Will The US Army ever build a NEW MBT?

[Bruno Anthony]

In my opinion, probably not.

Some reasons:
1. The Pacific Centric group in the USArmy will win out over the Euro Centric group (Off/Def long range weapons from island bases vs large scale land combat)
2. Our current President is pushing a confrontation w/China and the USArmy leadership will see which way the wind is politically blowing
3. We’ve been dragging the Abrams around for so long, institutional inertia has set in. Are we on the 38th upgrade or thereabouts.
4. Infighting btw the Manned vs Unmanned groups
5. (This one may belong in one of the other reasons.) The anti tank missile now owns the tank. The tank is Dead!

 

[jsport]

From US army documents or Israeli FCV at military show.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Is that the new GI Joe line by Hasbro?

 

[Foo Fighter]

Rather flippant to say the tank is dead. Apparently manned aircraft were dead in the 1950's due to missiles. There will continue to be changes in the balance between offence and defence with new tech and the tank of the future may be completely different from what we are used to.

 

[lordroel]

Rather flippant to say the tank is dead. Apparently manned aircraft were dead in the 1950's due to missiles. There will continue to be changes in the balance between offence and defence with new tech and the tank of the future may be completely different from what we are used to.

If tanks are death then why countries like China and Russia are still developing and building new tanks.

 

[Dilandu]

Maybe not. The whole idea of main battle tank is currently put under serious question. To put it simply, they already reached the 50-60 ton mass, and it's unclear how exactly they could evolve from there. Moving to even more massive machines would require serious (and VERY costly) rethinking of logistic. That's why there are so much renewed interest in light tanks, which - in theory - could compensate for lack of armor with more active defenses.

Anyway, the core of the problem is, that currently the most probable area of conflict is Eastern Asia and Pacific. Most definitely NOT the tank-firendly terrain) If the US-China war starts, it would most clearly not be the war of large ground armies (both sides separated by the Pacific, and landing invasion army on Chinese homeland... basically a fantasy), but the air-naval combat and amphibious operation. The tanks would play a very limited, support role, and even the old MBT's would be sufficient for that.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Rather flippant to say the tank is dead. Apparently manned aircraft were dead in the 1950's due to missiles. There will continue to be changes in the balance between offence and defence with new tech and the tank of the future may be completely different from what we are used to.

If tanks are death then why countries like China and Russia are still developing and building new tanks.

The topic was about the USA, but with the exception of MGCS, MBT development in the West is on life support.

 

[Dilandu]

The topic was about the USA, but with the exception of MGCS, MBT development in the West is on life support.

Not much reason. Despite all this "Russian threat" propaganda blasting from every flatiron, it's pretty obvious that Russia simply do not have economical capabilities to threaten Europe much. Yes, we could done a lot of damage - a reason to not seek a fight with us - and could destroy all bordering NATO forces pretty fast. But we could not push till the Rhine and Channel; we are not Soviet Union.

And since there aren't much reason for the West to have formidable tank forces to protect Europe - there isn't much reason to have them anymore. As I mentioned above; in the possible conflict between US and China, there would be no major tank battles and role of the tanks would be essentially to support infantry in amphibious operations. T-54 could done that.

 

[marauder2048]

That currently the most probable area of conflict is Eastern Asia and Pacific. Most definitely NOT the tank-firendly terrain

Is that really true? There have many pre-conflict assessments of various terrain that come to this conclusion.
Then people actually operated tanks in the terrain and the assessment changed.

 

[jsport]

That currently the most probable area of conflict is Eastern Asia and Pacific. Most definitely NOT the tank-firendly terrain

Is that really true? There have many pre-conflict assessments of various terrain that come to this conclusion.
Then people actually operated tanks in the terrain and the assessment changed.

Somebody please inform the Commandant of the Marine Corp.

