"Armata" will not go into battle

295
"Armata" will not go into battle

The epigraph to this material can be taken from the words of the head of Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, which he told RIA “News».

"Armata", it is, in general, a little expensive. In terms of functionality, it is, of course, much superior to existing Tanks, but too expensive, so the army is unlikely to use it now. It’s easier for them to buy the same T-90s.”

In general, we have already heard something similar, only we were talking about the Su-57. Yes, the plane is the best in the world, but for now the Su-35S will fly and fight, which is no worse, but has been mastered, is cheaper, and so on.



But airplanes are a separate issue; they require a completely different approach.

With the Armata everything is exactly the same as with the Su-57. That is, the tank seems to be as it is, in service with the Russian Armed Forces, but...

The tests, which have been going on for several years, have not been completed; a small number of tanks (no one gave exact numbers, but it seems from 2 to 4) participated in combat tests in the Northern Military District, where they did not go into attacks, but were used “for firing at enemy positions in the Northern Military District zone,” that is, as a self-propelled gun with a smoothbore gun. Well, you understand.

How long the tests will continue, in principle, is no longer so important, because Chemezov made it clear: the Armata has nothing to do with the troops. It is easier and more profitable for the army to use the T-90, which... further on the list.

A curtain.

Now all that remains is, as our neighbors say, to figure out whether this is a riot or a victory?


Let's watch.


“Armata” was conceived when everyone was going crazy about modular corvettes and frigates, littoral self-propelled ships, super destroyers and network-centric warfare tactics. Yes, certain elements of this very system of network-centric combat are actually used today, and they are used successfully. But the full implementation of the concept is still 15-20 years away, if everything goes as planned. We have even more; to begin with, you just need to provide reliable communications to your departments, and then dream about a network-centric control system.

And that’s why “Armata” was depicted as such a peculiar monster of the future: a tank that not only destroys everything on the battlefield, but also carries out target designation for self-propelled guns, ATGMs, air defense systems and other terrible combinations of letters. Scout, gunner, combat information center - and all in one armored hull with a capsule for the crew and a turret, which is filled with all sorts of useful things.


Therefore, in order to implement all that was declared, the Armata became a testing ground for a very diverse electronic filling, and so that the tank could really fulfill the duties assigned to it, it was equipped with:

- own radar with all-round AFAR;
- High-resolution UV cameras to detect missiles based on their thermal signature;
- reconnaissance UAV with a thermal imager;
- the latest modification of the Afghanit defense complex, which, according to the developers, can even intercept projectiles.

Beautiful? That's not the right word. Luxurious, I would say, and many would agree with me. However, commercials and exhibitions are one thing, but everyday life is completely different.

But in everyday life, the problem was the A-85-3 engine, an X-shaped 12-cylinder, according to the plan it was required to produce 1500 hp. in nominal and 1800 hp. in afterburner.


The engine is very compact, but complex and not perfected; accordingly, it is completely inferior in terms of reliability to the B-92, which powers the same T-72 and T-90. And for now we can say that the Armata is moving, but not fully moving.

Another problem is the state of the Russian microelectronics industry. I can’t say, fortunately, that everything is completely sad with us in terms of processors, memory modules and all other electronic junk, but: we have a tank that requires electronics, of course, not like an airplane, but something close. But this is a tank! Battlefield Consumable!


Therefore, in the Northern Military District, during combat trials, this tank received the role of self-propelled guns, firing at the enemy and nothing more. The TASS report in July 2023 that, according to information “from its sources,” “several units took part in the battle to see how the tank would perform,” I consider, to put it mildly, fictitious and here’s why.

First, let's look at the cost. Let's take the Su-35 fighter.


Its cost, depending on many components, ranges from 2 to 4 billion rubles. The cost of "Armata" was named at 510 million rubles with the caveat that with mass production it would drop to 250 million.

1 Su-35S = 6 T-14 Armata? Seriously?

Okay, let's launch the Su-35S and try to shoot it down. One shot of a Patriot air defense system with a PAC-3 missile costs from 3 to 8 million dollars.


Let it be 5 million, let’s take the average price. And that, by the way, is not a fact, because the 35th has something to answer. Two missiles? Sure, not a problem! 10 million dollars! For a fighter that costs 85 million dollars - well, yes, it’s worthy.

Now T-14. He comes out of hiding and... yes, a kamikaze drone. Costing about $1000, something like our “Ghoul”, which shows itself to be very effective weapons. 5 drones. 10 drones. 20 drones.


On the one hand there is a tank that costs 5,5 million dollars, on the other hand there are FPV drones that cost nothing. Even if they cost not $1 each, but $000, it’s still a bargain.


Well, who will release this multimillion-dollar toy to a place where it can be burned not just, but easily? That’s why the tests of the “Armata” resulted in shooting somewhere towards the enemy from reliable shelters and nothing more.

Whether the T-14 will ever be finalized or not is, in principle, all the same. You can still conduct some experiments on it, turn it into a kind of laboratory for testing, but everyone should understand one thing:

"Armata" is a peacetime tank. Suitable for parades, exhibitions, forums, showing off, a subject of pride and trade, but completely unsuitable for the battlefield due to its complexity and high cost.


And don’t start shouting that the author is a defeatist, and we will still see regiments of these tanks tearing the enemy to the British flag. We won't see. And if you rivet, say, a battalion of these tanks with all your might and send them to the front line, then as expected it will happen, as with the Abrams - they will all flock together in a flock Drones, because their operators will want to become famous and earn extra money as well as ours.

Cheap cars will fight first. Yes, all the same “Leopards” of the first releases, T-64, T-72 and so on. This applies to both sides of the conflict, and not only this.

For those who may be upset that they will not see videos of Armada armadas on the outskirts of Kyiv, as a consolation I will say that absolutely everyone in the world does this.

I would say that the military experience of the last hundred plus years indicates that any attempt to develop something super-effective and super-expensive ended sadly.

Examples in stories full: "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz", "Musashi" and "Yamato". And if “Bismarck” died in the first serious campaign, at least with honor, but the other three were simply bombed with bombs and torpedoes, without causing any damage to the enemy at all. And how many resources were poured into the construction of these ships...


Today we have our own "Yamato" of the modern world: it is not a battleship, but a destroyer, which is no cheaper than the battleship of those times. "Zamvolt", although this vessel looks more like a sawing project than a warship. But there is not the slightest doubt that this floating pile of dollars will not come within a hundred miles of the hot shores where the war is going on. And we are certainly not talking about any naval operations. Too expensive and too much damage damage.

Okay, ships are really expensive, although in World War II the same Americans burned destroyers and cruisers in batches in the fire of war. Let's take airplanes.


Tell me, have the F-22 and F-35 fought a lot? Apart from launching missiles at supposed terrorist targets (that is, completely without air defense), there are no merits. Well, yes, the Raptor probe was shot down. Just an aerial victory.

The F-22 costs $350 million. Our Su-30 on average, depending on the configuration, is 40 million (35 for the Aerospace Forces, 50 for imported versions. India doesn’t count, it has its own problems). The difference is almost 9 times. So tell me, is the Raptor really 9 times better than the Su-30MK? That is, two Raptors will calmly go against a Su-30 squadron and win, right? Well, you understand the sarcasm. However, Su-30s fly and even fight all over the world. But the F-22 is not.

And the F-35, with its average price of $130 million, also somehow does not shine with victories. Apart from blowing houses into dust in Gaza and Syria, alas, there is nothing to boast about.

That is why the MiG-29, MiG-21, Su-24, Su-25, F-16, F-18, F-4 and so on are mainly used in conflicts around the world. But everything is from the “cheap and cheerful” category. That is, not the latest modifications.

I read from the famous historian and publicist Yuri Fedorovich Katorin, and now I will show in his words what the conceptual difference is. There have been two concepts for a long time:

1. Limited production of complex, expensive equipment with high capabilities. This is the German way of development of the Panzerwaffe. These are “Tiger”, “Royal Tiger”, “Panther”.


2. Mass production of cheap equipment with average capabilities. These are thousands of T-34s and T-34-85s, which, in fact, decided the outcome on the battlefields.


Yes, German tanks were more advanced and superior to Soviet ones in many respects. But they didn’t win, it’s just a question of numbers.

And I am absolutely sure that four T-64s, in which competent crews will sit (illiterates do not survive there at all), will not leave any chance for the Armata with all its sophisticated electronics. And in general the question is: will this electronics work after the first uranium scrap arrives at that very tower. During the tests, the Japanese found out that their Type 10 did not feel very good after arrival. Brains are a mess, even if they are electronic.

Smart people today understand that work on “Armata” began when there was a relative rise in the economy, the budget was bursting with oil and gas dollars, there was so much money that it could be spent on anything. They were spent. Something fell to scientists and designers, and quite openly a whole army of production officials and production workers fed and grew fat.

Everyone unanimously dreamed of a super army with super tanks and super ships, an army that the whole world would again fear. Armadas... Well, do you remember these statements about hundreds of Su-57s and thousands of T-14s? Was? Was. Everyone, without exception, liked the idea of ​​multi-billion dollar contracts, especially those who profited from them.

Therefore, super-expensive projects with very unclear prospects, but requiring significant development costs, were put into action. On the “ARMY...” forums, the display cases were bursting with projections and models of what was about to “go to the troops.”

But in the end?

"Armata" - two dozen samples at the testing stage.

"Coalition" 2S35 – a dozen or a little more, the fate is completely unclear.

Submarine Project 667 - a complete failure with the VNEU, and not everything is going smoothly with the construction of boats of the last century type.

Corvette Project 22160 – a lot has already been said. “Dove of Peace” will probably take an honorable third
place in uselessness after the Zamvolt and British aircraft carriers.

"Poseidon" -?

"Petrel" - another fairy tale with a bad ending.

C-70, which is "Hunter". Completely disappeared from the information field. As it was not.

"Kurganets"? "Boomerang"? PAK YES? Military transport aircraft Il-112V?

I can go on and on, but we can talk endlessly about the achievements of our defense industry, continuing the list with other points. There are also all sorts of cruiser-sized nuclear destroyers, aircraft carriers and other empty projects that want to feed off the budget. But let's get back to the tanks.

"Armata" is already outdated. The tank was developed when the main enemy of the tank were ATGMs and mines. An armor-piercing projectile comes later. Tanks should not fight tanks. But time has passed since 2009, and suddenly the main enemy has changed. And it became this very cheap drone, a thing so stupid compared to a homing ATGM that you just give up. And this drone doesn’t care how much the tank costs: it flies up unnoticed, hits where the operator says. And so on until the result is achieved: the tank is disabled.

It’s great that the new layout of the T-14 will most likely allow the crew to survive. But 500 million rubles is 500 million rubles. This is 5,5 million dollars. Yes, like three T-72s. And the T-72 is still a decent tank. If you turn yourself inside out and give it a decent working connection and update the electronics, the car will be just fine. And the T-72, unlike the T-14, has been repaired in the field for the last 50 years, which is simply impossible in principle with the Armata.

Some today say that Armata was a flawed concept altogether. I completely disagree; when the tank was just being developed, the idea of ​​a “network-centric war of the future” was floating around in everyone’s heads, but even now, almost 20 years later, no one really knows what it will all look like in the end.

Just like no one literally 10 years ago could predict the development of UAVs that exists today. As if from something transcendental type of global reconnaissance vehicle, the unmanned aerial vehicle has become a completely ordinary platoon-level reconnaissance vehicle and a guided attack munition, which, unlike ATGMs, allows the operator not to be a single-use weapon.


Here again we can turn to history. In 1939, all the world's maritime powers were building battleships and heavy cruisers like hell, and the main problem for a ship, no matter whether surface or underwater, was the aircraft. In which no one saw an opponent at all.


However, progress on the battlefield is a very difficult thing. And today, the emerging “trench electronic warfare” will sooner or later evolve into a full-fledged weapon and will become widespread accordingly. There are many examples of how anti-cumulative screens made of armored mesh appeared on Soviet tanks in Europe in 1944, how light air defense cruisers appeared armed with 14-18 universal 127-mm guns from the Americans.

It’s just that in our case, the authors of the concept for using the Armata did not take into account the changes that were already predicted at the time the decision was made to launch the tank into pilot production. It is clear that I really wanted to eat, but it was necessary to start the “network-centric battle control system” not with a tank, but still with reliable and modern radio communications.

In the end, we have what we have. The T-14 "Armata" is a very technically advanced device, but completely unviable on the modern battlefield. Yes, someone called it “the tank of the future.” Agree. We just have to wait for it to come, this is the future. And at the same time, bring communications, artillery, reconnaissance and target designation equipment to the level of the Armata. And indeed then the army of the future will be something like this.

In the meantime, Russia is doomed to fight in a conflict of any complexity with weapons of Soviet design and often production. Cruel, you know, reality. At best, this equipment was modernized (“Buk-M1” - “Buk”-M3, “Iskander” - “Dagger” and so on), and at worst, it practically remained in the same condition.

This is true in all branches of the Armed Forces with rare exceptions. Electronic warfare troops, drones and rare models of truly Russian development such as the “Chrysanthemum” can wholeheartedly boast of Russian developments. The rest is, sorry, heritage.

Since the USSR was really preparing for a big war, the equipment was developed accordingly: reliable, cheap and repairable. But then we were talking about slightly different matters than making a profit from lucrative contracts.

In Russia, it turned out that profit prevailed. And they began to aggressively try to build the MS-21 and Superjet from imported parts, not caring about the Il-96 and Tu-204. And in the end we got a complete zero and a vague perspective with airplanes in general.

Well, all these “Armata”-“Coalitions”, on the development of which simply colossal sums were spent with frankly zero results - this is also natural. In the Soviet Union, it was important to ensure the security of the country, and in Russia - to ensure the well-being of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, making money on useless and unnecessary projects.

Or am I somehow wrong and three years of showing the T-14 on “Armies...” led to billions of dollars in deals for supplies to third countries? Or is there a queue for the Su-57? No, just everyone prefers old, but time-tested and battle-tested, reliable and cheap Soviet equipment.

Technique for combat.


Of course, the Armata will not be scrapped. Well, something needs to be shown at parades, right? Moreover, the 2010s are behind us and we have absolutely no chance of new technology. And everything turns out obvious: at the parade in Moscow “Armata”, “Coalition”, “Kurganets”, “Boomerang” and other “Poseidons”, polished and polished. Handcrafted in small quantities.

And the Ukrainian black soil will be kneaded by the same T-72 and T-90, BMP-2 and BMP-3, Msta and Gvozdika. Cheap and reliable. Never 100% serviceable, but always ready for battle.

And the Armata will still come in handy. Then, when it becomes clear where the world will turn in terms of strategy and tactics of conducting military conflicts.
295 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    14 March 2024 05: 14
    I think it's just old and unnecessary... smile In the military-industrial complex, basically, the bottom has not yet been reached. Not everything is so critical... But there are no real breakthroughs or breakthroughs. We rely on the developments of a bygone country... And I know that the Russian land has not become depleted of minds, but extreme love of money is held in high esteem sad
    1. +50
      14 March 2024 05: 34
      In the Soviet Union it was important to ensure safety countries, and in Russia - to ensure wealth grandchildren and great-grandchildren,
      Roman is right! That's the difference....
      1. +2
        14 March 2024 06: 27
        Yes, it was clear from the very beginning that all these fake whistles for 100500 Baku are needed like the Winter Olympics in Sochi to raise money and there is St. Tropez and champagne and the sucker sucks and the drones? there we didn’t know that they would not only fly))) no big deal
        1. +9
          14 March 2024 09: 07
          I want to ask everyone just one thing question, and tomorrow I will answer it myself under this comment.
          What do you know about MODERN WAR and how is it fundamentally different from other wars?
          What is its essence? To be more specific, let’s consider a conflict similar to the Northern Military District without the use of nuclear weapons. If you cannot answer this question, how can you think about the requirements for military equipment that should participate in it? I would really like to ask this question also to people from one department.
          1. +6
            14 March 2024 09: 21
            Many will say: again, demagoguery, but we need to fight here and now. But it’s okay that we can fight for a long time in a new way, in a modern way and with different results and deadlines. So why don't we fight? And this is the second question, in order to answer it you need to deal with the first question. The author of the article does not know this, but writes and analyzes the requirements for technology for it. How is that ? It’s impossible, it won’t work. If Roman thinks that by mentioning the obsession with network-centric methods of warfare and warfare, he plunged into modern reality, then he is very mistaken. Roman, what is modern war?
            1. +2
              14 March 2024 13: 14
              Chronicles of SVO attrition nothing else, the author’s economic approach laughing
              1. -11
                14 March 2024 15: 50
                Yes, the author is trying to starve the audience out. hopes that everyone will wrap themselves in a sheet and crawl to the cemetery. You can always see the author by the title. this author. Skomorokhov is already a household name.)) I read the title, realized that Iksperd would again throw some substance on the fan, looked at the comments and left.
            2. +1
              15 March 2024 11: 28
              Changes in the method of conducting combat operations are associated with the consequences of the Information Revolution, and more precisely with the development of intelligence means, which occurred at the end of the 20th century. It became possible to conduct combat operations at a distance, avoiding contact combat in most cases and, as a result, avoiding significant losses.
              Information detection means, in our understanding of intelligence, allow us to identify the enemy at a considerable distance from the conditional line of contact. These means transmit in real time an image to the operator and the coordinates of the target, the latter are immediately entered into the attached weapons, in our understanding, self-propelled guns and MLRS of the new generation, in which Weapon Control Systems, knowing their own coordinates, work out guidance angles automatically. After the control point operator makes a decision, precision ammunition is fired, depending on the type of target and its nature of movement. If necessary, the target is illuminated using a technical means in a certain way. For example, a UAV with laser illumination for projectiles with a semi-active guidance system of the Krasnopol type. Detection, transmission of information and destruction of targets is carried out in real time with constant operator control. The capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces make it possible to control the combat area in this way up to 100 km from the conditional demarcation line. Such limited capabilities are caused by the leadership’s lack of understanding of the features of modern warfare and the lack of development of technical reconnaissance equipment over the past 30 years. There are no satellite reconnaissance channels and transmission of information in real time, there are no reconnaissance aircraft and UAVs even at operational depth in the directions... New organizational structures and methods of their interaction have not been created for waging a modern war. Therefore, even existing capabilities are not used globally, but only sporadically and do not affect the course of conducting strategic military operations...
              I draw your attention to the lack of mention of network-centric methods of warfare and “network wars”. These concepts are distorted and erroneous in American views, for which we congratulate them!
          2. +12
            14 March 2024 09: 57
            Quote: Vitov
            What is its essence

            IMHO, the essence of modern warfare is the effective use of intelligence, communications and control systems on one’s side and, accordingly, the suppression of these systems by the enemy.

            When any target is quickly detected and destroyed by the most suitable type of weapon and the reaction speed is minimal.

            It is precisely for these purposes that ARMATs would be very useful, as very well-protected 1st line mobile radars. But it seems that in addition to the high price, technical issues with the T-14 have not been resolved, and the characteristics that were expected from these tanks have not been achieved. sad
            1. +9
              14 March 2024 12: 44
              But it seems that in addition to the high price, technical issues with the T-14 have not been resolved, and the characteristics that were expected from these tanks have not been achieved.
              But I think that the problem lies in the fact that large-scale production is not able to rivet all the new items listed in the article. That is, samples are developed and manufactured individually, manually. But when it comes to the conveyor belt, it’s nothing.
              This applies not only to the final assembly production, but primarily to all related companies that must supply the necessary units, components, etc.
            2. +1
              14 March 2024 22: 05
              the characteristics expected from these tanks were not achieved

              Well, where in the world does a super-duper tank already exist? Nowhere. Maybe their electronics are better? I believe in it. Yes, and first of all it was necessary to deal with electronics, communications and ammunition, in which many are right. But we have little advanced ammunition, from mortars to 203 mm. These are the reviews from LBS.
          3. +7
            14 March 2024 10: 17
            What do you know about MODERN WAR and how is it fundamentally different from other wars?
            What is its essence?

            Let me try to take a chance and answer the question you asked, although I do not belong to any specific department. To begin with, let's agree that by modern war we will mean precisely a military conflict dating back to the first half of the 21st century, because I, as I believe the majority of users, have absolutely no desire to delve into near-philosophical and purely speculative conclusions regarding the nature of military confrontation, as well as the desire to analyze the entire history of mankind through the prism of which military campaign was more important at one time or another modern and which is not. Moreover, there is no desire, not because I or my colleagues on the forum are so lazy, but simply because no matter how hard we try to come up with a bicycle, the main theses regarding what modern war is as a concept have already been given by one very wise Chinese who lived in era of the Warring States. Nothing has changed fundamentally since then.

            So, modern war of the first half of the 21st century, in my opinion, is a conflict when the logistics of a potential enemy and his military-industrial complex, leadership and decision-making centers with the help of high-precision and remotely used weapons are destroyed long before the main forces of the warring parties meet in real clashes on the battlefield. Moreover, this latter, in turn, only completes the process of the final defeat of the enemy, who by that time was already quite incapacitated and devoid of the will to resist. Te-Che-Ka.

