TR Altay Main Battle Tank & Related Programs

[Bogeyman]

The M230LF with the ability to fire smart airburst ammunitions for counter-UAS role has been mounted on ABRAM X.

View attachment 65728

When integrated with APS's radars, it will be able to shoot down small FVP drones and quadcopters efficiently.

Plus, it also enables the tank to perform IFV role.

This system does not provide this protection against saturation attacks performed from opposite angles. In addition, the rotation speed of tanks' turrets is very slow. A tower-independent air defense system is required.

 

[CAN_TR]

Either you equip every MBT with those simple jamming devices or one/two MBT/IFV in the armored column take the extensive jamming role. Another solution would be 30mm RCWS with airburts rounds or 40mm grenade launchers like Aselsan IHTAR.

I rather sit in a modern MBT than being that poor infantry men in the trench chased by the FPV. Actually EW equipment for the regular Infantry is a must have nowdays, like it was with manportable AT weapons few decades ago.

 

[Afif]

This system does not provide this protection against saturation attacks performed from opposite angles. In addition, the rotation speed of tanks' turrets is very slow. A tower-independent air defense system is required.

RWS moves/rotates on its own. The engagement cna be fully automated. And airburst smart ammunitions is quite effective against swarm drones.

 

[Strong AI]

I would suggest a combination of Aselsan IHTAR radar and Aselsan ŞAHIN turret would be an effective solution against small drone threats. Should be enough space on a tank turret to mount both systems.
Or just use the trailer version of Aselsan ŞAHIN and drag it behind the tank, lol.

 

[YeşilVatan]

I would suggest a combination of Aselsan IHTAR radar and Aselsan ŞAHIN turret would be an effective solution against small drone threats. Should be enough space on a tank turret to mount both systems.
Or just use the trailer version of Aselsan ŞAHIN and drag it behind the tank, lol.

This circled back to the swarm UGV Tank concept I and some other guys brainstormed earlier.

It's basically a command vehicle (or multiple), controlling multiple other fire support assets. Lightweight UGVs with maybe 105mm cannons and hybrid engines networked to the command vehicle do the tank things. Maybe some other vehicles do anti-air duty. Some other vehicles may stand by for indirect fire support. There will also be UAVs for recon and damage assassment.

I honestly think this concept will be the future of the tanks. Because losing tanks can be tolerable, and it will be even expected, as situational awareness is very high and aything that takes out a UGV tank will be swiftly punished.

 

[Huelague]

Only question we have to think of, how can we protect the tanks? Not to, replace the tanks. No one came of the idea, to replace fighter jets, because of SAM.

 

[uçuyorum]

Only question we have to think of, how can we protect the tanks? Not to, replace the tanks. No one came of the idea, to replace fighter jets, because of SAM.

They invented 5th gen instead, but it does not translate to tanks.

 

[Afif]

This circled back to the swarm UGV Tank concept I and some other guys brainstormed earlier.

It's basically a command vehicle (or multiple), controlling multiple other fire support assets. Lightweight UGVs with maybe 105mm cannons and hybrid engines networked to the command vehicle do the tank things. Maybe some other vehicles do anti-air duty. Some other vehicles may stand by for indirect fire support. There will also be UAVs for recon and damage assassment.

No, one of the important thing that Armies strive for, is the simplicity of C2 and management.

What you described out there, will only complicated C2. Not only that, by imposing additional complexities, it will create extra vulnerabilities in the operational framework and kill chain.

In this case, enemy will only have to target the command vehicle to effectively neutralize your whole package of UGVs.



Nothing personal brother, but everytime you bring it up, I have an almost religious duty and passion to defend manned platforms against these ideas.

 

[YeşilVatan]

No, one of the important thing that Armies strive for, is the simplicity of C2 and management.

What you described out there, will only complicated C2. Not only that, by imposing additional complexities, it will create extra vulnerabilities in the operational framework and kill chain.

In this case, enemy will only have to target the command vehicle to effectively neutralize your whole package of UGVs.



Nothing personal brother, but everytime you bring it up, I have an almost religious duty and passion to defend manned platforms against these ideas.

I fail to see how it will be more complicated. As long as you maintain the datalink, you will have dedicated personnel directing the vehicle. How is that different than people sitting in the tank itself?

All the other things I mention, like recon UAVs, AA UGVs, indirect fire support UGVs, they all go back to gauging the price of individual UGVs so they will be more suitable for frontline duty.

But I understand your point. A singular command vehicle may not be how it will go, but some dudes with VR goggles and stuff, maybe closer to the vehicle, maybe very far away.

 

[boredaf]

We have to look at this like how we've been talking about our air defence strategy, as in, it has to be a layered defence. If you're an engineer designing something critical, for example, you would build in redundancies and backups, and then lubricate the hell out of everything. We have to do this with how we are going to design/build our tanks AND how we are going to use them.

If you've been watching the videos of Russians tanks getting fucked by FPV drones carrying mortars or thermite grenades or whatever, they are either all alone, or with very little support and no functional SHORAD in sight. As asymmetrical threats keep getting bigger, you simply can't do that, that type of use of tanks were a death sentence even in WW2, where almost 200k tanks and other variants were destroyed btw. And you also see that the tanks themselves have no way of defending themselves against these threats as well.

