The T-80s future in the Russian Army

But that is also what was said against T-80.
It was criticized for the losses during the Chechen wars, when it was used in the wrong way inside an urban environment without other support, apparently without proper armor and with barely trained personnel.

Like I already said building new T-80 hulls is kind of pointless. If they need gas turbine engines for the Arctic just make a modified T-14 with that 1500hp gas turbine.

It makes perfect sense to upgrade existing T-80 tanks. But building new ones and continuing to manufacture two wholly different tank hulls just because you have two factories is kind of inane.

They're not. They are making new powerplants and drivetrains because these are consumables but hulls and turrets they have more than enough to know what to do with them.

Shiny new engines, probably GTD-1250?



Tony
@Cyberspec1
The Kaluga Engine enterprise revived the late Soviet project "product 39" for the development and serial production of the GTD-1500 tank gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1500 hp. with the possibility of increasing power up to 1800 hp.

This engine was developed at the end of the 1980s for the further modernization of tanks of the T-80 family, as well as for the further development of a machine codenamed "Object 640" (T-80UM2), created in Omsk in the early 1990s.

The work on the engine was interrupted after the production of T-80 tanks with gas turbine engines stopped in post-Soviet Russia in the nineties.

Developments on "product 39" have been preserved, and after the successful use of modernized T-80BVMs on the fronts of SMO in 2022-2023, they returned to the high-capacity gas turbine engine as a promising power unit for subsequent T-80 modernizations .

lyle6 wrote:They're not. They are making new powerplants and drivetrains because these are consumables  but hulls and turrets they have more than enough to know what to do with them.

Before the war Russia probably had several thousands (up to 5000) T-80B, T-80BV and T-80U. I do not know if all of them could be modernised to the latest standard.

GarryB wrote:I would suspect the T-14 will start out with a 1,800hp engine so any gas turbine version will likely start at 2,200hp or more to be sensible even though the T-14 is not a lot heavier than the T-80.

Most likely it'll be a Hybrid-Electric T-14 as turbine engines run efficiently at a specific RPM which doesn't suit how tanks are used on the battlefield which are expected to stop and go on a dime.

Datscha on caterpillars.

T-100: Americans learned about the newest Russian tank, which is cooler than the T-14 Armata, by Maxim Stroker for AvtoVzglyad. 05.09.2024.

The birth of a new car may happen after SVO.

Analysts from the overseas publication Military Watch magazine came to the conclusion that Russia is most likely developing a new tank, based on the experience of using its armored vehicles in the Northern Military District zone. The Americans even gave this super-weapon a name - T-100.

The publication in a foreign military publication about the upcoming Russian T-100 tank is based on the assertion that the experience of using the Soviet main tank T-80 during the SVO made a very good impression on the Russian command.

Let us remind you that this is the only combat vehicle in service with our army, where a gas turbine unit is used as an engine - as in the American Abrams M1. In particular, thanks to it, the T-80 has a high reverse speed of 25 km/h, which is comparable to similar indicators of NATO equipment.

For reference: the T-90, considered the best Russian tank in the Northern Military District zone, cannot move backwards faster than 5 km/h. Therefore, when a vehicle needs to quickly leave a position (so as not to receive a “response”, for example), tankers are forced to turn its weakly armored stern towards the enemy. You have to take risks for the sake of speed.

Military Watch magazine believes that the T-80 was by far the most combat-ready class of tank in the Soviet army. For this reason, despite the fact that it was three times more expensive than its contemporary T-72, the USSR Ministry of Defense purchased it in very large quantities in the early 1980s.

In the 1990s, amid the collapse of the Soviet Union and a severe economic crisis, the country's leadership, despite the resistance of the military, completely abandoned the T-80, preferring the T-72, which was cheaper to produce and maintain, with its diesel engine. Production of the T-80 was finally discontinued around 1996. And the most advanced version of the T-72 modernization eventually received the name T-90.

The publication recalls that since the late 1980s, work has been carried out at the Omsktransmash plant, which specialized in the production of the T-80, to transform the T-80 into a next-generation combat vehicle , known as the “Black Eagle”. It was conceptually similar to the T-14 Armata. The latter, according to Military Watch magazine, is produced in small series at Uralvagonzavod.

The successes of the T-80 during the Ukrainian campaign give the publication’s experts reason to believe that the project of deep modernization of this tank will be revived taking into account the conditions of modern combat. Moreover, the difference in capabilities between the existing T-80 and its future successor will most likely be much more significant than between the T-72B and the basic T-90 Proryv.

By analogy with the naming of the latter, the authors of the publication decided to conditionally call the tank of the future based on the T-80 the T-100. They believe that it will implement a number of design solutions of both the Black Eagle and the T-14 Armata, since both Omsktransmash and Uralvagonzavod are now part of a single military-industrial conglomerate.

https://www.avtovzglyad.ru/voennaya-tehnika/61096-2024-03-20-t100-amerikantsyi-uznali-o-noveyshem-rossiyskom-tanke-kotoryiy-kruche-t14-armata-/

In my opinion, if this supposed T-100 exists, it is an intermediate between the T-80 and the T-14 Armata.
I don't think it's logical that a tank designed decades ago takes the place of a more modern one.

There was a T-80 based project with an improved welded turret and a 152mm gun, Perhaps a modified version of that with more armour and the lighter 125mm from the Armata.

The black eagle had an extremely vulnerable ammunition compartment, with the current popularity of various means of top attack I do not see the designers ever returning to the concept.



This concept has a rather small bustle autoloader for long APFSDS projectiles, it would be rather easy to protect due to it's small size.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
This concept has a rather small bustle autoloader for long APFSDS projectiles, it would be rather easy to protect due to it's small size.

FPV drones will not always have weak cumulative warheads. I don't think it is technically feasible to design a turret with 360 degree protection against something like an FPV drone with a PG-7VR warhead for example. The only real answer is APS.

lyle6 wrote:
FPV drones will not always have weak cumulative warheads. I don't think it is technically feasible to design a turret with 360 degree protection against something like an FPV drone with a PG-7VR warhead for example. The only real answer is APS.

Maybe it would not be immune form all angles, but it would still be vastly better protected than nay western style turret. It could get at the very least the same level of protection as the current T-72B3s which are I believe resistant to RPG-29s from the rear.

GarryB wrote:

Current penetrators seem to be able to get the job done anyway.

These are supposed to be new production tanks, hence they should be able to utilise longer rounds and be equipped with a better gun in order to ensure that they do not become obsolete before the end of their expected service life.

Maybe back in the 80's the CIA already knew?



This is how they depicted the T-80 in the annual publication - "Soviet Military Power".
A few years later when the T-72B appeared - it was also briefly dubbed the "T-80".

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Maybe it would not be immune form all angles, but it would still be vastly better protected than nay western style turret. It could get at the very least the same level of protection as the current T-72B3s which are I believe resistant to RPG-29s from the rear.

Then your enemy would just develop a drone that can mount the monster warhead of the Kornet. How bout that?

When designing the protection of a vehicle you don't just think current threats - you have to explore what probable threats are likely to arise so when the vehicle finally arrives 10 years later it doesn't get its shit rocked on the battlefield.

lyle6 wrote:
Then your enemy would just develop a drone that can mount the monster warhead of the Kornet. How bout that?

When designing the protection of a vehicle you don't just think current threats - you have to explore what probable threats are likely to arise so when the vehicle finally arrives 10 years later it doesn't get its shit rocked on the battlefield.

Well perhaps militaries should stop issuing body armour as it is ineffective against nuclear warheads, or perhaps protection against most, but not all munitions is an advantage worth investing in.

GarryB wrote:

No one system is going to be perfect and stop anything and everything but without a cage a tiny very high flying drone might drop hand grenades into your crew hatches.

I have always wondered why tankers leave the hatches open on anything other than a pre CITV western tank, because the Russian tanks since the interwar period have had magnified periscopes that they can locate targets with. Ofcourse with a western style commanders cupola and no CITV the commander's visibility is rather poor unless he opens the hatch.