T-14 "Armata": how the new generation tank was presented "at the dawn" of its appearance and what is the reality of today

114 921 151
T-14 "Armata": how the new generation tank was presented "at the dawn" of its appearance and what is the reality of today

Tank The T-14 Armata has long been a symbol of the ambitions of the Russian defense industry and a bid for technological superiority in the land vehicle sector. Its development began in the early 2010s amid a wave of rethinking approaches to modern armored vehicles.

The development was carried out under conditions of high secrecy, and by 2015 the vehicle was first demonstrated to the general public at the Victory Parade in Moscow. At that time, it made an indelible impression: a futuristic appearance, a completely unmanned turret, a crew in an armored capsule, elements of active protection - all this distinguished the T-14 from its competitors.



The designers equipped the Armata with a number of innovative solutions that had not previously been implemented in domestic tank building. The chassis, the platform with a modular architecture, the ability to remotely control, intelligent fire control systems - everything pointed to the intention to step into a new era.

At the same time, this was a project not only about a specific vehicle, but also about a platform on the basis of which it was planned to develop a whole family of combat vehicles. In theory, the T-14 was supposed to become the basis for the rearmament of the Russian army and a marker of its technological transformation.

At the announcement stage, the tank was accompanied by images of invulnerability, speed, and “smartness.” weapons a future capable of not only countering modern threats, but also dictating standards for the entire global military-industrial complex.

In our country, it was viewed as a potential replacement for aging models like the T-72 and T-90, with plans for mass deployment in the coming years. In the public perception, it became almost a legend – a symbol of a technological breakthrough that seemed to be just around the corner.



However, the reality turned out to be different. Immediately after the loud presentation, a period of calm set in. Despite repeated statements about the launch of serial production and readiness for military testing, the mass delivery of T-14 to the troops never took place. The new generation vehicle was limited to individual production and remained more of a subject for demonstration events than part of a real combat contingent.

The reasons for this are not only technical, but also economic. The cost of the vehicle turned out to be "sky-high" - approximately 6 million dollars for a production model. This is comparable to the considered "expensive" American "Abrams".

For comparison, the same T-90 “Breakthrough” costs our army approximately 3 million dollars per unit.

In addition, military conflicts of recent years, especially the current SVO in Ukraine, have shown that any tank, no matter how incredible its protection, often becomes a victim drones, the cost of which is hundreds, if not thousands, of times less.

As a result, today the T-14 Armata tank exists more as a concept or a showcase of engineering thought than as a working tool on the battlefield. It is demonstrated at exhibitions, participates in international forums, and continues to be talked about in the media and military circles, but it is practically absent from the active army.



Plans for its widespread introduction are regularly pushed back, and with each passing year the likelihood that it will ever replace time-tested, battle-tested models on an army-wide scale becomes less and less likely.

How the tank was presented “at the dawn” of its appearance:

151 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 13+
    10 July 2025 12: 02
    In my opinion, it is a promising platform. But it requires reworking the concept. For a start, you can master the chassis as a base for different purposes. That is, from simple to complex. Moving consistently and step by step.
    1. +4
      10 July 2025 12: 08
      Quote: TanSan
      To begin with, you can master the chassis as a base for different purposes. That is, from simple to complex. Moving consistently and step by step.

      This chassis was initially "mastered" as a base for various purposes. The same "Kurganets". And what does "from simple" mean for the very concept of the "new generation". If from "simple", then again you will get the T-72, and, as they have now realized, "why pay more".
      1. +8
        12 July 2025 10: 04
        It seems they did the right thing by holding back its production. The practice of the SVO shows that for now it is not much better than any other of our tanks in an open attack, and will be vulnerable no less than others. So it is better to make two tanks instead of one... That is exactly what happened with the T-34 against the more sophisticated "Tigers". It is important not to lose in gun caliber and shooting accuracy.
        And so, one can complain that we do not have aircraft carriers, for which many naval experts "rooted". Well, if only they had listened to them earlier, trillions of rubles would have been spent on them and they would now be standing there, rusting from natural old age and ruining the naval budget.
        However, it is important not to miss the moment when even the production of grand nuclear submarines will become useless against a swarm of underwater drones. I sense that this time is not far off, although as a former submariner, it is sad to think about it.
    2. +7
      11 July 2025 20: 36
      Even if it is not very promising, the current equipment will still have to be replaced. Now, during the SVO, enemy equipment is being studied on both sides. Therefore, for the next conflict, new products are needed that will complicate the enemy's life.
    3. -1
      12 July 2025 10: 15
      Instead of one Armata - three T-72b3 or 5 T-62 M - 2023. Not a supertank, but many simple tanks. That's the recipe for victory.
      1. -1
        12 July 2025 21: 19
        During each war, the military-industrial complex is spun up. After the war, it works for another 15-20 years to replenish lost reserves. In peacetime, you can work more slowly and with smaller volumes per year. That's when a new model is needed, not to produce old ones. Then the Armata will come in handy. Taking into account the new trends revealed during the war.
    4. 0
      5 August 2025 09: 42
      A platform on which it is impossible to install a barbecue or even hang a camouflage net. Because all the remote cameras will immediately be blocked. Not to mention the dirt, branches, etc. It is unclear how it is possible to use a completely blind tank. We need to do something to prevent dirt from getting on the cameras and drones from finishing it off from all sides, then it will be a good machine. If, of course, they finally figure out how to put a GTD-1500 there. If that is even possible.
  2. 11+
    10 July 2025 12: 10
    The fact that it was made is already good. The fact that they didn't stamp out many is probably also good and considering the new realities of war, Armata certainly needs some improvement. In any case, we showed the whole world that we are actually the first in tank building.
  3. +6
    10 July 2025 12: 10
    A twofold difference in price should at least increase the effectiveness of the T-14 compared to the T-90 by three or more times. Then it would make sense to supply serial models to the troops.
    There is still an intelligence war going on, where the winner is the one who is better informed on the battlefield. UAVs are the least of the problems here, it is enough to improve active protection a little.
    1. +5
      11 July 2025 02: 35
      Yes, it is of course good when you are informed, but in any case everything will be decided on the line of combat contact head-on. And whoever is the most prepared and armed with advanced technology and weapons there will win.
      Chess and all that is great, but you still have to get into the ring and fight with your fists!))
    2. +7
      11 July 2025 09: 36
      Cost twice, efficiency three times? It doesn't happen. Now, if it were used as a single platform and serial production was established, then the price would definitely fall.
    3. +2
      11 July 2025 22: 07
      It is enough to slightly improve active protection.

      Apparently, a little bit won't do. The air defense system for an expensive vehicle should be powerful (expensive), and this is a separate vehicle. You can't put everything on a tank.
      1. +3
        12 July 2025 08: 08
        Quote: Alexey Lantukh
        It looks like a few won't be able to get by

