Future of Military Tanks & Procurement

[Aaron Fox]

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

Hence why I said it doesn't like curves all that much.

Aww. I'm sad, now.

Eh, it is the usual happenings for failed projects, getting scrapped or used for target practice. In the US, it is usually scrapped outside a handful of surviving models bought by museums.

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

Problem is size and minimum range.

There are ways to do it with modern battery tech. Marine propulsion-grade Lithium-Polymer packs can put out craploads of current.

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.

www.wired.com

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.

What kills things far more is not weight but volume. More often than not, the volume is going to kill a project and if something takes too much volume (which is essentially all of our current batteries at the required energies needed), then it is enviable. That is why the US light tank programs tended to go nowhere because volume simply rockets faster than weight.

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.

First, it would be too expensive for everything to have a water jet propulsion system (not to mention how maintenance intensive they are comparatively). In addition, having that capability makes vehicles more vulnerable as the required shape has immense surface areas and thus makes armor heavier.

Mmm. The 50mm Supershot.



Thoooomp!

I fear that the future will have autocannons generally within the 35-60mm range, just because of a combination of required shock effects for HE, required penetration values, among other factors. I wouldn't be surprised that in the future infantry start to get less and less affected by the HE and fragmentary effects of our current stock of rounds.

 

[Spartan303]

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.

Wait...what!? EndoSteel? This I must read about!

 

[Aaron Fox]

Wait...what!? EndoSteel? This I must read about!

This bad boy. Back in 2017 I mean 2016 the world was revealed this composite metal foam. The properties of which -when discussed on Spacebattles- eerily resemble EndoSteel's stated properties. It's crazy really...

 

[PsihoKekec]

This strikes me more as ferro fibrous

 

[Aaron Fox]

This strikes me more as ferro fibrous

No Ferro-Fiberous is a whole different kettle of fish and doesn't match up to the established quirks of this material.

 

[Iconoclast]

This bad boy. Back in 2017 I mean 2016 the world was revealed this composite metal foam. The properties of which -when discussed on Spacebattles- eerily resemble EndoSteel's stated properties. It's crazy really...

There have been a bunch of interesting armor materials that have been discovered in the past decade or two. One of them is Super Bainite Steel, which has an insanely high tensile strength.

Super bainite steel – perfection in impenetrability - Army Technology

While ceramics, smart materials and additive manufacturing have dominated recent military material innovation headlines, metal alloys have been quietly evolving to deliver unprecedented new protective properties. A new form of steel alloy called super bainite has been licensed to Tata Steel for...

www.army-technology.com

It has a weakness, however. If you weld it, it ruins the heat treat. It can only be bolted on the outside. You can't make a vehicle hull out of it, unless you rivet the damn thing together like an old boiler or something.

Another interesting one is Kryron. It consists of a powdered metal alloy made from aluminum with carbon nanotubes dissolved into it, and it's an extremely strong metal matrix composite. Unfortunately, the CEO of the company that makes it was charged with a DUI and his company went under a couple years ago. Some say he was just a huckster, but the material itself was rather curious:

Bourque Industries CEO may face prison

The founder and CEO of a local high-tech company faces a potentially lengthy prison term as he heads to trial on felony drunk-driving charges.

tucson.com

 

[Duke Nukem]

This bad boy. Back in 2017 I mean 2016 the world was revealed this composite metal foam. The properties of which -when discussed on Spacebattles- eerily resemble EndoSteel's stated properties. It's crazy really...

Thats cool i wonder if that material could be used in body armor?

 

[PsihoKekec]

It depends on many factors, suitability for mass production, endurance of material, cost...

 

[Aaron Fox]

It depends on many factors, suitability for mass production, endurance of material, cost...

Given that it is simply a sandwich of metal foam and ceramics (specifically cubic boron nitride), it's mass-producible. Problem is that it is more useful as a structural material than an armor.

Hence the EndoSteel comment.

There have been a bunch of interesting armor materials that have been discovered in the past decade or two. One of them is Super Bainite Steel, which has an insanely high tensile strength.

Super bainite steel – perfection in impenetrability - Army Technology

While ceramics, smart materials and additive manufacturing have dominated recent military material innovation headlines, metal alloys have been quietly evolving to deliver unprecedented new protective properties. A new form of steel alloy called super bainite has been licensed to Tata Steel for...

www.army-technology.com

It has a weakness, however. If you weld it, it ruins the heat treat. It can only be bolted on the outside. You can't make a vehicle hull out of it, unless you rivet the damn thing together like an old boiler or something.

The last decade was really crazy when it came to this sort of thing, hasn't it?

Another interesting one is Kryron. It consists of a powdered metal alloy made from aluminum with carbon nanotubes dissolved into it, and it's an extremely strong metal matrix composite. Unfortunately, the CEO of the company that makes it was charged with a DUI and his company went under a couple years ago. Some say he was just a huckster, but the material itself was rather curious:

Bourque Industries CEO may face prison

The founder and CEO of a local high-tech company faces a potentially lengthy prison term as he heads to trial on felony drunk-driving charges.

tucson.com

... odd thing this is...

 

[Iconoclast]

... odd thing this is...

When backed with 3/8ths steel, a carbon nanotube/aluminum Kryron Terminator body armor plate apparently withstood a hit from a .50 BMG AP round.

Kryron Armor Repeats Previous .50 cal AP Stopping Performance at Naples Demonstration

Bourque Industries, Inc. (OTC:BORK) today announced that the Company repeated the results of its July military testing on August 10, stopping several

www.businesswire.com

Research into CNT-MMCs is an ongoing area of study:

Carbon nanotube metal matrix composite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've always thought metal matrix composites would be great for personal power armor because of how light and tough they are.

 

[Aaron Fox]

When backed with 3/8ths steel, a carbon nanotube/aluminum Kryron Terminator body armor plate apparently withstood a hit from a .50 BMG AP round.

Kryron Armor Repeats Previous .50 cal AP Stopping Performance at Naples Demonstration

Bourque Industries, Inc. (OTC:BORK) today announced that the Company repeated the results of its July military testing on August 10, stopping several

www.businesswire.com

Research into CNT-MMCs is an ongoing area of study:

Carbon nanotube metal matrix composite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've always thought metal matrix composites would be great for personal power armor because of how light and tough they are.

I never heard of this bad boy... now I've got to reevaluate my armor for my future-history setting!

EDIT:

On second thought, looking into it... well... the Kryron Terminator armor looks bunk but the CNT-MMCs look promising.

 

[Zachowon]

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.

It will be 50mm.

As someone who is currently serving and is learning about Modern weapon systems for the job and for fun.

The World of tanks (heh) is an interesting one with most sticking to a simialir design in thier spheres. NATO and the west resemble each other and are a boxy nature. The East resembles mostly Russian tanks with the exception of the T14, rounded or rounder turret designs over the composite of the NATO.

Also big gun does not always mean better, ammo storage as well as size of the vehicle varies greatly and only increases the bigger the gun.
For example, the Thumper as seen in other posts. You make yourself a bigger target, less clearance room and the like, and something the US Army loves to prevent, mass changes becuase the size of something changes.

 

[Aaron Fox]

It will be 50mm.

As someone who is currently serving and is learning about Modern weapon systems for the job and for fun.

The World of tanks (heh) is an interesting one with most sticking to a simialir design in thier spheres. NATO and the west resemble each other and are a boxy nature. The East resembles mostly Russian tanks with the exception of the T14, rounded or rounder turret designs over the composite of the NATO.

Also big gun does not always mean better, ammo storage as well as size of the vehicle varies greatly and only increases the bigger the gun.
For example, the Thumper as seen in other posts. You make yourself a bigger target, less clearance room and the like, and something the US Army loves to prevent, mass changes becuase the size of something changes.

No, your 'analysis' on the Russian and Russian-descended/derived tanks is way off point. They're going to be as boxy as NATO tanks in the future due to the fact that composites do not like being put into curves. You are better off putting them into angles and get the very maximum you can get out of them. That is partially why the T-14 is the way it is because the Russians discovered like what NATO discovered when toying with composite armor shapes that curves and composites don't work well together (not only is it vastly harder but it is needlessly expensive).

Take China -the poster boy of Russian-derived tanks- for example, once they started to modernize and use composites, they went straight for the angles instead of curves.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Actually the outer surface you see on tanks isn't the armor. The armor plates are behind those exterior plates that are used solely as mounting points for external attachments and such. Moreover, at least on US and Israeli tanks, the armor is now completely modular and thus can be easily upgraded/replaced as needed.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Actually the outer surface you see on tanks isn't the armor. The armor plates are behind those exterior plates that are used solely as mounting points for external attachments and such. Moreover, at least on US and Israeli tanks, the armor is now completely modular and thus can be easily upgraded/replaced as needed.

What I meant was that composites don't play well with curves as well as angles. That is why practically every tank former Soviet arsenal is boxy-shaped, as it is far easier to make the composite armor array in a box/angled parallelogram than something that is curved. Between that and the composite array requires a lot of (comparable) volume, to begin with...

 

[CurtisLemay]

One thing I wonder, did the Russians ever lick the issues they had with the autoloader (no, I don't mean the semi-exaggerated tales of people's limbs being stuffed into gun breeches?) I mean the very real issues they had of autoloader failure and feed jams. So much so, I hear in the bad old days of GSFG, they had to "draft" motor riflemen to be loaders in tanks? And with an unmanned turret on the T-14, if a shell fails to load, or the autoloader breaks down, is that vehicle is now combat ineffective?

 

[Aaron Fox]

One thing I wonder, did the Russians ever lick the issues they had with the autoloader (no, I don't mean the semi-exaggerated tales of people's limbs being stuffed into gun breeches?) I mean the very real issues they had of autoloader failure and feed jams. So much so, I hear in the bad old days of GSFG, they had to "draft" motor riflemen to be loaders in tanks? And with an unmanned turret on the T-14, if a shell fails to load, or the autoloader breaks down, is that vehicle is now combat ineffective?

Autoloaders are far more reliable and effective than the initial designs. In addition, if you want to keep the mass down, you have to make the turret automated or accept thinner armor in general (the latter is considered outright unacceptable these days). Autoloaders are now able to use the ammo safety features of the M1 for example.

 

[CurtisLemay]

Autoloaders are far more reliable and effective than the initial designs. In addition, if you want to keep the mass down, you have to make the turret automated or accept thinner armor in general (the latter is considered outright unacceptable these days). Autoloaders are now able to use the ammo safety features of the M1 for example.

Cool, and food for thought. Another question, is the pendulum swinging towards the ATGM again with fire and forget top attack weapons like Javelin or Spike?

 

[Zachowon]

No, your 'analysis' on the Russian and Russian-descended/derived tanks is way off point. They're going to be as boxy as NATO tanks in the future due to the fact that composites do not like being put into curves. You are better off putting them into angles and get the very maximum you can get out of them. That is partially why the T-14 is the way it is because the Russians discovered like what NATO discovered when toying with composite armor shapes that curves and composites don't work well together (not only is it vastly harder but it is needlessly expensive).

Take China -the poster boy of Russian-derived tanks- for example, once they started to modernize and use composites, they went straight for the angles instead of curves.

I ment currently they are with the exception of the T14, and that in the future they would have to start following western tank design.
I was going off how up until the T14 people were always saying the rounded turret and auto loader of the russian and tanks similair were better.
The only exception to countries making them more Boxy is NORTH korea.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Cool, and food for thought. Another question, is the pendulum swinging towards the ATGM again with fire and forget top attack weapons like Javelin or Spike?

No, ADS (be hard-kill systems, ECM-based 'soft-kill' systems, or both if the country in question really goes into "tanks are disposable, the crew aren't" philosophy of tank design and are willing to shovel the dosh necessary) is basically requiring ATGMs to be salvo-fired like mad to breach. I wouldn't be surprised that laser-based ADS systems will show up far sooner than expected given that FELs are a thing and are only slowly being developed because of budget cuts.

In the near future, it is likely that Trophy 2.0 and the like are going to simply proliferate, likely becoming AMS style systems:

(before you go 'BT AMS SUCKS!', the latest revision of AMS style systems are actually useful, Streak missiles become normal missiles, you only use one ammo per rack of missiles, single-shot missiles have a 50/50 chance of being destroyed, although it can only fire at one rack at a time within its turret mounting, oh and AMS only produces 1 heat while LAMS produces only 7 or 5 depending on the model)

This is a design that an artist that I regularly correspond with made, a 2cm 'screw you' FEL system designed to take out pretty much any missile or anti-tank projectile that isn't armored with anti-laser armor or isn't made out of iridium-osmium alloy.​

I ment currently they are with the exception of the T14, and that in the future they would have to start following western tank design.
I was going off how up until the T14 people were always saying the rounded turret and auto loader of the russian and tanks similair were better.
The only exception to countries making them more Boxy is NORTH korea.

Ah, my reading comprehension was off then.