BMPT Terminator, T-90M, T-80BVM. IMAGE: TASS/Anton Novoderejkin
The Russian Defense Ministry has signed contracts on the delivery of modernized T-90M and T-80BVM main battle tanks and BMPT Temrinator infantry fighting vehicles with machine building company Uralvagonzavod.
During the ARMY-2017 international military and technical forum, it was announced that the Russian military had signed a contract on the delivery of T-90M battle tanks. However, according to recent reports in the state media, it appeared that the Russians are also modernizing their existing T-90 fleet to T-90M Proryv-3.
According to the data provided by Uralvagonzavod, the T-90M battle tank is passing its tests on time and will likely enter service within several months. A first batch of 42 T-90M battle tanks will reportedly include 42 units of the military equipment. [one tank battalion] In comparison with the T-90, the T-90M Proryv-3 is improved in term of protection, mobility and fire power. Some of these improvements are based on the expirience gained in the Syrian conflict.
T-90M. IMAGE: Uralvagonzavod
The Defense Ministry also signaed a contract on the domernization of the existing T-80 fleet. According to the deal reached on August 24, 2017, Uralvagonzavod should upgrade 62 T-80 tanks to the T-80BVM modification. 31 T-80BVM tanks should be delivered to the military in 2018 and 31 others in 2019.
The T-80BVM has an improved armor protection and is fitted with Relikt explosive reactive armor kit. The battle tank retains a proven 125 mm smoothbore gun, which can fire both shells and guided missiles.
T-80BVM. IMAGE: otvaga2004.mybb.ru
Additionally, the Russian military is obtaining Terminator-3 infantry fighting vehicles. According to Uralvagonzavod, implementation of the Temrinator 3 deal will be finalized in 2019.
Terminator-3. IMAGE: TASS/Anton Novoderejkin
Not very impressive numbers though, more in the dozens range, when there are still hundreds, if not thousands of Soviet era tanks that need to upgraded to stay relevant. It seems more a case of keeping Russian manufacturers in business then an actual upgrade program for the Russian tank fleet.
The T-90 M being manufactured in Iran is the most upgraded version. It is called the KARRAR or STRIKER. The production rate is now over 200 a year as field testing was very successful and modified to Iranian conditions. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/de1529f85fe9ab36d68da34326af012f3c2b82d58361c359dd3d77e6a0c88592.jpg
Russian T-90M after new upgrades and testing data from Iran.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37a9dcba354e80e0aa67e13cf50b9067273680a5daae15b6f8778f42c357a5c0.jpg
Latest Iranian Toofan MRAP to be exported to Syria.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8106f30d3c5a6f9e2bea3d087056e7c282d958771e6a2b3efb40cd37c138fcac.jpg
The initial contract is to manufacture 800 Karrar T-90M by 2021.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29d103190bd14074cb7f373e03ffa9473b1b873f3ddabb3813acf20ef3e7f907.jpg
200 a year is like 4 to 5 times as much as the Russians are producing/upgrading for themselves though. And color me weary, but I’ve been to Iran three times myself and I know firsthand that Made in Iran is not codeword for highest quality. I assume that even though Karrar is a T-90 clone, it will most likely not be fully equal to the Russian original.
I would beg to differ. Iranian made Paykan cars from the 1970’s are still running perfectly all over. The Safir ubiquitous 4X4 has also been a great success in all military operations from Iraq to Lebanon, not to mention Iranian engineers maintaining and upgrading over 300 Americunt supplied aircraft from F-14A to Orion P3. It is better to remain objective than emotional.
Like I said, I’ve been to Iran. I’ve seen the Paykans and been inside them. They’re the Lada’s of Iran and any Iranian would sooner have a Western or Asian made car then a Paykan. They play no small part as to why you can actually taste the pollution when in major Iranian cities. And while its clever of the Iranians to have maintained their old American gear, I find it also telling that they still haven’t replaced them with Iranian made clones.
I like Iran, otherwise, why would I have gone there 3 times and will probably go there again? But I am the one here trying to remain objective. And my observations cause me to believe that made in Iran is not a qualitative badge like made in Germany is. And the Russians seem to agree that the Iranian T-90 is not comparable to their T-90. Because how can a country with no experience in building and designing tanks create one successfully on their first try? Tanks are incredibly complicated machines and no country that has started to design and build tanks has EVER achieved success on its first designs. You should look up Australia’s first attempt at building a tank, the Sentinal. And they had full help of the US and getting access to American blueprints and all. And suddenly Iran is the exception?
No, Iranians are clever people, and vastly underestimated in the West, and I reckon that their T-90 clone is a VAST upgrade compared to their old stock of American and British supplied M-60’s and Chieftains. But just as good or better then the T-90? Doubtful.
