dan/california Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 True exo-skeletons for maneuver infantry are still a ways off. Problem is not so much the mechanical engineering of the exo itself, but power source. Until someone invents a compact, lightweight power source that can power an exo for at least a full day of maneuver and combat without recharging, exos aren't going to be much use to the forward rifleman. No point in putting on an exo that gives you the ability to carry an additional 25 kg, if the exo + battery weighs 30kg... There are some intermediate "wearable tech" solutions that aren't exos as such, but do have the potential to increase the effective strength and endurance of infantry on foot to a degree. For example, the U.S. Army is experimenting various "intelligent" body suits that monitor things like body temp, blood sugar, hydration, etc.; information that can be used to optimize solider performance, especially in difficult environmental conditions. Not a game-changer, but the potential gains from this type of system can be greater than you might at first think. Where we'll see true exos first is off the line of contact in service and support roles. Here, the need for a strong (and therefore large and heavy) power source is less of a liability. For example, the U.S. Army is experimenting with an exo that allows a single soldier to manipulate 155mm shells (weighing nearly 50 kg) with ease. This could dramatically reduce the size of gun crews. Other applications to e.g., ordnance handling, vehicle maintenance and repair, etc. are pretty obvious. Imagine, for example, a tank recovery crew equipped with exos attached by cable to the engine of their recovery vehicle for power. With the exos they might have multiple times the strength of an ordinary human, enabling them to accomplish tasks such as recovering a bogged tank or repairing a damaged track much faster than would otherwise be possible. What he said. I would add that power armored infantry are NOT the same thing as a giant humanoid robot. That just won't work, even if I did have a slight mental misfire on the geometry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 True exo-skeletons for maneuver infantry are still a ways off. Problem is not so much the mechanical engineering of the exo itself, but power source. Until someone invents a compact, lightweight power source that can power an exo for at least a full day of maneuver and combat without recharging, exos aren't going to be much use to the forward rifleman. No point in putting on an exo that gives you the ability to carry an additional 25 kg, if the exo + battery weighs 30kg... There are some intermediate "wearable tech" solutions that aren't exos as such, but do have the potential to increase the effective strength and endurance of infantry on foot to a degree. For example, the U.S. Army is experimenting various "intelligent" body suits that monitor things like body temp, blood sugar, hydration, etc.; information that can be used to optimize solider performance, especially in difficult environmental conditions. Not a game-changer, but the potential gains from this type of system can be greater than you might at first think. Where we'll see true exos first is off the line of contact in service and support roles. Here, the need for a strong (and therefore large and heavy) power source is less of a liability. For example, the U.S. Army is experimenting with an exo that allows a single soldier to manipulate 155mm shells (weighing nearly 50 kg) with ease. This could dramatically reduce the size of gun crews. Other applications to e.g., ordnance handling, vehicle maintenance and repair, etc. are pretty obvious. Imagine, for example, a tank recovery crew equipped with exos attached by cable to the engine of their recovery vehicle for power. With the exos they might have multiple times the strength of an ordinary human, enabling them to accomplish tasks such as recovering a bogged tank or repairing a damaged track much faster than would otherwise be possible. There is a huge push in civilian and military funding for better power sources. It's a difficult technical issue; but I believe the demand and need from the proliferation of electronic will crack it. You first use scenario of exos sounds logical. And I suppose the SF guys will be in first. Additional factors will be advances with new materials. Lighter, engineered for efficiency and possible multiple power sources. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 There was a news bite within that last month that some researchers have developed or are developing a new battery that will recharge back to 70% capacity in less than five minutes with a claimed recharge cycle of 10,000 recharges. Not sure the size of the battery to know if it is at a 'practical' application level but if so, it may be the first breakthrough in mobile power technology that may herald some interesting changes for all sorts of tech, military tech included. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Things will get really interesting when cheap hardware (sensors, processors, etc.) and continuously improving open-source designs mean the layman can make guided missiles in his garage. Free image recognition software can already allow cameras to be programmed to move to follow something like a human face. Rockets are already produced in the garages of Gaza residents by Hamas and its supporters. Put some of these things together and make the plans freely available and guided missiles could be as ubiquitous as the cheap quadcopter drones seen today. I have no doubt that we will see the AK-47 of guided missiles soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Things will get really interesting when cheap hardware (sensors, processors, etc.) and continuously improving open-source designs mean the layman can make guided missiles in his garage. Free image recognition software can already allow cameras to be programmed to move to follow something like a human face. Rockets are already produced in the garages of Gaza residents by Hamas and its supporters. Put some of these things together and make the plans freely available and guided missiles could be as ubiquitous as the cheap quadcopter drones seen today. I have no doubt that we will see the AK-47 of guided missiles soon. That would be scary doom times for air-travel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 That would be scary doom times for air-travel. It would mean extra security in a large perimeter around airports for sure, but hitting a plane at 30,000ft requires a BIG rocket motor and also a big sensor to even see it. That will be a problem for DIY missile manufacturers for a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The age of the dreadnought tank may give way to a lighter faster ATGM platform. They keep pushing for this, I suspect the Pentagon would be VERY happy if they could cut 30 tons off the size of the Abrams. But the problem comes when they wargame it out. Heck, we'll be able to do the testing with this game. Combined arms fight, one side with Abrams the other side no heavier than Khrizantema. Who wins. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 There is a parallel in that statement to what has happened to battleships. Frigates, destroyers, are still around, lighter Missile cruisers have taken over from the battleships. The age of the dreadnought tank may give way to a lighter faster ATGM platform. Except that the replacement for BBs were SSBNs and CVNs, not FFGs or CGs. And the subs and the carriers both have a shedload of armour (protection, really), it's just not measured in the traditional inches of steel. Subs use stealth, while the carriers use a combination of standoff - and shield their standoff assets - and point-protection. It's worth noting that the carriers are actually bigger than the old BBs - when the HMS Queen Elizabeth is commissioned, she'll be by far the biggest ship the RN has ever had, and the USS Bush is over twice as big as the last US BBs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 There is a huge push in civilian and military funding for better power sources. It's a difficult technical issue; but I believe the demand and need from the proliferation of electronic will crack it. I think you're right that a compact, lightweight high density power pack will happen eventually. A lot of money and brainpower is definitely directed at solving this problem both in the civilian and military sectors. Sooner or later, someone is going to figure it out. The theory is there; someone will eventually figure out how to put it into practice. But even if some boffin announces a major compact power pack breakthrough tomorrow, it's going to take at least a decade to engineer, prototype and put into production a workable exoskeleton/powered armor solution. Also worth noting that any major breakthrough in power pack technology that would enable an infantry powered armor suit is also going to instigate a sea change in combat vehicle design; any power pack light enough to power an infantryman's powered armor could be scaled up to become a power plant for an AFV that's a factor of magnitude lighter than current ICE or jet turbine power packs, not to mention far more stealthy and rugged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Autonomous nano-robots could make a lot of things obsolete...until someone devises a counter-measure for them. The arms race goes on and on and on. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Hi, Someone may already have mentioned this.. only had time for quick glance through.. but. The Brits are introducing a replacement for the longstanding, oft tweaked Scorpion family of AFVs. They started life at around 9 tons and ended at around 12 tons. Well.. the replacement will/may first be fielded at around 38 tons and has a drive train certified for 43 tons. Also designed from the off with potentials for upgraded armour as all new AFVs tend to be, simply recognising reality.. all AFVs end up there . Also note the Israelis increasing love of super heavy IFV/APCs. The default is very much still more and more weight, moving closer to tanks for all AFVs in contact with the enemy while adding Active Protection Systems. But importantly, the APS are in “addition..” to increased armour. Not a replacement for it. Assuming the AFV is designed to be able to survive in high-intensity conventional wars that is. All interesting stuff, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_Vincent Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 But even if some boffin announces a major compact power pack breakthrough tomorrow, it's going to take at least a decade to engineer, prototype and put into production a workable exoskeleton/powered armor solution. Probably not that long... http://www.rewalk.com/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted November 29, 2014 Author Share Posted November 29, 2014 Except that the replacement for BBs were SSBNs and CVNs, not FFGs or CGs. And the subs and the carriers both have a shedload of armour (protection, really), it's just not measured in the traditional inches of steel. Subs use stealth, while the carriers use a combination of standoff - and shield their standoff assets - and point-protection. It's worth noting that the carriers are actually bigger than the old BBs - when the HMS Queen Elizabeth is commissioned, she'll be by far the biggest ship the RN has ever had, and the USS Bush is over twice as big as the last US BBs. As a side note I seen some who believe the SSN is the real "capital warship" these days. I don't really know if its true, but some say the ASW protection around a carrier battlegroup is like swiss cheese and if we ever get to a situation where unrestricted submarine warfare occurs those carriers are toast. You hear that a best weapon against another attack sub is an attack sub and carrier battle groups and other high value ships have SSNs protecting them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_Vincent Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Some interesting stuff from DARPA on tank design: http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2014/08/20.htm#.VHtdkDGUdEM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuri Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Looks like some fancy recon vehicle on steroids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted November 30, 2014 Author Share Posted November 30, 2014 Some interesting stuff from DARPA on tank design: http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2014/08/20.htm#.VHtdkDGUdEM They looks like something NOD would pump out in Command and Conquer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackAlpha Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 That article was probably written by somebody who doesn't know what a tank is. The wikipedia article makes more sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_GXV-T It's definitely not a tank, but it might be an interesting armored vehicle for recon maybe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leakyD Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Then again, maybe Steve Jackson had it right with Ogre?: :eek::eek::eek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogre_%28game%29 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 DARPA: yeah, fun vehicle. Until it runs into a tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 I think the problem tanks have these days isn't from the drone, it's from a weapon system that has already been around for about 20 years or so. The Javelin. Not the Javelin by itself though, a whole ilk of modern ATGMs are becoming so common and powerful that infantry are beginning to subdue the tank's