UVZ received a contract for the modernization of T-90A tanks to the level of T-90М

The Russian Ministry of Defense signed a contract for overhaul with modernization with Uralvagonzavod Corporation (UVZ, part of Rostec) tanks T-90A to the level of T-90M "Breakthrough". According to the press service of UVZ, the signing of the contract took place as part of the Army-2019 military-technical forum.

According to the press service, the Ministry of Defense concluded a state contract for a major overhaul with the UVZ with the modernization of T-90А tanks and reduced to the form T-90М. The corporation said that this modernization will increase the combat capabilities of the tank. In this case, the UVZ did not name the number of tanks that will be overhauled.

Meanwhile, according to the bmpd blog, according to unofficial information, a contract between the Ministry of Defense and UVZ was concluded for upgrading approximately 100 T-90 tanks into the T-90М variant. It is also reported that it is possible that we are talking about upgrading T-90 tanks of the 1990-s release, and not T-90А, as indicated in the message.

Previously, plans were made to upgrade at least 400 T-90 tanks already in the army to the level of T-90М.

The T-90М tank was developed as part of the Breakthrough-3 development work and is a deep modernization of the T-90 with increased combat and operational characteristics.

In the course of modernization, a new turret module with a 90-mm gun of increased survivability and accuracy was installed on the T-125M. A remote-controlled machine gun installation caliber 12,7-mm is installed on the turret. In addition, the new tank is equipped with a highly automated digital fire control system that provides search, recognition, auto-tracking and hitting targets.

In April of this year, the head of the corporation Uralvagonzavod, Alexander Potapov, said that the modernized T-90M tanks would start entering the troops this year, and in June, the head of the defense department, Sergei Shoigu, announced the imminent arrival of tanks by the Russian army. It is expected that the first batch can make at least a battalion kit.

Comments

[svp67]

The news is good, but I would be even more happy if the T-72, as a result of modernization, would not turn into "semi-finished" T-72B3, but into full-fledged T-90M

[loki565]

Cheaper to buy T90 than to upgrade T72

[svp67]

Quote: loki565

Cheaper to buy T90 than to upgrade T72

No not cheaper

[loki565]

Well, yes, replace the engine, all the equipment, the gun, the hull, the tower ...

[svp67]

Quote: loki565

Well, yes, replace the engine, all the equipment, the gun, the hull, the tower ...

Ordinary work with capital. And why are you going to change the case?

[loki565]

There is a different composition of the frontal armor and you can’t make a T72 from the body and tower of the T90, even with the T72 modifications it is different

[svp67]

Where is there? I can assure you that the VLD T-72B1 is not much different from the T-90A. And we had plenty of these tanks

[Incvizitor]

It seems to me then to T-72B2 at least.

[loki565]

There are different reservations for the hull and turret, there is no way to strengthen them until T90

[svp67]

Quote: loki565

There are different reservations for the hull and turret, there is no way to strengthen them until T90

The towers - yes, the hull - no. The case of the T-90A, in its armor protection, is exactly the same as that of the T-72B, the difference is in the tower. At T-72B it is cast, and at T-90A it is welded.

The only difference in the hull is the larger holes for the three on-board shock absorbers of the T-90, but this is all solved.

[Every]

Quote: svp67

The news is good, but I would be even more happy if the T-72, as a result of modernization, would not turn into "semi-finished" T-72B3, but into full-fledged T-90M

In my opinion, the T-72 (any options) do not need to be upgraded at all. This is money down the drain. It is better to preserve them and send them to storage. And what is there to sell in warehouses (you can even find the T-55 there). In the same Africa, there are buyers.
And instead of the T-72, produce and put into service the T-90 (in the latest version). Those. make it massive.
T-14 in any scenario, will not be massive. Complicated, expensive, demanding on the quality of crew training and service staff.
And what quality of training can a conscript who serves 1 year have?
This is a tank for the professional military, and there are not many of them.

[svp67]

Quote: Every

In my opinion, the T-72 (of any options) does not need to be upgraded at all.

