TR Altay Main Battle Tank & Related Programs

[Hasanrize]

Accroding to Wikipedia and other sources Turkiye have Around
~ 2240 Tanks.
915-M60 (variants)
640-M 48
690‐ Leo 1/ 2

Wikipedia is not as reliable as it seems in many subjects.

 

[Ripley]

I must agree with @TheInsider as this particular project has been draining our resources since almost its inception. This doesn’t mean that tank is dead (which theinsider didn’t claim btw) like others said. They were overwhelmed by use of new kind of weapons that they were considered but not designed to fight against. So, they’ll evolve as they did before no doubt.

We are now seeing a need to change the way wars are conducted. The first military power that can adapt a new style of warfare will win.

Probably for the long term in the future, warfare is to be conducted by drones, unmanned fighting vehicles and unmanned sea vessels. In the end, without losing life, the side, that can deplete the opposition’s resources of fighting equipment first, will win.

This, though, is more critical than people think of.
I wrote it somewhere some time ago, misplaced it but it was pretty close what @Yasar_TR abi outlined here.

New warfare that we’ve been witnessing for the past few years showed us that time is even more essential today than before where it was conducted online, real time.

Time and reaction time with multiple assets from all dimensions of battlefield.
Be precise, quick, swift on all dimensions over battlefield with multiple assets that will pour firepower on enemy.
Downside, this swift overwhelming fire power can be sustained only so much. Therefore, you must keep your arsenal and assets adequately stocked up and very well coordinated to put up an uninterrupted, intense fight so that you wouldn’t lose due to logistics failure. Remember the consequences of Ukraine‘s lack of ammo.

 

[TheInsider]

Now proof your claim and don't come with videos from Ukraine.

• Altay will not operate alone
• We have several Soft-Kill and Hard-Kill systems against FPV drones

Tanks never operated alone even in WW2 tanks were accompanied by AA systems. Drones are a serious threat that can not be countered with only soft kill and hard kill systems. Soft kill systems can be bypassed by better electronics or fiber optic cables, hard kill systems can be saturated and their protection area is quite limited. Drones should be countered collectively similar to crowdfunding a project. Tanks shouldn't outsource their protection against drones depending on some nearby anti-drone systems. Every tank should have its own layered robust anti-drone warfare capability on top of independent anti-drone and airdefense systems that accompany them.

 

[Sanchez]

Why is it so expensive?

We created it out of nothing, and at the time used best stuff available on it. We didn't just make a tank, we built the ecosystem to build a tank as well.

Big delays are catastrophic.

Agreed, but Altay was expensive before all the delays as well. Otokar's bid for 250 tanks was what, 14 million apiece? Otokar also took all the stuff I mentioned above into consideration when bidding. BMC undercut them heavily, and now their costs are similar, with a 10 year delay to boot. And how do we even measure the cost of tanks and tankers we lost, and the tactical delays those losses created in theater over the years?

 

[TR_123456]

This may sound far fetched. But the change is coming. We are at the precipice of the change. And we need to act quickly. We must take measures that the transformation of battlefield tactics are implemented by us first in a controlled manner without losing ground, like the aerial drone warfare we brought in to the battlefield tactics.

Arent we doing that already?
We developed drones but also countermeasures,we changed our doctrine accordingly,no?

 

[Yasar_TR]

Arent we doing that already?
We developed drones but also countermeasures,we changed our doctrine accordingly,no?

We have changed the doctrine in a limited fashion as far as what is out there in the open. Yes, with UAVs and UCAVs and our work on unmanned sea vehicles and submarines that are going on, we are ahead of many countries. Especially in air drone warfare.
But we need to keep this momentum going in other areas as well.

Regarding tanks and armoured vehicles; We are still trying to produce 250 Altay tanks. These are going to be furnished with predominantly old school systems. First batch definitely going to be no different to original, in terms of crew and turret.
Ukraine war has shown that we can’t be complacent. Even the first batch of tanks will have to be built, with a view to what we want the tanks to evolve in to. Same has to be done for ACVs.
At the interim, we need to furnish our armoured vehicles with extensive active protection systems. Start changing the way these vehicles are used with respective protection and weaponry.
Unmanned systems rely heavily on uninterrupted communications and EW. We need to develop long distance communication systems to keep unmanned vehicles under our control, free from jamming and interference. In air warfare, we need to develop special long range relay stations to extend our LOS usage capability. Countries like USA and China have low orbit satellites for latency free communications. They are having to develop protection systems for these. We need to develop our own systems that are more in line with what we can do and afford. Seljuk Bayraktar already tapped in to this subject in his recent interviews.

 

[Ripley]

Arent we doing that already?
We developed drones but also countermeasures,we changed our doctrine accordingly,no?

Yes we are.
As a matter of fact, Turkey literally showcased what modern multi dimensional warfare doctrine can do at Karabagh. However, it was dissed by hesitant, Turkish haters as “poor man’s war”.
I think what @Yasar_TR abi means is that, we just can’t call it a day, and say we’re good now let’s wait our opponents counter act our doctrine because tactical shift paradigms developing so fast that you need to constantly develop and adapt your doctrinal approach accordingly.

 

[Saithan]

Anything wrong with having 4th gen tank even if only 250 of them before creating 5th gen tank thanks to the whole new doct ine of uav, ucav, loitering ammo etc ?

 

[Yasar_TR]

Anything wrong with having 4th gen tank even if only 250 of them before creating 5th gen tank thanks to the whole new doct ine of uav, ucav, loitering ammo etc ?

Good question!
I will try to answer with another question.
Would you like to be the person to explain to the fallen heroes’ family that for the sake of few months or a year that we couldn’t wait because the political system wanted to prove a point. Hence a better more capable version already in the drawing board couldn’t be produced.

We know that Altay with crew less turret and better protection is already being worked on. why not program production of a more recent version? Heck! We waited nearly a decade for this tank. What is another year?

 

[Ripley]

I think many members overestimate tanks in general and expect too much from them. They were always counterable by mere infantry, dating back to WW1.
And how do you want to get a lighter tank but in the same time counter any threat?

And do we know if this actually works on the field? For example is there any success from Armata on the field? Is there any other similiar tank in serial production?

I think you good point there when you say overestimate ‘cause let’s face it, there are tank haters as much as worshippers .

Your second point though, I’m also not sure about it but Western countries already working on unmanned turret tank designs and envision fully autonomous units. We also heard that Altay’s third batch planned to be with unmanned turrets.
Despite my hesitation, I also feel that we shouldn’t stay behind as our last tank is late already in every way .

 

[uçuyorum]

Good question!
I will try to answer with another question.
Would you like to be the person to explain to the fallen heroes’ family that for the sake of few months or a year that we couldn’t wait because the political system wanted to prove a point. Hence a better more capable version already in the drawing board couldn’t be produced.

We know that Altay with crew less turret and better protection is already being worked on. why not program production of a more recent version? Heck! We waited nearly a decade for this tank. What is another year?

Well there is the possibility of doing the same for M60, M48 and unmodernized Leo

 

[Huelague]

Any kind of weapon systems can be destroyed. Its not an excuse to do not produce them.

 

[Saithan]

Good question!
I will try to answer with another question.
Would you like to be the person to explain to the fallen heroes’ family that for the sake of few months or a year that we couldn’t wait because the political system wanted to prove a point. Hence a better more capable version already in the drawing board couldn’t be produced.

We know that Altay with crew less turret and better protection is already being worked on. why not program production of a more recent version? Heck! We waited nearly a decade for this tank. What is another year?

I don't see it that way, but more like diversifying our tanks between manned and unmanned.

And I think its important to have both manned and unmanned tanks.

If we keep postponing producing something because the next big thing is around the corner, then we're just asking for trouble.

I'd say we're dangling the carrot on ourselves.

 

[Sanchez]

I think it doesn't make sense that the most advanced militaries still don't put MBTs with unmanned turret into service, there must be significant counter arguments. They can produce 5th gen fighters but can't field those MBTs with unmanned turret for over a decade now? Like come on there must be drawbacks for those systems.

But they are all working on similar systems to test it out.

One big downside is clear, reduced situational awareness. No camera will ever be as good as seeing it with your own eyes. Periscope is simply better for that.

 

[Afif]

The tank of the 21st century should weigh no more than 50 tons, be manned by at most 3 personnel, and have a completely unmanned turret, autoloader, and independent armor-protected sealed ammo containers. The tank should have a hybrid propulsion with a 1000hp engine acting as a generator. The tank should have a 360-degree situational awareness system which has AI-based image processing capability and IR-based missile warning capability. The tank should be able to get air picture from AIC/Mobile AIC or similar systems and weapon systems should be able to automatically turn to nearest air threat. The tank should have a 30mm low recoil autocannon with airburst munition capability with a range of at least 2km. 30mm cannon should have a wide elevation angle and fast reaction/response time and should be able to act as a CIWS for both drones and anti-tank missiles as well as anti-personnel role. The tank should be able to fire loitering drones, ATGM and IIR-guided MANPADS from the main gun. The tanks should be able to launch and recover small drones. Sensors of the APS should be able to detect small drones from at least 1km away and APS should have necessary modifications to be able to engage them.

I agree.

The price should be no more than 10 million euros per unit.

With those specs, I would say impossible.

 

[Ripley]

But they are all working on similar systems to test it out.

One big downside is clear, reduced situational awareness. No camera will ever be as good as seeing it with your own eyes. Periscope is simply better for that.

And if I may add the fact that unmanned turret was not considered up until war in Ukraine because it was clearly seen that tanks are easily destroyed by various new threats on the battlefield other than classic threats they were designed to face for decades.
Fully autonomous tanks are not mere sci-fi stuff anymore.

 

[Sanchez]

And if I may add the fact that unmanned turret was not considered up until war in Ukraine because it was clearly seen that tanks are easily destroyed by various new threats on the battlefield other than classic threats they were designed to face for decades.
Fully autonomous tanks are not mere sci-fi stuff anymore.

Eh, Armata still exists.

 

[Afif]

Eh, Armata still exists.

You beat me to it. Plus Abram X development started before Ukraine war.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I don't see it that way, but more like diversifying our tanks between manned and unmanned.

And I think its important to have both manned and unmanned tanks.

If we keep postponing producing something because the next big thing is around the corner, then we're just asking for trouble.

I'd say we're dangling the carrot on ourselves.

Totally unmanned tanks are a long way away at the moment. I never said tanks should be unmanned. May be one day. But not yet. But that is the ultimate goal.

However it is well within our capability to produce a tank that takes care of it’s crew ”better” than what it is doing at the moment. We see the blown up turrets with atgm hits all the time. That is at least 3 fatalities. Unmanned turrets and a crew quarters segregated from the rest of the tank, possibly at the front, can be a solution. With a good active protection suite and special armour, survivability of the crew and even the tank itself can be increased.
There will be casualties in all wars. That is inevitable. But it is the duty of the engineers and the designers to apply technologies to “minimise” casualties.

 

[Ripley]

Eh, Armata still exists.

You beat me to it. Plus Abram X development started before Ukraine war.

Wait, Armata and Abrams X are fully autonomous?