Russian Ground Forces: News #1

This IFV seems to be equipped with AU-220M turret with a 57mm gun and is promoted in different versions for various roles....or maybe I'm interpreting the picture wrong?

I knew that turret looked familiar.

The problem I have is the lack of a BMPT vehicle.

As is currently in operation they have tanks but they also have BMPs with considerable direct and indirect fire power capability. The problem as I see it is that after taking all that tank ammo and separating it from the crew for safety, it really doesn't make sense to fill the crew compartment of their troop carriers with 100mm HE shells that could explode if the vehicle is penetrated and kill the whole squad inside.
Because of this I would expect the BTR-T to have maybe a 12.7mm or 14.5mm HMG or 30mm cannon at most in a very small turret.
This leaves the new units seriously under armed compared with the armament now despite an enormous increase in protection levels.
To fill this gap the BMPT was the ideal concept but with IMHO poor implementation.
The role is direct and indirect heavy fire support.
4 ATGMs and two 30mm cannons, a 30cal MG and two 30mm grenade launchers in limited bow positions just isn't good enough.
They need the sustained HE firepower of the 100mm gun of the BMP-3, but with the ammo separated from the crew compartment in a turret bustle autoloader... perhaps even a belt feed system with an external gun and a dual feed to allow either standard HE or Missile loading.
Coaxial with that they can have an external 30mm cannon and at the back of the turret they could put a grenade launcher. In fact a service date of 2015 lets make the back of the turret mounted grenade launcher the 40mm Balkan as its heavier grenades and longer range and caseless ammo look good to me. Fit it the same way the BMP-2 upgrade has it with the ability to elevate independently but turns with the main turret and with built in 300-400 round ammo capacity.
The simple bow positions for the grenade launchers can be replaced by mini turrets with externally mounted guns and they can each have twinned PKTs and Balkan 40mm grenade launchers each giving a much wider field of fire and better elevation and depression.

This firepower vehicle doesn't carry a squad in the back... there will be a firewall and roof blowout panels and a full ammo reload for 100mm, 30mm(30x165mm), and 40mm grenades plus 10,000 rounds of 30 cal ammo.

As a compliment vehicle they could have another BMPT with the 57mm gun turret with a much larger properly armoured turret and the 20 round auto feed system can be doubled so that it becomes a dual feed mechanism with two 20 round auto feed systems, so each ready to fire magazine can contain a different type of ammo... say 10 guided shells and 10 HVAPDS in one, and 20 HE Frag shells in the other, so that with the press of a button it could load a particular shell and with the press of another button the next shell is of a different type.
This vehicle could have a quad launcher for Kornet so it will have a mix of laser beam riding and SALH weapons.

The 57mm gun wont have the HE power of the 100mm gun but it will be flatter shooting and more accurate, plus the guided shells can replace laser homing missiles, plus the HVAPDS rounds should make the Bradley and Warrior obsolete in terms of the extra addon armour is not really viable so they will need to go to new designs.

A turret mounted 40mm grenade launcher would compliment the main gun as its more curved trajectory will be more useful against targets on dead ground or behind cover like buildings or walls.

ATM the 57mm seems to be based on the round used by the S-60 anti aircraft gun, but I would like to see them develop a new 57mm round based on a telescoped case new design with more power, but in a more compact and efficient shape to maximise ammo storage and ease ammo handling and loading and unloading mechanisms.

I have read that there has been a competition for the armament of the BMP-4 and it is reportedly between a 45mm cannon and a 57mm cannon. I rather suspect the new 45mm round has significant ammo handling advantages over the old 57mm calibre round so a new 57mm round along with improving its performance (on target... ie ammo efficiency) would also improve storage and handling as well.

I think by Moto-Rifle they refer to Mechanised Infantry brigades. Basically, equipped with BMP's and BTR's (3 battalions) + a battalion of tanks.

A tank brigade has 2 tank battalions + 2 x M-R battalions according to the new set up....I don't know much about the planned light brigades.

Yep, that sounds about right...

So the new Motorrifle heavy brigade will have 3 battalions of BTRTs based on the Armata chassis with the engine at the front and ramp door at the back with no wheeled armoured personel carriers and one battalion of Armata based tanks with engine at the rear of the chassis.
The new Motorrifle medium brigade will have 3 battalions of wheeled Kangaroo 25 ton APCs and tracked Kurganets-25 25 ton IFVs, and a battalion of medium tanks on Kangaroo and/or Kurganets-25 chassis.
The new Motorrifle light brigade will have 3 battalions of Boomerang and Tigr-M type vehicles and a battalion of vehicles a bit like Sprut used in the direct fire support role.

