Black Eagle MBT

[Awang se]

A new Russian MBT named Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle) was shown for the first time at the second VTTV-Omsk-97 International Exhibition of Armaments, Military Equipment and Conversion Products held in September '97 in Omsk, Siberia region, Russia.

Until recently, there were hardly any details about the tank except for a couple of words and a poster on the Defendory 1998 held in Greece.

According to the information I have, this tank is being developed in cooperation with and for export to S.Korea and may even feature Korean thermal imagers. It will not be fielded with the Russian Army and seems to be entirely an initiative of Omsk Plant. It originates from the now-closed Nikolai Popov's design bureau at Leningrad Kirov Plant (LKZ) and is now developed by Alexander Morozov.

The tank is built on a T-80U chassis and will borrow most of its components including FCS from T-80U.

The most significant difference between the new tank and T-80 is the completely redesigned turret (at Omsk'97 a full-sized mock-up was presented) and the lengthened hull with 7 roadwheels per side.

The new turret will have a larger degree of protection than the current Russian MBTs. The steep slope of forward armor plates on the turret reflects designers' desire to maximize protection from APFSDS rounds in a duel situation, when tanks fight "face to face".

For additional protection, the tank is fitted with Kaktus ERA and the new Drozd-2 APS.

It was originally planned to install a 152 mm gun that is being developed for a future Russian MBT. However, since this tank is not going to be fielded with the Russian Army, it carries a 125 mm 2A46M-series gun.

Another innovation is a new automated ammo storage/loader, located in a turret bustle. It is separated from crew compartment by an armored bulkhead which greatly increases crew survivability. This design has several reasons. First, the Chechen war has shown that the carousel used in T-72/T-80/T-90 is too prone to ammo detonation when penetrated, invariably killing the crew. Second, adopted configuration also reduces Black Eagle's height by 400 mm by comparison with the T-80 (Perhaps a typo here, since this means that the tank is a mere 1.8 meters in height). Finally, horizontal ammunition arrangement in the turret bustle permits using longer (and therefore, more powerful) APFSDS rounds, unitary ammunition, simplified automatic loading process and increased rate of fire (expected to reach 10-12 rds/min).

Black Eagle's on-board information system monitors all essential systems of the vehicle, and permits automated data exchange with other tanks and headquarters.

The tank shall have a new 1200 hp 16-cyl. turbo-diesel engine and shall weigh around 50 tons.

VTTV-Omsk-99 exhibition have finally revealed the complete vehicle (referred by KBMZ as Item 640) without any netting. Several features became immediately apparent. It was apparent for the first time that the vehicle's hull is not taken directly from T-80U as was originally believed, but was significantly redesigned, the obvious change being the 7th roadwheel. It seems that most of the additional length has gone into the raised front hull protection and greater glacis obliquity. It also raises doubts if the tank indeed stays in Class 50. The active protection system appears to be Drozd, not Arena, derivative. Although the tank indeed carries the 2A46M maingun, it was stated that provision is made for installation of a new 152mm maingun. This implies that Omsk still hopes to win the hearts of the Russian military with this new tank.

Source
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov

[adsH]

apparently russian military has bought nothing for a long time, they find it hard to supply fuel to there existing Armer so they keep each Tank in sleeping!!

[Pathfinder-X]

this thing is only a test platform, to test out some western design and technologies in order to get better performance for the next generation MBT, i don't think this thing will come into service.

[Awang se]

They say it was for South Korea. SK already bought T-80U MBT and the only east asia user for such a tank. I believe this tank is partly a brainchild of the SK tank designers and use the russian production plant to build it. i got the picture here.

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/640.jpg
[/img]

Notice the enlarge bustle area. Eventually they don't satisfied with carousel housing for tank ammo.

[Pathfinder-X]

korean don't need any more russian MBTs. they already develop their own K1A1(a downsized M1A1), initially the tank suffered mechanical problems like many others, but the mass productions of the tank started in 1995 i think. now they have almost 300 of these in service and the number is still growing.

[Viktor]

korean don't need any more russian MBTs. they already develop their own K1A1(a downsized M1A1), initially the tank suffered mechanical problems like many others, but the mass productions of the tank started in 1995 i think. now they have almost 300 of these in service and the number is still growing.
Koreans have 300 T-80U1 whitch are batter than theirs K1A1 and where delivered as a pay back dabt from Soviet Union. Russia is curently developing T-95 MBT, T-80U2/Black Eagle is sadly canceld. It was at the moment most advance MBT in a world.

[TrangleC]

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4329

Yes, it is not really new since it was shown the first time almost 10 years ago and it seems to have no future anyway, since the company that designed it is gone bancrupt and the prototype is rotting away on some parking lot since years now.

[Stimpy75]

The Black Eagle is not destined for the korean army,because the korean are developing the XK-2 tank which will replace the K-1 tank in production.It´s something like a korean version of the Leclerc,with a 55 cal 120 mm gun.

[eckherl]

Koreans have 300 T-80U1 whitch are batter than theirs K1A1 and where delivered as a pay back dabt from Soviet Union. Russia is curently developing T-95 MBT, T-80U2/Black Eagle is sadly canceld. It was at the moment most advance MBT in a world.
I have worked with the South Korean miltary and they are quite satisfied with the K1A1, they are also content with their T-80U1s except for the auto loader systems and the tracks. The K1A1 is still being produced and the older fleet of K - 88`s are being refurbished to this standard. Can you tell me if the Russian army will be adopting the T - 95 design or will it be for sale on the export market.

[extern]

Can you tell me if the Russian army will be adopting the T - 95 design or will it be for sale on the export market.
T-95 is a top secret project of a next gen MBT, in some degree at more advanced stage, that the american FCS program, and however it's not for selling. Even for their closest ally India the Russians are refusing to sell it or to involve it in joint development.

[eckherl]

Is their any information and photos out there yet on this vechicle.

[Viktor]

T-95 is a top secret project of a next gen MBT, in some degree at more advanced stage, that the american FCS program, and however it's not for selling. Even for their closest ally India the Russians are refusing to sell it or to involve it in joint development.

Im interested as Russia curently operates about 3000 T-80 can those tanks be somehow modify to a Black Eagle standard. I know Black Eagle originaly has little longer body but to placy only a turet of a Black Eagle on a T-80 with Relikt ERA would be excellent job.

Have you any information about T-95 - nothing is being said for a while now.

[extern]

Have you any information about T-95 - nothing is being said for a while now. The tests of T-95are under way now. This program is so secret, that they make open-area tests only when no american satelites are around :unknown

I can only say? that this tank is realizing the 'crew-in-hull concept', that I hardly hope it will be on western tanks before 2020. Citation:


"The main reason usually quoted for moving the crewmen down into the hull is to increase their
survivability by seating them in better protected stations. In the case of the MBT, a further significant
reason is to reduce the size of the target presented to the enemy when engaging over a crestline. In the case
of the MICV, the crew-in-hull concept will eliminate the turret basket which so restricts the infantrymen’s
movement within the vehicle. An additional reason will be to reduce the MBT’s and the MICV’s height
and prominence. This might be achieved by using configurations based on the “S” tank, but would be
spoiled by a high external overhead gun mounting.
By moving the crewmen down into the hull and allowing each man to drive the vehicle, it will be possible
to eliminate the dedicated driver and reduce both MBT and MICV crews to two men. In the MBT, reduced
crew volume can give better protection and only two crewmen need be put at risk in action. Far from
reducing a vehicle’s efficiency and speed of reaction, such two-man operation is likely to give better
operational performance than present four- or three-man turreted tanks. In the case of the MICV, a twoman
crew will allow an additional infantryman to leave the vehicle to take part in dismounted action." http://www.dtic.mil/mctl/DSTL/DSTLSec09g.pdf

[Waylander]

Two man crew?
Never ever with current technology.
Not until the gunner or the driver can completely be eliminated by computers.
Driving and gunnering is a full time job while the TC needs to be a multi-tasking talent (navigation, scanning, radio, commanding other tanks, etc).

[extern]

Two man crew?
Never ever with current technology.
Not until the gunner or the driver can completely be eliminated by computers.
Driving and gunnering is a full time job while the TC needs to be a multi-tasking talent (navigation, scanning, radio, commanding other tanks, etc).Transferring RuArmy to contract army makes worthwhile to exploit 2 highly qualificated 'tank pilots' instead 3 pure qualifcated half year prepared tankmen. It is naturally tendency: to reduce crew as much as possible like puting 1-men crew on Ka-50 helo (yes I know it's expensive!) or Su-35 fighter. Also the better defence for a crew is its reducing :D

[eckherl]

Transferring RuArmy to contract army makes worthwhile to exploit 2 highly qualificated 'tank pilots' instead 3 pure qualifcated half year prepared tankmen. It is naturally tendency: to reduce crew as much as possible like puting 1-men crew on Ka-50 helo (yes I know it's expensive!) or Su-35 fighter. Also the better defence for a crew is its reducing :D

That is placing too much responsibility on two crewmembers to be able to survive in combat, Russia doesn`t have the technology to get to that level yet. A T- 95 is a test bed for future Russian tanks, it`s been around for a long time just like the American version which dates back to the mid eighties. Neither model calls for a two man crew. Being able to test different weapons platforms and mass produce them are two different things, Russia doesn`t have the money nor the backing to get this accomplished, besides what is the threat that would justify it being produced, Ukrainian T - 84`s which is a better tank than the T - 90. Russia`s priority is getting it`s navy and airforce back in fighting shape due to the fact that this will have more of a impact on it`s defensive posture for possible future conflicts. The Russian Army is a last priority at this point due to existing vehicles in it`s inventory, they will have to settle for vehicle upgrades just like western armies are doing at this point.

[Viktor]

That is placing too much responsibility on two crewmembers to be able to survive in combat, Russia doesn`t have the technology to get to that level yet. A T- 95 is a test bed for future Russian tanks, it`s been around for a long time just like the American version which dates back to the mid eighties. Neither model calls for a two man crew. Being able to test different weapons platforms and mass produce them are two different things, Russia doesn`t have the money nor the backing to get this accomplished, besides what is the threat that would justify it being produced, Ukrainian T - 84`s which is a better tank than the T - 90. Russia`s priority is getting it`s navy and airforce back in fighting shape due to the fact that this will have more of a impact on it`s defensive posture for possible future conflicts. The Russian Army is a last priority at this point due to existing vehicles in it`s inventory, they will have to settle for vehicle upgrades just like western armies are doing at this point.


Hm I would not underestimate Russians like that. So far we have seen so many excellent weapon systems despite harsh economic situation whitch is now improving.


Why do you think T-84 to be superior to T-90V?

[Waylander]

A two man crew is just not possible.
That may sound a little bit arrogant but if you would have ever been sitting in a tank in a full scale maneuver (not to talk of real combat like ekherl has seen) you wild agree to the opinion that a two man crew is not possible today.
Drivers cannot be substituted by computers as well as gunners. Both task aquire a huge amount of concentration. There is no chance that these two could be bale to navigate, control radio, search for enemy postitions/tanks/infantry..., lead other tanks, etc.
Flying a plane is not comparable to ground driving.
Remember that there are many UAVs but no ground drone which is able to find its way as fast as a human driver. Not to talk of combat tank driving.
Gunnery is the same. A human gunner is able to finda hidden tank. Current tech is not. Just look at Kosovo. The NATO didn't hit many real targets.

[eckherl]

Hm I would not underestimate Russians like that. So far we have seen so many excellent weapon systems despite harsh economic situation whitch is now improving.


Why do you think T-84 to be superior to T-90V?

I never under estimate a worthy opponent, yes Russia does design some excellant combat vehicles, with the T-80 and T-90 being able to hold their own against modern western MBT`s what is the point, how many MBT`s does Russia still have in her inventory?. Russia will still use DU penetrators just like The U.S and both countries have a few generations that will take out any known tank on the modern battlefield. What makes the T-84 a better tank is the new turret design wich will give it (their claims) an additional 15% armor protection at the frontal quadrant, ie: 60 degree ark, I have been told by a reliable source that it is probably closer to 10%, which still isn`t too shabby. The night fighting capabilities on the T-84 are better plus it has a better stabilization system.

[Viktor]

I never under estimate a worthy opponent, yes Russia does design some excellant combat vehicles, with the T-80 and T-90 being able to hold their own against modern western MBT`s what is the point, how many MBT`s does Russia still have in her inventory?. Russia will still use DU penetrators just like The U.S and both countries have a few generations that will take out any known tank on the modern battlefield. What makes the T-84 a better tank is the new turret design wich will give it (their claims) an additional 15% armor protection at the frontal quadrant, ie: 60 degree ark, I have been told by a reliable source that it is probably closer to 10%, which still isn`t too shabby. The night fighting capabilities on the T-84 are better plus it has a better stabilization system.

Hm well Russia has

1010 T-55 active +1000 in storage or decomissioned
639 T-62 active +3000 in storage
4000 T-64 active + 4000 in storage
2114 T-72 active + 7800 in reserve
3044 T-80 active + 1456 in reserve
250 T-90

Thats it - as you can see quite a number :)

Waylander thanks for explanation - i have never being inside a tank so I dont know how dificult it is to shoot at other targets but is it posible to replace guner by some UAV and than use date to automaticly shoot as most likely future tank rounds will be by my opinion something like KITOLOV-2M or Krasnopol.

Eckherl I have seen some stats saying batter armour protection of T-84 but on what asumtions can you tell T-84 has batter FCS or gun stabilisation than that of T-90??

[eckherl]

Hm well Russia has

1010 T-55 active +1000 in storage or decomissioned)
639 T-62 active +3000 in storage)
4000 T-64 active + 4000 in storage
2114 T-72 active + 7800 in reserve
3044 T-80 active + 1456 in reserve
250 T-90

Thats it - as you can see quite a number :)

Waylander thanks for explanation - i have never being inside a tank so I dont know how dificult it is to shoot at other targets but is it posible to replace guner by some UAV and than use date to automaticly shoot as moslt likely future tank rounds will be by my opinion something like KITOLOV-2M or Krasnopol.

Eckherl I have seen some stats saying batter armour protection of T-84 but on what asumtions can you tell T-84 has batter FCS or gun stabilisation than that of T-90??
Russian T-90 versions use Russian T-80UM fire control systems, the T-84 has upgraded this with a better laser range finder, gunner and tank commander thermal night sight, stabilization has been improved by adding a third GYRO for the hull to compensate for hull movement. also the fire control system will let the gunner fire a anti tank missle while the vehicle is moving at a moving target.

[eckherl]

Russian T-90 versions use Russian T-80UM fire control systems, the T-84 has upgraded this with a better laser range finder, gunner and tank commander thermal night sight, stabilization has been improved by adding a third GYRO for the hull to compensate for hull movement. also the fire control system will let the gunner fire a anti tank missle while the vehicle is moving at a moving target.

Also let me add that with that number of tanks in their inventory they still hold close to a 3 to 1 advantage in tanks against NATO European countries. That still is a impressive amount of tanks, you can only imagine how many artilley pieces and infantry fighting vehicles that are still on the books. I don`t think Russia has anything to worry about looking west.:)

[Waylander]

And I hope it's vice versa. :)
I really would not like to go back from reserve into active service. ;)

[eckherl]

And I hope it's vice versa. :)
I really would not like to go back from reserve into active service. ;)

I here you there, I do not trust Vladimere Putin at all.

[Waylander]

I agree that Russia is now at a way which leads more to a "strong leadership" as they call it.
And that the freedom of political opponents and press is going down in Russia.
I really hope that the days of a nearly hot east-west conflict are finally gone.
But you are right it worries me also.

[extern]

Being able to test different weapons platforms and mass produce them are two different things, Russia doesn't have the money nor the backing to get this accomplished, besides what is the threat that would justify it being produced. ...
The money is not already problem for Russia at least 4-5 years, when the huge plus of its budget was emergent. For example, the income of current budget is like 7 trillion rubles and the expenditure is only 5.5, i.e. - 1.5 trillion rubles proficiency! Comparing to the mammoth American deficit, it doesn’t not look so bad, does it? ;)
Also say me plz how many brand-new Abramses came from assembly line in 2006? I'll help you, the number is 0, bcz the line was frozen :unknown Along with that, in Russia the assembly of the last variant of T-90 - T-90S - was restored in 2002 after 5 years of stopping. Now each year some tens (30-50) of T-90A with new welded turret , new FCS, new IR etc. are entering the service. Apart that, tens of T-72s were upgraded each year despite the previous financial turmoil.
This year, the modernization of T-80 stocks was started too, next year ~100 T-72 and 50T-80's will be modernised too. According to the current 9-years plan, 680 new tanks will enter service untill 2015. The modernised T-72 and T-80's are not included in this number, but it seems to be 3-4 times more...
However, the main priority of Russia always was its nuclear strategic and tactical forces indeed.

What makes the T-84 a better tank is the new turret design which will give it (their claims) an additional 15% armor protection at the frontal quadrant, ie: 60 degree ark, I have been told by a reliable source that it is probably closer to 10%, which still isn't too shabby. The night fighting capabilities on the T-84 are better plus it has a better stabilization system.
- I know, where its rumor from: the turret of T-84 is basically made from armor steel after electro-slag melting. Its process makes steel more homogenous and some 15% stronger for fracture. However, it doesn’t mean at all, the whole turret will be 15% (or even 10%) stronger! By such expensive way (this steel is 1.5-2 time more expensive) the Ukrainians only tried to compensate their relative backwardness in composite armor technology. In addition, the armor penetration is occurring in quasi-hydrodynamic conditions, when the armor density plays more role that durability. The single thing, that is better on T-84, is existence of barrel thermal deformation sensor, that will be fixed by Russians only on the new T-72/T-80 modernization program. However, the MG of T-90 is better as a whole. Indeed, T-90A and T-84 – are comparable level devices, despite the fact that many parts of T-84 – are unlicension monkey-copy of Russian products, and simply cannot be on the level of true products.

Russian T-90 versions use Russian T-80UM fire control systems, the T-84 has upgraded this with a better laser range finder, gunner and tank commander thermal night sight, stabilization has been improved by adding a third GYRO for the hull to compensate for hull movement. also the fire control system will let the gunner fire a anti tank missle while the vehicle is moving at a moving target.
- I don’t understand what you speak about, both T-84 and T-90S has the same Buran-Catherine-E thermal imaging sight (http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84firecs.php?menu=m1.php ), but yes the initial version of T-90 had some less advance Agava thermal imaging sight. The Ukrainian KBA3 MG is only unlicension copy of the basic Russian-designed 2А46М. T-90S has much more accurate and strong (+authentic from its developer) 2A46M-4 Motovilikhian MG. And I donno about a gyro, but T-90 (as like as T-80U) can fire tank-launched ATGM when moving up to 35 km/h. In total only 10 T-84 have been produced and 0-exported, thus could be said, Ukraine made something, that didn’t satisfy a customer.

[eckherl]

The money is not already problem for Russia at least 4-5 years, when the huge plus of its budget was emergent. For example, the income of current budget is like 7 trillion rubles and the expenditure is only 5.5, i.e. - 1.5 trillion rubles proficiency! Comparing to the mammoth American deficit, it doesn’t not look so bad, does it? ;)
Also say me plz how many brand-new Abramses came from assembly line in 2006? I'll help you, the number is 0, bcz the line was frozen :unknown Along with that, in Russia the assembly of the last variant of T-90 - T-90S - was restored in 2002 after 5 years of stopping. Now each year some tens (30-50) of T-90A with new welded turret , new FCS, new IR etc. are entering the service. Apart that, tens of T-72s were upgraded each year despite the previous financial turmoil.
This year, the modernization of T-80 stocks was started too, next year ~100 T-72 and 50T-80's will be modernised too. According to the current 9-years plan, 680 new tanks will enter service untill 2015. The modernised T-72 and T-80's are not included in this number, but it seems to be 3-4 times more...
However, the main priority of Russia always was its nuclear strategic and tactical forces indeed.


- I know, where its rumor from: the turret of T-84 is basically made from armor steel after electro-slag melting. Its process makes steel more homogenous and some 15% stronger for fracture. However, it doesn’t mean at all, the whole turret will be 15% (or even 10%) stronger! By such expensive way (this steel is 1.5-2 time more expensive) the Ukrainians only tried to compensate their relative backwardness in composite armor technology. In addition, the armor penetration is occurring in quasi-hydrodynamic conditions, when the armor density plays more role that durability. The single thing, that is better on T-84, is existence of barrel thermal deformation sensor, that will be fixed by Russians only on the new T-72/T-80 modernization program. However, the MG of T-90 is better as a whole. Indeed, T-90A and T-84 – are comparable level devices, despite the fact that many parts of T-84 – are unlicension monkey-copy of Russian products, and simply cannot be on the level of true products.


- I don’t understand what you speak about, both T-84 and T-90S has the same Buran-Catherine-E thermal imaging sight (http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84firecs.php?menu=m1.php ), but yes the initial version of T-90 had some less advance Agava thermal imaging sight. The Ukrainian KBA3 MG is only unlicension copy of the basic Russian-designed 2А46М. T-90S has much more accurate and strong (+authentic from its developer) 2A46M-4 Motovilikhian MG. And I donno about a gyro, but T-90 (as like as T-80U) can fire tank-launched ATGM when moving up to 35 km/h. In total only 10 T-84 have been produced and 0-exported, thus could be said, Ukraine made something, that didn’t satisfy a customer.
Okay - looking at what Russia is doing to upgrade tanks, where does the Black eagle fall into getting massed produced.
And as far the turret manufacturing process for T-84, why would you not say that it offers better protection, the Ukrainians have the technoligy for composite armor, they got it from Russia.
As far as the thermal imaging goes I will find out if possible on what they did to improve on the sight.
Stabilization system has been upgraded to having a system set up like what western advanced tanks have, 3 gyros - turret,gun,hull.
And yes you are correct they cannot sell it but they do have clients that want the turret upgrades, the tank buying market is tough.
And please don`t get the wrong impression that I am bad mouthing Russian armor, they are still good tanks and will be a challenge to come up against,
Ukrainians are going to do everything possible to get a edge on the Russians for exporting tanks, and this case after fine tuning some areas it is not working for them on the export market, just upgrade packages.

[extern]

Okay - looking at what Russia is doing to upgrade tanks, where does the Black eagle fall into getting massed produced.
And as far the turret manufacturing process for T-84, why would you not say that it offers better protection, the Ukrainians have the technoligy for composite armor, they got it from Russia.
As far as the thermal imaging goes I will find out if possible on what they did to improve on the sight.
Stabilization system has been upgraded to having a system set up like what western advanced tanks have, 3 gyros - turret,gun,hull.
Black Eagle - is a private initiative venture of Omsktransmash. They intented it for export from the start, but were refused by goverment bcz fear for 'know-how' leakage. The only oficially sponsored and financed tank project of Ru Army is T-95.
The only body, that has experience in armor and made all development for USSR's tanks armor is Russian 'NII Stali'. There are many experts and developers remained from the Soviet age, which transfer their skill to the mew generation of developer. It is impossible for country like Ukraine without high financial input to built development skill during so short time in completely new area . Thus, I am very sceptical about their ability to jump beyond the basic T-80 armor combination, that they built by russian licension in Soviet era. Russia refused tranferring its newest armor technology for Ukraine after its deal with Pakistan without aproprial licension and against Russian claims. You know how its deal was accomplished by Ukraine? The first 180 T-80UD tanks - were took from the soviet stocks and the remained - were made by cannibalisation (MG, ERA etc). Ukraine never made MG for tanks before, and now it is still unable to make it as good as Russia by naturally cause. If now they take order for new tanks, they need to import MG for it or to make the obsolet old soviet model.

[eckherl]

Black Eagle - is a private initiative venture of Omsktransmash. They intented it for export from the start, but were refused by goverment bcz fear for 'know-how' leakage. The only oficially sponsored and financed tank project of Ru Army is T-95.
The only body, that has experience in armor and made all development for USSR's tanks armor is Russian 'NII Stali'. There are many experts and developers remained from the Soviet age, which transfer their skill to the mew generation of developer. It is impossible for country like Ukraine without high financial input to built development skill during so short time in completely new area . Thus, I am very sceptical about their ability to jump beyond the basic T-80 armor combination, that they built by russian licension in Soviet era. Russia refused tranferring its newest armor technology for Ukraine after its deal with Pakistan without aproprial licension and against Russian claims. You know how its deal was accomplished by Ukraine? The first 180 T-80UD tanks - were took from the soviet stocks and the remained - were made by cannibalisation (MG, ERA etc). Ukraine never made MG for tanks before, and now it is still unable to make it as good as Russia by naturally cause. If now they take order for new tanks, they need to import MG for it or to make the obsolet old soviet model.

Who is selling them the Main gun barrels, who gave them the technical help to place a L-44 into their tanks.
I know that Russia was trying to sell the Black Eagle to South Korea, but for reasons unknown it was not purchased. this version had a 125mm.
It is my impression that the Russian version will look different in the turret arrangement, I will be surprised if they do not go with the 135mm maingun.
I just can`t see the justification for them needing it at this point, I know that the auto loader can only handle projectiles at a certain size on the T-80 and T-90 and they want to increase the size of their KE projectiles but I would think that they could overcome that instead of building a different model tank.

[extern]

Who is selling them the Main gun barrels, who gave them the technical help to place a L-44 into their tanks.

