Sorry, I was unclear. Consider what the Soviets did with Object 187, if you're familiar with it. It was a third-gen MBT that simply combined the best features of all Soviet 3rd gens in one platform with marginal performance improvements. It wasn't a generation ahead but it could integrate the latest tech they had organically instead of having it bolted on. Or consider a T-72B3 vs a T-90M. Much of the same tech, but what a difference in terms of implementation. Yet we don't label the T-90M as a next generation platform. Could something similar be done, where without a revolution in tank guns, armor, or mobility, merely marginal gains, we have a scratch-designed or heavily modified variant of a current generation design (not necessarily an existing current tank, it could be a new vehicle, just not lightyears ahead of what's already out there) but with at least a significant (possible essential) portion of the new capabilities?Lack of space, lack of power (hybrid drive), lack of cooling capacity and lack of power connection points to external sensors through all that armour.
I ask this because the key problem the Sovietshad with the 2A83 was the barrel resource (how many shots fired before you have to replace the barrel). While I don't know this (low ammo is cited) I suspect this is part of the same reason Russia abandoned the 2A83 for the Object 148 (cost was likely another factor). Could similar considerations prevent a significant growth in caliber for western tanks? Cost+combat load+barrel resource issues?
On a side note, if you know, what is the current expectation for how many shots a tank barrel should last?
Japan and Korea will be a golden mile behind compared to Israel, Germany and the US. They will get around to it but not now — they don’t have the same threat matrix. The Germans as a major arms exporter is keen to see its tech exported used operationally. US and Israel are at forever war, they try to be prepared.
I cannot imagine Japan deploying its Type 10 for an operational mission — so it will not be upgraded fast. A lot of yen is going into their submarines and the JSDF marine brigade. The South Koreans have more to worry about than upgrading their K2 Black Panther MBTs, with their current geopolitical circumstance, given the joke that is called the North Korean tank brigades. Again I also cannot imagine Korea deploying its K-2s for an operational mission (to support out of area contingencies) — if they are not going to be used in war, there is no rush to upgrade.
Not sure but I know that bits of the tech is being tested for fielding.
When I see bits of tech being tested, that strongly suggests integration into something currently under development, and fairly close to completion, or something already fielded. This is what makes me hesitate.
Do you think facial recognition tech will see it's way into this concept, especially with the evolving AI support (not necessarily in terms of actual faces)? I know the Uran-9 tested facial recognition tech to be able to recognize friendlies, including possible application to distinguish between uniforms, civilian clothing and potential hostile indicators without human intervention. I also know the results were unsatisfying, but then again Russia is behind the curve, and this was a couple of years back. Maybe, some way to at least PID friendly uniforms?I don’t like the Carmel’s 2 crew concept. It’s too tiring. Bits of the technology will be used here and there but not in the manner Israeli companies try to present it.
What about the US Griffin 2 (MPF program)? Can we expect something there? Or just a normal light-medium tank?
Last edited by a moderator: