The T-80s future in the Russian Army

I still cannot believe these are new 1500hp engines, if they were, then they are the best gas turbine tank engines in the world, much better than those on M1.

So you don't believe Russia is allowed more powerful gas turbine engines than those the Americans use, or do you think the M1 is the best tank in the world still?

They are putting the vehicle back into production which means it now makes sense to develop a new 1.500hp gas turbine for it, but I would think looking at helicopters that Russia is perfectly capable of having more powerful gas turbine engines that the entire west... look at their helicopters... the biggest US helicopter has three engines and there is a big european helicopter with three engines too isn't there?

And the M1 has proven to be a corrupt piece of crap just like most other western junk... before being easily destroyed on a modern battlefield the claim was the extra weight and the extra cost were worth it because it was unstoppable and would cut through Russian armoured forces like a scythe through wheat.

Turns out the US seems to have sabotaged it by sending it in without the full support and training needed to make it operate properly... maybe they want funding for new tanks to replace the ones it uses now.

Nothing like a scary Russian bear to justify billions for developing new stuff to replace everything...

Not like they haven't done that before... the BMP-2 and MiG-25 spring to mind immediately.

For years they said the T-62 and T-64/72 were useless because of their horribly inaccurate smooth bore guns... ignoring the sensible logic that the main anti tank rounds modern tanks fire are APFSDS and HEAT-FS... neither of which actually use spin stabilisation because both are fin stabilised anyway.

Like I already said building new T-80 hulls is kind of pointless. If they need gas turbine engines for the Arctic just make a modified T-14 with that 1500hp gas turbine.

It makes perfect sense to upgrade existing T-80 tanks. But building new ones and continuing to manufacture two wholly different tank hulls just because you have two factories is kind of inane.

Shiny new engines, probably GTD-1250?



Tony
@Cyberspec1
The Kaluga Engine enterprise revived the late Soviet project "product 39" for the development and serial production of the GTD-1500 tank gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1500 hp. with the possibility of increasing power up to 1800 hp.

This engine was developed at the end of the 1980s for the further modernization of tanks of the T-80 family, as well as for the further development of a machine codenamed "Object 640" (T-80UM2), created in Omsk in the early 1990s.

The work on the engine was interrupted after the production of T-80 tanks with gas turbine engines stopped in post-Soviet Russia in the nineties.

Developments on "product 39" have been preserved, and after the successful use of modernized T-80BVMs on the fronts of SMO in 2022-2023, they returned to the high-capacity gas turbine engine as a promising power unit for subsequent T-80 modernizations .

I suspect the replacement for the T-80 in the arctic will be the DT-30 based two chassis vehicles... there was talk of a new design with a 3,500hp gas turbine engine in one chassis and the other chassis with the custom turret and equipment for the vehicle in question.

The DT-30 design has an engine in one chassis with a drive train that passes power through the connection which can be angled hydraulically... so for instance if it is in water then it can lift the front cab out of the water and on to a piece of floating ice and and then use the powered connector to raise the section in the water out of the water while moving forward without breaking the ice. Otherwise a single hull vehicle would break the ice as it tries to climb up on to it... essentially becoming an ice breaker rather than a vehicle back on the ice surface.

This gas turbine model would have electric armour and an electricity based gun like an EM cannon so it would benefit from such a powerful engine.

The T-80 is an upgrade of existing vehicles designed to use gas turbines and for which new gas turbine engines were designed so any new GTD-1250 or future GTD-1500 would be able to fit.

I would suspect the T-14 will start out with a 1,800hp engine so any gas turbine version will likely start at 2,200hp or more to be sensible even though the T-14 is not a lot heavier than the T-80.

GarryB wrote:I would suspect the T-14 will start out with a 1,800hp engine so any gas turbine version will likely start at 2,200hp or more to be sensible even though the T-14 is not a lot heavier than the T-80.

Most likely it'll be a Hybrid-Electric T-14 as turbine engines run efficiently at a specific RPM which doesn't suit how tanks are used on the battlefield which are expected to stop and go on a dime.

Datscha on caterpillars.

Most likely it'll be a Hybrid-Electric T-14 as turbine engines run efficiently at a specific RPM which doesn't suit how tanks are used on the battlefield which are expected to stop and go on a dime.

Very true, once the vehicles go electric drive then gas turbines are going to shine.

