The T-80s future in the Russian Army

nato would not sacrifice their entire airforce just to bomb Nizhny Tagil when they army and navy rely on it and before you say that Russia will not be able to mass all of its SAMs in time nato cannot use all its aircraft in one place either since their logistics simply cannot cope with that many aircraft.

Isos wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:

Produce a new tank so that you can put it into the reserve ...
Some guys here have such stupid ideas ...

No produce a new turret for your reserve tank.

The T-80 is never going to be good enough for a frontline tank of Russia since it is not vastly superior to all non Russian tanks in all the 3 main aspects (firepower,survivability and mobility) that is what the T-14 is for.

If your t 14 are destroyed the war will be over. No need to send t 80 they won t do better. For secondary mission like fighting transport tropp vehicle, no need to uphrade them.  

Syria proves how today T-55 and T-62 are useful still to win a war. To have important amounts of T-80 is good for Russia.

Most stupid thing I've heard in this forum I think.

They are wining the war because of russian airstrikes. And they are wining against guys with pick ups. Not really the war we are discussing here ...

Their t72 were destroyed by hundreds before russian came. What would do a t-54 in a real war against leopard or merkavas ? Nothing even if you have 2000 of them against 400 merkavas. Oudated means outdated. At a certain point even having the number advantage isn t enough.

Your reaction is totally out of touch.

It is obvious that the T-55 and the T-62 are an effective part of the material that Syria/Russia and allies are using to win this war.

The value of the armament depends of what the adversary is able to put in front of.

The US, Israel and the rest of their allies, have not been able to put Merkavas in this war, and only a few Leopard 2s that have not been very successful. Neither other older Western tanks (because of their failed scrapping strategy). Something to take into account.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:..................
Russia can build all the tanks it wants, Russia alone cannot out produce all of NATO, it does not have nearly as much of a manpower pool to draw from. Where has NATO could afford to lose millions easy, Russia could not.

If such a war did happen and nukes weren't used Russia would need to win QUICKLY and even then it would have insurrections all over the place in occupied nations which would force it to keep considerable manpower to keep things calm. Thus weakening it's offensive force.
...............

Seig I belive we are all discussing this from different starting points hence the argument.

You assume that Russia would be going into NATO countries.

Rest of us here assume that NATO will be going into Russia.

Regardless of who is going to whom.

My point does not change, NATO could build more things faster has more manpower to use.

Russia alone simply could not win. I am not saying that to bash russia also it's just how it is.

If russia should on constant defense it would get widdled down to nothing in due time, it's only means to survive would be to grab land, take factories and hopefully have people in the countries it takes fight for them.

WW2 left a nasty mark on Russia population wise one they still have not healed from.

Russia has allies today too.

Also, since the 1980s you destroyed too the Western European military industry, in order to create a US monopoly on military industry. It is almost totally destroyed today.

In 2017, the first ten tanks T-80BV

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3007471.html

https://vpk.name/news/205398_ispyitaniya_tanka_t80bvm_planiruetsya_zavershit_v_nachale_2018_goda.html

Tests of the T-80БВМ is scheduled for completion in early 2018

It is noted that the car had improved firepower, protection and mobility, and improved control system

MOSCOW, January 31. /TASS./ Testing of the upgraded T-80БВМ is scheduled for completion in early 2018. Told about this TASS in the research and production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" (UVZ).

In the International military-technical forum "Army-2017", "Uralvagonzavod" and the defense Ministry signed a contract for the repair with a deep modernization of tanks T-80BV.

"Testing is scheduled for completion in early 2018," - said in UVZ.

The company noted that during modernization of the T-80БВМ improved basic combat qualities, such as firepower, protection and mobility, and improved control system, whereby the tank began to meet the current requirements for all the major parameters.

"According to its characteristics the machine is comparable with the tank T-72B3. State contract for the modernization of tanks T-80BV the T-80БВМ concluded in 2017 and long-term. The volume of the first part - up to two tank battalions," - said the Corporation.

