T-90 Main Battle Tank

Thanks a ton...

So the only new thing is the TIC/TCS system?

There's also the chance the internal (ballistic computer etc) systems have been updated.

Mike E wrote:Thanks a ton...

So the only new thing is the TIC/TCS system?

There's also the chance the internal (ballistic computer etc) systems have been updated.

Upgraded from the A-model? Sure. Actually this upgrade brings the theoretical capabilities on par with the MS/SM. Kalina FCS, new gen radios, probably a better secondary gunners' sight.

But most important, if the Proriv-2 light is mounted then there will be no more rounds inside the fighting compartment. Either on the bustle or the autoloader...THAT'S the big news.

Nice to know... This upgrade is more than what I originally thought.

That would be huge...

Mike E wrote:Nice to know... This upgrade is more than what I originally thought.

That would be huge...

I hope they can introduce the new 2A82 gun into the upgrade program.

volna wrote:

Mike E wrote:Nice to know... This upgrade is more than what I originally thought.

That would be huge...

I hope they can introduce the new 2A82 gun into the upgrade program.

As do I... There have been rumors about that for a while. 

It would have to be a shorter variant (48-51 caliber instead of 56), but the accuracy, pressure, and probably barrel life improvements would be worth while. 

 - I like the movement of this discussion but I am talking about the T-72 upgrade, and not the T-90 one.

Mike E wrote:

volna wrote:

Mike E wrote:Nice to know... This upgrade is more than what I originally thought.

That would be huge...

I hope they can introduce the new 2A82 gun into the upgrade program.

As do I... There have been rumors about that for a while. 

It would have to be a shorter variant (48-51 caliber instead of 56), but the accuracy, pressure, and probably barrel life improvements would be worth while. 

 - I like the movement of this discussion but I am talking about the T-72 upgrade, and not the T-90 one.

Which one? The T-72B3M/4? By all accounts the sight on the B4 is a cheaper than dirt solution lifted from Belomo that supposedly is a debarred RZK from Peleng (the ancestor of the current Hawkeye). It's good enough for the Tank Biathlon, the real upgrade as seen for the Nicaraguan contract would entertain with its Hawkeye setup.

However the Kalina FCS will probably be a lite version since the tanks would have to be fully retooled and refitted with electronics. That would be slapping 500K worth of bells and whistles on a roughly 200K tank. Don't know if worthy...

I'm talking about the "T-90C", which is a B3 upgraded to " T-90 spec" with the welded turret, Relikt, etc.

This upgrade doesn't need to be huge but wouldn't hurt per se.

The T-90 upgrade will be full fledged on the other hand.

Russian Army will Upgrade T-90 to T-90B3 Standard



Specs : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lFsICsE6WMU/VYLY9ovsNVI/AAAAAAAAMjc/l5Nq34kbUOM/s1600/DSC_0725.jpg

On the stand of the main Tank-Automotive Management Russian Defense Ministry has information about the T-90M "Break-3." It is reported that the main battle tank T-90M is a comprehensive modernization of the T-90 by increasing the combat and operational characteristics of modernization has touched a significant increase in firepower, protection and command control.

This tank is designed to conduct maneuver warfare against any opponent as part of the tank and mechanized infantry units as the main multi-purpose combat means.

The crew - 3 people, combat weight - 50 tons of ground clearance - 450 mm. The tank is armed with 125-mm GPS, as well as two machine guns of 12.7 and 7.62 mm. Engine power of 1130 hp Cruising on the highway with additional barrels - 550 km.

Mike E wrote:I'm talking about the "T-90C", which is a B3 upgraded to " T-90 spec" with the welded turret, Relikt, etc.

This upgrade doesn't need to be huge but wouldn't hurt per se.

The T-90 upgrade will be full fledged on the other hand.

That's the 72B3M you saw offered for export. It is roughly on par with what was offered to India (internals wise). Everything else is different. If instead the Proriv turret as pictured on Gur Khan is adopted for the T72 then it will be complicated pricewise. You'll have a good set of electronics but adapted on old turrets. Kinda defeats the purpose.  
The T90A to MS/SM upgrade shown on the first picture was an SM light.
Personally I would prefer the Burlak for obvious reasons. Big Arse HMG on the RWS. Very interesting Frontal Arc setup. Possibility to mount (partially) the APS on the T-14...However the Burlak relied too much on western components supposedly.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Mike E wrote:I'm talking about the "T-90C", which is a B3 upgraded to " T-90 spec" with the welded turret, Relikt, etc.

This upgrade doesn't need to be huge but wouldn't hurt per se.

The T-90 upgrade will be full fledged on the other hand.

That's the 72B3M you saw offered for export. It is roughly on par with what was offered to India (internals wise). Everything else is different. If instead the Proriv turret as pictured on Gur Khan is adopted for the T72 then it will be complicated pricewise. You'll have a good set of electronics but adapted on old turrets. Kinda defeats the purpose.  
The T90A to MS/SM upgrade shown on the first picture was an SM light.
Personally I would prefer the Burlak for obvious reasons. Big Arse HMG on the RWS. Very interesting Frontal Arc setup. Possibility to mount (partially) the APS on the T-14...However the Burlak relied too much on western components supposedly.

