• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

The Soviet FST-2 and the Russian T-95:
The New Russian Tank Generation Coming into Focus

by James M. Warford

Armor June-August 2010

“The Soviets have achieved a technical development at the tactical level of war which has strategic implications. We haven’t seen anything like that in Europe since the advent of tactical nuclear weapons.”1
General Donn A. Starry (1988)

In April 1988, Newsweek and the Daily Telegraph published articles on a new Soviet tank, which was erroneously labeled “FST-1.”2 They described this new tank as a “tank in shining armor” and a “slimline Soviet tank that holds bad news for NATO.” Accompanying drawings showed a revolutionary tank design with an elevated overhead main gun housed in a very small turret. Additional tank details included a new 135mm main gun, a 2-man tank crew positioned in a hull protected by thick advanced frontal armor, and an array of sophisticated electronic devices, including a counter-optics blinding weapon.

While other reports claimed this new tank may have entered production as early as 1988, these two articles, citing the Secretary of Defense’s Defense Science Board, identified the likely start of production in the 1993 to 1995 timeframe.3 While the collapse of the Soviet Union certainly derailed any planned production and fielding dates for this new tank, published reports since that collapse, some only available very recently, confirm that the mysterious tank labeled the FST-1 in 1988 was much more than urban legend.

In fact, a still newer tank called the T-95, directly descended from the tank described as “bad news for NATO” in 1988, is about to make its appearance as the new centerpiece of the Russian army.4

Future Soviet Tank

The term “future Soviet tank (FST),” was originally used by NATO to describe the tank that was expected to follow the newly identified (at the time) M1983/T-80B, which the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG) first identified in 1983. Interestingly enough, the T-80B was originally designated as the next Soviet tank (NST) prior to its arrival at the GSFG.

The NST was expected to be a revolutionary design; however, it turned out to be an evolutionary development of its predecessors. Over the years, the follow-on FST designation grew to include more than a single tank or tank design. Soon, two new NATO designations were added: FST-1 and FST-2. Within NATO, the designation “FST-1” actually referred to a level of evolutionary technology incorporated into specific Soviet tank types. That level of technology is now known to be embodied in both the T-80U and T-72B tanks.

The FST-2, on the other hand, truly reflected something new. In 1988, the descriptions of the tank, provided by the press, simply mislabeled the revolutionary new tank (and its technology), which was actually known as “FST-2.” The impact of the FST-2 on NATO and the U.S. Army, in particular, was huge. The threat presented by this new tank was significant enough to make it the primary consideration in the decision to fund and develop depleted uranium armor for the M1A1 tank.

The Revolutionary FST-2

During the 1980s, a 3-way Soviet tank development project was initiated to develop a new tank that would represent a “quantum leap” in tank technology. The project involved three different and competing Soviet tank design bureaus: OKMO (Spetsmash) at Leningrad/Saint Petersburg; Morozov (KMDB) at Kharkov, Ukraine; and Kartsev-Venediktov (Uralvagonzavod) at Nizhny Tagil. This 3-way development project was known as “Molot” (Hammer).

The OKMO (Spetsmash) design bureau was involved in this project even though its associated tank plant had been shut down in 1991. The effort focused on a 2-man tank design with the crew in the center of the hull, behind the powerpack, which was positioned in front of the hull. The main gun, which was fed by an automatic loader, was mounted in a very small unmanned turret positioned behind the crew compartment. While the size of the main gun has not been confirmed, it is likely that the well-known 125mm smoothbore gun would have been used, along with thermal night sights. The composition of the tank’s armor protection is also not known, but published information reports suggest that the hull front was protected by thick advanced armor, as well as reactive armor. Reportedly, this 2-man tank design advanced to the prototype stage and was tested in the mid-1990s, but was never produced.

