[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

max steel wrote:
US funded

1. media outlet Diplomat

2. runaway criminal  Sergei Guriev

sepheronx wrote:And the diplomat is a joke.  But let me entertain them:

-$56B in cost deficit is nothing.  3% of GDP.  Which would mean that Russia's debt would still be far less than all the west.  Add in, their deficit is paid through the reserve funds.
-$8M per tank is not necessarily the final price, actually, I never seen that high of a price mentioned.  As well, once production actually starts, prices tend to drop over time.
-Purchasing military equipment stimulates the economy as it provides jobs, and equipment to various people.
-As per Franco who pointed it out, they had not purchased any new tanks in recent years and thus could indicate that a large portion of money was saved for the Armata's
-Chances of 2300 tanks by 2020 isn't gonna happen anyway, and it will probably be pushed back another 5 years.
-Money is already allocated.  A huge part of it is actually.
-The diplomat is a joke and couldn't even study economics if their life depended on it.
-Russian government can start raining in the foreign reserve funds which is the third highest in the world.  This in turn can pay for projects and help stimulate growth.

sepheronx wrote:And the diplomat is a joke.  But let me entertain them:

sepheronx wrote:If anyone missed it, I edited my post to add this:
So once one does the numbers, you will see how ridiculous the claims are.  But of course, it is all BS.

How many tanks per year?  Who knows.  It seems to be on average recently about 300 tanks per year in terms of upgrades/new.  They said they can do 1000 tanks a year tops.  I doubt that really myself and think maybe at least 500-800 per year.  Regardless, I think they will opt for something like 300 per year just by looking at current rates.

They could extend the deadline of it and purchase more upgrades in the mean time, something like getting T-72's to T-90MS levels.

max steel wrote:Read this latest piece by US funded media outlet Diplomat :

Is Russia in trouble? Is the 'World’s Deadliest Tank' Bankrupting Russia?
 



Moscow is overspending on its armed forces and still might not get the military it wants by 2020.  


Russia is expected to spend more money on its military in 2015 than in any previous year in its entire post-Soviet history.

According to an analysis conducted by Forbes Magazine, Russia will spend an estimated 5.34 percent of its economic output on defense in 2015. This estimate is based on the assumption that the Russian economy will contract by 3 percent and a 15 percent hike in the real value of the military budget.

However, another estimate quoted in the Wall Street Journal  based on Russian government data notes that country’s GDP may even decrease by 4.6 percent largely due to lower oil prices and Western sanctions. Consequently, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently announced that this year’s 3.3 trillion rubles military budget will need to be adjusted and cut by five percent or 157 billion rubles.

Even worse, according to newly published budget data of the first three months of 2015, military expenditure exceeded 9 percent of quarterly GDP – almost twice the amount cited in Forbes Magazine.

The verdict is simple: Russia cannot afford military expenditures at such scale in the long-run. “The modern Russian economy just does not generate enough resources to finance the current 2011-2020 rearmament program. This seriously reduces the ability to efficiently renew the Russian armed forces’ equipment,” a recent analysis by the Moscow-based defense think tank CAST notes.

The only way for Russia to currently finance its growing military expenditure is to tap into the country’s reserve fund – money the Kremlin put aside over the last few years when oil prices were high and meant to cushion the economy against shocks. With the help of the reserve fund – worth approximately six percent of the country’s total GDP – Russia could maintain a 3.7% deficit for less than two years, according to the economist Sergei Guriev.

Yet, this calculation may perhaps be too optimistic, the Russian-born scholar admits, given the Kremlin’s exorbitant spending on defense: “Russia has already spent more than half of its total military budget for 2015. At this rate, its reserve fund will be emptied before the end of the year.”

In a recent article, he recounts what some Russian spectators have said when Russia’s newest main battle tank, the T-14 Armata, abruptly grounded to a halt during a rehearsal for Moscow’s big May 9 Victory Day parade on Red Square (see: “Did the ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’ Just Break Down?”): “The Armata truly has unprecedented destructive power; a battalion can destroy the entire Russian budget!”

By 2020, Russia plans to produce 2,300 T-14 Armata models.  Each tank costs about $ 8 million. The Russian military intends to replace 70 percent of its tank corps with the new tracked vehicle, replacing the older T-72 and T-90 main battle tanks. Overall, Russia military spending plan called for the modernization of 30 percent of the armed forces’ weapons this year.

Back in 2010, President Vladimir Putin launched a massive 20 trillion rubles military modernization project aimed to replace 70 percent of Soviet-era military hardware by 2020, including 50 new warships for the navy, hundreds of new fighter jets and thousands of new vehicles for the ground forces.

However, in April this year, Putin admitted that “the [defense] industry is not entirely ready to produce certain types of weapons on time.”  Yet, he immediately added: “But without a doubt, the program will be fulfilled.”

According to Russian military expert Dmitry Gorenburg, Moscow may want to slow down the acquisition process until oil prices have recovered, because, “with cost overruns, the money allocated may not be sufficient to build what they want to build.” Additionally, he noted that “regarding what it is they want to build, they won’t get as many of them, they may take longer to build, but the programs will keep running as they are now.”

Yet, Sergie Guriev’s verdict on Russia’s military spending should it continue at current rates is grim:  ”If Russia could not afford a 4%-of-GDP defense budget in good times, it cannot possibly manage such a high rate of military spending now, when it confronts rock-bottom oil prices, Western sanctions, and economic recession(…) like the T-14 in Red Square, Putin’s luck may be about to stall out.”


http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/is-the-worlds-deadliest-tank-bankrupting-russia/

magnumcromagnon wrote:ZOMG-RUZZIA-IZ-BANKRUPT!!!1! Is that why Russia has one of the lowest Debt/GDP ratios of the top 10 largest economies in the world?

sepheronx wrote:If anyone missed it, I edited my post to add this:

If we figure it out, $8M per tank, at 2300 tanks is $18.4B dollars, divide that by 5 (5 years), and that comes out to $3.68B per year. $3.68B per year will NOT bankrupt Russia. They offered Ukraine alone over $20B prior to the Maiden. They have reserves in the hundreds of billions.

When one actually does the math, you will start to see how TheDiplomat is stupid and a joke.

So once one does the numbers, you will see how ridiculous the claims are.  But of course, it is all BS.

How many tanks per year?  Who knows.  It seems to be on average recently about 300 tanks per year in terms of upgrades/new.  They said they can do 1000 tanks a year tops.  I doubt that really myself and think maybe at least 500-800 per year.  Regardless, I think they will opt for something like 300 per year just by looking at current rates.

They could extend the deadline of it and purchase more upgrades in the mean time, something like getting T-72's to T-90MS levels.

George1 wrote:

what will be the production numbers per year for Armata? does anyone know?

Vann7 wrote:

George1 wrote:

what will be the production numbers per year for Armata? does anyone know?

Russian media ,reports say that the armata company claims  500 tanks per year ,they can produce..

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
2A82M1 muzzle velocity of APFSDS is 2km/s?

With existing ammunition or newly made?

I guess the later...

mango but prolly Vacuum-1 since they list BPS(btw what does this acronym mean, i assume its something Russian, provide trans. to eng too, thanks) penetration of up to 1m.

Werewolf wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

George1 wrote:

what will be the production numbers per year for Armata? does anyone know?

Russian media ,reports say that the armata company claims  500 tanks per year ,they can produce.. so that means that if production start in 2017 as they estimated ,they could make
1500 tanks by end of 2020. and 2,300 tanks by 2023.. but if tank really as good they wanted..
they will end making many more.. , 2,300 is the initial order.. not the last one. Russia will need
no less than 5,000 of them ,while maintaining their T-90s and T-72b3s..  

Ideally Russia should order 10,000 Armata tanks alone for all Russia federation territory needs.
3,000 in the west..from Sochi to St Petersburg, and ,1,000 in Central Russia another 2,000 in far east and 5,000 in reserve.  In world war 2 Russia used no less than 30,000 tanks.. so its not crazy numbers..

Then about 15,000 T-15 ifv.. and they all travel in group with every T-14 armata..

So a group formation could be , 6x T-72 or T-90  + 1 T-14 and 3 T-15 to protect the tanks..  

russia needs also to replace all their old APCs and build like  30,000 armata APCs.. between Kuganets and Boomerans.

T-72s should continue to be upgraded and mostly made for exports orders.. their price
and performance is good and T-14 and T-15s never sold for exports.. only for domestic use..

and upgraded T-72 and T-90 with new gun and better defenses being produced only for exports.

Combat weight …………….........48 tons  -->  combat operations in a city .................... 53 tons

Protection combined - modular set of universal dynamic protection

APS "Afghanit" + multispectral screens launch system
Upper hemisphere protection system with electromagnetic protection system and a complex for suppression of radio controlled fuses.

Anti-Mine protection underneath the crew section

Original silhouette of the turret in conjunction with a special coating greatly reduces the visibility of the machine in the thermal  and radar spectrum.

The armor of the Armata is able to withstand an attack of any existing anti-tank weapons .

http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/88

Cyberspec wrote:Never mind the Diplomat and it's stories....there's new info and some confirmation of previous speculative reports.

From Gur Khan (George posted part of the info on the previous page) regarding some details on the T-14

Combat weight …………….........48 tons  -->  combat operations in a city .................... 53 tons

So the T-14's Urban warfare kit weighs 5 tons

Cyberspec wrote:From the UVZ website...

Original silhouette of the turret in conjunction with a special coating greatly reduces the visibility of the machine in the thermal  and radar spectrum.

The armor of the Armata is able to withstand an attack of any existing anti-tank weapons .

http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/88

magnumcromagnon wrote:

...Well I got to pat myself on the back, I was probably the first person to point out that the polygon shaping on the turret was purposely done for stealth/low-observable reasons.

collegeboy16 wrote:i smell an MBT-70 in the making. both sides have arguably different priorities, Germany focuses on home defence while France leans on expeditionary.

besides Leclercs are still good for 10 years more in 2030 if we are to take the lifetime of tanks as 50 years before it needs to be urgently replaced.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Never mind the Diplomat and it's stories....there's new info and some confirmation of previous speculative reports.

From Gur Khan (George posted part of the info on the previous page) regarding some details on the T-14

Combat weight …………….........48 tons  -->  combat operations in a city .................... 53 tons

So the T-14's Urban warfare kit weighs 5 tons

...The chassis is said to be capable of supporting up to 65 tons, so it's possible that if deemed necessary that the T-14 could be beefed up even more than the 53 tons stated...

magnumcromagnon wrote:

...Well I got to pat myself on the back, I was probably the first person to point out that the polygon shaping on the turret was purposely done for stealth/low-observable reasons.

kvs wrote:In America corporate welfare for the MIC is a good thing, but in Russia it is very, very bad.   This is kindergarten level
drivel.  

The spending on modernization will be a direct stimulus to the GDP.   Western media rags should not preach to Russia about
finances.   The west has been stimulating GDP growth over the last three decades through pure debt accumulation.   Russia's
government has shown no indication it will follow this path and in fact has been overly zealous in trying to balance the budget.
Budgets have to be balanced in the long term and not in the short term due to opportunity cost and due to the positive feedback
between austerity and GDP contraction.  

Russia should not hold back spending on military upgrades and research.   It will only benefit the Russian economy and at the
same time increase its security against the western barbarians.   The same ones yelling at it to stop spending.  

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

...Well I got to pat myself on the back, I was probably the first person to point out that the polygon shaping on the turret was purposely done for stealth/low-observable reasons.

Wow, first one to point out things that don't need to be pointed out for anyone relevant!

Whatever, I'm just aggressive cuz drinking, have an upvote.

berhoum wrote:La tourelle du pelées (analysé) T-14 ...