Saturday, November 15, 2014

Future Threat Armor. VT4 Main Battle Tank (formerly MBT-3000).





via Want China.
The VT4 main battle tank occupied the center of the pavilion. Liu Song, the deputy general manager of Norinco's R&D department said that the tank is set to be a major export for China. The tank was first unveiled at a defense expo in France, at that time it was referred to as the Main Battle Tank 3000 (MBT-3000), but it has now been renamed the VT4.
Liu said that one of the biggest improvements in the VT4 is that it is now constructed with 100% Chinese components, a 12,000 horse-power propulsion system and an automatic transmission. Previously a Russian media outlet stated that China had exported Al-Khalid or MBT-2000 tanks to Pakistan, which had performed well, but as they used Ukrainian engines, China was forced by Ukraine to pull out of a deal in the South American market. Liu said China's VT4 has resolved this issue, as its indigenous propulsion system is effective and stable. Its fire control system employs a digital imaging system and the speed at which the charge travels has also been accelerated.
Besides the three main features of defense, speed, and firepower, the VT4 also features the incorporation of digital and internet technology. In front of the head of the tank team, for example, is an integrated display terminal. This is no ordinary terminal. It not only displays the amount of fuel and ammunition remaining, but can receive commands from remote locations, transmit the location of friendly tanks and provide information on the enemy.
Also on display at the expo are caterpillar infantry fighting vehicles, wheeled tank destroyers and other armored vehicles, all of which incorporate digital and internet technology. Even if they get out of their vehicles, infantry can carry the hand-held terminals on the battlefield.
I wonder how they're going to make the "only for export" market work for them.  Vickers had a couple of fantastic looking tanks that never got orders and Commando Gage had a superb 6x6 Mobile Gun that never caught on.

If they can make the price too good to pass up, and if they prove to be even a little reliable then we might see a change in the armored vehicle market.  The current trend is to buy used, but refurbished MBT's.    Brand new, state of the art vehicles might be what some smaller countries are looking for.

23 comments :

  1. Trying to capture the T-90 marketplace? But this time the Chinese say they are making the powerpack on their own. As a ray of hope to the Chinese the Deputy Defence Minister of Namibia is interested in this tank. Pakistan is said to be technically evaluating this tank which actually means that they are scrounging around their pockets to see if they can find some small change to offer as a token payment to the Chinese thus supporting what Solomon said above about lucrative pricing. As an addition too this, Bangladesh's tank fleet is also Chinese.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If in an absolutely wierd chain of events Ukraine for some reason looses the ability to produce tanks, you know...a sabotage event, or some raw material or vital component shortage, loss of a sub-system assembly line....and then the Ukrainians approach China to offer them a sweet deal on these tanks, what would the Chinese say ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a really interesting thought! Love your musings, keep them up!

      Delete
    2. Thanks James, the question above might sound too casual at first glance. A thought of fancy but when you do think about it, it presents to you an actual thought process that will reveal to you the true weapons export policy of China or for that matter any nation.

      While countries like the United States and Germany have very concrete and transparent weapons export policy and a list of do's and dont's, no one is aware of a do's and dont's list of China and how flexible/concrete it is. Which is why I asked the said question. Providing weapons to a country which is in a very sticky situation at its hour of need at decent financial packages (the terms of which also need analysis).

      If China is to "Dominate the world" and "Challange US Hegemony" its not going to do it alone. It will need allies and we need to understand the entire framwork of Chinese export policies if those allies (Whoever they may be......state and non-state) are to be countered.

      Delete
    3. Take a scale and put a big 0 (Zero) in the middle. On the Left hand side of 0 is -100 and on the right hand side +100.

      When you stop a country from acquiring Chinese built weapons.....status quo...0.

      When you cannot stop that sale or allow a portion of it to happen -1 to -100.

      When you not only stop a particular sale but sell your own weapons instead +1 to +100.

      For that to happen, we need to know what the Chinese policy is in the first place and how well it will hold in times of crisis. I belong to a country which has experienced first hand the negative effects on Military preparedness due to diplomatic sticky situations from the Western World and how that drove us closer to the Soviets. We have seen Pakistan experience that as well to our amusement. And despite that, the US has and India has bought an overwhelming number of critical platforms from the US which could have gone to any country in the world including your dear friends....the Russians. That is a solid +100 in my books. And the US did not do that just on the strength of the Weapon itself but by religiously studying how India Imports weapons. We need to do that for China and how it is prepared to export them.

      Delete
  3. Any performance and armour data available? Power typo 1,200?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A couple of other sites i checked out this particular tank on said it was 1300HP but none of them gave the actual designation/model number of the powerpack.

      Delete
  4. It's look good, solid... of course it must look good and solid, it's a bloody tank. Wonder what guts they put in it.

    Wonder on what markets they target, South America is one, Pakistan... maybe in some less developed African nations?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe this tank is based on the T90, obviously there has been some substitution of parts for domestic variants and upgrades. Check out the prior tank MBT-2000 which it was developed from, you can trace the origin back to the T-90 and from there the T-72. This is not a NEW TANK. Its been a slow iterative evolution of design, not a revolution.

    Also those addon kits to the front of the turret are hollow, you can find design schematics for them on-line. The T-90S modernized IMHO represent a much greater threat. They are the tank to buy, for any sensible country on a budget who doesn't want a maintenance hog, unless they are opting the 'western route' with leopards or some such thing and can find them cheapish....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, they are ERA Panel holding frames sticking out from the turret. We have that on the Arjun MK2 as well.

      The evolution of this tank confuses me, just like other Chinese equipment though. The Chinese never got the T-90. They stopped buying foreign tanks after the T-80. The powerpack is the chief thing confusing me and also the thing that can provide the most clarification about this tank. The T90 even in its most powerfull S Modernized varient does not have a powerpack exceeding 1130HP or thereabouts. This is 1200/1300 from differing sources. 1200 could be a detuned/modified chinese copy of the Ukrainian/Russian T80's original 1250HP engine.

      Or

      In case of the 1300HP engine it is definitely a detuned export version of a Chinese copy of the 1500HP German MTU diesel. If you look at the rear profile of this tank and see the rising Hull line as we proceed from front to back, that much hieght in the rear is not required for the original T-80 Powerpacks. Maybe for the MTU diesel, yes.

      Delete
    2. They are hollow on Leopard and many other tanks as well.

      This is an evolution design ,but if you look at the JC-17 figter jet its an evolution of a Mig 21 that just shows how far evolution can stretch in some systems.

      Delete
    3. Yes I think I may have recalled incorrectly on the t90, it came I think from the experimental t-80 series which both the t-90 and this came from. Nethertheless I remain unconvinced that this is a particularly great tank, and a huge improvement over the T-72/T-90, especially considering the price you can get those for, their upgrade paths and the number of such vehicles in service.

      And I think that is why they are export only, because I doubt china really sees these as serious upgrades.... Dirty seconds is still the best you can hope for regarding tanks anyway, you save bucketloads.

      Delete
  6. Wiki published data :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Battle_Tank_3000

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problem export models have always had is the future.
    Five years from now, if the only customers are 35 tanks in Gabon and 90 in Pakistan, the line will be mothballed. And Gabon and Pakistan are stuffed for spares.
    The COTS stuff they can sort out suppliers for. The MOTS stuff with a bit more trouble. But what about the custom built stuff? How much of the digital bits will be easy to replace in twenty years after the plant shuts down.

    There might be a tiny chally 2 base, but even now, you can be pretty sure you'll be able to get spare parts in 20 years.

    The Leo and the abrahms have huge none native user bases, you could run a small army for decades just buying from people downsizing.

    No reason its fire control system can't be very civillianised, but I think that'll be the make or break

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why I said smart countries on a budget should pick the modernised T-90s, or perhaps the T-72s although that is an older design, because there is going to be a lot of them in service, for a very long-time, in many different countries, with numerous suppliers to get parts from, a large financial incentive to continue to provide upgrade paths, and a large basis of spares from canibilizing on the second-hand market.

      Furthermore they are fairly easy to maintain, and have high part commonality, and if you are lucky you can get them second hand and have them factory refurbished for an absoloute steal. I mean I am talking about prices that even african countries could afford!

      Delete
  8. Few years ago Peru presented the Chinese T-99 / T-2000 in the military parade. It was a big scandal and the opposition forced to send them back to China..Then the Russians send the T-90 but the army was not convinced and send them back to Russia. Now, Peru has adapted their hundered of tanks an mecanizaed personal carriers and bought thousands of 4x4 , Humvee, Iveco, Some LavII, etc, UAVs and thousands of Spikes and Kornets, and Grad artillery. Also has like 70 Mi17/35, and Su-25 to stop the Leopard 2 from Chile in case of conflict. Peru has an army 3 times bigger than Chile, so the idea is to use that advantage I'm no really convinced the Chinese tanks will come to L.America, they are not cheap BTW.
    Venezuela maybe could be intereste but they are pretty much in bankruptcy now.

    http://cdn.larepublica.pe/sites/default/files/imagecache/img_noticia_640x384/imagen/2013/09/15/imagen-tanques.jpg

    http://luizcore.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/desfile-militar-peruano-2014-25.jpg

    http://www.rpp.com.pe/filecdn.php?f=/fotos/actualidad/290713_DesfileVehiculos2/desfile_militar004.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  9. What I really find interesting is the middle of the tank driver's position. That's not standard for many tanks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Russian designs have driver in the middle .Abrams has driver in the middle becuse he has a fuel tank on each side, the designs where driver is to the side do so because they have ammo storage besides the driver,

    ReplyDelete
  11. Most OOTW threats are ATGW/ATR intensive. No need for a 9" thick frontal slope equivalence, nor rational for a 40-50 ton load class chassis to support it.

    THIS is where tank sales fall down. They are so obsessed with the M829A3 and similar KEW-A1/A2 as bar threats that they never even look at Youtube videos of T-72 getting lit up from second story roofs using RCL and lightweight AT-4 (that's Spigot not LAW+) technology.

