Military Review

China is developing a twin tank "Armata"

51
In 2015, the first demonstration was met with great interest in China tank T-14 and heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform. A significant number of publications and television programs have been devoted to these novelties of the Russian defense industry. Messenger of Mordovia.


China is developing a twin tank "Armata"


Military experts, following what is happening in the Chinese army, began to make predictions about how soon Chinese analogues of the Russian heavy unified platform would appear. Some talk about the term in 3 of the year.

So imagine the Chinese artists promising tank of China.

It was reported that in China for a promising tank, as an alternative, an instrument of caliber in 140 mm is created. According to some media reports, Ukraine has shared the technology. For a fee, of course. It was also noted that the 140-mm gun will eventually appear on a radically upgraded version of the tank Type 99.



“As Russian military experts suggest, at present Chinese designers are quite capable of creating their own analogue of“ Almaty ”. They can use their existing skills. Just like on the T-14, the crew will be “relocated” to the hull. The chassis of the car will be a seven-bet. The weapon will most likely be 140-mm. Judging by what the Chinese said, the tank will receive an 30-mm cannon as an auxiliary weapon, ”writes the author of the material, Lev Romanov.



It is possible that along with the tank of a new generation, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will appear, very similar to the Russian T-15. According to experts, “we will see such equipment in the next three to five years,” concludes the publication.
Photos used:
club.mil.news.sina.com.cn
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 30 October 2017 12: 14
    +6
    They can. Behind them they will not rust, if they do not steal, then copy.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 30 October 2017 12: 20
      +5
      So far, there’s nothing to copy .. And in terms of weapons .. And where did Ukraine get the technology from? For such weapons?
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      They can. Behind them they will not rust, if they do not steal, then copy.
      1. svp67
        svp67 30 October 2017 12: 59
        +4
        Quote: 210ox
        Nothing to copy yet.

        But the question is, what do they copy? This is not a T-14, this is a T-95 .... And you honestly don’t know what is better for us ...
        1. Vita vko
          Vita vko 30 October 2017 13: 37
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          the question is, what do they copy? This is not a T-14, this is a T-95 .... And you honestly don’t know what is better for us.

          There is a golden rule - that which cannot be prevented must be led. It is necessary to stop these "dances" with India, which, under the guise of the slogan "made in India", are actually selling the latest Russian technologies to Western intelligence. China is not only our neighbor, but also has the same geopolitical goals as Russia, and from joint military projects we only have the sale of the S-400. This is extremely small. The supply of defense systems without technology, without joint military scientific research does not greatly contribute to the growth of confidence in the military sphere.
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 30 October 2017 15: 35
            +7
            India in school atlases does not draw Indian territories to the Urals. And the transfer of our developments - you just need to be constantly one step, or even two ahead. This is called competition. I don’t believe in what the Chinese will do to Armata in 3 years. If we don’t talk too much about them, they’ll mess around for 10 years, and we will have to do something better over these 10 years. And keep in mind that China can only use tanks against a small number of states. Neither Japan nor the United States are on this list. hi
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 31 October 2017 01: 18
                +3
                Well, rejoice for China at least. bully Well, from your height or depth, you don’t know the results of the Chinese tank biathlon. That’s why you live in peace. hi
    2. Scoun
      Scoun 30 October 2017 12: 24
      +6
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      They can. Behind them they will not rust, if they do not steal, then copy.

      They can but “rust”. Biathlon is a witness to this, then the rink flies and then wedges out or stalls.
      So far, they make versions simpler and more damp and not the fact that the new generation will make them reliable.
      1. cniza
        cniza 30 October 2017 12: 36
        +2
        There are problems with reliability, but these are still problems, they must be handled very carefully.
        1. Scoun
          Scoun 30 October 2017 14: 15
          +2
          Quote: cniza
          There are problems with reliability, but these are still problems, they must be handled very carefully.

          As they say - that's what the pike is for, so that the crucian would not doze off.
          Our part of space caught the slack and then the USA began to breathe ahead of schedule in the "nose" and ours with "Clippers" and "Federations" somewhere there ... behind the fogs .....
          The Americans are riveting aircraft carriers like pies, and China is catching up with them, and so far we are only thinking ..
          In general, IMHA there are things in which we were leaders and which should not be given away, but with engines and airplanes ... we suddenly became dependent.
    3. stolz
      stolz 30 October 2017 12: 26
      +2
      The Chinese are true to themselves, maybe their tank is worse than the “Almaty”, but outwardly you can’t tell.
    4. Setrac
      Setrac 30 October 2017 12: 31
      +2
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      They can. Behind them they will not rust, if they do not steal, then copy.

