Judging from it's specifications it's far ahead of

>>32156472

The T-14 is the biggest project in the Russian defense budget at the moment and for the foreseeable future. It's their F-35. And like the F-35, its expensive, but worth every dollar for the increased fighting capability that it provides. They see the T-14 as the future of their ground forces. Yes, they can and will produce this tank in very large numbers.

File: 1460377221015.jpg (357KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1280x854px

>>32156472

>No working gun stabilizer

Nice try Slavniks.

>>32156472
>Russia
>ahead of any 1st world country
>not 30 years behind the west

gr8 b8 m8, 8/8

>>32156472
This is like the 8th thread i see with that picture in the past few days.

SAGE

File: J31-f35-compare.jpg (44KB, 598x706px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 598x706px

>>32156472

>Implying the West couldn't simply copy the best parts of the Armata and improve on the rest

It's not unheard of for countries to rip off other nations' designs.

>>32157585
Of course but it would take time to develop it, even if you just copy the specs or even technology. And it seems to me Americans aren't interested in improving in that area that much. They rely on their AF more I guess, thinking tanks are a bit outdated?
>>32156515
Good comparison, but do they have capacity to produce 1000's of them, given their financial issues? Or is that exaggerated? Do they even have big enough arms industry to achieve that? This tank really looks next-gen.
And specs and shows on parade are one thing, real life experience is something else. Can we expect same teething problems as with F-35?
>>32156676
>>32156766
>>32156797
Why do you feel the need to post dumb shit like that? Do you get some kick from acting like infantile idiots on an anonymous Latvian yacht enthusiast forum?

>>32156515
Not likely, considering they're bringing the T-80s out of the mothball fleet.

>>32157713
The newest variant of the M1 is coming out next year, with improved sensors, fiber optics and ammunition.

>>32157713
They don't, they economy is in the gutter and is only getting worse. The seizing of Crimea and the encouragement and support (and eventual) intervention in Ukraine was a huge blunder on their part.

Also, the vast majority of the issues that plagued the F-35 have been worked out. It's set to begin LRIP next year

>>32157713
>Why do you feel the need to post dumb shit like that?
We clearly need the 9000 shity thread over the T-14, there is no other solution!

>>32156515
>Armata platform is the biggest project in the Russian defense budget at the moment and for the foreseeable future. It's their F-35.
fived for you.

>>32156472
The T-14 is a BMP (see T-15) with a 125mm cannon and unmanned turret bolted on. Look at the side armor. See the star? That's armor, below that star, that black strip is basically an IR-defeating mudflap. The whole lower half of the sides have literally null armor.

>>32156472
it it just me or does it appear to just be shown without its armor package fitted to the turret?

File: abrams armour.jpg (183KB, 1280x864px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1280x864px

>>32158526
Dem projections, keks were had.

One can't judge Russian things by specs alone. Russia has always had very well engineered equipment, but their quality control is terrible. All of their tanks and planes were/are awesome when they work at 100% but that was always rare. The only thing they have good enough quality control on is their space program and it shows how good their engineering is when properly executed, after 50 years the Soyuz is still the best spacecraft in the world.

File: 1969.02.20_№3Л_pic_43.jpg (15KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x361px

>>32158775
>The only thing they have good enough quality control on is their space program
No.

File: 146140581hg4994.jpg (78KB, 583x732px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 583x732px

>>32158715
The only projection I see is a slav grabbing at classified dis-info.

tanks are obsolete

File: 1468451157733.png (150KB, 309x321px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 309x321px

>Russia producing anything good in quantity

>>32161755
Naturally only a shitposting projecting burger neckbeard on /k knows what's what.

>>32159645
http://www.raaks.ru/docs/doc20150303_008.pdf

Page 11 if you want a had-data for that.

TL-DR: it's average.

File: 90&90A.jpg (265KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1280x960px

>>32157913
>considering they're bringing the T-80s out of the mothball fleet.
they need old cheap tank that packed with 21th centery technology for their on going conflict in Syria and their border
they can wait for Armata

>>32163603
AFAIK they will be using T-80BV tanks in the northern regions - because gas turbine handles cold much better than the diesel.

Why not T-80U? I don't fucking know.

