Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces

Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence

Future MBT "How would it look like"

This is a discussion on Future MBT "How would it look like" within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; What would be the Next generation MBT?? How would it look like??? Can it perform like the present MBT's? Will ...

LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old February 4th, 2005   #1
Defense Enthusiast
ajay_ijn's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hyderabad,India
Posts: 588
Future MBT "How would it look like"

What would be the Next generation MBT??
How would it look like???
Can it perform like the present MBT's?
Will the MBT Continue to dominate the Battlefield??

What I fear is if Tank would become like Battleship.
It is the Aircraft Carrier Which killed the Battleship.
The most Powerful Battleship Yamato sunk by USN Carriers showed the end of Battleship.
What if Future Attack Helicopters and anti-tank weapons kill the Main Battle Tank??

A big article on What must Future MBTs have.

The three Most imp factors for an MBT are

US Future Control System of weight 40 tons is said to be the replacement of M1 Series.


The new conception of the Future Combat Systems [plural] as a distributed battlefield system of systems [in the 20-ton class] represents a rather dramatic departure from the previous concept of the Future Combat System [singular] which was focused on a 40-ton tank.

The US Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command's future land combat system vehicle is a 40-ton concept based on evolutionary tank design and technology which pushes the two-person crew down and forward into the hull with a remote turret. The crew receives information from on-board target acquisition and hit avoidance sensors. Target acquisition sensors are the gunner's primary sight, a panoramic sight and an auxiliary sight. Hit avoidance sensors are mounted in the four corners of the turret. A high pressure, 120mm gun (XM291) is mounted on the turret.

Variable height suspension presents a lower, smaller target and makes the tank more survivable. The height can be lowered to 64 inches or raised to 79 inches. At its maximum height, the tank has a 19-inch ground clearance equal to the M1 fleet. Other survivability technologies include a hull front with 40 inches of armor that uses advanced passive with integral reactive armor for large caliber kinetic energy and chemical energy protection. The hull flanks and turret front and flanks have electromagnetic armor. The armor will be supplemented by signature management, hit avoidance and active protection. Eighty smoke grenade launchers are buried under the skin of the turret armor. Increased cross country mobility could be provided by an electric drive transmission and semi-active suspension which would enable the vehicle to obtain speeds of about 45 miles per hour. Its light weight increases strategic deployability by allowing two to three vehicles per C-5 cargo plane and increasing the number of vehicles that can be transported by ship, rail or highway.

The Future Combat System (FCS) Integrated TD (2000–06) will demonstrate the maturity of the FCS candidate’s revolutionary technologies in the vehicle configuration required for operation in the Army After Next. Leap–ahead lethality in vehicles 50 percent lighter is required to employ strategic mobility throughout the AAN vision. Using the M1A2 Abrams as a baseline, it will demonstrate 50% reduced crew workload, 40% reduced GVW, 20% increase in fuel economy, and a 40% increase in cross-country speed, and leap ahead lethality. Critical issues to be addressed are the acceptance of two crew vehicle operation, leap ahead mobility, non traditional survivability (replacing ballistic protection with signature management, countermeasures, and active protection), and indefensible lethality (both direct and indirect fire).Critical issues to be addressed are the acceptance of two–crew–vehicle operation, leap–ahead mobility (60 mph cross country), nontraditional survivability (replacing ballistic protection with signature management, countermeasures, and active protection), and indefensible lethality (both direct and indirect fire). Virtual prototypes will be constructed and evaluated, and a system integration laboratory (SIL) will be implemented with laboratory hardware to validate electronics integration.

The Future Combat System will be a revolutionary system providing greater mobility while achieving an overall system weight approaching 40 tons (<50 tons desired). The FCS lethality goals include high probability of kill in extended direct fire ranges as well as long ranges (10Km+ desired) in non line-of-sight conditions. While there is a strong interest in the expected lethality and logistics benefits from an electromagnetic based armament system, the technology is continuing to overcome technical barriers and validate target defeat capability. Therefore, the FCS Armament TD will represent a less risky solution to FCS lethality goals and facilitate successful demonstration of the planned TARDEC FCS Integrated TD in the FY06 timeframe.

The gun will be a derivative of XM291 tank gun developed originally for the future Abrams upgrades in a 120mm configuration. The XM291 gun design consisted of an integral cannon, mount, and recoil mechanism that could be installed, as one integrated unit, in a combat vehicle from the front of the vehicle. Technology application to the XM291 configuration will include a composite gun tube for reduced weight and balance of the gun at the trunnion, and Electro-Thermal Ignition and pulse-forming network transitioned from the ElectroThermal-Chemical technology program being conducted by the Army Research Laboratory, providing higher velocity through controlled burning of propellant as well as very reproducible ignition cycles. The gun design will also include an integral muzzle brake to reduce recoil forces on the vehicle’s lighter weight structure, smart barrel actuator to actively control the position of the muzzle at projectile exit enhancing accuracy, and a composite gun tube thermal shroud configuration significantly reducing gun tube signature by enemy radar.

The 120 mm XM291 Gun used enhancements developed by Watervliet Arsenal (WVA) and Benet Laboratories to improve gun performance. Compatibility for refit to the M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank was another design requirement. Gun enhancements include improved breech design, thermal shroud, modular recoil design, and improved firepower. The cannon can be increased in caliber, if required, to 140mm with a simple tube change.

The 120mm/140mm XM91 Autoloader was designed, fabricated, installed, and successfully tested in the Advanced TAnk Cannon (ATAC) System vehicle testing. The Autoloader automatically takes rounds from tank storage areas and loads them into the breech of the tank gun -- previously a manual operation. The Autoloader can be upgraded to support automated replenishment of the tank's ammunition from a resupply vehicle. Development has involved mechanical design and analysis, writing of control algorithms, and control system design. The project also involved extensive prototype testing, both in the laboratory and at proving grounds. An innovative feature of the Autoloader is control of projectile loading velocity by gripping the shell and adjusting (in real time) its acceleration and deceleration.

The latest tanks are already well armed with guns of 120mm or 125mm, which are capable of defeating heavy armor, and their performance can be stretched further. However, there are indications that, even at their best, these guns will not be able to defeat the kinds of armour that are being developed for future tanks. In that situation, it is necessary to resort to guns of larger calibre, and several countries have been working for some time on 140mm guns that fire APFSDS projectiles with twice the muzzle energy of those fired by the current 120mm tank guns. As part of this development, the German firm of Rheinmetall has mounted its 140mm gun in a Leopard 2 tank. The Swiss Federal Construction Works has also mounted its 140mm gun in a Leopard 2.

These experiments indicate that the retrofitting of 140mm guns in the existing tanks is possible. But it presents a number of major problems. In particular, 140mm rounds are large and heavy, which makes them difficult, if not impossible, to manhandle. As a result they require automatic loading systems, and this implies major changes to tank turrets and a reduction in the size of tank crews from four to three men.

The UK, Germany and France are working on a 140mm tank gun. While these can be fitted to tank turrets, the size of the rounds and the need for an autoloader make the practicality of this doubtful. One option may be to adopt an assault gun configuration capable of high elevation fire. A 140mm high velocity gun could be at least equal in range to a 155mm howitzer [5.5" (140mm) were the standard medium field piece of the British Army in the Second World War]. A 140mm gun on an assault gun body could be a useful weapon system both for divisional artillery and to reinforce armored or infantry attacks. The only problems with this idea at present is that the prototype 140mm gun is smoothbore, and no 140mm Guided projectiles currently exist.

The only type of automatic loading system which may readily be installed in existing tanks is one installed in the turret bustle. In consequence, the configuration of tanks rearmed with 140mm guns should resemble that already adopted for the Japanese Type 90 and the French AMX Leclerc. In fact, this configuration has actually been adopted for CATTB, the Component Advanced Technology Test Bed built recently in the US to explore the future form of tanks. Thus CATTB has a three-man crew and a bustle auto loader for its XM-291 gun, which can be fitted with either a 120mm or a 140mm barrel.

Because of the problems they pose and the absence of a threat which would urge their adoption, the development of 140mm tank guns is proceeding slowly. The problems they pose are also encouraging people to consider potential alternatives to conventional 140mm guns. One of them is liquid-propellant guns, which were seriously considered for tanks.

The second potential alternative is electromagnetic guns. Their main attraction is that they can launch projectiles at more than 3 000m/s, or twice the muzzle velocity of APFSD projectiles fired by current tank guns. The size, weight and other problems associated with electromagnetic guns do not make them a practical proposition for tanks. Nevertheless, there is a belief in the defence ministries of the US and the UK that, given further development, electromagnetic guns might become the main armament of tanks by the year 2015 or so.

The third alternative is hybrid electrothermal-chemical guns. They have been considered a more immediate proposition for tanks than electromagnetic guns because they only require part of the projectile propulsion energy to come from the electrical equipment, which can therefore be smaller. In fact, electrothermal-chemical guns were being proposed in the US five years ago as the main armament of the next version of the Ml Abrams tank. However, they are now seen to require much further development before they can be seriously considered for tanks.

The term electrothermal chemical propulsion applies to propulsion techniques (typically applied to gun propulsion, but with some potential applications to space propulsion) wherein the burning characteristics of a chemical propellant are enhanced with an electrically induced plasma. ETC fits into a group of kinetic energy weapons (KEWs) technologies aimed at enhancing lethality by increasing velocity. In order of increasing electrical power requirements, ETC falls between true EM launchers (rail guns and coil guns) and pure chemical propulsion.

The FCS ammunition demonstrated will incorporate novel penetrators and high performance propellant formulations for enhanced target defeat capability without reduced gun tube wear life or increase in vehicle vulnerability, and axial/radial thruster mechanisms to compensate for system errors increasing accuracy. It is expected that a 100%+ increase in armor penetration could be realized over the M829A2 at extended ranges with up to 70% increase in system accuracy (Ph) at 3km under stationary conditions over the M829A2/M1A2. The cartridge envelope will be determined from a number of 6.2/6.3 technology programs including the Target Destruct TD, Advanced KE Cartridge, and the feed of results to the Advanced Future Cannon Systems work package which will conduct the virtual prototyping studies of FCS Armament systems meeting the goals of FCS.

A compact autoloader mechanism will be required to facilitate expected vehicle configurations where the crew station is in the hull, separated from gun/ammunition compartment. The specific autoloader configuration will be defined in conjunction with the TARDEC FCS contractor vehicle concept activity and will leverage early 6.2 compact autoloader efforts that resulted in the demonstration of high density magazine storage capacities, improved fratricide protection, and weight savings. Sensor technology to detect and resolve loader anomalies under operating conditions will be incorporated

The fire control system will leverage commercially based open electronic architecture developed by TACOM-TARDEC and that which may be pursued for the Future Scout Cavalry System ATD program. Promising technologies such as linear and non-linear lead solution, improved ballistics, dynamic cant sensor, down-range wind sensor, auto-zero, direct "gearless" drive, smart barrel actuators, electronic image stabilization and modern digital servo control will be developed for the specific armament system characteristics. These fire control technologies will provide an additional 30% increase in system accuracy at 3km under stationary conditions but will provide over 500% increase in accuracy during moving conditions. The combined effects of accuracy improvement in ammunition and fire control will provide an estimated increase in system accuracy of 100%+ at 3km under stationary conditions, and 500% under moving condition as compared to the current Abrams tank.

The latest Russian 50 ton Black Eagle MBT which is said to be for South Korea.





A new Russian MBT named Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle) was shown for the first time at the second VTTV-Omsk-97 International Exhibition of Armaments, Military Equipment and Conversion Products held in September '97 in Omsk, Siberia region, Russia.

Until recently, there were hardly any details about the tank except for a couple of words and a poster on the Defendory 1998 held in Greece.

According to the information I have, this tank is being developed in cooperation with and for export to S.Korea and may even feature Korean thermal imagers. It will not be fielded with the Russian Army and seems to be entirely an initiative of Omsk Plant. It originates from the now-closed Nikolai Popov's design bureau at Leningrad Kirov Plant (LKZ) and is now developed by Alexander Morozov.

The tank is built on a T-80U chassis and will borrow most of its components including FCS from T-80U.

The most significant difference between the new tank and T-80 is the completely redesigned turret (at Omsk'97 a full-sized mock-up was presented) and the lengthened hull with 7 roadwheels per side.

The new turret will have a larger degree of protection than the current Russian MBTs. The steep slope of forward armor plates on the turret reflects designers' desire to maximize protection from APFSDS rounds in a duel situation, when tanks fight "face to face".

For additional protection, the tank is fitted with Kaktus ERA and the new Drozd-2 APS.

It was originally planned to install a 152 mm gun that is being developed for a future Russian MBT. However, since this tank is not going to be fielded with the Russian Army, it carries a 125 mm 2A46M-series gun.

Another innovation is a new automated ammo storage/loader, located in a turret bustle. It is separated from crew compartment by an armored bulkhead which greatly increases crew survivability. This design has several reasons. First, the Chechen war has shown that the carousel used in T-72/T-80/T-90 is too prone to ammo detonation when penetrated, invariably killing the crew. Second, adopted configuration also reduces Black Eagle's height by 400 mm by comparison with the T-80 (Perhaps a typo here, since this means that the tank is a mere 1.8 meters in height). Finally, horizontal ammunition arrangement in the turret bustle permits using longer (and therefore, more powerful) APFSDS rounds, unitary ammunition, simplified automatic loading process and increased rate of fire (expected to reach 10-12 rds/min).

Black Eagle's on-board information system monitors all essential systems of the vehicle, and permits automated data exchange with other tanks and headquarters.

The tank shall have a new 1200 hp 16-cyl. turbo-diesel engine and shall weigh around 50 tons.

VTTV-Omsk-99 exhibition have finally revealed the complete vehicle (referred by KBMZ as Item 640) without any netting. Several features became immediately apparent. It was apparent for the first time that the vehicle's hull is not taken directly from T-80U as was originally believed, but was significantly redesigned, the obvious change being the 7th roadwheel. It seems that most of the additional length has gone into the raised front hull protection and greater glacis obliquity. It also raises doubts if the tank indeed stays in Class 50. The active protection system appears to be Drozd, not Arena, derivative. Although the tank indeed carries the 2A46M maingun, it was stated that provision is made for installation of a new 152mm maingun. This implies that Omsk still hopes to win the hearts of the Russian military with this new tank.

Dimensions: (mm) L7,000+? x W3,582 x H1,800(?!) x 451 clearance Weight: 50.0? metric tonsCrew: 3?Engine: 1,200 hp 16-cyl. turbo-diesel engineMax Road Speed: ? km/hMax X-country Speed: ? km/hPower/Weight: 24? hp/tnGround Pressure: ? kg/sq.cmRange: ? kmObstacle negotiation:Fording depth: ? mTrench width: ? mVertical obtsacle: ? mMaximum gradient: ?°WeaponsMain Weapon: 125mm 2A46M* smoothboreRate of fire: 10-12? rounds/minAmmunition: 40? roundsAmmunition Types: APFSDS, HEAT, HEF ATGM through main gun?Auxiliary armament: UNKNOWNEquipmentRangefinder: laser?Night Vision: thermal imager?Fire Control: ?Jammers: No active jammers?Active protection: Drozd-2Onboard Computer: ? on-board information system: subsystems status, GPS, HQ & units linkOther: NBC, auto-fire-fighting equipment, self-digging blade, air conditioningFront armor extremely sloped; new generation "Kaktus" ERA

XK2 MBT is under development by Korea and the MBT-X is under development by Japanese.
ajay_ijn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2005   #2
Defense Aficionado
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Islamabad
Posts: 4,886
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

I think the futures MBT will be unmanned like UAVs.They will be armed with automatic guns and lazers, and heaveily armored.
yasin_khan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2005   #3
Aussie Digger
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

Ever since Tanks were invented, (by the British) people have been trying to find a way to dispose of them. I say dispose because there are 2 very different methods (used by those who don't "like" tanks) of removing them from the battlefield. 1. Physically destroying said tank. 2. Academically arguing that tanks are obsolete, a strategic liability or simply too vulnerable, describe it how you will...

I'll address my first point er, first... (Though both are related)... Ever since the first tank appeared at the Battle of the Somme in France in 1916, people have been trying to find a way to destroy the said tank in a physical sense, ie: by damaging the machine or the operators inside the machine to the point where the machine (or the operators) are no longer useful. This has simply resulted in a continual "battle" between tanks designers and "anti-tank" designers (of whatever weapon system). Neither has prevailed for very long in the 88 odd years that tanks have existed.

In addition, no weapon system or combination of systems has EVER proven sufficiently capable to render the tank (as an individual system, not any particular variant thereof) obsolete. The problem in reality is, that any system designed to defeat a tank, is usually capable of defeating a particular type or class of tanks. Unfortunately for "anti-tank" weapon designers no-one operates tanks singularly, ie: by themselves, or without supporting elements. Your weapon system MAY defeat 1 tank, but the other 17 in that Squadron will roll straight over the top of you...

This is where "anti-tank" weapons (of any sort) have consistently failed to live up to their potential, and is the reason why the best anti-tank weapon has ALWAYS proven to be another tank.

2. The academic world has (for whatever reason) often argued against the employment of tanks in a "modern" army. This is despite their performance in every "war" since 1916. I say "war" because there has been battles where "tanks" have not fared too well.( Overall however, tanks have clearly dominated their respective battlefields)... Academics have often argued that tanks are overly vulnerable to "modern" anti-tank guided weapons, old fashioned "tank-traps", anti-tank mines and even simple, "large holes in the ground". I agree. Yes they are.

However, such things can be AVOIDED or NEGATED, or are (again, for whatever reason), overstated. This is what the academics often fail to understand or at least, neglect to mention in their papers. Tanks HAVE consistently proven their detractors utterly wrong. The reasons for this are simple. Their ability to maneuver about the battlefield is unmatched as is their ability to withstand fire. In addition to this, their firepower is generally greater than any other individual platform on the battlefield.

The first 2 are directly linked. The ability to maneuver about the battlefield does not simply refer to their ability to traverse rough terrain. It also includes their inate ability to close with an enemy and withstand the fire that such action will inevitable draw... No other platform possesses such a capability to the same degree as a tank.

Time and time again warfare in wildly different operational environments has shown that no other single platform possesses the firepower that a tank possesses. Yes vehicles can be equipped with a 5klm+ ATGW. So what? What use is that if you're fighting in a jungle or an environment with inclimate weather, where you can't see past 100 metres? These vehicles cannot themselves, withstand ATGW or main battle tank gun fire. Only a tank can...

Anyway, enough of the pro-tank rant.

What will a "future" tank be like? I'm guessing it will still be heavy, ie: because it carries a lot of armour. It will still possess excellent maneuverability and it will possess excellent firepower. The types of armour, propulsion/suspension and weapons types might change, but the basics will still be there.

Feel free to argue these things people. This is just the warm-up...
  Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2005   #4
New Member
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 15
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

Maybe the future MBT will use invisibility cloaks developed by the US DPRA...that is what I think would be a very good asset for any military.
nzbm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2005   #5
Defense Enthusiast
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 242
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

What i think of the future tank?

1. innovation in new type of armor with the aim of increase protection while reduce weight hence increase mobility.

2. increase automation, reduce number of crew or maybe unmanned

3.more powerfull engine

4. larger caliber main gun, or maybe an exotic type of weapons, (EM driven projectile weapon, Laser)

that's all i can think of anyone free to add or comment.
Those who lead must first serve
Pendekar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2005   #6
Junior Member
Private First Class
Raven_Wing278's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: i'd tell u but then i'll have 2 shoot u
Posts: 70
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

hmm..i wanna imagine the tank from the movie sergent bilco..the hover tank
Raven_Wing278 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2005   #7
Tribal Warlord
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

T-95 Main Battle Tank

This tank is what was originally perceived in the West to be the perspective Russian MBT. It is either a hoax or a real conceptual prototype. In the latter case its relation to Nizhny Tagil design is unknown.

The design is unique in that it has a very small and extremely rounded auto-loader instead of a turret. The entire crew is situated in the hull, which is separated from the auto-loader by an armored bulkhead. Main gun rounds are placed in a circle around a loader and are delivered by a revolving transporter, fully automating the loading procedure. This scheme raises crew survivability to an incredible level.

Yet another major innovation attributed to this tank is a new anti-tank gun that has a larger caliber than the 2A46 series, 135 mm. This 135mm gun pops up occasionally since as early as the end of eighties when it was attributed to a mysterious T-86 MBT. Today it is more or less a certainty that there is no 135mm gun in existence. 2A46M is still in service, and accuracy and reliability upgrades and new ammo designs seem to bring it finally to the level of the powerful Rh-120 line of guns of Leopard, Abrams and Merkava. There are, however, indications of a 152mm tank gun being developed.

It is hard to tell how much in common does this MBT have with a real new tank being developed in Nizhny Tagil, but the main features of both vehicles are an unmanned gunpod, crew placement in the hull and a large-caliber maingun.
Link: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html

I believe that future tank force will focus on increased mobility and firepower. If there is no breakthrough in armour protection technology in the near future, tanks are probably not going to gain any better protection except adding on more weight.

However, adding more weight to the tank would compromise its ability to deploy and manoevure quickly in future battlefield. That is why I think the Russian new generation tank mentioned above might provide a pretty good picture of what future armour force will be equipped with.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg T-95.JPG (17.3 KB, 29 views)
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think “at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.” Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.

Last edited by Pathfinder-X; February 6th, 2005 at 05:14 AM.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2005   #8
Junior Member
Private First Class
Raven_Wing278's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: i'd tell u but then i'll have 2 shoot u
Posts: 70
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

i would like to see tank turrets fixed on planes like the hercules or maybe the B-22 stealth bomber,just immagine: a 120mm rifled or smoothbore gun aiming at ya in the air...they'll be equal to any AA missle but with shorter range, i reckon

Mod edit: Path: How about mounting a 203mm howitzer on a warp 9 capable Galaxy Class starship? Please avoid making comments that does not contribute to the topic.
The Purpose of All Life is to End

Last edited by Pathfinder-X; February 6th, 2005 at 05:36 AM.
Raven_Wing278 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2005   #9
Banned Member
kashifshahzad's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: islamabad.pakistan
Posts: 521
Re: Future MBT "How would it look like"

Mod edit: Path: This thread is used to discuss the future trend of development for tanks, not your feelings about India.

Last edited by Pathfinder-X; February 7th, 2005 at 08:47 PM.
kashifshahzad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2009   #10
Just Hatched
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
systems/design trends on future MBTs

I can forsee the usage of laser systems to both intercept incoming threats and evade enemy optics, considering that by the time that a new MBT is in serious development and production those technologies, already being experimented on with projects like ZEUS, will have been developed to the point of being both mobile and energy efficient enough for use on MBTs. These are precisely the systems that I think will keep the MBT a major player on a Tier 1 nation battlefield. They would allow the MBT to maintain effectivity against the threat of UAVs and other aerial threats, (Somewhat like a US Navy ship's Phalanx gun, but a laser) as well as counter advances in enemy gunner optics.

I would suppose that MBTs would be expected in the future to have a more flexible role in land warfare, however. To accomplish this, I suspect that the chasis would have to have a curved or angled profile on the bottom of the hull, instead of flat, to improve survivability against IEDs, AT Mines, or other nasties. It would be a bit difficult to make the profile any lower while still filling the role of a MBT and not a light tank, But I'm sure any future MBT will squeeze down just a little bit more. The M1 series has a sharply angled front plate, but I think this feature could be further exadurated in a new MBT.

I don't expect anything as radical as the fictional Soviet/GDI Mammoth Tank with dual 155mm cannons in the turret. I assume the US and it's NATO allies would be sticking to the 120mm smoothbore cannon, but there has been some speculation lately because of experiments recently done (within a decade or so, chill out) by the PLA and the Russians. I am wondering if a nextgen MBT will be equipped with something like the Javelin missile system as a back-up for the main gun, since the Javelin hits armor from the top, where MBT armor is thinner. Of course, Javelins are rediculously expensive... and you have to expect the enemy woulduse laser defense systems to disable guided missiles... but it's a thought.

I am also wondering if anyone is ever going to find a way to angle the sides of the hull, so that the skirts aren't flat vertical targets.

Any concept art anyone?

Last edited by ElMattador; November 6th, 2009 at 04:36 AM. Reason: spelling, minor linguistic errors
ElMattador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2009   #11
Banned Member
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 19
IN respect to the future,other than Halo's Scorpion tank or Warthogs Nobody can predict what the future will be like.But we can place our out-pf-proportion dream designs here.

This is what I think would dominate armoured warfare.Some of the feature's listed should be standard on all vehicles.

Shape and Design:
Think of a modern-day merkerva(Israeli MBT).
Completley gray/silver
Composite Material Armour with light energy sheild(some kind of pulse surrounding the vehicle)
125mm Main Cannon with High-Explosive Armour Piercing Ammuntion
Rear and top exit hatches with easily opened door.
A crew compartment for 3(1 Commander/,1 Pilot/Operator,1 Gunner)
The crew compartment should have 3 seats comfortabely space with room for easy movement.Seat's should be soft and have reclining capability.The HUD(Head up display) shold be a 30" screen in front of the seating with a Navigational map,Radar,external camera views main view being the gun sight,night and thermal vision,ammunition and videocom with a camera facing the crew.A live-time sattelite view should also be provided.The main gun(fired by the gunner should have crosshairs on the main HUD screen.The Secondary weapon,a 20mm cannon should be able to be fired remotley from inside or manually itself.
The tank should also be equiped with missiles to intercept other missiles and shoot down aircraft and hit tanks.
fixdeluxe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2009   #12
Banned Member
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
If we look at the need to meet both conventional and asymmetrical scenarios then I perceive a need for a platform providing both direct and indirect fire support in a single deployable chassis. With the promising arrival of 40mm telescoped ammunition, which apparently has the hitting power of a 100mm weapon system but with a much smaller internal turret footprint, we should hopefully see this space saving approach migrated up to much larger calibre's - 105, 120 & even 155mm.

I envisage a system, which is built around a medium weighted chassis (A400/C17 transportable) designed to mitigate direct fire weapons (120mm, RPG's) and IED's through the use of a mixture of composite armour, 'V' hulll design and fully automated protection systems (laser based).

Also the main armament should be standardised across NATO to 155mm capable of high elevation firing guided munitions (HE, AT, AP) aimed via the vehicle commander/gunner or slaved UAV's flying above the battle space. Hopefully 155mm ammunition will form the basis for all future land and sea based gun systems allowing manufacturers the option of designing a wider range of different munitions using standard tooling for casings etc. The 155mm could be designed with different sabot casings allowing for smaller calibre projectiles to be fired to avoid overkill in built-up areas avoiding civi casualties. The tank will be capable of being both manned and unmanned, allowing the occupants the ability to disembark and control the vehicle remotely in the event they have to enter a very high threat environment, such as that experienced by the Russians fighting in Grozny during the Chechen war.

I doubt the tank will be replaced by an airborne alternative anytime soon by virtue of the fact a helo or UCAV can't hold ground, you need boots, wheels and/or tracks to do that.

Last edited by riksavage; November 11th, 2009 at 04:51 AM.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2009   #13
Senior Member
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,296
I think they will be very similar to what they have now. Like the M1A3 is an example.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009   #14
New Member
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 49
These pictures could give you a glimpse as to a possible future tank design...this is a GDLS concept:

Defense Update Defence Industry News Military Technology Magazine

Vajt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009   #15
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
I would expect them to look a bit more like ships.

Carry ~16 missiles in a VLS style setup. Coordinate fire with other tanks the way artillary and naval guns are working.

However I don't see tanks getting much heavier than ~80t. Then it starts becomming to hard to move them around.

Why not make the whole tank surface like a millenium gun.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 PM.