Production of T-80 tanks from scratch: a very interesting statement

154
Production of T-80 tanks from scratch: a very interesting statement

It is worth admitting that sometimes the program “Military Acceptance” knows how to surprise. Thus, the gentlemen from the Zvezda TV channel, timed to coincide with Tankman’s Day, decided to dedicate one of the workhorses to a special operation in Ukraine - tank T-80BVM.

We talked about the laudatory reviews from the vehicle’s operators, and talked about improvements in accordance with the experience of combat use. However, the main thesis was the statement that the production of “eighties”, which was completely curtailed more than thirty years ago, is planned to be revived.



This was confirmed by the General Director of JSC Concern Uralvagonzavod, Alexander Valerievich Potapov:

“This is the task, at least the military has set it for us. And we are now actively interacting, working, and exploring these issues with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, because this requires, accordingly, new capacities.”


The statement is very interesting and extremely ambiguous, therefore it has already managed to cause a strong reaction among the public. Taking it literally, some managed to declare that it was almost sabotage or sabotage - spending money and diverting forces on forgotten production instead of increasing the production of T-90M and T-72B3 in such a difficult time for the country. Others took Potapov’s words as a hidden hint that the losses of Russian tanks had reached such a scale that the storage bases had already been gutted to the last remnant.

We will not go to such extremes, but the question of the reasons for resuscitating the capacity to manufacture the T-80 from scratch still requires an answer. After all, the “eighty”, even in its best performance in the form of the T-80BVM, does not stand out radically in terms of combat capabilities compared to its diesel counterparts.

Of course, there are differences in operational and design aspects that testify in favor of the T-80BVM, and there are many of them. But the bottom line is that this tank is completely identical in main armament, ammunition and fire control system to the Tagil T-72B3 and partially T-90M, and in terms of armor it differs for the worse, which is compensated by the Relikt dynamic protection.

And even its main advantage in the form of a gas turbine power plant and transmission, which provide good mobility (including reverse speed), ease of motion control and the ability to start in harsh climatic conditions, are offset by huge fuel consumption, high cost and difficulties in maintenance.


There is nothing in this tank that would allow us to clearly say: it is better than the others, and we urgently need to establish its production in addition to the vehicles being modernized to this standard. Therefore, the demands of the military, which the general director of Uralvagonzavod spoke about, apparently have a somewhat different character than admiration for the characteristics of the tank.

We need more tanks


We need more tanks - a seemingly banal and tired statement, which quite accurately reflects the essence of what is happening. And this need lies both in the need for large-scale deliveries of combat vehicles to the front, and in the fact that one must also be careful with stocks of equipment in storage.

Currently, three factories are producing tanks for the front.

The main one in this matter, of course, is Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil, which simultaneously repairs tanks, modernizes vehicles taken from storage, and also produces T-90Ms produced from scratch.

By the way, previously the wording “made from scratch” was not applicable to the T-90M at all, since their production used a backlog of hulls available at the factory.


At the moment, the plant, having reached full capacity, according to various open sources, is capable of bringing into combat condition at least two or three battalion sets of tanks per month, received both from storage bases and military units, and from the special operation zone in Ukraine. As for the T-90M, according to some estimates, the company can produce a couple of hundred vehicles a year, taking into account the current workload of production lines.

Modernization of T-62M tanks
Modernization of T-62M tanks

The other two are Omsktransmash and the 103rd Ataman armored repair plant in the Trans-Baikal Territory.

The first is upgrading T-80B/BV tanks to the T-80BVM standard, and the second is removing T-62M\MV from storage with subsequent modification to the T-62M\MV level of the 2022 model with a major overhaul and installation of thermal imaging sights. The total productivity of both is significantly more than 10 complete battalions per year.

Of course, now the industrial capabilities are sufficient to meet the needs of the military in the zone of special military operation. But the nature of combat operations is a fickle thing, so the need for combat vehicles, both due to losses and breakdowns, and, for example, due to the development of the offensive of troops, also fluctuates. Often in a big way, so the ability to make many tanks will always work. And you shouldn’t forget about reserves.

Train of modernized T-80BVMs
Train of modernized T-80BVMs

As you know, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia received a huge number of tanks of various types and modifications, the lion's share of which were located at storage bases. Yes, that same stock, largely lost over thirty-odd years for various reasons, ranging from recycling programs and “cannibalism” to rendering machines unusable due to improper storage conditions.

In 2022, The Military Balance magazine gave cautious figures of 10 tanks, but the exact number of “live” tanks being mothballed is unknown to anyone except responsible officials in uniform.

From this reserve we drew resources to replenish the equipment of tank units, modernize tanks to the T-72B3 and T-80BVM standard, and now we are using it to make up for losses during a special military operation in Ukraine.

At the same time, it is also necessary to take into account the plans voiced by the president that this year it is planned to produce one and a half thousand tanks and, as it becomes clear, most of them are from storage.

But all supplies sooner or later tend to run out. Undoubtedly, this cannot be attributed to the SVO - there is a foundation, and it will last for a very long time, but who knows what will happen later.


Moreover, there is no reason to say that after the end of the active phase of the fighting in Ukraine, all this will not develop into a sluggish war and will not lead to new hot spots on the map of the planet in which our military will have to take part. And this does not take into account the formation of new military units in the military districts of the Russian Federation, which will also require the material they are entitled to.

So, increasing the production of tanks in parallel with the modernization of equipment from storage bases is already a necessity, both for today, when a lot of them are needed now, and for the near future, in which the role of the reserve will need to be downplayed in order to preserve it.

Based on this situation, the resumption of T-80 production does not look like some kind of idea divorced from reality.

Yes, again there are problems with the unification of the Soviet-style tank fleet, but we did not escape from it. The transition to the same type of tanks was very illusory even before the special operation and would have found its implementation only in 10–20 years at best, but in the current realities we can forget about it for now.


The reason why the choice fell on the “eighty” is explained by the fact that today, in addition to the Tagil UVZ, the only enterprise in the country that can theoretically produce tanks is Omsktransmash. At the same time, his involvement to increase the production of tanks became unofficially known back in the spring, so Potapov’s current statement is not so exclusive. But there are enough problems there, so the general director of Uralvagonzavod spoke about new capacities for a reason.

By the way, it is important to note one interesting point here: engines for the “eighty”, contrary to widespread rumors that there is nowhere and nothing to produce them now, can be produced. They can still be made, albeit in small batches, by Kaluga Engine or CADVI, which has been involved in these tasks since Soviet times. In general, therefore, turning a small series into a large one is much easier than reviving Omsktransmash, which has not been making armored vehicles from scratch since the 90s.

During the Soviet years, the latter produced T-80 tanks of various modifications: before the collapse of the USSR, it produced more than 5 T000B/BV/U units and another 80 T-231U tanks in the period from 80 to 1992. But over time, the production sites of Omsk residents, as they say nowadays, fell into disrepair.

It is noteworthy that the enterprise experienced a period of lack of money in the 90s and XNUMXs, but comparatively easier than some other representatives of the Soviet military-industrial complex. In general, workshops and production buildings were not rented out to businessmen due to its not the most convenient location, and grave fences, like on the industrial sites of the Steel Research Institute, were not made there, but the lack of funding, various frauds and other matters hurt the potential of the plant in any case .

One way or another, part of the “production capacity” was still lost - some equipment left the balance sheet both due to unusability for one reason or another, or due to formal write-off. In the future, the size of the lost property will be shown by a revision and audit, but as a preliminary result: despite the theoretical existence of equipment for producing tanks from scratch, Omsktransmash today cannot do this at once. This is especially true for armored hulls and tank turrets, which require a wide range of machine tools and steel production.

The personnel issue is also acute: a lot of specialists are needed to “reanimate” the production of the T-80, both blue-collar workers and engineers and technologists. And given that there are not so many workers left who have real experience in tank building, we will have to think about creating human resources first of all.


The revival of this entire economy is a slow process. Restoring the necessary equipment for the manufacture of tanks will require purchases somewhere on the foreign market (possibly in China), since even in Soviet times, many of the machines, with the developed machine tool industry within the country, were purchased from “capitalist countries” such as Germany.

A heavy burden will fall on the shoulders of subcontractors - for example, in order to expand the production of T-72B3 and T-80BVM instead of Sosna-U sights, it was necessary to temporarily transfer modernized tanks to simplified thermal imagers, so the strain with an even greater influx of equipment will be expected to be higher. Not only for sights, but for all components. And if at first the shortage of some parts can be covered by cannibalizing the machines in storage, then in the long term, reviving the production of Omsktransmash without reviving adjacent offices is impossible.

All this will require a lot of effort and time. For example: in the early 90s, the American military calculated the possibility of resuming the previously completed production of Abrams tanks - then this event was estimated at approximately $1,1 billion at those prices, and the period for restoring the production of tanks was more than four years.

Our situation is different, and we cannot waste time, but the process will clearly go beyond this year and, most likely, even next year. But in the future, it will be possible to expand the production of heavy combat vehicles by resuscitating the existing reserve capacity in addition to those involved in the production of tanks at UVZ.

In addition, there is some probability that the Omsk projects “Burlak” and “Black Eagle”, once shelved, will be at least partially introduced into production in the form of design solutions.
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    15 September 2023 04: 35
    offset by huge fuel consumption, high cost and maintenance difficulties.
    Specific fuel consumption of the GTD-1250 g/hp*h 225 in 1986 versus 156 g/hp*h for the V-92S2F 2017, so this is an exaggeration about the huge consumption. The cost was high, at least it was, but it was offset by the very high mobility of the tank, both on the march and in the field. Well, the difficulty of servicing a turbine with uniform fuel combustion and in which there is only rotation, against the reciprocating movement of the mass of pistons under the influence of periodic very high pressure for a diesel engine, is also greatly exaggerated. Diesel engines have passed the peak of improvement, but there are no turbines yet...
    1. +14
      15 September 2023 05: 04
      Specific fuel consumption of the GTD-1250 g/hp*h 225 in 1986 versus 156 g/hp*h for the V-92S2F 2017, so this is an exaggeration about the huge consumption.

      Based on your own data, did you convert them into liters? Doesn’t it bother you that the diesel’s formal consumption figures are exceeded by as much as 105 liters between 176 liters for a diesel engine and 281 liters for a gas turbine engine? This is in ideal conditions, but in practice, with inexperienced drivers, the difference can reach one and a half to two hundred liters.

      The cost is high, at least it was

      At the beginning of the 13s, gas turbine engines cost XNUMX times more than diesel engines. Much has changed since then, but the cost has increased.

      but was offset by the very high mobility of the tank, both on the march and in the field

      In the field it is a very controversial issue. In combat, operating at speeds of more than 40 km/h to find and hit targets is something that is very rare in real life. If the same T-90M had hydrostatic power transmission from the shaft to the wheels, it would float on roads and off-roads no worse than Leopard-2.

      Well, the difficulty of servicing a turbine with uniform fuel combustion and in which there is only rotation, against the reciprocating movement of the mass of pistons under the influence of periodic very high pressure for a diesel engine, is also greatly exaggerated.

      what
      1. +9
        15 September 2023 05: 32
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        Doesn’t it bother you that the diesel’s formal consumption figures are exceeded by as much as 105 liters between 176 liters for a diesel engine and 281 liters for a gas turbine engine? This is in ideal conditions, but in practice, with inexperienced drivers, the difference can reach one and a half to two hundred liters.

        No, it doesn’t bother you. You are not embarrassed by the greater power of the turbine and the difference of almost 30 years.

        Quote: Eduard Perov
        At the beginning of the 13s, gas turbine engines cost XNUMX times more than diesel engines. Much has changed since then, but the cost has increased.
        Yes, and this is exactly what I mean - a lot has changed. The same diesel engine with turbocharging and maximum boost has become much more expensive.

        Quote: Eduard Perov
        In the field it is a very controversial issue. In combat, operating at speeds of more than 40 km/h to find and hit targets is something that is very rare in real life.
        And here it is not so much the speed that is important, but the dynamics, throttle response, and the time it takes to reach this speed. Well, the probability of a turbine with a free turbine stalling))) is much lower than that of a diesel engine.

        Quote: Eduard Perov
        what
        What, did you sprinkle it a little too complicated? ))) I agree, it turned out clumsily. But the point is that a turbine is difficult to manufacture, but easier to maintain than a piston engine, in which the pistons burn out and even break off, and the rings and liners require their own, injection, valves and other oil starvation... And all this is due to the fact that reciprocating motion, and even shock, has a much worse effect on mechanisms than rotational motion.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +22
            15 September 2023 06: 22
            Question to the author. If in Omsk the equipment for the production of armored hulls and turrets has now really been lost, then wouldn’t it be easier to launch the T-90 in Omsk rather than the T-80? After all, you still need to buy new equipment and it can be used for the production of the T-90 and, at comparable costs, finally move away from the zoo of many tanks, at least at the stage of production of new equipment.
            1. +5
              15 September 2023 08: 49
              1. We need tanks, many tanks, as soon as possible. Why the answer is obvious, we need to compensate for losses and increase the number of tanks.
              2. T-72/90 and T-80 are completely different tanks, like Abrams and Leopard 2. That is. remodeling the plant will take a lot of time and money.
              3. Production of the T-72/90 is already at its limit and this is not a question of final assembly, but of components. There are simply not enough of them for a new plant. Accordingly, another tank solves this problem.

              Conclusion: resumption of T-80 production is an absolutely logical step in the current situation. But who and how brought it into this situation is another question.
              1. +8
                15 September 2023 17: 06
                Production of the T-72/90 is already at its limit and this is not a question of final assembly, but of components. There are simply not enough of them for a new plant. Accordingly, another tank solves this problem

                What kind of interesting components are not enough for the T-90 and not enough for the T-80? Guns that are the same everywhere? Armored rolling stock and its filler? Electronics that are the same everywhere?
              2. +5
                15 September 2023 22: 27
                1. We need tanks, many tanks, as soon as possible. Why the answer is obvious, we need to compensate for losses and increase the number of tanks.

                First of all, we need to understand that we have a shortage of tanks due to strategic mistakes or conscious actions of the leadership of the Defense Ministry and the country, as well as the criminal actions of some generals and senior officers. Therefore, first of all, we need to find those responsible for the current situation and replace them. This will make it possible to more competently manage existing equipment and radically reduce losses, including tanks. Only near Kharkov, during the Regrouping, several hundred units of armored vehicles were left to the enemy, and those responsible for this still control the troops; they can still give up the annual production of tanks to the enemy.
                2. T-72/90 and T-80 are completely different tanks, like Abrams and Leopard 2. That is. remodeling the plant will take a lot of time and money.

                If the Omsk plant lost equipment for the production of armored hulls and turrets for the T-80, then restoring this equipment will take comparable time to the supply of equipment for the production of the T-90, and practically the same funds. But the army will receive one T-90 MBT, the cost of which will be significantly reduced due to the large series.
                3. Production of the T-72/90 is already at its limit and this is not a question of final assembly, but of components. There are simply not enough of them for a new plant. Accordingly, another tank solves this problem.

                The author claims that gas turbine engines for the T-80 are produced in limited quantities, which will not allow the production of the T-80 to be established. At the same time, it would be reasonable to send these engines for restoration of the T-80 from storage bases in Omsk, which is obviously being done.
                The T-90 has been produced non-stop for many years and it is much easier to increase the production of components at an already operating enterprise than to establish production again, so it is much easier and faster to establish the production of the T-90 than to resume production of the T-80.
                Conclusion: resumption of T-80 production is an absolutely logical step in the current situation. But who and how brought it into this situation is another question.

                If the production of armored hulls and turrets was lost in Omsk, then the resumption of production of the T-80 is a mistake worse than a crime, against the background of the limited production of gas turbine engines for it.
                And the question of those who brought the situation to its current state is the most important question, because as long as these people continue to lead, they will do a lot of harm and then all efforts to increase production and not only tanks are useless.
                1. +4
                  16 September 2023 11: 18
                  There are some good new defense features on the T-80. For example, electronic warfare from drones. Side protection. Yes, and a unique umbrella.
            2. +3
              15 September 2023 11: 28
              Moreover, all the equipment was developed a long time ago at UVZ, it’s just a matter of manufacturing it, or maybe just taking the extra stuff from UVZ.
              Moreover, the tank is not a large aircraft like IL-76. Not that much equipment is needed. And you won’t need all of it right away. Especially with the understanding that these factories receive many tank components ready-made through cooperation, including the gun and engine.
              Another question is whether related companies are ready to increase their production; many have long been loaded to capacity.
              These include automation, protection, electronics systems, including communications. Everyone has been overworked for a long time, delivery times for products from them are very long. Tank guns are made by only one factory, and there are two parts for them. I don’t think it’s even possible to increase the production of diesel engines significantly to supply a couple of factories for new tanks.
              The production of gas turbine engines seems even more fantastic. Even with an engine, valves cannot solve problems.
              Build a tank, not buy a donkey.
        2. +6
          15 September 2023 06: 25
          No, it doesn’t bother you. You are not embarrassed by the greater power of the turbine and the difference of almost 30 years.

          The difference of 120 horsepower in exchange for huge fuel consumption confuses me more than it does you. An absolutely illegitimate waste of the vehicle's mobility reserve.

          Yes, and this is exactly what I mean - a lot has changed. The same diesel engine with turbocharging and maximum boost has become much more expensive.

          Much has changed, but the actual fuel consumption in comparison with diesel and the cost of gas turbine engines and diesel engines remain with a significant difference, even less comparable to the difference in their costs. Even if KADV issues a GTD-1250 with a price that is 4-5 times higher than diesel, it will be a success at the present time. Let's add the disadvantages: fuel consumption + cost.

          And here it is not so much the speed that is important, but the dynamics, throttle response, and the time it takes to reach this speed. Well, the probability of a turbine with a free turbine stalling))) is much lower than that of a diesel engine.

          What I wrote in the article about operational and design issues are small joys that are largely determined not by the engine, but by the transmission. In exchange for price and fuel consumption.

          What, did you sprinkle it a little too complicated? )))

          But how much more difficult? Apparently, the absence of rubbing parts and reciprocating movements determined that even before the SVO, most of the gas turbine engines were simply replaced with new ones due to breakdowns due to the impossibility of repairing them by military units. recourse
          1. +5
            15 September 2023 07: 15
            Quote: Eduard Perov

            The difference of 120 horsepower in exchange for huge fuel consumption confuses me more than it does you. An absolutely illegitimate waste of the vehicle's mobility reserve.
            So this difference could be 270 or even 370 hp. achieve, with the same MTO, and diesel is already everything. What to do with this?

            Quote: Eduard Perov
            Even if KADV issues a GTD-1250 with a price that is 4-5 times higher than diesel, it will be a success at the present time.
            It’s hard to argue with this, but as an argument for turbines, I’ll give the following consideration: Now the main cost of the tank comes from optoelectronics, and greater survivability thanks to more power and less mechanical maintenance, even if due to a decrease in the power reserve and an increase in the cost of the engine itself, it will save more money and, most importantly, lives than less expensive, but also less powerful motor.

            Quote: Eduard Perov
            What I wrote in the article about operational and design issues are small joys that are largely determined not by the engine, but by the transmission. In exchange for price and fuel consumption.
            No, a car that does not stall when hit by a shell or hits an obstacle, a car that manages to take cover with a jerk, is not a minor joy, just as an engine that stalls at the wrong time is not a minor nuisance.

            Quote: Eduard Perov
            But how much more difficult? Apparently, the absence of rubbing parts and reciprocating movements determined that even before the SVO, most of the gas turbine engines were simply replaced with new ones due to breakdowns due to the impossibility of repairing them by military units.
            And I can explain this by the already used up supply of parts that had already ceased production, but the engines remained in storage. Or replacing exhausted motors. And yes, the turbine, all other things being equal, has a longer resource, precisely due to rotation alone...
            By the way, in the vast majority of episodes with victories in tank duels, it was the T-80s that showed themselves. The same "Alyosha". Coincidence?
          2. +12
            15 September 2023 11: 42
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            The difference of 120 horsepower in exchange for huge fuel consumption confuses me more than it does you. An absolutely illegitimate waste of the vehicle's mobility reserve.

            Shortly before the SVO, Pakistan approached UVZ with the question of whether they (and Omsktransmash is part of the UVZ holding) could modernize and remotorize their T-80. The experiments carried out showed that there are no critical difficulties with this. So, in the matter of resuming production of the T-80, it is not the engine that plays a critical role. And the fact that the equipment of Omsktransmash is designed to produce the chassis for the T-80 and other vehicles based on this base. But the chassis of the T-80 is much better than that of the T-72. That is why in the late USSR it was on this chassis that all tracked vehicles of this weight class were made: self-propelled guns "Msta-S", self-propelled guns "Geotsint", self-propelled guns "Malka", mortar "Tulip", S-300V\B4 air defense system, air defense missile system, "Tunguska" ", etc. And when developing the Armata chassis, they took the T-80 chassis as the basis.
            So, in order to keep these wonderful chassis in production, not rebuild, but only restore and replenish the T-80 production lines, spending much less time and money, and as a result get a simply wonderful tank, it is necessary to restore the production of the T-80 XNUMX from scratch. This chassis has much greater potential and prospects.
            But with the rest, unification should be maximum. No originality. Single turret for the T-90 and the new T-80! Moreover, they have the same shoulder straps. Complete unification according to avionics. And since the engine and transmission will most likely be the same (if they decide to install a diesel engine), plus the unification of dynamic protection and attachments... This will be just great.
            Moreover, some of the heavy tracked weapon systems (the same S-300V4) are still produced on the T-80 chassis. But this chassis would be better for the Coalition-SV. In addition, it could easily be made into a seven-wheeler (the S-300V4, Malka, Tyulpan and Geocint have exactly that) and have the experience and equipment.
            In addition, it will remain possible to produce a new T-80 with a gas turbine engine - for the Far North, for example). The main thing is that there is another plant capable of building tanks from scratch, and not just modernizing old ones.
            In addition, several years ago there were messages and even reports that not only Omsktransmash, but also a tank repair plant in St. Petersburg (or the region) was upgrading the T-80BV to BVM. The article skipped about it, but it has serious potential.
            The fact that the Omsk plant will now be launched into full cycle is good for the future, because our Army faces a very serious rearmament of both various self-propelled guns and other tracked equipment. The same "Pantsir-S" showed low maneuverability in fields and muddy roads. I'm not even talking about their tendency to fall on their side when turning. But this complex was initially proposed to be built on a tracked chassis. So I think that after the conflict such a task will remain. And we can’t think of anything better for this than the seven-roller chassis from the T-80. It is advisable to make other self-propelled guns on the same chassis. The same "Coalition-SV" would be much more stable, harmonious and more passable on the T-80 seven-wheel chassis.
            I think the production of the S-300V4 or the next modification of this military heavy air defense system will continue. Yes, a lot of things.
            And in the future, we may end up with a single heavy tracked chassis, for which even in the late USSR the Soviet military clearly preferred the T-80 chassis. There was such an idea - a T-80 chassis with a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine (two versions for a single tank), a turret (as the most protected) from the T-72 and a 12,7 mm machine gun mount. with remote control from T-64. And to produce this single MBT at all three factories in two versions - with a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine.
            If you make the right choice now, then you can (not immediately, over time, after the SVO) move to such a single MBT:
            - T-80 chassis,
            - turret and all avionics from T-90M,
            - engine and transmission in two versions - gas turbine engine and diesel from the T-90M.

