Skip to comments.International Debut for the Russian T-90MS Tank Upgrade at DefExpo 2012
Posted on 03/29/2012 9:23:35 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
International Debut for the Russian T-90MS Tank Upgrade at DefExpo 2012
The centerpiece of the Russian display at Defexpo 2012 is undoubtedly the T-90MS upgrade program developed by the Russian Uralvagonzavod corporation. The T-90MS upgrade was unveiled August 2011 at Nizhny Tagil, Russia following the demise of the T-95 program. It is making its international debut here in New Delhi. India is likely to be the most interested in the the Russian upgrade, put forward by Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport as a possible upgrade path for the Indian Brishna (T-90S) tanks.
India is the largest operator of the T-90S, along with Russia. The Indian Army has fielded about 450 of these tanks, with 300 more on order. Other T-90 operators are Azerbaijan, Cyprus (45) and Venezuela (92). Earlier in 2012 it was announced that Algeria has bought 120 of these tanks.Additional 30 were acquired by Turkmenistan. These small deliveries could be the result of the collapse of the Libyan order, which was never fulfilled.
The Indian Army had planned to equip its 59 armored regiments with 1,657 T-90S main battle tanks, 1,000 of which were to be Indian-made. However, production and import of T-90S tanks has been slow, hence, the opportunity to improve the T-90 through the manufacturing line, maintaining the T-90 effectiveness for upcoming years. The T-90MS offers improvements in every important element protection, mobility and firepower, in addition to improving sustainability and reliability while reducing operating cost. Since the contract was signed back in 2001 the Indian Heavy Vehicle Factory (HVF) in Avadi, Chennai has assembled only 150 T-90S (of a thousand planned). Implementing the T-90MS package will enable future production series to deliver better, more capable main battle tanks instead of gradually obsoleting platforms.
The proposed tank upgrades include improved automotive components, enhanced protection by
(Excerpt) Read more at defense-update.com ...
I don’t know that that is a good indicator. Look at how the Iraqis WE train are. Nothing to write home about.
Ground support aircraft would have to survive in an intense ADA environment and under contested skies. It wouldn’t be like today where the worst that happens is some savage has an SA-14 to shoot at you that he doesn’t really know how to use.
Mind you, hovering around savages in RPG or AK-47 range is not a good idea either as they found out in Somalia.
I don’t just play this scenario - I lived and trained for it with 11 ACR in Fulda and Bad Kissingen back in the 80’s.
I respect your service. How willing would any army be to fight for a system that oppresses them and views their lives as so much cannon fodder?
Same reason the Kims are still in charge in North Korea: They don’t know any better.
You need to read some Russian history. Its very depressing (just like Russian literature...).
Russians and other former subjects for the Russian Empire were not treated any differently by the Soviets than they were by any Russian government before them. Some of them might have actually been treated somewhat better.
Add to that, the natural paranoia of a country that has been repeatedly invaded (including by us) and taken millions (yes, MILLIONS) of casualties, and, well, it makes sense.
Ridiculous. Basing performance on the US vs the Iraqis is like comparing an NBA team with the sisters of mercy girls highschool basketball team! Absolutely no comparatives.
However, if one wants to play that game one can use the India vs Pakistani scenario, where one Indian MiG-29 sent two Pakistani F-16s fleeing when it lit them up. I guess that makes F-16s crap, right? Or how the Indians, with Russian equipment, smote the hell out of the Pakistani military several times over a couple of decades, whether it is a naval attack with Russian ships and missiles (and the first use of a naval attack missile on land targets), to the splitting of Bangladesh from Pakistan, or the recent Kashmir episode. That means American equipment is crap, since every time Indians using Soviet/Russian weapons came up against Pakistanis using American weapons the Pakistanis lost. Right? Or maybe it is because the Indians were facing Pakistanis and not the US, which has far more sense because the US Vipers, compared to the Pakistani Vipers at the time, are BVR capable when all the Pakistani's had were short-range IR missiles compared to the Indians developed BVR capability. Kind of similar to Iraqis flying monkey-model MiG-29s that didn't even have radar-warning receivers.
Anyways, if the US (and the assembled Allies) beating Iraq/Somalia/Afghanistan makes something crap, does that also mean India beating Pakistan makes the equipment Pakistan was using crap?
The Russians wouldnt have only been met by M-60s or M-1s coming through the Fulda Gap but A-10 Thunderbolts and Apache helicopters.
Interesting because it is said there used to be a bet between Apache and Warthog pilots on who would survive longest if the stupid Soviets ever came through the Fulda. I know the Warthog is seen by some on FR as a magical weapon - after all it has a titanium bathtub - but it is not invincible. During the Gulf War the A-10 had a very good record until it was sent forward past the front-line units where it came up against the Republican Guard (who were generally better equipped than the normal Iraqi military). Result? One of the highest loss rates of GW1. I wonder how the A-10, an aircraft one FReeper once said is all the US needs as opposed to the Raptor, would do against a foe with real capability (e.g. say a China as opposed to an Afghanistan, Bosnia or Iraq). Even with its titanium bathtub (tm).
Ask any American tanker if theyd want to use Russian armor and theyd refuse. Quite frankly Im a little surprised an American such as yourself would be so impressed with the crap the Russians make. Their hulks of their T-55s, T-62s and T-72s are still rusting away in the desert where our guys destroyed them. Notice and M-1s out there?
No, no American tanker in his right mind would want to fight in a T-72 if he had access to an Abrams. He would have to be mad since the Abrams is far better than the '72 (a tank that has been around for a long time), and is better for the American armored doctrine than the '90. In the same way a British tanker wouldn't trade the Chally-2 for an Abrams (you should hear what they say), or a German tanker wouldn't trade a Leo-2 upgrade for any Abrams, ever. Also, if an Abrams couldn't destroy a T-55 or 62 or 72 then something would have to have gone terribly wrong. Maybe a direct meteorite strike on the Abrams from outerspace.
However, again, there is the component of who you are facing. During GW there was an American tanker who said (as another FReeper had posted) that you could have switched tanks and the result would have been the same.
Anyways, I think a lot of your posts on the thread can be summed up by what you said here: Quite frankly Im a little surprised an American such as yourself would be so impressed with the crap the Russians make. This was in response to a FReeper who only said he found it interesting that the tank has the extra fuel tank to increase range. That is not even impressive, and I doubt the FReeper was impressed. However, if someone is not calling foreign equipment 'crap' he is wrong, and you use engagements between the US and the likes of Iraq et al as a measuring stick to prove how it is crap.
There is no problem with that. After all this is a niche internet forum where the views seldom count (goodness, even it seems within the GOP the true conservatism found on FR is 'strange' and unacceptable, which is why someone like Romney is ahead of all sorts of people that are truly better than him). My hope is that the people who have real influence do not think that everything out there is crap, because a very real (and nasty) surprise could be waiting for them. The Abrams is better than any Eastern tank out there, and is one of the best Western tanks (in the top 3 by most rankings). It is indeed better than the latest Russian T-series on aggregate (even if you account for the Active Defense Systems). Also, it is clearly evident that any engagement between American forces and third-world countries using Soviet equipment has led to a lot of burning hulks of twisted metal, and charred flesh, that is not American due to the superiority and training of the American soldier and equipment. No arguments there. Interestingly however, to use the example of India again, engagements between the Indian airforce/navy/military using Soviet equipment versus the Pakistanis using American equipment has led to the opposite result (to the extent of Pakistan losing half their territory to create what is now known as Bangladesh). Does that mean American equipment is crap? No way, just that in the hands of Pakistanis against a force that has superior equipment and training it is crap.
But then again, who cares!
Ray I’ve read lots of Russian history, LOTS of it. More then most Americans, trust me.You want a good one, read Harrison Salisbury’s “The 900 Days’’ dealing with the siege of Leningrad .Human life in Russia is worthless and one thing becomes apparent, Russians take a perverse pride in not taking responsibility for themselves. And yes they are roundly hated by Poles, Germans Chechzs, hell they even treat each other like something on the bottom of their shoe. And I agree Russian literature IS depressing... and pretentious too.
You misunderstood me pal. I said the tactics taught by Russians to the Iraqis, meaning Soviet-era style combat techniques. Other than that thanks for making my argument, sincerely.
Do not label them. Russians are different. There are scores of potent open minded people. Labeling them in common makes an upper hand for backward part of their population.
Yep, a place near Assal Uttar there the battle took place known as ‘Paton Negar’ among Pakis (Patton’s graveyard).
If you mean “Russian’’, whom are you talking about? The roughly 65% of the population who are Caucasian, as I mean? I doubt very much the other 35% feel about “Rodina’’ as the typical “Ivan’’ does. Stalin saw to that.
I think most of the population are still identify themself to Russians, no matter what ethnicity they are. It is in American interest to keep this way. Russia is a natural ally.
They are a sole superpower of the time who has supported US independence. They were the most valuable ally against nazism and they are the most valuable ally against islam and China.
We have to leave his stupid zero sum game, it is not in an interest of both nations.
When comparing American and Russian weaponry, Americans always love to talk about Iraq war which was totally one sided, but never talk about India-Pakistan war which was more or less evenly matched and American weaponry got absolutely wasted.
The best Soviet military hardware has always yet to be proven in battle.
Natural ally!?! What freakin’ planet are you living on? Russia was an ally’’ in WW2 only by circumstance. Don’t forget that up until June of ‘41 they were allies of Nazi Germany.’ They were our ‘’natural ally’’ during fifty years of the Cold War? Ally’’ my foot. Putin and a long line of Russkie commies did all they could to put an end to us. ‘’Ally’’. What a joke. Didn’t you catch Obamas ‘’open mike’’ gaff? That little Marxist s.o.b. is getting ready to sell us out to our ‘’ally’’.
I take it, you never read anything about India-Pakistan wars.
Look up the definition of a “Saracen’’. Having the will to fight is a motivating factor in winning a war. Whats the sub-text you’re trying to get across pal, you got a soft spot for the Russkies?
Look up the definition of a “Saracen’’. Having the will to fight is a motivating factor in winning a war. Whats the sub-text you’re trying to get across pal, you got a soft spot for the Russkies?
Sar·a·cen Show Spelled[sar-uh-suhn] Show IPA
1. History/Historical . a member of any of the nomadic tribes on the Syrian borders of the Roman Empire.
2. (in later use) an Arab.
3. a Muslim, especially in the period of the Crusades.
4. Also, Sar·a·cen·ic Show Spelled[sar-uh-sen-ik] Show IPA, Sar·a·cen·i·cal. of or pertaining to the Saracens.
Dunno about “soft spot”. I just dont share your retarded world view that every Russian weaponry is piece of scrap metal. Indians using Russian “scrap metal” have kicked Pakistani butt along with their hi-tech American weaponry.
Number 3 ‘’Muslim’’. A hat-tip to my Crusader ancestors. I didn’t say “Saracen’’ ‘’ meant a Pakistani so twist the issue. Indians fighting Pakis with Russian made crap is a lot different from any other country fighting American made systems manned by Americans. Seems to me you’re the one with a ‘’retarded’’ world view.
The word “Saracen” in most common usage denotes an Arab from the time of the Crusades....regardless of whatever way you want to twist or stretch the definition.
The point is ......when Americans fight with American weaponry and with overwhelming military superiority against puny enemies it is not really a good example where you can judge the relative superiority of one equipment over the other.......hence your retarded world view.......which more then one poster on this thread tried to fix and failed.
” Seems to me youre the one with a retarded world view.”
The key phrase being....”Seems to me”
And lastly the Crusades was the one time when the “Saracens” actually kicked butts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Natural ally!?! What freakin planet are you living on? Russia was an ally in WW2 only by circumstance. Dont forget that up until June of 41 they were allies of Nazi Germany. They were our natural ally during fifty years of the Cold War? Ally my foot. Putin and a long line of Russkie commies did all they could to put an end to us. Ally. What a joke. Didnt you catch Obamas open mike gaff? That little Marxist s.o.b. is getting ready to sell us out to our ally.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To bring things into perspective you have to note Russians has backed Spanish Republicans against nazy-socialist element backed by Germans during Spanish Civil War. It was one bloody war in ‘30s with Russians and Germans involved from both sides. And prior to ‘39 Russians were seeking French-British alliance to take on nazy. Neither British nor French agreed to take on Hitler and paid for thet later. Soviets and Hitler weren’t allies by definition. It was a non-agression pact. Initially Russians took over Poland, Baltic states and Moldova as a buffer zone against Germans.
And as for a Cold War it was a pretty little episode in terms of long human history.
The majority of Russians hates communism right now, they are white Christian nation with a lot of interests corelated to US interests. A few other major nations like that left.
It is pretty enough to be a good alliance to me instead of playing zero sum games from both sides.
They did until they were defeated. Check out Charles Martel and Vlad Tepes,aka “Vlad the Impaler’’. Got a soft spot for them too, eh? You may have noted but this is not a Saracen-friendly web-site. What ails you dude? You’re contrary to just about everything I say.
Pal, you’ve sure got some screwy version of history. The “Cold War’’ was a ‘’pretty little episode in human history’’. You mean in duration of time? Yeah, sure, ok. Fifty freakin’ years. Right. Let me guess, you’re Russian?
A Saracen is a Muslim. Pakistan did not exist during the time of the Crusades.
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan weren’t ‘’puny enemies’’. You got some problem with America or what?
I’m not Russian but lived and worked with them a lot.
As for a Cold War it took really few American lives, comparing to Independence War, WWI&II.
You don’t have that problem with Brits, Germans and Japanese who killed more Americans. Don’t you?
Yeah I do actually. I don’t have a problem so much with most I just don’t like the history of what England did in Ireland where my ancestors came from. I don’t like unrepentant Nazis and I especially don’t like the attitude of Japanese veterans and the Japan of today which still refuse to own up to what Japan did in the last world war and it galls the piss out of me when the Japanese start weeping and moaning about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You call 54,000 thousand American dead in Korea and 58,000 thousand dead in Vietnam a ‘few American lives’’? These were client states of Russia, armed by the Russians and these wars were fought during the Cold War. You’ve got a really screwy sense of history.
Cold warriors has really earned much respect but you can’t be stuck in a past forever.
History is not that monochrome.
People were cannibals at the time and your neighbours are their offsprings. You don’t like Ivans, Krauts, Japs and Englishmen. What about your neighbours?:)
You shouldn’t make generalization ‘’fish’’. I don’t like the attitudes of their governments on the issues I mentioned. Nor did I use the word “Japs’’, you did. I called you on your ‘’few American deaths’’ and you jump to a virtual ad homiemn attack. People are cannibals at anytime in history. I don’t have a problem with my neighbors actually. I notice you spell ‘’neighbor’’ with a ‘’u’’. You’re not American born, are you? In any event you’ve become annoying and boring. have a nice life ace.
Lol. Ok, whatever.
“Pakistan did not exist during the time of the Crusades.”
I am glad at least you know that much.
Btw there are white American Muslims in the US, they Saracens too? Lol.
In case you lost track of the logical flow of the argument on this thread, we are talking about Soviet/Russian equipments. US didn't really confront Soviet/Russian military hardware until cold war. And yes Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan aren't exactly giant superpowers. They ARE puny. And in a few of those places US actually lost the fight inspite of overwhelming military superiority and “crappy” Soviet weaponry used by the enemy.
A good match would be Americans using American equipments fighting Russians using Russian equipment. Anything less then that is not real contest IMO to judge which weapon is better.
I got problem with America? Please elaborate.
Charles Martel won the battle of Tours (France) against Moors. Ever wondered how the Muslims got that far inside Europe? That's right! Over Spain! Muslims had taken over Spain and were knocking on France. If that's not kicking butts then I don't know what is.
Same story with Vlad. The Ottoman Turks had taken over a good portion of Eastern Europe. And Vlad was actually imprisoned by the Turks.
The thing to note here is Muslims were stomping on Christian lands. Christians were not on Muslim lands.
You seem too worried about my “soft spot”. I am making arguments based on facts.... which aren't likely to change regardless of who or what you have a soft spot for.
FACT #1 Russian equipments are not all crap.... as many posters have correctly pointed out. Russian equipments make a lot of overall strategic sense.
FACT #2 Muslims did kick butt, which is why today they are spread over the vast expanse of North Africa, Europe, middle East and Asia. There is no disputing that.
Just because you don't have a convincing case to prove otherwise doesn't mean I have to mindlessly join your chorus of trashing everything you are biased against. Whether or not the Russian are enemies is not the debate here. Regardless, their weapons are excellent. If you don't think so, then try to make a stronger case against it rather then throwing out a lot of personal biases contrary to logic or facts.
You seem to be very dismissive of American equipment in favor of Russian crap. Thats right, crap. Like the Russian submarine the Kursk and the history of Russian nuke sub accidents like the K-19. The Russian supplied all the equipment to the countries you mentioned and the training. You want Americans fighting Russians, do some research into Korea where American pilots took on Russians flying Migs for the North Koreans.
Pal, you’ve got a chip on your shoulder a mile wide and deep. Why am I worried about your soft spot? because it’s obvious to me you’ve got one. Your entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. And the fact is for all your faith in Russian crap, no American soldier would want to use the stuff. Ask one.
I kinda new you were going to throw that pathetically strawman argument. Your responses are very much predictably stupid and unoriginal. For one, to assume that a few Russian pilots would have any effect on the overall outcome of a war is plain retarded. When I was talking about US vs Russia, I meant the entire Russian AF, military, their support, communication, network, command control and logistics to even out US advantages.
By the way Chuck Yeager and some US pilots trained the PAF and flew sorties against Indian Airforce in 1971. PAF still lost. And Korean air war wasn't even all one sided. USAF took some beating in that war. Might have something to do with the Russian pilots.
I haven’t followed the developent of the T-90 series for a long time. When did they stop using a cast steel turret for a more Abrams-like turret?
So far this is the only argument you have been able to conjure. Firstly I dont consider an average American soldier to be an expert in Russian military hardware.......let alone understand the overall strategic advantage (as opposed to simply evaluating the performance of the equipment), or understand the situations they are designed for or the doctrine to be applied to leverage their advantages.
Fact is a lot of Russian equipments have won foreign contracts beating comparable US contenders in the fray.
Because it’s cheap to make, cheap to sell and lousy to use. Do what I suggested to you pal and adios. You’re boring.
The argument is about whether or not Russian weaponry is crap. Get some perspective and work on your debating skills before joining an adult conversation.
And you are stupid. Get some rest.
As I’ve stated the history of Russian crap speaks for itself. You’re a child newbie, do some research yourself before YOU join an adult conversation ok? And go chill yourself.
Lousy to use makes it such an attractive deal! Right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.