Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

Wait, I was wrong with this mess. Now I have cleared my mind , I remember.

Designation is not T-72B1, that is really simplified version of tank (as for Venezuela), neither T-72BA, but just "modernised T-72B".

B1 is not to differenciate the other upgrade of 2011 from B2 (Rogatka). Program is modernisation of old T-72B1 tank to T-72B2 level, so 101 modernised tanks in 2012-2013 are T-72B2 version, with Relikt and additional elements, just as reported earlier, simple upgrade from 2011 is no longer.

 

[militarysta]

Sure?
I have code names form Russia -as I wrote:
184А - основной танк Т-72БА
184А1 - основной танк Т-72БА1
So im little suprise...

 

[hest]

Sure?
I have code names form Russia -as I wrote:
184А - основной танк Т-72БА
184А1 - основной танк Т-72БА1
So im little suprise...

According to reports, those with Sosna-U from 2011 are just called "Modernised T-72B model 2011", there were many different variants designated T-72BA in past.

For the matter, previous T-72BA hadn't Sosna-U and modernised autoloader among others.

As reported that this simple modernisation is no longer purchased, and from general: we will receive new T-72B1 (B2), document shows that T-72B1 will be modernised, so in fact in 2012-2013 we will see T-72B2 tank which is deeper upgrade.

So there should be >200 T-72B2 which is really modern tank.

 

[Damian]

If they want to modernize T-72B's to T-72B2, they should brought them to T-90A standard by just building new welded turrets and place them on upgraded T-72B hulls. It is cheaper than building new T-90A, and will improve vehicle survivability much more. Especially that they allready have production line for these turrets.

Hull armor also could had been upgraded... if it is even possible to make this cheap and quick, T-xx tanks were not designed to have easy replaced basic armor.

 

[hest]

It is relatively cheap upgrade, protection improvement comes from Relikt reactive armour, there is no necessity to mess in construction. Overall in characteristics it is close to T-90 but much cheaper, with good protection, FCS, firepower, thermal sight, comparable to modern tanks.

There is deeper variant of modernisation, to install combat module, turret (from modernised T-90) as was with Burlak, but point is to maintain cost low.

 

[Damian]

It only proves financial problems if they have problems with just using existing turret production line to do such upgrade. Even Americans when they are upgrading M1 or M1IP to M1A2SEP are building new turrets and are deeply rebuild hulls... but of course this is also because M1/M1IP are Block I variants and M1A2SEP is one of many Block II variants, both are basically two very different tanks.

 

[hest]

When it is possible to bring characteristics to modern level at very low expense, it is not necessary, which is the point of modernising T-72B, simple addition of new ERA will result in drastic improvement, in fact structure is the only thing which will be left, but there is already good level of protection.

And it would be even better to produce completely new vehicles, but it is not the point of rentable modernisation.

 

[Damian]

This whole program do not have a sense. Instead of purchasing new T-90A's with new ERA and sights, they are modernizing T-72B, ok they have a deep modernization of T-72B but they do not improve the vehicle completely. This proves that they have financial problems. In Germany or USA the goal was to build one variant active fleet, and this was fullfiled mostly, In Germany there is Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6 active fleet, the only real difference between both tanks is a gun, in USA US Army have active tank fleet completely equipped with M1A2SEP v2's, only ARNG have mostly M1A1SA, but they also slowly recive M1A2SEP v2's, USMC is also reciving M1A1FEP's, but all of these are Block II's so their structure is same, armor protection also, the only differences are in some mechanical components and some electronics.

If Russian Army want less strain on logistics, they should scrap T-72B's modernization program, and direct all funds in to T-90A production, this would make sense... or cease production, redirect funds in to R&D program of "Armata" platform... because what they are currently doing is really a waste of time and money that can be better spent.

 

[militarysta]

You know that efectivness of only changed ERA is really questionable in many countries. In Ukraina, Poland, Germnay, France...
And they are serious doubt if Relikt is enought when "sepcial armour" is not changed.
@Damian - Russia lost factory producton line for cast turret. Now the only turret are welded, and cost whole turet system from T-90A is equal ~2-3 T-72BA tank. So in Russians will have ~200 "strong" T-72BA1 in cost...~64 T-90A.And buing T-90A haven't sens becouse new tank is cooming soon - Armada will be first IVth generation tank, so buing T-90A is pointless. In fact T-72BA have a lot of sense, but those tank is not on western modernisated IIIgen level. In fact in many details is under Leopard-2A4 level. The only one better thing is Sosna-U but...ther is no independent commander sight so only single "Sosna-U" in not big advantage. Engine -old, trnsmission-old, Jaśmine stabilisation - whorst then WNA-H22, amunition -old whit shorter L"D ratio, etc.
But against Gorgia, China, Central Asia "enemy" T-72BA is more then enought. And nobody can take serious NATO vs Russia scenario.

 

[Damian]

Now the only turret are welded, and cost whole turet system from T-90A is equal ~2-3 T-72BA tank.

This is completely ridicoulus price that a turret costs like 2-3 older tanks. Seriously I'am not surprised that Russian politicians tries to force lower prices on industry by saying they want to test/purchase, actually testing and even purchasing foreing equipment.

So in Russians will have ~200 "strong" T-72BA1 in cost...~64 T-90A.And buing T-90A haven't sens becouse new tank is cooming soon - Armada will be first IVth generation tank, so buing T-90A is pointless.

You forget about one important thing. UVZ and UKBTM can design "Armata", tests can be successfull, but after tests politicians can say..."oh You know, everything is cool, vehicle is fine, but You know we do not have enough money, and there is no enemy to counter with this thing, so sorry but no, we won't buy it".

Unless decision will be made to start mass production, it is resonable to rather purchase newer tanks, than upgrade old and obsolete ones. If this is not done, this means serious financial problems... and the ridicoulous prices! This is what happens when one company have a monopoly, in West this is just unthinkable because with such prices Army would just choose alternative manufacturer.

 

[hest]

If Russian Army want less strain on logistics, they should scrap T-72B's modernization program, and direct all funds in to T-90A production, this would make sense... or cease production, redirect funds in to R&D program of "Armata" platform... because what they are currently doing is really a waste of time and money that can be better spent.

And question is, how many T-90 could you purchase with same funds compared to modernise widely available T-72B close to it's level ?

T-72B2 is a simple way to bring force to modern level, with FCS and firepower comparable to all modern tanks, with good protection and mobility, and many can be purchased at relatively low cost.

And you know about future plans ? UVZ is building a new production facility and in future will focus exclusively on new production of next generation, until then there is necessity to maintain plant production and upgrade is the most cost efficient way.

Also you should wait for T-90AM (domestic) to pass trials, and then who knows...

Rest of countries did not have such history of developements in the last decades, as Burlak programme, ob 195 and currently ongoing Armata neither such rearmament process, so there is no base to criticise their direction.

 

[hest]

You know that efectivness of only changed ERA is really questionable in many countries. In Ukraina, Poland, Germnay, France...
And they are serious doubt if Relikt is enought when "sepcial armour" is not changed.
@Damian - Russia lost factory producton line for cast turret. Now the only turret are welded, and cost whole turet system from T-90A is equal ~2-3 T-72BA tank. So in Russians will have ~200 "strong" T-72BA1 in cost...~64 T-90A.And buing T-90A haven't sens becouse new tank is cooming soon - Armada will be first IVth generation tank, so buing T-90A is pointless. In fact T-72BA have a lot of sense, but those tank is not on western modernisated IIIgen level. In fact in many details is under Leopard-2A4 level. The only one better thing is Sosna-U but...ther is no independent commander sight so only single "Sosna-U" in not big advantage. Engine -old, trnsmission-old, Jaśmine stabilisation - whorst then WNA-H22, amunition -old whit shorter L"D ratio, etc.
But against Gorgia, China, Central Asia "enemy" T-72BA is more then enought. And nobody can take serious NATO vs Russia scenario.

If you refer to older T-72BA, I agree it is more of a good repair, but for T-72B from 2011 and especially T-72B2 Rogatka it is completely wrong.

 

[Damian]

Rest of countries did not have such history of developements in the last decades, as Burlak programme, ob 195 and currently ongoing Armata neither such rearmament process, so there is no base to criticise their direction.

You know so little about world outside Russia, that You should be quiet about commenting that world.

And question is, how many T-90 could you purchase with same funds compared to modernise widely available T-72B close to it's level ?

T-72B2 is a simple way to bring force to modern level, with FCS and firepower comparable to all modern tanks, with good protection and mobility, and many can be purchased at relatively low cost.

And you know about future plans ? UVZ is building a new production facility and in future will focus exclusively on new production of next generation, until then there is necessity to maintain plant production and upgrade is the most cost efficient way.

Also you should wait for T-90AM (domestic) to pass trials, and then who knows...

It is still waste of money to upgrade obsolete tanks. if Russia wants more money then they need to reduce their tanks fleet, and this means scrapping or solding out all old tanks, and use saved money, and eventuall profits from solding older tanks to purchase new tanks, it is that simple.

But finances, and logic was never Russian goverment strong points.

 

[hest]

This is completely ridicoulus price that a turret costs like 2-3 older tanks. Seriously I'am not surprised that Russian politicians tries to force lower prices on industry by saying they want to test/purchase, actually testing and even purchasing foreing equipment.

And do you understand difference between new production and simple modernisation, and how bigger is the cost of foreign systems ?? It is fact that UVZ is first exporter and producer of tanks.

You forget about one important thing. UVZ and UKBTM can design "Armata", tests can be successfull, but after tests politicians can say..."oh You know, everything is cool, vehicle is fine, but You know we do not have enough money, and there is no enemy to counter with this thing, so sorry but no, we won't buy it".

Unless decision will be made to start mass production, it is resonable to rather purchase newer tanks, than upgrade old and obsolete ones. If this is not done, this means serious financial problems... and the ridicoulous prices! This is what happens when one company have a monopoly, in West this is just unthinkable because with such prices Army would just choose alternative manufacturer.

It is more complex than that. In some situations it is actually more difficult to renounce to a programme than to proceed with it, when there are contracts, industry, construction of facilities, jobs, etc. And you know how influencial is Ural lobby .

About prices, it is not fully objective, but political, as it is all.

 

[militarysta]

West this is just unthinkable because with such prices Army would just choose alternative manufacturer.

Oh really?
How many companies can produce tank in France? One: NEXTER, in Germnay two KMW and Rheinmettal but work in cooperation.
In USA>? (no idea) In Poland? Hehhehe - you remeber how expensive whas PT-91 and PT_91 service? And after take free 128Leo-2A4 from Germany whit free service and spare part - mirracle! prices in Bumar about PT and T-72 service take down After five yers there was problem whit Leo-2 service. Germnas allowed to made in in Gliwice factory and what? Theribble price and theribble low quality. But indeed when WZL5 take next 40 Leopard-2 for remonts -again mirracle next bumar remont contract for Leo-2 have normal price and better quality
So russian problems are not uniqe.

 

[hest]

You know so little about world outside Russia, that You should be quiet about commenting that world.

So show me an analogy, besides you start again with your criticism while not even understanding current plan and developements.

It is still waste of money to upgrade obsolete tanks. if Russia wants more money then they need to reduce their tanks fleet, and this means scrapping or solding out all old tanks, and use saved money, and eventuall profits from solding older tanks to purchase new tanks, it is that simple.

But finances, and logic was never Russian goverment strong points.

I do not understand what are you trying to say.

Currently plant needs production to maintain it's capability until consequent massive purchase of new generation vehicles. It is very cost effective to, with limited expense, bring T-72B to modern level (in fact in FCS and firepower it is fully comparable to latest tanks, with good protection), and better than purchase of new T-90, because at same price you have better capability.

Besides there is an active programme of utilisation, scrapping of numerous old T-55, T-62 and T-64.

 

[Damian]

And do you understand difference between new production and simple modernisation, and how bigger is the cost of foreign systems ?? It is fact that UVZ is first exporter and producer of tanks.

1) Simple modernization so good for poor countries.
2) UVZ is just failed company manufacturing tanks that were considered as simplified, less advanced in Soviet Union, that survived only because of UVZ mafia like relations with politicians.

It is more complex than that. In some situations it is actually more difficult to renounce to a programme than to proceed with it, when there are contracts, industry, construction of facilities, jobs, etc. And you know how influencial is Ural lobby .

You see, even You admitts that UVZ is like mafia, corruption in Russia is terryfing.

Oh really?
How many companies can produce tank in France? One: NEXTER, in Germnay two KMW and Rheinmettal but work in cooperation.
In USA>? (no idea) In Poland? Hehhehe - you remeber how expensive whas PT-91 and PT_91 service?

Nexter is just renamed Giat, and what do You expect from a country that loves socialism, they will promote state owned company and fight with any competition for it.

Germany is good example of diversification of own industry manufacturers.

USA there are two companies, GDLS and BAe, BAe is currently more American than European company, and if BAe do not have facilities capable to manufacture heavy tracked vehicles in Europe, they have such in USA (for example Red River Army Depot).

Actually USA is interesting because besides standard manufacturing facilities like Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, even Army Depots responsible for maintnance, repairs or modernization, have capabilities to manufacture vehicles. For example Anniston Army Depot is manufacturing ABV's besides repairing and modernizing M1 tanks, M113's, Strykers or M109's.

Of course there are more companies there capable to do so, Oshkosh, LM, Boeing, all of them are capable to do so as they have huge facilities.

Our country is a different problem here, we have Bumar, and we have HSW that is also capable to manufacture tanks, but You know what currently is going on there.

So russian problems are not uniqe.

Of course not unique, these are problems with countries with socialist mentality where there are single companies that have monopoly for some products... and are mostly poorer ones.

 

[Damian]

So show me an analogy, besides you start again with your criticism while not even understanding current plan and developements.

USA with TTB, CATTB, ASM, FCS and Block III programs, as well as minor developments like XM360/XM360E1, or Germany with NGP/EGS and other minor programs. You see, You know nothing about world outside Russia.

Besides this, many programs in USA are still classified and not known to general public.

I do not understand what are you trying to say.

Currently plant needs production to maintain it's capability until consequent massive purchase of new generation vehicles. It is very cost effective to, with limited expense, bring T-72B to modern level (in fact in FCS and firepower it is fully comparable to latest tanks, with good protection), and better than purchase of new T-90, because at same price you have better capability.

It is shame for a country that pretends to be nuclear superpower that is incapable to find money to purchase T-90's that costs $2.77 – 4.25 million USD in 2011, and instead choose to modernize obsolete tanks.

I wonder if they will find money to even purchase "Armata".

 

[militarysta]

If you refer to older T-72BA, I agree it is more of a good repair, but for T-72B from 2011 and especially T-72B2 Rogatka it is completely wrong.

As I know there are no plans buying Rogatka -yes?
So what is so super behind Leo2A4 level in T-72BA1? I can see only one real advantages - Sosna-U and it's better only due to Cetherina thermo...

@Damian, te difrence between EGS, NGP, TTB, TankBlockIII and Ob195/Armata is that -Armata will be exist, and rest programs where closed.
So even if Armata will be refresh Ob.195 whit simpler FCS (not multichannel whit full auto mode) then it will be better tnak then whole rest now. And It will forced refresh rest tanks in Germany and USA, and maybe in France.
And there is no alternatvie for Armata in Russia now. And fact that army don't buy "new" Ob.188A1/A2 and Ob.188M clerly shown that there is no real alternative.Propably Armata will be 2-3 years later, propably production will be slower and smaller then is claimed now, but there is no alternative for Armata. This tnak is "to be or not to be" for UVZ. Like Kurganiec-25 for Kurganmasz.

 

[hest]

1) Simple modernization so good for poor countries.
2) UVZ is just failed company manufacturing tanks that were considered as simplified, less advanced in Soviet Union, that survived only because of UVZ mafia like relations with politicians.

1 Modernisation can be more effective path for those who actually have good planning. And which countries, USA or Europe purchase new production ?

2 Same as in US where production line was not closed only because of lobbysm.

You see, even You admitts that UVZ is like mafia, corruption in Russia is terryfing.

There is always a political aspect, but I consider workers, jobs, scientifical developement...