>>28691942 Why would they? The armata is an overrated hunk of shit, painfully pushed out of Putin's shriveled rectum to make dipshit slavs worldwide go ballistic about how the US is dying because they didn't waste all their money on a reskined IFV.
At least the criticism of the f-35 made sense.
There are modernization programs in swing (as there should be) but they've been around since 2007ish.
KMV and Nexter have merged to develop new MBT precisely in response to T-14. Americans are too busy with 'sensor fusion', 'information superiority' and social experiments to bother with actual warfighting. In more broad context, tank engineering is going through the crisis of ideas on how to address armor vulnerability to modern ATGMs without sacrificing tactical mobility. Russian way out of this dead end is the unmanned turret, France/Germany will either follow the lead or come up with more advanced APS.
>>28691942 Armata is a project from late 80th - early 90th. Let's be honest. It's just all that Soviet objects putted together. Yes, West can clean duct from Block III, MBT-2000 and Leo3 projects. But West thinks that tanks are obsolete. >>28692047 For West tanks are anti-tank weapon. And they have now aviation for that purposes. For Russians tanks are universal instrument against anything that moves on the ground. For West aviation is universal weapon against anything.
>>28692724 to be fair ecp 1 is ready and has pretty much been fast tracked,ecp 2 will be ready soon behind that, and before you know it ecp 3 will be complete and the abrams may just be a3 at that point.
>>28691985 >overrated hunk of shit That's a really bold statement to make, considering it's (on paper) the best tank right now in all aspects. Now big question is can they produce it in serious numbers, but you can't call it overrated hunk of shit.
>>28692924 The only next generation design element it has is the unmanned turret. Literally all of the "new" technologies it incorporates have already been implemented on Western tanks in some form or another.
>>28692942 >in some form or another Not for majority of tanks in service. I wouldn't call T-14 revolutionary, but it's without a doubt a significant step forward. Unmanned turret alone is a big thing. It's the best tank design in production right now, and it's idiotic to dispute that.
>>28692924 >effectively unarmored turret >aps only works in a 60 degree arc >transmition breaks or lights on fire randomly >gun still fails to match western ammunition >undermanned to the point of information overload >autoloader is literally just the t-64's autoloader >is worse than the t-90am in just about every metric
>>28692973 It's a new build, with all the bugs and problems that implies, unproven in combat and has never even been seen outside of parades.
Impossible to say it's the 'best' at this point. Let's see how many TOWs they eat if Putin risks them in Syria before we judge anything. Besides, if it came to a fight with any other MBT, it'd still come down to who saw who first.
>>28692065 I started rading through the comments and had to stop since it was giving me a nose bleed. Once Vatnik seemed to think that main gun stabilisation was something no one else has, its a brand new Russian innovation.
>>28692973 I wouldn't say the unmanned turret is the best design ever. Best in terms of crew protection, yes (which I find ironic considering Russia's traditional view on crew "protection"). However, there's some serious tradeoffs, such as limiting the commander's field of view and therefore inhibiting situation awareness. I don't care how good its optics are, but a lot of times the mk1 eyeball is the most effective optic.
Plus, the apparent paper thin armor on the turret just makes the Armata that much easier to mission kill. How will it be combat effective if its cannon and autoloader are easy to disable?
Nobody wants the crap new tanks. They want the crap, cheap but good old tank. They want the T-72, which they likely already own, with a few relevant upgrades. They want components for the tanks they already own and cheap, fast, reliable overhaul and repair services.
That is what the customer wants. Russia does not provide any of that, instead they go about making complete shit year after year. One export lemon after another.
Money for the M1A2 SEPv3 and Challenger LEP, 30mm guns for RV Strykers, Baltics buying CV90s/Boxers/PzH2000, Germany reactivating Leopard 2s, etc etc can all be attributed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
>>28693052 Because to buy American tanks you need the gold+ card and be on the "Totally not your enemy list". And even then they are much more expensive to maintain and arm. The Soviet stockpile is cheap and deep.
You can't fight a war with 10 expensive tanks like you can with 10,000 shitty upgraded tanks.
>>28693052 >everyone buying them you mean india litteraly just india, and india doesn't even like their t-90ms's because they're too fucking heavy to use on indian bridges. the chinks have their own tanks. everyone else is using second hand t-72's. Despite what you think the t-90 has been out produced by huge amounts in both abrams and leaopard 2's respectively
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.