        For example, recognizing a UAV by its sound signature is an order of magnitude easier than detecting an ATGM by its thermal signature. And the protection principle is the same.
        1. 0
          12 July 2025 15: 36
          The principle of protection is the same, but I found not even half the battle. How to shoot down when 2-5 UAVs attack at once from different courses?
          1. 0
            12 July 2025 21: 04
            Is it true that there are 2-5 drones per tank at the same time? Second by second? There will be no time to turn the turret? Have you seen this on video? And how will the synchronization between drone operators go? There are 4 vehicles in a tank platoon, they will not help? Or will the enemy attack with 8-20 drones at once? wink
            1. +2
              13 July 2025 09: 07
              Somehow, even earlier, about six months ago, they showed our tank-barn-shed in Donbass, probably hung with double-triple nets. They said that it withstood more than 30 drone hits before it lost its drive (didn't burn) and was sent for repairs. Moreover, some drones attacked in a swarm. So, an attack by 2-3 drones at the same time is not at all fantastic.
              1. -2
                13 July 2025 17: 33
                Yes, but it wasn't just a tank, it was a minesweeper. And 30 attacks were accumulated in a few days, not in seconds. A minesweeper is not just a tank. It decides whether there will be a breakthrough or not. Everyone hits it. And there is nowhere for so many drones to come from for the tanks following it. And so many operators. So the armor of minesweepers will continue to increase. And a tank is a universal one. There are other threats, other solutions.
              2. +2
                14 July 2025 00: 05
                Absolutely right. Have you seen how the Chinese put on a show by simultaneously controlling thousands of drones? And I think that 110% of the development of a system for attacking with a swarm of drones is underway, from which you definitely won’t have time to fight off. And the Armata was most likely a PR concept for money laundering and nothing more. Since absolutely nothing from the entire line, not just the tank, went into production. Our current managers really like to puff out their cheeks and rip off money, and if they do something worthwhile, then as a rule, these are still Soviet developments and developments🤬
            2. +2
              13 July 2025 23: 01
              Is it true that there are 2-5 drones per tank at the same time? Second per second?
              You shouldn't be so ironic. There can be about 1 (one hundred) drones hanging in the air at the front within a radius of 100 km. There are cases when it is impossible to figure out whose drone is whose. There is a really huge dog fight of drones sometimes.
              1. -2
                14 July 2025 09: 27
                I apologize. Probably 100 drones is an extreme case and not all of them are on the front of the tank platoon's attack, approximately 0.5-1 km. You can't count on extreme values for defense, or any unit. Otherwise, you'll get an unviable design. And where the optimum is - just an analysis of military operations will show.
                1. 0
                  20 July 2025 20: 20
                  It is very, very difficult to say where in which square how many and whose. It happens that our own cannot figure out where whose. Well, and no one attacks with a tank platoon anymore. The raspberry has passed. Even if there are no helicopters or planes in the air, no one in their right mind would send a tank platoon into an attack. Pay attention to the change in reports even on federal channels. Everywhere they show tanks working from closed positions.
                  On this resource, about two years ago, they discussed that tank crews would have to learn all the intricacies of artillery work. And so it turned out.
                  1. 0
                    20 July 2025 20: 34
                    Quote from barbos
                    Everywhere they show tanks working from closed positions

                    I really want to see it, give me a link, please. I'm most interested in what kind of tanks are there.

                    The thing is that the tank is not very well suited for shooting from a closed position. Considering the azimuth indicator and the side level as sighting devices... well, it's not even funny - the accuracy of a slingshot is much higher.
                    1. +1
                      20 July 2025 21: 02
                      I really want to see it, give me a link, please. I'm most interested in what kind of tanks are there.

                      https://www.1tv.ru/shows/chasovoy/vypuski/svo-tank-t-90-chasovoy-vypusk-ot-12-02-2023
                      https://www.1tv.ru/news/2023-01-09/444895-rossiyskie_ekipazhi_tankov_t_72b3_unichtozhayut_bronetehniku_i_ukreprayony_vsu

                      Considering the azimuth indicator and the side level as sighting devices... well, it's not even funny - the accuracy of a slingshot is much higher.
                      Who argues? But the reality is this. A tank jumps out to a position with 10 rounds in its ammunition stowage, fires a maximum of 3-4 shots with correction at a drone, and rushes to a new position or to the base. Guess what model of tank is adored for this? For its ability to rush very fast.
                      1. 0
                        20 July 2025 21: 10
                        Thanks for the links. Well, using a tank like that is like hammering nails with a microscope. IMHO.
                  2. 0
                    22 July 2025 10: 58
                    This is only in this operation. But future wars, for which Armata will be produced, will be in other formats. And it must be ready for any.
          2. +2
            13 July 2025 01: 20
            For starters, machine vision and an automatic machine gun turret. And there's already protection from drones.
            Just improve what we have now and add a second turret and the protection against drones is already serious and much cheaper than the APS.
            1. 0
              13 July 2025 17: 35
              I believe it will happen soon. We still need to test it in war. Then it will be too late.
            2. 0
              13 July 2025 23: 11
              There are many (very many) questions about the turret, as well as machine vision. They are still training to accurately distinguish drones from helicopters, airplanes and large birds. The price of an error is quite high. That's half the trouble. All this works on Nvidia equipment. And this equipment is even prohibited from being sold to China. Everything is very complicated with this. And the turret itself needs to be something like a shotgun. So that it doesn't fly too far in case of a miss.
              1. +1
                14 July 2025 09: 30
                No need for full machine vision, with scene analysis and the like. Just capture and automatic tracking (target coordinator). Any 32-bit microcontroller for $10 can do that.
                1. 0
                  20 July 2025 20: 27
                  Any $32 10-bit microcontroller can do this
                  Before capturing and tracking a target, it must be recognized and classified taking into account many corrections. This is not yet possible with cheap controllers. There are plenty of examples of this in the automotive industry with their attempts to make an autopilot. In addition, we do not quite write out simple 32-bit microcontrollers and firmware for them either. Even if we manage this, the price will be orders of magnitude higher
                  1. 0
                    22 July 2025 11: 06
                    Recognition and classification is the operator's task. Always. 32-bit controllers have been produced in Russia for a long time. Firmware even more so. Two orders of magnitude higher is $1000. That's how much Chinese microprocessors for the "military" standard cost.
              2. 0
                14 July 2025 09: 31
                And the turret itself needs to be something that shoots buckshot.

                And not just a squeaker that shoots buckshot, but also a multi-self-loading one, and obviously not just one or two.
  4. -2
    10 July 2025 12: 16
    Quote: Volodin
    Quote: TanSan
    To begin with, you can master the chassis as a base for different purposes. That is, from simple to complex. Moving consistently and step by step.

    This chassis was initially "mastered" as a base for various purposes. The same "Kurganets". And what does "from simple" mean for the very concept of the "new generation". If from "simple", then again you will get the T-72, and, as they have now realized, "why pay more".

    From simple - to master at first at least as a form of transport, to test the chassis, modularity. And as modern combat modules are developed, to create other variations.
    1. +2
      10 July 2025 12: 34
      Quote: TanSan
      From simple - to master at least in the form of transport, to test the chassis, modularity

      Okay. But in the form of what kind of transport (?), when there is already the T-15 and T-16 on the same platform - the BMP and the BREM. It should have been tested in 3 variants, including taking into account the modularity of the design. But something is still not being mastered "in hardware".
      1. +3
        11 July 2025 10: 05
        the engine is needed in commercial quantities, but it is only produced for the BMD and even then in a half-version
    2. +3
      11 July 2025 17: 28
      How to run in a chassis if this chassis has no main - no engine. X-shaped junk has unfixable problems in the form of lower cylinders. From this all the problems with low reliability in the form of lubrication and cooling and problems with maintenance, because you always need to remove the whole thing.

      And you can't squeeze in a V12 anymore because the Armata's flawed concept (from the 1970s) is an unmanned turret that makes the hull excessively large and there's simply no room for a V12. And there's nowhere to increase the hull because the Armata is already larger than the Abrams.

      A dead end caused by the initially erroneous concept of an uninhabited tower. That's why there hasn't been a major series for many, many years. And the only alternative here is the mythical new GTD1500, but it has its own jokes.
      1. +3
        12 July 2025 11: 22
        an uninhabited tower that disproportionately increases the hull

        This statement is unclear.
        We did not repeat the M60, which was 400 mm wider than their railway gauge.
        The largest diameter swept into the hull is found in the T-64A/T-80 (and further), even stampings in the sides were required.
        That is, the length occupied in the hull by the turret with the basket is limited by the width of the hull and cannot affect the placement of the engine.
        There is nothing to stop you from installing a V12 transversely on the Armata.
        But the transmission still needs to be redone.
        1. 0
          12 July 2025 16: 02
          The original idea from the 1970s looked like this - most tank damage goes to the turret, so they decided to make a knight's move - remove the turret! Then there was a long series of concepts for placing the crew and equipment from the turret into the hull. But!

          1) All this forced the hull to be increased in height. Those turrets are gone, but the hull itself has partially moved into the kill zone.
          2) Then a problem with width arose - since the crew sits shoulder to shoulder, this limits the tank's reserve in width for armor and ERA.
          3) Moving the crew and ammunition stowage, automatic transmission, etc. into the hull resulted in an increase in the tank's length. The V12 simply did not fit within the 55-ton weight limit. And the GTE engine was, firstly, more expensive, and secondly, the Cyclone GTE has one significant drawback - overheating when increasing power to 1500 hp. Because of this, there was even a project to change the cooling to a filter like the Abrams, but in the end, a power limiter was installed in the engine, but with it, the tank can only produce 1500 hp briefly in afterburner mode, and otherwise it is a regular GTE1250. But even the old GTE had an automatic power limiter for hot climates.

          That is, only X remained with all its problems, the main one being the lower cylinders.

          That is, we ended up in a dead end, but continued to desperately pour billions into this project until the war put everything in its place. After all, initially, the purchase of Armata was supposed to begin in 2015 and their number was supposed to be about 1,000 units! But it was the problems with the X engine that prevented this from happening. As a result, several more billions were allocated for fine-tuning the engine. And so it goes in a circle since the times of the USSR.

          1.500 hp engines, even V12, require a huge cooling radiator, which can even be larger than the engine itself. The whole concept of the Armata is a compact engine and this is the main problem of the Armata.
          1. +2
            12 July 2025 17: 25
            The movement of the crew and ammunition stowage, automatic transmission, etc. into the hull entailed an increase in the length of the tank.

            There is no 2nd stage ammunition stowage in the hull.
            I wrote about the AZ cabin above. tp - it's not clear.
            The B-2 fits perfectly in place of the suitcase, the MTO volume increased by only 400 l, mainly due to the inclination of the aft sheet. That is, the distance from the BKP axis to the engine bulkhead has practically not changed.
            The V12 simply didn't fit within the 55 ton weight limit.

            Where does the data come from?
            and secondly, the cyclone gas turbine engine has one significant disadvantage - overheating when the power increases to 1500 hp.

            Shouldn't the number of cyclones be increased?
            It is clear that this air purifier was designed based on a power of 1000 hp.
            That is, only X remained with all its problems, the main one being the lower cylinders.

            Does it take up less space?
            And no problems with the lower cylinders! It's pulled out from under the hair. There are as many engines with cylinders down as you like: from Messerschmidt to Chieftain.
            The problems of the X-shaped are completely different. It is difficult to make a 6-knee crankshaft in such a length. Then there is resonance of torsional vibrations in the working speed zone (below 1200). And also the connecting rods.
            This engine was first made in the early 70s as a 16-cylinder engine (with a 4-cylinder crankshaft), and reducing the number of cylinders to 12 played a cruel joke on it.
            There was a way out. It was the Kharkov 470 engine (12ЧН 15/16), but it fell victim to intrigues.
            1.500 hp engines, even V12s, require a huge cooling radiator, which can actually be larger than the engine itself.

            It depends on the blower (fan/ejector, flow rate) and what power consumption is considered acceptable.
            Compare the radiators of the T-54/62 and Sverdlovsk chassis (303...307) with the same engine.
            1. 0
              12 July 2025 22: 53
              I'm trying to write briefly, perhaps part of the essence is missing. Armata has been discussed for years and for the most part there is nothing new to say.

              I already said that the power of the B2 is not enough for the Armata, and increasing the power will entail not only other layout solutions, but will also require larger radiators and so on down the list.

              About the knee, etc., these are again references to the X scheme itself. There is no point in describing all the problems, since there is essentially no ready engine yet, and the problems with it have been going on since the 1970s. Maybe it's enough to mess with grandma? Why are they so hung up on it, if according to you, it is so easy to stick a V12 at 1,500 into the Armata?

              I didn't write about any second-stage ammunition stowage, as no one has actually seen even a photo of the AZ mechanism. It is only known that the shells are vertical there and certainly no one will get out of the tank during combat, run along the parapet and reload, just as no one does this on the T90M.

              I read about what will fit where and about the cooling problems a long time ago, when the topic of installing a GTD1500 and its problems was touched upon and discussed, which even gave birth to the idea of abandoning the cyclone and even money for the development of a GTE without a cyclone was allocated somewhere in 2005-2010.

              Regarding the weight - the T90m in body kit is already around 50 tons without a barbecue. At the same time, it is unlikely that anyone wanted to go beyond 55 tons, given the infrastructure. Therefore, I conclude that the mass of the Armata is around 55 tons. But any improvement will go beyond this limit. But again, it is difficult to discuss anything when even in the footage of the Zvezda everything is blurred.
        2. 0
          12 July 2025 16: 16
          Here the question is not even about this, but about what kind of V12 are you going to install on the Armata - the B2 from the T90, which already with a power of 1130 hp shows a decrease in resource? Well, this is not enough for the Armata.

          We have B2 from the 1930s for a reason... a tank engine is very complicated and there are few countries in the world that can make a 1500hp tank engine. In NATO, it is always the German MTU without alternatives. Or always something strange like a low-power Challenger or a forced Leclerc, etc. But almost always these are purchases from other countries that have experience in engine building at the level of industrial commercial engines for Stations and ships.
          By the way, the Leclerc with the Finnish engine failed and now they have problems, because they no longer produce it, and the engine from the Leopard (as in the Leclercs for Arabs) simply does not fit there, because the Leclerc for Arabs initially had an enlarged hull just to accommodate the engine from the Leopard.

          It is obvious that we need our own V12 of a new model, designed on the principles of the 21st century, and not on the principles of the 1920-1930s. But it is also obvious that this is an extremely complex and expensive process... the only shame is that instead of spending time and money on developing the V12, we wasted a lot of time with vazukaniya and playing with X.
          1. +1
            12 July 2025 17: 38
            what kind of V12 are you going to put on the Armata

            The cylinder from the 2B series can be considered worn out, and it is necessary to mold a V12 on it, since the 470 cannot be resurrected. Moreover, in the image of the 470, with connecting rods located nearby.
            In NATO it is always the German MTU with no alternatives.

            What is the MTU? 873 and 883 are very different.
            It is obvious that we need our own new model V12, designed on 21st century principles.

            Downsizing like MTU 890? A very dubious idea.
            1. -1
              12 July 2025 23: 02
              What difference does it make which MTU? The main thing is that Rhein Metal and Baye are practically monopolists on the market and one way or another own both the French and the Americans. Pure Globalism and World Government. And Turkey still can't make "its" tank without them. And even in Korea, not everything is going smoothly.

              We always had problems with powerful engines, and for the USSR, for example, the same Finns made engines for ships or the Germans made trucks for the BAM. We only had the giant MAZ, so we couldn't make a gun like the Caesar - we had to make a weak Msta, and not develop the Giatsint direction. And there are also eternal problems with bridges, etc. Now it's even more difficult to make an engine, especially for a tank.
          2. +1
            12 July 2025 19: 27
            always something weird like a low-power Challenger

            The CV12 engine was tested by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) in both 895 kW (1200 hp) and 1120 kW (1500 hp) configurations. At 1120 kW, the engine was tested for over 300 hours, including altitude capabilities, fuel options, temperature range, and other characteristics. The testers concluded that the engine was very attractive in terms of performance, fuel economy, power density, and multi-fuel capability for the M1 Main Battle Tank and similar vehicles.
          3. +2
            12 July 2025 19: 42
            The Leclerc for the Arabs initially had an enlarged hull just to accommodate the Leopard engine.

            Leo2 has MTU 873 + Renk HSWL 354, MTO volume 7 cubic meters.
            On Leclerc Tropicalise - MTU 883 + Renk HSWL 295 (EuroPowerPack), MTO 4,5 cubes, which is not much different from the native Hyperbar.
            1. -1
              12 July 2025 23: 36
              Not much is how much %?
              1. 0
                13 July 2025 15: 47
                Not much is how much %?