The tank brigades should be equipped with all the same vehicles but in the different proportion of 2 battalions of APCs and IFVs, and 2 of tanks based on the respective weight class family of vehicles... Armata for heavy, Kurganets-25 and Kangaroo for medium and Boomerang and Tigr-M for light brigades.

The tank or direct fire support vehicle for the light brigade needs to share the mobility of the rest of the unit otherwise they will end up with the same problems as they had when they used KV-1 and T-34 and T-26 tanks in one formation... the T-34s got there first and the KV-1s arrived much later. The T-26s didn't really matter because they didn't last very long anyway.
Perhaps if the wheeled vehicles of the light brigades are too light for 125mm guns (should be fine for the 25 ton wheeled vehicles and 25 ton tracked vehicles of the medium brigades) then perhaps the turret of BMPT fitted to a wheeled vehicle might offer a solution. Whether fitted with a 57mm gun with 40mm grenade launcher or the 100mm/30mm/40mm combo either should offer significant direct and indirect firepower, and with external gun mounts they don't need heavy armour protection to operate with tanks. This lack of extra weight would be important for a light vehicle. The turrets could be fitted to the 6 wheeled version of the Volks (modified Tigr-Ms) in a heavier vehicle for the turret and ammo weight.

T-95 art from 'Popular Mechanics' (posted by 'cromeshnic' at the Otvaga site)...what a MONSTER

Nice... thanks for posting.

The firepower and protection level seams deadly , although it has a higher turret but its also well protected , This was a single shot kill weapon for any NATO tank from any angle.

Keep in mind this is art... not photos. From what we have heard of the T-95 its 150+mm calibre gun would have been specifically designed to deal with current and near future tanks so I suspect its performance will be formidible.

I rather doubt Armata will have that gun however though it might get it as a mid life upgrade in the 2020s... or more likely something based on it, or perhaps even new technology EM powered gun.

Gur Khan blog on Armata does not show how the new tank will look like.

Very important to remember that currently the new tank and its family are a Russian state secret and so these drawings are just drawings. No official design sketches have been released so these drawings can be considered fan art just like the drawings of PAK FA before it was revealed. They could be close or could be miles off. Anyone actually releasing pictures that suddenly gets arrested and put in jail... well let me look at those pictures because they will be worth a close look...

Are both these IFV ? why one has 57 mm gun and others doesnt , Will this replace BMP-3 ?

It is likely that they will have a BMP-4Heavy , BMP-4Medium (tracked along with a BTR-Medium wheeled), and a BTR-Light Wheeled.
The vehicles used for troop transport will not have particularly heavy armament otherwise the risk to the squad of a penetration would be too great... no point in removing the tank ammo from the crew compartment to make tank crew safer if all their supporting infantry are killed in ammo explosions because the BMPs have 40 rounds of 100mm HE ammo in them.

I would suspect there will be troop transports with 50 cal external remote controlled guns and perhaps MG turrets with external MGs and grenade launchers, plus much more heavily armed fire support vehicles with 45/57mm guns or 100mm/30mm gun combinations plus MGs and grenade launchers.

Remember they rejected the BMPT design, not the BMPT concept. One of the critisims of the BMPT was that a BMP-3 with its 100mm gun and 30mm cannon and bow MGs or grenade launchers and 100mm gun fired missiles ( had better firepower than the BMPT with two 30mm cannon and mgs and grenade launchers and four ATGMs.

The problem is that the BMP-3 can't go into areas where tanks can go safely because of lack of armour.

An Armata tank with the 125mm gun removed and replaced with the armament of the BMP-3 in external mounts so the 100mm ammo and 30mm ammo is stored in an external turret bustle would be ideal... add a rear mounted 40mm Balkan grenade launcher and replace the two bow mgs with mini turrets with externally mounted PKT MGs and 40mm Balkan grenade launchers with a wide field of view and elevation.
Raise the main turret level so the front turrets clear the main gun and so the main gun depression can be 20 degrees and elevation is up to 80 degrees with a dual feed autoloader for the 100mm gun to allow 100mm HE and guided missile at the push of a button with a coaxial 30mm cannon.

In fact because it is externally mounted you could make the 30mm cannon based on the GSh-301 used in Russian fighters with a much heavier and much longer barrel with a longer barrel life that retains the 1,800 rpm rate of fire. On the Mig-29 the gun is computer controlled so the pilot pulls the trigger and with a lock on the target he manoeuvres into a shooting position. The computer continuously calculates the angles and position and distance to the target using radar or laser and IRST and when the computer calculates a guaranteed hit it releases a burst of gunfire. The computer during tests used to fire bursts of 5-7 rounds only but the targets were being destroyed because most shells hit the target. A Mig designer said if they had known it was going to be so effective they would have planned for a 75 round ammo capacity instead of the 150 shells carried normally.
Using such a control system should allow the commander to fire very short bursts or single shot where needed for ground targets where rate of fire is not so important. For aerial targets it would allow longer bursts and the 1,800 rpm rate of fire of the GSh-301 would be much more useful than the two 2A42 cannon used on the BMPT... and lighter too.

The only problem is that the GSh-301 uses electrically primed ammo instead of percussion fired ammo used by the ground forces as it offers more control in terms of rate of fire and burst length.

I think the top one is the Tank, now that I had a better look at it.

I think you might be right now that you mention it.

Most certainly Armata has weight of 55 plus more Tons as per older report on it.

Different vehicles in the family will have different weights.

I think they said it would weigh from 50 to 65 tons, so the HMG armed APC will be the 50 ton vehicle, while I suspect the artillery model that looks a bit like coalition will be the 65 ton model... it will be interesting to see if the artillery model has one gun or two.

The twin gun coalition was supposed to be a joint program with the navy so I am looking forward to see twin 152mm guns on their larger ships...

Why does the tank have 6 wheel on tracks , wouldnt giving it 7 wheel and bigger track for bigger tank will give it lower ground pressure ?

Normally you don't lengthen a vehicle to reduce its ground pressure... it is much cheaper and simpler to just use wider tracks. When you have long relatively narrow tracks adding a metre or so of length will also add weight to the vehicle whereas adding width to the track is a more efficient way of reducing ground pressure without increasing the vehicle weight or design much.

Remember if the track has a ground contact length of 7 metres that is 40cm wide increasing the length to 8 metres adds an area 1m long and 40cm wide times two (one for each track). If you add 20cm to the with of the track however you are adding another half a track (7m x 20cm) times two which is like adding a whole third new track which has a much greater impact on the ground pressure without adding any weight to the vehicle (except the extra track area).

The main reason for adding length is to increase internal hull volume... perhaps for a bigger engine or larger internal crew area, or to increase protection by making the front hull armour more steeply angled... say from 60 degrees to 80 degrees.

Yeah, I agree... T-99 is Armata and T-95 is cancelled.

The question is how many upgraded T-72s do they want vs how many T-90s and how many Armatas.

T-72s are cheap and give you about 60-70% the performance of T-90s... well perhaps 40-50% of T-90AMs.

One assumes that Armata will have all new stuff that is "next generation" considering it wont even start initial production for 3 years, which gives them 3 years to make all the new stuff work and iron out all the bugs etc etc.

A production order for 500 T-90AM and a few thousand T-72 upgrades is probably the best we can hope for in regard to the T-90AM in Russian service, but it all depends on how much the Armata will cost.

There is already a direct Russian FELIN equivalent available, but it weighs about 36kgs, which makes it about 10kgs heavier than FELIN.

I am guessing the next 3 years will involve the updating and changes needed to get the weight down and of course to flesh out the different module paths for different roles.

I rather suspect the FELIN kit they get if their order is accepted will of course be tested and then likely issued to a special forces team for operational use, with the feedback for changes being made to the Russian model.

The thing is that these future soldier kits are not strictly for special forces, though they will likely find them very useful... the ultimate purpose is that these kits are issued to all troops.

If you think of it in terms of computers at the moment the Russian Army is like a school with a few computers in the office, one in the Library and 1 or 2 in each classroom, but they are not networked together very well and there is one computer in the office with a printer.

FELIN in a net centric network means each teacher and each child has a networked computer with a Glonass device so the Principal can at a glance see where everyone is on a map and can communicate directly with all students and teachers and staff.