 

[Fluff]

I think Europe is thinking about What comes next, Germany and France Are talking, hopefully U.K. can get in, I would bet on a replacement for Leo, le clerc and chally2. And in time a replacement for abrams. Great claims for armada, but if it’s so good why is Russia updating the older tanks??? $$$$$$

 

[Foo Fighter]

Rather flippant to say the tank is dead. Apparently manned aircraft were dead in the 1950's due to missiles. There will continue to be changes in the balance between offence and defence with new tech and the tank of the future may be completely different from what we are used to.

If tanks are death then why countries like China and Russia are still developing and building new tanks.

I think you have mis quoted me there. And missed a question mark. Someone else said the tank was dead, not me.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

The reasons I put up in the original post were mine and mine alone.
I hope I’m wrong but from my observations, the USArmy doesn’t seem to be making much of a priority of a new MBT. I think some elements in the Army don’t even want to think about it.
Why? Don’t know for sure, just my opinion and seeing how a NEW MBT is always pushed to some indefinite future.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

1. Block III MBT from Heavy Force Modernization and then Armored Systems Modernization ~ 1989. Dead, peace dividend.

2. Original FCS, a stand alone MBT ~ 1995. Never heard from again.

3. FCS family ~ 2008. Yeeaaah.

4. GCV (yeah I know it was an IFV, but heavy enough for the chassis to be a basis for an MBT) ~ 2011. Dead, various reasons.

5. Future manned, unmanned, partially manned, manned on Sundays, land fighting thing that.... ~ 2020. Sounds like a really focused program.

End result so far...Let’s upgrade the Abrams! We’ve never done that before!

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Hover tanks.

Life After Abrams: If it doesn’t look or act like a tank, it still may be the tank of the future

The almost 40-year-old Abrams tank has a significant role in the Army’s vision for 2028 because of a major facelift that upgrades the

www.ausa.org

 

[apparition13]

I'm not really sure there is anything in terms of new tech that would justify a new tank design right now. The jump from M60 to M1 was massive. Trophy and the like may be a game changer, but they don't need a new tank. K2 is impressive, as is Armata if it lives up to the hype. I like T10, and think it would be perfect for the Marines if they weren't eliminating tanks (still think it's stupid), but none of those are a massive leap in tech and capability. AFV tech seems to have plateaued at the moment, and I think products like CV90 and AMV reflect that, as it isn't necessarily the bleeding edge tech nations or traditional AFV producers developing top of the line AFVs. Everyone and their dog has gotten in on the act. That's a sign a market segment has matured.

So until there is a tech breakthrough (which could be soon, or not), I think it makes more sense to concentrate engineering capital in sectors where they can push the envelope, and (comparative advantage coming into play) "outsource" your AFV development to allies, and produce their stuff here.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I'm not really sure there is anything in terms of new tech that would justify a new tank design right now. The jump from M60 to M1 was massive. Trophy and the like may be a game changer, but they don't need a new tank. K2 is impressive, as is Armata if it lives up to the hype. I like T10, and think it would be perfect for the Marines if they weren't eliminating tanks (still think it's stupid), but none of those are a massive leap in tech and capability. AFV tech seems to have plateaued at the moment, and I think products like CV90 and AMV reflect that, as it isn't necessarily the bleeding edge tech nations or traditional AFV producers developing top of the line AFVs. Everyone and their dog has gotten in on the act. That's a sign a market segment has matured.

So until there is a tech breakthrough (which could be soon, or not), I think it makes more sense to concentrate engineering capital in sectors where they can push the envelope, and (comparative advantage coming into play) "outsource" your AFV development to allies, and produce their stuff here.

I think that might just be it. The shell is still quite capable and the Armata has simply shifted the components around which 'may' increase survivability in the event of being hit. The use of an alternative drivetrain is also not exactly tough to do so a new hull and turret might be a medium to long term solution. In the mean time the same reasoning applies as it id for the personal weapon change to caseless ammo. Not enough improvement to justify the cost. Tactics and a combined arms approach will be as effective as the armour when it comes to threats.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

With the new focus being a war with the Chinese, why build a new tank? Spend the money on better destroyers instead.

 

[apparition13]

With the new focus being a war with the Chinese, why build a new tank? Spend the money on better destroyers instead.

I can see a somewhat similar logic here. The USN needs to replace the Ticos; how about having Hyundai buy or set up a manufacturing yard and build Sejong the Greats in the US? It's the approach they took with the new Frigate, it reduces development costs by leveraging allied R&D, and it strengthens alliance ties and interoperability.

 

[Dilandu]

I can see a somewhat similar logic here. The USN needs to replace the Ticos; how about having Hyundai buy or set up a manufacturing yard and build Sejong the Greats in the US? It's the approach they took with the new Frigate, it reduces development costs by leveraging allied R&D, and it strengthens alliance ties and interoperability.

Because USN didn't want to replace the Ticonderoga's with just larger Aegis ships; they wanted cruisers to be significantly more capable than Aegsi destroyers.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Of course the USN seems adverse to using the word "cruiser" because there isn't enough transformational jargon involved.

 

[uk 75]

Back in the 1970s there was a good article in International Defense Review featuring a slew of robot style vehicles which would replace the then new M1 tank and M2 micv.
With AI and modern technology are crewed vehicles still necessary?
Since the demise of the USSR and then decades of the "War on Terror" Western tank designers have had no T10, T54,T62 and so on to get worked up about.
Unless we are contemplating a NATO style guarantee for Taiwan or Vietnam a ground war against the PLA seems remote.
War with Russia over the Baltic States is likely to be asymetric (there are various bank related measures which would isolate Rssia from receiving and sending money).

 

[Bruno Anthony]

With the new focus being a war with the Chinese, why build a new tank? Spend the money on better destroyers instead.

Hence reason #1. The Pacific Centric focus.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Guys, I like talking about surface ships too, just not on this topic.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Back to the MBT question I think the problem of wanting something "transformative" is a very real one in this area as well. When the subject comes up they seem reluctant to even say "MBT" or "tank".

The latest version of the M1A2 is a great vehicle but I believe there is plenty of a room for improvement. Both the Germans and French seem to think that the current 120mm cannon will be inadequate against future threats so the Germans have that new 130mm cannon and apparently the French have tested a 140mm on a modified Leclerc. Does anyone know if this is a further development of the NATO 140mm cannon trialed late in the Cold War? Either way both of these guns use ammunition so large as to require an autoloader to maintain a good rate of fire. All things considered it would probably be a good idea just to design a whole new turret. That would also have the benefit of allowing of a more "streamlined" integration of active protection systems, smoke dischargers, commander weapon station, CITV, RF jammers, and everything else that is now expected on an AFV.

One question that the Army needs to answer is if they want a three or four man tank crew. There are benefits and drawbacks to each and generally NATO nations have expressed a preference for four man crews.

Industry was looking at hydropneumatic suspension units and a MTU-833 diesel engine as a potential upgrade path. If you want alternatives you could probably bring back the LV100-5 gas turbine from the dead and there was also an advanced diesel engine tested during the same time period as well.

Overall it might be better to design a mostly-new tank on a hull that could be reconfigured like the Armata for use as an IFV and in other roles. Yet the Army can't seem to stop itself from adding contradicting or overambitious requirements when it comes to new designs.

There is also the question of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program which seems to be in an awkward place. Too heavy to air-drop but too light to have a high level of armor protection. I'm not entirely certain what they want the thing for. In-theory I think it would be working with the Stryker brigades which are able to be deployed faster by air than the heavy armor can be, but for that role wouldn't a wheeled platform be better? Something like the Stryker MGS but without all the problems.

Has there been any news in regards to ETC guns? I haven't heard anything about that subject in quite some time.

 

[BDF]

U.S. Army develops next generation tank

For the replacement of the Abrams main battle tank, the U.S. Army began its search for a new combat platform that will ensure the decisive superiority, more lethal to deploy, fight, and win future wars. The U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) already...

defence-blog.com

FWIW

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Back to the MBT question I think the problem of wanting something "transformative" is a very real one in this area as well. When the subject comes up they seem reluctant to even say "MBT" or "tank".

