T-90 Main Battle Tank

Of what kind? Info on the T-90A's APS is scarce.

Mike E wrote:Of what kind? Info on the T-90A's APS is scarce.

Arena.

Mike E wrote:Info on the T-90A's APS is scarce.

Shtora

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:Of what kind? Info on the T-90A's APS is scarce.

Arena.

Only shtora. Arena can be installed, but it isn't

..why? Makes no sense

Because Russia isn't planning to fight a real war right now, so there is no need in spending money to increase protection of tanks which in fact are temporary solution before Armata and other new vehicles. That's what MoD is thinking imho

The military has dumped the T-90AM for the sake of Armata, with this it is easy to not see the most modern APS in the current T-90... except the export models.

Although I see that T-90AM is a very good model. May be Russia want something to be a real technological breakthrough.

Wonder if Vietnam will buy some T-90AM from Russia

higurashihougi wrote:The military has dumped the T-90AM for the sake of Armata, with this it is easy to not see the most modern APS in the current T-90... except the export models.

Although I see that T-90AM is a very good model. May be Russia want something to be a real technological breakthrough.

Wonder if Vietnam will buy some T-90AM from Russia

Could be, NAM' has expressed interest in T-90's before!

Asf wrote:

Because Russia isn't planning to fight a real war right now.., so there is no need in spending money to increase protection of tanks which in fact are temporary solution before Armata and other new vehicles. That's what MoD is thinking imho

But war is something you do not plan many times , it just Happens.. .  Look at Georgia war in 2008.. did Russia planned that war? No.. it just happened and they had no choice but to send tanks without proper protection
and get more casualties . And now you have Ukraine.. that are already the radicals bombing Russian territory.. with casualties..  If they start a major genocide ,lets say they bomb Donetsk/Lugansk Chemical industrial Plants it will create a major catastrophe with thousands of civilians killed and probably with RUssia territory also affected forcing Russia to invade to restore order.. not as a planned thing but as a unplanned one..

So it make no sense why Russia do not use Arena at least on their T-90 tanks.. Today more than ever Tanks will be a more important weapon for Russia even than SUbmarine or warships because of a major war happening in their borders. ,that at any time they could be forced to just like in georgia Invade.

leaving their T-90 tanks totally unarmed from arena active protection is a really bad choice.. because their Armata will no see action for a least 3 to 5 years in a real war. until they manage to sell it first in enough numbers. It will be ugly if NATO send top attack anti tank weapons in the thousands to Ukraine and they are forced to invade with no defense against top attack weapon .

Vann7 wrote:

Asf wrote:

Because Russia isn't planning to fight a real war right now.., so there is no need in spending money to increase protection of tanks which in fact are temporary solution before Armata and other new vehicles. That's what MoD is thinking imho

But war is something you do not plan many times , it just Happens.. .  Look at Georgia war in 2008.. did Russia planned that war? No.. it just happened and they had no choice but to send tanks without proper protection
and get more casualties . And now you have Ukraine.. that are already the radicals bombing Russian territory.. with casualties..  If they start a major genocide ,lets say they bomb Donetsk/Lugansk Chemical industrial Plants it will create a major catastrophe with thousands of civilians killed and probably with RUssia territory also affected forcing Russia to invade to restore order.. not as a planned thing but as a unplanned one..

So it make no sense why Russia do not use Arena at least on their T-90 tanks.. Today more than ever Tanks will be a more important weapon for Russia even than SUbmarine or warships because of a major war happening in their borders. ,that at any time they could be forced to just like in georgia Invade.

leaving their T-90 tanks totally unarmed from active protection is a really bad choice.. because their Armata will no see action for a least 3 to 5 years in a real war. until they manage to sell it first in enough numbers.

Tanks mean next to nothing... ICBMs do!

[quote="Mike E"]

Vann7 wrote:

Asf wrote:

Because Russia isn't planning to fight a real war right now.., so there is no need in spending money to increase protection of tanks which in fact are temporary solution before Armata and other new vehicles. That's what MoD is thinking imho

Tanks mean next to nothing... ICBMs do!

CAn ICBMs help end the war in eastern Ukraine? No.. can it save the civilians being killed everyday? no.
If Russia is forced to invade they will not be armed on their optimal way..with their armed forces.. they will have to use tanks as artillery to fire from far distance and to avoid top attack weapons.

