The Diplomat: the future of Russian armored forces may be in trouble

84
Not so long ago, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced its plans for the further development of armored forces. The desire to maintain existing Tanks during the maximum possible time with the parallel construction and commissioning of new armored vehicles. Similar news quickly became the pretext for the harshest assumptions. Domestic and foreign experts considered that the new plans are directly connected with difficulties in creating promising designs.

4 in October, the international online edition of The Diplomat published an article by Franz Stefan Gadi on the current situation with Russian tanks and its possible development. The title of the “Russia's Russian Federation of the Future Armor Force Could Be in Trouble” immediately revealed the essence of the new material. The author reviewed the existing situation and came to not very positive conclusions.





In the subtitle, the author noted that recent statements by the Russian Ministry of Defense indicate serious problems. The newest and most ambitious program of Russia was in trouble and faced with serious risks.

The Russian Ministry of Defense is implementing the Armata program, whose goal is to create a universal tracked chassis. In the future, vehicles built on the basis of this platform should become the basis of the fleet of armored vehicles. One of the representatives of the new family is the main battle tank of the third generation T-14. F.-S. Gadi believes that after recent statements by the leadership of the military department a promising project is in a difficult position.

Not long ago, the Ministry of Defense of Russia announced plans to modernize the main T-80 and T-90 tanks. In addition, it is planned to revise the current recycling program equipment. Previously, it was planned to dispose of the 2020 order of thousands of old armored vehicles before 10, but now this number will be noticeably reduced.

The author recalls that such declarations of the Ministry of Defense have already become the reason for the appearance of the boldest assumptions. So, in September, the publication of IHS Jane's Defense Weekly noted that the modernization of existing equipment, accompanied by a reduction in disposal plans, as well as a certain reduction in plans for the construction of T-14 tanks led to the most ambitious estimates. Some sources argued that all this indicates the closure of the Armata project.

The Diplomat recalls: a few weeks ago, the Russian military stated that only 10 thousands would go to the smelter from 4 thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles planned for disposal. Other equipment will go to the strategic reserve. In addition, a contract was signed for the modernization of serial tanks T-80 and T-90 for new projects. The cost of this work is equivalent to 417 million US dollars.

According to reports, during the modernization of the T-80 tanks will receive a means of enhancing protection, as well as a number of other components and assemblies, resulting in new features. In the project of modernization of the T-90 vehicles, the use of some systems borrowed from the newest T-14 Armata tank is envisaged. In particular, the T-90 will receive a modern fire control system and a remotely controlled combat module for self-defense.

In parallel with the recently ordered retrofit of the T-80 and T-90 tanks, the upgrade of the T-72 family of vehicles will continue. The continuation of such work, which started a few years ago, was announced in January of this year.

F.-S. Gadi quotes his article on Russian tanks, published at the beginning of the year. Then he wrote that by now the Russian armed forces had managed to get about three hundred modernized tanks of the T-72B3 version. These cars were rebuilt from T-72 relatively old modifications; their total strength in the army is on the order of 1900 units. In addition, the ground forces had approximately 350 T-90A and T-90CM tanks. The last modification, as the author noted, is the newest version of the base tank and is intended for export shipments. The army also continues to operate X-NUMX T-450 tanks.

Back in January, a foreign analyst, predicting the further development of the Russian armored vehicle fleet, suggested that new modernization projects could cause certain problems with the further implementation of the Armata program.

The recent decisions of the Russian Ministry of Defense can be interpreted in different ways. S.-F. Gadi suggests that they may have the following meaning. Despite previous statements, the T-14 in the near future will not be able to completely replace existing tanks, created in Soviet times, and will not become the basis of armored forces. Russia will continue to operate the older technology and will not abandon it, at least for the next decade.

Nevertheless, the tanks of the Armata project will be built and delivered to the troops. The Ministry of Defense has already signed a contract with the corporation "Uralvagonzavod." According to this document, the army will receive hundreds of promising armored vehicles. However, the contract was signed only in September 2016.

The Diplomat recalls that in August of this year, Deputy Minister of Defense Yury Borisov announced current plans in the context of the T-14 project. According to them, the first hundred tanks of the new type will be transferred to the troops before the 2020 year. At the same time, as S.-F. Gadi, earlier there were much bolder plans: before 2025, it was supposed to acquire 2300 tanks.

A foreign expert is inclined to regard the recent statements by the heads of the military department as an attempt to put pressure on industry using the interest of the general public. There are certain signs that the country's military and political leadership is not fully satisfied with the current progress and pace of work on the Armata theme and the T-14 tank. Attracting public attention to this will have to affect the contractor and speed up the work.

As one of the arguments in favor of this version of S.-F. Gadi cites recent visits by high-ranking officials to the Uralvagonzavod enterprise. In his opinion, such events traditionally show Kremlin discontent over the course of the rearmament program.

***

The Diplomat article “Russia's Future Armor Force Could Be in Trouble” doesn’t touch on the latest news about the development of the Russian armed forces, but is still devoted to issues that will remain relevant over the next few years. As the title suggests, Franz-Stefan Gadi is inclined to view the latest news and official statements in a negative way. In his opinion, the plans of the Russian Ministry of Defense in relation to the modernization of T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks with a simultaneous reduction in the rate of utilization of outdated equipment may hit the long-term Armat project.

It should be noted that in its publication a foreign analyst did not take into account one of the most important features of current plans. In the recent past, representatives of the Russian military department, commenting on the updated plans, pointed out the reasons for their revision. The announced prerequisites for reducing the order for the T-14 tanks and the appearance of modernization contracts can hardly be considered a cause for concern.

According to official data, the reason for the revision of the plans was the desire to get the most out of the available equipment. Tanks of relatively old models are in large quantities and are fully capable of continuing service. It was reported that the updated machines will retain the required potential, at least until 2023-25's. Thus, the urgent release of a large number of new tanks T-14 is simply not required. These machines can be built at an average pace, gradually saturating the combat units with them.

As for the reduction of the recycling program, in this case it is not about the return of equipment to the army. Proceeding from the desire to get rid of the decommissioned cars with the greatest benefit, the Ministry of Defense plans to repair and sell unnecessary tanks to third countries. In addition, the decommissioned armored vehicles will transfer to the regions for the construction of memorial objects, and some of the equipment will become targets at landfills.

It must be admitted that the project "Armata" can really face these or other problems. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of difficulties are connected with the widest application of new solutions and technologies, first introduced into the design of a modern tank. As follows from the latest news, most of the existing problems have already been resolved, which made it possible to sign the first contract for the mass production of T-14 machines. In accordance with this document, the first hundred tanks will be built by the end of the decade.

Actual plans for the modernization of existing tanks in the most noticeable way affect the further development of the fleet of ground forces vehicles, but also have no direct connection with the Armata project. However, the emergence of a large number of repaired and updated tanks will allow not to rush with the release of new T-14, and perform the desired rearmament without haste.

Indeed, the program of creating new armored vehicles with the subsequent re-equipment of tank units may encounter various problems of one kind or another. However, work continues and lead to the desired results. This suggests that the Armata project was not at all in trouble, as The Diplomat writes, but it is developing and is already bearing the first results.


Article "Russia's Future Armor Force Could Be in Trouble":
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/russias-future-armor-force-could-be-in-trouble/
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +23
    9 October 2017 06: 57
    Touches the concern of Western journalists about our army. So a certain "Gadya Petrovich Khrenova" was noted.
    If modernization is cheaper than producing a new tank, then in a protracted crisis, it makes sense to follow the path of evolution rather than revolution. And why are they all turning their eyes to us, not to look at themselves. All American and German tanks of the latest modifications are nothing more than modernization of old vehicles. This is correct and economical. But we are simultaneously launching the release of NEW T-90 tanks and the latest T-14 tanks, which the bourgeoisie does not observe and cannot but rejoice.
    1. +1
      9 October 2017 08: 38
      Believe all sorts of "Foreign Specialists" and other ex-farts - do not respect yourself! A person who is completely in the subject has the right to make such judgments, and I think of such people a specific non-disclosure subscription!
      And even grandmothers on the benches are able to spread rumors about the "ringing, which is unknown from where"!
      1. +4
        9 October 2017 10: 02
        And the American "Goat is clear" -There is an information war. Including in the sphere of the promotion of military equipment and weapons, Billionth profits. To sell your own - to grind. Worse. Than competitors. So they try .. from the skin of a snake getting out. It's only the beginning""
        "Let the enemy who has hidden in an ambush remember
        We are on the alert, we are watching the enemy.
        Alien land we do not want not an inch
        But we will not give up ours.

        Thundering with fire, sparkling with the brilliance of steel,
        The cars will go on a furious campaign,
        When comrade Stalin sends us into battle,
        And the first marshal will lead us into battle.

        And if an enemy is getting to us,
        He will be beaten everywhere and everywhere.
        Then press the drivers starters
        And through forests, by hills, by water.

        Thundering with fire, sparkling with the brilliance of steel,
        The cars will go on a furious campaign,
        When comrade Stalin sends us into battle,
        And the first marshal will lead us into battle.

        1938 "((March of Soviet Tankers Music: Dmitry Pokrass
        Words: Boris Laskin))
        1. +2
          9 October 2017 11: 04
          Quote: To be or not to be
          1938 "((March of Soviet Tankers Music: Dmitry Pokrass
          Words: Boris Laskin))

          Recently I listened, found in my old downloads, damn it, already the fur on my hands on end! They knew how to write songs! good
        2. +6
          9 October 2017 11: 17
          Quote: To be or not to be
          1938 "((March of Soviet Tankers Music: Dmitry Pokrass
          Words: Boris Laskin)

          1. +3
            9 October 2017 12: 29
            At first I thought that I had a glitch. I looked closely - for sure. At 1:55, PzKpfw III flashed. It’s somehow not clear where he came from in such a video.
            1. +3
              9 October 2017 12: 34
              Quote: papas-57
              I looked closely - for sure. On 1: 55 PzKpfw III flashed.

              Yeah. I did not notice at first.
            2. 0
              10 October 2017 00: 05
              Trophy probably :)
          2. +4
            9 October 2017 12: 53
            Slipped by. But he will not go far from Soviet tankers laughing
    2. +1
      9 October 2017 08: 41
      But why comment here - the name of this clicker explains everything.
    3. +2
      9 October 2017 08: 47
      Quote: inkass_98
      If modernization is cheaper than producing a new tank, then in a protracted crisis, it makes sense to follow the path of evolution rather than revolution.

      Modernization is always cheaper. The crisis is already a permanent phenomenon, but the situation is heating up rapidly. Hence the revision of plans and emphasis.
      1. +9
        9 October 2017 09: 08
        Quote: iConst
        Modernization is always cheaper. The crisis is already a permanent phenomenon, but the situation is heating up rapidly. Hence the revision of plans and emphasis.

        Modernization is not much cheaper than new models, which we saw on BTR-82.

        Everything is much simpler here. Over the past decades, we have practically lost the reserve of equipment. Only those that are “operational” remain combat-ready. Those that are now at various storage bases can be built up only through overhaul, as Ukraine has to do.
        This is unacceptable, and therefore have to be puzzled by the modernization of available equipment
        1. +3
          9 October 2017 10: 22
          Quote: Spade
          This is unacceptable, and therefore have to be puzzled by the modernization of available equipment

          hi
          But for this it was enough to modernize the amount that was planned to be left in the army. I believe that the plans for modernization, with a simultaneous reduction in the number of disposed machines, are associated with plans for SALE of surplus in the foreign market. And there are opportunities for this, but this modernized technology has prospects.
          1. +4
            9 October 2017 11: 30
            Quote: svp67
            But for this it was enough to modernize the amount that was planned to be left in the army.

            No. For this, it is not enough the amount of “what they plan to leave in the troops” - that is, to provide the army with peacetime, but the amount necessary for arming the army of wartime after mobilization.
            1. +1
              9 October 2017 11: 41
              Quote: Spade
              No. For this, it is not enough the amount of “what they plan to leave in the troops” - that is, to provide the army with peacetime, but the amount necessary for arming the army of wartime after mobilization.

              Do you think that the figure now named corresponds to this? Of course there will not be many tanks in the war, they will always be missed, but what will be missing more tanks or trained crews?
              But in defense of my thoughts I want to bring the fate of the T-62M, the fate of which was not one for a long time - to the furnace, to smelting ... now we see them in Syria and I think that we will soon see something else ...
              1. +3
                9 October 2017 11: 50
                Quote: svp67
                Do you think that the figure now named corresponds to this?

                I'm afraid no one will ever call such numbers

                Quote: svp67
                Of course there will not be many tanks in the war, they will always be missed, but what will be missing more tanks or trained crews?

                Hello ... We have a draft army. And this means that every half a year the same tankers leave for demobilization, which, if mobilized, can make up "horseless" tank crews. Horseless because there are currently no tanks for them. Not to send them to the infantry ...
                That is, tanks will be missing in the war.
                1. +2
                  9 October 2017 12: 02
                  Quote: Spade
                  Hello ... We have a draft army.

                  Already partially ...
                  Quote: Spade
                  And this means that every half a year the same tankers leave for demobilization, which, if mobilized, can make up "horseless" crews of tanks.

                  Not so simple. The number of dismissed at the level of the "Russian army", but the number of tanks of the "Soviet". But even this is not the most important thing, well, they will not be useful now. No one will not wage war for years, everything will be decided within months ...
                  1. +1
                    9 October 2017 12: 23
                    Quote: svp67
                    Not so simple. The number of dismissed at the level of the "Russian army", but the number of tanks of the "Soviet".

                    Uh ... I'm afraid that it will take at least a couple of years to put into operation all the "Soviet" ones ... Which clearly exceeds the time of mobilization.
                    Let me remind you that these are also included in the "number of" Soviet "tanks:
                    1. +2
                      9 October 2017 12: 32
                      Quote: Spade
                      Let me remind you that these are also included in the "number of" Soviet "tanks:

                      The easier it is to upgrade them, since the first stage - disassembly, they have almost passed ... wink
                      Quote: Spade
                      Which clearly exceeds the time of mobilization.
                      This is not who does not deny. But this also confirms my idea of ​​“modernization”, in terms of “pre-sale preparation”, according to customer specifications ...
                    2. +1
                      9 October 2017 23: 23
                      Are you sure this is a storage base? More like a dump of decommissioned equipment.
                      1. 0
                        10 October 2017 08: 00
                        103 BTZ near Chita.
                  2. +4
                    10 October 2017 01: 23
                    "No one will not wage war for years, everything will be decided within months .."
                    Tell me, for how many months "everything was decided" in Syria? belay
                    So do not believe everything that everyone hangs on your ears.
                    1. +2
                      10 October 2017 03: 09
                      Quote: Doliva63
                      Tell me, in how many months "everything was decided" in Syria?

                      You do not compare the TOT conflict with the conflict, the possibility of which we discussed.
                      1. +4
                        10 October 2017 13: 57
                        The conflict, the possibility of which we discussed, will easily break into a hundred Syrian ones over time. Do you really think that we all will die right away? I remember that in the midst of the Cold War there were even plans to puzzle the population after the "Glow-666", I remember this from childhood — alarms, shelters, after a while going out in protective gear, then who should do what. This is me about the "civilians." Troops - yes, they will suffer losses, but not all. And their actions after - were also painted according to several options. As long as fighters and equipment remain in service, there are tasks, BC, fuel and lubricants, the war will continue.
                  3. 0
                    10 October 2017 19: 52
                    It is believed that in the SA there were 70000 tanks (which is currently not). This is less than 280000 people for crews. One Soviet training course trained at least 1000 people a year. For 20000 tanks, less than 80000 people will be required. I can assume that only in Moscow can such a number of tankers be assembled.
                2. +1
                  9 October 2017 20: 53
                  I am also inclined to believe that it is better to use tanks up to T-72 for their intended purpose, rather than utilizing them. This also helps the Allies and saves on disposal.
          2. 0
            10 October 2017 19: 44
            This is a typical view in peacetime. And what to do at the start of hostilities? Scream like Marshal Kulik in 1941 that guns of 45 and 76 mm caliber can only be obtained from industry, which at his request stopped production? Unfortunately, the new tank armada can play the same function as nuclear weapons - to become a deterrent.
        2. +1
          9 October 2017 10: 48
          Quote: Spade
          Modernization is not much cheaper than new models, which we saw on BTR-82.

          What are you talking about? If about the Russian reality bordering on absurdity, then better is not necessary. With a normal approach, modernization is always cheaper and at times.

          If the equipment is "modernized" using lost technologies, then this is not a modernization, but a remake. Here - yes - and at least qualitative changes, and the dough is swollen mother-not-grieve!

          So what are we talking about?
          1. +4
            9 October 2017 11: 26
            Quote: iConst
            What are you talking about? If about the Russian reality bordering on absurdity, then better is not necessary. With a normal approach, modernization is always cheaper and at times.

            Just the same, "with a normal approach," modernization is expensive. Very and very.
            A simple example: Upgrading American M109 to version M109A7 cost to American taxpayers initially at 12.1 million dollars for a pair of self-propelled guns + TZM Now the cost has been reduced to 10.5 million dollars
            This is at the cost of the brand new SG M109A6 in 1998, $ 1,624 million. Even if TZM costs the same and inflation adjusted, the pair costs $ 4.96 million

            Is this also "Russian reality bordering on the absurd"?
            1. +1
              9 October 2017 12: 04
              Quote: Spade
              A simple example: Upgrading American M109s to version M109A7 cost American taxpayers $ 12.1 million for a pair of self-propelled guns + TZMs. Now they managed to reduce the cost to $ 10.5 million.
              This is at the cost of the brand new SG M109A6 in 1998, $ 1,624 million. Even if TZM costs the same and inflation adjusted, the pair costs $ 4.96 million

              That is, the Pentagon buyer comes and looks at two self-propelled guns - one brand new from the assembly line for 5 green lemons, and the other an old one upgraded for 12. And he says: those that are more expensive to me. So? Well, "I do not believe it!" © smile
              1. +3
                9 October 2017 12: 38
                More likely not so. Brand new, from scratch 13, old 12. There is a saving, but it is not as great as it seems at first glance.
                Regardless of whether this happens in the "bordering on the absurdity of Russia" or in the absolutely correct and effective USA.

                After all, everything is extremely simple. Even if we recall the car body as an example. During modernization, they don’t take it “as is”
                First, it must be cleaned of everything hung inside and out. Handwork, and it costs money. Then clean inside and out, including the lining. And it costs money. Then defect. It costs a lot of money. Then cut off the old mounting brackets for the equipment and other things. And only after that the old case goes to the "zero" level of the just made case. And this is all to a minimum. And if you need to replace the shoulder strap of the tower or something else as global to do?
                1. 0
                  9 October 2017 13: 31
                  Quote: Spade
                  More likely not so. Brand new, from scratch 13, old 12. There is a saving, but it is not as great as it seems at first glance.

                  But that was not what I was talking about. It was about the latest technology. In particular, when the alleged massive transition to the latest platform did not take place for several reasons and a plan was adopted to update the existing fleet.

                  And the fact that remodeling is always more expensive than a direct conveyor - here I did not even try to argue. I myself know this topic very well.
                  Here in 90% of cases the situation is in controversy, when one is about Ivan, and .... And, more often than not, the protester confuses. Without understanding the essence of the initial statements. Excuse me.
                  1. +2
                    9 October 2017 13: 58
                    Quote: iConst
                    But that was not what I was talking about. It was about the latest technology. In particular, when the alleged massive transition to the latest platform did not take place

                    And why did you decide that it did not take place or will not take place?
                    You, it seems, did not understand my main message.
                    Never, in any army of the world, a single complete transfer of all armored vehicles to any “new platform” was made
                    Equipment is supplied to the troops in stages, and in the same way it is withdrawn from the troops.
                    For example, again, the United States. Abrams was adopted in 1980. And the M60 was in service with the National Guard until 1998. Almost 20 years. And even after that they entered the reserve for a long time. Canned and in working condition.
                    1. +1
                      9 October 2017 14: 39
                      Quote: Spade
                      And why did you decide that it did not take place or will not take place?

                      And with the fact that previously announced plans have now radically changed. And the media voicing these dates and figures, as it were, is quoting officials, plant directors, and even the president. Or are they all making up? In that case, I was misinformed.
                      1. +1
                        9 October 2017 16: 43
                        Quote: iConst
                        And with the fact that previously announced plans have now radically changed. And the media voicing these dates and numbers,

                        There may be a delay in the implementation of the rearmament plans, but where did you manage to see their cancellation?
                      2. +2
                        9 October 2017 17: 15
                        Quote: Spade
                        Quote: iConst
                        And with the fact that previously announced plans have now radically changed. And the media voicing these dates and numbers,

                        There may be a delay in the implementation of the rearmament plans, but where did you manage to see their cancellation?

                        Well, listen, the game of words can be played as you like. If, instead of the latest technology, a decision is made to modernize the obsolete, then it is postponed for a long time. We are told - yes, there are plans, but is postponed for five-ten-fifteen years. And what will happen through these five-ten-fifteen?

                        So, if plans of this scale (not buying seeds) have changed, then this is for a long time, we read - forever. Then there will be other plans. Maybe similar. But - the key word is others.
                      3. +2
                        9 October 2017 22: 17
                        Quote: iConst
                        If, instead of the latest technology, a decision is made to modernize the obsolete, then it is postponed for a long time.

                        Yeah ... That is, the fact that the American M60 were modernized and, after adopting the Abrams, testify that this tank is actually a mirage?
                        Once again, the M60s were in service almost 20 years after the start of the supply of the Abrams to the troops. They were capitalized, they were modernized, and no one stuttered that the Abrams program was actually being phased out or "postponed for a long time."
                        Why, with “Armata”, under the same assumptions, do you draw the opposite conclusions?
                      4. 0
                        9 October 2017 22: 51
                        Quote: Spade
                        Quote: iConst
                        If, instead of the latest technology, a decision is made to modernize the obsolete, then it is postponed for a long time.

                        Yeah ... That is, the fact that the American M60 were modernized and, after adopting the Abrams, testify that this tank is actually a mirage?
                        Once again, the M60s were in service almost 20 years after the start of the supply of the Abrams to the troops. They were capitalized, they were modernized, and no one stuttered that the Abrams program was actually being phased out or "postponed for a long time."

                        Well, that’s the point - with us they declare it! And the fact that the Americans, along with the new expensive Abrams, modernized the obsolete M60 and speaks in favor of my thesis that modernization is cheaper. To rivet one Abrams or to “tighten” the heels of the M60 is an alternative.

                        Quote: Spade
                        Why, with “Armata”, under the same assumptions, do you draw the opposite conclusions?

                        You mixed everything up - see above. Did the Americans say that there will be new Abrams, and then "moved out" to modernize the M60? And the conclusions are correct.
                      5. +1
                        10 October 2017 08: 02
                        Quote: iConst
                        Well, that’s the point - with us they declare it!

                        What do they say? Let’s specifically who said what. And then this is a transfusion from empty to empty
                2. 0
                  11 October 2017 22: 06
                  All right, talk about modernization and junk. THAT only you forget one thing - you can upgrade at any of those enterprises in the hangar. And the news should be built only at a tank machine-building plant with completely different logistics and a bunch of suppliers of different levels. And the Americans cut a bunch of tank factories for a long time - is there something new to build and then close again? This is an incommensurate level of costs that you do not take into account.
                  1. 0
                    13 October 2017 15: 09
                    Good afternoon! Undoubtedly you are right! I, in principle, about the same. SGA do not build tanks, and this is very important ... Something else is preparing !!!
        3. +1
          9 October 2017 13: 43
          Quote: Spade
          Modernization is not much cheaper than new models, which we saw on BTR-82.

          If you take the T-72B3, then its modernization cost more than half the price of the new T-90. Plus, the production volumes of the T-72B3 were three times as much.
          Quote: Spade
          Everything is much simpler here. Over the past decades, we have practically lost the reserve of equipment. Only those that are “operational” remain combat-ready. Those that are now at various storage bases can be built up only through overhaul, as Ukraine has to do.

          There is still a problem in the fact that in modern times it’s somehow frightening to put equipment with BHVT in operation even against China. There, after all, the newest of the 72s is “ashki” and “beshki”.
          1. +1
            9 October 2017 15: 04
            Quote: Alexey RA
            If you take the T-72B3

            B3 is a frankly weak modernization, and Lopatov says that if modernized in this way, it will not be cheap.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            even against China somehow ... scary.

            Of course scary, you remember the tank biathlon of 14 or 15 years, it seems. When our three times undermined missed and the Chinese took three of the three goals. It was after this that they prepared a new modernization 72.
        4. 0
          9 October 2017 15: 35
          everything is much simpler: 1) they stopped cutting equipment because it became popular, not everyone in the BV possess extra billions to buy new tanks, so they are ready to buy old tanks, the same t-55 or t-62, which are sold at a price of 0,6, 2-XNUMX million dollars, but they carry out their tasks, so only open tanks of the level of heavy tanks or first armored vehicles will be cut. Modernization is always cheaper than a new one, and if you take into account that hundreds of samples are purchased, the difference is tens of millions of dollars.
    4. 0
      9 October 2017 15: 08
      Quote: inkass_98
      "Gadia Petrovich Khrenova"

    5. 0
      9 October 2017 17: 33
      Correctly and patriotically argue. After all, the saved money of taxpayers MedvePut can send to expensive partners for the purchase of American Treasuries and Eurobonds. There is no money, but you serve in the old days of stagnation, grandfather tanks. Modernization of armored vehicles in the Russian Federation is an opportunity to get pennies for painting an old rusty tub. )))) Potsrioty kuev.
      1. +1
        9 October 2017 18: 59
        Quote: Beard31
        There is no money, but you serve in the old days of stagnation, grandfather tanks.

