We’re still using 60 + years old tanks. Hopefully the Altay comes into service and we will finally scrap those relics.
Too much complication. Akkor already can neutralize an ATGW launched by the an UCAV or small switchblades in their terminal phases.I doubt they would be using the Akkor effectors against drones - they don't have the range for that. What they would be doing is using the radars to detect and track the drones and automatically shooting at them with the commander's .50 cal.
It is more about price to performance. You will pay more for each Kaplan or Tulpar for not really more performance.
Most likely a re-engine and re-turreting(?) of M60A3s on hand which the Land Forces is already knowledgeable about is cheaper as well as faster.
We are a big country bordering several unstable and hostile countries. For the majority of those countries an upgraded M60 will be enough. A cheap solution that lets you keep your more advanced tanks (L2A4TR) for more advanced and "dangerous" neighbors until Altay is produced in satisfying numbers in the expected configuration (T2/T3)
Also a lot of countries still use the M60, this upgrade package could be interesting to them which would mean a nice cash flow. Good possibility that the upgrades will pay for themselves with exports.
As long as we dont see a package for our M48 I'm fine.
In either case it would only make sense to use the .50 cal and not waste an effector, especially since the slow moving drones would have a high false positive rate (attriting effectors). More importantly though, the drone threat isn't just from suicide drones. In Ukraine the main threat is loitering drones spotting for arty, and in that scenario the tank has to use the .50 cal anyway.I don't think that was the point. I think they meant against suicide drones.
Someone ought to explain to the program planners the physics and effects of metal fatigue in machinery.I can't imagine, firstly it gets a complete new turret, whether you place that turret on the M60 or take for instance Tulpar or Kaplan won't make the price difference.
The tank itself will get new FCS, new engine (1200hp is the aim) and if you place a new engine you automatically have to replace the gear as well and maybe also the whole powertrain to the gear that drives the tracks, so what is left to make it cheaper.
and this money is to be spend on a tank body that is already 50 years old (even metal is wearing off)
Don't get me wrong it is not that I dislike the M60 but the beast is on age.
Could it be that the Altay is to heavy for certain terrains and as a cheap alternative they chose to upgrade the existing older platforms?Someone ought to explain to the program planners the physics and effects of metal fatigue in machinery.
Here we are criticising the purchase of 20+ year old Type 23 frigates because of their age; Yet our tank engineers are contemplating “modernising” a tank tech that was first put in to active use at the beginning of 1960’s.
The idea and what they want to do is sound. But come-on! Not a tank that is like a granny of all western tanks!
But then again we ARE still using these relics in active duty. (Never mind these; We have 750 M48s that have FCS modernisation that are in our active inventory) . let us hope that they won’t come up with a modernisation plan for the M48s too.
That is the idea behind this modernisation to a certain degree. Also a tank like Altay would be too valuable and behemoth of an asset to push forward for quick, fast surgical strikes to give support to infantry armoured columns. A lighter and more capable alternative that is closer to a medium tank would be this modernised version of M60.Could it be that the Altay is to heavy for certain terrains and as a cheap alternative they chose to upgrade the existing older platforms?
Alright.That is the idea behind this modernisation to a certain degree. Also a tank like Altay would be too valuable and behemoth of an asset to push forward for quick, fast surgical strikes to give support to infantry armoured columns. A lighter and more capable alternative that is closer to a medium tank would be this modernised version of M60.
Both assumptions have valid points.Alright.
Dare I make the assumption that TAF will pick up a new trend that would lead a new doctrine, if you will, which is likely composed of, say, a mechanized infantry supported by this relatively mobile and more armored fire power (modernized M 60) element dashing though enemy lines?
If not, then my next assumption would be that Altay is gonna take longer to realize and this is a stop gap less costly solution rather then supplement the former and I would hate to think of this possibility.
$14 billion? Iirc i read somewhere that, BMC promised SSB, they will be able to reduce the unit cost as low as the K2 when full scale production will be underway.(14 billion $).
3.5 billion for 250 tanks.$14 billion? Iirc i read somewhere that, BMC promised SSB, they will be able to reduce the unit cost as low as the K2 when full scale production will be underway.
The K2 costs around $8.5 million per unit.$14 billion? Iirc i read somewhere that, BMC promised SSB, they will be able to reduce the unit cost as low as the K2 when full scale production will be underway.
So, I believe we’re on the same page here where this “new“ M60 will/might fill the role of adequately armored mobile and faster firepower vehicle supporting infantry, rather than put out for a showdown against enemy MBTs.Both Ukraine and Russia lost a huge amount of tanks because anti-tank weapons are deadly but that doesn't mean tanks are obsolete. The infantry still needs armored fire support on the battlefield. When you take unexpectedly high losses on the battlefield into account, armed forces have to deploy hundreds of modern tanks to provide the armored firepower needed for the infantry. Brand new tanks come with a huge price tag and there aren't big differences between M-60TM, LEO2A4 TIYK or Altay like the differences between 4th and 5th gen fighters so modernizing existing tanks to achieve quantity is logical. There is no way for Turkiye to deploy 1000 Altay tanks(14 billion $).
Finally someone called a spade, a spade.We’re still using 60 + years old tanks. Hopefully the Altay comes into service and we will finally scrap those relics.
Wish somebody made a statistics...Both assumptions have valid points.
Altay, fits in to the category of tanks that need to be supported by infantry. Also it is not a tank that should be driven in to urban warfare. Even if it is supposed to give support to AFVs and other lightly armoured units.
Altay may take a long time to be in adequate numbers to be a force within our army. But it’s place can never really be filled with any other tanks in our inventory. Even the modernised Leopards or Sabra M60Ts are not true substitutes for this tank.
In most of the possible battles around our borders, Altay would be a game changer piece of armour. It can hold it’s own against any other tank any of our neighbours can throw at it.
All tanks needs to be supported by the infantry, esspecially in urban warfare. It is that those Russians tried something different with their terminators but failed miserably.Altay, fits in to the category of tanks that need to be supported by infantry. Also it is not a tank that should be driven in to urban warfare. Even if it is supposed to give support to AFVs and other lightly armoured units.
When nearly all the money stays inside the Turkish economy cost of weapons can be comfortably born by the government budget. By spreading production over time a good number of tanks can be inducted.
Can our bridges withstand the weight of Altay tank?Could it be that the Altay is to heavy for certain terrains and as a cheap alternative they chose to upgrade the existing older platforms?
Thats a strange question,which bridges do you mean?Can our bridges withstand the weight of Altay tank?
Qatar is a tiny country with too much money, they would rather keep the money in Türkiye to invest more.Half of the money gained through the sales of the Altay will go to Qatar. But yeah, it helps when the money stays inside the country.