US Future Tank

[BasilD]

Found this little nugget tonight, at ww.strategypage.com , Ill just transcribe it since its not especially long...

August 2, 2000; The US Army has detailed the weapons being considered for

the Future Combat System, the program to produce a new tank. The Army says

that several of these weapons will be used, but not all will be carried by

the same vehicle.

Compact Kinetic Energy Missile: This weapon is 1.2 meter long and weighs

fifty

pounds. It is a small version of the LOSAT (Line Of Sight Anti-Tank)

missile. This is a hypervelocity missile with a speed of

2,000 meters per second and works by driving a penetrator through the

target by sheer velocity. The Army is considering vertical launch for this

weapon

The Multi-Role Cannon, a conventional weapon with both direct-fire

(4,000

meter range) and indirect fire (up to 50 kilometers) modes. This might be

an electro-thermal-chemical weapon

The Advanced Fire Support System is another Beyond Line of Sight weapon.

Described as "Rockets in a Box", this could fire several relatively cheap

missiles with different functions. One would be the Loitering Attack

Missile that could circle over the battlefield looking for a target for 30

minutes, or reach a target

100 kilometers away.

The Electromagnetic Gun is an option, but won't be ready by 2010 and

might be installed on later vehicles in the production series.

Directed Energy Weapons (lasers, charged particle beams, or high-power

pulse weapons) are being considered for use against particular targets and

"smart threats".--Stephen V Cole

Sounds like some potential for a can o' whoop ass

------------------

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Guest Rommel22]

I forgot the name of this tank the Amis were developing with the Brits. It is pretty recent, the tank weighs something like 155 tons with 150 mm gun, high velocity. with TOW missles. I forgot the name of the tank.

The Russians are also developing a new tank, also forgot the name, I'll have to ask my friendm he is a Russian military expert. It supposedly has a anti-laser defense. So that the laser can't lock on to the tank. i think basicly the way it works (in simple) when the tank detects the laser the tank deployes smoke seems logical to me. There might be more to this, who knows.

------------------

Russian tactics as said by von Mellenthin "Bridge heads everywhere"

[Zamo]

I beleive the new tank will be called the BOLO Mk. VII, and will be armed with a 20cm railgun, several 75mm gateling infinite repeater secondary batteries and a vertical launch system designed to give it the capability of a "Continental Siege Unit". It is expected to weigh about 348 tons and still have sprint overland speeds in excess of 80 Km/H. Advances in cybernetics may very well see further development of this line of vehicles into fully automated war machines which may not at some future point in time even require a human crew. Ablative armor is being developed which should sheild the vehicle against everything up to and including a tactical nuclear explosion. The main gun, dubbed a "Hellbore" will be a direct fire weapon cabable of engaging any sub-orbital target in LOS. It should actually prove to be a bit more than a match for the next generation of Threat vehicles.

I really, really wish I had one for my next PBEM...

Zamo

PS, Anybody else out there heard of this particular line of weapons systems?

[ncounio]

Oh looks like the return of the infamous kitchen sink thread (in disguise)

Well name of the projet is TPMW mk I

TPMW stands for TaxPayerMoneyWaster

------------------

Nicolas

http://perso.infonie.fr/nicolas.counio/combat_mission1.html

"Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche"

Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk

[Bertram]

Hi Zamo,

Seems that the head engineer of that one is our friend K. Laumer isn't it?

Bertram

[mcgivney]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo:

I beleive the new tank will be called the BOLO Mk. VII<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... I heard that Steve Jackson Engineering is developing a competator concept vehicle called the ORGE.

[Chupacabra]

Here's the problem with big, pretty, multi million dollar tanks.

You send a tank out. Yay. It does some stuff. Then along comes a helicopter and the tank gets blown all to hell by a $50,000 missile. Bad trade.

I think that the day of the MBT is probably coming to an end. Of course, it all depends on your point of view. I've talked to tankers who'd burn me alive for posting this, so...

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I think that the day of the MBT is probably coming to an end. Of course, it all depends on your point of view. I've talked to tankers who'd burn me alive for posting this, so...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would imagine they'd rather wait and have the last laugh. THe same sorts of things were being said in the 30's (AT guns are cheaper than tanks). The march of technology DOES clearly change the prosecution of war, and you may very well be right.

But we scientists have been burned WAY too often trying to EXtrapolate. We content ourselves to INterpolate. (Even though it's not NEARLY as much fun!)

