T-14 image - Tank Lovers Group

Here is what a BMPT is: En.wikipedia.org

BMP =/= BMPT

A BMPT is solely an armour support vehicle. Fills the gap between an IFV (BMP) with infantry, and the MBTs.

From scale comparisons I've seen the overall profile is not much bigger than the T-90. The turret is pretty small, but we'll see, the modulated turret armour might make a difference yet. They're certainly more confident in their APS though.

I believe the turret is smaller since there are no people inside it at all. I mean, it is so by design afaik.

Absolutely, but according to its mission it'll most likely have additional NERA/ERA modules for the turret, eg. longer range engagements benefit a smaller profile vs. urban combat which increases the chances of accurate and sustained fire being an issue. One of the beauties of the platform is this versatility.

Russian media and the official "picture sheet" called it a BMP->IFV first. Now it turns out it's a BMPT. See the difference?

Also, it's much bigger then a T-90. Compare this: Upload.wikimedia.org

to this:

Img-fotki.yandex.ru

Compared to the BMPs before it's really pretty big. Imo that's a good thing.

T-15 called IFV or Heavy IFV. BMPT concept buried and rejected for Russian Armed Forces (but not for export).

Yea, I know, but they called it BMP/IFV which implies it has troop carrying capability though it apparently doesn't.

Maybe they should call it "infantry support vehicle" or something, the vehicle is really hard to categorize.

So far, most people seem to be categorizing it as a BMPT for simplicity. It goes into production in a few years, we'll have it's official category then I imagine.

> with no troop carriage?

Firepic.org

just remember the russian, japenese, and Israelis are realy the only 1s makeing new tanks, besides the germans are sticking with the leopard 2 just as old as the abrams i dont hear you giving them any ****

Let's see how many variants of the Leopard 2 has been made and when they entered service:

Leopard 2: 1979.
Leopard 2A1: 1982.
Leopard 2A2: 1984.
Leopard 2A3: 1984.
Leopard 2A4: 1985.
Leopard 2A5: 1998.
Leopard 2A6: 1999.
Leopard 2E: 2004.
Leopard 2 PSO: 2006.(Introduced. Did not enter service)
Leopard 2A7: 2014.

Now lets compare it with the Abrams variants that did entered production in significant numbers:
M1A1: 1985.
M1A2: 1992.

See the gap?

The Leopard 2 and the leopard 2A7 are effectively two different vehicles and has little in common. While 'murica is still using a three decade old design and done nothing significant to improve it.

BTW you forgot to mention India, China, South Korea, Turkey in the "makeing new tanks" list.

Looks like the karma trolls arrived for that one.

if you think about it they never had a reason to upgrade. Most of their time they shot at t55, t62 and the occasional old t72. They never had a fair fight and never had to worry about tanks too much since their primary tactic still seems to be air attacks. As long as there is flat dry land to cruise on they should be fine =) On the other hand the US army struggles to maintain the first place in terms of raw power and tech. As you mentioned, other nations are stepping up for the task and the balance of power is shifting.

They're not having new tanks because the Abrmas is still more than sufficient. It will take a while until the Armata arrives in significant numbers to make a difference. Furthermore, in terms of air power, force projection, networking and precision weaponry (especially that) they're still by far unchallenged. "Raw power" (i.e. masses of tanks, or so you seem to imply) won't decide tomorrow's wars, actually not even yesterday's. Even though the US is still first in that regard by far.

@Orange_Tomato - that's exactly what I meant - masses of tanks. Also I think technology hasn't gone far enough for 'quality over quantity'. We aren't talking about some sci-fi forcefield shenanigans, a tank's armor is still made of steel it may have some reactive protection system but it is still a hunk of metal and hunks of metal can be beaten, as a matter of fact they are beaten on a daily basis. As long as you have more hunks of metal than your enemies you still have the upper hand - simple as that.

Not exactly sure under what basis you are making these claim tomato, everything US uses nowadays (with a handful of exceptions) are weaoons that were developed in their 90's. Even their air forces, the center point of their doctrine, is using jet designs that are two decades old. Compared to that, both Europe and Russia is now developing successful new weapons while US for the most part has endened up with a bunch of massively expensive failed project. Unless US manage to patch up its defense industry, they are going to fall behind in the arms race within a few decades. It is as simple as that.

En.wikipedia.org

Not as drastic changes as the Leopard but...

@rkraptor

They develop new precision munitions, and some of the ones they have right now are the cheapest and most economic and effective ones to use, proven by the massive amounts used in Iraq/Afghanistan. As to Russia, what new airplanes do they have? The Pak Fa looks like a huge failure right now and the Russian goverment seems to have lukewarm interest in buying it. And the Pak Da is nothing but a fantasy. Yes, Russia has some upgraded 3.gen fighters, but so does everyone else, including Europe with the Eurofighter which spends more time grounded in some countries ... *cough* Germany *cough*.

