T-95 Tank Development

Russia can't even make a hybrid car and backwards UVZ want to make a hybrid tank? That is called blowing smoke up our asses. We would have to import every battery cell.

Sorry Austin... I seem to have not been clear.

The Gas Turbine the T-80 used ran on diesel.

It can run on diesel fuel or Kerosene or Petrol (Gasoline) or any mixture of all three.

Kerosene is aviation fuel, so if you happen upon an enemy forward airbase you can pour the kerosene aviation fuel you capture straight into your fuel tank and keep driving.

The GTD-1250 is the most recently known about engine for the T-80 series and offers 1,250hp, so a 1,500hp engine wouldn't be a huge jump.

There would be little logistic impact of using a gas turbine electric power pack. For commander tanks like the T-80UK they already have small gas tubine APUs that run all the radio equipment when the main engine is off and it runs on diesel from the main fuel tanks of the vehicle.

Russia can't even make a hybrid car and backwards UVZ want to make a hybrid tank? That is called blowing smoke up our asses. We would have to import every battery cell.

That sort of technology has wide applications... perhaps 15 years worth of investment hasn't been wasted?
Remember they also work on trains, now an electric motor to drive a train is a powerful thing and would be ideal to drive a tank.
The perfect camouflage... a Russian train making company wanting battery technology and electric motors for making electric train cars that is also using the technology to make electric tanks.

As the experts from UVZ said they were unhappy with the performance of imported components and have started to make some of them themselves...

I see this as positive.

Considering Russia wants to go high tech then the applications for modern high energy batteries means investment would offer good returns. The Future Russian Soldier doesn't want to have to be supplied with as many AA bateries as bullets during a deployment.
A large battery power supply that all his electronic kit can hook into to recharge built in lithium ion batteries in the various devices would be the best solution. This large battery could be rapidly charged in a vehicle or even a power point in an urban environment.

Edit: I should add another advantage of electric motors is the fact that to reverse you just reverse the polarity of the electrical power supplied. With a diesel in a tank you need a gearbox with a reverse or several reverse gears. This means an electric tank can go backwards as fast as it can go forwards.

In ships diesels are often stopped and started to run backwards to get reverse thrust, but some are now also electric drive so they can reverse with the flick of a switch and get as much reverse thrust as forward thrust (though because of their shape they don't go backwards as efficiently as they go forwards).

T-95 Tank

More details link

GarryB wrote:The Gas Turbine the T-80 used ran on diesel.

It can run on diesel fuel or Kerosene or Petrol (Gasoline) or any mixture of all three.

Kerosene is aviation fuel, so if you happen upon an enemy forward airbase you can pour the kerosene aviation fuel you capture straight into your fuel tank and keep driving.

Thanks Garry once again for your explanation.

How can a Gas Turbine Engine run on Kerosene , Petrol , diesel where as a diesel engine would just run on diesel.

How can one have such a multifuel engine and if this engine is indeed possible why dont we use GT engine in cars or trucks which can make it truly multifuel ?

[quote="Austin"]

GarryB wrote:

How can a Gas Turbine Engine run on Kerosene , Petrol , diesel where as a diesel engine would just run on diesel.

How can one have such a multifuel engine and if this engine is indeed possible why dont we use GT engine in cars or trucks which can make it truly multifuel ?

It doesn't run on petrol. It uses petrol to heat up the kerosene then it switches valves. Fuel grade kerosene and diesel have similar viscosity and energy burn when heated. It isn't like you can dump kerosene from a lamp into the fuel tank, it has to be of a certain quality.

Well there have been pictures reported to be the T-95 prototype popping up all over the place and it is reportedly being tested... which kinda makes sense... after spending so long developing it they might as well give it a range of tests to see what it can do.

That level of sophistication it will probably need to be delayed 5 years till the Russian Army is able to take advantage of its performance features... just like the Russian AF needs to upgrade to fully take advantage of the T-50 when it is ready for service.

How can one have such a multifuel engine and if this engine is indeed possible why dont we use GT engine in cars or trucks which can make it truly multifuel ?

