There are two features which I'm almost certain will be part of the new model: 1. Hard-kill active protection system 2. Organic drone support. The tank will be able to launch and reclaim its own recon drone.
Don't think so, at least when we talk about UAVs. For organic UAV to work, you would need to have at least 1 more crewman, which means you will more armor and space to enable him to work and have protection. There are much more simpler ways to introduce and integrate UAVs in the armoured force which will not result in the creation of 75+ beast.
@@zonkedtoaster1348 That's why I think the 2 man design would work, while the tank itself looses some situational awareness, it can be greatly made up for by the situational awareness of the units supporting the tank, and with Infantry scale datalink that means the tank has more situational awareness than ever despite not having a commander
@@aleksaradojicic8114 I think that would really depend on two things - the capabilities you want from that drone and the AI development. If the thing is just to provide an elevated view point and the ability to look around the corner then the drone doesn't have to be that big and could easily fit in a box attached to the storage bins of current tanks. It might even be wired to the tank to prevent jaming etc. With AI the drone might just perform a scouting routine and follow the vehicle without burdening the crew. It would depend on the level of integration.
I think China will invest more in ATGM much more advanced than HJ-10 and HJ-12 as the priority. Although Chinese military blogs and media generally seem to suggest the new MBT is soon ready for production. China's likely theatres of land war are the Korean peninsula and the Indian border. MBT is not ideal for the latter hence Type 15 light tank was custom made.
That China put significant resources into developing the ZTQ-15 Light Tank is important, and many scenarios where it will be a better option than a traditional MBT. But the PLA still needs a competitive MBT in the field. I agree the PLA will continue to invest in ATGMs.
1. The next Chinese MBT not only will be less than 60T. It is highly likely that it will be lighter than 50T. As 99A tanks are only deployed to the northern region, PLA surely want an MBT could be deployed to a much wider region. 2. To be lighter without much compromise on protection, the only way is smaller profile, then the two crew layout is a reasonable choice if high level of automation could be achieved. 3. Maintenance problems could be greatly alleviated from the support team as the tank would be only maintained by the two crew member. And PLA will never use one or two tanks as a small team on the battlefield. 4. It is expected to see new methods on passive production and APS systems will definitively be deployed. 5. Situation awareness will be of very high priority, so sensors, communication, fusion, etc.
all that makes sense. except if there is long battle or at least crew comes under alert that lasts very long time 3 man crew can do shifts far easier than 2 man crew. i mean i would say thats the only real problem of 2 man crew. hell... they can even add auto pilot. if crew gets knocked out and tank can still drive (unlikely) bring boys back home.
@@jebise1126 So the level of automation would be important. Other than assisted drive, it is possible for the sensors to work continuously and tracking all the potential targets and suggest the proper type of rounds, so the crew only need to adjust/confirm the attack.
well... long battle could bring crew attrition but on other hand AI could provide target search. also thats one source, it may still stay at 3 man crew at the end. as for maintenance of the tank extra crew in the field are always possible.
The current event is telling us, the threats are comming from three directions. It is either drones, javelins, or artilleries. In order to counter them, integrating everything into a single tank is not gonna be enough. There are more work needs to be done on how tanks is going to work with other platforms than on the tank itself. Otherwise, no matter how advance the tank it, it will always be vulnerable.
Javelins havent proven that effective in the current conflict. Very few confirmed kills. Most have come from artillery by a significant margin. Lots of ATGM, yes jav is in that category but there has been many more kills from other platforms. Then its FPV and Lancets etc. Finally mines. Sacrificing tank numbers for fewer more advanced tanks just doesn't work at least in a real war of two well equipped armies. In the end artillery will destroy everything.
It is almost impossible to deal with artillery (except for destroying it before it shells you) but for ATGMs and drones tanks are going to need a APS and EW which will cause high amounts of energy use and requiring large power packs or stronger engines
Three crew tanks are already trading off organic field maintenance in exchange for more depot-level deep maintenance. I suspect a two crew tank would continue this approach, but even more aggressively. Given China does not seem to be planning long distance expeditionary invasions of countries halfway across the planet, it's entirely possible the PLA views the increased need for depot-level work to be worth the massive decrease in armored volume (and thus significantly reduced armor mass or improved protection) needed for a 2 crew tank.
Great video, I’m curious what your source is for the Chinese tank’s thermal generation? I’ve been looking for a solid source on it for a while, mind sharing?
Yet another insightful analysis, but could I ask of you to increase the audio levels in your videos? My dad heard me watching this and he commented: "Is he a spy, why is he talking so quietly?" I said "well..."
Would a cost effective option be to simply widen and lengthen the light tank chassis, and fit it with a 125mm gun armed turret with a similar bustle autoloader? It could even share some components.
