"Armata" - the tank of the future

For many years, Russian tankers associated their hopes for re-equipment with the “Object-195”, which was widely advertised, and the specialists of the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (OJSC “UKBTM”) were close to implementing the project and putting it into production. But in 2010, funding for the project "Object-195" was frozen, and already in the current year the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced the cessation of further work on the creation of the expected project. The reasons why the work was completely stopped were called two - the failure to comply with modern requirements for tanks, and high total price. As an alternative, work began on the Armata project - a tank that will be the best in the world, as they say in the Ministry of Defense. But is this so, and what are the true reasons for the refusal of further work on the almost finished project "Object-195"?




As you know, work on the creation of the T-95 tank (“Object-195”) was started in the Uralvagonzavod design bureau shortly before the collapse of the USSR. According to the plans, it was supposed to be a completely new tank, which combined a high degree of protection of the crew and completely new means of firing. As the main protection of the crew, an airtight capsule was to be used, which separated the people ’location from the ammunition storage area and weapons.

For a long time, all work on the creation of the T-95 was strictly classified, and only after the construction of the first test prototypes did the tank become aware of a wide range. This year were published the first photos of one of the prototypes. The combat vehicle was extremely unusual. The tank visually looks taller and bigger than T-90A. The first thing that catches your eye is its excellent security. Between themselves, the testers called the T-95 "Iron Kaput", many who saw the pictures for the first time were truly surprised by the unusualness of the new tank.

"Armata" - the tank of the future


The T-95 tank has a unique layout - the crew is housed in a separate armored capsule. Armament and full ammunition - in a separate fully automated combat compartment. The engine compartment is also located in a well-protected aft. The tank is protected in the frontal projection, enhanced protection is also on the sides and on top. The tower is uninhabited, with this in mind, made in a rather narrow form. The main armament (smooth-bore 152-mm gun, capable of firing guided missiles) is located in the tower and is located quite high, which is also an advantage. When firing from barriers, it is enough to push the barrel and observation devices, while the entire tank is in a protected area.

The machine is equipped with a powerful (1600 hp) diesel engine and hydromechanical automatic transmission. Taking into account the external overall size, the weight of the tank is relatively small - 55 tons, which makes it possible to speak of its excellent maneuverability.

The power of the sub-caliber projectile fired from the T-95 gun makes it possible to penetrate the defense of absolutely any NATO tank at all points of the frontal projection and destroy the enemy’s armored vehicles with virtually one aimed shot. The crew receives all the information about the situation on the battlefield from the thermal, television and laser sensors directly on the monitor screen. Current operational information about the interaction with other tanks, as well as tactical tasks of the command are also displayed on the screen, which allows the crew to constantly monitor the situation.

But, despite the excellent performance, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation decided to abandon further work on the creation of the T-95. The main reason is the high price, according to unofficial information - the tank does not meet the requirements for modern weapons. This became clear from the unflattering recall of the commander of the Ground Forces Postnikov, who called the T-95 just another modification of the T-72 and nothing more.

The hypothetical image of the tank "Armata". The author of the tank is named as "T-99" Priority. "The figure was created based on images of a promising modification of the T-90 tank, the author Aaron Sheps based on information from Gur Khan, http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru, http: // alternathistory. org.ua, 2011


Along with the announcement of the cessation of work on the “Object-195” from the Ministry of Defense, there was also a message about the commencement of work on the creation of a tank under the code name “Armata”, which should become the main tank of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. A specific task has been set before the designers - by 2015, the tank should be on the production line. The Ministry of Defense backed up its tasks with quite generous funding, which makes it possible to speak of a serious approach to the implementation of the program.

At the same time, experts are confident that creating a fundamentally new machine in such a short time will fail, and, obviously, the Armata will be a modified and refined “Object-195”, but somewhat cheaper, which means it is easier both in terms of protection, and the firing system.

