Only for standards and architecture geeks: Current US common standard is GCIA: [G]round Combat Systems [C]ommon [I]nfrastructure [A]rchitecture, now in version 2.0 Many European countries are using NGVA: [N]ATO [G]eneric [V]ehicle [A]rchitecture And no, they aren't compatible; NGVA built and expanded upon a prior US standard (VICTORY) which was primarily for network/C4ISR integration; GCIA is a broader and more comprehensive standard than NGVA and uses a number of elements of an aviation common standard called FACE while building for the future.
That seems silly. There isn't even backwards compatibility? Does that mean that decoders need to be used if an item designed for one NATO country's vehicle is offered to another? (I'm thinking here particularly of, say, an upgrade that Poland might want to add to Leopard and M1)
@@TheChieftainsHatch There is a measure of backwards compatibility at the subsystem level; that allows some components to be installed across multiple types or generations of vehicles. But full-on compatibility isn't necessary; we simply don't share components at the LRU/LRM level that way, nor has the history of combined nation development in combat vehicles been particularly successful. The question is one of "what standards need to be common to interoperate?" Those standards -- information exchange in C4ISR elements -- are largely the same (GCIA still uses many of the C4ISR standards used in VICTORY and are carrying forward in the the new CMOSS standard). Every nation tends to want to use their own C4I system anyway, so when things are sold abroad it's pretty standard to adapt those things; the differences between NGVA and GCIA won't significantly challenge that -- and frankly future suppliers will start to align to GCIA anyway as the volume of demand far favors that standard for the future.
I tried looking them up, but didn't find anything cocrete on NGVA, but it seems to have been updated February this year (as STANAG 4754). So I'd love to se a clarification, wich versions you where comparing against each other.
@@TheChieftainsHatch That reminds me of what Ive read about aircraft. Other NATO countries were complaining that their aircraft used the american standards for networking and Link-16, yet the US just made their own "proprietary" upgrade. F22 and 35 can of course work with and support other planes, but have superior networking capabilities due to that. No reason european aircraft couldnt have that, America just kinda screwed them over. Im sure thatll help standardization and trust in America. Especially combined with that story about american spy-software used in europe having backdoors to spy on europeans, specifically the eurofighter program (probably to use that data in foreign bids)...
@@TheChieftainsHatch Don't forget the electronic warfare variant the EM-1, the mobile casualty treatment Emergency Hospital EHM-1, the self propelled howitzer Enhanced Gun, Howitzer EGHM-1,...
@@jackbartlet1447 You mean the emergency mobile digital doctor, the EMH-1, aka the Doctor. When you turn it on, it says "Please state the nature of your medical emergency".
the fancy gadgets never replace the old stuff fully but instead augment them, the mortar has been a staple for over a hundred years but now you can watch the shell land and make adjustments. and of course a machine gun will always be needed for some good ol' dakka because there is never enough. (always perpetually between a lot and not enough)
@chazbazza the mortar didn't replace the cannon.... we still use cannons and mortars. the mortar has existed as long as gunpowder has been used in european warfare. drone munitions wont replace things like the mortar because they do different jobs from one another, what the drone has replaced is binoculars and forward observers. the drone is the new eyes of artillery and drones carrying bombs, missiles or even little grenades have only replaced the aircraft that used to risk life and limb to deliver those old systems onto a target in the form of close air support.
As a retired Australian RAAC officer I find the future of armour both terrifying and exciting in equal measure. Great vid, wonderful analysis .... thanks mate 💯
I guess a major perk of retirement is that least you won't have to be seating in a tank which comms are getting jammed, that has losts its optics and sensors to a laser strike, that is now trackless due to some smart sensor fuzed remotely deployed AT mine and who is about to be finished off by an FPV drone piloted by an 18 year old private that may have very well T-bagged you on some multiplayer game before the war.
That Shaheed warhead is an anti-ship munition. Lots of EFPs designed to punch lots of holes to make flooding harder to stop. Very similar to what the original exocet used back in the 70s. I suspect those warheads were originally intended for launch against a certain navy that Iran has had run-ins in the past with.
