T-90 Main Battle Tank

Russia will roll out a modernized version of its T-90 tank at the Defexpo India 2012 show that will open later this month, an informed source close to the Russian defense sector said on Tuesday.

The tank features a new fire control and protection system, an improved suspension and drive train and advanced combat capabilities.

India already has several hundred T-90s in its army and builds the tank under license.

The international Defexpo India 2012 exhibition will take place from March 29 through April 1 in New Delhi.

Arms manufacturers from 17 countries are expected to present their goods.

http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20120313/172132043.html

New protection system?

I wonder if they are ready to reveal ARENA-2?

This is very interesting... can you make it Austin?

I am looking forward to lots of pics...

A new navigation system has been developed for Russian armored vehicles, including T-72 and T-90 tanks, the manufacturer said in a press release on Friday.

Developed by Science and Production Association NPO Progress, the GALS-D2M system is said to be superior to all existing Russian as well as U.S. analogs.

It can operate via the Glonass or GPS satellite navigations system.

The GALS-D2M has a “competitive price,” the press release said without providing any details.



http://www.en.ria.ru/russia/20120330/172485791.html

Interesting.

They are developing avionics suites for their armoured vehicle families (note avionics just means electronics for aircraft, but I think it relates to tanks here too as before they were custom fitted to each vehicle type, whereas this seems to be a standard suite for a range of vehicle chassis types, so there will be a tank suite for Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Boomerang-10 and there will be an IFV suite of electronics too for each vehicle family type and an artillery suite and an air defence suite and presumably a command suite.

Good pic- T-90A and T-90AM side by side.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6209/81237179.aa/0_71e51_40e43a6b_XXXL.jpg

TR1 wrote:Good pic- T-90A and T-90AM side by side.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6209/81237179.aa/0_71e51_40e43a6b_XXXL.jpg

The protruding APU of the T-90MS looks out of place in the otherwise overall good silhouette. Is it not possible to install the APU in the hull itself? The Ukrainian upgrade of the T-72 have their APU EA-10 (10kW) installed in the hull itself so why not a same solution for the T-90?

Would you mind highlighting on the photo what you are talking about?



I was under the impression that the new APU is mounted on the left rear (to the left in the photo above) of the hull.

Garry,

In the above picture TR1 posted we can see the difference in T-90 and T-90MS hull. The APU looks like an "extra" attached to the rear part of the hull and it is protruding outside. That is what I'm talking about.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6209/81237179.aa/0_71e51_40e43a6b_XXXL.jpg

Consider the Ukrainian upgrade for T-72B. Below we can see the APU (hope so?) installed at the rear left side on the hull itself. Whatever, there is no "extra" attachment visible on the hull in that upgrade like we see on the Russian upgrades for T-72 and T-90MS. Ukrainians have neatly done the job without spoiling the beautiful outlines of the original hull.



But they have also re-routed the engine exhaust which is on the right side.

Russian tanks have a distinct beauty to its profile and T-90 with welded turret is the most beautiful of the lot. I personally dislike APU protruding on the left side which destroys the symmetry.



The APU for T-72/90/MS is 16kW where as the Ukrainian one is 10kW. I don't know how the size of the Russian and Ukrainian APU compares. But from the installation it gives an idea why the Russian APU is "out standing" from the hull. They have installed it on the same side as the engine exhaust.



Little strange that Ukrainians have done a better job than the Russian's in APU installation. Wasn't there any other option for them?

APUs generate an IR signature so it makes sense to mount them next to the existing engine exhaust and your anti IR measures can be used to suppress both at the same time.

By mounting it where they have I rather suspect they are using the main engine exhaust for the APU exhaust though when the APU is running the volume of gas coming out the exhaust will be greatly reduced.

I rather suspect the Russian APU is of higher capacity to cope with all the extra electronics on board, rather than any engineering superiority.

To be honest when I first saw it I thought it was a battlefield telephone system to allow troops outside the vehicle communicate directly to the commander.

The value of having an APU, no matter how clumsy its installation far outweigh its omission.

An APU means the tank can spend days ready to fight, compared with the hours if it had to keep its main engine running to keep all the heating or cooling and electrics on for a long period.

The APU for the Abrams is an external system that sits on the rear engine deck of the standard model in Iraq.

Garry,

there was a small mistake on my part w.r.t the APU unit and its power rating.

