Future of Military Tanks & Procurement
- Thread starter Zachowon
- Start date
Tiamat
I've seen the future...
And during this time the Russians and Chinese among others have been catching up with us....
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
To be fair the big reason why we build(we more like restore) M-1s is so we can actually build a new design once Congress stops changing its mind every half decade
eh, not really. We still outnumber them in everything, and nothing they have will challenge us with a few exceptions.
Well that and that we know we dont need a new tank. We are making it better for the current battlefield. Hell the newest Russian tank the T-14 has not really been tested in combat, and that is what Russians are all about loving.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Of course its inevitable that the Abrams will be replaced it's just a question of when and how many of the new tank design(whatever it may be)will be built(probably between two and four thousand all told). As for the T-14 if I recall correctly the Russians are planning on testing the thing in Syria pretty soon
Yeah they are.
And THE Abrams womt be replaced for at least another couple years
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
More like couple of decades, as the new program would take time.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
It honestly surprises me if military technology or weaponry doesn’t change much in the next couple of decades
When are we gonna get our Hover Tanks? Oh wait, too expensive and a regular tank gun does the job of a railgun just fine too
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Yep the Abrams will probably be completely retired sometime in the 2040s since it's going to take awhile to both design a new tank, test it, and churn out a few thousand of them especially given the fact that the new tank will almost certainly have new variants/upgrades introduced as production continues
Honestly, the replacement for the Abrams is going to be another Abrams. The chassis is exceptionally sound for an MBT and the old beast sits right at the sweet spot of the armored triangle. What will be changed/upgraded will be the 'soft' factors, new electronics, new systems, possibly a new turret with an autoloader, etc. The 'basic' M1 will remain.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
The problem with the Abrams is the fact that it's too heavy and every upgrade only adds weight
SEPv3 is just shy of 80 tons, yes, but the changes talked about for A3 look like they'll shed some tons instead.
But the question is... it's too heavy for what exactly? Current generation US Army bridging gear can handle Abrams just fine, same with ARV, and SEPv3 is still transportable in a pinch by C-17. There are no indications that the suspension or chassis is overloaded. People like to say 'too heavy' without any clear idea of what the 'ideal weight' is in any sort of abstract term which can survive scrutiny.
But the question is... it's too heavy for what exactly? Current generation US Army bridging gear can handle Abrams just fine, same with ARV, and SEPv3 is still transportable in a pinch by C-17. There are no indications that the suspension or chassis is overloaded. People like to say 'too heavy' without any clear idea of what the 'ideal weight' is in any sort of abstract term which can survive scrutiny.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
The answer is non reinforced bridges and roads, still you're right about the Army wanting to lighten the design and planning on doing so with the next version. Still if nothing else advances in materials science and weapons(like the ETC)will require the Abrams to be replaced eventually. Of course the replacement will probably look an awful like the Abrams Chassis at least externally.
Last edited:
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
You also have to remember that composite armor doesn't like being curved all that much, so externally it would look like an Abrams no matter what you do.
Another thing that one must take into account is the fact that we've essentially got EndoSteel revealed back in 2017, and it is likely going to be used in future procurement projects once mass-produced (also, since EndoSteel is available, it might mean that Battletech style armor is actually a thing for the future).
Between that and using fiber-optics for the electronics (which, last I've checked, would shave something like five tons off Abram's weight), you'll probably get more bridges accessible. Add the weight savings of an unmanned turret, and you'll probably get that capability just with the switch to fiber optics.
For the immediate future, it is likely that the world's tanks would start with bigger guns (be 140mm for NATO countries or the 152mm for Russia and maybe China) before using Electrothermal Chemical guns. In all honesty, the late-Cold War ETC program was killed by a combination of weirdness that showed up in the simulations back then (due to an insufficient understanding of plasma and the physics thereof) and post-Cold War budget cuts... and restarting them would probably be a costly proposition right now.
In the future it would probably go something like this: bigger gun (140mm for NATO and the US and 152mm for Russia and China)---> smaller ETC gun (maybe 90mm for NATO and the US with 85mm for Russia and China?) ---> slightly larger gun (maybe 105s and 100s) ---> possible modern guns in ETC form (120s and 125s) ---> possible energy and electromotive cannons (caliber up in the air for this one). For IFVs and SPAAGs and C-RAMs, it'll probably be staying within the 35-60mm range despite new propellants.
Another thing that one must take into account is the fact that we've essentially got EndoSteel revealed back in 2017, and it is likely going to be used in future procurement projects once mass-produced (also, since EndoSteel is available, it might mean that Battletech style armor is actually a thing for the future).
