Jump to content

News about T-90 upgrade plan


Recommended Posts

They're already sunk if that happens because it means the targeted country has some sort of special status with NATO or at least one of the major countries within it. And that means that if Russian tankers should decide to go on vacation or get lost in the country they're going to have a lot more problems than a Leo or Abrams.

I would definitely agree that such a scenario would present more problems for the Russians, but to say that they are “sunk” is way too premature. Ultimately weapon platforms (even the most advanced ones) don’t decide the outcome of the battles (as we can clearly see in Iraq right now)– logistics, training, initiative, C3 and such have a much bigger effect on it; and Russians are much more likely to hold notable advantage over their neighbors in all of those areas.

Think about it. What countries are even likely to accept Western military aid besides Georgia and Ukraine? I can't think of any. And if they did, where do you think they'd get the money for such purchases?

Those are the only two that I can think of as well, and if they were to get such weapon systems – it sure as hell would not come out of their budget…

I've made this point before, but I'll restate it here. Russia's legacy clients purchase Soviet type weaponry for three reasons:

1. It's cheap

2. They have the infrastructure to handle them

3. It's good enough for their needs (usually domestic use, sometimes matching similar weaponry of a neighbor)

I am not sure that you can sum old Soviet weapon clients and the current Russian ones into one bucket. Countries like Algeria and Venezuela (just to name of few) were never known as Soviet clients.

While I agree with the points that you outline above – one major one that you seem to be missing is that quite a few countries are hesitant to purchase Western weapons due to increased oversight and pressure that comes along with such purchases. Politics play a major role in international weapon trade whether buying from Russia and China or US and EU…

Armata is as expensive as a Western tank and almost as difficult/expensive to maintain. They have very little, if any, infrastructure to handle something like the Armata. Even the Russian MoD is saying it will take TWO YEARS for a driver to be fully trained. What tinpot dictatorship wants to spend that sort of money just to get their fancy expensive propaganda pieces do move without crashing into something? And because of that their neighbors won't likely be getting these any time soon either.

Soooo... who exactly is the market for these vehicles? I don't see it. I do see a continued market for upgraded Soviet era hardware and T-90s for many decades.

I have purposely stayed away from any discussion of T-14/T-15 simply because so little is known about them right now. Your assumptions are certainly valid, but would they still hold true 10 years from now? Only time will tell..

I fully agree with the theoretical need from the Russian government's perspective. However, the Soviet Union felt the same pressure in 1980 and look how that turned out. Domestic spending can only take a backseat to military spending for short periods of time unless there is a demonstrated justification for it. Last I checked less than a half dozen countries spend the % of GDP that Russia is slated to spend, one of which is Israel and the others are 3rd world nations. It's not a good sign that Russia can sustain this level of spending. Certainly the Soviet Union couldn't and it had vastly more resources than Russia does.

From a pragmatic standpoint Russia should just say "the heck with it" and scale down to small, efficient force that is capable of doing nothing major on its own. Plow the savings back into the economy, including the defense sector. Russia can not have a competent, well armed military without an economy strong enough to support it. They need to get their economy reorganized first. And having $50b worth of assets taken over for failure to pay legal judgements from binding arbitration isn't going to help one iota.

Again, I see your point; but the defense sector has actually been fairly profitable and competitive for the Russians so far. Would that be the case if they embark on Soviet-level expenditures of cranking out 3000+ tanks a year? Almost certainly not, but so far they have been quite conservative with their actual purchases..

Is there a timeline? Numbers? Also, what is the degree of confidence that this will actually happen? Militaries, Russian and other, make announcements all the time that don't happen. I think this has happened a few times already with T-90 modernization programs, hasn't it?

Steve

Exactly! Which is why I am very skeptical of any Russian weapon procurement plans until we see them in action; and when it comes to Armata we are still quite a few years away from those plans being anywhere close to materializing…

Edited by DreDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that says is that they are currently operating T-80. They are planned to be binned to make room to recieve T-14. Trust me ;)

I know exactly what you are saying my friend, but the fact is that the 4th Guards Division has been receiving upgraded T-80s as of late. This was confirmed in a recent interview by its commander.

You are absolutely correct to reference the earlier plans to have them switch over to T-72/T-90; but that no longer seems to be the case. Why?.. I have no clue. Perhaps it's just a move to keep the workers at Omsk pant happy.. Perhaps there are some deeper logistical and tactical reasons for that... but there is no denying the fact that they are re-arming with modernized T-80s.

Also, contrary to the earlier statements by Russian MOD, 5th Tank Brigade is now slated to be rearmed with T-14/15s before anyone else. Again - Why? Perhaps because they use the oldest equipment right now (T-72B/BAs); or perhaps it is due to their (relatively) successful performance in East Ukraine during the Debaltsevo offensive.. Either way, I would not be surprised one bit if those plans change again before T-14/15s are actually ready for service...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely agree that such a scenario would present more problems for the Russians, but to say that they are “sunk” is way too premature. Ultimately weapon platforms (even the most advanced ones) don’t decide the outcome of the battles (as we can clearly see in Iraq right now)– logistics, training, initiative, C3 and such have a much bigger effect on it; and Russians are much more likely to hold notable advantage over their neighbors in all of those areas.

By "sunk" I meant in terms of securing their war aims in a way that could be conceivably viewed as a net gain for Russia. The current conflict certainly shows how limited Russia's capabilities are to secure what it wants through force of arms, bribery, and coercion.

If Russia wages outright war against a neighbor, that isn't NATO, then they will be going up against a force armed with outdated Soviet/Russian equipment crewed by generally low quality personnel with even worse leadership and logistics. Russia can militarily defeat them without Armata now and even 15 years from now. If Russia wages war against a state which is backed by NATO, winning on the battlefield is doubtful to have much meaning to Russia as a nation state.

 

Those are the only two that I can think of as well, and if they were to get such weapon systems – it sure as hell would not come out of their budget…

Exactly. Which means the West, or at least a specific Western country, will have the sort of investment in that nation which makes a strong counter action to Russian aggression more likely.

 

I am not sure that you can sum old Soviet weapon clients and the current Russian ones into one bucket. Countries like Algeria and Venezuela (just to name of few) were never known as Soviet clients.

While I agree with the points that you outline above – one major one that you seem to be missing is that quite a few countries are hesitant to purchase Western weapons due to increased oversight and pressure that comes along with such purchases. Politics play a major role in international weapon trade whether buying from Russia and China or US and EU…

It is very reasonable to view Russia's military exports as being a continuation of the Soviet Union's, so I personally do not see any effective difference between the two. Clients went in and out of the Soviet orbit over time just as they have gone in and out of Russia's orbit over time. As for Algeria, they have been the recipient of Soviet equipment going back a long time.

Anyway, it's not important to view things in absolute terms. My point is that nations which purchase Russian/Soviet hardware are ones not looking to spend $8m per tank and have to spend hundreds of millions extra in training and overhead over time. Doesn't matter if it is stamped "Made in Russia", "Made in China", or "Made in USA". They don't have the money, they don't have the interest, they don't have the need.

 

I have purposely stayed away from any discussion of T-14/T-15 simply because so little is known about them right now. Your assumptions are certainly valid, but would they still hold true 10 years from now? Only time will tell..

Everything becomes cheaper over time, for sure. But the step from an upgraded T-62 or T-72 to the costs associated with Armata is massive. Since the nations that secure these sorts of weapons are generally poor, 10 years is not likely to make a difference. Plus, I think China will likely have a better (cost effective) solution for many of these nations in 10 years. And China, unlike Russia, is doing VERY well in the department of winning friends and influencing people.

 

Again, I see your point; but the defense sector has actually been fairly profitable and competitive for the Russians so far. Would that be the case if they embark on Soviet-level expenditures of cranking out 3000+ tanks a year? Almost certainly not, but so far they have been quite conservative with their actual purchases..

Past performance means nothing if all you're offering today is something nobody wants or can not afford. The arms industry follows the basic tenants of the free market system.

 

Exactly! Which is why I am very skeptical of any Russian weapon procurement plans until we see them in action; and when it comes to Armata we are still quite a few years away from those plans being anywhere close to materializing…

Indeed.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add that I'm VERY curious if anybody can make a case for the Armata having a broad enough export market worthy of Russia's investment and the sacrifices that go along with it. I'd be happy just to have someone suggest a few countries that might be prospective buyers. I've racked my brain and I can come up with exactly... uhm... zero. Even the countries that are currently purchasing T-90s (India in particular) aren't likely to buy Armata because if they were in the market for something that expensive they would have gone with a NATO tank.

On the other hand, I can list dozens of countries that would be interested in continuing to buy parts, upgrades, and hand-me-downs from the Soviet legacy equipment and subsequent Russian upgrades (I include T-90 in that mix). Of those I think China will be a sharp competitor in the near future.

Which, to me, indicates that Russia should not think of Armata as anything but a domestic tank. Which then gets me back to the argument that it doesn't need (nor can it afford) a tank that is this expensive.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" post="1614952" timestamp="1434906399"]

Inferior to the Oplot in In the game? nope. I´ll glady prove it in a game. :)

ill take the challenge dropbox me a setup (email removed)

(I edited out the email address. Not good practice to put it in public because of SPAMBOTS scan for them. Yossarian can send you a PM to set things up - Steve)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.... 2 days on this particular challenge to the notion of export market (of which I think I've made 2 or 3 prior) and still not a peep. Since it's not very difficult to type the name of a country, I can only conclude that there is a lack of candidates to suggest.

Which means that Armata is not a strong candidate for export, it's not affordable for domestic production, and it's got little chance of changing Russia's geopolitical position in any meaningful way. This is presuming, of course, that Armata basically works as advertised, otherwise these questions aren't even relevant.

And people wonder why I am critical of the project :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen multiple sources that have pegged it at $8m per vehicle. Which seems reasonable considering a 1999 estimate for a full up T-90 is excess of $4m. Which is another point to make... we still don't know what a T-90 really costs, so if we can't discuss Armata until we have a definite price... well... then we're never going to discuss it. That hardly seems fun ;)

However, we don't need to know what the exact price is going to be to answer the question I posed. We do know that Armata, no matter what, is going to be more expensive to produce than an upgraded T-90, it is going to be more costly to maintain, it is going to involve major infrastructure expenses to support them, and pose some big costs/challenges to crewing them. Russia's MoD said 2 years to learn how to drive one of these things properly. I asked before, and I'll ask again, what countries out there are willing to put the sort of resources necessary to ensure a steady supply of contract soldiers to maintain operational readiness?

So with that in mind, I'm still looking for someone to answer the questions I've raised.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not so much as a single possible customer suggestion? Not surprising :)

Very few countries have adopted anything beyond surplussed T-80s. There is a pretty decent list of countries that showed interest in the T-90, but then went with something cheaper instead (mostly T-72s). This underscores the price consciousness of the existing Soviet/Russian customer base. Of the countries that have adopted T-90 in quantity (India and Algeria), neither are likely candidates for Armata since they either fairly recently got their T-90s or are still in the process of fielding them.

Hence why I think we don't need to know Armata's exact price tag to see that it is not a strong candidate for the export market.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... let me think.... If the recent pattern of Russian ultra-nationalist belligerence extends east they could find themselves crossing swords (rhetorical or otherwise) with China. If China and Russia get into a spitting contest then a likely candidate for Armata would be Taiwan. Taiwan has the industrial base to maintain the beast, and none of the other major powers dare help Taiwan modernize its military for fear of invoking China's wrath.

 

Eh, that's all I got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taiwan! That's an interesting suggestion. However, I doubt it. They are queuing up to purchase M1A1s and it appears the deal is only being held up by Taiwan's budget priorities:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2015/05/24/2003619045

The other reason it wouldn't happen is because Taiwan's close relationship with the US. I don't see it buying anything significant from any other country because no other country is ready to defend Taiwan like the US is.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The precedent I was thinking of was Iraq who had been waiting and waiting for the long-promised delivery of F16 fighters to rebuild their air force, until they finally threw up their hands and grabbed a batch of aging surplus SU-25s to fill the breach. Taiwan has had something of a history of wanting 'stuff' that China doesn't want them to have. If things heat up in the region Taiwan may abandon patience and purchase the best of whatever anyone's willing to actually ship to them. This is all speculation on my part. My subscription to "Military Technology" magazine ran out more than a decade ago.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... let me think.... If the recent pattern of Russian ultra-nationalist belligerence extends east they could find themselves crossing swords (rhetorical or otherwise) with China. If China and Russia get into a spitting contest then a likely candidate for Armata would be Taiwan. Taiwan has the industrial base to maintain the beast, and none of the other major powers dare help Taiwan modernize its military for fear of invoking China's wrath.

 

Eh, that's all I got.

 

So far we have only seen a strengthening of strategic and economic ties between Russian and China. I see no reason why this pattern would break as long as we continue isolating Russia in Europe. A conflict between Russia and China has been a wet dream of our neocons (I hate that term, but we all know what it means in this context) for several decades; but so far we have only seen the contrary… and our policy towards Russia has only strengthened this alliance with China. I personally fear that this is a great strategic blunder that would come back to haunt us in the coming years; but only time would tell..

 

Either way though, It is much more likely that Armatas (or at least some of their components) would end up in PRC rather than Taiwan in any foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen multiple sources that have pegged it at $8m per vehicle. Which seems reasonable considering a 1999 estimate for a full up T-90 is excess of $4m. Which is another point to make... we still don't know what a T-90 really costs, so if we can't discuss Armata until we have a definite price... well... then we're never going to discuss it. That hardly seems fun ;)

However, we don't need to know what the exact price is going to be to answer the question I posed. We do know that Armata, no matter what, is going to be more expensive to produce than an upgraded T-90, it is going to be more costly to maintain, it is going to involve major infrastructure expenses to support them, and pose some big costs/challenges to crewing them. Russia's MoD said 2 years to learn how to drive one of these things properly. I asked before, and I'll ask again, what countries out there are willing to put the sort of resources necessary to ensure a steady supply of contract soldiers to maintain operational readiness?

So with that in mind, I'm still looking for someone to answer the questions I've raised.

Steve

 

Steve, I've actually seen different numbers. T-90A/S was said to cost around $2.5 mil in late 90s, and Armata is estimated to cost $4-5 mil as of now. Now I personally view Armata numbers (whatever they are) as fugazi, because the vehicle is nowhere close to being combat ready.

 

As for its export potential - I honestly don't know, nor care to forecast such things until we have solid information about the vehicles’ readiness and features. That's a discussion that I would love to have 3-5 years from now (if not later) when the work on T-14/15 is actually completed; but for now there are simply too many unknowns for me to make any educated predictions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far we have only seen a strengthening of strategic and economic ties between Russian and China. I see no reason why this pattern would break as long as we continue isolating Russia in Europe. A conflict between Russia and China has been a wet dream of our neocons (I hate that term, but we all know what it means in this context) for several decades; but so far we have only seen the contrary… and our policy towards Russia has only strengthened this alliance with China. I personally fear that this is a great strategic blunder that would come back to haunt us in the coming years; but only time would tell..

 

Either way though, It is much more likely that Armatas (or at least some of their components) would end up in PRC rather than Taiwan in any foreseeable future.

While it is true that recently Russia has made much of its warming relations with China, the truth is neither country trusts each other. It is also true that Putin just stated in the St. Petersburg economic conference that this new relationship should not be played up too much. Which is rather a different tone than he took last year. Perhaps the reality of the new relations with China are not as good as they appear on paper. For example, China is reluctant to do business with Russia's top banks because of sanctions.

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

China can live just fine without expanding its relationship with Russia, but its very existence is threatened if North America (let's not forget Canada!) and Europe reduces its relationship with China. China knows where the money is.

But I'm straying from the topic :D

 

Steve, I've actually seen different numbers. T-90A/S was said to cost around $2.5 mil in late 90s,

I think it depends very much on what bling comes with it. I've seen estimates of $4.5 million in 2011 for T-90MS based on the $1b India spent on 354 of them.

 

and Armata is estimated to cost $4-5 mil as of now. Now I personally view Armata numbers (whatever they are) as fugazi, because the vehicle is nowhere close to being combat ready.

Oh, I totally agree. The estimates are all over the place. And again, it is based on what might be on the vehicles and what might not be, which is still an unknown.

 

As for its export potential - I honestly don't know, nor care to forecast such things until we have solid information about the vehicles’ readiness and features. That's a discussion that I would love to have 3-5 years from now (if not later) when the work on T-14/15 is actually completed; but for now there are simply too many unknowns for me to make any educated predictions

Looking in the review mirror is always a better way to view what is behind you, but if you look long enough you'll probably crash into something because you weren't looking forward :D

My point here is to make some prognostications based on the information we have now merged with the known track record from earlier times. And not just with Russia and the Soviet Union, but with other nations and their defense activities.

For example, we can safely say that customers have been reluctant to purchase T-90s in any major way. A few here and there besides India and Algeria. This despite the T-90 being available for export for at least 14 years and probably more like 20. This despite the fact that the vehicle's price is significantly less than the Armata (both percentage and absolute numbers). This despite the fact that the T-90 is basically the same as the T-62s and T-72s that such nations already (probably) employ, thus having fairly low adoption costs/headaches.

Let's presume for a second that the Armata is no more expensive than a T-90, that it is as easy to integrate into existing infrastructure, and comes with no extra baggage in terms of training and maintenance. Looking at the T-90 track record this would presume that in about 20-25 years from now there will be about 1300+/- Armatas exported. But we know the cost will be higher, the impact on infrastructure significant, and more costs/problems associated with training and maintenance. Logically, therefore, one should expect that to have a negative impact on export sales. On top of this it presumes no significant Chinese competition within the next 25+ years. Anybody want to say that's a safe assumption?

I feel we have all the information we need to make a pretty fair guess that the export market for Armata is going to be less than T-90 and stretched out over at least as long a timeframe. When looking at the costs it's taking to develop, and the questionable utility even for Russia itself, I just don't see this as something Kremlin planners should be counting on to balance the books.

On the other hand, I think there's a very good market for the T-90 in the near future. I think there's a VERY good market for upgrades to existing Soviet/Russian equipment. And that should be a highly profitable business for Russia. Though the irony is that the better their upgrade sales the likely lower their Armata sales will be.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is true that recently Russia has made much of its warming relations with China, the truth is neither country trusts each other. It is also true that Putin just stated in the St. Petersburg economic conference that this new relationship should not be played up too much. Which is rather a different tone than he took last year. Perhaps the reality of the new relations with China are not as good as they appear on paper. For example, China is reluctant to do business with Russia's top banks because of sanctions.

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

China can live just fine without expanding its relationship with Russia, but its very existence is threatened if North America (let's not forget Canada!) and Europe reduces its relationship with China. China knows where the money is.

But I'm straying from the topic :D

I actually find this topic to be quite important (much more so than Armata’s export potential) so I hope that you don’t mind me straying along with you.