9:30 i heard that quote before... but what does it even mean? reducing temperature effect on propellant expansion. i mean expansion when? when it explodes? when is it stored in shell? does it mean that explosion is more equal all the time?
Seems an odd thing to be putting priority on. Doesn't seem to me that China is in any need of new MBTs for it's potential conflicts. Especially since they've only recently made the Type 15 and the Type 99 seems to be an adequate tank for any of its neighbors. The airforce and navy should be the main priority for China.
The german-franco MGCS will NOT be the demonstator with Leclerc turret and Leopard 2 hull. Up to today, the main gun has not been decided upon yet. Currently, they are planning with a hard weight limit of 50t and 300 requirements the system will need to fulfill. As it is not possible to fit all requirements within the weight limit, it will most likely be a family of platforms. The reason for this low weight limit was expected increase of weight of service life. They are planning with app. 1% weight increase per year. If they would start out with a 60t or higher vehicle, future weight increases would pose serious challenges. If you want to find out more about MGCS, the Chieftain / Nicholas Moran has done a video where he was showing project slide released for public.
Hi. Thanks for the comment. I didn't say that demonstrator will be the MGCS. I said perhaps the future development that will have the greatest impact on Western tank development is Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) - Franco-German next gen MBT - we don’t know yet what it will look like, but one hypothetical approach is a French Leclerc turret (with German L55 and autoloader) on Leopard 2 hull as an example. There are also suggestions the MGCS will be equipped with a Rheinmetall 130mm Gun. Of course recent real world developments will likely impact future tank design.
@@Strategy_Analysis Thanks for the reply! It is correct that the shape and layout has not yet determined. However, the demonstrator was never intended for the MGCS, but as an expample that the different companies can work together. So no, it is not a hypothetical example for the MGCS. The requirements for MGCS are vastly different than what the Leclerc-Leopard hybrid can offer. There are slides availabel on the MGCS project phases, the possible platforms and the requirements. I think you are correct, that a possiblility for the LOS variant of MGCS might be equipped with 130mm. However, this nowhere statedin MGCS documents according to my understanding. I stand corrected, if a source changes that. But my expectation would be either a Rheinmetall 120mmor a 130mm, maybe in a modular mount to ease future modifications. Have a nice day! Here is a link to the video from Nicholas Moran, where the slides are shown: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iFs6LG0TEyU.html&ab_channel=TheChieftain
i somehow doubt about hybrid propulsion for vehicle of this weight any useful battery would be really heavy. and would be heavier and bigger than extra diesel inside of tank. if we talk about diesel electric such as proposed on abrams x or what trains use. than... maybe just maybe. no gearbox could possible make it the same size as some older diesel engines. but also diesel engines did get better in recent years. of course military needs more robust things so not every sensitive civilian thing can get into tank engine. but still... some can.
For China, they have really advanced battery technology with specific energy above 350Wh/kg. Civilian versions of these batteries are making their way to EVs.
@@Gongolongo dude you dont get it do you? ev are 500 kilos heavier than gas cars because of batteries. so if military accepts 100 ton tanks sure otherwise no ev tanks and neither hybrid bs
I think the next generation main battle tank is the least serious project in the world, especially China, which has no urgency to develop the next generation main battle tank.
China does need new modern MBT. Type 96 are extremely behind anything modern, as they were made on the budget, while Type 99, while more modern compared to Type 96, is not on equal position compared to foreign designs.
@@russelfang7434 Core of Chinese tank fleet is made by Type 96, which are not replaced by either of those two. While not highest priority for sure, development of next gen tanks should start around this years, if you want to introduce it by mid 2030s.
Western Tanks are over hyped people just saw what happened to leopard 2 A6 Tanks. Americans M1 A2 , French leclarc , British challenger 2 , Korean k2 and Israeli merkava mk4 all these tanks would be get destroyed in Ukraine if they send their tanks to Ukraine. Ka 52 helicopters destroying leopard 2 A6 Tanks like nothing
@@AlexanderAF31 no lol 😂, apache is inferior to ka-52 on all aspect except weight carry nd thrust which again is higher as it a heavier helo ..on all modern battle aspect it is much superior
If you knew what you were talking about you would understand that those MBTs in their primary role are designed for tank on tank combat, and they have not failed in that area but war tech is evolving all the time... FPV utilized for tank killing is an accidental development which has opened up new ways of destroying these vehicles, had it been easy to field/incorporate new anti drone systems these tanks we would see things differently!
Chinese have hardly any protection from side armour, Type 99a tank is a good tank on paper, but in practice probably crap like the CCP. Unmanned turrets are not ideal. Commander needs to stick to their head out as cameras are not up to it quite yet. Australia needs the 130 l51 . I like a 55 calibar 155mm smooth bore. Plus 2 man crew would have trouble doing regular maintenance if 3 man crews find it harder than 4. Air tracking and future systems may change this. China won't out do America, unless you buy tofu tanks
