Military Review

American "Armata": ordered to build on 15 years before

106



The Americans, and after them the Europeans recognized the loyalty of the Russian concept of development of armored vehicles. Russia in tank building, despite the collapse of the USSR and a decade of devastation, was ahead of its main opponents. Moreover, she pulled out much ahead. Russian "Armata" has already gone into the series, while the Americans are planning to get their analogue of the Russian combat platform in service no earlier than in 10 years, and the Europeans expect to get a similar machine later. But these are only plans for now ...

From “477 Object” to “Armata”

By the mid-1980s, it became clear that a successful concept of the main combat tank, the first model of which in the USSR was the Kharkov “sixty-four”, is already becoming obsolete. Breakthroughs in the field of robotics and instrumentation made it possible to proceed to the creation of a tank with a small uninhabited tower, which allowed not only to sharply reduce the affected area of ​​the new combat vehicle in different projections, but also to sharply strengthen its firepower and protection without significantly increasing its mass.

This idea was laid in the new perspective development of the Kharkov tank builders "Object 477" (although its theoretical studies began even earlier, in 1970-x). The collapse of the USSR and the insufficient study of some technical solutions put an end to this machine, but the developments on it were not in vain. In 1990, the Leningrad Tank Design Bureau at the Kirov factory went even further. Russian engineers proposed not only developing a new type of fourth-generation tank, but creating a universal combat platform, on the basis of which further combat vehicles for various purposes (heavy infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, etc.) would be produced. In the future, all these ideas were implemented in the Armata project, the two main combat “configurations” of which, the T-14 (tank) and T-15 (heavy BMP), are already coming into service with the Russian army.



In fact, this is a new generation of combat vehicles that combine the ability to conduct network-centric combat operations (each vehicle is a separate cluster of an entire unit that exchanges real-time information with the rest of the information received on the situation on the battlefield), new active and passive means remote defense, enhanced armoring, new weapons, and most importantly, all this was contained in a weight of 50 tons. That is, the car turned out to be compact and transportable for modern delivery vehicles (railway platform, transport aviation).

And what about the "likely" opponents?

Admittedly, thanks to the collapse of the USSR, the USA had a head start, which they tried to use, but failed. Well, American designers didn’t have to “shmogly” to fit all the ideas of Soviet tank building into the cherished 60 tons of technical specifications.

The NGCV project, which the Americans began working on in the 2011 year, was curtailed in the 2015. The main reason was, as I said above, the inability to fit the necessary technical characteristics of the machine in the weight limits (60 tons).

Why is he so critical for Americans? The fact is that the new technology should be able to be moved through the air. And based on the characteristics of military transport aviation (the ratio of the cargo being transferred and the range), the new military equipment could not weigh more. Otherwise, it would force the Americans to develop new types of military transport aircraft or completely change the concept of using their armed forces.

Meanwhile, American engineers did not promise to reduce the mass of the new machine below 80 tons, which, in fact, put an end to the program by the end of 2015 of the year. Already for the next fiscal year, funding for the program has been curtailed. But not for long.

The parade in Moscow in the spring of the 2017 of the year, during which the new “Almaty” and the heavy BMPs of the T-15 took place, forced the Americans to return to this project. Moreover, the US military today does not just want new cars, they want it tomorrow, otherwise very soon the Russian tanks, in their opinion, will not leave their American counterparts a single chance to survive on the real battlefield.

“Initially it was assumed that the new vehicle, which could replace both the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the Abrams tank, would be ready for the 2035 year. However, it is now decided to accelerate the pace of work. It was expected that the first two prototypes would be created by 30 September 2022. 700 million is planned to be allocated for these purposes. Now it is planned to reduce this period by at least one year. We want to make a big leap forward, moving on to the next generation of combat equipment. We can not wait 15 years. We have to move forward faster because I look at these countries (Russia and China. - Approx. Ed.), And I know that we need to get there before them. "

Land Forces Minister Mark Esper.

As we already understand, earlier “Washington” will not succeed in them, but the race for the leader has already begun, and no one will regret having any strength or money for it by the habit of 30 years ago. As a result, we will see, and meanwhile, the European "allies" of Washington are concerned about the design of a new combat platform to replace the "Leclerc" and "Leopard-2".

True, their plans are much more modest. Europeans are realists, and they understand that they are not able to get a new tank before the 2030 of the year, so today the concept of the Main Ground Combat System 2030 + (MGCS 2030 +) is being worked out or, in Russian, “Main Ground Combat future system after 2030. " In fact, this is a repetition of the concept of "Almaty", however, the European "partners" plan to surpass the Russian tank in all respects. But, as we can see from the numbers, they want to achieve this no earlier than in 15 years, and during this time there is still a lot that can change. In general, it is not in the habits of Russian designers to stand still, especially if the country's leadership has both money and desire for this.

So summarize. A new tank arms race in the world has already begun. Russia is still in the lead, but the Americans rushed after the chase, and the Europeans slowly walk the beaten track. Soon we will be able to evaluate the first results. I think they will be interesting ...
Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 19 February 2018 15: 03
    +13
    Moreover, the American military today does not just want a new machine, they want it tomorrow, otherwise very soon Russian tanks, in their opinion, will not leave their American counterparts any chance to survive on a real battlefield.

    The mattresses will not be able to create a new armored platform in the next 15 years. Tank construction in the USA is in decline, just remember the plant in Detroit. In general, I doubt that they will succeed in creating something worthwhile even in 15 years. I won’t be surprised if placing such an order, mattresses will be handed over to German tank builders, and possibly in cooperation with the Israelis.
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 19 February 2018 15: 16
      +6
      Indeed, the only tank plant held to the last, owned by Cadillac Gage, is closed, competence is lost. It only remains to drag specialists from other countries with their equipment. winked
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 19 February 2018 15: 35
        +23
        Quote: lexus
        Indeed, the only tank plant held to the last, owned by Cadillac Gage, is closed, competence is lost.


