AHQ/AHC: Ideal modern tank design?

[Cryhavoc101]

Further too the AI stuff on our armoured fighting box

I see it as reducing the burden on the crew, and enhancing their capability rather than taking over - bit like having an extra crewman.

 

[Pelranius]

1. APS
2. 60 tons (with add on armor options bringing weight to 70-75 tons)
3. Bustle autoloader with telescoped ammunition, including guided missiles
4. 130-140mm cannon (to outshoot the OPFOR), a 30-40mm coaxial would be nice
5. Hybrid electric drive
6. Composite armor with reactive armor options (granted, this is probably a given for most MBTs nowadays).
7. 4 person crew (commander, gunner, driver, and unmanned systems operator/coordinator, as the MBT of tomorrow will likely operate alongside ground and air unmanned systems)
8. At least two remote weapons stations, one preferably with an automatic grenade launcher, and the other with a heavy machine gun

 

[Blue cat]

In a world with large numbers of ATGWs and armed RPVs, air-delivered mines, and so forth, what features should a clean sheet tank design of (say) 2050 have?

I imagine, for a start, composite armor, multifuel capacity, at least a 105mm, probably reactive armor, & something like an imaging NVG system (LLTV or IR, possibly both, possibly laser-enhanced).

I wonder if the traditional design has too much vulnerability to overhead attack, and if there's any answer to that.

What I have in mind isn't anything by a particular OTL nation or bureau, but something like an idealized vehicle for peer-to-peer combat.

Any speculations?

For a clean sheet design, as others have mentioned different nations are likely to have different overall weight constraints (and some nations might see value in a modular design that can be stripped down to meet an arbitrary weight limit for strategic mobility, so long as the missing parts can be easily re installed.)

That being said IMHO for a notional wealthy first world nation with a small population that was mainly interested in homeland defense against a hypothetical potentially angry great power that could stage an overland invasion I would likely prioritize:

Devise a fundamentally new gun system (either larger in caliber and or using some form of advanced technology to be able to significantly exceed the performance of the US 120mm with DU rounds, preferably without having to use DU projectiles. Basically be able to easily overmatch any armor scheme designed to be essentially immune to the latest (when the tank was being designed) western tank guns and ammunition.

Frontal hull and turret armor that would withstand fire from the 120mm L55 using tungsten APDSFS at realistic ranges (protection against the US 120mm with DU would also be nice if possible.) Side and preferably rear protection against realistic IFV auto cannon, older tanks and other threats. (Of course if the nation in question had firm information about the equipment of their likely adversaries these specs would likely be adjusted somewhat.)

Active protection systems to deal with likely ATGM, PGM and bomblet threats along with titanium (or other advanced material) top armor to stop heavy shell fragments from penetrating while keeping the overall weight down.

The crew would likely be well protected in the hull and the armament would likely be in a remotely operated turret.

The ability to be remotely operated, along with some basic AI features that could carry out basic defensive engagements without human intervention. Maybe enable the crew compartment to be used to store extra fuel and or ammunition if the vehicle is remotely or autonomously operated. I'm thinking the AI features would be for homeland defense use against a peer or better enemy when you are in a position to basically destroy anything in front of your lines and you want to avoid having to surrender or use nukes. The AI features might also be useful if you anticipate your enemies using neutron bombs to break thru your lines, and EMP protection would also be needed in that scenario. The AI and or remote control features might also allow large numbers of tanks to be forward deployed even if crews were not available to man them (ie. while reservists were mobilizing after an unexpected attack.)

The ability to rapidly repair damage due mines and other similar threats.

As much range and mobility as reasonably possible

 

[marathag]

preferably without having to use DU projectiles.

You don't get radiation from DU, it's depleted, after all. Granite countertops are more radioactive.
It is a chemically toxic heavy metal, that's real.
Tungsten really isn't that much better for your health, though, and it's just not as good as DU as a main gun round

 

[Blue cat]

You don't get radiation from DU, it's depleted, after all. Granite countertops are more radioactive.
It is a chemically toxic heavy metal, that's real.
Tungsten really isn't that much better for your health, though, and it's just not as good as DU as a main gun round

The thing is DU is probably not a viable option for many nations for various reasons (although perhaps a nation that was designing a new tank to be able to operate autonomously after being targeted by a neutron bomb might be okay with issuing DU ammo.)

 

[Questerr]

1. APS
2. 60 tons (with add on armor options bringing weight to 70-75 tons)
3. Bustle autoloader with telescoped ammunition, including guided missiles
4. 130-140mm cannon (to outshoot the OPFOR), a 30-40mm coaxial would be nice
5. Hybrid electric drive
6. Composite armor with reactive armor options (granted, this is probably a given for most MBTs nowadays).
7. 4 person crew (commander, gunner, driver, and unmanned systems operator/coordinator, as the MBT of tomorrow will likely operate alongside ground and air unmanned systems)
8. At least two remote weapons stations, one preferably with an automatic grenade launcher, and the other with a heavy machine gun

Unless you are reinstituting the WW2-style two crewman in the hull, that's going to be a cramped AF turret with 3-crew, a massive gun, an autoloader, an autocannon, all the ammunition for all of that, plus the reloads for the CROWS, and all the various electronics needed.

