Military equipment if the Cold War continued till 2019

[Richard V]

Not low enough to justify inconvenience of 20-times reduced energy density. Battery-electric systems have typical thermal efficiency 65% for rechargeable and about 80% for non-rechargeable batteries, which do not make large difference from 40% of diesel

Electric motors are far smaller and lighter than modern tank engines. There would be enough space for the batteries and the tanks could be potentially smaller and lighter. Batteries can be swapped out in minutes by a truck that brings batteries to the tank rather than have tanks line up with vulnerable fuel trucks.

FOBS were forbidden by international agreement SALT II in 1979. Therefore, progress in long-range ICBM would be likely zero.

SALT II was never ratified by the Senate. The Soviets ended FOBS experiments probably for technical reasons.

 

[Richard V]

What sort of systems were you thinking of?

Could be as simple as an interceptor that fires a net to ensnare the torpedo.

I doubt range will go up much, 10,000 km gets you a hit on Moscow from anywhere in CONUS.

RS-28 is being designed to fly over the south pole.

5.56 already is reasonably good against body armour.

Against Level IV you need 7.62 Nato slap rounds. Body armor have improved termendously and it will keep getting better. In peer power high intensity war both sides would have them.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Electric motors are far smaller and lighter than modern tank engines. There would be enough space for the batteries and the tanks could be potentially smaller and lighter. Batteries can be swapped out in minutes by a truck that brings batteries to the tank rather than have tanks line up with vulnerable fuel trucks.

No there isn't. Gasoline fits 46.7 MJ/KG, Lithium Metal Battery gets 1.8, and it's the most efficient easily available. Per Liter it's 34.2 for Gasoline, 4.32 for a battery. Abrams has 1900 Liter Tank, to equal it in battery power need 15,040 L of space. Weight of that battery is 36 tons, for a 70 ton Tank, and it takes up 15,000L of the Tanks 68,000L volume. Battery is more efficient, but not enough to make up for that much extra weight/bulk without massively decreasing range

 

[KillerT]

Have a look on the secret projects website, tons of stuff there including BAE projects such as a small push turboprop attack aircraft loaded with downward firing 81mm Merlin mortar bombs (Merlin was a guided top attack project, STRIX was similar but for a better calibre of 120mm) other things UK might’ve got an AA tank such as the Marksman, there were also loads of giraffe projects basically tanks with telescopic arms elevating ATGW turrets mounting the proposed new missile systems. Oh and yes the 140mm would be near standard by now instead of 120mm. G11 would be in service with Bundeswehr, only cancelled because it was a cost cutting measure with the end of the Cold War.

 

[trurle]

Electric motors are far smaller and lighter than modern tank engines. There would be enough space for the batteries and the tanks could be potentially smaller and lighter. Batteries can be swapped out in minutes by a truck that brings batteries to the tank rather than have tanks line up with vulnerable fuel trucks.

Any army officer will laugh on this bul..hit. 20 times less energy density is show-stopper, regardless of any other parameters.

SALT II was never ratified by the Senate. The Soviets ended FOBS experiments probably for technical reasons.

No. Soviet FOBS were operational (civilian version of it, Tsyklon, is still flying today) and prevented from deployment by political decision. The motive force for SALT II was both fear of escalation and high upkeep costs of both FOBS itself and extended EWS capable to detect FOBS.

 

[trurle]

What would the modern Soviet equivalent of the T-14 be? Presuming they still see a need for something similar, perhaps after seeing the M1 utterly ravage a third-world army equipped with modern-ish soviet tanks like the T-72?

Might the US be working on an Abrams replacement by ATL 2019?

Soviets are likely going to further develop T-80 with turbine engine which development was discontinued IOTL due to poor cost/performance in First Chechen War.

 

[Richard V]

No there isn't. Gasoline fits 46.7 MJ/KG, Lithium Metal Battery gets 1.8, and it's the most efficient easily available. Per Liter it's 34.2 for Gasoline, 4.32 for a battery. Abrams has 1900 Liter Tank, to equal it in battery power need 15,040 L of space. Weight of that battery is 36 tons, for a 70 ton Tank, and it takes up 15,000L of the Tanks 68,000L volume. Battery is more efficient, but not enough to make up for that much extra weight/bulk without massively decreasing range

Abrams’ turbine engine is not a good baseline as studies have shown a diesel engine would increase range 50% with the same amount of fuel. Plus a diesel powered vehicle uses fuel just to cool the engine. Then you have power loss from braking which can be recycled, the room gained from a much smaller transmission system... A 70 ton tank probably could be propelled by a battery in the mid 20 tons. That’s assuming keeping the same range is essential. It may not be as battery change or field recharging could be easier on logistics than a huge convoy of fuel trucks.

Anyway that’s where the Army says it’s is heading in the next 10 years.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...ectric-tank-brigades-in-ten-years-121144.html

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Abrams’ turbine engine is not a good baseline as studies have shown a diesel engine would increase range 50% with the same amount of fuel. Plus fuel is used just to cool the engine. A 70 ton tank probably could be propelled by a battery in the mid 20 tons. That’s assuming keeping the same range is essential. It may not be as battery change or field recharging could be easier on logistics than a huge convoy of fuel trucks.

Anyway that’s where the Army says it’s is heading in the next 10 years.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...ectric-tank-brigades-in-ten-years-121144.html

That is a misleading title. What the guy actually said is that "some of our Brigade Combat Teams will be all electric", which would include the Light Infantry Brigade Combat teams which basically just have HumVees and Trucks. This is just one general saying something, and is incorrect. The Abrams is not being replaced in 10 years like he claims it will be, the M1A3 will just be being introduced then

20 ton battery, replacing 1-2 tons of fuel. Right, now you have an 85-90 ton tank with a battery sticking out the end. Plus how are you going to recharge it, that battery is 36 gigajoules, or 10,000 kilowatt hours, need to either burn fuel or haul around nuclear reactors to do that

Besides tanks aren't really the issue, they use 1-5% of an Armored Brigades fuel, it's the Helicopters and Trucks that slurp it down, trucks being electric I can see, Helicopters, no

 

[Marc]

Interesting that so far, very little is said about most likely Soviet advancements. Earlier completion and deployment of say, the Armata Universal Combat Platform?
And, no one has mentioned a more rapid development of cyber warfare, one battlefield that we may not have an advantage.

 

[Rath]

I think that some of the focus on asymmetric warfare could still be there. Although 9/11 and large-scale Islamic terrorism might be butterflied, the US and USSR might end up fighting more Vietnam or Afganhistan style proxy wars.

But what might be different is that the equipment made for asymmetric warfare would still function in a conventional battlefield. Less drones, but barrel cameras and other modifications might be present.

 

[Thoresby]

G11 would be in service with Bundeswehr, only cancelled because it was a cost cutting measure with the end of the Cold Wa

It might be in service. The G11 was by no means a finished product, if it was someone would have brought it off the shelf. It was still in development and there were still issues with the ammunition and reliability. Now given sufficient time and money anything can be put into service but a brief survey of military procurement shows that for every F-16* you have a F-35** and a XB-70***.

*Budgetary and performance success
**Over budget and under performing
***Cancelled after vast expenditure.

 

[SwampTiger]

As far as ICBM tech, if you can get into orbit, range is not an issue. The Orbital Base concept would have been introduced without SALT II and followup treaties. A Space Force would be operating on both sides of the Rusty Curtain.

I'm not sure anyone is powering any major vehicle by batteries for combat. We are just starting to see tractor trailer concepts. The continued Cold War may accelerate electric powered vehicles, but not by that much.

When the Soviets fall, it will be much harder. They will have produced some amazing crap though.

 

[Richard V]

That is a misleading title. What the guy actually said is that "some of our Brigade Combat Teams will be all electric", which would include the Light Infantry Brigade Combat teams which basically just have HumVees and Trucks. This is just one general saying something, and is incorrect. The Abrams is not being replaced in 10 years like he claims it will be, the M1A3 will just be being introduced then

20 ton battery, replacing 1-2 tons of fuel. Right, now you have an 85-90 ton tank with a battery sticking out the end. Plus how are you going to recharge it, that battery is 36 gigajoules, or 10,000 kilowatt hours, need to either burn fuel or haul around nuclear reactors to do that

Besides tanks aren't really the issue, they use 1-5% of an Armored Brigades fuel, it's the Helicopters and Trucks that slurp it down, trucks being electric I can see, Helicopters, no

The future will be electric. Maybe it wont be all batteries right away, the BAE hybrid GCV has been in testing for a couple of years and the Bradley follow on may well have a simlar system. Low IR signature, low acoustic signature, increased electric power for those new sensors and active defenses. I think had we been seriously concerned about fighting FLIR equipped tanks and aircraft these improvements would have been adopted already. Since the late 80’s if you could be seen by FLIR you could be killed. That would be the driving factor not fuel efficiency or even protection and weight.

 

[MattII]

Interesting that so far, very little is said about most likely Soviet advancements. Earlier completion and deployment of say, the Armata Universal Combat Platform?

Possibly, though it's far from a new idea.

And, no one has mentioned a more rapid development of cyber warfare, one battlefield that we may not have an advantage.

The USA had a consistent lead in computers over the USSR, so I don't think our OTL attitude of not paying enough attention to cyber-warfare is necessarily valid.

The future will be electric. Maybe it wont be all batteries right away, the BAE hybrid GCV has been in testing for a couple of years and the Bradley follow on may well have a simlar system. Low IR signature, low acoustic signature, increased electric power for those new sensors and active defenses. I think had we been seriously concerned about fighting FLIR equipped tanks and aircraft these improvements would have been adopted already. Since the late 80’s if you could be seen by FLIR you could be killed. That would be the driving factor not fuel efficiency or even protection and weight.

If you can't get your tank to the battlefield, you lose by default.

 

[Richard V]

If you can't get your tank to the battlefield, you lose by default.

Hybrids are hardly new. They are everywhere already, cars, buses, mining and construction machinery. In the old days the military led the way. Armies adopting hybrid electric vehicles now is like if there was no WWII and jet engines were first developed for civil aviation in the 60s and air forces trying them out in 1980.

 

[MattII]

Hybrids are hardly new. They are everywhere already, cars, buses, mining and construction machinery. In the old days the military led the way. Armies adopting hybrid electric vehicles now is like if there was no WWII and jet engines were first developed for civil aviation in the 60s and air forces trying them out in 1980.

Hybrids are nothing new indeed:

However, I was referring to battery power. A vehicle that needs to call an ARV out when it runs out of juice is not a vehicle worth considering.

 

[Blue cat]

No. Soviet FOBS were operational (civilian version of it, Tsyklon, is still flying today) and prevented from deployment by political decision. The motive force for SALT II was both fear of escalation and high upkeep costs of both FOBS itself and extended EWS capable to detect FOBS.

Yep..

I'll just add that the outer space treaty essentially bans the use of FOBS (with nuclear warheads) as well (although I suppose one could argue that they are technically legal vis vis that treaty so long as they are not actually launced into orbit ...)

I recall this issue being raised "back in the day." IMHO a significant deployment of FOBS would likely result in the validity of the outer space treaty being called into question.

Edit to add I also seem to recall that "back in the day" the U.S. decided that FOBS warheads were not neceasailry in orbit vis a vis the outer space treaty. In the context of US / Soviet real politik I can understand this.

I suspect today the U.S. would be reluctant to extend this courtesy to certain other nations that have the ability to put items into orbit.

 

[Questerr]

What would the modern Soviet equivalent of the T-14 be? Presuming they still see a need for something similar, perhaps after seeing the M1 utterly ravage a third-world army equipped with modern-ish soviet tanks like the T-72?

Might the US be working on an Abrams replacement by ATL 2019?

The US was already working on an Abrams replacement with the “Mark III Abrams”, in effect it was a T-14 type design with an unmanned turret and mounted a 140mm gun.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The future will be electric. Maybe it wont be all batteries right away, the BAE hybrid GCV has been in testing for a couple of years and the Bradley follow on may well have a simlar system. Low IR signature, low acoustic signature, increased electric power for those new sensors and active defenses. I think had we been seriously concerned about fighting FLIR equipped tanks and aircraft these improvements would have been adopted already. Since the late 80’s if you could be seen by FLIR you could be killed. That would be the driving factor not fuel efficiency or even protection and weight.

Hybrids sure probably, but not with the ability to have a useful range on battery power. That is too much of a penalty. IR can be managed a number of ways, paints, add on appliques, active signature modification plus the old standbys of smoke, counter fires and terrain features. You don't need a hugely bulky battery system for that, and it may be counterproductive as it makes your vehicle bigger and more vulnerable to detection in other ways. Hybrid system would be adopted for fuel efficiency reasons and to supply extra power to new systems

All Batteries, or even merely carrying a battery for hour or two of use is far in the future, right now need to overcome the 5% energy by weight and 12% by volume vis a vis petrochemicals

 

[Questerr]

If the Cold War continues, what’s the likelihood of the A-16 going into production?