T-90 Main Battle Tank

I wished Reflex had a lofted profile with top attack capability it would be devastating.

I think only the front armour of the turret can withstand a 900 mm HEAT the Side Armour and back of any western tank cant withstand those penetration values.

So the best bet is to aim the gun turret or optics when facing 90 * of the turret/gun and disable it

Well if it comes in on ANY angle into the M1's glacis, its game over for the M1's driver. The front glacis is at an extreme angle and is very thin from any top (or angled) weapon coming in.

I wished Reflex had a lofted profile with top attack capability it would be devastating.

Reflex does actually fly with a lofted profile. Although it's not as extreme as the Javalin. The beam is projected a few meters above the target, and only on the very last moments of flight is brought down towards the target automatically. It does this to avoid obstacles and prevent the tripping of laser warning systems.

Zivo wrote:

I wished Reflex had a lofted profile with top attack capability it would be devastating.

Reflex does actually fly with a lofted profile. Although it's not as extreme as the Javalin. The beam is projected a few meters above the target, and only on the very last moments of flight is brought down towards the target automatically. It does this to avoid obstacles and prevent the tripping of laser warning systems.

Javelin is in different class Fire and Forget system

That would remind me that missile like Reflex and Javelien are vulnerable to modern APS ....so there is one more threat these missile needs to cross before it hits the target , consediring these are subsonic ones they are more vulnerable.

Time to work on more modern APFSDS.

Did they release any details of the modern Sivnet-1 and Svinet-2 APFSDS rounds ?

Austin wrote:
Javelin is in different class Fire and Forget system

That would remind me that missile like Reflex and Javelien are vulnerable to modern APS ....so there is one more threat these missile needs to cross before it hits the target , consediring these are subsonic ones they are more vulnerable.

Time to work on more modern APFSDS.

Considering that APS systems today can even intercept or rather disrupt APFSDS that are much more faster than subsonic HEAT projectiles and missiles, then the trend with APFSDS would be faster and more resilient(a bit stubbier L/D) rods. This is just my speculation though.

That would remind me that missile like Reflex and Javelien are vulnerable to modern APS ....so there is one more threat these missile needs to cross before it hits the target , consediring these are subsonic ones they are more vulnerable.

That's an obstacle that will have to be overcome. I'm interested to see the proposed solutions. Maybe a lightweight decoy round attached to the front of the main projectile that fires off when in range to trip the APS.

IIRC, russia tested attaching ramjets to assist APFSDS back in the 70's. Perhaps that's a viable upgrade for sabots and ATGMs.

Is it safer than having ammo stored only in the T-72 or 90's autoloader magazine? Probably not.

But then as a designer you have to choose... is 22 rounds enough?

50 is better at the cost of greater vulnerability, but by minimising the risks I think it is worth it for better combat persistence when needed.

Just because there is a turret bustle for an auto loader does not mean you need to keep it loaded all the time... wide open spaces like deserts where enemy forces can be seen from great distances could allow safe use of a turret bustle, whereas close in urban combat you can simply not load the bustle... or just store something else there like water or crew bedding etc.

The issue isn't the destroyed engine, it's the massive fire that will result from the damage. An inferno the crew will have trouble escaping.

Again such a fire would burn for hours and if trapped the crew would be in trouble, but the location of the crew in front of the turret gives them the best chance of surviving and escaping.

That way if the turret bustle gets hit, there isn't so much ammo burning at once. This obviously would supplement the regular ammunition stored in the hull.

It could even be designed to be ejected from the vehicle if there is a problem...

even the MS dont have isolation like Abrams have

Not strictly true, the Abrams stores about 8 rounds in the hull next to the driver... a penetration of the lower hull, which isn't that well protected BTW, could result in a serious problem.

In comparison the SM has all the ammo separate from the crew compartment via armoured ammo storage boxes.

That would remind me that missile like Reflex and Javelien are vulnerable to modern APS ....so there is one more threat these missile needs to cross before it hits the target , consediring these are subsonic ones they are more vulnerable.

THESE are subsonic? Javelin is subsonic, but Reflex certainly is not.

They have a tandem HEAT warhead... how difficult would it be to combine an EMP weapon into the first firing warhead...

GarryB wrote:
They have a tandem HEAT warhead... how difficult would it be to combine an EMP weapon into the first firing warhead...

Though adding an optical backup would render subsonic anti-tank projectiles useless(under optimal conditions for the sensor ofc.) so there goes the $80k javelin missile and the like and cheaper but effective RPG family.

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img839/7330/img7178f.jpg

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img171/8453/im2g7172.jpg

Looking good- new sighting device for driver + modified ERA on turret sides.

Looks really good , This is at IDEX i believe

That paint scheme.

http://military.tomsk.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=25485&mode=view

T-90 in ALgeria.

just a guess, i think the 125mm gun design is more optimized for firing faster and more violent firing rounds than its 120 mm rheinmettall countrrpart. because the 120 mm gun has to b manually loaded, it has t vent the gases through a larger bore evacuator that is rather near the breech, causing further pressure drop since its closer to the source of hot exanding gases.

T-90 at IDEX-2013

From licensed assembly to joint production: India wants to produce Russian tanks T-90C


India is interested in continuing the licensed production of Russian T-90C tanks. This came in a statement by Chief Executive of the Russian-Indian tank contract, General Director of "Uralvagonzavod" scientific industrial corporation Oleg Siyenko at the IDEX-2013 arms fair. On Monday, a Russian T-90C tank participated in a dynamic demonstration of technical equipment at the exhibition in Abu-Dhabi, and earned a lot of praise from experts.

On the basis of total characteristics, today the T-90C tank is the best tank on the international market. According to Siyenko, "there are hundreds of already manufactured tanks". This tank is produced on the base of the Russian license at a tank factory in the city of Avadi, in the state of Tamil Nadu. Today, the T-90C tank is the main striking force of the Indian army. India is interested in transition from the currently existing large-unit assembly to complete localization of production and subsequent modernization of the previously jointly manufactured machines. According to estimations of experts, in 2014-2019, India can additionally purchase about 600 new, modernized T-90C tanks and start their complete licensed production on the spot.

Today, India sticks to the same pattern at other enterprises producing various military equipment under Russian licenses. Indian Corporation "Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd" produces one of the world's best fighters Su-30 MKI under the Russian license. Today, together with India we manufacture a prospective fifth generation fighter - FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft). It is for several years now that the Russian-Indian BrahMos joint venture, named in honor of the Russian Moscow River and the Indian Brahmaputra, produces the fastest BrahMos cruise missiles.

Meanwhile, Russian designers are working at a new tank of the fifth generation. It requires radically different engineering and technical solutions, editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine Igor Korotchenko says.

“This tank will be controlled remotely. This project will be the first step on the way to a fully «unmanned» weapon, to so-called combat robots, about which science fiction authors wrote last century”.

And who knows, maybe, this tank can also be created by a joint effort of Russian and Indian gunsmiths.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_19/From-licensed-assembly-to-joint-production-India-wants-to-produce-Russian-tanks-T-90C/

“This tank will be controlled remotely. This project will be the first step on the way to a fully «unmanned» weapon, to so-called combat robots, about which science fiction authors wrote last century”

Confirmation of Armata's capabilities.

Remote controlled armoured vehicles are not new... there are several engineer vehicles that can be remotely driven for clearing mines or testing the river bed where a crossing is to be attempted.

Because of the design of the armata and other vehicle families with unmanned turrets they need to provide situational awareness to the commander comparable to having his head sticking out the top of the turret even though he is with the other crew in the hull... this means cameras and sensors... but once you remove the crew from the turret into the hull then it starts to make sense to perhaps remove them from the vehicle entirely for further improved safety plus also freeing up the crew spaces and life support systems for more fuel and or ammo or more weapons and sensors.

The unmanned turret design of the new vehicle families makes remote operation practical with standard unmodified vehicles... which is certainly new.

It also seems the Russian Army wants more T-90s too, so its future is looking pretty good right now.

A handsome looking vehicle...