Not specifically. The Shaheed is a bootleg of the IDF Harpy drone, which was an SEAD system intended to hunt down armored radar systems. So, you're 100% right that it works well against ships, but that is an expansion of the initial purpose. It just happens that a swarming long-range munition that has AP warheads to take out armored vehicles has a TON of military uses that go beyond the initial mandate (like how Patriot started as an anti-plane system).
@@grahamstrouse1165 You misunderstand. It was the IDF (IAI specifically) that made the Harpy for land and air SEAD operations. You are right that the IDF hasn't had much of a chance to use it at sea, as their navy is pretty small (and their Harpy drones would be launched by ground-based platforms in a naval war, as they have a 1,000km range). The recent nautical use of this sort of drone has largely been by Iran, with their Shahed drones in the Arabian sea. Even their bootlegs are effective in disrupting ships and, in high enough volumes, could take down naval vessels. Basically, Israel made it for SEAD, it turned out to be effective in a huge range of operations, Iran copied it, and then used their copy against ships off their coast, as well as in Bahrain's territorial waters.
It's insane seeing the futuristic warfare planning of the Germans & US displayed alongside UKE using searchlights and dual-maxims, while both seeming extremely viable
Well. I suspect the US/German answer is going to involve 360 degree IR/VIS coverage coupled to AI to detect drones/missiles. Coupled with a Hardkill system to take out fast moving missiles. And a Fast firing rifle caliber MG on a remote turret to take out drones ( and other applicable targets obviously ). MG3 redux anyone ? I also suspect something like that will be needed for any artillery platoon operating near the front. The Poles recently showed off a Point defense weapon based on a 12.7mm minigun for local defense.
Quite right, and you can add ever proliferating directed energy weapons of various power levels in combination with ever more sophisticated electronic warfare at every organisational level of combat forces.
Interesting stuff. My career was in machine-tool design, and the single most difficult part is deciding what you actually need. Keep the people who design the system accountable for how well it actually works and you've got a pretty good start.
You know, I'm starting to understand how those crusty old surface admirals felt in 1942 when they first had radar explained to them. Also, I know you don't like drones in tanks, but maybe a laser communication system is a good reason to have them. Each platoon launches a drone that acts as an "airborne hub" for a laser system, and each platoon's drones talk to each other to share information. If the drone is shot down, another tank launches a replacement. Probably a bad idea, but you never know.
A laser-relay drone? Noice. Not sure if it's fiesable, but in a " platoon-of-300-requirements-vehicles replacing one tank" scenario, where is the limit? While, a "hornets nest" vehicle at company/btg level may be better?
yeah and after the start of this imagined super war how long till we are strapping rolls of telephone wire to peoples backs and saying "go that way till you find company hq
@@fabiogalletti8616 I suppose the limit is "being able to fulfill the role of a tank platoon while operating autonomously". A centralized system/vehicle would be vulnerable to it being taken down, and having ultra-specialized vehicles would add a large delay while said vehicle is requested. If they are to utilize a common chassis, their smallest size will be constrained by the largest needed weapon. If one of the vehicles has to carry an artillery gun, it needs a large chassis. And if your chassis is large, it would be a waste to mount small weapons/systems on the same chassis. Another constraint will be a price/weight. 20 hyper-specialized large vehicles will likely be more expensive to field than 5 more generalist ones. And weapons being cheap lets you deploy more of them.
I think the issue is less “drones in tanks” and more “drone operators in tanks”. If the drone is sufficiently automated and has a minimal risk of exposing the tank’s location assigning one or more drones to it makes a degree of sense. It’s when you have a full position wasted on something a command vehicle can do where it starts to be a problem.
My mind went to Keith Laumer and BOLO at the 3:00 mark, but the more I think about it, the more sense citing David Drake's Hammer's Slammers series makes to me. Particularly the networked air defense using zero-time-of-flight weaponry, and the emphasis on leveraging lots of sensor technologies to tilt the odds in favor of the armored units when facing the comparatively low-tech threat of infantry with buzzbombs.
Bolos are nice but for me it was Slammers since the first time the Base contacted the Platoon and had them ground and hold for the FC computers to take control of the 20cm main guns to vape incoming missiles/sats; that was sick. Also, got to love the Chieftain went to discussing Booster, nice. Always good to see another Slammers fan. :)
Every video you put out on this subject makes me rewrite my MilSciFi setting. I'm not up-to-date with the military or industry conceptions of what is coming next so these are life savers.
Same for me but going into the past. I’m working on the third book in my ‘Republic of Texas Navy’ series (early WW2) and having to figure out what the Texas Army / Marine Corps are equipped with and how they should use it. Been binging videos from The Chieftain and the Tank Museum to help sort that out.
It's the reason why my sci fi setting is either far future, post-apocalypse, or the past. Guessing next gen equipment within a few generations demands hard sci fi and, imo, it's embarrassing to get it wrong when the real world reaches the time of the setting.
@@imgvillasrc1608 To me that's part of the charm of old sci-fi stories, getting to see how people of their time extrapolated the current technology, they knew about and how they imagined possible new technologies. Stories are always a product of their time, I see nothing embarrasing about that.
I wonder if the no-hardware specific requirement is going to be like the Army's old ACR, they don't care how you do it, just meet the requirements. Ending up with some truly bizarre and ingenious designs.
i think the future will probably try to look like a video game. In video games you are the driver gunner and commander at the same time because you have all the information to make the decisions. making the job easy for the crew with either ai or information sharing system to allow the crew to have more data to fight effectively.
@@lewildknight9864 even in warthunder driving and scanning/gunning at the same time is pretty hard russians went for 3 man crew in T-14 because the commander still has to process all the information, if computers will do most of that for him as per these booklets he can double as the gunner and thus 2-man MBT is born and then maybe you can put 300 requirements in 50 tons
On the MGCS, Germany does kind of have experience with this in the BOXER. You have one main hull, but you can swap out the mission module in mere minutes with the scorpion crane assembly. Essentially you can turn a mortar carrier into a command post in mere minutes, or change from a troop transport to a medic for the troops you just dropped off and double back with some medics. Maybe even drop troops off and go back to equip the autocannon/atgm module.
That simple toggle switch would probably have to either have 60 or more wires going to it or be connected to something with 60 wires going to it. It would look like the pistol grip switches that we used for breaker control that had a contact stack 8 inches long to accommodate all the interlocks
The other yoke already has those 60 wires, and its ergonomically dogtrash. Not putting all that into a breaker box, and switching in the control output of the yoke thats already there is just pure laziness.
Until recently I used to follow almost all military developments as closely as possible. After watching this video and mostly scratching my head and going what? Huh? How? Where? I realize how much and how fast things are now changing, and how far out of touch I have become in such a short time.
Actually, I think I can answer the question regarding the...interesting warhead found on the shahed LOMs. Specifically I think that it's an anti-ship warhead: this sort of "spicy golfball" design is also found on some models of anti-ship missile, notably kormoran and C802 where the goal is to compromise as many watertight bulkheads as possible.
Great talk, thanks for sharing your thoughts. 20:20 They don't care what decade or century it is, someone gave them belted ammunition and hopefully filled their water jackets.
Those old machine guns were legendarily reliable. There's the story from 1916 when the 100th Company of the British Machine Gun Corps used their 10 Vickers guns to deliver sustained fire throughout a 12-hour action - they got through 100 spare barrels and fired 1 million rounds of ammunition without a single breakdown.
In the 60s when the British were retiring the Vickers for good, they did an endurance test where they set up one Vickers gun, a target, opened fire, and swapped barrels every 10,000 rounds. Seven days and 5 million rounds later and the gun was still in perfect working order.
Okay that’s wild! I’ve been brainstorming a table top game for tank combat and had this same question. I was literally thinking “maybe I could ask the Chieftain for his thoughts on what future tanks could look like” and then this video comes out! Fantastic, thank you sir!
I found the "what's old is new again" counter UAV point interesting and was reminded of when I was first playing toy helicopters. They don't like string in the rotors and it had the tendency to suck it up. I wonder how effective a persistent cloud of string would be against a drone swarm.
Chaff sounds like it'd be effective, or fine dust/sand launched into the air. Maybe using an air bursting 40mm shell from a standard grenade launcher for commonality.
