Tanks A Thing Of The Past?

[dan/california]

Just think Tugunska with a laser, and MBT level armor.

[Apocal]

The laser will be mounted ON a tank. probably along with a ~30mm auto canon and some SAMs. This will be an integral part of every tank company, or even platoon. Its job will be to sweep the sky absolutely clean below 10,000 ft before it starts on every thing else. Drones are now a big enough threat to justify real countermeasures, and a laser can kill them all day long without running out of ammo.

Just think Tugunska with a laser, and MBT level armor.

Armed drones fly above 20,000ft bro.

[womble]

...a laser can kill them all day long without running out of ammo.

That depends on whether they're a chemical laser or not. And how much fuel they have for their power plant. Unless you're postulating the development of vehicular-scale fusion plants before the advent of battlefield lasers.

[Baneman]

... Unless you're postulating the development of vehicular-scale fusion plants before the advent of battlefield lasers.

The problem with vehicular-scale fusion plants in a combat vehicle is - what happens when you shoot a "vehicular-scale fusion plant" ?

Could be messy.

[dan/california]

That depends on whether they're a chemical laser or not. And how much fuel they have for their power plant. Unless you're postulating the development of vehicular-scale fusion plants before the advent of battlefield lasers.

The purpose of the laser is not to kill big stuff. Lasers will not be any good at that for quite a while. More broadly the the space above 10,000ft is should not be a frontline mech companies job. If your air force can't at least contest the use of higher altitudes your career as a tanker is going to be short and come to an an unpleasant end.

The purpose of the laser is to kill all the little stuff that is proliferating madly. It is now possible for something that weighs ten pounds and cost a thousand dollars to be tactically useful. You can't AFFORD to kill it with missiles, and you can burn thru a 2000 round ammo load pretty quick killing it with auto-cannon, even if you do have the range. The laser power to kill a full size aircraft is quite high, and will go up as it becomes a design consideration. The amount of energy that a laser energy that a ten or even fifty pound company/battalion level drone can absorb is just not that big and rapidly becoming doable.

[womble]

The problem with vehicular-scale fusion plants in a combat vehicle is - what happens when you shoot a "vehicular-scale fusion plant" ?

Could be messy.

One of the differences between fusion and fission is that fusion takes a lot of sustaining, unlike a fission chain reaction. Damage to a fusion reactor will pretty much never lead to anything much more than the shutdown of that reactor. Maybe a very short-lived plasma jet coming out the hole in the containment vessel, but since something as, or more destructive just made that hole, the additional consequences to the vehicle would be negligible.

 

 

The purpose of the laser is not to kill big stuff. Lasers will not be any good at that for quite a while. More broadly the the space above 10,000ft is should not be a frontline mech companies job. If your air force can't at least contest the use of higher altitudes your career as a tanker is going to be short and come to an an unpleasant end.

The purpose of the laser is to kill all the little stuff that is proliferating madly. It is now possible for something that weighs ten pounds and cost a thousand dollars to be tactically useful. You can't AFFORD to kill it with missiles, and you can burn thru a 2000 round ammo load pretty quick killing it with auto-cannon, even if you do have the range. The laser power to kill a full size aircraft is quite high, and will go up as it becomes a design consideration. The amount of energy that a laser energy that a ten or even fifty pound company/battalion level drone can absorb is just not that big and rapidly becoming doable.

Still needs consumables though. If by "all day" you mean "for longer than a matter-based anti-air system", you might have a point, but if all you want to do is have a subsystem on a dedicated AA chassis which can drop a drone (not known for their evasive maneuvers and high speed) you'd probably be better off having a specialist fire mode on the existing AC that snipes rather than "spray and pray", at least in the foreseable.

[BlackAlpha]

I don't think tanks will be used to take out drones. I imagine something like this will be used instead:

 

 

Except, they'll probably use a laser instead, like this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StC9nRB_AVY

 

And eventually (probably once the fusion reactors take off in 20 or so years), we'll get self propelled anti drone lasers. They could also put a bunch of missiles on top of it to make it a universal anti air platform (think Tunguska but with lasers!). Maybe, and that's a big maybe, in about 50 years the (small) reactors (for front line duty self propelled platforms) will be powerful enough to take out something like a jet or light vehicles. This is all hypothetical of course, we'll see...

 

But the laser to take out drones already exists (that second video). I imagine you could deploy it to the front line if you really need it to. By the way, China said they also have a similar laser but I haven't actually seen it, so I'm not sure if it's something as small as in that video or if it's mounted on a ship. I imagine Russia has one probably as well.

 

Just remember that by the time we get to self propelled combat lasers, there will have been technologies (protection systems) deployed to counter it (somewhat), think special coating on armors and such. So, there's also the question of how useful combat lasers really will be. But I guess for drones lasers should work just fine because drones will either be small and vulnerable to lasers or big and vulnerable to traditional anti air weaponry.

 

Also, I guess it's a pretty horrible way to die, slowly getting burned alive but not completely dying (if the enemy does it right). So, maybe the UN will try to limit the use of combat lasers, which might mean it might not be allowed to use lasers against things other than aircraft, and then maybe drones only. But that's just another wild guess, we'll see how people will react to lasers once we actually start using them a lot.

Edited December 16, 2014 by BlackAlpha

[c3k]

Combat lasers: the tech to blind already exists. The US has eschewed the use of those energies/wavelengths. The Soviets did not; blinding lasers are part of the Soviet history. I don't know if the Russian military adopted the "more humane" tech or not.

 

But, yeah, laser and other directed energies are the future of defense against man-portable systems.

[Wicky]

Tactics will have a keener eye on the weather like Cricket....

 

Enemy fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan adapt to army tactics, and time their attacks based on U.S. flying schedules, said Staff Sgt. Frank C. Petersen, a UAS instructor at Fort Huachuca, Ariz. “I can’t say that they figured out what our weather limitations were, but they definitely could tell when we were or weren’t flying,” he said.

 

 

Many weather events can keep drones on the ground — high winds, lightning, freezing temperatures. “When there was bad weather, it seemed like there was always an increase in rocket fire or mortar attacks,” Boehning said. “I think they knew when we weren’t flying. I think it’s pretty obvious.”

 

 

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/February/Pages/ArmyPilotsFlyingDronesTougherThanItLooks.aspx

 

Not clear if detrimental weather conditions in CMBS will effect drone/UAV operations.

[db_zero]

No idea of what the future holds, but here are a couple of articles about something that could easily get converted to military use. BTW: google has gone on a buying spree snapping up robotic companies on the cheap.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Why-Japan-has-fallen-in-love-with-human-looking-5954450.php

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e98a5d08-4ae1-11e4-839a-00144feab7de.html#axzz3M7IXXKou

[MikeyD]

 

I don't think tanks will be used to take out drones.

 

Bradley cannon does have that bulls eye aiming circle on an articulating arm so commander's can play AA gunner at high angles. God know what one might expect to hit with it. But I guess a Russian attack copter might inadvertently hover over your position not knowing you're there. 

[BlackAlpha]

Bradley cannon does have that bulls eye aiming circle on an articulating arm so commander's can play AA gunner at high angles. God know what one might expect to hit with it. But I guess a Russian attack copter might inadvertently hover over your position not knowing you're there. 

That's not a tank, though.

[leakyD]

God know what one might expect to hit with it.

 

Not much.

 

We never trained on the "AA" sight, and it was NEVER referenced on gunnery ranges or even in field during Desert Storm. EVER.

 

I doubt ANY units have referenced recently either. Can you say AIR SUPERIORITY?  

 

Perhaps if there was pending conflict against opponent with air assets, there'd be a "day at the range" to hose some target drones, but that'd prob be the only training before deploying to the field.

 

Interestingly, when one of my units were still on M113's, during field exercises, there'd be OPFOR AH-1 choppers hovering behind treelines, taking popshots at us with their MILES gear (almost at DANGER CLOSE ranges). The .50cals on the M113's couldn't pierce the treelines.

 

Once we upgraded to M2 Bradley's, the OPFOR choppers "disappeared" during similar training, never to be seen again. Coincidence? 

 

That's not a tank, though.

 

Yeah, but it's an AFV, so close enough for gov't work.

 

[BlackAlpha]

 

 

 

Yeah, but it's an AFV, so close enough for gov't work.

 

 

 

Well, the topic is still about tanks, not IFVs. If you think IFVs will disappear, then that's a whole different discussion (and much harder to argue for).  

Edited December 21, 2014 by BlackAlpha

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yeah, which is an altogether different flavor: the side that wins the firepower fight can roll the side without fires on their side absurdly hard and lopsidedly, better infantry weapons or not.

For man-portable AT? I doubt it. Lasers have massive power requirements; for any given weight, HEAT out-penetrates them by an order of magnitude since the power supply for a realistic battlefield laser is massive and battery technology can't keep up. Additionally, there are heating concerns that ships deal with by pumping gallons of water through the thing and land-based systems carrying portable refrigeration systems along with them. Then dust, smoke, humidity, etc. all serve to degrade laser performance. Finally, it is still a strictly line-of-sight weapon, something they are trying to get away from since a tank can pretty much kill anything it sees on the ground battlefield.

I don't see lasers being man portable just yet. Mounted on armoured vehicles and UAVs. In the not too distant future, yes. But man portable lasers with similar ranges to assault rifles, machin guns and ATGMs. Not for a while but it will come eventually. And then you will get Star Wars style Stor Troopers! :-)

[MikeyD]

I have a distant recollection of an Israeli tank once shooting down a Syrian helicopter with its main gun. Or maybe it was the other way around. The story was ages and ages ago. Pop-up maneuvers implies hovering and terrain masking, which means the copter has a chance of getting a tungsten rod through the plexiglass windscreen. Less likely travelling at full speed in or firing from max missile range. If ground fire weren't a threat we wouldn't need Apache Longbow. 

[Rokko]

A Syrian helicopter shot down an Israeli tank with its main gun?