The current rumors are that the Black Eagle MBT, originally designed as an export tank has been cancelled since the developing company has gone bancrupt and has remained so for years. Considering I haven't seen anything about this tank for a couple years now it would seem the Black Eagle Main Battle Tank has met an early demise. Which is rather sad, I was hoping the Russians would catch up to western tank designs, but its clear that isnt going to happen now. So my questions are, what has become of the Black Eagle, and does anyone know what the Russians are going to do with their new 152mm tank gun? I don't see it being installed on the T-90 series.
Black Eagle MBT going going gone?
- Thread starter Defcon 6
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
This project seems like a black project, it's really difficult to find information on it aside from old info and pictures. It was going to be shipped to South Korea with a 125mm gun (the same as the T-90), however the plans were never finalized and I haven't heard anything about it for years now. The Black Eagle (Chiorny Oriol) made its last appearance as the 1999 Omsk exhibiton. And it was fitted with a 125mm 2A46M gun, not a 120mm. As far as I know there is no 120mm planned. Then there was this rumor that the gun was going to be a 120mm, but the Russians haven't been working on any such gun that would be considered modern or effective.aaaditya said:
I havne't heard anything about this tank, I can only assume it's dead, due to lack of funding. Becuase it's an export tank, the Russian government would have no desire to pay for it, and I'm guessing the South Koreans didn't go through with any kind of deal. But I'm still looking for more information.
The south koreans will predictably favor a domestic design,produced by an increasingly sophisticated manufacturing base which currently manufactures the fuslage of the apache helicopter.During the conflict in chechneya the the fuel consumption of the gas turbine engine of the T-80 was considered unacceptable which resulted in the deisle engine for the T-90.The weight of the black eagle suggests a need for a high output power plant.The fact that the russians abandoned the gas turbine engine says something about the logistics system of the army of this already fincially burdened country.However I've noticed several of the black eagles carricteristics on the artist rendition of the next generation chinese tank which looks like a cross between the merkava and the black eagle.In keeping with chinese ambition,a conflict in taiwan where maneuver space is limited and with the possibilty of engaging an amphibious force arriving on the opposite side of the island,the chances of having a near frontal engagement are very high. In order to win such an exchange the AFV in quiestion would need armerment capable of penetrating the frontal armor of the M-1 Abrams,while being able to withstand return fire.A machine armed with a 152mm main gun with the thick well slopped armor of the black eagle while being designed in the engine forward configuration of the merkava,would be able to withstand good deal of punishment and still return fire.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
I hate to burst your bubble but tank warfare these days is usually one hit one kill. The Black Eagle is about 50 tons vs. the M1A2's 68.3 tons. The Black Eagle would still be at a disadvantage. And the 152mm gun you mentioned doesn't even exist yet. It wasn't equipped on the Chiorny Eagle back at omsk. Since the 125mm can be considered inferior to the M256 120mm then the black eagle would be an inferior platform.batavian said:
And the Taiwan invasion is pointless. Everyone on this forum says it isn't even likely anymore. Furthermore, with the state of the chinese navy, they wouldnt even be able to land their troops in Taiwan. So tanks are fairly useless until they can gain a beach head.
Russia's abandonment of the gas turbine engine for tanks seems to have occurred after the first chechen war. There was an old article that said that the russian military discovered it had many shortcomings during that campaign, one of these shortcoming was the engine types reportedly higher vulnerability during urban combat.
the us army has developed an ATGM that can produce 42 megajoules of energy,the main gun of an M1 can produce about 12. what this mean is even if you could design armor that could stop this blast, the force would be sufficient to desplace a 70 ton vehicle several hundred meters with the crew still dead.
The army also commisioned and has recieved the prototype of an anti-ATGM
system.Depending of the systems effectivenss the the future of anti-tank capability could be dominated by what comes out a tanks main gun.In trying to predict which features of the black eagle would resurface (in the composite merkava/black eagle chinese AFV)the 152mm gun would have the best chance of using the new technology as the rocket in quiestion appeared to be of that diamiter.I appologize for straying from the topic.My guess is the russians will shelve the design and consentrate on developing a network based and profesional army I understand they are trying to man the 76th guards airborne division entirly with volunteers and are having mixed results but that is another subject.
The army also commisioned and has recieved the prototype of an anti-ATGM
system.Depending of the systems effectivenss the the future of anti-tank capability could be dominated by what comes out a tanks main gun.In trying to predict which features of the black eagle would resurface (in the composite merkava/black eagle chinese AFV)the 152mm gun would have the best chance of using the new technology as the rocket in quiestion appeared to be of that diamiter.I appologize for straying from the topic.My guess is the russians will shelve the design and consentrate on developing a network based and profesional army I understand they are trying to man the 76th guards airborne division entirly with volunteers and are having mixed results but that is another subject.
Last edited:
I vaguely remember reading about the turbine engine used in the M1. Apparently regardless of whether the tank is going flatout or idling. The turbine pretty much runs at the same speed (ie pretty much flatout), it's supposed to be the nature of that type of engine. This is why fuel economy can become an issue, idling doesn't save you much in the way of economy. If you don't have a logistics supply chain like the yanks, then keeping tanks with a turbine engine fuelled, can get difficult because they are thirsty beasts any time you start the engine on one.
Secondly, if it is true that a turbine engine basically has only two speeds - flat out or off, then you'd want the design to be right as any 'small' bugs soon become big ones and you'd end up with 'reliability issues'.
cheers
rb
Secondly, if it is true that a turbine engine basically has only two speeds - flat out or off, then you'd want the design to be right as any 'small' bugs soon become big ones and you'd end up with 'reliability issues'.
cheers
rb
pawa_k2001
New Member
Sorry to burst your bubble but diesel is better. Saudi Arabia wanted to by a Brazilian tank instead of the M1A1 because the turbine sucks in desert.Defcon 6 said:
Also turbine has disadvantages in the following areas:
- Because of their lower efficiency, the thermal signature of a gas turbine is higher than a diesel engine at the same level of power output
- parts experience a higher wear due to their higher working speeds
- The turbine blades are also very sensitive to dust and fine sand, so that in desert operations special filters have to be carefully fitted and changed several times daily. An improperly fitted filter, or a single bullet or piece of shrapnel can render the filter useless, potentially damaging the engine
- much less fuel efficient, especially at low RPMs, requiring larger fuel tanks to achieve the same combat range
Also for Russian technology, Russians used the turbine engine in the T-80s. The Ukrainians changed them to diesels in T-84 and the new T-90 is a diesel.
Overall the M1A2 is a cold war tank. It is good in a battle against other tanks and an organized battle. In the new style of war that is happening in Chechnya, Iraq, Israel, etc it sucks. Russia and Israel are leading the way in the new tanks.
pawa_k2001 said:
Well, I'm sorry, but your logic doesn't exactly jive with present-day reality.
The US military went with the turbine engine, because of it's power. If infact it was no longer the best power plant for their MBT, don't you think the US could have/would have replaced the gas turbine with a diesel power pack? It's a modular design, allowing a complete engine change to be made quickly and easily- even in the field. They have the money, the logistic train, and technical expertise to re-engine the entire fleet if need be.
A diesel may indeed be a more fuel-efficient engine type than a turbine, but it probably could not produce the power necessary to propel more than 70 tons of MBT with the acceleration and top speed that the gas turbine can attain. Remember, the Abrams is still one of the fastest tanks in the world, despite also being one of the heaviest armored. It's quite unlikely that a diesel engine could out-perform a turbine in the same size power pack. Remember, it still has to fit in the tank. Range and durability ARE certainly factors, but given the Abram's enormous weight- raw power is even more so. The Abram's sheer speed, and accelleration are among it's most impressive features- or the most terrifying, depending on your perspective.
Your statement about the Abrams being a "Cold War" tank is true, it was designed more than thirty years ago. But to say that it "sucks" in the "new war" enviroment is cleary false, when one looks at it's combat record during the last two Gulf Wars. Frankly, it has obliterated every other tank it has faced, including diesel-engined T72M's. Perhaps without the American's logistic capability, the Abrams would not have been such a successful tank, but then again, maybe it was also a well-designed war machine as well? If you've ever read about the Abram's development and how intense it was, you might have a better understanding of why it is still considered to be among the most successful combat-proven tank in service with any nation. To be sure, the same cannot be said about any modern Russian tank.
