Main Battle Tanks

[nero1234]

Ok, thats the intro done. What follows is just the tip of a very big iceberg, fell free to ask as many questions as you like and we'll see what happens. I'll be candid in my responses and some of what I write will give you folks reason for considerable concern.

I'll have to send this in two parts, seems theres a limitation on the number of characters.

Best regards,
Nero

Part 1

“OK fellas, I think you’re missing something here.

The Nizhny Tagil MBT (T-95) is a clean sheet design, don’t assume anything about this MBT, that is not obvious or not acknowledged by it’s builders; they aren’t keeping this vehicle’s specifications and performance discreet, without good reason. Likewise, nobody has been allowed to get to close to the Black Eagle demonstrator, probably for the same reason, you might just hear the engine sounds a little different.

In Mr. Fofanov’s web-page on the T-95 http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html, there is an interesting reference: a “unique drive-train suspension system is being tested on this tank”. It is unlikely this late in development, it is simply being tested and is more likely a component of the integrated engine, drive-train and suspension, originally proposed for inclusion in the Chiorny Oriol development program, for the Next Generation MBT of the Russian Army and as we all know, the T-80 chassis is the original development chassis for Chiorny Oriol.

If you can find it; in issue #28 of Rozvourezhenie’s electronic magazine “Military Parade”, there is an early article on the T-80UM1 BARS Tank. In this article, mention is made of the shift to hydrostatic drives, but more interestingly, is a one liner that pre-announces an update of the power plant from 1,250 hp gas turbine to 1,400 hp heavy duty engine. Given the timing of this article and the confusion in Rosvorouzhenia at the time over the company’s future, both these items probably made it into the original article by mistake. If you wonder that the entries are still in the text of the article, it is simple; remove them and people might start to ask why and what it was all about in the first place.

With regards this entry, a heavy duty engine is a diesel engine. When was the last time you heard of replacement of a gas turbine power plant by a higher horsepower, yet reliable diesel engine, within the same restrictive envelope as the 50 tonne chassis limitation of this Russian tank class?

Now what all this means, is that it is highly probable Russia is developing at least two very advanced MBTs, one, based on an updated T-80U chassis as more suited to mass production, whilst the other, the T-95 is considerably more demanding of manufacture, but vastly more capable as a tank destroyer. Although export versions of the T-80 chassis, including the T-80UM1 BARS Tank and Black Eagle, are likely to have conventional power plants and drivelines, subsequent variants for the Russian Army are more likely to have the more advanced 1,400 horsepower heavy duty engine and drive-train in common with the T-95, which is also likely to be in common with a next generation, Self Propelled Artillery unit. The whole to operate as Fast Attack Squadrons.

Perhaps the nearer term availability of these units, is one of the reasons President Putin was comfortable in withdrawing from the CFE protocol.

If you need a little more convincing, think about this. In the T-95, we now have a tank with the crew, gun mounting, auto-loader and ammunition, shoehorned into the chassis with an engine and drive-train, that certainly won’t be any less powerful than alternative MBTs of the Russian Army. Given the constraints related to all this gear now being within the chassis, there is considerably less space than would normally be available for the power plant of this MBT. Something has to be greatly different.

I’ve noted in at least one article on the T-95, conjecture that the drive is diesel electric. The engine known to have been under consideration and subsequently proposed for development within Chiorny Oriol, is a direct acting hydraulic machine, so many parts and sub systems are removed by going down this path, that the resulting machinery suite of an MBT is less complex, much lighter, more robust and reliable and above all else, has a much higher power density; rivaling or exceeding that of a gas turbine and its gear set. Moreover, a hydraulic motor is typically ¼ the weight of an equivalent electric motor and in this game, power to weight is just about everything. Additionally, hydraulic motors are operationally more flexible and far more robust in a hostile environment, than are electric motors.

It should also be mentioned, with the adoption of this new format engine, there is no hydraulic pump in the system, the engine is the pump; so we have a lighter engine, competing with an engine and generator, on the basis of both weight and space. Sorry, no contest.

OK, now this is where this really gets interesting. The predicted automotive performance of this integrated system, is that an MBT so powered, will not only have higher horsepower, but have at least three times the un-refueled range of a contemporary diesel powered variant, for the same fuel load and for emergency purposes, will be able to apply power to the sprocket motors, considerably in excess of the rated engine horsepower.