role in battlefield dominance. Yeah the argument has been made before that ATGMs failed to kill the battlefield's last remaining big-gun. That was long before modern ATGMs were so ubiquitous though. All through the age of the Tank Army it was difficult to design anti-tank weapons that were both common and powerful. You usually had to compromise. Now you don't. Any infantry squad can now wield the firepower necessary to stop or at least suppress, armor. This is a total reversal of a battlefield food-chain that has been the norm since 1916. Developments in armor are now being made in reaction to anti-tank weapon systems. It was totally the other way around right up until around 1993. The initiative in the tank's development has been lost and this brings its whole role into question in my mind. Much like the battleship right before it went extinct, a tank's only role anymore seems to be a big gun carrier. Is that really enough? Much cheaper vehicles can be and have already been designed to do that job. The situation bears a parallel with the arrival of the musket in Europe. A weapon that drove the mounted Knight to extinction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted December 1, 2014 Author Share Posted December 1, 2014 I wouldn't write off the tank. It does seem to be moving in a similar direction as the Navy after the Falklands War that demonstrated the vulnerability of warships to guided missiles. All sorts of defensive systems were developed and deployed to defend ships from missiles and now tanks are sprouting up defensive systems to protect itself. IMO the real revolution is the microchip. This allows smarter ATGMs that target tanks where their most vulnerable-the top where protection is weakest. Giving the top as good protection as everywhere else is probably too expensive and would add too much weight. I do expect to see some sort of laser defense. Meanwhile they are working on force fields to protect tanks. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7487740/Star-Trek-style-force-field-armour-being-developed-by-military-scientists.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 IMO: It's a system. Each unit has its place on the battlefield, from a single rifleman to a satellite orbiting earth, all important in their own way, hence the terms "combined arms" and "net centric". The question then becomes.. will the tank gradually be phased out like the battleship, i.e. completed deleted from the system. I think the answer is no, because due to short contact ranges, limited mobility etc. land warfare is very different from the naval one and protected/mobile/direct firepower is still very much needed. In the cold war days the simple game theory is that... 1. the tank is still the best weapon at taking out the tank. 2. in a fire fight, the side with tanks will have the edge. Therefore, there isn't a question to begin with there. The question they're asking nowadays is more about money it seems... in the counter insurgency war, is it worth the $$ to maintain such a costly beast, where say the Stryker MGS can almost do the same job? However I think the ppl asking these questions are 1. a little short sighted. In the opening stages of these counter insurgency wars, armor vs armor warfare are still present. Just because the past few years is more about policing a region than a conventional war, doesn't mean similar clashes won't happen again. 2. a little ignorant about land warfare. I'm not the expert here, but the tank still offers the best level of protection against the myriad of weapons on the modern battlefield. Sure an APC and a tank is both vulnerable to an AT-14, but on a systematic scale you can't expect every infantryman out there carries one, an RPG or recoiless gun is still much more common. 3. War against conventional military powers is still an issue, China/North Korea etc. It will again be a no-brainer question when that happens. I mean.. a good example from the Beta AAR. Tunguska showers T-90, crippled tank but still a mobile gun, crews alive. Tunguska showers BMP-3, blown up vehicle, many lives lost. So when the **** hits the fan... P.S. Just wanna add a bit, don't flame me, but it seems the US land warfare doctrine, and the mindset within the masses per se... is more about the infantry, guy with his rifle, rather than about the AFVs. That even reflects to these foras, which seems to me is very "infantry-centric". I mean i don't see the chinese or russians questioning "do we still need the tank". The russians even account for the majority of armor warfare games produced nowadays. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackAlpha Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Any infantry squad can now wield the firepower necessary to stop or at least suppress, armor. No, not really. Do you see every western infantry squad/section carrying a Javelin anti tank launcher? Do you see every Russian infantry man carrying a RPG-30? No. Go contemplate why that is so and then you will have the answer on why the tank won't go away any time soon. This situation will probably only change when infantry will be able to carry larger loads, like for example by using exoskeleton suits (which won't happen for a while). If exoskeleton suits never happen, then this situation won't change, not for a long time, at least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Hi, Do remember that the end of the Cold War did lead to the AT weapon v APS going out of sync. Arena in the form present in CMBS would probably have been deployed around ’92 if the Cold War had continued. At which point I always paraphrase the Israelis defence industry site Defence Update “ Arena would have decimated the TOW, Hellfire generation of ATGMs...” in fact that is such a close paraphrase may well be a quote . The Soviets would surely have fielded a system that could target diving attack ATGM soon after its introduction if the Cold War had still been on. War is more lethal now no doubt. But the ATGM v Tank battle is no more one sided than after the introduction of Chobham/layered armour and ERA. Not as one sided as the ’75 up to around ’85 period if Soviet AT weapons against NATO tanks with RHA/steel armour only. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted December 1, 2014 Author Share Posted December 1, 2014 For the time being tanks are at a tipping point, but that will change. Look up graphine. Far lighter than kevlar, yet hundreds of times stronger. Its already been tested as a kevlar replacement. Work is being done to replicate spider webs and mass produce it. Spider webs is one of the strongest materials out there. Smart metals have already been demoed and how long before someone demos self repairing smart metal? A lot of this will find its way to making better fighting vehicles. Levitation is somewhere down the road too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.