File: NbI8BAek6D4.jpg (250KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1280x851px

>>32163626
>AFAIK they will be using T-80BV tanks in the northern regions -
T-80BV had been phased out of service for years
have not seen any new pic of them in service lately

Russia have only 200 T-80U, all of them station in Kantemirovskaya for defending Moscow

>>32156472
This again. Commies and ex commies are only good at one thing: lies/propaganda. Whatever they claim divide by 2 and minus another 10 units. Also no money, no economy, no males. Russia is better off investing in farming combine machines since Siberia will be suitable for farming due to global warming.

>>32163656
http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service

Maybe they have some mint new T-80BVs mothballed somewhere, ready to get T-72B3 treatment.

File: DbT6A.jpg (296KB, 1123x820px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1123x820px

>>32163679
http://izvestia.ru/news/644174
they still have 3000 T-80BV in storage
they already have 1000 T-72B3
i think they will upread 2000 T-80BV
>T-72B3 treatment
T-72B3 is a good upgrade packet but obsolete, only comparable to Leopard 2A4 or M1A1

the new T-80BV will be T-90A equivalent or even better.

>>32163603
That's just it though, they likelihood of them getting an number of T-14s is low, especially now that the company that designed and was going to build them is going through very bad financial situation. Ultimately, upgrading the T-80s can only do so much good, as they (the T-80 series) haven't been as heavily modified when compared to the T-72 series. And to say they're bringing them out for Syria, i get a couple hundred. But wanting to reactivate over 2000 tanks only a few years after taking them out of service? I think they're going with this cause they don't have any other plan.

File: t-80bv (4).jpg (153KB, 1024x674px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1024x674px

>>32157913
They are doing the same cheap stopgap until T-14 enters service solution as they were doing with T-72B modernisation for years by now, only that T-80B are more suitable for Arctic conditions.
>>32163626
>Why not T-80U?
IIRC, the only things that differ T-80U from T-80BV are electronics and ERA, and these are going to get replaced anyway.
>>32163656
That's because they announced plans to modernise them only like two weeks ago or so.

>>32157957
>It's set to begin LRIP next year

Funny, I remember hearing the same thing last year, and the year before that.

File: t-80bv marine camo (1).jpg (313KB, 1280x784px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1280x784px

>>32163725
T-72B3 pretty much already is a T-90A equivalent, even surpassing the latter in stuff like new autoloader for longer APFSDS. T-72B3 are receiving Relikt ERA since 2016, and I am convinced that the same will apply to T-80BV modernisation.
>>32163731
>likelihood of them getting an number of T-14s is low
Nah. It's rather high.
>especially now that the company that designed and was going to build them is going through very bad financial situation
And this is just a meme.
>But wanting to reactivate over 2000 tanks only a few years after taking them out of service?
when they took them out of service the idea was that T-90A will be the stopgap until T-14. Now they just reconsidered, realising that upgrading T-72 to B3 standard works just as well at mere fraction the price.

>>32163812
>IIRC, the only things that differ T-80U from T-80BV are electronics and ERA
T-80U has different integrated armor - bot in the hull and the turret.

I guess that they are doin BVs because they are from Omsk.

File: wum975.jpg (419KB, 1599x858px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1599x858px

>>32163874
The problem with T-80U hulls is that the early tanks have different armor to the late ones.

>>32163862
>when they took them out of service the idea was that T-90A will be the stopgap until T-14.
They have also reactivated a few divisions that were disbanded by Serdyukov, which will need filling out.
[spoiler]also to replace their losses in Ukraine[/spoiler]

>>32163874
T-80U is from Omsk too.
>>32163886
It's the same with early to late T-72B variants, as far as I'm concerned.

>>32163862
You mean Uralvagonzavod, they've been posting increasingly worse financials every year since 2014, as have many other Russian companies due to the sanctions put on them. So yeah, please excuse me if I'll believe that the Russians are able to mass produce this tank when I see it.

>>32163979
Wasn't U made at Malyshev? Before the UD?

>>32163987
It's UVZ affiliates that are having problems, Uralvagonzavod itself has over 8 billion rub. net income in 2016 so far.

File: plutonwobronie1_zpsda74feca.jpg (109KB, 561x1024px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 561x1024px

>good hull down position

File: 164_zps13028b4c.jpg (102KB, 800x537px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x537px

>>32164037
>bad one

Exposing turret roof is never a good idea.

