The Age of Tanks Returns: China Unveils MBT with Anti-Drone System

The fighting in the conflict in Ukraine has forced a radical reconsideration of the concept of use tanks. As it turned out, the Soviet T-72 and T-80 tanks and the Western Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Abrams were equally vulnerable to attacks by relatively inexpensive drones.

As The Asian Times notes, many military experts have already begun writing obituaries for tanks, suggesting that the era of tank dominance in modern conflicts is coming to an end. In particular, according to American analysts, tanks are expected to be used over time exclusively to clear occupied territory. In addition, Western experts note the growing role of ATGMs, which have significantly increased the role of infantry units in confronting tanks.

However, the publication also notes that tanks continue to adapt to counter drones. Many countries have already begun integrating anti-drone systems into their new tank models. In particular, China is set to present its newest tank, which is capable of withstanding drone strikes, at a military parade in the coming weeks. Judging by the photos and videos that have appeared online, the new Chinese combat vehicle is a medium tank equipped with advanced active protection systems. In addition to the main gun, the new Chinese tank is also equipped with an anti-drone guided weapon mounted on the roof. Apparently, its main armament is a 105-mm cannon.

In addition, the tank is equipped with a GL6 Active Protection System (APS) and a 360-way phased array radar that provides XNUMX-degree threat detection. The system can continuously monitor the surrounding environment, automatically apply countermeasures and intercept incoming threats. missiles, rockets and drones, which significantly increases the survivability of the combat vehicle.

Another notable feature of the new Chinese tank is that in addition to the anti-drone system, the vehicle is equipped with its own unmanned reconnaissance system, which allows for increased situational awareness in combat conditions. Analysts also suggest that the new tank's turret is unmanned, which is a significant technological leap.

Comments

[Irek]

The fight between sword and shield has been going on since time immemorial.

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Irek

Fight between sword and shield

Yes. Shit happens.

[Vicontas]

I do not rule out that the Chinese will want to test their MBTs on the SVO. Testing in combat is the best way to confirm advantages and learn shortcomings. Like the North Korean MLRS "Koksan", which initially had an awesome KVO, after they were tinkered with in Russia, began to place shells right in the "bull's eye" of the greenies. To their indescribable regret!

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Vicontas

I don't rule out...

... uh... your right, of course. Why do I need it?

[Vicontas]

When you grow up and maybe become smarter, then you will understand. Although I highly doubt it!

[Paranoid62]

Quote: Vicontas

When you grow up...

What exactly do you think I should grow?

[SAG]

The system can continuously monitor the surrounding environment, automatically apply countermeasures and intercept incoming missiles, rockets and drones, which significantly increases the survivability of the combat vehicle.

The most important thing is that they didn't write about what specific countermeasures? The machine gun is not effective against drones. The photo shows 8 cylinders aimed at the main gun, but these are unlikely to be the same countermeasures.
For the system to become operational and widespread, this countermeasure needs to be cheaper than the cost of a drone... And 8 PU is clearly not enough, so there is doubt about the future of this system.

[Tnemo]

What if the machine gun is loaded with buckshot? Yes, it will work purely for drones in the close zone. But the main thing is that it works.

[Kusja]

Yes, good. And the mines? The standard roller is probably not an option.

[your1970]

Quote: Kusja

Yes, good. And the mines? The standard roller is probably not an option.

Afghan version with two mines

[fuel oil]

Robot dogs will probably soon run in front of the tank, scanning the area in front of them for their presence. Everything is developing, progress does not stand still. We must prepare for the war of robots, although it has already partially begun.

[Alekseev]

And for mines there are sappers, mechanical trawls and electromagnet jammers.
It is impossible to turn a tank into a fortress to hide there from all means of destruction. It is possible to significantly increase its combat stability.
This anti-drone weapon module is a call of the times, a necessity.
I think that we are also conducting R&D. And maybe there is a real result. But we will find out about it only when such an active protection complex becomes widespread and then, in general terms. And this is understandable. The less the enemy knows about the true performance characteristics of our equipment, the harder it is for him.

[foxes]

Did she leave?.....

[Dmitry Eon]

That's right, the era of tanks will not go away as long as there is ground warfare and ground forces as such. Because a tank is the most protected unit on the battlefield.

[dnestr74]

The problem of protecting tanks from drones in our country seems to me to be in the modest capabilities of our electronic industry. China has no such problems, so they are experimenting, maybe they will share them for testing on the LBS.