No, these are necessary "investments", you just need to understand exactly what we will receive at the exit and for what money

[Every]

Quote: svp67

Quote: Every

In my opinion, the T-72 (of any options) does not need to be upgraded at all.

No, these are necessary "investments", you just need to understand exactly what we will receive at the exit and for what money

More likely not so. It would be more correct to ask the question - where will this money be at the exit? (we are talking about the modernization of the T-72, not to be confused with the topic of this article)

[svp67]

Quote: Every

It would be more correct to ask the question - where will this money be at the exit? (we are talking about the modernization of the T-72, not to be confused with the topic of this article)

And there’s nothing to confuse. T-72Б needs to be upgraded to the level of T-90М, and not T-72Б3. This way we will achieve the maximum unification of our tank fleet and load the plants with a single order for the component

[NEXUS]

Quote: svp67

only I would be even more happy if the T-72, as a result of modernization, would not turn into "semi-finished" T-72B3, but into full-fledged T-90M

All the 10 thousand that we have? Then you’ll ask questions, why don’t they deliver Armata to the troops?
T-72 upgrade, taking something from the T-90. And this is enough. No one will play tank breakthroughs in modern warfare, and therefore the number of tanks should be rational. We have about 400 T-90 of various modifications, and the Terminator is purchased for it. Plus orders for new batches of T-90M will not be long in coming. Well, T-14 should go to the troops this year, about 100 pieces. Believe me, for Europe this is beyond the eyes.

[_Ugene_]

In modern combat, the main threat to the tank - ATGM, can be effectively protected from it only with the help of KAZ. A potential adversary has already understood this and is modernizing his abrams, we are slowing down as usual.

[MoJloT]

we slow down as usual.

When installing KAZ, it is necessary to revise the tactics of interaction between equipment and infantry, so we are slowing down.

[okko077]

Tanks in modern warfare are already in the 3rd echelon (not to be confused with actions against partisans and terrorists), they are not the main striking force ... And if they are used as such, they turn into targets with KAZ, and with bars ... and will not reach the enemy, or rather they are destroyed before they find him ... And given the level of our modern information and intelligence systems, there is no doubt about it ... Well, if not quite, as in Iraq, it is very similar, when tank columns were destroyed on the march, without even seeing where they were being fired at .... By the way, only pi_ndos have 500 Apaches, but for now, in addition to the crumbs, they promise less than a hundred in almost 10 years ...

[Every]

Quote: okko077

By the way, only pi_ndos have 500 "Apaches", and for now, in addition to the crumbs, they promise less than a hundred for almost 10 years ...

Slyly.
As of 2018:
MI-28 - about 100 units.
KA-52 - about 110 units.
Another contract for almost a hundred MI-28 NM. And they are planning a contract for KA-52K for the BDK.
Plus about 500 units. MI-24 (although how many of them are "on the move" is not known.)

[okko077]

No, they have more than 600 Apaches and about 100 Super Cobras ...

[Herman 4223]

So for such vehicles, the BMPT was conceived, even with the union they thought about it, infantry should not be near.

[Alekseev]

Quote: _Ugene_

In modern combat, the main threat to the tank - ATGM, can be effectively protected from it only with the help of KAZ. Potential adversary already understood this

Everything is so, but ... KAZ is still a "laboratory" thing, not tested in battles, but rather expensive ...
And to call it the main protection of the tank, probably prematurely.
Now, if, for example, shelling the battle formations of a tank unit with fragmentation shells with remote detonation, i.e. shrapnel, will the KAZ units located outside the tower armor be operational? Will there be false positives?
This applies not only, by the way, to KAZ. There is a problem with the protection of the BTT optics and electronics. It is enough to compare the size of the "window" of the T-62 sight and any modern tank.
As for the modernization of the T-72, then, most likely, not every 72 deuce can be brought to the level of T-90. There, the armor itself must be different in structure.
But it would be extremely interesting to find out from modern tankers whether some simple things that do not require high technology are done on modernized tanks.
For example, the combination of diesel, guitar and oil tank on one basis, i.e. quick-detachable block.
Are the tank groups separated from the BO by a solid partition? Or, perhaps, great design minds have found a way to completely get rid of the front group of tanks, while increasing the capacity of the back and fencing it tightly from the BO?

