Atokara

To my knowledge the first ever video inside of a Type 74 in the intro and at ~4:26. Plus its live fire. Ironically we have had more footage inside the Type 10 and Type 16 than we have the Type 74.

Footage from a training session using the Type 93 against a towed target from a BQM-74E. The towed target was 1m long traveling at 1000km/h. Both missiles were considered hits against a full size target.

I was wondering about what the smart block module was since there wasn't any info in the video. Looks like it's a build your own GaN X-band AESA. Customers can buy the pre-built module blocks and combine them to the required size/output needed.

On 6/13/2022 at 1:54 AM, Alzoc said:

Well unlike the previous version, this EMBT could actually be a worthwhile interim solution (though it is already obese at 61,5t but I guess some systems may be optional).

Its a step in the right direction. It's already half a ton lighter than the 2018 EMBT and thats with around 1 ton between the 2 RWS, 800kg of Trophy, probably another ~100kg of new electronics and optics and ~150+kg of extra material all over the turret. In total just stripping it down to about what the 2018 EMBT offered, it should be around ~59-60t combat weight. Honestly though the biggest waste of weight and space is the hull especially since it's using the EPP. There is just 1m of empty space in the engine compartment. Granted that space could have been adapted to fit some of the electronics systems, but with how much the Leclerc turret has chunked up, I would imagine that most of that stuff is mounted elsewhere.

I feel like a good next step would be a redesigned hull. Take advantage of the EPP by shortening the hull down to 6 roadwheels. That would take away a bit from the max potential weight, but I feel like a weight savings from a redesigned hull would cancel this out and maintain the same growth potential while also being lighter overall. A new hull would also make it easier to design around the whole "specialist seat" as well. I feel like they could bring a base model EMBT down into a 57-58t range with the luxury package model being ~60t.

On 6/13/2022 at 1:54 AM, Alzoc said:

Remain to be seen if there is actually a market for it. It will be competing with the latest K2 and Leopard 2 variants without having the benefits of being already in production or in use and I doubt it would be any cheaper than them.

After the K2PL sale went through, the K2 is now a very formidable tank to try and directly compete against, but I feel like now would be the perfect time to begin gravitating away from the Leopard 2. The Leo 2 is only going to get heavier and more expensive with newly built 2A7s being up there with the K2 and Type 10 in price. Although Rheinmetall might have them beat on sub 60t German MBTs for export with the Panther, but the KF51 is probably an even more risky buy than the EMBT.

Newest production Type 16 spotted with what appears to be an RWS mounting plate.

Unknown what model it will be since Japan has 2 designs. The first appeared on an LAV for trials. The 2nd appeared on one of the Type 16 prototypes and ended up being the RWS on the Mogami frigates. Neither would affect C2 operations, but the first model is noticeably more compact. On the flip side the taller model would assist in the Type 16s secondary role of reconnaissance.

Here is some of the stuff Japan is bringing to Eurosatory. This includes

JTPS-P8-E Coastal Radar

JFPS-3ME EW Radar (same one sold to the Philippines)

JTPS-P14ME Anti-Air warning Radar (same one sold to the Philippines)

OOZ-5 UUV (same UUV deployed on the Mogamis)

The most interesting one to me is the turret drives and accompanying systems from the Type 10

The changes to the Three Principles go into effect next March so hopefully this time next year instead of seeing Type 10 turret drives we see actual Type 10s.

40 minutes ago, rocketeer said:

Painting the letter Z on your wrecked hardware is bordering on standard procedure in Ukrainian Armed Force and National Guard. That's what they do whenever they have the time.

Some of Russia's most common losses are T-72B/B3s, T-80U/BVMs, BTR-82As, Tigr-Ms,  KamAZ 6x6. Please point to the use of these vehicles in Ukraine service. Also unironically the only fake Z's I've seen on vehicles was that really bad photoshop that was actually made by Russian's who then tried to pass it off as proofs that Ukraine was faking numbers.

Also I'm still waiting for you to find even a 0.0008% error rate in Oryx reporting.

