StarshipDirect

3 hours ago, Beer said:

 

That's not true at all. Simple physics tells you that the weight is mainly driven by the internal turret volume. No need for space for the crew -> very little volume to be covered by armor -> very little overall armour volume -> much less weight. 

 

Today the three man tank turret weight is usually over 20 tons. There is no reason at all why the unmanned turret shall have such weright. Realistically it can have less than half of that and most likely even less. It means that by its sole existence it saves 10+ tons of the vehicle weight. 

As soon as you start taking armor off the turret you lose survivability. Now your main armament is exposed which is key to survivability. You save weight on some unmanned turrets but not all. 

On 9/23/2020 at 6:00 PM, alanch90 said:

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 need: imagine the chinese bringing a 2 man tank with unmanned turret weighting 40 something tons (and we already have articles and concepts posted in this forum covering that) to an island in the Pacific and the US Marines don't even have tanks. Then it occurred to me that because of this the americans may give the 2 man crew another shot and so i started thinking all what i wrote.

There's nowhere to fight in the Pacific with tanks, the Army has no intentions of fielding heavy armor in that part of the world. An unmanned turret doesn't save that much weight. It's main purpose is to increase crew survivability and free up space in the hull. 

5 hours ago, Beer said:

How about ammo stowage of that concept? It looks to have a relatively small rear portion of the turret which seems to be occupied on top by the APS, wind sensor etc. (no blow-off panels anymore?). It doesn't look like it could take a large portion of ammo anyway but if the TC and gunner sit at the bottom of the basket there is no space for any other autoloader option. 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Maybe it is somewhat similar to one of Kharkovite creations in 80s, with half of space under turret dedicated to autoloader, and other half for 2 crew members placed in 2 line.

   490A layout:

 

The M8 AGS has a similar design but for this concept it doesn't appear to be the same. If you look at the gun it appears to be sealed up like on the STRV 2000. The autoloader is probably behind the breech sealed up with the gun. http://imgur.com/gallery/znFrKzr

5 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

I wouldn't get too caught up on concept art, remember the stuff for the T-14?

Of course the concepts never look like the real thing. 

8 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Perhaps sits in the turret basket but below the turret ring (ala Black Eagle), giving the possibility of servicing the main gun/autoloader in case of failure and also the possibility for the commander to climb to the turret and keep the situational awareness. I remember that back when T-14 was unveiled, US crewmen said that they prefered to be able to keep the top view from the turret. This was also the impression US Army got from testing the unmanned turret testbed in the 80s.

It's a good way to save weight. The K2 Black Panther has a similar design as well. 

19 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

I can't tell if that sketch portrays a 2 man turret or an unmanned one.

Looks too big to be unmanned. It appears to be using the same all around sloping armor style the Merkava MK 4 uses. Looks like it has two hatches with one behind the gunners sight and the CITV behind the commanders hatch. An RWS is behind the gunners hatch as well. At least that's what I'm seeing who knows. 

2 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Seems silly to completely ditch tanks. What happened to the Marine MPF buy?

That was never a plan to acquire light tanks. 

http://imgur.com/gallery/nG68BT2 Does anyone have any pics of that Abrams variant that had two RWS displayed at AUSA 2007? I found only one from a bad angle.