What tanks is the West going to respond to the Russian project "Armata"

After a long silence, our Western adversaries finally responded to the development of the Russian tank Armata, presenting its new generation tank concepts at the Eurosatory 2022 exhibition in Le Bourget: an American tank to replace the Abrams (conditionally) Abrams+, Franco-German tank EMBT and the German tank "Rheinmetall" KF51 Panther.

The layout of the tanks

These are really projects of new generation tanks, and the very concept and layout of tanks are interesting here.

In their layout, all three projects differ from the Armata tank. Western developers basically did not go for a layout with a crewless turret, did not introduce a large-caliber gun, but introduced an automatic loader and ... saved a crew of 4 people.

Tank designs in all projects have been fundamentally redesigned taking into account the latest requirements for the availability of weapons systems, protection and network-centric control, while the amount of habitable space in the tank has been significantly reduced.

They decided the rather controversial issue of an uninhabited tower in favor of the maximum reliability of the tank in combat conditions, which only a manned tower can provide. I have previously had to write that, based on the experience of developing the last Soviet tank "Boxer", where I was directly involved, it is very risky to take this dubious path. In the West, they also did not take risks, making the tank turret habitable, isolating the crew from the ammunition to the maximum.

According to preliminary estimates, the gun ammunition in all projects is located in the aft niche of the turret, which has already been worked out on tanks of the previous generation and provides maximum protection for the crew in the event of a tank being hit.

After more than fifty years, since the automatic loader was introduced on Soviet tanks, the West finally realized that it was necessary in the tank, and introduced it into all their projects. At the same time, they did not agree to reduce the crew to three, and even more so to two people, which was repeatedly proposed in the development of Soviet and Russian promising tanks. All this is understandable, since, based on the tasks solved by the crew, it is impossible to reduce it to less than three people without losing the quality of control.

With the ability to reduce the crew to three people, Western designers left four, and this is due to the complication of the tasks solved by the crew in modern combat conditions (about the functions of the fourth crew member - below).

One of the main tasks was the requirement to limit the mass of the tank to 60 tons, since the existing generation of Western tanks has already exceeded 70 tons and is approaching a mass of 80 tons, which is in principle unacceptable for a maneuverable type of weapon. In this regard, the declared mass of Abrams + is 61 tons, EMBT - 59 tons, KF51 - in the same range, although in the future, with the inevitable modernization of tanks, they are unlikely to be able to keep the declared mass.

KF51

Armament of tanks

The Abrams+ and EMVT have a 120mm smoothbore gun as their main armament, while the KF51 has a 130mm gun. They did not go for the use of a more powerful caliber gun.

Again, from the experience of developing the Boxer tank, the installation of a 152-mm gun at the request of the GRAU led to big problems in terms of the mass of the tank, the impossibility of placing the required amount of ammunition and problems in isolating it from the crew, as well as reducing the reliability of the automatic loader.

As an additional weapon, the Abrams + is equipped with a remote-controlled module with a 30-mm automatic cannon. There are two such modules on EMVT: with a 30-mm cannon and the second with a machine gun, combined with the commander's panorama. There are no remote controlled modules on KF51.

Network-centric control system

Taking into account the fact that a modern tank cannot be effectively used on the battlefield without organizing the interaction of heterogeneous forces and means with the help of special network-centric control equipment, the tanks being developed are included in this system. Moreover, the first generations of such systems have already been implemented on the Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard 2 tanks, tested in combat conditions and proved their effectiveness. On Russian tanks, this is only in the project on the Armata tank.

Western tanks under development are equipped with the necessary set of sighting systems (the Abrams + has two panoramas - for the commander and gunner, providing much better conditions for visibility), all-day observation and target designation devices, navigation systems, closed digital communication channels, automatic acquisition and display systems information from all participants in the network-centric battle.

For the same purpose, UAVs that have repeatedly proven their effectiveness are installed on tanks. The KF51 tank has a launcher for four UAVs, which significantly expands the tank's capabilities for reconnaissance of enemy positions, orientation on the ground and organizing interaction on the battlefield.

In order to more effectively use the capabilities of network-centric control, a fourth crew member was required, he, of course, does not load and performs functions close to the already forgotten gunner-radio operator. Responsible for the remote-controlled weapon module, control drones, observation, collection and pre-processing of information to relieve the work of the tank commander, that is, all the auxiliary functions that the network-centric control system has imposed.

This suggests that the introduction of automatic information collection and control systems does not free a person from analyzing the situation and making qualified decisions when performing a combat mission.

How can we answer?

Western projects of the tank of the future and the Russian project of the Armata tank in terms of layout solutions and equipment of the tank largely coincide: a 120-125-130 mm cannon, remotely controlled additional weapon modules, weight up to 60 tons, a set of sighting systems and network-centric control devices using UAVs and crew accommodation isolated from the ammunition load.

Fundamentally, the concept diverged in two issues - an uninhabited tower and the number of crew (three and four people). The Western concept still looks more convincing and is aimed at ensuring greater reliability and performance of the tank when used in the realities of modern warfare.

As for the Armata tank, which has been postponed five times since 2015, apparently due to serious technical problems, it is probably worth finalizing the concept of the tank, taking into account our and foreign experience, conducting the necessary test cycle without fuss and achieve confirmation of its characteristics.

The experience of using tanks in local and relatively large-scale military conflicts of recent times, as well as developments in the appearance of the tank of the future, indicate the need for work in two directions:

1) develop a mobile linear tank, able to withstand the same level of the enemy, and

2) construct (instead of this misunderstanding BMPT "Terminator", which for many years they do not know where to attach) assault tank with remote control capability, good protection, a powerful 152-mm short-barreled cannon (preferably a howitzer) with high-explosive fragmentation, concrete-piercing shells and guided missiles fired through the cannon bore, equipped with an UAV and remote-controlled weapon modules for various purposes.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

going down this dubious path is very risky

Blimey! Direct observation through optics is no longer required, there is an automatic loader, there is practically a "Look through armor" - what is risky in an isolated control compartment ?!

provides maximum protection for the crew in the event of a tank hit.

From the defeat of the tank on the side or roof of the tank? Only from the ignition of gunpowder or the detonation of cumulative projectiles. Already the detonation of the OF raises questions. An isolated crew survivability control unit contributes much more.

(instead of this misunderstanding BMPT "Terminator", which for many years they do not know where to attach)

This is without comment.

[Barberry25]

I thought about the BMPT .. there’s nowhere to attach the BMPT, but the assault robot tank, which will be used even less often than the BMPT, turns out to be where ..

[riwas]

This suggests that the introduction of automatic information collection and control systems does not free a person from analyzing the situation and making qualified decisions when performing a combat mission.

All this should be done by AI, Israel is closely involved in this.
https://topwar.ru/197923-izrail-anonsiroval-ispytanija-novoj-boevoj-bespilotnoj-mashiny-ot-elbit.html?

[Cowbra]

According to Abrash, the weight of 61 tons is doubtful. There, with some hinged blocks sep 3, the weight flew somewhere into space, and they are implied on the new Abram. Again, a module with a gun and ammunition to it ... Weight plus from where - it's clear, but by what means are they trying to make it easier? So I say - nonsense. "Now we will screw 100500 trinkets with KAZ, and Bayraktar on the roof - you can lift the tank from this by the muzzle with one hand"
Tfu, aya sawmill, little they beat the Taliban

[prodi]

to construct (instead of this misunderstanding BMPT "Terminator", which they have not known where to attach for many years) an assault tank with remote control, good protection, a powerful 152-mm short-barreled gun (preferably a howitzer) with high-explosive fragmentation, concrete-piercing shells and guided missiles fired through the cannon bore, equipped with UAVs and remote-controlled weapon modules for various purposes.

an assault tank, of course, is good, but when footage is shown of a tank retreating from firing positions, it is covered by the BMP-2 following, then it is difficult to "throw stones" at the BMPT; well, or (at least) instead of the existing version of its weapons, consider the possibility of returning to the version that lost to him with a "triad" in a well-armored turret

[Nikolaevich I]

Something I do not "catch up"! I read about "Panther" once among the first messages on this topic! There: 1. an uninhabited tower is mentioned; 2. initial installation of a 120-mm tank gun (a 130-mm gun is in the "perspective"!) ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Now I went through the topic: the new "Panther" ... It seems that for the first time I got to an article with incorrect information, which misled me! (But it was one of the very first messages about the new "Panther" ...)

[KCA]

The author, who some 40 years ago was directly involved in the development of the tank, which is based on the development of 50 years ago, believes that the layout of the T-14 with an uninhabited tower will not allow solving the necessary tasks and being as reliable as possible, well, well , one cannot but agree, because in order to control all the electronics, it will be necessary for an EU series computer with the necessary peripherals, a diesel generator and a ventilation system to hook a huge kung to the tank on a rigid hitch

[spektr9]

This author already feels admiration for the West and negativity towards Russia through the screen.
Approved ALL Western solutions in the article and criticized ALL our developments

You know, I just skimmed through the article, I decided not to fall in love. But after your comment, I decided to re-read it, and suddenly a really good article.
You would not criticize ordinary propaganda)

ps No, not suitable, it is still proposed to stretch the tests of the armata for n-number of years and, due to a lack of electronics, return the tower to a habitable version ...
In general, the is-7 armata resembles, the only thing they didn’t drive through the parades

[Khibiny Plastun]

You know the author, if there were a majority like you, then it is clear why the "Boxer" did not "take off". The fact that the BMPT is expensive does not make it a "misunderstanding", thanks to such "aftarites" a cardboard BMP supports the soldier with fire. And the 152 mm gun on the T-14 will have to be installed, not now, but in 10 years. And again, we will be in the role of catching up, because, like you, authorities believe "you army will get not what you need, but what we consider it necessary to give you." Either one thinks that it’s not good for a soldier to shoot a kilometer, so why does he need a good complex with good optics, to give a soldier a PPSh, because it’s not good, the other thinks that an uninhabited tower is bad, but the fact that in the tower the crew in any case sits on the BC and it can be reliably isolated only in a separate capsule, this is somehow not taken into account. And from what I wrote, I realized that it was by no means the author's grandson who would go on the last flight with the tower.

[Barberry25]

you need to understand why what kind of gun you need to put 152 mm for what purposes exactly? 152 mm high ballistics will have a low resource. And 125 mm guns are now calmly coping with current targets, but to work in the city, you need to put Bakhcha on the t-72 with thermobaric shots - they are comparable in power to 152 mm shells and panorama with AGS

[iouris]

Where is Armata? I don't watch her. If the industry is unable to make automatic petrol engine, ABS, ESP, automatic transmission, adjustable suspension... Then... Even a Euro 3 car is a problem.

[Conjurer]

This suggests that the introduction of automatic information collection and control systems does not free a person from analyzing the situation and making qualified decisions when performing a combat mission.

No. This indicates that the system is not completed. That is, its developers have not yet realized what they want to get in the end and the 4th crew member must fix it on the go. So we used to introduce RSAD at one time - the boards are bred in it, and then they are manually chopped off the paper to make a photomask for making the board. As a result, there are more people in the department than before the introduction of the RSAD. End-to-end design solved the problem, a sector remained from the department. So here. When finished, there will be three left - the carrier, the shooter and the commander. And then, the shooter - while the automatic escorts are not finished.

[Genry]

Author's misconceptions:

UAV basing on a tank - this is an increase in the armored space, which dramatically increases the weight (+ armor + engine + chassis). It is better for him to take off in a zone of lesser shelling, from an appropriate support vehicle and a few hundred meters does not play a role.

Crew 4 rights - this is an increase in the number of hatches, which weakens the security and increases the armored space with a corresponding increase ....
2 people are enough: a driver and an armament operator (as in a helicopter). Ideally, without people in the tank at all, a computerized workplace does not care where it is located.

... introduction of automatic information collection and control systems far from freeing a person from analyzing the situation and making qualified decisions when performing a combat mission.

AI in the tank - the operator will only need to manage the zones of operation of each weapon, while only requiring the permission to hit the target (poke at the target mark and press the confirmation key).

develop a mobile linear tank, able to withstand the same level of the enemy

And how is the T-14, can't it ??

construct (instead of this misunderstanding BMPT "Terminator", which for many years they do not know where to attach) assault tank with remote control capability

"Terminator" - has already been adopted and is actively used in Syria and Ukraine.
He has flaws in appearance, but the main concept Fast target suppression - no question.



The assault tank is the general purpose of all tanks... Two additional types are needed:

Siege/defense tank - 60 tons, 400 hp (no need to fly), with enhanced protection of all types.
Two types of weapons:
-- cannon 125mm/150mm;
- two turrets with 30-57 mm cannons (sorry no 40 mm), with AG-40, with machine guns - provides air defense-PRO-PSO (shells) positions.
The question of tank machine guns arises, since 7,62x54 is too small and 12,7 is large - 9mm is needed (in terms of manpower at a great distance and to deflect incoming projectiles).

city ​​tank - for fighting inside the city, where there are good roads. Should be on a shortened, wheeled chassis, without a crew, about 30 tons, engine 400hp. with a hydraulic drive and a pneumatic accumulator (it will allow you to make sharp accelerations at a distance of several hundred meters - leaving from behind the house, reverse maneuver and avoiding shelling). With dynamic protection (without active protection, which is harmful to infantry), the armor is oriented to counter HEAT projectiles (RPGs and ATGMs are more often used in the city).
Two types of weapons:
-- mortar 150-200mm for the destruction of concrete fortifications and tanks (a 200 mm land mine will crack any nut);
-- three turrets - each with guns/grenade launchers 30-57mm and machine-gun turrets 7,62x54, for quick reaction and prevention of possible targets from different directions.

[Decadence]

The Ukrainian tank stronghold and the Russian Armata have a lot in common, for example, the Russian armata is located in the same place as the Ukrainian stronghold.

[Genry]

T-14:
1-KAZ;
2-new generation of dynamic protection;
3-cannon of greater power;
4-improved crew protection;
5-more powerful engine without increased noise (at Oplot - roars);
6-VNEU - energy in the parking lot
...

What is outstanding at Oplot?
1- stitched case from antique T-80 and T-64.!!!

[Decadence]

The answer is, both tanks are not in this war.

[Zaurbek]

At a minimum, in the Russian Federation it is necessary to create one main tank and upgrade the old ones with BO from the new one. and equip all tanks with the latest version of the 125mm cannon, powerful for the longest BOPS ..... and add a copter to the concept.

[bk0010]

powerful 152-mm short-barreled gun (preferably a howitzer)

A very bad idea: the tank does not need to hit squares, but point targets, which can still often move. It will be difficult to hit them from such a gun (low flatness of the projectile trajectory, low projectile speed, how it will be with stabilization is also a question). That is, the task changes from "the trajectory of the projectile must pass through the target" to "the projectile must hit the desired point."

guided missiles fired through the bore of a gun

If the tank is new, then why not make a separate launcher for it. Ideal - with a vertical start.
Further, since they have already made an uninhabited tower, they can generally take the crew out of the tank, into a separate armored trailer, which the tank would drag behind us. This would not only increase the chances of the crew's survival, but also, most importantly, remove the restrictions on dimensions and weight imposed by the railway wagon (the trailer can be transported separately).
I believe that Armata should not be put into production until they understand that the tank should not have a KAZ, but a radar that would be used for:
1) implementation of KAZ;
2) increasing the situational awareness of the crew and the unit as a whole;
3) fire control;
4) management of ammunition detonation;
5) possibly - firing Thor missiles at enemy aircraft and drones;
6) possibly - the implementation of some elements of electronic warfare and additional communication channels;
7) very cool - detect enemy shots and get their coordinates;
8) perhaps the high density of radars will make it possible to implement some tricky group capabilities (a single high-density radar field over a wide area, which will allow you to detect a bunch of interesting things, even if they are masked).

[Zaurbek]

Do not confuse specialized radars for general purposes. KAZ needs its own separate radar and controllers. Primitive cheap and clearly sharpened to intercept.