[Cartalon]

I think tanks will no longer operate in front of infantry, only behind as an assault weapon, which means the concept of such a gun, which is now sharpened against other tanks, despite the fact that [tanks do not fight tanks] is outdated, which means a larger caliber is needed, a larger elevation angle, maneuverability is not so important

[URAL72]

I think tanks in front of the infantry will no longer operate, only behind them.


You can tell they are armchair experts right away. Our tank is approaching a forest regiment. Our soldiers are in it. A shot. Wild obscenities are heard on the air. A soldier who was about ten meters in front of the tank, in a TRENCH, was thrown out of it, shell-shocked, wounded. As it was said on the radio, an arm, a leg, a dick. Literally. The infantry should be level with the tank, or slightly behind. That was the plan from the very beginning, as soon as the tank appeared. Maneuverability is needed, it has been proven. Engine power is even more important. The T-80, which is almost inaudible from the front, has proven itself very well, which means the report on the tanks will be held later, and the FPV will be raised later. We already went through large-caliber guns in WWII. Not necessary. 125 mm is enough. 152 mm is better of course, but the disadvantages offset the advantage. The main thing is less ammunition. A bigger gun means a bigger shot, a bigger turret, more weight.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: URAL72

You can immediately see that they are armchair experts.

Well, why not? It is clear that it is not like in the case you described. But assault guns often acted precisely because of the infantry formations (although they could be in the line and in front). Another question is that in such a situation the infantry should be far ahead, and the tank - far behind, but does that make sense...

[Cartalon]

Yes, assault weapons never existed, they didn’t exist.
There has never been a German zoo or a Su-76.
I came up with them on the couch.

[rocket757]

Any minute now, multi-towered monsters will start appearing!!!
However, given the high automation of the combat process, this no longer seems so ineffective...
In general, time will tell which way the design idea will go this time.

[URAL72]

Agreed. More turrets are no longer a problem. But I see a modern tank very similar to the ZSU Gepard. With a gun in the middle, possibly shortened. Guided missiles should become the norm, as well as active protection.

[rocket757]

So there were T 28, T 35, M 3 (Li)... Land cruisers from the early period of development of heavy armored vehicles.
Science fiction writers have plenty of examples/descriptions of something similar.

[malyvalv]

We already have some crazy monsters on SVO!!!

[rocket757]

Did you mean something specific, but that expression is so ambiguous...

[malyvalv]

Specifically, this is the duality that I mean. Now almost all tanks in the SVO are crazy monsters in every sense.

[poquello]

Quote: rocket757

Any minute now, multi-towered monsters will start appearing!!!

Let's wait for the parade, Chinese microwave guns will be on display there

[AK-1945]

The era of tanks is back: China unveils MBT with anti-drone system.

The idea is certainly interesting, but it requires practical testing, and in real combat operations, not in simulators at the training ground.

[Alex_12]

MBT with anti-drone system

The first thought that comes to mind when reading the title is: shoot sparrows with a cannon!

[malyvalv]

This is probably the first area where we will see a battle of artificial intelligences. On one side, a hundred drones under AI control attack a tank. On the other, the tank's anti-drone system under AI control repels the attack.
Almost everything is ready for this.

[Sergey Mitinsky]

The era of tanks as a means of deep breakthroughs into the enemy's rear will never return due to the presence of numerous and mobile means of destroying them.
So the era of tanks that began with the Second World War has ended.
Now it seems that tanks are returning to their original function, as conceived by the British during the First World War, namely as a mobile means of destruction.
Then the question arises: are tanks really needed?
More expensive tanks will likely give way to cheaper self-propelled guns

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

The era of tanks as a means of deep breakthroughs into the enemy's rear will never return due to the presence of numerous and mobile means of destroying them.
So the era of tanks that began with the Second World War has ended.

Do you think that a war like SVO will happen? It is not a war. It is actually a special military operation. The war will be exactly what everyone was thinking about. With the massive use of special ammunition. And all these drones will lie dead, unused cargo. And tanks will move forward, as military equipment more or less protected from radiation.

[Sergey Mitinsky]

Let me doubt the success of such a maneuver.

Firstly, today it is not only kamikaze drones that successfully destroy tanks, but also light portable ATGMs. And it is not necessary to have a cannon in ambush for this.

And secondly, why did you decide that “all these drones will lie dead, unused cargo”?

How do you imagine the use of nuclear weapons?

I hope you don’t think that such a bomb can be used as FABs on the line of combat contact so that, as you put it, “all these drones along with their drone operators would lie dead as unused cargo”?

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

How do you imagine the use of nuclear weapons?

Massive missile attack.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

as the British had conceived of them during the First World War, namely as a mobile means of destruction

In fact, tanks were conceived and used precisely as a means of breaking through long-term defenses. In fact, the shape of the first tanks was adapted to tear barbed wire and roll over trenches. And the infantry had to tramp under their cover.

[Sergey Mitinsky]

What kind of breakthrough?
Tanks as a means of breaking through the defense by going deep into the enemy's rear in conjunction with motorized infantry was the idea of ​​the Germans, and specifically Guderian. Until that moment, tanks were considered something like a mobile cannon covering the advancing infantry.
And these English monsters of the Oryasin were produced in single copies and no one ever returned to these forms for the convenience of breaking through barbed wire.

[poquello]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

What kind of breakthrough?
Tanks as a means of breaking through the defense by going deep into the enemy's rear in conjunction with motorized infantry was the idea of ​​the Germans, and specifically Guderian. Until that moment, tanks were considered something like a mobile cannon covering the advancing infantry.

Holy shit, look at the chronicles of the 30s and 40s, BTs cover the infantry so well that they barely have time to run after them

[Sergey Mitinsky]

And you probably thought that covering the infantry with tanks was when she was telling stories in the smoking room and writing letters to her beloved girlfriend in the red room?
Infantry should run to attack. You obviously didn't know about this, so educate yourself.

[poquello]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

The infantry must run to the attack.

Quote: poquello

can barely keep up them escape

[Sergey Mitinsky]

So I have to barely keep up
I hope you served in the army?
I don’t know how things are today, but in the Soviet army soldiers ran until they were exhausted, because as Suvorov rightly said: “It’s hard in training, easy in battle.”
You've seen the training footage. In a real battle, these tanks won't be in such a hurry unless they have a stupid commander.
On the contrary, in a real battle, not only tanks had to cover the infantry, but the infantry also had to cover the tanks. And this is precisely where problems occurred. The infantry could be cut off from the tanks, it would lie down and the tanks that broke away from the infantry became easy prey for anti-tank weapons.

[poquello]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

That's how it should be

you will decide somehow

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

Until this point, tanks were considered something like a mobile gun covering the advancing infantry.

[Sergey Mitinsky]

It's hard for you to get it
The infantry arose for the king of peas and everything that arose after it in a certain sense covered it
And artillery, and aviation, and tanks, and today even drones. But in order to protect all these means and the specialists who operate them, the infantry should also cover them, right?

[poquello]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

It's hard for you to get it
The infantry arose for the king of peas and everything that arose after it in a certain sense covered it
And artillery, and aviation, and tanks, and today even drones. But in order to protect all these means and the specialists who operate them, the infantry should also cover them, right?

oh, it didn't even occur to me that tanks actually cover the infantry with their hull when they break through the defense

[Sergey Mitinsky]

You probably didn't know, so I'll tell you something.
The doctrine of using tank divisions, corps and armies during the Second World War was different for the Germans and the Soviet army
The Germans usually used tanks to break through defenses and then introduce them into the breakthrough, while ours most often broke through defenses using infantry forces, and tanks then burst into the gap in the broken defense.
But both the Germans and ours used tanks to encircle the enemy and destroy his deep rear areas.
But this was a tactic that was typical of large tank formations that did not waste time on trifles.
In the Soviet army there were separate tank regiments and battalions that were attached to combined arms armies. They operated in combat formations together with the infantry.
The Germans did not have such regiments and formations separate from divisions before the Tigers appeared, but they had assault gun divisions in their infantry armies for this occasion. Self-propelled guns in our language

[poquello]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

The Germans usually used tanks to break through defenses and then introduce them into the breakthrough, while ours most often broke through defenses using infantry forces, and tanks then burst into the gap in the broken defense.

source

[Sergey Mitinsky]

Just read and be interested and you will have a source

[poquello]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

Just read and be interested and you will have a source

please try to give concrete reasons for your nonsense

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Sergey Mitinsky

Breakthrough of what? Tanks as a means of breaking through the defense with their exit to the deep rear of the enemy

The theory of deep operations was created by Triandafillov only in 1931. And in the First World War, tanks were not tasked with going deep into the rear. They were called upon to overcome rows of barbed wire and trenches, thereby clearing the way for the infantry, which suffered absolutely unthinkable losses on the way to enemy positions. Both English and German diamond-shaped tanks with tracks around the hull and a bunch of guns and machine guns were developed for this task. In the end, however, the French concept of an armored tractor with a gun in a rotating turret, as in the last photo, won. These tanks could not only crawl to the enemy, but also rush to the rear.

[Lako]

Well, China can invest in active protection systems for tanks. Although it is not a cheap pleasure. It is cheaper to cover tank units with electronic warfare systems as well as smoke and aerosol protection systems. Moreover, it is unlikely that China will ever conduct a military operation where one tank operates for several kilometers of the front, as is now the case in Ukraine.

[bug120560]

An absolutely correct and timely approach to solving the problem of protection against drones is timely detection and destruction (radar in conjunction with an optical electronic station). It is deeply sad that while our "effective managers" from the military-industrial complex are increasing export potential in the hope of making money on exports, normal armies are creating and adopting exactly what their troops need on the battlefield.

[Alf]

Quote: bug120560

An absolutely correct and timely approach to solving the problem of protection against drones is timely detection and destruction (radar in conjunction with an optical electronic station).

Here another opposite moment comes out. The radar working on the tank for its protection will itself shout "Tank here" and call down on its head, or rather the turret and hull, all the punishments of heaven in the form of drones. An interesting collision is obtained.

[bug120560]

Alf, I think that there is no big problem here. Firstly, under normal conditions of use, the tank is in constant motion, secondly, to determine the location of a working radar, the enemy must have certain equipment exactly where the tank is, and it may not be there, and thirdly, look closely at the photo at the beginning of the article, the optical-electronic station (SUO) is very clearly visible there, and it does not emit any radiation.

[Alf]

Quote: bug120560

the optical-electronic station (OES) is very clearly visible there, and it does not emit any radiation.

The fact that the "optics" do not "glow" is obvious, but you wrote that it works in conjunction with the radar... The radar can only work if its radius is very small. I would say no more than 500 meters. During the drone's flight of this distance, the brain will have time to detect and hit the drone. But there is another point - there are always people near the tank and how will the human body react to constant radiation? I think not positively.

[bug120560]

Alf, you base your conclusions on guesswork, especially regarding the radar operating range. Recently, the US Marine Corps adopted an anti-aircraft missile and gun system called MADIS. The MADIS Mk 2 control vehicle is equipped with a compact RPS-42 radar from RADA Electronic Industries, with a range of up to 25-30 km. And this system also has an optical-electronic station along with the radar. Regarding what I wrote, I will explain - when I wrote about the connection with the radar, I meant that they use two principles of observation and target designation: radar and optical/thermal imaging, by the way, unlike our "Pantsir-1S", which has a thermal imaging channel only in the naval version. As for the harmful effects of radar waves, I can’t say anything, I’m not an expert, but radar stations installed on armored vehicles have long been the “eyes” of all active defense systems, so I think the developers of these systems are far from stupid.

[Alf]

Quote: bug120560

The US Marine Corps recently adopted an anti-aircraft missile and gun system called MADIS.

This is a special vehicle, and I am talking about a complex installed as an additional weapon. They should have different requirements.
Next. Air defense vehicles themselves are first and foremost a tasty target. Shrikes were invented a long time ago. Suppression of air defense systems is a top priority.

Quote: bug120560

As for the harmful effects of radar waves, I can’t say anything, I’m not an expert, but radar stations installed on armored vehicles have long been the “eyes” of all active defense systems, so I think the developers of these systems are far from stupid.

It is truth too.

[bug120560]

Alf, you don't follow what our "friends" are doing and therefore you don't quite know the subject. The MADIS missile and gun system is four special vehicles, as you understand, they are not deployed next to each other in combat. The radar is installed only on the control vehicle, each of the others has missiles and a barrel mount, the radar apparently has the function of long-range detection of large-sized targets and missile guidance, everything else is guided by optics and hit by barrel systems. So, for anti-radar missiles, only a vehicle with a radar can be a target. As for the systems for additional weapons installed on equipment, the American company Allen Control Systems (ACS) presented the Bullfrog robotic installation for shooting down UAVs weighing about 180 kilograms, with an M240 machine gun with a rate of fire of 600-1000 rounds/min., the maximum effective range declared by the manufacturer is 1800 meters, a fire control system based on an electro-optical sensor and a computer with AI for searching and targeting. Bullfrog calculates all the corrections independently - the operator only needs to press a button to confirm the intention to shoot. Although, according to engineers, a person is not needed at all to operate Bullfrog. A similar installation was adopted in China, only the Hua Qing Minigun (Chinese clone of the Minigun) is used as a weapon there.

[Alf]

Quote: bug120560

As for the systems for installation as additional weapons on equipment, the American company Allen Control Systems (ACS) presented the Bullfrog robotic installation for shooting down UAVs weighing about 180 kilograms, with an M240 machine gun with a rate of fire of 600–1000 rounds/min., the maximum effective range declared by the manufacturer is 1800 meters, a fire control system based on an electro-optical sensor and a computer with AI for searching and targeting.

That's exactly it, there is no talk of radar on such complexes, because they will become the primary target.

[alexoff]

China only needs to impose a complete ban on the export of drones and components to protect its tanks

[silverwolf88]

For now, this is just a Chinese concept of how it could be... BUT I think they will have time to test the hypotheses of the new MBT, for example, during the Anschluss of Taiwan))... we'll see
“Dry theory my friend...”

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

In Russia, they have been telling us for 30 years how effective the Arena APS is, but they have never installed it on a single combat tank, which is why we have had losses in tanks from ATGMs and RPGs, and we have lost people.

I don't understand what, other than stupidity and indifference to the lives of their soldiers, prevents Rostec from making a KAZ to protect armored vehicles from drones? A drone flies much slower than an ATGM or an RPG grenade, and in the era of digitalization and automation, not having protection from drones is simply a disgrace.

[bk0010]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The drone flies much slower than an ATGM or an RPG grenade.

Exactly. It's simply filtered out. Air defense forces had similar problems with hovering helicopters until they learned to react to the propeller. And you can't just stop ignoring low-speed targets - they'll be hitting every sparrow.

[Paranoid62]

The next step will be - a ring around each of the drone's propellers. And again, your APS will be...

Quote: bk0010

... will hit every sparrow

If everything were so simple, it would have been done long ago.

[voyaka uh]

The Chinese are great, of course. Their engineers and military react to changes in warfare instantly.
The decision is correct. The APS, which includes anti-drone protection for 360 degrees (and vertically upwards) must be on Each tank.
It is not enough to have a special anti-drone armored vehicle with a laser on a group of tanks, as the Americans decided.
There should be: both a KAZ on each tank, and a laser IFV for a group of 3-4 tanks.

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: voyaka uh

on every tank.

A tank turns out to be a very expensive thing... Almost like a battleship... Horror... Where will humanity go?

[poquello]

Quote: voyaka uh

It is not enough to have a special anti-drone armored vehicle with a laser on a group of tanks, as the Americans decided.

It wasn't the Americans who decided this, it's normal practice - air defense vehicles cover the rest

[voyaka uh]

These air defense vehicles are knocked out immediately, first.
This is what the practice of the SVO has clearly demonstrated.
Each The tank must be able to protect itself from drones.
Just as passive armor is the norm on every tank, so a universal APS should become norm on every tank.

[poquello]

Quote: voyaka uh

These air defense vehicles are knocked out immediately, first.

this means that the enemy's fire is concentrated on specialized air defense vehicles, and not on the group that is solving its tasks

Quote: voyaka uh

This is what the practice of the SVO has clearly demonstrated.

are you in a trench or something? ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) I can't stop laughing

Quote: voyaka uh

Every tank must be able to protect itself from drones.

why not from large-caliber artillery?)

[Shumi2010]

I think it will be drone vs drone in the end
everything else goes to the museum

[lukash66]

Let's start with the fact that the Chinese were being bent over by everyone and their dog. That's why they're scared to start their own SVO against Taiwan. Warriors, damn it. They can churn out 100 destroyers, 20000 tanks, 10000 fighters of an unknown generation. And so on and so forth.

[MBRSS]

Quote from: lukash66

That's why they're afraid to start their own SVO against Taiwan.

Why? Taiwan is not a threat to China, and there is no persecution for the Chinese language there. :))

[OSE4Kinsura]

In addition to the main gun, the new Chinese tank is also equipped with an anti-drone guided weapon mounted on the roof. Apparently, its main armament is a 105 mm cannon.

[MBRSS]

In addition to the main gun, the new Chinese tank is also equipped with an anti-drone guided weapon mounted on the roof.

That's why I wrote that the Armata turret needs to be redesigned: make it wide and flat, and put an anti-drone combat module on top.
And yet this is not a solution - drones on optical fiber fly low, difficult to detect and destroy. Such a drone jumps out of ambush and throws itself under the tracks, and that's it!