Posted on 03/27/2009 4:59:25 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
World just not into U.S. battle tanks anymore
WASHINGTON — The end of U.S. dominance over the main battle tank market has been projected.
A leading U.S. consultant asserted that non-U.S. MBTs were expected to dominate the global market over the next decade. In a report, Forecast International asserted that MBTs from China, Pakistan and Russia would account for most of the market through 2018. "In terms of sheer numbers, Forecast Internat ional expects Pakistan's Al Khalid, the Type 98 of the People's Republic of China, and the Russian Federation's T-90 — including India's licensed T-90S production program — to continue to dominate the market, representing 60.57 percent of all new tanks rolling out worldwide, and accounting for 52.28 percent of the value of the market, through 2018," the report, titled "The Market for Tanks," said.
Both Al Khalid as well as Type 98 have been offered to Middle East clients. In 2008, Al Khalid underwent trials in Saudi Arabia while Type 98 was presented to Sudan.
"Last year, the Chinese Type 98 program maintained its position as the single largest new-production program," Forecast said. "Yet, with a total value of $395.79 million — for 116 new-production tanks — the Type 98 program was worth only about 27.11 percent what the U.S. DoD spent on the M1 Abrams in 2008."
In its annual analysis, the Forecast International Weapons Group, based in Newtown, Conn., asserted that the U.S.-origin Abrams and the German-origin Leopard MBTs would set the standard for the market. The report said the United States would spend most of its MBT budget in maintaining and upgrading the MBT fleet.
"In the congested streets of Iraqi cities, the Abrams serves as a significant force multiplier, fully up to meeting the challenges of an asymmetric warfare environment," Forecast said.
In 2008, U.S. Defense Department contracted nearly $1.5 billion for the maintenance, reset and upgrade of the M1A1 fleet. Forecast said this marked more than 46 percent of the total value of all new-production main battle tanks entering the international market in 2008 — nearly $3.17 billion.
In all, more than 6,500 MBTs, worth nearly $27 billion, were expected to be produced through 2018. Forecast said modernization and retrofit would remain a significant component of the international market.
"The expense associated with the modernization and retrofit of high-end main battle tanks pales in comparison with the prospect of new tank procurement," Forecast said. "Thus, FI expects new production of high-end tanks to remain relatively low, accounting for 14.9 percent of all production and 24.22 percent of the value of the market during the forecast period."
In modern warfare, just about the last place you want to be is in a tank.
Says US battle tank, drinking alone at the bar.
Tanks fer nuthin.
Have US battle tanks EVER dominated the global market?
Sure, they’ve dominated the battlefield, thanks to forward-thinking technology, troop training and experience.
But, the Russians have exported so much heavy equipment over the last 50+ years, have the US tanks ever matched up in numbers or revenue?
Unlike the Soviets, with their base model/monkey model exports, the US is very careful about to whom our advanced equipment is sold.
No kidding. I guess all those burned out hulks strewn across the desert just were not enough of a lesson.
Plus, are we going to sell M1A2 to Pakistan or Chad? Don’t think so.
They used to say that during the Vietnam era.
And it was true - Now, I disagree.
Thunder Run.
Heck, you can squish a annoying protester with an armored bulldozer. Works real good.
AC on high. Check.
Head phones on Alternative Indi Rock. Check.
RayBan’s, clean and bright. Check.
Sip of coffee. Check.
Liberal protester in front of blade. Check.
....push both controls forward.
During my time in Ramadi, nothing said “I am here!” like the presence of a fire-belching, armored behemoth blocking a main road.
I wonder what our resident Tread-Head FReepers would say of M1A2 versus Type 98 and T-90S? We’re probably getting exactly what we pay for - and so are they...
“A movin’ foxhole attracts the eye”
(Willie to Joe in Bill Maulden cartoon)
I like how you think.
Would substitute AC/DC for indy-rock, though, but driver’s preference...
Who sells more units, Hyundai or Mercedes?
Except if you control the air. MBTs have been very good places to be if you are an Israeli, American, or even a Russian. It has been said for twenty years that the MBT's day is over, but I say that the rumors of it's demise are greatly exaggerated.
MBT's cannot operate on their own without placing themselves at great peril, but that has been true since 1941.
Did you forget who is in the White House?
That clown is liable to do anything...
Pakistan almost agreed to purchase the M1A1. General Zia and the US ambassador to that country died in a plane crash/explosion after witnessing field trials of the tank.
CAVE ADSUM!
(LOOK OUT HERE I COME!)
cc
While an M10A2 is not invulnerable, it is nearly so in asymmetric warfare when properly accompanied by mechanized/dismounted infantry.
As far AS I know, we lost more M1-AX hulls to accidents in Iraq than we did to enemy direct fire. I am aware of only one hull loss to an IED.
Personally I would ‘feel’ quite safe in an American MBT, part of a well-trained unit, in ‘modern’ warfare.
Took me a minute to figure that out. LOL
Up Sarge, and thanks for you service.
“I wonder what our resident Tread-Head FReepers would say of M1A2 versus Type 98 and T-90S? We’re probably getting exactly what we pay for - and so are they...”
The M1A2SEP is far superior to the Type98 and the T-90.
The M1A2SEP’s new thermal sight provides a 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification over the thermal sights used in the M1A1.
Our MBTs are useful for fighting an army. Most MBTs are for keeping the civilian population in check. And they are quite adequate for that purpose.
Yeah, put some humugus speaker out and play ‘Hell’s Bells”.
I could see that.
What I mean by “modern warfare” is where the enemy has modern weapons. Iraq is hardly a good example of that.
Give our enemies or finest tanks and then stand those up against our anti tank weapons.
Tank dead.
I here you, but the tank has been getting pronounced dead since the advent of the 37mm anti-tank gun.
It all depends on who you are up against.
A modern army not so good.
A typical third world’s tyrant army not so bad.
Dec. 23, 1944 - "Battle of the Bulge" - An entire U.S. armored division was retreating from the Germans in the Ardennes forest when a sergeant in a tank destroyer spotted an American digging a foxhole. The GI, PFC Martin, 325th Glider Infantry Regiment, looked up and asked, "Are you looking for a safe place?" "Yeah" answered the tanker. "Well, buddy," he drawled, "just pull your vehicle behind me... I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are going."
The latest MBTs that I have seen have pro active armor, reactive armor, travel and track at maximum speeds with devastating accuracy.
I'd stay with the armor until someone shows that they can defeat US MBTs in actual combat, rather than theory. - without control of the air.
Thank you for your posts - bill
And therein lies the KEY.
With air superiority many things are possible.
With air supremacy many more things are possible.
Our tanks are unmatched in the field both due to their own expertise and capability, as well as not having to contend with an enemy that has control of the air.
USAF! LIVE IN FAME OR GO DOWN IN FLAME!
Wrong. Tanks are a valuable asset to an army. Armor + firepower!!!
Good for a WWIII style conflict, bad for a subnational conflict and occupation.
As a paratrooper, I love tanks. They draw fire.
...away from me.
Read my posts in the thread and tell me exactly how I’m wrong.
Currently UAVs like the Predator are much in the news. Within the next few years look for stories about UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles) -- remote-controlled vehicles that consist of treads, sensors, a machine gun, and a couple of missiles. Much less armor needed because no crew to protect. Can be made much cheaper, so for the same money as one tank you can buy a swarm of UGVs.
Bullet sponges.
Dozers don’t generally require an operator to “push both controls forward” for movement, but I get your point.
But what happens if you are robbed of that electronic unmanned capability by jammers, hackers or EMP bombs? The good old tank comes in, and man-operated machines work best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.