"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.
Information