            And it will be possible to play “Armata” and other exotic games after SVO... if the nonsense doesn’t wear off. A platform such as "Armata" is justified only in the case of 152 mm. caliber Because all this will be very expensive, difficult, and must be justified by a VERY serious increase in combat characteristics.
            1. -2
              15 September 2023 11: 51
              As the president recently noted, if the grandmother had different genitals, she would not be a grandmother, but a grandfather.
              An old joke of course. But I molded it from what it was, this is a different new tank. Which still needs to be developed and tested.
              1. +8
                15 September 2023 15: 35
                Quote: Oleg Ogorod
                This is a different new tank. Which still needs to be developed and tested.

                USSR tanks had universal shoulder straps and interchangeable turrets. Those. It was easy, even in the field, to install a T-64 turret on a T-80 hull, or a T-72 turret on a T-64 hull. And this was very strict in the technical specifications of each tank. So there are no problems putting the T-90 turret on the T-80 chassis. There will be no problems integrating the entire complex of dynamic protection of the T-90 onto the T-80 hull. All R&D work of such an arrangement can be completed during the preparation of production lines for the T-80. In war, everything is done quickly. Look how quickly the dynamic protection architecture on the T-90M and T-72B3M was finalized.
                1. +8
                  15 September 2023 17: 00
                  Quote: bayard
                  USSR tanks had universal shoulder straps and interchangeable turrets. Those. It was easy, even in the field, to install a T-64 turret on a T-80 hull, or a T-72 turret on a T-64 hull.

                  The T-64 and T-80 have a cabin-type loading mechanism - attached to the turret. In the T-72 and T-90, the conveyor with automatic loader ammunition is located on the floor, so these tanks have a hull bottom with additional stiffening ribs.
                  In general, not everything is so simple with rearranging the towers.
                  1. +4
                    15 September 2023 19: 47
                    Yes, the automatic loaders are different, but in the terms of reference this task was very strict. That's why there's a single shoulder strap.
                    I think that integrating the T-90M turret onto the T-80 hull will not be a big problem, they will simply choose the most successful of these two and implement it on a new tank. If they choose the T-90M assault rifle, then the degree of unification will be even higher. I think this would be the right decision.
                    Quote: Bad_gr
                    In the T-72 and T-90, the conveyor with automatic loader ammunition is located on the floor, so these tanks have a hull bottom with additional stiffening ribs.

                    Maybe this particular solution provides additional mine protection (bottom strength). The guys told how, even during the Debaltsevo operation, before their eyes, a T-90 (or T-72, the evening was already late) at full speed ran into two constrictions with anti-tank mines (the mines were connected to each other) and was blown up by three mines at once. .. And the entire crew survived, and there weren’t even any wounded/injured.
                2. +2
                  16 September 2023 11: 06
                  Quote: bayard
                  USSR tanks had universal shoulder straps and interchangeable turrets. Those. It was easy, even in the field, to install a T-64 turret on a T-80 hull, or a T-72 turret on a T-64 hull. And this was very strict in the technical specifications of each tank. So there is no problem putting the T-90 turret on the T-80 chassis.

                  Relatively not so long ago there was a Burlak program, when they wanted to get a unified turret for the T-72/80/90. It is from this that the legs of the T-90M grow.

                  As a matter of fact, if Omsk is somehow able to organize production of the T-80 with a turret from the T-90M, then it would be quite good.
              2. +3
                16 September 2023 20: 51
                Look at the Msta-S chassis. Chassis from T-80, MTO from T-72.
            2. +1
              15 September 2023 14: 09
              Quote: bayard
              Quote: Eduard Perov
              The difference of 120 horsepower in exchange for huge fuel consumption confuses me more than it does you. An absolutely illegitimate waste of the vehicle's mobility reserve.

              Shortly before the SVO, Pakistan approached UVZ with the question of whether they (and Omsktransmash is part of the UVZ holding) could modernize and remotorize their T-80. The experiments carried out showed that there are no critical difficulties with this. So, in the matter of resuming production of the T-80, it is not the engine that plays a critical role. And the fact that the equipment of Omsktransmash is designed to produce the chassis for the T-80 and other vehicles based on this base. But the chassis of the T-80 is much better than that of the T-72. That is why in the late USSR it was on this chassis that all tracked vehicles of this weight class were made: self-propelled guns "Msta-S", self-propelled guns "Geotsint", self-propelled guns "Malka", mortar "Tulip", S-300V\B4 air defense system, air defense missile system, "Tunguska" ", etc. And when developing the Armata chassis, they took the T-80 chassis as the basis.
              So, in order to keep these wonderful chassis in production, not rebuild, but only restore and replenish the T-80 production lines, spending much less time and money, and as a result get a simply wonderful tank, it is necessary to restore the production of the T-80 XNUMX from scratch. This chassis has much greater potential and prospects.
              But with the rest, unification should be maximum. No originality. Single turret for the T-90 and the new T-80! Moreover, they have the same shoulder straps. Complete unification according to avionics. And since the engine and transmission will most likely be the same (if they decide to install a diesel engine), plus the unification of dynamic protection and attachments... This will be just great.
              Moreover, some of the heavy tracked weapon systems (the same S-300V4) are still produced on the T-80 chassis. But this chassis would be better for the Coalition-SV. In addition, it could easily be made into a seven-wheeler (the S-300V4, Malka, Tyulpan and Geocint have exactly that) and have the experience and equipment.
              In addition, it will remain possible to produce a new T-80 with a gas turbine engine - for the Far North, for example). The main thing is that there is another plant capable of building tanks from scratch, and not just modernizing old ones.
              In addition, several years ago there were messages and even reports that not only Omsktransmash, but also a tank repair plant in St. Petersburg (or the region) was upgrading the T-80BV to BVM. The article skipped about it, but it has serious potential.
              The fact that the Omsk plant will now be launched into full cycle is good for the future, because our Army faces a very serious rearmament of both various self-propelled guns and other tracked equipment. The same "Pantsir-S" showed low maneuverability in fields and muddy roads. I'm not even talking about their tendency to fall on their side when turning. But this complex was initially proposed to be built on a tracked chassis. So I think that after the conflict such a task will remain. And we can’t think of anything better for this than the seven-roller chassis from the T-80. It is advisable to make other self-propelled guns on the same chassis. The same "Coalition-SV" would be much more stable, harmonious and more passable on the T-80 seven-wheel chassis.
              I think the production of the S-300V4 or the next modification of this military heavy air defense system will continue. Yes, a lot of things.
              And in the future, we may end up with a single heavy tracked chassis, for which even in the late USSR the Soviet military clearly preferred the T-80 chassis. There was such an idea - a T-80 chassis with a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine (two versions for a single tank), a turret (as the most protected) from the T-72 and a 12,7 mm machine gun mount. with remote control from T-64. And to produce this single MBT at all three factories in two versions - with a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine.
              If you make the right choice now, then you can (not immediately, over time, after the SVO) move to such a single MBT:
              - T-80 chassis,
              - turret and all avionics from T-90M,
              - engine and transmission in two versions - gas turbine engine and diesel from the T-90M.

              And it will be possible to play “Armata” and other exotic games after SVO... if the nonsense doesn’t wear off. A platform such as "Armata" is justified only in the case of 152 mm. caliber Because all this will be very expensive, difficult, and must be justified by a VERY serious increase in combat characteristics.

              The T-80 has a compact gas turbine engine, while the T-72/90 has a huge 39 liter diesel engine originally from the 30s of the last century. The next reincarnation of the B-80 in no way fits into the T-2 MTO. Those. we will have to make 2 more types of housings, each for its own engine. Plus, we now have a shortage of sights relative to the production and modernization of tank corps. Accordingly, there is not enough Sosna-U for everyone. Those. Each type of tank will have another subtype with different sights.
              1. +8
                15 September 2023 16: 15
                Quote from Escariot
                MTO T-80, another reincarnation of the B-2, does not fit in any way.

                Just before the SVO, similar experiments were carried out - with the installation of an engine from a T-80 into the T-90UD housing. And according to UVZ, it turned out to be much easier than they initially expected. But this is installing another engine into an existing tank. And we are talking about a new tank, where such an installation may (or may not exist, the choice is up to the customer) was provided for initially.
                Quote from Escariot
                we will have to make 2 more types of housings, each for its own engine.

                More likely, two types of MTO (although the controls there will be different). But it's definitely worth it - the T-80's chassis is the best of all Soviet tanks.
                Quote from Escariot
                Plus we now have a shortage of sights

                This issue is already being resolved. Soon there will be enough for everyone.
                Quote from Escariot
                There is not enough Pine-U for everyone.

                Definitely enough for all the new ones. And soon for all modernized ones.
                Quote from Escariot
                Those. Each type of tank will have another subtype with different sights.

                Yes, they already quite imagine a zoo. But as the production of domestic matrices expands, all sights will be brought to uniformity. This is a working process, it is only a thermal imager, and in the current conflict the tank is shooting at direct fire at 3 - 5 km. happens quite rarely. So this does not have any critical impact. Look how the Leopards and Challengers burn with their wonderful heat... they simply do not have time to reach direct fire range.

                There is a plant with all the equipment for the production of the T-80, the T-80U was the best of the Soviet tanks... By the way, the avionics, sight, thermal imager, and a number of other systems from the T-80U were simply taken, stuffed into a welded turret, and placed on the T-72 hull and the result was the T-90.
                1. +1
                  15 September 2023 17: 55
                  Quote: bayard
                  Quote from Escariot
                  MTO T-80, another reincarnation of the B-2, does not fit in any way.

                  Just before the SVO, similar experiments were carried out - with the installation of an engine from a T-80 into the T-90UD housing. And according to UVZ, it turned out to be much easier than they initially expected. But this is installing another engine into an existing tank. And we are talking about a new tank, where such an installation may (or may not exist, the choice is up to the customer) was provided for initially.
                  Quote from Escariot
                  we will have to make 2 more types of housings, each for its own engine.

                  More likely, two types of MTO (although the controls there will be different). But it's definitely worth it - the T-80's chassis is the best of all Soviet tanks.
                  Quote from Escariot
                  Plus we now have a shortage of sights

                  This issue is already being resolved. Soon there will be enough for everyone.
                  Quote from Escariot
                  There is not enough Pine-U for everyone.

                  Definitely enough for all the new ones. And soon for all modernized ones.
                  Quote from Escariot
                  Those. Each type of tank will have another subtype with different sights.

                  Yes, they already quite imagine a zoo. But as the production of domestic matrices expands, all sights will be brought to uniformity. This is a working process, it is only a thermal imager, and in the current conflict the tank is shooting at direct fire at 3 - 5 km. happens quite rarely. So this does not have any critical impact. Look how the Leopards and Challengers burn with their wonderful heat... they simply do not have time to reach direct fire range.

                  There is a plant with all the equipment for the production of the T-80, the T-80U was the best of the Soviet tanks... By the way, the avionics, sight, thermal imager, and a number of other systems from the T-80U were simply taken, stuffed into a welded turret, and placed on the T-72 hull and the result was the T-90.

                  Naturally, there are no problems with installing a 18 liter V-shaped diesel engine instead of a compact 39-liter boxer engine. You just need to redo all the logistics, otherwise there are no problems. Well, at least that’s what the Uzbeks did when they installed the B-5 on their T-2 instead of the 64TDF.
                  1. +3
                    15 September 2023 19: 28
                    Quote from Escariot
                    You just need to redo all the logistics, otherwise there are no problems.

                    So we are not talking about the modernization of old T-80s with gas turbine engines, but about the production of new ones. You won’t have to redo anything there, you’ll just have to immediately do MTO for diesel from the T-90M. That's the beauty of building the T-80 from scratch. Chassis, chassis T-80, MTO and turret T-90M. And you'll get a piece of candy on a better-quality chassis.
                    Quote from Escariot
                    Well, at least that’s what the Uzbeks did when they installed the B-5 on their T-2 instead of the 64TDF.

                    You see, even the Uzbeks managed it.
                    And at KhTZ, at the very end of the USSR, they built the T-80UD immediately with MTO for their boxer with a capacity of 1000 hp. And it turned out to be an excellent tank. So UVZ MTO will initially supply its diesel engine. Don't forget that Omsktransmash is part of the UVZ holding. So there will be no problems with such compilation.
                2. +1
                  16 September 2023 22: 19
                  Why did the T-80 chassis suddenly become the best among Soviet tanks?
                  This whole enterprise is taking place solely because of the extreme need for tanks, only Armata was made “from scratch” with a known result, all post-Soviet vehicles will be made exclusively using the stock of carts, and it is very doubtful that the expression of the head of the plant should be interpreted literally, most likely we are talking about increasing production capacity in Omsk
            3. +2
              16 September 2023 20: 43
              Hyacinth, Tulip - Sverdlovsk chassis, Tunguska - Minsk chassis. Pion/Malka, S-300V, Msta-S - they only have the chassis from the T-80, nothing else.
              If the equipment for the production of a 4-speed gearbox has been preserved in Omsk, then this entails a gas turbine engine.
              An important element of interchangeability is the identical fit of the sprockets on the shafts of the final drives. I saw a T-72B with tracks and sprockets from the T-80, the operators were very pleased with the possibility of such a replacement.
        3. 0
          15 September 2023 06: 44
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Well, the probability of a turbine with a free turbine stalling))) is much lower than that of a diesel engine

          The probability of failure of a gas turbine engine is no lower than that of a diesel engine. For example, in 1991, during Gulf Wars American M1 Abrams tanks failed only because the compressor sucked sand into the working part of the engine, which was abundant in the desert...
          1. +9
            15 September 2023 08: 40
            Quote: Luminman
            The probability of failure of a gas turbine engine is no lower than that of a diesel engine. For example, in 1991, during the Gulf War, American M1 Abrams tanks failed only because the compressor sucked sand into the working part of the engine, which was abundant in the desert...

            Stalling and failing are not the same thing. And the Abrams did not stall or fail, but stopped much more often than expected to clean the not-so-successful air filters.

            Ours, as far as I know, decided to ignore fine cleaning and simply allowed the dust to pass through the turbine and knock off the caked-on dust with vibration. And later they organized a high air intake.
        4. +2
          15 September 2023 17: 17
          The B-92S2 is also a deeply modernized engine in the early 40s. The B-2 has already exhausted its modernization resource.
          For the T-72 and its modifications there is no other diesel engine, only the gas turbine engine remains.
          The comrades from UVZ simply came to a dead end, the new turret on the T-90M means weight, but the power is not enough and there is no other engine.
          1. +1
            16 September 2023 13: 23
            Quote: Order
            There is no other diesel engine for the T-72 and its modifications,

            Why do you need another one if this one produces a power of 1130 hp? Isn't enough for you?? In tank biathlons on a straight line, the T-72 with such an engine easily gave 80 km/h! Have you seen how he jumps from a springboard? Is this due to lack of power?
            Quote: Order
            All that remains is the gas turbine engine.

            It exists - 1250 l/s, they install it on the T-80BVM. But the T-90 definitely doesn’t need it.
            Quote: Order
            Comrades from UVZ simply came to a dead end

            And how did they get there?
            Can you suggest a modern vehicle with mobility equal to the T-90M? Apart from the new Korean K-2 and Leclerc, nothing comes to mind, and even that is questionable. "Abrams" and "Leo-2" generally smoke nervously on the sidelines. In terms of all its qualities, the T-90M is now the best. And of the best - it has the lowest price and is the most technically proven, produced in large series. lol So where is the "dead end"?
            Quote: Order
            this is the weight

            What's wrong with weight? He is still far from reaching 50 tons. And its thrust-to-weight ratio is excellent.
            Quote: Order
            There is not enough power and there is no other engine.

            Well, how about it, Maxim? How can there be no other engine if the development of the engine for the "Armata" has been completed for a month and is being prepared for production? smile Which has a maximum power even higher than that of the Abrams, Leo-2, Leclerc and K-2. At the same time, it is more compact than the B-92S2, so it can easily fit on the T-90M.
            How do you like this, Maxim Popov?
            All that remains is to finalize the compact diesel engine that was being prepared for the Kurganets (860 hp) and Russia will have a line of diesel engines across the entire power spectrum.
            If you put the diesel engine that the Armata was preparing for the new T-80, it will generally take off on it. And the speed will probably be around a hundred if the goose can handle it.
            So for something, and for tanks we have EVERYTHING. And domestic matrices for thermal imagers too.
            And if UVZ produces at least 1000 tanks this year (with other repair plants 1500, no less), then with Omsktransmash launching production of the T-80, the annual output will easily exceed 2000. But it won’t be enough - ChTZ will join in, which now only supplies engines and some things through cooperation. But in terms of engines, it has already broken its Soviet record. Civilian products are still being produced there, but if the Motherland says it is necessary, ChTZ will rebuild its lines into tanks. At one time, KVs and ISs were produced there.
            1. +1
              16 September 2023 16: 12
              Where will you install the cooling system? The more powerful the engine, the larger the cooling system must be.
              As an example, Black Eagle had to increase the size of the MTO and add one road wheel, if the information on the network is true, they just installed an X-shaped engine like the Armata.

              If you think the T-90M smoking with thick black smoke in the photo is normal, then I hasten to disappoint you, this is due to the fact that they increased the fuel supply and turned on the turbine, but until the turbine spins up (turbo lag), the engine will smoke so much and will not reach the required power.
              The T-90M is inferior in mobility to many tanks; first of all, it cannot turn smoothly due to the transmission, which does not allow changing the speed of the left and right tracks in any range like Western Tanks; the T-90M turns only by blocking one of the tracks or changing the left or right track with one constant speed, while Western tanks also have the ability to turn around due to the rotation of the caterpillar tracks in different directions relative to each other, the reverse gear of the T-90M is also terrible and there is no need to write about it the mythical 15 km.h does not exist, even UVZ itself deletes comments with this question under its videos.
              You should have also heard the weight per ton ratio, and for the same Leopard 2A6 it is higher.
              So I don’t know where you decided that the T-90M is superior to Western tanks in terms of mobility compared to ancient armored vehicles.
              1. +1
                16 September 2023 21: 29
                The modern level of automation allows high-quality control of the gearbox when turning. True, there is nowhere to take a reverse gear.
                1. 0
                  17 September 2023 01: 39
                  On the BKP, you can reduce the speed of one track only by a certain speed range, and no automation will give you smooth control; even the designers have already checked this.

                  Comparative tests of a prototype with an experimental GMT (index GMT-69021) and the T-64A tank showed the complete advantage of the GMT over the BKP. The prototype (experimental tank) with GMT-69021 had higher turning control, more advanced brake control and higher fuel efficiency. High tactical mobility was ensured by a fully reversible gearbox, automatic gear shifting and GT locking, duplicated movement control from the commander and rotation around the tank's center of gravity.
                  1. 0
                    22 September 2023 00: 45
                    "On the BKP, you can reduce the speed of one track only by a certain speed range"
                    The fact is that this “certain speed range” is absolutely redundant for gears above 2nd. In these gears, an attempt to reach a fixed (calculated) radius is a skid.
                    Exactly which designers checked the impossibility of implementing a tracking steering control system?
            2. 0
              16 September 2023 21: 23
              1130 l. With. - a very dubious value. It’s like Borisyuk claimed that a suitcase gives 1000 liters. With. at +55°C.
      2. +3
        15 September 2023 07: 15
        Isn’t it better to put innovative Armature into production than to return to the production of a tank that was stopped being produced 30 years ago?
        1. +9
          15 September 2023 07: 51
          Isn’t it better to put innovative Armature into production than to return to the production of a tank that was stopped being produced 30 years ago?


          Dear Stas.
          You have asked a very interesting question.
          It seems that the answer, as always, lies in the financial plane.
          The author of the article gave the answer and himself gave an example: “... the possibility of resuming the previously completed production of Abrams tanks - then this event was estimated at about 1,1 billion dollars at those prices...”.
          Restoration of design documentation, development of mock-ups, creation of prototypes, testing; restoration and purchase of various equipment for production, testing, etc.
          This is good business.
          Not all Russian elite clans have the opportunity to sell natural resources during the SVO.
          Moreover, there is an example.

          An example of the struggle for budget money is the program for the development of unmanned aircraft. First, one of the actors asked for 50 billion, and naturally, his competitors rushed in. After this, the president decided that everyone would participate together, but the amount increased to 500 billion. And recently it was announced that 1 trillion budget rubles would be allocated for these purposes. Drones are needed today, but there are not enough of them, and they are already fighting for money until 2030. And so it is everywhere.
          Decisions are made behind the scenes, at the group level....
          https://svpressa.ru/economy/article/386978/
          1. +1
            16 September 2023 21: 33
            Unfortunately, the Almata engine is not only a financial issue. The X-shaped layout is a stillborn idea.
        2. +3
          15 September 2023 08: 43
          So, if Omsk can rivet MBTs, then Tagil will be able to reduce their production volume and pay attention to armature...
          I think in many ways this is what is being done.
        3. +4
          15 September 2023 12: 13
          Quote: Stas157
          Isn’t it better to put innovative Armature into production than to return to the production of a tank that was stopped being produced 30 years ago?

          In the current conflict, no, it is not better. "Armata" is a very crude, capricious, unfinished machine. It essentially does not have a reliable engine; it is not optimal in terms of armament and does not provide such a significant increase in combat capabilities as to cover these risks in the current conflict. Which at any moment can develop into a global one. In such conditions, it is necessary to produce proven equipment in the maximum possible quantities. Omsktransmash has all the equipment for the production of the T-80. First of all, its chassis.
          Do you have any suspicions that there will be problems with the production of towers?
          This can be easily solved by installing an updated T-80 turret from a T-90 with all the accompanying electronic equipment on the shoulder strap. In addition, it is not solid cast, but welded, multi-layered, made of rolled armor. Unification of the turret with the T-90M would be the best solution.
          And if necessary, the engine can be installed as a diesel engine, with a transmission from the same T-90M. Such experiments were carried out (at the request of Pakistan) and no special problems were found during the modernization of the T-80UD. It is easier for Omsk to launch lines using existing equipment, it will be faster and cheaper. In addition, the chassis of the T-80 is much better than that of the T-72\T-90. As a result, we will get the same T-90M, but on a better chassis, with the same attachments and dynamic protection.
          Those. complete unification except for the chassis.
          But the possibility of releasing a new T-80 with a gas turbine unit will remain.
          Quote: Stas157
          Fittings into production

          This is only possible if there is a VERY serious drawdown in the number of tanks produced. In addition, "Armata" will have to be mastered from scratch by the troops, crews and technical personnel will have to be trained from scratch, parts warehouses will have to be loaded with spare parts for unlike-unlike tanks... This is such a hassle for... EVERYONE, especially for the deputy technical engineers, that in During a war this is definitely not worth doing.
          1. +4
            15 September 2023 15: 23
            The engines of the Armata platform have already been completed. Work on this was completed just a month ago.

            There is no way to put diesel engines from the T-72/T-90 into the T-80 body - they are several times larger in size.

            They don’t know how to make compact “Kharkov” tank diesel engines in our country.
            1. +3
              15 September 2023 20: 00
              Quote: Alexander Kazakov_2
              The engines of the Armata platform have already been completed. Work on this was completed just a month ago.

              If this is really the case, then that's good. But I would be careful about launching this tank into production in this guise. Such a platform is justified only with 152 mm. weapon Otherwise, it will simply be more expensive, complex, large and unused by the troops... although more protected, an analogue of the T-90M.
              Quote: Alexander Kazakov_2
              There is no way to put diesel engines from the T-72/T-90 into the T-80 body - they are several times larger in size.

              And yet, the same Uzbeks managed to change the engines in their T-64s to T-90 engines on their own. They had to redo the MTO, but they succeeded. UVZ also managed to replace the Kharkov boxer engine in the T-80UD with its own diesel engine. At the request of Pakistan, such experiments were carried out.
              Quote: Alexander Kazakov_2
              They don’t know how to make compact “Kharkov” tank diesel engines in our country.

              But you yourself write that a month ago you finalized the engine for the Armata. It is also more compact than the T-90 engine. And at the same time almost one and a half times more powerful. So there is a choice.
            2. 0
              16 September 2023 21: 44
              The volumes of MTO T-64/T-80UD, T-72/T-90 and T-80 differ within the limits of engineering error (+/- 10%).
              The most interesting thing is that the T-72 managed to cram the French ESM-350 transmission with a relatively small increase in volume. This is PT-91, and we made such a model when there was “peace, friendship, chewing gum.”
    2. -5
      15 September 2023 05: 46
      Tell me the country that currently has 2 Obt in its service??? Simultaneously?
      1. +9
        15 September 2023 06: 05
        China, for example, still has tanks in service from the modernized Type 59 to Type 99A, and the Type 96 and Type 99 MBTs were produced simultaneously for quite some time.
        Or take Japan for example, they are now simultaneously producing Type 10 tanks and Type 16 wheeled tanks, which replace the outdated Type 74 tanks, and Type 90 tanks also remain in service.
      2. -1
        15 September 2023 06: 14
        Quote: Clever man
        Tell me the country that currently has 2 Obt in its service??? Simultaneously?

        Is this a reason to abandon the Soviet legacy? For example, the Hikhli did not refuse, and now they have either 4 or 5 types of MBT.
        By the way, what prevents, in the future, from creating one type, but for two engines, the T-80UD as an example.
        1. -2
          15 September 2023 06: 37
          I'm talking about producing the T90 in Omsk so that there is unification
          1. +5
            15 September 2023 12: 30
            Quote: Clever man
            I'm talking about producing the T90 in Omsk so that there is unification

            In Omsk, all the equipment for the production of the T-80 chassis is available; until recently, some types of heavy tracked vehicles were produced on this base. Let's say the entire tracked base for the S-300V4. Everything is there for this purpose, there is no need to rebuild anything. Yes, the T-80 chassis is much better than the T-72 chassis. So the T-80 can be launched quickly and inexpensively. But the engine can be diesel, from the T-90, as well as the turret and all the avionics for it.
        2. +1
          15 September 2023 12: 33
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          By the way, what prevents, in the future, from creating one type, but for two engines, the T-80UD as an example.

          Absolutely nothing interferes. Moreover, recently, at the request of Pakistan, experiments were carried out to install an engine from the T-80M in the T-90UD with minimal modifications. What can we say about producing such a tank from scratch. After all, the chassis of the T-80 is much better than that of the T-72.
          1. +1
            15 September 2023 16: 05
            There is probably one problem: the T-80UD had a Kharkov 6TD diesel engine, which is much more compact than the diesel engine on the T-72 (but also seems more capricious). That is, the hull will probably have to be greatly altered to accommodate the diesel engine from the T-72, but what we have now with the 6TD is a question. The engine for the Armata (a modification could be suitable) is more compact, but is still raw, as I understand it.
            1. +2
              15 September 2023 20: 23
              Quote from shikin
              : the T-80UD had a Kharkov 6TD diesel engine, which is much more compact than a diesel engine

              Nevertheless, the T-80 engine is installed in the T-90UD after some modification of the MTO. But we are talking about the construction of NEW tanks, therefore the MTO will be immediately designed for its engine.
              Quote from shikin
              The engine for the Armata (a modification could be suitable) is more compact, but is still raw, as I understand it.

              Yes, they say that they finished finishing work on it a month ago, and it seems to be ready. But I wouldn't risk it with him, at least right now. Yes, and it will be redundant.
      3. +3
        15 September 2023 06: 17
        In fact, it’s hard not to name such a country...
        1. +8
          15 September 2023 06: 33
          The question was asked incorrectly. Name at least one country where 2 MBTs are produced simultaneously.
          1. -2
            15 September 2023 10: 29
            That's exactly what I wanted to write! Thanks for correcting it! 2 different Obt is expensive even for the first economies of the world
      4. +3
        15 September 2023 09: 39
        Türkiye, China, Ukraine))).
        In general, we should not look at individual countries. Here is NATO, a single organization and single logistics in case of war...
        And here each country has its own tank, a large one of course, although unified, but its own.
        Why? What's stopping you from building factories and riveting Abrams or leopards for everyone - nothing. Everyone builds 500 pieces in total, but their own. Why?
        The answer is obvious, to create competition, as well as to allow time to test different approaches, very often, something is better here and now, and something is promising. Then both are built, and when a technological leap occurs and the technology becomes relevant, there are already people with experience in design, production and operation in this direction.
        And if you have no experience in this, then there is no reason to push away.
        In addition, all tanks 72-80-90 are already largely unified between the Leo2a5 and Leo2a7 or the Abrams A1M2 and the last Sep 4, the difference seems to be no more than between the T-80 and T72/90...
        And most likely, since production will be under the auspices of Uralvagonzavod, the unification will become even greater...
        The fact that the engines are different is even good... In the event of war, 2 different factories have a better chance of surviving than one, on which the enemy will immediately throw all his strength.
        Therefore, all strategic military production is always duplicated - several shipyards, several aviation holdings, several tank factories, several weapons factories, several ammunition factories.
        The only trouble is that now “effective managers” have shoved everything into single corporations, essentially killing competition...
        1. +1
          15 September 2023 11: 31
          And here each country has its own tank, a large one of course, although unified, but its own. What's stopping you from building factories and riveting Abrams or leopards for everyone - nothing. Everyone builds 500 pieces in total, but their own. Why?


          The desire of each country to develop, earn money, have some kind of independence, etc. “gets in the way.” There is no conscious creation of competition here, IMHO.

          The US military-industrial complex is more powerful than the rest of NATO combined, if I’m not mistaken. And they have one tank and, in general, the maximum unification of everything possible. I don't think they can adopt several different MBTs just to provide competition.

          By the way, initially they planned to make one tank together with Germany. At some point, there was a possibility that the Leopard 2 would be adopted into service. But it didn’t work out due to non-compliance with American requirements, it seems.
      5. +6
        15 September 2023 15: 43
        China, Italy, Israel, Great Britain (Challenger 2 and 3), Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Ukraine, Egypt, Algeria, India.

        This is the minimum.
      6. +1
        16 September 2023 01: 44
        Quote: Clever man
        Tell me the country that currently has 2 Obt in its service??? Simultaneously?

        So our country’s size is somewhat larger than that of others.
        And you need a lot of tanks, and you need a lot of everything.
        Apart from the Russian Federation, the MiG-31, for example, is not needed by anyone. And for us - very much so.
        1. +1
          17 September 2023 13: 31
          Large countries probably need a lot quantitatively. Actually, many countries are trying to unify everything as much as possible, so that it is easier and cheaper to produce in large quantities, as far as I understand. But I’m not an expert, so I can’t categorically say anything, I can only speculate.
      7. +2
        16 September 2023 11: 10
        China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey, Poland... Yes, the same USA - Abrams + M60 in storage.
    3. +3
      15 September 2023 06: 23
      From everything I read, I realized that the production of the T-80 was stopped due to the plant being loaded with the fact that it can now produce without upgrading the production lines, the main thing is quantity, not quality, then more crews will be needed.
      1. +1
        15 September 2023 07: 43
        Quote from Silver99
        From everything I read, I realized that the production of the T-80 was stopped due to the plant being loaded with what it can now produce without upgrading the production lines,

        So here's the question? Resume the production of the T-80 because the T-90M is not enough or there is still a demand for tanks with gas turbine engines (better dynamics and operation, increased speed, etc.) If the former, then it would probably be optimal to focus Omsk for repair and modernization of the T -72, and Nizhny to focus on the production of new T-90M. And if the latter, then the T-90M with a gas turbine engine should be produced in Omsk. Moreover, some components can be imported from Nizhny.
        1. -2
          15 September 2023 10: 31
          As a resident of Nizhny Tagil, I very much agree with you!
        2. +1
          16 September 2023 11: 11
          Quote: man in the street
          And if the latter, then the T-90M with a gas turbine engine should be produced in Omsk. Moreover, some components can be imported from Nizhny.

          Most likely, if this idea is implemented, the result will be a T-80 with a turret from the T-90M
    4. +3
      15 September 2023 08: 43
      Plus the obvious advantages of gas turbine engines in the cold winter period.
    5. -4
      15 September 2023 12: 09
      But turbines are much more complex and expensive to manufacture, and also to operate. Not to mention the fact that the tank battalion will have to be chased by a separate column of vehicles with aviation kerosene. And anyway, why have two different tanks with the same weapons?
      1. +2
        16 September 2023 21: 55
        But in the Soviet Union there were pipeline troops, and their commander said this: “The main thing is, you quickly break to the English Channel, and we will tighten the pipes for you.”
        The turbine is easier to operate.
  2. +4
    15 September 2023 05: 03
    In addition, there is some probability that the Omsk projects “Burlak” and “Black Eagle”, once shelved, will be at least partially introduced into production in the form of design solutions.

    Once upon a time we also hoped that the new An-2 would be made from new materials, so that two fingers could touch the asphalt...
    * * *
    Nothing personal, except profit...
    1. +4
      15 September 2023 15: 47
      The new An-2 simply does not have its own engine. And among the “new materials” it is so expensive in small series that potential users instantly lose their erection (and the desire to buy).

      If you take any of the existing An-2 replacement projects and start producing thousands per year, then the price will come to an adequate level.
      1. 0
        16 September 2023 23: 07
        What is wrong with the An-2 with the TVD-20 turboprop engine? Why not install such an engine on the LMS-901 Baikal?
  3. +7
    15 September 2023 05: 48
    the Omsk projects “Burlak” and “Black Eagle” hidden under the carpet will be at least partially implemented, in the form of constructive solutions

    Until there is punishment for the liars who spoke about the analoguenet and the second in the world, all this will turn into another cut with an unclear result, unfortunately!
    1. -2
      15 September 2023 15: 48
      Why "second"? Quite a “first” - for a year and a half, a quarter of the available armed forces would have been able to fight all over NATO and the States would not have been able to survive.
  4. +2
    15 September 2023 06: 06
    Oh, now someone is rubbing their paws and sewing bigger pockets on their jackets laughing
  5. +2
    15 September 2023 06: 37
    The author did not cover the topic of Almaty at all
    1. +5
      15 September 2023 15: 50
      What is there to illuminate?! Too complicated and expensive for wartime.
  6. +2
    15 September 2023 06: 39
    Still, from the article I still don’t understand why the T-80. The equipment of the production lines is partially lost, partially destroyed, the engine seems to be being produced, but “little-little” and “many-many” will only happen in case of good cash injections and not “today” (and the price-ah!!!) , the OMS of the “wrong system” and again is not enough, but the one that is needed seems to be missing, different types and unification in the best old traditions. Somehow it would be more logical to develop the modernization of the reactivated T-80s, and organize production “from scratch” on the basis of the T-90M (and even if they decided that a gas turbine engine is needed, then set up production of the T-90M gas turbine engine)
    1. 0
      15 September 2023 08: 40
      Quote: mark1
      Still, from the article I still don’t understand why the T-80. The equipment of the production lines is partially lost, partially destroyed, the engine seems to be being produced, but “little-little” and “many-many” will only happen in case of good cash injections and not “today” (and the price-ah!!!) , the OMS of the “wrong system” and again is not enough, but the one that is needed seems to be missing, different types and unification in the best old traditions. Somehow it would be more logical to develop the modernization of the reactivated T-80s, and organize production “from scratch” on the basis of the T-90M (and even if they decided that a gas turbine engine is needed, then set up production of the T-90M gas turbine engine)

      So most likely this is a “new production” and will be reactivated with modernization. The same new T-90A have a body from the T-72b
    2. +2
      15 September 2023 09: 56
      Still, from the article I still don’t understand why the T-80.

      99% tank "Alyosha" provoked. This is how decisions are made in our country.

      Although from the analysis of the battle no special advantages emerge for the T-80. Moreover, the battle itself... Let's just say - a little chaotic. wink
      Which absolutely does not exclude the heroism of the crew. hi

      But now that’s it, the crew got an appointment with Him, everything connected with this will go into development, and it doesn’t matter that for the price of one T-80 you can build 2 T-90s. Yes
      1. -1
        15 September 2023 11: 35
        Quote: Arzt
        99% tank "Alyosha" provoked

        Well, this seems to be part of the truth (however, there was a story about “Black Eagle” before)
    3. +4
      15 September 2023 15: 54
      Relatively speaking, with the available resources, it is possible to launch the T-80BVM series in a year, and the T-90M in 5.

      All diesel engines are 100%, they are made in 3 shifts, 7 days a week and go entirely to UVZ, and gas turbine engines are assembled a couple of days a month with nose picking and smoke breaks. That is, it is almost impossible to increase the production of diesel engines, but gas turbine engines can be produced a hundred times more without much effort.
  7. +11
    15 September 2023 07: 05
    Not a tanker, but a nephew who is fighting in the 80th, they were knocked out three times, but were not repaired and went into battle again, the last time due to repairs, he arrived later. The tank is praised, in capable hands it is an excellent machine.
  8. -2
    15 September 2023 07: 06
    What’s stopping you from starting to produce? MORE T-72\90?
    So 80ka - the same eggs but in profile, and more expensive.
    1. +4
      15 September 2023 15: 56
      A completely different tank. The hull, the chassis, the armor (and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the engine) are completely different. The dynamics in battle are completely different.

      Only the gun is the same.
    2. 0
      25 December 2023 08: 35
      Quote: pettabyte
      What’s stopping you from starting to produce? MORE T-72\90?
      .

      What's stopping you from producing Lada on Moskvich? It seems like (...the same eggs but in profile, and more expensive.)
  9. -2
    15 September 2023 07: 13
    In general, it would be possible to take the T-72 and make it a variant like IT-1 (no cannon, a rocket rises from the turret) but based on the Chrysanthemum, with a radar.
    Chrysanthemum with tank armor - it would seem ideal against tanks.
    1. +2
      16 September 2023 11: 14
      The main question remains: why? The ATGM on a pickup truck is more effective due to its lower visibility. If we are going to rivet special vehicles on the base of a tank, then BMPT and BMR. And not to implement a dead-end idea from the 60s.
      1. 0
        25 December 2023 19: 03
        Why is dead-end, radar and automation cool?
        It will shoot down both a helicopter and a tank.
        Another thing is that it’s even more logical to stick Chrysanthemum on a helicopter.
  10. +3
    15 September 2023 07: 14
    It is unlikely that they will be able to restore production of the T-80 in a couple of years. The towers on them are cast, but they are not made from the word at all. Install a turret from the T-90M? Will UVZ be able to provide extra towers for Omsk? I doubt. Yes, and it’s simply impossible to install a turret from a T-90M on a T-80, if only because on one there is a MZ, on the other there is an AZ. Regarding armored hulls: as they say, there is equipment for them, but is there any extra rolled armor steel for them? Plus the engine with which the rate of production is not clear. And the hull/turret/engine are the most labor/time-consuming and resource-intensive parts of the tank. So these are all plans in the long term.
    1. 0
      15 September 2023 14: 14
      Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
      It is unlikely that they will be able to restore production of the T-80 in a couple of years. The towers on them are cast, but they are not made from the word at all. Install a turret from the T-90M? Will UVZ be able to provide extra towers for Omsk? I doubt. Yes, and it’s simply impossible to install a turret from a T-90M on a T-80, if only because on one there is a MZ, on the other there is an AZ. Regarding armored hulls: as they say, there is equipment for them, but is there any extra rolled armor steel for them? Plus the engine with which the rate of production is not clear. And the hull/turret/engine are the most labor/time-consuming and resource-intensive parts of the tank. So these are all plans in the long term.

      They will give a period of a couple of years to restore production, then they will carry out acceptance for the same amount of time, then a shift to the right of mass production... either the donkey dies or the padishah, and whoever understood the production of tanks better will no longer matter.
      1. +3
        15 September 2023 15: 57
        Are you there in Kyiv, are you comforting each other?! 8))

        In vain! All will be. On time.
  11. -1
    15 September 2023 07: 15
    This is some kind of nonsense. Again, two types of MBT in the army, and even to revive the plant for this? How much money and time will it take? Wouldn't it be better to analyze the bottlenecks at UVZ and expand its production?
    1. +3
      15 September 2023 09: 52
      Quote: Jackson
      This is some kind of nonsense. Again, two types of MBT in the army, and even to revive the plant for this? How much money and time will it take? Wouldn't it be better to analyze the bottlenecks at UVZ and expand its production?

      Three types.
      1. +4
        15 September 2023 16: 00
        Three types, not counting the T-62 and T-54/T-55!))

        True, the enemy’s zoo is still many times larger.
    2. 0
      25 December 2023 08: 45
      Quote: Jackson
      Isn’t it better to analyze the bottlenecks of UVZ and expand its production?

      Why immediately minus a person... There is logic in this. The base is the same - different engines, for different operating conditions (Arctic, Caucasus, etc.) In emergency conditions, interchangeability, and forward.
  12. +3
    15 September 2023 07: 41
    I wonder who is against this? The tank is excellent, and is used for certain regions even more successfully than others. Why invent something new now, only to test it for years, waste time and money, and everyone knows how new models are put into production in our country :( so it’s better if it’s well-known, widespread, studied by tank crews!
  13. +5
    15 September 2023 08: 45
    Well, once again I am convinced how right the generals of THOSE years were, especially since many of them went through the war as lieutenants-majors and really knew what was needed in war - innumerable herds of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and mountains of spare parts not from tyranny, but from knowledge of real war. And if you remember the deceitful words of the biathlon general about 70% of new equipment in the Army, then you understand that if it weren’t for the huge legacy of our ancestors, how would we fight now? I would like to say, have a good trip, but even if I have confidence in my soul, it will end in nothing again. Elementary - where to recruit experienced turners, welders, mechanics, technologists, engineers - there are no managers, but really knowledgeable and experienced workers? It looks like fairy tales from our Putin forest again.
    1. +6
      15 September 2023 09: 31
      Omsk is a city with a population of one million. Where is it easier to recruit workers and engineers in a city of a million people or in a city with a population of three hundred thousand? The answer is obvious. In addition, the city of Omsk is one of the most depressed in Russia with clearly redundant labor resources.
      1. 0
        15 September 2023 16: 02
        Then we need to start with the revival of vocational schools or even training personnel for these vocational schools. And you won't earn much from this. How many specialists are there really in the Russian Federation? Not lawyers, managers or economists. The last normal software engineers have gone abroad because they understand that soon they will have to work in sharashkas for grub.
  14. 0
    15 September 2023 09: 25
    This is a very interesting idea, but only if it is produced in a (conditionally) “black eagle” version with an automatic loader and ammunition placed in a niche. This will allow us to quickly supply our army with armored vehicles that meet the complex requirements of the modern battlefield. In the end, increasing the survivability of tank crews is one of the most important tasks in the development of the Russian armored forces. And you don’t have to wait for that bright moment when the “Armata” will be brought to fruition.
    1. +2
      15 September 2023 16: 03
      “Into a niche” is this so that it would be more convenient for drones to take out a tank with a single hit? 8)))
      1. 0
        15 September 2023 21: 08
        Into a niche so that the entire crew would not burn out from a single hit. Together with the tank. The drone doesn't care what it punches. 40 mm of niche or 40 mm of roof above the combat one.. There, you know, after the roof, only the carcasses of the crew act as protection and the charge is separated only by a combustible cartridge case with an ignition temperature of 300 degrees.. A random hot ball rolled from the godfather into the pan (and who has ever fenced cooked, they know how it happens) and goodbye dear crew.. Everything that is in the ammunition rack catches fire very quickly.. Because they are separated from each other by tin bulkheads and a combustible cartridge case.
  15. +4
    15 September 2023 09: 39
    This is all discussion of words and speculation. The words of those who led to the current situation.

    Meanwhile, it has long been said: “Judge by deeds.” And everyone sees things around them, and in real, confirmed productions somewhere out there.

    By the way, they wrote that there is still a stock of 3000 T80 in storage. Outdated, but they still need to be overhauled. So all the words can be understood not literally, but... “optimized”?
    1. +6
      15 September 2023 16: 06
      Not there, but “there was a year and a half ago.”

      How many of them have already been taken for the needs of the Northern Military District, and how many are garbage rotted to the ground, history is silent. We are not Nevada; there are no wastelands with zero humidity (and year-round above-zero temperatures) for storing equipment.
      1. +1
        16 September 2023 22: 09
        How do you imagine a “rotted to the ground” building?
        I can imagine a torsion bar, but, say, a balance beam or roller fittings - not.
        I'm afraid that rubber is stored worse in Nevada than in our snowy expanses.
  16. -3
    15 September 2023 10: 04
    Quote: Vadim S
    I wonder who is against this?

