Thanks Slowman for the link!
+Japanese+main+battle+tank+Japan+Ground+Self+Defense+Force+(6).jpg)
via JiJi.com
What do the Japanese know that we don't?
I've been waiting for advanced armor out of China for awhile now...could they have eyes on something that causes concern for them? The Type 10 is relatively new yet they're already looking at a replacement? Something strange is going on.
via JiJi.com
The appeal to the German side the small size and high mobility is a characteristic of the 10 Tank of GSDF state-of-the-art, to explore the possibility of joint development of the successor to the Type 90 and Leopard 2 in the future.Google Translate struggles with Japanese...as a matter of fact it handles Mandarin much better...but the gist of the article points to the Japanese and Germans working on the next gen MBT. Again, the translation is sketchy but it looks like they're going to do studies with the idea of joint development/production.
What do the Japanese know that we don't?
I've been waiting for advanced armor out of China for awhile now...could they have eyes on something that causes concern for them? The Type 10 is relatively new yet they're already looking at a replacement? Something strange is going on.
Its probably the case of Germans developing a new tank and Japanese paying for development .
ReplyDeleteBingo. The resulting tank would be a Leopard that incorporates specific Japanese requirements, namely the dimension and weight(Must not exceed 50 tons). Japanese understand that Germans build better tanks than they do, so it's a lot cheaper to just pay 50% of next-gen Leopard's development cost and obtain a production license than try to develop an indigenous tank that would be comparable to the next-gen Leopard in capability, which would obviously cost much more than a Leopard.
DeleteWhy would say that, the T10 is a very nice tank, it includes some pretty significant improvements over previous generation tanks and in addition to all the other land vehicles designed in japan, has proven they are more than capable of designing decent military vehicles.
DeleteNope, they are looking at replacing/supplementing the Type 90 which entered service in 1990. They are considered too heavy for most of Japan except Hokkaido.
ReplyDeleteThe Type 10 and perhaps its MkII development that they are working on with the Krauts will replace the Type 74 and be geared to more mobile forces.
Rather than have 70-ton tanks that can't travel over most bridges in the world, it looks like they are looking at offering a tank with the lethality of a Leopard II, but light enough to be deployed in an A400. I am guessing they will be looking at active defense systems to make up for the lack of armor.
This could be very similar to the Polish PL-01 development. Medium-weight tanks with heavyweight lethality
Solomon
ReplyDelete> What do the Japanese know that we don't?
This is Japan's way of stretching limited defense funding to buy more weapons. Since this new militarized Japan would need twice as many equipment as the old post-war Japan with only a modest increase in defense budget, the Japanese solution is to enter joint weapons development agreements with other countries to spread cost and build an economy of scale, so that Japan could buy twice as much equipment for same amount of money.
The lesson for the US DoD is that US weapons programs wouldn't be so expensive as they are now if weapons could be developed and bought with its NATO allies on 50:50 co-funding bases. Of course this would require a compromise of capability, but a slightly compromised weapons system is better than a cancelled weapons system due to skyrocketing cost of sole funding and procurement.
Multinational programs are not always cheaper, and the type 10 was not that high compared to certain other countries (nato countries...), it came out to I believe around 500M. Unless they think they can build a significantly better tank, they are probably better just getting more T10s.
DeleteWe did that with Germany with the MBT-70, the project became more expensive with compromise and both nations ended developing and settling for the Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks.
DeleteToday, we have the F-35 as an example of co-funding, guess how the progress of that is going.
I'm sorry, but compromising tends to leads to expensive shit that leaves everyone unsatisfied. It isn't always the case, but it usually is.
Moving on, if the USA were to develop a new tank and wanted to work with another nation, I'd honestly hope that nation would be Britain. The Abrams, after all, was the first tank to feature chobham armor which the Brits developed, so I think it is safe to say we would see eye to eye much better compared to other nations.
Although I bet the Brits would miss being able to use HESH rounds unless they figured out how to make them work for smoothbore barrels.
And there is the Eurofighter which is astronomically expensive and not yet fully operational, also the failed collective naval projects (the horizon destroyer, the carrier). And don't forget the a400m, and the aerobus tanker. I think it would be few and far between when it comes to successful multinational armament programs.
DeleteEven the AN70 had its problems!
The Type10 production numbers got cut by something like 1/2 if I remember right, now they are talking about designing a replacement? Sounds like there might be some problems with it they don't want to admit, or some design flaws, and they realize they can design a significantly better one.
ReplyDeleteOr they are going to use this as an excuse to strike down article 5, which I believe prohibits export of weapons as well, which will allow them to publicly procure 'offensive weapons'.
There is a misunderstanding on the Type 10. The Type 10 is a coastal defense tank, not a main battle tank. The Type 10's role is to line up along the coast line and open fire on approaching enemy landing force, not to wage a tank to tank warfare.
ReplyDeleteAs a main battle tank, the Type 10 is deficient in firepower and in armor, and Japan never built a competitive tank before, going all the way back to the WW2 days. Accordingly, it would be cost-prohibitive for Japan to build a competitive MBT because Japan is not a particularly good tank builder.
A coastal Defence tank ?....wouldnt they be better off having an armored tracked vehicle with anti ship missiles for bigger ships and TOW's for those pesky landing crafts ?
DeleteHow is a 120mm cannon, the same Rheinmetall cannon the Leo2 and Abrams carries, deficient in firepower?
DeleteIt's not a coastal defense tank since, well, Japan has more coastline than tanks.
This is going to be used to counter attack invasions along with Maneuver Combat Vehicles while Type 90s hold down Hokkaido.
Anyway, I'd love to see the armored corps of the East Asian Nations and USA adapt to limited spaces and islands and logistical problems. Its a new challange for the Tank wallahs, a challange they'l be ready to accept.
DeleteIf the Japanese are to truly contribute to and generally aid US efforts to contain China, they dont need a new tank, they need the kind of vehicles that the USMC has been crying out for soo long......they need to partner up with the US or the Koreans wo come up with light wheeled or tracked vehicles that can be a truly mobile force. I am sure even the current Type-90 will have no problems engaging chinese MBT's provided the japanese get any where near Chinese Coastlines or the Chinese get near Japanese Coastlines. None of the above mentioned countries actually want or have envisioned proper mainland invasions if each other. What they have envisioned is Island grabbing of the very fast nature. I am talking multiple task forces going out to these multiple chains of islands and taking them within as short a timeframe as possible to minimize ASEAN unity and international response. The much touted ADIZ expansion by the chinese caught everyon off gaurd, its this kind of speed that any nation who wants to partake in land grabbing will have to do.
ReplyDelete