        On the contrary, it was modernization that made it possible not to serve on tanks produced even during the USSR. For instead of 65 tanks a year, the army began to receive 180-200.
        At the same pace, it would take more than 30 years to rearm the BTV combat units only. And, by the way, it’s not a fact that the dates would not have moved - because UVZ somehow managed to raise the price of the T-90 by 2/3 somehow in a year.
        And a very big question - would the technology of combat units, released back in the USSR, survived to a replacement?
        And no one saved any money - just the furniture maker, along with the “drop” purchases of the T-90, killed at the same time all the sluggish R&D on the new tank. And for the same total budget I ordered budget T-72B3 and budget "Armata".
    6. 0
      9 October 2017 18: 32
      The writings of such "engineers" as you are touched by ... And the guy is right, partly, without even visiting the Uralvagonzavod, here all the reasoners who have no idea what it is to put the tank into series, and moreover, to work in the "war" mode, and about the novelty of the "T-90 - adopted 25 years ago," connoisseur ", new modifications just came out .. with the T-14 such a question .. if you don’t know what production is at all ... better not write that would not look .. b..nom, I’d visit a factory where they would try to launch a T-15 Kurgan on the same platform and would shoot
    7. 0
      10 October 2017 01: 35
      Quote: inkass_98
      Touching concern of Western journalists about our army

      here every second post about raspispe dough in the states, but why are they worse? laughing
      1. 0
        10 October 2017 08: 03
        Quote: MadCat
        here every second post about raspispe dough in the states, but why are they worse?

        You seem to be misunderstood
  2. +5
    9 October 2017 07: 52
    F.-S. Gadi believes that we will conquer it and he wants it to be done elegantly, on the new and beautiful T-14 Armata tank!
  3. +1
    9 October 2017 08: 20
    These yksperds are always touching))) Armata is PLATFORM. It is not tested and is only being introduced into the army! What will happen next will be shown by Life! In the meantime, we will modernize old projects and that’s right! Foreigners don’t understand what Russia is and what sizes I have 8,17 in Moscow now and my sister in Chita has 7 hours plus! And so, besides the soup of modern and expensive weapons, we need good old but modernized ones! Well, we don’t have money for 15 thousands of Armats! We need to strengthen the most problematic ones places! therefore all of these articles, so, from the bow Vågå ..
  4. +5
    9 October 2017 08: 30
    As a matter of fact, everything fits into one paragraph. Armata is more expensive than expected, and does not reach subconditioning as quickly as desired. And with modern tanks in the country is very bad. Therefore, in parallel with the development of aromas, we will modernize the old technique. I don’t see cotostrophes at point blank range, if only they would modernize according to the mind
    1. +1
      9 October 2017 10: 04
      Simple, clear and to the point fellow Toka nuance what It is possible to modernize on a budget, but also on the mind. How can one define the line, so as not to use money to the detriment of oneself? request
      And the T-14 can be (if very expensive) and in small batches, from year to year, along the way bringing the model to perfection and gaining operating experience. So in a few years it will be possible to create separate company-battalions-regiments of these machines in the army structure. And, of course, again, to use their characteristics and capabilities with brains soldier And iron will always be of benefit if wisely disposed of it ... It’s not the ships that fight, but the people winked
      1. +3
        9 October 2017 14: 17
        Quote: Rurikovich
        It is possible to modernize on a budget, but also on the mind. How can one define the line, so as not to use money to the detriment of oneself?

        So it all depends on the current state of affairs in the troops.
        The repeatedly-fucked-up Serdyukovsky T-72B3 was made at a time when the question was about the survival of the BTV: new tanks entered the troops at 65 units a year, and each year their price grew by tens of percent. And it was necessary to replace about 2500 tanks, and urgently. Therefore, it was then decided to make a low-cost airline - a tank for 52 million, which would be worse than the latest T-90, but definitely better than the most massive BTV vehicles - T-72A and B, which he had to replace.
        Now the situation with mass tanks has improved - and the MO ordered an enhanced modernization of the T-72, and also remembered the T-80.
  5. +4
    9 October 2017 09: 19
    A distinctive feature of our MO is that it not only learned to fight well, in a modern way, but also knows how to count money well. And if the adversaries have all the tanks - old models, and they just started developing new ones, why do we need to buy a raw, newest tank, which is still to finish and finish? Moreover, it is possible to upgrade old tanks cheaply and quickly ... Let it be better to have 2025 modernized tanks before 10000 than 2300 armatures, for which there are no equal opponents so far. And over the years, they’ll not just finish the platform, but they will implement something fundamentally new there, for example, they will make robots out of reinforcement, put a 152 mm cannon, etc. And by the time the competitors appear, it will be a completely different armata, again higher than the heads of the hatched competitors ...

