The type 86G in service?

MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
Originally, i thought the type 86G, a derivative of the type 86IFV, had only been developed by NORINCO for the export market.

type868a.jpg

The type 86g, with zbd-2000 turret and new FCS.

But now, a picture has appeared which leads me to specualte the 86g is actually going to enter serivice with the PLA.

Type86Mod9_1134_83329a3b863847a.jpg


Any one have any confirmations?
 
N

New2u

New Member
I have read some reportings saying that these are just T-86 upgraded with these new turets. Which mankes alot of sense because i dont think the PLA will waste money to make bran new type 86 than just making the NGIFV.

By the look of these pics, I'm gessing that most/all type 86 IFV got upgraded witht these new turtes and recieved a new paint job ect....
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
The original model, with a 73mm smoothbore cannon and the low lying turret was a copy of the bmp-1, which is like sixties tech. Absolute crap nowadays.

I guess upgrading is a smart choice now since its going to be a while before most units get the new IFV.
 
A

ahho

Junior Member
MIGleader said:
The original model, with a 73mm smoothbore cannon and the low lying turret was a copy of the bmp-1, which is like sixties tech. Absolute crap nowadays.

I guess upgrading is a smart choice now since its going to be a while before most units get the new IFV.
Click to expand...

hmm, i thoguht they were gonna upgrade the typ-86 with a bmp-3 style turret. Guess they opted for these upgrade package instead. Still a nice IFV IMO
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
From what I hear, the bmp-3 turret is quite expensive. Thats why the new IFV is only in limited production/service right now.

btw,
The 86g still has not had any ERA added to improve armor. An rpg-7 could easily hole the machine...
 
sumdud

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
well, the only improvement is the turret. Not a bad choice though. Its 73mm gun sucked. The 30mm would be way better. (Go for the lense, otherwise, I don't know what's a 30mm for.)
Of course, redesigning the whole time with new armor is better, but $$ doesn't magically appears.

Why don't they put HJ-8s on board and leave HJ-73 for the infantry? :confused:
 
T

Troika

Junior Member
sumdud said:
well, the only improvement is the turret. Not a bad choice though. Its 73mm gun sucked. The 30mm would be way better. (Go for the lense, otherwise, I don't know what's a 30mm for.)
Of course, redesigning the whole time with new armor is better, but $$ doesn't magically appears.

Why don't they put HJ-8s on board and leave HJ-73 for the infantry? :confused:
Click to expand...

HJ-73 family is developed from 9M14 malyutka missile, which has important distinction of being rail-launchable. You can just put a rail on the turrent and laungh the HJ-73 from it. HJ-8 or HJ-9 neither can be launched from rail, making it much more expensive and difficult to integrate onto a simple turret like the one above, as well as much heavier.
 
sumdud

sumdud

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Yes, but every HJ-8 and HJ-9 you can find are launched and kept in canisters, so how will that be a problem? If you say that, you can't launch the HJ-73 without the rail either. You can right about the $$ part, butChina's economy is booming and becoming more capable, and since the HJ-8 and HJ-9 are both way more powerful, and that enemy vehicles, I'd think, tend to focus more on vehicles than on infantry if both are present, wouldn't it better to give these vehicles a better pair of fighting hands so that they can effectively defend themselves? The only drawback I see is that they are old vehicles due to be replaced, while we don't know if these turrets can be used on other AFVs.

If the HJ-73 are taking both the infantry and vehicles, who's using the HJ-8 and HJ-9?
 
T

Troika

Junior Member
sumdud said:
Yes, but every HJ-8 and HJ-9 you can find are launched and kept in canisters, so how will that be a problem? If you say that, you can't launch the HJ-73 without the rail either. You can right about the $$ part, butChina's economy is booming and becoming more capable, and since the HJ-8 and HJ-9 are both way more powerful, and that enemy vehicles, I'd think, tend to focus more on vehicles than on infantry if both are present, wouldn't it better to give these vehicles a better pair of fighting hands so that they can effectively defend themselves? The only drawback I see is that they are old vehicles due to be replaced, while we don't know if these turrets can be used on other AFVs.

If the HJ-73 are taking both the infantry and vehicles, who's using the HJ-8 and HJ-9?
Click to expand...

Trust me, integrating a rail-launched missile is vastly simpler. It is something you can basically weld onto the turrent just for that extra bit of spice which you originally wasn't intending on anyway, whereas box or canister launchers require a lot more integration, probably you have to design the turret again. Besides, as noted, weight is an issue. However, I recall seeing HJ-8s (4 tubes) on a similar designed turrent for export purposes, based on the type-90. So it can certainly be done. So I think it is just a stopgap measure to add a little bit of fighting capacity to a very old design.

There are vehicles in anti-tank units, wz-551s dedicated launchers for them, and of course both missiles are helicopter-launchable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top