Military Review

Army chooses upgrading T-72 instead of purchasing T-90

65
One of the main decisions of the exhibition of ground forces weapons held in Nizhny Tagil was that the Russian government was ready to finance the renewal of the production capacity of the domestic tank-building giant, Uralvagonzavod, at the expense of budget funds. It is expected that in the coming years, the state will spend over 64 billion rubles on the enterprise development program, in particular, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reported this at a festival timed to coincide with the company's 75 anniversary. Using the example of Uralvagonzavod, we see a serious attempt by the authorities to inject budget funds into the modernization of a military industry enterprise. What will these 64 billion go to?

It is worth noting that in recent years, the military has accumulated a fair amount of complaints about the products manufactured at the enterprise. At the exhibition held in early September, among other models, the T-90 tank was once again demonstrated. In the spring of 2011, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Alexander Postnikov, already criticized the tank, saying that the Russian Defense Ministry did not see the point in buying the “17th modernization tank T-72 "for 118 million rubles. Perhaps this is why the order structure of the defense department for tank technology is changing with great creak. For many years now, the Ministry of Defense has been purchasing 63 T-90 tanks, supplementing the order with overhaul and modernization services for the T-72 tanks in service with the T-72BA level.

The statements of General Alexander Postnikov did not arise from scratch; apparently, the military really do not see the point in buying a large number of new T-90 (which actually originally had an index T-72BU) at the price of 118 million rubles apiece. Last year, the defense ministry bought these tanks for 70 million rubles. Leaving behind the reasons for such a sharp increase in the price of this tank, it is worth noting that the fact remains: the Russian Ministry of Defense considers the mass purchase of the T-90 too expensive.

Army chooses upgrading T-72 instead of purchasing T-90
Photos from one of the exhibitions in Nizhny Tagil

Instead of buying new “old” tanks, the Ministry of Defense decided to increase the pace of modernization of the T-72 tanks in service. According to the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in 2010, the military ordered the modernization of 198 T-72B tanks to the level of T-72BA. It is also reported that in March 2011, a contract was signed on upgrading 300 tanks to the level of T-72BA during 3 years, that is, 100 tanks per year. However, taking into account the total number of T-72 tanks in the troops (according to information from open sources, their number exceeds 9 thousand units), and even taking into account their inevitable reduction during the transition to brigades of the “new look”, such modernization rates should not be considered the highest .

The desire to move to the modernization of existing tanks instead of acquiring the T-90 is confirmed by the concept of 3 types of combined-arms brigade "new look", which was published by the General Staff in 2010 year. According to this concept, brigades of 3 classes should be created in Russia - heavy (on tracked tracks), medium (on wheeled armored personnel carriers) and light (on armored vehicles). At the same time, the military demanded the maximum unification of vehicles within the same compound. In practice, this means that in the case of a heavy brigade, if possible, the entire fleet of its equipment should be based on a single chassis: from tanks, self-propelled guns and infantry fighting vehicles to engineering vehicles and tractors. The tanks and infantry fighting vehicles currently in service, as well as the hypothetical T-95, do not satisfy this requirement.

That is why the project appeared under the code designation “Armat” (there is an opinion that somewhere on the way in the media, a mistake has crept into the name of the project, and it is still called “Armada”). This development in the language of the military is referred to as “a promising unified heavy platform,” and it is on it that the whole complex of combat and auxiliary tracked vehicles of Russian heavy brigades should be deployed. It is assumed that the development of "Armata" engineers "Uralvagonzavod" will use all the successful solutions that have found application in the T-90 and "object-195."

Armata is expected to leave the plant’s workshops in 2015 year. Before this deadline, the military decided to use an economical recipe with the modernization of the T-72 tanks already in service. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, it will be more practical and cheaper.

T-72BA at a military parade in Yekaterinburg

Modernization of T-72

History The appearance of the T-72BA tank in the Rossi Armed Forces goes back to the very beginning of the 1990's. At that time, the production of tanks was carried out at two factories of the Chelyabinsk Tractor and the Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the production plans of both plants, the mass production of T-72B tanks was almost stopped, and at ChTZ, the production of tanks, as it turned out, was stopped forever. Uralvagonzavod for some time pinned its hopes on the deployment of a large order for the T-90 tank (“188 object”) and was engaged in the delivery of products for export. However, the landslide conversion of 1992 of the year forced the plant to turn its attention to a new type of activity for itself - the repair and modernization of vehicles in service to a more perfect level. However, the MO did not have the necessary financial resources for this either. Instead, during the year 1993, the plant was engaged in simple repairs and minimal revision of products in small batches. From 1994 to 1997, the company didn’t carry out any upgrading of the T-72 tank at all.

The situation revived in 1997, with the change of director at the enterprise and the revival of the Russian economy. In 1998, the company for the development of skills for the modernization of vehicles taken from the Ministry of Defense 20-30 tanks for overhaul. In March, 1998, the factory completely decided on the ideology of improvements. According to the T-72 tank, it included the replacement of the B-46 engine with the B-84, the installation of a modern automated FCS, a thermal imager and a VDZ (built-in dynamic protection) Contact-5. By the end of the year, the plant prepared the first modernized machine according to this scheme, and the installation of the tower on the hull was completed at the second tank. Both tanks were planned to show at the arms exhibition in Abu Dhabi. However, this modernization option again proved to be expensive for domestic aircraft. Two tanks remained prototypes for the further modernization of export versions of the tank, and the rest were subjected to major repairs and minor improvements in general. In 1999, the company underwent repair of X-NUMXB 30 tanks, the time has come to legalize the modifications carried out during the repair and in the period from 72 to 15.10, the state tested the modernized version of the tank, which entered into service with the Russian army under the T-26.11.2000BA symbol.