        Well, not quite. On a satellite image, the finished product site and railway access roads at a factory in Lima, pc. Ohio. Of course, they are mainly modernizing the already built Abrams, but to say that in the USA there is no industry and specialists capable of building tanks would be too optimistic.
        1. You Vlad
          You Vlad 19 February 2018 16: 46
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          Well, not quite. On a satellite image, the finished product site and railway access roads at a factory in Lima, pc. Ohio.

          Look there at the bottom of 2013 year.
          Quote: Bongo
          but to say that in the USA there is no industry and specialists capable of building tanks would be too optimistic.

          Agree hi
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 19 February 2018 16: 59
            +7
            Quote: You Vlad
            Look there at the bottom of 2013 year.

            Why did you decide that I do not know what year it is? Is it just that this picture is the highest quality available in my collection, or do you think that the plant is idle? No.

            2016 year shot

            Now there are mainly finalized and restored machines intended for export. One way or another, but the armored industry in the United States is not dead.
            1. You Vlad
              You Vlad 19 February 2018 17: 01
              +2
              Quote: Bongo
              Why did you decide that I do not know what year it is?

              I didn’t decide what, I just caught my eye hiThanks for the 2016 photo, it looks better to me repeat
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 19 February 2018 17: 04
                +10
                Quote: You Vlad
                I didn’t decide what, I just caught my eye

                We drove through ... I’ll probably get together and make an article on the American defense industry. hi
                Quote: you Vlad
                Thanks for the 2016 shot of the year, it looks better for me feel

                In the 2016 photographs of the year, the tanks on the territory of the plant are much smaller. Mostly buildings and towers, as well as cars on railway platforms.
                1. You Vlad
                  You Vlad 19 February 2018 17: 06
                  +2
                  Quote: Bongo
                  We drove through ... I’ll probably get together and make an article on the American defense industry.

                  Thank you for earlier yes
                2. You Vlad
                  You Vlad 19 February 2018 17: 09
                  +3
                  Quote: Bongo
                  an article on the American defense industry.

                  Nevertheless, it’s nice that the United States purchases guns from the Germans for Abrams! repeat
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 19 February 2018 17: 36
                    +5
                    Quote: You Vlad
                    Nevertheless, it’s nice that the United States purchases guns from the Germans for Abrams!

                    Cooperation within NATO. We could do it ourselves, but it’s cheaper. They do not complex in this regard, they buy what is more profitable for them. So, until recently, Russian RD-180 engines were purchased.
                    1. You Vlad
                      You Vlad 19 February 2018 17: 47
                      0
                      Quote: Bongo
                      We could do it ourselves, but it’s cheaper.

                      Savings in such important areas? What about your American manufacturer? I don’t think so what most likely they could not achieve the same performance characteristics, however, this may not be an option what Did the Germans lobby what
                      1. your1970
                        your1970 20 February 2018 11: 16
                        +1
                        lobby, it’s such a lobby .. corruption is not the main thing ....
                    2. Nikolay Fedorov
                      Nikolay Fedorov 20 February 2018 14: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Bongo

                      They do not complex in this regard, they buy what is more profitable for them. So, until recently, Russian RD-180 engines were purchased.

                      But did they find a replacement for our engines and stopped buying? The other day I read an interview with one of our factory, so he says that they are preparing to send the Americans a few pieces of engines.
                3. Lexus
                  Lexus 20 February 2018 14: 28
                  0
                  Already someone, just not me can be accused of "hatred", because I ascertain the facts. You will be convinced of this when you write articles about the “defense industry”, when you make an analysis of the work carried out in essence and content (for example, the notorious SEPs for “Abrams”). You can even disassemble the world tank building world. It will be more convenient - the entire “defense industry” for each country individually or by industry, with an overview of what is happening in the world in a particular industry, in one article (or several).
                  Tank modernization is carried out both in the UK and Ukraine, only there really innovative work is already "too tough".
                  But it’s definitely not worth worrying about tank building in the USA - they have completely different financial realities and access to global intellectual resources, if the need arises, the creation of a new tank is a matter of time, but it will take a lot, given the situation “for today”. hi
            2. glasha3032
              glasha3032 20 February 2018 02: 01
              +5
              The factory is not an equivalent substitute for the main production.
      2. raw174
        raw174 20 February 2018 06: 31
        +2
        Quote: lexus
        It only remains to drag specialists from other countries with their equipment

        They can attract Ukrainians, they still have specialists and equipment, and most importantly traditions and developments ... They will adapt, Americanize and work.
        1. Bo Yari
          Bo Yari 20 February 2018 11: 11
          +1
          probably already attracted ...
      3. kpotr
        kpotr 20 February 2018 16: 17
        0
        Well, in the USA, they also produce hulls for intentions, than not a tank.
      4. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 21 February 2018 01: 31
        0
        Quote: lexus
        Cadillac Gage factory closed, lost competency

        Abrams undergoes repair and modernization at the US Army Tank Repair Plant Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) in Enniston (Alabama). New "Abrams" collects factory in Egypt, as well as the Lima Tank Plant in Lima (Ohio)
    2. kamski
      kamski 19 February 2018 17: 37
      +6
      Decides the economy, science, modern production, new materials ... All of this in the US is abundant and doubt that they will create no doubt
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 19 February 2018 19: 45
        +5
        Quote: kamski
        Decides the economy, science, modern production, new materials ... All of this in the US is abundant and doubt that they will create no doubt

        With inventiveness they strained until the Russians came up with - the Americans would not build.
        1. meandr51
          meandr51 20 February 2018 10: 35
          +2
          Now Ukrainian "witnesses of American superiority" will catch up and easily prove that the Russian-Soviet people themselves did not invent and cannot invent.
        2. Nikolay Fedorov
          Nikolay Fedorov 20 February 2018 14: 44
          +3
          Quote: Setrac
          Quote: kamski
          Decides the economy, science, modern production, new materials ... All of this in the US is abundant and doubt that they will create no doubt

          With inventiveness they strained until the Russians came up with - the Americans would not build.

          They can very creatively attract talented Russians, and our kulibins, along with the Kharkov ones, can make a lot - for the Americans. The question "how much is the homeland" for many talented and impoverished engineers will recede into the background under the influence of interesting work and an excellent salary. Unfortunately...
        3. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
          Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 20 February 2018 17: 18
          0
          Andropov was brought insulin from the West, lol
      2. raw174
        raw174 20 February 2018 06: 54
        +3
        Quote: kamski
        Solves economics, science, modern production, new materials

        Lost traditions, best practices and experience. This is what may be missing.
    3. You Vlad
      You Vlad 19 February 2018 19: 20
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      The mattresses will not be able to create a new armored platform in the next 15 years. Tank construction in the USA is in decline, just remember the plant in Detroit. In general, I doubt that they will succeed in creating something worthwhile even in 15 years.

      Rested on the laurels of the United States, they do not see any new developments request They are used to fighting with a more technologically backward enemy (culprit). First, the aircraft will roll out all the heavy equipment, and then against the manpower in tanks!
  2. astepanov
    astepanov 19 February 2018 15: 55
    +2
    "The Russian" Armata "has already gone into series" - is that really so? Is it true that mass production has begun? Is there anyone who knows for sure? Tell me what's up with "Armata".
    1. You Vlad
      You Vlad 19 February 2018 16: 50
      +2
      Quote: astepanov
      "Russian" Armata "has already gone into series

      In my opinion, a contract has been signed for the delivery of 100 units to the test operation in the troops! Serial production, that is, a large series in 2020. Well, that’s logical.
      1. astepanov
        astepanov 19 February 2018 16: 54
        +2
        Well, a hundred units is already a series. Moreover, with exploitation in the troops.
        1. You Vlad
          You Vlad 19 February 2018 16: 55
          +1
          Quote: astepanov
          Well, a hundred units is already a series. Moreover, with exploitation in the troops.

          It turns out hi
          The Russian Ministry of Defense will receive more than 2020 T-100 tanks on the Armata platform by 14. This was announced by the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov in the framework of the Army 2017 forum.

          According to Borisov, a contract for the supply of 100 units of tanks was signed, they will be delivered until 2020.

          At the moment, experimental-combat operation of the created products is being carried out.
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 19 February 2018 18: 55
      +2
      Quote: astepanov
      "The Russian" Armata "has already gone into series" - is that really so? Is it true that mass production has begun? Is there anyone who knows for sure? Tell me what's up with "Armata".
      Serial production is a rather arbitrary concept: recall the Yak-9K (with a 45 mil gun). It was also mass-produced - as many as “whole” 53 pieces belay How many “Armat” will be released in the 19th or 20th year is a mystery with seven seals request There are many factors involved. The only factor that does not need to be paid attention to is the "patriotic" statements of the official representatives of the Moscow Region. fellow
      1. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint 19 February 2018 20: 01
        +1
        three battalion sets of t 14 and one t of 15. According to the latest data, they are being prepared for trial operation
        1. crazyrom
          crazyrom 21 February 2018 01: 30
          +2
          The very thing is that by the time Americans get something from themselves (not even in a series, but a prototype), Armata will start getting 155mm guns here.
  3. Kir
    Kir 19 February 2018 16: 20
    0
    Something is very embarrassing that the United States Even if they meet the deadlines, they will do it without cooperation with the same Federal Republic of Germany, regarding what bothers them, then if we put aside the verbal smoke curtain, this is the Banal Loss of Sales Markets They are very worried, not marching cars from Russia and Sredinny Washington.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 February 2018 01: 37
      0
      Quote: Kir
      they are worried, then if you drop the verbal smoke curtain, this is a commonplace loss of sales markets

      Which ones? The upgraded Abrams is quite capable of competing with the current T-90, and no one will drive the Armata (export sincerely hope) without putting at least 500 vehicles in its own army.
  4. sevtrash
    sevtrash 19 February 2018 16: 47
    +1
    Too optimistic. It seems it’s not yet in the series, it’s rather damp. The concept, of course, is advanced, but it can hardly be considered a superweapon that will decide everything on the battlefield. Americans can certainly create a tank at the level of world standards, in fact Abrams was such a standard. In addition, one in the field is not a warrior. In the concept of network-centric war, Americans, as I understand it, are leaders. Not to mention the Apaches, the javelins.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 19 February 2018 19: 47
      +7
      Quote: sevtrash
      Abrams itself was such a standard.

      The standard is the Russian T-shki, it is them who are trying to surpass both the Americans and Europeans and Asians.
      Quote: sevtrash
      The concept, of course, is advanced, but it can hardly be considered a superweapon that will decide everything on the battlefield.

      The number of trunks per kilometer of the front decides everything.
    2. Conserp
      Conserp 20 February 2018 10: 28
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      Americans can certainly create a tank at the level of world standards, in fact Abrams was such a standard.

      My friend, Abrams is morally obsolete in 1963. That is, long before conception.
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 20 February 2018 10: 43
        +2
        All judge the advancement of technology for automatic loader ???
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 20 February 2018 12: 24
          +3
          You have every right to consider 4-seater tanks as one generation with 3-seater, piston fighters - one generation with jet, and cassette recorders - one generation with mp3 players.

