T14 armata

>>34742949
Wait for the next piece of vaporware to show up

>>34742949
We don't have to wait for anything. That piece of shit will break itself.

File: 1369444740382.gif (1023KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 500x362px

>>34742949
>what can we do about a tank that basically doesn't exist, made by a country that lacks the means of getting it anywhere where it would actually matter, or the means to protect it from all the flying things that kill tanks before they can threaten your tanks

It's worth about the same response as the Qaher-313.

>>34742949
>Wait 10 years
>Allow Russian maintenance magic to happen
>They basically just rust apart

Such is life in Russia.

>breaks down

>>34742949
thing you must learn about Russia - they stage lots of propaganda shows of STRONK RUSSIA TECHNOLOGY but they magically never happen to show up in any military inventories, ever

File: Army2016-197.jpg (341KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1920x1280px

>>34743571

no idea what you mean

With the numbers of T-14 Russia has in the near future,fielding them in a war might even end up reducing their overall combat effectiveness through complicating logistics in comparison to simply fielding T-90M / T72B3

File: rus.jpg.png (244KB, 499x369px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 499x369px

>>34742949
We look at Russia's defense budget constraints and see if it is going to be able to buy more than the handful required to equip a few crack units. Then we stop worrying.

Russia's biggest military weakness isn't really kit; it's economic. A small fluctuating economy which makes grand rearmament plans shit the bed when oil prices tank or sanctions roll in. Russia did fairly well over the past 15 years or so to cut out most of the post-Soviet rot from its military. But without a better economy, Russia is going to struggle to pivot towards a military capable of matching NATO in the coming decades as NATO itself looks to rearm.

>>34743609
You know exactly what he means.

>>34743754
If it wasn't for America NATO wouldn't be much of a threat at all.

>>34743770

True. However it would be still morethan enough to take on Russia and come out on top eventually.
The Russian military is great at posturing, providing limited support of questionable impact to their allies, mediocre at bullying its neighbors and meh at trying to quell any but very low energy insurgencies.
Nobody but krokodil fiends actually believes they can take on multiple first world countries and win.

Hit it with a maverick

>>34743770
>>34743969

That and if the USA wasn't there, European countries probably wouldn't have cut their military spending by quite as much as they have.

>>34744502
Europeans didn't cut their defense spending until the USSR already started collapsing. That's why the main example you get is Britain in the 80s barely affording to fund the Army and Navy because they had cut back since Russia was on it's last legs and couldn't afford to police USSR member states, let alone wage a costly war against parity nations.

>>34743754

Russia isn't looking to match NATO. If they were, they'd just push the most modern SU-37 and MiG variants and produce T-90 in their most modern platform.

What they are trying to do is cut down on their bloated and inefficient military. They have at least 5 different MBT platforms for the same role. They have multiple variants of SU-27s and it's offspring with different part and training requirements. They have BMP-2s, 3s and whatever light APCs left over from the Stalin days still in a field.

What Russia is seeking to do is replace all of those with an ubiquitous military platform like all other nations are because despite the higher initial cost (curse of standardised equipment), they are cheaper in the long run.

The US had the same exact problem in the 1980s pre Reagan and his military funding programs solved it. Russia just lacks the economy and international backing to throw trillions at the problem to solve it quickly.

Doesn't mean the new equipment will be NATO grade. Doesn't mean it won't be better. But the entire idea is that Russia's replacing and restructuring, not rearming.

File: 25c864d48c381480a824a4cb9f25-grande.jpg (50KB, 468x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 468x300px

>>34743770
Without the US, NATO would still contain the key European member states, several of which are individually stronger economically than Russia, and a great deal stronger economically as a bloc. A scenario where NATO exists but America has no part in it would simply mean each NATO member having to increase its defense budgets. Collectively it wouldn't be too difficult to do that.

NATO is US dominated because we in Europe don't pull our weight, as we like the enjoy the prosperity that comes from cutting our own defense budgets and letting America's large military take up the slack. Ironically, the combination of increased Russian aggression and pressure on NATO and overt signals by the US President that America is less willing to foot the bill will have (and have had) exactly the opposite effect on NATO than what the Kremlin hopes; US defense spending and European commitments stay exactly the same, but the larger member states, worried about the being US less willing to intervene, bump up their own spending, and commit more to warding off Russian influence on the Eastern members. Voila, NATO is even stronger, Russia is still in the same position it was before.

>>34743571
And we don't do this in the US either?

>>34742949
>implying both sides would do 1vs1 honorabu duels with tanks
*groans*
The value of both tanks is basically the same, they would be pretty comparable in many areas. Abrams is fine and still have a room for improvements. What matters how countries would utilise their tools in the grand orchestra.

>>34742949
We do what we did to the Nazis in WWII. We make way, way, way more tanks than them.

File: wj5.png (406KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 601x601px

Tbqh even as a slavaboo the tank is just too good to be true, and in a Q&A with gun jesus some brit talked how they are already working on how to actually penetrate it.
Rossiya is not stronk anymore

>>34744968
Nothing too fantastic about that tank, it's just Russia finally catching up to the Western standards of MBT's. Look past unmanned turret gimmick and you would basically get your bog standard Leo, Abrams, Challenger and etc.

