Military Review

New T-80BV tank modernization project

64
Armed forces of Russia have a large number of tanks different models and modifications. However, not all available armored vehicles meet modern requirements for certain characteristics. In this regard, the army is forced to implement equipment modernization programs, which include equipping tanks with new equipment. This year it became known about the imminent start of a new similar program. This time we will talk about updating a certain number of T-80BV tanks.


According to the latest domestic press reports, the defense industry has now completed the development of a project for the modernization of existing tanks. In the near future it is planned to begin the implementation of the program for updating equipment. It is reported that the first renovated and updated T-80BV will be transferred to the military department in the next 2017 year. The modernization project involves the replacement of parts of components and assemblies that are directly related to the combat qualities of the vehicles. It is also planned to improve performance.


The main tank T-80BV. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


The latest reports on the future program for the modernization of existing tanks were published on November 14 edition of "Izvestia". The publication of this mass media indicated the main technical features of the modernization, the start dates of work, etc. In addition, data were presented on the current state of affairs. It is reported that JSC Omsktransmash (Omsk) and JSC Special Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (St. Petersburg), which are part of the Uralvagonzavod corporation, were engaged in the development of the tank renovation project.

Alexander Umansky, the chief designer of the T-80 family of tanks, told the press that now the enterprises-developers of the modernization project are completing preparations for the upgrade of the armored vehicles. Next year, Omsktransmash will begin work on the repair and modernization of tanks coming from the troops. Documentation on the new project, in accordance with which the work will be conducted, is the result of cooperation between the two enterprises.

The terms of the works and the number of tanks sent for modernization have not yet been specified. These features of the current program must be determined by the customer in the person of the Ministry of Defense. Apparently, all such project details will be published later.

Modernization of the new project is proposed to expose the main battle tanks T-80BV, remaining in a number of armored units. These vehicles can still be used by the troops, however, a number of characteristic features of the technology itself and some “external” factors seriously hamper the operation. In particular, for a number of reasons there is no possibility of full repair of tanks with the replacement of existing components and assemblies with the products of the original models. Including for this reason, the current modernization project proposes the use of a significant number of new components.

Recall tank T-80BV was adopted by the Soviet army in 1985 year. This machine was a direct development of T-80B and had some differences from the base sample. In order to improve the combat qualities, some new units and units were used, first of all, a complex of dynamic protection. Unlike its predecessors, the T-80BV on the case and the turret bears the blocks of the “Contact” system, capable of protecting it from some enemy projectiles. The installation of dynamic protection led to an increase in combat weight of approximately 1200 kg, after which this parameter reached 43,7 T. The rest of the T-80BV is almost the same as the basic T-80B. Preservation of existing characteristics contributed to the maximum possible use of the existing design.


From the predecessors of the T-80BV differed dynamic protection "Contact." Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


From the point of view of the main features of the design, the T-80BV was a typical Soviet-made main tank. At the same time, at the heart of the T-80 family were some original and bold ideas. In all projects of the family, the classic layout of the machine is used with the front compartment of the control, the fighting compartment in the center of the hull and the engine-transmission compartment in the stern. Armament is placed in a rotating turret. The case has a differentiated reservation with a combined frontal projection protection and a weaker single-layer structure of other units. To increase the level of protection against modern weapons, the tank should be equipped with the Contact system.

The most important feature of the T-80 family of tanks, including the BV modification, was the use of gas turbine engines. In the stern of the T-80BV, a GTE-1000TF type motor is placed, capable of developing power up to 1100 hp. Such a power plant gives the car a power density of more than 25 hp. per ton, thanks to which the maximum speed on the highway reaches 70 km / h. Power reserve - 500 km. Characteristic features of a tank with a gas turbine engine are fast acceleration and other differences in terms of mobility. At the same time, in certain modes, fuel consumption can be twice as high as that of armored vehicles with diesel power plants.

The main armament of the T-80BV tank is the 125-mm smooth-bore gun-launcher 2-46-1. The gun with a barrel length 48 calibers mates with a loading mechanism designed for the automated supply of ammunition in the chamber. Up to 38 shots of various types are placed in the loading mechanism conveyor and in additional packs of the fighting compartment. To increase the target's range, a tank can use guided missiles of the 9K112-1 “Cobra” and 9K119 “Reflex” missiles launched through the gun barrel. The maximum range of the missile reaches 5 km. The tank also carries a PKN caliber 7,62 mm machine gun coupled to the gun and a large-caliber anti-aircraft gun.

Due to the construction of new armored vehicles and the gradual modernization of existing models, Soviet and Russian industry produced a large number of T-80BV tanks. So, according to The Military Balance 2016, the Russian army currently has about three and a half thousand T-80B, T-80BB and T-80 tanks, of which up to 450 units remain in service and have not yet been sent for storage. . The technique used by the troops is still a very formidable force, but in its present form it has limited prospects.

According to available data, currently the age of the T-80BV tanks remaining in the units ranges from 25 to 31. A characteristic problem of such a fleet is a reduction in combat readiness associated with moral and physical obsolescence. In addition, the ability to repair and restore tanks is limited, which is a consequence of the problems of past years. So, by now, the production of 1А33 type fire control systems has been discontinued. Also, the Cobra missile system, the loading mechanism aggregates, the radio station, weather sensors, etc. are no longer produced. Because of this, the repair of some armored vehicles is impossible because of the banal lack of spare parts, the source of which can only be other tanks.


Additional fuel tanks - a consequence of high fuel consumption. Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


This situation leads to the fact that the continued operation of existing tanks is still possible, but the result of various failures may be disabling equipment with the inability to recover. In other words, all the T-80BV tanks and “related” modifications in the army risk completely withdrawing from service in the foreseeable future due to the impossibility of full maintenance, repair and upgrading. Given the number of such equipment, we can talk about undesirable loss of armored vehicles, which could still be used by the army for some time.

In the summer of this year, it became known that Omsktransmash was engaged in the development of a project for the modernization of the main tanks in the army. The project provides for the overhaul of equipment with the subsequent replacement of a number of obsolete components and assemblies. The result of the application of innovations, stipulated by the new project, should be the extension of the service life of the tanks and the increase of their basic parameters. In addition, it was intended to a certain extent to facilitate the operation of the updated T-80BV due to some unification with tanks of the T-72B family.

One of the problems of T-80BV tanks is the lack of mass production of some elements of the fire control system. A new modernization project involves the dismantling of existing equipment and the installation of new products. Thus, it was proposed to use the multichannel gunner sight Sosna-U with an optical, thermal imaging and rangefinder channel with the ability to control a rocket. The use of the product "Sosna-U" allows you to increase the potential of the tank in observation of the terrain and search for targets. Provides detection of objects at any time of the day, the calculation of the necessary amendments and stabilization of weapons. The sight can find the target and determine the distance to it at distances up to 7,5 km. At night, visibility is reduced to 3,3 km.

The multi-channel sight of the proposed type also has a “double” mode of operation, using which the equipment is used not only by the gunner, but also by the tank commander. Such a function allows two crew members to conduct combat work more efficiently, search for targets and direct weapon. As an aid to finding targets and aiming weapons, it is proposed to use the improved periscope 1P67 sight. Having significant differences and losing the "Pine-U" in some characteristics, the 1P67 product allows solving a similar range of tasks, but with some limitations. In particular, the periscope sight is unsuitable for aiming a gun in the dark.

New equipment should receive and tank control department. To improve the capabilities of the driver at night, the use of a TVN-5 binocular observation device is proposed.

In order to ensure the compatibility of new electronic devices with existing units of the tank, it was proposed to refine the automatic control of the loading mechanism. After some of the required changes, this device gets the opportunity to work on the commands of new fire control systems.

New T-80BV tank modernization project
Tank T-80BV-RM, one of the options for upgrading existing equipment. Photo Gurkhan.blogspot.ru


The existing complex of dynamic protection “Contact” is proposed to replace the modernization project with the “Relic” system, which is notable for its increased performance. The basis of "Relic" is a new element of the dynamic protection of hypersensitivity type 4C23. As part of this product, there are two plates of armor steel, with a lesion scattered by the explosive charge in different directions. Such a movement of the plates, allegedly, can significantly increase the destructive effect on the attacking element of anti-tank ammunition. Due to the main innovations of the design, the Relikt complex differs from the systems of the Contact family by its greater effectiveness in countering sub-caliber and cumulative ammunition.

A characteristic disadvantage of tanks with gas turbine engines is high fuel consumption in some modes of operation. The proposed T-80BV retrofit project takes this into account and offers an interesting solution to this problem. The upgraded power plant receives a mode of so-called. parking small gas. At the same time, fuel consumption is reduced to 35 kg / h, and the engine power is transmitted to the starter-generator, through which consumers can be supplied with a total power up to 6,8 kW.

The introduction of a new mode of operation made it possible to dispense with the use of a full-fledged auxiliary power unit, but at the same time improve the efficiency of the main engine. Taking into account the fact that about 50% of the time the engine has been running, on average, comes to a halt of a certain duration, such an innovation can have a noticeable economic effect.

The modernization project involves the replacement of existing communications equipment with newer products. It is proposed to use the radio station P-168-25-2, operating in the ultra-shortwave range. Such a station is capable of providing open or encrypted radio communication at any time of the day without any restrictions on meteorological conditions. It is possible to transmit analog and digital data over a simplex or duplex channel. If necessary, the station can be removed from the tank and used in a portable version. The project also proposes the use of new means of internal communication, switching and control.

As is clear from the published data on a promising project for the modernization of obsolete tanks, the essence of the proposed update is to replace a number of units with new systems of similar purpose. It is noteworthy that in most cases such a replacement should lead to a noticeable increase in performance, as is observed in the case of fire control systems or dynamic protection. Other aspects of the project should reduce the impact of negative features of technology, such as increased fuel consumption.


Tower experienced T-80BV-RM. Photo Gurkhan.blogspot.ru


It is easy to see that the proposed project for updating the T-80BV involves the preservation of a large number of existing units and assemblies of the tank. This feature of the project should lead to the fact that some of the technical, combat and operational characteristics will remain at the same level. Thus, as a result, the upgraded tank will be, at least, no worse than the original equipment in terms of certain parameters, in terms of a set of parameters and capabilities.

