How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Lieutenant Ash]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/robot-with-human-brain-tissue-learns-how-to-use-arms/ar-BB1pe581?ocid=socialshare&pc=NMTS&cvid=6468759d204346d5aa485a763df72152&ei=17

(Slightly off topic) Next stop Robocop.

[Lethaface]

6 hours ago, dan/california said:

They might have been better off than if they stayed in North Korea. Note better is not the same as good.

Times change, except for in Russia.

To be fair, during the '30s / 40s in NL kids were allowed to work in the mines from ~16 years old (don't know about 50s and further, guess it changed around that time).
My late grandfather was one of m actually, he even wrote a letter to see if he could work in the mines when he was 15. Being a farmhand without pay apart from food and a roof sucks I guess.
Although I expect the great leader to have written the letters on behalf of the kids, being so great and all. 

Kids these days sue your *** if you tell m to do the dishes lol.

[cesmonkey]

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

On 7/1/2024 at 2:39 PM, hcrof said:

An interesting discussion about tanks being big and hot:

https://x.com/JonHawkes275/status/1807758981831495819

 

A number of countries have recognised this issue for a while, things like Barracuda / Solar Shield have been around to provide reasonably effective and cheap thermal protection, even for big and heavy vehicles. (though its by no means foolproof) If it works for hostile tank thermals its going to work for drones as well. Though obviously drones still have crazy spotting advantage. I think thermal sleeves for tank gun barrels are a thing as well. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:41 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A number of countries have recognised this issue for a while, things like Barracuda / Solar Shield have been around to provide reasonably effective and cheap thermal protection, even for big and heavy vehicles. (though its by no means foolproof) If it works for hostile tank thermals its going to work for drones as well. Though obviously drones still have crazy spotting advantage. 

I think the main problem is the gun and engine.  A stealth tank will likely be missiles only and use a different power pack (but I don't think we have one with that sort of power).

And then there is noise. We heard reports of troops whispering to avoid acoustic detection.  With modern computing separating signal from noise is now getting better and more automated. So a future tank will need to be quiet too.

[hcrof]

11 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A number of countries have recognised this issue for a while, things like Barracuda / Solar Shield have been around to provide reasonably effective and cheap thermal protection, even for big and heavy vehicles. (though its by no means foolproof) If it works for hostile tank thermals its going to work for drones as well. Though obviously drones still have crazy spotting advantage. I think thermal sleeves for tank gun barrels are a thing as well. 

Barracuda does help, but I have seen some comparisons and it is not a silver bullet - when the tank is close enough to identify as a tank the IR signature is still quite noticeable. I imagine it is more useful at longer ranges where the tank is more of a blob in the viewfinder. 

I am not saying this is unique to tanks though - expensive thermal sights are really good at spotting anything! 

[hcrof]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think the main problem is the gun and engine.  A stealth tank will likely be missiles only and use a different power pack (but I don't think we have one with that sort of power).

And then there is noise. We heard reports of troops whispering to avoid acoustic detection.  With modern computing separating signal from noise is now getting better and more automated. So a future tank will need to be quiet too.

Radar too - barracuda helps but not that much, and radar can spot anything moving from 10s of km away. 

The official website actually gives a good idea of the limitations of the system:

https://www.saab.com/products/mcs-mobile-camouflage-system

[kimbosbread]

As soon as the tank is moving that goes out the window. IR signature is a nasty thing… track/wheel ruts and footprints show up nice and bright. No camouflaging that!

[The_Capt]

Just now, hcrof said:

Radar too - barracuda helps but not that much, and radar can spot anything moving from 10s of km away. 

The official website actually gives a good idea of the limitations of the system:

https://www.saab.com/products/mcs-mobile-camouflage-system

Right, forgot about that one.  The main problem for the tank, or any heavy AFV is that by making the core of warfare everyone spent a lot of money to find and kill them.  Of course vehicles were always threatened but the levels of sense and strike have gone off the charts.

