New MBT Concept, roughly based on the MBT 70 family
- Thread starter jsport
- Start date
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
What is interesting is the difference between "Western" and Japanese ideas on AI and Robotics.
In the West, the views of AI and Robotics are coloured by movies - Terminator, a score of "hacker" movies, Skynet, etc. We look at AI and Robotics as scary, potentially anti-human, too easily "hacked" and taken over.
In Japan, they are staffing hotels, hospitals, etc. with robots. They perceive them as useful adjuncts to human activity. No on has been hurt, no one has been killed by a robot. It is closer to Asimov's ideas of how humanity would use robots than Hollywood's.
My view is that autonomous AI controlled robotic vehicles, some armed with weapons are inevitable. Man will seek to use the knowledge he has gained in creating self-driving cars to help create weapons which can be used on the battlefield. Tanks are merely an effective way of doing that. They are large enough and easily enough to be automated - all they require is an effective AI to control them. Autoloaders already exist. With driverless cars, effective AI drivers already exist (although a bit too primitive to be effective IMHO on a complex battlefield). "Hunter-Killer" systems exist. All that is required is an effort to bring all these desperate systems together into a coherent, cohesive whole.
Remote control will be difficult because of bandwidth limitations, as well as enemy efforts to interrupt them. ECM and ECCM will become commonplace. Until those problems are addressed, AI will be easier to create and build.
In the West, the views of AI and Robotics are coloured by movies - Terminator, a score of "hacker" movies, Skynet, etc. We look at AI and Robotics as scary, potentially anti-human, too easily "hacked" and taken over.
In Japan, they are staffing hotels, hospitals, etc. with robots. They perceive them as useful adjuncts to human activity. No on has been hurt, no one has been killed by a robot. It is closer to Asimov's ideas of how humanity would use robots than Hollywood's.
My view is that autonomous AI controlled robotic vehicles, some armed with weapons are inevitable. Man will seek to use the knowledge he has gained in creating self-driving cars to help create weapons which can be used on the battlefield. Tanks are merely an effective way of doing that. They are large enough and easily enough to be automated - all they require is an effective AI to control them. Autoloaders already exist. With driverless cars, effective AI drivers already exist (although a bit too primitive to be effective IMHO on a complex battlefield). "Hunter-Killer" systems exist. All that is required is an effort to bring all these desperate systems together into a coherent, cohesive whole.
Remote control will be difficult because of bandwidth limitations, as well as enemy efforts to interrupt them. ECM and ECCM will become commonplace. Until those problems are addressed, AI will be easier to create and build.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,657
- Reaction score
- 4,150
I am not against integrating AI in society, but I would like it to be restrained by something like Asimov's robotic laws. I don't want AI to have the option of killing people - period. I hate land mines for very personal reasons, but I have the same revulsion of them, something man-made, taking the decision to kill - and being DESIGNED to do so.
It's bad enough humans having the urge to kill people, creating a new kind of intelligence with the purpose of killing is worse.
It's bad enough humans having the urge to kill people, creating a new kind of intelligence with the purpose of killing is worse.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
CV90:
Weight 23–35 tonnes (Mk0 to MkIII)
Length 6.55 m
Width 3.1 m
Height 2.7 m
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Passengers 8 troopers
M2 Bradley:
Weight 27.6 tonnes (30.4 short tons)
Length 21.49 ft (6.55 m)
Width 11.82 ft (3.6 m)
Height 9.78 ft (2.98 m)
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Passengers 6 (7 in M2A2 ODS/M2A3)
CV90 appears to be longer and narrower than the M2. They appear approximately comparable in weight.
Weight 23–35 tonnes (Mk0 to MkIII)
Length 6.55 m
Width 3.1 m
Height 2.7 m
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Passengers 8 troopers
M2 Bradley:
Weight 27.6 tonnes (30.4 short tons)
Length 21.49 ft (6.55 m)
Width 11.82 ft (3.6 m)
Height 9.78 ft (2.98 m)
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Passengers 6 (7 in M2A2 ODS/M2A3)
CV90 appears to be longer and narrower than the M2. They appear approximately comparable in weight.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,657
- Reaction score
- 4,150
M2 Bradley is wider and higher than CV90, just as long. As already noted - roughly the same size. If CV90 is too small, same goes for M2. I still don't know by WHICH criteria it's too small. In some circumstances, being bigger can be a disadvantage - mobility, posing a target. Bigger generally means more expensive too.
