Next Generation MBT Discussion and Concepts

[Terran]

The main issue with the Soviet design is that it lacks elevation and depression on the gun. Even the Armata tank moved somewhat away from the classic Soviet very low profile.
The main weight saving for Soviet tanks was to move from a manned loader with the associated space needed for said loader to the automatic Carousel loader which moved the ammunition to the hull almost entirely, reduced the crew size and crew compartment size to two men in the turret. Already French Leclerc moved to an Autoloader but bustle mounted as the carousels tend to use the crew compartment as a blow out panel resulting in 2/3 of the crew having a dramatically lower chance of survival. After Leclerc came type 90, K2 and Type 10 which followed this design. Also came Altay which didn’t.
Generally I think the next generation Western MBT will follow a bustle loader. The XM8 system was tested yes but as a light tank it used smaller ammunition. It’s highly doubtful that tank crews will be reduced below 3 man crews, which is already used in Leclerc

The UAV is of interest as it means the tank has even more of a observation point than currently available. I don’t see a tube launched system as a need it would just eat up ammunition stowage. Rather a roof mounted system. I believe that future IFV and APC will also gain such. The point being that you can now see farther beyond the horizon even using it for targeting. As well as seeing beyond buildings and urban development.
as to engines we already are seeing development of diesel/Multifuel electric systems having matured. The key advantage is weight and power management. Weight as even a Modern turbo diesel is still heavier than a Gas turbine but the electric drive is substantially lighter than a conventional transmission. Well also being more efficient in power management, quieter and less in need of maintenance. Farther the Electric motor generates the preferred type of low end torque.
As to trying to parts share between tank and IFV that will depend on the IFV. Some armies are moving hard to HIFV but that type of vehicle being based off a tank hull is better suited to an army that is more direct in nature. The biggest proponent seems to be the Israelis, Russians and Jordanians but If you are the Israeli army for example all your fighting is pretty much inside your own boarders or very close to them. As such all your deployments are such that you can drive to the front. It’s joked that the IDF doesn’t need a MRE system as they can order takeout. The Russians have been adopting such a system yet again the Russian army fights on on roads and from its own boarders.
Most NATO fighting has however been indirect needing transportation beyond either Europe or the American continents. This drives for lighter weight. Yet that weight is based on the protection offered to the crew and passengers. A few years back the US was looking at designing a vehicle to offer HIFV protection UN the GCV initiative. Concepts ended up weighing 80 tons with full armor load outs. Transportation of such a vehicle is pretty much impractical by ship impossible by air.
This is the issue with the HIFV it ends up weighing as much as the MBT it’s often based off if not more as you try and equalize the protection. The Namer and Merkava series tanks are the prefect example here they are built off the same General family with degrees of parts share but also the same weight.
Though vehicles like the Lynx and Redback are classed in the HIFV they seem to still sit at the lighter weight than most modern MBT. It may be possible down the road to use parts of their suspension systems and automotive systems for a NGMBT. But not the hull form as that is decidedly IFV oriented in design with a higher profile.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Before I begin answering every part separately, I want to say that the general concept of the next gen MBT has been more or less normalized between all relevant states/companies/entities around a common core of principles that makes a drastic change not only to the capabilities of the MBT and generally the next-gen family of vehicles, but also to the way they're employed.
Some have already created prototypes of the system of systems, and others are close to prototypes of the platforms.
With or without the actual tanks materially existing, the concept is solidifying and in some ways even put to use.

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.

That is being materialized by using different surrogate AFVs.
The American RCV family of vehicles consists of 3 types of expendable platforms, heavy, medium, and light, respectively more expendable.
They can act as partners or surrogates. Either way, this reduces the share of manned platforms and increases the share of expendable ones.

Another process is the wheel-ification of the maneuvering element. More and more assets are becoming wheeled, therefore inherently cheaper to buy but primarily to operate.

And another prime process is advanced simulators becoming widespread. So widespread, newly designed AFV architectures are often touted as having embedded simulation and training tools.

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.

This quote and also...

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.

Replying to 2 quotes here.
It seems you've come up with your own philosophy for a new tank. It's fun. I do it very often. But unfortunately it does not seem quite coherent yet.
It seems you took 2 very different schools of thought, and used them interchangeably to convey one idea, without any discrimination between them.

Maybe we take note from the Soviet school of thought and say we don't really give a sh*t about ergonomics and make the tank as small as we possibly can, by going to the bare minimum of needed crewmen at the cost of overall performance. (Yeah the small size was not only due to protection concerns but primarily weight limitations for strategic mobility via railroad).
But then, industry clearly shows the viability of a 2 men crew, and you say no.

So you're basically just down to the existing T-tanks.

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.

Adding a whole crewman, separate from the others and therefore making huge implications on the design, just as a troubleshooting tool, is not an effective way to deal with such scenarios.
If any army takes its own statistics on how many faults occurred during real combat, how many tanks were deployed in the area, and the seriousness of said faults, it can assess whether adding a human instead of an extra machinery is worthwhile.
It seems at least the solidified concepts are veering away from manned turrets. Only the French prefer a manned turret, but they have still not progressed much in their project.

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.

The L55 is not a clear cut superior option to the L44. Far from it. There's a good reason why tanks like the Abrams and Merkava are using L44, the Leclerc uses an L52, and Leopard customers are not all keen on upgrading to L55.
It may have superior anti armor capabilities, but only beyond a certain range. A certain range that is not deemed common enough in many places.
Within ranges typical for Europe, an L44 will be more than sufficient.
An L55 will add 1.3 meters to an already very long gun, making it susceptible to bumping into buildings, trees, or other obstacles. And by bumping I mean sometimes just a boop, and sometimes damage that could hinder the gun's performance.
A more cumbersome platform is a less mobile one.

Also, the French and Germans are currently testing 130mm and 140mm guns, and the US is not at all wedded to the 120mm for the DLP.

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.

If your goal is to move away from expensive platforms to make them more fieldable, why advocate for such an HIFV? It is a niche capability.
The only in-service HIFV is the Namer, and it is just as expensive as a Merkava tank. Their planned numbers were cut in more than half since their early days.

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.

Industry has evolved. Their technology and products have evolved. Today's tanks were suitable for the technology of the 80's.
To make them effective today and make use of 2020's technology, tanks need to be completely restructured. Hence the new platforms. Can only use so much from the old ones.

 

[Terran]

Adding a whole crewman, separate from the others and therefore making huge implications on the design, just as a troubleshooting tool, is not an effective way to deal with such scenarios.
If any army takes its own statistics on how many faults occurred during real combat, how many tanks were deployed in the area, and the seriousness of said faults, it can assess whether adding a human instead of an extra machinery is worthwhile.
It seems at least the solidified concepts are veering away from manned turrets. Only the French prefer a manned turret, but they have still not progressed much in their project.

Absolutely agree With the first part of this. Adding a man to an unmanned turret just for the sake of being a handyman is not a good idea. The aim of the unmanned turret is to try and isolate the crew from the event of the turret going boom.
However I am not sold on the latter. Manned turrets still seem viable. The main advantage being situational awareness. Sure you can augment that but not match. The Mk 1 eyeball and ability of a commander to observe via the Copula. The US has built and experimented with unmanned turrets yet is also did so with manned. The three concepts floated for the US OMBT seem to show both manned and unmanned turret concepts.

The L55 is not a clear cut superior option to the L44. Far from it. There's a good reason why tanks like the Abrams and Merkava are using L44, the Leclerc uses an L52, and Leopard customers are not all keen on upgrading to L55.
It may have superior anti armor capabilities, but only beyond a certain range. A certain range that is not deemed common enough in many places.
Within ranges typical for Europe, an L44 will be more than sufficient.
An L55 will add 1.3 meters to an already very long gun, making it susceptible to bumping into buildings, trees, or other obstacles. And by bumping I mean sometimes just a boop, and sometimes damage that could hinder the gun's performance.
A more cumbersome platform is a less mobile one.

Also, the French and Germans are currently testing 130mm and 140mm guns, and the US is not at all wedded to the 120mm for the DLP.

Again I agree. 130mm and 140mm guns have both been experimented with and seem back in vougue. The L55 was something of an interim solution. It was looked at for Abrams but was found lacking in that the barrel generated a severe oscillation issue and the additional length became a problem when moving around urban. Besides the M256 has proven enough vs existing systems. However if your concerns are next generation tanks then the L55 is what they are likely to be designed to defeat. Again 130mm and 140mm gun systems have already been under development. Autoloader systems were developed some continued and to a degree implemented. Some of the current generation MBT were designed with a up-gun in mind.

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.

The American RCV family of vehicles consists of 3 types of expendable platforms, heavy, medium, and light, respectively more expendable.
They can act as partners or surrogates. Either way, this reduces the share of manned platforms and increases the share of expendable ones.

Ironically these two feed into each other as the RCV Heavy is basically a unmanned MBT concept. If you look at the US Army’s concept art. It’s a tank. Big main gun, coax MG, Commander MG. Just no crew and no crew compartment. Under that design it makes sense to minimize depression and elevation fit a carousel loader. I mean if it goes boom no crewmen to be blown up.

 

[STURM]

One of the reasons the Soviets wanted tanks of a particular weight was because of the need to move them by railroad and because of the numerous rivers they would have to cross in Western Europe. What however was the reasoning behind the low profile? Was it really due to a “hit avoidance” philosophy in that a lower tank presents a much harder target to spot?

 

[ngatimozart]

One of the reasons the Soviets wanted tanks of a particular weight was because of the need to move them by railroad and because of the numerous rivers they would have to cross in Western Europe. What however was the reasoning behind the low profile? Was it really due to a “hit avoidance” philosophy in that a lower tank presents a much harder target to spot?

I understand that the idea was to present as small a target as possible. This was what the tank museum at Bovington said in one of their video presentations upon one of their earlier Soviet T series tanks. It meant small cramped turrets and tank crews comprised of short people.

 

[B.Smitty]

The main issue with the Soviet design is that it lacks elevation and depression on the gun. Even the Armata tank moved somewhat away from the classic Soviet very low profile.
The main weight saving for Soviet tanks was to move from a manned loader with the associated space needed for said loader to the automatic Carousel loader which moved the ammunition to the hull almost entirely, reduced the crew size and crew compartment size to two men in the turret. Already French Leclerc moved to an Autoloader but bustle mounted as the carousels tend to use the crew compartment as a blow out panel resulting in 2/3 of the crew having a dramatically lower chance of survival. After Leclerc came type 90, K2 and Type 10 which followed this design. Also came Altay which didn’t.
Generally I think the next generation Western MBT will follow a bustle loader. The XM8 system was tested yes but as a light tank it used smaller ammunition. It’s highly doubtful that tank crews will be reduced below 3 man crews, which is already used in Leclerc

The UAV is of interest as it means the tank has even more of a observation point than currently available. I don’t see a tube launched system as a need it would just eat up ammunition stowage. Rather a roof mounted system. I believe that future IFV and APC will also gain such. The point being that you can now see farther beyond the horizon even using it for targeting. As well as seeing beyond buildings and urban development.
as to engines we already are seeing development of diesel/Multifuel electric systems having matured. The key advantage is weight and power management. Weight as even a Modern turbo diesel is still heavier than a Gas turbine but the electric drive is substantially lighter than a conventional transmission. Well also being more efficient in power management, quieter and less in need of maintenance. Farther the Electric motor generates the preferred type of low end torque.
As to trying to parts share between tank and IFV that will depend on the IFV. Some armies are moving hard to HIFV but that type of vehicle being based off a tank hull is better suited to an army that is more direct in nature. The biggest proponent seems to be the Israelis, Russians and Jordanians but If you are the Israeli army for example all your fighting is pretty much inside your own boarders or very close to them. As such all your deployments are such that you can drive to the front. It’s joked that the IDF doesn’t need a MRE system as they can order takeout. The Russians have been adopting such a system yet again the Russian army fights on on roads and from its own boarders.
Most NATO fighting has however been indirect needing transportation beyond either Europe or the American continents. This drives for lighter weight. Yet that weight is based on the protection offered to the crew and passengers. A few years back the US was looking at designing a vehicle to offer HIFV protection UN the GCV initiative. Concepts ended up weighing 80 tons with full armor load outs. Transportation of such a vehicle is pretty much impractical by ship impossible by air.
This is the issue with the HIFV it ends up weighing as much as the MBT it’s often based off if not more as you try and equalize the protection. The Namer and Merkava series tanks are the prefect example here they are built off the same General family with degrees of parts share but also the same weight.
Though vehicles like the Lynx and Redback are classed in the HIFV they seem to still sit at the lighter weight than most modern MBT. It may be possible down the road to use parts of their suspension systems and automotive systems for a NGMBT. But not the hull form as that is decidedly IFV oriented in design with a higher profile.

Yes, we would need to manage issues like elevation and depression. We don't have to take every cue from Russian MBTs. But we still could aim for a smaller, lighter MBT overall.

The GCV was 80t because it tried to cram 12 soldiers into a heavily armored vehicle with all around protection. Maybe a bit unrealistic. I'd expect the hull for a HIFV would be different from the MBT, and only components would be shared.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yes, we would need to manage issues like elevation and depression. We don't have to take every cue from Russian MBTs. But we still could aim for a smaller, lighter MBT overall.

The GCV was 80t because it tried to cram 12 soldiers into a heavily armored vehicle with all around protection. Maybe a bit unrealistic. I'd expect the hull for a HIFV would be different from the MBT, and only components would be shared.

By shifting to 2-man crews, MBTs will be inherently smaller. What will keep them growing in weight and size is system complexity and new needs.
We may see tanks going back down temporarily to the 50-60 ton range as there is only so much we can squeeze from streamlined production.
Actual vehicle size, i.e volume, will likely be also unchanged. But the real leap will be in protected volume. That is, the volume occupied by humans and critical components that will need armor protection. It will be significantly smaller than today.

It does contradict what I said about weight not changing much, does it? Yes and no.
For now, the only indicator is the American DLP, but that should be enough IMO.
The 3 most recent examples of concurrently studied concepts are tanks weighing 55 to 65 tons. Even with a 2 man crew in the lightest one.
Why? Because the infrastructure already exists for such tanks. And if you got weight to spare, armoring vital components will go a long way in increasing capability and survivability.

 

[STURM]

We don't have to take every cue from Russian MBTs. But we still could aim for a smaller, lighter MBT overall.

In your opinion; apart from a lighter weight and doing away with a human loader; are there any cues which can be taken from Russian MBTs?

Also, what was the rationale behind the Soviet/Russian practice of having barrel launched ATGWs (to deal with helicopters?); at the cost of taking up space with can store normal rounds?

 

[STURM]

By shifting to 2-man crews, MBTs will be inherently smaller.

To the best of your knowledge are the Israelis already looking at a smaller; lighter tank with an unmanned turret? Any conceptual studies being done?

Also; whilst I understand the desire many armies would have for a smaller, lighter tank: is the IDF convinced that such a tank would provide the desired protection levels?
Has technology actually reached a stage where one could have protection levels similar to the latest Merkava variant but on a lighter platform or will a compromise be made with a lighter tank which has a lower baseline protection level; hence lighter but in which more emphasis is placed on APSs for protection? For several decades extra or increased protection leads no extra weight; no getting around this; no substitute. Will this change in the coming years?

 

[John Fedup]

IIRC, as Israeli tanks only deploy locally, transport issues are minimal thus weight (and perhaps size) aren’t as critical compared to countries that need to deploy by sea and air. Protection is paramount for Israel which sort of explains why the Namer IFV (Merkava derivative) came about. A smaller target profile would be desirable but not if it impairs the overall protection of the crew.

 

[STURM]

A smaller target profile would be desirable but not if it impairs the overall protection of the crew.

Exactly, hence my questions. Other countries have to worry about deploying MBTs far afield; to areas with a poor road infrastructure and water obstacles: the Israelis don’t.

I’m really interested in seen the future direction the Israelis take.

 

[B.Smitty]

That is being materialized by using different surrogate AFVs.
The American RCV family of vehicles consists of 3 types of expendable platforms, heavy, medium, and light, respectively more expendable.
They can act as partners or surrogates. Either way, this reduces the share of manned platforms and increases the share of expendable ones.

Someday unmanned tanks will be viable replacements for manned MBTs, but maybe we should wait to see if any of these glorified R&D programs pan out first.

Sure, we have cars that can stay between the lines (most of the time) on their own nowadays, but how about trying to autonomously navigate rubble filled streets, notice buried mines and tell-tales of impending ambushes? In practice, these will be remote-controlled to start. Still may be useful, and even preferable in extreme situations, but we're a long ways from an effective robo-MBT replacement for manned MBTs.

Maybe we take note from the Soviet school of thought and say we don't really give a sh*t about ergonomics and make the tank as small as we possibly can, by going to the bare minimum of needed crewmen at the cost of overall performance. (Yeah the small size was not only due to protection concerns but primarily weight limitations for strategic mobility via railroad).
But then, industry clearly shows the viability of a 2 men crew, and you say no.

We can pick and choose which parts of Soviet schools of thought we want to use. We don't need to go with Soviet ergonomics. This may result in a somewhat larger vehicle, but still likely much smaller than existing MBTs.

Where has industry shown the viability of a 2-man crew, and even if they have, who cares? Industry hasn't fought in actual conflicts where stuff breaks, has to be maintained, electronics glitch or aren't user friendly under stressful conditions, people get tired, and so on. Industry puts their concepts in the best light so they can get contracts. Nobody's proven a 2-man tank in combat (at least not recently).

Adding a whole crewman, separate from the others and therefore making huge implications on the design, just as a troubleshooting tool, is not an effective way to deal with such scenarios.
If any army takes its own statistics on how many faults occurred during real combat, how many tanks were deployed in the area, and the seriousness of said faults, it can assess whether adding a human instead of an extra machinery is worthwhile.
It seems at least the solidified concepts are veering away from manned turrets. Only the French prefer a manned turret, but they have still not progressed much in their project.

To date, the Army still operates a 4-man MBT. They have remote turrets on Strykers, but we really haven't used them in combat, other than RWSes, which we've found to have pros and cons. But a Stryker's main mission is to deliver infantry. If it loses some effectiveness with the remote turret, that's a reasonable tradeoff to keep a full 9-man squad.

An MBT has to maximize effectiveness of employing its armament. So direct top-vision for the commander may still be very important. I don't know. I suspect it is. Having the gunner in the turret may also be important.

There's always a crewman separate from the others. Usually it's just the driver. I'm fine with letting operational research and modeling determine the proper configuration. I just suggested this as a way to reduce turret volume and have a non-bustle autoloader.

The L55 is not a clear cut superior option to the L44. Far from it. There's a good reason why tanks like the Abrams and Merkava are using L44, the Leclerc uses an L52, and Leopard customers are not all keen on upgrading to L55.
It may have superior anti armor capabilities, but only beyond a certain range. A certain range that is not deemed common enough in many places.
Within ranges typical for Europe, an L44 will be more than sufficient.
An L55 will add 1.3 meters to an already very long gun, making it susceptible to bumping into buildings, trees, or other obstacles. And by bumping I mean sometimes just a boop, and sometimes damage that could hinder the gun's performance.
A more cumbersome platform is a less mobile one.

My point on this was really just to say, we probably don't need to go >120mm right now. L55 has issues, but it is an option if we need more performance.

If your goal is to move away from expensive platforms to make them more fieldable, why advocate for such an HIFV? It is a niche capability.
The only in-service HIFV is the Namer, and it is just as expensive as a Merkava tank. Their planned numbers were cut in more than half since their early days.

In this case, a HIFV with significant MBT commonality would still "only" be in the 50-60t range. It wouldn't be an 80t GCV.

Would it actually be more expensive than a direct Bradley replacement? The expensive hardware would be similar. The difference would be in powertrain & running gear (which it would share with the MBT), and armor. Obviously there would be some up-front design costs that might not be present if we chose an existing vehicle as the basis, but those costs would be amortized over the lifetime of the buy.

I agree that a HIFV would place a larger logistics burden on heavy units than a lighter IFV, but we may not be talking about THAT big of a difference in weight. For the OMFV program, Lynx weighs anywhere from 37-55t. Redback weighs 43t. Haven't seen details on the others yet. With modular armor, this HIFV might be in a similar range.

Industry has evolved. Their technology and products have evolved. Today's tanks were suitable for the technology of the 80's.
To make them effective today and make use of 2020's technology, tanks need to be completely restructured. Hence the new platforms. Can only use so much from the old ones.

Aside from weight (and associated logistics), what can't we do with existing platforms?

 

[Terran]

Yes, we would need to manage issues like elevation and depression. We don't have to take every cue from Russian MBTs. But we still could aim for a smaller, lighter MBT overall.

The GCV was 80t because it tried to cram 12 soldiers into a heavily armored vehicle with all around protection. Maybe a bit unrealistic. I'd expect the hull for a HIFV would be different from the MBT, and only components would be shared.

Which is part of why I point to Leclerc, K2 and Type 10. As they are already moving to lighter. 63 tons up armorered Leclerc, 61 tons Black Panther, 45 tons Type 10. Well using an isolated bustle loader. The OMT concept 2 which seems to be the 3 man crew configuration was estimated at 132,000lbs or 66 short tons which would be about just right for a super modern MBT besides though South Korea and Japan are Asian countries they have a strong alliance to the US and NATO. With technology share as the gun systems and autoloader technology pretty much falls into established R&D. And safety concepts. Bonus point the K2 Black Panther is currently a 120mm but stated as 140mm ready.

To really call it a new generation of MBT I think we have to look at the areas of the biggest changes. That’s not the architecture. The hard wear hasn’t really changed since the last of the last generation. APS off Merkava, Autoloader off Leclerc, In arm Suspension off Challenger II these are the basics.
The biggest changes are the sensors the drive. Sensors in the form of radars, electro optics and more even options of integration. iron vision, User interface and mini drones. Drive hybridization, drive by wire, new electric management systems which shave weight. Yes smaller tanks weigh less but a few other aspects can be done to take the weight down More modern construction techniques for example. The L44 is about 3.5 tons the US experimental XM360 which was for both Abrams and FCS was a 120mm gun about the same caliber but about a ton less, can also shave a few pounds from the M240 to the Bushmaster 7.62. Smaller crew so less MGs. Remote commander’s station no shield. ounces equal pounds as they say in aviation. A few ounces here a few pounds there it all adds up.

other points.
the 105mm Stryker MSG is pretty much moth balled in favor of the 30mm Medium caliber weapon versions. As well as pending Mobile Protected Firepower.

I know Lynx and Redback are technically classed as HIFV yet I am not entirely sure that they should be. As we have two lines of definitions here either A tank turned camper, Or a 40+ton IFV. They fit the later yet I am of the Opinion we should cook up a new term. Medium IFV?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The main advantage being situational awareness. Sure you can augment that but not match. The Mk 1 eyeball and ability of a commander to observe via the Copula.

I actually don't think we need anything beyond the hull-top periscope.
Due to the increased need in sensors, in both quantity and capability, as well as types, we can create a long series of backups.
If you're at a point where no sensor is working, the electric systems are down, or the screens aren't showing anything, trying to use the tank in combat may actually be too much of a hazard, and the best course of action would then be an evacuation and an attempt to salvage the tank somehow.

Otherwise, if the tank is in some situation where evacuation is not possible and it must resume firing even if at 10% effectiveness with just eyeballing,

To the best of your knowledge are the Israelis already looking at a smaller; lighter tank with an unmanned turret? Any conceptual studies being done?

Yes, the program is currently in a stage of systems development, and a proof of concept was demonstrated almost 2 years ago. The current stage of the program is called Carmel, and 3 companies - Elbit, Rafael, and IAI submitted their ideas and now the IDF must choose the one most promising.

IIRC, as Israeli tanks only deploy locally, transport issues are minimal thus weight (and perhaps size) aren’t as critical compared to countries that need to deploy by sea and air. Protection is paramount for Israel which sort of explains why the Namer IFV (Merkava derivative) came about. A smaller target profile would be desirable but not if it impairs the overall protection of the crew.

The IDF isn't very big, at least the active part of it. And our borders are long, complicated, and packed with enemies.
It may seem like everything's right at our doorstep, but that's a shallow analysis.
In practice, when it comes to our unique combat needs and our force structure, our mobility needs are real, and very challenging.

To put things into perspective, every front gets one active armor brigade and multiple reserve armor brigades. If war breaks out at any front, multiple active armored brigades are needed at that front within about 12 hours. Multiple reserve brigades are called upon for all fronts as reinforcement, and need to be ready to go within 24 hours or less.

Israel as a chunk of land is not very easy to traverse. Our entire northern region, called the Galilee, is mountainous, particularly the Golan where the border with Syria lies.
We may not need to airdrop tanks, and it's been decades since we've forfeited our amphibious landing capabilities. But that does not make our mobility challenges easy.

Exactly, hence my questions. Other countries have to worry about deploying MBTs far afield; to areas with a poor road infrastructure and water obstacles: the Israelis don’t.

You say deployment over great distances, I say strategic depth. They cancel out each other. Israel has short distances, but absolutely 0 depth to lose.

Where has industry shown the viability of a 2-man crew, and even if they have, who cares?

They have shown it here:

Who cares? Well, at least for now Israel, USA, and Germany. Possibly even France but a bit early on that.
So, some of the biggest players in the world of tanks and AFVs. At least those I'm aware of.

Industry hasn't fought in actual conflicts where stuff breaks, has to be maintained, electronics glitch or aren't user friendly under stressful conditions, people get tired, and so on.

And armies haven't designed full systems of systems in any meaningful capacity. So what's your point?
There's a distinction between what a service provider and a customer do, and there's also a common ground to make and maintain their connection.
Industry doesn't really develop something if there isn't a need for it (except for private ventures that are rare gambles), and armies don't buy something (if done correctly) without giving their requirements, then testing and providing feedback.

Nobody's proven a 2-man tank in combat (at least not recently).

Nobody's also proven a 3-man or 4-man tank in combat until it they were already produced in hundreds or even thousands.
You don't need actual combat for that. It's plenty enough to use advanced simulation and exercises, and separately the firing mechanisms.

To date, the Army still operates a 4-man MBT. They have remote turrets on Strykers, but we really haven't used them in combat, other than RWSes, which we've found to have pros and cons. But a Stryker's main mission is to deliver infantry. If it loses some effectiveness with the remote turret, that's a reasonable tradeoff to keep a full 9-man squad.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

My point on this was really just to say, we probably don't need to go >120mm right now. L55 has issues, but it is an option if we need more performance.

It is a dead end option. We are already scratching the limit of what can be squeezed out of a 120mm gun. To make any meaningful increase in performance, we need to go for a higher caliber.
As it stands, the 120mm is sufficient for now, but it must maintain overmatch for at least 50 years starting in 2030-2040. So it's not an option. The Armata is already starting to challenge the 120mm L55 gun, according to at least Russian sources. If they can claim that with confidence, and we take into account a BS factor, Russia and China may have sufficient armor protection on their tanks well within the lifespan of the next gen western tanks.

Aside from weight (and associated logistics), what can't we do with existing platforms?

Put new components inside.
Say we want to design our tank with a few core principles:
1. A 2 man capsule in the hull front.
2. An unmanned turret.
3. Electric motors.

To do that, one must entirely redesign, in order, the hull, turret, and powertrain.

You can recycle components from, say, an Abrams. But the vehicle itself is no longer the same vehicle. At some point you just gotta grab a new sheet and start over.

To really call it a new generation of MBT I think we have to look at the areas of the biggest changes. That’s not the architecture. The hard wear hasn’t really changed since the last of the last generation. APS off Merkava, Autoloader off Leclerc, In arm Suspension off Challenger II these are the basics.

The components allow for a new architecture, and it is the architecture that drives the efforts toward a new generation of tanks.
But specifically hydropneumatic suspension of the Challenger 2 is a bad example. It can get extremely hot, and is about on par with spring suspension.

 

[Terran]

I actually don't think we need anything beyond the hull-top periscope.
Due to the increased need in sensors, in both quantity and capability, as well as types, we can create a long series of backups.
If you're at a point where no sensor is working, the electric systems are down, or the screens aren't showing anything, trying to use the tank in combat may actually be too much of a hazard, and the best course of action would then be an evacuation and an attempt to salvage the tank somehow.

It’s not a question of operating a blinded tank. That’s impossible as the gunner wouldn’t be able to operate the gun. It’s about of the quality of giving the commander that information. It’s also one of the ability to gather information in a more intuitive manor. Besides most of the operating time a tank isn’t going to need to be buttoned up. Systems like iron vision are great if you need to be buttoned up. Yet if the tank is crossing an obstacle or terrain Commanders don’t just act as hunters calling out targets they also aid in navigation. The unfiltered perspective can give the tank crew a heads up of what they are coming in to.

The components allow for a new architecture, and it is the architecture that drives the efforts toward a new generation of tanks.
But specifically hydropneumatic suspension of the Challenger 2 is a bad example. It can get extremely hot, and is about on par with spring suspension.

I was using it as an example of a tank of the current generation equipped with a system that seems to be a common feature in more and more emerging AFV without repeating myself (Leclerc I had listed and also has it.) . Both the Type 10 And K2 feature improved Hydropnumatic in arm Suspensions the technology has substantially improved since the 1990s when Challenger II and Leclerc were minted. The three technologies I pointed two I considered must have now established technologies for any new really modern MBT.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It’s not a question of operating a blinded tank. That’s impossible as the gunner wouldn’t be able to operate the gun. It’s about of the quality of giving the commander that information. It’s also one of the ability to gather information in a more intuitive manor. Besides most of the operating time a tank isn’t going to need to be buttoned up. Systems like iron vision are great if you need to be buttoned up. Yet if the tank is crossing an obstacle or terrain Commanders don’t just act as hunters calling out targets they also aid in navigation. The unfiltered perspective can give the tank crew a heads up of what they are coming in to.

The purpose of systems like IronVision is to allow all crewmen a wide field of view, the same as a mk1 eyeball, of the surroundings, with added info (AR). It is exactly to have all crewmen permanently buttoned up.
Whether a TC or driver will choose to do that, is up to them. But today it's still required of the TC to occasionally pop his head out of the tank, because the sights have a very narrow FoV, or the all around cameras are hard to navigate (all systems still require buttons and looking at a small screen).

Putting the crew (not only TC because they have to be together) in such an immense danger only for the comfort of looking outside when an existing system already permits doing that almost as intuitively, is absurd.
With current systems, that makes sense. But they won't use current ones.

 

[Ananda]

Not exclusive talking on MBT, but this video have some extensive presentation from Rheinmettal on their projects with Royal Army on Boxer IFV and Challanger 3 MBT.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Ananda Just a quick note on British military protocol. Whilst there are the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, there is no such thing as the Royal Army. It's the British Army and has been the same since the English Reformation after the English Civil War. The army has always belonged to Parliament since the time of Cromwell. However within the army individual Corps have the appellation of Royal. In Australia, Canada, and NZ the same distinction also applies.

 

[Ananda]

Wow, I do thought the Army also call Royal Army . If not mistaken British Armed Forces often call Royal Armed Forces ?

Yes, bit confusing when Air Force, Navy and Australia,NZ, and Canada using prefix 'Royal' while the British Army not Royal Army. Anyway thanks Ngati on that. Certainly for me help the missed up.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Not exclusive talking on MBT, but this video have some extensive presentation from Rheinmettal on their projects with Royal Army on Boxer IFV and Challanger 3 MBT.

So, the Challenger 3 itself, if it goes through with all the planned projects like improved turret, improved hull and powertrain, and APS, it will be a top dog in the current gen market.
And there is still quite a bunch we can squeeze out of this generation yet.