    Yes, no one is against it, you understand, restoring a plant for assembling tanks will not take a month or even a year. We haven’t talked about personnel for the plant yet, new citizens from SA. will they collect tanks???
    1. +7
      15 September 2023 16: 07
      In a depressed city with a million population, there will be people willing to work. For a decent salary, of course.
  17. +4
    15 September 2023 10: 05
    Why is it clear...
    They want to revive the plant, and therefore it needs to be loaded with orders.
    It is also clear how they will restore it; most likely, UVZ will transfer part of its personnel and perhaps even some part of its machine park. This is a normal practice when factories reproduce by budding, especially since now they are within one integrated structure... In fact, since 99,9% of the shares belong to UVZ, the Omsk plant is actually its second site.
    So, most likely, UVZ will share personnel and the unification between the T-80 and T-72/90 will become even higher...
    It is possible that the towers will be produced in Tagil and sent to Omsk, at least at the beginning.
    It is logical to assume that as soon as production is ramped up in Omsk, it will be possible to free up capacity for Armata in Tagil, because it is impossible to leave the army without the production of equipment during combat operations, and now all efforts are being devoted to repair, modernization and construction of used models, as soon as New 80s will go to Omsk, and in Tagil they will be able to allocate capacity for the production and refinement of Armata.
    Because piece production is one thing, and creating a full-fledged production line for them is quite another. It is necessary to select a workshop, or even more than one, rearrange it, and perhaps technologically equip the line, and perhaps, and most certainly, it will have to be optimized several more times during production. In general, this is a long process that requires dedication from the best personnel of the plant, which means it is necessary to reduce the load on them, and to reduce it, it is necessary to launch another plant so that the army does not end up with a shortage of tanks.
    1. 0
      15 September 2023 21: 16
      will free up capacity for Armata,

      Do you need it now? The Coalition should have been put on the assembly line yesterday
      1. +2
        16 September 2023 10: 02
        Quote: 1z1
        The Coalition should have been put on the assembly line yesterday
        It’s already on the assembly line (it was in the news).
  18. -8
    15 September 2023 10: 06
    Quote: Khibiny Plastun
    - if not for the huge legacy of our ancestors, how would we fight now?

    I don’t know, maybe they wouldn’t have gone to the outskirts then, they would have continued to trade resources...
    1. +7
      15 September 2023 16: 11
      Yeah, we would look with interest at the concentration camps for Russians in the Donbass and near Simferopol, the NATO bases in Sevastopol and Kharkov. Well, at the same time - how a million-strong army is accumulated, equipped with NATO equipment and trained by NATO instructors, motivated to “liberate the historical Ukrainian lands - Stavropol and Kuban.”
    2. +3
      15 September 2023 21: 17
      would continue to trade resources...

      What are they selling now?
  19. -7
    15 September 2023 10: 37
    “Serialism is the corrupt girl of imperialism” is the credo of the domestic military-industrial complex. It’s normal to modernize the T-80BVM to compensate for losses, but Omsk wants to spend several years restarting production, by which time the SVO will end and the project will be curtailed, since there will be no demand - the state’s budget is not rubber.
    Before the SVO, our country produced about 300 tanks per year (of which 100 tank kits were for India), I think that now production has increased to 600 tanks per year + removal from storage with minor modernization + modernization of the T-62.
    According to Oryx, our army has recently been losing about 80 tanks per month; the existing capacity is more than enough to replenish the losses. According to Military Balance, there were about 5 thousand tanks in storage; OSINT resources provide footage that 2/3 of these tanks look complete.
    Those. this whole project with the T-80 just drank money and nothing more
    1. +2
      15 September 2023 16: 14
      With a 99% probability, the Northern Military District will escalate into a war with Poland. At best, localized by the territory of Ukraine. And it’s not a fact that only Poland.

      In general, you can safely count on 5 years. German generals are already talking about 10 years of war.
      1. 0
        16 September 2023 11: 17
        Considering how many Polish mercenaries and vacationers, Polish armor, artillery and other equipment (up to their most modern and expensive wheeled infantry fighting vehicles) have already been destroyed or exposed, then we are essentially at war with the Polish expeditionary force.
  20. +2
    15 September 2023 10: 47
    At a minimum (I don’t want to get involved in comparing “carts with gas turbine engines and Diesel”), the BO must be the same, and the BO of the T90M tank is now the most advanced that exists. But the turret on the T80 will not fit..... Making another tank is an analogue T90M with gas turbine engine (plus or minus) in terms of money and labor costs will be the same as launching the T90M itself in OMSK.
    If I were our generals, I would consider the production of T90m hulls and turrets somewhere at a metallurgical plant external to UVZ.....
    1. 0
      15 September 2023 12: 39
      Quote: Zaurbek
      If I were our generals, I would consider the production of T90m hulls and turrets somewhere at a metallurgical plant external to UVZ.....

      To do this, you first need to know where the weak link is that limits the production of tanks.
      Maybe they can pour and weld a lot of hulls and turrets, but keep producing supplies of related equipment, engines, guns, automation, electrics, electronics?
      I think there are no big problems with the buildings, it’s all in the power of the plant.
      And there is a Nizhny Tagil metallurgical plant nearby.
      1. +1
        15 September 2023 13: 45
        Well, they share some of the critical components: Gun, sights, control system (not the same, but plus or minus one level)... Hulls plus or minus one level. That leaves MTO. Descendant B2 has much more production capacity. Because There are serial civilian modifications of it.
        1. 0
          15 September 2023 14: 21
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Well, they share some of the critical components: Gun, sights, control system (not the same, but plus or minus one level)... Hulls plus or minus one level. That leaves MTO. Descendant B2 has much more production capacity. Because There are serial civilian modifications of it.

          What serial civilian equipment is currently equipped with the V-2 diesel engine or its descendants? It’s just that the diesel itself is from the 30s of the last century. Of course, it is quite reliable and mastered in production, but in other respects it is completely outdated.
          1. +3
            15 September 2023 14: 49
            D-12A-525A
            Totals
            Manufacturer "Transmash", Barnaul
            Type diesel

            D12A-375A for engineering tractors MAZ-538, KZKT-538.
            D12A-375B for BelAZ-6411 airfield tractor units, as well as for replacing worn-out 27-ton BelAZ-540 dump trucks.
            D12A-525 - for multi-axle tractor units MAZ-537 and its modifications, KZKT-7428, KZKT-74281.
            D12A-525A - for multi-axle tractor units MAZ-543 and its modifications, MAZ-7310, MAZ-7311, MAZ-74106 and airfield tractor units BelAZ-6422, BelAZ-7211.
            1. +2
              15 September 2023 17: 41
              Quote: Zaurbek
              D-12A-525A
              Totals
              Manufacturer "Transmash", Barnaul
              Type diesel

              D12A-375A for engineering tractors MAZ-538, KZKT-538.
              D12A-375B for BelAZ-6411 airfield tractor units, as well as for replacing worn-out 27-ton BelAZ-540 dump trucks.
              D12A-525 - for multi-axle tractor units MAZ-537 and its modifications, KZKT-7428, KZKT-74281.
              D12A-525A - for multi-axle tractor units MAZ-543 and its modifications, MAZ-7310, MAZ-7311, MAZ-74106 and airfield tractor units BelAZ-6422, BelAZ-7211.

              I looked at your list. These are either mining dump trucks from the USSR, which have not been produced for 40 years, or tractors for tanks or air defense systems. Well, or very specific and rare products, the customer of which does not care about fuel consumption. So there is no point in talking about real civil proceedings.
              1. 0
                18 September 2023 12: 43
                Now the situation is different. Civilian diesel engines of 400-550 hp have appeared. And in any case, the B12 is more serial than the gas turbine unit from the T80
        2. +2
          15 September 2023 16: 16
          Where are we using tank diesel engines in civilian life? Also in large numbers?
      2. 0
        15 September 2023 21: 21
        I think there are no big problems with the buildings, it’s all in the power of the plant.

        The hulls can, after all, be riveted at a shipyard. So I think the weak link is not here
    2. +1
      16 September 2023 22: 15
      And so it was. T-72 turrets were cast in Sverdlovsk, and Leningrad T-80 hulls were stamped and welded at the Izhora plant.
  21. +2
    15 September 2023 10: 57
    Maybe the author doesn’t know something? It is quite possible that they will be prepared for the north.
  22. +4
    15 September 2023 11: 25
    Is there anything left from tank production at the Kirov plant in Leningrad? After all, the T-80 was made there, and it was developed there. It makes sense to restore the production of this tank in Omsk if the production assets are preserved, if the plant can be quickly reactivated.
    1. +2
      15 September 2023 21: 24
      Is there anything left from tank production at the Kirov plant in Leningrad?

      No
      1. 0
        23 September 2023 16: 44
        The 3rd production is now called "Universalmash" and makes the chassis for the S-300V.
  23. +3
    15 September 2023 11: 31
    Quote: Eduard Perov
    ...Apparently, the absence of rubbing parts and reciprocating movements determined that even before the SVO, most of the gas turbine engines were simply replaced with new ones due to breakdowns due to the impossibility of repairing them by military units. recourse

    before and after its start, not the majority, but absolutely all T80s converted into a BVM modification had their power plant changed, because this is one of the aspects of modernization, since the T80B and T80BV (the T80BVM is created on the basis of these tanks) initially had the outdated GTD1000 .

    PS By the way, I remember at the beginning I often saw regular T80bv and even T80u in the frames
  24. -1
    15 September 2023 13: 00
    All the same, the idea does not seem sensible to me, and although it may have advantages in the short-to-medium period, these advantages are offset by the fact that the current design of tanks ALREADY looks archaic in the conditions of the Northern Military District, not fully meeting even such conditions, and a collision with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
    Specifically, the problem of protection from drones and roof breakers, protection from mines, requirements for armor protection, for communications, for situational awareness and network-centricity, for maintainability - all this leads to the fact that it is probably better to direct resources to deepening the modernization of the T-90 and T-72 (at least), and even better, to launch a project based on the Kurganets, taking into account all these new challenges, and at the same time more budgetary than the Armata.

    Of course, we will be able to plug the T-80 hole, but this will be at the cost of losing time to prepare better solutions, and we may be unprepared for new supplies from the West.
  25. +2
    15 September 2023 14: 42
    In general, the T-80 is a tank of the polar zone, and there we formed Finland...
  26. +1
    15 September 2023 15: 13
    In the topic raised, two questions can be distinguished, which have already been indicated in the comments.
    The first question is: who is to blame?
    The Yeltsin-Putin treacherous clan is to blame, which destroyed, betrayed and plundered the USSR. A solution, therefore, is possible and necessary after the elimination of the usurper clique, the restoration of the Soviet Union and the coming to power of the political forces of humanity, goodness and justice.
    Without a political solution, technical solutions are doomed to failure because they did not destroy the economy and defense potential of the country in order to restore it later. They can allocate a budget and cut it again and again, but the clock is ticking, the country is heading towards disaster and the political situation is catastrophic.

    Second question: what to do?
    After eliminating the country's political leadership and their masters - the treacherous mafia, it is necessary to think about a competent technical solution.
    I think that one should not try to enter the same water twice, namely, one should not develop and release obsolete models from scratch. If we have to do it from scratch, then modern tanks, for example, ground-based drone tanks with a high degree of autonomy, controlled by artificial intelligence and remote control in case artificial intelligence cannot cope.
    Tankers have nothing to do in the tank. This will make it possible to reduce armor, increase ammunition, speed, range, accuracy and power of weapons.
    Moreover, this should not be an isolated tank, but a complex with target designation, fire adjustment and reconnaissance drones.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. +2
    15 September 2023 18: 57
    It is better to have two factories producing tanks and two new MBTs than to keep your eggs in one basket,
    no money you say? Why in a country where there is no money there are more than 100 dollar billionaires and 200 thousand dollar millionaires? The total wealth is more than a trillion dollars, and if you look closely, 90% of them accumulated their capital by selling the country's resources, and did not earn money by creating something with their minds. If there is a possibility of producing the T-80, then we need to do it, we need tanks today, and the SVO will not end soon, we just need to unify the T-80 and T-90 as much as possible, converting Omsk to produce the T-90 will take a very long time.
    1. +2
      15 September 2023 21: 34
      two new MBTs

      Well, it’s as if they’re not entirely new. Even the T-90 M.
      Why in a country where there is no money there are more than 100 dollar billionaires and 200 thousand dollar millionaires?

      That's right, where can there be money in the country if there are so many billionaires? But they won’t share, and the guarantor recently confirmed this.. So you and I need to tighten our belts.
      And there are only advantages from expanding production in Omsk. Moreover, the development of related high-tech enterprises will lead to
    2. 0
      18 September 2023 12: 44
      It’s even better to have two factories producing T90M, with the possibility of making it at a third factory. And so that all spare parts fit tanks from both factories.
  29. -4
    15 September 2023 20: 45
    Tanks are weapons of the 20th century. There they stand in the field, charred.
    1. +3
      15 September 2023 21: 37
      It’s stupid, you can’t get out of a positional war without tanks - you can’t break through the defenses, you can’t carry out raids, you can’t strengthen the defenses, you can’t withstand artillery attacks...
  30. -2
    15 September 2023 21: 33
    Only the last mind may not understand one single thing: “On the basis of the T-80, you can create excellent - well-protected tanks, with a large-caliber 152-mm gun, or even simpler - self-propelled guns. The latter, even howitzer, even "assault" - "sapper" I give...
  31. -4
    15 September 2023 22: 13
    I read it and the hair on my head began to stand up. This is a complete collapse. (The country is sliding into the abyss, and local experts are comparing themselves with pussies as to which engine is better. No, because, judging by the photo, they are already scraping along the bottom of the bottom drains, which the USSR filled in addition to galoshes.
    1. +2
      16 September 2023 11: 25
      I read it and the hair on my head started to move. This is a complete collapse

      You don’t understand what they’re arguing about at all.
      the dispute is about restoring tank production from scratch, and not restoring and modifying old vehicles.
      from scratch - this means increasing the production of armor steel, new engines, new guns and other components and assemblies
      What does this have to do with the bastards? Bottoms are when what is left from the so-called storage base is dragged from the street to the bulkhead.
  32. 0
    16 September 2023 00: 49
    I don’t know about you, but I heard the headline from the official’s words like this: the military were saying something there, but until they kick us from above, we will continue to do something, whatever we have planned, and then we’ll see, depending on the amount of money... .
  33. +1
    16 September 2023 01: 26
    It was necessary to waste 20 years of development of tank forces like that. For 10 years you have to watch Armatas drive past you in parades, and now you have to resume production of the T-80, a 40-year-old model, in order to bring at least something to the battlefield. When in the USSR every ten years a new, more advanced generation of tanks came out. Even during the most difficult war, they were able to master the new generation - what a qualitative increase it gave in the capabilities of the active army compared to the mass 34s...".. And then, along the free road behind us, suddenly our tank with an angular nose, IeS, a new product, the strongest armor, rolled up from the divisional one, it’s like throwing seeds at it. He stood between the guns and fired a warning three times at the motorized column, twice on the road to Adlig.
    And from there they didn’t interfere.
    The engines were pulled by the Germans into the forest.
    And two more IeS approached from behind.
    That's when it started to feel better.
    "
    And by analogy with the present time, some model of 20 years ago, “Freedom Fighter Comrade Lenin”, resumed in production, would be suitable, and even the T-34-76, which proved excellent at the beginning of the Second World War... it would feel better, only again wash your face with blood and show heroism.
  34. Owl
    +2
    16 September 2023 08: 54
    Take hulls from storage bases, refurbish or change gas turbine engines, install new observation and aiming devices, install new radio stations, change guns - in case of high wear, here is a new T-80.
    1. +1
      16 September 2023 15: 01
      Take cases from storage bases

      The so-called “storage bases” are not good riddance. From there they take 32 years and take...
  35. +1
    16 September 2023 18: 15
    The T-80 platform still has advantages. The chassis, as far as I remember, is significantly better than that of the T72-T90. The gas turbine engine also provides advantages, and although there are disadvantages, there are more advantages. The armor of the basic T80 is, of course, inferior to the latest versions of the T90, but no one is saying that the tanks will be made “from scratch” without using the latest developments. The issue of unification for new cars is also being resolved. The turret and fighting compartment just begs to be unified with the T90m, perhaps returning to the Burlak topic, again
    and for the purpose of further unification, only for the T90.
    1. +2
      21 September 2023 00: 09
      If what they say is serious, then for the purposes of the Northern Military District, the renewal of the T-80 may well be part of evolutionary development.
      Omsk at one time deteriorated from full assembly to restoration of the T-80 from storage. It is highly likely that the equipment on the lower part of the tank is like this or can be restored. This way you can start mixing new cases into the restoration pipeline.
      The T-80 turret is a separate issue. As far as I remember, in the development cycle of the T-80 there was already a story with the rearrangement of turrets from one modification of the T-80 to another. Therefore, apparently this issue will be solved in the same way - old turrets and most likely a new turret a la T-90m (the same or using the same technology), but taking into account a different type of loading.
      The engine is probably a single gas turbine engine. Well, the rest is as unified as possible. I would like it to follow the traditions of the T-34. With 43, there seemed to be only one tank, and each plant did the best it could, because unification was limited, the main thing was quickly, in large quantities, and cheaply. So here, too, they will restore the assembly line based on tanks from storage and begin, as best they can, to replace components from old vehicles with new ones more and more. The main thing is that there are enough engines and sights

      But the idea with an armata engine or a diesel engine is tempting, but it’s better to master the hydraulic automatic machine, as I understand, this will immediately take the tank to another level
  36. 0
    17 September 2023 17: 46
    Edward!
    Add a reader to the editorial staff. It will be “execute cannot be pardoned” surrounded by commas. Well, look at the text...

    It is worth admitting that sometimes the program “Military Acceptance” knows how to surprise. Thus, the gentlemen from the Zvezda TV channel, timed to coincide with Tankman’s Day, decided to dedicate one of the workhorses to a special operation in Ukraine -

    release dedicated to Tankman's Day, gentlemen

    It’s time to anathematize you for being “gentlemen” with a small letter.
    It’s clear what I wanted to write. But what wasn’t written? Well, I don't have time to re-read it. Happens. Hire an intern. Maybe someone on a voluntary basis wants to read the News first.
    A blot at the top of the sheet distorts the entire text. Even the correct text.
  37. +1
    20 September 2023 16: 38
    What prevents you from building at least three factories for the production of tanks? At least T-80, at least T-90? During the Second World War, factories were transported by rail to a bare field and within half a year they began producing tanks and weapons.
    1. 0
      24 September 2023 17: 45
      And if they produced not tanks, but bicycles, then in half a month. A modern tank, especially its filling, is much more complex than what it used to be. And the most important thing you yourself mentioned is that the factories were not created from scratch, but transported. Now there is no equipment, no specialists, and there is not even documentation left about the production of some components, when production was destroyed, all this was on cubic meters of old paper in the archives of abandoned factories.
  38. -2
    21 September 2023 10: 46
    Quote: Alexander Kazakov_2
    The engines of the Armata platform have already been completed. Work on this was completed just a month ago.

    Yeah, they brought it to a head, R&D was closed a long time ago and it ended unsuccessfully, they just sawed off the finances and that’s it.
  39. -1
    21 September 2023 10: 51
    Quote: Expert
    What is wrong with the An-2 with the TVD-20 turboprop engine? Why not install such an engine on the LMS-901 Baikal?

    The Omsk Motor Plant was destroyed long ago, at the instigation of the American puppet Pogosyan.
  40. +1
    16 October 2023 04: 24
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Specific fuel consumption of the GTD-1250 g/hp*h 225 in 1986 versus 156 g/hp*h for the V-92S2F 2017, so this is an exaggeration about the huge consumption.


    there's another joke there. The indicated costs are for maximum or near maximum power. But in a gas turbine engine, unlike a diesel engine, the specific consumption increases as the power decreases. i.e. at small/medium strokes the difference increases even more. in fact, from practice it was mentioned that on the march, tanks with gas turbine engines eat twice as much.
    Another thing is that this is not a problem with its static fronts. eats and eats - but survives due to speed. That’s why, apparently, they are reviving production - the most successful tank turned out to be, for the current conditions
  41. 0
    24 October 2023 21: 29
    Quote: bayard
    But the chassis of the T-80 is much better than that of the T-72. That is why in the late USSR it was on this chassis that all tracked vehicles of this weight class were made: self-propelled guns "Msta-S", self-propelled guns "Geotsint", self-propelled guns "Malka", mortar "Tulip", S-300V\B4 air defense system, air defense missile system, "Tunguska" "etc.


    Horses, people and volleys of thousands of guns mixed together... winked
    Hyacinth and Tulip based on Acacia. Acacia based on SU-100P. There was no smell of the 80s at that time...
    Tunguska on the GM-352 of the Minsk Tractor Plant... Later the chassis was made in Mytishchi with partial unification.
    Malka and S-300V4 - partially unified chassis with the T-80. Modified Peony...

    Of course, according to information from the Northern Military District zone, the T-80 chassis has superiority in tactical mobility over the T-64 chassis and, even more so, over the T-72/T-90 chassis. Higher cross-country ability in conditions of waterlogged, fatty black soil and heavy clay.

    Regarding engines, not everything is so clear... (With the outsider T-64 everything is clear - it is long outdated) Regarding turbines, the reviews are positive. They eat - yes... But as you eat, you drown!
    There are more complaints about the high visibility of vehicles in the TP and IR ranges.
  42. 0
    24 October 2023 21: 32
    Quote: squid
    Another thing is that this is not a problem with its static fronts. eats and eats - but survives due to speed. That’s why, apparently, they are reviving production - the most successful tank turned out to be, for the current conditions


    He flies where 64 crawls and 72/90 sits. And this is the main thing, not a barrel of kerosene.

    72/90 work great from Krasny Liman. There is sand there, not greasy black soil.

    A broom on swamp geese is our everything! But... this is only with OMS. RMSh is only a “mountain” goose. Excellent for sand and medium-bearing soils. For chernozem and clay, a higher than average mechanical drive is needed. Not many people can navigate the swamp.
  43. 0
    30 November 2023 09: 56
    It is interesting on whose initiative the tank design bureau in Leningrad was destroyed and the LKZ was severely damaged with the destruction of tank production. This is a crime against the country. Someone must answer for this. For example, in the 2nd industrial zone the LKZ test site was destroyed. I myself saw how bisectors were dismantled into metal for testing laser sights. And the land was distributed...who knows where.