.jpg)
 |
| Main battle tank Type 99 Entered service 2001 Crew 3 men Dimensions and weight Weight 54 t Length (gun forward) 11 m Hull length ? Width 3.4 m Height 2.2 m Armament Main gun 125-mm smoothbore ATGW 9K119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) Machine guns 1 x 7.62-mm, 1 x 12.7-mm Elevation range ? Traverse range 360 degrees Ammunition load Main gun 41 rounds Machine guns 2 000 x 7.62, 300 x 12.7 Mobility Engine diesel Engine power 1 500 hp Maximum road speed 80 km/h Range 400 km Maneuverability Gradient 60% Side slope 40% Vertical step ~ 0.8 m Trench ~ 3 m Fording ~ 1.2 m Fording (with preparation) 5 m The Type 99 main battle tank is a further development of the Type 98 MBT. It is generally similar to the Type 98, but has a number of improvements. The Type 99 was revealed in 2000 and entered service with the Chinese Army in 2001. Only a limited number of these MBTs are operational (approximately 200), because of the high unit price. This main battle tank shows a mixture of Russian and Western influence in it's design and technology. The Type 99 MBT features improved armor protection over the Type 98. Turret of the Type 99 has a Leopard 2A5-style wedge-shaped modular add-on explosive reactive armor. Damaged sections to be replaced or upgraded when more advanced armor is available. It is claimed that the front protection of the Type 99 MBT is equivalent to 1 000 - 1 200 mm of steel armor. Vehicle is equipped with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems. This main battle tank is fitted with unique active laser protection system, which uses a high-powered laser to disrupt missiles laser or infrared guidance signal, disable enemy observation optics and damage eyesight of enemy gunner. This active laser protection system can also be used against helicopters. The Type 99 tank is armed with a fully-stabilized ZPT98 125-mm smoothbore gun, fitted with a carousel-type autoloader. Both the main gun and the autoloader were copied from the Soviet/Russian designs. The Type 99 has a rate of fire in 8 rpm using autoloader and 1 - 2 rpm loading manually. It fires APFSDS, HEAT and HE-FRAG rounds. It is reported that this MBT also uses more capable APFSDS rounds with depleted uranium penetrators. The Type 99 main battle tank is compatible with Russian 9K119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) gun-launched anti-tank guided missiles, fired in the same manner as ordinary projectiles. China produces this anti-tank missile system under license. This missile has a maximum effective range of 4 - 5 km and can target helicopters. Four AT-11 Sniper missiles are carried. Secondary armament consists of 7.62-mm coaxial machine gun and 12.7-mm anti-aircraft MG. Unusual feature for main battle tanks is a laser communication device. It is mounted behind commander's hatch and is used for a line of sight information transmission. It can send encrypted text, data or voice messages. Furthermore it is used for friend or foe identification. This system has an effective range of 3 600 m. Tank can also be fitted with GPS receiver for navigation and positioning. The Type 99 has a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver. Hull of the Type 99 MBT is very similar to the Soviet T-72, but is one meter longer. Vehicle is powered by a turbocharged diesel engine, developing 1 500 horsepower. This engine is based on the German MTU 871 Ka-501 technology. The Type 99 has a high power to weight ratio and subsequently good mobility and cross-country performance. It is worth mentioning that the hull of the Type 99 is very similar to that of the Soviet T-72 main battle tank. External fuel tanks can be carried at the rear of the hull for longer range. Some of the Type 99's technologies were used to upgrade Chinese Type 96 main battle tanks. Variants Type 99G, sometimes referred as Type 99A2. It has a number of improvements, related with fire control, targeting and countermeasures systems. Type 99 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com |
Quite honestly I've been looking and waiting for a major announcement from the Chinese when it comes to their tank programs but none so far.
I don't know why. Could it be that the Chinese see the tank at the end of its development cycle? Could they believe that the tank has no place on the future battlefield?
Again. I just don't know. What I do know is that China is at least a generation behind the Western powers and they're not keeping up with the BRIC countries...most notably Turkey when it comes to armored development.
In the Pacific region the ZTZ-99 is clearly inferior to the Singaporean's Leopard 2+, Japan's Type 99 and Type 10, Australia's M-1 Abrams and S. Korea's K-1. They're probably on par with tanks found in service with Vietnam and Thailand and only clearly outpace the financially cash strapped armor found in the Philippines Army.
I'm still digging but this is an area where the US and its allies are clearly ahead. If China were to find itself in mechanized combat against any of the regional Pacific powers, it should find its tanks overmatched.
UPDATE: Could the future for Chinese armor be found in their imitation Stryker Brigade? Particularly in the ZBL09 Assault Gun (think MGS except that it works)? If their main focus is on operations in the Pacific Rim...with value placed on combined arms...especially if they're looking at a Infantry centric mechanized force then the move to all wheels and an assault/infantry support gun system makes sense. Time will tell. Below are pics of the ZBL09 taken from a Chinese photo site.
Tanks are an awesome tool.
ReplyDeleteBut you dont use a hammer to chop down a tree or change a motherboard.
Chinas massive tank armies are, odd, in the least.
Its difficult to wonder who they would be used against.
Wheeled 20t vehicles make far more sense for china, given its vast distances, and loss tolerance.
Type 99 meet M829E3
ReplyDelete"Chinas massive tank armies are, odd, in the least.
ReplyDeleteIts difficult to wonder who they would be used against."
against india. russian RVIA have hundreds of tac nukes in far east to repel china invasion of any scale.
Anon
ReplyDeleteYeah, drive a tank over the Himalayas, thats not doomed to a bitter, frost bitten, failure.
Vladivostok is an easier target, ten thousand tanks seems overkill...
Thing is, they have thousands upon thousands of Type 96s, and 300+ Type 99s. The Chinese know they can overwhelm anyone they fight with sheer numbers, so why bother having comparatively few kick-ass tanks when you can have lots of ok ones.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Chinese Army, for the most part, has missed out on the last decades modernization funding, with the Lion's share going to the Air Force and Navy.
It all depends upon whom the Chinese will fight against. Facing a potential land power like India, PLA doesn’t necessary enjoy quantitative advantage. Between US and PRC, the war will be fought and win in the sky and on the sea. Armor force is not decisive factor.
DeleteChina has a very active tank program. They are working with several new models as technology test bed. One comes with a 150mm cal. class weapon that can shoot BLOS guided round to overmatch any western MBTs. I don’t see US is investing money in her heavy armor.
ReplyDeleteAt least on paper, PLA now possesses advanced combat vehicles: 155/54 Type 05 (PLZ05) SPH clearly outguns Paladin, Type 05 (ZBD05) amphibious fighting vehicle uses advanced water jet propulsion. Too bad we abandoned EFV and AAV is so out classed by the Chinese.
Philippine Army armour ... words you couldn't mix. The PA doesn't have any heavy armour. M-113, Cadillac-Gage V150 and a few Scorpio light tanks. Compare with, say T98, it's like the Manny Pacquiao fight.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese-made armour can hit targets downrange, say, 3k meters. What's the range of the Scorpio's light gun? No contest.
Hey Sol,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Western technology counter to PLA's laser-blinding system? This is going to be the biggest threat to any anti-armour forces.
quite honestly i hadn't heard of it. i knew dazzlers were used against pilots but i knew nothing about the use against armored vehicles. google searching now.
DeleteIt's not being utilized to blind human eyes. The laser device on PLA's tank is a counter ATGM device, to render missile's guidance useless.
Deletewhat about the latest fire and forget models. does that confuse them?
DeleteJavelin uses IR seeker. I am not sure how effective is laser interference. It may be useful to against optical tracked ATGM such as TOW, which is NOT Fire and Forget either. Latest TOW variant is wireless, but the shooter still has to aim the target until impact.
DeleteI don't know how accurate this is but:
DeleteThe Type 99 also incorporates the countermeasures system first seen on the Type 98. The system comprises a laser warning receiver (LWR) and an active laser self-defence weapon (LSDW). An active countermeasure, the laser would be used to attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner. The LWR detects that the tank is being illuminated by an enemy range-finding or weapon-guidance laser, which results in a alert to the vehicle crew. The LSDW is then employed against the source of the enemy laser. While the primary purpose of the LSDW would be the impair the capability of the enemy's targeting equipment, engaging it against a vehicle periscope or weapon optic could also damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-99.htm
Filters, MMW seekers, variable frequencies, GPS/INS primary with laser terminal guidance, etc.
ReplyDeleteZTZ-99 is NOT the latest type of Chinese Main Battle Tank. The new type is called ZTZ-99A2 (Type 99A2) which is a heavily updated version of ZTZ-99, almost can be looked at as a whole new type of tank, and China is developing its next generation MBT.
ReplyDeletehttp://asian-defence-news.blogspot.dk/2011/12/chinas-new-type-tanks-unveiled.html
REALLY? LOOK AROUND! you don't think that i know of the various subsets? ZTZ-99 covers the entire family. you can break it down into the type 99A2, type 99G, type 99A2 but guess what.
DeleteI DIDN"T NEED TO. this was a blog post to let my readers get a general, limited idea of what the chinese are up to. its not an intel brief to the battalion before they go up against the chinese horde.
If you are going to be an asshole about it, you put a Type 96 in the article.
DeleteAsshat.
I come from China. The most interesting is, after I read all your comments, why you always "assist" China to find some potential enemy? Why we must have a enemy?
ReplyDeleteIn Traditional Oriental system, emperor got a right to rule the unified China is one's ultimate aim, after that, sons of him rule the dynasty minly want to keep peace.
We are not western people, never think about "conquer". Just want to get the chance of war to the least level, make sure at least we cannot be striked by the United States, or invaded again by Japanese and protect us from being threated by Russia, whatever it is your enemy or friend, communist or capitalist.
Acturally we usually think you are nearly impervious or impenetrable, a little bit ridiculous that you think you put tons of warhead aim at us, put nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers just off our shore, harrass day by day, equip any peripheral country, you think that is reasonable, when China develop smething fro basic defence need, you say Oh China is very dangerous that threat the stability or equilibrium of the Asia-Pacific zone.
Most funny is Australia, we bought so many wheat, ore from them, did nothing but enhancing friendship, their policy turn to "involve" the Asia affair, or I can summarize that is "When China want to do something, we must make their government, their citizens unhappy". I just cannot get the idea why you do this.
We never put nuclear-submarines off your shore like aggressive Soviet Union, we produce product makes you consume them at a lower price, we buy your bond, we purchase your ore, oil, high-tech product(and something you don't sell even if we want to buy), I cannot figure this. Yes we think US is a potential enemy because U has always been playing aaggressive role, when someday, insulter turn into a miscreant, we must have bar, rod, shield to protect us. we were robbed by you 100 years ago, now don't want that happen again.
hey!
Deletethat is certainly one viewpoint. but i beg to differ. remember the Chinese war against the Vietnamese? China invaded because it wanted terriitory. the issue with the Spratly's? pushing around an almost defenseless Philippines? China is hyper aggressive and its people are nationalistic. i don't mind because everyone should be proud of their country. all i'm saying is that your country steals, undercuts, doesn't play by international rules and is basically a creation of western greed. the only reason why it continues to rise is because of greedy capitalist and a foolish consumer. one day we will go to war and it will be a sight to behold.
Hi, I am a Chinese. Every war has a cause, and the cause of the Sino-Vietnamese is more complex than the simple assumption of China wanting Vietnam's territory. The fact is we had almost reached Hanoi, and then retreated. While Vietnam would definitely portray China as having being "defeated", the reason we did not destroy all of Vietnam is that China merely wanted to punish Vietnam, just like US wanted to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait. The end result of the first Iraqi war, as we could see, is that Iraq exchanged oil for food. It is definitely a good deal for the US.
DeleteOk back to the Chinese business. Vietnam invaded and occupied Cambodia in 1978, and removed the Chinese-backed government. Vietnam, at the same time, claimed it's military power to be ranked 3rd in the world. Vietnam had also been causing troubles at the China-Vietnam border. Vietnam, then, was seen as backed by the Soviet, a COMMON ENEMY of both US and China at the time. It was seen as Soviet's attempt at extending its own influence.
DeleteBefore I proceed, let's discuss what is justice? Is there a fixed definition set in stone? The answer is, of course, no. In the international arena we all know that it's victors' justice. And who are the victors? A country that had won a small war? No, victors' justice is USA's and its allies' justice, because it is the closest thing to a hegemonic power. China was not condemned by the US for its Sino-Vietnam war, because the US was notified by China beforehand and acquiesced to her action.
