Russia's next-generation T-95 tank

Russian Defence Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev has announced that a radically new main battle tank (MBT) designated the T-95 has been developed in Russia. Sergeyev made his statement after a visit to the Uralvagonzavod plant in the Ural region where he inspected a T-95 prototype. Sergeyev's reference to it as the T-95 suggests the possible fielding of the new MBT as T-series designations are given to operational vehicles. Pilot and developmental vehicles are usually designated by the word obiekt (object) and a number.

The main feature of the T-95 is its radical configuration with the main armament in a small unmanned turret fed from a newly-designed automatic loader located below the turret.

Seats for the driver, gunner and commander are in a special armoured capsule, separated by an armoured bulkhead from the automatic loader and turret. This design allows the MBT's silhouette to be reduced, making it less observable on the battlefield and enhancing crew safety. Such a configuration resolves a major dilemma concerning modern MBT design - combining adequate protection with mobility and transportability.

The T-95 MBT is armed with a 135mm gun which is believed to be of the smoothbore type and is fitted with a new fire control system (FCS). Target information is provided via optical, thermal imaging and infra-red channels. The FCS also includes a laser range finder and possibly a radar. The design relies heavily on the FCS as the crew cannot use traditional optical devices to observe the battlefield and aim the gun. The T-95 MBT is not the sole domestic new-generation MBT. The "object 640" (named Black Eagle), developed at the Omsk-based Design Bureau of Transport Machine-building was displayed at an arms exposition in Omsk, Siberia, in 1999.

The vehicle features a completely new chassis and turret. Its designers chose a simpler design with the automatic loader and some ammunition is placed in a spacious bustle in the rear part of the manned turret.

KUBINKA (Moscow region) -- Russia is designing a new generation tank to make the core of a 21st century armor series, head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Main Armor Department Lt. Gen. Vladislav Polonsky told Itar-Tass on Sunday, Russia’s Tank Driver Day.

“We plan to adopt the fifth-generation tank in eight years,” he said.

Features

-Diesel-electric propulsion
-135mm gun
-360° sensors and ECM and network-capability
-pro-active electric reactive armor
-Weight > 55 tonnes
-ceramics&fiber armor instead of steel
-virtual reality for the driver and gunner
-only two guys are sufficient to man it
-autoloader for three different types of ammo

www.itar-tass.com...
www.tanksim.com...
\www.btvt.narod.ru...
www.globalsecurity.org...

I guess russia can now regain its top place.

EDIT : Wrong pic removed.

The pic that was originally here was of some ww2 german tank, also named t-95 and was removed

More pics at : www.btvt.narod.ru...



[edit on 20-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

From the pics, I see no traversable turret at all. Wouldn't that make it a self-propelled howitzer?

How does the thing react with a turrent like that anyway?

-koji K.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy


More pics at : www.btvt.narod.ru...

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

It looks like a swedish S tank kinda, they have no turret they look like a flat stryker with a cannon in it, I'll get some picks for ya guys.

that doesn't look so good, the turret is fixed, it can't go around, it doesn't seem to going to work very well.

that pic doesn't look the same as the pic stealth spy provided in his link at all. the pic in the link clearly has a turret, looks like the T-90, as would be expected. Stealth, you sure you have the right pic pasted?

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but why would it have a US military star on it?

-koji K.

Wow great post ... it is not often that yo hear of a complrtrly new type of MTB from a major power.

Cant wait to see some pics (off to google!)

By the way stealth Spy the pic you have posted is a WWII US tank destroyer (called the T-95)

will post further info on it

well here is a pic of the S tank.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
EDIT : Wrong pic removed.

The pic that was originally here was of some ww2 german tank, also named t-95 and was removed

More pics at : www.btvt.narod.ru...



[edit on 20-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

It was a US tank

T-28

Type: Heavy tank. Prototype or limited production Nationality: USA
To answer to the multiplication of heavy tanks at the end of the war, the US designed a very heavy tank (95 tons), with a long 105 mm gun, intended to fight the most powerful German vehicles and to attack bunkers. The progam, baptised T-95 and later renamed T-28 was still in developement when the war ended. Only two prototypes were completed.
It would have had the same plus and minus than their super-heavy German counterparts: almost invulnerable and a total lack of moblity. Its anemic engine could not bring it above 8 mph while two sets of tracks was needed on each side to lower the ground pressure !
Other designation(s): T-95

My apologies...the pic earlier posted was not the russian T-95. The wrong pic was promptly removed. Check out the pics of the developmental prototypes at : www.btvt.narod.ru...

Check out more on its electric reactive armour at : www.abovetopsecret.com...

[size=0.4]historic post



[edit on 20-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

armor.vif2.ru...

here is some information to add on this tank. 152 mm is pretty much too big for a 50 ton tank.

Most of the sources are pre 2000. Are you sure the project is still alive? Anyway, I think the tanks with unmaned turrets are the future, they are much safer and lighter than conventional designs. I am surprised noone is building them - especially the countries with their own new tank programs like India, South Korea or Japan. Instead they are all focusing on old designs.

Originally posted by longbow
Instead they are all focusing on old designs.

only because the old designs work and many people even in the military who prefer equipment they experienced with. not many people like to change. i mean you look at Rumsfeld trying to make the military lighter and faster and the U.S. military went bonkers who prefer to keep the old equipment that they consider useful to them in past conflicts.

Originally posted by longbow
Instead they are all focusing on old designs.

only because the old designs work and many people even in the military who prefer equipment they experienced with. not many people like to change. i mean you look at Rumsfeld trying to make the military lighter and faster and the U.S. military went bonkers who prefer to keep the old equipment that they consider useful to them in past conflicts.

sorry about the double post somehow my computer just went bonkers and slow.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by deltaboy]

Looks like a mean machine, just hope they don't make too many so US and UK thinks it's a threat and we go to war...

Originally posted by Nexus
Looks like a mean machine, just hope they don't make too many so US and UK thinks it's a threat and we go to war...

the Russians already did that during the Cold war and they lost and we didnt even have to raise a finger.

Originally posted by deltaboy
armor.vif2.ru...

here is some information to add on this tank. 152 mm is pretty much too big for a 50 ton tank.

Thanks fo the link.

here's some claimed to be classified data whch has been leaked by the author of the site :

Crew protection on the tank will be emphasized to a far greater degree than ever before in Russian tank designs. The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

A unique drivetrain suspension system is being tested on this tank that to a certain extent extinguishes the hull vibrations and stabilizes its position.

The tank still remains in Class 50 (i.e. it weighs 50 tons) and it shall have an even smaller silhouette than the modern Russian MBTs.

The gun will be a 152mm smoothbore tank gun/ATGM launcher.
The development of this system started as far back as end of the fifties for the heavy tanks (originally a rifled gun, probably M-69). The project was revived in the eighties and the gun was significantly redesigned. Even with ordinary powders a very high initial velocity of an APFSDS projectile is achieved.

This gun shall be located in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull with no crew access to it. This is likely to increase survivability and lower the silhouette even further.

The fire control system will be multi-channel (optical + thermal + IR + laser + radar).

The carousel autoloader goes away.

According to plans the crew will consist of a 3 man combat structure and one mechanic (not unlike the air force crew structure), who will be responsible for vehicle maintenance and will reside in a battalion service and repair company.

There is also an interesting artist's impression :


[edit on 21-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Armour

On vehicle protection, there are two approaches. There are up-armour packages like the Kontakt-5 EDZ. This is the heaviest explosive reactive armour (ERA) currently installed and is often referred to as 2nd generation, heavy-duty, or integral ERA. Where the conventional ERAs are only capable of defeating shaped-charge jets, Kontakt-5 can also defeat APFSDS rounds. With a fitment of Kontakt-5, long-rod penetrators can lose over 30% of their penetration potential and the protected vehicle becomes virtually immune to them (at least as "immune" as a chobham armoured tank). This type of ERA can be easily recognised as it gives the vehicle outfitted with it a distinct 'clam-shell' appearance. So, how would the main gun on an Abrams do against that? Badly, I suspect. Certainly not the “one shot, one kill” ratio that the yanks were used to in the Gulf.

black eagle




im not sure but i think its upgraded t-80


good site
www.salute.co.uk...

[edit on 21-5-2005 by chinawhite]

[edit on 21-5-2005 by chinawhite]

One main bad thing about autoloaders in MBT's, is that the TC or gunner cannot immediately change ammo for the given situation.

Coming upon bad guys inside a well built, multi-layer bunker, they would not fire an AP round, but a HEAT round. However, if they are battle carrying a sabot, they must take the time to exchange it....while the bad guys are ranging them and launching their own projectiles.

In retrospect.....I'm glad THEY are using autoloaders, and not us!

(BTW, it takes less than 10 seconds for a human loader to swap out ammo types in the M1A1. Autoloaders may take up to 30 seconds)

While a low chassis seems like a great idea, TOO low brings about problems of its own. Namely.....stuff gets in the way! There must be a compromise between a low silhouette, and enough height to see/fire over obstructions. If unable to see over or shoot over, say, a wall, then the crew must manuever into the open to engage....which is a bad thing. The entire Soviet/Russian T-series has always had this exact problem; too small a vehicle for the task at hand. Well, that and basic inadequate construction (they just aren't made that good...really!)

i think that the commander selects the ammo then it loads.