As for big: that's what a fully armoured MBT with a passenger compartment and 150mm gun is going to be, not just for the passengers' sake, but also because of the bigger ammo carried - autoloader mandatory, because a human loader can't handle those big shells. Plus vehicle weight. Think 80, 90 tonnes. Then imagine how to get that to where it is needed - by air, by road, by train?
As for big: that's what a fully armoured MBT with a passenger compartment and 150mm gun is going to be, not just for the passengers' sake, but also because of the bigger ammo carried - autoloader mandatory, because a human loader can't handle those big shells. Plus vehicle weight. Think 80, 90 tonnes. Then imagine how to get that to where it is needed - by air, by road, by train?
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,006
- Reaction score
- 3,052
Round and round, and round, and around.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,073
- Reaction score
- 6,190
As someone old enough to have tried to make the Aurora kit of the MBT 70 tank after the real thing had been cancelled, and also to have commissioned the
wooden model of the XM 803 featured in this thread, as well as loving the Hunnicutt book on the M1 with it great drawings of MBT 70 and XM803 variants, I can only be amused at the idea of anyone revisiting the design today.
The point about the MBT70 was that it was a late 60s whacky product with every possible gizmo and idea added. Reality was the M1 Abrams, which serves to this day.
I am so fond of this time warp that I would add the US MICV projects of 1967 (see Janes Weapons Systems 1972 or so) and the Lockheed Cheyenne gunship helo.
But reality has moved on.
I need my medication so will sign off..
wooden model of the XM 803 featured in this thread, as well as loving the Hunnicutt book on the M1 with it great drawings of MBT 70 and XM803 variants, I can only be amused at the idea of anyone revisiting the design today.
The point about the MBT70 was that it was a late 60s whacky product with every possible gizmo and idea added. Reality was the M1 Abrams, which serves to this day.
I am so fond of this time warp that I would add the US MICV projects of 1967 (see Janes Weapons Systems 1972 or so) and the Lockheed Cheyenne gunship helo.
But reality has moved on.
I need my medication so will sign off..
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 601
Speaking of the XM803... My understanding is that this vehicle did away with the MBT70's 'driver in the turret" design and placed him in the normal, lower front position just behind the glacis. Is that correct?
How come then all the drawings I've seen of the XM803 have the driver in the turret still? Does anybody have an accurate XM803 drawing with the driver in the front hull?
How come then all the drawings I've seen of the XM803 have the driver in the turret still? Does anybody have an accurate XM803 drawing with the driver in the front hull?
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,119
- Reaction score
- 4,845
If the Army is truly committed to NGCV Class III a large caliber (152mm or 155mm) Direct Fire/Indirect fire 40ton vehicle then there will need to be a new 20ton base vehicle (The most important vehicle and replacement for the M1 in the Army's future is a NGCV Class III IMHO.) It would only make sense that a baseline vehicle be used for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OPMFV).
If the Army can not pay for a new design which can house a 9 person exoskeleton equipped squad plus yet to evolve squad small UGVs (certainly not yet close to evolved and need to be DoD development based not the COTS toys) then they should just look at an extended hull, enhanced turret Bradley mounting armed VTOL UAVs (also needing a DoD development as current COTS is crap) until they are ready for new vehicle. A new propulsion strategy will cost more as well and is also is not on any "on market" vehicle.
A half measure "on the market" OPMFV would be cheaper than a new baseline vehicle and it would also obsolete before it enters service. Overall that is a more expensive strategy than just waiting to afford a decent vehicle. No 'on the market vehicle" is "Next Generation". That is a joke.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/science/Singleton.pdf
[/quote]
If the Army can not pay for a new design which can house a 9 person exoskeleton equipped squad plus yet to evolve squad small UGVs (certainly not yet close to evolved and need to be DoD development based not the COTS toys) then they should just look at an extended hull, enhanced turret Bradley mounting armed VTOL UAVs (also needing a DoD development as current COTS is crap) until they are ready for new vehicle. A new propulsion strategy will cost more as well and is also is not on any "on market" vehicle.
A half measure "on the market" OPMFV would be cheaper than a new baseline vehicle and it would also obsolete before it enters service. Overall that is a more expensive strategy than just waiting to afford a decent vehicle. No 'on the market vehicle" is "Next Generation". That is a joke.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/science/Singleton.pdf
[/quote]
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,253