As the former first deputy chief of the Armored Armed Forces Directorate of the Defense Ministry, Lieutenant-General Y. Kovalenko, stated, “in the future, the Armata tank should become the main combat unit of the Russian Ground Forces armament.”

In the automatic loading of the new tank will be 32 ammunition for various purposes, and the combat vehicle itself will be able to fire while moving. According to Kovalenko, in the “Armata” the design techniques of the MBT of several other projects, including the “Black Eagle” project, will be applied. Other tactical and technical details of the perspective tank Kovalenko did not elaborate, but you can try to present his appearance. Undoubtedly, the tank "Armata" will have less weight than the "Object-195", within 50 tons. The chassis will use the traditional for Russian tanks system with six, rather than seven, as in the “Object-195”, pairs of road wheels. In order to reduce the final price, as well as simplify production, it is possible that designers will abandon the use of titanium armored alloys.

It is assumed that the "Armata" will be armed with a proven 152-mm smooth-bore gun. The same tool is used on the new version of the T-90AM. The capabilities of this gun are sufficient to destroy any NATO tank.

Based on the above information, we can conclude that the Armata really has every chance of becoming the main tank of the Russian Armed Forces, the only thing that can hinder the implementation of the project is the unpredictability of officials from the Ministry of Defense who can stop work at any time. Unfortunately, there are examples of this.

Sources of:
http://army-news.ru/2011/04/novyj-tank-armata/
http://www.argumenti.ru/army/n293/111496
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-519.html
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Cedric
    Cedric 21 June 2011 08: 20 New
    • -60
    • 0
    -60
    "The capabilities of this gun are sufficient to destroy any NATO tank."
    Forgot to add .... from five meters.
    1. LESHA pancake
      LESHA pancake 21 June 2011 14: 41 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      yeah Georgians will tell you about these five meters
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 21 June 2011 23: 28 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Did Georgians have tanks of NATO countries? T72 Israeli modernization versus T72 Russian modernization but all with the same gun. And that kind of tank duels weren’t, everything was either destroyed by ATGMs or aircraft.
    2. huginn 22 June 2011 14: 52 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Doesn’t it bother you that the armor penetration of Abrams shells is lower than that of the T-80U?
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 22 June 2011 23: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Looking where, with what and from what distance. I think that from just 5 meters everything is not bad for him even with a cast-iron blank.
    3. avdkrd 18 October 2011 00: 22 New
      • 16
      • 0
      +16
      You’re a pro-NATO writer, what idea do you have about NATO armored vehicles? The strength of NATO is not in technology - it is shit, the strength is that NATO has a clear concept of use, and the level of integration and interaction of the military branches is still inaccessible to us. The entire line of 125mm guns has a bunch of advantages over Western models, starting with the fact that they were the first smooth-bore serial tank guns. They have been leaders in energy for many years and will continue to lead as much in the future. Of course, if you do not compare the first 125k with the latest samples from Leopard, but compare the equivalent models (by year of manufacture). The 2A46M-5 gun was adopted in 2005 and has an overwhelming advantage in terms of efficiency and the price-quality criterion (and this is manufacturability), and the newest 2A82. the smoothbore gun of increased power with an auto-coupled and partially chrome-plated barrel 2A82, in principle, has no analogues in the world both in terms of power and accuracy.
      1. Viking 17 February 2012 00: 19 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: avdkrd
        the strength is that NATO has a clear concept of application, and the level of integration and interaction of the combat arms is still inaccessible to us

        Like the Germans in the initial phase of the war. They also took a lot in particular thanks to the clear interaction between the military branches and their competent use. But then, when these schemes began to fail, their flexibility and lack of communication and interaction began to creep out.
      2. w.ebdo.g
        w.ebdo.g 23 September 2014 10: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You have simply and precisely expressed the benefits of 125 smoothbore.
        and manufacturability on this list immediately stands for accuracy and power ...
        and 125 mm shells are placed more than 152 mm
    4. StrategBV 28 January 2012 23: 16 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      You don’t use the brain, go to VKontakte, oh young troll am
      1. Simon bolivar
        Simon bolivar 19 June 2012 15: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why do they think again one day? Why did the Union create equipment that overtook its time for decades? After all, the armor resistance of NATO armored vehicles also does not stand still. And where 125mm guns are enough today, tomorrow may not be enough.
    5. Korsak
      Korsak 9 July 2014 02: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Imagine a hypothetical super tank invading the territory of the Russian Federation. With knowingly overestimated characteristics. Well, as you want. The monster is armed with a promising 140 mm German weapon with a nonexistent automatic loader that will allow you to shoot every 4 seconds. With an incredible shell that allows you to immediately pierce a pair of t90 or abrams going in a column one after another. Frontal armor is not less than 1300 mm, otherwise another 5 km like a cornet. Side and aft armor 700mm. Above and below 300mm. And with a speed of more than 100 km / h. Yes, even able to use our bridges for this i.e. weighing less than 50t. Or able to overcome the water barrier by swimming or along the bottom. Only such a tank is suitable for a blitzkrieg in our vast country. The rest will not go anywhere beyond the borders. And it will be interrupted by ATGMs, anti-tank cluster missiles, shells and bombs. We have a great deal of skill in this matter. So, we welcome all those who do not have the above characteristics, otherwise all this PT junk expires. Fearfully???
      Well, where do we go with a 125mm cannon against such a monster ??? How to cope with a shell everything and everything breaking through ??? Armata can take refuge even in small terrain cliffs. And shoot correctable rockets from your cannon. It is enough to get into the caterpillar, moving to meet the adversary, it will be deployed by the side armor with the ease of penetrating the gun of the armata. In the interval between shots, the machine can simply “crouch” hiding in the folds of the terrain due to its very low silhouette and emerge again to finish off a static target. Or drive the armature into the trench of the current height to hide the tank lying on its belly. And to camouflage it qualitatively. When the adversary passes armata literally appears from under the ground and shoots him in the back. And this is not counting the banal roundabout maneuvers. And without even assuming that the armata will be modernized. I believe that this tank is no less revolutionary than the T34 or T64 at the time.
    6. George Sviridov 7 December 2014 07: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      what's the difference with what distance if the main anti-tank ammunition is cumulative? the main thing is to hit, and it will break through 10km.
      1. SIvan 4 March 2015 19: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In fact, sub-caliber shells seem to be more effective against modern tanks. And there the effective range is small.
        If not, correct me.
    7. George Sviridov 7 December 2014 07: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and what difference does it make for cumulative shells?
    8. Fluffypuffs
      Fluffypuffs 7 May 2015 03: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      5 meters? Funny really. You should familiarize yourself with the technical specifications, Armata - surpasses all possible tanks, even Western analysts have already recognized this.
  2. 45kep
    45kep 21 June 2011 09: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Everything is fine, but why in the article about Armata to insert a photograph (upper) of the Kharkov Yatagan is not clear.
  3. Andrei
    Andrei 21 June 2011 09: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The first photo shows the Oplot tank
  4. Joker
    Joker 21 June 2011 09: 59 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    By cannon - at the given moment its potential is not exhausted, another thing is that there are no modern shells. A gun without sensible shells is the same as a car on summer tires on ice, there is potential and it is impossible to realize.

    With the object 195, as I understand it, everything is not going smoothly either, the backup control system (that is, manual) is absent in principle, that is, when electronics fail, it is a heap of metal.

    Here you can still see:
    http://btvt.narod.ru/voprosi/voprosi.htm
    1. Superduck
      Superduck 21 June 2011 12: 15 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Joker
      another thing is that there are no modern shells.

