Artificial intelligence and hydrogen engine: the South Korean “Armata” project from Hyundai

Artificial intelligence and hydrogen engine: the South Korean “Armata” project from Hyundai

At the ADEX 2023 arms exhibition recently held in Seoul, Hyundai Rotem demonstrated the concept of a promising tank a new generation, which in the future may become a replacement for the Black Panther currently in service in the South Korean army. It seems that the creators were able to fit everything possible into their project, from an uninhabited tower with a new gun to a hydrogen engine and artificial intelligence.

It may seem strange that the Koreans are generally showing increased interest in new tanks, given the presence in their army of the very modern K2 “Black Panther”, which has not yet had time to tarnish its reputation in military conflicts to finally become convinced of its futility. But the question that in the foreseeable future it will have to be replaced with something has been asked by senior military officials from Seoul for a long time. And judging by media reports, the Koreans intend to come up with something to replace the Panther by the end of this decade or the beginning of the next very seriously.

While the process of determining the characteristics and appearance of the future tank is, as they say, at the stage of creative search, which is why it is impossible to find at least some specifics in this matter. However, just a couple of weeks ago, Huyndai Rotem, being the main tank builder of South Korea, presented its vision of a new tank, which may be the basis for the creation of a future combat vehicle.

Of course, we are talking about a model, and the project itself does not even have its own name, other than the simple abbreviation Next Gen MBT (NG MBT), which translated means “next generation main battle tank.” Nevertheless, with a quick inspection, based on some of the announced features of the promising tank, one can get some idea of ​​​​the ideas of its creators.

Next Gen MBT
Next Gen MBT

And first of all, it is worth noting the non-standard layout of this concept model. Unlike existing production tanks, the South Korean project provides for the presence of a completely uninhabited turret and an isolated compartment for a crew of three in the bow of the hull, as has already been implemented on our T-14 Armata.

In general, such solutions in the design of combat vehicles were previously viewed with great distrust: the requirements for electronics and automation of equipment to equip such tanks are too high.

However, reducing the internal volume of the turret and its dimensions by transferring the crew into the hull is one of the few options that can seriously reduce and subsequently more efficiently use the mass of the combat vehicle through a more rational distribution of armor. Moreover, the location of tankers in a single compartment makes it possible to protect them as much as possible from damage by anti-tank weapons. Well, the uninhabited tower itself is a convenient platform for integrating everything that the customer desires: from a gun of the required caliber to launchers for drones or rockets.

Next Gen MBT Crew Workplace Layout
Next Gen MBT Crew Workplace Layout

So the South Korean “Next Gene” in this case is not a simple fantasy of designers and a tribute to fashion, but a completely viable option for a combat vehicle of the future.

They plan to arm the NG MBT with a 130-mm smoothbore gun with a fully automated loading cycle. This decision is completely justified, since the currently widespread 120-mm caliber has reached the limit of its capabilities and has already exhausted the reserve of modernization in terms of increasing muzzle energy, which is especially critical in terms of the development of new kinetic projectiles.

To some extent, a new weapon of this caliber is a golden mean.

On the one hand, an increase of just 10 millimeters gives an increase in muzzle energy by almost 50% and opens up new horizons in the creation of more powerful ammunition, including high-explosive fragmentation.

On the other hand, unlike the 140-mm Western guns, which US and European tank builders have been eyeing for a long time, such changes do not entail a radical increase in the weight and dimensions of transportable ammunition.

The only question is whether the Koreans will create a 130-mm gun on their own or take as a basis the German product demonstrated last year as part of the KF51 Panther project. Although in the case of borrowing a German gun, it will still need to be modified for an uninhabited turret with the introduction of diagnostic electronics - monitoring the condition of the artillery system, including recoil systems, is necessary, even when the crew is in an isolated compartment.

As for additional weapons, Hyundai engineers provided a remote-controlled 12,7-mm machine gun and a launcher for anti-tank missiles with homing capability built into the turret, which, if desired, can be replaced with a launcher with kamikaze drones. And reconnaissance of targets and monitoring the situation on the battlefield, as planned, will be carried out by a reconnaissance quadcopter.

Render with Next Gen MBT equipped with active/reactive armor, missile launcher and reconnaissance drone
Render with Next Gen MBT equipped with active/reactive armor, missile launcher and reconnaissance drone

They don’t say anything intelligible about the fire control system, but they boast about the future introduction of elements of “artificial intelligence” that will help tankers in battle. This topic is not new - similar systems are already being tested in the USA (ATLAS) on Abrams tanks and in Israel (modernized Makhshev Mesima) on Merkava Barak. The essence of the work of these complexes is to search and identify targets using neural network algorithms that collect information both from the tank’s sights and observation devices, and using automated command and control systems from friendly units.

Analyzing the received data, the on-board computer provides the commander and gunner with coordinates and images of the most dangerous objects, and also suggests a projectile that is appropriate for effectively hitting the target, automatically generating all the corrections necessary for an accurate shot. In general, the help is good.

They plan to increase the protection of the future tank not only through passive armor. In this aspect of ensuring the high combat effectiveness of the vehicle, the Korean developers decided to go all-in and introduce everything they could into the vehicle.

NG MBT will be equipped with means of reducing visibility for reconnaissance radar stations and infrared surveillance devices (thermal imagers) due to stealth technologies - both with the help of special coatings and structural elements, including side screens that maximally block the heat-loaded chassis from view .

In addition, the tank’s arsenal includes electronic warfare equipment to suppress communication channels of enemy drones, dynamic protection and an active countermeasures system that destroys projectiles dangerous to the vehicle even on approach before contacting the armor. The latter is a familiar active protection complex (APS). And the mere presence of such a system on any tank does not look like an innovation at all. But, given the uninhabited turret, the introduction of all KAZ equipment into its design allows us to completely get rid of the problems with overweighting the tank, increasing its dimensions and protecting the elements of the complex from fragments and other damaging elements.

In terms of the engine, the NG MBT's innovations are no less grandiose than in terms of the tank's layout and armament. Still, the diesel engines and gas turbines that exist today are far from being the standard for fuel efficiency and, accordingly, the “logistics tail” trailing behind tank units. Therefore, since the task is to create a tank of the future, these issues should be given attention.

Following this trend, the gentlemen from Hyundai allow the presence of a diesel-electric hybrid power plant in the new tank. They say that you can drive either in mixed mode or in separate mode, using diesel fuel or the charge accumulated in the batteries. But the main goal of the engineers is to equip their brainchild with a hydrogen engine.

The hydrogen system, of course, has nothing in common with an internal combustion engine. In fact, this is a variation of the same electric traction, where the source of electrical energy is the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell. It consists of an anode (where hydrogen is supplied from the cylinders) and a cathode (with oxygen from the external air intake), an exchange membrane between them and the catalyst. The contact of these chemical elements causes an intense exchange of positively and negatively charged particles, and the output produces the necessary electricity and water vapor.

The steam is dissipated, and the generated electric current goes to electric motors, which drive the tracks.

As a result: completely silent operation of the tank, high driving performance and a large power reserve using hydrogen cylinders, which in principle cannot be provided by any of the common types of fuel.

But there are clearly a lot of problems, and the high cost of producing a tank with such an engine is far from the only one. For example, hydrogen cylinders, unlike tanks with traditional fuel, are extremely explosive, and their refueling (or replacement) creates additional difficulties in supplying combat units and deprives the combat vehicle of the ability to operate on several types of fuel, narrowing the range to one, completely inapplicable for other equipment.

So the guys from Hyundai will have to think carefully about how to implement this innovation without subsequent headaches for operators and suppliers. Although, it is worth recognizing that this matter is unlikely to end successfully.

But overall, as a concept, the tank looks quite attractive and contains those solutions without which a future combat vehicle is unlikely to be possible at all. At a minimum, this concerns the layout, armament and provision of neural network algorithms. But everything, as they say, is the will of the military - they operate the tank, which means they decide what is needed in it and what is not. And, according to Hyundai, the corresponding work with them is now underway, and time will tell what “Next Gen” will be like in the end.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    7 November 2023 03: 55
    Nothing more than a concept. You could also draw an electromagnetic gun...
    1. -3
      7 November 2023 05: 59
      Despite the “artificial intelligence and hydrogen engine,” it will only burn the same way as Leopards burn in the Donbass... But the cost of damage will be higher...
    2. +8
      7 November 2023 07: 05
      Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
      Nothing more than a concept.

      Yes, but for Koreans it takes surprisingly little time from a concept to a good series.
      1. +2
        7 November 2023 12: 51
        South Korea did not rework the layout for new threats in the upper hemisphere of the tank turret
        but it would be necessary to strengthen the roof of the tower with built-in remote sensing + the canopy of the tower with spaced remote sensing
        1. 0
          16 February 2024 05: 01
          Apparently they are getting enough of their ultra-modern electronic warfare equipment.
      2. +1
        7 November 2023 18: 17
        Can you hear about the concept of a Korean tank that made it into the series?
      3. +2
        9 November 2023 01: 08
        K2 was built for 20 years before the series, how long then - a lot?
      4. +3
        11 November 2023 15: 00
        Quote: Stas157
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        Nothing more than a concept.

        Yes, but for Koreans it takes surprisingly little time from a concept to a good series.

        This is if the Germans have ready-made components and assemblies. For example, engines and gearboxes. And they themselves are not averse to taking part in the design...
        And at the same time, “surprisingly little” in the case of K2 is from 1995 to 2013-2020. Almost 25 years. And with an ambiguous result: I remind you that the first batch of K2 in the amount of 106 pieces released in 2013-2014 was completely rejected by the troops due to a defective gearbox. They installed the German one.
        This year they planned to make another 100+ pieces with a German gearbox.
        So essentially there is no tank. After all, according to the terms of the competition, the checkpoint must be Korean.
        The Poles don’t care, for them German is even better - it’s closer to transporting spare parts. But for the Koreans themselves, carrying components halfway around the world is never an easy task.

        And let me remind you that the K2 is a classic tank with a classic layout. In which the MTO is copied from the Germans, the automatic loader is from the French, the gun is a variant of the German one, and the engine and gearbox are so original Korean that the German EuroPowerPack with an MTU MB-883 Ka-500 diesel engine, automatic transmission, Renk, fits into the tank if necessary" without any major changes to the design." :)
        And here they are going to do something that conceptually no one except the Russians have yet, and in detail no one has at all. There is not even a sane civil transport system powered by hydrogen in the world. And here is a combat vehicle.
        And to draw concepts... The Poles can do that too. It also turns out beautifully, they even drive it. :)
    3. +2
      7 November 2023 09: 19
      At the output of the WATER steam installation, the Bedouins will line up behind such a tank.
    4. +3
      7 November 2023 11: 35
      Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
      Nothing more than a concept

      It’s not even really a concept, more like a fantasy of the designers. With the world on a thread. The idea of ​​a capsule from an Armata, an engine in front from a Merkava, a Rheinmetal cannon, hydrogen elements from some kind of Star Wars, probably, electric motors back in WWII, the same Germans introduced the Maus tank... So this is only the imagination of the designers from Korea.
      1. +4
        7 November 2023 12: 18
        Particularly pleasing are the remote sensing modules in the form of fashionable bionic honeycombs. There is not even zero engineering sense, but minus one hundred (especially in the honeycomb stub along the top edge), but it looks stylish. And the side screens covering the engine in front, but not the AZ carousel in the rear housing, under the turret, are generally the embodiment of power and danger - powerful chest, narrow hips and belly, this is just the standard of predatory male beauty! And what stylish cutouts ala muzzle brake on the barrel protective casing, it makes no sense, but that’s not why they drew it!
      2. +1
        10 November 2023 18: 25
        electric motors back in WWII, the same Germans introduced the Maus tank

        There were still Ferdenands from Porsche, what kind of tiger would they choose between a Porsche with an electric engine and a croup that won, Porsche thought that it would win and therefore made bodies from which they made Ferdinands, Mouse also made Porsche
    5. 0
      7 November 2023 12: 08
      to a point or railgun, finish drawing laughing
    6. +1
      7 November 2023 15: 39
      Remember the 1977 cartoon "Polygon"? Everything is heading towards this.
  2. +1
    7 November 2023 04: 31
    Narrow-eyed people are crazy, they have as much money as a Hyundai laughing
    1. +5
      7 November 2023 05: 22
      Is this racism? And we are fighting the fascists.
      South Koreans will be able to do it; they have enough industry, experience and competence. I remember no one once believed that ships of different tonnages would be built on their slipways and by them, but now it’s their turn for years to come to build commercial and other ships.
      K2 their tank is more than a serious toy
      1. -1
        9 November 2023 01: 07
        Using the terminology of this site, this tank is not theirs, the engine is German. And since the Australians greatly cut the contract for its purchase, something is wrong with this tank.
  3. +4
    7 November 2023 05: 39
    Comrades, off topic.
    Today November 7th. A celebration of our youth, and I love my youth
    1. +2
      7 November 2023 06: 01
      For those who have forgotten that this is the day of the Great October Socialist Revolution!!! There’s no one in particular to ask what kind of holiday this is... although Vicky, to her credit, accurately and immediately gives the correct answer.
  4. +3
    7 November 2023 05: 43
    The presence of a hydrogen engine suggests that this is not even a concept, but potential “wants” for the distant future.
    1. +1
      7 November 2023 07: 09
      Quote: Amateur
      The presence of a hydrogen engine indicates that

      What will be the engine of the first stage. Is this option possible?

      Gentlemen from Hyundai admit the presence of a diesel-electric hybrid power plant in the new tank.
    2. +3
      7 November 2023 09: 21
      Quote: Amateur
      The presence of a hydrogen engine suggests that this is not even a concept, but potential “wants” for the distant future.