          Just do not be offended when they will laugh at you with words about some kind of "technical illiteracy."
          1. parma
            parma 20 February 2018 12: 51
            +1
            Judging by one sign, namely in the automatic loader, then all the tanks after the development of the AMX-13 ...
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 20 February 2018 13: 19
              0
              You still remember the Pz.II autocannon.
            2. Setrac
              Setrac 20 February 2018 18: 17
              +2
              Quote: parma
              Judging by one sign, namely in the automatic loader, then all the tanks after the development of the AMX-13 ...

              Apparently you replayed the "world of tanks."
              1. parma
                parma 21 February 2018 13: 14
                0
                no, I haven’t even played once)) the AMX-13 had a 12-shell drum, what was the primitive loading drum? ... There was really a nuance with reloading, but it doesn’t matter ... So, stupid legatniks on the AMX- 30 (following their tank) even refused such a machine, reloading was completely manual!
                1. Conserp
                  Conserp 21 February 2018 16: 10
                  +3
                  Quote: parma
                  AMX-13 had a drum

                  A simple question - what does the AMX-13 (lightweight tank with a fart) have to do with generations? OST?

                  Quote: parma
                  even refused such a machine

                  Because on MBT it is simply impossible to use it.
                  And "there is a nuance," yes.

                  The paddling gardens were able to develop a more or less normal AZ for MBT only by 1990. And on this occasion, they are quite rightly rushing of pride.

                  Both the Japanese were able, and the Koreans were able. Although quite a primitive design for everyone.

                  But the Americans and Germans tried for a long time, but have not been able to so far.
                2. Setrac
                  Setrac 21 February 2018 18: 59
                  0
                  Quote: parma
                  no, I haven’t even played once)) the AMX-13 had a 12-shell drum, what is a non-primitive loading drum? ...

                  The AMX had a semi-automatic cannon; it had no mechanisms and automatic loaders.
  5. ares1988
    ares1988 19 February 2018 17: 29
    +1
    “They didn’t shmogli” - the explanation, of course, is simple and accessible, but it’s also important to understand that after the collapse of the USSR in the USA, many military programs were: canceled / cut / lowered in priority, which clearly affected their financing - and, therefore, , and on the results. Again, because of the different concepts of maintaining a database for us and for them, different types of weapons and military equipment have different priorities in development and upgrade. Correct, since wrong.
  6. fa2998
    fa2998 19 February 2018 18: 06
    +3
    Quote: astepanov
    Russian "Armata" has already gone into the series "-

    In the article there are words that at first they wanted to make a SMALL uninhabited tower, and sharply reduce the affected area. As a result, we got an overgrowth. The side and frontal profile, the height significantly exceeds the existing tanks.
    And yet. The armored capsule is a good thing. Well, of course, the frontal armor is at a height. And the crew will protect the internal partition during the explosion of the BC? what hi hi
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 19 February 2018 19: 56
      +2
      Quote: fa2998
      they wanted to make a LITTLE, uninhabited tower, and sharply reduce the affected area. As a result, they got overgrown.

      This overgrowth is without crew, weakly armored, therefore it weighs little, for example, the tower of abrams of the latest modifications of the EMNIP reaches 19 tons
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 21 February 2018 01: 42
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        This overgrowth - without crew, weakly armored

        Is not it? What is the point of making a lightly armored tower? So that the tank, when hit, lose its main armament, and, as a result, combat readiness?
    2. Conserp
      Conserp 20 February 2018 12: 27
      +1
      Especially for you



      1. Setrac
        Setrac 20 February 2018 18: 20
        +1
        Quote: Conserp
        Especially for you

        The video confirms my words. Only the breech of the gun is reserved.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 20 February 2018 21: 43
          +1
          Is there really something else that is reserved on other tanks, but not on Armata?

          Share your revelation.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 20 February 2018 22: 50
            0
            Quote: Conserp
            Is there really something else that is reserved on other tanks, but not on Armata?
            Share your revelation.

            tower - I wrote above
            Quote: Setrac
            Only the breech of the gun is reserved.

            The rest of the tower is covered by a bulletproof casing.
            Understand the third time or have to repeat the fourth time?
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 21 February 2018 00: 29
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              The rest of the tower

              "The rest of the tower" - what exactly is it?

              Is there something outside that is placed on other tanks under armor?

              Quote: Setrac
              Understand the third time or have to repeat the fourth time?

              A pointless balcony and once it was not worth talking.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 21 February 2018 19: 02
                0
                Quote: Conserp
                "The rest of the tower" - what exactly is it?

                Here the outer casing of the tower, which you proudly compare in size to the tower of Abrams, has bulletproof armor
                Quote: Conserp
                Is there something outside that is placed on other tanks under armor?

                Everything except the breech of the gun.
                Quote: Conserp
                A pointless balcony and once it was not worth talking.

                Have to explain for the fifth time?
                laughing
  7. Graz
    Graz 19 February 2018 19: 30
    +1
    ha ha Yankees won’s washed down 5th generation fighters worth several hundred million dollars per piece, it seems that something similar will happen with tanks, let them rivet))
  8. leybshtandartss
    leybshtandartss 19 February 2018 19: 47
    +1
    Yes, however, the Americans rolled out the universal platform for the Fature Combat System project 6 years earlier. The truth was scored on it.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 February 2018 01: 52
      +1
      Quote: leybshtandartss
      Yes, however, the Americans rolled out the universal platform for the Fature Combat System project 6 years earlier. The truth was scored on it.

