Will Thailand Buy Russian T-90 Tanks?

The Diplomat ^ | January 04, 2016 | Franz-Stefan Gady

[sukhoi-30mki]

Thailand is considering buying an unknown number of Russian-made T-90S or MS main battle tanks (MBT). According to the website Defence Blog, a Thai delegation visited the Russian city of Nizhny Tagil, the site of the largest main battle tank manufacturer in the world.

The Royal Thai Army delegation expressed interest in both the T-90(M)S and the T-14 Armata MBT – dubbed “Russia’s deadliest tank” (See: “It’s Official: Russia’s Deadliest Tank Will Be Ready for Battle in 2020”). However, the export version of the T-14 MBT is still in the development stage and would not be ready in time to replace Thailand’s aging fleet of M48A5 ‘Patton’ tanks.

In 2011, Thailand placed a $240 million order for the purchase of 49 Ukrainian-made T-84 ‘Oplot-M’ MBTs plus a number of support vehicles with Ukrspetsexport, a Ukrainian state-owned defense contractor. Yet, by the end of 2015, only ten tanks had been delivered to the Royal Thai Army, causing concern over future delays among high-ranking officers in the Royal Thai Army.

Five additional tanks are slated for delivery in early 2016, according Ukrspetsexport, although sources say that Bangkok might opt out of the contract due to the delays altogether. (Thailand was originally supposed to receive 20 T-84 tanks in 2015.)

One indication for doing so is the creation of a new special Thai committee to evaluate alternatives to the T-84 MBT. Based on local media reports, the committee has narrowed it down to two models – the Russian-made T-90 (or T-90MS) or the Chinese-made VT-4/MBT-3,000.

Both Russian and Chinese models are based on the Soviet-era T-72 tank design and armed with a 125-mm smoothbore gun as their main weapon system. The T-84 Oplot is a derivative of the Soviet T-80 and also sports a 125-mm smoothbore cannon.

In June 2014, China launched an aggressive marketing drive to convince potential customers that the VT-4 is superior to both the T-90 (and T-90MS), as well as the T-14 Armata (See: “Can This Chinese Tank Beat Russia’s T-14 Armata?”). However, despite claims to the contrary it appears that both tank programs (T-90MS and VT-4) have not entered the mass-production phase yet.

From 1992 to 2013, Russia sold 1,297 tanks, whereas China exported a total of 461 tanks during the same period. China has traditionally relied heavily in the development of its tank force on Russian license-built technology and know-how.

Overall, Thailand plans to purchase around 200 new MBTs in the coming years for its armored cavalry battalions. Given Russian and Chinese competition, Ukraine announced in December that it plans to step up production and manufacture 120 new T-84 tanks per year beginning in 2016.

[sukhoi-30mki]

[GreyFriar]

The T-14 Armata is still in development. The dozen plus in the May Day parade is the entire Russian inventory of it. According to retired Army intel analyst Cookie Sewell.

[The_Victor]

to replace Thailand's aging fleet of M48A5 "Patton" tanks.

I guess it's been a while since Thailand bought tanks. Maybe they'll put the M48s on the market, cheap.

[EQAndyBuzz]

It seems like tanks are used today to fend off palace coups and not to attack other countries.

[2banana]

1. Can the T-90 stop a man portable and inexpensive Javelin?

2. I find it interesting that the Ukraine, while in a conflict on its eastern borders with ill equipped Ukrainian troops, can export its best weapons...

[PIF]

In the interests of completeness, it should be said that the T-14 Armata is all new tech; it is not based on any operational design. The body will become part of a family of vehicles rather than a stand alone vehicle.

It will have more fire power than the T-90, plus an unmanned turret - the 3 man crew will be encased in armor - like the USAF A-10, but all around them; see image of hatch cover below.

For those so interested army recognition has the complete specs and some excellent graphics. including a larger version of this one:

[PIF]

Both the T14 and the T-90 are supposed to be equipped with systems to defeat anti-tank missiles like the Javelin. There is a YouTube video of the T-17 system reacting against an incoming projectile.

