It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Eagle MBT under construction?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
jczsbbs1.sina.com.cn...

jczsbbs1.sina.com.cn...

jczsbbs1.sina.com.cn...

jczsbbs1.sina.com.cn...

The armor plating is drastically different from previous T series tanks and there seems to be no extensive equipments mounted outside like the T-90 tanks and when compared with a tank in the background, the tank seems extremely short.

Comments please?

Mod Edit: Please don't make titles in all caps.

[edit on 28-12-2004 by dbates]

[edit on 28-12-2004 by COWlan]




posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Nice pics man I got some dimensions I found for any of you intrested.



weight 50 metric tons
crew 3
engine 1,200 HP 16 cyl. turbo-diesel engine
main weapon 125 MM smoothbore cannon
rate of fire 10-12 rounds/ min
ammunition 40 rounds
ammunition types APFSDS, HEAT, HEF,ATGM through main gun
equipment
rangefinder laser
night vision thermal imager
active protection drozd-2

other NBC, auto fire-fighting, self digging blade, air conditioning.
front armor extremely sloped , next generation " kaktus" ERA

pretty cool tank I think it might even stand up to the Abrams



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I believe the Black eagle was designed to be the next generation tanks for the Russian army with the competition of the T-95 tank with the unmanned turret and the 150mm smoothbore gun. Both of these tanks were made to fight and destroy the M1A2 abrams tank and possibly compete with the FCS America is planning.

Black eagle fixed problems with current tanks like M1A2. Black eagle is extremely short 1.8 meters so the tank would have much less possible area for shells to hit. The Abrams tank is 93.5 inches tall so the black eagle is some 40 centimeters shorter than the Abrams.

T-95 has a unmanned turret mounted separately from the armored crew cabin which greatly increases the crew survival ability and hit area because there is no giant turret on top, just the gun. With a weight of 50 tons, the T-95 would have much more armor than any other tank when compared on the thickness of the armor on the sides.

P.S. the 150mm gun would cut through armor like a knife through butter

[edit on 28-12-2004 by COWlan]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The black eagle is a personal faveroute of mine, its a beaty dont you think?
Shame its supposedly just for exsport.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Other than clear speculation COWlan, there is no concrete, verifiable proof (documented reports, etc.) to back or substantiate that the "Black Eagle", T-80UM2, or the T-95, Uralvagonzavod Main Battle Tank, has recieved either military or the adequate funding to move it from an "upgrade package," a technology demonstrator, or into serial production.


The minister said that Uralvagonzavod would get additional funding in 2000, but according to Russian sources this may not be adequate to make the transition from development to production.

Russia develops new low profile main battle tank

The above quote and link is from an article addressing such in 2000. Again, we are about to enter the year 2005 and there are still no verifiable reports to assert that these new developments have made serial production, let alone limited production for export, being that this is what the designs were intended for, anyhow.

Even the FAS Military Analysis Network is saying as much:


This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higher cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.

FAS

I see this tank, in both variants, as having an uncertain future, till more conclusive reports are made available to confirm that they are either implemented upgrades or actual serial production, limited or mass, platforms, unless of course, your playing Operation Flashpoint.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
An Abrams tank weighs 70 tons, I don't see how it would be inferior to a 50 ton tank armor-wise.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
An Abrams tank weighs 70 tons, I don't see how it would be inferior to a 50 ton tank armor-wise.


I doubt it would be inferoir the Abrams which uses the same armour as the British Challenger which is considered by many to be the best in the world.

Im not sure about the Black Eagle but alot of Russian tanks use explosive reactive armour and theres way to get around this. Reactive armour is also often less effective then passive armour against kinetic energy penetrators.

Heres a list of tank protection levels so you can see how the M1A2 stacks up with others. These are only frontal armour estimations but the can give you a good idea ,besides most countries dont let this type of info out for everyone to see.

members.tripod.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Black Eagle is extremely short. It is only 1.8 meters in height which is your 6 feet and a M1A2 Abrams is 93.5 inches tall and thats 2.3749 meters. Therefore the Black Eagle is 57 centimeters shorter than the M1A2 Abrams. The height saves a lot of weight. The Black Eagle's size is 7m x 3.6m while the M1A2's dimension is 9.8298m (Length with gun forward) x 3.6576m.

Black Eagle was designed to be low profile which means smaller in size and height. That would take many tons of weight off and put more armor elsewhere.

Huh. I just noticed that the Russian T-90 has an AMAZING 1600cm of Armor on its turret. WOH. That owns everyone on the whole chart.

Can Anyone get the dimensions of the Abrams without the gun forward? All the sources seem to have the tank length with the gun forward and the Black Eagle sources list the dimension without the gun forward so I can't really do a comparison on the length.

[edit on 28-12-2004 by COWlan]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The Back eagle has an unmanned turret to reduce profile and also to increase crew protection.

I can see western tanks following suite in the future



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Ummm.....If I remember right, its the T-95 that has the unmanned turret not the Black Eagle.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
No the black eagle has an unmanned turret

the..._kitsune.tripod.com/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/NS_T-12UM1_Black_Eagle_MBT.htm



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
An Abrams tank weighs 70 tons, I don't see how it would be inferior to a 50 ton tank armor-wise.


I doubt it would be inferoir the Abrams which uses the same armour as the British Challenger which is considered by many to be the best in the world.

Im not sure about the Black Eagle but alot of Russian tanks use explosive reactive armour and theres way to get around this. Reactive armour is also often less effective then passive armour against kinetic energy penetrators.

Heres a list of tank protection levels so you can see how the M1A2 stacks up with others. These are only frontal armour estimations but the can give you a good idea ,besides most countries dont let this type of info out for everyone to see.

members.tripod.com...


I was under the impression that the British hadn't sold us the new armor that goes on Chally 2.
(Chobham Mk3?)

Anyway, I have no problem with the idea that M1 derivatives can't stay on top forever- its would just take a lot more than that for me to feel insecure about the potency of American armored forces. I'm always the first to point out that on the right terrain with the right tactics T-62s and T-64s would have a fighting chance against the Abrams. Thats a double edged sword though: employed on the right terrain in the right way the Abrams would do just fine against any rival- even a more advanced one.


The new designs are interesting, but I don't entirely agree with the way most people judge tanks. I think that 50-70 ton juggernaughts need to disappear. They aren't deployable and they aren't versatile enough.
The way I see it, speed, manueverabilty, weapons range, weapons versatility, data sharing, advanced targeting abilities, and all-terrain versatility are the future.

The perfect tank as I see it:
Runs on an improved hybrid version of America's gas turbine engines. It is designed for offroad speeds up to 60mph and can be equipped with a hover package for amphibious landings or river crossings.

Is armored to withstand most infantry weapons, possibly with an armor matrix relying more on carbon microtubes and ceramics than steel and heavy metals. This is supplemented by reactive armor devices such as metalstorm or concussion generating devices for deflecting APFSDS rounds.

It can share targeting data in realtime with the rest of its platoon as well as any aircraft, UAVs, infantry or other properly equipped resources operating with the unit.

Can give indirect fire shells and self or remote guided missiles. Missiles should ideally be designed for 3km+ range.
Digitally controlled turret which can swiftly proceed from one preset target to the next to increase rate of fire. This will of course make the gunner a failsafe and make the tank theoretically operable at nearly 100% effectiveness by driver and commander so long as no damage is sustained.

Can be equipped with a laser system for blinding aerial threats.



OK i'm done... I'm sure some of you are thinking "you forgot to ask for a refrigerator and walk-in humidor". I know i can't have everything I want, but I can cry about it until everyone either feels bad for me or thinks i'm nuts.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The heavy 70-ton tank is not going anywhere; you say you want armor for all those weapons? What do you think makes the M1 Abrams so heavy???

Also, how would you put in any hover capability? You couldn't do it magnetically, because the Earth's magnetic field isn't the same everywhere, and even if you could, you'd need one hell of an electric generator to lift all that armor and electronics off the ground.

Plus, all a hover capability says is "anti-tank magnet" i.e. if the Earth is emitting a positive electrical charge in the area your tank must cross a river, then your tank must produce a positive electrical charge as well to float. If it produces a negative charge, it will pull itself to the earth. So all you do is place some good negatively charged magnets in the river and WHALA!! your tank pulls itself right to the bottom of the water!! Plus you'd need a good computer to keep the tank stable while floating, and also you'd need a means for forward propulsion. And I don't think mechanics would appreciate having to work on those extra parts, meaning extra engines you'd have on the tank to move it along.....assuming these engines would thus be vulnerable to anti-tank fire, you'd have to probably keep them hidden somewhere else, meaning they'd have to be hidden inside the tank somewhere, which would make the tank larger than needed, or they'd have to be added on separately, and that could slow down an advance, since these days the Army and Marines emphasize speed more than anything in maneuvering these days. Then there's the issue of fuel for your flotation propulsion.......

