Reply With QuoteIt's the first version of T-80UD, looks at the commanders turet, sight is PZU-7.
Looks like T-80 with the reactive armor removed from the turret.Originally Posted by TheArmenian
It's the first version of T-80UD, looks at the commanders turet, sight is PZU-7.
Speaking of upgraded tanks:
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/Sla...IMG_8174_1.jpg
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/Sla...IMG_8249_1.jpg
These T-72BAs look sharp in the standard camo.
Man, is asphalt really cheap in Russia these days or what? (Sorry, I could not help it)
wow I didn't even notice it crumbling.
Well the poster on Vif said they tore it up pretty good. Tanks will do that with no rubber track attachment. Also I thought Russian road building was famously ****ty...
The problem is numbers. How many different types of engines and how many different calibres of main gun do they want to retain in service. At the moment they have 100mm rifled ammo for the T-54/-55, 100mm rifled ammo for the BMP-3 that is different and not compatible, 115mm smoothbore ammo for the T-62 and 125mm ammo for the T-64/-72/-80/-90 tanks but some penetrators work with some autoloaders and some do not.I dunno guys, I may be going out on a limb here but my impression is that it is always cheaper to upgrade an old tank than to build a brand new one, even if it means essentially ripping out the guts and leaving only the outer shell untouched.
For a 152mm gun that may be fitted to the T-95 two piece ammo will be a requirement rather than an option but for 125mm guns it would be much more efficient to use one piece ammo in an automated turret bustle. Loading would be faster and with cassette like loading loading the vehicle will become faster and safer.
The cost of the best they can design and build is too high to maintain numbers. Even if the PAK-FA enters service before 2020 it will be in small numbers because of the cost and because Russia really has no urgent need for hundreds of 5th gen stealth fighters. With tanks the numbers Russia is allowed in European Russia is restricted by the CFE treaty, which when the other signatory countries actually pull finger and sign Russia will be bound by again. The best solution is a traditional Soviet solution. The combination of numbers and quality. That leads to BMPs for quality and BTRs for numbers. Su-27s for quality and Mig-29s for numbers. PAK-FA for quality Su-27BM/Su-35 and possibly Mig-29SMT/M2 or Mig-35 for numbers. T-95 for the best of the best and T-90 for numbers.
Regarding mention of using T-62s when using HE in the direct fire role against positions the target will not notice the difference during the daytime between a t-62 and t-72. Both would be effective to 5km or more in the direct fire role with HE rounds in daylight conditions and the HE difference would not really be noticed by the target. The T-62 however probably has lots of ammo stockpiled that can only be used by a T-62 whereas the 125mm ammo for the T-72 can be fired from a cheap old model T-72 or an upgraded to the hilt T-90 with all sorts of muzzle reference systems and thermal sights. Although it is the same round all the bits in the T-90 should make it more effective than the T-72 at delivering that round.
At the end of the day it makes more sense to use up the stockpiled 115mm smoothbore ammo in training and in low intensity operations than use a more modern tank.
That is the point. The T-90 will be Russias main tank. It doesn't need lots urgently but it needs to be able to produce lots of tanks as it will eventually replace older tanks in the tank park. If you just spend all your money on upgrades of existing vehicles you might lose your ability to produce new tanks because the workers have been poached to other factories and the knowledge has gone.Especially if production capacity is limited as with the T-90's.
Upgrades are a good way to keep the leading edge going because they are thinking of things that can be added to new tanks too. Brand new tanks can have things built into them from the start which should make them more effective. Without the upgrades of course these new technologies might never have been developed.
In the end it will benefit the Russians to gift their T-54/-55s and T-62s to countries that still use them. They could apply some upgrades to them before they gift them, so they are not giving crap (keep potential customer happy), but they could also manipulate the upgrade for their own purposes. Giving a T-55 a Black Eagle upgrade with a T-72 turret and 125mm gun might convince the recipient they want some more tanks with 125mm guns. Or it might make sense to fit them with 100mm rifled guns and gift them all the 100mm ammo for T-54/-55 tanks in storage.
