Military Review

On the concept of the tank of the future

70
On the concept of the tank of the future

Concept issue tank the future excites the minds of designers. And ideas are being put forward: from "we don't need tanks" to the introduction of robotic tanks and "Armata" - our everything. "


Article "Prospects for the development of tanks" various concepts of the tank of the future based on a 152 mm caliber cannon, the use of an unmanned turret with a crew in an armored capsule and the creation of robotic tanks are considered. In addition, as a transitional option, it was proposed to organize at the Kirov plant the production of a tank "Object 292" developed by the Leningrad Design Bureau of the late 80s (early 90s) with the installation of a new turret with a 80 mm cannon on the chassis of the T-152,4U tank.

It should be noted right away that in the 80s, after a competition of projects for a promising Soviet tank between three design bureaus and VNIITM, only the project of the "Boxer" tank (object 477) of the Kharkov design bureau was accepted for development. And Leningrad and Nizhny Tagil on the topic "Improvement-88" were given work to modernize the existing generation of T-72 and T-80 tanks.

The "Boxer" tank initially adopted a concept with a 152 mm caliber cannon with a classic crew placement (the commander and gunner were sitting in the tower at the bottom of the hull) and the placement of ammunition in an armored compartment in the hull between the fighting compartment and MTO with the provision of triggering plates during the explosion of ammunition.

With the collapse of the Union, the "Boxer" project was curtailed (the Kharkiv design bureau ended up in Ukraine). And in Russia, attempts were made to continue this project in N. Tagil (object 195) with a 152 mm cannon, an unmanned turret and the placement of the crew in the hull armored capsule. And in Leningrad (object 292) - with a 152,4 mm rifled cannon in an enlarged turret on the chassis of a T-80 tank.

Both projects also failed. And they were closed. The Armata tank project was accepted as a promising tank.

What ideas were put into these projects? And what advantages and disadvantages did they have?

Remote cannon of 152 mm caliber


The implementation of the concept of the cannon removed from the turret was aimed at reducing the reserved volume and reducing the mass of the tank. Tests of the first prototypes of the Boxer tank showed that this decision is fraught not only with the defeat of the guns by small-caliber artillery, but also with possible malfunctions due to foreign objects falling into the gun bed during the operation of the tank.

As a result, the gun had to be covered with an armored casing, and the weight gain was leveled. The experience of developing this tank showed that removing the gun from the turret does not solve the problem of a significant reduction in the mass of the tank and entails a number of technical difficulties with installing the gun and ensuring its reliable loading.

Based on the results of the work, it was recommended to install the cannon in a compact turret with the crew placed in the lower part of the turret at the level of the hull, which leads to an increase in the periscopicity of observation and aiming devices, or to use an unmanned turret.

The use of a higher-caliber cannon on a tank is aimed at increasing the tank's firepower, but this is achieved at too high a price. Such a decision inevitably leads to an increase in the booked volume, an increase in the mass of the tank, a complication of the design of the automatic loader and a reduction in ammunition. As a result, two other main characteristics of the tank decrease: protection and mobility.

The installation of a 152 mm cannon on the "Boxer" tank led to an unacceptable increase in the mass of the tank and the impossibility of keeping within 50 tons (even after the introduction of individual units of the tank made of titanium). They had to sacrifice the safety of the crew in the name of the mass of the tank and abandon the armored capsule for ammunition. And place them in drums in the fighting compartment and the hull of the tank.

The use of a 292 mm cannon on the Object 152,4 tank in a new enlarged turret, with the declared mass of the tank at 46 tons and ensuring the required level of security, raises great doubts, miracles in technology do not happen, and you have to pay for everything.

Installing a gun of this caliber on a tank compared to the 125 mm caliber of a tank gun adopted for Soviet tanks, of course, gives an advantage in firepower, but not so significant as to sacrifice the mass of the tank. In addition, the use of modern guided ammunition on the tank largely compensates for the disadvantages of a lower caliber gun.

Attempts by the Soviet (Russian) school of tank building to install a 152-mm cannon on a tank, and in the West - 130 mm and 140 mm guns, did not lead to success, mainly due to the impossibility of an optimal combination of characteristics in terms of firepower, protection and mobility of the main tank.

Apparently, the increase in the firepower of the tank will go through the creation of more effective systems for throwing ammunition based on new physical principles and with the use of more advanced technologies.

Unmanned turret and armored capsule


The unmanned turret allows you to reduce the internal turret volume, reduce the mass of the tank and take one of the steps towards the robotic tank. At the same time, in connection with the elimination of the main and backup optical means of observing and aiming the crew, serious problems arise to limit the possibility of firing and significantly reduce the reliability of the tank. In the event of malfunctions leading to the impossibility of transferring electricity to the tower, the tank becomes completely incapacitated, cannot fire and is lost like a combat unit.

This problem has been discussed more than once and there is no final conclusion yet. At the current level of development of technical means, the introduction of an unmanned turret does not provide the same reliability as with the classic layout of the tank. In the projects of tanks in the West, such a cardinal decision is not made for reasons of ensuring the reliability of the tank on the battlefield.