With engine powered vehicles the engine itself is connected to the wheels via drive shafts and differentials and transmissions and gearboxes, so the effort to turn the wheels is transferred to the engine so the engine needs a lot of torque and sometimes it is doing a lot of work and sometimes not very much.

As power requirements get bigger the advantage of gas turbines increases because a gas turbine engine is rather more compact and lighter than an equivalent diesel engine.

You can get very powerful diesel engines like in diesel locomotives and also in ships, but when you scale up the power you also scale up the size and weight and they become very big and very heavy very quickly... but on a train or a ship that does not matter very much.

If you look at helicopter gas turbines they are working on a 600hp turbine for light helicopters, but their attack helicopters already use 2,700hp engines that are so compact two fit in their attack helicopters. Their Mi-26 helicopter has two gas turbines that generate over 11,000 hp each and it is a big helicopter but the engines are not massive.

Power stations often use gas turbine engines because if they are generating electricity without being put under load they are actually quite fuel efficient.

Most APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) on boats and tanks and aircraft are gas turbines because they can be small and light and start up quick and easy and are fuel efficient when it comes to generating electricity.

When vehicles are electric drive whatever is being used to generate the electricity you will want to be powerful but also small and compact and light and fuel efficient... when you are looking at a tank the ideal solution in the past has been a small gas turbine for an APU and a diesel engine for low fuel consumption and reliability... but that was using the diesel engine to move the vehicle.

Tanks don't cruise around the battlefield at top speed on motorways and flat hard ground, they tend to try to move from cover to cover so short bursts of very high energy and acceleration and then stop and then accelerate at top speed to move to the next piece of cover.

You need a very powerful engine which ironically makes the gas turbine an option because it is rather powerful but also rather light weight, but its high fuel consumption operating this way means only two tank families widely use a gas turbine engine as its main engine... the T-80 and then the M1 Abrams.

It is interesting because I rather suspect the western trend of super heavy tanks has ended and they will be looking at vehicles more like the T-90 than like the Maus.

However as gun technology moves forward and armour options become available it is likely that power demands are only going to increase with potential laser weapons to shoot down drones, and EM boosted main guns to get enormous muzzle velocities, and of course electric armour for defence and perhaps even camouflage screens.

One of the advantages of the cage armour is that you can put screens on them and show movies or camouflage to make detection harder or cold dark nights more entertaining.

T-100: Americans learned about the newest Russian tank, which is cooler than the T-14 Armata, by Maxim Stroker for AvtoVzglyad. 05.09.2024.

The birth of a new car may happen after SVO.

Analysts from the overseas publication Military Watch magazine came to the conclusion that Russia is most likely developing a new tank, based on the experience of using its armored vehicles in the Northern Military District zone. The Americans even gave this super-weapon a name - T-100.

The publication in a foreign military publication about the upcoming Russian T-100 tank is based on the assertion that the experience of using the Soviet main tank T-80 during the SVO made a very good impression on the Russian command.

Let us remind you that this is the only combat vehicle in service with our army, where a gas turbine unit is used as an engine - as in the American Abrams M1. In particular, thanks to it, the T-80 has a high reverse speed of 25 km/h, which is comparable to similar indicators of NATO equipment.

For reference: the T-90, considered the best Russian tank in the Northern Military District zone, cannot move backwards faster than 5 km/h. Therefore, when a vehicle needs to quickly leave a position (so as not to receive a “response”, for example), tankers are forced to turn its weakly armored stern towards the enemy. You have to take risks for the sake of speed.

Military Watch magazine believes that the T-80 was by far the most combat-ready class of tank in the Soviet army. For this reason, despite the fact that it was three times more expensive than its contemporary T-72, the USSR Ministry of Defense purchased it in very large quantities in the early 1980s.

In the 1990s, amid the collapse of the Soviet Union and a severe economic crisis, the country's leadership, despite the resistance of the military, completely abandoned the T-80, preferring the T-72, which was cheaper to produce and maintain, with its diesel engine. Production of the T-80 was finally discontinued around 1996. And the most advanced version of the T-72 modernization eventually received the name T-90.

The publication recalls that since the late 1980s, work has been carried out at the Omsktransmash plant, which specialized in the production of the T-80, to transform the T-80 into a next-generation combat vehicle , known as the “Black Eagle”. It was conceptually similar to the T-14 Armata. The latter, according to Military Watch magazine, is produced in small series at Uralvagonzavod.

The successes of the T-80 during the Ukrainian campaign give the publication’s experts reason to believe that the project of deep modernization of this tank will be revived taking into account the conditions of modern combat. Moreover, the difference in capabilities between the existing T-80 and its future successor will most likely be much more significant than between the T-72B and the basic T-90 Proryv.

By analogy with the naming of the latter, the authors of the publication decided to conditionally call the tank of the future based on the T-80 the T-100. They believe that it will implement a number of design solutions of both the Black Eagle and the T-14 Armata, since both Omsktransmash and Uralvagonzavod are now part of a single military-industrial conglomerate.

https://www.avtovzglyad.ru/voennaya-tehnika/61096-2024-03-20-t100-amerikantsyi-uznali-o-noveyshem-rossiyskom-tanke-kotoryiy-kruche-t14-armata-/

In my opinion, if this supposed T-100 exists, it is an intermediate between the T-80 and the T-14 Armata.
I don't think it's logical that a tank designed decades ago takes the place of a more modern one.

There was a T-80 based project with an improved welded turret and a 152mm gun, Perhaps a modified version of that with more armour and the lighter 125mm from the Armata.

The black eagle had an extremely vulnerable ammunition compartment, with the current popularity of various means of top attack I do not see the designers ever returning to the concept.



This concept has a rather small bustle autoloader for long APFSDS projectiles, it would be rather easy to protect due to it's small size.

The publication recalls that since the late 1980s, work has been carried out at the Omsktransmash plant, which specialized in the production of the T-80, to transform the T-80 into a next-generation combat vehicle , known as the “Black Eagle”. It was conceptually similar to the T-14 Armata. The latter, according to Military Watch magazine, is produced in small series at Uralvagonzavod.

That is rubbish... the Black Eagle was an attempt to make the turret crew safer by removing the propellant and projectiles from beneath their feet and moving it to a turret bustle.

T-14 made the crew safe by moving them all to the hull and making the front hull armour the thickest on the tank... as opposed to the turret front which traditionally has the thickest armour on most tanks.

In my opinion, if this supposed T-100 exists, it is an intermediate between the T-80 and the T-14 Armata.
I don't think it's logical that a tank designed decades ago takes the place of a more modern one.

The Black Eagle was to the T-80 what the T-90AM was to the T-72.

Neither of which are any threat to the T-14 because neither are vehicle families.

Think of it in terms of fighter aircraft... they are not trying to produce a fleet of only Su-57s (T-14,B-14,K-14,Typhoon-14, DT-14), Flankers new and old (Su-35/30 and Su-27 with upgrades) plus also a smaller cheaper numbers aircraft (MiG-35 or Checkmate if it was ready now).

That means you don't just ignore your main body of your fleet, you upgrade everything and it looks to me that they have the super cheap option of upgraded T-72s, T-90s upgraded to the AM level, and now they are going to upgrade the T-80 to T-90AM level too.

BTW the stuff about reverse speed needing a gas turbine is bullshit... western tanks have good reverse speed and most of them are diesels.

It is about gearbox and transmission, not engine type.

In fact an all electric drive vehicle should be able to go backwards as fast as it can go forwards...

The black eagle had an extremely vulnerable ammunition compartment, with the current popularity of various means of top attack I do not see the designers ever returning to the concept.

I agree... they chose not to go ahead with the Black Eagle and also the T-72 equivalent with a turret bustle autoloader... because ammo in the underfloor autoloader is not the problem. It is ammo stored in the crew compartment that is the problem, which is very simply solved by only taking the tank out with the ammo in the autoloader only.

Ironically the Black Eagle solution of taking the ammo out from under the floor of the turret and putting it into a turret bustle actually makes it more vulnerable and easy to target so it is more likely to get hit and no amount of blow out panels will save the vehicle when the ammo burns and sets fire to the engine deck which of course starts an engine fire and the tank is a write off.

Under the floor of the turret is the safest place for the ammo and convenient for the ammo loader while still isolated from the crew compartment.

If the enemy can target the ammo and reach the ammo then they could target and reach the crew anyway.

This concept has a rather small bustle autoloader for long APFSDS projectiles, it would be rather easy to protect due to it's small size.

Current penetrators seem to be able to get the job done anyway.