Sure there is a risk of commanders sitting in officers thinking they are playing Dark Reign or Age of Empires, but it means that a commander can see what it is like on the front line from a direct video feed, or see/communicate higher up the command chain to get an idea of the situation as it evolves.

Obviously flicking through 10-20 video feeds would take time and may not give them any useful information, so they can go up one level to the commander of the troops or to his commander to get a pre-processed view of who attacked who and from where and what air assets are nearby, and what artillery units are close to help deal with the problem. The commander could lase the room of the building causing the problems and a nearby tank could put a HE round into that particular room and sort it all out in one shot, or the threat might be more substantial and need something else... after demolishing the room several other windows might start launching Javelins so the supporting tank backs up behind cover and a local 2S4 vehicle might take a Glonass guidance fuse and attach it to a standard 130kg HE round with a half second delay. The commander lases the building again, but this time to get the range. Based on his own coordinates and the range and angle to the target plus 5 metres to make it the centre of the building, he electronically passes the target data to the 2S4 vehicle which fires a single round... half a minute later the entire building erupts and collapses and the enemy fire stops.

First of all there is little real difference between most modern tanks in service around the world.

Each different tank has different capabilities and different features, based on different technologies and different design choices.

The Abrams is a powerful tank with excellent armour and a very good gun, but you need to be a super power to keep it running, and not every country has the infrastructure to operate a 70 ton tank.

The Arjun is supposed to be an indigenous Indian tank, which I think is technically a failure in the sense that it is an amalgamation of too many foreign parts.

If its purpose is to be Indian designed and produced then, by all means licence produce foreign components to make it a capable vehicle, but you also need to invest a lot of money developing those components in new ways... make them Indian components.

The Arjun wont be an Indian success story till about Arjun III or IV, but that is OK... the Russians and the west have also spent a lot of time and money to get where they are today.

As is shown with UAVs... it takes time and experience and money to get it right.

In the real world the best tank is not necessarily the tank with the thickest armour, or the best gun, or the biggest engine.

Look at the tanks that made up the bulk of the German army in 1940 for the invasion of Europe. Western history books like to go on about how easily the Soviets were pushed back to Moscow in 6 months, and how many soldiers and how much equipment was captured yet largely ignore the fact that the German Army had already done that to most of western europe with pretty much the same forces that had less combat experience at the time.

Early model panzers were actually pretty pathetic in terms of armour and fire power compared with Russian and French tanks of the day, but it wasn't their armour or guns that made them so effective in the field.

Communication and tactics were critical, as well as correctly using support like air power as a powerful mobile artillery were features that made the Germans so successful. Also the operation of the tanks where each crewman had a specific role, so the commander was directing the driver from cover to cover, and looking for targets and threats. When targets were found a loader loaded the gun and a gunner fired on the target till it was taken out, while the commander continued looking for targets and threats and directing the driver from cover to cover.

It was called hunter killer mode and was fully implemented by the Germans in WWII before ballistics computers and night sights and gun stabilisation were fitted as standard on tanks.

To this end I would like to make clear that just because you like one tank or another is no excuse or reason to call another tank rubbish or crap.
The Russians showed in Afghanistan and in South Ossetia that even a T-62 with certain upgrades is adequate as a tank in certain situations as at its heart a tank is a direct fire large calibre gun platform with the mobility and protection to operate with troops to support them. In situations where the enemy lacks effective anti armour weapons you could even substitute the BMP-3 for a tank where its amphibious capability might actually make it more useful than a MBT.

So my message... with my moderators hat on, is to think about the words you use. A rubbish or crap tank is a tank that cannot do the job at all. Experience has shown that even a T-34 right now is better than no tank at all, so really there is no such thing as a crap or rubbish tank... just a fanboy thinking he is making his tank sound cooler by putting down someone elses tank. Dick measuring contests are pointless as the winner ends up with a dick so big he would only be able to service cattle.

Also keep in mind this thread is about the T-95 and the T-90AM. Discussions about different tanks can be started in new threads.

Yeah, if you like looking at a piece of crap.

When talking about aesthetic looks there is no such thing as right or wrong, but if your stool looks like Arjun I tanks I think you need to urgently contact your doctor.

The Arjun is clearly the biggest failure and money waster in modern tank history.
Clearly indicated that they buy and manufactur more than 1200 T-90S.
If you dont agree, read about it, then argue. But i dont think anyone will.

You are obviously not familiar with tank history... the French, Germans, and Americans started a joint program to build a new tank and they spent a lot of money that didn't result in a single tank entering service. The result was the Abrams, Leopard II, and Leclerc. The British were lucky in that the Shah of Iran spent a small fortune getting the British to design and build them a state of the art tank, but after the revolution they kept them and called them the Challenger... which I am sure you will agree is a potent tank... and one of the cheapest in the sense that Iran footed the bill for its development.

The T-95 has had a very long development period and has had quite a bit of money spent on it and it will never see service.

In comparison the Arjun might not be perfect, but it is not totally useless and did at least enter service.
It seems the T-90 makes more economic sense, but then the Russians have been making tanks for quite some time and know what they are doing.

I for one is eager for news of the T-95`s replacement. That is, news with any ground and reality to it.
And iam not sure the Armata will be it, maybe.

The Armata is the project name, its operational codename will likely be T-99, and based on criticisms of the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 (which had the Black Eagle autoloader in the turret bustle and the under floor autoloader with 22 rounds underfloor and another 31 rounds ready to use in the turret bustle autoloader that is 53 rounds ready to use in combat) and the new design of the T-90AM where the ammo in the turret bustle is only 10 rounds with very well protected storage separate from the crew compartment, that the Russians don't like ammo in the turret bustle.

The Armata will likely have three crewmen in the hull front and an unmanned turret in the centre of the vehicle with an external gun and ammo in the turret below the level of the turret ring for protection, and the engine to the rear.

The Armata chassis will also be used for other vehicles in the heavy units and will include rear and front mounted engine options... ie rear for the tank and MSTA replacement, and front for a heavy BTR-T type vehicle.

But there will certainly be a need to replace the T-62 and early T-72`s still in formations. Heck, i`m not sure the
T-55 is taken out of service completely. Maybe there still are some in naval or infantry briagdes? But i saw for sure some T-62`s in video clips from 2008 war with Georgia.

The plan is to have about 8,000 tanks in total in the inventory, with about 2,000 in operational units and 6,000 in storage.
They have about 2,000 T-80 tanks which they will gradually retire,and the rest will be a mix of 6-800 T-90s and the rest will be upgraded late model T-72s. After 2015 when the Armata chassis will be in production the numbers of other tanks will decline over time and be replaced by Armatas. Of course to accelerate the upgrade they might start making T-90AM2s... which will basically be T-90AMs with any upgrades they decide on between now and 2015... they might have new systems like ARENA 3 or Drodz 5 or SHTORA 3 or whatever.

The point will be to get their tanks upgraded with the new communications and data sharing equipment and the battle management systems (BMS) that will connect the tanks to the battle net... initially that will be upgrades of the T-90s and T-80s already in service, and the T-72 upgrade, but the Armata and the T-90AMs will already have such electronics installed so in 2015 hopefully the tank units will already have some experience in using BMS to improve communication and coordination.

The problem with this is that when low tech threats appear they wont have any cheap T-62s to send in and use up some old 115mm HE shells.
The Advantages of course is that they will remove the 100mm rifled tank calibre and the 115mm smoothbore tank calibre from their inventories, and they can use basically T-72 engines and components for the majority of their tank fleet with a 125mm gun as standard.
They will safe enormous amounts of money not having to store all those extra tanks and ammo and the extra money spent on new tanks and ammo can be reinvested in making it even better.

Training and maintainence and operation will be simplified and support structures and logistics will be standardised and simplified and the tail shortened.

Thanks for your input.

Of course you can have an opinion on tanks performance, and it really wouldn't surprise me if a T-90 tank failed in a 50 degree C desert... it would surprise me if it failed in the cold.

I have even read a report about the Indian military not actually buying air conditioner systems for the T-90 tanks because they were considered a luxury. The problem is that every side is happy to trot out statements and facts that are pretty hard to verify either way.

AFAIK however they are buying T-90s and upgrading their T-72s and they have Arjuns in service and are putting an updated model into service... and that is what it is all about. All tanks have strong points and faults and over time with use you can decide which faults are real problems and which are just side effects of necessary features. You fix faults that are problems and learn to live with necessary features.

Oh yes i am, and i can take an insult.