I posted the older and wrong one. In the above picture we are looking at a gas turbine which might require exhaust gas for its operation and it is also of comparatively very high capacity. That gas-turbine APU was probably used on the earlier upgrades of the T-72 and T-90 and not being promoted for new upgrades of T-72/90 and T-90MS.

The APU used on the T-90MS is a diesel unit with a minimum rated power of 7kW. They have not mentioned the max rated power for the unit.

(click for little more larger image)


It is possible the new diesel engine installed as the APU is also from the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. - Diesel engine V2Ch 8,2/7,8
The above 800cc, 2-cylinder compact diesel engine and the description fits with the APU mentioned in the T-90MS brochure...so its highly possible, as I don't have any confirmed info.

Does anyone have good images and details of the Ukrainian APU?

GarryB wrote:APUs generate an IR signature so it makes sense to mount them next to the existing engine exhaust and your anti IR measures can be used to suppress both at the same time.

By mounting it where they have I rather suspect they are using the main engine exhaust for the APU exhaust though when the APU is running the volume of gas coming out the exhaust will be greatly reduced.

I rather suspect the Russian APU is of higher capacity to cope with all the extra electronics on board, rather than any engineering superiority.

To be honest when I first saw it I thought it was a battlefield telephone system to allow troops outside the vehicle communicate directly to the commander.

The value of having an APU, no matter how clumsy its installation far outweigh its omission.

An APU means the tank can spend days ready to fight, compared with the hours if it had to keep its main engine running to keep all the heating or cooling and electrics on for a long period.

The APU for the Abrams is an external system that sits on the rear engine deck of the standard model in Iraq.

your points are very valid, but what could have made the Russians end up with such "butt" for APU?

My understanding on the installation suggests the following

1) They started it with the gas-turbine and the installation ended up in the left side to utilize the exhaust gas.
2) When a new diesel unit was available, they did not look or did not feel the necessity for an alternate arrangement for the unit and installed it in the place already validated and possibly in similar layout.
3) The compact diesel unit is not so much compact for it to fit in the available space completely and a protrusion in vertical plane was inevitable. Hence such a compromise solution. (I find this reason the most likely one)

But how did the Ukrainians manage with a clean instantiation?

your points are very valid, but what could have made the Russians end up with such "butt" for APU?

Just looking at the cross section picture of the Russian APU I rather suspect fitting it where the Ukrainians fitted theirs would not have been an option as it is too tall to fit on the panniers and would have stuck up too far.

The issue is that it needs to be fitted near the main engine exhaust but is too tall to fit on the area above the tracks where traditionally Soviet tanks have had fuel cells and tool compartments.

As far as I can tell the other options would be to having it sticking out sideways or moving the engine exhaust to the rear. They seem to have taken the cheapest and simplest option.

But how did the Ukrainians manage with a clean instantiation?

Gas turbines tend to be smaller than their diesel equivalents.

Apart from Aesthetics there is no serious problem to having the APU fitted where it is fitted on this tank.

An APU is very valuable to have on a tank as it greatly reduces the fuel consumption of a tank brigade... making it much easier to support in the field.

If it is hit and destroyed... well that is not the end of the world either.

Just looking at the engine exhaust on the T-90SM it is pretty clear they have designed it to minimise IR signature.

Diesels of that power (ie main engine power) generate a significant amount of heat, but a 1,500hp plus gas turbine generates a lot more IR. A tiny gas turbine for generating electrical power generates a lot less than either a gas turbine or diesel main engine, but a small diesel would likely produce even less heat signature.

The two main differences would be in compactness and IR signature as the small gas turbine will be smaller than a similarly powered diesel and both could be made to be very efficient at generating power but the gas turbine will generate more heat. I suspect the Russians decided a reduced IR signature was worth the increased size of a diesel generator.

Btw, there is speculation Putin's recent visit may not have just been to re-afirm the T-72 modernization contract (170 tanks) but something new.
Maybe T-90 modernization.

That would be interesting...

T-72 is definitely the cheaper option but in terms of what you are left with is a mixed fleet of Armatas, T-80s, T-90s of various models, and upgraded T-72s.

The reported cost of a T-90AM is about 4 million dollars... I wonder if they can do what they want to do with the BMD-4 and just make a bare bones T-90 without the expensive stuff fitted and then in 2015 or 2016 they can revisit the expensive stuff and start applying it to existing T-90s that have been produced and new production T-90s, and also produce Armata.