The only real answer is APS.

I would say a full EW suite including APS but also a laser based SHTORA system to blind or destroy incoming threats.

The biggest problem of lasers is they are not great at long range... but for drones that are trying to hit the vehicle they should do just fine, whether it is actually destroying the drone or just blinding it so it does not hit the tank accurately.

And of course smoke, and friendly drones that identify and attack enemy drones... plus cages...

lyle6 wrote:
FPV drones will not always have weak cumulative warheads. I don't think it is technically feasible to design a turret with 360 degree protection against something like an FPV drone with a PG-7VR warhead for example. The only real answer is APS.

Maybe it would not be immune form all angles, but it would still be vastly better protected than nay western style turret. It could get at the very least the same level of protection as the current T-72B3s which are I believe resistant to RPG-29s from the rear.

GarryB wrote:

Current penetrators seem to be able to get the job done anyway.

These are supposed to be new production tanks, hence they should be able to utilise longer rounds and be equipped with a better gun in order to ensure that they do not become obsolete before the end of their expected service life.

Maybe back in the 80's the CIA already knew?



This is how they depicted the T-80 in the annual publication - "Soviet Military Power".
A few years later when the T-72B appeared - it was also briefly dubbed the "T-80".

lyle6 wrote:
Then your enemy would just develop a drone that can mount the monster warhead of the Kornet. How bout that?

When designing the protection of a vehicle you don't just think current threats - you have to explore what probable threats are likely to arise so when the vehicle finally arrives 10 years later it doesn't get its shit rocked on the battlefield.

Well perhaps militaries should stop issuing body armour as it is ineffective against nuclear warheads, or perhaps protection against most, but not all munitions is an advantage worth investing in.

No one thing is going to be the solution to everything, but you have to take into account of everything when designing a vehicle.

A truck will transport troops but is easily taken out by small arms fire and above which is common on most battlefields, so the next step up is a BTR troop transport... not a lot more expensive than a truck but it has light armour and armament and it is amphibious, yet most anti armour weapons will cut through it like butter.

The Soviets introduced and used BTRs because it offered better protection than a truck without costing as much as a BMP.

For many roles the BTR is good enough.

With designing tank upgrades you have a range of choices to protect from drones including jammers and EW equipment, cages, ERA, APS systems.

No one system is going to be perfect and stop anything and everything but without a cage a tiny very high flying drone might drop hand grenades into your crew hatches, and with cages it just might drop more powerful warheads to defeat your cages.

The best solution is always a little bit of everything... LIDAR to detect the threat and an APS system that allows you to direct defensive munitions at the threat, cages and ERA and also support vehicles dedicated to dealing with drones and even drones that fly around hunting for enemy drones.

If the enemy are using drones to kill your soldiers then issuing shotguns and shotgun rounds for 40mm under barrel grenade launchers as well as jammers would be a good idea along with camouflage so the enemy drones can't find your men or equipment in the first place.

Even a drone that flys very very low can be spotted by something that is flying looking down... moving things are easy to spot...

Early detection is the key.

GarryB wrote:

No one system is going to be perfect and stop anything and everything but without a cage a tiny very high flying drone might drop hand grenades into your crew hatches.

I have always wondered why tankers leave the hatches open on anything other than a pre CITV western tank, because the Russian tanks since the interwar period have had magnified periscopes that they can locate targets with. Ofcourse with a western style commanders cupola and no CITV the commander's visibility is rather poor unless he opens the hatch.

For the same reason everyone does that... German tank commanders often sat with their heads sticking out of their hatches.... it is called situational awareness.... sitting inside a tank using periscopes is like submarine warfare and it is easy to get confused and disoriented sitting in a small enclosed space driving around the place.

Getting your bearings is hard enough when you can't see the terrain outside properly.

Also the fact that closed hatches have to be opened if the tank is hit so you can get out... making it harder to get out of a burning tank is a bad thing.

I wonder how long before ejection seats for tank crew are devised and created?

Of course remote control vehicles makes such things redundant, but vehicles with larger crew hatches tended to have better survival rates... unless the large hatches were heavy and difficult to open for an injured man.

Apart from the fact that it is a Ukrainian T-80BV, this should explain very well why the T-80 should be built again in Russia.
Full of mine hits, tank intact (except for right chain) and crew survived quite well.