Constant and unrelenting growth: the problem of the cost of tanks

The T-90S is not the most expensive, but the most successful MBT on the market today. Photo by Indian Ministry of Defense

Commercial success tank or another armored vehicle depends on several main factors. First of all, these are tactical and technical characteristics. It is of great importance that the parameters and capabilities of the product correspond to the actual needs of the market and specific buyers. In addition, cost remains the most important factor. A sophisticated and prohibitively expensive combat vehicle will attract attention - but this interest will not give any commercial results.

Main trends

Tanks are necessary for any developed army, and therefore such equipment occupies a special place in the international arms market. At the same time, the armored vehicle sector has interesting features associated with the specifics of the production or modernization of tanks, with the needs of buyers, etc.

First of all, it is necessary to remember that only a few countries currently have full-fledged tank production. Production lines operate in Russia, Germany, Israel, India, China, etc. The same countries, independently or with foreign assistance, are developing and implementing projects for the modernization of existing equipment.

One of the Ukrainian options for modernizing the T-64 with an eye to export. Photo "Ukroboronprom"

The USA, France, Italy, Ukraine and some other countries have competencies for building tanks, but they are not currently using them. So far, they are limited only to the modernization of existing samples, although the possibility of creating new projects is not excluded.

According to various estimates, the bulk of sales on the international market is accounted for by used tanks. Armored vehicles of older types can be sold in connection with obtaining modern technology. In addition, in the recent past, some countries had large stocks of tanks at their disposal, and they decided to put them on sale.

Used tanks can be sold "as is" or repaired with the restoration of basic functions, depending on the wishes of the customer. It is also possible to upgrade before delivery with the replacement of equipment and the introduction of new functions. Such work is also a fairly profitable business. Moreover, there is and is constantly growing a whole category of modernization projects, initially aimed at foreign orders.

Export T-90SM. Photo Vitalykuzmin.net

Thus, at present, any army can find for itself a tank that most fully meets the requirements and corresponds to its financial capabilities. However, it is often the monetary factor that is decisive, which reduces sales of modern vehicles and stimulates the growth of the "secondary market" with used tanks and modernization projects.

With a run on the tankodrome

Tanks of relatively old models, morally and physically obsolete, as well as those that have exhausted most of the resource, do not differ in high cost. For example, the deals of recent years on the sale of T-55 armored vehicles provided for a payment of approx. 150-200 thousand dollars apiece. Eastern European countries, former members of the Department of Internal Affairs, sold T-72 early modifications at about the same price. Often, rearmament contributes to the fall in prices for newer MBTs, making them an almost useless asset.

Repair and modernization can improve the characteristics of the tank and extend the service life, as well as increase its cost. For example, in 2016 Russia received an order for the modernization of T-72B tanks under the B1 project with the subsequent transfer of the Nicaraguan army. For 50 cars the customer paid approx. $ 80 million - on average 1,6 million per unit.

Upgraded T-72B3 mod. 2016 Photo Vitalykuzmin.net

Until recently, the repaired MBT was actively traded in Ukraine. After the collapse of the USSR, she actually got a large number of various tanks for free, and they were quickly brought to the international market. For the restored and improved T-64, depending on the features of the update, they asked for $ 1-1,2 million.

Modern modernization projects provide a significant increase in performance, but are distinguished by high costs. So, in 2013, it was reported that the cost of upgrading a T-72B tank to a T-72B3 for the Russian army exceeds 50 million rubles. (approx. $ 2 million at the exchange rate of that time). About 60% of these expenses were spent on major overhaul of the MBT, the rest - on new components. Later, a new version of the B3 project was created with a different composition of equipment. According to various sources, the cost of such modernization reached the level of 75-80 million rubles.

A similar project to modernize old tanks on a new project is now being implemented in the United States and is designated M1A2C or M1A2 SEP v.3. The first contract for such tanks was signed in 2017 and provided for the upgrade of 45 vehicles for 270 million dollars.Thus, the average cost of modernization reached 6 million - not counting the cost of building a tank in the past.