“It seems more a case of keeping Russian manufacturers in business then an actual upgrade”
No. It is true upgrade! And also for “keeping Russian “Uralvagonzavod” in business” of course. So what is wrong with that?!? They do not pretend to “upgrade” those tanks because after upgrade they become as good as T-90’s for the fraction of the cost!
What number of tanks do you need?!? Russia is already by far superior to NATO when it comes to the tanks! T-90 tanks number is related mainly to the number of those already in service with smaller numbers of newly produced (they don’t need more than that). The reasons for that are very simple. They have plenty of older tanks in reserves and to modernize them (as I have already said) is MUCH cheaper …a much bigger bang for buck than to produce new T-90A. So why would they waste their money on new tanks when they can have modernized T-72B3M(B4) and T-80BVM for the fraction of the cost and almost as good as T-90AM?!
For elite tank troupes they will produce limited number of T-14 Armata and ignore completely further production of T-90 for domestic needs when they reach projected number (about 500 I think).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the upgrade is useless, I’m saying that when they only upgrade a few dozen tanks instead of the thousands, then its not so much really an upgrade program as it is a program to keep Russian industry in business. I wouldn’t be surprised if the real purpose is to attract foreign customers or keep said Russian industry in business so it can find some foreign customers. As foreign orders bring in money, whereas upgrading Russian tanks only costs money. And Russia is no longer in the business of throwing obscene amounts of money at its own armed forces. Those days ended with the USSR.
Or maybe, if I’m a little less cynical, the purpose of this program is to keep Russian industry in business in case the Russian government does decide to upgrade the rest of the tank fleet. At some future date.
As for Russia being far superior to NATO in regards to tanks I disagree. The US fields upgraded Abrams variants and most of NATO upgraded Leopard 2 variants. Certainly not the shitty versions that Turkey sent out to get shot to pieces in Syria. Now Russia has some very good tanks, but most of its tank fleet is not T-90 or Armata, but older T-72/T-80’s. Who have not seen much upgrade since the days of the USSR. On the account of Russia not having any money under Yeltsin and different spending priorities under Putin. The nuclear deterrent, air defense systems and the air force are in relatively good shape, the army and the navy in comparison are still having to catch up. Numbers are still the main advantage of the Russian tank fleet, not quality.
“””As for Russia being far superior to NATO in regards to tanks I disagree. The US fields upgraded Abrams variants and most of NATO upgraded Leopard 2 variants.”””
How many Abrams A2 and Leopard 2 A7 are available in Europe? Supposedly they are better on paper than T72 B3, however, equipment alone does not win the battle, Russian support artilery and rocket fire would suppress these western tanks, better tactics and unit sizes make a difference in the overall combat effectiveness. NATO units center around brigade formations brought and lumped together, unfamiliar and having limited training with each other while the Russian forces deploy in multiple divisions forming the 1st Guard Tank Army that will have great armored traction and be able to sweep the NATO brigades by sheer shock, superior numbers, firepower and strategic approach.
In WW2 many German tanks were relatively inferior to French and English tanks, however they won based on a strategic concept of employing their equipment in massed formations to exploit weaker points in their enemy defenses.
>>[I]How many Abrams A2 and Leopard 2 A7 are available in Europe[/I]<>[I]Supposedly they are better on paper than T72 B3, however, equipment alone does not win the battle, Russian support artilery and rocket fire would suppress these western tanks, better tactics and unit sizes make a difference in the overall combat effectiveness. NATO units center around brigade formations brought and lumped together, unfamiliar and having limited training with each other while the Russian forces deploy in multiple divisions forming the 1st Guard Tank Army that will have great armored traction and be able to sweep the NATO brigades by sheer shock, superior numbers, firepower and strategic approach.[/I]<>[I]In WW2 many German tanks were relatively inferior to French and English tanks, however they won based on a strategic concept of employing their equipment in massed formations to exploit weaker points in their enemy defenses.[/I]<<
True, but there were more factors involved in that defeat. How about France being crippled with self doubt after the massive losses of WW1? Or the pure tank doctrine of the British army as opposed to the combined arms doctrine of the Germans? Or how the German army used radios for communication whereas the French relied on telephones? The defeatism of French commanders once the battle started? France lacking the strategic depth to withdraw into and unwillingness to defend its capital street by street Verdun or Stalingrad style? How about the British and French armies never having trained together? How about the British not even being prepared to fight yet another war on the continent even a few years prior to the war starting? Lots of things went wrong for the Allies in 1940 to the point that even the Germans were amazed how successful they were. Not even in their wildest dreams did they think France could be defeated in six weeks. That unexpected success played no small part in to why the Wehrmacht was so woofully unprepared for a prolonged war in Russia. They just expected that the same thing would happen all over again. And when it didn't they were screwed.
If you take into account that they are modernizing and also producing, it’s quite a lot. And they are not in a hurry. Plenty of efficent tanks in stock and the means to mass produce more are in place. Creating stock is not always the best choice.
