TR Altay Main Battle Tank & Related Programs

[uçuyorum]

So you think Akkor is useless or that its armor was never tested?

No I genuinely ask, want to know failure cases of Altay too, like the most important aspect people talk is when tank is hit, how surviveable it is for crew

 

[Radonsider]

No I genuinely ask, want to know failure cases of Altay too, like the most important aspect people talk is when tank is hit, how surviveable it is for crew

You wont get that info. Seriously no one makes those public, you wont see that data about Abrams apart from some marketing BS

 

[Merzifonlu]

The damn thing will be obsolete and in need of upgrades by the time production models start rolling out.

I think "the tank concept" itself is outdated! What is that concept? Tank = (armored mobile field artillery + armored mobile machine gun mount.)

The main function of armor in this concept is to resist machine gun (or rifle) bullets and artillery shrapnel. The problem arises at this point. In the 21st century, this armor is being attacked with weapons that it cannot resist.

As the armor lost its function, the tank concept also lost its function. End of story.

We need to develop completely different armored concept. However, whatever we develop, still we will need UTKU and BATU power packages.

 

[Sanchez]

In the 21st century, this armor is being attacked with weapons that it cannot resist.

Armor have been attacked by weapons it can't resist since the first Mark I tanks rolled over at Somme in 1916. Never ending battle between armor and anti armor is still inconclusive. In 2024, you still need tanks to advance past enemy positions.

 

[boredaf]

I think "the tank concept" itself is outdated! What is that concept? Tank = (armored mobile field artillery + armored mobile machine gun mount.)

The main function of armor in this concept is to resist machine gun (or rifle) bullets and artillery shrapnel. The problem arises at this point. In the 21st century, this armor is being attacked with weapons that it cannot resist.

As the armor lost its function, the tank concept also lost its function. End of story.

We need to develop completely different armored concept. However, whatever we develop, still we will need UTKU and BATU power packages.

I disagree completely. Good fucking luck to the first country that think likes this and sends its infantry to the field without armour. Not that we are going to see that any time soon, as there isn't a single country out that that agrees with your assessment. Including Ukraine, which would've been at the forefront of that thought experiment if they believed in it instead of asking for tanks and apcs from everyone, since they have fuck ton of anti-tank systems and drones.

 

[Merzifonlu]

Armor have been attacked by weapons it can't resist since the first Mark I tanks rolled over at Somme in 1916. Never ending battle between armor and anti armor is still inconclusive. In 2024, you still need tanks to advance past enemy positions.

We need an armored vehicle to bring infantry closer to the enemy, this is a valid argument. But the name of this armored vehicle does not have to be "tank". A simpler, more compact and more cheaper armored vehicle can also undertake this "mobile shield" function.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The war between armor and anti-armor ended the day V-Shape armor-piercing explosives were introduced with precision guidance. From then on, all efforts were to prevent these V-Shape armor-piercing explosives from reaching the armor. Was there a significant increase in resistance in the armor itself and I wasn't aware of it?

Also, these V-Shape armor-piercing explosives also found an increasing number of ways to reach armor over time. Nowadays, forget drones or artillery missiles like TRLG-230; you can hit a tank with precision guidance even with a short-range ballistic missile! What unconclusived struggle are you talking about?

 

[Sanchez]

We need an armored vehicle to bring infantry closer to the enemy, this is a valid argument. But the name of this armored vehicle does not have to be "tank". A simpler, more compact and more cheaper armored vehicle can also undertake this "mobile shield" function.

You still need firepower to help move the wedge forward, and lots of it. And nothing has been able to replace a dart flying at Mach 5 or a 120mm HE round being fired at Mach 4. And best way to carry the gun that can fire these at those speeds is a tracked vehicle, and you want it armored so that it's not out of action in day one.

I'm a big fan of AMX-10RC and it gives France a great capability in deploying firepower against light armored groups in Sahel. They sent them to Ukraine with months of training. During the counteroffensive, all the downsides of it not being an actual tank came forward. Gun without stabilization, lack of armor protection where even artillery shrapnel caused catastrophic loss of hull. Now they are purely used at the back as a fire support vehicle, because they failed greatly at armor push.

Was there a significant increase in resistance in the armor itself and I wasn't aware of it?

Composite armor, slat armor, APS. They are all protection, hence armor.

Everyone have ideas on how the tank is obsolete, but noone have been able to give it a good idea for a replacement. Because modern MBT is already a compromise on speed, firepower and armor. It's fast, has great firepower and very good armor. You can move these 3 sliders a bit to one direction, but you'll always lose on other sliders. No other upcoming design changes the MBT concept, just modifies it.

 

[boredaf]

Everyone have ideas on how the tank is obsolete, but noone have been able to give it a good idea for a replacement. Because modern MBT is already a compromise on speed, firepower and armor. It's fast, has great firepower and very good armor. You can move these 3 sliders a bit to one direction, but you'll always lose on other sliders. No other upcoming design changes the MBT concept, just modifies it.

I bet the next step is jammers against cheap FPV threats and/or CIWS lite systems against missiles, on top of the APS systems we already have. If the power generation and weight limits allow it, neither should be too hard to implement. In Altay's case, for example, we already have Sarp on top of the turret, replace that with a 7.62 Gatling gun like M134 (to keep it lightweight and high ammo count), put it in a self contained system like we have with STAMP with its own radar and tracking system.

Now, I'm not an expert so I don't know if it can be done, but on paper, it should be doable and that would once again increase the tanks survivability.

 

[Radonsider]

I bet the next step is jammers against cheap FPV threats and/or CIWS lite systems against missiles, on top of the APS systems we already have. If the power generation and weight limits allow it, neither should be too hard to implement. In Altay's case, for example, we already have Sarp on top of the turret, replace that with a 7.62 Gatling gun like M134 (to keep it lightweight and high ammo count), put it in a self contained system like we have with STAMP with its own radar and tracking system.

Now, I'm not an expert so I don't know if it can be done, but on paper, it should be doable and that would once again increase the tanks survivability.

jammers are already done. But a chain-gun like a M230LF is a better choice against the FPV's than a gatling gun

 

[Sanchez]

I bet the next step is jammers against cheap FPV threats and/or CIWS lite systems against missiles, on top of the APS systems we already have. If the power generation and weight limits allow it, neither should be too hard to implement. In Altay's case, for example, we already have Sarp on top of the turret, replace that with a 7.62 Gatling gun like M134 (to keep it lightweight and high ammo count), put it in a self contained system like we have with STAMP with its own radar and tracking system.

Now, I'm not an expert so I don't know if it can be done, but on paper, it should be doable and that would once again increase the tanks survivability.

Koreans are already offering a jammer on the K2EX so yeah.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758466472060559736

 

[Radonsider]

Koreans are already offering a jammer on the K2EX so yeah.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758466472060559736

I wouldnt trust that Mason guy (honestly 9/10 it is BS) but yes jammers shouldnt be a big deal, given that Altay already sports 4x AESA radars for Akkor APS

 

[boredaf]

jammers are already done. But a chain-gun like a M230LF is a better choice against the FPV's than a gatling gun

While I agree it would be better, especially since 30 mm would come with airburst rounds, mine was simply an example to also keep the weight down to not lose any mobility, and, to keep the ammo count high. But if weight wouldn't be an issue, bigger and preferably faster firing cannons would be even better. Just need a system to detect and engage threats really fast, on its own like CIWS.

Koreans are already offering a jammer on the K2EX so yeah.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758466472060559736

The most obvious solution really.

 

[Sanchez]

I wouldnt trust that Mason guy (honestly 9/10 it is BS) but yes jammers shouldnt be a big deal, given that Altay already sports 4x AESA radars for Akkor APS

eh, give me another Korean MIC guy and i'll follow it

 

[Sanchez]

given that Altay already sports 4x AESA radars for Akkor APS

And going back to tanks of the future, when you put 4 AESA radars on an armored vehicle and an APS that costs what, 5-6 million dollars?, putting enough non reactive and composite plates that can stop a RPG-29 is basically a necessity. It needs to be able to stop dumbest short range rockets as well so that you won't lose all that tech easily. That's why very lightly armored fire platforms don't make sense. Look at Gaza. Lots of hits, miniscule number of penetrations. An RPG is nothing for a Merkava or a Namer, but it would make short work of any other armored vehicle.

 

[Afif]

You still need firepower to help move the wedge forward, and lots of it. And nothing has been able to replace a dart flying at Mach 5 or a 120mm HE round being fired at Mach 4. And best way to carry the gun that can fire these at those speeds is a tracked vehicle, and you want it armored so that it's not out of action in day one.

I'm a big fan of AMX-10RC and it gives France a great capability in deploying firepower against light armored groups in Sahel. They sent them to Ukraine with months of training. During the counteroffensive, all the downsides of it not being an actual tank came forward. Gun without stabilization, lack of armor protection where even artillery shrapnel caused catastrophic loss of hull. Now they are purely used at the back as a fire support vehicle, because they failed greatly at armor push.

Composite armor, slat armor, APS. They are all protection, hence armor.

Everyone have ideas on how the tank is obsolete, but noone have been able to give it a good idea for a replacement. Because modern MBT is already a compromise on speed, firepower and armor. It's fast, has great firepower and very good armor. You can move these 3 sliders a bit to one direction, but you'll always lose on other sliders. No other upcoming design changes the MBT concept, just modifies it.

It probably doesn't matter how many times you explain it. I figured, most of us (online defence enthusiast) can't visualize the battlefield in its entirety.

The biggest problem is, we look at the operational picture primarily through the lense of the weapon system/platform's specs and how it fair against threats/anti-systems. Not through the doctirnal role, hence the tactics, technique and procedures these systems/platforms are expected to perform. Thus, our cost-benefit analysis is very narrow and seriously incomplete. Consequently, if any manned system does not have near invincibility, we question its relevance.

Another very big & critical issue that we often miss, or can't visualize, how big of a deal risk acceptance and risk management are for the military planners/field commanders in real world scenarios.

And if we were to pull something out of the battlefield because of its high level of vulnerability and destruction, dismounted infantry should be the first one to go. Light infantry is the most vulnerable asset on the battlefield. Literally, everything out there can kill it.

Yet nobody argues, light infantry should not be on the Frontline.

 

[Kartal1]

I bet the next step is jammers against cheap FPV threats and/or CIWS lite systems against missiles, on top of the APS systems we already have. If the power generation and weight limits allow it, neither should be too hard to implement. In Altay's case, for example, we already have Sarp on top of the turret, replace that with a 7.62 Gatling gun like M134 (to keep it lightweight and high ammo count), put it in a self contained system like we have with STAMP with its own radar and tracking system.

Now, I'm not an expert so I don't know if it can be done, but on paper, it should be doable and that would once again increase the tanks survivability.

The problem with the drones is that it is a fairly new thing especially in the way they are using them after DEASH's example. The technology to counter this threat is also decades old, but due to the reality that there was not a threat like this before, nobody integrated a countermeasure. Also the war in Ukraine is fought with Sovyet technology and when drones came nobody was prepared. I would like to see how a 400, 1000 or even 5000 dollars worth drone will operate in jammed environment. The best thing it can do is RTB. Just integrate a cheap jammer and you are done with this threat. It may be a jammer that is jamming a small perimeter around the tank or a directed jammer integrated into the RCWS. Not a problem. All our new batches of MRAPs are equipped with jammers already so we know it is possible and it will not be something difficult or costly to implement.

In future, drones that have the autonomy to perform missions in EW environment trough AI decision making may be a problem, but again it is nothing that can not be countered. these drones can be effectively countered both trough APS systems as they are not even flying fast (nor the munitions they drop) or other hard kill measures can be implemented again trough the RCWS system of the tank/armored vehicle.

I think many people here are too harsh on the industry and armed forces for still not implementing these countermeasures. It's not tank's fail, but rather the slow bureaucracy and the conservatism within the armed forces (not only TSK). It is always slow with these things.

 

[Sanchez]

And if we were to pull something out of the battlefield because of its high level of vulnerability and destruction, dismounted infantry should be the first one to go. Light infantry is the most vulnerable asset on the battlefield. Literally, everything out there can kill it.

This is a great example. Because at the same time dismounted mechanized infantry is also the backbone of modern maneuver warfare that all countries employ We literally can't have wars without it but they are also indeed the most vulnerable unit type out there.

 

[TheInsider]

Altay is obsolete. Tanks of the 2030s will be inherently different with
3-man crew
50 tonnes of total weight
Smaller volume and lower silhouette.
Autoloader and unmanned turret
Hybrid propulsion
130 or 140mm main gun.
Next-gen internal combustion engines like American ACE opposed piston or MTU 892 Xa

Altay will have a T3 version
The T3 version will have an autoloader and unmanned turret and currently, this is as far as it goes.
If we expand the T3 project we might develop a 130 or 140mm gun for T3 and a hybrid propulsion system but this is limit of Altay.

We can't magically lower its weight to 50 tonnes.
We can't magically lower the total volume/dimensions and silhouette.
We can't magically turn it into a 3-man crew tank.

 

[Afif]

Altay is obsolete.

And we are back to square 1.

 

[Afif]

Altay is obsolete. Tanks of the 2030s will be inherently different with
3-man crew
50 tonnes of total weight
Smaller volume and lower silhouette.
Autoloader and unmanned turret
Hybrid propulsion
130 or 140mm main gun.
Next-gen internal combustion engines like American ACE opposed piston or MTU 892 Xa

Yes, those attributes will make the platform better and more enhanced. But I still don't see how not having those makes Current Altay obsolete. You may call it less efficient but not obsolete. Because, many of the contemporaries will be very much in use and backbone of advanced armies in 2030s like Leopard 2 A8, challenger-3, Markava 4M.