The Future of the Tank

[Hedgehog]

The Future of the Tank

According to the Director of the RAC (NOT the Royal Automobile Club)

http://www.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?record=ART2742&_IXMENU_=news_and_events

And of course who in their infinate spending wisdom has cut everything useful from the defence budget?

Yup our glorious leader:

The Right Hon David Cameron.

Pah, theres nothing right or honourable about him.

**Climbs off soapbox**

[crazyeddie]

Cheers Hedgehog, excuse me whilst I borrow your soapbox.

As the detail on the SDR is slowly dribbling out of Whitehall it seems to me we Brits will have a decent nuclear capability at the end of this, and no means to defend it. A 19 ship Navy, for an island nation who depends on trade to survive, 2 useless carriers with no aircraft to put on them, an airforce that could just about defeat Mongolia if the wind was on our side and an Army smaller than most third world countries.

Whatever next, they will be wanting to create a European Army. And we on here all know just how much we like and trust each other on this continent ...

Never mind, the big nuclear boys will still be allowed to sit at the top table and throw tantrums with the other big nuclear boys, so all is well.

Next for the soapbox ... form a queue here please.

[Hedgehog]

Hmm maybe I should charge a rental fee?

:biggrin:

[FletchRDG]

Ive been Looking into this very issue and asking what the future holds for the tank. I dont think our government (the UK government that is) is doing the right thing by carving massive chunks out of the armed forces. It doesnt help when the MoD are placing stupid orders on things that are essentially already in service ie the Patrol Protection Package: Coyote, Jackal 2,Ridgeback Wolfhound 6x6 and the Mastiff. Also with an added order placed for the Bvs-10 Bronco, Ridgeback Cougar 4x4, husky, Panther command and liaison Vehicle and the new ocelot PPV. Thats 9 different vehicles that were designed for the same role. I can't help but think too much has been wasted and then cut.Then theres the added risk of dropping a MBT Regiment and Artillery aswell by getting rid of 100 Challenger 2s and AS-90s. Having only 1 Aircraft carrier with nothing on it for 8 years, waiting for the orders of the JSF F-35. I wonder what Dr Liam Fox's doctorate is in, its becoming more apparent its a PhD in I-haven't-a-bloody-clue-ology and unsociable sciences.

But because Im a graphic designer Ive naturally seen a problem and now Im instinctively researching past problems in tank design. So far Ive come up with an absolute basic tank with a down sized crew (to 3 instead of 4). The idea is that it has an changeable rear end for multi-roles, should be air-portable (meaning it has to weigh a little less then 22 tons) making it cost effective. It should have an engine that is sustainable or self sustaining ie an electric engine that matches the power to weight ratio of its diesel/multi-fuel counterparts or electric assisted. It would be a "box" design except the glacis plate and frontal turret plates are angled (as normal) but it could have bolt on armour thats similar to the FV432 Bulldogs up-armour. Id also integrate "cage" armour so they're part of the same package (if it hasn't been done already). Id move the cannon from the centre of the turret to the right hand side (left hand looking front the front of it). This is so the chamber can be fed by an autoloader and the cartridge expelled outside, creating less weight and helps reduce fuel consumption. Id also have a smaller version of the Remote Weapon System (RWS) to save space inside the turret, it should do 360 degrees, day and night vision and would have thermal imaging. This would still keep with the Hunter Killer tactics of the challenger 2 with the added weapon station for protection. The RWS could be fitted with Anti-tank missiles, Anti-Aircraft missiles or a 7.62mm Machine Gun.

I thought this up so that there would be 1 platform that can go into any battle well prepared, armed and with armour that can at most sustain a head-on attack and still run or be able replace damaged armour very quickly. Ive got a few more ideas to throw in too about up-armour. I guess this is why it takes years to get vehicles to their regiments. But Id like to see what you guys think, after all you chaps know abit more then what I do.

Edited November 10, 2010 by FletchRDG

[dejawolf]

it is as it is, with every european army nowadays. everyone is relying on the US army to fight the wars of the future.

a side effect of downscaling the army, it makes it easier to overthrow that government.

[Hedgehog]

Hmmmmm.

"Hail General Hedgehog, Despotic Tyrant of England."

Hey, thats got a ring to it....

**Starts Planning coup d'etat**

:biggrin:

[Gibsonm]

A new Cromwell perhaps?

Maybe there will be a Brit tank named in your honour sometime in the future?

[FletchRDG]

My idea is that everything is bolt on, tool boxes, up-armour, rear compartments: 120mm 2 man turret with autoloader, 30mm Automatic cannon 2 man turret, infantry fighting vehicle with RWS over the commander hatch (they'll still have a hatch), field ambulance, command and liaison, Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle, Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers, Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft. This is so its easily replaceable, the compartments can be easily changed, stealing the thunderbird 2s idea where the load is chosen for a specific mission. Essentially the backs of these things would be bare until the mission is set and briefed. It should be so light that a chinook can drop the tank in anywhere where its needed. Ive also chosen a shorter wheel base, like that of the FV432 or M113 so that two or more can be stowed in the C-17 or C-130 and flown to the place of battle. Kind of like the M551 Sheridan in Vietnam. The MRAV Boxer is all good for on-road travel but comes to off-roading wheels are more likely to get the vehicle stuck in the mud, where as tracks essentially climb. Even though wheeled vehicles are easier to maintain, tracked vehicles tend to do a better job and are unlikely to be "thrown" though there is a probability (never say never as they say lol).

Stripped, this vehicle would weigh only a few tons. Fully assembled it should weigh in about the same as a Warrior IFV, a guesstimate of 27 tons. Exceeding the 22 ton limit by 5. What I could do with is the weight of the added armour to the bulldog, then add the cage armour onto that. Then theres the basic platform weight and finally the added rear compartment. 2 of which would be full of ammunition.

[Gibsonm]

Sure so a multi role CVRT type vehicle (but with modules on a common hull rather than complete vehicles).

I'm just not sure you can get:

120mm gun

Suitable protection (bar and/or plate armour in the frontal arc)

Electric power (lots of batteries I'm guessing)

Big enough for a crew of three

Tracked

Into a 27 tonne package.

The M551 was what 15 tonne and I suspect the remaining 12 tonne (to get to 27) wont bring the protection level up from the M551's "paper thin" level to crew surviablility like CR2 has.

In addition it had all sorts of issues absorbing the 155mm's recoil in such a light hull.

Even if you go for no turret (because you only have enough armour for the frontal arc) and go for something like "S Tank" Mk2 you still are at around the 40 tonne mark.

I've seen mock ups of vehicles where the crew sit in the hull and the gun is exposed (a bit like Stryker MGS) but it still needs to be a sizable box not to fall over when the gun fires.

Of course the guys who brought us Dorchester may well be dreaming up some sort of energy shield defence that saves on weight but it has to be powered by something so there will be weight of some sort (either increased power supply or the armour itself).

The "ideal" is probably the unmanned vehicle (saves a lot of space and you can cut down on protection). A ground version of a UCAV if you like.

eSim would love it too as I'm sure the "operators" would sit in comfy chairs and probably control it via some enhanced version of Steel Beasts.

[GH_Lieste]

Offset gun is generally bad for dealing with recoil forces - it causes a torsion on the turret/mount azimuth with each shot - a lot of effort is gone into to keep the bigger guns on the turret centreline for this reason. It doesn't stop you building the turret only on one side of the gun, but now you have traverse/balance problems with cross slopes etc - possibly not a huge issue with power traverse, but it will complicate the stab computations.

I'm not in love with modular equipment either - in order to move and store the extra modules you need significant extra logistic tail.

With things getting bolted on and off, and a relatively 'thin' and weak chassis, you may find that things stop fitting together after a while?

If the chassis is cheap enough, it makes more sense to buy sufficient to permanently mount each module on it so it is immediately available for use, and then there are advantages to building the base armour integrally with the chassis.

[FletchRDG]

What Im trying to think up is something that will bring in most characteristics of past tanks with applicable elements into a single platform. Like the sizes and weight on the CVRT, FV430 series and its sister tank the M113. With the firepower of a repeating gun like that of the CV-90 family. Id still give the 120mm a trial though. See how much ammunition it would be able to hold before it reaches the 20 ton mark. I guess I could cut the 120mm crew down to 2, a commander and driver. Could possibly have the turret in a large remote controlled station kind of layout. Keeping the turret as low-a-profile as physically possible. Its either that or adopt a CV-90 kind of armament, with cannons ranging 30mm, 35mm and 45mm with the baby APFSDS (awwwws).

