T-90M: tests passed, service soon


In accordance with the previously announced plans, the promising main battle tank T-90M "Breakthrough" completed the passage of state tests. Now the Ministry of Defense will have to analyze their results and carry out several organizational procedures, after which deliveries of serial equipment for combat units will begin.


The latest news


The start of state testing of the T-90M became known several months ago. Subsequently, officials confirmed this information and clarified the timing of the necessary events. So, at the end of November last year, the commander in chief of the army, Army General Oleg Salyukov said that in the near future the state tests of several new models of equipment will be completed - including MBT T-90M. After that, mass production starts.

In late December, Deputy Minister of Defense Aleksey Krivoruchko called a more accurate date. It was planned to complete the state tests of the Breakthrough before the end of the month. According to the test results, the Ministry of Defense will have to decide on the adoption of tank into service and the launch of mass production.

February 5 RIA "News"With reference to a representative of NPK Uralvagonzavod announced the completion of state tests of the T-90M. The tank successfully completed the checks, which opens the way for him to the troops. Now his further fate depends on the customer in the person of the Ministry of Defense. It should conduct an analysis of the test results, and then carry out the acceptance into service and start the series.

Existing contracts


It should be noted that contracts for the serial production of T-90M tanks already exist - they appeared long before the completion of state tests and the official adoption of equipment for service. In addition, the command noted that the supply of tanks had already begun.


The Ministry of Defense and NPK UVZ signed the first contract for the supply of T-90M tanks at the Army 2017 forum. This document provided for the production of 30 tanks of the new model - both built from scratch, and rebuilt from the existing T-90A. Deliveries were supposed to begin in 2018, but subsequently their start was postponed to 2019.

A year later, at the Army-2018 forum, another agreement was concluded. From unofficial sources then it became known that the contract again provides for the supply of 30 tanks, but now we are only talking about new-built vehicles.

Army 2019 has again become a platform for signing contracts for the supply of equipment. NPK UVZ received several large orders, including for the construction and modernization of tanks to the level of T-90M. In the relevant media it was reported that the new contract provides for the manufacture of hundreds of tanks with delivery over the next few years.

Thus, to date, about 160 MBT T-90M MBTs have been contracted, both new buildings and those intended for rework from existing equipment. Part of the ordered tanks is already ready. So, in early October, the commander in chief of the ground forces, General Salyukov, said that the army received the first “Breakthroughs." In parallel, other domestic MBTs are being developed.


The Ministry of Defense has to carry out the necessary procedures for the adoption of a new tank for service. By the time they are completed and the corresponding orders appear in the troops, there will already be a certain number of tanks of a new type. In addition, the industry has already mastered the production of the T-90M from scratch and the restructuring of the equipment of previous modifications - this will allow to obtain the desired rate of supply of tanks to the troops and carry out re-equipment in the required time.

Replacement Issues


The main goal of the T-90M project is to carry out a deep modernization of part of the OBT T-90 / T-90A fleet and to supplement these machines with new production equipment. Due to the use of modern components and assemblies, the T-90M Breakthrough tank surpasses its predecessors in all the main tactical and technical characteristics, which should have a positive effect on the overall performance of the ground forces.

According to open domestic and foreign sources, at present, there are approx. 350 tanks T-90 (A). Another approx. 200 cars are in storage. In accordance with existing contracts, the army will receive 160 tanks of the latest modification with improved characteristics. Of these tanks, stipulated by three contracts, only a few dozen will be rebuilt. The vast majority of equipment is planned to be rebuilt from existing MBT.

According to some estimates, the T-90M project allows you to make updated equipment not only from T-90A tanks, but also from the T-90 base modification. This will allow taking tanks for modernization not only from combat units, but also from storage. Thanks to this, it becomes possible not only to upgrade the existing "active" park, but also to supplement it with updated equipment from storage.


The Ministry of Defense has not yet specified plans of this kind. The number of tanks of the T-90 family and the share of various modifications after current orders are still unknown. Perhaps this issue will be clarified in the future.