      Chobitok (on the tape ru) wrote that in the warehouses there are in number subcaliber shells with a uranium core. Given the higher shot energy of 125mm versus 120mm, there should be sufficient armor penetration, especially since the 90th was already going like a gun with improved ballistics, I do not remember the model unfortunately. Another thing is that there was nowhere to test them in the business of the Russian army, thank God.
      1. Joker
        Joker 21 June 2011 12: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: SuperDuck
        Chobitok (on the tape ru) wrote that in the warehouses there are in number subcaliber shells with a uranium core.


        - if true, then this is very good.
        1. Superduck
          Superduck 21 June 2011 12: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          As far as I understand, the American-English chobham armor is more sharpened against cumulative shells, so this should work fine.
          1. George Sviridov 7 December 2014 07: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And when did chobhem become shipped to America? The British did not share the secret with either the Americans or other Europeans.
      2. Passing
        Passing 22 June 2011 23: 56 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Of course there are, they are called 3BM-48 Lead, they were put into service in 1991, but in fact, after two modernizations of Abrams in 1992 and 2000, these shells do not provide its guaranteed defeat with one hit. Therefore, all these years the main hope was for a more recent tungsten 3BM44M Lekalo (1997), but even in comparison with the latest American M829A3 (2002) and especially German tungsten DM53 it looks pale.
        In general, depleted uranium, at high speeds of interaction with the barrier, does not have significant advantages over the tungsten alloy.
    2. Passing
      Passing 22 June 2011 23: 40 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The 2A46 cannon has already exhausted its modernization potential. Rather, not only guns, but the entire ligament, an automatic loader-shell-gun. Upgrading one thing will not work, you need a seriously modernized AZ in which long crowbars would fit, you need a new BPS (maybe Lead-2), you need a new gun with an increased chamber and max pressure (probably this is a 2A82 gun). All this is implemented in the T-90M, which they are only going to present in Nizhny Tagil this year, but it would be necessary to do all this ten years ago.
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 23 June 2011 00: 02 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes, I also heard a lot about the problem of long ammunition. Interestingly, the 120mm Ukrainian gun with a machine gun (Yataganovskoye) is deprived of this drawback, do not know? It is under NATO type standard ..
        1. Passing
          Passing 23 June 2011 13: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, yes, at Yatagan, half of the ammunition is located in a crazy niche, like Western tanks, and also equipped with AZ.
          But, IMHO, this Ukrainian cannon is raw, at the prototype level, which is indicative - the Ukrainians were forced to order a barrel for it by a Western company, they themselves did not pull it.
      2. CC-18a
        CC-18a 14 March 2012 22: 45 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        2A46M-4 and M-5 (aka 2A82) accepts all domestic ammunition, including elongated ones. This gun, by the way, was developed not least for promising elongated ammunition. Read in detail about the new modernized guns of the 2A46 series, what they changed, what they added and why.

        So the modernization is not exhausted, in any case, even if the last modifications installed on the T-72BM and T-90A are close to exhaustion, they will accept Lead-2 and the pattern and will accept those that appear in the future.

        Long NATO ammunition because it is long because it is solid, and we have 2 parts, we do not need to have the same long. A fool is one who believes that making longer will get better. The main task is not lengthening, but increasing penetration, and this can be done in different ways and by different means.

        As far as I remember, they wanted to increase the caliber on the armada, as it was from the Moscow Region that I wrote the requirements for the armada.
        1. CC-18a
          CC-18a 15 March 2012 05: 25 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          puts some cons for the facts.
  5. 456
    456 21 June 2011 10: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Damn, where’s the Yatagan’s photo? Go back! It was fun!
  6. 465
    465 21 June 2011 10: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why did you delete the koment? and return the picture!
  7. Superduck
    Superduck 21 June 2011 11: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Postnikov, who called the T-95 just another modification of the T-72 and nothing more.

    Wasn’t it about the T-90?
    Well, why, I think that the t-72 concept is approaching the modernization limit, a qualitative leap cannot be made already, a new layout is needed, unless Russia develops the MBT direction (of course, as an alternative to buy helicopters and attack aircraft + powerful infantry fighting vehicles). Nobody knows what will be in the arm of the experienced tanks, sometimes it seems to me that this is a PR move to calm the public against the background of a certain degradation of the industry, but it is real that with the T-90 AM this will be the same. However, with the current risks of Russia, the 90th is quite enough. Although by analogy with the ZIS-2 cannon which was redundant, but when tigers and panthers appeared, it turned out that the design bureau should smoke the topic, produce experimental batches, and run in the troops. And the people will like and not to degrade the design bureau, however, at least Omsk should be brought back to life so that there is competition.
  8. datur 21 June 2011 15: 07 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    but unfortunately fighting hamsters from mo and greedy bureaucrats once again all hijack and plunder.
    1. Fluffypuffs
      Fluffypuffs 7 May 2015 03: 17 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Are they getting fit? Space is the leader, economy is the 5th in the world, the standard of living is top 20 of the planet, science is top 4 of the planet, we have absolute superiority over all countries of the world in military craft. Many have stolen something that disagree?
  9. MaxArt
    MaxArt 21 June 2011 20: 49 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Friends, I didn’t understand something?

    Firstly, is there at least some photos of the T-95 ???? I have never met!
    And secondly, the development of a family of universal platforms is long overdue. It is high time to create universal chassis of a heavy and not only class, and on these skeletons you can already grow tanks, self-propelled guns, and anything else. So the development of Armata and generally unified platforms is IMHO, a very logical move.
    1. Joker
      Joker 22 June 2011 08: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: MaxArt
      Firstly, is there at least some photos of the T-95 ???? I have never met!

      There is something infa
      http://btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html

      As for the single chassis - it's high time.
  10. clean
    clean 22 June 2011 05: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    MaxArt
    So the development of Almaty and generally unified platforms - IMHO, is a very logical move. -I agree completely.
    1. Stephen
      Stephen 23 June 2011 06: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, but it’s worth noting that they always tell us that in Russia, designers again made a miracle of technology. But it’s not a miracle it’s in service, but old and cheap developments, and all that is expensive for Russia, we are again for sale. And they constantly refer that everything is expensive and, moreover, that we live in peace regarding a time when we need to arm ourselves. And God forbid the war begins, these developments will not be fed to us at all.
  11. Sad
    Sad 23 June 2011 08: 15 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    The fact that the refusal to further develop the T-95 is another huge mistake, said Colonel-General Mayev, he explained his vision of the situation as follows: “I was closely involved in the creation of the T-95 tank, and was the direct leader of this project as the head of the Main Automobile-Armored management. I regret that we could not put the T-95 next to the "Leopard of the Future", I am sure that all of Europe would be shocked to see what modern solutions are used in this tank. It would truly be a sensation! I can safely assure that what we have in the T-95 combat vehicle will appear in Americans or Germans no earlier than ten years from now. Naturally, these will be technological and design solutions in a completely new form, and it is very disappointing that the ideology that we have laid into this tank will “shoot” there in the West, but not here. For some reason, "hacked"? For me personally, this is an incomprehensible and very big question. The tank was already at the exit. It was only necessary to build another model of the combat vehicle and conduct sensible, diverse state tests, on the basis of their results, refine the vehicle and prepare it for production! This tank would surely provide the Russian Armed Forces with a huge advantage over the next 20 years. And all those design know-how that had been incorporated into it would undoubtedly become a kind of locomotive that would carry all the developments in the military-technical industry for the ground forces for another half a century! On the T-95 for the first time were involved in new technological solutions in terms of the layout of the machine! Of course, these developments and technologies have not disappeared anywhere, but the trouble is that they will remain unrealized. ”
  12. pasha
    pasha 30 June 2011 23: 33 New
    • -21
    • 0
    -21
    this is the same old trash t-72! and there isn’t any new tank! Russia is still buying German leopards, there aren’t any other options! the price, the quality of Russian tanks brought the Ukrainians! if Russia wants to get its new super tank then Russia must fight with China or with the NATO! then maybe the Russians will be able to create a tank such as the legendary T-34.
    1. Draz 5 July 2011 09: 59 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      what a fat troll

