The Future of the Tank

[Tacbat]

An air mobile tank is called Apache.

LOL.

[Hunt3r]

The MBT as it is, is already sufficiently developed, but it's weight presents great obstacles in it's tactical mobility and deployment. I think that while MBTs in it's current state will continue on, IFVs will begin to be fitted with tank guns, much like the CV90120, and possibly fit both tank guns and autocannon.

A more economical tank to be sent abroad, while MBTs stay home, or reduced numbers of MBTs are sent.

[FletchRDG]

Well thats it, transporting MBTs is a massive operation. Im not saying MBTs are useless because they really aren't but its the weight and size. For some nations its ok because they can afford bulk transporters but for others there will be cut backs. A vehicle that saves abit of money and can do the job would be best suited. It might not be the best but at the very least should keep its crew alive and totally encased (not an open top like the coyote and the jackal 2).

[Hedgehog]

How about a tank that can be broken down?

Like the Scorpion in HALO with its track pods.

Not the turret though, that thing is waaay too high.

Break the tank down into seperate sub-assemblies.

Track pods, Hull, Turret, Armour arrays, with supplies mixed in.

Would be more flexible, more aircraft to carry the vehicle, but more trips.

Maybe even transportable by C130s.

[FletchRDG]

well this is what that platform is ment to do, it could be broken down into individual modules and transported by plane, kept together and put on a train. It could be disassembled and stacked on a hired container ship. Could be stored on an assault ship for beaching. Maybe chinooks is abit out of a reach given the needs.

[Hunt3r]

The engine almost certainly has to be in the front-right or front-left of the hull, with the driver sitting next to it. The engine and transmission will probably have to be close to each other, with the ability to lift both out in order to fit in larger engines and transmissions, and possibly also smaller ones too.

If carrying infantry, it would almost undoubtedly have to have enough space to sit upright without hitting the roof going over a bump, but also stay low enough to be no more than 9 feet tall overall.

[Alicatt]

Maybe chinooks is abit out of a reach given the needs.

From memory 12 tons is the hook limit for the Chinook and if you fold the seats you can get a Rangie in it

[FletchRDG]

From memory 12 tons is the hook limit for the Chinook

ahhh so wiki could have it wrong, it said maximum capacity is 22 tons. hmmm maybe its not a good source still then. They're supposed to cross reference these things now and varify a change if it happens. If the change isn't right it goes back to what it was before.

[Alicatt]

Don't quote me on the 12 tons total, but I think that was just for the hook and it does have more than one hook

What I do remember was that they managed to get 212 people in one for an emergency airlift once and still fly :shocked:

The Rangie in the pic belongs to the Chinook display team and they take it for transport when they are away from Odiham, I was at Odiham with the RRSport.co.uk owners day, we had so many facts and figures given to us it was difficult to keep up!

Me in the "Driver's seat" :biggrin:

[FletchRDG]

ahhh, so it can be marginally right then lol I thought my searches had gone to pot then lol

[FletchRDG]

Ive been looking round for some inspiration and found these beauts.

- CV90120

- Puma IFV

- CV90ra

Edited November 16, 2010 by FletchRDG

[Sabot_Up]

ahhh so wiki could have it wrong, it said maximum capacity is 22 tons. hmmm maybe its not a good source still then. They're supposed to cross reference these things now and varify a change if it happens. If the change isn't right it goes back to what it was before.

According to wikipedia the maximum weight of a Chinook is 22 tons.

For something in this class I'd look more toward the C-130 for a size limitation. I believe the maximum payload for a C-130 is around 20 tons (you should also check on the internal dimensions of the C-130).

The quad tilt-rotor (sort of like a Giant V-22 Osprey) is a possible future aircraft that may be as large as a C-130. A 20-ton vehicle would probably be perfect for such an aircraft. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/qtr.htm

[FletchRDG]

The quad tilt-rotor (sort of like a Giant V-22 Osprey) is a possible future aircraft that may be as large as a C-130. A 20-ton vehicle would probably be perfect for such an aircraft. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/qtr.htm

Ive looked into this, I designed a 4 rotored VTOL thats capable of carrying atleast 2 Abrams M1A1, using 4 of the most powerful jet engines converted to propel counter rotating blades, Like that of the Russian Black Shark. I used the dimensions of a C-17 MkIII Globemaster which can already carry 2 abrams M1A1, I kept the length but doubled the width so it was like 2 C-17s side by side. But I think it exceeds FAA regs because you can only have an aircraft wing span of a certain size. The diameters of the 4 rotor units are 60ft wide each.

Atlas SHLT-1 Super heavy Lift Transport

It does look like a knock-off thunderbird 2 but it does look like a half decent transport platform.

Edited November 26, 2010 by FletchRDG

[Ssnake]

For something in this class I'd look more toward the C-130 for a size limitation. I believe the maximum payload for a C-130 is around 20 tons (you should also check on the internal dimensions of the C-130).

Be aware of the Stryker disaster, though. Designed to meet C-130 transportability with 21 tons. The C-130 can lift off with 21 tons payload ... and has an operating range of a whopping 100 nautical miles at sea level with it.

If C-130 transportability is desired, only maybe 15 tons actually are an operationally acceptable weight limit. Which of course means that if it's supposed to carry a big gun (1.5 t) and sufficient ammo (800 kg) and fuel (500 kg). Engine - at least two tons, probably three, drivetrain another two, so 6.8 tons are already reserved for the bare essentials.

[CharlieB]

I think this runs the risk of failing due to the laws of physics....

