Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Uncategorized

T-14 Armata: Russia’s Troubled Tank of the Future

Russia T-14 Armata. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Russian Armata T-14 Tank. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Key Points and Summary: Russia’s T-14 Armata main battle tank program, intended to revolutionize its armored forces, has faced significant setbacks.

Initially planned to enter service in large numbers, the Armata has been hampered by cost overruns, technological challenges, and corruption within the Russian defense industry.

-The program’s ambitions have been scaled back, with the Russian military instead relying on upgraded T-72s. While the T-14 incorporates some modern features, US experts argue it is not revolutionary and lags behind Western designs in several areas, including crew survivability.

-The Armata’s limited production numbers and questionable reliability further cast doubt on its effectiveness.

The Reality of Russia’s T-14 Armata

A decade ago, in 2015, it was clear that Moscow’s grandiose plans for its UralVagonZavod T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT) fell into the category of “more will than wallet.”

Yuriy Borisov, the deputy defense minister for procurement at the time, stated that the Russian military grossly underestimated the cost of acquiring new Armata tanks, which were supposed to total 2,300 in service by 2020.

As he told a Russian paper at the time, “The money allocated for that project turns out to be too little.” The estimate wasn’t even close, and Borisov acknowledged that production costs were a whopping 250 percent higher than initially projected.

The Armata was the centerpiece of Putin’s massive military modernization program that began in 2010-2011 and was supposed to run for a decade. Upon completion of that effort, the Russian military was to be equipped with 70 percent new equipment. The Armata was supposed to symbolize the Russian armed forces truly becoming a 21st-century force.

T-14 Armata: Backing Off of Ambitions 

The Armata was supposed to show that Russia could break out of the Soviet-style mode of tank design.

The T-90 design that preceded it was an incremental improvement over the T-72—a design of more than 40 years at the time the Armata was in the prototype stage.

However, the Russian planners discovered the ability to move into a new generation of weapon systems was more complicated than they had imagined. Not only was the technology not forthcoming—unless it was acquired from the West in the form of components and electronic systems that Russian industry could not build—but there were other barriers to progress.

One of those barriers “in the path to achieving such aspirations is endemic corruption,” said one of the leading members of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s economic team, Aleksei Kudrin, which eventually led to his fall from position. In 2011, he was forced to step down over disagreements about projected plans for defense spending. 

Given the economic realities, He concluded that military modernization plans were not feasible.

Older Models Instead Of New

In the end, Armata’s production was delayed, but without Borisov admitting that it was because the original plans for its production were unrealistic. Instead, the then-MoD procurement official stated, “Well, why flood the all Armed Forces with the Armata tanks? We have the T-72s in great demand in the market; they take it all, compared to the Abrams, Leclercs, and Leopards, for their price, efficiency and quality.”

“We don’t really need to for this (mass purchases of new tanks – ed.), these models are quite expensive in relation to existing ones,” he continued.

In theory, what he had to say about the T-14 is correct regarding its capability. Its technical specifications are consistent with the capabilities of most other modern MBTs, but as some US specialists point out, it is nothing revolutionary.

“You see many of the same aspects in the Armata design we developed decades ago when we did the Abrams,” said a retired US Army flag rank officer who worked on the M1 tank’s design and development.

“The layered, ceramic armor, the defensive systems, the smoothbore gun, etc. The main point that many focus on is separating the crew from the ammunition compartment. This is something we made a priority because it showed the average tank man that we were concerned with the survivability of the crew. That the Russians have figured out how to do this is interesting, but they are decades behind what we have been doing since the 1970s.”

The other factor, pointed out by the same retired Army officer, is the small production numbers. There are also questions about the reliability of its design.

“Field conditions in the Russian Army being as they are, there will be any number of situations where the superior technology, the higher level of education of the average American mechanic servicing these tanks, etc.  These are all evidence that the Russians still have a long way to go before the Armata is a real challenge to the western models that are its real, analogous counterparts.”

About the Author: Reuben F. Johnson 

Reuben F. Johnson is a survivor of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and is now an Expert on Foreign Military Affairs with the Fundacja im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego in Warsaw and has been a consultant to the Pentagon, several NATO governments and the Australian government in the fields of defence technology and weapon systems design.  Over the past 30 years he has resided in and reported from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and Australia.

Written By

Reuben F. Johnson is a survivor of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and is now an Expert on Foreign Military Affairs with the Fundacja im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego in Warsaw and has been a consultant to the Pentagon, several NATO governments and the Australian government in the fields of defence technology and weapon systems design. Over the past 30 years he has resided at one time or another in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and Australia.

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Voicum

    January 17, 2025 at 8:49 am

    Well what else would you say ,considering, that your Abrams proved to be,in real battle conditions,made out of cardboard…

  2. Sergey Sibirian

    January 17, 2025 at 11:51 am

    You haters just can’t seem to grasp a straightforward reality. You can hate all you want, but let’s fact-check a bit: Russia is winning a war against the combined west (through it’s Proxy – Ukraine) despite all your money and supposedly “superior weapons”. That’s all there is to say.
    Now go on, keep writing propaganda texts for your brain-washed audience…

  3. none

    January 17, 2025 at 3:46 pm

    so the tank failed cause it was delayed and had endemic corruption while trying to come out, but because it was proven in the battlefield to be a failure…ooookkayyy…

  4. Alexander

    January 17, 2025 at 5:08 pm

    Lol this rubbish, the only reason Russia has trouble building its weapons is due to the sanctions and why would the USA sanction their military so heavily even before the way is because their scared of their technology. So they sanction the crap out of them and that’s why alot of equipment takes forever for Russia to build because they gotta go through hoops to buy the stuff for extra money then what it originally costs.. USA are just full of cowards

  5. Flung dung

    January 17, 2025 at 6:10 pm

    Cope harder, botnik.

  6. Flung dung

    January 17, 2025 at 6:12 pm

    Go die for putin’s yachts, genocidiot.

  7. Garn

    January 20, 2025 at 9:33 am

    It has become very obvious Western technology is far more advanced than Russian. There is absolutely no need to question that.
    It has become very obvious Western war tactics are far superior.
    It has become very obvious the West values the lives of their citizens compared to russia’s slaughter house tactics.
    It has become…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement