The T-80s future in the Russian Army

Not like anyone is asking me, but i would never return T-80s into service, they were for years throwing them out of service and bringing T-72Bs... what suddenly changed so they want to modernise and keep in service some 400 T-80s?

I dont understand the current reversal... unless they intent to replace every single tank in the active tank roster in those 3 districts will 100% t80s and use left over t80s for spare parts? So they would have 2 districts in the west outfitted with 100% t-72B3/4 and 3 in the east with t80s? that kind of makes sense as the east how lower tech potential enemies ....

Militarov wrote:Not like anyone is asking me, but i would never return T-80s into service, they were for years throwing them out of service and bringing T-72Bs... what suddenly changed so they want to modernise and keep in service some 400 T-80s?

I would; retrofitting them with new turrets/basket should do it nicely. The problem is that the cost would probably far more prohibitive than the T72's.

But frankly for balance reasons, I would simply push further on Omsk design without the turbine non-sense. They had a rammer autoloader ready to go, which IMO was technically more feasible than the semi-oscillating bull that they adapted for the T-14.

Also modernized tanks aren't all that interesting, but they're still capable and it's only going up from the current capabilities (of these tanks for now).

Also modernizing T80's should bring them at same level. As long as this doesn't happen anymore, the tanks shouldn't be inferior to T-72.




You can see and early Thales CRF and Catherine set on this one.

They need numbers, it's probably as simple as that. Their current T-72 & variants fleet is not cutting it.

I heard a theory that they are getting them for Arctic troops. Is there maybe some performance advantage that turbines have over standard engines in low temperatures?

PapaDragon wrote:
I heard a theory that they are getting them for Arctic troops. Is there maybe some performance advantage that turbines have over standard engines in low temperatures?

Yes there is, turbines can fairly easily deal with temperatures as low as -60C or at least easier than diesels. I had similar idea but i am not sure.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:Not like anyone is asking me, but i would never return T-80s into service, they were for years throwing them out of service and bringing T-72Bs... what suddenly changed so they want to modernise and keep in service some 400 T-80s?

I would; retrofitting them with new turrets/basket should do it nicely. The problem is that the cost would probably far more prohibitive than the T72's.

But frankly for balance reasons, I would simply push further on Omsk design without the turbine non-sense. They had a rammer autoloader ready to go, which IMO was technically more feasible than the semi-oscillating bull that they adapted for the T-14.

Also modernized tanks aren't all that interesting, but they're still capable and it's only going up from the current capabilities (of these tanks for now).

Also modernizing T80's should bring them at same level. As long as this doesn't happen anymore, the tanks shouldn't be inferior to T-72.




You can see and early Thales CRF and Catherine set on this one.

If there is no specific reason why turbine engines are a must (Arctic forces?) i wouldnt bring them back, id just pull more T-72Bs from storage and modernise them, there should be at least 2.000 more rusting away.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:Not like anyone is asking me, but i would never return T-80s into service, they were for years throwing them out of service and bringing T-72Bs... what suddenly changed so they want to modernise and keep in service some 400 T-80s?

I would; retrofitting them with new turrets/basket should do it nicely. The problem is that the cost would probably far more prohibitive than the T72's.

But frankly for balance reasons, I would simply push further on Omsk design without the turbine non-sense. They had a rammer autoloader ready to go, which IMO was technically more feasible than the semi-oscillating bull that they adapted for the T-14.

Also modernized tanks aren't all that interesting, but they're still capable and it's only going up from the current capabilities (of these tanks for now).

Also modernizing T80's should bring them at same level. As long as this doesn't happen anymore, the tanks shouldn't be inferior to T-72.




You can see and early Thales CRF and Catherine set on this one.

If there is no specific reason why turbine engines are a must (Arctic forces?) i wouldnt bring them back, id just pull more T-72Bs from storage and modernise them, there should be at least 2.000 more rusting away.

If they have any stored T-80U they're much better off restoring them to service. I agree T-80BV is not worth it when they have T-72B at hand.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:Not like anyone is asking me, but i would never return T-80s into service, they were for years throwing them out of service and bringing T-72Bs... what suddenly changed so they want to modernise and keep in service some 400 T-80s?

I would; retrofitting them with new turrets/basket should do it nicely. The problem is that the cost would probably far more prohibitive than the T72's.

But frankly for balance reasons, I would simply push further on Omsk design without the turbine non-sense. They had a rammer autoloader ready to go, which IMO was technically more feasible than the semi-oscillating bull that they adapted for the T-14.

Also modernized tanks aren't all that interesting, but they're still capable and it's only going up from the current capabilities (of these tanks for now).

Also modernizing T80's should bring them at same level. As long as this doesn't happen anymore, the tanks shouldn't be inferior to T-72.




You can see and early Thales CRF and Catherine set on this one.

If there is no specific reason why turbine engines are a must (Arctic forces?) i wouldnt bring them back, id just pull more T-72Bs from storage and modernise them, there should be at least 2.000 more rusting away.

The problem is that you have storages full of T's. With upgrades that are compatible for both sides and with structural advantages for the T-80's (while understanding the caveats).

So in my opinion the 72's only win on the bean counter column. Otherwise, same same.

T-72B3s are already mediocre, why spend money on the T-80s when we could have allocated that money to atleast upgrade B3s to B3Ms... The only tank worth upgrading in the T-80 series is the T-80U, and even with that I'm sure these upgrades will be just as mediocre as the T-72B3...

VladimirSahin wrote:T-72B3s are already mediocre, why spend money on the T-80s when we could have allocated that money to atleast upgrade B3s to B3Ms... The only tank worth upgrading in the T-80 series is the T-80U, and even with that I'm sure these upgrades will be just as mediocre as the T-72B3...

There's mediocrity and mediocrity.
Upgrading and keeping the T-80U in active service or upgrading some T-72B is way better than having the largest country in the world with less than 2,000 operational MBTs.

VladimirSahin wrote:T-72B3s are already mediocre, why spend money on the T-80s when we could have allocated that money to atleast upgrade B3s to B3Ms... The only tank worth upgrading in the T-80 series is the T-80U, and even with that I'm sure these upgrades will be just as mediocre as the T-72B3...

B3's aren't mediocre at all. At this point there are very few tanks that "aren't mediocre". There has been such a change in tactics from the crazy company that I don't see why any world power is going to think their AFV's are safe. The whole SVBIED logic is going to cough up Goliath-style suicide drones on wheels. Specially when you see how successful that crap is on a worn down opponent. So what is needed is firepower even without the full spectrum defense. Which can be retro-fitted on tanks like the T80.

Looking at the production of new tanks, when the mass production of the T-14 begins, this is key for Russia. Russia needs to replace all its current fleet of active tanks by T-14s in approximately 25 years (by 2041) to assure a good rate of replacement of its tank fleet in the next 50 years.

Every tank in the the reserve of the Russian Armed Forces needs enough maintenance to avoid a lose in 10-15 years in the storage places. Also, this is key for Russia.

In third place comes the policy of updates and upgrades. It would be good if the current T-72 and T-80 in active service would have an upgrade from the initial variants. There are some options. Maybe all T-72 aor different mixes of T-72 and T-80s. For it if I'm not wrong it would be necessary to update still between 1600 and 1800 tanks and it would not be a problem if are all T-72.

The upgrade of the rest of T-72 and T-80 would come if it is economically possible.

Still, I think the T-80 needs a new combat opportunity to restore its image. Including the basic variant. Technically I do not think it is a bad tank for today and for the following years.

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:T-72B3s are already mediocre, why spend money on the T-80s when we could have allocated that money to atleast upgrade B3s to B3Ms... The only tank worth upgrading in the T-80 series is the T-80U, and even with that I'm sure these upgrades will be just as mediocre as the T-72B3...

There's mediocrity and mediocrity.
Upgrading and keeping the T-80U in active service or upgrading some T-72B is way better than having the largest country in the world with less than 2,000 operational MBTs.

This is true

[quote]B3's aren't mediocre at all. At this point there are very few tanks that "aren't mediocre". There has been such a change in tactics from the crazy company that I don't see why any world power is going to think their AFV's are safe. The whole SVBIED logic is going to cough up Goliath-style suicide drones on wheels. Specially when you see how successful that crap is on a worn down opponent. So what is needed is firepower even without the full spectrum defense. Which can be retro-fitted on tanks like the T80./quote]

Well you know T-72B3s compared to western heavy tanks are pretty mediocre in a few categories. The US operates thousands of M1A2s and M1A1s that have thermal systems for the command and gunner, and even the loader! Optics wise those tanks are lacking... For God's sake a 2012 upgrade with a 80s commander sight? No just no.
That's my main issue with this upgrade. It isn't mediocre in the sense of being a tank, as the gunner operates a goodish thermal sight, has a good FCS, protection is goodish.

My problem with upgrading the T-80s are that these tanks need to have their autoloaders upgraded so they can shoot the newer rounds, they need to have thermals installed onto them, they need to do a whole lot of stuff. For the T-80U this is totally worth it IMO, the armor on them are already pretty good, and if we could get relikt in service with those they'd be quite capable, but again alot of this stuff we could have got with the T-72B3M upgrade, where the commander also gets a thermal optic.

VladimirSahin wrote:Well you know T-72B3s compared to western heavy tanks are pretty mediocre in a few categories. The US operates thousands of M1A2s and M1A1s that have thermal systems for the command and gunner, and even the loader! Optics wise those tanks are lacking... For God's sake a 2012 upgrade with a 80s commander sight? No just no.
That's my main issue with this upgrade. It isn't mediocre in the sense of being a tank, as the gunner operates a goodish thermal sight, has a good FCS, protection is goodish.

My problem with upgrading the T-80s are that these tanks need to have their autoloaders upgraded so they can shoot the newer rounds, they need to have thermals installed onto them, they need to do a whole lot of stuff. For the T-80U this is totally worth it IMO, the armor on them are already pretty good, and if we could get relikt in service with those they'd be quite capable, but again alot of this stuff we could have got with the T-72B3M upgrade, where the commander also gets a thermal optic.

+1 on all points. For me T-80U are definitely worth upgrading (to the extent that you mention) and keeping in niche regions and military districts (Arctic, Far East, Sakhalin).

Russian T-80U MBT proceeded to a gunnery qualification test

The battalion commanders with the 1st Armored Army of the Western Military District have taken a gunnery qualification test, using their T-80U Main Battle Tanks (MBT), according to the Western Military Distirct’s press office.


"In the Moscow Region, the battalion commanders and their executive officers with the 1st Armored Army of the Western Military District have taken gunnery qualification tests as T-80U driver, gunner and commander," the news release says.

The qualification gunnery test crowned the training session, during which the officers learnt the latest training and education methods and the techniques designed to improve the effectiveness of tanks in combat.

The gunnery was hosted by the Kantemirovskaya Armored Division - the district’s most combat-ready division in 2016. This year, the large unit will compete for the title of the best division in the Russian Armed Forces.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/february_2017_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/russian_t-80u_mbt_proceeded_to_a_gunnery_qualification_test_tass_7130220171.html

VladimirSahin wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:T-72B3s are already mediocre, why spend money on the T-80s when we could have allocated that money to atleast upgrade B3s to B3Ms... The only tank worth upgrading in the T-80 series is the T-80U, and even with that I'm sure these upgrades will be just as mediocre as the T-72B3...

There's mediocrity and mediocrity.
Upgrading and keeping the T-80U in active service or upgrading some T-72B is way better than having the largest country in the world with less than 2,000 operational MBTs.

This is true

B3's aren't mediocre at all. At this point there are very few tanks that "aren't mediocre". There has been such a change in tactics from the crazy company that I don't see why any world power is going to think their AFV's are safe. The whole SVBIED logic is going to cough up Goliath-style suicide drones on wheels. Specially when you see how successful that crap is on a worn down opponent. So what is needed is firepower even without the full spectrum defense. Which can be retro-fitted on tanks like the T80./quote]

Well you know T-72B3s compared to western heavy tanks are pretty mediocre in a few categories. The US operates thousands of M1A2s and M1A1s that have thermal systems for the command and gunner, and even the loader! Optics wise those tanks are lacking... For God's sake a 2012 upgrade with a 80s commander sight? No just no.
That's my main issue with this upgrade. It isn't mediocre in the sense of being a tank, as the gunner operates a goodish thermal sight, has a good FCS, protection is goodish.

My problem with upgrading the T-80s are that these tanks need to have their autoloaders upgraded so they can shoot the newer rounds, they need to have thermals installed onto them, they need to do a whole lot of stuff. For the T-80U this is totally worth it IMO, the armor on them are already pretty good, and if we could get relikt in service with those they'd be quite capable, but again alot of this stuff we could have got with the T-72B3M upgrade, where the commander also gets a thermal optic.

In what categories do the T-72B3's fall short (there are 2 of them actually, but none are exactly slam-dunks).

B3 has a new stabilizator and new TIS. While Rostec claims 5km detection for Sosna-U, 3000/3500m would be more than enough for Europe.
The loader has TIS on Abrams? Since when? The only TIS available to the loader is whenever the TUSK is on and the loader is needed to man the roof machine gun. He has a slaved dispaly with the main TIS, but not his own. Actually the Sosna-U makes sure the T-72's are relevant. 80's sight? Even the darn grand-mother of the Sosna, the Catherine-ER/X was introduced specially for non-Stanag tanks in order to win modernization contracts vs the TURMS upgrade. And Both TURMS and Catherine were both rated at 4km daysight/2500m night sight.

While the TC can have its own sight, the T-72/80 cannot be butchered further for a single reason, it wold cost as much as to recast new turrets all together. So the obvious solution was an overriding solution, in which the TC would take over from the gunner.

Plus there's always the surgical option like the T-72B4's we've seen for the Tank Biathlon.

Also as I have explained on the T-90 thread, T-80 autoloader is actually the easier to upgrade by simply taking out the mono-arm and reducing the shot count. The problem though is that by doing so the rammer needs to become a solid one instead of the actual chain rammer.

The main problem is the depression angle and lack of proximity awareness. In which pretty much most Western tanks score even worse (Leopard is a grave offender once buttoned up).

George1 wrote:Contract for the modernization of T-80 tanks

According to Omsk news agency OMSKREGION, the Research and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a contract for major repairs with a deep modernization of the T-80 tanks [this is one of the contracts signed on August 24, 2017 at the International Military- technical forum "Army-2017" - bmpd].
.....................
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2830896.html

This is odd, I assumed these would be retired soon.

Question: how good are T-80s?

How many of them are there currently?

And how much does it cost to upgrade one properly? If they can give 100 of them full upgrade for the price of several new ones then it could make some sense, otherwise it's pretty damn dubious...

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:Contract for the modernization of T-80 tanks

According to Omsk news agency OMSKREGION, the Research and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a contract for major repairs with a deep modernization of the T-80 tanks [this is one of the contracts signed on August 24, 2017 at the International Military- technical forum "Army-2017" - bmpd].
.....................
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2830896.html

This is odd, I assumed these would be retired soon.

Question: how good are T-80s?

How many of them are there currently?

And how much does it cost to upgrade one properly? If they can give 100 of them full upgrade for the price of several new ones then it could make some sense, otherwise it's pretty damn dubious...

As with all things in the Russian military, only a guesstimate. Up to 550 T-80's still active of which around 250 are T-80U's and up to 300 T-80BV's. These later are the ones they are talking about upgrades to. Specifically they are better suited to very cold climates so will be used in those units. The T-80U's by the way are only used in the 4th Guards Tank Division (2 tank regiments and 1 battalion in the Motor Rifle regiment).

franco wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:Contract for the modernization of T-80 tanks

According to Omsk news agency OMSKREGION, the Research and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a contract for major repairs with a deep modernization of the T-80 tanks [this is one of the contracts signed on August 24, 2017 at the International Military- technical forum "Army-2017" - bmpd].
.....................
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2830896.html

This is odd, I assumed these would be retired soon.

Question: how good are T-80s?

How many of them are there currently?

And how much does it cost to upgrade one properly? If they can give 100 of them full upgrade for the price of several new ones then it could make some sense, otherwise it's pretty damn dubious...

As with all things in the Russian military, only a guesstimate. Up to 550 T-80's still active of which around 250 are T-80U's and up to 300 T-80BV's. These later are the ones they are talking about upgrades to. Specifically they are better suited to very cold climates so will be used in those units. The T-80U's by the way are only used in the 4th Guards Tank Division (2 tank regiments and 1 battalion in the Motor Rifle regiment).  

T-80 will always be better than T-72 so this is good news.
Upgrades are substantial, Sosna-U, Relikt and more.
Around 300 are to be modernized.

Forgot to add one thing: what about the mileage?

I know T-72s have been used extensively but haven't seen T-80s around much.

Could it be that they are simply in too good of a condition to just be thrown away?

Tingsay wrote:

franco wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:Contract for the modernization of T-80 tanks

According to Omsk news agency OMSKREGION, the Research and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a contract for major repairs with a deep modernization of the T-80 tanks [this is one of the contracts signed on August 24, 2017 at the International Military- technical forum "Army-2017" - bmpd].
.....................
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2830896.html

This is odd, I assumed these would be retired soon.

Question: how good are T-80s?

How many of them are there currently?

And how much does it cost to upgrade one properly? If they can give 100 of them full upgrade for the price of several new ones then it could make some sense, otherwise it's pretty damn dubious...

As with all things in the Russian military, only a guesstimate. Up to 550 T-80's still active of which around 250 are T-80U's and up to 300 T-80BV's. These later are the ones they are talking about upgrades to. Specifically they are better suited to very cold climates so will be used in those units. The T-80U's by the way are only used in the 4th Guards Tank Division (2 tank regiments and 1 battalion in the Motor Rifle regiment).  

T-80 will always be better than T-72 so this is good news.
Upgrades are substantial, Sosna-U, Relikt and more.
Around 300 are to be modernized.

Actually, not really.

T-72B more or less brought T-72 on par with T-80 in terms of protection. This upgrade will just bring T-80's to T-72B3's performance. Add to that, the autoloader was a pain in the ass by most accounts compared to T-72's. Also, while its engine is significantly more powerful, it was a hog (consumed fuel like crazy) and was also crap in terms of maintenance. Add to that, during dusty weather, the filters were a massive pain in the ass to replace. Hence why T-72's were favored - Cheaper, more or less close to similar performance, engines were more efficient and easy to maintain. Some associated that they switched to T-72's instead due to Ukraines contribution to T-80's and Karkov plant but the Omsk plant in Russia produced T-80's as well, so that theory isn't true since they produced parts for it and manufactured it on territory. Russia has a ridiculous amount of T-80's in storage, maybe around 4 thousand. I would give it half of them are probably capable of operational status. But in the end, they are not interested in having a massive force of T-80's simply because they are on par with T-72B3's and outmatched by T-90 variants and soon Armata. But, given the engine in itself, it makes an ideal system for the arctic, and they do not have to worry about dust particles causing a havoc on the filters either up north. So upgrading them to T-72B3 levels and modifying the engine (that is one thing they emphasized - making the engine far more efficient) can give new life to the T-80's and make them useful.

Russian Defense Ministry prepares modernized T-80BVM tank for trials — official

More:
http://tass.com/defense/964559