The former Soviet, now Ukrainian Morozov, design bureau was the first to suggest the development of a truly new tank. Known as “Object 477,” the Morozov tank has been the subject of intense speculation and certainly played a greater role than that of its competition from Leningrad/ Saint Petersburg. In fact, most of the available information refers to Object 477 as the Molot without mention of the 3-way tank development project. Work on the Object 477 began at the Kharkov tank plant during the 1976 to 1981 timeframe with the initial design completed in 1984. The design focused on a 3-man crew with the driver centered in the hull and the tank commander and gunner positioned on either side, below the elevated overhead main gun. The hatches used by the commander and gunner were just slightly above the hull deck. This crew arrangement was similar to that used by the U.S. M60A2 tank.

Object 477 mounted an impressive 152-mm main gun, a new advanced fire control system, and a new self-defense system called “Shater” (tent). The Shater system was the direct predecessor to the wellknown Russian (present-day) Arena selfdefense system. The tank was powered by a 1200 horsepower diesel engine and was fitted with advanced armor protection of unknown composition. Prototypes of Object 477 were reportedly built in 1987 and testing was almost complete by 1999.

According to published Russian reports, Object 477 was overly complicated and really had no future. Specifically identified was the length of travel required for each extremely long 152mm main gun round as it moved through the tank’s automatic loading cycle. The design also failed to solve the critically important requirement to separate the onboard main gun ammunition supply from the tank’s crew. This design feature is characteristic of most modern Western tanks and, in many ways, defines the current tank generation.

At the time, the Soviet plan also included developing a standardized tracked chassis that would be used for the new tank, as well as self-propelled artillery, surface- to- air missile systems, tactical surface- to- surface missile systems, and engineering vehicles. Finally, while no photographs of Object 477 have been published, one or two photographs have appeared showing a little-known Morozov tank prototype, known as “Object 450,” which is a small tank with its crew positioned in front of the hull. The main gun is mounted in a very small unmanned turret. While there is no confirmed connection between Object 450 and Object 477 Molot, it does provide a glimpse of what the Morozov design bureau had in mind.

At this point, the status of Object 477 is unknown. It is unlikely, however, that this modern design has simply faded away. To remain competitive with its Russian neighbors, Ukraine (and the Morozov design bureau) has surely been working on a new tank of its own. In some cases, Ukraine competes directly with Russia on the international arms market; in other cases, both countries provide tanks to different adversaries. For example, Russia sold T-90S tanks to India while Ukraine sold T-80UD tanks to Pakistan. A very likely scenario will show continuing tank upgrade, export sale, and design competition between Russia and Ukraine into the foreseeable future.

Post-Soviet Russia

The years following the collapse of the Soviet Union can be characterized by the incredible turmoil forced on the Russian defense establishment. Initiatives labeled as “successful economic reforms,” stripped away much of Russia’s tank development and production capabilities. To make matters worse, government orders for tanks came to a halt and factory workers who continued to work did so without pay.

Published reports also confirmed that the Russian defense industry had problems producing and delivering tank main guns, mass producing 125mm main gun ammunition, and providing modern electronics and optics for tanks. An example of this poor capability is confirmed by the press-service of the French company, Thales, which finalized a contract with Russian officials to supply around 100 thermal vision cameras (the Catherine FC model) for installation on Russia’s “newest T-90 tanks.”

For a period of years, Russia’s surviving tank development and production efforts refocused toward developing and selling upgraded packages for existing tanks and on very limited production of new tanks. In the past few years, however, there appears to be some life in Russia’s tank business. The continued significant sale of T-90S “Bishma” tanks to India, as well as new sales of the T-90SA tank to Algeria (finalized in 2006), signal the tank situation in Russia is improving. Also in 2006, the Russian army received 31 new T-90 tanks and the numbers of upgraded T-72 tanks are on the rise.

While many difficulties remain for Russia’s army and particularly its tanks, including its continued reliance on outdated 125mm 3BM42 armor-piercing, finstabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) ammunition, a very successful operation against the Georgian army and its Israeli- upgraded T-72AV SIM-1 tanks, in August 2008, confirms that all is not lost for the Russians. In a manner befitting a skilled magician, the Russian army has proudly paraded its latest evolutionary (newest in-service) T-90A main battle tank (MBT), during 2008 and 2009 victory parades in Red Square, while keeping a much larger prize securely hidden.

