Military Review

Upgraded T-72B3 tank received a new engine

73
Uralvagonzavod Corporation begins mass production of a new engine for a modernized Russian tank T-72B3, the press service of UVZ.


The B-92C2F forced diesel engine developed by ChTZ-Uraltrak LLC (as part of the UVZ is part of the Rostec state corporation) successfully passed all types of tests and received documentation for serial production (01).

Upgraded T-72B3 tank received a new engine


This is the first in the last ten years tank engine, specially created for installation on the upgraded and new production tanks T-72BZ with 1130 hp power. As a result of its use, mobility and operational characteristics of combat vehicles increased significantly, and the T-72B3 tank surpassed the best Western models in terms of power density.

Despite a profound modernization, the B-92C2F is as unified as possible with its predecessor, the B-92C2 diesel engine: it is made in the same dimensions and installed in the engine compartment of the tank without any modifications of the machine, which allows replacing the B-92C2 with B-92CXNXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXC technological process changes. The motor is made on the standard equipment. B-2X92F was first introduced during the Tank Biathlon international army games. In these competitions, the Russian team for several years in a row became the winner and the motor was unofficially nicknamed "sport". Assigning the letter "О2" means its adoption by the Ministry of Defense.

As experimental design work was carried out to achieve the specified characteristics, the diesel engine design was consistently improved, and after modernization, a new diesel engine was obtained. It has a reinforced crankcase, crankshaft, connecting rod-piston group, improved turbocharger, exhaust system and cooling system. There is a warning of failure of the diesel engine with a critical loss of coolant. The heads of the block are cast from heat-resistant aluminum alloy. The fuel system provides high efficiency and has a power limiting mechanism that reduces the load on the diesel engine when it reaches the limit temperature parameters
- said the general director of ChTZ-Uraltrak LLC Peter Perevedentsev.
Photos used:
NPK "Uralvagonzavod"
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey53
    Sergey53 28 November 2017 15: 41
    +5
    Does this mean forced? Then they squeezed out everything that they could.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 28 November 2017 15: 45
      +7
      Like from the tank itself ..
      Quote: Sergey53
      Does this mean forced? Then they squeezed out everything that they could.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 28 November 2017 15: 57
        16
        Well, why? You can still hang an active defense.
        In general, it should be noted that he is still the best among competitors. Already so many times upgraded. And the "price-quality" is better not to find. hi
        1. 210ox
          210ox 28 November 2017 16: 00
          11
          And why not hang the KAB on the T-34? It’s easier and cheaper to upgrade Japan, but it’s a technique of the 60s. Something like this hi And I want to add. The Amerzans also began to actively modernize and install the KAB. Moreover, they are doing it quickly enough and this is already in their forces. And we still have a few samples. Here to put the forced engine is Yes !.
          Quote: Kasym
          Well, why? You can still hang an active defense.
          In general, it should be noted that he is still the best among competitors. Already so many times upgraded. And the "price-quality" is better not to find. hi
          1. Herculesic
            Herculesic 28 November 2017 16: 13
            +7
            210 ok, what is a KAB? I know KAZ (active protection complex)! Explain, please! recourse
            1. 210ox
              210ox 28 November 2017 16: 28
              +3
              Sorry! Corrected correctly .. recourse Thank you. By the way, about the Arena, it was not only not put into service, but also leaked to the staff. If not all, then the elements.
              Quote: Herkulesich
              210 ok, what is a KAB? I know KAZ (active protection complex)! Explain, please! recourse
              1. Logall
                Logall 28 November 2017 16: 41
                12
                Dmitry, welcome! Who will answer my question:
                Why are the T-72 being modernized if they intend to completely switch to the T-14? Only for sale? Or...
                1. 210ox
                  210ox 28 November 2017 17: 06
                  +6
                  Good evening, Alexander! I don’t understand here either, ok tests are underway, the car is new and brought to mind. But the T-72 B3 goes to the troops. Although we have a more modern T-90 tank, not to mention the latest models. it doesn’t merge with either finance or the T-14, or it’s not known what. We won’t be told hi
                  Quote: Logall
                  Dmitry, welcome! Who will answer my question:
                  Why are the T-72 being modernized if they intend to completely switch to the T-14? Only for sale? Or...
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 28 November 2017 18: 20
                    +3
                    In modern conditions, the T 72B3 is a tank for one battle.
                    1. kirgiz58
                      kirgiz58 28 November 2017 19: 43
                      +8
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      In modern conditions, the T 72B3 is a tank for one battle.