 

[Blue cat]

Enemy deploys full spectrum jammers.

All of your tanks turn into bricks.

Hence the need for AI ?

 

[Questerr]

Hence the need for AI ?

Which brings up the question I posed in an earlier post: how many officers do you think are going to be cool with spending the rest of their lives in prison when they turn control of whether or not their bang-sticks go boom over to AI who might get confused and think a convoy of elementary school buses are T-90's?

 

[RedSword12]

I agree

Drones are useful in low intensity conflicts and such like and for boring routine stuff like LRMPA - like what we see with the MQ-4C Triton backed up by P8 Poseidon for the USA and Australia.

They are also useful for situations where they can be treated as being expendable and not generating repatriation ceremonies for the 9 o'clock news - but shooting one down still ups the ante all the same.

I don't know. Surely they might be a problem when they start assassinating key leaders if war breaks out?

 

[Blue cat]

Which brings up the question I posed in an earlier post: how many officers do you think are going to be cool with spending the rest of their lives in prison when they turn control of whether or not their bang-sticks go boom over to AI who might get confused and think a convoy of elementary school buses are T-90's?

Well if the alternative is surrendering or using nukes (or asking your ally to use them..) I suspect many officers might be okay with going the AI route (especially if their opponent was seen as being unlikely to treat them and their spouses and children nicely after they surrendered..) Presumably being on the winning side might aid the outcome of any war crimes trials and being on the loosing side would likely be seen as being a bad option.,

 

[Questerr]

Well if the alternative is surrendering or using nukes (or asking your ally to use them..) I suspect many officers might be okay with going the AI route (especially if there opponent was seen as being unlikely to treat them and their wives and children nicely after they surrendered..) Presumably being on the winning side might aid the outcome of any war crimes trials and being on the loosing side would likely be seen as being a bad option.,

The alternative is putting humans in the tank. That's a really dumb false dichotomy you've built.

 

[Blue cat]

The alternative is putting humans in the tank. That's a really dumb false dichotomy you've built.

To recap if the humans have been killed or are about to die from a neutron bomb or similar weapon, or having AI allows tanks to be used while their reservist crews are being mobilized then I can see AI having some uses. Being able to use AI to move tanks to pre designated defensive positions and upon arrival killing anything in front of them might be a useful ability to have, especially if the AI could maybe randomly move between different positions and perhaps do more than just park in a static position and kill things. AI could also provide a hedge against unexpected chemical agents that can't be defeated by existing filters, weapons that kill or disable crews by concussion etc..

 

[Workable Goblin]

Which brings up the question I posed in an earlier post: how many officers do you think are going to be cool with spending the rest of their lives in prison when they turn control of whether or not their bang-sticks go boom over to AI who might get confused and think a convoy of elementary school buses are T-90's?

Presumably the same number who are "cool" with spending the rest of their lives in prison when they turn control over whether or not their bang-sticks go boom to humans who might get confused and think a convoy of elementary school buses are T-90s. You know, because humans actually make similar mistakes all the time. It's just that...no one cares. And probably no one would really care that it was AI tanks doing it rather than human-driven ones, after the first few times it happened.

(In practice, you probably wouldn't actually use AI in tank unless you were pretty sure the probability of this type of thing happening was minimal, so the officers wouldn't think it would happen to them until it actually happened to them)

 

[RetiredCdntanker]

As others have noted, there is no "one size fits all" tank.
Countries that emphasize defence (such as Sweden and Israel) emphasize protection over firepower and mobility. Weight is not a huge issue, as they will never be transported out of their respective homelands, so a 70 or 75 ton tank will suit them nicely.
Other countries that foresee a very mobile type war, such as the battle of Kursk, want a tank that can travel over various types of terrain reliably, be transportable, and may have to forego some armour to achieve their aim.

Tanks such as the Armata are the future, with the crew in the hull and a non-crewed turret. One disadvantage is the reliance on cameras and monitors. All electronics in tanks (actually, most military vehicles) have to be built to be proof against EMP. Camera lenses also get dirty, or covered in water, or have an insect on them hitching a ride. While the lenses cannot be glass (otherwise the thermal cameras will not work, thermal cannot see through glass) they can get pitted, damaged by shrapnel, and so on. I honestly think that a four man crew will be required, burnout from looking at monitors with 100% concentration for long periods of time is not possible by one person.

One place that AI could be used is in areas of self defence. A remote cannon used against anti-tank missiles could easily be handled by AI, but other than that, I think there will always have to be a human making decisions. If for no other reason than to have someone to blame when things go sideways.

