PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

B

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Entire tank designed around APS seems appropriate since APS is an optional upgrade to basically any tank.

Hybrid or full electric propulsion should be the defining feature of next gen tank. Reliability and logistic/supply chain demands might make this a questionable thing though. I mean you can transport diesel quite easily, you can't easily transport massive generators everywhere AND the diesel to power them. You also would need charging stations to move with your ground forces. How do you design charging stations to be survivable etc.

Unmanned turret is a nice to have especially wrt crew survival against top attack munitions. It still doesn't guarantee crew. So I'd say this one is optional. A really thick hull necessary for unmanned turret can be a mobility constraint for urban environments.

You can integrate UAV and UGV now with any tank. Having a dedicated ground up designed nesting area for a UAV is just really not that necessary. UAVs are already very well integrated with PLA ground forces and every aspect of warfare. Making the tank have a charging station and landing spot for a dedicated small recon drone is a bit redundant when the force is highly networked and there is no real benefit in individual platform having this own use small UAV. You can simply have a UAV stored inside with the crew to be released by crew when needed. That's a much better engineering solution to the "problem" already.

Everything else current generation tanks have and next gen should have.

The thing that really should separate the generations is the adoption of newer technologies that present as advantages overall. In this list, it would only potentially be the new drivetrain. The advantage of massive torque, much simple drivetrains compared to internal combustion, much easier and quicker to manufacture, lighter, smaller, fewer parts and easier to service and repair. Downside to EV MBTs is the logistics.
Click to expand...
Apparently T99A can reverse at ~40km which is same as M1A2 but worse than T14 which can reportedly reverse equally fast as it goes forward.

Something as simple as that actually helps vastly as it means the tank becomes survivable against infantry. At least javelin is shown to be not as good as advertised, with T72s often surviving frontal hits, it's likely the top down attack only rarely works. But the problem of a T72 or even T90 is that their reverse speed is like molasses, meaning the crew must present the rear to get out fast, and even a shitty rpg can destroy it from behind.
 
LCR34

LCR34

Junior Member
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
What are the key elements of a next-gen MBT? From what I've read about various projects worldwide:

Hybrid (diesel-electric) propulsion
Uncrewed turret with bustle autoloader
APS as standard
Integrated UAV (tethered?) and UGV(?)
New type rubber tracks
Improved sensors and connectivity (perhaps built-in telescopic sensor mast)
RWS for modular secondary armament
Click to expand...
i would add electrothermal chemical gun to that. Or some stable propellant that wont get detonated by HEAT rounds.
Also some kind of IR/Optical camouflage.
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
LCR34 said:
i would add electrothermal chemical gun to that. Or some stable propellant that wont get detonated by HEAT rounds.
Also some kind of IR/Optical camouflage.
Click to expand...

If we are going on the standard MBT route, I'm clearly not sure about adding armor is the solution. We are seeing turrets tool boxes that can defeat atgm top hit in Ukraine... They are clearly good slat armor.

IR / top optical camouflage are certainly a go when guided artillery rain from UAV spotters. A slow MBT is a sitting duck against these threat. Any sensors packages will be destroyed even if the tank survive. Detonation of rounds is a risk too. Stable propellant like you say would be interesting.

You cannot put all your stuff in a MBT anyway.. UAV , AA weapons, ATGM missiles, 50 shot autoloaders, 2 remote weapons, 360 suites, quiet all-electric mode, etc, etc. Maintenance will be nightmare. Choice need to be made.

I could even see some kind of light and compact killer/hunter system with a 10 shots bustle autoloaders replacing most tank vs tank warfares. With the crew consisting of only a driver and a gunner. The diminution of volume could concentrate armor for viability of the chassis and cut weight a lot to gain agility. Classic MBT would retain the keeping ground fortress approach.

In any case, the use of big flammable lithium battery for a quiet all-electric mode look like a liability to me.
 
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Tank on tank battles are exceeding rare these days, what makes a tank more dangerous to another tank than a atgm carrier? With proliferation of NLOS missiles this is even more apparent.

There is no point in making a jack of all trades, it would just become a maintenance and training nightmare.

The PLA loves making many different types of vehicles to fill all niches, so there's not much point in adding UAV capabilities to every tank when a delicated UAV APC would do the job better, we do not expect tanks to fight alone unsupported so theres is no pressing need to add ISR capabilities even to future tanks.

On the other hand, with UAV based ISR greatly shortening the time it takes for artillery to arrive, mobility is becoming increasingly important to get away quickly when the need arises. A hybrid drive seems to be a good solution due to the instant torque provided.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Entire tank designed around APS seems appropriate since APS is an optional upgrade to basically any tank.

Hybrid or full electric propulsion should be the defining feature of next gen tank. Reliability and logistic/supply chain demands might make this a questionable thing though. I mean you can transport diesel quite easily, you can't easily transport massive generators everywhere AND the diesel to power them. You also would need charging stations to move with your ground forces. How do you design charging stations to be survivable etc.

Unmanned turret is a nice to have especially wrt crew survival against top attack munitions. It still doesn't guarantee crew. So I'd say this one is optional. A really thick hull necessary for unmanned turret can be a mobility constraint for urban environments.

You can integrate UAV and UGV now with any tank. Having a dedicated ground up designed nesting area for a UAV is just really not that necessary. UAVs are already very well integrated with PLA ground forces and every aspect of warfare. Making the tank have a charging station and landing spot for a dedicated small recon drone is a bit redundant when the force is highly networked and there is no real benefit in individual platform having this own use small UAV. You can simply have a UAV stored inside with the crew to be released by crew when needed. That's a much better engineering solution to the "problem" already.

Everything else current generation tanks have and next gen should have.

The thing that really should separate the generations is the adoption of newer technologies that present as advantages overall. In this list, it would only potentially be the new drivetrain. The advantage of massive torque, much simple drivetrains compared to internal combustion, much easier and quicker to manufacture, lighter, smaller, fewer parts and easier to service and repair. Downside to EV MBTs is the logistics.
Click to expand...
An external UAV tether point would have the huge advantage of unlimited endurance without recharging or opening up for an observer platform. A cable doesn't have much RCS. If it snags, have an integrated strain sensor and auto release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top