Russian T-90 main battle tank

[Foo Fighter]

A shed load of elbow grease to buff that out. A pity the quality is so poor but normal for this type of issue.

 

[paralay]

In the "Cape" ("Накидка")

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1709323734895698313

View: https://twitter.com/Descry/status/1709323734895698313?s=20

 

[GTX]

Indian company AVNL unveils Atharva hybrid tank from T-72 and T-90S | Defense News February 2024 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2024 | Archive News year

Indian company AVNL unveils Atharva hybrid tank from T-72 and T-90S

www.armyrecognition.com

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1785616513531097288

View: https://twitter.com/simpatico771/status/1785616513531097288

 

[had]

I understand the need for the net but man, that presentation looks ridiculous

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891456758008140286

View: https://x.com/defensehere_en/status/1891456758008140286

 

[Big_Zukini]

I understand the need for the net but man, that presentation looks ridiculous

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891456758008140286

View: https://x.com/defensehere_en/status/1891456758008140286

I'll zoom in here for a sec:

https://imgur.com/9PxxXdp

View: https://i.imgur.com/9PxxXdp.png


This looks awful.
I assume they're not really aiming to protect the reserve ammo stowage at the back, but rather prevent a penetration from the rear that goes through it and into the crew compartment.

Also seems they want to protect the engine, but the only real defense it has are mudflaps. I see their merit against the usual drone that'll probably have its blades broken by it, changing its trajectory and maybe causing a miss, but there is definitely more that can be done.
Overall it seems like the perspective from which they designed it is "horizontal" and not vertical, which is in line with the cold war era mindset that still prevails in some countries still focusing on frontal armor and better main guns instead of getting APS, mine kits, and side armor.
Logistically it seems like a nightmare. It'll look like that until the first hit and then it's again frankensteins. From this angle alone, I can see 5 distinct layers, of which a drone can hit 4 if it aims for the turret.
This shouldn't be a problem for Russia, as a tank rarely survives an assault to later be repaired and restored. But when you're pitching this as an export product, it's not a good look at all.
It screams "look what we have to put on our flagship tank just to make it work". In contrast, Arab buyers are seeing the offered Abrams, Leopard, and Leclerc fairly clean.
I'd also argue that for countries at peace, it'd be better to simply install a basic cage against dropper drones, and not a full kit that'll have to be developed and adjusted in time proximity to a war.

EDIT: My image did not embed properly so I added a link.

 

[Big_Zukini]

To be fair, it is a bad time to buy or sell tanks. Too much is in flow right know. One year ago you could tackle the whole FPV problematic with jammer systems but after the fiberoptic cable solutions, that does not cut it anymore.

To the contrary. Now is a peak in MBT market activity and it's only estimated to rise until the mid 2030's.
The contributing factors are the war in Ukraine which drives acquisition across the entire Europe, which is the largest market for first hand MBTs, and maturity of tech that enables a radical redesign of the crew compartment and recalibration of crew roles.
Munitions with fiber-optics were available for a very long time. Over 20 years I believe, and today they exist among the majority of modern armed forces. The most widely used example is the Spike.

Both Ukraine and Russia are unbalanced forces. Hence we should not draw too many lessons from Ukraine. Over-learning is often just as dangerous as under-learning. You could learn the wrong lesson.

All the “clean” tank systems are not battle tested and I think a real solution will have major operational consequences. Perhaps like having a dedicated vehicle always around or getting the omitted loader back inside the tank, with additional duties and therefore thwarting the T-14 concept.

Europe has no AFVs with APS, sans demonstrators. That is a major issue. But I doubt they'll need to be cluttered as much to properly defend.
An APS, and some form of automatic system that can shoot down drones at hundreds of meters away, are all you'll really need.

 

[had]

You could be right with both but I have my reservations.
I think the combination oft loitering FPV-drones with fiber-optics is an interesting development and could be challenging, even for more “balanced” forces.
I have also reservations about fully autonomous anti-drone systems (not so much against missiles etc.), simply because these drone attack tactics can be modified more easily on the fly. Therefore my preference for dedicated people and semi-autonomous systems – but that is just a thought.

 

[Josh_TN]

The war in Ukraine is a largely static one. As mentioned, this might teach the wrong lessons. First person drone control is likely far less practical in a moving battlefield, as is fiber optics. Full autonomous UAVs will be an issue soon but are likely far more expensive and fewer in number for the time being.

I think the MBT of the future will employ a medium velocity 30mm time fused cannon as a secondary remote weapon station, along with 360 EO/IR coverage linked to a computer system with target recognition. Ideally the radar system for the APS is also linked to this, and the fire control resembles almost more of a ship based combat system where multiple sensors are integrated to multiple weapons and the most appropriate cued for automatic or semi automatic responses.

 

[Big_Zukini]

And another contributor to AFVs remaining "clean" in the forseeable future is the subject of spectrum dominance. It's a fairly silent revolution of the battlefield.
Every armed force would want to know what's being transmitted around the battlefield, by whom (friend or foe), from where, and for what task.
If you deploy an inter-communicating drone swarm, it'll get picked up. Operators in the rear will get quickly picked up as well.

And then this hard labor will see 2 things.
Ground controllers will see this:

And the swarm will see this:

What this means is that the combat element of 2030 will already have a comprehensive multi-layered protection against above ground and aerial threats, and this leaves the average AFV with a need for only slight modifications for increased survivability.
The clutter we see on that T-90MS is something that by 2030 should be completely gone, and I'd argue that for a modern force in 2025 is wholly unnecessary.

 

[Ainen]

Both Ukraine and Russia are unbalanced forces. Hence we should not draw too many lessons from Ukraine. Over-learning is often just as dangerous as under-learning. You could learn the wrong lesson.

Unbalanced in which way?

Ground controllers will see this:

Poor relay drone(10k usd something apiece, with a few more in nearby treeline on standby).
Probably won't suffer much, but still an emotional trauma.

Drones, their ralays, antennas and operators(hidden and not) represent far too ambigous(well hidden), too numerous and too varied(air, ground, static and moving, emitting and not) target set than what tactical fires can realistically cover.

For breakthrough, you need to be able to physically locate and personally remove all or most of them in a short order, to try to collapse the whole local network.
Doesn't guarantee things(4k commercial drones and/or optics on buildings, masts and so on still can coordinate fires from dozens of kms away), but at least battlefield cohesion will die.
Or, alternatively, do it over time - but it is a game with uncertain result.

And the swarm will see this:

Looks expensive and emmittey.
I wonder how this, in the middle of the battlefield, will react to an average 6" splinter rain.
Or, more disguistingly, to a personal optical FPV sneaking by down low.

Big artillery radars often suffer dozens of miles behind battlefield. Now you want one at LOC.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Unbalanced in which way?

It is a Soviet era armed force with point additions of western tech of varying levels of modernity, and domestic equipment based on civilian grade tech.
Its current composition does not allow it to maintain a system of force multipliers as in a proper western armed force.

Looks expensive and emmittey.
I wonder how this, in the middle of the battlefield, will react to an average 6" splinter rain.
Or, more disguistingly, to a personal optical FPV sneaking by down low.

Big artillery radars often suffer dozens of miles behind battlefield. Now you want one at LOC.

Artillery radars must emit for a long time. High power microwaves only emit for very short periods, only when engaging an enemy. There is no practical resemblance to a radar in terms of emission.
What I showed is a large variant, probably meant for fixed installations. There are smaller variants for a maneuvering force. That's a bit beyond the point here. For how to kill drones, there's a dedicated thread. An MBT is neither dead, nor should be covered in metal barns.