Ukraine invites India to modernize T-90S Tanks

[Damian]

Yeah. The options for the T-90 also seems to be good. I don't know what electronics were offered, but thinking about a 6TD-2/3 engine on the tank along with their ERA options is a good deal.

AFAIK Ukrainians can be more flexible when it comes to electronics and just allow to integrate your own systems with their systems or to use non Ukrainian products.

 

[sayareakd]

When you bought Т-90S, you did not simply have a choice. To you, then, not lining up a turn on a tender. And Pakistan purchased Т-80UD and India was quickly look for an alternative to him.

temporary solution, cannot be equate with permanent solution, specially when GSQR for MBT is their.

 

[p2prada]

temporary solution, cannot be equate with permanent solution, specially when GSQR for MBT is their.

Nobody buys 1600 tanks, claim to use it up to 2040 and say it is a temporary solution, especially if the Army goes for 6 regiments of T-90MS. That's not how the world works.

FMBT will be replacing T-72s, not T-90s.

 

[sayareakd]

can someone tell me, if T90S satisfy GSQR for MBT???

 

[p2prada]

can someone tell me, if T90S satisfy GSQR for MBT???

Are you trying to troll, because if IA chose T-90s then it would have satisfied their requirements.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

can someone tell me, if T90S satisfy GSQR for MBT???

Is there ever any GSQR made for T-90S before purchase ? No..

But now T-90S forms a very huge portion of our Armored fleet so they should get upgrade, Purchasing new tanks are not Upgrade..

 

[sayareakd]

Are you trying to troll, because if IA chose T-90s then it would have satisfied their requirements.

are you trying to say that even if GSQR for MBT is their, but since IA has chosen T90S then it would have satisfied their requirement, it does not matter if that tank fulfill GSQR for MBT or not.

 

[p2prada]

are you trying to say that even if GSQR for MBT is their, but since IA has chosen T90S then it would have satisfied their requirement, it does not matter if that tank fulfill GSQR for MBT or not.

I don't think you understand how any weapon is purchased. First of all, when choosing the T-90 the Army sends out a RFI or Request for Information. The manufacturer replies with what they can provide and what they cannot. This is followed by the RFP or Request for Proposal based on what's available. This RFP is like your GSQR. Once the RFP is received by the manufacturer they make the required changes to suit the RFP. This is pretty much it. After that the Army will conduct trials to find out if the RFP was satisfied or not. Modifications are made where needed and flaws are rectified during user trials. Since we have high ranking officials who keep saying the T-90 is the Main Battle Tank, it is an established fact that the T-90 has been accepted into full service as the primary tank. Considering there have been repeated exercises using the tank in network centric and nuclear, biological and chemical environment situations, the tank is effectively part of the doctrine today.

In domestic productions, the Army sends out a RFI. The domestic industry with no experience completely accepts the RFI. Then a GSQR is setup which is like the RFP. The tank manufacturer designs, builds prototypes and conducts internal tests. After internal tests come user trials. The Army conducts user trials just like how the Army conducted user trials for the T-90. If flaws are found they are identified and rectified. Modifications are made depending on the need. If the Army likes the tank it is accepted into the force. This is how it works.

During the process there are acceptable failures and unacceptable failures. Unacceptable failures equate to a rejection. At the same time there are acceptable shortcomings and unacceptable shortcomings. These go through internal debates and the best solution is applied.

So, the tank has to fulfill RFP or GSQR or it is rejected. The same way as how Mig-35, F-16IN, SH and Gripen NG were rejected from MRCA trials. Like how Mi-28 was rejected from the attack helicopter trials. Like how many foreign and domestic manufacturers wares are rejected based on trials. It has always been the same since a long time.

Apart from all this there is such a thing as deadline too.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Got some Info on "NOZH" ("Knife") :

EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOUR "NOZH" MODULES

But any info on Doublet, Gurkhan is talking about ?

 

[Damian]

Knife (Nozh) is a single layer ERA, Dublet is it's more modern variant with 2 or even 3 layers of reactive elements.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Dublet is it's more modern variant with 2 or even 3 layers of reactive elements.

Do you know any links / PDF where i can read more about it ?

 

[Akim]

Do you know any links / PDF where i can read more about it ?

МОДУЛИ КУМУЛЯТИВНОЙ ЗАЩИТЫ "НОЖ" (ХСЧКВ)
Êîìïëåêñ äèíàìè÷åñêîé çàùèòû «Äóïëåò» / Ãàëåðåÿ

 

[Akim]

Do you know any links / PDF where i can read more about it ?

МОДУЛИ КУМУЛЯТИВНОЙ ЗАЩИТЫ "НОЖ" (ХСЧКВ)
Êîìïëåêñ äèíàìè÷åñêîé çàùèòû «Äóïëåò» / Ãàëåðåÿ

 

[sayareakd]

p2p am very busy till monday, but i sure like to reply to your post specially the domestic order.

 

[Damian]

Do you know any links / PDF where i can read more about it ?

Besides what Akim posted, I have a photos of Dublet, You can compare them to Knife drawings and photos in the article posted by Akim.

Dublet moduls installed on turret front, You can see that there are 3 layers.

Knife/Dublet front hull module, it is actually the same single layer type.

T-64BM Bulat...

...T-84M Oplot, as You can see the front hull modules are similiar but, T-84M Oplot have much bigger side hull and front turret modules that contains double or triple layer of Dublet ERA, while T-64BM Bulat have there only single layer of Knife ERA.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

T-84M Oplot have much bigger side hull and front turret modules that contains double or triple layer of Dublet ERA,

Thanks for sharing..

 

[Damian]

No problem. And as I said, IMHO Ukrainians made very good step, when they decided to develop Knife and later Dublet, and to finally cutt all ties with NII Stali, that is still not making any real progress, but goes around the same type of old ERA based on explosive filler between two steel plates. Such type of ERA is easier and easier to defeat, while with Knife and Dublet, due to their working mechanism, there can be a problem. And here India have opportunity to gain such advanced ERA, and probably manufacture it instead of obsolete Kontakt-5.

 

[p2prada]

And here India have opportunity to gain such advanced ERA, and probably manufacture it instead of obsolete Kontakt-5.

This would be a pretty big boost to our capabilities. Especially considering how it can also be used on the FMBT in the future, if possible.

 

[Damian]

This would be a pretty big boost to our capabilities. Especially considering how it can also be used on the FMBT in the future, if possible.

Definetly, besides this, there is possibility that this is the only heavy (universal) ERA that can be used also on lightly armored platforms. It is because there are no plates that are push away by explosive filler detonation, that can damage the structure of the base armor.

IRCC our designers were planning to install Knife or Dublet on Rosomak APC, so probably it is possible to install that type of protection lighter platforms giving them incredible boost in protection. Think about this.

 

[Damian]

Something more from Ukraine.

This heavy tracked universal combat platform based on T-80UD/T-84 tanks series was shown before but here a bit more details of it's protection and we can see that the rear compartment is a form of replaceable module, so there can be plenty of mission modules for a single chassis.

And something that definetly can interest India that still have somewhere old T-54/T-55 tanks stored.

HAPC/HIFV based on T-54/55 tanks.