      In general, we need to look at it more and more globally, for example, for me it is a question of why such contradictory information comes from the Ministry of Defense, this is such a kind of work, just because nobody will say anything from the bulldozer, all these "statements" are declared from above. That is, we are told that the tank at the stage when it can be put into production, I think it has already been tested, and there are several cars of different modifications. That he will enter service and this is included in financing plans. And they immediately tell us that there are no plans, that they are outdated and do not meet the "modern requirements", the big question is, what are these very "modern requirements". The question is again, do we need these tanks right now? You can continue research, testing, find new technical solutions, work out ideas. Then the methods for using tanks are different now. Sense from these super powerful tanks, if there is no air supremacy. The tank now, in my opinion, is not a means of breakthrough as it was in the Great Patriotic War, but a mobile firing point, in fact, like any armored vehicles, it is an infantry support. The main burden of military craft is now on the shoulders of infantry-artillery-aviation.
    2. Serush
      Serush 28 November 2011 21: 22 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Another ignoramus. How to get it ...
      At least write without errors! In Russian.....
    3. Komsomolets 4 March 2012 12: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Poor Pavlik never learned to write in Russian. Even your own name with a small letter.
    4. George Sviridov 7 December 2014 07: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Leopold is a complete cornerstone, if we take NATO tanks, then Leclerc is in first place in quality and firepower. If you choose the price / quality, then you should look at the Turkish tanks.
    5. Fluffypuffs
      Fluffypuffs 7 May 2015 03: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Firstly, Russia is the leading nuclear space superpower. Secondly, Russia buys almost nothing in terms of military equipment, but it sells it to 100+ countries of the world. And the word Russia, educated people (whom you are not, and are unlikely to ever be) are written with a capital letter. You should familiarize yourself with the technical specifications, Armata - surpasses all possible tanks, even Western analysts have already recognized this. Outskirts do not know how to do anything, and never knew how. Anyway, this is a conversation about a pseudo-state, I do not think that such things are worth mentioning here.
  13. Draz 5 July 2011 10: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A simple example of the United States in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, initially launched air and artillery attacks. After that, the motorized infantry landed. In Libya, aviation operates, and the sense of tanks when they are immediately bombed on the march. More money needs to be allocated for air defense and aviation, and modernized tanks will cope with the support of infantry as heavy firing points. Actually, a more important point in the financing of armored vehicles is better not to give tanks, but BMP \ BTR \ BMD. Lightweight, mobile with high firepower. More suitable for supporting infantry than tanks. For example, CJSC "Octopus", this is an 125-mm tank gun not inferior in power, only on the BMD chassis.
    1. Joker
      Joker 5 July 2011 10: 17 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And incapacitated (Octopus) burst and small-caliber guns.