      FCS was very expensive. However, they did not abandon the project until the end. Their new BMP (which is being replaced by the Bradley), the NGCV program, is very (just very) similar to the Future Combat Systems platform
    2. Conserp
      Conserp 21 February 2018 10: 57
      +1
      Quote: leybshtandartss
      Americans rolled out the universal platform for the Fature Combat System project 6 years earlier

      True, she could not even ride herself.
  9. engineer74
    engineer74 19 February 2018 20: 00
    +5
    I’ll try to take a move: the mattresses will turn out to be the next F-35 insanely expensive and super-technological, the Europeans have a super-protected “plant protection tank” weighing 120 tons ...
    IMHO
  10. shinobi
    shinobi 20 February 2018 05: 57
    +2
    Until the stripes have decided on the concept of a land war with an equal enemy, and the Yankees have not had it since 95, nothing good will come of them. If anything happens.
    PS: Abrash theirs was sawed on the basis of the concept of defensive against tank breakthroughs, hence the weight and dimensions, and did not show himself very well in the offensive. older models generally raised the question of the appropriateness of the need for tanks of this type. A series of wars of the late 20th, early 21st centuries marked the urgent need for vehicles like Terminator, Kurganets, Striker. Tanks have a secondary role, so I think that T-14 troops will arrive in a limited number.
  11. parma
    parma 20 February 2018 07: 09
    +2
    The next article is unclear about what ... Armata is certainly not a horse in a vacuum, but it is far from being a serial and combat unit ... The pre-production batch of vehicles, from the UVZ statement, should go into trial operation by 2020 (they used to talk about building by 2020 more 2000 units, then about a restructuring batch of 100 pieces, but with a price tag of about 300 million per unit, I doubt: () ... But judging by the fact that, again according to UVZ, until 2020 they will put the T-80 (after modernization , 30 T-90M (20 with modernization) and a batch of BMPTs (sort of like 12 pcs) of the RF Armed Forces, and this order was made to load them BEFORE CONCLUDING NEW EXPORT ORDERS, we don’t understand the real serial Armies in the troops when I see them, so I’ll still have caps would not throw in the sky .....
    PS: the new regular ammunition has already developed 125mm, otherwise I haven’t heard anything about them for a long time? ....
  12. SOF
    SOF 20 February 2018 08: 12
    +5
    ... in the light of the events of February 7, the factory in Lima would have looked better from that angle

    ... but seriously, given the residual financing of the armored industry in the United States and the associated need for borrowing individual components and assemblies from partners, I would really like to take a look at:
    1. explosion of priorities in the Pentagon;
    2. the form of the resulting stealthAshtray
    3. railgun or laser gun, the next "general";
    4. the number of zeros in the budget for the development of this miracle of technology
  13. andrew xnumx
    andrew xnumx 20 February 2018 10: 35
    +1
    Despite the development of new tanks, it is necessary to stubbornly modernize the old ones and urgently prepare the infrastructure for the instant deployment of tank armies, especially in the probable western theater.
  14. Tilkus75
    Tilkus75 20 February 2018 10: 37
    0
    Breakthroughs in the field of robotics and instrumentation made it possible to proceed to the creation of a tank with a small uninhabited tower, which allowed not only to sharply reduce the affected area of ​​the new combat vehicle in different projections, but also to sharply strengthen its firepower and protection without significantly increasing its mass.


    That’s just why Armata turned out more than the Kharkov family !? She's a little smaller than M1!
    1. Forest
      Forest 20 February 2018 11: 08
      +1
      And where are AZ and people placed? A diesel on 1200 mares? In general, Abrams is much smaller than the T-14. He is not such a big tank.
      1. Tilkus75
        Tilkus75 20 February 2018 11: 18
        +1
        sharply reduce the affected area of ​​the new combat vehicle in different projections


        And you are not too lazy and compare! It seems that you have not read the quote))
      2. Conserp
        Conserp 20 February 2018 21: 44
        0
        Quote: Forest
        Abrams is much smaller than the T-14. He is not such a big tank.

        Bullshit. After all, you can compare.

        And about the mass and say nothing.
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 21 February 2018 01: 55
        0
        Quote: Forest
        He is not such a big tank.

        If compared with the Jewish "Merkava" - then yes, just a toy)
  15. IStreebok
    IStreebok 20 February 2018 10: 38
    +1
    Tanks - tanks ... These Armats were given to you. See World War II - aviation decides ... But they don’t know how to use the aviation of the RO (the countries of the Russian oligarchy), or they don’t want to ... for their greed is in their subcortex! How many cars are lost by stupidity? But there are only a few of them left ...
  16. Bo Yari
    Bo Yari 20 February 2018 11: 08
    +1
    Tanks no longer have overwhelming power and decide very little ... only air ....
    1. your1970
      your1970 20 February 2018 11: 28
      +3
      Quote: Bo Yari
      Tanks no longer have overwhelming power and decide very little ... only air ....
      -the infantry decides everything ...
      it’s quite easy to burn both tanks and planes ... but to train pilots, it’s already troubles with the simplest requirements for at least a year ..... and the loss of hundreds of planes is already a fierce polar fox for any power (out of three)
      Everything goes to what’s going to be like with battleships - there’s an awesome machine, but it’s scary to let it out into the sea: what if they’ll sink it?
      the same will be with tanks / planes
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 21 February 2018 01: 56
        +1
        Quote: your1970
        infantry decides everything ...

        without the support of tanks, she will not decide anything. We come to the logical conclusion that it’s too early to bury tanks for the 101st time
  17. Conserp
    Conserp 20 February 2018 11: 39
    +3
    About the level of tank building in our country and in the USA, it is dedicated to Abramsophile children:
    ---
    Weapon stabilizer:
    USSR - T-54B, 1956
    USA - M60A1 AOS, 1972 (lag 16 years)

    ---
    Combined Armor:
    USSR - T-64, 1963
    USA - M1, 1980 (lag 17 years)

    ---
    High-Power Smoothbore Gun
    USSR - T-62, 1961
    USA - M1A1, 1985 (backlog - 24 years)

    ---
    Atomic protection:
    USSR - T-55, 1958
    USA - M1A1, 1985 (lag - 27 years)

    ---
    Laser rangefinder on MBT
    USSR - T-55 / 64B, 1974/1976
    USA - M60A3, 1978

    ---
    BOPS in BC
    USSR - BM3, 1961
    USA - M735, 1978 (lag 17 years)

    ---
    TOUR in BC
    USSR - T-64B, 1967
    USA - no (lag - 50 ++ years)

    ---
    Partially mechanized loading
    USSR - T-10A, 1956
    USA - no (lag - 60 ++ years)

    ---
    Automated Charging
    USSR - T-64, 1963
    USA - no (lag - 55 ++ years)

    ---
    The USSR lagged behind except in the introduction of TPV of the zero generation - a very expensive and not very useful device.

    The reasons why, in spite of the collapse of the USSR, Russia already has Armata - a tank of 4 generations, while even a tank of 3 generations has not yet been created in the USA - should already be understood.
    1. parma
      parma 20 February 2018 12: 32
      0
      Quote: Conserp
      About the level of tank building in our country and in the USA, it is dedicated to Abramsophile children:
      Weapon stabilizer:
      USSR - T-54B, 1956

      USA - M4 Sherman (1942), 14 years ahead
      Quote: Conserp

      BOPS in BC
      USSR - BM3, 1961

      FAU-3, Germany, 1943-1944, 17 years ahead ...
      And this is only a memory ... About the automatic loader, I would argue ... The Western school, in principle, does not favor them (the French do not count with their AMX-13 and eclair), they do not like them, where to put the Afro-soldier from the army?)
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 20 February 2018 18: 09
        +3
        Quote: parma
        USA - M4 Sherman (1942), 14 years ahead

        Nonsense. Sherman had a single-plane non-stabilizer that did not provide accurate shooting in motion. We have such before the war put on BT.

        That is why I started the countdown with the T-54B, and not the T-54A.

        Moreover, the M60A1 AOS stabilizer also did not provide firing in motion - this was fixed only on the M60A3. But I am kind.

        Quote: parma
        FAU-3, Germany

        And Russia is ahead of the rest in nesting dolls, balalaikas and samovars. The booth.

        Quote: parma
        About the automatic loader, I would argue

        If there were arguments - but they simply do not exist.

        Quote: parma
        Western school, in principle, does not favor them

        It's a lie. All American projects of promising tanks over the past 50 years have assumed automatic loading.
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 20 February 2018 13: 34
      +1
      Quote: Conserp
      Weapon stabilizer:
      USSR - T-54B, 1956
      USA - M60A1 AOS, 1972 (lag 16 years)


      Tank M4 Sherman.
      When the M4 went into mass production, its main weapon was the American tank gun 75 mm M3 L / 37,5 The gun is equipped gyroscopic stabilizer Westinghouseworking in a vertical plane.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 20 February 2018 18: 10
        +1
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        The gun is equipped with a Westinghouse gyroscopic stabilizer operating in the VERTICAL PLANE.

        Let's have a little understanding of the issue before writing.
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 10: 14
          +1
          Quote: Conserp
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          The gun is equipped with a Westinghouse gyroscopic stabilizer operating in the VERTICAL PLANE.

          Let's have a little understanding of the issue before writing.


          Remind me of a stabilizer of a similar level on a T-34 HF or IC of the same period?
          BT experiments are not worth mentioning.

          Well, the stabilizer on the T-54B appeared in response to the English L-7
          In 1948, the Centurion MK.3 tank was adopted for service in England. It had an 83,8 mm cannon equipped with a two-plane stabilizer as the main armament.

          The leadership of the USSR, which for a long time did not pay enough attention to the modernization and improvement of tank guns, urgently began to create a response to the English 105-millimeter cannon L7.

          Work on the rifled X-NUMX millimeter tank gun D-100 began on the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 54-4169 of 1631 September 12. The work involved OKB-1952, head F. F. Petrov. The gun was intended to replace the gun D-9T in the tank T-10. According to the technical requirements, the D-54 gun should have:
          Mass of armor-piercing projectile - 16,1 kg;
          The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile - 1015 m / s;
          Gun weight - no more than 2530 kg;
          The weight of the stabilizer is not more than 180 kg. In 1953, a ballistic barrel was made, designed for the development of ammunition. The technical design of the D-54 gun with a stabilizer was developed in June 1954. The prototype D-54 was handed over to the customer in March of the same year. This gun should have been equipped single-plane stabilizer "Rainbow" developed in Central Research Institute-173.

          http://www.rushnglory.com/topic/596-т-62а-vs-т-62
          -we will deal with guns /

          So do not create the illusion that everything was amazingly good in the Soviet Union in tank building. Borrowings were and will be - and this is right for the country's defense.

          Before the war in the USSR, it was not just stabilizers - they could not even make turbochargers for high-altitude aircraft engines (as a result, an additional aircraft engine was put on the TB-7 for boosting).

          As an example, having captured and studied the captured KV-1, German engineers concluded that the tank was quite modern, but they were struck by the fact that the gearbox was installed from an archaic Holt tractor of the beginning of the century.
          When the Americans tested the HF transferred to the USSR for study (Test T-34 and HF at the Aberdeen training ground in the USA. 1942) came to the following conclusions:
          transmission unsatisfactory, clearly outdated design.

          TsAMO RF, fund 38, inventory 11355, case No. 1712, p. 90A
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 10: 16
            +1


            So objectively comrades.
            1. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 10: 29
              +1

              extension
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 10: 29
                +1

                test findings
                1. DimerVladimer
                  DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 10: 36
                  +1

                  Judging by the conclusions - except for the T-34 and the engine - no particular enthusiasm for the T-34 and HF was heard.
                  This test report of 1942 is the best illustration of the situation with tank construction in the USSR of this period. There are both positive reviews and numerous criticisms of both the design work (design) and the manufacturing quality of individual components (transmissions, filters, etc.).
                  1. Conserp
                    Conserp 21 February 2018 11: 57
                    +1
                    A predictable set of stamps, a predictable lack of understanding of the essence.

                    Well, the substitution of the question, where without her.
        2. your1970
          your1970 21 February 2018 11: 59
          0
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          As an example - capturing and studying the captured KV-1 German the engineers concluded that the tank is quite modern, but they were struck by the fact that the gearbox was installed from the archaic Holt tractor of the development of the beginning of the century.
          - maybe all the same Americans transferred to them (and not captured and captured) ??? fool
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 15: 30
            0
            Quote: your1970
            - maybe all the same the Americans handed over to them (and not captured and captured) ???


            The Germans were the first to get the captured HF and I give this description in my own words - now I don’t remember who I found him with - maybe from Guderian.
            1. your1970
              your1970 21 February 2018 18: 16
              0
              did you read what you posted ??? page 6, top of the sheet, tractor Holt -American beginning of the century
  18. The comment was deleted.
    1. marline
      marline 20 February 2018 12: 12
      +2
      Quote: Westfshoke
      When developing a new generation tank, the Americans and Europeans set the task of obtaining an electro-chemical gun, and from 2030 an EM gun. It is also very obvious that laser weapons will be installed.

      You don't know anything! Instead of a machine gun, they will install the BFG9000 !!!! Already prepared turret modification. And Trophy is yesterday - only deflector shields !!! Here it is a new generation tank (there’s even a layout already):

      And we still make tanks with thin hatches!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 February 2018 02: 18
      +3
      Quote: Westfshoke
      Today, hundreds of Abrams and BMP tanks in Europe already receive active defense systems.

      The U.S. Department of Defense has budgeted for 2019 the purchase of 261 sets of the Israeli active defense system Trophy. And that’s all for now. So there’s no mention of “hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers received by KAZ”. The lie of pure water.
      Quote: Westfshoke
      Americans and Europeans in the development of a new generation tank set the task of obtaining an electro-chemical gun

      this case very distant future. The Germans do not listen to you and make their 130-mm "normal" gun. And the Yankees have groundwork for the 140-mm "powder" gun.
      Quote: Westfshoke
      It’s also very obvious that laser weapons will be installed, since the Stryker BTR managed to deliver laser weapons now, this will allow to destroy helicopters,

      is this nonsense? When did the Stryker hit the helicopter with a laser? Why are you taking such a picky thing? Not a single laser has been brought to a fully operational state, and with regards to the Stryker with SHORAD, the laser may be installed in the future. You are drawn to wishful thinking.
      Quote: Westfshoke
      Armata is probably a good modern tank, but the author is already overestimating the capabilities of this tank. The tank is expensive, but it is not insured against destruction by partisans from ptura or RPG. This is how Active Defense works, for example, Israeli Trophy: the Active Defense system will work if:
      RPG-7 is released no closer ~ 70 meters
      RPG-29 is released no closer ~ 250 meters
      ATGM released no closer ~ 400 meters
      Tank ammunition is released no closer than ~ 700 meters.

      where did you reprint this nonsense? Or did you come up with it yourself? How does KAZ work, do you know?
      And do not bring the Jews as pioneers in the field of KAZ. The first one was installed on the T-55AD tank, and since then development in the USSR (and then in Russia) has not stopped. Jewish Trophy is a rather mediocre system. She does not take ultrasonic objects. Because your
      Quote: Westfshoke
      Tank ammunition is released no closer than ~ 700 meters.

      from the field of unscientific fiction. Yes, even shoot from a kilometer, if its speed is above the threshold, KAZ will not intercept it. For the Russian "Afganit" intercepted tank BOPS. Probably, it is not necessary to explain a significant difference in speed, is that clear?
      Can you still link to your "competent" source? I want to marvel at the author. Or are you the author?
      I have the last question. You will not be from the Great Ukrov? Handwriting is painfully similar ..
  19. Tektor
    Tektor 20 February 2018 13: 03
    +1
    No, the T-14 and T-15 are a real breakthrough in tank building. This is the possibility of a real assault and a breakthrough in the most tank hazardous areas! But we need to get together and bring the project to the initial combat readiness, understand ... It's time, watch: tick-tock ... They released a couple of battalion sets with T-14 and a battalion with T-15, which is about 100 pieces. In total. But the T-14 and T-15 are needed precisely to break through the well-equipped anti-tank defensive lines in the west. Others cannot. Need some stuff. Highly.
  20. Natalia777
    Natalia777 20 February 2018 13: 19
    0
    Well, God does not give chances to the gangster USA, as he does not give horns to the well-known peppy cow. Sadness to them.
  21. ,
    , 20 February 2018 16: 37
    +1
    Quote: Westfshoke
    Well and expert Why are you a warrior of light under someone else's flag through anonymizer come in? Why are you all numb. Well, you write an article about American and Israeli superiority. No, weak?

    Quote: Westfshoke
    Another TURBO-URA-PATRIOTIC ARTICLE ...
    First, we ask the author not to give his opinion for the opinion of the western of. persons, I quote: "... Russian tanks, according to them, will not leave their American counterparts any chance to survive ...". The author himself came up with this opinion and allegedly broadcasts on behalf of the West.
    Also, the author came up with the fact that "the Americans, and after them the Europeans recognized the loyalty to the Russian concept of the development of armored vehicles." Nobody recognized anything, again the author’s fantasy.
    Today, hundreds of Abrams and BMP tanks in Europe already receive active defense systems, and Armata is only on trials, that's all. Therefore, the advantage of NATO tanks will continue for another 10 years precisely in quantity. Armata is a new generation of tanks only for Russia, for the West Armata is not a new generation. A new generation of tanks will be possible with new technologies. When developing a new generation tank, the Americans and Europeans set the task of obtaining an electro-chemical gun, and from 2030 an EM gun. It will also be very obvious that laser weapons will be installed, since the Stryker BTR managed to deliver laser weapons now, this will destroy helicopters, drones, destroy infantry at ranges of kilometers per second, as well as burn out the infrared heads of shots and missiles at long ranges and undermine mines laser, destroy artillery ammunition For 5 years, the Americans managed to increase the laser power by 10 times while maintaining the same dimensions, which shows the project HEL MD.
    Armata is probably a good modern tank, but the author is already overestimating the capabilities of this tank. The tank is expensive, but it is not insured against destruction by partisans from ptura or RPG. This is how Active Defense works, for example, Israeli Trophy: the Active Defense system will work if:
    RPG-7 is released no closer ~ 70 meters
    RPG-29 is released no closer ~ 250 meters
    ATGM released no closer ~ 400 meters
    Tank ammunition is released no closer than ~ 700 meters.
    The reaction time for the Russian KAZ system is unknown, but it is unlikely that Russia managed to surpass the Jews, so the Jews achieved results earlier, which means more experience.

    Well and expert Why are you a warrior of light under someone else's flag through anonymizer come in? Why are you all numb. Well, you write an article about American and Israeli superiority. No, weak?
  22. klm-57
    klm-57 20 February 2018 20: 26
    0
    I think there is still a lot of depleted uranium in the SGA. The layer is thicker, a lot more and everything will be Ok.
  23. tchoni
    tchoni 21 February 2018 06: 43
    +1
    I did not read a larger erisi in my life. Every 15-20 years for the star-striped men, a “program of promising armored vehicles” is launched and, as a rule, it is brought to the prototype stage. There were cars with uninhabited towers among them, there were also AZs ... BUT the arsenal with the garden house and the Negro Joe stubbornly remains in service. Coincidence!? I don’t think ....
  24. Bumt
    Bumt 21 February 2018 13: 38
    0
    US buys Ruach in Israel
  25. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 15: 41
    0
    Quote: Conserp
    A predictable set of stamps, a predictable lack of understanding of the essence.
    Well, the substitution of the question, where without her.

    A predictable set of empty words when you have nothing to back up your words.

    There is a continuation here - who are interested in what kind of "work on errors" was carried out, how they justified themselves and what was really improved according to the results of the tests - the GABTU report of the year following the results of tests in the USA:
    https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/1742246.html вот тут все подробнее в одном месте собрано - Юрий Пашолок потрудился.

    TsAMO RF, fund 38, inventory 11355, case No. 1712, pp. 100-103
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 21 February 2018 19: 57
      +1
      What does the incompetent study of the T-34 military release by Americans have on the level of development of MBT in the post-war period in the USA and the USSR?

      Poor troll.
  26. floyder
    floyder 21 February 2018 22: 09
    0
    Hmm ... They MAY completely overtake "Armata", they can. If Russia will be sitting on the "ass" !!! For once, got an advantage - you need to SAVE it !!!
  27. Wild ferret
    Wild ferret 21 February 2018 23: 26
    +1
    I read a lot of comments, and if you completely get into jokes, then the film "Pentagon Wars" more than characterizes how things are)) Although in this proportion of jokes, not a small fraction of the truth is hidden. It is enough to recall which project was led before General Abrams, and what it was at the project stage. After all, there was more than a worthy tank, and in an attempt to "save" a controversial car turned out for a lot of money.
  28. k_ply
    k_ply 22 February 2018 09: 18
    +2
    The Americans, and after them the Europeans recognized the loyalty to the Russian concept of the development of armored vehicles.

    Kaby what blurt out in a patriotic spirit. The T-90 is the last of the series, belonging to one concept, and the T-15, obviously, to another. So which one? And who, journalists, bloggers, the West recognized, is not going to lag behind, which is predictable, we did not hear about a certain recognition.
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 24 February 2018 01: 27
      +1
      The concept of the T-90 and T-14 is the same: improving performance not due to brainless build-up, but due to the introduction of new technologies and automation - the essence of which is to remove the volumes occupied by people (the most massive, vulnerable and demanding components of the tank).

      First, the Negro Joe was removed from the tank. Then they removed the crew from the tower. Then people will be removed from the tank altogether.

      And the Americans are still marking the level of 1962.
  29. k_ply
    k_ply 24 February 2018 18: 57
    +2
    Americans, Americans, Americans (these with the mass. Abrams "overseas, we still think more about NATO" leopards ") ... These always tried to fight remotely, by air. Infantry and tanks were cut off (their BBMs are high mobile "pillboxes" with sufficient negative vertical guidance angles, incl.) - that means something went wrong. We, as always, need a lot of infantry and tanks (fast ones with a low silhouette), from here the concepts grow and legs grow. Some l / s take care, others save it (IMHO).
  30. total commander
    total commander 6 March 2018 08: 58
    0
    Project Manager, hopefully Sergeant Bilko?
  31. trahterist
    trahterist 19 March 2018 12: 26
    0
    Quote: fa2998
    Quote: astepanov
    Russian "Armata" has already gone into the series "-

    In the article there are words that at first they wanted to make a SMALL uninhabited tower, and sharply reduce the affected area. As a result, we got an overgrowth. The side and frontal profile, the height significantly exceeds the existing tanks.
    And yet. The armored capsule is a good thing. Well, of course, the frontal armor is at a height. And the crew will protect the internal partition during the explosion of the BC? what hi hi

    Will protect. Isolation of BK doesn’t explain anything to you?
    Google the location of the crew in Armata.
    And you will not write more such nonsense.
  32. nikoliski
    nikoliski 28 May 2018 04: 21
    -1
    200 Armata for which a state order has been issued, of course, is not such a terrible all-consuming force that the Americans will really start to panic (we won’t even land for them anyway) until they’ll come up with a new tank for about 20 years, they will equip the latest models of the Abrams KAZ Trophy and they’re still like themselves