Media: In Omsk, developed a project to upgrade the T-80

Omsk specialists developed a modernization project tank T-80BV, which will significantly increase the characteristics of the domestic machine, reports Messenger of Mordovia.

“The improvements will concern, first of all, the increase of firepower, protection and command controllability of the tank,” writes the author of the article, Lev Romanov, with reference to armored vehicle expert Alexey Khlopotov.

According to the expert, “a modern multichannel sight, Sosna-U, with a target tracking machine and a thermal imaging channel, will be installed on the tank, there will also be a doubler sight.”

In addition, the machine will be installed dynamic protection of the new generation "Relic", "able to withstand the most modern anti-tank weapons, including tandem anti-tank guided missiles," he said.

T-80B with dynamic protection "Relic"

Not left without attention and the question of increasing the fuel efficiency of the gas turbine engine.

The machine will also be equipped with the latest ultrashort-wave radio station and a software and hardware complex for the intercom, switching and control equipment.

“Thanks to these and other innovations, the improved T-80 will be maximally unified with the T-72B3 and, by most characteristics, will compete with the best foreign models,” the author concludes.

Comments

[Yars]

For me personally, the T-80 is one of the best in the world!

[Stalker.1977]

A controversial issue, after modernization there will probably be, but for now it’s so halfway.

[kodxnumx]

T-80 is so cool tank and the fact that it will modernize the Russian Armed Forces will only win!

[Verdun]

Quote: kod3001

T-80 is so cool tank and the fact that it will modernize the Russian Armed Forces will only win!

I completely agree. The eighties available - and there are several thousand of them - just need to be brought up to date. It would be interesting to see such a modernized car at the tank biathlon. See and figure out "whose cones are in the forest" ...

[aviaexpert]

There is the T-80U, and there is the T-80B. "U" from "B" differ as well as T-90 from T-72.

And if you put the "eighties" in biathlon, then the "nineties" will come the skiff. Therefore, no one competes with them there.

[Alekseev]

Quote: aviaexpert

And if you put the "eighties" in biathlon, then the "nineties" will come the skiff.

Why kayuk? What will be your evidence?
Or so, boltology, sir?
And biathlon is not a comparison of the capabilities of MBT but an event to popularize military service.
Now more serious.
The main drawback of the T-80 is its expensive and voracious gas turbine engine.
These disadvantages cannot be radically reduced. No wonder the article modestly writes: "The issue of increasing the fuel efficiency of a gas turbine engine has not been ignored either." Without details.
And the details are as follows.
In short, without delving into the "jungle".
In order to achieve a more or less acceptable flow rate, you need to significantly increase the temperature of the gas in the turbine, in this heat the dust in the air will melt and not allow the blades to work normally.
Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly clean the very significant amount of air needed for a gas turbine engine.
To do this, very large-sized air purifiers are needed, which will make the dimensions and weight of the T-80 like that of Abrams and all the pros will smoothly go into cons.
There is still something very significant, but the comment is not a textbook of a young tanker, but all explanations for those who wish have long been given in the open press.

[Verdun]

Quote: Alekseev

The main drawback of the T-80 is its expensive and voracious gas turbine engine.
It is impossible to radically reduce these shortcomings.

Peak diesel is comparable in terms of fuel consumption with gas turbine engines. At idle, he really spends less. Specialists of the Omsk Design Bureau have repeatedly said that to provide a tank equipped with a gas turbine engine with electric power, a separate compact and economical unit has long been developed. And when the time comes, the gas turbine engine starts without problems and the tank begins to move.

[propaganda NO]

So the problems with dust in the gas turbine engine were solved long ago - the "shake-up" of the unit in order to drop the accumulated dust on the blades.
And at the military theater of operations there are various tasks, including tasks for which no one will take into account fuel consumption and its cost - therefore, they keep and modernize the T-80 (for highly specialized tasks).

[Ze Kot]

Quote: Verdun

and there are several thousand of them - you just need to pull them up to the modern level.

Difficult task. Even the 72nd is slowly being converted to B3.

[Pushkar77]

In our northern latitudes, the T-80 is generally indispensable. The car is generally cool, I hope that they will be modernized and still serve.

[maiman61]

He served on the T-80! This is a swallow! The T-72 compared to the T-80 is Zaporozhets vs Mercedes!

[aviaexpert]

+ 100500. Believe me, I know what I am writing !!!

[Armax]

Quote: maiman61

He served on the T-80! This is a swallow! The T-72 compared to the T-80 is Zaporozhets vs Mercedes!

I will subscribe to your comment, at one time I myself was dumbfounded by the difference with the T-62.
Speed ​​and ease of control, plus is not audible in the movement towards, firepower, etc., but it's high time to "update" the old man.
Modernization of fire control, protection, communications and, importantly, lower fuel consumption will really make the T-80 modern and deadly for opponents.