            The definition turned out to be, of course, very broad, but at the same time, it seems to me, very capacious, leaving room for specification and clarification. If you don’t agree, send your arguments to the studio
            1. +17
              14 March 2024 10: 53
              Quote: Dante
              So, modern war of the first half of the 21st century, in my opinion, is a conflict when the logistics of a potential enemy and his military-industrial complex, leadership and decision-making centers with the help of high-precision and remotely used weapons are destroyed long before the main forces of the warring parties meet in real clash on the battlefield

              Probably, here we immediately need to clarify what is meant by the word “war”, and with whom. Is it war? This crafty definition appeared not least because “we fight here, we trade here.” How can we even understand that the scumbags who transfer their money to Ukraine for the Armed Forces of Ukraine are given considerable sentences, and those who pay the Nazis much more money for the transit of raw materials are like water off a duck’s back. You must understand that with the money received in this way, Zelensky buys flowers, and this in no way goes towards weapons that are used to kill our soldiers and civilians...
              What logic can be used to explain many of the oddities of the Northern Military District, given the initially declared “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine? At a minimum, this should have meant that same preventive strike that would put an end to the resistance and force Bandera’s followers to complete and unconditional surrender.
              Where was it, with that sham of the “blitzkrieg” and the smeared and ineffective strike?
              The third year of the Northern Military District has begun, Kyiv has not been taken, moreover, now they are shelling not only Lugansk and Donetsk, but also Belgorod, Voronezh, even Cherepovets (Severstal). Probably, the Nazis will not calm down on this unless they are greatly frightened, like their masters.
              If we talk about the expected aggression of NATO, then yes, these Anglo-Saxon “reptilians” will do just that, thousands of cruise missiles, ICBMs and aerial bombs, all at once. So the question is, having spent so much money on destroying cheap drones, will we have enough air defense systems to prevent chaos and panic?
              The question is how we have the political will to bomb the very West where our oligarchs have everything (this is not Voronezh from the joke, where their wives and children with bills and apartments “definitely don’t”)...
              1. +17
                14 March 2024 12: 14
                Roman raised the right questions, but put them incorrectly.
                Can Chemezov organize the production of new and complex combat vehicles, such as the T-14 Armata, Coalition SV or Su-57 with the Boomerang infantry fighting vehicle? No, he can’t, and he doesn’t need it, because it’s much easier to imitate the type of hectic activity by gathering the next prodigies for parades and exhibitions with shows on all channels and continue to cut factories and design bureaus, lining their pockets with dough.

                Can Shoigu reform the army and create a modern army with modern weapons from it, demanding from the military-industrial complex and from Chemezov new weapons in the required quantities? He not only can’t, he doesn’t even want to start it and strain himself, and he doesn’t want to quarrel with Chemezov at all.

                Is there any way out of this situation so that the Air Force is saturated with the required number of Su-57s and a light fighter of generation 5 to replace the MiG-29, as well as AWACS, PLO aircraft, tankers, and the ground units are saturated with new T-14s and Boomerang infantry fighting vehicles , as well as the Coalition of the Earth, so that the Navy is saturated with massive PLO corvettes and frigates 22350 in commercial quantities, new Lada submarines with VNU? The answer is obvious. Under this government, which has not done this in 24 years, having money, people, factories and design bureaus, it is not possible and you can forget about it.
                What's left in the bottom line? And everything will continue as it is. The army will fight with Soviet equipment and the leadership will continue to make money by telling fairy tales.
                1. +1
                  14 March 2024 18: 13
                  “Can Chemezov organize the production of new and complex combat vehicles, such as the T-14 Armata, Coalition SV or Su-57 with the Boomerang infantry fighting vehicle?”

                  Mr. Chemezov himself answers:

                  At the forum Army of Russia -2015
                  Head of Rostec Chemezov:

                  When the Russian army appears at the front of the APU, it will be easy to understand.
                  The first sign is the failure of all means of communication, the complete discharge of batteries in cars, tanks and other equipment, at the same time the discharge of batteries in mobile phones, in sights, in radio stations. Then there is a rupture of electrical circuits in all equipment - any. This is EMP. All engines stall, there is no way to start. This is how the Khingan system works, with a radius of 20 km.
                  The second is a complete failure of all systems using liquid crystal monitors, failure of all targeting devices of the air defense system - the radars are dead. The Altair system is in operation.
                  The third is failure when trying to use any type of guided weapon - from MANPADS to ATGM .. When trying to use shells, they self-destruct immediately ... This is the "Mercury" system - on the basis of MTLB such an antenna is high, now the Russians have in every battalion. Works on 15 kilometers radius.
                  Fourth, it is impossible to use unmanned drones. They either fall, with the failure of the navigation system and the engine, or sit down at the disposal of the Russians. The Kosuha-4 system disables the onboard equipment of airplanes and any other aircraft.
                  The fifth sign will have time to see and understand not only just everything. This is the phenomenal accuracy of artillery fire from a distance inaccessible to Ukrainian artillery. Artillery and guidance stations of the Russian army operate via satellites and their drones. The Russians modernized the shells, they are now with a homing system, have become longer and carry more explosives.
                  Period, curtain, let's all go!
              2. -1
                14 March 2024 12: 18
                Quote: Per se.
                That crafty definition appeared not least because “we fight here, we trade here.” How can we even understand that the scumbags who transfer their money to Ukraine for the Armed Forces of Ukraine are given considerable sentences, and those who pay the Nazis much more money for the transit of raw materials are like water off a duck’s back.

                This is all clear. But the majority of Russian citizens, in their righteous indignation, do not want to acknowledge and understand the fact that for the supply of resources in the opposite direction, there is MONEY that is needed to finance the Northern Military District. And this is a HUGE amount of money. Western “partners” understand this fact very well and are trying to resolve this issue by all means. In some places it was closed, and in others it was not possible due to unacceptable damage to ourselves.
                Of course, ideally, the same gas pipes would be completely turned to China or somewhere further away. But this takes time and, most importantly, firm contracts. "The Power of Siberia - 2" is stuck precisely because China is diligently trying to bring down the price and sign the contract on its own terms.
                These are not the wishes of the “oligarchs,” but geopolitical and economic realities. But for me personally, the fact of the ongoing outflow of capital abroad is incomprehensible.
                1. +2
                  15 March 2024 11: 20
                  This money, as you said, does not go to finance the SVO, but directly into the pockets of those people who are involved in this. Moreover, if China at least pays something there, then the Indian rupees will be stuck forever!
                  1. -2
                    15 March 2024 11: 49
                    Quote from Kwasar9000
                    This money, as you said, does not go to finance the SVO, but directly into the pockets of those people who are involved in this.

                    “Those people” are charged taxes and customs duties from the sale of resources. But only then do they send their share of the profits to foreign accounts. The money that our state collects from hard workers and all sorts of small entrepreneurs is a drop in the ocean. The main money coming from large exporters.

                    Quote from Kwasar9000
                    Moreover, if China at least pays something there, then the Indian rupees will be stuck forever!

                    With Indian rupees, the issue will be resolved (if it has not already been resolved), because NO ONE will supply physical oil for nothing. Supplies will simply stop. Indians are interested in buying cheap oil, but this does not mean that it will be free. They are now sold, (sort of), for UAE dirhams and Chinese yuan. Or it may be used to pay for “parallel imports”. There are dozens of options for circumventing sanctions. If not hundreds... For example, they mix Russian oil with Arab oil and it is no longer Russian. And payment is already made in “hard” currency.
                    Don't be fooled by the cries of the "all-goers".
                    1. +3
                      15 March 2024 12: 29
                      With Indian rupees, the issue will be resolved (if it has not already been resolved), because NO ONE will supply physical oil for nothing.

                      This issue will never be resolved! At one time, the USSR faced this problem - as a result, they began to buy medicines in huge quantities, and they also arranged advertising, saying that Indian ones were better than Soviet ones. And as a result, India ended up owing a colossal amount, which was written off under Yeltsin.
                      They are the same rakes, they don’t change in any way, but the people who step on them - yes, that’s a question.
                      1. -4
                        15 March 2024 13: 04
                        Quote from Kwasar9000
                        This issue will never be resolved!

                        A-ha. This is how they will stupidly transport oil to the Indians for cut paper. Actually, Russia now has capitalism, not the socialism of the Soviet Union. Therefore, once again - NOBODY will make any deliveries of physical oil at a loss!
                        Quote from Kwasar9000
                        At one time, the USSR faced this problem - as a result, they began to buy medicines in huge quantities, and they also arranged advertising, saying that Indian ones were better than Soviet ones.

                        Advertising....? medications....? in USSR....? belay
                        It wasn’t that there were a lot of them in Soviet pharmacies then, and even now there is no “dominance” of Indian goods in our stores?
                        Quote from Kwasar9000
                        And as a result, India ended up owing a colossal amount, which was written off under Yeltsin.

                        The Indians were supplied with weapons - so they were written off (my guess). Humanitarian supplies were provided by the Soviet Union. Russia is now not in a position to “feed” the world’s third economy with freebies.
                    2. +2
                      15 March 2024 12: 47
                      “Those people” are charged taxes and customs duties from the sale of resources. But only then do they send their share of the profits to foreign accounts.

                      And do you really believe in this? I really feel sorry for you.
                      And yes, income from foreign trade has long been less than 40%, think about it.
                      1. -3
                        15 March 2024 13: 13
                        Quote from Kwasar9000
                        And do you really believe in this? I really feel sorry for you.
                        And yes, income from foreign trade has long been less than 40%, think about it.

                        Do you seriously think that exporters do not pay any taxes or duties on the sale of resources abroad? You are STRONGLY mistaken.
                        Income from foreign trade provides an influx of CURRENCY, which is used to purchase a large number of necessary goods, including for the Northern Military District.
                        Since the beginning of July this year, exports of Russian oil, petroleum products, gas and coal have doubled in value terms. This data is provided by the Finnish Center for Research in Energy and Clean Air (CREA). If in mid-summer Russian raw materials were sent abroad in the amount of 2,4 to 3 billion euros per week, now they are worth 5-6 billion euros.
                        CREA statistics are confirmed by data from the Russian Ministry of Finance on the replenishment of our country’s budget from the oil and gas industry, according to which revenues from taxes on the production and export of hydrocarbons have increased sharply since August of this year.

                        This is information for you to think about. hi
                      2. +4
                        15 March 2024 17: 11
                        Do you seriously think that exporters do not pay any taxes or duties on the sale of resources abroad? You are STRONGLY mistaken.

                        Come on!? It would take a long time to discuss all the schemes for tax evasion and theft on an especially large scale in state-owned companies, but you can calculate the income.
                        The average oil price last year was around $70 per barrel, production and transportation costs averaged $15, and production was around 10 million barrels per day. Using simple calculations, we get 200 billion dollars in income per year and only from oil. We minus the smaller income from the sale of petroleum products to the domestic market, but plus the petroleum products sold for export plus gas, metals and timber, and we come up with at least $400 billion in income per year.
                        We look at the budget and see only 100 billion in oil and gas revenues and total budget revenues are 290 billion dollars.
                        Can you tell me where the remaining $300 billion a year went? And why did the UAE, Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and many other countries understand that oil, gas and other minerals should belong to the state, but the leadership of the Russian Federation and African countries does not want to understand this?
                        And can you explain why the most cruel articles of the Criminal Code, such as theft of state property, especially on an especially large scale, treason and sabotage, disappeared from their Criminal Code?
                      3. 0
                        15 March 2024 18: 55
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        .....oil products sold for export plus gas, metals and timber and we reach at least $400 billion in income per year.
                        We look at the budget and see only 100 billion in oil and gas revenues and total budget revenues are 290 billion dollars.
                        Can you tell me where the remaining $300 billion a year went?

                        Russian exports in 2023 compared to 2022 fell by 28,3%, from $592,5 billion to $425,1 billion, the Federal Customs Service (FCS) reported.
                        As expected, the main export item (61% of the total volume) is “Mineral products” (including oil). The volume of supplies in this category fell by 2023% in 33,6, to $260,1 billion. Exports also decreased for all other groups of goods with the exception of food and agricultural products.

                        I don’t understand how much $300 billion was lost?

                        The entire export of $425 billion is not income, but the total amount of money received without taking into account the costs of production, transportation, purchase of equipment, spare parts for previously purchased equipment, etc. etc. And this applies not only to the oil and gas sector, but to all exporters. What is their real income after deducting the listed costs, plus taxes, duties, excise taxes and whatnot?
                        If we take the volume of supplies of “mineral products” in monetary terms, exports are $260 billion, then, according to your data, as much as $100 billion of this went into budget revenue. That is, 160 billion remained with exporters for their costs and net profit. What is their gross/net, refer to their financial statements.
                      4. +2
                        15 March 2024 22: 16
                        Russian exports in 2023 compared to 2022 fell by 28,3%, from $592,5 billion to $425,1 billion, the Federal Customs Service (FCS) reported.

                        In a country where the President creates offshore companies and theft of government funds is a “legitimate business,” only naive people can trust customs data. You know why an offshore is needed, especially for people endowed with unlimited power? If Rosneft or Surgutneftegaz enters into a contract with its subsidiary in Cyprus to sell oil for, say, $40, and then their daughters sell the same oil through a Swiss oil trader for $70, then how much will the FCS write in the report and to whom will the non-taxable profit of $30 be credited?
                        And if an office connected with Sechin from other islands provides consulting services to Rosneft and Sechin simply puts this money in his pocket, then what will happen to the cost of oil? Who will bear these costs?
                        I don’t understand how much $300 billion was lost?

                        And you read again what I wrote above. $300 billion is profit from the sale of raw materials, which ends up in the pockets of officials and oligarchs through offshore companies and officially.
                        The entire export of $425 billion is not income, but the total amount of money received without taking into account the costs of production, transportation, purchase of equipment, spare parts for previously purchased equipment, etc. etc.

                        This is all exports minus what has settled offshore, and is not taken into account in this amount.
                        But the real and not inflated costs are just about 15 dollars per barrel, and I calculated them and came up with an INCOME amount of 400 billion dollars, of which only 100 billion remains in the budget.
                        What can be done with additional budget revenue of $300 billion a year with proper management and reduction of theft, which, according to the State Duma Accounts Chamber, in the early 2010s amounted to 20% of the entire budget? That’s why the UAE and China have nationalized their extractive industries and are growing, but we are not, but there are those who are happy that we are simply being robbed by a bunch of freaks.
                      5. 0
                        18 March 2024 17: 11
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        In a country where the President creates offshore companies and theft of government funds is a “legitimate business,” only naive people can trust customs data.

                        Are offshore companies created solely for theft? belay
                        Does this mean that the “presidents” of the USA, Great Britain, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Singapore and other, other islands also exclusively created offshore companies for these purposes? It’s clear - to help steal from other countries, they are all honest there.
                        And even China with their Macau and Hong Kong, which, by the way, has its own currency - also for Chinese thieves?
                        And the UAE is also one big offshore. wassat

                        De jure offshore zones do not exist in Russia. We have implemented preferential taxation:
                        in the territories of special administrative regions (SAR);
                        in special economic zones (SEZ);
                        in priority development territories (ASEZ)
                        It is also worth highlighting the Skolkovo and Sirius innovation centers.
                        A SAR is a territory in which the legal regime of a special administrative region operates. The main purpose of their creation is to simplify the relocation of foreign companies with Russian roots to the domestic jurisdiction (redomiciliation), as well as to attract foreign companies.
                        A SEZ is a part of the region’s territory with a special regime for business activities and a free customs zone.
                        industrial production - for industrial enterprises engaged in production or processing,
                        technical and innovation - for innovation and development of scientific and technical products,
                        port - for organizing shipbuilding and ship repair activities, providing logistics services
                        tourist and recreational - for the provision of services in the field of tourism,
                        A priority development area is a part of the territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, where, in accordance with the decision of the Government, a special legal regime for entrepreneurial activity has been established. Residents of the ASEZ receive legal and tax benefits, but unlike the SEZ there will be no customs preferences.


                        Quote: ramzay21
                        If Rosneft or Surgutneftegaz enters into a contract with its subsidiary in Cyprus to sell oil for, say, $40, and then their daughters sell the same oil through a Swiss oil trader for $70, then how much will the FCS write in the report and to whom will the non-taxable profit of $30 be credited?

                        Khodorkovsky and his comrades were involved in such frauds at one time, for which they suffered (we do not take into account the political aspects),
                        When this shop was closed, the treasury finally began to be replenished with money.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And you read again what I wrote above. $300 billion is profit from the sale of raw materials, which ends up in the pockets of officials and oligarchs through offshore companies and officially.

                        These are some purely inferential calculations of yours based on approximate figures taken from somewhere, so to speak: “this is my value judgment.” I came up with it myself, I believed it myself. Not convinced. No.

                        .
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        This is all exports minus what has settled offshore, and is not taken into account in this amount.
                        But the real and not inflated costs are just about 15 dollars per barrel, and I calculated them and came up with an INCOME amount of 400 billion dollars, of which only 100 billion remains in the budget.

                        $400 billion in income from the sale of WHAT!
                        If you only counted $200 billion worth of oil, then how did you calculate the income for the remaining $200 billion from gas, timber, metals and other resources?
                        Stop fooling yourself and others.
                      6. -1
                        15 March 2024 19: 08
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And why did the UAE, Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and many other countries understand that oil, gas and other minerals should belong to the state, but the leadership of the Russian Federation and African countries does not want to understand this?

                        Only Russia and Africa “do not want to understand this.” Here we go.... sad Where did the USA, European producers, Australia, Canada and “many others” go from your list?
                        In Russia, mineral resources also belong to the state, but the state issues licenses to private and state-owned companies to extract these minerals.

                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And can you explain why the most cruel articles of the Criminal Code, such as theft of state property, especially on an especially large scale, treason and sabotage, disappeared from their Criminal Code?

                        I can not. I was not interested in this topic. Maybe I'll take a look sometime in my spare time. hi
                      7. +2
                        15 March 2024 21: 51
                        Where did the USA, European producers, Australia, Canada and “many others” go from your list?

                        Expected question. How many American oil well owners live with their families here, and how many of our oligarchs and their families live in the West? And where do Abramovich, Alikperov, Potanin or Usmanov invest the money earned from our raw materials?
                        It was not in vain that the countries I listed nationalized their extractive industries; they played a game with the free market and made the right conclusions that they could only lose this game with them. Therefore, in the UAE, the money earned from the sale of oil was invested in their country and they are developing by leaps and bounds, but we sold everything to foreigners and their lackeys, who take out the money they earned here and invest it in the west.
                        I can not. I was not interested in this topic. Maybe I'll take a look sometime in my spare time.

                        And you take an interest, maybe you will understand why it is safe to steal public money here and in Africa, but not at all safe, for example, in the USA.
                      8. 0
                        18 March 2024 17: 59
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        How many American oil well owners live with their families here, and how many of our oligarchs and their families live in the West? And where do Abramovich, Alikperov, Potanin or Usmanov invest the money earned from our raw materials?

                        These gentlemen live in “comfortable” countries. In the same way, a large number of families from Arab countries and China have real estate in the West and invest money around the world. And the states of China and the United States are the largest holders of American “Treasuries”.
                        And why on earth should American oil well owners live in Russia with their families? Why do Chinese billionaires send their children to teach in the USA and England, and not in Russia and in their own country?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And you take an interest, maybe you will understand why it is safe to steal public money here and in Africa, but not at all safe, for example, in the USA.

                        IN THE USA...? don't steal....? belay Our thieves, compared to theirs, are not reasonable children. laughing
                        Once again: money earned from resource extraction is NOT government money.
                        It’s like if, with your permission, I dig up potatoes from your field with my shovel, sell them at the market price, and put part of the agreed upon proceeds (let’s say 50/50) into your account. From this half of my earnings, I compensate for the cost of the purchased shovel, transportation to the market (gasoline and driver’s salary), spare parts for the car, for a place in the market, etc. expenses. Are you going to be outraged after the deal that I stole your money because I sold YOUR potatoes?
                        For information:
                        The largest state-owned company in the UAE is Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), which operates 17 subsidiaries in the oil and gas industries. ADNOC retains the right to obtain up to 60% (!!!!) shares in the largest new oil projects. The production of hydrocarbons is carried out on the basis of JOINT use of products between state-owned companies and FOREIGN investors.
                      9. 0
                        16 March 2024 11: 45
                        I read your dispute, in general I don’t want to participate in it, but I should pay attention to a couple of points:

                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And why did the UAE, Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and many other countries understand that oil, gas and other minerals should belong to the state, but the leadership of the Russian Federation and African countries does not want to understand this?


                        1. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, like many other states, are precisely STATES, that is, from the word STATE. These are monarchies, albeit limited ones, but it is not surprising that everything there belongs to the sovereign. China, yes, is a separate case, however, like the USSR in its time, it is a completely different system.

                        2. The subsoil in Russia also belongs to the republic (which, by tradition, we still call the state). But the right to develop, extract and process it was given to private hands.

                        However, as a socialist, I don’t like this either.
                      10. +1
                        16 March 2024 14: 28
                        1. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, like many other states, are precisely STATES, that is, from the word STATE. These are monarchies, albeit limited ones, but it is not surprising that everything there belongs to the sovereign. China, yes, is a separate case, however, like the USSR in its time, it is a completely different system.

                        There was a time when the Americans and British extracted oil in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, but the Arabs quickly realized that it was more profitable to extract it themselves.
                        If you don’t like Arabs and monarchies, then here are others: India, Mexico, Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola and even Norway are countries where oil production is owned or controlled by the state.
                        The subsoil in Russia also belongs to the republic (which, by tradition, we still call the state). But the right to develop, extract and process it was given to private hands.

                        On the fence x.... it is written and there is firewood there! What I mean is that the mineral resources have long been distributed among the oligarchs and officials, and scribbles have been written for the scammers. Try to take Surgutneftegaz from the owner who took it away from Khodorkovsky and you will see the price of these scribbles.
                      11. 0
                        16 March 2024 16: 34
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        What I mean is that the mineral resources have long been distributed among the oligarchs and officials, and scribbles have been written for the scammers. Try to take Surgutneftegaz from the owner who took it away from Khodorkovsky and you will see the price of these scribbles.

                        Yes, I don’t need to prove anything... I wrote earlier that I am a socialist. There is just a difference, you gave the example of states where the states themselves belong to private individuals... the only exception was China. So now there is no need to turn the arrows on me. Next time be more precise. And so I myself consider the privatization of the people's property to be a great deception, but this topic is capacious and long for discussion. Nevertheless, in order to do something, you still need to proceed from the letter of the law. But according to the law, the subsoil of Russia is NOT in private hands, in private hands only the right to development, production and processing. Just showing your dissatisfaction is a waste of time if there is no solution to the problem. And you DON'T have it. And if there is no solution, then why all this conversation? Or is your task to stir up discontent? While the SVO is ongoing, this is not the time to engage in demagoguery!
                      12. +1
                        17 March 2024 13: 32
                        There is just a difference, you gave the example of states where the states themselves belong to private individuals... the only exception was China.

                        Monarchy is a type of government system that has nothing to do with property, and I brought you a dozen countries that are not monarchies, in which the majority of the population of planet Earth lives, in which oil production belongs to the state, but you don’t need the facts, so there’s nothing to talk about.
                      13. -1
                        April 1 2024 22: 03
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Monarchy is a type of government that has nothing to do with property

                        Monarchy has a DIRECT connection with property. For a monarch is a SOVEREIGN. He is the owner of the land and everything that grows on it. And yes, he has the right to bestow gifts on his aristocracy and give them the rights of owners. By the way, feudalism, which was also built on similar principles of redistribution of property, simply had a more complex hierarchy. Well, maybe you’ve heard about “my vassal’s vassal is not my vassal”
                        Indeed, there are republics (that is, NOT monarchies), where not only subsoil resources, but also the companies extracting and processing them belong to the state. It is obvious that you wanted to say that mining and processing should ALSO belong to the Russian state. Well... here I completely agree with you... we should... but it’s not at all easy to do. If you take it away, there will be very long-lasting and negative consequences. However, it’s impossible to explain this in a nutshell, and I wouldn’t want to write a whole article about it here...
                      14. 0
                        18 March 2024 18: 14
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        If you don’t like Arabs and monarchies, then here are others: India, Mexico, Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola and even Norway are countries where oil production is owned or controlled by the state.

                        Somehow the countries you listed haven’t gotten much richer under state control of oil production. No. Are they stealing?!
                        Norway, where everything is supposedly under the control of the state, surpasses even Russia in terms of the number of billionaires per capita.
            2. 0
              14 March 2024 12: 01
              Quote: Dante
              this is a conflict when the logistics of a potential enemy and his military-industrial complex, leadership and decision-making centers with the help of high-precision and remotely used weapons are destroyed long before the main forces of the warring parties meet in a real clash on the battlefield

              The desire is laudable, but just as old is the struggle between the sword and the shield, the confrontation between the high-precision weapons on the one hand and the stealth of the target on the other is also old. The struggle of opposites (according to Hegel’s dialectic) has not yet been canceled. Therefore, a step forward to a new weapon (UAV, for example) will correspond to a countermeasure (electronic warfare or other). There has already been such a core in history - the metal side of a ship - a 460 mm projectile... So high-precision weapons will be countered by the dispersion of control bodies and their work in a communication network (perhaps for this purpose, a postscript to the article appeared in the constitution stating that state control bodies can be anywhere outside the capital). I think that modern war is the conduct of conflict simultaneously by both military and non-military means in all spheres of communications and interstate methods of interaction. That is, a “full hybrid”.
              1. 0
                14 March 2024 20: 43
                Quote: Hagen

                The desire is laudable, but how old is the struggle between the sword and the shield?
                And wins Bow and arrows, and then musket and bullets...
                hi
          4. +1
            14 March 2024 17: 43
            The same pair of Afghans, completely for the stupid, depicted with their own eyes the futility of conventional batches in the 21st century. Along with the uselessness of half of this very conventional assortment of scrap metal,
          5. +1
            14 March 2024 17: 45
            Quote: Vitov
            How is it fundamentally different from other wars?

            In my humble opinion: the maximum possible reaction from the moment of reconnaissance to the moment of destruction of the enemy target, as well as a hitherto unprecedented combination of all types and branches of troops into a single reconnaissance and strike system, and everything else is just tactical variations of these two fundamental differences.. .
        2. +9
          14 March 2024 09: 34
          ...a growth with optical-electronic sensors on the Armata tower and AFAR antennas on the surface of its tower...

          As a radio engineer, these decisions are disgusting, especially in the era of UAVs. They could just as well have been made of glass. The kinetic impact of shrapnel will reset the sensors, or a UAV with viscous conductive “paint” will flood the AFARs and the list goes on.

          If this growth is needed, it must be recessed like a periscope. Rising unpredictably and for seconds. Preferably as an equivalent matrix of several periscope towers. And their nomination should be unpredictable.

          As for the AFAR, they must be deeply recessed, under an armored visor that protects the AFAR itself from conductive “paint.” The AFAR extends from the depths for a scanning time measured in seconds.

          And this is not a panacea, but an increase in the likelihood of preserving Almaty sensors.

          There are no permanent growths or exposed AFARs on the surface of the Armata tower, or its modifications.

          And what we have is based on Krylov’s fable...
          “..The trouble is, if the shoemaker starts baking pies,
          And the boots stitch the pastry,
          And things won’t work out.
          Yes, and a hundredfold
          What who loves to take someone else’s craft,
          He forever others stubborn and foolish:
          It’s better to ruin everything,
          And glad soon
          The laughing stock of becoming light
          Than honest and knowledgeable people
          Ask or listen to reasonable advice...”
          1. -1
            14 March 2024 13: 21
            As an electronics engineer, I think that it is enough to duplicate the sensors in case of failure of the main ones, and put the radar under a radio-transparent cover made of bullet-resistant glass or composite. Sensors are sensors because they must work constantly and analyze the situation, otherwise there is no point in them. Then it’s easier to just use the old-fashioned periscope sight. Conductive paint on UAVs is nonsense. Nobody will bother with such nonsense when you can just hang up a shot from an RPG.
          2. +1
            14 March 2024 15: 00
            Quote: Mikhail Drabkin
            As a radio engineer, these decisions are disgusting

            Engineers are different))) black white red)))) but I am extremely disgusted by your decision))) And do you know why? Because you, as a design engineer, are absolutely unaware of the troubles of an operating engineer))) All these decisions of yours, a la a trach machine with an Alika and other vibrators, will jam at the expense of time in the conditions in which the tank is operated.
            1. +1
              15 March 2024 05: 03
              In general, it is more important to think about transferring modern devices, radars and sights to existing tanks, like the T72. That would be useful.
              1. 0
                15 March 2024 12: 52
                It's like yes. but at a minimum, this requires a completely new tower. There is no longer room in the old one.
                1. 0
                  15 March 2024 16: 32
                  Quote: JD1979
                  There is no longer room in the old one.

                  You can use the concept of "grandfather glasses".
                  Make a superstructure or a turret basket and place modern surveillance equipment there. Let this light part have purely conditional protection, but it is possible to equip an old tank with “glasses” that improve its vision on the battlefield, allowing it to notice in time and hit first. At least hang a lot of surveillance cameras on the grill. The most important thing is that the basket behind the tower is made quickly and its instrument contents evolve even faster, responding to the demands and needs of life.
                  1. +1
                    15 March 2024 20: 19
                    You can't quite imagine... Look at the space inside the tank. Everything you need to manage it is there. And you also need to squeeze in at least one screen for information received from the radar for the commander and control units. Ideally, the gunner should also have one. Plus, all this should, again ideally, be tied into one BIUS with the ability to operate in automatic mode, like air defense systems. In the current tower, the ergonomics are already in the same place as Sosna-U, so if you add radar panels, and ideally also a turret-type OLS, then a new tower is needed. We must not forget about KAZ.
                    1. 0
                      15 March 2024 21: 13
                      Quote: JD1979
                      And you also need to squeeze in at least one screen for information

                      First, you need to start small - put up a screen and start feeding information onto it. But tying everything into a single complex now is pointless, as everything changes very quickly, becomes outdated and evolves. You need to start with surveillance cameras, modern radio communications and a sight, and place all this outside in a turret basket, without touching the outdated inside. You can also install an anti-aircraft sky surveillance camera.
                      1. +1
                        15 March 2024 22: 08
                        Quote: ycuce234-san
                        You need to start with surveillance cameras, modern radio communications and a sight, and place all this outside in a turret basket, without touching the outdated inside. You can also install an anti-aircraft sky surveillance camera.

                        The first close explosion and you are without communication, without cameras, without a sight - a reliable solution))) The trash bin is a place for junk and the APU and not for the main systems.
          3. 0
            15 March 2024 04: 57
            Quote: Mikhail Drabkin
            under the armored visor, which protects the AFAAR itself from conductive “paint”.

            A radio-transparent Teflon or ceramic coating, like on a frying pan, will work great against paint and conductive liquids.
            It is more difficult to deal with fragments, but even they can be dealt with by covering the devices with a replaceable screen made of bullet-resistant glass and an anti-fragmentation grille made of radio-transparent fiberglass and a Kevlar cover for the radar.
        3. +5
          14 March 2024 10: 09
          And don’t start shouting that the author is a defeatist, and we will still see regiments of these tanks tearing the enemy to the British flag.

          The author of the article described everything clearly and is not even the slightest bit defeatist. In fact, this is how everything is in our military-industrial complex.
        4. +4
          14 March 2024 22: 10
          What is the profit from 12 stadiums built for the 2018 FIFA World Cup? The saddest legacy of the 2018 World Cup is the stadium in Saransk. Even before the World Cup, the football community did not understand why such a colossus was needed in a provincial city with a population of 300 thousand people. But none of the officials in the Russian government who made the decision to build obviously unprofitable stadiums answered for this and will not answer. But everyone knows that “Impunity breeds irresponsibility.” That is how we live. Oh Russya...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. +1
        14 March 2024 11: 37
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        Roman is right! That's the difference....

        Is not a fact. Just as there are no test tube children and everyone has a father and mother, so every new technical creation is based on something old, produced earlier. And there is nothing reproachful or shameful in that. The wheel is 5000 years old, and no one questions why a replacement has not been invented. The entire civilization is based on thoughts about the safety and well-being of children and grandchildren. This is the only reason why we switched from a stone ax to an excavator. One does not cancel the other. Everyone is free to sprinkle ashes on their heads and prove their insignificance at every corner. A matter of taste... Not everyone is given the concept of the regularity of the historical process and the futility of contrasting today with yesterday. In my opinion, it is much more useful to reveal the real reasons for yesterday’s failures, determine ways to eliminate the consequences and develop mechanisms to prevent old mistakes in the future. Only the error analysis must be honest. Only then is it possible to make a correct diagnosis. And the idea that yesterday I was a saint, and today I suddenly became a scoundrel does not fit into an honest opinion, because the real reasons for the transformation have not been revealed.
      4. 0
        15 March 2024 02: 53
        Well, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, this is still optimistic, but as if not for yourself, and then maybe the end of the world
    2. +3
      14 March 2024 12: 32
      And the tank of the Black Sea Fleet turned out from the "Armata".............
      1. -1
        14 March 2024 22: 12
        Well, don’t, don’t say another word about the Black Sea Fleet.
    3. -1
      14 March 2024 19: 03
      You have to understand that the “armata” was tested in a real combat situation and the necessary conclusions were drawn. Why is it on LBS if T-72 copes quite well?
    4. 0
      15 March 2024 18: 12
      Armata depends on supplies from the West. No sane general would allow such equipment to go beyond parades.
    5. +2
      17 March 2024 16: 01
      about the fact that the T14 is a bad tank and an unreliable engine, hearing these worthless arguments from a NON-SPECIALIST is simply strange. Show me at least one article where engine experts talk in detail about the A85 with all its advantages and disadvantages. I have not seen such articles.
      In the conditions of Putin’s capitalism, talking about the fact that T14 is expensive is also somehow strange, but wasting 300 billion. Is it normal for the Greens, or is it normal to forgive billions of dollars in debt to Africans and Cubans, but is it normal to build a nuclear power plant in debt to a NATO country? Not expensive, right?
      Well, yes, we have a lot of T62/55/54, let's fight with them against modern leopardof and abramof - this is of course the right path - of a great country under the leadership of 20 years of the same thing.
  2. +6
    14 March 2024 05: 26
    It seems to me that in the process of cutting the budget for the Armata project, the beneficiaries of this process forgot that the main purpose of the tank was to conduct combat operations, and not to show off in the window of a car dealership under the sign of a “luxury car.” A tank, no matter how technologically advanced, is still a consumable item, it should not cost like a damn Rolls-Royce SilverCloud, otherwise your defense budget will crumble before the front of a potential enemy.
    1. +5
      14 March 2024 07: 51
      A tank, no matter how technologically advanced it is, is still a consumable item, it shouldn't cost like a damn Rolls Royce SilverCloud, otherwise your defense budget will crumble before the front of a potential enemy.


      You’ll say the same thing, but what about villas in the Caribbean or Bahamas? - Do they buy them for salaries?
      you look at their cost calculation and then the questions will disappear
    2. +4
      14 March 2024 09: 29
      Quote: Ixian
      It seems to me that in the process of cutting the budget for the Armata project, the beneficiaries of this process forgot that the main purpose of the tank is to conduct combat operations, ......
      Quote: Ixian
      A tank, no matter how technologically advanced, is still a consumable item, it should not cost like a damn Rolls-Royce SilverCloud, otherwise your defense budget will crumble before the front of a potential enemy.

      Can you suggest, or at least describe in words, how to make a more powerful and more protected tank, but cheaply?
      Already now the main cost of tanks is not the hull with a turret and cannon, but in its filling. And the further you go, the more complicated this filling will be, and therefore more expensive. If earlier the main threat to tanks was a kinetic projectile (the main armor of the tank served as protection), then over time the threat shifted towards cumulative ones (RPG grenades, ATGMs, etc.) and here the main protection is provided by dynamic protection units (DZ). But no matter what protection the tank has, after being hit by ammunition, the tank suffers damage. First of all, optics are lost, including sights. And without a sight, the tank is lost as a combat unit. In general, installing a KAZ tank on a tank is no longer a whim, but a necessity - threats to the tank must be destroyed on approach. On the T-14, the KAZ is installed as standard, and its stated performance is such that shells, including sub-caliber ones, should also be shot down. The entire tower is studded with locators and infrared and ultraviolet surveillance equipment. And all this equipment is designed to protect the tank (data collection for other purposes is secondary). Can all these means of obtaining information and a computer be cheap, which will collect information from each sensor, summarize it, calculate the trajectory of everything that flies near the tank and issue a task to destroy the actual threat, again calculating the trajectory of the submunition and the moment of its activation?
      1. +2
        14 March 2024 10: 42
        Now I’m going to say a seditious thought, but the T-90M is also too expensive and the point is precisely in those very expensive, but very fragile optics, without which, as the story of two Bradleys shooting at one T-90M showed, it becomes absolutely blind and defenseless . Well, why bother putting a whole bunch of all kinds of surveillance devices on a tank, many of which also duplicate each other, when all this stuff will be functional only until the first serious combat clash? Just don’t think that I’m proposing to completely abandon tank sights or ballistic computers. Not at all. On the contrary, I believe that for his effective work, the gunner simply must have this necessary set of devices. But he's a gunner. The same observation devices of the commander can be easily replaced with a picture broadcast from a drone or copter, which provides no less awareness than an expensive panorama, which also sticks out like a mast, attracting the attention of all sorts of hooligans who have been accustomed since childhood to breaking glass with anything. As a last resort, leave the commander with the Double system, triplex and some TKN-3TP and that’s all - this, taking into account the presence of a real unified combat information system, when information from satellites, reconnaissance aircraft and drones is instantly communicated to each structural unit of the unit would be more than enough . The only thing left to do is to create such a system and integrate existing military equipment into it, from tanks to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
        1. +2
          14 March 2024 13: 05
          As for the T-90m, its sights had to be duplicated, and most importantly, it had to be protected from small-caliber automatic artillery of a potential enemy. What is it that is still not clear? In fact, it turns out to be unclear! Everything in the world is becoming more expensive. An assault rifle is more expensive than a rifle, and so is its ammunition. and not twice, but 20 times. The electronics on the Armata should facilitate the rapid detection of targets, both ground and air. This means it makes it possible to start shelling the enemy earlier from longer distances. And in the end - the preservation of the crew and the tank itself. This is why such complex and expensive BMs are created. In addition, one in the field is not a warrior. Tanks such as the T-14 must work in a group with BMPTs, supported by drones, artillery in conjunction with infantry. Tank Alyosha is a hero, but this is not normal. This is chance and heroism, but there must be competent work. And communication and interaction should be 150%. The Moscow Region spares money on expensive weapons, but military weapons are more expensive. Zhukov was wrong. And as long as generals sit in the Moscow Region, thinking primarily about the well-being of their children and grandchildren, war will always be sudden. For there is no connection with the people with the thoughts of outsiders. My example: back during the Afghan war, I developed non-rigid screens on armored vehicles for protection against RPG grenades and a protective visor over armored vehicles from cluster munitions. He proposed the development to the general specifically. Useless. During the Chechen war, he again proposed it to military attaches - they didn’t even ask about the essence of the development. In 2018, he proposed to the command of the NM LPR (at that time they were afraid of Javelins) - like in the desert. And only at the beginning of the Northern Military District in Russia “barbecues” began to appear on tanks. And about the fact that any military equipment must be armored. This is an axiom! The BM-21 fires at the position - it receives a response and holes both the cabin and the engine with shrapnel! The driver is killed, the radiator is broken - that's it - they've arrived. Well, etc.
    3. 0
      14 March 2024 12: 40
      A tank for 250 million rubles, purchases of 50 billion a year is a thousand tanks in 5 years. It doesn’t seem like such a terrible amount for the country. But if you stop a couple of hundred armata, the drone launchers will quickly run out. If the concept is to release one tank onto the battlefield instead of three for an entrenched infantry battalion, then you won’t win the war that way. At least the first world war, at least the third.
    4. -1
      14 March 2024 22: 15
      What were you waiting for? What, in their thirst for profit, will the beneficiaries think about military operations in some distant and uncertain future?
  3. +16
    14 March 2024 05: 29
    Roman, you went too far in some ways. If you give money to those design bureaus and research institutes that deal with protective equipment, then in a couple of years the cheap drone that is now promoted and almost the “first violin” in war will again become at most a cheap disposable toy. Because it will be easy to shoot it down and suppress ANY drone targeting system. Here the issue of financing dominates. According to T14, its price was announced at 330 million rubles. Expensive due to the abundance of foreign electronics and microelectronics in the first place. The gun is also weak for this vehicle; the military is asking for a 152 mm caliber gun. Ideally, the army needs a better equipped T95, which was not given a way into life, having killed the project in favor of the ambitions of Serdyukovism.
    1. +3
      14 March 2024 09: 49
      Quote: Thrifty
      better hardened T95

      So you contradict yourself. The main protection of the Armata relative to other tanks is provided by the KAZ Afganit, which, in theory, should also successfully shoot down drones. But it is precisely for its operation that most of the electronics are required.

      As for drones, automatic target detection systems are already being tested. If they are introduced en masse, then modern electronic warfare, which is based on interrupting communication with the operator, will become useless. sad
    2. +2
      14 March 2024 15: 07
      Quote: Thrifty
      If you give money to those design bureaus and research institutes that deal with protective equipment, then in a couple of years the cheap drone that is now promoted and almost the “first violin” in war will again become at most a cheap disposable toy.

      It won't. You are a little confusing soft with warm.))) Here, if you strain your memory, this is exactly what has been happening for the last eleven years - pouring megatons of dough into various design bureaus and other sharashkas))) And what is the output? That's right - NOTHING! Because, what? KB does not equal production. And our production sucks its paw and is systematically destroyed)))
      1. +1
        14 March 2024 19: 44
        What design bureaus are they pouring money into? Maybe if they pour in, the salaries are high there?
        1. +2
          14 March 2024 19: 57
          Among the top officials - yes. The salary is high. And for everyone else - according to the skill of licking)))
          1. +2
            14 March 2024 19: 58
            So the problem is not the uselessness of the design bureau; if the money does not reach the designers, then this problem is somewhere higher
        2. +2
          14 March 2024 22: 57
          I didn't express myself quite clearly. are integrated into research and programs as if globally, i.e. money is allocated, but where does the Rostec management spend it? Ministry of Trade. Nobody asks MO and others. And crumbs reach the design bureau and a dozen pensioners. And the rest... They don’t ask for the result either, because you can always say: it didn’t work out. But production - there are already specifics. You can’t just get away there. That’s why it’s so fashionable these days to carry out a bunch of projects, but not bring any of them into series. With the exception of those that are significant for the authorities, that cannot be screwed up, or that are truly irreplaceable. but there are only a few of them, and they stretch as long as possible. The same Su-57. Everything else is screwed up simply and unpretentiously and without even hiding much.
          1. +2
            14 March 2024 23: 19
            Quote: JD1979
            Nobody asks MO and others.

            Here, with articles about unmanned aerial vehicles, I constantly have a question. Armata is expensive, that’s why they didn’t buy it. What did you buy? Instead of a thousand armatures, three thousand T-90M? No, they took the T-20A produced 90 years ago from warehouses and updated it, making as many as 50 a year, and bringing 30 T-72s to B3. How much is this in terms of money, 5 per year? These are new tanks, not an upgrade of old ones. They spent 20 lard dollars a year on new weapons, and then when you look at what they bought for 2014-2021, questions arise. Apparently everything went into secret loaves of bread, or into pockets.
            1. 0
              15 March 2024 12: 38
              Quote from alexoff
              What did you buy?

              They purchased what could be mass-produced and within a reasonable time frame. The T-14 is a technology demonstrator, like the Su-47. Or a child prodigy like Mouse. That's all. There will be no hundreds or thousands of reinforcements. this is a “tank of extreme parameters”, absolutely unsuitable for wartime in terms of production. there is no engine for it and there won’t be one if it is not widely used in the civilian sphere, the manufacturers themselves say so. Only mass production will allow us to identify all the flaws and reduce the price to an acceptable level. A big problem with the radars, but they are actually the main feature of this tank and its capabilities. so there will be a new tank. just like they made the T-64 at one time, then they made the T-72, simplifying it in many ways.
              1. 0
                15 March 2024 14: 04
                Quote: JD1979
                They purchased what could be mass-produced and within a reasonable time frame.

                As I wrote above, we purchased modernized samples in quantities of several dozen per year. This is nothing at all, it’s a couple of billion rubles a year. With a state defense order of more than a trillion, this is a fraction of a percent. That's how much the army needed tanks.
          2. 0
            24 March 2024 20: 24
            And it seems to me that Comrade Kim Jong-un has scientists, designers, and production workers working as they SHOULD, under conditions of restrictions by the West in everything.
  4. fiv
    +2
    14 March 2024 05: 32
    The article is an excellent example of the term “graphomania.” As they say, there are many letters. And what is the message???
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 08: 23
      Well, you are in vain. Of course, the topic is not new, but everything is presented to the point. But, unfortunately, “Vaska listens and eats”!
      1. fiv
        -4
        14 March 2024 10: 58
        We have accusers in every smoking room. When they begin to explain in a thousand words what not only everyone, but many people know, and offer nothing - honestly, their teeth ache.
        1. +1
          14 March 2024 19: 58
          And for the proposal, they will draw a deadline)))
    2. +3
      14 March 2024 09: 06
      The message is in flight.
      For 36 years they have written in the charter: making a profit.
      But it turned out that Stalin was right - we need to work to zero. At actual cost.
      And it wasn’t the IVS that set the trend, but the collective Brusilov. After the blood of WWI.
      Skomorokhov is not a joke, but a voice crying in the desert
      1. 0
        14 March 2024 10: 39
        Quote: antivirus
        But it turned out that Stalin was right - we need to work to zero. At actual cost.

        Yeah, yeah... that’s why Zaltsman asked for as much as a million rubles for the HF of the first game. smile
        And the People's Commissariat of the Shipbuilding Industry, at a meeting with the People's Commissariat of the Navy, generally stated that shipbuilding needs to feed the proletariat. And since new projects are too complex, pre-war projects will be built - they are simpler and more money will come out of them.
        1. +1
          14 March 2024 12: 09
          It was collective Stalin who drove prices down and pushed down in-plant “himself” prices.
          The Salzmans, etc. are their own factory club and the factory’s budget. It’s already good that it’s not an offshore pocket and a yacht.
          Faberge eggs are our winners, koloboka and rural roads
    3. +5
      14 March 2024 09: 35
      Quote: fiv
      The article is an excellent example of the term "graphomania"

      Well, the keyboard will endure everything.
      To Article:
      History is full of examples: “Bismarck” and “Tirpitz”, “Musashi” and “Yamato”. And if “Bismarck” died in the first serious campaign, at least with honor, but the other three were simply bombed with bombs and torpedoes, without causing any damage to the enemy at all. And how many resources were poured into the construction of these ships...

      A very incorrect example. Well, okay, instead of two super-battleships, Japan/Germany “miraculously” launches a dozen heavy cruisers/or a couple of aircraft carriers, what would this change in the general course of the war? The answer is obvious - nothing. Yamato is a wonderful ship, if it were in conjunction with the four Essexes... “Alone in the field/sea is not a warrior.”

      Today we have our own "Yamato" of the modern world: it is not a battleship, but a destroyer, which is no cheaper than the battleship of those times. "Zamvolt", although this vessel looks more like a sawing project than a warship.

      Zamvolt is an American attempt to throw a combat fleet into a future beyond the reach of everyone else. The number of new products on this ship was off the charts. But does anyone doubt that it would certainly have been brought to fruition had the Soviet Navy remained at sea?
      Tell me, have the F-22 and F-35 fought a lot? Apart from launching missiles at supposed terrorist targets (that is, completely without air defense), there are no merits.

      The F22 is the first next generation fighter aircraft. Would the Americans have been able to make the F35 if they had not had experience/mistakes with the F22? Would the T-80 and T-90 have been born if we didn’t have the T-62/64? How difficult would the path of the T-14 be without the experience with the T-95?
      Experiments are the matrix of future development. Only those who... well, you understand, are not mistaken. The T-72 and Leopards of the first series will still end up someday, and the UAVs/artillery will continue to hone their techniques for destroying armored vehicles. So what's next? What options? There will be new armored vehicles, adapted to combat in modern conditions, Armata or another project, but it will not be an analogue of the T-72/34, the new one will certainly be larger, more complex, and much more expensive, and for everyone...
  5. +7
    14 March 2024 05: 44
    any attempt to develop something super-efficient and super-expensive ended sadly. History is full of examples: “Bismarck” and “Tirpitz”, “Musashi” and “Yamato”
    The example is not entirely successful. If the Germans had had many such Bismarcks and Tirpitzes, then it is still unknown which direction the naval history of Britain would have gone. wink
    1. +21
      14 March 2024 06: 42
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      The example is not entirely successful.

      And, not entirely correct, with all due respect to the author. The defeat of PQ-17 was a consequence of only one news of the Tirpitz going to sea, its mere presence with the Germans, kept the entire British fleet in suspense. "Yamato" and "Musashi" could also have decided the outcome of many battles if the pogrom had not happened at Midway Atoll.

      As for the T-14 of the "Armata" platform, we must also remember about the T-15 infantry fighting vehicle, this miracle monster, comparable in size and weight to the five-turreted Soviet T-35, is an even more dubious creation, which in many ways complicated the work on the "platform" T-14. How can we explain the creation of a “platform” on a raw and expensive base? This achievement is an innovation in the category of Serdyukov’s outsourcing for the army and hyperwarehouses for each military district.
      There was a T-95 project (object 195), almost ready, and it had to be brought to series. The whole point of the theme, namely the 152 mm gun, without it there was no point in building this “vegetable garden” with a 125 mm gun. The 152 mm caliber gun gave rise to the layout of the uninhabited turret and the placement of the crew in the capsule.

      As a result, to Roman Viktorovich’s article, our development is mainly based on what was created or designed back in the USSR, our bourgeois government of the oligarchs practically created nothing of their own, they didn’t have enough for more than 30 years, only raw materials for sale, and that, which was created by Soviet engineers and designers.
      Space, aviation, navy, armored vehicles, where would we be now, in these 33 years, if we had the Soviet Union and people's power...
      1. +5
        14 March 2024 08: 54
        The defeat of PQ-17 was a consequence of only one news of the Tirpitz going to sea, its mere presence with the Germans, kept the entire British fleet in suspense. "Yamato" and "Musashi" could also have decided the outcome of many battles if the pogrom had not happened at Midway Atoll.
        And according to Bismarck too. Just a lucky torpedo hit, which led to jamming of the rudders. One in a hundred, if not more
      2. +3
        14 March 2024 10: 19
        Just the T-15, that same heavy infantry fighting vehicle, is more needed than its Armata base.
        1. +2
          14 March 2024 11: 03
          Sergei Alexandrovich, we didn’t see her in battle. My personal opinion is that we need a heavy armored personnel carrier, not this miracle "Mouse". If we talk about heavy transport that will work with tanks, the landing party on board should be reduced to 5-6 people (assault group), this will increase the comfort of accommodation, allow for optimization of dimensions, and reduce possible losses (if a heavy armored personnel carrier is damaged). Naturally, such armored personnel carriers, besides everything, are not for the first line; there should be BMPTs next to or even in front of the tanks.
          If we are talking about a universal vehicle, which is what our BMPs were intended to be, there is nothing better than the BMP-3, including in the Northern Military District.
          1. +3
            14 March 2024 11: 07
            The situation is exactly the opposite. The T-15 is just a front-line vehicle for working together with tanks. But the BMP-3 is less suitable for combat work directly on the battle line due to its weak armor.
            1. +2
              14 March 2024 12: 12
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              The T-15 is just a front-line vehicle for working together with tanks.

              As if yes, that’s how it was intended. Let me clarify my point right away: there is universalization and specification. You can’t add anything without sacrificing anything, if we have a universal vehicle, then it will be the BMP-3, there is nothing better than it yet. If specialization is needed, then the question immediately arises as to what it is, since it combines transport and fire functions, along with enhanced armor. The T-15 received an increase in weight and dimensions, as there are 12 paratroopers, as well as a combat module, as well as enhanced armor. For the “front line”, such a device will be this very “mass grave” if this monster climbs next to the tanks, “pregnant” with undismounted infantry. Therefore, for specialization, the transport and fire functions must be divided, where the fire specialization is for support in the BMPT, and the transport specialization in the heavy armored personnel carrier. I won't repeat the rest.
              1. +1
                14 March 2024 12: 48
                Don't even hope. If the T-15 takes place, it will not be disarmed. They will have to install the "Epoch" module.
                1. +1
                  14 March 2024 19: 06
                  Quote: Per se.
                  My personal opinion is that we need a heavy armored personnel carrier, not this miracle "Mouse".
                  A few words about the dimensions of the T-15.
                  Look at a modern tank with an umbrella against drones - it looks like a huge hut on caterpillar tracks. The situation is similar with the T-15. All these bells and whistles in the bow are spaced armor + masking of engine cooling and exhaust. Without them, the T-15 is in the dimensions of a T-14. . Hot air from engine cooling and engine exhaust are directed downward to the ground, which promotes camouflage in IR rays and has a positive effect on targeted shooting from a combat vehicle (warm air from the engine does not distort the image)
                  BMP T-15 "Barberry" (Object 149)
      3. +1
        14 March 2024 10: 53
        Quote: Per se.
        The defeat of PQ-17 was a consequence of only one news of the Tirpitz going to sea, its mere presence with the Germans, kept the entire British fleet in suspense.

        The entire fleet is a strong word. The Tirpitz was constantly guarded by a pair of Kings and 1 AB of the Home Fleet. The reserves were the “big pots” of the Yankees, who underwent combat training in the Atlantic before being sent to the Pacific Ocean.
    2. +2
      14 March 2024 10: 49
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      The example is not entirely successful. If the Germans had had many such Bismarcks and Tirpitzes, then it is still unknown which direction the naval history of Britain would have gone. wink

      It is known when - after laying down many Bismarcks and Tirpitzes, the under-armed and understaffed German army will be defeated in Belgium. smile
      In general, the Reich will not be able to develop a large fleet before 1942 under any developments. Because first you need to build ground forces and air forces that can cope with the victorious armies of WWI. Then we need to solve the “Russian problem,” which forces us to keep about 120 divisions in the east. And only after this can the army be demobilized, the shipbuilding industry and its subcontractors raised, and the construction of “big pots” begin.
      1. +1
        14 March 2024 10: 53
        Quote: Alexey RA
        start building "big pots"
        So they started building them, they just didn’t have enough time and metal for this. Also, if you remember, a couple of aircraft carriers were laid down and not completed for the same reason
        1. +2
          14 March 2024 11: 28
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          So they started building them, they just didn’t have enough time and metal for this. Also, if you remember, a couple of aircraft carriers were laid down and not completed for the same reason

          Exactly. Without a solution to the Russian question, the completion of a major land war in Europe and the partial demobilization of the army, the Reich may not even think about the fleet.
          1. +1
            14 March 2024 11: 50
            Quote: Alexey RA
            and the partial demobilization of the army, the Reich may not even think about the fleet
            I thought and thought and thought some more. Does Plan Z mean anything to you? But if it had been carried out, then the British fleet would have had to make a lot of room. Yes, the war got in the way
            1. +3
              14 March 2024 17: 11
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              I thought and thought and thought some more. Does Plan Z mean anything to you?

              Do you remember what happened to this plan? Work on the “big pots” that began in peacetime was curtailed after 01.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX. Construction is either canceled or frozen.
              Until the land issues were resolved, “Plan Z” remained declaration of intent.
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              But if it had been carried out, then the British fleet would have had to make a lot of room. Yes, the war got in the way

              This is what I am writing about:
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Without a solution to the Russian question, the completion of a major land war in Europe and the partial demobilization of the army, the Reich may not even think about the fleet.
  6. +23
    14 March 2024 05: 47
    What the author is right about "Armata" is that with communications we have a near-aphedronic state and a third to half of the tank's potential is canceled due to this, and the fact is that the time is not entirely its own.
    The engine as a whole was developed back in Soviet times, and it’s strange to think that it hasn’t been worked on over the years.
    Yes, “Armata” is crammed with more serious electronics than the T-90MS, but at the expense of “network” capabilities, radars and as many as two KAZ. We remove this and significantly reduce the cost of optoelectronics, possibly down to T-90MS values. And the placement of the crew does not play a special role here, because there is also no direct observation into the main instruments of the T-90MS - displays...

    Well, about resistance to drones. Is it okay that the passive protection of the upper hemisphere of the T-14 is simply unprecedented, even without visors? Just compare the thickness of the roof of the towers, and take the gun barrel as a reference point.
    And as for the fact that there is no T-14 in the Northern Military District, my opinion is this - network-centricity does not work, which means this ability of the tank is not in demand, tank attacks are limited to two, well, four vehicles - which means even a company in one direction is redundant, and it is unacceptable to pull it apart for repairs - restorative considerations.
    There are no tank battles with Western vehicles, which means that the increased anti-tank power of the gun is not required, and our tanks can cope with Soviet-made Ukrainian vehicles.
    At the same time, the HE shell remained exactly the same as for all 125 mm guns, which means that the Armata cannot be assigned any special assault missions that exceed the capabilities of the T-72-80-90. It is not particularly needed at the front, and since there are no indestructible tanks, the reputational losses in the event of being knocked out, let alone destroyed, will clearly outweigh the benefits. But in the event of the collapse of the Ukrainian front and the escape of the invaders, I do not rule out the participation of “Armat” in finishing off.
    1. +4
      14 March 2024 10: 25
      Network-centricity does not work due to the lack of communication channels or the incorrect concept of network-centricity, configured only with high-bandwidth communication channels. You can download a program with a map on which targets will be displayed onto your tablet using primitive communication channels of 19 kilobits/s.
      1. +3
        14 March 2024 10: 27
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        You can download a program with a map on which targets will be displayed onto your tablet using primitive communication channels of 19 kilobits/s.

        Only these channels must be closed and stable, but we have a non-illusory problem not even with this, but with simply communication.
        1. +3
          14 March 2024 10: 32
          Coding can also be used on low-bandwidth communication channels. This is a separate side of the ZAS, which somewhat reduces the throughput.
          VSUs even use WiFi point-to-point communication on civilian plates for 500 bucks.
          In general, a separate topic, but communication channels are primary.
  7. 0
    14 March 2024 05: 56
    Why is Armata in the Northern Military District now? That’s why?
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 07: 54
      Why did they spend the budget on it? Why?
      1. +4
        14 March 2024 08: 32
        Not everything can be explained by cutting the dough. It's like a haute couture exhibition. Prominent couturiers take part in them, and decent money is spent on them. Yes, they determine, to some extent, fashion trends for the near future, but everything presented there will never go into mass production. So it is with the "armata". It hardly makes sense to produce this product in a large series today, given its cost and during the war. But without such developments there will be no future for design schools. This is largely a foundation for the future. But how close it will be depends on many things.
        1. -2
          14 March 2024 08: 41
          It's like a haute couture exhibition. Prominent couturiers take part in them, and decent money is spent on them. Yes, they determine, to some extent, fashion trends for the near future, but everything presented there will never go into mass production.


          look at the “red carpet” when receiving an Oscar or the Cannes Film Festival or another party - and you will see everything there “live”, it Works!!!!
          1. +1
            15 March 2024 08: 02
            Well, look at the parade on Red Square and you will also see it live. And there are even more copies presented than the exclusive models in Cannes.
      2. -2
        14 March 2024 09: 12
        Well, let's not do anything at all, new developments - cutting the budget, yachts and villas! Are you tired of repeating platitudes yet? The article is simply hype on a hot and painful topic, despite the fact that no reliable information at the level of readers and authors of VO can be found in the wild! Manturov can say whatever he wants, but the capabilities of the industry, broken down over decades, are unlikely to allow the production of new, highly complex equipment in commercial quantities, when the front requires hundreds of serial tanks right now.
    2. +4
      14 March 2024 10: 26
      Armata are needed to save crews. So that when the isolated ammunition detonates, the tank crew remains unharmed.
    3. +1
      14 March 2024 18: 35
      Quote: tralflot1832
      Why is Armata in the Northern Military District now? That’s why?

      Will it be able to perform a combat mission better than the T72/T-90? Will he be able to significantly increase the level of interaction between strike groups? Will he be able to minimize casualties among personnel? If it can, then it is definitely needed. If not, then you don't need it.
    4. +2
      14 March 2024 18: 53
      Why is Armata in the Northern Military District now?

