T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

Арена М cost around 300 000 dollars for export, for Russian army as always will be cheaper so around 150-170k dollars with all gizmo on it. So fking YEAHHHH its cheaper to have APS on tanks then lost how many tanks in this war oh yeah at minimum 700...most of them was destroyed buy ATGMS...ohh wait this isnt true, because we dont have videos about it....we do not need to have videos in many, many pictures we can see on destroyed T-72B3M HEAT wholes...oh wait maybe tanks fire heat round...hell nooo...it was ATGMS...i do not give a shit witch one, but it was ATGMS...and Ukraine have lot of them LOT OFFFF.....

Do you all fking see what happens to the fking ERA when it hit with ATGM, or i am to blind and do not see...All fking ERA on that side of tank are blow up. so when you attack again from same side tank with ATGM he does not have any more protection and it will be kaput... Or maybe i lie for that also...

T-90M is much cheaper then T-14 almost half the price of one armata and its very very good tank with great protection and modern system on it. T-72B3M is piece of shit in many ways when we compare it with T-90M....why you just dont admited that...

T14 will be produced in realy small numbers buy this war ended and Russians never ever send then to the fight...because its too fiknig cost and isnt that batter then T-90M....because without APS its like any other tank against ATGMs...even worst because she do not have ERA on paper TURRET...

Put APS on T-90M and you will have one of hell tank in battlefield...1/2 cheaper then armata T14

You can also use the cheaper Drozd that is combat ptoven in Afghanistan.

Old but works very fine against rpg. Modern atgm and rocket grenades have nothing more than what talibans used to have back in the 70s. They have same overall speed and flight caracteristics.

Where are the 600 or so t-55 that gad Drozd. Bring them back in service.

T-90M is much cheaper then T-14 almost half the price of one armata and its very very good tank with great protection and modern system on it. T-72B3M is piece of shit in many ways when we compare it with T-90M....why you just dont admited that...

T14 will be produced in realy small numbers buy this war ended and Russians never ever send then to the fight...because its too fiknig cost and isnt that batter then T-90M....because without APS its like any other tank against ATGMs...even worst because she do not have ERA on paper TURRET...

Put APS on T-90M and you will have one of hell tank in battlefield...1/2 cheaper then armata T14

T-90 is better than upgraded t-72 but still has same weak spots. Hit it with an atgm on the side and it goes boom.

Add aps to t-72 and will be a hell of a tank 1/3 of armata price.

Add aps to t-62M and it will also be a very good tank for 1/10 of armata price.

APS is a real must have for any vehicle. Tanks bmp and btr.

Noooo. T72 will never be hell if a tank because T90M have batter turret, batter electronics, batter engine, batter gun...every thing us batter on T90M because its a new tank, as T90As was batter then any T72s...if you wanna have T72 on same lvl as T90M the price is almost the same as new built T90M and you still have old tank...some times is a cheaper to made new tank then modernized old ones...

Drozd is out date for new atgms...arena m is needed, but must have is Afganit...

T90 goes boom because of ammo around hull, not protected in auto loader...T90M does not have that problem any more, because rest of the ammo is out from the hull...

T62 is junk, its useless in this fight, but it was only ready reserve tank made for Syria, to send it in fight becase of great loses in the same ...they put now T80bvs with no modernisation on front, because they need it...so they send best they have it on front in that reserve, and rest send to modernization,...they lack of good tanks, because thet fucked up in this operation badly...so thet send tank from reserve with no modernisation...tanks from mid 80s in 22...hell yeah...

Being better doesn't mean it will add anything more valuable to the battlefield than an upgraded t-72.

It may have better electronics but t-72B3m can still spot target and shot at them at max range if the gun.

Sometimes having better which is more expensive isn't really needed.

What they really need is install APS on all their tanks. Not buy t-90M. Armata is another story because it's a unified chassi for all new vehicles so they will have to switch to it but t-90M isn't needed.

T-90m doesn't bring anything valuable that upgraded t-72 and t-80 don't have.

If they buy new tanks buy t-14. Until then upgrade t-72 and even t-64M.

T-90M is like mig-35. Good but came to late when they already have a generation ahead replacement. Spending money on them is dumb and useless.

Galicije, do you wonder how many ABRAMS tanks would be destroyed if the rebels in Yemen had modern ATGMs ?
The APS story is nonsense, there are many ways to destroy a tank and the only valid thing is to protect the crew as much as possible. And where is all that you write about proven?
With the T-14, that factor was thought of. And those tanks would be destroyed only in much smaller numbers, no doubt.
A tank is a weapon system that is used in the direct line of fire, and more tanks will always be destroyed than howitzers.
What do you think would happen to Leopard-2, the French Leclerc (The French are a world power in the production of perfumes) if they were in Ukraine ? The Leopard-2 experienced a debacle in Syria - the only conflict it was in, while the T-72 has been fighting for decades.
T-72 are proven tanks, while Western tanks and Israeli tanks only fought against guerilla formations, which did not receive the weapons that Ukroshitstan received. Another way of application is the attack of the NATO pact in a completely unequal balance of forces, as against Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya.

ALAMO wrote:No those are not, for multiple reasons.
The most potent AT ordnance Ukrs has is RPG and Stugna they produced.

And for good reason: RPGs are used in close-in knife fights where the superior long range vision of Russian tanks don't matter, and the Stugna removes the crew from physical danger so they can use it as aggressively as can be.

galicije83 wrote:Do you all fking see what happens to the fking ERA when it hit with ATGM, or i am to blind and do not see...All fking ERA on that side of tank are blow up. so when you attack again from same side tank with ATGM he does not have any more protection and it will be kaput... Or maybe i lie for that also...

I didn't say you were lying. I merely suggest that you're basing your opinion on faulty or outright misinformed premises.

galicije83 wrote:T-90M is much cheaper then T-14 almost half the price of one armata and its very very good tank with great protection and modern system on it. T-72B3M is piece of shit in many ways when we compare it with T-90M....why you just dont admited that...

For the price of a T-90M (200 million rubles) you can buy 4 T-72B3s (4x50 million rubles).

6-7 T-72B3s will get you 1 T-14 (300 - 350 million rubles).

With a frontline stretching more than a thousand miles long do you really think the 4 or 6 T-72B3s would do a worse job than the significantly inferior equivalent of T-90M or T-14 you can get for the same cost?

galicije83 wrote:T14 will be produced in realy small numbers buy this war ended and Russians never ever send then to the fight...because its too fiknig cost and isnt that batter then T-90M....because without APS its like any other tank against ATGMs...even worst because she do not have ERA on paper TURRET...

Because its not needed here. The might send a small detachment to test and validate its features but there's simply not much point.

Lyle6

I agree with you in everything except for the price of the T-14 tank because the official "price list" of that tank does not exist and it will probably remain so in the future. Maybe the price will be higher than what you wrote, and maybe it will be significantly lower - the Russian MOD or the Russian military industrial complex and Uralvagonzavod will not share that information with us.  

But, Russian government likes to spend money on vanity projects. That's not a news anymore.

Yes, all that bloat and corruption in their military spending... the Russians are notorious for bad returns on investments in the military sphere... famous for it even.

Their 120 billion dollar fighters and 10 million dollar tanks... that is why they are in economic collapse...  

Dude... as usual you are reading from the wrong script... western propaganda uses reflection and reflects all its own problems on its opponents to make them look bad but sometimes, like now... that is absurd.

They fucked up really bad in their modernization of tanks....and they know what was greatest enemy of the same and that was ATGMs...so what they do, put ERA block on tanks on some parts of them, most of the top of the turrets are not protected and because of that they have great casualties in first days of war....with ARENA M this will be reduced to small numbers...btu what i know...Russians do not make mistakes...

But did they? Modernisation of old tanks should be cost effective because the numbers will punish you if you get this wrong.

The old tanks outnumber the new tanks by a wide margin so if upgrading the old tanks cost too much you will find there is no money for actually buying ANY new tanks... which would be the definition of fucking things up.... like having a 120 billion dollar light fighter (F-35) deemed too expensive to use as a standard fighter so the solution to the problem being reviving the old heavy previous generation fighter to save costs... to find that costs 250 million per airframe...

The upgrade for the T-72 is good enough, let it go.

We can complain that the APS system would make it better, but the MMW radar antenna emitting constant signals in the Ukraine would make tracking Russian units much easier for HATO forces meaning the Orcs would probably be able to be given small hand held trackers to find Russian tanks to ambush... just launch your missiles at the vehicles that are not tanks...

The Russians make choices based on the information available to them at the time, the new APS system for Armata include active (MMW radar) and passive (optical) sensors and perhaps in the future  Lidar sensors could be added for the job too to detect incoming threats without emitting thousands of kms for sensitive enough equipment to detect them.

Russian tanks are fine, even the older ones. There are other things that require investment. The Navy for example.

You're not making any sense.
Would you also be advocating the Germans in 1943 to pour all their resources into producing Tigers and Elephants?

Especially after they evicerated the British and French and European Armies and then pushed deep into Russia equipped mostly with Panzer 1,2,3, an 4 tanks that were inferior in terms of armour and tank gun, but superior in terms of layout and tactics and visibility.

Do you all fking see what happens to the fking ERA when it hit with ATGM, or i am to blind and do not see...All fking ERA on that side of tank are blow up. so when you attack again from same side tank with ATGM he does not have any more protection and it will be kaput... Or maybe i lie for that also...

If Ukrainian ATGMs are so precise they can be fired twice at the same tank and hit the same ERA block each time then there is very little Russia could to to stop the Ukraine... they are the masters of the universe...

T-90M is much cheaper then T-14 almost half the price of one armata and its very very good tank with great protection and modern system on it. T-72B3M is piece of shit in many ways when we compare it with T-90M....why you just dont admited that...

On the battlefield in the Ukraine the difference between them is not significant, they are all fitted with good optics and comms systems and their armour protection is good enough to stop most enemy weapons... the difference between an upgraded T-72 and a T-90 and a T-14 would not be immense... they essentially have the same gun and similar sized tracks for similar mobility and engine power and performance.

The T-72 will not be destroyed by everything it comes across and the T-14 will not be invincible and without problems.

BREM vehicles they are using will tow T-72s and T-90s but might not manage a T-14.

Put APS on T-90M and you will have one of hell tank in battlefield...1/2 cheaper then armata T14

Put radar signal so enemy forces can track your every move... we don't even know how many have been lost to ATGMs... for all we know most might have been lost to land mines for which an APS system handed to the enemy is a Bad thing.

Where are the 600 or so t-55 that gad Drozd. Bring them back in service.

Actually I would say a reverse Drozd would be a good idea because the Orcs wont be attacking the front of Russian tanks if they can help it, they will be attacking the sides and rear, so side and rear facing APS systems actually make more sense in this conflict than standard systems... but the problem of MMW radar emissions remains.

T62 is junk, its useless in this fight, but it was only ready reserve tank made for Syria, to send it in fight becase of great loses in the same ...they put now T80bvs with no modernisation on front, because they need it...so they send best they have it on front in that reserve, and rest send to modernization,...they lack of good tanks,

They are sending old tanks because they don't need new tanks... you need the bestest and latest T-14 and T-90M tanks to fight any potential enemy tank the Ukraine might deploy, but they are so few and far between they could be using T-34s for fucks sake as an infantry support tank... a gun and some armour and optics to support troops out to 5-8km range is all they need and the T-62M is fine for that as are the upgraded T-72s...

APS cannot deal with two projectiles coming in sequence from the same direction, years ago the Russians showed a video of a Boomerang, if I'm not mistaken, shooting 2 ATGMs in sequence against the same target.
With this tactic the 1 ATGM would activate the APS clearing the way for the 2 ATGM to hit the tank.
Simple changes in tactics plus 2 ATGMs worth a few tens of thousands of dollars make the usefulness of an APS, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars,become questionable.

That was a tactic the Russians developed to deal with western APS systems, and also why their Kornets are mounted in twin and quad launchers to allow multiple missile launches at a single target. The RPG-30 with the two rockets in a disposable launcher with the faster front missile including jammer and other equipment with the slightly slower heavier larger calibre rocket being the anti armour round.

The point is that we don't know much about the Russian systems and whether they need to reset after each engagement or whether they can take on multiple continuous threats or not.

@Garry
For the record, I've been to Russia multiple times, traveled around the country and know how regular Russian people live and have some knowledge of the language. On the other hand, you have a picture of Russia in your head, built on God knows what. Closest you've seen Russia is if you've watched Sochi Olympics or World Cup in 2018.

This is another type of hilarious discussion I like best.
What do you even discuss about?

US has the potential to produce perfectly zero tanks.
No M1 was made since the late 90s in a country other than Egypt.
All fancy, shiny and freshly painted cars are made of junk sitting on the desert.
250 pcs that Poland paid the bribe for are supposed to start deliveries in ... 2025 only. 4 years after contracting, at an unknown peak.

UK just started an "upgrade" of Ch2 that will be carried till 2027, with a whole 148 (!!) pcs upgraded for seven years.
Not made new. Upgraded. A whole 20+ pcs a year.

Germany is not producing new Leo2s for at least 15 years. All that goes are refurbished tanks taken from storage.

France hasn't made a single tank for at least a decade, as nobody needs them.

From this perspective, Poland while capable to make some +/-15 refurbished T-72s and some more of Leo2 simultaneously seems to be among the NATO tank superpowers.

So if we combine all of them together, what we have is some 50-100 pcs a year, and not produced but refurbished.

Someone who is yapping about insufficient number of Russian tank program must be insane.
With 200-250 pcs each year, for years, including both newly built and modernized. A new generation is already rolling.
At a budget of about 1/20 (one twentieth!!!) of the combined budget of a countries we talk about.

It is trolling, nothing else.

And yes, each and any car mechanic is perfectly capable of working with tanks, because all the aggregates are just same or similar. Training won't different much if one would change a job from VAG group to PSA. While most of people who deal with repairing agrotechnical units of trucks, wouldn't have a single issue with that.

Russian tanks have an APS. Its called artillery dominance.

When you have 10:1 advantage in artillery over your opponent you can literally shell, rocket and burn every vantage point available.

The Javelin gunner cannot push the fire button if you riddle his ass with shrapnel first.

You need a shitton of ammo and logistic chains for such tactics.

The atgm team can always sneak between the lines somewhere and hit your tanks. Specially if they have a 8km range or more atgm.

You can't just bomb all the area with artillery. They use it at targets that were detected, not random shooting.

Isos wrote:You need a shitton of ammo and logistic chains for such tactics.

Yeah, no sh!t. Its why massed artillery is a Russian bread and butter.

You need a robust high capacity manufacturing supplied with mountains of steel and explosives supported by thousands of miles of rails and tankers of diesel to allow the of shooting tens of thousands of large caliber shells per day.

Russia has all the ingredients, so they will always seek to evolve the fighting into artillery battles.

Isos wrote:The atgm team can always sneak between the lines somewhere and hit your tanks. Specially if they have a 8km range or more atgm.

Yeah, dudes will just chance it out in the open lugging very unwieldy and unmistakable missile tubes when anyone and anything that spots them can call artillery on their ass in 30 seconds flat. Very realistic.

Isos wrote:You can't just bomb all the area with artillery. They use it at targets that were detected, not random shooting.

Most 'random' fires are not random at all. But rather, they are suppressive fires on tactically advantageous and suspected enemy occupied terrain designed to incapacitate the potential enemy for the duration of the shooting while your combat units accomplish their tasks. The vast majority of fires will be of this nature.

Even Russia can't fire massively all day long. Shooting a shell take 2 seconds. Building it few hours.

Ukrainian are still using their ATGM on the front. Russian artillery isn't supressing them. With suicide drone it is even easier to attack tanks from 20km away. Go find a guy woth a drone in the middle of a city or a forest area.

What he said was to obliterate an area with artillery. They won't choose the zone randomly but they will shoot randomly in that zone.

Арена М cost around 300 000 dollars for export, for Russian army as always will be cheaper so around 150-170k dollars with all gizmo on it. So fking YEAHHHH its cheaper to have APS on tanks then lost how many tanks in this war oh yeah at minimum 700...most of them was destroyed buy ATGMS...ohh wait this isnt true, because we dont have videos about it....we do not need to have videos in many, many pictures we can see on destroyed T-72B3M HEAT wholes...oh wait maybe tanks fire heat round...hell nooo...it was ATGMS...i do not give a shit witch one, but it was ATGMS...and Ukraine have lot of them LOT OFFFF.....

Do you all fking see what happens to the fking ERA when it hit with ATGM, or i am to blind and do not see...All fking ERA on that side of tank are blow up. so when you attack again from same side tank with ATGM he does not have any more protection and it will be kaput... Or maybe i lie for that also...

T-90M is much cheaper then T-14 almost half the price of one armata and its very very good tank with great protection and modern system on it. T-72B3M is piece of shit in many ways when we compare it with T-90M....why you just dont admited that...

T14 will be produced in realy small numbers buy this war ended and Russians never ever send then to the fight...because its too fiknig cost and isnt that batter then T-90M....because without APS its like any other tank against ATGMs...even worst because she do not have ERA on paper TURRET...

Put APS on T-90M and you will have one of hell tank in battlefield...1/2 cheaper then armata T14

But there isn't an APS on the T-90M

So again, what is the massive advantage that a newly-built T-90 brings, over an upgraded T-72?

I'm all for the advent of a T-72B4 program BTW, and I agree with you about the APS. A T-72B4 tank would ideally have both a cheap APS, and a battlefield management system like the one the T-90M is purported to have.

I don't agree at all that the T-72B3M is a piece of shit and wonder what on Earth actually convinced either you or that Serbian NATO fanboy of that. That some tanks have been lost? How many, anyone have the numbers? And why would it be such a surprise that tanks have been lost in the largest scale warfare on Earth since Korea?

@Garry
For the record, I've been to Russia multiple times, traveled around the country and know how regular Russian people live and have some knowledge of the language. On the other hand, you have a picture of Russia in your head, built on God knows what. Closest you've seen Russia is if you've watched Sochi Olympics or World Cup in 2018.

I don't care if you are married to Putins daughters, claiming corruption and an incompetent military requires actual evidence and all the visible evidence shows you are dead wrong.

The Russian military has transformed itself... in 2008 no two Russian soldiers had the same camoflage jacket to match their trousers... these days they have the second generation super soldier gear called Ratnik, with the third upgrade due in about two years time to further improve it.

Has any western country made the same level of progress?

They have rebuilt themselves from the ground up and are a world class force, which you feel the need to berate and complain about.

So highlight any minor problems you see and ignore all the progress...

BTW I have never been to the Middle East so I guess I can't be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim...

Ethnically I am told I am European but I have never been there either.

Someone who is yapping about insufficient number of Russian tank program must be insane.
With 200-250 pcs each year, for years, including both newly built and modernized. A new generation is already rolling.
At a budget of about 1/20 (one twentieth!!!) of the combined budget of a countries we talk about.

Something many ignore, the US and HATOs combined defence spend doubles it to about 1.3 trillion per year... have they developed five new vehicle families to replace their entire vehicle park... including one family optimised for arctic and amphibious operations (two chassis artillery tractors), together with heavy tracked (Armata) medium tracked (kurganets), medium wheeled (Boomerang) and light wheeled (Typhoon), not to mention likely variants of the medium vehicles for naval use and possible use of the light wheeled vehicles for air borne use...

Western armour is in a shambles with the UK not even knowing if it will keep using tanks in the future or if they just cost too much and slow them down too much.

The Javelin gunner cannot push the fire button if you riddle his ass with shrapnel first.

Javelin has a range of less than 3km and in its safest mode is fire and forget where it flys high up into the air and then looks down to find the target it locked when it was launched... if it climbs up and looks down and can't find what it locked on to it will miss... whether that is because of a roof structure on top of the tank hiding the engine and hot parts or if it is a smoke grenade fired when the Javelin was launched and the missile was detected by its rocket motor IR signature in an IR sensor optics array.

If you have to use the Javelin in command to line of sight mode you are sitting still for a long period of time with a missile that has less armour penetration than most because it was designed to penetrate the top of a tank not the front or side.

The atgm team can always sneak between the lines somewhere and hit your tanks. Specially if they have a 8km range or more atgm.

Very true, though Javelin has nothing like that range in any version, the point is that there are actually only a few places you can hit a tank that will assure its complete destruction... most of the time the crew can escape if the tank is immobilised, or continue operating if the missile hits a strong point or at the wrong angle, or misses completely because smoke was launched or optics was jammed.

You need a shitton of ammo and logistic chains for such tactics.

I don't think he means a rolling thunder scorched earth policy... more what they are doing in the Ukraine... draw the enemy out to counter attack and hammer them when they leave cover and are in the open and then hit them again as they retreat...

Yeah, dudes will just chance it out in the open lugging very unwieldy and unmistakable missile tubes when anyone and anything that spots them can call artillery on their ass in 30 seconds flat. Very realistic.

It is interesting that western ATGM tubes are big and bulky and seem to be designed for shipping rather than mobility on a battlefield.

In comparison if you look at Metis-M1, three men can carry the launcher and five missiles ready to fire... one man with one missile and the launcher, and two mean each with two missiles...

It will be interesting to see what performance the Bulat has as it appears to be much smaller and lighter than Kornet... perhaps a good replacement for Metis?

Even Russia can't fire massively all day long. Shooting a shell take 2 seconds. Building it few hours.

But they seem to be.

The Orcs have tens of thousands of Javelins and tens of thousands of Stingers... the Russians have not lost tens of thousands of vehicles nor tens of thousands of aircraft.

But there isn't an APS on the T-90M

They seem to be delaying introducing an operational APS till they are perfect, which I think is short sighted... early ERA were not perfect but over time got much better and more flexible and capable... operational experience will lead to money being spent on the systems and feed back from the field will lead to improvements and upgrades to make them better, and production will make them cheaper.

There will never be a fool proof system that stops everything, but something is better than nothing.

Perhaps they are waiting for Lidar sensors...

Isos wrote:Even Russia can't fire massively all day long. Shooting a shell take 2 seconds. Building it few hours.

And raising a soldier takes the modern state 18 years and 6 months. With use of advanced Nazi (and Wakandan) human technologies you can short-circuit that to 10.

Your point?

Bleeding ego while lacking one

But there isn't an APS on the T-90M

First of all, I said that the T-90M does not have the Arena, and even without it, it provides far better ERA coverage than any version of the T-72B3... simply, the T-72B3 is a cheap modernization of the T-72 tank, and it was proposed to be a Rogatka , however, someone smart said it was expensive...Now we have a piece of crap from a tank, but you say it's good, I say it's not...

Also, he will never get a panoramic observation station for the commander who still has an IR sensor to observe the battlefield at night, not thermal imaging... 21st century and no thermal imaging to observe through it... fantastic

So again, what is the massive advantage that a newly-built T-90 brings, over an upgraded T-72?

As I said better ERA coverage than the T-72B3 version, the commander has his own observation station, with a thermal camera, the excess ordnance is back in the turret, so if there is a breach in the turret, the ammunition that is placed on the sides of the tank does not explode ...

A better turret tank, whether you want to admit it or not...

I'm all for the advent of a T-72B4 program BTW, and I agree with you about the APS. A T-72B4 tank would ideally have both a cheap APS, and a battlefield management system like the one the T-90M is purported to have.

We will see in near future what would like this T-72B4...we will see

And why would it be such a surprise that tanks have been lost in the largest scale warfare on Earth since Korea?

Since Korea? Are you serious?
Largest tank lost was in Israeli Arab war in 1973 when 2 sides lost in just 15 days more they 3500 tanks...Israel lost 700-800 rest was Arab lost...

In this war we have how many days of it...10 months...and looses are around 2000 tanks, maybe less on both sides....this is nothing conpare what they lost in that Yom Kippur war in just 15 days...

In this war we have how many days of it...10 months...and looses are around 2000 tanks, maybe less on both sides....this is nothing conpare what they lost in that Yom Kippur war in just 15 days...

Agree.

Modern equipment is nice but you must have a large quantity of any tank or bmp. T-14 is unlikely to be produced in the thousnands. They need to start mass producing a lighter tank.

They understood that with the t-54/55 after the WW2. But they screw up with t-80/72 that gain too much weight, specially in last variants which made them produce far less of them compare to the tens of thousands of t-54 produced.

Isos Today at 4:46 pm

And who says they won't produce thousands of them, Isos ?
You know the price of T-14 tanks, did Putin tell you personally ?
You and your idiotic guesses "they can't, they don't have, they don't own, they aren't able"...
Isos, one battery (just one) of the S-400 system is certainly more expensive than a battalion of T-14 tanks. Look how many they have...
Calculate how much the Russians annually give their army of new air defense systems; Tor-M2, Buk-M3, S-350, S-400 and recently S-500. 10 years ago, the West said the same about the S-400, that is, "Russia has neither the money nor the capacity to replace the S-300".
I will give you an example that by the end of 2027, 12 divisions of the S-350 system were ordered with a total of 12 launchers in each of the divisions. And thats only for air defense..

T-14 is taller, bigger and way more advanced than t-90M. It's more expensive. Simple logic, even you should be ake to understand this.

AD is considered as a strategical need for Russia because of its huge size. No matter what they will always invest in AD system. However they still have far less new systems than their older analogues.


New system are more advanced and more expensive. That's true for any system  that's why armies get smaller. But once you are too small, even if you have better technology, you will loose to the more numerous less advanced armies.

They used to build thousand of mig-25, mig-23 and su-24 then only hundreds of mig-29 and su-27 and now they barely reach 100 jets like su-35. And only 76 su-57 planes which was yo be far less before Putin asked for more.

T-90M and t-14 are way more expensive than upgraded t-64 and t-72. You can't replace all the tanks with t-14 no matter what.

And since Russia need a big army they will have to create a much cheaper tank or keep upgrading its old t-72 series. Just like they won't be able to buy hundreds of su-57 so they will have to buy the cheap su-75.

If they keep only the expensive and advance products they will end up with an army similar to europeans ones. Very good and very well armed but too small for any war.


And next time stay on the sibject. AD have nothing to do with tanks. If you can't argument on tanks, don't talk at all