Germany sticks with joint GTX-tank project (UK is out)

AFP | July 07 2003

[knighthawk]

BERLIN - Germany says it will continue developing a tank project with the Netherlands, following press reports that Britain has withdrawn from the program, the second European country to do so.

"There is currently no reason to think about withdrawing from the project," to build some 200 tanks, a German defense ministry spokesman said.

He said he was aware that Britain was reexamining its involvement with the 300 million euro (345 million dollar) program to develop a tank, but that the German government would not decide whether to buy any before the end of the development phase in 2004.

The German weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel reports in its forthcoming Monday issue that Britain has pulled out of the GTX tank project, following its recognition during the recent Iraqi war that it needs more light and swift armored vehicles in its armory rather than a heavy tank.

The magazine said the British decision effectively killed off the entire project.

Germany, Britain and the Netherlands agreed two years ago to push ahead with a project to jointly develop the tank, nicknamed the Boxer, despite the withdrawal of France.

The three countries placed a option on the purchase of 200 tanks from German defence groups Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall, charged with constructing 3,500 tanks at a cost of 1.5 million euros (1.73 million dollars) per vehicle.

The newsmagazine said that Britain would no longer buy any of the tanks, but would continue to fund the development phase of the project.

The GTX is due to replace the German military's old M113 and Fuchs tanks.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[SJSAMPLE]

I don't know where this continuing fallacy, concerning the need for lighter tanks in Iraq, comes from and why it persists. The M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks proved themselves in a big way. These vehicles are very important, particularly in a close-in (urban) fight, where the higher probability of hits necessitates heavy, heavy armor (and, therefore, great weight). M1s showed that they could take (and survive, along with their crews) RPG and AT hits. Smaller, lighter tanks would have suffered increasing casualties in the same environment.

Now, if they're talking about deployability, then lighter is useful. But, there's a big difference between deploying to the battlefield and actually fighting the battle.

[1stFreedom]

It's time to move to unmanned tanks.

M1's should be turned into control centers (capable of defending themselvs -- they are tanks after all). I'd upgrade the armour and fix the vulnerable backside.

These M1 control centers should be linked via optic cable and line of site communications to turretless,disposable drone tanks/missle launchers.

Cheaper to go this way. Less armor needed since there isn't acrew to protect. This will make it lighter, smaller, and fuel efficient.

Imagine an M1 controlling 20-40 such drones! One tank with a squadron of drones could devastate an enemy tank fortification.

Manned tanks are outdate. Big tanks are outdated except for roles as control centers.

[SJSAMPLE]

I don't think I can agree with any of that.
1. The backside of the M1 was covered almost immediately. The Ohio tank plant cranked out special grills that covered the exhaust outlet and prevented RPGs from entering. Not one crew or even a soldier was lost to hits in this region. In fact, not one M1 was lost, just out of action because of an engine fire.

2. LOS and optical cables would be useless, as a technology, in controlling other vehicles. Any control would HAVE to be by encrypted, spread-spectrum radio to be effective.

3. Manned tanks are NOWHERE near outdated. This was categorically proven in Iraq. Crews engaged enemy tanks, vehicles and soldiers at great ranges, with incredible accuracy and exceptional safety to the crews. There are further enhancements to battlefield intelligence, targeting (milimeter-wave radar - like the Longbow Apache), armor (advanced composites) and weaponry that will increase the tank's lethality. But removing the crew, especially with the current technology, would be insane.

[MattinNJ]

The three countries placed a option on the purchase of 200 tanks from German defence groups Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall, charged with constructing 3,500 tanks at a cost of 1.5 million euros (1.73 million dollars) per vehicle.

If the eurotrash keep their current antics up, these tanks will become hog fodder.

[1stFreedom]

>>2. LOS and optical cables would be useless, as a technology, in controlling other vehicles. Any control would HAVE to be by encrypted, spread-spectrum radio to be effective.

All control would have to be dynamically encrypted. Otherwise an enemy could sever the link and take control of the drone. LOS is backup in case optical link is severed.


>>3. Manned tanks are NOWHERE near outdated. This was categorically proven in Iraq. Crews engaged enemy tanks, vehicles and soldiers at great ranges, with incredibleaccuracy and exceptional safety to the crews.

First of all, the Iraqis only had the EXPORT version of the Kornet anti-tank missile.

Secondly, improving the Kornet wouldn't be too hard. The penetration range is very close the the effective protection offered by the DU armour.

Thirdly, we fought a military that had no air power. The anti-tank technology available to aircraft would overwhelm the M1.

Had we fought against Russia, China, or say NATO, the battle outcome would be much different.

Finally, hyperkenitic weapons are going to make the tank obsolete. Our newest production anti-tank missle, the LOSAT anti-tank weapon, would slice through an M1 like bread through butter.

The basic problem that tanks face has to do with the overwhelming force and energy of missile technology. The amount of armour required to keep up with this technology has really become unreasonable. Maybe force fields could do the trick, but until we create them, tanks are sitting ducks when confronted by a military of high caliber.

>>But removing the crew, especially with the current technology, would be insane.

Not at all. The centralized crew would assist targeting computers which recieve info via satellite and aircraft.

Current technology would easily support this. We already do this with the Predator drone. We are testing the swarming of multiple drones controlled by a single aircraft.

I'd day that 5 years from now a drone tank could enter production. 5 years from now there will be portable anti-tank missles that will defeat the M1. Why invest in a loosing battle? Instead, adapt and adjust to the technilogical times.

[SJSAMPLE]

Most of the technology advances you speak of are US-based. I have the LOSAT video and it's cool, but it requires the HMMWV to be STOPPED and aimed within 10 degrees of the target. Hardly a match for moving armor.

Yes, we relied on air supremacy. That's always been a part of our doctrine. Even if the "enemy" could field aircraft, they don't have the intel or targeting technology/tactics to engage our ground forces effectively. M1s worked so well because they covered the ground while the aircrews covered there air.

A tank crew is far more than targeting and engaging an enemy. Just maintaining and maneuvering, on the fly, requires a trained crew that can react far faster than any system under development. DARPA has had trouble keeping automated HMMWVs on the road, let alone maneuvering in combat.

I agree that weapons are pushing past armor, which is why future tanks will undoubtedly have some defensive system to protect them. Laser-blinding missiles or burning up the guidance with a laser would be my guess. Reactive and PRO-active armor are other options that I think we'll advance upon.

The Predator, while admirable, is nowhere near a tank. An aircraft can maneuver through a virtually empty 3D space, while a tank must maneuver through a cluttered 2D space. Getting any navigation system to handle that, even from remote, will be difficult, at best.

The days of the large, heavy, crewed tank might be drawing to a close, but 5 years is cutting it very close.

[1stFreedom]

>> I have the LOSAT video and it's cool, but it requires the HMMWV to be STOPPED and aimed within 10 degrees of the target. Hardly a match for moving armor.

This is first gen LOSAT. Also, it simply proves the technology is there. We don't know what the Russians or Chinese are developing or have in production. I'm sure they have or are working on a version of LOSAT.

>>Laser-blinding missiles or burning up the guidance with a laser would be my guess. Reactive and PRO-active armor are other options that I think we'll advance upon.

The Russians already have a laser designator blinder. It disables opticial targeting systems. It scans the horizon with a laser, and fires intense pulses back at any reflection destroying or blinding the guidance (or operator!)

>>while a tank must maneuver through a cluttered 2D space.

We already have this technology. The Mars Rover did a good job and I'm sure we have better technology now.

>>The days of the large, heavy, crewed tank might be drawing to a close, but 5 years is cutting it very close.

OK, I'll give it 7 years.

---

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies

[SJSAMPLE]

I'm thinking of something similar to the ALQ-144 "Disco Light" IR jammer that's used on Blackhawk and Apache helicopters, and something similar to what you described for the Russians.

The Mars Rover was cool, if not only because it survived the landing ;) Still, it's dog slow.

[tlb]

Speaking from an interested but non-military backround, it has seemed to me for several years now we are boxing ourselves in an electronic cul de sac. Computer control systems, remotely controlled drones in the air and on the ground, smart mines, rifles and bombs, etc give us unbeatable power when we control the war fighting enviroment. What happens when someone changes the rules ?

The GPS jammers the Russians sold the Iraqis were a joke on Saddam but what if they had been effective. If our stuctural offensive capability is based on electronicly dependent weapons what happens when somone packages an EMP system to render our systems inert. Our foes are not stupid, eventually these developments will occur.

The more complex we make our systems the easier they will be to disrupt at some strategicly inconvenient point. KISS is a principle that has been thrown out the window.

[knighthawk]

That is why the US will also focus on Special Forces, human manpower, next to investing in the newest technology that is ahead of the others.

[danmar]

Our foes are not stupid, eventually these developments will occur

It is allready there...it is called nuclear blast.
It will render all of your sophisticated electronics inop, in a jiffy.

Same with the space sattelites; launch a rocket with a nuclear head, aim it at the sattelite's orbit and "bam!", verything is dead around.

[danmar]

Ooops, verything=everything