T-90 Main Battle Tank

TR1 wrote:What exactly is the third plane of stabilization?

GarryB wrote:This is a good question.

Another good question is what if armata MBTs are 12 million each, the old plans with T-95s allowed for a small number of T-95s (1.5K-2K) and the rest of the tank fleet being T-90s.

If armata turns out to be very expensive then plans could be dusted off with T-90AM2 being produced with upgraded T-72 based other vehicles in the armata lite heavy brigade.

I rather suspect much of the future Russian Army will be light and medium wheeled armoured brigades which should reduce purchasing and operational costs, while tracked medium and tracked heavy brigades will be much fewer in number they will offer a powerful armoured punch and yet still be relatively mobile.

The enormous streamlining of vehicle types and components and engines and electronics and sensors and weapons should result in a more efficient military force but it might not be 2025 till it is fully equipped... or later.

GarryB wrote:
If the T-99 ends up costing 12 million per unit, the M1A3 better come with on board taxpayer arm and leg storage.

GarryB wrote:The concept of standard vehicle bases for each weight class of brigade really only works if these chassis are fully unified.

In other words within a brigade all the vehicles need to be using the same chassis.

All the wheeled SAMs we have seen would not operate within an armoured  tank or motor rifle brigade because none of them currently use Boomerang, Kurganets, or armata chassis.

The ones we have seen might operate with air force units where wheeled TOR might travel and protect an S-400 battery, but the wheeled TOR system operating with a light Boomerang-10 brigade will be based on a Boomerang-10 chassis.

That is the point of using unified standardised platforms.

Over some types of terrain there is no sensible alternative to tracks. As the South African Army found on some terrain the thorns of some african bushes will shred the rubber of the toughest tyre. Rocky steppe is not somewhere that you would want to venture with tyres either, let alone peat bogs and marshes.

Other areas however wheeled vehicles are an enormous advantage in terms of top speed and purchase price, maintainence costs, and running costs.

Zivo wrote:

GarryB wrote:This is a good question.

Another good question is what if armata MBTs are 12 million each, the old plans with T-95s allowed for a small number of T-95s (1.5K-2K) and the rest of the tank fleet being T-90s.

If armata turns out to be very expensive then plans could be dusted off with T-90AM2 being produced with upgraded T-72 based other vehicles in the armata lite heavy brigade.

I rather suspect much of the future Russian Army will be light and medium wheeled armoured brigades which should reduce purchasing and operational costs, while tracked medium and tracked heavy brigades will be much fewer in number they will offer a powerful armoured punch and yet still be relatively mobile.

The enormous streamlining of vehicle types and components and engines and electronics and sensors and weapons should result in a more efficient military force but it might not be 2025 till it is fully equipped... or later.

Well, if the new AD units are anything to go by, wheeled chassis are becoming more popular than tracked. I suspect Boomerang is going to be very numerous, with the most variants of all the new combat platforms. The Soviet's made heavy use of tracked chassis due to the need to cross vast swaths of nuclear wasteland, a requirement which is no longer needed.

If the T-99 ends up costing 12 million per unit, the M1A3 better come with on board taxpayer arm and leg storage.

The problem there is that the more they spend on new vehicles now the less funds they will have for the new vehicles in 5-7 years time. It seems to me that they will likely get by for the next 5-7 years on upgrades rather than brand new vehicles except in areas like logistics (ie trucks and support vehicles) that wont be effected by the new generation vehicle platforms.

T-90AM build now will give its best years in those 10-15 years out, so Armata will actually come out to replace T-90AM build now, but old T-72 and T-80 need replacement now, not in 10 years.

TR1 wrote:http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=588&p=15

Something interesting on this page- Gur Khan tells how M256 and L7, among other weapons, were tested against Russian tanks n the mid 90s.

No specifics on the ammunition used ofcourse, but nonetheless....

.....is there a difference between domestic T-90S and exported T-90S?