[Ssnake]

Not if you use Unobtanium.

[FletchRDG]

Lol well my idea was that a C-17 uses 2 XTB engines and an extra 2 under powered ones. If the engines we all XTB engines then the lift should be greater but I could be wrong, this was designed ages ago and I think it can be done its just trial and error. Mathematicly I worked it out, it is possible.

I did have a discussion about its size and it is a big target but getting men and equipment close enough to the where they need to be would b essential. 4 tanks is near enough a patrol or battle group, being able to get them on the ground all at once would make life so much easier. For tankies and pilots alike.

[Sabot_Up]

Be aware of the Stryker disaster, though. Designed to meet C-130 transportability with 21 tons. The C-130 can lift off with 21 tons payload ... and has an operating range of a whopping 100 nautical miles at sea level with it.

If C-130 transportability is desired, only maybe 15 tons actually are an operationally acceptable weight limit. Which of course means that if it's supposed to carry a big gun (1.5 t) and sufficient ammo (800 kg) and fuel (500 kg). Engine - at least two tons, probably three, drivetrain another two, so 6.8 tons are already reserved for the bare essentials.

Ugh. I forgot about the range issue with the Stryker. Maybe in the future the US will have an A400M equivalent that can fly a significant distance with a 30-ton payload.

Currently the Russians have the BMP-3 and BMD-3 fighting vehicles that are under 20 tons, but I assume that they aren't armored as heavily as the Bradley, Puma, or CV90 (and the BMD doesn't carry as many troops).

[Hunt3r]

I figure that a medium/light MBT weighing about 30 tons would be the "Goldilocks" weight for overseas deployment.

A very light tank that could be transported via C-130 would pretty much only have enough armor to stop 7.62 NATO from point blank on all areas. I figure it may be necessary for applique armor that could be applied to the vehicle to bring it up to 14.5mm AP protection within 500 meters, and then protection from 23mm AP within 500 meters once logistics catches up.

[Gibsonm]

Ugh. I forgot about the range issue with the Stryker. Maybe in the future the US will have an A400M equivalent that can fly a significant distance with a 30-ton payload.

Currently the Russians have the BMP-3 and BMD-3 fighting vehicles that are under 20 tons, but I assume that they aren't armored as heavily as the Bradley, Puma, or CV90 (and the BMD doesn't carry as many troops).

Except of course that according to Janes there is a new V shaped hull Stryker coming which has improved IED protection but gains it at the expense of another 10t in weight.

Sure its still "C-130 capable" as long as the aircraft can taxi from the emplaning point to the deplaning point without actually trying to take off!

[Gibsonm]

I figure that a medium/light MBT weighing about 30 tons would be the "Goldilocks" weight for overseas deployment.

A very light tank that could be transported via C-130 would pretty much only have enough armor to stop 7.62 NATO from point blank on all areas. I figure it may be necessary for applique armor that could be applied to the vehicle to bring it up to 14.5mm AP protection within 500 meters, and then protection from 23mm AP within 500 meters once logistics catches up.

Except of course you probably need the higher protection straight away, i.e. bolt it on before you leave the APOD.

If you want to maintain the initiative, then its a bit counter productive to insert with the light vehicle, attempt to secure the ground with it and then wait for the log element to turn up with the additional protection the vehicle actually needed to do the initial "secure" task, let alone expand the airhead.

So you either:

Change the mix of the first waves (reduce the number of flights carrying vehicles [reducing your cbt power accordingly] and include a mix of aircraft carrying the extra protection) and bolt the extra armour on while possibly under fire, or still insert the cbt element early (hope that the protection they come with is adequate) and then wait for the log elm to arrive in a subsequent wave before attempting the break out.

[Tacbat]

Well, you can airlift a Leo2A6, so all this talk about adding extra armour and weight restrictions for the sake of rapid deployment seems moot.

[FletchRDG]

Well, you can airlift a Leo2A6, so all this talk about adding extra armour and weight restrictions for the sake of rapid deployment seems moot.

you can lift any MBT in a C-17 but its only the C-17 can do it. What we're talking about is that it has to be able to transported by a full spectrum of cargo vehicles rather then just 1 aircraft, trains and the Oshkosh.

[Ssnake]

Plus, C-17 / C-5 / Antonov as the only means to transport "a" tank means that you can't just land anywhere. You can only land on specific, suitable runways - which may not be the hot spot where your forces need to be. Plus, it'll be a single plane for a single tank - and these are the biggest, fewest, and most expensive strategic airlift assets in any army's inventory. What kind of a mission does it have to be that you will consider it worth to risk a substantial proportion of your strategic airlift assets in a near-suicidale attempt to land big AFVs in a contested landing zone?

In practice you will probably never do it, which means that air transportability in this case is a meaningless phantom claim.

However, this DOES prove that a transport plane with characteristics like the A-400M actually is very much in demand as it allows to have up to 34 tons for a vehicle (e.g. Puma A configuration) which offers substantially more degrees of freedom to design a suitable combat vehicle than the 15 ton restriction for the C130. And "something like" the A-400M, if built in larger numbers, at least has the potential to be relatively cheap (at least much cheaper than C-17s) so that the loss of one, while tragic, may not be crippling.

[Gibsonm]

you can lift any MBT in a C-17 but its only the C-17 can do it. What we're talking about is that it has to be able to transported by a full spectrum of cargo vehicles rather then just 1 aircraft, trains and the Oshkosh.

Perhaps C-17 or bigger?

Certainly a C-5A or an An-124 or An-225 can carry anything a C-17 can.