The first machines upgraded for this project (1998-2000 years) received the “Contact” mounted dynamic protection complex, some received “Contact-5” and the 1-40-1 control system. Externally, these tanks could be identified by the presence of atmospheric conditions sensor TWE-BS in the aft part of the tower (which can be decoded as a capacitive wind sensor with an interface unit). It is the interface block that is responsible for integrating the sensor with the MSA. The 1A40-1 control system provides fully automatic operation, but entering the total corrections still remained manual. Later, the tanks began to install the upgraded OMS 1А40-1М. Its distinctive features are:

T-72BA from 21 or 23 OMSBr in field conditions

- the presence of TBV (tank ballistic computer) on the processor;
- automatic input of lateral lead and aiming angles when firing from a cannon and a machine gun paired with it
- taking into account side wind, angular velocity of the target, roll, deviations of the initial velocity of the shells and individual departure angles;
- calculation of aiming and lateral lead angles for the commander's sight;
- semi-automatic tracking of a moving target.

The Svir guided weapons complex, which allows firing 9М119 and 9М119М missiles, is included in both of these MSAs. The Svir KUV guidance device was mounted in a periscopic passive-active night sight 1K13-49. In the 2005 year, after the implementation of the next improvements on the tank, a new OMS 1А40-М2 appeared. The standard weapon stabilizers were replaced with a new two-plane 2-42-4 "Jasmine" stabilizer with a horizontal horizontal electric-driven drive and an electro-hydraulic vertical drive.

Instead of the old B-84-1 and B-84M diesel engines that were installed on T-72B, which have disadvantages in the form of exhaust manifold burnout and overheating, an improved diesel engine was installed on the tank - B-84MS. At the exhaust manifolds of this diesel engine, the bellows were mounted, mixing the exhaust gases of the engine with atmospheric air, which had a positive effect on the temperature of the collector and reduced the thermal visibility of the T-72. Similarly, the T-90 tank model 1993, the transmission was modified. The chassis has received tracks with parallel RMSH and with the possibility of installing asphalt shoes. In accordance with this, a new drive sprocket and a sloth were applied.

The tank received enhanced mine bottom protection under the driver’s seat. There were mounted 2-a additional stiffeners under the bottom and transverse pillers. Directly next to the seat was an extension stand, and the seat itself was suspended from the tank hull roof. Overhead armor plates can be installed between the stiffened ribs (as an option).

Machines upgraded after 2002, were equipped only with built-in dynamic protection “Contact-5”, and from 2003, they began to receive a new unified MTO with a B-92 – 2 diesel engine with 1000 hp power. This MTO was tested on T-90С tanks of the Indian order. In addition to the engine, the tank received a new enhanced transmission, a modified air cleaning system, aluminum radiators with enhanced heat transfer, as well as embedded IR masking tools. The tank received the “Paragraph” communications system, which provides a confident communication range at a distance of at least 20 km. both on-site and in motion on sredneprossechennoy terrain and the new nightly device TVN-5 for the driver.

T-72BA from 21 or 23 OMSBr in field conditions

Unfortunately, even this small upgrade was done by a fairly small batch. At the end of 2009, the troops were no more than 219 tanks upgraded under this program. Presumably in 2010, their number increased by an additional 198 units, and in the period before 2014, the number of such tanks in the armed forces could reach 700. At least, the contract concluded between March 11, 15 of the RF Ministry of Defense and OAO Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation OJSC implies upgrading over 2011 tanks during 300 years.

Currently, this modernization is rightly criticized by experts for its inferiority, but the Ministry of Defense still does not want to spend significant funds on bringing the T-72B tanks to the level of T-72B2, which was developed during the OCD project "Slingshot-1". Most likely, a compromise solution will be born, according to which the T-72BA tanks will be refined in terms of installing a new SLA, including the gunner's thermal sight, since such developments at Uralvagonzavod have been ready for a long time. According to preliminary information, the Sosna-U thermal sight, developed by Peleng OJSC (Belarus) and equipped with a 2-generation thermal imaging camera manufactured by French company CATHERINE, can be installed on tanks.

Despite the fact that this modernization of the tank in its ideology has become outdated for years on 15, it is fully consistent with the current technical level, adjusted for operation in the Russian Army. It is worth noting that this upgrade is an upgrade for the money - for what they paid, they got it. It is possible to stretch before entering the troops of the developed tanks of a new generation with the modification of the T-72BA (especially if the thermal imagers receive tanks).
Author:
65 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vadivak
    Vadivak 28 September 2011 10: 02
    +8
    for what they paid, they got it.

    Gobble on the army "He who does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's."
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 28 September 2011 15: 12
      +7
      yes ???????? AND IF THE PRICE GROWS FOR THE YEAR BY 50 MILLION RUBLES
      WHO TO FEED ??? TOP MANAGERS AND GOVERNING-NO ALREADY FIRED
      1. Civil
        Civil 28 September 2011 20: 04
        +1
        you are speaking the truth!
        1. Yves762
          Yves762 30 October 2011 00: 30
          +3
          And for factories, what is the purpose of modernizing production? belay
          Managers are a separate issue with a separate solution. Although, I agree, it must be solved in parallel, but better first.
          Another stone for our MO: India does not complain about prices and continues to buy the T-90. What is it for? laughing
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 28 September 2011 21: 30
        +3
        What does top managers have to do with Rustam? There are costs of materials for the manufacture of one unit of equipment, they are easily calculated by a competent auditor, like man hours spent on work on this very manufacture. And a criminal case can be brought up against a top manager of an unreasonably high price, this is not difficult, the main thing would be if the authorities wanted to give a command to the prosecutor’s office, for example.
        1. vlad61642
          vlad61642 1 October 2011 22: 16
          +1
          Namely, this desire in power is completely absent.
        2. Rustam
          Rustam 4 October 2011 18: 21
          +2
          Yes, moreover !!!! WHAT WORKERS INCREASE THE PRODUCT PRICE ???? NO THIS IS MAKED BY TOP MANAGERS, FACTORY DIRECTORS AND APPLICATIONS FROM MIC, AND THERE ARE SIZED AS PIGS, WHY DON'T BUY US FOR THE SUCH PRICE ???

          the price dynamics of the T-90 in 2000 was 17.5 million rubles, 2007-56 million, and then remember how much they asked for it - 118 million. Yes, money is needed for industrial restructuring, metal, electricity, transportation and labor itself have risen significantly, but why is it exported for $ 2.5 million (81.7 million rubles)?