 

[nero1234]

Part 2

Also, I think in Military Parade, November/December issue (#30), there was a discussion paper, if I remember correctly, from one of the Russian Tank Design Bureaus, on an Articulated MBT. This would be an even more advanced heavy combat platform and although the article addressed a projected MBT development option, for “advanced heavy combat vehicles with a high dependency on hydraulic systems”, a singularly telling comment. It appears to be a development of an initial proposal for Advanced Self Propelled Artillery units, with a high degree of commonality with the next generation MBTs, that was originally proposed as a counter to the Crusader System, then under development for the US Army.

The articulated MBT would have a Power Car at each end, with articulated, remotely un-coupled, connections. This would mean that a central un-manned Combat Module, need only contain the gun mount, auto loader and ammunition, something in common with the T-95. Optionally, either Power Car could take command of the combined vehicle, basically depending on which way the vehicle is traveling. The resulting vehicle would have automotive attributes superior to any other platform, whilst the Combat Module has far greater protection, in that projectiles from the front or rear would be more likely to impact upon a Power Car than the Combat Module. In the case of a Power Car being disabled, the remaining Vehicle Commander could simply un-couple the damaged Power Car and the remaining Power Car could then drag the Combat Module clear and a replacement Power Car be connected. It is also proposed these Power Cars carry reserve munitions and ammunition could be automatically transferred to the Combat Module on demand. Additional Power Cars could always be deployed as components of a Fast Attack Force, as both replacement modules or simply for exchange, as the routine reload method for Combat Modules. The Combat Module itself, could be either configured as an MBT or SPA and it’s magazine and load out mechanism be simply a slide out, interchangeable component, allowing very rapid reloading of the power cars at a field depot and interchangeability in configuration, between being a service component of an MBT of SPA.

What was also proposed was that all larger vehicles of the Russian armed forces, especially APCs and logistics vehicles acting in support of these integrated formations, should also use the same engine as those in the heavy armored units of FAS, either de-rated or with a reduced number of engine cylinders. This would reduce the overall logistics requirements, but more importantly, an armored unit with up to half it’s engine cylinders out of service, due to damage, could still withdraw under it’s own power and the crew scavenge engine cylinders from any logistics vehicle or APC they encounter and be back in combat within the hour. Realistically, APCs could be deployed in combat with one or more spare engine cylinders in ready use canisters, for just such a purpose.

With regards logistics, going down this path, all vehicles become single fluid applications with significantly reduced fuel requirements (1/3rd), diesel doing the duty of fuel, hydraulic medium and addressing the greatly reduced cooling requirement of the power plant type.

In case anybody thinks this is all conjecture. The above, apart from the specific arrangement of the Articulated MBT, is part of an original proposal to the Russian Military combine, about the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and is believed to have been under development since that time. It is known that an original evaluation of the power plant and drive-line line concept, was funded by the Russian Military and this six month long exercise was headed up by the Russian Engine Research Institute. At the completion of this evaluation, the work was “still considered highly interesting and apparently applicable to a broad range of applications” and as development funding was in short supply, it was proposed development of the power plant be done within Chiorny Oriol, as funding for this program was guaranteed by the State. Perhaps the Black Eagle demonstration chassis is the original engine development platform for this power plant and drive-line, within the Chiorny Oriol program and this may be the reason delegates to demonstrations are not allowed closer than 500m. The engine may just sound very different and create too much conjecture at this point in time.

Interesting, isn’t it. The greatest leap forward in Russian heavy armor development, co-insides with America’s abandonment of the heavy tank as a Future War Fighting asset. In the European theatre of old, the Soviet tank forces were considered one of, if not the greatest military threat to Europe in the then, Soviet arsenal. Consider how much more formidable a threat this will become, as President Putin aligns the Russian state more and more closely with the original Soviet doctrines and rearms with these considerably more capable conventional weapons.

Read and ponder,
Nero”.

 

[Pale Rider]

All this information has been out now for some time, project models like the Black Eagle are staged outside and are rusting away due to no export sales that Russia was depending on. T-95 is a prototype that doesn`t have the funds nor the need/justification for manufacturing, you will not see this vehicle anytime soon due to priorities needed in aircraft and naval forces which are in pathetic shape. Please keep in mind that web sites like the one you referred this topic to is nothing more than pure speculation/hope from some Russian armor fan, you should go visit tank net, I do when I want a good laugh reading some of the rubbish printed by some of the Russians on that site.

 

[A Can of Man]

As always, Russian stuff never seems to live up to the hype.

 

[nero1234]

Hi there, 13th Redneck.

Are, but you see, I and this technology path are not Russian.

When I lived in Australia, we had wonderful coverage on all sorts of technical stuff, from a then totally un-biased media. How many submarines has America built with Titanium hulls? The Russians were building everything from submarines to bicycles out of the stuff when it was still a classified material in America. I think the biggest piece of American military hardware built out of Titanium, ever, were the SR-71s. At the time I was talking to Rosvorouzhenie, they were routinely building attack helicopters in which the whole underbody was a single ceramic casting; at this time the biggest thing I could find being routinely manufactured in ceramics in America were the cylinder heads of a couple of series of Detroit Diesel engines. The list goes on, inexorably.

Ok, they had a lot of problems with their submarines catching fire, radiaton leaks, torpeoes blowing the bows off, etc. But you have to keep it in perspective, up until the end of the Soviet Union, they produced more submarines than the rest of the world combined, in total.

The whole history of American nuclear submarine development, came about when a Russian sub was found to be trailing an Ameircan carrier and carrier commander said wind her up and we'll leave the sub behind; that sub was so damb noisy, it could be heard thorugh the carriers hull as it passed under the carrier and spead off into the distance; apparently this event swung the pendulum for the developemnt of nuclear submarines in America.

Just keep in mind, if the Russians hadn't come to the party with their heavy lifters, essentailly just a bunch of cheap solid fuel ICMBs strapped together, the International Space Station could never have been built. They were smart enough, early on, to recognise the lack of cost effectiveness of maintaining their space shuttle program and reverted back to these simple rockets.

Some time, get me to tell you about the Year 2000 bug.

All the best,
Nero

The following was in the result of a gentle warning from Redleg to a post on "Wrong time to lose interest in MBT"

Clarified/updated rule #6 a bit:
6. If you post something to be considered as fact, you must also state the original source (link preferred).

”OK, that is fairly simple. But first ---------
--------20 years ago you could've had vehicles in America that aren't hybrids, have no degrade in performance and use less than 30% of the fuel of an equivalent vehicle with a contemporary engine. That’s what it looks very much like the Russians are going to have in their next generation MBTs.

Always keep in mind, I'm quite happy to answer any questions about this technology path and the history of trying to get it into production. Redleg, I have had a read through the rules that I could find and if I do feel free to edit the text”.


Hi Pale Rider.

Additional comments to the above:

• Back in the days I lived in Australia, Vasily Fofanov did me a very big favor at one stage and has considerable credibility with me personally.
• My contacts within Rosvorouzhenie were Vitaly Telkov, Head of Department and Rear Admiral Belaventsev (hope that’s how you spell it, its been a long time) and throughout the more than six months duration of the correspondence with Rosvorouzhenie, the contact never dropped below this level. There was a third military contact I had a brief dialogue with, about the end of this period, a Colonel General, who I thought was part of the Armored Corp, turned out to be something entirely different.
• As I think I’ve said somewhere in the thread already, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m going to look at the thread on surface combatants and submarines later and if it sounds interesting and I can join in, I’ll start doing some posts to that as well; its all inter-related and if anybody actually starts to ask real questions about it, who knows what you’ll learn. Incidentally, I have good reason to believe the Russian have also looked at this as an air-independent system for conventional submarines; changes the whole ball game. AI submarines with near the performance of a Nuke, except endurance, and so much cheaper than a conventional diesel electric submarine.

All the best,
Nero

 

[Pale Rider]

The following was in the result of a gentle warning from Redleg to a post on "Wrong time to lose interest in MBT"

Clarified/updated rule #6 a bit:
6. If you post something to be considered as fact, you must also state the original source (link preferred).

”OK, that is fairly simple. But first ---------
--------20 years ago you could've had vehicles in America that aren't hybrids, have no degrade in performance and use less than 30% of the fuel of an equivalent vehicle with a contemporary engine. That’s what it looks very much like the Russians are going to have in their next generation MBTs.

Always keep in mind, I'm quite happy to answer any questions about this technology path and the history of trying to get it into production. Redleg, I have had a read through the rules that I could find and if I do feel free to edit the text”.


