New Type98/99 MBT thread

[Lethe]

Attack helicopters themselves will not fare well against point defence systems. The assumption here is that drones and SEAD fighters will knock them all out and fighters will stay around before more vulnerable assets are used.

That's a nice assumption, I wonder if the enemy has any thoughts on that?

Besides, who needs modern SHORADs when you can drive off dozens of Apaches with a cellphone, AAA and freaking

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The Iraqis had 1970s equipment

most of the be equipment actually deployed to the gulf war by the US dated to the same era. Same for the allies. Farthermore the Tanks and weapons of the Iraqis was almost all brand new bought in the 80s.

with no double digit SAMs, they operated it incompetently,

wrong. They had a extensive be air defence system including SAMS and triple A. The US and allies employed SEAD assests and electric warfare disabling and destroying said systems the US also used Stealth aircraft to make strikes around defended targets.

and most importantly they were facing the armed forces of a superpower and several other nations combined.

they had one of the largest armies in the world at the time.

Give the Iraqis and US forces equivalent resources and US losses would've been magnified at least tenfold.

bogus the Iraqis army was well equipped the issue for them was command. They had the fuel they had the equipment.

Giveve them equivalent training and multiply losses by threefold again. Give them equivalent i.e. late-Soviet technology and multiply losses threefold again, i.e. 90-100x the losses that were actually sustained.

they had late Soviet equipment the top tanks and armor of the Iraqi Army was introduced no in 1987, they had the latest artillery they had air defences they had conscripts yes but but they also had soldiers who had faught the Iran Iraq war. What happened? They waited gave up the initiative and faced a force who was trained and geared to counter there every advantage.

That's what a "modern peer conflict" looks like, and the modern American military has about as much experience with it as it has with Martians.

Iraq couldn't be a peer competitor I will grant you. But it's not as one sided as you think.
The Iraqis had some of the best gear money could buy at the time Sadam was not a slouch on spending oil money to get the newest bang bang like most dictators he relied upon it for his life.
The problem for them was that the US targeted command node the Iraqis had. Like a how a spider will paralyse it's victim before killing it. The US systematicly separated the Iraqis Command and control capacity from the war fighters broke there ranks and then either destroyed or bypassed them.

But this is all OT educating you on just what happened in the Gulf war is not the best topic neither is attack choppers.

 

[plawolf]

We seem to be drifting a bit far into the wilds here with some of the side discussions.

Chinese/PLA design philosophy isn’t really conservative, but rather more focused on efficiency and budget discipline.

Unlike other militaries, the PLA will not accept anywhere like the degree of overbudget price hikes as we have seen become the norm elsewhere.

If you promised the PLA something for X amount per unit, you better deliver to that budget and on time. If there are price rises, you better have a bulletproof reason.

The PLA itself is also disciplined in that it won’t keep revising the design. They will take what they ordered and save any mods and changes for the next production blk.

Secondly, the PLA knows it is playing catch up, so it’s priority is to first learnt to walk before they try to fly.

By sticking to tried and tested formula, it minimises the time and cost needed to attain parity with leading powers.

Once it has caught up and is in the same league, then it can afford to try and innovate more. And we are seeing that with the likes of the J20.

But even then, the PLA is very results focused, and it will only take a bet of a radical design if the potential benefits, costs and risks looks favourable.

The PLAGF is the force getting the least budgetary love of the PLA main services (with probably similar trends in talent allocation), so it is still relatively further behind in terms of catching up to leading edge global standards compared to the rest.

And TBH, it’s budget is probably far better spent on better subsystems like APS, sensors and the like, rather than trying to invent the next tank general design trends.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Wolf that's what I mean by conservative.
Rather then push hard to change everything the PLA seems focused on starting with what is proven first. Looking at the Type 99 tank we have a system that borrows from proven designs be of other tanks.
They're more it seems focused on the more proven systems as a base to build up numbers, then when they feel safe they can then try more sophisticated systems either as drop in refits or later totally new replacements.

 

[vincent]

Wolf that's what I mean by conservative.
Rather then push hard to change everything the PLA seems focused on starting with what is proven first. Looking at the Type 99 tank we have a system that borrows from proven designs be of other tanks.
They're more it seems focused on the more proven systems as a base to build up numbers, then when they feel safe they can then try more sophisticated systems either as drop in refits or later totally new replacements.

Talking heads on Chinese TV with military background like to say reliability of equipments is paramount for the PLA. Any new equipment should not have more than 30% new components

 

[AndrewS]

The point is that the vaunted modern superiority of airborne over ground-based forces has only been demonstrated against comically weaker adversaries, and the record is unimpressive even there. The 1991 Gulf War is the sole occasion in which modern airpower has confronted even second-rate air defence systems.

I don't know how attack helicopters would fare against a modern mechanized division with SHORADs like the Pantsir series, let alone medium-range IADS and organic air cover ... but I certainly know I wouldn't want to be in one of the Apaches tasked with finding out.

Just to add, it's now really easy to build a cheap 360degree computer vision system based on commercial technology, which can instantly detect, classify and launch against a helicopter, because it is silhouetted against a clear sky. I imagine they will be mounted on pretty much every vehicle, and will nullify the advantage of surprise/mobility/hiding which the helicopter relies upon.

Then it's a case of

1. an expensive AH-64E ($35M) which has a limited payload, armour and countermeasures, because it is airborne.

versus

2. a cheap SHORAD vehicle which can pack a lot more specialised anti-air missiles (which can follow a helicopter), armour and countermeasures (active and passive) because it moves on land.