[Skifotavr]

Quote: Stalker.1977

A controversial issue, after modernization there will probably be, but for now it’s so halfway.

Nevertheless, more serious than any T-72.

[Andrey Yuryevich]

the other day they just wrote that they will not upgrade the 80s, here again the opposite ... some rumors.

[Vend]

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

the other day they just wrote that they will not upgrade the 80s, here again the opposite ... some rumors.

Well, Omsk Transmash needs to somehow survive

[svp67]

Quote: Wend

Well, Omsk Transmash needs to somehow survive

And the Arctic and near-arctic brigades need to be equipped with something.

[Blondy]

Most likely, this is an "initiative from the ground", as Wend did not write: "Well, Omsk Transmash needs to somehow survive." And it is still necessary to approve it at the top, and to find money for this case.

[alexmach]

while this is a plant project, they are doing their right thing to propose and show what they can. And to choose is already the business of Moscow Region.

[Kars]

But he was sat by T-90) and for 20 years slowed down progress)

[uruss]

Just the time to remember the black eagle! deep modernization of the t-80 although I suspect that the development of the t-80 and the black eagle were used in Armata!

[76rtbr]

the car is good for tank throws and quiet from the front. but as he loves to eat ???

[NEXUS]

And the gun will be new just right. Once the firepower is increased, then the T-80BV will compete with the T-90AM Breakthrough.

[Romin]

And besides, it prevents the MO from exhibiting at the tank biathlon in addition to the 72nd T-80.
So who would have looked better ...!
I feel like something was compressed at UVZ!;))))
The lack of healthy competition leads to a slowdown in R&D and the introduction of developments in the metal! And this (competition) dogma in everything.
And also the issue of pricing becomes very flexible with true competition, which is not unimportant now.
To write off the St. Petersburg and Omsk design bureaus is the rudest miscalculation of our leadership.
The T-80 should appear a further line of development in the next model! It is impossible to give up work on modernization and development of a gas turbine engine!

[NEXUS]

Quote: Romin

It is impossible to give up work on modernization and development of a gas turbine engine!

The thought came to my mind - Why do not they replace the old helicopter engine with a new, more powerful helicopter engine? ... I believe that extra drugs would not hinder this tank, which is still formidable and competitive.

[gallville]

Quote: NEXUS

I believe that extra drugs would not hinder this tank at all, which to this day is quite formidable and competitive.

He has hp and so "for the eyes" 1000 horsepower GTD is equivalent to about 1250 diesel. Truth eats an exorbitant amount. So the IMHO engine should not be touched there.

[NEXUS]

Quote: gallville

True eats exorbitantly

And that is, you do not consider profitability?

[gallville]

Quote: NEXUS

And that is, you do not consider profitability?

1. For a modern tank, he "uses" normally. Compared to Western models.
2. The engine is well adapted to the north and therefore it is necessary to sacrifice something.
Let him eat more, but at hour X it will start up than it will be "economical" and burn a fire under it for a day.

[Alex777]

Under the tank? Bonfire?

[Verdun]

Quote: Alex777

Under the tank? Bonfire?

And how else can warm diesel fuel frozen in fuel lines? No, of course, there are autonomous heating systems, such as Webasto. But only in conditions of army operation they are of little use. And in civilian life, when things are really bad, truckers put a trough under their tractors in which they light a fire. Extreme measure, but it works.

[svp67]

Quote: Verdun

And how else can warm diesel fuel frozen in fuel lines? No, of course, there are autonomous heating systems, such as Webasto. But only in conditions of army operation they are of little use.

In general, the T-80 in a peaceful life "runs" on kerosene, and it has much less problems with freezing. Yes, and tank heaters for diesel engines, with normal crew training, did not fail, and there is a lot of sense from them. Especially those who served on the T-64 can testify to this ... a very finicky car

[Verdun]

Quote: svp67

In fact, the T-80 in a peaceful life on kerosene "goes"

So I wrote about diesel cars. And the fact that the main fuel of the gas turbine engine is kerosene, although in general it is multi-fuel, I know.

Yes, and tank heaters for diesel engines, with normal crew training not when failed

To do this, at a minimum, he must be in good working order and stand in his regular place. This is not always the case in the army. And at temperatures below -30 and from it there is little sense. Especially if anxiety and every minute counts.

[svp67]

Quote: Verdun

And at temperatures below -30 and from it there is little sense. Especially if anxiety and every minute counts.

Yes, he normally works at this temperature, closed the blinds, put the tarp on the MTO and gray, until he reached the desired temperature. But on the gas turbine engine it is not there, since there is no liquid cooling system

[venik]

Quote: NEXUS

And that is, you do not consider profitability?

Why not consider? It just indicates that the TBG is very gluttonous !!! Or did you read inattentively ?:

Quote: NEXUS

True eats exorbitantly

By the way, "gluttony" and high cost are the ONLY disadvantages of gas turbine engines in comparison with diesel engines (the problem of operation in areas with high dust content - it has already been solved!).
By the way, familiar tankers who had a chance to test the 80s "by the teeth", for some reason, they unanimously consider them the BEST! And the guys traveled on 55, 64 and 72!

[svp67]

Quote: venik

By the way, familiar tankers who had a chance to test the 80s "by the teeth", for some reason, they unanimously consider them the BEST! And the guys traveled on 55, 64 and 72!

To the level of T-80U, we could only reach the T-90A ...

[Kars]

Quote: svp67

To the level of T-80, we could only T-90A to reach ...

I often write this), but few believe)

[svp67]

Quote: Kars

I often write this), but few believe)

When you haven’t tried it yourself, you will only believe in what you believe in ...

[aviaexpert]

Once I, together with the chief designer of the GTD-1250, went to the next BTT exhibition. Suitable gl. To the T-90. Examines, feels. And he says to the guys from UVZ: "Well done. They made a good tank." Those shone like polished pots. And he continues: "The cap (that is, the turret) was taken from the T-80 - good - that's right, the chassis, the weapons, the systems from the same place are also not bad. Well, what is left is to install a gas turbine engine. And you will have an excellent tank, no worse than the T-80 ". The curtain!

[svp67]

Quote: gallville

He has hp and so "for the eyes" 1000 horsepower GTD is equivalent to about 1250 diesel

Actually, in the latest versions, just 1250 strong gas turbine engines stood.

[aviaexpert]

First, 1000 hp the engine of the very first modification of the tank is the T-80B. The T-80U has an engine with a capacity of 1250 hp.

Secondly, 1000 hp GTE = 1000 hp diesel engine. According to the law of physics. But the amount of engine power that goes to auxiliary systems in a tank with a diesel engine is prohibitive.

[Andrey Yuryevich]

Quote: Romin

It is impossible to give up work on modernization and development of a gas turbine engine!

especially in the north, he has no price.

[aviaexpert]

If you think that the tank has a HELICOPTER engine, then to put it mildly, you are mistaken !!! An original gas turbine engine was developed for the T-80 at Klimov, capable of operating under the operating conditions of the tank. This engine differs from a helicopter, like a rocket from a motorcycle.

[Magic archer]

I agree with your opinion. Betting on one KB is at least not far-sighted! I always need competition! I don’t understand the MO’s decision to write off the T-80! The machine is excellent! And replacing the engine and suo will make it a clear competitor to the T-72Б3! Although most likely here it’s not about the quality of the machines, but about lobbying certain products by a certain design bureau.

[alexmach]

I don’t understand the MO’s decision to write off the T-80!

1. Unification.
2. Savings, especially on a "temporary" solution.

[Alf]

Quote: alexmach

1. Unification.

Have you already written off the T-64? That's where unification doesn't smell.

[alexmach]

Well, as if Wikipedia writes

2000 T-64A and T-64B in storage, as of 2016 [25]. After the development of the resource, they are gradually withdrawn from service and disposed of.

In storage as well as the 80s. In parts there will be only 72 + 90 + aramats

[Alf]

Quote: alexmach

2000 T-64A and T-64B in storage, as of 2016 [25]. After the development of the resource, they are gradually withdrawn from service and disposed of.

In storage as well as the 80s. In parts there will be only 72 + 90 + aramats

Why dispose of them? Is it really difficult to play a prank and sell it to any churkistan? What, MO donation money is not needed?

[alexmach]

I don’t know, the quote from Wikipedia itself is somehow contradictory. What kind of resource development there is in storage is not very clear to me.

As for me they lie, do not touch anyone - well, let them lie to themselves. Maybe someone will come in handy.

True. It’s not entirely clear to me what this storage is. According to the regulations for the storage of automotive equipment, she has to be serviced once every 5 years. I think the same with tanks. If serviced as expected - then it is costly, if not serviced - then without major repairs you will not be removed from storage.

[fox21h]

Quote: Romin

The T-80 should appear a further line of development in the next model! It is impossible to give up work on modernization and development of a gas turbine engine!

We are moving towards the unification of technology, and the T80, a completely different machine with 72/90, has little in common, so most people refuse it in favor of 72/90, and it will most likely be exported after the update.

[pimen]

unification is a good thing, but the possible "maximum for the existing day" parameters will not be achieved

[berezin1987]

The t-80 has no special advantages over the modern versions of the t-72 / 90. The early versions of the t-72 were inferior to the t-80 as a suo, and the tanks were about the same in terms of security and firepower. The T-72 / 90 ammunition shell protection is better due to the location of the propelling charges in the housing.

[svp67]

Quote: berezin1987

The t-80 has no special advantages over modern versions of the t-72/90.

There is an advantage and it is called "operational agility". Not one "iron" (T-72 and T90) will not catch up with the "vacuum cleaner" (T80)

[Alf]

Quote: berezin1987

The t-80 has no special advantages over modern versions of the t-72/90

Oh how good. OLD T-80s have no advantages over MODERN T-72/90. And if you understand it differently, the MODERN versions of the T-72/90 in the LMS finally caught up with the OLD T-80.

Quote: berezin1987

The early versions of the t-72 were inferior to the t-80 as a suo, and the tanks had about the same firepower.

In modern weapons, firepower and SLA are very closely intertwined. Under equal conditions in the form of firepower, a more advanced OMS will give a huge chance to win and survive.

[Alex777]

Quote: fox21h

Quote: Romin

The T-80 should appear a further line of development in the next model! It is impossible to give up work on modernization and development of a gas turbine engine!

We are moving towards the unification of technology, and the T80, a completely different machine with 72/90, has little in common, so most people refuse it in favor of 72/90, and it will most likely be exported after the update.

And one of the reasons for unification is a lack of finance.

[Alf]

Quote: Alex777

And one of the reasons for unification is a lack of finance.

True, only saving on weapons is the last thing.

[gallville]

Quote: Romin

And besides, it prevents the MO from exhibiting at the tank biathlon in addition to the 72nd T-80.
So who would have looked better ...!
I feel like something was compressed at UVZ!;))))

If we compare the t-80u and t-72b3 heads will fly not only at UVZ. So only in dreams.

[berezin1987]

And why is the t-72b3 worse than the t-80 without modernization. I agree that in t-72б3 some things could be done better, but modernization was chosen cheaper. Overhaul was made for this money, a new gun was installed, a new engine, pine-u sight, remote control, modernized suo. The disadvantage is the lack of a remote combat module and network-centric technologies.

[Verdun]

Quote: berezin1987

And why is the t-72b3 worse than the t-80u without modernization.

Mobility and ease of starting at low temperatures. The gas turbine engine is constantly operating at maximum torque and the distribution of this moment is already carried out in the tank's transmission. T-80 with GTE and T-72 is like a sports supercar and a business sedan. As for starting at low temperatures ... You try to warm up the diesel at temperatures below -30 degrees. Beyond the Arctic Circle, the equipment involved in the work is not jammed throughout the long polar night. But for gas turbine engines this does not present serious problems. But the trouble is that the Omsk plant today is part of the UVZ and there are few hopes that this modernization will take place. If they’ll just press hard on top ...

[Isstvan]

And due to the fact that the t80 has an omnivorous engine, UVZ reached this relatively recently with the help of the St. Petersburg KB.

[svp67]

Quote: berezin1987

The disadvantage is the lack of a remote combat module and network-centric technologies.

Do you know how the Pine-U was installed on it by the gunner? How he is forced to use it.

[alexmach]

Where does the new engine come from? The old one after the repair ... Or have they already divorced several options b3?

But in general I agree. The upgraded tank is better. Only 80 has a larger modernization potential, this is its great advantage.

[berezin1987]

In 2016. MO ordered an improved version of the t-72б3 with a more powerful 1130 hp engine and elements of dz relic.

[vkl.47]

I would love to see the power of a gas turbine engine

[Siberian]

Quote: Romin

I feel like something was compressed at UVZ!;))))

"Uralvagonzavod heads an integrated structure uniting about 40 industrial enterprises, research institutes and design bureaus in Russia and Europe ..." Omsk and Peter are included in these 40 enterprises, research institutes and design bureaus

[svp67]

Quote: Romin

And besides, it prevents the MO from exhibiting at the tank biathlon in addition to the 72nd T-80.

Only the fighting qualities of the T-80, even in the T-80B modification, it will "tear" everyone, and not to mention the T-80U

[PSih2097]

Quote: svp67

Quote: Romin

And besides, it prevents the MO from exhibiting at the tank biathlon in addition to the 72nd T-80.

Only the fighting qualities of the T-80, even in the T-80B modification, it will "tear" everyone, and not to mention the T-80U

and if we recall the modification of the T-80AT, then finally ...

1. New welded low-profile tower with aft niche.
2. The deployment of ammunition in the aft niche of the tower with kick panels.
3. The tower has a rational shape and a very strong slope of the windshield. Projectile resistance at an exceptionally high level.
3. New dynamic defense "Cactus".
4. New automatic loader.
5. Thanks to the new layout, large interior space. The seats, like all T-80s with excellent ergonomics, are developed by an Italian company. Stove, air conditioner. - Comfort at the level of "Merina".
6. The engine GTD-1250 or GTD-1500.
7. Torque converter and hydrostatic transmission. Steering wheel, gas and brake - nothing more.
8. A lot of new. There is everything that the T-90A has. KOEP, KAZT, SEMZ, TVP, etc. All bells and whistles.

