Bulk production of the 62-tonne ZTZ-99A2 main battle tanks tank (MBT) commenced early last year in China for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following three years of user trials.
Developed by the China North Vehicle Research Institute (also known as 201 Institute) of the state-owned China North Industries Corp (NORINCO) since 2005, the ZTZ-99A2 is being built by the Inner-Mongolia First Machinery Group Corp (also known as (617 Factory) in Baotou, Inner Mongolia. The ZTZ-99A2 sports explosive reactive armour (ERA) tiles on the glacis, turret front and turret sides, plus a turret-mounted active protection system (APS). The baseline chassis armour is constructed of steel, to which advanced passive armour has been added over the frontal arc. By adding ERA tiles and APS, the ZTZ-99A2 MBT has been given a very high level of protection against anti-tank weapons fitted with tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warheads.
The ZTZ-99A2 will supplement the PLA Army’s existing 800-odd 57-tonne ZTZ-99A1 MBTs, which sport spaced arrow-shaped composite armour tiles on the turret’s front side, plus a turret-mounted laser countermeasures suite. The ZTZ-99A2’s turret, on the other hand, comes fitted with exteriorly changed arrow-shaped ERA armour panels, while its frontal hull is covered by flat ERA armour tiles. Despite of the size of ERA armour-plating, the ZTZ-99A2 seems to have a larger turret with an expanded tail chamber. The turret-mounted APS uses a millimetre-wave radar as its principal sensor.
The commander’s panoramic sight bears a close resemblance to that on French AMX-56 Leclerc MBT. The ZTZ-99A2’s integrated propulsion system includes a 1,500hp transverse-mounted gas turbine, automatic transmission, cooling system and the fuel tank. Suspensions are of the torsion bar-type, while both the commander’s and gunner’s sights make use of COTS-based uncooled thermal imagers.
The main armament is a 55-calibre 125mm smoothbore cannon (firing APFSDS rounds capable of penetrating 950mm of rolled homogenous armour), which is linked to a hull-mounted an auto-loader. The MBT has a three man crew complement. External dimensions of the MBT include a length of 11 metres (34 feet), width of 3.4 metres (10.5 feet) and a height of 2.2 metres (6.8 feet).—Prasun K. Sengupta
The commander’s panoramic sight bears a close resemblance to that on French AMX-56 Leclerc MBT. The ZTZ-99A2’s integrated propulsion system includes a 1,500hp transverse-mounted gas turbine, automatic transmission, cooling system and the fuel tank. Suspensions are of the torsion bar-type, while both the commander’s and gunner’s sights make use of COTS-based uncooled thermal imagers.
The main armament is a 55-calibre 125mm smoothbore cannon (firing APFSDS rounds capable of penetrating 950mm of rolled homogenous armour), which is linked to a hull-mounted an auto-loader. The MBT has a three man crew complement. External dimensions of the MBT include a length of 11 metres (34 feet), width of 3.4 metres (10.5 feet) and a height of 2.2 metres (6.8 feet).—Prasun K. Sengupta
27 comments:
Prasun,
Did you pick up any interesting news from LIMA that did not appear in the press?
To FARIS: What I had picked up has since appeared in the December issue of TEMPUR as the LIMA show report. Have you come across that issue? It is an open secret that the Gripen will eventually replace the MiG-29Ns and two Saab 2000 AEW & C platforms could also form part of the package. The RMN's six-unit Gowind LCS is already an announced fact of life. Let's now wait and see how the MRSS project progresses.
Prasun @ 3.01 AM,
Its interesting that you claim that Malaysia will buy the Gripen. It would be an excellent attempt at fleet rationalisation in addition to being a politically sound decision. Do you think the Gripen/addl SU-30s will be purchased once their F-18s are pensioned off or would they jump to a futuristic (5th gen. solution)?
Anyway it would be pretty impressive of them to choose the Gripen. That would have been the path for us to go for the MMRCA, though in long-term national interest, it would have meant culling the LCA.
On a related note, Serge Dassault claimed recently that news of a Rafale export could be announced soon. Do you think that concerns us or is it still open?
Is the 950mm penetration part is real????!!!!Even the Germans don't claim such estimations for their DM 63!!!!
Please try to reply....
THANX in advance....................
Prasun if the LCH is modified to LAH for the IA by HAL then what radar options are available. Can the Selex Galieo Sea Spray series AESA radars suitable for this function. Or can a mast mounted radar similar to Apache taken up as this require minimum modification. For some reason you seem to favor mast mounted optronic sensors over mast mounted radar.
For night operations instead of helmet mounted night vision goggles air-frame mounted equipment will be more capable such as VIGILX also from the same maker.
Can equipment of this nature be mounted on the ALH MK3 or LAH
Prasun,
No I haven't got the latest issue.
I'm hoping the Gripen will just die a natural death with regards to it being selected by Malaysia! Logic dictates that the RMAF gets what it really wants - Super Hornets, for commonality and training reasons. If Eriye is selected, the RMAF will probably go for the Embraer and not ex-Scandinavian Airlines Saabs. As for the LCS, the RMN is in a fix as it is being pushed to accept MICA and the Exocet rather the ESSM and NSM which it specified.
To Anon@9.10AM: That the RMAF would eventually settle for the Gripen was known as far back as 2003! Only difference is that now it is the Gripen NG. There is also the reqmt for an additional 6 Su-30MKMs to fully stand up one squadron. The F/A-18Ds will not be decommissioned for at least another 20 years, since Block upgrades have already been ordered and more may follow in future, including possible AESA rasdar fitments. In India the Gripen IN was never a serious contender as the IAF always wanted a twin-engined M-MRCA. Regarding the Rafale, let's wait and see.
To Anurag: That's what NORINCO claims.
To Anon@1.02PM: The optimum nose-mounted search radar option for LAH would be the PicoSAR radar from Selex Galileo of Italy. Optronic sensors need to be mast-mounted simply because they're passive (unlike the search radar) and can therefore be used for enhancing all-round situational awareness and only upon target detection by visual means can the search radar slewed to a particular quadrant and be activated for positive target identification. NVGs won;pt go on the LCH or Rudra, since the JedEyes will be receiving all imagery from the FLIR sensor.
To Faris: The time to acquire the Super Hornets elapsed a decade ago when it was competing against the Su-30MKM. The reqmt now, according to the RMAF, is for an agile MRCA with future upgrade potential. The Gripen NG will therefore be an excellent choice. The Saab 2000 airframes are all ex-Air France. The EMB-145 was ruled out by 2005 since the type of runway length it requires for flight operations isn't available in all RMAF air bases. The Saab 2000 AEW & C will be an excellent choice since this aircraft can also undertake maritime surveillance. For the Gowind LCS the VL Mica & Exocet MM-40 Mk3 extended-range ASCM will be excellent choices. The VL Mica is a fire-and-forget type of SHORADS, whereas the ESSM isn't.
Prasun,
I was under the impression that the Super Hornet, thanks to favourable experience with the Hornets, is still the RMAFs preferred choice. As you are aware, the Su-30MKMs were forced on the RMAF by Dr.M,as were the Fulcrums, and the RMAFs main choice then as the Super Hornet. If indeed the Gripen is selected, then the decision would be based on its lower price tag and cheaper operating costs. It also remains to be seen if the RMAF is keen on a single engine frontline aircraft and whether Thailand's selection of the Gripen will play a part.
hey prasunda please dont forget to throw some light on certain aspects that this article http://idrw.org/?p=6384#more-6384 dwells upon, especially the part involving UGV,UGCV and robotic sentries while putting up your article on F-INSAS :) thanks
To ABS: All that this news item is talking about are the tools, which are easily available off-the-shelf. What is not being talked about is the heart of the F-INSAS system, which are the tactical internet and intranet networks. Without these two, nothing else will work. And the DRDO is not even close to comprehending what such networks are all about. Therefore, consequently the F-INSAS project is primarily Army-driven and draws upon much-needed expertise from other such networks operational with the US and Israeli armed forces. I therefore, would not trust even a word of the DRDO’s chief controller (R&D) W Selvamurthy, who is an expert in life sciences, and doesn’t know much about neither integrated battlespaces, nor about armoured vehicles like FMBTs. Therefore, don’t fall for all this ‘indigenous bakwas’ that reportedly spills out of the DRDO from time to time.
To FARIS: The Super Hornet was in contention only for the heavy-MRCA competition, which the Su-30MKM eventually won. I was the only one at that time who was telling Boeing (whenever I was asked) that it was wasting its time and money (which was then being spent on some consultants hailing from the MSRC and sponsoring all their foreign junkets & golf games) on the Super Hornet marketing/PR campaign between 2001 & 2003. Of course, Boeing's then country manager Datuk Paul Walters never liked listening to the bitter truth and subsequently was averse to meeting me during press briefings. After mid-2003, I was 'informed' by some Boeing insiders that this Datuk had finally admitted that I was right & he had wished he took my advice seriously, so as not to be taken for a ride. In fact, all the indicators were there that the Su-30MKM would be selected, such as Tun Dr M's visit to Russia in 2002 and to Khabarovsk just to inaugurate the offices of Rimbunan Hijau, the world leader in tropical deforestation, & the late Tunku Abdullah's (of Masterconsult Sdn Bhd) boasts that the Su-30MKM deal had already been secured. So you see, one just has to analyse the top-level political behaviour and all major Malaysian military procurements consequently become extremely predictable. The same applies to the present-day govt and therefore the pro-France tilt was widely expected in case of the EC-725s & Gowinds & helicopter acquisitions for the PDRM, and in favour of UK-based AgustaWestland when it came to helicopters for the MMEA.
Regarding the Gripen NG, it will be a far cry from the RTAF Gripen C/D, and will be far more capable & lethal than even the Indonesian Su-30MK2s, the RMAFD's principal adversary in the years to come. Let's see if the TNI-AU finally decides to procure the ZDK-03 AEW & CS from China's CATIC and in what numbers.
Hi PRASUN, the Sukhoi-30 MKI was originally intended as a ultra maneuverable and highly agile air superiority fighter. It was intended to counter the F-15C of the USAF. As such it must have a high sustained supersonic and subsonic turn rate and the ability to withstand huge Gs. But in the Typhoon official site a bar graph shows that the supersonic turn rate of the Sukhoi is less than other contemporary fighters and also Eurofighter . Is it true? Pls comment. Also when will the upgrading of the Sukhoi fleet onto the Super Sukhoi start? Also pls can u tell when will the first MMCRA ac enter IAF service and when this delivery will be completed?
Can u pls tell the features of the Kopyo radar on MiG-21 Bison? Is the radar on the MiGs of the Super Kopyo variant? Does the Kopyo radar offers SAR,ISAR,GMTI, & DBS? Does it have a air- air search range of 80+ km? Is it superior to the Grifo mk3 on Pakistan Mirage 3? Also don't u think that the range (air-air,air-ground) of CAPTOR is greater than those on the Rafale?
To Anon@11.29PM: If anyone wants to accurately profile the manoeuvrability of the Su-30MKI or even Su-30MKM or SDu-30MKA with the help of telemetry instrumentation and ground-based FLIRs, then this can only be done in either Algeria, or India or in Malaysia, because members of the Su-30MK family of supermanoeuvrable heavy-MRCAs are only operational in these three countries. Till this day, none of the three types--Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM or Su-30MKA--have publicly displayed their true supermanoeuvrable capabilities at varying speeds during any air show. So, the question that arises is this: how authoritative are Eurofighter GmbH's estimated flight profiles of the Su-30MKI? To me the answer is simple: close to zero. At best Eurofighter GmbH has near-accurate estimates of the Su-35 and Su-30MK2, but not those of the Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA.
Work on upgrading the Su-30MKis to Super Su-30MKis will get underway by 2014. Deliveries of the initial 18 M-MRCAs will begin between 36 to 48 months after contract signature. In the interim, the winning party could be requested to 'loan' one squadron of the chosen M-MRCA to the IAF for ensuring speedy flight conversion, like what was done with the Jaguar IS in 1979/1980. Deliveries of 126 + 63 of the chosen M-MRCAs will be completed over a 15-year period.
To Anon@11.37PM: The Kopyo of the MiG-21 Bison is not a MMR. It is optimised for air combat only. The Grifo Mk3 is superior to the Kopyo in terms of both performance & MTBF. Target detection range of any radar can be tweaked (increased or decreased) by modifying the radar's on-board transmitter. On top of that there's multi-PRF modes of operation.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20120112.aspx
According to above post airframe and engines will also be worked on .... what sought of changes will be made to airframe and engines?????
To KSK: No changes. They will just be relifed, meaning an extension of their total technical service lives (TTSL). That's what is mesnt by refurbishment.
thanks a lot prasunda for your infos. its really funny and such a shame that a senior position scientist from DRDO starts boasting of something that he or his colleagues hardly know about themselves. this in turn makes the enitre nation a laughing stock for the rest.
Prasun,
Won't you agree that for commonality, rather than get Saabs for the Eriye, the RMAF is better off getting surplus C-130Hs and integrating it with Eriye? Granted the integration will cost a lot but at least the RMAF won't have to introduce a new aircraft type into service.
Apart from having a much shorter effective engagement range compared to ESSM, how does MICA perform on paper against supersonic missiles and is it much more capable than Seawolf? One of the main selling points of Seawolf is its very fast reaction time.
I fully agree with you Indonesia poses a more serious long term threat/challenge to Malaysia than any other country. What do you think might likely trigger off a skirmish - more tensions in Ambalat or an incident involving fishing boats in the Melaka Straits?
What is the likelihood of the RMAF getting Brahmos in the future for its MKMs?
Hi PRASUN , aren't the upgradation of the Sukhois likely to begin in 2012 according to previous reports? Also will all except 18 MMCRA be license produced by HAL? Can the IAF & HAL fasttrack the production and the induction process to 5-6 yes from 10-15 yrs? Cannot the HAL expand it's production facilities? Also pls which CAPTOR AESA or RBEAA offers greater range
Dear Sir
Any news on JF 17 UPGRADES that
PAF is desperately waiting for
Secondly will the RD 93 be able
to power a more advanced radar ie
is the RD 93 ANY GOOD at all IF
JF 17 is BEING TOUTED as a MODERN
Fighter plane BUT Cheaper than
Mig 29 and F 16
To FARIS: The problem is the availability of surplus C-130Hs. Already those with C-130Es want the H version, in addition to the newly re-raised air forces of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. Therefore, in terms of easier availability at cost-effective rates and with assured product support for the next 35 years, the Saab 2000 platform makes a lot of sense. As for anti-missile defence systems, neither the VL Seawolf, nor the Barak-1, nor the VL MICA or the ESSM (all bei9ng quick-reaction SAMs) can counter supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. For air-defence against such missiles, one requires MR-SAMs with at least 50km-range (like Aster-15 or Barak-2), plus active phased-array volume-search radars. Between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Ambalat issue is the most likely flashpoint in the near-term. The TNI-AL had acquired four Yakhonts of which only three now remain, and Jakarta has begun making enquiries for acquiring a small number of BrahMos. But in the end, I reckon the TNI-AL will settle for ASCMs like the C-705 (ship- and air-launched) from China. For the RMAF, acquiring an air-launched BrahMos makes no sense at all for as long as there’s no MRMR/ASW platforms for ensuring positive target ID and providing mid-course guidance. And even if there’s an available MRMR/ASW platform available, launching a single BrahMos won’t be the ideal solution. The optimum solution will be to arm the Su-30MKM with two Novator 3M54E Klub supersonic 220km-range ASCMs.
To Anon@5.29PM: The Super Su-30MKI programme is running behind schedule as the MIRES AESA-based MMR is still undergoing development. Apart from the first 128 M-MRCAs, all the rest will be licence-assembled by HAL. Can the licenced-assembly be fast-tracked. Of course it can, provided financial resources are made available for HAL’s expansion. But doing this in 6 years is impossible, since the IAF has limitations in converting its squadrons to a new aircraft-type in every year. Like I explained before, a radar’s range envelope, be it for the RBE-2 or Captor-E, can be tweaked anytime by the aircraft operator.
To Anon@9.03PM: The RD-93 is 1980s vintage technology. It is obsolete and unsafe.
Prasun,
Doesn't the RMAF already have KH-31 missiles, that can be used for the anti-ship role, for its MKMs? A training round was displayed at Subang some years back.
To FARIS: That's the Kh-31P Krypton anti-radiation missile.
Prasun,
Would be interesting to find out if Russian doctrine, calls for the use of air launched anti-radar missiles against naval targets? The Bundesmarine's Tornados were armed with Kormorons and HARMS. The target has a had choice, if it defends itself its radar gets hit by the HARM, if it does nothing and switches off the radar, it gets hit by the Kormoron.
To FARIS: The carrier-based MiG-29Ks of the Indian Navy come armed with both Kh-31P Krypton & Kh-35 ASCMs. A targetted warship will first detect an inbound ASCM when it is illuminated by the launch aircraft's on-board radar for mid-course guidance updates. If even the targetted warship then switches off its radars, its EW suite will be fully activated by then (for jamming the ASCM's active radar seeker), along with its point-defence system using optronic fire-control systems. Therefore, the targetted warship will still have enough assets reqd to neutralise the inbound ASCM.
A lot of people sure are coming here. Thanks for sharing your ideas about this. Looking forward for more updates.
Post a Comment