          FOR EXPORT CHEAPER EVEN !!!!!!!! YOU KNOW THE GUYS FOR SUCH A GAME, IT IS BETTER TO BUY THE LEOPARD (JUST NO SHAME OR CONSCIENCE)
          IN THE NORMAL COUNTRY FOR THIS ALREADY WAS SITTING IN JAIL
    2. ereke
      ereke 30 September 2011 10: 53
      +4
      See my article on the media2 about the modernization of the T-54-55. In different countries. And reflections on the meaning of modernization, why this is necessary and everything will become clear. I give the link http://smi2.ru/kamyshovyj_tigr/c776708 (the article is called the best tank of the USSR, you can find this article under these tags) I have now left all Russian sites, but my news and notes have remained
      1. vlad61642
        vlad61642 1 October 2011 22: 43
        +6
        And he did the right thing that he left. I read the article. You, my friend, did you drive this "best tank"? The coffin is on wheels. The mechanics are most sorry for the mechanics: you are tortured to shift gears, and you have to pull the PMP levers and it’s an open question or not. flies like seeds, especially in the mud. And what is happening in the tower when driving is a separate song. Not everyone can tolerate this for a long time. You can still bring a lot of things, but time is short. All the above upgrades do not eliminate these shortcomings much, but the glands on the tower and the hull You can hang a lot, the sense is that after the first projectile everything will fly around. Especially I am killed by the admiration for Ukrainian modernization. Replace the V-shaped diesel with 5TDF and be happy about it - well, Ukrainians need to attach their engine somewhere, this is understandable, but those who operated this engine should not be very happy. Similar to the ejection cooling system and air cleaner with the T64. You should not judge the advantages and disadvantages solely by sitting at home and reading articles from the Internet Most factories wishful thinking, keeping silent about the shortcomings that people who operate equipment know.
        1. ereke
          ereke 2 October 2011 00: 33
          +3
          Make a soft suspension like Romanians, replace metal tracks, with rubber cushion tracks for a smooth, noisy ride and a gearbox and the entire transmission with clutches (they are in one block and are interconnected) There are no problems now there is a lot of companies from the famous Allison ( release: transmissions and gearboxes, including tank automatic) to BOSH, ELBIT and Russian, Ukrainian private manufacturers. What other problems do you care about? However, he tells you everything is useless, I notice in Russia everything is always done with noise and scandals and revelations. They wanted the result as best as always, they wanted something new and got the same thing, but as in one performance of the famous comedian "BUT very for a lot of money" in one word they changed the awl for soap
          1. ereke
            ereke 2 October 2011 00: 50
            +3
            By the way, on the Merkava, the suspension is generally stiff, and the tank cracks on rocky terrain, be healthy and is in it so it is not recommended for a pleasant ride. The fighting compartment is large in volume but resembles a cylinder without corners. And it is only convenient for the driver, the mechanic who accelerates the car (although the car also maneuvers poorly, it all depends on the driver himself from his professionalism, look at the pictures, there are shots when the driver lost control and fell into a ravine or ran into water and got stuck). In this fighting compartment, although it is said that it is possible to place additional paratroopers, but not one of the infantrymen will simply not climb there, since in battle when the tank maneuvers, the infantryman has nothing to hold on to and will be thrown to the sides, so after the infantryman lands on the ground he has a desire to continue fighting in general. But "Akhzarit" is a heavy armored personnel carrier created on the basis of the T-54, where the turret was removed, the armor was reinforced and the tracks were replaced with light, durable and with rubber cushions, as well as aluminum wheels and suspension, they also changed the transmission to "Allison", the gearbox was semi-automatic ... And also an American engine with a new cooling system. The Jewish infantryman prefers to ride with pleasure, even reads books on the move (probably by the big "Torah"))
    3. ytqnhfk
      ytqnhfk 4 October 2011 13: 45
      0
      It is cheaper to modernize the existing ones, and if after the upgrade the tanks will not yield to their Western counterparts and become equal to our current existing ones, then I see no reason to buy "new" our tanks, let them make a tank of the 4th generation and need to buy it, otherwise we will buy a transitional one and then buy a new one again is not profitable! !!!!!!!!!
  2. Bogatir
    Bogatir 28 September 2011 10: 10
    0
    Well, we are waiting for negative news about a hundred "new" T-90s and the implementation of plans for rearmament of the southern district ... Or maybe they will sell Kazakhs for a cheap price, like Indian Su-30s to Belarusians.
    1. ereke
      ereke 30 September 2011 11: 05
      +2
      The Kazakhs refused to purchase the T-90 and the contract was not signed, although it was tested at our training grounds, in particular, in the tank brigade deployed in Otar. We decided it would be better to modernize all the main T-72 tanks. Ksati, he became the same after modernization as in the photo of the first T-72BA tank (photo: parade in Yekaterinburg)
    2. Insurgent
      Insurgent 24 February 2012 21: 16
      0
      It’s written with a pitchfork on water, now when they can be touched, the su-30 will be yes, they’re armed then they’ve even put it in the meantime
  3. Joker
    Joker 28 September 2011 10: 24
    +7
    For me it’s better to upgrade 500 tanks than buy 200 new ones.
    If there is a sight with a pine-y thermal imager and dynamic relict armor, then a very good upgrade option is obtained.

    A new version of the T-72BA tank with a Sosna-U sight
    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/09/72_19.html

    And there you look and Armata / Armada arrives in time.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 September 2011 10: 44
      +2
      I want to believe that it will be so
      1. Bogatir
        Bogatir 28 September 2011 11: 23
        0
        Belarusian Pine is good, but BA is not very good.
        1. Joker
          Joker 28 September 2011 11: 29
          0
          Quote: Bogatir
          Belarusian Pine is good, but BA is not very good.


          I inserted my half a penny, are you satisfied now?
          1. Bogatir
            Bogatir 28 September 2011 11: 40
            0
            So far, it has been written with a pitchfork on water, but there is a high probability. I am happy for the brothers of Belarus, so fall and are blind as donors - to the recipients of Armata ...
    2. Rustam
      Rustam 28 September 2011 15: 13
      +1
      Totally for !!! in such conditions, modernization is the only way out
  4. Bogatir
    Bogatir 28 September 2011 11: 47
    0
    Something logic is tearing me apart - they removed the T-90, which is almost the same as the BA, they put the T-72B with a possible upgrade to the BA ... belay
    Sewed on soap, or very likely the T-90 go somewhere under the guise of a new one for cheaper.
    1. Joker
      Joker 28 September 2011 11: 48
      +3
      Quote: Joker
      For me it’s better to upgrade 500 tanks than buy 200 new ones.
      1. Bogatir
        Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 13
        -1
        It depends on which modernization and which are new.
        1. Joker
          Joker 28 September 2011 12: 16
          +4
          T-90A & T-72BA (pine-u + relic complex). To the level of M (T-90AM) can be brought that one that is different.
          1. Bogatir
            Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 24
            0
            What a relic? And the modernization of the twice modernized - MO is hysterical ...
            1. Joker
              Joker 28 September 2011 12: 27
              0
              Quote: Bogatir
              MO is hysterical ...


              - the first sensible saying.

              .
              Quote: Bogatir
              What a relic? And the modernization of the twice modernized


              - I will not comment on our grief of leaders
              1. Bogatir
                Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 32
                -1
                Quote: Joker
                - the first sensible saying.

                - Oh, what would I do without your ratings ... laughing
                Quote: Joker
                - I will not comment on our grief of leaders

                The answer is:
                Quote: Joker
                - the first sensible saying.
                1. Joker
                  Joker 28 September 2011 12: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Bogatir
                  Sewed on soap, or very likely the T-90 go somewhere under the guise of a new one for cheaper.


                  - in principle, everything was clear immediately after this saying, given the constructive differences, including the welded tower of the 90th, but it became interesting what the dialogue would lead to.
                  1. Bogatir
                    Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 44
                    -1
                    Where did the welded tower come from?
              2. ytqnhfk
                ytqnhfk 4 October 2011 16: 33
                +1
                The warrior just squeal no one with whom he stuck with you-ignore the youngster so it’s easier for him at the very tower is welded !!!!!!!!!!!!!
  5. Bogatir
    Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 18
    -1
    By the way, by cheap modernization of the BA you can guess which T-90 the modern tank was.
    1. Joker
      Joker 28 September 2011 12: 23
      +1
      Quote: Bogatir
      By the way, by cheap modernization of the BA you can guess which T-90 the modern tank was.


      . In this case, the price of modernization is low due to the low cost of the Sosna-u system.
  6. Bogatir
    Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 22
    -1
    "Bellows were mounted on the exhaust manifolds of this diesel engine, mixing the engine exhaust gases with atmospheric air, which had a positive effect on the temperature regime of the collector operation and reduced the thermal signature of the T-72."
    - On fluorine photo exhaust as usual.
    1. Joker
      Joker 28 September 2011 12: 25
      0
      They can be distinguished only near.
      1. Bogatir
        Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 34
        -1
        Exhaust like a T-54
        1. Joker
          Joker 28 September 2011 12: 39
          +1
          Nda. If it’s really interesting, take the differences yourself. I give two tips:

          - topics of articles about "T-90S / A";
          - A model of the engine with a modified exhaust path is in this article.

          PS The chassis of the T-72 and T-90A is also somewhat different, but this fact is not questioned because of their identical appearance (we take it without tracks).
          1. Bogatir
            Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 43
            -1
            What is the difference in running?
            1. Joker
              Joker 28 September 2011 12: 46
              0
              Take find and read, but do not question things that you do not understand.
              1. Bogatir
                Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 50
                -3
                And the drive wheel is new and the caterpillar from the T-64 has not passed even half a century ...
                1. Joker
                  Joker 28 September 2011 12: 54
                  +1
                  Quote: Bogatir
                  And the drive wheel is new and the caterpillar from the T-64 has not passed even half a century ...


                  - I said we take no tracks, respectively, the drive wheel does not count as not bearing any design advantages. It’s just a different configuration for the new track.

                  - you will probably be madly surprised, but the caterpillar also has differences from the T-64 and the T-80.
                  1. Bogatir
                    Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 58
                    -1
                    The goose is there from the T-80, which is wider than the T-64, with an expanded and rubberized treadmill, from which perforations disappeared.
                    1. Joker
                      Joker 28 September 2011 14: 01
                      0
                      The T-90A caterpillar has some differences from the T-80 caterpillar.
                      1. Bogatir
                        Bogatir 28 September 2011 20: 22
                        -1
                        Everything is the development of the T-64 geese
                      2. Joker
                        Joker 29 September 2011 09: 00
                        +1
                        Do not translate the topic, the conversation was somewhat different, with the point not only in whose development, but in the fact that there is a difference (T-90 from T-72).
                  2. vlad61642
                    vlad61642 3 December 2011 15: 15
                    +1
                    I wonder what are the differences from the track 80?
  7. Bogatir
    Bogatir 28 September 2011 12: 51
    -1
    "The tank received a new set of communications" Abzets ""
  8. ZEBRASH
    ZEBRASH 28 September 2011 15: 42
    +1
    Well, if the "armada" is really a good and promising thing, and if this is not an invention, then with the modernized T-72 we will reach it fellow
    1. slan
      slan 28 September 2011 19: 59
      +1
      Apparently, there really is something to strive for. And it makes no sense to invest in the production of equipment with a hopelessly outdated concept. It would be different, most likely modernization would be less profitable since the resource after hanging expensive electronics on rusty iron is much lower. And so, apparently, a qualitative leap is expected when both the modernized 72 and the new 90 are equally morally obsolete during a time when the resource is not important.
      1. vlad61642
        vlad61642 1 October 2011 23: 05
        +2
        Well, the only sound idea, well done! All upgrades do not eliminate the essential shortcomings 72, for example, a differential heater with an ever-burning boiler, an automatic loader with constantly crushing cartridges, an excruciating installation of the engine (centering), dyurit connections (always flowing, there are always puddles of oil on the bottom and solariums), the 80 1G42 scope will be better than 1A40, you can still list a lot. And what electronics are shoved, so its capabilities are used by 10%. Yes and who will use it - year-old soldier, trained, and even that is not very good, Buttons to press, not knowing why they are. The same question is about using a guided projectile. Which of the current officers saw a fully-standing complex at 72? And even more so shot a guided projectile.
    2. Superduck
      Superduck 2 October 2011 00: 30
      -1
      There is no Armata yet, this is the name of the R&D topic and not the tank, otherwise half of Russia already believes that Armata is the best tank in the world.
      1. Joker
        Joker 4 October 2011 17: 04
        +2
        Superduck

        Judging by how they gave birth to the T-90SM / AM, Armada (on a single Armata platform) truly promises to be the best on our planet.

        I’ll add a couple of points, the point is that using the developments on the subject of 195 and the Black Eagle, create a tank on a single platform and a new elemental base (in terms of electronics).

        If you add the pine-u system to the updated T-90, which turned out to be quite compact and cheap, there are currently no technical and administrative obstacles for the “super tank”.
  9. Splin
    Splin 28 September 2011 15: 48
    +2
    Finally, the Russian military commanders have come to the point that the whole world is undergoing modernization!
    1. datur
      datur 29 September 2011 14: 35
      -1
      oh? More recently, these high-ranking grabbers from Mo proved with foam at the mouth - that you don’t need to modernize junk and you need to buy a new one. And now ???
  10. Motherland
    Motherland 28 September 2011 17: 35
    +1
    Now I read that we have an extra 5,7 trillion rubles! But as always, it was invested in banks for the elite ... But it would be better if the apartments were set up and the ammunition purchased ....
  11. UAZ Patriot
    UAZ Patriot 28 September 2011 21: 26
    0
    The whole muddle is that until the armata does not appear more than one state-of-the-art turret will not be accepted into service! SUPPORT !!!
  12. frame5
    frame5 29 September 2011 11: 35
    0
    Army chooses upgrading T-72 instead of purchasing T-90

    Given that the T-90 is the modernized T-72, this is not surprising.
  13. ereke
    ereke 30 September 2011 10: 42
    +4
    That's right.)) Why buy new when you can bring tanks to this level, the New T-90 costs 118 million rubles, and upgrading and bringing the tactical and technical capabilities of the T-72 to the T-90 level costs the Russian treasury three times less. So there’s a point
    1. slan
      slan 1 October 2011 13: 44
      0
      Make a major overhaul and tune a nine in '86 to the level of "priors" is also several times cheaper. But only if it is planned to push it into a ravine in a maximum of 5 years.
      Modernization cannot be a replacement for a new technique, but only an addition, or a replacement for a temporary one.
      1. ereke
        ereke 1 October 2011 19: 46
        +4
        slan- You are confusing the concepts of what is a defense technology and what is a civilian technology, the so-called slanders or, as they used to say, non-essential goods. Now heavy armored vehicles are considered as a combat platform (and so everywhere it is more than 15 years old), this is due to the expansion of PTS (anti-tank weapons) from infantry pocket artillery (heavy grenade launchers with a tandem PG of the "vampire" type capable of penetrating any armor, even if it were a "chobhem" of modern tanks ) to smart anti-tank missiles with a homing head on various platforms from an army Hummer jeep to a helicopter. Now everywhere in the main countries of the tank-building countries, the serial production of tanks for their armies has been stopped (they are building so in small batches only for export) .That is an example of the United States, which stopped the production of "Abrams" in 1995. And now they are only engaged in modernization of the "Abrams" The last modernization was carried out under the "TUSK" program, a tank for survival in urban conditions.This is due to the losses in Baghdad (Iraq), the specifics of the city and the guerrilla war where from any angle a militant can shoot a grenade launcher and escape leaving the position or blow up at an intersection on Have led to the fact that the amers modified the tank for battle in the city and additional protection of the sides with dynamic protection against cumulative APG.The range of tasks performed by the tank has expanded quite significantly in recent years, and the tank battles themselves (i.e., tank fights among themselves) went into past.The last large-scale tank battles were in 1991 Operation Desert Storm between the forces MNF and the southern group of the Iraqi army. Now a promising tank is considered as an armored platform for placing various electronic protection systems of the platform itself and the crew, as well as weapon control systems and placing different types of weapons on the platform, new types of technologically better types of armor made of composite materials
        1. ereke
          ereke 1 October 2011 19: 57
          +2
          And I also meant when I wroteslan- You are confusing the concepts of what is defense technology and what is civil engineering, the so-called chimney sweep or, as previously said, goods of prime necessity. The USSR has always produced not very cars, and nine also agree "tin can" in one word.

