Military Review

T-80 for Iran: neither to yourself nor to people

26
T-80 for Iran: neither to yourself nor to peopleIn 2004, the Iranian military wanted to acquire 200 units tank T-80U. This information was unexpected for Russian tank-building enterprises, since the main manufacturer of the T-80U tanks was the Omsk Transport Engineering Plant, which for a long time could not produce these tanks.

The question of starting the production of T-80U at one of the factories in Nizhny Tagil was seriously considered. But further conversations the case has not progressed. After all, it would only take several years to start assembling a combat vehicle of a different design on a conveyor belt. As a result, the Iranians have cooled this issue, and more proposals have been received from them.

By the way, there was a real chance for the realization of this transaction. In those years, the T-80U tanks were massively decommissioned from the Kantemirovskaya and Tamansky divisions. They have already developed their resource and they are distilled into tank repair plants for further disposal. True, only the corps of combat vehicles was disposed of, and the towers were carefully stockpiled.

At that time, work began in Russia on the modernization of the previously released versions of the "eighty dozen" - T-80BV. The projects assumed the use of towers from decommissioned T-80U on the old buildings of the BV model.

The plans were the refinement of the fire control system, the installation of a new improved model of night vision, providing a high target recognition range using an electronic third-generation optical converter. The engine power should also increase with the HP 1100. to 1250 hp In addition, it was planned to replace the old dynamic protection of the hinged type of the first generation with the improved “reactive armor”.

This version of the upgraded tanks began to enter service in April 2005, but in extremely small quantities. And in a short time, the entire gas turbine branch of Russian tank construction was generally considered not promising. It turned out as in the well-known proverb: neither myself nor people. And there was a real chance to give the “eighty dozens” that were not needed to “good hands”.

After all, Belarus was able to "float" Yemen with the T-80BV tanks that became useless armies. Iran, on the other hand, would receive combat vehicles, even surpassing in some ways those serial T-80U that are now in service with the Russian army.

Based on materials vestnik-rm.ru
Author:
26 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. DYMITRY
    DYMITRY 26 January 2012 08: 21
    +4
    Maybe that’s why they didn’t sell because Iran would get cars superior to those that are in service in Russia. In principle, the export version of any equipment is castrated equipment in service. And most likely the recovery option, followed by a reduction in combat effectiveness, was recognized as economically unprofitable.
    1. Sokol peruna
      Sokol peruna 26 January 2012 09: 11
      +10
      T-80s were not sold to Iran due to the condition of Omsktransmash on which they were supposed to repair, and possibly upgrade tanks. In 2004, Omsktransmash was already bankrupt.
      1. esaul
        esaul 26 January 2012 11: 27
        +8
        Tired of already reading tearful stuffing about headache in the past! We need to write about what can prevent the repetition of mediocre decisions in the present and in the future! I - minus ...
        1. Aleksey67
          Aleksey67 26 January 2012 11: 36
          +2
          Quote: esaul
          Tired of already reading tearful stuffing about headache in the past!


          With two hands for, history does not know the subjunctive mood. Then in 2004 Iran was already under an embargo for a long time and it is possible that there would be "chairs (tanks) in the morning, and money (or debt cancellation) in the evening." Therefore, without knowing the terms of the agreement, it is difficult to assess. I do not think that ours, having the opportunity to make good profits, would ignore it.
          1. esaul
            esaul 27 January 2012 17: 58
            -2
            Alex, thanks for the support, buddy, and for the competent version!
            1. Hleb
              Hleb 29 January 2012 17: 46
              +2
              I’m tired of reading the comments of inadequate people who reproach opponents in describing the real situation for that year, which is mentioned in the article .. while not saying anything to the point of fact..I'm minus
        2. Hleb
          Hleb 29 January 2012 17: 44
          0
          I’m tired of reading the comments of inadequate people who reproach opponents in describing the real situation for that year, which is mentioned in the article .. while not saying anything to the point of fact..I'm minus
  2. ole
    ole 26 January 2012 12: 36
    +1
    And the strange policy of our General Staff, telling the whole world that our tanks ... oh, is very annoying, it would be better to give normal tasks to develop new equipment for fighting in modern conditions. And our tanks are still the best !!!! And no one has yet improved criticism of advertising. Amer over their old aircraft carriers praise and vparivayut.
  3. dred
    dred 26 January 2012 13: 47
    0
    and that there is no money on t90.
    1. Banderros
      Banderros 26 January 2012 20: 11
      -5
      Quote: dred

      and that there is no money on t90.

      Nobody needs him.
      1. mengeleff
        mengeleff 26 January 2012 22: 08
        0
        Banderros
        Nobody needs him.

        how did you say well about yourself and most importantly correctly wink
  4. 755962
    755962 26 January 2012 14: 05
    0
    It turned out like in a well-known proverb: neither to myself, nor to people. A dog in the manger. And what is needed to prevent this from happening in the future. It is probably right to set priorities!
  5. Banderros
    Banderros 26 January 2012 16: 50
    -2
    Which T-80U ??? “They haven’t been producing it for 15 years already, and Russia has only 300 pieces in its possession. Chavez wanted to buy 80U from you, but you didn’t sell it, because you don’t have that much.”
    1. Yazov
      Yazov 27 January 2012 00: 15
      0
      Because the climate is hot there. GTE is very poorly tolerated.
      1. Banderros
        Banderros 27 January 2012 00: 51
        -1
        Quote: Yazov
        Because the climate is hot there. GTE is very poorly tolerated.

        This is cunning, but this doesn’t interfere with Abrams and the T-80BV of Yemen! ... All engines do not tolerate heat well in addition to the TD-series.
        GTD-1000 (1250) has not been produced for more than 10 years, T-80U for more than 15 is the main answer. I’m not saying this for a "spur", it’s just - the truth.
  6. grizzlir
    grizzlir 26 January 2012 17: 06
    +1
    I said and will say that the eighty is the best tank that was and is in the Russian army. The dynamic performance is far behind the eighties. The whole fuss around the gas turbine engine is not due to the fact that it is an unpromising engine, the engine is excellent and can be improved, the trouble of the gas turbine engine is that he is really very voracious, and now every penny counts in the army. It is a pity that nobody else is engaged in the development of gas-turbine engines, unlike western research institutes.
    1. gor
      gor 26 January 2012 19: 06
      +2
      on the whole, I agree that the GTE is somewhat superior to diesel and that they say that the exhaust as from a blowtorch let me disagree. When deciding to mix hot exhaust with cold air like on Apache or Mi-28 helicopters, the tank becomes quite quiet. my latest abrams upgrades are equipped with such systems and it turned out to be a fairly quiet tank with good dynamic characteristics and not very noticeable in the ir range. For those who argue, I will answer that the sound is a collision of hot gas with relatively cold air.
      1. roninas
        roninas 26 January 2012 23: 31
        +3
        Generally quiet, at the training ground we were walking, it wasn’t audible at all, only when I drove, then the turbine was heard. Yes, and that’s not very
  7. ward
    ward 26 January 2012 20: 49
    +1
    Tanks are not afraid of dirt, they know the truth of the tank .... I have a helicopter cousin ... We sit drinking ... talking ... Well, our men are the best in everything .... About tanks ... But they went out to smoke, he and he said yesterday I was chasing a tank at the training ground, but I didn’t get ...
    1. ytqnhfk
      ytqnhfk 28 January 2012 21: 04
      0
      ward but in more detail you can, or even no information, can add more, because now it’s moved that pride is bursting so that the helicopter pilot doesn’t catch the sight of the tank and carrier class! ???
      1. mega_jeka
        mega_jeka 28 January 2012 21: 18
        0
        He probably drove a T-80 with a gas turbine engine 1250, and a helicopter pilot on a Mi-1)))))))
        Regarding the speed and driving the T-80, I advise you to look and read the comments smile
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCPLj8OiPdo&feature=related
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy7na321xNQ
  8. slan
    slan 26 January 2012 21: 14
    +1
    And the Iranians wanted buy Tanks or talk about buying a T-80U?
    The Iranians really showed interest in the T-80U, and the T-90S, and the K-50, and the K-52 ..
    But you never know what they were negotiating about. Another Mudatka article offended by the life of a paper scraper. If the Iranians wanted to bargain and get the maximum information on the subject of bargaining, then they got what they wanted. And one does not need to inflate an anti-omi universal conspiracy from this.
    I think if the Iranians wanted to buy Soviet tanks in 2004, they would have bought them. Under Yeltsin, anything was possible, then many lucrative contracts were wrapped up to please the United States.
    And not a single country today can not afford to squander — to release two MBT at the same time. Just as in the USSR, several types of MBT would not be launched simultaneously if one of them had superiority over the others. It is only in the feverish imagination of the author of the article that the reverse is possible.
    1. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 29 January 2012 17: 18
      0
      chavez came to buy and buy, Gaddafi came to consider options and died, so Iran would decide what he needs and if I got it I won’t believe that they’re in Russia with money and don’t buy it
      1. Banderoos
        Banderoos 29 January 2012 17: 22
        0
        Quote: Kyrgyz