10 minutes ago, rocketeer said:

As to accuracy and impartiality of his reporting, i personally advised him to seek military education when i got fed up with him declaring tanks as "destroyed" on the grounds of them getting hit by glorified petard,

The dude likes the TB2 which objectively has had an excellent track record across Nagorno-Karabakh and this war. Whether or not they were destroyed by a TB2 or not doesn't change the fact that they are destroyed.

15 minutes ago, rocketeer said:

logging highly dubious kills on unverifiable evidence

We are now at 3570 destroyed Russian vehicles. I would like you to find just 3 examples of falsely attributed kill claims. That would be a 0.0008% error rate.

17 minutes ago, rocketeer said:

Bluntly speaking, i know a bunch of great defence tech experts whom have no military background of their own.

 

What makes them different from Oryx is that they don't think themselves entitled to be having an opinion on something that requires, for example, 7 years worth of only formal military education to qualify for sitting in the corner when experts are talking.

Those "experts" aren't making one of the best publicly available compiled documentations of equipment losses in a modern war ever. Are they? Also before you were slamming for

9 hours ago, rocketeer said:

having no military education or experience.

,but now you are defending these nameless defense tech experts with no military background?

On 5/8/2022 at 6:34 PM, LoooSeR said:

If you judge by Oryx list then yes, image is going to be distorted. Bunch of destroyed UAF vics are not on his list. Hell, i checked his Bulat section after a week or 2 after 2 Bulats casualties were spotted and he didn't had them counted.

 

2 Bulats that were lost in the field are those pics i posted above. 1 was abandoned, looks like.

If your only criticism of Oryx is that they are slow then idk what to tell you. This is their current backlog which includes both RU and UKR vehicles.

Also you're full of it on the waiting a week or two for the Bulat in the field since it was uploaded the day it was lost

4 hours ago, rocketeer said:

 

Borderline off-topic or not, it seems like good idea to remind the audience that Oryx is [dis-]information laundering operation, not too dissimilar in concept from the Bellingcat.

 

Everything it has to say just about anything should be taken with metric crap ton of salt. Besides having no integrity to speak of, these people have no idea what they're talking about, having no military education or experience.

 

TL;DR: Judging anything by Oryx lists is only marginally less counter-productive than straight up buying into the 'analysis' they helpfully provide. Don't.

 

From what i can remember the guy behind Oryx worked as a consultant with ASELSAN prior to all this. Regardless where does he even give analysis on any of the losses he posts? He literally just posts the photos with dates and compiles it all in one place which is about as objective as you can get. Also if what you're saying qualifies someone on the subject, one of the largest anti-Oryx voices is a guy literally named armchair warlord who tried to claim that a T-72 Obr. 2016 picture was from the war in 2014, found 5 actual errors (that have been corrected) out of thousands, then hid his profile .

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Panzerhaubitze 2000 was eliminated from the Norwegian SPG competition for not mobile enough

The PzH 2k was eliminated because it was worse than the K9 in multiple aspects from what is known on the 2 systems, not just the mobility.

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The fact that the Leopard 2 hull is already used in various applications by the Norwegian Army suggests that its performance is considered adequate, once the weight is reduced to similar levels.

Then why is Norway looking at a potential replacement? Most other countries who operate the Leopard simply upgrade it without holding any competitions. There is clearly something to be desired here that the Leopard isn't offering. Just look at Singapore and Indonesia. Both bought Leopards, both watched them sink into the jungle marshes, and now both mostly relegate them to paved infrastructure.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It is greater growth potential for the adoption of mission kits. The Norwegian ministry of transportation (that as far as I've heard indirectly set the weight limit) has nothing to say when tanks get deployed abroad. The Norwegian Army used add-on armor solutions in Afghanistan (e.g. on the CV90) that are not used domestically.

Re-adding on features to match bog standard Leopard 2A7s in service in other countries isn't growth potential. Also any "growth potential" the Leopard has, the K2 has 2 or 3 fold that because its a much newer and lighter system. Also when 135/140mm systems come around, it will be much easier to adapt to the already autoloaded K2 turret, while the L2 will almost definitely need a brand new turret as well as turret drive systems.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The K2NO was showcased with the size-reduced Trophy VPS, not the Trophy APS. The VPS does not have the same "combat proven" and "fully qualified and tested by other NATO members" labels as the full size APS.

The VPS is Trophy APS. You are talking about the Trophy HV which is what is what is used by the Abrams and Mk IVM. The VPS takes almost all of it's parts from the HV and I would imagine the software could be ported over with some minor modification. I don't see how it would be possible for the VPS to flop when it's basically an HV with some weight shaved off. Ironically enough the K2 could even get the HV and stay under 62t at 61.8t.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Rheinmetall is not offering exclusive production to Australia in the LAND 400 Phase 3 program

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/10/18/rheinmetall-lynx-combat-support-vehicle/

Exclusive production of the CSV based on the lynx hull.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

not playing "mid program catch-up". The test integration of the Soucy tracks were planned before testing was started

I can't find anything showing that was the case, and if it was, why did it take RH until late Nov to show them off when the AS21 was delivered with Soucy's.

8 hours ago, SH_MM said:

the trials are all conducted with steel tracks

That's not true at all. In the vid released by the AUS army, the AS21 is clearly sporting Soucys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhtRxlmCO9M

You say that the Leopard won't be playing mid program catch up when the last page of this thread has been speculating how KMW can play mid-program catch-up to solve a problem that the K2NO never had in the first place. I will be absolutely floored if KMW manages to deliver their bid with an entirely brand new turret and heavy ERA within the next few days. You can like the Leopard all you want, but saying that the lighter tank with actual growth potential for mission modules isn't the better choice for a country looking for a lighter tank is just disingenuous. Sure the Leopard might work for other countries, but the K2NO is objectively the better pick here.

8 hours ago, Serge said:

If the 2A7No from KMW succeed in lowering its weight, the growth potential will become the key point. 

I don't think removing features/armor only to advertise that you can re-add those later counts as "growth potential". If anything it leaves 0 growth potential because KMW will likely just squeeze the 2A7NO in at 62.5t meaning that anything that is non-modular can't be added.

2 hours ago, Rico said:

As I understood it 62,5t are maximum weight for driving on Norwegian roads but APS and other protection measures like AoA, track skirts, SLAT etc. are mounted in operations only. Not sure how they handle it but when I look on pictures of their ARVs/AEVs they don't have it mounted when they are on training at home. 

That only puts the K2NO at a greater advantage. The K2NO showed off at ADEX with both Trophy and RWS came in at 61.5t. This means that later on they could upgrade to the K2M without much issue and if not training at full vehicle capacity without having to strip off half the vehicle just to exercise. I have a feeling the Norway competition will parallel the Land 400 P3 with the German bid offering political incentives like exclusive production and playing mid program catchup such as the rubber composite tracks to try and bridge the gap.

10 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Did ARTEC  not try to enter the competition with the Boxer?

As posted by David, the boxer did some advertising at DSEI Japan 2019, but was eliminated from the running before the idea even made it off the ground due to the size and weight. The Type 16 MCV at 26t is basically the max limit of having free access to all Japanese infrastructure. Other candidates that didn't make it far and were dropped fairly early on include the Freccia, Stryker, Piranha, SuperAV, and South African RG41. These were all competing back when Komatsu was the primary JP bid. 

Basically everything from that initial program was scrapped. All competitors were basically eliminated. the LAV 6.0 wasn't even in the running then, the AMV in the first bid swapped to the AMV XP in the current program, and Mitsubishi took over Komatsu's spot.

Is the Bradley upgrade shown by BAE back in 2016 the one to become the M2A4?

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/bae-systems-debuting-next-generation-bradley-prototype

7 hours ago, Serge said:

To start a Japanese dedicated new topic, a Finn history :

The 3 main competitors for the bid are the Mitsubishi MAV, LAV 6.0, and AMV XP. I've barely seen the LAV talked about at all so it seems like its the least likely to be picked. It still has a chance, but I don't see the AMV XP winning in this competition. The chosen APC would be replacing the Type 96 in infantry divisions, the ICV variant would be directly integrated into Japan's RDR which primarily use MCVs, and the RCV would go into the reconnaissance combat battalions of which all but 1 use the MCV.

