U.S. Army Seeks To Buy Russian T-90 Tanks

Defense News | August 27 - September 2, 2001 | Frank Tiboni

[Stand Watch Listen]

U.S. Army Intelligence is negotiating with Ukraine to buy Russia’s latest tank, the T-90, for the service’s testing and training programs, Defense News has learned.

"We are negotiating how many we need," Lt. Gen. Robert Noonan, the U.S. Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, told Defense News Aug. 3. Obtaining Russia’s latest main-battle tank would be a coup for the U.S. Army, industry officials and analysts say.

That is because the T-90 tank has never been used beyond the armored units of the former Soviet Union’s Army, a retired U.S. Army colonel who is an expert on Russian tanks told Defense News Aug. 16.

"Only the T-90S, an export variant, has been seen before," the retired U.S. Army colonel said.

Noonan said U.S. Army Intelligence wants to buy less than a half-dozen

of the 46.5-ton, three-man crew tanks. He did not say when Ukraine and the service would complete the T-90 purchase. Ukraine Army Col. Olexander Sadoskyi, the country’s military attaché to the United States, was unavailable for comment, said a military officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington Aug. 14.

The T-90 is manufactured by the Nizhnyi Tagil company in Russia. The T-90 tank has five key systems that U.S. Army Intelligence would be interested in investigating, the retired U.S. Army colonel said.

They include:

*What armor, if any, is used in the front-wall cavities of the turret, which sits atop the tank. The turret is traditionally the best-protected part of the tank containing the best composite armor.

*How the T-90’s 125-mm gun can also fire a laser-guided missile.

*Any Russian rounds that come with the T-90.

*Any reactive armor on the tank.

*Whether the main sight has either a first- or second-generation forward-looking infrared or thermal night capability.

Strapped for cash after the fall of the Soviet Union, former East Bloc countries have turned to selling their Russian-supplied arms, Noonan said. Monitoring the proliferation of Russian weapons and technology has become a top priority of U.S. Army Intelligence, he said. Another priority for U.S. Army Intelligence is protecting military research that takes place in the United States, Noonan said.

Because 85 percent of military research occurs in the United States, U.S. Army Intelligence must also guard against the illegal transfer of weapon technologies, he said.

"We’re always looking at how we’re protecting our technology," said Noonan. "We don’t want a situation to occur where a new technology catches us by surprise on the battlefield."

According to Noonan, Ukraine approached former U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen two years ago about selling some of its T-90 tanks to the United States when Cohen visited Ukraine. Noonan said the U.S. Army already knows a great deal about the T-90’s performance and armor protection.

The T-90 purchases will prove a boon to the U.S. Army’s countermeasures’ programs, according to a Washington land warfare analyst.

"Not only can U.S. Army Intelligence compare its own gear, but it can also research countermeasures to the T-90 tank," John Gordon, senior military analyst, RAND, Washington, told Defense News Aug. 14.

Gordon said they can also be used for training purposes at the U.S. Army’s National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif.

"Any time a world military can get a hold of modern equipment from around the globe it has to take advantage of it," Gordon said.

Gordon said the former Soviet Union made a habit of equipping the Red Army with its best arms, while exporting less-capable, but still potent, arms to its clients. For example, the 310 T-90 tanks India bought from Russia Feb. 15 for $650 million were the export T-90S variants, the retired Army colonel said.

Gordon could not put a price tag on the T-90, but said it is worth several million dollars. By comparison, the U.S. Army’s Abrams tank costs $7.84 million, according to the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation 2000 report released by the Pentagon.

Acquiring foreign arms is a top priority of U.S intelligence agencies, says a Washington intelligence analyst. The U.S. military spends "hundreds of millions of dollars" each year on foreign arms, Steven Aftergood, a senior intelligence research analyst at the American Federation of Scientists, Washington, told Defense News Aug. 14.

The actual number is classified, Aftergood said. He said the Pentagon leaves the arms buying to each service’s intelligence agency. The retired Army colonel said he does not know how Ukraine has acquired T-90 tanks. He said the most likely explanation is that some Russian crews left the tanks behind. Noonan said the U.S. Army no longer needs to conduct extensive clandestine activities to acquire Russia’s latest arms as it did during the Cold War because they are readily available for sale on the Internet. He also tried to downplay the deal’s significance.