@@NM-wd7kx *Ahem* Barrage balloons? That was literally the point of them; persistent bits of string that make it a bad day for any pilot that hits them (or more realistically, to deny that line of approach and force aircraft into your flak battery's area of effect)
This is nothing new apart from a possible modernization of the barrage balloon concept, there's also the existence of net shells. Literally a shotgun shell loaded with a net to entangle and knock down a drone
I work for a manufacturer that makes the turret slip rings for Abrams, Bradley, and other programs. Data rates are a major concern. The multi platform concept reminds me of a product we manufacturer, the RIwP (re configurable, integrated, weapons, platform). It's a turret that allows the mission profile of the vehicle to change as needed.
Honestly hearing from "folks who know" that the future needs of fighting vehicles was predicted and described by David Drake just warms the cockles of my 1980's teenage scifi heart. Having cut my teeth on military scifi by the likes of David Drake and Jerry Pournelle, Lois McMasters Bujold Roland Green etc I have seen the predicted future come closer to reality.
Maybe it's just because I've been away from TH-cam for a few days, but this is one of the most interesting videos that I've seen in a long time. The German concept really piques my curiosity. I would love to see a video going into greater detail about their requirements and the capabilities that they want to place on each hull type.
I’m always a little wary of German engineering. No matter what the task the Germans almost always take the most complicated, expensive, Rube Goldberg-esque path to fulfilling it.
I do research with machine learning and neural networks. Meta’s Segment Anything is basically an neural network designed to take an image and identify different parts of the image. It doesn’t identify what they are, it just detects different segments of the image. YOLO (“You Only Look Once”) I am less familiar with, but it is also a neural network designed to detect things within an image.
Intercepting suicide drones with outdated AT munitions duct-taped to said drone seems one potential good usage of image recognition, mainly because such technology is also very well versed in recognizing humans, in particular friendly humans and their identification emblems.
Something I would be worried about that is the effect of the AI basically seeing what it wants to see. If I am a foe of US, I would be taking a hard look at Afghanistan for lessons, and in such an environment, accurate, not approximite, but accurate identification is very important. But I can see perhaps how it could be used to say, count the number of drones or tanks if it's trained on how drones or tanks typically look (with consequent developments in camoflauge and EW being to try and adapt to look non-typical) and do so faster. After all, for example in modern chemistry NMR software, peaks are already quite accurately picked for you, and a decent amount of pattern matching can be done to help (certainly helps identify solvent peaks), but it's the margins where it breaks down where also most research is done - paramagnetic compound NMRs are still quite a problem.
@@filmandfirearms Not an issue which cannot not be overcome, one of many issues but the alternative is to ask yourself the question: How many dead tank crews do you want, before something is done about the suicide drones?
@@plebiusyou've got an invalid assumption about ChatGPT. Its design intent isn't to give answers, it's to generate humanistic prose as part of a conversational prompt system. It has no concept of truth, if your prompt doesn't match something in its training data it will grab the nearest thing to generate a plausible response.
This is super interesting, as a casual tank-media consumer i would have no idea that this is the way people envision the future of armored warfare, great video!
Given the current discussion, it sounds like design’s moving vehicles into the realm of Rhino, Razorback and Predator. Think of the Predator as a minimally manned MBT, using a common reliable chassis that has proven integration capability, and is ably equipped with various sensors and an AI…ahem ‘Machine Spirit’ that assists the 3 crewmen: Driver, Hull Crewman, Turret Crewman.
I can’t wait until someone builds a Baneblade, with sponson mounted anti-drone and ATGM team suppression weapons, a hull mounted anti-fortifications gun, and a rocket assist main gun.
@@federationprime Possibly not going to happen, because the Baneblade must weigh well over 120 metric tonnes and would sink into just about any terrain? I see things going more the "light, fast, cheap, minimally crewed" approach. But then I would, I used to play Orc Speed Freaks.
@@FelixstoweFoamForge I have a feeling minimally crewed is not likely for Ork vehicles given their ramshackle nature (unless there is a Machine Spirit that will tolerate a dilapidated condition). I imagine they have to actually have a decent crew inside to man a lot of their systems, aka JgPz 38t cramped
Presentations like these are why I always prefer a lot of the real stuff over what science fiction tries to create. Yeah, I am a sci-fi affectionado, but the amount of design & development that goes into the modern systems that we all awe over is very underappreciated in the mainstream. The future is certainly going to be a enlightening & frightening time.