The approach used to modernize technology is unlikely to lead to a high growth in overall capabilities, but this is not its goal. Such an update of equipment is intended for repair with the extension of the resource, as well as for the replacement of outdated and discontinued devices with new equipment currently being manufactured. Ultimately, this allows you to continue the operation of equipment for some time, further enhancing its characteristics. Without such an upgrade, the existing main tanks have dubious prospects. Obviously, in connection with the failure of certain units, the replacement of which is impossible due to the lack of spare parts, the troops will have to write off the tank or use it as a source of parts for other machines.

Details of the proposed modernization of tanks became known in the summer of this year. A few months after that, the domestic media reported on the current state of affairs. Reportedly, to date, the enterprises Omsktransmash and the Special Design Bureau of Transport Engineering have completed the development of the project and are carrying out preparatory work prior to the beginning of the reworking of army vehicles. Next year it is planned to receive from the Ministry of Defense the first T-80BV tanks, which will have to undergo the required modernization.

The plans of the military department regarding the number of tanks being upgraded and the timing of the required works have not yet been specified. Probably, repairs and upgrades will take at least a few dozen tanks, although we can talk about large quantities of equipment. In military units, there are about 450 T-80 tanks of several modifications, including "BV". Another three thousand armored vehicles are in storage. What proportion of this technology will be restored and improved - will be known later.

Currently, the Russian defense industry continues to develop the existing fleet of armored vehicles. For several years, the enterprises have been engaged in the overhaul and modernization of the T-72 family of tanks with an update on the T-72B3 project. According to recent reports, a program for a similar update of T-80BV machines should start soon. In the foreseeable future, it is planned to begin supplying the newest T-14 tanks, but until a sufficient number of such equipment appears, the ground forces will have to operate existing machines. The current and planned modernization programs, in turn, will allow the army to wait for rearmament, having equipment with higher characteristics.


On the materials of the sites:
http://izvestia.ru/
https://rg.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Author:
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nix1986
    Nix1986 17 November 2016 07: 08 New
    +5
    Small parking brake ?! Fuel consumption is initially large, I do not think that this will significantly reduce it. It seems to me that a strong reduction would be facilitated by the use of either an APU, as on the same abrams, only to put it in a protected place or batteries with braking charging like KERS, the braking energy there is decent and the charge would be strong.
    1. Cananecat
      Cananecat 17 November 2016 14: 53 New
      +3
      In my opinion, only after a full modernization it will be clear what was right and what else to work on. But the fact that the gluttony of the engine is reduced, suggests that he will serve after this not 5 years, but 10-15.
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 17 November 2016 15: 23 New
        0
        Well, in general, a whistle is not a classic ICE, and there a highly loaded part is just a turbine propeller itself. Those. reducing the load on it during parking will not greatly add resources to the engine. His sore spot is to munch, and here, KERS with batteries in the floor (you can like on Tesla) would be a great blessing. Those. Batteries can be stationary charged and recharged in motion from braking. The tank stopped, the entire whistle is suppressed and battery power begins.
  2. Forest
    Forest 17 November 2016 09: 33 New
    0
    I do not think that with the Relic, BV will be more or less protected. Still, there’s a little passive protection for today.
  3. TARSUS
    TARSUS 17 November 2016 09: 40 New
    +3
    In short, it's clear the T-14 Armata is even more crude than expected. Most likely at the same Abrams and Leopard level of the last modifications, they decided to upgrade old tanks.
    1. VENOM
      VENOM 17 November 2016 10: 09 New
      14
      It is only clear that nothing is clear to you, dear. I hear a ringing, but I don’t understand which ear flew in. And here is Armata? We are talking about the repair and modernization of a certain number (most likely several hundred) of the T-80. Do not send them for scrap, right? Once in the current state they are not operational, and it is a pity to re-melt, it is necessary to restore it. And in some cases, gas turbine engines are superior to diesel engines. As far back as 3-4 years ago, there was official information that the T-80 remained in service until at least the 20th year, so it was necessary to maintain the equipment in combat-ready condition. At the Abrams level? Did Abrams have an automatic loader, a complex of guided weapons, active defense, a radar with an active phased array, armored capsule?
      1. TARSUS
        TARSUS 17 November 2016 17: 37 New
        +2
        Kindergarten: a loader on Abrams OBPS throws a loader faster than on the same T-90, KUV didn’t surrender to them, so they went the other way, namely a more advanced FCS, allowing accurate throwing of uranium scrap for 5 km. It’s not a problem to put KAZ (the more so since the info slipped that KAZ TROPHY will be put on M1A2 SEP V3.) In general, we are waiting for a full-fledged M1A3, they will show it next year.
        1. Alf
          Alf 17 November 2016 20: 59 New
          +8
          Quote: TARS
          the loader on the Abrams OBPS throws faster the loader than on the same T-90,

          On the firing range in ideal conditions when shooting from a place, it is possible. The first 5-6 shots. And how will a Negro behave in cross-country traffic? Estimate yourself. Take a meter shafting in hands weighing under 30 kg, take it out of the warhead and turn around in place, get into a relatively small bore. And all this is in motion, when all the mechanisms walk around the loader.
          1. TARSUS
            TARSUS 17 November 2016 22: 04 New
            0
            But shouldn't the tank suspension solve this problem? Or do you think that when hitting a bump there the whole crew jumps? And this is how you need to be stingy, so as not to throw 23 kg of shells? And let it be known to you that such a frantic rate of fire is useless, since the gunner just does not have time to search for a banal target.
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 17 November 2016 22: 27 New
              +6
              Quote: Alf
              ... when all the mechanisms walk around the loader ...

              Quote: TARS
              But shouldn't the tank suspension solve this problem?

              - must. But anyway - the crew winds up notably.
              - in fairness I’ll inform you that after shot the cannon is fixed on the loading line (that is, the cannon inside the turret is in place and does not move). I'm talking about our tanks, but I think the "partners" have it the same way.
              Quote: TARS
              Or do you think that when hitting a bump there the whole crew jumps?

              - an inda is applied to the nearest piece of iron ... everything happens.

              Quote: TARS
              And let it be known to you that such a frantic rate of fire is useless, since the gunner just does not have time to search for a banal target

              - do not smack nonsense ... it hurts her laughing
              1. TARSUS
                TARSUS 18 November 2016 00: 02 New
                0
                You’re not rubbish, a link to a video where a tank in real combat conditions shoots at a rate of 8 rounds per minute. Good luck in your search - you will have to look for a very long time. Endlessly long.
                1. Cat man null
                  Cat man null 18 November 2016 00: 18 New
                  +5
                  Quote: TARS
                  link to a video where the tank in real combat conditions shoots at a rate of 8 rounds per minute

                  - um ... maybe sing-dance? You feel free wink
                  - You see, son ... I saw the tank from the inside, and not one ... but you? wink
                  - and generally speaking:

                  Quote: TARS
                  К to the shark long walked?

                  - well, here you go ... Bitches ... and go, and go, and go (s) laughing
                  - to to the shark ... with the sharks which... Goss, where are you taking these laughing
                  1. TARSUS
                    TARSUS 18 November 2016 00: 47 New
                    0
                    Want to prove your words? This expert is merged, bring a new one.
                    Sat in the T-90. Are you satisfied?
                    And I have a military specialty "Armament SU-25", but despite this, no one from my circle believed me that the SU-25 could not shoot down a Boeing over Ukraine. And against this background, your thesis that you were sitting in tanks does not change the fact that your statement about the rate of fire is HERESY.
                    1. Cat man null
                      Cat man null 18 November 2016 08: 49 New
                      +3
                      Quote: TARS
                      Sat in the T-90. Are you satisfied?

                      - that's it - "sat". As a canister laughing
                      - theorist, damn it negative

                      Quote: TARS
                      I have a military specialty "Armament SU-25"

                      - you see ... I have a "military specialty" 021 101
                      - and, unlike you, I did have a chance to "work" in this specialty
                      - so I not only "sat" in the tank

                      For your question:

                      - rate of fire is never "too much"
                      - You shot for the first time, and missed. It happens? It happens.
                      - and your goal is now looking for you. To say thank you, probably laughing
                      - this is where rate of fire is needed. To a second shot, and as soon as possible, this goal to remind who is the game, and who is the hunter. A mark on the gap, yeah ...
                      - and here, of course, the faster the better wink

                      That's something like yes
                      1. TARSUS
                        TARSUS 18 November 2016 13: 51 New
                        +1
                        You asked if I was sitting in a tank, I told you that I was sitting. What other questions?
                        They themselves confirmed my thesis that after the first sighting shot, the rate of fire is dealt, and not throughout the battle. And the loader on Abrams faster throws shells than the AZ on the T-90.
                    2. bk316
                      bk316 23 November 2016 19: 44 New
                      +4
                      And I have a military specialty "Armament SU-25",

                      That is, it’s just not the operation and repair of aviation missile weapons (461103) and the operation and repair of aviation weapons
                      (461102) and not even aviation equipment and weapons (460100), namely, "Armament SU-25" VUS, can you tell me?
            2. bk316
              bk316 23 November 2016 19: 35 New
              +3
              you need to be a stinker, so as not to throw 23 kg of shells

              You would be a young man charging me, you look at the demobilization elder went bully lol
        2. Grigory_78
          Grigory_78 17 July 2017 05: 00 New
          0
          Exactly what a kindergarten is. All shooting tables for Abrams - up to 3 km. There is no rocket as ammunition. At 5 km, he can shoot, of course. But this action reminds the story of a conversation between Hitler and Guderian near Dora’s super-heavy gun. Hitler: - You can shoot tanks from this weapon. Guderian: - shoot yes. Hit no.
          As for the modernization of Abrams - we will look. And then such a supertank, well, my goodness. Armor is not from the vibrium or whatever it is. It remains in the frame - and in the corner to the images. Or have you already set?
      2. N100
        N100 17 November 2016 20: 04 New
        +2
        At the Abrams level? Does Abrams have an automatic loader, a complex of guided weapons, active defense, a radar with an active phased array, armored capsule?


        Abrams was created taking into account the experience of the successful use of the Centurions by the British, namely the replacement of 83 mm guns with 105 mm, which significantly extended its service life.
        There is a tower on Abramsah adapted for the installation of 140 mm guns, starting with the first models, subsequent models which are now in the Baltic States, have guns in which 120 mm barrels can be replaced by 140 mm. Abrams was made to grow, if the USSR had launched the production of tanks of the project similar to the Hammer and others, then a quick change in the field of gun barrels from 120 mm to 140 mm would allow them to fight effectively.
        By the way, in the European direction, the kinetic ammunition of 140 mm guns is capable of penetrating the T-14 frontal armor at any distance, for example, in a wooded area in the Baltic, there are few distances more than 3000 meters. Therefore, from an ambush when a 140 mm ammunition hits the T-14, it leaves him no chance.
        Postscript: Now the best tank ..... this is the Ka-52, together with an anti-tank mini-helicopter, a robot with 2-4 anti-tank missiles, for example, based on the R-33 KB "Rotor"
        1. Alf
          Alf 17 November 2016 21: 40 New
          10
          Quote: N100
          a quick change in the field of gun barrels from 120 mm to 140 mm would effectively deal with them.

          Can you change the ammunition in the field too quickly?
          Quote: N100
          By the way, in the European direction, the kinetic ammunition of 140 mm guns is capable of penetrating the T-14 frontal armor at any distance, for example, in a wooded area in the Baltic, there are few distances more than 3000 meters. Therefore, from an ambush when a 140 mm ammunition hits the T-14, it leaves him no chance.

          Did the Germans tell you this? And can a model of such a shot be brought? His ballistic and weight characteristics in the studio. But do the Germans know or do you know the thickness of Armata's armor and its ability to withstand sub-caliber and cumulative ammunition? Give this data.
          1. Großer feldherr
            Großer feldherr 18 November 2016 02: 23 New
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            Can you change the ammunition in the field too quickly?

            Why change it then!?

            Quote: Alf
            Did the Germans tell you this? And can a model of such a shot be brought? His ballistic and weight characteristics in the studio.

            Yes, all the same NEAT-MR and ARFSDS, only adapted (scaled) for 140 guns NPzK-140, XM291 muzzle energy which 2 times(!!!) exceeds the performance of modern NATO 120 mm (which our modern tanks are already sewing on take-off), which, according to the designers, increased armor penetration by 40%
            .
            Quote: Alf
            the thickness of the armor of Almaty and its ability to withstand sub-caliber and cumulative ammunition?

            Are you seriously ?
            If the "Armata" does not have one and a half meter armor (and it cannot be with a mass of 48 tons with enormous dimensions 7350 * 2285 * 3360), then I have bad news for you.
            1. Alf
              Alf 18 November 2016 19: 32 New
              +4
              Quote: Großer Feldherr
              Why change it then!?

              And the fact that when changing the caliber the length of the shot and the diameter of the sleeve change, are you not familiar?
              Quote: Großer Feldherr
              Are you seriously ?
              If the "Armata" does not have one and a half meter armor (and it cannot be with a mass of 48 tons with enormous dimensions 7350 * 2285 * 3360), then I have bad news for you.

              There is an option of Armata with a mass of 55 tons. The extra 7 tons probably went to the crew’s personal belongings.
              So bring FIGURES of armor resistance of Armata to BPS and KS.
              1. RASKAT
                RASKAT 18 November 2016 20: 08 New
                +2
                Well, the developers of Almaty argue that Afganit rejects the BPS with a counter-explosion. Let's hope this is true.
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 23 November 2016 23: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: N100
          ..... quick change in the field of gun barrels from 120 mm to 140 mm ....

          I would like to look at the work of the loader, who in battle will quickly get the 140th caliber unitary ammunition out of the combat unit and quickly load the cannon. And this despite the fact that the height of the fighting compartment of Abrams (like Leo) is 165 cm. That is, large men do not belong there.
    2. Chtononibrator
      Chtononibrator 17 November 2016 10: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: TARS
      Most likely at the same Abrams and Leopard level of the latest modifications

      It's like it's bad
    3. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 17 November 2016 10: 51 New
      +3
      Yes, they want to prepare them for regions with severe weather conditions. with a strong minus, such engines are considered to be more efficient.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 November 2016 11: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: TARS
      In short, it's clear the T-14 Armata is even more crude than expected. Most likely at the same Abrams and Leopard level of the last modifications, they decided to upgrade old tanks.

      According to your logic, it turns out that the MO refusal to purchase T-90 in favor of upgrading the T-72 meant that the T-90 rawer than expected. laughing
      Here it is necessary to talk not about "dampness", but about the price and quantity. Given the ongoing deployment of new divisions, MBT purchases cannot be reduced (but the budget must also be increased). In the near future "Armat" will not be enough for everyone - the budget will not pull. Rumor has it that there are not enough T-72Bs suitable for modernization. It means that something else needs to be modernized - or the purchases of equipment should be reduced, since the only serial and produced "from scratch" UVZ tank costs like three modernized ones.
      1. RASKAT
        RASKAT 17 November 2016 13: 35 New
        +3
        By your logic, it turns out that the MO’s refusal to purchase T-90 in favor of modernizing the T-72 meant that the T-90 was even more crude than expected

        And where are they, I mean tanks accumulated in warehouses for the Soviet past, to put on. They are modernizing it, it’s cheaper and the efficiency doesn’t suffer for the most part. And do not forget that in our warehouses there is a huge amount of all sorts of T-54, T-62, too, they can be upgraded and sold somewhere in third world countries.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 November 2016 15: 12 New
          +2
          Quote: RASKAT
          And where are they, I mean tanks accumulated in warehouses for the Soviet past, to put on. They are modernizing it, it’s cheaper and the efficiency doesn’t suffer for the most part.

