Whats the Next Gen Tank?

[Chrom]

Lets see if I can't take a real leap here, one bound to cause some controversy (yeah, here I go again, can't resist :unknown )

Multi-turreted tanks failed because of the increase in surface area resulted in thinnner armor or too much weight... or both, However, massive slabs of armor may become a thing of the past if active counter measures can be made as effective for vehicles as they have for warships.

?

Multiturret tanks failed mainly due to targetting issues - it became almost impossible to aquire multiply targets for multiply turrets. Even 70 years ago small autocannons (which was main weapon for most tanks) didnt required that much place.
Now, with modern FCS, glass/transparent cab, netcentric warfare, the multitargetting is possbile. That is why started to appear new multi-weapon vehiles like BMPT.

 

[nero]

italian tanks ???

Multiturret tanks failed mainly due to targetting issues - it became almost impossible to aquire multiply targets for multiply turrets. Even 70 years ago small autocannons (which was main weapon for most tanks) didnt required that much place.
Now, with modern FCS, glass/transparent cab, netcentric warfare, the multitargetting is possbile. That is why started to appear new multi-weapon vehiles like BMPT.

what about italian tanks ??

the sort of ariete tanks which r said to be fully amphibous with great agility.

the italians i believe r building a new generation of tanks !!

any info on this ???

please update if possible !!

.


.

 

[Waylander]

The Italians have no new tanks in the pipe (No wonder after their "export success" with the Ariete) and the Ariete is not more amphibious than any other tank with a snorkle.

They have the newer Centauro B1 with a 105mm in service and another version with a 120mm exists as a prototype.
But this is not a new tank but a tank hunter, fire support vehicle and convoy escort vehicle and it serves in these roles in the italian army.

 

[eckherl]

The Italians have no new tanks in the pipe (No wonder after their "export success" with the Ariete) and the Ariete is not more amphibious than any other tank with a snorkle.

They have the newer Centauro B1 with a 105mm in service and another version with a 120mm exists as a prototype.
But this is not a new tank but a tank hunter, fire support vehicle and convoy escort vehicle and it serves in these roles in the italian army.

Correct - they are working on urbanized kits for the Ariete some of wich they have fielded but nothing in the pipe.

I just love the muzzle brake on their 105mm and 120mm guns, there are some folks who believe that muzzle brakes effect firing of Sabot ammunition, what do think.

 

[Waylander]

I thought muzzle breaks are just not common on tanks because it is cheaper to produce tubes without them and the tank itself is a stable enough platform that they are not required.

 

[eckherl]

I thought muzzle breaks are just not common on tanks because it is cheaper to produce tubes without them and the tank itself is a stable enough platform that they are not required.

I am in agreement with you, the only draw back would be the sound levels.
They work very well with smaller platform systems like Centuaro, and being able to handle recoil for higher pressure level ammunition.

 

[heavyaslead]

It seems to me, even though the Black Eagle design concept is some 10 years old, other nations have not quite caught on to some of the ambitious designs demonstrated.

For instance the idea of a real AA gun automated seems a serious improvement for a next gen tank.

Jamming of enemy targeting devices seems like a real direction to pursure as well.

 

[Waylander]

When I see what a big radar you still need on AA vehicles like Gepard, AA CV90, Tunguska, etc. I just cannot see an automated gun on a tank with serious ability to track and engage enemy air targets (mostly helicopters and slow moving CAS planes) and usefull ranges.

@Eckherl
I don't think that sound levels are that important. As long as you don't stand directly in front of the gun (Which is also not a good idea because of other reasons... ) and have earplugs it should be no problem.

 

[eckherl]

When I see what a big radar you still need on AA vehicles like Gepard, AA CV90, Tunguska, etc. I just cannot see an automated gun on a tank with serious ability to track and engage enemy air targets (mostly helicopters and slow moving CAS planes) and usefull ranges.

@Eckherl
I don't think that sound levels are that important. As long as you don't stand directly in front of the gun (Which is also not a good idea because of other reasons... ) and have earplugs it should be no problem.

Yeah - it is not to bright to stand near one of the front fenders either and have one bust a cap, like I had a National Guard tank crew do to me in Texas when the main gun was supposed to be clear.:shudder Luckily I had a CVC helmet on to obsorbe sum of the big bang.

For the vehicle crew it would not be that big of a issue while inside, I was thinking more in terms to the ground pounder support if you had any.

 

[Waylander]

I agree. I also ment it would be no problem for troops standing near by.
We never had earplugs in while being in the vehicle.
The helmet (Or the ugly russian style thing we wear ) is enough.

What would be interesting is if overpressure in small roads is an issue when operating in MOUT environments.

 

[extern]

I agree. I also ment it would be no problem for troops standing near by.
We never had earplugs in while being in the vehicle.
The helmet (Or the ugly russian style thing we wear ) is enough.

:shudder Do you still wear such old -fasioned things? Now, when a bit of money appeared in Russia, the new tankman wear has started to achieve the army. Anti-flame defence, good (apparently) helmet, new personal weapon etc.

 

[Chrom]

MMW radars dont require big emmiting surface - i.e. see Apache, Mi-28, etc. After all tanks dont need to detect helicopters and stealth cruise missiles 15km away - 5-6km would be enouth.

 

[extern]

MMW radars dont require big emmiting surface - i.e. see Apache, Mi-28, etc. After all tanks dont need to detect helicopters and stealth cruise missiles 15km away - 5-6km would be enouth.

While more and more buisenessmen use portative radars for automatized personally house control/defence ( http://elvees.ru/index.php?id=234&L=3 ), no wonder it will be useful on next gen tanks. In Russia the first serial tank with radar was T-55A ('Drozd' APS). Now tank radar can do a lot of things: 1) enemy ground fire localisation 2) helo/UCAV warning 3) hard-kill APS. If not all tank, the commander tank surelly can be equipped with radar.

 

[eckherl]

While more and more buisenessmen use portative radars for automatized personally house control/defence ( http://elvees.ru/index.php?id=234&L=3 ), no wonder it will be useful on next gen tanks. In Russia the first serial tank with radar was T-55A ('Drozd' APS). Now tank radar can do a lot of things: 1) enemy ground fire localisation 2) helo/UCAV warning 3) hard-kill APS. If not all tank, the commander tank surelly can be equipped with radar.

A good space sattelite network with vehicle GPS works just as good

 

[eckherl]

:shudder Do you still wear such old -fasioned things? Now, when a bit of money appeared in Russia, the new tankman wear has started to achieve the army. Anti-flame defence, good (apparently) helmet, new personal weapon etc.

With the brew up issues on Russian tanks it is about time that they offer them better flame retardant clothing.

 

[LancerMc]

The future of tank designs is a really good question.

The US Army has been working for years on developing a tank that can use rail gun. The main reason for the lack of progress is the energy production for the use of any such weapon. There is not a significantly powerful and portable generator yet, though significant advances have been made.

The FCS is look into more fast and maneuverable systems reallying on missiles more then a mounted gun. The problem is; unless a new type of light and powerful armor is developed, these systems will be extremely vulnerable. The Unmanned Ground Vehicles FCS will drop the cost of each vehicle. I am personally skeptical about the validity of such a system. A bunch of cheaper lightly armored UGV's I don't can make up for the power and strength of MBT's.

With the introduction of active defense systems to the market and their future development could see changes in MBT design.

Currently the M1A2 and other western designs are meant to soldier on for another few decades, and I doubt any significant development will not occur for another decade.

 

[eckherl]

The future of tank designs is a really good question.

The US Army has been working for years on developing a tank that can use rail gun. The main reason for the lack of progress is the energy production for the use of any such weapon. There is not a significantly powerful and portable generator yet, though significant advances have been made.

The FCS is look into more fast and maneuverable systems reallying on missiles more then a mounted gun. The problem is; unless a new type of light and powerful armor is developed, these systems will be extremely vulnerable. The Unmanned Ground Vehicles FCS will drop the cost of each vehicle. I am personally skeptical about the validity of such a system. A bunch of cheaper lightly armored UGV's I don't can make up for the power and strength of MBT's.

With the introduction of active defense systems to the market and their future development could see changes in MBT design.

Currently the M1A2 and other western designs are meant to soldier on for another few decades, and I doubt any significant development will not occur for another decade.

We actually are closer than what you think in regards to the power supply issue, this was a issue a few years back but has been close to being resolved.

A major issue is the sustainability of the rail gun design for multiple firings that it would face in a combat environment. Also the barrel design is quite complicated and expensive.

 

[Waylander]

FCS is in real trouble at the moment. They are trying to push NLOS-C into service to get additional funds for the rest of the FCS program.
And they raised the weight requirement again.

Looks like they finally realize that you cannot get a vehicle with good protection, mobility and firepower as well as own UAVs and other toys while wanting to be able to transport it with a C-130.

Air deployability is a good thing as long as it is not your most important requirement for nearly every new toy.
Even the US is not going to throw some BCTs into action on the other side of the globe and supports them only via air without a serious buildup before such an operation.

As for tanker clothes.
We have fire proof overalls under our lighter camo overall as well as a flackjacket.
But the ugly hood remains.
In the end everybody who serves for longer time and needs to look out of the hatchet wears the black barret together with a headset.
That's the only way of fighting with a tank!

 

[eckherl]

FCS is in real trouble at the moment. They are trying to push NLOS-C into service to get additional funds for the rest of the FCS program.
And they raised the weight requirement again.

Looks like they finally realize that you cannot get a vehicle with good protection, mobility and firepower as well as own UAVs and other toys while wanting to be able to transport it with a C-130.

Air deployability is a good thing as long as it is not your most important requirement for nearly every new toy.
Even the US is not going to throw some BCTs into action on the other side of the globe and supports them only via air without a serious buildup before such an operation.

As for tanker clothes.
We have fire proof overalls under our lighter camo overall as well as a flackjacket.
But the ugly hood remains.
In the end everybody who serves for longer time and needs to look out of the hatchet wears the black barret together with a headset.
That's the only way of fighting with a tank!

Correct Waylander - funding has always been a major battle with new programs, and the vision for a air deployable tank with good armor protection that can go face off with other modern tanks is not with in our grasp as of yet. My comment above was more in lines of the technology progression of ETC weapons platforms at the current time.

It is good to see that Russian tankers are wearing nomex overalls now, flash fires are a major issue in any tank penetation including western tank designs and accounts for more fatalities versus effects from spalling.

And German tankers actually wear a anti spalling vest versus a flack jacket correct.

 

[Waylander]

I think it is a problem of me not knowing the right term for this:

http://www.army-world.de/shop/images/splitterschutz.gif

I always thought that flack jacket is the right word.