MBT new generation T-90AM will be declassified in September

54

The estimated type of T-90М variants is possibly T-90АМ (A. Sheps 2010 drawing).

Last week, information appeared in the Russian-speaking segment of the world wide web that a new generation tank would still be created in Russia T-90AM. As it is not difficult to notice by designation, it will be a modernized T-90, but representatives of Uralvagonzavod emphasize that it will be a “very deep modernization” of T-90, which will make a significant step forward compared to all existing modern foreign analogues. They also said that the new combat vehicle will be presented to the general public at an exhibition in Nizhny Tagil, which will be held in early autumn of this year.

Oleg Sienko, General Director of Uralvagonzavod NPK, also shared valuable information with the press: “At the arms exhibition to be held in Nizhny Tagil on September 8 – 11, we will present the next generation T-90AM combat vehicle. The Ministry of Defense declassifies the new tank, the consent to the passport form has already been given, at the exhibition we will show the new tank in action. ”

MBT new generation T-90AM will be declassified in September


“At a meeting in December 2009, we heard a lot of what I think is fair criticism of the military from us. Ministry experts pointed out the flaws of the new tank - This is the engine, gearbox, charge, all-round visibility and many other minor flaws. At the moment, the new combat vehicle has been finalized taking into account all the comments of the Defense Ministry, ”Sienko said.

The press service of Uralvagonzavod specified which changes were made. In particular, the corresponding gearbox, the engine (to which the power on the 130 HP was also added), as well as a panoramic view, a barrel and a completely different, protected machine gun installation were made. Among the innovations also - an improved PTK (software and hardware complex) and an improved automatic loader.

While all the characteristics of the new combat vehicle are classified information.
Now, within the framework of the existing legislation, the process of removing secrecy is underway, with a positive decision, the tank will be presented at the exhibition.

About the "parent" of the new car tank T-90 know more. The T-90, originally bearing the designation T-72BM, began to be developed as a modernization of the T-72B tank in the middle of the 80-s of the last century. In the 1992, the T-72BM, already under the symbol T-90, was put into service as the main battle tank of the Russian army.


T-72B

The T-90 has the same chassis and powerplant as the T-72. At the same time, the machine has the latest guided weapons complex and more powerful protection, which includes an active protection complex and electronic suppression systems.

The T-90 is armed with a 125-mm smooth-bore gun, a machine gun of the caliber 7,62 mm and a large-caliber anti-aircraft gun NSVT.

By the way, military experts precisely in the issue of armaments note the advantage of the T-90 over its Western counterparts. The firing range of guided missiles from the T-90 is approximately twice the effective range of fire of foreign tanks, which accordingly allows, without entering the affected area, to destroy enemy targets. The weakest point of the T-90 is its relatively low survivability, due to the placement of the ammunition, which is not isolated from the crew and is located in the fighting compartment of the tank. When it is detonated, the death of both the crew and the machine itself is almost inevitable.



However, according to Lt. Gen. Yuri Kovalenko, who at one time received a state award for the development and implementation of the T-90 tank, Ural designers managed to eliminate these shortcomings. “The Ural residents have some groundwork for the removal of ammunition from the corps, from the department of management. There are also loading mechanisms to protect the crew from explosions of ammunition. They also developed some things that eliminate the explosion and fire danger of a new tank, ”said Kovalenko.

“Now we are ahead of other countries in protection and survivability - both the active protection complex and the built-in T-90 dynamic protection are definitely much more sophisticated and reliable than all Western models. In these matters, we outnumber the potential adversary by several times, ”said the T-90 general.

“While there is not enough command control, we need to ensure that the controls can quickly and efficiently distribute the targets and quickly set targets for the destruction of enemy firepower. In this direction, active work is underway. If we achieve results, we will reach the most advanced level in the world, ”Kovalenko concluded.
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. unit669
    +5
    April 12 2011 08: 56
    The tank in the first picture resembles the Ukrainian "Oplot". Well, this is not the point, it is not important. The main thing is that ALL the above changes present in the modernized T-90 are, indeed, VERY important and significantly increase the effectiveness of it. The problem of the "distribution of goals" remains, here, of course, everything rests on the ill-fated electronics. I hope that "Uralvagonzavod" will succeed and such a T-90 will appear in the troops. Let's wait until the September exhibition in Nizhny Tagil. And then we'll see what's what. bully
    1. Superduck
      0
      22 July 2011 14: 02
      Exactly, about Oplot I was immediately struck by the eye, especially the bulwark of the tower. Well, the idea is good and worth a penny, why not use it.
    2. 0
      19 May 2013 16: 04
      Quote: unit669
      We’ll wait until the September exhibition in Nizhny Tagil. And there we’ll see what’s what
      That's right, we'll wait and see. And so what is proposed to be done on this machine is certainly good, but here the question of price arises. Such an upgrade will cost a lot, commensurate, if not the same, with the production of a new tank. That's worth thinking about. Although it would make sense in cases of unification of the "tower module" with what will be installed on the base Armata chassis, then this modernized T90 will make sense ...
  2. Escander
    +2
    April 12 2011 10: 59
    On the deployment of ammunition - it would not be bad. Still to pull up to the world level the ammunition itself.
    And what about the gearbox (not really grown up to the machine).
  3. +2
    April 12 2011 12: 50
    tighten up for Ukrainians? right, the Slav brothers bypassed us at the bend! and nefig was resting on our laurels!
  4. KV-1 switch
    +2
    April 12 2011 13: 45
    I will reveal a terrible secret! Fundamentally new in this tank is only the automatic loader, and, accordingly, the tower due to the ammunition that has moved there. Everything else has existed for a long time, in particular within the framework of the Slingshot-1 facility and other independent developments. And nobody made a secret of this! True, our Ministry of Defense is for some reason very embarrassed to talk about this.
    Judging by the picture, they want to install an air conditioner (on the rear tower) and a power unit (lengthening the stern over the left track) on the new tank. It is not known about the automatic gearbox, but Slingshot-1 has it.

    I got excited about moving ammunition to the tower (the enlarged tower with dynamic protection on the sides was embarrassed), but longer shells can definitely be loaded.
    1. Eric
      +2
      23 July 2011 12: 39
      We generally have a shy MO! All is only they do not order!
  5. figwam
    figwam
    +3
    April 12 2011 16: 24
    When comparing our T-34 with German tanks in 1941, advantages and disadvantages were revealed.
    1. The T-34 has better armor. +
    2. The tank is unpretentious, simple and tenacious. +
    3.Diesel engine +
    3. Sight, worse than German optics. -
    4. The gearbox is uncomfortable and tight (often, the driver mechanic switched it with the help of a machine gunner sitting next to it) -
    5. Lack of a radio station -

    In my opinion, similar problems, only more modern!
    1. Superduck
      0
      22 July 2011 14: 04
      The reliability of 34 issues up to 43 years was several times lower than that of the T3 and T4, especially the engine and transmission.
  6. akssi
    0
    April 12 2011 19: 09
    And where is the T-95?
  7. +2
    April 12 2011 19: 50
    It turns out that not everything is so bad in the Russian state. It is only necessary to give acceleration in time and we again take the leading position. It turns out that "scarecrows" worked for the military-industrial complex?
    1. Superduck
      0
      22 July 2011 14: 22
      And what's the point now Tagilians tear their claws when they have no competitors inside the country, but outside the state is pushing and so good.
  8. slan
    slan
    +3
    April 12 2011 21: 11
    Quote: KV-1
    I will reveal a terrible secret! Fundamentally new in this tank is only an automatic loader, and, accordingly, a tower because of the ammunition that has moved there.

    Nothing at all))
    A round wheel existed before of course)
  9. 0
    April 12 2011 21: 26
    Quote: akssi
    And where is the T-95?

    As far as I heard this project has already been closed, although I may be wrong
  10. slan
    slan
    +1
    April 12 2011 21: 45
    Quote: datur
    tighten up for Ukrainians? right, the Slav brothers bypassed us at the bend! and nefig was resting on our laurels!