With that being the case, the AMV XP is fighting a steep uphill battle competing against a MCV based hull with parts commonality to heavily integrate with units already using the MCV.

However it's still nice to see that Japan is opening up a bit to the international market and trying to stretch their limited budget.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:53 AM, Lord_James said:

Is it more efficient mass wise to have a gun with a longer barrel and lower pressures, or a shorter barrel and higher pressures? The 75mm PaK 42 seems to be about 1 ton by itself, while the similar 77mm HV is 1.5 tons (don’t have a source for the QF 17 lb without carriage). 

If anything it's more of a cost issue rather than a weight issue. The Japanese developed their domestic 120mm with a higher pressure and better recoil system than the Rheinmetall 120mm while also shaving off 450kg in weight. They also scrapped plans for an L/55 upgrade for it after they decided that the performance was satisfactory until the jump to 130mm+ cannons, so similar performance to other L/55s can be implied. Such develops should be expected with 3-4 decades of metallurgy and machining advancement, but that also means higher costs. The thing about the Rheinmetall 120mm is Germany's MIC is primarily  held up by export sales. Their primary focus is creating a desirable product for their customers. A drop in barrel upgrade for existing platforms is a lot cheaper and opens up the market a lot more than a completely redesigned cannon. 

LOL I'M SORRY BUT WHAT?!?!?!

Did they seriously fire a shot into the distance to make the target seem far away, then cut to a close up shot of it shooting a target 20m away to show off the "accuracy"? Either that or they wanted to display that 3BM59 can penetrate plywood from close combat ranges.

The number of horizontal posts match as well as the left white target being taller than the right, the black mark on the lower left corner of the left white target, the trees being in the background. Guess that slipped past the editor.

1 hour ago, unreason said:

Electronic subsystems like that can be refitted to existing vehicles without significant weight gain,

The problem is a base K2 even back in 2014 is a lot cheaper than a 2A7+ with all the bells and whistles it currently has (but without APS based on when this doc was written).

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/305/quendt.pdf

https://www.defence24.com/hungarian-leopard-mbts-unveiled-what-was-the-cost-analysis

If we just assume that the upgraded K2NO/K2M is around the same price as the 2A7+, it would still more way expensive to just bring the Leopard 2A7 up to a level equal to that of the K2. Even so it would be entirely left up to Norway to figure out how to mount those systems and which systems it would use which is R&D costs on top of that.

1 hour ago, unreason said:

Which K2 achieves by leaving its sides completely unarmoured and copying the Leclerc bulge, which comes at the cost of a gigantic gun shield weakspot, as weight in armour forward of the gun trunnion is inherently limited by the need to have it balanced for stabilised fire.

The K2 doesn't use the hollow mantlet like the Leclerc. Either way add-on armor isn't impossible. The Abrams did it with the SEPs, the Leopard did it heavily from 2A4 -> 2A5. I see no reason why it can't be done with the K2 as they advertise that they can do it. The side armor is also modular meaning it retains it's strategic mobility.

1 hour ago, unreason said:

Engine and transmission are of similar design, but the K2 uses much more compact and newer types compared to Leopard 2, especially if they intend to sell the new Doosan engine and the domestic gearbox, although both of those are taking their sweet time.

Yeah I explained it pretty poorly the first go around, but I tried clarifying a bit better with an edit. Basically if SK gets the rights to export the EPP then spares can be found in basically every EU country that has tried to export a tank at one point in the last 30 years which is basically everyone. If they go with the Doosan PP then Turkey will have spares along with SK and local production in Norway granted it won't be nearly as readily available which I will admit.

1 hour ago, unreason said:

That's assuming that they were so utterly stupid as to not mount any armour on the roof, which might well be the case for the North Korean glorified live targets that K2 is designed to fight, but even Strv-122 does that, and T-14's crew hatches are suspiciously thick. Such a small EFP launched from a distance shouldn't be relied on.

https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/artillery/155mm-smart/

The T-14 does have soft ERA mounted on the roof, but the SMArt 155 which the KSTAM-II was modeled off of is advertised as effective against heavily armored targets as well as ERA.

1 hour ago, unreason said:

That you even have to think of such a creative way to approach the problem just shows how close the 12 cm gun really is to the end of its upgrade potential.

Smart top attack munitions definitely aren't the signal to the death of the 120mm. The KSTAM isn't even meant for direct attack. I'm just giving an example of how the K2 can take out a big scary Armata without even needing line of sight to it. No matter what KSTAM is a major firepower upgrade over the Leopard despite them using the same gun. Even after the T-14 enters production, the 120mm will have decades of life purely because Russia will never produce them in a meaningful capacity.

1 hour ago, unreason said:

What does K2 really add to justify the added expense of retraining and changing the stock of spare parts

Laser warning system, the millimeter radar being integrated offensively and defensively, better placement of the radar than what we have seen with early shots of the 2A7 w/ trophy, automatic target tracking with the FCS, RWR, OECM, better strategic mobility, HP suspension with better recoil dampening. As for parts it's hard to speak on what config it would be delivered in with it's power pack, the problem with Turkey getting the EPP RENK/MTU 883 Ka-501 was the arms embargo, but either way it seems like in 2021 Korea has gotten the kinks sorted out with their domestic solution. If the K2NO can get the EPP then there will be tons of spares. If they go with the Korean PP and Norway still considers it a serious contender then spares will be a non-problem because if they were then the K2 wouldn't be on the table in the first place. For retraining crews, at least for the Polish program it was designed to replace T-72s, so regardless the crews would need to be retrained and a 3 crew autoloaded vehicle -> 3 crew autoloaded vehicle is a much easier switch.

1 hour ago, unreason said:

both tanks are rendered obsolete by Armata?

https://thediplomat.com/2015/05/is-the-worlds-deadliest-tank-bankrupting-russia/

2000 Armata's by 2020 amirite?  In reality T-72 budget cuts are going to be the primary armored force of Russia well into the mid 21st century. Also the K2 is incredibly future proofed against the Armata especially with KSTAM. Afghanit has been alleged to be ineffective against TOW-2Bs, so no way is it ever intercepting KSTAM

1 hour ago, unreason said:

they are about just barely keeping pace with the neighbours until a western tank with an unmanned turret becomes available.

Not Poland as it's basically booted from ever being a part of the MGCS as that is the exact reason why they went with the Abrams instead of getting more Leopards. As for Norway they are basically planned to spend 1/4 of their yearly military expenditures just on this acquisition program which is a lot for a tank they will sideline in 30 years.

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

It is easy to claim a tank that only exist in the form of plastic models is better.

The only real difference between production K2's and the ones offered to Poland is the extra add-on armor which isn't going to magically make the K2 implode. There was no reason to make anything more than a plastic model when Poland completely skipped trials and didn't even ask for a test sample to be produced.

15 hours ago, Rico said:

Still I would like to see L2 and K2 being compared against each other to see what the K2 is like.

It will prob still happen for the Norway bid. The problem with Poland is that the decision behind going with the Abrams is pretty dumb. Basically the first deliveries of the K2 would've began in 2025 which Poland deemed too far away. Normally this would seem like the right idea if they are worried about Russia, but then you realize that their F-35 deliveries don't start until 2024/2025, their project to replace the BMP-1 isn't expected to go into full effect until 2025. So basically they went for immediate security while ignoring that they have 40 F-16s, a SAM network with not enough ammo, and a bunch of incredibly outdated IFVs to support their shiny new tanks. So basically even if Poland did go to war with Russia before 2025 it wouldn't matter if they have a few extra Abrams or not.

Norway on the other hand doesn't seem to have put such a time constraint on their program and still has considers the K2 a serious bidder. Purely off of merit of the vehicle and not simply political interference I would expect the K2 to win. The electronics systems and battle management systems that Korea has seem to be a much better offering than the Leopard. If Norway is offered KSTAM then that is a massive improvement in terms of firepower. The biggest factor is probably future proofing. The K2 is an almost brand new platform and is ready to take on the weight of any future upgrades while the 2A7 is almost 10-15tons heavier than the original 2A4 and isn't exactly in the position to be taking on another 5 tons the next time an upgrade cycle rolls around without seeing some problems. With the MGCS rolling around the Germans obviously aren't going to go "alright shut down all Leopard R&D immediately", but it will definitely take a noticeable hit in terms of first party support as the years tick on.

