Chinese future tank devolpments...

[Gollevainen]

Now, we have the conversation going rather hot over this matter in the ezboard so why shall not in here...

Biggest question is the Type98G/Type99, if its going to be the new MBT for vast PLA's tank forces. Do you think its good enough? In my opinion, china now, whit the money and all technological edge's bridged, shouldn waste their time and resources whit late 80's level T-72 derivate. The orginal T-72 and chinese devolpments from it werent anyway superior to western desings of that time and the latest Russian improvements like T-90 havent gain the upper hand in the comparisions. Now, i severly doupt that chinese improvments from their Type 88 and type 90 could done any better when they dont contain any radical new innovations.

So the question lies, Should china stick whit the old doctrine and face the qualitively superior opponent forces whit quantatives of lesser tanks (and therefore continue to introduct the Type98 to service) Or should they go on for newer generation tanks and produce something that could bring the qualitive edge to Chinese side? And if to go on whit that direction, where from that? what are the latest requirments for new chinese MBT from PLA point of wiev and alongside the lates requirment for tank doctrines??

Or am i totaly missleaded and Type98 isent so inferior in face of latest western tank forces...? :rolleyes:

[utelore]

If I were the PLA I would go with the Leclerk. The weight of the tank would fit current bridges in china and they should be able to LIC produce such tank. This would prevent years long design and testing for a home grown version. They could maybe have 250 within 3 years if they moved quickly. Also the leclerk is not a band tank.....a little under armoured but it would work. big improvement over the T-98

[BKulan]

besides even though the LeClerk is underarmored it doesn't mean that you can't upgrade it when needed

[Vanguard1688]

Or we can upgrade the Type 96/98 with heavy Blazer-type ERA. Wouldn't that be cheaper? The Type 98G will do for now. Getting the Leclerc and domesticating it will cost a fortune and pull funding away from more critical areas like the Navy and Airforce.

[MIGleader]

screw tanks. their uses are becomming fewer and fewer. the days when countires needed mass armor fleets are gone. the type 99 still has design potential, and will serve as a good tank until tanks become obsolete. btw, does sntone know if the 99 has armored compartments or blow out panels? i know the 98 dosn;t.

98 would wipe the floor with leclerc. its gun is more powerful, and can fire atgm's. its combo of composite armor and era with armor modules gives it decent armor. the jd-3 will blind the leclerc's crew.

[BrotherofSnake]

I believe the leclerc has a better fire control system and optics.

[Obcession]

Well, on the open battlefield in traditional tank country tanks are still very useful. And the things that make tanks look obsolete are very expensive weapons like attack choppers, attackers and ATGM's. Nothing compares to a company of tanks leading the assault on the Mongolian steppes in the summer. The enemy infantry will be pinned down, with nothing to fight the tank with, unless equipped specially with LAW. The infantry will be mowned down by the dozens. That is, if the enemy doesn't have air support.

So tanks still have their uses, despite them being more and more vulnerable on the open battlefield.

[MIGleader]

as far as i know, no one is completely sure of the capabilities of the 99's optics and fire control.

[Chairman Hu]

I say take the best tanks that U.S.A, E.U and Russia have and use all of their best abilities (e.g armor, turret-hull design, etc) and pull one together that is the best that the West can offer, a revolutionary tank is what we need

I remember that the T-98 was designed by the team that wanted a T-72 mockup or something like that and the western revolutionary team lost, well I can't remember so whatever.

We need a 150mm+ cannon, and we still need the older tanks for firepower, mechanized warfare now playes the biggest role, even in a double envelopment tactic, we still need those old worthless T-59s, heh, I love the pincer movement.

[sumdud]

Well, most countries can't easily get air superiority.

Plus, some countries don't support the idea of choppers, some don't even have proper ground attack planes.

150mm gun? You are kidding........ You don't need that to knock out a tank......

For the type 98(in comparison to the Leclerc), the chassis is OK, it was owned by the T-72, and has the mobility and speed, at 65 km/h, as provided by the 1200/1500 hp engine.
The gun is OK, but the armor is rather bad. It had a gap in the 98, and had to rely on ERA(not good) on the 99. I doubt its armor is as good as the others.

