• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
uk 75 said:
If anyone has a copy of the book Deutsche Flakpanzer seit 1945
https://www.booklooker.de/B%C3%BCcher/Angebote/infotext=Deutsche+Flakpanzer+seit+1945?lid=1

It contains a brief reference to a study and a wooden model of a version of mbt 70 with an aa turret. Never found anything more but Spielberger might.
What if the best Active Protection System is an dual AA ~20mm turret using MADFIRES to counter everything from munitions, swarming UAS, or larger platforms at distance.

A smaller, forward mounted, propulsor would allow a larger hull based MBT-70 to carry 4x Cavalry Scouts. (thinkin the difference between Cav Scout and Mechanized Infantry is increasingly disappearing. Regular infantry can be used only after the fact and in wheeled vehicles.

While the 152mm msle & munitions gun and a tank/artillery (including assault gun) combination makes more sense than what appears to be 105mm armed NGCV. 120mm is not big enough let alone a 105mm.
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
You do realise, don't you, that the Shillelagh 152mm gun/missile combination was an abortion that rarely worked in real life? After the first round of conventional ammunition, the missile launcher sights were usually knocked out of alignment and were unable to guide a missile to target.

What you need is a 120mm pr 140mm gun, with a separate missile launcher (a Spike LR perhaps?). The gun is sufficient to take out infantry and their strong points while the missile can take out MBTs at longer ranges.

As for mounting infantry in an MBT, why do so? All you're doing is doubling the number of casualties if your MBT gets knocked out. Much easier to place the infantry in a separate MICV or APC.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Kadija_Man said:
You do realise, don't you, that the Shillelagh 152mm gun/missile combination was an abortion that rarely worked in real life? After the first round of conventional ammunition, the missile launcher sights were usually knocked out of alignment and were unable to guide a missile to target.

What you need is a 120mm pr 140mm gun, with a separate missile launcher (a Spike LR perhaps?). The gun is sufficient to take out infantry and their strong points while the missile can take out MBTs at longer ranges.

As for mounting infantry in an MBT, why do so? All you're doing is doubling the number of casualties if your MBT gets knocked out. Much easier to place the infantry in a separate MICV or APC.
Obviously Shillelagh was a legendary disaster. However, the Chinese, Russians et all have since made gun launched missile THE state of the art. The US has developed various but no adoption. Recoil mitigating tech has drastically advanced. Simply refering to the diameter which neither 130 or 140mm can accomplish necessary to carry out artillery assault gun and anti-tank dominance.

Again w/ the state of the art the Russian Armata is multiple APS and UAS based sitawarn would see nearly no lost tanks. the idea is to get infantry as deep or deep flanking so as to render any adversary response too late. Onboard infantry is Ukraine and Israeli "thing" which should be looked at. Externally mounted missiles add height and do not have other benefits of internal powder assisted msles.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
jsport said:
Obviously Shillelagh was a legendary disaster. However, the Chinese, Russians et all have since made gun launched missile THE state of the art. The US has developed various but no adoption. Recoil mitigating tech has drastically advanced. Simply refering to the diameter which neither 130 or 140mm can accomplish necessary to carry out artillery assault gun and anti-tank dominance.
Until they are proven in combat, their performance remains theoretical IMO. The Russian/Chinese weapons appear to be accurate and useful BUT there is no means of measuring their performance in real life. I do not see the advantage of using a missile launched from a gun tube against a missile launched from a launch tube. All you're doing is creating unnecessary complexity in making the missile able to withstand the increased stresses associated with launching it from a gun.