The trouble with the Javelin is it is a guided missile - any suppressing fire could cause the operator to a) die or b) flinch and miss then die; neither tank requires the crew to open a hatch to use the machine gun for suppressing fire. The T-14 sports a 30mm turret AA gun as well. So that sort of missile require the operators to sneak up, rather than just popup, fire, and go.

AFAIK, most of the T-90s taken out in the Ukraine were by other tanks in pitched tank battles.

Export versions of any one’s mil gear is not the same as that used by the home country. Exports bring in needed money to produce the more expensive home versions and lessen the overall costs.

[Celtic Conservative]

Thailand?

CC

[Riley]

There is a YouTube video of the T-17 system reacting against an incoming projectile.

Here's one that I found of the Russian ARENA system in action. It has a slow-motion replay so that you can actually see what's going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpmcmKwWzYo

[keat]

Dang, beat me to it.

[PIF]

Yep. That’s a longer version of the one I saw - jezz, could the guy talk any faster, very hard to get the drift.

[Celtic Conservative]

LoL. You gotta be pretty quick in FR, the running gags are usually the first to be posted. I know I’ve gotten beat to the perfect response many a time.

CC

[keat]

And there’s a whole lot of Freepers who don’t get that one! I remember being in early on the original thread. It was classic.

[spetznaz]

1. Yes and no, but primarily no. Why? Because any modern anti-tank missile will defeat any tank. Even tanks like the Abrams and the Merkava have been defeated by anti-tank missiles, and the battle between tank armor and anti-tank missiles will continue to be won by the missiles. That's the no part. The yes? Well, there's continued development on evolutions of the Chobham/Dorchester and similar armor types, as well as the evolution of ERA packs. But the biggest evolution - a revolution really - has been the work done by the Israelis and Russians on hard/active anti-tank defense, where a small explosive device is launched at incoming anti-tank rounds. Works well in testing, but it still has to be seen how the Israeli/Russian systems work in the real world.

But, without the new active defense approaches, modern anti-tank missiles will kill ANY tank ....not just the T-90 tank, and not just the Javelin. The picture below shows one of five MA1A Abrams tanks that were destroyed in Iraq by Kornet ATGMS.

2. As for the second question, Ukraine inherited a lot of Soviet industry when the Evil Empire got crushed by a certain brave and patriotic American president whose name starts with an R and ends with eagan. This ranged from jet technologies to tanks and even some shipping technologies. The issue though is that the civil war in the Ukraine (and while there is a lot of Russian aggression, it is a civil war) is more complex than the media normally let's out. It's a mess over there, which can be seen by the Ukrainian navy's flagship defecting to the Russian side, or the head of the Ukrainian navy defecting to the Russian side ...with the confusion further propagated by the officers under that navy head refusing to defect. This shows it is not as clear cut as the media, and some here (on 'both sides') want to make it. Thus, it is easier for Ukraine to export relatively advanced tech, but still have the areas adjacent to Russia be a mess, and lose Crimea to Russia. Also, while Russia is weaker than it wants people to expect, it is still much stronger than the likes of Ukraine.

[2banana]

Good info - thanks!

Did the Kornet ATGMS take out our MA1As in the invasion of Iraq or in the insurgency to follow?

[spetznaz]

Those were Abrams that had been left to the Iraqi army, and thus their drivers were not Americans. The thing about tanks is this - it is important to have superior tanks (like the Abrams, the Challenger and the Leopard - all three amazing tanks), but it is more important to have superior tactics and personnel. The Iraqi army for superior tanks, but because they didn't have the rest of the requirements the same tank that was death on wheels under American hands became death traps.

Which matches what was said over 2 decades ago during the First Gulf War by an American tanker - that the Americans and the Iraqis could have exchanged tanks (in that particular statement the M1A1 version of the Abrams and the T-72 tank used by the Republican Guard), and that the results would have been the same. That is, the Americans would still have won.

Proven over 2 decades later with terrorists taking out Iraqi-manned Abrams with ease using Kornet ATGMs.