        Chavez came to buy and bought

        Nooo, Chavez wanted the T-80U, but it has not been produced for 17 years. In Russia, there are only about 300 or more.
  9. 443190
    443190 27 January 2012 09: 23
    +1
    We often break off something in Iran. Either S-300 .... or T-80 .... They would say honestly - "we are afraid to offend the owner" and that's it ... And so it looks funny from the outside.
  10. sergo0000
    sergo0000 27 January 2012 21: 05
    -2
    Only a rich and strong country can produce good weapons. There is an incentive.
    And what was our country like in 2005.? And who then knew about Iran? They fought against Islamic extremism. Imagine the reaction of the people when we knew that Putin was selling tanks to Arabs !! to Khattab fellow countrymen! Who would understand geopolitics then. The whole Caucasus was strewn with their instructors and mercenaries. This is not our mistake, but a thoughtful action. And inaction is simpler. Well, no, that's all!
  11. mega_jeka
    mega_jeka 27 January 2012 21: 36
    -1
    grizzlir correctly wrote the T-80 as a cool tank, unlike the T-90, which is really a further modernization of the T-72 (ie "a tractor with a gun")
    My familiar tankers fought in 80,72 in Chechnya and in the second company in 90 (they ran 90 so to speak). So, there were cases when, after getting an ATGM, the diesels stalled. But 80 proved to be very good. Dynamics in battle is a big plus. As they said .... You quickly leave for the position ..... SHOT .... and quickly fall down in reverse. Or, on the move, a short stop for 3 seconds a shot and departure at speed. In general, according to reviews of a real combatant, 80 is better than other important tanks. And it’s easy to pile up that 80 did not take part in military actions after the New Year’s storm of Grozny. She took part and very efficiently ... probably this was the reason that they removed her from Chechnya as did MSTA S, etc. Most likely in the New Year's assault on Grozny there was a setup with 80 because the cars were filled with kerosene and during the fighting in the city (again according to the words of the people who fought on this machine) it was supposed to be filled with salyarka (GTE 1000 multi-fuel engine) Kerosene is known to burn better, so 80 in the city also burned well. sad And I hasten to remember that the T-80 tanks were reduced according to the START agreement (which I don’t remember exactly) and it was from the terms of this agreement that the T-80 production was completely terminated. So these are all links in the same START-Grozny-Closing chain. Omsktransmash. I'm from Omsk and t Omsktransmash became almost one KB. Restoring the production of the T-80 BDT is problematic. Yes ... I still haven’t forgotten .... our climate is not the warmest, so do not forget about the problems of starting a diesel engine at -35 and the ease of starting a gas turbine engine wink
    1. slan
      slan 28 January 2012 00: 05
      0
      Quote: mega_jeka
      And I hasten to remember that the T-80 tanks were reduced under the START treaty (which I don’t remember exactly) and from the terms of this agreement it was the complete cessation of T-80 production

      This is how it was. Thank you for "being in a hurry to remember", otherwise many have forgotten that the START Treaty was in fact a conspiracy against the Omsk plant.
      Quote: mega_jeka
      there was a setup with 80 because the cars were refueled with kerosene and during the fighting in the city (again, according to the words of people who fought on this machine)

      What insidiousness ..
      1. Banderros
        Banderros 28 January 2012 00: 15
        0
        Quote: slan
        This is how it was. Thank you for "being in a hurry to remember", otherwise many have forgotten that the START Treaty was in fact a conspiracy against the Omsk plant.

        Bullshit, he T-80U and diesel V-92 - "U". And the tower from the T-80U and the T-72 tower from the U.
        How is the T-80 better and fundamentally different from the T-64? - Yes, nothing.
        In short - you have to drain the desa.
  12. Banderros
    Banderros 27 January 2012 21: 59
    0
    Quote: mega_jeka
    Restoring the production of the T-80 BDT is problematic.

    Yes, it’s impossible. There will never be a T-80. And the news is fake.
  13. mega_jeka
    mega_jeka 27 January 2012 22: 52
    0
    Quote: Banderros
    Yes, it’s impossible. There will never be a T-80. And the news is fake

    Most likely yes ... they ruined such a car ...
    1. Banderros
      Banderros 27 January 2012 23: 55
      0
      Quote: mega_jeka
      Probably yes...

      Just saying.
    2. Banderros
      Banderros 28 January 2012 00: 18
      0
      Quote: mega_jeka
      Most likely yes ... they ruined such a car ...

      Yes, there the UVZ tried its best, the first was - they brought in Yeltsin T-90. OTMs were deprived of orders, then UVZ took OTM into their hands and Omsk tanks and design bureaus finally rolled up ...
      Kirov Plant died first back in the deep 90s.
  14. Banderros
    Banderros 28 January 2012 00: 05
    0
    By the way, because of the T-80 tank, Russia is not able to make helicopter engines. Tanks were made in St. Petersburg.
    I wonder how much would the GTD-1250? Maybe someone knows?
    And given that I’m only the only one in such topics, I’ll try to count.
    1. Serial (!!!) TV3-117 costs 0.8-1 million greens. A tank can’t be like that - there is an air purification system, its own technologies for dust wear, a vibration cleaning system, it costs at least 2 times more expensive than TV3-117, if you count on serial.
    2. Per kilograms (of course, unproductive business), but we consider it again with "easier" aviation Zaporozhye - 1,8-2, again systems and so on - more than 2,5 million American friends of the subindustan.
    3. From a diesel engine, from which a gas turbine engine is 10 times more expensive, we get 2-3 million.
    The engine will not cost 4 million, this is all with a large and well-coordinated series, so it’s easy to get 5-XNUMX democratic lemons.
    Gold tank right? The new tank will turn out easily - for 10 lemons.
    1. slan
      slan 28 January 2012 00: 12
      +3
      Quote: Banderros
      And considering that I’m only the only one in such topics

      Yeah, that is, then do not take it away. You're the one here so unique.
      Reminded:
      -Doctor, I'm a phenomenon! my eggs are ringing.
      -Yes no, my friend, you are not a phenomenon, you are a jingle.
      1. Banderros
        Banderros 28 January 2012 00: 25
        0
        slan,
        Ahhhh, but I thought you would say the price of a gas turbine engine ...
  15. mega_jeka
    mega_jeka 28 January 2012 20: 35
    +1
    Quote: slan
    This is how it was. Thank you for “hurrying to remember”, otherwise many have forgotten that the START Treaty was in fact a conspiracy against the Omsk plant

    START is not a conspiracy against the Omsk plant. This is a conspiracy against Russia. The T-80 is a very inconvenient opponent for the Abrams tank. Let me remind you that the T-80 was called the "La Manche tank"
    Well this is so ... for those who don’t know anything at all)))
    1. Banderoos
      Banderoos 28 January 2012 20: 48
      -2
      Quote: mega_jeka
      START is not a conspiracy against the Omsk plant.

      START it. All deleted comments are mine.
  16. mega_jeka
    mega_jeka 30 January 2012 10: 35
    0
    Quote: mega_jeka
    grizzlir correctly wrote the T-80 as a cool tank, unlike the T-90, which is really a further modernization of the T-72 (ie "a tractor with a gun")
    My familiar tankers fought in 80,72 in Chechnya and in the second company in 90 (they ran 90 so to speak). So, there were cases when, after getting an ATGM, the diesels stalled. But 80 proved to be very good. Dynamics in battle is a big plus. As they said .... You quickly leave for the position ..... SHOT .... and quickly fall down in reverse. Or, on the move, a short stop for 3 seconds a shot and departure at speed. In general, according to reviews of a real combatant, 80 is better than other important tanks. And it’s easy to pile up that 80 did not take part in military actions after the New Year’s storm of Grozny. She took part and very efficiently ... probably this was the reason that they removed her from Chechnya as did MSTA S, etc. Most likely in the New Year's assault on Grozny there was a setup with 80 because the cars were filled with kerosene and during the fighting in the city (again according to the words of the people who fought on this machine) it was supposed to be filled with salyarka (GTE 1000 multi-fuel engine) Kerosene is known to burn better, so 80 in the city also burned well. And I hasten to remember that the T-80 tanks were reduced according to the START agreement (which I don’t remember exactly) and it was from the terms of this agreement that the T-80 production was completely terminated. So these are all links in the same START-Grozny-Closing chain. Omsktransmash. I'm from Omsk and t Omsktransmash became almost one KB. Restoring the production of the T-80 BDT is problematic. Yes ... I still haven’t forgotten .... our climate is not the warmest, so do not forget about the problems of starting a diesel engine at -35 and the ease of starting a gas turbine engine

    Ale ... those comrades who have set me up on the downsides, justify the downsides ..... am
    1. MRomanovich
      MRomanovich 2 January 2013 19: 29
      0
      mega_jeka,
      I think they won’t justify, or in extreme cases, advertising phrases prepared at UVZ or drunken statements by EBN, which, as it turned out, were better versed in tanks, would result.
      I personally completely agree with you, because I have reduced one of the minuses.
      1. mega_jeka
        mega_jeka 2 January 2013 20: 50
        0
        Thank you! It's nice to see sane people here!
  17. Honory
    Honory 10 January 2015 19: 23
    0
    It’s a pity that they didn’t sell it. All the same, they’ll be removed from service. Now we’ll spend more money on disposal.