    How to catch up with that? It’s like in a joke: Doctor, I’m 85 years old, but I don’t have to
    - ????
    Well, so the neighbor 87, and he says, with his wife twice a day.
    - Well, you say so.
    Also here, you can show at least T-95, at least T-234
    Here's a series to fix ...
    1. Superduck
      0
      22 July 2011 14: 23
      The problem is not not in setting up the series but in the absence of an order, I tell you as a Kharkov citizen.
  11. Andrei
    0
    April 12 2011 23: 09
    "low survivability, due to the peculiarity of the placement of the ammunition, which is not isolated from the crew and is located in the fighting compartment of the tank, when it detonates, the death of both the crew and the vehicle itself is almost inevitable."

    I wonder how you can stay alive in a steel box measuring 7x4 meters if a ton of diesel fuel and fifty artillery shells of 125 mm caliber detonate in it at once ??? Tales about the invulnerable Abrams are nonsense. Yes, amerikosa does not tear to pieces like the T-72 when the armor is pierced and the ammunition is destroyed. But the crew dies in any case, and the car goes into irrecoverable losses.
  12. Anatoly
    +3
    April 12 2011 23: 10
    Our military equipment in terms of its performance almost always surpassed the military equipment of third states. I mean France, England, Germany, Israel and in no way inferior to the military equipment of the United States, this is evidenced by the numerous conflicts that took place throughout the world, with the participation of our weapons - these are Korea, Vietnam, Angola, India, and our weapons turned out to be the strongest in compared with weapons of other countries. And now you don’t have to do self-flagellation, cry and say that everything is bad with us, everything is shit. Let us leave this inheritance to our valiant generals like Postnikov. And if you really look at the world market of our weapons, then we are firmly in second place in the world in the sale of weapons, and foreigners are far from fools, they won’t buy any nonsense. Another thing is that our army should be equipped with the latest domestic weapons, including T90AM tanks.
    1. Superduck
      +2
      22 July 2011 14: 13
      In all wars where MASSOVO used Soviet armored vehicles since the 60s, the countries that used it were defeated. But not because it is so bad, but because the organizational and tactical component was lower than that of the opponent. Therefore, the same Americans do not consider the T90 collision against the Abrams at close and medium distances as an excessively real situation, although such collisions are certainly possible. If we talk about a possible clash with the US army, then the main enemy of the T-90 will be the Apache helicopter and attack aircraft. And tanks in their military doctrine do not play the role of a vehicle for breaking through enemy fortifications (as it was in the USSR), they serve for "cleansing". Therefore, personally, if I were the Americans, I would be much less worried about this than many people think they should worry about.
      1. His
        -1
        22 July 2011 17: 41
        You’ll rubbish, on the contrary, Vietnam, North Korea, Angola, Cuba, India everywhere won, only Israel was pierced, but there the Jews had higher intellect
        1. Superduck
          0
          22 July 2011 17: 56
          And where from what you listed was the massive use of Soviet armored vehicles after the 60s? Before you do your favorite thing - to yell, first read my post until the end please.
          1. His
            0
            22 July 2011 17: 58
            They fought with our weapons and at our expense, well, this is the second
            1. Superduck
              0
              22 July 2011 18: 26
              His, This does not apply to the question of the different requirements for armored vehicles and the tactics of its application. There are units of machines that were originally ground to fight tanks, these are almost all the self-propelled guns and European mass tanks of the height of the Cold War (Leo1) created to fight the hordes of T-55 coming from the east. The United States, in the fight against tanks, always relied on an air wing. And more than once the effectiveness of this strategy was demonstrated in practice, in the same Korea almost all 34-85 were destroyed by stormtroopers, and what gave Korean tankers the advantages of this machine against the chaffee? Therefore, in general, I consider the topic of contrasting abrams with our tanks far-fetched. It is very difficult to compare an anti-submarine helicopter with a submarine of the Los Angeles class, and yet this confrontation is much more likely than a collision with a similar-class domestic boat.
              I don’t know how it is now, but according to the Soviet military doctrine, the T-55 tank should go along the battlefield at low speed and suppress enemy firing points, providing motorized rifle an advantage. And do not shoot in a jump and drive across the field at a speed of 60km / h. which, of course, is pleasant, but had little to do with accomplishing the tasks of combined arms combat.
              1. His
                +1
                22 July 2011 18: 33
                Everything was balanced. Therefore, the Cold War did not become hot. We, too, if we lost in technology, went on an equal footing in tactics, this is by the way to confront modern US fighters. But I think we need to focus on superiority in technology, which without the development of its defense industry is an impossible task
                1. Superduck
                  +1
                  22 July 2011 19: 20
                  I know my friend that at least you have a nail on your head, but it seems the last time our pilots encountered modern western fighters in the air, in Egypt, it all ended very tragically for our pilots. After that, I didn’t hear about the air battles of our pilots (I don’t take recent African troubles, there were our airplanes but whose pilots were not clear). Although the air battles in Korea and Vietnam did not show the overwhelming advantage of either side, it was 50 years ago, and to say that the Yankees were draping their tail there, it’s not right at all ..
                  1. His
                    0
                    22 July 2011 19: 32
                    The sky of Russia is tightly protected. There was a moment in the 60s when they flew in the stratosphere over the Urals, but they shot down and everything returned to normal - they changed their minds about flying
                    1. Superduck
                      +2
                      22 July 2011 19: 36
                      Quote: Own
                      The sky of Russia is tightly protected.

                      You stop forum defense of Russia! Homeland will be proud of you. Only do not go to the army wink
                      Just kidding, don't be offended
                      1. His
                        0
                        22 July 2011 19: 44
                        Not a single NATO plane flew even a kilometer across our border. It speaks about something generally
                      2. One of many
                        -1
                        22 July 2011 19: 56
                        NATO probably did not fly a kilometer. but the bully rust on the Red Square landed. something like this...
                      3. His
                        0
                        22 July 2011 20: 28
                        It was at the advice. In this case, nothing bad happened, because it was not a nuclear bomber that flew
                      4. Ivan35
                        +2
                        22 July 2011 22: 57
                        My own - I am "with you" as a Soviet person. But it also seems to me that the Pindos and the West always go half a step ahead, if not in technology, then in the tactics of using some kind of technological know-how (this is how I see the vision of Super Duck) and although our tanks and planes are not worse, these bastards often come up with something faster we often had moments of unpleasant surprises. This is not because we are more stupid - they just created a world system when all the world's resources work for them, secondly, the West has been the leader of technological progress in recent centuries - there is nothing shameful for us - for a small country of 260 million in the entire USSR, it showed just an excellent development result science and technology - and almost on an equal footing with them
                      5. His
                        +1
                        23 July 2011 12: 26
                        Agree
                      6. Terminator
                        0
                        7 October 2011 20: 14
                        It’s just that high officials were afraid to take responsibility for the destruction of Rust’s airplane.
                    2. Ivan35
                      +2
                      22 July 2011 22: 47
                      It was in the USSR. now the air defense is "piecewise", that is, it is impossible to close every kilometer of the border - but important objects are covered.
                      The country would not have collapsed and indeed everything would have been closed by this time
  13. KV-1 switch
    +2
    April 13 2011 03: 06
    In the export version, the tank will be amazing, and for the native army they will buy 100 pieces in a truncated form. At the same time, without ceasing to find fault, and pretending to have done the military-industrial complex a great favor. But the creation of this modification took time and resources that could be spent on the "Object 195", which UVZ and UKBTM pull themselves. At least they were allowed to show it. And there is something to see.
  14. Alexander
    0
    April 13 2011 09: 26
    It is high time to create a joint interstate holding of Kharkov, Ural, Omsk, St. Petersburg factories and design bureaus to distribute responsibilities and regain world leadership, i.e. extinguish competitors.
  15. Forward
    -3
    April 13 2011 12: 20
    It is silent about the latest types of weapons being developed. I mean pulsed and laser. As far as we know, Americans are already trying samples in experimental operation. As for our samples, there is no information, or they are very scarce. So in the presence of such weapons a tank, armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle. Or some other kind of armor will become just a useless mountain of expensive metal. nor any armor, let it be composite or dynamic, can’t stand it. In general, all battle tactics will be revised in accordance with the new realities and, as I believe, there will be no place for armored monsters. what's the point of spending billions of dollars on what is ending its practical application
    1. svvaulsh
      +2
      22 July 2011 14: 05
      Young man! Physics should be taught, not "star wars" to watch. Although, I will take my words back, if you say what a pulsed weapon is, how it differs from a laser weapon, what power of the laser light flux is needed to burn through tank armor and how much energy is required for this.
  16. +2
    April 13 2011 23: 33
    Laser lasers are good so far only in Hollywood.
  17. +1
    April 18 2011 15: 26
    Forward,
    and how much a shot from railguns or laser weapons will cost is comparable to the electricity consumption of a small town and in field conditions at this stage it is difficult to organize, the current is that until the tanks lose their relevance ...
  18. Mr. Truth
    +1
    April 28 2011 23: 41
    Forward, there will be a cannon on a two-component "liquid powder", it will be possible to change the speed of the projectile depending on the situation.
    1. Superduck
      0
      22 July 2011 14: 17
      By the way, I heard that the same notorious Abrams can fire a cannon by pre-programming the level of combustion of gunpowder in the sleeve, to the point that the gun can "spit" ammunition by 20 meters. It is used only with high-explosive ammunition. I can’t vouch for the reliability of this information, so don’t hit hard, if anyone has accurate information on this issue, dedicate it.
      1. Joker
        0
        22 July 2011 15: 10
        Most likely experimentally, since they do not even have high-explosive shells, in terms of manpower and fortifications they hit cumulative.
        1. Superduck
          0
          22 July 2011 17: 12
          If I am not mistaken, cumulative-fragmentation, combined rather than cumulative.
      2. Dvu.ru-shnik
        0
        6 September 2011 19: 05
        If you remove several beams from our charge, then he will be able to drop the shell directly in front of him.
        What is the point?
  19. panzersoldat
    0
    22 July 2011 12: 52
    Yes, thanks to the Soviet military-industrial complex, which created such great tanks as the T-72 and T-80.
    On their basis, and now you can create machines that will surpass the best Western models. The truth and all this will someday irretrievably become obsolete
    and you have to create a brand new tank.
  20. +1
    22 July 2011 16: 51
    By the way, military experts specifically on the issue of armament note the advantage of the T-90 over its Western counterparts. The firing range of guided missiles at the T-90 is approximately two times greater than the effective range of foreign tanks, which accordingly allows, without entering the affected area, to destroy enemy targets.

    The "military experts" are not saying something. Namely, in the West, since 1992, it is already possible to fire guided missiles through 105 and 120 mm smoothbore cannon at 8 km!


    And therefore, the Teshka has no advantages in firing range.
    http://defenceforumindia.com/indian-army/9558-arjun-mbt-thread-ii-arjun-mbt-orde

    r-2.html


    Really put in the end put an automatic transmission?
    1. Joker
      0
      22 July 2011 16: 56
      Is there such a thing, yes, but is there accurate information on the adoption and production of this product? In my opinion this is a development that can give a shot, but it does not produce.
      1. Superduck
        0
        22 July 2011 17: 17
        As I understand it, all this requires not weak changes in the LMS, among other things. and the target is probably not irradiated with a laser rangefinder. However, the joint efforts of Israel and the United States can push this topic in a matter of months, and they probably have already had several models of brass knuckles and all kinds of combatants for several years, maybe dozens.
        1. -1
          22 July 2011 18: 51
          I don’t know what is being irradiated, but it has been in service since 1992 of the year.
          http://defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ISAXZjkzo
          1. Superduck
            0
            22 July 2011 19: 23
            It seems that they are not being massively procured by NATO forces due to the lack of worthy opponents for their armored vehicles, and not the Taliban to drive them.
            1. His
              0
              22 July 2011 19: 34
              I think technically and financially not profitable for them
              1. Superduck
                +1
                22 July 2011 19: 37
                It would be profitable and useful to put, not the Yankees so Israel for sure.
      2. -2
        22 July 2011 18: 48
        Not only manufactured, but also in service in India, for example:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT
  21. PabloMsk
    0
    3 March 2012 19: 41
    Let's look at the comments after the exhibition ....
    Chickens, as they say, count in the fall.