>>34744640
>Russia isn't looking to match NATO

I disagree. Russia is scared of NATO, even though it would not admit so. Russia is economically weaker and lacks the support of a large group of useful allies. Thus a powerful military gives it the ability to match NATO and maintain its place as a superpower, as it certainly can't do so any other way. Trying to rationalize a military with too much legacy equipment by replacing it with modern standardized kit is exactly the same as the work needed to bring it up to par with its main competitor. If Russia wanted a streamlined cheaper military, it could stop the silly posturing against the West and cut its forces down to a moderate but professional and well equipped defense force sufficient for its large landmass. Russia can't do that, due to the political ramifications of cutting their defense sector (As it was once said ; "We build lots of military equipment, because it's one of the few things we dowell.") and the part of the national psyche that demands a big army. Russia thus remains stuck in the limbo it is in, halfway between the modern force it would like and the inherited Soviet mess it wants to escape.

File: 1323119001606.jpg (62KB, 529x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 529x480px

>>34742949
>Does the Abrams has a chance?

I'm under no illusion about the Abrams' invincibility faced with modern Russian armor, but any Russian claims about the T-14 are waiting to be verified in actual combat, *especially* the wild claims about its APS and the ability to intercept APFSDS.
I, for one, am highly sceptical whenever countries of Russia's format present some kind of game-changer to the world with lots of pomp.

Remember, Russia's long history with weapons design consists of lots and lots of dead ends, interspersed with good designs, and the way to find out the difference was always combat.
Announcing you've nailed it right away doesn't necessarily make it true, and with a paradigm shift design like this it makes me even more doubtful.

>>34745003
Yeah i know, it has WAY more features and gimmicks than needed like the unmanned turret, the 900 mm of armour, the ultra "safe" capsule, etc.
Plus it actually looks good for once, and i liked that i was modular, making it an IFV, APC, MRLS, etc

File: 1444029860996.jpg (29KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 453x604px

>>34745033
This

>>34745033

Nuclear nations don't care about what other nations claim to do. That's why everyone handles Israel with kid gloves and currently have giant piles of shit in their underroos for NK's program since it means that they will remain a border proxy for China and a regional power by pure association with being able to toss a bomb.

Russia is just looking to modernise and do so in a fashion that replaces the current issue of too many variants and platforms for no actual gain, which was a problem the US faced in the 60s but solved under Reagan.

It's about simplifying logistics and production while offering a performance improvement across all fields affected.

They could easily be happy with T-90s replacing all their other MBTs.
They could easily be happy with SU-35S's and Mig 35s replacing their entire fighter wing (probably will happen since T-50 isn't moving anywhere with speed).
They could replace all their IFVs with BMP-3s.

The list goes on.

But it's simply not worth spending all that money on new models of old equipment when it's just better to make brand new models that advertise superior performance across the board for a small increase in cost.

They are just doing what the US spend the late 80s and 90s doing but under more media scrutiny because lolrussia sells.

File: Vladimir_287e1e_2641635.jpg (59KB, 700x424px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x424px

>>34745340
>Nuclear nations don't care about what other nations claim to do.
>Which is why when the first atomic bomb detonated at Trinity, Uncle Sam kicked back, made a cup of coffee and relaxed, knowing that it didn't have to sign any treaties, form any mutual defense pacts with broke-as-shit European nations, engage in huge conventional military arms races with large communist states, or fight any land wars in Asia, as the atom bomb solved every problem ever.

The irony of your post is that most of the weapons platforms you named were pretty much the PAK FA's and Armata's of their generation: Modern equipment supposed to universally do away with the old, match what's abroad and solve the legacy problem. If Russia was not able to bring these in as the universal service models, what hope do they really have of being able to universally field even more advanced and expensive equipment like the PAK and T-14? It would honestly be a better idea to do exactly what you advise not to do if Russia insists on keeping a large military, or alternatively go for a force reduced in size but with increase modernity. The idea of a Russia being able to afford a cutting edge large military just because standardization shaves off a few Rubles is a pipe dream.

>>34746103

There are 3200 T-90s in the world. They weren't really Armatas and the tech programs born from the program could retroactively be installed on older models, thus meaning extension of service by proximity to a program that was just effectively a standardisation of the T-80 to a wider spread platform.

SU-35 was an interim program. It wasn't ever meant to reach F-35 levels of production and they are still being produced.

Mig-35 has yet to reach any level of serial production. Doesn't mean it won't but it's just not there but until 2019, there's no way to tell.

Plus you are acting like the US Atomics program in the 40s was US only. It was a united efforts program between the Allies, hence why the US jumped into the treaties and such so it didn't suddenly get told to fuck off with lend lease as everyone just made their own programs. The arms race was fuck all to do with the USSR parity. There wasn't a single point before the mid 70s/early 80s where the USSR wouldn't have steamrolled their way across Europe with or without nuclear arms because their military doctrine at the time was already about mechanised infantry with tank support.

It's why the entire Cold War was a crock of shit from a historical standpoint and the entire game otherwise was geopolitics between nuclear powers to just create a political ravine and limit economic growth.

If the US really REALLY cared about the USSR and communism, they'd have pushed on after WW2 and Korea and attacked when they had some sort of military advantage in the form of nuclear arms. Instead they sat back and let Russia get the nuke and then claim the Cold War was anything but an excuse to pander politically to other nations to create/influence markets. All anti-communism dogma was entirely marketing and propaganda to give people something to point their finger at just like capitalism was for the CCCP.

I don't think the Armata can be physically stopped.

>>34744756
How often do you see hyper elaborate parades of military equipment and weaponry for hours on end down Pennsylvania Avenue on July 4th?

File: smug cato.png (198KB, 293x267px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 293x267px

>>34742965
Prove it.