American tank M1A2C, the latest version of the Abrams. US Army Photos

Poland recently announced its intention to purchase American tanks of the latest modification. For 250 M1A2C vehicles, spare parts, personnel training, etc. plan to spend approx. 6,04 billion dollars. Thus, the life cycle of each tank will cost 24 million dollars. Under the terms of the SEP v.3 program, only the existing MBTs are upgraded with the previous update package. Accordingly, the Polish plans show roughly the total cost of production of the tank itself, several of its upgrades, as well as the costs of combat operation.

Equipment from the factory

Thanks to the obvious advantages, tanks of the new construction retain a significant market share. Most of the agreements provide only for the sale of equipment, but in some cases licensed production is organized with the assembly of tanks at the customer's enterprise.

The best-selling tank of our time is deservedly considered the Russian T-90S, and India is its main buyer. Orders for the supply of finished machines were received from the beginning of the 1000s, and then a Russian-Indian agreement appeared on the organization of assembly at the customer's site. According to him, in the coming years, the Indian army was to receive 2,5 new MBT with a total cost of approx. $ 3,4 billion (about $ 2,5 billion, taking into account inflation). Thus, one tank cost $ XNUMX million.

South Korean K2, one of the most expensive tanks in stories. Wikimedia Commons Photos

In 2014-15. licensed assembly was organized in Algeria. That contract provided for the manufacture of 200 MBTs of the T-90SA type with a total cost of approx. $ 1 billion, i.e. 5 million each.

At the beginning of the tenth years, the T-90AM and T-90SM tanks, made on the basis of the serial T-90, were presented. In advertising materials and other messages, the cost of an export "SM" of a new construction appeared. Depending on the configuration, it could exceed $ 4 million.

Certain commercial successes are demonstrated by the German Leopard 2A7 + tank, which is the latest modification of the family. So, in 2013, a contract was signed for the supply of 62 similar vehicles and other equipment to the Qatar army. In 2018, we signed an agreement on the supply of 44 tanks and other vehicles to Hungary. In both cases, it was about new-built tanks costing approx. $ 10 million each.

German Leopard 2A7 +, another contender for the cost record. Photo by KMW

Since 2014, South Korea has been transferring its tank forces to a modern MBT of its own design, the K2 Black Panther. At the start of production, the cost of such a vehicle was $ 8,5 million, which made it the most expensive tank in the world. At current prices, this is almost 10 million - and "Black Panther" retains an ambiguous lead in terms of cost. Despite this, K2 attracts the attention of potential foreign customers. Negotiations are underway with Poland and Norway.

The cost problem

Advanced and sophisticated components and technologies are used to create modern tanks. Due to this, the required level of performance is achieved, but the complexity of production and the price of the finished machine increase. As a result, prices for armored vehicles are constantly and inexorably rising, causing concern to the military departments. Even developed and rich countries are forced to cut their plans, and other states are deprived of any chance of obtaining modern armored vehicles.

It should be noted that in promising projects, customers introduce rather strict restrictions on the cost of the tank and its life cycle. However, the technical requirements for these programs set the next increase in performance and introduce new functions. This should lead to the next complication of the combat vehicle, and at the same time to an increase in prices. It is not known whether it will be possible to find a way out of this vicious circle.

Comments

[parusnik]

How are we going to fight? Tanks are expensive, planes are also not cheap, this also applies to them. A nuclear war, everyone will be a pretty penny.

[datur]

so the war has always cost dear! the main thing was the prize that the winner receives !!!

[ammunition]

Quote: parusnik

How are we going to fight? Tanks are expensive, planes aren't cheap either

The Taliban have worked out a method for a successful war without tanks and without aircraft. .. Is not it so ?

[ccsr]

Quote: ammunition

The Taliban have worked out a method for a successful war without tanks and without aircraft.

Where do you find so many Taliban for NATO countries? And the Europeans are unlikely to want to breed them at home.

[VTR-295]

Afghan army essentially did not resist the Taliban

[Alexey RA]

Quote: parusnik

How are we going to fight? Tanks are expensive, planes are also not cheap, this also applies to them. A nuclear war, everyone will be a pretty penny.

Pan Lem wrote about this almost 40 years ago.

The morale of the population, especially in the "welfare states", evaporated like camphor. Such respectable ancient slogans as "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" (sweet and honorable to die for the fatherland), the young conscripts considered complete idiocy. At the same time, new generations of weapons went up exponentially. The plane of the times of the First World War, consisting mainly of canvas, wooden slats, piano wire and several machine guns, cost, along with landing wheels, no more than a good car. A plane of the Second World War era was already worth thirty cars, and by the end of the century, the cost of a Stealth missile fighter-interceptor or a stealth bomber that was invisible to the radar reached hundreds of millions of dollars. Projected for 2000, rocket fighters were supposed to cost a billion dollars each. If this continued on, then eighty years later, each of the superpowers could afford no more than 20-25 aircraft. Tanks were a little cheaper. A nuclear carrier, defenseless against a single FiF type super-rocket (over the target, it fell into a whole fan of warheads, each of which hit one of the nerve nodes of this sea community), although it was, in fact, a kind of brontosaurus under artillery fire, worth billions.

© Stanislav Lem. Weapon systems of the XNUMXst century or upside down evolution.

He saw a way out in the creation of AI and a swarm of cheap insect-type micro-machines that could work both separately and merged together - say, into a bomb, a disposable laser or a climate weapon system.

[And Us Rat]

Quote: parusnik

Nuclear-free war, everyone will be a pretty penny.

War has never been a cheap "pleasure."

[Alf]

Quote: And Us Rat

Quote: parusnik

Nuclear-free war, everyone will be a pretty penny.

War has never been a cheap "pleasure."

The realities of modern war ...

[ccsr]

.

This should lead to the next complication of the combat vehicle, and at the same time to an increase in prices. It is not known whether it will be possible to find a way out of this vicious circle.

It is known because it will be possible to find a way out by creating new self-propelled guns with guided artillery shells of 152 mm caliber and above. It is this type of weaponry that will press tanks in the states of future tank formations, if only because self-propelled guns will be cheaper, and their range and accuracy will be better.

[Romka47]

Of course, I am FOR SPG with a 152 mm cannon with both hands, but only as an addition to the MBT. But about "It is this type of weaponry that will press tanks in the states of future tank formations"I doubt very much that guided 152 mm rounds will be much more expensive for anybody else, the range and accuracy are good, but what will it do on the site of the tank if the battle is almost point-blank? The self-propelled guns are irreplaceable but more highly specialized equipment, and the tank is a tank for that," so that they can plug all the holes ... and poke new holes.

[Konnick]

I doubt very much that 152 mm guided projectiles will be much more expensive than conventional tank shells, the range and accuracy are good, but what will it do in place of the tank if the battle is almost point-blank

Modern tanks are not designed for point-blank combat, too delicate observation and aiming devices, huge birdhouses on the towers. The tank has become an anti-tank and cannot be approached closer than a kilometer to the infantry positions, "all glass in the car will be broken." This is not a KV, not a T-34 or a Tiger, with their miniature optical devices and resistant to small arms fire, although they were well blinded.

[ccsr]

Quote: Romka47

I doubt very much that guided 152 mm shells will be much more expensive than conventional tank shells,

If we carefully consider the trend in the development of missile-guided weapons systems, we can clearly see a sharp decline in the cost of such military equipment, from air defense systems to anti-tank guided missiles. But the point is not even in cost, but in the fact that the range of defeat with simple projectiles is very small, which means that accuracy, range and caliber will be decisive.

Quote: Romka47

but what will she do in the place of the tank if the battle is almost point-blank?

This will no longer be, if only because the last tank battles of the twentieth century, and with limited use of armored formations, were observed in the first war in the Gulf, and in principle they did not solve anything. What is the point of creating expensive tanks if they will not be destroyed at a line-of-sight distance, but when they are 20-40 km from the line of upcoming battles with the same self-propelled guns, aircraft or UAVs.

Quote: Romka47

and that's why he is a tank, to plug all holes with it ..

This is all expensive and ineffective, because the aerospace forces will much faster and more reliably solve any problem associated with the destruction of the enemy.

[Alf]

Quote: ccsr

if only because the self-propelled guns will be cheaper

How is it ?

[ccsr]

Quote: Alf

How is it ?

At least from the fact that anti-fragmentation armor is much cheaper than tank armor, and as a result, a decrease in weight, power of the power plant, etc. The reduction in weight even lowers the cost of transportation, reduces maintenance and fuel consumption.
But even this is not the main thing, but the fact that self-propelled guns can fire tactical nuclear charges, but they are not made for tanks.

[Alf]

Quote: ccsr

At least from the fact that fragmentation armor is much cheaper than tank armor, and as a result, weight reduction,

That's right, but from what distance will the self-propelled guns support the infantry? From a kilometer or from 10? If from a kilometer, then such an ACS is the dream of an anti-tank officer, and if from 10, then where will it hit, especially if the target is either hidden by folds of the terrain or very close to his infantry?

Quote: ccsr

ACS can fire tactical nuclear charges,

Again, absolutely true. The only question is, how many special ammunition are there in the regular transport of the ACS BC? And conventional shells and tanks and self-propelled guns are firing incessantly.

[Konnick]

That's right, but from what distance will the self-propelled guns support the infantry? From a kilometer or from 10? If from a kilometer, then such an ACS is the dream of an anti-tank officer, and if from 10, then where will it hit, especially if the target is either hidden by folds of the terrain or very close to his infantry?

The fact of the matter is that the self-propelled guns can quite accurately beat from closed positions, even from a kilometer. And if the mortar is in the self-propelled guns, then closer, without appearing in the field of view of the anti-tank officer. And in order to hit for this, there are target designation and fire adjustment devices.

[Alf]

Quote: Konnick

The fact of the matter is that the self-propelled guns can quite accurately beat from closed positions, even from a kilometer. And if the mortar is in the self-propelled guns, then closer, without appearing in the field of view of the anti-tank officer. And in order to hit for this, there are target designation and fire adjustment devices.

But the whole point is that now military operations are more and more tied to cities, and in the city they usually only beat them with direct fire, although they also shoot from closed positions.

[Konnick]

But the whole point is that now military operations are more and more tied to cities, and in the city they usually only beat them with direct fire, although they also shoot from closed positions.

Once they showed footage from Grozny how the Chechens were shooting from a grenade launcher almost vertically, their target was our soldiers behind a 5-storey building. We had in the Red Army a 50-mm company mortar with a remote crane that could hit 200 meters. Now they are adopting the AGS-57 LShO, this is what should be put on armored vehicles for battle in the city. It can fire both direct fire and mounted fire, up to 6 km. And has cumulative shots.

And if you put in a type of automated remote crane, then it will be able to fire from a closed position and closer than 200 meters.
By the way, somewhere there was information that the Americans in Iraq spent more grenade launcher shots for the AGS than just cartridges, not allowing Iraqis to enter the desert areas closer than 1,5 km and they could not use their small arms and RPG-7.

[Alf]

Quote: Konnick

And if the

You noticed everything correctly. Another thing is that a fundamentally new combat vehicle is needed for operations in the city. This is how I imagine it. Caterpillar, speed up to 40 km / h, maximally booked from all sides and especially from above, an engineering kit is required. Armament-152-mm low-ballistic howitzer cannon with an elevation angle of up to 80 *, several flamethrower machine guns, looking in different directions and certainly, so that at each point there is a shooter.

[Konnick]

Caterpillar, speed up to 40 km / h, maximally booked from all sides and especially from above, an engineering kit is required. Armament - 152-mm low ballistic howitzer cannon with an elevation angle of up to 80 *, several flamethrower machine guns, looking in different directions and by all means, that at each point there is a shooter

You cannot put eggs in one basket. Clashes with visual contact should be avoided. Identification of targets using modern reconnaissance means and data transmission for firing from a closed position. Shooting from a powerful cannon, and even with a muzzle brake, can raise such dust in a ruined city that at some point they can knock on the hatch cover and ask you to surrender, and you won't even notice how the enemy approached.

[Alf]

Quote: Konnick

Clashes with visual contact should be avoided.

It’s necessary, but it doesn’t work. Have many Americans escaped in Iraq?

Quote: Konnick

Shooting from a powerful cannon, and even with a muzzle brake, can raise such dust in a ruined city,

Aha, and BEFORE this shot is in the defended city perfect cleanliness?

[Konnick]

Aha, and BEFORE this shot is in the defended city perfect cleanliness?

You cannot approach the enemy on any armored vehicle without the support of the infantry, since you will be guaranteed to lose optical sighting and observation devices from dense automatic and sniper fire, if this fire does not suppress the infantry, and the infantry is even more vulnerable. Therefore, there was a tactic for the movement of infantry through buildings with breaks in the walls at the end of the Second World War, and only then did armored vehicles move, destroying the firing points located at the intersections. But there were still losses. Although this tactic was used by the Semyonovsky regiment when taking the barricades in Krasnaya Presnya, bypassing them around the houses of continuous development.

[Alf]

Quote: Konnick

Therefore, there was a tactic for the movement of infantry through buildings with breaks in the walls at the end of the Second World War, and only then did armored vehicles go,

True, but not at a kilometer distance.

[Konnick]

True, but not at a kilometer distance.

This is in old cities with continuous buildings, for example, what is on Nevsky Prospekt. In our cities there is no, but in the Syrian and dust, and solid buildings. In general, it is better not to enter the city, but to surround it tightly and deprive it of supplies. The Americans, using modern night vision devices, were active in Iraq and Afghanistan at night, taking advantage of this advantage. In 1995, in the spring, all DOSAAF organizations, then ROSTO, were ordered to hand over all weapons to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and what kind of weapons were there, little things. It turns out that when they began to analyze the losses of our troops in Grozny, many were killed and wounded from small-caliber rifles. Since we did not have thermal imagers, and the NV devices were blinded by the bright fire, the Chechens fired small pieces of fire from the windows of houses at night, the flash was not visible, the shot was not heard. It is impossible to spot where they are shooting. Urban battles require improvisation, as all cities are different.

[ccsr]

Quote: Alf

That's right, but from what distance will the self-propelled guns support the infantry? From a kilometer or from 10

Guided shells can be fired from 10 km away, and direct-fire self-propelled guns even during the Great Patriotic War were firing, supporting the infantry.

Quote: Alf

The only question is, how many special ammunition are there in the regular transport of the ACS BC?

For a special period, they will receive the required amount from the 12 arsenals of the Defense Ministry, as well as for the OTR - I see no problem.

Quote: Alf

And conventional shells and tanks and self-propelled guns are firing incessantly.

Yes, only SPGs have larger calibers, and this already plays a big role for high-explosive fragmentation shells.

[paul3390]

Actually - and what is getting cheaper? IMHO - here the question is not only about the cost of the equipment itself, but also the creeping inflation in dollars is playing its piano .. Maybe if they had paid, say, in gold, the growth would have been not so significant. And then the new dollar and it is 20 years ago - there are two huge differences .. I still remember the times when $ 300 was considered a pretty solid amount ..

[Thrifty]

Well, one of the options for reducing the cost is the mass production and unification of equipment, the creation of not a tank, but a platform in which the tank is only one link from a whole family of combat and auxiliary vehicles.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Thrifty

this is mass production

For mass production, production capacities are needed. Government orders for the needs of our own army, and not only for export, and certainly not ultra-expensive show-off in the form of the Olympic Games and the World Cup.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Ingvar 72

For mass production, production capacities are needed.

Power is yes, but

Thus, the life cycle of each tank will cost $ 24 million.

, that is, for 1000 tanks it can be $ 24 billion. And this amount is only for tanks, but a thousand is not so much, 3-4 divisions or 7-9 brigades. The usual set of subdivisions for an average country. But is this country capable of paying SUCH amount for tanks ..?
Without tanks, nowhere, but, in my opinion, they ran into a price deadlock. The tank needs to be constantly modernized, and it already costs a lot of money ... But this is a consumable material of the battlefield, it was, and still remains. Such a diamond "consumable" turns out ...

[Lad]

Dinosaurs will eventually leave, giving way to smaller and more mobile machines. But they will hold out for some time by inertia. Drones will replace them. They will be smaller, more mobile, less protected for the sake of reduced weight, cost and increased mobility. Although mobility itself also protects to some extent.