      How are engines for dryers?
    5. Orionvit
      Orionvit 30 October 2017 13: 07
      +2
      are developing a twin tank
      And when was it different? In my opinion, their original, originally Chinese, they have not done anything yet.
  2. xetai9977
    xetai9977 30 October 2017 12: 15
    +1
    Most likely the Chinese will succeed. Even with reduced capabilities. And they will play on dumping.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 30 October 2017 12: 22
      +3
      I don’t argue. Maybe it will work. About dumping. So far there is no opponent to dump. Our T14 will still appear on the market!
      Quote: xetai9977
      Most likely the Chinese will succeed. Even with reduced capabilities. And they will play on dumping.
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 30 October 2017 12: 16
    +7
    The Chinese again "Xerox stuck." Well, they copied the Su-27. So what? The devil is in the details. wassat
  4. krops777
    krops777 30 October 2017 12: 18
    +4
    The gun is likely to be 140 mm.


    We will have to put a 152mm gun, at least for the competition.
    1. Nasrat
      Nasrat 30 October 2017 12: 19
      +3
      Quote: krops777
      The gun is likely to be 140 mm.


      We will have to put a 150mm gun, at least for the competition.

      Why not 240 mm? wassat Let them first put 140 mm and make the tank cost-effective in production and operation ...

      1. krops777
        krops777 30 October 2017 12: 23
        +9
        Why not 240 mm?


        I haven’t heard about 240mm, but 152mm is already there, so your ernism is not appropriate.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 30 October 2017 12: 32
        +2
        Quote: Nasr
        Let them first put 140 mm and make the tank cost-effective in production and operation ...

        I wonder how this can make a tank cost-effective?
        1. novel66
          novel66 30 October 2017 12: 38
          10
          conquer anything on it! lol
        2. Kondratko
          Kondratko 30 October 2017 12: 56
          0
          "I wonder how this can make a tank cost-effective?"
          ... And what about self-sufficiency?
          wassat
          Comrade Nasrat perhaps wanted to say "effective"? )
  5. Gray brother
    Gray brother 30 October 2017 12: 21
    +3
    Somewhere I already saw it.
  6. padded jacket
    padded jacket 30 October 2017 12: 25
    0
    Well, progress does not stand still and a new “Chinese” was to be expected.
  7. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 30 October 2017 12: 25
    +2
    According to some media reports, Ukraine has shared technology. For a fee