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Definitely impacting burst grouping.

If it makes the brits feel any better. They are still on par with Russian's BMP-T because they didn't realize that the muzzle gas from one 30mm would push the barrel of the other and vice versa causing the guns to spray wildly past ~800m.

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

1) engine cooling would NOT be more difficult with a front mounted vs. rear-mounted engine. That does not even begin to make sense. Where is your link to proof of your statement on that?

Where would you put the radiator on a front engine tank? In a rear engine tank the radiator just sits at the engine deck where it doesn't compromise any protection.

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

Go down to the image of the front of the Merkava armor protection in the 7'th post in the above link.

It's armour protection is not compromised AT ALL.

For starters large pockets in spaced armor are not that effective. A bunch of much smaller gaps are proven to be much more effective, and really can't compare to ceramics.

Also lets not forget about this

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

3) Many tanks already have their transmissions and final drives in the front...so you have to access them already. Just more so for the engine.

No they don't, front mounted transmissions died in the 60s and the only AFVs you actually see with such a layout are APCs and IFVs that need the space in the back to carry troops and aren't meant to be taking shots from MBTs in the first place.

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

4) An engine only ways about 2 tons. The frontal armor will weigh FAR more than that. Plus, the turret would be farther back then on a regular tank...so they should not be any more nose heavy. Or if so...not by much.

Once again lol no. One of the lightest engines on an in service MBT belongs to the Type 10 and it's 4.2 tons. You have absolutely 0 concept of weight distribution if you think you could just slap an extra 2 tons up front, let alone 4.2 tons, then think you could move the turret back like 1.5 meters and everything would be fixed.

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

Cameras? Big deal. Many drivers are 'buttoned up' during combat anyway. And I bet you the vision on a screen from dozens of different camera's mounted all over the chassis/turret would be FAR better then looking through a small, periscope with limited viewing angles.

Lets just ignore how cameras can get damaged or dirty. There is a reason why all MBTs still retain periscopes for the driver and even old WW2 style telescopic sights for their gunners.

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

So who am I going to believe - when it comes to whether front mounted engines on a MBT are 'not fantastic at all'?

Some, faceless, nameless guy on the internet?

Or the INCREDIBLY experienced and respected, IDF?

Who have manufactured (so far) 4 'Mark's' of the 'Chariot' and almost 2,000 vehicles in total?

Hmmmm?

If the Merkava was some ultimate god tank that was as amazing as you claim it is wouldn't every single country in the world adopt a similar style? Who am I to believe, some nobody JIDF shill or every other tank engineer outside of Israel. In reality where everyone else lives, we understand that the Merkava is an incredibly niche tank that only makes sense for Israel combat. Also 2000 tanks across 4 different tanks isn't even all that impressive. Even Japan has roughly around those numbers. Still the Merkava is still 10x better designed than your fantasy super tank that just casually extends out an extra 2 meters in an era where everyone is trying to shed weight.

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Hanwha replaced the Elbit COAPS sight! In April they still used that...

Glad to see it. I've been rooting for the AS21 to win and would've hated to see it only get dropped for a reason other than it's performance and capabilities.

6 hours ago, TWMSR said:

 

It is not good simulation. BM15 is cored projectile, with tungsten carbide penetrator inside, not steel-only like BM12 or BM17.

None of these are very good "simulations". There is so much that is unknown about ballistic science, armor construction, and projectile construction that these are mainly to show how a projectile armor interaction maybe, might, possibly, perhaps, somewhat, workout in perfect circumstances. These videos are pretty much for entertainment purposes only.

https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=rgm84d&logNo=222051194115&navType=tl

Hyundai Rotem seems to be taking a page out of the Polish handbook with their newest MBT concept. I dont understand the idea behind building a super tank on paper only for it to never actually happen and the designing company to come out the other end with worse off brand reputation afterwards. The K2 is one of my favorite MBTs so to see H R roll out with a project overtaking the PL01 in fantasy BS is a little disappointing as I would expect better than this empty marketing from them.