Future MBT "How would it look like"

[Feanor]

Actually it's a well known fact that VVS has serious problems coordinating with the Land Forces. I suspect this is why the reform created brigades with divisional IADS assets. The Georgian conflict was evidence of just that.

 

[Waylander]

I think you missunderstood me.

I also know that the VVS has serious problems when it comes to working together with the army. But I don't think that it is the reason for the huge AA defense belt of their mech forces. Even with good coordination the VVS couldn't hope to dominate the skies so much as to fully defend the Ground forces from enemy air theats.

 

[Feanor]

Of course not. I think that the recent increase in proportion of GBAD to regular land forces is due to poor VVS coordination with ground forces.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, ok. Now I get your point.

That may very well be the case. And I think that it is not only because they know that coordination is poor but also because the Army is sceptical about the Air Force being able to get the birds in the air in the first place.

 

[King Comm]

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.

Hellfires are like 50kg each, 163m long, and 17.8cm in diametre, not that big. Ground vehicles don't have them right now because very rarely can anyone on the ground see beyond 3km, and that's why I proposed a sensor mast to be mounted on the turret of the tank. Anti-tank weapons are becoming increasingly powerful, and it will soon become unrealistic to rely completely on armour, and passive or active counter measures for protection, so it will be best to maintain distance with anything that has strong armour and powerful weapons.

 

[Waylander]

It is still much bigger and has nearly double the weight of a TOW-2B.

So my question stands. How many of them do you think one can put (within a protected launcher) onto a MBT turret? The ability to let loose a pair of long range ATGMs which give away your position and without the ability to keep up a constant rate of firing is dubious at best.

I also expect ATGMs to become even bigger. One has to add higher maneuverability and/or ECM and decoys in order to beat the new active protection systems entering the market.

If anything the value of ATGMs in the face of new active and passive protection systems is going to shrink.

The extra surveillance capability of a retractable mast is interesting but IMO too costly to justify putting one onto every tank. In the end the idea of combined arms warfare is to have some recon assets with you in order to screen you from nasty surprises.
I could live with the idea of giving one tank per platoon such a device but not for every tank. And even that is pure luxury.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

The extra surveillance capability of a retractable mast is interesting but IMO too costly to justify putting one onto every tank. In the end the idea of combined arms warfare is to have some recon assets with you in order to screen you from nasty surprises.
I could live with the idea of giving one tank per platoon such a device but not for every tank. And even that is pure luxury.

In your opinion, is it feasible to have UAVs as battalion-level organic assets for recon and targeting purposes? They could supply datalinks and info feeds to platoon and company commanders, and supply individual tanks with targeting data for their main guns or for ATGMs.

This could conceivably give the tanks some NLOS capability and allow the tanks to fit better within the NCW-oriented batttlespaces of the future, and unlike the more limited masthead sight system, the uplink gear and the UAVs could also be used for other missions outside of targeting.

 

[Waylander]

For sure UAVs at bn level are going to become widespread and right now several countries field some or are in the process of introducing them.

But giving targeting data to individual tanks is IMO not usefull in the near future.
Artillery and other fire support assets are the way to go if one wants to attack targets which are identified by air and ground based recon assets.

That's what they are for after all.

People too often tend to try to make a jak of all trades out of a tank.
Tanks are just one part of combined arms forces. Better they are good at what they do and stay affordable.

 

[eckherl]

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.

Still being tested for rapid deployment type force structures. At the current size of this missle it way too long for a gun tube, we are talking around 60" in length but who knows what the future holds for this project, alot of valuable technical information has been gathered.

 

[eckherl]

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.

Thus pretty much what the Russians and IDF use them for, long range sniping. Basic Russian combat load is 5 projectiles.

 

[Feanor]

Eckherl do all units have the 5 ATGMs per tank? In the past I know only some units received the barrel-launched ATGMs.

 

[Waylander]

Thus pretty much what the Russians and IDF use them for, long range sniping. Basic Russian combat load is 5 projectiles.

And because of this I wrote that earlier in the thread:

Better do it like the russians and carry a hand full of tube launched ATGMs for the rare chances to use them.

 

[eckherl]

Eckherl do all units have the 5 ATGMs per tank? In the past I know only some units received the barrel-launched ATGMs.

I doubt that all current active tanks carry them, they are rather expensive. But this may change with the newer force structure.

 

[eckherl]

And because of this I wrote that earlier in the thread:

Yes, was just in agreement with what you wrote.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, ok.
Sometimes the non-antive speaker in me keeps me from getting it.

I always wondered how and if the Russian/Sovjet Army actually trained to use the tube launched ATGMs.
As you said they are rather expensive and infantry and missile carriers in most armies don't get to shoot alot of ATGMs either.

With the lower amount of normal 120mm live rounds fired by the russians I wonder if there are many gunners in the russian army who have ever shot one.

 

[eckherl]

Ah, ok.
Sometimes the non-antive speaker in me keeps me from getting it.

I always wondered how and if the Russian/Sovjet Army actually trained to use the tube launched ATGMs.
As you said they are rather expensive and infantry and missile carriers in most armies don't get to shoot alot of ATGMs either.

With the lower amount of normal 120mm live rounds fired by the russians I wonder if there are many gunners in the russian army who have ever shot one.

Maybe back in the old Cold War days some of the premier Russian tank battalion crews got to fire maybe one a year, now I would think they are hard pressed even to shoot one. More than likely practice is conducted by gunnery simulators and a live one gets tossed for demonstration purposes.

 

[Feanor]

I doubt that all current active tanks carry them, they are rather expensive. But this may change with the newer force structure.

The newer force structure is already in place. In fact given the overall reduction in armored units, there should easily be enough inventory to get around. I was wondering if you knew more specifically what the plans for the matter were?

 

[Waylander]

I think they will be happy to be able to distribute the normal 5 missiles to every tank and that's it.

Even if they now have "too many" missiles I doubt that they add additional missiles to their basic loads.
As said before there are not that many situations where a tube launched missile is more usefull than a normal KE, HEAT or HE.

 

[Firn]

I think they will be happy to be able to distribute the normal 5 missiles to every tank and that's it.

Even if they now have "too many" missiles I doubt that they add additional missiles to their basic loads.
As said before there are not that many situations where a tube launched missile is more usefull than a normal KE, HEAT or HE.

There are certainly some uses, but as always things are in flux. Launching the missile through the tubes seems to be the most sensible idea to deploy guided ammunition from tanks.

Besides other aspects I'm pretty sure that AFV will increasingly outfitted with multiple, interwoven defensive layers. Besides the layers of the passive armour active protection systems with different properties could become key elements of the survivability part of the equation. Even two different types of hard kill systems might be combined like something on the lines of an AMAP-ADS and a Trophy.


Firn

 

[Feanor]

I think they will be happy to be able to distribute the normal 5 missiles to every tank and that's it.

Even if they now have "too many" missiles I doubt that they add additional missiles to their basic loads.
As said before there are not that many situations where a tube launched missile is more usefull than a normal KE, HEAT or HE.

What I mean is that now that there are enough missiles to equip all tank units with them, will this be done? I haven't heard anything on the subject. I agree that the load will not be significantly increased.