For the FCS, it's most definitely worse than those of Leclerc.

[MIGleader]

the gap has been pretty much sorted out on the 99. the combo of era and composites may not be as good as choubham, but can own any taiwanese tank. what i want to know is if it has blow out panels And/or armored compartments on the 99.

[TerraN_EmpirE]

For the FCS, it's most definitely worse than those of Leclerc.

Point to be made because They have yet to build a FCS Tank to state that it would be weaker is groundless. All we have are projections and ideas both of which are fluid and open to change. It would be like me saying Your Child will be a Moron even though you Have no children. the weight limit of the FCS is going up meaning it could be a better Tank in terms of armor

Second ERA is not built to stop a Tank round. a good penetrator will cut through.

[MIGleader]

thats why you combine it with composites and welded steel.

[Vanguard1688]

Well, most countries can't easily get air superiority.

Plus, some countries don't support the idea of choppers, some don't even have proper ground attack planes.

150mm gun? You are kidding........ You don't need that to knock out a tank......

For the type 98(in comparison to the Leclerc), the chassis is OK, it was owned by the T-72, and has the mobility and speed, at 65 km/h, as provided by the 1200/1500 hp engine.
The gun is OK, but the armor is rather bad. It had a gap in the 98, and had to rely on ERA(not good) on the 99. I doubt its armor is as good as the others.

For the FCS, it's most definitely worse than those of Leclerc.

I don't think the turret is the problem, the rubber side skirts need to be addressed. Are the blocks on the Turret and front of the type 98G passive armor blocks or heavy modular ERA.

[MIGleader]

both can be fitted depeding on the needs.

[Vanguard1688]

I'm talking about the one that are fitted on Type 98G now, are they passive blocks or ERA blocks?

[Vanguard1688]

No one knows or are they just ignoring me?

[utelore]

vangaurd I am not sure, I know the Type98 has been used as a major test platform for the PRC. I am sure both reactive and passive armour are being used. If the blocks you are looking at are smaller in form then they are prob filled with explosive.....cheers ute.

[MIGleader]

thats what i mean. if passive armor is needed, say against sabot, it will be used. if the enemy is using heat, they will put era on.

[Vanguard1688]

oh ok thanks, is there a chance that the Glacis blocks are passive and turret ones are ERA

[adeptitus]

As mentioned in our older forum, I don't think any pictures from the interior of a Type-98 MBT has been released. Without seeing what's inside it's really difficult for us to judge the platform.

I have seen the insides of a French LeClerc MBT on the Military Channel (TV) and it's REALLY nice. Computerized battlefield/centralized management system with colorful flat-panel displays. You get real-time data on everyone's positions, their fuel/supply/ammunition levels and so on. Really nice auto loader system too.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/index.html

Due to the events of 6/89, I highly doubt it'd be politically feasible for EU to export MBT's to PRC at this time. However it may be possible to purchase or license certain technologies and integrate them into PLA's MBT's.

[MIGleader]

china would never buy a complete battle tank from any country. it's way easier and cheaper to buy some relevant technologies. since the deal is with france, the computer systems of the leclerc can be obtained pretty easily. just look at lybia...

[adeptitus]

china would never buy a complete battle tank from any country. it's way easier and cheaper to buy some relevant technologies. since the deal is with france, the computer systems of the leclerc can be obtained pretty easily. just look at lybia...

There are some advantages to purchasing. You get completed systems, plus possible technology transfer and local licensed-production.

The only export success for the LeClerc is UAE, they paid about $4 billion USD for 388 LeClerc MBT's, 2 training systems, 46 recovery vehicles, plus training and munitions.

It's within China's economic capability to make such a purchase today. BUT it's not politically feasible for EU to sell tanks to China right now. But China may be able to purchase certain components, such as real time battlefield management systems. Compare the interior of a LeClerc with other MBTS:

LeClerc:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/leclerc3.html

M1A1:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/abrams4.html

K1A1:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k1/k15.html

T-84:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/t806.html


I think most of you would agree that the LeClerc's commander station looks a lot more advanced, integrated, and without all the crap hanging off everywhere on the sides.

[Vytautas]

I think most of you would agree that the LeClerc's commander station looks a lot more advanced, integrated, and without all the crap hanging off everywhere on the sides.
That isnt a tank anymore.Its some family vacation esuvee.What next?They are going to add safety belts and air bags?

[utelore]

Yes, I believe the PRC would do will to incorperate the Leclerk. I have been able to play around with all kinds of russian tanks including killing them. T-72 , T-80, T-62 , T-55/54 Type-59. Western design is crucial. I think the PRC is taking baby steps with tank design. BUT baby steps are better than what the russians are doing with no steps at all. You cannot be afraid to look at somthing that was a mistake and to correct that mistake. 200 Leclerks would be better than 1000 Type-96

[MIGleader]

the 96's needed to be scrapped or sold. they arn't very capable unless its against t-72. the russians have made amazing tank progress via chinese funds. the t-80ums(or something like it) is a very capable tank. the new black eagle is awsome, best in the world, but they cant find enough cash to make it. china should order a few.

dont buy a complete leclerc. you dont need a full system. the chinese are inovative enought to reorganize it to fit 99. yes, the leclerk has an impressive insiide. thats the part china should buy. Techy transfer? no problem.

those hulls are all a mansion compared to a t-72 hull i saw in china once. i wonder how it didn't need a ten man crew. so much shit everywher.

[utelore]

Migleader, just remember that in tank development ,that past performance is indecitive of future results.

[SampanViking]

Hello All

Some very interesting comments on spec and performance, but I would like to add a note or too on a area so far not mentioned ....... production.

Reading your posts, I get the impression that for all your assesment of cutting edge operational capability, your view of production is still rooted in the methods of WW2.

Obviously, I do not pretend any special knowledge of PLA methods, but I can hazard a good guess about how the CCP would look to produce large numbers of cost effective units, quickly and deployed to where they were required.

Point 1

Do not expect to see finished tanks role out of Beijing Tank Factory No: 13 except of course in the Propaganda Movies.

The benefit of a simple design is that it can be made in simple facilities, nor does every bit have to be made in the same factory. There is no reason why thousands of small units can produce individual items in accordanc etc requirement, many small units engaged in making each part. Try bombing this production line!!!

Point 2

Things made in many different locations do not need to be stuck together in one place either. It would make sense to preassemble some parts, but nothing that looked to tank like. So...

Point 3

Do not expect to see train loads of brand new tanks being rushed across the country (an obvious task for deep strike intelligence etc). All you would see are loads of trains carrying indistinguisable machine parts (expect increased train traffick volume to cause confusion) (expect anything that looks like Tanks on trains to be made of wood!!)

Point 4

Anything simple to make is also simple to put together, maybe even by a A Tank Units Support Enginneers (your view Ute?) Certainly in a large number of small non-discript Sheds.

The thrust of this is that I would expect a Tank like the T96/98 variants to be producable in prefabricated sections, easily transportable and easily assembled very close to the battle front.

Question - when is a T96 better than an Abrams? Answer when there is a T96 and no Abrams.

I hope the points I am trying to make, makes sense.

[utelore]

Sanpan, I am for quality over quanity. I think if you are going to build a tank it should be the best protected and most lethal tank money can buy. the crew should be well trained and believe in the equipment it is operating.....cheers ute

[adeptitus]

IMO besides the MBT's, the PLA needs to look into integrating recon and attack UAV's to their tank regements. The UAV can be launched from support vehicles and serve in high-altitude reconnaissance role, providing real time battlefield data and target aquisition data. Attack UAV's can fly low and pop up to attack enemy MBT's.

Attack UAV's like the Israeli Harpy, has range up to 500 km and can be launched from a truck:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/harpy/HARPY.html

[SampanViking]

Hi Utelore

I think if you are going to build a tank it should be the best protected and most lethal tank money can buy.

