Jump to content

Who's winning the tank war?


Recommended Posts

The Type 10 is insanely networked, and it's likely this is a big contributing factor to its high cost. Developing the data radios and network infrastructure necessary to achieve that kind of networking capability requires practically pouring money into it, as it happens.

For example, the tanks in a platoon share targeting information and vehicle status between each other and can track up to 8 targets simultaneously between them, which means the platoon commander can theoretically automatically direct the fire of all four tanks at once.

PS: The "nanocrystalline steel" thing is apparently a mistranslation from what I've heard, and it's actually just referring to powder metallurgy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2018 at 3:47 AM, Saint_Fuller said:

The Type 10 is insanely networked, and it's likely this is a big contributing factor to its high cost. Developing the data radios and network infrastructure necessary to achieve that kind of networking capability requires practically pouring money into it, as it happens.

For example, the tanks in a platoon share targeting information and vehicle status between each other and can track up to 8 targets simultaneously between them, which means the platoon commander can theoretically automatically direct the fire of all four tanks at once.

PS: The "nanocrystalline steel" thing is apparently a mistranslation from what I've heard, and it's actually just referring to powder metallurgy.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing or both? Networking capability is a great thing when it works, but it also adds a new vector of vulnerability. Hack or degrade it and you're back to the "stone age". Sure there is the old school way, but if you trade numbers for advanced tech and don't practice the old tech ways enough and you get degraded you're hosed. The question becomes do you have the money and resources to concentrate on both or just one at the expense of the other?

As an example, before all the fancy tech of today cashiers used to be able to count change. Today the fancy networked cash machines at a store does all the work. If they go down sales stop as the operators stand around not knowing what to do, nor do the managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, db_zero said:

Is that a good thing or a bad thing or both? Networking capability is a great thing when it works, but it also adds a new vector of vulnerability. Hack or degrade it and you're back to the "stone age". Sure there is the old school way, but if you trade numbers for advanced tech and don't practice the old tech ways enough and you get degraded you're hosed. The question becomes do you have the money and resources to concentrate on both or just one at the expense of the other?

As an example, before all the fancy tech of today cashiers used to be able to count change. Today the fancy networked cash machines at a store does all the work. If they go down sales stop as the operators stand around not knowing what to do, nor do the managers.

The whole idea behind the Type 10, in my opinion -- is that they do not need numbers. Japan's terrain is simply not tank country. I can imagine the cyber security on those things is top notch. Military hardware generally has fairly high standards of encryption. I am sure that the time and effort that is require to "hack them" would be less effort than the crew to fall back to radios -- maybe even flares and flags. Hopefully they have better training than cashiers.

Snarkiness aside, I do think that they went a little too overboard with the electronic toys, on this one. Funny enough, from what I read the C4I was one of the first, and most paramount, requirements for the design. Knowing the Japanese, I can imagine all the electronics are domestically designed and manufactured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are legitimate issues with the Type 10, which are mostly the consequence of the JSDF insisting on cutting down the weight for bridge passability across Japan, to avoid a situation like with the Type 90 only getting deployed to Hokkaido because the bridges elsewhere couldn't handle it. For one, it has no side armor on the turret, and the engine output is a relatively small 1200hp (which is compensated for with some really wild automotive voodoo, granted). The autoloader capacity is also likely smaller than Type 90, given the tank's overall small dimensions.

All the networking stuff is there to augment existing capabilities and make tanks more effective by improving things like fire coordination and C4I at all levels, and so the JSDF can avoid issues with C4I bottlenecks in the future by integrating all the capability they need in their shiny new kit. Maybe they went a bit overboard with the electronic toys by having things like bustle sensors to share ammunition status with the rest of the platoon, but overall, what they've tried to do with it is perfectly sound.

Ultimately, what I want to say is...
If a Type 10 were to lose access to all its fancy networked C4I systems because the entire company's nets are getting jammed into oblivion or something, it's only going to be brought down to being a regular modern tank, which still leaves it a perfectly capable tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Saint_Fuller said:

the engine output is a relatively small 1200hp

1200hp for 40/48 t compared to Abram's 1'500hps for 65t and counting...

17 hours ago, db_zero said:

Hack

Has anyone heard about a single tank having been successfully hacked or it's day dreaming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1200hp for 40/48 t compared to Abram's 1'500hps for 65t and counting...

Eh.

The Abrams started at ~27 hp/t specific power in the M1, at 54 tonnes. 11 tonnes of armor upgrades later, it's down to ~24 hp/t.