[Rome]

Armata has an AFAR like the Su57, capable of detecting air targets at a distance of 100 km! He also tracks shells for KAZ and on the ground, as I understand it, looks for targets electronic warfare elements in the manner of the F35 will be added in the future if the generator of increased power is washed down.
"The T-14 is the first tank in the world within the framework of the concept of "network-centric warfare", where the T-14, due to the medium-range circular AFAR radar used in the tank, and infrared HD surveillance cameras with 360 ° circular coverage, is used as a reconnaissance vehicle , target designation and fire adjustments for self-propelled guns, air defense systems and escorts from T-90 tanks of their tactical level "

[acetophenone]

Yes, in general, if he no longer rides on bridges, it remains only to stay within the railway framework, otherwise the weight does not really matter. They will be able to keep the power per ton of weight, I'm sure they will have no problems with engines. Not what we have.

[musketon64]

(instead of this misunderstanding BMPT "Terminator", which for many years they do not know where to attach)

If this "misunderstanding" is brought "to mind", then it will be able to destroy these "super tanks" at a much greater distance than they did.
To do this:
1. increase the caliber of BMPT guns to 57 mm with the introduction of remotely detonated projectiles into the ammunition load, which will allow it to fight not only tank-dangerous targets, but also air targets such as light reconnaissance UAVs and enemy helicopters.
2. to introduce into the equipment a radar for detecting air targets and incoming ASPs to neutralize them in the self-defense mode of the vehicle.
3. equip this vehicle with modern ATGMs capable of attacking armored vehicles from the upper hemisphere.
4. it is also desirable to have a 40-mm AG of the "Balkan" type for mounted fire on the enemy.

[Barberry25]

the more tasks, the more expensive and more difficult it is to provide, you will have a tank of 1 yard each. get 250-300 mm of penetration - any modern tank in the side is enough for the eyes

[nickname7]

In the "battle" of concepts and layouts, the one with the best paper performance will win.

[Rome]

An interesting twist in the article: tanks in the west were created in order to obtain a vehicle capable of withstanding Armata, and at the end of the article it suddenly turns out "How can we answer?", I.e. Already we need to come up with something that would not yield!
In fact, Western options: firstly, this is initially a deception of the customer! They took Abrams, removed additional armor from it in order to pass through the maximum mass (i.e., a promising tank has worse survivability compared to the current model, because conceptually, a promising tank and a real one do not differ at all! ) they finally stuck the AZ, only unlike the Armata, which during the battle can use the entire BC, promising tanks of the West are only a part! Then you need to get out of the battle in order to replenish the BC AZ from the hull ammo rack, and who will do it? It turns out that there is no one besides the UAV operator and the master of network-centric warfare! For he is in the place of the loader and this super specialist appeared in the crew, I think not because there is a real need for him, but because there is a free place in the tank, because AZ made the loader almost unnecessary, only replenish the AZ BC, so they stuck additional functions to him so that during the battle did not sit idle!
Americans have already merged so many billions on new concepts that they are afraid to fit into the new whore! Europe stupidly save as always, times are difficult today. These models are nothing more than an attempt not to give in to Armata for cheap! Cutting a really new tank, with a new concept, is very expensive, they would have enough money for heating this winter, not up to far-reaching experiments today! Germany spent 2 billion dollars on the development of Leopard 10 in those days, today probably another zero needs to be added to this figure, so they huddle

[S. Nikolaev]

Rome
I agree wholeheartedly. These announcements are not even an attempt to catch up with Armata, these are Wishlist. With the pomp and advertising inherent in all these cases in a purely Western style.
Armata, which is now being brought to mind, as a platform, like other types from Tu strategists to Boomerangs, is not such a distant prospect, perhaps the beginning of the 30s, when their mass production will be launched. Perspective, it is not known how fleeting, but global war

[Rome]

I think the experience of Ukraine will set the brains of Europe as it should! And there will be no global conflict
The Western military-industrial complex, understanding the economic situation, is trying to sell an old tank under a new name for good money! If it works, then there will definitely not be a global war, since this is a stupid cut of the budget.

[Jonny_Su]

The Germans are making a rather serious tank, switching to a new caliber 140, and a new digital platform. This is a very worthy job, and who will launch the cars in the series faster, xs.

[Jonny_Su]

It seems to me that the correct question is "with what tanks is Russia going to respond to the Armata project." And it’s great if it’s Armata, or at least the T-90, and not the next T-72 index.

[Crisp]

...."2) construct (instead of this misunderstanding BMPT "Terminator", which for many years they have not known where to attach)..."

Do you want to explain it? It seems that you are a supporter of heavy pieces of iron, and the 30 mm gun of the Terminator seems like a toy to you. A suspicion creeps in that the development in which you participated did not go, for some reason, it offended you, but, not daring to take a swing at your competitor, Armata, you pounce on the Terminator. The idea with a 152 mm howitzer in a heavy tank, isn't it an attempt to revive the failed development of the Boxer?

[Urs]

It seems to me that the author --> author --> the author, although he positions himself as a participant in the "Boxer" project, swung at "William our Shakespeare". The concept of developing a new BTT organization and, accordingly, their components (tank, BMPT), has been going on for more than a dozen years and not at all by one, or rather, by more than one hundred specialists. And the author --> author --> the author so easily put everyone in their places with a saber on their heads .
Well let's start from the beginning As an old tanker, I’ll say that the weight of an armored vehicle, according to the requirements of the GBTU, is limited by the capabilities of railway mobility, that is, by the carrying capacity of railway platforms 62-64 tons, also the same requirement based on the average carrying capacity of bridge structures. This is reflected in many familiar documents to me.
I’m not familiar with the requirements for RPV calibers, and therefore I won’t discuss my topic. But I can say from my own visual experience (I was present when shooting the BMPT) hit from two 30mm barrels (a short package of 3 shots per barrel) on the armor of the object caused almost a fatal defeat of the object without breaking through the armor. The vehicle could still move and maneuver, but that’s all. The guidance equipment was practically disabled, the monitor screens burst, almost all attachments and protruding sighting elements were cleanly bold. In short, a steel monster that is the maximum that it can only escape from the battlefield and then if the mechanic survives. I'm not talking about devices for launching UAVs and the ability to control them. I don’t know what would happen to the crew in the tower, but what’s bad is no options. This is the main plus of an uninhabited tower and I for such a concept.
A logical question is, isn't it time to reconsider the concept of using a tank in general
And after what I saw, I included myself in the BMPT support group and do not even agree with this abbreviation.
It’s not support for tanks, but a powerful enough in armament and highly maneuverable vehicle just to support the infantry, it’s just ideal. This will quite legitimately put the armored personnel carrier in its place, because the experience of maintaining the NVO database showed that this vehicle (armored personnel carrier) is used for other purposes, yes and he has outlived his own. The mobility of the infantry has long been provided by other special vehicles.
This is my vision of the place of combat use of the tank and the BMPT, I do not pretend to be conceptual

[ln_ln]

It is necessary to dance from a person, providing him with the most convenient working conditions, and not "difficulties and hardships." And start with the division of functions in the crew. A long time ago I read a translation of an article by an American officer who proposed the division not "commander / gunner", but "commander / deputy commander". That is, 2 posts with the same capabilities both for searching and for shelling targets, naturally with the commander's hardware priority.
Panorama is evil, because it knocks down a person's orientation, it is good on a tripod. They tried panoramic periscopes on submarines and immediately refused, although there is also a problem of swept volume.
And of course, a habitable tower involves optical channels.
The Americans tried an uninhabited tower and abandoned it, and they did the right thing.
Our uninhabited tower was pushed by armchair scientists from the head institute, the X-shaped engine was also their efforts. That is, the Glavk took their side and pushed through these decisions.

[locks]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Blimey! Direct observation through optics is no longer required, there is an automatic loader, there is practically a "Look through armor" - what is risky in an isolated control compartment ?!

remote-controlled tower is much worse protected from a tank projectile. Look at the T-14 and T-90 towers and questions will disappear

[Zenn]

a hit from two 30mm barrels (a short package of 3 shots per barrel) on the armor of an object caused an almost fatal defeat of the object without breaking through the armor

The Germans used this in the Second World War, when, in the absence of anti-tank guns, they hit the T-20 turret with 34 mm anti-aircraft guns, there was no penetration of the frontal armor, but the crew lost its combat capability for some time.

[Romeo]

author-->author-->the author has already decided on the Terminator. Essentially so). There are no military specialists yet, but he already does. You give an unmanned land cruiser with 152, there is nothing to trifle with a 203mm cannon firing all kinds of missiles, including anti-aircraft ones. This is some nonsense

[Crisp]

Quote: Genry

Author's misconceptions:

UAV basing on a tank - this is an increase in the armored space, which dramatically increases the weight (+ armor + engine + chassis). It is better for him to take off in a zone of lesser shelling, from an appropriate support vehicle and a few hundred meters does not play a role.

Crew 4 rights - this is an increase in the number of hatches, which weakens the security and increases the armored space with a corresponding increase ....
2 people are enough: a driver and an armament operator (as in a helicopter). Ideally, without people in the tank at all, a computerized workplace does not care where it is located.

... introduction of automatic information collection and control systems far from freeing a person from analyzing the situation and making qualified decisions when performing a combat mission.

AI in the tank - the operator will only need to manage the zones of operation of each weapon, while only requiring the permission to hit the target (poke at the target mark and press the confirmation key).

develop a mobile linear tank, able to withstand the same level of the enemy

And how is the T-14, can't it ??

construct (instead of this misunderstanding BMPT "Terminator", which for many years they do not know where to attach) assault tank with remote control capability

"Terminator" - has already been adopted and is actively used in Syria and Ukraine.
He has flaws in appearance, but the main concept Fast target suppression - no question.



The assault tank is the general purpose of all tanks... Two additional types are needed:

Siege/defense tank - 60 tons, 400 hp (no need to fly), with enhanced protection of all types.
Two types of weapons:
-- cannon 125mm/150mm;
- two turrets with 30-57 mm cannons (sorry no 40 mm), with AG-40, with machine guns - provides air defense-PRO-PSO (shells) positions.
The question of tank machine guns arises, since 7,62x54 is too small and 12,7 is large - 9mm is needed (in terms of manpower at a great distance and to deflect incoming projectiles).

city ​​tank - for fighting inside the city, where there are good roads. Should be on a shortened, wheeled chassis, without a crew, about 30 tons, engine 400hp. with a hydraulic drive and a pneumatic accumulator (it will allow you to make sharp accelerations at a distance of several hundred meters - leaving from behind the house, reverse maneuver and avoiding shelling). With dynamic protection (without active protection, which is harmful to infantry), the armor is oriented to counter HEAT projectiles (RPGs and ATGMs are more often used in the city).
Two types of weapons:
-- mortar 150-200mm for the destruction of concrete fortifications and tanks (a 200 mm land mine will crack any nut);
-- three turrets - each with guns/grenade launchers 30-57mm and machine-gun turrets 7,62x54, for quick reaction and prevention of possible targets from different directions.

Everything is very simple. One confession of the author is enough that he was in the ranks of the developer of the Boxer tank, as everything became clear to me, the designer. All his statements are the statements of the developer of the product that was put on the shelf. Competitors came up with a better idea. And hence all the statements about the uninhabited tower, and about the "Terminator" - the second car on the "Armata" platform. Why is there no T-14 in the ranks of the Russian army? Simply, therefore, the development of a unified machine, in the design of which it is necessary to combine many of the contradictions inherent in different machines, is an order of magnitude more complicated and more expensive than the development of a single machine. Redundancy is the price of unification. Consequently, some things for different machines have to be done more expensive and more difficult, observing the principles of interchangeability of components and parts in different machines. This price is paid in the name of increasing the serial production of nodes, (the amount for all), simplifying logistics in the army, simplifying training, maintenance and repair, including those who have been in battles.
The Americans failed in this work. https://topwar.ru/197417-proekt-osnovnogo-tanka-xm1202-mcs-neudavshijsja-rezultat-provalnoj-programmy.html.
The project of the main tank XM1202 MCS. Failed result of a failed program