[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

kvs wrote:So for $6.8 billion Russia can get 1000 T-14 Armata tanks.   Does anyone believe that Russia cannot afford this cost?

Note that 1000 tanks is not peanuts and Russia does not need 10000 of them.

kvs wrote:So for $6.8 billion Russia can get 1000 T-14 Armata tanks.   Does anyone believe that Russia cannot afford this cost?

Note that 1000 tanks is not peanuts and Russia does not need 10000 of them.

Here is some comic relief:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-nato-weapons-war-russia-should-fear-10769

kvs wrote:So for $6.8 billion Russia can get 1000 T-14 Armata tanks.   Does anyone believe that Russia cannot afford this cost?

Note that 1000 tanks is not peanuts and Russia does not need 10000 of them.

Here is some comic relief:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-nato-weapons-war-russia-should-fear-10769

Viktor wrote:First word about price ...

Businessinsider place it abt. 15million $

LINK

KoTeMoRe wrote:My bad, the initial contract was at 5 billion Euro per 270 Leopard vehicles (240 Leo2A7-SA and 30 Leo2 based ARV's) This puts the cost per vehicle at ~19 million. Let's say you have a Log train to respect And slash about 60 million for the spare parts a year over 20 years as per norm, and another 90 million for the ARV's (that's the catalog price btw) and we sit nicely over 1.29 billion Euro for the side dishes. This makes way for the rest of the calculus. You have a usually about 10x the net complement of rounds per tank yearly (the Greek contract had the ammo complement at 40 million Euro for its 150 used 2A4's ten years ago- let's quadruple that just because of the KSA 160 million) we're at 1.45 bln Euros worth in spares and ARV's. That's 3.55 bln Euros for 240 tanks. That's 14.8 mill per tank.

The NEW contract spoke about 800 tanks in a 18 billion Euro bill. Just so you know.

http://www.neurope.eu/article/germany-likely-lose-arms-export-contract-saudi-arabia/

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/panzer-exporte-kampf-um-den-leo-user-club/10707978.html

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/kraus-maffei-wegmann-milliardenschwerer-panzerdeal-droht-zu-scheitern/8487434.html

I wasn't taking on you at all. If you had that feeling, I appologise.

According to the military planning, the upgrading of existing Leopard 2A4 into 2A6 level would have cost €5 million per tank, while the procurement of new production tanks would cost about €10 million. wrote:

victor1985 wrote:I have once asked but i ask again: if on tank we put some wheels wich spin some iron barrels there is posibility to deviate the incoming apfsds?

Berkut wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:My bad, the initial contract was at 5 billion Euro per 270 Leopard vehicles (240 Leo2A7-SA and 30 Leo2 based ARV's) This puts the cost per vehicle at ~19 million. Let's say you have a Log train to respect And slash about 60 million for the spare parts a year over 20 years as per norm, and another 90 million for the ARV's (that's the catalog price btw) and we sit nicely over 1.29 billion Euro for the side dishes. This makes way for the rest of the calculus. You have a usually about 10x the net complement of rounds per tank yearly (the Greek contract had the ammo complement at 40 million Euro for its 150 used 2A4's ten years ago- let's quadruple that just because of the KSA 160 million) we're at 1.45 bln Euros worth in spares and ARV's. That's 3.55 bln Euros for 240 tanks. That's 14.8 mill per tank.

The NEW contract spoke about 800 tanks in a 18 billion Euro bill. Just so you know.

http://www.neurope.eu/article/germany-likely-lose-arms-export-contract-saudi-arabia/

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/panzer-exporte-kampf-um-den-leo-user-club/10707978.html

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/kraus-maffei-wegmann-milliardenschwerer-panzerdeal-droht-zu-scheitern/8487434.html

I wasn't taking on you at all. If you had that feeling, I appologise.

Thanks for the sources. I am honestly a bit weary about KSA contract numbers as they are always inflated and there is boatload of weapons/support/spareparts/training behind them, like their F-15SA contract. Again, thanks for the sources but i still think 14.8mil euro is inflated still. Finland bought 100 Leo A6's for 200 mil euro, but those were second hand from NL so not really representative, however an article about the contract says following;



http://defense-update.com/20140119_finland_buys_dutch_leopards.html#.VauU0_ljbIU

10 mil euro is probably closer to the truth although i admit that is still higher than what i expected them to be.

And no worries.

I have once asked but i ask again: if on tank we put some wheels wich spin some iron barrels there is posibility to deviate the incoming apfsds?

Also is the fact that the kinetic energy would help deviate the apfsds ... And is not need to deviate much but only to have a no perpedicular trajectory with the armour and air.

GarryB wrote:

Also is the fact that the kinetic energy would help deviate the apfsds ... And is not need to deviate much but only to have a no perpedicular trajectory with the armour and air.

The problem with spinning plates or barrels is that to get them to spin they can't be too heavy... if they are light then it doesn't matter how fast they are spinning they will be easily penetrated by a modern APFSDS round.

ERA uses explosives to move a metal plate into the path of an incoming penetrator and is vastly more efficient... they don't need to continuously spin or move, they can be added on top of existing armour, and they don't activate unless hit directly.

Physically moving armour is far too problematic to be practical.