Could the T-80 modernization mount a 2A82?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Could the T-80 modernization mount a 2A82?

Probably, however it wouldnt be able to exploit new ammunition developed for it most likely due to autoloader limitations.

I think its a waste of money, the T-80 has proven to have too many defects. The biggest is the turbine engine, but also the overall bad performance of the tank in conflicts.
Better to scrap this type and only use 3 types of main battle tanks for better logistics. Namely the T-72, T-90 and the T-14.

runaway wrote:I think its a waste of money, the T-80 has proven to have too many defects. The biggest is the turbine engine, but also the overall bad performance of the tank in conflicts.
Better to scrap this type and only use 3 types of main battle tanks for better logistics. Namely the T-72, T-90 and the T-14.

Syria proves nothing usable must be scrapped, and will not be. The Syrians are not fighting with T-62 and T-55 to scrappe the T-64 and T-80s.

eehnie wrote:

runaway wrote:I think its a waste of money, the T-80 has proven to have too many defects. The biggest is the turbine engine, but also the overall bad performance of the tank in conflicts.
Better to scrap this type and only use 3 types of main battle tanks for better logistics. Namely the T-72, T-90 and the T-14.

Syria proves nothing usable must be scrapped, and will not be. The Syrians are not fighting with T-62 and T-55 to scrappe the T-64 and T-80s.

-80-80

No it doesnt, you cant expect 3rd world countries to keep T-80 with gas turbines and sophisticated electronics operational. The T-55, T-62 is perfect for that, they can keep them running with just basic mechanical and workshop skills.

The T-80 has no place in the russian army, neither syrian.

You are aware they are upgrading a ton of T-80's and are hoping to increase them in numbers too you know.

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware they are upgrading a ton of T-80's and are hoping to increase them in numbers too you know.

No i think its disinformation. Just last year or so it was reported that the russian military would phase out the T-80 of service and replace them with T-72s. Thats a good plan and i do hope they implement it.
The T-80 has no advantages over T-72, but alot of disadvantages and a very poor reputation it will never recover from.

For Russia to have three tank types–the T-72, T-80 and T-90 (a rebrand of the T-72BU)–makes no financial or logistical sense. Each tank has the same 125-millimeter 2A46M gun and similarly performing gun-launched missiles. But they all had different engines, fire control systems and chassis.

eehnie wrote:

runaway wrote:I think its a waste of money, the T-80 has proven to have too many defects. The biggest is the turbine engine, but also the overall bad performance of the tank in conflicts.
Better to scrap this type and only use 3 types of main battle tanks for better logistics. Namely the T-72, T-90 and the T-14.

Syria proves nothing usable must be scrapped, and will not be. The Syrians are not fighting with T-62 and T-55 to scrappe the T-64 and T-80s.

Still, if the BVM update program aims to bring T-80 up to T-72B3 levels, it's hard to justify the effort and the expenses related with such upgrade program.

Either there is some specific requirement T-80 is better suited to fulfill (some have cited operating in arctic climates is easier for the T-80 than for T-72),  or it is just another program whose real goal is to keep some factory busy and its workforce paid.

T-72 is a more lean and efficient design, still have reached and surpassed the T-80 over time, and there are thousands of T-72 around.

Other hundreds if not thousands T-72 are still servicing around the globe in foreign armies, a huge fleet requiring support and further upgrades for years to come.

There could be even a good market for second hand T-72s to replace archaic T-54, T-55 and T-62s still servicing in some countries.

Any ruble spent on T-80 seems to me to be a wasted ruble, frankly speaking.

runaway wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware they are upgrading a ton of T-80's and are hoping to increase them in numbers too you know.

No i think its disinformation. Just last year or so it was reported that the russian military would phase out the T-80 of service and replace them with T-72s. Thats a good plan and i do hope they implement it.
The T-80 has no advantages over T-72, but alot of disadvantages and a very poor reputation it will never recover from.