Between that and using fiber-optics for the electronics (which, last I've checked, would shave something like five tons off Abram's weight), you'll probably get more bridges accessible. Add the weight savings of an unmanned turret, and you'll probably get that capability just with the switch to fiber optics.
For the immediate future, it is likely that the world's tanks would start with bigger guns (be 140mm for NATO countries or the 152mm for Russia and maybe China) before using Electrothermal Chemical guns. In all honesty, the late-Cold War ETC program was killed by a combination of weirdness that showed up in the simulations back then (due to an insufficient understanding of plasma and the physics thereof) and post-Cold War budget cuts... and restarting them would probably be a costly proposition right now.
In the future it would probably go something like this: bigger gun (140mm for NATO and the US and 152mm for Russia and China)---> smaller ETC gun (maybe 90mm for NATO and the US with 85mm for Russia and China?) ---> slightly larger gun (maybe 105s and 100s) ---> possible modern guns in ETC form (120s and 125s) ---> possible energy and electromotive cannons (caliber up in the air for this one). For IFVs and SPAAGs and C-RAMs, it'll probably be staying within the 35-60mm range despite new propellants.
Actually the M1 has been tested with a 140mm ETC on a prototype called Thumper. The technology works, but it is more likely that we'll see a 120mm ETC, bluntly the 120 is also one of the 'sweet spots' for weapons design. Possibly go to the longer barrel version like on Leopard 2.
The reason I think that the larger caliber weapons are unlikely is simple... how do you store enough ammo in the tank with the bigger rounds? We're already struggling to get enough ammo for the 120, the 140 reduced ammo loadout far too much.
So we'll continue to see the 120. I believe that the Bradley replacement is intended to have a 57mm? (I might be wrong, don't have the energy to go dig it up again).
The most common round actually fired by Abrams in action has always been the HE, there simply aren't enough targets that require servicing by the silver arrows. There's a new HE round that is going into service (I believe) that is a massive upgrade to the current loadout, while being compatible with proposed smart fusing systems.
The reason I think that the larger caliber weapons are unlikely is simple... how do you store enough ammo in the tank with the bigger rounds? We're already struggling to get enough ammo for the 120, the 140 reduced ammo loadout far too much.
So we'll continue to see the 120. I believe that the Bradley replacement is intended to have a 57mm? (I might be wrong, don't have the energy to go dig it up again).
The most common round actually fired by Abrams in action has always been the HE, there simply aren't enough targets that require servicing by the silver arrows. There's a new HE round that is going into service (I believe) that is a massive upgrade to the current loadout, while being compatible with proposed smart fusing systems.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
However, everyone that worked on that project is dead/close to it and you'll have to redo the entire project from near-scratch because the data they had is de facto useless due to the aforementioned weirdness that showed up and all the prototypes were likely destroyed a good three decades ago. Since we've literally hit the limit where cordite/cordite-derived propellants can propel something and it'll take at least a decade to work out an ETC gun, it is more likely that it would be a bigger gun being used for a while before an ETC gun comes out.
I mean that this up gunning is only for the immediate (i.e. next 20 years or so) future... baring any apocalyptic/near-apocalyptic situations that will happen in said 20 years (like, say, Pakistan and India nuking each other and a few Pakistani nukes go missing or the entire 'force world trade via gunpoint' regime that the US has been forcing on the world collapses).
The T-14 Armata is very odd when you actually look it over.
It's very tall, 3.3 meters high. It has a very Merkava-like fat hull, but weighs only 48 tons. The driver, commander, and gunner sit three abreast in what would ordinarily be the driver's compartment, and the turret with the 125mm gun is completely unmanned and features an autoloader. The engine is an X-12, a very atypical configuration. Usually, X-engines are avoided like the plague because they have overheating issues in spite of their compactness.
The front glacis armor is very thick to protect the crew compartment from front penetration:
The turret is fitted with the Afghanit hard-kill APS:
The ammo is stored vertically in the turret.
All in all, the Armata is a very, very weird tank. It's weird because Russia doesn't usually build tanks this tall, and because the unmanned turret has intentionally skimpy armor to keep it lightweight. Apparently, the hard-kill APS is there to make it so that the thing is harder to mission-kill, I guess. Otherwise, a solid hit to the turret might knock out the compartment with the autoloader or even set the ammo on fire. It seems somewhat vulnerable to top-attack munitions, given the lateral arcs of the APS countermeasures (which seem specialized for taking out rockets and ATGMs fired at it by infantry).
We ought to bring back the Thumper or the CATTB, but mostly because their turrets look really cool and have a big-ass gun.
While we're at it, we really ought to bring back the LOSAT. I'd like to see a hard-kill APS try and stop one of these. There's so much momentum, you'd be hard-pressed to divert it off-course.
Personally, I think the future of armored vehicle drivetrains is hybrid engine-electric/battery-electric tech. Drive motors mean you can eliminate the gearbox and differential entirely and just go with two direct-drive sprockets, one for each track, independently driven by their own motors. With an engine, genset, and batteries, the motors could actually draw more than the prime mover's output for brief periods, or the prime mover could be shut off entirely and it could run silent on batteries alone for brief periods.
The tech to do this has existed for decades, by the way. It was being investigated for the FCS program and it was also used in the BAE Lancer/Future Scout Tracer testbed.
The Mounted Combat System chassis was fucking dumb. It was too tall and bulbous. They wanted a Bradley-like chassis to do everything. IFV, SPG, tank, command vehicle, they wanted it to do it all:
This is dumb. Realistically, you need at least four different chassis types. A tracked UGV, a light track, a medium track, and a heavy track. The light track should fill a troop transport and amphibious transport role, the medium track should be your typical high-profile IFV that lets the crew and passengers sit in a fairly upright position while providing fire support with a 35mm/50mm autocannon like the Bushmaster III, and the heavy track should have a nice big 140mm gun, lots of armor, and a sleek profile. All of them should be hybrids and have APS and thermal stealth.
Imagine, if you will, an Abrams, except with an ungoverned top speed and a half-again the acceleration off the line. Hybrid tech can accomplish that.
It's very tall, 3.3 meters high. It has a very Merkava-like fat hull, but weighs only 48 tons. The driver, commander, and gunner sit three abreast in what would ordinarily be the driver's compartment, and the turret with the 125mm gun is completely unmanned and features an autoloader. The engine is an X-12, a very atypical configuration. Usually, X-engines are avoided like the plague because they have overheating issues in spite of their compactness.
The front glacis armor is very thick to protect the crew compartment from front penetration:
The turret is fitted with the Afghanit hard-kill APS:
The ammo is stored vertically in the turret.
All in all, the Armata is a very, very weird tank. It's weird because Russia doesn't usually build tanks this tall, and because the unmanned turret has intentionally skimpy armor to keep it lightweight. Apparently, the hard-kill APS is there to make it so that the thing is harder to mission-kill, I guess. Otherwise, a solid hit to the turret might knock out the compartment with the autoloader or even set the ammo on fire. It seems somewhat vulnerable to top-attack munitions, given the lateral arcs of the APS countermeasures (which seem specialized for taking out rockets and ATGMs fired at it by infantry).
We ought to bring back the Thumper or the CATTB, but mostly because their turrets look really cool and have a big-ass gun.
While we're at it, we really ought to bring back the LOSAT. I'd like to see a hard-kill APS try and stop one of these. There's so much momentum, you'd be hard-pressed to divert it off-course.
Personally, I think the future of armored vehicle drivetrains is hybrid engine-electric/battery-electric tech. Drive motors mean you can eliminate the gearbox and differential entirely and just go with two direct-drive sprockets, one for each track, independently driven by their own motors. With an engine, genset, and batteries, the motors could actually draw more than the prime mover's output for brief periods, or the prime mover could be shut off entirely and it could run silent on batteries alone for brief periods.
The tech to do this has existed for decades, by the way. It was being investigated for the FCS program and it was also used in the BAE Lancer/Future Scout Tracer testbed.
Army Guide
Army Guide - information about the main battle tanks, armoured vehicles and armament of the land forces and also the information concerning other army subjects - Lancer, Fire support vehicle, Armoured Vehicles
www.army-guide.com
The Mounted Combat System chassis was fucking dumb. It was too tall and bulbous. They wanted a Bradley-like chassis to do everything. IFV, SPG, tank, command vehicle, they wanted it to do it all:
This is dumb. Realistically, you need at least four different chassis types. A tracked UGV, a light track, a medium track, and a heavy track. The light track should fill a troop transport and amphibious transport role, the medium track should be your typical high-profile IFV that lets the crew and passengers sit in a fairly upright position while providing fire support with a 35mm/50mm autocannon like the Bushmaster III, and the heavy track should have a nice big 140mm gun, lots of armor, and a sleek profile. All of them should be hybrids and have APS and thermal stealth.
Imagine, if you will, an Abrams, except with an ungoverned top speed and a half-again the acceleration off the line. Hybrid tech can accomplish that.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
The T-14 Armata is very odd when you actually look it over.
It's very tall, 3.3 meters high. It has a very Merkava-like fat hull, but weighs only 48 tons. The driver, commander, and gunner sit three abreast in what would ordinarily be the driver's compartment, and the turret with the 125mm gun is completely unmanned and features an autoloader. The engine is an X-12, a very atypical configuration. Usually, X-engines are avoided like the plague because they have overheating issues in spite of their compactness.
The front glacis armor is very thick to protect the crew compartment from front penetration:
The turret is fitted with the Afghanit hard-kill APS:
The ammo is stored vertically in the turret.
All in all, the Armata is a very, very weird tank. It's weird because Russia doesn't usually build tanks this tall, and because the unmanned turret has intentionally skimpy armor to keep it lightweight. Apparently, the hard-kill APS is there to make it so that the thing is harder to mission-kill, I guess. Otherwise, a solid hit to the turret might knock out the compartment with the autoloader or even set the ammo on fire. It seems somewhat vulnerable to top-attack munitions, given the lateral arcs of the APS countermeasures (which seem specialized for taking out rockets and ATGMs fired at it by infantry).
The thing is, it also uses a lot of composite armor, and one of the things that the West learned early on and Russia discovered during the Cold War was that composites don't like being shaped into curves.
Not going to happen, last I've checked the mockups/prototypes are either destroyed or scrapped.We ought to bring back the Thumper or the CATTB, but mostly because their turrets look really cool and have a big-ass gun.
While we're at it, we really ought to bring back the LOSAT. I'd like to see a hard-kill APS try and stop one of these. There's so much momentum, you'd be hard-pressed to divert it off-course.
It wouldn't be as useful though, given that you have a 'dead-zone' where the missile isn't going at top speed. Add the likeliness of having laser ADS in the future, then weapons like these (and other missiless) are useless unless you go for Battletech/Macross levels of missile spam.
That wouldn't be exactly viable unless the battery's discharge rate is phenomenal/outright bullshit like Battletech's batteries are (a 25kg power pack supplies an infantry 'portable' Particle Projection Cannon (notorious in-universe for being a pig on power consumption with a rate-of-fire measured in 3 blasts per minute) for something like 150 shots).
Think of it from a logistical standpoint (and yes, I know it is unsexy, but it is vital as breathing air). You need spare parts and having only a handful of types of spare parts makes it far easier to maintain the equipment and costs less (one of the major expenditures for the US military is spare parts and equipment). There are extremes to this but it is better to try to do it as much as possible than not have the spare parts.
Also, consider engine volume and what not...
Amphibs won't be light-tracks, they would be their own category given the requirements. You would likely have semi-amphib (i.e. deep-river crossing capability at most) variants of the light track though.
gral
Well-known member
50mm. Its ammo is a 35x228mm bottle-shaped cartridge which is made straight-walled so a 50mm projectile can fit, making the ammunition about the same size of the above-mentioned 35mm.
Composites are not what most people think. They're actually angled, stacked plates underneath the thin, outer steel armor shell. This is why modern MBTs don't weigh 200 tons and aren't meter-thick steel.
Boxy shapes are good because they offer more internal volume to stuff composites into, and composites can be basically anything. Sandwiched layers of steel, plastic, ceramic, glass... whatever will interrupt a shaped charge jet or a fin-stabilized dart.
Yes, glass. It's very hard.
Composite armour - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Aww. I'm sad, now.
KEMs were actually super-effective in testing. Too effective. They canceled the program because they were overkill, and because, like you said, there is a bit of a minimum range they must travel to be effective, and a maximum range before the motor burns out and they start following a ballistic trajectory. They canceled the LOSAT tank and tried making a LOSAT Humvee, but the problem with that is that it needed a blast deflector for the front windshield so it didn't blow the window glass into the occupants' faces, and also, aiming it required starting the engine and moving the whole vehicle. Not very practical. A turret is better.
They tried scaling the concept down to the CKEM before canceling it entirely. It was really powerful, though.
MGM-166 LOSAT - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There are ways to do it with modern battery tech. Marine propulsion-grade Lithium-Polymer packs can put out craploads of current.
.jpg)
Want Electric Ships? Build a Better Battery
Large container ships are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but electrifying the world’s fleet faces steep technological hurdles.
The banks those are used in are often huge and many tens or hundreds of tons, though.
With electric motors, you can have regenerative braking and a bit of a fuel savings from that.
BAE was hawking hybrid tracked vehicle tech years ago. The tech has gotten substantially better since then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2013/05/28/should-the-u-s-army-buy-a-hybrid-tank/
The latest version of the Ripsaw is fully battery-electric and has a Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 on top. It has astounding agility thanks to its electric drive system.
It would be nice if the most basic light tracks all had waterjets and could swim. You never know when that could come in handy. Especially in island warfare. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
I just had a badass idea. What if you had a multiplier gear drive to use the same electric motors for the drive sprockets as for the water jet impellers? Just declutch the sprockets for the tracks and clutch in the waterjets and there you go.
Mmm. The 50mm Supershot.
Thoooomp!