Next Generation MBT Discussion and Concepts

[krumholzMax]

Wow, guys slow down nationalistic posts look at facts. this is a kind of "official generation" it's all wrong I know who does Russian tanks from Ukraine and Russia it's all old 3 generation tanks base onT64-72 any modernization will not be able to up generation!
Next-generation is the fifth right? No. according to this list all wrong. Whey do it buy years it comes to production - wrong. All USSR tanks are old no any new not from Ukraine not from Russia you can call them modernized 3+.
How you can put tanks with new technology Chobham armor to 3 generations like Leo1 its same Leo2- Amrams and Chalanger2- Merkava 3 - Type 90- Leclerc IS 4 GENERATION WITH MODERNIZATION it's 4+ sorry i can call Abrams - Leo2 - Chalenger3 WITH Trophy active protection 4 generations. Bit Only Leclerc come after a lot of time. Mobarez British Chieftain tank by Iran how tank from 1 generation BMT also whey cold Israel modernization Centurion 1 generation only because of 105mm GUN? I think all list is wrong - Chobham armor gives you 4 generations still not Chinese or other nations not have full technology and its all times advanced. So about 4 generations, I believe I explain this is my point of view I was in the 7 Armor Division. I don't call upgrade of M60T with 120MM Israel (not german) Gun 3 generation it's 2+. About MGCS what must come in 2035 - sorry this looks like a joke - the hull, engine, and entire chassis of a Leopard 2A7 which can carry 68 tons were modified to host the lighter, more compact, autoloader-equipped turret of the Leclerc... Its mixes of two old tanks do something new if you think about 2035. Really little be lighter - we want to do autoloader even in Merkava3 - not good I see the prototype. 130 мм 140мм, for now, no targets but for 2035+ maybe but, not mm now matters it technology length of the projectile is important longer better - have problem with the autoloader. I will explain why Merkava4 is not modernization and I think is 5 generation and it's not because I'm posting nationalistic posts, which this one is. Sorry it's not like this at all part of the technology we sell but like I explain Merkava4 have a different approach if you know he builds not like anything in the world in production just a few worlds - new things in Merkava4 its all-new shape and new design no any modernization from Merkava3. too much text will be another one

 

[krumholzMax]

