TR Altay Main Battle Tank & Related Programs

Kitra

Active member
Messages
87
Reactions
2 201
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Turkey
Isn't 250 a bit too low, hopefully that's just the first batch, we need 1000+ tanks that need replacement
Decades ago, it was planned to be produced in 4 batches with 250 each with a posibility to extend. However, that was before all our drones so the new number might be lower.

So yes, 250 is just the first batch/version. Others will follow if we can make the domestic engine to work.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
3,809
Solutions
1
Reactions
27 13,684
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I would very much like our tankers to not burn to a crisp when PKK decides to lob an ATGM over the Syrian border to their M60A3. Development of a new tank and production of Altay can go hand in hand.
Nope, no need to go there. Upgrading existing tanks and +250 new Altays will be enough for the foreseeable future.

250 Altays+300+ upgraded Leo2s+150+ existing M-60TM Sabra+ 300 M-60TR (national upgrade for M-60A3). Total 1000 frontline tanks with APS.
 
Last edited:

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,129
Reactions
21 18,707
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
I understand what you guys are saying, but to me it sounds like limiting ourselves just to continue r&d. Look at how many tanks and armoured vehicles that have been lost in Ukraine since start. Do you really think the amount we’re talking about will suffice ? I honestly don’t think so. I think there should be a permanent production no less than 4 a month. We can always donate it or sell it as 2nd hand. What matters imo is the continues production while retaning production and development capabilities.

Unfortunately too many think like you and we’re probably going to br stuck with just barely enough, maybe living on the edge is what will keep our blades sharp.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,013
Reactions
64 7,326
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
It is important not to learn the wrong lesson from Ukraine war.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,281
Reactions
28 4,053
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
. Look at how many tanks and armoured vehicles that have been lost in Ukraine since start.

For sure MBTs and Howitzers have incredible fire power but battles aren't just going on land.


Armed force of Ukraine has been lack of air force. They have use just land vehicles. İmagine if they had proper air force, AFU could strike tank and artillery battalions from sky.

Bayraktars aren't rapid enough to strike.

Please look at the brimstone missiles with EF. Even EF is used against land forces.
5JNTS4U4ORFARGKGXUYHTIVABU.jpg

bew-cas.gif


Currently we have Kızılelma, Hürjet, Hürkuş . imagine stealthy and rapid KE loaded with Antitank missiles, how could devastate enemy land forces such as MBT, IFV, howitzer and artillery.

Even Hürkuş is very fast antitank aircraft.

Tho we have produced 350 STA which nightmare of MBTs.

On the other hand currently Turkish economy is not good, they have to spend money wisely.
 
Last edited:

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,129
Reactions
21 18,707
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
For sure MBTs and Howitzers have incredible fire power but battles aren't just going on land.


Armed force of Ukraine has been lack of air force. They have use just land vehicles. İmagine if they had proper air force, AFU could strike tank and artillery battalions from sky.

Bayraktars aren't rapid enough to strike.

Please look at the brimstone missiles with EF. Even EF is used against land forces.
View attachment 63072
View attachment 63073

Currently we have Kızılelma, Hürjet, Hürkuş . imagine stealthy and rapid KE loaded with Antitank missiles, how could devastate enemy land forces such as MBT, IFV, howitzer and artillery.

Even Hürkuş is very fast antitank aircraft.

Tho we have produced 350 STA which nightmare of MBTs.

On the other hand currently Turkish economy is not good, they have to spend money wisely.
I hear what you are saying and I agree, but haven’t several members pointed out that the economic woes can’t have big impact on our defense. I may be simplifying the issue, but I believe that we need to push through with some of these projects. Also if we sign for 100 jet engines it doesn’t mean we pay it all up front, we pay based on delivery and if we sign for 100 F404 and receive 2 a month that would mean 24 a year, and if some of them are produced domestically then it won’t even be pure cash out of the country.
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,380
Reactions
79 16,388
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
I understand what you guys are saying, but to me it sounds like limiting ourselves just to continue r&d. Look at how many tanks and armoured vehicles that have been lost in Ukraine since start. Do you really think the amount we’re talking about will suffice ? I honestly don’t think so. I think there should be a permanent production no less than 4 a month. We can always donate it or sell it as 2nd hand. What matters imo is the continues production while retaning production and development capabilities.

Unfortunately too many think like you and we’re probably going to br stuck with just barely enough, maybe living on the edge is what will keep our blades sharp.
The concepts for the usage of tanks are gradually changing. TSK like most armies relied on tank saturation during conflict. The recent operations in Syria proved that this concept is wrong . In Ukraine the situation is also not much different. You throw armor into the meat grinder and get the same result using the same tactics over and over again. I think tank usage in future will be very different than what we see now.

I don't think we will see the long line formations of tanks going simultaneous anymore. 50-60t of steel, costing a couple of million of dollars, 4 men crew inside, all shredded to pieces 5-10 units at a time is not a wise thing to do. We must get out of the WW2 mentality. That's why intensive work on UGVs with dual use (manned option) is going on. Other than that, I am apologizing for the usage of cynical words but to be killed in a Leopard 2A6 and an M48 by the "meat grinder" 1000$ drones is like the same for me. The money we spend on technologically advanced products must be spend wisely. Doctrine and training must evolve by adapting according to the trends. Technology and tactics must go hand in hand in order to achieve good results. Thanks God TSK is out of the rock head cold war mentality and is looking to the future.
 

godel44

Active member
Messages
112
Reactions
8 393
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The concepts for the usage of tanks are gradually changing. TSK like most armies relied on tank saturation during conflict. The recent operations in Syria proved that this concept is wrong . In Ukraine the situation is also not much different. You throw armor into the meat grinder and get the same result using the same tactics over and over again. I think tank usage in future will be very different than what we see now.

I don't think we will see the long line formations of tanks going simultaneous anymore. 50-60t of steel, costing a couple of million of dollars, 4 men crew inside, all shredded to pieces 5-10 units at a time is not a wise thing to do. We must get out of the WW2 mentality. That's why intensive work on UGVs with dual use (manned option) is going on. Other than that, I am apologizing for the usage of cynical words but to be killed in a Leopard 2A6 and an M48 by the "meat grinder" 1000$ drones is like the same for me. The money we spend on technologically advanced products must be spend wisely. Doctrine and training must evolve by adapting according to the trends. Technology and tactics must go hand in hand in order to achieve good results. Thanks God TSK is out of the rock head cold war mentality and is looking to the future.
I think the concept of one advanced manned platform surrounded by multiple unmanned platforms of different functionality will be prevalent in the future. Right now that is the plan for 6th generation fighters in the airforce, but it will probably also be the case with the navy and the land force. The next iteration of Altay should be smart, advanced in self-protection, low in number, and mainly concerned with orchestrating a herd of UGVs. Similar to how Kaan will direct Anka-3s. Maybe the future iteration will not even need a cannon on its own as the shooting part is outsourced to a suitable UGV.
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,380
Reactions
79 16,388
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
I think the concept of one advanced manned platform surrounded by multiple unmanned platforms of different functionality will be prevalent in the future. Right now that is the plan for 6th generation fighters in the airforce, but it will probably also be the case with the navy and the land force. The next iteration of Altay should be smart, advanced in self-protection, low in number, and mainly concerned with orchestrating a herd of UGVs. Similar to how Kaan will direct Anka-3s. Maybe the future iteration will not even need a cannon on its own as the shooting part is outsourced to a suitable UGV.
We already discussed this before and I think this is going to be the way they are operated.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,013
Reactions
64 7,326
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Aren’t those prices outdated?

afaik, 14-15 millions per unit are the latest price. But iirc, I read somewhere once upon a time BMC or Otokar promised they will produce Altay for the same price as the original K2. Which was at the time just under 10 millions.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,281
Reactions
28 4,053
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Guys This doctrine is already dead in the modern battlefield.
Screenshot_2023-11-19-12-15-09-270-edit_com.google.android.apps.docs.jpg

images (2).jpeg

Doctrinal-Template-Example-Combat-Formation-of-a-Motorized-Rifle-Battalion-in-the.png



images (3).png



images.jpeg

images (1).jpeg

images (1).png
 
Last edited:

Ravager

Contributor
Messages
1,032
Reactions
3 1,167
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
In Ideal world when heavy EW are not present a couple of mother control unit with a host of slaved UGV to do the heavy lifting is ideal ...the question is when the EW were so prevalent and the only thing workings is good ole stick and gun .. what is the back up means ??
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,129
Reactions
21 18,707
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
Tanks are not obsolete. And as such I’d rather have modern tanks in the inventory that old oudated tanks. Especially if it means we retain production capability.

The difference between you can make it yourself vs. How do we make it. Just like Hurjet and KAAN if we didn’t have F110 and F404 could ee make it ? Today, now. The answer is no, simple as that.
 

I_Love_F16

Contributor
France Correspondent
Messages
724
Reactions
10 1,516
Nation of residence
France
Nation of origin
France
In Ideal world when heavy EW are not present a couple of mother control unit with a host of slaved UGV to do the heavy lifting is ideal ...the question is when the EW were so prevalent and the only thing workings is good ole stick and gun .. what is the back up means ??

You are right. It will be difficult or even impossible to use these UGV's effectively in an intense Electronic Warfare environment.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,281
Reactions
28 4,053
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
İf someone uses EW, you could use your Counter EW weapons.

İf UGVs are vulnerable from EW , EW sources are more vulnerable from being detected.
Thus let's make go war with old m48



On the other hand EW could harm old manned MBT's.

ssb2.jpg

You seem to have forgotten, soldiers and old tanks still use Radio for connection!!! What would their radios do under EW attack?

images (1).jpeg


Modern MBT's don't have remote control devices however they still have chips, electronics. What if the enemy attacked from microwave guns?

Currently, Existence of EW technologies is not big threat for UGVs as the EW devlces are expensive and they have limited usage .


Could Russians cover all Ukrainian airspace with their EW weapons?

Could you attack on all Turkish topography with EW devices?

Against UGVs , EW could be used like very short air defense systems which have own vulnerabilities.

Should we give up purchasing manned fighter aircrafts just because The enemy has Air defense systems?

Should we stop using Korkut CIWS because the enemy has EW weapons?

Turkish Army knows its job. Considering limits of Old and High-end technogies , Mixed Hybrid doctrines there will be.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,013
Reactions
64 7,326
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
When it comes to EW people only think about electronic attack. When in fact a large percentage of EW is silent SIGINT.

Manned vehicles can maintain complete radio silent hence not giving up its position. While UGV needs data link to function. Which not only expose the UGV but also the C2 vehicle. And if you are detected you can be hit.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,129
Reactions
21 18,707
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
If new tank doctrin involved UGV, would LOS infrared communication not be part of it.
Something like a diamond shape or maybe just 1-2 UGV for each tank/IFV.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,281
Reactions
28 4,053
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
UGV's are not remote controlled toys. The UGVs could fullfil the missions autonomously while manned MBTs keeping their positions due - to lost of radio connection.

I don't think our enemies are capable of large area signal suppression.
On the other hand if the being detected is a big problem, MBTs radio connection also emits signals which could be easily detected.
 
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom