• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future Armour

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
258
Points
910
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/11/french-and-german-armor-makers-test-the-waters-with-a-euro-tank/

Franken tank strikes again, wonder if it costs more or less then the leclerc
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
First Poland and now Serbia develop futuristic tanks. (Well the concept was showcased in 2015)

How well this will actually work is open to question, particularly given the limited Serbian industrial base, but we should also wonder why small nations like Poland and Serbia can prototype advanced AFV's, while we do not......

Serbian M-20UP-1

Reported to have the crew in an armoured capsule up front, and an "electric" transmission (not sure if this means it has hybrid capability). The only other information I could find seems to indicate the chassis is a heavily modified T-90, or perhaps M-84.

 

Attachments

  • M_20_UP1_0_003.png
    M_20_UP1_0_003.png
    868.3 KB · Views: 382
  • M-20UP-1 side.jpeg
    M-20UP-1 side.jpeg
    101.3 KB · Views: 731
  • Serbian M-20UP-1.png
    Serbian M-20UP-1.png
    891.4 KB · Views: 445

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
86
Points
560
The Serbia prototype is already blowing blue smoke. ;)

But you're right Thuc, Poland and Serbia can do it, but Canada can't. We're used to it though, Canada just can't figure out R&D or procurement when it involves the CAF.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
645
Points
910
I am hearing that Russia remote control tank does not work as advertised. I give them credit though for building something and actually field testing it.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
291
Points
860
That's okay if it doesn't work as advertised right now.  They'll find out what needs improving, and do what needs to be done to make it functional.

The F-35 didn't work as advertised at first either, and still doesn't in some respects.  Same goes for most military gear when it first comes out. 

Agreed.  Good on them for thinking up the idea, designing it, field testing it.  For places like Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya - might be a pretty handy tool to have in the toolbox, since MOST of their more modern equipment is closer to Europe.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,602
Points
1,060
Why does the 'future tank' have to be different from the most excellent Leo II or Abrams?

An excellent vehicle could just be made cheaper in some way through continuous improvement, and then we can buy more of them. Quantity (of a quality item) has a Quality all of its own. :)
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
daftandbarmy said:
Why does the 'future tank' have to be different from the most excellent Leo II or Abrams?

An excellent vehicle could just be made cheaper in some way through continuous improvement, and then we can buy more of them. Quantity (of a quality item) has a Quality all of its own. :)

Future tanks can indeed be made by continuous improvements (the T-90 is essentially a T-72 after decades of incremental improvements), but you eventually reach the point of diminishing returns.

Future tanks will need to be built with signature reduction in mind, to diminish the effectiveness of a wide variety of guided munitions, using a multitude of guidance systems (everything from millimetre wave radar to thermal imagery). They will need to be protected from threats in a 3600 arc, as well as from top attack munitions and mines and IED's. They will need to have active defense systems integrated into the vehicle, not just bolted on the roof.

Tactically, they will need to deal with a wide variety of threats and be able to operate in complex terrain. This will involve more on board sensors with much higher degrees of fidelity and also covering the entire field of view. Future tanks should also be able to accept target information from off board sensors, and hand off their target information. Tanks will also need to have weapons systems capable of operating in complex terrain, as a minimum prosecuting high angle engagements against enemy soldiers on rooftops and UAV/UCAV's.

Operationally and strategically, there is a lot to be said for making tanks lighter, so they can be transported more quickly and in greater numbers to distant theaters, and move quickly and efficiently between places in theater, without having such a huge logistics trail.

While it may be possible to achieve these goals with existing tank designs, I would think the level of modification would be so great that building an entirely new vehicle from the ground up will be far more cost effective. A turret with a high angle gun mount and integrated active defense system would be essentially an all new turret, and logistics improvements would require an all new powerpack and suspension, essentially creating about 3/4 of a new tank already. The Polish WB-10, and the Serbian M-20UP-1 are examples of this approach (the Polish tank is based on a CV90120, while the Serbian tank seems to be a heavily modified T-90 or M-84 chassis), while the T-14 Armata is a ground up design with many of the desired features integrated into the design.

The modification of a Leopard II or M-1 could be done for the same effect, but I doubt it would be effectively cheaper than a "Leopard III" or a "M-2025".
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
daftandbarmy said:
Why does the 'future tank' have to be different from the most excellent Leo II or Abrams?

An excellent vehicle could just be made cheaper in some way through continuous improvement, and then we can buy more of them. Quantity (of a quality item) has a Quality all of its own. :)

Or the Challenger 2

https://www.janes.com/article/83009/bae-systems-details-black-night-demonstrator
https://www.baesystems.com/en/black-night-unveiled
https://militarymachine.com/black-knight-tank/

It seems as if BAE has upgraded the Challenger 2 and produced a vehicle that is compatible with the new Ajax light armoured vehicle - tracked. 

I don't know how it dovetails with the earlier Black Knight programme for an unmanned ground combat vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRDs__6dFsE

Be kind of interesting if some of the unemployed Challenger 2s were converted to an unmanned configuration

 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,602
Points
1,060
Chris Pook said:
Be kind of interesting if some of the unemployed Challenger 2s were converted to an unmanned configuration

That's probably a good description of what a 'future tank' should be: a drone. Or several drone tanks controlled by a single human manned tank.

I recall, at one time, that air forces were looking at a similar approach for fighters etc: one manned aircraft managing a swarm of other hypersonic drones.

Then we can lever all those human zipper heads out of their turrets, give 'em a rifle, and welcome them to the Infantry :)
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
120
Points
630
daftandbarmy said:
Then we can lever all those human zipper heads out of their turrets, give 'em a rifle, and welcome them to the Infantry :)

DEATH BEFORE DISMOUNT.

;D
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
639
Points
940
daftandbarmy said:
Why does the 'future tank' have to be different from the most excellent Leo II or Abrams?

An excellent vehicle could just be made cheaper in some way through continuous improvement, and then we can buy more of them. Quantity (of a quality item) has a Quality all of its own. :)

The US Army has 6,000 M1 Abrams of which some 2,300 are in reserve storage because Congress keeps buying more to keep the Lima Ohio Tank Works in operation. Bet you any money we could buy a few hundred off the US dirt cheap (if it wasn't for our (insert your own adjective here) procurement system)

:cheers:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
645
Points
910
They should offer up a battalion worth stationed in Europe, manned by Europeans and other allies or a rotational basis. Be perfect for the smaller less equipped forces.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
Certainly these reserve storage M-1's could serve a multitude of purposes, including being activated and sold to other armies, used as engineer vehicles with suitable modifications, as well as the basis of a multitude of other heavy support vehicles (bridge layers, recovery vehicles, etc.).

As for upgrading them, I'd probably be looking for an entirely new turret which would be much smaller and lighter. A "Cleft" or Wegmann turret which provides for a high elevation gun mount would be nice. This is a picture of a 1980 era test bed, which might be a good starting point.
 

Attachments

  • TTB Current.jpg
    TTB Current.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 433

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
645
Points
910
Jordanians are way ahead of you, they been flogging one for years

falcon_turret.jpg
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,040
Thucydides said:
Certainly these reserve storage M-1's could serve a multitude of purposes, including being activated and sold to other armies, used as engineer vehicles with suitable modifications, as well as the basis of a multitude of other heavy support vehicles (bridge layers, recovery vehicles, etc.).

As for upgrading them, I'd probably be looking for an entirely new turret which would be much smaller and lighter. A "Cleft" or Wegmann turret which provides for a high elevation gun mount would be nice. This is a picture of a 1980 era test bed, which might be a good starting point.

Yikes!  That is one sorry looking piece of armour. :(

Was this meant as some kind of ‘Grandfather of MGS?’
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
FJAG said:
The US Army has 6,000 M1 Abrams of which some 2,300 are in reserve storage because Congress keeps buying more to keep the Lima Ohio Tank Works in operation. Bet you any money we could buy a few hundred off the US dirt cheap (if it wasn't for our (insert your own adjective here) procurement system)

:cheers:
There’s actually 4000 in storage, and they produce 11-12 every month which go right into storage. The average age of an Abrams tank fielded by the us army is 2 years or less. Not sure about Marine Corps tanks.
I suspect they are doing the same thing with Paladins. (Made at different plant but subject to same politics and decisions).

Why did Australia buy tanks from storage that required overhaul when fleets of new ones were on the parking lot?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
645
Points
910
A battery of Paladin's plus some training vehicles at the school would be a good fit with our Leopards, I would also buy/lease their Bradley's to also support the leopards. Crew them with tankers and have the infantry fall into them as required. 
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
Good2Golf said:
Yikes!  That is one sorry looking piece of armour. :(

Was this meant as some kind of ‘Grandfather of MGS?’

From what I can gather, this is a 1980 era test bed. Another test bed had a 140mm cannon installed on a modified M1 turret. These were in response to the idea that Soviet tank development had undergone some sort of quantum leap in the early 1980's (and the other American response was the "Block III" proposals for an entirely new line of AFV's, with the basic tank version coming in at a whopping 80,000kg). Unfortunately, it looks like to was towed into a parking lot and left there.
 
Top