Too expensive for Russia: in the United States predicted death "Armata"

Technologies used by developers to create tank "Armata" will be useful in creating a new combat vehicle, while Russia is actively replenishing troops with Soviet modernized armored vehicles, leads Lenta.ru report opinion of American expert Joseph Trevitik.

According to the expert, the Armat, as well as the Su-57, is very expensive for mass production, but in the future it can be used to create a new car.

By the time Russia will have the means for mass production of the tank, the situation in the world may change, and the tank will be an outdated machine. Therefore, Uralvagonzavod needs to continue to develop in order to use the existing developments for the “further improved tank concept”.

The new tank in Russia, according to the author of the material, may appear in 5-7 years, but for now the Kremlin will continue to squeeze everything possible out of its old machines during the cold war period.

Recall that in April, another American expert, Sebastian Robin, published the article “Rest in Peace ...”, in which he stated that Russia had abandoned the serial production of the “deadly” C-57 fighter (PAK FA) because of India’s withdrawal from the joint project to build the aircraft fifth generation.

Comments

[210ox]

And what, do not protectors "squeeze" everything possible out of their "Abrams"?

[Lord of the Sith]

Hi Dima Yes, they reprinted Borisov’s words and passed them off as theirs.

[A good one]

It can be seen from the “Abrams” below the belt that something is itching, so “Armata” is buried.

[Thrall]

A philosophical question, what is better in a real battle, one Armata or 2 modernized T-90

[AID.S]

Quote: Thrall

A philosophical question, what is better in a real battle, one Armata or 2 modernized T-90

Two Armats are better.

[Lekxnumx]

Quote: Thrall

A philosophical question, what is better in a real battle, one Armata or 2 modernized T-90

One T-14 is better than two T-90, T-80, T-72, etc. why?
Because the T-14 is a new word in Soviet / Russian tank building. After the Second World War, emphasis was placed on 40-50 ton fast, small, relatively weakly armored, but fast-firing tanks. And the T-14 is a new word in world-class tank building. Russian. The role of tanks on the battlefield has changed, Kursk will no longer be, and in general the nature of the war has changed. The closest conditional rival of Russia has no tank armada in Europe, and the United States FIG to transfer such an amount as the Second World War. The Russian army switch to a contract basis, special Alists are becoming more and more valuable. A concept has emerged as an information war at the cost of 20 tanks and crew’s lives, knocking out 10 enemy soldiers is not considered a victory. The T-90 also needs its own targets, but the T-14 is more important, albeit in moderation. Keep a fleet of motley tanks of different models are expensive, but one Armata platform for many types of equipment will cost less. The whole world already thinks so, the equipment is getting heavier, the emphasis is on protection, of course it will not always save from ATGMs. But any tattered man with RPGs will not be able to knock out.

[Blackmokona]

Since the time of the Second World War, the transport and port infrastructure between Europe and America has developed in connection with the growth of trade, and now it will be just two fingers to transfer the mass and volume of the time of the Second World War across the ocean. All the torment in the exercises they have is associated with political tricks during the war on which they simply put a bolt.

[Stas157]

Quote: BlackMokona

Now throw mass and volume of WWII times across the ocean will be just like two fingers

Then Russia didn’t have enough transport to keep a couple of planes in Syria! I even had to buy a few rusty vessels in Turkey urgently. And here are thousands of tanks! What to transport them to?

[Blackmokona]

On thousands of ships that cruise daily transporting millions of tons of goods between Europe and the United States.
For example, in the first half of 2016, 120 million tons of cargo were brought to Europe by sea. In fact, a million tons per day. Absolutely Redundant for US Armed Forces

[jjj]

Quote: Stas157

I even had to buy a few rusty vessels in Turkey urgently

The piquancy of the situation was that when, after the "drying up" brought down by the Turks, we were cursing with Erdogan, the transportation on these very vessels was carried out by the company of his son, whom we also accused of trading in basmachi oil

[HMR333]

And here the son of Erdogan was engaged in oil transportation of goods!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Stas157

Then Russia didn’t have enough transport to keep a couple of planes in Syria! I even had to buy a few rusty vessels in Turkey urgently. And here are thousands of tanks! What to transport them to?

What does Russia have to do with it? The United States, unlike us, did not like either the auxiliary fleet vessels or the civilian fleet. It’s just that we have those vessels that were supposed to transport equipment that were sold or leased for a penny in the 90s.
The same "Vladimir Vaslyaev" (the last in a series of gas-turbine roller skaters such as "Captain Smirnov"), which would be very useful to us on the Syrian route, now serves in the same Shipping Command under the name LCPL Roy M. Wheat.
In addition to the already mentioned eight Algolovs (33 knots, 55000 tons), the KMP has seven Bob Hope vessels (24 nodes, 62000 tons), eight Watson vessels (24 nodes, 62000 tons), 2 vessels of the type Gordon "(24 knots, 65000 tons) and three ships of the Stuttgart type (24 knots, 54450 tons). And this is just one of the classes of the ILC vessels: large skaters.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Stas157

Then Russia didn’t have enough transport to keep a couple of planes in Syria! I even had to buy a few rusty vessels in Turkey urgently. And here are thousands of tanks! What to transport them to?

Still fooling around, trying to emphasize the failure of Russia? And the simple idea that in modern conditions it is really cheaper to hire a pair of “rusty vessels” for transporting equipment just for the reason that it is cheaper cannot come into your head. Or does it interfere with the fact that Russia must cover its transport with gold and diamonds, so that it does not depend on anything or on anyone? At the end, we can only say that the equipment was delivered to Syria, which was cheaper for the budget, and how the Ministry of Defense was spinning there, in order to meet the necessary need, this is secondary. Mattresses would also like to know how some issues are solved when suddenly Russian polite little men with a bunch of equipment appear out of nowhere.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nyrobsky

And the simple idea that in modern conditions it is really cheaper to hire a pair of “rusty vessels” for transporting equipment just for the reason that it is cheaper cannot come into your head.

For the USA - yes, cheaper. But not for us. For us, this option is often not possible at all.
Let me remind you that the "Syrian express" from the BDK began with the fact that the "independent" Western insurance companies refused insurance to the chartered civilian ship carrying helicopters. And then in the West, shipping companies were generally informed that any flight to Syria would lead to the closure of European and American ports for them.
In modern conditions, it is cheaper for the Russian Federation to have a Sea Shipping Corps. Or reserve vessels of the auxiliary fleet. Because the only way the United States does not control shipping is by ship under the flag of the auxiliary fleet. But such a vessel must be at least state-owned. And optimal - to be part of the Navy. And you need to have such vessels before the conflict - so as not to buy rusty tubs that need repair at an overpriced price (because there are no other offers).
The USSR had such ships. But Russia fell in love with them in the 90s and is now re-establishing the Navy’s transport fleet with a creak.

Quote: Nyrobsky

Mattresses would also like to know how some issues are solved when suddenly Russian polite little men with a bunch of equipment appear out of nowhere.

Mattresses, as you put it, can transport a "heavy" division with all the equipment and supplies to anywhere in the world at a speed of 30 knots. And behind it are two more “heavy” divisions with a speed of 24 knots. And these are only army units, not counting the marines.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Alexey RA

Mattresses, as you put it, can transport a "heavy" division with all the equipment and supplies to anywhere in the world at a speed of 30 knots. And behind it are two more “heavy” divisions with a speed of 24 knots. And these are only army units, not counting the marines.

Which, in fact, is no secret to anyone. But the way Russia solved the Crimean issue and set about fulfilling the tasks of destroying ISIS in Syria was a big surprise for the mattresses. They themselves admitted that they “slipped” not only the entire system of training and the transfer of forces, but also that such plans have a place to be

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: BlackMokona

Since the Second World War, the transport and port infrastructure between Europe and America has developed in connection with the growth of trade, and now it will be just two fingers to transfer the mass and volume of the Second World War across the ocean

Means of destruction of the "mass being transferred" have also developed. She just stupidly drown on the road

Quote: Stas157

Quote: BlackMokona

Now throw mass and volume of WWII times across the ocean will be just like two fingers

Then Russia didn’t have enough transport to keep a couple of planes in Syria! I even had to buy a few rusty vessels in Turkey urgently. And here are thousands of tanks! What to transport them to?

Staseg, there was a speech ("thousands of tanks") about the Americans, but for some reason you are talking about the Russian Federation ... is it so numb, or what?

[Blackmokona]

Means of destruction of the "mass being transferred" have also developed. They’ll just stupidly drown her on the road request

There is a recent article on Topvar indicating that there is nothing to drown this transport armada with. Even if the enemy will score on convoys.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: BlackMokona

... there’s nothing to drown this transport armada ...

That is - the mass crush, or what?
The United States has about 2500 Abrams, as sclerosis tells me. What do you think you can carry them on? How many pieces for one, um, a craft?
And - yes: as a rule, it is easier to drown than to not let it be done ...

[Blackmokona]

One MSC Oscar will be able to tighten all 2500 abrams and still space will remain.
193 thousand tons of carrying capacity.
And thousands of these container ships are sailing.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: BlackMokona

One MSC Oscar will be able to tighten all 2500 abrams and still space will remain

And they’ll drown him

[Blackmokona]

There are thousands of such ships, will you all sink? Yes, even in the zone of complete domination of the US Navy and aircraft?

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: BlackMokona

There are thousands of such ships, will you all sink?

What for?
It’s necessary to drown what needs to be drowned ... there’s intelligence for that ... they say

[Blackmokona]

The enemy distributes tanks and other cargo among thousands of ships, and that's all drown.

[jjj]

In fairness, it should be noted that the Americans have valuable experience in the speedy construction of "disposable" Liberty transports during the Second World War. Just now they themselves can’t build. So you have to order in South Korea or Japan

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Golovan Jack

Means of destruction of the "mass being transferred" have also developed. She just stupidly drown on the road

How to drown something? Marine missile aircraft - abolished. Multipurpose submarines - they are not enough even to cover the SSBN. Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles - they are only against the AUG.

[Grits]

Means of destruction of the "mass being transferred" have also developed. She just stupidly drown on the road.
The fact that we have the opportunity to "stupidly drown on the road," I very much doubt it. It is easier to cover this mass in the ports of Europe during unloading by Iskanders and Caliber.

[just exp]

is the T-90 and T-80 with T-72 lightly armored tanks?
in fact, our tanks bypass Western tanks.
all of which we conceded was the penetration rate of BOPS because of their length (and the length depended on AZ).

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Lek3338

The closest conditional rival of Russia does not have armored tanks in Europe, and the United States FIG to transfer such an amount as the Second World War.

Oh, ho, ho ... the Yankees practiced the entire transfer of equipment and supplies from the United States to Europe throughout the Cold War. It was to solve this problem that the monstrous Sea Transport Command was created, which, for example, has Algol-type aircraft carriers the size of an aircraft carrier, capable of eight times transferring a "heavy" division at a speed of 30 knots.

[Nychego]

And in the meantime:
Instead of too expensive “Almaty”, they decided to produce a tank robot at UVZ.
UVZ is developing a heavy assault robotic complex based on the chassis of the T-72B3 tank, a source in the Ministry of Defense told RBC, and also confirmed an interlocutor close to UVZ. The new car will be called "Storm".
“At this stage, a model with military equipment has been created, which allows us to demonstrate the elements of movement. The main goal of the development is to reduce personnel losses during hostilities in urban areas, ”the source told the Ministry of Defense.
Among the main requirements for an assault robotic complex is the presence of ultra-high all-angle protection, which will maintain combat efficiency after 10-15 grenades of a hand anti-tank grenade launcher and mine detonation.
Another wish of the military is the ability to fire in programmable mode. This should happen in accordance with the combat mission entered into the on-board computer for previously explored targets, the source explained.
In fact, the “Sturm” will replace the “Armata”, which the Armed Forces of Russia do not seek to buy in bulk because of its high cost. For comparison, in 2016, 450 million were asked for the "Armata", and the T-72B3 tank cost only 79 million.
Previously, it was planned that the Russian army will receive about 2000 Armat. During a visit to Nizhny Tagil, the combat vehicle was examined by President Vladimir Putin. The first to get "Armata" were in the Taman Division.
https://www.e1.ru/news/spool/news_id-65244681.htm
l

[Evgeny Strygin]

how about neither one nor the other? Well, so thoughts

[Gargantua]

Better 3 live Russian tankers than 6 dead

[Grenader]

Quote: Thrall

A philosophical question, what is better in a real battle, one Armata or 2 modernized T-90

The question is far from philosophical. Can a T-90 hold an Abrams bop? Can the T-90 shoot down modern ATGMs in the upper hemisphere? Can the T-90 pierce Abrams, Leclerc, Leopard in the forehead? And Armata was created not only as an MBT, but as a single unified platform. burying this idea is a crime. The heavy T-15 infantry fighting vehicle is generally unique today, changing the tactics of using motorized infantry units radically. If now it is limited to the modernization of old equipment, then in five years the adversary will rivet new equipment with improved characteristics and we will have to catch up and buy Armata all the same, and the money spent on the modernization of old equipment will be thrown to the wind. So in the future we need to consider the issue. But in our country, all sorts of Kudrins-Shmudrins and Siluans have too much influence on the country's defense.

