Medic2
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 0
Greetings all. First time poster here, long time browser. Look forward to future discussions with everyone here.
So like many Turks I am very excited about the new toys Turkiye is developing. The other day however, I found somebody making what seemed like good arguments against why Altay may not be such a great investment. I'll be honest I am not educated enough on the topic to really form my own arguments or opinions against what some others may have to say, so I was hoping some of the knowledgeable folks here could come up with some counter arguments with what this gentleman had to say. I am quoting "Methos" from a forum you can find on your own by searching a quote.
This is not my argument, but I thought it a very good one to bring to this forum so I sincerely apologize if this is a bad move on my part.
Is there any need for 1,000 Altays?
No, there isn't. Just take a look at the neighbour countries of the Turkey... Syria, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Georgia, etc. all have a smaller number of tanks and for most of these countries also much older models. For having the regoinal hegemony already ~500 to 750 modern tanks should be enough. If we take into account that the Turkish forces have ~350 Leopard 2s (which Aselsans wants to modernize) and 170 M60Ts, then there isn't any defence political reason to buy more than 300 Altays max. But developing a new tank for just producing 300 of them is not very clever.
The Turkish army is just bloated, because they are stuck in a Cold War mentality (i.e. they operate a far too lage number of tanks of which many are nearly completely obsolete. During the Cold War West-Germany operated more than 5,000 tanks, the USA more than 13,000 tanks and the Soviet Union operated more than 50,000 tanks. But these times are over; curremtly Germany operates some 300 tanks, the USA have some ~5,000 tanks in service and Russia some 7,000 tanks. With 1,000 Altays, 350 Leopard 2s, 170 M60Ts and still some Leopard 1Ts and M60A3 TTS (I doubt that the Altays will completely replace the M60A3 TTS') the Turkish army is disproportional big.
Is there any reason why some export costumer should buy it?
No, there isn't.
The traditional buyers of Turkish arms all have already bought a modern third generation tank (UAE for example have the Leclerc, Malaysia the PT-91, Pakistan the Al-Khalid) or don't want to buy any (like the Phillipines).
Even if some country were interesting in buying a new tank, where the new and "unproven" (e.g. regarding reliability & ballistic gaps) Altay would still need to prove itself against the much more established designs like the Leopard 2, T-90, M1 Abrams, Leclerc, etc.
The Leopard 2 for example has a great advantage thanks to it's large userbase alone which means that much more money is invested in order to develop upgrades and much more upgrades exist than for other tanks. The Leopard 2, T-90, M1 Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leclerc all have been fitted with different engines in the past. For all these tanks uparmour kits for urban combat were made. And the costs for a replenished second hand tank are much lower than buying a new tank.
Is the Altay programme a good programme?
From the financial point of view it is not. The Turkish government is investing a huge amount for R&D and also bought South Korean technology, while there aren't much chances to export the tank. I.e. the Turkish government has to pay all the costs alone. Producing a smaller number of tanks under licence would have been a much more logical decission.
The Turkish armoured forces have many places where improvment is possible (like motorized and mechanized infantry), but the money is instead "wasted" on buying too much tanks.
From the defence political point of view it is also not a good programme. Surely introducing newer and more modern vehicles in order to replace older ones is a good idea and increases the strength of an army, but buying 1,000 new tanks while already having 500 modern and ~900 partial modern tanks (FCS) is not a good idea, if 750 modern tanks would already be more than enough to take on every neighbour country, Unless the Turkish army is preparing the invasion of their neighbour countries, they waste money.
The programme sets out to a develop modern MBT, and as decades old MBTs can still be considered modern simply because no serious/game-changing advancement has been made in MBTs there is no point in developing a significantly different MBT which is risky.
There were many game chanigng advancements. Not many advancements have reached service yet, because the big tank bulding countries don't have the money to create completely new tanks (except Russia atm). But compare the modern tank programmes which were canceled due to costs from Germany, the UK, the U.S. with the Altay... then you'll see that the Altay is lacking the advancements of the past decades (but the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Challenger 2 don't have them either). But sooner or later these countries will put their next tank into service between 2020 and 2030. The Russians are currently developing their Armata tank based on their previous tank programme and are expecting to finish the development 2013. Just compare the Altay with the Armata tank and you'll see what is expectable from a modern tank.
As for you comparison with leopard 2, Altay has a few features that Leopard 2 does not and that's modularity of it's Armour and Hydropneumatic suspension.
None of these features cannot be found on other tanks (like.
Besides the "modularity of the armour" doesn't mean that the armour is fully modular. It is not, the base armour is still semi-modular with some armour modules attached to it. That's nothing special, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 can also reach this degree of modularity. In Altay the chassis and turret housing are made with integrated armour, on real fully modular vehicles (like the EGS and somehow also the Valiant) there is no armour integerated into the chassis/turret housing and thus more weight can be put into the armour modules.
Regarding the hydropneumatic suspension - it's nothing new. Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams (among others) might not have it, but it is not going to be the advantage which makes up the export costumer's mind. Other tanks also have hydropneumatic suspensions. The U.S. and the FRG used a hydropneumatic suspension for the MBT-70 during the 1960s! In case of the Leopard 2 some prototypes even had it.