[Spring fluff]

I also think in this direction. Optimally - a megadron-aircraft carrier flies out, flies to a distance outside the air defense, designed to defeat such a target, releases a batch of smaller carriers, they are farther, as a result, a swarm of cheap plastic flies reaches the enemy's positions. Each fly has a few shots with something cheap plastic-chemical per person, you don't even need to kill, the effect is enough like a hornet bite in the face / hand, or a small charge on a technique to detonate at a vulnerable point - explosives into a missile launcher or a tank cannon, on the gas tank of a truck, rangefinders, something that destroys or interferes with the operation of radars for air defense / missile defense, plus reconnaissance systems for transmitting data along a chain of drones for pointing high-precision weapons.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Spring Fluff

Optimally - a megadron-aircraft carrier flies out, flies to a distance outside the air defense, designed to defeat such a target, releases a batch of smaller carriers, they are farther, as a result, a swarm of cheap plastic flies reaches the enemy's positions.

Stanislav Lem approves!

[Rome]

It's not realistic to knock down all this pile of plastic, but the EMP charge will knock them out easily. But protection from EMP in a miniature product seems to be impossible to do.

[sav]

Quote: Lad

Drones will replace them. They will be smaller, more mobile, less protected for the sake of reduced weight, cost and increased mobility

UAVs are already coming in addition - Chinese ones with Ali-Express

[lubesky]

The newer technologies in tanks and their protection, the more expensive it progresses. Stopping growth will not allow the intense competition, which is only growing. An armored station wagon will only go up in price, because in order to reduce prices, you need to mass-produce ALL components of the monster in the series, the series knocks down the price due to the DEVELOPMENT of a new technology. But this will only happen if a fundamentally new weapon appears, which either neutralizes the need for tanks as such in mass production or dampens the interest of customers in them. In the meantime, there is no alternative and the MODERNIZATION market is clearly overheated, so all new technologies will be used that will not have time to reach the series.

[Iskazi]

And what did the author want to say ...? In the present time and in the present conditions, nothing will become cheaper. It is known that the profit in trade is several times higher than the profit in production, so the author farts into a puddle ..., they want to cut down EVERYTHING, and they cut it as far as possible.

[Kot_Kuzya]

Modern weapons have always cost, are and will continue to be. For example, for the rearmament of the Russian army from the Berdan rifle to the Mosin rifle, 156,5 million rubles were allocated, this, with a gold content of a ruble of 0,774 g, equals 121 tons of pure gold, for comparison, before the First World War, the gold reserve of the State Bank of Russia was 1312 tons of gold, that is almost a tenth of the gold reserve of the country's budget was spent on rearmament.

[Vladimir Demin]

The USSR also riveted a lot of pieces of iron, but this did not save it from collapse! Only a decent life for the people, and not a handful of comprador oligarchy, is the guarantee of the country's successful existence!

[tank64rus]

The sale of tanks for export partially reduces the cost of rearmament within the country. But for this you need to have advanced science and industry and a patriotic elite (statesmen) in the leadership, which would support this in the country.

[Szajesz]

A good MBT is 6-8M USD min (active defense system, powerfull engine, good passive protection and hard hitting main gun (900-1000mm penetration with APDS min)). MBT has an advantage -> near real-time answer for support call.

[Alf]

Quote: Szajesz

A good MBT is 6-8M USD min (active defense system, powerfull engine, good passive protection and hard hitting main gun (900-1000mm penetration with APDS min)). MBT has an advantage -> near real-time answer for support call.

Russian please ? Or at least in Russian in English letters?

[stalkerwalker]

A good MBT costs 6-8 million US dollars at least (active protection system, powerful engine, good passive protection and a powerful main cannon (penetration 900-1000 mm with APDS at least)). MBT has an advantage -> almost real-time response to support calls.

[Alf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

A good MBT costs 6-8 million US dollars at least (active protection system, powerful engine, good passive protection and a powerful main cannon (penetration 900-1000 mm with APDS at least)). MBT has an advantage -> almost real-time response to support calls.

Thank you.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Alf

Thank you.

You are welcome ...

[Alf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

Quote: Alf

Thank you.

You are welcome ...

[Glagol1]

So many tanks were riveted before 2000 that they will be modernized for another 20 years. And no army in the world needs such a number as before.

