Military Review

What can be a new generation tank

145

Sci-fi concept tankAuthor Denis Rutkovsky


Introduction


Before writing about a new generation tank, I would like to define what is meant by a new generation of tanks. By the new generation of tanks, we mean a tank that, in terms of the totality of its characteristics, gains a significant advantage in battle over previously created tanks.

Any division into generations is conditional, but let us single out three generations of tanks.

The first generation is conditionally tanks of the First World War, the characteristic features of which are bulletproof protection and anti-personnel weapons (machine guns and weapons with low ballistics).

The second generation is tanks that appeared on the eve of World War II, their distinguishing feature was the presence of an anti-tank gun with armor-piercing shells and armor that could withstand armor-piercing shells.

The third generation of tanks are tanks armed with a smooth-bore stabilized cannon with armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles (BOPS) and equipped with combined armor with reactive armor (or similar protection).

The fourth generation of tanks can also be distinguished - these are tanks equipped with a panoramic electro-optical sight with an infrared channel, with a developed control system. weapons and an active protection system. But, in our opinion, this is still generation 3+, since it is represented mainly by modernized third-generation samples.

It should be noted that the T-14 "Armata" tank is a generation 3+ tank. Although it has a revolutionary layout that increases the survivability of the crew in battle, it does not provide advantages in battle.

Tanks were created to directly support the infantry in battle. Very soon after their creation, it became clear that the best means of fighting tanks were the tanks themselves. And most of the tanks after the Second World War were built on the principle "to fight their own kind."

But with the development of anti-tank weapons, the situation has changed. Tanks lost the ability to push through enemy defenses. They began to stay away from the enemy, acting as mobile pillboxes, firing from afar. But with the development of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such a safe distance for tanks no longer exists. The main problem is that a tank leading a battle (moving and shooting) cannot be hidden, and its defense is no longer an ultimatum.

The main opponents of tanks now are not the counterparts of the enemy, but portable anti-tank weapons and aircraft, with which the tanks are bad at fighting. The use of various tactics such as the "Syrian shaft" is situational and does not solve the problem. The tank has changed from a hunter to a prey. Everything is aggravated by the increase in the cost of tanks and a decrease in their number in the troops.

The development of tanks has come to a standstill. The increase in the caliber of the gun and the thickening of the armor leads to an exorbitant increase in the mass of the tank, which reduces the operational mobility. The introduction of electrochemical or even electromagnetic weapons, in fact, will not change anything. The existing guns already have significant penetration. Now in a tank duel, the winner is the one who first discovers and more accurately shoots at the enemy. Electrochemical (electromagnetic) weapons will increase the likelihood of hitting tanks and nothing more, but this will hardly affect the effectiveness of destruction of other targets.

A tank with a guided missile weapon is, in essence, a protected anti-tank missile system, the main problem of which is expensive ammunition. Tanks have to fire at various targets, and they cannot afford to spend ATGMs on each target, even in rich countries, because any ATGM is several times more expensive than a simple projectile.

The introduction, so to speak, of unmanned tanks is, in essence, a different class of technology. Namely, autonomous (controlled) robots. For robots, of course, the future, but very distant. Now even supercomputers are not able to distinguish their soldier from the enemy in a real combat situation. And there is still a civilian population? And how will they fight? Shoot whatever they find?

Remotely controlled vehicles also have a number of problems. And this is not only delays in signal transmission and electronic warfare (EW). The remotely controlled vehicle will constantly emit electromagnetic signals that can be used to track and locate it. When using HF directional antennas, the operator must be in line of sight (close) to the machine being driven. And then he himself can be tracked and detected, because his antenna will be directed towards the enemy. The control channel is the Achilles heel of remotely controlled vehicles.

The alleged appearance of the tank


The tank must leave the battlefield, keep in a position closed from the enemy, firing along a hinged trajectory. A UAV will be used to detect the enemy. The tank must have an echeloned active protection system with a multifunctional radar. The appearance of the tank assumed by the author (more precisely, its main features) can be described as follows.

Tank armed with a 152 mm mortar howitzer, with low ballistics, with the ability to fire an ATGM through the bore. Long firing range is not needed. Presumably, shells and artillery mines - up to 5 km, and ATGM - up to 10 km. Tentatively, this gun will be less in weight and dimensions than a smooth-bore tank gun of 125 mm caliber. And in terms of ammunition power it will surpass it. The installation of similar guns has already been done, for example, on the M551 Sheridan tank. But then it was supposed to shoot at targets in line of sight. And within such limits, there is nothing more effective against armored vehicles than BOPS.

On the roof of the turret of the tank, a drone of the type of a quadcopter with control and power supply by wires will be mounted. The UAV will rise to a height of 100-150 m. It will be used not only to detect and determine the coordinates of the target, but also to illuminate the target with a laser. The UAV will allow not only to increase the detection range, but also to solve a number of specific tasks such as inspecting roofs or upper floors of buildings, or it will be able to literally look around the corner of a building.

The installation of a UAV on a tank has already been considered several times. But on existing tanks, the UAV will be of little use or even harmful. Since, having detected a target with a UAV, it is not always possible to hit it with direct fire. And, being distracted by him, the commander can miss the target within sight.

On the front of the tower, phased antenna arrays of a multifunctional radar are mounted, which will be used to detect helicopters, UAVs, enemy equipment and, more importantly, approaching artillery mines and ATGMs.

I would like to emphasize that the radar should not only detect incoming artillery mines, but also determine their trajectory, and calculate the launch point. The radar can be used for missile guidance (radio-command-guided missiles are the easiest to implement) and for firing adjustments. The radar will not work constantly, but will be used according to the situation. The radar detection range is small and its size should also be small. For example, the Armata tank already has a radar, but presumably not powerful enough.

Ammunition will be placed in a vertical carousel ammunition rack under the turret and in the rear of the turret. It is possible to locate longer ammunition there, such as supersonic ATGMs and surface-to-air missiles (of course, no one is going to make an anti-aircraft missile system out of a tank, but it would be nice to shoot down a UAV).

Presumably, the ammunition load will be 30-40 shells, artillery mines and various missiles. Development of new missiles will be required.

For example, let's imagine such a rocket. Two-stage rocket. With the help of the first subsonic stage, the rocket gains altitude and transmits information to the operator through the unwinding fiber-optic wire behind it. After climb, the rocket goes into horizontal flight, and the operator, according to the data from the television (infrared) guidance head, detects the target. Then the target is captured by the seeker. After that, the first stage with a wire is discarded, and the second supersonic stage is turned on. And the rocket flies to the target on its own. This missile can be used without a UAV, according to preliminary reconnaissance data. And if hypersonic unguided missiles are created, then they can become a kind of replacement for BOPS for direct fire. Homing artillery mines are not a bad thing either. In general, there is a great field for imagination. But it is the ammunition that will determine the effectiveness of this tank.

Being in a closed position, the tank will not be threatened by BOPS, which means that the booking can be reduced. And the dimensions of the tank will not play a big role. The main emphasis in defense will be on increasing the ability to actively defend against ATGM and artillery mines.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we do not refuse to make a reservation, we just shift the focus. The tank, although it will try to work from a closed position, must have every opportunity to fight on the move within the line of sight of the enemy. Active protection of the tank must be comprehensive and echeloned. Alternatively, it is worth considering the possibility of placing a small number of anti-missile missiles with radio command guidance on the turret of the tank and using a machine gun to destroy incoming artillery mines.

The crew of the tank is two people: a driver-mechanic and a gunner-operator. We do not refuse the commander, he will be located not far in another vehicle - a control vehicle (command and staff vehicle), made on the basis of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle (BMP). This vehicle will contain the commanders of three tanks and the commander of their unit (perhaps the composition will be different). If necessary, they should be able to remotely connect to the surveillance devices (UAVs) of the tank they control.

The crew's work algorithm will be noticeable as follows. When moving into position, the driver leads the tank, and the gunner controls the situation around the tank through observation devices on the turret. Upon arrival at the position, the driver switches to the observation devices on the tower and monitors the situation around the tank, and the gunner lifts the UAV and searches for targets. Shooting is carried out in an automated mode. All this time, the commander monitors the general situation according to intelligence and interacts with other forces and means, issuing target designations for the tank. I want to note right away that the crew cannot independently maintain and repair the tank, the tanks are becoming more difficult and special units must exist for the maintenance and repair of equipment.