What I am trying to draw attention to is that according to the forum rules (which I am supposed to be enforcing BTW) you should not be getting or giving insults. Everyone should respect everyone elses right to a different opinion... even if in you own opinion it amounts to the right to remain ignorant.

Calling the Arjun for crap, well, i could have used other words. Like : a very very expensive tank with very long development, with the end product, the tank, not satisfactory.

Well I think it is pretty clear that one answer is the language of argument and the other is the language of discussion.

I have mentioned my dislike for the Sheridan... it was probably much more expensive than the Arjun, and in so many ways fatally flawed... unlike the Arjun. The Sheridan had very thin armour that wont stop HMG fire. The ammo used combustible stub propellent charges that were enormous fire hazards just like the 125mm Soviet ammo, but they weren't in protected positions.
The ammo was optimised for a very very expensive missile that never registered a hit in combat despite being taken into combat several times. The vibration in the vehicle meant after driving for a while the electronics needed to guide the missile failed, so it had a very big low pressure gun that was not standard and the only other vehicle to use it was a modification of the M60, which was also a complete failure (that modification... not the M60).
Of course the armour had to be thin so it could be air dropped, and it was certainly safer and faster than walking.

The Russian equivalent has probably been the lengthened model of the BMD for troop transport, but fitted with AT-5 and AT-4 ATGMs, which are much more practical, standard within the Soviet forces and much much cheaper, and on a standard platform that will at least stop HMG fire from the front.

The current equivalent would be the Sprut, which is a much better vehicle with the ability to use standard 125mm tank ammo including missiles and ANEIT fused rounds.

Of course I am biased as well.

I think that it is more clever to not build a failure tank, as the French, Germans and US decided.

The thing to remember is that they didn't want to build a tank, they wanted to create a domestic tank building capability. If they built a world class super tank first time you would have to ask how Germany, France, and the US can fail in making a decent tank, when India got it right first time.
The simple fact is that the Arjun is not a bad tank and in many areas as good as, better than, or only slightly worse than the T-90, which is Russias best tank currently.

We can criticise it for having a german engine and French thermals, but then the T-90 has french thermals, and the Abrams has armour based on british armour, and a german designed gun, and even a belgian coaxial machine gun... (Chobham, 120mm Reignmetal (spelling) and M240 FNMAG).

So if the Armata will have very little in common with T-90, chassis, weapon and engine, it is advisable to not build so many T-90.

The vast majority of the tank fleet is either T-72 upgraded with T-90 components and systems, T-80s upgraded with T-90 components and systems, and T-90s.

The current situation is that a brigade will have a huge range of vehicle types and chassis... a T-72 equipped brigade with MSTAs will have MSTAs with T-80 chassis.

The future goal is to convert every vehicle within a heavy brigade to have MBT level armour... if the MBT is a T-72/80/90 then it makes sense to have the standard base chassis of the T-90 or upgraded T-72.

When the Armata enters production they will likely make the MBTs and all the support vehicles and introduce them a brigade at a time... probably a Moscow heavy tank brigade will make the conversion first, but upgrading T-72s with T-90 stuff makes the tank fleet more homogenious and easier to support and manage.

I don't know how much the Armata will cost, but I suspect the relatively low priority of armour that the T-90 chassis in the form of T-90s and upgraded T-72s will form the backbone of the Russian Army till about 2025... when the Armata chassis will have replaced all the other tanks and support vehicles in the heavy brigades. The smaller vehicles will be much cheaper and easier to make so I would expect the Typhoon (light) in four and six wheel designs and the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang (25 ton tracked and wheeled amphibious front engined medium vehicles) will be in service in most important areas by 2020.

The logistics will have enough problem with two main tank models, T-72.-80,-90 with 125mm and common chassi. Vs T-99 with 152mm and new chassi.

First of all I would think the first model T-99s will have 125mm calibre guns. They might change to the 152mm calibre gun when the Armata is the dominant MBT in heavy brigades, though any Sprut like vehicle in the medium brigades might keep 125mm for even longer.

Second the logistics will be greatly improved already.

Right now in a tank or motor rifle brigade there will be all sorts of vehicles... the tank might be a T-72, the air defence vehicle will be Tunguska on a GM-xxxx chassis, the MSTA will be on a T-80 chassis, the troop transports will be BTR-82s and BMP-3s.

When they change to Heavy, medium, and light brigades, the tank, the command vehicle, the troop transports, the air defence, the artillery... all the vehicles in the unit will be either based on the T-72/90 tank or its components, or the Armata vehicle chassis. There will be different models, for instance there will be a front engined Armata for BTR and BMP use so the troops can use a rear ramp for entry and exit, while there will be a rear engined Armata chassis for the tank and other vehicles like artillery and air defence where rear access to the hull is not so important.

This will greatly simplify logistics and support... but in the heavy brigade it will be very expensive initially, so as I mentioned for a start they will use the heavy chassis they have... T-72 and T-90 and T-80 and merge them into a T-90 eventually... so it is likely that the backbone will be the T-90 and the breakthrough lead tank will be Armata, but in steadily increasing numbers till there is only armata in the heavy brigades.

The whole concept of chassis family only works if you apply it vigorously... so step one is T-64 and older tanks are gone, old T-72s are gone, new T-72s and good condition T-80s are upgraded to maximise commonality with the T-90. And then the focus becomes the new build armata. If it is too expensive to contemplate an all Armata heavy brigades then obviously consideration becomes production of T-90s to replace retiring T-80 and T-72 and T-90 tanks.

Upgrades are cheaper and save more money for armata production.

If so, i see the T-72 and T-80 to be used against low tech threats.
The T-90 and T-99 will have the battle management systems (BMS) along with other state of the art systems, and to be used against 1 line enemies.

With their BMS and improved communications even the T-72s and T-80s will become much more capable, and the current lack of mobility probably means that a surprise attack like Georgia in SO would mean the local tanks would have to deal with the problem, but yes... in terms of their choices of deployment and retirement the important places will get the new stuff first and the backwaters will have to wait till last.

Initially they will likely cascade stuff too, so the high prestige tank forces might currently have T-90s, but as Armatas become available they might get them and their T-90s will be sent to units with older models that can be retired with the T-90s as replacements.

T-90 faced problem with Catherine-TI and it took a long time to ruggedise it and it lacks stuff like AC and operating in tank without AC in hot desert of Thar where temperature normally goes above 55 * and inside tank about 58 or even 60 degreee , not having a AC is not a option , right now there is plan to put AC on T-72 and T-90. It seems AC procured from Russia and israel have failed in trials in very exterme hot climate of Thar ( these stuff are tested to their limit under hottest condition possible at Thar )

A tank at the best of time can be a hot and dusty experience... the fact that they were not fitted with any AC at all... even one that doesn't work all the time is very suspicious to me.

If the Arjun can operate in such conditions why not fit its AC system in the T-72s and T-90s and have some commonality and use an Indian product?

AFAIK the Russian T-90s have AC and can operate in desert conditions. There are no complaints from Algeria.

Tank warfare in Indian context is likely to be in desert and the electronics etc on Arjun are more ruggedish for desert environment then in say T-90 , becuase of better internal volume and by design Arjun take care of cooling issue etc ,

Actually smaller internal volume should make AC more efficient, not less efficient as there is less air to keep cool and less internal surface area to heat up the air space.

The main problem with the Arjun vs T-90 discussion is that people who support one seem to feel the need to stick the boot into the other.

India really needs to decide on what sort of gun it wants... if it wants 120mm rifled with single piece ammo, then I think they should look at something like the Burlak upgrade for the T-90 and T-72. Having one tank calibre would make things much easier, but you will of course need to choose carefully as if you go with a unique calibre you may find it expensive to develop all your own ammo. Of course what purpose independent tank production if you have to import ammo.

Has India given any consideration to an Armata-MKI?

Having to import stuff, as you say is more expensive, but licence production is even more expensive but you end up with a factory and skilled workers able to make what you want, that can lead to future innovation and Indian designed systems from the same factory... it is as I say more expensive, but it supports local innovation and development rather more than simply local assembly.

Obviously there might be issues with transfer of new technology, but India could simply put the armour structures of the Arjun II on the Armata chassis, and licence produce its new engine family too. It would help Russia as the extra investment and larger production volume will help economically and technically as there will be more money to try different solutions.

Yes, a different chassis, but with upgrades you can apply T-72/90 components like running gear, engines, transmission etc etc.

In fact for the T-80Us it would be very financially useful to replace the gas guzzling gas turbines with new diesel engines.

The money saved on fuel would be well worth it and with new late model more powerful diesel engines the drop in power wont be that much.