Military Review

On the way to the T-80: tank gas turbine engines

43
In the fifties of the last century, gas turbine engines (GTE) of various classes were widely used. Turbojet engines clocked up Aviation to supersonic speeds, and locomotives and ships with the first models of gas turbine engines moved along water and railways. Attempts were made to equip such engines and trucks, however, these experiments were unsuccessful. Such power plants, with all their advantages - efficiency in the nominal operating mode, compactness and the ability to use various types of fuel - were not without drawbacks. First of all, this is too much fuel consumption during acceleration or braking, which ultimately determined the niche in which gas turbine engines found their application. One of the results of various experiments with such a power plant was the Soviet T-80 tank. But achieving worldwide fame was far from easy. Almost two decades passed from the beginning of work on the creation of a tank gas turbine engine to the beginning of its mass production.


First projects

The idea to make a tank with a gas turbine power plant appeared even when no one was thinking about the T-80 project. Back in 1948, the turbine production design office of the Leningrad Kirov Plant began work on a project for a tank horsepower engine with a capacity of 700 horsepower. Unfortunately, the project was closed for hopelessness. The fact is that the 700-strong engine, according to calculations, consumed an extremely large amount of fuel. Consumption recognized too large for practical use. A little later, attempts were repeatedly made to design other engines of this class, but they also did not give any result.

In the second half of the fifties, Leningrad designers created another engine that reached the prototype assembly stage. The resulting GTE-1 was not equipped with a heat exchanger and gave out power up to a thousand horsepower with fuel consumption in 350-355 g / hp. Soon, on the basis of this engine made two modifications: GTD1-Gv6 with a stationary heat exchanger and GTD1-Gv7 with a rotating. Unfortunately, despite some progress, all three GTE models had fuel consumption higher than estimated. It was not possible to improve this parameter, therefore the projects were closed.

Gas Turbine Engine GTD-1


In general, all of the early GTE projects for land, including tracked, vehicles were not particularly successful. All of them could not get to mass production. At the same time, during the development and testing of new engines, it was possible to find many new original technical solutions, as well as to collect the necessary information. By this time, two main trends had formed: attempts to adapt the aircraft engine for use on tank and make a special gas turbine engine.

In the early sixties, there were several events that positively affected the whole direction. First, the Research Institute of Engines (NIID) proposed several variants of the engine compartment for the T-55 tank. Two variants of a gas turbine engine were proposed, differing from each other in power and fuel consumption. In April, the corresponding order of the country's leadership was issued by 1961, according to which NIIED had to continue work on the projects started, and a special design bureau was established at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, which was exclusively engaged in the subjects of the CCD.

Chelyabinsk engines

The new bureau received the OKB-6 index and joined forces with the Engine Institute. The result of the design was the project of the CCD-700. With power up to 700 HP This engine consumed 280 g / hp.h, which was close to the required values. Characteristics so high for their time were due to a number of original solutions. First of all, it is necessary to note the design of the heat exchanger, the channels of which were optimized in terms of cross-section and gas flow rates. In addition, a new single-stage cyclone-type air cleaner, which detained up to 97% dust, had a beneficial effect on the operation of the engine. In 1965, the testing of the first two GTE-700 samples began. The operation of the engines on the stand showed all the advantages of the applied solutions, and also allowed to identify and correct the problems in time. Soon, three more GTD-700 engines were assembled, one of which was later installed on the experimental tank “Object 775T”. In March, the first launch of a gas turbine engine on a tank took place on 1968, and sea trials began a few days later. Until April next year, the experimental tank traveled about 900 kilometers with an engine operating time of about 100 hours.

Gas Turbine Engine GTD-700


Despite the successes, in the 1969, the testing of the GTE-700 engine was completed. At that time, work on the 775 Object missile tank and, as a result, its gas turbine modification was stopped. However, the development of the engine has not stopped. According to the test results, NIID employees conducted several studies and came to positive conclusions. As it turned out, the design of the CCD-700 allowed to bring the power up to the level of the order of 1000 hp, and reduce fuel consumption to 210-220 g / hp.h. Perspective modification of the engine received the designation GTD-700M. Its design characteristics looked promising, which led to further developments. VNIITransmash (renamed VNII-100) and the LKZ design bureau attempted to install the GTD-700М on the “432 Object” and “287 Object” tanks. However, no practical results were achieved. The engine compartment of the first tank was not large enough to accommodate all the units of the power plant, and the second project was soon closed for hopelessness. On this история engine GTD-700 over.

Experimental tank "Object 775T"


The tank "object 432" in the series received the designation T-64


Experienced tank "Object 287". In the background on the right - a heavy tank T-10M


GTD-3 for the "432 Object"

Simultaneously with NIID and Chelyabinsk designers, they worked on their GTE projects in the Omsk OKB-29 (now the Omsk Motor-Building Design Bureau) and the Leningrad OKB-117 (the V.Ya. Klimov Plant). It is worth noting that the main focus of these enterprises was the adaptation of aircraft engines to tank “needs”. This fact is due to a number of features of the resulting engines. The GTE-3 helicopter turboshaft engine developed in Omsk was one of the first to undergo processing. After adaptation for use on the tank, he received a new GTD-3T index and slightly lost in power, from 750 to 700 hp. Fuel consumption in the tank version was 330-350 g / hp.h. Such fuel consumption was too high for practical use of the engine, but the GTD-3T was still installed on the undercarriage layout, the base for which was the T-54 tank. Later, a similar experiment was conducted with the T-55 tank (VNII-100 project) and with the “166TM Object” (the Uralvagonzavod project). It is noteworthy that after testing their prototype Tagil designers came to the conclusion that it would not be expedient to continue work on gas turbine topics and returned to the creation of diesel-powered tanks.

Gas turbine engine GTD-ZT


Experimental tank "Object 166TM"


In 1965, OKB-29 and VNII-100 were assigned to modify the engine of the CCD-3T for use on the “432 Object” tank, which was soon adopted under the designation T-64. During this revision, the engine received a new designation of the CCD-3TL and a number of design changes. The design of the compressor and the turbine casing changed, a system of gas by-pass after the compressor appeared, two new gearboxes were created (one in the motor unit, the other was located on the tank body), and the exhaust pipe was altered. Having relatively small dimensions, the GTD-3ТL engine fitted well into the engine and transmission compartment of the 432 Object, while additional tanks fit into the free volumes for 200 liters of fuel. It is worth noting that the MTO tank had to install not only a new engine, but also a new transmission adapted to work with a gas turbine engine. Engine torque was transmitted to the main gearbox and distributed to two onboard planetary gearboxes. In the design of the new transmission, the details of the original 432 Object system were widely used. Due to the specific requirements of the engine for the air supply, it was necessary to re-design the equipment for underwater driving, incorporating air feed and exhaust pipes of a larger diameter.

In the course of designing the GTD-3TL engine, in order to test some ideas, the GTD-55Т engine was installed on the T-3 tank. A tank with a gas turbine engine was compared with a similar armored vehicle equipped with a standard B-55 diesel engine. As a result of these tests, all preliminary calculations were confirmed. Thus, the average speed of an experienced tank turned out to be slightly higher than the serial speed, but this advantage had to be paid in 2,5-2,7 times higher fuel consumption. At the same time, by the time of the comparative tests, the required characteristics were not achieved. Instead of the necessary 700 hp GTD-3TL produced only 600-610 and burned the order of 340 g / hp, instead of the required 300. Increased fuel consumption has led to a serious reduction in power reserve. Finally, the resource in the 200 clock did not reach even half of the set 500. The identified deficiencies were taken into account and soon a full-fledged project of the CCD-3ТL appeared. By the end of 1965, OKB-29 and VNII-100 jointly completed the development of a new engine. The basis for it was not the tank GTE-3T, but the aviation GTD-3F. The new engine developed power up to 800 HP. and consumed no more than 300 g / hp. In 1965-66, two new engines were manufactured and tested on the “003 Object” tank, which was a modified “432 Object”.

Gas turbine engine GTD-ZTL


Experienced tank "Object 003"


Simultaneously with the testing of the tank "Object 003" was the development of the "Object 004" and the power plant for it. It was supposed to use the engine GTD-3TP, which had more power compared to the GTD-3TL. In addition, the motor with the “TP” index was to be placed not across the tank hull, but along, which resulted in the re-assembly of some units. The main paths of development remained the same, but their nuances underwent certain corrections related to the identified problems of gas turbine engines. We had to seriously modify the system of air intake and filtration, as well as exhaust gas exhaust. Another serious question concerned efficient engine cooling. Creating a new transmission, improving performance and bringing the service life to the required 500 hours also remained relevant. When designing the engine and transmission for the “Object 004” tank, we tried to assemble all the units in such a way that they could fit in MTO with minimal modifications.

The roof of the engine compartment and the stern sheet of the armored hull underwent the greatest changes. The roof was made of a relatively thin and light sheet with windows on which the air intake louver was placed. In the stern there were holes for the emission of engine gases and air from the cooling system. To increase the survivability of these holes covered with an armored cap. The engines and some transmission units were mounted on a newly developed frame, which was mounted on an armored hull without any modifications to the latter. The engine itself was installed longitudinally, with a slight shift from the axis of the tank to the left. Next to it are the fuel and oil pumps, 24 straight-flow cyclone air cleaning systems, a compressor, a starter-generator, etc.

Installation of the engine GTD-ZTP in the logistics of the tank "Object 004" (project).


The GTD-3TP engine could deliver power up to 950 hp. at fuel consumption in 260-270 g / hp, h. A characteristic feature of this engine was its scheme. Unlike previous engines of the GTD-3 family, it was made on a two-shaft system. The engine was coupled with a four-speed transmission, designed taking into account the typical loads for a gas turbine engine. According to calculations, the transmission could work for the entire life of the engine - up to 500 hours. The onboard gearboxes were the same size as the original “432 Object” and were placed in the original locations. Drives of control units of the engine and transmission in most of them were located on the old places.

As far as is known, the “004 Object” has remained on the drawings. In the course of its development we managed to solve several important issues, as well as determine plans for the future. Despite the decrease in the visibility of the tank with the CCD in the infrared spectrum, the improved quality of air cleaning, the creation of a special transmission, etc., the fuel consumption remained at an unacceptable level.

GTD from Leningrad

Another project that began in 1961 was Leningrad research into the prospects for the GTD-350 turboshaft engine. Leningrad Kirov Plant and Plant them. Klimov jointly began to study the question posed to them. As the stand itself for the first research the serial tractor K-700 was used. The GTD-350 engine was installed on it, to work with which it was necessary to modify the transmission a little. Soon another experiment began. This time the armored personnel carrier BTR-50П became the “platform” for the gas turbine engine. The details of these tests did not become public, but it is known that, based on their results, the GTD-350 engine was recognized as suitable for use on land vehicles.

Gas Turbine Engine GTD-350T


At its base, two variants of the engine GTD-350T were created, with and without a heat exchanger. Without a heat exchanger, a twin-shaft gas turbine engine with a free turbine developed power up to 400 hp. and had a fuel consumption of 350 g / hp. The version with a heat exchanger was significantly more economical - no more than 300 g / hp, although it lost in the maximum power of the order of 5-10 hp On the basis of two variants of the GTE-350T engine, power units for the tank were made. At the same time, in view of the relatively low power, variants with the use of one or two engines were considered. As a result of comparisons, the unit with two GTE-350T engines located along the tank hull was considered the most promising. In 1963, the assembly of a prototype of such a power plant began. It was installed on the chassis of an experimental 287 Object missile tank. The resulting machine was called the “288 Object”.

In the 1966-67 years, this tank was factory tested, where it confirmed and corrected the design characteristics. However, the main result of trips to the landfill was the understanding that the prospects for the twin engine system are dubious. The power plant with two engines and the original gearbox turned out to be more difficult to manufacture and operate, as well as more expensive than one GTE of equivalent power with a conventional transmission. Some attempts were made to develop a two-engine scheme, but in the end the designers of the LKZ and the Plant named after them. Klimov stopped work in this direction.