Benefits New


The T-90M project provides for the comprehensive modernization of the existing tank with the upgrade of all major systems and a corresponding increase in performance and capabilities. At the same time, a high degree of unification remains, simplifying operation.

The issues of increasing combat stability and survivability were resolved by using additional protective equipment. Own armor of the hull and turret is supplemented by dynamic Relic type protection and trellised screens. The possibility of installing a complex of active protection is being considered.

Internal volumes are rearranged taking into account possible threats and risk reduction. Inhabited compartments received anti-fragmentation lining, protecting the crew and equipment from the secondary stream of fragments. Part of the ammunition is removed from the fighting compartment in the aft niche of the tower. Comfortable crew working conditions are provided by air conditioning and a heater.


The standard 2A46 cannon can be replaced with a 2A82-1M gun with enhanced combat characteristics. A thorough modernization of the fire control system, which meets modern requirements, has been carried out. Now all the processes of preparation for the shot are carried out only by digital equipment. A DUBM with a large-caliber machine gun is installed on the tower, which allows firing without leaving the protected volume.

The effectiveness of combat work is significantly increased due to the inclusion of the tank in a single tactical management system. The corresponding devices for the Breakthrough were developed by the Constellation concern. With their help, the tank can exchange data on the situation on the battlefield, receive target designation, etc.

Tanks of the future


According to various estimates, as a result of such modernization, the combat qualities and potential of the tank grow significantly. Accordingly, the mass production and development of advanced technology will most noticeably affect the combat effectiveness of the ground forces. 150-160 tanks with modern equipment and weapons quite capable of becoming a serious force.

However, not only the improved T-90M tank is of great importance to the army. For quite some time, modernized T-72B3s have been delivered in large quantities, and the promising T-14 is also expected to be adopted. Thus, the T-90M, not yet adopted for service, is an element of a major program of modernization of the fleet of armored vehicles. And the completion of his tests becomes a major event in the framework of this program.
Author:
Photos used:
NPK Uralvagonzavod, Bmpd.livejournal.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 06: 33 New
    • 13
    • 3
    +10
    Well, the tank of the "future" is difficult to call it, but the tank of the "present" is quite! The main thing is that its introduction into the troops does not interfere with the appearance of Aroma, which is really the next generation tank. It is a pity the article does not indicate which KAZ are going to equip it. We were the first-born in the development of KAZ, but unfortunately we are already behind in implementation. Israel already KAZ massively puts on Merkava. The appearance of such tanks in Syria would make it possible to preserve equipment and crew, and running in combat conditions would not hurt soldier
    1. Zufei 7 February 2020 06: 42 New
      • 11
      • 6
      +5
      Again, three types of tanks in service. History goes in a spiral.
      1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 06: 45 New
        • 11
        • 6
        +5
        Unfortunately you are right. Rake rake rake. Only we and the Chinese have such a motley park. By the way, if you count four. T-72, T-80, T-90 and Armata (I'm an optimist laughing)
        1. Alex 2020 7 February 2020 07: 37 New
          • 12
          • 10
          +2
          It is good that you are an optimist. But most likely the T-14 will be delivered in extremely small numbers to the court units for parades and window dressing. So beloved in our army, and not only in it. hi
          1. Narak-zempo 7 February 2020 14: 44 New
            • 4
            • 9
            -5
            Why the T-14, if in 1993 the T-72 did an excellent job? And if it happens again, they will cope again laughing
            1. Alexga 7 February 2020 18: 18 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              in 1993, the T-72 did an excellent job

              Man, don’t insult this car. There distinguished T-80
              1. Narak-zempo 7 February 2020 18: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AlexGa
                Man, don’t insult this car. There distinguished T-80

                Yes, mixed up. With the T-72, like, Yeltsin broadcast in 1991.
                1. Alexga 7 February 2020 18: 34 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Oh, the shameful page of our memory! Until his death, we will remember this. am
        2. Hermit21 7 February 2020 08: 53 New
          • 9
          • 21
          -12
          Only we and the Chinese? Let's look towards NATO?

          M60
          T-55 and variations
          T-72 and variations
          Leopard 1
          Leopard 2
          Abrams
          Challenger
          Leclerc
          Ariete

          But a motley park only in Russia
          1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 08: 57 New
            • 14
            • 10
            +4
            And what does the NATO fleet have to do with it !? Do not confuse the warm with the soft! All of these tanks have separate countries that serve them. The French have ONE leclerc, the Germans have ONE Leo, the Americans Abrams !!! So do not fence the garden. Less to you, I hope for what it is not necessary to explain !!?
            1. Hermit21 7 February 2020 09: 29 New
              • 8
              • 13
              -5
              So this is a single alliance, no? So the problems with logistics, maintenance, repair in the case of a database are also common
              1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 09: 35 New
                • 7
                • 5
                +2
                No. Repair and maintenance will be their own. Or do you think that a single NATO standard was invented in vain !? Moreover, the same Leo are in the majority. But the same challengers and leklerk cat cried. Therefore, they will have much less problems with repair.
                1. Hermit21 7 February 2020 09: 38 New
                  • 10
                  • 16
                  -6
                  Much less problems with the repair of 8-9 types of tanks than 3 types. Thanks I got it. You can no longer bother
                  1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 09: 45 New
                    • 8
                    • 7
                    +1
                    Of course less. If you have ONE tank in your country wink as in France or as in Germany or as in the USA. And in general, what does NATO have to do with it, when it was originally about countries !? And by the way. we didn’t translate to you. So you can go on wandering around in your fantasies about the usefulness of three tanks, three attack helicopters (ka-52, mi-28 and the notorious crocodile modification) I can also recall the arrogant heap of armored vehicles, which is interchangeable, about our anti-ship missiles, which became a byword all the way, so good luck and don't get sick
            2. Bad_gr 7 February 2020 12: 17 New
              • 8
              • 10
              -2
              Quote: Magic Archer
              Do not confuse the warm with the soft! All of these tanks have separate countries that serve them. The French have ONE leclerc, the Germans have ONE Leo, the Americans Abrams !!!