[_Ugene_]

Everything is so, but ... KAZ is still a "laboratory" thing, not tested in battles

This is our laboratory, and they have already tested them for many years, they put on abrams just those in Europe, who they are against? This will immediately erase the value of all our birds.

And calling it the main tank defense is probably premature

based on the fact that the main threat to tanks now is Ptur, how else?

[Genry]

Quote: _Ugene_

This will immediately erase the value of all our birds.

And what, Cornet too?

[Alekseev]

Quote: _Ugene_

this is our laboratory, and they’ve tested them for many years,

You hurried it ...
Where did KAZ feel it against strong PTS and in the conditions of mass use of artillery and aviation and electronic warfare in real battles?
In addition, ATGMs, of course, are, yes, effective TCPs. But here guided missiles on tanks (except us) are not all in a hurry to put something.
Why? Yes, because they also have flaws.
I will not talk about interference, etc., there are also simpler reasons. In the Middle East, go out on a tank into the desert, you can see far away, shoot an ATGM straight away (and then if there is not a lot of dust). In the European theater of operations, it is rare when the visibility of a target such as a tank exceeds 1,5-2 km, and in many cases even less. In such conditions, it is much easier, cheaper and more reliable to hit an enemy tank from a cannon with a "simple" projectile.
That is why (not even because of the high price of ATGMs) long-range guns fired with unguided shells, including BOPS, with an initial speed of 1600-1800 m / s are used on MBT.
So, "all professions, I mean PTS, are needed, all professions are important." But in different conditions, they are differently effective.
The same is the case with protection. We need both heavy main combined armor, and remote control, and, if possible, a reliable KAZ, and a curtain, and "there are many other things."

[Irokez]

Quote: _Ugene_

we slow down as usual

We are who is Peter I. In Russia, the military commissar is more reasonable, and they don’t wave their sabers when all the old T-72s are converted into T-90Ms - do not swallow such a rework on finances and at the same time slow down new developments for several years. The approach should be reasonable and optimal, and apart from Perth I, no one slows down here, but I don’t know how you do it.

[_Ugene_]

you like it very much - "with us, with you", but in essence they did not answer anything, my message is simple -
1. Now the main threat to the tank is Ptur
2. effective protection against ptur only kaz, everything else is half measures
3. Ptur is now so common on all platforms that protecting tanks from all this diversity is extremely problematic, and it becomes unclear why such a tank is needed.

[Irokez]

Quote: _Ugene_

why such a tank is needed

You like it very much - "we slow down as usual", but in essence they said without thinking.
He is a tank in Africa and is protected much better than just armor such as infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and other lightly armored vehicles. For the Airborne Forces, right now, they are trying to create a light tank or something like that, which has armor like an infantry fighting vehicle with an armored personnel carrier. So now you have a question for what such a technique is for if it is easy to penetrate it not only with a tank shell or ATGM, but also with a lighter shell, or will you again say "It's always like this with us"?

[_Ugene_]

the tank is therefore much better and armored than the BMP, armored personnel carrier, etc. because it has a different task - a breakthrough of defense, and the high prevalence of guns nowadays makes the tank without kaz unsuitable for this, which is not clear? Petra level the difference between heavily armored and lightly armored vehicles and only Kaz can fix it

[Irokez]

Quote: _Ugene_

he has a different task - a breakthrough in defense

You from the Second World War decided to adopt tactics?
Before WWII, before launching the tank, they carried out preliminary operations in order to facilitate the tank’s path or level its defeat from enemy fire. Madly, nobody will let a tank into the forehead for a breakthrough, it’s not Prokhorovka where, by coincidence, tanks went head to head, this is a lesson from Syria when the Golan tried to recapture and pearl armada in the forehead. Well, the tactics and use of armored vehicles in modern conditions have changed, and even KAZ does not 100% protect against ATGMs and it just doesn’t always do that.
Right now in Syria, that the T-55, T-62, T-72 are not fighting - they are fighting, and that there are no ATGMs on them - there is, but you have to fight wisely, and not with a saber against a machine gun.
And if the infantry no longer has ATGMs, then it’s easier to let Armata against them, and not just an old and proven T-72 which no one will shoot because of the lack of weapons of destruction.
Hope for KAZ, but don’t be bad. This is the eternal battle of the shield and the sword, but this does not mean that the tank, even an outdated one, sucks, it also has a lot to fight.