File: t-90a & t-80u.jpg (3MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1500px

>>32163995
No, you are probably confusing it with T-84U, which is upgraded T-80UD. Ukrainians were making diesel T-80 variants, Russians were making turbine ones. I think the point is T-80U is not as dated as T-80BV, so upgrading it won't cause the same impact as modernising the latter. Originally T-90 was just T-72B upgraded to T-80U/UK standard. T-90A incorporated some more advanced electronics and other upgrades, including the turret of the Object 187. T-72B3 is T-72B upgraded to the standard of T-90A or higher. T-80BV is about the level of T-72B, while T-80U is about the level of T-90.

>>32163862
>Now they just reconsidered, realising that upgrading T-72 to B3 standard works just as well at mere fraction the price.
they are upgrading more T-72B to B3M standard, al of the T-90A from 2004 will be received the T-90AM/SM packet, and also this new T-80 packet

Which will end up being the best tank? T-72B3, T-90A or newly upgraded T-80BV?

>>32164174
T-90 with welded turret.

File: 5958663_original.jpg (340KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1350x900px

>>32164174
T-72B3 lack APS
T-90A is being upgrade to SM standard
not many is know about the new T-80BV, some said it will be the T-80UE(picrelated) or the T-80BV upgrade in this post >>32163725
in both case, very similar to the T-90A, but with a turbine engine

File: t-80u at mont saint-michel.jpg (523KB, 1600x1701px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1600x1701px

>>32164127
>T-90A from 2004 will be received the T-90AM/SM packet
I am going to need a reliable source suggesting this.

File: 0_112252_2945f99f_orig.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

>>32164189
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3601820

File: t-90ms (2).jpg (2MB, 2250x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1440px

>>32164198
>плaниpyeт дoгoвopитьcя
>paccчитывaeт в ближaйшee вpeмя
>Mы плaниpyeм в ближaйшee вpeмя
>пpeдлoжил
>paccмaтpивaют этoт вoпpoc
Meh. I guess there's a chance of this happening, but the price tag is going to be rather high and I honestly highly doubt MOD will approve this, seeing how they prefer upgrading T-72 over building T-90. And I mean what will T-90MS change for its price, if T-72B3 mod.2016 is getting Relikt ERA and so will most likely T-80BV upgrade and all together this is a mere stopgap for a future decade?

>>32164229
i don't really get the point of Relikt

it is just Kontakt-5 with 4S23 or 4S24 right?

>>32164189
>t-80u at mont saint-michel.jpg
kek. HATO better watch their selves.

File: t-72b2 scale model.jpg (99KB, 1728x1152px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1728x1152px

>>32164236
The point is that it's a more effective modern ERA, designed to negate the effect of tandem charges and advanced APFSDS designed to defeat Kontakt-5 like M829A3.
>it is just Kontakt-5 with 4S23 or 4S24 right?
What do you mean? Kontakt-5 is 4S22 modules. Relikt is 4S23 modules, they are different in everything, from how they fix to the armour to what they contain. It also offers more optimised surface coverage. 4S24 and 4S25 are essentially for IFVs.

>>32164340
Do you think that Russians will drop ERA in favor of NERA in near future?

>>32164499
hey have been using NERA snice T-72B 1989

File: file.png (2MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x960px

T-90 BURLAK

>48t
>Largest MBT ever
inb4 frontal penetration by autocannon

File: CROWS[1].jpg (134KB, 500x255px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x255px

>>32156472
>Judging from it's specifications it's far ahead of most Western MBT's

>Remote turret
Just a big version of this guy. Autoloader from prior T-series tanks. Nothing to prove it has better range or accuracy than other Russian 125s. And it doesn't use the gun-launch missiles like older tanks.

File: T-72M.jpg (144KB, 1274x764px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1274x764px

>>32165186
You mean this?

>>32163675
What if there's less than 20 units? Do they get the money back, or do infinite vehicles start happening?

File: Completely new and original.jpg (59KB, 1000x643px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1000x643px

>>32156472
>far ahead
pic very related

>>32157585
>copy the best parts of the armata
Lol, we passed up the very thing the Russians cloned, only we did it back in the early 80s. Once again pic very related, come back with better bait next time.