Again w/ the state of the art the Russian Armata is multiple APS and UAS based sitawarn would see nearly no lost tanks. the idea is to get infantry as deep or deep flanking so as to render any adversary response too late. Onboard infantry is Ukraine and Israeli "thing" which should be looked at. Externally mounted missiles add height and do not have other benefits of internal powder assisted msles.
Onboard infantry is again, only a theoretical proposal. The Israelis have not used the supposed advantage of carrying infantry in their Merkavas because it means they carry substantially less ammunition in the vehicle. The Ukrainians have yet to actually field an MBT which is an APC as well. All your adversary will do is knock out your APC MBTs before they reach their objectives. This will substantially increase your casualties. I believe a heavy MICV is a good idea but why bother putting an MBT gun on it, when that decreases the number of infantry that it can carry? Even the Israelis have yet to field their Namer MICV version of the Merkava in any substantial numbers. You need to carry - as a minimum - a tactically useful number of passengers - a section at least that it consists of at least 9-10 passengers. Something your proposal does not do.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Kadija_Man said:
jsport said:
Obviously Shillelagh was a legendary disaster. However, the Chinese, Russians et all have since made gun launched missile THE state of the art. The US has developed various but no adoption. Recoil mitigating tech has drastically advanced. Simply referring to the diameter which neither 130 or 140mm can accomplish necessary to carry out artillery assault gun and anti-tank dominance.
Until they are proven in combat, their performance remains theoretical IMO. The Russian/Chinese weapons appear to be accurate and useful BUT there is no means of measuring their performance in real life. I do not see the advantage of using a missile launched from a gun tube against a missile launched from a launch tube. All you're doing is creating unnecessary complexity in making the missile able to withstand the increased stresses associated with launching it from a gun.

Again w/ the state of the art the Russian Armata is multiple APS and UAS based sitawarn would see nearly no lost tanks. the idea is to get infantry as deep or deep flanking so as to render any adversary response too late. Onboard infantry is Ukraine and Israeli "thing" which should be looked at. Externally mounted missiles add height and do not have other benefits of internal powder assisted msles.
Onboard infantry is again, only a theoretical proposal. The Israelis have not used the supposed advantage of carrying infantry in their Merkavas because it means they carry substantially less ammunition in the vehicle. The Ukrainians have yet to actually field an MBT which is an APC as well. All your adversary will do is knock out your APC MBTs before they reach their objectives. This will substantially increase your casualties. I believe a heavy MICV is a good idea but why bother putting an MBT gun on it, when that decreases the number of infantry that it can carry? Even the Israelis have yet to field their Namer MICV version of the Merkava in any substantial numbers. You need to carry - as a minimum - a tactically useful number of passengers - a section at least that it consists of at least 9-10 passengers. Something your proposal does not do.
Gun launched msles have superior range. if your manufacturing is worth a Sh..t --you have them. You use the longest range gun to engage them at the farthest distance because your AI based Sitawarn is better even against their swarm nests :)

It is much much harder to disable an MBT based vehicle, especially w/ APS (had to repeat apparently) than it is an MICV.

Who knows what the Israelis and Ukrainians have learned. They are not going to publish it.

As stated before again- 4x Cav scouts. The scouts primary job is to designate targets and hardly ever leave the vehicle, mostly control UAS/UGV from inside. Again as before- Mech Infantry is obsolete.

Whole squads have no place among the nastiness of tank battles. What is a squad going to do except leave the vehicle and die? Nine pax squads ride in lighter tracked/wheeled vehicles like AMPV and only arrives to clean up residual pockets after the fact. (as stated before)
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
jsport said:
Gun launched msles have superior range. if your manufacturing is worth a Sh..t --you have them. You use the longest range gun to engage them at the farthest distance because your AI based Sitawarn is better even against their swarm nests :)

It is much much harder to disable an MBT based vehicle, especially w/ APS (had to repeat apparently) than it is an MICV.

Who knows what the Israelis and Ukrainians have learned. They are not going to publish it.

As stated before again- 4x Cav scouts. The scouts primary job is to designate targets and hardly ever leave the vehicle, mostly control UAS/UGV from inside. Again as before- Mech Infantry is obsolete.

Whole squads have no place among the nastiness of tank battles. What is a squad going to do except leave the vehicle and die? Nine pax squads ride in lighter tracked/wheeled vehicles like AMPV and only arrives to clean up residual pockets after the fact. (as stated before)
Sorry, you're talking from inexperience, I would suggest. You are talking of a distant future. There is only one arm which wins battles - infantry. All other arms and services support it. Without it, an army is not going to be able to occupy and defend territory it has seized. "Situwarn"? "Swarms"? "Scouts never leaving their vehicles"? Sorry, you're not talking realistic military terminology. I am discussing the here and now, not the distant future. Mechanised infantry is not "obsolete" any more than normal infantry is.

The reality is, experience in the West with gun launched missiles has been bad. Shillelagh tried too hard, too soon and failed. The West instead invested in guns themselves and more importantly, the fire control systems for them. The East has decided to invest in gun launched missiles. Their performance is, at the moment, theoretical. Personally, I suspect they will not perform as advertised.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Kadija_Man said:
jsport said:
Gun launched msles have superior range. if your manufacturing is worth a Sh..t --you have them. You use the longest range gun to engage them at the farthest distance because your AI based Sitawarn is better even against their swarm nests :)

It is much much harder to disable an MBT based vehicle, especially w/ APS (had to repeat apparently) than it is an MICV.

Who knows what the Israelis and Ukrainians have learned. They are not going to publish it.

As stated before again- 4x Cav scouts. The scouts primary job is to designate targets and hardly ever leave the vehicle, mostly control UAS/UGV from inside. Again as before- Mech Infantry is obsolete.

Whole squads have no place among the nastiness of tank battles. What is a squad going to do except leave the vehicle and die? Nine pax squads ride in lighter tracked/wheeled vehicles like AMPV and only arrives to clean up residual pockets after the fact. (as stated before)
Sorry, you're talking from inexperience, I would suggest. You are talking of a distant future. There is only one arm which wins battles - infantry. All other arms and services support it. Without it, an army is not going to be able to occupy and defend territory it has seized. "Situwarn"? "Swarms"? "Scouts never leaving their vehicles"? Sorry, you're not talking realistic military terminology. I am discussing the here and now, not the distant future. Mechanised infantry is not "obsolete" any more than normal infantry is.

The reality is, experience in the West with gun launched missiles has been bad. Shillelagh tried too hard, too soon and failed. The West instead invested in guns themselves and more importantly, the fire control systems for them. The East has decided to invest in gun launched missiles. Their performance is, at the moment, theoretical. Personally, I suspect they will not perform as advertised.
thinkin you don't read much, and you don't read much about the future of the Army so this is academic and of no use.
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
jsport said:
Kadija_Man said:
jsport said:
Gun launched msles have superior range. if your manufacturing is worth a Sh..t --you have them. You use the longest range gun to engage them at the farthest distance because your AI based Sitawarn is better even against their swarm nests :)

It is much much harder to disable an MBT based vehicle, especially w/ APS (had to repeat apparently) than it is an MICV.

Who knows what the Israelis and Ukrainians have learned. They are not going to publish it.

As stated before again- 4x Cav scouts. The scouts primary job is to designate targets and hardly ever leave the vehicle, mostly control UAS/UGV from inside. Again as before- Mech Infantry is obsolete.

Whole squads have no place among the nastiness of tank battles. What is a squad going to do except leave the vehicle and die? Nine pax squads ride in lighter tracked/wheeled vehicles like AMPV and only arrives to clean up residual pockets after the fact. (as stated before)
Sorry, you're talking from inexperience, I would suggest. You are talking of a distant future. There is only one arm which wins battles - infantry. All other arms and services support it. Without it, an army is not going to be able to occupy and defend territory it has seized. "Situwarn"? "Swarms"? "Scouts never leaving their vehicles"? Sorry, you're not talking realistic military terminology. I am discussing the here and now, not the distant future. Mechanised infantry is not "obsolete" any more than normal infantry is.

The reality is, experience in the West with gun launched missiles has been bad. Shillelagh tried too hard, too soon and failed. The West instead invested in guns themselves and more importantly, the fire control systems for them. The East has decided to invest in gun launched missiles. Their performance is, at the moment, theoretical. Personally, I suspect they will not perform as advertised.
thinkin you don't read much, and you don't read much about the future of the Army so this is academic and of no use.
You are welcome to believe what you desire but personally, I'd prefer to stick to realistic terminology and what is available now, not the distant future. You have failed to address the points I have made. I wonder why?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
55

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
The US Army just contracted for a M-ATV which not only mounts counter -drone tech but a drone itself to attack threat drone units. The need to fight the close and far battle simultaneously has become even more apparent. The Soviets planned on 122mm SPH fighting as tanks w/ direct fire when necessary as well as carrying out their indirect fire missions.
 

Attachments

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Kadija_Man said:
Arjen said:
In a Galaxy a long, long distance away from reality...
your reality of 1999 would have fields of dead American soldiers in any future war, so thankfully your not the Head of any RDT&E or requirements process.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
36
Dear gentlemen,

please avoid going personal.

Thanks
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Fact is, it is probably too late for the right vehicle. In the DPRK every forward vehicle needs to simultaneously deal w/ the threat of 1. fortifications, (ie have an assault gun), 2. tanks and 3. Indirect fire (hardened).

Below is the PlaneArts hand crafted XM803 model which would appear to higher height hull necessary for four Cav Scouts.
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
XM803 didn't carry extra scouts. XM803 remained an experimental vehicle. It was not adopted by the US Army.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
jeepers creepers... never said this won't be a brand new vehicle the basic form factor.

(152mm ( longer barrel, higher velocity), A new long barrel rifled 152mm gun would need to be developed as 155mm is still too large,

autoloader+ gunner and commander only turret,

air target surveillance and engagement,

advanced hydralics,

focus on multiple long range multi spectral optics potentially DEW,

20mm and or .50cal based APS as well as other emerging APS tech.

The propullsor would need to be forward mounted hybrid electric. Problem w/ NGCV is the USG is not forcing the contractors for a more compact engine design. Everyone is afraid to risk so the engines are huge and make the vehicle impractical as a whole. Yes engines take time, but there are plenty new engines out there not even being looked at because defense contractors want big money for rehashed tech at no risk. Government incompetence for not calling them out.

Only one in three vehicles would carry scouts to control UGV/UAS. The others would carry anti-tank, and assault gun rounds and more importantly Guided artillery rds. A next generation 152mm artillery rd would need to convert to a UAS at apogee in order counter-battery any indirect fire threat. Easy enough to do if one goes a little beyond flip out wings.

A 152mm anti-tank msle designed to use the extra volume/payload afforded to defeat modern and emerging threat APS.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,811
Reaction score
216
jsport said:
jeepers creepers... never said this won't be a brand new vehicle the basic form factor.

(152mm ( longer barrel, higher velocity), A new long barrel rifled 152mm gun would need to be developed as 155mm is still too large,

autoloader+ gunner and commander only turret,

air target surveillance and engagement,

advanced hydralics,

focus on multiple long range multi spectral optics potentially DEW,

20mm and or .50cal based APS as well as other emerging APS tech.

The propullsor would need to be forward mounted hybrid electric. Problem w/ NGCV is the USG is not forcing the contractors for a more compact engine design. Everyone is afraid to risk so the engines are huge and make the vehicle impractical as a whole. Yes engines take time, but there are plenty new engines out there not even being looked at because defense contractors want big money for rehashed tech at no risk. Government incompetence for not calling them out.
Just look at the progress made in helicopter turboshafts. The Apache's future T700 replacement has about twice the HP of the original in the same physical envelope.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
jsport said:
jeepers creepers... never said this won't be a brand new vehicle the basic form factor.

(152mm ( longer barrel, higher velocity), A new long barrel rifled 152mm gun would need to be developed as 155mm is still too large,

autoloader+ gunner and commander only turret,

air target surveillance and engagement,

advanced hydralics,

focus on multiple long range multi spectral optics potentially DEW,

20mm and or .50cal based APS as well as other emerging APS tech.

The propullsor would need to be forward mounted hybrid electric. Problem w/ NGCV is the USG is not forcing the contractors for a more compact engine design. Everyone is afraid to risk so the engines are huge and make the vehicle impractical as a whole. Yes engines take time, but there are plenty new engines out there not even being looked at because defense contractors want big money for rehashed tech at no risk. Government incompetence for not calling them out.
Just look at the progress made in helicopter turboshafts. The Apache's future T700 replacement has about twice the HP of the original in the same physical envelope.
roger copy
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
796
Reaction score
50
A 152mm cannon? Why? How big you make this vehicle to be is a factor from wanting enough ammo to sustain fire for a reasonable time, and the extra weight means more fuel from the motor too. The general idea is to reduce weight and have more mobility etc.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Foo Fighter said:
A 152mm cannon? Why? How big you make this vehicle to be is a factor from wanting enough ammo to sustain fire for a reasonable time, and the extra weight means more fuel from the motor too. The general idea is to reduce weight and have more mobility etc.
The MBT-70 suffered from low ammo capacity. This vehicle is bigger and w/ a smaller more efficient front mounted powerplant again as stated and stated. The general idea is survivable vehicle that can dominate not survive by running. However, the driver's ability to immediately drive backwards which the 70 also had would be good. Again if contractors were held to account this could still be in the 45++ton empty weight w/o TUSK etc. The current obsession w/ mobility ends up being a knocked out tank. Got there fast and died. :-[ Light tanks should be for non-armored units.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
jsport said:
Kadija_Man said:
Arjen said:
In a Galaxy a long, long distance away from reality...
your reality of 1999 would have fields of dead American soldiers in any future war, so thankfully your not the Head of any RDT&E or requirements process.
As I am not an American, I doubt I will ever be in charge of the US Army. If, however, I was, I would not be proposing that the US Army waste squillions of tax payers dollars on weapon systems that do not work and do not have reason for existing. I would instead that the US Army be equipped with weapon systems that do work and do have a reason for being produced.

You, on the otherhand? Well, we have seen what you are proposing. A return to an ancient MBT project that failed because it was a hot-potch of ideas which were never able to be made to work properly.

You have failed to address the disorientation of the driver, in his separate "turret" which was found to occur.

You have failed to address the problems of the location of the vehicle commander in a lower position than the driver, with inadequate vision all round.

You have failed to address the problems of the gun/missile launcher combination and the knocking out of alignment of the missile sights each time the conventional round was fired.

You have failed to address how your "improved-MBT-70" was to be powered. There is no room in the front of the hull for a "forward propulsor" - what ever that would be. Essentially you are suggesting a new vehicle.

You have failed to address where your "scouts" would be seated in the hull, what vision they would have out of the hull and what weapons would they have and use.

The MBT-70 and the XM803 are dead and gone. Both project was abandoned because it could not be worked - on the basic of cost and equipment. Until you have something other than a 50 year old hull and turret shape which have been surpassed in MBT design by better shapes and armour, you are wasting our time.

A new MBT would resemble an M1 or a Leopard II, rather than an MBT-70 or an XM803. It would feature well sloped, Chobham or depleted Uranium armour and active armour arrays, offering all round defence against ATGWs and gun rounds. It would not have extra space for "scouts". To do so would require increased armoured volume and that would require more armour. More armour would require a more powerful engine and gear box. All that adds more space and that requires more armour again.

Waving a magic wand does not work in the real world.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Kadija_Man said:
jsport said:
Kadija_Man said:
Arjen said:
In a Galaxy a long, long distance away from reality...
your reality of 1999 would have fields of dead American soldiers in any future war, so thankfully your not the Head of any RDT&E or requirements process.
As I am not an American, I doubt I will ever be in charge of the US Army. If, however, I was, I would not be proposing that the US Army waste squillions of tax payers dollars on weapon systems that do not work and do not have reason for existing. I would instead that the US Army be equipped with weapon systems that do work and do have a reason for being produced.

You, on the otherhand? Well, we have seen what you are proposing. A return to an ancient MBT project that failed because it was a hot-potch of ideas which were never able to be made to work properly.

You have failed to address the disorientation of the driver, in his separate "turret" which was found to occur.

You have failed to address the problems of the location of the vehicle commander in a lower position than the driver, with inadequate vision all round.

You have failed to address the problems of the gun/missile launcher combination and the knocking out of alignment of the missile sights each time the conventional round was fired.

You have failed to address how your "improved-MBT-70" was to be powered. There is no room in the front of the hull for a "forward propulsor" - what ever that would be. Essentially you are suggesting a new vehicle.

You have failed to address where your "scouts" would be seated in the hull, what vision they would have out of the hull and what weapons would they have and use.

The MBT-70 and the XM803 are dead and gone. Both project was abandoned because it could not be worked - on the basic of cost and equipment. Until you have something other than a 50 year old hull and turret shape which have been surpassed in MBT design by better shapes and armour, you are wasting our time.

A new MBT would resemble an M1 or a Leopard II, rather than an MBT-70 or an XM803. It would feature well sloped, Chobham or depleted Uranium armour and active armour arrays, offering all round defence against ATGWs and gun rounds. It would not have extra space for "scouts". To do so would require increased armoured volume and that would require more armour. More armour would require a more powerful engine and gear box. All that adds more space and that requires more armour again.

Waving a magic wand does not work in the real world.
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).
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
55
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.
You are still faced with crew disorientation similar to that experienced by MBT-70 drivers whose optical input did not match their physical movements.
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.
How much real-life testing has been carried out with that in conjunction with big guns? The first article you link to mentions "The application of magneto rheological dampers for controlling recoil dynamics is examined, using a recoil demonstrator that includes a 0.50-caliber gun and a MR damper (referred to as "recoil demonstrator"). "
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.
If they don't leave the vehicle, why carry them at all?
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.
Untested technology. Michigan U's Norbert Müller proposed a 25 KW proof-of-concept engine in 2011. It hasn't seen the light of day yet. How many years before that technology has matured?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Arjen said:
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.
You are still faced with crew disorientation similar to that experienced by MBT-70 drivers whose optical input did not match their physical movements.
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.
How much real-life testing has been carried out with that in conjunction with big guns? The first article you link to mentions "The application of magneto rheological dampers for controlling recoil dynamics is examined, using a recoil demonstrator that includes a 0.50-caliber gun and a MR damper (referred to as "recoil demonstrator"). "
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.
If they don't leave the vehicle, why carry them at all?
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.
Untested technology. Michigan U's Norbert Müller proposed a 25 KW proof-of-concept engine in 2011. It hasn't seen the light of day yet. How many years before that technology has matured?
Scouts are still scouts .and needed for human oversight of UAS/UGVs.

Tested technology, what like batteries w/ low power density? Noone appears to want fuel efficiently, clearly.
Patent held by DOE not by MSU. UM not involved.

A Magneto R 105mm was tested in the early 2000s. Army Research Lab patent mentions artillery https://patents.google.com/patent/US6694856 Magnetorheological damper and energy dissipation method
 

Attachments

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
55
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?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Arjen said:
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?
The current Maneuver's Center ... US Army plan has UGV/UAS operators/squad members in the NGCV so this is not solely a personal idea. Squads want there own UGV/UAS. Who is in front of those squads, Cav Scouts. They likely need the same thing. When the other guy's UAS are mounted on his tank you need to share his proximity for results.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
Arjen said:
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.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
14
jsport said:
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...
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
55
Kadija_Man said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
6
Arjen said:
Kadija_Man said:
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
 

Attachments

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
55
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,811
Reaction score
216
Arjen said:
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.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,811
Reaction score
216
SpudmanWP said:
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQDy-5IQvuU

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.
 

skyblue

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
SpudmanWP said:
Did we all forget the lessons of movies? AI weapons are a bad idea, plain and simple.
Movies are literally fiction.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
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.
 
Top