The Late 21st century AFV? Successors to the MBT?

That requires cranes etc to do, plus a suspension equally capable at 40 tons and 100 tons.
Plenty of current AFVs have modular applique armour and they seems to drive fine.

And when does you take an Army tank right off the ramp into a fight? The Marines fight for the beachhead not them.

If it were an either/or with some fiscal responsibility thrown it, I'd take upgrading bridges everywhere to MLC150 all day, sure. And the Army is content with carrying TUSK loaded Abrams around on tak transporters. But how much wear and tear can you save by switching to lighter gears? Okay, maybe grafting stuff on at the staging ground is too much, I don't think applique armour is QD yet, but off ramp seems more reasonable. Fitting in at the main base and load them on train to the FLOT.
 
They're not bad, but they take a lot of careful engineering to be really effective and not stupid fiddly.

But as I mentioned, the downsides are extra support equipment to install, like Cranes or forklifts, plus a suspension that works as well at the unarmored weight as it does at the fully armored weight. If you've ever ridden in an old pickup truck without a load in the bed, you know exactly what I'm talking about with the suspension thing.
Given how many tanks have hydropneumatic suspension, an actively adjustable suspension for different armour layouts seems fairly close to reality already.
 
Plenty of current AFVs have modular applique armour and they seems to drive fine.
There's a major difference between uparmoring ~10% of the vehicle gross weight and uparmoring to "Abrams Frontal Arc protection on sides and rear" levels, which I'm assuming are more like 100-150% of vehicle gross weight.
 
Abrams Frontal Arc protection on sides and rear" levels, which I'm assuming are more like 100-150% of vehicle gross weight.
You are thinking in terms of weight. Think about LOS distance instead. NERA benefits most from composition. A good NERA array can weight much less than that same volume full of steel.
 
You are thinking in terms of weight. Think about LOS distance instead. NERA benefits most from composition. A good NERA array can weight much less than that same volume full of steel.
A NERA array with the same equivalent protection as Abrams front arc? Covering about 5x the area?
 
A NERA array with the same equivalent protection as Abrams front arc? Covering about 5x the area?
I imagine it as
  • A smallish (XM1200/Lynx size) chassi. 30 tons bare skin with internal systems fully equipped. Mixed composite hull ala Bradley GRP (a 27% reduction in weight!).
  • Armata-style remote turret. Fully kitted out with armour from factory. Probably 20 tons without ERA if it needs to meet Abrams frontal turret protection. Maybe 25 if I go with a compact bustle ammo stowage and loading arrangement (ammo count probably 15-20, LP propellant, plus APS ammo and coaxial)
The only places that needs super armouring would be the front and side hulls, so weight climb should be manageable. The Abrams NERA package weights like 12 tonnes and that had real thick DU panels, a material known for its high density and weight! Strv 122 probably use tungsten instead.

Which, I think explains it well that the Cold War tanks had to met stringent demands in dimensions and weight. Upgrading the infrastructure would be a non-trivial task and demand even the force of political handballing but I think at least you future-proof by not having to ask for it in the far future!

Material science is now so advanced that you can replace those super dense metals with stuff like metal foam armour et al. Careful orientation of plates needs space to spare also. I think we can keep this tank of mine below 90 tonnes when equipped with full max level all quadrant armour.
 
Last edited:
I imagine it as
  • A smallish (XM1200/Lynx size) chassi. 30 tons bare skin with internal systems fully equipped. Mixed composite hull ala Bradley GRP (a 27% reduction in weight!).
  • Armata-style remote turret. Fully kitted out with armour from factory. Probably 20 tons without ERA if it needs to meet Abrams frontal turret protection. Maybe 25 if I go with a compact bustle ammo stowage and loading arrangement (ammo count probably 15-20, LP propellant, plus APS ammo and coaxial)
The only places that needs super armouring would be the front and side hulls, so weight climb should be manageable. The Abrams NERA package weights like 12 tonnes and that had real thick DU panels, a material known for its high density and weight! Strv 122 probably use tungsten instead.

Which, I think explains it well that the Cold War tanks had to met stringent demands in dimensions and weight. Upgrading the infrastructure would be a non-trivial task and demand even the force of political handballing but I think at least you future-proof by not having to ask for it in the far future!

