Posted on 06/08/2004 6:20:51 PM PDT by VaBthang4
I have been wondering what if any MBT concept we have on the drawing board. I recall seeing a concept MBT with actual hydraulics that lifted the body in order to give it greater visibility.
Anyway...
Anyone have anything?
I think Electronic warfare parameters are the key..and one should consider that Pandoras box will indeed open..and we will see EMP and modulating EMP weapons used to defeat interlocking com grids.
Other electronic warfare goodies..designed to backdoor into computers and rewrite the hardware..or tie it up in a loop..which cannot be undone by rebooting.
searing a computer via its attenna and reciever systems.
Mines with kinnetic energy driven spikes...motion sensor, pop up and split a tanks engine block in seconds.
link them with satelites, orbiting aircraft, unmaned aircraft, and other assets
Wasn't sure if you'd been pinged here.
If the US wants a new MBT, it needs to provide some funding for the T-94 to get it off the drawing board and into production. Today's army (officered by Clinton era promotees) seems to want to replace tanks with armored scout cars, and armored scout cars with Humvees with canvas protection on the doors.
The M1 is going to be around for a while! We've got what, 8,000 or more of them already, with another 2,000 on order, I guess. Plans for a follow-on system to the M1A2 Abrams are under discussion. The Army is currently studying the so-called Tank 1080 (FCS) concept that calls for improvements in lethality and mobility. Improvements under consideration include installation of an automatic target tracking and recognition system, an improved 120-mm main gun, or perhaps the experimental XM291 140-mm cannon. General Dynamics is privately funding its own M1A3 design (140 mm cannon, better armor), and there is a Block III concept out there somewhere.
ping
I doubt there will be a new MBT for us. Probably what will happen is that our current Abrams will be constantly upgraded (maybe a M1A3?), but do not expect a new MBT.
And anyways, most of our enemies do not have the tank capability to go toe to toe with our current Abrams. I doubt we are going to be facing a Leopard 2, a Challenger 2, or a Merkava 4 anytime soon.
And add to that that any future foes have learnt many lessons from Iraq and Bosnia. From Iraq they have learnt that sending tanks en masse against the US is pure suicide .....those are just huge steel traps. And from Bosnia they've learnt that unconventional tactics can work (it was interesting how NATOs alleged 'hundreds' of tanks destroyed quickly fell to less than twenty; as did the 'bridges' destroyed that turned out to be black plastic canvas; as well as the 'radar installations' that turned out to be microwave ovens). Our future foes will probably invest in portable anti-tank weapons (such as the tandem warhead missiles) for our armor, since they know that sending their T-72s would only result in a loss.
That MIGHT be one of the reasons for the Stryker. It can have the firepower of a MBT (not the current version Stryker, but there are some future variants that have a 'tank' gun on them), and at the same time losing a couple is nto such a 'big thing.' And once you add the alleged ease of tranposrt to battle zones, they start getting quite attractive. And our current MBTs will be upgraded for the next 2 decades probably.
What about using some of the tech developed for the new generation of small cheap UAVs? Launched from simple mounts attached to the tank`s hull or turret, they could provide cheap close recon. Whenever possible use off the shelf parts like that used by civilian model airplane enthusiasts, glow plug engines, fuselage, wings, that should help keep the cost down, and if you keep the electronics simple that`ll help too.
You seem to know your tanks and CV:s! What´s your opinion on the Stridsfordon 90-family (CV90)?
It was introduced just as I left the army, but it is just amazing to see the array of systems they´ve used on this vehicle.
Personally for sentimental reasons I think the S tank (103C) is the coolest tank ever built.
Don't you know that the tank is obsolete!
{/sarcasm}
The MGS, along with the whole FCS concept depends upon superior communications, sensors and maneuver to avoid pitched battles and nose-to-nose slugfests. You need a good, heavy and capable MBT for these!
Hmm....Your right, back to basics!...are we're looking too much to the future?...too much "whizzbangs" electronics/armor enhancements?...look to the future, but don't neglect the present.
...may not be enough human thinking...like suitable/unsuitable terrains...low tech/intensity warfare as in Sun Tzu's Art of War.
Well, that is something to be thankful for. I personally think the M1 series as a concept is top of the line. You might add new "accessories" but the basic concept is unbeatable on the combined arms battlefield.
After some thought, I have to admit that the Stryker also has an important place, especially that version that is the rolling Aid Station (saw it on The History Channel last night). Stryker would probably be pretty good at supporting ground troops in tight city streets where an M1 would just flatten everything.
I'm convinced that the next truly new innovation on the battlefield that will replace heavy armor is going to be the Star Ship Troopers Fighting Suit as was described in the original book, not the silly movie. I think there was a book called "The Forever War" that had a similar suit. Author is Joe Haldeman? Anyway, until then, the M1A series is still King of the Kill Zone.
While I'm on war sci-fi, anybody ever read "HAMMERS SLAMMERS" by David Drake? I wonder if those type vehicles are in our future?
*wincing*
Nothing here. . .but let me know if you hear of anything.
The M-4 wasn't a main battle tank, it was a medium tank sent out to battle heavy tanks.
You are probably thinking of the MBT 70 project, that had hydraulics to let the tank "crouch." That was canceled and later replaced by the project to build the Abrams. It was a joint project with the Germans, who continued development and eventually used the design work to produce the Leopard.
What DOD has going as a replacement to the Abrams is the FCS project, that other posters described.
IMHO, this is the next logical step in defense of all types of vehicles. If the UAV's can be autonomous enough to not distract attention from the crews and sensitive enough to give advanced warning, I think it can give US tankers a similar advantage as an Air Force CAP. The advantage goes to the guy who sees the enemy first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.