by78
General
@jobjed's corrections, clarifications, and additional comments to my original translation:
You've done a pretty good job already, I'll just top up where I can.
He doesn't mention a dedicated anti-helicopter missile, only the current gun-launched missiles already pose a grave threat to helicopters implying that the 99A's FCS can be configured for anti-air using missiles.
The 'bomblets' denote top-attack submunitions like SADARM. They fire a molten jet towards the weak top armour of armoured vehicles while parachuting down. If 99A's top armour is tailored to withstand all such weapons, it would eliminate a huge vulnerability of the PLA's combined-arms assaults.
The 99A's frontal armour can withstand APFSDS rounds with a RHA-equivalent penetration of >700mm, and HEAT rounds with a penetration of >1000mm. However, as mentioned below, the anti-HEAT value is actually above 1200mm but below 2000mm.
I'm pretty sure I've read from an insider or a friend of an insider that the 99A design team had considered a larger-calibre gun but ultimately settled for 125mm as the larger one was considered overkill. The current article says that there is no consideration for upgrading to larger-calibre guns but doesn't preclude prior consideration during the design phase.
The phrasing of the T-14's "uncontrollability" conveyed that its height could not be controlled, not that its driving characteristics were compromised. There also wasn't mention of centre of gravity.
The adverse effect that the T-14's height had on its survivability manifests as conspicuousness which attracts a lot more fire. First-hand accounts from NATO soldiers testify to the difficulties of hitting Soviet-pattern low-silhouette tanks during combat training so maintaining a low profile has real, tangible effects in real life, not just a theoretical benefit. The T-14, being so tall, is much more noticeable and and easier to hit than its predecessors.
I'm not entirely sure how to read his comment on the JGSDF's lack of networked combined-arms units. However, given that the JGSDF is mentioned to not have networked units at all and not just lacking networked tank units, I'd assume this was a comment on the JGSDF's systemic inadequacies, and not related to the Type 10 in particular. In other words, it's probably more a statement of "yeah, their tank is technically capable of network connectivity matching our tank but their military isn't even making use of the capability so the point is moot."
2000mm RHA-equivalent penetration sounds like a very heavy ATGM, possibly the AFT-10. I can't think of any other recent missile made public that is big enough to possess those performance figures. It doesn't rule out the possibility of a classified missile, though.
Goddammit, now I really wanna know what was said in the rest of the lecture. I guess the existing leak is similar to the 2008 Red Flag leak where the USAF pilot goes into classified detail on the performances of various aircraft.
You've done a pretty good job already, I'll just top up where I can.
He doesn't mention a dedicated anti-helicopter missile, only the current gun-launched missiles already pose a grave threat to helicopters implying that the 99A's FCS can be configured for anti-air using missiles.
The 'bomblets' denote top-attack submunitions like SADARM. They fire a molten jet towards the weak top armour of armoured vehicles while parachuting down. If 99A's top armour is tailored to withstand all such weapons, it would eliminate a huge vulnerability of the PLA's combined-arms assaults.
The 99A's frontal armour can withstand APFSDS rounds with a RHA-equivalent penetration of >700mm, and HEAT rounds with a penetration of >1000mm. However, as mentioned below, the anti-HEAT value is actually above 1200mm but below 2000mm.
I think those are MTBO figures, not total life expectancy. I can't find anything online for life expectancy of the MTU 870 but other diesel engines seem to last ~5000-10,000 hours in total so I'd be surprised if the 870 had to be written off after only 1000 hours of use.
This claim is highly suspect. Currently identified units sporting the ZTZ-99A are the 112th Division and 62nd Brigade, the former with 93 vehicles and the latter with 62-80 vehicles, totalling 155-173 vehicles. The original ZTZ-99 including both 99-1 and 99-2 total some ~500 vehicles across 16 battalions so it's unlikely that the 99A's production figures have surpassed the original 99. What he might've meant is that existing orders from the PLA already outnumber the existing numbers of 99s so it's inevitable that the 99A will eventually number more.
For all the time we've been noting the PLA's lack of interest in MOUT accessories, this might be the tank to finally demonstrate the PLA's willingness to fork out the $$ for bells and whistles like ultra-thick side-skirts, RWS, APS, etc.
I'm pretty sure I've read from an insider or a friend of an insider that the 99A design team had considered a larger-calibre gun but ultimately settled for 125mm as the larger one was considered overkill. The current article says that there is no consideration for upgrading to larger-calibre guns but doesn't preclude prior consideration during the design phase.
The phrasing of the T-14's "uncontrollability" conveyed that its height could not be controlled, not that its driving characteristics were compromised. There also wasn't mention of centre of gravity.
The adverse effect that the T-14's height had on its survivability manifests as conspicuousness which attracts a lot more fire. First-hand accounts from NATO soldiers testify to the difficulties of hitting Soviet-pattern low-silhouette tanks during combat training so maintaining a low profile has real, tangible effects in real life, not just a theoretical benefit. The T-14, being so tall, is much more noticeable and and easier to hit than its predecessors.
I'm not entirely sure how to read his comment on the JGSDF's lack of networked combined-arms units. However, given that the JGSDF is mentioned to not have networked units at all and not just lacking networked tank units, I'd assume this was a comment on the JGSDF's systemic inadequacies, and not related to the Type 10 in particular. In other words, it's probably more a statement of "yeah, their tank is technically capable of network connectivity matching our tank but their military isn't even making use of the capability so the point is moot."
2000mm RHA-equivalent penetration sounds like a very heavy ATGM, possibly the AFT-10. I can't think of any other recent missile made public that is big enough to possess those performance figures. It doesn't rule out the possibility of a classified missile, though.
Goddammit, now I really wanna know what was said in the rest of the lecture. I guess the existing leak is similar to the 2008 Red Flag leak where the USAF pilot goes into classified detail on the performances of various aircraft.