I am pretty sure that Armata is not going to be cheaper than 4 million per tank vehicle so when Armata is ready for production they will hopefully end up with a two tier system of Armata and T-90AM after all the older models get worn out and leave service or are sold. A further T-90AM2 upgrade can be formulated to add as many components of the Armata into its design to further simplify logistics and support and production...

TR1 wrote:Btw, there is speculation Putin's recent visit may not have just been to re-afirm the T-72 modernization contract (170 tanks) but something new.
Maybe T-90 modernization.

if that true, its good news. But a modernization with elements of T-90MS, like the new turret etc would be the best one.

GarryB wrote:That would be interesting...

T-72 is definitely the cheaper option but in terms of what you are left with is a mixed fleet of Armatas, T-80s, T-90s of various models, and upgraded T-72s.

it will be cheaper. But their priority should not be to make an upgrade that is dirt cheap and instead should go for most of what MS package offer.

The reported cost of a T-90AM is about 4 million dollars... I wonder if they can do what they want to do with the BMD-4 and just make a bare bones T-90 without the expensive stuff fitted and then in 2015 or 2016 they can revisit the expensive stuff and start applying it to existing T-90s that have been produced and new production T-90s, and also produce Armata.

To make T-90AM more affordable Russia would need to find an export customer. India is a definite customer for the upgrade package. How soon or when is difficult to answer.

Alexey in his blog had mentioned about Iranian plans to have 1000 T-90s. Now that Vladimir Putin is back in power, Russia should reopen that plans and make some good funding out of the deal which can either subsidize T-90AM for the Russian army or make available the profit for R&D.

I am pretty sure that Armata is not going to be cheaper than 4 million per tank vehicle so when Armata is ready for production they will hopefully end up with a two tier system of Armata and T-90AM after all the older models get worn out and leave service or are sold. A further T-90AM2 upgrade can be formulated to add as many components of the Armata into its design to further simplify logistics and support and production...

Don't you think some packages meant for the Armata would already have been integrated into thee T-90AM? somewhat like what Su-35 is to T-50?

GarryB wrote:Just looking at the cross section picture of the Russian APU I rather suspect fitting it where the Ukrainians fitted theirs would not have been an option as it is too tall to fit on the panniers and would have stuck up too far.

yes, that is what I want to see. How the Ukrainians managed it. Are they using a better compact diesel than what UVZ is using or they using a compact gas turbine?

The issue is that it needs to be fitted near the main engine exhaust but is too tall to fit on the area above the tracks where traditionally Soviet tanks have had fuel cells and tool compartments.

As far as I can tell the other options would be to having it sticking out sideways or moving the engine exhaust to the rear. They seem to have taken the cheapest and simplest option.

true. the current installation was probably the best option with the kind of diesel unit they had. But what were the APUs that earlier T-90s used? The T-90SK had APU as standard, rite?

Gas turbines tend to be smaller than their diesel equivalents.

At least from the installation of Ukrainian APU, it doesn't looks like a gas turbine as they have the exhaust outlet on the opposite side. But the compact nature of it does make me think it could be...

can anyone provide some info or picture to the Ukrainian APU?

Just looking at the engine exhaust on the T-90SM it is pretty clear they have designed it to minimise IR signature.

Do you mean the covers?

Diesels of that power (ie main engine power) generate a significant amount of heat, but a 1,500hp plus gas turbine generates a lot more IR. A tiny gas turbine for generating electrical power generates a lot less than either a gas turbine or diesel main engine, but a small diesel would likely produce even less heat signature.

The two main differences would be in compactness and IR signature as the small gas turbine will be smaller than a similarly powered diesel and both could be made to be very efficient at generating power but the gas turbine will generate more heat. I suspect the Russians decided a reduced IR signature was worth the increased size of a diesel generator.

I do understand it and I prefer the diesel unit. But they need to invest more into diesel engines (as a whole in Russia) and make better diesels. The said diesel unit installed as APU looks like a V of 60deg or 90deg. If they can have a V engine with much more angle, it will reduce the overall height and flatten the engine dimension. Compactness of diesel units always helps. If a much better compact unit can be designed, it should be the way forward.

http://chtz-uraltrac.com/catalog/items/33.php
Btw, I'm not sure if this is the same units, but it does have similarity. What about you?

it will be cheaper. But their priority should not be to make an upgrade that is dirt cheap and instead should go for most of what MS package offer.

My thinking is that if they save money and upgrade T-72s then when Armata is ready they will have to either build extra Armatas to replace the upgraded T-72s which will be very expensive or if they want a mixed fleet they will need to build T-90s... which will be cheaper than Armatas but still an added cost.

