Register here

Author Topic: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family  (Read 2585 times)

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1828
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2018, 01:47:11 am »
You are putting the operators of sensor-carrying RPVs in the thick of it. RPVs, by their nature, are reliant on information networks to receive and transmit. The existence of that network means you can keep human operators in a relatively safe environment (not in the middle of an MBT knockabout). This also frees you from the need to provide extra armoured volume in your vehicle, allowing for a smaller vehicle. Or you can replace your human sensor operators with artificial intelligence for data fusion, to provide the turret crew a shortcut to situational awareness. I repeat, why carry the scouts?

Actually, you bring up an interesting point.  Why have humans in the vehicle at all?  Why not make it an unmanned ground vehicle?   That way, armoured volume would be reduced considerably and you could increase the armour value substantially without necessarily increasing the size of the vehicle.   Removing the humans is the way to go.   However, you would face substantial resistance from the Tank crews who would want to be there, securing their vehicles at night when they largar.  You would need extra crew, for maintenance and refuelling/rearming tasks.   This is the way of the future IMO, not resorting to ancient, non-functioning MBT-70s and XM803s.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1828
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2018, 01:55:05 am »
First trying reading, as it was always a new vehicle. Never once exclaimed a new MBT-70. A better turret was depicted in one of the earliest postings.

Cameras and eyepieces allow backward driving. Cameras replace all separate turrets from now on and will always be remoted, basic knowledge. Cameras render the position of any crewman open. Even a driver can search for targets.

Technology such as fire out of battery (FOOB) using magneto rheological dampers (www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p012453.pdf ) and or precisely controlled varaible hydraulic servovalves  http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a155304.pdf) should allow a tank to deal w/ artillery levels of recoil.

As mentioned the scouts would be in back of only one in three vehicles same a Merkva and mostly assigned to UGV/UAS
control rarely leaving the vehicle to scout. The skies will be filled w/ opposers UAVs. So actually leaving the vehicle is risky.

The only relevant issue raised is the gear box.  Contractors need to be held to account on a new propulsor basis for heavy vehicles as all current generally render the vehicle overall as impractical in the future simultaneous close and far fight.

An 'in hub' combustion engine/generator possibly along the lines of the detonation (vs inefficient deflagration based combustion) 'wave disc' fuel to electricity engine/generator would be something to look at. Elimination of the gearbox w/ some 'in hub' solution is necessary.  Gearboxes and conventional engines are killing armored vehicle development. Some short sighted solution like those being proposed will render the vehicle obsolete before it enters service. Niche improvements does not make a practical vehicle in the long term.

PS: Current NGCV proposals seem inferior to old low profile FMBT, and Future Combat System Tank (FCST) proposals. Mounting a 140mm gun might define a rethought low profile tank as a unmanned armored recon tank to protect the Close Combat & Indirect Fire Vehicle (CIFV).

So, basically you are suggesting that the US Army should build a completely new vehicle using untried and untested technologies which you hope will work in 20 years time (which is when it would be fielded)?

Excuse me.   As I have just pointed out, you're not thinking far enough ahead. You are building your hopes on old ideas.  The way of the future you have aluded to is "unmanned".   Remove the human crew entirely and automate the vehicle entirely.   That way the armoured volume can be reduced substantially and the thickness of the armour can be increased.   The technology for initially remote and then autonomous control of the MBT is available here and now.  Coupled with robots, you could remove humans from the battlefield entirely.    You need to think wider and further than you have thus far.  Instead of relying on outmoded views you could have a real world beater.   Of course you might have to overcome the resistence of the "Warrior" caste...

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2117
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2018, 02:26:19 am »
Why have humans in the vehicle at all?  Why not make it an unmanned ground vehicle?
Autonomous sensor-carrying drones, fusion of data broadcast by those drones - both feasible with current technology. I have some doubts about the vulnerability of information networks in combat. Whether you stop at autonomous sensor-drones or go the whole way with unmanned or even autonomous fighting vehicles, communication with assets is necessary to keep track of what's going on. Reliance on information networks can be reduced with autonomous assets - but where do you stop?
I believe that an unmanned ground vehicle would be a step too far - for one, I think you would need AI to overcome network vulnerability and I don't think AI has progressed enough. More importantly, I don't think we should proceed in that direction - I find the idea of unmanned MBTs scary.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1074
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2018, 06:03:05 am »
Why have humans in the vehicle at all?  Why not make it an unmanned ground vehicle?
Autonomous sensor-carrying drones, fusion of data broadcast by those drones - both feasible with current technology. I have some doubts about the vulnerability of information networks in combat. Whether you stop at autonomous sensor-drones or go the whole way with unmanned or even autonomous fighting vehicles, communication with assets is necessary to keep track of what's going on. Reliance on information networks can be reduced with autonomous assets - but where do you stop?
I believe that an unmanned ground vehicle would be a step too far - for one, I think you would need AI to overcome network vulnerability and I don't think AI has progressed enough. More importantly, I don't think we should proceed in that direction - I find the idea of unmanned MBTs scary.
Where do you stop on autonomy? Might agree that AI MBTs are scary.. AI that overcomes network vulnerability possibly scary. Halting progress when others do not is also always scary. Plenty of experimentation and maybe time.

