TR Land Vehicle Programs

[Oublious]

full video.

 

[UkroTurk]

20x TRLG-122

I would love to see unmanned MLRS but if the carrier is tracked and unmanned , the UGV can penetrate inside enemy lines so the range of artillery Rockets could be reduced. There is no need making tracked either unmanned MLRS with 50km range.

I would like to suggest loading (edit) 107mm artillery Rockets , if you could please draw UGV with 107mm MLRS launcher.

Or unmanned mobile smart mine layer

Last but not least unmanned and tracked TOS like systems would be great as TOS rockets have less range and heavier warheads.

 

[Kartal1]

I would love to see unmanned MLRS but if the carrier is tracked and unmanned , the UGV can penetrate inside enemy lines so the range of artillery Rockets could be reduced. There is no need making tracked either unmanned MLRS with 50km range.

I would like to suggest loading (edit) 107mm artillery Rockets , if you could please draw UGV with 107mm MLRS launcher.
View attachment 61921
View attachment 61922


Or unmanned mobile smart mine layer

View attachment 61930


Last but not least unmanned and tracked TOS like systems would be great as TOS rockets have less range and heavier warheads.

While reading it TOS came to my mind. It proved to be extremely effective while keeping the range low. It is also logical because it is closer to enemy lines and there will be less danger as there is no crew inside. Reloading could be done further from the line.

 

[Kaan Azman]

My bad, I was referring to TRLG122 count in one pod for a two-pod system like on KAMAZ. The count is 12 TRLG122 missiles per pod.

 

[Afif]

Israeli Merkava.

The lesson is clear, even APS equipped platforms need cages.

 

[wolveray1]

View attachment 61950

View attachment 61951
Israeli Merkava.

The lesson is clear, even APS equipped platforms need cages.

This is ironic considering before people are making a joke about russian cope cage..

 

[Saithan]

Slat armor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Guess it's due to that % chance of helping that makes it worth adding. So question is, drone dropped ammunition could be warded off, but the chances of stopping atgm is extremely low. But if tanks are vulnerable to drone dropped mortar and such, then the armor up top must be really thin.

 

[Merzifonlu]

Unless we give up on the classic tank concept, funny images in this style will continue. What is that concept? A mobile field cannon and mobile machine gun mount that is resistant to machine gun fire and cannon shrapnel. Why has this concept become obsolete? Because the threats to tanks are no longer only bullets and shrapnels. Tanks no longer have any resistance to enemy fire. And we can also provide the fire support provided by tanks with completely different vehicles.

Then the vehicle you call "tank" has to transform. My suggestion is to cancel the tank's mobile field cannon feature and replace it with a mobile shield feature. In other words, the rotating cannon turret, which makes tanks weak and cumbersome, is eliminated and the tank is covered with very thick armor all around, 360 degrees. Meanwhile, it should be able to carry at least 6 fully equipped soldiers.

So we must to turn the tank into a heavy armored personnel carrier covered with very thick armor all around, 360 degrees.

 

[boredaf]

Unless we give up on the classic tank concept, funny images in this style will continue. What is that concept? A mobile field cannon and mobile machine gun mount that is resistant to machine gun fire and cannon shrapnel. Why has this concept become obsolete? Because the threats to tanks are no longer only bullets and shrapnels. Tanks no longer have any resistance to enemy fire. And we can also provide the fire support provided by tanks with completely different vehicles.

Then the vehicle you call "tank" has to transform. My suggestion is to cancel the tank's mobile field cannon feature and replace it with a mobile shield feature. In other words, the rotating cannon turret, which makes tanks weak and cumbersome, is eliminated and the tank is covered with very thick armor all around, 360 degrees. Meanwhile, it should be able to carry at least 6 fully equipped soldiers.

So we must to turn the tank into a heavy armored personnel carrier covered with very thick armor all around, 360 degrees.

That makes absolutely no sense, that vehicle would be even more vulnerable than an ordinary tank and we already have APCs for that job. And tanks are most definitely not obsolete or useless in modern setting, entire military world disagrees with you there. Vehicles on the battlefield has always been an ever evolving game of rock-paper-scissors and it will continue to be so, tanks are not any different.

 

[Merzifonlu]

That makes absolutely no sense, that vehicle would be even more vulnerable than an ordinary tank and we already have APCs for that job. And tanks are most definitely not obsolete or useless in modern setting, entire military world disagrees with you there. Vehicles on the battlefield has always been an ever evolving game of rock-paper-scissors and it will continue to be so, tanks are not any different.

Classic APCs are also designed to resist machine gun fire and artillery shrapnel. However, nowadays they even fire ATGMs at infantry! I watched a video I can never forget from the Saudi-Houthi war. 4-5 Saudi infantrymen resting under a rock were attacked with the Kornet-E ATGM. They all died. That's why the new generation APCs I think should be able to protect the infantry inside them even if they receive direct hits from ATGMs and drones.

So in short, no, we do not have an APC that can perform the task I said. APCs resistant to IED and mine resistance have relatively recently begun to be included in the inventory. They do not have the same armor resistance on the upper side.

The job of the so-called cannon in tanks has already been taken over by drones and ATGMs used by infantry. These weapons can also be fired from armored vehicles without turrets. It is only necessary to modify ATGMs to be launched vertically like on ships.

If there is a rotating turret on an armored vehicle, this turret must carry a cannon that fires maximum 35 mm ATOM ammunition for air defence & suppression fire.

 

[YeşilVatan]

Classic APCs are also designed to resist machine gun fire and artillery shrapnel. However, nowadays they even fire ATGMs at infantry! I watched a video I can never forget from the Saudi-Houthi war. 4-5 Saudi infantrymen resting under a rock were attacked with the Kornet-E ATGM. They all died. That's why the new generation APCs I think should be able to protect the infantry inside them even if they receive direct hits from ATGMs and drones.

So in short, no, we do not have an APC that can perform the task I said. APCs resistant to IED and mine resistance have relatively recently begun to be included in the inventory. They do not have the same armor resistance on the upper side.

The job of the so-called cannon in tanks has already been taken over by drones and ATGMs used by infantry. These weapons can also be fired from armored vehicles without turrets. It is only necessary to modify ATGMs to be launched vertically like on ships.

If there is a rotating turret on an armored vehicle, this turret must carry a cannon that fires maximum 35 mm ATOM ammunition for air defence & suppression fire.

This would be an interesting concept. I would like to add some more though.

• It has to be able to fire heavier ATGMs with more range. Maybe VLS style? idk.
• It has to have good situational awareness. No matter how thick your armor is, modern warheads will penetrate.
• It has to have some kind of laser designator i.e. it needs the capability of directing fire support.
• It has to have at least one quadcopter style UAV that can be deployed from the vehicle for scouting missions
• And most importantly, it needs to be used together with 2-3 medium tank style UGVs

I can see how that concept is what tanks will become.

 

[Kartal1]

For me the new generation tank looks as the following:

• Light weight
• Engine on front design
• Low silhouette design
• Next generation IR reduction solution (example- BAE Adaptiv)
• Potent 360 degrees coverage APS system
• RCWS integrated EW solution
• Next generation situational awareness system integrated into VR goggles
• AI assisted target classification and decision helping system
• Autoloader
• Autonomous operation capable UGV and UAV integration (controlled by the 4th member of the crew)
• New generation communication and information management system capable of integration to a network within the concept of network-centric warfare.

This is Aselsan's concept from 2 years ago. I am sure they made changes to it after seeing tanks performance in Ukraine.

 

[Afif]

For me the new generation tank looks as the following:

• Engine on front design

Why engine on the front? That seems counter productive for IR signature reduction.

• Next generation IR reduction solution (example- BAE Adaptiv)

IMO, this technology is too complicated and expensive to be applied in real world operational scenario. SAAB's barracuda MSC and similar systems seems to do the job pretty well.

Besides, it is not about IR signature only, It is also imperative to minimize tanks RCS too. (Increasing proliferation of highly sensitive AESA sensor with air to ground and SAR mode) Which, I don't think Adaptive can do.


Another feature I think would be critical is 'Silent watch', which was introduced on Abram X. Enabled by an axillary battery system thanks to the new hybrid power pack.
You can sit in a prepared and camouflage position with your engine off, while fully retaining the ability to see first and shoot first.

 

[Merzifonlu]

This would be an interesting concept. I would like to add some more though.

• It has to be able to fire heavier ATGMs with more range. Maybe VLS style? idk.
• It has to have good situational awareness. No matter how thick your armor is, modern warheads will penetrate.
• It has to have some kind of laser designator i.e. it needs the capability of directing fire support.
• It has to have at least one quadcopter style UAV that can be deployed from the vehicle for scouting missions
• And most importantly, it needs to be used together with 2-3 medium tank style UGVs

I can see how that concept is what tanks will become.

+1

I agree all of them.

 

[Kartal1]

Why engine on the front? That seems counter productive for IR signature reduction.




IMO, this technology is too complicated and expensive to be applied in real world operational scenario. SAAB's barracuda MSC and similar systems seems to do the job pretty well.

View attachment 61973
View attachment 61974


Besides, it is not about IR signature only, It is also imperative to minimize tanks RCS too. (Increasing proliferation of highly sensitive AESA sensor with air to ground and SAR mode) Which, I don't think Adaptive can do.


Another feature I think would be critical is 'Silent watch', which was introduced on Abram X. Enabled by an axillary battery system thanks to the new hybrid power pack.
You can sit in a prepared and camouflage position with your engine off, while fully retaining the ability to see first and shoot first.