    And the simple fact is, if you don't secure those roofs, overpasses and windows, the best Leopard or Abrams variant out there are _equally vulnerable_ to topattack brew ups.

    Which should tell someone, somewhere, something.

    Like: "A 20 ton tank that fires like artillery (tall silhouette = 30-40` elevation) but uses MRM_KE or equivalent (STAFF/TERM/X-ROD) technology can shoot enemy 50 ton systems from over the horizon and _kill them dead_ without ever having to face the 2,500-3,000m kinetic effects shot.

    The same applies to shortrange support of forces in contact in urban fighting. No Need To Go Into MOUT.

    And when you do face that need, you solve for the 10-200m threat with subsonic AT munitions using a dual layered (AMAP-ADS + Quick Kill) plasma burst and rocket intercept capability.

    Which, together, would only weigh maybe 1-1.5 tons.

    EVERYTHING scales to weight in the cost game. Especially when you are talking exotics like Armamax nano-metallics and ceramic matrix composite armors. Do the F-16 route of armor design, leveraging your investment with key technology areas that are NOT totally plateau'd out: Small tank, autoloader gun, guided shot, in-platoon scout capabilities with Masted Sensors and MAV in a VLS pallet.

    Now you have a 2-4 million dollar platform that can kill MBT at 6-8km instead of a 6-8 million dollar platform that can only /trade kills/ at 2-3km.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Problem is drop too much weight/armour and these insurgents can turn your rear into swiss cheese with HMGs, high powered anti-material rifles/snipers (achieve mobility kills, then kill the crew), and probably do some damage with rifle launched grenades, not to mention you need a good belly to protect yourselves from their favourite weapons, IEDs. And fighting insurgents is not the sole purpose of militaries...

      What you describe however sounds like a 120mm Mortar system like NEMO or the russian/chinese variant, both of which have a range of maybe 8-10Kilometers depending on the type of rounds, they can fire High-Explosive, DPICM, or guided Smart rounds, possibly even ATGMs if they were developed. Such a system can be fit to most existing service IFVs, and allow for anti-tank operations, in a hunter killer configuration, OTH and provide direct fire support as you suggested.

      The problem with this however is when they close the gap, and are too close for you to fire your DPICM munitions in an indirect fire-mode, so they can penetrate their top armour. Note that ADS systems can be disabled by fire from heavy cannons, >30mm allowing for a simulataneous attack with a top-down attacking ATGM. But tanks still retain a substantial armour advantage.

      And if you are not so concerned about civilian casualties, would make great direct and indirect fire weapons in urban warfare situations. Also the Russian tanks cost ~4mn, they have armour roughly comparable to western counterparts (for their relative size), and they fire ATGMs in the 6-8Km class.

      Delete
    2. That is technocratic overestimation of one's capabilities.

      First and foremost, you need troops to kick in doors and secure ground. No getting around that. There is no technology that makes ground troops obsolete, only technology that supports ground troops.

      Second, there are many problems with your hypothetical 20 ton tank, namely, the assumption that your enemy will never adapt (this has been proven wrong countless times). Even with the sophistication of the US military and its M1 abrams, our tanks still engage targets within close distances, even though they can perforate enemy armor over a mile away with a silver bullet.

      Finally, increased sophistication of munitions increases expense substantially. How much money do you need to expend in order to kill a simple fighting position? is it cost effective? Keep in mind that our adversaries are also considering how to defeat laser guided projectiles. Technology, once again, supports and supplements base technologies, not replaces them outright.

      Ill also add that cold war era export T72s are in no way similar to newer 3rd generation battle tanks with composite armor and reactive suites. Apples and oranges. Heavy armor and conventional guns will still prove utterly indispensible to the battlefield, despite the technocrats trying to convince everybody otherwise.

      Delete
    3. How do you generate an oth targetting solution?
      Its not a new idea.
      The British spent a fortune in its future rapid effects system.
      It was going to use advanced sensors and precision weapons to kill the enemy without ever coming in to visual range.
      And the enemy was expected to politely rank up in the open and consent to be slaughtered.

      Your tankette would slaughtered by anti material teams in the ground floor as well as well as top attack rocket attacks.

      Delete
    4. Ignoring air support as we are just talking about ground warfare, I assume he would organize his vehicles in a hunter-killer configuration with specialized 'Hunter' vehicles featuring improved sensors and/or armour/armament. The hunters would take the vanguard and queue target-missions for the Killers in the rear... The hunters would bassically be the equivelant of pawns in chess.. Disposable..

      Works well in theory I suppose, but without aerial reconnaissance and terrain that permits this, or if they manage to close-in past your engagement envelope you are just screwed. ATGMs as seen on several tracked IFVs are probably a much more reliable soloution, and fielding ones which meet the typical engagement range of tank-combat is probably not a serious problem.

      Although it is worth noting that there are multiple countries that make 120mm DPICM mortar rounds designed to take out armoured vehicles, including singapore.

      And yes the anti-material teams would destroy his 'tanks', they would take the engines out in the rear.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.