Future Armour

[Colin Parkinson]

My thinking is not to put the BLOS weapons on the "tank" at all. Or any heavy weapons for that matter. My proposition is that two operators in a heavily armoured mobile box are operating within the same range of the enemy as the current gun tanks but instead of having their rounds on board they have them in the air on call.

A good tank crew can launch something like 6 rounds a minute? I believe? So they have about 7 minutes of combat load on board if operating in a target rich environment? Pure supposition on my part.

What I am suggesting is that the Loitering Munitions loiter over head of the operators with a few loitering within a few seconds of the suspected targets. As those get used up then they, the cab rank, the magazine, gets replenished from BLOS.

Your tank's onboard weapons could then focus on C-RAM.

Edit - and yes - something very much like the M1131 on a tank chassis.

Like this?

 

[Kirkhill]

Like this?

Add in a High Energy Laser and a Directed Energy Microwave System cued by Acoustics and EO/IR and you're away to the races.

With a bit of this?

 

[Dana381]

But couldn't you do the same job with a sensor rich UAV or a sattalite and not risk a crew. 1 crew flys a recon UAV and designates targets and other crews fly loitering munitions or they are semi autonomus. No one has to get close to the enemy. When all the large targets are disabled your mechanized infantry can roll in and occupy the area. They can call in more air attacks if they need.

 

[KevinB]

But couldn't you do the same job with a sensor rich UAV or a sattalite and not risk a crew. 1 crew flys a recon UAV and designates targets and other crews fly loitering munitions or they are semi autonomus. No one has to get close to the enemy. When all the large targets are disabled your mechanized infantry can roll in and occupy the area. They can call in more air attacks if they need.

I would suggest that at this point Autonomous Vehicles need to be viewed as support items - that can be directly controlled in case of Enemy action to block or disrupt.

 

[McG]

Not knowing anything here. What happens when the plow picks up a mine? If it goes off? Is there enough protection in the front of LAV? Does this happen? Is it a one a done type of thing? Or yup we're good keep going?

Sorry I really don't know. I get the plow part its digging with a fork in sand.

Canada has mine ploughs for the LAV Engineer Section Carriers … except ours are only surface ploughs. If a plough functions properly (and the mine has no anti-handling mechanism) then the mine is harmlessly pushed to the side and stays there (so don’t go outside the ruts if you are following a ploughed route). If an AT mine detonates, the plough will have at least provided stand-off which, in addition to the vehicles armour, should keep the crew safe. The plough is unlikely to remain effective, and there is a good chance it will be thrown over the roof of the vehicle (smashing its way through optics & RWS as it goes).

 

[Underway]

Wait... is that a 30mm in the RWS?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Canada has mine ploughs for the LAV Engineer Section Carriers … except ours are only surface ploughs. If a plough functions properly (and the mine has no anti-handling mechanism) then the mine is harmlessly pushed to the side and stays there (so don’t go outside the ruts if you are following a ploughed route). If an AT mine detonates, the plough will have at least provided stand-off which, in addition to the vehicles armour, should keep the crew safe. The plough is unlikely to remain effective, and there is a good chance it will be thrown over the roof of the vehicle (smashing its way through optics & RWS as it goes).

The ELAV was a pretty new idea when I pulled the pin. Are you talking like an ADR/dareod type of setup? Because that's not a plough, it's a blade and was meant more for scraping submunitions off of a runway. By it's very definition a plough is an intrusive device that removes (shallow) buried mines from the track width. Based on my 25 years ago rusty memory of course.

 

[Kirkhill]

Wait... is that a 30mm in the RWS?

"Never hear us coming"

Hybrid Electric?


Related?

Next Generation M1 Abrams Tank Teased By General Dynamics

Promotional materials provide glimpses of a new version of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.

www.thedrive.com

 

[McG]

The ELAV was a pretty new idea when I pulled the pin. Are you talking like an ADR/dareod type of setup? Because that's not a plough, it's a blade and was meant more for scraping submunitions off of a runway. By it's very definition a plough is an intrusive device that removes (shallow) buried mines from the track width. Based on my 25 years ago rusty memory of course.

Similar but different, I think. I recall the dareod had a sloped blade that pushed everything to one side (like a snow plough). The Pearson surface mine plough that we bought for LAV is wedge shaped. I think both systems had the same sacrificial, finger-eating teeth to facilitate continued use after striking a small explosive.

To mount the plough, you first have to remove the dozer blade that every engineer section carrier has. There are fewer plough than engineer section carriers, and it is very rare to ever see the plough mounted.

I am sure your memory of the definition of a plough is correct … the word’s origin as describing farm tool would support your conclusion. Somewhere along the way someone seems to have decided that the word can be used more broadly.

 

[McG]

"Never hear us coming"

Hybrid Electric?


Related?

Next Generation M1 Abrams Tank Teased By General Dynamics

Promotional materials provide glimpses of a new version of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.

www.thedrive.com

When the technology is adequately mature, all fighting vehicles should be hybrid, and maybe with multiple engins. Even in the advance, vehicles spend a substantial amount of time idling in one spot or another. With a hybrid, you reduce fuel consumption (which increases range and decrease logistic burden), reduce the noise that you radiate, and reduce the heat signature of a massive constantly running engine. With multiple engines, a vehicle could still get itself out of the battle if one engine is shot out (or maybe even continue to fight with limited capacity).

 

[Kat Stevens]

When the technology is adequately mature, all fighting vehicles should be hybrid, and maybe with multiple engins. Even in the advance, vehicles spend a substantial amount of time idling in one spot or another. With a hybrid, you reduce fuel consumption (which increases range and decrease logistic burden), reduce the noise that you radiate, and reduce the heat signature of a massive constantly running engine. With multiple engines, a vehicle could still get itself out of the battle if one engine is shot out (or maybe even continue to fight with limited capacity).

But you now have an extra critical system to maintain, repair, and carry parts for. There's a reason the T-34 was the best tank in it's day, it didn't rely too much on schmancy technology, unlike it's German grandkids.

 

[McG]

But you now have an extra critical system to maintain, repair, and carry parts for. There's a reason the T-34 was the best tank in it's day, it didn't rely too much on schmancy technology, unlike it's German grandkids.

That is why the condition to go this way is based on maturity of technology. If we had adopted a never trust technology approach, we might do something stupid like send 1960's MBTs to fight tanks and anti-tank systems of 2010 and beyond.

 

[Kirkhill]

But you now have an extra critical system to maintain, repair, and carry parts for. There's a reason the T-34 was the best tank in it's day, it didn't rely too much on schmancy technology, unlike it's German grandkids.

On the other hand - every vehicle out there has an electrical system with a diesel or gas powered generator, often called an alternator. Big difference is that at least one of the draws on the existing system will be a large electric motor or eight.

As to the multiple engines (generators?) it seems to me the BTR-70 was powered by two gas engines and at least one of the BAE modular concepts had a generator on each side of the hull.

It may not be tomorrow but I don't think it is too far in the future.

 

[Underway]

But you now have an extra critical system to maintain, repair, and carry parts for. There's a reason the T-34 was the best tank in it's day, it didn't rely too much on schmancy technology, unlike it's German grandkids.

I would argue that a hybrid might be easier to maintain than a turbine engine. Unless its a turbine electric then is a few more things to worry about but not that much given the other electronic systems on an M1.

As for the T-34 it was technologically revolutionary. Christie suspension system and sloped armour.

When the technology is adequately mature, all fighting vehicles should be hybrid, and maybe with multiple engins. Even in the advance, vehicles spend a substantial amount of time idling in one spot or another. With a hybrid, you reduce fuel consumption (which increases range and decrease logistic burden), reduce the noise that you radiate, and reduce the heat signature of a massive constantly running engine. With multiple engines, a vehicle could still get itself out of the battle if one engine is shot out (or maybe even continue to fight with limited capacity).

There are so many things in the vehicle that now needs electrical power including charging your cell phone-type items. A hybrid will likely help with that as increased battery life is integral to the entire design.

Interesting side note on electrical systems and batteries. One of the points against the Lynx with the Lancer turret in the Slovak IFV competition was that it could not traverse its turret without the main engine running. If you have to start the engine just to traverse that seems like a bad thing. A hybrid electric engine would take care of that problem. (A CV90 also takes care of that problem...)

 

[Kirkhill]

Wait... is that a 30mm in the RWS?

Got me thinking about my earlier proposition and this development.

Suppose you retain the tank as is but add the Loitering Munitions to the Order of Battle of the Regiment or the Squadron. The tanks advance with LMs overhead and rounds in the bustle but concentrate on attacking with the LMs. Keep the rounds in the bustle, that 7 minutes of combat, in reserve for when things turn interesting.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would argue that a hybrid might be easier to maintain than a turbine engine. Unless its a turbine electric then is a few more things to worry about but not that much given the other electronic systems on an M1.

As for the T-34 it was technologically revolutionary. Christie suspension system and sloped armour.


There are so many things in the vehicle that now needs electrical power including charging your cell phone-type items. A hybrid will likely help with that as increased battery life is integral to the entire design.

Interesting side note on electrical systems and batteries. One of the points against the Lynx with the Lancer turret in the Slovak IFV competition was that it could not traverse its turret without the main engine running. If you have to start the engine just to traverse that seems like a bad thing. A hybrid electric engine would take care of that problem. (A CV90 also takes care of that problem...)

As long as the electrical system is very robustly hardened against EMP weapons.

 

[Underway]

As long as the electrical system is very robustly hardened against EMP weapons.

I have some experience in this. It's not too difficult IF you consider it at the beginning of the design process. It's way harder to bolt it on. The advantage is that a tank is a metal box, so you're starting from a good spot...

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm sure you're all quite correct about this. I guess I'm still mired in the old 'the more thingamajigs you bolt onto a wotsit, the more opportunity for critical failure and the more extra thingamajigs 2nd/3rd line has to haul around' line of thinking. I guess I watched Pentagon Games one time too many.

 

[KevinB]

I'm sure you're all quite correct about this. I guess I'm still mired in the old 'the more thingamajigs you bolt onto a wotsit, the more opportunity for critical failure and the more extra thingamajigs 2nd/3rd line has to haul around' line of thinking. I guess I watched Pentagon Games one time too many.

Electric systems are everywhere- and the ability to ‘silent’ move (other than moving 90 ton tracked vehicle is going to rattle the earth nearby) is neat — but to me the secondary ability to limp home, or remain in situ without using fuel (solar etc trickle changers) offer a lot of benefits.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm sure you're all quite correct about this. I guess I'm still mired in the old 'the more thingamajigs you bolt onto a wotsit, the more opportunity for critical failure and the more extra thingamajigs 2nd/3rd line has to haul around' line of thinking. I guess I watched Pentagon Games one time too many.

Not a big fan of Byzantine engineering myself. But I think the key word is critical. In the event of failure what does it take to drag yourself out of the engagement zone.