Black Eagle MBT

[Awang se]

A new Russian MBT named Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle) was shown for the first time at the second VTTV-Omsk-97 International Exhibition of Armaments, Military Equipment and Conversion Products held in September '97 in Omsk, Siberia region, Russia.

Until recently, there were hardly any details about the tank except for a couple of words and a poster on the Defendory 1998 held in Greece.

According to the information I have, this tank is being developed in cooperation with and for export to S.Korea and may even feature Korean thermal imagers. It will not be fielded with the Russian Army and seems to be entirely an initiative of Omsk Plant. It originates from the now-closed Nikolai Popov's design bureau at Leningrad Kirov Plant (LKZ) and is now developed by Alexander Morozov.

The tank is built on a T-80U chassis and will borrow most of its components including FCS from T-80U.

The most significant difference between the new tank and T-80 is the completely redesigned turret (at Omsk'97 a full-sized mock-up was presented) and the lengthened hull with 7 roadwheels per side.

The new turret will have a larger degree of protection than the current Russian MBTs. The steep slope of forward armor plates on the turret reflects designers' desire to maximize protection from APFSDS rounds in a duel situation, when tanks fight "face to face".

For additional protection, the tank is fitted with Kaktus ERA and the new Drozd-2 APS.

It was originally planned to install a 152 mm gun that is being developed for a future Russian MBT. However, since this tank is not going to be fielded with the Russian Army, it carries a 125 mm 2A46M-series gun.

Another innovation is a new automated ammo storage/loader, located in a turret bustle. It is separated from crew compartment by an armored bulkhead which greatly increases crew survivability. This design has several reasons. First, the Chechen war has shown that the carousel used in T-72/T-80/T-90 is too prone to ammo detonation when penetrated, invariably killing the crew. Second, adopted configuration also reduces Black Eagle's height by 400 mm by comparison with the T-80 (Perhaps a typo here, since this means that the tank is a mere 1.8 meters in height). Finally, horizontal ammunition arrangement in the turret bustle permits using longer (and therefore, more powerful) APFSDS rounds, unitary ammunition, simplified automatic loading process and increased rate of fire (expected to reach 10-12 rds/min).

Black Eagle's on-board information system monitors all essential systems of the vehicle, and permits automated data exchange with other tanks and headquarters.

The tank shall have a new 1200 hp 16-cyl. turbo-diesel engine and shall weigh around 50 tons.

VTTV-Omsk-99 exhibition have finally revealed the complete vehicle (referred by KBMZ as Item 640) without any netting. Several features became immediately apparent. It was apparent for the first time that the vehicle's hull is not taken directly from T-80U as was originally believed, but was significantly redesigned, the obvious change being the 7th roadwheel. It seems that most of the additional length has gone into the raised front hull protection and greater glacis obliquity. It also raises doubts if the tank indeed stays in Class 50. The active protection system appears to be Drozd, not Arena, derivative. Although the tank indeed carries the 2A46M maingun, it was stated that provision is made for installation of a new 152mm maingun. This implies that Omsk still hopes to win the hearts of the Russian military with this new tank.

Source
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov

 

[adsH]

apparently russian military has bought nothing for a long time, they find it hard to supply fuel to there existing Armer so they keep each Tank in sleeping!!

 

[Pathfinder-X]

this thing is only a test platform, to test out some western design and technologies in order to get better performance for the next generation MBT, i don't think this thing will come into service.

 

[Awang se]

They say it was for South Korea. SK already bought T-80U MBT and the only east asia user for such a tank. I believe this tank is partly a brainchild of the SK tank designers and use the russian production plant to build it. i got the picture here.

[/img]

Notice the enlarge bustle area. Eventually they don't satisfied with carousel housing for tank ammo.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

korean don't need any more russian MBTs. they already develop their own K1A1(a downsized M1A1), initially the tank suffered mechanical problems like many others, but the mass productions of the tank started in 1995 i think. now they have almost 300 of these in service and the number is still growing.

 

[Viktor]

korean don't need any more russian MBTs. they already develop their own K1A1(a downsized M1A1), initially the tank suffered mechanical problems like many others, but the mass productions of the tank started in 1995 i think. now they have almost 300 of these in service and the number is still growing.

Koreans have 300 T-80U1 whitch are batter than theirs K1A1 and where delivered as a pay back dabt from Soviet Union. Russia is curently developing T-95 MBT, T-80U2/Black Eagle is sadly canceld. It was at the moment most advance MBT in a world.

 

[TrangleC]

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4329

Yes, it is not really new since it was shown the first time almost 10 years ago and it seems to have no future anyway, since the company that designed it is gone bancrupt and the prototype is rotting away on some parking lot since years now.