                Units %%, but in + or -, I can’t say for sure.
  5. +6
    10 July 2025 12: 33
    The difference in price would in any case shift towards a smaller gap, since the T-90 has long been a polished, large-scale (taking into account the relationship with the T-72 at least) project, and in it, production optimization of the release was already carried out at many levels, designed to reduce production costs.
    By analogy with the amount of optimization that was done during WWII to produce the T-34 and how much the initial labor intensity and price differed from the final or even intermediate ones.
    In the case of the "Armata", a two-fold price gap is not a death sentence at all, since at the moment the production is clearly small-scale, and the design itself, although it is already a serial one and not experimental, like all recent designs, in principle, is still devoid of both production and operational perfection.
    Considering that the "Kurganets" is a common platform for many machines, at least in the case of its wide deployment it would be possible to reduce the price of each specific one. In other cases - large-scale production, large-scale unification and replacement of some elements with analogs of lower price (or changes in production technologies aimed at reducing the price of finished products) - would inevitably do their job in the field of general reduction of the price of an individual product.

    The other side of the issue is that, based on the preliminary results of the SVO, the military's requirements for the appearance and design of a modern MBT may change. And the "Armata" may not fit into these requirements.
    But, nevertheless, the idea of ​​a unified platform will fit in definitely, because taking into account our limited military budget, we will have to willingly or unwillingly save every penny to support the breadth of projects. Unification is a good tool for saving in principle.
    So, perhaps, "Armata" will evolve substantially in appearance, or perhaps it will be used for such a deep modernization that the brainchild will barely resemble it. It is certain that the T-90 cannot travel forever and as our tank fleet is depleted, we will have a fateful choice - to choose the peening of the past or movement into the future.
    1. +5
      11 July 2025 09: 24
      In any case, we urgently need a more protected heavy IFV on the battlefield, since everything we have now does not stand up to any criticism, the same long-outdated "cardboard" BMP-2 and not much better BMP-3, do not have the necessary protection and are easily penetrated even by 25-30 mm guns, not to mention larger calibers, based on this, the T-15 heavy IFV developed on the basis of the Armata, after the appropriate necessary refinement and modification taking into account the air defense, would be very useful for our mechanized units.
      1. -2
        11 July 2025 10: 11
        Quote: sgrabik
        In any case, we urgently need a more protected heavy infantry fighting vehicle on the battlefield.

        and it exists and has been produced in series since 2001 - BMO-T
      2. +2
        11 July 2025 12: 20
        I generally agree with you, but it seems to me that our strategy for action in a conflict should be reworked and the emphasis should be shifted from differently equipped infantry (either in a BMP-2 or a T-15 BMP) to remote high-precision weapons. Infantry should not take anything by "meat assaults" - it should enter there after almost any resistance has been eliminated. For exceptional situations, like skirmishes for underground communications or some "Azovstal" there should be robotic platforms, but in general we need to understand that thrashing the "pantsir" is always a bad idea, and in the event of a conflict in which the opposing side has dug in its heels and dug in, we simply need to shift the strategy of influence to the consistent destruction of its industrial, economic and state control facilities. Any army depends on money, food, supplies, fuel, rotation - no matter how well it is dug in.
        Here, these objects that are key to the existence of the army are not taken by the dashing infantry in the BMP (in the case of a long conflict) - they are put out of action by the VTO, it is the VTO that "breaks" the bones of the enemy infrastructure, and this is what ultimately leads to the fall of the enemy's potential supporting the army.
        This does not mean that we do not need capable infantry vehicles and modern armored vehicles. But, in my opinion, as I noted above, we need to change our focus somewhat. The fact that we had (and probably still have) the largest number of tanks in Europe in storage does not specifically help us to defeat the enemy. But the urgent deployment of drones and missiles does help. This should give us food for thought for the future.
      3. +5
        11 July 2025 17: 47
        What other 25mm cannons... the sides of the BMP2 can be penetrated with a 12,7mm machine gun! That is why the D version with a steel 6mm body kit appeared in Afghanistan.
        But these body kits were all left in the Southern CIS, and they decided not to make new ones, because they believe that a soldier should cover his own BMP with sheets from a landfill, because it is his life, not theirs.
    2. 0
      12 July 2025 16: 19
      We have problems with organizing the production of Sosna U, and here is a whole uninhabited tower - I think there are more purchased spare parts there than in the Superjet.
      1. 0
        12 July 2025 16: 21
        Quote: Totor5
        I think there are no spare parts available

        Don't slander yourself. And yes - there are no spare parts in an uninhabited tower.
      2. +1
        12 July 2025 18: 49
        A major redesign of the turret is not such a rare precedent, so perhaps everything is not so gloomy in principle. Another thing is that the requirements for the MBT itself have changed during the SVO, as far as I understand. Perhaps this is what will most strongly affect the project.
        Now we have some industrial growth, and willy-nilly the production of many elements will be established, experience will be gained. An unmanned turret hardly has an alternative - the general tendency of world tank building is to reduce the crew and due to this increase the armor, incl.
        So what will they do, my dears? Like it or not, maybe or maybe not.
  6. 0
    10 July 2025 12: 52
    Quote: Volodin
    Quote: TanSan
    From simple - to master at least in the form of transport, to test the chassis, modularity

    Okay. But in the form of what kind of transport (?), when there is already the T-15 and T-16 on the same platform - the BMP and the BREM. It should have been tested in 3 variants, including taking into account the modularity of the design. But something is still not being mastered "in hardware".

    In the form of MTTB in variations. There are just a few MTLBs left and they do not meet modern requirements.
    1. +1
      10 July 2025 13: 30
      MTLB is, of course, a legendary thing. But to make a tractor at the price of a tank (let's take the cost of the T-14 500kk, halve it for an approximate calculation of the cost without a turret and weapons and get the cost of the T-90 (300kk). Old tractors ideally go from storage to citizens for 2-4kk, production is about 6-8kk and in terms of cost to efficiency is still at the top.
      So making a new MTLB for 200+kk on the Armata platform doesn't seem like the best option to me, if for the same money you can make a dozen updated "motolygas" for 20kk (doubled for improved comfort/convenience, electronics, engine, transmission).
      1. 0
        11 July 2025 10: 41
        well if MMTB is really not profitable then maybe Koalitsiya-SV on a new chassis? although as I understand it the old chassis is still possible and they just can't come up with a task for the new chassis and they say the engine is raw despite the fact that its half is installed in the BMD
        1. +2
          11 July 2025 17: 53
          Initially, the Coalition had to be made on the Armata base, because the T90 bogie for the new SPG is criminally small. In general, it was necessary to make an SPG first, not a tank. But this does not eliminate the problem of the platform's MINI engine.
          You can’t put a gas turbine engine there either, because the gas turbine engine isn’t produced by Ural Wagon, and it only wants to feed itself on everything.
          1. +1
            12 July 2025 17: 48
            The gas turbine engine is not produced by Ural Wagon, but it only wants to feed itself.

            Is ChTZ, which makes V-2 and 2V, part of Uralvagon?
            1. 0
              12 July 2025 23: 05
              They bought an engine factory a long time ago, that's the joke.
              1. 0
                13 July 2025 16: 05
                They bought an engine factory a long time ago, that's the joke.

                Which company?
                ChTZ or Sverdlovsk Turbomotor?
                1. 0
                  14 July 2025 04: 06
                  I don't remember, I read in a newspaper a long time ago, they said that they were buying the production of engines for the T90. What happened?

                  Something like that
                  In March 2011, the Uralvagonzavod Scientific and Production Corporation acquired 63,3% of ChTZ shares. Taking into account the previously held shares, Uralvagonzavod now owns 80% of ChTZ shares. The remaining shares are held by the Chelyabinsk Region government, which is negotiating with UVZ about the transfer of these shares.
                  The deal between Uralvagonzavod and ChTZ won the “Deal of the Year” nomination of the annual interregional award “Results of the Year of the Urals and Siberia-2011”
  7. +3
    10 July 2025 12: 54
    there is an endless list...Armata, Peresvet, Boomerang....etc. and so on....and the name of all this (which is not in the troops), Ivanov and others...you can look at his car fleet and everything will become clear...
  8. +5
    10 July 2025 13: 45
    Quote: JcVai
    MTLB is, of course, a legendary thing. But to make a tractor at the price of a tank (let's take the cost of the T-14 500kk, halve it for an approximate calculation of the cost without a turret and weapons and get the cost of the T-90 (300kk). Old tractors ideally go from storage to citizens for 2-4kk, production is about 6-8kk and in terms of cost to efficiency is still at the top.
    So making a new MTLB for 200+kk on the Armata platform doesn't seem like the best option to me, if for the same money you can make a dozen updated "motolygas" for 20kk (doubled for improved comfort/convenience, electronics, engine, transmission).