It is my understanding that the Russian Army wants to continue its hi/low program of expensive tank (ie T-64/T-80) plus cheap but capable tank (T-72/T-90). In this case however the T-90 will be the cheap mass produced tank to replace older models and generally raise the average age of in service tanks, while the T-95 will be the capable but expensive tank that is produced in smaller numbers. It is probably the quickest way to improve the tank fleet quickly without breaking the bank.By concurrently upgrading older tanks a situation of rapid production can be achieved where Russia would essentially be bringing into service 2 sets of modern MBT's in parallel (one line through upgrades, the other through new production), rather than relying on just one production line which produces T-90's in serial.
Plus if all the funding goes into upgrades then where will the money come from to mass produce tanks when you need it?You can't just keep upgrading stuff, if you are ahead stay ahead. There is only so much upgrades you can do with an old tank till in the end it is absolutely obsolete.
Considering the funding levels and the removal of factories that are now in former Soviet Republics the last two decades have been a repeat of 1941-1942 for the Russians. The fact that it still survives shows its strength.To be honest I'm not happy with the Russian military-industrial complex; I'm not happy with any of this. I mean just look at us - a once proud country, now busy feeding off the tit of Soviet military and technological accomplishments, rehashing past glories but coming up with few innovations and leaps of its own.
And how many really new systems have we seen appear from the west?T-90, Su-30MK, Su-35, MiG-35, etc... all of it is just re-cycled material; old tech given a PimpMyRide-style facelift, integrated with modern advances and then given a new production line.
The reality is that at the same time there was no money and companies and factories were torn to bits by the seperation of the former soviet republics there was also the problem that there was no threat that nuclear weapons couldn't handle. There was an enormous surplus of cold war material to use up or deal with. A large amount probably still remains.
It is not a stopgap measure. The Su-35 will continue to operate as the PAK-FA enters service. The PAK-FA will not be cheap. Even the USAF can only afford 189 F-22s. The Russian AF will not have hundreds or thousands of PAK-FAs within the next 20 years or so. Numbers are needed to cover such a vast area and the Su-35 and likely the Mig-31 and some variant of the Mig-29 will cover the gaps and fill the roles left by all the aircraft that have been retired.What is the point of manufacturing Su-35's as a stop-gap measure until the arrival of the PAK-FA (also just around the corner relatively speaking)?
The Su-35 will likely mostly be upgrades of existing airframes. Some new aircraft will no doubt be built too, but the reason it is called Su-27BM is because it is an upgrade.Would it not be far more logical to simply create a cost-effective upgrade, not too expensive but that can be fitted onto existing models and give them 80-90% the capabilities of new, fresh off the press Su-35's? Actually such an upgrade already exists to my knowledge, so why waste time and money with Su-35 production?
I would suggest you look very closely at old soviet era Mig-29s and the surface of a Mig-35. The difference in quality is clear. The required level of fit and finish for a stealth aircraft is incredibly strict. Creating new upgrades is one thing. Experience in mass production of high quality aircraft using the latest techniques and the latest materials is something you can't get from a book.Now of course there are arguments such as the fact that the industry must always move on and create new models in order to advance. I would argue that if more research was focussed onto next-generation technology and building prototypes instead of these half-assed re-packagings of old tech; we would already be at the next level or at least closer to it.
With its 360 degree electro optics system the Mig-35 is probably only second to the Su-34 in air to ground capability... in fact its awareness of ground based targets is probably better than the Su-34.Of course I see the value of building the MiG-35's, etc... for export; which is exactly what should be done, rather than purchasing it for domestic use when our current capabilities will last us until the next gen of equipment is ready for production.
Not every fighter needs to be a 20 ton plus huge thing. During training with the Indians the USAF mentioned that small agile fighters were found to be far more effective than expected... and they were talking about Mig-21-93s.
Another point is that the cheaper with the more expensive concept also adds the fact that sophisticated systems on the more expensive item can be transfered eventually to the cheaper system to improve it further and increase commonality. The Su-35 might end up with the AESA radar that is eventually fitted to the PAK-FA for example. A new more powerful engine fitted to the T-95 could eventually be adapted to the T-90 etc etc.
AFAIK the best thermal imager available to the Russians is the Catherine Thermal sight. One assumes they are working in secret on a new system for the T-95 though it might enter service with a Catherine. Later the Russians with Thales of France might develop a newer thermal sight based on new technology to fit to the T-95.
X2 Very nice pics there mate.very cool pics DIMMI, spasibo za photki
Frog-6
FROG-6 no experimental, practice
experimental FROG-6 (Br-226-I launcher). Base - YaAZ-214? missile - short 3R10. Not in production or service, only tests.
In 2008 was produced about 175 of T-90A, but only 62 of them for Russian army.
Fresh photo from the last parade rehearsal today.
I hope Vitaly (Dzhaga-Dzhaga) is there taking interesting news shots.
Il-78, Tu-95 and Mig-29 SMT
Mi-28
wow... yes?
links? sites? refs?
I don't know... I search web and interested many many years... I don't know
any source of information, please...
one more - I think that FAS.org have mistake because they haven't information... and Jane's also have mistake
in newest history of russian missiles we (here in Russia) haven't any information about "training "Luna"" (FROG-6 in western sources)
Last edited by DIMMI; 05-07-2009 at 05:50 AM.
The T-90 really doesn't need to start mass production till existing obsolete tanks are dealt with. It would make sense to upgrade the T-90 design as far as it can possibly go using upgrades and new technology and then setting that standard for the next 5 years or so and start producing them in numbers. In 5 years time a new upgrade could be put together, or like with the previous set up... the T-64/T-72 mix was replaced by the T-80/T-72 mix. For the next 5 years the mix could be T-95/T-90 but in 5 years time it might be that the T-90 is replaced with an all new tank that replaces it as the cheap model but with a better gun or better armour or better crew layout or whatever, or it might be that the T-95 is replaced and the T-90 gets a lot of the high tech stuff the T-95 had while the new tank has next gen stuff... electric drive with gas turbine engine and electric armour and a plasma propellent EM gun or something.In 2008 was produced about 175 of T-90A, but only 62 of them for Russian army.
http://www.palba.cz/viewtopic.php?t=2814links? sites? refs?
"Енциклопедиа отеčественного ракетного оруžия 1817-2002" А. Šирикорад...
EDIT:.. yes? no?wow... yes?
nohttp://www.palba.cz/viewtopic.php?t=2814
"Енциклопедиа отеčественного ракетного оруžия 1817-2002" А. Šирикорад...
EDIT: .. yes? no?
it's mistake (opechatka) from Shirokorad pics and tipically (about FROG-6) western mistake with photo from St.Zaloga books - I thinking that it's mistake - later I can write because
sorry for my English
I think that this paragraph Shirokorad wrote (and took the photos) on the basis of the books of Steven Zaloga, and Steven in their conclusions based on fragmentary data and some photos from the American recon archives. At the same time, in later editions Shirokorad this paragraph no. As there is no mention of any training options of "Luna," but there is a reference version of the wheel launcher chassis YaAZ-214 ... and there is no reference to 6 x 6 launchers on the chassis ZIL. Hence the photo is YaAZ-214 and the fact that earlier in the West called the FROG-6 and that is actually called the Br-226-I.
Also this
and this
is NOT "Luna-M" (like early shirokorad books). It's "Luna" - latest experimental mod... before "Luna-M". I think that is real tru
Last edited by DIMMI; 05-07-2009 at 07:08 AM.
Heavy mili-tech all the time, someone give fotki of soldiers pleaseor some camo for me to identify
Parade repetition in Rostov-on-Don/Yekaterinburg
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/print/1811447.htm
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/print/1811591.htm
Posting Permissions