          But defense technology is already completely different. The parity between the USSR and the NATO countries was the same, and in terms of armored vehicles, parity was leaning toward the USSR. Probably now they forgot that in the west they were afraid of a tank offensive from the east and a breakthrough to the English Channel. So tank fear and tank hysteria in the West during the Cold War was real and they always knew that Soviet tanks were weapons of modern and very effective means of attack. So do not transfer your life experience to defense products
          1. slan
            slan 1 October 2011 20: 17
            -1
            Yes, I do not confuse anything) Technique, it is technology in the USA. It’s lazy to look, but I don’t believe you that in the United States, tanks are not “produced” in the same quantity and for the same years as in Russia. Technique tends to exhaust its resource, even if it is not used, especially in the Russian Federation)) So that a deep modernization of twenty-year-old technology can be either out of despair, or simply wait until better times. It is you who are confusing the modernization of easy and planned, in advance designed for this equipment and this particular case. And our tanks are consumer goods, modernization of aircraft is often recognized as inexpedient, google it better.
            1. ereke
              ereke 1 October 2011 21: 06
              +3
              The United States officially stopped the production of Abrams tanks; in the late 90s, there was one small batch for Saudi Arabia. Yes, it exhausts a resource, for example, a motor resource, calculated for some thousand hours and several overhauls. But the engine can be replaced with a new one, more compact and more powerful. The used transmission can be replaced with new technological solutions. The tracks are worn to new ones with rubber pads for a soft ride. You can replace weapons, a spent cannon with a new barrel, even of a different caliber, and other automatic loaders and promising ammunition, you can weld an additional armored module to the tower for safe placement of ammunition outside the fighting compartment. it is possible to replace the entire OMS system with modern ones. But it is impossible to replace the homogeneous armor made of alloyed ferroalloys (which, like steel itself, are very expensive in the current conditions of prices for energy carriers, including in the Russian Federation, the prices for electricity that is needed for steel smelting and its ligation with ferroalloys are growing by months and prices for raw materials are the same metal and tungsten, molybdenum, etc.) in modern conditions, with a small threat of a big war over wasteful and economic is not profitable, from this the defense capability of the Russian Federation will not benefit, to the detriment of other branches of military production, for example, aircraft construction, if the USSR could afford even to the detriment of the civilian production sector, when the propaganda "Threats to the conquests of socialism was in the first place," the Russian Federation cannot do this and will give up))
              1. ereke
                ereke 1 October 2011 21: 19
                +2
                Once again, you confuse tanks with airplanes, but airplanes have a clear resource, after which it is impossible !! use an airplane (although this is done in third countries and the CIS after overhaul) Yes, airplanes didn’t do much compared to the west in the USSR. But the tanks met all world standards and a tank is not a plane easier than a plane much and cheaper. Carry if Russian planes fall, that's all! it means that all shit of dog, like Russian officials, the ship sank, everything was forbidden to everyone, by the way bulgaria is not of Russian origin (it was ruined by the lack of overhaul and simple human negligence and thirst for profit, and in the United States, steamers still sail on the Mississippi river mid-20- x of the last century, the whole point is in relation to technology)))
                1. slan
                  slan 1 October 2011 21: 50
                  0
                  Quote: ereke
                  You confuse tanks with airplanes again, yes airplanes have a clear resource

                  Why am I confusing everything, but confusing?
                  On the topic of buying a bushy prul and a new car, you can argue until you turn blue. Just don’t need to correct me again, what am I confusing. This is again a metaphor.
                  http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0
                  And, I'm sorry for being straightforward, but you never once in my eyes pull on a unique specialist who dismisses all other arguments as operating with higher concepts. Well, after all, just until recently, specialists did not consider modernization an alternative to new tanks. Now here is the opinion changed. And you prove with a blue eye that in general a new technique is not needed. Yes, the Americans may really now have no use for tanks after the defeat of the USSR; they certainly won’t fight in the fields with Georgia and China. Do not confuse your narrow view of an article writer with real life. Although, of course, many here will support that you are an unrecognized genius, and the Taburetkins did not want to modernize. I didn’t drink there.
                  1. ereke
                    ereke 1 October 2011 22: 12
                    +2
                    Well then, let's get into the calculation. The main mass of the tank is in armor, only the T-72 tower weighs 14 tons, and the dry weight of the tank is 40 tons, the total mass is 46 tons (i.e. 80% is in armor) Now the tank needs not one, not two, but at least 1000 for the Russian army. Further, the cost of one tank only for the production of armor, for this tank, determine at current prices for raw materials and energy carriers and multiply by a thousand, you will get a real price. And there is nothing relative in prices here, as you put it)) Isn’t it better to take multilayer armored modules from the same Kevlar and ceramics and upgrade the existing tanks to the main armor both more technologically and cheaper, the main thing is significantly increasing the tank’s protection from modern PTS
                    1. slan
                      slan 1 October 2011 22: 26
                      0
                      By the way, reminded. The T-90am has another tower. So that the modernized and new cars will nevertheless be at a different level, not only by novelty.
                      46 tons of metal, albeit with rare-earth additives, a drop in the sea is 118 million. Ferrous metal of this mass does not pull by 2 million.
                      Collective farms are never better.
                      About the cost ... you can immediately see you are far from this. It is possible to include the director Maybach’s depreciation and the cost of equipment with a real residual resource a thousand times more than the production of this batch can be written off, but on the contrary it can be considered exclusively direct costs.
                      Let's still not argue, it seems to me, we both look stupid at the same time. This is just the case.
                      1. ereke
                        ereke 1 October 2011 23: 17
                        +1
                        The T-90 AM has the same tower, look at the photo of the T-90AM (demonstration performances at the test site in front of customers from the Moscow region). The tower is different, i.e. with an automatic loader and ammunition from another model, which was recently presented at the end of August and at the beginning of September, it was called the T-90 SM (it seems so, but here on the website there is a look about this model IMHO) and more finally, they hid everything that hung on the armor of the tower behind the armor (that is, inside the tank), it always shook me, like a fancy tree dressed up, all this and fiber-optic suppression complexes "Shtora" is theoretically good, but in practice one machine-gun burst from the window in the city and all the advantages of the systems will be nullified. Remember Chechnya, Grozny, when in the city snipers and machine gunners fired from windows and broke optical sighting and observation devices, blinding the tank and making further combat in the city impossible (and those devices are much smaller in size than the Soviet model). I wrote the same about this before and supported those who also criticize. But I liked the new T-90, finally, like people, but it was not there, the military refused to buy the T-90, explaining the high cost of the new model. And the need of the US army and naval corps for the Abrams MBT was 6000, and they released five thousand with a hundred there. and further and further billions were not crushed, and so the tank rose in price from modification to modification in 30 years, the amount came out astronomical)))

