American expert appreciated the "deadly" T-90MS

37
The new upgraded version of the "deadly" tank T-90 - T-90MS - is characterized by a number of serious improvements and has a worthy export potential, writes Mark Episkopos in his article for The National Interest.





The expert recalls that the T-90MS is an export modification of the T-90 tank and has a number of major improvements over the previous export version (T-90С). The machine is equipped with a more powerful 1130-powerful diesel engine B-92C2F, an advanced thermal imager, the GLONASS navigation system, a digital computer and a recycled turret.

Among the major changes, the author also referred to the dynamic protection, which is equipped with a "deadly" tank.

The article notes that the key features of the machine emphasize its export potential. For example, to reduce the cost, the developers armed the tank with a 2A46 smoothbore gun, which was installed on the base version, and not a newer 2A82-1M gun (installed on the T-90 and the Armata tank).

Nevertheless, the measures taken to maintain competitiveness could not contain a significant increase in the cost of T-90MS: the cost of the tank increased to $ 4,5 million (for comparison, the cost of T-90С ranges from $ 2,5 million to $ 3,5 million). At the same time, Rosoboronexport is already close to signing contracts for the supply of a new tank to such large buyers as Kuwait and Egypt, the expert writes.

He also notes that the Russian Federation is trying to retain a wide segment of the market, still offering for sale T-90С and even original T-90, which are intended for countries with modest financial resources.

The T-90, developed by the KVZ at the start of the 1990's, became the best-selling tank on the international market between 2001 and 2010.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    19 February 2019 08: 45
    Well, just free advertising! If it works, then you can expect new comers to this tank. lol
    1. +3
      19 February 2019 08: 56
      Yes, damn it, this NO one except us in Russia does not know.
      1. +1
        20 February 2019 00: 20
        expert evaluations of these bosomologists are already fed up. Some well-known experts in their narrow circles, known, as a rule, only to authors of articles, constantly evaluate our assault rifles, pistols, machine guns, and rockets. I would rather hear (read) the ratings of our pilots, fighters, instructors, drivers who use our weapons in battle with our enemy, rather than the ratings of potential buyers. Honestly, these estimates make me sick, taking into account that users from the other side happily bleat about them. In an extreme case, URAs are printed, and we will throw caps on the bravura speeches of the former military, the current politicians. This is more like political information from the time of the USSR. Print user reviews in combat. They have more sense, truth and less smell of promotions. We are not your target customer. The feeling that these tanks, planes and missiles are trying to match us.
    2. +5
      19 February 2019 09: 15
      The advertisement is engine of the trade. And we need to sell Vladimir, then re-equipment on the Breakthrough will be more successful and cheaper for the Moscow Region.
      And the T-90M Breakthrough is very successful, if indeed all T-90 combatant units undergo modernization to its level, it will be a success.
  2. +2
    19 February 2019 08: 48
    Beautiful car, and I hope in functionality in accordance with the appearance.
    I wonder what will be removed from it when delivered to the troops, and what is the gun of our 90th tank?
    And then, after all, it’s customary for us to export, taking into account competition and demand, better configurations, and ours will ride on simple ones ...
    1. +6
      19 February 2019 08: 56
      Nothing will be removed. Compare with the T-90M The breakthrough that goes to the troops, in my opinion it will be even better.
      The gun - 2A82-1M, compared with 2A46M-5, the new gun has 30% better accuracy and a greater firing range of 15%. The new tank barrel is extended by 1 meter.
      And most importantly, the Telnik fragmentation shrapnel shell with the possibility of remote detonation and the 3UBK21 Sprinter guided missile have been created.
      Plus (MSA) "Kalina".
      True, our expert Alexei Khlopotov has already criticized the T-90M.
      Sometimes you read it and you don’t understand where it eats ..
      1. +3
        19 February 2019 09: 09
        I really want our army tanks to be better than their export versions
      2. +4
        19 February 2019 09: 53
        Quote: Orkraider
        True, our expert Alexei Khlopotov has already criticized the T-90M.
        Sometimes you read it and you don’t understand where it eats ..

        =============
        So this "Khlopotov" has already managed to criticize EVERYTHING (and the T-72M3 (2016) is much worse than the T-64BV (2017) and the T-90M - no good .....). In short: "Everything is lost! Plaster cast! Customer leaves!! ". I don’t understand if he is" from a great mind "or just a provocateur ???
      3. 0
        20 February 2019 01: 19
        Projectile with undermining shrapnel theme. Should work well as a fraction from a container ...
    2. +2
      19 February 2019 09: 48
      Quote: Romanenko
      I wonder what will be removed from it when delivered to the troops, and what is the gun of our 90th tank?

      ==========
      There was information that for now they would put 2A46M-5 (as well as on the export version). It makes sense to install 2A82 if it is possible to use the latest "extended" BPSs. But in the 90s, there were problems with this - the shoulder strap of the tower does not allow them to be placed together with the loading mechanism. In his article Yu. Apukhtin gave an example of HOW this problem could be solved. But the Ministry of Defense refused such a decision for some reason (maybe they thought it was too difficult and expensive?)
  3. +2
    19 February 2019 08: 49
    Among the major changes, the author also attributed the dynamic protection that the tank is equipped with.

    Hmm ... and back in the 90s, liberals sang to everyone's ears that dynamic protection is pampering, because NATO’s advanced countries don’t.
    1. 0
      19 February 2019 08: 58
      Quote: lucul
      Among the major changes, the author also attributed the dynamic protection that the tank is equipped with.

      Hmm ... and back in the 90s, liberals sang to everyone's ears that dynamic protection is pampering, because NATO’s advanced countries don’t.
      I don’t remember this, but with us from the very beginning it was mounted, and the enemy integrated. Like the T-14.
      1. +2
        19 February 2019 10: 01
        Quote: iConst
        I don’t remember this, but with us from the very beginning it was mounted, and the enemy integrated. Like the T-14.

        ========
        Well, as far as I remember, just them then it was "hinged" !!! By the way, in the USSR, work on dynamic protection began after an Israeli M-48, it seems, hung with "bricks" of a hinged DZ, fell into the hands (either of the Egyptians, or the Syrians - now I don't remember!). The shelling at the firing range showed that this "lewdness" greatly increases the survivability of the tank! And I won't tell who was the first to use "built-in", "integrated"!
        1. AUL
          0
          19 February 2019 10: 32
          The Jews began.
        2. +4
          19 February 2019 10: 56
          Quote: venik
          By the way, in the USSR, work on dynamic protection began after an Israeli M-48, it seems, hung with "bricks" of a hinged DZ, fell into the hands (either of the Egyptians, or the Syrians - now I don't remember!).

          If you believe the film on TK "Zvezda", then work was going on with us. But ... the Minister of Defense said that you can only load a tank with explosives over its corpse.
        3. +1
          19 February 2019 15: 15
          Work has already been carried out and dynamic protection was already, but not in service, our generals did not believe in its necessity. And when the Israeli M-48 with similar protection fell into their hands, after the shelling they quickly realized that they were wrong.
  4. -2
    19 February 2019 08: 53
    Quote: Romanenko

    and what is the gun of our 90th tank?

    2A82-1M.
    And I hope that it’s enough for the mind to put it on all the T-72s available in Russia.
    She pierces the frontal armor of NATO tanks, which the old gun could not do.
    1. 0
      19 February 2019 09: 10
      So there was information that the sleeve and shell for 82 guns did not fit in existing automatic loaders?
    2. +2
      19 February 2019 09: 15
      The gun in itself - does not pierce anything! Punches ammunition for this gun.
      According to open information, the charging chambers of both guns are the same.
    3. 0
      19 February 2019 10: 06
      Quote: lucul
      2A82-1M.
      And I hope that it’s enough for the mind to put it on all the T-72s available in Russia.
      She pierces the frontal armor of NATO tanks, which the old gun could not do.

      ===========
      And here it is, my dear friend, you are "not pgava" !!! If it is made of old "Mango" and "Lead" - then notable increment of armor penetration WILL NOT !!!
      Now, if the new, "elongated" BPSs are charged - then - YES!! Will be!! But only they do not fit into the old loading mechanisms, and the new MH cannot be shoved there (in the T-72) - the tower shoulder strap does not allow!!! Alas! Something like that ....
  5. 0
    19 February 2019 08: 57
    The T-90 has established itself as a reliable tank, unlike the capricious and expensive Abrams.
    1. 0
      19 February 2019 10: 28
      The T-90 has established itself as a reliable tank, unlike the capricious and expensive Abrams.

      Welcome hi . Indeed, I could not find and hear that from Syria, during the war years, the terrorists managed to destroy at least one T-90 or T-90A. As a loss, we can only mention the capture of the enemy in early June 15g. in the Aleppo area of ​​one tank. The crew was Syrian and they just ran away. Ah, the Abrams burn like a torch.
      1. -1
        19 February 2019 14: 03
        Abrams is not a tank at all, in the USA there is no tank school. It is a recognized fact in the world that the RUSSIAN school of tank building is the best in the world.
  6. +4
    19 February 2019 09: 47
    In the mid-90s there was such a newspaper "speed-info", unfortunately VOs slipped to this level. There are article norms, but most of them are full scribes. (
  7. 0
    19 February 2019 10: 27
    This is not a "Breakthrough" is it?
  8. -1
    19 February 2019 10: 39
    Nevertheless, the measures taken to maintain competitiveness could not contain the significant rise in price of the T-90MS: the cost of the tank rose to $ 4,5 million

    However, it is inexpensive. Some Western tanks cost up to 10 million, while not any better
  9. 0
    19 February 2019 10: 47
    "T-90" is a "T-34-85" of the period 1944 .. it is already impossible to stop it ..
  10. -1
    19 February 2019 14: 00
    In general, it is not clear why bother with T14 when there is a T90 BREAK. You can still be sure for 20 years that no one in the world and close to creating something similar to the T90 BREAK will reach.
  11. -1
    19 February 2019 14: 01
    Can they value something?
  12. -1
    19 February 2019 14: 26
    Quote: Е2 - Е4
    In general, it is not clear why bother with T14 when there is a T90 BREAK. You can still be sure for 20 years that no one in the world and close to creating something similar to the T90 BREAK will reach.



    The T-14 will control a group of T-72 crewless in battle. Network-centric warfare. Therefore, it is not necessary to do 1000 of them ...
    1. 0
      19 February 2019 15: 42
      It would be nice, but it would be better if there were two, more reliable. T-14 + 5 T-72 and two such groups acting together or separately, but with the ability to control ten 72-mi.
  13. 0
    19 February 2019 16: 07
    Correctly say, the generals always fight in the last war (what the hell are tanks? We already have more of them than China and the USA combined, the third world ethnoviruses causing deadly epidemics and missile-nuclear strikes designed for total destruction, there will be no battlefield - in the morning the war, in the evening the enemy is destroyed, devastated and thrown into the Stone Age (the destruction of all hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants and all cities (by the way, we have fewer warheads in the United States)) villages that remain without electricity, television and goods from the destroyed cities will remain untouched , people will learn to live anew (like Old Believers in the taiga)
  14. 0
    19 February 2019 18: 50
    export potential again, but the question is: why should our tankers use the outdated T-72BZ, albeit with a little tuning, and they try to drive much better T-90s for export. Let it be known Indian forces have significantly more T-90 tanks than the entire Russian army. What’s the T-72B3, if we still have a full T-72B T-72A T-72BA
  15. 0
    19 February 2019 19: 03
    Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_4
    Correctly say, the generals always fight in the last war (what the hell are tanks? We already have more of them than China and the USA combined, the third world ethnoviruses causing deadly epidemics and missile-nuclear strikes designed for total destruction, there will be no battlefield - in the morning the war, in the evening the enemy is destroyed, devastated and thrown into the Stone Age (the destruction of all hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants and all cities (by the way, we have fewer warheads in the United States)) villages that remain without electricity, television and goods from the destroyed cities will remain untouched , people will learn to live anew (like Old Believers in the taiga)



    Do you think that we do not have such viruses? It’s complete, since the days of the USSR ... So they won’t think enough ..
  16. 0
    19 February 2019 21: 14
    It was still under Serdyukov in 2011 that it was shown and has never been accepted for service and is not being sold or bought, it’s a pity the lost profit.
  17. 0
    19 February 2019 22: 06
    And all our weapons are lethal, not like yours "peacekeeping" laughing
  18. 0
    24 June 2020 20: 48
    and where such can be bought without run and PUSHKI. civilian option?