T-90MS Demonstration at IDEX 2013



High Res Pictures

It also seems the Russian Army wants more T-90s too, so its future is looking pretty good right now.

I would rather upgrade T-72/80. The important thing would be to have a large number of tanks with a reasonable amount of modern technology: thermal sight and BMS if funding allows. Other improvements that T-90 offers are secondary in my opinion (engine, better ammo, armour...).

Austin wrote:T-90MS Demonstration at IDEX 2013



High Res Pictures ....

Despite the constant tank improving, I don't trust in the tank's future.
The best lesson was Lebanon's war in 2006. No use to tell more, several israelis tanks were completly burnt. I think this War underlined the end of the tank concept, as we knew since 1940.

Russia should have de develop, and upgrade its flying tanks like Mil 24 beside, Mil 28, and ka 50, these are future of battlefield.

nemrod wrote:Despite the constant tank improving, I don't trust in the tank's future.

Tank has no alternative in todays world. Its irreplaceable.

Every weapon has its counter which does not mean you should withdraw it from the battlefield because none would left.

You can argue by the same logic that you can withdraw all aircraft because S-400 exists.

I would rather upgrade T-72/80. The important thing would be to have a large number of tanks with a reasonable amount of modern technology: thermal sight and BMS if funding allows. Other improvements that T-90 offers are secondary in my opinion (engine, better ammo, armour...).

The main problem is numbers. The size of the military has been greatly reduced and when you have fewer chess pieces to play with... you give up the pawns first.

The new Brigades will not be cheap, and the shift of some units back to divisions might reflect that.

A brigade structure is a more mobile but smaller force that takes everything it needs with it. Short and simplified logistics chains are very important for such beasts.

For a divisional structure you are talking about a much bigger group, though savings in logistics will also have an impact it will never be as mobile as a brigade.

Taking a brigade from a division will not be the same as many of the support elements will be part of the brigade and will need to be allocated separately.

I do agree that for the moment night fighting ability and C4IR are much more important as armour and mobility are already pretty good and adding new ERA should be fairly straight forward and cheap anyway.

This means thermals and BMS are the focus though new ammo can also be introduced too... no point producing old ammo when new ammo is better.

Ideally however further upgrades to T-90s with electronics and equipment designed for armata makes a lot of sense in terms of commonality and production numbers.

Russia should have de develop, and upgrade its flying tanks like Mil 24 beside, Mil 28, and ka 50, these are future of battlefield.

They are... but a helo cannot replace a tank and vice versa.

A tank is a well armoured ground vehicle that can support troops and hold ground. It needs a big powerful gun, excellent optics and good armour.

I rather suspect the later model armata MBTs will operate by remote control in very dangerous areas... making them very hard nuts to crack.

You can argue by the same logic that you can withdraw all aircraft because S-400 exists.

The key is to correctly analyse your enemy and also the strengths and weaknesses of your own equipment and use tactics to maximise the strengths and minimise or eliminate the weaknesses.

For instance Javelin and Kornet are described as the end of tanks, yet a good DIRCM or effective IR signature reduction would defeat Javelin, while Kornet can be defended against using APS.

nemrod wrote:

Austin wrote:T-90MS Demonstration at IDEX 2013


High Res Pictures ....

Despite the constant tank improving, I don't trust in the tank's future.
The best lesson was Lebanon's war in 2006. No use to tell more, several israelis tanks were completly burnt. I think this War underlined the end of the tank concept, as we knew since 1940.

Russia should have de develop, and upgrade its flying tanks like Mil 24 beside, Mil 28, and ka 50, these are future of battlefield.

Sorry, but I think it's understatement. Maybe if You are talking about small low intensity conflicts then You are dead right. But IDF still achieved their goals and showed good performance and professionalism. Loads of KIA though, but still good job. I don't think that this war brought something new to the table. I agree with You that Russia should upgrade their helicopter fleet as they are the main killers in local conflicts. Forget tanks, when You have to hunt a terrorists in the forests there is nothing better than all-seeing UAV + Attack helicopter. Tanks always will be a fist in a conventional war.