Hi Pale Rider.

Additional comments to the above:

• Back in the days I lived in Australia, Vasily Fofanov did me a very big favor at one stage and has considerable credibility with me personally.
• My contacts within Rosvorouzhenie were Vitaly Telkov, Head of Department and Rear Admiral Belaventsev (hope that’s how you spell it, its been a long time) and throughout the more than six months duration of the correspondence with Rosvorouzhenie, the contact never dropped below this level. There was a third military contact I had a brief dialogue with, about the end of this period, a Colonel General, who I thought was part of the Armored Corp, turned out to be something entirely different.
• As I think I’ve said somewhere in the thread already, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m going to look at the thread on surface combatants and submarines later and if it sounds interesting and I can join in, I’ll start doing some posts to that as well; its all inter-related and if anybody actually starts to ask real questions about it, who knows what you’ll learn. Incidentally, I have good reason to believe the Russian have also looked at this as an air-independent system for conventional submarines; changes the whole ball game. AI submarines with near the performance of a Nuke, except endurance, and so much cheaper than a conventional diesel electric submarine.

All the best,
Nero

Hi nero1234:

Yes I do know who Vas is, he does frequent tanknet and I have some respect for him in regards to his knowledge of Russian armor, even if I may not agree with him all the time, you should listen and take notice of Hark the Ukrainian also who frequents tanknet, he is savy on what he is spouting.

As far as propulsion system designs for tanks go that information has been known and tested now for quite some time, The U.S is really been stepping up the research and design phase of electrical propulsion for armor vehicles and have made great strides in this area. do I think that the Russians are capable of this type of technology, why yes. As far as naval and aviation technology goes that is not my area of interest nor background, but I will most surely read your threads that you contribute to this site.

My background is in armor, it has been a big part of my life for the past 25 years, I have served in the military as a Master gunner and have actual field experience time working with the M-48A5 to the M1A2, yes - we still used M48A5s in ROK up until 1984. I have had the honor of working with a lot of foreign countries armor units including Russian. So lets bring some life to this thread and talk about Main Battle Tanks.:shock:

 

[SHERMAN]

lets ask a difrent question(rather than debate the pros and conns of a weapons system still in development such as the t-95)....

i ask you guys, espcially tank crews, what technology you think is the most in need of research right now, as far as MBTs?

somehow i dont feel its the engine. i thin kthe current power of mbt engines is sufficet, even more than that. with engines producing 1500hp and theortically tanks capable of 90kmh i dont see why we need more power or speed? no one drives tanks at 90, or even 80 kmh in combat.

 

[A Can of Man]

By the way nero, titanium isn't classified. I've seen titanium made in USA bikes before. Personally I don't see the need for a titanium submarine. But then again I'm not a submariner.

 

[Pale Rider]

lets ask a difrent question(rather than debate the pros and conns of a weapons system still in development such as the t-95)....

i ask you guys, espcially tank crews, what technology you think is the most in need of research right now, as far as MBTs?

somehow i dont feel its the engine. i thin kthe current power of mbt engines is sufficet, even more than that. with engines producing 1500hp and theortically tanks capable of 90kmh i dont see why we need more power or speed? no one drives tanks at 90, or even 80 kmh in combat.

I couldn`t agree with you more in regards to propulson systems.

I would have to give the technology factor to the research of counter measure systems, interchangable caliber gun tubes.

By the way nero, titanium isn't classified. I've seen titanium made in USA bikes before. Personally I don't see the need for a titanium submarine. But then again I'm not a submariner.

We even have used it for golf clubs and car suspension parts. Plus we have made tank rounds that were made out of titanium, your country redneck has a big stash of them,

 

[A Can of Man]

inapppropriate language

Yeah. So "classified" my :cen:

 

[nero1234]

Hmmm! Lets see, 13th Redneck is probably to young to remember much about the era of the cold war first hand, but Pale Rider would just about be old enough to remember something of those days. I meant what I said, in America at the time the Soviet Union was routinely building submarines and bicycles out of Titanium, it's use in America was still highly restricted.