              __________Leopard 2modifications:
              Leopard 2A1- ... with thermal imagers
              Leopard A2 - .. improving the observation devices of the commander, gunner’s sight, changing the location of ammunition, fuel in order to increase safety, etc.
              Leopard A3 - .. a new radio station, additional ammunition protection, etc.
              Leopard 2A4 - ... increased armor protection of the tower, ... the introduction of an advanced ballistic computer in the LMS. The mass increased to 55 tons ....
              Leopard 2A5 - .... the new driver’s hatch, Tower: the gun mask has been completely redesigned, the forehead and sides were covered with modules of spaced armor. The electro-hydraulic gun stabilization system was replaced by a fully electric; the gunner received a modernized sight, and the commander received an independent 2nd generation thermal imager integrated in a panoramic surveillance device; improved weapon stabilizer performance. The tank received a GPS navigation system. The mass of the tank is up to 59,5–62 tons, depending on the set of armor.
              Leopard 2A6 - Enhanced tower reservations and additional mine protection. The new Rhl 120 / L55 gun with a barrel length increased by 11 calibers (1320 mm). installation of a tank information management system. The mass of the tank increased to 62 tons.
              Leopard 2А7 -............. 70 tons
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
              Leclerc
              “Block 1”, “Block 2”, AZUR
              1. Bad_gr 7 February 2020 12: 37 New
                • 9
                • 10
                -1
                tank abrams
                Modifications:
                M1, M1IP, M1A1, M1A1HA, M1A1HC, M1A1NA +, M1A1D, M1A1AIM, M1A1AIM Block I, M1A1AIM Block II / M1A1SA, M1A1FEP, M1A1KVT, M1A1SA, M1A1, M1A1, M1A1, M2A1, A2, M1B2, M2A1, M2B3, M1A2, M1B3, MXNUMXAXNUMX, MXNUMXBXNUMX, MXNUMXAXNUMX, MXNUMXAXNUMX, MXNUMXAXNUMX, MXNUMXAXNUMX, MXNUMXAXNUMX , MXNUMXAXNUMX SEP VXNUMX, MXNUMXAXNUMX SEP VXNUMX, MXNUMXAXNUMXS, XMXNUMXAXNUMX
                1. Bad_gr 7 February 2020 12: 52 New
                  • 8
                  • 10
                  -2
                  Well, what are the cons? will there be arguments, or is there a lack of traction?
                  1. Alex 2020 7 February 2020 15: 02 New
                    • 3
                    • 5
                    -2
                    And here everyone is minus. Spit on minusoids. These are by-products of nature. And there will be happiness and peace for you hi drinks
                  2. Alex 2020 7 February 2020 15: 04 New
                    • 4
                    • 6
                    -2
                    Paying attention to those who are in the main mass minus. Those who give specific answers to a specific question / topic.
                    1. Alt-right 7 February 2020 17: 26 New
                      • 5
                      • 3
                      +2
                      Are you kidding me?
                      Minuses were also thrown to those who simply dump everything in one pile, passing off small modifications of tanks as fundamentally new, “unified” vehicles!
                      Is this your argument? Seriously?
                      It would be serious, for example, to consider a tank “completely different”, due to the installation of new DZ units or an auxiliary power unit. laughing good
                      They will roll up a sheet of minimal differences and rejoice that "they were able to type arguments" wassat
                      1. Bad_gr 7 February 2020 21: 53 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Quote: Alt-Right
                        who simply dumps everything in one pile, passing out small modifications of tanks as fundamentally new, “unified” vehicles!

                        So the answer (modifications) was on which topic?
                        The French have ONE leclerc, the Germans have ONE Leo, the Americans Abrams !!!
                        That is - no difficulties for the procurement. Only we have difficulties, and with the addition of the T-90M this will only get worse. But the French have only one tank, and the fact that the modifications are like dirt (the spread in weight between some of more than 15 tons) is not essential, what the suppliers will bring to any modification will be out of place.
                      2. Bad_gr 8 February 2020 03: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        no difficulties for the supply chain.

                        Additional ammunition of various modifications of the Leopard -2 tank


                        Are they interchangeable?
                2. Bad_gr 7 February 2020 17: 06 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  ...... Modifications:

                  If you look at the directory, what distinguishes, for example, Abrams, early modifications from later ones, then the difference may be greater than between the T-72 and T-90, but for some reason in the case of Abrams, here some people think that this is one and the same tank, and in the case of the T-90 - a new model on the conveyor, assorted troops, supply problems.
                  1. Alt-right 7 February 2020 17: 54 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    If you look at the directory, what distinguishes, for example, Abrams, early modifications from later ones, then the difference may be greater than between the T-72 and T-90, but for some reason in the case of Abrams, here some people think that this is one and the same tank, and in the case of the T-90 - a new model on the conveyor, assorted troops, supply problems.

                    This is a question rather to those who begin such speculations about "innovation" in the media. As some citizens are fed with stories about "has no analogues in the world", so immediately they begin to "appear" +100500 different types of vehicles in service.
                    But in fact, the kit only complements, and does not completely change the situation. If we are talking about the full range of other consumables, fuel, ammunition, etc. - then yes, there is a problem with a variety of grades, but rather no, than yes.
                    PS T-90 is a good example of how such a “fundamentally new machine” appears on the basis of the modification. IMHO.
          2. 5-9
            5-9 7 February 2020 15: 20 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            T-90 and T-72 are one tank, you could call the T-90 T-72M .... The variations of M1 and Leo are not much different from each other than the T-90A from the T-72B3. Although the T-90M is still different ...
            The T-14 is a new generation, no one has it, how it will be born, the one who will be born will have 2 different tanks.
            T-80 - yes ...
          3. Sckepsis 13 February 2020 17: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In fact, you earned the minus. Can you calculate how many modifications of Abrams amers have? Or Leo at the Germans? And Leclerc, he is alone because there are 200 of them.
    2. Vladimir_2U 7 February 2020 08: 32 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Quote: Zufei
      Again three types of tanks in service
      The claim to the USSR was about PRODUCTION of three types at the same time, and now ONE is actually being produced. Modernization of already built tanks is another.
      1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 09: 00 New
        • 5
        • 9
        -4
        It means that a variety of the same parts, engines and other things is nothing good. And this is everywhere with us. For example, I don’t understand the dispersal of money for the modernization of old tanks. It’s easier then to invest in really NEW. Than to stagnate.
        1. Vladimir_2U 7 February 2020 09: 08 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          Quote: Magic Archer
          For example, I don’t understand the dispersal of money for the modernization of old tanks
          The tank is not a car pilot, even after decades it is lively and very financially expensive and most valuable in terms of material resources, and as for the spare parts, they were produced with a reserve. So to re-send the T-72 and T-80 is stupid at least.
          1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 09: 18 New
            • 8
            • 8
            0
            I'm not talking about re-melting. I just think that they are out of date. Unfortunately, we always succumbed to suo. Plus weak booking. As for me, it is better to have one Armata than three T-72s. I remember how in the first Iraq campaign the Americans boasted that they took the T-72 from the Rheinmetal gun in the forehead .. I did not believe from the beginning, but then a lot of literature on this topic appeared. What was more frustrating is that at 72 nd we simply did not see the enemy at night. And in any dueling situation (although of course there were none), our tank had almost no chance. They just had thermal imagers, but ours didn’t. The same can be said about panoramic sights, the lack of normal BOPS. Therefore, I think exactly as I wrote above
            1. Vladimir_2U 7 February 2020 09: 25 New
              • 5
              • 5
              0
              Quote: Magic Archer
              I remember how in the first Iraqi campaign the Americans boasted that they took the T-72 from the Rheinmetal gun in the forehead .. I did not believe from the beginning, but then a lot of literature appeared on this subject
              The same American literature, domestic wrote a little different.
              Quote: Magic Archer
              They just had thermal imagers, but ours didn’t. The same can be said about panoramic sights, the lack of normal BOPS
              Just the essence of modernization consists in replacing the OMS, increasing the armor, even the consignment note, at least the DZ, and there’s nothing to say about BOPS. About modernizations abroad, I hope you don’t imagine that the Abrams and Leopards immediately became SEP-3 or 2A7? Or that they were originally equipped with thermal imagers?
              1. Magic archer 7 February 2020 09: 30 New
                • 4
                • 5
                -1
                Do you think the supply of modernization is so great? Honestly not sure. Western cars are larger, so the same Abrams has a larger supply of modernization. I remember how, as a teenager, I first visited a tank repair plant near Chita. And he was surprised how little space in the tank. And as for the literature ... You understand that each bird praises its nest. You just need to find a middle ground and be able to determine where the truth is and where the lie is.
                1. Vladimir_2U 7 February 2020 09: 52 New
                  • 8
                  • 4
                  +4
                  Quote: Magic Archer
                  You just need to find a middle ground and be able to determine where the truth is and where the lie is.
                  Well, maybe you should not unconditionally believe in American materials then?
                  Quote: Magic Archer
                  Western cars are larger, so the same Abrams has a larger supply of modernization
                  Sorry, but larger means harder, I'm afraid it will turn out to be news to you that the modernization of the tank is overwhelmingly limited not by size but by weight. And by the way, let me remind you that the T-90 is by no means a separate type of tank, but a modernized T-72, approximately like the Leo-2A2 and 2A5.
                  1. Zufei 7 February 2020 12: 11 New
                    • 2
                    • 4
                    -2
                    If the T-90 is a modernized T-72, then who is the T-72B3? Probably the tower is very different. Cast and welded towers are completely different, no?
                    1. Vladimir_2U 7 February 2020 13: 21 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      The early T-90 mods have a cast tower, don't you know?
                    2. 4thParasinok 24 March 2020 22: 03 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      The early T-90 mods have a cast tower, don't you know?
                      Like the T-72. In the mid-80s, I was in practice in the workshop where these towers were made. I saw the whole process from the inside. Most of all I remember the lathe on which the shoulder strap of the tower was machined ...
          2. Ka-52 7 February 2020 10: 47 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            What was more frustrating is that at 72 nd we simply did not see the enemy at night. And in any dueling situation (although of course there were none), our tank had almost no chance. They just had thermal imagers, but ours didn’t.

            you contradict yourself. And write some kind of nonsense. First, write that it is more useful to throw all old tanks into scrap, but in your claim, indicate problems with the arrester and PNK of the commander and gunner. That is, with what is being treated with simple modernization. Those. In your opinion, instead of putting a more modern SUV Kalina instead of Redoubt, it was necessary to send for re-melting all the tanks on which Redut stood?
          3. Xenofont 7 February 2020 13: 02 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Sometimes, on the battlefield, three cannons on 72 are better than 1 on Armata. There aren’t many tanks.
          4. 5-9
            5-9 7 February 2020 15: 25 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Soviet tanks all the way from T-54 were armored much better than the western ones ... in the 90s they caught up with us (no more), but with the advent of the T-90 we again went ahead ... about the T-14 and there is nothing to say.

            If M1 of the end of the 80s with shells of the end of the 80s didn’t take into the forehead the worsened versions and the Pole (up to sand as a filler in the tower) T-72M of the beginning of the 70s it would be something .... though ... the planet has already found a photo of the affected M829 T-72M exactly in the forehead and precisely in battle? And then 20 thousand scraps of uranium scraps were written off, and all the pictures of the Iraqi tanks struck were from the kuma ...
    3. garri-lin 7 February 2020 10: 59 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      And what are the problems with production? Problems with exploitation. Three tanks and, accordingly, three different lists of spare parts.
      1. Vladimir_2U 7 February 2020 11: 06 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: garri-lin
        Problems with exploitation.
        This problem is solved at a time, manning the connection with tanks of the same type.
        1. garri-lin 7 February 2020 11: 13 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          This goes without saying. And so that there is a unification of spare parts, all the rest of the equipment in the connection is also done on the basis of the same tank: Repair and recovery vehicles, engineering. Etc. Three non-interchangeable kits. And after the loss of equipment, the question arises of where to get the equipment of a particular brand for restoration of numbers, so that there would be no sorting.
  2. 1976AG 7 February 2020 14: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Zufei
    Again, three types of tanks in service. History goes in a spiral.

    Look when tanks were withdrawn from service from T-34 onwards and count how many tanks were in service then. Three types of tanks do quite a bit)
    1. Zufei 7 February 2020 20: 55 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      I include in the number “3” the non-formal number of weapons in the MO catalog, such as fusees, AKs and blasters. And there are three types of main tanks with the same weapon, where the gunner trained on the t-90m will not be able to fight at 72 and armature. And vice versa.
  • Free wind 7 February 2020 07: 00 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The tank makes a good impression, the dynamic protection blocks are very neatly arranged, the side walls of the hull are improved, the heater, the condo are all great. But the question arises of active protection ......... The questions are also about control, it seems they talked about the control of the steering wheel type, but the latest driver’s mechanical drive controls the levers. A matter of habit, of course, but helm control is clearer. Yes, and it's time to transfer control to joysticks.
    1. Zufei 7 February 2020 12: 14 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      A log on board spoils the aerodynamics ;-)
      1. Alexga 7 February 2020 18: 31 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        and it significantly increases the overall width, which is very, very inconvenient, and there are also minor inconveniences such as refueling an external 3 fuel tank, as a mechanic go to the MTO, only through the tower, and you can get in the face for walking around the tower.
      2. Uncle Vanya Susanin 7 February 2020 19: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yes, when switching to supersonic, shaking may begin laughing
  • smaug78 7 February 2020 08: 45 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    "It should be noted that contracts for the serial production of T-90M tanks already exist - they appeared long before the completion of state tests and the official adoption of equipment for service." what do you say?
  • rudolff 7 February 2020 10: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It is curious which units will begin to be equipped with these machines. Kantemirovskaya by tradition? Although, logically, such tanks should go primarily to those units that are designed for combat operations in isolation from the main forces, in which each vehicle has a special account. Marine Corps and air assault units. The number of T-90s available would be enough to change them completely.
  • voyaka uh 7 February 2020 12: 04 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    "The standard 2A46 cannon can be replaced with a 2A82-1M gun with
    increased combat characteristics "////
    ----
    What does it mean: "can be replaced"?
    So replaced or not?
    1. Bad_gr 7 February 2020 12: 45 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      What does it mean: "can be replaced"?
      So replaced or not?

      What will stand will depend on the customer (MO), the Plant can supply both.
    2. Xenofont 7 February 2020 13: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There was a conversation at the “top” that they would abandon the armast gun for the sake of economy. How the debate ended, I don’t know.
  • Xenofont 7 February 2020 13: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Since we are talking about the modernization of existing machines, is the tower module old at its core, but with improvements? Or is this a new module specially made?
  • JonnyT 7 February 2020 14: 29 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Dist machine gun on the tower, anti-fragmentation rebound, part of the BC in the niche behind the tower, relict will significantly increase the survival of the crew. T-90m. Such a tank is a real shield of the borders of the Motherland, in contrast to the ephemeral ghostly armata.
  • Tavrik 7 February 2020 14: 57 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The effectiveness of combat work is significantly increased due to the inclusion of the tank in a single tactical management system. The corresponding devices for the Breakthrough were developed by the Constellation concern.

    Judging by the photographs, these devices were invented about 15 years ago.
  • Alexga 7 February 2020 18: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Magic Archer
    I remember how, as a teenager, I first visited a tank repair plant near Chita. And he was surprised how little space in the tank.

    What is the name of the settlement - ATAMANOVKA! Cool! I had the pleasure of driving there on T-34-85 "Revolutionary Mongolia." Normally there is free space. There is enough place to fulfill the standard to wear OZK in the form of overalls. It is from habit that seems crowded.
  • da Vinci 7 February 2020 20: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In order not to be like with AK 12: they made a good device, and launched the same product with a penny gadget in a series.
  • kig
    kig 8 February 2020 01: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    All these piles on the tower .... is this before the first shell?
  • erased 9 February 2020 12: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Modernized, modernized but not modernized ... All this, of course, is not bad. But the T-14 is still not operational even in the amount of a couple of hundred ...
  • russia2016 11 February 2020 09: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what about the advertised "ceremonial" Armata, is there any news, or is the patient more likely dead than alive?
    1. agond 12 February 2020 18: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Armata is too big and long tank, 7 rinks is too much, obviously that's why it slows down
  • Diverter 17 February 2020 23: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    interesting. if the T-90 is redone in M, then the alteration of the T-72B is possible? or is it easier to do a new one?
    1. agond 8 March 2020 14: 27 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I think the T-90M is better than Almaty, because smaller, size matters
  • vindigo 20 March 2020 21: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    On the T-90M on the tower is not a heavy machine gun. Everywhere I read that there is a conventional rifle caliber 7,62 machine gun. Not NSVT.
  • philosopher April 18 2020 07: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is necessary to work out the version of the T-90M turret so that it can be installed on any of the available T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks of all the early versions with minimal changes (or by installing the required module). Once we have three tanks, so at least let there be one tower.