      And then, so that the tank in the Northern Military District is a tank for its intended purpose, and not a self-propelled gun firing from closed and remote positions. And the crew of this tank had a higher chance of surviving if it was damaged. In answering the question of whether the T-14 is needed in the Northern Military District, the determining factor should be the preservation of the lives of the crew members, our men, and not the price of this tank, as the author of the buffoons and the notorious Chemezov claim. If the T-14 is better protected than the T-90M, and hardly anyone will argue with this, then why should our tankers fight on the T-72,80,90 or T-62, which now cannot even move to an open position? since they will quickly be burned there. The T-14, having KAZ, DZ and good armor protection, will be able to break through the enemy’s defenses, as tanks did in the Second World War. To do this, designers need to modify the KAZ of the T-14 so that it also works in the upper hemisphere, covering it from javelins and UAVs. And 5 million dollars for a T-14 is not such an exorbitant price. The cost of Merkava-4, Abrams, Challenger, Lekrelka, Leopard-6 is no less. So why do our enemies buy such tanks for their armies, incl. and with KAZ, but we can’t afford it. That our soldiers are cheaper than theirs? Or is the reason still that our military-industrial complex and its leaders cannot organize the continuous production and supply of modern and necessary equipment to our army, such as T-14 tanks, SU-57 fighters, coalition self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers Kurganets and boomerangs and etc.
  8. +3
    14 March 2024 05: 58
    Well, nothing new, instead of learning from the mistakes of others, we step on the same rake. Regarding the fact that no one thought about the development of drones 10 years ago, I would like to remind you that it was 10 years ago that an interesting Israeli drone began to be produced, or rather a line of drones called Hero.
    And as for import substitution, I would like to remind you that even now the most imported car, the Lada Vesta, is not completely import-substituted, and if you look at the production of rubber products in Russia, you can find out that everything is a little bad and we order most of all gaskets and seals from China.
  9. +7
    14 March 2024 06: 00
    superior to existing tanks, but too expensive, so the army is unlikely to use it now

    everything according to Chubais’s behests:
    "Armata is expensive, cheaper than T90"
    “our planes turned out to be expensive, let’s buy junk from China for now”
    "Lada is of poor quality, we'd better buy a Chinese one that costs three times more"
    “It’s not profitable to produce your own drones, let volunteers buy them on Ali Express”
    I can continue ad infinitum...
  10. +4
    14 March 2024 06: 00
    If you install good powerful electronic warfare and other anti-UAV protection solutions on the Armata, then maybe a tank for drones will not be such an easy target. The most valuable thing about the Armata is the concept of crew survivability, and this is key in modern wars. In addition, you can remove half of the unnecessary bells and whistles from the tank, when you just need to save the crew during an assault and shoot the enemy with precision. It is possible that expensive stationary guidance sensors can be transferred to mobile tank support drones. Then microdamage to remote equipment will not be so bad (it simply won’t exist). But this is so, let's maneuver))
    1. -3
      14 March 2024 06: 36
      If you install good powerful electronic warfare and other anti-UAV protection solutions on the Armata, then maybe a tank for drones will not be such an easy target

      The development of AI makes electronic warfare useless, a couple of years of improvements and the drone will be able to independently select a target if the signal is lost. And installing air defense on a tank is something like that, drones, like submarines, will gather in a wolf pack and attack in dozens, not a single machine gun will help, since a dozen drones will cost much less than one tank, not to mention the crew.
      1. +3
        14 March 2024 10: 37
        In addition to machine guns, there are also automatic grenade launchers and small-caliber cannons capable of firing buckshot and darts. It will be much more difficult for small drones to escape from buckshot.
        1. +1
          14 March 2024 13: 52
          The ancient clarifiers laid down flocks of ducks at once, such flocks will immediately lay down in a crowd. Plus, three tanks will generally become an impregnable fortress in the field, and electronics will help to find where the drones are flying from, so that they don’t fly again. Otherwise, the nature of modern warfare in our country is three tanks storming a village with a battalion entrenched in it; tanks have never been able to do this
      2. 0
        14 March 2024 12: 45
        and the guns will be automatically aimed by AI
      3. 0
        14 March 2024 13: 35
        What is KAZ? If it can hit incoming projectiles, then what, a UAV can’t? One and a half dozen destructive elements are not enough - you can place fifty, what’s stopping you? But in any case, such a tank should not stand still and fire back. Firstly, when detected, vigorously maneuver, and secondly, one in the field is not a warrior, this is why network-centricity is also needed - and attack together and defend together. And situations like “knightly tournaments” - one T-14 against 4 T-64s - are not for modern warfare.
        1. 0
          14 March 2024 16: 14
          This is all good, provided there are single targets, such as Kaz / buckshot, etc. Will he fight against 2 dozen drones attacking simultaneously from different sides? How will Kaz fight against drones coming in several waves? No one is stopping you from developing cheap dummies for a hundred or more dollars, which will simply discharge defense systems, and then send combat drones. How much does one armature cost? 5 million dollars? And the drone? Well, even let’s say it’s a drone with AI and optics, which will cost 10 thousand, the mathematics doesn’t add up at all, not a single tank will ever fight off 500 drones with explosives, false targets, as I already said, have not been canceled either.
          1. +3
            14 March 2024 16: 41
            Again, you are looking at one tank on the battlefield, without reconnaissance, without air cover, without any interaction with other participants in the battle. And on the battlefield and in the immediate rear there are many different targets that are much less protected and no less important than a tank. In addition, a drone with AI, optics, a TV channel, a warhead of 5 kg and a range of 30-50 km is unlikely to cost 10 thousand. And such a massive use against one tank means many operators, many launchers, many vehicles, etc., which can also be detected and damaged.
            Even in ancient Rome, they understood and showed that “order beats class” - that well-organized troops, with inferior quality of individual fighters and weapons, defeat an enemy with excellent fighters and weapons, but poor organization.
            And the same Armata should be considered as a “team player”, and not in isolation from everything else.
          2. 0
            14 March 2024 18: 51
            Quote from realing
            Well, even let’s say it’s a drone with AI and optics, which will cost 10 thousand, the math doesn’t add up at all, not a single tank will ever fight off 500 drones with explosives

            1. Where, please, will these hundreds of drones take off from? 10-20 is one thing, 100-500 is quite another...
            2. If “tens/hundreds” of UAVs are needed to destroy 1 tank, then how many will be needed for 50 tanks? Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? And in what factories will these “hundreds of thousands” be assembled? You can't collect so much in basements. And to identify industrial assembly plants or open logistics, there is intelligence and then aviation/crew...
      4. 0
        14 March 2024 19: 04
        installing air defense on a tank is like nothing, drones will gather like submarines into a wolf pack and attack in dozens

        There is no need for air defense, a full-fledged KAZ is enough to cover its upper hemisphere, then the tank will be able to protect itself from dozens of primitive drones and javelins.
    2. 0
      14 March 2024 07: 57
      Quote from Vrotkompot
      If you install good powerful electronic warfare and other anti-UAV protection solutions on Armata

      ...then it will no longer be Armata, but something else...
      1. +2
        14 March 2024 13: 47
        That is, in your opinion, the barbecues on the roofs of T-72, 80 and 90 already make them different tanks? Don't talk nonsense. Minor modifications and attachments do not make the model completely new. The new model is, first of all, a different hull, gun, engine and other key components (that is, a different concept), and not minor modifications.
        1. 0
          14 March 2024 15: 56
          Quote from Vrotkompot
          Do not carry nonsense

          Do not carry nonsense ...
  11. -3
    14 March 2024 06: 01
    Why can’t a T-34 with modern managers cost today’s 250-500 million rubles? Of course, you can attach an electronic warfare installation and a drone fighter to the tank if you wish. And the IMF, aka the CIA, represented by Siluanov. Everything is like in the fag song “Because you can’t be beautiful like that”! So with the SU-57 and T-14 we have a financial clone of the principles created by the USA!
  12. +6
    14 March 2024 06: 07
    Thank you, Roman, for another emotional article.
    I understand that the genre is hype.
    But you still need to be more careful with metaphors.
    Excluding passages about the war at sea, where the failed air defense cruisers suddenly became effective, and Tirpitz, with its release on June 6, burying the weapons of the tank corps and two air regiments suddenly became ineffective, let’s focus on the most interesting:
    I read from the famous historian and publicist Yuri Fedorovich Katorin, and now I will show in his words what the conceptual difference is. There have been two concepts for a long time:
    1. Limited production of complex, expensive equipment with high capabilities. This is the German way of development of the Panzerwaffe. These are “Tiger”, “Royal Tiger”, “Panther”.
    2. Mass production of cheap equipment with average capabilities. These are thousands of T-34s and T-34-85s, which, in fact, decided the outcome on the battlefields.
    Yes, German tanks were more advanced and superior to Soviet ones in many respects. But they didn’t win, it’s just a question of numbers.
    And I am absolutely sure that four T-64s, in which competent crews will sit (illiterates do not survive there at all), will not leave any chance for the Armata with all its sophisticated electronics.

    This is actually not a misconception, but rather a substitution of concepts. And the point is not that the author is unfamiliar with the history of German tank building, but that instead of an objective analysis he provides a sample that supposedly confirms his theory.
    The point is not that German technology was advanced, but that by the winter of 1942 the Germans realized that they were catastrophically behind the USSR in the technical level of tanks. And their Pz-III+Pz-IV cannot hold a candle to the T-34 and KV. So they had to change their shoes on the go. At the same time, the production of budget vehicles, such as Pz-IV or StuG 40, only grew throughout the war, except for its last months. And how many crafts from such crap as Pz.38(t) were put together on the knee. Well, the most budget-friendly tank destroyer, the schoolboy-faustnik, is simply super-saving!
    Attributing to the General Headquarters the Westernizing cliché “women give birth to new ones,” many authors do not understand that the mass production of the T-34-85, by that time a vehicle already obsolete, was a forced measure that allowed our operations in the final period of the war to develop successfully, and not at all an aspiration.” overwhelm the enemy with corpses." Otherwise, in general, with the T-34 in 1942 it would not have been worth the trouble, there are tanks “zhu-zhu” (T-60) - there is nowhere cheaper and you can make them four times as much as thirty-fours.
    If we talk about our weapons on the eve of the coming war, then the analysis must be impartial and take into account the fact that a local conflict, although highly effective, is still a very limited experience. As the Supreme Commander said, “we haven’t started yet,” and that’s true.
    And in the coming war it is necessary to take into account:
    - our scientific and industrial potential is many times inferior to that of the enemy;
    - mobilization reserves are small;
    - the motivation of the population, despite the propaganda hype, is low;
    - Geographically, we are squeezed in the North-East of Eurasia and do not have the opportunity to influence the enemy’s communications.
    Hence, weapons models should be created and put into production, as well as appropriate training of personnel.
    1. -2
      14 March 2024 08: 50
      The point is not that German technology was advanced, but that by the winter of 1942 the Germans realized that they were catastrophically behind the USSR in the technical level of tanks. And their Pz-III+Pz-IV cannot hold a candle to the T-34 and KV. So they had to change their shoes on the go.


      we took in quantity, which they could not afford, they tried to take in “quality” - and they failed
      By the way, the Pz-IV, even in the initial variations, was no worse, and the final ones were better than the T-34-85
      and we see the “technical groundwork” left by them after our Victory, but often we either don’t understand or don’t want to admit it
      1. -1
        14 March 2024 10: 55
        we took in quantity, which they could not afford, they tried to take in “quality” - and they didn’t succeed. By the way, even in the initial variations the Pz-IV was no worse, but in the final variations it was better than the T-34-85

        Well, grandpa, you've done enough! There was no such thing as “at all”, and it was not for nothing that the Panther Commission determined the installation of the KwK 40 on this tank as a temporary measure until mass production of the Pz-V. And so the tank is complete crap: slow-moving, poorly protected, insufficiently passable, and in the end also blind. The armament is also so-so, slightly better than the T-34 and much worse than the T-34-85.
        The reserve for modernization was exhausted in 1943, as shown by all subsequent reincarnations in the self-propelled version. The army nickname of the Pz-IV (V) - "Guderian's Duck" - speaks for itself.
        Our main advantage is the presence of a powerful tank industry, entire Tankograds in Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil and Sverdlovsk. The Germans actually had a state defense order for existing machine-building enterprises. And their supposedly higher-quality cars are actually prototypes, put into production without proper development. Oddly enough, the most advanced vehicle that has undergone a full cycle of testing is the Royal Tiger. Well, judge for yourself what they ended up with.
        As for the groundwork, we had more of them, we just didn’t put everything into production, but of course, like everyone else, we used their experience.
      2. 0
        14 March 2024 19: 14
        The Pz-IV, even in the initial variations, was no worse, and the final ones were better than the T-34-85

        This is a very dubious and controversial statement. For some reason, our veteran tankers say something different.
      3. 0
        14 March 2024 19: 22
        Quote: Dedok
        The Pz-IV, even in the initial variations, was no worse, and the final ones were better than the T-34-85

        Tanks need to be compared objectively. But objectively speaking, it’s worth starting with the fact that they were designed for different tasks. 4 was supposed to be an infantry war chariot with a short cannon and weak armor, with a powerful OFS and solid ammunition, convenient for a 5-man crew, with good visibility and communications. And the 34 is a classic breakthrough tank, an anti-tank tank with serious armor and a powerful anti-tank gun, with very good mobility. 4 was intensively modernized throughout the war, but it remained an “infantry war chariot.” Only German communication quality and gun engineers helped out. The 34 remained a “mass mobilization” tank, without frills (in the form of leather seats, etc.), but with a set of characteristics that allowed it to solve most of the assigned tasks on the battlefield until 45.
        In short, without going into technical precision, l. With. engines and degrees of inclination of armor plates...
    2. +3
      14 March 2024 11: 19
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      The point is not that German technology was advanced, but that by the winter of 1942 the Germans realized that they were catastrophically behind the USSR in the technical level of tanks. And their Pz-III+Pz-IV cannot hold a candle to the T-34 and KV. So they had to change their shoes on the go.

      “On the move” is only “Panther”. And even then, work on it had been going on since pre-war times; problems in the USSR only accelerated their completion.
      But the "Tiger" in its final form was signed into production a month before the war - 26.05.1941/3/100. By ordering the competition participants XNUMX experimental and XNUMX pre-production tanks at once. The winner got "Tiger", the loser got "Ferdinand". smile

      The main problem of the Germans was the “PMV syndrome”. Adolf was afraid like hell of two things: total war and a decline in the standard of living in the rear. Because this is what ultimately killed the last Reich. Hence all these delights with the blitzkrieg and various wunderwaffes: the war must be won quickly and with the least losses, quality is more important than quantity. The rear must live as in peacetime - otherwise there will be a stab in the back again.
      This worked well for blitz wars. And then the Reich entered the USSR - and something went wrong...
      1. 0
        14 March 2024 11: 34
        But the "Tiger" was signed for production a month before the war - 26.05.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX

        You are right, but only partly. Simply having familiarized ourselves with samples of Soviet tanks back in August 1941, it was decided to continue work on a heavy tank so that it would be ready in 1942 and would be produced within a year, and in the meantime resolve the issue of a more promising model.
        And about the Tigers - this is not about the German tank industry. Not many of these tanks were produced and they did not determine the overall level of German tank building. In fact, the first attempt to create an MBT was the Panther, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Especially regarding weapons. The result was not a universal tank, but actually a fighter tank, a fundamentally flawed concept. So they had to leave the archaic Pz-IV in service as a poor infantry tank. So supposedly choosing quality over quantity is not about the Germans, since they didn’t have a choice as such.
        1. 0
          14 March 2024 17: 30
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          Simply having familiarized ourselves with samples of Soviet tanks back in August 1941, it was decided to continue work on a heavy tank so that it would be ready in 1942 and would be produced within a year, and in the meantime resolve the issue of a more promising model.

          The deadline for completing work on the "Tiger" was set at that very May meeting in Berghof - fully finished prototypes (6 pieces each) were to go out for testing in the summer of 1942, after the planned defeat of the USSR. And immediately after this, the plans were revised towards abandoning prototypes and immediately producing the first batch of pre-production ones - 100 cars each.
          Hitler ordered the production of 6 samples of VK 45.01(H) and VK 45.01(P) with identical turrets. However, quite quickly it was decided to immediately build 100 VK 45.01(P) of the first series without any prototypes.
          © Y. Pasholok
          The order for armor for them was issued to Krupp already in July 1941 - after the armor protection was finalized in accordance with the May requirements.
          So no August. And even July. The fate of the "Tigers" was decided back in May 1941, before the war.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          In fact, the first attempt to create an MBT was the Panther, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Especially regarding weapons. The result was not a universal tank, but actually a fighter tank, a fundamentally flawed concept. So they had to leave the archaic Pz-IV in service as a poor infantry tank.

          The problem is not with the Panther concept. The Germans initially planned it as a single tank to replace both “three” and “four”.
          The problem is that this replacement was planned for peacetime. And not in the midst of hostilities, especially in preparation for Kursk and after it. The Germans simply did not have a quiet six months to reduce tank production by half. Because “three” and “four” for German industry are like T-64 and T-72. smile
          "Panther" was made for the most painless development at factories of the "troika" group. So they released it - fortunately, the “three” was already completely outdated at that time.
          Quote: Victor Leningradets
          So supposedly choosing quality over quantity is not about the Germans, since they didn’t have a choice as such.

          After the transition to total war - yes. But even then they managed to get by in the wunderwaffe, knowing full well that technically they would not be able to throw iron at the Allies.
          But before the war and in its first half, the Germans still had the same emphasis on quality at the expense of quantity.
  13. +4
    14 March 2024 06: 13
    You might think that in the USSR the developments were all going to work... And work on the same tanks was carried out by the 4th Design Bureau of Kharkov, Leningrad, Tagil and Omich. In terms of the number of projects, there were so many things, but the trouble was in the metal, for the most part it was not the best but a technologically advanced tank. And if we don’t change the approach, then we will continue to have “don’t care about the crew, just give us the quantity.” Yes, with Armata they may have been too clever somewhere, but the concept and approach itself is already a big step forward; now it would be nice to combine these two approaches without significant losses. hi
  14. 0
    14 March 2024 06: 13
    light air defense cruisers armed with 14-18 universal 127 mm guns from the Americans,

    Probably 16 though. So in order to nitpick.
  15. +1
    14 March 2024 06: 16
    Quote: tralflot1832
    Why is Armata in the Northern Military District now? That’s why?

    In the wrong war that Russia is currently waging, a tank is not needed at all. We need a highly abundant self-propelled gun, well protected from above. Now, if you forget that this is our land and our people and start waging a “proper” war, with carpet bombing and other delights, a tank a la Armata would be more than necessary.
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 06: 27
      Quote: Grossvater
      We need a highly abundant self-propelled gun, well protected from above.

      Do you propose leaving the sides and forehead as plywood? A Bradley self-propelled gun can disassemble such a self-propelled gun, not to mention an anti-tank system or, God forbid, a tank. So it turns out that the best self-propelled gun is a tank.
      1. +2
        14 March 2024 11: 25
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Do you propose leaving the sides and forehead as plywood? A Bradley self-propelled gun can disassemble such a self-propelled gun, not to mention an anti-tank system or, God forbid, a tank.

        If "Bradley" reaches the self-propelled guns. smile
        Because the self-propelled gun must work with the PDO, in conjunction with UAV operators, airborne systems, spotters and battery/division command posts. Detection (UAV / AIR / simple infantry) - data transfer to the top, classification and selection of weapons (CP) - issuance of data for firing (CP) - data processing (self-propelled guns, spotters with a UAV or ground-based LCD - for guided projectiles) - collapsing and leaving for a new OP (self-propelled guns and possibly command post).
        1. 0
          14 March 2024 11: 31
          Quote: Alexey RA
          If "Bradley" reaches the self-propelled guns.

          This is if the self-propelled guns do not need to go to the Bradley and support the infantry with direct fire - then there are no tanks. wink
          1. 0
            14 March 2024 17: 31
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            This is if the self-propelled guns do not need to go to the Bradley and support the infantry with direct fire - then there are no tanks. wink

            So we have a normal option - when the self-propelled guns have reconnaissance, adjustment, communications and UAS. In this option, there is no need to go to the Bradley - let the shell fly to it. smile
            1. 0
              14 March 2024 17: 37
              Quote: Alexey RA
              So we have a normal option - when the self-propelled guns have reconnaissance, adjustment, communications and UAS.

              This works especially in buildings, yeah, performed by the Laotian army.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              In this option, there is no need to go to the Bradley - let the shell fly to it.
              This doesn’t always work, unfortunately, I hope you know about the T-90 beaten by two Bradleys? And it’s especially unfortunate when the infantry is forced to work without direct support, because the “normal option” is still a bit difficult for most of the army, Laos of course.
    2. +4
      14 March 2024 06: 43
      Carpet bombing is not carried out not because our people are there (the artillery perfectly demolishes yesterday's cities and villages to the foundation), but because even the Su 25, helicopters and fighters try not to fly close to the front line and launch bunks from the pitching position due to air defense actions, and you propose to drop tons of cast iron over the enemy’s head.
      1. -3
        14 March 2024 14: 49
        Carpet bombing is not carried out not because our people are there (artillery perfectly demolishes yesterday's cities and villages to the foundation), but because even Su 25, helicopters and fighters try not to fly close to the front line

        There is such a word as order! And the order reads: “Protect people’s lives as much as possible and reduce losses in combat operations to a minimum!” If the order read: “Fulfill the assigned combat mission within a clearly allotted time frame!” Do you feel the difference?! That’s why our platoon stronghold is stormed by almost four people!
      2. 0
        25 March 2024 00: 24
        bunks are launched from a pitching position due to air defense actions

        Actually, NURs.
  16. +6
    14 March 2024 06: 17
    The psychology of Chemezov and many other bosses is amazing. Huge expenses into the void and not in sight..... The appearance of an alien to the people.

    Impunity and irresponsibility not only corrupts, but also makes people mentally abnormal.
    1. +2
      14 March 2024 08: 52
      The psychology of Chemezov and many other bosses is amazing. Huge expenses in emptiness and not in one eye..


      It’s you and me who don’t see the ultimate beneficiaries of what’s happening, there’s no such thing as a void in financial matters
  17. -6
    14 March 2024 06: 21
    It's a pity, there is too much water, and conclusions are based on unproven assumptions... A loud fart into the water, with concentric circles and a slight gas attack.
    1. +5
      14 March 2024 06: 33
      A fart in the water is Chemezov’s statement..... As a result of huge investments and many years of efforts of large teams. A picture worthy of the phantasmagoria of Saltykov-Shchedrin.
  18. 0
    14 March 2024 06: 22
    The article is not about anything. The armature is not finished yet, it just needs to be tested and made cheaper. Su57 too. At one time, the T34 also broke down, it was more expensive than the T28, but they tested the price and made it several times cheaper. And with such reasoning, a sapper shovel is more convenient. By the way, in the USSR they came up with a lot of such armatures and not all of them went into series. Developments go into future projects
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 07: 51
      “Make it cheaper”, that is, make approximately the same tank as the T-90M. The only question is: why would it be needed then, given the well-established production of the T-90M? And by the way, where will you produce the “cheaper” version of the Armata? There is no plant for it, but at UVZ everything is occupied to capacity.

      It’s time to admit that “Armata” is an unrealistic future. From the times when everything you needed was bought abroad. "Armata" was created taking into account the foreign components in its composition, without them this tank would not exist. Not in any way.
      1. +3
        14 March 2024 08: 36
        T90 is yesterday, and the war in Ukraine is not right (usually cities are demolished, in Novgorod during the Second World War there were only 3 residents left after the liberation)... and here in Ukraine business is flourishing, the Bidens are traveling around Kyiv
      2. +3
        14 March 2024 10: 04
        So that the crew, along with the BC, does not burn out in the tank....
    2. -3
      14 March 2024 07: 57
      Quote: Goga_777
      The article is not about anything. The armature is not finished yet, it just needs to be tested and made cheaper. Su57 too. At one time, the T34 also broke down, it was more expensive than the T28, but they tested the price and made it several times cheaper. And with such developments go into future projects

      When you take Chemezov’s place, be sure to implement it!
  19. +7
    14 March 2024 06: 29
    "Armata", it is, in general, a little expensive. In terms of functionality, it is, of course, much superior to existing tanks, but it is too expensive, so the army is unlikely to use it now. It’s easier for them to buy the same T-90s.”

    Nothing costs us so much and is valued so cheaply as the mediocre activities of certain “effective” managers.
    How easily and freely they can “earn” 600 or more million rubles a year...
    It’s easier for us to kick them the hell out and hire 10 specialists with an annual salary of 6 rubles a year... Or we can pay them the same 000 rubles a year, and give the rest in government loan bonds with maturity in 000 (according to the payment terms compensation for lost deposits)...
    1. +4
      14 March 2024 06: 34
      and the rest - to be given in government loan bonds with maturity in 2054 (according to the timing of payment of compensation for lost deposits)...

      + 100500! hi
      I was mercilessly downvoted for such a proposal.
  20. -1
    14 March 2024 06: 29
    The cheapest weapons are probably a bow and a spear. But in the process of evolution, weapons still became more and more expensive.
    In this matter, the balance between the desires and the capabilities of the state is still important, since quantity often beats quality.
  21. +6
    14 March 2024 06: 30
    But in everyday life, the problem was the A-85-3 engine, an X-shaped 12-cylinder, according to the plan it was required to produce 1500 hp. in nominal and 1800 hp. in afterburner.

    If this is a problem, then it is solved in one move. Come to us at Kirovsky, we’ll supply you with a GT-1500 or even a GT-2000 and the tracks will fly!
    Since the power reserve is not relevant now, there is nothing to skimp on + versatility in fuel.
    It’s about weapons that are much more interesting.
    1. 2al
      +1
      14 March 2024 09: 21
      The power reserve is of course relevant, but the dynamic characteristics, as shown by the SVO, are much more relevant, especially in urban battles; jumping up and jumping out significantly determine the life of the tank and crew on the battlefield.
      "GTD-1400 (with an increase in gas temperature to 1360K and a short-term boost to 1400 hp) and "Product 39". The power of the latter can be increased to 1500 hp by increasing the compression ratio by 5,6% and air flow by 6,8% compared to GTD-1250."
    2. 0
      14 March 2024 17: 00
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      Since the power reserve is not relevant now, there is nothing to skimp on + versatility in fuel.

      The power reserve is always relevant. You remember the results of joint tests:
      ...to complete a daily march as part of a tank company over long distances, T-80B tanks require 3 special ATs-5,5-375 tank trucks with increased capacity, and for tanks with diesel engines - only one regular tanker ATMZ-4,5-375
  22. 0
    14 March 2024 06: 32
    I completely disagree; when the tank was first being developed, the idea of ​​a “network-centric war of the future” was floating around in everyone’s minds, but even now, almost 20 years later, no one really knows what it will all look like in the end.

    In fact, it has already been used in real life, although not in the usual form.
    Drones are elements of networks; they are in contact with operators and those with commanders. But very soon, people there too will be replaced by cheap and simple battlefield computers and the operators of flying drones will be removed from direct control.
  23. +1
    14 March 2024 06: 42
    Computers and robots reproduce and evolve faster and cheaper than people, which means that the “soldiers” of them will be better and more widespread. They are the future of network-centric technology, the main thing is not to get carried away with unreasonably expensive projects.
  24. +1
    14 March 2024 06: 43
    Armata will remain the subject of 13 years of development. It seems like these are consequences (we’ll buy everything abroad) and Manturov’s poor work, possibly sabotage.
    Manturov's father died in 2019. In September, Vedomosti wrote that the Manturov family owns the 5-star Chekhoff Moscow Curio Collection by Hilton hotel in the center of Moscow. RBC wrote that the Manturov family also owns a share in the Mantra winery. Who owns the Primorye Hotel in Gelendzhik?
    Its main owner and general director is Alexey Vasin, he also manages the Primorye Boarding House JSC, which, according to SPARK-Interfax, is registered at the same address as the 4-star Primorye Grand Resort Hotel with 167 rooms in Gelendzhik. The ultimate beneficiaries of the company are Tamara and Valentin Manturov.4 September. 2020 Manturov has worked in the government since 2007. 26 Feb. 2024
    1. -2
      14 March 2024 08: 32
      the Manturov family also owns

      I don’t care what belongs to whom, if Deniska the prankster weren’t an ordinary liar and pest.
    2. -1
      14 March 2024 10: 48
      I haven't been to Gelendzhik for a long time. But the greatest damage there was caused by some ancient sanatorium that blocked access to the sea in the northern part of the bay. This musty sanatorium was more harmful than two dozen hotels further from the coast.
      It is important to set priorities correctly.
      And the fact that the property is located in Russia is good.
  25. -7
    14 March 2024 07: 03
    Quote: fiv
    The article is an excellent example of the term “graphomania.” As they say, there are many letters. And what is the message???

    The amateur has the opportunity to show himself smarter than the professionals. He took advantage of her. This “creativity” differs little from what the Ukrainian schoolchildren taught to the Kharkov tank builders. The same depth of thought.
  26. +5
    14 March 2024 07: 05
    Quote: tralflot1832
    Why is Armata in the Northern Military District now? That’s why?

    To “account” for what hundreds of billions of rubles were spent. for 20 years of the project. lol crying
  27. +2
    14 March 2024 07: 14
    There is a country that learns at least a little from its mistakes. The desert storm and the complete defeat of the Iraqi air defense in the first days (contrary to general opinion, it was not so weak and snapped quite painfully) decided the outcome of events. Although many say that the T72s were simply outdated, and therefore did not spread the Abrams across the desert, I doubt this, since in the absence of air defense, tanks are unlikely to be capable of anything against a couple of Apaches launching anti-tank guns from 10 km, we will not say anything about airplanes at all . Why did this situation happen? Yes, because the Americans suffered in Vietnam from the Vietnamese Air Force and, most importantly, from the air defense and began to develop tactics to combat them, create specialized aircraft and missiles for this purpose, train crews and, most importantly, develop a doctrine, which helped calculate what and how much is needed , issue the military-industrial complex with a task on what aircraft and what missiles are needed and in what quantities. In our country, it seems to me, there was and is no doctrine, and developments are carried out either because there is a lot of money and we need to create a wunderwaffe, or because our heels are burning and some kind of equipment was needed yesterday. When there is a clear doctrine of warfare, then it will be clear what needs to be produced and in what quantities, how many people are needed for this and how to train them, but for now this is not the case.
    As they say: “with such a technical specification, the result is a technical one”
  28. +2
    14 March 2024 07: 18
    .The tank was developed when the main enemy of the tank was ATGMs and mines.

    Is it really possible that the Afganit KAZ, designed to fight not only ATGMs, but even sub-caliber and shells, will not provide protection for the tank from a diving kamikaze drone at a speed of 300 km/h?
    1. -3
      14 March 2024 07: 46
      The general public has not seen the work of the Afghanit KAZ, so all its miraculous characteristics are in question. And an FPV drone can easily dive into the upper hemisphere and no Afghanit will protect you.
      1. +4
        14 March 2024 08: 38
        Quote from DoctorRandom
        The general public has not seen the work of the Afghanit KAZ, so all its miraculous characteristics are in question. And an FPV drone can easily dive into the upper hemisphere and no Afghanit will protect you.

        We didn’t see Afghanit’s work in real combat, but we saw it at the training ground. Afghanit radars see “everything” because they are also used for reconnaissance of air targets, in the protection of armored vehicles and in attack operations. And mortars that fire damaging elements can additionally be installed vertically on the tower. This is my personal opinion, I understand that there are a lot of complex nuances. hi
  29. -3
    14 March 2024 07: 20
    I think the Armata tower was designed incorrectly. It is needed wider and lower, and on top, in a wide space, to place an omnidirectional KAZ. You can also use a machine gun with an electromagnetic gun paired with it. In the end, they will invent some kind of regulation for IDP drones. In the meantime, make at least 200 pieces of Armata, they will be useful on the farm. And it is still advisable to check it in a real case in the fields of the SVO.
    1. 0
      14 March 2024 08: 55
      She was already checked T 14m flashed in the news
  30. +2
    14 March 2024 07: 21
    I’m actually surprised that the T-90 went into production and wasn’t left for ski jumping. In general, even the T-55 was praised, it drives, it shoots, but what else does a tank need? If there were T-34s and they would be praised, but so what? The grandfathers won, and why are you worse? The army in general is not a cheap thing, and when instead of military engineers in the defense industry there is a crowd of managers running around with calculators, don’t expect any good. Therefore, the words of one famous scientist about the use of sticks and boomerangs in the third world are no longer so illusory...
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 08: 46
      Quote from turembo
      I’m actually surprised that the T-90 went into production and wasn’t left for ski jumping.
      Thanks Indians
  31. +2
    14 March 2024 07: 22
    How much does a new T-90 cost in today's prices? “A T-14 costs as much as four T-72B3s,” but the T-72s are taken out of storage.
  32. +1
    14 March 2024 07: 36
    And "Armata" still useful. Then, when it becomes clear where the world will turn in terms of strategy and tactics of conducting military conflicts.


    from what hangover?
    the questions remained unanswered: should we ask those “people” who determined the direction of the development of the military-industrial complex, and with us - “everything is fine, beautiful marquise”?
  33. +5
    14 March 2024 07: 39
    "Armata", it is, in general, a little expensive. That says it all, are the lives of tank crews cheaper? According to the plan, the survivability of the crew in an isolated armored capsule should be higher than in the fighting compartment along with the ammunition. The criminal phrase “women are still giving birth” no longer works. But for us, iron is still more important than lives.
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 11: 41
      I’m not a tank driver and haven’t even sat in a tank. But looking at the rapid development of various kinds of remote drones, including those with homing elements, I want to ask experts and specialists: “Is the crew in a tank really irreplaceable and necessary if there is an automatic loader and various kinds of sensors, information from which can be transmitted to points controls, where the tank can be remotely controlled by an operator? "Then women will not have to give birth to so many operators. Will this make the tank much cheaper? If tankers are the main cost of a tank, then by a lot. And the iron can be put on stream, even if it’s not cheap. But taking into account the fact that Russia has fewer human resources than NATO, maybe it would be better to send tankers to factories to rivet tank hardware and make them remote control operators for tanks?
  34. +6
    14 March 2024 07: 42
    Tell me, have the F-22 and F-35 fought a lot?


    The F-35 is a massive vehicle, and it will still have to be fought someday, because it is not the plane’s fault that the United States is now the world hegemon, and no one except barmalei in slippers dares to shoot in their direction. The F-22 is also relatively widespread; after all, almost 200 aircraft were produced. And “Armata”, “Boomerangs”, “Poseidons”, “Petrels”, Su-57 are weapons for TV, one-piece.

    By the way, what happens when none of the combat vehicles shown at the 2015 parade made it to the assembly line? That's success! Well, it’s okay, let the guys go into battle with the T-55 for now, and then the high-ranking managers will come up with something.
    1. +5
      14 March 2024 08: 28
      Armata", "Boomerangs", "Poseidons", "Petrels", Su-57 - weapons for TV, one-piece.

      And what? The first in the world to create a parallel television reality!!!
  35. +3
    14 March 2024 07: 44
    Everything is familiar and predictable, according to Yeltsin-Putin.
  36. +2
    14 March 2024 07: 45
    I completely agree with the author of the article. It's a question of price. If the USSR could afford to produce 35000 IL-2s, now no army in the world can produce the same number of SU-25s or A-10s. The author rightly points out the threat from FPV drones, but the presence of Avganite can solve this problem. FPV drones will never fly at the speed of an ATGM, therefore they will become a common target. A question of fine-tuning. And, indeed, the issue of communication needs to be resolved.
  37. +1
    14 March 2024 07: 47
    A reasonable solution is not to use too expensive equipment, of which there is also very little. Most importantly, this technique will not provide a decisive advantage, since it is not a new type of weapon that is invulnerable at this stage.

    The historical excursion is unsuccessful.

    "Any attempt to develop something super-efficient and super-expensive ended sadly."

    Not just any one. There are many examples where technological advantage provided the key to victory. This advantage ensured victory over Hussein, for example. Not a single miracle weapon, but a complex of weapons. Armata is part of the complex, but there is no complex, so there is no point in using it in the current conditions.

    When talking about Tigers and T-34s, we should not forget about the conditions in which they were used. The USSR had inexhaustible human resources and could afford armadas of inexpensive tanks, but Germany did not have such an advantage. Therefore, the choice of both sides was reasonable. Our ancestors were no more stupid than us. And the ancestors of the Germans too.
    1. -6
      14 March 2024 08: 02
      experts in quotes, terribly criticizing the Armata, forgot to mention: unlike all our modern tanks, potentially only the Armata with its radar with AFAR and KAZ Afganit will be able to fight off a swarm of drones (no matter FPV or AI-controlled), and without any ugly “barbecues” "over the tower.

      Another thing: to what extent does Afghanit currently allow you to fight off drones? Maybe they are just doing some fine-tuning. Then “we’ll see.”
      1. +3
        14 March 2024 08: 56
        Still, if a tank is forced to fight off drones, this is no longer the rule, but the exception. An approximate analogue is when a tank was attacked by infantrymen with grenades. That is, from such cases the tank must be protected by escort means, for example, infantry, which does not allow enemy infantry to approach the tank. With ATGMs the matter is more complicated, of course. And with drones it’s the same, tanks must be protected from them by special support means, and tank means of protection are the last line.
    2. +2
      14 March 2024 13: 36
      Quote: S.Z.
      A reasonable solution is not to use too expensive equipment, of which there is also very little. Most importantly, this technique will not provide a decisive advantage, since it is not a new type of weapon that is invulnerable at this stage.

      The historical excursion is unsuccessful.

      "Any attempt to develop something super-efficient and super-expensive ended sadly."

      Not just any one. There are many examples where technological advantage provided the key to victory. This advantage ensured victory over Hussein, for example. Not a single miracle weapon, but a complex of weapons. Armata is part of the complex, but there is no complex, so there is no point in using it in the current conditions.

      When talking about Tigers and T-34s, we should not forget about the conditions in which they were used. The USSR had inexhaustible human resources and could afford armadas of inexpensive tanks, but Germany did not have such an advantage. Therefore, the choice of both sides was reasonable. Our ancestors were no more stupid than us. And the ancestors of the Germans too.

      Can you tell us more about the inexhaustible human resources of the USSR? The USSR had a population quite comparable to Germany and its allies, moreover, a significant part of the population of Western European regions was occupied and, accordingly, ceased to be a resource.
      1. 0
        14 March 2024 15: 41
        I don’t know by what criteria you evaluate, but according to VERIFIED data, the population of the USSR in 1941 was 195 million people, and Germany 70 million... The difference is almost 3 times
        If you want to drag in allies, then also provide data on the allies of the USSR.
        1. 0
          18 March 2024 12: 26
          Yes (in the sense of vkryub since I didn’t check the figures), only a significant part of the population of the USSR found itself under occupation (and, if you believe the figures, then the losses of 26 million are mainly the civilian population of the occupied and front-line areas, collaborators deported to work in Germany). Those. the difference is not that dramatic. Allies (before the landing in Normandy) is a very controversial (at least ambiguous) issue.
    3. 0
      14 March 2024 13: 36
      Quote: S.Z.
      A reasonable solution is not to use too expensive equipment, of which there is also very little. Most importantly, this technique will not provide a decisive advantage, since it is not a new type of weapon that is invulnerable at this stage.

      The historical excursion is unsuccessful.

      "Any attempt to develop something super-efficient and super-expensive ended sadly."

      Not just any one. There are many examples where technological advantage provided the key to victory. This advantage ensured victory over Hussein, for example. Not a single miracle weapon, but a complex of weapons. Armata is part of the complex, but there is no complex, so there is no point in using it in the current conditions.

      When talking about Tigers and T-34s, we should not forget about the conditions in which they were used. The USSR had inexhaustible human resources and could afford armadas of inexpensive tanks, but Germany did not have such an advantage. Therefore, the choice of both sides was reasonable. Our ancestors were no more stupid than us. And the ancestors of the Germans too.

      Can you tell us more about the inexhaustible human resources of the USSR? The USSR had a population quite comparable to Germany and its allies, moreover, a significant part of the population of Western European regions was occupied and, accordingly, ceased to be a resource.
  38. +1
    14 March 2024 08: 01
    . The Project 667 submarine is a complete failure with the VNEU, and not everything is going smoothly with the construction of boats of the last century.

    Why didn’t our SSBNs please Roman? Reactor of the wrong system
  39. +2
    14 March 2024 08: 09
    To control a unit in battle, there is a KShM, especially since we have similar vehicles. If the Armata cannot be used as a tank, then there is no need to fence the garden. We need to remove all these radio-electronic clutter and make just an excellent tank, with the latest sights and communications equipment. Why does a tank need a drone? Yes, it’s easier in the TB to form a company which will include a UAV platoon. But it would be advisable to return to the Omsk-developed T-95 heavy tank project. It is close in weight to Western tanks, but has stronger firepower (152mm gun).
  40. -2
    14 March 2024 08: 25
    And the Armata will still come in handy. Then, when it becomes clear where the world will turn in terms of strategy and tactics of conducting military conflicts
    Ash stump, which will come in handy! When will they divide and assign Priorities! After all, how much did the bourgeoisie steal from the wild West! angry Everywhere you look, there is a label everywhere: “for the first time in the world, maid in... not ours!”... But with “Armata” it’s a different matter! Americans! Turn out the lights, grab the gravy, there will be no more food! tongue The top place on the pedestal is ours...Russian! fellow And what ? It’s not for nothing that “folk wisdom” says: War is bullshit! The main thing is maneuvers! good
  41. +2
    14 March 2024 08: 31
    “It’s great that the new layout of the T-14 will most likely allow the crew to survive. But 500 million rubles is 500 million rubles. That’s 5,5 million dollars. Yes, like three T-72s. And the T-72 is still decent tank"

    Masterpiece! To paraphrase in other words: I don’t care about people (women still give birth), THE MAIN THING IS THE MONEY!!!
  42. +7
    14 March 2024 08: 44
    It’s great that the new layout of the T-14 will most likely allow the crew to survive. But 500 million rubles is 500 million rubles.
    Leopard 2A6 is fighting in Ukraine, like the Challengers. Maybe not as intense, but still. So the Armata looks more like a cut for now, since even under the cameras it cannot shoot towards the enemy, even from a closed position
    T-14 led to billions of dollars in supply deals to third countries?
    Well, they brought expensive Leclercs - Jordan: 80 tanks, as of 2020, UAE: 388 tanks, as of 2012. And Challengers, the Korean “Black Panther”, not to mention Leo2 and Abrams.
  43. -4
    14 March 2024 08: 49
    Well then. Everything is expected. T 14 and Su 57 are very expensive cars. Plus, they use technologies that are still secret. Look how the Americans are shaking over their F 35. Our industry is not yet ready for their mass production. Don't believe me. Just remember the T34. This tank was VERY technologically advanced. However, God willing, we learned to produce it normally at 43. At 42 there was a case of refusal to go into battle with it. Not cowardice, but refusal. Since wartime tanks are focused on quantity. That's enough marriage. Either metal or something else. This whole mess was sorted out by Malyshev. Or the story with Yakovlev’s fighters. There were very big complaints against them back then. Su were better. Over time, everything was corrected, but he could have been shot at full length. But Yakovlev was in favor with the Supreme.
    1. +3
      14 March 2024 09: 14
      technologies that are still secret are used there

      secret and “unparalleled”!
    2. 0
      14 March 2024 11: 02
      This has been discussed hundreds of times. The T-34 was not technologically advanced, don’t muddy the waters again. The T-34 had a complex body with spark plug springs located inside it. Because of this, the body was cramped and low-tech. The situation was saved by the introduction of automatic welding machines, which made it possible to cope with mass production. The Israeli Merkava now has a similar suspension, but it has springs outside the body, which is a better solution.
  44. +5
    14 March 2024 08: 57
    The government of oligarchs, thieving bureaucrats and athletes is a bit expensive, let’s not use it either. It’s easier to gather deputies-delegates to congresses once every six months, and the rest of the time they will work in production and in the national economy, and the relevant ministries will prepare draft laws for them.
  45. -3
    14 March 2024 09: 02
    I think that the Black Eagle project needs to be revived, this is a logical continuation of the T80 tanks, where many of the shortcomings have been eliminated, just like in the T90m. In addition, mass production of this tank model is much easier to master and it is cheaper. There is room for modernization; we could install a 152 mm gun!
  46. +4
    14 March 2024 09: 04
    To understand what is happening. Please answer the following questions for yourself. Do we have the machines to produce this tank? Can they now be purchased abroad, consumables and spare parts for them? Are there any craftsmen who can work for them? Are such machines produced in the Russian Federation? What about microelectronics, do we have an electronic database? Is it possible to buy electoral filling abroad? How much will all this cost, taking into account sanctions? Is it really not clear?
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 10: 00
      Please answer the following questions for yourself. We have machines for production this tank?


