Future MBT "How would it look like"

King Comm

New Member
The current AI technologies are not sufficient for a truly autonomous unmanned tank, and unlike UAV's, it's much harder to keep a tank in the line of sight of control and relay stations, especially in closed terrain, in fact, trees, buildings, and hills may become some of the bigger enemies of the unmanned tank.

A few years ago, I proposed a tank design. The idea was:

Weigh less than 40 tonnes to improve strategic and operational mobility, and reduce logistic demands.

Armour sufficient to defend against high velocity 35mm rounds. With ERA, laser and electronic counter measure, and active defence systems.

Use diesel electric propulsion to reduce fuel consumption and reduce infrared signature.

Crew of three, so the commander can search for targets while the gunner engages them.

Unmanned turret to reduce profile without sacrificing too much elevation and depression

A 4m tall folding mast equiped with a day and low light camera, thermal imager, laser range-finder/target designator, and antenna for the digital communication system.

122mm or similar calibre rifled main gun to fire AP, HE, and guided rounds engaging targets up 5km.

25mm coaxial gun to engage targets within 2km.

Four externally mounted heavy ATGM to attack tanks and helicopters up to 8km away.

Milimetre wave ground surveillance radar at company level.

VTOL UAV at battalion level.

Digital communication systems similar to FBCBII and BFT to share all the information gathered.
 

Kilo 2-3

New Member
yfdnmvc smnc ns nmcms dmdcdscsD
My, that was a fast ban.....:ban

Anyhows, back to the main topic.

I'd focus on a high degree of networking between the tanks at the platoon and possibly even the company level. If properly processed and handled, this could give the tank commanders a dramatically improved sense of situational awareness and would improve co-ordination between the individual tanks. This would be especially useful in urban situations, forests, or other low-visibility situations where the tanks could not see each other, not to mention it could clear some of the "fog of war" and reduce the potential for blue-on-blue, friendly fire.

However, if the datalinks were poorly engineered, they could just as easily overload the commanders and only increase problems.

I'd also add sensor units critical points on the tank's hull, network them, process their data and then feed this information to a HMD (Helmet-mounted display) giving the commander a "see through the tank" view similar to what F-35 pilots have by virtue of the the JSF's "sensor fusion."

As for armament, I'd give the commander and/or gunner a low-profile CROWS-type machine gun or light cannon mount for engaging soft-skinned targets, personnel, and for use as an improvised anti-material weapon for killing IEDS, or if need be, taking long-range potshots at snipers (not that killing snipers would be the dedicated role of an MBT, but it could be useful in infantry support situations when ROEs restrict the use of heavier weapons).

The main gun would be smooth-bore, capable of handling sabots and a variety of other weapons. If it proved workable and cost-effective, I might revisit the Shillelagh concept. Or I might simply add a set of horizontal missile cells for use with wire-guided/TOW and/or Javelin-like anti-armor missiles. If deemed necessary, a set of IR-guided anti-air missiles could also be fitted in these cells. A VLS would only take up room and heighten the profile of the tank, so the missile system would either a pop-up launcher on the turret or engine deck or an external pod attached to the turret.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Unconfirmed rumors that Object 195 might be displayed publicly for the first time this summer in a semi-finalized configuration. I.e. it's close to entering production.
 

Thiel

Member
I'd also add sensor units critical points on the tank's hull, network them, process their data and then feed this information to a HMD (Helmet-mounted display) giving the commander a "see through the tank" view similar to what F-35 pilots have by virtue of the the JSF's "sensor fusion."

As for armament, I'd give the commander and/or gunner a low-profile CROWS-type machine gun or light cannon mount for engaging soft-skinned targets, personnel, and for use as an improvised anti-material weapon for killing IEDS, or if need be, taking long-range potshots at snipers (not that killing snipers would be the dedicated role of an MBT, but it could be useful in infantry support situations when ROEs restrict the use of heavier weapons).
Why not slave the gun to the HMD, Apache style, but with an option for "manual" control? Should make "fast-n-dirty" situations easier to handle.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Problem is that unlike in an Apache you just have one shot. You can't walk the tracers into the target. And I have my doubts about the ability of one's head to be as pinpoint accurate as the control sticks of a modern tank. One's neck just isn't stable enough.

I also see no logic in fielding a couple of ATGMs when one has a decent KE. One should focus on one way of killing heavily armored vehicles.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Problem is that unlike in an Apache you just have one shot. You can't walk the tracers into the target. And I have my doubts about the ability of one's head to be as pinpoint accurate as the control sticks of a modern tank. One's neck just isn't stable enough.

I also see no logic in fielding a couple of ATGMs when one has a decent KE. One should focus on one way of killing heavily armored vehicles.
So you think barrel-fired ATGMs are a dead end?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
With guided rounds on the horizon (we are talking about a future MBT after all) I think yes.
There is no advantage to gain from tube launched ATGMs if you have guided rounds available which are going to hit a target just as accurate at long distances but with more speed. This is good for your Engagement times and harder for an APS to counter.

Currently I think that tube launched ATGMs are usefull in some situations like long range sniping. Carrying some with you is ok but the proposed external mount or mini vls is of no use.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Why not? Heavy ATGM nowadays can reach the range of up to 8km, nothing fired out of a tank's main gun can match.
Agreed. Wonder what happen to CKEM. It suppose to have a range of 10km and a speed of mach 6.5+. it maybe small enough to fit into a tank main gun, or maybe it'll require external mounting.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
And where do you want to store them? 8km would mean something like a hellfire. Not the smallest ATGM out there. These beasts are not even carried by dedicated missile armed tank hunters.

Putting a usefull number onto a tank turret would mean making the turret much bigger. Especially when one wants to carry these things into combat without a launch container.

One also shouldn't forget that apart from open deserts and some really rare spots in other areas one can hardly use the effective range of modern tank guns. A 3km shot is a rarity. Thinking that a ground vehicle can make effective use of the 8km range is unrealistic.

Better do it like the russians and carry a hand full of tube launched ATGMs for the rare chances to use them. This comes without all the offsets of external mounted ATGMs which would be a liability for most of the time.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
With guided rounds on the horizon (we are talking about a future MBT after all) I think yes.
There is no advantage to gain from tube launched ATGMs if you have guided rounds available which are going to hit a target just as accurate at long distances but with more speed. This is good for your Engagement times and harder for an APS to counter.

Currently I think that tube launched ATGMs are usefull in some situations like long range sniping. Carrying some with you is ok but the proposed external mount or mini vls is of no use.
In this case, future means in the next decade. I agree with you on the external mounts, but barrel-fired ATGMs in my opinion will have a future.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
They might.
If future guided rounds don't become as reliable or accurate as I exect (which is fully possible).
Otherwise they are goig to get replaced by guided rounds.

Right now I think that a small amount of tube launched ATGMs is a usefull addition to everyone's tank loadout. Except for the Israelis the West is behind in this.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's also a question of time. I.e. how soon guided rounds become available.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Israeli unveils tank-defense system of the future
Josef Federman, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 2, 4:20 am ET

HAIFA, Israel – On a dusty, wind-swept field overlooking the Mediterranean, a small team of researchers is putting the final touches on what Israel says is a major game changer in tank defense: a miniature anti-missile system that detects incoming projectiles and shoots them down before they reach the armored vehicles. If successful, the "Trophy" system could radically alter the balance of power if the country goes to war again against Hezbollah guerrillas in neighboring Lebanon or Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. Its performance could also have much wider implications as American troops and their Western allies battle insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I think people will be watching the Israelis roll this thing out and see if they can get the hang of it," said John Pike, director of the military information Web site GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Virginia. "The future of the United States army is riding on the proposition that something like this can work."
The Trophy is believed to be the first of a series of so-called "active defense" systems to become operational. Such systems aim to neutralize threats before they strike the tank. In the past, tanks have relied on increasingly thick layers of armor or "reactive" technology that weakens an incoming rocket upon impact by setting off a small explosion.
Israeli weapons maker Rafael, the developer of the Trophy, says the system has been in the works for years, but the bitter experience of Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon gave the project an extra push.
Developers say the Trophy can stop any anti-tank rocket in the formidable Hezbollah arsenal, which struck dozens of Israeli tanks and killed at least 19 Israeli tank crewmen during their monthlong war.
"We can cope with any threat in our neighborhood, and more," said Gil, the Trophy's program manager at Rafael. Citing security considerations, the company would not permit publication of his last name.
Israeli analyst Yiftah Shapir said it is premature to tell whether the Trophy can make a major difference, however. He said the army must cope with the high costs of the system and determine exactly how it will be used.
"When everyone knows that it works properly, it will change the battlefield," he said.
Israeli media have said the cost is about $200,000 per tank. Rafael refused to divulge the price of the system, saying only that it's a "small fraction" of the cost of a tank.
Gil and his small team of scientists conduct tests at a site in the outer reaches of Rafael's sprawling headquarters in northern Israel — firing rocket-propelled grenades, Sager rockets, and TOW and Cornet missiles at a lone tank set up in front of a massive fortified wall. The results are analyzed in a concrete hut loaded with laptops and flat-screen monitors.
The tiny Trophy system, lodged behind small rectangular plates on both sides of the tank, uses radar to detect the incoming projectiles and fires a small charge to intercept them, said Gil.
After firing, the system quickly reloads. The entire process is automated, holds fire if the rocket is going to miss the tank, and causes such a small explosion that the chances of unintentionally hurting friendly soldiers through collateral damage is only 1 percent, the company says.
Pike, the military analyst, said systems like the Trophy are considered the way of the future for ground warfare. The technology is a key component of the U.S. "Future Combat System," the master plan for the American military, he said. The U.S. and Russia are developing similar systems.
If the technology works, he said it will reduce the need for heavy armor on tanks — resulting in lighter vehicles that are easier to transport and deploy and are more nimble on the battlefield. But, he noted, "it's a lot easier to get it to work on a test range than it is to get it to work on a battlefield."
Lova Drori, Rafael's executive vice president for marketing, said "there is a lot of interest" internationally in the Trophy and he expects "quite a few customers" in the coming years.
Rafael officials said the Trophy has passed more than 700 live tests, and already has been installed in some Israeli Merkava 4 tanks in a pilot project.
In a statement, the army said "dozens of tanks should be outfitted with the new system" by the end of the year, adding that Trophy contributes to "maintaining a strategic advantage over enemy forces."
More than three years later, the 2006 war continues to shake Israel's defense establishment. Upward of 1,000 Lebanese were killed in the fighting, according to tallies by the Lebanese government, humanitarian groups and The Associated Press. In all, 159 Israelis were killed. The war ended in a stalemate and is largely viewed in Israel as a defeat.
The Trophy is the latest in a series of new systems. State-owned Israel Military Industries is producing "Iron Fist," an anti-missile defense that is expected to be installed on Israeli armored personnel carriers next year.
That system takes a different approach from Trophy, first using jamming technology that can make the missile veer off course, and if that fails, creating a "shock wave" to blow it up, said Eyal Ben-Haim, vice president of the company's land-system division.
State-run Rafael is also developing "Iron Dome," which can shoot down the short-range Katyusha rockets that rained down on Israel in 2006, as well as Hamas rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. Iron Dome is expected to be deployed by this summer near Gaza.
The Israeli air force recently unveiled a squadron of unmanned airplanes capable of reaching Iran, the key backer of Hezbollah and Hamas militants.
Rafael has also developed an unmanned naval boat called the Protector, which it says is already prowling the waters off the Gaza coast. The Israeli navy confirmed the Protector is being tested, but gave no further details.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
In the early days of ATGM, the IDF also felt that a ATGM could not beat the speed of a canon shell in reaching its target.

The IDF have since changed their minds with the LAHAT fired from 120mm-armed Merkava.

My question about barrel-fired ATGM is whether they can be fired non-line-of-sight and then be guided by satellite or some other targeting mode?

I am guessing this is possible if not already in existence.

If so, more and more this will influence the design of future MBTs and even in the roles they play. The IDF remains the most interesting people to watch regarding MBT design. As posted in the article above, their main concern is not what gun, but what defense as they continually place prime emphasis on survivability of their AFV. If you cannot armour a tank sufficiently enough to defend against a projectile, you have to come up with other options like shooting it down.

...

My next question is whether an MBT should have an AA role?

Because IMO, if we are talking about weaponry aspect of MBT, what is most lacking is the ability to defend against air threats.

While MBTs are always supposed to be supported by AA carriers or air assets, these could sometimes not be available for a multitude of reasons.

So what about AA defense for MBTs. Is it necessary?

If so, what are the options? Or do you simply hand out a few Stingers etc to the crew?
 
Last edited:

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Israelis also care alot about their ability to reach out and touch the enemy. Because of this they use additional .50 cals, mortars and a variety of main gun rounds on their MBTs. The LAHAT is another example of them thinking about their offensive firepower. It is just that there is no threat on their borders which cannot be engaged and eliminated by the weapons onboard their MBTs so currently the new APS are in the news.

LAHAT can be guided by other assets with a laser designator. This is indeed nice to have but the situations were for example an infantry squad has to guide such a round from a nearby tank are quite rare. IMO this capaility is more meant to give them more flexibility when hanging them under an UAV which they also do.

The main source of PGMs used by light ground assets are still going to be air and artillery assets.

The current ability of MBTs to attack air targets is sufficient. One should not try to make a Jack of all trades out of a MBT. That also compromises the combined arms idea. The main gun with modern programmable ammunition (even with normal HEAT and KE rounds) coupled to the fcs is a big threat to every helicopter. Especially on a complex battlefield. Everything else is overkill. Just have a look at what for example a Tunguska needs to become a viable threat to enemy air assets which threaten your mech forces. Do you want to put this on top of a MBT turret? Additionally the IFVs accompanying the tanks in many armed forces add a potent autocannon enemy helicopters.

This would be like asking why an infantry squad doesn't carry a couple of Kornets, Stingers, a M2 and a mortar because they could need it.

It is also a question of perceived threat. The US for example is happy with using the USAF as their only real show stopper for enemy air assets threatening their ground forces as a couple of Linebackers, Avengers and Stinger Teams is not what I would call a decent ground based protection. And they could probably get away with this. Russia and especially the former red army is the other side of the medal. A 3rd Shock Army running through the North German Plane would have bristled of all kinds of AA assets making attacks against them more than dangerous and with the tank and mech forces being able to concentrate onto their business.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's gotten even more drastic then the Cold War days. During the Cold War at least there were some medium-altitude SAMs in the US arsenals. And the Soviet AA concentrations were not that high (proportionately). A modern Russian motor-rifles brigade almost has the AA assets of a Soviet era division. However, in my opinion, this is more a sign of poor coordination with the airforce, then anything else. And the modern US Army has nothing between Stingers and Patriots.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I wouldn't say that it is a sign of poor coordination between army and air force. For sure Russia needs improvements in this area but I doubt that anybody else can hope of dominating the skies as the US does.

So protecting one's ground assets is vital and one can only hope to achieve this by having dedicated low and middle altitude AA assets accompanying the ground forces as well as mobile high altitude SAMs available.
 
Top