The reason you use Titaium for a submarine's hull is simple, the material has the remarkable ability to become stronger under compressive loads, allowing submarines to be built for operation at far greater depths than hulls fabricated from more conventional materials. This allowed Soviet submarines to operated routinely below the thermocline, rendering them vertually immune to detection by surface vessels and other submarines operating above the thermocline. And is, I think the reason America went to all the trouble and significant expense, to lay down it's sea-bottom, submarine detection network of sensors. Forgotten now what it is called. Given some of these Titanium hulled submarines reportedly had a routine operational depth of as deep as 1,000 metres and in the case of at least two classes, are also believed to have been fast enough to outrun American torpedoes. The advent of the Titanium boats was a major design shift in submarine technology.

Incidentally, the Soviet Union could only afford to build Titanium hulled submarines because it operated a closed economy. Like America, with it's now more open economy, Russia cannot now afford to build Titanium hulled submarines and to the best of my knowledge, none have been built post the Soviet era. Although Russia is still improving its submarine designs otherwise and continuing to build ever more advanced submarines. Delude yourself if you will, or simply ignore the facts, but in many areas, Soviet technology was a long way ahead of the American technology of the time. If you want or need other examples, let me know and I'll post you a few.

Fellas, please keep in mind, I'm not doing this for fun, I really believe that Russia is or will re-arm with weapons, that in many cases, will include this power plant type. They have nothing to lose in doing so. What do you think will happen to the world wide market for weapon systems, if they start exporting an uprated T-80UM1 BARS, T-90 or T-95 as part of an integrated system, that includes SPAs and wheeled vehicles, all with common and interchangable power plant parts. And in parallel with this, starts marketing AIP submarines with levels of performance previously only attributable to nuclear powered submarines. We all know how peacetime sales are prioritized, hell the reduced through life costs and logistics imperatives alone, would be adequate to ensure adoption of this equipment, let alone its combat effectivesness.

The hilarious part of all this is, having failed to adopt this technology or even really consider it years ago, America may find itself in the position of having to buy power plant upgrade kits from Russian manufacturers, just to keep it's own equipment competitive. Don't think I'm joking abot this, I'm not. At the very least, the name of the game is keeping up with the competition and if Russia starts marketing this equipment internationally, they will own the world's arms market and equipment of even developing countries, would be otherwise, superior to the American equivalent.
nero1234

 

[Pale Rider]

Hmmm! Lets see, 13th Redneck is probably to young to remember much about the era of the cold war first hand, but Pale Rider would just about be old enough to remember something of those days. I meant what I said, in America at the time the Soviet Union was routinely building submarines and bicycles out of Titanium, it's use in America was still highly restricted.

The reason you use Titaium for a submarine's hull is simple, the material has the remarkable ability to become stronger under compressive loads, allowing submarines to be built for operation at far greater depths than hulls fabricated from more conventional materials. This allowed Soviet submarines to operated routinely below the thermocline, rendering them vertually immune to detection by surface vessels and other submarines operating above the thermocline. And is, I think the reason America went to all the trouble and significant expense, to lay down it's sea-bottom, submarine detection network of sensors. Forgotten now what it is called. Given some of these Titanium hulled submarines reportedly had a routine operational depth of as deep as 1,000 metres and in the case of at least two classes, are also believed to have been fast enough to outrun American torpedoes. The advent of the Titanium boats was a major design shift in submarine technology.

Incidentally, the Soviet Union could only afford to build Titanium hulled submarines because it operated a closed economy. Like America, with it's now more open economy, Russia cannot now afford to build Titanium hulled submarines and to the best of my knowledge, none have been built post the Soviet era. Although Russia is still improving its submarine designs otherwise and continuing to build ever more advanced submarines. Delude yourself if you will, or simply ignore the facts, but in many areas, Soviet technology was a long way ahead of the American technology of the time. If you want or need other examples, let me know and I'll post you a few.

Fellas, please keep in mind, I'm not doing this for fun, I really believe that Russia is or will re-arm with weapons, that in many cases, will include this power plant type. They have nothing to lose in doing so. What do you think will happen to the world wide market for weapon systems, if they start exporting an uprated T-80UM1 BARS, T-90 or T-95 as part of an integrated system, that includes SPAs and wheeled vehicles, all with common and interchangable power plant parts. And in parallel with this, starts marketing AIP submarines with levels of performance previously only attributable to nuclear powered submarines. We all know how peacetime sales are prioritized, hell the reduced through life costs and logistics imperatives alone, would be adequate to ensure adoption of this equipment, let alone its combat effectivesness.

The hilarious part of all this is, having failed to adopt this technology or even really consider it years ago, America may find itself in the position of having to buy power plant upgrade kits from Russian manufacturers, just to keep it's own equipment competitive. Don't think I'm joking abot this, I'm not. At the very least, the name of the game is keeping up with the competition and if Russia starts marketing this equipment internationally, they will own the world's arms market and equipment of even developing countries, would be otherwise, superior to the American equivalent.
nero1234

Again - I know nothing of Russian naval vessels, as far as Russia making weapons platforms that have interchangable components then okay, they are already far behind the power curb with this when it comes to the U.S. We have been researching this very thing that you have mentioned now for the last twenty years or so and are pretty close of fielding a some of these vehicles, and yes I am talking about our FCS program.

And yes I do remember the Cold War era and have spent much of my early military career learning and teaching how to fight the Russians.

Also - the T-80UM1 is a dead deal with no takers which is to bad for the Russians because that would fix one of their primary concerns when engaging the latest and upgraded western tanks. :smile:

 

[nero1234]

Golf clubs, suspension parts, versus submarine hulls, common fellas, lets bring a little realism to the comparison.

Electric drives huh. Well I've always had a problem with this from the naval viewpoint. What would you rather be in, a flooding compartment with high voltage electrical motors and/or a generator, or a flooding compartment with equivalent power hydraulic motors?

I know where this little black duck would rather be standing.

Power Electrics in an MBT tank that is operational, apart from being no longer water tight due to loss of hull integrity or simply a damaged seal, sounds like a recipe for disaster if theres any water about.

Don't get me wrong, I love electronics, but if theres a robust alternative in a combatant platform, throw away those electronics and stick with the solid stough.
Nero1234

 

[Pale Rider]

Golf clubs, suspension parts, versus submarine hulls, common fellas, lets bring a little realism to the comparison.

NERO:

I have already stated that I know nothing when it comes to naval type platforms, if you post in that section of the web site I will read any information that you post on Russian submarines.

Electric drives huh. Well I've always had a problem with this from the naval viewpoint. What would you rather be in, a flooding compartment with high voltage electrical motors and/or a generator, or a flooding compartment with equivalent power hydraulic motors?

I know where this little black duck would rather be standing.

Power Electrics in an MBT tank that is operational, apart from being no longer water tight due to loss of hull integrity or simply a damaged seal, sounds like a recipe for disaster if theres any water about.

Don't get me wrong, I love electronics, but if theres a robust alternative in a combatant platform, throw away those electronics and stick with the solid stough.
Nero1234

I am quite sure that moisture was taken into consideration when this concept started being evaluated. Anyways there is another Russian general shooting his mouth off and stating that a new Russian designed tank will start being produced for the Russian army in 2009, we have to waite and see.:tank:

 

[Supostat]

i ask you guys, espcially tank crews, what technology you think is the most in need of research right now, as far as MBTs?

If You are asking about principles to implement in design of future MBT, then I see 2 directions there:

1) New principles of main gun, i.e. how projectile can be fired with greater muzzle speed or have more armor penetration capability. There are few possible ways:
a) The way which seems to be used by Russians in `Black Eagle` project - the increasing of the caliber of gun. One of the reasons Russia left the Treaty on Conventional Armament in Europe is chance to build and use tanks with guns, bigger than 125mm, which was the upper limit for tank guns of the Treaty. As I have heard/read, the `Black Eagl` possibly have 135 or 140mm gun. Also, in internet can be found information on other perspective Russian tank designs with even 152mm guns.
b) Other way is to change dramatically the very way of how projectile is fired - there are plans to fire projectiles with use of electromagnetic field around the barrel, however such technologies seems to be quite energy consuming and there will be need to make power plant on tank more powerful to supply energy. For now also dimensions of power plant/`gun` are to be too huge to install them normally on tank, so such technical solutions seems to be still for coming future.

2) Change of tank composition scheme. As it can be seen on BMPT, there is a tend to remove crew members from the turret and make the turret to be controlled remotely from the tank hull, near the driver. It makes turret less vulnerable, as there is decrease for internal space, needed for crew member, and increase of survivability of crew.

 

[nero1234]

Like you say, guess we have to wait and see what comes out of all this, huh?

Good comments, but I know of at least two other forms of propellant yet to be used in either gun or missile rounds and both hold considerable potential. As to rail guns, who knows if we'll ever see these operable and deployable in mobile assets in our lifetimes.

Ultimately, the MBT will most likely take the form of a semi autonomous advanced combat robotic. It could be done even now and the returns from the commercial applications of the component systems and their core technologies would vastly exceed the cost of production of a few thousand advanced MBTs of this type. Likewise the elimination of the human component in a MBT considerably reduces it's complexity and thus its cost. Tankers would still get to drive and shoot 'em but you could just as easily do it from home base. In the case of American forces, the operators could be sitting back home at their base of origin, whilst the tanks and their maintenance and logistics crews were deployed overseas. Vastly improves combat crew survivability don't you think?

Its not a joke, the technology concept paths for both a discreet communications system and high speed/capacity data processing systems has been thought out decades ago and was lightly touched on with both MCTL and DARPA years ago.

There is little in science fiction that cannot be made into science fact.

Regards to all,
nero1234

 

[Supostat]

Good comments, but I know of at least two other forms of propellant yet to be used in either gun or missile rounds and both hold considerable potential. As to rail guns, who knows if we'll ever see these operable and deployable in mobile assets in our lifetimes.

Missile rounds have some problems.
1) They can be shot at quite long distances, however it means time between `fire` and `hit` increases enough for target to take countermeasures.
2) Missile needs to be guided, otherwise it will not hit the target. Guidance process implies using some revealing technologies - lighting up target with laser pointer (manual method) or using radar principles for target acquire (automatic or semi-automatic). Both emits electromagnetic impulses, which can be detected by target.

I.e., missile guidance technology warns a target of danger and relatively low speed of missile lefts some time for target to use countermeasures (flash impulse in direction of ATGM operator or smoke screen to blind him, radar jam impulse or just anti-missile defense system on the tank) to avoid hit.

Ultimately, the MBT will most likely take the form of a semi autonomous advanced combat robotic. It could be done even now and the returns from the commercial applications of the component systems and their core technologies would vastly exceed the cost of production of a few thousand advanced MBTs of this type. Likewise the elimination of the human component in a MBT considerably reduces it's complexity and thus its cost. Tankers would still get to drive and shoot 'em but you could just as easily do it from home base. In the case of American forces, the operators could be sitting back home at their base of origin, whilst the tanks and their maintenance and logistics crews were deployed overseas. Vastly improves combat crew survivability don't you think?

Its not a joke, the technology concept paths for both a discreet communications system and high speed/capacity data processing systems has been thought out decades ago and was lightly touched on with both MCTL and DARPA years ago.

But there is another problem, which appears by removing human element: a channel of permanent communication between tank and command center is needed. In war against `Al Qaeda` type low-tech enemy if could work, but more technical enemy eventually will find the way to jam or block this channel, and that most likely leads to lost of the tank.
Remote controlled tank is too dependent of such communication channel.

 

[Pale Rider]

Like you say, guess we have to wait and see what comes out of all this, huh?

Yes - we will have to wait and see what they roll out, if it is a unmanned turret then they will join the list of other countries that have tested this concept with some having fielded this type of vehicle, I highly doubt that it will be ground breaking technology that will have everyone scrambling back to the drawing boards. History has shown that Russia has over estimated their tank protection levels and capabilities, when the South Koreans tested the Black Eagle they were not impressed with its capabilities as the Saudis were not impressed with the T-90S, thus the reason they may purchase additional M1A2s with SEP upgrade.

 

[Gator]

I would have to give the technology factor to the research of counter measure systems, interchangable caliber gun tubes.

Dual Purpose and Sabot Rounds are easier to come by than Interchangable Caliber Tubes.

i ask you guys, espcially tank crews, what technology you think is the most in need of research right now, as far as MBTs?

As always, Crew Protection and Weapons Platform Battlefield Survivability.

And, I'd say increased range on the gun is more important, in my own opinion, than increased speed of the of the Platform.

 

[Pale Rider]

Dual Purpose and Sabot Rounds are easier to come by than Interchangable Caliber Tubes.




As always, Crew Protection and Weapons Platform Battlefield Survivability.

And, I'd say increased range on the gun is more important, in my own opinion, than increased speed of the of the Platform.

Are you basing that comment on the U.S still sitting with the mind set that we will only engage former Eastern block armor threats.