Register here

Author Topic: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family  (Read 2332 times)

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3284
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2018, 07:12:43 am »
May I suggest open a new topic on Warrior AI before going too off topic here?

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2018, 08:32:42 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
How about a NGCV IFV w/ a 105mm CTA and resembling the original GCV concept's heavy side armor.

Online Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2100
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2018, 05:28:32 am »
How about a NGCV IFV w/ a 105mm CTA and resembling the original GCV concept's heavy side armor.
There are the CV90105 and CV90120, private venture CV90-variants fitted with 105mm and 120mm guns. So far, no buyers have been found for either variant.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2018, 07:42:14 am »
How about a NGCV IFV w/ a 105mm CTA and resembling the original GCV concept's heavy side armor.
There are the CV90105 and CV90120, private venture CV90-variants fitted with 105mm and 120mm guns. So far, no buyers have been found for either variant.
Good observation. IMHO opinion the CV90s are too small.

Online Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2100
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2018, 10:50:14 am »
IMHO opinion the CV90s are too small.
Too small for what? For an IFV? Roughly the same size as an M2 Bradley, carries slightly more troops. Or as a light tank?

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #50 on: August 09, 2018, 06:00:10 pm »
IMHO opinion the CV90s are too small.
Too small for what? For an IFV? Roughly the same size as an M2 Bradley, carries slightly more troops. Or as a light tank?
Bradley is smaller than AMPV (roughly what NGCV 40t needs to be in size) and clearly the CV is smaller than Bradley.

Online Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2100
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #51 on: August 09, 2018, 11:04:30 pm »
Again, why do you think CV90 is too small? I would guess that would depend on what it's used for. AMPV is smaller than a Terex Titan, but that has a different mission.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1803
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2018, 05:55:18 am »
CV90:

Weight   2335 tonnes (Mk0 to MkIII)
Length   6.55 m
Width   3.1 m
Height   2.7 m
Crew           3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Passengers 8 troopers

M2 Bradley:

Weight   27.6 tonnes (30.4 short tons)
Length   21.49 ft (6.55 m)
Width   11.82 ft (3.6 m)
Height   9.78 ft (2.98 m)
Crew             3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Passengers  6 (7 in M2A2 ODS/M2A3) 

CV90 appears to be longer and narrower than the M2.  They appear approximately comparable in weight.


Online Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2100
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2018, 06:48:27 am »
M2 Bradley is wider and higher than CV90, just as long. As already noted - roughly the same size. If CV90 is too small, same goes for M2. I still don't know by WHICH criteria it's too small. In some circumstances, being bigger can be a disadvantage - mobility, posing a target. Bigger generally means more expensive too.

As for big: that's what a fully armoured MBT with a passenger compartment and 150mm gun is going to be, not just for the passengers' sake, but also because of the bigger ammo carried - autoloader mandatory, because a human loader can't handle those big shells. Plus vehicle weight. Think 80, 90 tonnes. Then imagine how to get that to where it is needed - by air, by road, by train?

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #54 on: August 11, 2018, 12:57:34 pm »
NGCV IFV 40-50 ton

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #55 on: August 23, 2018, 04:42:08 am »
Round and round, and round, and around.

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1214
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2018, 10:54:39 am »
As someone old enough to have tried to make the Aurora kit of the MBT 70 tank after the real thing had been cancelled, and also to have commissioned the
wooden model of the XM 803 featured in this thread, as well as loving the Hunnicutt book on the M1 with it great drawings of MBT 70 and XM803 variants, I can only be amused at the idea of anyone revisiting the design today.
The point about the MBT70 was that it was a late 60s whacky product with every possible gizmo and idea added. Reality was the M1 Abrams, which serves to this day.
I am so fond of this time warp that I would add the US MICV projects of 1967 (see Janes Weapons Systems 1972 or so) and the Lockheed Cheyenne gunship helo.
But reality has moved on.
I need my medication so will sign off..

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1803
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2018, 09:27:21 pm »
Speaking of the XM803...  My understanding is that this vehicle did away with the MBT70's 'driver in the turret" design and placed him in the normal, lower front position just behind the glacis.  Is that correct?

How come then all the drawings I've seen of the XM803 have the driver in the turret still?   Does anybody have an accurate XM803 drawing with the driver in the front hull?

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
« Reply #58 on: Yesterday at 01:39:12 pm »
If the Army is truly committed to NGCV Class III a large caliber  (152mm or 155mm) Direct Fire/Indirect fire 40ton vehicle then there will need to be a new 20ton base vehicle (The most important vehicle and replacement for the M1 in the Army's future is a NGCV Class III IMHO.) It would only make sense that a baseline vehicle be used for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OPMFV).

 If the Army can not pay for a new design which can house a 9 person exoskeleton equipped squad plus yet to evolve squad small UGVs (certainly not yet close to evolved and need to be DoD development based not the COTS toys) then they should just look at an extended hull, enhanced turret Bradley mounting armed VTOL UAVs (also needing a DoD development as current COTS is crap) until they are ready for new vehicle. A new propulsion strategy will cost more as well and is also is not on any "on market" vehicle.

A half measure "on the market" OPMFV would be cheaper than a new baseline vehicle and it would also obsolete before it enters service.  Overall that is a more expensive strategy than just waiting to afford a decent vehicle. No 'on the market vehicle" is "Next Generation". That is a joke.

 
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/science/Singleton.pdf
[/quote]