Future Armour

[Steel Badger]

Here ya go Arthur

Your A1 ( Artorius) MBT

Sorry to inform you that it is not steam powered however

 

[ironduke57]

Interesting about the powerpack, I had heard there was something like it but never knew the details. Is anyone adopting it?

...

The first linked picture of a Swiss Leopard 2 shows something on the turret roof which looks like a RWS installation?

As for the "Leopard 3", that's just wishful thinking on my part. On the other hand, what will the replacement for the Leopard 2 be called? (Plan early!)

AFAIK till now no one has adopted it. But the new PUMA uses an engine from the same series.

Something like that. From the second link I posted:

The normal AA-MG of the Pz-87 has been replaced by the so called Autarkic Weapon System (AWS). It consists of a 12.7mm M2 (MG64) machine gun, in a remotely controlled gun mount. The system is electrical controlled and full stabilized. The system is equipped with a day channel only. Tests whit an image intensifier sight did not lead to expected results. On request the system can be equipped with a thermal sight as well. The AWS is controlled by the loader. On his station a flat display and a joystick are mounted. It is planned to develop an active protection system based on the AWS. Then the system will be equipped whit the parallel 7.5 MGs. The AWS will then be equipped with a sensor guided logic that acquiring protection targets, classifies them and if necessary start an attack. The system would be comparable to British TAMS.

In the 80´s where some different proposal and test vehicles for an possible Leo2 replacement.
Like this:
- http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/vt12-01.jpg
- http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_3_vt_2_augustdorf-1316.jpg
- http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_3_gvt_004_ibag-IMGP0447.jpg
- http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/egs.jpg

Or the NGP program, but till now there now successor for the leo2 in sight. And also the Leo2 has still some potential. For example from the beginning on it was design to house an 140mm cannon. There were already prototype´s with 140mm guns.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[a_majoor]

Those double barreled machines seem to be more assault guns or "Hunting Leopards" than tanks (although you would not want to be in front of one!). It is interesting not only to speculate on what the future will hold but also see how people in the past thought about the future..

Thanks SB for the Soviet era "Quattro". Now that I think of it, there really hasn't been any fundimental change to AFV suspensions since the beginning, yet mobility is one of the key principles of armour. In complex terrain the ability to climb vertical obstacles, deal with barricades and mobility denial sysstems and change direction in confined spaces will be key challenges for designers of any future AFV.

 

[vonGarvin]

Those double barreled machines seem to be more assault guns or "Hunting Leopards" than tanks (although you would not want to be in front of one!). It is interesting not only to speculate on what the future will hold but also see how people in the past thought about the future..

The double-barreled AFVs may also have been an early attempt to defeat Soviet Armour.  At one time, there were trials into double barreled "tanks" that fired simultaneously at the same target.  So, lase (or estimate) range to a target, and when all was adjusted, the guns would be in coincidence at the range of the target.  Two guns go off and the rounds impact at the same time at roughly the same place on the target.  I guess that was one method to double penetration power by having double the amount of joules "introduced" to the target...

 

[a_majoor]

Given the Soviet era emphasis on mass, I wonder if thie wasn't actually a means to increase the rate of fire. given the relatively fixed position of the guns, autoloaders would be quite easy to install, or the gun crew would be operating like a ship of the line ("left gun....FIRE; next target; right gun....FIRE!; next target;...)

Since the barrels seem to be 120mm; I doubt there was any aprehension that the rounds would not have the desired efffect on any current or conceivable Soviet tank; the Americans had concluded full protection from 125mm rounds would require an 80+ tonne "Block 3" AFV.

 

[ironduke57]

This two barreled prototype´s were meant to fight large russian tank formations. There were version´s with different motorization, different cannon´s (105/120mm) and different armor value´s. The gun´s could be fired simulateously or independent. They should fight out of prepared position´s (The VT1-2 for example had special auxiliary electric engines on it´s back which make it able to move a bit without having to start the normal (2000hp) engine.) or on the move with an special driving style called "Taktische Wedelfahrt" (Basically you drive like when you are drunk. ) When the gunner chose to fire on an target the firecontrol systems fire´s when the target is the next time in front of the chosen weapon. (I hope I could descrip it right.)

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[ringo]

Could the next German tank be the Lion?
The roadwheels on the Swiss Leopard do not appear to be standard.
Will Canada acquire the Kodiak AEV of the Leopard or for that matter ABRV like those used by British and Dutch Marines?
When will a western government cough up some dough to develop and deploy a heavy APC with tank protection?

 

[geo]

Ringo... AEV with tank protection..... the Israely Merkavah 1,2,3,......

 

[TCBF]

When will a western government cough up some dough to develop and deploy a heavy APC with tank protection?

- When it becomes politically impossible NOT to.

 

[a_majoor]

A HAPC or HIFV would need to be built from the ground up, as it were, in order to be really useful and practical.

The ACHZARIT is the current "Gold standard" of the HAPC field (the NAMERA based on the Merkava 4 chasssis is not in service yet AFAIK), but it has mobility issues due to the weight and exiting the section through the narrow "chute" in the rear is a potential problem. The Russians have also worked on designs based on the T-55 and T-72, both of which have the troops exiting over the top. A Ukranian design has the section wedged in the engine compartment of a modified T-80 tank, so you can imagine their condition upon dismounting.

The Merkava 1 might make a HIFV, and certainly giving the section commander a 105mm cannnon to shoot in the attack sounds attractive, but replacing the rear ammunition racks with a section reduces the firepower of the vehicle, it has size and mobility issues based on being a 60 tonne platform and the section is just crammed in the back; not good for extended use as a section vehicle.

The German PUMA with the level "C" uparmour kit has all around protection against HMG and automatic cannon fire, and frontal protection similar to a Leopard 1 tank, but also has the same size and weight. It also has an unmanned robot turret, which may or may not be a good thing. For a small army like ours, we would have to adopt the PUMA as the baseline vehicle for many different roles (IFV, Engineer section carrier, FOO/FAC/MFC, Engineer vehicle, Bridge layer, ARV) in order to get enough hulls to be worthwhile and enough economy of scale to purchase and operate the fleet.

Short answer; HAPC and HIFV are good ideas, but the design needs to be well thought out, TTPs developed for use and economics are not with us right now..

 

[McG]

There was a 140 mm built for the Abrams as well, and I hear that Israel looked at 140 mm.  I suspect that this was already unofficially selected to be the next NATO standard, but things have changed and it no longer looks like the trend will continue toward bigger cannons.

FCS Mounted Combat System (MCS) 
As of 2003, the Line-of-Sight / Beyond Line-of-Sight (LOS/BLOS) Vehicle's name was changed to the Mounted Combat System (MCS) Vehicle.

The LOS/BLOS was a FCS combat vehicle with 105-120mm cannon with LOS/BLOS capability. It was developed in the FCS 120mm LOS/BLOS ATD. Also included is a Self Protection Weapon. The MCS has a 120mm main gun, a .50 Cal machine gun, and a Mk-19 40mm.

The Future Combat System's (FCS) MCS is a joint effort between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency intended to replace the Army’s current fleet of General Dynamics M1 Abrams tanks, United Defense M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other armored vehicles. General Dynamics is currently heading up the manned ground vehicle common design development with United Defense, the FCS Lead Systems Integrator (LSI), and the Army. Furthermore, General Dynamics is leading the development of the MCS. According to Army officials, the Army should attain the technological innovations needed to create the Future Force as projected. Key among these are the technologies required to produce the MCS, which will be a replacement for the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank that will have the same lethality and survivability but will weigh only 20 tons.

The FCS Anti-Tank variant is a 20-ton vehicle with a 2-man crew, an allowance for 2 passengers, and a direct fire ETC weapon capable of beyond-line-of-sight fires with the Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM) round. The gun elevates up to 60 degrees to enable precision fires at elevated targets in urban environments with programmable levels of lethality. Survivability is enabled by enhanced situational understanding and long-range fires (up to 8 kilometers from a target) to avoid close combat with enemy tanks, signature management to avoid or delay detection, active protection against tank-fired and larger munitions, and passive armor to defeat all lesser threats. Ground mobility is enabled by a fuel-efficient hybrid-electric drive system, and at 20-tons, the vehicle can be inserted precisely via parasail.

It is a virtual certainty that future conflicts in the 2025-era will find US forces opposing traditional massed heavy armor. There will be occasions where the MCS will encounter such enemy forces and direct fire engagements will be unavoidable. Under such circumstances, Overmatching Direct Fire Lethality (ODFL) will be essential to FCS survivability. For a vehicle as light as 20 tons, however, ODFL as protection reflects a last-ditch defensive measure of desperation to be called upon only after the vehicle has gotten itself into a situation that should have been avoided in the first place. If the MCS is used in a manner that optimizes its capabilities and minimizes its operational weaknesses, the overall contribution of its ODFL capabilities to survivability will be relatively small.

Despite having an overmatching direct fire capability, the survivability of a 20-ton MCS will be severely threatened by close-in encounters with enemy main battle tanks. MCS survival will depend on vehicle capability to engage and defeat enemy targets at extended ranges outside the reach of enemy guns. The Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM) program is directed toward providing that capability while retaining an overmatching direct fire capability as well. A variety of projectile concepts are being pursued. Contractor teams are being led by Alliant, Boeing, and Raytheon. The TERM program is structured to meet a First-Unit Equipped (FUE) goal of 2010. This date is compatible with the planned development cycle for FCS, which began in 2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-blos.htm

and I'll finish with a concept picture of the FCS MCS, and to pictures of concept AFVs from the University of Tel Aviv.

 

[Spr.Earl]

I are  ;D many post's ago I said it was a big mistake to get rid of track k,MBT's,APC's etc.
All of a sudden we are buying 2nd hand MBT's from the Dutch.  :

Yup the commen soldier is never listened too,we may not have the Mason's Ring or RMC Ring but commen sense wins in the end .

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well to be fair, back in 90 we would still have been buying 2nd German tanks and still be happy.

Barring a major breakthrough in armour/gun/powertrain I would expect to see the next generation as a evolution of the top 4 MBT's the biggest advances will be in the comm's, allround vision, FCS and active protection and sensors.

 

[McG]

If the next generation is an evolution, it will be the largest evolution across any generation of MBT.  They will be lighter (the FCS mounted combat system will likely be under 50 ton) and they will fire beyond line of sight (again, the FCS mounted combat system will do most of what we wanted from MMEV but with a cannon).

 

[a_majoor]

I wonder if that really qualifies as a Generation 4 vehicle, MCG. A CV 90120 is already an 80% solution to the FCS for people who are not fabulously wealthy, and adding on electronic "bits" for enhanced SA and BLOS attack really isn't "that" hard; Israeli tanks have small LCD receivers so the commander can see input from TUAV's, and current and near term weapons like through tube missiles and smart shells (LAHAT, TERM and STAFF, for example) can carry out the BLOS mission.

I am starting to think the only real way to jump beyond the AFV paradigm and get a revolutionary advance is to develop compact powerplants that can generate an order of magnitude more power in the same sized package (15,000 HP). Failing that, a reliable way to send energy remotely to friendly vehicles is needed. With that sort of energy available, the vehicle could have energy weapons (lasers or high powered microwaves), extremely powerful KE weapons (rail guns or something along those lines), use energy for protection (shooting down rounds or using energized armour to disrupt incoming projectiles and HEAT rounds) and leap beyond present mobility limitations, most likely by taking to the air. Mobility, Firepower and Protection in a real 21rst century package.

 

[Kirkhill]

Arthur - what ARE they putting in your coffee at Timmie's these days?  :warstory:

 

[a_majoor]

Arthur - what ARE they putting in your coffee at Timmie's these days?  :warstory:

Double Double, but it is an order of magnitude stronger than what you're getting............

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheers...

 

[McG]

I wonder if that really qualifies as a Generation 4 vehicle

The CV 90120 is a light tank with a big gun, but it does not have the elements that will define the next generation.  You push aside the electronics as easy to add, but that is what will create the next generation (the generation beyond the Leopard II & the M1 Abrams).

The next generation will be defined by all the sexy buzz works in vogue now: network centric warfare (introduced in the Stryker brigades & being introduced to other elements of the US Army), beyond line of sight munitions (I cannot think of any current tank that can accurately shoot things on the far side of a ridge line).  It will also include high angle fire (tank cannon elevations comparable to the LAV cannon).  Sure, a lot of the technologies exist but there is not yet any platform that integrates all of them & there has never been a system built specifically to integrate these technologies.

LP or EM guns may be what defines the generation after next (and they may even be fitted into late model next gens), but we will not see these technologies fielded before we see the next generation of tank.

 

[a_majoor]

I am looking at this from a slightly different angle. There have been recognizable AFV proposals dating back to the 1500's (Leonardo da Vinci), and tanks have been prophesised throughout the late 19th ahd early 20th century, most notably by H.G. Wells in 1903 (The Land Ironclad). Although the idea of an AFV was around and seemingly feasable in the 19th century, neither the Union, Confederacy, Prussians, British, French, Russians or anyone else actually created or fielded an AFV in the 19th century because the powerplant was not available.

The combination of electronics and BLOS on  one platform will creat a potent fighting machine, but when you stop and think about it, what we are really doing with the "Generation 4" tank is merging AFV's with SP cannons. This would not surprise many early AFV theorists, since the role of AFV's was a contentious issue right through WW II. The French first viewed tanks as mobile Artillery, the British viewed them as Infantry support weapons (and later split into Infantry support and "Cavalry" AKA "Cruiser" tanks), and while the Russians viewed Tanks as an independent arm, the leadership and technology wasn't quite there (and indeed tanks finally settled down into part of the all arms team even in the USSR). AFV's were made to fill all the roles mentioned and more. Only in Generation 3 did technology finally provide the means to create the modern all purpose MBT.

I would suggest a "Generation 4" tank would have all the attributes you suggest, yet it is still recognizably a "tank" and JFC Fuller or Mikhail Tukhachevskii would have little difficulty recognizing them, or devising ways and means of using them or defeating them. (BTW, even if the FCS is never fielded, adding the electronic components to existing M1, M2 and other US AFV's would also be an 80% solution to what the FCS program is intended to create).

The FCS or "wannabe" solutions like CV 90120 or current issue US Army and Marine kit with FCS electronics and BLOS weapons are evolutionary developments. Revolutionary developments will require a revolutionary change in something else, and since it took the development of a compact powerplants to get us to the AFV in the first place, I will guess that another revolution in power technology is what will be needed to go to the next level.