T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

The old engines for the Il-76 cost $800,000 each in US dollars. The new engines that improved fuel consumption and thrust cost $6 million US dollars each.

Now over time the cost of the new engines will dramatically reduce as production of new materials and parts is mastered and local production reduces the costs involved, but as you could imagine if you have an existing fleet of aircraft that burn a little extra fuel... take a little longer to get places and need slightly longer runways for takeoffs it is not the biggest priority to spend 24 million dollars on each one replacing the engine... especially for a tank because even though it only has one you will need a new transmission to use the extra power.

It is also important to remember that fuel consumption is related directly to power, so an extra 300hp might sound good, and improved fuel consumption might even make it sound great but effectively more power means more fuel consumption, and there are no guarantees that the improved engine performance will actually improve the performance of the tank by the value of the dollars it is going to cost to upgrade the tank.

ERA is simple and cheap and radically improves the performance of existing armour without adding a lot of weight or other problems.

With a new engine on the other hand... what sort of production capacity do you have... they might not be able to make enough of them to put them into all the new vehicles they are making as well as replacements for problems etc etc, while the other engines being made for the T-72 are already pretty good anyway...

Over time it makes sense to switch over to the new engine and discontinue production of the older models or reserve them for export only for those wanting a cheaper simpler tank.

There could be issues with fitting it too... keep in mind that the T-90 is a different tank from the T-72 so some things might fit easily and others might not be so easy to adapt and use...

Matching an engine to a vehicle is not just a question of fitting the most powerful engine all the time, there are other considerations to think about too.

It is always a cost benefit thing where you ask yourself if the extra cost is going to produce enough of a change in performance or ease of maintenence or logistical advantage to make it worth it... the Russian military does not get money to burn.

Hi GerryB

I write in Israel blog and now I want to write about the upgrade T-72, T-80 and T-90.
I start with the T-72B3M; I get into some problem about the "observation and fire control".
I'd like to send it to you for your check and maybe some correction.

Can I do that?
Thanks
AJ

Certainly, but I have to say I am not an expert on the subject... Perhaps create an open thread for discussion of any points you are not sure of might be valuable to help you with the article?

I'm writing on upgrade of the T-72 and I'm not sure if what I'm wrtting is correct, the suject is T-72 "observation and fire control", I'll appriciate some help with this.

[b]Observation and fire control[/b]

One of the new main features of the T-72B3M is the PK- PAN which is an independent panoramic thermal sight that allows the commander to independently search for targets, and then slew the turret to engage the targets (hunter-killer ability). This sight is fully stabilized and mounted on the top centre of the turret between the two hatches. The sight contains a day channel, a laser range finder and image intensifier. The tank commander uses the panoramic sight to search for targets, once the target is found and selected, the gun is laid on the target automatically and the gunner completes all the aiming and firing process, during that time commander looks for the next target. This brings the observation and situational awareness capabilities of the T-72B3M to rough parity with Western vehicles.

The tank is also equipped with highly advanced fire control system based on the multichannel gunner's sight "Sosna-U". The sight has optical and thermal channel and provide an increased identification range of targets at night and also applying of digital ballistic computer with a set of weather sensors. The fire control system includes also automatic target tracker in the gunner's sight optical and thermal channel.

The tank has day/night and all weather combat capability, and also fitted with a digital radio system. So in terms of fire control system and all the electronics, the T-72B3M outperforms the T-90 tank used by the Russian Army.

Yeah, I think that is a bit of an exaggeration too... you don't need a panoramic commanders sight for the so called hunter killer operation mode...

On most Soviet and Russian tanks since WWII the gunner has his own sight that pretty much faces forward and offers 30-60 degree forward view, while the commander has a sight that can rotate and give an all round view without needing to rotate the turret.

The commander has a sight that turns with his cuppola and can turn around finding targets without needing to turn the turret.

In normal operation the commander will use his superior view of the battlefield to direct the driver to move from cover to cover, while searching for targets and threats... serious threats will be dealt with first so for instance a T-72 commander spots a Bradley fighting vehicle at 5km range and an M1 Abrams at 4km range... the Bradley is too far away to use its TOW missile so the commander would direct the gunner to engage the Abrams and tell him the type of ammo to use... the commander would then monitor the Bradley and the Abrams and also look for other threats or targets while directing the driver to take the vehicle to a nice hull down position where the gunner can fire on the target but the targets only see a portion of the tank they are in.

The commander might not be able to turn the turret immediately to aim at the Abrams but giving him the direction of the target and distance means the gunner can rapidly find it and start the engagement.... probably with a SVIR missile... the gunner engaging the target till it is confirmed defeated or the commander spots another more pressing target that needs to be engaged first.

It was the Germans that developed these tactics... which is why even their small tanks had 5 man crews so the commander was not distracted with having to fire or load the gun like they were in Soviet two man tanks like the T-26. Their small light tanks were effective because the commander was always looking for targets and threats and the gunner was concentrating on killing the target and was not distracted by having to load the gun or look for other enemy sneaking up.

I know for a fact that the T-80s commander could aim and fire the gun himself so he could already point the gun for the gunner... he would only do so in emergencies because the whole point of having a gunner is to shoot at targets while the commander with his 360 degree view is better equipped to find targets and direct the driver from cover to cover.

Auto target trackers make moving targets easier to engage... especially when using guided missiles.

And weather sensor input to the fire control system is not something new for Soviet and Russian tanks either.

If you mean their new Thermals outperform the Catherine XP thermals then I am very impressed... those French thermals have outstanding performance...

Thanks for the info.

I'm talking about the newest upgrade of the T-72 that is the T-72B3M that also called T-72B4



In the picture above we can see the panoramic sight that is mounted on the top center of the T-72B3M's turret.

and the picture below showing the sights on the tank's turret. in Comarison between the T-72B and the T-72B3.



Comparison of equipment on turret: 1) wind sensor; 2) 1A40-1 primary sight;
3) Sosna-U system sight; 4) 1K13-49 system sight.

BTW I read that there is about 500 T-90 in the army and might upgrade to the Proryv-3 model.

French have the best thermals in the world. There is a firm right now that the US want to buy but french government doesn't want to let that heppen because they make cameras that no one else has.

Russia is behind.

The Russians had a choice, they were looking at Swedish and South African and French thermals... originally for the Mi-28N I believe, and they went with Thales of France... India also chose Thales for aircraft equipment and thermals for tank upgrades.

Of course the Russians haven't been idle, they focussed on low light level TV systems during the Cold War... simply because they were a cheaper technology... the work they did on autotracking targets from video sources paid off with the Shkval EO system for the Ka-50 and Su-25TM, but they neglected thermal imaging systems for quite some time.

Contracts with Thales and producing their own equipment however gave them lots of steps up and they have quite a few thermal imaging products from hand held, NVG, rifle mounted, vehicle mounted, aircraft mounted, and ship and satellite mounted EO systems.

As you can see from this image the T-80, like most Soviet tanks that don't have separate pano sights have commander sights attached to their cupola that can rotate 360 degrees to allow the so called hunter killer operational mode... obviously a pano sight with thermal imaging equipment increases viewing distance in bad weather or at night or through dust and smoke, but the concept is basically the same... a pano sight is not a requirement for HK mode, but is a good implementation of it.



Is there any info on the export website?

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/

or the KBP website?

(sorry the english language version of this page does not seem to be working... maybe a file was deleted or moved or perhaps they are updating it..)

http://www.kbptula.ru/ru/razrabotki-kbp/kompleksy-vooruzheniya-legkobronirovannoj-tekhniki-i-tankov/redut

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:

Isos wrote:I already answer to that. The smoke screen is 50m away. A top attack missile controled by a man won't be affected.

I do not understand what should be the answer (except the supposed capability of the ATGM's operator to "guess" the position of the vehicle aiming at blind in the area behind the multispectral curtain)  

Isos you can easily see that the Штора system in the video is activated at minute 2:42 (when the tank just approach the curve) then aerosol barrier form in less than 3 seconds to a size more than sufficient to completely mask the position of the tank for more than 20 seconds.

You can easily understand that ,let put a Spike ATGM, even if manually guided would have a truly negligible chance -if any- to hit that T-90.

The ATGM operator at 10-12 seconds from impact (the unified battle management system after the initial transfer of the alarm to the units potentially target of the attack ,transfer the command for countermeasures employment at about within this time window for subsonic menaces) would see the soft kill system activate, at 5-6 seconds from impact it will find itself aiming literally at blind behind the exapndin curtain formed by one or two tanks.



This has been fully confirmed in the Syrian operation even with very low proficient tank crew alerted only through much more primitive radio comm-link alert.


Obviouly all this do not cancel the centrality of new generation hard-kill APS (and dynamic defenses) to defeat the perspective menaces to armoured units in the future battlefield and ,in facts, you probably have noticed that the new generation of armoured ground vehicles has been realized with hard and soft kill APS already integrated in theirs design from the beginning.