That because your a tanker and feel for the guys in service. Sadly the cheques are signed by bloated Home Front Capitalists like me and we like to "buy em cheap and stack em high".

[MIGleader]

can anyone give me the prices of different world tanks like leclerc, chalenger 2, leopard, t-80, type 98...

[adeptitus]

can anyone give me the prices of different world tanks like leclerc, chalenger 2, leopard, t-80, type 98...

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-36552.html

=== quote ===
UAE LeClerc is approximately about $9 million per unit
based on
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=81114
not sure if this includes or does not include munitions, spares, etc. but over all rather steep.

Finland's used German Leopard 2A4 approximately $1.3 million per unit
http://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20020918IE7
Lava
31st December 2004, 07:13

The Challenger 2 MBT unit price was in the region of £4 million.
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0023.html
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/armychallenger2b.jpg
Lava
31st December 2004, 07:19

M1A2 Abrams MBT US$4.3 million

British Challenger 2s US$5.4 (47) although this figure also included logistical support.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/RWJSI/DJMHLec01.htm
WACHENR0DER
31st December 2004, 21:52

Japanese Type 90 MBT
according to Japanese sources on Tanknet, 806million Yen.
in American currency, $7.8 million per tank, expensive, but not as expensive as some people make it out to be, infact cheaper than some other western tanks.


Greek Leopard 2A6 variant
http://www.eubusiness.com/imported/2003/03/106073/
$10-12 million per tank, the latter being the current exchange rate.

=== end quote ===

[ahho]

how much does a chinese tank cost. can someone give me a list from type-59 to type-98

[utelore]

Sanpan, Just remember....you get what you pay for. not just with tanks. if you are going to do somthing you should do it right. If you want a military and that military has the objective to defend you and your loved ones dont you think it should be the best? As far as MBTs go it is very very important that they are good. If your tank is hit by say a ATGW and the MBT is mission killed but the crew lives and learnes from its mistake as opposed to burning to death.....well I dont think you can put a price on that......cheers ute.

[sumdud]

Well, it depends. The Abrams has quality, but yet still it has been destroyed, blown.

It depends. If quality does not make a battle difference, then I'll just go for quantity. Plus, if China should not make the type 96, what do you want them to make? Type 98s aren't THAT much better.

[utelore]

sumdude, I feel the PRC is taking baby steps in the right direction. the turret of the 96 and 98 is better protected than the T-72 or T-80. You are also seeing the incorperation of thermal sites on many of the PRC designs which is of most importance. A few more steps of a better protected hull and blast door for ammo storage would turn those baby steps into a good walk.....cheers ute.

[MIGleader]

no one is 100% sure what the inside of a type 98g features. it may have blast dooors and blow out panels. i hope it has controls like the leclerc.

[sumdud]

Blast doors and blow out panels are one thing that are not speculated on the type 98G nor 96, unfortunately.

But those features, if I am right, protects only against HEAT and I have not hear about sabots going against it.

[utelore]

realy a mute point ref the blast doors for the Type-98 or any PRC tank with that type of auto loader, you just cant do it. the blast doors will prevent the ammo from cooking off and poping the top you see when the T-72 was hit. the cordite will blow through the top of the turrets blast pannels redirecting the fire from the cordite if you have blast doors........let me explain how it works on a abrams.....I will go through the whole fire procedure.
commander yells- gunner sabot tank
loader- will hit his knee switch opening the blast door and remove 1 sabot round placing it in the breach and throwing the safty up. The blast door will close when his knee lets off of the switch. he will yell "UP"
gunner-will yell Identified.....before he presses the trigger he will yell.."on the way". so the loader is out of the way of the recoil of the breach.
commander will yell- "target" if he hits if the tank......if it is a miss he will say overline or underline depending were the round went. or "negitive hit on target."

[adeptitus]

Does anyone have any interior photos from recent PLA tank models? Or even the MBT-2000?

I don't think I've even seen an interior photo of a T-96 :confused: