PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank

[Nx4eu]

View attachment 109397
Errrr, I guess that articulated MLRS might have given people ideas.
Norinco presentation, the diagram is future tank proposal, from front to back the different parts are:

Front unit:
turret - heavy firepower unit
crew cabin
computation unit
power unit
propulsion unit
Front unit is made up of crew cabin, communication unit, computation unit, power unit, heavy firepower unit (electric launch), defense unit and propulsion unit, can hold infantry

Rear unit:
turret - support firepower unit
ammo
UAV
UGV
Rear unit is made up of support firepower unit (VLS missile/loitering munition/autocannon), space for infantry, UAV, UGV, ammo and fuel.

Feels like this design firmly comprises the main functions, it's definitely a unique concept but terrible in practicality. Multirole things usually become turds because they'll never be able to perform all the tasks optimally. Seeing the AbramsX and the kf51 Panther tank demonstrators also have this issue, trying to incorporate drones into main battle tanks just don't seem to make an awful lot of sense. Drones should be a separate system that interacts with heavy armor through some type of data link, a MBT carrying around it's own drone around seems a bit silly.

 

[kentchang]

Feels like this design firmly comprises the main functions, it's definitely a unique concept but terrible in practicality. Multirole things usually become turds because they'll never be able to perform all the tasks optimally. Seeing the AbramsX and the kf51 Panther tank demonstrators also have this issue, trying to incorporate drones into main battle tanks just don't seem to make an awful lot of sense. Drones should be a separate system that interacts with heavy armor through some type of data link, a MBT carrying around it's own drone around seems a bit silly.

Is it silly to equip infantry soldiers with personal/squad level micro-drones?

Each tank-based drone probably act as distributed nodes. The tank probably also carry disposable tube-launched drones too. It is also mature technology and having an extra pair of eyes is always nice to have. They certainly don't preclude the deployment of other drone assets.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

Feels like this design firmly comprises the main functions, it's definitely a unique concept but terrible in practicality. Multirole things usually become turds because they'll never be able to perform all the tasks optimally. Seeing the AbramsX and the kf51 Panther tank demonstrators also have this issue, trying to incorporate drones into main battle tanks just don't seem to make an awful lot of sense. Drones should be a separate system that interacts with heavy armor through some type of data link, a MBT carrying around it's own drone around seems a bit silly.

Not quite. Both tanks are based on old 3rd gen chassis that were never designed with organic drones in mind. So you can't really say that drones have no place within the tank. In addition, yes multi-roles are masters of none, but they can be the jack of all trades that can sufficiently satisfy the requirements specified by their customer. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[tankphobia]

I think the main obstacle to having drones be attached to a tank is that who is going to operate it? The commander or gunner? Both are critical to normal operation of the tank and you just can't pull the driver away, having a extra person would add an undesired amount of extra requirements built into the tank. Of course if it is autonomous that problem would be solved.

It might be better to design a vehicle from the group up purely for UAV support, with a single vehicle housing multiple UAV operators to support multiple tanks and provide consolidated Intel across the whole unit.

 

[CMP]

Is it silly to equip infantry soldiers with personal/squad level micro-drones?

Each tank-based drone probably act as distributed nodes. The tank probably also carry disposable tube-launched drones too. It is also mature technology and having an extra pair of eyes is always nice to have. They certainly don't preclude the deployment of other drone assets.

Chinese drones are advanced enough and cheap enough that every squad should have a dedicated drone operator for recon and bombing.

 

[Atomicfrog]

View attachment 109397
Errrr, I guess that articulated MLRS might have given people ideas.
Norinco presentation, the diagram is future tank proposal, from front to back the different parts are:

Front unit:
turret - heavy firepower unit
crew cabin
computation unit
power unit
propulsion unit
Front unit is made up of crew cabin, communication unit, computation unit, power unit, heavy firepower unit (electric launch), defense unit and propulsion unit, can hold infantry

Rear unit:
turret - support firepower unit
ammo
UAV
UGV
Rear unit is made up of support firepower unit (VLS missile/loitering munition/autocannon), space for infantry, UAV, UGV, ammo and fuel.

I can see the design as some kind of command/support unit and not replacing MBT. I hardly see that design in confine area in urban environment but supporting/following an advance.

 

[plawolf]

You guys do realise that this model is specifically designed so that they two halves can detach and re-attach as needed right?

The two modules will not be going into combat connected. Instead the combat module will detach the support module some way before contact and advance with the support of the UAVs and UGVs from the support module.

I think it would not be unreasonable to have a 4th or even 5th crewmen in the support module who’s role is to operate the UAVs and UGVs respectively.

The support module could also easily mount MLRS, long range loitering attack munitions, and NLoS ATGMs to provide organic, comprehensive indirect fire support for the combat module.

With such a set-up, each tank will have its own air based ISR; air strikes (from loitering munitions or even missiles mounted on its UAVs if those are big enough); anti-infantry support from UGVs; and maybe even artillery from MLRS.

Once combat is over, the two halves can re-connect. The combat module can replenish ammo from the support module while the support module recharges its batteries from the combat module. The extra crew in the support module could also re-arm, refuel and do limited repairs as needed on the UAVs and UGVs while the whole unit moves on to the next target.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I think the main obstacle to having drones be attached to a tank is that who is going to operate it? The commander or gunner? Both are critical to normal operation of the tank and you just can't pull the driver away, having a extra person would add an undesired amount of extra requirements built into the tank. Of course if it is autonomous that problem would be solved.

It might be better to design a vehicle from the group up purely for UAV support, with a single vehicle housing multiple UAV operators to support multiple tanks and provide consolidated Intel across the whole unit.

I think that drones can be automated to the extent that they could perform most of the conventional maneuvers by themselves. Stuff like following the armored vehicle from X-feet/x-altitude, going to a specific location indicated by the operator automatically, etc. The workload of the drone operator may not be as difficult as you think and for all we know may only involve point and click.

 

[plawolf]

I think that drones can be automated to the extent that they could perform most of the conventional maneuvers by themselves. Stuff like following the armored vehicle from X-feet/x-altitude, going to a specific location indicated by the operator automatically, etc. The workload of the drone operator may not be as difficult as you think and for all we know may only involve point and click.

I see the (or at least one) UAV being added to the role of the tank commander, with the controls and feed integrated to his work station and commander’s scope.

The drone’s camera can be easily synced to the commander scope, with a Picture in Picture function basically available using off the shelf software so the commander can have two views of whatever direction he is looking at through the commander sight. He would also be able to take direct control of the drone for more dedicated recon work to then assign targets for either his gunner or appropriate weapon system from the support module to engage.

 

[tankphobia]

I think that drones can be automated to the extent that they could perform most of the conventional maneuvers by themselves. Stuff like following the armored vehicle from X-feet/x-altitude, going to a specific location indicated by the operator automatically, etc. The workload of the drone operator may not be as difficult as you think and for all we know may only involve point and click.

I don't think it is particularly difficult or complex, as other users have pointed out the implementation is quite straight forward even with off the shelf equipment. The question is when will the UAV be used? If during battle it will be forcing the commander to focus on multiple things at once, doubly so if the enemy has anti UAV capabilities. If not during battle, then why not someone else?

VTOL capable UAVs rarely have batteries that last longer than one hour, while non VTOL UAVs are going to complicate recovery. If used during battle returning the UAV could reveal the location of the tank, while non VTOL UAVs will require the crew to be in the open for recovery. Unless of course they are disposable.