PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

ERA would've been the least of anyone's concern when talking about china's current or future tanks since the FY series is already pretty good and widely used. My main concern on tank's development for the PLA is still the hardkill active protection system (APS). As of now none of the PLA's MBT is equipped with hardkill APS, which is ironic given that china actually produces a hardkill APS called GL5, which is available for the exported tank VT4..

Dunno why they haven't started to get it into the in service tank yet (cost, its effectiveness, stucked in low production, we can speculate for forever), but the lack of any hardkill APS is quite glaring. GL5 itself is actually quite ok, just like most hardkill APS it can stop ATGM projectile, but still it's ultimately useless against high-speed tungsten/DU cored APFSDS. From what I know there are only 2 working hardkill APS that can work against APFSDS; zaslon in ukrainian BM-Oplot and afghanit in russian's armata. Both of them are for many reasons are still stucked in low production hellhole though. Figuring out how to get a hardkill APFSDS-capable APS and mass-producing it would be an ideal and realistic goal in the future development of china's tank. Those scifi-like digitization using AI and whatnot can wait honestly, this is more crucial.

lgnxz said:

Dunno why they haven't started to get it into the in service tank yet

Click to expand...

The most likely is do they need it? Hard kill APS is intended to counter RPG and MANPATS. The PLA right now isn’t looking to fight those. If they were moving to a combat standing they might.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The most likely is do they need it? Hard kill APS is intended to counter RPG and MANPATS. The PLA right now isn’t looking to fight those. If they were moving to a combat standing they might.

Click to expand...

APS is flexible and modular, can be installed everywhere, not only for MBT. Even if you think that china won't face ATGM projectile to its MBT you can certainly see its uses in other platform like IFV, yet not even that is installed with GL5.

Besides, I already wrote how they should also look into the hardkill APS that can counter APFSDS. It's possible given that both russia and ukraine already have them, albeit still in low production. This is what you think the PLA tanks suppose to fight with right? Yet I haven't heard any news about its development.

First I am well aware that APS can befitted to a number of vehicles but not not almost anywhere. The choice of type and where depends on a number of factors.
Including available electric power, weight and weight distribution as well as effective threats. Most are likely to place them around the soft spots of the vehicles the sides and rear. No they are not all modular they often require extensive modifications to the vehicle in question

lgnxz said:

I already wrote how they should also look into the hardkill APS that can counter APFSDS

Click to expand...

They (Russian media) might claim they can... but the mechanism is to the contrary.
Sabot rounds are too fast and dense to counter by current gen APS.
Afganit uses a fragmentation blast charge the most common form used by APS today. The same for Zaslon and Trophy. It’s like trying to stop a bullet by detonating a claymore the blast effects arn’t powerful enough to deflect the high density fast shell. IT’s likely to pass through the blast without so much as a ding.

The best defense against a SABOT is armor. And APS that can beat bth Sabot and ATGM is the Holy grail of APS. Now the PLA may have the ability to retrofit GL5 on its newest vehicles assuming they have the electrical power and weight to spare. Yet again most likely the newest. If the vehicles is older with a older electrical system it wont’s be able to sustain the power demands. That’s been a problem on attempts with the Bradley.

Phead128 said:

China really doesn't have any land-border threats, even the threat of land war in Korean peninsula has significantly reduced. Is that really wise to invest in a new platform? Then again, it can be argued it's neccessary given Russian developing the new T-14 Armata, so I guess China should develop one to keep pace, albeit at slower rate.

Click to expand...

Tanks are notoriously hard to destroy; a M1A1 purportedly survived multiple hits by American aviation sent to destroy a mission-killed and abandoned Abrams to keep it out of enemy hands in Desert Storm. Moreover, the best tank-killers are considered other tanks, since missiles can get swatted out by ECM and hard-kill systems.

In the Imperial Japanese case, they were primarily sea-power and air-power, with ground forces being mostly infantry. The lack of good tanks on their side made the American march across the Pacific somewhat easier as the Japanese lacked tanks to bully infantry without support and to kill enemy tanks.

In the Chinese case, Taiwan is a point of strategic interest. If the Chinese land troops onto the island, they'll have to face M1A2s the Taiwanese are slated to buy. Having 4th generation tanks ready to do tank-versus-tank is a great back-up if airpower proves unreliably able to knock out Abrams.