      Why don’t you like the machines located at Uralvagonzavod? - for armatures they should be different?
      if you are talking about mechanical engineering in general, then yes, it doesn’t exist
  47. The comment was deleted.
  48. -4
    14 March 2024 09: 08
    Without a new normal engine and gun, Armata is essentially the same T90. And there is no point at all in putting it into a major series. It's my opinion. Let a hundred of them travel around the training grounds until these problems are resolved. There is no need for it to become like with the T64 when it was put into service and the whole country was running around for 10 years.

    What we essentially have is the same gun, that is, the combat effectiveness is the same. But the tank turns out to be larger (much) and much heavier. Hence we have problems with moving on railway platforms, airplanes and garages.
    The crew capsule - but obviously it won’t help if the ammunition rack is penetrated! But at the same time, it requires hellish electronic systems and chips, reduces visibility, essentially makes the tank extremely dependent on electronics, but this does not in any way increase combat effectiveness. Again, what's the point?

    Well, cherry - all this also comes down to the search for a microscopic engine, this with such external dimensions! But there is no engine - there is only a ridiculous X.

    That is, as a result, we have a complex, extremely expensive tank of enormous size, which has no inherent advantages over the T90! Well, what for?! What was the point of spending all this money on this ridiculous concept?

    Chilingir has a rifled gun and BOPS... If the same Armata was equipped with a 152mm rifled barrel like the Coalition, it could work like a SAU and like a tank from closed positions, and even during an assault. It could launch not just the Cornet direct fire at 10 km, but also Krasnopol at 20-40 km. And in the assault on cities, 152 mm is a powerful argument.

    RANGE AND ACCURACY CANNOT BE WITHOUT A RIFLED BARREL...BUT WITH A FULL TANK CHARGE OR BOPS THIS REDUCES THE RESOURCE...BUT THE CRAP IS THAT RIGHT NOW WE ARE FROM A TANK LIKE A HOWITSIER, KILLING BARRELS AND TRYING TO FROM THE BARREL FOR DIRECT FIRE, ARROWS YAT ON MOUNTED TRAJECTORY AT MAXIMUM BARREL ELIZATION.
    But the CHILLINGER HAS A LIFETIME OF A RIFFED BARREL OF 400 SHOTS WITH BOPS AND 500 HASH, THAT IS, A RIFFED BARREL HAS A LIFETIME TWO TIMES LOWER THAN A SMOOTH BARREL. OUR HOWITZER OLD AKACIYA 2A2 AND D33 -20MM - RESOURCE 152 SHOT (AGAINST 3,500 FOR OUR MAIN TANK AND 1,200 FOR THE 280MM PROTOTYPE).

    It is necessary to make the Armata tank and the Coalition self-propelled gun on a single platform of a normal size like the Armata (and not from the T90) and on the same 152mm rifled barrels, only a little shorter for the tank. We will get unification for shells. And besides, due to the new type of variable charge, the tank will be able to operate as an Acacia-type self-propelled gun from indirect firing positions and as a direct fire tank, while maintaining sufficient barrel life due to the use of a variable charge.

    A modern tank must perform the tasks of direct fire and indirect fire using different variable charges. FOR THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOOT FROM THE BUSHES AT 10 KM WITH A FULL CHARGE OF DIRECT FIRE.

    The Armata cannot be put into large production just yet because it is no better than the T90. The first thing that needs to be done is to adopt a new tank concept, then develop a normal V12 engine. While this is nothing, Armata is the same T90, but weighing 55-60 tons, in fact.
    Now it’s better to bring the T90 to fruition - install a steering wheel and GOP (which has been talked about for 20 years) and remove this box of garbage from behind the turret. The story is finally Relic on T72 and other things.
    You cannot start large purchases of the Armata tank now. It is better to direct efforts to the Sau Coalition at the Armata base, and then pull up a tank under this used base.
    1. -1
      14 March 2024 09: 18
      the first thing you need is to accept a new tank concept, then develop a normal V12 engine

      in the sense of the development of military-technical thought, the first thing you need to do is look at the current developments of militarily advanced countries, and not reinvent the wheel in the 21st century...
      1. -1
        14 March 2024 10: 06
        look at the current developments of militarily advanced countries, and not reinvent the wheel in the 21st century...


        yes, all “samples” must be obtained and studied, no doubt
        but, the SVO revealed one feature that we forget about: this is the “repairability” in this case of the tank: not Leo, nor Abrashkas, Challenges (and with them their armored personnel carriers, armored fighting vehicles, etc.) cannot be serviced and repaired “in the dirt” - i.e. directly in the front line, unlike Soviet technology
        Why is the AK-47 so popular? - for exactly the same reason
    2. 0
      20 March 2024 23: 00
      Quote: Totor5
      It is better to direct efforts to the Coalition self-propelled guns at the Armata base, and then pull up a tank under this used base.
      Self-propelled guns do not need frontal armor comparable to that of a tank; there is no need for them to participate in direct fire in a duel with tanks. But this increases the pressure on the front rollers and the chance of losing the secrets of advanced developments long before the start of mass production of new tanks. Now, if a certain simplified version were made on the basis of the Armata hull, under the Coalition-SV turret, but with the Relic on the front parts of the armor, then from +50 to +150 additional accurate long-range self-propelled guns "Coalition-SV", every 3 months of production , taking into account a separate conveyor, would not be superfluous for SVO! Moreover, trailed howitzers D-400, with similar barrels, are inferior to self-propelled guns: in terms of speed of deployment, change of position, speed of aiming at the target; rate of fire (and perhaps even the maximum firing range?), as well as the required crew size!
      But let me assume that the design work and testing of such a project may take too much time and some of the funding from the defense budget?
      1. 0
        20 March 2024 23: 20
        Since the comment editing time was made very small, I’ll add it. For such a self-propelled gun project, of course, at the moment it would be better to install a used GTD-1250 with a transmission like the T-80BVM.
  49. +2
    14 March 2024 09: 11
    It’s great that the new layout of the T-14 will most likely allow the crew to survive. But 500 million rubles is 500 million rubles. This is 5,5 million dollars.


    You need to calculate expenses not just for a tank, but as a whole. The tank is one of the main offensive components of ground forces (ground forces, airborne forces, marines). In 2022, there were 1 military personnel per tank; in 1060 (according to the Military Balance), there were 2024 military personnel per tank, not counting the aviation and navy, which also work in the interests of the infantry.
    Taking this into account, the cost of the tank is secondary, the primary ability is the ability to complete the assigned tasks - every day the SVO is 15 billion rubles. additional military expenditures - the difference between the military budgets of 2022 and 2024, taking into account inflation, indirect costs, I believe, are much greater.

    And if we talk about the price of technology, we must not forget about the cost of life. This is especially important for an infantry fighting vehicle with a crew and landing party of 10 people; each death will cost the budget 12.4 million, this is only the “coffiner”, not counting additional payments to the family of the deceased, the cost of his training, etc.

    Classic tanks will probably be replaced in the medium term by more compact unmanned tanks, but infantry fighting vehicles will remain infantry fighting vehicles and the Armata would serve as a good demonstrator of enhanced security technologies.
  50. 2al
    0
    14 March 2024 09: 32
    Still, the T-14 Armata is only part of a new combat platform. The same BMPT T-15 is now more than in demand, and KAZ is really relevant. Why are the Ministry of Industry and Trade and Rostec so focused on diesel? The fact that gas turbine engines are now more than relevant in the Northern Military District is clearly not a revelation! Diesel was brought into Armata with the expectation of export, and not with the aim of increasing combat performance. Of course, a gas turbine engine is more expensive than the average diesel engine, but at capacities above 1200 l/s this is no longer obvious.
    "GTD-1400 (with an increase in gas temperature to 1360K and a short-term boost to 1400 hp) and "Product 39". The power of the latter can be increased to 1500 hp by increasing the compression ratio by 5,6% and air flow by 6,8% compared to GTD-1250."
  51. 0
    14 March 2024 09: 33
    Another problem is the state of the Russian microelectronics industry. It’s not to say, fortunately, that everything is completely sad with us in terms of processors, memory modules and all other electronic junk,

    The element base is old from the 80s of the last century. When the British bought Tor-M1 through front companies and examined it, it turned out that all the electronics were ancient and there was simply no way to copy them.
  52. 0
    14 March 2024 09: 47
    Quote: Vladimir80
    the first thing you need is to accept a new tank concept, then develop a normal V12 engine

    in the sense of the development of military-technical thought, the first thing you need to do is look at the current developments of militarily advanced countries, and not reinvent the wheel in the 21st century...


    That's right... and this is the Lipard engine and Renck transmissions, which are everywhere, just as the Lipard gun is everywhere.
  53. The comment was deleted.
  54. +2
    14 March 2024 09: 56
    Well, yes, it’s money again, but I don’t give a damn about the burning crews in the T-72, as usual.
  55. +1
    14 March 2024 10: 05
    The X-shaped engine is good in everything except one unpleasant moment. During idle time, oil accumulates in the lower cylinders, and at the moment of start-up it leads to water hammer. In aviation, radial engines were decompressed manually by the propeller before starting. But this won’t work in a tank.
    1. 0
      20 March 2024 21: 54
      A low speed starter won't fix this?
      1. +2
        20 March 2024 22: 04
        It won't fix it. On an airplane, manual scrolling allows you to timely feel the onset of water hammer and gently relieve it. But on a tank, the starter turns harshly in any case and will certainly damage the engine. Especially if the oil has thickened in the cold.
  56. +1
    14 March 2024 10: 34
    I agree. Logical. But.......
    The trick is in the details: namely: a product, any product, by the way, will remain expensive exactly until its mass production starts. At first everything will look funny: a lot of millions of dollars are spent and spent, and the product does not become much cheaper. But miracles do not happen: it will become cheaper. There is no need to doubt it. Like VAZ 21011, 2106, etc. As they say, “before it becomes cheap, it will first cost as much as a cast-iron bridge.” And there are no other options! And if you follow the author’s logic, which is logical, then we must fight on the T-55, fly on the MIG-21.
  57. 0
    14 March 2024 10: 37
    And today, the emerging “trench electronic warfare” will sooner or later evolve into a full-fledged weapon and will become widespread accordingly. There are many examples of how anti-cumulative screens made of armored mesh appeared on Soviet tanks in Europe in 1944, how light air defense cruisers appeared armed with 14-18 universal 127-mm guns from the Americans.

    The Americans only acquired KRL air defense systems after the war. And the pre-war "Atlantas" were originally designed as scouts and EM leaders. 8 towers - and only two control centers. This was enough to work on surface targets: to sink an EM you need a lot of shells, so 4-6 turrets firing at one target is the norm.
    But the Atlant air defense was rated low - 16 universal barrels, but only 2 targets that could be fired upon.
  58. +5
    14 March 2024 10: 42
    Quote: NOT malicious
    I agree. Logical. But.......
    The trick is in the details: namely: a product, any product, by the way, will remain expensive exactly until its mass production starts. At first everything will look funny: a lot of millions of dollars are spent and spent, and the product does not become much cheaper. But miracles do not happen: it will become cheaper. There is no need to doubt it. Like VAZ 21011, 2106, etc. As they say, “before it becomes cheap, it will first cost as much as a cast-iron bridge.” And there are no other options! And if you follow the author’s logic, which is logical, then we must fight on the T-55, fly on the MIG-21.


    Yeah, like the Lada Vesta, which already costs under 2 lamas. Nothing ever gets cheaper in Russia.
  59. -4
    14 March 2024 10: 45
    Quote: km-21
    The X-shaped engine is good in everything except one unpleasant moment. During idle time, oil accumulates in the lower cylinders, and at the moment of start-up it leads to water hammer. In aviation, radial engines were decompressed manually by the propeller before starting. But this won’t work in a tank.


    It is bad in everything, starting with the complexity of maintenance and manufacturing. Its only plus is its size. And that is why they have been tinkering with it for 50 years within the framework of the erroneous concept of CREW CAPSULE + CARUSEL UNDER THE TOWER.
  60. +3
    14 March 2024 10: 46
    Well, why the hell, we have enough budget developers for a hundred years ((
  61. +5
    14 March 2024 11: 02
    It is impossible to consider "Armata" alone on the battlefield, without reference to other systems. That’s when there will be modern communications, reconnaissance systems, a well-functioning fire circuit based on the “Coalition” and the massive use of “Tornado-S”, an electronic warfare system that jams all primitive drones and does not touch its own, etc. etc., then “Armata” will enter the battlefield and show what it is capable of.
    If we use it now, it will have the same fate as the Abrams used individually,” because any iron burns.
  62. 0
    14 March 2024 11: 24
    "Armata" is from the point of view of the role - "Tank Grotte". Cool, modern, advanced, but it didn’t go into production, because it was used to study what we could do and how much it costs at the top. Probably yes, they will analyze it, including based on the results of the SVO.
  63. 0
    14 March 2024 11: 27
    It’s just that the concept of Armata is outdated.
    The problem with the Armata is the outdated concept of tank battles, the outdated concept of the 1970s, when they thought that a tank would most often fly into the turret... and from the front at that. Well, well, in their understanding, tanks are like in the Jewish war or on the Kursk Bulge - hundreds of them go at each other head-on... and the tank accordingly gets hit in the tower, and the way out is to take people out of the tower and like, this is a cool solution.
    When the idea of ​​a turretless tank was born, there were no drones and no anti-tank guns firing from above... there were few anti-tank guns at all.
    Therefore, they came up with a knight's move - to remove the crew from the tower altogether, and their hull was hidden by the folds of the terrain... But in the 1970s there were no electronics that would allow the control to be transferred to remote mode. And in the 80s, both we and the Americans began to do this. Then the T95 was born... Based on project 187 from the 1980s, and it was born only because there was nothing else in the 90s... In the 2000s they licked the same thing again because there were no new ideas. These ridiculous outdated concepts have been the basis for the X engine for almost 50 years.

    In short... Armata is outdated, its very concept is outdated, like the concepts of many tanks - new tanks need ALL-ANGLE PROTECTION, and not like now - a mega forehead and that’s it. And the roof of a tank is generally the least protected place of the tank, including the Armata tank. The same T72 has at least some kind of armor and some kind of remote protection on the roof, but what does the Armata have? Cardboard? The entire defense of Armata is essentially KAZ and its rackets.. If it passes the khan’s turret and crew.

    The engine of the Tanks is not protected in any way, nor is the front of the top protected in any way, but for the Abrams this is generally a weak point - there is only 38mm of armor and that’s all. That is, the Abrams carrier can be sewn on from a 30mm cannon if you shoot from the top in the forehead at the carrier. Or, for example, from an RPG from the upper floors! And this is in the forehead! Or even hitting a spot in front of the tower with a drone!

    I wonder if Armata can jump over an armored capsule? I don’t think it’s a lot, because no matter how thick it is. That is, Armata is completely vulnerable from above to RPGs and drones. All hope is in Kaz, but they say that not a single Kaz protects the upper hemisphere from attacks from above... Like maybe you also need a radar that looks up... How lucky. Therefore, apparently the Americans bought Kazakh current from the Jews for testing. And the Jews took the Merkava for themselves because they were thinking about an RPG from around the corner... But as you can see right now, this doesn’t really help them because the KAZ is almost always turned off... because essentially these are large camera mirrors and radars around the entire tower - and they are extremely vulnerable for shrapnel and bullets... This is the paradox.

    And Armata has hope for him. Have you seen what war tanks look like in real life - like tattered ones. So think about what the Kazakh mirror will look like...

    Most likely, if Armata took part right now, to our shame, she would be all scalded with nets and barbecues, and perhaps there would be sandbags hanging somewhere. This would certainly be an epic advertisement for Kaz and the concept of an uninhabited tower without armor.
  64. 0
    14 March 2024 11: 32
    Explain to the ignorant - is it generally impossible to protect a tank from UAVs?
    Even if, relatively speaking, you constantly drag some self-propelled air defense or electronic warfare system behind it?
    1. 2al
      0
      14 March 2024 14: 04
      Of course, it is possible that even passive protection against UAVs in the air defense system fulfills its purpose. But a much more adequate and comprehensive solution is active protection + reconnaissance and target designation means. The use of UAVs as part of the tank’s armament for adjustment and target designation is already used in the Northern Military District, but this is not yet reflected in any way in the Battle Manual of the Armored Forces or in the staffing table of the tank battalion. For example, the BU of tank forces in the Second World War was edited and changed even online (direct instructions by HF telephones), individual orders of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief on the use of tank forces were a common practice during the Second World War!
    2. 0
      14 March 2024 19: 15
      It is possible, and so it will be. New means of destruction are strong only at the beginning, then means of defense appear. This is the dialectic of military affairs. If only the officials did not engage in the parochialism of pulling the blanket over their loved ones. However, this property is not only the defense industry.
  65. -6
    14 March 2024 11: 32
    And they began to aggressively try to build the MS-21 and Superjet from imported parts, not caring about the Il-96 and Tu-204. And in the end we got a complete zero and a vague perspective with airplanes in general.

    Once again the author sends our aviation industry to the latrine. Airplanes exist and fly. And they carry passengers. Not a frequent flyer since 2015, I have flown on Superzhdeta 8 times for work and leisure. Factories in Komsomolsk and Irkutsk are working, people are feeding their families. Well, what kind of rudeness...
    What is "complete zero"?
  66. 0
    14 March 2024 11: 45
    Once upon a time, Darwin received an answer to his theory. “everything new in your work is wrong, but everything true is not new”. But that was Darwin, and as they say, “time has arranged,” and “not everyone can look into tomorrow,” what is now and what is in the past. Here the truths are banal. The crisis of platforms on the battlefield is raging, technological progress tends to reduce/cheapen/make unmanned, questions of life cycle price/cost/logistics arise, and everything that does not fit into this “market”... alas and ah. It didn’t start yesterday, but with our decision-making speeds... this is what we have. But it's better this way. Awareness of the presence of the disease is the first step towards recovery. Still, there is some honey here - the possibility of using the new larger 7-mikat chassis in other tasks in the future remains, there seem to be no complaints about it.
    1. -1
      14 March 2024 11: 50
      The main complaint about this chassis is the ridiculous X engine, which is not applicable anywhere else except this chassis and which will never be widespread like the V12. All because of the lower cylinders, complexity and non-repairability.
      A tank without a proper diesel engine is a shit tank.
      1. +1
        14 March 2024 12: 16
        The engine can be taken from the T-90MS, we are talking about the chassis itself. Still, 7 torsion bars, whatever one may say, will better handle any load (and the loss of one roller is less critical), and, due to the initially larger internal volume, the vehicle’s potential for various tasks is higher than that of the super-dense rear-engine gearboxes of the MBT T-72+/T- 80+. There is undoubted progress in this, and if someday they will be able to roll hermetically sealed hollow rollers...
    2. 2al
      0
      14 March 2024 14: 20
      Seven-roller platforms are already used on the S-300V and the same 2S7M Malka. But for a tank, the trick, of course, is the engine + chassis combination. A tank is a much more nimble “predatory animal” on the battlefield, and evolution has always supplied such objects with energy-advanced resources. The size of a predator in biology, its "fangs" correspond to its prey. If the tank forces are given the task of breaking through the prepared defense to ensure the entry of “light cavalry”, for example, horse-mechanized groups from the Second World War (KMG), then the tanks will be heavy, just as in the Second World War there were separate guards heavy tank regiments on the IS-2.
  67. +1
    14 March 2024 11: 53
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    "Armata" is from the point of view of the role - "Tank Grotte". Cool, modern, advanced, but it didn’t go into production, because it was used to study what we could do and how much it costs at the top. Probably yes, they will analyze it, including based on the results of the SVO.


    This is all good, of course, but only a new assembly line has almost been completed for Armata... for mass production of what is essentially a prototype. It's kind of annoying.
  68. +1
    14 March 2024 12: 10
    It was necessary to start not with the Armata tank, but with the Coalition self-propelled guns based on the Armata. But with these guys it’s always the other way around, so there’s no tank or self-propelled gun.

    Now they will drive the Coalition on a short T90 chassis, and then transfer it to a 7-wheeler from Armata. Why not right away?

    The SAU works from afar - it is not a tank, so the risk of loss and capture is not so great. Almaty will definitely not be in this war. 