As for armour, anything I think could literally be bolted on. A spare road wheel, more track links, the added angled add-on cage armour, stowage boxes, sand bags, hand bags, bum fluff, anything. It does add weight though but it can be taken off (and bum fluff can be flicked lol).

I can see the UGVs taking over but theres a question of making those possible soldiers redundant, it would be unfair I think and its kind of an economy booster having soldiers based in towns. Its a tough question to answer Id think.

The issues with the modules, I think that if the modules do deform in someway then it would be time for an upgrade. The modules should be dismantled, recycled and used again with upgrade systems. Saves on cost in the long run and more funds could go into necessary projects. Id say an upgrade every 5 or 10 years.

The turret problems, Id imply a reinforced centre turret chasis that would be purely to sort the recoil stresses on the turret ring. It would be attatched to the gun mount straight to the centre of the turret ring diameter. As for balance, the opposite side could have specified armoured stowage boxes, filled with the necessary tools and equipment it could possibly weigh out to balance right. But I thought of this idea because of the autoloader and the expelling of what Id call dead weight. Also it can bring the gun into the tank, with MBTs like the Challenger 2, the main gun adds to the tanks length where as you bring that gun into the side. It at least creates more space for another unit during transport. Whether its air lift by chinook, C-130, C17 or landing craft. But the basic chasis should be sturdy and solid but easy and straight forward to build on. An interchangable role is cheaper as its a family of vehicles that can last decades, the modules will have the upgrades most of the time, the platforms upgrades would only be an new engine refit.

Ill say this for the idea, I wouldn't want anything wasted, if its broken it should be easily fixed, if its absolutely buggered beyond repair it gets recycled to create a new item. say a module was hit by a RPG-7 and there was a gaping hole in the side of it. I d get that sent to be recycled and have a new one made out of the components of the old one, what ever is recoverable should be taken and used in the new module. This would cut the costs significantly.

I never liked the "S" tank, though it does look cool. A turretless tank just doesnt practically work on the battlefield, its more of a howitzer platform then 120mm tank gun platform.

That "electro-magnetic shield" as they called it on future weapons (discovery channel is still awesome ) would need immense power to keep it on all the time. Like a mini nuclear engine or a mini fusion reactor (abit of imagination went into that bit but if they can make it big they can shrink it too). You know, something that can give a constant power output and carry on for hours, not lithium batteries because if you over charge they explode (found that one out with my mobile phone R.I.P Nokia 6280).

What I think is somethings need to shrink to fit into the specs necessary for easy transportation. 62.5 ton beasts are alot to carry. The C-17 can only carry 2 at a time but the firepower needs to keep. Trying to strike the perfect balance is almost impossible but it can happen. its worth a shot on making the perfect tank thats light but uncompromised armour, thats agile but holds a fair amount of ammunition, thats tracked and not wheeled.

[CharlieB]

The question over numbers boils down to the number you require to support current or planned scales of effort in future conflict, combined with the number of turns of the wheel that you expect to need the capability that heavy armour brings to the party.

The numbers in the CR2 fleet are to be reduced but that does not nessasarily equate to a reduction in the number of regiments. The number of heavy regiments in the UK will remain the same as will the number of Sqns in each of those regt that are equipped with CR2. The situation with the Medium armour sqns may be the place were change is seen. Currently they are equipped with scimiter, awaiting the introduction of FRES DF. This may be an indication as to where the FRES programme is going.

The ASCOD has been selected as the preffered bidder for FRES scout but most would agree that the CV90/120 would be the platform of choice for the FRES DF varient. I am sure that commanality would be preffered.

When it comes to the reduction in platforms it is simply a case of fleet managment. Heavy vehicles are best used and not stored. This will probably result in fewer vehicles at the Regimental holdings but a more active training fleet.

In sum I think it will be interesting to see how this will pan out...

[FletchRDG]

Well I can see big problems with what is being thought up and what we have now. The ASCOD is just a carbon copy of the CV-90 in most respects. Though theres proposals for an APC version, ARV version, CL version and some other version I cant exactly remember. I dont think its enough to solve the larger problem.

