Russia abandoned T-90?

Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by bhramos, Nov 3, 2010.

  1. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,208
    Likes Received:
    6,640
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    translation for the article : http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/65780.html

    For a variety of data in the press UVZ not received the state defense order for the T-90A for the next year.
    As usual, blame everything except the developer of the T-90. Serdyukov, Popovkin, the Kremlin ...
    And if not for objective reasons, abandoned T-90?
    T-90 tank is a modernized version of the T-72B and combat effectiveness can not be found to satisfy modern requirements model. In Tagil never in history has created a product, just doing enough, for example - the T-54 on the basis of which was created by T-55 and T-62 did not have fundamental differences from him. T-55 T-62 - T-54 modification. When the T-64 changed the gun, changed the tower, and so forth - the same one he did not name the new tank? Based on the T-64 was created by T-72 as a modification of the T-90. Creating a tank-analog (similar to T-64 in fighting qualities, but it absolutely is not uniform) was a turn from forward movement of the industry to lag behind. In terms of embedded design solutions for tank T-72 compared with the T-64A was a step backwards.

    The main disadvantages of the T-72-90 to date:
    - The MTO did not radically changed since the T-54 (even the Chinese have their clone B-2-piece now as 20 years). MTO discrepancy of the T-72 requirements of modernity, it was recognized as early as 70 years. Replacing the engine has the factory 24 hours a team of 4 persons.
    - Transmission outdated. Seven-speed airborne transmission Facility (OPF), was developed in the early 60's for the T-64 engine under 5TDF, engine with 700 hp In the 70 years BCP has been strengthened under the engine B-46, later by B-84 and B-92. With the 60-ies of transmission has not undergone significant changes and is outdated, does not meet modern technical requirements. Currently she is working on limiting regime and does not meet modern requirements for transmission capacity engine, handling and ergonomics.

    - Power plant tank is a classic version with a transverse engine, which has limited layout possibilities. The power plant because of certain provisions of the engine crankshaft can be created by a single power unit (engine and transmission systems) as well as to drive the driving wheels of the machine requires additional intermediate units and units.

    - In terms of embedded design solutions for logistics T-72 tank (T-90) compared with the T-64 was a step backwards. To connect the gearbox to the engine had to use a vertical gear reminiscent of the famous "guitar" tanks, the first postwar generation. Transmissions are interconnected cross shaft. A fan drive cooling is provided by a gear drive shaft. Cooling system design is not possible to isolate from the radiators of the engine compartment. As a result, Fording the bottom can be made only after sealing the roof of the WCO, which limits the movement under water because of danger of overheating.
    - AZ of date (in the photo Nutra new T-90A is nothing alleged in the patent to all known I had not noticed), and hence limits the projectile remained the same as they were. In this case, someone really criticized the Burlak.
    - Hotel Tower outdated, does not apply modular design of booking, the overlap of the DMZ as usual for the series of T-72 ugly.

    Complex WHD "Contact-5" does not meet modern requirements as to the effectiveness of protection to that and the probability of initiation elements DZ modern BPS and cumulative means.
    - Outlook engine as there was or not. V99 carry more than 10 years of exhibitions, and the result - as is always zero. A prospective-85 - there was not. The engine is where there is its mass scale production, the establishment of which even under the Soviet funding planned to take about a decade ..
    - Traveling without upgrading weighting tank does not hold.

    AA Frost wrote:
    All this creates conditions that until about 1980, all four tanks of the plant of the USSR (UVZ, ZTM, Omsk and LKZ) will produce three types, essentially identical in its combat and technical qualities of machines, creating an exceptional complexity in the production, exploitation , repairs, training and supply of components nodes.
    Moreover, all this "mixture" of machines (T-64A T-80 T-72 "Cobra") will be quite a long time to be on service in the armed forces, compounding the complexity of the operation of these different types of machines, while maintaining production and leave some of their parts and components to meet the needs of maintenance and repair. All this will continue over the next 5-th anniversary, and perhaps the 10 th anniversary, that is, until 1990. It turns away ugly picture is very counterproductive, expensive and time-consuming work on the restructuring of production plants and a small supply of new cars in voyska.Etot issue is not well thought out and it should be more carefully "chew." It's obvious that the preparation of proposals for the T-80 tanks and recommendations of its production to factories in Leningrad, Kharkov and Omsk deeply analyzed and requires further analysis and discussion.
    Another aspect of this case, no less dangerous for the development of tanks for subsequent years, is the massive diversion of technical forces of all plants and design bureaus for study, unification, production preparation and production of T-80 tank and stopping work on promising areas: the search for new solutions and new models . Anyway, before 1980 none of the factories and design bureaus are not mandated, and the Germans and Americans, under all conditions, by this time come out with new models of "XM" and "Leopard." And we by this time we have? "For the soul," virtually nothing, because for three years (1977, 1978 and 1979) is much, much more of something special, do not do. It turns out that we are in "dead end" and may lose "face" in the tank armament in comparison with the West and to create a very dangerous situation, which is a quick fix it would be impossible. There somewhere and someone admitted a mistake, or just lack of understanding of problems that we have put before him in order to maintain their superiority in tank armor.

    The result - now openly acknowledged that at the time the tank manufacturing in a deadlock, there is a lag in comparison with the West, and Tagil (legal successor) is still "chewing gum", called T-90.
     
  2.  
  3. Agantrope

    Agantrope Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    68
    I ll be tried to get in another which is best tank in IA armoury thread. We people are known well for using juggads.
     
  4. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    well there goes the IA's argument that the the Tincan-90 was the best; bhisma indeed, lets name it shakuni instead after all it's caused Arjuna no dearth of troubles!
     
  5. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,208
    Likes Received:
    6,640
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    But.Brave Indian Soldiers had great history of winning wars with this juggads. like in 1971 wars..... and others using their tactics.......
     
  6. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    27,616
    Likes Received:
    28,446
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    A tank means who can deal with threads head on not hiding and shooting....

    But that's me!
     
  7. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65

Share This Page