Sunday, January 3, 2010

Т-90М. New Specs.

The new pictures and main specs of T-90M (ob.188M) were appeared on a Russian site. This tank was first time demonstrated for Putin in Dec.10 at N-Tagil. It has got:

- New bigger turret without weakened frontal areas and with the all-aspect ERA covering.
- ERA 'Relict'
- Additional roof protection against atop attacking munition.
- New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.
- Aft ammo storage.
- Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-split/rounds protection.
- 7.62 mm automatic turret instead of 12.7mm.
-  Totally new 2A82 125 mm MG (2A46M5 - optional).
- FCS with the net-centric module.
- New radio.
- New navigation system.
- New anti-split kevlar layer instead of the standard Russian anti-neutron layer.
- new anti-fire system.

In work:

- Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
- Steering wheel control.

T-90M - is intended for the export purpose mainly. For domestic use there was confirmed 'Burlak' program with heavy Tomsk OKBTM's input.


  1. to igor

    what do u mean by aft ammo

    is ammunition is in turret or in the hull?

  2. aft ammo is a pure gain in this case since can be used for high risk missions even without any ammo in the hull. so less risk for crew. seems to me the aft autoloader is defended enough by ERA against RPGs. it was a successful tank tactic during the Chechen war while they used only autoloader placed rounds without additional storage around the hull.

  3. i could not understand what is the meaning of after ammo

    does this mean ammunition is still stored in hull
    but more towrds engine

  4. how much the weight of tank has been increased from 46.5 tons

  5. there are two autoloaders full with 22 (hull) and 20 (aft turret) munition. No free lied munition in the hull like T-72/T-90 and Leo-2 tanks have.

  6. to anon anuary 4, 2010 7:15 PM :

    T-90M was claimed the same weight as T-90S, but it would be logically to expect 1-2 t rise in weight.

    T-90 'Burlak' is heavier, as 49-50 t estimated weight due to the modular passive armor on the turret and heavy 'Kaktus' ERA.

  7. Hello Igorn, thanks again for translating this interesting information. Couple of points.

    - I thought extra volume in turret was to accommodate panoramic sight rather than an autoloader.

    - Any official confirmation on Burlak module? if it happens I would be really surprise about Omsk getting such a potential large contract.


  8. to Alejandro:

    - xtra-volume is for the new panoramic, BMS and probably a conditioner in the export version.

    - The un-direct confirmation of Burlak accepting was in form of officially tender published on the gov site for Burlak's simulator. So probably the decision is already made. In any way the serial production will be organized in N-Tagil since OKBTM is a design house, not a serial plant.

  9. So what you are saying is that the T-90M has two auto loaders.
    One in the normal place beneath the turret and one in an optional turret bustle autoloader that can hold longer penetrators.
    I have read comments about the prospective T-95 having a totally different gun to current modern tanks. In those comments the current model guns have been described as conventional solid/powder propellent guns.
    Is it possible they have developed a liquid propellent gun for the T-95.
    Also comments about a 152mm calibre gun suggest a huge improvement in HEAT performance because of increased calibre, but the extra space available to projectiles could also be used for electronics for fire and forget missiles, including anti aircraft as well as anti tank missiles with extended ranges.
    Do you know what improvements the 2A82 has over the current guns in service?

  10. to anon January 7, 2010 2:07 AM:

    ==Is it possible they have developed a liquid propellent gun for the T-95.==

    - Judging by all open info about tank gun development in Russia I think 'no'. As about 152 mm, this gun was tested in early 90th, there are many pics of the testbed there. But over to 152mm - must be a hard decision, I think that they think it's not necessary in cost/value evaluation. Without length limitation 125 mm smooth-bore is still a very powerful solution for tanks. 152 mm rifled would be rational if only standardize all the artillery and tanks on the unified gun caliber and technology.

    ==Do you know what improvements the 2A82 has over the current guns in service?==

    - It's officially declarated ('Plant N9' site) as the 'gun with increased might'/ Has Better accurateness, longer service life, lighter, 25% more powerfull relative 2A46, but the info is not 100% reliable.

