade turret traverse time?Oplot beats T-90 easily,Weight of shot and gun layer efficiency counts.Even the Ukrainian upgraded T-55 has a faster traverse rate than those posted for T-90-s.