Heres what I think the problems are with the MBTs at the moment:

- Price

- Maintenance

- fuel (and its prices)

- weight

- length

- noise

- transportation

(with the challenger 2 and its rifled gun the added problem is munitions, the 3 types ammunition though I dont think we purchase HESH anymore after Iraq)

then theres its vulnerabilities:

- attacks from the air

- IED attacks

- anti-tank missiles from infantry positions

- the new threat from sniper fire (its more light skinned vehicles but I think a well placed shot would cause alot of damage)

to solve these problems:

- RWS could be fitted with a large range of armaments; grenade launcher, 7.62 MG, anti-aircraft missiles, smoke dischargers.

- combined add-on armour ie cage armour to fight against RPGs and angled armour to reduce the risk of being penetrated from the sides (no innuendo intended)

- Band track, a continuous rubber track reinforced by steel rods. It reduces noise, where the metal tracks create an absolute racket. Only problem with this, if the track snaps it cant be repaired.

- Reduced fuel consumption or an entirely new source of fuel. I propose electricity, no lithium batteries because of the risk of explosion or a multi-fuel engine assisted by an electric motor. Electric motors also reduce sound and fuel consumption.

- As standard theres smoke dischargers on the turret or front face of the tanks. They're are hardly used (especially with the challenger 2) also theres a smoke round so it could be something to get rid of or made smaller ie instead of 10, it could but down to 4 (its a little thing but does add weight even if its slight). Turrets could be downsized, instead of 3 why not 2 or 1 man turret. This would leave room for the autoloader, lower the profile of the tank and lighten the tanks weight. A reduction in ammunition stowage could be another area to look into to reduce weight. Say by 1/4 to 1/2, an estimated amount that would be needed during 1 mission. In recent conflicts we've established bases and stocked the necessaries. Im just thinking that tanks wont go too far from base, so the MBTs need of being fully loaded isnt necessary. In urban areas though I would say a full compliment of ammunition is needed for MGs upto 45mm cannons. All this would contribute to it loosing abit of weight. Also shedding abit of length off aswell would help, instead of 6 road wheels why not 5.

- to reduce complexities in maintenance I thought that maybe sections could be detatchable and a replacement immediately attatched whilst the broken parts are worked on.

- the M1A1 has a mine clearing system using metal rollers on a tubular frame thats ahead of the tank. To clear roads that should deployed, if theres cars in the way there should 2 armoured shield-like rams to push into the car (thats if the cars suspicious and boobie trapped cant go around smashing up civi street lol, or can we?). Also maybe housing a trasnmitter that sends out a frequency say like a manually operated, trigger bomb may use a mobile phone to blow it up. It could be possible to constantly have a tank stationed in a street, supported by troops, with the mine clearing system and move it down the street so that the streets are then cleared and monitored. Get the civilians to park their cars on the outskirts of their towns and the vehicles checked. It might be possible that the Taliban may stay in the towns and attack meaning we can draw them out and whittle their numbers down or they'll just monitor our activities.

These are just ideas and very basic but they're there to reduce costs, the weight and enhance the abilities of a single tank and could give a tactical advantage on the ground. It could put tanks back on the map again.

Edited November 11, 2010 by FletchRDG

[Gibsonm]

- As standard theres smoke dischargers on the turret or front face of the tanks. They're are hardly used (especially with the challenger 2) also theres a smoke round so it could be something to get rid of or made smaller ie instead of 10, it could but down to 4 (its a little thing but does add weight even if its slight).

Sorry don't have a lot of time but ....

These serve two different roles.

The turret / hull mounted multi barrelled smoke grenades dischargers are for "close in" protection (50 - 100m) to provide quasi instant smoke protection so you can move. Many types can also be fitted with HE grenades too.

The smoke round is designed to be fired some distance (on my old Leo 1 for instance you could set the range on the fuse from about 600m to 4,400m). They aren't designed to go "off" as soon as they are fired (since they tend to be carrier shells fitted with base eject smoke, not WP).

[FletchRDG]

Well maybe if they're used for urgent situations then on request I wouldnt get rid but maybe downsize or have 1 set placed on the top/front centre of the turret. I wouldnt want to cripple a crews survivability but I do want to cut the weight down.