  11. I have my suspicions about the new gun being 152mm.
    It is a western thing to standardise everything.
    As the Soviets found during the great patriotic war, when the war drags on and you have civilians conscripted into military service having 7.62mm pistol and SMG ammo is handy for logistics.
    What is not handy is having a standard rifle round in 7.62mm calibre that is not compatible but used in rifles and machineguns.
    It is useful to be able to cut up a rifle barrel and use it for pistol and SMG barrels but when a unit with riflemen and machinegunners need 7.62 x 54mm and get 7.62 x 25mm pistol/SMG ammo there is a problem.
    Equally an artillery unit wanting 122mm ammo getting Grad 122mm rockets instead of 122mm calibre artillery shells.
    In the west it was assumed the BMP-1 had a 76.2mm gun because that was a standard calibre.
    Of course the ammo it fires is not compatible with 76.2mm guns so there is no benefit to making the calibre the same.
    For the same reasons I suspect the new 152mm gun will have nothing in common with 152mm artillery guns so it might be a 150mm calibre weapon, or maybe 155mm.
    It will be a smoothbore because HEAT rounds don't like to be spinning in flight, and HVAPDS penetrators can't be stabilised by spin either.
    Rifled guns with HVAPDS rounds use sabots to prevent spin being imparted on the shell as well as to concentrate the energy on a smaller projectile.
    The only shells that like to spin is full bore ammo like HE FRAG, and HESH, which is not a good reason to make the gun heavier and more expensive etc etc with rifling.
    A 15Xmm calibre gun would allow much more power to be used with a projectile.
    To save space for ammo there is no reason why short stubby HE rounds could not be developed.
    The 125mm HE FRAG shells are effective enough, the increase in calibre is not to improve this so a stubby mini shell with shortened body and very short stub propellent could be used for the HE rounds.
    Use of liquid propellent should also reduce the space ammo takes up allowing more projectiles to be carried.
    In Afghanistan Soviet tanks were often fitted with trailers carrying extra ammo, there is no reason why they couldn't do that too.

    Thank you for your replies and information.

    I very much appreciate it.

  12. Igor forums in Macedonia write a lot of information news about new Russian UAV who will be produced in Tu plants .

  13. Hi Igorr , sorry wrong thread but do you have any write up or info on Delta 4 SSBN upgrade ?


  14. to anon January 7, 2010 2:04 PM:

    Whatever pluses and minuses of a rifled gun for tanks, they did think about the standardization on 152 mm rifled for tanks and arty in 80th. May be it really was dropped because the arguments like brought by you. In fact they tested 152 mm smooth-bore gun at the end.

  15. In the west the intoduction of the 115mm smoothbore on the T-62 was roundly criticised for its potential lack of accuracy.
    These days the only modern tanks with rifled guns are British and that is because they stick with HESH warheads.
    In the Desert Storm conflict the armour of a Warrior IFV was claimed to be as good as a tanks because it was hit by a 120mm round in a friendly fire incident.
    Of course HESH is useless against anything with spaced armour, which is what the added armour of the Warrior acted like.
    So not an amazing IFV... a crap tank round.
    Lower internal friction means higher velocities and the fact that the primary tank gun fired rounds don't like to be spun are the main reasons for a smoothbore, but lighter guns that can be shorter for the same velocity or the same length with higher velocity not to mention cheaper to make and easier to keep clean.
    Standardisation really only makes sense if they will all use the same ammo and be completely standardised.
    A wider tube means more energy can be pushed through the barrel and while the 125mm still has plenty of growth potential, a 150mm class weapon will improve HEAT performance which is related to the HEATs calibre along with what it is made of and its internal design.
    The increased calibre also means more internal space of the projectile for sophisticated proximity fuses or even guidance systems for true fire and forget missiles like the SOKOL-1 round that seems to me based on its description seems to use the same guidance as the Ugroza guidance kits for unguided Russian aerial rockets.
    BTW thanks again for such an interesting BLOG.

  16. Any news when the Mig 35s are arriving in India for trials (MMRCA)?

  17. Indian Govt set to ink record $2.2bn arms deal with US:
    The stage is being set for what will be the largest-ever Indo-US defence deal till now. New Delhi has now formally approached Washington
    for a direct government-to-government deal for acquiring 10 C-17 Globemaster-III giant strategic airlift aircraft, each of which comes for over a whopping $220 million.
    This would well supplant the $2.1 billion contract for eight Boeing P-8I long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft inked last year and the $962 million one for six C-130J `Super Hercules' planes clinched in 2007.

    With US aggressively muscling into the lucrative Indian market, often bagging deals under its direct Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme instead of vying in global tenders, the Europeans are getting increasingly upset.

    Some of them even see "American influence'' at work behind the Indian defence ministry's scrapping of the almost-finalised deals like the $1 billion contract for 197 Eurocopter light utility helicopters and $1.5 billion project for six Airbus-330 MRTT mid-air refuelling aircraft.

    Defence ministry officials, however, dismiss such `fanciful' claims. The biggest prize, of course, is still to be awarded: the $10.4 billion project to acquire 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft for IAF.

    As for the Globemaster project, India sent `a letter of request' for the acquisition of 10 C-17s to the US government last week after getting the nod from the Defence Acquisitions Council headed by defence minister A K Antony. "Under FMS, we will get C-17s at the same price the US government buys them from Boeing, plus some service charges,'' said an MoD official.

    IAF certainly needs to augment its strategic airlift capability to swiftly move large combat systems and troops over large national and international distances, given that it has barely a dozen Russian-origin IL-76 `Gajraj' aircraft. IAF's medium-lift fleet, in turn, includes 104 Russian AN-32 aircraft.

    The massive four-engine C-17 dwarfs them all. Capable of carrying a payload of up to 170,000 pounds, it can transport tanks and troops over 2,400 nautical miles.

    With mid-air refuelling, the C-17 can go even longer distances. Rugged as it is, a C-17 can even land at a small forward airbase on a semi-prepared runway or airdrop over 100 combat-ready paratroopers directly into a battlezone. "It can take-off and land in 3,000 feet or less,'' said an official.

    There are 212 C-17s in service around the globe at present, with the major chunk of them deployed with US Air Force. Other customers include UK, Qatar, Canada, Australia and Nato.

    Incidentally, India and US have already finalised the End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA), and the inking of the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) is now on the cards, to smoothen defence deals. The two pacts are required under US domestic laws to ensure compliance with sensitive technology control requirements.

    Indo-US defence deals

    * 2002: $190 million for 12 AN/TPQ-37 firefinder weapon-locating radars

    * 2006: $53.5 million for amphibious transport vessel USS Trenton, with another $39 million for six UH-3H helicopters to operate from it

    * 2007: $962 million for 6 C-130J `Super Hercules' aircraft

    * 2009: $2.1 billion for 8 P-8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft

    * And now, stage set for $2.2 billion acquisition of 10 C-17 Globemaster-III aircraft

  18. to Manish Kumar:

    According to a Russian report MiG-35 was over 2 from 3 stage of MMRCA testing. The 3rd will be next spring.

  19. Hello Igor, can you also say which version was in India? I guess only the twin seat (number 154) that was at Aero India last year right? But is that the final design and what about the single seater? AFAIK both versions must attend the trials, so is the single seat ready, or will it be ready till spring?

    Also some reports regarding the IAF Mig 29 upgrade says, that TVC nozzels could be on offer too, any infos about that?

    Regards, Sancho

  20. to Sancho:

    I didnt see the single sitter version too. On other hand MIG's chief Fedorov said a month ago, that MiG-35 was successfully over 2 from 3 stages of tender. I agree, it makes some puzzle to be solved. Donno answer.

  21. Thanks for your quick reply!

    What about the Mig 29 upg with TVC? Any info about that?
    And even more important, any new infos about Pak Fa? The first flight didn't happen today, but maybe tomorrow, will u have a new article about it?

    Regards, Sancho

  22. to Sancho

    for now the TVC variant of MiG-29 - is offered for foreign castomers only. No interest of RuAF in MiG-29 with TVC for now.
    As regards to PAKFA, they delayed the first fly to Jan.29 most probably due to inappropriate weather conditions.

  23. I guess it is difficult for the RuAF, they actually have a lot of planes available to them, but the vast majority are 1980s level Soviet aircraft with limited capabilities, or should I say narrow capabilities.
    The Mig-29 is a good point defence interceptor if used within the GCI environment it was designed for.
    The Mig-29SMT is a vastly more capable multirole aircraft.
    With the withdrawl of the single engine aircraft like the Mig-27 and Su-17 I would think they would need more fighterbombers.
    The SMT model Mig-29 is more capable than the most expensive model Mig-27 or Su-17.
    The SMT model also reduces operational costs as well.
    I guess the problem is that if they don't buy new aircraft then they wont have factories to make new aircraft.
    Personally I think they can't afford all new aircraft like the Mig-35, Su-35 and PAK-FA all at once, so I think buying some Mig-35s and Su-35s so the move for pilots and groundcrews to the PAK-FA wont be so big a leap is a good thing along with some sort of SM2 upgrade for some inservice Su-27s as a cheap way to maintain numbers and yet greatly improve fleet performance and the SMT upgrade for some of the inservice Mig-29s for the same reasons.
    The upgraded equipment can make up numbers without costing too much and at the same time reducing operating costs and greatly improve fleet performance, while for hots spots the new aircraft can be deployed to ensure a margin of superiority until the PAK_FA is deployed.

    BTW as mentioned above most of the deals between India and the US have come at the cost of Indian deals with Europe rather than Russia.
    The C-17 is a very expensive aircraft to buy, but then there has been no available alternative really.
    Recent reports about production of Il-476s and An-124s for the Russian AF suggest this Indian deal might have been a bit premature as for all its capabilities the C-17 isn't worth the 3-4 Il-476s or 2-3 An-124s you could get for the same money.

  24. seria interesante ver las capacidades de disparo del 2a82 frente a las de los leopard 2a6 con cañon l55 es interesante ver la evolucion de los modelos a la par ruso y ukraniano ellos ya experimentaron con el yatagan y no menosprecian la municion otan los rusos van para aquel lado a mi parecer con un cañon del mismo calibre pero con municiones mas largas y potentes que en lugar de mas diametro por que el terreno no da para mas de 2500m de tiro llano los alemanes se preocupan mas por dar un impacto mortifero y a mas de 2500m pero pasando esto las ondulaciones del terreno evitan la punteria



  26. to Austin^
    No, it's a new Abrams modification: with titanic hull.

  27. Where is the SHOTRA-1 on the T-90M? I WANT SHOTRA-1 ON THE T-90M.

  28. I would like to see something new on the T-90M, like a SHTORA-2 that perhaps added features like active dazzling using lasers like a DIRCM.
    Plus an improved ARENA-2 or DROZD-3 that could defeat Javelin type diving top attack weapons.