Obvious answer is that oil companies prefer you to buy their expensive petrol.
During the 1970s when petrol prices went stupid a lot of cars here in NZ were converted to LPG, or Liquid Petroleum Gas. With a few electronic bits and a tank to hold the LPG... usually in the boot of the car, these converted cars could be fuelled by LPG or petrol. There were a few minor changes needed for the engine, but that petrol engine was able to operate burning gas instead of petrol.

Most internal combustion engines can run on all sorts of fuels... including used vegetable oil.

In the marketing brochure for the GTD-1250 engine it states "The GTD-1250 is a multifuel engine: it can operate on diesel fuel, kerosene, gasoline and their mixtures."
Gasoline in this case means Petrol. Very simply it is designed to burn flammable liquid and it can handle the liquids listed above or their mixtures.

The reason why not GT cars is for the same reason the T-80 and the M1 Abrams after it are fuel guzzlers. The GT has a specific rpm at which it is very efficient. Using it as a direct drive power source means it will be operating at variable rpms most of which will be inefficient in terms of fuel consumption.

If you were designing a hybrid car from scratch then a small diesel up to about 100-150hp would be efficient, but if you wanted a hybrid truck or bus then a gas turbine would be much more efficient.
Where space is limited a gas turbine is always an option and if car companies hadn't already spent large amounts of money on petrol and diesel engines making them cleaner burning and more fuel efficient you would probably see a lot more small gas turbines in such cars.

BTW Garry and Vlad I want to get your view on this

Right now Russia is developing a new tank and highly likely mobility is the corner stone of new doctrine it will be in 40 T class [ 40 - 49 T ] much like T-90's.

India too has similar new tank under development in 40T class , it has inducted new Arjun in 50- 60T class but that is not being considered by Army due to its heavy weight and only a small numbers will be inducted ,since india has nearly 3000 Tanks ( T-72/T-90 ) in 40T class , the entire logistic is build around it.

Similarly the T-95 is said to be in 50T class ( ~ 55T ) and probably it is being cancelled for the same reason Arjun is which is it is heavy and probably in Russia too the entire logistics is build around the 40T T's

But most of the tank around the world US,Western,Israel,China are in 50 - 60 T class.

So heavy armour with powerful engine will mean better protection and mobility.

So how does one justify having a 48T Tank like T-90 over say a 70T tank like Abrams.

The weight isn't a problem for Russian tank transporters, they can carry 60t. The issue is width, will it fit on the bed, will it fit through tunnels, can it role on a 55t capacity landed bridge? As long as it stays in the lower 50t range and width of current tanks, transport is not a problem.

T-95 was canceled because of its lack of modern components. I suspect this new hybrid tank they are talking about meets those requirements. Truth of the matter is just a drawing board concept. We are going to have to import some technologies to build true modern tanks.

40t tanks are justified when quantity is required over quality. Western tanks are so heavy because of all the composite armour, we skirted that weight and cost by adding ERA. Also lighter tanks require smaller engines, we do not make the big 1500hp engines the West uses. The uprated 1200hp we advert really only gets 1080hp. The 1000 closer to 880hp. Ukraine's gaz turbines are far better in the power ratings although they are maintenance intensive.

Vladimir79 wrote:The weight isn't a problem for Russian tank transporters, they can carry 60t. The issue is width, will it fit on the bed, will it fit through tunnels, can it role on a 55t capacity landed bridge? As long as it stays in the lower 50t range and width of current tanks, transport is not a problem.

Exactly what I was trying to convey , In India too Arjun too needs a special railway bed , the bridges on Indo-Pak border may not take any thing over 50 plus ton , pakistan like India operates T series , India infra like floating bridges etc are all designed to take T's

Hence Arjun acknowledge superior in some parameters to T-90 will not see a short life.

T-95 was canceled because of its lack of modern components. I suspect this new hybrid tank they are talking about meets those requirements. Truth of the matter is just a drawing board concept. We are going to have to import some technologies to build true modern tanks.

I would think the weight and logistics would have played its part in cancelling besides using a 152 mm Smooth Bore which is clearly not the standard with existing gun of 125 mm type.

The only import Russia would need is on TI front and Netcentric/Communications equipment,something they might end up Lic manufacturing from France or Italy.

Right now Russia is developing a new tank and highly likely mobility is the corner stone of new doctrine it will be in 40 T class [ 40 - 49 T ] much like T-90's.

Indeed that would fit their needs, there was a lot of talk in the west about tanks made out of various types of plastics that were light and easy to fix and the plastic acted as an effective armour.

Perhaps automating the tank further to a 2 man crew might enable a tank be further reduced in size too.

So heavy armour with powerful engine will mean better protection and mobility.

Or better armour. Currently western armour is bulky and heavy, while the Soviets/Russians have gone for all sorts of different types of protection including ERA to reduce armour weight and vehicle size.

So how does one justify having a 48T Tank like T-90 over say a 70T tank like Abrams.

At the end of the day no tank is invincible and so it is a case of determining what the threats are and what can be done to protect your tank from them while still keeping it mobile and with a weapon that makes the whole vehicle useful.

From a design point of view there are things you need and things you don't need. For example most western tanks have a human loader. The extra internal volume for one extra man plus their kit and that extra space in the turret. This has to be protected so you increase the size of the armour to protect the extra internal volume.

In Russian vehicles the loader has been replaced by an auto loading mechanism. This reduces the size of the turret which means it needs less armour to protect the crew. Remember the armour on the front of the turret is the most likely hit in combat so it is also the thickest and heaviest armour on the tank. The smaller you can make the front of the turret the better.

Also rather than having extra layers of armour on the exterior of the tank the Russians also use ERA of various types to increase the effectiveness of the existing armour plate.
This is a bit like angling armour so with a minor increase in weight the armour protection provided is greatly improved.

I would also add that the US has a program to design and build a 40 ton class tank... it has been shown on their future weapons programs on discovery channel. It looks like an Abrams that has been in a car crusher and crushed down by 1/3rd. The barrel is square on an angle so it looks like a diamond shape end on.

We are going to have to import some technologies to build true modern tanks.

I disagree. I think an upgraded T-90 will be fine for the next decade. In fact I believe it has been mentioned that when the T-95 program lost funding that they said they would concentrate on upgrades of the T-90. With new Armour and new FCS and new EO jammer and new ERA that covers it better, with modern French ESSM and Catherine Thermal imagers, with new communcations and battle management systems, with a new turret bustle autoloader that allows the tank to operate with no free ammo in the crew compartment and allowing longer penetrators to be used I think it will be an excellent front line tank for a decade or more.

I would think the weight and logistics would have played its part in cancelling besides using a 152 mm Smooth Bore which is clearly not the standard with existing gun of 125 mm type.

I would think when they get rid of the older tanks one advantage they will enjoy is that they will have standardised their tank fleet to 125mm calibre high velocity guns.
A 152mm smoothbore will make fire and forget tube launched missiles a serious option because of the calibre with the added bonus of offering diving top attack threats to Russias enemies and the larger calibre HEAT warhead will be much more effective because of its extra calibre alone.
I would think that the next gen tank will have a lot of the new technologies that were developed for the T-95. The difference will be that when it appears the new T-95 will be like the Su-35S... a totally new design in the sense that most of the internals are Russian, but also much better than the old aircraft in performance in every way.

I would expect that 152mm calibre would allow a gun tube launched UAV with fold out wings that can be launched ahead of an armoured unit and the imagery could be watched by all the vehicles in the unit with one vehicle commanding the UAV to find targets or check for damage... it could even be fitted with a warhead if it finds a soft target.


To create a next gen tank you will need a next gen army for it to operate within, so C4IR needs to be much further developed before a new tank will likely be needed.

Personally I am more interested in the medium brigades, because with BMP levels of armour and mobility it will make the further development of the BMP-3 with the UAE very interesting. Will they retain the layout and preserve amphibious capability, or will they go for the 30-35 ton Bradley approach and give up gun ports and amphibious capability.

I heard the T-95 was canceled.

Yes, it seems the Russian Army doesn't envisage thousands of heavy MBTs rolling over the countryside to meet an enemy fleet of MBTs.

The T-95 was pretty much designed for 24/7 warfare in Europe against NATO and was going to be big and expensive and tactically mobile, but not very strategically mobile.

With reduced force sizes the tanks they do have would need to be easily transportable by a multiple number of platforms.

The T-95 wasn't going to be that sort of tank.

Even when they planned to put the T-95 in service the upgraded T-90 was still expected to be the backbone of the armour force and there would only have been 500-1,000 T-95s in service by 2020 or so.

I have read they will now concentrate on upgrading the T-90 and also looking at new technologies at home and abroad for a next gen replacement tank, but there will never again be a 20,000 strong Russian tank reserve.

There is only one tank making company left in Russia so I would expect a lot of technology developed for the T-95 will be reused in the new design where it makes sense of course, and likely a few features might make it into the T-90 eventually too.

They keep talking and talking about new tanks...i've been waiting for the T-95 to come out and BANG, cancelled

Some news for you Garry

http://rian.ru/defense_safety/20110315/354123339.html

He explained that the Army will consist of heavy, medium and light brigades of the new model. Heavy Brigade will be armed with heavy platforms (tanks) on the tracked chassis with heavy weapons - gun 125 mm and weighing up to 65 tons.

Also, armed with heavy brigades will be a platform-type current infantry fighting vehicles. And on the same platform will be different types of weapons, such as anti-aircraft missile and artillery.

According to the Commander, the average team will have the armored vehicles of "Boomerang." "I can say that they will be flying," - said Postnikov.

Light Brigade, he said, will be armed with armored vehicles such as "Tiger" of up to 2,5 tons, which will be effective, including in mountainous and arctic regions.

He explained that the Army will consist of heavy, medium and light brigades of the new model. Heavy
Brigade will be armed with heavy platforms (tanks) on the tracked
chassis with heavy weapons - gun 125 mm and weighing up to 65 tons.

This is interesting as for the first time they have mentioned an actual weight for this weight class.
I have been thinking a bit and I wonder if they will merge the current very popular 120mm long barrel gun/mortars with the 100mm rifled gun fitted currently to the BMP-3.
It would remove a calibre from the inventory but the 120mm rounds take up more space... especially for their exposed bag propellent charges.
The 120mm gun/mortar has four standard rounds, a direct fire HEAT shell, a standard round with a range of up to 8km or so and a rocket assisted round with a range of 13km plus the laser homing GRAN. The 100mm round of the BMP-3 basically has two rounds, a standard HE shell, and a tube launched guided missile using beam riding guidance.

Without a T-95 like crew in the front hull separated from the gun and ammo layout any vehicle with either of the two above weapons will be vulnerable to hits...

The problem with what they are saying is that before they talked about rejecting the T-95 because it is not mobile enough... ignoring its focus is crew protection. Now they are saying 65 tons is OK?

65 tons would make it the heaviest tank the Russians or Soviets ever (edit) put into service.

I suspect 65 tons is the upper limit of the various type of vehicle, so it would likely be some enormous 152mm system like Coalition that is the 65 ton vehicle based on a chassis like the E3 that is a 25 ton class chassis empty that can take up to a 40 ton payload/turret.

Correction, the IS-7, at 68 tonnes, was the Heaviest tank the Soviets ever built.

GarryB wrote:The problem with what they are saying is that before they talked about rejecting the T-95 because it is not mobile enough... ignoring its focus is crew protection. Now they are saying 65 tons is OK?

No body knows for sure why T-95 was cancelled and since it was radically different from existing T , there are many theories on the WWW as to why it got cancelled.

My opinion on this would be time and money , it was conceived during the Soviet Era and it was a 20 years old approach held in the background of cold war , which may not suite the present doctrine , it could be more expensive and Russian had no funds to sustain its production when they could get a cost effective T-90.

We really do not know how well the prototype worked and how will they manage the logistics of 152 mm MG.

He says 65T and 125 mm MG , the latter makes sense to keep it in sync with the 10 thousand odd tanks , a 65T would raise eyebrow , come that with what the tank designer said 1500 HP engine and electric tank , so we can expect

65 T Tank with 125 MG , 1500 HP engine , Electric Tank ,will have features of T-95 , thats the deal ?

How capable is Russian logistics like Train/Rail Car etc that could transport a 65T tank , Vlad any idea ?