Advantages in battle


Consider a hypothetical collision of an existing modern tank 1 with the proposed tank 2. Tank 2 will be the first to detect tank 1 and open fire, since it has a longer view range due to the UAV, and it is difficult to notice a UAV hovering over the tops of trees or a hill. Tank 2 will use an ATGM against tank 1. Now the main means of countering ATGM is the setting of an aerosol curtain. And if tank 1 is irradiated with a laser, and the ATGM is not launched at it, the protection system will automatically fire off grenades with an aerosol curtain. And after tank 1 emerges from the aerosol cloud, repeat this "hooliganism". And repeat again. Which ends first: aerosol grenades or the patience of the tank commander 1? This means that the aerosol curtain is far from a panacea, like active defense systems (missiles have a wealth of experience in overcoming active defense systems, those who are interested can read about anti-ship missiles).

Even if tank 1 can spot the UAV of tank 2, it just can't shoot at it. Let's say tank 1 managed to get into a direct collision with tank 2. Tank 2 immediately sets up an aerosol curtain. And with the help of the radar, it will detect and attack the tank 1. It is even possible to place the aerosol curtain in advance (by supporting it), raise the UAV above the cloud and fire according to the data from the UAV. Tank 1, due to the aerosol curtain, will not be able to shoot accurately. If tank 1 prefers to sit in cover, tank 2 can gradually move from one cover to another, periodically raising the UAV to assess the situation. The UAV gives a chance to avoid an ambush by literally looking behind possible cover.

In this example, the presence of the command vehicle, where the tank commander is located, was not considered for tank 2. The control machine will not be idle. If she has no one to interact with (receive intelligence data), then she herself will play the role of a reconnaissance machine.

In reality, tanks do not fight separately from the rest of the troops. The main task of the proposed tank will be to work on external target designation. The proposed tank will be able to fire relatively safely. And the main danger for him will be aircraft (UAV) and counter-battery fire.

We can say that this tank is something like an artillery system of the front edge and can only solve tasks of direct fire support for troops. And there are also tasks for reconnaissance in force, so to speak, for "covering with armor", etc. Everything is correct. He does not have to solve these problems. For this, there must be other machines. Such as: heavy combat reconnaissance vehicle, heavy infantry fighting vehicles and so on.

But that is another topic.
Author:
145 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro April 18 2021 15: 11
    +11
    Of course, you can't forbid fantasizing. And everyone wants the sword of Kladin.
    There is no clear role of the tank on the battlefield. The main thesis of the mobile anti-tank pillbox was a dead end. And the main task of supporting the infantry is not clear to whom it is entrusted.
    1. credo
      credo April 18 2021 15: 20
      +5
      Quote: apro
      Of course, you can't forbid fantasizing. And everyone wants the sword of Kladin.
      There is no clear role of the tank on the battlefield. The main thesis of the mobile anti-tank pillbox was a dead end. And the main task of supporting the infantry is not clear to whom it is entrusted.

      Perhaps I'm wrong, but judging by the current use of tanks in numerous wars, their task is reduced to the task of a lightning-fast attack on the demoralized positions of the enemy and consolidating the position of the captured positions after the massive processing of enemy positions with artillery, aviation and other long-range means of war.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT April 18 2021 20: 23
        +2
        Quote: credo
        Perhaps I'm wrong, but judging by the current use of tanks in numerous wars, their task is reduced to the task of a lightning-fast attack on the demoralized positions of the enemy and consolidating the position of the captured positions after the massive processing of enemy positions with artillery, aviation and other long-range means of war.

        Well, this is cavalry, chop it into cabbage and drive it into complete shock, that's just the thing! hi
    2. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee April 18 2021 15: 24
      +12


      Choose ..... hi
      1. xorek
        xorek April 18 2021 16: 35
        +4
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Choose

        I chose this one ..)))
        1. businessv
          businessv April 20 2021 11: 44
          +1
          Quote: xorek
          I chose this one ..)))

          A worthy choice! The inhabitants of Bailrode to their liberators. It is especially unusual for Germany, even for 1975, but in the light of today's realities it is very bold! Thank you, colleague! soldier
    3. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 April 18 2021 15: 30
      +14
      Generally not so) everything depends not on the role but on the possibilities of complex interaction. In general, it really infuriates the fact that the role of MBT is constantly being determined in isolation from everyone. A tank is a tool. Like any other weapon. Reconnaissance, target designation, cover. Why is this not taken into account ?!
      1. businessv
        businessv April 20 2021 11: 50
        0
        Quote: carstorm 11
        Reconnaissance, target designation, cover. Why is this not taken into account ?!
        The author transferred these functions to the aircraft, therefore, one of the purposes listed by you remains - a cover. It was about him that the author mainly wrote. smile In any case, the article is interesting if it forces itself to be discussed.
    4. lucul
      lucul April 18 2021 15: 36
      +3
      There is no clear role of the tank on the battlefield. The main thesis of the mobile anti-tank pillbox was a dead end. And the main task of supporting the infantry is not clear to whom it is entrusted.

      This is because the tank is BLIND, like a knight in full armor and with the visor down, but raise the visor and completely different possibilities appear.
      So it is here - the tank needs EYES. For this, a quadcopter with a night vision device and a thermal imager with a viewing range of at least 5 km is suitable, which would hang above the tank at a height of 20-30 m (above the forest), and could fly in front of the tank at 100-1000 m. So that the enemy does not have a chance to hide using the terrain.
      When the tank commander has 100% control over the situation around him and sees all the movement of the enemy in real time on his monitor, then believe me, the commander will find the right application for the tank.
      1. boni592807
        boni592807 April 19 2021 17: 09
        +1
        lucul (Vitaliy), Yesterday, 15:36, NEWTh - So it is here - the tank needs EYES. For this, a quadcopter with a night vision device and a thermal imager with a viewing range of at least 5 km is suitable, which would hang above the tank at a height of 20-30 m (above the forest), and could fly in front of the tank at 100-1000 m. So that the enemy does not have a chance to hide using the terrain.


        Maybe an unnecessary burden in the form of a quadcopter ?! what And this place and others! In a war, there are no extra cartridges (BC) soldier .
        Reliable communication and network information exchange system, about which for a long time min. from the 80s they say. Somewhere its elements are(threaten USA and other partners, something about China and a little about Russia), should be at least in the country's ACS and ... Yes, and at the level of the department there are developments, incl. with us. (Ratnik - showing the possibility of monitoring l / s, both location and others ...)... If it works, then, in terms of information, incl. from on the map (mnemonic diagram), to video with time dynamics will be at incl. the crew (com-ra) of the tank. But, this is a new level, like the transition from the Mosin rifle to the SVT before and during the Second World War,
    5. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 18 2021 15: 55
      +5
      Well, here the Object 782 would be more optimal.100 mm cannon + 30 mm machine gun + AGSs, complete with a 23 mm anti-aircraft module and KAZ and you get a fire support vehicle
      1. max702
        max702 April 19 2021 07: 27
        0
        That's right, only placement in a tank turret, and on a developed aft niche, an epoch-type module with places for 2-3 UAVs with an automatic take-off / landing / charging function .. A couple of crew members .. well, maybe, again, the author himself said that the communication channel is the vulnerability .. The UAV will most likely be fought with a microwave gun because there will not be enough air defense missiles for any ..
    6. Old tanker
      Old tanker April 19 2021 06: 51
      +1
      The described vehicle is not a tank. This is a more advanced self-contained weapon of the concept "Nona" - "Vienna" - "Hosta" - "Lotus".
      But the support of the infantry is carried out precisely by artillery and army aviation. Tanks, since the Second World War, were the main striking force of the ground forces. They carried out the function of supporting the infantry only at the first stage of their development.
    7. Doliva63
      Doliva63 April 19 2021 18: 11
      +1
      Quote: apro
      Of course, you can't forbid fantasizing. And everyone wants the sword of Kladin.
      There is no clear role of the tank on the battlefield. The main thesis of the mobile anti-tank pillbox was a dead end. And the main task of supporting the infantry is not clear to whom it is entrusted.

