[Aesaar]

And who is going to attack Russia?
It overall just seems pointless given the likelihood any of this stuff will see any proper use (unless they intend to use it offensively) is pretty low
Still, I like military tech as much as the next fellow... I just fail to see its purpose unless you're actually preparing for something.
Least, any threat that would require such modern technology to counter with.

But, it gives people jobs so there's always that. No small amount either

Who's going to attack the USA, or the UK, or China?

You risk a lot when you gamble on the idea that conventional war is over.  Especially since it probably isn't.

[deathfun]

And if everyone simultaneously makes that same gamble...

Who's going to attack the USA, or the UK, or China?

Same point about Russia

[Aesaar]

And if everyone simultaneously makes that same gamble...

Prisoner's dilemma.

[Bobboau]

they can also sell these tanks to other countries. Iran might like a few of them.

[Mars]

This thing looks really impressive,looking at its armament,it could probably defeat Abrams in one on one fight,as even our Serbian T-84 is compatible to the Abrams.

Which is why it will probably never be 1v1 with an Abrams. This is the very reason Apaches, Reapers and A-10s exist. 

EDIT: I'm sure you knew that, it just seemed worth mentioning that this likely wasn't a complete oversight on the part of the US.

[deathfun]

And if everyone simultaneously makes that same gamble...

Prisoner's dilemma.

Yup
Honestly, it's a fascinating thing to imagine

[Dragon]

Yeah, but just to imagine. I don't think that we'll ever give up wars. Indeed, there is an old proverb. "Si vis pacem, para bellum." The West in general and NATO in particular seems to have forgotten what ancient Romans already knew. That's why Russia is so bold these days. They can see that we have forgotten that old maxim.

And who is going to attack Russia?

I don't think anybody is. However, you can swap the words around a little and end up with a better question, which is "Who is Russia going to attack?". And an answer to that is a lot more disturbing.

Which is why it will probably never be 1v1 with an Abrams. This is the very reason Apaches, Reapers and A-10s exist. 

And those are the reason Flankers, PAK-FAs and S400s and S500s exist (or soon will). Russians do have a few good answers to American attempts at air superiority. American doctrine relies heavily on air superiority, and modern SAMs and interceptors could really mess them up. And Russians have quite a few of those (unlike Americans, who seem to rely solely on the Stinger for ground-based air defense).

[SpardaSon21]

The Stinger is just a crappy shoulder-launched MANPADS, of which the Russians have their own versions.  Our vehicle-mounted SAM is the Patriot, and that's pretty damn good itself.

[StarSlayer]

The sloping armor on the turret is quite extreme.  I wonder when someone's gonna take a cue from battleship tactics and switch to plunging fire.  Radar and thermal targeting lock on to the target, computer predictions to lead the target, and then a special link or a pre-fire timing to have the shell detonate above the target and shower the engine compartment with shrapnel.

Javelins already do this.

[Aesaar]

The Stinger is just a crappy shoulder-launched MANPADS, of which the Russians have their own versions.  Our vehicle-mounted SAM is the Patriot, and that's pretty damn good itself.

The Patriot is not a vehicle mounted SAM, in that the vehicle that carries it can't fire it on its own.  It's a mobile SAM battery.  It requires a number of separately carried components beyond just the launcher.  Things like a radar array and a command center.   The Russian equivalent is the S-300 and S-400, and the S-400 is a vastly superior system.

The USA has no mobile frontline AA like the Tunguska and Buk.  They rely on air superiority to protect against enemy CAS.

[NeonShivan]

The USA has no mobile frontline AA like the Tunguska and Buk.  They rely on air superiority to protect against enemy CAS.

*cough* LAV-AD *cough*

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lav-ad.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/blazer/

[Aesaar]

As far as I know, like the Bradley Linebacker, the LAV-AD is no longer in service.  The USMC only had 20 or so of them anyway.

[Dragon]

Not only that, they were armed with Stingers. There's also a thing called the Avenger, which is an AA version of the HMMVW, armed with... Stingers. LAV-AD and Bradley Linebacker are both roughly equivalent to having a guy armed with a MANPADS pop out of the top hatch of a normal APC (OK, they had better targeting and were somewhat faster than that, but not much else). Their cannons can take pot shots at helos, but are crap against jets. Panstir S1 (a further development of Tunguska), on the other hand, is a serious long-range missile system with a fast tracking gun that can and will shred a low flying Viper if the missiles don't get to it first (as a plus, it absolutely butchers any infantry and softskins thrown at it, as any ArmA player will attest ).

As for Patriot, it's roughly comparable to S-300. S-400 is currently in use (and is, hands down, the best long-range AAM system out there), S-500 is in development. The Buk is not only vastly superior to other missiles in its class (it's close to Patriot in speed and ceiling, but has shorter range), it's also mobile like the Panstir. The only worthwhile US missile, the RIM-174, is ship launched and thus completely incapable of protecting land-based stuff any reasonable distance from the shore.

The US relies too much on their air superiority for air defense. This worked against a technologically inferior enemy, but Russia is very much capable of nullifying that advantage. The Stinger isn't good enough of a deterrent, being pretty much a last-ditch air defense option against low-flying aircraft (so it won't help you if someone bombs you from level flight at high altitude). Guns fielded by the US aren't particularly effective against aircraft, either.

[Mars]

I think like you're assuming knowledge where there isn't any Dragon. Any such conflict would be catastrophically large, every weapons system takes probably hundreds of hours to fully understand. AFAIK both sides keep their systems full capabilities as national secrets and / or inflate their values to make them seem more impressive. I'm not saying that the US would "win" any prospective conflict, I'm just saying that you probably don't know everything there is to know about their weapons or tactics, and I doubt you know enough to legitimately claim to know about the probability of the US losing air-superiority in any given global conflict. Not because I doubt your intelligence or even your research, but because I doubt there's much good information out there.

[edited slightly for clarity]

[Dragon]

There isn't any knowledge of classified systems, so your guess is as good as mine. On the other hand, it's been rarely the case that someone pulls out a "wonder weapon" from their sleeve after a conflict starts. What I'm saying is mostly based on the data that is available, and should work well enough. The US is at a disadvantage in the air when compared to Russia, because even though its aircraft are more advanced, but they need to operate without SAM support and are themselves exposed to Russian SAMs. It also loses a critical part of its defenses and offensive capability if it doesn't have air superiority.

Russians know that they can't match US in the air. They're thus working towards ensuring they don't have to, instead developing superiority on the ground. If there are no planes in the air at all, Russia has the advantage. The USAF's most advanced aircraft, the F-22, is also primarily meant to fight other aircraft, meaning it's less effective as a ground attack platform. Therefore, forcing the US into an "air vs. ground" situation is preferable. What use are the aircraft if the ground is lousy with SAMs preventing them from doing anything useful?

Generally, the trend seems to be that Russian equipment is designed to win campaigns, while US equipment is designed to win battles. The latter has a great deal of equipment that performs perfectly in exercises and would win any 1:1 battle. The former, on the other hand, builds equipment that is inferior in individual battle, but excels at making sure no such battle ever occurs. Russian tanks are mean to fight inferior opponents (like supply convoys), their helos are their primary tank hunters and the AA component ensures they can fly around unbothered by aircraft.

[AtomicClucker]

As cool as the T14 looks, I still think the Abrams could kick its ass. On the other hand, tank warfare is getting more technologically apt - the PL-01 for example, which is almost something you'd expect from Ghost in the Shell short of cybernetics. Everything from thermal shrouds, optic camouflage, it'll be interesting to see how far this goes before tanks are fully automated as drones (though I do argue, we'll start seeing anti-drone warfare when drones become staples of combat).

[Dragon]

I don't think full automation is will happen, though they might end up with drastic crew reduction. UAVs are nice, but that's only because they're being used against primitive opponents who don't have much in terms of electronic warfare. Rely too much on unmanned designs and you'll end up with your entire army shut down by jamming the control signals. Specifically anti-drone warfare will spring up long before drones are anywhere close to replacing manned equipment.

Oh, and Abrams is on pretty equal ground with the T-80 and T-90. T-14 would likely level it even in direct tank to tank combat Abrams was designed for. There's only so much you can do with what is ultimately a 80s design. Abrams is a 3rd generation tank, Armata is a solid 4th gen design (Russians call it 5th generation, by the way, but it's because of their nomenclature, which places the current Abrams in the 4th). So far, the only "true" 4th generation tank in service is JGSDF's Type 10.

[Flaser]

What's the biggest problem with the Abrams? It has a very lackluster selection of ammunition for its gun:
https://youtu.be/uiceFAZ9dcM?list=PL5Rcou7imb0r6mFWlC6_Z2uDQhGeotq3B

The linked video series tries to savage the M1 in a lot of ways, some debatable, others like the unavailability of effective anti-personal, HEAT* and bunker-buster rounds are not. EDIT: Correction, apparently HEAT rounds *are* available. Still no effective anti-personal round through.

While the Abrams has some further really aggravating issues (mostly logistical) the above takes the crown, for it really dampens the potential usefulness of the platform, since most of the time, tanks are *not* fighting other tanks on the battlefield nowadays. The funny thing is, this issue could be *easily* resolved, there are a lot of ammunition types available for smooth-bore 120 mm guns that could be adopted for the Rheinmetall gun the M1 has.

*HEAT rounds are not as effective against modern heavy armor as kinetic rounds like the APFSDS, however they're *more* effective against lightly armored targets like APCs, trucks, etc.

[Phantom Hoover]

My underinformed impression is that UAVs are more desirable than unmanned tanks because a small aircraft can do a lot more than a small tank.

[Dragon]

UGVs have been proposed, even armed ones (though not tank-sized ones). It's just that flying is easier than traversing terrain, and terrain can occlude communications with a ground unit (a significantly bigger problem with commands that actually steer the vehicle as opposed to telling the driver what to do).

What's the biggest problem with the Abrams? It has a very lackluster selection of ammunition for its gun:
https://youtu.be/uiceFAZ9dcM?list=PL5Rcou7imb0r6mFWlC6_Z2uDQhGeotq3B

The linked video series tries to savage the M1 in a lot of ways, some debatable, others like the unavailability of effective anti-personal, HEAT* and bunker-buster rounds are not. EDIT: Correction, apparently HEAT rounds *are* available. Still no effective anti-personal round through.

While the Abrams has some further really aggravating issues (mostly logistical) the above takes the crown, for it really dampens the potential usefulness of the platform, since most of the time, tanks are *not* fighting other tanks on the battlefield nowadays. The funny thing is, this issue could be *easily* resolved, there are a lot of ammunition types available for smooth-bore 120 mm guns that could be adopted for the Rheinmetall gun the M1 has.

*HEAT rounds are not as effective against modern heavy armor as kinetic rounds like the APFSDS, however they're *more* effective against lightly armored targets like APCs, trucks, etc.

Abrams usually uses HEAT against groups of infantry (seems to work well enough), but yes, ammo selection is a big issue. Most tanks these days can fire all kinds of weird ammo, including guided missiles (dunno if anything came out of the "guided tank shells" idea for Abrams). It should be easily solved, but still. It's also a logistical nightmare, with 4-person crew (there are arguments for manual loading, but I find them less and less convincing as autoloaders improve) and a lot of parts that are no longer produced. It can hold up in an individual engagement with modern tanks, but fighting a full-scale war with it is another matter.