 

[Stimpy75]

The Black Eagle is not destined for the korean army,because the korean are developing the XK-2 tank which will replace the K-1 tank in production.It´s something like a korean version of the Leclerc,with a 55 cal 120 mm gun.

 

[eckherl]

Koreans have 300 T-80U1 whitch are batter than theirs K1A1 and where delivered as a pay back dabt from Soviet Union. Russia is curently developing T-95 MBT, T-80U2/Black Eagle is sadly canceld. It was at the moment most advance MBT in a world.

I have worked with the South Korean miltary and they are quite satisfied with the K1A1, they are also content with their T-80U1s except for the auto loader systems and the tracks. The K1A1 is still being produced and the older fleet of K - 88`s are being refurbished to this standard. Can you tell me if the Russian army will be adopting the T - 95 design or will it be for sale on the export market.

 

[extern]

Can you tell me if the Russian army will be adopting the T - 95 design or will it be for sale on the export market.

T-95 is a top secret project of a next gen MBT, in some degree at more advanced stage, that the american FCS program, and however it's not for selling. Even for their closest ally India the Russians are refusing to sell it or to involve it in joint development.

 

[eckherl]

Is their any information and photos out there yet on this vechicle.

 

[Viktor]

T-95 is a top secret project of a next gen MBT, in some degree at more advanced stage, that the american FCS program, and however it's not for selling. Even for their closest ally India the Russians are refusing to sell it or to involve it in joint development.

Im interested as Russia curently operates about 3000 T-80 can those tanks be somehow modify to a Black Eagle standard. I know Black Eagle originaly has little longer body but to placy only a turet of a Black Eagle on a T-80 with Relikt ERA would be excellent job.

Have you any information about T-95 - nothing is being said for a while now.

 

[extern]

Have you any information about T-95 - nothing is being said for a while now.

The tests of T-95are under way now. This program is so secret, that they make open-area tests only when no american satelites are around :unknown

I can only say? that this tank is realizing the 'crew-in-hull concept', that I hardly hope it will be on western tanks before 2020. Citation:


"The main reason usually quoted for moving the crewmen down into the hull is to increase their
survivability by seating them in better protected stations. In the case of the MBT, a further significant
reason is to reduce the size of the target presented to the enemy when engaging over a crestline. In the case
of the MICV, the crew-in-hull concept will eliminate the turret basket which so restricts the infantrymen’s
movement within the vehicle. An additional reason will be to reduce the MBT’s and the MICV’s height
and prominence. This might be achieved by using configurations based on the “S” tank, but would be
spoiled by a high external overhead gun mounting.
By moving the crewmen down into the hull and allowing each man to drive the vehicle, it will be possible
to eliminate the dedicated driver and reduce both MBT and MICV crews to two men. In the MBT, reduced
crew volume can give better protection and only two crewmen need be put at risk in action. Far from
reducing a vehicle’s efficiency and speed of reaction, such two-man operation is likely to give better
operational performance than present four- or three-man turreted tanks. In the case of the MICV, a twoman
crew will allow an additional infantryman to leave the vehicle to take part in dismounted action." http://www.dtic.mil/mctl/DSTL/DSTLSec09g.pdf

 

[Waylander]

Two man crew?
Never ever with current technology.
Not until the gunner or the driver can completely be eliminated by computers.
Driving and gunnering is a full time job while the TC needs to be a multi-tasking talent (navigation, scanning, radio, commanding other tanks, etc).

 

[extern]

Two man crew?
Never ever with current technology.
Not until the gunner or the driver can completely be eliminated by computers.
Driving and gunnering is a full time job while the TC needs to be a multi-tasking talent (navigation, scanning, radio, commanding other tanks, etc).

Transferring RuArmy to contract army makes worthwhile to exploit 2 highly qualificated 'tank pilots' instead 3 pure qualifcated half year prepared tankmen. It is naturally tendency: to reduce crew as much as possible like puting 1-men crew on Ka-50 helo (yes I know it's expensive!) or Su-35 fighter. Also the better defence for a crew is its reducing

 

[eckherl]

Transferring RuArmy to contract army makes worthwhile to exploit 2 highly qualificated 'tank pilots' instead 3 pure qualifcated half year prepared tankmen. It is naturally tendency: to reduce crew as much as possible like puting 1-men crew on Ka-50 helo (yes I know it's expensive!) or Su-35 fighter. Also the better defence for a crew is its reducing

That is placing too much responsibility on two crewmembers to be able to survive in combat, Russia doesn`t have the technology to get to that level yet. A T- 95 is a test bed for future Russian tanks, it`s been around for a long time just like the American version which dates back to the mid eighties. Neither model calls for a two man crew. Being able to test different weapons platforms and mass produce them are two different things, Russia doesn`t have the money nor the backing to get this accomplished, besides what is the threat that would justify it being produced, Ukrainian T - 84`s which is a better tank than the T - 90. Russia`s priority is getting it`s navy and airforce back in fighting shape due to the fact that this will have more of a impact on it`s defensive posture for possible future conflicts. The Russian Army is a last priority at this point due to existing vehicles in it`s inventory, they will have to settle for vehicle upgrades just like western armies are doing at this point.

 

[Viktor]

That is placing too much responsibility on two crewmembers to be able to survive in combat, Russia doesn`t have the technology to get to that level yet. A T- 95 is a test bed for future Russian tanks, it`s been around for a long time just like the American version which dates back to the mid eighties. Neither model calls for a two man crew. Being able to test different weapons platforms and mass produce them are two different things, Russia doesn`t have the money nor the backing to get this accomplished, besides what is the threat that would justify it being produced, Ukrainian T - 84`s which is a better tank than the T - 90. Russia`s priority is getting it`s navy and airforce back in fighting shape due to the fact that this will have more of a impact on it`s defensive posture for possible future conflicts. The Russian Army is a last priority at this point due to existing vehicles in it`s inventory, they will have to settle for vehicle upgrades just like western armies are doing at this point.

Hm I would not underestimate Russians like that. So far we have seen so many excellent weapon systems despite harsh economic situation whitch is now improving.


Why do you think T-84 to be superior to T-90V?

 

[Waylander]

A two man crew is just not possible.
That may sound a little bit arrogant but if you would have ever been sitting in a tank in a full scale maneuver (not to talk of real combat like ekherl has seen) you wild agree to the opinion that a two man crew is not possible today.
Drivers cannot be substituted by computers as well as gunners. Both task aquire a huge amount of concentration. There is no chance that these two could be bale to navigate, control radio, search for enemy postitions/tanks/infantry..., lead other tanks, etc.
Flying a plane is not comparable to ground driving.
Remember that there are many UAVs but no ground drone which is able to find its way as fast as a human driver. Not to talk of combat tank driving.
Gunnery is the same. A human gunner is able to finda hidden tank. Current tech is not. Just look at Kosovo. The NATO didn't hit many real targets.

 

[eckherl]

Hm I would not underestimate Russians like that. So far we have seen so many excellent weapon systems despite harsh economic situation whitch is now improving.


Why do you think T-84 to be superior to T-90V?

I never under estimate a worthy opponent, yes Russia does design some excellant combat vehicles, with the T-80 and T-90 being able to hold their own against modern western MBT`s what is the point, how many MBT`s does Russia still have in her inventory?. Russia will still use DU penetrators just like The U.S and both countries have a few generations that will take out any known tank on the modern battlefield. What makes the T-84 a better tank is the new turret design wich will give it (their claims) an additional 15% armor protection at the frontal quadrant, ie: 60 degree ark, I have been told by a reliable source that it is probably closer to 10%, which still isn`t too shabby. The night fighting capabilities on the T-84 are better plus it has a better stabilization system.

 

[Viktor]

I never under estimate a worthy opponent, yes Russia does design some excellant combat vehicles, with the T-80 and T-90 being able to hold their own against modern western MBT`s what is the point, how many MBT`s does Russia still have in her inventory?. Russia will still use DU penetrators just like The U.S and both countries have a few generations that will take out any known tank on the modern battlefield. What makes the T-84 a better tank is the new turret design wich will give it (their claims) an additional 15% armor protection at the frontal quadrant, ie: 60 degree ark, I have been told by a reliable source that it is probably closer to 10%, which still isn`t too shabby. The night fighting capabilities on the T-84 are better plus it has a better stabilization system.

Hm well Russia has

1010 T-55 active +1000 in storage or decomissioned
639 T-62 active +3000 in storage
4000 T-64 active + 4000 in storage
2114 T-72 active + 7800 in reserve
3044 T-80 active + 1456 in reserve
250 T-90

Thats it - as you can see quite a number

Waylander thanks for explanation - i have never being inside a tank so I dont know how dificult it is to shoot at other targets but is it posible to replace guner by some UAV and than use date to automaticly shoot as most likely future tank rounds will be by my opinion something like KITOLOV-2M or Krasnopol.

Eckherl I have seen some stats saying batter armour protection of T-84 but on what asumtions can you tell T-84 has batter FCS or gun stabilisation than that of T-90??