    And these Kwaks of all kinds of "crap" are propaganda. Old evil propaganda. They are now massively scaring their idiots with either the “incredibly deadly” weapons of the Russians, or the “poor” weapons of the Russians. They form all this one schizoid image with which the western inhabitant wants to fight: the “incredibly dangerous weapons of the Russians” scare, and the “wretched weapons of the Russians” cause, after fright, the desire to beat the “wretched” Russian. This is pure work with the subconscious of the western man in the street, programming for war. It is not clear why we need to broadcast this nonsense. It is not for our people ..
  6. 0
    9 October 2017 09: 26
    Well ... the future is really in trouble. UVZ - bankrupt (it’s not clear why it’s still working), several banks have already sued many times overdue payments (Sberbank and VTB - for sure). What chiches will he work for and pay workers? Yes, and such a large-scale program for recovering equipment from storage bases symbolizes that it is faster and more reliable to use the new BT than wait for the armature.
    1. +5
      9 October 2017 09: 37
      UVZ is NOT bankrupt. Newspaper nonsense does not need to be broadcast here. UVZ had some problems. Now they are settled. The company to the eyeballs is packed with orders. And with salaries there are also no problems now.
      1. jjj
        0
        9 October 2017 14: 13
        Tractor plants go bankrupt again
        1. +2
          9 October 2017 14: 30
          The military division has already been withdrawn from the procedure; VEB has taken it away (state bank). This applies to the civil sector. To UVZ the whole situation is no sideways.
  7. +2
    9 October 2017 12: 08
    For illiterate, poorly versed in technology journalists:
    Why did the US bring Abrams M1A1 tanks to M1A2?
    This is not just a thorough repair to improve combat performance - it is an option for sale for export.

    Disposal of the tank does not bring any advantages - armor steel is not very valued in the "national economy" (I know from scrap metal buyers for metal plants) - BTTs are not willing to remelting because of the features and composition of the steels, the high cutting price.
    Cutting armor steel is a low-value resource compared to the price of a modernized tank.
    The upgraded tank has not only combat potential, but also export potential.

    Sierra Army Depot Photos
    1. +1
      9 October 2017 14: 14
      for example - how many tanks were sold from 1992-2012
      more than 2000 pcs.
      So storage, modernization and sale is a good source of resources.
  8. +1
    9 October 2017 12: 45
    In the event of a global conflict, to which everything goes. It makes no sense to rely on limited quantities of new technology; mass will be needed, which reservists can serve. By analogy with the complex tanks of Germany during the Second World War, which were crushed by the mass of not so high-tech Soviet tanks. In a word, let the old tanks stand, they don’t ask for bread. If something happens, they will do their job and reach the English Channel.
    1. 0
      9 October 2017 15: 28
      Quote: Dr. Hub
      In the event of a global conflict, to which everything goes.

      You are careful with predictions for the future. It is not necessary to program the future, then material thoughts come true.
      There will be no global conflict because this is the end of everything, and if it does, then the financial and economic one will be enough to ruin everything.
  9. 0
    9 October 2017 12: 55
    Money just comes to the fore. There’s no one else to fight. Everything is reasonable. Everyone would be like that everywhere
  10. +1
    9 October 2017 13: 00
    I don’t understand our Ministry of Defense, why dispose of old tanks, is it not easier to put them up for sale inside the country, of course, bring the barrel into non-operational condition. I think that in the country there are 5-10 thousand people who can buy equipment for the collection. All over the world they sell to private owners for collections, and as always, the problem is from scratch.
  11. +1
    9 October 2017 14: 38
    Dushenov commented on this article, and confirmed that instead of disposing of 10 tanks, only 4000 pieces of T-62 and earlier models would be disposed of. This is due to the fact that, based on Syrian experience, even T-64s have export potential to fight against a weak enemy. So why dispose of them?
  12. 0
    9 October 2017 15: 27
    pine, arena and afghanite on t-72, t-80, t-90 and they will still fight, but there is where to fight ...
  13. 0
    9 October 2017 15: 31
    "expert" who gets confused in the modifications and the number of cars ... in the furnace
  14. 0
    9 October 2017 18: 24
    It has become too hot in the world to wait and bring "Armata." We now have how many battle-worthy tanks that are not in the reserve, but which have actually undergone modernization, manned crews and capable of withstanding NATO and other "partners." It’s very dangerous to wait for the development of “Almaty”, and 2300 tanks across our border are unlikely to be enough even for the most ardent “optimists”. So not fat.
  15. 0
    9 October 2017 21: 15
    well, at least they didn’t call cardboard ...
  16. 0
    9 October 2017 22: 04
    Perhaps by 2020 the army will not even receive 100 tanks. Uralvagonzavod was heavily in debt not so long ago, and now they are offered to master the production of a completely new machine and even customized. To increase productivity, this means paying workers less money. It is unlikely that this is the case After all, how many novelties of military equipment have been advertised, and not so many have arrived in the troops. It’s good that they managed to set up surface ships, otherwise they sailed completely on the garbage.
    1. +3
      10 October 2017 05: 34
      misti1973 Yesterday, 22:04 PM
      Improving productivity means paying less money to employees.

      God forbid such a manufacturer for serious production. belay
      an increase in productivity is possible either through the improvement of working conditions (including stimulation) or through the modernization of production. And “paying employees less money” is the exact opposite: reducing costs or optimizing them.
    2. +3
      10 October 2017 06: 18
      Quote: misti1973
      Improving productivity means paying less money to employees.