1 - Removable modular armor (part in Leclerc) (it's mean even in my 2B to 2D was changed with Chobham armor from Merkava 3 here you can change all-time with the advance of technology and not gained weight like in Modernization tanks 2- including the top and a V-shaped belly armor pack for the underside also familiar mine protection V-shaped underside armor -most tanks don't have it
3 - Some features, such as hull shaping, exterior non-reflective paints (radar cross-section reduction), and shielding for engine heat plumes mixing with air particles (reduced infrared signature) to confuse enemy thermal imagers, were carried over from the IAI Lavi program of the Israeli Air Force to make the tank harder to spot by heat sensors and radar. It's New!
4 - The Mark IV includes the larger 120 mm main gun 120 mm MG253 Israel made New Gun (251 in Mk3) but can fire a wider variety of ammunition, including HEAT and sabot rounds like the Armor Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot(APFSDS), kinetic energy penetrator, using an electrical semi-automatic revolving magazine for 10 rounds. You just push the button and you have a round in your hand and no need to change gun elevation like an automatic one. This why we still have 4 crews.
Also can fire LAHAT not new but very advanced also sell to USA and Germany - The LAHAT is designed to achieve a 95 percent probability of kill under most conditions. It has a semi-active laser guidance system, capable of both direct and indirect laser designation requiring minimal exposure in the firing position. With a low launch signature, the missile's trajectory can be set to match either top attack (armored fighting vehicle, warship) or direct attack (helicopter gunship) engagements. up to 13,000 m (8.1 mi) when deployed from a high elevation.
5 - The Merkava Mk. 4 Barak will be the first tank to have a smart mission computer that will manage the tanks’ tasks. This advanced artificial intelligence will reduce the team members’ workload and help them more accurately locate and strike targets.
modernization of what? hull - brand new - tank tower (wrong name sorry) brand new design also its a new tank
(don't want to call it 5 generations in all new things like AI and else you see in other tanks in duty?)
call it like you want its most advanced tank for now in production
6- Hull Power/weight 23 hp/ton acceleration 0–32 km/h less than 10 seconds
with new engine MTU ( licensed by USA engine do some problem in beginning)
also, new transmission Renk RK 325[5 fwd/2 revs) of course, those who drive in-tank know in terrain like Golan Heights with Boulders Rocks its matter. More Fuel 1400L was 1100L it's a new tank.; Speed comes to 64 km/h (40 mph) of course depend on terrain but the power ratio better
I was in 2b and 3 Baz during the driving suspension in 3 600mm also in 4(sorry I'm too old - finish my duty.) I was in M125 it was a nightmare!
7 - few things brand new The model has a new fire-control system, the El-Op Knight Mark 4. An Amcoram LWS-2 laser warning receiver (the new model first was on 3 Baz) notifies the crew of threats like laser-guided anti-tank missiles, which can fire smoke grenade launchers to obscure the tank from the laser beam. An electromagnetic warning against radar illumination is also installed. (New)
The tank carries the Israeli Elbit Systems BMS (Battle Management System a centralized system that takes data from tracked units and UAVs in theater, displays it on color screens, and distributes it in encrypted form to all other units equipped with BMS in a given theater.
What tank has it? artificial intelligence is now in use!
8 - The Merkava IV has been designed for rapid repair and fast replacement of damaged armor, with modular armor that can be easily removed and replaced. It is also designed to be cost-effective in production and maintenance; its cost is lower than that of a number of other tanks used by Western armies. (this is important and cost-effective like I say on Leclerc have some of the modules, not almost all tanks)
сost of tank start with 4.5 Million dollars and raise with new technology installed
9 - The tank has a high-performance air conditioning system and can even be fitted with a toilet for long-duration missions.
Yes in Merkava 3 we have suits with cables not good (very hot in Israel) here becuse the tank is closed with normal air conditioning -
the toilet may be funny for somebody who wasn't on the battlefield a long time.... Russian also wants to install in Armata this project dead!
10 - Trophy active protection system (APS you familiar after installation no missile hit 4M (Leo2 - challenger 3 - Abrams Sep3)
Why buy - so ours is better and have also the second version of Iron Fist - why no other system in production I don't know
I talk to Ukrainian still not in production need new technology radar and else from the USSR whey try maybe it cost too much becuse tank is old and cheap
11 - Iron Vision helmet-mounted display system The IDF was to begin trials of Elbit's Iron Vision, the world's first helmet-mounted display for tanks, in mid-2017. Israel's Elbit, which developed the helmet-mounted display system for the F-35, plans Iron Vision to use a circular review system as a number of externally mounted cameras to project the 360° view of a tank's surroundings onto the helmet-mounted display of its crew members. This allows the crew members to see outside the tank while staying inside, without having to open the hatches. Was talking about 2017 see already in Merkava4 video still don't have information if it was installed. On Eitan Have. Of course, you can take 6 army soldiers (4 better) on the back. Not new but very good in combat when you work with infantry as i do.
I think this is exactly what we see in the prototype I show in the tread of IDF maybe it's FMCV.
Sorry, this is the picture that will try to show the new V SHAPE of the top tank - the hull looks also the same from pictures of change armor its hard.
like I say I will upload a picture even hatch for the loader is protected it's new against all types of missiles coming from the top (If you know any tank with the same armor protection from the top show me. also, Merkava 3 Baz you see different shapes at all also top hatch of the loader closed most of the times ( very heavy need hydraulic to open and with Iron Sight commander of tanks also close the hatch so it's the first tank protected from TOP! Sorry if I do mistakes

Mod edit: The forum welcomes logical members who are here to make friends and learn from others. Please read the Forum Rules, before posting. This includes rules 14, 15 and 23, as follows:

14. You must post source of your information/articles (link, website, book, magazine, etc.).​

​

15. You must have fun and let others do the same.​

​

...​

​

23. There is both an expectation and requirement that members will put some effort into what they post with research, providing facts and links where appropriate and associated posting behaviors, to maintain the quality and level of discussion on DefenceTalk.​

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Isn't it my job to be the Israeli shill?

Aaaanyway, yes the Merkava 4 has introduced over the years many concepts that will only be adopted by others in the next generation of tanks, or were retrofitted only recently to existing ones. But that does not make it a generational leap, far from it. It's just the IDF trying to stay ahead of the curve. Which is not at all difficult when there are so few tank makers in the world, with varying levels of readiness to invest money and effort.

The 4th generation is still out there, and not all technologies were demonstrated properly.

 

[krumholzMax]

say what I send to you not understand look good at the picture its new tank you don't want to take facts I can do anything. 10 things only in this tank and for you is not enough - sorry give working for facts for you i don't know tank in 2035 mix of old tanks will have all this will see in 2040? We have it now read well all information official if you don't see the new shape i can't do anything. check my facts and say if what I say is wrong and have no nothing don't. You ever were in the tank you see Merkava4? I was and I have a connection with Rafael I can say all I know bit all i write it FACTS DONT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? sorry for the caps have no time only to write to you tomorrow working day I spend an hour to find Facts you ask so you say I am a liar or something? Look at pictures i see even a prototype of Merkava 4 hull a lot of times ago things change. Enough only Facts I show it you not.

 

[ngatimozart]

say what I send to you not understand look good at the picture its new tank you don't want to take facts I can do anything. 10 things only in this tank and for you is not enough - sorry give working for facts for you i don't know tank in 2035 mix of old tanks will have all this will see in 2040? We have it now read well all information official if you don't see the new shape i can't do anything. check my facts and say if what I say is wrong and have no nothing don't. You ever were in the tank you see Merkava4? I was and I have a connection with Rafael I can say all I know bit all i write it FACTS DONT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? sorry for the caps have no time only to write to you tomorrow working day I spend an hour to find Facts you ask so you say I am a liar or something? Look at pictures i see even a prototype of Merkava 4 hull a lot of times ago things change. Enough only Facts I show it you not.

Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired. DO NOT GO DISRESPECTING OTHER POSTERS ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEY DO. FOR YOUR INFORMATION @Big_Zucchini knows exactly what he's talking about especially with regard to the Israeli Defence Force. Your credentials are unknown and from what you have written so far, your knowledge of the subject is minimal, about the level of a teenage fanboi. if that. Pretty pictures are nothing more than eye candy if the information and sub-text that they impart isn't valid, reliable and from reputable sources.

So warning time. The better be a noticeable improvement in your posting content, style and attitude, otherwise your continued membership on here will be short indeed. 6 demerit points for 3 months have been awarded.

 

[krumholzMax]

Mod edit: Wall of nonsensical and irrelevant text deleted

 

[cdxbow]

Mod edit: Wall of nonsensical and irrelevant text deleted

I don't think you should show things reveling any personal details no matter how much you wish to prove your credibility. Nor will the mods be generous about your tone and 'shouting' with a bold font, only mods are allowed to shout,

 

[krumholzMax]

ok, you are from Oz I am from Israel and was un IDF have all prove nothing to say on facts - looks at facts- bold so small what your problem it's not Caps just start in small bold don't notice your tone is not good I don't say anything without proof. I work with facts ask me I give all facts cant find more no problem. Shout young man i do not shout I show facts w\o receiving Facts back - I working with facts and my own experience. If you do not look at facts and now I give sources next will give it same time we have nothing to talk.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In addition to what @cdxbow said, you should look up the term "doxxing" to better understand the dangers of revealing one's identity.

 

[Feanor]

Thread locked pending moderator discussion.

 

[Feanor]

Thread unlocked. All participants please ensure you read the thread before posting, and make sure you have something of substance to contribute to the conversation.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

OMFV competitors are in.
The expected KF41, an AMPV with Elbit's support, the AS21 Redback with a twist - a Rafael turret and systems instead of Elbit, and a few more that we can only guess how they'll look.

'Really Big Deal' As Army Awards Bradley Replacement Contracts: OFMV - Breaking Defense

"This is a really big deal," said Maj. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross-Functional Team. "So far, we've learned a lot of great lessons but we think we're on the right track." It is very important for the Army to be right this time.

breakingdefense.com

Difference from last time? Basically no firm requirements - a platoon of vehicles should carry 30 men. Or in other words, industry - define a platoon. Actually makes a lot of sense. Why? KF41 and Redback are both the products of private ventures. Someone already, a private entity, did the think on what the scalable base AFV should look like, inside and out. And it's important to see what they can come up with. They're paid to be creative. Army brass not so much.

OMFV Awards Mark Broad Shift In Army Acquisition - Breaking Defense

The Army really needed "to be more inclusive and to allow us to develop capabilities, that would be more scalable for the future." On top of that, the service tried hard, Maj. Gen. Ross Coffman said, "to lower the barriers to entry for foreign and non-traditional vendors."

breakingdefense.com

This is the big proof of concept, and if it works this time we'll be seeing the big tech of the next AFVs and MBTs in particular, starting to mature in action.

 

[Terran]

Okay here goes.
First Most MBT lists that state generations are Four generations with Fourth generation being really really developing tanks.
now then on most lists Merkava IV will be differentiated as either a Third generation or a transitional stage if fitted with Trophy.
Armor/Protection
Composite armor systems like Chobham was the base requirement for a Third generation MBT classification, yet Most of those who adopted Chobham didn’t stop there Abrams for example has undergone multiple armor system upgrades. The French didn’t adopt Chobham they developed their own armor systems. And the Merkava also uses a unique composite. The Chinese and Russians did the same.
Along with this Antitop attack and mine armor sets have been optioned on other MBT however most armies don’t see the need. Israeli’s unique security situation often results in very bespoke solutions and systems that many other armies don’t have a need for. A few might adopt them but normally not to the same degree. This said the Latest Abrams the M1A2C is supposed to have an IED blast protection plate.
An active protection system however is a Next generation feature yet as indicated it is retrofittable to an existing MBT.
Signature control.
Many tanks have signature reduction paints and other techniques built in. Of course for both Radar and IR detention you are limited by the fact it’s 70 tons of tank. The best option is actually an add on camouflage system. The Merkava has been seen with the Fibrotex system. I am sure it’s very good. Yet again other Tanks have similar options. Additionally most tanks also try and control heat exhaust blooms.
Main Gun
The MG253 is a very good gun system. However it’s dead equal to the L44 and M256A1. We know this as it can use the same ammunition as both and their derivatives. This means that they suffer the same issues to. The German and French tanks moved up in in length to get more pressure to the 55 calibers and 52 Calibres respectively. Although the actual advantage seems academic. Having the ability to move up caliber to a 130mm or 140mm is seem as the next big step.
as to the Ammunition types, again MG251/MG253 can use just about any other NATO tanks 120mm rounds and visa versa. The Israelis were leaders in development of multipurpose High explosive rounds. Today that’s widely being adopted.
The only unique aspect is LAHAT yet I don’t think any one actually uses it. The US looked at it but for arming a drone not a tank. The Germans looked at it, proved it on Leo 2 but didn’t buy. It seems like a practical system and works but it just doesn’t seem to meet a need. Does the IDF even use it in the gun launched configuration?
Main gun 2.
The automatic drum of the Merkava is a neat feature, but does it offer so much more than either the Abrams ready rack or an automatic loader? I don’t think it does. What it is is a ready rack system. A drum that holds ammunition for easy of access. Vs the Abrams ready rack it’s only advantage is in the theoretical situation of what happens if the tank’s bustle rack is penetrated well the doors are open. In terms of speed with a manual human loader the limitations is how fast can the loader get at the ammo. Now with a fixed rack system like Abrams or leopard 2 you are going to have a “Sweet spot” a set of racks that ergonomics just work for. This means a loader on one of these tanks will probably be just as fast to feed the gun as vs Merkava. Where the trouble starts is once those rounds are used up. As the loader scrambles to grab from the hull bunker or trying to get a round out of some oblique angle. That’s the advantage of the Autoloader. The Automatic loader is just as fast first shot as last. Smallest magazine size I know for a ready autoloader rack is 16 shots. Now generally it will be a very rare very exciting day when any MBT get into a brawl and is firing more than 10 shots of the main gun.
The comes the argument about the gun swing up with I think is also a false issue. Modern MBT guns are stabilized and operated by motors. So the speed of elevation and depression is fairly quick. The deciding factor on rate of fire won’t be the loader it will be the Commander and gunner. The speed by which the commander calls out and designated a target that offends him and the speed by which the gunner can get the gun on said target confirm it and kill it then move to the next. That sequence is always going to take more time than the loader even if the gun is swinging around like a Burlesque show.
Chassis
Merkava has a number of unique aspects to it. One of the biggest is its forward mounted power pack. Another is its suspension, it is old school. Well most modern tanks use a Torsion bar system Merkava uses a Coil spring This system was very popular in the Second World War. But fell out of favor with the rise of Torsion bars. The advantage being if broken it’s just pull off the bogie and replace it. Thing is, Horstmann suspensions have been having a comeback tour… well I suppose more like a Tribute band. Modern In arm Hydropnumatic suspension systems started in the early 90s on Warrior, Challenger 2 and Leclerc. It’s on South Korean Black Panther, K21 and both Japanese Type 90 and Type 10. It’s not as simple as the old school version. But it has much of the advantages plus it’s more adaptive.
Other features like a toilet are interesting yet even the IDF admits they prefer not to use it. Also Armata is supposed to have one. It’s one of those things that it’s cool bragging rights but no one on the crew wants to need to clean it. Only absolute need is if it’s CRBN situation but then for Israel that’s a nightmare.
Countermeasures.
Merkava IV has top of the line countermeasures yet so do many other MBT. This has been an area of a lot of improvement in the last decade. The IDF has to be top of its game vs ATGM attack, yet that doesn’t make it next gen. Cutting edge absolutely.
Iron vision is a major future factor to. However it was trailed on Merkava, but was it adopted? Not sure, probably not yet.

I do feel Merkava is a very very good tank. I suspect that it’s line of solutions will continue into the next generation yet it’s not justified in calling it Gen 4.

 

[Terran]

OMFV competitors are in.
The expected KF41, an AMPV with Elbit's support, the AS21 Redback with a twist - a Rafael turret and systems instead of Elbit, and a few more that we can only guess how they'll look.

'Really Big Deal' As Army Awards Bradley Replacement Contracts: OFMV - Breaking Defense

"This is a really big deal," said Maj. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross-Functional Team. "So far, we've learned a lot of great lessons but we think we're on the right track." It is very important for the Army to be right this time.

breakingdefense.com

Difference from last time? Basically no firm requirements - a platoon of vehicles should carry 30 men. Or in other words, industry - define a platoon. Actually makes a lot of sense. Why? KF41 and Redback are both the products of private ventures. Someone already, a private entity, did the think on what the scalable base AFV should look like, inside and out. And it's important to see what they can come up with. They're paid to be creative. Army brass not so much.

OMFV Awards Mark Broad Shift In Army Acquisition - Breaking Defense

The Army really needed "to be more inclusive and to allow us to develop capabilities, that would be more scalable for the future." On top of that, the service tried hard, Maj. Gen. Ross Coffman said, "to lower the barriers to entry for foreign and non-traditional vendors."

breakingdefense.com

This is the big proof of concept, and if it works this time we'll be seeing the big tech of the next AFVs and MBTs in particular, starting to mature in action.

It should be remembered in the longer term that the SAMSON may be a placeholder. (same for the name. AS21 was for AUstralia. Presumably USA21?)
All indications are the Army still wants the final product to pack the XM913 50mm gun. Same would be true for Lynx. I expect changes to happen to both products.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It should be remembered in the longer term that the SAMSON may be a placeholder. (same for the name. AS21 was for AUstralia. Presumably USA21?)
All indications are the Army still wants the final product to pack the XM913 50mm gun. Same would be true for Lynx. I expect changes to happen to both products.

The Samson is more of an architecture now. If you read old PDFs, you'd see their turrets were compatible with standard 30/40mm Mk44 guns and the Mk44-S, but not the XM813. Now they are providing the Army with an XM813 compatible turret. I'm sure it's no problem making a turret compatible with a 35/50mm gun.

 

[STURM]

As APSs get more effective and they become more and more accessible in the coming years; to the extent that the chances of killing a MBT with a missile or even a Sabot round drops significantly; what possible steps or counter measures can be taken to mitigate the effectiveness of APSs?

Another question; the 12.7mm mount on the left side of the Merkava just to the rear of the main gun. Why is it placed in that position; so far forward of the loader’s hatch? The commander has a pintle mounted GPMG; why the 12.7mm to the rear of the main gun and so far forward from the loader’s hatch?

 

[Terran]

The Samson is more of an architecture now. If you read old PDFs, you'd see their turrets were compatible with standard 30/40mm Mk44 guns and the Mk44-S, but not the XM813. Now they are providing the Army with an XM813 compatible turret. I'm sure it's no problem making a turret compatible with a 35/50mm gun.

That’s my point, it’s a placeholder until a future iteration. Still I am glad to see they found a partner for the turret. 35mm or 50mm will require a significant amount of reengineering for the turret design on either the Elbit or Samson series. The Lancer turret used on Lynx thus far has a 35mm iteration although it’s tailored for the Rhinemetall gun.

As APSs get more effective and they become more and more accessible in the coming years; to the extent that the chances of killing a MBT with a missile or even a Sabot round drops significantly; what possible steps or counter measures can be taken to mitigate the effectiveness of APSs?

Multiple projectiles, multiple warheads, extremely high velocity, top attack are all being looked at. Generally APS have limitations in range of coverage, number of rounds, time of reloading.

Another question; the 12.7mm mount on the left side of the Merkava just to the rear of the main gun. Why is it placed in that position; so far forward of the loader’s hatch? The commander has a pintle mounted GPMG; why the 12.7mm to the rear of the main gun and so far forward from the loader’s hatch?

It’s a remote weapons station. Was added after the completion of the base design of the tank. The reason for not closer to the loaders hatch is, the loaders hatch is directly behind the Commanders independent sight. Where the commander’s MG was designed into the tank even it is mounted a bit awkwardly around the gunners fixed sight. The aim seems to be just that the aim. To give the sight as unobstructed a POV as possible well still offering coverage. Where Abrams has a similar MG load out. It was designed that was way from day one.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

That’s my point, it’s a placeholder until a future iteration.

I have two questions. How is the current Rafael turret for Strykers a placeholder? There was no indication of that in any article I've read, and it certainly wouldn't make sense to replace the Kongsberg's turret with yet another interim solution.

Second, how is it relevant to the current topic of the OMFV?
If anything, Rafael offering a 50mm-ready turret would give the Army an easy upgrade path to 50mm for its Stryker fleet.

As APSs get more effective and they become more and more accessible in the coming years; to the extent that the chances of killing a MBT with a missile or even a Sabot round drops significantly; what possible steps or counter measures can be taken to mitigate the effectiveness of APSs?

With a single munition, it indeed drops significantly. But just as the APS drastically improved the survivability of the AFV, so have its threats improved.

A tank in 2010 without an APS would be almost as survivable as a tank with an APS in 2025.
A tank without an APS in 2025 would be inadequately protected.

Not only is the number of high quality killers ever increasing, but also the type of said killers.

Regarding feasible countermeasures, these must be looked at for every tier of combat - from air launched munitions, to artillery, and finally to close range weapons like other tanks and handheld weapons.
Longer range munitions first need to be networked and made cheaper, then smarter to outwit the APS.
Closer range weapons will have to be produced differently to drive down costs and made available in greater numbers to maneuvering units.

APS made their first appearance in the naval arena, as a truly consequential system. Today's ground arena is a repeat of the same trends, in a way.

 

[Terran]

I have two questions. How is the current Rafael turret for Strykers a placeholder? There was no indication of that in any article I've read, and it certainly wouldn't make sense to replace the Kongsberg's turret with yet another interim solution.

Second, how is it relevant to the current topic of the OMFV?
If anything, Rafael offering a 50mm-ready turret would give the Army an easy upgrade path to 50mm for its Stryker fleet.

Because the OMFV demonstration only calls for a 30mm cannon. The final product objective is the 50mm. I say Placeholder as if chosen then the OMFV Redback would probably have a new version of the Samson built for the 35/50mm.

I don’t think the Army has any intentions of upgunning Stryker to the 50mm. This is due to Doctrine. Stryker isn’t classed by the US Army as an IFV but as an ICV. Basically Stryker when adopted replaced Humvees with a vehicle that offers more armor without jumping all the way to a heavy Brigade.
This is why it took the Army so long to move from the M2 or Mk19 to the 30mm gun. Even if the Army did choose to upgun Stryker I doubt they would go all the way to 50mm but rather bridge to the 40mm Bushmaster. I doubt this as first the weight issue. Stryker is heavier then it was supposed to be already. It was supposed to be C130 compatible. In practice it’s C17, on the up side it’s multiple in a flight.

 

[B.Smitty]

Maybe a "next generation" Western MBT should follow a "less is more" approach. Make the MBT lighter, cheaper, more sustainable, and lower life-cycle costs while just incrementally advancing traditional measures (firepower, protection, mobility, communications/sensors). This helps ensure we can afford to buy and operate enough of them, and they don't become "silver bullet" capabilities due to spiraling costs.

The 70t vehicles we have today place huge burdens on peacetime costs and wartime/peacetime sustainment.

Maybe we need to take a page from the Russian's and some design cues from the T-72/T-90. Smaller frontal area (and volume under armor) means less weight for the same protection. Less weight means less fuel per km, ability to use more worldwide infrastructure (e.g. bridges, roads), easier to transport, less wear and tear on running gear. Maybe shoot for 50-55t.





Obviously reducing crew size is the first step. I'm not a fan of going to two. Three with an autoloader doesn't require magic AI. Location of ammunition is key. Stowing in the turret bustle makes for a MUCH larger turret, but has obvious survivability advantages. Not sure if we can work stowage on the hull floor in a carousel, with the length of our fixed ammunition.

The XM8 autoloader used half of the turret to store ammunition vertically. This can still be separated from the crew with armor panels. Maybe something like this.


I think there's still value in having at least one crewmember in the turret, either the gunner or the commander. Seems like the biggest benefit would be the commander, who could retain heads-out vision, if necessary. Obviously an unmanned turret (ala T-14) is possible, but you lose a lot of fallback in case of failures (loading, clearing coax jams, sights). Or both gunner and commander on one side of the turret as above. I'm leaning towards just the commander in the turret with the gunner and driver sitting side-by-side in the hull. They could have duplicate controls and could switch between roles. On long road marches, the gunner could spell the driver. The gunner then wouldn't be able to reload coax, unless the turret was pointed forward, clear jams, or use backup sights, but it'd allow for a larger autoloader magazine with just one crew in the turret.

APS would be one expensive component that seems like a must-have for the future. Distributed Aperture EO/IR may also be a high bang-for-buck addition.

Not sure I think an MBT needs its own UAV, though I could see a gun-fired UAV or loitering munition stored as ammunition.

Powertrain should at least be a compact diesel like the MTU MT 890 series. Not sure about the maturity and cost of diesel-electric, but that could be considered.

Gun is threat-dependent, but the West seems mostly fine with continuing to revision 120mm guns and ammunition. The US hasn't even adopted an L55 gun, feeling the L44 plus DU ammunition is currently sufficient. So we could move up to an L55 with DU and gain significant penetration.

A Heavy IFV could use many of the same components (e.g. propulsion, running gear, APS, sensors) to reduce the spares and support demands for heavy units. They could carry one type of spare MBT/HIFV powerpacks, tracks, and so on. And disabled MBTs could be scavanged for parts for HIFVs or MBTs.

Now is it actually worth all of the costs to build this "Less-is-More", next-gen MBT? Might be a hard sell, but I'm having trouble coming up with valid reasons for a next-gen tank, when we can just upgrade existing MBTs. Lower cost of ownership and lower in-field logistics costs seem to be two valid reasons. A 70t tank is a 70t tank. A 70s-80s design is still a 70s-80s design in many ways, even with upgrades.