Material science is now so advanced that you can replace those super dense metals with stuff like metal foam armour et al. Careful orientation of plates needs space to spare also. I think we can keep this tank of mine below 90 tonnes when equipped with full max level all quadrant armour.
That's tripling the vehicle weight between bare and max armor.

Which is going to require a lot of careful engineering, not least in a suspension system that can still ride tolerably well bare while not bottoming out while at max.
 
That's tripling the vehicle weight between bare and max armor.
It would be a 65% growth instead, because the turret adds another 25 tons.
Which is going to require a lot of careful engineering, not least in a suspension system that can still ride tolerably well bare while not bottoming out while at max.
Absolutely. Even then current suspensions developed on short notice for the SEPv3 can alternate between 72 tons and 93 tons (short tons). That's a 30% growth. The M1070 tank transporter can load an Abrams for a total of methinks 100 tons when the tractor-trailor combo weights 30 tons at base. And we are seeing much, much greater use of hydro based suspension on the horizon, couple this to an active system and I think we have a winner.
 
You are thinking in terms of weight. Think about LOS distance instead. NERA benefits most from composition. A good NERA array can weight much less than that same volume full of steel.
The suitability of NERA for a threat type is decided by its composition. For KE, the armor will be dense and thus heavy.
For CE, you can use a much lighter composition, yes, but it's still not exactly feather-weight.
Take a look at the Namer. It surrounds itself with anti-CE armor and weighs 60-65 tons without a turret.
The Merkava 4 isn't as armored as the Namer and already its weight is said to reach 80 tons.
 
I thought I'd resurrect this briefly to think more about C-UAS:

It would seem that having an ability to attack relatively low velocity threats at some distance is important - so some kind of C-UAS cannon would be desirable (30mm medium velocity or high velocity, dual magazine, timed fragmentation rounds). I wonder if there is lighter weight alternative though - given the lack of need for a sustained rate of fire? I also wonder if something like Springfield Armory SALVO contender could find use as part of a layered defense?

Then one would need a cheap high-magazine depth (c. 20 ready rounds or more) omni-directional active protection system to deal with anything which gets through or gets within minimum range. This is on top of an active-protection systems capable of dealing with high-end supersonic threats (i.e. missiles) which would also make sense (perhaps six rounds of this, three per side)?

I wonder if soft-kill counter-measures might need to be abandoned to avoid obscuring the active-defense sensors?

I wonder what the overall tonnage looks like once these layered defenses are added?
 
I thought I'd resurrect this briefly to think more about C-UAS:

It would seem that having an ability to attack relatively low velocity threats at some distance is important - so some kind of C-UAS cannon would be desirable (30mm medium velocity or high velocity, dual magazine, timed fragmentation rounds). I wonder if there is lighter weight alternative though - given the lack of need for a sustained rate of fire? I also wonder if something like Springfield Armory SALVO contender could find use as part of a layered defense?
FCS was planning on using the OCSW, that 25x59mm auto grenade launcher that eventually ended up as the XM307. That was a 50lb weapon empty.

That said, if you only need a single shot airbursting grenade, you could use something like the Chinese QLZ-87 or QLU-11. And those are only ~26lbs empty.

But you're still mounting those into a pretty capable RWS to be able to point in the right direction at enough speed to track a flying target. And those are heavy and capable of holding a heavier and stronger-recoiling weapon like an M230LW, which is roughly 100lbs empty. For that matter, the M2HB weighs in at about 90lbs. Also, that means the RWS you're mounting those on is one of the big ones, ~500lbs.



Then one would need a cheap high-magazine depth (c. 20 ready rounds or more) omni-directional active protection system to deal with anything which gets through or gets within minimum range. This is on top of an active-protection systems capable of dealing with high-end supersonic threats (i.e. missiles) which would also make sense (perhaps six rounds of this, three per side)?
About a decade ago, I'd been kicking around a "how would you build a scifi "colonial marines" vehicle set." The idea I came up with was using an APS broadly comparable to Arena, basically 40mm smart grenades (and not so smart grenades). Instead of 16 or whatever smoke grenades you'd have probably a couple hundred tubes set up around the turret; mix of smokes grenades, the Arena-type directional "bouncing betty" frag charges, and a whole variety of more typical 40mm grenades.
 