I think the best solution is a bargain basement version of the T-90 which is fitted for, but not with all the expensive stuff on the T-90AM... which is the domestic version of the T-90SM.

That means that they can save a lot of money by buying a lot of T-90s that can later be upgraded to a full T-90AM standard later on, rather than a cheap T-72 upgrade that will result in tanks that will be scrapped or sold and replaced by T-90s or Armatas.

With modular design they can install cheap night vision and communications and net centric stuff so they can train for night combat and operating as a real team connected to air and sea power... ie plugged into the network.

About 2015-2016 when Armata starts production and the new avionics suite is perfected they can have their cheaper systems replaced with a large scale production of the newer stuff to get full capability without having to get rid of any upgraded tanks.

In many ways it is like the VDV choice of going for BMD-4Ms instead of upgraded BMD-2s that would be replaced by a new vehicle. When the new vehicle doesn't exist (as in the case of the VDV) or the new vehicle wont be produced in numbers to replace the entire fleet (like Armata) then it makes sense for the gap filling vehicle to be upgradable to the level where it can serve beside the Armata in lower priority areas/units.

It saves money and means more vehicles can be produced for the same money.

Alexey in his blog had mentioned about Iranian plans to have 1000 T-90s. Now that Vladimir Putin is back in power, Russia should reopen that plans and make some good funding out of the deal which can either subsidize T-90AM for the Russian army or make available the profit for R&D.

I totally agree... if the Iranians and indeed the Indians are interested, then selling them to both is well worth it... lots of money has been spent keeping production capacity at UVZ... it would be nice to see that money as being well spent...

Don't you think some packages meant for the Armata would already have been integrated into thee T-90AM? somewhat like what Su-35 is to T-50?

In terms of sensors and systems they can be very similar, but we know the Armata has its own family of new powerpacks, and that means new transmissions and gearings etc. Also the Armata "tank" will have all three crew in the front hull with an external mounted gun in an unmanned turret which means it will need systems to give good situational awareness for the commander that the T-90 simply doesn't need.

They have said they are developing weapon and sensor electronic and hardware suites like avionics on an aircraft and these can be applied to the T-90 chassis in the same way it will be applied to the Armata and Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25/-10 vehicle families.

I rather suspect there will be a range or sensors and instead of having a thermal scope and a digital video scope and IRST sensor display and MMW radar sensor display that all the information will be processed and improved and displayed on a screen to show the relevant info. For instance in a sunny clear day in the distance there might be several camouflaged soldiers... looking through the thermal sight they might stand out clearly and looking through the day time scope you might get an excellent view of everything else, but with sensor fusion a computer will compare the image from the Thermal imager and the daytime digital sight and combine them so the enemy infantry have a thermal glow so they stand out despite their camouflage and the rest of the image is the clear bright image from the day time scope...

yes, that is what I want to see. How the Ukrainians managed it. Are they using a better compact diesel than what UVZ is using or they using a compact gas turbine?

It could be either... they might have a redesigned diesel that is flatter and longer, or a gas turbine that is smaller and fits too.

But what were the APUs that earlier T-90s used? The T-90SK had APU as standard, rite?

Generally Russian and Soviet command tanks had APUs to power the extra radio equipment they carried.

Do you mean the covers?

I do understand it and I prefer the diesel unit. But they need to invest more into diesel engines (as a whole in Russia) and make better diesels. The said diesel unit installed as APU looks like a V of 60deg or 90deg. If they can have a V engine with much more angle, it will reduce the overall height and flatten the engine dimension. Compactness of diesel units always helps. If a much better compact unit can be designed, it should be the way forward.

The problem there is that if you flatten it you might make it too wide. In its present configuration it does not stick out sideways and would not be a particularly vulnerable target.

I suspect the benefit of having a redesigned APU would not outweigh the cost of modifying it.

http://twower.livejournal.com/797603.html#comments

So, the recent Putin comments were indeed about a new contract with UMZ.
The old contract is for 170 tanks (T-72BA), for about 35 million rubles per vehicle.
The new contract is for another 360 T-72 modernizations, this time for almost 53 million rubles per vehicle. Changes in this modernization are unknown, from the 2011 example.
Contract is supposed to be fulfilled by 2015.


Good news all in all I suppose, better than nothing in light of no new T-90s.
Let's just hope the inane ERA configuration does not make a return, and the tanks are adequaetly protected. Engine would be nice as well.