                      Thank you not for 5 minutes of the battle, but for the whole battle. This is already progress. laughing
                2. cariperpaint
                  cariperpaint 28 November 2017 18: 02
                  11
                  simple math. how many years does it take to build at least 1000 tons 14?) and 72 as a mass main tank is a very good machine. they are driven in the tail and mane.
                3. Alf
                  Alf 28 November 2017 19: 17
                  +3
                  Quote: Logall
                  if you are going to completely switch to t-14?

                  Nobody is going to completely switch to Armata. Let me remind you that until 2025 it is planned to adopt 2000 T-14 PLATFORMs for service. But the platform includes the T-14 tank, BMP T-15, BREM T-16, self-propelled guns Coalition. You can calculate how many exactly T-14 tanks will be.
                4. tecnik
                  tecnik 28 November 2017 19: 54
                  +1
                  I will say more, initially under the USSR (in the 70s). The T-72 was designed only for export, as less perfect than the T-80, T-64, etc. And now it suddenly becomes the main one? Although they burn like candles in Syria, they burned in Iraq, etc. But the “flying” T-80 is almost all sold for export today, like the T-90, by the way, According to the TTX, the T-72 should live on the battlefield - 11 min .... THIS IS EVERYTHING SAID.
                  1. Evgeny Strygin
                    Evgeny Strygin 28 November 2017 20: 46
                    +2
                    It was designed in advance in comparison with the T80? Advance pancake?)
                  2. Lieutenant colonel
                    Lieutenant colonel 29 November 2017 08: 15
                    +3
                    Write to us poor - lope in the country was t-80 and lope sold them? Well, along with the t-90. And about tactical specifications on the battlefield for more details please - if possible. I’m the first tanker in my first education, the main vehicle is the T-80, the second is the T-72 - and that is something you are opening to me in America.
                5. SOF
                  SOF 28 November 2017 21: 33
                  15
                  Good evening. I’m not particularly close to the Ministry of Defense, but as a producer I would do just that. Justification? You are welcome...
                  T-14 is a new, progressive machine. Since it’s new, it’s raw, with a bunch of not yet known children's sores and, most importantly, expensive, in view of not mass production. Whoever sculpted something here, but with the release of any item that gets cheaper, it’s a production axiom, connected with a lot of factors: from the lack of the need for highly skilled, highly specialized labor, fitting, docking, etc. to elementary overheads.
                  It is possible, as it was done in the Second World War, to launch into a series, and then bring it to, but then it was dictated by the need for a difficult situation at the front, and with the consequences of this approach, as well as with the financial issue of reworking finished products, no one considered, for a reason like this not tragic combat losses. Now, in the conditions of a difficult cold-martial law, to admit this is tantamount to sabotage in the Second World War, therefore, in my opinion, no one is driving anyone in the neck and they are doing the same, from a joke, “file revision”, so that in the series, then, it doesn’t work out samovars.
                  Causes of Slowing? The elementary war is cold, and the tanks without the T-14 are more than almost the entire world combined. Half, essenno- rubbish, but the second half is still worth a lot. Basic her. components are T80, T72 and T90. The first, in its gas-turbine incarnation, stands apart, since it is minimally compatible with the last two, but at least it would be foolish not to use a machine whose potential has not been used, especially since the theater of potential use for it is now actively developing, and who knows what will be there in the future when the interests of all those who are interested finally intersect.
                  Another thing is 72 and 90. I do not think that I will discover America for anyone, that the 90th is the modernization of the 72nd. So what we have. The mass 72-k is an inheritance from the USSR and the T90, a series of which began in 1992, with all the ensuing consequences, but by default it is more modern than its father and with a less developed resource.
                  And now, again, we will plunge into the economy and production, because, no matter how much these two concepts were not hated, tanks on trees do not spontaneously grow.
                  Quest: you have ten pumps, of which 7 are reliable, but old and 3 are relatively new, which are a modification of the old. You are told that you have about a month before day X, after which all units, with a minimum of costs, should plow like clockwork. What to do? The task of preparing for the deadline, in fact, is trivial: to carry out planned and overhauls and to unify as much as possible, of course, to the later version.
                  The question for filling up: with which pumps, while there is still time and money has not run out, to start?
                  I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, but the answer, in my opinion, is obvious.
                  1. Polite Moose
                    Polite Moose 29 November 2017 07: 03
                    +1
                    Good comment. hi
                    I'd add a word in favor of upgrading the T-72. If, God forbid, it comes to the mass use of tanks, then to provide them (tanks) with crews, it will be enough to shave off the beard reservists and allow them to drive a little at the training ground to refresh memory.
                6. kos2910
                  kos2910 29 November 2017 04: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Logall
                  completely switch to t-14

                  Who said that? And why such costs? This is the question, why are they releasing the new T-72, and not the T-90? And modernization of existing ones is right.
                  1. Lieutenant colonel
                    Lieutenant colonel 29 November 2017 08: 19
                    +1
                    T-72s do not release new ones. UPGRADE available. And this is the essence of different actions.
            2. serezhasoldatow
              serezhasoldatow 29 November 2017 11: 44
              0
              And this is in order to identify themselves and once again praise the United States.
          2. Kasym
            Kasym 28 November 2017 16: 21
            +5
            The cost of that Armata is the main component for any budget (I write for the price-quality). Of course I want everything and a lot, but ... And about Abrams. He is already too overweight. They drag him on the trawls - where does it fit !? He himself must off-road, like any car on the asphalt. hi
            1. 210ox
              210ox 28 November 2017 16: 32
              +7
              They carry it correctly on trawls. There is nothing to spend a resource. Yes and the road surface is protected.
              Quote: Kasym
              The cost of that Armata is the main component for any budget (I write for the price-quality). Of course I want everything and a lot, but ... And about Abrams. He is already too overweight. They drag him on the trawls - where does it fit !? He himself must off-road, like any car on the asphalt. hi
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 28 November 2017 16: 46
                +4
                So it’s easier to mine all the roads, and let them get to the battlefield further in this way. It is easier for us, if necessary.
                Sorry, but I’ll “run away” from reading on the site. I missed you, only a week was given. hi
                1. Dr_engie
                  Dr_engie 28 November 2017 16: 59
                  +3
                  Our tanks are usually on roads also moving on trawls, or even transported on railway platforms. And now what?
                  1. Kasym
                    Kasym 28 November 2017 21: 39
                    +3
                    And why in the performance characteristics indicate the mileage at one gas station?
                    I am sure that the T-72 will pass the exam. But for Abrams, to whom a jump on a bump is contraindicated hardly in our conditions. Moreover, the bridges are designed for 60 tons.
                    If you look at the experience of 41 years, then when the roads are destroyed, Abrams has nothing to do in Russia. hi
                    1. Dr_engie
                      Dr_engie 28 November 2017 23: 46
                      +3
                      Yes, he seemed to have nothing to do in Russia at all, that he had forgotten wink
                2. Nikolai Grek
                  Nikolai Grek 28 November 2017 20: 58
                  +4
                  Quote: Kasym
                  So it’s easier to mine all the roads, and let them get to the battlefield further in this way. It is easier for us, if necessary.

                  lol lol lol lol lol lol good good good
              2. kos2910
                kos2910 29 November 2017 04: 40
                0
                Quote: 210ox
                They carry it correctly on trawls. There is nothing to spend a resource. Yes and the road surface is protected.

                It’s just that it’s too heavy (62t versus 44t) and it will not go off-road everywhere. And there’s nothing left from the asphalt
            2. cariperpaint
              cariperpaint 28 November 2017 18: 04
              +1
              It's not about the cost only. time is more important. even making 100 tons 14 a year ...
          3. Mih1974
            Mih1974 28 November 2017 19: 36
            +1
            Or maybe it’s better to remember that the United States simply stopped making new tanks and they either have to upgrade or "drive old." tongue
          4. The brightest
            The brightest 29 November 2017 07: 03
            +1
            Quote: 210ox
            but this is a technique of the 60s.

            The old is not a synonym for the bad.
      2. Jedi
        Jedi 28 November 2017 15: 57
        +8
        As far as I know, forcing the engine reduces its resource. There is not a word about the resource of the new engine in the article. what
        1. adma
          adma 28 November 2017 16: 15
          +4
          And the resource of all our tank engines is about the same. 7-8 thousand km. before average repair with engine replacement
          1. Sergey53
            Sergey53 28 November 2017 16: 23
            0
            And not by hours?
            1. adma
              adma 28 November 2017 16: 34
              +2
              On the B-46 500 hours. The new should not have less.
              Quote: Sergey53
              And not by hours?

              I was somehow used to being determined by the mileage of the tank. Although for the engine separately - it’s correct for the engine hours. request
        2. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 28 November 2017 17: 48
          +3
          Quote: Jedi
          As far as I know, forcing the engine reduces its resource. There is not a word about the resource of the new engine in the article.

          The text clearly states - reinforced crankcase, crankshaft, connecting rod and piston group, improved turbocharger, exhaust system and cooling system.
          Perhaps slightly increased engine weight.
          I think everything is in order with the resource.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 November 2017 16: 13
      +4
      Quote: Sergey53
      Does this mean forced? Then they squeezed out everything that they could.

      Not necessary. We had such an M-105 aircraft engine - so it had modifications of the M-105PF and VK-105PF2. Forced and twice forced. smile
      1. Alf
        Alf 28 November 2017 19: 31
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote: Sergey53
        Does this mean forced? Then they squeezed out everything that they could.

        Not necessary. We had such an M-105 aircraft engine - so it had modifications of the M-105PF and VK-105PF2. Forced and twice forced. smile

        Right. PF-2 at the stand worked for 203 hours with a resource of 100 hours.
    3. Herculesic
      Herculesic 28 November 2017 16: 18
      +4
      Sergei53-F ​​means photonic! lol
    4. adma
      adma 28 November 2017 16: 37
      +3
      Quote: Sergey53
      Does this mean forced? Then they squeezed out everything that they could.

      From the thirty-four engine V-2 is still squeezed and squeezed. And they still can’t squeeze to the end laughing
      1. Settlement Oparyshev
        Settlement Oparyshev 28 November 2017 18: 49
        +1
        More precisely, B2 is an aviation diesel engine. It didn’t pass, it is excellent in terms of fuel economy, and the oil in it burned faster.
      2. Lars971a
        Lars971a 28 November 2017 19: 46
        +2
        Soviet quality! After all, they can ..........
    5. venik
      venik 28 November 2017 17: 39
      +1
      Quote: Sergey53
      Does this mean forced? Then they squeezed out everything that they could.

      ========
      Possibly - not far EVERYTHING!!! As "experience shows" - "excellence - No limit"!!!
      1. Sergey53
        Sergey53 28 November 2017 20: 29
        +1
        I agree with you. The fact that the engine is running out of modernization resources was told to us back in 1975. But as we see, he lives and thrives.
  2. fedor13
    fedor13 28 November 2017 15: 42
    0
    And they go to Feng Shui as NI said assessing the situation :) Having leaned out of the tower, and not some armored boats there :)
  3. Kent0001
    Kent0001 28 November 2017 15: 48
    0
    The main thing is that the resource would not be noticeably reduced. And then he is not very tall anyway.
  4. Herculesic
    Herculesic 28 November 2017 16: 19
    0
    But what about the fuel consumption, or did they manage to circumvent the laws of physics, and the power will increase and the fuel consumption will be much worse? ??? lol
    1. _Ugene_
      _Ugene_ 28 November 2017 16: 30
      +3
      In general, this is the case in modern ICEs - power is growing, consumption is dropping, and the laws of physics do not need to be circumvented for this, just initially the efficiency of the internal combustion engine was small, with new technologies the efficiency is increasing. As an example - TSI Volkswagen
      1. tecnik
        tecnik 28 November 2017 20: 01
        +1
        maybe you're talking about specific fuel consumption - measured in g / hp? so the T-80 gas turbine engine is better than the T-72,90 ... But the overall consumption is still higher - this was regarded as a drawback and they were removed from service in the Russian Federation and driven to South Korea, for example, yes - there oil is extracted more @@@ /
        1. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 28 November 2017 20: 31
          +2
          Well, yes, why does a gas turbine engine have a lower specific fuel consumption? The opposite is true.
          GTD-1000T - 240 g / l.s. * hour (T-80)
          GTD-1250 - 225 g / l.s. * hour (T-80U)
          V-92S2 - 156 g / l.s. * hour (T-90, new T-72B3)
          gas turbine one and a half times gluttonous
        2. Sergey53
          Sergey53 28 November 2017 20: 33
          +1
          The T-80 was sold to South Korea due to lack of money. At that time, we had nothing to pay for the goods delivered to us.
    2. Genry
      Genry 28 November 2017 18: 57
      +1
      According to the laws of physics, the hotter the engine, the higher its efficiency. Therefore, in cars, they switched from water to antifreeze, with a higher boiling point.
      1. Sergey53
        Sergey53 28 November 2017 20: 37
        +1
        They switched to antifreeze due to frost, our laziness and sloppiness. Well, technological progress is natural. I will not paint, and so it is clear.
        1. Genry
          Genry 29 November 2017 14: 23
          0
          Quote: Sergey53
          They switched to antifreeze due to frost, our laziness and sloppiness.

          And in Europe and other parts of the planet, why switched to antifreeze? Also because of sloppiness and frost. And what point of technological progress did he fulfill?
          Quote: Sergey53
          I will not paint, and so it is clear.

          Try to briefly, otherwise you all have common words. And do not forget to explain the effect of the temperature difference between the refrigerator and the heater in the light of the efficiency of the duty cycle.
  5. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 28 November 2017 16: 25
    +2
    Nothing changes, as tankers said before the Second World War, and now - armor is garbage, but our tanks are fast
  6. Sibiryak13
    Sibiryak13 28 November 2017 17: 07
    +2
    Well, a solid tank, you can squeeze the engine to the maxim.
  7. vredlo
    vredlo 28 November 2017 20: 01
    +2
    Quote: Logall
    Dmitry, welcome! Who will answer my question:
    Why are the T-72 being modernized if they intend to completely switch to the T-14? Only for sale? Or...

    Well, as long as there is no Armata, you need to learn to fight on something, and that Armata will not appear in 1 day, and then, when the troops are satiated with it, it is better to have a more modern modification as a mob reserve (after all, if the plants start one of the priorities and there will be nowhere to issue new ones , if you don’t start throwing loaves since then don’t care about tanks) so that the money will not be lost
    1. Sergey53
      Sergey53 28 November 2017 20: 45
      +1
      Due to the small budget allocated to armored vehicles. Because of this, T-90 was not purchased in sufficient quantities. It turned out expensive. It worked better 100pcs T-72 than for the same money 20pcs T-90. Modernization of the T-72 from the same opera. The ratio is not accurate, just taken as an example.
  8. First iron-faced
    First iron-faced 29 November 2017 05: 20
    0
    Often in the comments they recall the criterion of "cost-effectiveness", but why then the new items in the form of T-90AM / SM, again for export? Cynically forgot about the people, where are there so many trained crews to pick up, moreover, probably, the 1st grade of the "court" (under T-90 / -14) and the 2nd "meat" (T-72)?
    It reminds one of judgments about building up the submarine fleet, also forgetting about these very people, either implying some clones. Hotsa shove such thinkers into their desired set of cans.
    Personally, with greater confidence I would go into battle on the T-90SM, manufactured for export to Indians, for example, than on the somewhat modernized T-72.
    1. SOF
      SOF 29 November 2017 08: 20
      0
      somewhat modernized T-72

      ... the somewhat modernized T-72B3, you, dear, will be very difficult to distinguish from the T90, even previously delivered to the Indians. At the same time, I recommend not to confuse “Vladimir” with “Breakthrough”. These are still different machines, and the latter exists in single copies.
      T72B3

      T90 Indian Army at the parade

      ... find a lot of differences hi
      1. First iron-faced
        First iron-faced 29 November 2017 08: 39
        0
        Ooty, the last of the experts in Russia! Don’t be afraid, comrade, I’ll not bother to list the distinguishing marks and even signs. How long have you distinguished the T-90 from the T80U?
        1. SOF
          SOF 29 November 2017 08: 57
          0
          Ooty, the last of the experts in Russia

          ... ahh, expert, is it? So why the hell then nonsense write about super tanks for Indians and nedotanki, somehow modernized?
          If the brain presses, then can it unload it in the form of argumentation?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. First iron-faced
        First iron-faced 29 November 2017 08: 59
        0
        By the way, the last one mentioned was Tagil (Breakthrough), and not Bhismu.
        1. First iron-faced
          First iron-faced 29 November 2017 16: 23
          0
          T-72B3 except the basic version (2011) has subversions arr. 2014 and arr. 2016. Here it is doubtful that the cars of the first series will be brought to the level of the latest modification. Such half measures are appropriate for thousands of T-72 in storage (BHVT), regular CBs should now be equipped with the best machines of the T-90 line (incl. Modernization), otherwise the cars will go into oblivion without waiting for the T-14, as has happened with many VT samples.
  9. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 29 November 2017 09: 26
    0
    And yet I do not fully understand why we are not supplying the T-90 troops .... ran into the modernization of the T-72 ??? According to TTX, the 72nd is close to the T-90 and yet the latter is better ...
    1. Kibernes
      Kibernes 29 November 2017 10: 00
      +1
      T-90 is the modernization of the T-72. They didn’t deliver them, as it appeared during the tests of Armata, and the Moscow Region decided that the T-90 was not needed, but they would buy immediately Armata.
      I read all the comments above about the T-72 and I want to make my 5 cents. When you compare the T-72, T-80 and T-64, you should remember that the tanks were built under different doctrines of warfare. At the time of their appearance, the T-64 was the most advanced tank in the world, but its production was complicated and it was established only in Kharkov. The Soviet leadership, realizing that this tank was not suitable for a mass war and it was not possible to quickly launch its production at other plants, instructed to develop a cheaper and simpler (including in production) tank. They became the T-72 - a massive tank of war. The T-80 appeared even later and was intended only for warfare in Europe, for the "tank rush to the English Channel."
      1. Sergey53
        Sergey53 29 November 2017 11: 50
        0
        In 1971, the first T-72 was built at a factory in Nizhny Tagil. It was there on a business trip. He stood in the workshop in a single copy, half under the tarp. At first I thought what the T-64 A was doing here? Well, over time, I realized that it was a T-72.
  10. Neputin
    Neputin 29 November 2017 10: 07
    0
    I personally would have liked the news, which sounded something like this: "The new Armat tank received a modernized engine." The T-72 is certainly a very good tank, but you can’t parasitize on the legacy of the USSR for 30 years.
  11. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 29 November 2017 11: 47
    0
    So, the T-72 will still serve us for decades. The T-14 is the tank of the future, it is still a little expensive for our army, we need to eat up what we have so far and which, so far, is considered the best of what is in the West or not inferior to the west.
  12. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 29 November 2017 14: 03
    +4
    I read the comments, how many Wot fans have gathered, and everyone thinks they are experts))))
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 29 November 2017 14: 57
      0
      Quote: General of the Sand Quarries
      I read the comments, how many Wot fans have gathered, and everyone thinks they are experts))))

      Envy forty percent? laughing
      1. Sands Careers General
        Sands Careers General 29 November 2017 16: 14
        +4
        What? In what place to laugh, take the trouble to explain.
  13. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 29 November 2017 17: 49
    0
    But isn't ChTZ bankrupt? There the situation was seams ...