T-90 Main Battle Tank

I read in the land forces brochure of rosoboronexport that the T-90 uses a 2 plane stabilizer.

If thats true the most modern russian tank has a stabilisation at the level of an M60A3 patton at most.

Or did I misread something?

Is it 100% certain that the T-99 will incorporate a 3 plan stabilizer?

What exactly is the third plane of stabilization?

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

What can one say

GALILEO RUSSIA: T-90 Part 1 & 2

So they "split" the search Radar unit into smaller one like in Throphy.

That is like suggesting the US build a space shuttle like Buran...

The Drozd was tested in the 1980s in Afghanistan and was an operational system before the ARENA was developed based on the experience of Drozd, and Drozd uses separate MMW radar boxes as well as separate interceptor rocket launchers.

The main difference between Trophy and Drozd is that Drozd uses fixed rockets that cover an arc around the tank while Trophy has a flexible turret that aims at the incoming threat.

Will Russian army now after changes in MoD start buying T-90AM until Armata is developed? They need new tanks in this time gap.

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.

was there a tot for t90 given to india ..why india is not able to build it on thier own now

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 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.

[quote="Zivo"]

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.

Haha it would be hilarious if the loader mistakenly put an arm or leg in the breech.

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.

True. Don't get me wrong, there's going to be plenty of tracked chassis in service. But between Boomerang, Armata, and Kurganets, Boomerang is going to be the most numerous.

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.

Russian military already have standard vehicles in units. All ground forces AD systems use the same tracked chassis (ZSU-23-4, SAM-6, Buk, Tor, Tunguska). T-72/90 is standard tank and supporting vehicles like bridge layer, BREM, IMR, BMR, etc use the same tank chassis. BTR-80 is standard 8x8 vehicle for different types of vehicles. Kurganets, Armata and Boomerang will not bring new type of standardization, only new generation of standard vehicles.

Don't mix ground forces AD and air force AD. I don't know for new Tor-M2U (no pictures yet), but Buk-M2 is on standard tracked chassis. S-300V4 will also have tracked chassis. On the other hand I agree, that wheeled units using BTR-82A should have AD system placed on same BTR-82, like the turret with two barrel GSh-30 and 4 Igla SAMs.

Standardization is common in armies around the world. What makes Armata, Boomerang, and Kurganets unique is the modular components and a very high percentage of part commonality between the vehicles.

was there a tot for t90 given to india ..why india is not able to build it on thier own now

TOT does not include a licence to produce.

AFAIK the TOT on the T-90 was for the T-90S export vehicle so if they produced a tank based on that it would be an older model, and they seem to be interested in adopting some of the new features of the T-90SM.

Also I am not 100% sure that all the technology of the T-90 was handed over like the main armour internal design etc.

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

Would need a fairly fundamental shift in the US for military gear to suddenly become reasonably priced...

They are happy to cry corruption in Russia but are happy to ignore their own institutionalised corrupt practises...

Haha it would be hilarious if the loader mistakenly put an arm or leg in the breech.

The really amusing thing about that myth is that the likelihood of a body part ending up in the gun breach is practically zero in a Soviet tank with an auto loader because there is no human loader, while in a western tank with manual loader human hands are in close proximity of the breach with every round loaded...

True. Don't get me wrong, there's going to be plenty of tracked chassis in service. But between Boomerang, Armata, and Kurganets, Boomerang is going to be the most numerous.

I tend to agree because they will be cheaper and easier to produce.

Also currently a BMP-2 is better armed and better protected than a BTR-80 which makes it safer and more useful, but Boomerang-25 will have comparable levels of armour and weapons and indeed sensors and electronics which will be largely unified with the kurganets-25. Given a choice the btr offered better speed and mobility in places with good road systems but the BMP had better firepower and armour. Now with similar armour and firepower it really comes down to terrain and cost and ease of maintainence.

In terms of cost Boomerang-25 will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate and even tracked vehicles get bogged down in some terrain... the solution is generally the same for any vehicle... use another vehicle on firmer ground to tow/winch you out.

Kurganets, Armata and Boomerang will not bring new type of standardization, only new generation of standard vehicles.

Actually that is their purpose. Right now they have standard vehicles... for instance the ACRV is a command vehicle that is based on the widely used MT-LB chassis. The tank chassis are also used for self propelled guns in the MSTA vehicles. The problem is that a brigade has an enormous range of different vehicle types with different levels of protection as well as different levels of mobility with a wide range of different engine and running gear types.

In terms of spares and support equipment this means that the logistics train will need to carry parts for dozens of different engine types and vehicle types.

The purpose of the new vehicle families is to base as many of the different types of vehicles within a particular brigade on the same base chassis. This means that every vehicle within a Boomerang-25 brigade should be based on the Boomerang-25 chassis. The logistics tail for such a brigade need only carry parts and support equipment for Boomerang-25 vehicles. Of course in terms of electronics they will need spares and support for the entire range of brigade vehicle types including IFV, MBT, Command, AD, artillery, recon...

Don't mix ground forces AD and air force AD. I don't know for new Tor-M2U (no pictures yet), but Buk-M2 is on standard tracked chassis. S-300V4 will also have tracked chassis. On the other hand I agree, that wheeled units using BTR-82A should have AD system placed on same BTR-82, like the turret with two barrel GSh-30 and 4 Igla SAMs.

BMP-3s, BMP-2s, BMP-1s, BTR-60/70/80/82, BRDMs, ACRVs, T-72x, T-80s, T-90s, MT-LBs, MSTAs, Grads, etc etc will all be kept in units till production of armatas, kurganets, and boomerangs can replace them all.

I rather suspect they will produce enough a's/k's/b's till they have enough for a full brigade and put them into service one brigade at a time. This would make more sense than introducing armata MBTs and then armata IFVs etc etc.

I rather suspect a current brigade would be reequipped into an armata or k or b brigade at a time.

I also suspect the lighter cheaper vehicles would be able to be mass produce faster so I think the light and medium brigades would likely become fully equipped fastest.

They will likely equip the top units first, which will free up T-90s and BMP-3s which likely will either go straight into storage just in case or could be cascaded to lower units so the shift from older model vehicles to new generation equipment is not too great a leap.

I think new situation in Russian MoD bring more questions than answers. In next year orders we will see, what will be a fate of for now canceled systems like T-90AM, BMD-4M and BMPT. For new Armata, Kurganets and Boomerang MoD will have to wait for 5 to 7 years before they go in production and in the mean time they need new vehicles to replace the most obsolete ones.

With some modification, like installing C4I, higher elevation for guns, new FCS, which will folow guns to max. elevation with all channels, new observation commanders sight like on Kazakh ones and replacing old Ataka missiles with new Kornet-M with 10 km range, BMPT will become ideal tank support vehicle to fight against infantry and against helicopters.

I think new situation in Russian MoD bring more questions than answers. In next year orders we will see, what will be a fate of for now canceled systems like T-90AM, BMD-4M and BMPT.

The issue here is that BMPT is a concept rather than a particular vehicle... much like APC or IFV is a concept rather than a specific vehicle.

The other question is that the concept of a BMPT would be redundant in an armata brigade as all the vehicles will have the armour and mobility of a tank, so IFVs in an armata brigade should qualify as a BMPT.

Of course you are aware of what I mean Medo, but for those new to the BMPT concept... very simply an APC is a simple armoured vehicle that transports troops around the battlefield... like a BTR-80 or M113. An IFV is better armoured and much better armed and is intended to deliver direct fire support for the troops it carries into battle.

The purpose of the BMPT is based on the problems in Chechnia where in urban combat the enemy will pick off the IFVs and APCs because of their light armour which leaves the MBTs which have roof mounted 12.7mm HMGs with perhaps 300-400 rounds of ammo. The main gun and coaxial PKT MG is designed for shooting out at targets beyond 500m and are not well suited to engage targets in a built up area.

BMPT does not mean BMP tank, BTR means armoured troop transport, BTRT means heavy armoured troop transport, BMP means infantry combat vehicle (ie vehicle for troops to fight from and be supported by. BMPT means tank support combat vehicle... in other words a BMP supports the troops it carries in combat, a BMPT does not carry troops and supports tanks instead.

The critical point is that in an armata brigade the IFV with the rear troop area removed and perhaps filled with more ammo, means it could fill the role of a BMPT as it would have the armour and mobility of a tank but with the firepower to support tanks in places and situations where a tanks standard weapons are not so effective.

More to the point fitting a 30mm cannon with independent elevation and perhaps extending the elevation range of the main gun to perhaps 50 or 60 degrees plus the odd remote weapon station with a 40mm grenade launcher could make the necessity for a BMPT redundant anyway.

For new Armata, Kurganets and Boomerang MoD will have to wait for 5 to 7 years before they go in production and in the mean time they need new vehicles to replace the most obsolete ones.

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. Equally I think the BMD-4M should be introduced to replace older vehicles so th VDV are always ready with the best available. In 4-5 years time an upgrade with the electronics and weapons of the new generation vehicles could be introduced to the BMD-4Ms as an upgrade and could be used for testing till new generation vehicles are ready in special versions for the VDV.
Regarding the T-90AM I think many of its features could be applied to an upgrade of existing T-72s and in 5-7 years time electronics and weapons and systems from the new generation stuff can be integrated into a T-90AM2 and if the armata is very expensive then the T-90AM2 can be built along side it as a cheaper model that shares a lot of components hopefully getting it into service quicker and increasing production runs of components which should improve commonality which is good for support and logistics and training and will get the new technology into service faster.

Regarding upgrading the BMPT I am afraid I am in love with the model of the armata BMPT with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar, with the 40mm Balkan grenade launcher and 23mm gatling gun. I would probably want the 40mm grenade launcher to also have a PKT GPMG fitted and in an independent RWS mount so while the gunner is engaging targets with his 120mm main gun or 23mm gatling or PKT MG the commander looking for other threats can engage them directly.

The low velocity of the weapons would make this weapon set up optimised for ground targets, so against aerial targets I would go for a 120mm main gun launched guided missile. Long range anti tank capacity would not be required as this vehicle would operate with tanks, but an anti IFV would be useful and a 120mm calibre round should suffice for that role.

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.

I don't agree here. With production starting in 5 to 7 years, it means that any significant number of new equipment will be around in 10 to 15 years. Today T-72 and T-80 are 20+ years old. 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. Upgrading of newer T-72 have sense to have some level of force till some significant number of T-90 is around, but not to wait 20 years.

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.

T-90AM at today don't exist,the only product existing is T-90MS

To obtain a so called T-90AM would be necessary several years, in facts (in spite the impressive capabilities shown by T-90MS in almost any department) Russian MoD has significantly higher requirements for fire power , protection and mobility for its own Forces with the related need to develop,tests and validate an enormous amount of vectronic components, filler materials and ballisitic elements.

From all those factors is easy to realize that the realization of T-90AM would be neither economically or temporally profitable in comparison with the completion of the new generation vehicles ,which would be anyhow vastly superior to the improved T-90A in virtually any cardinal parameter.

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....

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....

Gur Khan has provided a bit too much details this time ,someone will no be happy about that....(even if the instance is very old and no more profitable to obtain any useful technical hint on indian T-90S).


Anyhow the instance is very well known and refered to live fire tests on Indian T-90S welded turrets,conducted from less than 200 m against tanks devoid of any dynamic protection -K5 ERA-.

I think that would have been very useful to bring there ,for the event, some of the most ignorant posters of Bharat-Rakshak ; would have represented a good experimentation's ground on primary reactions under heavy psycological stress invite any of them at pronounce the words : "tin can" .

Nice video on T-90MS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRFg3Upzukc

New T-90MS video with English subtitles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hzC4jSnRis

@ Mindstorm why do the Russian army operate T-90S or T-90C when in fact it is the export version of T-90A? Apat from modifications by the user is there a difference between domestic T-90S and exported T-90S?

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

Yes,the most important feratures of domestic T-90S are the following :

1) Weightless
2) Completely Invisible
3) Totally Incorporeal

No weapon at world is capable to penetrate it and enemy Intelligence cannot collect any information on it.


This link will aid you with a bit of history on T-90


http://lib.rus.ec/b/225611/read