      What else could be explosive to put under the armor? - High pressure hydrogen! wassat
      I think next time they will realize the mistake and cover it with solar panels over the armor (by the way, the “barbecue” is ideal for this). smile
      The concept layout will endure everything good
    3. +1
      7 November 2023 13: 58
      Actually, there is no hydrogen engine, the engine is electric. And hydrogen in cylinders - whether on tanks or on submarines - is a very bad idea. Perhaps, when the idea of ​​storing hydrogen in some hydrides with decomposition before use (or with the decomposition of hydrocarbon fuels) is finalized, the scheme will become workable, but at the same time the efficiency will be closer to that of heat engines.
      And about the large power reserve on hydrogen cylinders - this generally seems to me to be nonsense. The electrical efficiency of a fuel cell is about 50%, the efficiency of a diesel engine is about 40%. The density of hydrogen is 10 times less than the density of diesel fuel - that is, the volumes will be needed an order of magnitude larger.
      Yes, and they got excited about noiselessness, in my opinion. Email The engine and transmission will make noise anyway.
      1. 0
        2 March 2024 05: 34
        It's just the opposite! Everything you listed are great ideas! The power reserve is small. Hemorrhoids with hydrogen storage. Hydrogen is volatile and corrosive. Combat readiness is at zero, because hydrogen cannot be stored when parked in the park. You need to refuel before leaving. And how it will all burn!!! Such beauty! The videos will get so many likes! You never dreamed of it. After all, putting this volume of hydrogen behind the armor is unrealistic.
  5. +2
    7 November 2023 05: 51
    For example, hydrogen cylinders, unlike tanks with traditional fuel, are extremely explosive, and their refilling (or replacement) is an additional difficulty in supplying combat units

    This is a transitional stage. The first non-nuclear submarines also ran on hydrogen cells, but now the Japanese and South Koreans have begun switching to lithium-ion batteries. The media report progress in the development of new batteries with greater capacity and safety, as well as lower cost. Global production of lithium is increasing dramatically, and some batteries being developed do not use lithium at all. By the time the tank reaches production, new electric batteries will appear. Then they will simply replace fuel hydrogen batteries with electric ones. It has been reported that Chinese engineers have recently developed high-capacity batteries that can be recharged in a few seconds.
    Amazon will put 20 of these 40-ton electric Volvo trucks into operation in Germany in 2022
    1. 0
      9 November 2023 09: 50
      Batteries are, in principle, an order of magnitude less energy intensive than conventional fuel. Try googling the weight of the new Tesla battery, then look how long it can travel on a full charge. And then estimate how long some Lada will travel on the same amount of gasoline.
      1. 0
        18 November 2023 22: 36
        Not quite like that, or rather not at all like that, but on the contrary. Compared to electrochemical energy sources, chemical ones (that same fuel) are much more energy-intensive. Only their energy is spent extremely inefficiently. Not only are internal combustion engines extremely complex in design compared to electric motors, but most of the energy simply flies into the atmosphere. In addition, they do not have a recuperation mode like electric motors.
        And so constantly uphill, the electric car will quickly run out.
        1. 0
          2 March 2024 05: 39
          Of course the batteries are better. Everything that makes a potential enemy tank worse is better for us. So let me imagine: refueling tanks on the march: a tank with diesel fuel and a truck with electricity. And in addition, the tanks will become winter-safe. And we know for sure that they will not be able to fight with us.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Des
    7 November 2023 06: 20
    1997 A crisis.
    1998 A quarter of the population of South Korea gives back personal gold jewelry and family heirlooms to help the state pay off the IMF debt. In 2001, South Korea repaid ahead of schedule (3 years) 58 billion (!) borrowed from the IMF. And the point is not that “only” 2 billion worth of gold was collected. But the point is that there must be respect for the people of such a country. As is understanding.
    Quote: Alien From
    Narrow-eyed people are crazy, they have as much money as a Hyundai

    We all understand - where (for example) the auto industry, electronics, shipbuilding, etc. are located in Yu.K. and (for example)) - in the Russian Federation.
    To that.
    1. +6
      7 November 2023 07: 22
      Quote: Des
      We all understand - where (for example) the auto industry, electronics, shipbuilding, etc. are located in Yu.K. and (for example)) - in the Russian Federation.

      In diametrically different places.
    2. +1
      21 January 2024 20: 04
      I talked with a Korean friend about this voluntary surrender of gold to the authorities. He said that now it won’t work, no one will hand over gold except for grandparents from completely remote villages. In general, times have changed.
      1. Des
        21 January 2024 20: 10
        Yes, it's quite possible. But it was.
        1. +1
          21 January 2024 20: 11
          They even made a film based on this event.
  8. +2
    7 November 2023 07: 13
    Just as they shove what is needed and what is not needed into cars, so they put some gadgets on the harp into tanks, but wars show that this does not help anyone much. It’s fashionable and a show-off at exhibitions, but whether it’s practical will be shown by the very first war.
  9. +1
    7 November 2023 07: 24
    They plan to increase the protection of the future tank... Korean developers decided to go all-in and implement it in the vehicle everything you can.

    A good barbecue is a must and don’t forget.
  10. BAI
    7 November 2023 08: 34
    as it has already been implemented on our T-14 “Armata”.

    This can be said to be realized by the Koreans. And with us: blah blah blah.
  11. BAI
    7 November 2023 08: 35
    as it has already been implemented on our T-14 “Armata”.

    This can be said to be realized by the Koreans. And with us: blah blah blah.
    1. +1
      8 November 2023 07: 49
      That is, a full-fledged tank that exists in more than one copy, which cannot be put into production, blah blah blah? And some kind of model in which they just didn’t shove a railgun, it’s REALIZED, they don’t even have the name of the tank, but any more or less good modeller will assemble such a model for you
      1. 0
        10 November 2023 19: 22
        and any good modeler can assemble such a model for you

        NEWS: An 8th grader from Krivoy Rog invented a Cardboard Tank! OP!
  12. +4
    7 November 2023 08: 44
    Well, let’s imagine pressurized tanks and hydrogen supply fittings under the cover of tank armor. How and from what tankers will the cylinders be filled? Excuse me, how much in TNT equivalent would it be to explode a tank containing 5 cubic meters of compressed hydrogen?
    1. -3
      7 November 2023 09: 21
      Well, let’s imagine pressurized tanks and hydrogen supply fittings under the cover of tank armor. How and from what tankers will the cylinders be filled? Excuse me, how much in TNT equivalent would it be to explode a tank containing 5 cubic meters of compressed hydrogen?

      Not much. Because, hydrogen is in small refillable capsules.
      Damage to individual capsules can create conditions (concentration of hydrogen-oxygen environment) that can lead to an explosion. But if you study the issue in more detail, the conditions for a hydrogen explosion are difficult to implement; it’s easier to blow up the ammunition.
      But the power reserve on hydrogen should be higher. And the same waterproof capsules can be delivered to the front end of civilian vehicles.
      And you will hesitate to carry diesel in canisters. So there is logic in this.
      And the Koreans may well not steal budgets, but produce real samples of equipment.
      In addition, there is an option that a hydrogen-powered tank will be an order of magnitude quieter than a tank with diesel engines.
      1. 0
        7 November 2023 10: 58
        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        Not much. Because, hydrogen is in small refillable capsules.

        This is where you read it?
        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        then the conditions for a hydrogen explosion are difficult to realize
        If you even knew a little about what we were talking about, you would understand that a pressure cylinder itself is explosive, even with inert nitrogen.
        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        And you will hesitate to carry diesel in canisters. So there is logic in this.

        Diesel can be transported in barrels, for example, and there are no special problems with pumping, but at least there is no overflow into the neck. Except to hesitate. But under high pressure, pumping gas is already a problem. And “replacing capsules” in a tank is still a problem, think about it a little.

        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        And the Koreans may well not steal budgets, but produce real samples of equipment.
        Hihol or what?
      2. 0
        7 November 2023 12: 27
        In South Korea, as in any capitalist country, corruption is rampant. So no need for blah blah. And class inequality is not at all on a small scale. On this project they cut so much that it’s enough for an aircraft carrier.
      3. +2
        7 November 2023 15: 49
        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        the same hydrogen capsules can be delivered to the front end of civilian vehicles.
        Not a submariner? Not? Then I would know what hydrogen is! How to store it if it even seeps through the crystal lattice of the metal! That's why it is stored in a bound form... And the installation for converting the chemical energy of H2 and O2 into electricity and then into mechanical energy (rotation of the motor) will weigh more than the armor protection of the tank! This NSPL is easy to move in the water, but how to drag a 50-ton colossus through ravines and swamps is a great mystery! I'm afraid it is not yet available for an engineering solution. What about maneuvering? Just imagine what kind of electronic communication system. The power supply should be there to reverse the power drive at a current of 1000-2000 amperes! So, the most that narrow-eyed geniuses can come up with is a hybrid electrical circuit. movements of the miracle tank: DM--EG-- GED!!! It is possible with a battery, but again the specific power and capacity of modern batteries is lower than that of a good gas turbine.
        However, there is no harm in dreaming. It's harmful not to dream!!! (With)
        1. 0
          18 November 2023 22: 48
          The guys with hydrogen clearly got excited, it is possible that it was not without the influence of environmentalists)) And gas is good in terms of its calorific value, explosiveness and colossal tendency to leak.
          As for the switching installation for currents of 1 - 2 kA, there are no problems with this as such. The structures of switching power switches were still described in the mid-90s. When the crystal area was a couple of square centimeters, it could pump hundreds of kilowatts. After so many years, there are quite functional semiconductor structures for several megawatts.
  13. +3
    7 November 2023 08: 59
    This has already happened somewhere. Some guys were also into wunderwaffles. They wanted to take it due to its superiority in performance characteristics. But they neglected the manufacturability and cost of these same waffles. The result is sad. In war, what is needed is not wunderwaffles, but mass-produced, relatively cheap, technologically advanced equipment from the point of view of mass production.
  14. +8
    7 November 2023 09: 13
    The author writes the article in a surprisingly dismissive tone.
    And as an industrial automation engineer, I am not at all surprised by the desire of manufacturers to look for new ideas in weapons manufacturing.
    The author writes that the Black Panther did not have time to show itself poorly on the battlefield, but that the T90 showed itself poorly or the T80BV3? Then why do Russian gunsmiths and tank builders come up with a platform (without a normally used engine), and the Koreans, who are in 3rd place in the world in the supply of digitally controlled machines and machining centers, cannot afford it.
    And everything will burn.

    So let them implement it, and let our gunsmiths keep their finger on the pulse and take the best achievements of science and technology from both friendly countries and enemies.
    Thinking your enemies are idiots is a bad idea. Respecting and fearing enemies is the right strategy that will allow you to develop yourself!
  15. -2
    7 November 2023 09: 37
    What is the concept of a tank of the future without a “barbecue”?! laughing
  16. +1
    7 November 2023 10: 26
    Strange concept. The SVO showed that:
    1.tanks are needed and you need a lot of them
    2. tanks rarely fight tanks
    3.The main enemy is howitzer artillery and drones.
    The power of the K2 gun is quite enough for real work (if the main enemy is North Korea, the power is even excessive), we need KAZ and protection of the upper hemisphere from drones.
    Probably the most correct way to develop tanks/tank support vehicles is the American one - the development of unmanned platforms with the maximum use of commercial components to reduce the cost of production.
    1. +2
      7 November 2023 11: 39
      Quote: Ivan Seversky
      2. tanks rarely fight tanks

      The conclusion is formally correct, but essentially erroneous. Now there is a positional dead end, tanks are simply not used for their intended purpose, because they cannot fulfill it in the current realities. And their main purpose is simple - both to dissect and encircle the enemy, and to quickly parry this threat. Technical means will appear to break the deadlock, tanks will again fight tanks, because to win the war you have to attack, there are no other options.
      1. +1
        8 November 2023 09: 16
        BOPS is not the most optimal thing for tank-to-tank combat. The rocket is sooo much better. Especially if the rocket is smart. And you don’t need a supergun to launch it. Tanks have long needed to switch to a combination of ATGMs plus a strong HE shell.
        Oh. This has been the case since T 64.
  17. +1
    7 November 2023 10: 30
    This is of course a concept for the armored vehicles of the future. And even it may well be realized. But several questions arise. The first is that in order to bring a concept with such a percentage of undeveloped innovations to series, it takes many years of testing, fine-tuning, alterations, financing these trials and errors and the emergence of new ideas...and so on. The second is how much the tank will cost when it comes out completely minced. The third is whether there will be enough customers for this very expensive toy to justify the costs. I think the program will come down to developing technologies and their gradual introduction into various types of equipment, and this will be where the costs will be recouped. We won’t see anything like this on the battlefield until the second half of the century, and moreover, deeper than the middle
  18. +6
    7 November 2023 10: 46
    For example, hydrogen cylinders, unlike tanks with traditional fuel, are extremely explosive, and their refueling (or replacement) creates additional difficulties in supplying combat units and deprives the combat vehicle of the ability to operate on several types of fuel, narrowing the range to one, completely inapplicable for other equipment.

    For some reason, everyone who writes about the use of fuel cells is too lazy to take an interest in the issue in more detail and paints all sorts of apocalyptic pictures of a “hydrogen Armageddon” that has nothing in common with reality.
    In fact, when using fuel cells, it is possible to dispense with hydrogen altogether, as there is a type of fuel cell called reformed methanol fuel cells (RMFC). In such cells, it is not hydrogen that is used as fuel, but methanol in pure form or in the form of a mixture with water, which is reformed before being supplied to the fuel cell.

    Electric sports car Gumpert Aiways Automobile (Germany). Power - 540 hp Speed ​​- 300 kilometers per hour. Acceleration to “hundreds” is 2,6 seconds. A tank with 60 liters of methanol provides a range of 600 kilometers. Price 420 euros.
    1. +2
      7 November 2023 12: 01
      But this is very interesting! Thanks for the info!
      1. +1
        7 November 2023 13: 50
        But this is very interesting! Thanks for the info!

        Science and technology do not stand still. The same aluminum-air batteries, which produce electricity by reacting oxygen in the air with aluminum, have very great potential as a power source for electric drives.

        Currently, they are very expensive and have difficulty removing reaction byproducts. But these issues can be resolved. Today, Israel, together with India, are already ready to mass-produce such batteries.
        Unfortunately, local authors do not pay attention to such issues, chasing around the empty refrain “too late, too late, useless, unsuitable for winter.”
    2. 0
      7 November 2023 12: 07
      What is the point of a methanol fuel cell with 40-60% efficiency if diesel provides 40%? There platinum is used as a catalyst. It requires electric motors and power electronics. It all costs good money. Why pay more? To go a little further? Why, is there enough range already? In addition, methanol is monstrously poisonous, unlike diesel fuel, methanol is extremely flammable and explosive. It’s not enough for a tanker to risk blowing up the ammunition in the tank, but for the sake of the innovative agenda you add the risk of burning out and the risk of being poisoned to death by methanol vapors. Even just going blind, having miraculously avoided the death traps laid by fashionable innovators, will be little joy for a tanker.
      1. 0
        7 November 2023 13: 28
        Quote: Passing by
        What is the point of a methanol fuel cell with 40-60% efficiency if diesel provides 40%? There platinum is used as a catalyst. It requires electric motors and power electronics. It all costs good money. Why pay more? To go a little further? Why, is there enough range already?

        The same questions arise for hydrogen fuel cells.
        Quote: Passing by
        In addition, methanol is monstrously poisonous, unlike diesel fuel, methanol is extremely flammable and explosive.
        But unlike hydrogen, it is a liquid in the normal temperature range.
        In general, yes, it’s too early to start a garden with fuel cells in the BTT.
      2. +3
        7 November 2023 14: 07
        In addition, methanol is monstrously poisonous, unlike diesel fuel, methanol is extremely flammable and explosive.

        Every year, the world produces almost 170 tons of methanol, which is used:
        - in the oil refining industry - as a solvent for purifying gasoline from mercaptans, as well as when isolating toluene;
        - as a high-octane fuel additive, which increases engine power while sharply reducing the amount of exhaust gases;
        - for protein synthesis (protein-vitamin concentrate);
        - in the production of dimethyl terephthalate, pesticides, plant protection chemicals, for the production of acetic and formic acids (the latter is used in the coagulation of latexes, as a leather tanning agent, a food preservative and for feed silage);
        - 3/4 of the produced methanol is consumed by the chemical industry for the production of formaldehyde, methenamine, acetic acid and methylation products;
        - the area of ​​methanol consumption has recently become the production of biodiesel fuel, obtained by transesterification of rapeseed oil with methanol.
        And no one is afraid of “toxicity” and “explosiveness”.
        1. 0
          7 November 2023 14: 43
          Do you really not understand the difference between the planned work of a chemical plant and the planned work of a tank under fire? You're not really trolling, but in all seriousness?
          1. -1
            7 November 2023 15: 32
            Do you really not understand the difference between the planned work of a chemical plant and the planned work of a tank under fire?

            I really understand the difference between the specialists of the world's leading companies. dealing with programs like MGCS and local sofa passing “Xperds” and site authors, supplying these “Xperds” with information appropriate to their level.
            1. -2
              7 November 2023 16: 25
              Please, more facts, less psychological sublimations, ala “who should I throw pearls at?” To know more, to understand more deeply, does this seem to be why people gather here and discuss something?
              If you are positioning yourself as a real expert, show this specifically, list real programs of reputable organizations or companies in military affairs, for example from DARPA, planning to introduce methanol on tanks or on at least some battlefield equipment. I will definitely take this into consideration.
              1. +1
                7 November 2023 17: 26
                ala “Who should I throw pearls in front of?”

                But really - in front of whom?
                1. +1
                  7 November 2023 17: 39
                  I realized that I was wrong in trying to be constructive, I thought I was talking to homo sapiens, but it turned out to be a troll vulgaris.
        2. -1
          9 November 2023 09: 58
          A huge amount of phosgene is still produced in the world. But why? Just for green technology, is Greta happy?
  19. +3
    7 November 2023 12: 02
    More and more often, I am beginning to observe such a phenomenon as the division of tanks into conditionally “mobile assault” and “defensive ambush” based on their concept. The promising “Korean” is precisely a look through the defensive ambush concept, when the tank is too “stealth”, too “smart” and generally does not look like a means of a massive breakthrough of enemy defenses, not like a machine capable of crawling through mud and a “lunar landscape”, but as a product that is camouflaged and mobile precisely in defense, being a kind of “tank killer”.
    Within this concept, when the tank is assigned only the tasks of a limited breakthrough, but ambush qualities, on the contrary, are important - a hydrogen fuel cell is, in principle, quite logical, because the electronic filling will eat a lot and maintain its operation without significant heat generation, this is very useful.
    However, hydrogen fuel cells themselves are an expensive product because they still require hard parts. I know that platinum is used for catalysis, part of it is carried away by water vapor, and given the size of the fuel cell required for a tank and the scale of tank construction, this can cost a pretty penny both in terms of construction and operation.
    I also have doubts regarding the use of outside air as a suitable component of the system. I know that the efficiency of fuel cells drops significantly from various impurities such as sulfur; nitrogen contained in ordinary air can also cause undesirable reactions. I don’t believe that it will be possible to use outside air; most likely, oxygen will also have to be supplied - or at least allocate space in the tank to a compact system that more or less effectively separates the air.
    Neither the first nor the second will reduce the price of the product.

    The front placement of the crew is not entirely clear - in my opinion, in promising concepts it is more profitable to place the crew in the rear of the tank, especially for such a “defensive ambush” approach.

    In my opinion, the concept is overly theoretical and “cinematic”; how a product so stuffed with technology and sleek will behave in a real high-intensity conflict is a good question. How it will survive in conditions of limited use of tactical nuclear weapons, EMP shells or kamikaze UAVs, what kind of coolness it will have from the enemy’s impacts on warehouses and enterprises with this very liquefied hydrogen - all this is a question. As well as how well a machine of this type will cope with blitzkriegs and off-road conditions - will there be enough fuel power to combine blitzkriegs with maintaining situational awareness, so to speak. The twin-engine scheme also does not seem to me to be a healthy solution, because price, manufacturability, maintainability, ease of supply and operation - everything is falling.
    1. -1
      7 November 2023 13: 38
      After the start of the Northern War and now the conflict in the Middle East, all these concepts are going straight into the trash. In fact, now we need to design completely different cars hi
      1. -1
        7 November 2023 14: 18
        Exactly ! Now there is a hell of a lot of “tank fighters”, it is much more interesting to create a vehicle that is actually survivable, capable of providing a breakthrough, withstanding the intense impact, and much more resistant to mine-MANPADS than current tanks. That "stealth", that a huge number and dependence on external strays does not solve this problem, as, in general, the forward position of the crew to some extent.
        A truly revolutionary tank will have to, first of all, solve the range of very specific tasks outlined by the same SVO - be able to overcome minefields even without modular variations (with the elimination of non-critical damage after that by field workshops), be much more resistant to MANPADS and especially to roof breakers and kamikaze UAVs up to a certain size-carrying capacity (and therefore warhead power), have better off-road capability, even at the expense of some reduction in movement speed. Finally, yes, we need to do something about the survivability of external body kits, definitely design such a vehicle with an uninhabited turret or without one at all (in its classic vision), because the turret is essentially archaic, left over from the times when the tank’s main opponents were listed as other tanks, guided missiles and “smart weapons” were in their infancy.
        With all this, yes, it is necessary to fit it into the framework of current domestic cars in terms of weight, at least in pre-modular variations, so that there is a basis for both modules and modernization.
        Such a vehicle, as I see it, should withstand a massive impact, including without KAZs and DZ, that is, it should be maximally armored in the classical sense, and external additional means of protection should complement and not replace this maximum armor.

        Here I see an approach to reducing the internal space by reducing the crew to 2 people, reorienting the crew to the rear of the tank, likely abandoning the classic turret, increasing the area and protection of the tracks, significantly strengthening the front and top, probably strengthening in one form or another side projections and bottom. It is possible to expand the capabilities of the machine for smoke production, to develop a design with a minimum number of weak points in the body associated with external equipment - this can also be placed as competently as possible, taking into account modern features of typical affected areas (and, probably, in modular variations of design). Also, such a vehicle will definitely need strong support from external means - reconnaissance, crew awareness, target designation, i.e. it will need the highest quality communications.
        Regarding the replacement of the gun and turret with something - IMHO, the need for this has been ripe for 15 years already, the range of influence of modern tank shells is excessive (IMHO, for tank missions specifically), progress in guided missiles and other weapons makes it possible to replace a bulky gun with something more compact and much less vulnerable, providing, among other things, greater capabilities in terms of power.
        Yes, of course, this may seem like a controversial decision - but I don’t see a future in the “cannon” scheme; it makes the tank too versatile in an age when the military operates with a complex of weapons. Namely, with the armored fist in this complex now everything is definitely not good, which cannot be said about other weapons.
        1. 0
          7 November 2023 15: 32
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          significant strengthening of the front and top, probably, in one form or another, strengthening of the side projections and the bottom

          What's the point of dragging Trishka's caftan back and forth? It is simply unrealistic to armor hemispherically in terms of mass, and penetration by crowbars and crowbars is growing, and there is no end in sight. Therefore, the only way out will be:
          1) Continuous light hemispherical armor. From the top of the UY and small-caliber guns 30mm, along the sides and from the stern 40-50mm. Those. We reserve strictly because it is impossible to reflect remote control and KAZ. Hemispherical protection against light attacks (RPGs, drones) with remote sensing units. Protection against heavy kuma by means of KAZ.
          2) From the forehead, the armor is more powerful, but lighter than now; in the corners of safe maneuvering it should hold the crowbars destabilized after the KAZ.
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Regarding the replacement of the gun and turret with something - IMHO, the need for this has been ripe for 15 years already, the range of influence of modern tank shells is excessive (IMHO, for tank missions specifically), progress in guided missiles and other weapons makes it possible to replace a bulky gun with something more compact and much less vulnerable

          With equal lethality (warhead weight) and combat properties (speed, resistance to countermeasures, etc.), a missile will always be radically more expensive and larger than a projectile. At this point, you can once again close the project on the missile tank. The armored FPV drone carrier goes there too. Because small, low-speed and cheap drones are not capable of solving assault missions, while high-speed and powerful ones turn into expensive and oversized missiles.
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          but I don't see a future in the "cannon" scheme

          Why are you not satisfied with cheap twenty kilograms of steel and explosives flying at a speed of a kilometer per second? What could be better than this? Add remote detonation, add controllability to the projectile for air defense tasks, and in general you will get an excellent means of destruction in line of sight. Just a little more effort, add howitzer angles, liquid propellant weapons, and you’ll get just perfect, why do you need anything else? For very specific tasks, such as hitting windows around the corner of a building, finally make a projectile ala Reflex with remote control.
          1. +2
            7 November 2023 16: 23
            Why are you not satisfied with cheap twenty kilograms of steel and explosives flying at a speed of a kilometer per second?

            The current projectile is not cheap at all, it more and more resembles a sub-missile, and the gun is more and more a sub-PU for this sub-missile. Beautiful and long firefights still don’t happen anymore, except perhaps in third world countries - in the era of high precision and a saturated battlefield, an effective means capable of “one bullet” is guaranteed to bring out a target worth tens to hundreds of millions of rubles OR hack a defensive facility that provides damage to such -the same amount may well be an approach to choosing a “more expensive” type of weapon.
            The gun is vulnerable, the turret is vulnerable, the gun itself hits in a straight line and, excluding ambush situations, for a more or less technically armed enemy it is more or less clear where it can come from and how. Guided missiles, yes, are more expensive - however, they can be given external target designation, which increases their accuracy, they are also less predictable and can hit the roof, MTO - unlike a projectile that is constrained to a greater extent by ballistics.
            When assessing the cost of missiles, it is worth understanding that, unlike missiles that can be used within a variety of carriers (including UAVs or sabotage and ambush systems), the cannon approach ties the skid to the gun, which, like the automatic loader, has a resource and a bunch of body kits that control its accuracy and condition, turret rotation mechanisms, etc. If we consider the full picture with the advantages and costs of operating missiles and classic tank guns, then perhaps the picture will not be so rosy for the cannon scheme.

            I’m now talking SPECIFICALLY about the TANK gun and the rationality of keeping it on the tank. War is generally an expensive thing, and not all problems can be solved with blanks, just as not all problems can be solved with guided missiles. However, a good-caliber blank can be found within the network-centric concept on a more suitable carrier, so isn’t it better than increasing the caliber of a tank gun to give the tank a more effective and precessional launcher?
            Assessing the potential of rocket tanks based on the experiments of the Khrushchev era is the same as assessing the potential of computers based on the work of Mr. Babbage. Now both the filling and the missiles themselves have become cheaper and more powerful, there are more platforms that can use them - the same Hummer or a UAV with a universal cat missile. will use a missile tank and will be able to replace the mobility disadvantages of this tank in a number of tasks.

            What's the point of dragging Trishka's caftan back and forth?

            The point is that due to mines and high-precision weapons, as well as the significant saturation of ground forces with them at great depths, the tanks have lost their penetrating power and security. They are less and less suitable for ramming “blitzkrieg” tasks, they are increasingly turning into mobile melee artillery, but for this task they are not ice on a strategic scale.
            This problem cannot be solved simply by modernization - classic configurations improve the tactical value of the tank, but are unable to resolve this impasse at the strategic level. But there is a need for such a tank.
            Light armor and hopes for KAZs are a palleative, well suited for survival in situations of “walking into the middle of a bump”, the task here is to create a breakthrough machine that can withstand high-intensity impacts for some time without loss of functionality.

            The current SVO has clearly shown the problems with the “blitzkrieg”, and although many (and not unreasonably) attribute this to an organizational moment, the technical point here is also significant - the same Ukrainians in their “counter-offensive” also encountered what I am writing about. With the impossibility of solving the problem of breaking through the defense with current armored vehicles.
          2. 0
            18 November 2023 23: 10
            Why are you not satisfied with cheap twenty kilograms of steel and explosives flying at a speed of a kilometer per second?
            Since when did high-alloy steel become cheap? Hundreds of years ago, cast iron cannonballs could be considered cheap. Nowadays, not only are the grades of steel expensive, but they also require special equipment for their processing. Pushing an unbalanced clumsy blank through a cannon barrel at a speed of 1 km/s, no barrels will be enough.
            It is also worth remembering that a projectile that is not cheap at all requires a very expensive gun. Replacing which if damaged is another task.
  20. +1
    7 November 2023 14: 33
    The weakest area of ​​ALL MBTs is the roof. It's the roof. Because the stern and sides, although poorly protected, with an experienced crew and good awareness, the crew will simply quickly turn the tank with its head towards the dangerous sector. And besides, remote protection with anti-cumulative shields does a good job of leveling out the weakness of the armor on the sides and stern.
    But the roof in the “serial” version is not covered in any way. It’s good if the tank’s roof is smooth and “clean” enough so that it could be equipped with a remote control. But this is not a complete solution, since the thickness of the roof, even with remote control, can easily be broken through.
    At the same time, the tower MUST be at least somewhat light - otherwise it will not be able to hold up and rotate normally.
    And then I thought - what if we return to the idea of ​​turretless tanks?
    Make the frontal armor smoothly flow into the roof with a minimum reduction in the thickness of the armor?
    For 360-degree views, it will be possible to install a system of stationary cameras on the body that will conduct surveillance in its sector under armored glass. So, add a machine gun to the DBM, which will be capable of rotating and inspecting 360 degrees + 90 degrees vertically
    1. +2
      7 November 2023 15: 28
      At the time of its appearance, a turret on a tank was a revolutionary thing, but now it is an anachronism. But what to replace it with is already a question, and the main thing is in what plane the thing with which it will be replaced will be placed. Probably yes, missiles with launchers vertically or horizontally oriented. Perhaps some kind of analogue of a mortar.
      In the case of the massive use of sufficiently protected tanks, the ammunition load of each individual plays a lesser role, especially if the network-centric model works effectively and adequate communication and information exchange are ensured. So it is quite possible to reduce the ammo capacity of each individual tank, which is inevitable in the event of a transition to guided missiles.
      Here you need to understand that in this approach the tank is inevitably divided into 2 types - conditionally a “tank destroyer”, which possibly retains a gun, has lower requirements for armor and greater stealth, and a “breakthrough tank”, the requirements for which are increasingly at odds with worse compromise. So changes are inevitable, the only question is whether they will be smooth or revolutionary.
    2. 0
      8 November 2023 02: 35
      Everything new is well forgotten old):
  21. -1
    7 November 2023 15: 53
    The price will probably be “for the cloud” if at least one is built fool , besides, everyone knows that tanks are very afraid (deadly) of Molotov cocktails and other modern products laughing
  22. -2
    7 November 2023 16: 09
    No grill...
    This means it will burn like a merkava...
    Only a barbecue can protect AI
  23. +2
    8 November 2023 12: 45
    After thinking for a couple of days, reading the opinions of other readers and authors of VO, looking at the results of the use of tanks in recent conflicts, I came up with the idea of ​​a tank layout that could be a way out of the situation.
    The fact is that the problems are:
    - Weak protection of the tower on the sides and in the upper hemisphere
    - Unreliability of the turret control system (even if the projectile does not penetrate the turret, it may jam)
    - Poor awareness of the crew about what is happening around them
    - Insufficient firepower of cannon shells if the fire is not directed at other tanks
    - It takes too long to evacuate the crew when hit
    - There are few means of defense in a situation if the enemy comes close (or when an individual pair of enemy soldiers with a grenade launcher is ambushed)
    - shooting accuracy on the move in combat conditions is still low and does not always achieve a hit
    - they still try to shoot from a standing position, hiding behind folds of terrain or buildings.

    From here, as for me, a solution suggests itself.
    Return to crazy tanks.
    The chassis dimensions of our T-72/80/90 family with 6 rollers can be used as a basis. A crew of 3 people should be placed in a closed armored capsule located in the rear of the tank (and not in front as on the T-14 or the Korean project). As standard, the crew will have the opportunity to leave the capsule in 3 directions, under the bottom through the emergency armored hatch, back behind the stern through the aft ramp and up to the roof of the tank through standard hatches on top.
    Install the engine block in front, behind the frontal armor, but with a small free space (the engine should not be closely adjacent to the inner wall of the armor) in order to place Kevlar anti-fragmentation screens in this void. The exhaust system is divided into 3-4 channels, distributed on different sides of the body.
    The gun and automatic loader are located in the center of the hull between the engine compartment at the front and the armored crew capsule at the rear. Since there is no turret, the frontal armor gradually and smoothly flows into the roof armor. To save weight, it can, of course, be thinner than in the frontal projection, but it is still strong enough that, in combination with the remote protection, it can withstand the vast majority of “roof busters”. The gun itself, unlike the Swedish Strw 103, can be made not strictly attached to the body - but can be made to “swing” a little. Make the gun “backlash” so that it can be adjusted vertically and horizontally by 5-7 degrees, in order to achieve greater accuracy than if you aim only by turning the body. Create a new gun, 130-135 mm caliber. I agree that the transition to 140-152 mm. will require too many design changes for so many heavy guns. At the same time, the length of the gun can probably even be made shorter than the current 120-125 mm guns. Since a long gun is more difficult to balance, and we already aim with the body.
    All the same, when firing BOPS, the length of the barrel is compensated by an increase in caliber, and at long ranges, we still use missile shells, for which the gun is just a guide and launcher.
    The armor, as mentioned earlier, is actually a monolithic shell, where the frontal armor smoothly flows into the roof. Moreover, it is initially designed so that along the entire length of the armor sheet, it will be supplemented with remote sensing blocks (even on the roof). It is better to make the slope of the armor as sharp as possible. In the upper projection of the armor (which already plays the role of the roof), the armor layer can be less than the thickness in the front (frontal projection), but thicker than in the sides (on the sides it is still possible to use large DS blocks and anti-cumulative grilles together). And in combination with remote sensing units, this will provide protection that many types of ATGMs aimed at hitting the tank in the upper hemisphere will not be able to penetrate. But for additional protection from drones that can drop shells/mines simply by flying up from above, I suggest equipping the roof with an emergency “umbrella”. When folded, it lies compactly on the roof without sticking out high above the body. This gives the crew a better view of the machine gun turret, and if something happens it will be easier for the crew to evacuate. But if during the battle, the operator notices (or is informed from the outside) that drones have been spotted over the battlefield. Then he activates the opening of the umbrella, which unfolds over the roof of the tank. After deployment, it can only be put back together if the crew comes out and puts it down (but this, by definition, is when the battle has already ended and the crew has returned to a safe place).
    The view around the tank is organized through 3 types of observation devices. Machine gun movable turret on the roof of the tank. A remote-controlled anti-aircraft machine gun (possibly with a grenade launcher) controlled by the crew commander and whose surveillance devices are used for a 360-degree view. Then there is a system of many stationary small cameras that monitor only their observation sector through armored glass. Such cameras have a limited field of view, but their observation angles intersect and will allow, if necessary, to see everything around the tank, even if other observation devices are damaged. But the most unusual thing is that since the tank has a crew of 3 people, the driver and gunner are now one crew member. And the commander still performs the same functions and mainly conducts observations through a remote-controlled machine gun on the roof with its instruments. Then the third crew member (radio operator) is not only responsible for crew communications, but also controls the standard drones, which are part of the tank’s equipment. The drones will be launched upward through a small mortar (it can also be made into a real mortar, in order to have an additional means of self-defense for the crew if enemy infantry comes close to the tank, or you need to hit the enemy on the roof). And our mechanic-radio operator will, through his post, control the drones in a fully manual or semi-automatic mode in order to conduct observations of those regions that are hidden from direct observation by other means (observation of terrain folds, review of roofs and upper floors of a building, review of areas hidden by buildings or structures). With the ability to transmit information and pictures to the screens not only to other crew members, but also to the crews of other tanks.
  24. 0
    9 November 2023 16: 10
    Last year the concept was different, with a KAZ similar to the “Trophy” plus a laser rangefinder (gun) like the Chinese one, and the placement of smoke grenade launchers was different, etc. Apparently the Koreans studied the concept of the German Panther 2 tank and, based on this, improved their 2023 model. I won’t say anything about the hydrogen engine, because they had to show off something super new. But the tank’s reconnaissance and fire complex is already a trend, since if they are moving in the same direction, then this is already serious. Yes, and the Chinese have something similar in their drawings, using our “Armata” as a basis; of course, it has the same crew accommodations, plus homing missiles and standard UAVs, etc. Well, the general appearance of the current Korean layout is very similar to the defunct Polish layout.
  25. +2
    10 November 2023 23: 23
    Few people understand, although there are such people, that booking has long since exhausted itself.
    And the logical solution to this problem at the moment is to divide the tank into an unmanned attack platform with remote control, which makes no sense to armor due to its unmanned nature, and an infantry fighting vehicle carefully protected by all available means, which functionally, in principle, should not be present on the first LBS.
    Thus, the infantry fighting vehicle must provide control of unmanned attack platforms and a high self-defense capability.
    1. +1
      12 November 2023 18: 02

      Few people understand, although there are such people, that booking has long since exhausted itself.

      Yes, there are people who understand this.
      Indeed, given that the tank still needs drones, remote target designation and reconnaissance and other useful innovations, the process of developing a decision and issuing fire and maneuver commands is also (and has been for a very long time) logically taken outside the tank, this will not only allow abandon armor and thereby make the tank faster, lighter, more powerful, more reliable, and, first of all, save the lives of tankers.

      In other words, the main innovation, namely the absence of tankers in the tank and all the resulting advantages, is precisely not in this project.
  26. 0
    11 January 2024 10: 05
    So electronic warfare only helps against reconnaissance drones. At most, another six months and simple trained neural networks will search for signal losses, target and attack automatically. It seems that one 12,7 mm pcdemet will not be enough.
    All modern vehicles need to be equipped with more powerful anti-drone weapons.
  27. +1
    12 January 2024 02: 07
    I may have missed it, but it seems to me that the concept developers are missing one important detail... the tank does not have mine sensors along the route, and this is important.

    The tank has perfect protection from shells, missiles, danger from all dimensions, except for the danger from below... but they don’t ask themselves how to dodge elementary booby traps under the tracks, considering it “how lucky”... sorry?
  28. +1
    12 January 2024 09: 46
    The current hostilities show (clearly) that the role of Tanks has slipped below the plinth.
    Something similar to the euphoria of the Carts of the civil war.
    You can fill the entire tank with electronics, put a rocket engine on it, etc. and so on.
    AND IT WILL BURN EXCELLENTLY. Like the Pioneer fire.
    Bombs, shells and mines with homing will soon appear. Everyone has arrived!!!! No protection!
    And the tanks immediately need to dig a grave.
  29. 0
    25 February 2024 13: 03
    Quote: abc_alex
    There is not even a sane civil transport system powered by hydrogen in the world.

    Moreover, this infrastructure has already begun to be phased out without being put into widespread use; it turned out to be too complex and unreliable. It’s generally difficult to imagine her on the battlefield.
    Perhaps it is suitable for some kind of technological transport.
    1. 0
      2 March 2024 05: 45
      These are all the muddy wishes of the green ones. For some reason, these idiots, who think only one step at a time, cannot understand that it is necessary to spend energy to obtain hydrogen itself. And storing it is unrealistic. Helium leaves the cylinder very quickly. Straight through metal - steel. Six months - the cylinder is empty, the walls there seem to be 13 mm. The hydrogen from such a cylinder will fly away much faster. The molecule is two times smaller. Transfer through pipes.... Well, well. Almost everything corrodes from hydrogen.
  30. 0
    2 March 2024 05: 54
    In fact, all a modern tank needs is active and passive anti-drone protection and generally protected from above, active protection against ATGMs, etc., and information awareness. In the latter case, this also means having several of your own drones. All this will require space, and therefore weight. One drone operator is worth something. Maybe they will replace it with something, but then the draw will cost a lot of money. And the drone should be a consumable item.
    And all this will require space and weight. And we can finish here. Modern tanks have now become huge monsters. And no one can make them as much as necessary largely because of this. And as for the cannon.... The current one is enough to disassemble the supports. And organizing a WOT is the very last thing anyone needs right now. Here our specialists were right. Tanks don't fight tanks. Still, you can’t drink experience away.
    But putting even such a useful thing as a 30 mm automatic cannon into a tank is an almost impossible task due to weight and space. Where are the fantasies with hydrogen and other crap?