I know that the auto loader can only handle projectiles at a certain size on the T-80 and T-90 and they want to increase the size of their KE projectiles but I would think that they could overcome that instead of building a different model tank.The guns they take from their T-72/T-80 stocks, and the barrels they try to build independetly, so I doubt the Ukrainian MG can be better or even on the Russian level. I think it is obvious: if you meet 'swiss' watch, that is made in Hong-Kong, you dont start asking from the Swiss proofs, that their autentic watch works not worse that the hongkongian one, do you? Vice versa you would ask proofs if the copy works at least like the original, wouldnt you?

About Black Eagle tank: the project became to be secret, and after initially demonstration in Omsk mil show, the developers have been deprived from permission to show it for the public. According to the strong rumor, its autoloader is so universal that can adopt both divided 125mm rounds and unitary 120mm. The barrel also can be changable between 120, 125 and 135mm. The capacity of the afterload is for 22 rounds only. The army asked from the developer to increase it (it's official information, that I heard myself).

[eckherl]

The guns they take from their T-72/T-80 stocks, and the barrels they try to build independetly, so I doubt the Ukrainian MG can be better or even on the Russian level. I think it is obvious: if you meet 'swiss' watch, that is made in Hong-Kong, you dont start asking from the Swiss proofs, that their autentic watch works not worse that the hongkongian one, do you? Vice versa you would ask proofs if the copy works at least like the original, wouldnt you?

About Black Eagle tank: the project became to be secret, and after initially demonstration in Omsk mil show, the developers have been deprived from permission to show it for the public. According to the strong rumor, its autoloader is so universal that can adopt both divided 125mm rounds and unitary 120mm. The barrel also can be changable between 120, 125 and 135mm. The capacity of the afterload is for 22 rounds only. The army asked from the developer to increase it (it's official information, that I heard myself).
Do they have to change out the entire breech mechanism or just the gun.
You stated that it can carry the 120mm so one can assume that it will fire NATO ammunition, plus it is of a fixed ammunition type, (projectile with casing).

[extern]

Do they have to change out the entire breech mechanism or just the gun.
You stated that it can carry the 120mm so one can assume that it will fire NATO ammunition, plus it is of a fixed ammunition type, (projectile with casing).It was their intention at least: they did want prospective export project for the countries like S. Korea, Greece or Cyprus, that may be interested in T-80U upgrades, but are restricted by western amunition standarts. They also pondered the possibility to make upgrade for T-80U turret, using the Black Eagle turret configuration with universal autoloader that gives the possibility of using both Russian and NATO ammunition to keep compatibility with maximal pool of customers:

[eckherl]

It was their intention at least: they did want prospective export project for the countries like S. Korea, Greece or Cyprus, that may be interested in T-80U upgrades, but are restricted by western amunition standarts. They also pondered the possibility to make upgrade for T-80U turret, using the Black Eagle turret configuration with universal autoloader that gives the possibility of using both Russian and NATO ammunition to keep compatibility with maximal pool of customers:

So have they gone to a fixed cartridge case for the 125mm along with the 135mm.
What type of adjustments would they have to make to the auto loader to fire both Russian and NATO ammunition.
Looking at the pictures, is this the official layout of the tank.

[extern]

So have they gone to a fixed cartridge case for the 125mm along with the 135mm.
What type of adjustments would they have to make to the auto loader to fire both Russian and NATO ammunition.
Looking at the pictures, is this the official layout of the tank.
What they did, they have designed a modular gun. I donno how exactly they did it, but suppousedly it has modular design when the barrel and the chamber can be changed according to the caliber. The Ukrainians are now trying to repeat it looking on their projected Bagira gun.

[Viktor]

Can someone translate this wideo - this is suposed to be something like T-95.


http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/17088/cat/3071

[extern]

Can someone translate this wideo - this is suposed to be something like T-95.http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/17088/cat/3071
It was said: 'it is a new tank T-95. short time ago all information about it, even spoken, was prohibited'. The comander of ground forces added: 'it has some un-usual look, we are going to show this tank for public yet this year'.

- But I can add, it was not happen, the project remain to be top secret.
Black Eagle - is less secret. There are even good videos about it: http://www.webfile.ru/1190845

[eckherl]

What they did, they have designed a modular gun. I donno how exactly they did it, but suppousedly it has modular design when the barrel and the chamber can be changed according to the caliber. The Ukrainians are now trying to repeat it looking on their projected Bagira gun.

Where can it be changed from - the breech block housing thus making it a universal breech to take on different gun tube calibers.

[eckherl]

Please disregard the last two posts, I couldn`t bring up the pictures you attached in the prior posts, switched computers and now I have them.
Okay - Looking at these it is apparent that this is the export version that they presented to South Korea, you will notice that it doesn`t present the 135mm gun only the 125/120/140 guns, I know that South Korea had a interest in the German 140mm for their future tank not the 152mm, I have also been told by a reliable source that Russia will not offer the 135mm until it is fully fielded with in their ranks, if they go to a 125mm on their future tank then it will be a reconfigured auto loader to handle a bigger KE round, but I have my doubts that they will stick with the 125mm, whats the point - if you have the funds to start mass producing your next generation tank then you will have the funds to have everything that the tank was intended for. There are alot of folks in the armor world who say this is not what it will look like but will be more in line on what the U.S next generation tank will look like. You will not see this tank anytime soon, Russia doesn`t have the funds and she will settle for upgrading her current tank fleet. When you can only afford to add 50 new battle tanks a year, you cannot afford to start mass producing your next generation tanks ie: cannot justify it`s purpose and what would the threat be. Only time will tell.

