Future Armour

[McG]

I don't think we disagree by far, but I do expect that we will have something radically new in the first tank purpose designed to take advantage of networkcentric warfare technologies, LOS/BLOS ammunitions, crew automation, augmented reality systems, improved cannon elevation, and improved light weight technologies (the US has been able to reduce the weight of the 120 mm cannon by that of a small car).

I'm not saying that it will be revolutionary, but it will at the very least be one massive evolutionary step.

 

[McG]

An after thought here . .  .

Consider the effect of a vehicle that has a weight comparable to the CV90 (though is still better armoured) and has the horsepower of an M1's turbine engine.  It could be that your leap in power:weight ratio is achieve through means other than increasing the power pack.

 

[a_majoor]

If I were the project manager for the "CF- FCS" program I could probably get us there in a real hurry:

1. Leopard 1 Hulls stripped and "zero houred" (pick up used Leopard 1 hulls from other nations if required)
2. CV_CT turrets to replace the Leopard turret (105mm high pressure cannon, +420 elevation, autoloader, low profile, light weight and 2 man turret crew)
3. Automotive upgrades, including Eurodiesel powerpack, new suspension and tracks
4. Armour upgrades using lightweight composite materials to selectively protect vital parts
5. SA improvements (Urdan cupolas, rear vision camera, ability to send/receive target information to other C/S and units)
6. BLOS weapons (LAHAT is here and now, provides accurate IF out to 13 km from firing vehicle)
7. LOW COST electronics adapted from automotive/marine/sporting sources. If a $400 Garmin RINO will do the job, then it gets preference over some $50,000 radio (which does not have built in GPS, "blue tracker" and other features). From what I understand of these things, much of what is wanted/needed is softwear driven, so a series of Panasonic Toughbooks strapped in strategic locations would provide the computing horsepower, and iPODs with their easy to use interface would make great crew interfaces if they had larger screens. LINUX operating system for reliability and low cost computing.

OK so that is a bit blue sky, but the point I want to make is the Generation 4 tank is already achievable in the here and now. That is why I believe the 80% FCS solutions may end up coming into service (Just like the F-22 Raptor, the "real" FCS program may have a world beater which is too expensive to field). So I don't really disagree with you MCG, maybe we are just pushing the slider back and forth across the screen...........

 

[McG]

You've taken the typical of what is fielded now as far as mechanical components go, but you have completely ignored the networked capability.  You can slap the automotive bits together, but it is the FBCB2 on steroids that will make it next gen.  It will be MMEV with a gun in place of missiles.

 

[a_majoor]

Sorry, point 5and point 7 was supposed to address the network part, but perhaps was not clear enough.

 

[tomahawk6]

My limited understanding of tank design is that the gun determines the size of the tank. Once thats determined then you decide on the power train that will move the vehicle.Once thats done then you determine the armoring of the vehicle. To lower weight you have to have some kind of breakthrough in armor technology. We see ceramic armor and other composites but still we are nowhere near a 30t target weight. The follow on to Abrams will not be that much different than current tank designs.

For me the future tank will be something out of a Heinlein book. An air cushion vehicle with force field shield.That future tank is probably 50 years off.

 

[McG]

My limited understanding of tank design is that the gun determines the size of the tank. Once thats determined then you decide on the power train that will move the vehicle.Once thats done then you determine the armoring of the vehicle.

Yes & no.  Gun size does determine min turret ring size & this drives hull size.  However, you can get around this in various ways.  External guns with high pinning points can allow smaller hulls.  Another option would be to shorten the recoil stroke of the gun.

Depending on what you want from the vehicle, other things can provide weight & size savings.

 

[tomahawk6]

Thanks. I do think though that once you decide on 120mm or even a 135mm main gun you are hard pressed to keep the tank at 70t. Obviously the bigger the gun the longer the range. The US experimented with a gun/launcher combo which might keep weight down. The latest Russian tank I was reading someplace may also be a combo system.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting..... T6, you start from the gun and build your tank around the gun.  That seems an awful lot as if it is in line with what a_majoor identified as a French tendency to see the tank as mobile artillery. 

My own point of view sees the tank's value as being its ability to manoeuvre in the face of the enemy and close with the enemy.  In that view the primary asset of the tank is its ability to absorb punishment: its armour. 

My feeling is that the principle effect that the tank brings to the battle is psychological.  Many systems can destroy the enemy but they don't create the same sense of fear that a tank can.  A well protected tank, moving at will and undeterred by enemy action has the same effect on the mind as the sound of the gallows being built outside a prison cell - a sense of inevitability "that concentrates the mind wonderfully".

We have many ways to kill from beyond line of sight but I don't think that "bolt from the blue" is as much of a deterrence as the sure knowledge that you are directly under observation, that every weapon in the enemy's arsenal is pointed at you, and in the immortal words of my hoosier buddies, "there ain't nuthin' you can do about it".

Falling from that, and from MCG's suggestion about the need for networking, a variation on the older maxim that the most important man on the battlefield is the one with the radio,  I would suggest that an alternative "tank" would be a heavily armoured Forward Observer vehicle: 3-Man crew, massively armoured, with point defence systems,  with multi-mode secure communications (semaphore to satellite if necessary), and a visible light, low power "red dot" laser that lets the target know that it is painted and ordnance is only seconds away, and replenishable from an inexhaustable armoury.  The FOV doesn't have to drop out of the fight to re-arm.  It doesn't matter that the rounds are not necessarily laser guided, they will probably be GPS/INS/image-matching rounds in any case.  It is just the sure and certain knowledge of that "red dot" painted on your chest that lets you know that you are no longer "hidden" and "safe".

The secondary use of "tanks" would be as a "heavy APC" for carrying various specialties of troops.

Once the FOV and the HAPC have been decided upon then add the largest DF weapon that each system can carry without disrupting its primary purpose.  The closer you can close with the enemy the smaller the calibre that you need (within limits).

 

[tomahawk6]

I think the goal of the tank would be to engage the enemy beyond the range of their anti-tank systems. This would be the classic tank vs tank engagement. If the tank is intended for use in MOUT then the range of the gun is negated and the need for escorting infantry becomes paramount for the tank's survival.

As for tank design I would think it obvious you need to nail down the size of the gun which I would think would dictate hull size. For example how practical is it to slap a 120mm gun on the current Leo ? If you could do it you would have to upgrade the power train as well. I am all for smaller is better as long as you can do everything the Abrams or Challenger can. Technology is not there for us to shrink an Abrams to 25t.
We would be lucky to pack it into a 50t package.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the goal of the tank would be to engage the enemy beyond the range of their anti-tank systems.

But aren't anti-tank systems effective Beyond line of sight?  That means that you can be killed before you can see the enemy to engage them with a direct fire line of sight system. That in turn means that if all you want to do is kill tanks then you too need to operate behind the horizon. This means less need to protect a launch system against direct fire systems, as you are operating turret down and shielded by terrain,  but more need for overhead and all aspect blast protection.

Meanwhile, does having a big gun in the direct fire zone necessarily equate to increased survivability if it equates to less armour and fewer stowed rounds?

 

[a_majoor]

As for tank design I would think it obvious you need to nail down the size of the gun which I would think would dictate hull size. For example how practical is it to slap a 120mm gun on the current Leo ? If you could do it you would have to upgrade the power train as well. I am all for smaller is better as long as you can do everything the Abrams or Challenger can. Technology is not there for us to shrink an Abrams to 25t.

We would be lucky to pack it into a 50t package.

The Leopard 1 is capable of mounting a 120mm cannon, with the primary drawback of having less main gun ammunition. Leopard 2's have been prototyped with 140mm cannons, and the Russian "T-95" reputedly has a 152mm cannnon on some sort of external mount. Tank size is not constrained by gun size, the classic Soviet era T-64/72/80/90 tanks mount a 125mm smooth bore in a package much smaller than even the Leopard 1, much less the giant Generation 3 M-1, Leopard 2 or Challenger tanks.

Much of what drives the size of tanks is how their owning nations intend to use them. Russian tanks were essentially "fire and forget" since entire regiments or even divisions were pushed in behind the wreakage of the attacking forces; reconstituting the force wasn't part of the equation. Western tanks are much larger since they are designed for prolonged engagements and need to keep the crew alive, healthy and somewhat sane in action. Protection is also emphasized (the Merkava 1 is quite massive even though it only mounts a 105mm cannon).

Finally a 50 tonne package is avalable: the LeClerc is a Generation 3.5 tank, which uses advanced materials, automation and clever design to shrink wrap the package around a 55 cal 120mm cannon.

Of course, you can also go lighter with the CV 90120, and the FCS is supposed to be in that weight catagory as well, but these tanks do not have the same level of passive protection as their Generation 3 counterparts.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The Leopard 1 is capable of mounting a 120mm cannon, with the primary drawback of having less main gun ammunition. Leopard 2's have been prototyped with 140mm cannons, and the Russian "T-95" reputedly has a 152mm cannnon on some sort of external mount. Tank size is not constrained by gun size, the classic Soviet era T-64/72/80/90 tanks mount a 125mm smooth bore in a package much smaller than even the Leopard 1, much less the giant Generation 3 M-1, Leopard 2 or Challenger tanks.

Much of what drives the size of tanks is how their owning nations intend to use them. Russian tanks were essentially "fire and forget" since entire regiments or even divisions were pushed in behind the wreakage of the attacking forces; reconstituting the force wasn't part of the equation. Western tanks are much larger since they are designed for prolonged engagements and need to keep the crew alive, healthy and somewhat sane in action. Protection is also emphasized (the Merkava 1 is quite massive even though it only mounts a 105mm cannon).

Finally a 50 tonne package is avalable: the LeClerc is a Generation 3.5 tank, which uses advanced materials, automation and clever design to shrink wrap the package around a 55 cal 120mm cannon.

Of course, you can also go lighter with the CV 90120, and the FCS is supposed to be in that weight catagory as well, but these tanks do not have the same level of passive protection as their Generation 3 counterparts.

Size is related to use but also to components. 
A larger gun = a larger turret ring. = a wider hull = more armour = a larger power pack, etc, etc, etc

 

[a_majoor]

Although it is unclear if the "T-95" actually exists, or is in production (although the odds don't seem to favor that, based on the chaotic condition of the Russian economy), this seems to be the best description so far. If the powerpack is in the front, then the mass of the engine block can serve to provide additional frontal protection, and the rear is opened up for additional ammunition stowage.

Based on the description, this design is well suited for "Gulf War" type missions, but would have considerable difficulty in close/complex terrain. In the 1990's this was not a great consideration, and tactics like using tanks as overwatch and cutoffs where there are long sight lines (i.e. arterial roads) might work to some extent.

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw000329_04_n.shtml

Russia develops new low profile main battle tank

Russian Defence Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev has announced that a radically new main battle tank (MBT) designated the T-95 has been developed in Russia. Sergeyev made his statement after a visit to the Uralvagonzavod plant in the Ural region where he inspected a T-95 prototype. Sergeyev's reference to it as the T-95 suggests the possible fielding of the new MBT as T-series designations are given to operational vehicles. Pilot and developmental vehicles are usually designated by the word obiekt (object) and a number.

The minister said that Uralvagonzavod would get additional funding in 2000, but according to Russian sources this may not be adequate to make the transition from development to production. All of the technical data, outline and configuration features of the T-95 are still secret. However, a Uralvagonzavod representative said the tank is a new design rather than a new variant of an existing MBT. It weighs about 50 tons. Its length and width are believed to be similar to the existing T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs.

As predicted by Jane's Defence Weekly, the main feature of the T-95 is its radical configuration with the main armament in a small unmanned turret fed from a newly-designed automatic loader located below the turret (JDW 11 November 1995). Seats for the driver, gunner and commander are in a special armoured capsule, separated by an armoured bulkhead from the automatic loader and turret. This design allows the MBT's silhouette to be reduced, making it less observable on the battlefield and enhancing crew safety. Such a configuration resolves a major dilemma concerning modern MBT design - combining adequate protection with mobility and transportability.

The T-95 MBT is armed with a 135mm gun which is believed to be of the smoothbore type and is fitted with a new fire control system (FCS). Target information is provided via optical, thermal imaging and infra-red channels. The FCS also includes a laser range finder and possibly a radar. The design relies heavily on the FCS as the crew cannot use traditional optical devices to observe the battlefield and aim the gun. The T-95 MBT is not the sole domestic new-generation MBT. The "object 640" (named Black Eagle), developed at the Omsk-based Design Bureau of Transport Machine-building was displayed at an arms exposition in Omsk, Siberia, in 1999. The vehicle features a completely new chassis and turret. Its designers chose a simpler design with the automatic loader and some ammunition is placed in a spacious bustle in the rear part of the manned turret.


Posted: 29 March 2000
Source: Jane's Defence Weekly

edit to add pictures

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The T-95 is a promising development.  Of course Russian execution being what it is, it will doubtless be a deathtrap staffed only by thin midgets, but the idea is a step in the right direction.  I beleive that with proper sensors and displays, this can be an effective MBT with a couple of provisos.  Firstly, I am concerned with the range of motion for that massive gun.  Over what arc can it be fired on the move, and at what elevation and depression?  In an urban enviornment the ability to bring the weapon to bear on targets that may not share your elevation, and appear swiftly off axis, is essencial.  Overmatching leathality is a Russian specialty, but their tanks are not well suited to the close quarter combat that we are seeing in todays city fighting, or that they have lost so much armour to in old Afghanistan, or more recent Chechnya.
    The second question that I have, is are they planning on deploying this with a screen of IFV to control the space around it?  With the loss of SA caused by the loss of crewed turret come many advantages, but the SA can be provided by a lighter screening element.  This is especially important in facing modern infantry, who can wreak havoc allowed in close quarters with relatively inexpensive anti-armour weapons.
    Once again a great theory is seized upon by the Russians, and now its shoddy execution will prevent those who could have done it properly from making the attempt.  Sigh

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well the Jordain's are already producing a retrofit turret for the Chally 1 similar to this already.

 

[a_majoor]

Potentially good ideas can be derailed through poor execution, but the idea of an external gun mount on a tank or AFV has many advantages.

I recall an American experiment which had a remote control turret placed on a M-1 chassis (although I can't racall the name ot the experiment). The Swedish UDES series of vehicles tried a number of things including external gun mounts, a Marder chassis with a 105mm cannon on an external mount was one result, and the current German PUMA IFV has a robotic turret.

All these designs are looking at ways to reduce the armoured volume of the tank (resulting in a vehicle that has the same level of protection as current vehicles with less weight), and also reduce the visual profile. The sticking point in any of these designs is situational awareness, the crew is sitting low in the vehicle and if they go "heads up" the turret mechanism blocks much of their field of view. The crew will need to rely on the FCS, possibly a crew commannder's periscope and any external inputs that can be sent to the crew.

While not impossible, the difficulty of creating a reliable remote turret and getting enough "SA" to the crew has defeated most attempts to bring external gun mounts into service. Of course these problems could be solved "real soon now", but the R&D has been ongoing since the 1980's, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Jordan's turret

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw021121_1_n.shtml


The only thing really novel about the T-95 is it would be the first MBT to be designed from the ground up for this configuration, although there was a couple of light tanks designed this way.

 

[a_majoor]

The integrated result:

http://armyreco.ifrance.com/moyen_orient/jordan/exhibition/sofex_2004/pictures/falcon_turret_kaddb_jordan_sofex_2004_01.jpg

 

[Colin Parkinson]

apparently it's "forbidden" on my work server, must be tank porn...... ;D