So like many Turks I am very excited about the new toys Turkiye is developing. The other day however, I found somebody making what seemed like good arguments against why Altay may not be such a great investment. I'll be honest I am not educated enough on the topic to really form my own arguments or opinions against what some others may have to say, so I was hoping some of the knowledgeable folks here could come up with some counter arguments with what this gentleman had to say. I am quoting "Methos" from a forum you can find on your own by searching a quote.
This is not my argument, but I thought it a very good one to bring to this forum so I sincerely apologize if this is a bad move on my part.
Is there any need for 1,000 Altays?
No, there isn't. Just take a look at the neighbour countries of the Turkey... Syria, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Georgia, etc. all have a smaller number of tanks and for most of these countries also much older models. For having the regoinal hegemony already ~500 to 750 modern tanks should be enough. If we take into account that the Turkish forces have ~350 Leopard 2s (which Aselsans wants to modernize) and 170 M60Ts, then there isn't any defence political reason to buy more than 300 Altays max. But developing a new tank for just producing 300 of them is not very clever.
The Turkish army is just bloated, because they are stuck in a Cold War mentality (i.e. they operate a far too lage number of tanks of which many are nearly completely obsolete. During the Cold War West-Germany operated more than 5,000 tanks, the USA more than 13,000 tanks and the Soviet Union operated more than 50,000 tanks. But these times are over; curremtly Germany operates some 300 tanks, the USA have some ~5,000 tanks in service and Russia some 7,000 tanks. With 1,000 Altays, 350 Leopard 2s, 170 M60Ts and still some Leopard 1Ts and M60A3 TTS (I doubt that the Altays will completely replace the M60A3 TTS') the Turkish army is disproportional big.
Is there any reason why some export costumer should buy it?
No, there isn't.
The traditional buyers of Turkish arms all have already bought a modern third generation tank (UAE for example have the Leclerc, Malaysia the PT-91, Pakistan the Al-Khalid) or don't want to buy any (like the Phillipines).
Even if some country were interesting in buying a new tank, where the new and "unproven" (e.g. regarding reliability & ballistic gaps) Altay would still need to prove itself against the much more established designs like the Leopard 2, T-90, M1 Abrams, Leclerc, etc.
The Leopard 2 for example has a great advantage thanks to it's large userbase alone which means that much more money is invested in order to develop upgrades and much more upgrades exist than for other tanks. The Leopard 2, T-90, M1 Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leclerc all have been fitted with different engines in the past. For all these tanks uparmour kits for urban combat were made. And the costs for a replenished second hand tank are much lower than buying a new tank.
Is the Altay programme a good programme?
From the financial point of view it is not. The Turkish government is investing a huge amount for R&D and also bought South Korean technology, while there aren't much chances to export the tank. I.e. the Turkish government has to pay all the costs alone. Producing a smaller number of tanks under licence would have been a much more logical decission.
The Turkish armoured forces have many places where improvment is possible (like motorized and mechanized infantry), but the money is instead "wasted" on buying too much tanks.
From the defence political point of view it is also not a good programme. Surely introducing newer and more modern vehicles in order to replace older ones is a good idea and increases the strength of an army, but buying 1,000 new tanks while already having 500 modern and ~900 partial modern tanks (FCS) is not a good idea, if 750 modern tanks would already be more than enough to take on every neighbour country, Unless the Turkish army is preparing the invasion of their neighbour countries, they waste money.
The programme sets out to a develop modern MBT, and as decades old MBTs can still be considered modern simply because no serious/game-changing advancement has been made in MBTs there is no point in developing a significantly different MBT which is risky.
There were many game chanigng advancements. Not many advancements have reached service yet, because the big tank bulding countries don't have the money to create completely new tanks (except Russia atm). But compare the modern tank programmes which were canceled due to costs from Germany, the UK, the U.S. with the Altay... then you'll see that the Altay is lacking the advancements of the past decades (but the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Challenger 2 don't have them either). But sooner or later these countries will put their next tank into service between 2020 and 2030. The Russians are currently developing their Armata tank based on their previous tank programme and are expecting to finish the development 2013. Just compare the Altay with the Armata tank and you'll see what is expectable from a modern tank.
As for you comparison with leopard 2, Altay has a few features that Leopard 2 does not and that's modularity of it's Armour and Hydropneumatic suspension.
None of these features cannot be found on other tanks (like.
Besides the "modularity of the armour" doesn't mean that the armour is fully modular. It is not, the base armour is still semi-modular with some armour modules attached to it. That's nothing special, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 can also reach this degree of modularity. In Altay the chassis and turret housing are made with integrated armour, on real fully modular vehicles (like the EGS and somehow also the Valiant) there is no armour integerated into the chassis/turret housing and thus more weight can be put into the armour modules.
Regarding the hydropneumatic suspension - it's nothing new. Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams (among others) might not have it, but it is not going to be the advantage which makes up the export costumer's mind. Other tanks also have hydropneumatic suspensions. The U.S. and the FRG used a hydropneumatic suspension for the MBT-70 during the 1960s! In case of the Leopard 2 some prototypes even had it.
to 
