Russian Armata modern tanks production delayed due to high cost

Russian Armata modern tanks production delayed due to high cost

7/30/18
On 29 July, the Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov said that the Russian armed forces do not aspire to purchase the tanks of “Armata” in large quantities because of their high cost, preferring to increase the combat potential of existing military vehicles due to its modernization. “Well, why flood the all Armed Forces with the Armata tanks, we have the T-72s in great demand in the market, they take it all, compared to the Abrams, Leclercs and Leopards, for their price, efficiency and quality, It’s the same situation with “Boomerangs,” – Yury Borisov told. “We don’t really need to for this (mass purchases of new tanks – ed.), these models are quite expensive in relation to existing ones,” – noted the Deputy Prime Minister.

On 29 July, the Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov said that the Russian armed forces do not aspire to purchase the tanks of “Armata” in large quantities because of their high cost, preferring to increase the combat potential of existing military vehicles due to its modernization. “Well, why flood the all Armed Forces with the Armata tanks, we have the T-72s in great demand in the market, they take it all, compared to the Abrams, Leclercs and Leopards, for their price, efficiency and quality, It’s the same situation with “Boomerangs,” – Yury Borisov told. “We don’t really need to for this (mass purchases of new tanks – ed.), these models are quite expensive in relation to existing ones,” – noted the Deputy Prime Minister.

Click to expand...

Gee, that's really a crying shame. Maybe a GoFundMe page is in order. :2razz:

Russia's military budget is currently around one tenth of that of the USA. Meaning that they haven't a hope in hell of ever catching up on "conventional" arms.

This greatly dampens their aspirations of becoming a world power (again), in fact taking all their assets (economics, industry, low GDP etc.) into account, they hardly take third place after the US and China.

Only thing they can strut around over is nuclear arms but that's not really useful, seeing how Putin is far too smart to play that card. His recent ploy of an ICBM that's practically invincible is playing to his own gallery, nothing more. He wants a nuclear war as little as everybody else does.

Russia has had to cut back on plans because of the effects of sanctions, but they are still expanding and are still doing it very very well....building good to great product at a good price.

aww..... I really wanted to know how the T14's APS perfrom against multiple Javelin attacks

Well, he's got a point. They are hopelessly outspent by the U.S., so why bother trying to compete at that level?

The smaller, underfunded nations the Russians are most likely to be fighting can only run way slightly faster from a T-72 than they can an Armata.

Rogue Valley said:

Russian Armata modern tanks production delayed due to high cost

Gee, that's really a crying shame. Maybe a GoFundMe page is in order. :2razz:

Click to expand...

The t-14 from what I heard was also being in short order because it was in extended testing, which indicates it is not ready for prime time yet and the russian govt likely will never support putting out that much money for mass orders on something heavily flawed, so they will likely stick to old tried and true. The t-80 was at one point considered the ultimate tank, it had tech that surpassed the world and even had a turbine engine while the abrahms was barely a scribble on a piece of paper, however the m-80 ended u being a massive failure, it used too much fuel where it was no good unless the mission had a blank check and an army of fuelers behind it, it was too big to fit through urban areas, and got stuck very easily.

Success was achieved when they took the turret and other systems of the t-80 and merged them with the tried and true t-72 and came out with the t-90, a tank that has only suffered a single combat loss, and is even known for surviving tow missiles and russian anti tank munitions without issue and even has a better record than the m1 abrahms on combat loss. They might repeat the same thing and use the t-14 as a testing ground and use the t-14 good aspects to modify the existing t-72 and t-90 platform.

HERA the Stars said:

aww..... I really wanted to know how the T14's APS perfrom against multiple Javelin attacks

Click to expand...

I do not think you will ever know, the t-90 was already known to be extremely effective against anti tank guided missiles in it's base armor setup without additional armor, and has an extremely good track record even beating the abrahms against anti tank missiles and the lesser rocket propelled grenades. The t-14 is nice and all but I think russian engineers were trying to design a pen to work in zero gravity underwater upside down etc and vladimir putin walked up and slapped engineer ivan and said remember the pencil.

Chagos said:

Russia's military budget is currently around one tenth of that of the USA. Meaning that they haven't a hope in hell of ever catching up on "conventional" arms.

This greatly dampens their aspirations of becoming a world power (again), in fact taking all their assets (economics, industry, low GDP etc.) into account, they hardly take third place after the US and China.

Only thing they can strut around over is nuclear arms but that's not really useful, seeing how Putin is far too smart to play that card. His recent ploy of an ICBM that's practically invincible is playing to his own gallery, nothing more. He wants a nuclear war as little as everybody else does.

Click to expand...