Rather than devolve into another long "tank is dead, no it is not" debate, I would rather actually rather discuss what it will take to keep them in the game.  CUAS, APS are obvious for point defence.  Layered outer defence could be done by UAS/UGVs in place of infantry - given that the ranges are so long that trying to generate required infantry is not sustainable.

But none of that fixes the sense problem.  That problem is three-fold - the tank/AFV, the close support to these vehicles, and the logistical support - how does one hide/deceive/blind sufficiently to protect these systems at scale?  Can we?

[ArmouredTopHat]

46 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And then there is noise. We heard reports of troops whispering to avoid acoustic detection.  With modern computing separating signal from noise is now getting better and more automated. So a future tank will need to be quiet too.

We have had vehicles in service in the past that are remarkably quiet. The Luchs supposedly was so damn quiet that it was an actual hazard on exercise. Vehicles can have their engine insulated for both noise and thermal, though obviously this is an extreme case for a recon vehicle. Abrams gained a bit of a reputation for being able to 'sneak' up on things in the middle east (For a tank anyway) Due to its gas turbine being relatively quiet at slow speeds. 
 

35 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

ather than devolve into another long "tank is dead, no it is not" debate, I would rather actually rather discuss what it will take to keep them in the game.  CUAS, APS are obvious for point defence.  Layered outer defence could be done by UAS/UGVs in place of infantry - given that the ranges are so long that trying to generate required infantry is not sustainable.

But none of that fixes the sense problem.  That problem is three-fold - the tank/AFV, the close support to these vehicles, and the logistical support - how does one hide/deceive/blind sufficiently to protect these systems at scale?  Can we?

This is honestly a very interesting area of debate. 

Talked about it before but layers of defence are clearly going to be key combined with APS. Beyond that there will likely need to be design changes. I personally think we will see smaller, lighter and stealthier vehicles. There has been plenty of look into new power packs for vehicles that would reduce traditional thermal signatures. There is talk of radar absorbing materials sometimes thrown around but I personally think that is too expensive a solution. Its like stealth coating a 747, does it really actually help?

I think the requirements for armoured protection will also change, with an emphasis to all around protection instead of an all or nothing approach on the front, though with a smaller vehicle with less surface area, perhaps current level of control protections can be maintained. I see autoloaders as a standard going forward just for this reason in order to reduce profile and size of the tank as much as possible. Mobility will clearly stay key in order to perform missions quickly as possible before potential threats can close in.

Overall emphasis will be on being able to see, engage and kill first against direct fired targets, while having protection against drones or FPVs via revised armour layouts (we can and do have effective composites and other protections against the RPG warheads featured on fpvs. Tandems will be interesting should they ever be pressed into the role) APS provides much needed protection against ATGMs. (though systems -need- to be reloadable in the field, something like a HIMARS system of being able to plug in reloads without too much fuss) I also personally figure that an RWS type mounting slaved to the APS sensors can function as a relatively cheap and effective means of disposing of drone munitions. We have the varying bits of technology, its just a matter of combining them all together (Easier said than done but we know that APS designers are looking into this right now)

Ewar gets talked about a lot, though we know AI targeting is being actively dabbled with right now so it could very well be a dead end. Jamming still might be useful though (I do disagree with the loader coming an EWAR guy that's tabled by some, that should be handled by dedicated units. A tank should be focussed on its role) 

Tanks will clearly remain somewhat easier to spot than say infantry, but they should also be more survivable against most threats when properly designed for the new battlespace. As for logistics, I touched upon it briefly but presumably a layered system of drone defence should grant some protection to the backlines, though I expect greater levels of redundancy should be needed as a failsafe. This might be an excellent area for UGVs to see more widespread operation, something cheap that can carry a decent amount of kit and not be the end of the world should it get hit. 

