I feel Tanks are no longer useful, but Russia's most advanced Tank

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Black Eagle Tank

The Black Eagle Tank is pretty secretive, but it looks as if Russia's going to go ahead and do a production so they've begun releasing some information.

Russian Information on Tank

I don't know who here can read Russian but you can select an english option.

I figure this could be for interesting discussion on weapons of the Russian Federation.




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
There is one error in the wikipedia article. The newer generations of ERA can stop kinetic energy rounds.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Heres some reall actual pictures of the T-80UM2. aka black eagle. No mask no netting






Looks impressive huh?

Without the netting the armour looks a lot more interesting. Looks like they overlap. Its not Kontakt 5 its a new one called Kaktus. Its not brick like normal ERA but its like a thin scale. Whats inside? I dont know but we can b sure its a improvement over Kontakt 5. Its smaller thinner and most probaly more capable. Overlapping scales would be more effictive
Heres a estimate of its armour

Gun?. Still has a 125mm. Maybe going to be improved later. If its going to have a a new 125mm indifinatly than new gun fired missiles will be included. New missiles in development i suppose. But is this new russian tank going to be revolutionary or is it just going to be a evolution. When pictures of it first surfaced there was much speculation about its abilities. Manless turrnet supergun etc. In reality its just a improvement of a older tank just like the T-90 was a improvment of the T-72 while this is a improvment of the T-80U. New production line new equipment new everything. Yes the russian economy is recovering but its not stable as yet to fund large moderization of the russian tank fleet. Priorities i would rank the russian missile capabilitiy first since by the end of this century russias ICBM are going to be to old or broken from lack of maintance. Since the fall of the soviets the only reason why people take them seriously is because of the "large" number of missiles during the cold war. If thats gone what else do they have?.

Then it would be the airforce since all the Su-27s Mig-29s are still relativly new airframes at a little over two decades for some planes, their airframes would have been punished hard in the bad years of indepe ndence. Their bomber fleet trainer fleet their training hours need to be looked after before their ground forces can be moderized. Navy?. Well, a nuclear submarine is expensive to buy but russia has a lot of submarines to replace. Even the Akula submarines that entered service in the 80s were retired. Russian needs new SLBM carriers. Russian carrier still in the works?. Then the ground forces which tanks can still works can still be upgraded without buying new tanks. You cannot upgrade a old aircraft so upgrading old tanks with new developed technology and russias already large fleet of T-72s can be fitted with ERA and ARENA self defence system

Is it going to be brought. I highly doubt it since it does not offer any more improved capabilities than say buying more T-90s which can be also fitted with new FCS or Kaktus. So cost vs effictivness the T-90 while being a less capable tank is better value. I probaly suspect the russian making a no man turrnet design than go with a normal design. I think it was more of a export gimmick than as a genuine tank which the russians will buy. Im just thinking will new tactics be a smaller role for the gun and instead more of a missile carrier?. Just wondering since missiles have better range better accuracy and better peneration than a sabot round will the gun be replaced by a missile mount?. Any thoughts about this

But no doubt this is one of the better tanks that were design. What i love about russans tanks is their ability to be upgraded with add ons which come alone. But lets no forget that these upgrades are post-gulf war gulf war two post chechnya so lessons from IEDs or RPGs will have been learnt and i suspect by the size of the new Kaktus ERA it was not meant to stop sabots but HEAT rounds. Well thats me speculating on this.

Possible export markets.

India- Arjun II(?) And new rhino upgrades. It doesn't look like a good possibility
South korea - They have their mini-M1 which has just got a new upgrade so this is leaning to no
China - Hell no.
Third world - Umm if i was a small poor country where i was offered a upgraded T-55 which is 2million and a Black eagle which was 5million. Which would be my choice?
America- Yeah they'll buy a few, just to get whats new in russia defence industry



[edit on 25-1-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I feel Tanks are no longer useful


i disagree. in the combat in which the US is now involved, you are correct. tanks arent very useful against guerilla operations. however, i think it has been shown time and time again that there are still situations in which tanks are quite necessary. look at gulf war I. or the onset of the war in iraq. if there is another major war in the world that doesnt involve nukes, tanks, in conjunction with air superiority, are going to be quite a valuable commodity IMHO.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
As far as I know Russia at present 5 types of new generation tanks, The "terminator" is considered by some to be most advanced ...u need to search but there is a whole forum in ATS dedicated to the terminator in the weaponry forum ..

its quite funny to see the chinaman criticize Russian developments when China is totally dependent on russia and copycut policies for military technology....empty vessels sound much



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I feel Tanks are no longer useful


i disagree. in the combat in which the US is now involved, you are correct. tanks arent very useful against guerilla operations. however, i think it has been shown time and time again that there are still situations in which tanks are quite necessary. look at gulf war I. or the onset of the war in iraq. if there is another major war in the world that doesnt involve nukes, tanks, in conjunction with air superiority, are going to be quite a valuable commodity IMHO.


You mean the war where the Longbow and AF destroyed hundreds of tanks?

Yeah, that's how useful they are...in a joint operation they are useless! Otherwise, they are good to move around and shoot things...like bushmen.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

You mean the war where the Longbow and AF destroyed hundreds of tanks?

Yeah, that's how useful they are...in a joint operation they are useless! Otherwise, they are good to move around and shoot things...like bushmen.


where are you getting your facts from?

the air campaign only destroyed about 50% of iraq's tanks. the abrams crews had to take care of the rest, due to weather and/or smoke from the oil fields that saddam's army set afire:


source
The highly advanced M1A1 took out a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile. One report indicated that American thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see.


you cant win a war with air power alone. at some point somebody is going to have to go in on the ground and finish the job.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Comment retracted

[edit on 25-1-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
People said the same thing about the MBT before the Gulf war and were proven wrong. The tank divisions were able to do more in 72 hours then Air power could do in weeks of bombing.

What might be drawing to a end is the 60-70 ton monsters that MBT are today. They are just too heavy to deploy fast in large numbers. Chances are future tanks will start t get lighter with with smaller profiles but with increased protection.

I would imagine a future tank in the 20-30 ton range but with better armour protection and more deadly weapons.

The Black Eagle is a interesting design seems they went with a completly unmanned turret and that has allowed them to go with a much smaller turret profile.

I have to wonder though if the "Black eagle" will go the way of the "Golden Eagle" Russia has created some great designs the cant afford to put into production. Heck they havent been able to afford to even issue the An-94 service rifle and that was a really great gun on of the best on the planet IMHO.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Snafu

>>>
I feel Tanks are no longer useful
>>>

Wrong, for the wrong reasons. If you treat the tank as an 'untouchable' asset then yes, it is becoming increasingly difficult to develop and deploy weapons system which are entirely proofed against all weapons on particularly the uncoventional/urban battlefield.

OTOH, if you treat tanks as patrol vehicles, supporting infantry operations by denying freedom of mobility and fires to guerillas.

Or 'Wave' vehicles designed to break up as much as out of fixed, linear, defenses by grinding them down.

Then typically what kills one tank will die by the gun of another.

>>
I disagree. In the combat in which the US is now involved, you are correct. Tanks aren't very useful against guerilla operations. However, I think it has been shown time and time again that there are still situations in which tanks are quite necessary.
>>

Bradleys and Abrahms are /vastly/ more survivable than even the 1114 Hummers. They equal the Stryker in some areas, better it in others. If you ever go to Baghdad and are given a choice of vehicles to 'take the tour' in, go with a track. It's just so much simpler to add uparmor packages (TUSK) and make them hardier against mine/IED threats that it's not even funny.

The only reason we don't ALL ride around in heavy vehicles (M113 with Zelda+ ERA) is fad and fuel. Nobody cares about tearing up Iraqi streets and we certainly have sufficient 113s still in the inventory to readily accomplish the mission. But it would cost fuel and 'mystique' as 'the trend' towards medium/objective brigade in a big-wheels configuration is now well and truly commited to and many peoples reputation is on the line now.

>>
Look at gulf war I. Or the onset of the war in Iraq.
>>

Be aware, we were 'in Iraq', _both_ times. PGW-II (Desert Saber) and PGW-III (Iraqi Freedom) are less about the efficacy of tanks in maneuver warfare than the presence or lack thereof of adequate targeting and delivery systems for alternative methods of engagement to the traditional maneuver campaign.

In 1991, we failed to drive hard enough and so ran into Tanks where we didn't think there were any and then again where we knew they were but could not catch them as we tried to shorten the radius of the loop-around.

In both instances (73 Easting and the big Oil Field battle) Iraqi forces outnumbering U.S. ones by almost 2:1 were defeated by precision fires and shock of contact. But in NEITHER case was the total engagement size or loss BY EITHER SIDE anywheres near /half/ the vehicles obliterated on the Highway of Death. And the USAF quit there before they brought in the CEM BUFFs.

What this indicates, is that the Iraqi ground forces /in/ Kuwait (as occupational troops) were readily put into flight by the mere approach of U.S. troops. And probably had been that way ever since their own pillaging, coupled with the interdiction of supplies, had assured that they could not afford to be captured so much as engaged.

OTOH, the IRG and Army armor units occupying block force positions in the KTO or detailed to intercept U.S. units in it's surrounds were largely crippled by their fear of the desert more than coallition air or armorand this is what threw them into a fixed defensive mindset. And once there, they could have been taken out by any number of means unrelated to LOS heavy tube.

Because there was nowhere to hide once they started turning earth to prep fighting redoubts.

Indeed, it should be remembered that the A-10 was sent North to bust up various 'Home Depot' 'The Villas' and similar arms storage facilities, as well as hunt SCUDs _because the F-16 couldn't loiter at range_. Had the A-10 been used, as a full force CASBAI team rather than FOL 'cajun' Detachment system, frontally as was originally intended, Iraqi losses in armor would have been vastly greater.

i.e. The entire mad rush by units to kill X number of enemy vehicles in weeks or hours of comparitive competition was purely a reflection of the theater commanders' desire to play each off the other with intent to show up all the elements of combined arms. Rather than any true illustration of what Mech forces can do 'once off the leash'.

>>
If there is another major war in the world that doesnt involve nukes, tanks, in conjunction with air superiority, are going to be quite a valuable commodity IMHO.
>>

'Major Wars' run 300 billion to fight, 500 billion to clear up the aftermath. We cannot afford 'Major Wars' where we don't get to own the aftermath.

Such is the preeminent inefficiency of armor that it must:

1. Be massed with multiple other vehicle types so that it's own force protection is assured.
2. Be supported 'en-masse' with logistics ton-miles that are up in the 2000 ton day for a division.
3. Cannot leverage value with standoff, either in protecting itself. Or in engaging threats trying to deny contact in flight or maneuver.
4. Be deployed in such terrain as to allow it to move at speed without becoming bogged down. This includes not only the active theater but the marshalling/leap off one.
5. Account for an existing force model (tank vs. tank) both in justifying it's presence and in layering protective vs. lethality vs. mobility requirements.

Whereby THE NATURE of a 'Major War' (MTW/MRC) is thus defined by how bad things get before you can bring in the force components necessary to reverse and/or stop as much as win it. As a function of time.

If you want to fight a 'sophisticated' (high intensity in small dollops) war, you may well find yourself using lighter vehicles than you do a COIN op. Because a Shadow RSTV can drag a Netfires CLU trailer with upwards of 10-12 shots around the north forty, engaging targets that it would take an equivalent of six A-10's to match with Maverick. While the Warthog would have to share the same horizonline with it's target (I kill, You kill) the Netfires (Hellfire and/or LOCAAS on a booster) can strike from over 60km away.

Under these conditions (my 250,000 vehicle and 2.5 million dollar U-Haul trailer, dumped out the back of a V-22; your 100 million dollar investment in an armored division), signature means more than firepower and any threat which masses just dies quicker.

While any system which can go 1v.Many 'and come back tomorrow' to finish what it lob-snipe started, can be deployed as soon as the first elements reach theater which means that Dictator X can begin losing a company's worth of vehicles per day within 2-3 days (instead of 120+) from the moment we decide to stop him.

THAT is how you win major wars. By not giving your enemy the time or the massed force to roll over his neighbors, let alone fortify his position.

And it will always be so because, even with APS/Dazzler/Reactive type systems; the value of the ATGW will never match the value of the tank and so you can afford to saturate each vehicle with multiple kill vectors on a very short (missile:target) horizon.

It's even competitive with the air delivery mission because it doesn't pay to develop surface to surface DEW like it does Surface To Air on a technology scaling vs. value basis.

The Army knows all this but as usual they are thinking backwards because they are 'looking out a very small aperture' as the world goes by in the opposite direction.

And the Air Services just laugh it up at their poor little retarded gruntian cousins. Because they can hold up Key West as their get out of jail free card. While the Army has done nothing but deemphasize the NLOS mission in everything from ATACMS II to Crusader and HIMARS. Heck, even Netfires is more or less on technology coal-bed life support at the moment.


KPl.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
ch1466,

ok, you just spent over 500 words saying what exactly? on one hand, you dont agree that tanks are obsolete, but on the other, you seem to agree that they are. or was it just a jab at me in retaliation for our disagreement on the other thread?

i mean hell, nice job displaying your vast knowledge of military equipment (as anyone who has read any of your posts on this site knows you are quite knowledgeable in this area, so no real need for you to continue to expound), but do you actually have an opinion one way or the other? yes tanks are obsolete, or no they are not?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
ch1466,

ok, you just spent over 500 words saying what exactly? on one hand, you dont agree that tanks are obsolete, but on the other, you seem to agree that they are. or was it just a jab at me in retaliation for our disagreement on the other thread?



He's just saying that tanks are not obsolete yet. They they are still useful, for we still do prepare to fight conventional warfare, of course that depends on the enemy side that chose to fight head to head, tanks are not really good for guerilla warfare, but if use correctly, they are not useless against guerillas. After all we still have many enemies that still maintain a large conventional forces, like North Korea or China, of course they also have unconventional forces like special forces that don't play conventional terms. Thats where we have to deal with that part, with our own special forces, or to have the conventional forces equipped with tanks to adapt to these situations.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
ch1466,

ok, you just spent over 500 words saying what exactly? on one hand, you dont agree that tanks are obsolete, but on the other, you seem to agree that they are. or was it just a jab at me in retaliation for our disagreement on the other thread?

i mean hell, nice job displaying your vast knowledge of military equipment (as anyone who has read any of your posts on this site knows you are quite knowledgeable in this area, so no real need for you to continue to expound), but do you actually have an opinion one way or the other? yes tanks are obsolete, or no they are not?


This seems to be ch1466s style. He reads an article or field manual, tells everyone else they are wrong, and then proceeds to spew out the whole manual/arctile ver batum, while refusing to listen to the other side of any debates.

As stated in the initial post, this thread was started to discuss some of the russian armies recent weapons exploits. Lets get back on track.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by PaddyInf]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Rather than give us a list of various technical and tactical problems and strenghts of Western and FSU armor, shall we compare and constrast the various tactics used by both major tank armies and decide how these weapons would be used. Then and only then can we bring into account their technical abilities and make a sound judgement on their ability to achieve that goal layed on by their respective strategy.

As for the Russians tank strategy, in an all out war, the choice system would be the same as the late WWII idea of massed armor to create and exploit breakthroughs. They also expanded on that idea by introducing the IFV and bring armored infantry to a new level, allowing their infantry to exploit advances much better. Right that i would bet that remains the same basic idea.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Snafu,

I take exactly the opposite view of most people in saying that heavy armor has it's /principle/ place in exactly the kind of war we are now fighting with oversized jeeps.

Tracks can take considerable weight increases related to all-sector protection schemes/upgrades very well and if you are facing EFP and heavy ORM/IED threats in combination with salvo-LAW, they are your ONLY sensible choice.

OTOH, while the Russian model of warfare is indeed based on armored 'maneuver' (shock, fires, breakout!) campaigning at high rates of attrition in a phone-booth theater. There is no longer a NATO environment to 'foward defense=no retreat' consider. Indeed, the state of ATGW technology has advanced to the point where massing AFV up for such work no longer makes sense, even without nukes.

Because that same 'jeep' which cannot take a LAW shot from any angle _can_ (more or less) navigate the far north-40 of whatever dictator we are pissed with. While firing the equivalent of longrange guided LAW over-horizon (60-80km) in such numbers as to /obliterate/ an entire company of armor.

The more the merrier.

And it can do this on a tenth their POL allocation.

At the same time, the 'netcentric effect' (airborne MTI cues ground based LAM, cues ground based PAM) removes much of the logistics forward hassle of traditional air-cav/scout missioning to /find and fix/ the threat. Instead putting the JSTARS radar on a B707 airframe 500nm in the rear with an airbase that can handle that kind of materiel vs. sortie rate problem.

In maneuver warfare as I see it then, the pace of operations and indeed the need to /initiate such/ before six months have passed and the enemy 'settled in' behind C3D prepped defenses, requires a light forces approach from the very outset.

Because you cannot always secure an APOD/SPOD level debarkation of heavy mech elements against a high tech threat, even if you can get enough of your own 'armor' there in numbers sufficient to provide force protection as basically a numeric attrition soak.

While it is in the wars against amateurs that both the psychologic intimidation factor and true defensive relevance of a couple feet of steel plate is most visible. Because that kind of idiot-threat cannot really deny you access to whatever theater entry mode you choose. But they can certainly make life a veritable hell once your down in the bryar patch _with them_.

Ironically, you actually need fewer such vehicles to 'patrol' with because the enemy simply doesn't have the mass of fires to threaten more than 1-2 at a time on patrol. What you do need to do is be able to secure an area around a downed track and that means an infantry-under-armor approach not altogether different from the Israeli model.

CONCLUSION:
FLIP the modes of employment (AFV=garrison/occupation, Lightforces=high intensity/high rate maneuver). And you will find the basis for how 'armor' should be employed in the new millenium, IMO.

But then again, I've never been an advocate of bleeding for dirt, whether taken or defended. At best I use armor to shape and channelize the enemy for artillery and CAS killsacking at a depth of engagement that is my choice, not theirs. Netfires simply makes it easier to use pecking rather than sledgehammer attacks to snipe them as I see them rather than trying to coordinate god knows how many independent fires into the battlespace.

Got it? Armor=Policing. Missile Jeeps=Real War.


KPl.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
tanks certainly aren't as fearsome as they used to be in the with all the planes flying around bombing the crap outta the battlefield a tank on tank war seems like a past event.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Huge MBTs are fine if you don't have to deploy them half way around the world in a short time. The U.S Army's tank variant of the FCS is small but it will have total information superiority in terms of always knowing exactly where it is and where the enemy is, thanks to net centric capabilities. It will have an ETC gun, which is a hybrid of current guns and rail-guns. So it will be able to engage enemies from a further distance. ETC guns are more stable, that way it can fire while moving near top speed. Not to mention it will have auto-load, that way it can fire more rounds during a battle. It's other two or three guns will be remotely operated, so none of the 2 man crew has to expose themselves to hostile fire. And though the thickness of the tanks armor may not be that great, it will have state of the art armor. As well as electric armor, which sets off RPGs and similar weapons before they even hit the tank. Also, it will have a hybrid diesel-electric drive which will give it better gas mileage, and a better range.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
There is only two real ways to defeat kinetic rounds. Movement and armor, perferibly sloped, ballistically shaped armor with a hard outer shell and composites underneath.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Raideur,

>>
There are only two real ways to defeat kinetic rounds. Movement and armor, preferrably sloped, ballistically shaped armor with a hard outer shell and composites underneath.
>>

"Danielsan, you no wanna be hit? You no be dare."

By definition, a KE round has to share a LOS 'agreement' with it's target to kill it. Though in theory you can (re)accelerate the round, post muzzle, it still cannot reach the range of a simple 120mm AMS which soft-lobs rounds at 900fps (one 6th of tank rifles) to 10-14km.

What's more, while AMS systems can fire at as high as 26rpm to simply /saturate/ individual vehicle active protection systems; the EFP/SFF system of a typical 'brilliant' (self targeting) smartround can detonated as much as 1,500ft above it's target of choice.

Which means the 'KE is _in_ the HE' as the copper-moly disk becomes a 9,000fps slug or stream.

At which point you are right back to massing troops to take the attrition rather than massing fires to score it.

The Laws Of Firepower State:

1. Shoot Shoot Shoot.
And for any specific bullets-per-kill ratio, you will do better shooting more.
2. Maneuver to Target Not To Engage.
Since there is no point wasting time traveling a distance which a bullet can cross faster.
3. Never Put Your Targeting On Your Fires.
Whether on a platform or munition basis. Because you end up shooting or getting shot 'in the eye'.

At which point it becomes further obvious that if you have to transit territory to kill the targeting mechanism by which throwaway kill systems are obliterating you, 1 per half mile, 'Stalin had it right.'

The Force Which Wins is the Force Which Can Most Afford To Lose. And T-90 or Type-96 or Leo-2A6, NONE of the modern designs are any more tossable than the M1 was at the start. They can't be, now that they have the same technology investment in MPT to kill it.

Which brings us to the operational scenario.

If a U.S. forced entry team can put 1 50 ton, 2 twenty ton, 4 ten ton or 15 1 ton vehicles out the back of a C-17 sitting in some back of beyond. And you have four such aircraft 'at risk' to doing so on 2 different highway strips.

When an enemy MBT force of 30-70 vehicles, descends on the LZ with sufficient LOS firepower to defeat ANY of the given vehicle types armor.

You have to wonder what idiot in his right mind is going to /wait/ until it's _too late_ to begin his 'war of maneuver' by strategically advancing the other way while his itty bitty mortar carriers blow great gaping holes in the roofs of the leadvan of T-90s.

So that they will either cease pursuit or continue it. Right past where his 'cav screen' of 6-10 mini-Wiesel robots lie in a gulch, waiting to leap forth and further instill the most basic advantage of a rear guard force: shock. As they put 35-45mm fire into the flanks and tracks and optics and engine grills of MBTs only 'safe' from them in the frontal arc.

Without a single care for how they save their own lives. Because they aren't living.

So that the humans in the RSTV, pulling Netfires trailers, can didimau on down the road or across the desert waste to hold hostage the rest of the latest 'enemy' nations lines of communication and critical (phone/power distrbution and rectification) point targets.

From 60-80km out.

Utterly unopposed because, 'contact' was never made and their position is NOT known.

The only reason I will fight armor /on their turf/ is to make sure they cannot interfere with my principle mission which is to disrupt the 'nervous system' by which a nation runs. I am not there to indulge in some moronic slaughter fest that wastes billions of dollars to blow up millions of second-best weapons systems ala Desert Saber.

I am there to _quickly_ end the campaign before suffering and financial loss exceed any 'moral reason' for entering the fight to begin with. Something that can only happen when the enemy is unable to move his logistics and maintain his comms, at the most basic of fielded subsistence levels.

And so even forced fights will preferrably be desultory. Since I don't have to share an 'agreement' about honorable LOS fighting over a shared horizon.

Only COMPLETE FRACKING MORONS would do such a thing if they had a netcentric choice.

You no wanna be Stalinist? Don't _be there_ to fight his kind of a war.

COE all the way baby.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Anything recent in regards to funding, cause it looks like the T-95 and T-80UM2 is going to be scrapped.


T-95 (Objekt 775)

A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions.
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 higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard. link


Can't say I would place any money on a T-80 retrofit as being a formable tank, so maybe they plan to sell kits to the Chinese.




[edit on 2-2-2006 by Regenmacher]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join