Next Generation MBT Discussion and Concepts

[Terran]

Okay, but here is the thing @Big_Zucchuni, this statement

For the IDF specifically, an IFV, APC, and maneuver support vehicles (ARV, CEV, CP, GP etc) are more relevant, and the first planned date was 2027 for fielding first units (may have been unofficially pushed to 2029), while an MBT could come much later.
Whether MBT or IFV or anything else, the systems' architecture is the same, so they can show whatever platform they want.
Carmel is, after all, just a tech demonstrator program, not a full fledged AFV, and part of the program is also the Barak MBT which is a Merkava 4 modernization due to enter service by the end of this year or early 2023.

The video indeed shows a third person sometimes, but it's just a third person, not an infantry section, and he will also occassionally exist on MBTs.
The third person is not part of the crew, but could be a dedicated systems operator, a fires officer, or a platoon/company commander.

It's also important to understand that IAI is just presenting tech on some notional platform. The IDF will supply an independently developed platform, but core pieces like automotives are likely to be imported, like the Merkava 4 for example uses a German power pack.

seems to contradict this one.

I don't think you quite understand the current trajectory.
Yes, of the projects we could eyeball in the last 3 years, the Carmel appears to be the only one that incorporates deep stealth and hybrid-electric power as integral parts of the vehicle. But that is only because the Carmel is a statement for what's to come in 2030, when the next gen tank is deployed, whereas the AbramsX, KF51 and so on, are supposed to show what can be done TODAY.
And the OMFV? It focuses on low-risk, deliverable platforms today that are modular enough to accept radical changes by 2030 that will not eat into its growth potential.

So worry not, stealth and other "revolutionary" aspects are very much pursued.

You seem to be stating what fits with my rough understanding that the Carmel technology is an overall systems management architecture into which vehicles either new or old could be configured with off the shelf or new components. Rather than a vehicle or said components. So the Carmel isn’t “incorporating Deep stealth or Hybrid electrical as integral”. Because those are being developed independently either in or out of Israel then to be added as modules to the Carmel architecture.
Which sounds more like the next generation of Israeli AFV could actually resemble AbramsX in that they could take an existing base then reconstruct it using newer but high readiness technology around the Systems management of Carmel. Building hypothetical Eltan X, Merkava X and Namer X.
As opposed to a program like the US FCS MCV where in a new vehicle universal chassis was being developed, a systems interface/management architecture like Carmel was being developed, a series of turrets, automatic munitions handling and weapons derived from off the shelf systems. Sensors and fire control was being developed and a brand new APS system. It was a architecture that though not entirely from scratch was certainly tailored to become an all inclusive programs.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

So the Carmel isn’t “incorporating Deep stealth or Hybrid electrical as integral”. Because those are being developed independently either in or out of Israel then to be added as modules to the Carmel architecture.
Which sounds more like the next generation of Israeli AFV could actually resemble AbramsX in that they could take an existing base then reconstruct it using newer but high readiness technology around the Systems management of Carmel. Building hypothetical Eltan X, Merkava X and Namer X.

Carmel is simply a tech demonstration and maturation program whose end goal is to demonstrate and integrate all components needed to create the so called next generation of AFVs, regardless of whether those are ready components or they need to be developed from scratch. The demonstrations we saw, have shown components like digital vehicle architecture, AI-driven decisions, and a capsule that enables operation by 2 crewmen instead of 4.
But these are not the only components of the Carmel program. It also includes capabilities like exporting power, silent watch, multi-spectral stealth, lighter more efficient construction, and even new armaments.
With the earliest date so far for deployment being 2029, there's plenty of time to see the other components develop.
Whether developed locally or imported, they still need to be adapted specifically for IDF vehicles.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Based and drone-pilled.
South Korea launches K2 improvement program. The model in the Tweet is not of the K2 but I have only stumbled upon it now and it showcases the widespread understanding that top armor is crucial and not an afterthought.
The Merkava series is the only series of tanks that took top protection seriously - in response to experience in south Lebanon. This greatly paid off especially in the current war in Gaza.
Some have applied improvized or semi improvized solutions such as add-on composites on Swedish Leopards or ERA on Soviet tanks. But a proper solution must include top protection that is baked into the design from which top components placement is derived, rather than deriving afforded top protection from available space.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757748032454406573

 

[John Fedup]

Germany and France have agreed on the development of a new tank. The new MGCS program will incorporate lessons learned from the troubled FCAS program. Time will tell. The program will be open to other partners.

France, Germany ink deal on way ahead for 'completely new' future European tank - Breaking Defense

Defense ministers from both countries hailed progress on industrial workshare for a project that they say "will be a real technological breakthrough in ground combat systems.”

breakingdefense.com

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Italy and France sign an agreement on MGCS and ground defence industry, soon a deal with Germany too.