The armored capsule (as indicated above) can be of two types - for the crew and for ammunition with all its advantages and disadvantages. Whether it is needed and what is more effective has not yet been proven. On the Abrams tank, they followed the path of armored capsules in the rear of the ammunition turret; this layout has already been tested in real battles and has proven its partial effectiveness. An armored capsule for the crew exists only on the Armata tank and raises many questions that can be answered only after receiving the results of actual operation.

Tank information management system


The experience of recent military conflicts with the use of modern means of detecting and destroying military equipment shows that a separate tank unit (and even more so a tank) is not able to successfully resist on the battlefield; specific operation and linked into a single management system.

In this regard, one of the defining elements of the tank of the future should be a TIUS with the necessary technical means capable of ensuring interconnection, constant exchange of reconnaissance and combat information and control teams in real time in order to coordinate actions and prompt decision-making at the appropriate levels of control.

The network-centric system makes it possible to combine tanks with reconnaissance, target designation and destruction means and facilitate the fulfillment of the assigned task, while it is possible, if necessary, to quickly transfer a tank or a group of tanks to a different control level.

On board the tank, the TIUS should combine all the instruments and systems of the tank into a single integrated network, transmit information to the network-centric system and receive commands from higher-ranking commanders. TIUS forms an integrated picture of the battlefield, giving the tank additional "vision" and expanding the commander's capabilities to assess the situation in real time, carry out target designation and target distribution, control fire and maneuver of the tank and subunits.

Within the network-centric system, tanks receive a fundamentally new quality, and their combat effectiveness increases dramatically. The introduction of TIUS also makes it relatively easy to modernize previously produced tanks and bring them to the level of modern requirements.

Robotic tank


The presence of TIUS on the tank makes it possible to turn it into a robotic tank with remote control or into a robot tank. For this, almost everything is already available in the system. In this case, two directions can be implemented - the creation of a special tank that does not provide for the placement of the crew, and the use of any main tank equipped with a TIUS as a robotic or robot.

The development of an unmanned tank makes it possible to reduce its weight, but at the same time a new class of military equipment appears, requiring special control vehicles, the introduction of a transportation system, a control structure and operation of such tanks. The concept of using the main tank as a base looks more promising, approximately the same system is laid in the Armata tank.

Prospects for the tank of the future


In Russia, the Armata project with a 125 mm cannon, an unmanned turret and an armored capsule for the crew in the hull of the tank with all its advantages and disadvantages was adopted as a promising tank. The concept of the "Armata" tank is far from being a masterpiece, but today in Russian and foreign tank building there are no other variants of a promising tank, brought to the production of experimental batches, yet. And we must competently take advantage of the experience of developing this tank and the results of its tests, using them in future projects.

The Armata tank, presented in 2015, has not yet reached the army. The terms of its adoption have already been postponed five times. And recently another deadline was announced - 2022. Such a technique is not quickly created, there are too many problems with this machine, and they take time to fix them. In any case, regardless of the success or failure of the Armata tank, the concept of the tank of the future must be developed. And the development is certainly underway. What it will be is unknown, it depends on the concept of waging a future war, the role of tanks in it, the development of technology and the experience of creating tanks of previous generations.

Regarding the use of a 152 mm gun on a tank, many experts consider it expedient to install it in a specially created heavy self-propelled gun as an assault weapon and a means of strengthening tanks on the battlefield. In this regard, the question arises on what basis the ACS should be created. The proposal of colleagues from "Spetsmash" - to revive the project of the tank "Object 292" with such a gun is hardly advisable, such tanks have not been produced for a long time. And it is too costly to revive their production. In addition, it is unlikely that it will be possible to implement it in acceptable characteristics in terms of tank weight.

The most promising is the creation of an ACS based on the Armata tank and its inclusion in the planned family of combat vehicles based on this base.
Author:
Photos used:
http://samlib.ru
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 26 March 2021 04: 32
    +6
    Tank in the photo: why not hovercraft? Or jet-powered? repeat
    1. Flashpoint
      Flashpoint 26 March 2021 04: 56
      +8
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      Tank in the photo: why not hovercraft? Or jet-powered? repeat

      Ha! Antigrav!
      Antimatter rockets. Thermonuclear reactor. Multi-circuit boards. Personal teleport. Proton-ion emitters!
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 26 March 2021 05: 07
        +5
        Force field for protection, melee lasers ... and the rest is yours! hi
        1. Flashpoint
          Flashpoint 26 March 2021 05: 09
          +4
          Quote: Uncle Lee
          Force field for protection, melee lasers ... and the rest is yours! hi

          And the color is super! hi Wrap it up, take it :)
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 26 March 2021 05: 20
            +3
            Quote: Flashpoint
            And the color is super!

            Ferrari developed the concept! good
          2. Maksim_ms
            Maksim_ms 26 March 2021 21: 42
            +2
            It is export for Mars
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 26 March 2021 07: 44
          +10
          Good morning, Vladimir. smile

          The latest development of the "Iron Kaput" model has no competition. laughing
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 26 March 2021 07: 55
            +5
            Konstantin hi Will go against the Zusul! yes
          2. Hunter 2
            Hunter 2 26 March 2021 07: 57
            +3
            Quote: Sea Cat


            The latest development of the "Iron Kaput" model has no competition. laughing

            Konstantin hi Can fly suborbital? what
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 26 March 2021 08: 01
              +6
              Can fly suborbital?


              Tilka nizenko - nizenko ... yes
              1. Hunter 2
                Hunter 2 26 March 2021 08: 05
                +2
                Yeah ... there is still work to do what !
                When spaceships plow the vastness of the Universe (s) ... and then again they gave out some kind of imperfection. Apparently everything was stolen and drank crying
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 26 March 2021 08: 21
                  +4
                  Everything as usual. wink

                  1. t7310
                    t7310 26 March 2021 16: 14
                    +6
                    as it is not easy, everything is here

                    YMT-05 Hildolfr

                    1. tanki-tanki
                      tanki-tanki 27 March 2021 12: 45
                      0
                      That's what I understand the power! It is a pity that so far these are only fantasies! sad
          3. Archon
            Archon 17 June 2021 11: 03
            +1
            And this is not by chance the maharias of the imperial kulaks?
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 17 June 2021 11: 12
              0
              Similar, but not the same. laughing
        3. Bogatyrev
          Bogatyrev 27 March 2021 00: 41
          +1
          Starcrafters came running again)))
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 26 March 2021 10: 17
        +3
        Quote: Flashpoint
        Ha! Antigrav!

        in the last years before the collapse, the first theoretical work began in the USSR to create repulsion / attraction systems based on the control of the field strength configuration. I participated in them myself, as a student. There are also not very reliable stories that such devices have already been created handicraftly by several engineers. If the USSR had not collapsed and continued to finance science and the military-industrial complex, as under Brezhnev, then I assure you that already in 2015 the newest tanks would be completely different from what is now crawling through the fields.
      3. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 26 March 2021 10: 46
        +5
        Quote: Flashpoint
        Antimatter rockets. Thermonuclear reactor. Multi-circuit boards. Personal teleport. Proton-ion emitters!

        But will humanity live to see this?
        1. Flashpoint
          Flashpoint 26 March 2021 11: 19
          +3
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Quote: Flashpoint
          Antimatter rockets. Thermonuclear reactor. Multi-circuit boards. Personal teleport. Proton-ion emitters!

          But will live was humanity before this?

          And will it survive? :)
          1. tanki-tanki
            tanki-tanki 27 March 2021 12: 47
            0
            Well, they seem to have survived the atomic bomb. Well, then humanity will change its mind, I hope.
            1. Flashpoint
              Flashpoint 27 March 2021 12: 50
              0
              There were only 2 atomic bombs and suburban ones (I'm talking about combat use).
              But when such a tank will have a self-destruction system of about 500 Teratons, then we'll see ... This is by the way to the questions about the weapon of retaliation, with such a bang, a delivery vehicle is no longer needed ...
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 26 March 2021 21: 50
          +1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I

          But will humanity live to see this?

          Such enchantingly techno-barbaric bullshit as antimatter rockets will require oh-very technologically advanced production
          For if a civilization reaches a level of development that allows the flow of antimatter, sufficient to poke it into missile warheads, then all other problems have already been solved. True, all the same - they will not push antimatter into rockets there; there will be another application for it, as a fuel cell, for reactors and high-energy weapons.
          Well, or is it some techno barbarians after the apocalypse, they will show off on the remnants of the past legacy - they just have enough intelligence to put the energy cells from the reactor into a rocket with a powder booster, and threaten the neighboring tribe of wildlings.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 26 March 2021 22: 32
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            if a civilization reaches a level of development that allows the flow of antimatter, sufficient to poke it into missile warheads, then all other problems have already been solved.

            "With your lips, yes, drink honey!" At the end of the last century, the journal "Foreign Military Review" published articles about the work of the Americans in the field of obtaining antimatter with the possibility of using it in ICBM warheads!
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 26 March 2021 22: 54
              0
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              published articles about the work of Americans

              I say - threaten the neighboring tribe of wildlings wassat
          2. Flashpoint
            Flashpoint 27 March 2021 15: 48
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            Quote: Nikolaevich I

            But will humanity live to see this?

            Such enchantingly techno-barbaric bullshit as antimatter rockets will require oh-very technologically advanced production
            For if a civilization reaches a level of development that allows the flow of antimatter, sufficient to poke it into missile warheads, then all other problems have already been solved. True, all the same - they will not push antimatter into rockets there; there will be another application for it, as a fuel cell, for reactors and high-energy weapons.
            Well, or is it some techno barbarians after the apocalypse, they will show off on the remnants of the past legacy - they just have enough intelligence to put the energy cells from the reactor into a rocket with a powder booster, and threaten the neighboring tribe of wildlings.

            Yes, the universe will collapse from the fact that a super-duper battery in someone's watch glitches and explodes with the force of a couple of supernovae.
            Well, at the expense of all the solved problems - in the entire history of mankind it did not work out that way. Solving problems - we get a bunch of new ones. A bunch of diseases are not curable, but they strive to stick automatic transmissions into all cars.
      4. Alien From
        Alien From 26 March 2021 11: 02
        +3
        A long time ago, in one distant galaxy)
      5. Maikcg
        Maikcg 29 March 2021 05: 14
        0
        I'll jump, rip out the force field of the cooling shaft, throw a photon torpedo there and just jump off. Everything.
    2. Free wind
      Free wind 26 March 2021 05: 12
      0
      Tanks with rocket boosters were tested. It is permissible to overcome swamps. But why not return to the scheme of self-propelled guns of the Second World War, I do not understand. The ISU-152 could be used as a howitzer and as a cannon. And in terms of security it was not very bad.
    3. shinobi
      shinobi 26 March 2021 15: 12
      0
      Uh, object 760 was in the union
    4. Avior
      Avior 26 March 2021 22: 16
      0
      Air cushion at the tank - completed stage. in two versions andsmile