Wrong way of looking at it imo. Yes the Russians are only spending 1/10 of the US, but the US weapon systems are insanely expensive and maintenance costs are huge as well. The Russian systems are cheaper and historically been easy to repair and cheap to maintain.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

HERA the Stars said:

aww..... I really wanted to know how the T14's APS perfrom against multiple Javelin attacks

Click to expand...

Im sure its a variation of the Israeli "Trophy" APS system already in use on the Merkava Tanks.....and currently being tested on US Abrams, German Leopards, and British Challengers.

Raytheon us currently developing a similar system called "Quick Kill" which is comparable....however, none of the APS will defeat a kinetic energy penetrator ( SABOT / APFSDS), and has shown limited defense against tandem warheads.

PeteEU said:

Wrong way of looking at it imo. Yes the Russians are only spending 1/10 of the US, but the US weapon systems are insanely expensive and maintenance costs are huge as well. The Russian systems are cheaper and historically been easy to repair and cheap to maintain.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Great point Pete - the West's obsession with GDP measures leads it into some odd analytical cul de sacs.

There are several points to make here:

1. As you rightly say, western weapon systems are incredibly expensive. The MIC needs feeding.

2. Russia doesn't have a colossal global military empire to fund, but then it doesn't need or aspire to.

3. Russian defence policy is predicated on the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on any aggressor. That's basically it - not competition with the US, just the ability to inflict huge damage on it. This means Russian defence spending is focused on certain areas. It's not Cold war 1.

4. Russia has most of the scientific expertise, experience, capacity and resources to design and build innovative weapon systems - this makes it quite unlike Germany, Italy etc to whom its GDP is compared. (There are exceptions - notably large warships and some elements micro-chip technology). But you get the point.

5. On a purchasing power parity basis, Russia's economy is bigger than France, Italy and the UK.

6. Russia's public broadly supports relatively high levels of military spending. In this it is like the US and again unlike EU states.


Those who argue that Russia is no match for the US are right in the sense that it can't and doesn't compete across the board. But it retains the ability to deter the US, and to project force, and that guarantees its independence and a hugely magnified international influence compared to its EU GDP comparators who gave up an independent foreign policy long ago.

Longwinded way of saying that Russia can't afford what it would like.

At the same time distorting what was said on military budgets as being about GDP.

In the position of which Russia held 6th place worldwide in 2017, after China, the US, India, Japan and Germany (with the overall EU as such not even addressed

Fantasizing about other nations' obsessions with GDP changes nothing in that.

IOW, all of it the usual BS we've all by now come to expect.

Chagos said:

Longwinded way of saying that Russia can't afford what it would like.

At the same time distorting what was said on military budgets as being about GDP.

In the position of which Russia held 6th place worldwide in 2017, after China, the US, India, Japan and Germany (with the overall EU as such not even addressed

Fantasizing about other nations' obsessions with GDP changes nothing in that.

IOW, all of it the usual BS we've all by now come to expect.

Click to expand...

An utterly puerile post, even by your lowly standards.


Which of the points I made is BS? You did not address a single one of them, which suggests to me you're just some sort of pseudo intellectual troll who doesn't like any challenge to your narrative.


You Russia haters really do have a strange complex - you're torn between simultaneously attributing to Russia tremendous power to rain down evil all over the world, and on the other hand still having a desire to belittle Russia and refuse to recognise its strengths.

A cross between extreme paranoia and extreme arrogant hubris over a Cold War 'victory' that simply hasn't worked out.

Projection issues abounding over issues of trollery, coupled with the intellectual incapacity that makes for misunderstanding critical scrutiny of a regime to equate to hate for its people or country.

Expecting at the same time that any issue in another submitted propaganda post holds any such merit as to be worthy of address.

Yeah, BS all right.

PeteEU said:

Wrong way of looking at it imo. Yes the Russians are only spending 1/10 of the US, but the US weapon systems are insanely expensive and maintenance costs are huge as well. The Russian systems are cheaper and historically been easy to repair and cheap to maintain.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I wasn't really addressing Russian military might, nor do I find it particularly interesting.

It was all more about a preemptive rebuttal of a propaganda post that was bound to come and then did.

To use a lately much favoured word, a puerile one at that.:lol:

Hawkeye10 said:

Russia has had to cut back on plans because of the effects of sanctions, but they are still expanding and are still doing it very very well....building good to great product at a good price.

Click to expand...

Cutting expenses is a good decision, it's what we all should be doing right now

HERA the Stars said:

Cutting expenses is a good decision, it's what we all should be doing right now

Click to expand...

Instead we go the other way mostly, trying to grab all the money we can before the economic system and the global world order both finish collapsing.

Hawkeye10 said:

Instead we go the other way mostly, trying to grab all the money we can before the economic system and the global world order both finish collapsing.

Click to expand...

Well no not really, I think the Trump Administration is looking at cutting where they can, Mnuchin appears to be on top of it... as much as you can be anyway going down a rabbit hole :lol:

HERA the Stars said:

Well no not really, I think the Trump Administration is looking at cutting where they can, Mnuchin appears to be on top of it... as much as you can be anyway going down a rabbit hole :lol:

Click to expand...

Global debt is doubling every decade and is already not payable....the assumption is that debt will be repaid....once we can no longer ignore that we have been lying to ourselves everything crashes.

If not before.

Rogue Valley said:

Russian Armata modern tanks production delayed due to high cost

Gee, that's really a crying shame. Maybe a GoFundMe page is in order. :2razz:

Click to expand...

To kill tanks, as they say, if you can see it, you can hit it, if you can hit it, you can kill it.

Chagos said:

Projection issues abounding over issues of trollery, coupled with the intellectual incapacity that makes for misunderstanding critical scrutiny of a regime to equate to hate for its people or country.

Expecting at the same time that any issue in another submitted propaganda post holds any such merit as to be worthy of address.

Yeah, BS all right.

Click to expand...

Still too childish to directly address me :roll:


You summarily dismiss anything with which you don't agree as 'propaganda'.

You are a debate stifling fraud who runs from constructive challenge and hides behind accusations of trolling because, above all I fear, you are ill equipped to discuss anything which is contrary to your narrative. In this, the supreme irony is that your behaviour displays everything of which you accuse me.

JANFU said:

To kill tanks, as they say, if you can see it, you can hit it, if you can hit it, you can kill it.

Click to expand...

Where hardly up-to-date nowadays, that applied to the German Tiger only if you saw its back.:mrgreen:

Propaganda, incidentally, requires nothing beyond dismissal. With its distributors not meriting debate on account of never providing any challenge, least of all a constructive one.

No amount of their reverting to childish ad-homs can change that, nor does it change the fact that their "contributions":roll: are Olgino-esque.

And temper tantrums don't help anyone much either, least of all those displaying them.

Chagos said:

Where hardly up-to-date nowadays, that applied to the German Tiger only if you saw its back.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Which may have more to do with choice rather than ability; The US decision to stay with the 76 mm ( primarily because they were plentiful ) instead of upgrading the guns can be attributed to this.....the picnic ant method....just overwhelm them with numbers.

The Russians eventually upgraded their T34 guns to 100mm and 122mm, which solved the problem easily by being able to penetrate the front of a Tiger @ 1200 meters.

The UK swapped out their 76mm from their Shermans for an enhanced 17 pounder ( 76.2mm ) that, when used with APDS, would kill the Tigers quite efficiently.

Polar Bum said:

Which may have more to do with choice rather than ability; The US decision to stay with the 76 mm ( primarily because they were plentiful ) instead of upgrading the guns can be attributed to this.....the picnic ant method....just overwhelm them with numbers.

The Russians eventually upgraded their T34 guns to 100mm and 122mm, which solved the problem easily by being able to penetrate the front of a Tiger @ 1200 meters.

The UK swapped out their 76mm from their Shermans for an enhanced 17 pounder ( 76.2mm ) that, when used with APDS, would kill the Tigers quite efficiently.

Click to expand...

The primary problem (not to derail here completely, but..............)with the Tiger I (produced only til 1944) was that

a) the Germans couldn't produce it in the numbers they wanted to, and

b) It was no match for the Russian Ts when it came to manoeuvrability, especially on boggy ground

c) track failure in freezing weather was practically the rule

Yeah, I agree with your assessment of combating cannon power, just to say that both Tigers (the II as well) were duds from the outset, more from organizational (and financial) considerations than from actual performance. The II version (Königstiger) was an improvement in armour and manoeuvrability but didn't enter any war theatre until 1944.

Much like the Me 262, much too late and in numbers even more insufficient.

Mechanical breakdowns being significant in both.

Chagos said:

The primary problem (not to derail here completely, but..............)with the Tiger I (produced only til 1944) was that

a) the Germans couldn't produce it in the numbers they wanted to, and

b) It was no match for the Russian Ts when it came to manoeuvrability, especially on boggy ground

c) track failure in freezing weather was practically the rule

Yeah, I agree with your assessment of combating cannon power, just to say that both Tigers (the II as well) were duds from the outset, more from organizational (and financial) considerations than from actual performance. The II version (Königstiger) was an improvement in armour and manoeuvrability but didn't enter any war theatre until 1944.

Much like the Me 262, much too late and in numbers even more insufficient.

Mechanical breakdowns being significant in both.

Click to expand...

All of the above is absolutely correct....track maintenance was a nightmare, and if you had to replace a hull side road wheel, you had to remove between 6 and 9 outer road wheels to get to the damaged one.

Very over engineered.....the one thing you cannot deny was the absolute lethality of the 88; taking an existing 88 mm anti aircraft gun and shoe horning it into a tank turret was brilliant.