      Come on! You would read the BUSV at your leisure, or something. Expert, damn it laughing
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty April 18 2021 15: 22
    +16
    What you are proposing is a vision of a modern tank, the same Armata platform. Your tank of the future in life is a tank of today. You are not a technician, not an engineer, this is clear from your article, otherwise you would remember how in the same Karabakh they massively burned equipment from the air. A tank today can be burned down with a rocket within a dozen kilometers easily, and the crew will not even understand what happened. The laser is not a panacea, there are a lot of devices for scattering its beam now, and shooting traps will not work, if the tank has a laser beam scattering system. You did not describe anything new, due to the presence of too little information, or poor analysis of it, but I gave you + just for your desire, and for the courage in writing this article.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx April 18 2021 16: 21
      +9
      Quote: Thrifty
      You did not describe anything new, due to the presence of too little information, or poor analysis of it, but I gave you + precisely for the desire and for the courage in writing this article.

      good
      I also gave you a "+" for a brief analysis of the article.
      Before conceiving a new generation "tank", it is time to think about the operational-tactical situation of the place and time of using such equipment. There is no need to retell the reasons for the futility of such developments (they have already been explained), just as you should not bet on the low speed of the tank, a very problematic suspension with a low resource and weak protection against modern ATGMs.
      As armored artillery (only where, in what conditions and against whom), you can use existing models or make a fully autonomous (like "Uran-9"):

      There are weapons that lose their purpose with the advent of effective and cheap means of suppression. And it's time to stop preparing for the last war. And the Syrian terrorists look a little differently as army units with the appropriate weapons.
      1. ironic
        ironic April 18 2021 20: 29
        +1
        The project "me and a woman, me and a grandfather". Fire the project manager.
      2. Koval Sergey
        Koval Sergey April 19 2021 06: 48
        +18
        Quote: ROSS 42
        I also gave you a "+" for a brief analysis of the article.

        I gave you a "+" for parsing the analysis
        And according to the article ... Everything that the author suggested is also neutralized. First, the UAV will be demolished, then the commander's BMP ...
  3. knn54
    knn54 April 18 2021 15: 23
    -1
    It turns out that "Armata" is already yesterday?
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 18 2021 15: 34
      -3
      Quote: knn54
      It turns out that "Armata" is already yesterday?

      It also seemed strange to me .., "Why is there a hole in the head and in the budget? Why is it yesterday instead of tomorrow?" Let the doctor tell us about oil and gas ..... "(c) Rabfak.
  4. nnm
    nnm April 18 2021 15: 39
    +3
    What can be a new generation tank

    An unmanned platform carrying various means of fire, included in a single network-centric information field, but also having independent tactical reconnaissance and strike UAVs. wink
  5. bar
    bar April 18 2021 15: 39
    +4
    This vehicle will contain the commanders of three tanks and the commander of their unit.

    Wisely, what. Collect all commanders in one vehicle to destroy them all at once sad
  6. Kars
    Kars April 18 2021 15: 42
    +11
    Something like that
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 18 2021 15: 45
      +5
      Quote: Kars
      Something like that

      Blimey!!! wassat
      Greetings, thousand years, thousand winters! hi drinks
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv April 19 2021 09: 02
      +6
      Quote: Kars
      Something like that

      Hello Andrey.
      I'm glad to see you.
      For a long time did not communicate.
      hi
      I'll unsubscribe a little later in a personal.
      ...........

      By article:
      It has become fashionable to bury a tank.
      Just "fashion for about military themes".

      Let's remember the very concept of the tank:
      This is a kind of mobile platform of high cross-country ability, protected as much as possible from physical destruction and having serious firepower.
      The specificity of the tank - it is sharpened for combat AT DIRECT VISIBILITY, it is a specialist "hand-to-hand".

      Someone throws a machine gun because the enemy is wearing a bulletproof vest?
      Or let's give up aviation, because air defense was invented.

      A tank is a fighter on the battlefield.
      He as an ESSENCE will be for a long time, until technology is brought to something like the "Main War Machine". But her skeleton will be built on the basis of the tank.

      The conversation needs to be about upgrades, protection against new means of attack and the integration of the tank as a "strike fist" into a single command system for controlling the battle (I paraphrase this newfangled phrase with the old and understandable: "... Ensuring the interaction of your own and attached units, as well as the means of the senior commander ... "

      Giving up a tank is like giving up a fist in a fist fight.

      If someone is ready to complete a combat mission in a land theater without tanks, then please - the flag is in their hands.
      wink
    3. Lycan
      Lycan April 19 2021 12: 33
      0
      Good (big, slow) target.
      But here, too, there is an advantage - the beam is not ballistic. trajectory and therefore you can "water" from a high point ... for a while. It is imperative to take a "curtain", BMPTs and an armful of interceptors with you.
  7. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins April 18 2021 15: 43
    +15
    The author described not a tank, but a fourth-generation SPG. Focusing on shooting from a closed position, he took the second place to attacking actions ...
    Technologically it is difficult to combine the present AZ and located in the aft niche and ... Why ?!
    One feed is enough. And instead of the "carousel", place a more compact and protected stack of manual loading for an "emergency."
    Ammunition ... ATGM is good. But, instead of a bunch of UAV-ATGMs, one can assume the presence of barrage ammunition launched through the barrel (plus the presence of ordinary ones), but the "drone" can be assigned a spare role.
    Protection. Here she should become more "active". With the possibility of multiple destruction of incoming ammunition at a distance from the tank.
    And, finally, the protection of the tank must protect the crew, which will lead either to a rearrangement, or to a combined (maybe electric) power plant, due to the gain in weight, an increase in the protection of the frontal projection.
  8. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 18 2021 15: 45
    +2
    And then, and another ... fifth, tenth ... Well, indeed, "dreams and suffering" Agafya Tikhonovna!
  9. Phoenix
    Phoenix April 18 2021 15: 49
    +7
    I don't understand all these fantasies. No one has yet managed to prove the uselessness of KAZ, tanks equipped with the latest technology still reliably perform their functions, and hundreds of experts are already burying the entire branch of the military, and even offer a "hairdryer with a flashlight" within the framework of their own fantasies ...
    When we see the first real war in which anti-tank systems and UAVs will cope with groups of tanks fully equipped with KAZ and covered with air defense - then we will talk about some kind of inefficiency of existing tanks. Until then, shove under the bench.
  10. Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov April 18 2021 15: 54
    +8
    Fine on paper. But in life everything is much more prosaic. Two members
    crews will physically not be able to service the tank, and no re-brigades will help them, because they will be located anywhere, but not where they need it. Except for the garrison, of course. Regarding the vulnerability of the tank, it was already buried first by ATGMs, then by helicopters, and now it is being buried with the help of a UAV.
    And by and large the author in his article described not a tank but an SPG.
    1. Genry
      Genry April 18 2021 20: 36
      -2
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      Two members
      crews will physically not be able to service the tank, and no re-brigades will help them, because they will be located anywhere, but not where they need it.

      And unmanned tanks (airplanes ...) you cannot imagine at all.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov April 18 2021 20: 54
        -1
        "You can't even imagine" - an unmanned (radio-controlled) tank in the near future, I really can't imagine.
        1. Genry
          Genry April 19 2021 00: 04
          0
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          - an unmanned (radio-controlled) tank in the near future, I really can't imagine.

          So you are behind the times.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov April 19 2021 08: 30
            +1
            And where is the tank ???
            1. Genry
              Genry April 19 2021 09: 42
              -1
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              And where is the tank ???

              There is a gun - it means a tank !!! yes
              Although the name "tank" has nothing to do with combat vehicles.
              Uranus-9 is a robotic combat vehicle.
              Why carry extra empty volume and extra armor ...
              1. Sergey Valov
                Sergey Valov April 19 2021 10: 22
                -1
                We're talking about tanks.
                "Why carry an extra empty volume and extra armor" - if there is no armor, then this machine is not a battlefield. The lack of internal volumes forces us to make external hatches for servicing the equipment.
                "Although the name" tank "has nothing to do with combat vehicles." - dashing !!! This will come as a surprise to the military!
                "Uranus-9" is an excellent representative who drank money and satisfaction of the wishes of its developers. Before the series as before the moon.
                1. Genry
                  Genry April 19 2021 10: 39
                  -2
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  if there is no armor, then this vehicle is not a battlefield.

                  If there is no tender carcass, then the effect of the fiery pestle will be useless - there is no one to kill with hot gases and pressure. Those. cumulative shells and missiles are already losing their effectiveness. Only heavy land mines and very energetic "crowbars" remain - and with them it is more difficult to get into a small car jumping from cover to cover (a land mine flies from a distance to an old position, and for a sub-caliber only exactly to a vulnerable spot),
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  "Uranus-9" is an excellent representative who drank money and satisfaction of the wishes of its developers. Before the series as before the moon.