The danger of Russia turning to China instead of EU for partnership is not so much in a formation of some Warsaw Pact 2.0 that will oppose us, but rather in their strategic and economic ties that benefit both countries, but pose geopolitical challenges for us. One primary example of this is that China would now be getting oil and gas through (land) pipelines from Russia rather than sea routes that it has relied on up until now.

This is not something that you hear mentioned a lot, but our ability to block those sea routes was a major restraining factor that has given us a tremendous amount of leverage so far. Now, we would no longer have this advantage… it’s not like we can bomb Russia to block their supply lines to PRC…

I think it depends very much on what bling comes with it. I've seen estimates of $4.5 million in 2011 for T-90MS based on the $1b India spent on 354 of them.

Oh, I totally agree. The estimates are all over the place. And again, it is based on what might be on the vehicles and what might not be, which is still an unknown.

Agreed such numbers are meaningless without looking at the whole package that is offered in a contract. However, I find it very hard to believe that T-90MS would cost as much as M1A2 (all else being equal)…

 

Looking in the review mirror is always a better way to view what is behind you, but if you look long enough you'll probably crash into something because you weren't looking forward :D

My point here is to make some prognostications based on the information we have now merged with the known track record from earlier times. And not just with Russia and the Soviet Union, but with other nations and their defense activities.

For example, we can safely say that customers have been reluctant to purchase T-90s in any major way. A few here and there besides India and Algeria. This despite the T-90 being available for export for at least 14 years and probably more like 20. This despite the fact that the vehicle's price is significantly less than the Armata (both percentage and absolute numbers). This despite the fact that the T-90 is basically the same as the T-62s and T-72s that such nations already (probably) employ, thus having fairly low adoption costs/headaches.

Modern MBT sales have been pretty low all across the board as of late. I mean, what new MBTs have sold at a better rate than T-90? M1A1/A2 and Leo 2s (which are mostly upgrades) for sure, but can you think of any others?

 

Let's presume for a second that the Armata is no more expensive than a T-90, that it is as easy to integrate into existing infrastructure, and comes with no extra baggage in terms of training and maintenance. Looking at the T-90 track record this would presume that in about 20-25 years from now there will be about 1300+/- Armatas exported. But we know the cost will be higher, the impact on infrastructure significant, and more costs/problems associated with training and maintenance. Logically, therefore, one should expect that to have a negative impact on export sales. On top of this it presumes no significant Chinese competition within the next 25+ years. Anybody want to say that's a safe assumption?

I feel we have all the information we need to make a pretty fair guess that the export market for Armata is going to be less than T-90 and stretched out over at least as long a timeframe. When looking at the costs it's taking to develop, and the questionable utility even for Russia itself, I just don't see this as something Kremlin planners should be counting on to balance the books.

On the other hand, I think there's a very good market for the T-90 in the near future. I think there's a VERY good market for upgrades to existing Soviet/Russian equipment. And that should be a highly profitable business for Russia. Though the irony is that the better their upgrade sales the likely lower their Armata sales will be.

Steve

I get your point, but I simply don’t care enough to debate it. Perhaps you are right. Or perhaps Armata would turn out to be a major force multiplier that would be highly valued by any military force that can procure it. It is a new generation of MBT design, a phase that any major MBT manufacturer needs to embrace in order to be competitive. Is it the right kind of MBT design? I don’t have a slightest clue… but it is inevitable that other major powers would try to field their own revolutionary MBTs sooner rather than later…

Edited by DreDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually find this topic to be quite important (much more so than Armata’s export potential) so I hope that you don’t mind me straying along with you.

The danger of Russia turning to China instead of EU for partnership is not so much in a formation of some Warsaw Pact 2.0 that will oppose us, but rather in their strategic and economic ties that benefit both countries, but pose geopolitical challenges for us. One primary example of this is that China would now be getting oil and gas through (land) pipelines from Russia rather than sea routes that it has relied on up until now.

This is not something that you hear mentioned a lot, but our ability to block those sea routes was a major restraining factor that has given us a tremendous amount of leverage so far. Now, we would no longer have this advantage… it’s not like we can bomb Russia to block their supply lines to PRC…

For the foreseeable future China can not go to war with the US or the EU. If it does, it's economy will collapse and they'll have a couple hundred million people unemployed almost overnight. The economies of the US and EU will also be devastated, but they don't have the same sort of political peril that the Chinese government has. The Chinese government is many things, chief amongst them is pragmatic when it comes to their own survival.

For all the Russian hype about that gas deal, the Chinese are not willing to pay for it and the Russians are unable to pay for it. It's effectively stalled last time I looked into it. Which was what I, and others, predicted the day the deal was announced. If you check posts on this forum made during the days following Putin's big announcement of the deal you'll see that I predicted it would stall out. It was pretty obvious to me that it was a deal made more for PR than it was economic benefit. And with the collapse of the Ruble and the worsening domestic economic circumstances, it's even worse.

Sooooo... if the pipeline is ever finished it will be an asset for China, but it doesn't change the balance of power any in real sense.

Agreed such numbers are meaningless without looking at the whole package that is offered in a contract. However, I find it very hard to believe that T-90MS would cost as much as M1A2 (all else being equal)…

It's not. Latest guess on price (2012) I've seen for a M1A2 is over $8 million. So a T-90MS is about 1/2 as expensive. The high end Armata price estimate puts it close to a M1A2, the low end puts it at about 50% more than a T-90MS. Either way, it's still significantly more expensive than the T-90MS which Russia has already found a tough sell.

 

Modern MBT sales have been pretty low all across the board as of late. I mean, what new MBTs have sold at a better rate than T-90? M1A1/A2 and Leo 2s (which are mostly upgrades) for sure, but can you think of any others?

True, but not in correct context. Comparison between Western tank sales and Russian tank sales is meaningless because the Western countries have been very picky about who buys their stuff. Further, Russia has lost T-90 sales to its own, much older and much less capable, T-72s. And this reinforces my point. The more a Russian design competes with a Western design on price and complexity, the less customers out there willing to purchase it. Armata is a deliberate step towards Western designs and therefore, by definition, will limit export possibilities. The reason this is important is one counter argument to draining the Russian coffers to produce Armata is that they'll get paid back in future export sales. This is the premise that I've been challenging.

I get your point, but I simply don’t care enough to debate it. Perhaps you are right. Or perhaps Armata would turn out to be a major force multiplier that would be highly valued by any military force that can procure it. It is a new generation of MBT design, a phase that any major MBT manufacturer needs to embrace in order to be competitive. Is it the right kind of MBT design? I don’t have a slightest clue… but it is inevitable that other major powers would try to field their own revolutionary MBTs sooner rather than later…

Exactly this. I've made that argument before as well. The biggest beneficiary of Russia's Armata program has been Western defense industries. It's the same thing that happened when the T-72 came out. And the West has a track record of being able to best whatever Russia fields in both design and manufacturing. So we once again return to the basic question I've asked since the start... what benefit does Russia get out of emptying its coffers to fund Armata's development and production?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the foreseeable future China can not go to war with the US or the EU. If it does, it's economy will collapse and they'll have a couple hundred million people unemployed almost overnight. The economies of the US and EU will also be devastated, but they don't have the same sort of political peril that the Chinese government has. The Chinese government is many things, chief amongst them is pragmatic when it comes to their own survival.

Of course, no one is talking about an all-out war between China/Russia/US/EU in a foreseeable future. That is simply not on a table for now as the consequences would be catastrophic for all the parties involved.

What we are talking about here are means of exerting economic and strategic pressure on China without a direct confrontation. Their current reliance on sea routes for transporting oil and gas is a major weakness that limits their geopolitical and strategic decision making. They know it, and they sure as hell don’t like it. And now we have handed them a resolution for this limitation by pushing Russia into their arms.

For all the Russian hype about that gas deal, the Chinese are not willing to pay for it and the Russians are unable to pay for it. It's effectively stalled last time I looked into it. Which was what I, and others, predicted the day the deal was announced. If you check posts on this forum made during the days following Putin's big announcement of the deal you'll see that I predicted it would stall out. It was pretty obvious to me that it was a deal made more for PR than it was economic benefit. And with the collapse of the Ruble and the worsening domestic economic circumstances, it's even worse.

The deal is definitely moving quite slowly, but that is a norm when doing business with China. At the end of the day, it is mutually beneficial to both states (both economically and geopolitically); so there is very little doubt in my mind that it would come to fruition when the Chinese are convinced that they have bargained the most out of it.

Sooooo... if the pipeline is ever finished it will be an asset for China, but it doesn't change the balance of power any in real sense.

I am not sure what you mean by a balance of power… Military power – certainly not! Soft power – even less so! But it sure as hell would significantly limit our strategic means of restraining China due to missing the ability to cut off the flow of strategic resources into the mainland.

It's not. Latest guess on price (2012) I've seen for a M1A2 is over $8 million. So a T-90MS is about 1/2 as expensive. The high end Armata price estimate puts it close to a M1A2, the low end puts it at about 50% more than a T-90MS. Either way, it's still significantly more expensive than the T-90MS which Russia has already found a tough sell.

I have not followed weapon procurements closely for quite a few years, but when I did (in mid to late nineties) M1A1 (export version) was valued around 4 mil, while T-90S was closer to 2.5 mil. T-72S was around 1.5 mil.

True, but not in correct context. Comparison between Western tank sales and Russian tank sales is meaningless because the Western countries have been very picky about who buys their stuff. Further, Russia has lost T-90 sales to its own, much older and much less capable, T-72s. And this reinforces my point. The more a Russian design competes with a Western design on price and complexity, the less customers out there willing to purchase it. Armata is a deliberate step towards Western designs and therefore, by definition, will limit export possibilities. The reason this is important is one counter argument to draining the Russian coffers to produce Armata is that they'll get paid back in future export sales. This is the premise that I've been challenging.

