What about the t-95? - Page 6




 
--
 
February 12th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
@Imp

Kontakt-5 provided resistant not immune and that was in 1989 i'll search for links.

@Bacara.

Russians are decreasing their tank strength to 2000 active and 4000 in storage, quantity my arse.
February 12th, 2010  
Bacara
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imp
Where exactly did this come from? If you are talking quantity cant remember figures off hand but roughly Abrams in service = all T-72 80 90 currently in service. Yes there are more in storage what state are they in, how long till actually servicable & how old is the gear fitted on them.
More realisticly the best weapon Russia has is artillery they might be able to strip away TI ect with it leveling the playing field a bit.
In a one shot kill enviroment he who sees first wins so FCS TI are a big factor as proven vs aging T-72s though training of there tank crews was beyond belief.
Can't see it ever happening anyway yes I think its fair to say in the coldwar the advantage swung back & forth though logisticaly how Russia could have ever sustained an attack is beyond me.
Now the gap just grows wider simply looking at Military spending figures US nearly outstrips the rest of the world combined. That said dont knock the Russians they develop some good tech would even say world leaders in some areas at times. But West seems able to catch up faster & Russia never fields in numbers that will make a diffrence anyway.
If & when they develop a new tank they will make what 30 or so a year in all probability & introduce yet another logistics headache
true but in war, the russian would devert all of their economy to the war effort, evening the playing a little, but yes, the russian are in horrible economic times, but their improving
February 13th, 2010  
imp
 
Quote:
true but in war, the russian would devert all of their economy to the war effort, evening the playing a little, but yes, the russian are in horrible economic times, but their improving
If it turned into a real war would not the West do the same, cost per unit is not really a factor more build time & the faciltys to do it plus of course crew. All irelevant anyway untill they can get a measure of control in the sky I would say Russian SAMs are not to be sniffed at but they have the same problem in the air. Few planes flying & my guess would be if you cant afford to keep the planes in the air you cant do much training either its expensive.
Nothing against Russia I have said they produce some nice kit & a few clever ways of doing things but the Bear is starved the most it can muster is to swipe at something nowadays.
--
February 15th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Firstly, I don't know where you get the idea Russia can't fund it's military equipment. Without even trying to find out what is going on in Russia these days, I'm aware of the following big budget matters and these really are big budget items.

Of the 4 Kirov Class Heavy Missile Cruisers, 1, "Peter the Great" is still active, a 2nd is in a ship yard undergoing refit and modernisation and General Popov announced late last year, the MoD was looking at bring a 3rd unit back into service, the status of the 4th is unknown. Russia has announced it intends building six new missile class submarines to be completed between 2014 and 2017, these are expressly to be armed with the new high velocity nuclear capable cruise missiles. You are aware of the BrahMos joint venture in which India is jointly developing both supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles for the Russian and Indian armed forces? The budgets are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Oh and you might also be aware of the controversy over Russiaís interest in purchasing up to 4 of the French built assault and Support Vessels, at a cost in the billions of dollars?
NERO1234




Hi fellas, I sent a number of responses last week using the Quick format, don't know where these ended up, but I can't see them anywhere

Now, now, Panzercracker, no need to get too personal, hope the idiocy thing is just in frustration.

Incidentally, this idiot, originated the concept of the hydraulically amplified unit fuel injection systems, commonly known as Hydraulic Electronic Unit Injection (HEUI) systems, as used by Caterpillar, Ford, Navistar, etc. and can prove it, and this is arguably, the most advanced diesel fuel injection system currently available. Nobody has ever refuted this claim; not to shabby for an ďidiotĒ. Incidentally, Iíve held as many as 17 patents in my time, and just to put you in the picture, HEUI is a sub-system of the Advanced Hydraulic Engine, originally proposed for development as the power plant within Chiorny Oriol, the program for the Next Generation Main Battle Tank of the Russian Army.

OK, as I said, lets hope the idiocy thing is just an outburst in frustration. So lets try looking at this again; I'll send a further post after this one
NERO1234
February 15th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Actually fellas, one of the team that did the original NATO tests, posted an independent report on the web too, just to clear up some of the conjecture. He directly supported the content of the report carried in Janes International Defence Review, with far greater detail regards the NATO test procedures, rounds fired, etc. I do have a copy of it somewhere, but it would be more educational and authorative if you go find it for yourself. If I remember rightly, he also made a comment, that although there had been advances in NATO anti-tank weaponry since the time of the tests, there had also been advances in ERA and he could see no reason to think the situation of the impenetrability of Russian ERA protected MBTS, had changed as a result. While I think of it, I also once read a report by a Russian tank crew which had been hit by no less than six (6) anti-tank rounds, including rockets, without penetration; they were elated, to say the least, over the effectiveness of the ERA on their tank.

Incidentally the URLs for two of the posts to John Kellers blog are below, for the fun of it why not go have a read. These posts are roughly 18 months apart.

http://www.pennwellblogs.com/mae/2008/01/new-russian-battle-tank-its-beginning.html
http://www.pennwellblogs.com/mae/2009/09/russian-t-95-main-battle-tank-could.html

By the way, Mr. Putin is not stupid, heís quite a smooth operator. Ever heard of disinformation? As long as he can keep you people debating about the existence or otherwise of the T-95 and Black Eagle, heís winning the game, clearly. Keep it up fellas, as long as you like, but remember, ultimately, its your arse thatís going to be on the line here, and expectedly, much sooner than you think. At 63, I somehow doubt Iím going to end up in a face off with somebody elseís armour.

I liked the one about cost effective production. So, lets consider this at a simplistic level. A good percentage of modern Russian MBTs have been gas turbine powered, incidentally, the Soviet military had deployed GT powered tanks long before the M1 Abrams came along; if I remember correctly, about 5 years prior. So letís look at the engine and drive train, said to be in the T-95, a diesel engine of 1,500hp that is of higher horsepower than any gas turbine and gear set able to be put into this tank. Keep in mind, prior to this the Project 775 (Niznhy Tagil) prototype couldnít do much more than 15mph. Amusingly, at 1,500hp, this is the same powering level originally proposed for the M1 Abrams MBT and Crusader System SPA, the two platforms for which armoured applications were originally addressed. Yep, it was originally intended this power plant be developed in America, and I did have a dialogue running with the team developing the Crusader System at the time, but unfortunately, that program was terminated. By comparison, this new engine has 100 fewer parts per cylinder than the Detroit Diesel Corp, Series 92, two cycle engine that was the baseline for the original hot section design, and comparative efficiency calculations. The original arrangement and structural drawings were based on DDC Series 92 components. EG, modified DDEC injectors, cut down pistons and cylinders, modified exhaust valves, DDEC Electronic Engine Management System, etc. etc. quite a few of the parts were actually made up to check functionality, before the Russians decided they were interested in evaluating the engine type, at which point I stopped making my own parts. Oh, by the way, all this was first offered to a range of Amerian manufacturers and attempts were made to get a number of sections of the US DoD interested, TACOM in particular, simply to consider it, but nobody was interested. In the case of TACOM, all at my own expense, I flew from Australia to Detroit and spent 3 days sitting in a motel, trying to get to speak to somebody at TACOM; they wouldnít even talk to me over the phone. Then the Russian military, Rosvoorouzhenie State Unitary Corporation, to be precise, said they were interested.

OK, the driveline is hydraulic, so we get a smaller, lighter, more powerful engine with less than a third of the fuel consumption and with the highly versatile hydraulic drive, an effectively infinite ratio transmission, and hereís something you only find in hybrids in the US, a MBT with regenerative braking as a normal aspect of itís operation. For the record, this driveline is also more efficient over broken or undulating ground, than over flat ground, the hydraulic suspension is a component of the driveline and every oscillation of a road wheel, puts energy into the system. Oh and for those pundits who use to say the Next Generation MBTs would be diesel electric, an hydraulic motor is 1/4th the weight and size and 1/6th the moment of inertia of an equivalent electric motor, far more robust, and free of notching effects down to absurdly low rpm rates, single digit rpm, and as the advanced diesel engine claimed to be in the T-95 is actually an hydraulic pump, thatís right, the engine is actually a direct acting hydraulic machine, no crankshaft or flywheel, you donít even have to consider the weight and space normally required for an hydraulic pump. No flywheel, crankshaft or gear train anywhere in the engine, starting to understand why it is so compact and light weight?

