Future Main Battle Tank
-
Agree. Thus some of us here believe that the Swedish CV90-120T presents the most logical choice to fulfil this. The CV90-120T has a good 120mm gun, advance fire-control system, active/passive defensive aid system, when when add modular armour, will be the "MBT" SAF just need to for the Centurion replacement. Tonnage of such a tank would be in the 30-40 ton range, plus a good small "footprint" to boot given their wide tracks and 7 roadwheels.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:But my proposal is that they use a system that is like the FCS, 30-40 tons, advanced technology. Fight the war with information rather then sheer tonnage. Of course, this unit should have enough modular armour protection to slug it out with Pee Tee Nighty Toos and more then enuff firepower to kill... Dun forget the mobility...
My alternative view is that an upgrade Leopard 1A5 would do a similar trick. Upgun the Leopard 1 to the Leo2 120mm smoothbore gun, add the Israeli-made defensive aid systems that is being used for Merkava 4, add a commander independent sight/CCITV for hunter-killer mode, applique armour and walla we have a first-rate - German made tank !!!!
-
What about the possiblity of ST engg building a new tank with a foreign turret?
See this
Jordan unveils new turret for Al Hussein main battle tank
The King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB) of Jordan, in an exclusive briefing to Jane's Defence Weekly, has revealed details of an indigenously developed turret incorporating a 120mm smooth-bore gun. The intended platform for the turret is believed to be the Jordanian Armed Forces' Al Hussein (ex-British Army Challenger 1) main battle tank (MBT).
Development of the Falcon 2 turret, designated within KADDB as project AB9C5, has been conducted as part of the MERLIN programme, which involves intellectual development and technology transfer between the South African defence-industrial private sector and Jordan. Concept design, development, prototyping and project management has been led by KADDB, in close partnership with the Mechanology Design Bureau (MDB) and IST Dynamics of South Africa. It is supported by other elements of the Jordanian, South African, Swiss and UK defence industries.
Now in the final stages of development, Falcon 2 interface verification was scheduled for completion last month, following which it is expected to be dropped into an Al Hussein hull by the end of the year. KADDB plans to unveil the complete vehicle officially at the IDEX international defence exhibition in Abu Dhabi in March 2003. KADDB officials told JDW that fitting the Falcon to the Al Hussein hull involved a "straightforward interface".
The primary armament for the Falcon 2 turret is RUAG Land Systems' L50 120mm smooth-bore compact tank gun. King Abdullah II of Jordan told JDW that improved lethality, combined with concerns about the obsolescence of the Al Hussein's (UK BAE Systems RO Defence) L11 120mm rifled gun and ammunition had been a driving factor in developing the programme.
The South African government is understood to have expressed an interest in the Falcon as part of its revived MBT requirement, and South African industry sources said that the Falcon 2 turret's development could provide the impetus for a collaborative project with Jordan to develop a new MBT hull.
end.
----------
This is promising given it is armed with the RUAG Land Systems' L50 120mm smoothbore gun, and a FHL Claverham 10-round autoloader.
The Falcon 2 turret in the process of integration testing at the KADDB workshop. Visible is the RUAG 120 CTG 120mm L50 smoothbore gun and the bustle housing an FHL Claverham 10-round autoloader. Attached to the outside of the bustle is an eight-round Thales AFV smoke projector. Not yet fitted are the commander's and gunner's hunter-killer sights. (Source: KADDB) -
The CV90120-T tank has been developed to provide a lighter, highly mobile main battle tank with a high pressure smoothbore 120mm gun, battlefield management system and extensive defensive aids suite.
Maybe the 120mm gun can be mounted on the bionix chasis for a
new light tank for SAF.
-
Your words echo my thoughts.
-
We could use a modified hull to cut height and up the ability to carry armour...
-
Future combat system
(FCS) will use significantly enhanced battlefield knowledge to improve the combat power of a network of vehicles, sensors and weapons. -
Future Combat Systems shooting the enemy miles away before it can see us and making it impossible for the enemy to detect us makes it appear as though we will fight casualty-free wars. The simple fact is that as we advance in military technology, the rest of the world is not going to years behind. BY the time we have all of these wonderful gadgets and gizmos (like stealth tanks and Future Combat Systems), the enemy will probably have something similar as well.
-
FUTURE US TANK!
This futuristic main battle tank is based on the M1 Abrams chassis. It would be armed with a magnetic rail gun, and equipped with advanced threat detection and defense systems -
-
We cannot afford an FCS system as envisioned by the US Army. Their FCS system, to achieve the envisaged lethality and survivability, requires TOTAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. This quantum increase in SA will require the full backing of a huge ISR network, consisting of platforms like the MC2A, Rivet Joint, Predator system, Commanche and even National assets like satellites. UAVs will be required all the way down to section level. To properly make use of all the information gathered without being overwhelmed by them,
an extraordinariliy complex C4I system must be available, something which today, is considered one of the most risky obstacles to the fielding of the FCS system.
Do you think we have the money to make it work?
I say our version of the FCS will have to be more 'conventional', meaning it has to be more survivable, as an insurance against unforseen situations occuring due to gaps in information. -
well said
,the FCS is too expensive for SAF.Maybe only USA and certain European Countries can afford to invest such a system. -
I envision OUR version of the FCS to be more of a high technology AGS system, though more wired up to the information network then just a simple radio. Probably wireless LAN between the tank unit, land warrior systems on the ground and towards the higher command structure. Allowing us to intergrate our forces a lot better and use them more effectively. Prehaps Land Warriors can lase and spot targets for the "FCS" to engage, all without a single word being spoken.
-
Terrain to soft to support main battle tanks? I seriously wonder if it is fact or fiction nowadays. Personally, I don't do ground survey, so I don't really know. I know however, tanks of this class, have operated in more unsuitable terrain than this.
Mainbattle tanks have crossed seas of desert, not just hard desert, but soft sandy ones. Main Battle Tanks have fought in the Ice and soft snow, where a person would sink 2 ft in. Sure, the jungle may have its mud, swamp n trees. I believe we can use main battle tanks here, its just a matter of employing it where. Why should tanks roll into swamp when hardly anyone wanna contest for a swamp? Sure, soft mud will slow the tanks down, maybe bog them down... then again, tanks of these classes have fought in terrain worse than these, and survive due to their thick armor. Can our lighter tanks do the same? Will they not get stuck in these "surfaces?" Who can be sure a 20Ton light tank won't get stuck in equally shitty ground where a 50+Ton gets stuck in?
If a light tank and a MBT gets stuck in the same kinda spot, I'll stay in the MBT, and pray that my armor holds against the heaviest, most cunning AT weapon. The light tank simply won't stand a chance being caught in the same position. -
I don't think this might work, as the recoil force and stress put on the Bionix chassis will be too big and might cause fractures and cracks. The crews might also be greatly affected by the shockwaves or the recoil force. Unless the Bionix chassis is strength a lot, I think it should at max carry a 105mm gun.Originally posted by Pressure-Forward:Maybe the 120mm gun can be mounted on the bionix chasis for a
new light tank for SAF.
A 30+ ton chassis is probably best for having such a high calibre gun. The CTG 120mm gun also must have a good muzzle brake to reduce the recoil. Thus, my view is that a foreign ex-MBT chassis like the Leopard 1, AMX-30 or even the new built CV90 seem to be more suitable than the Bionix chassis. Furthermore, the Jordanian turret with the 120mm gun seem to incorporate all the advance stuffs, including hunter-killer mode, advanced fire-control system and sights, plus an autoloader which will reduce the crew to 3
I really wish SAF retains some MBT capability and field a new generation of light tanks to replace the SM1.
Anyway, I also reckon there are a lot of new things in the Israeli Merkava that SAF should consider adopting unto the "new" MBT.
In any case, I would like to see SAF MBT match any neighbours's MBT on paper at least (in terms of technology) if not surpass them by at least quite a bit. -
Friend, do you even know what you are talking about? Unless you have specific strength figures for the Bionix hull, I suggest you not yelp too much about crew being affected by shockwaves and fractures and cracks. Which are pretty moot points anyway, if ST wanted to put a 120mm on a Bionix, they would engineer it to be albe to do so.
The main grouse with putting a 120mm on a Bionix is that it is in itself a pretty inefficent endevour. What we would get is a "tank" that has a lot of unnecessory height and space wasted on its troop carrying abilities that are going to be moot in this new unit. What we would get is a "light tank" that is overly tall and armoured like a IFV. A completely new, lower hull could put the space into better use, and mount more armor protection and powerpack to boot. I suppose ST could engineer Bionix hulls in light tank variants though... -
Is the CV90120-T a Light Tank or a MBT??? It only weighs 27 000kg but it has most qualities of an MBT except heavy armour, which would have to be added on. . .
-
MBTs exceeded weights over 45 tonnes would have problems in ASEAN countries. Ask around any of our buddies here who have served on M60 CEVs.
but it doesn't means SGP would not field MBTs over this class in future orbat, just that they would not likely to announce it in public...
modified BX with a 105mm/120mm gun turret should be the next in-thing, but i think ST would never mounted them with off the shelf turrets, and the Fire Control would most likely come from country X, with IFF built in for friendly AFVs, and has ability to hit helos and slow flying aircrafts using main rounds. -
_____________________________________________________Originally posted by YourFather:We cannot afford an FCS system as envisioned by the US Army. Their FCS system, to achieve the envisaged lethality and survivability, requires TOTAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. This quantum increase in SA will require the full backing of a huge ISR network, consisting of platforms like the MC2A, Rivet Joint, Predator system, Commanche and even National assets like satellites. UAVs will be required all the way down to section level. To properly make use of all the information gathered without being overwhelmed by them,
an extraordinariliy complex C4I system must be available, something which today, is considered one of the most risky obstacles to the fielding of the FCS system.
Do you think we have the money to make it work?
I say our version of the FCS will have to be more 'conventional', meaning it has to be more survivable, as an insurance against unforseen situations occuring due to gaps in information.
The USA having to project its power on a "global" basis, to protect its "global interests" and exposure to "global risks", will need such a system based on a very extensive "global" scale.
Our immediate economic, political and military interests and threats are merely regional, which probably is one-tenth that of the USA.
One E-2C AWAC covers almost the entire region, one satellite (which we already have) covers also the entire region of our interest.
We have the basic operations to adopt a smaller scale operation of the "Rivet Joint" system; we already have the basics in place to form an advanced C4I system
The cost will be one-tenth of the budget that the USA would spent.
With local technologies, and realistic bidding system, we probably can achieve nearly the same FCS effectiveness at a more realistic value.
It is not impossible and out of reach.
In the same manner that we have build up the SAF into its present status as a modern and effective fighting force, we can make a determined and paced build up of technologies over a span of the next ten years.
We can have a competitive system that will be comparable to the USA - although not with a "global reach", which we do not need.
The costs will be the investment in the Future SAF Soldier that is able to handle all the information given, and to hone his or her mind with the ability in "Multi-Tasking" activities. -
Tank destroyer variant dude...Originally posted by laser51088:Is the CV90120-T a Light Tank or a MBT??? It only weighs 27 000kg but it has most qualities of an MBT except heavy armour, which would have to be added on. . . -
Lets get the Imperial At-At!!!
-
Nah, though I envision the future tank to be some kind of walker, I doubt the emphasis will be on direct fire munitions. Rather these tanks, which are small when compared to todays MBTs will sport hypersonic missile launchers that can engage and hit any target miles away with the gun as a last resort. Low observable technologies will be implemented and this unit will probably be deployed beside powered armoured infantry.
-
Anyone considered a tank turret with a 120mm main gun mounted on an armoured Hovercraft - a la James Bond latest movie "Die Another Day" ?.
Sure way to beat all the minefields, and water obstacles. -
Are you crazy? That thing makes mobility kills easy... and how to counteract the 110 tons of recoil when it's sliding around on a carpet of air?
-
_____________________________________________________Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Are you crazy? That thing makes mobility kills easy... and how to counteract the 110 tons of recoil when it's sliding around on a carpet of air?
Leave it to our super guys at DSTA and ST Engineering.
Most inventions starts with a wild, crazy brain wave.... when the hovercraft was first thought of.... the same bewildered statement was said "Are you crazy? How do you make a 100 ton monster FLY OVER water ?" -
Hmm... like brainwaves that made microsoft windows?
The hovercraft idea has been put up before, there are just some ideas which are bad...