NGCV is a large caliber (doesn't specify 152mm or 155mm) Direct Fire/Indirect fire 40ton vehicle it appears. These concepts have the combat profile of a skyscaper. Ammo is probably why, thus the need for better gearbox/engine/generator.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/science/Singleton.pdf
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 07:04:17 am by jsport »

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2117
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2018, 11:44:25 am »
I remember reading about the automatic shooting rigs on the East German border for the first time, somewhere in the early seventies. They were there to kill anyone who wanted to cross into West Germany. At the time, I thought you would have to be monster to be involved with those in any way. It's what I still think.
As far as I'm concerned, AI  MBTs are in the same category.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10880
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2018, 12:48:20 pm »
I remember reading about the automatic shooting rigs on the East German border for the first time, somewhere in the early seventies. They were there to kill anyone who wanted to cross into West Germany. At the time, I thought you would have to be monster to be involved with those in any way. It's what I still think.
As far as I'm concerned, AI  MBTs are in the same category.

Not any different than a mine field morally.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2018, 01:05:11 pm »
It's different in that an AI MBT can move whereas a mine field cannot.  Also, minefields tend to be labeled to deter people from going near them.

Did we all forget the lessons of movies?  AI weapons are a bad idea, plain and simple.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10880
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2018, 02:49:29 pm »
It's different in that an AI MBT can move whereas a mine field cannot.  Also, minefields tend to be labeled to deter people from going near them.

Did we all forget the lessons of movies?  AI weapons are a bad idea, plain and simple.

What Arjen described sounded more like a gun turret that you put in a fixed location and assign to guard the area.



I'd agree that AI weapons that aren't narrowly defined in mission might not be a good idea.  AI used to, say, enable a swarm of micro UAVs to take out a tank battalion would be acceptable IMO.  But air-dropping a few hundred EATRs in Iran and saying, "go have fun", yeah, not a good idea.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 02:53:36 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline skyblue

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #38 on: August 07, 2018, 03:18:16 pm »
Did we all forget the lessons of movies?  AI weapons are a bad idea, plain and simple.

Movies are literally fiction.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2018, 04:34:33 pm »
Did I reference "Terminator"?  No.

I am talking about the proliferation of hacking and general AI instability.  If you have a tank rolling around that either get's hacked or just goes haywire, then there will be serious problems.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10880
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2018, 05:22:30 pm »
Did I reference "Terminator"?  No.

I am talking about the proliferation of hacking and general AI instability.  If you have a tank rolling around that either get's hacked or just goes haywire, then there will be serious problems.

Agreed.  The notion of MQ-25s landing in China at the push of a button does not give me a warm fuzzy.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1828
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2018, 10:03:50 pm »
What is interesting is the difference between "Western" and Japanese ideas on AI and Robotics.

In the West, the views of AI and Robotics are coloured by movies - Terminator, a score of "hacker" movies, Skynet, etc.   We look at AI and Robotics as scary, potentially anti-human, too easily "hacked" and taken over.

In Japan, they are staffing hotels, hospitals, etc. with robots.  They perceive them as useful adjuncts to human activity.  No on has been hurt, no one has been killed by a robot.  It is closer to Asimov's ideas of how humanity would use robots than Hollywood's.

My view is that autonomous AI controlled robotic vehicles, some armed with weapons are inevitable.  Man will seek to use the knowledge he has gained in creating self-driving cars to help create weapons which can be used on the battlefield.   Tanks are merely an effective way of doing that.  They are large enough and easily enough to be automated - all they require is an effective AI to control them.   Autoloaders already exist.  With driverless cars, effective AI drivers already exist (although a bit too primitive to be effective IMHO on a complex battlefield).  "Hunter-Killer" systems exist.  All that is required is an effort to bring all these desperate systems together into a coherent, cohesive whole.

Remote control will be difficult because of bandwidth limitations, as well as enemy efforts to interrupt them.  ECM and ECCM will become commonplace.   Until those problems are addressed, AI will be easier to create and build.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 896
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2018, 10:15:09 pm »
lol... hotels with robots don't have MASSIVE FKING GUNS
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2117
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #43 on: August 07, 2018, 11:38:25 pm »
I am not against integrating AI in society, but I would like it to be restrained by something like Asimov's robotic laws. I don't want AI to have the option of killing people - period. I hate land mines for very personal reasons, but I have the same revulsion of them, something man-made, taking the decision to kill - and being DESIGNED to do so.

It's bad enough humans having the urge to kill people, creating a new kind of intelligence with the purpose of killing is worse.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 11:48:31 pm by Arjen »

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1828
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2018, 03:57:49 am »
lol... hotels with robots don't have MASSIVE FKING GUNS

I think you are mistaking the point I am making.

In the West, robots and AIs are relatively rare.  In Japan they are far more common.