That’s a negative.
I very slightly prefer the Challenger 1 Falcon, but daaaaaamn that’s sick. What’s the service date for the EMBT program?
The EMBT will never go into service, it’s a testbed for MGCS technologies. The MGCS iteslf is planned to go into service in 2045.
When is the update?
Copefully tomorrow. Each day at 7pm UTC, check for a post on the official site. They will announce it there. Nobody knows in advance.
2 Likes
Personally the abramsX is the only expo tank I think strikes a nice balance
Imagine they design this stuff for looks over function and they still look boring.
Arms design is literally manchildren playing with transformers toys and has been for like 30 years.
And how is that any different from the tank you posted lol?
It would likely take 20 years for the russians to get it in any somewhat usefull numbers, just like the good old T-14 won’t be here in numbers for the next 10-20 years.
It looks as ugly as I look irl, so pretty god damn hidious.
1 Like
You shouldn’t insult the tank like that.
2 Likes
ah cool, I guess there’s time for a CR3/4 glow up before that :P
It actually could drive around and shoot stuff? The fact it’s literally just some stuff jammed together and welded together is the main difference.
EMBT, MGCS and all this are just expo toys. Object 195 and Object 148 are actually intended to reach service when they were designed. They never have been expo toys like PL-01 (the OG example)
It’s not like those things can’t be built, mind you. It’s simply that no country actually wants to buy them.
KF51 has already gone from 130mm and all the fancy stuff to de-facto a 2A4 with some minor improvement to optics, APS and some IT stuff. No different than SEP programs or probably what M1E3 will be.
It’s obvious that T-14 is the closest anyone has at this moment in time to a genuine overhaul that ditches 1970’s vintage hulls and designs.
The product of an intentional (if silly) choice to somehow get both of those to a competitive cost vs a T-90M, which neither of them ever can be. No evidence they couldn’t have been mass produced, simply that it would have been an expense the Russian Federation was unwilling to pay so they didn’t pay it.
Those are the main differences.
8 Likes
The EMBT is very capable of driving lol. The ASCALON is planned to first shoot while mounted in a turret in 2025 iirc.
The EMBT will never enter service but it’s not an “expo toy”. It’s a testbed/prototype.
1 Like
Didn’t say it’s not. I’m sure PL-01 could drive around, since that’s what you get when you take an old hull and weld/tape some stuff onto it. These are more like “private intiative” stuff to try and pique interest on the arms market.
It’s a world apart from Object 148/195, which AFAIK were designed according to government specification with intent to adopt/mass produce.
Closer to Object 640, which was a modified T-80U hull with an empty mockup turret.
Could they make it? Yes. Did they? Sort of. Was it ever going to see service? Time has told us no.
There’s been little difference between those things for a few decades.
No, this Dutch one is:
Spoiler
7 Likes
Have to disagree with that statement.
Leo 2a8 is very real and the new shown leopard is propably the planned 2ax project (leopard 3)
They are supposed as an in between until mgcs
When are we getting the new event?
The petard is finished right?
1 Like
Yeah, the Abrams X at least actually works mostly, it’s a bit fancy but it’s definitely not boring. 30mm and fresh 120 go hard
I don’t think I need to evidence that 195/148 were/are scheduled for adoption.
2A8 is a 2A7V with APS and a M2HB CROWS if I’m not wrong, so more 70’s hulls with some stuff welded on. Nothing new in that regard.
Ok, let’s assume that’s true, doesn’t mean we aren’t looking at an expo toy that looks very little like how the eventual Leopard 3 will look in production. I’d also appreciate some proof that these expo toys are actually planned to be ordered or are designed in response to government requirements.
In any case, it is almost guarunteed the design will be watered down to a 2A9 in effect.
I would bet money on it, I will actually be shocked if any nation besides Russia or China actually adopts something seriously new. (Russia because of the rich soviet legacy of late 80’s radical designs, China because they are de-facto the world’s most capable and strongest economy.)
Oh boy, I’ve heard that story before. Object 188 was supposed to be a somewhat cheap stopgap whilst the big boy designs were in the works… 20 years later and Object 188M is the mass produced variant and it has displaced the designs it was supposed to replace.
Basically all these 1970’s designs were meant to be replaced in 10-20 years. It never happened. They are donkeys, not workhorses and they will stagger on for a few more decades.
Probably yeah.
The thing is, these are uphill sells.
What’s cheaper:
A brand new Abrams which has very few meaningful improvements (relative to the expense) and is mostly designed to reduce fuel consumption and otherwise cut down the material maintainance bill (It also has AI, but AI is a joke right now, see Google’s AI search for more information)
Dragging yet another 1970’s Abrams hull out of storage and replacing the electronics/wiring and slapping some modified composite in the same old slots.
A real head-scratcher, I can’t quite tell what they’ll go for.
Most nations are generally unwilling to foot the bill for something brand new, when they’ve already got something that works especially when it comes to non-expendable hardware.
At this point the US probably spent enough trying to design Abrams replacement as it would have cost to just pick their first replacement design and be done with it.
They said there’s a month break from events, starting now. Enjoy your summer :)
2 Likes