===

A different consideration is, are the Chinese considering the same set-up as the Japanese Type 10? The Japanese Type 10, given Japan's island nature, is a light MBT (not a light tank) that can have ERA slapped on to increase its protection level. In other words, Type 10s can be efficiently transported across water, but once they're on shore, they can be refitted with ERA to return them to the level of a traditional MBT.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Sabot rounds are too fast and dense to counter by current gen APS.

Click to expand...

There is footage of APS countering APFSDS you know. This is ukraininan zaslon. From minute 9:41 to the end you see that they are testing their APS against 3BM22. Do note that BM22 is an old sabot round, but it has the same speed as any modern APFSDS (~1750 m/s), so speed is not a problem for zaslon, and I'm sure the more modern and bigger afghanit blast rounds have should be even more effective. Even if say both can't completely defeat a modern APFSDS, they surely can reduce the penetration power of the round. Combine that with good ERA and base armor, your tank can probably tanks 1-2 more rounds before it completely be taken out by it, which would be game-changing in tank battle in the future since all modern tanks are easily taken out in 1-2 shot by modern APFSDS anyway.

The manufacturer states that it’s only effective vs threats with a velocity between 70 - 1,200 M/s That’s below the typical velocity of APFSDS rounds which is 1,400m/s To 1,900m/s. The Round may normally have a velocity in that range but something is off if they aren’t lauding this capability as a huge step up.
More likely they under loaded the propellant charge in the video to simulate a 3BM22 at extended range.

Short of a total war scenario where China would have to send tanks outside of its land borders (Russia or North Korea) the next gen main (heavy?) battle tank is not really that crucial.

What IS more important for China is having a tank that can pack a punch and still be fairly survivable while disembarking on potentially contested soil, like on various islands in the East and South China and islands neighboring those seas. Whether that calls for a super high tech light tank or a medium tank that's deliverable to said islands via novel, possibly high tech means is another discussion.

Totoro said:

Short of a total war scenario where China would have to send tanks outside of its land borders (Russia or North Korea) the next gen main (heavy?) battle tank is not really that crucial.

What IS more important for China is having a tank that can pack a punch and still be fairly survivable while disembarking on potentially contested soil, like on various islands in the East and South China and islands neighboring those seas. Whether that calls for a super high tech light tank or a medium tank that's deliverable to said islands via novel, possibly high tech means is another discussion.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That's roughly the line of thinking in the development of Type 15. China doesn't need a super-good performing tank, as there are no potential rivals that have the capability of developing a very advanced tank(for now). Accordingly the armor of Type 99A is no much better than the exporting VT4, "just enough to be in the safe zone". Advanced tank technologies, such as electromagnetic armor and electrothermal guns are currently in development, but way slower than our top capabilities. It is also even said that developing electrothermal guns was just to let a 105 calibre gun have the same potency of the 125 calibre. There are now several articles written by reliable people in this field, all stating that China has no need in developing calibres larger than 125. There's an interesting statement about the type 15's development ideas:“（印度）打的过的上不来，上的来的打不过” which means"The ones(vehicles of india) that can climb up here(the Tibetan plateau)can't beat us, and the ones that can beat us can't climb up."

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The manufacturer states that it’s only effective vs threats with a velocity between 70 - 1,200 M/s

Click to expand...

Source on this? If anything the ukrainians themselves claim that they can counter the sabot, hence the experiment they do on the video. It's also bewildering to me that you would rather believe some numbers on paper but discarding an actual experiment that's videotaped.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

something is off if they aren’t lauding this capability as a huge step up.

Click to expand...

They do though, but they can't produce them in huge number for themselves or export, so not even their army is getting it, the same fate that china currently suffers with its GL5.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

More likely they under loaded the propellant charge in the video to simulate a 3BM22 at extended range.

Click to expand...

They clearly state that they are using BM-22 in the video, even showing the image of the round and gun to make it clearer. Idk why you're still so adamant that some top-tier APS can't reduce/deflect the penetration of an APFSDS, well I can't provide further proof that's clearer than that video, so guess we can just agree to disagree..
This is getting rather out of topic already so this will be my last message about APS, I still stand that developing a hardkill APS that can counter both ATGM and APFSDS and putting it en masse in PLA's modern MBT should be a top priority.