Future MBT "How would it look like"

[Go229]

My take on the next MBT is it's gonna be what the T-34 was to tank design in 1941. I expect a long, squat, low and very angled vehicule, with deadly firepower, all these wich compared to today's tanks would be similar to comparing a T-34/76 and a Pz-III. A tank no bigger or smaller, but "lowered and resculpted". Very wide tracks and large wheels for excellent traction and off-road performance combined with a powerful engine, a turbine or a turbo/supercharged diesel using synthetic or renewable fuel. Electric propulsion is not strong enough to drive something this heavy fast enough, unless someone invents fusion reactors, then some small enough to fit. Weight in the 50-70 tons, speed on road of 80 km/h, off-road speed 60km/h and a range of 600km. Not having the alcoholic binge of a turbine makes it less powerful than it could be but increases the range and decreases the supply load.

Armor would be heavy, very heavy, and would not be limited to using a median slope of 20 degrees of alot of Composite Chobham as a base hull. Protection will be almost equal from all angles with the front and top getting a bit of extra. On top of this will be a layer of next-generation Explosive Reactive Armor capable of defeating HEAT/KE threats by itself. Active and Passive protection systems will be standart and mounted on the turret. Basically a 360 degree radar guided shotgun that automatically detects and engages heavy ATGMs.
Alternatively if one or more miniguns are mounted on the tank they could be linked to the APS radar and used as land CIWS against both ATGMs, aircraft and helicopters.

My idea on how to have better crew protection is to put the engine in front (merkava style), the gun compartment in the middle and the crew in the back, in a heavily armored survival cell.
From this "armored egg" the crew would be dependent on excellent optics, video, comms and electronics to keep them connected to what's happening outside the tank. A large degree of automation will take place, including a toggleable "auto-acquire" AI using IFF and Image Recognition for all the weapons on board, so that the gunner and commander can engage targets using every weapon system on board. This could be turned off in a civilian-heavy urban zone and activated in a heavy engagement in the open, away from non-combattants. Of course there would be redundant "Kill-Switches" and Overrides.

Tomorrow's MBT will have more computing power than a squadron of F-22s, and the powerpack should generate enough electricity to light up a small village! A artificial semi-intelligence will be build in the compiter, the goal of this is not to make it a robot, but rather a "smart" tank that can react, alert and help the crew when in need. It would be linked with the whole army and intelligently and systematically analyze the situation and report new intelligence relevant to the mission of the crew. Even as far (one day) as analysing a AWACS radar report and alerting the crew to incoming hostile aircraft.

The turret would be unmanned, thus extremely low and angled. It would mount one or two remotely operated weapon systems (for example a HMG and a GL, or even miniguns) on the top of the turret and give the crew a chance to engage enemy personel and light vehicules whitout endangering himself. All weapon systems would be intregrated with the computer/AI of the tank. The main gun will probably be a 80 to 150mm Electro-Thermal Gun with enough energy to go through any current tank like butter. Autoloading technology will make the loader unnecessary or perhaps used as a secondary gunner. The Coaxial machinegun will go heavy, maybe a 25mm chaingun. This places heavy firepower in the main gun axis and leaves the tertiary armament for personnel, so if the turret turns, it means business.

The technologies needed for this are some way ahead, but so far i have laid down the design for what i think will be tomorrow's sucessful main battle tank. For me it represents the three factors of firepower, mobility and protection taken to their maximum level, with a fourth factor of Integrability (both electronic, supply and mechanical) taken into account.

 

[moahunter]

Will a future MBT need people in it? Maybe it will be like UAV's, operated from a command vehicle, or from armored personnel carriers? I mean, why stop at just automating the gun, might as well automate the whole thing (driven by people remotely).

I think for the forseeable future, amored personel carriers will be important, but I don't see why they shouldn't concentrate on protecting occupants, with the offensive capability for any future tank war or similar, left to remote and dispensible vehicles.

 

[Feanor]

Why does the coaxial machinegun need to be heavy? Right now the coaxial 7,62s are doing fine.

 

[Go229]

Well that's just me that thinks a tank should have a weapon to fill the gap between the light machine guns and the main gun. It would add another level of firepower so that the crew has an option when a main gun shot would not have the desired effect and the 7.62mm dosen't cut it. Basically something to use while the main gun is reloading. But i now realise what i proposed is overkill! A coaxial 25mm would be absolutely lunatic. In the near future the 12.7 and 14.5 should have everything desired, and what i mean is something heavier as coaxial. I'd take something in the 14.5mm calibre, a recalibered M2HB please !
HOWEVER a small-caliber coaxial automatic cannon could become desirable in the far future where everything will be so much tougher.
That something's doing fine right now dosen't mean there isin't place or need for improvement.

 

[Eeshaan]

Hi all,

Returning here to this board after a long time haha. Anyways, my thoughts on this subject, which I have been wondering for quite awhile myself.

Before you ask, " what will the future's Main Battle Tanks look like? ", IMHO we should first ask, " what would the future's WARS look like ? ".

In my opinion, to suit future warfare's needs, a high priority will be given to mobility in a tank. Of course, as Go229 stated, the armor on a tank will be roughly equal on all sides, for better protection in urban environments and during maneuver warfare. Of course, the gun will be a biger one ( possibly 140 mm or more ), but the tank IMHO will be more compact than current MBTs , thereby providing a smaller target to the opposition.

Advanced fire control systems, active defense systems llike the Shtora but better, and a communication interface like that of the M1A2 SEP MBT will be integral to the future MBTs.

All-in-all, IMHO the future MBT will be a smaller, more compact, more maneuverable, but well protected tank.

 

[Go229]

Hi all,
Before you ask, " what will the future's Main Battle Tanks look like? ", IMHO we should first ask, " what would the future's WARS look like ? ".

But that's always the question. Except what we humans are good at is perfecting the way of fighting the last war just in time for the next, then start all over again :hitwall

 

[Eeshaan]

But that's always the question. Except what we humans are good at is perfecting the way of fighting the last war just in time for the next, then start all over again :hitwall

Well, we hear alot that the next big war will be fought using unmanned vehicles. I think thats not true, but I have read about General Dynamics workingh on a prototype for an unmanned MBT. Just can't find the link to where they showed and talked about it lol.

Also, I think the next big war is going to be fought with nuclear weapons. So gonna be a bit hard to drive a tank around when the entire planet is a bunch of radioactive craters

OK seriously, I keep hearing about unmanned tanks, APCs and fighters for the future. Looks good in concept, but Im not sure how well that concept would work practically.

 

[Go229]

The next war is gonna be fought with unmanned vehicules, but not ENITRELY with them. We're always going to depend on man in many places.

 

[Feanor]

Well that's just me that thinks a tank should have a weapon to fill the gap between the light machine guns and the main gun. It would add another level of firepower so that the crew has an option when a main gun shot would not have the desired effect and the 7.62mm dosen't cut it. Basically something to use while the main gun is reloading. But i now realise what i proposed is overkill! A coaxial 25mm would be absolutely lunatic. In the near future the 12.7 and 14.5 should have everything desired, and what i mean is something heavier as coaxial. I'd take something in the 14.5mm calibre, a recalibered M2HB please !
HOWEVER a small-caliber coaxial automatic cannon could become desirable in the far future where everything will be so much tougher.
That something's doing fine right now dosen't mean there isin't place or need for improvement.

Sort of like the Bakcha-U complex on the BMP-3, BMD-4M, etc?

 

[Go229]

Precisely It's exactly what i meant.

 

[Feanor]

I wonder if something like that is in the works somewhere with a 120/125mm main gun, 23-30mm automatic twinlinked cannon, and a 7.62 or even 5.56/5.45 MG all networked into a single firing complex, that one turret gunner can control via a digital computer interface. It's a very rational design, and has become popular on the BMP-3. This rather under-promoted vehicle has won a fairly impressive number of export contracts, from Greece to the UAE and Kuwait, to South Korea (which iirc uses them for OPFOR training).

 

[Belesari]

I figure all future wars will be fought with more unmanned systems.

Armored cav will contain the normal Main battletanks, APC's, etc but also have drones that are semi autonomous and will come in several roles. Scout, Light attack, Mine sweepers etc as well as many others.

I see no need to increase the gun on a MBT at this time. 120MM is fine. No tank i know of or ship for that matter can beat a DU sabot round. And Explosive ordanence is still does its job fine.

If the tank changes in any ways it will be better armor protection. Especialy under belly armor.

Anti missile systems and later maybe rounds to defeat even sabot rounds.

Hopefully an automated turret and secondary weapon systems.

And Better fuel consumption.

 

[GI-Gizmo]

Future of MBT - The tank is always underestimated. . .

It seems that the tank always has to re-prove itself. Every few years "experts" call the days of the
tank as a major weapons system are over or doomed. Then lessons are re-learned as a conflict happens and the realization kicks in that the tank is as powerful as it ever was. The tank has evolved, the tactics have evolved, but the defeatist and de-valued faith that some critics have in the tank seem to recycle themselfs. No other weapon system on the battlefield has the impact that the tank does. It strikes fear into the enemy, gives means to breakthrough and push forward, brings devastating firepower and mobility and gives the crew comfortable protection. With the security that the crew feels when they are inside a modern, Western MBT, they are free to focus on their mission and always perform brilliantly. The crew is the most important part of the tank. A well trained and led crew in a T-62 could take on a poorly trained and led crew in a M-1A2 given the right circumstances. The tanks days as king of the battlefield has been called into numerous times before. In the mid 1980s the tank was doomed because of attack helicopters and guided anti-tank missiles, the Gulf War proved that wrong. In the first years of this Century the tank was again obsolete due to precision airpower, better ATGM and unconventional tactics. The invasion and war in Iraq and the Georgian-Russo conflict proved the tank was more dominant than ever and could evolve to keep up with whatever it faced. In Iraq the M1 evolved into the TUSK variant that proved to be a beast that the enemy could not take out. In Georgia, older T-72 tanks proved a difficult foe when they attacked in mass. The future of the tank depends on what we think we will face. If it is two developed Nations engaged in large, mechanized battles with alot of tank on tank fighting than the arms race will escalate and lessons will be learned by trial and error. As for the immediate future, I cannot see anything on the horizon taking the place of the M1 Abrams.

 

[Feanor]

In Georgia, older T-72 tanks proved a difficult foe when they attacked in mass.

Not quite. Actually if anything, the T-72s in the Georgian conflict performed in a similar role to traditional armored warfare. Manouever. There were no massive tank battles, or even mass employment of tanks.

 

[moahunter]

As for the immediate future, I cannot see anything on the horizon taking the place of the M1 Abrams.

I think that is the conclusion most people have reached. The M1 Abrams, or Leopard, is good enough for any human type situation where intimidation, close troop support, or similar, is needed.

Now if the Russians go out and produce a more powerful tank that has a mechanized gun, it is only logical that rather than replace the Abrahms with a better MBT to meet that threat as well as perfrom its current role, might as well just design something specific to meet that threat, and leave the Abrahms in place. That might be, a UAV type tank, which would be perfect as an anti-tank weapon (as opposed perhaps, to a troop support weapon).

 

[Belesari]

I think that is the conclusion most people have reached. The M1 Abrams, or Leopard, is good enough for any human type situation where intimidation, close troop support, or similar, is needed.

Now if the Russians go out and produce a more powerful tank that has a mechanized gun, it is only logical that rather than replace the Abrahms with a better MBT to meet that threat as well as perfrom its current role, might as well just design something specific to meet that threat, and leave the Abrahms in place. That might be, a UAV type tank, which would be perfect as an anti-tank weapon (as opposed perhaps, to a troop support weapon).

UAV type tank? :lol2 flying tanks! OH NOES! Oh wait we have those. ther called A-10s.

I dont see a MBT or any other being unmanned any time soon. One reason is the same as when you use your phone another is bandwith but the biggest is rolling around on the battlefield is alot harder than flying thousands of feet above it.

I can see unmanned support UGV (Unmanned ground vehicle) kinda like the armed mules etc. But not a tank. Also think about what would happen if the tank was hacked.

 

[moahunter]

I can see unmanned support UGV (Unmanned ground vehicle) kinda like the armed mules etc. But not a tank. Also think about what would happen if the tank was hacked.

You do realize that UAV's are flying around with bombs at the moment, and that none of them have been hacked? It isn't an issue with modern technology / encryption. You are right though, the tanks won't fly, but there is no reason why there shouldn't be armed vehcles that are remote, just like armed aircraft. It will be here very soon.

 

[Feanor]

It's not even a matter of an unmanned vehicle, of rather of an unmanned turret. That's a concept that has been floating around since the 80s. The current Object 195 is supposed to have an uninhabited turret, along with the now cancelled Object 640.

 

[Belesari]

You do realize that UAV's are flying around with bombs at the moment, and that none of them have been hacked? It isn't an issue with modern technology / encryption. You are right though, the tanks won't fly, but there is no reason why there shouldn't be armed vehcles that are remote, just like armed aircraft. It will be here very soon.

"http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/insurgents-intercept-drone-video-in-king-sized-security-breach/"

Yes they have been hacked. And i agree 100% we should have UGV's like i said the mules where a great idea. I just dont see unmanned MBT why what reason could you have? Locked inside a abrams is just about one of the safest places to be barring a per vs per conflict.

One of the reasons we use so many drones is that we can switch pilots so we have a longer amount of louter time but the pilots dont get tired.

I think what well see is a larger electronics and com suite in future vehicles or something modular that can be added to let them controll drones in combat..

And i agree the turrets probably need to be unmanned. But the only problem i see there is secondary weapons which are very important in todays conflict or and place where infantry is present

 

[Go229]

I was about to post that link Belesari, thanks
Remote-controlled tanks? If this does happen by god the most fearsome soldiers in the world will be hackers. Wich is according to my theory that hacking will become the weapon of the next wars, as so much depends on electronics. China already has military hacking training centers...

One of the reasons we use so many drones is that we can switch pilots so we have a longer amount of louter time but the pilots dont get tired.

Oh i think i would never get tired of that job...
"36 hours in a row son, i think you better take a break"
"Wait! Wait! I'm gonna get another!!!"