PLA New Gen Tanks (Type 100, new heavy MBT)

Nx4eu said:

I believe this. I don't personally think this specific tank exceeds 45T in weight.

Remember the Type 100 combat weight was <35T, Hull weight <25T. This new tanks hull looks barely larger.

The T-14 Armata which is huge only weighs >50T. Not having to armor the turret saves a lot of weight.

Click to expand...

T-14 is 55 tonnes. Current 4th gen western tank development (the various European tank development programs of dubious perspectives as well as M1E3) are also targeting the same weight levels. If PLA is actually going the extra mile to field another MBT in addition to Type 100, the 50t class makes the most sense.

To be clear I´m still extremely puzzled by this 7 wheeled tank, I can´t see much use for it justifying its existence. I´m most puzzled because it looks very much finished (and its basically an enlarged Type 100) and yet it wasn´t shown in last years parade.

Gloire_bb said:

Ugh, do you really want to make a tank (by default, a rather disposable vehicle meant for risky use) to cost you a ton from materials alone?
Wide use of titanium tends to spiral costs in a way that can't be brought down by efficiencies of manufacturing/scale. You'll just have to pay for it, and you will run into significant trouble when you need repairs.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not its really the true case here. The new amphibious vehicle is also made mostly using titanium as structural support. The costs are certainly pretty high, currently each type 100 costs around 10 million dollars or roughly 3 times the price of 99A, but mass productions should reduce this by somewhat. There exists a plan of moving the goalpost to around 38 tons to save costs, but whether or not this plan will be implemented is still uncertain.

qwerty3173 said:

Believe it or not its really the true case here. The new amphibious vehicle is also made mostly using titanium as structural support. The costs are certainly pretty high, currently each type 100 costs around 10 million dollars or roughly 3 times the price of 99A, but mass productions should reduce this by somewhat. There exists a plan of moving the goalpost to around 38 tons to save costs, but whether or not this plan will be implemented is still uncertain.

Click to expand...

Amphibs are a special case, as otherwise you go to the bottom... with tanks, count me sceptical.
For example, titanium is a major reason why F-15 still happily costs x2 of F-35, despite the solid economy of scale. Or, say, Su-25(rather dumb aircraft, but with titanium armor) had exactly the same cost as MiG-29 (medium air superiority fighter).

Gloire_bb said:

Ugh, do you really want to make a tank (by default, a rather disposable vehicle meant for risky use) to cost you a ton from materials alone?
Wide use of titanium tends to spiral costs in a way that can't be brought down by efficiencies of manufacturing/scale. You'll just have to pay for it, and you will run into significant trouble when you need repairs.

Click to expand...

I remember a while back before the parade. Some people were saying that Type 100 was really expensive and was only going to be distributed to a few elite units. So this could be the case, where the Type 100 is just an expensive tank.

Nx4eu said:

I remember a while back before the parade. Some people were saying that Type 100 was really expensive and was only going to be distributed to a few elite units. So this could be the case, where the Type 100 is just an expensive tank.

Click to expand...

Well unless PLAGF has some other cheap design in the works, I don't see how this is going to work out. There are still thousands of Type 99/96/88 to replace before 2035 which is less than 10 years from now. Type 100 should logically be mass produceable relatively cheaply to quickly phase out all the obsolete gear that the PLA still operates before modernisation deadline.

Nx4eu said:

I remember a while back before the parade. Some people were saying that Type 100 was really expensive and was only going to be distributed to a few elite units. So this could be the case, where the Type 100 is just an expensive tank.

Click to expand...

Maybe, let's see. I personally expect it to be a direct Type 96 replacement, with a new tank equally proceeding to directly displace 99s.
Nothing too radical.

Yes, new tanks can be substantially more expensive than what they replace (Chinese economy has grown), but it has to be sensible.

Larger and larger 3D printed parts might bring the cost of titanium frames and its maintenance tails down.

latenlazy said:

Larger and larger 3D printed parts might bring the cost of titanium frames and its maintenance tails down.

Click to expand...

Doesn't 3D printed parts increase maintenance cost? Parts are now bespoke, non-interchangeable and are even less repairable. Especially titanium, the cost of the raw powder suitable for additive manufacturing makes it cost prohibitive.

tankphobia said:

Doesn't 3D printed parts increase maintenance cost? Parts are now bespoke, non-interchangeable and are even less repairable. Especially titanium, the cost of the raw powder suitable for additive manufacturing makes it cost prohibitive.

Click to expand...

You don’t *need* to make them bespoke. That’s just a requirement for aerospace (that said the economics of 3D printing is agnostic to parts shape). For titanium specifically a big part of the cost is the machining time and material waste. Titanium takes longer to mill and shavings oxidize so they can’t be easily recycled. For larger machined parts that material waste and machining time cost can multiply very quickly. The unit economics of 3D printed titanium should generally be superior to machined titanium these days despite powder costs, especially if you don’t need aerospace grade tensile and fatigue strength.

Just a reminder that the airborne IFV also has a titanium alloy version, which is still welded rather than 3D powder printed, and it seems PLAAF has abandoned it.