[Zamo]

Bolo's and Ogre's aside, I don't think the final days of the tank are near. The benefits of an armored vehicle capable of smashing through a defensive work and blasting the **** out of everything are just to conveniant to disregard. Nothing scares grunts worse than the rumble of tanks, no matter how well trained and well equipped they are. Laminant and reactive armors have shown, just in the last ten years that counter-measures CAN be devised to counter ATGW threats. Of course the same can be said in the other direction. It still remains cheaper to build a bigger rocket...

Despite that, I think the elements of fire and maneuver that the tank brings to the battlefield will ensure it's place for some time. It's been stated in other posts time and again, that the proper employement of tanks must be with supporting infantry, and, ideally air cover. Combined arms is the only method of acheiving victory these days.

Zamo

[Supertanker]

"For the honor of the Regiment."

IMHO, best line in a science fiction short story ever. Even beats out, "One by one, the stars were winking out."

[tailz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supertanker:

"For the honor of the Regiment."

IMHO, best line in a science fiction short story ever. Even beats out, "One by one, the stars were winking out."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dammit... it's been a LONG time since I read those... hmmm, time to dust off boxes of old books!

[Dragoon44]

Dammit!!! Wheres my flamethrower and wheres Chupacabra? Crap sounds damn near like Hammers Slammers,,,praise be to David Drake. Im thinking that youre always gonna have to have a combined arms gig. Ya need the crunchies (infantry) to track down those RPG armed farmers that make a tankers life tough...and lots of arty...have met a lot of cannon-cockers in my lifetime...have only really liked two of em...but then ya always take care of your Fire Support Officer.

[Chupacabra]

Dragoon - My point is, and by all means feel free to disagree that MBTs are much more expensive by far than the missiles used to kill them.

Example - During the Gulf War, the USAF spent a fair amount of time going "tank plinking." Send up a plane, tell it to loiter over the battlefield, and if it sees an enemy tank, shoot it. It was simple, and it was cost effective.

As far as I'm told, the next generation of missiles are going to be able to perform the tank plinking missions that the fighters carried out in the Gulf. That is, the missiles will be launched, they will be able to loiter over a battlefield for a certain length of time, and they will be smart enough to recognize and defeat enemy armor. Even if these next generation missiles are a million bucks a pop, that's still cheaper than an MBT.

I don't doubt that tanks have a place on the battlefield, but it's my guess, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, that the future will tend more towards infantry and light AFVs like the Bradley.

[paullus]

Tanks will probably always have a place on the battlefield, regardless of advances in technology, but right now we need a tank that can be easily air-lifted into combat.

Will all of the BS peacekeeping missions the army gets sent out on, and the need for a true rapid-deployment vehicle (no slap agains the marines intended), we need a quick, light vehicle with a decent punch (maybe a fully-auto 105mm or 90mm gun) and missiles.

More than likely, the next dictator of the hour won't give us months to build up before starting some major sh*t. I'd prefer something that could be brought in quickly, and still deal with the old Soviet dinosaur tanks that make up most of the third world armies out there.

[Dan Weaver]

The first thing I urge you to do is to pop on over to http://www.tanknet.org where we talk about this kind of horse pucky every day.

Haven't heard about the Americans developing that tank with the Brits. They were working together on the stealthy TRACER recon vehicle but that got sh*tcanned by Congress last budget cycle so I don't know what's going on now. For sure, nobody will ever design a 155-ton tank. It couldn't operate on any surface in the world. It would smash even a paved road.

The Russians have been developing the T-95 for an interminable period of time. There was speculation that they'd announce it this year, but once again it failed to show at the Nizhniy Tagil arms expo. It's purported to weigh approx. 45 tons and carry a 152mm gun in a small unmanned turret. It's a sleek looking little beast and I hope they work it out.

Dan

[Doug Beman]

Fast, easily air-liftable, carrying guns and missiles, capable of killing its targets and surviving the fight? I think such a vehicle is a pipe-dream; unless Chobham armor suddenly gets a lot lighter, or else cargo planes suddenly quadruple their useful payloads, the main battle panzers are gonna have to go surface freighter.

DjB

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Fast, easily air-liftable, carrying guns and missiles, capable of killing its targets and surviving the fight? I think such a vehicle is a pipe-dream; unless Chobham armor suddenly gets a lot lighter, or else cargo planes suddenly quadruple their useful payloads, the main battle panzers are gonna have to go surface freighter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about this?? I thought an M1A2 could fit into a C5 Galaxy for airlift. Didn't they do this in the Gulf?

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you sure about this?? I thought an M1A2 could fit into a C5 Galaxy for airlift. Didn't they do this in the Gulf?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not too sure on that, but even if it could, that's ONE tank on ONE aircaft that takes anywhere from five to twelve hours to get to where it needs to be. Also, we don't have that many C-5s (I think something like 20 total, but I'm not sure). Airlifting M1s is not a viable option for a rapid-response force.

We WERE going to have the M8 AGS with aluminum armor that was supposed to be much better for airlifting, but the program was canceled.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 08-03-2000).]

[Dan Weaver]

Using a C-5 to carry an M-1 is an enormous waste. The entire US inventory of C-5s can ferry about a battalion of M1s per day and land a division in six days, while the SL-7 fast sealift ships can do it in seven days.

C-5s are desperately needed for their enormous supply hauling abilities. In real life, you'd never be able to sequester the C-5 fleet for six days.

Dan

[Spook]

Both the C-5 AND the C-17 Globemaster are capable of carrying the M1 tank. C-17's were recently used (1999) to deploy M1A1's to Macedonia.

The typical way of deploying MBT armor units (battalion or higher) is by sealift. For smaller deployments (platoon/company) that need "rapid response" (or at least minimum possible deployment time), airlift by C-5/C-17 is viable, although the C-5 is more limited to available airfields that it can land and offload in.

[Disaster@work]

I agree with lighter AFVs. If the reality is more and more urban combat (i.e. peacekeeping, Mogadishu, urban pacification) then an MBT is not only a waste, it would not be appropriate. For example, in Mogadishu, you wouldn't even be able to fit an Abrahms down some of those streets according to reports.

An AFV with wheels would be able to get around better on road in an urban environment and be quicker on the response. Plus, since the U.S. army wouldn't be the only customer for armour, it makes more sense to produce vehicles which are less expensive and more appropriate to other countries. This may be a bit harsh, but most other military establishments have internal security goals and don't factor in toe to toe heavy armoured battles in their plans. AFVs and trooper carriers are what they need for MOUT operations.

[CommanderC]

In regards to MBTs being vulnerable to "inexpensive" missiles, there is no missile in the US or Russian inventory or anywhere else in the world that can penetrate the frontal armor of an M1A2 MBT. An airborne launch platform would have to get a rear shot to knock out an M1A2, a side shot would likely only immobilize it due to track damage.

Hence the importance of combined arms operations.

[Zamo]

I have been screaming to my fellow jarhead tankers for years about the need to bring back the concept of the "light tank". There are several good candidates on the shelf right now which are light, relatively survivable and have a good anti-armor capability. The L7 105mm gun proved itself again in the gulf as capable of defeating Soviet produced armor. This is the gun found in the M60 series and which was the original weapon in the Abrams.

Several of the lighter tanks I've heard about which fit the catagory (dated, I haven't really checked on this in the last few years) were such weapons as FMC's CCV-L or Cadillac-Gage's Stingray as well as Argentina's TAM and Brazil's Osorio which are both full MBT's in a lighter configuration than the heavies, but seem perfect for the role we're talking about. For that matter, why not dust off our old workhorse the M-60A3? There's still enough of them around. Or the Marines LAV-25? My point is there are a number of great light/medium armored vehicles out there such that we don't need to spend millions of dollars on development when an off the shelf solution will fit the bill.

My .02cents

Zamo

[Dan Weaver]

The claim that no missile is able to penetrate the front of the M1 is false. The Maverick, Hellfire, AT-9 Ataka, AT-16 Vikhr, tandem-warhead Kornet, Kryzantema, and RPG-29 can bull their way through it. The TOW2B, Javelin, BILL 2, and Gill/Spike can strike the thin top. The LOSAT and CKEM don't even notice that the tank was there...

And any grunt who fires an AT missile at a tank from the front is pretty dumb. The hard thing for a grunt these days is his IR signature. People show up like beacons on the M1's thermals.

Light AFVs are useful but they don't belong in the heavy tank role and never have. Every attempt to use them that way has turned out inferior to the main battle tank. MBTs can get lighter, though. If you cut the crew down to three men, take all but one out of the turret, and install CKEMs, you can probably squeeze an MBT down to 45 tons. When CKEMs are flying around the battlefield, armor's almost superfluous anyways. They've got three times the penetration of a round from the M1A2's main gun. Try to armor a tank to defeat KE missiles, and it may end up at 155 tons!

Dan

[argie]

Hey, Zamo, do you like the TAM?

Is a very good light tank. He beated all the others in Ecuador in a field test (94 out of 100 points. Next one ~70 points).

I love those AFV. And the IFV version is good also (is almost a Marder ).

Ariel