[extern]

... I have my doubts that they will stick with the 125mm, whats the point - if you have the funds to start mass producing your next generation tank then you will have the funds to have everything that the tank was intended for. ...
When you can only afford to add 50 new battle tanks a year, you cannot afford to start mass producing your next generation tanks ie: cannot justify it`s purpose and what would the threat be.
How new battle tanks US are affording in 2006? :p: Look, if you have a fleet of 25 000 tanks & between them some 15 000 well upgradable T-80's T-72's and T-90's, u are in total stupidness if u start mass production of brand-new tank without thinking about what you have allready. And if you are thinking about a new caliber (not mention 135 or 140mm) for ur new gen tank, so why you dont better think about new caliber for all ur fleet? Otherwise, you will remain with only few handreds contemporal tanks and 10 000 rubbish pots with much logistic headache. I'm used to think, the modernisation (if availiable) is the most effective way to rise the military potential. Yeah, Russia keep run for some 50 new tanks a year, but some 150 additional are upgraded. I think, this relation will be kept when instead the T-90's they would roll out T-95.

Now, how an interchangable MG can help? It's obvious: you are first starting to put such gun on your new brands and upgrades with 125 mm. When the quantity grows, the quick transfer to higher caliber munition become worthwile.

For example, Russia has huge fleet of T-80. Most of them have obsolet complexion (Like M1 against M1A2) but with good potenial for upgrade: exellent chassis, an efective GT or turbocharged diesel engine. Omsktransmash design unit (the Black Eagle developer) is now offering its upgrades programs for T-80: it includes an external autoloader (puting on the old turret), new ERA, new FCS and many many other gadgets. It will not be Black Eagle, but will use a part of its technologies. The new MG with variable caliber may become a part of such upgrade in the future.

[Viktor]

How new battle tanks US are affording in 2006? :p: Look, if you have a fleet of 25 000 tanks & between them some 15 000 well upgradable T-80's T-72's and T-90's, u are in total stupidness if u start mass production of brand-new tank without thinking about what you have allready.


Will those T-72 be upgraded to a T-72BM standard? I read about T-72BM having improved 2A46M-5 gun, V-92S2 1,000ks diesel engine, Relikt ERA, SLAT armour, heat reduction kit and mutch improved FCS. Also mutch posibly more modern materials will be used to construct main armour posibly increasing it. Do you think such modernised T-72 is up to M1 or M1A1?

[extern]

Will those T-72 be upgraded to a T-72BM standard? I read about T-72BM having improved 2A46M-5 gun, V-92S2 1,000ks diesel engine, Relikt ERA, SLAT armour, heat reduction kit and mutch improved FCS. Also mutch posibly more modern materials will be used to construct main armour posibly increasing it. Do you think such modernised T-72 is up to M1 or M1A1?
From 1991 untill 2006 the modernization of T-72's was provided up to the T-72M1 level(look its spec). It has 1st gen IR device, K-5 ERA and its armor and IR suited in raw M1 Abrams level (see oficially info of NII Stali about it).

Starting from 2006 the new variant of modernisation was born with new gen IR TV imaging device, Relict ERA, new engine, auxulary energy supply, termal sensor muzzle reference system, more precise gun, longer autoloader, stronger munition, IR/Radar signature reduce measures etc etc under the name T-72BM. This model became the answer to M1A2 Abrams.
On the pictures:
1) T-72M1 specs
2)-4) T-72M1
5)-6) T-72BM

[eckherl]

How new battle tanks US are affording in 2006? :p: Look, if you have a fleet of 25 000 tanks & between them some 15 000 well upgradable T-80's T-72's and T-90's, u are in total stupidness if u start mass production of brand-new tank without thinking about what you have allready. And if you are thinking about a new caliber (not mention 135 or 140mm) for ur new gen tank, so why you dont better think about new caliber for all ur fleet? Otherwise, you will remain with only few handreds contemporal tanks and 10 000 rubbish pots with much logistic headache. I'm used to think, the modernisation (if availiable) is the most effective way to rise the military potential. Yeah, Russia keep run for some 50 new tanks a year, but some 150 additional are upgraded. I think, this relation will be kept when instead the T-90's they would roll out T-95.

Now, how an interchangable MG can help? It's obvious: you are first starting to put such gun on your new brands and upgrades with 125 mm. When the quantity grows, the quick transfer to higher caliber munition become worthwile.

For example, Russia has huge fleet of T-80. Most of them have obsolet complexion (Like M1 against M1A2) but with good potenial for upgrade: exellent chassis, an efective GT or turbocharged diesel engine. Omsktransmash design unit (the Black Eagle developer) is now offering its upgrades programs for T-80: it includes an external autoloader (puting on the old turret), new ERA, new FCS and many many other gadgets. It will not be Black Eagle, but will use a part of its technologies. The new MG with variable caliber may become a part of such upgrade in the future.
No one here will challenge the fact that Russia will upgrade her current tank fleet, I have been saying this fact, my doubts are when they will come with their next generation tank, there is no way that they are going to slap a 140mm inside a up graded T-80, again what is the point? for less ammo, you keep stating that it is a 140mm gun do you know that for sure? And why does Germany, U.S, France or Britian need to come out with new tanks for, they are fully capable of handling anything on the modern battlefield. When the U.S does come out with their new version you are talking 5 to 7 years. There is no reason for Russia to put a 120mm or a 140mm?? inside a T-80 not unless they plan on exporting them. Show me the facts on the 140mm.:)

[eckherl]

Will those T-72 be upgraded to a T-72BM standard? I read about T-72BM having improved 2A46M-5 gun, V-92S2 1,000ks diesel engine, Relikt ERA, SLAT armour, heat reduction kit and mutch improved FCS. Also mutch posibly more modern materials will be used to construct main armour posibly increasing it. Do you think such modernised T-72 is up to M1 or M1A1?

A T-72BM is finally up to par with a M1, except for armor protection.

[eckherl]

From 1991 untill 2006 the modernization of T-72's was provided up to the T-72M1 level(look its spec). It has 1st gen IR device, K-5 ERA and its armor and IR suited in raw M1 Abrams level (see oficially info of NII Stali about it).

Starting from 2006 the new variant of modernisation was born with new gen IR TV imaging device, Relict ERA, new engine, auxulary energy supply, termal sensor muzzle reference system, more precise gun, longer autoloader, stronger munition, IR/Radar signature reduce measures etc etc under the name T-72BM. This model became the answer to M1A2 Abrams.
On the pictures:
1) T-72M1 specs
2)-4) T-72M1
5)-6) T-72BM

Now they have solved the issue in regards to room for the auto loader?
:)

[extern]

There is no reason for Russia to put a 120mm or a 140mm?? inside a T-80 not unless they plan on exporting them. Show me the facts on the 140mm.:)
I think, It's you who say about 140mm on russian tanks. I said about 135mm that according to 1-2 papers MIGHT be on Black Eagle. Now they have solved the issue in regards to room for the auto loader?
:)
True, this isue is fixed on T-72BM, that only starting to be in production. They put the rounds obliquely, by diagonal projection of AL.

[extern]

Short videos with Black Eagle. Enjoy!
http://www.webfile.ru/1195053
http://www.webfile.ru/1195065

[eckherl]

I think, It's you who say about 140mm on russian tanks. I said about 135mm that according to 1-2 papers MIGHT be on Black Eagle.
True, this isue is fixed on T-72BM, that only starting to be in production. They put the rounds obliquely, by diagonal projection of AL.

Did you not show me a picture of a breech mechanism showing three barrels that can be used? 120/125/140/. I have been telling you that it will be a 135mm, it was between this caliber or the 152mm for their next generation battle tank and it was the 135mm that won out.

On the issue of the Ukrainian T-84 night sight, it is a French ALIS Thermal, a pretty good sighting system.

[extern]

Did you not show me a picture of a breech mechanism showing three barrels that can be used? 120/125/140/. ...

On the issue of the Ukrainian T-84 night sight, it is a French ALIS Thermal, a pretty good sighting system.
- I wright the explanation, it was ukrainian Bagira MG (under development) - it's really 'for export only'.

About T-84 sight, they claim on their site it is Byelorussian-French Buran-Catherine. It is the same sight, that is installed on T-90S.

[eckherl]

- I wright the explanation, it was ukrainian Bagira MG (under development) - it's really 'for export only'.

About T-84 sight, they claim on their site it is Byelorussian-French Buran-Catherine. It is the same sight, that is installed on T-90S.

I was told by someone official that it is a Alis thermal, that is being offered.

[extern]

I was told by someone official that it is a Alis thermal, that is being offered.
May be I donno... Anyway there is advertising movie of the Kharkov's tank enterprise. It might have an answer to our doubtfulness :confused: : http://www.pwgs.org/video/kmdb.avi

[eckherl]

May be I donno... Anyway there is advertising movie of the Kharkov's tank enterprise. It might have an answer to our doubtfulness :confused: : http://www.pwgs.org/video/kmdb.avi

Nice video - just like the video states, they do have a very close working relationship with us. It would be pretty neat to visit their facilities, even better if I could visit the Nizhni-Tagil plant in Russia.:D

[extern]

Nice video - just like the video states, they do have a very close working relationship with us. :D
Of course... Just like with Saddam Hussein ('Kolchuga' anti-stealth radar) and Iran (mil-transport aircrafts, tank modernisation, gas turbines etc). Why not? :D It is the last Iranian T-72 modernisation with recognisable Kharkovian input:

[eckherl]

Of course... Just like with Saddam Hussein ('Kolchuga' anti-stealth radar) and Iran (mil-transport aircrafts, tank modernisation, gas turbines etc). Why not? :D It is the last Iranian T-72 modernisation with recognisable Kharkovian input:

They have been very aggressive in the world market.

[extern]

They have been very aggressive in the world market. :onfloorl: Oh, yeah...