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

New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
197
SpudmanWP said:
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.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
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.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
20
lol... hotels with robots don't have MASSIVE FKING GUNS
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,287
Reaction score
50
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.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
SpudmanWP said:
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.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
36
May I suggest open a new topic on Warrior AI before going too off topic here?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
5
jsport said:
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
How about a NGCV IFV w/ a 105mm CTA and resembling the original GCV concept's heavy side armor.
 

Attachments

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,287
Reaction score
50
jsport said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
5
Arjen said:
jsport said:
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.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,287
Reaction score
50
jsport said:
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?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
5
Arjen said:
jsport said:
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.
 

Attachments

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,287
Reaction score
50
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.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
CV90:

Weight 23–35 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.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,287
Reaction score
50
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?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
787
Reaction score
48
Round and round, and round, and around.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,271
Reaction score
26
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..
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
14
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?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
5
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]
 
Top