"This [the T-90 tank] is not a big deal. We have ways of getting them. We have them already," Noonan said.

A day before his interview with Defense News, the U.S. Army Intelligence chief said he found two more Web sites that sell Russian arms. "Missiles, tanks, Russian technology is for sale on the Internet," Noonan said.

Jason Sherman contributed to this report from Washington.

[klpt]

[barrium]

I thought the T-90 didn't go into production until 1993? If that's correct any T-90's Ukraine has would most likely be export versions. That is they really do have T-90's.

[Lorne]

I served on an M-1A1 and I am very familiar with it. The AT-11 uses a shaped charge to penetrate armor. The M-1 family of tanks is almost immune to shape charge attack so the penetration of the AT-11 is irrelivant. Also, the T-90 is nothing more than a slightly improved version of the T-72. It has the same fatal flaws of the T-72 line, its underpowered, short life of the gun tube, poor elivation and depression of the main gun, no thermal sights (its only an "option" on the T-90). The greatest flaw of the T-72/T-90 is ammo is stored below the turret floor. The slightest spark in the ammo area caused by penetration of an anti-tank round sends the turret flying about 40 feet into the air killing the crew at once. You may notice that during the gulf war very few T-72's kept their turrets while most of the older T-55's and T-62's stayed in one piece (though they did burn). Over all, while US tanks are complex and expensive their more mature systems make them easier to service at the unit level meaning they are avaible for combat rather than in the rear waiting for parts or service. Soviet/Russian tanks since the T-64 have become heavier, more complex, more expensive, less maintainable, and less survivable. Their combat record is awful.

[Lorne]

I was in the gulf and I assure you no tank rounds "bounced" off Iraqi tanks. US tank rounds passed through sand berms then penetrated Iraqi tanks. Single US tank rounds passed through multiple Iraqi tanks. US tank rounds penetrated Iraqi tanks at 5000 meters. But no, there were not "bounces" that I ever saw.

[Lorne]

Hey VW-CAT-MAN, What I find funny is that the old line Soviet supporters can not accept that Russia is not the Soviet Union and its day is past. There is no great Russian reserve of top-of-the-line equipment. What has not rotted through disuse or lack of support and supply has been sold off for cash. Thats where the Russian carriers went to isn't it? The Russian army is lucky to see 50 new tanks a year and over 60% of its tank fleet is inoperable. The Russian air force has not recieved a new aircraft in almost 8 years now and training levels have fallen through the floor. The Russian navy is rotting at the dock and any ship making it to sea (and back) is news worthy. Right now the Russians have all they can do to not to loose in Chechnya. You can't climb on the back of a dead horse and expect it to charge into battle. Lorne

[meANDyou1]

you wanna know something i served in russian spetsnaz for 2 and half years. now my broter serves with the american stryker from fort lewis... he is the one u see on tv. and have u ever thought of the fact that russia mabe just faking alot of stuff?? i mean comeon would russia really have so many tanks that it could not opperate. ok and how about this right now my brother tells me that the 2 abrams that got "disabled" were sent to Ft lewis for repair and they where not shot by no "TOW" missle it was the russian armer pircing bullet that came out of the PKM MG .. see if bullets can pierce the back of your persious abrams then u think a russian T-90 cant take it out with its auto aimer and auto loader. now one more thing if u wanna know america at this point only has 64 m1a1 abrams tanks... russia made 300 t-90's last year(total) and ukown amount of t-80's and upgraded t-72's.... and one more thing for that note when russia sells its tanks they strip all the tech they put in... so in DESERT STROM when u shot at the tank yea ok for one they where sold with out the 2edgeneration armor and for 2 the computers and raders where removed.. so if u think you where all cool then think again.also all i know about desert strom and the tank fights when that 1 t72 killed 3 abrams that was sad and they blamed it all on " he was on a hill in a persist point we could not aim" bull man befor u start dissing start getting your facts straight...