Ideal PLA main battle tank (?)

Hi, been a long while since we put our creative juices to the test.

Problem statement: Type-99 is a very good modern tank but with South Korea, Japan and soon Australia all operating significant numbers of similar (/arguably better) MBTs an ambitious PLA may be looking to induct an even better MBT into service on the grounds of one-upmanship

Your mission should you choose to accept it: Determine what characteristics PLA needs, and design the optimum tank around those. Service entry for pre-production batch 2010 so stick to current/emerging technologies. But no awards for being boring

Feel free to redefine "MBT".

Type 99 had a simple mission statement. That is to be better against the most imminent tank threat to China, which incidentally, isn't really any Western tank but those of the Soviet Union. Arguably, I think that mission is met.

Now we are trying to theorize a new tank that is meant for the simple purpose of upstaging Western tanks. The problem is that there is a definite weight and size limit here. I suspect if you are over 60 tons, you are going to have problems going around the roads and rice paddies in China. And please note that Asian cities tend to be very narrow street and crowded. Surely it does not stop the Koreans and the Japanese from making tanks inappropriate to their rural and urban landscape, but these tanks are meant to produce some public statement and I kind of doubt they're practical. We are talking about living in a hemisphere in the world where traditionally, and this has been proven in decades of combat, that tanks are indecisive in the Far East and play nothing much other than being mobile pillboxes.

So what are we going to do? Do we want a showpiece tank that says China has "arrived" technologically or do you want a practical tank?

Another mission statement. Do you want to use the 125mm? The NATO 120mm? Or the new 140mm? Despite some criticisms people have on the 125mm on this board, the problem of going to the 120mm or a new caliber is the logistics. There is already a huge infrastructure for the 125mm in the first place. Going to a 120mm, you have to measure the arguably better ballistic characteristics vs. all present logistical requirements. The 140mm will have to have ballistic performance that would justify overturning this logistical infrastructure.

Introducing the ZTZ-100.

Basically built out of the ZTZ-99 chassis, with a 1500hp diesel engine but without the carousel autoloader. By using existing chassis, it can be built rather quickly and use existing support infrastructure.

The turret is of course, welded type using perforated armor, which is lighter than ceramic based laminar armors, using a Tungsten Carbide hard face. I don't really like DU for its environmental consequences and China has already made a stink of its own environment to add to that problem. Tungsten is something that China dominates in the market more than OPEC controls oil. Then arrow shaped ERA is added on the front and sides of the hard face to give a 'Leopard' look with a low wide turret dominating the ZTZ-99 derived chassis.

I will probably get rid of the laser dazzler. It just adds cost and it won't fool anybody. If I were to put a laser on the tank, it would be to light up targets for ATGMs, laser guided artillery shells and LGBs. I would prefer a new defensive suite instead that will respond to radar and laser emitting threats with smoke grenades and other measures. FLIR will also be there of course.

I would go with a 140mm smoothbore, with a bustle mounted autoloader. Of course, it will be gyro-stabilized with a coaxial machine gun. I will dump the ATGM shoot through of the gun.

I will probably try to keep the tank under 60 tons for the sake of mobility in China's roads and bridges.

That sounds to be a very good tank, crobato. I am not a fan of ERA; I'm an infantryman, and I don't exploding tiles on tanks that I'm standing only 20 metres away from in open country let alone a mere 10 feet from while in a city, and I have doubts about ERA's effectiveness against weapons like RPG-29, one of which penetrated the ERA on the glacis of a Challenger II in Iraq, taking off the driver's foot. That said, perhaps ERA is the only option available here aside from boxes assembled from silicon carbide plates (actually bolted-together boxes with a gap of a few inches inside, and fitted on the inside face nearest to the tank armour with a removable polycarbonate sheet about an inch thick) that could be bolted onto the turret/hull armour and over areas that ERA tiles would otherwise go. It would probably add more weight than ERA, but that's a judgement call, and one that leans heavily in the infantryman's favour.

The 140mm gun is a bit of a gamble. It is certainly just about as large and as powerful a gun that can be practically mounted on an MBT. Properly manufactured, with high quality munitions available and slaved to an effective fire control/night vision system, it would be unquestionably effective. The major problems are:

1. Weight (the US has so far rejected upgunning the M-1with the 140mm because the US Army didn't consider that the extra penetration capability was worth the added weight, but then, the M-1 A1 HA/A2 is already a very heavy tank, especially with all that DU in its armour and sabot rounds) but I noticed that you adopt the German Leo 2 solution here with perforated armour, not DU-enhanced Chobham armour, so the ZTZ-100 is already starting off noticeably lighter.

2. Reduced ammo carry (although the turret bustle - with autoloader -may alleviate that somewhat, and I do prefer the turret bustle carry for the ammo instead of carrying it below the turret ring - as the M-1 demonstrated in 1991when US troops had to destroy one of their own that was immobilized, the blow out panels and the armoured doors over the amo compartment worked like a charm even when the rear of the turret was peneatrated by two 120mm sabots at close range).