What will happen as the future goes on is probably tanks will remain at like 70 tons, but they will get improved armor and a much improved engine. The United States Army has already contracted out the company that makes the current gas-turbine for the Abrams to design a new engine for it I believe, one with lots more power and better fuel economy.

But to have all that armor and all those electronics, the tank is gonna be heavy. You also have to remember that the tank has to be heavy to withstand its own shock from its gun. You can't put a gun as powerful as that on the Abrams on a light tank. It is too light; on a slant, it might knock itself off the road.

One thing I believe may reduce the weight in tanks somewhat though to levels that are heavy, but not too light, are newer engines. Newer engines can be smaller, but more powerful. And usually made out of lighter materials, so who knows. Also less fuel.....one reason the Abrams is big also is because its gas-turbine engine gets like 0.6 miles or something like that to the gallon, so it needs a huge-@$$ fuel tank. A smaller engine with imrpoved fuel efficiency could mean less fuel carried, ESPECIALLY if the new engine would allow less fuel to be carried, yet INCREASE the range of the tank; in an Abrams, that would reduce the weight, and mean the tank's range would be increased, but with less fuel carried, meaning, if needed, you could still carry more fuel, but on average you wouldn't need to.

Or all that is for a new tank; I don't know if this new engine is for the Abrams, or for a new tank.

Oh yeah, one other thing, I think the modern M1A2 Abrams SEP package lets it communicate with all infantry, UAVs, aircraft, etc.....that is one reason the Army changed all its tanks to the M1A2 configuration and the Apaches to the AH-64D Longbow configuration....so they can all communicate with all the electronic data out there; in the original Gulf War, the Abrams could do this somewhat, but the Apache was totally analog, and couldn't, until the Longbow version.

The Marine Corps upgraded their M1A1 Abrams to the FEP package, which gives similar capabilities as the M1A2 SEP package, but not all of them; it costs less, but still upgrades the tank, and the Marines are always short on cash, so....



[edit on 28-12-2004 by Broadsword20068]

[edit on 28-12-2004 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Vagabond, your dream tank would weigh more than a modern Abrams. You are asking to put every unique piece of equipment on every tank that exists today together.

The laser dazzler (Chinese)
The Hybrid Gas Turbin (American)
Hover Package (unheard of)
Metal Storm (American)
Carbon Microtubes, Ceramic (yet to be equipped on any tank)

To put all that together would create a giant and its price tag would be unaffordable to any army in the world.

60 miles per hour off-road is ummm......beyond the speed of a tank. To drive that, your tank would fly when it bumped into a broken tree stomp and create shakes within the cabin.

But who cares, A dream is a dream, everyone dream of impossible things. Yours isn't impossible but its just illogical.


[edit on 28-12-2004 by COWlan]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I also don't think the 4-man crew is going anywhere, because activities such as replacing tracks is a pain in the butt and requires manpower. That is why the U.S. originally stuck with a 4-man crew on the tank.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Vagabond's idea isn't that far from becoming a reality. America's BLOS will be a very light, fast tank, with greater range, survivability, firepower, and share information with all units on the battlefield.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Yes, but no light tank is going to literally REPLACE the heavy tank is what I meant; that WAS more the consensus everyone had until the recent Iraq War proved them all wrong; heavy tanks do have a very important place on the battlefield.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
doesn't chobham armour use ceramic componants?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
[edit on 28-12-2004 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The heavy 70-ton tank is not going anywhere; you say you want armor for all those weapons? What do you think makes the M1 Abrams so heavy???

I knew I'd be accussed of wanting too much. Tanks got where they are because a tank also has to be a tank destroyer- they have moved away from their application as a combined arms tool for cooperation with infantry. I could easily be wrong, but my take on things is that lighter, more versatile, more deployable tanks would be an advantage, even if we specialized a second class of tank in addition to our 70 ton MBTs.



Also, how would you put in any hover capability? You couldn't do it magnetically, because the Earth's magnetic field isn't the same everywhere, and even if you could, you'd need one hell of an electric generator to lift all that armor and electronics off the ground.


We do have hover craft you know. With a signifcantly lighter tank and a beefed up engine all it would take is a skirt package and a vent system for directing the output of the improved engines. This is why I specified carbon microtubing or other composites over steel- because you'll probably never get a steel armored vehicle to hover with air- thats a given.
This would be handy though- if a lightly armored vehicle capable of exceptionally fast amphibious travel and armed with a tank's cannon were available it would create new potential for amphibious assault and would eliminate rivers as a defensive barrier.



What will happen as the future goes on is probably tanks will remain at like 70 tons, but they will get improved armor and a much improved engine. The United States Army has already contracted out the company that makes the current gas-turbine for the Abrams to design a new engine for it I believe, one with lots more power and better fuel economy.


Turbine engines are great. They would have replaced piston-driven designs about 20 years ago if the government hadn't forced Chrysler Defense to sell out to General Dynamics Land Systems. That being said, you can only move so much armor. Eventually counter measures and fighting without presenting a target become the only means of overcoming modern firepower. The projectile has almost always outpaced armor, and the supremecy of defenses has always been short lived in military history.



But to have all that armor and all those electronics, the tank is gonna be heavy. You also have to remember that the tank has to be heavy to withstand its own shock from its gun. You can't put a gun as powerful as that on the Abrams on a light tank.

It would certainly call for a redesign of the tank but with the unoccupied turret there is plenty of room for a recoiling cannon assembly to absorb the shock. Furthermore, missiles and smart projectiles are probably the way to go. We're simply going to run out of ways to power a projectile faster sooner or later. Missiles and such are probably the final sollution to tanks, and the tank can fall back into an infantry supporting role where its cannon need not hurl penetrators at super-sonic speeds, only get HE rounds on target for the grunts.
Last but not least, if I might repeat myself- it's hard to deploy a large force of 70 ton tanks. We need a lighter smarter force that can deploy more than just light infantry within 3-7 days.



One thing I believe may reduce the weight in tanks somewhat though to levels that are heavy, but not too light, are newer engines. Newer engines can be smaller, but more powerful. And usually made out of lighter materials, so who knows. Also less fuel.....one reason the Abrams is big also is because its gas-turbine engine gets like 0.6 miles or something like that to the gallon, so it needs a huge-@$$ fuel tank. A smaller engine with imrpoved fuel efficiency could mean less fuel carried, ESPECIALLY if the new engine would allow less fuel to be carried, yet INCREASE the range of the tank; in an Abrams, that would reduce the weight, and mean the tank's range would be increased, but with less fuel carried, meaning, if needed, you could still carry more fuel, but on average you wouldn't need to.

That would be a step in the right direction, but unless you can make a tank that deploys faster but still wont get destroyed you need a second option. I'm not saying that current MBTs are obsolete- they're great if they ever get into the fight. The most moderate position I could take without betraying my common sense however is that a lighter more deployable unit must be developed for use in light infantry divisions so that America can put an effective combined arms force in the way of any agressor in any place within a week to hold the line until the heavy stuff arrives, which depending on the location and the amount of force needed can take 1-6 months, usually around 2-3.



Oh yeah, one other thing, I think the modern M1A2 Abrams SEP package lets it communicate with all infantry, UAVs, aircraft, etc.....that is one reason the Army changed all its tanks to the M1A2 configuration and the Apaches to the AH-64D Longbow configuration....so they can all communicate with all the electronic data out there; in the original Gulf War, the Abrams could do this somewhat, but the Apache was totally analog, and couldn't, until the Longbow version.

I never heard that the A2 could do that. Talk about a step in the right direction.
All we need now is smarter munitions to exploit the advantage fully. A low and slow flying tank-fired missile which can track targets it can't see is number 1 on my wish list.
One more question though: do our UAVs have the equipment to feed targeting data to a tank directly, not through the chain of command/communication? (ie the tank can roll around a corner and shoot from the hip accurately with UAV provided target data?)



The Marine Corps upgraded their M1A1 Abrams to the FEP package, which gives similar capabilities as the M1A2 SEP package, but not all of them; it costs less, but still upgrades the tank, and the Marines are always short on cash, so....

You're telling me. They even save money on chow service by staffing with retards. You think I'm kidding but I'm not. They were hiring "differently abled" people from some sort of foundation to cut down on costs or something.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join