          What I am talking about: orders for the modernization of the T-80 have nothing to do with the dampness of the "Armata". But only with the desire of the Ministry of Defense to continue the work of Serdyukov: to provide armored vehicles, without getting out of the budget, a lot of relatively modern medium tanks - instead of the Soviet-era equipment that is still used in them.
          It is possible to fulfill these requirements (a lot, urgently and without exceeding the budget) only by modernizing the tanks from storage (moreover, tanks with a low resource consumption are desirable). We started with the T-72B. Now, it seems, the matter has reached the T-80 deposits. smile
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 23 November 2016 23: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And only with the desire of the Moscow Region to continue the work of Serdyukov: ....

            Serdyukov planned to reduce the entire tank fleet to 2500 units, which for our vast territory is nothing - after all, do not transfer them by air to the right place (by the way, Serdyukov also reduced the number of military airfields dozens of times, so this is the problem).
    5. aleksandrs95
      aleksandrs95 7 February 2017 09: 07 New
      +1
      No need for Armata, it is an excellent tank, but very expensive, and there is no need to use Armata everywhere. And money should be oh how much to count.
  4. legkostup
    legkostup 17 November 2016 11: 45 New
    +1
    Will the turbine be changed to a more powerful one or not? Production of tank turbines in Omsk generally preserved or not?
  5. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 17 November 2016 12: 03 New
    +5
    The T-80 is an impressive tank.
    Upon learning that the T-72 was chosen as the main tank of the USSR, not he
    in the States (and in Israel) breathed out "uf-f" ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 November 2016 12: 18 New
      +7
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Upon learning that the T-72 was chosen as the main tank of the USSR, not he
      in the States (and in Israel) breathed out "uf-f" ...

      These are the military. And the economists said "oh shit, failed ...". smile
  6. RASKAT
    RASKAT 17 November 2016 13: 28 New
    +6
    What I would like to see on the new T-80 modification
    Of course, first of all, a thermal imager and a new SLA. It is desirable that the new DZ be covered entirely on the sides, approximately as on Armata, and not as on the T-72б3. A new gun, it would be desirable, of course, to rework the entire loading mechanism, to make it as small as possible on the T-72, and it is advisable to additionally cover it with additional protective equipment. The one that is installed is much more vulnerable than the T-72. It would be even more desirable to abandon the levers of the driver's mechanic and go to the helm, automatic transmission similar experience already exists. And you get a very good tank. Much better than the T-72b3.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 17 November 2016 21: 07 New
      +3
      Quote: RASKAT
      rework the entire loading mechanism, make it as small as possible

      In principle, the only significant drawback of the T-80 is this very loading mechanism, which is more vulnerable compared to the automatic loading system on the T-72, and affects the ability to evacuate the wounded driver (only through its hatch). As a result, having greater security, the T-80 is inferior to the T-72 in survivability.

      Quote: TARS
      The T-14 Armata is even more crude than expected. Most likely at the same Abrams and Leopard level of the latest modifications, they decided to upgrade old tanks.

      You write nonsense. The T-14 will undergo state tests for another couple of years and be treated for "childhood diseases" and only then will it enter the troops, and the equipment is needed here and now.

      Quote: N100
      In the European direction, the kinetic ammunition of 140 mm guns is capable of penetrating the T-14 frontal armor at any distance, for example, in a wooded area in the Baltic there are few distances of more than 3000 meters.

      And where does this information - the Germans seem to have advertised their development? TTX of Almaty are not yet known and this is not to mention the TTX of Afghanistan and DZ, so these are nothing more than words.

      Quote: RASKAT
      And where are they, I mean tanks accumulated in warehouses for the Soviet past, to put on. They are modernizing it, it’s cheaper and the efficiency doesn’t suffer for the most part. And don’t forget that we have a huge amount of all kinds of T-54, T-62 in our warehouses

      1. The modernization potential of the T-72 and T-80 is not exhausted. Here is a variant of B3M +++, etc. and the creation of fire support vehicles with small-caliber guns for maintaining a database in urban, etc. conditions. But the transition to a new generation of MBT provides cardinal superiority in MBT.
      2. T-55 and T-62 are gone.
      1. RASKAT
        RASKAT 17 November 2016 23: 15 New
        0
        2. T-55 and T-62 are gone.

        Yes, I’m not saying that they’ll be put back into service, tinted, carried out maintenance, hang DZ and Arabs out there or some Kurds or Yemenis, at a price slightly higher than scrap metal.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 18 November 2016 20: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: RASKAT
          tint, carry out maintenance, hang DZ

          The cost of repairs will be very large - this is, in fact, overhaul must be carried out - the T-55/62 is not just transferred for storage, they were removed from service. And before that, how much they stood at the storage bases ...
      2. RASKAT
        RASKAT 18 November 2016 20: 20 New
        +2
        creation of fire support vehicles with small-caliber guns for maintaining a database in urban, etc. conditions

        In my opinion, to reduce the caliber greatly, to 30mm as it was on the terminators. This is utter stupidity, on the contrary, in urban conditions you need a large caliber, slammed a gun from the cannon (say 125mm) and am already pretty sure that no one will get out of it, and if this is a serious firing point, it slammed there with a dozen, put down the house and drove on. And from 30 mm you evaporate to pick out. OFZ 30mm wall does not break into two bricks, there are only about 30g of explosives in it. But in the 57mm gun, 200gr is already wondering how it will prove itself. Let's wait and see.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 18 November 2016 23: 50 New
          0
          Quote: RASKAT
          In my opinion, to reduce the caliber drastically, to 30mm as it was on the terminators. This is utter stupidity, on the contrary, in urban conditions you need a large caliber, slammed it from a cannon (say 125mm) into a window and I’m almost sure that no one will get out of it,

          On the one hand, yes, but the larger the caliber, the smaller the BH angle. Accordingly, 2 30-ki, and even better one 57 mm, with a high VL angle, are more adapted to the extermination of the enemy that has settled down on the upper floors. In the sources you can find a description of what they did with the entrance of the ZSU-57-2 (or rather, how they stacked them).
          If you dream, then on the chassis of the old T-72 you can put Baikal, ATGM, relic and KAZ - and we get a good fire support vehicle for infantry and tanks.
          PS: by the way, 2 30 mm cannon bricks are picked up sooo fast (and the ammunition load for them hoo).
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 23 November 2016 23: 28 New
            0
            Quote: Blackgrifon

            0
            Blackgrifon November 18, 2016 23:50 ↑
            Quote: RASKAT
            ... On the one hand, yes, but the larger the caliber, the smaller the BH angle. Accordingly, 2 30-ki, and even better one 57 mm, with a high VN angle, are more adapted to the extermination of the enemy who has settled down on the upper floors ....

            There was a variant of the BMPT with a tower from the BMP-3 (the lifting angles are large), only more armored. But something she did not like the military.
  7. Free wind
    Free wind 17 November 2016 13: 53 New
    +1
    The awesome characteristics of the turbine !!!!!! Power, traction. ease of launch, but the cost ........ almost like a tank without an engine. And the fuel consumption is from 600 to 2000 liters per 100 km .............. And the life of the driver ... his evacuation is very problematic. That engine should be put in Maybach’s, well, MTV, more precisely, under 2000 horses and a tower with a T-72 with its automatic loader, as you think?
    1. RASKAT
      RASKAT 18 November 2016 20: 26 New
      0
      Do not forget that the T 80 is just a barrel of fuel on the tracks. 2300 full refueling, against 1300 on T 72. Yes, and horsepower is a rather subjective thing, it is unlikely that you will be worn in battle like in a tank biathlon. There the maximum speed is 20-30 km per hour. Faster just hell that you see everything is working like a cart. Well, unless an oncoming tank battle in the open field wink
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 23 November 2016 23: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      ..... and a tower with a T-72 with its automatic loader, ....

      On the T-80, the loading mechanism with a cabin-type conveyor. That is - one with the tower. The T-72 ram with shots is attached to the bottom of the tank, so the shape of the bottom is completely different (with additional stiffening ribs). Therefore, it’s just not possible to rearrange the tower.
  8. uskrabut
    uskrabut 17 November 2016 13: 53 New
    +2
    Oh and a beautiful toy! A masterpiece of tank building. It’s a useful idea with reconstruction, the case itself and hodovka are excellent, he also needs fluff, he needs to aim his sight, remote sensing and communication equipment, plus work on the engine. I don’t think it will result in big expenses.
  9. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 17 November 2016 15: 20 New
    +2
    It is necessary to adapt all tanks for the installation of a fighting compartment from the T-90 MC. Standardize. T-72 will not pull, of course, but T-80 is quite ...
    1. RASKAT
      RASKAT 17 November 2016 23: 32 New
      +1
      It is necessary to adapt all tanks for the installation of a fighting compartment from the T-90 MC. Standardize. T-72 will not pull, of course, but T-80 is quite ...

      I agree in almost everything, but there, too, the SLA clumsy turned out (T 90 MS). People who traveled with him shared their impressions with me. You need to understand that the tank began to be developed in 2004. The tank is largely good, there are many interesting things but extremely raw ones that were brought to mind only on Armata (I hope). It’s good that the tank didn’t go into production then, but now that the developers have gained experience especially on the subject of remote sensing and active defense. With further modernization, most likely we will see a completely different tank.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 18 November 2016 23: 53 New
        +2
        Probably in vain they closed the project of a unified fighting compartment. The UBO, in theory, would allow us to decide to unify the weapons, defense, and OMS 72 and 80 and significantly increase their security as a result of the abandonment of non-mechanized warheads (both by 80 and by 72).
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 18 November 2016 23: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          ... significantly increase their security due to the abandonment of non-mechanized warheads (and 80 and 72)

          - I missed something in this life, probably ...
          - The "ammo rack" on both the T-72 and the T-80 is "mechanized", no?
          - that is, "to give up the non-mechanized ammunition stowage" there, as it were ... "there is no possibility."

          Or didn’t I understand something important?
          1. mark1
            mark1 19 November 2016 08: 26 New
            +1
            Quote: Cat Man Null
            Or didn’t I understand something important?

            Perhaps yes. In a mechanized combat unit T-72 T-80 22 and 28 shells, respectively, the remaining 22-17 pieces (like this) non-mechanized combat unit
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 19 November 2016 21: 05 New
              +2
              Quote: mark1
              The "ammo rack" on both the T-72 and the T-80 is "mechanized", no?

              Quote: mark1
              Perhaps yes. In a mechanized combat unit T-72 T-80 22 and 28 shells, respectively, the remaining 22-17 pieces (like this) non-mechanized combat unit

              The latter is just one of the two problems and vulnerabilities of the T-72, because often leads to fire. Sometimes this problem is solved by loading only AZ and do not take a stop. BC.
  10. Captain45
    Captain45 17 November 2016 15: 51 New
    +4
    Yesterday I read on the Imperia website an article about the modernization of the T-80, basically similar to the article by Cyril, only there the author considered the main reason for the modernization that the T-80 has a gas turbine engine, which starts easily at low temperatures, from which the author concluded, that "eighties" will arm the units deployed in the Arctic.
  11. Dimka off
    Dimka off 17 November 2016 19: 47 New
    +2
    Everything is done correctly, the main thing is that the modernization should turn out to be of high quality and not only would be.
  12. beeper
    beeper 17 November 2016 20: 05 New
    +4
    "Eighty" is a good tank (both turbine and diesel versions initially surpassed "seventy-two" in terms of combat qualities ....) and, of course, worthy of modernization, it will be very smart!
  13. samoletil18
    samoletil18 18 November 2016 00: 57 New
    +2
    It is a pity that KARS did not appear. He would put everything on the shelves.
  14. flanker7
    flanker7 19 November 2016 22: 36 New
    +3
    Hooray! Great news! 80 deserves it!
  15. ingenera
    ingenera 20 November 2016 17: 57 New
    +2
    Quote: TARS
    And the loader on Abrams faster throws shells than the AZ on the T-90.

    Hardly faster. An armored flap opens, separating the fighting compartment from the turret niche, where ammunition is located, a shot is removed, placed on the tray, sent, the gun is brought to the aiming line and only then "broads!" Not so fast, even if the gun is fixed in a certain position at the moment of loading, having previously "memorized" the place of the previous target (in case of a miss) and automatically returns to the aiming point. And yet, yes! It chatters in the tank, even on a "conditionally flat" surface. And for the loader, it is not enough that he himself must not bang himself against the surrounding iron, but also he must not bang an artillery shot with a capsule sleeve on the bottom of the sleeve and a fuse on the "nose" of the projectile (if it is a high-explosive fragmentation). And a very healthy "Negro-loader" even in Abrams is cramped.
    1. tank64rus
      tank64rus 17 October 2017 18: 50 New
      0
      If everything was so rosy then why on the head of a black man a helmet. Probably so that he would not spoil expensive equipment in the tank with his curly head. this is tarsu
  16. multipulti
    multipulti 21 November 2016 07: 01 New
    0
    Yes, a normal tank, but in the mountains the Czech Republic did not pull, there was not enough air!
  17. KCA
    KCA 21 November 2016 19: 22 New
    +4
    I don’t understand the undercarriage, sensors and ammunition, but how did the author get the idea that radio stations are not produced? Of course, R-123s are not produced, instead of them, under all seats and connections, it was both produced and manufactured undergoing modernization of R-173, replacing R-123 with R-173 is a matter of 5 minutes
  18. tracer
    tracer 23 November 2016 02: 06 New
    +2
    Who at minus forty Tank did not start, that does not know how to mate)))
  19. Vadim Golubkov
    Vadim Golubkov 18 March 2017 23: 04 New
    0
    He served in the PGW in Uterbog, where he got after training at the SME, the post was guarded by the T-80 tank battalion .. approached the sleeping T-80 .... height ... extended his arm and we caught up ... touched the armor .. finger I press ... there it was without dynamic protection ... it squeezed through like rubber ... it seemed to me .. Then they came to our unit ... and one tank broke ... specialists three people from Russia came to repair .. but I remember ... the tank was kind of small ... really small ... the armor seemed to be squeezed ... at that time there was the best tank because the best equipment was in the ZGV ... T-90SM, AM and the T-14 needs to be done more.
  20. H - ck 61
    H - ck 61 8 May 2017 14: 16 New
    +1
    In the 80s, there were t-64s in our border cover regiment. They were enough for defense while the army was deployed. At a training ground in Königsbrück, they drove along the tattered highway at t 80 to the training ground. Impressions like moving from a Cossack to a gelding. Speed, smoothness on the highest level. It flies at you, do not hear when it flies, as if it got to the airfield on the runway)))))
  21. tank64rus
    tank64rus 17 October 2017 18: 46 New
    0
    Already a modernization option is presented at the Army 2017 exhibition