Theirs performances and key technical parameters leave far behind the foreign counterparts (mostly Israeli built) that western Armies are now attempting to integrate in theirs outdated MBTs and IFVs.

 

Apparently Arena-M was designed to defeat top attack munitions, with charges that correct the trajectory of the blast of shrapnel (post launch) with impulse correction thrusters built in to them (24:30)

To further expound on Arena-M being capable in defeating top-attack munitions. APS fragments seem to be effective up 25 meters against standard anti-tank munitions, and slightly greater against top attack munitions.

In my understanding both the T-90 and the T-72 are under big upgrade, If I'll take away the financing issue, I'll like to see as many parts that will be the same between these tanks.
And my big question is can we replace the turret and the autoloader of the T-72 with the one on the T-90?
And can we replace the T-72 engine with the T-90M engine?

To further expound on Arena-M being capable in defeating top-attack munitions. APS fragments seem to be effective up 25 meters against standard anti-tank munitions, and slightly greater against top attack munitions.

To be clear ARENA is a very simple system... it was effectively a half ring of munitions around the front of the turret which when set off are blown up in to the air at a fixed angle... when they get to a fixed height they detonate sending a shower of fragments down and forward away from the vehicle at a specific and fixed angle.

In a way they are like a perimeter of claymore mines in a semi circle in front of a position... the claymores are tightly packed together but because they are launched up into the air before they fire when each is activated they don't damage the vehicle or the other munitions next to them. They send a shower of fragments that spread out as they come down so four of five munitions right next to each other can effectively shoot down the same incoming ATGM... so launching one to intercept one missile does not mean if that launcher fires another missile a half a second later that that second missile will get through... the system can simply launch one munition to hit the first missile and a second munition to hit the next missile and then a third and fourth munition and perhaps even 5th and 6th missile because the fragments spread out as they come down and cover 3-4 metres or more with fragments.

They are launched up into the air so their fragments can be directed down into the ground so 30m away from the tank friendly infantry are safe from fragments and Anti tank missile fragments.

The speed the munitions go up in to the air and the time they take to get to the height where they explode and the speed and spread of the fragments is consistent and known so the radar detection system detects the target at 50m to 100m... when the missile enters the kill zone the munitions have already been launched and are exploding sending fragments down into the kill zone to smash the target.

ARENA had munitions around the front of the turret, which makes them vulnerable to damage from HMG and small arms fire... I see the new systems have boxes with bigger munitions that effectively cover larger areas when they detonate so instead of 40 munitions covering the front arc, there are three or four boxes... one covering front, one covering left side, one covering right side, one covering rear. The speed of targets and short range of detection means there is no chance but also no need to move the turret. After the target is destroyed the turret might move to point at the origin of the missile... the TOW operator could run away but a HE round will obliterate the launcher. A Javelin operator will be long gone but that is fine... the warning will go out that there are Javelins about so tank crews will be looking on their thermals for you and so will drones...

ARENA is attached to the turret so it moves with the turret and offers continuous protection... it is a rather good system... a shame it has not been widely deployed yet.

And my big question is can we replace the turret and the autoloader of the T-72 with the one on the T-90?

My understanding is that the width of the autoloader on the T-90 is wider than the hull of the T-72.

And can we replace the T-72 engine with the T-90M engine?

The fact that the T-90 hull is clearly wider suggests the engine might be wider too, but then if you solve that for one you solve it for both really...

GarryB wrote:

And my big question is can we replace the turret and the autoloader of the T-72 with the one on the T-90?

My understanding is that the width of the autoloader on the T-90 is wider than the hull of the T-72.

And can we replace the T-72 engine with the T-90M engine?

The fact that the T-90 hull is clearly wider suggests the engine might be wider too, but then if you solve that for one you solve it for both really...

No, the T-90 autoloader can fit in the T-72 hull also, even more in the one of T-80 whose original one i.e. the Korzina is actually larger.
In case of both T-72 and T-90 you have however to remove a small part of hull side armor, to be replaced by a larger amount outside the tracks.
Russia has decided however of not putting such modification on its own T-72s because have been refurbished too recently for allow for another major overhaul.
Because it would be not only the autoloader but the gun and all the optics that would need to be replaced.
In case another nation would decide to overhaul its own, it could however be offered as an option.

No, the T-90 autoloader can fit in the T-72 hull also, even more in the one of T-80 whose original one i.e. the Korzina is actually larger.

If that is the case then the answer is no it does not fit, but the T-72 chassis can be modified to take the autoloader.

The Russian army will receive more than 120 modernized T-72B3M tanks this year

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=531225&lang=RU