NEW GENERATION CHINESE MAIN BATTLE TANK

[gf0012-aust]

How long would it take to make a "new tank form" with the same electronic suite but with DU armor?

The hull changes dramatically with DU. I'd be guessing that China is not remotely close if she is still looking at 45 tonne hulls and RCWS main guns. Maybe 5 years away, but it's too hard to make an assessment without seeing any prototypical hulls.

Current designs show that she has not been successful in establishing a new generation armour package.

It's a clean slate - and I would guess that she doesn't want to go down a "greenfields" solution yet.

Her current tanks are iterations, so she is learning in real time, but I think she is a long way off on MBT development.

 

[armage]

So I guess the "NEW GENERATION CHINESE MAIN BATTLE TANK" is gonna have DU............or the next tank made? :?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So I guess the "NEW GENERATION CHINESE MAIN BATTLE TANK" is gonna have DU............or the next tank made? :?

If that CGI is supposed to be representative of the new tank, then she will not be DU fitted. It would be impossible to do it.

Maybe the next generation. (assuming that DU is seen as viable - the UK have proved that it's not needed)

 

[Awang se]

The picture looks like black eagle MBT

 

[highsea]

Dorchester armour is regarded as being superior to DU, the US went to a DU solution as Dorchester (and earlier Chobham) was not provided to the US for the Abrams. The Abrams armour is a hybrid.

The Chally 2 is regarded as the best protected tank in the world for very good documented reason.

gf, you have mentioned this before, and I have been meaning to ask you about it. It has always been my understanding that the Abrams used Chobham, and there are many open source references to this. When the Abrams was initially fielded, I read an article somewhere about UK and US collaboration on the armor for the Abrams and Challengers.

I know that beginning in 1988 or so, the M1A1 received an upgraded armor package that incorporated DU on the front of the turret and the hull, and that all M1A2's and most M1A1's have the upgraded armor. I guess I just assumed it was backing for the Chobham to improve defence against APFSDS rounds.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

GF, I heard the latest trend of armour development is the external which is a modular turret mounted on the tank with no crew access and is remote controlled by the crew inside the tank. The advantages of this is lighter weight of the tank and less danger to the crew. I heard the Russian are researching such a tank.

Not exactly a tank but the external turret concept can be seen here

 

[gf0012-aust]

Dorchester armour is regarded as being superior to DU, the US went to a DU solution as Dorchester (and earlier Chobham) was not provided to the US for the Abrams. The Abrams armour is a hybrid.

The Chally 2 is regarded as the best protected tank in the world for very good documented reason.

gf, you have mentioned this before, and I have always meant to ask you about it. It has always been my understanding that the Abrams used Chobham, and there are many open source references to this. When the Abrams was initially fielded, I read an article somewhere about UK and US collaboration on the armor for the Abrams and Challengers.

I know that beginning in 1988 or so, the M1A1 received an upgraded armor package that incorporated DU on the front of the turret and the hull, and that all M1A2's and most M1A1's have the upgraded armor. I guess I just assumed it was backing for the Chobham to improve defence against APFSDS rounds.

My understanding is that Chobham was available to the US after Dorchester was developed. The Chobham solution that the US uses was a derivative of an earlier design - AFAIK, it is is gen 1. The DU solution was developed as it then assisted the US in getting comparable Chobham absorption figures. I'm not in a position to give detail, but current Chally armour is vastly different and superior to initial generations.

It's all pretty relative I guess. I know that on one armoured project I worked on with a German company, they were confident that their RHA was superior to French arnour and close to Gen 1 Chobham. UK people I've worked with consider the German attitude to be one of unsubstantiated parochial confidence.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, I heard the latest trend of armour development is the external which is a modular turret mounted on the tank with no crew access and is remote controlled by the crew inside the tank. The advantages of this is lighter weight of the tank and less danger to the crew. I heard the Russian are researching such a tank.

Not exactly a tank but the external turret concept can be seen here

There are quite a few that are looking at RCWS main guns for an MBT. There are a number of reasons for the interest, some issues are

weight reduction for airlift
crew reduction
task redundancy
lower ground pressure
smaller engines required for lower weight
more room for loadouts
lower visibility as a target. hitting a bumpy hull silhouette at 2kms is a lot harder than hitting the same 1 sqm qualifying area on a conventional looking hull.

I'm not totally convinced yet.. but who knows, at some point all these little suckers will be either robots or autonomous...

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Well it seems that the Russian have nearly finished developing the T-95 MBT. It was schduled to enter service in 2002 but delayed due to lack of funds. Rumor floating around stated that the tank has 152mm gun and crewless turret.

 

[axl]

if there would be a t-95, development would have been finished 10 years ago. tanks get the designation usually around the year where they are available for service production. rmours about that tank are around since so many years and all based on an old interview. this year new interviews with russian officials let more room for speculations, but again nothing specific.what is your definition of "crewless turret"? does the crew sit complately outside the turret ring or like with the black eagle inside the turret ring but deep in the hull?
and when you start speculations you should be a bit realistic. the picture posted is showing a normal soviet style hull and an extremely smal turret. the hull has not been changed and this turret is never able of holding the loader and ammunition or whatever. the gun caliber is also far beyond something useful. why should somebody field a 152mm canon? is the tank going to fit in the artillery round? tanks fire sub caliber rounds, increasing the caliber brings more broblems than you can imagine. even if your muzzle velocity and energy increases a bit.

so for the moment let russia field t-90 tanks, this is official and the production just started.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Buddy you ought to read post more carefully. I already stated above it's RUMOR, not facts. The tank above, however, was the initial concept. This you can look up in defence magazines.

 

[axl]

this picture is out of a concept? hey, it's not even for sure that such a concept existed! all that happened years ago was one interview! might be that western magazines published that picture. but how many pictures are around where magazines show pictures of concepts how they think it might be?

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

 

[Pathfinder-X]

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998. Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lower silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-95.htm

The concept itself was no rumor and have been confirmed by Russian officials. You ought to pay attention to world defence articles more.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-95.htm

Someone has been paying attention to M1 Abrams specs.