[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

calripson wrote:T-72 and T-90 derivatives are 1970's vintage technology at heart. It's time to shift production to modern designs. Just to replace all the tanks in the 1st Guards Tank Army will take 5 years at 100 per year not to mention T -15 in the armored units which would be another couple of hundred units. I would apply the same rationale to Su 57 production. Time to shift 100% to modern designs. No more re-polished 50 year old designs. It's 2021.

Leo2 and M1 are designs from the 70´s, too.

The T14 has a huge amount of automation on it, including the unmanned turret. The Russians are logically uneasy that there may be a weak spot they missed so going all on one tech is not gonna happen. Even the US operates a very broad range of versions of M1. The M60 was manufactured until 1983 and only retired in 1991 by the USA. It is still quite widely used elsewhere T-55 is stilll used very widely. With remote controlled turrets the upgrade potential of old tanks is even further increased. You can drop that 5T turret on, uparmour the hell out of the tank with the weight savings and end up with a pretty dangrous MBT.

mnztr wrote:The T14 has a huge amount of automation on it, including the unmanned turret. The Russians are logically uneasy that there may be a weak spot they missed so going all on one tech is not gonna happen. Even the US operates a very broad range of versions of M1. The M60 was manufactured until 1983 and only retired in 1991 by the USA. It is still quite widely used elsewhere T-55  is stilll used very widely. With remote controlled turrets the upgrade potential of old tanks is even further increased. You can drop that 5T turret on, uparmour the hell out of the tank with the weight savings and end up with a pretty dangrous MBT.

My view is that the modernised T-72/80/90 fleet is a strategic resource for future conversion into UGVs once the technology finally matures and tactical doctrines are established for effective warfare by unmanned vehicles. Future armoured formations will be characterised by heavily-protected manned Armata-style vehicles supported by a large number of UGVs, both controlled by remote from operators in Armata vehicles, as well as autonomous AI-controlled.

Until that becomes a reality, the Russian military will maintain its Soviet-era tank designs and continue with progressive evolutionary upgrades.

The Armata tank may start mass - producing in the Russian army this year

Moscow. January 2. NEW-generation armored Vehicles based on the Armata heavy tracked platform are expected to start mass - producing in the Russian Armed forces this year.
The head of rostec state Corporation Sergey Chemezov and the head of the Ministry of industry and trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov earlier announced the start of serial deliveries in 2021.
"Serial deliveries of the t-14 tank on the Armata platform will begin in 2021. Today it is by far the best tank in the world. In the future, this vehicle will be the new main tank of the Russian army, " Chemezov told reporters on December 7.
"The Ministry of defense has ordered additional technical solutions in order to reach serial delivery from next year (2021) under the contract that was signed," Manturov said earlier.
The company "Uralvagonzavod" (UVZ) has developed a heavy tracked platform "Armata". It is based on the T-14 tank, the t-15 infantry fighting vehicle and the t-16 armored recovery vehicle. The equipment on the Armata platform is being tested.
Earlier Yury Borisov, the Deputy Minister of defense (now Deputy Prime Minister), said that the defense Ministry has a contract to supply military trials of two battalions of tanks T-14 and battalion IFV T-15.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=544022&lang=RU

Big_Gazza wrote:
My view is that the modernised T-72/80/90 fleet is a strategic resource for future conversion into UGVs once the technology finally matures and tactical doctrines are established for effective warfare by unmanned vehicles.  Future armoured formations will be characterised by heavily-protected manned Armata-style vehicles supported by a large number of UGVs, both controlled by remote from operators in Armata vehicles, as well as autonomous AI-controlled.  

Until that becomes a reality, the Russian military will maintain its Soviet-era tank designs and continue with progressive evolutionary upgrades.

Lots of options, they can also get rid of the turrets, add armour and a VLS version of Koronet and turn it into an incredibly powerful tank destoryer

I would limit myself to the immediate without over-extending ourself into what use eventually found to the actual tank chassis once their own service would end.

That's because seems me that even in their actual state they are still perfectly useful and have so a long period of service ahead of them.
I have get the idea that the originaal plan to have just a single family of vehicles in each regiment have been partially scaled down, in the sense that motor rifles ones would still kept them after having transitioned to Boomerang/Kurganets.
In this, we should search for info about the future OoB of such equipped regiments.

Initial production numbers are generally to get it into service in a number of units for testing and evaluation in proper service.

The Armata is not a tank.

The T-14 will be a tank in a heavy armoured division or brigade but the T-15 will be the BMP in that division or brigade and the T-16 will be the armoured recovery vehicle in that division or brigade.

The point is that in medium and light armoured division the tank will be a Kurganets or Boomerang based vehicle.

A.t.m. they are talking about full scale production to be started this year, almost for Armata.
And yes, Armata is a complete series of different vehicles, the T-72/80/90 are instead just tanks (plus derived support vehicles).
All such discussion was started by someone complaining that a full scale production of just 100 T-14/year is too low.
In my previous reply I disagreed saying that:
T-14 is not the whole of Armata.

Armata family would go just to fully Armored Regiment (or Brigade) i.e. one for each Motor Rifle division, three for Armored ones only.

Once actual tanks and other fighting vehicles modernization process would be over, the production facilities in which it took place would be all converted into that of new generations of fighting vehicles.

Last one but this is a strictly personal opinion is that IFV should be given priority, above all for what it come to Boomerang and Kurganets families.

The thing is that there are going to be the same two different types of forces as before... motor rifle, and tank... that is not going to change... but what is going to change is the vehicles each unit operates... right now every motor rifle and tank force has a mix of all sorts of vehicle types though there are already families being used... for instance T series tank based vehicles include of course MBTs like T-72 and T-80 and T-90, but is also includes other vehicles like MSTA artillery vehicles which use T-80 chassis, various armoured engineer vehicles like the BMO-T, and of course mine clearing vehicles and the new BMP-T and of course there was going to be the BTR-T troop transport based on a T-55 tank chassis, the BREM-80U which is an armoured recovery vehicle based on the T-80, the BREM-1 based on the T-72 (along with similar vehicles based on BMPs and BTRs and MTLBs too)... there is chemical and radiation vehicles and various other vehicles used in every force...

The point is that right now it is a mish mash of different types... there are different types of armoured recovery vehicle based on all the different tank and BMP and BTR version and a unit might have a mix of different models.

On the surface that sounds like a good idea as it reduces the number of types of vehicle but when your BMP is BMP-3 but your BMP based recovery vehicle is a BMP-2 with different engine and wheels and tracks etc then the logistics of the unit is made worse rather than better had it had all BMP-3 based vehicles for jobs they have BMP based vehicles for.

The idea of the new vehicles is that eventually a force will have just one vehicle type, so the Armata division will have T-14s and T-15s and T-16s which are tanks, BMPs and BREM recovery vehicles respectively but also T-24s and T-22s and T-18s that might be command and recon and artillery or something else vehicles.

With the Armata there are two basic models... engine at the front for T-16s and some other vehicles and engine at the rear for Tank and other models... but eventually all the vehicles in an Armata unit will be replaced with Armata based vehicles so one engine type, one wheel type, one track type, the same transmission. Note the heavier vehicles might have a higher engine rating to improve mobility while lighter vehicles might have derated engines to extend their operational lives and reduce costs...

The point is that every T-90 MBT and T-72 upgraded tank and T-80 tank wont need a T-14 replacement because in Boomerang forces and Kurganets forces there will be a B-xx and a K-xx tank version with a T-14 turret for that job... and the K-xx which is a Boomerang based T-14 should be much cheaper to produce in large numbers and also much cheaper to operate than any track layer, so tank numbers will likely increase massively...

It is just as well the CFE treaty is not enforced because Kurganets and Boomerang tanks as well as Sprut based tanks should be quite capable vehicles... but in a third world country the T-15 and K-17, and B-11 BMPs with 57mm guns will be rather potent vehicles, not to mention the models that get the 2S38 anti aircraft gun mount with air burst 57mm shells. I would expect even the grenade launcher 57mm shells will have laser command detonation fuses for airbursts over targets with front cover but no top cover...

Going to be very dangerous times for enemy drones...

The units that get T-15 will obviously also get T-14 and T-16 vehicles, while units that get K-17 and B-11 BMPs will likely get K-xx tanks and B-xx tanks respectively so the type of BMP they get will indicate what other vehicles they should be getting...

As we've seen even designs that weren't really meant for long term exploitation like the T-64/72 pattern could serve for at least half a century with upgrades keeping them just barely ahead of obsoletion. The T-14 designed with modularity in mind should serve for at least that long while keeping more or less abreast with the bleeding edge provided they keep the factories working for that much long just as the US does with its Abrams. A few battalion sets per year is not much compared to cold levels of production, but that was then when equipment was so much cheaper and the military budget was several times larger.

Another issue is the T-14 is the pinnacle of tank technology - higher technology means much higher levels of competencies necessary to operate the equipment effectively. One of the selling points of the Soviet tank design school was of the huge commonality in operation between the later and early models which meant that transitioning from say a T-55 to a T-72 is not going to be that much of an issue. This was made possible through deliberate streamlining and simplification of technologies which made it so that operating and maintaining these vehicles would not require much more out of a mostly conscript operator pool.

The T-14 is the exact opposite. It will require much more heavily trained and skilled operators with far broader skillsets, which only means more time and resources spent for any single Armata crew member's education. Draftees aren't going to cut it as we've seen one park his tank in the middle of red square for everyone to see. The next generation of tankers could very well be closer to attack helo pilots than they are to today's tankers with how involved they are going to be. You could even see it in their crew stations:

lyle6 wrote:As we've seen even designs that weren't really meant for long term exploitation like the T-64/72 pattern could serve for at least half a century with upgrades keeping them just barely ahead of obsoletion. The T-14 designed with modularity in mind should serve for at least that long while keeping more or less abreast with the bleeding edge provided they keep the factories working for that much long just as the US does with its Abrams. A few battalion sets per year is not much compared to cold levels of production, but that was then when equipment was so much cheaper and the military budget was several times larger.

Another issue is the T-14 is the pinnacle of tank technology - higher technology means much higher levels of competencies necessary to operate the equipment effectively. One of the selling points of the Soviet tank design school was of the huge commonality in operation between the later and early models which meant that transitioning from say a T-55 to a T-72 is not going to be that much of an issue. This was made possible through deliberate streamlining and simplification of technologies which made it so that operating and maintaining these vehicles would not require much more out of a mostly conscript operator pool.

The T-14 is the exact opposite. It will require much more heavily trained and skilled operators with far broader skillsets, which only means more time and resources spent for any single Armata crew member's education. Draftees aren't going to cut it as we've seen one park his tank in the middle of red square for everyone to see. The next generation of tankers could very well be closer to attack helo pilots than they are to today's tankers with how involved they are going to be. You could even see it in their crew stations:

A platoon of Tanks is 9 men, a company 30, just take the section and squad platoon commanders and vicecommanders of an actual conscript based infantry btg and you are served.

marcellogo wrote:
A platoon of Tanks is 9 men, a company 30, just take the section and squad platoon commanders and vicecommanders of an actual conscript based infantry btg and you are served.

If you do that the Russian tank force is bound to lose the majority of its lower level leadership to Armata crews - not ideal. Its also a question if they have the necessary skills needed to operate the T-14 still - the difference is just that much stark in contrast. The only real option is to slowly but steadily build up a dedicated cadre of professional 19Ks over the years, which is fine since that gives the T-14 the much needed breathing room to further mature its technology and more importantly could allow for batch by batch upgrades necessary to keep it right there at the top.

Actually I would say in the newer vehicles and aircraft the operators are becoming more like managers than direct users.

The information at their fingertips and their options to do different things and call support are greatly magnified with the new gear and equipment.

The commander of a T-55 could not see the live video feed of a drone operating above his unit, and certainly could not see the EO view of a nearby Mi-24 Hind and mark on the display the enemy position he wants the helicopter to engage for him.

There will be AI systems scanning all available video feeds from cameras all over these vehicles so if something is moving it can attract the attention of the commander for instance. Pressing a button might allow the system to jump from potential target or threat to the next allowing the user to prioritise and engage in a suitable order...

Flying a Flanker would be much easier than flying a MiG-23, with the Su-35 having most of the manual procedures like measuring the time an SARH target needs to be illuminated during an engagement fully automated or made obsolete...

In comparison the T-14 will be easy to operate once you know what everything does... and the Su-57 will probably fly itself most of the time.

GarryB wrote:Actually I would say in the newer vehicles and aircraft the operators are becoming more like managers than direct users.

The information at their fingertips and their options to do different things and call support are greatly magnified with the new gear and equipment.

The commander of a T-55 could not see the live video feed of a drone operating above his unit, and certainly could not see the EO view of a nearby Mi-24 Hind and mark on the display the enemy position he wants the helicopter to engage for him.

There will be AI systems scanning all available video feeds from cameras all over these vehicles so if something is moving it can attract the attention of the commander for instance. Pressing a button might allow the system to jump from potential target or threat to the next allowing the user to prioritise and engage in a suitable order...

Flying a Flanker would be much easier than flying a MiG-23, with the Su-35 having most of the manual procedures like measuring the time an SARH target needs to be illuminated during an engagement fully automated or made obsolete...

In comparison the T-14 will be easy to operate once you know what everything does... and the Su-57 will probably fly itself most of the time.

While its true that streamlined and automated processes have made it so that running the tank required but a fraction of cognitive load as it was before, in practice this would only mean that it is now possible to shift from a top-down view on tactics to units that are far more autonomous when pursuing objectives without a corresponding loss in efficiency. This would require much, much better trained soldiers not less.

The command and control capability would be orders of magnitude better, but in a sense you can think of it like being like the old west compared with today for crowd control.

In the old west or olden times anywhere you had a sheriff or constable who had authority, but if more than one criminal was a problem so one person on their own could not handle the situation then that sheriff could deputise men to help him and form a posse.

Modern police need to cover much larger areas with much larger populations so they have mobility (motor vehicles) and they have centralised command and control in the form of fellow officers all connected by radio networks.

They now also have access to databases so they can look up car number plates and check names for finding stolen vehicles and people with arrest warrants etc etc.

The point is that the modern cop can use those resources to get the help they need, and vests and helmets and firearms and tasers and pepper sprays means they have more options too.

With the military a commander might send a drone ahead to look for threats... in build up areas a very high flying drone orbiting a city block can see over tall buildings and spot enemy forces from altitudes most people on the ground wont even notice.

Training would be needed for using these extra resources of course but simulators means you could train 24/7... any convenient time of the day you could put your troops in a simulator and drive vehicles anywhere and anywhen in any weather conditions, and it would be entire units together with air and artillery all working together in ways that could be very realistic...

In other words it would be easier to train them and to train them to much higher levels because training does not use fuel or ammo and is not dangerous.

They have essentially optimised the way a tank would work with the Armata.

A T-26 two man tank was not ideal because the driver was the driver but the commander was loader and gunner and commander. The driver might have operated the radio... not sure.

The early German tanks were not massively superior to opposition tanks because they had better guns or more armour or more powerful engines, they were massively superior because work inside the vehicle was shared correctly.

In a tank on the battlefield critical things are looking for enemy targets... things you can blow up or kill, and looking for enemy threats to your tank... things that can kill you. But this situational awareness goes further... the commander who is spotting for targets and threats is up in the turret and has a much better view of the battlefield than say the driver. The gunners job is to shoot at and kill the target the commander directs them to engage. The loaders job is to keep the gun loaded with suitable ammo for that target. The drivers job is to move the vehicle quickly and safely from cover to cover or concealment to concealment and to keep the heaviest frontal armour of the tank directed at the highest threat guns nearby... preferably angling the armour to get max effectiveness.

When the commander is gunner and loader he is not commander.

In the Armata all the crew are down in the hull but their sights and optics in the top of the turret give the driver the same view the commander and gunner have.

With LCD displays in front of them the commander can indicate on a map where the vehicle is to go and also where the local threats are, so the driver can actually do more for himself now, where previously they relied on directions from the commander... now they could use an aerial view of a nearby UAV and work out how to get to a specific place all by themselves without interrupting or annoying the commander.

More important the 360 degree optics means video processing hardware and software can highlight potential targets or threats allowing the commander to select and scrutinise them each making searching easier and faster.

With auto targeting and of course auto loading you could possible discard the gunners role and use an AI system to engage a target till it is deemed destroyed.

With a crew of three that means you could have one person asleep and two people operating the vehicle... rotate the sleeper every 6 hours and it might be possible to operate more than 20 hours a day...

They already use vehicle families but at the moment it is rather poorly implimented because each vehicle family has different generations of those families so while you might have BMPs in a division for troop transport and ambulance and engineer roles they might be different members... so BMP-3 for troop transport and ATGM vehicle (Kornet), but BMP-1 for engineer vehicle and BMP-2 for mine layer etc etc so the benefit of vehicle families is not really properly implemented.

There are 26-27 different vehicle types in a division I believe, but creating 26-27 versions of each new family might take a while... though this process should be made easier and more efficient with standardisation.

That means the Kurganets and Boomerang MBT versions will use T-14s tank turret for example. The 57mm gun for 2S38 air defence vehicles and its turret will eventually be mounted on Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang chassis... as will the TOR and Pantsir air defence vehicle turrets.

That is the concept. They might find in practise that the Boomerang based vehicles are cheaper to buy and much cheaper to operate and lighter and so some Kurganets and Armata divisions might get Boomerang command vehicles for instance, but the problem there is that the Armata divisions are supposed to operate where the enemy has plenty of heavy anti armour weapons, so Armata based vehicles would be better and would help reduce the logistics train behind the force.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

I would think a division that gets T-14 tanks would also get T-15 BMPs and T-16 armoured recovery vehicles and later on would get Armata based vehicles of other types to fill the gaps like BTR etc.

I would also expect a division that gets B-11 Kuganets BMPs would also get B-10 BTRs and B-12 BREM engineer vehicles.

I would think that the Boomerang family would be cheapest to buy and cheapest to operate like a BTR family so they will likely get into service easier and faster with production likely cheaper too... if not actually cheap... but certainly cheaper to operate.

The 26 to 27 different vehicles (note is it not that I am not sure whether it is 26 or 27... my understanding is that the two different types of force... Tank and Motor Rifle, one has 26 and the other has 27 vehicle types), are BMP and BTR and T series tank an MTLB and GT-SM and BRDM-2 and various other vehicle type based vehicles... only the BRDM-2 and BTR based vehicles and of course Truck based systems like Grad and Smerch and Uragan are wheeled and therefore much cheaper to operate.

They might decide that the Boomerang is much more heavily protected and armed than the BMP and BTR and BRDM and light trucks and MTLB and GTSM vehicles so while not as well armoured as Kurganets and Armata they would represent a huge improvement in protection and mobility while dramatically reducing operational costs of other units... they would be quicker and cheaper to mass produce than heavier vehicles too.

Will be interesting to see what they actually do.

Does someone still have the link where an army official said that the T-14 was more cost effective than T-72B3?
Given how expensive the T-14 is , and how cheap the B3 is, this means that the T-14 is astronomically more combat effective to compensate for the gap in cost.

I would expect the cost effectiveness will be best achieved when all the vehicles in an Armata division are Armata based.

Right now there are 27 different vehicles in a Motor Rifle (ie Infantry) division. Of those vehicle types there are already some families present but they are not optimised so the benefit is not realised.

What I mean is that a Motor Rifle division might have Shturm-S vehicles which are MTLBu vehicles loaded with 12 Shturm and Ataka anti tank missiles. They might have other support vehicles within the division that are also MTLB but they might be the older MTLB and not the new MTLBu. Equally they might have various BMPs... BMP-1s and BMP-2s as support vehicles like engineer and minelaying and other roles, while their troop carrying BMPs might be BMP-3s which all have different engines and different tracks and transmissions and bodies etc etc

A Heavy tracked Motor rifle division will be all Armata based vehicles... so T-14 for MBT, T-15 for BMP, T-?? for BTR, T-16 for BREM engineer vehicle, Coalition for 152mm artillery vehicle based on the Armata chassis, an Armata based TOR and Armata based Pantsir etc etc etc.

One type of engine, one type of wheel, one type of track, one transmission...

The obvious problem is that in creating a new tank design... the T-14, you also need a B-14 and a K-14 equivalent... we already know the numbers are not matching so it might be B-21 and K-22. The advantage is that once you have developed the tank turret for the T-14... most of the work is done... put the same turret on the Kurganets and Boomerang and a few modifications with the hulls and you have a tank. The T-15 and B-11 and K-17 are the BMPs... they will have the 57mm grenade launcher gun with missiles mounted on the vehicle (Kornet and Bulat). They all share the same turret and all have rear ramp doors for troops with engines at the front. The T-14 seems to be the only vehicle in the three families with engine at the back, but then the Coalition might have engine at the back too.

We have seen the 30mm cannon turret and the 12.7mm Kord turret and the 57mm grenade launcher turret and the 125mm smoothbore turret.

Other vehicles will have turrets developed for them and there will be vehicles with no turret at all... the command vehicle might just use the Kord turret for instance. The BTR turret might be the 30mm cannon turret with no turret basket.

None of the turrets are manned.

The Armata tank will be expensive to start with but as most upgraded tanks are getting the new optics and communications systems it has then the price will likely go down.

Perhaps he was meaning operational costs... hard to say... remember there was an official who suggested European tanks would be better than the T-90 at one stage despite costing 4-5 times more.

Once you have reached a certain level of overmatch all the extra investments pay off in outsized effectiveness on the battlefield alongside lopsided decrease in combat losses. Think of medieval knights; each one would have required a whole village to support and a lifetime of training to produce but armed, armored, and ahorse a few dozen knights charging as one could have wrecked the shit out of mostly peasant levee armies despite their much more superior numbers. Russia's comparatively fewer manpower base also would put more emphasis on forces that can do vastly more damage than what their sizes would suggest while putting at a disadvantage traditional approaches that relied more on numbers for their effect.

Rosatom has created a shell for the Armata tank


Rosatom state Corporation is working on standard ammunition for the t-14 Armata tank.

"The projectile will be ready by the time the installation batch of tanks is delivered to the Russian Armed forces at the end of 2021," Andrey Terlikov, General designer of the vehicle developer, Ural transport engineering design Bureau, told IDEX 2021 in Abu Dhabi. His words are quoted by RIA Novosti.

- Ammunition is a separate topic. There are very high requirements for power and efficiency. Rosatom is the elite of the Russian research and production complex. There will definitely be success here. The development of ammunition is synchronized with state tests, as a result, the tank will go to the troops with this ammunition, " Terlikov said.

The international premiere of "Armata"took place at IDEX. Uralvagonzavod also brought a new UBIM armored vehicle to Abu Dhabi.

Given the profile of Rosatom's activities, it is logical to assume that the ammunition in question is an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile of increased power. Its core is made of extremely strong and heavy material. Depleted uranium is optimal.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en.b96a0690-60329db2-0e352be3-74722d776562/https/rg.ru/2021/02/21/rosatom-sozdal-snariad-dlia-tanka-armata.html

Serial deliveries of "Armata" will begin in 2022

Andrey Terlikov, General Director - Chief Designer of the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering, said that they intend to reduce the cost of the tank in the course of its serial production.

ABU DHABI, February 21. / TASS /. Serial deliveries of T-14 Armata main battle tanks to the Russian Defense Ministry will begin in 2022. Andrey Terlikov, General Director and Chief Designer of the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (UKBTM, part of the Uralvagonzavod concern (UVZ) of the Rostec state corporation), told reporters at the IDEX-2021 international arms exhibition.
Special project on the topic

"From 2022, we will enter stable serial deliveries of these machines," Terlikov informed.

According to him, UVZ has already signed serial supply contracts with the RF Ministry of Defense. "State tests of the" Armata "are underway, we expect their completion within the next year or two. By the end of 2021, under one of the contracts, it is planned to supply an initial batch of cars," Terlikov said.

The pilot batch of the T-14 Armata main battle tanks will be equipped with the latest ammunition. "The development of a new ammunition for the" Armata "is engaged in the enterprises of Rosatom - the scientific elite, a serious resource is involved. It is synchronized with the development of the tank, during the state tests we docked and coordinated it. The pilot batch of" Armata "will go with this ammunition," Terlikov said.

"Armata was created in order to ensure superiority over the best analogs. We keep the bar at the required height. We are not going to surrender positions," he added.

Tank cost
Terlikov said that UVZ intends to reduce the "Armata" cost in the course of its serial production.

"Even today, according to <...> contracts <...> between UVZ and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the figures are adequate. There will be a counter movement here: we will work out the technology, reduce labor intensity, increase manufacturability and, taking into account the deflator for new contracts, we will agree on a price that will suit both sides, "Terlikov informed.

According to him, "it is too early to say unequivocally that this is a mass car."

The general director added that the real cost of the tank will be determined in the third year of serial production. "Then the development of technologies for the manufacture of the final sample, the manufacture of components will be completed," Terlikov explained.

Cannon "Armata"
Terlikov said that the "Armata" cannon has a significant superiority over the armament of tanks of other countries.

"The gun on the Armata is new, this is its main distinguishing feature. The whole vehicle is built around the" cannon-projectile "system. The tank has superior weapons power. The muzzle energy of the gun is higher than that of our [foreign] colleagues," Terlikov informed.

According to him, a wide range of ammunition has been developed for the "Armata" cannon. "This is a new ammunition load, including a range of ammunition - armor-piercing subcaliber, caliber, high-explosive fragmentation with remote detonation. Due to weapons, we count on a significant advantage," added Terlikov.

The first foreign demonstration of the T-14 "Armata" tank is taking place at the IDEX 2021 international arms exhibition.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10757027

LMFS wrote:Serial deliveries of "Armata" will begin in 2022

Andrey Terlikov, General Director - Chief Designer of the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering, said that they intend to reduce the cost of the tank in the course of its serial production.

ABU DHABI, February 21. / TASS /. Serial deliveries of T-14 Armata main battle tanks to the Russian Defense Ministry will begin in 2022. Andrey Terlikov, General Director and Chief Designer of the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (UKBTM, part of the Uralvagonzavod concern (UVZ) of the Rostec state corporation), told reporters at the IDEX-2021 international arms exhibition.
Special project on the topic

"From 2022, we will enter stable serial deliveries of these machines," Terlikov informed.

According to him, UVZ has already signed serial supply contracts with the RF Ministry of Defense. "State tests of the" Armata "are underway, we expect their completion within the next year or two. By the end of 2021, under one of the contracts, it is planned to supply an initial batch of cars," Terlikov said.

The pilot batch of the T-14 Armata main battle tanks will be equipped with the latest ammunition. "The development of a new ammunition for the" Armata "is engaged in the enterprises of Rosatom - the scientific elite, a serious resource is involved. It is synchronized with the development of the tank, during the state tests we docked and coordinated it. The pilot batch of" Armata "will go with this ammunition," Terlikov said.

"Armata was created in order to ensure superiority over the best analogs. We keep the bar at the required height. We are not going to surrender positions," he added.

Tank cost
Terlikov said that UVZ intends to reduce the "Armata" cost in the course of its serial production.

"Even today, according to <...> contracts <...> between UVZ and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the figures are adequate. There will be a counter movement here: we will work out the technology, reduce labor intensity, increase manufacturability and, taking into account the deflator for new contracts, we will agree on a price that will suit both sides, "Terlikov informed.

According to him, "it is too early to say unequivocally that this is a mass car."

The general director added that the real cost of the tank will be determined in the third year of serial production. "Then the development of technologies for the manufacture of the final sample, the manufacture of components will be completed," Terlikov explained.

Cannon "Armata"
Terlikov said that the "Armata" cannon has a significant superiority over the armament of tanks of other countries.

"The gun on the Armata is new, this is its main distinguishing feature. The whole vehicle is built around the" cannon-projectile "system. The tank has superior weapons power. The muzzle energy of the gun is higher than that of our [foreign] colleagues," Terlikov informed.

According to him, a wide range of ammunition has been developed for the "Armata" cannon. "This is a new ammunition load, including a range of ammunition - armor-piercing subcaliber, caliber, high-explosive fragmentation with remote detonation. Due to weapons, we count on a significant advantage," added Terlikov.

The first foreign demonstration of the T-14 "Armata" tank is taking place at the IDEX 2021 international arms exhibition.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10757027

That will make it 7 years since they trotted out these badboys to great fanfare at the parade in Moscow. Hopefully, deliveries will actually start in 2022 and not kicked down the road, as has happened in the past.

PapaDragon wrote:
Hell yeah, stick with what works

Fuck the tree-huggers and fuck the hippies

Tagging Rosatom to work on their new round says quite a bit. Here's hoping they read the specs wrong and produced nuclear shells instead