                        And go to the metallurgical plant where steel is smelted and not just steel, but a special (higher and technologically sophisticated) brand for defense orders, there you will see the smelting technology and what equipment for this you need and at the same time you will find out the real prices of the entire production, and after all, the rental goes on on a cycle to other factories until it finally turns into armor and arrives at a factory manufacturing armored hulls))
                      2. ereke
                        ereke 1 October 2011 23: 24
                        +1
                        The T-90 AM differs from the T-72 tower only in that it is welded, but otherwise also in volume and size, and still hung by different systems as previously said))
                      3. slan
                        slan 1 October 2011 23: 43
                        +1
                        Do you think it’s easy for people in a brick factory? Well, let the body cost 10 million (more expensive than aluminum). So what? A penny in comparison with the same modernization. But NEW without any collective farm. By the way, and if you pass the old in scrap metal, what is the profit?)) Here's a hunt for you to argue ..
                        But the T-90AM is still fundamentally with a new tower, with a fundamentally different AZ. And in general, then there’s nothing to say that this is one hell, but on the side for a third of the price.
                        I insist that a fundamentally new car, therefore, we really expect in the foreseeable future.
                      4. ereke
                        ereke 2 October 2011 00: 08
                        +1
                        You haven't read my article? at the top there is a kamment and a link, read what will happen if the tank is handed over for scrap and melted down. Will the armor come out at the end, after melting, at best, steel comes out, (depending on the melting technology), as well as cast iron, then you will have to get armor steel on a new one, taking into account the new prices for energy carriers, the result ... in general, okay, I will not be with you as you put it to argue)) And read the article if there is of course a desire))) Of course, I also want to see a new combat unit and developments are going in this direction, the same concept "black eagle" has long been proposed and shown. I proceed from the realities of today, (if you don't care where Russian government money is buried, then even more so for me), and so I always follow with interest new design ideas, and it doesn't matter the USA Russia. Good luck
                      5. slan
                        slan 2 October 2011 00: 37
                        0
                        Quote: ereke
                        You have not read means my article?

                        I read of course. There about Merkava, where about metal?
                        Ahh, not the one above was .. Found, I apologize.
                      6. slan
                        slan 2 October 2011 00: 49
                        0
                        And here is how I reason. Steel (rental) costs RUB 30 per kg (too lazy to specify how much is now) in a product of a maximum of 60, even in a unique product of 100 (I’m talking about cost, not to be confused with the price of dumbbells in the store) Well, let there be a lot of rare earth supplements, again it’s lazy to specify . But aluminum costs 150-250 rubles / kg. Well, let it be 300 rubles / kg in the product. So what? Yes, at least 400. This is with energy, with ore, with the salary of everyone in the world (including the secretary and the Maybach driver) ... But with an equal mass, how many aluminum armor in meters can you have? But only BMDs are made from aluminum; therefore, the hull of the tank is still much cheaper. Well, let it be 10 million, well, 20.
                        Yes, in the cost of the tank hull, for any minuscule. And that is why it is a whim to hang tens of millions of rubles on a rusty frame with "garlands" - it is a whim to change the engine, rollers, transmission ... That is, there are no miracles and cannot be, the avaricious pays twice. Of course, this is 100% applicable to the T-55. Therefore, all these projects are either not implemented, or a small-piece product of the third world countries (Poland, Serbia ..) for the fourth world countries. Again, the output is Dull G, with a very dubious resource and "reliability" of the collective farm structure, which can be compared with the T-90 only under the influence of stimulating drugs, or out of ignorance.
                        With the modernization of the T-72, everything is not so black and white there. Abramsy, I readily admit that everything there is modernized once or twice, and the building is not a hindrance, and so on ..
                      7. ereke
                        ereke 2 October 2011 01: 26
                        +1
                        Well, I won’t argue)) ferroalloys add to steel a little in nature, but Russia and Kazakhstan are rich in these elements. Amer reinforces his armor with uranium, it becomes stronger many times (but it is harmful in mining and production, so consider how it costs amers and Kazakhstanis who export this uranium-containing ore) Russian homogeneous (monolithic) armor consists of adding such alloys as molybdenum and tungsten, add nickel for strength. and this for every tone of steel a hundred kilograms of ferroalloys. Many countries, including Western Europe, do not have such mines, they certainly cost more)), despite this, Russia also costs a lot of money. I see Russians regularly, complain about the increase in tariff prices for heat and water, so that production also becomes more expensive, albeit cheaper than in Europe. Okay, take yours if you think the new tank will be better (of those that the Uralvagonzavod now offers) then this is your business, the main thing is to be able to say, but we won’t stand for the price, the main shaft))
                      8. ereke
                        ereke 2 October 2011 01: 52
                        +3
                        And the tanks do not rust, they rust only when they are thrown into the field or into the river, when the armor begins to come into contact with the aggressive medium, which at the end corrodes the metal. And so the tank if in operation or it is stored in special. warehouses and lubricate all rubbing mechanisms, it will last a very long time or will be stored for a long time in warehouses that I have already said about the type of box or garages. I don’t know how here in kamenty insert photos did not understand. But I have photos from the official ceremony of transferring the tanks of the modernized Super-Sherman M 51HV Chile to the Israelis in 1995. But these are tanks of the 1942-44 release that the Shermans handed over to the Jews as French allies during the event around the Suez Canal in the 50s. In 1979, the Israelis sent all the Shermans to the reserve for storage and they were not stored in warehouses for 20 years until Chile decided that such tanks were suitable for them to solve regional problems and the country's defense capabilities within South America (for example, Colombia has no tanks) and then the Jews removed from weapons, modernized and sold the Shermans of Chile. Sherman tanks still carry their military service 60 !!! years old))
                      9. slan
                        slan 2 October 2011 12: 19
                        0
                        So I did not say that you can’t upgrade. I’m saying that modernization cannot replace production and that it is a deep and expensive modernization that is most likely irrational, as practice shows. And the point here is not in cuts and kickbacks as many would like.
                        About rust, again figuratively. Of course, equipment can be stored for hundreds of years in perfect condition. There are regulations for this, at what time to change the oil, at what intervals to start and how much to drive around the yard several times a year. But how many equipment is stored like this? In the Russian Federation, I think, even in Kubinka, this is not observed at all. And rats and insects, the inevitable aging of rubber, "temporary borrowing" of spare parts, theft of nonferrous metals, dust, dew, temperature fluctuations, diffusion processes, a change in the roughness of the processed surfaces, gaps ... And if the equipment was also operated in real conditions, and even in 90th. This is what I meant that the resource is falling, and especially in the Russian Federation. And completely sort it out, it is necessary not only to assemble, but also to disassemble and everything in place by hand. Even in theory, not everything is smooth with deep modernization, and even in practice it is. Well, the radio communication should be changed and the remote sensing system installed, the SOU should be installed, of course it is necessary, but this will not replace new machines. Again, maybe in fact now it suddenly turns out that tanks are hopeless. There are many factors and it cannot be said that modernization is black, and new tanks are white, or vice versa.
              2. slan
                slan 1 October 2011 21: 25
                0
                Quote: ereke
                the engine can be replaced with a new more compact and more powerful. It is possible to replace the spent transmission taking into account new technological solutions ..