                  The moon over your head:

                  2019
                  The Ministry of Defense has adopted a combat robot "Uran-9"
                  https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5c48f6a49a79472225aec7cb

                  2021
                  The first strike corps "Uranov" was created in Russia
                  https://www.ng.ru/armies/2021-04-12/8_8126_robot.html
                  1. Sergey Valov
                    Sergey Valov April 19 2021 14: 52
                    0
                    A quote from your source - "As explained in the Ministry of Defense, a new unit is being created" to develop methods and forms of using units with robotic systems. "
                    This is by no means a series; it is, at best, military tests. By the way, this Uranus 9 visited Syria and received negative reviews.
                    1. Genry
                      Genry April 19 2021 16: 32
                      -1
                      Quote: Sergey Valov
                      "To develop methods and forms of application of units with robotic systems"

                      You correctly noted this point, because it is necessary not only to learn how to use these machines, but also to formally register them in tactics and regulations.
                      Quote: Sergey Valov
                      This is far from a series

                      The word "series" doesn't really say anything. This is just the release of several identical pieces of equipment for a single order. The series can be small or large. From series to series, errors are eliminated and improved ....
                      In this case, a series of 20 pieces. Uranium-9 and 5 control machines - but production is already ready.
                      Quote: Sergey Valov
                      this Uranus 9 visited Syria and received negative reviews.

                      On the fact of making decisions, we see the opposite. He, like Terminator 2, would have been bullied for a long time. It's just that new technology always has comments, more or less, and they have already been eliminated, otherwise ...
                  2. moody
                    moody April 28 2021 00: 53
                    0
                    If there is no tender carcass, then the effect of the fiery pestle will be useless - there is no one to kill with hot gases and pressure. Those. cumulative shells and missiles are already losing their effectiveness.


                    So now cumulative shells and missiles are not dangerous for the fuel tank, engine and ammunition?
                    "And the men did not know that!"
                    1. Genry
                      Genry April 28 2021 10: 45
                      0
                      Quote: morose
                      So now cumulative shells and missiles are not dangerous for the fuel tank, engine and ammunition?

                      And you didn't even know! tongue
                      The cumulative jet does not detonate modern ammunition - it will only melt it (like a red-hot knife into butter).
                      Diesel fuel tanks are more likely to perform a protective function (diesel fuel without spraying in hot air - does not burn). The leak will self-destruct, like in an airplane. If something splashes out and ignites, there is a fire extinguishing system.
                      Uranium-9 can live, for some time, without an engine-generator, which only recharges the batteries.
                      1. moody
                        moody April 29 2021 01: 29
                        0
                        That is, for example, a video from Syria with ATGM shelling of tanks and the subsequent ignition of ammunition with multi-meter torches from the hatches is a clever installation?
                        Well, now I will know.
                      2. Genry
                        Genry April 29 2021 08: 24
                        0
                        Quote: morose
                        video from Syria with ATGM shelling of tanks

                        You would specify what kind of shells and where they came from - some kind of counterfeit.
                        And yes, the probability of getting into the initiating substance in the capsule has not been canceled.

                        And more often the tanks were worried by several crews - for this, evacuators are needed ... or fell into the wrong hands.
                      3. moody
                        moody April 30 2021 23: 00
                        0
                        You would specify what kind of shells and where they came from - some kind of counterfeit.


                        Those. not counterfeit gunpowder should not burn?

                        And yes, the probability of getting into the initiating substance in the capsule has not been canceled.


                        I agree! However, theoretically, the probability of shooting the buttons from the loader's fly with a cumulative jet is not zero. And, even possibly, without harm to his subsequent offspring.
                      4. Genry
                        Genry 1 May 2021 13: 20
                        0
                        Quote: morose
                        Those. not counterfeit gunpowder should not burn?

                        The first explosive - nitroglycerin - was even afraid of shaking. Do you already understand the way of its development? Safety!
                        There's an old cool movie on the nitroglycerin topic:
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5NtqjpmDCY
                        Quote: morose
                        However, theoretically, the probability of shooting the buttons from the loader's fly with a cumulative jet is not zero.

                        Pay attention to these little things?
                        You are a woman? tongue
                      5. moody
                        moody 1 May 2021 14: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Genry
                        Pay attention to these little things?
                        You are a woman?


                        "Go. No, wait! One more question. Don't be surprised if ... Well, in short, a cornet, are you a woman ?!"
                        I have no urge to lie to you, Your Grace. I am a woman. "
  • Undecim
    Undecim April 18 2021 16: 03
    +12
    If the editorial board is unable to publish such "predictions" without publishing, then it is worth creating a separate heading, something like "Children invent" or "Murzilka-military".
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 19 2021 05: 45
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      "Murzilka-military".

      I am for ! Behind both hands fellow ! Do you know how many of these military murziloks I have? That's so much! fellow
  • Grognag
    Grognag April 18 2021 16: 08
    +2
    It is very interesting, in the preamble it was said that remote control for robots is a minus, since there is unmasking, etc., I agree with this, but further it is written that it is necessary to reduce the crew and transfer the commander to the TBMP, and from it how to control the flags? How to control a UAV? With the power of thought, then with a cannon - a light depth mortar which is not for shooting bops since the tank will fight from a closed position, but then again the conclusion that the tank should fight in the first line is how?
    1. Aag
      Aag April 18 2021 19: 58
      +8
      Perhaps, all the disadvantages, problems, vulnerabilities of existing tanks listed by the Author, he also reproduced in his project ... In a particularly perverted form ... He missed, however, the anti-torpedo protection, and the means of intercepting ICBMs ...
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 April 18 2021 16: 08
    +12
    By the new generation of tanks we mean a tank, which, in terms of the totality of its characteristics, gains a significant advantage in battle over previously created tanks.
    I did not read further. Well what the ... Author! Are you the type to hide with a knife for a shootout? Sit, damn it, at home!
    Outplayed in tanks? Relax. There will be no tank duels. Leave this nonsense in the last century. The opponents of tanks are not tanks at all, so it is ridiculous to consider the issue from this angle, and nothing more. At the moment, the tank of the "next generation" looks like this - it is a plastic toy, a little kid to carry with him .. That's all.
    The tank was born as a means of breaking through defenses, and a mobile infantry shield. Fulfillment of these tasks in modern military confrontation by means of tanks is impossible. There is not and will not be armor of the required quality. Scare the naked-assed natives. Everything.
    As with space technology. Chemical astronautics has exhausted itself, and all "improvement" is limited to replacing the dial gauges with LCD screens. For new tanks to appear, you need NEW armor. Fundamentally new. But physics is dead at the moment. The quanta are running around, making money out of payments. Qubits in an embrace with officials are getting rid of budgets. And there is no physics, so there is no new armor, and there will be no new tanks. Forget it, author ...
    1. Fredgar Puzix Jr.
      Fredgar Puzix Jr. April 18 2021 16: 43
      +10
      That's right, you need armor with new physical properties or a breakthrough in electromagnetic injection and the creation of protective fields ...
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 19 2021 05: 50
        +11
        Quote: Fredgar Puzix Jr.
        you need armor with new physical properties or a breakthrough in electromagnetic introduction and the creation of protective fields ...

        Right ! We need a tank with a gravitational force shield and a matter annihilator ... that will be cool! good
        1. Koval Sergey
          Koval Sergey April 19 2021 06: 41
          +17
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          We need a tank with a gravitational force protective field and a matter annihilator

          If a protective field is installed on the tank, it means that technologies have reached the level of scattering of annihilating rays. Again a dead end ...
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I April 19 2021 07: 39
            +2
            Quote: Sergey Koval
            If a protective field is installed on the tank, it means that technologies have reached the level of scattering of annihilating rays.

            Do not believe in these cartoons of the enemy side about RALs (scatterers of annihilating rays) Remote scanning of the consciousness of the Chief Designer (GR) of RAL Clutinia using a stream of subquarks did not reveal any ready-made RAL schemes in the consciousness of the GR ... The developer, on the third day of the celebration of his wife's birthday, is busy looking for a "drinker" ... Analysts of the information and intelligence center have not yet figured out the composition of this secret drug!
        2. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 April 19 2021 09: 02
          0
          In the meantime, there is none of this, the old armored hulls are quite suitable. Overwhelmed, electronics slapped, that's all. No new tanks are needed, because there is no point in them. Well, perhaps shaking the budget, but this is not for war ...
  • Mister who
    Mister who April 18 2021 16: 13
    -3
    Remove the tower, place the drones in the form of missiles vertically as on a submarine. In principle, you don't need a tank on the battlefield, drag an expensive snail across the field or a couple of drones, technology does not stand still. Redefine the role of the tank: as a platform with drones or guided missiles, it directly participates in the battle on the front line. Or as a platform for delivering drones to the battlefield without engaging in battle. The main thing is speed: detection and firing. Compare new samples for responsiveness. As an example of Armata against several T-90s, see the result, just try a platform with drones and the same T-90 or Armata.
    1. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich April 18 2021 20: 07
      +1
      Quote: Mister Who
      Remove the tower, place the drones in the form of missiles vertically as on a submarine In principle, a tank is not needed on the battlefield, to drag an expensive snail across the field or a pair of drones,

      you just never seem to have seen a tank.
      even during exercises, when at night a battalion of tanks comes at you and the ground trembles, the feeling is very uncomfortable. rumbling and not good thoughts.
      and if this is the enemy, then the infantry feels perishable. and not only the infantry.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 April 19 2021 09: 08
        -1
        Quote: Maki Avellievich
        you just never seem to have seen a tank.

        One of the objections that have been put forward against the muzzle brake on the cannon is to spoil the appearance. Not menacing enough. Are you fucking serious ?!
        1. Maki Avellevich
          Maki Avellevich April 21 2021 08: 47
          0
          Quote: Mikhail3
          One of the objections that have been put forward against the muzzle brake on the cannon is to spoil the appearance. Not menacing enough. Are you fucking serious ?!

          I repeat for those in the tank.

          coffers for rushing action tanks clanging tracks and the earth trembles you will be scared.
          and when they hit with heavy coaxial machine guns and aggravate with antipersonnel charges,
          some even do not have time to cheat.

          that's why I say, you haven't seen a tank. and everyone who shouts that there is no place for a tank on the battlefield either.

    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 19 2021 09: 07
      -1
      Remove the tower, place the drones in the form of missiles vertically as on a submarine

      No booking required for such a platform. And on the battlefield she has nothing to do.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 18 2021 16: 17
    -1
    Yes, that's right, pure fantasy.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 April 18 2021 16: 20
    0
    Most likely unmanned and capable of attacking and defending within the hemisphere, where the tank is the center of the sphere and the upper hemisphere with a slight decrease in the angle of the gun, its sphere of action of its weapons.
  • xorek
    xorek April 18 2021 16: 27
    -5
    What can be a new generation tank

    Well, of course. As a "merkava", the best tank in all the times of Israel ... laughing wassat Who is against this, you better keep quiet? bully
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock April 18 2021 16: 29
    +5
    I only read up to
    the tank must leave the battlefield

    There is no need to go further, because a tank is a vehicle specifically for the battlefield.
  • Avior
    Avior April 18 2021 16: 36
    +5
    The author described the symbiosis of an SPG and a tank.
    The tank, although it will try to work from a closed position, must have every opportunity to fight on the move within the line of sight of the enemy.

    The requirement for protection at the level of a tank for an SPG will immediately push the price up. What is the point of hiding him in closed positions if he is protected for battle on the front lines?
    In my opinion, the future of tanks will be determined by active protection systems - there is nowhere to increase the thickness of the armor, besides, the appearance of the UAV puts forward the requirement for equal-strength booking from all angles, including from above, which is actually unrealistic.
    Therefore, if active defense systems are able to ensure the survival of the tank on the battlefield, then there will be its further development.
    They will not be able to - this direction will stall or go to a secondary direction
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 18 2021 20: 06
      +5
      Quote: Avior
      Therefore, if active defense systems are able to ensure the survival of the tank on the battlefield, then there will be its further development.


      KAZ, built-in electronic warfare systems are already the norm. We need systems armed with radars, OLS, and anti-aircraft weapons in line with tanks.
      We have this BMPT that needs to be equipped with radars and taught to work by air.
      They have IM-SHORAD on Stryker / Bradley. But they need to do on the Abrams platform. By the way, in the 90s there was such a project, AGDS / M1.


      We need a tank platoon where there are classic tanks and support tanks working against ground and air anti-tank weapons. We have T-90 / Armata + BMPT, they have Abrams / Leopard + AGDS / IM-SHORAD. It is impossible to create a universal machine against everything.
      The main thing is to make these vehicles optionally unmanned. For especially dangerous missions, the crew is transferred to an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier equipped with means for remote control.

      Solid state radars, fixed (MHR). Like IM-SHORAD. UAVs are not needed for every tank. They must be separate, brigade, or attached to a tank company. If really needed, kamikaze drones launched directly from the barrel or from BMPT / SHORAD.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 19 2021 06: 32
        +2
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        This is a BMPT that needs to be equipped with radars and taught to work through the air.

        Here I will not object ... I myself have repeatedly said that BMPTs are needed to support tanks, but of a different kind than the current "terminators"! I also said that one type of BMPT would not be enough ... at least 2 types ... one - "assault tank"; the other - "collective (group) KAZ"!
        At the end of the last century, the Americans "predicted" promising KAZs ... They concluded that 2 types of KAZs are needed: 1. short-range and 2. medium (long-range) action ... Moreover, they even began to design such KAZs (if try, then, probably, it will be possible to find these projects on the Internet ...) Moreover, long-range (medium) action KAZs should "work" up to 1-2 km! That is why the following idea is "emerging": 1. Short-range missiles - "individual" on tanks; 2.KAZy long-range - collective (group) weapons with placement on BMPT "type 2"! It is possible that the BMPT of type 3 will also be needed ... UAV carriers ...
        1. sen
          sen April 19 2021 10: 05
          +2
          Moreover, long-range (medium) action KAZs should "work" up to 1-2 km

          Yes. I read about it.
          http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren16/BO_ROB13.doc
          In the subtitle "VII. Robot for short-range missile defense."
          The basis is a laser that burns out the sensitive elements of the GOS ATGM with an infrared, television and laser semi-active system and an anti-missile with a range of up to 2 km.
      2. Mister who
        Mister who April 19 2021 13: 33
        0
        While it will launch from the barrel, another platform will work out all its ammunition and mow down quite a few tanks
  • Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin April 18 2021 16: 41
    +2
    > Although it has a revolutionary layout that increases the survivability of the crew in battle, it does not provide advantages in battle.
    Is there any contradiction?

    > Tank armed with a 152 mm mortar howitzer, with low ballistics, with the ability to fire ATGM through the bore.
    Then the launcher a la Sturmtiger and additional ATGM installations. If here is the idea of ​​an assault tank, then 152mm is not enough for guaranteed suppression of firing points, Shirokorad, for example, substantiated this moment.
    1. Couchexpert
      Couchexpert April 18 2021 18: 44
      +3
      Quote: Victor Tsenin
      Is there any contradiction?

      Strangely enough, no. By her own the layout does not affect the likelihood of defeat (here, of course, you can start calculating the decrease in the areas of the turret projections, the increase in the dimensions of the tank in the plan, etc., but all these are not too significant things, especially in the light of the controlled weapons that the author is pushing against), but in case of defeat the crew is more likely to survive because the ammunition or fuel will explode behind the wall. And the tank ... the tank is crazy anyway.
      Quote: Victor Tsenin
      Then the launcher a la Sturmtiger and additional ATGM installations. If here is the idea of ​​an assault tank, then 152mm is not enough for guaranteed suppression of firing points, Shirokorad, for example, substantiated this moment.

      And how much is needed for the guaranteed? 203? 240?
      1. Victor Tsenin
        Victor Tsenin April 18 2021 21: 08
        0
        > but in the event of a defeat, the crew's probability of surviving is higher, since the ammunition or fuel will explode behind the wall. And the tank ... the tank is crazy anyway.
        I agree about the likelihood of defeat, but if the defeat is not fatal, then the conditional armored capsule is more likely to allow the battle to continue, which means it still gives advantages in battle.
        > 203? 240?
        From 203 to the necessary, I suppose)
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 April 18 2021 16: 44
    +7
    This line of reasoning reminds me of an anecdote that Putin told about an Israeli soldier, which ends with the words:
    - General, and in our army, am I alone at war?
    A tank does not fight on its own, an army fights, which includes such a branch of troops as tanks. Drones and protection against them, target designation, reconnaissance, etc. all this should be in the army as a whole, and not in one tank.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 18 2021 16: 45
    -1
    Sheridan with the UAV.
  • nonsense
    nonsense April 18 2021 16: 53
    +6
    laughing the "tank" of the future described here is simply NOT NECESSARY. The tank itself is superfluous in your description. Already now, all the elements of warfare described by you in this device exist separately and there is no need to combine them into a kind of tank. A tank is an infantry fire support vehicle. Although now they, tanks, have turned into pure SPTP (self-propelled anti-tank guns) - with very highly specialized weapons sharpened to destroy their own similar armored vehicles - this is all the legacy of the 20th century. It was armored vehicles that represented the main danger to the infantry (and little has changed here). You just need to supplement the classic tanks (SPTP in fact) with a new BM, capable of effectively fighting infantry anti-tank targets. (IMHO BO from an BMP-3 on a T-72 chassis will do just fine.) The main thing is to correctly assemble the unit depending on the expected enemy ... And there is no need to turn tanks into self-propelled artillery and air defense systems - this will only lead to an increase in the cost and complication of crew training).
  • Emil Azeri
    Emil Azeri April 18 2021 17: 20
    +3
    The tankers themselves also need KAZ. And then some ATGM "5th Generation" have already learned to hit right into the heart of a tanker .. And when the tank is moving at a good speed.