[GH_Lieste]

I agree completely of parts commonality and modularity - having a FCS on a replaceable PCB is far superior to one that must be worked on in-situ - the same with engine packs - but in order to be effective you must carry and maintain the large supply of spares needed to hot-swap with a functional replacement - even in times of high usage - and the replaceable parts are usually not easy to work on in the field, requiring tools/parts/knowledge that isn't usually part of the core equipment of the unit trains.

The high threat of ATGM and hand-held TIS devices suggest a future need for more rather than fewer dischargers and reloads for self-protection smoke.

As for reducing the load of ammunition - it risks the vehicle becoming single-task or being ineffective at any task.

A non-repairable band-track? A very bad idea for vehicles that may be exposed to mines or IED - you even lose the option to short-track to get the vehicle moving again.

[FletchRDG]

Well I think its best I illustrate whats in my head, I also have adeas for different types of add-on armour.

I think commanders and generals should think carefully what is needed out in the field before sending vehicles out, work out how many platforms could be sent and then send certain amounts of modules to tackle any event should it occur. They should be as easy to ship as containers.

I dunno, its an idea. it could mean a few pounds in weight. Mind it wouldnt matter if its on the ground.

I think that if ammunition is reduced, to compensate for this more tanks should be on the field, with what I have in mind it wouldnt be a problem at all. I think it would then balance the odds and with more turrets in the field, taking out the enemy would be faster especially if your trained to do the "one shot, one kill" method. Also with a full compliment of MG ammo the infantry could find it harder to take on such a large group of tanks.

As for band track, id make sure that those tracks are well looked after. Id insist in a column of tanks the front tank is fitted with a Mine Roller System (MRS) thats designed for that sized tank. Id also design the MRS to have "shield" type rams, so say if there was an IED in a car it could be pushed out the way but Id also look into a signal package. If the IED is set off by remote (either home made or a mobile phone) then the system should scan on multiple levels and frequencies, detect that signal (somehow, Im not an expert on radio signals) and then warn everyone to evacuate the area for it to be detonated. But thats another idea. If it can be done to save lives then it should be done. Definitely MRSs should be actively used on patrols.

But when I think of mines I think of their triggers.

- remote controls; mobile phone detonators (where its a mobile phone that once called would send an electrical signal to the explosives to set it off) , home made remote (like a modified RC car remote)

- weight

- attraction; metal

- vibration

I doubt they'll be sophisticated enough to use lazer trips but you never know what the enemy is thinking and with lazer pens on the market anything is possible. Its something that should be anticipated if it arose.

I know that RC cars would work on FM signals but phones Ive no idea.

But the MRS can sort those problems, in order to look after the band tracks.

[FletchRDG]

So this is my idea, Id also want to use BAE Landsystems band track as part of this platform to make it silent. Also to reduce further noise Id like to use a completely electric engine that throws out the same horse-power as Diesel/Multi-duel engines.

in summary, heres a list of Remote Weapon Systems that could be used:

- 40mm Grenade Launcher

- 30mm Automatic Cannon (possible from the AH-64 apache)

- 7.62 Machine Gun and smoke dischargers

- Starstreak Surface-to-Air missile system

After seeing the M1 Panther Remote Controlled mine clearance unit, i thought a down scaled version could be used for this. With current events in Afghanistan this could be an even more useful tool against the IED threats. Also protecting the band tracks.

Id have a combined cage/"angled" armour for double protection. It should increase crew survivability. and help keep the vehicle operational.

The down sized 120mm turret is something Id have to look closer at interms of design. If I can get it small enough for 1 person, have an autoloader and able to balance it properly on the turret ring. I could be onto something with my idea of a side mounted 120mm rifled gun. If it goes wrong then its all looking at shrinking armament ie 35mm-45mm APFSDS and HESH versions.

Ill leave it all upto you all to decide I think this should be done constantly, a direct communication between designer and soldiers.

[dejawolf]

use this vehicle:

and this:

for inspiration

the puma uses a new type of supercompact MTU engine, but still weights about 31 tonnes without extra protection, and 43 tonnes with it.

that front hull is awful. the flat front and shallow angle means that it will need a lot of extra armour in order to offer even decent protection. those corrugated pieces aren't going to help at all. the driver is put too far forward, which limits the front hull angle you can achieve as well. and you put the drivers hatch above the track. this is an impossible position to have the driver, unless you intend for him to sit sideways.