[_Ugene_]

This is an eternal battle between the shield and the sword, but this does not mean that the tank, even an outdated one, sucks, it also has a lot to fight.

if you continue to develop your thought, you can agree to the point that weapons do not need to be improved at all, the main thing is to fight with the mind, maybe we can fight with bows and swords but with the mind?

Hope for KAZ, but don’t be bad.

about the fact that it’s impossible to hope for him, he’s not

[Irokez]

Quote: _Ugene_

You can agree to the fact that weapons do not need to be improved at all, the main thing is to fight wisely, maybe we can fight with bows and swords but wisely?

Weapons need to be improved, but wisely and out of place and optimally, rather than thoughtlessly.
But after the third world war, just with bows and swords with clubs and stones, the mind will dominate with ingenuity and cunning, and on the wreckage of weapons of a previous civilization such as Kalashnikov, T-72 or a cruiser will respectfully exclaim: - "Weapon of the gods".

you can’t hope for him, no him

and even if it does, then you can disable it with a bullet or a shell and then it will not be there either, but the battle should be continued and not complete, but it would have been possible to win even without it.

[Roman 57 rus]

Not a single KAZ can save a tank if ATGMs go into it in one gulp of 2-3-4 pieces.

[Incvizitor]

Wasn't it planned at M KAZ?

[svp67]

Quote: _Ugene_

In modern combat, the main threat to the tank - ATGM

ATGM is only one of the threats and far from the biggest.

[yehat]

Quote: svp67

in full T-90M

there the armor of the hull and turret is noticeably different, you need to redo almost the entire tank.
the question can only be raised about limited modernization. For example, a radical upgrade of equipment, the completion, finally, of work on a new generation of remote sensing.

[yehat]

Quote: _Ugene_

In modern combat

What is a modern tank battle?
Syria, where do tanks climb into the city or are left without infantry support?
Iraq?
And if there is an order to call on Elbrus, will you call the main problem of the tank the lack of alpenstock from the crew and winch?

[_Ugene_]

not necessarily "to the city or remain without infantry support", anti-tank missiles are now not only carried on their hands, and helicopters and infantry fighting vehicles and on car chassis, if tanks are carefully guarded from all this, then it is not clear why they are needed, it is obvious that kaz increases the survivability of the tank, in fact, with a working Kaz, the main threat to the tank will remain mines and land mines, the Israeli experience has confirmed this

[yehat]

everything that infantry or even mobile systems can do is nonsense in comparison with anti-tank helicopters. but here the question of protection is not for tanks.

[_Ugene_]

The kaz will also cope perfectly with the rifle issued from the helicopter, the difference in the range of the missile and the power of the warhead

[yehat]

the pinwheel carries pieces of 8-12 anti-tank missiles and it can be quite powerful missiles.
no KAZ is enough. The range of modern complexes is twice as far as the radius of defense of systems like tunguska. With the target designation of the turntable, unlike the infantry, there are no problems.
it would be a big mistake to think that the massive use of KAZ would save from helicopters.
moreover, tanks with KAZ are deprived of infantry protection, for which KAZ is mortally dangerous.

[yehat]

Quote: _Ugene_

Israeli experience has confirmed this

Israeli experience is very specific. in fact, there is guerrilla warfare and specific grounds there.
finally, in Israel there is a spike that flies perfectly into the roof of all MBT of the world
so rather this is an anti-argument to your words.

[_Ugene_]

so rather this is an anti-argument to your words

so you comment on everything that I wrote before this phrase, otherwise you got hooked on a trifle, but the main thing without comments?

[yehat]

a trifle? Israeli KAZ is now considered the most effective
and this does not help from the new anti-tank systems. What else to comment on?
the only salvation is the means of active defense that are being developed here, in Korea, in Israel, in China (probably somewhere else, but I'm not aware)
however, their effectiveness is a very incomprehensible thing.

[_Ugene_]

and this does not help from the new ATGMs

Give examples of the defeat of mercans with trophies from new ATGM confirmed by facts, if not, then this is only speculation

What else to comment on?

the fact that now tanks without kaz are so vulnerable to weapons, and tanks themselves are so common on all carriers that it is not clear why such tanks are needed at all in order to protect them from everything?

[yehat]

you got a little lost
Are we discussing a tank or MBT?
Finally, most anti-tank missiles require guidance time.
I don’t know whether you were at the training ground or not, it is not uncommon in an open field that a tank is simply hiding in the folds of the area and the ATGM operator will not be able to visit it.
and KAZ does not even reach the verification of the presence or absence of KAZ.
finally, it’s worthwhile to get away from the classic trash picture, which draws a flat field with the visibility of 50 kilometers and a lonely tank moving into which adversaries aim from a convenient shelter.
protecting the tank from everything and everywhere is a priori useless. All tanks receive limited protection.
the same abram, in the most reserved version, which has the equivalent of 1200 frontal armor,
you can hit a machine gun in the side. Look, there’s wheeled tanks in Africa without KAZ or bulletproof armor, and that's the norm. It all depends on the conditions.
Most of the vidos with a tank destroyer ATGM is the banal roto-zeal of the commanders who set up the car.

[_Ugene_]

you got a little lost
Are we discussing a tank or MBT?

Do we have tanks in our troops and have the obt?

I don’t know whether you were at the training ground or not, it is not uncommon in an open field that a tank is simply hiding in the folds of the area and the ATGM operator will not be able to visit it.

and helicopters with peters attacking from 10-15km? you answer that you need to cover the tanks from aviation, so I mean that the tank has become so vulnerable to vehicles from different carriers that the combat effectiveness of the tank has significantly decreased, it is too vulnerable without kaz to do its job

[yehat]

Quote: _Ugene_

if not, then this is only speculation

but nothing that you yourself did not give any references to the invulnerability of carrots from above?
want to demand - match

[_Ugene_]

But did I write something about invulnerability from above? here, as they say, it’s not a matter of fat, we don’t protect the kaz from any direction, because they don’t have tanks, and they don’t protect them from above because their opponents have nowhere to take the attackers from above, Palestinians don’t have any javelins or spikes and it can’t be in principle, but if in the future there will be analogues from other manufacturers, then upgrading the working kaz to a full hemisphere is not a problem

[yehat]

Quote: _Ugene_

and doesn’t protect them from above because their opponents have nowhere to take the attackers from above,

It seems you are not very familiar with the realities. firstly, the carrot4 received a screen protecting the tower from above (but not its stern), while the tower covers most of the horizontal hull, only the frontal plate remains, a small section of the hull stern.
secondly, the Israelites have a threat from above and without spikes - mountains and actions in urban development
thirdly, the Israelis are already actively using active defense systems on purpose other than mail roaches (and trophies, etc.), which protect mainly the sides, and others that protect in the entire hemisphere.
I saw a system that aimed a machine gun at a flying ATGM or at a bird carrier, but the Israelis wanted to replace it with something voluminous, like buckshot - in recent years I have not followed this.

[_Ugene_]

it's all great, I wrote about the fact that we have none of this and are not expected and it surprises me

[yehat]

“we” in the USSR already had this, and at a qualitatively higher level, R&D was simply curtailed.
what remains in use is the miserable remnants of temporary solutions.

[ZVS]

In modern Russia, they could not create their new platform.
This is the groundwork made by the USSR "scoops" that now advanced shitcrats
they can’t even create anything like that.

[Incvizitor]

It’s time it’s time to bring all the old m 90s to m, otherwise the Indians will have MS and we’ll get old

[LomKuvaldych]

When will they begin to put active protection?