T-90 Tank

[DerPanzerDUDE!]

Yes the T-14 looks and sounds like it'll be a formidable foe for whomever comes up against it... But it's still unproven and with Russian armor history(mass produced simplistic, rugged armor... strike that. simplistic rugged EVERYTHING) I'm anxious to see if they'll be capable of mass producing such a complex machine and have it operational by, what is it 2018? I think they'll end up keeping and upgrading the t90 as the main armor component through 2050+( like 95% of their armored force) ,and end up producing 800-1000 armata MAX over a span of 50 years. IMHO, I think all but maybe one or 2 of the armatas in the parade were simply chassis with cardboard turrets plastered to the roof. All its gadgets are probably far from working properly or at all. And as far as independent crew capsule, just aim for the forward track area on flanks and tank is knocked out, crew gone. Or even hit sights on turret with .50's.. Russia stick to what you know.. t90 is a top 5 tank, with 30,000+ and more and more upgrades as done in the past, itd be damn hard to take on...

 

[Rheinhardt]

Yes the T-14 looks and sounds like it'll be a formidable foe for whomever comes up against it... But it's still unproven and with Russian armor history(mass produced simplistic, rugged armor... strike that. simplistic rugged EVERYTHING) I'm anxious to see if they'll be capable of mass producing such a complex machine and have it operational by, what is it 2018? I think they'll end up keeping and upgrading the t90 as the main armor component through 2050+( like 95% of their armored force) ,and end up producing 800-1000 armata MAX over a span of 50 years. IMHO, I think all but maybe one or 2 of the armatas in the parade were simply chassis with cardboard turrets plastered to the roof. All its gadgets are probably far from working properly or at all. And as far as independent crew capsule, just aim for the forward track area on flanks and tank is knocked out, crew gone. Or even hit sights on turret with .50's.. Russia stick to what you know.. t90 is a top 5 tank, with 30,000+ and more and more upgrades as done in the past, itd be damn hard to take on...

Why do you say that, using a play-station controller to control the turrets rotation and elevation as well as the tanks movements is not exactly 'high-tech', neither is the idea of using cameras. Most tanks have digital commanders/gunners sights. There is not really any new technology in the tank apart from the Active Defense System and that utilizes technology which has been around in different forms for decades. Infact the Active Protection System used is a derivitive of a prior system.


The Sweedish wanted to do an unmanned turret before their tank program got axed, there is signficant benefits as making the turret big enough for people to live inside increases the volume and therefore the size and weight of the turret. By eliminating the people from the turret significant weight is saved which can go into better armoring elsewhere.

 

[Mig-29M2]

What interests you on T-14 Armat? Engine, arms, protection, suspension bracket, configuration. Tell about what to you it would be desirable to learn in more detail, I will tell.

The T-14 is a step forward from the so-called modernization of the same hull. T-72A, T-72B, T-90, T-90A..all of the are the same.

 

[Feanor]

The T-14 is a step forward from the so-called modernization of the same hull. T-72A, T-72B, T-90, T-90A..all of the are the same.

You're off. These 4 variants all have physical differences in the hull/turret making it basically impossible to convert one into the other. While they all share a common design, they're different even on the materials level (type of armor, thickness of armor, turret design, etc.) There's a reason why T-72As that get K-1 tiles are called T-72AV not T-72B.

 

[Waylander]

While this is right and a T-90M for example is massively different from a basic T-72 they all share the same core design which can be also said about their cousins of the T-64 and T-80 lines.

And with it they also inherited some of the same basic flaws and advantages of this core design.

The same can be said to some extend about the BMP and BTR series as well as vehicles derived of them.

The Armata, Bumerang and Kurganetz familys are the first real clean sheet designs since the early 60s and in that present a huge chance for Russia.

 

[Feanor]

While this is right and a T-90M for example is massively different from a basic T-72 they all share the same core design which can be also said about their cousins of the T-64 and T-80 lines.

And with it they also inherited some of the same basic flaws and advantages of this core design.

This is true, my main point was about his comment on upgrading hulls. Something that's inherently impossible. It's also important to note that the Armata is only one of many clean-sheet next-gen MBT designs from the USSR/Russia. Object 192 in Leningrad, Object 640 at OTM (it was actually almost finished in 2006 but the MoD didn't want to pay for trials and production), Object 187 (some features of that were eventually worked into the T-90A), Object 477 (OKR Molot had a working prototype at the end of the 80s, not just a design), and of course finally Object 195, which was completed very recently, presented to the MoD, and rejected for (it appears) primarily cost reasons.

There were also cheaper variants of re-equipping existing chassis with new combat modules, including OKR Burlak and OKR Proryv (Proryv produced the turret that eventually made it onto the T-90MS), and even a scheme suggested by OTM to refit T-80 tanks with the Object 640 turret, which was sunk by UVZ lobbying, as well as cost concerns. OTM at that point was too weak (bankrupt) to fight. One interpretation is that UVZ pushed for OKR Proryv instead of the OTM scheme. Of course Proryv is just a normal modern tank turret, where as the Object 640 turret was unmanned. There was also a big question whether the sensors available at the time would have allowed for an unmanned turret.

The same can be said to some extend about the BMP and BTR series as well as vehicles derived of them.

The Armata, Bumerang and Kurganetz familys are the first real clean sheet designs since the early 60s and in that present a huge chance for Russia.

For the BMPs that's not true. The BMP-1 and 2 share very high levels of commonality (just like the BMD-1 and 2). To the point where you can actually remanufactures 1s into 2s (this has been done with BMDs). But the BMP-3 and BMD-3/4 series were entirely new designs already. And this is in addition to a plethora of other unrelated light armor designs. And of course in addition to the Bumerang, UVZ is still trying to push their own 8X8, the Atom.

Anyways, it looks like it's bad news for the Kurganets, there have been rumors that it's facing major alterations.

 

[Waylander]

I should have made myself clearer. The first clean sheet designs which seem to maje it into service.

And while BMP-3s are new builds they are nevertheless heavily influenced by their predecessors in terms of design. One can't make a T-90M out of a vanilla T-72 either but both share the same design heritage.

As for Kurganets. I thought they teally needed them as reequipping all the BMP units with T-15s will be too expensive.

 

[Feanor]

I should have made myself clearer. The first clean sheet designs which seem to maje it into service.

But they haven't. The Armata platform is close to making it, but even so it's lost quite a bit, as right now they're primarily working on only 3 vehicles, MBT, IFV, and ARV. Originally something like 30+ were planned, and the 2S35 seems to be set to proceed on the T-90 chassis. And the Armata platform is the least significant one.

And while BMP-3s are new builds they are nevertheless heavily influenced by their predecessors in terms of design. One can't make a T-90M out of a vanilla T-72 either but both share the same design heritage.

I mean, the difference between a BMP-3 and a BMP-2 in terms of design is about as significant as the difference between the BMP-2 and the Kurganets. Are you trying to say that the Kurganets rectifies many of the problems with the BMP-3? Because I would agree with that, but in terms of sheer novelty the BMP-3 was totally new. Unlike the T-90M and T-72 which are still the same basic design (in fact you can relatively easily retro-fit the T-90M turret onto T-72Bs).

As for Kurganets. I thought they teally needed them as reequipping all the BMP units with T-15s will be too expensive.

They do need it. But it seems to have caught some flak for being "too tall". Though honestly that's just what I have picked up. I do know that it's facing some major redesign, but the details are lacking. And the Bumerang has also changed, between the parade variant of '15 and '16, though it seems to be on track to enter state trials and experimental exploitation unlike the Kurganets about which these things are fuzzy. I'm honestly not sure, at this point, how they're going to go about splitting the IFV brigades between the T-15 and Kurganets. Initially the plan was to have heavy Bdes on all Armata chassis vehicles, medium on Kurganets, and light on wheeled vehicles (Kamaz Typhoon MRAPs or Ivecos Lynxes were considered). But then the Bumerang entered the scene as another medium chassis, but wheeled. And the light brigades seem to not have materialized. Currently ~120 Typhoon MRAPs on both Ural and Kamaz chassies are in service mostly with SpN units, and possibly recon, which is also where quite a few of the Lynxes ended up. Meanwhile the VDV actively pushing for the 4X4 Typhoon to be airdroppable, and carry a 30mm (maybe 40mm) combat module (Вооружение Ð±Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐµÐ°Ð²Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¼Ð¾Ð±Ð¸Ð»Ñ "Тайфун-ВДВ" - Ñкобы 40 мм автоматичеÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð¿ÑƒÑˆÐºÐ° - ak_12 - the one on the left is a weight for driving tests, on the right a real module minus the weapons).

So now it's a total mess. The Armata platform is the further along, and has considerable political pull so it will go ahead and we should expect to see all 3 vehicles for it in service soon. The new howitzers will also go ahead, but likely on the T-90 chassis. Bumerang will also go ahead, eventually, as the BTR-80 is just too old. but the BMP-3 may stick around yet, in various upgraded variants. They recently showed one that radically changed the layout, with a rear troop hatch and a new unmanned weapon station but with the same weapon systems, and new electro-optics. Also they showed one with an unmanned 57mm autocannon module. Right now they've resumed some purchases of regular vanilla BMP-3s, ATGM carriers, and even some BMP-3 based ARVs, and if the Kurganets is delayed substantially I wouldn't be surprised to see more BMP-3 based vehicles enter service.

 

[Waylander]

What a confusing mess. It's like Sovjet times all over again.

The BMP-3 is only insofar a new design as it combined the 100mm lv gun with a 30mm hv ac and atgm capability in one turret.

But due to it's heritage it remained too small, too cramped, too lightly protected and with this silly engine placement.

 

[Feanor]

What a confusing mess. It's like Sovjet times all over again.

The BMP-3 is only insofar a new design as it combined the 100mm lv gun with a 30mm hv ac and atgm capability in one turret.

But due to it's heritage it remained too small, too cramped, too lightly protected and with this silly engine placement.

Actually traditional Soviet BMP-1 and 2 had front engines, and rear troop compartments. In my opinion, the correct decision. The BMP-3 has the weird rear engine, and middle troop compartments. As for protection, it's actually quite a bit better then the 1s and 2s. Side screens and additional armor are available for it too. Honestly the Dragoon BMP-3 variant doesn't look too bad. It has a rear troop hatch, a front engine, and a middle combat compartment that's unmanned but still penetrates into the hull (though less then the traditional BMP-3).

 

[Feanor]

What a confusing mess. It's like Sovjet times all over again.

The BMP-3 is only insofar a new design as it combined the 100mm lv gun with a 30mm hv ac and atgm capability in one turret.

But due to it's heritage it remained too small, too cramped, too lightly protected and with this silly engine placement.

Speaking of the devil, at the recent Army-2016 forum, UVZ representatives said that deliveries on the 100+ vehicle contract for Armata-based tanks have begun, but no specifics were provided. Meanwhile the parade vehicles are also the state trials batch. Since it hasn't been officially accepted into service, this means that experimental exploitation of the type has begun.

 

[Ananda]

Indian Army seeks active protection systems for its T-90S/SK MBTs

The Indian Army (IA) has invited responses from local vendors by 12 May regarding the supply of 818 modular active protection systems (APSs) to enhance the survivability...

www.janes.com

I put it here, since couldn't find dedicated Indian Army thread. However since it's related to Indian T-90S/SK version, so I think still can be related on this thread.

According to this, the APS need to be fall into catagorise of Indigenous Design and Build scheme. However the local producers can work with foreign Contractors. The way I see on latest drive of Build in India, means it's more likely Indian vendors will work with off the shelf tech suppliers, and package them on to Indian build and named casing.

Related to current Indian vendors practices, I suspect the tech Partners from Israel or Russia will be taken on the project. Russia for obvious reasons as this is after all T-90, and Israel as I see their vendors are more flexible to customize their tech with Indian 'packaging'.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Just my 2 cents, Israel has 2 APS makers - Rafael and Elbit. Russia has 1 nearly operational APS, but I forgot who makes it.
Russia's industrial presence in India is significant. It can make a sale very easily, if they can prove to India their Afganit really works, or alternatively the Arena which may have been on the low burner for a very long time.

Israeli APS are either operational, or interested customers are considering them as good as operational, but the two companies have significant pros and cons to their pitch.
Rafael has significant presence in India, but has no known division (at least to my knowledge), that can make a quick work on the T-90.
Elbit can handle T-72 tanks on the OEM level, so it will have an easy time transitioning to the T-90, compared to Rafael, but its presence there is smaller. It recently lost a bid to supply towed howitzers.

Rafael could snatch NIMDA to do some integration work.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just my 2 cents, Israel has 2 APS makers - Rafael and Elbit. Russia has 1 nearly operational APS, but I forgot who makes it.
Russia's industrial presence in India is significant. It can make a sale very easily, if they can prove to India their Afganit really works, or alternatively the Arena which may have been on the low burner for a very long time.

Israeli APS are either operational, or interested customers are considering them as good as operational, but the two companies have significant pros and cons to their pitch.
Rafael has significant presence in India, but has no known division (at least to my knowledge), that can make a quick work on the T-90.
Elbit can handle T-72 tanks on the OEM level, so it will have an easy time transitioning to the T-90, compared to Rafael, but its presence there is smaller. It recently lost a bid to supply towed howitzers.

Rafael could snatch NIMDA to do some integration work.

Would the Israeli companies be able to withstand India's defence procurement system though? It is one of the most convoluted and bureaucratic systems known to human science. I would not be surprised if there wasn't some WW1 procurements still working their way through the system.

 

[John Fedup]

Convoluted bureaucracy in India is a problem but moron pollies in Canada produce similar results.

 

[Feanor]

Would the Israeli companies be able to withstand India's defence procurement system though? It is one of the most convoluted and bureaucratic systems known to human science. I would not be surprised if there wasn't some WW1 procurements still working their way through the system.

Israel actually has a lot of experience working in India including on projects involving some Russian hardware or even direct Russian involvement (AEW, fighter jets, SAMs for ships). It wouldn't surprise me if India wants Israeli APS but tailored the requirements to allow Russia to offer the Arena-E, to provide some competition and drive the price down. Then again they opted for a highly unlikely Russian version of BFT for their T-90 fleet so...

 

[ngatimozart]

Israel actually has a lot of experience working in India including on projects involving some Russian hardware or even direct Russian involvement (AEW, fighter jets, SAMs for ships). It wouldn't surprise me if India wants Israeli APS but tailored the requirements to allow Russia to offer the Arena-E, to provide some competition and drive the price down. Then again they opted for a highly unlikely Russian version of BFT for their T-90 fleet so...

Fair enough. We learn something new every day. Thanks Feanor.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yes, there is experience. But that is mostly with IAI through a G2G sale.
Israel has, frankly, an outdated model of defense R&D management. It keeps its largest but least profitable company, IAI, under state management.
Rafael is 51% state managed, and Elbit is private.

Following illegal sales, including some deals with China, the Israeli MoD set up a division called SIBAT. The situation before that was so bad, because defense exports were totally un-regulated.
This division deals with marketing arms in the name of the government.
So because it is a governmental unit, it doesn't necessarily have the same profit or time considerations of a private company. Their resilience to Indian shenanigans is remarkable.

How Elbit might handle this is beyond me. They may or may not go through SIBAT for a G2G sale, or they may seek an Indian partner right away in a more active approach.

But India IS making a strategic mistake. Its long history of cancellations and reruns, and long delays, scares private companies.

Russia's defense sector, which is more government-regulated, is, in my opinion, better structured for this specific tender.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Big_Zucchini You are right about India making a big strategic mistake WRT its defence procurement shenanigans. However its government bureaucracy is so embedded into the nation's life support system that if anything untowards happens to the bureaucracy, such as someone within it having an original thought actually involves logic and commonsense, the whole governmental system would collapse. They took the British concept of Civil Service and supercharged it for bureaucratic intransigence. The UK TV comedy's Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are fairly good commentary on the British Civìl Service

 

[Ananda]

Elbit might handle this is beyond me. They may or may not go through SIBAT for a G2G sale, or they may seek an Indian partner right away in a more active approach.

I do suspect that's what potentially what Elbit will do if they want to involve with the project. Let the partner become main vendors, and Elbit support with the tech and support. Financial risk will be minimize, as the local Partner will prepare everything.

This also provide good showing case for Indigenous image manufacturing, as the foreign vendors basically will be (at least in paper) in supporting role.