The type 86G in service?

[MIGleader]

Originally, i thought the type 86G, a derivative of the type 86IFV, had only been developed by NORINCO for the export market.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type868a.jpg
The type 86g, with zbd-2000 turret and new FCS.

But now, a picture has appeared which leads me to specualte the 86g is actually going to enter serivice with the PLA.

http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/Type86Mod9_1134_83329a3b863847a.jpg

Any one have any confirmations?

[New2u]

I have read some reportings saying that these are just T-86 upgraded with these new turets. Which mankes alot of sense because i dont think the PLA will waste money to make bran new type 86 than just making the NGIFV.

By the look of these pics, I'm gessing that most/all type 86 IFV got upgraded witht these new turtes and recieved a new paint job ect....

[jackbh]

Are these T-86 IFV copies of Russian BMP-1?

[MIGleader]

The original model, with a 73mm smoothbore cannon and the low lying turret was a copy of the bmp-1, which is like sixties tech. Absolute crap nowadays.

I guess upgrading is a smart choice now since its going to be a while before most units get the new IFV.

[ahho]

The original model, with a 73mm smoothbore cannon and the low lying turret was a copy of the bmp-1, which is like sixties tech. Absolute crap nowadays.

I guess upgrading is a smart choice now since its going to be a while before most units get the new IFV.

hmm, i thoguht they were gonna upgrade the typ-86 with a bmp-3 style turret. Guess they opted for these upgrade package instead. Still a nice IFV IMO

[MIGleader]

From what I hear, the bmp-3 turret is quite expensive. Thats why the new IFV is only in limited production/service right now.

btw,
The 86g still has not had any ERA added to improve armor. An rpg-7 could easily hole the machine...

[sumdud]

well, the only improvement is the turret. Not a bad choice though. Its 73mm gun sucked. The 30mm would be way better. (Go for the lense, otherwise, I don't know what's a 30mm for.)
Of course, redesigning the whole time with new armor is better, but $$ doesn't magically appears.

Why don't they put HJ-8s on board and leave HJ-73 for the infantry? :confused:

[Troika]

well, the only improvement is the turret. Not a bad choice though. Its 73mm gun sucked. The 30mm would be way better. (Go for the lense, otherwise, I don't know what's a 30mm for.)
Of course, redesigning the whole time with new armor is better, but $$ doesn't magically appears.

Why don't they put HJ-8s on board and leave HJ-73 for the infantry? :confused:

HJ-73 family is developed from 9M14 malyutka missile, which has important distinction of being rail-launchable. You can just put a rail on the turrent and laungh the HJ-73 from it. HJ-8 or HJ-9 neither can be launched from rail, making it much more expensive and difficult to integrate onto a simple turret like the one above, as well as much heavier.

[sumdud]

Yes, but every HJ-8 and HJ-9 you can find are launched and kept in canisters, so how will that be a problem? If you say that, you can't launch the HJ-73 without the rail either. You can right about the $$ part, butChina's economy is booming and becoming more capable, and since the HJ-8 and HJ-9 are both way more powerful, and that enemy vehicles, I'd think, tend to focus more on vehicles than on infantry if both are present, wouldn't it better to give these vehicles a better pair of fighting hands so that they can effectively defend themselves? The only drawback I see is that they are old vehicles due to be replaced, while we don't know if these turrets can be used on other AFVs.

If the HJ-73 are taking both the infantry and vehicles, who's using the HJ-8 and HJ-9?

[Troika]

Yes, but every HJ-8 and HJ-9 you can find are launched and kept in canisters, so how will that be a problem? If you say that, you can't launch the HJ-73 without the rail either. You can right about the $$ part, butChina's economy is booming and becoming more capable, and since the HJ-8 and HJ-9 are both way more powerful, and that enemy vehicles, I'd think, tend to focus more on vehicles than on infantry if both are present, wouldn't it better to give these vehicles a better pair of fighting hands so that they can effectively defend themselves? The only drawback I see is that they are old vehicles due to be replaced, while we don't know if these turrets can be used on other AFVs.

If the HJ-73 are taking both the infantry and vehicles, who's using the HJ-8 and HJ-9?

Trust me, integrating a rail-launched missile is vastly simpler. It is something you can basically weld onto the turrent just for that extra bit of spice which you originally wasn't intending on anyway, whereas box or canister launchers require a lot more integration, probably you have to design the turret again. Besides, as noted, weight is an issue. However, I recall seeing HJ-8s (4 tubes) on a similar designed turrent for export purposes, based on the type-90. So it can certainly be done. So I think it is just a stopgap measure to add a little bit of fighting capacity to a very old design.

There are vehicles in anti-tank units, wz-551s dedicated launchers for them, and of course both missiles are helicopter-launchable.

[MIGleader]

well, the only improvement is the turret. Not a bad choice though. Its 73mm gun sucked. The 30mm would be way better. (Go for the lense, otherwise, I don't know what's a 30mm for.)
Of course, redesigning the whole time with new armor is better, but $$ doesn't magically appears.

Why don't they put HJ-8s on board and leave HJ-73 for the infantry? :confused:

Based on the fact that the turret appears similar to the ZDB2000 turret, i think the gun is 25mm, not 30mm. Another sign of china's new western standards approach.

[sumdud]

Nope, gun is 30mm.
http://sinodefence.com/army/armour/zbd2000.asp
And dude, 30mm is Western. The Warrior uses a 30mm gun.

[MIGleader]

Dongfeng might need to make corrections...

Despite the speculations that the vehicle might be a copy of the Russian BMD-3, close examinations of the vehicle indicated that it is in fact a new design with different hull layout and weapon system. Compared to the BMD-3, the Chinese airborne combat vehicle is slightly higher, and its main gun (25mm) differs to the Russian design (30mm).

This quote says it is 25mm

The main armament of the IFV variant is a 25mm cannon and a turret-mounted HJ-73C antitank guided missile (ATGM) launcher.

and so does this one

Weapons: One 30mm cannon; one coaxial 7.62/5.8mm machinegun; one HJ-73 ATGM launcher

but this does not.

The french dragar and british bushmaster are 25mm, so i guessed it is the same for most western guns. The bmp-3 uses 30mm.

[adeptitus]

Are these T-86 IFV copies of Russian BMP-1?

If you compare the "body" of the IFV to the BMP-1, you can see the obvious relation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BMP-1_AP_1.jpg

Assuming if it's a near-exact copy and did not receive armor upgrade, the protection levels are quite low.


well, the only improvement is the turret. Not a bad choice though. Its 73mm gun sucked. The 30mm would be way better. (Go for the lense, otherwise, I don't know what's a 30mm for.)
Of course, redesigning the whole time with new armor is better, but $$ doesn't magically appears.
Why don't they put HJ-8s on board and leave HJ-73 for the infantry? :confused:

The Russians had the same idea. The BMP-2 had 30mm autocannon, same one used on Mi-28's. BMP-3 has 100mm gun + 30mm autocannon.

[MIGleader]

Assuming if it's a near-exact copy and did not receive armor upgrade, the protection levels are quite low.

Thats probably cause the vehicle needs to save weight, in order to be air-droppable. Its only 12 tons.

The 30mm thing is interesting, the new IFV is supposed to have a 30mm, but china seems to feild 25 on the zdb2000 and the type 93 IFV's.

[Red not Dead]

Actually all APC's are RPG punchable so that or something else the chinese went for a sound machine.

Plus a BMP-2 has already mission-killed an M1 Abrams with it's 2a42 30mm. :nana: