Future Main Battle Tank
-
____________________________________________________Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Hmm... like brainwaves that made microsoft windows?
The hovercraft idea has been put up before, there are just some ideas which are bad...
The Harrier Jump Jet was a wild idea that came into fruition, and has evolved as one of the three versions in the JSF fighter for the Twenty-First Century.
The "Flying Dragon" concept with the old DC-3 used by the Green Beret in Vietnam, had evolved into a C-130 Hercules being outfitted with a mult-barrel mini-gun breathing out 1,000 round of lethal lead a minute, as well as being outfited with a Recoiless Cannon on board.
Both platforms had to contend with recoil from the intense fire power that each platform carry while in flight or at a hover.
With some focus and engineering ingenuity, it will not be too long that the Hovercraft will stop using large fans for propulsion and hovering, and be equipped with turbo fans or turbine jets similar to the Harrier Jump Jets or the JSF.
Confound the Opposition with some "wild crazy stroke" and start thinking out of the box to give fresh look to old ideas, and with new engineering advancement, the old ideas can be visited again with some progress.
The "Trojan Horse" was also a similar "crazy wild idea" that worked. -
Bah if you are admadant on it, I suggest you go work out all the bugs yourself, and prehaps make it at least half as effective as a humvee with TOWs
-
___________________________________________________Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Bah if you are admadant on it, I suggest you go work out all the bugs yourself, and prehaps make it at least half as effective as a humvee with TOWs
No, one should not be fixxed in any ONE single static position.
One should be mobile, when encountering a hard objective, we should circle around it, and move on, enveloping it in our wake; strangling and overwhelming it with strength.
The armoured hovercraft tank is just an idea to be tested if DSTA or ST Engineering would be prepared to take it up.
When the first tank was built in World War ONE, it was laughed at for its lumbering speed and monstrous design; and the Calvary was its strongest opponent.
Why limit yourself to the views of your own limited experience; or even form opinions of another view of the world through your own colored glass ? -
i agree. with technology moving so fast these days, nothing's impossible. if one were to stick to ST's thinking, we will still be flying the f-16 type of conventional takeoff figher jets in 2300!!!
-
Nah, ST should pour their efforts into the local Land Warrior system they have conceptualized and some FCS units suited to our own cause...
-
Thinking down the wrong path dude, I envision future wars to be fought with information technology more so then ever, and the advent of hypersonic smart weapons will render most long range ballistic weapons useless, safe for at least the direct fire last resort EM weapons.
Laser weapons are just too inefficent, in terms of modern technology, and almost all other weapon systems can provide more firepower at less energy used. Beam weapons in the near future (if they ever figured out the power supply problem) would probably consist of particle beam weapons that throw out streams of atomic particles at near the speed of light that would distrupt the aubatomic structure of the target when hit, not unlike the star trek phaser. The destructive action is more of atomic distruption rather then thermal effect, as opposed to a laser.
Expect to see stealth technologies take a high priority in the field, total wars where armies fight en-masse would most probably be replaced with something more resembling the fedual system of knight warfare, as smart weapons no longer require massive numbers of weapons platforms to hit a single target.
For a good insight into future warefare, there's this book called The Future of War... an extremely interesting read. -
Buzzo, it'll be a long time before we have any craft that zips along at the speed of light. And I'm not sure what such excessive relativistic speeds are good for in battle except distrupting yourself at the subatomic level when you run smack into something at that speed.
-
I see the battlefield as a being won by satellites. The country that is able to pin point the enemy, and drop PGMs on them with ruthless tenacity will win the battlefield. As demonstrated by the effects of JDAM in afghanistan.
-
The visions posted by “SingaporeTyrannosaur” and “gogogogo” will require quite a large platform to carry the weight of the weapon systems.
Both visionary systems can be married into a large hovercraft - about half the size used as a Passenger-Car Ferry that cross the English Channel.
Instead of prop-fans, perhaps an alternative can be found in the Jet Engines used in the Harrier Jump Jets or the Future JSF aircraft being built by Lockheed.
It will provide speed and mobility over all kinds of land and water obstacles.
Whether ballistic or energy charged weapons or missile systems, a platform such as a mid-sized hovercrafts can carry a lot of ammo for a large caliber ballistic gun, or a power pack for an energy charged weapon system, or a storage bay for a multiple storage of missiles with auto-loading feature.
If a supersonic aircraft can fly over the nap of the terrain, at night and in all kinds of weather, can a hovercraft equipped with similar or better technology run smack into an obstacle of denser atomic particle ? -
It would if it travelled at the speed of light as "somebody" suggested. Supersonic is nothing next to superluminal. After all, what's 360m/s besides 250,000,000m/s?
There are several problems with going at or near light speed:
Firstly, getting to that speed. You can't acceletrate to 250,000km/s in any meaningful amount of time, for the accelerational forces will quickly turn you to mushroom soup. Even at an uncomfortable acceleration of 30/s2 or 3gs, it would take you three months to get to near light speed.
Secondly, you can't really steer at that speed, your path would be pretty much a straight line, and since you are travelling way beyond the escape velocity of the earth, you would shoot off in a straight line into space (and reach the moon in a second) rather then follow the map of the earth.
Thirdly, there are releativistic time dilation effects to worry about. (study special relativity)
Fourthly, if you studied energy mass conversion, you would realize that you cannot exceed the speed of light. Even getting up to near that speed would require an exponential increase to infinity in energy required when approaching lightspeed. Short of something like warp drive, that would mean a complete revolution in modern physics, you could spend all the energy expended by the human race on a single hovertank to little purpose.
Fifth, all the projectiles you fire would still travel below the speed of light, irregardless of even if you are at lightspeed. (why? study relativity again!)
All in all, even if we did come up with things like deflector systems and mass dampers, and even warp drive, there is no meaningful reason why any land unit should be anywhere near luminial, or superluminal speeds.
And of course, from what you can see, ideas of lightspeed hovercraft are firmly entrenched in sci-fi, which unfortunately, is not really science, and useless when we want to predict future scientific trends, for they are just imaginings. When we predict the future of war, we go by things we already understand, not pull something out of the air and say this must be the way.
To this effect, there are working ideas for particle beam weapons, EM guns, hypersonic smart missiles or even ballistic projectiles. But non so far for speed of light hovercraft firing laser projectiles (by the way, lasers are hardly projectiles), and hardly even any scientific basis for them. We are into intelligent prediction, not wild conjuncture. -
Hey brother, you do have to understand where I am coming from. The Swedish CV90-120T had a chassis structure issues during the trial. The recoil force create by the 120mm gun was causing the CV90 chassis to crack. I am sure this can be fixed.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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...
What I am trying to say is that it is always pointless to simply create an fire-support Bionix version with a 120mm gun because we would see a repeat of such issues with the Bionix chassis. Furthermore, there are so many IFV turns Fire support vehicles. So point about me being "ignorant" is unjustified. Just look at the Spanish ASCORD, Italian Dardo and many other IFVs turn fire-support vehicle cum light tanks, they are all armed with 105mm gun and NOT 120mm guns. Thus, being my point. If we want a Bionix light tank variant, I reckon 105mm gun is the way to go.
A totally redesign chassis to cater for the 120mm gun is thus NOT Bionix at all. They might share some common design and components such as the engines, suspension, etc - so what - still NOT a Bionix !!!!
Furthermore, if I think ST Engg/SAF is keen to have a "Bionix light tank", then they should consider the redesign chassis that was developed for the US Interim Armoured Vehicle competition.
Thus, in reply to your question, I do know what I am talking about and this discussion about arming Bionix with the 120mm gun has been discussed in previous threads too.
Sorry, just too tempted to refute your points about my previous post.
-
Yawnz, it still does not detract from the fact that the Bionix hull can be modified to accomidate the 120mm. In fact, if we followed your logic, even the slightest component change would mean that it's no longer the "Bionix". No wizzo, it's all a matter of classification, a human way of organizing things. They could call it SM2 or Bionix fire support variant for all they want, but you points don't hold logical water.
-
You are either too naive technically or too young to comprehend that you cannot simply just redesign a chassis to accomodate a gun. There are a lot more than that. If ST Engineers are so good, Singapore would be a major MBT or light tank producer. Furthermore, ST Engg also lack experience in designing tanks. The best it did, and darn well too I say, was to copy and modify existing designs. Given the limited manpower and relatively young technology company, I think ST is doing pretty well.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Yawnz, it still does not detract from the fact that the Bionix hull can be modified to accomidate the 120mm. In fact, if we followed your logic, even the slightest component change would mean that it's no longer the "Bionix". No wizzo, it's all a matter of classification, a human way of organizing things. They could call it SM2 or Bionix fire support variant for all they want, but you points don't hold logical water.
As for your comments, I have to say it just show how young you are . Sorry, perhaps you need a couple more years of real working experience before you shoot off your comments. Perhaps you should also read more - especially foreign reports and news articles. Perhaps then you will realised, it is not just "if ST wanted to put a 120mm on a Bionix, they would engineer it to be albe to do so".
Lastly, I don't intend to start having a flame war with you, but for you to be so certain and start shooting your smart alec comments and names calling, it is pretty poor net forum etiquette I reckon. -
Excuse my intrusion “Joe Black” and “SingaporeTyrannosaur”.
It looks like each of us seem to have a strong position of the views that we hold, and perhaps will not relinquish ground to the other point of views – me included.
Pride at stake, or real facts that cannot be compromised.
"Joe Black" - it is great gesture to declare your position in not continuing with a continuous "pointless shooting across each others bow" and not having the battle engaged conclusively.
To “SingaporeTyrannosaur” – if a light speed hovercraft MBT is ridiculous, why even go to light speed.
Slow it down to a manageable and “steerable” speed with current available technologies - it will not kill the idea of having a hovercraft as a possible MBT.
Then again, I am not prepared to hold on too long to this view, and will concede that this science-fic imagination may hopefully come into fruition.
After all, the laser gun was once a science-fic taken from the comic books of the 1940Â’s. -
Originally posted by gogogogo:
That's why. Utter nonsense, one could argue with this kind of logic the usefulness of one legged pogo tanks.
somthin i want to add for foga
Futuristic weapons and their firepower should be somthing like a craft that hovers, [b]travels at speed of light, and fires laser projectiles.
[/b]
If anything, speeds of the future for ground units would be everything far from being luminial... Not only is it not a workable idea, it's ridiculus to suggest in the first place.
BTW, the laser hardly lives up to its reputation in 1940s comic books (which are ambigious "rayguns" that do almost anything anyway)
Said and done, speculating about future warfare entails envisioning infant or conjectural technologies, not fantasy science fiction technology pulled out of the imagination with zero basis in workable science! If not one could state with equal autority the Lord of The Rings as the future of warfare! -
__________________________________________________Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That's why. Utter nonsense, one could argue with this kind of logic the usefulness of one legged pogo tanks.
If anything, speeds of the future for ground units would be everything far from being luminial... Not only is it not a workable idea, it's ridiculus to suggest in the first place.
BTW, the laser hardly lives up to its reputation in 1940s comic books (which are ambigious "rayguns" that do almost anything anyway)
Said and done, speculating about future warfare entails envisioning infant or conjectural technologies, not fantasy science fiction technology pulled out of the imagination with zero basis in workable science! If not one could state with equal autority the Lord of The Rings as the future of warfare!
Well, why not..?
If psychic and/or psycho-analytical powers is developed into a science, some of those powers shown in the theatrics in the Lord of The Rings could be reality.
Anyway, just for a laugh - don't get serious.
BTW... applications for laser technologies have come along way since the comic book days; on going experimentation is still being carried out. You may yet to see greater things by the time you see your grand children. Don't dismiss those comic book fantasies. -
Has anyone ever thought about buying a few A-10's instead? Or are they prohibited for foreign export sales? I dont know about u guys but i've always thought flying around and killing stuff would be a lot quicker than driving around on the ground...and that particluar bird is one tough sonovab*tch... -
If you think those "rayguns" don't exist... think again.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That's why. Utter nonsense, one could argue with this kind of logic the usefulness of one legged pogo tanks.
If anything, speeds of the future for ground units would be everything far from being luminial... Not only is it not a workable idea, it's ridiculus to suggest in the first place.
BTW, the laser hardly lives up to its reputation in 1940s comic books (which are ambigious "rayguns" that do almost anything anyway)
Said and done, speculating about future warfare entails envisioning infant or conjectural technologies, not fantasy science fiction technology pulled out of the imagination with zero basis in workable science! If not one could state with equal autority the Lord of The Rings as the future of warfare!
Lasers capable of superheating a target are well and alive. They burn, and can possibly generate small explosions. In fact, NASA conducted tests on how Lasers can be used as a form of propulsion. -
Yes they do exist but can the power source for the laser is still not solve yet... high amount of energy is required. Till a solution for the power source, it will still be unfeasible.Originally posted by Shotgun:If you think those "rayguns" don't exist... think again.
Lasers capable of superheating a target are well and alive. They burn, and can possibly generate small explosions. In fact, NASA conducted tests on how Lasers can be used as a form of propulsion. -
In short, what gogogo means is, Think OUTSIDE the box, and expand outside the box.
-
we already bought the apache....so this can help in our anti tank role....having a-10 or not doesn't matterOriginally posted by awestruck: Has anyone ever thought about buying a few A-10's instead? Or are they prohibited for foreign export sales? I dont know about u guys but i've always thought flying around and killing stuff would be a lot quicker than driving around on the ground...and that particluar bird is one tough sonovab*tch... -
nice tanks
-
Nahh, Rayguns in comic books seem to work more like subatomic particle projection weapons that affect the target on the subatomic level rather then using focused energy to affect the target thermally. Hence the laser is more akin to a light projected blowtorch then a raygun of si fi lore. The closest thing we have in conception today is prehaps the some of the proposed american Star Wars system. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/jul-aug/roberds.htmlOriginally posted by Shotgun:If you think those "rayguns" don't exist... think again.
Lasers capable of superheating a target are well and alive. They burn, and can possibly generate small explosions. In fact, NASA conducted tests on how Lasers can be used as a form of propulsion.
If rayguns were to become reality, it would require quite a fundemental leap in our understanding of quatum physics. We would have to be able to know a lot more on which kind of subatomic particles to use, how to generate them, project them, and so on and so forth. Assuming there are such short lived subatomic particles, which we'll call rapid nadons which can distrupt the interatomic bonds of the target material on contact. Which is quite different from the thermal effect described by a laser, which is simply concentrating thermal energy into a single spot. If anything, touting the laser as the raygun fufilled is uncreative.
Nuff said. [/url] -
Alright....you've proven your point to him in the first post........ the rest is up to him to absorb... Dun need to rub it further with 2 more posts.......Originally posted by gogogogo:now i know why, he came to this world in 1984.....that time i in primary 4....primary 5 i started playing POOYAN, BEYOND THE CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN, SPIES DISMISSED on APPLE2 computers!
aiyoh SG Reptile, next time post hor, write article yourself lah....dun ask other to help you...and dun spent so much time looking into books to counter our words. GOR GOR playing game that time u still drinking milk, gor gor grow my first pubic hair dat time you still running around your primary school field!
Come on, Let it rest guys....... -
I have no quarrel with this persons character, though it proves itself to be vagely malaysian.