  • The comment was deleted.
  • Usher
    Usher April 18 2021 18: 10
    -2
    And where did the Tigers, Panthers, Shermans and ISs go? According to the author of this opus, are they not in the second or third generation?
    And so the article is just wet dreams.
  • dgonni
    dgonni April 18 2021 19: 33
    0
    I am only interested in one question!
    Was the author of this opus sitting in a tank. And does he even know what target detection is.
    And so yes! I drew a straight star of death
  • VOENOBOZ
    VOENOBOZ April 18 2021 20: 02
    -2
    What kind of tanks are in a nuclear shootout if you just come and deploy them on piles of bricks and fall out of the hatch dead.
  • Nigilist666
    Nigilist666 April 18 2021 20: 38
    0
    the Chinese did something similar, only without a gun
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aus81pzfQ44
  • ironic
    ironic April 18 2021 20: 40
    -1
    The next generation MBT as such really will not be. There will be a generation and a half with a squeeze of all the best from the existing generation with an increase in the rate of fire and bringing the MBT combat means closer to the combat systems of helicopters in terms of complexity and awareness, with the inclusion of AI and the strengthening of active defenses. Those. MBTs will become even more expensive, even more complicated and there will be noticeably fewer of them. Those. in fact, the main word from the name can be removed. The main armored vehicles will be armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and combat support vehicles based on them.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 18 2021 20: 43
      +1
      Quote: ironic
      Those. in fact, the main word from the name can be removed.

      So they are actually gone now. Only in the armies of the USSR.
      There are heavy tanks (former western MBTs), medium tanks based on tracked armored personnel carriers, and light wheeled ones.
      1. ironic
        ironic April 18 2021 21: 22
        0
        Well, actually, I meant heavy tanks by MBT. If my memory serves me, when something heavier than 40T fell under this classification.
    2. Couchexpert
      Couchexpert April 18 2021 21: 09
      +1
      Quote: ironic
      Those. in fact, the main word from the name can be removed. The main armored vehicles will be armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and combat support vehicles based on them.
      The main tanks are not because there are many or few of them, but because when they appeared in the army, they replaced all other tanks: in terms of speed they were comparable to light ones, in terms of protection - to heavy ones. The lungs fluttered for some time, but also faded away. At that time they did not try to replace all the cars with them. But now, with the development of both the quality and the number of PT-funds, the base will be like it or not, but it will get heavier. Such a class as BMP will disappear: it is almost impossible now to combine fire support with a roomy interior: landing / weapons / defense - choose any two... This situation gave rise to the division of universal BMP into two specialized classes: TBTR (landing + protection) and BMPT (weapon + protection). And, of course, all this was moved to the chassis from the MBT and there are no other alternatives to this.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 18 2021 21: 27
        0
        Quote: CouchExpert
        TBTR (landing + protection)

        This is called an APC. Machine-gun armament.

        Quote: CouchExpert
        BMPT (weapon + protection).

        It is called a medium / light tank, with a 105/120 mm cannon.

        And the BMP itself remains with the protection-airborne gun up to 40-50 mm

        All of them are on a single tracked or wheeled platform.
        1. Couchexpert
          Couchexpert April 18 2021 21: 37
          0
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          This is called an APC. Machine-gun armament.

          The armored personnel carrier does not provide protection.
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          It is called a medium / light tank, with a 105/120 mm cannon.

          A medium / light tank does not provide protection, duplicates the MBT in armament (but more often "falls short").
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          And the BMP itself remains with the protection-landing-gun up to 40 mm

          They normally provide neither fire, nor protection, nor capacity.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 18 2021 23: 42
            0
            I'm talking about the real world, not the fantastic. What we have now and are planned for the coming years. What do you mean do not provide protection? From what? Heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles provide protection as in heavy tanks 120/125 mm in the forehead, "medium" tracked, wheeled armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles and light tanks in 23/30 mm in the forehead, there are also 57 mm holding; medium tanks 30/57 mm in the forehead, rarely 105 mm.
      2. ironic
        ironic April 18 2021 21: 33
        -1
        Yet most of today's 3+ upgrade candidates are heavy tanks, which is what made them the mainstream. But since those who will survive such an upgrade in terms of price and labor intensity will clearly not be as massive, I assumed that the main ones will no longer be. TBMPs will not be as massive for the same reason. But the armored personnel carriers will become heavier, but not up to the weight of tank platforms and most likely their support vehicles will either be made on their own chassis, or on the chassis of lighter tracked platforms. Others, very different from the chassis of the former heavy MBT.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 18 2021 21: 46
          0
          We take the US Army and see what they are doing there. It is the most advanced and most belligerent Army. Israeli is very specific.

          Heavy brigades:
          Heavy Tank - Abrams
          BMP - Bradley
          APC - AMPV (Bradley without turret)

          Stryker Brigades:
          Light tank - Stryker with 105 mm cannon
          BMP-Striker with 30 mm cannon
          BTR - Stryker with machine guns

          Light brigades:
          Light / medium tank - MPF (based on tracked armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, most likely Ajax)
          BMP / BTR - absent
          Transport: MRAP, SUVs, helicopters
          1. ironic
            ironic April 18 2021 22: 15
            -1
            This is what it is for today. What's in the future? Only a part of the Abrams will be upgraded to the next versions. The rest will slowly go into storage. Bradley will gradually be replaced with the new OMFV. The Stryker is an insufficiently protected vehicle The Americans will have to do something about it. We will see what they get in the end in a light tank. America is now forced to fill a number of neglected niches and this happens under the leadership that is not the best for them, so it is difficult to expect reference solutions from them, where they have not prepared groundwork for a long time. Brainstorming is not their usual technique. It will take time for them to swing.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik April 18 2021 22: 33
              0
              It was I who indicated the plans until 2030. There are no plans to reduce Abrams in the army and the National Guard yet, the ILC will write off tanks as a class. OMFV is unknown when it will be, in the Bradley class there are no cars directly superior to him.
              Quote: ironic
              The Stryker is an insufficiently protected vehicle. The Americans will have to do something about it.

              It is protected as much as possible for its weight. There is simply no better in his class. You cannot lift weight.
              Quote: ironic
              It will take time for them to swing.

              Sure. Like every big structure. Do they need to hurry somewhere?
              1. Couchexpert
                Couchexpert April 19 2021 00: 07
                0
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                It is protected as much as possible for its weight. There is simply no better in his class. You cannot lift weight.

                Well, yes, that's just 20 years ago.
                From October 2003 to 2011, it was used in operations in Iraq. The losses of "strikers" during the war were not published by the United States. It is known that during the first week of the battle for Bakuba in May 2007, 5 vehicles were destroyed, 8 people were killed and several dozen were injured.


                Do the guys know what a mine blast is? There are, for example, seats that absorb explosion energy instead of benches ...

                Yes, our BTR-87 is at least a ton lighter (BTR-82A - by 2), all other things being equal.

                And there are such seats. Well, I understand that we have 1,5 working plants left in our country and "there is no money, but you hold on", but what problems do the Americans have?
                In general, judging by American armored vehicles as an advanced one is like concluding on the basis of an analysis of the composition of our fleet that RTOs are a "tax-free" apparatus, the present and future for the whole world.
                With their tactics of military operations, the amount of money leaving for local residents, supplies and air support, they can not ride tanks at all, but ride bicycles around their bases.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik April 19 2021 00: 17
                  0
                  Quote: CouchExpert
                  Do the boys know what a mine explosion is?

