New Type98/99 MBT thread

Mohsin77

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
There is nothing "cheap" about the T-14 Armata.
Click to expand...

I think you misread. I said the "cheap" option was pre-Armata designs. The T-14, I said, is too expensive for Russia (even though it's still half the price of NATO tanks due to factors you mentioned.)

Case in point:

gelgoog said:
But I would not say they cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

Well, the Russians disagree with you, so you can try and convince them:

"Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov told reporters that the Russian army does not seek to massively purchase "Armata" because of its high cost."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


gelgoog said:
Well the M1A2SEPv3 is 66.8 tons
Click to expand...

And again, the T-90 is 46 tons.... That's what I consider to be "much lighter". Not the Armata.


gelgoog said:
Pakistan has little geographical defensive depth it can use so heavy tanks are a necessity I agree.

I can certainly understand China not making a Type 99 replacement a priority. But given the amount of spending they have available today and all other low hanging fruit seems to have been worked on already I think it is a matter of time. I think it is clear with the Type 15 entering service, the new uniforms, and the new rifles, that the PLA is now getting cash dumped into it after over a decade of really low funding levels. I suspect China is probably waiting on tank developments elsewhere before deciding which project they will push. The T-14 is still not in mass production and the next generation US tank project is still unknown. I would not be surprised if they bought some T-14 Armata tanks. To be honest I don't know what China will do. If they will go with a more conservative design as they did with the Type 15 or make a technological leap. They might even do both. You have not only the Type 99 but also the Type 96 to consider replacing.
Click to expand...

Agreed with all of the above.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The Soviets had the same problem with the T-64 and T-80. They were too expensive to buy in large numbers. Not just the production cost but also the maintenance. So they needed to design a cost reduced mobilization model. Thus they made the T-72. When I mean the Russians can easily buy the T-14, I said in numbers equivalent to those of the T-90 today, not to replace their entire tank park T-72 and all. Even after they upgrade all the T-90 tanks to T-90M standard they need to figure out what to do with the rest.

As the T-14 Armata gets into mass production the cost of it should eventually go down. With luck it might just require a redesign of some components to bring the cost further down. Otherwise they will need to make major modifications to the tank design itself. I doubt it will come to a point where they will need to design a new tank but who knows.

China needs to come up with a tank design which can accommodate a larger turret and more powerful rounds to defeat next generation heavier armor tanks. It also needs to have a lot of extra frontal armor to be resistant to 120mm NATO rounds. It must also come with an APS. Other than that I think the requirements are kind of fluid.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The Soviets had the same problem with the T-64 and T-80. They were too expensive to buy in large numbers. Not just the production cost but also the maintenance. So they needed to design a cost reduced mobilization model. Thus they made the T-72. When I mean the Russians can easily buy the T-14, I said in numbers equivalent to those of the T-90 today, not to replace their entire tank park T-72 and all. Even after they upgrade all the T-90 tanks to T-90M standard they need to figure out what to do with the rest.

As the T-14 Armata gets into mass production the cost of it should eventually go down. With luck it might just require a redesign of some components to bring the cost further down. Otherwise they will need to make major modifications to the tank design itself. I doubt it will come to a point where they will need to design a new tank but who knows.

China needs to come up with a tank design which can accommodate a larger turret and more powerful rounds to defeat next generation heavier armor tanks. It also needs to have a lot of extra frontal armor to be resistant to 120mm NATO rounds. It must also come with an APS. Other than that I think the requirements are kind of fluid.
Click to expand...
A bustle loading systems that allows much faster loading and accomodate longer rounds like type 90 and leclerc is also needed. And I suspect much more in the electric compartment with how much electronic needed these days. Ztq 15 already has it. Lastly ztq 15 is taller, perhaps new ztz99a would be as tall? I wish China accomodate gun elevation and depression more. A tank thats fits world better allows better export.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Skirts are typically good enough protection against HEAT rounds. It would still be vulnerable against tandem-HEAT or APFDS though.
It should be enough protection against a bog standard RPG-7, but not an RPG-29 or something like that.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
FishWings said:
But China is neither Korea nor Japan
Click to expand...
If the whole region does the same thing - there is a good chance there are very good reasons for that.

South Korean and Chinese export tanks feature side protection just fine, so it isn't like they don't know that it is possible to provide side protection.
p.s. strictly speaking, the new North Korean M2020 has integral side protection, but those are prototypes(?) as of yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top