The latest version of the M1A2 is a great vehicle but I believe there is plenty of a room for improvement. Both the Germans and French seem to think that the current 120mm cannon will be inadequate against future threats so the Germans have that new 130mm cannon and apparently the French have tested a 140mm on a modified Leclerc. Does anyone know if this is a further development of the NATO 140mm cannon trialed late in the Cold War? Either way both of these guns use ammunition so large as to require an autoloader to maintain a good rate of fire. All things considered it would probably be a good idea just to design a whole new turret. That would also have the benefit of allowing of a more "streamlined" integration of active protection systems, smoke dischargers, commander weapon station, CITV, RF jammers, and everything else that is now expected on an AFV.

One question that the Army needs to answer is if they want a three or four man tank crew. There are benefits and drawbacks to each and generally NATO nations have expressed a preference for four man crews.

Industry was looking at hydropneumatic suspension units and a MTU-833 diesel engine as a potential upgrade path. If you want alternatives you could probably bring back the LV100-5 gas turbine from the dead and there was also an advanced diesel engine tested during the same time period as well.

Overall it might be better to design a mostly-new tank on a hull that could be reconfigured like the Armata for use as an IFV and in other roles. Yet the Army can't seem to stop itself from adding contradicting or overambitious requirements when it comes to new designs.

There is also the question of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program which seems to be in an awkward place. Too heavy to air-drop but too light to have a high level of armor protection. I'm not entirely certain what they want the thing for. In-theory I think it would be working with the Stryker brigades which are able to be deployed faster by air than the heavy armor can be, but for that role wouldn't a wheeled platform be better? Something like the Stryker MGS but without all the problems.

Has there been any news in regards to ETC guns? I haven't heard anything about that subject in quite some time.

Back to the MBT question I think the problem of wanting something "transformative" is a very real one in this area as well. When the subject comes up they seem reluctant to even say "MBT" or "tank".

That is a big problem going back to the early 90s. All this crap about hover tanks and electromagnetic shields?! Very destructive to any new MBT design because it just ain’t gonna happen and if it does it won’t be for ground vehicles first.

The latest version of the M1A2 is a great vehicle but I believe there is plenty of a room for improvement. Both the Germans and French seem to think that the current 120mm cannon will be inadequate against future threats so the Germans have that new 130mm cannon and apparently the French have tested a 140mm on a modified Leclerc. Does anyone know if this is a further development of the NATO 140mm cannon trialed late in the Cold War? Either way both of these guns use ammunition so large as to require an autoloader to maintain a good rate of fire. All things considered it would probably be a good idea just to design a whole new turret. That would also have the benefit of allowing of a more "streamlined" integration of active protection systems, smoke dischargers, commander weapon station, CITV, RF jammers, and everything else that is now expected on an AFV.

The 120mm gun being insufficient agiants future threat tanks was known way back in the 80s. BLOCK III was expected to have the 140mm version of the XM291. There was a NATO MOU for a 140mm gun w/commonality in the chamber size. There was also the GHz frequency MTAS fire control radar. A lot of this “new stuff” has just been back burnered for many reasons.

I wonder if the fighting in Yemen is reinforcing the “ATGM is master of the MBT” mentality that I think makes one of the reasons why the USArmy seems to be dreading designing a new MBT.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

$46 Billion for the OMFV replacement for the Bradley!?!?
Forget about a new MBT in your lifetime.

GAO Questions Army’s $62B Cost Estimates For Combat Vehicles - Breaking Defense

The Army estimated the OMFV troop carrier would cost $46 billion and the MPF light tank would cost $16 billion. The GAO has doubts.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Moose]

One of the concepts being bandied about for the Optionally Manned Tank. Think an all-new (likely 2-crew) turret on an evolved M1 hull.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1290165861680951296

View: https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1290165861680951296?s=19

 

[lordroel]

Rather flippant to say the tank is dead. Apparently manned aircraft were dead in the 1950's due to missiles. There will continue to be changes in the balance between offence and defence with new tech and the tank of the future may be completely different from what we are used to.

If tanks are death then why countries like China and Russia are still developing and building new tanks.

I think you have mis quoted me there. And missed a question mark. Someone else said the tank was dead, not me.

My apologizes, seems i made a mistake.

 

[Foo Fighter]

No worries mate, mistakes are what keep us human. Stay well, Sir.

 

[Hood]

The MBT looked set for transformational changes in the late 1980s, new ceramic armours, ERA, unmanned turrets and external main guns, remote sensors, smaller crews, telescopic missile launcher arms, gas turbine power. All the goodies that were set to revolutionise tank warfare.
Then 1990 happened and the Soviet tank hordes melted away, then 1991 happened and everyone found out you could whack Soviet armour pretty easily by aerial attack and with existing tank weaponry (has airpower destroyed more tanks than tanks themsleves? Probably).

Since then there has been no motivation to innovate, nobody has come up with a newer and more formidable armour, nobody has found a way to radically alter the power-to-weight ratio, external turrets never really got past the testbed, railguns remained staples of sci-fi fiction for tanks. Nobody had mass tank armies and so what was on hand seemed to be enough to handle whatever newer models might come along because they were only going to to be comparable.

The same holds true today. If you have neighbouring tank opposition then it makes sense, but if you have to airlift and sealift heavy tanks it becomes a major constraint on how many you can deploy at short notice. So the trend is firepower and mobility and low weight. Unless you can get MBT levels of firepower and mobility at low weight then its unlikely to ever be a massive advance over the last great generation of tank designs. Sure an M1 designed today would be quite different in details and execution, but would it be that much more capable to justify the $$$?

 

[shin_getter]

It is probably easier to figure out a SHORAD/C-RAM vehicle that can direct fire combat than a MBT formation that somehow do not die to air power without an AD vehicle that can follow extremely close that it'd get involved in direct fires.

The large direct fire gun is becoming increasingly niche with limited area of firepower projection that is efficient against only limited set of targets, with tank gun-armor competitive evolution pushing the resulting vehicles further and further from general functionality.

Since then there has been no motivation to innovate, nobody has come up with a newer and more formidable armour, nobody has found a way to radically alter the power-to-weight ratio, external turrets never really got past the testbed, railguns remained staples of sci-fi fiction for tanks.

I don't think that there is no motivation to innovate, but there is no innovation that actually improves the platform matching the growing threats and opportunities of the era. This is also a partly a categorization problem. There is no innovation that lets a MBT that fight off airpower. If a vehicle it did so significantly, it won't be categorized as Tank anyways. There is no innovation that lets a MBT to take advantage of battle networks to apply long range precision fires, because a vehicle that did so won't be a categorized as a tank.

Even if you developed some god tank with twice the armor penetration, twice the effective armor and twice the top speed, you still lose if USAF can send some sorties to deal with you. The same tank is still defeated if it is on the wrong end of artillery or large category of missiles. This was not a problem when air power was too imprecise and artillery too slow: the hard threats then were exactly what the tanks is designed to fight unlike today.

The MBT is a concept that is very limited and do not adapt to modern threats. Compare this to "destroyers" or "fighter bombers" that adapt radically different weapons and combat methodology over its evolution.

 

[Fluff]

Back to the MBT question I think the problem of wanting something "transformative" is a very real one in this area as well. When the subject comes up they seem reluctant to even say "MBT" or "tank".

The latest version of the M1A2 is a great vehicle but I believe there is plenty of a room for improvement. Both the Germans and French seem to think that the current 120mm cannon will be inadequate against future threats so the Germans have that new 130mm cannon and apparently the French have tested a 140mm on a modified Leclerc. Does anyone know if this is a further development of the NATO 140mm cannon trialed late in the Cold War? Either way both of these guns use ammunition so large as to require an autoloader to maintain a good rate of fire. All things considered it would probably be a good idea just to design a whole new turret. That would also have the benefit of allowing of a more "streamlined" integration of active protection systems, smoke dischargers, commander weapon station, CITV, RF jammers, and everything else that is now expected on an AFV.

One question that the Army needs to answer is if they want a three or four man tank crew. There are benefits and drawbacks to each and generally NATO nations have expressed a preference for four man crews.