Edited November 15, 2010 by dejawolf

[FletchRDG]

Well this is what was going through my head, the front wouldn't be flat. I had to have that line for reference for the corrigated armour (I never knew what to call it) but Id thought Id reduce the chances of it being pierced. Instead of 1 huge vulnerable piece I thought Id reduce it by having the corrigated amour, giving the attacker only 2 small chances.

I also curved the top of the engine compartment, so theres 1 curved piece instead of 2 pieces welded together. So its not flat and still has the effects of sloped armour without using more material. I think this ideas been done before I dont know the results of that armour.

Looking at the drivers hatch, it is abit too far to the side and too far forward. The inspiration came from the Bradley M2/M3 vehicles. Looking at it the hatch "leans" in towards the engine. I didnt want a bulky hatch though so I used a hatch simular to the FV432 keep its profile as low as possible. He could sit side ways but then it'll be difficult to drive, looking side on to the road but it could save space. Could have a tool box there thats easily taken out.

I got tired towards the end of making this, couldnt keep my eyes open. But now I have a platform to work off and wide awake (or will be once Ive had a brew and something t eat). Ill mess about with it.

[dejawolf]

Well this is what was going through my head, the front wouldn't be flat. I had to have that line for reference for the corrigated armour (I never knew what to call it) but Id thought Id reduce the chances of it being pierced. Instead of 1 huge vulnerable piece I thought Id reduce it by having the corrigated amour, giving the attacker only 2 small chances.

I also curved the top of the engine compartment, so theres 1 curved piece instead of 2 pieces welded together. So its not flat and still has the effects of sloped armour without using more material. I think this ideas been done before I dont know the results of that armour.

Looking at the drivers hatch, it is abit too far to the side and too far forward. The inspiration came from the Bradley M2/M3 vehicles. Looking at it the hatch "leans" in towards the engine. I didnt want a bulky hatch though so I used a hatch simular to the FV432 keep its profile as low as possible. He could sit side ways but then it'll be difficult to drive, looking side on to the road but it could save space. Could have a tool box there thats easily taken out.

I got tired towards the end of making this, couldnt keep my eyes open. But now I have a platform to work off and wide awake (or will be once Ive had a brew and something t eat). Ill mess about with it.

well the bradley is good vehicle because of its components and protection, but a poorly designed vehicle, and the last vehicle you should look to for design inspiration. major problems with the drivers hatch includes poor visibility to the right because of the engine obstructing view, a clear weakspot because of its cast design, making it impossible to properly harden, and also uparmour, because of weight constraints.

i'd suggest using hydropneumatic suspension like on the challenger. it decrease the overall height of the vehicle by about 5-10cm, and increases internal volume.

[FletchRDG]

I was abit cheeky and nicked the challenger 2s suspension I could lower the whole platform as the bottom isnt completely touching the bottom of the suspension fittings.

Ill cut the to off so its flat, so its not completely curved. That way the driver can see, I could give him a 180˚ panoramic view.

I did have an idea of using an air-compressed electric assisted engine, recycling present engine blocks but also with an added extra of an electric air pump assisted by in intake fan. Intake fan draws air in rapidly, the electric compressor squeezes the air into the inlet valve chamber, the valve opens to push air into the engine block, pushing the piston down. The air then escapes the same way the exhaust fumes would. its cleaner, the fuel is abundant and everyone will still know how to fix it. The fan and pump would at first run on a small lithium baterry to get it started then flick to a dynamo thats attatched to a moving part, like the crack shaft or running off the edge of the fly wheel. That would recharge the lithium battery, a CPU would switch the charge off once its detected its full. Id situate that with the fuse box so its easy to get to. This reduces the need for fuel tanks and is dramatically less combustible. It might be slighty heavier then the original engine should keep the weight under control. But then again with no need to keep fuel aboard I guess its balanced out. The engine could shrink in size also.This could reduce the heat signiture of the tank.