===

And if armies start to deploy fleets of accompanying airborne drones (which also have computer vision systems), where does that leave the attack helicopter?

Does that mean attack helicopters become killers of drones and other helicopters, and it is the drones that perform close air support?

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Just to add, it's now really easy to build a cheap 360degree computer vision system based on commercial technology, which can instantly detect, classify and launch against a helicopter, because it is silhouetted against a clear sky. I imagine they will be mounted on pretty much every vehicle, and will nullify the advantage of surprise/mobility/hiding which the helicopter relies upon.

one of the Key features modern choppers use is low level attack often in and around Terrain. They are not always nice and clearly visible. The Addition of systems like Millimeter band Radar also comes in as those can see well beyond the visual range and allow long range attack with ATGM from a long range pick of the Shorad and then start taking Tanks
. Also as to Shorad being "Cheap" that depends on a lot of factors but a good Shorad system can cost just as much as the Tanks that it supports in example the K30 costs 5.7 million US well the 2K22 Tunguska will cost 16 million US.

And if armies start to deploy fleets of accompanying airborne drones (which also have computer vision systems), where does that leave the attack helicopter?

Attack choppers also have Countermeasures and Vision systems already.
The Attack chopper still has some advantages, first it's more nimble. Although Drones Theoretically should be more agile by not having squishy humans aboard. There Communications rely on maintaining alignment with satellites to keep feeding data to there operators. this limits them as if they loose contact they go dumb as a post. It's like fighting the Silence from Dr. Who. you Start the fight but the moment you loose sight you forget when you were doing. Because AI is not at the level to continue a maneuver with out making the Drone Very expensive. Also today Drone Choppers are still in the light weight range where manned Aircraft tend to have the extra weight capacity/

Does that mean attack helicopters become killers of drones and other helicopters, and it is the drones that perform close air support?

Attack Choppers have the Flex to do all of the above and then some. The Chopper gunner can remote the Drones and coordinate the attack well standing off and using it's long range weapons to assist in the kill.
And Shorad systems are being oriented to try and cover more for Drone attacks.

Talking heads on Chinese TV with military background like to say reliability of equipments is paramount for the PLA.

That's standard for every military. It has to work in all possible environments and situations.

Any new equipment should not have more than 30% new components

What justifies "new" and What justifies "old" I mean The Autoloader in the Type 99 is a Carousel like that in the Russian T90, T80,T72 but it's not the Exact same model. it's not that they took a T72 ripped it open and pulled the Autoloader and dropped it in the Type 98 hull. I mean saying that only 30% is new does that mean that it's actually 70% old tank?
The way that is phrased is so wide you can drive a Super tanker through it sideways. I mean the way that is phrased could be interpreted a million different ways.
Obviously the Type 99 is a new tank it's not a Type 88 hull with a new turret.
When I say Conservative What I mean is that the PLA studied existing Tanks took concepts that Worked and designed a Tank around those. but that's generally how all nations design armored vehicles to a wide degree. All vehicles quote really. It's a very rare thing when someone tries to totally reinvent the Wheel. And Even Tanks like the Type 10 and K2 are based on existing and proven technologies.

but from a Doctrinal perspective the Type 99 is a very conservative Eastern Block Tank of the Third Generation. They didn't try a 152mm gun or try a unmanned turret or cram a laser gun and VLS cell on the Bustle. Rather they started with a proven chassis layout, and a verity of systems inspired by proven quantities. Then aim to upgrade the tank incrementally to deal with the next steps up.

 

[ougoah]

It's not an attack helicopter's job to take out manpads and other point defences. Once threats against aircrafts are removed, then attack helicopters enjoy greater advantage over tanks. This of course doesn't mean tanks are obsolete. But we need to stop saying attack helicopters have limited usefulness because of the existence of SHORADs. This is about as insightful as saying tanks have limited usefulness because of proliferated anti-tank missiles. What should happen on paper almost never happens in real life. Russians placed emphasis on SAMs over a wide range of interdependent aircrafts tasked with knocking out SAMs and eventual targets. That didn't work out well for the Iraqis or Syrians. They also favoured fast range of anti ship missiles of all types while the US focuses on carrier battle groups and fighters to carry out combat duties. Different doctrine but who knows which one will actually prevail in real life war? Certainly no one on this forum. The Russian designs on paper show almost guaranteed success if applied correctly just like the theory behind walls of SAMs.

 

[AndrewS]

@TerraN_EmpirE

Yes, helicopters fly at low level in and amongst terrain. But the beauty of computer vision systems is that it is a one-time job to train it to instantly spot even a partial match, even if it is hidden between objects.

And in terms of cost-benefit, the Korean K-30 ($5.7M) is a better representative than the Russian Tunguska ($16M). Remember that we're essentially talking about commercial-derived technology available today, but has yet to be implemented. So the cost compares very favourably against the Apache ($35M).

Yes, Apaches have countermeasures and vision systems already, whereas tanks and other land vehicles are currently behind. But we're looking at a situation in the future where the land vehicles have equivalent systems, and a helicopter simply has a higher cost versus capability than the land-based system(s) it will be facing.

But personally I think we're looking at a future where a land force brings with it a cloud of small recon/attack drones (both rotary and fixed-wing).

In such a world, highly-mobile helicopters will be the preferred platform to accompany and direct the drone swarms accompanying each land force. And both sides will be simultaneously trying to win an aerial recon battle to identify/attack the opposing land force.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Andews the ranges involved and types of terrain mean that you are not likely to see it with a computer.
We are not even really talking about the future here it was a weird comparison that expanded beyond the original scope of K2 vs Type99.
Drone evolution and the like are outside the box of this topic.