T-90 Main Battle Tank

The T-80 had a hunter killer system where the commander spots a target and pushes a button and the turret immediately turns to where his sight is pointed and the gunner is told to attack that target while the commander is free to turn his sight to look for other targets while the gunner engages the target.

A battle management system manages a battle.

You have tanks and lots of other vehicles in a battle zone and you also have assets whose purpose is to locate and identify targets.
Say there is a unit of 4 T-90AMs in a village and there is a Russian UAV overhead with a birds eye view of the surrounding area. Any enemy targets that UAV might detect will be transmitted to HQ via the operator of the UAV and because the operator of the UAV is connected to the network he knows the 4 T-90AMs are in that village so when 2 enemy tanks are spotted coming up the road 30km away the UAV unit will ID the threat vehicles and pass the info up to HQ who will verify using other platforms nearby like JSTARs like aircraft or any recon units, and once the new targets are verified they become part of the system map... so the map the T-90AMs are looking at will suddenly have two enemy tanks appear in their last known position. Their presence will likely result in a request for the UAV that spotted them to monitor their position and keep it updated on the live map.
The tanks might have a hill between them and the target but they are now aware of their presence.
Any other enemy activity noticed by the T-90AM tanks or Mi-28N helicopters or satellites passing over, or Ka-52 recon helos is also added to the map.
It is not just a map however, it can be used to pass orders down to individual vehicles and soldiers... if instead of 2 enemy tanks coming it was 200 the 4 T-90AMs might be commanded to position themselves where they can see the targets at very long range to allow them to call in Artillery strikes or air strikes.
The new 7km range missiles might be SALH missiles instead of laser beam riding so when the enemy tanks get within range the four tanks could fire missiles over the hill and the UAV could mark the target tanks with a coded laser so the enemy tanks would not even see the tanks firing the missiles.
Etc etc.

YeosuTK is a C4IR system.

Outside the segment of the T-90AM's design pertaining to the new sensor suit and data management systems (mostly with the new 360 degrees commander panoramic sight and the new integrated BMS) ,the segment ,in my opinion, by far more interesting in this project are the several design solutions and measures implemented aimed at greatly increase "hard" performances , in particular in the area of MBT's overall survivability ,included attacks coming from vectors outside the classical frontal ,and,obviously mobility and fire power .

Specifically i find very interesting the very extensive integration of 4S23 "Relikt" ERA tiles, with its very outstanding capabilities and enormous resistance to multi-charge warheads,over the whole structure and in particular the perfect blending with the top turret's surface (very important for geometry of the defeating mechanism of 4S23 against Chemical/Kintetic pentrators) .




Moreover Shtora-2 has been finally integrated and very likely it will integrate some solutions ,in particular against overead anti-tanks ammunition with IR seekers and explosive shaped penetrators, designed some years ago by NII Stali for its KSSZ integrated masking system.

http://www.niistali.ru/security/2010-07-05-08-58-15

On the side of the new offensive capabilities offered ,included ,as well said by GarryB, a possible future integration of missile with third party target designation or missile guidance, i am very curious to see in what way the new autoloader allowing APFSDS with longer penetrators and the 2A82 main gun will be capitalized.

Keeping in mind they plan to introduce the Hermes missile system with a range of between 20km and 100km, they are going to need platforms and systems to detect and identify and track targets at these ranges.
Now 20km seems like a lot, but the vehicles carrying Hermes will not operate right on the front line so they will likely be engaging targets 5-10km in front of armoured units... now this means that the tank units themselves could take advantage of the recon platforms finding and perhaps marking targets for the Hermes vehicles to also find and mark targets for tank fired missiles.

Some Hermes rounds will be laser homing, so laser homing tank fired guns make sense, along with laser homing artillery shells like the Kitolov and Krasnopol.
Hermes of course will also likely have Glonass guided models and also IIR guided models and also MMW radar guided models... for tanks and armoured vehicles MMW radar and IIR models would be useful, whereas large bunkers might not have a distinctive enough radar or IR signature for a lock so a Glonass coordinate could be used, or a UAV could lase the target for laser homing missile attacks.
The laser homing would be the cheapest option in fair weather against stationary and moving targets, while MMW radar, IIR, are much more expensive but offer all weather day night capability against fixed and moving targets, while Glonass guided is also cheap but mainly of use against fixed targets but is all weather day night capable.

Will be interesting to see how they have improved Shtora and Arena to deal with modern threats of top attack weapons... I rather suspect Shtora has lost the HEAT lamps and might have gone to lasers to defeat wire guided, IIR guided, and laser homing missiles.

To combat laser beam riding missiles would be much harder but their main rivals don't make such weapons in large numbers.

This new and closer picture of T-90M shows the rear bustle and it looks quite big now , perhaps big enough to have a autoloader ?

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img545/923/25d025a29025d0259c25d02.jpg

Austin wrote:This new and closer picture of T-90M shows the rear bustle and it looks quite big now , perhaps big enough to have a autoloader ?

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img545/923/25d025a29025d0259c25d02.jpg

Seeing this splendid pic show full extend of GarryB logic. There is no way gunner or commander will get inside or have that 2m long arms to reach for ammo?

Garry regarding a the rear turret bustle and loading of ammo from it here is what Khathi mentioned link

It does — or else it would kind of defeat the whole decision to move ammo from the hull into the bustle. From what I've heard, the semi-ready storage box has a sliding armored door into the turret much like the M1 does. But unlike the M1 the crew don't need to load the gun all the way, they only need to transfer these rounds into the autoloader carousel, which has its loading port basically right under the ammo box door. And, as the ammo box in in the bustle and thus rotates together with the turret, they don't have the Leo's problem of needing to rotate the turret into the loading position — in Leo, IIRC, the ammo box is in the hull and is thus accessible only in the certain turret positions.

From an Indian Blog , I think he is factually wrong on many counts but for the record


T-90AM: The Latest Avatar Of The T-90 MBT

Garry regarding a the rear turret bustle and loading of ammo from it here is what Khathi mentioned link

The concrete difference with the M1 however is that in the M1 there is a large space behind the gun breach, the commander and the gunner, where the loader stands and they have space to turn and face the back of the turret and reach into the bustle and grab one piece rounds and haul them out and turn and push them directly into the breach of the gun ready to fire.

In the T-90 there is a gunner and a commander sitting either side of the main gun... reaching into the rear of the turret bustle will not be as easy for them... just as it wouldn't be very easy for the gunner in an M1 to stand up and from his position in the front of the turret reach back and grab rounds in the turret bustle.

More importantly with two piece ammo that is two actions for each complete round to transfer from bustle to underfloor loader.

Also, noteworthy is the placement of the autoloader in a armoured housing.

The underfloor autoloader in the T-72/T-90 was always armoured and separated from the crew compartment. The problem with exploding T-72s centred around loose ammo stored in the crew compartment being ignited by penetrations of the armour.

The T-64/T-80 was actually worse because the propellent stubs were vertical and exposed so any penetration would shower the inside of the tank with white hot metal fragments that gravity would send down to the propellent charges on the floor of the turret guaranteeing an explosion.

The Sheridan has the same problems because it also uses semi combustible shells that are also extreme fire risks.

I just think that with a little extra effort they could have two autoloaders and an equally safe arrangement of ammo, but without the hassle of having to find a quiet spot in a battle to transfer ammo... especially as you have to transfer it into an underfloor autoloader that will limit the max length of any projectile stored there. A bustle rammer could have projectile and propellent stub stored in line together and be loaded in one movement straight into the gun barrel and considering the bustle is always aligned with the gun and the elevation of the gun will be at best -10 degrees and +20 degrees there is little problem with having to set the gun at a good elevation to load it... 30 degrees of angle should be easy to deal with.

Cyberspec wrote:I think putting 2 autoloaders isn't realistic or economical....the mentioned solution sounds fairly sound to me.

On the armoured housing for the autoloader, I gather that it's been moved further back and is more comprehensively protected.

Agreed if that is indeed the deal then its a good one fairly sound approach without radically changing any thing

I think putting 2 autoloaders isn't realistic or economical....the mentioned solution sounds fairly sound to me.

Why is a turret bustle autoloader unrealistic?

The Burlak upgrade was supposed to include one. The Black Eagle didn't have the underfloor autoloader so the only autoloader fitted was the rear turret bustle autoloader.

A turret bustle autoloader is actually much simpler and should be much cheaper than an underfloor autoloader.

The solution seems to be half finished to me... the internal arrangement of the crew is not designed for a human loader, so why make the gunner into a loader as well when the simple inclusion of a few extra items could make it all automatic?

On the armoured housing for the autoloader, I gather that it's been moved further back and is more comprehensively protected.

Actually you raise another problem... I have talked about the problem of the gunner and commander sitting either side of the gun, which would make reaching back into the turret bustle are real pain for either of them. The fact that the autoloader sits behind the gun makes reaching into the turret bustle even harder.

If it is moved further back this is likely to allow for longer penetrator rods to be loaded.
They could certainly have increased armour protection for the armoured carousel, but that was not hugely necessary as the problem was always the ammo stubs in the crew compartment.
Apart from small metal stubs they are made of propellent impregnated cardboard and are designed to completely combust in the chamber of the gun as the round is fired. This makes them extreme fire risks inside the crew compartment and any spark or ember coming into contact will flare up and ignite.

I remember reading regarding Armata two autoloaders so why not in T-90AM.

Here we go ...

Because it would require a totally new turret and a major re-design....not to mention the increase in cost.

The T-90AMs turret is already redesigned to increase internal volume in addition to the rear turret bustle.
The roof hatches are larger too, and there is more space inside the turret for electronics and displays, with even more electronics in the turret bustle.

The Armata will reportedly have a auto-loader based on the one developed for the "Black Eagle"

So you are saying the move now to a turret bustle autoloader in addition to the existing underfloor system is a waste of time and money, but the next gen tank will... have a turret bustle autoloader????

If they want a turret bustle autoloader in the Armata then wouldn't it make sense to also have a small one in the T-90AM?
It was developed and patented for the Black Eagle design but the people who got the patents now work for UVZ and surely installing a mini autoloader in the T-90AM will give them experience with it and a chance to iron out the bugs before Armata is ready... and as I have said before having all 40 rounds ready to use has to be an advantage in combat... especially in regional conflicts against older model T series tanks that only have 22 rounds ready to fire.

I am sorry, I am being unfair... first of all we don't know for sure whether there is a turret bustle autoloader or just an ammo storage area, and second the people who made it are likely privvy to more info than we are and are in a better position to decide whether to accomodate a second autoloader or not.

Not your job to explain what they might or might not have done.

Thanks for the photos Viktor... it seems to have a very broad front that tends to conceal the bustle from the frontal angles... that is good protection in itself.

Of course those claiming that a bustle is too vulnerable a place to store ammo, I would say that if it wasn't there and the enemy got into a position to hit the bustle that wasn't there that instead of hitting ammo they would be hitting the rear of the turret which would be far more catastrophic for the turret crew than losing some ammo.

Just looking at the photo of the turret bustle it appears to have loading hatches, and those hatches seem to go right to the rear of the turret bustle... now remember these are two piece rounds so there must be something in the bustle that will push the rounds towards the turret so the gunner can reach them.

Whether that is a full auto loader, or just an automated ammo rack that positions rounds where the gunner can reach them is the question at hand I guess.

I don't think the turret has been re-designed. It keeps the basic shape as on the T-90A.

The commander had a very small angled hatch in the T-90A, now he has his own cuppola with prism optics most of the way around as far as I can tell from the available photos... look at this:



You can see the commanders cuppola at the front and then behind it is the combination of the remote MG and the 360 degree panoramic sight taking up about as much space as the commanders cuppola.

If you tried to fit those on the T-90A they wouldn't fit and the commanders panoramic sight and MG is not in the turret bustle... it is in the turret.

They didn't extend the turret for fun in the Burlak upgrade... it was to fit in all the extra electronics for the battle management system and the communications equipment it needs, the original turret didn't allow room for all the extra communications and other electronic equipment.

They could've gone with the 'Burlak' turret if they wanted a more substantial change - including a bustle autoloader

The Burlak upgrade originally started as a T-80 upgrade.
They could certainly do a lot worse than base it on the Burlak upgrade.

Yes...but it won't have a floor autoloader.

The people I talk to say the new Armata will have a similar system to the T-95 and the T-95 stored all its ammo in an underfloor autoloader, not a turret bustle autoloader.
The logic is simple... as long as it is separate from the crew it is good, and very simply the underfloor and turret bustle options have their own merits, but they went with the underfloor option because it protects the ammo better in a place unlikely to be penetrated in combat. A turret bustle on the other hand can be targeted by light weapons not able to penetrate the heavier hull armour.

The Armata is designed from the start to have a bustle autoloader according to most reports. So, we'll have to be patient and see what happens.

I agree we will have to wait.

You're putting words in my mouth Cool

I'm passing on info from people who I believe are better informed than myself on this subject.

If you have better info then please share. I'd be happy to know more.

Sorry, I am having discussions about this in several places at once and I sometimes have trouble remembering who said what and when.

What I do know is that sometimes I can sound like I know things when I am just trying to make logical assumptions based on the information I have at hand. I also have sources and some of them are contradictory and I will admit I do sometimes I let optimism lead me a little.

I mean in this case the main reason I am hoping they have a turret bustle autoloader is to allow for longer penetrators... if rounds are just stored loose in the turret bustle to be loaded into the underfloor autoloader in a so called quiet place on the battlefield, then the drawback is that the rounds stored in the turret bustle need to be able to fit in the under floor autoloader... which means they are limited in length still... they could just as easily have put armoured ammo boxes either side of the driver with armoured bulkheads separating the crew from the ammo.
The question would be if the ammo is just stored loose in the turret bustle why only carry 18 rounds when they could put 22 rounds and have a more logical full reload of the autoloader... why is the bustle limited to 18 rounds?

The latest and production variant of the T-90MS/AM as seen at REA 2011, Nizhniy Tagil.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/68290.html

There is talk of upgrading existing T-90A to that standard, and the T-90AM was developed in conjuction with the Burlak program, which envisioned modernizing T-72 and T-80 tanks by replacing the turret.

September 8, 2011

During the exhibition, it is scheduled to hold talks with delegations from several countries to export the upgraded T-90

The Prime Minister together with Vladimir Putin will attend the exhibition along with the Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov and several dozen leaders of the russian defense industry. This will ensures that the exhibition will hold fruitful talks on major new orders of military equipment to foreign countries.
"Because of the growing tension in the Middle East and the aggressive actions of the U.S. and NATO this year, foreign countries are showing a huge interest in the modernized T-90S tanks, which will be presented here. Arab countries are arming themselves in anticipation of the troubled times. We plan to negotiate with representatives of 11 countries on the supply of the new T-90S", said a source in the Ural military-industrial complex.
60 foreign delegations will participate in the exhibition. Among the negotiators are the the military representatives of India, UAE, Qatar, Algeria, Iran

http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/mainnews/2011/0908/10119521/detail.shtml
http://www.ura.ru/content/svrd/05-09-2011/articles/1036256987.html

Can some one tell me why does the Commander TI sight which is French Catherine shows just normal optics and the gunner sight shows a blue colour optics.

Both sights can move side to side and up and down, so I rather suspect the gunners sight is currently angled at the perfect angle to reflect some light source that appears blue like the sky.

Remember Thermal Imagers don't work through glass so the optics in these two sights will be some exotic crystal that lets in thermal light and visible light and will likely also have several coatings to improve light transmission.

Some of those coating reflect blue light specifically to improve visibility on bright sunny days... just like professional photographers will use all sorts of coloured filters to get a good clear shot in different lighting conditions.

I suspect the commanders sight is directed at an angle where there is little or no reflected light which is why it appears dark.

Is it true the the Commander TI sight in Tp-90A/S cannot move 360 * ? Is that a big disadvantage ?

Its position means that even if it could turn 360 degrees the commander wouldn't have a complete view because of things on the turret blocking his view.

Obviously it is not ideal, but also not the end of the world either, tanks don't operate alone and when operating in a formation each tank will scan a sector looking for threats and targets.

Panoramic 360 degree sights have been around for a while and tank commanders still seem to prefer to stick their heads out of their hatches.

If you look at the T-90AM design not only is the panoramic sight mounted in a position to give a good 360 degree view the commander now also has a cuppola with prism sights that offer a full field of vision as well.

We plan to negotiate with representatives of 11 countries on the supply of the new T-90S", said a source in the Ural military-industrial complex.

Maybe a lack of orders from the Russian Army will be a good thing... UVZ will not make much of a profit from a Russian Army order, but an export order will earn them much more and result in an expansion of production and work for skilled workers and companies that make components etc etc.

Still I would like to see T-90AMs and Armatas as the bulk of the Russian tank fleet in 2020.

I would also like to see a return to the old practise of new innovations being adopted during overhauls so we get to carefully examine photos of tanks from parades and exercises to spot new in service equipment... like the good old days.

Actually I immediately assumed the roof hatches in the bustle are for loading ammo... based mainly on their shape.

The configuration that is visible has two long relatively narrow hatches.

Without looking back at the image I thought they looked close together but now that I go back and zoom in I can see each hatch is at the outer edge of the actual turret bustle as shown in this picture I have enlarged and highlighted... the hatches in question in red and the outline of the actual turret bustle in light green to show the actual bustle rather than boxes and rails attached to it.

Obviously the hatches are an ideal shape for loading ammo from outside the vehicle, but if there is, as there has been reported electronics inside the turret bustle they might also be access panels for maintainence and upgrades for the electronics... so it really doesn't prove anything.




I should however point out that such panels... whether they are access panels or reloading panels in an internal explosion would work as blow out panels... all they have to do is "fail" before other openings fail and any blast from inside will be directed primarily out through them rather than into the crew compartment.

Note just in terms of storage it would make sense to store the electronics closer to the turret and the ammo closer to the rear of the turret bustle as it would make the electronics easier to access from inside the vehicle.

In terms of ammo access, even if they don't have an autoloader as such they will likely have an automated ammo rack that rotates to allow perhaps two loading positions at the rear of the turret for perhaps two rows of 9 projectiles and propellent stubs. To move the ammo from the rear of the turret bustle to where the gunner can reach the projectile and the ammo stub to load it into the underfloor autoloader would require a very simple straight line rammer to move the ammo forwards into the reach of the gunner. The ammo "chain" storage system would then rotate and the next round will be pushed forward for the gunner to load it into the underfloor magazine.

WoW Nice , Any picture of the specs board of T-90AM ?

via mp.net