[aviaexpert]

Work on the development of the gas turbine engine has been abandoned as early as 20 years !!!

[Berber]

I do not see much point in modernizing it.

[NEXUS]

Quote: BerBer

I do not see much point in modernizing it.

In the arsenal of the Russian Federation, if sclerosis of more than 3000 T-80 doesn’t fail me ... Do you propose to spit on it and deprive yourself of a very powerful steel fist? I think if you count how many tanks are in all of Europe and you get less, we only have T-80s.

[Alexey-74]

for sure, and if they are still being modernized, then, as they say, we’ll go to the English Channel .....

[lelikas]

Quote: NEXUS

In the arsenal of the Russian Federation, if sclerosis of more than 3000 T-80 doesn’t fail me ... Do you propose to spit on it and deprive yourself of a very powerful steel fist? I think if you count how many tanks are in all of Europe and you get less, we only have T-80s.

They are almost all in storage, armed with about 400.

[NEXUS]

Quote: lelikas

They are almost all in storage, armed with about 400.

Who cares? In storage does not mean in a landfill. And now it's time to modernize this park. Moreover, given our efforts in the Arctic, this is a very necessary matter.

[alexmach]

Yeah, and another mountain 72-k. That's just all of them do not upgrade ...
although it’s worth it in the mind .. only it had to be done all the last 25 years.

[gallville]

And detail? The t-80 chassis is much better than the t-72 and t-90, which is optimal for working in the northern latitudes (hello to the Arctic brigades), the basic suo is better than the t-72b and, in general, probably the t-72b3, well, when compared with the t-80bv. T-80u is slightly worse than t-90a, an older thermal imager.

[Comrade Glebov]

But will it be like with the T-72B3 mentioned in the article, which is inferior in terms of performance characteristics to almost any export modification? Maybe you need to think not only about Algeria and India, but also your normal tankers to plant normal vehicles?

[kirieeleyson]

It will be a big deal if they start the plant, this is one of the best tanks IMHO.

[Kars]

Star (or rather the old dragon) to cut another activity)

[kirieeleyson]

Lingering torment, I would have described this process))

[Rosty]

And whose engines on the T-80 are? Whose production?

[gallville]

Omsk. If memory serves. And what did you want to breed hohlosrach? On a tank developed by the St. Petersburg Design Bureau?

[Kars]

Quote: gallville

On a tank developed by St. Petersburg Design Bureau?

Well, the first towers still arrived from Kharkov)

And so the T-80UD from the Kantemirov and Toman divisions successfully rotted

[gallville]

Quote: Kars

Well, the first towers still arrived from Kharkov)

And so the T-80UD from the Kantemirov and Toman divisions successfully rotted

You confuse 2 models. T-80UD is a modification of the T-80U with a diesel engine. Until t-80u there were still bv. And the Kharkov engine was chosen because of its size.
In the USSR, at the end they wanted to come to a unification of the tank fleet with options for the region. And yet with the towers that de essence. The unification of the fighting compartment with a tank designed for war in Europe, the t-64bv and t-80bv not in vain have the same towers. Their main problem is imprisoned under the great war of the Ministry of Health. But a high level of suo at that time.

[Kars]

Quote: gallville

You confuse 2 models. t-80 is a modification of the t-80 with a diesel engine

Hardly

Quote: gallville

Before t-80 there were still bv.

As was the T-80A and T-80B

Quote: gallville

Unification of the fighting compartment with a tank designed for the war in Europe t-64bv and t-80bv

In general, the same tower with the T-64 was in the T-80A of the first series.

Quote: gallville

Their main problem is imprisoned under the great war

In what this sharpening was expressed in difference from AZ.

[gallville]

Quote: Kars

In what this sharpening was expressed in difference from AZ.

More shells in the Ministry of Health. According to the calculations of the USSR, when using all means, the tank was supposed to live no more than 7 minutes. So they tried to shoot back.

[Kars]

Quote: gallville

More shells in the Ministry of Health.

This is bad?

Quote: gallville

According to the calculations of the USSR, when using all means, the tank was supposed to live no more than 7 minutes.

Well this is an old fairy tale)

[gallville]

Quote: Kars

This is bad?

Well this is just a plus. Minus their location.
First, it’s easier to hit the shell itself.
Secondly, due to the limitations of the reserved space, elongated ones cannot be used.

[Kars]

Quote: gallville

First, it’s easier to hit the shell itself.

This is very controversial) if something flies into the fighting compartment, then in any case it is not good.

Quote: gallville

Secondly, due to the limitations of the reserved space, elongated ones cannot be used.

Are there unlimited reserve volumes in AZ?

[svp67]

Quote: Kars

Are there unlimited reserve volumes in AZ?

Limited, but in the AZ the cassettes are located above each other, and this arrangement allows longer shells to be inserted there, the opening MZ cassette is much more limited in this.

[Kars]

Quote: svp67

allows longer shells to be inserted there; the MZ pop-up cartridge is much more limited in this.

And how much is the difference? Given that they did not accept new long shells under the AZ during the USSR) at least they didn’t deliver them to the troops en masse.

[svp67]

Quote: Kars

And how much is the difference? Given that they did not accept new long shells under the AZ during the USSR) at least they didn’t deliver them to the troops en masse.

But such shells were accepted for equipment in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and will still be ...

[Kars]

Quote: svp67

But such shells were taken for equipment in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

Exactly? And the capper says it is not suitable for T-80?

[svp67]

Quote: gallville

Quote: Kars

In what this sharpening was expressed in difference from AZ.

More shells in the Ministry of Health. According to the calculations of the USSR, when using all means, the tank was supposed to live no more than 7 minutes. So they tried to shoot back.

The MH at T80 was left for the reason that at that moment a guided projectile was being prepared for it, and in the AZ it could not be done for a long time.
And at the expense of 7 minutes - this is not the initial phrase of the formula, according to which the tank division on the battlefield could fight for several weeks ...

[svp67]

Quote: Kars

Hardly

But, but ... First, the "Omsk" modification went into series, though with the "Kharkov" tower. If anyone does not know, the T-80U turret was originally developed for the next modification of the T-64, but when it was decided to make a SINGLE MBT, they began to combine all the best. And without any exaggeration, the T-80 hodovka was certainly the best at that time.

[Kars]

Quote: svp67

true with the "Kharkov" tower

Isn't that what I wrote about?

Quote: Kars

Well, the first towers still arrived from Kharkov)

[Verdun]

Quote: Kars

Hardly

The T-80u tank is a gas turbine version manufactured by the Omsk plant. T-80UD - version equipped with a diesel engine, manufactured in Kharkov. So in this moment your opponent is right. As for the towers, their design changed depending on the year of manufacture of the machines. The technology and arrangement of sand rods placed in the casting of the tower, the composition of the equipment of the commander and gunner changed.

[Kars]

Quote: Verdun

The T-80u tank is a gas turbine version manufactured by the Omsk plant. T-80UD - version equipped with a diesel engine, manufactured in Kharkov. So in this moment your opponent is right.

And we discussed it? Engine?

Quote: Verdun

What to the towers

Then on the T-80 there was a tower from the T-64

[113262a]

Klimovskys.

[Andrey Yuryevich]

Quote: Rosty

And whose engines on the T-80 are? Whose production?

the last one is probably the GTA-18A Chelyabinsk, and before that the GTD-1000-Kirov plant seems ...

[Verdun]

Quote: Rosty

And whose engines on the T-80 are? Whose production?

GTD-1250 installed on T-80U is produced by JSC "Klimov". Power - 1250 hp from. with the possibility of a short-term increase to 1400 liters. from. There are prototypes in 150 liters. from. More details can be found

http://www.klimov.ru/production/landmarine/GTD-1250/

[svp67]

Quote: Rosty

And whose engines on the T-80 are? Whose production?

"Klimovskie" from St. Petersburg

[Captain nemo]

Quote: Rosty

And whose engines on the T-80 are? Whose production?

The design and manufacture of single samples of the GTE was Klimovsky. The first samples are most likely that Kharkov is possible, that the plant is named after Malyshev or something from the south of the Ukrainian SSR, but I can't say for sure. Serial production of GTD-1000, this is Kaluga. But that plant doesn't seem to exist anymore. And it was not a helicopter GTE as some write about it here. From the "helicopter" there was only the name of the design bureau.

[chunga-changa]

Here the question is apparently not so much the need for modernization, but the need for unification. For the T-80, you have to learn the mechanical drivers according to a separate program, and if you do not unify the equipment with the T-72B3, then the rest of the crew will have to learn to use other (outdated) sights and radio stations, and this is just plain silly. It’s easier to modernize and at least teach commanders in a uniform manner. Well, plus a new dynamic protection, apparently the old one is no longer stupidly produced.

[gallville]

Quote: chunga-changa

For the t-80, and so you have to learn the mechanical drivers on a separate program

So another engine of course.

Quote: chunga-changa

if you do not unify the equipment with the t-72B3, then the rest of the crew will have to learn to use other (obsolete) sights and radio stations, and this is simply stupid.

Replacing the walkie-talkie is a standard option, even during major repairs. The thermal imager needs to be unified. Especially in the BV if it does not change his memory and no. The commander’s sight is better there. Despite being outdated. Well, if you do not take into account the biathlon version of the t-72b3.

[chunga-changa]

I don’t argue, during discussions on the forum it is critically important which sight is better and which is worse, there are no questions.
But in real life, something else is important. The production and accumulation of spare parts is important, the training of technicians and repairmen is important, the training of the crew is important. Here, the smaller and more uniform the nomenclature of equipment is, the better. Ideally, one complex of sights, one complex of radio communications, for all armored vehicles.

[svp67]

Quote: gallville

So another engine of course.

The driving style is different.

[gallville]

So yes. The turns are different, and the engine power is almost several times greater than the t-72, with approximately the same mass.

[klaus16]

fur water from the photo is clearly not lucky if the board is spinning - the protection sheet will play directly on the Bosko

[Romin]

Quote: fox21h

Quote: Romin

The T-80 should appear a further line of development in the next model! It is impossible to give up work on modernization and development of a gas turbine engine!

We are moving towards the unification of technology, and the T80, a completely different machine with 72/90, has little in common, so most people refuse it in favor of 72/90, and it will most likely be exported after the update.

And what doesn’t drive anything on the T-80 chassis?
Tank-box, fill whatever you want;)
It is impossible to refuse GTD and alternative OMS. Failure looks like a step forward and two backward. Competition and alternative gives rise to progress.
And what about a pain helicopter at one company? But what about MI-28 and KA-52?
Do we have one type of fighter? But what about the SU-35 and MIG-35?
And rockets, what only MIT does?
And what about the shell and ToR?

There is a UVZ lobby, a lobby from the director’s proteges! Nobody wants to lose cash flows!
There used to be a saying: loot wins ... And now nepotism wins ...

[chunga-changa]

Why is it necessary to produce a zoo inside your army?
Who prevents to compete with foreign manufacturers and in foreign markets? There it will be tougher and more profitable.

[gallville]

Thanks to these and other innovations, the improved T-80 will be unified as much as possible with the T-72B3 and, in most characteristics, it will compete with the best foreign models

It seems to me the main thing is to somehow adapt the AZ from the t-72b3. MZ t-80 is its main drawback.
T-80u by and large, in addition to replacing the thermal imager with a pine, you only need the above and preferably 2a46-5. DZ there and so contact-5 with a normal location. In BV, of course, you have to change it.
IMHO engines do not touch there is not worth light tuning no more.

[svp67]

Quote: gallville

It seems to me the main thing is to somehow adapt the AZ from the t-72b3.

In the current conditions, this is very reasonable, it is necessary to unify the fighting compartment of the tanks to the maximum.

Quote: gallville

MZ t-80 is its main drawback.

Recent events, especially the conflict in Ukraine, have proved that the old MH must be abandoned.

[113262a]

When penetrating it is absolutely violet, AZ or MZ, propellant charge is blown equally! And AZ jamming during deformation of the bottom on the T-72 is a frequent occurrence! Losses in the Donbass of cars with AZ and MZ are approximately equal!

[gallville]

Quote: 113 262а

A jamming of the AZ during deformation of the bottom on the T-72 is a frequent occurrence!

And shaman mz when preparing the machine? And the smallest pallets?

Quote: 113 262а

Losses in the Donbass of cars with AZ and MZ are approximately equal!

I will not require statistics. But let me disagree. If only because there weren’t so many tanks with AZ to make these very statistics.
In reality, in Chechnya there was a rejection of the 80s. Despite their suo.

[Alf]

Quote: gallville

In reality, in Chechnya there was a rejection of the 80s. Despite their suo.

More precisely possible? Which Chechen, first or second? Reasons for rejection? Who exactly refused?

[gallville]

Quote: svp67

Recent events, especially the conflict in Ukraine, have proved that the old MH must be abandoned.

There, it’s not even the Ministry of Health. Ancient Contact-1 and inoperative fire extinguishing systems. Although probably this is not the main thing. The main losses of the armored personnel carrier are artillery fire and the SEC. There are problems of tactics.

[black]

Initially, the T-80 was a great tank. High fuel consumption is associated with poor training of mechanics. And not a solarium there, but an expensive kerosene. BUT there are a lot of advantages. Both in servicing the power system, and in one important quality for our northern country. In winter, the T-80 winds up at the click of a button , and with a diesel engine still smudge and smudge. Those who started domestic diesel engines at temperatures below -30 will understand me. A lot of talk about replacing the OMS. With me, in the 90's, from the T-80, a dispute, sub-caliber, at a range of 2000m, cut the rail strictly by mark.

[113262a]

It is unfortunate that they have stolen production at Kirov, turned Omsk into a Tagil rembase! According to the implementation of the LMS, even the 219p is cooler than 72 a head! Both the side wind sensor and the tracking machine, intuitive preparation for the shot. A real multi-fuel! Insensitive to heat, sand and dust, virtually silent on the go! If TC / RT consumption wins, it will be a masterpiece! Yes, the nightlight was shitty, without a range finder channel, there was not enough triplex in front of the gunner, like in 64, but by the combination of properties 72 and its derivatives do not roll around!

[Evgeny RS]

It seems that the T-14s will not come to the troops soon.

[cost 75]

80 ka is an excellent machine. Once I myself worked at the Omsk plant.

[berezin1987]

Gradually, it is necessary to continue the process of unification of the tank fleet. Today, we have the t-72, t-80 and t-90 in service, each of which has many modifications. Soon the t-14 army will go to the troops. There are still t-64, t-62 and t-55 tanks of many varieties in storage. Total, our military is dealing with four tanks in service and three in storage. 3.14ndos is armed with M1 abrams of several modifications and some old M60 are left in storage. In the USSR, for some reason, several MBT models were immediately adopted for service. The ideal option would be to choose the best tank according to the results of state tests and put it into production at all tank plants.

[pimen]

Quote: berezin1987

The ideal option would be to choose the best tank according to the results of state tests and put it into production at all tank plants.

perfect failed. Unfortunately, today we have gone along the dead end worked out by the Israelis: a common platform for MBT and heavy infantry transporters, etc.

[berezin1987]

Lobby from different design bureaus influenced the leadership of the country. Everything is just like everywhere else.

[pimen]

no, they were not all bad, but failed to combine the advantages

[berezin1987]

The t-64 had a very problematic boxer engine, which required careful maintenance and had a low resource. This problem has not been resolved so far. The placement of ammunition on the t-64 / t-80 provides less protection than on the t-72 / t-90. The main drawback of the t-72 early series is the lack of normal suo. In recent series, this flaw has been eliminated. Practically, the t-90 tank is a modernized t-72b, it was formerly called the t-72bu.

[113262a]

I have a direct relationship to work on the T-80. The Ministry of Health does not have any drawbacks, it works faster and more reliable than Tagil ones, landing in the tower is more convenient, there are no problems with the ejection of pallets on the infantry head!

[Mountain shooter]

The T-80 and its modernization have not yet said their last word. An excellent tank, and with digitally controlled GTE, fuel consumption is actually reduced. And competition is the engine of progress. And then UVZ relaxed, Omsk turned into a rembase. And 80-k in warehouses - wow, how many. What to dispose of them?

[You Vlad]

As far as I know, our tanks are the best in the world in terms of reliability, maneuverability due to their weight! If you improve everything else, you get the best in the world in terms of price and quality!

[vv3]

Again, the question of government procurement. As I understand it, this is a factory initiative, at its own expense with the subsequent offer of the army and the hope of successful testing and government procurement ... Everything is just for, success, it will turn out ... But what about the order from the army, what are they want to Where are the tenders? Here are the tank brigades .. what kind of UAV-based intelligence they have. What tasks should these UAVs solve? How are they integrated, can they provide coordinates of targets, in which information systems, for which weapons, what radius should they have what is the duration of the flight, on the basis of which mobile means ... These requirements should be formed by the army, based on the tasks to be solved, on the basis of tactics and strategy of warfare. But they don’t exist, so there is no tactics and strategy? I have the impression that ours do not know how to fight, in modern conditions, therefore they don’t know what it takes ... Chaos with all the consequences.

[cdrt]

no panoramas, no "robot-checkpoint", such as T-90MS.
Interestingly, under the new BPS they are modernizing the MOH?

[gallville]

Quote: cdrt

no panoramas, no "robot-checkpoint", such as T-90MS.

So the armata is on the way. Why fanatical tuning?
T-80bv with pine and a new dz will be at the level of t-90a. And maybe better due to a smoother suspension. Again, the machine has its own specialization - north. Armature with GTD will not be released soon (if at all).

Quote: cdrt

Interestingly, under the new BPS they are modernizing the MOH?

Do not fit in height. It is necessary to change to AZ.

[113262a]

Everything intermeddle! And what nafig North-Us prepared for Syria in 83, where he is God, he is not afraid of overheating, nor dust! All GSVG on about 219 r, all 1 TA,. All Germany, one sand, in summer up to + 35, Behi boil, but we do not care!

[gallville]

Quote: 113 262а

Everything intermeddle!

Elongated shells? And how to cram them in the Ministry of Health? It’s either to remodel the Ministry of Health (it’s not yet known whether it will fit) or to put the AZ already ready for these munitions.

Quote: 113 262а

And what nafig north

The most common. In the Far East, the 80s stood. They were not afraid of frost or snowdrift.

[Zaurbek]

But you need to change!

[loki565]

With such a modernization, it’s always a pity for the driver, he’ll turn the tower and he’ll get out ((