So with regards lower cost of manufacture, here we have a simplified diesel engine/hydraulic pump and hydraulic drive line replacing a gas turbine, gear set and mechanical final drive, so you go figure out, how much cheaper is this new powering system to produce? By the way, as youíre all aware, conventionally, itís not a simple job to remove and install a gear set and final drive in a contemporary MBT. In the case of the original configuration proposed, with the hydraulic driveline, it is quite practical to remove and re-install the hydraulic sprocket motors from the outside of the hull, without even opening up the machinery bay. Replacement is probably achievable in not much more than an hour or two; how long would it take to swap out the gear set and final drives in an M1 Abrams?

Oh and while youíre thinking about all this. In a comparison with a contemporary diesel engine, it has 1/3rd the cooling requirement for the same amount of power developed and uses 1/3rd the amount of induction air as well; the result of this is smaller openings in the armour and reduced vulnerability. And letís not forget, vulnerability, is not simply silhouette size, nor the ability to withstand anti-tank ordnance. In the case of a Molotov cocktail or equivalent, the flaming fluid has to find an entry point, to be effective.

I liked the one about the Russians are reducing their tank numbers. Who knows, maybe they are, but then what if in parallel with doing this, they install the latest versions of ERA and upgrade the power plants, drivelines and suspensions of the T-80 and T-90 series of MBTs, to be in common with the T-95. They might even go so far as to include the T-70 series and if in parallel with all this, they also upgrade the combat electronics, etc. It becomes a whole new ball game. A tank force with an un-refuelled range of 1,000km, would be an impressive strike force to have to confront, donít you think? Oh, and you should know, the suggestion that the later model MBTs of the Russian Army should be upgraded with retro-fit powering kits of the type, was made at the time of the original evaluation. Think about it for minute, the T-80 and T-90 series MBTs with these smaller lighter and more fuel efficient power plants, higher horsepower powering systems, could load a substantial amount of additional ammunition in the space freed up, or simply they might just add more fuel.

To all you tankers out there, wise up. The first time you confront a T-95, youíre going to get a hell of a nasty surprise, if you donít start taking this seriously. But then again, given the operational pairing of the T-95 with an Attack Helicopter, you mightnít even know youíre at risk, before you get hit by one or the other components of this integrated system.

NERO1234
February 16th, 2010  
imp
 
Nero okay lets address a few things wondered where some of that came from but have followed path back a bit.
ERA : I am not in dispute here report stuck with me, as far as I can tell M829A3/E4 are not much more effective vs RHA but aimed more at improving results against ERA. Of course ERA has moved on also so this like most things remains speculation unless you are in the loop & even then....

Funding : Yes Russia is back conscription just long enough to see if there worth keeping etc but my point was without a huge injection cant see how they can make up for past spending problems. Research I would say they do get much better bang for the buck than say US but the difference in spending would I think give the US the edge. That being said Russia is still the goal post & I dont knock the equipment underestimation is very dangerous, nor it seems do military analysts. The M1 for instance has not being subject to very regular upgrades to combat the capabilities of the Middle East.
I have seen several half fact posts saying obtained Russian equipment is a pile of pooh, in some ways yes but & there always is a but in others they have the lead, ERA & Mig 29 helmet come to mind. I do feel though & this is a big issue FCS TI maybe electronics in general they lag behind. This is based on past estimates whats tasked out to countries they have joint ventures with Thales TI sights being fitted to T-90s or more likely being reverse engineered do you know otherwise. Simply put across the full spectrum of tech there is no way everybody advances equally even in the West with more shared info.

T-95 : I would be very surprised if the project had folded pace is the issue how far on the backburner is it. There are some cases for not that far such as low tank output for last few years to keep the factorys open for the new toy etc. Refitting are they on any level? I would keep it secret if possible half force being refitted & then swap they are doing well with disinformation if this is the case. What are they going to do with T-80 new turret? Auto loader I believe cant accommodate longer rounds so hit penetration limits there as T-72/90 one wont fit.
On it being used as a robot paired with an attack helo lets have a quick look at this & assume its an unstoppable beast by conventional means. Sounds like a really bad move to me its controller is not unstoppable kill it & thats 2 birds with one stone so.
Convert 95% of your tanks to take on air or carry jamming gear we will assume EMP is not there yet. If you cant take down the helo jam its signal or hit it with artillery & strip the receivers. Now what few tanks you have can deal with them & once you have a few can leave it to the infantry to open the maintenance hatch & drop in a present.
Robots should be disposable tools not main battle weapons it just shifts the need to develop the counter up the ladder. They can be used to good effect to save lives vs a 2nd rate military but with the advent of battle nets etc the need to produce weapons capable of killing electronics is growing fast. The MBT has the best inherent defence against this so making it a robot is insane, remembering how to fight old school with no tech could be important for everybody else as everything stops working.

On the engine know nothing about but thought hydraulics common for high performance & is this quote really right.
Quote:
this new engine has 100 fewer parts per cylinder than the Detroit Diesel Corp, Series 92, two cycle engine

Assuming 8 cylinders thats 800 less 12 cylinders 1200 etc are you sure sounds a lot.
February 16th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Firstly, I don't know where you get the idea Russia can't fund it's military equipment. Without even trying to find out what is going on in Russia these days, I'm aware of the following big budget matters and these really are big budget items.
You're not aware of absolutely anything which is why i pointed out that your post isutter bollocks.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090703/155424380.html

Russia decreasing its tank strength 3 times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000.../kursk.russia1
Russian fleet.

Now lets do some math:

Russia:

1 milion~ troops.
~3000 active tanks.
9000~ reserve tanks.
~500 active aircraft.
150~ active surface vessels.
Nuclear arsenal.

2009 budget: 50 bilion USD.
http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia...fense_budget-0

Poland:

98.000 troops.
930~ tanks.
200~ active aircraft
50~ surface vessels.

Budget 12 billion USD.
http://biznes.gazetaprawna.pl/artyku..._2_mld_zl.html

That means that Russian funds per unit are approximately four times smaller then the Polish army and Polish army is severely underfunded.

I'll write it in plain english, Russian army is spit poor and unless it will face a severe downsize to something more managable like 300.000 men its a shambles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Of the 4 Kirov Class Heavy Missile Cruisers, 1, "Peter the Great" is still active,
Its also the only one active out of 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
a 2nd is in a ship yard undergoing refit and modernisation
If you mean "Admiral Nakimov" then its in "refit and modernisation" since 2005 and it doesnt look like its leaving the drydock anytime soon due to lack of funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
and General Popov announced late last year, the MoD was looking at bring a 3rd unit back into service, the status of the 4th is unknown.
Yeah? Where will they get a new reactor to replace Lazarevs current one? How will they finance it to begin with?

The status of the forth is very well known, its mothballed and stripped of most spare parts which is what was initially used to "refit" Nakimov, of course once they had to purchase new stuff they hit the funding wall and its been 4 years since Nakimov started rusting in the drydocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Russia has announced it intends building six new missile class submarines to be completed between 2014 and 2017, these are expressly to be armed with the new high velocity nuclear capable cruise missiles.
You do realise how many times Russia announced building the Black Eagle? They're either building one or none, even Russia needs money to build stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
You are aware of the BrahMos joint venture in which India is jointly developing both supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles for the Russian and Indian armed forces? The budgets are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Oh and you might also be aware of the controversy over Russia’s interest in purchasing up to 4 of the French built assault and Support Vessels, at a cost in the billions of dollars?
NERO1234
Russia already withdrew from purchasing French ships due to (as always) lack of money and Brahmos? You mean the mighty missile that took 8 years to develop and has only 1/9 the range of a Tomahawk?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
Incidentally, this idiot, originated the concept of the hydraulically amplified unit fuel injection systems, commonly known as Hydraulic Electronic Unit Injection (HEUI) systems, as used by Caterpillar, Ford, Navistar, etc. and can prove it, and this is arguably, the most advanced diesel fuel injection system currently available. Nobody has ever refuted this claim; not to shabby for an “idiot”. Incidentally, I’ve held as many as 17 patents in my time, and just to put you in the picture, HEUI is a sub-system of the Advanced Hydraulic Engine, originally proposed for development as the power plant within Chiorny Oriol, the program for the Next Generation Main Battle Tank of the Russian Army.
Go for it champ prove it, this should be almost as much fun as when you claimed people need tactical nukes to destroy T-90 tanks))
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero1234
To all you tankers out there, wise up. The first time you confront a T-95, you’re going to get a hell of a nasty surprise,
Yeah on account of there not existing a T-95 tank.

From your own link:
In 2009 the Russian Army is scheduled to receive a new main battle tank, claimed to be superior to existing designs. The new tank will introduce a new hull, power plant and drive train. It will also have improved firepower, comprising of new armament, target acquisition, fire control and surveillance systems.

Guess what its 2010, besides Itar-Tass announced the Black Eagle each year for the last 9 years so nothing new here.
February 16th, 2010  
imp
 
Unmanned flight would in my view happen before major ground components as the unit has to be able to operate independently making choices on threat level & what to attack all by its self, human controller introduces lag unless hes near it then becomes the target or as said jammed out. So we need some major programming & it just receives orders on where to go possibly main objective.
Air determing the threat is not such a big issue on the ground however there are a lot more variables ignoring stealth location is harder & threat determination is very difficult example. Located a couple of vehicles can probably asses reasonably well but infantry to what are they up to armed with ATGMs RPGs blah blah. You see this & based on the way its acting the terrain & many other variables reach a solution just thinking of what the program needs to take into account is mind boggling, clever us humans we dont realise all the things we just do
February 20th, 2010  
nero1234
 
Hi IMP,
Unmanned flight; thought that was what UAVs were all about. The fact that they havenít yet progressed to deployable fighter aircraft has long amused me. I tried to get DARPA interested in this long ago, but as usual with everything to do with DARPA, TACOM, etc. nothing seems to get very far. The engine that ended up being proposed for the powering of the Next Generation Equipment of the Russain Army and was proposed for development within Chiorny Oriol, was first proposed to DARPA in the days they were looking at the Arsenal Ship Program and to TACOM about the same time.

I donít like full authority combat robotics, for a number of very good reasons, so have always proposed battle field remotes in the form of Advanced Combat Robotics; you got to keep the man in the loop. You; want to tell me what the difference is between a manned MBT that relies exclusively on sensors, as distinct from optics, and the same MBT with the man sitting somewhere other than in the MBT? Effectively there need be none that is of detriment, but the advantages are huge. And if you people donít know how to produce a secure bi-directional non-detectable data flow between a combat robotic and its human interface, donít assume the Russians havenít figured it out. This was also raised with DARPA long ago, with the usual lack of interest. DARPA hasnít been much good to talk to since Larry departed. And no, I didnít pass this one on to the Russians; but they might well have figured it out for themselves. Itís a very simple concept and there is no lag involved either. Effectively, the human operator may as well be sitting in the MBT, takes virtual reality to a whole new level; set it up right and apart from the not having a rough ride and being able to have a cup of coffee any time he likes, the operator is going to feel like heís sitting in the MBT.
The Attack Helicopter is not simply the eyes and ears of the system, the proposal was that the MBT/AH system be a cohesive combat pairing in which either or both in combination could attack one or more targets independently or in a combined attack and in which one or the other could act a as a decoy to enable the other an unhindered attack. Refining these procedures is what the Russians are believed to be currently doing, hence the first of these systems based on the T-95 being deployed to training units in high security zones in Russia. Just because the American MBTs havenít been subject to any significant advances in recent times, donít assume the same holds sway in Russia. There is a lot to this, but the limitations on post size, precludes me forwarding the original documentation an follow-on comments.
NERO1234
February 21st, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
So Nero you gonna prove any of your wild claims or are you here just to drop a bomb?

I'm eager to see how Russia which has less then 25% military funds relative to Poland (a country 5x smaller in population) is funding all of your imaginary projects?

Sorry if my words offend you but i have this thing with people who post from their arse, i react badly to it, Russia is not making any new purchases for its navy, airforce or land forces.

The announcements you quoted have been appearing periodically for the last 10 years, including the submarine ones (the statement about new submarines is repeated since 2001) , Russians keep repeating they're building something but nothing new comes out.

Currently Russia procures approximately 30-50 new T-90s yearly and thats about as far as it goes, no new ships, no new vehicles and no new airplanes, sorry if i blew up your imagination land.

As for T-90 all it takes is a frontal hit by any modern ATGM or modern 120mm AT ammo and the tank is disabled, make it a side or top hit and the tank is gone.

Also your "next generation" of Russian equipment does not exist, zip, there are no orders or future plans beyond murky statements by various officials which given that they're repeate
d for years on end have even less credibility then the stuff you make up here.

As for T-95 as far as we know it does not exist, even the prototype appears to be only a technology demonstrator which has nothing in common with the actual tank.