      or as

      smile
  2. Flashpoint
    Flashpoint 26 March 2021 04: 58
    0
    In terms of armored capsules, Abrams is not a very good example, a very unbalanced booking concept in principle.
    152mm per tank - and what is the weight of the gun and ammunition with the slightest adequate ammunition load? So far, only the SPG will work out.
    What's the bottom line with lightweight armor? Will it be introduced into the production process?
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 26 March 2021 15: 20
      +1
      I agree. And in general, Abrams is not an indicator in everything. Do you know what killed me in the fall? Reloading the gun! 13,2 seconds. I don’t know how the Iraqis fought there, and whether they fought at all, but the T-72 between the shots of the general would have time to shoot three times by crushing position. But we still have a lot to improve. For Koreans and Japanese, it takes 2,5 seconds to recharge.
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 26 March 2021 05: 02
    0
    All this is great, but our Ministry of Defense or the General Staff does not need a tank with a 152mm cannon, apparently, and in the foreseeable future. A hundred times, military officials have declared that the available caliber of tank guns is sufficient to carry out ALL types of combat missions. It is necessary, they say, only to expand the range of used ammunition, support tanks on the battlefield with aviation and artillery, and we will have a victory over any adversary. Although, the fact that design engineers are working on projects of a tank or a combat platform with guns larger than 125 mm suggests that the country's army does not live alone as an official.
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 26 March 2021 15: 51
      +1
      There is an interesting story with the 152 mm caliber. During the perestroika there was such a rumor that they tried to install this caliber with malicious intent to use atomic shells on tanks. 12-18 kt of power. NATO will not know which of the tanks can make a local end to everything and will scatter everyone. Something like that
  4. Cowbra
    Cowbra 26 March 2021 05: 21
    -1
    To begin with, the concept of using the Armed Forces in conflicts must be coughing up, then only the concepts of specific ones - tanks there, attack aircraft - should be molded. Look, at the mattresses, as a result, the concept of a stormtrooper is Super Tucano, and you walk along the field with your Link-16, unmanned wingmen and a toaster included
    1. Flashpoint
      Flashpoint 26 March 2021 05: 43
      0
      Quote: Cowbra
      To begin with, the concept of using the Armed Forces in conflicts must be coughing up, then only the concepts of specific ones - tanks there, attack aircraft - should be molded. Look, the mattresses have a concept of an attack aircraft - Super toucano, and you walk the field with your Link-16, unmanned wingmen and toaster included

      Before the first shilka or kpv?
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 26 March 2021 05: 58
        -6
        CPV is not a hindrance to a gliding bomb. Fact is fact - for some reason they buy exactly Tukans. Recently, there was an article in the United States - they themselves admit that they have lost three wars over the past 50 years. Probably not so they fought, since three wars were flushed down the toilet? And neither the aircraft carriers, nor the B-2, nor the F-117 with the F-35 helped ...
        1. Flashpoint
          Flashpoint 26 March 2021 06: 09
          0
          Quote: Cowbra
          CPV is not a hindrance to a gliding bomb. Fact is fact - for some reason they buy exactly Tukans. Recently, there was an article in the United States - they themselves admit that they have lost three wars over the past 50 years. Probably not so they fought, since three wars were flushed down the toilet? And neither the aircraft carriers, nor the B-2, nor the F-117 with the F-35 helped ...

          Well, aircraft carriers, B-2 and F-117 are extremely niche means, and expensive. And the penguin has not been marked anywhere yet.
          Pro toucano is a very limited application. And its application as part of a complex solution is still a problem. Armor? Electronic warfare? A joint swarm of drones and a Tucano? Something between a drone, an attack aircraft and an AN-2 Azerbaijan. The result will be ... strange ...
  5. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 06: 11
    0
    The author's use of the word "armored capsule", only without quotation marks, and even in relation to the isolated ammunition rack of the "Abrams" already speaks of his level of understanding of the topic.

    The concept of the Armata tank is far from a masterpiece
    , did not see the author's preference for some other "concept".

    At the current level of development of technical means, the introduction of an unmanned turret does not provide the same reliability as with the classical layout of the tank.
    What kind of reliability is the author talking about? A power outage on ANY modern tank will turn it into a mobile bunker at best.
    1. Couchexpert
      Couchexpert 26 March 2021 12: 12
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The author's use of the word "armored capsule", only without quotation marks, and even in relation to the isolated ammunition rack of the "Abrams" already speaks of his level of understanding of the topic.

      The use of the word "bronecapsula" with or without quotation marks has generally become established in our country under the influence of PR journalists. There are no armored capsules inside the tank. Generally. Nowhere. The body of the tank itself is an armored capsule, which is divided into several compartments. In the T-14 "Armata" tank, the classic fighting compartment is divided into two parts. bulkhead / partition / wall: in one part there is the entire crew, in the other - the ammunition and turret units. Apparently the normal term "Uninhabited tower" to describe the design features and savor the unimaginable superiority of the domestic tank building over everything and everyone was not enough, so I had to "invent" the "armored capsule".
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      What kind of reliability is the author talking about? A power outage on ANY modern tank will turn it into a mobile bunker at best.