So, you start stacking your redundancies there. You put on as much and as good armour as you can without compromising mobility. Then, you add APS to deal with threats like a Javelin. Then the next step, imo, is a jammer against cheap FPV drones, soft kill is always a good option to have. Then you add some sort of CIWS, and when I say CIWS I do mean it. Whatever you put to protect a tank has to act like a CIWS on a ship and has to be able to detect, track and most preferably engage a threat by itself, with manual control as an option. Or, a system like Aselsan's 40mm grenade launcher anti-drone system. Especially if it can be modified to use something like Mete with guidance and proximity sensors etc. Yes, it would be expensive, but not as expensive as losing a tank.

But that's just the tank itself. We should never let a tank operate without proper support and aa protection. Obvious solution is, of course, systems like Korkut or Gürz working in tandem with our tanks and other support elements. A second solution, and one that multiple countries are actually working on, is as @YeşilVatan suggested, UGVs. Imo, the important thing that is going to make it viable would be a degree of autonomy that would let the UGVs to be commanded, instead of controlled. So basically, let's say 2 UGVs with 20/25/30/35mm (pick one, don't be greedy lol) cannons, accompanying a tank, scanning the sky and engaging targets if necessary with little input from the commander. STM's Kargu already have this capability, STM and Roketsan's joint production Alpagut is going to have it as well. Auto-detects the target, informs the commander and if given a go ahead tracks and engages the target on its own. Or, can even be given free-hands to engage any target it detects in the area.

Armour has been a necessity since it was first used and it'll stay as one for a long time. We, and everyone else of course, simply have to adapt to new threats. Then after we do, a new threat will come up and the cycle will start once again.

 

[Sanchez]

And then we come back to "survivability onion". It's an ancient concept and this image is from the FCS program that was cancelled 15 years ago. FPVs or not, nothing has changed.

 

[Kartal1]

Tanks: OUTDATED

Armored Vehicles: OUTDATED

Air Defence System: OUTDATED

Infantry: OUTDATED

DATED:

Are you guys for real?

 

[Anmdt]

And then we come back to "survivability onion". It's an ancient concept and this image is from the FCS program that was cancelled 15 years ago. FPVs or not, nothing has changed.

This is not the first time an armored asset meets a new threat and is shocked. We have had another great example half century ago; ships. From bulky floating armors and arsenals down to floating sensors in a tin can carrying at most a ton of explosives.
Tanks evaded it with armor tech, innovation and it is game over. You gotta strip those armors and opt for sensors and active soft-hard kill protection systems.

 

[begturan]

is there any news about Leopard 2 TIYK modernization, i wonder that Turkish army is ready for any Syria offensive, PKK terrorists getting air defence systems from USA i think our army has to be start an operation in close time.

 

[Sanchez]

is there any news about Leopard 2 TIYK modernization

Nope.

 

[TheInsider]

30mm lightweight autocannon with airburst munition, capable jammers, and networking is the way to go against small drones.

BTW TAI made a wonderful decision and started the conceptual studies of a 6th gen fighter.

 

[Bogeyman]

30mm lightweight autocannon with airburst munition, capable jammers, and networking is the way to go against small drones.

You cannot install a 500 thousand dollar radar on each tank when each tank leaves the factory with a price tag of 15 million dollars. Maybe it would have been possible if 1 radar was shared among 5-10 tanks. However, at that time, squad deployments in the field cannot be flexible. You need to keep all troops in a certain area. This makes you an easier target for artillery bombardment. As we add artillery detection radar etc., the size of the troops increases to crazy levels.

 

[TheInsider]

You cannot install a 500 thousand dollar radar on each tank when each tank leaves the factory with a price tag of 15 million dollars. Maybe it would have been possible if 1 radar was shared among 5-10 tanks. However, at that time, squad deployments in the field cannot be flexible. You need to keep all troops in a certain area. This makes you an easier target for artillery bombardment. As we add artillery detection radar etc., the size of the troops increases to crazy levels.

Networking is the buzzword here. You can't install a radar on every tank but you can send targets/air picture to tanks and radar of the APS can be used for very short range targeting. (several hundred meters)

Armored columns will be protected by systems like Gürz and Korkut.

 

[Ryder]

With all this tech shouldnt the infantry soldier be obsolete?

Tanks are not like battleships. Battleships disappeared because they were too big and too expensive were only a way to show how big your balls are to your enemies.

 

[TheInsider]

With all this tech shouldnt the infantry soldier be obsolete?

Tanks are not like battleships. Battleships disappeared because they were too big and too expensive were only a way to show how big your balls are to your enemies.

Tanks will get smaller. There will be 3-man crew tanks and later 2-man crew tanks will take over. UGVs will be deployed with tanks. There will be tank pilots similar to fighter pilots. One of them will drive the other one will be responsible for controlling UGVs and weapons. AI will help tank pilots to keep everything in control and to keep the workload of pilots in check. A small fighter-like cockpit is all you need with just 2 pilots and this will pave the way to very light tanks(40t) without sacrificing armor protection.