Could Type 100 have the mobility of Type 15 and replace them too ? Weight differences are about the same than an armor upgrade package...
PLA New Gen Tanks (Type 100, new heavy MBT)
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
I feel like the 101 should be lighter than the 99s? The ztz 100 is very light already compared to standard mbts (and likely lighter than the 96?). I don’t see why the same design with a heavier armor package and a bigger gun could add on an extra 20 or more tons. I expect the new tank to be lighter than the 99s.
It isn't just a heavy armor package, its basically a completely new vehicle according to rumors. That said the new MBT likely weighs similarly to ZTZ-99A or possibly a bit lighter but still 50t class given expected protection requirements and mounting a large caliber cannon. Any larger would likely cause logistics issues such as Y-20 was designed to carry a ZTZ-99A class MBT and associated gear while still having a reasonable range, not 60+ ton tanks.
AFAIK, I don't even think 99B can be considered a "new" tank given that most if not all we've seen so far were simply upgraded ZTZ-99As. IMO, its basically a MLU for the Type 99A to bring it to standard with modern combat requirements and fix its unreliable powerpack.
The Type 15's main claim to fame is that it has oxygen generators to give it good performance at high altitudes. This isn't the kind of feature that you'd really want on a general purpose tank so it should be a unique feature of the Type 15. The Type 15 is also deployed in the Southern Theater; in terrain that's generally not suitable for tanks to begin with. Even though the Type 100 is only a few tons heavier, this extra weight is going to be an impediment so I see the Type 15 retaining most of its role here as well.
99 series were never 'affordable tanks'. It is the high end tank meant to stand against best tanks opponent could field, while type 96 was the affordable one. At the time the most likely opponent was Russia/Soviet Union, so Type 99 was meant to at least beat the T-72 and T-80s. Type 96 is the mass filler meant to replace the aging type 59 swarm. It has always been the two tier from start.
With that in mind I reject the notion Type 99B is the low tier tank. It is neither cheap nor worse than best tanks opponent has to offer. It can still beat advanced tanks from any opponents, from T-90S to Abrams. It is just that war has changed, and beating opponent's tank is a lesser priority.
Type 100 is a entirely different philosophy that prioritize defeating missile threats and possible drones. Naturally those threats require less weight on the tank than Type 99. I would not think it is light to be the filler tank analogous Type 99 and 96, it is a entirely different design philosophy, possibly not much cheaper than the 7 wheeler we are seeing. For the same reason I don't think the new 7 wheeler will fill the Type 99 niche of the past, they are different priorities.
If Type 100 can do almost as well as Type 99B (high end platform) in defeating enemy armor, then what point is the seven wheeler? To beat a hypothetical enemy tank design of the future? That feels a bit too luxurious for PLA tradition. I am not sure what they are going after that Type 100 cannot do, or making type 100 bigger. Because certainly Type 100 is not cheap, they would not be saving mass there to cheap out.
My only guess is the seven wheeler is meant to have some specialized difference that a bigger type 100 simply cannot do. This is why they carry those mass for specialized purpose, not just for sake of bigger gun and more armor.
I never called the Type 99 “low tier”. It’s a perfectly capable tank. The point is that the PLAGF intentionally didn’t aim for “best of everything we can cram into its frame” performance because the doctrine didn’t need it to be like that. It just needed effective general purpose capabilities relative to some other MBTs other countries field. That’s what I meant by “affordable”.
The point of a tank isn’t only to defeat other tanks.
The 99A/B is a competent MBT, but I think when we talk about affordability it should be spoken of in terms of the PLAGF rather than relative to other global armies and global MBTs.
In the PLAGF, the 99A/B would likely be one of the most expensive singular AFV types by unit cost... and if they had tried to add even more onto it they likely would have ballooned the cost even further (all in a design which in some ways was a bit suboptimal to begin with).
That is probably worth specifying because the ZTZ99/A/B's "affordability" exists in context of the ZTZ96/A/B also existing in the same period (the latter being closer to the "affordable MBT" in the PLA context).
==
In addition to having greater capability to defeat other non-armour threats, I suspect a heavy seven wheeler new gen MBT would seek to also have greater capability than Type 100 in defeating future armour threats as well as additional improvements in survivability (situational awareness, armour, EW, self defense), but naturally at the cost of terrain flexibility.
There are absolutely some environments where Type 100 are better suited than a next gen heavy MBT would be, but vice versa is also true.
Last edited:
I have renamed the thread so that the Type 100 and the new heavy MBT are both to be discussed here (I dont' think we need a separate thread for both, and even though they will have some elapsed time between the latter emerging, they are likely to be of a "similar generation" in key technologies)
Type 99 is a luxurious tank by nature, it really was the best of the best. 90's PLA was pretty much cramming the best of the best systems into that tank, and they were not satisfied, redesigned it multiple times to fit the desired specs. For PLA in the 90's it really was incredible, they were not holding back on the tank at all. They delivered a tank capable of matching top tier tank designs of the time, then exceeded them later, all while country was backward and military budget was dangerously low. I would not call it 'perfectly capable tank' like it was some modernized T-72. It is still the top tier tank today, with 99A redesign as early as decade ago. Just because a new generation of tanks appeared with different priority does not change the history 99A was a 'best of the best' type of design.
I reject the idea Type 100 will be a cost efficient design somehow. It is actually more expensive than Type 99A, who is already top tier for world standard. It is clear PLA is aiming for best of the best for both Type 100 and 101.