      Of course! And behind the back of the UVZ worker there is a man with a whip ... Strange logic to you ...
  17. +1
    10 October 2017 06: 15
    The essence of the article is correct, but there are no conclusions. We are doing everything right, why do we need 2300 T-14 by 2025? Not so much. Gradual replacement of the old park, over 15-20 years. The concept of hostilities is changing and in our General Staff it is well understood, that’s why they don’t pour money into one type of weapon.
  18. 0
    10 October 2017 12: 14
    The future of The Diplomat with such predictions may be in bиde! laughing
  19. 0
    10 October 2017 16: 02
    Without you, they will deal with the Army how many and which tanks to have the Russian Federation.
  20. +1
    10 October 2017 16: 12
    From the information that I own it follows:
    1. The presence of a large fleet of Soviet tanks T-72/80/90 allows you not to invest gigantic funds in their unjustified liquidation, but with a minimum. and! sufficient funds, to upgrade them to modern requirements.
    2. Personnel! Apparently the MAIN PROBLEM! The intellectual level and quality of secondary education do not allow us to put a modern Russian on the latest technology! The whole, still suitable reserve, from the Union (!), Is familiar only with Soviet technology and in case of mobilization ...
    3. There is a significant reduction in BT equipment in NATO countries, in Western Europe and the EU. So in the Czech Republic there are available: 30 units (combat) T-72 modern modernization, in the ranks. 300 old T-72s, from the time of Czechoslovakia, at storage bases! In the SGA, for today, NO! NOT ONE TANK MANUFACTURING PLANT !!! SGA TANKS, TODAY, DO NOT PRODUCE, only reconstructs at one factory !!!
    4. At the European theater of war, the EU - no, today there are no prerequisites for a continental war, and there are no plans to mobilize troops and equipment!
    5. All armed conflicts in the post-Soviet period, where tank troops were used, showed that the whole series of Soviet tanks of the 80s and 90s. able to withstand the entire fleet of NATO tanks, EQUAL! And when bringing them to the standards of today and surpass them, especially with the linear nature of the fighting!
    6. The experience of the beginning of the WWII in June 1941 shows that neither the number of tanks determines success in a battle, nor their quality, the quality of combat training of personnel and their motivation (!), And the coherence of the action of tank troops at all levels from the squad, to the army, and, naturally, a high level of combat interaction with other branches of the armed forces and types of armed forces!
    7. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - NOT a Red Army / SA !!! RF-is a capitalist state!
    1. +3
      10 October 2017 19: 46
      What are the tanks-semolina, gun-front sight? Kremlin rats will be given a couple of billion greens and they will surrender the whole country at once. And all this talk about making a new one and upgrading the old one is a cover for the next budget cut in favor of some Rusnano. A tank, after all, here it is, a real one and you can touch it, but nobody has ever seen what the Nano does.
      1. 0
        13 October 2017 15: 31
        So on the agenda is the question of a return to Socialism! But just in what way?
  21. 0
    12 October 2017 13: 13
    Damned imperialists slander the achievements of our mighty industry and our greatest scientists!
    Shame on them! Let's unite in a single rush with the fraternal North Korean people and shame the American capitalists, as our GREAT LEADER VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH PUTIN teaches!
    Glory to the Great Party United Russia - to our helmsman on the way to Paradise!
    And the question is essentially: if plans for the production of new equipment were abandoned, having scaled down to small-scale production, then why?
    1. 0
      13 October 2017 15: 22
      I don’t think they refused. Spaced on time production!
      1. The lack of danger in the European theater!
      2. Saving fin. resources. You can fundamentally build new BMs and send them into the troops, where there will already be prepared for these tanks l / s!
      3. The experience of the beginning of the WWII shows that parts and formations having a new BTT and not having mastered it are dummies.
      4. In units, formations and associations, it is necessary to get away from the confusion of different types of tanks. Only tanks of the same type, for example the T-14 and that's it !!! Add here other military equipment, for example, armored personnel carriers based on Armata! Imagine that a unit, say TP — a tank regiment, of a tank division must effectively conduct a DB, and for this all of its tactical units should work as one mechanism, which is on the offensive, on the defensive, on the march, etc.
  22. 0
    13 October 2017 14: 20
    How are they afraid of Almaty. Everything tightened, and first of all, the fifth column with the task of not giving money to the Army. The cries of the liberals about the poor old people and children who survived the 90s have nothing to do with disgust, when they will be removed from the helm of the economy.
    1. 0
      13 October 2017 15: 27
      Are you a principled supporter of the capitalist RF? What Putin is right, that globalists, what a difference for a socialist! There is no third way!
      “Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being worked out by the working masses themselves during their movement, the question is only this: bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle ground (for no humanity has developed a“ third ”ideology, and indeed in society , torn apart by class contradictions, and there can never be an extra-class or superclass ideology). Therefore, any derogation of socialist ideology, any exclusion from it means thereby strengthening the ideology of the bourgeois[/ i]. V.I. Lenin - What to do? (Autumn 1901 - February 1902) .- PSS, 5th ed., vol. 6, ss. 39-40.