Navies have largely managed it though. Go back a hundred years and you needed light and heavy cruisers, battleships and battlecruisers, destroyers and picket ships. These days a DDG does everything well enough.
Nowadays you have coastal patrol craft, sea control helicopter carriers, troop transports, fleet oilers, carriers, missile cruisers, hunter killer submarines, ballistic missile submarines, Landing ships, amphibious assault ships, and then I havnt even gotten into shit not all navies could make use of. The only time there ever was only one type of warahip I can think of is early classical antiquity where triremes were the biggest galleys they could build, and anything smaller was not worth building.
Re timeline: most underapreciate how hard “AI vision” is. Teslas been working on 1 problem (road driving) with the worlds best team, and it’s still taking over 5y.
Yeah I suspect accuracy will be a problem - esp friend/foe/civilian. But I do think we'll see very soon all tanks have some form of radar-AA style tracking but for thermal vision and some basic "autospotting", where the AI alerts gunner/commander when it sees a suspicious heat signature. Part of the worry would be the problem of making decisions with insuffiently accurate info. Let's say you implement a basic, currrent generation image recognition system. You can give the gunner all the warning on how the system is flawed and imcomplete, when the system flashes on the screen words "T-90 MBT", they're going to shoot, cause it's their life on the line and they'd not rather risk it.
I think part of the problem is that the people asking for the systems expect it to run on a laptop while the people developing the systems are building them on workstations. And when you're talking about a Tesla, running a workstation is asking a lot from a battery that also has to move a car.
Excellent SITREP on where thinking is at, relative to current perceived shortcomings and probable/practical paths for resolution of stated challenges. Keep it real if you cannot keep it simple! Be well & stay safe
ปีที่แล้ว +6
16:51 I am a tank interested German with my own relatively succesfull channel in Tanks and Tank Technology. I also follow budgeting and overall German attitudes towards defence Spending. And my gut feeling right now is, that that family ov vehicles Idear is nice, but will never happen, because it costs extra. Furthermore, from the limited Info I got about this program so far, I am also a bit fearfull that they want to integrate to many different new technologies into this program. To me, it looks a bit more like MBT-70, and not like Leopard 2. But hey, I am just a guy on the Internet and we willonly really know in a few decades.
Good thing is, we'll probably get 200+ A8/9 first. So if MGCS doesn't work out, we can add more of those, add C&C and sensors from MGCS and later upgrade to Panther turret with 130mm if needed. And if MGCS DOES work out, we can have a mixed fleet of 300 heavy Leos (200 active A9, 100 A7V in reserve depots) and 200+ lighter MGCS.
Die Säbelzahnmöwe 😀 My money would be on "It will be done, but 20+ later than expected." E.g. "Where are the fully autonomous cars we were promised??" Doable means doable but not easy.
Wow, you’re doing a fantastic job, idk German so I’ll try watching it w/subs, but keep it up 🇳🇿🇬🇧🇺🇸🇨🇦🇺🇦🇩🇪🇦🇺
ปีที่แล้ว
@@hollister2320 Thank you very much, ist nice to hear that. I am glad you can still follow via the subtitles. Unfortunatly doing videos on multiple languages is way to much work. But at some point I will try and also do some english Videos again :)
A couple suggestions for the comms-make-me-visible problem mentioned around 10:00: 1) laser based comms as mentioned by another commenter here 2) a reverse camera where the ccd in the focal plane is replaced with an led array, should give relatively low side leakage. 3) acoustic comms, whether through air or ground; whether above or below audible freqs. 4) using spread spectrum algorithms in any acoustic or EM channel to shape the comm signal to mimic the ambient noise profile.
Regarding the two joysticks solution, the hat/mini joystick on top of the primary joystick works well in gaming for me, if it could be made sturdy enough. The helicopter designers have already figured out how to add more controls to the stick that are simple enough for combat situations to supplement both inputs.
Makes me remember how big of an issue people made from the game controller, control system of the tragic sub the "Titan". Like, there's ALOT of problems with the thing, and the controls ain't one of them.
How much you can split out controls also depends on how much automation you have in the FCS. For example, you can have a stick/hat controlling your view system; you would sight on and designate a target, and the currently-selected weapon would slew and elevate to engage that target. This would require only a single control input to perform target designation (with additional options to allow the operator to select engagement parameters -- i.e., HEAT vs. APFSDS, or burst length), and a delivery system selection (main gun, coax, CROWS, 40mm grenade launcher, etc.); however, this requires that the system _behind_ the controls is that much more 'intelligent' to be able to handle the differing inputs from the operator. And you still require some sort of backup system, so that if your primary control system goes down, you can still use the weapon systems, albeit at a severely degraded capability, to allow you to disengage without being a sitting duck. So there would be more input mechanisms, probably less ergonomically laid out.
@@talonharibon8577eople latched on to that controller as of it was some smoking gun. I’m with you, it wasn’t. It was understandably goofy and the fact that it wasn’t hard wired is a little weird, but it was a fine solution from a theoretical/functional standpoint. Maybe the $15 Logitech knock off wasn’t the best choice, but game controller? Yeah game controller was a fine idea. Makes perfect sense. I’d still prefer a proper stick, but a game controller is a very rational control solution for many different applications.
@@seanmalloy7249 In that vein, imagine for a moment if you replaced the large and bulky CROWS mount with something coaxial to an enhanced CITV. Instead of having 3 controls (TC override, CITV, CROWS) you'd be back down to just two. And with full-hemispherical sensors backed by AI, you'd only have the override, and only as a backup in case the AI was being stupid or had become a casualty.
0:35 Ah, so we're moving more and more towards a EvE Online-esque design philosophy - using mods on a base chassis that has a certain number of hardpoints/'slots'. I sort of figured this would be the way of the future eventually, but it's nice to hear progress is being made within my lifetime.
I think the lesson of the most recent major conflict is that all the superfancy toys don't mean shit if they are too expensive to produce in sufficient numbers (which is a lot), maintain and risk losing. Weapons don't just need to be effective, but also cost-effective.
it's not a new lesson, it's also one of the biggest lessons of ww2. A war between roughly equal foes where nuclear weapons are not on the table devolves quickly into a war of attrition and those cases it's better to produce Shermans or T-34s over Panthers and Tigers.
A good example of that is Switchblade. While Switchblade 600 has proven itself in Ukraine as a better contemporary of the Lancet, the Switchblade 300 proved to be far too expensive compared to a simple CotS drone with a grenade or mortar shell hooked to the underside. When you're aiming at a tank you want something good, responsive and resistant to jamming. Turns out a simple drone with a smartphone camera and a frag grenade is all you need for soft targets.
IR buoys will probably be the only way to transmit on the battlefield without using other EM systems. Though you need things like maybe drones with their own IR/laser receivers/transmitters. Lots of energy/battery power to dedicate to it.
I like how US presenters use "effectors" as something new and revolutionary, while a Ukrainian soldier assigns the same word to a searchlight and a turret-mounted machine gun.
People confuse the novelty of using a new thing in a similar way, with the ingenuity of using something old in a new way. Technicals are basically 21st C tachanka, but they still make great anti drone platforms (I'm presuming that the spotlight is running off the mounting vehicle's electrical system).
"Effectors" is a less offensive (in terms of shooting people and killing them) term. It is like fighter presentation use effector instead of weapon for missile. Gotta make confusing terms to confused everyone.
@@jintsuubest9331 Partly, but killing is not the only way to win an engagement. If shining a search light at an area is enough to make an enemy retreat you have stalled an attack just as much as if you had killed them. Killing is an effective way of achieving your objectives, but it is not the objective. Using different words for soft effects vs 'hard' effects would be a mistake, because it would prejudice decision makers into deciding whether to go with a hard kill or soft kill early in the decision process, rather than picking the most appropriate tool for the job. They still use terms like kill chain, so I don't think sensitivity is the reason for this language.
