7.5 million for C1, some other website said 8 million

http://www.therichest.org/most-expensive/t...s-in-the-world/

PT-91 was chosen bcoz Poland is the only country that would accept a barter deal with Malaysia. A political decision also plays a part in it. Well at least that was what was said by a Polish member in a tank discussion.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showt...and-video/page3

This post has been edited by azriel: May 9 2013, 11:38 AM

The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof
The new Ground Combat Vehicle weighs twice as much as the tank it's designed to replace,
and it's massive enough to survive a roadside bomb.


The Ground Combat Vehicle U.S. Army

Heavy does not even begin to describe the U.S. Army's new tank. At 84 tons, the Ground Combat
Vehicle prototype weighs more than twice as much as its predecessor, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
The Bradley is designed to carry a six-man squad (and three-man driving crew) into combat, while
the GCV will carry a larger, nine-man squad. Both vehicles will provide covering fire and damage
enemy tanks. But the military has built the new GCV to withstand a kind of threat that didn't exist
when the Bradley was deployed in the early 1980s: improvised explosive devices.

Part of logic behind the new tank's massive size is that soldiers inside a vehicle are more likely to survive
an explosion if there's adequate space for them to wear armor while seated. The extra space also helps
distribute pressure from the blast and thus lessens its impact. Another reason the GCV is so huge is that
it's required to carry a larger gun than the Bradley does; the new tank will hold a 30mm cannon, probably
the 344-pound Mk44 Bushmaster II. Finally, the GCV's extra weight means it will need to be manufactured
from the start with a more powerful engine. (By contrast, the Bradley got heavier as the Army added
armor to it in Iraq, and its original engine wasn't powerful enough to support the extra weight.)

The Ground Combat Vehicle is pretty much the opposite of the original plan to replace the Bradley.
A high-concept proposal called Future Combat Systems aimed to make all U.S. Army vehicles lighter.
But during the long ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (in which IEDs were the top cause of fatalities),
it became clear clear that heavier, not lighter, was the better vehicle design. The U.S. canceled the Future
Combat Systems program, and work on the GCV began in 2009. The Pentagon is scheduled to award the
first contract to manufacture GCVs in 2019.

C1 would be more expensive than that.

Fuuuu... beats the M1A2 Abrams (68Tonnes)

PT. DI's new CN-235 MPA + Winglet freshly painted with the Indonesian Navy livery.









source

This post has been edited by azriel: May 9 2013, 12:24 PM

the T90 did not even make it to the final round , only the PT91 and the T84 are in the finals
and the PT91 was chosen as winner due to parts availbility!

Turkish Tanks Head For Saudi Arabia





May 8, 2013: Saudi Arabia has agreed to buy some of the new Turkish Altay tanks. The exact number has not been revealed but the Saudis do have 320 elderly AMX-30 French tanks in urgent need of replacement. The Turkish Army is planning on buying a thousand of the new Altays for about $5.5 million each. These will be acquired four lots of 250 each and not all may be needed (depending on the regional military-political situation. The Turkish Army currently has 720 German Leopard 1 and 2 tanks, 930 American M-60s and 1,370 American M-48s Most (except for the Leopard 2s) are quite old and need replacing soon. Turkey doesn’t really need 3,000 tanks when half the number of more modern ones would do. Altay is similar to the 338 Leopard 2s the Turks currently have. Most of the rest are Cold War era tanks and rapidly approaching retirement age.

Yet another reason for the Saudis to buy hundreds of Altays is to cement an unofficial alliance with Turkey against Iran and anyone else who might threaten Saudi Arabia and its immediate neighbors. Earlier France proposed replacing the French made AMX-30s with the AMX-56 Leclerc. The 65 ton Altay seems a better fit than the 55 ton Leclerc and Turkey is a lot closer than France.

Moreover the Altay is similar in many ways to the 400 M1 tanks the Saudis have (in service or on order). Both have a 120mm gun, composite armor and high-end electronics. The two tanks are so similar because two years ago Turkey paid South Korea $400 million for rights to much of the technology in the new 55 ton South Korean K2 tank. This vehicle was in turn based on the 1980s K1, which deliberately emulated the M1 design in many ways and did so with the cooperation of the United States. The K1 and K2 proved to be successful designs and the Turks already had decades of experience maintaining and upgrading American M-60 tanks (the predecessor of the M1). With the addition of the South Korean tech the Altay rapidly took shape.

The K2 has a number of new electronic defenses. These include a laser detector that will instantly tell the crew the direction the enemy laser beam is coming from. Most tanks use a laser range finder before it fires its main gun. The K2 fire control system also enables the main gun (120mm) to be used to hit low flying aircraft (helicopters, mostly). There are also numerous improvements to the K1 mechanical and electronic systems, as well as more armor (both composite and ERA). This will make the K2 easier to use and maintain. An autoloader reduces the crew to three men. The Altay is more heavily armored than the K2 and does not use the auto-loader.

Source: StrategyWorld

they seriously thinking of deploying these heavy arses to the battlefield? reminded me of Nazi Germany's super-heavy tank..

that looks neat! still, i prefer combining the CV-90s and Adnan in one mechanized brigade though..

should weight limitation to be a requirement for future purchase of MBT for ATM?

Most likely will.
unless they are suggesting using it only in urban areas.

i agree, we should be looking at combining the CV90t 120mm cannon with Adnan

Also i would equipped adnan with TOW missile if possible

What's the news on our old scorpion and stormer, are they retired ady?

wont.
it were low recoil turret.

I looking for cv90120T with cv90amos.
would be a bonus we get another atgm variant.

we are still using it.

It would be better just to mount a dedicated TOW launcher like they did with the bakhtar shikan because turret mounted TOWs like the M901 are known to be crap

M901 and NM142?

i like Adnan be to like bradley FV, with tow missile

i heard bradley kill more armored vehicle than m1a2 abrams in iraqi war

This post has been edited by hafizushi: May 9 2013, 04:57 PM

the M3 bradley,as a reconnaissance vehicle made first contact with the enemy so its not suprising they had more kills.I doubt most of it was the result of TOW hits.the vehicle needed to be stationary and its take a lot of time to set up the TOW,it is only used during an ambush or fired at stand off range

you have to take into account the human factor,shit like number of kills is grossly exaggerated

NAVAIR : X-47B Completes First Shore-Based Arrested Landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxWTqHiy3RM

Gila babi berat. what kind of dimension will this be ? and them fuel supply.