It should be noted that the GTD-350T and “288 Object” projects were closed only in 1968 year. Until that time, at the insistence of the customer in the person of the Ministry of Defense, comparative tests of several tanks took place at once. They were attended by diesel T-64 and "Object 287", as well as gas turbine "Object 288" and "Object 003". The tests were severe and took place in different locations and in different weather conditions. As a result, it turned out that with the existing advantages in terms of dimensions or maximum power, existing gas turbine engines are less suitable for practical use than diesel engines mastered in production.

Running model of the tank "Object 288"


Shortly before the termination of work on the subject of twin engines, designers LKZ and Plant them. Klimov made two draft designs that implied the installation of a paired installation on the “432 Object” tank with advanced GTD-T engines with an 450 HP power. Various options for locating engines were considered, but in the end both projects did not continue. The twin power units were inconvenient for practical use and were no longer used.

Engine for T-64A

Adopted in the sixties, the T-64A tank, with all its advantages, was not without its drawbacks. A high degree of novelty and a few original ideas caused technical and operational problems. A lot of complaints caused the engine 5TDF. In particular, and because of them, it was decided to seriously engage in promising GTE for this tank. In 1967, a corresponding resolution of the country's leadership appeared. By this time, there was already some experience in equipping the 432 Object tank with a gas turbine power plant, so the designers did not have to start from scratch. In the spring of 1968 year at the Leningrad Plant them. Klimov turned design work on the engine GTD-1000T.

The five-cylinder two-stroke diesel engine forced (5TDF) of the T-64 tank with a power of 515 kW (700 hp)


T-64 - a typical example of the revolutionary path of development in armored vehicles


The main issue facing the designers was to reduce fuel consumption. The remaining nuances of the project have already been worked out and did not need so much attention. They proposed to improve efficiency in several ways: to increase the temperature of gases, to improve the cooling of structural elements, to modernize the heat exchanger, and to increase the efficiency of all mechanisms. In addition, when creating the CCD-1000T, an original approach was applied: a combined group of 20 from their employees, representing each organization, was responsible for coordinating the activities of several enterprises involved in the project.

Thanks to this approach, we quickly managed to determine the specific appearance of a promising engine. Thus, the plans included the creation of a three-shaft gas turbine engine with a two-stage turbocharger, an annular combustion chamber and a cooled nozzle apparatus. The power turbine is single-stage with an adjustable nozzle apparatus in front of it. The design of the engine GTD-1000T immediately introduced a built-in reduction gearbox, which could convert the rotation of the power turbine at a speed of about 25-26 thousand rpm in 3-3,2 thousand. Transmission "Object 432" without any extra transmission parts.

At the suggestion of VNIITransmash employees, a block of direct-flow cyclones was used to clean the incoming air. Removal of dust separated from the air was the responsibility of additional centrifugal fans, which, moreover, were blown by oil radiators. The use of such a simple and effective air purification system led to the failure of the heat exchanger. In case of its use, in order to achieve the required characteristics, it was necessary to clean the air by almost all 100%, which was at least very difficult. The GTD-1000T engine without a heat exchanger could work even if up to 3% dust remained in the air.

Gas Turbine Engine GTD-1000T

Monoblock GTD-1000T


Separately, it is worth noting the layout of the engine. Cyclones, radiators, pumps, oil tank, compressor, generator and other parts of the power plant were installed on the body of the gas turbine unit itself. The resulting monoblock had dimensions suitable for installation in the engine compartment of the T-64A tank. In addition, in comparison with the original power plant, the GTE-1000T engine left enough volume inside the armored hull to accommodate tanks for 200 liters of fuel.

In the spring of 1969, the assembly of prototypes of the T-64A with a gas turbine power plant began. Interestingly, several enterprises took part in the creation of prototypes: the Leningrad Kirov and Izhora Plants, the Zaporozhevsky Plant. Klimov, as well as the Kharkov Transport Engineering Plant. A little later, the leadership of the defense industry decided to build an experimental batch of X-NUMX T-20A tanks with a gas-turbine power plant and distribute them to various tests. 64-7 tanks were intended for factory, 8-2 for landfills, and the remaining machines had to pass troop tests in different conditions.

The first factory tests of an experimental tank T-64A with GTSU

Experienced tank T-64A with GTSU overcomes the wetland area


For several months of testing in the conditions of landfills and test bases, the necessary amount of information was collected. GTD-1000T engines showed all their advantages, and also proved their suitability for use in practice. However, another problem emerged. With power in 1000 hp the engine did not interact well with the existing chassis. Her life was noticeably decreasing. Moreover, by the time the tests ended, almost all twenty experienced tanks needed repair of the undercarriage or transmission.

At the finish line

The most obvious solution to the problem was the finalization of the chassis of the T-64A tank for use with the GTD-1000T. However, such a process could take too much time and LKZ designers took the initiative. In their opinion, it was necessary not to modernize the existing equipment, but to create a new one, originally designed for heavy loads. This is how the 219 Object project came about.

Factory tests of the tank "Object 219 c2" for passability on weak soils. Xnumx


As you know, over several years of development this project has managed to undergo a lot of changes. Almost all elements of the design were corrected. In the same way, the engine of the CCD-1000T and the associated systems underwent modifications. Perhaps the most important issue at this time was to increase the degree of air purification. As a result, a lot of studies chose an air cleaner with 28 cyclones equipped with fans with a special blade shape. To reduce wear, some parts of the cyclones are coated with polyurethane. Changing the air cleaning system has reduced the amount of dust entering the engine by about one percent.

Even during testing in Central Asia, another problem of a gas turbine engine was revealed. There was a high silica content in the ground and sand. Such dust, having got into the engine, was sintered on its units in the form of a glassy crust. It interfered with the normal flow of gases in the engine path, and also increased its wear. They tried to solve this problem with the help of special chemical coatings, injecting a special solution into the engine, creating an air gap around the parts and even using some materials that gradually collapsed and carried away the burnt dust. However, none of the proposed methods helped. In 1973, this problem was solved. A group of specialists of the Plant. Klimova proposed to install a part of the engine that is the most susceptible to contamination — the nozzle apparatus — a special pneumatic vibrator. If necessary, or after a certain period of time, air from the compressor was supplied to this unit and the nozzle began to vibrate at a frequency of 400 Hz. The dust particles were literally shaken off and blown out by exhaust gases. A little later, the vibrator was replaced with eight hammers of a simpler design.

