3 ms·
Tanks cost less than fighter jets, but you can hardly call the "cheap", they're typically the Army's most expensive piece of kit. The M1 Abrams costs around $1
by thematrixturtle 5y ago
Tanks cost less than fighter jets, but you can hardly call the "cheap", they're typically the Army's most expensive piece of kit. The M1 Abrams costs around $10 million a pop.
- ReptileMan 5y agoThe inefficiencies and price overruns in US procurement of military equipment are legendary. I guess we should look at the cost of the bom for a tank, not what government pays for it. Not that tanks are cheap but I think manifacturing cost is substantially lower than 10m.
- ASalazarMX 5y agoI'm not very informed on tanks, but IIRC the Armata series are their next-generation tanks, and they cost like 3-4 million each. Invading Ukraine would be the opportunity to throw old stockpile nevertheless, much like the bombing of Afghanistan helped replace old USA bomb stockpile.
- astrange 5y agoThe common opinion seems to be that the T-14 Armata is vaporware, and their newest tank is the T-90 which they are using - and having stolen by farmers.
- KptMarchewa 5y agoT-72BM3
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Ourgon 5y ago> Tanks cost less than fighter jets The MiG 21 cost less to procure than a BMP-1 armoured personnel carrier if Wikipedia [1] is to be believed [2]. A BMP is not a tank and can be assumed to be less expensive than one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Cost [2] which is in this case probably is seeing as how this is not a politically sensitive subject
- thematrixturtle 5y agoUhh, that's because the MiG 21 dates from 1955.
- Ourgon 5y agoAnd? The BMP-1 is from 1965. Given that the BFV (Bradley) is from 1981 and the F-15 Eagle from 1972 the latter should be cheaper than the former, yes?