"They develop new precision munitions, and some of the ones they have right now are the cheapest and most economic and effective ones to use, proven by the massive amounts used in Iraq/Afghanistan."

They were used it massive amounts because US spend massive amounts of money. US defense budget is bigger than the combined budget of seven other nations that follows behind. The munitions are actually more expensive then their foreign counterparts if you look at the figures.

"As to Russia, what new airplanes do they have? The Pak Fa looks like a huge failure right now and the Russian government seems to have lukewarm interest in buying it."

PAK FA project suffered setbacks true but that's the reason the production plans has been halted and so the MoD can work out the dents with those 12 pre production aircraft.

"And the Pak Da is nothing but a fantasy."
Designs studies dose not counts as fantasy". And besides, setback to that project means Blackjacks are getting a second life (Reopening of the production line has been confirmed), that not a bad thing in any way.

"Yes, Russia has some upgraded 3.gen fighters,"
*4th gen.

"Eurofighter which spends more time grounded in some countries"

While Rafael and Gripen works without and major trouble, not really sure what point you're trying to make with that.

And BTW, can you name a few "new precision munitions" that entered service in large number in the last decade?

Precision weapons cost an awful lot of money, please point out to me what munitions you are talking about (with the exception of laser guided GBUs) that are "cheap?

"The PAK FA looks like a huge failure right now." Are you talking about the fact that Sukhoi aren't making more than 12 pre-production prototypes this year? You know their budget hasn't changed right? They're in no rush, the Su-35S is more than bridging the gap for the VVS at the moment, combine that with their nigh impenetrable (and constantly expanding/improving) IADS and you realise that they're simply taking logical steps.

"PAK DA is nothing but a fantasy" You're hilarious. Test flights by 2019.
Ria.ru
Ria.ru
The Tu-160 fleet has been cleared for modernisation and resumed production of a new version, incorporating into the PAK DA program, as confirmed by Shoygu: Sputniknews.com Sdelanounas.ru This is a mammoth task, and shows what the Russian Defence Force is capable of.

@rkraptor, it would be a stupid decision to resume production of the actual Blackjack, as the enormous aluminium box structure for the Tu-160's swing wing assembly needs to be cast in one piece and the only factory that could do it was in the Ukraine. To resume production would literally require the building of an entire new factory just to do this, hence they will incorporate it into the PAK DA program which is already in the process of having its facilities set up. Conclusion: A Tu-160 with essentially the same characteristics, but different airframe. (Confusing, I know, but apparently much more cost effective).

"Russia has some 3rd gen aircraft" Stop please, just stop.

Oh, and the Su-35BM is literally the most competitive fighter on the export market at the moment.
Also, Mikoyan Gurevich competing for the contract to create the PAK TA, a next generation interceptor to replace the MiG-31. They're also working on the MiG-35.

Probably doesn't add up in your narrative of "Russia is a collapsing shithole".

Oops, my mistake. PAK TA is the next gen transport. Haven't got the designation for the interceptor yet.

It is much more drastic, the T-14 possess an entirely new 125mm gun 2A82-1M L-52, which surpasses in range over 8000m for engagement (mainly ATGM), 5000m for penetration, that's 5km vs 3km ! The new lighter and stronger armor codename: 44S-SV-SH, with Relikt ERA, new active protection system "agfhanit" (soft-kill and hard-kill) protects against hpersonic kinetic penetrators APFSDS, HEAT tandems charges and ATGMs (front and fly-by), Armata T-14 has a 1500hp engine and can run up to 80-90km/h ! Has 12 speed automatic transmission ! Has hybrid suspension system torsion bar and hydro-pneumatics. Only weight 48 tonnes. Turret is 100% remote controlled ! Crew members are protected in separate coccoon like armored compartments...

I was comparing the upgrades of the Abrams with the upgrades of the Leopard. Lol

Oh! Sorry my bad...

Apparently the new electrical transmission was what caused the issue at the Victory Day rehearsal. General Shoygu wished that the tanks be driven by actual servicemen (understandably), even though UVZ said they'd be happier to have their engineers pilot them in the parade. Even experienced tankers are going to have trouble when they end up driving a state-of-the-art tank that has an electrical transmission, and are on a tight schedule to come to grips with it.

You are missing quite a few variants.

M1: 1980
M1IP: 1984
M1A1: 1985
M1A1HA: 1989
M1A1HC: 1992
M1A2: 1992
M1A2SEP: Current

I'm not. Those variants are refurbished/modified A1 and A2. They did not have their own production line. All the leopard variants (Except PSO) did.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.