PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Yes, as those systems are also shared on the rest of the Armata based vehicles. To some capacity, Kurganets and Bumerang also have a degree of comonality as well.
One thing I don't understand is why the top attack radars of ZTZ and ZBD don't just use same type of APS radar, unlike the Airborne series, but different from each other
And thats not the only difference. ZTZ and ZBD get what seems like an extra antenna for their APS (compared to previous iterations of GL-6) while the Airborne platform. Though I clarify that what looks to me like a radar antenna pointing upwards on the ZTZ roof and ZBD rear may be a different kind of device.
The extra panel could be a jammer.
My guess is as good as yours.
The US understates and censors combat footage of it's losses, a lesson learned from the Vietnam War (and the domestic backlash it received).
Late 2000s, LiveLeak was forced to shutdown because of daily combat footage uploading of the Taliban dealing severe blows to NATO in the battlefield. But I don't remember Afghan snipers. It was in Iraq that US suffered the most losses to snipers, with the likes of "Juba".
Taliban was more about feigned retreats, direct ambush, IED's, and truck bombs, with constant hit & run tactics that caused a lot of psychological distress to NATO soldiers.
"15 foot crater in the middle of a barracks .. 0 casualties"
You don't win every battle and lose the war. That's the logical fallacy of the American narrative.
I'll again use Afghanit as example. There are two different system setups, light and heavy, with heavy being wastly superior in capability, but also much more expensive, volume- and power hungry.
Hypothesis for new Chinese AFVs:
Light configuration: doesn't have standalone soft kill system, solution relies on hard kill alone (passed down to turret or by aps charges) alone. Smokes are either under command of same system on attack warning(LWR), or used only on commander's disgretion. This is a two-layer system, despite having 30mm IFV - it doesn't have separate FC engagement radar as on the heavy IFV.
This solution requires hemispherical coverage, as there is no secondary system, thus we see 5th array from main APS.
Heavy configuration: twin system, including both hard kill and soft kill system(two federated systems under same CMS). Additional panels on tank and ifv (including upper one) belong to the soft kill system, and have some meaningful reason to be separate (they are not necessarily radars/jammers; perhaps covers for uV/IR MAWS?).
Soft kill(smoke) and hard kill(RWS; aps interceptors) form 3-layered active defense (4, if we include collective defense from SPAAG-capable IFV). Tank notably carries 2x4 APS charges instead of 2x2 on all others - perhaps pointing out to comparative difficulty of reloading them in action.
The problem to this explanation is smokes: there's absolutely minimum amount of them (compare to Armata above with 48 canisters). Like, 4 upwards smokes are perhaps single screen only?
I guess we need to wait for moree details.
A previously shared image but in higher quality.
@by78 by any chance do you know what's the boxy component on the left of the CITV that's fitted on the next gen MBT & IFV? I checked the airborne IFV and it's CITV lacked that component.A previously shared image but in higher quality.