I would choose engine at the front because of increased protection from frontal attacks. It also allows for safer evacuation of the crew from the back.

Counter to the Sovyet doctrine for example the Israeli doctrine prioritizes safety of the crew more for known reasons. I think in the future wars will be fought by fully professional, highly skilled and educated people and the standards for military personnel of all branches will be raised even further.

With the implementation of different highly technological solutions the need for highly intelligent operators will increase. As much as complicated the technology also takes a lot of the burdens from the back of the crew but also the value of this technology rises so it must be protected. As much as the tank protects the crew, the crew must also be able to protect the tank by utilizing all technological means in the most optimal way possible. I think the role of the cannon fodders of the future will be taken fully by unmanned systems and manned platforms will serve mainly as command and control units for these unmanned systems.

The IR reduction solution by BAE is just an example. I am sure even more advanced and effective solutions will come as research towards IR reduction and invisibility in all spectrums are continuing.

 

[Afif]

With the implementation of different highly technological solutions the need for highly intelligent operators will increase. As much as complicated the technology also takes a lot of the burdens from the back of the crew but also the value of this technology rises so it must be protected. As much as the tank protects the crew, the crew must also be able to protect the tank by utilizing all technological means in the most optimal way possible. I think the role of the cannon fodders of the future will be taken fully by unmanned systems and manned platforms will serve mainly as command and control units for these unmanned systems.

IMHO, I think that is gonna be the generation that comes after next generation.
Becuase, all of the next generation platforms that are in conceptual or prototype phase, are seems to be manned. (Abram X, KF-51, Armata-14, K-3 etc.)

 

[Sanchez]

Ohh my gooood. Engineering variants of Altay in works. Finally something to see.

Deminer, armored rescue vehicle and engineering models in works.

https://x.com/savunmasanayist/status/1714355798195740684

 

[boredaf]

Classic APCs are also designed to resist machine gun fire and artillery shrapnel. However, nowadays they even fire ATGMs at infantry! I watched a video I can never forget from the Saudi-Houthi war. 4-5 Saudi infantrymen resting under a rock were attacked with the Kornet-E ATGM. They all died. That's why the new generation APCs I think should be able to protect the infantry inside them even if they receive direct hits from ATGMs and drones.

So in short, no, we do not have an APC that can perform the task I said. APCs resistant to IED and mine resistance have relatively recently begun to be included in the inventory. They do not have the same armor resistance on the upper side.

The job of the so-called cannon in tanks has already been taken over by drones and ATGMs used by infantry. These weapons can also be fired from armored vehicles without turrets. It is only necessary to modify ATGMs to be launched vertically like on ships.

If there is a rotating turret on an armored vehicle, this turret must carry a cannon that fires maximum 35 mm ATOM ammunition for air defence & suppression fire.

I don't actually disagree with your point about needing better apcs, but I don't think the answer is thicker armor, as at some point that just becomes a hindrance rather than protection. I think the answer is better active protection, whether it is a turret as you suggest (which I also think is a good solution btw, sort of like CIWS for our vehicles), or something similar to the active protection systems we have now.

However, as I said before, I don't agree that tanks are obsolete now. There will be a place for them in the battlefield, just as there was when they were declared dead before. And protection for tanks doesn't, or rather shouldn't, just come from the tank itself as a tank should never operate alone away from supporting them. Whether it is classic IFVs, or an armored vehicle with 35mm cannon with loitering munition launcher on its back (iirc there was one prototype shown few months back) or soldiers carrying drones that can use missiles like Mete.

Ohh my gooood. Engineering variants of Altay in works. Finally something to see.

Now I just want to see a variant with a multi-barrel launcher for loitering munitions, as many as it can carry which should be a lot is it realistic? Of course not, but would it be awesome to see an "Altay Drone Carrier" launching a hundred Alpagut's one after another against the enemy? Most definitely.

 

[Sanchez]

Now I just want to see a variant with a multi-barrel launcher for loitering munitions, as many as it can carry which should be a lot is it realistic? Of course not, but would it be awesome to see an "Altay Drone Carrier" launching a hundred Alpagut's one after another against the enemy? Most definitely.

Why would you use a 70 ton hunk of metal to carry and launch standoff munitions tho. I’d think smaller for that role.

 

[YeşilVatan]

Why would you use a 70 ton hunk of metal to carry and launch standoff munitions tho. I’d think smaller for that role.

In theory, that 70 ton hunk of metal would be a command and control center for other medium tank equivalent UGVs. Those UGVs would provide fire support with cannons (105?) while the C&C center tank would hit heavily armored targets with long range ATGMs.

That means the tank itself can stay in cover and UGVs do the most of the heavy lifting, but the 'package' can counter armored targets like traditional MBTs.

I may be completely off with this but hey, we're brainstorming. I can see how that works.