previous post next post  

Aside from the propaganda aspects...

...it looks like the Chinese didn't get the memo on FCS.  I rather expect a two-man crew is going to have some stamina issues in high-tempo operations, as well.

 From Jim Dunnigan at Strategy Page:
China's Tank Of The Future
by James Dunnigan
January 3, 2010

China is working on a new tank design, one that will replace their current M-1 killer, the Type 99A2. According to the director of the China North Vehicle Research Institute, their next generation tank will be smaller and lighter than the 60 ton Type 99A2. The new tank will have a crew of two and rely on missiles as its main weapon. The new tank will have many more sensors and an active defense (small missiles taking out incoming anti-tank missiles). The sensors will enable the two man crew to see what is all around them, and be connected electronically with other tanks, and units, in the area. This enables a "Battle Management System" to provide the tank with good awareness of what's going on around it, and makes it possible to find and destroy targets quickly.

Meanwhile, two years ago, China completed development of the new version of its Type 99 tank, the Type 99A2. This model has improved reactive armor, as well as fixes to the engine, electronics and mechanical components. This is China's most powerful tank, and is based on the Russian T-80 (which is itself based on the T-72).

A lot of Chinese believe that, on paper, it's new Type 99 tank is a match for the American M-1. For protection, the Type 99 has 500-600mm or armor, plus two layers of reactive armor, giving it the equivalent of 1,000-1,200mm of armor. China believes the maximum penetration of the M-1 120mm gun is 810mm. China believes that the protection on the M-1 is 600-700mm, and states that the Type 99 main gun can penetrate 850mm (or 950mm with a new shell design.)

However, China has only produced about 400 Type 99s (of all models) so far. There are several reasons for this. First, the cost (about $2 million per tank). This is more than twice as much as other Chinese-built tanks cost. There are some practical considerations, as well. The Type 99 is too heavy for many Chinese bridges, not to mention railroad equipment. Most Chinese tanks are closer to 40 tons, while the Type 99 is closer to 60 tons. Nevertheless, the Type 99 continues to get improvements (like an active defense system seen on a few vehicles).

The performance data on the Type 99 (also called the ZTZ-99) is not official. There is very little in the way of official weapons performance data coming out of the Chinese government. At the same time, the Chinese military leaks real, and inflated, data for PR purposes. While China is not a democracy, in this age of the Internet, public opinion can have an influence when the military budget is being put together each year.

Developing the Type 99A2 seems to indicate that more will be produced, or existing ones will be upgraded (or both options may be carried out.) But China seems to believe that developing the new, two man, tank is a better option. This would leapfrog other nations, like the United States, which have thousands of M-1 tanks.

Copyright 2010 Jim Dunnigan and Strategy Page.  All rights reserved, used with permission.

13 Comments

Two mil seems like a lot to spend on targets but hey, they've got the cash...
 
As a former TOW gunner hearing about things like this tend to irk me.
Launching a TOW at, or now days over, a MBT was fun. Now that they might have active countermeasures that would prevent a good hit bother me to no end.
Dose this mean the guy with the MULE lazing the tank and calling in the laser guided 500 pounder will have all the fun?
Heaven forbid!
I wonder, did they steal the defensive system from Israel or us?
 
 The ADS is probably Russian, but it would be interesting to see how closely the design matches the sketches by Richard Simpkins in the late 70s.

Cheers
 
two man crew?!?!

well, then i guess ya just gotta wait until one of them hops out on the back deck to water the foliage...  the other dude won't be able to operate ALL of the defensive systems at the same time.
 
Ask anybody who crewed a Sheridan in RVN how much he liked using the Shillelagh missile when he was under fire.

Then rinse your ears out so they don't get infected...
 
Bridges, huh? Well, if all else fails, try to infuriate the driver into chasing you over a weak bridge. Really, tanks are right ponderous these days. Wasn't there a caption contest here a while back about a tank sunk in a swamp?
 
Oh, yeah, Chief. Were you talking about the internal fire hazards, or the attention-attracting flaming whoosh of the rocket?
 
Wasn't there a caption contest here a while back about a tank sunk in a swamp?

That one was '04 or '05, I think -- but this one works for me...
 
The idea of functional missile counter measures does tend to make me scoff and snorfle a bit.

Stuff might work real spiffy in the controlled environment of the "proving grounds" or in non expeditionary armies. But, stuff on hard driving, long field using units that go out to other lands to fight tend to be on the broken edge of technical support.

Question for the Gun Bunnies here:

With the advent of the Excalibur, and what I suppose is proof of concept in putting electrogizmos in arty shells, how long do you think its gonna be before we have armor seeking 155mm bullets with, say, up to around a 15 degree arc of self correction?
 
Cpl Mongo:

Please excuse my jealousy and the petty hatred it inspires. I was stuck behind a Dragon. The Dragon is one piece of poop I'm not sorry to see replaced. The Dragon was soooo good, reliable and respected, we spent most of our time training up in improvised close anti-armor assault techniques, hopes/wishes and "tactics".

We kinda sorta planned on being over run.
 
Grimmy - you mean like SADARM?
 
 Or www.youtube.com/watch  The Stryx?

Cheers
 
Col. Hammer got away with 2-man crews because he had turing-testable AI. I don't think the chinese will be so fortunate