[RogueSnake79]

Modular design is the way of the future, theirs no denying that. The biggest hurdle with this approach is that it makes the vehicle several factors more complex to design. And, at its extreme's, you must be willing to accept that it will be "good" and many things, and the "best" at nothing. And that's if you are lucky. Odds are you will end up with a turkey, like an F-4 phantom. Can drop bombs, intercept, wild wiesel, re-fueler even. Just don't take it up against a kite with a red star on it, you'll get your ass kicked.

All you need to do is look at the F-35 program, and the FCS. You are going to spend a lot more money in development. Money that could buy more of the lower numbers of vehicles that you can barely afford to begin with. I think commonality of parts is the most economical sacrifice you can make. IE nuts and bolts, road wheels.

The modern tanks, Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard, are already very modular. 40% of the tank unbolts in one piece, the Turret. And the "Power pack" is just as modular. Only a few connections to be made. I think the future of the "MBT", for the US, is a mirror image of the Patton series. Until some new wizz bang armor is developed, it won't change much. I read somewhere that the US DoD believes the M1 will be in service for another half century. Yeah, long time. That may indeed be a stretch, but I agree with their thinking. An air mobile tank is called Apache.

I had to get that out of the way, because an APC is not a Tank in my opinion. I agree with deja here. Only I would site the Striker as better example than the Puma. Un-bolting half the vehicle sure looks cool... But really, just how often do people think that is going to happen. If an army planned on buying equal numbers of 3 or 4 variants, yeah, I can see it. But with 70% of the planned buy being one type, the APC, its a huge waste. How often is the vehicle going to be "down" because of the crew compartment?

I think it has to have wheels. Its really the only way to cut the weight. That is if a Air mobile Brad, or CV90 is what we want. That's sacrificing mobility for weight. Armor, and firepower are already low on these two vehicles.

[dejawolf]

well, one advantage of having a replaceable rear end, means you can buy a smaller number of chassis, buy a larger variety of backs, and outfit the vehicles as needed on base, for whatever is needed on mission that day. one day your AFV is a troop transport, the other its a supply vehicle, the next a Mobile gun system.

the boxer MRAV is great though. wheeled vehicle with none of the compromises of the stryker. good armour, good mobility.

and modular rear end, like this concept.

[FletchRDG]

Well I know that it wont be the best but It can't be the worst. Economically it works better with governments having to make a saving, in some places cutting back on defence. To get an all-round package there has to be a commonailty between tracked vehicles. Modulars are the way forward but looking at the weight and cubic space MBTs takes up, its becoming more impractical in modern warfare though the armour and firepower is needed. It cant be replaced but something has to give.

With band track maintenance hours are significantly reduced. The engine Ive proposed is significantly simple to maintain, further reducing maintenance hours. Given that it takes 8 hours everday to maintain a tank, it means alot less time fixing and alot more time training. Also being cost effective in the process. A vehicle is no good when its spending more time being stored away then being used. This is something I want to tackle aswell as bring down maintenance costs.

This isn't an APC either really its a platform that addresses multiple roles that meets the threat on the battlefield. An apache costs to keep in the air but what Im talking about is a platform that can be placed anywhere and be able to hold ground without using up fuel.

what if all the road wheels, rollers, sprocket, idler and tracks were one module bolted to the chasis. Again that could reduce maintence time and keep the vehicle on the road whilst the broken parts are in being fixed.

All Im saying is that it can reduce maintenance and keep vehicles out in active duty. If its air portable it can be lifted into strategic areas that need to be kept, keeping a constant presence, rather then just passing by. I know wheels are easy to take off or put on but if they're hit then the whole suspension unit and wheel has to be replaced and the vehicle is kept inactive. Wheels are in 4 to 8 separate units where as tracks could be on one module on either side. If 1 wheel is taken out the whole vehicle is out of action, if tracks are on a single module then that module can be taken off and quickly replaced for it to go straight back out again. Whilst the wheeled vehicle would be sitting in the engineers section waiting for the replacement suspension and wheel unit.

Also with the air compressed battery/dynamo assisted engine, thered be no need for fuel tanks both internal and external. There would be no combustible engine, the parts would be simple and easy to replace. Older engine blocks could be recycled and reused.

Everything on that platform would literally be bolt-on; tracks, engine, tool boxes, storage boxes and rear modules.

Edited November 14, 2010 by FletchRDG