Industry was looking at hydropneumatic suspension units and a MTU-833 diesel engine as a potential upgrade path. If you want alternatives you could probably bring back the LV100-5 gas turbine from the dead and there was also an advanced diesel engine tested during the same time period as well.

Overall it might be better to design a mostly-new tank on a hull that could be reconfigured like the Armata for use as an IFV and in other roles. Yet the Army can't seem to stop itself from adding contradicting or overambitious requirements when it comes to new designs.

There is also the question of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program which seems to be in an awkward place. Too heavy to air-drop but too light to have a high level of armor protection. I'm not entirely certain what they want the thing for. In-theory I think it would be working with the Stryker brigades which are able to be deployed faster by air than the heavy armor can be, but for that role wouldn't a wheeled platform be better? Something like the Stryker MGS but without all the problems.

Has there been any news in regards to ETC guns? I haven't heard anything about that subject in quite some time.

Back to the MBT question I think the problem of wanting something "transformative" is a very real one in this area as well. When the subject comes up they seem reluctant to even say "MBT" or "tank".

That is a big problem going back to the early 90s. All this crap about hover tanks and electromagnetic shields?! Very destructive to any new MBT design because it just ain’t gonna happen and if it does it won’t be for ground vehicles first.

The latest version of the M1A2 is a great vehicle but I believe there is plenty of a room for improvement. Both the Germans and French seem to think that the current 120mm cannon will be inadequate against future threats so the Germans have that new 130mm cannon and apparently the French have tested a 140mm on a modified Leclerc. Does anyone know if this is a further development of the NATO 140mm cannon trialed late in the Cold War? Either way both of these guns use ammunition so large as to require an autoloader to maintain a good rate of fire. All things considered it would probably be a good idea just to design a whole new turret. That would also have the benefit of allowing of a more "streamlined" integration of active protection systems, smoke dischargers, commander weapon station, CITV, RF jammers, and everything else that is now expected on an AFV.

The 120mm gun being insufficient agiants future threat tanks was known way back in the 80s. BLOCK III was expected to have the 140mm version of the XM291. There was a NATO MOU for a 140mm gun w/commonality in the chamber size. There was also the GHz frequency MTAS fire control radar. A lot of this “new stuff” has just been back burnered for many reasons.

I wonder if the fighting in Yemen is reinforcing the “ATGM is master of the MBT” mentality that I think makes one of the reasons why the USArmy seems to be dreading designing a new MBT.

I would be careful to learn any lessons from Saudi ops in Yemen. It may be modern western mbt’s, but it’s far from a western unit, trained and organised, from the video’s I’ve seen they drive on roads until someone shoots them.

for sure if you park an mbt and shoot atgm’s you can destroy it. The role of everyone else, infantry, arty, recon, air support, is to prevent that happening, or to mitigate it quickly if it does.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

One of the concepts being bandied about for the Optionally Manned Tank. Think an all-new (likely 2-crew) turret on an evolved M1 hull.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1290165861680951296

View: https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1290165861680951296?s=19

Two man crew? Three man crews can be done if there is the proper support in place but a two man crew is just ridiculous for the amount of work it takes to crew a real tank.

 

[TomS]

Two man crew? Three man crews can be done if there is the proper support in place but a two man crew is just ridiculous for the amount of work it takes to crew a real tank.

To make a two-man crew possible, you really have to have a full set of relief crews or support personnel assigned down at the platoon level, so that 4 tanks and 16 crew ends up being 4 tanks and 8 crew plus one APC and 8 relief crew plus a couple of APC crew. It's not a net savings on manpower, but it might mean the actual tank crews are less vulnerable. You still have issues maintaining SA and all-around surveillance in an urban environment, where the TC, gunner, and loader all have responsibilities in a conventional tank.

 

[jsport]

It is probably easier to figure out a SHORAD/C-RAM vehicle that can direct fire combat than a MBT formation that somehow do not die to air power without an AD vehicle that can follow extremely close that it'd get involved in direct fires.