3. There is some question as to just how much of an advantage the 140mm has over the new German 120mm/L52; the former does penetrate a little better than the latter, but is the latter sufficient to deal with anything is it likely to encounter anyway? With ordnance weight and ammo carry being major considerations with a 60 ton limit, there are a series of judgement calls to be made, and this is one of the big ones. A bigger heavier gun with less ammo, or a smaller yet still (possibly - this would have to be determined first) adequate gun with more ammo? The problem with either gun, especially in city fighting, is the barrel length - these are both long-barreled guns - but that length is necessary for them to do their job, so it just has to be accepted and dealt with.

I agree with you that there is no need for DU undeniably effective though it is, and is a menace anyway to all involved.

I love the diesel. I do not like gas turbines; sure they have great acceleration, but they're petrol pigs and they stand out on a thermal viewer such that a man lighting a cigarette with a blowtorch couldn't be much more conspicuous.

This is an excellent tank. The only thing that I have real doubts about is the ERA, a little bit about effectivness and a lot about the effects of it on the infantry (although my suggestions for replacing the ERA might well add too much weight, and they have to be thoroughly tested for effectiveness first.). Other than that, the ZTZ-100 is a nice piece of kit. I highly recommend it to the Chinese Armoured Corps.

If it were me, my wishlist is

1. crew in hull inside armored capsules.
2. main gun in uncrewed turret
3. radar controlled machine gun turret to counter
antitank missiles.

China is a large country bordering many other states, the security environment differs from area to area -- unlike smaller states (S. Korea, China) where threat is limited to one direction.

I think if we look at China's size, security requirements, and budget constraints, it'd probably make sense to go with a high-low approach. You could say that they're doing that today with the T-99G vs. T-96?

My armchair general proposal would to be develop a new, western style MBT from the chassis up for the "high" mix. A good MBT to emulate is the Korean K-2 Black Panther. Let's call it "MBT-X".

This tank will NOT be cheap. S. Korea spent $230 million over 11 years on K-2's R&D, and the per unit cost is $8.5 million USD. In comparison, the T-99G is estimated at $2 million each. The PRC cannot easily import technology and components from Western Europe, so it may cost even more for domestic R&D.

==========

My armchair general executive decisions:

1) Fund R&D and production of MBT-X. This will be a completely new MBT, which means it can use 120mm or 140mm gun instead of 125mm gun if desired. It should have smart top-attack munition capability, soft-kill and hard-kill defense vs. ATGM, networked battlefield management system, and possibly even a small wheeled UAV for scouting. The estimated production cost will be comparable to K-2 at $8-10 million per unit (2007 dollars).

2) Fund continued production and improvement of T-96 & T-99G. Production of T-96 should wind down and replaced with improved T-99G. The current estimated production cost on T-99 is $2 million per unit.

3) Fund R&D for converting older MBT's to HAPC/HIFV like Israeli Achzarit and Russian BTR-T or BMPT. The vehicle should be rebuilt with new engine/power pack and armor package. Russia and Ukraine might make good partners for this program. To save costs we could use as many off-shelf components as possible.

For the HAPC, it'd carry lighter weapons but more crew capacity. Typical weapon mount could include 2 x ATGM in box launcher, remote controlled MG, 30mm auto-cannon, automatic grenade launcher, etc.

The HIFV would have heavier weapon mount but less crew capacity. It could be armed with cheaper 30mm auto-cannon, or more expensive 40mm/L70 bofors like auto-cannon with smart munitions (see: Korean XK21), 4-round ATGM box launcher, remote-controlled MG, or even a lightweight CIWS system.

The cost of the HAPC/HIFV conversion should be no more than $1 million each on average, depending on configuration, some more, some less.

4) Fund project to convert (in future) T-96 and T-99 MBT's to HIFV's, and new HIFV's built on T-96/T-99 chassis, like Ukrainian BMT-72/BTMP-84. This is not an urgent project and can be delayed.


Estimated current PLA MBT inventory:
5,000-6,000 x T-59
300 x T-69/T-79
400-500 x T-88
2,000-2,500 x T-96
200+ x T-99

Estimated PLA MBT/HIFV inventory in 2017: (cost spread over 10 years)
5,000 x converted/rebuilt into Heavy APC, Heavy IFV, or combat engineering vehicles
3,000 x T-96 & improved/upgraded variants
2,000 x T-99 & improved/upgraded variants
? x MBT-X

The cost of 5,000 rebuilt HAPC/HIFV at $1 million each is $5 billion
The cost of producing 2000 new T-96/T-99 at $2 million each is $4 billion
We assume R&D cost for above + MBT-X program at $1 billion
Subtotal: $10 billion (over 10 year period, or $1 billion per year)

Assuming the MBT-X is ready for serial production in 2017 (no, I don't think 2010 deadline is realistic), at $10 million each (2007 dollars) you'd get up to 100 tanks per billion dollars. If we allocate $1 billion/year for acquisition, by 2020 the PLA would have 300-400 MBT-X for its elite armor units. I think $1 billion/year expenditure is not completely unrealistic?

---------------

From production point of view, I'd like to keep a 1:1 ratio between MBT and Heavy APC/IFV. If the PLA were to ever deploy to a hostile urban environment like Iraq, the deployment ratio may go to 1 MBT : 2 HIFV

The more expensive 40mm auto-cannon equipped HIFV should be armed with smart munitions, choice of APFSDS, HE, smoke, multipurpose rounds that could be set to proximity, smoke, armor-piercing, or self-destruct at pre-determined distance. The armor on HAPC/HIFV should be able to withstand direct hit from RPG and 30mm munitions, though probably not from all directions.

For lighter IFV development, I'd lean toward the Korean K300/XK21 KNIFV in the 25-ton class. It's light enough for air transport, but packs a big punch against other APC/IFV's. These won't be cheap either, the Koreans are paying about $4 million each.

After production of the T-98/T-99 line winds down, they could switch to building new HIFVs based on the same tank chassis, like Israeli Namera or Ukrainian BMT-72/BTMP-84. When the existing T-96/T-99 are obsolete they could be rebuilt into HIFV's too.

==========

References:

Korean K2 Black Panther MBT:



Korean XK21 KNIFV:



Russian BTR-T:


BMP-T:


Israeli Achzarit:


Israeli Namera:


Ukraine BMT-72 & BTMP-84:

Twin 120mm cannons virtually eliminates jams (linked blowback action).Completely crewless weapons module with four rotary drums under turret.

Three person crew in forward section (i.e. not in turret), engine in rear.

Planeman, your design is starting to look like that Emperor tank in Command and Conquer Generals.

I am thinking of starting an "Ideal PLAN submarine" thread in another section of the forum if you don't mind.

This is an excellent tank. The only thing that I have real doubts about is the ERA, a little bit about effectivness and a lot about the effects of it on the infantry (although my suggestions for replacing the ERA might well add too much weight, and they have to be thoroughly tested for effectiveness first.). Other than that, the ZTZ-100 is a nice piece of kit. I highly recommend it to the Chinese Armoured Corps.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Norfolk. I also wrote this to see if this is indeed the general direction where the next gen PLA MBT would evolve.

I think if we look at China's size, security requirements, and budget constraints, it'd probably make sense to go with a high-low approach. You could say that they're doing that today with the T-99G vs. T-96?

Click to expand...

Good point, Adeptitus. A high lo mix may be necessary. Also there is a need for a lighter weight tank in support of amphibious and airborne operations.

Siege tank from Dune more like. Couldn't find a good pic of that so here's some inspiration!

I would go for a very conventional Western type tank. Focus primarily on three main components: protection (and associated survivability), firepower, and mobility.

Weapons:
I would use the Western 120mm smoothbore gun over the Russian 125mm gun. Barrel length would be L55, which brings much higher muzzle velocity into the equation. I would also accept a manual loader over a autoloader for the time being, even though the tank would have to be larger (max weight would now hit 65 tons). At the same time, I would develop a autoloader for use in a later revision of the tank.

Coaxial gun would be 1 7.62mm machine gun. A .50 cal machine gun would be mounted in a AA mount near on the commander's cupola, and another would be mounted on a remote weapons station. The RWS gun can be swapped out for a AGL if desired. Additionally, 18 76mm grenade launchers fitted in banks of 9 would be fitted to each side of the turret, which are capable of firing high explosive grenades or smoke canisters.

Turret drive would be all-electric, not hydraulic. This increases reliability, improves crew safety, and lightens the tank somewhat.

Fire control:

Three observation periscopes fitted with night vision intensifiers. Both the gunner and the commander would have independent thermal imagers, allowing the gunner to engage a target while the commander would be searching for a new one. A fully digital ballistic fire-control computer would also be provided, along with manual backup. A CO2 laser range finder is also fitted to provide ranging data for the computer.

Protection:
The very latest in Chinese passive armour technology. Furthermore, like the American M1 Abrams tank, I would also have depleted uranium armour as part of the tank's protection. I would also install Kevlar liners inside the crew compartment for anti-sprall protection. Furthermore, ammunition would be stored in a heavily armoured compartment complete with blow out panels to enhance crew survivability. Automatic fire control and suppression would also be fitted.

Mobility:
Standard torsion bar suspension. Engine would be a 1500hp turbocharged multi-fuel diesel engine (as found in the Leopard 2) fitted with a automatic transmission, with 5 gears forward, 2 gears reverse. A small gas turbine APU would also be fitted to the turret bustle, for use when the tank is in a hull down position with engine off to power the electronics and to drive the turret controls.

General dimensions would be around 8m in length, 4m wide, and 2.7m high (including the turret). It would be crewed by a crew of 4; gunner, commander, loader, and driver.