    The self-propelled gun could still be tested in action from those ranges of 70 km. And then adapt the experience to a tank with a 152mm rifled gun and work on briquette charges of the Coalition and its machine gun in a normal turret for it.
  69. 0
    14 March 2024 12: 20
    There was another wonderful project - the Tu-160 in the form of a business jet. There was a line of Arab sheikhs behind the plane, the enemies got scared and closed the project.
  70. 0
    14 March 2024 12: 37
    If the “simple and cheap” T72-90 with serial units (the simplest of the T64/T80/Armata) do not have time to produce and restarted production of the T80....and they had factories and storage and technologies for 50 years mastered. What will happen with the new Armata??!!
  71. 0
    14 March 2024 12: 51
    As a certain sage said, everything flows, everything changes. And with drones, they will find a means of combating, although it already exists, to fill the airwaves with noise and hello to all UAVs.
    And according to Armata, judging by such a long tirade of the author, this is the case;

    Chef, everything is lost, everything is lost! The cast is removed, the client leaves!

    Otherwise, I would not be in a hurry to sink Armata, because as another sage said: “He who walks can master the road!”
  72. 0
    14 March 2024 13: 01
    Armata is =T-33 of the 21st century. Beautiful dear uselessness
  73. +5
    14 March 2024 13: 02
    "First of all, cheap cars will fight. Yes, the same Leopards of the first releases, T-64, T-72 and so on." "Mass production of cheap equipment with average capabilities. These are thousands of T-34s and T-34-85s, which, in fact, decided the outcome on the battlefields."
    It really became a shame for our tankers. Tankers for “cheap” vehicles Author, forgive me for asking, where are you going to get them? To make it really cheap, let’s start producing the T-34 again, but again it all depends on the tankers. And why is it that in all Israel they take care of their own and put them in merkavs with “full minced meat”, and not in centurions-1, because it’s cheaper. request
  74. 0
    14 March 2024 13: 08
    For large wars, you need cheap, reliable and repairable equipment
    1. 0
      14 March 2024 13: 20
      With a reserve at the time of the war at storage bases of the same tanks and main units and hulls.
  75. +1
    14 March 2024 13: 18
    From the point of view of crew protection, the Armata scheme is the most correct for today.
  76. 0
    14 March 2024 13: 31
    Quote: Dante
    as the story of two Bradleys firing at one T-90M showed, it becomes completely blind and defenseless.

    Any tank will become like this if you hit it with a burst from a Bushmaster.
    Quote: Dante
    The same commander’s observation devices can be easily replaced with a picture broadcast from a drone or copter, which provides no less awareness than an expensive panorama,

    To do this, you will need a built-in system for launching and storing such drones, a set of equipment for monitoring and data processing, antennas and encrypted communication channels that are resistant to electronic warfare and interference, and spare drones. I believe that this will cost even more than some “Sosna”, and will be even less reliable.
  77. +1
    14 March 2024 13: 36
    It’s unclear why the Coalition is constantly being woven into the sheet? It seems that her problem is quite local and not very hopeless - it’s just that Putin’s manager friends once again beautifully blundered about the readiness for mass production of new ammunition for it. Which are analogue, for 70 km, and if necessary, you can do 80 and all that... There were no questions about the platform itself and its solutions initially, unlike Almaty, and the main performance characteristics seemed to be confirmed. Ultimately, let him shoot at least at 50, even in this case there should be no questions either with the concept of use or with the choice of one Coalition at 50 or 2 Msta at 25, unlike the Armata.
  78. -1
    14 March 2024 13: 52
    Soviet T-80 is better! It's good that they resumed production for him. Aramate in the UAE to supply....
    soldier
  79. +2
    14 March 2024 14: 01
    And I am absolutely sure that four T-64s, in which competent crews will sit (illiterates do not survive there at all), will not leave any chance for the Armata.

    The author's logic sometimes writes out paradoxical trajectories.
    The T-34 tank in today's prices costs 46 rubles. That is, instead of one “Armata”, 000 T-000 tanks can be produced. Question to the author - how does he see the battle of "Armata" against 11 T-34 tanks?
  80. -3
    14 March 2024 14: 59
    It’s good that we can now use Soviet military developments, many of which were not used before. So, what we have gained now will be useful in the future, there is no need to panic, you’re a loser.
  81. +2
    14 March 2024 15: 00
    Quote: CouchExpert
    The engine can be taken from the T-90MS, we are talking about the chassis itself. Still, 7 torsion bars, whatever one may say, will better handle any load (and the loss of one roller is less critical), and, due to the initially larger internal volume, the vehicle’s potential for various tasks is higher than that of the super-dense rear-engine gearboxes of the MBT T-72+/T- 80+. There is undoubted progress in this, and if someday they will be able to roll hermetically sealed hollow rollers...


    You can’t, the power of the old V12 is too low for a weight of 55-60 tons. In addition, even the T90m engine is boosted to the detriment of engine life. A 1,000 hp engine has a longer resource, because it is less forced.

    A tank on the Armata platform needs about 1,500 hp, but we don’t have such an engine. And instead of developing it, we are banging our heads against X. All because of the wrong concept of the front crew capsule, the carousel AZ under the turret and the crazy tank. Already now the Armata is larger than the Abrams, and this despite the fact that it has a mini X engine with cylinders in a circle. A normal V12 no longer fits. Therefore, the concept needs to be changed. You need a crew capsule and a turret-mounted AZ with a normally armored turret; this will provide greater safety for the crew in the event of an explosion of the ammunition rack, as the energy of the explosion will not be in the hull behind the wall of the crew’s seat, but in the turret that will fly off. And this will make room for a normal V12 in the block with an automatic transmission.

    Well, as I wrote, the gun should be unified with the Coalition 152 mm rifled gun on variable briquetted charges. Moreover, the Coalition has an automatic loader.

    And the old T90 engine will still serve on old tanks, but in the form of a single unit with a new gearbox with GOP, especially since the director said that the problem of GOP is ripe... and he said this in 2014. Something like this
  82. +2
    14 March 2024 15: 18
    Quote: Mikhail Toropov
    It’s unclear why the Coalition is constantly being woven into the sheet? It seems that her problem is quite local and not very hopeless - it’s just that Putin’s manager friends once again beautifully blundered about the readiness for mass production of new ammunition for it. Which are analogue, for 70 km, and if necessary, you can do 80 and all that... There were no questions about the platform itself and its solutions initially, unlike Almaty, and the main performance characteristics seemed to be confirmed. Ultimately, let him shoot at least at 50, even in this case there should be no questions either with the concept of use or with the choice of one Coalition at 50 or 2 Msta at 25, unlike the Armata.


    After 20 km, the dispersion is already high, even on modern Nato self-propelled guns. It’s scary to imagine what it’s like at 70 km.

    Again, the wear of the barrel when shooting at 70 km is very interesting.

    The Coalition's problem is that it needs special shells that are not produced. For the 152mm Armata on a smooth barrel, you also need special shells and the barrel life is around 300 shots versus 1,000 on a 125mm barrel. Unification of the Coalition and Armata in terms of cannon will give unification in terms of shells, and the use of a variable charge in the Armata AZ will give an acceptable barrel life, as there will be no need to fire at full charge from closed firing positions.

    But all this is not for this war. This war requires thousands of T72s and modified T90s. We also need a new projectile for the Sau Msta with improved aerodynamics, this will allow the Msta to be on par with the same Caesar. And it’s even better to put an extended barrel on the Msta, as they did on the export version of the 155mm Msta, with it the characteristics of the Msta are the same as those of the best Sau Nato. So why fence the Coalition on a short T90 chassis? You can simply mass produce Msta based on the T90, and at the same time refine the Coalition based on Almaty. Without haste and fuss.
    1. +1
      14 March 2024 15: 34
      After 20 km, the dispersion is already high, even on modern Nato self-propelled guns. It’s scary to imagine what it’s like at 70 km.


      You just need to understand that the maximum range of 70-80 km is not for a conventional OFS, but for a high-precision, satellite- or laser-corrected one, such as Krasnopol, and conventional ammunition will naturally work at a shorter distance.
  83. +5
    14 March 2024 15: 31
    I have only one question for Chemezov and Rostec, if Armata is so expensive that the army cannot afford it, then why did they waste time and resources on this tank?! As a result, we came to the conclusion that in the Northern Military District we are losing a lot of tanks and people and are now forced to put the T-62 and T-55 into service!!! But KAZ was not on our tanks and STILL IS NOT.

    The blood of our tank crews and the losses our army suffered due to the lack of tank support is entirely on the conscience of Chemezov and everyone who works with tanks in Rostec. It is because of you that our tanks and the tankers in them are burning, because you have not done anything worthwhile for the last 10 years.

    During the Second World War, Chemezov and other leaders of Rostec would have been put up against the wall as enemies of the people, and that would have been right.
  84. +2
    14 March 2024 15: 40
    Quote: 2al
    Still, the T-14 Armata is only part of a new combat platform. The same BMPT T-15 is now more than in demand, and KAZ is really relevant. Why are the Ministry of Industry and Trade and Rostec so focused on diesel? The fact that gas turbine engines are now more than relevant in the Northern Military District is clearly not a revelation! Diesel was brought into Armata with the expectation of export, and not with the aim of increasing combat performance. Of course, a gas turbine engine is more expensive than the average diesel engine, but at capacities above 1200 l/s this is no longer obvious.
    "GTD-1400 (with an increase in gas temperature to 1360K and a short-term boost to 1400 hp) and "Product 39". The power of the latter can be increased to 1500 hp by increasing the compression ratio by 5,6% and air flow by 6,8% compared to GTD-1250."


    The problem is that it doesn’t exist, this GTD1500. He is currently in plans for 2026. And there is no box for it. And its size is no longer the same as 1250. I don’t even take into account the typical old problems of gas turbine engines such as price, maintenance, etc., such as fear of dust and the southern regions, of which we have quite a few.

    The trick is that GTD is produced by a third-party company, and X diesel is made by the same UralVagon, which bought the engine plant about 10 years ago. That is, he wants to make engines for his tank himself, and not buy from a third party.

    In 2012, there was a similar dispute with the Tutaevsky YaMZ plant and the modernization of the T72 for a new engine with a Franco-German engine like the RT91. Then UralVagon expressed protests and copyrights, saying that any work on modernizing the T72 could only come from them. And you want him to outsource the Armata project! Haha. Even 10 years ago they said that 25 billion were allocated just for fine-tuning the X engine, and Pu himself said in 2016 that the Armata project received 64 billion. And let me remind you that this was 10 years ago, and since then the Armata has been improved, just like the X engine. I think the amount there has clearly already gone beyond 100 lard and the project is still crude and ridiculous. And you want someone to share. This is of course funny.
    1. +3
      14 March 2024 17: 25
      He is currently in plans for 2026

      if translated into understandable language - “never”
    2. +2
      14 March 2024 19: 06
      Once upon a time, during the Second World War, a talented designer who failed to complete the task of developing new types of weapons and military equipment was sent to the front. Stalin, having learned about this, ordered to urgently return him, but he had already died. Whether those who made this decision were right or wrong is not for us to judge. But if those who are now engaged in tug-of-war knew that their loved ones could sit in tanks, this would not have happened.
  85. 0
    14 March 2024 15: 46
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    I have only one question for Chemezov and Rostec, if Armata is so expensive that the army cannot afford it, then why did they waste time and resources on this tank?! As a result, we came to the conclusion that in the Northern Military District we are losing a lot of tanks and people and are now forced to put the T-62 and T-55 into service!!! But KAZ was not on our tanks and STILL IS NOT.

    The blood of our tank crews and the losses our army suffered due to the lack of tank support is entirely on the conscience of Chemezov and everyone who works with tanks in Rostec. It is because of you that our tanks and the tankers in them are burning, because you have not done anything worthwhile for the last 10 years.

    During the Second World War, Chemezov and other leaders of Rostec would have been put up against the wall as enemies of the people, and that would have been right.


    In Armata they would have burned in the same way - in Armata there is a huge carousel and there is absolutely no protection from drones from behind and from above. You can watch on YouTube what is happening with the T80bvm from the drone to the rear. No armored capsule will save you. And since the T80 has a filter at the back, there is no way to close the rear rear protection.
  86. 0
    14 March 2024 15: 48
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    After 20 km, the dispersion is already high, even on modern Nato self-propelled guns. It’s scary to imagine what it’s like at 70 km.


    You just need to understand that the maximum range of 70-80 km is not for a conventional OFS, but for a high-precision, satellite- or laser-corrected one, such as Krasnopol, and conventional ammunition will naturally work at a shorter distance.


    Nevertheless, now Krasnopol flies at 25 km. And the problem here is not in the barrel. The problem is in electronics and Glonas guidance. Once it’s finalized, it will fly from Msta like Excalibur at 45 km
  87. 0
    14 March 2024 15: 51
    In my opinion, the author’s conclusion is absolutely unacceptable, because everything comes down to money in his opinion. So let's move on to bows, arrows, spears, axes, etc. again! Everything new is always expensive, but if in the early forties they had not started building the T-34, but had riveted the old BT-5 and BT-7, how many wars would they have fought? New tanks also broke down in the field, and there were other problems, but all this was corrected and improved. Progress always requires funds, patience and work on mistakes. And whoever stops in place will always be in the role of catching up. Anticipating future concepts of tactics and new means is a very difficult matter, but anyone can babble and pout.
    1. 0
      14 March 2024 16: 26
      The author is engaged in one thing, justifying why the Russian Federation does not build the latest generation tanks, but how it manipulates the facts (after all, a MANPADS or an ancient shilka cannot shoot down a Su35, well, according to the author)... The problem is not the cost of the tank, but the fact that the author was given money bags so that he would justify their desire to save on the army
    2. +2
      14 March 2024 17: 06
      Quote: forester
      In my opinion, the author’s conclusion is absolutely unacceptable, because everything comes down to money in his opinion. So let's go back to bows, arrows, spears, axes, etc... and everyone can make noise and pout.

      It all comes down to money, according to Chemezov. The author stated this clearly.. But if someone is not trained to read and who wants to talk and pout, this is not the author’s problem.
    3. +2
      14 March 2024 19: 22
      I love this ridiculous argument. "Let's switch to bows and arrows." Can you even imagine what efforts and funds are needed to re-equip the army and navy with bows and arrows, considering that there has been no production and specialists for 400 years. How long does it take to train soldiers in archery?! 20 years!!
      The switch to bows and arrows is an economic disaster. Better with Kalash and Soviet equipment. They're almost free
  88. -1
    14 March 2024 17: 24
    If Skomorokhov does not distort the facts at least once, then he will not respect himself. It was in the news right on this site that the coalition went into series. And there was news about the hunter.
  89. +1
    14 March 2024 18: 52
    It’s just that in our case, the authors of the concept for using the Armata did not take into account the changes that were already predicted at the time the decision was made to launch the tank into pilot production.

    It’s a pity that the author didn’t tell the “authors of the concept” how to do it correctly. I would sit down, just like that, and write them a letter: “Authors of the concept! You don’t take changes into account!” And everything would immediately fall into place.

    It’s not that I disagree that it’s too early for Armata. But “too early” does not mean “not necessary.” This is a concept. As the author himself noted, solutions are worked out on concepts. Both private solutions for components and the complete concept itself. There are a lot of solutions for Armata that were never included in Armata itself. This is the first thing.
    And secondly, those same “predicted changes” in theory are one thing, in practice they are another. The great importance of drones, both air and sea, was demonstrated by real combat operations. More precisely, the battle showed HOW big it is. And “training generals for the last war” has been an axiom for many years. This is where the purchase of Geraniums and its technologies from the Persians came from. We had drones, but it turns out that modern combat requires much more and much cheaper. Well, OK, we'll fix it.
    As a result, we are testing how profitable it is to launch a modern tank against a swarm of drones not on Almatys, but on Abrams and Leopards.
  90. +1
    14 March 2024 18: 58
    Well, you should never give up. There are systems of attack and systems of defense against it. This is the dialectic of military affairs. The only thing that can be said is that other countries are following this path. America, China, Germany, South Korea presented their tank concepts, some in metal, some just models, and they all carry features, to one degree or another, of the Armata. But the development of defense systems against drones needs to be done urgently. The only thing I want is for these systems not to suffer the fate of our KAZs. There are samples, but not in the series, only promises for decades.
  91. +1
    14 March 2024 22: 11
    Then they will draw it on the medal for Courage)))
    1. 0
      18 March 2024 16: 27
      Well no. In medium towers - ZU-23, in small ones - KPVT+Pecheneg. Containers with MANPADS and ATGMs are mounted on the main tower. There is no need for a birdhouse at the top - we are not imitating the Americans. Rather, you can make containers with drones in the tower - a couple with quads, and one with a Lancet. Under the lower frontal sheet there is an electromagnetic trawl. By the way, the Chinese company Modelcollect made a model of Armata with a Solntsepek launcher
  92. +1
    14 March 2024 23: 51
    A tank for network-centric warfare, when the troops have no communications - is this a mistake or sabotage?
    Why doesn't anyone realize that this is sabotage?
    Because a word can lead to sabotage.
    From whom can the word sabotage come?
    From traitors.
    How can you fight on the side of traitors?
  93. 0
    15 March 2024 04: 39
    There's only one reliable defense against FPV drones. It's a weather weapon. Create an artificial rainy weather when attacking, thus drones don't work. But Russian artillery is still working, FAB-s can stilly fly from a distance. Then the Armata can shine, because it's protected against ATGM-s and other threats.
  94. 0
    15 March 2024 04: 55
    I think that Armata has everything needed for a modern battlefield and the fight against modern threats. There is a radar for detecting drones (possibly also for radio suppression of them). There is a remote-controlled machine-gun module that can shoot down drones even in automatic mode - as long as there is enough ammunition. There is a KAZ that can shoot down ATGMs, and if you install additional launchers in the upper projection, it can also fight UAVs that are not shot down by a machine gun. The only question is to what extent it is implemented and “finished with a file”. Most likely this is the problem and without deciding to release the tank for “slaughter” it is stupid.
    1. +2
      15 March 2024 09: 01
      If it turned out to be possible for the crew from the capsule to remotely control all the mechanisms of the tank, then this means that such a tank can, in principle, be controlled from outside, for example from another tank (at distances of up to 2-3 km it is not difficult to establish a stable communication channel) as a result, Armata without a crew will sharply reduce in size, weight and price, and the engine can be used with much less power.
  95. +1
    15 March 2024 10: 02
    Other electronic junk"""" ???? The author made a specific nickname with this one phrase. Nowadays your multi-ton electronics crap is just a target. And even so: the target is not the iron, but the hatch into which the explosives must be delivered. Attitude towards electronics shows the general level of development. You won’t be able to aim or detect the enemy in time, and you won’t have time to take off your pants in the toilet, but the job is already done.
  96. +2
    15 March 2024 10: 14
    An example is the famous Yomobile, cheap, high quality, with an innovative rotary engine... Has anyone been punished for failure and waste of allocated funds? Lada Vesta was promised to be in the top, at the price of the cheapest car, also a scam. In my specialty, I see that the majority of modern R&D are Soviet products, hung with sensors from Alik, loaded with software....
    1. +1
      18 March 2024 16: 30
      Andrey1978
      Have you driven a Lada Vesta? Not a Mercedes, of course, but it doesn’t compete with it. But no worse than the Koreans, who are now like garbage...
      1. -1
        19 March 2024 14: 59
        I have nothing against Vesta. Funds have been allocated for Boo Anderson's project on the low cost of the "people's car" ... As a result, there is no low cost, is it a hoax? Since the release of Vesta, how many rests have the Koreans and Germans had? I am against the cost of a Vesti at 1450 for an empty one, without abs and airbags, its price is 400. I would buy it with pleasure.
  97. +1
    15 March 2024 13: 10
    "The engine is very compact, but complex and not perfected..." FAQ? It’s not just perfect, it’s just not brought to working condition!
  98. +1
    15 March 2024 17: 07
    Yes, Roma, yes. Let's make T-34-75 and IL-4DB3F laughing
    1. 0
      18 March 2024 16: 33
      Nope! Let Roma make "Freedom Fighter - Mr. Skoromorokhov" and IS-1PFM-bis - Skomorokhov's invented forced modernized encore fighter laughing
  99. 0
    15 March 2024 18: 09
    Armata is not 100% import-substituted, no matter how strange it may sound. A very good modern engine requires modern oil, and we do not have an independent production of modern oil. Components from "partners" are required. No sane general would rely on technology that depends on the enemy, especially not a very potential one.
    1. 0
      17 March 2024 10: 37
      Is it possible to find out the original source from which you learned about some kind of oil that we cannot make ourselves?
      1. 0
        17 March 2024 13: 05
        I work in this field. Modern oil contains three main components - stereoregular oligodecene, a detergent additive and a thickener. Stereoregular oligodecene is not produced in our country. There are sluggish attempts to introduce it into production. The work is done at the laboratory level (I work in this laboratory), but is stuck at the pilot plant stage. The detergent additive is produced, but one of the components for it is bought in the West. I am now creating a technology for the production of this component, at the laboratory level. There are no plans to produce a thickener yet.
        1. 0
          19 March 2024 15: 17
          The question is, why did you decide that the same oil that is poured into the T-72/T-90/T-80 engine cannot be poured into this engine? It would be logical to immediately include the use of such oil in the technical specifications for engine development.
  100. +1
    15 March 2024 21: 08
    I love this author. He speaks all kinds of nonsense with a smart look and understands everything.