>>32165356
Thats a sexy tank

>>32164037
>find the lowest part of local terrain
>dig a pit and put the tank in it
i can't even

>>32165998
Glasnost happens.

>>32156472
>2-3 crew
>no fucking crew in the turret
100% guaranteed to be a smouldering jack inna box shitvan at the start of an engagement.

File: object 477 (1).jpg (140KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 807x605px

>>32166008
>pic very related
Not really. It is far ahead of both M1 and TTB, as well as every Soviet and Russian tank/platform prototype from 70-90s.
>we passed up the very thing the Russians cloned
Russians were doing R&D in this field since the first half of the 70s, lad. It's cute you have built one prototype. They had a number of them, in different configurations.

File: t-72b3 & mi-28n.jpg (1002KB, 5016x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 5016x3456px

>>32164499
No way. ERA is too good and they were mastering it for decades. Why dropping an option when you can have both? I mean if you only have first generation light ERA then yeah, you might want to look at modern NERA, as both don't really offer anything against APFSDS. But with second generation heavy ERA this is not the case. For instance, Kontakt-5 cuts 1/5th of KE penetrator effectiveness.

>>32156472
Russia just announced it would put the T-80 back in service with upgrades.

Basically announcing that the T-14 is a complete dud.

File: accuracy.webm (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>32156472
.webm related is from an advertising for the BMPT.

Just a hint of the production quality.

>>32165356
Magnificent bait.

Hail to whoever made this.

File: t-80bv (3).jpg (567KB, 1333x1133px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1333x1133px

>>32167576
No, not really. They are doing the same thing they were doing with T-72 modernisation for years, only that T-80 is better for Arctic conditions because of its turbine engine.

>>32167576
>>32167576
>Russia just announced it would put the T-80 back in service with upgrades.
>
>Basically announcing that the T-14 is a complete dud.
that is not how slavshit army work
the AK-74M is their standard rifle, but you will see guy with AKM running around

>>32165704
>big
>guy
T-14U when?

File: t-14 on kamaz.jpg (322KB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 2250x1500px

>>32168088
Tea, one for you?

File: 1463862300826.jpg (140KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 807x605px

>STILL NO FOOTAGE of the Armata showing any signs of a working gun stabilization system on the move.

Jesus Christ. They can't even match what the Germans had in the 1980s with the Leoapard 2A4..

>>32167600

How could they fuck up so badly after making a decent 30 mm auto cannon for the BMP-2?

>>32169794
But there is.

File: 1449193060477.jpg (563KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 798x1200px

>>32163725
>T-72B3 is a good upgrade packet but obsolete, only comparable to Leopard 2A4 or M1A1

Which is perfectly adequate for the threats they are likely to face at their borders.

>the new T-80BV will be T-90A equivalent or even better.

The T-90A has about the same combat rating as the T-72B3 upgrade...

>Which will end up being the best tank? T-72B3, T-90A or newly upgraded T-80BV?

T-72B3M as far as the capabilities go, unless the new T-80B upgrades get some features from the Armata program.

>>32164198

Seems dubious mate. T-90 is now a dead-end. They might make some export tanks, but domestically it's finished.

>i don't really get the point of Relikt

New explosive tiles are designed to detonate so rapidly and in a sequence which will quarter and destroy incident APFSDS rods.

>>32166008
>pic very related

Stop. They had their own crew-less turret concepts that predated the TTB.

File: untitled.jpg (19KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 512x384px

>>32169819

>>32169941
You post this same dumb bullshit about how there is no footage every couple of months and every couple of months I need to google this video for you. Might just as well just put it into bookmarks.
http://hlamer.ru/video/666214-Tank_T-14_Armata
2:06, 2:11, 2:36, 2:38.

>>32167600
>>32169805
No one really wants BMPT though, not even Russian military itself. Sure they advertised it, but in reality they just shook some off to Kazakhs and called it a day.

>>32164229
Why does it have a christmas tree?

>>32166045
>The americanskys will never suspect it, Vladimir!
>Da, you are of genious, Papov

File: t-90ms (5)2.jpg (4MB, 5000x3333px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5000x3333px

>>32170934
It's a T-90COMFY upgrade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakidka

>>32166045
>>32170961
But that is a polish T-72.

>>32156676
OH look, third post and the fatnik shitpost already begun.