Overall, any solution to tank woes as with most weapon systems requires integration with other elements of a force. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 05:37 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Battlefront.com]

53 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Rather than devolve into another long "tank is dead, no it is not" debate, I would rather actually rather discuss what it will take to keep them in the game. 

In my view this is a good discussion to have, but I'd rephrase it as "what it will take to keep what we already have in the game".  I still think investing hundreds of billions into expensive, heavy, logistics heavy, slow rate of production monsters is dumb.  Planning on this but with more things to it that increase cost, weight, logistics, and further complicate production is double dumb.

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In my view this is a good discussion to have, but I'd rephrase it as "what it will take to keep what we already have in the game".  I still think investing hundreds of billions into expensive, heavy, logistics heavy, slow rate of production monsters is dumb.  Planning on this but with more things to it that increase cost, weight, logistics, and further complicate production is double dumb.

The question should not be what can we do to the tank but what can the tank do for you. High end Jets are expensive, logistics heavy and not exactly quick off the assembly line, but they offer capability that nothing else can currently match or provide (yet). The same in theory applies to tanks, with nothing being able to able offer their versatile blend of direct fire capability with protection and mobility. As long as militaries have that requirement (And there is no signs of that changing outside of maybe some UGV melding) then we have a need for tanks, though obviously that requirement now has new design considerations that must be accounted for. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:12 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

Accuse others of what you are guilty of really does ring true here. 

[hcrof]

6 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The question should not be what can we do to the tank but what can the tank do for you. High end Jets are expensive, logistics heavy and not exactly quick off the assembly line, but they offer capability that nothing else can currently match or provide (yet). The same in theory applies to tanks, with nothing being able to able offer their versatile blend of direct fire capability with protection and mobility. As long as militaries have that requirement (And there is no signs of that changing outside of maybe some UGV melding) then we have a need for tanks, though obviously that requirement now has new design considerations that must be accounted for. 

So I'm on record saying that tanks need to get smaller, cheaper and more numerous so I won't repeat all that, but when I think about the enormous cost of tanks, a lot of it seems to go to multiple exquisite sensors and a very fancy stabilisation system for the main weapon system. 

Now those sensors are amazing, but might a drone with a worse sensor but getting closer to the enemy actually be better? And if you can fire "semi-direct" i.e. an indirect trajectory but at short range to ensure quick application of firepower, do you need just great stabilization? This also allows you to skip the heavy front armour since you are not looking for a frontal dual with an enemy tank. 

Those sorts of tradeoffs (in my opinion) makes my future tank look very different to the modern MBT.

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Right, forgot about that one.  The main problem for the tank, or any heavy AFV is that by making the core of warfare everyone spent a lot of money to find and kill them.  Of course vehicles were always threatened but the levels of sense and strike have gone off the charts.

Rather than devolve into another long "tank is dead, no it is not" debate, I would rather actually rather discuss what it will take to keep them in the game.  CUAS, APS are obvious for point defence.  Layered outer defence could be done by UAS/UGVs in place of infantry - given that the ranges are so long that trying to generate required infantry is not sustainable.

But none of that fixes the sense problem.  That problem is three-fold - the tank/AFV, the close support to these vehicles, and the logistical support - how does one hide/deceive/blind sufficiently to protect these systems at scale?  Can we?

Agreed on all points. 

I am leaning towards something like slinger as my primary weapon system on tankettes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slinger_(weapon_system)

It is not heavy, "only" $1.5m and can engage a very broad spectrum of targets, including drones, but also vehicles and infantry. 

If you mass produce it enough then maybe the costs come down and you can start using tankettes everywhere, from a picket line out front, to escorting trucks in the back. You can also slap the turret on your APCs or use them as a pure battle taxi with a AGL as an indirect fire weapon (no fancy optics for economy). 

[ArmouredTopHat]

15 minutes ago, hcrof said:

So I'm on record saying that tanks need to get smaller, cheaper and more numerous so I won't repeat all that, but when I think about the enormous cost of tanks, a lot of it seems to go to multiple exquisite sensors and a very fancy stabilisation system for the main weapon system. 