    Then we will never switch to modern technology and a unified platform, continuing to modernize the zoo of 70-year-old developments.
  9. +2
    10 July 2025 16: 43
    In Poland they say that the T-14 is the most expensive plywood and cardboard model in the world, but at the same time it is a project on which many Russian generals and politicians have made huge amounts of money.
    1. +3
      10 July 2025 19: 07
      Quote: rOllo
      In Poland they say

      They say a lot of things there.
    2. +2
      11 July 2025 09: 31
      And how long ago did Poland become a trendsetter in the construction of modern armored vehicles? Let them talk whatever comes to their minds. Our enemies will never praise us or our equipment, no matter how good and advanced it is.
      1. 0
        11 July 2025 17: 28
        What is there to praise? After all, even you can already see that the T-14 was one big scam, on which many people made fortunes, and instead of the T-14, you are already driving to the front even in the T-55.
      2. 0
        12 July 2025 17: 54
        How long has it been since Poland became a trendsetter in the construction of modern armored vehicles?

        It's in vain that you blame the Poles.
        They did a great job fitting the French ESM350 transmission into the 72, with almost no increase in engine capacity. The result was the PT-91.
    3. -2
      11 July 2025 15: 14
      Does Poland even produce any weapons? Or does it buy them from the US and South Korea on credit, so that even its grandchildren won't be able to pay it off? Flying hussars, damn)
      1. -3
        11 July 2025 17: 27
        Poles certainly prefer to make things that serve people rather than kill them, but yes, we make weapons that have killed thousands of Russians in this war.
        For example:
        Anti-aircraft missiles "Piorun",
        KRAB howitzers,
        RAK mortars,
        Armored personnel carriers ROSOMAK,
        Warmate and FlyEye drones.
        1. -1
          11 July 2025 19: 50
          Ooooh, what a list, ) well, the Russians produce things that will glaze your country in 15 minutes, go on bragging, Lyakh, the capital will become Moscow 4 times.
          1. 0
            11 July 2025 20: 34
            See? And again the same thing. We can kill you, we can destroy you, we can destroy you with an atom. And tell me, what good can you do for humanity? Have you developed a cure for cancer? Some device that makes life easier?
            No. Just tanks, missiles, machine guns, bombs - and then surprise that people in the West perceive you as barbarians.
            If the only reason you can be proud of Russia is that you can attack another country, then I feel very sorry for you.
            1. +1
              11 July 2025 21: 00
              Yes, google what we do in the development of treatments, and what do you? What do we do in IT, and what do you, what does our spectrum carry, and yours? This could go on for a very long time. But about the number of Russian soldiers killed, well, you bragged "how many your wunderwaffe killed". We don't bother you at all, are you scoundrels placing bases in yourselves? How many Soviet soldiers died during the liberation of Warsaw, and why did this happen? You ungrateful Polish guys will deserve yours.
              1. 0
                11 July 2025 23: 07
                I'm happy to hear about your achievements. As for the rest of your statement, there are two points.
                The first one is yes, the Poles consider you enemies, they support Ukraine, and that’s it.
                Second, contrary to what the propaganda in your country claims, we remember those Soviet soldiers who died here. Below I am attaching photographs of the Soviet soldiers' cemetery in my city.
                The photos are current - taken this year. As you can see, nothing is destroyed, the graves are in place, the alleys are clean, the bushes are trimmed, new trees are planted.
                https://polska-org.pl/11651715,foto.html?idEntity=509243
                https://polska-org.pl/11651289,foto.html?idEntity=509243
            2. -1
              12 July 2025 13: 10
              Sputnik V for corona, Ebola vaccine for Africa, for some types of cancer just this year... but some need to be treated with trepanation.
        2. -1
          11 July 2025 19: 51
          And, yes, more Poles died in this war than Russians from your garbage.
          1. +3
            11 July 2025 22: 19
            Yes, it is a pity that the national pride of the Poles is overflowing. But of all the Western Slavic peoples, the Poles were the most understandable to us in terms of culture. Or maybe it is only me? I used to enjoy watching Polish films. In Russian translation, of course. Yes, and the people themselves are not stupid. Yes, sometimes they drink vodka immoderately, just like ours.
        3. -1
          11 July 2025 21: 32
          Cover up your garbage dump, you unfinished pShek, you still won’t calm down.
      2. +1
        11 July 2025 18: 01
        They produced the T72 in its entirety, including engines. But now they make upgraded versions of the Leopards at this plant.
        The plans are to obtain a license for the Korean tank and become a monopolist in spare parts and maintenance in Europe, since Northern Europe and the South want to switch to this tank and Korean SPGs. But it is good that they no longer produce the T72 in full.
    4. -1
      11 July 2025 17: 30
      Quote: rOllo
      In Poland they say

      In the rate of Hitler all scatty

      In Poland, it seems, too.
  10. +2
    10 July 2025 19: 06
    In addition, military conflicts of recent years, especially the current SVO in Ukraine, have shown that any tank, no matter how incredible its protection, often becomes a victim of drones, the cost of which is hundreds, if not thousands, of times less.

    In the current reality, a tank is first and foremost an armored self-propelled gun that can operate on the front line, and a supertank simply has nothing to do in such a situation.
  11. +4
    10 July 2025 21: 39
    Nothing has changed in 10 years! laughing
  12. 0
    10 July 2025 23: 20
    The cost of the car turned out to be "sky-high"

    This is not a reason, but an excuse. The T-34 at the beginning of production cost several times more than the BT tanks. But this did not prevent the transition to a new tank. What would have happened if the country had been led by such "economists"? The reason is different - the tank must be 100% domestic, but it is not fully import-substituted.
  13. +1
    10 July 2025 23: 23
    One of the initial problems was the engine. Now the problem is in the concept of the next generation tank.
  14. +4
    10 July 2025 23: 27
    Until effective protection against FPV drones is created, the use of tanks for their combat purpose is not possible. There is artillery for firing from a closed position.
    1. 0
      11 July 2025 22: 08
      So the armature should have had a KAZ installed, which protects against drones.
  15. +2
    11 July 2025 01: 58
    In theory, a new weapon should be more cost-effective. If something is twice as expensive, then its combat effectiveness should be even higher. When the price is many times higher, then the new product should be the ultimate. If Armata could replace three Proryv, it would make sense, but it is simply a technology demonstrator. The more systems migrate to serial tanks, the better. Any equipment for war should be easily launched into mass production. In fact, the whole world has appreciated this quality of Russian tanks. The ability to replenish losses, even by partially modernizing old stocks, is better than having wonder weapons that no one can even repair on site. By the way, about wonder weapons - not a single Western MBT has shown an advantage. Combat logistics, maintainability and, in general, adaptability to combat operations outside the highway and repair bases, the Western boxes are much worse.
    There are no advantages in the performance characteristics, so the T72/90 rule. The only wish is that the modernization of the T72 would not be done according to the B3 principle and that attention would be paid not only to the budget that needs to be fit into. The idiocy with the sight protection in the swamps is not even a shame, it is sabotage and subversion, but a very sensible approach, not to launch a large series of Armata and limit ourselves to testing and running in units and systems.
  16. +1
    11 July 2025 08: 25
    Today it is already clear that airborne forces dropped from planes are a thing of the past. An easy target. It became clear in Afghanistan. And tankism is also questionable. The future is elsewhere.
    1. 0
      12 July 2025 04: 42
      The future is elsewhere.

      And this place is one.
  17. -1
    11 July 2025 09: 51
    There's no way, the plans for its production are not moving. According to reliable sources, a year ago it was said: Armata is done. The money has been spent, and no one is asking about the results in our henhouse. Shoigu won't let me lie.
  18. -1
    11 July 2025 10: 25
    Does it make sense, in order to master the platform, to install a T90 turret on it and put it into production?
    1. +2
      12 July 2025 13: 37
      It doesn't, because it has an X engine that they can't improve since the 1970s due to problems with the lower cylinders. And another one simply won't fit in there.

      Despite the huge size of the Armata (and it is larger than the Abrams), the engine is forced to be compact because the crew and equipment have moved into the hull due to the lack of a turret. Because of this, we still have a very high hull! There is no turret, but the hull has become higher - there is no escaping fate.

      The Armata's bogie is a modification of the T80. In principle, for a new tank you can take the bogie, modify it a little, even make it smaller and shove a GTD1500 in there. And put a Leclerc-style turret on top with ammunition stowage in the back and a factory grill with ERA.

      But the GTD1500 is not ready yet and it is not clear whether it will be able to deliver this power constantly, and not on afterburner. The T90 - B2 engine is already at its peak of forcing 1130 hp to the detriment of the resource and will not pull a heavy tank. A new V12 engine of about 1500 hp is needed, but it is not there, therefore there is no new tank.

      If Armata were in the war now, it would be without a barbecue, because it has no turret and there is nowhere to weld this barbecue, so all Armatas in the war would be covered with Tsar Barbecue and would turn into a self-propelled gun of the 2nd world type Isu152... but the Armata does not have a caliber of 152 and this is also a problem. If Armata was a Koalitsiya SPG, then its appearance in the war would be more likely, but again - standardization of the tank/SPG chassis is needed. And if tanks in principle meet the requirements of this war, then the Koalitsiya SPG carries a very long barrel on a microscopic T90 chassis, which is visible to the naked eye because it is wildly striking.

      So Armata is done. We need a new tank and a self-propelled gun on its base. But this requires a revision of the concept of an unmanned turret and the appearance of a new engine. In war conditions, this is unlikely.
      1. -2
        12 July 2025 13: 43
        Quote: Totor5
        That's why Armata is everything

        Armata is a platform. The tank is called T-14.

        In general, of course, it’s sometimes funny to watch how certain individuals, having read the Internet, start to talk complete nonsense here with serious faces.
        1. +2
          12 July 2025 18: 11
          Armata is a platform. The tank is called T-14.

          Armata is an OCD topic.
          T-14 will be when it is accepted into service. For now it is Object 148.
          1. +1
            12 July 2025 18: 14
            Quote from: ln_ln
            Armata is a topic of R&D. T-14 will be when it is accepted into service. For now, Object 148.

            That's all true, but it's too complicated for my opponent. He, as I recall, somehow got stuck on the simple and intuitive concept of "hermeticity" so much that it was a real shame laughing

            And the opponent there does talk about a tank, stubbornly calling it Armata.
            1. 0
              12 July 2025 18: 17
              on a simple and intuitive concept of "tightness"

              Many people confuse hermetic design with compacted design.
              1. +1
                12 July 2025 18: 18
                Quote from: ln_ln
                on a simple and intuitive concept of "tightness"

                Many people confuse hermetic design with compacted design.

                It was worse. They tried to prove to me, a former tanker, that the tank was airtight. Damn. laughing
                1. 0
                  12 July 2025 18: 21
                  tried to prove that the tank was airtight.

                  Yes, the seals on the tank are just a disaster. ZZK putty will not let you lie.
                  1. +1
                    12 July 2025 18: 23
                    Quote from: ln_ln
                    Yes, the seals on the tank are just a disaster.

                    That's not it... I remember, after the shot the bolt opens and the tray is thrown out of the turret. So - there are two regular, hm, holes. And what the hell is this airtight?

                    But the guy read somewhere about a supercharger, and on this basis decided that the tank is hermetically sealed. Which, I think, exhaustively characterizes the guy's ability to think in general, and about tanks in particular.
                    1. 0
                      13 July 2025 08: 51
                      Quote: Paranoid62
                      But the guy read somewhere about a supercharger, and on this basis decided that the tank is sealed.

                      What about driving underwater?
                      1. -1
                        13 July 2025 09: 05
                        Quote: t7310
                        What about driving underwater?

                        This doesn't happen. Overcoming a water obstacle underwater is a real sex, and has nothing to do with "riding" as such.

                        And yes It's not really customary to shoot underwater, therefore, after appropriate preparation, when driving underwater - the tank is still hermetically sealed Yes
  19. +2
    11 July 2025 11: 55
    Now tanks can't reach zero, let alone enter battle... The prospects of tanks as such, on the field, is a debatable subject...
  20. +2
    11 July 2025 12: 04
    T-14 "Armata": how the new generation tank was presented "at the dawn" of its appearance and what is the reality of today

    So what!? Another empty and meaningless article. We've been fighting for years now, and everyone here and everywhere, even on fences, has long since written about the vulnerability of tanks to penny gadgets from the sky... Even hippos in the zoo know this... That's why they don't climb trees, but give this occupation to monkeys...
    So, it's emptiness and nonsense. It's a pity to waste time on such reading...
  21. +2
    11 July 2025 12: 34
    This also happens to people: until retirement they remain “promising young specialists” and are listed as “reserve for promotion.”
  22. 0
    11 July 2025 13: 11
    The designers equipped the Armata with a number of innovative solutions that had not previously been implemented in domestic tank building.

    Apart from the stealth technology, everything in this vehicle has already been implemented in domestic tank building. Not on serial vehicles, but the T-14 is not one.
  23. +2
    11 July 2025 16: 21
    Quote: t7310
    and it exists and has been produced in series since 2001 - BMO-T
    It was discussed last year.
    BMO-T is essentially a classic heavy armored personnel carrier, a tank chassis, with minimal modifications, with a small compartment for troops and landing of troops on the roof of the MTO. But these vehicles are extremely few in number and were created for one specific task - transporting "flamethrowers" (RPO-A "Shmel" crews). These vehicles took part in the conflict since February 2022 and, unfortunately, suffered confirmed losses. Most likely, there are only a few of them left in the army now.
    Well, and besides, if the landing party, having climbed out through the roof of the MTO, can descend to the ground (although this, you must agree, is far from the best option for landing the landing party), then it is unlikely that they will be able to climb back in, and if someone else is wounded?
    In short, the BMO-T cannot be considered a normal infantry fighting vehicle. IMHO, of course.
    1. +1
      12 July 2025 13: 45
      You have to climb in there clinging to a log and sit inside on a bench bent over... Dismounting there is like jumping off a fence. The tarantass is something else.

      It is obvious that we need a factory BMP on a T90 bogie, in which the ramp and engine in the front will be designed from the start. Roughly speaking - something like a Terminator with only one gun and a ramp.
  24. 0
    11 July 2025 17: 00
    The cost of the car turned out to be “sky-high” – approximately 6 million dollars for a production model.

    Depends on the series. Apparently, the price is for a copy from the first serial (or rather pre-serial) lot. The general law of production is a significant drop in cost in mass production - sometimes by two or more times.
  25. +2
    11 July 2025 17: 47
    Why is the difference 6 vs 3 million considered "sky-high"? If the new tank is really much better, for example, its probability of being hit is reduced by 2 times, then why not 6 million?
  26. +2
    11 July 2025 20: 02
    It's all about the engine. It's different, not like the T 90 and T 72. And it hasn't shown itself yet. We need to develop solutions. What we need now is quantity and proven reliability.
  27. 0
    11 July 2025 21: 49
    In short! We still have a lot of work to do on it!!! Well, let's go! In the meantime, even T-90s can handle it...
  28. +4
    11 July 2025 21: 59
    We laugh at the Indians with their development of technology for 20-30 years, but we ourselves have become the same. Corruption and lack of highly qualified designers and engineers.
  29. 0
    11 July 2025 22: 01
    The reasons for this are not only technical, but also economic. The cost of the car turned out to be "sky-high"

    I remembered: "We recently discovered this fact for ourselves and are now analyzing it. It concerns the financial support for the supply of equipment during the Great Patriotic War. During this period, certain directives froze the prices of weapons and military equipment, and the policy of wholesale prices for the purchase of weapons and military property consisted of their constant reduction," said Yevgeny Pronsky, Director of the Financial Support Department of the Russian Defense Ministry, on the air of the Ekho Moskvy radio station.

    According to him, the T-34 tank cost 1941 thousand rubles in 269. "In 1942 it was already 193 thousand,
    and in 1945 - 135 thousand. The Il-4 airplane cost 800 thousand rubles in 1941, then its price was reduced by half - 468 thousand rubles, and in 1945 - 380 thousand. Shpagin submachine gun: 500 rubles in 41, 400 rubles - 42, 148 rubles until the end of the war," he said, adding that the total savings during the war on the purchase of military equipment amounted to about 50 billion rubles.
    RIA Novosti 12:50 03.03.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX."
    Also, it seems that the cost of labor costs for manufactured products of the same type should have been reduced by 30% every year, and output should have increased due to its development in production.
    1. +1
      12 July 2025 13: 54
      You understand that all this was to the detriment of quality - some tanks broke down literally outside the factory gates, and people at the factories essentially worked for food and coupons. Talking about cost in the economic system of the USSR is generally ridiculous, because there was no money in the usual sense of the word. In fact, these were coupons that the government printed for certain needs. That is why the ruble was inconvertible and payment for everything foreign was made in gold and resources at prices that were a couple of times higher.
      If we now turn on a money machine like the USSR, it will lead to hyperinflation.
      1. +1
        13 July 2025 11: 32
        If we now turn on the money machine like the USSR, it will lead to hyperinflation

        Where did you see a mention of turning on the money machine? By the way, the Americans are not afraid of this at all, regularly increasing their internal debt.
        1. 0
          14 July 2025 03: 45
          Well, the dollar is a reserve currency (with the euro, pound and yen joining it) - it is obvious that it can be printed with it until there is an alternative from BRICS.
          This is a classic - you raise the threshold of the state debt every year, print debt obligations for this amount, and then buy them back from yourself by turning on the printing press and distributing the inflation to the world - to everyone who uses the dollar. Now Trump has printed 5 trillion - this means that they stole goods from the world for 5 trillion and did not pay anything. The European Union did the same during the pandemic, printing a trillion euros.

          The USSR essentially did the same thing, but within an isolated system. Clans, chaebols in Korea and zaibatsu in Japan do the same, when each large corporation like Samsung or Mitsubishi has its own bank to finance its concerns.
          1. -1
            14 July 2025 03: 53
            But in the USSR, the money supply was printed based on the needs of producing a certain amount of goods and it could only be spent within the framework of this system, so imports were not sold to the masses in the USSR, and the state itself was chasing currency by selling all the most valuable goods abroad, like half of the cars were exported, while inside the country there was a waiting list for cars for several years. But by selling for export, the state received currency, which could be used to buy foreign goods, and by selling inside the country, it received essentially an inconvertible coupon, which it printed itself, regardless of the cost.
            1. 0
              14 July 2025 13: 32
              received essentially a non-convertible coupon, which it printed itself, regardless of the cost

              So, are you primarily interested in the convertibility of the domestic currency?
              1. -1
                14 July 2025 16: 40
                I'm not interested in living on coupons behind the Iron Curtain in a closed economy. China had the brains to reform, but Brezhnev didn't have the guts. The outcome is well known.
                1. +1
                  14 July 2025 21: 32
                  China was smart enough to reform

                  So, do you like the convertible yuan? But how convertible it is is also an interesting question. Under the EBN, they started talking about the convertibility of the ruble, but as soon as they started talking about an independent rate, problems appeared.
                  1. 0
                    14 July 2025 23: 52
                    What is the alternative? I don't quite understand where you are getting at and why.

                    Initially, gold was used as a measure, then they abandoned it and switched to reserve currencies.
                    Accordingly, you propose to transfer international trade to barter? Only it is necessary to understand that the rate there will be somewhat similar to the scheme of Iraq - oil in exchange for food. Well, or from our examples, this is Industrialization of the 1930s, which was paid for by the skin of the peasant because Western partners stopped accepting payment in gold and began to take only food at a rate favorable to them.

                    Convertibility of currencies provides access to the international market. When it is not there, there is a Curtain. But those who have reserve currencies begin to milk the World, dumping their inflation on it. And these are America, the European Union, Britain and Japan. That is why Trump called his main battle and goal - the war for the preservation of the Dollar and the Destruction of BRICS.
                    1. 0
                      15 July 2025 23: 57
                      This is why Trump has called his main battle and goal - the war to save the Dollar and Destroy Brix.

                      Correct. It all depends on who ensures the convertibility of the currency. The price of ensuring convertibility in this case is irrelevant, what matters is the ability to dictate one's interests through one's currency, even if it has a nominal value.
  30. 0
    11 July 2025 23: 16
    With the advent of drones, tanks have become a fairly vulnerable target. So the new war rethinks the use of technology and instead of tanks and armored personnel carriers, motorcycles and quad bikes are in use.
    1. +1
      12 July 2025 08: 13
      If the Armata is controlled from an armored capsule, then the next logical step would be to control the tank from outside, from another tank or even through a drone, then the size of the tank can be sharply reduced, its weight, it will not require a high-power engine and its price should be lower than the price of a tank with an armored capsule.
      1. -2
        12 July 2025 09: 15
        The whole problem here is in a wireless communication channel that is resistant to hacking and interference.
        Everything that can't be hacked is jammed.
      2. 0
        12 July 2025 13: 57
        But the tank should be just as disposable and cheap, and not 55 tons.

        Or maybe go further and make not a tank drone, but a drone shell? Oh.
    2. -2
      12 July 2025 10: 05
      And I would make a super tank like Armata without people and without the ability to hit it with a remote-controlled UAV, I would drive along the line of contact with it and let them waste their drones on a capsule where there are no people, the difficulty is in the engine, how to protect it from being hit by 100 drones, but why not make such a distracting tank, after all, every drone that is wasted on the tank is like an injury to a soldier.... there was even a video where one of the machines collected flocks of drones on itself and the enemy wasted 10-20 drones without destroying the machine, and then the capsule became...
      1. -1
        12 July 2025 13: 58
        So here we need 2 kings of the grill
  31. 0
    12 July 2025 09: 12
    Is the price of 6 million just out of thin air stated by the manufacturer?
    The Abrams is a production tank, hundreds of which are built and constantly upgraded.
    Armata is a prototype, with unclear reliability, judging by the lack of use in its own country (or the practical lack thereof).
    We are making an open secret out of this wonder weapon.
    I doubt that if the enemy captures it, we will be able to surprise them with anything. Perhaps with controversial technical solutions that lead to unreasonable high prices.
    There are even more questions about reliability. But the equipment is new, at least this is justified, unlike the price.
    But it is too early to write off tanks from the battlefield, very early.
  32. +1
    12 July 2025 10: 01
    I see that we need to improve the satellite grouping many times over, it is not the army that wins but the intelligence, look what they did with Iran, it was all intelligence, and the destruction was already the third thing. Although the courage of our soldiers on the front lines in driving the enemy out of the villages commands respect.
    1. -1
      12 July 2025 13: 59
      They promise to launch a couple hundred Starlink-type satellites... in 2 years.
  33. +2
    12 July 2025 11: 48
    Quote: alekc73
    Instead of one Armata - three T-72b3 or 5 T-62 M - 2023. Not a supertank, but many simple tanks. That's the recipe for victory.

    Fight in these simple tanks yourself. This is not a recipe for victory, but a recipe for kamikaze tanks and tank crews.
  34. 0
    12 July 2025 11: 51
    I'm not an expert, but this tank was a hope, it's cool, of course, but human lives are more important. am
  35. -2
    12 July 2025 16: 26
    Quote: Paranoid62
    Armata is a platform. The tank is called T-14.

    But there was no need to aim so epically. It was necessary to design a TANK, and not "an entire universe" ["platform"]. And let someone (separately!, without spying on the "successes of tank development") design a heavy IFV. And when [if] two innovative, effective and satisfying TANK and IFV were born, then they would start thinking (without aiming at design innovations (but, maybe with technological innovations)) about unification.
  36. +1
    12 July 2025 19: 12
    In fact, the Armata concept is more suitable for the conditions of the Air Defense Forces. 1. There is a variant with a 152 mm tank gun. In fact, this is a self-propelled gun on a long-range missile system. 2. The unmanned turret in some sense repeats the design of the BMPT, which has proven itself well in the conditions of the Air Defense Forces. 3. The presence of a radar allows in some cases to use the tank as an air defense system against drones. 4. It is possible to replace or supplement the Afghanit system with a lighter APS with a firing sector directed at an angle of approximately 5-45 degrees. 5. Remove some of the equipment that is not used in the current combat conditions, which will partially reduce the cost of the platform.
  37. -2
    13 July 2025 08: 31
    Lack of foresight on the part of designers and engineers, creating something at the request of the military, who needed it "yesterday", and not for the future. The result - the first protracted conflict showed the vulnerability and uselessness of an expensive platform. It became obsolete even before an attempt to launch it in series.
  38. -2
    13 July 2025 10: 48
    As a result, today the T-14 Armata tank exists more as a concept or a showcase of engineering thought than as a working tool on the battlefield.

    Today, this tank exists as a symbol of Russian bungling. Economic problems could and should have been foreseen at the very first stage of design research. And technical problems are primarily associated with the excessive complexity of the design and the lack of domestic element base of high-tech components with the necessary functionality and quality, which was also quite obvious at the very beginning of the journey. Also problematic was the revolutionary engine design, which for some reason did not take into account the need for pre-launch decompression of the lower cylinders.
  39. +1
    13 July 2025 19: 32
    Where is the T-14? Where is the Kurganets? Where is the SV Coalition that is needed like air in the SVO??? Where is all this? How much money was poured into these projects? Who is responsible for the failure of these programs? The USSR ceased to exist 35 years ago, but we are still fighting with Soviet equipment.
  40. 0
    13 July 2025 20: 01
    I believe that the time of tanks is coming to an end. For many centuries, cavalry was the main offensive weapon, but everything has its time. The power of ATGMs can be inexpensively increased to monstrous penetration, this is another nail in the coffin of modern tank building. It is quite possible that future anti-tank weapons will be aimed at tracks, and they are impossible to armor. As one of the many options for disabling a tank is to blind it, there are many options from an aerosol cloud of some polymer substance to small arms. In addition, drones will definitely evolve, become autonomous with AI, reusable, armed with RPG-30 and subsequent modifications, receiving targeting instructions from a high-altitude UAV and possibly based on it, and so on, so on, so on. In my opinion, the future belongs to cheap and fast tankettes armed with a machine gun or grenade launcher + a couple of RPGs. In the conditions of modern and prospective development of electronic warfare, tankettes should be autonomous, with a given program: drive along the route, take the following coordinates, shoot at everything that moves, or at thermal signatures, or at the sound source of fire, for example, a machine gun, or at AI data, or at a laser target designation, etc. Accordingly, tactics should be worked out: attack drones, drone fighter drones, reconnaissance drones and target designators, subsequent infantry on heavy infantry fighting vehicles, preliminary artillery preparation, etc.
  41. 0
    13 July 2025 23: 08
    In short, it's a disaster...
    They lied and lied, but when it came to light, they started writing endless articles to justify it...
  42. aba
    +1
    14 July 2025 02: 39
    Today, the T-14 Armata tank exists more as a concept or a showcase of engineering thought than as a working tool on the battlefield.
    Well, a number of high-ranking officials from both the military-industrial complex and the Ministry of Defense got rich. In this, in addition to the tank, they were helped by "combat robots, which were launched into serial production," as was said back in 2021.
  43. GMV
    0
    14 July 2025 04: 54
    Quote: BorzRio
    Lack of foresight on the part of designers and engineers, creating something at the request of the military, who needed it "yesterday", and not for the future. The result - the first protracted conflict showed the vulnerability and uselessness of an expensive platform. It became obsolete even before an attempt to launch it in series.


    Many things have become obsolete with the advent of new weapons in the form of UAVs. And the American fleet is not visible in the Gulf of Aden. High-tech and expensive machines are being held back and are not being released into the field. Until they find a way to counter UAVs and implement systems to destroy them.
  44. GMV
    0
    14 July 2025 05: 20
    Quote: rOllo
    I'm happy to hear about your achievements. As for the rest of your statement, there are two points.
    The first one is yes, the Poles consider you enemies, they support Ukraine, and that’s it....

    They also found friends, as if the Volyn massacre never happened. Although it is clear, of course, that these are old scores to settle. But regarding the "enemies", pointing a finger at someone, did you not notice that the other three fingers point back, at yourself? How can the NATO military bloc claim that it is defensive and at the same time constantly expand towards Russia? Come close to our borders and say that, like, nothing! This is how we defend ourselves! Do you have an active defense? Yes, just one point - who bombed Yugoslavia? Who bombed Libya without getting the go-ahead from the UN Security Council? The coalition, damn it - the same gang! And how did you succeed? Did you restore order in Libya, did it get better? Are you happy with Libya now?
    So (on the fingers) you yourself are - your own enemies! You think that the rest (not the Western world) are ordinary natives. You can tell them fairy tales and exchange beads and a mirror for gold.
  45. GMV
    0
    14 July 2025 06: 29
    Quote: rOllo
    I am happy to learn about your achievements......

    Well, for your pleasure, just off the top of my head:
    1. Russia was the first to develop a vaccine against the SARS Cov-19 virus and began vaccinating citizens
    2. Currently, it is one (of two) countries in the world with a functioning global positioning system - GLONAS
    3. Under the sanctions, it prepared for production (testing and certification stage) of the MS-21 and Sukhoi Superjet aircraft, completely domestically assembled and equipped.
    ... P.S. Since my late great-grandmother was completely Polish and my parents claimed that it was noticeable - that Polish blood will never disappear, I am also happy about the good news from Poland - they know how to grow delicious apples there!
  46. 0
    14 July 2025 15: 25
    As soon as they create a reliable anti-UAV KAZ and other means of camouflage and counteraction to anti-tank missiles, then the "Armata" will come in handy.
  47. 0
    18 August 2025 09: 09
    When it comes to weapons, it is necessary to talk, first of all, not only (and not so much) about cost, but about combat effectiveness. Combat effectiveness is the damage inflicted on the enemy, for offensive means, and the damage prevented, for defensive means (in this case, the offensive means can simultaneously be a defensive means). For example, an anti-missile or a laser complex can be of practically any cost, if they successfully intercept (destroy) a warhead flying to destroy a million-strong city.
  48. 0
    24 August 2025 22: 51
    There were wonderful platforms like Black Eagle that were not given a go. Why? I don't believe the arguments like there was no money, etc. Everything is there and everything can be developed relatively quickly. Those who want it, can do it even in countries with much less potential. There was no order, which means there was no desire. Why?
    Almata: in my opinion, it's a complete mistake. An armored capsule for three behind the front armor is a mass grave. If in 2015 nothing penetrated the front, then now new shells and a new gun will. The crew needs to be carried away! An obviously hopeless engine and too little space for other engines in the stern - well, this is a straight-up strategic, terminal mistake. And what do you call it? A small turret with a bunch of equipment hanging on it - the first hit will blow everything off it! And like no one understood this during development? In short, it's all strange
  49. 0
    27 August 2025 08: 33
    It is interesting that all commentators operate the cost of the Armata relative to the 72 and 90, that for this money you can buy several simple and proven tanks, but for some reason no one takes into account the survivability of the crew in the Almata and the 72 and 90, in the Armata the chances of survival of the crew are much higher than in these proven but old machines. I understand that there were no problems with demographics before, but now there are no people, instead of using equipment that gives the maximum chance of survival, they still give priority to the quantity of weapons and not their quality. Yes, during the Great Patriotic War this turned out to be the right strategy, but now there are completely different realities and an increase in the number of weapons without their quality does not give anything.
  50. 0
    27 August 2025 09: 24
    What's wrong with the engine? Is it all gone? They could have at least installed a proven gas turbine engine.