      It means that when the crew is in the tower, they can directly use observation devices (eyepieces inside and lenses outside have constant optical communication, manual drives, etc.), directly load the gun (if the AZ is faulty), even directly manually turn the tower. An uninhabited tower is deprived of such a reservation. However, these capabilities have to pay for the increased weight / dimensions of the tower and the vulnerability of the crew in the immediate vicinity of the ammo space (it is impossible to isolate the crew and shells from each other). And here each designer "sees in his own way".
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 14: 55
        0
        Quote: CouchExpert
        The use of the word "bronecapsula" with or without quotation marks has generally become established in our country under the influence of PR journalists
        That's it. A person who claims to be an analyst, but uses the "terminology" of the journalist in full seriousness, he is at their level.


        Quote: CouchExpert
        It means that when the crew is in the tower, they can directly use observation devices (eyepieces inside and lenses outside have constant optical communication, manual drives, etc.), directly load the gun (if the AZ is faulty), even directly manually turn the tower. An uninhabited tower is deprived of such a reservation.
        This is obvious, but all this rolls the tank from its current state to the level of, if not a bunker, but a tank of the level of the Second World War, i.e. makes him incapacitated and vulnerable.
  6. ruivit1988
    ruivit1988 26 March 2021 06: 12
    +2
    The tank of the future, in my opinion, will not be what we imagine it to be. After all, a tank is a weapon that must correspond to certain tasks. Second, it should be as small as possible so that it would be difficult to get into it, it should be sufficiently protected that it would be difficult to destroy it and, most importantly, cheap. Most likely, the tank will be a small drone equipped with a small caliber cannon with guided missiles and, most importantly, a small vehicle.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 March 2021 21: 26
      0
      Quote: ruivit1988
      The tank of the future ... should be as small as possible


      To me, they somehow see each other, to be honest. The film itself may be crazy, but the drones there are gorgeous.

      the tank will be a small drone equipped with a small caliber cannon with guided missiles and, most importantly, a small vehicle.

      I agree. Small, inexpensive tankettes, with modular armament, adjustable for a combat mission.
      However, there will also be a small number of "full-size" highly protected tanks with a crew of 1-2 people, which will be used where "unmanned" tankettes cannot cope, for a number of reasons. At the same time, they will still be accompanied by a detachment of drones performing a number of specific tasks.
  7. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 26 March 2021 07: 22
    +4
    In my opinion, the author named the key condition I applied the tank

    a separate tank unit (and even more so a tank) is not able to successfully resist on the battlefield, it must be built into a network-centric battle control system of heterogeneous forces and assets


    Any Abrams, Leopard or Armata will be instantly killed if misused. Therefore, it does not matter in what armored capsule and with what caliber the gun it will be, the main thing is that it should not be on its own.
  8. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 26 March 2021 07: 39
    +3
    The tank must be at least four-bar.
    The first link is a "bunker on wheels", something like the ISU 152, with thick armor of multilevel protection with all sorts of DZ, KAZ and other attachments. And with a maximum caliber for breaking through defenses and shooting tanks at a short distance. To the right and to the left of it are a pair of conventional BMPTs with smaller guns, all-angle shelling of 90x360 degrees, mortars, grenade launchers, machine guns and guided missiles.
    The third link is slightly behind, the conditional Shilka / Derivation / Tunguska, specialized specifically for air defense to protect against aircraft of any style, from aircraft / helicopters and UAVs to ATGMs, MLRS and cannon shells.
    And yes, from above, all this is covered by a swarm of drones for every taste and color, from the simplest kammikaze counterdrones to high-altitude AWACS.
    And all of this is controlled by one commander.
    Otherwise, any tank is just a mass grave of three tankers.
    1. Flashpoint
      Flashpoint 26 March 2021 08: 59
      +5
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      The tank must be at least four-bar.
      The first link is a "bunker on wheels", something like the ISU 152, with thick armor of multilevel protection with all sorts of DZ, KAZ and other attachments. And with a maximum caliber for breaking through defenses and shooting tanks at a short distance. To the right and to the left of it are a pair of conventional BMPTs with smaller guns, all-angle shelling of 90x360 degrees, mortars, grenade launchers, machine guns and guided missiles.
      The third link is slightly behind, the conditional Shilka / Derivation / Tunguska, specialized specifically for air defense to protect against aircraft of any style, from aircraft / helicopters and UAVs to ATGMs, MLRS and cannon shells.
      And yes, from above, all this is covered by a swarm of drones for every taste and color, from the simplest kammikaze counterdrones to high-altitude AWACS.
      And all of this is controlled by one commander.
      Otherwise, any tank is just a mass grave of three tankers.

      In this sense, the Germans have succeeded. On the tank, a cross is immediately painted - a finished grave, convenient!
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 26 March 2021 21: 59
      0
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      The tank must be at least four-bar.

      Yeah, then it turns out that it can be delivered to the battlefield only by disassembling it into links, and in finished form it does not fit into any bridge / turn / tank carrier, and then it will finally reach the smart ones - that these modules can also fight separately , and the commander should not be in them either - but it is better to cram more neural networks and leave them to learn in the simulator.
      The future is not with Mouses, but with miniaturization, modularity, and artificial intelligence.
      You will be surprised, but in 15-20 years, an ordinary smartphone will cope with the control of a wedge.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 27 March 2021 05: 07
        0
        Quote: psiho117
        Yeah, then it turns out that it can only be delivered to the battlefield by disassembling it into links, and in finished form it does not fit into any bridge / turn / tank carrier,

        Well, like bae, if you read more than one line, then you would understand my point. And so they argued with themselves, they themselves refuted.
    3. ruivit1988
      ruivit1988 27 March 2021 09: 25
      +1

      Here it is a tank of the future, a small one is difficult to find in the bushes, and if you find a lot during the search, firstly, it drinks blood, and secondly, it is difficult to get into it yet. Well, if you hit it, in a week five of them will come off the assembly line, since they are small and cheap and the crew does not need to be taught a new one every time. Well, the time of huge monsters is passing ...
  9. Maks1995
    Maks1995 26 March 2021 08: 55
    -1
    "Armata" ??? and did not reach ???
    Then everything is clear ...
    It is necessary to involve fantasy writers more actively ...
  10. tank64rus
    tank64rus 26 March 2021 09: 31
    +1
    We will add a lot of problems with one more financing and cutting.
  11. yehat2
    yehat2 26 March 2021 10: 09
    +3
    now the same changes will take place with the tanks as with the ships.
    Gone are the days of well-protected, simple, clumsy cans.
    now tanks are needed much better equipped with sensors, more mobile and with a smaller crew, or even full machine guns. They will rely more on active systems rather than passive defenses. The armament will become much more effective against light targets (infantry, jeeps, trucks, etc.), in addition, the accuracy of guidance in motion, in the rain, at night will dramatically improve. The coordination of a group of vehicles and infantry should be sharply improved, up to a unified target designation control system + fire and movement on the battlefield. Again, there should be a question about air transportation of armor and refueling.
  12. Operator
    Operator 26 March 2021 10: 23
    +3
    Exactly the opposite: the caliber of the gun, the presence of automation and the KAZ in the tank are decided things.

    Now on the agenda is full situational awareness of tankers, solved by network centrics, video / thermal imagers in a circle and augmented reality glasses with an overview of the entire upper hemisphere - the so-called. "glass armor".
  13. Basarev
    Basarev 26 March 2021 11: 11
    0
    I am still closer to a remotely controlled tank, especially considering that you can just stick a 152 mm cannon on it and at the same time reduce the mass by throwing out the crew, and the dimensions will also decrease.
  14. zxc15682
    zxc15682 26 March 2021 11: 30
    0
    I think that the tank no longer needs a gun in the classic sense
    1. zxc15682
      zxc15682 26 March 2021 11: 36
      0
      https://i.imgur.com/Bu69IYO.jpg
  15. vindigo
    vindigo 26 March 2021 11: 44
    +1
    In "Bolo Brigade" tanks of the future are well shown. Artificial intelligence is replacing humans.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 March 2021 22: 08
      0
      Quote: vindigo
      In "Bolo Brigade" tanks of the future are well shown. Artificial intelligence is replacing humans.

      I really liked the description of the interaction between the fighters and the robot in the book "Guardian Angel 320", in my opinion it is gorgeous written.
  16. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 26 March 2021 12: 02
    0
    Probably, the protection against high-precision various means of remote destruction will grow, the computing power will increase and 1 crew member will be replaced by AI. The strengthening of the gun does not seem so obvious to me, because it seems to me that the main enemy of tanks in the wars of the future will no longer be other tanks, but high-precision weapons of various types. If we assume that the network-centric direction will develop, then the battlefield will remain with the side that will provide the best reconnaissance, reveal plans, eliminate key targets, violate the enemy's plans, and provide a preliminary better concealment of its forces and plans. In such a concept, it seems to me, the tank will become a kind of main ground node in the web of various military products, and the question of its "lethality" will be secondary, regarding the ability to collect and separate information, coordinate the aiming of URO and some kind of infantry weapons.
    I can't imagine any fundamental changes in the type of chassis - because the mass will inevitably grow, and as there were tracks, they will remain.
    The modularity of the design is likely to increase, since everything has long gone to this, the various places in which the tank is used impose different requirements on it, and the universal compromise is less and less profitable.
    The requirement for camouflaging the tank itself will increase. Probably equipping the tank with 1-2 UAVs to increase awareness and perhaps even some kind of defensive functions.
    All of the above seems to me relevant up to the border of 2050+.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 March 2021 22: 46
      +3
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      The enhancement of the gun does not seem so obvious to me, because it seems to me that the main enemy of tanks in the wars of the future will no longer be other tanks, but high-precision weapons of various types.

      According to all forecasts of military analysts, battles in urban agglomerations, by 2030, will account for 90% of all clashes.
      The battlefield will be saturated with civilians, and the enemy will be distributed among them, clashes arise chaotically, here and there, they can shoot from an RPG or throw an explosive package on the roof from a house they just passed.
      In such conditions, on the contrary, maximum saturation with anti-personnel weapons and surveillance sensors is required - and not a 152mm banhammer.
      will increase computing power and replace 1 crew member with AI

      AI is still fantastic - but a good neural network trained specifically for combat operations is capable of a lot.
      And at the same time, she will really be trained and gain combat experience, in the course of the database.
      Protection against high-precision various means of remote defeat is likely to grow.

      Oh, the field is unplowed.
      In fact, what we have at the moment is armored vehicles with a technological level of the 70-80s of the last century, with slightly shamanic electronics. Even the pseudo-breakthrough "Armata" is a cheaper Object 195 - a tank developed in the mid-90s of the last century. Armor and protective equipment, as they were at the conceptual level of the 70-80s of the last century, have remained so.
      And these supposedly "modern" tanks are opposed by means of destruction, developed mainly in the last decade. And this is a conceptual lag of 25-30 years, at least.
      It is no wonder that modern means of destruction sew this armor like paper, or hit the most vulnerable places - the roof or the cover of the engine compartment.
      A modern tank, developed taking into account all modern trends, equipped with a multi-band KAZ (and in five to seven years the KAZ will already have a built-in laser), a high-quality closed DZ and having multi-layer anti-cumulative armor using modern alloys, polymers, ceramics, and other things (up to to airgel and graphene nanotubes), with a modern network-centric LMS, and covered by other units - will be a very difficult target, for 90% of threats.
      Potentially, the DZ will become reusable electromagnetic / electrothermal, and the armor will become electromagnetic.
      Another thing is that a really modern tank is so expensive and difficult that even the Americans will not pull it, they are still sucking on the idea of ​​a lightweight platform on which they plan to work out some of the innovative technologies.
      So yeah, the future is with small, modular, unmanned tankettes.
      This is cheap and angry, because in the society of the future, the loss of a single crew tank will surely cause such seething shit that no one dares to send him to a dangerous place.
      And drones are not a pity, Congress will throw a couple more lard to the defense budget, and everything is covered in chocolate.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 27 March 2021 01: 44
        0
        Thanks for the expanded thoughts! Well, I argue from the position that some of the strike functions of the tank itself are assumed by other participants in the battle - helicopters, UAVs, an increase in the firepower of the same infantry due to the development of some kind of rocket and grenade launcher systems and giving them the qualities of high-precision and intelligent weapons. In view of this, the direct damage from the tank and "wall to wall" by a bunch of steel monsters is a perception of the past era. Of course, in a number of regions of the world, the old views on tanks and their use will still be strong and relevant for some time - as a rule, these will be those regions in which the military got stuck in the 20th century and there are conflicts of low intensity. Their collision with the model of the 21st century will resemble "Desert Storm" in terms of the level of losses and powerlessness of old ideas before the synthesis of intelligence and various forces in a complex of interconnection. A tank as an element of such a relationship will be head and shoulders above an armored monster with a large cannon.
        As for the armor - I have doubts that by the end of the 50s we will see adopted samples of the so-called "electronic armor" or some kind of exotics such as armor based on MRF - all this requires an increase in power, batteries, complication of electronics, such approaches to booking have different effectiveness at different angles of attack, speeds, impact materials - in principle, not removable disadvantages associated with this. So, probably until the 50s, we will definitely observe all the same multilayer ceramics and some kind of nano-coatings in combination with traditional armor, reactive armor and KAZs. To combat infantry and UAVs, it is likely that modular variants located behind the turret with the main gun will be used - or this task will be partially transferred to the UAV associated with the tank. And more likely both. When I mentioned AI - I in no way meant "strong AI", apparently, it is still far away. Rather, an advanced support, like all these gadgets for pilots of modern F-series aircraft, designed to unload a person. Regarding tankettes, I agree in principle - I generally wanted to write that the concept of a "tank" will inevitably split, because an overly versatile machine will have its drawbacks, even with wide modularity. First of all, I'm talking about the "big war" tank - for narrower tasks there will be lighter vehicles with a different functionality, of course, it cannot be generalized.
        The task of the tank will seem to me more and more to be reduced to "control of information on the ground" with the provision of support to the infantry and the indication of targets for other carriers of weapons. But only a tank of developed countries will undergo such an evolution - along with it, "classic" MBTs of countries that are not able to invest in an effective network centric will coexist quite for a long time. Such tanks will also have some kind of evolution, but this will be a dead-end path.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 27 March 2021 18: 52
          0
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          only a tank of developed states will undergo such an evolution - along with it, "classic" MBTs of countries that are not able to invest in an effective network centric will coexist quite for a long time. Such tanks will also have some kind of evolution, but this will be a dead-end path.

          I agree.
          Countries that do not pull the game into "high technologies" will at once find themselves with a hopelessly outdated fleet of equipment in their hands.
          And when integrated laser installations (at least blinding) are registered on the tanks, it will even become dangerous to aim at them - the lidar has spotted the optics, and kirdyk to the eyes.
  17. dgonni
    dgonni 26 March 2021 16: 00
    +1
    In general, all tagil memes are given!
    A plant was built under the hammer / boxer in Zarkov. Sawed then for scrap and concrete!
    At the end of the 90th year, instructions for the operation of these tanks came to the KhGvVTKU!
    All of these problems? Somehow, the ingress of branches into the loading mechanism was eliminated on prototypes.
    The shielding of the gun had armor against light weapons and shrapnel. And in no way critically affected the mass of the tank.
    There was over armor on the forehead and sides. And I strongly doubt that the armata has something similar there! 1500 purely ao armor in the forehead without dynamic something stot!
    But tagil having taught from the Cuban working model sawed it under his ancient technologies. The result is an armata.
    Neither yourself nor people.
  18. Undecim
    Undecim 26 March 2021 17: 58
    +3
    On the concept of the tank of the future
    The author wrote the title and on this about the concept of the tank of the future, his story ended. Then came the many times retold "memories of the past," which have nothing to do with the topic.
    Meanwhile, both government agencies, such as the American DARPA (Ground X-Vehicle Technology Program), the British Dstl, and firms, in particular the BAE FPV project, Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael Advanced Defense, are working on the "tank of the future" concept. Systems, Elbit Systems with the Carmel project.
    But, apparently, the author is not aware of this.
  19. Couchexpert
    Couchexpert 26 March 2021 18: 12
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    This is obvious, but all this rolls the tank from its current state to the level of, if not a bunker, but a tank of the level of the Second World War, i.e. makes him incapacitated and vulnerable.

    Well, here, as they say, "not everything is so simple."
    What is the main advantage of a stand-alone tower? When hitting it, the probability of the death of the crew is much lower (you can also add that the probability of hitting the tower itself is somewhat lower due to its smaller dimensions, but this is almost insignificant). That is, it will only work when they hit the tank. Suppose, comparing with the T-90M, all other things being equal, when the Armata ammunition detonates, we lose the tank as a combat unit, but we keep the crew alive, while the T-90M loses both. It would seem that the difference is huge, tankers are a valuable resource / time and money for training, etc. But all this will take effect later, and within the framework of one particular battle, the result is identical: the tank is destroyed.
    But the disadvantages of such a layout, although they may seem insignificant individually, will operate constantly:
    1. The aforementioned impossibility of manual operations in the tower in the event of malfunctioning mechanisms (+ more complex / laborious repairs due to lack of access and many other nuances)
    2. Limited visibility (from the crew's seats forward - in narrow sectors, to the sides and back - only with the use of cameras / sights)
    3. Replenishment of ammunition (I do not know the details, but clearly not easier than that in the habitable volume)
    4. Durability of the tower. The article contains the following points:
    Quote: Article
    The implementation of the concept of the cannon removed from the turret was aimed at reducing the reserved volume and reducing the mass of the tank. Tests of the first prototypes of the Boxer tank showed that this decision is fraught not only with the defeat of the guns by small-caliber artillery, but also with possible malfunctions due to foreign objects falling into the gun bed during the operation of the tank.

    As a result, the gun had to be covered with an armored casing, and the weight gain was leveled. The experience of developing this tank showed that removing the gun from the turret does not solve the problem of a significant reduction in the mass of the tank and entails a number of technical difficulties with installing the gun and ensuring its reliable loading.

    And indeed, looking at the T-15 turret (in fact, a gun in an armored casing), "vague doubts are plagued" in its ability to resist shells as staunchly as its inhabited comrades (at least in the frontal projection). Yes, penetration is now much less dangerous for the crew, but "within the framework of one particular battle, the result is identical: the tank is destroyed." And the weight also could not be reduced.

    As a result, roughly speaking, we have traded the reliability of mission performance for a reduction in personnel losses (and even with a hefty surcharge). Is this justified? For low-intensity conflicts - rather yes than no, for full-scale wars - it is very doubtful.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 March 2021 22: 52
      0
      Quote: CouchExpert
      indeed, looking at the T-15 turret (in fact, a gun in an armored casing), "vague doubts plague it" in its ability to resist shells as staunchly as its inhabited comrades (at least in the frontal projection).

      Yes, yes, UVZ suddenly fell into "uninhabitedness" on the Armata and Terminator, while, in order to save weight, armor there - the cat cried.
      The justification of this unprotected weapon, in modern conditions, causes me (and not only) reasonable doubts.
      However, UVZ is big, he knows better hi
  20. zxc15682
    zxc15682 26 March 2021 20: 07
    0
    The ideal concept is "there are a lot of tanks" and "infantry loves tanks"
  21. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 27 March 2021 01: 37
    0
    The experience of developing this tank showed that removing the gun from the turret does not solve the problem of significantly reducing the mass of the tank and entails a number of technical difficulties with installing the gun and ensuring its reliable loading.

    Some nonsense .. The question is not in the mass, but in the sufficient recoil length for a large-caliber gun. This is problematic in the tower. From above, but with the ejection of the cartridge case - a nice thing. And the issues with gas pollution are immediately resolved, and the crew is deep below ..

    In general, not an article but so-so, gallop on top and all by.

    I am sure that for tanks the short-term perspective is the increase in caliber, the second perspective is a sharp increase in mobility and the transition to running tanks. I did not specifically say to the walking ones so that images of barely moving walking excavators, for example, did not appear. No, there are long-legged running cars further on. .. Well, or the final demise of armored vehicles and the transition exclusively to flying vehicles. But almost without armor. laughing
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 28 March 2021 01: 27
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      ... the second Outlook this is a sharp increase in mobility and a transition to running tanks. I did not specifically say to the walking ones so that images of barely moving walking excavators, for example, did not appear. No, further exactly long legged running cars ...

      Like these ones?


      Yes, no, well, fig! laughing Too gloomy "perspective"!