As a result of all the improvements, it was finally possible to bring the engine of the CCD-1000T to the required 500 hours. The fuel consumption of the "Object 219" was approximately 1,5-1,8 times higher than that of armored vehicles with diesel engines. The power reserve has been reduced accordingly. Nevertheless, the aggregate technical and combat characteristics of the tank "Object 219sp2" recognized as suitable for adoption. In 1976, the Council of Ministers issued a decree, in which the tank was designated T-80. In the future, this armored vehicle has undergone a number of changes, several modifications were created at its base, including with new engines. But that's another story.

Serial tank T-80 ("Object 219").

T-80 tanks (“Object 219”) at the transfer area of ​​the assembly shop LKZ 1976,


On the materials of the sites:
magazine "" Equipment and armament: yesterday, today, tomorrow ... ""
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://army-guide.com/
http://t80leningrad.narod.ru/
War, which was not. 13 series. "Tank T-80. Perfect weapon"

Author:
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Avenger711
    Avenger711 21 March 2013 08: 29 New
    +5
    Currently, the use of GTE on armored vehicles should be considered wrecking. Despite the progress of the gas turbine engine, the diesel engines did not stand still either, the Germans even created a 1500 liter diesel engine. with. who worked great at Abrams instead of his shit turbine of the same power. Maybe in comparison with 840 liters. with. the T-72B GTD-1250 still looks, but not in front of more modern diesel engines.
    In this case, the gas turbine engine:
    1) is insanely expensive.
    2) Eats too much fuel, and this automatically deprives him of any advantages in compactness. If we have a fuel reserve of 90 l on our T-1200, and in order to maintain the power reserve it will need to be increased at least 1.5 times, then this is minus 600 liters of internal volume in one fell swoop, the sense in this case is from the compactness of the motor. Excess fuel, among other things, increases the required number of tankers, that is, the cost of operation and the required amount of equipment and people for operation increase more than it seems at first glance.
    What’s even more fun, the tank is not a truck, for it the standing mode with the engine running is typical, if the diesel is capable of working like this for a couple of days, the gas turbine engine will exhaust the tanks in a few hours.
    3) Extremely high exhaust temperature. IR sensors are gaining ground.

    None of the promising tanks currently involves the use of a gas turbine engine.
    1. Deniska999
      Deniska999 21 March 2013 09: 22 New
      -3
      I completely agree with you, the advantage of a modern diesel engine is undeniable.
      1. svp67
        svp67 24 March 2013 17: 20 New
        +2
        Quote: Deniska999
        I completely agree with you, the advantage of a modern diesel engine is undeniable.



        Even as disputed, otherwise it is impossible. Otherwise, it is STagnation.
    2. ULxaw86
      ULxaw86 21 March 2013 09: 42 New
      +3
      The benefits of a gas turbine engine also include:
      1) quick start at low ambient air temperature;
      2) the possibility of an immediate start after starting the engine, while the diesel engine requires mandatory warming up.
    3. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 21 March 2013 09: 48 New
      +4
      If we take into account, at the same power, a gas turbine engine is smaller in size and more dynamic, aren't these advantages?
      1. ULxaw86
        ULxaw86 21 March 2013 09: 55 New
        +1
        But, perhaps, it is worth recognizing that the diesel engine has greater maintainability compared to the gas turbine engine.
        1. svp67
          svp67 25 March 2013 07: 18 New
          +1
          A gas turbine engine has great reliability, so it is less necessary to repair it ..
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 21 March 2013 10: 01 New
        0
        Save on the volume of the engine and spend a cubic meter on additional fuel. But about the fuel, you can and bashfully keep silent, as if you do not need to allocate space for it.

        Oh yes, if the memory of the turbine does not change my throttle response lower, this diesel engine with its rigid mechanical connections responds instantly.
        1. Hon
          Hon 21 March 2013 10: 23 New
          +7
          And it also stalls instantly, and the gas turbine engine works even if you run into a wall
    4. Hon
      Hon 21 March 2013 10: 21 New
      11
      GTE has several advantages over a diesel engine of the same power. Less weight, relative simplicity of design, increased reliability and resource. Also, a gas turbine engine has reduced smoke and noise, better meets the requirements of multi-fuel, it is much easier to start at low temperatures.
      With regard to fuel consumption, with proper operation, it still becomes slightly less. In addition, this indicator is critical if you need to make long throws, which are unlikely, but in modern conflicts a smaller range is not a significant drawback. IR sensors and diesel see without problems.
      Quote: Avenger711
      is insanely expensive.

      You just need less Mercedes to buy for the MO

      In general, diesel is more suitable for tanks, but do not stop work on improving the gas turbine engine
      1. Director
        Director 21 March 2013 17: 25 New
        +2
        I agree with Hoh GTD better, the cost of the engine is high!
        as I heard an interview with some asshole loggerhead about tanks, So he lamented, "Can you imagine a diesel engine costs 200 thousand rubles and a gas turbine engine is one million"
        BUT ALLOW IF T-90 Costs 95-105 MILLION. rubles, depending on the modification, is it worth it to think about the cost of the dvigol if it increases the fighting characteristics of the TANK
    5. Iraclius
      Iraclius 21 March 2013 13: 59 New
      +1
      Plus. I will add a few figures from the theory of heat engineering.
      Sorry, the schedule cannot be placed in the post. what
      The graph shows that as the temperature rises from -30 ° С to + 30 ° С, the efficiency of a gas turbine drops by 15-20%. At temperatures above + 30 ° C, the efficiency of a gas turbine is even lower. Unlike a gas turbine, a gas piston engine has a higher and more constant efficiency in the entire temperature range and constant efficiency, up to + 25 ° С.

      This fact was constantly read to us at lectures on heat engines:
      Number of starts: the gas engine can start and stop an unlimited number of times, which does not affect the overall engine life. 100 gas turbine starts reduce its life by 500 hours.

      Start-up time: the time before the load is taken after start-up is for the gas turbine 15-17 minutes, for the gas-piston engine 2-3 minutes.

      The resource before overhaul for a gas turbine 20 000 - 30 000 working hours, for a gas engine this figure is equal to 60000 working hours. The cost of overhauling a gas turbine, taking into account the costs of spare parts and materials, is much higher.

      Well, the last thing mentioned in the article is the erosion damage of the turbine blades and turbocompressor and the negative effect of silica.

      ***
      As a noticeable plus, I can mention the amazing sound during the operation of a gas turbine engine. laughing

      Abrams is trying to get out of the mud.
      http://nevsedoma.com.ua/index.php?newsid=135531
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 26 2014 21: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Iraclius
        The resource before overhaul for a gas turbine is 20 - 000 working hours, for a gas engine this figure is 30 working hours.
        The theory is good ... But only in the tank troops there is a repair schedule and according to it the engine is replaced during overhaul, and this is 15000 km for the T80 and 12 for the T000. Any engine ...
  2. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 21 March 2013 08: 47 New
    +8
    Now many believe that it is necessary to abandon the gas turbine engine in favor of a diesel engine, due to the high fuel consumption. But this is not a truck, where it is worth achieving efficiency, here you should take into account only one factor of advantage in battle. everything else is not significant. A modern tank should not cross the whole country on its own.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 21 March 2013 10: 12 New
      +1
      The excessive consumption of fuel by tanks means that this fuel is not enough for something else, but an increase in the total supply of fuel will require saving on something else. If we talk about combat conditions, then they assume the minimum price of the tank, GTE is many times more expensive than diesel.

      As for the "advantage in battle" factor, the facts are as follows, an increase in performance characteristics of vehicles by 10% leads to an increase in its cost by 50%. At the same time, these formal performance characteristics may not solve anything in battle, but the lack of equipment always decides, especially when there is no tank at all instead of at least some.

      What advantage can be discussed in battle if the car instantly eats up the fuel supply, since it cannot be simply put at low speeds, I don’t understand at all.

      A typical example, Australia purchased the Abrams acquired a diesel version.
      1. Dmitry_2013
        Dmitry_2013 21 March 2013 13: 29 New
        +5
        Australia is a rather dusty country, so they took this into account. Dust is the main evil of GTD.
        He personally studied at the T80 - very pleased with the dynamics and design.
        In skillful hands does any diesel.
      2. Lieutenant colonel
        Lieutenant colonel 22 March 2013 04: 50 New
        +2
        With trained mechanics, 80 runs the same 500 km as diesel. 80-ku can be put on "low speed". The GTD-1250 has a dust blower system that effectively removes dust from the engine when it is left.
      3. svp67
        svp67 25 March 2013 07: 23 New
        0
        For Australia, the "diesel" is enough. From whom are they going to defend themselves? And so it seems that there are tanks and even "Abrams", who will understand there, worse or better than their American "brother" ....
    2. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 21 March 2013 10: 12 New
      +3
      That would not be a NUB here is a link to authoritative conclusions: http://www.alexfiles99.narod.ru/library/0001/diesel_or_gasturbine_critiques.htm
      maybe it will convince someone, although there are enough skeptics, and some stubborn ones will never make them change their opinions, the only correct one.
      1. AK-47
        AK-47 21 March 2013 11: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: vladsolo56
        That would not be a NOB ...

        I agree that opponents should not talk about the future of a gas turbine engine. The advantage of a gas turbine engine over a diesel engine is obvious.
        Your link is wonderful, all around are undercover games, soldiers should not suffer from them. This Nizhny Tagil got it!
    3. flanker7
      flanker7 21 March 2013 22: 30 New
      +3
      Strongly agree with you vladsolo56 !! All these arguments about the economy as they say saving on paper clips !!
      A tank is a machine for war. It should be reliable and not cheap!
      T-80, in principle, is more perfect than 64/72. I myself served on the 80BV and I can only say one thing: the T-80 is FOREVER !!!!!!!
  3. avt
    avt 21 March 2013 09: 03 New
    0
    A good, comprehensive historical review. +
  4. MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 21 March 2013 09: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: vladsolo56
    But this is not a truck, where it is worth achieving efficiency, here you should take into account only one factor of advantage in battle. everything else is not significant. A modern tank should not cross the whole country on its own.

    I absolutely agree with you. A tank can wander off for weeks autonomously only in the event of the end of the world, and we can expect it for more than one thousand years.

    If the Americans could not make a normal engine for their abrams, this is not a reason to cite it as an example and brand all gas turbine engines, all the more ours turned out much better. In terms of engines, we have always been ahead of the Americans, sometimes by several decades. Not a single diesel engine now standing on our T72 and T90 can match the gas turbine engine standing on the T80 - this is a fact. And the words about the advantage of promising diesel engines sound unconvincing, at least prematurely, until they appear at least on experimental tanks, and not on paper.
  5. Explore
    Explore 21 March 2013 12: 54 New
    0
    Maybe the tanks of the future will have a gas turbine engine, but Armata, as far as I heard, is designed for a promising X-shaped 2V-12 diesel engine with a capacity of 1200-1600 hp.
    And so the gas turbine engine is good in the north, where there is little dust, and the launch speed is critical at low temperatures.
    Diesel - in the south, where a lot of dust and usually warm.
    The debate between GTD and diesel is eternal.
    1. Lieutenant colonel
      Lieutenant colonel 22 March 2013 04: 55 New
      0
      It’s good to have cars with diesel engines and diesel engines for different turboprop engines.
  6. Explore
    Explore 21 March 2013 12: 56 New
    0
    Maybe the tanks of the future will have a gas turbine engine, but Armata, as far as I heard, is designed for a promising X-shaped 2V-12 diesel engine with a capacity of 1200-1600 hp.
    And so the gas turbine engine is good in the north, where there is little dust, and the launch speed is critical at low temperatures.
    Diesel - in the south, where a lot of dust and usually warm.
    The debate between GTD and diesel is eternal.
  7. vitaliytank
    vitaliytank 21 March 2013 18: 24 New
    +7
    As I understood the comrades, judging by the comments, no one came across a T-80 in practice, but I served them and I want to say, a great car! You can catch the feeling of flying only on it — in a clean field in the fourth, but you won’t feel like that on diesel tractors, who drove it. It’s not at all whimsical in operation, and if you follow the letter of the instructions it will work out an excess of the norm, put the engine off into the field with repair in two hours without rushing, and in the main works without unnecessary troubles, we constantly defiled in clean coveralls, and not like in "leather" diesel engines)))
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 22 March 2013 01: 25 New
      0
      Quote: vitaliytank
      As I understood the comrades, judging by the comments, no one came across a T-80 in practice, but I served them and I want to say, a great car! You can catch the feeling of flying only on it, in a clean field on the fourth, but you will not experience this on diesel tractors, whoever understands the driver.

      - I didn’t make a final conclusion from the dispute set forth here. But I read a pretty convincing link from Vladsolo and I think that GTD has not yet lost its battle.
      Firstly, as I caught, the GTD loses a lot during acceleration-braking, in short, during an intense change in tank speed. What is the question, do not understand? There are many ways to recover energy using super-flywheels and generators (an electric motor kit with a battery. A hybrid motor, in short, is already used in passenger cars, but we don’t like it - if the battery flies, its replacement will cost a penny. All that has saved over the years of driving on gasoline - all this + another nth amount from above you give for this battery laughing ) Let the gas turbine engine operate in one mode, all speed changes can be assigned to a flywheel or an electric engine with a battery. And the APU is needed.
      There are technologies to lower the temperature of exhaust gases.
      In addition, with the advent of new heat-resistant materials, there is a chance to increase the coefficient of performance on a gas turbine engine.
      And I also think that the future is still in the fuel cells. This is when all fuels, which are essentially hydrocarbons (that is kerosene, that is diesel fuel, that is gasoline), that is, compounds of carbon and hydrogen, are stupidly divided into carbon, which is subsequently released in the form of carbon dioxide and hydrogen, which is converted directly into electricity and water in special cameras . The efficiency of such a dvigla is simply unsurpassed, it reaches 80% !!!! But ... the high cost of dvigla, the lack of technology ... The imperfection of electric motors also affects - after turning hydrogen into electricity, "asterisk" then turn the electric motor, and it has a lot of shortcomings. For example, the habit of burning out during overloads, when there is resistance above torque. But still, the future lies with the fuel cells, I am sure of this! Bet?
      1. Lieutenant colonel
        Lieutenant colonel 22 March 2013 05: 00 New
        +1
        Aksakal is very simple - a trained mechanic, the driver uses the brake pedal and the gas pedal (does not "leave" the working revolutions) while driving, there is no need for the gas turbine engine to constantly slow down (which increases the flow rate during the mode - it slows down - it picks up speed) if necessary or to change the speed of movement.
  8. pinecone
    pinecone 21 March 2013 19: 26 New
    0
    It is possible that both are needed. I remember how in 1981. one teacher of the Malinovsky Military Academy in private conversation told me that it was thanks to the "omnivorous" GTE that tanks with such power plants were specially designed to equip individual parts and formations that were part of the GSVG and TsGV. .
  9. apanas
    apanas 21 March 2013 19: 42 New
    +2
    T-80 is a great car. Convenient to maintain and repair. The engine has its own characteristics (slightly inhibited), but this is a matter of habit. "Flying Tank" is about the T-80. And there is a small parking gas mode.
  10. Watchman
    Watchman 21 March 2013 20: 41 New
    +1
    The task of the T-80 in 2 weeks to fly to the English Channel and I have no doubt that he would have coped with it!
    1. Lieutenant colonel
      Lieutenant colonel 22 March 2013 05: 03 New
      0
      Correction - in 6-7 days, our units went to the English Channel. 80-ku was also called - the tank of the breakthrough of the front edge. Great tank, especially the latest modifications.
  11. svp67
    svp67 22 March 2013 07: 52 New
    0
    To all these disadvantages, it’s worth adding a “couple of spoons of honey” in defense of the TBG:
    1. Tanks with gas turbine engines have better cross-country ability in relation to tanks with a diesel engine of the same power, due to the lack of the effect of "undermining" the soil,
    2. On the issue of noise, the T80 with the GTE will give odds in 100 times to any of its diesel counterparts.
    3. Modern tanks are equipped with additional engines for on-site operation ...
    4. And the crews of the T80 with the GTE have always been distinguished by a more neat appearance, unlike their "diesel" counterparts ...
  12. Alekseev
    Alekseev 24 March 2013 15: 48 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    On the issue of noise, the T80 with a gas turbine engine will give a 100-fold head start to any of its diesel counterparts.

    Become back! And you will understand what noise is! smile
    Of course, a gas turbine engine has some advantages over a diesel engine. Take, for example, the absence of water cooling radiators, a gentle characteristic of torque, etc.
    But, they have no less flaws.
    They do not say they consume fuel twice as much diesel. And if the march in difficult conditions, not high-speed, then more.
    For war, when fuel trucks are burning, this is very critical.
    This is a proven fact.
    And what about the English Channel, then do not pretend to be dolbo .... mi.
    It was planned (purely theoretically) not to "fly" to the English Channel, but to go out with fights, previously, in fact, it was necessary to defeat the main forces of the NATO bloc.
    The military leaders wanted to “fly” this Grozny. And flew by.
  13. svp67
    svp67 24 March 2013 17: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Alekseev
    Become back! And you will understand what noise is!



    Listen Dear, if you are so used to evaluating everything from the stern, then you should not shout about it like that in the whole world ...


    Quote: Alekseev
    They do not say they consume fuel twice as much diesel. And if the march in difficult conditions, not high-speed, then more.


    Any car consumes fuel, without this it still doesn’t work ...
    You may have forgotten, but the GTD-1250 is a "multi-fuel engine" and is capable of running on diesel and low-octane gasolines. And in the offensive, the tank troops act on the principle that “they feed the wolf” in the sense that you don’t always have to rely on the rear, you have to strain the “local resources” ...
    1. figter
      figter April 26 2014 05: 37 New
      0
      I would like to see how you will strain local resources. Consumption T-80 about 150 l. at 100 km, in the tank battalion - 41 tank * 150 l = 6150 l. Under what bush are you almost 7 cubes of diesel or gasoline in the locals you find? And what is the battle 100 km - it is, slightly maneuver. When the T-80 convoy goes, it’s good if the entire battalion, and not the brigade, regiment or division, is followed by another convoy of fuel trucks two to three times longer. Painful tank painful. So this convoy with fuel will fill up all the roads with a huge traffic jam, neither ammunition, nor food can be brought up, nor taken out the wounded, nor a maneuver. And if this tank unit shakes well when meeting with the enemy, then no help will break through to it - YOU ARE CRACKETS FROM BMO AND BRMO FROM THE ROAD MOVING!
      1. figter
        figter April 26 2014 07: 11 New
        -1
        Sorry, not 150 l, but 1500 l T-80 tank consumption per 100 km. So, not 7, but 70 fuel cubes for the battalion at 100 km. This is 12 fuel trucks, a whole column. And the farther from its rear, the longer and more often it will go in two directions. Well, if the enemy is a shepherd bearded with RPGs, and if the Yankees are on Apache ... then the convoy will not reach.
        Therefore, instead of enthusiasm like “HURRY TO FLYING TANKS!”, You need to be glad that in our conditions of a general mess, we finally switched to an economical and practical T-72БМ3
        That's it.
        And at the expense of noise, the T-80 is not that noisy, but whistles very well. How to hear!
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 26 2014 17: 38 New
          0
          Quote: figter
          And if this tank unit shakes well when meeting with the enemy, then no help will break through to it - YOU ARE CRACKETS FROM BMO AND BRMO FROM THE ROAD MOVING!

          Well, let's start with the fact that the refueling of any tank is designed for the tank to travel 500 km ... So, of course you need to think about 100 kilometers, but do not bother.
          Further, and for how long will the T80 be at such a distance? And for what T72? Believe me, there is a difference, and it can play a big role in battle, including in providing, "at the expense of local resources" - to explain to you what it is ...
          Quote: figter
          And if this tank unit shakes well when meeting with the enemy, then no help will break through to it - YOU ARE CRACKETS FROM BMO AND BRMO FROM THE ROAD MOVING!
          Well, for this, each baht has its own TK ... - for the first time or for a breakthrough to its own it should be enough ...
          Quote: figter
          Therefore, instead of enthusiasm like “HURRY TO FLYING TANKS!”, You need to be glad that in our conditions of a general mess, we finally switched to an economical and practical T-72БМ3
          Say economical - but I DO NOT WANT TO SAVE on a soldier's life. Since the modification of the B3 is WORSE, even the previously proposed B2. Do you agree that you SAVE YOUR LIFE?
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 26 2014 17: 54 New
        +2
        Quote: figter
        I would like to see how you will strain local resources. The consumption of the T-80 is about 150 liters. per 100 km, in the tank battalion - 41 tanks * 150 l = 6150 l. Under what bush is this you find almost 7 cubes of diesel or gasoline from the locals?

        Quote: figter
        Sorry, not 150 liters, but 1500 liters of T-80 tank consumption per 100 km. So, not 7, but 70 cubic meters of fuel for a battalion per 100 km.

        Without PARDON -
        According to TTX
        Fuel consumption per 100 km, l:
        on a dirt road 460-790
        on highway 430-500

        Cruising range, km:
        on the highway:
        on main fuel tanks 500
        with additional barrels 600
        on dry dirt roads:
        on main fuel tanks 335
        with additional barrels 410

        Fuel system
        Applicable fuel Fuel of brands T-1, TS-1 and RT, diesel fuel of brands DL, DZ, DA
        Fuel filters:
        Refueling Paper
        coarse mesh
        fine cleaning 12TF15SN mesh
        Fuel capacity, l:
        capacity of internal tanks 1140
        capacity of external tanks 700
        capacity of three additional barrels 600

        TOTAL without additional barrels - 1840 liters with an additional three additional barrels of 2440 liters.
        What 1500 liters per 100 km are you talking about? With a fool, you can burn 100 liters in place ...
        And now at the expense of "LOCAL" RESOURCES "standard capacity for gas stations
        Tanks for gas stations are made ... standard sizes in volumes of 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 75 cubic meters, and in accordance with the dimensions of the Customer.
        So it’s quite possible to "stock up" ... and not "under the bush" but at the gas station. You have not forgotten that our engines are multi-fuel ...
        1. figter
          figter April 26 2014 19: 20 New
          -2
          All these performance characteristics and power reserves are suitable only for dusting the brains of cadets of tank schools and other strategic parquet troops and have absolutely nothing to do with reality. The consumption of the T-80 tank under severe conditions, namely, they are present during the period of hostilities: 12-13 kg per 1 km or 1200-1500 liters per 100 km (taking into account fuel density). This is a practice, not a book theory. In the army in general, the theory never (!!!) ever coincides with practice. Because it's the troops ...
          As for cubes - in troops this is usually a measure equal to 1 cubic meters. Refueling of military equipment is carried out by specialized fuels and lubricants - ATMZ-5,5 or AC-5,5, then their capacity is 5,5 cubes. About 70 cubes during the period of hostilities for a tank battalion - this is far from a myth. The entire tank refueling often goes to 100 km, and not to book 500. The normal commander calculates the fuel for the battle based on his worst conditions and his own, often bitter experience, because he is responsible for this with his own head, and not the clearly underestimated TTX values ​​indicated by the manufacturer, striving to get into those. task and attracting potential buyer. The refueling of tanks and other armored vehicles is planned in advance, made before the battle by alternately withdrawing to the rear. And believe me, no sane commander will NEVER use local fuel resources:
          1. They are not enough;
          2. The quality of such fuel is unknown, you can just ditch the equipment;
          3. There was no time for a tank commander to pump them out of the well, and there is practically nothing, he has a combat mission.
          Further, PPO, .. PAZ, TNA-3..4 and any other stray crews are used extremely rarely, almost never works and does not work. The tanks have not been young for a long time, you said correctly - uhaydokans are exploited in the army brutally, yes, and hands do not grow from where they are needed. But such "interesting things" are of interest only to theorists; practitioners are no longer surprised at anything. As for the infantry, which was somewhere ... She herself was set on fire by accident.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 26 2014 22: 00 New
            0
            Quote: figter
            All these performance characteristics and power reserves are suitable only for dusting the brains of cadets of tank schools and other strategic parquet troops and have absolutely nothing to do with reality. The consumption of the T-80 tank under severe conditions, namely, they are present during the period of hostilities: 12-13 kg per 1 km or 1200-1500 liters per 100 km (taking into account fuel density). This is a practice, not a book theory. In the army in general, the theory never (!!!) ever coincides with practice. Because it's the troops ...

            Yes, what do you say ... And how do you write off the reputable fuel? every time you pay extra from your pocket for an overrun or apply tabular coefficients? So tell tales of theory and life to someone else, and I thank God on “turntables” and “irons” I have served enough to draw my conclusions and they are not in favor of “irons” ... And yet, when deciding on any type of battle, the commander MUST take into account local and weather conditions, as well as the time of year. You are based on the experience of exploitation in mountainous and wooded areas during the Chechen war, it is of course important, but the T80 has been tested and involved in various exercises in our Armed Forces more than once in the 80s, especially in the USSR and there it successfully showed all their abilities, especially on the European theater of operations.
            Quote: figter
            As for cubes - in troops this is usually a measure equal to 1 cubic meter. Refueling of military equipment is carried out by specialized fuels and lubricants - ATMZ-5,5 or ATs-5,5, then their capacity is 5,5 cubic meters. About 70 cubes during the fighting for a tank battalion - this is far from a myth.

            Well, we had the ATZ-9,3-260 ... and to the AC-5,5-4310 there were additional tank trailers ...
            Quote: figter
            And believe me, no sane commander will NEVER use local fuel resources:
            It is good that our tank commanders did not know about this during the Second World War, so they would never have won ...
            Quote: figter
            Further, PPO, .. PAZ, TNA-3..4 and any other stray crews are used extremely rarely, almost never works and does not work.

            They mixed everything up to the heap ... If no one taught you, and even worse, you yourself didn’t want to learn how to use it, and moreover, to service these, as you say "stray", then do not shout out loud that you burned out the tank or you got lost and you are not guilty of anything - GUILTY, as the people gave you MILLION-MILLION COMBAT TECHNIQUE and be so kind as to know and protect it ... And with this approach, it’s better to honestly go to the “capitalist economy” and not disgrace, or if you voluntarily put shoulder straps on your shoulders, then take the Oath
            I swear to sacredly observe its Constitution and laws, strictly comply with the requirements of military regulations,

            Russian Armed Forces
            General duties of military personnel
            .
            - improve military skills, keep weapons and military equipment in constant readiness for use, protect military property;

            And if you still do not understand this, then at the next loss of the tank you can be very “politely” reminded of this by the prosecutor’s office ... God only save you from such “politeness”
  14. svp67
    svp67 30 March 2013 13: 37 New
    0
    In the Soviet Army, to be an excellent tank mech-water, one had to be able to:
    - start T64;
    - timely switch gears to T62;
    - Time to brake the T80 GTE -))))
  15. figter
    figter April 26 2014 02: 59 New
    -1
    The gas turbine engine on the tank was originally a crazy idea. Yes, convenient and comfortable, especially for the driver. You don’t need to start your frozen fingers with a torch in the winter, when instead of DT-3, you got furnace fuel diluted with water that even the heater completely freezes. But in battle, such a tank is destroyed by a burst from the machine into the turbine nozzle. The impeller bursts and burning fuel under pressure whips through the engine compartment. It's wonderful so the car burns. And the tank crew immediately abandons who in such an environment will figure out what's what. And unless someone in a fight will give it a stew. And it burns to ashes.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2014 18: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: figter
      The gas turbine engine on the tank was originally a crazy idea.
      It’s crazy - you don’t see development prospects, but run into one thing. GTE has a lot of "+". Those who served on the T80 will always be ironic about the "advantages of a diesel engine ..."
      Quote: figter
      But in battle, such a tank is destroyed by a burst from the machine into the turbine nozzle
      And often did this happen? And where is the excuse our infantry was at that moment?
      Quote: figter
      The impeller bursts and burning fuel under pressure whips through the engine compartment. It's wonderful so the car burns.

      You are telling SUCH INTERESTING things ... it’s HOW IT WAS TO LEAVE THE TANK so that the PPS and MOD systems didn’t work on it ... If the "head is empty" and your hands "grow out of ...." then of course ...
      Quote: figter
      It's wonderful so the car burns. And the tank crew immediately abandons who in such an environment will figure out what's what. And unless someone in a fight will give it a stew. And it burns to ashes.
      Under such conditions and relationships, ANY most remarkable tank is a piece of iron ...
      1. p-419
        p-419 5 September 2014 01: 54 New
        -1
        And what about the prospects? Let's take a sober look at things. They said a lot about the pros. However, the New Year’s assault on Grozny once again showed that armored vehicles should not be introduced into cities with a bang. And the refusal of the GTE in this case is fully justified. And what about your quote from the Charter of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, I’ll ask: is the military equipment that I received, is it right from the platform or has it been brutally fucked before me? And it remains for me to patch it and somehow support it before being written off? I just can’t believe the theoreticians with TTX. For more than 15 years of service in the TTX, only new cars fit. After that, shamanism began with mileage and fuel cancellation. Because the fuel was so-so, and the operation made itself felt. Moreover, both in units with soldiers, and in those in which only officers and only drivers are ensigns, and all are already grown men, there are practically no gouging. Even the unpretentious Japanese did not fit into the manufacturer’s performance characteristics - a feature of our region (our gasoline and conditions are still those) are mercilessly operated by the operational staff day and night. About hunters and patriots, I will not say anything. And as for the tanks - it’s better to secure the ammunition from undermining, otherwise I heard a lot of stories from experienced people about how it happens with our tanks.
  16. varlazarov
    varlazarov April 20 2018 20: 48 New
    0
    Many countries have old decommissioned aircraft that are no longer suitable for flight conditions, is it worth removing the engines from them and installing them on tanks?