US ARMY next generation tank prototype

I am saying the electronics makes it harder to maintain. Also any disruptor that could break through would shread the tank, it is almost 100% electronic vs what we have now which is only 50% or so. All electronic machines also means that if something screws up those gunners wont have a chance in heck. Everyone should be able to run things both full electronic and NO electronic. However this tank will not offer that option anymore.

I fail to see how that would happen:

The abrams has its general computer and THREE backup systems, plus it is shielded against biological, nuclear and EMP attacks, I would bet my life that this new thing has redundant computers and has a DU or lead liner in there somewehre.

Originally posted by Vekar
I am saying the electronics makes it harder to maintain.

Says who? Look at other digital systems such as the F-22 or future F-35, you just plug it into a laptop and it tells you what's wrong. Not to mention that it will be new, always easy to maintain something that it brand new and a design that has had input and upgrades from other past tried systems.

Originally posted by Vekar
I am saying the electronics makes it harder to maintain.

Untrue (as a generalization). For example, one of the things that made the Leopard 2 tank so outstanding was its in-built computer interfaces to all major electronic parts. This enabled maintenance crews to locate a defect without taking half the vehicle apart - much like X-ray and CT revolutionized surgery.

Of course, if you keep adding and adding new gadgets to your tanks without integrating the older features, that makes them more maintenance-heavy. But this is a "quantitative" problem, the sheer amount of system components increases the possible sources of failures. It doesnt matter whether those components are electronic or mechanic, the keyword is complexity.

Everyone should be able to run things both full electronic and NO electronic. However this tank will not offer that option anymore.

...and shed a very disliked heritage with that. This whole "mechanic over electronics" or "cold steel over plastics" discussion irritates me. There is no point in sticking with the older technology when there is a newer technology that provides a reasonable guarantee to work-as-intended. Every Toaster nowadays has a computer inbuilt, and many special plastic compounds have more favorable material characteristics than the metal they substitute.

What was posted reminds me of the usual bickering that happens every time a "platform change" is made. Do you know how long it took for voice radio to overcome the Morse transmission, just because the top brass believed that the Morse code worked and was sufficient?

BTW, earlier you critizised the danger of one well-placed AT weapon taking out the whole crew at once. Well, the whole point of these compact one-piece cabins is to be able to maximize the protection of said cabin by reducing its size. There is a reason why almost all future tank studies explore the possibilities for crew and weight reduction.

[edit on 27/2/2007 by Lonestar24]

As usual no one understood a word I said and are accusing me of things I am not, how pathetic.
Alright my last post here since you accuse me and do not listen:

#1: PRICE
#2: 1 Anti-tank round to a cabin with 2 people in it means they will make a stronger anti-tank round that will nullify your tank ten times faster
#3: You cannot reach the ammo-reloader to do it manualy if something goes wrong in combat, you have to abandon the tank
#4: All the electronics is going to cause machine dependance, people need to be able to do two things: manual and electronic, go read my post again instead of skimming it. This tank is only electronic.
#5: The size cuts down on backup systems, being smaller it cannot hold as many unless you have to ditch something else.
#6: DU hull? I would not get in that thing if my life depended on it, radioactive tanks... hmm
#7: maintance, think about it, all those computers are not going to be easy to maintain, the technology is not here, even plugging in a laptop will not help the problem in the long run
#8: production, how many factories do we have that could manage something like this?
#9: Hull, the current is 3 layers, if you keep the 3 layers on this you either have to:
1-make the hull thinner for the extra computers since the tank is half the size.
2-ditch ammo and computers so you can have a thicker hull
#10: Being able to do things manualy as well makes the tank more versital, computer crashes, no big deal, keep going.

Nuke proof tank, bull! Try and withstand a modern nuke in a tank and your but is TOAST! The heat is over 20,000F which will melt the tank and turn you to ASH! Most of what they like to boast is bull just to make it look tough.

All your accusations against me are wrong. Also your rather narrow minded about what I said, you keep taking the "for or against" approach and I was pointing out my first oppinion then also stating reasons for liking it and NOT liking it. Anyway you can go on with your little rants now, I made my points which stand, case closed.