Although not seen during these two important parades, it appears that the Russians may have decided that the time has come for the world to finally see their revolutionary new tank — the T-95.

The Russian T-95

“The tank will have a running gear, a power unit, armaments and systems of fire control, target identification and reconnaissance that are absolutely new.”
— Nikolai Makarov, General of the Army
and Russian Deputy Defense Minister

The new tank design from the Kartsev-Venediktov (Uralvagonzavod) design bureau, originally part of the 3-way tank development project during the 1980s, appears to be the sole survivor of the defense establishment turmoil in Russia. First discussed in the defense-related press in 1995, the “revolutionary” new tank design was fitted with an elevated overhead main gun “with a caliber as large as 135mm to 140mm” in a small unmanned turret.6 The tank crew was positioned at the front of the hull with the main gun and ammunition at the vehicle’s center. The tank’s powerpack was positioned at the vehicle’s rear.

A Russian news article in IZVESTIYA (2 September 1995) quoted the Russian Chairman of the State Committee for the Defense Sectors of Industry as saying, “the development of a fundamentally new tank will be completed within a couple of years.”7 Reports at the time said the new tank may be designated the “T-95,” including unconfirmed reports that the Russian delegation participating in the 1995 IDEX Defense Exhibition in Abu Dhabi, admitted there was a new tank program underway called the “T-95.” Other sources, however, claimed that the designation of the new tank was still unconfirmed, resulting in a variety of labels being used for the tank in the West. One name stuck with the new tank for a period of time, the “Nizhny Tagil Tank,” which referred to the location of the tank’s design bureau.

The Russian T-95, referred to as a “tank of landmark design” in NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA in 2000, is finally a reality.8 With developmental roots going all the way back to the hot days of the Cold War in the 1980s, this first truly new and revolutionary Russian tank, since the T-64, was expected to make its first public appearance in 2009. Some sources have reported that the T-95 was originally planned to enter service as early as 1994, but a lack of funding kept the new tank in the shadows. According to Defense Minister Igor Sergeev, in reports from various Russian news sources, in March 2000, Russia now has “a new T-95 tank.”

While many of the T-95’s specific characteristics remain classified, the available information provides enough detail to get a virtual glimpse of the new tank. The highest priority of the new T-95 design is crew protection. Reportedly, the level of protection is high enough to protect the crew from a hit from virtually any antitank weapon from any angle. This is possible due to the 3-man crew being positioned in the hull, inside an armored “pod.” This marks a significant step forward for Soviet/ Russian tank design, which has lagged behind Western and NATO tanks in this critical area for decades.

The T-95 weighs about 50 tons, which keeps it in the same weight class as the latest versions of fielded and well-known Russian and Ukrainian tanks such as the T-90S and the T-80UD. The key difference is that for about the same weight, the T-95 has a much lower silhouette than more conventional Soviet/Russian tanks. The lower silhouette is achieved by using a new small unmanned turret on the T-95, which not only increases the overall survivability of the tank, but allows the saved weight to be added as increased armor to protect the hull and tank crew.

One of the many characteristics of the tank’s hull, which ties the development of the T-95 to Cold War Ukrainian Object 477 Molot, is the new Russian self-propelled gun (SPG) prototype, which reportedly uses the same hull as the T-95. The new SPG is a development of the well-known 152mm 2S19, which has gone through the unprecedented modification of being fitted with two 152mm guns. This modified 2S19 may be the first in a planned series of new armored vehicles based on the new T-95’s hull.

Perhaps the next highest design priority of the T-95 is its firepower. The T-95 is fitted with a 152mm smoothbore main gun, making it the most powerfully armed tank in the world. This gun, with developmental roots going back to the early days of the Cold War during the late 1950s, may have been originally intended for a Soviet heavy tank as a rifled gun. It appears to have been brought back to life in the 1980s as a smoothbore gun that reportedly can fire both conventional tank ammunition, such as APFSDS and high explosive antitank (HEAT), as well as antitank guided missiles (ATGMs). While the ability to fire ATGMs through the main gun is not new, firing a large missile with the same diameter as the U.S. tube-launched, optically tracked, wireguided (TOW)-2 ATGM is something very new and represents a significant new capability.

While some of the early information surrounding the T-95 included reports of a 135mm to 140mm main gun, photographs have recently appeared confirming developmental work on the 152mm main gun involving a heavily modified T-80B MBT. Additionally, a defining characteristic of Soviet/Russian tanks, the carousel auto-loading system, reportedly is not used on the T-95.

Since the crew is safely separated from the gun and its ammunition (a first for Soviet/Russian tanks), a new automatic loading system is used. The fire-control system used by the T-95 is reportedly very advanced and consists of a “multichannel” system, including optics, thermal night sights, infrared, and laser and radar systems.

The exact timing of the T-95’s unveiling is yet to be determined. Sources in 2007 reported that the new tank was going through final testing in 2007 and 2008, with production scheduled to start in 2009. Sources last year, however, reported that the Russian army would start receiving the T-95 after 2010.9 According to the head of the Russian Federal Service for Defense Contracts, Sergei Mayev, “T-72s and T-80s will not be modernized and will be eventually replaced by new generation tanks (T-95s), which will start entering service after 2010. The model’s future is brilliant; it has high firepower, is armed with guided missiles with a range of 5 to 7 kilometers, and has great endurance and nontraditional means of defense.” 10 He also added that the crew will be able to operate for 24 hours without leaving the tank.

With several years of development and testing now complete, and victory in Georgia still fresh in the minds of the Russian army and military observers in the West, the stage is set and the time is right to show off the next revolution in Russian tank design. While the potential impact of the new T-95 is yet to be determined, the impact of the last Soviet revolutionary tank, the T-64, was huge. When it was first shown to the world in September 1976, U.S. and NATO forces were forced into dangerous positions of playing catch up. According to King of the Killing Zone, by Orr Kelly, “the fact was that the Soviets had, as one general officer later put it, ‘turned inside us.’ They had managed to field a tank (the T-64), which, despite its shortcomings, was ahead of anything in the West.”11

Official Russian statements regarding the T-95 clearly indicate that a new revolution is on the way. The T-95 will be the revolutionary new centerpiece of the Russian army. As this article goes to press, new information surfaced regarding the T-95. Unconfirmed reports indicate that the Russians may be redesigning the T-95 program to fit into a new structured brigade program incorporating a family of new common component vehicles.

Notes

1 Mott, Gordon, and Barry, “A Tank in Shining Armor,” Newsweek, 11 April 1988; and Adela Gooch, “Slim-line Soviet Tank Holds Bad News for NATO,” Daily Telegraph, 11 April 1988.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 “Russian Army to Get Essentially New Tank in 2009” (author not cited), Interfax, 22 December 2007.

6 Christopher F. Foss, “Revolutionary Russian MBT Prototype Built,” Jane’s Defense Weekly, 28 January 1995.

7 IZVESTIYA, 2 September 1995 (no further information available).

8 “Russia Builds Tank of Landmark Design” (author not cited), NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA, 17 March 2000.

9 “Russia’s New Main Battle Tank to Enter Service After 2010” (author not cited), Novosti, 8 May 2008.

10 Ibid.

11 Orr Kelly, King of the Killing Zone, W.W. Norton Company, NY, 1989, p. 21.

James Warford, U.S. Army, Retired, is an instructional designer, H&R Block, Kansas City, MO. He received a B.A. from the University of Santa Clara, California, an M.M.A.S. from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and an M.A. from Webster University. His military education includes Armor Officer Basic Course, Armor Officer Advanced Course, and U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. During his career, he served in various command and staff positions, to include tactics instructor, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS; S3, 2d Brigade, 24th Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA; S3, 2d Squadron, 4th Cavalry, Fort Stewart; small group instructor, Armor Officer Advance Course, Fort Knox, KY; commander, Company A and Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 66th Armor, 2d Armored Division, German