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Asf wrote:

Because Russia isn't planning to fight a real war right now.., so there is no need in spending money to increase protection of tanks which in fact are temporary solution before Armata and other new vehicles. That's what MoD is thinking imho

Tanks mean next to nothing... ICBMs do!

CAn ICBMs help end the war in eastern Ukraine? No.. can it save the civilians being killed everyday? no.
If Russia is forced to invade they will not be armed on their optimal way..with their armed forces.. they will have to use tanks as artillery to fire from far distance and to avoid top attack weapons.

No, but aircraft are still more important than tanks in a conflict such as Ukraine...

So no Russian tank in active service in the Russian army ,have any active protection system?
any active protection until now is only for exports market? and if yes is the question ..why? Makes no
sense to wait for Armata to have active protection specially knowing they will not have them in enough numbers for at least a couple or more years..

When fitted with ERA most Russian tanks don't need APS... the problem has been where they have not been fitted with ERA blocks... then they would not likely have APS munitions either so...

Drozd was tested operationally in Afghanistan and was found to be 70% effective in stopping enemy anti armour weapons.

APS systems to date have been independent of tank design and can be considered an extra layer of protection that can be added if there is deemed to be a need... the fact that they are upgrading old T-72s rather than buying all new T-90AMs suggests they don't want to waste money now that can be used later on new generation stuff.

Mass production of Armata will likely start next year and it likely wont take too long to produce large numbers of vehicles.

Actually I think GarryB stated that the tank factories in Russia are capable of producing thousands of tanks a year, and they haven't done so because no one has demanded thousands of tanks a year. But at the same time your right, they'll have to refit the factories first with new machinery and plant equipment, which will at least take 2 years in totality (Some factories will be able to refit quicker and might be able to produce Armata platforms right away.)

You have to keep in mind that armata is not just a tank... every vehicle in an Armata brigade will be based on the armata chassis, so armata units will likely enter service a brigade at a time.

Because Russia isn't planning to fight a real war right now, so there is no need in spending money to increase protection of tanks which in fact are temporary solution before Armata and other new vehicles. That's what MoD is thinking imho

X2.

Remember even if they had Arena on half their operational vehicles that would not have mattered in Georgia 8.8.8 because the local vehicles were used and they would not likely be fitted with APS.

Although I see that T-90AM is a very good model. May be Russia want something to be a real technological breakthrough.

The Russian government spent money on fixing as many existing problems as possible and also for a new generation from scratch design solution... they did it across the board... the Su-35 is a total upgrade of Su-27, the MiG-35 is a total upgrade of the MiG-29, the PAK FA is the next generation.

Now odds are that the PAK FA will be too expensive to be the standard fighter, so in this case everybody wins.

In the case of tanks however, the T-90AM is a very capable but also expensive tank and depending on how much armata costs I am sure they will decide later whether to mass produce the Armata and get it into full service quickly, or to feed it into service slower and produce some T-90AMs as a stopgap till the newer vehicles can be made ready.

Keep in mind that the Armata probably will make up maybe 20% of the vehicle fleet, with Kurganets and Boomerang 80% and Typhoon 20%.

I rather suspect to keep operational costs down the Boomerang will be 60% and the Kurganets 20% or possibly 50% Boomerang 30% Kurganets... simply because with similar armour and armament the wheeled Boomerang should be cheaper and easier to maintain and operate.

Assuming 50% boomerang and 30% Kurganets, then we are talking about a force with 70% wheeled vehicles for excellent mobility in urban areas and areas with a well developed road system... and also much lower operational costs and fuel costs.

But war is something you do not plan many times , it just Happens.. . Look at Georgia war in 2008.. did Russia planned that war? No.. it just happened and they had no choice but to send tanks without proper protection
and get more casualties . And now you have Ukraine.. that are already the radicals bombing Russian territory.. with casualties.. If they start a major genocide ,lets say they bomb Donetsk/Lugansk Chemical industrial Plants it will create a major catastrophe with thousands of civilians killed and probably with RUssia territory also affected forcing Russia to invade to restore order.. not as a planned thing but as a unplanned one..

So it make no sense why Russia do not use Arena at least on their T-90 tanks.. Today more than ever Tanks will be a more important weapon for Russia even than SUbmarine or warships because of a major war happening in their borders. ,that at any time they could be forced to just like in georgia Invade.

leaving their T-90 tanks totally unarmed from arena active protection is a really bad choice.. because their Armata will no see action for a least 3 to 5 years in a real war. until they manage to sell it first in enough numbers. It will be ugly if NATO send top attack anti tank weapons in the thousands to Ukraine and they are forced to invade with no defense against top attack weapon .

There were no T-90s in Georgia... they used tanks from the local tank units which don't include T90s.

It is a question of cost effectiveness... would it make sense to spend millions of dollars to fit half your tanks with ARENA and buy up all the munitions you need, and issue them because their might be a war? Does it make sense to put ARENA into service when you are spending money on new APS systems intended to defeat threats ARENA is not designed to defend against?

ARENA likely would not stop Javelin... one of the reasons they didn't adopt it...

CAn ICBMs help end the war in eastern Ukraine? No.. can it save the civilians being killed everyday? no.
If Russia is forced to invade they will not be armed on their optimal way..with their armed forces.. they will have to use tanks as artillery to fire from far distance and to avoid top attack weapons.

You have eyes and ears... how long have the rabble that the nazi leadership in Kiev call the Ukrainian Army been trying to move rebels from their "strongpoints"?

Shelling civilians from afar suggests to me frustration and ineptitude... faced with the Russian military these nazi mercs would fold.

In many ways the sit back and shell method was also used in Georgia and it was less than 5 days to deal with them... and I would suggest the Georgian military was a more professional unit than the volunteers in the Ukrainian army... though even the georgians probably didn't want to die for Saakashvili.

Vann7 wrote:
But war is something you do not plan many times , it just Happens.. .  Look at Georgia war in 2008.. did Russia planned that war? No.. it just happened and they had no choice but to send tanks without proper protection
and get more casualties . And now you have Ukraine.. that are already the radicals bombing Russian territory.. with casualties..  If they start a major genocide ,lets say they bomb Donetsk/Lugansk Chemical industrial Plants it will create a major catastrophe with thousands of civilians killed and probably with RUssia territory also affected forcing Russia to invade to restore order.. not as a planned thing but as a unplanned one..

So it make no sense why Russia do not use Arena at least on their T-90 tanks.. Today more than ever Tanks will be a more important weapon for Russia even than SUbmarine or warships because of a major war happening in their borders. ,that at any time they could be forced to just like in georgia Invade.

leaving their T-90 tanks totally unarmed from arena active protection is a really bad choice.. because their Armata will no see action for a least 3 to 5 years in a real war. until they manage to sell it first in enough numbers. It will be ugly if NATO send top attack anti tank weapons in the thousands to Ukraine and they are forced to invade with no defense against top attack weapon .  

The chance of a war with Russia is low because even a primary schooler with normal IQ can understand that Russia is a massive country with huge military/industrial system with no nearby country can rival. And it has nuclear weapons.

Even without T-90 Russia can easily swarm the battlefield with thousands of older tanks which easily overwhelmed the enemy. If aiming for a favourable treaty with little or no territorial change for both sides, it would be an easy win for Moskva.

You have already seen how Moskva took back Krym and liberated Ossetia and the West can do nothing beside the meaningless "sanction".

Furthermore, people have already seen the true "color" of the so-called colorful "revolutions". Except the facist scums in Kyiv.

higurashihougi wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
But war is something you do not plan many times , it just Happens.. .  Look at Georgia war in 2008.. did Russia planned that war? No.. it just happened and they had no choice but to send tanks without proper protection
and get more casualties . And now you have Ukraine.. that are already the radicals bombing Russian territory.. with casualties..  If they start a major genocide ,lets say they bomb Donetsk/Lugansk Chemical industrial Plants it will create a major catastrophe with thousands of civilians killed and probably with RUssia territory also affected forcing Russia to invade to restore order.. not as a planned thing but as a unplanned one..

So it make no sense why Russia do not use Arena at least on their T-90 tanks.. Today more than ever Tanks will be a more important weapon for Russia even than SUbmarine or warships because of a major war happening in their borders. ,that at any time they could be forced to just like in georgia Invade.

leaving their T-90 tanks totally unarmed from arena active protection is a really bad choice.. because their Armata will no see action for a least 3 to 5 years in a real war. until they manage to sell it first in enough numbers. It will be ugly if NATO send top attack anti tank weapons in the thousands to Ukraine and they are forced to invade with no defense against top attack weapon .  

The chance of a war with Russia is low because even a primary schooler with normal IQ can understand that Russia is a massive country with huge military/industrial system with no nearby country can rival. And it has nuclear weapons.

Even without T-90 Russia can easily swarm the battlefield with thousands of older tanks which easily overwhelmed the enemy. If aiming for a favourable treaty with little or no territorial change for both sides, it would be an easy win for Moskva.

You have already seen how Moskva took back Krym and liberated Ossetia and the West can do nothing beside the meaningless "sanction".

Furthermore, people have already seen the true "color" of the so-called colorful "revolutions". Except the facist scums in Kyiv.

Even a primary schooler with normal IQ can understand that Russia even thought have nuclear weapons they cannot use them against their own people in Ukraine. Where is Russia going to use Nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
The facist junta is luring Russia into a war and if Russia have any hopes to maintain good relations with the defeated Ukrainian army.. using nuclear weapons will be a guarantee to totally lose the civilians support for ever..
This is why Conventional weapons , Rifles and tanks are also important. You cannot use nukes in a conventional war and Georgia and Ukraine knows that.. this is why Both provoked or are provoking Russia into a war.

Notice that Russian nukes did not helped Russia in any way with the Chechen wars or Afgan war.. they had to fight conventionally. . Having an army well defended from a conventional war will significantly help to reduce your people casualties.. but if The Russian Army goes to Ukraine forced to restore order.. and NATO arms them with Javelins and spike top attack missiles it will be a massive wipe of Russian T-90 Tanks..for not being propertly defended. and guess what.. Russia cannot use its nuclear weapons against Ukrainians.. about half of its population is either neutral to Russia or pro Russia.

Vann7 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
But war is something you do not plan many times , it just Happens.. .  Look at Georgia war in 2008.. did Russia planned that war? No.. it just happened and they had no choice but to send tanks without proper protection
and get more casualties . And now you have Ukraine.. that are already the radicals bombing Russian territory.. with casualties..  If they start a major genocide ,lets say they bomb Donetsk/Lugansk Chemical industrial Plants it will create a major catastrophe with thousands of civilians killed and probably with RUssia territory also affected forcing Russia to invade to restore order.. not as a planned thing but as a unplanned one..

So it make no sense why Russia do not use Arena at least on their T-90 tanks.. Today more than ever Tanks will be a more important weapon for Russia even than SUbmarine or warships because of a major war happening in their borders. ,that at any time they could be forced to just like in georgia Invade.

leaving their T-90 tanks totally unarmed from arena active protection is a really bad choice.. because their Armata will no see action for a least 3 to 5 years in a real war. until they manage to sell it first in enough numbers. It will be ugly if NATO send top attack anti tank weapons in the thousands to Ukraine and they are forced to invade with no defense against top attack weapon .  

The chance of a war with Russia is low because even a primary schooler with normal IQ can understand that Russia is a massive country with huge military/industrial system with no nearby country can rival. And it has nuclear weapons.

Even without T-90 Russia can easily swarm the battlefield with thousands of older tanks which easily overwhelmed the enemy. If aiming for a favourable treaty with little or no territorial change for both sides, it would be an easy win for Moskva.

You have already seen how Moskva took back Krym and liberated Ossetia and the West can do nothing beside the meaningless "sanction".

Furthermore, people have already seen the true "color" of the so-called colorful "revolutions". Except the facist scums in Kyiv.

Even a primary schooler with normal IQ can understand that Russia even thought have nuclear weapons they cannot use them against their own people in Ukraine. Where is Russia going to use Nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
The facist junta is luring Russia into a war and if Russia have any hopes to maintain good relations with the defeated Ukrainian army.. using nuclear weapons will be a guarantee to totally lose the civilians support for ever..
This is why Conventional weapons , Rifles and tanks are also important. You cannot use nukes in a conventional war and Georgia and Ukraine knows that.. this is why Both provoked or are provoking Russia into a war.

Notice that Russian nukes did not helped Russia in any way with the Chechen wars or Afgan war.. they had to fight conventionally. . Having an army well defended from a conventional war will significantly help to reduce your people casualties.. but if The Russian Army goes to Ukraine forced to restore order.. and NATO arms them with Javelins and spike top attack missiles it will be a massive wipe of Russian T-90 Tanks..for not being propertly defended. and guess what.. Russia cannot use its nuclear weapons against Ukrainians.. about half of its population is either neutral to Russia or pro Russia.

They could conduct tactical strikes on military installations, with much criticism from the hypocritical West...

Vann7 wrote:and NATO arms them with Javelins and spike top attack missiles it will be a massive wipe of Russian T-90 Tanks.

You cant seriously believe that if those weapons were given to Kiev that it would in any way wipe out any Russian T-90's, when Soviet/Russian ground forces doctrine is to have formidable SHORAD on hand such as Tor-M1/M2's, Igla-1m manpads, Tunguska-M1's, and or stealth/camoflauge kits such as Nakidka, etc., but of course GarryB could explain better than me.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Vann7 wrote:and NATO arms them with Javelins and spike top attack missiles it will be a massive wipe of Russian T-90 Tanks.

You cant seriously believe that if those weapons were given to Kiev that it would in any way wipe out any Russian T-90's, when Soviet/Russian ground forces doctrine is to have formidable SHORAD on hand such as Tor-M1/M2's, Igla-1m manpads, Tunguska-M1's, and or stealth/camoflauge kits such as Nakidka, etc., but of course GarryB could explain better than me.

There are many levels of defense. Not like the Javlin could get in firing range anyway!

@Vann: there nuclear weapons is not be used against petty scums like the Kyiv facists. It is used to deliver a message to the West, such as "if you dare to invade Russia, you will pay dearly". That's a poweful message which makes the Western oligarchs think 1000 times before sticking their noses into Russia's affairs.

But of course, neither Moskva nor Washington would want to use such inhuman weapons because that will mark the end of humankind.

Second, in Ukraina and Gruziya, Moskva's aim is the independence of the regions which pro-Russia sentiment is dominant, and a treaty which is favourable to Russia but not very harmful to the opponent. Moskva stops at that, wants nothing more. This ensures the conflict is small, not prolonged, and leaves little chance for the Western bullshit to deeply intervene into the event.

Considering that case, current level of Russian arms is more than enough for the conflict. Especially when we see that Ukraina has a divided population, a corrupted goverment, and a degenerated army.

Unless the Kyiv facists lost the ability to think rationally and go on with a suicide plan.

Lets be clear that the use of nukes in the Ukraine by any side would be very counterproductive.

So far Javelin has been used against point targets in Iraq and Afghanistan and it seems to be effective against an third world enemy that doesn't know what is coming...

The Javelin has an IRR seeker so a large sheet of glass would hide a tank from its sensor... making it a command to line of sight weapon... Metis-M1 but much more expensive and about 200mm less armour penetration... and slower.

The facist junta is luring Russia into a war and if Russia have any hopes to maintain good relations with the defeated Ukrainian army.. using nuclear weapons will be a guarantee to totally lose the civilians support for ever..

Not an accurate statement.

They might want to lure Russia into a war where they can be the victim of Russian aggression... but Putin isn't that stupid... he has said all along that the solution is political and not military.

General question - the T-90MS has a Sosna-U gunner's thermal sight, right? And this is the same as that on the T-72B3?

What about the gunner's thermal sight on the T-90A? Is it the ESSA of the T-90S, or is Sosna-U? Or neither? I assumed that the T-90A had the same sight as the T-72B3, but I never looked into it.

T-90A has the Catherin XP Thermal so it is ESSA. Although, in the future, it will end up being Sosna-U using the Irbus-K (or whatever it is called) thermal made in Russia.

sepheronx wrote:T-90A has the Catherin XP Thermal so it is ESSA. Although, in the future, it will end up being Sosna-U using the Irbus-K (or whatever it is called) thermal made in Russia.

Does Sosna-U use the 'Irbus-K' (Irbis?) now?

No. I believe it still uses the CatherinXP Thermals. Although, I am pretty certain that Irbis-K is already being released. They said it would be ready last year for production. So if that is the case, I don't see the need for Catherin XP, especially now with France's anti Russian policy.

sepheronx wrote:No.  I believe it still uses the CatherinXP Thermals.  Although, I am pretty certain that Irbis-K is already being released.  They said it would be ready last year for production.  So if that is the case, I don't see the need for Catherin XP, especially now with France's anti Russian policy.

Hmm, thanks for the detailed info Sepheronx.

I love this sound..

I wanted to ask about the feature that the side ERA on the hull front can be extended. I assume to have better protective capability, to predetonate incoming ATGM's, RPG's and HEAT tank rounds before they actually can reach the hull, for threats to the tank that are to an angle to the tank that the enemy can see the side of the tank. Is this system automated or does this system adjust the Angle of ERA Tiles to the threat via Gunners sight/commanders sight to always have the highest possible coverage of side armor and not open gaps for enemy?