You can't make the claim that Russia is leading the way with new tanks, when the topic of this thread is about the LACK of a new Russian Tank. I have heard rumours about the existance of this pipe dream for years, and have read nearly everything written in English about the "Black Eagle". Clearly this tank is not going to be mass-produced by Russia, or any other country before the end of this decade. I doubt highly that it will ever serve in Russia, before land warfare involving MBT's is a thing of the past. It is very possible that that day may already be upon us.
Yes, the Israelis ARE on the cutting edge of new tank design, and the US is well on it's way to developing the replacement for the M1A2, the FCS program. The EU is making progress, as are the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese, India, and Pakistan, among others. All of them EXCEPT Russia, actually. Perhaps you can provide a source that shows that Russia is factually "leading the way"? I'd greatly appreciate the fresh intel.
I realize that this is off-topic, as we're supposed to be talking about the no-show Black Eagle, so please forgive the intrusion.
As you were.
chinawhite
New Member
Heres some reall actual pictures of the T-80UM2. aka black eagle. No mask no netting
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4459/tankob640515ox.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8592/tankob640526sl.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1825/tankob640554fz.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9327/tankob640565vf.jpg
Looks impressive huh?
Without the netting the armour looks a lot more interesting. Looks like they overlap. Its not Kontakt 5 its a new one called Kaktus. Its not brick like normal ERA but its like a thin scale. Whats inside? I dont know but we can b sure its a improvement over Kontakt 5. Its smaller thinner and most probaly more capable. Overlapping scales would be more effictive
Heres a estimate of its armour
Gun?. Still has a 125mm. Maybe going to be improved later. If its going to have a a new 125mm indifinatly than new gun fired missiles will be included. New missiles in development i suppose. But is this new russian tank going to be revolutionary or is it just going to be a evolution. When pictures of it first surfaced there was much speculation about its abilities. Manless turrnet supergun etc. In reality its just a improvement of a older tank just like the T-90 was a improvment of the T-72 while this is a improvment of the T-80U. New production line new equipment new everything. Yes the russian economy is recovering but its not stable as yet to fund large moderization of the russian tank fleet. Priorities i would rank the russian missile capabilitiy first since by the end of this century russias ICBM are going to be to old or broken from lack of maintance. Since the fall of the soviets the only reason why people take them seriously is because of the "large" number of missiles during the cold war. If thats gone what else do they have?.
Then it would be the airforce since all the Su-27s Mig-29s are still relativly new airframes at a little over two decades for some planes, their airframes would have been punished hard in the bad years of indepe ndence. Their bomber fleet trainer fleet their training hours need to be looked after before their ground forces can be moderized. Navy?. Well, a nuclear submarine is expensive to buy but russia has a lot of submarines to replace. Even the Akula submarines that entered service in the 80s were retired. Russian needs new SLBM carriers. Russian carrier still in the works?. Then the ground forces which tanks can still works can still be upgraded without buying new tanks. You cannot upgrade a old aircraft so upgrading old tanks with new developed technology and russias already large fleet of T-72s can be fitted with ERA and ARENA self defence system
Is it going to be brought. I highly doubt it since it does not offer any more improved capabilities than say buying more T-90s which can be also fitted with new FCS or Kaktus. So cost vs effictivness the T-90 while being a less capable tank is better value. I probaly suspect the russian making a no man turrnet design than go with a normal design. I think it was more of a export gimmick than as a genuine tank which the russians will buy. Im just thinking will new tactics be a smaller role for the gun and instead more of a missile carrier?. Just wondering since missiles have better range better accuracy and better peneration than a sabot round will the gun be replaced by a missile mount?. Any thoughts about this
But no doubt this is one of the better tanks that were design. What i love about russans tanks is their ability to be upgraded with add ons which come alone. But lets no forget that these upgrades are post-gulf war gulf war two post chechnya so lessons from IEDs or RPGs will have been learnt and i suspect by the size of the new Kaktus ERA it was not meant to stop sabots but HEAT rounds. Well thats me speculating on this.
Possible export markets.
India- Arjun II(?) And new rhino upgrades. It doesn't look like a heavy possbilites
South korea - They have their mini-M1 which has just got a new upgrade so this is leaning to no
China - Hell no.
Third world - Umm if i was a small poor country where i was offered a upgraded T-55 which is 2million and a Black eagle which was 5million. Which would be my choice?
America- Yeah they'll buy a few, just to get whats new in russia defence industry
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4459/tankob640515ox.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8592/tankob640526sl.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1825/tankob640554fz.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9327/tankob640565vf.jpg
Looks impressive huh?
Without the netting the armour looks a lot more interesting. Looks like they overlap. Its not Kontakt 5 its a new one called Kaktus. Its not brick like normal ERA but its like a thin scale. Whats inside? I dont know but we can b sure its a improvement over Kontakt 5. Its smaller thinner and most probaly more capable. Overlapping scales would be more effictive
Heres a estimate of its armour
Gun?. Still has a 125mm. Maybe going to be improved later. If its going to have a a new 125mm indifinatly than new gun fired missiles will be included. New missiles in development i suppose. But is this new russian tank going to be revolutionary or is it just going to be a evolution. When pictures of it first surfaced there was much speculation about its abilities. Manless turrnet supergun etc. In reality its just a improvement of a older tank just like the T-90 was a improvment of the T-72 while this is a improvment of the T-80U. New production line new equipment new everything. Yes the russian economy is recovering but its not stable as yet to fund large moderization of the russian tank fleet. Priorities i would rank the russian missile capabilitiy first since by the end of this century russias ICBM are going to be to old or broken from lack of maintance. Since the fall of the soviets the only reason why people take them seriously is because of the "large" number of missiles during the cold war. If thats gone what else do they have?.
Then it would be the airforce since all the Su-27s Mig-29s are still relativly new airframes at a little over two decades for some planes, their airframes would have been punished hard in the bad years of indepe ndence. Their bomber fleet trainer fleet their training hours need to be looked after before their ground forces can be moderized. Navy?. Well, a nuclear submarine is expensive to buy but russia has a lot of submarines to replace. Even the Akula submarines that entered service in the 80s were retired. Russian needs new SLBM carriers. Russian carrier still in the works?. Then the ground forces which tanks can still works can still be upgraded without buying new tanks. You cannot upgrade a old aircraft so upgrading old tanks with new developed technology and russias already large fleet of T-72s can be fitted with ERA and ARENA self defence system
Is it going to be brought. I highly doubt it since it does not offer any more improved capabilities than say buying more T-90s which can be also fitted with new FCS or Kaktus. So cost vs effictivness the T-90 while being a less capable tank is better value. I probaly suspect the russian making a no man turrnet design than go with a normal design. I think it was more of a export gimmick than as a genuine tank which the russians will buy. Im just thinking will new tactics be a smaller role for the gun and instead more of a missile carrier?. Just wondering since missiles have better range better accuracy and better peneration than a sabot round will the gun be replaced by a missile mount?. Any thoughts about this
But no doubt this is one of the better tanks that were design. What i love about russans tanks is their ability to be upgraded with add ons which come alone. But lets no forget that these upgrades are post-gulf war gulf war two post chechnya so lessons from IEDs or RPGs will have been learnt and i suspect by the size of the new Kaktus ERA it was not meant to stop sabots but HEAT rounds. Well thats me speculating on this.
Possible export markets.
India- Arjun II(?) And new rhino upgrades. It doesn't look like a heavy possbilites
South korea - They have their mini-M1 which has just got a new upgrade so this is leaning to no
China - Hell no.
Third world - Umm if i was a small poor country where i was offered a upgraded T-55 which is 2million and a Black eagle which was 5million. Which would be my choice?
America- Yeah they'll buy a few, just to get whats new in russia defence industry
Last edited:
M1 can easily be fitted with German MTU powerpack. IIRC its was offerred to Turkey with the MTU EUROPACK. While this is a lot more compact than the earlier powerpack fitted to Leo 2, it wouldn't be surprised if that earlier MTU powerpack could also fit the M1 engine bay with relatively minor effort.Wild Weasel said:
I'm sure that the US could re-engine it's tank fleet with a newer, more efficient diesel engine like the Leo's MTU- but once again, it is unlikly that it would provide the Abrams with the high speed, and acceleration that it currently has.tatra said:
One must remember that the SEP Abrams is one of the heaviest MBT's in service, and requires an enormous power to weight ratio to maintain survivabilty, and remain competitive. Re-engining the SEP fleet is currently underway, as the AGT-1500 is no longer in production.
The US Army intends to replace the AGT-1500 with the LV100 Gas Tubine under the PROSE Phase 2 program.
The LV100 should provide a great deal of performance increases over the current engine, ensuring the Abram's effective service life beyond 2025.
Black Eagle is certainly one of the best-looking tank designs to make it to prototype stage. And with over a meter of KE protection and over a meter and a half of CE protection, it's one of the best-protected, too. I also like the quick-change bustle autoloader--that's a good idea. Similar in mechanical concept to the Leclerc autoloader, looks like, but the Russians went a step further and made it detachable for quick reloading in the field. I don't think the Russians would be smart to buy it now, though. They don't have the money to field it across the board, so they're better off using it as a technology demonstrator, learning from it, and then buying the next generation once they have the money. If they bought just a few, then its performance specs would become known, and potential enemies would develop counters to it. Better to leave it at prototype stage until you can field it (or, rather, its replacement) en masse. The Russians honestly don't have a realistic opponent that its current crop of tanks couldn't handle.
As for the turbine vs. diesel debate, that would seem to be pretty well closed. The M1 is the only Western tank to use a gas turbine, and that was because at the time it was designed (1970s) diesels didn't have near the performance a turbine could offer. That's no longer true, as witnessed by the several 1500hp diesels on the market, and the new EuroPowerPack for the Leopard 2A6 is as compact as you could ask. The M1 could be changed to a diesel, but it would be pricey to do all the design work; modular or not, it's not a simple matter to swap out a gas turbine system for a diesel. And you might need a different transmission, too, or at least a different placement. The expense of re-engineering the Abrams to fit a diesel is probably most evident in the Australian purchase. It would have been much easier for them logistically to put in a diesel, since they have no infrastructure to support a turbine, but they're going ahead with the turbine anyway. Go figure.
As for the turbine vs. diesel debate, that would seem to be pretty well closed. The M1 is the only Western tank to use a gas turbine, and that was because at the time it was designed (1970s) diesels didn't have near the performance a turbine could offer. That's no longer true, as witnessed by the several 1500hp diesels on the market, and the new EuroPowerPack for the Leopard 2A6 is as compact as you could ask. The M1 could be changed to a diesel, but it would be pricey to do all the design work; modular or not, it's not a simple matter to swap out a gas turbine system for a diesel. And you might need a different transmission, too, or at least a different placement. The expense of re-engineering the Abrams to fit a diesel is probably most evident in the Australian purchase. It would have been much easier for them logistically to put in a diesel, since they have no infrastructure to support a turbine, but they're going ahead with the turbine anyway. Go figure.
Life is life. Nizniy Tagil plant UVZ (T-72, T-90, T-95) have won contest with Omsk plant (T-80, Black Eagle). Russian future MBT will be T-95 not Black Eagle. BE is export project only. Details of T-95 are top secret (for public at least), but I hope (I guess) it could be equipped by men free turret and 152mm cannon able to shoot by Khrizantema-like missiles (1200mm RHA). I hope that T-95 would be revolution, but not evolution of cold war MBT.
Yeah, the turbine is a multi-fuel engine. But why do you think the US don't run it with diesel? Every other vehicle in the US uses diesel but for their M1s they carry cerosine with them. There has to be a reason for it, because logistic is much more complicatd if you have to carry an extra sort of fuel with you.
It is the same with the MTU Diesel in the Leopard II. It is also a multi-fuel engine, but its optimized on diesel. You can also put gas, oil, whatever into it, but than you have to overhaul it sooner.
It is the same with the MTU Diesel in the Leopard II. It is also a multi-fuel engine, but its optimized on diesel. You can also put gas, oil, whatever into it, but than you have to overhaul it sooner.
The M1's gas turbines are optimized for aviation fuel, and that's what they put in them, if I'm not mistaken.