That is a good point - between the cost (and weight) of the sensors and the cost of the ammunition... I suppose the real question is what is a sufficient volume of steel over a sufficient area at a sufficient range (and also if it has dual use - e.g. offensive use as well).
 
Though far from a RTX salesman, sure sounds like Quickkill worked..just might be still a bit pricy.
QuicklyKilled was AFAIK one reason why Army didn't go with Trophy ASAP, delayed its acquisition, and ultimately got there a decade late.
It never matured enough, and the market is already being filled by Trophy and Iron Fist.
 
QuicklyKilled was AFAIK one reason why Army didn't go with Trophy ASAP, delayed its acquisition, and ultimately got there a decade late.
It never matured enough, and the market is already being filled by Trophy and Iron Fist.
As has been known for sometime & widely published in video it was successful in live tests. FCS was canceled and its horse was tied to that lagoon...been thru this before....

As in the vid. Trophy is vulnerable to direct MG fire. It doesn't defeat the flying crow bars. It's magazine is limited. Defeating the complex attack iis not even near being managed. Covering ur vehicle in upgraded claymores aint the way.

"Superstition ain't the way " Stevie Wonder
 
As has been known for sometime & widely published in video it was successful in live tests. FCS was canceled and its horse was tied to that lagoon...been thru this before....
LIve tests are a step toward maturity but they're not maturity itself. While the engineering work is heavier earlier in a project, on a time scale often there's more time between live tests and service-ready maturity, than between project start and live tests.
This is particularly true for APS as the technology clearly exists, is proven, yet many projects exist which seemingly passed live tests many years ago, even decades ago, and are still in some phase of development and not in service.

Army wasn't on some crusade against QK. They wanted a domestic APS. They delayed Trophy acquisition for it. It just never materialized.
And if RTX want to blame FCS for it, even though other APS designs are perfectly fine being fitted on a variety of vehicles, then that's fine but it could cost them the market.

As in the vid. Trophy is vulnerable to direct MG fire.
It was in the early, pre-production variant the US Army evaluated. It isn't anymore. All standard Trophy systems come with a metal shutter that opens and reveals the interceptor munition only moments before launch.
It doesn't defeat the flying crow bars.
It doesn't need to. Fun fact: It could, back in its development period in 2006. The IDF explicitly asked not to do it, so Rafael dropped it.
IMI kept proposing the same anti-APFSDS design and ultimately lost the competition. And that's how Trophy became #1.

Now under Elbit (absorbed IMI), Iron Fist is offered in several variants including an anti-KE one. But so far customers only want the non-KE variant.
Now, why would anyone not want an anti-KE capability?
Because interceptors are heavier, hence response time is slower, hence success chance is lower.

At some point the IDF raised the issue and asked for an anti-KE capability. But this hit a brick wall. Again, why? Because it also wants APS to be even faster than they already are. And there's the conflict again. Whenever there's a dilemma, customers prefer speed.
It's magazine is limited.
You don't honestly think QK shoots out fairy dust, do you? Its missiles are in fact finite. And they are larger than every individual Trophy interceptor. Theoretically you can fit more Trophy munitions than QK ones.

One Rafael representative once said in an expo that the system holds 6 munitions total. 3 per side. Why? Because those are the requirements.
Can customers demand there be a total of 8? Or 10? Or 12? Yes. And there'd be room for that. I actually peeked inside the Merkava's Trophy system. Quite a bit of un-utilized space.

So why not just put as many as you can fit?
The reason is there's no need. 6 munitions are as effective as 10, or 20, or 100. And that's because interceptions aren't clean. And by that I mean they're extremely violent. Always you'll have fast debris or a detonating warhead with residual penetration, and they're going to inflict some superficial damage. This damage is usually enough to start disabling external components including the APS itself.
By the time you may need the 7th munition, you're likely to have taken enough damage for the APS to not work anymore.
Usually it's the radars. You got a metal sheet protecting the munitions but you can't do that with a radar without also making it completely blind.
Defeating the complex attack iis not even near being managed.
What complex attack?
Covering ur vehicle in upgraded claymores aint the way.
Well what is the way then?
 
