Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

alanch90

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

alanch90 last won the day on November 29 2019

alanch90 had the most liked content!

About alanch90

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But those are 2 very different things (having the vehicle be remotely operated vs having an AI "commander"). However for an IFV its the most efficient use of the interior volume. You get to have a full sized squad being the only people actually sitting inside the vehicle in combat. In addition, you can have no more than 2 people of said squad doubling as assistant crewmen, but meant to dismount with the rest of the squad.
  2. AI as commander? That's even more daring than having AI replacing a gunner or a driver in my opinion.
  3. That is assuming GDLS wins OMFV which is not going to happen sooner than about 5-8 years at least. Meaning, that the contract for MPF will be awarded before that.
  4. Is there any actual reason for the Army to choose GDLS's proposal over the XM-8, apart from GDLS being GDLS? Because i dont see one.
  5. " According to Viktor Murakhovsky, the concentration of the latest AFVs in the same regiments and brigades is much more effective than the even distribution of equipment among all the Ground Forces. This will allow, if necessary, to assemble an armored strike group in an important direction, which can decide the outcome of the battle." Guderian be like "No shit Sherlock"
  6. Well, places like JAPAN or TAIWAN are still islands on the Pacific, and at least the first one is a place where a a tank weighing more than 50 tons can´t be deployed on 70-80 percent of its territory. And then you start connecting dots and realize that the Chinese must have pretty good reasons to develop a lighter 2 man next gen MBT which from what we got until now seems to be in the 40-50 ton class.
  7. I do agree with all of that, i´m just exercising my imagination with what alternatives the americans might consider to a traditional design (can get too heavy) or an unmanned turret (that they tried and since then said again and again that they don't like). Some pages ago we discussed a concept "leaked" from one of their brainstorming meetings which we speculated that it pointed to a 3 man crew with the TC and Gunner sitting in the turret basket but below the turret ring. While this idea is very much plausible, it may be that even this layout produces a tank heavier than what they
  8. Of course, it's a matter of proportions and something to be solved in an actual design. However, having a relatively higher center of gravity didn't pop as an issue during the MBT-70 program: adding more weight to the turret proportionally to the hull can be mitigated by making the hull (and hence the whole of the tank) shorter and thus lowering the center of gravity which is something simple when you don't need to place the crew there.
  9. Well, i did say that such a layout brings "most" of the benefits of a tank with unmanned turret, not all. And yes, the crew and ammo are less protected as they are placed above the turret ring. But on the other hand, since the hull is unmanned/smaller, more weight can be assigned for the heavy armor of the turret. On the other hand, an advantage of this layout over the unmanned/lightly armored turret would be that if the turret is hit by anti tank fire, it won't necessarily lead to the loss of the main gun. That's what i meant by "Abrams testbed". Thing is that they tried that i
  10. Bottom line me reasoning is the following: provided that the development of AI reached the point of being equally able to replace either the gunner or the driver, who would be the most preferable one to replace in a 2 man tank* ? For all we know, the Chinese are focusing AI development in replacing the Gunner and also in assisting the TC for spotting targets. My guess is that the process could work in the following way: the AI fuses data coming from a variety of sensors (hence, being able to detect many more probable targets than what a TC can do just by using his CITV) and passes the TC
  11. My point is that eventually they are going to solve it and certainly within this decade, which kind of coincides with the approximate timeframe for the development of an Abrams replacement. I'm just wondering if, taking for granted that the tech is going to work, such a layout would be tempting enough for them to actually go for it as it combines a reduced overall tank weight with the situational awareness that they love so much (and in theory can´t get with an unmanned turret).
  12. Sooner than later they are going to figure it out all this thing about autonomous driving and once they do there's little incentive to keep a human driver in the tank. Let's say that the AI will be able to understand TCs verbal orders, will be able to feed from a variety of sensors and not just video footage (for example integrating laser terrain scanners which are also needed if the tank is to have active suspension). Another possibility is that the gunner may be able to double as driver for dealing for a particularly tricky obstacle while in combat the thing could drive completely autonomous
  13. I just saw some footage of MBT-70 and it got me thinking. Given that the only problem of that tank´s layout was the placement of the driver i in the turret, if autonomous driving becomes a mature technology in the next 10 years, it could make a lot of sense that the americans went for a design somewhat like that for the Abrams replacement. I mean, a crew of 2 (TC and gunner)+AI, all placed in the turret, that would lighten overall the tank a lot while still retaining a lot of armor for the crew and the ability for the TC to pop his head out of the turret, right?
  14. For the Mk4 should be Lebanon 2006, the only confirmed instance of losses of Mk4s. IIRC, about 5 Mk4 were totally destroyed back then, half of them from IEDs.
×
×
  • Create New...