Originally posted by Vekar
As usual no one understood a word I said and are accusing me of things I am not, how pathetic.
Alright my last post here since you accuse me and do not listen:

Noone so far accused you of anything, its your personal choice to be offended by what I would call valid criticism. Especially since many of your points have obvious flaws.

#1: PRICE

So? A new system costs more money than a 30 year old product, which in its time cost more than ITS predecessor. Big deal.

#2: 1 Anti-tank round to a cabin with 2 people in it means they will make a stronger anti-tank round that will nullify your tank ten times faster

And how exactly would a "traditional" tank with the aforementioned negative characteristics of many crew members be better against such a development?

#3: You cannot reach the ammo-reloader to do it manualy if something goes wrong in combat, you have to abandon the tank

Similarly you cant reload the gun when something happens to the human reloader (which may include something as simple as him banging his head during an emergency brake). And one can just retreat, you dont have to abandon the whole vehicle.

#4: All the electronics is going to cause machine dependance, people need to be able to do two things: manual and electronic, go read my post again instead of skimming it. This tank is only electronic.

A tank already is completely machine dependent. No tank whose important subsystems have a failure is still in battleworthy condition. Try turning that heavy MBT turret with the hand pump, its not something one should do. Thats why all vital systems have multiple redundancy. I agree that a manual control is a helpful backup. But I also say that a backup can be electromechanical as well.

#5: The size cuts down on backup systems, being smaller it cannot hold as many unless you have to ditch something else.

Now thats a gross generalization. Or do you have the blueprints of such a new tank prototype?

#7: maintance, think about it, all those computers are not going to be easy to maintain, the technology is not here, even plugging in a laptop will not help the problem in the long run

You accuse people of just skimming your post while you apparently dont read well yourself. Of course a computerized system is easier to maintain because of such nifty things as self-diagnosis (that does NOT say they are failuire-proof). The difference however is that to solve a software error, you only need that laptop and not 100kg worth of specialized tools; and if the computer breaks you just swap out standardized modules.

#9: Hull, the current is 3 layers, if you keep the 3 layers on this you either have to:
1-make the hull thinner for the extra computers since the tank is half the size.
2-ditch ammo and computers so you can have a thicker hull

Again this unfounded size comparison. I wonder where you have the impression from that a computer has to be the size of a car?

#10: Being able to do things manualy as well makes the tank more versital, computer crashes, no big deal, keep going.

No, you don´t keep going, you retreat ASAP and try to get the main systems back to work. Because when a vital system fails, you have an emergency, and you should NOT fight under emergency status. I say again, I´d like to see the commander boldly driving his tank into battle while they have to turn the turret and aim the gun manually. NOT.

Nuke proof tank, bull! Try and withstand a modern nuke in a tank and your but is TOAST! The heat is over 20,000F which will melt the tank and turn you to ASH! Most of what they like to boast is bull just to make it look tough.

Of course no tank can withstand the actual nuclear reaction. Thats why the proper term is "NBC proof", and means that the tank is able to operate in a contaminated area AFTER an attack. And thats a necessity and has been a standard feature of most armored vehicles for decades, its not something to "make it look tough".

I'm sorry, I should have clarified.

I know there is no tank that can withstand a nuclear detonation, What I meant is that it is radiation proof and can go and fight in a place that has recently had a nuclear detonation.

Double post, sorry!

[edit on 27-2-2007 by BlackWidow23]

Originally posted by vekar
#6: DU hull? I would not get in that thing if my life depended on it, radioactive tanks... hmm

I'm sorry but in this instance you are complete wrong, the DU plates are encased in steel and by themselves pose no immediate radiation danger . Look at the Abrams, it's been using DU plates for years, ever heard of crews dying from radiation because of it? Do you even realize that some APFSDS rounds carry DU penetrators? Where DU becomes dangerous is in an explosion where it breaks down to gas and fine particles. If you inhale, ingest or come into severe contact with this then you may have problems.

Frankly, i am not impressed
This thing reminds me of the batmobile hehe. Looks pretty slick, but imo one of the main points of a tank should always be its ability to move across rough terrain. What they did was substantially sacrifice that ability for a lower profile, supposedly giving it a better chance to survive. That makes me chuckle, i mean have you seen this thing? What it gains in speed, it loses in armor. Just look at those sides and rear: they would make such juicy targets for gunners everywhere. Although i do have to give to all the electronics they crammed in that box. Sure, they might not be as reliable as good - ole mechanical controls (which remains to be proven btw), but you cannot argue with progress. Besides, im sure the tank has loads of redundancy systems anyway.
As for the plastic tank.. lol what a joke

Originally posted by toreishi
i wonder how it'll stack up against this wicked looking thing

is this already in service?

And this.. this looks friggin crazy
Thx for the post Toreishi, i never even knew about it.
For those who dont speak Russian its a highly mobile amphibious unit built on an APC shassis, that is designed to be used specifically against tanks. It can also wipe out some boats, low flying aircraft and even bunkers. Max speed is quoted at 70 km/h, and up to 50 on rough terrain. Instead of a turret you have an arm that gets a launching tube (or two). Once theyre empty, the arm hides them for reloading or transport. It carries 15 supersonic missiles which fly as far as 6 km to penetrate 1250 mm of dynamic armor The missiles can be guided simultaneously towards 2 targets by means of radar and IR systems. And yes, it was taken into service in 2004. Youre welcome)))


[edit on 28-2-2007 by gone_wrong]

Originally posted by Vekar
4: Loss of all gunners, unless someone in the cockpit drives and runs a .50cal at the same time on top of the tank they lost that advantage. Current tanks have 2 guns on top to fight off people when they are low on ammo or cannot keep up the fire rate.

It can still take care of people. Thats why tankers call foot troops "crunchies."

oh, and that little APC. When the rockets came up from the top did it remind anyone else of "Johny five" from Short Circut?

Gone wrong -
We dont know any of the armor thicknesses, so we cant judge how well the sides and back are protected. Also, this thing goes faster than the abrams and does in fact have better cross country performance.

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Gone wrong -
We dont know any of the armor thicknesses, so we cant judge how well the sides and back are protected. Also, this thing goes faster than the abrams and does in fact have better cross country performance.

No we dont. However, its a fair guess that its armor is inferior to that of conventional tanks.
Sorry, but i remain sceptical of its cross country performance. Not to say it wont do well under those conditions. Dont get me wrong, it IS a tank))) But simple logic dictates that the bigger the space between the undercarriage of a vehicle and the road, the better it will perform on rough terrain. I dont see how that performance could have been improved by lowering the tank to the ground.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by gone_wrong]

Originally posted by cavscout
It can still take care of people. Thats why tankers call foot troops "crunchies."

Crunchies

A fair guess? How? What are you basing that off of? For all we know, it could have FANTASTIC armor AND it has active protection systems from FCS.

Originally posted by gone_wrong
No we dont. However, its a fair guess that its armor is inferior to that of conventional tanks.
[edit on 28-2-2007 by gone_wrong]

It's significantly smaller than the Abrams, has so much electronic gear that the crew requirement has been dropped in half, and is almost completely electric, yet the weight is still well over half of the Abrams - my guess is that the armor for the crew has been increased dramatically since you only have to protect two soldiers.

Originally posted by semperfoo
What is the possibilities of putting a rail gun on a tank? I know that the USN has a prototype rail gun that fires from zero to 13,000 MPH in 0.2 Seconds. It covers 300 nautical miles. Heres a thread about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.military.com...

Pretty cool stuff..

[edit on 102828p://1002pm by semperfoo]

ya, i was thinking that the tank might uses a rail gun

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
A fair guess? How? What are you basing that off of? For all we know, it could have FANTASTIC armor AND it has active protection systems from FCS.

Well, in my opinion a tank has 3 main characteristics that define it. Firepower, mobility, and its armor. A good tank should have a good compromise between these stats, as they directly correlate to each other. If you make it smaller faster and more maneuvrable, its armor rating will inevitably drop. If you go even further, and add a whole bunch of state-of-the-art electronics, auto loader for the gun etc, it will plummet even more. I guess i should have clarified, but this seems pretty obvious to me. Youre right tho, theres no point arguing over nothing as we dont even know that much about this prototype.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by gone_wrong]

Originally posted by crusader97
my guess is that the armor for the crew has been increased dramatically since you only have to protect two soldiers.

Ah! But what about its other armor?