[Kaw]

With the advent of such weapons as Spike, Harom and Javelin, the value of tanks can plummet, which is why there are so few people willing to spend on them. IMHO

[bk0010]

If you assign the task of fighting tanks to special anti-tank weapons, then you can return to the production of the T-62 on a new technological base (in addition to the Armats and the T-90), only return the 100-mm rifled gun (for accuracy) and supply the AZ. The armor is such that the tank can only be hit by anti-tank weapons (well, or 155-mm suitcases), the diesel is civilian, the IR sight is based on hunting sights. The tank will come out cheaper than modern ATGMs, the price will allow you to add a tank to each motorized rifle platoon, and the quantity will provide interesting effects due to the density of the fire.

[Alf]

Quote: bk0010

only return the cannon 100 mm rifled (for accuracy)

And what can she pierce?

Quote: bk0010

diesel - civil,

What power?

Quote: bk0010

IR sight based on hunting scopes.

Explain.

[bk0010]

Quote: Alf

And what can she pierce?

Everything, except for tanks and fortified areas.

Quote: Alf

What power?

What was the T-62, 600-700 hp.

Quote: Alf

Explain.

Imported military sights were closed to us with sanctions. Our products are barely enough for new equipment. But now they sell IR sights for hunters, good and inexpensive. You can buy a large batch of such sights and use their "guts" when creating an aiming complex (instead of TPN).

[Alf]

Quote: bk0010

Everything, except for tanks and fortified areas.

And what is it for if it cannot pierce anything?

Quote: bk0010

What was the T-62, 600-700 hp.

Is 700 mares a civilian diesel? Oh well..

Quote: bk0010

Our products are barely enough for new equipment.

A counter question, where did the large production of such scopes go? Who "optimized" it?

Quote: bk0010

You can buy a large batch of such sights and use their "guts" when creating an aiming complex (instead of TPN).

And nothing that the capabilities of a civilian sight and a military one are "a little" different? It's the same as if the armored personnel carrier is built on the basis of Rafik, and people are transported there and there.

[bk0010]

Quote: Alf

And what is it for if it cannot pierce anything?

It can penetrate everything except the frontal armor of MBT and capital pillboxes. The list is too big for "nothing".

Quote: Alf

Is 700 mares a civilian diesel? Oh well..

Such diesel engines are definitely on the serial Volvo trucks.

Quote: Alf

A counter question, where did the large production of such scopes go? Who "optimized" it?

Where and everything goes with us.

Quote: Alf

And nothing that the capabilities of a civilian sight and a military one are "a little" different?

Nothing. When the options are "either civilian or nothing," then civilian will do.

[Togilen]

Steel rises in price all over the world - it is natural.

[Vavilov]

this is not a problem of the cost of a tank, but a problem of changing the role of money, for some countries they serve as a tool for manipulating the domestic and world markets, while for others, tightly seated on resources and import substitution, the accumulation of a money-box with foreign exchange reserves in case it necessarily happens periodically)) money does not serve as a measure of value now that it used to be

[Puskarinkis]

It's not tanks that are getting more expensive, but the capitalist system is so arranged! Everything and always rises in price, with the active help of bankers and admitted to the "trough"! And already in war ... Someone, war - tears and death, and someone - a guaranteed super-profit! By the way, do not forget that Russia is also a capitalist country with a large military-industrial complex, which is hungry for profits!

[cat-begemot]

The cost of life is estimated at the cost of 1 cartridge 5.45 × 39 or 7.62.
At current prices for cartridges, this is from 7 to 50 rubles. Taking into account automatic fire and somersaults, body armor and the desire to live of a potential victim, we will increase the number of cartridges to 1000. Everything else is auxiliary - to find, catch up, scare, wring out the victim from the shelter or bunker ...
Although in a modern economy, there is much more chance of dying from hunger and disease than from a bullet.
Transport, medicine, chemistry, chronic lack of sleep are much more active mowing down the people.

And there should be a lot of tanks, tanks, but they need trained crews, and every minute, they need spare parts, fuel, ammunition, motorized infantry and aviation cover. And new and cool tanks in case of war will be a priority target and can quickly end or turn into toys. which will strenuously hide from the enemy, so God forbid not to scratch. This means that any war, after the loss of everything high-tech, will return to weapons that can be repaired on the knee - assault rifles, rifles, knives, grenades.
And in such conditions, the T-34 will not be the worst option, although the Toyota jeep sheathed with armor plates is almost a tank in some places of the planet.