The Black Eagle project is dead due to lack of funds and no buyers, no one knows for sure on what type of turret configuration will be placed on the rumored T-95 if they even decide to build it.
Modernization of a land forces of Russia begins
- Thread starter IMPEREC
- Start date
Black Eagle is deadend project what attempted to rectify T-xx deficiences. It is an attempt to copy western tanks design and adopt it to T-xx hull - as such, it have very little interest for russian army.
Russia dont need another copy of Abrams or Leo.
I am well aware of this, they should at least adopt the bustle mounted loading system though that could be installed on the T-90 series.
There are many upgrades what can be installed on T-90. It is almost cheaper to build new tank... seems russian army thinks the same.
I do not see them coming out with anything new any time soon, there are other priorities at hand for them at this point as far as weapons precurements. Seeing how they have already gone to the majority of the T-90 turret being welded it would not be that hard to emplement a bustle mounted system, they could even keep the two part ammunition.
Here is a few other pictures of Jordans new toy.
FutureTank
Banned Member
new strategic environment
Somehow many conversations keep going into tank design forgetting that tanks are just a part of the whole, and a much bigger whole in the case of Russian Army. The strategic outlook also has changed, and there is no longer an imperative to field tens of thousands of tanks against NATO.
There is a higher priority for lighter, more mobile and more fuel-efficient forces, so tank development will probably focus on upgrading existing fleet while the overall procurement will focus on forces protection, mobility and rapid deployment, which is a trend in other developed countries. This trend is more qualitative in nature then quantitative, and the emphasis is on personnel and training rather then on technology and systems.
Having said that, what more can be done for tank design?!
Tank design is governed by the ability of the crew to see targets. No one has suggested transforming the terrain over which tanks will be expected to fight because that would require either nuclear weapons, or prior agreement with the opponent ;-)
Given average engagement distances, either a 125 or a 120mm gun, and even advanced 105mm munitions will do the job most of the time (given a good crew). Making tanks heavier with armour would either slow them down further, or give even more accountants form various DoDs heart attacks over the fuel bills
Solution seems to me to be not larger guns, or more armour, but different ways of targeting, and using a greater mix of direct and indirect guided ammunition in tanks that would allow indirect engagement beyond the average LOS ranges. That was the thinking since the 1960s with T-64 and M60A2. Soviet designers may have been more successful with the idea, but the proliferation of lighter ATGWs in NATO countries may have been an alternative tactical direction. In any case the Israelis seem to be fast catching up with tank gun-fired missile technology, which is still not mature due to seeker-guidance limitations (related to materials tolerances in the electronic parts).
Considering that WW2 tank guns were a culmination of four generations of breach-loading development, I'm not surprised that two generations of gun-launched missile technology is not enough.
Cheers
Somehow many conversations keep going into tank design forgetting that tanks are just a part of the whole, and a much bigger whole in the case of Russian Army. The strategic outlook also has changed, and there is no longer an imperative to field tens of thousands of tanks against NATO.
There is a higher priority for lighter, more mobile and more fuel-efficient forces, so tank development will probably focus on upgrading existing fleet while the overall procurement will focus on forces protection, mobility and rapid deployment, which is a trend in other developed countries. This trend is more qualitative in nature then quantitative, and the emphasis is on personnel and training rather then on technology and systems.
Having said that, what more can be done for tank design?!
Tank design is governed by the ability of the crew to see targets. No one has suggested transforming the terrain over which tanks will be expected to fight because that would require either nuclear weapons, or prior agreement with the opponent ;-)
Given average engagement distances, either a 125 or a 120mm gun, and even advanced 105mm munitions will do the job most of the time (given a good crew). Making tanks heavier with armour would either slow them down further, or give even more accountants form various DoDs heart attacks over the fuel bills
Solution seems to me to be not larger guns, or more armour, but different ways of targeting, and using a greater mix of direct and indirect guided ammunition in tanks that would allow indirect engagement beyond the average LOS ranges. That was the thinking since the 1960s with T-64 and M60A2. Soviet designers may have been more successful with the idea, but the proliferation of lighter ATGWs in NATO countries may have been an alternative tactical direction. In any case the Israelis seem to be fast catching up with tank gun-fired missile technology, which is still not mature due to seeker-guidance limitations (related to materials tolerances in the electronic parts).
Considering that WW2 tank guns were a culmination of four generations of breach-loading development, I'm not surprised that two generations of gun-launched missile technology is not enough.
Cheers
Somewhere line should be drawn, and i feel currenttly bustle mounted system is behind the line of cheap upgrades.
correction correction correction
wherever there are infantry ops on lvl plain fields there will always be a need for a heavily armoured fire-breathing beast. it may be called somthing else in the future , but it will be comparable to a tank
there are loads of new inventions going on in different nations
the russkies are trying out unmanned turrets
the amerricans are tying out stealth technolgy in tanks...........tht should be cool
imagine if u cant detect enemy untill it gets pretty close and kiks some ass.....tht would be pretty useful in future combats
and there is constant improvements in armour , ammunition , guns ( maybe in future railguns might be installed on tanks)
as technolgy advances
SO WHTEVER THE STRATEGY, TANKS WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL AS A MAJOR GROUND SUPPORT UNIT
and about the fuel bills,
if ur country is under attack would u worry about the fuel bills or would u rather use the biggest baddest tanks there is to kik some enemy butt ??
i agree tht costs and logistics matter , but to some extent only
thts y i would prefer the use of an m1a2....even if it is a gas guzzler
I WOULD PUT MORE VALUE TO A SOLDIER'S LIFE THAN THE EQUIPMENT
how can u say thtHaving said that, what more can be done for tank design?!
Tank design is governed by the ability of the crew to see targets. No one has suggested transforming the terrain over which tanks will be expected to fight because that would require either nuclear weapons, or prior agreement with the opponent ;-)
Given average engagement distances, either a 125 or a 120mm gun, and even advanced 105mm munitions will do the job most of the time (given a good crew). Making tanks heavier with armour would either slow them down further, or give even more accountants form various DoDs heart attacks over the fuel bills
Solution seems to me to be not larger guns, or more armour, but different ways of targeting, and using a greater mix of direct and indirect guided ammunition in tanks that would allow indirect engagement beyond the average LOS ranges. That was the thinking since the 1960s with T-64 and M60A2. Soviet designers may have been more successful with the idea, but the proliferation of lighter ATGWs in NATO countries may have been an alternative tactical direction. In any case the Israelis seem to be fast catching up with tank gun-fired missile technology, which is still not mature due to seeker-guidance limitations (related to materials tolerances in the electronic parts).
Considering that WW2 tank guns were a culmination of four generations of breach-loading development, I'm not surprised that two generations of gun-launched missile technology is not enough.
Cheers
wherever there are infantry ops on lvl plain fields there will always be a need for a heavily armoured fire-breathing beast. it may be called somthing else in the future , but it will be comparable to a tank
there are loads of new inventions going on in different nations
the russkies are trying out unmanned turrets
the amerricans are tying out stealth technolgy in tanks...........tht should be cool
imagine if u cant detect enemy untill it gets pretty close and kiks some ass.....tht would be pretty useful in future combats
and there is constant improvements in armour , ammunition , guns ( maybe in future railguns might be installed on tanks)
as technolgy advances
SO WHTEVER THE STRATEGY, TANKS WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL AS A MAJOR GROUND SUPPORT UNIT
and about the fuel bills,
if ur country is under attack would u worry about the fuel bills or would u rather use the biggest baddest tanks there is to kik some enemy butt ??
i agree tht costs and logistics matter , but to some extent only
thts y i would prefer the use of an m1a2....even if it is a gas guzzler
I WOULD PUT MORE VALUE TO A SOLDIER'S LIFE THAN THE EQUIPMENT
Good post Greg - yes tanks are only one of the many tools that are available on the modern battlefield, and everyone at the time seems content on upgrading existing models due to major cutbacks experienced by most countries militaries. 20 to 30 years down the road the heavy tank approach may very well disappear due to technologies in artillery and the basic ground pounder on the ground, lighter vehicles with ETC weapons systems may very well be the dominant force. Russia does have other priorities at weapons upgrades that worry me more than coming out with a new tank, some of these upgrades are found in aviation, naval and guided missile technologies. Russia is also designing new SP artillery systems that have the potential of being as good or are as any Western countries, oh and lets not leave out her attack helicopter, ADA and airborne capabilities. Yes tanks are needed at the current time, but if the rest of the order of battle cannot support them or play their part tanks become nothing more than a moving target.Somehow many conversations keep going into tank design forgetting that tanks are just a part of the whole, and a much bigger whole in the case of Russian Army. The strategic outlook also has changed, and there is no longer an imperative to field tens of thousands of tanks against NATO.
There is a higher priority for lighter, more mobile and more fuel-efficient forces, so tank development will probably focus on upgrading existing fleet while the overall procurement will focus on forces protection, mobility and rapid deployment, which is a trend in other developed countries. This trend is more qualitative in nature then quantitative, and the emphasis is on personnel and training rather then on technology and systems.
Having said that, what more can be done for tank design?!
Tank design is governed by the ability of the crew to see targets. No one has suggested transforming the terrain over which tanks will be expected to fight because that would require either nuclear weapons, or prior agreement with the opponent ;-)
Given average engagement distances, either a 125 or a 120mm gun, and even advanced 105mm munitions will do the job most of the time (given a good crew). Making tanks heavier with armour would either slow them down further, or give even more accountants form various DoDs heart attacks over the fuel bills
Solution seems to me to be not larger guns, or more armour, but different ways of targeting, and using a greater mix of direct and indirect guided ammunition in tanks that would allow indirect engagement beyond the average LOS ranges. That was the thinking since the 1960s with T-64 and M60A2. Soviet designers may have been more successful with the idea, but the proliferation of lighter ATGWs in NATO countries may have been an alternative tactical direction. In any case the Israelis seem to be fast catching up with tank gun-fired missile technology, which is still not mature due to seeker-guidance limitations (related to materials tolerances in the electronic parts).
Considering that WW2 tank guns were a culmination of four generations of breach-loading development, I'm not surprised that two generations of gun-launched missile technology is not enough.
Cheers
Why do you feel that this is behind the line, think of the potential of longer ammunition designs, also this would free up additional room inside the turrets and hull. Also let me add the safety trump card for the crewmembers.
Last edited:
FutureTank
Banned Member
Is this really the forum to discuss Army vs Navy football games? ;-)
At least that's the only place the Army will find a "level plain field"
I'm not saying scrap tanks, or that they have no place in the forces. The global armed forces exist within certain economic realities which are beyond control of most senior commanders and their political leaders. If a nation has no capacity to use tanks, it needs to find other means of defending oneself. I trust in human ingenuity to find solutions.
Vladimir80
Banned Member
Modernization of Russian land forces has been on back burner of the duma for quite some time. Before I begin informing on the equipment it is important you know what has been going on with personell. When I served and to this day men complain of housing complex, never enough housing for an ever shrinking force has been the biggest shame to everyone. Ivanov began some reform of it when Putin shoved it down his throat. Now that he is gone we don't know if they continue the policy. The second matter is kontrakt soldiers, Ivanov said we would always have conscript but Putin has vowed to do away with it and since Ivanov is gone, we may just get all professional army. The target is for 70% in few years time. Many of those who end up in kontrakt were women but know more men come with better conditions. The pay for kontrakt was good when I entered and it continues to rise. The priority of funds has been to make living conditions better. We are concerned with Far North suicide rates so we give extended leave to these men. With the economy booming under Putin we are seeing many much needed funds for base infrastructure and paying overdue electricity bills. The lead of our grandfathers is being punished by our commanders as officers pay more attention to it in recent death. These changes will make ground forces the equal of any army come 2015.
On to equipment... having been in an ATGM capacity I know the need to replace the so called "Cold War" era weapons was needed. Much has been allocated for Kornet, Metis, and RPG-29 systems. The event that speeded up procurement was the performance during 06' Lebanon invasion. Old systems like Konkurs Fagot was not effective against modern western armor. The Kornet, Metis, and RPG-29 caused havoc on Israeli armor, the small numbers Hezbollah fielded was enough to make IDF rethink their strategy. If they had been fielded in large numbers the entire invasion could have been repelled. Most of the big ticket items have gone to Navy and Space Forces with the nuklear and GLONASS replacements. The tank forces have been getting upgrades to T-72 and T-80 to keep them modern at the rate of 200 a year. Only a few dozen T-90s order every year, tank upgrades take priority. The future outlook on tank procurement is development of T-95. The tank chasis went through trials in Saudi last year to see how it fairs in desert environment. It is a low profile tank that takes less manpower, less weight and fuel. It is LO so Global Hawk will not detect it. A main gun anywhere from 135-155mm will be the armament. The Black Eagle is cancelled in favor of this design. Thousands of trucks have been purchased from KamAZ to replace the aging fleet. Purchases of BTR-80 come in 100 a year with BMP-3 at 40. Iskander TDM is GLONASS guided weapon bought in 3 batallions annually.
Chechnya taught lecons of need for highly trained spotters and proper integration of unit and command. These changes were implented during my Dagestan campaign and executed to great effect through Grozny and at the last stand at Komsomolskoye. The way we find to combat wahabist are to hold them up leaving a slight corrider for civilians to escape. Once suitable time is given we annhilate the remaining enemy. As we continue to fight a war on terror we will continue to use this effective method that defeat the wahabists.
On to equipment... having been in an ATGM capacity I know the need to replace the so called "Cold War" era weapons was needed. Much has been allocated for Kornet, Metis, and RPG-29 systems. The event that speeded up procurement was the performance during 06' Lebanon invasion. Old systems like Konkurs Fagot was not effective against modern western armor. The Kornet, Metis, and RPG-29 caused havoc on Israeli armor, the small numbers Hezbollah fielded was enough to make IDF rethink their strategy. If they had been fielded in large numbers the entire invasion could have been repelled. Most of the big ticket items have gone to Navy and Space Forces with the nuklear and GLONASS replacements. The tank forces have been getting upgrades to T-72 and T-80 to keep them modern at the rate of 200 a year. Only a few dozen T-90s order every year, tank upgrades take priority. The future outlook on tank procurement is development of T-95. The tank chasis went through trials in Saudi last year to see how it fairs in desert environment. It is a low profile tank that takes less manpower, less weight and fuel. It is LO so Global Hawk will not detect it. A main gun anywhere from 135-155mm will be the armament. The Black Eagle is cancelled in favor of this design. Thousands of trucks have been purchased from KamAZ to replace the aging fleet. Purchases of BTR-80 come in 100 a year with BMP-3 at 40. Iskander TDM is GLONASS guided weapon bought in 3 batallions annually.
Chechnya taught lecons of need for highly trained spotters and proper integration of unit and command. These changes were implented during my Dagestan campaign and executed to great effect through Grozny and at the last stand at Komsomolskoye. The way we find to combat wahabist are to hold them up leaving a slight corrider for civilians to escape. Once suitable time is given we annhilate the remaining enemy. As we continue to fight a war on terror we will continue to use this effective method that defeat the wahabists.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Thank you Vladimir. You pretty much summarised how it is with the Russian Army. It seems to me that much will depend on how democratic the next elections will be, but it seems that Russia is fairly happy with Putin's economic policy, so his party is likely to be re-elected, and he is likely to remain a presence if not a force within it for some time since he expressed the desite to be elected again in 4 years time.
If the current policy continues, it will see a smaller but far better trained and equipped professional core of the Russian Army, although I think that 70% by 2015 us ambitious. Maybe 50%?
Before anyone criticizes the slow acquisition rates of the Russian army, consider the rate at which the Bradleys and the Abrams flees are being reconditioned. Then consider that a LOT of money US Army is spending is on armoured trucks that will have 0 use in peacetime.
Not so sure the Russian ATGWs were that useful in the hands of the Hezbullah. Most Israeli casualties were mobility kills which the Hez could not convert to KOs since they lack combined arms structure.
There is a lot of other issues to solve in Russia's military structure. Consider the railway troops and the need to maintain the trans-Baikal railway link although the regional authorities are broke and incompetent. As far as I know this occupies an entire railway troops division full time at full strength just along the Chinese border sector. Annual maintenance and repair bills are probably starting to pile up also as vehicles from the 60s start to wear out. Does anyone have a clue on these quantities? BTR-60s, BMP-1s, T-55s and a swag of artillery systems. Even scrapping costs money.
If the current policy continues, it will see a smaller but far better trained and equipped professional core of the Russian Army, although I think that 70% by 2015 us ambitious. Maybe 50%?
Before anyone criticizes the slow acquisition rates of the Russian army, consider the rate at which the Bradleys and the Abrams flees are being reconditioned. Then consider that a LOT of money US Army is spending is on armoured trucks that will have 0 use in peacetime.
Not so sure the Russian ATGWs were that useful in the hands of the Hezbullah. Most Israeli casualties were mobility kills which the Hez could not convert to KOs since they lack combined arms structure.
There is a lot of other issues to solve in Russia's military structure. Consider the railway troops and the need to maintain the trans-Baikal railway link although the regional authorities are broke and incompetent. As far as I know this occupies an entire railway troops division full time at full strength just along the Chinese border sector. Annual maintenance and repair bills are probably starting to pile up also as vehicles from the 60s start to wear out. Does anyone have a clue on these quantities? BTR-60s, BMP-1s, T-55s and a swag of artillery systems. Even scrapping costs money.
Vladimir80
Banned Member
Putin is much beloved in this nation. It is more than just economic policy, when he sees a problem he tackles it and we see results. I have never seen a more effective leader in my life. You say it depends on how democratic it will be and the answer is Putin has such respect for this country he follows the constitution when he clearly could have changed it. He respects the law and is not messing with democracy. If democracy is giving what the people choose then the people choose Putin... that is democracy is it not?
It is not that far a goal for troops under regular army and much of them are kontrakt. The MVD is another story, they are unqualified criminals lacking in education and courage. They rob tourists who do not know their rights, the Miltsya is corrupt and needs serious reform. They are internal troops but mostly perform police duty.
Yes, I have seen much criticsm of Russia the same as you. They must realize the war we fight is counter terrorism. The only likely conflict is against Georgia... we would overun them in two days. We do not immediatly need a tank to take out Leo2. If wahabists get their hands on one they wasted their money.
All the serious incidents were at the hands of modern Russian arms, the old stuff didn't have the punch necessary. It is in Moscow briefs.
Old CCCP stock has been refurbished/upgraded for foreign sales to 2nd world countries. We have reduced our numbers by 4X since fall of CCCP, we only keep latest uprgaded equipments in our stocks now. We can't afford the maintenance of obsolete systems. The railroad troops are more engineers and fix much needed railways and roads. I would not even count them as a combat force.
If you have that last report, please let me know.
However, according to Jane's World Armies (online update 05 Oct 2007):
T-54/55 1,031 in service.
T-62 689 in service. (As Chrom says, with the MOI).
T-72 2,144 in service. *(Several hundred converted to T-90 standard).
T-80 3,044 in service.
T-90 150 in service.
BMP-1 1,543 in service.
BMP-2 3,055 in service.
BTR-60 17 in service. (Ceremonial).
BTR-70 726 in service.
BTR-80 842 in service.
2S4 240mm SP-Mortar 9 in service.
2S3 152mm SP-Howitzer 1,004 in service.
2S5 152mm SP-Howitzer 399 in service.
2S19 152mm SP-Howitzer 173 in service.
2S1 122mm SP-Howitzer 1,037 in service.
2S9 120mm Gun/Mortar 322 in service.
2S23 120mm Gun/Mortar 1 in service. (Ceremonial).
The once huge stocks of M-30 122mm and D-30 122mm now number a combined total of 750 according to JWA.
SS-1, SS-21 and Frog-7 numbers combined to a total of 600.
Another 600 tubes held in storage for systems like the 152mm D-20, 152mm 2S65 and 120mm 2S12 mortar.
No one can argue, they are very impressive numbers.
But I do wonder if Russia has:
(1) The trained crews to use them to maximum effect.
(2) The logistic capability to support them.
(3) Apart from the T-90 and BMP-3 (22 in service - Ceremonial), you can read about all of the above in the US DoD's "Soviet Military Power 1986" and more. 1986...! Over 20 years ago.
It's legacy kit and I don't see anything radically different or new coming through. Old doctrine, old ideas but comfortable.
Perhaps I'm wrong????
FutureTank
Banned Member
It seems to me that perception of Putin in the West is somewhat different.
There are serious doubt that Russia could handle a conflict with Georgia, but by the same token it is not tank country for sure.
I would say that one railway troops division is worth three tank divisions in the case of Russian Far East, particularly in the winter when the communications with the Fr East do become a sort of 'combat' with nature. They do excellent work, as do all engineering troops. Probably too much emphasis is often made on the armoured corps of various countries because of their high value equipment, but forces should be evaluated on the whole of organisation approach.
There are serious doubt that Russia could handle a conflict with Georgia, but by the same token it is not tank country for sure.
I would say that one railway troops division is worth three tank divisions in the case of Russian Far East, particularly in the winter when the communications with the Fr East do become a sort of 'combat' with nature. They do excellent work, as do all engineering troops. Probably too much emphasis is often made on the armoured corps of various countries because of their high value equipment, but forces should be evaluated on the whole of organisation approach.
FutureTank
Banned Member
I think the numbers quoted from Janes are those shown for operational troops. This is the troops engaged in active service, garrison and training activities. Much of the older equipment has been put into conservation, and not written off or sold off, if only because there has not been demand for thousands of MBTs, what with readily available T-72s form former Warsaw Pact member countries (Iraq is case in point).
Several manufacturers in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus offer T-55 upgrade kits, and even Israelis do. I might add that the T-55 kits would produce a very capable tank since one of the offerings is the NATO 105mm weapon with advanced ammunition that would be very potent anywhere outside of Europe.
Most BTR-60s are also in storage although several hundred have been sold since 1990s.
Curious as to what sort of ceremonial duties a single 120mm mortar is used for? Fireworks?