Difesa, accordo Italia-Francia sul polo industriale terrestre europeo Agenzia di stampa Italpress - Italpress

ROMA (ITALPRESS) - Il ministro della Difesa, Guido Crosetto, ha incontrato presso il campo militare di Raffalli a Calvi (Corsica), il ministro delle Forze

www.italpress.com

Defence, Italy-France agreement on the European land industrial hub Agenzia di stampa Italpress - Italpress

ROME (ITALPRESS/MNA) - The Minister of Defense, Guido Crosetto, met the Minister of the Armed Forces of France, Sébastien Lecornu, at the Raffalli militar

www.italpress.com

 

[Terran]

So Eurosatory just passed and three MBT models/demonstrators were on hand.

The three vehicle concepts on hand seem to be based on the premise that MGCS is likely to take long enough for a bridge vehicle option to be needed a time frame closer toSo what was on display was a lot like AbramsX from a few years back in the U.S. Turret packages to bridge that gap.

Rheinmetall had two versions of KF51.

Eurosatory 2024: Rheinmetall unveils Concept Uncrewed Turret - European Security & Defence

At Eurosatory 2024 Rheinmetall unveiled its Concept Uncrewed Turret: a concept demonstrator for an uncrewed turret for a next-generation MBT.

euro-sd.com

If MGCS drags out, Rheinmetall pitches Concept Unmanned Turret as near-term alternative - Breaking Defense
KF51 U is stated to have an alternative main cannon in the form of a 120mm with a 25 round automatic loader
And the big and proud bigger sibling the KF51 Evo.

Eurosatory 2024 sees launch of Rheinmetall's new Panther Evo Upgrade hybrid tank

Eurosatory 2024 sees launch of Rheinmetall's new Panther Evo Upgrade hybrid tank

armyrecognition.com

This seems like they are pitching just dropping the Panther turret on the Leopard 2 hull for countries so disposed to a fast upgrade. The KF51 has used a Hull for the Leopard 2 since it was built. However Rhinemetall doesn’t make the Leopard 2 so offering it as a total package would be difficult. Why they haven’t launched they own hull and chassis for this is beyond this commentator although I image the prevalence of Leopard 2 hulls maybe part of it.


KNDS though was not to be topped with three vehicles.
Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0
Basically KNDS copied GDLS’s homework. We have an unmanned turret with a 30mm RWS, a NLOS launcher and weight savings. Oh and Trophy APS. Standard L55 gun though

The French side of KNDS rolled out the Leclerc Evolution. With an Ascalon 120mm gun 4 man crew, 30mm RWS.

KNDS unveils High-Tech Leclerc Evolution Tank fitted with New 120 mm AscalonR Cannon

KNDS unveils High-Tech Leclerc Evolution tank fitted with new 120 mm AscalonR cannon

armyrecognition.com

Finally is the EMBT in its latest iteration with a 140mm gun. This is more or less the test vehicle for MGCS systems based on a leopard 2 hull. With a 20mm coax, a 30mm RWS and a 7.62mg somewhere in the mix.

Eurosatory 2024: KNDS's new EMBT-ADT 140 main battle tank improves the E-MBT with a 140mm gun

Eurosatory 2024: KNDS's new EMBT-ADT 140 main battle tank improves the E-MBT with a 140mm gun

armyrecognition.com

Also on hand was the Leopard 2A8, an export package of the Black Panther the K2EX, a new model of the K3 concept that looks goofy and an M1A2 Sep 3 Abrams.

 

[John Fedup]

A short article discussing the merits of an urban tank. Some interesting features but how many and how much coin?

How the Army could customize tanks for future urban warfare

 

[Big_Zucchini]

A short article discussing the merits of an urban tank. Some interesting features but how many and how much coin?

How the Army could customize tanks for future urban warfare

Very outlandish. He can't pick a single direction, pointing to the BMPT as a good example and then a land ship as another.

In practice, the tank is already well optimized for the urban combat. Some may need modifications, but not major ones.

In Gaza, the IDF managed to navigate perhaps the most difficult urban combat zone to date, featuring under-ground, ground level, and above ground threats. And about as many firepower restrictions as one can cram into one area, with hostages and civilians around, and enemy's perfidy.
And yet losses were minimal. If we count all AFVs destroyed in 2 years of intense urban combat, I think we can use just one hand for that. Maybe 2 at most.

What AFVs did it use?
Merkava, Namer, and Eitan.
The first 2 with APS. The latter still without but used where mobility is prized over protection. And proper usage allowed it to go unscathed.
The Namer is still without a 30mm. It's an APC, weighs 60 tons and has as much armor as one could ever need.
The Merkava 4 differs from other tanks by having an APS, all-around armor including belly and top armor, and retains the old L44. Which is shorter than contemporary L52 and L55 guns, but not particularly short either. Its front engine allows it to depress its gun to street level targets in all directions.

It did reach over 80 tons according to some sources, but I'm guessing with its modular construction this number can also flex back down to its original 60 tons, mainly by removing some armor blocks you wouldn't need outside urban combat.

A 30mm turret could be helpful on the Namer, but you can definitely conduct a very successful ground op in urban areas with conventional designs.

 

[John Fedup]

The Namer and Merkava 4 are perhaps the two most optimised vehicles for urban combat. The extra armour weight is a bugger to ship around but Israel doesn't have to worry so much about this as use is more or less local. The L44 is an advantage.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The Namer and Merkava 4 are perhaps the two most optimised vehicles for urban combat. The extra armour weight is a bugger to ship around but Israel doesn't have to worry so much about this as use is more or less local. The L44 is an advantage.

The armor is all modular, so you can strip it down to even half its weight for transport.
Pretty much like you'd lose a lot of weight just removing the TUSK and other extras from an Abrams that can't be transported in full kit.

These optimizations are modest. If we made a Merkava version with a 30mm instead of a 120mm, we'd get a castrated 60 ton platform for no benefit.

 

[John Fedup]

Isn't the Namer derived from a Merkava? It would be a decent IFV with a 30 mm.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Isn't the Namer derived from a Merkava? It would be a decent IFV with a 30 mm.

Yeah but it's an APC, while the BMPT isn't, and merely replaces the better 125mm gun for a crappy 30mm one.

For good reason the T-15 was marketed as the "evolution of BMPT" or "BMPT-3" or whatever. It did what the T-72 based one should always have been - an IFV.

 

[Feanor]

Yeah but it's an APC, while the BMPT isn't, and merely replaces the better 125mm gun for a crappy 30mm one.

For good reason the T-15 was marketed as the "evolution of BMPT" or "BMPT-3" or whatever. It did what the T-72 based one should always have been - an IFV.

It's worse than that. The turret protection level is outright bad. Simply replacing the 125mm with a 30mm would have been better. The BMPT has a very well protected chassis but a turrent that a well placed .50 cal burst could disable. And unfortunately the BMPT never could be an IFV. The thought process for it started with observing the effectiveness of AAA against infantry positions in Afghan. So the idea was a well protected fire support vehicle with multiple autocannons providing a lot overwhelming volume of fire. It was supposed to accompany mech formations, supplementing the MBTs. This concept was poorly implemented in the BMPT as we have it. An HIFV was something Russia had been considering for a while, with projects on the T-90 chassis considered. Hence the initial T-15.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It's worse than that. The turret protection level is outright bad. Simply replacing the 125mm with a 30mm would have been better. The BMPT has a very well protected chassis but a turrent that a well placed .50 cal burst could disable. And unfortunately the BMPT never could be an IFV. The thought process for it started with observing the effectiveness of AAA against infantry positions in Afghan. So the idea was a well protected fire support vehicle with multiple autocannons providing a lot overwhelming volume of fire. It was supposed to accompany mech formations, supplementing the MBTs. This concept was poorly implemented in the BMPT as we have it. An HIFV was something Russia had been considering for a while, with projects on the T-90 chassis considered. Hence the initial T-15.

Just to be clear, are you against an HIFV fulfilling the role of the current BMPT? Or just that the current BMPT cannot be transformed into an HIFV?

If it's the former, an infantry unit and its APCs/IFVs are already mutually protecting MBTs. A 3rd vehicle type would add unnecessarily costly redundancy.

 

[Feanor]

Just to be clear, are you against an HIFV fulfilling the role of the current BMPT? Or just that the current BMPT cannot be transformed into an HIFV?

Neither. I'm saying that the logic behind it's development meant it would never be an HIFV. The current BMPT has no real role to fill. It's closest logical spot would be that of an SP-ATGM carrier, in Russian ORBAT. That role specifically is a bit of an anachronism, and it's the most logical place to put what could in theory be a fire-support vehicle that augments MBTs. But I think to even be a good fit there, they should move away from the current turret to a proper MBT turret, replace the autocannon with a 57mm (possibly two, one the S-60 and the other the LShO-57) and replace the Ataka with the Kornet-D or Khrizantema missiles to standardize with ground forces. Kornet-D would make the most sense.

However even for that role there is a much better idea - a loitering munition carrier like what Zala was advertizing for their canister-lauched Lancet variant. It would provide better anti-tank, and it's not clear the auto-cannon support role is all that necessary. The LShO-57 specifically was supposed to go on the Kurganets IFV, so in principle if they really need that 57mm, they could put it on their regular IFVs. And the Derivatsiya shows a BMP-3 chassis handling the high power S-60 just fine, so even current-generation platforms could do it. There's no reason you could put the AU-220 module on the Manul BMP-3 variant and get the capability in question (just replace the damn Ataka with Kornet-D).

If it's the former, an infantry unit and its APCs/IFVs are already mutually protecting MBTs. A 3rd vehicle type would add unnecessarily costly redundancy.

I think HIFVs are necessary and Russian planners were correct in positing that they should develop one. Israel's example is more reasonable then Russia's with the use of existing MBT chassis, instead of going for an all-encompassing next-generation platform. Putting all their eggs in the OKR Armata basket has left Russian infantry teams turning MT-LBs into assault-sheds, instead of riding something like a BMO-T into battle with decent protection.