The Terminators are built up on older T-72 chassis – this is great use for batches of older, moth balled, tank park storage vehicles.
But how many of these Terminators is the Russian army going to get. Based on the size of the Russian army and its inventory it could probably use thousands. But I reckon that if they will get a few hundred they will be very lucky. My guess is just enough so the plant building Terminators stays in business and can go and look for foreign clients.
The Terminator is specifically an urban warfare tank protector – the tactical doctrine requirements are still being assessed – not least from experience in Syria. A few hundred is actually a very reasonably ratio for new weapons system – as they are only required for urban combat scenarios, where tanks are highly vulnerable. The Russians have no shortage of stored T-72 chassis’ to build more once a production line is available.
The T-90 has been a great success in Syria and the Shtora (Hunter) protective system that has defeated every Americunt supplied ATGM to the headchopper terrorists.
The T-90 tank is protected by both conventional armour-plating and explosive reactive armour.
The T-90 is fitted with the Shtora-1 defensive anti-ATGM suite, which is produced by Electronintorg of Russia. This system includes infrared jammer, a laser warning system with four laser warning receivers, a grenade discharging system which produces an aerosol screen and a computerized control system.
It is also fitted with nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection equipment. The T-90 below took a direct hit by an Americunt TOW in Aleppo and totally defeated the US junk. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2168be91c5c5b4278cb3c2cb789ef44bd3145e5dbc8f7693391abea9806c3a3e.jpg
Thanks for the info. Do you know where the TOW hit and what type of TOW it was?
It looks like the left IR jammer took quite a beating
According to Russian blogs and SAA accounts it was a NATO’s latest version BGM-71F TOW 2B. The Americunts supplied 500 of the TOW 2B via Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is the newest version of the TOW with the headchoppers. The TOW 2B Missile incorporates new fly-over,shoot-down technology. The TOW 2B entered production in late 1991. The TOW 2B was designed to attack targets from the top. The missile’s trajectory places the missile slightly above the target when its two warheads explode downward as seen in the photo. The Shtora deflected the warhead off the ERA side skid plates and protected the turret and the crew inside. The range of the TOW 2B is about 3.5 kms in open line of fire. According to Russian military, the head choppers fired at less than 1000 meters in Aleppo countryside.
Thank you
Here’s a good video describing T-90MS https://youtu.be/pfGP-dGjjnY
The T-90MS is intended for export, not a single T-90MS is in service with any branch of the Russian armed forces (though unconfirmed rumours claim there’s a domestic version called T-90AM). The new T-90M Proryv-3 is actually better, not to be confused with the T-90AM/MS.
Old video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En64n3a_dA8
Funny, U.S. military boards scoff at how few Armata’s the Russians purchase as proof that Russia cannot compete in an arms race. It’s more an issue that they won’t.
They will modernize the equipment they have to benefit from its full lifecycle before switching over to the next generation but then the U.S. will say ‘there’s not much difference’ because of all of the upgrades the Russians have already made. Meanwhile, we keep trying to leapfrog our equipment while maintaining our current field equipment and get caught in the trap of paying for new stuff and depreciation of our old stuff while the Heritage Foundation writes about how we can’t keep our air force in service. The truth is we can’t afford an arms race either, we just don’t know it yet.
once again a wise choice by the Russians. instead of throwing away their tanks to replace them with the expensive armata uits they are upgrading 2 types that are tested and proved their vaue on the battlefield. They now know their weeknesses and strong points…..the tank units of Russia will become state of the art.
Equally interesting as cost effective measure is the Russian upgrade program for T-72B’s into T-72B3M’s and more recently T-72B4’s – is basically frame-off complete rebuild. Has updated reactive armor packages with rear slats, new Sosna-U thermal sights and imaging sensors, digital radio systems, ballistics computer and fire control systems, and internal firefighting system. And it gets a new power-plant – with power gain of 300 horsepower, and new tracks to translate that power to ground. It is a cost effective and lethal upgrade program for older batches of stock – results are not far removed from T-90 specs.
it is ‘fair play’ for its allies as well. instead of forcing them to buy new weapons Russia gives them the option of modernizing the existing stock
T-72B3M and T-72B4 are the same vehicle, the official designation is T-72B3M and is only in service with Russian Airborne Forces (310 T-72B3Ms in total). Aside from training and testing sites, the T-72B3M is in planned to be in service with 2 or 3 Air Assault Brigades and 6 Air Assault regiments across 2 Air-Assault Divisions to complement 3 Airborne Divisions, a Spetznaz Brigade, and eventually a logistics brigade. The T-72B3 modernization is much more common compared to T-72B3M.
syraía and iran and turkey are going to need a few of those when they are ready tipe the squatters off the face of earth.
*-40 units for a Motorized infantry battalion – 31 units for a Tank battalion