My main problem with going cheap (I can understand not spending too much on what is a temporary solution) is that all the new an expensive stuff normally gets cheaper when you buy it in volume and put it into service and use it and find problems and resolve them.

Even an incomplete or not totally effective solution is better than nothing at all... meaning even just introducing ARENA will be useful because a primary anti armour weapon on the modern battlefield is the RPG and ARENA is effective against that. Even just the feature of manually operating the ARENA munitions to deal with enemy infantry up close is useful.

The point is that spending the money and putting it into service will lead to the company that makes it getting money and experience and feedback from the operational use of the original system might lead to changes in critical choices being made for a more comprehensive upgrade or generational replacement.

no one protection system will protect a tank from everything, but having different protection systems hard and soft, active and passive, high tech and low tech, and integrating them so they overlap rather than act independently makes for a better protected vehicle.

For training a T-72 upgraded might offer everything needed to train and exercise the troops into a fine edge, but actually going to war I would prefer T-90AMs. By 2015-2016 when the Armata is ready and its systems have been adapted for T-72/-90 vehicles and the full T-90 upgrade is ready... lets call it T-90AM2 then it would make sense to put both in production to maximise bang for buck... not all threatres warrant Armata class vehicles and later on when Armata has fully replaced all other tank types in service and in storage the remaining T-90s can be sold or donated to an ally... or passed on to Naval forces or MVD units etc.

Hopefully the extra cost is Shtora 2 or Arena 2 or both or replacements for one or the other or both.

Like I have said... I can't see the Armata costing less than T-90AM and so therefore I can't see them going for an all Armata fleet. The plan when Armata was T-95 was for the T-95 to be the core high tech hard hitting tank and the T-90 to be the backbone numbers tank.
I suspect that they will follow a similar path with a focus now on getting Armata into production and introducing the upgraded T-72s so they can have tanks with night and all weather capability and the communications and datalink capability to practise modern tactics of cooperation between other Russian assets like Army Aviation and their new recon assets, and then when the Armata is ready the cost of the T-90AM will have dropped because the technologies are less exotic and more mature and of course large orders should help reduce costs as well.

Remember for an Armata equipped brigade all the vehicles are new production Armata vehicles, while for a T-90AM heavy brigade the tanks can be T-90AMs while the other platforms can use upgraded T-72 Chassis with T-90 components to reduce purchase costs and get the brigades into service faster.

GarryB wrote:My thinking is that if they save money and upgrade T-72s then when Armata is ready they will have to either build extra Armatas to replace the upgraded T-72s which will be very expensive or if they want a mixed fleet they will need to build T-90s... which will be cheaper than Armatas but still an added cost.

They better not upgrade any T-72 and instead invest that money on T-90 upgrade and T-90AM.

I think the best solution is a bargain basement version of the T-90 which is fitted for, but not with all the expensive stuff on the T-90AM... which is the domestic version of the T-90SM.

I think the expensive part will basically be the electronics stuffs. My view is to have all the good parts of T-90SM/AM upgrade.

For instance the turret, the new turret have so many good features over the older one and I'd prefer to see it as a common part for any upgrade for the T-90. It also gives better protection level with that ammo storage.

That means that they can save a lot of money by buying a lot of T-90s that can later be upgraded to a full T-90AM standard later on, rather than a cheap T-72 upgrade that will result in tanks that will be scrapped or sold and replaced by T-90s or Armatas.

That is a genuine concern and in that case they should not upgrade it for the army. Instead they should find an export customer to whom these tanks can be sold with upgrade packages. It would atleast fetch some funds.

In terms of sensors and systems they can be very similar, but we know the Armata has its own family of new powerpacks, and that means new transmissions and gearings etc. Also the Armata "tank" will have all three crew in the front hull with an external mounted gun in an unmanned turret which means it will need systems to give good situational awareness for the commander that the T-90 simply doesn't need.

yes, i meant the electronics part
And I'd be looking forward to see the APU that the are intending for the Armata and where and how they will be installing it. I'd prefer it inside the hull protected by the main armour, at-least from the side. It not that MS installation is very bad. It does its duty (which was the priority), but it highlights itself as an after-thought and not being an integral part of the initial design process and spoils the aesthetics also.

I rather suspect there will be a range or sensors and instead of having a thermal scope and a digital video scope and IRST sensor display and MMW radar sensor display that all the information will be processed and improved and displayed on a screen to show the relevant info. For instance in a sunny clear day in the distance there might be several camouflaged soldiers... looking through the thermal sight they might stand out clearly and looking through the day time scope you might get an excellent view of everything else, but with sensor fusion a computer will compare the image from the Thermal imager and the daytime digital sight and combine them so the enemy infantry have a thermal glow so they stand out despite their camouflage and the rest of the image is the clear bright image from the day time scope...

but the issue is cost....how much will all these make the unit cost.If they cant buy enough Armata due to its cost it would be bad.

It could be either... they might have a redesigned diesel that is flatter and longer, or a gas turbine that is smaller and fits too.

can anyone help me with a dia or pic of the Ukrainian stuff?

https://i.servimg.com/u/f41/15/11/39/27/t-90ms11.jpg

It is not new, it was present on the T-90 earlier.







Turkmenistan T-90


Russian T-90 (UVZ)
https://i.servimg.com/u/f49/17/49/86/87/t-90a_10.jpg

From what I interpret, the first batches of T-90S that arrived from Russia only have these suppressors where as those manufactured in India and the later one batches employ (what looks like) a simple attachment to just divert the engine exhaust downwards.

Early units of T-90S during R-D parade. Year I'm not sure, maybe 2001 or 2002.
https://i.servimg.com/u/f49/17/49/86/87/043010.jpg

T-90S displayed during 2011 R-D parade have different attachment. But interesting things is in most of the exercises Indian T-90S does not even use this simple attachment.
https://i.servimg.com/u/f49/17/49/86/87/20110310.jpg
https://i.servimg.com/u/f49/17/49/86/87/20110313.jpg

The problem there is that if you flatten it you might make it too wide. In its present configuration it does not stick out sideways and would not be a particularly vulnerable target.

I suspect the benefit of having a redesigned APU would not outweigh the cost of modifying it.

I did not mean flattening it as such. But i was saying that by increasing the angle of V and the a layout similar to that MTU employ, the height will automatically get flatten.

They better not upgrade any T-72 and instead invest that money on T-90 upgrade and T-90AM.

Well the post above that says the orders for the upgraded T-72s are 54,000 rubles puts things in perspective... new BMD-3s cost 60,000 rubles each...

but the issue is cost....how much will all these make the unit cost.If they cant buy enough Armata due to its cost it would be bad.

But that is the thing... it has already been developed for the T-95 which has been cancelled.

It is like having all this technology developed for the Commanche... you don't just put it in a warehouse in a big wooden box and forget it... you apply the technology to the Apache and to your scout helos that can benefit from the capabilities it makes possible.

Remember the so called avionics suites developed for Armata are also going to be used on Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25/ and -10. The tank on the Armata chassis will have the same electronics and sensors and weapons as the tank on the Kurganets-25 chassis and the tank on the Boomerang chassis's.

Fitting it to a T-90AM2 as an upgrade shouldn't be a problem... it is just hardware and software.

It is not new, it was present on the T-90 earlier.

I realise it is not new, but there is a clear focus of IR suppression with cold air blown through the layers to reduce the IR signature and cool the exhaust at the same time.

The extra surface area probably improves the smoke screen generation capability too.

I did not mean flattening it as such. But i was saying that by increasing the angle of V and the a layout similar to that MTU employ, the height will automatically get flatten.

If you make the V wider and dont make the engine wider then you have to shorten the stroke which will reduce volume and power in the cylinders.

I would expect the new vehicles (Armata, Kurganets-25, and the Boomerangs) will have an APU built in from the start to power all the sensors and computers and other electronics.

Have they done anything to upgrade turret traverse time?Oplot beats T-90 easily,Weight of shot and gun layer efficiency counts.Even the Ukrainian upgraded T-55 has a faster traverse rate than those posted for T-90-s.

Pugnax wrote:Have they done anything to upgrade turret traverse time?Oplot beats T-90 easily,Weight of shot and gun layer efficiency counts.Even the Ukrainian upgraded T-55 has a faster traverse rate than those posted for T-90-s.

Uh what? Can I get some evidence that T-90A traverse speed is slower than some Ukranian T-55s or Oplot?
On all demonstration it looks fine - and frankly so does say T-72B or T-80.

Btw there is video of T-90MS traversing turret, and it seemed damn fast.

Btw there is video of T-90MS traversing turret, and it seemed damn fast.

X2 ...in fact I posted that video on this forum myself... turret traverse speed is not a problem.