Really? I thought the B3M was just a minor upgrade comprising of an improved engine and commanders' sight or something like that. Gurkhan lists it as the T-90C which indeed is intended for export...but could be adapted for internal use. 

That upgrade is now being referred to as the T-90B3, further complicating things lol. 

Burlak looked solid but is not necessary... A welded turret upgrade is simpler and is based on what Russia has been doing for the past ~20 years with the T-90.

LOL ... first ... now

Russian Defense Ministry is buying ONE (1) T-90S that has just been announced.

Good side of the "deal" is that now we know how much a T-90 cost. Its 1.72 million $

The Russian Defense Ministry will purchase T-90S

Viktor wrote:LOL ... first ... now

Russian Defense Ministry is buying ONE (1) T-90S that has just been announced.

Good side of the "deal" is that now we know how much a T-90 cost. Its 1.72 million $

The Russian Defense Ministry will purchase T-90S

Probably Trophy tank for Tank Biathlon this year.

It will be a prize tank for sure, cause export model.

Because we know *enough*. The NxRA is a basic HHS/RHA/Rubber composite, Dorchester using ceramics alone makes it more advanced.

T-90A is using the same exact stuff the T-72B does, outside of the turret, which *might* also use Titanium

Mike E wrote:Because we know *enough*. The NxRA is a basic HHS/RHA/Rubber composite, Dorchester using ceramics alone makes it more advanced.

Care to share?

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:Because we know *enough*. The NxRA is a basic HHS/RHA/Rubber composite, Dorchester using ceramics alone makes it more advanced.

Care to share?

Share what? There are countless other pictures of the NxRA. Dorchester uses ceramics based off of a general consensus.

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:Because we know *enough*. The NxRA is a basic HHS/RHA/Rubber composite, Dorchester using ceramics alone makes it more advanced.

Care to share?

Share what? There are countless other pictures of the NxRA. Dorchester uses ceramics based off of a general consensus.

Go figure. You sound like those idiots that proclaim about how Armata is on par with M1A1. HAH.

And what's your point? The T-90A uses an rubber based composite, we have PROOF. Turret uses polycarb in its" place.

Mike E wrote:And what's your point? The T-90A uses an rubber based composite, we have PROOF. Turret uses polycarb in its" place.

We have proof, right? And your judgement and qualifications to judge are?

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:And what's your point? The T-90A uses an rubber based composite, we have PROOF. Turret uses polycarb in its" place.

We have proof, right?  And your judgement and qualifications to judge are?

What am I judging? T-90A uses the same armor layout at the T-72B, information can be found here.

Nice job on the down vote, by the way.

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:And what's your point? The T-90A uses an rubber based composite, we have PROOF. Turret uses polycarb in its" place.

We have proof, right?  And your judgement and qualifications to judge are?

What am I judging? T-90A uses the same armor layout at the T-72B, information can be found here.

Nice job on the down vote, by the way.

No mention of T-90A protection but simply T-72's.  And

First and foremost - I did all of these estimates myself. Armour effectiveness is a hotly debated subject, and I have no intention of throwing unsubstantiated figures or confusing data around

No problem on the downvote. Try harder next time.

T-90A uses the hull, chassis, and armor layout of the T-72B. This has been a known ever since the Object-188 program. 

He did estimates himself, but the composition was correct. There is little to no chance that a rubber or polycarb and steel composite can outperform a ceramic one.

And we all know an A1 can outperform a T-14. 

Provide me with substantial evidence with official data of both armors, and I will give you + at 12am.

Mike E wrote:T-90A uses the hull, chassis, and armor layout of the T-72B. This has been a known ever since the Object-188 program. 

He did estimates himself, but the composition was correct. There is little to no chance that a rubber or polycarb and steel composite can outperform a ceramic one.

But he did say that he cannot guarantee.  There is a possibility, and the weight may be evidence of it from the major differences between T-90A and M1A1 as example.  But this armor has not really proven itself since Iraq.  Now that one could be in question too.

And of course the A1 could outperform the T-14.  I mean heck, it is so advanced it has a gas guzzling engine and manual loader, while being huge in itself. Please, I know you are better than to degrade yourself to mp.net or f16.net style trolling.

BTW, I agree that Ceramics would outdo most other armor packages. But I cannot find actual data of T-90A's armor setup other than some speculations. This is why I am asking.

Only thing I will agree with is that the T-72B3 was imo a bad decision by the MoD. Go big or go home. Don't put the lives of your men in danger to save a few $. The T-72B2 would have been far most the ideal upgrade to last till Armata could enter services. And even when Armata enters service, it will take years to replace a bunch of tanks. And even then, T-72B and T-90A's will still be large in service.

Mike E wrote:T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.

How is it not?

Armor to volume, height, turret geometry, available munition, upgraded potential(T-90AM), repair cycle, maximum tactical tempo, etc.

You know, the T-72(on which T-90A is very based on, originally given T-72 with subsequent letter designation), in original domestic variant, within devised concept of operational usage by Soviet planners,

as well in its placement in the force structure and built in numbers by USSR, was the most excellent machine, with a very large margin behind second most excellent, to both fightand win against a strategic world power, seen in the Chilly War.