Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 336
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is the Type 10 MBT a replacement for the older Type 90, or a tank soledesigned to go into areas that the type 90 is too big and heavy to go? I have heard both stories.

 

It's 10 million bucks a pop, so while intended as the former, it'll likely end up as the latter. Kinda like the F-22 and F-15. Actually, the Type-90's basic weight is 50.2 tons vs. the Type-10's 46-48 tons, so anywhere the -10 can go the -90 should also be able to. The real advantage of the Type-10 over the -90 is that it's better optimized for MOUT, which is the most likely form of combat in heavily urbanized Japan. The newer tank is much more compact and maneuverable, and boasts much better all-around protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the logic behind a completely new design?

The Type 90 is broadly equivalent to the Leo2/M1/Challenger2 western tanks right?

Why not continue production of those rather than a whole new tank?

 

Especially for a country like Japan who, unless I've missed something, probably isn't be staging any armoured thrusts in the near future.

 

Just jobs for the boys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind the curve apparently. Didn't realize their new MBT had a "name" already. I still thought it was a T-X prototype.

 

So, full scale production already? How many units per month?

 

 

Edit:

 

For some odd reason, it looks and at the same time doesn't look like 40+ tons -

 

Edited by TomasCTT
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the logic behind a completely new design?

The Type 90 is broadly equivalent to the Leo2/M1/Challenger2 western tanks right?

Why not continue production of those rather than a whole new tank?

 

Especially for a country like Japan who, unless I've missed something, probably isn't be staging any armoured thrusts in the near future.

 

Just jobs for the boys?

 

You forgot Fukushima and giant earthquake which, together, produce city-destroying monster lizards with radioactive-fresh breath.

Edited by TomasCTT
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the logic behind a completely new design?

The Type 90 is broadly equivalent to the Leo2/M1/Challenger2 western tanks right?

Why not continue production of those rather than a whole new tank?

 

Especially for a country like Japan who, unless I've missed something, probably isn't be staging any armoured thrusts in the near future.

 

Just jobs for the boys?

 

Because they want better.

 

It's also PRECISELY because the posture of the SDF is politically defensive-only that they need a MOUT tank. Any defensive action happening on Japanese soil is very likely to start in the major urban centers that dot the coastline. Nobody is going to start a Japanese invasion by climbing up mount Fuji (which is where the bulk of the Honshu tank fleet is assigned) or rampaging through Hokkaido (which is where the rest are). The Type-90 is deemed unsuitable for deployment into urban terrain because of several factors. MOUT experience in ROW over the past two decades indicate a requirement for increased side protection and better turning ability for tanks engaged in this type of combat. In particular, the Type-90's relatively long hull makes it totally unsuitable for maneuvering in Japan's cramped cities. For this reason the majority of the Type-90 tanks have been deployed around Mount Fuji and in Hokkaido, where maneuvering space is not so scarce.

 

The Type-10 tank is made with a shorter hull (almost 1 m shorter) able to turn 360 degrees on its centroid axis to alleviate some of the shortcomings (from the Japanese perspective) of its predecessor. The turret side armor has been beefed up significantly and the sponsons fitted for installation of modular armor (as yet in development). The TC's TI periscope is placed higher up than in the Type-90 and has wider viewing angle and increased depression/elevation. It can now see very close to the sides of the tank, something not doable by its predecessor. There were plans for some sort of RWS, but I haven't seen them fitted.

 

Also, while it is true that the Type-10 is replacing Type-74s in the ORBAT proper, in theory it was the Type-90 that was intended to replace the entire stock of Types 61 and 74. However, the production and replacement program was delayed by budgetary problems and now that a successor has appeared, it makes more sense to replace the older tanks with the Type-10 instead. Both tanks will serve together for a long time to come because, as you yourself pointed out, there's nothing inherently wrong with the Type-90. It's already up to par (if not better in some aspects) with the current generation of Western tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Nobody is going to start a Japanese invasion by climbing up mount Fuji (which is where the bulk of the Honshu tank fleet is assigned) or rampaging through Hokkaido (which is where the rest are).

Deployment in Hokkaido is because for many years that was exactly where an invasion was deemed most likely. It's just a short hop from Russia.

 

Tanks elsewhere are just for training.

 

Type 10 could be a reaction to a perceived change in threat. The Red Army storming south down the island chain is no longer considered the main danger.

 

From the videos, the Type 10 looks very manoeuverable.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan seems to want to keep their weapon building technology tip top - even though it is extremely costly building for local consumption only. There may come a day they decide to expand their military, and do not want to be hindered by outside interference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this new design plus the loosening of the export laws mean that they could be wanting to sell this tank to nations such as the Philippines (assuming they could afford them), South Korea for their Marine Corp (replacing their M47's assuming they are still in serve which I doubt they will) and other counties with needs like them and can pay for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this new design plus the loosening of the export laws mean that they could be wanting to sell this tank to nations such as the Philippines (assuming they could afford them), South Korea for their Marine Corp (replacing their M47's assuming they are still in serve which I doubt they will) and other counties with needs like them and can pay for them?

 

The Philipines are probably looking to upgrade their airforce and navy first considering that they're an island nation. And the S. Koreans will more likey transfer their K1 to their Marine Corps than purchase from the Japanese.

 

I'm guessing that what the world wants is their ASEA radar kits. Albeit they've had innitial teething issues, the Japanese have been in the game for a long time and have tons of experience with that techonology. That and other electronics is what the Japanese have an advantage in.

 

Not necessary a full weapons system, which may be prohibatively expensive anyways. But key components, which are affordable and can bridge the technology gap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamesG123

such as the Philippines (assuming they could afford them)

They can't.

 

South Korea

 

The Koreans would sooner buy Chinese AFVs than Japanese.

 

and other counties with needs like them and can pay for them?

 

There is still a glut of low mile Leo2s, and the PRC and Assorted Former Soviets will sell to just about anyone. While their tanks are no doubt spiffy and advanced, they are also unproven in combat not to mention even the almost as bad international purchase trials. I cannot see how the Japanese could be competitive on the MBT market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

South Korea for their Marine Corp (replacing their M47's assuming they are still in serve which I doubt they will) and other counties with needs like them and can pay for them?

 

Why? The Koreans already produce their own MBT's - the K2 is about 55t so comparable in size too.

They could always transfer over K1's as well.

 

The Koreans would sooner buy Chinese AFVs than Japanese.

 

Well they already operate T80U's so why not? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the external fittings for sensors? Any rear facing cameras for the driver? The video I found showed the driver very accurately running back over the path he drove over to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the external fittings for sensors? Any rear facing cameras for the driver? The video I found showed the driver very accurately running back over the path he drove over to begin with.

 

It's got both front and rear cameras, a few side-looking cameras on the turret, and apparently some sort of electronic driver aid of undisclosed nature. This tank is built for maximum situational awareness in a locked-down posture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's got both front and rear cameras, a few side-looking cameras on the turret, and apparently some sort of electronic driver aid of undisclosed nature. This tank is built for maximum situational awareness in a locked-down posture.

 

That's one of the things I've pondered for years, starting out as a kid looking at tanks and pondering external views and of course Japanese giant robot concepts. A surrounding view by LCD panels with interferometry combining multiple camera inputs seems like something almost possible with current tech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Philipines are probably looking to upgrade their airforce and navy first considering that they're an island nation. And the S. Koreans will more likey transfer their K1 to their Marine Corps than purchase from the Japanese.

 

I'm guessing that what the world wants is their ASEA radar kits. Albeit they've had innitial teething issues, the Japanese have been in the game for a long time and have tons of experience with that techonology. That and other electronics is what the Japanese have an advantage in.

 

Not necessary a full weapons system, which may be prohibatively expensive anyways. But key components, which are affordable and can bridge the technology gap.

 

What James said. We can't afford it. But if we could, you'll be best advised to put your money in congress giving a huge chunk of the budget to the army. The army takes the biggest slice in any philippine military budget, which is why our air force and navy are crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of the things I've pondered for years, starting out as a kid looking at tanks and pondering external views and of course Japanese giant robot concepts. A surrounding view by LCD panels with interferometry combining multiple camera inputs seems like something almost possible with current tech.

 

It would be both easier, cheaper and more durable to just have helmet visor overlays similar to what the F35 has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be both easier, cheaper and more durable to just have helmet visor overlays similar to what the F35 has.

 

This was already tested. The problem is that it blinds the helmet wearer to his immediate surroundings. Basically he'll see what's out there but can't see where his own controls are. Technology-wise there's a noticeable lag in the view because modern processing systems are not yet capable of handling the adjustments needed to synchronize the view to the movements of the human head. If we want to follow anime's lead, the solution is a helmet-mounted system that turns walls transparent while keeping objects inside the crew compartment visible as an overlay on top of the outside view. However, graphics processing capability for this kind of display is still some years off. Algorithmically,the helmet solution is actually far more complex because it requires creating display based on a dynamic point of reference. A ring of screens would be easier to implement (but probably less durable) because the display reference point would be static.

 

Actually, given the number of screens already inside a Type-10's crew compartment, I wonder why they don't just go all the way and turn them into MFDs tied to the distributed external cameras to show external view in default mode, kinda like blown-up versions of the existing vision blocks. Other information can then be overlaid on top of the view as requested by crew. In game terms it's like the dashboard in an FPS running on multiscreen display. AMD's Eyefinity technology is already capable of doing this with up to six screens. Check out the Eyefinity demos to see what I'm talking about:

 

Eyefinity

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was already tested. The problem is that it blinds the helmet wearer to his immediate surroundings. Basically he'll see what's out there but can't see where his own controls are. Technology-wise there's a noticeable lag in the view because modern processing systems are not yet capable of handling the adjustments needed to synchronize the view to the movements of the human head. If we want to follow anime's lead, the solution is a helmet-mounted system that turns walls transparent while keeping objects inside the crew compartment visible as an overlay on top of the outside view. However, graphics processing capability for this kind of display is still some years off. Algorithmically,the helmet solution is actually far more complex because it requires creating display based on a dynamic point of reference. A ring of screens would be easier to implement (but probably less durable) because the display reference point would be static.

 

Actually, given the number of screens already inside a Type-10's crew compartment, I wonder why they don't just go all the way and turn them into MFDs tied to the distributed external cameras to show external view in default mode, kinda like blown-up versions of the existing vision blocks. Other information can then be overlaid on top of the view as requested by crew. In game terms it's like the dashboard in an FPS running on multiscreen display. AMD's Eyefinity technology is already capable of doing this with up to six screens. Check out the Eyefinity demos to see what I'm talking about:

 

Eyefinity

 

Hmm, touch panels with interfaces on those touch panels would possibly make the screens more prone to damage. Not that the confines of a tank wouldn't make them more prone to damage as well. You're going to have to have some REALLY tough screens to begin with, and it's not like just hanging screens is that easy when space and stowage is a premium. (Not arguing about the MFDs, just thinking out loud).

 

I wonder how the displays for gunners on the Stryker ATGMs have been holding up? They're mounted on a rather interesting swiveling track to allow movement within the space but still position the screen/controls in a useful place.

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, touch panels with interfaces on those touch panels would possibly make the screens more prone to damage. Not that the confines of a tank wouldn't make them more prone to damage as well. You're going to have to have some REALLY tough screens to begin with, and it's not like just hanging screens is that easy when space and stowage is a premium. (Not arguing about the MFDs, just thinking out loud).

 

Er, why bother with touch panels? Standard milspec hardened screens should suffice. Actually, the connection with Eyefinity came up because one of the shots purported to be the inside of TK-X (Type-10 prototype) showed three monitors dangling around the TC position. So they already did put the monitors in, it's just that right now they're all specialized.

 

What I'm suggesting is to redesign the display to be a bit like an FPS or WoT. Minimap on one corner with option to enlarge to one screen, simplified status indicator on opposite corner, again with option to enlarge to fill another screen to provide detailed info. Commlink indicators middle. Virtual buttons set up all around. Give TC a trackball, or a joystick with HAT switch, so he can click stuff on the screen. Most of the time primary screen real estate should be taken up by camera view, turning them into oversized vision blocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...