[just exp]

Yes, the T-90 holds the BOPS abrams in the forehead.
no . doesn’t shoot down ATGMs in the upper hemisphere, as does Armata (it doesn’t shoot down the upper hemisphere only with electronic warfare).
no, yes, and it can and cannot punch foreshadow and leo in the forehead, because there are a bunch of nuances here - the type of guns, ammunition and model of modernization of the tank. as well as in 2A82 with new BOPS, penetration is greater than 120mm rheinmetal with new BOPS.
By the way, DZ at T-90 breaks Nata's crowbars, but Nata does not have such DZ.
and if the T-90 were to be made of steel that was thought up for reinforcement (+ 15% to strength), then it would be more armored than reinforcement. because the last one is larger in size with the same weight (what do you think if a tank weighs the same as another tank. But it’s bigger (that is, the reservation area is larger) where will the armor be thicker?)

[Grenader]

Quote: just explo

what do you think if a tank weighs as much as another tank. but larger (that is, the reservation area is larger) where will the armor be thicker?)

Booking of Almaty is generally a secret. So it’s impossible to compare. At the expense of other points, as I wrote, you need to look at the future. A potential adversary is likely to strengthen the reservation of weapons and security of their MBT in the near future. So it’s necessary to respond to a change in the situation, but the T-90’s modernization potential is still limited - you can strengthen the reservation but the mobility will suffer, the load on the chassis again, the installation of 152 mm guns is possible, but technically it’s easier on Armata, and ammunition in T-90 is not easy to place. So the cheapness of modernization does not solve all the issues.

[ammunition]

Quote: Thrall

A philosophical question, what is better in a real battle, one Armata or 2 modernized T-90

To fully equip one tank division with Armaty 600 $ million is required. (Taking into account the cost of the released tanks)
Is it expensive? Yes, one oligarch can easily buy three tank armies .-)) and is not very poor .-))

[just exp]

on the whole I agree, but there are also other costs. like training crews. new ammunition and more.
but good cheap is very rare.

[Lord of the Sith]

Abramsov at the beginning of 2018 was about 6500 units, in 2011 there were about 8300 units, and in 2009 there were up to 11500 units.

They do not release new abrams, but sell old ones to Egypt, Arabs, and so on.

[Evgeny Strygin]

such a number of tanks, the country does not actually need a land military threat;

[HMR333]

Yes, their prehistoric abromis is like two armata, they are also trying to hang clowns on their ears with their ears!

[Sadko88]

Rational use of the budget is much more important.

[MPN]

Quote: Sadko88

Rational use of the budget is much more important.

The Americans shouted that Russia would defeat them, everywhere they lag behind ..., well, so far they have adopted the budget, now they have accepted and they are the best again and Russia will not be able to oppose them, so it will be until the discussion of the next budget begins ...

[poquello]

a new tank in Russia, according to the author of the material, may appear in 5-7 years

Interestingly, is this author a pessimist or an optimist? In 5-7 we will have everything in Armata, or will we also start selling? What else could he have expected with his phrase, given that they already exist in small quantities.

[1 Navigator]

Put the asphalt first, and then release the tanks.

[Thrall]

Quote: Navigator 1

Put the asphalt first, and then release the tanks.

Tanks on the pavement slip

[aristok]

Quote: Thrall

Quote: Navigator 1

Put the asphalt first, and then release the tanks.

Tanks on the pavement slip

they don't slip, they drift

...
so excuse doesn’t work ..
.. you need to lay down the asphalt

[Icarus]

need to lay asphalt

Anecdote on the topic: The judge asks the peasant: what is the reason for your filing for divorce from your wife. Man: FALSE. Judge: specifically? He: Well, for example, I ask her: do you put sugar in tea? Wife: lies, lies.

[Golovan Jack]

There is an impression that he specifically sought this pillar.
In general - nefig fly at a speed exceeding the guardian angel

[rocket757]

Why TANKS asphalt.
And then, we will transfer to helicopters! Our sky is good and abundant.

[Thrall]

Brothers-Ukrainians transfer to helicopters according to Groysman

[rocket757]

The difference is, we make helicopters, in the dill it seems Bell of the 50s was going to do it and how, did it?
Jokes, jokes, instead of directions, I really want to have NORMAL roads and not only in central cities!

[Vova Kabaev]

Do not choke on a bullet!

[Conrad]

Why be rude?

[roskot]

Tanks are not afraid of dirt.

[rocket757]

A bulb fried in a fire or in a pan with butter and onion, it's a TASTY!
I don’t understand this with little things, they have such karma or bad taste.

[Denimax]

I never liked this concept with an uninhabited tower. And if it is also expensive (which is not surprising), then why is it needed at all.

[Jerk]

In the USA, now Nostradamus is being grown instead of corn ... Maybe it’s time to arrange an exorcism ceremony for them - otherwise there are a lot of devils

[Graz]

only our own officials can ruin the project no one else

[Приговор]

As it turned out, it’s not always what we don’t say and don’t show what is available. And rightly so. The tactics of the Americans - to talk a lot and hope to someday finish, the tactics of the Russians - to say nothing until it is done.

[spektr9]

By the time Russia has the means to mass produce a tank, the situation in the world may change

Yes, of course, and in Russia in particular - there are two options here either there will be no oligarchs, or a country

The new tank in Russia, according to the author of the material, may appear in 5-7 years

- it may appear, but it can be produced in doubt

ps Thanks to the backlogs of the USSR under the global war, without them the country would have taken 10 times already

[Alexey-74]

"A new tank in Russia, according to the author of the material, may appear in 5-7 years" It will certainly appear in serial form already. Actually, it was intended to be so, the T-14 is the MBT of the future of the Russian army, at the moment there are enough T-90s and T-72s upgraded ..... But gentlemen, you striped and after 5-7 years of a new tank not see and it is a fact!

[Romario_Argo]

the Americans also created the MVT-70 tank with a 152-mm AZ gun, fired 14 pieces, and then the grandmas ended. expensive (!)

[Sasvet]

Well, they won’t let out serial production, this is a secondary issue ... The main thing is that development is underway, tank building does not stand still .. The T-34 is also not immediately remembered for the series went and modernized more than once during the Second World War.

[Prisoner]

The pins see the company in the media for complacency.

[Dietmar]

It’s easy to rivet T.14 tanks, where to get tankers. We need a completely new trained tanker. Therefore, 100 Armat with crews is real. There is no one to fight with armats.

[afrikanez]

By the time Russia has the means for mass production of a tank, the situation in the world may change, and the tank will be an obsolete machine

You would, Americans, even grow up to such a tank and only then say something. And in general, envy silently!

[sgazeev]

Not more expensive than Abram pale-faced.

[spectr]

Maybe they do not have time to rivet T-14. Their role in the modern war is too vague, where the emphasis is on aviation and missile strikes. And the main task of the advancing units is the cleaning and control of the territory. As I understand it, they are now trying to increase the mobility of equipment, or improve the armor of light equipment without loss in mobility and fuel consumption.

[top_war_shit]

it go again obama tongue scratches

[top_war_shit]

100 pieces have already done this trial run-in

[bobba94]

I remember how one country built a destroyer worth $ 4,3 billion, and then, when it began to break down under all kinds of different circumstances, I wondered what to do with this "golden" Zamvolt.

[TOR2]

Quote: BlackMokona

Since the Second World War, the transport and port infrastructure between Europe and America has developed in connection with the growth of trade, and now it will be just two fingers to transfer the mass and volume of the Second World War across the ocean

Detonate several 100 megaton toys in neutral waters. In what place will the entire coastal structure be, I hope it’s not difficult to guess. Then you can unload good luck.

[Hiller]

And who is already, and why didn’t he "bury" us. Learn the story of the losers.

[Igor Strakh]

Well, yes! The German “tigers” surrounded and brought down the T-34s in battle (winning somewhere in number, despite the fact that in one program the Americans compared the “tiger” to Mercedes, the quality of the “tigers” differed sharply with the 34ok front stamping, just look at T-34 towers, where seams, smudges, etc.) this cheap "barbarian weapon" turned out to be more effective than the "sophisticated armor of the Teutonic crusaders." Sometimes an ordinary knife in the hands of a professional is able to defeat an amateur with a sword

[Reserve buildbat]

Let's hope that they wishful thinking, although in the light of Borisov's statements ... Or everything goes into deaf secrecy (which is right) or our government once again confirms its anti-Russian orientation.

[USSR-1]

Mattresses are all worried that Russia is "expensive" ... It is necessary for Russia to put a printing press and produce the same green candy wrappers. They have 21 trillion candy wrappers in debt and we can print 10. Let's see how the Americans then spin and print hundreds of billions of pacifiers for the Pentagon budget