DeleteDo you think China would be allowed to attack Vietnam without much international reaction had her goal being the seizing of territory? Vietnam, as much as China, was part of the divided international community. Destruction of Vietnam would have touched the bones of many interest groups. China had no reason to face the wrath of the world, and China certainly DOES NOT NEED Vietnam's land.
DeleteI had not researched much to the Spratly issue, but from what I remembered it was contested. The islands were previously occupied by Republic of China force, during a storm, the ROC people pulled back to avoid the bad weather, it was during this time of unattendedness when the Philippines put their forces on the islands. I could be wrong, and you are free to disagree with me, but my point is that you shouldn't assume too much "truth". There are only facts, and the fact is that China did not want Vietnam's territory, and Spratly remain contested, it does not formally belong to either China or Philippines, both countries claim ownership, and it's none of third-party's business until it is settled. During the course of its settlement you are welcome to get involved and please be prepared for any reaction caused. That's international politics, every country that has enough influence will participate in that game. Victors' justice today dictates China is a threat, but a threat to what? It is the threat to their interests, what interests? Well, as a Chinese, whose country doesn't have any overseas bases, its concept is beyond me. Perhaps it's the trade route that they are guarding for? Perhaps they think one day when China became strong it will invade the rest of the world like Germany and Japan used to?
DeleteHonestly, there are just so many trading routes available, if US took all of it and decided to block China, China would be dead. And perhaps it is precisely what the US fears in return. So, China wants to survive, so are the rest of the world, but the problem is, the US keeps portraying China as a threat, that is not healthy. Yeah sure, we had human right problems, but it is getting better, though painfully slowly. What can the rest of the world do? Topple the government? Well you had to face 1.3 billion refugees. If the Chinese people couldn't get enough to eat, because their government was destroyed thanks to some Western intervention, now they will really invade those southern countries. Now, are you going to kill them off, conducting a genocide? But they are not professional army, they are just hungry refugees (probably with weapons)!! And they are "defenseless".
DeleteSo my conclusion is, you view of China had been too simple edging on naive. Your understanding of the complexity of international affair is not apparent. Thinking in linear terms, though quick and easy, will probably result in the wrong conclusion and misleading your readers. While it is your right to exercise your freedom of expression, I do believe you should be responsible for the things you spill out. Complete freedom for everyone means anarchy and no guarantee of anything, it is a contradiction to human needs. So, don't hold so much prejudice against China, think more, think each country as a person and think their acting on the basis of self-preservation, perhaps you would become more agreeable to China then.
a famous Chinese military strategist once stated that a complex plan fails 1000 times when a simple one will succeed every time.
Deleteyou are an apologist, a history re-writer and you attempt to make complex what is in fact simple.
China is a communist country that is taking advantage of western greed and stupidity to advance faster than it should. nothing complex about that. its just the facts.
The Japanese just our largest ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo offense but just reading this blog seems...very bias. The Chinese Type-99 has been repeatedly listed as one of the top 10 most advance MBT to date. It is fast, reasonably and if not powerfully armed and has defenses that would most likely make enemy tanks; blind as a bat. So I am not sure about the rant of China being 'decades behind' since this is not the bloody Cold War here. The only thing we don't know is its armor.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore the comment section here is just utterly rubbish. Seriously the Sino-Vietnam War as a sign of China's aggressiveness? The only reason why China invaded Vietnam was because they thought that Vietnam was actually being a threat to Laos and other neighboring countries. Furthermore the Spratly Islands issue is due to China believing that they owned the area due to Ancestral ideas, this border tensions is still not an excuse to blame China of being a "Bully" especially when MURICA! herself is using her Asian allies (Read: Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Mongolia...) to corner the damn country. There is a good damn reason why China (Russia also) is building up its military and economic power to counter the largely imbalance American Influences in Asia.
Just a side note here, before anyone complains on the Senkaku Island dispute, take a hint, the Japanese Government illegally bought a land area that has already been signed by Sino-Japanese treaties as a neutral zone. Therefore, China has the right to be royally pissed off at Japan, and who wouldn't? the Japanese Government has always shown to be blind, ignorant, nationalistic, rude and being passive-aggressive idiots, such as a certain Shinzo Abe; they almost recently caused war with China for God's sake!