For Russia to have three tank types–the T-72, T-80 and T-90 (a rebrand of the T-72BU)–makes no financial or logistical sense. Each tank has the same 125-millimeter 2A46M gun and similarly performing gun-launched missiles. But they all had different engines, fire control systems and chassis.

So you are saying it's fake news that the mod themselves stated that upgraded T-80's are ordered and being done?

http://www.janes.com/article/73927/russian-mod-unveils-t-90m-t-80bvm-mbts

Anyway, mod stated they won't get rid of half the planned disposal of the older armor because of growing threats from USA.

runaway wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware they are upgrading a ton of T-80's and are hoping to increase them in numbers too you know.

No i think its disinformation. Just last year or so it was reported that the russian military would phase out the T-80 of service and replace them with T-72s. Thats a good plan and i do hope they implement it.
The T-80 has no advantages over T-72, but alot of disadvantages and a very poor reputation it will never recover from.

For Russia to have three tank types–the T-72, T-80 and T-90 (a rebrand of the T-72BU)–makes no financial or logistical sense. Each tank has the same 125-millimeter 2A46M gun and similarly performing gun-launched missiles. But they all had different engines, fire control systems and chassis.

How do you replace 4000 tanks ? They would need 50 years to do so. They couldn't upgrade all of them, let alone replace them. T-80 BTW is far better than T-72. Similar upgrades will still put T-80 in front of T-72.

T-80 reputation is bad because it got destroyed in big number in chechnya because they used most modern russian ATGM against them, just like the reputation of the leopard 2A4 in Syria. And it was in Urban warefare, lunching a rpg on the top of a MBT will destroy it for sure. Conventional war against other tanks is not the same.

Russian tanks are not that heavy tanks so their logistics are not a problem. T-72 in particular is upgraded by some stupid terorists in syria, it's pretty simple to maintain it in condition.

Financialy it's cheaper to have 5000 simple tanks and 1000 more modern than to have 6000 modern. Because if you want to keep just one tank it will need to be the best one so the most expensive one.

With thousands of T-72s equally in storage there is no point in some weird reanimation effort of an almost phased out MBT.

Nor there is the Manpower or the need to train thousands of additional crews, the more so as the MBTs get ever more sophisticated sight units, communication equipment and all other stuff needing to be professionally operated and maintained.

Unless some very specific requirements arose in the last years, its just a way to provide work and paychecques to some factories short of both.

runaway wrote:

eehnie wrote:

runaway wrote:I think its a waste of money, the T-80 has proven to have too many defects. The biggest is the turbine engine, but also the overall bad performance of the tank in conflicts.
Better to scrap this type and only use 3 types of main battle tanks for better logistics. Namely the T-72, T-90 and the T-14.

Syria proves nothing usable must be scrapped, and will not be. The Syrians are not fighting with T-62 and T-55 to scrappe the T-64 and T-80s.

-80-80

No it doesnt, you cant expect 3rd world countries to keep T-80 with gas turbines and sophisticated electronics operational. The T-55, T-62 is perfect for that, they can keep them running with just basic mechanical and workshop skills.

The T-80 has no place in the russian army, neither syrian.

Russia has still an amount of tanks that exceeds the level of saturation of the reserves, but this is not a problem for Russia is an advantage. In other time it was an effort producing them and the tanks keep value, both military and economic, as proved in recent wars. Now Russia has the benefits.

While the US and NATO policy of scrapping early the own material in order to buy newer is leading to a situation where their allies in Syria have nothing armoured to fight with, the policy of the URSS and Russia of keeping older material is giving a clear advantage to their allies in Syria. Because both sides have access to more modern man-portable material.

I do not remember to see a single unit of T-80 scrapped in the reports since more than 2 years. Massive scrapping of T-80 seems totally out of the plans.

Anyway, what is the point of investing in a modernization project of a tank that:

1) is almost phased out from the army

2) has no operating base abroad, i.e. there are no foreign operators requiring upgrade packages

3) there are give or take thousands T-72s equally stored that could be upgraded/reactivated, and they are so much that it's almost impossible even half of them will be actually reactivated in any conceivable timeframe

4) last, the official statement itself declare such upgrade able to bring the T-80 to the same level of a T-72B3

The last point alone cast a shadow upon the rationale behind such an upgrade: spending time and resources on an outdated but maintenance heavy platform, just to bring it on par with another already existing platform having a really large operating base, bith domestically and by foreign operators?

Why?

The problem is not a T-80 is too much sophisticated: it is no longer so since a couple of decades at least. It is only a maintenance intensive and outdated platform.

In no way a T-80 is more sophisticated than a current T-72: nor in the passive protection, nor in the active protection suite, nor in the comms equipment or the sighting units.

Quite the contrary, at least those T-72s that got fully upgraded have subsystems far more advanced than their counterpart in a today's T-80.

The plan is also for T-90M tanks.

And I don't see anywhere where they card T-80U modern. To Russian MoD, modern requires thermal imagers. Something T-80U lacks as it still has it's IR Torchlight.

miketheterrible wrote:The plan is also for T-90M tanks.

And I don't see anywhere where they card T-80U modern. To Russian MoD, modern requires thermal imagers. Something T-80U lacks as it still has it's IR Torchlight.

For arguments sake, lets say the T-80U would be redeployed to the arctic.

For vehicles in the arctic, electro-optics and night fighting capabilities are not the most important requirements. Most combat in an arctic environmet would take place during summer months, when there is a lot of daylight hours, and night fighting is not a factor. In winter, most contemporary MBT's and their crews would quickly struggle to operate even on a basic level anyway. The crew's capability to operate the vehicles in arctic conditions will be the most important factor for sure

Secondly, advanced electronics such as thermal imaging components will be susceptible to the harsh climate conditions. Most FLIR camera's also have an operating temperature range which is more limited than more traditional sighting systems.

Finaly, there is already a number of fairly cost effective camouflage kits available which will reduce visibility in the thermal spectrum. Such a kit would be more effective in the arctic cold. We see many Western armed forces that have equipped almost their entire inventory from MBT's to APC's with thermal imagers. I would imagine such a thing has been noted by other forces.

Maximum detection ranges are an important factor, and advanced electro-optics have better detection ranges compared to a traditional periscope sight. But in the vast open arctic, it is hard to stay hidden from eachother regardless of what type of sight your vehicle uses.

In conclusion : It is not inconceivable that A T-80U equipped with some basic upgrades such as Nakidka (combined with traditional camouflage) and a decent APU can even the playing field with a more modern tank.

Well yeah, I guess you are right. In most cases though, Thermal helps when enemy uses smoke countermeasures and if the weather gets harsh and visibility is reduced. Hence why the T-80BVM is to obtain the Sosna-U thermal imaging system in it's upgrade. But yeah, at least with experimental units, they have effectively used methods to greatly reduced thermal imagers ability to spot them, which is great imo.

miketheterrible wrote:Well yeah, I guess you are right. In most cases though, Thermal helps when enemy uses smoke countermeasures and if the weather gets harsh and visibility is reduced. Hence why the T-80BVM is to obtain the Sosna-U thermal imaging system in it's upgrade.  But yeah, at least with experimental units, they have effectively used methods to greatly reduced thermal imagers ability to spot them, which is great imo.

Dont get me wrong, its good that the T-80 BVM gets a thermal. Like you pointed out, in general its a good option in adverse weather conditions. The arctic is just an extreme example, rather than general use.

Yes, I too agree, for what it is worth, that if some specific requirement perfectly suited for T-80s exists, than it is reasonable to upgrade them.

I found strange that they have such an advantage on arctic climate, just because their gas turbine.

It is decades the in the Arctic and Antarctic regions gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, both tracked and wheeled, operate even during the worst seasons with temperatures falling as low as minus 50.

It would be impossible to just adapt a T-72 engine to operate in such conditions.

It is not coming out of hatred against T-80, it is only because the T-72 family has already turned into the mainstay of russian army, and I do not see why to update a model with little operating base instead of the one being the core of armoured forces.