The large direct fire gun is becoming increasingly niche with limited area of firepower projection that is efficient against only limited set of targets, with tank gun-armor competitive evolution pushing the resulting vehicles further and further from general functionality.

Since then there has been no motivation to innovate, nobody has come up with a newer and more formidable armour, nobody has found a way to radically alter the power-to-weight ratio, external turrets never really got past the testbed, railguns remained staples of sci-fi fiction for tanks.

I don't think that there is no motivation to innovate, but there is no innovation that actually improves the platform matching the growing threats and opportunities of the era. This is also a partly a categorization problem. There is no innovation that lets a MBT that fight off airpower. If a vehicle it did so significantly, it won't be categorized as Tank anyways. There is no innovation that lets a MBT to take advantage of battle networks to apply long range precision fires, because a vehicle that did so won't be a categorized as a tank.

Even if you developed some god tank with twice the armor penetration, twice the effective armor and twice the top speed, you still lose if USAF can send some sorties to deal with you. The same tank is still defeated if it is on the wrong end of artillery or large category of missiles. This was not a problem when air power was too imprecise and artillery too slow: the hard threats then were exactly what the tanks is designed to fight unlike today.

The MBT is a concept that is very limited and do not adapt to modern threats. Compare this to "destroyers" or "fighter bombers" that adapt radically different weapons and combat methodology over its evolution.

Most modern tank replacements comtemplated by advanced militaries task tanks as in/direct fire platforms. This latest OMT concept clearly is to projected to possess that capability. Likewise, advanced militaries realize the problem of air deleivered PGMs and are adjusting APS systems accordingly. Russia and South Korean APS systems come to mind, but clearly the US APS development is concerned. The US may be so concerned as to apply a DEW down to individual tank.

 

[jsport]

Two man crew? Three man crews can be done if there is the proper support in place but a two man crew is just ridiculous for the amount of work it takes to crew a real tank.

To make a two-man crew possible, you really have to have a full set of relief crews or support personnel assigned down at the platoon level, so that 4 tanks and 16 crew ends up being 4 tanks and 8 crew plus one APC and 8 relief crew plus a couple of APC crew. It's not a net savings on manpower, but it might mean the actual tank crews are less vulnerable. You still have issues maintaining SA and all-around surveillance in an urban environment, where the TC, gunner, and loader all have responsibilities in a conventional tank.

An apparent selection of tethered quadrotors to provide SA to the OMFV un/manned team remains problematic as even the ringed rotors reflect a great deal RF waves thus drastically reducing the survivability. Likewise, the commercial quality of the quads and the open rotor limits in realistic field conditions operation as well as having relability issues. Crews will become overly dependant on quads which are not reliable thus drastically reducing operational effectiveness when the quad fails. The Army should consider a milspec, non quad UAS as a vital component of operational effectiveness.

 

[GTX]

I suppose it depends upon how one defines what an MBT is. I personally wonder if developments such as Israel’s Carmel program is pointing the way forward. Will the future main land combat vehicle become something more akin to a heavy IFV/APC. Basically something that is heavily armoured enough to withstand what may be thrown at it such as IEDs etc, but with a useful medium calibre main gun (say 35 - 50mm) which can be used against light-medium vehicles and also for fire support to infantry and also with guided missiles (ideally something with dual/tri effects that could be used against the likes of other armoured vehicles/buildings/aircraft) as backup for the occasional need to fight something bigger/harder, plus a useful integral infantry contingent (say 6 - 12 troops). It would be well networked with sensors (both onboard and off board - maybe even give it its own integral drone) and also with other systems (e.g. artillery, aircraft etc) to also call in other systems in a true effects-focused approach.

 

[Moose]

In OMFV, the "optionally manned" has evolved further and further from "sometimes unmanned" to "can do some/many missions with less than full crew." My feeling with OMT is that they're exploring their options further down that path, seeing if it's possible to design a "2+1" tank that operates with 2 most of the time, supported by infantry/uavs/ugvs, but can take on a third specifically for high-threat situations. I'm fine with them wargaming/studying that idea, but I'd want to see a good amount of supporting data before I got behind it for an in service vehicle.