I don’t understand why you assume that Russians would have a hard time selling advanced and highly competitive tanks in face of western competition. If you look at their other weapon platforms that are a much better match for western counterparts (i.e. fighter jets, SAMs, etc..) they have been quite competitive and successful with those. What would make a competitive tank any different? Now whether T-14 is that tank or not… I have no idea nor do I care to even guess that until they are service ready…

Exactly this. I've made that argument before as well. The biggest beneficiary of Russia's Armata program has been Western defense industries. It's the same thing that happened when the T-72 came out. And the West has a track record of being able to best whatever Russia fields in both design and manufacturing. So we once again return to the basic question I've asked since the start... what benefit does Russia get out of emptying its coffers to fund Armata's development and production?

Steve

I don’t necessarily except your premise that Russian weapon systems would always be inferior to the Western ones. As I’ve said above, there are quite a few examples of their weapons platforms holding their own just fine (albeit not when it comes to tanks as of late). Will Armata development spur new spending and research for western platforms that can counter it? –Of course! That’s how world works. But I really don’t understand why you expect the Russians to give up trying to build advanced MBTs… They are an advanced weapon researcher/manufacturer/exporter; so I simply fail to see why they should not research and try to field advanced armored platforms… I am really missing your point here

Edited by DreDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, no one is talking about an all-out war between China/Russia/US/EU in a foreseeable future.

If the US cut off China's energy, that is exactly what would happen. Which again is the difference between a leverage point that is theoretical vs. practical. It is analogous to Russia's renewed direct threats of using nukes. In theory it gives them leverage, in reality if they resorted to nukes that would be the end of Russia forever. And the Russians know this very well.

 

I have not followed weapon procurements closely for quite a few years, but when I did (in mid to late nineties) M1A1 (export version) was valued around 4 mil, while T-90S was closer to 2.5 mil. T-72S was around 1.5 mil.

That was before all the expensive bling started coming on line. Prices have gone up considerably since then.

 

I don’t understand why you assume that Russians would have a hard time selling advanced and highly competitive tanks in face of western competition.

No, I'm saying they're going to have a hard time selling anything more expensive than a T-72, just as they have had a difficult time selling a T-90. The primary reason is price, which means the Western stuff isn't in the running either.

 

If you look at their other weapon platforms that are a much better match for western counterparts (i.e. fighter jets, SAMs, etc..) they have been quite competitive and successful with those. What would make a competitive tank any different? Now whether T-14 is that tank or not… I have no idea nor do I care to even guess that until they are service ready…

Again, Russia has benefitted from selling to markets which the Western countries simply aren't competitive in either because of price or because of politics. As the Armata goes up in price, Russia loses one of its primary selling points. Which is why countries have evaluated the T-90 and instead gone with T-72s. And that is why I say that Russia has a very lucrative market for exporting upgrades and services for existing platforms (which will include the T-90 more and more into the future).

As Armata comes online and production/refurbishment of T-72s comes to an end, the price will go down on the T-90 and that will become Russia's primary tank export until Armata becomes a LOT cheaper, which won't happen for a few decades, it will be priced outside of reach/desire of most existing Russian client states.

This also presumes that China isn't going to increase its market share, which is something I very much doubt will be the case over the next 20 years. China is in expansion mode and it is extremely good at it. It is a trend that will continue.

 

I don’t necessarily except your premise that Russian weapon systems would always be inferior to the Western ones. As I’ve said above, there are quite a few examples of their weapons platforms holding their own just fine (albeit not when it comes to tanks as of late). Will Armata development spur new spending and research for western platforms that can counter it? –Of course! That’s how world works. But I really don’t understand why you expect the Russians to give up trying to build advanced MBTs… They are an advanced weapon researcher/manufacturer/exporter; so I simply fail to see why they should not research and try to field advanced armored platforms… I am really missing your point here

Simply put... because they can not afford it. The Soviet Union tried and it bankrupted them into dissolution. Russia is headed down the same path. And for what?

1. Practical military advantage against non-NATO neighbors and/or internal unrest? They already have that and will retain it without Armata.

2. Practical military advantage against NATO? Even if Armata proves to be a good all around tank, and they can afford to build/field LOTS of them, the Russian armed forces have so many deficiencies going up against NATO (including numbers) that there's no way Armata will make a difference.

3. Export potential? According to my argument, it is very low. So low that financially I don't see it yielding a good return on investment. Especially when compared to investing in Russia's economic and social infrastructure. Russian population is in decline and it's net migration is increasing. That's by far a much larger threat to Russia's national interests and having some shiny new tanks isn't going to fix that. In fact, it is going to make it worse.

Which brings me back to the point I keep asking about... where is this export market which is going to compensate Russia for such a large allocation of limited resources? I do not see it.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US cut off China's energy, that is exactly what would happen. Which again is the difference between a leverage point that is theoretical vs. practical. It is analogous to Russia's renewed direct threats of using nukes. In theory it gives them leverage, in reality if they resorted to nukes that would be the end of Russia forever. And the Russians know this very well.

I don’t know you very well Steve, but you strike me as a man of absolutes from what I have observed. However international politics are anything but… No one is talking about us attacking Chinese shipping, or of Russia actually using the nukes… a simple reminder that such option is possible, while extremely unlikely is all that is needed to advance strategic and diplomatic agenda…

That was before all the expensive bling started coming on line. Prices have gone up considerably since then.

Prices for what? Pipelines? Construction equipment? Russian Labor? Everything that I’ve read indicates to me that the deal is still very much in a making. It might take quite a bit before it actually materializes; but that’s how Chinese tend to do business, and I for one can’t blame them.

I would love to hear your argument explaining why “Strength of Siberia” is not mutually beneficial to both countries.

No, I'm saying they're going to have a hard time selling anything more expensive than a T-72, just as they have had a difficult time selling a T-90. The primary reason is price, which means the Western stuff isn't in the running either.

It’s funny how they can sell super expensive jets and AD systems (amongst others), but all of the sudden their new tanks (if they are actually worth the price) would be discarded by potential buyers… Again, I am not trying to argue, but I simply fail to see your logic here.

Again, Russia has benefitted from selling to markets which the Western countries simply aren't competitive in either because of price or because of politics. As the Armata goes up in price, Russia loses one of its primary selling points. Which is why countries have evaluated the T-90 and instead gone with T-72s. And that is why I say that Russia has a very lucrative market for exporting upgrades and services for existing platforms (which will include the T-90 more and more into the future).

ORRLy? Like India, Indonesia, Algeria, Brazil, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, South and Central America (amongst others) – Yeah, Western weapon manufactures would rather be caught dead than selling to those scrubs. Now handing out used Leo2A4s at bargain prices – that’s what puts us head and shoulders above Russia (and China for that matter)… Right…

 

As Armata comes online and production/refurbishment of T-72s comes to an end, the price will go down on the T-90 and that will become Russia's primary tank export until Armata becomes a LOT cheaper, which won't happen for a few decades, it will be priced outside of reach/desire of most existing Russian client states.

I think that a few decades are quite a stretch, but yeah… it would take a bit before Armat is a viable offering for export. My main problem with your argument though, is that you only focus on its price and completely ignore potential force multiplier benefits that it could offer (which might be well worth the price). Now for a millionth time -I really don’t know if it really offers those benefits nor do I care (for now); but it is a huge logical fallacy to only look at a product’s price outside of its features andplacement (as they would say in business school).

 

This also presumes that China isn't going to increase its market share, which is something I very much doubt will be the case over the next 20 years. China is in expansion mode and it is extremely good at it. It is a trend that will continue.

Yep, no doubt. So by your logic should they stick to popping out Type 88s or maybe trying something a bit more revolutionary?

Simply put... because they can not afford it. The Soviet Union tried and it bankrupted them into dissolution. Russia is headed down the same path. And for what?

1. Practical military advantage against non-NATO neighbors and/or internal unrest? They already have that and will retain it without Armata.

2. Practical military advantage against NATO? Even if Armata proves to be a good all around tank, and they can afford to build/field LOTS of them, the Russian armed forces have so many deficiencies going up against NATO (including numbers) that there's no way Armata will make a difference.

3. Export potential? According to my argument, it is very low. So low that financially I don't see it yielding a good return on investment. Especially when compared to investing in Russia's economic and social infrastructure. Russian population is in decline and it's net migration is increasing. That's by far a much larger threat to Russia's national interests and having some shiny new tanks isn't going to fix that. In fact, it is going to make it worse.

Which brings me back to the point I keep asking about... where is this export market which is going to compensate Russia for such a large allocation of limited resources? I do not see it.

Steve

LOL. So you see the current state of geopolitical affairs saying in a status quo for as long as we can imagine? That’s an odd line of thinking for a historian. If we are to follow your logic, why do we bother decking out M1A2s if all we need are some Humvees and good old USAF to win any foreseeable conflict?

Or does your line of thinking only apply to undermining anything that Russians are doing, while the same standard does not apply to us and our “friends”? I’m just sayin….

Edited by DreDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

Why on Earth would it take two years to train a driver?! I know a former Marine who, when a group of men was asked by an officer "Anyone know how to drive a tank?" lied and said he did. He jumped in, looked at the switches and controls, followed the instructions on the placards, fired it up and off they went a mile or so up the road. He said it handled better than most cars. Granted, this is obviously not the full range of a tank driver's necessary skill set, and maybe the Russians are still doing the driver-mechanic thing, but taking two years to train a driver strikes me as being fundamentally insane on the face of it.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...