LIve tests are a step toward maturity but they're not maturity itself. While the engineering work is heavier earlier in a project, on a time scale often there's more time between live tests and service-ready maturity, than between project start and live tests.
This is particularly true for APS as the technology clearly exists, is proven, yet many projects exist which seemingly passed live tests many years ago, even decades ago, and are still in some phase of development and not in service.

Army wasn't on some crusade against QK. They wanted a domestic APS. They delayed Trophy acquisition for it. It just never materialized.
And if RTX want to blame FCS for it, even though other APS designs are perfectly fine being fitted on a variety of vehicles, then that's fine but it could cost them the market.

-vertical silos mounted anywhere atop the vehicle denies nlos to threats to the APS
- vertical missile allow top atk defeat
-centered 'atop the vehicle' vertical silos affords spherical defense from one mount
-promoting solid fuel development supports increasing range of interceptors so
longer rngs are provided leading eventually to pre-emptive APS
Now under Elbit (absorbed IMI), Iron Fist is offered in several variants including an anti-KE one. But so far customers only want the non-KE variant.
Now, why would anyone not want an anti-KE capability?
anti-KE has been a limited need so far apparently, likely due to cost, but all AFVs sure need to withstand tank engagements in the future, jeeprs
Because interceptors are heavier, hence response time is slower, hence success chance is lower.
Much like missile defense it would be prefered to have a long range defensive shot & a short range last ditch shot. Hadn't heard till recently that Iron fist has APDSFS defeat. Providing a deep enough direct fire magazine for multiple angle "IFist-like' capability would seem to be an issue.
At some point the IDF raised the issue and asked for an anti-KE capability. But this hit a brick wall. Again, why? Because it also wants APS to be even faster than they already are. And there's the conflict again. Whenever there's a dilemma, customers prefer speed.
Speed would be a Laser Supported Detonation(s) Wave(s) (LSDW) ie
Laser induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) associated effects (maybe) genuinely disrupting the KE's trajectory.
You don't honestly think QK shoots out fairy dust, do you? Its missiles are in fact finite. And they are larger than every individual Trophy interceptor. Theoretically you can fit more Trophy munitions than QK ones.
One FMBT concept had at least 40 intercepto silos mounted at the center back of the vehicle. If vehicles are to survive they must survive swarms which includes drones droppin mines in front of the vehicle, tank fire, ATGMs, RPGs, RPGs on drones, mortars shells, precision artillery barrages.. near simultaneously...same stuff presented on briefing slides for years.
One Rafael representative once said in an expo that the system holds 6 munitions total. 3 per side. Why? Because those are the requirements.
A pitchman will say whatever....
Can customers demand there be a total of 8? Or 10? Or 12? Yes. And there'd be oom for that. I actually peeked inside the Merkava's Trophy system. Quite a bit of un-utilized space.
The E1 is allegely engine compartment protected from top attack, room needs to be made there for an interceptor silo farm.
So why not just put as many as you can fit?
cost as always
thus mounts should be modular/scalable ' quick bolt on' based on antiscipated threat..ie less purchased overall
The reason is there's no need. 6 munitions are as effective as 10, or 20, or 100. And that's because interceptions aren't clean. And by that I mean they're extremely violent. Always you'll have fast debris or a detonating warhead with residual penetration, and they're going to inflict some superficial damage. This damage is usually enough to start disabling external components including the APS itself.
"cleanliness" then is the argument for more distant intercept ie missiles should be the first but not only requirement. Early detection is the issue as raised numerous times before.
By the time you may need the 7th munition, you're likely to have taken enough damage for the APS to not work anymore.
If ur vehicle is functionally disabled, it is then largely useless. the crew is saved sure, but they should have never been there in the first place if further action is prohibited after one defensive action.
Usually it's the radars. You got a metal sheet protecting the munitions but you can't do that with a radar without also making it completely blind.
have understood for some time..the multi-sensor will cost...where is the research?
What complex attack?
see above
Well what is the way then?
modular scalable 'bolt on' deeper mag Iron Fist, deep mag QK, DE power source miniaturization r starts. Further exploration of 'Iron Curtain like' capabilities internationally.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom