About Main Battle Tanks
|December 16th, 2007||#1|
| || |
Main Battle Tanks info
I'll have to send this in two parts, seems theres a limitation on the number of characters.
“OK fellas, I think you’re missing something here.
The Nizhny Tagil MBT (T-95) is a clean sheet design, don’t assume anything about this MBT, that is not obvious or not acknowledged by it’s builders; they aren’t keeping this vehicle’s specifications and performance discreet, without good reason. Likewise, nobody has been allowed to get to close to the Black Eagle demonstrator, probably for the same reason, you might just hear the engine sounds a little different.
In Mr. Fofanov’s web-page on the T-95 http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html, there is an interesting reference: a “unique drive-train suspension system is being tested on this tank”. It is unlikely this late in development, it is simply being tested and is more likely a component of the integrated engine, drive-train and suspension, originally proposed for inclusion in the Chiorny Oriol development program, for the Next Generation MBT of the Russian Army and as we all know, the T-80 chassis is the original development chassis for Chiorny Oriol.
If you can find it; in issue #28 of Rozvourezhenie’s electronic magazine “Military Parade”, there is an early article on the T-80UM1 BARS Tank. In this article, mention is made of the shift to hydrostatic drives, but more interestingly, is a one liner that pre-announces an update of the power plant from 1,250 hp gas turbine to 1,400 hp heavy duty engine. Given the timing of this article and the confusion in Rosvorouzhenia at the time over the company’s future, both these items probably made it into the original article by mistake. If you wonder that the entries are still in the text of the article, it is simple; remove them and people might start to ask why and what it was all about in the first place.
With regards this entry, a heavy duty engine is a diesel engine. When was the last time you heard of replacement of a gas turbine power plant by a higher horsepower, yet reliable diesel engine, within the same restrictive envelope as the 50 tonne chassis limitation of this Russian tank class?
Now what all this means, is that it is highly probable Russia is developing at least two very advanced MBTs, one, based on an updated T-80U chassis as more suited to mass production, whilst the other, the T-95 is considerably more demanding of manufacture, but vastly more capable as a tank destroyer. Although export versions of the T-80 chassis, including the T-80UM1 BARS Tank and Black Eagle, are likely to have conventional power plants and drivelines, subsequent variants for the Russian Army are more likely to have the more advanced 1,400 horsepower heavy duty engine and drive-train in common with the T-95, which is also likely to be in common with a next generation, Self Propelled Artillery unit. The whole to operate as Fast Attack Squadrons.
Perhaps the nearer term availability of these units, is one of the reasons President Putin was comfortable in withdrawing from the CFE protocol.
If you need a little more convincing, think about this. In the T-95, we now have a tank with the crew, gun mounting, auto-loader and ammunition, shoehorned into the chassis with an engine and drive-train, that certainly won’t be any less powerful than alternative MBTs of the Russian Army. Given the constraints related to all this gear now being within the chassis, there is considerably less space than would normally be available for the power plant of this MBT. Something has to be greatly different.
I’ve noted in at least one article on the T-95, conjecture that the drive is diesel electric. The engine known to have been under consideration and subsequently proposed for development within Chiorny Oriol, is a direct acting hydraulic machine, so many parts and sub systems are removed by going down this path, that the resulting machinery suite of an MBT is less complex, much lighter, more robust and reliable and above all else, has a much higher power density; rivaling or exceeding that of a gas turbine and its gear set. Moreover, a hydraulic motor is typically ¼ the weight of an equivalent electric motor and in this game, power to weight is just about everything. Additionally, hydraulic motors are operationally more flexible and far more robust in a hostile environment, than are electric motors.
It should also be mentioned, with the adoption of this new format engine, there is no hydraulic pump in the system, the engine is the pump; so we have a lighter engine, competing with an engine and generator, on the basis of both weight and space. Sorry, no contest.
OK, now this is where this really gets interesting. The predicted automotive performance of this integrated system, is that an MBT so powered, will not only have higher horsepower, but have at least three times the un-refueled range of a contemporary diesel powered variant, for the same fuel load and for emergency purposes, will be able to apply power to the sprocket motors, considerably in excess of the rated engine horsepower.