I also don't think the 120 is dead quite yet. Just as the L7 soldiered on for decades through improvements in metallurgy and projectiles, the 120 can live on through the same type of improvements. But, the 140 has been developed and proven, so tanks that have the 120 can be upgunned with little difficulty.

Electric motors, for sure, with a diesel generator.

 

[Dr. Hochmeister]

What is the tactical role for a "Tank" on the modern battlefield? There doesn't seem to be much of one for the low intensity wars we've been fighting; they're too small to be troop transports, and overkill against insurgents or third rate military forces. Nothing they can't do there that artillery, drones, or air power can't do cheaper and/or better. So, the main context for their use would be in a non-nuclear peer to peer conflict, where both sides have similar, though not necessarily equal, capabilities.

In that sort of conflict, what will a tank need to do? Kill other tanks? Provide short range artillery support? Transport troops? Flank entrenched infantry forces? All of the above? I think there's two divergent paths armor may go down in the future. One is the sort of "super tank" others here have outlined, basically a bigger, better, and stronger version of the tanks we have now. These are capable and we know they will most likely work from past experience, but they're also stupidly expensive to build, maintain, and in the sort of high-intensity conflict they'd be actually useful for any nation would likely run through their stocks of 'em far faster than the duration of the conflict.

The other option is to basically go the opposite track and use advances in electronic tech to basically make a "disposable" tank that sacrifices survivability for cost. Strap a 120mm gun and autoloader to the smallest, cheapest, most mobile autonomous platform you can and have it remote-control itself into conflict zones. Or heck, if all you really want is something that can kill armor with minimal risk to the grunts, strap an anti-tank missile to a go-kart hooked up to a bunch of webcams. Make as many as you can as cheaply as possible using off the shelf civillian tech and deploy them in swarms as either breakthrough elements or a defensive net. There's always the issue of jamming, but that's going to be a problem for manned as well as unmanned elements, and there's potential workarounds such as AI or hardwires.

I suspect that countries like the US, China, and Russia will be exploring both options.

 

[Questerr]

To recap if the humans have been killed or are about to die from a neutron bomb or similar weapon, or having AI allows tanks to be used while their reservist crews are being mobilized then I can see AI having some uses. Being able to use AI to move tanks to pre designated defensive positions and upon arrival killing anything in front of them might be a useful ability to have, especially if the AI could maybe randomly move between different positions and perhaps do more than just park in a static position and kill things. AI could also provide a hedge against unexpected chemical agents that can't be defeated by existing filters, weapons that kill or disable crews by concussion etc..

None of those are realistic scenarios.

 

[Questerr]

Presumably the same number who are "cool" with spending the rest of their lives in prison when they turn control over whether or not their bang-sticks go boom to humans who might get confused and think a convoy of elementary school buses are T-90s. You know, because humans actually make similar mistakes all the time. It's just that...no one cares. And probably no one would really care that it was AI tanks doing it rather than human-driven ones, after the first few times it happened.

(In practice, you probably wouldn't actually use AI in tank unless you were pretty sure the probability of this type of thing happening was minimal, so the officers wouldn't think it would happen to them until it actually happened to them)

When the human gunner of a tank kills a boatload of civilians against the wishes of his commander, that human can go to jail. You can’t send an AI to prison. The buck would stop with the commander who let the AI off the chain to start with.

 

[Blue cat]

None of those are realistic scenarios.

That may or may not be the case for the notional nation I have postulated. That being said given the likely cost of a new tank, the likelihood that it will be heavily reliant on various forms of networked electronic systems, building in some form of AI capability would seem prudent to me even if it was never actually used.

 

[Blue cat]

When the human gunner of a tank kills a boatload of civilians against the wishes of his commander, that human can go to jail. You can’t send an AI to prison. The buck would stop with the commander who let the AI off the chain to start with.

Perhaps a notional nation defending its own territory might simply evacuate all their civilians within an arbitrary distance of the front lines and declare they were going to use autonomous weapons and civilians should keep out. Perhaps they could even put up signs warning people that they risk being engaged by autonomous weapons if they proceed any further. At first glance it doesn't seem much different to me than planting mine fields on ones own territory and putting up signs warning of mines. (Yes I realize many nations don't allow the use of anti personnel mines.)

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

What is the tactical role for a "Tank" on the modern battlefield? There doesn't seem to be much of one for the low intensity wars we've been fighting;

Both the Canadians and the Danes found their Leopards hugely beneficial in Afghanistan.

hey're too small to be troop transports,

Any battlefield where the enemy doesn't have airburst artillery is ideal for tank desant.

and overkill against insurgents or third rate military forces.

ATGMs have proliferated to the point where they're regularly used against infantry in Syria. Tanks are basically the only ground vehicle with any chance of surviving an ATGM hit. That makes them tactically indispensable.

Nothing they can't do there that artillery, drones, or air power can't do cheaper and/or better.

Those can fill the armoured direct fire role?

If tanks were obsolete then the countries currently at war wouldn't be so eager to procure more of them, and insurgents wouldn't make such a big deal when they occasionally capture one.