How so?
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
6th Gen is when the plane could theoretically drain the enemy's economy and military resources more than your own should you use it.The B-21 will be unveiled on December 2nd. Apparently it is a "6th Generation" plane now
it began from it(to be precise - they have the same ancestor), sort of, but otherwise, it does not. Bufford uses it's own unique tank chassis.
But one doesn't really need to read sources to know this - use your eyes.
Ajax does, Bufford doesn't. 38t, so exactly 2 units per fully loaded C-17.
And essentially half the weight of combat-configured M1A2C, for more or less the same capability in anything other than fighting massive MBT engagements.
US should have just bought Type 10 tank. It is about the most weight efficient tank that isnt a joke. It will maneuver in rough terrain very well as well.
Below that something like Stryker AGS would do better. Slap a Javelin on top and even tanks have to watch out. Something weight class like that can be airdropped too.
MPF's armor can stop autocannon. Can it stop a modern RPG? Modern ATGM? If not then its armor vs a Stryker is only matter of stopping auto cannon or not.
Below that something like Stryker AGS would do better. Slap a Javelin on top and even tanks have to watch out. Something weight class like that can be airdropped too.
MPF's armor can stop autocannon. Can it stop a modern RPG? Modern ATGM? If not then its armor vs a Stryker is only matter of stopping auto cannon or not.
Type 10:
-doesn't fit weight requirement (lightest transport weight - 40t instead of combat weight of <38);
-as expensive as all Japanese vehicles are, and as slowly produced as Japanese armored vehicles are;
-essentially twice less capable in fire support role (half the number of ready rounds of similar effect on target)
-less accurate gun in a fire support role (rifled v. smoothbore)
-actually more vulnerable to infantry AT (nice that it can withstand some tank fire exactly from the front, but that weighs 44/48t, and no one asked for that).
Magnificent deal all in all.
Ajax is 38t without big gun turret and up armor... Bufford was able to be carried by C-130 with weight between 18 to 24t.
''Griffin II design weighs 40 tons – about half the weight of a 70-ton M1A2 Abrams'', lol ! half is 35T...with 35t they fit okey, but at 40t, with two of them, C-17 have no range and have landing stip limitations because of maxing his landing weight.
Last edited:
Really, you gonna talk about cost efficiency compared to US procurement?
Less ready round but also 120mm for more blasts.
Production speed is a matter of how much you buy.
Prove me Type 10 is less armored vs atgm compared to MPF/Ajax. Type 10 can take RPG29, can MPF?
Compare 105 and 120 NATO HE shell explosive charges, you'll find something quite interesting.
(especially since until just about now there were no proper 120 HE shells for most users in the first place).
MPF has actual heavy skirt(=spaced composite) &applique armor on the sides - i.e. average western MBT level everywhere where is no actual heavy kinetic armor.
Type 10 sides(including turret sides), as far as commonly understood, are 30m 152mm splinter/14.5 mg only - i.e. its side&rear are actually weaker than an average MBT.
p.s. the same logic works for ztq-15.
I have an unpleasant feeling that all sixth gens will end up looking like boring Doritos. Then again, function before form.