                Well, and how much will such an upgrade cost when the replacement of the JMA, communications and protection is already a third of the cost of a new one? But the cost is a very relative value, I assure you, depending on the calculation methodology, it can be very different. And what is the cost of non-production of new tanks, anyone thought? It is necessary to support plants, pay benefits, and fight against increased crime. Metal? I do not think that this is a problem now, what damage, to whom ?! This was not enough for the People’s Commissars, okstitsya. Yes, the same old cars ..
          2. ereke
            ereke 1 October 2011 20: 18
            +1
            At one time, I wrote on a Russian-language site about one of the most modern tanks in the world "Merkava" mod.4. An article in the form of a note, you can also read on SMI2 the title "the best tank in the world Merkava-perspectives" This is the fruit of the work of several authors, including mine. This article appeared when the Jews declassified their super tank in 2010. By the way, they also stopped the production of tanks and concentrated their efforts on the production of the heavy BMP "Namer" based on the "Merkava mod.4" Link to the article http://smi2.ru/kamyshovyj_tigr/c738563
            1. slan
              slan 1 October 2011 21: 15
              +1
              Good article.
              It turns out that the Jews, realizing the futility of their new tanks, decided to be content with the old ones, probably also before the advent of a machine that has real advantages. Otherwise, if the long-term prospect of a successful application of the existing machine was visible, they would be sure to mass-produce it, while modernizing the old ones.
  14. Motherland
    Motherland 1 October 2011 13: 19
    +2
    Well, in this regard, it’s more profitable to modernize all the same, the tanks are almost the same, but if at all a new car with radical changes, then we could argue on this subject
  15. slan
    slan 1 October 2011 22: 09
    0
    ereke Of course, I am confusedly expressing myself and not emotionally to the end in the end, but the point is that we actually have nothing to argue about. We need modernization, we need new cars, both have pros and cons and everything is decided depending on many factors. I wrote arguments for the new cars, which are obvious in my opinion, you began to give me your obvious arguments again .. There is no subject for discussion here IMHO, but you are right.
    1. ereke
      ereke 1 October 2011 22: 40
      +2
      For the first time I hear about my own that I can pull on a unique specialist)) In fact, I have never changed my opinion as you say about some specialists)) I go a little in step with the philosophy of the time and do not always give propaganda (unless, of course, I don’t look into this interest and don’t contradicts my principles) and I also don’t apply to hypnosis, I noticed it from my youth)) And that article about the merkava)) just wondered why the Jews praise their tank, and advocate that it is invulnerable, on all and even Russian-language sites. Moreover, the events in Lebanon in 2006 showed that it did not agree with the propaganda about mod.4 It was then when I published, so simple observations about the tank, the Jews grabbed me with their criticism of me and accused me of “being stupid and don’t know anything! And far from this the topic "... what do they think I should know and what qualities of a tank?", they reacted so vividly, especially one tanker from Tel Aviv (it turns out he served on Merkava mod.3 at one time) He then did not like me and always tried to pin me up by type is enough google !!! capitalizes other people's information and propaganda! he had to explain the course of my thoughts and conclusions, and there is nothing unique here, only one circumstance, whether you believe or support the official ideology or have moved away in your thoughts from this tinsel and mass hysteria))
      1. slan
        slan 1 October 2011 22: 46
        +1
        Quote: ereke
        For the first time I hear about my own that I can pull on a unique specialist))

        Once again, I apologize for the emotionality in the statements.
        I evaluated the article without sarcasm, really interesting and, I think, competently. In any case, reasoned.
  16. Yves762
    Yves762 24 October 2011 00: 06
    0
    It’s the same as upgrading Cherepanov’s steam locomotives to, at least, a peregrine falcon.
    On the other hand, the T-90 is essentially the same as the modernization of the T-72.
    Not healthy something. What prevents the government from initiating checks on the validity of price increases. If I am not mistaken, the state owns, albeit in some places and in part, enterprises in the structure of the military-industrial complex ... so what has happened to ?! Or from their beloved: "Market economy, Sir !!!!"
  17. son of the fatherland
    son of the fatherland 5 February 2012 17: 36
    +2
    In this decision, I am on the side of the military. The upgraded T-72 is virtually no different from the T-90, but half the price. We have them, several thousand! Offer for re-melting?
    The modernized T-72 is quite capable of solving the tasks that it may face in the foreseeable future. There is a unification (common platform, modularity, etc.) of military equipment. - I hope no need to explain why? T-90, does not fit into it.