Now those sensors are amazing, but might a drone with a worse sensor but getting closer to the enemy actually be better? And if you can fire "semi-direct" i.e. an indirect trajectory but at short range to ensure quick application of firepower, do you need just great stabilization? This also allows you to skip the heavy front armour since you are not looking for a frontal dual with an enemy tank. 

Those sorts of tradeoffs (in my opinion) makes my future tank look very different to the modern MBT.

The problem with relying on other means to get firing solutions is then you become little more than short ranged artillery, at that point you might as well use a howitzer. Part of the reason tanks have their role is that they can perform their role without too much reliance on others. They can see, acquire, engage and level the target quickly and efficiently (though having someone spot for you helps a lot!)

Its that high tech sensor package that makes tanks so deadly on the battlefield with regards to thermals and the like, or the fact they can do all of that while moving a top speed. 

There are a host of ways to make tanks cheaper, from going with an autoloader (one less person means less training costs for a crew and a more space efficient design. Smaller size means less costs to protect the thing properly) to keeping to a core feature focus. This is partly why I am not sure making tanks EWAR platforms might be viable, its a lot of extra cost on something that should be focussed on shooting things. Tanks should not be platforms capable of 'doing it all' so to speak. 

South Korea has proven that modern tanks can be made in pretty sizable numbers, its not just about unit cost but having the streamlined production capability to do so. I think that is why Western tanks struggle a bit with production numbers due to the strangling of domestic tank industries (And vehicles in general) for the most part. In essence we need to learn how to build vehicles in sizable quantities again outside of America. 

Though its failed in the past, a multinational Euro tank project might be the solution to cut costs, something akin to F-35 but for an AFV. In theory provided everyone can agree on what the thing is supposed to be, it cuts costs dramatically while also being so much better logistically than everyone having their own unique MBT, especially when its increasingly non viable to do so cost wise. Its an area where NATO could really do more to push for having less unnecessary diversity in vehicles. Though that relies on a lot of military procurement groups agreeing which might happen when pigs fly. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:41 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Agreed on all points. 

I am leaning towards something like slinger as my primary weapon system on tankettes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slinger_(weapon_system)

It is not heavy, "only" $1.5m and can engage a very broad spectrum of targets, including drones, but also vehicles and infantry. 

If you mass produce it enough then maybe the costs come down and you can start using tankettes everywhere, from a picket line out front, to escorting trucks in the back. You can also slap the turret on your APCs or use them as a pure battle taxi with a AGL as an indirect fire weapon (no fancy optics for economy). 

My problem with point defence, so RWS guns and APS is that I suspect they are too easy to overwhelm.  Opponents are going to develop all-direction swarming, and a gun can still only shoot in one direction, even if it can pivot quickly.  APS is all around but tracking and targeting will remain an issue. 

And then there are two technologies that make point defence even more problematic - sub-munitions and stand off EFP - in fact combining the two is frankly terrifying.  I think we focus far to much on point defence.  Any mech/armor in the future is going to need a layered standoff CAP-like thing or it is simply at too much risk of getting swarmed.

Again, if we did have a point defence that could sense, track and engage multiple bird sized targets 1-2km out effectively, it will change land warfare regardless.  A gun capable of that level of accuracy and targeting should be pointed at the enemy vehicles and shoot the track links off.

And of course we have good old, dumb artillery.  If a vehicle can be seen at 10kms artillery can engage it, and we do not have an effective way to stop it.

To my mind, the modern environment is placing mech in a dilemma - it still needs protection from old weapons like artillery, but also needs protection from new weapon systems...and ISR. 

And then there is the role of these vehicles.  To my mind direct fire may be a dead issue in a few years.  It will likely happen but be the exception, not the rule.  So are we looking at mech as platforms for missiles, indirect guns and unmanned systems?  Are these what those C2 nodes are going to be put on?

I mean we get all up in arms over the vehicles, but really the question is "what is infantry doing in the future?"  Do we need to carry 12 guys to a trench anymore if both sides build an unmanned forward edge?  I suspect the answer is yes, but how often/much?  Everything we are talking about is to protect and transport, then support infantry as they take and hold ground.  What happens when UGVs can do that job better and cheaper.  I know many think that is "way off" but spend some time on YouTube and look what AI is doing for image recognition and mapping.  Also after this war, "way off" is more likely 5-10 years.

In 10 years my battle taxis may be carrying smaller unmanned systems and maybe a small human team to manage them.

[hcrof]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

My problem with point defence, so RWS guns and APS is that I suspect they are too easy to overwhelm.  Opponents are going to develop all-direction swarming, and a gun can still only shoot in one direction, even if it can pivot quickly.  APS is all around but tracking and targeting will remain an issue. 

And then there are two technologies that make point defence even more problematic - sub-munitions and stand off EFP - in fact combining the two is frankly terrifying.  I think we focus far to much on point defence.  Any mech/armor in the future is going to need a layered standoff CAP-like thing or it is simply at too much risk of getting swarmed.

Again, if we did have a point defence that could sense, track and engage multiple bird sized targets 1-2km out effectively, it will change land warfare regardless.  A gun capable of that level of accuracy and targeting should be pointed at the enemy vehicles and shoot the track links off.

And of course we have good old, dumb artillery.  If a vehicle can be seen at 10kms artillery can engage it, and we do not have an effective way to stop it.

To my mind, the modern environment is placing mech in a dilemma - it still needs protection from old weapons like artillery, but also needs protection from new weapon systems...and ISR. 

And then there is the role of these vehicles.  To my mind direct fire may be a dead issue in a few years.  It will likely happen but be the exception, not the rule.  So are we looking at mech as platforms for missiles, indirect guns and unmanned systems?  Are these what those C2 nodes are going to be put on?

I mean we get all up in arms over the vehicles, but really the question is "what is infantry doing in the future?"  Do we need to carry 12 guys to a trench anymore if both sides build an unmanned forward edge?  I suspect the answer is yes, but how often/much?  Everything we are talking about is to protect and transport, then support infantry as they take and hold ground.  What happens when UGVs can do that job better and cheaper.  I know many think that is "way off" but spend some time on YouTube and look what AI is doing for image recognition and mapping.  Also after this war, "way off" is more likely 5-10 years.

In 10 years my battle taxis may be carrying smaller unmanned systems and maybe a small human team to manage them.

Agreed that point defence can get overwhelmed, but it is not the only layer of the defence onion. I would hope you can spot an incoming drone swarm better than a single drone, and launch a counterdrone swarm to thin it out - the point defence hits anything that makes it through. Also I don't see tankettes operating alone - in fact I think they should stick relatively close to each other so you have multiple guns and radars working on the incoming drones. 

Submunitions are more difficult to counter but speed can help if the tankettes are not where the impact zone is, or they can cover each other and eliminate the slow moving bomblets without having to elevate their weapons to 90deg. 

Infantry should be checking corpses IMO. A flock of small drones clears a position and the grunts stick a flag on the ground and take prisoners. While they wait in the APC they can be used as spare drone operators. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

My problem with point defence, so RWS guns and APS is that I suspect they are too easy to overwhelm.  Opponents are going to develop all-direction swarming, and a gun can still only shoot in one direction, even if it can pivot quickly.  APS is all around but tracking and targeting will remain an issue. 

Ideally both systems should be the final aspect of a wider array of counter measures, much like how PD on ships is strictly last resort. Agreed that APS systems being able to track and counter swarms remains a theory right now, though I think its viable. 

 

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And of course we have good old, dumb artillery.  If a vehicle can be seen at 10kms artillery can engage it, and we do not have an effective way to stop it.

Majority of artillery rounds remain dumb fired, and those require time, duration and a bit of luck to knock out singular vehicles. Obviously far better suited to saturating areas of concentration and infantry. Tanks are actually pretty durable against such fire outside of direct hits, certainly more survivable than infantry. Its the reason we have IFVs and the like in the first place. The battlefield remains more dangerous for the infantry as it does armour. 

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And then there is the role of these vehicles.  To my mind direct fire may be a dead issue in a few years.  It will likely happen but be the exception, not the rule.  So are we looking at mech as platforms for missiles, indirect guns and unmanned systems?  Are these what those C2 nodes are going to be put on?

While I personally feel you are at least partially right, as long as infantry are going to be shooting at each other with everything from rifles to ATGMs, there will be a direct fire requirement which a tank can dominate in. 

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I mean we get all up in arms over the vehicles, but really the question is "what is infantry doing in the future?"  Do we need to carry 12 guys to a trench anymore if both sides build an unmanned forward edge?  I suspect the answer is yes, but how often/much?  Everything we are talking about is to protect and transport, then support infantry as they take and hold ground.  What happens when UGVs can do that job better and cheaper.  I know many think that is "way off" but spend some time on YouTube and look what AI is doing for image recognition and mapping.  Also after this war, "way off" is more likely 5-10 years.

In 10 years my battle taxis may be carrying smaller unmanned systems and maybe a small human team to manage them.

This is actually a really fascinating point I know less about. Just what exactly might an infantry squad composition even be in a few decades? I certainly see UGVs being integrated there when they become a bit more viable.


Its from a video game I know (points to who can figure it out!) But I always figured something like this would be very useful for an infantry squad to have around. Relatively simple to build and maintain and in the game its featured, it was linked to the squad so that any could take control of it for combat use. (It was primarily a remote control system)

Edited Tuesday at 07:16 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[holoween]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Right, forgot about that one.  The main problem for the tank, or any heavy AFV is that by making the core of warfare everyone spent a lot of money to find and kill them.  Of course vehicles were always threatened but the levels of sense and strike have gone off the charts.

Rather than devolve into another long "tank is dead, no it is not" debate, I would rather actually rather discuss what it will take to keep them in the game.  CUAS, APS are obvious for point defence.  Layered outer defence could be done by UAS/UGVs in place of infantry - given that the ranges are so long that trying to generate required infantry is not sustainable.

But none of that fixes the sense problem.  That problem is three-fold - the tank/AFV, the close support to these vehicles, and the logistical support - how does one hide/deceive/blind sufficiently to protect these systems at scale?  Can we?

Probably the single biggest point in favour of AFVs is that they can serve as the core nodes of a combat cloud.

They can easily carry the computing power, communications and power generation to keep it running for long times. They can also carry higher quality sensors and stronger weapons than any other platform.

So an AFV can have an immage recoginition software run over all its sensor feeds, automatically detect possible targets, generate a track, send it to all other vehicles in the cloud and the best positioned one to engage automatically fires.

You can then also plug in additional sensors and effectors into the network like recon drones, radars, artillery and fpv drones.

[Letter from Prague]

So when talking about capabilities tanks provide and nothing else does - what does a tank have that something like Bradley don't? It probably can't fight tanks, but it can fight other IFVs and provide support - and some claim that autocannon does that better than a tank gun, because it can just keep firing and other than heavy fortifications it's powerful enough. It can also carry troops.

Looking at it from the other angle, if the consensus is that future military needs to be tankless but infantry and fires- and drones-heavy, how does the infantry get around? Are IFVs as dead as tanks and soldiers use Toyota Hilux now because you can fit many drones into the truck bed?

[The_Capt]

52 minutes ago, holoween said:

Probably the single biggest point in favour of AFVs is that they can serve as the core nodes of a combat cloud.

They can easily carry the computing power, communications and power generation to keep it running for long times. They can also carry higher quality sensors and stronger weapons than any other platform.

So an AFV can have an immage recoginition software run over all its sensor feeds, automatically detect possible targets, generate a track, send it to all other vehicles in the cloud and the best positioned one to engage automatically fires.

You can then also plug in additional sensors and effectors into the network like recon drones, radars, artillery and fpv drones.

I have to agree.  As nodes one does not need to concentrate them in larger units.  1-3 could be the center of a cloud that can cover the area a Battalion used to. One consistent trend is the area of effect vs force size.  I also think there is definitely a role for tanks as intermediate indirect fires, particularly if we develop a precision over the horizon tank round.  Imagine tanks firing from 10kms out and having the round guided in by a UAS.

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Majority of artillery rounds remain dumb fired, and those require time, duration and a bit of luck to knock out singular vehicles. Obviously far better suited to saturating areas of concentration and infantry. Tanks are actually pretty durable against such fire outside of direct hits, certainly more survivable than infantry. Its the reason we have IFVs and the like in the first place. The battlefield remains more dangerous for the infantry as it does armour. 

I would agree with you except for this war.  We have seen infantry dismounting kms back and walking in because current vehicles are too vulnerable.  We have read, seen and heard reports of the effectiveness of artillery, well wighted on armor and IFVs.  More often the vehicles suffer mobility or system kills but the image of tanks rolling through dense sighted artillery fires has been challenged.

I also think we are going to see more and more smart precision munitions, the offset are just to great to ignore.  We have watched Russia firing WW1 levels of dumb area fires and getting nowhere.  Smart fires are the future.  Future tanks will need to be low profile, dispersed, mobile, more logistically independent and able to support longer range fires.  Not to mention sensors and C2 nodes.  I think we may be heading for some sort of light-tankish beast here.  A chassis that can have a bunch of things bolted onto it, modular.

Range is a must. Concentration of fires over the horizon is becoming definitive in almost every domain.  Street fights will still happen, but they are likely to become the finishing move not the main effort.  Find, fix and finish from 10+ kms at a rate an opponent cannot sustain. Collapse their cloud and then go in and clean up, manoeuvre to the next position.

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

We have had vehicles in service in the past that are remarkably quiet. The Luchs supposedly was so damn quiet that it was an actual hazard on exercise. Vehicles can have their engine insulated for both noise and thermal, though obviously this is an extreme case for a recon vehicle. Abrams gained a bit of a reputation for being able to 'sneak' up on things in the middle east (For a tank anyway) Due to its gas turbine being relatively quiet at slow speeds. 
 

This is honestly a very interesting area of debate. 

Talked about it before but layers of defence are clearly going to be key combined with APS. Beyond that there will likely need to be design changes. I personally think we will see smaller, lighter and stealthier vehicles. There has been plenty of look into new power packs for vehicles that would reduce traditional thermal signatures. There is talk of radar absorbing materials sometimes thrown around but I personally think that is too expensive a solution. Its like stealth coating a 747, does it really actually help?

I think the requirements for armoured protection will also change, with an emphasis to all around protection instead of an all or nothing approach on the front, though with a smaller vehicle with less surface area, perhaps current level of control protections can be maintained. I see autoloaders as a standard going forward just for this reason in order to reduce profile and size of the tank as much as possible. Mobility will clearly stay key in order to perform missions quickly as possible before potential threats can close in.

Overall emphasis will be on being able to see, engage and kill first against direct fired targets, while having protection against drones or FPVs via revised armour layouts (we can and do have effective composites and other protections against the RPG warheads featured on fpvs. Tandems will be interesting should they ever be pressed into the role) APS provides much needed protection against ATGMs. (though systems -need- to be reloadable in the field, something like a HIMARS system of being able to plug in reloads without too much fuss) I also personally figure that an RWS type mounting slaved to the APS sensors can function as a relatively cheap and effective means of disposing of drone munitions. We have the varying bits of technology, its just a matter of combining them all together (Easier said than done but we know that APS designers are looking into this right now)

Ewar gets talked about a lot, though we know AI targeting is being actively dabbled with right now so it could very well be a dead end. Jamming still might be useful though (I do disagree with the loader coming an EWAR guy that's tabled by some, that should be handled by dedicated units. A tank should be focussed on its role) 

Tanks will clearly remain somewhat easier to spot than say infantry, but they should also be more survivable against most threats when properly designed for the new battlespace. As for logistics, I touched upon it briefly but presumably a layered system of drone defence should grant some protection to the backlines, though I expect greater levels of redundancy should be needed as a failsafe. This might be an excellent area for UGVs to see more widespread operation, something cheap that can carry a decent amount of kit and not be the end of the world should it get hit. 

Overall, any solution to tank woes as with most weapon systems requires integration with other elements of a force. 

 

I just want to throw out there that mines are still an unsolved problem, too. And people have been beating their brains out on at least parts of that problem for twenty plus years with very limited success. And now we see them exert a massive influence on the battlefield in Ukraine. It is not remotely sustainable to lose thirty million dollar tanks to thirty dollar antitank mines.

[ArmouredTopHat]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I also think we are going to see more and more smart precision munitions, the offset are just to great to ignore.  We have watched Russia firing WW1 levels of dumb area fires and getting nowhere.  Smart fires are the future.  Future tanks will need to be low profile, dispersed, mobile, more logistically independent and able to support longer range fires.  Not to mention sensors and C2 nodes.  I think we may be heading for some sort of light-tankish beast here.  A chassis that can have a bunch of things bolted onto it, modular.

I'm a little hesitant with regards to smart fires being a given thing, given we know that the Ukrainians are reporting some issues with Excalibur due to jamming and have largely moved elsewhere with regards to munitions from their NATO guns. (Is this something that can be compensated for? Does AI correction even exist for artillery rounds? GPS clearly cannot be relied on) Regular NATO 155 is not exactly inaccurate but its still a case of needing several rounds on target, less so if cluster is used. 

Most attacks from what I see flounder in minefields  before sighted arty lands on the columns and drones begin picking things off. There is a fair amount going on before the drones and arty start destroying the vehicles. I should have mentioned in my previous post that mines remain an issue that I am not exactly sure what to suggest as a solution. Clearly current gen technology is not enough even against soviet era anti tank mines from the 60s laid in enough depth. 

With regards to the light tank idea, we know from previous attempts that light tanks simply lack the protection that makes tanks durable on the field. I suspect we will head towards the 40-60 tonne range on MBTs going forward however. Modularity could work but it can also complicate a project. (Armata project for example)

Overall agreed though that tanks will be lighter, lower profile and probably more mobile. Certainly a greater emphasis on avoiding detection and getting out of trouble fast, while still being survivable at least for a while in the closer field. 

I feel like the idea of Europe really working on linking up their tank industries together would be the long time solution for NATO, there is a lot of potential with reasonable industrial capacity in the UK, Germany, Sweden and France alone for a decent project to be formed. Adopting the south Korean principle of sharing the technology actively within NATO would also mean other nations can build modest but compatible industry to support the same type of tank overall. If only companies like RM were not so damn protective...

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I just want to throw out there that mines are still an unsolved problem, too. And people have been beating their brains out on at least parts of that problem for twenty plus years with very limited success. And now we see them exert a massive influence on the battlefield in Ukraine. It is not remotely sustainable to lose thirty million dollar tanks to thirty dollar antitank mines.

100% agree, I just touched upon it and I do not see an easy solution. 'Going around' is simply not an option when millions of mines get in the way. At minimum we need to really overhaul combat engineer capability in NATO forces and put a lot more emphasis on specialised vehicles for mine disposal.