      Octopus is a tank destroyer and has other tasks, so it’s too early to bury heavy equipment.
      1. Draz 5 July 2011 10: 30 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Depends on the commander how to use the entrusted equipment. Let them into the frontal, then of course they will burn it, but only if you throw it into the frontal T-95 they will also burn it as it is not sad. I am not saying that it is necessary to bury it, just the tasks have changed somewhat. Now the ball is ruled by one who has air supremacy. And if we had at least 100500 of these tanks, the same antediluvian cobras and Apaches would burn them. Priorities need to be set. Do you need a new tank? Yes! Now? Not! We will continue to develop, experiment, our budget is not the same as that of the United States, and it’s impossible to overcome everything at once, we must choose.
  14. Vasiliy Zaitsev
    Vasiliy Zaitsev 6 July 2011 01: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Rather, it seems, everything is decided not so much by air superiority, but by satellite reconnaissance, with resolutions of tens of centimeters in almost all spectra and in real time. There will be no “situational awareness” - there will be no “air” and everything else ... And if one has it and the other does not have it, then it has tanks and infantry .. and the whole royal army in flight! - everything will be covered from the air, even by traitors, even by rockets. IHMO needs to swell everything as soon as possible into space)) and the means of counteracting the enemy’s space reconnaissance .. well, in fundamental science)) (without it in any way!) And so, at the current speeds of scientific progress, all these tanks, guns, misral, etc. .will be a bunch of scrap metal suitable only for museums and the fight against papus in Africa!))
  15. AK-47
    AK-47 8 July 2011 22: 37 New
    • -5
    • 0
    -5
    Today we are not able to fight either against Japan in the Far East (the group does not allow it) or in the southern, strategic Caucasus direction, where the Turks will destroy us within a few days. Not a single Iskander that was shown was in the troops. I would call the last Russian T-90 tank the main tank of the Indian army, because we have only 90 of them. Even less is our BMP-3. According to some sources, - 12, one regiment was disbanded. According to others, two stand on the Shot courses. And BMD-4 - no more than 15 troops. So there’s nothing for us to fight. ” http://pravoslav-voin.info/voin/364-vperedi-finalnaya-sxvatka-s-rossiej.html

    By 2015, we are unlikely to have more than 150 missiles. Perhaps we had a plan that we would have another hundred naval "Clubs", but there is no hope for its creation. And if you compare them with the American prototypes of 15-20 years ago, then the “Poplar” and “Bulava” are inferior even to them in their characteristics. With such dimensions, the absence of metal, I'm not talking about armor, all this is easily detected and destroyed. The emphasis on mobile carriers such as “Poplar” is completely erroneous.
    1. WADIM
      WADIM 19 August 2011 18: 49 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      I DO NOT AGREE TO YOU. AND FURTHER DO NOT READ THIS NONSENSE! I RECOMMEND YOU ... http: //nvo.ng.ru/ AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER ... MANY ANALYTICAL ARTICLES ... AND HERE HERE PAID ...
    2. Piligrim 28 January 2012 23: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What the ...?
      Turkey in a week, in three days ?!
      You are like a grandmother on a bench at the entrance, chatting not know what! Just to defeat girlfriends with their news. And therefore, the more delusional and absurd it is, the more surprised people are around. and attention to your little person, which is exactly what you are trying to achieve.
    3. Fluffypuffs
      Fluffypuffs 7 May 2015 03: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You do not belong to "us", reason within your pseudo state-va. Russia - leads the world in military power, has a leading modernized supply of nuclear weapons, tanks and other things. The only country. which barely runs up to the Russian Federation in power - the United States. All. The rest of the world is not a competitor to Russia.
  16. APASUS 17 July 2011 19: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ("Object-195") did not pass, because it is very expensive !!! But the next modernization of the T-72 called Armata will take place !!
    What stupid people are sitting there in the Moscow Region!
  17. Motherland
    Motherland 30 September 2011 18: 59 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    The fact is that to leave the junk, now the “Object-195” does not suit the MO not only in price but also because it supposedly does not meet modern requirements. They will now decide to take “Armata” and so what? Until they bring it to mind, while they accept, they agree with the plants, it will become obsolete.
    Anyway, "Russians make bad cars, but good tanks"
  18. Denis 16 October 2011 15: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Pasha
    the price, the quality of Russian tanks brought the Ukrainians!

    still know where, if not a secret?
  19. Kashaverskiy 20 February 2012 20: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "This became clear from the unflattering response of the commander of the Ground Forces Postnikov, who called the T-95 just another T-72 modification and nothing more."
    the paradox is that this is a new machine, completely new. And not the modernization of the T-72, albeit as deep as the T-90. Although, of course. she takes into account the experience of the T-72. If this is distorted, then Leclerc is just the 15th modernization of the Renault FT-17 tank from the time of World War I ... The main technical solutions came from him - a turret, and not from the British - a stationary cabin with track-fitting body ...
    The T-95 wasn’t accepted due to its high technical perfection and complexity, and not because it is outdated ... To produce new parts (and most of them are to take at least the same changes as compared with the T-90 - from the T-95 the new KP, control - for sure the helm, as in the Western models, and not as in the T-72 and the first T-90 weights ... and much more.)
  20. Disasterpiece
    Disasterpiece 26 June 2012 12: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Even if they are done, they will make the near future for the air defense helicopters
  21. Disasterpiece
    Disasterpiece 29 June 2012 12: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Even if they are done, they will make the near future for helicopters and air defense systems *
  22. uralkos 29 June 2012 20: 26 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Regarding the gun, I agree that you can leave the one that is on the T-90am. But, we need a new shell, active-reactive. Like Merkava 4. The projectile’s flight speed is higher than the speed of sound, and penetration depends not only on the penetration of the filling, but also on the kinetic energy that accompanies the projectile and also has a great impact on the target’s destruction. And surely we need a programmable anti-personnel projectile.
    1. George Sviridov 7 December 2014 07: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      An active rocket projectile for tanks is nonsense, at least in the near foreseeable future.
      And the future belongs to guided cumulative missiles with tandem warheads.
      Shrapnel ammunition exists, and is slowly developing.
  23. Artem6688
    Artem6688 3 July 2012 02: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Great news. I hope that they will create and launch mass production.
  24. Protey
    Protey 1 August 2012 20: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "the only thing that can hinder the implementation of the project is the unpredictability of officials from the Ministry of Defense who can stop work at any time. Unfortunately, there are examples of this." -
    It’s sad, but quite possible, but an example is the purchase of foreign armored vehicles (IVECO). Domestic developments are no worse, and in some ways surpass the same Italian! The current Minister of Defense, who specialized in the sale of furniture, appliances - a dark forest! Maybe the tanks will want to take a second-hand!
  25. bask
    bask 23 August 2012 21: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Armata is a unified platform of the future but not a tank. A tank with an uninhabited tower in the city and mountains is not combat capable. And it is still necessary to board until the future. Apart from the T90 C, no one saw anything new for export to India.
  26. ko88
    ko88 13 February 2013 15: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    for many years rumors have been heard about the publication of a completely new tank, we will wait fellow
  27. marat1000
    marat1000 29 September 2013 19: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, there will be no new tank, again the next modification of the T-72 will come out and that's all
  28. Campo731
    Campo731 8 November 2014 09: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Hurry up to finish it
    am
  29. Fenix 21 December 2014 18: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The main thing is not to face dirt
  30. CheByrashka 6 February 2015 17: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Great news! D. Rogozin promised that, at the parade on May 9, 2015. Armata - will participate !!! soldier Glory to the New Russia! The ice has broken.
  31. antiput 24 March 2015 20: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Here is your ARM
  32. stalin1222 April 13 2015 15: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The same story I had with the Black Eagle, well, if you told me that Armata will be in the parade, then most likely it will be put into production, rather than the 'planned' Black Eagle
    1. Fluffypuffs
      Fluffypuffs 7 May 2015 03: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Already shown. The West is in shock.
  33. unknown13
    unknown13 17 June 2015 01: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Good day to all. If the armata is the best tank in the world, then why doesn’t it show on the Roligon? It is stated that he shoots at 8 km. Then really would not have shown all its capabilities on TV and in net? And it is stupid to say that it’s unfounded that he’s showing off by the very same thing! The power of the engine is 1500ls, and the weight is 55 tons, and then read the hp per ton of the tank!
  34. Ambassador 15 September 2015 17: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    VERY LONG READ THESE PASQUILI DID NOT SEE ANY TECHNIC SUCH AN IMPRESSION THAT THE CHILDREN WRITE OF TANKS WRITING THIS WRITTEN ...