    And the media were obviously Ukrainian? Judging by the latest Ukrainian developments, they still have Soviet technologies, and 26 years have already passed.
    1. novel66
      novel66 30 October 2017 12: 39
      +4
      well, not the worst technologies were, someone can come in handy even now
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 30 October 2017 12: 46
        0
        Did I say that the technology was bad? It's just that the Ukrainian defense industry has nothing new or its own.
        1. novel66
          novel66 30 October 2017 12: 49
          +3
          we think so, but they consider everything their
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 30 October 2017 13: 08
        +6
        Yes, not the worst were in the Kharkov KB, rather, they were very good. Here, only if we say that "China is developing a twin tank" Armata ", this is somewhat different. The Chinese do not have their more or less serious tank school, they copy it, and they didn’t study the topic of the Armata in the former Ukraine. A tank for 152 mm guns began to be created in the Soviet Union (1988 year), the main developer was the current UVZ. It was not very simple, as with the tool, and the very concept of the new machine, then became known as an object 195 (tank T-95). The final story was next. 2006 year, according to media reports, the tank passed state tests; the start of mass production was planned for 2007 year.
        2007 year, 22 December, the head of the armament service of the Russian Armed Forces, Army General Nikolai Makarov, stated that the T-95 tanks (195 object) are being tested and will go into service with the Russian Armed Forces in the 2009 year.
        2008 year, it was planned to complete the tests of an experienced tank "object 195". During the year, the second stage of state tests of sample No. 2 of an experienced tank “object 195”.
        2010 year, summer. It was planned to show the “195 object” at the exhibition of weapons and military equipment in Nizhny Tagil.
        2010 year, it was expected the promulgation of the appearance of the T-95 and, possibly, adoption.
        Next came the “black date” in the history of T-95, 7 April 2010. On this day, Mr. Popovkin, then the deputy of Anatoly Serdyukov and the head of the armament, announced the termination of financing the development of the T-95 tank and the closure of the project. UVZ was planning to continue finishing the tank on an initiative basis, but the leadership changed, which better caught the "economical" trends from Anatoly Eduardovich and redrawed the project under the "platform", in the style of "all in one bottle" fantasy. Cross the tank and the BMP turned out to be very difficult, because of conflicting requirements, but gave birth to "hermaphrodite." The T-14 tank lost the 152 mm gun (for which everything was originally started), and the T-15 BMP, a mastodon, expensive and complicated, appeared to him in terms of the “golden platform”. What all is said, and the Chinese do not give birth to the analogue of “Almaty”, this is both stupid and daunting. But, the rumors that the drawings of the 640 object (“Black Eagle”, developed by the Omsk design bureau) got into the People's Republic of China, lead to sad thoughts. The figure shows an 195 object (T-95) with a 152 mm gun.
        1. novel66
          novel66 30 October 2017 13: 11
          +4
          where is 153 mm? does the armata go with 125 mm, or am I mistaken?
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 30 October 2017 13: 59
            +5
            Roman, you do not read carefully. Tank T-95 (195 object) was created under the 152 mm gun, and this was the meaning of the development itself. Because of the powerful gun, they immediately abandoned the manned tower, the automatic loader was traditionally located under the tower, the crew had to be placed separately in a capsule. The tank weighed about 55 tons, titanium was widely used to facilitate it (which did not increase the cost of the tank to a small extent). In addition to the powerful 152 mm gun, the armament was supplemented with an auxiliary 30 mm automatic 2A42 cannon, which had a limited sector of individual guidance, and machine guns. Mr Popovkin called the T-95 tank (the 195 object) too expensive and difficult for conscripts ... Yes, effective "menagers" jumped in, pushed the "platform" based on a super tank. Here, only, the BMP and the tank "in the same building", when you can flip the engine back and forth, like other innovations have not been in vain. No on the T-14 152 mm gun, no 30 mm auxiliary (why it is with 125 mm guns), no many titanium alloys that facilitate powerful protection, got an increased tank size with 125 mm gun that does not have special combat advantages over the modernized T -90, in fact, anti-tank ACS with an armored capsule. The armored capsule is now a "trick" of the tank, not a powerful weapon. If T-95 was estimated at 450 million, and was almost ready for 2010, then scouring with the “platform” gave rise to T-14, worth about 400 million. By the year 2015 was riveted for PR at the Parade of Victory of raw cars, spending a lot of dough, which could make the upgraded T-90. Lost years, and on the adventure with the "platform", on the OKRy and R & D, according to V.V. Putin spent about 64 billion rubles. If the T-95 was expensive for a number of reasons, such as the novelty of the project, not mastering its production, the extensive use of titanium, then it was a super tank, and as a reinforcement tank and super tank it was justified. As for the PR platform, this "golden fish", from the disfigured ideas of the tank and the monster "Mouse" BMP ... On such an expensive base, only fools will repeat the "platform", why, if the same ACS Coalition, is perfectly placed on T-90 chassis, as well as BMPT, as much more, including BREM. Not invented Serdyukov platform, they have long been in our army, on the basis of the same T-72 created a huge family of technology. The platform is not born, the platform becomes a relatively cheap, well-proven base, mastered by industry. Another question is how the T-14 tank itself will recommend itself, rather than waiting for it, even without waiting for its adoption for service, spending money on development for this base, I repeat, clearly not cheap. If T-95 was called “difficult for conscripts,” then T-14 is not at all for conscripts, and with all the “trimming” of the T-95 tank merit, it is a little cheaper. If there is a thank you here, so at least the production at UVZ was updated, although in this form they saved the groundwork from the 195 object, to the idea of ​​which, you still have to go back, putting an end to headset adventures.
            1. Scoun
              Scoun 30 October 2017 15: 00
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              A platform is not born, a platform becomes


              Quote: Per se.
              The armored capsule is now a "chip" of the tank, and not a powerful weapon.

              You essentially answered your own questions yourself, now around the “chip” there are armored capsules and the guns will also increase. hi and not around the gun armored capsules.
              And it seems they didn’t refuse from 152mm and can install it on the T-14.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 30 October 2017 15: 50
                +2
                Quote: Scoun
                now around the "chips" armored capsules and will build up and guns
                And there are also their own nuances, if we talk only about the armored capsule. Here, let's compare two ideas, the development of UVZ (object 195 (tank T-95), then, T-14 "Armata") and Omsk KB (object 640, tank "Black Eagle"). In the first case, the crew was pushed into the armored capsule, in the second, in a tight “piece of iron”, an automatic loader, and the crew is located below the tower, in more comfortable conditions, having an individual evacuation hatch for each, enhanced tank hull protection, which, with this arrangement, and there is the best armored capsule. Everything, although the “Eagle” was exhibited with a 125 mm cannon, it was allowed to arm it with a more powerful weapon, including the 152 mm. The layout of the "Eagle" made it possible to maintain a compact, low silhouette of the tank. In the photo "Black Eagle", in the stern of the tower, the "armored capsule" is clearly visible with an automatic loader and part of the ammunition.
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 30 October 2017 15: 57
                  0
                  Still, for clarity, the scheme "Eagle" from the description of the patent (arrow on the automatic loader). When a capsule with an automaton is broken through, the blast wave escapes through the expeller hatches from the top.
                  1. Pogrom
                    Pogrom 30 October 2017 16: 37
                    +3
                    You, in my opinion, mixed everything in a heap. The armored capsule is in the T-14. In the eagle just a separate AZ with ammunition in the rear of the tower. There was no “enhanced tank hull protection” in 640 either. There the armor is at the level of T-80U, it is far from T-14. Plus armor capsules for crew NO. In short, you have an incomprehensible love for one prototype like 640 and 195 and not a love for prototype 148, just because it went to army trials ...
                2. Scoun
                  Scoun 30 October 2017 21: 13
                  +2
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Here, let's compare two ideas, the development of UVZ (object 195 (T-95 tank), then T-14 Armata) and the Omsk Design Bureau (object 640, the Black Eagle tank). In the first case, the crew was pushed into the armored capsule, in the second in the tight armored capsule the automatic loader, and the crew is located below the turret shoulder, in more comfortable conditions, each having an individual evacuation hatch, enhanced protection of the tank body, which with this arrangement, and there is a better armored capsule. To all, although the “Eagle” was exhibited with a 125 mm cannon, it was allowed to arm it with a more powerful weapon, including 152 mm. At the same time, the layout of the "Eagle" made it possible to maintain a compact, low silhouette of the tank

                  I won’t even try to argue ..
                  But I loved tanks for their low silhouette.
            2. novel66
              novel66 30 October 2017 15: 32
              +5
              Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation - I myself am not a specialist, therefore, it is very useful to listen to the opinion of an immersed person hi
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 30 October 2017 15: 52
                +1
                Quote: novel xnumx
                Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation.
                Always one please note that I am not the ultimate truth.
            3. PROXOR
              PROXOR 30 October 2017 16: 04
              +1
              Of all your diversity that you wrote, I did not catch a single moment that can then be caught up.
              1. Titanium body parts - easy even now (but it costs money).
              2. 152 mm tank gun - it is. It’s ready, but the production of ammunition for it is still unbalanced and I have not heard about the 152mm analogue of the Whirlwind complex, which is released through a 125mm gun. Ammunition for a 125mm gun in BULK, for which now to tear the ass to put a 152mm gun, if the potential enemy is not armed with vehicles with a gun more than 120 mm, when like standing now armed with 125mm guns they can easily fight tanks of a potential enemy.
              3. Tell your IDF soldiers about your heavy BMP. Which, due to their orphanhood, first made a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on the captured T-55, and then on the basis of the same Merkava tank they called Namer.

              And now I will answer. The Russian Federation does not have the financial resources to rivet a variety of techniques. Hence the craving for the unification of components and assemblies, which, given its mass, reduces its cost and makes it understandable to field repair and maintenance services. Tk that all your tears on the T-95 project are wasted.

              PS: The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation has already answered the question about the complicated technology. Everything goes to ensure that the army becomes professional. You don’t see draftees among the pilots, why should they stay among the tankers?
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 30 October 2017 16: 33
                +3
                Quote: PROXOR
                Your pofigizm on heavy infantry fighting vehicles tell the soldiers of the IDF.
                The soldiers of the IDF have a heavy armored personnel carrier "Timer" (not BMP), on which only an auxiliary machine gun is specially put, so that no fool (whom Israel can search for) will have the idea to use it as a tank. Your "hitting" is off topic, if we are talking about a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, as such. I will explain. The concept of the BMP was created in the Soviet Union, which assumed a universal and maneuverable combat vehicle. Heavy BMP loses the whole essence of this concept. First, maneuverability and versatility are lost, even if it is already impossible to overcome water obstacles on the move. Secondly, as a specialized fire support, this BMP is weaker in the fire and armor components that have appeared BMPT, which are better suited for the specialized fire support of their tanks and infantry. The third, heavy infantry fighting vehicle, due to the reinforcement of weapons, will lose on the transport function, in front of the APC. The main thing is that the heaviest infantry fighting vehicles do not belong next to the tanks in the first line, especially when they are “pregnant” with unmounted infantry. In its capacity, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is only suitable as a police tank, as an anti-guerrilla, anti-terrorist vehicle. In such a concept, the doctrine of friendship with the United States and NATO, a compact army for antiterrorist operations, was implanted under Anatolia Eduardovich. Under this and Serdyukovskie "platform" headsets logically sharpened. Take the two-story "Boomerang" or "Kurganets" with the monster T-15. To frighten the demonstrators, the thing is, from the militants, too, if you close your eyes to the enormous size. No, dear Prokhor (Sergey), not the equipment being killed, and the BMP is not an air-raid shelter, but it depends on the correct use of technology that there will be more or less losses. To summarize, the best option seems to be a "triplex" tank T-90 (T-72), to him BMPT on a tank base (such as "Terminator"), plus a heavy BTR (for example, based on the BMO-T) in the second line. Optimally, the 6 man’s troops, they can be placed more comfortably, they can dismount faster (be ready to fight as a group faster), defeat with the troops will give less losses than in the BMP “bus” to the 10-12 man. I hope the above "catch up" is already possible.
                1. PROXOR
                  PROXOR 1 November 2017 16: 15
                  +1
                  At the root you MISTAKE !!!! BMP - infantry fighting vehicle was developed as an infantry delivery vehicle on the battlefield. BMPs were to operate in the same formation with tanks, land infantry in front of the front line of the enemy’s defense, and already hold foot infantry with the fire of their weapons complex. So it was in perfect shape when deploying the Soviet armored armada in Western Europe. However, the urban conditions of the battle led to the understanding that the BMP armor was not suitable. Hence the need for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with powerful armor. Given that heavy infantry fighting vehicles were made on the basis of a tank chassis, it was not inferior to tanks in speed on the battlefield and had comparable armor. The only thing that a heavy infantry fighting vehicle could not was to swim across water obstacles.

                  On the issue of unmanaged module on the roof of Namer. In general, do they have unmanaged modules with a 30mm gun? No. And our gun is obligatory according to the requirements of the Ministry of Defense. Although there is a modification of the lighter BMP Kurganets 25 with a KORD 12,7.mm machine gun

                  Speaking of the issue of a 2-story boomerang. And why should he be flat. You’ll get used to the idea that an armored personnel carrier is a “bus” for infantry, like armored vehicles of the Typhoon family. And there is still no fundamental solution to the saturation of the army with Boomerangs. He does not need to climb onto the battlefield.
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 1 November 2017 17: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: PROXOR
                    So it was in perfect shape
                    From the initial "ideal view" and came the realization of the place of the BMP as a universal machine, this was especially vividly expressed in the creation and development of the BMD. To date, the best BMP, this is our BMP-3, and airborne BMD-4M. Maneuverability, versatility, the possibility of marches, overcoming water obstacles along the way, that's the beauty of the BMP (and BMD), which can be a vehicle for everything, and perform the functions of a light tank. Otherwise, as already mentioned, for infantry the best option is a heavy armored personnel carrier and BMPT, if we talk about interaction with tanks, if we talk about using a single tank base, using stocks of old tanks under heavy armored personnel carriers and BMPT (T-72), or using technological, mastered by the industry at the present base of the tank T-90. In principle, a heavy BTR and BMPT, in the aggregate, is a "heavy BMP", divided by functionality, more harmonious and effective in its tandem. About the "double-decker buses," we will remain at our own opinion, in the end, we can be wrong, worse if those who will inferior the defective technique are messed up.
                    1. badens1111
                      badens1111 1 November 2017 17: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: Per se.
                      for infantry, the best option is a heavy armored personnel carrier and BMPT, if we talk about interacting with tanks, if we talk about using a single tank base, using stocks of old tanks for heavy armored personnel carriers and BMPTs (T-72), or using the tank’s technological base mastered by the industry at present T-90 In principle, a heavy armored personnel carrier and BMPT, in the aggregate, are a “heavy armored personnel carrier”, divided by functionality, more harmonious and effective in its tandem.

                      Thank you, your comments are very, very professional and cause much more trust than oh oh ahs about miraculous machinery from Serdyukov.
                    2. PROXOR
                      PROXOR 2 November 2017 11: 12
                      +1
                      Well, BMP does not live in urban battles. The conflict in the Donbass has shown that planting is a big problem. The first shot from an RPG-7 burns to hell with 2k.
                      Nakosyachat those who pull either Typhoon or armored personnel carriers on the battlefield.
            4. Pogrom
              Pogrom 30 October 2017 16: 13
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              Because of the powerful gun, they immediately abandoned the inhabited tower, the automatic loader was located traditionally, under the tower, the crew had to be placed separately in a capsule.

              Nope, totally wrong. There was such a tank, Object 292. In fact, the T-80 with a drift of 152 mm, and the placement there was quite traditional. Commander and gunner in the tower. Due to reasons, this project did not go and in the end they made a choice in favor of modernizing the T-72 (the T-90 appeared). I will say more, nothing prevents to put on T-14 driny in 152 straight lines. Another issue is the appropriateness. And the caliber in 152 is not yet obvious from the word at all. It can be 130 and 140 mm.

              As for the rest of your commentary, by the type of "pro-cured polymers" - time will tell. You claim that nothing comes of soplatform and drank it. I say that it’s too early to judge, and if the cart comes out successful, then this is the fault. In any case, the 195 object did not provide for any carts initially. Yes, and in the T-14 collected experience on the 195 object. So I do not see the tragedy in the rejection of 195 objects for armament. If the T-14 did not enter, then the object would not have entered even more so.
              1. Former battalion commander
                Former battalion commander 1 November 2017 09: 51
                0
                An "expert" on tanks using the word "hummingbird" in a polemic somehow does not inspire confidence from the word at all. And the typo “O” on the keyboard doesn’t draw a typo very far from the letter “a” ... Such “experts” here decide which tank is cooler ...
                1. The comment was deleted.
  8. chidoryan
    chidoryan 30 October 2017 12: 40
    +2
    I am glad that we did not completely miscalculate all the polymers and the tank-building school is still able to give out something interesting and go at the forefront of ideas and conceptual solutions, that won’t go out of the way of the Chinas.
  9. Sergey53
    Sergey53 30 October 2017 15: 17
    0
    Who would doubt that they are great engineers. Release any technique and they will do the same in 3-5 years. Of course, it will be completely copied from the original, but this is only a coincidence. After all, they also think so.
  10. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 30 October 2017 17: 06
    +4
    There is money in China, there are plenty of working people, effective managers are real, and not like ours - they will do it in 5 years. And we have money, but not for those who need it. Our “effective prime” sends $ 2 billion to Afreximbank in Nigeria. There, in his opinion, money is needed. And then it remains to hold on.
  11. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 31 October 2017 16: 17
    0
    Very interesting information. A particularly important point about the 140 mm gun. It seems like the perfect caliber for new tanks. 125 is already not enough, and 152 is a bit too much.
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 1 November 2017 16: 22
      +1
      And why not a 130 mm unitary shell? Moreover, we have art. complex with this gun. It is called Beach. And plus I remind you that in the history of tank building there was a heavy tank with such an instrument, the IS-7. And now his cannon can do little to resist.
  12. Whitesnow
    Whitesnow 1 November 2017 21: 16
    0
    Citizens, gentlemen and comrades!
    The article is not about the views on the use of BMPT and, in general, BBM in promising wars, but about whether or not the Chinese can copy the T-14.
    And my opinion is: why copy there? An armored capsule for the crew? It’s ridiculous. The Chinese are 1,5 billion. Yes, they do not care about the crew.
    Armata costs 400 million rubles, and type 99 150. What is better to have: one Armata or three type 99 with almost the same gun?
    And in general Armata is ugly. And the name is for the arms market, and not for Russia.