Last edited by tomtom22; February 23rd, 2008 at 22:56.. Reason: Chaged fonr for readability
|December 16th, 2007||#2|
| || |
Also, I think in Military Parade, November/December issue (#30), there was a discussion paper, if I remember correctly, from one of the Russian Tank Design Bureaus, on an Articulated MBT. This would be an even more advanced heavy combat platform and although the article addressed a projected MBT development option, for “advanced heavy combat vehicles with a high dependency on hydraulic systems”, a singularly telling comment. It appears to be a development of an initial proposal for Advanced Self Propelled Artillery units, with a high degree of commonality with the next generation MBTs, that was originally proposed as a counter to the Crusader System, then under development for the US Army.
The articulated MBT would have a Power Car at each end, with articulated, remotely un-coupled, connections. This would mean that a central un-manned Combat Module, need only contain the gun mount, auto loader and ammunition, something in common with the T-95. Optionally, either Power Car could take command of the combined vehicle, basically depending on which way the vehicle is traveling. The resulting vehicle would have automotive attributes superior to any other platform, whilst the Combat Module has far greater protection, in that projectiles from the front or rear would be more likely to impact upon a Power Car than the Combat Module. In the case of a Power Car being disabled, the remaining Vehicle Commander could simply un-couple the damaged Power Car and the remaining Power Car could then drag the Combat Module clear and a replacement Power Car be connected. It is also proposed these Power Cars carry reserve munitions and ammunition could be automatically transferred to the Combat Module on demand. Additional Power Cars could always be deployed as components of a Fast Attack Force, as both replacement modules or simply for exchange, as the routine reload method for Combat Modules. The Combat Module itself, could be either configured as an MBT or SPA and it’s magazine and load out mechanism be simply a slide out, interchangeable component, allowing very rapid reloading of the power cars at a field depot and interchangeability in configuration, between being a service component of an MBT of SPA.
What was also proposed was that all larger vehicles of the Russian armed forces, especially APCs and logistics vehicles acting in support of these integrated formations, should also use the same engine as those in the heavy armored units of FAS, either de-rated or with a reduced number of engine cylinders. This would reduce the overall logistics requirements, but more importantly, an armored unit with up to half it’s engine cylinders out of service, due to damage, could still withdraw under it’s own power and the crew scavenge engine cylinders from any logistics vehicle or APC they encounter and be back in combat within the hour. Realistically, APCs could be deployed in combat with one or more spare engine cylinders in ready use canisters, for just such a purpose.
With regards logistics, going down this path, all vehicles become single fluid applications with significantly reduced fuel requirements (1/3rd), diesel doing the duty of fuel, hydraulic medium and addressing the greatly reduced cooling requirement of the power plant type.
In case anybody thinks this is all conjecture. The above, apart from the specific arrangement of the Articulated MBT, is part of an original proposal to the Russian Military combine, about the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and is believed to have been under development since that time. It is known that an original evaluation of the power plant and drive-line line concept, was funded by the Russian Military and this six month long exercise was headed up by the Russian Engine Research Institute. At the completion of this evaluation, the work was “still considered highly interesting and apparently applicable to a broad range of applications” and as development funding was in short supply, it was proposed development of the power plant be done within Chiorny Oriol, as funding for this program was guaranteed by the State. Perhaps the Black Eagle demonstration chassis is the original engine development platform for this power plant and drive-line, within the Chiorny Oriol program and this may be the reason delegates to demonstrations are not allowed closer than 500m. The engine may just sound very different and create too much conjecture at this point in time.
Interesting, isn’t it. The greatest leap forward in Russian heavy armor development, co-insides with America’s abandonment of the heavy tank as a Future War Fighting asset. In the European theatre of old, the Soviet tank forces were considered one of, if not the greatest military threat to Europe in the then, Soviet arsenal. Consider how much more formidable a threat this will become, as President Putin aligns the Russian state more and more closely with the original Soviet doctrines and rearms with these considerably more capable conventional weapons.
Read and ponder,
Last edited by tomtom22; February 23rd, 2008 at 22:58.. Reason: Changed font for readability
|December 17th, 2007||#3|
| || |
All this information has been out now for some time, project models like the Black Eagle are staged outside and are rusting away due to no export sales that Russia was depending on. T-95 is a prototype that doesn`t have the funds nor the need/justification for manufacturing, you will not see this vehicle anytime soon due to priorities needed in aircraft and naval forces which are in pathetic shape. Please keep in mind that web sites like the one you referred this topic to is nothing more than pure speculation/hope from some Russian armor fan, you should go visit tank net, I do when I want a good laugh reading some of the rubbish printed by some of the Russians on that site.
|December 20th, 2007||#5|
| || |
Hi there, 13th Redneck.
Are, but you see, I and this technology path are not Russian.
When I lived in Australia, we had wonderful coverage on all sorts of technical stuff, from a then totally un-biased media. How many submarines has America built with Titanium hulls? The Russians were building everything from submarines to bicycles out of the stuff when it was still a classified material in America. I think the biggest piece of American military hardware built out of Titanium, ever, were the SR-71s. At the time I was talking to Rosvorouzhenie, they were routinely building attack helicopters in which the whole underbody was a single ceramic casting; at this time the biggest thing I could find being routinely manufactured in ceramics in America were the cylinder heads of a couple of series of Detroit Diesel engines. The list goes on, inexorably.
Ok, they had a lot of problems with their submarines catching fire, radiaton leaks, torpeoes blowing the bows off, etc. But you have to keep it in perspective, up until the end of the Soviet Union, they produced more submarines than the rest of the world combined, in total.
The whole history of American nuclear submarine development, came about when a Russian sub was found to be trailing an Ameircan carrier and carrier commander said wind her up and we'll leave the sub behind; that sub was so damb noisy, it could be heard thorugh the carriers hull as it passed under the carrier and spead off into the distance; apparently this event swung the pendulum for the developemnt of nuclear submarines in America.
Just keep in mind, if the Russians hadn't come to the party with their heavy lifters, essentailly just a bunch of cheap solid fuel ICMBs strapped together, the International Space Station could never have been built. They were smart enough, early on, to recognise the lack of cost effectiveness of maintaining their space shuttle program and reverted back to these simple rockets.
Some time, get me to tell you about the Year 2000 bug.
All the best,
The following was in the result of a gentle warning from Redleg to a post on "Wrong time to lose interest in MBT"
Clarified/updated rule #6 a bit:
6. If you post something to be considered as fact, you must also state the original source (link preferred).
”OK, that is fairly simple. But first ---------
--------20 years ago you could've had vehicles in America that aren't hybrids, have no degrade in performance and use less than 30% of the fuel of an equivalent vehicle with a contemporary engine. That’s what it looks very much like the Russians are going to have in their next generation MBTs.
Always keep in mind, I'm quite happy to answer any questions about this technology path and the history of trying to get it into production. Redleg, I have had a read through the rules that I could find and if I do feel free to edit the text”.
Hi Pale Rider.
Additional comments to the above:
Last edited by DTop; December 21st, 2007 at 11:18.. Reason: back to back posts
|December 21st, 2007||#6|
| || |
Yes I do know who Vas is, he does frequent tanknet and I have some respect for him in regards to his knowledge of Russian armor, even if I may not agree with him all the time, you should listen and take notice of Hark the Ukrainian also who frequents tanknet, he is savy on what he is spouting.
As far as propulsion system designs for tanks go that information has been known and tested now for quite some time, The U.S is really been stepping up the research and design phase of electrical propulsion for armor vehicles and have made great strides in this area. do I think that the Russians are capable of this type of technology, why yes. As far as naval and aviation technology goes that is not my area of interest nor background, but I will most surely read your threads that you contribute to this site.
My background is in armor, it has been a big part of my life for the past 25 years, I have served in the military as a Master gunner and have actual field experience time working with the M-48A5 to the M1A2, yes - we still used M48A5s in ROK up until 1984. I have had the honor of working with a lot of foreign countries armor units including Russian. So lets bring some life to this thread and talk about Main Battle Tanks.
|December 21st, 2007||#7|
| || |
lets ask a difrent question(rather than debate the pros and conns of a weapons system still in development such as the t-95)....
i ask you guys, espcially tank crews, what technology you think is the most in need of research right now, as far as MBTs?
somehow i dont feel its the engine. i thin kthe current power of mbt engines is sufficet, even more than that. with engines producing 1500hp and theortically tanks capable of 90kmh i dont see why we need more power or speed? no one drives tanks at 90, or even 80 kmh in combat.
|December 21st, 2007||#8|
| || |
By the way nero, titanium isn't classified. I've seen titanium made in USA bikes before. Personally I don't see the need for a titanium submarine. But then again I'm not a submariner.
|December 21st, 2007||#9|
| || |
I would have to give the technology factor to the research of counter measure systems, interchangable caliber gun tubes.
Last edited by DTop; December 30th, 2007 at 03:45.. Reason: back to back posts