The Type 10, at 48 tonnes in its combat-ready configuration, starts at about 25 hp/t of specific power. It's better than the current Abrams sure, but not by much, and if they start adding more armor (like, say, to get some protection on the currently entirely bare turret sides), the power-to-weight ratio is only going to drop further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. I fully understand your point about improvement potential but if they start putting on weight they'll come back to Type 90 - something they specifically wanted to avoid designing Type 10. So may be they consider this as a low risk...
  2. They may have a potential to uprate the diesel as well.
  3. By having no armour your mean it's mostly add-on laminate? If I'm not mistaken Merkava 4 has the same configuration as well - very little armour at the "citadel" core...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are seeing a similar armor configuration to the Merkava. Thank you IMHO, I've never known what the actual Merkava turret looks like. A very smart design. 

Thanks Squarehead as well, everything is starting to make sense now (Besides the heavy focus on networking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IMHO said:

Has anyone heard about a single tank having been successfully hacked or it's day dreaming?

Never heard of it, and I think what he meant is that the radio frequency platoon/company level communication could be spoofed. Ie. Black Lotus convinces a Type-10 that it is receiving target information from platoon leader -- the target information being false. Mayhaps, receive RF packets, decrypt them, and find out critical info about the platoon's orders, friendly targets, IFFs, etc.

Just playing devil's advocate. It's a day dream, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Artkin said:

Is this a Command And Conquer reference? :D

I'm just a peasant. Can I have some shoes?

16 hours ago, IanL said:

It would be vastly easier to jam the signals so no one can talk.

I would think so. I'm curious which frequency band they would use or if their electronics can switch (bit rate, modulation, filters, etc.), in case of jamming. I think it may be less vulnerable to jamming than ordinary radio communication. Even the most rudimentary of digital wireless devices require acknowledgements and checksums. I'm sure they also have ambient statistical logging of SNR and will retry on a set of, previously agreed-on with the receiver, frequency bands.

I am sure modern jamming is much more sophisticated, than just mimicking noise on a specific band. But then again, I'm hoping a 10 million machine, built for the 21st century, has a few tricks up its sleeve.

17 hours ago, Artkin said:

So we are seeing a similar armor configuration to the Merkava. Thank you IMHO, I've never known what the actual Merkava turret looks like. A very smart design. 

Aye, I think that'll be the new standard for tanks, going forward. Swapping out armour packages would simplify logistics, repair and add flexibility to any chassis. I even see them doing this now with the Puma and CV-90.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

I would think so. I'm curious which frequency band they would use or if their electronics can switch (bit rate, modulation, filters, etc.), in case of jamming. I think it may be less vulnerable to jamming than ordinary radio communication. Even the most rudimentary of digital wireless devices require acknowledgements and checksums. I'm sure they also have ambient statistical logging of SNR and will retry on a set of, previously agreed-on with the receiver, frequency bands.

I am sure modern jamming is much more sophisticated, than just mimicking noise on a specific band. But then again, I'm hoping a 10 million machine, built for the 21st century, has a few tricks up its sleeve.

This isn't how radios work anymore. US radios at least. Everything is highly encrypted, and the channel switches every 4 seconds. They're pretty hard to jam and impossible to eavesdrop on unless someone physically gets their hands on a radio that is part of the net they want to listen in on. Even then, they likely only have a few hours until the radio is no good to them anymore.

Digital communication is damned near impossible to jam/hack, and is just as difficult to listen in on as conventional radios. The only downside to digital comms is they are not as plentiful as conventional radios and they tend to be links to higher command elements, not platoon/company level. Though it is possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Storage boxes, on the glacis?  :rolleyes:

I said yellow boxes, if you want to play the pedantic nitpicking game.

Regardless. The parts in yellow represent modules that act as spaced armor, namely storage boxes on the turret side and a steel plate on the glacis. The red parts are the actual special armor modules.
If it was all special armor, there'd be no need to separate the modules by color, would there?

Edited by Saint_Fuller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

Are you sure about them not being armor? They look very much like Leclerc/Leo spaced armor modules.

I am quite sure that they are in fact storage bins (that do act as spaced armor, granted), yes.

Exhibit A. Visible hatches on the storage bins.

Exhibit B, a different type of bin without hatches, but with hinges at the top. I expect they open similarly to the Leclerc's bins.

Exhibit C, showing the same type of bins from Exhibit B, including the hinges at the top and what I assume are handles at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

So what we are concluding is that it is spaced/stand-off armour of unknown thickness, but apparently of no special composition, with storage boxes built into the voids.....Perhaps excepting on the glacis?

They're just storage boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...