                  Sure. The year is 2021 on the calendar. Why do I need information from 2009? They have been upgraded under the LAV-H program since 2011, with an ECP upgrade in 2017. All of these problems have been resolved.
                2. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik April 19 2021 00: 46
                  +1
                  LAV-H (revamp 2011) includes the following changes:
                  Stryker with the introduction of an improved semi-active suspension, modifications that reshape the hull into a shallow V-shaped structure for protection against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Also included are additional armor for the sides, redesigned hatches to minimize gaps in the armor, explosion-absorbing, mine-proof seats, non-combustible tires, an upgrade to a remote weapon station that allows fire on the move, increased power generation by 500 amps, a new solid-state power distribution system and a data bus. and improvements to vehicle and powertrain systems to support a quarter of the vehicle's gross vehicle weight.

                  Since 2017, the Stryker-A1 has been a plus to what was in the modernization of the LAV-H:
                  installed a new combat module with a 30-mm cannon, a 450 hp engine, a 910 ampere alternator and an internal digital network. Compared to the previous version of the armored personnel carrier, the armor of the hull has been reinforced.
                3. ironic
                  ironic April 19 2021 18: 11
                  0
                  What a strike, that 82 are cars up to the first large-caliber series. Moreover, the 82nd also had an unfortunate location of the landing hatches. The BTR-87 is still an experimental vehicle and, according to open data, it will soon be exported as an intermediate solution. But thoughts are in the right direction.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal April 20 2021 04: 40
                    -1
                    The Stryker's armored hull is welded from steel and provides protection according to NATO class 4 (STANAG-4569) in the forehead (from 14,5mm KPVT from a distance of 200 meters and 155mm shell fragments from 25 meters) and class 3 from the sides and stern (from 7,62mm rifle armor-piercing bullet with a tungsten core from 30 meters and 155mm shell fragments from 60 meters) ...
                    As a rule, additional lightweight ceramic disposable (as opposed to steel armor) armor panels are installed on the sides already at the plant, which increase the resistance of the armored hull from the sides to NATO class 4 (14,5 mm in a circle). When using the attached ceramic Mexas protection weighing 1300-1700 kg from IBD Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth (Germany), the frontal projection of the vehicle is not affected by the 30-mm APDS-type armor-piercing projectile from a distance of 500 m.

                    The Stryker is much better protected than the BTR-82.
                    And its layout allows it to be positioned with its forehead (where Defense is maximum) in the direction of the threat.
                    So it must successfully withstand the same BTR-82A (which has a 30mm cannon, but cardboard armor), not to mention the machine-gun points with the "Cliff"
                    1. ironic
                      ironic April 20 2021 12: 47
                      0
                      Yes, better, but far from optimal protection for battles on the BV where the intersection alternates with permanent villages and scattered buildings and where bombs are not too lazy to stumble along the roads.
                  2. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik April 20 2021 10: 32
                    0
                    Quote: ironic
                    What a strike, that 82 are cars up to the first large-caliber series.


                    Stryker 14,5 in a circle, 30 mm in the forehead. In Iraq, against the small arms and cannon, he showed himself well. After the experience of Afghanistan, mine action capabilities were seriously strengthened. Moreover, under the LAV-H program, they modernized almost all the Strikers in combat units, now they are upgrading to the Stryker-A1 level.
                    1. ironic
                      ironic April 20 2021 12: 46
                      0
                      Yes, it is, but I doubt that the Striker will withstand 30mm armor-piercing in the forehead. A car with this weight cannot carry enough armor, and the insufficiently powerful new 450 horsepower engine will not allow it to hang more.
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal April 20 2021 17: 36
                        -1
                        The declared 30mm sub-caliber (on the Soviet 2a42 there are none). Ceramic armor, lightweight but disposable.
                      2. ironic
                        ironic April 20 2021 19: 31
                        -1
                        It protects better against cumulative than against sub-caliber.
            2. ironic
              ironic April 19 2021 18: 07
              0
              Not yet, but without upgrading to version 3 and without KAZ, they will mainly either be used for training personnel, or will gradually go into storage. They have no other way. Also, they can still be sold to other countries.

              But this protection is not enough for today. "Not yet" is about this year, not more, and it will be better in the future. You can lift the weight and the engine can be stronger and much more.

              Yes, they have much to hurry. TMV in the near future I would give little chance, but local theaters are quite ready for a new round of wars, which may turn out to be not entirely local. The atmosphere is tense. Somewhere the whistles will whistle, letting off steam.
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 20 2021 10: 26
                0
                Quote: ironic
                local theaters are quite ready for a new round of wars,

                They need light brigades and a Striker. Heavy brigades have nothing to do there. For Toyota on Abrams chasing a so-so idea. A light / medium tank for light brigades is really asking for and it is on the way.
                1. ironic
                  ironic April 20 2021 12: 49
                  0
                  Well, let's see what they can do with the Light Tank. I'm a little skeptical about Stryker. After the upgrade, it is certainly better, but I don't think that's enough.
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal April 20 2021 04: 34
              -1
              It is protected as much as possible for its weight. There is simply no better in his class. You cannot lift weight.

              Can't lift weight for wheeled armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles?
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 20 2021 09: 55
                0
                They must be airmobile, the C-130 has a maximum carrying capacity of 19-21 tons. Here are the limitations. The base machine must fit in this weight.
                1. ironic
                  ironic April 20 2021 12: 51
                  0
                  It is more important that she cover people. And a light tank will be heavier in any case, and they are also going to transfer it.
                2. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 20 2021 17: 33
                  -1
                  There is an example of the Puma: the BMP itself is on one plane, a couple of sets of modular additional armor on the other.
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik April 20 2021 17: 48
                    0
                    Which plane? They need the C-130 to do this, not the C-17.
                    Now this is what 3 Strikers are doing on 3 C-130 + 1 C-130 with modular armor and weapons (or 1 C-17).
                    But you need the base car to be less than 21 tons anyway. That would not disassemble the car itself and spend a minimum of time on the assembly.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal April 20 2021 17: 54
                      0
                      Now this is what 3 Strikers are doing on 3 С-130 + 1 С-130 with modular armor and

                      So I talked about it, just cited Puma as an example smile
              2. ironic
                ironic April 20 2021 12: 50
                0
                Can. And this has already been done.
      3. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 18 2021 22: 15
        -1
        Moreover, there are most of the light brigades:

        11 tank brigades in the Army and 5 in the National Guard;
        7 striker brigades in the Army and 2 in the National Guard;
        13 infantry brigades in the Army and 20 in the National Guard.
  • Emil Azeri
    Emil Azeri April 18 2021 21: 30
    -3
    As for me, at the moment this tank is the best (if bundled with the Trophy).



    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 19 2021 22: 39
      -1
      K-2?
      Leclerc is very successful, in my opinion.
      With installed KAZ.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 18 2021 22: 00
    0
    We are talking, apparently, about a tank for urban combat.
    The so-called "mortar" tank.
    A mortar howitzer is placed in the tank turret.
    Caliber 120 mm, by the way, is quite sufficient.
    The idea is reasonable.
  • Warrior MorePhoto
    Warrior MorePhoto April 18 2021 23: 32
    +1
    Quote: lucul
    There is no clear role of the tank on the battlefield. The main thesis of the mobile anti-tank pillbox was a dead end. And the main task of supporting the infantry is not clear to whom it is entrusted.

    This is because the tank is BLIND, like a knight in full armor and with the visor down, but raise the visor and completely different possibilities appear.
    So it is here - the tank needs EYES. For this, a quadcopter with a night vision device and a thermal imager with a viewing range of at least 5 km is suitable, which would hang above the tank at a height of 20-30 m (above the forest), and could fly in front of the tank at 100-1000 m. So that the enemy does not have a chance to hide using the terrain.
    When the tank commander has 100% control over the situation around him and sees all the movement of the enemy in real time on his monitor, then believe me, the commander will find the right application for the tank.


    Now, in fact, this role is performed by attack helicopters. In the very near future, drones will go ahead of the helicopters.
    On the whole, everything is correct, but we cannot yet technologically.
    Israel is developing tanks with transparent armor, which is cool, but this is a serious rise in price.
    If you noticed that the last year, space exploration began very seriously, and if there are a huge number of satellites, if everything is tied to instant signal reception, tankers use augmented reality helmets and smart ammunition ... Yes, but to get to this, you need to go through more steps, from over time, the more complex will become cheaper.
    I remember not so long ago and 512 MB memory cards cost $ 350 each.
  • riwas
    riwas April 19 2021 04: 32
    +2
    The crew of the tank is two people: a driver and a gunner. We do not refuse the commander

    Not. Driver and commander. The AI ​​will perform the function of the gunner. The commander will monitor the general situation and confirm targets to defeat the proposed AI.
    Yes, cutlets separately, flies separately. The tank is a direct-fire weapon, not an SPG.
    The old issue of the Western Military District (somewhere before Gorbachev) describes the American concept of the combat use of the Marine Corps in armed conflicts of the future, which received the code name "Sea Dragon" ("Sea Dragon"). The infantry, which until now has been the main branch of the armed forces, goes over to solving the tasks of reconnaissance and corrective support, and the combat support forces, artillery and aviation, become the main character on the battlefield. The developers of the concept pay considerable attention to the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, including those designed to solve the problem of direct fire support.
    1. ironic
      ironic April 19 2021 18: 20
      0
      Another third member of the crew, the operator of daughter drones-copters, also charges in case of failure of the autoloader.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Tektor
    Tektor April 19 2021 10: 55
    0
    The next tank, most likely, will be an articulated one, where the second section will play the role of air defense and BMPT or a missile compartment, such as Solntsepok.
    1. ironic
      ironic April 19 2021 18: 15
      +1
      And in a single copy will play the role of a scarecrow at some exhibition.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal April 19 2021 22: 36
      -1
      No tracked trains, only combat walkers smile
      1. Tektor
        Tektor April 20 2021 10: 44
        0
        Well, everything will come to this ... First, the composition is sequential from two or three links (Cannon - Thor - Solntsepёk, for example), and then parallel with the unifying module approximately, as in the picture wink
  • El Barto
    El Barto April 19 2021 10: 56
    -1
    I know this "tank of the future". It is called ACS.
    Congratulations to the author on the invention of the Vehicle of the Future - which does not require fuel and can travel unlimited distances simply with the help of the muscular strength of the pilot.
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 19 2021 11: 44
    0
    It is worth starting from the economy. In fact, the cost of a new tank should not exceed the volume allocated to the T-72B3. That is, the Perry principle, design for a given cost, should be used. Now, if you manage to meet the cost of the T-72B3 (or better, and a little less) and at the same time give a clear advantage - such a tank will become the main one. In the meantime, we are gnawing at the Soviet legacy, sliding closer and closer to the situation of the Crimean War, when complete technical obsolescence became one of the main reasons for the defeat. However, not only technology. Most of all I am afraid for the main asset of the USSR, the people of Soviet education. After all, when they disappear, the country risks falling into a colossal abyss of poverty and backwardness, to the bottom of the fourth world.
    1. ironic
      ironic April 19 2021 18: 17
      0
      Under the given cost of a coffin for tankers?
      1. Basarev
        Basarev April 19 2021 20: 35
        0
        This is the whole point. You can't make a good tank for such a penny. A very simple, seemingly, idea does not reach the minds of the Kremlin maniacs: for a good result you need to invest well. But these want milk without a cow.
        1. ironic
          ironic April 19 2021 20: 46
          +1
          Well, they invested in the west, and it turned out to be Armata. It is clear that this is expensive.
          1. Basarev
            Basarev April 19 2021 20: 50
            0
            Yes, they invested heavily. But at the same time they foolishly plunged into an adventure on the peninsula and now they cannot get into the series of Armata - the stocks of Western electronics are running out, and we have our own from the Dniester. And besides, among all the projects, Armata was the cheapest and most conservative project. Even here they wanted to save money. Although it is clear that the army should be outside the categories of economy. Kroilovo leads to the popalov.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 19 2021 22: 21
              +1
              Imperial complexes of the leadership and parts of the Russians (on which this leadership successfully plays).
              In Britain, too, at one time there were calls to "return to its former greatness" (an empire over which the sun does not set), fortunately, these people were in a clear minority, marginalized.
              It was easier for the British, it was an empire with overseas colonies. It is more difficult for territorially integrated empires, because the former colonies-provinces remained nearby (what kind of independence?).
              But the same Austria-Hungary is quite peacefully living in parts.
              In the Russian Federation (the central fragment of the empire, more or less stable), a huge part of the inhabited territory is not equipped, and more than half is unpopulated and sparsely inhabited.
              The budget is very modest for such a size and population - 6 times less than Japan, 5 times less than Germany (we will keep silent about China and the United States). And even 1,3 times less than the budget of South Korea.
              And instead of developing their lands, infrastructure and economy, plans are hatched and attempts are made to chop off a piece of territory from the former colonies. Unbelievably expensive attempts in terms of price and consequences (what does one halving economic growth mean?) ...
              1. ironic
                ironic April 20 2021 13: 21
                0
                Moreover, the economic ineffectiveness of the annexation of territories with a hostile population has long been proven. Those. the redistribution of the times of WWI and WWII is proved to be ineffective today and, accordingly, investments in conflicts for the sake of this are ineffective.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 20 2021 17: 40
                  +1
                  Alas, this cannot be explained to people mentally living in the 19th century.
                  And even for esotericists and occultists request
                  (What is the capture of the shaman Gabyshev by special forces)
                  1. ironic
                    ironic April 20 2021 19: 28
                    -1
                    Killed to death. lol Yapatstal.
            2. ironic
              ironic April 20 2021 13: 23
              0
              Well, this is not always possible. The budget, it still obeys certain rules, whatever one may say.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal April 20 2021 17: 44
          -1
          Their supporters have a fix idea: "our investments in science and defense are more effective, because designers and scientists work for small salaries."
          I think the Kremlin has similar delusions in their heads.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal April 19 2021 22: 31
      0
      And then there are the T-80 and T-90. The Union inherited a variety of tanks, attack helicopters, ATGMs of the same class, etc.
      Unlike richer countries, there is only one type of MBT.
      1. kytx
        kytx April 20 2021 06: 45
        +1
        oh yes, we have a zoo in TBT since time immemorial! about the same as the fascists in BB2
        The t55 was officially (and in fact) removed from service in 2011, I saw it myself.
        changed to T80 from some training, the tankers were spitting their T55 were really candy - even for a parade.
  • kytx
    kytx April 19 2021 13: 29
    0
    Either Kartsev or Morozov was once asked: "What will the tank of the future be like?"
    the designer replied: "so the future will fly, albeit low but fly."
    every joke has its share of joke as you know
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 19 2021 23: 31
    -1
    The remotely controlled vehicle will constantly emit electromagnetic signals that can be used to track and locate it. When using HF directional antennas, the operator must be in direct line of sight (close) to the machine being driven.

    How does this fit in with the work of the Predators, Avengers and, what is important in light of recent events, Bayraktarov?
    Their operators were very far away.
    And the matter for the next two or three decades is the emergence of fully autonomous unmanned vehicles with artificial intelligence. They need communication as well as "crew" tanks and aircraft - to obtain the necessary information on the battlefield.
    1. kytx
      kytx April 20 2021 03: 26
      0
      there was such a magazine "Foreign Military Review" and in the late 80s I came across an article there that the Americans are developing a cruise missile (now they would say loitering ammunition) that has some rudiments of intelligence and its own guidance system.
      It is used as follows: they learned that in such and such a square there is enemy equipment, they launched a flock of missiles in that direction, the missiles search for targets on their own, exchange information and distribute targets, and most importantly, the rocket itself can distinguish a peaceful tractor from a tank (for example). She will not attack the tractor, but she will hit the tank and call others.
      The topic is very old.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal April 20 2021 03: 48
        -1
        This is now being implemented in drones. An example in Libya and Karabakh - some UAVs reconnoiter targets and highlight them, others attack.
        Or all at once, like the Avengers.
        There is an Israeli version - kamikaze drones.
        The missiles have a problem in the short time of loitering.
        1. kytx
          kytx April 20 2021 04: 02
          +1
          then it was about something else, to stop the avalanche of Soviet tanks and infantry fighting vehicles rushing to the La Manche through the bald patches of tactical nuclear strikes :)
          and there will be no shortage of missiles for purposes
          and now the war is a little different
          and of course a plastic reconnaissance gunner (or even a drummer) which is unobtrusive and can hang in the air for days
          in conflicts of low intensity it is much more interesting
  • gla172
    gla172 April 20 2021 07: 05
    +1
    ... in the photo ... it reminds me of "Matilda2" ... smile.... agree! ...
  • businessv
    businessv April 20 2021 11: 52
    0
    Alexander, thanks for the article, read it with pleasure! good
  • Hort
    Hort April 21 2021 14: 55
    0
    This vehicle will contain the commanders of three tanks and the commander of their unit.
    Is it so that it would be more convenient to decapitate three crews and a unit with one shot? laughing