Correction, the IS-7, at 68 tonnes, was the Heaviest tank the Soviets ever built.

And never entered service because it was stupidly overweight. Correction made.

We really do not know how well the prototype worked and how will they manage the logistics of 152 mm MG.

The makers said it passed all the tests and met the requirements set for it. It would not have been rocket science to replace a 152mm gun with a 125mm gun to start with and upgrade to a larger calibre later.

65 T Tank with 125 MG , 1500 HP engine , Electric Tank ,will have features of T-95 , thats the deal ?

If it is a tank that is 65 tons then where has the extra 10 tons come from? The T-95 was always described as a 55 ton class vehicle. Electric tank propulsion is not something they could do over night and I suspect that the T-95 was probably already electric driven. They said it was ground breaking in several areas.

I suspect its design that allowed 24/7 operation with three crew led to expensive crew positions and to give the commander better vision down in the hull I would suspect a range of optics mounted in the top of the turret and perhaps even on extendible arms to improve visibility of the vehicle and the surroundings would likely have made it quite expensive.

Going to a 65 ton class vehicle means all new power train, it would be very useful to go to electric drive because a conventional tank would need all new suspension and transmission and gearing.

GarryB wrote:The makers said it passed all the tests and met the requirements set for it. It would not have been rocket science to replace a 152mm gun with a 125mm gun to start with and upgrade to a larger calibre later.

Its not a rocket science but it will cost them big money to regun the existing 125 mm MG , considering thousands of tanks there.

And its not easy because of the weight issue , I read the Germans tried a Leo test platform with 140 mm gun and due to its weight they had to add a heavy counterbalance

So for a small tank like T's it would be a major headache to move to 152 mm gun.

Is the extra 10 tons come from? The T-95 was always described as a 55 ton class vehicle. Electric tank propulsion is not something they could do over night and I suspect that the T-95 was probably already electric driven. They said it was ground breaking in several areas.

Well the T-95 is speculated at 55T , no one knows for sure how much it weighs because they did not go official with it and there are also speculations that the pictures shown is one of the prototypes of T-95. For all you know T-95 could be 60 or 65 T

I dont think T-95 its electric driven , the designer mentioned in that interview that electric tank is something they are trying for the new tank.

Certainly an electric tank with GT engine and 1500 HP has been mentioned in that interview.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S6q74nrz3iI/AAAAAAAAA88/yb6kPurK7dE/s1600/P5200036.JPG

if you check that link the Abrams has a weight of 63 T and uses 1500HP engine and has a power to weight ratio of nearly 24 , so for 65 T I would expect a P/W ratio of 21-22 Tons comparable to T-90 Bishma.

It seems this year will be the year of negotiations with UVZ for future tanks buying. I wonder what tank they will choose (T-90M, T-95 or any other new type) and for what price. I really doubt that Russian MoD will not buy new tanks in next years.

The would end up buying the T-90M they have already built and tested the prototype , the T-95 project is dead but the technologies will be incorporated in their new FMBT.

I wonder what tank they will choose (T-90M, T-95 or any other new type)
and for what price. I really doubt that Russian MoD will not buy new
tanks in next years.

I agree... they need to make orders for next year or UVZ will only be able to make trains.

I am guessing they are waiting for the T-90M to complete its trials and tests.



http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2011/03/tank-news.html

New Pictures of T-95 have emerged

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/75960.html#cutid1

Yes, I posted a link to those photos from Igors blog above.

Very interesting.

At first I thought they had gone for a narrow chassis, but now that I look at it again... it appears more like the width is standard tank width and the Chassis is longer and a lot deeper. The level the hull rises above the tracks is significant, though it is made to look worse by the side skirts. The nose hull armour looks very thick.

There seems to be a lot of stuff on the turret even if there is no crew inside it and unless that guy standing on the hull is a dwarf in the top shot both the hull and the turret are signficantly bigger than the T series tanks before it.