@@jintsuubest9331 Not quite, because effectors includes inherently nonlethal stuff (like smoke launchers, spotlights, electronic warfare systems, active protection systems). It's a good term because it describes equipment that "does things that have effects" whereas sensors are "things that detect/track other things" but don't actually affect anything. It's doubly useful because in things like dedicated electronic warfare vehicles, "effectors" is all you have and none of them are lethal weapons or guns. In a heavily protected APC, the only weapon it might have is a single machine gun, but it might have a bunch of effectors in the form of ECM, active protection systems, smoke launchers, etc..
My main concern is ammo supply. I look back to Betio island and what the Marines did after the battle. They added as many rounds as they could fit into a M4A1 as they were running out before nightfall. Fast upload of entire tank loads of ammo needs to be considered as well as fast support from other platforms if there are ammo upload periods that need to be covered.
Borrowing the concept of "synsects" from Stanisla Lem, it should be possible to saturate the battlefield with small sensors checking audio, optics ranging from UV to IR and even submillimetre emissions. Once anything bigger than a rodent or sparrow moves, the components should talk to each other to triangulate the object, learning exact position and velocity in real time. Thus, the system would provide instantaneous intel on everything from drones to armoured vehicles to stealth aircraft. And preferably with passive sensors.
Micro drone swarms are already in testing. The problem is EWAR. You cant expect relyable communications between systems like these. Even a primitive enemy can just pump a diesel generators worth of energy into projecting white noise on all frequencies and coat the battlefield in IR absorbeant smoke to block your fancy point to point laser comms. They will be blinding and deafening themselves too, yes, but it is definitepy an area that gives the advantage to the one with less comms relyant systems in theater, meaning likley the less advanced party.
19 minutes in here, but I suppose one thing I would think of as a drawback to the new paradigm is this: "what happens when the enemy takes out one part of your diffused tactical capability?" it's great to have a combined unit that's greater than the sum of its parts. but if you lose one part or two, will your combined effectiveness still be superior to an enemy using equipment with a more all-rounder approach?
Except its the same armour that you get on a single vehicle, so instead of losing *All* your capabilty to a single lost vehicle you only loose some of your capability, capabilty you wouldn't even have in the first place if you only had 1 vehicle as there isn't enough space to put all your capability on 1 vehicle.
Greetings . It is clear that some of the debates are . - What kind of sensors: IIR / TV / UV / Radar, etc.. - BMS and LINK system that allows the maximum volume of data to have situational awareness and telemetry for weapons. - AI surveillance functions, classification, selection, prioritization, etc... - AI / Digital Twin for predictive maintenance and performance estimates.
Hammer's Slammers is a good example, but "Red One", A short story by Kevin Ikenberry ( title of the book is World Breakers, Super tanks to the stars) is most likely the capability they should strive for.
The talk about having the computer directly operate the machine and having the crewmembers instead be managing the computer is a cool concept that frequently turns up in sci-fi. For example in Red Alert 3 video game, the some of the Empire's vehicles are stated to be "pilot-assisted robots", the implication that the AI is controlling the vehicle and the human crewmember is just overseeing the AI. The diagram at 17:31 sums it up perfectly.
The obvious conclusion is that the human is just there as a safeguard. Ultimately we will remove the human to make the vehicles smaller and install a remote kill switch. And one day we will bitterly regret what we created.
"What is old, is new again" I'd really be interested in an in-depth deep-dive on this idea, looking at all the lessons that were learnt and then forgotten and then re-learnt again. Especially if you can get other experts in. Some things that spring to mind is the WW1 Snipers being forgotten until WW2, the current Ukraine conflict etc.
Snipers aren't that useful now. Combat keeps getting closer and closer, a simple designated marksman is often far more useful. This isn't some revolutionary piece of information, most armies realized it in the 70s and made structural changes accordingly
@@filmandfirearms Depends where the combat is - if it's in the middle east, there's still distance. And NATO snipers got a LOOOOOT of time in too, stories of like 5 or 6 sniper times lined up on a roof top taking em' out all day. Part of the decision to move on from 5.56 to the new 6.8 is effective range too, given the pats two decades spent in the middle east. Combat isn't getting closer and closer, we just went from a middle eastern combat zone to your classic european-style slaughter each other session lol
Definitely. One example is 1960's air forces going, "oh, we've got long-range missiles, dogfighting's out, so we don't need a gun". Couple of years later; "whoops". Modern equivalent; "We've got stealth, we don't need a dogfighter, OR a gun". Hopefully they won't end up saying; "Oh dear, his planes have got stealth too, our missiles won't track and we've forgotten how to dogfight. And we have no gun." When Doctrine and Reality meet, reality tends to win. And reality is usually pretty messy. Which is possibly why Ukraine is using truck-mounted WW1 mg vs drones.
@@FelixstoweFoamForgeWhat you're saying makes sense, but the not needing a gun is largely correct. The US Navy made their Phantoms work over Vietnam without a gun. It's why the Navy never got a Naval Phantom with an integrated gun. It wasn't the highest priority, compared to the gun of the USAF's Phantom.
as a military stuff nerd myself and someone with a vivid imagination, I like these sorts of projects a lot, though it's kind of disheartnening when I think about how my consepts will never be as good as the stuff already out there.
I believe the concern is about secure enough wireless communications. Would be a bit embarrassing if a particularly strong jammer made your entire fleet of super MBTs blind.
[laughs in insurgents with off-the-shelf equipment hacking your SatLinked drone] ... yeah, drones are likely to be a dead end unless we get AGIs within the next two decades. That or Horizon Zero Dawn's quantum entanglement encryption.
Throw enough kilowatts into a jammer and you have problems. Hackers should also be considered. Currently best to consider manned with lots of automation and a manual override.
The point regarding "show intelligence, instead of information" is one of the recurring challenges for AI. The human brain does some pretty amazing things with incomplete, contradictory and sparse information. A computer can return an "answer" much faster than a person in many cases, but the quality of that "answer" is often much more important, provided the speed of getting there is not unreasonable for the situation. I can imagine that's the conceptual challenge for AI for turning information into intelligence within a combat scenario. The quality of that intelligence assessment is tricky to make high enough to compete with experienced, well trained crew.
the KF 51 panther is a monster and yet it's the best tank that shows how we could reduce weight while still adding stuff to it like APS, etc but still no matter how much we manage to build stuff into the design it's still gonna be heavier tho that also depends if militaries will rely more on researching into better materials like metal foam or electric armor
Amazing how the Army keeps going over the same ground since the late 80s Heavy Force Modernization program. With little to show for it since the late 80s.
So many topics in the video, great stuff. In "Universal Architecture" the Swedes have done a great job on the CV90 as it was designed to easy intergrade a new equipment and weapon systems.
Im curious about the radial shaped charge. Are they heat or EFP. They are obviously to increase hit chance, but im curious if there is an impact fuse and its too allow some chance of kill on a near miss, or if its for a top attack/air burst that doesnt require much precision. My guess if the first one. That there is still a forward facing heat charge, and if it doesnt get a direct hit one of those 18 extra charges might do something to something near the impact site. (I think if it was top attack only they would all point down).
Judging by the amount of equipment those drones have knocked out, it would seem that Iran's system working well. Having all those charges should mean no matter what the angle or location of impact there will be significant damage. The proof is in the video footage we see.
High Ecplosive Anti Tank and Explosively Formed Penetrator are two phrases for the same thing. Cumulative shaped charges. And the warhead is an anti ship warhead, designed to create a starburst of penetrators, perforating as many watertight sections as possible.
@egoalter1276 The term EFP implies different performance characteristics when compared to a traditional HEAT warhead so I think the distinction is worth while even if one category encompasses the other. Its like asking if something is square or rectangular, the answer that "squares are rectangles" isnt helpful
17:35 I like how the only human part of the process is “man-in-the-loop”. In other words the robot fighting vehicle does everything and you have a single crewman inside pushing a “confirm” button every time the robot wants to fire a weapon. Presumably the crewman can stop the vehicle from firing if the vehicle makes an obvious mistake, but on what basis is he making this decision? There’s also the concept from General Dynamics where you have a computer analyzing raw information and only informing the vehicle commander of its final conclusion, so as to reduce cognitive load. If you put these two concepts together, I submit that this does not equip the vehicle commander to assess whether or not a mistake has been made by the autonomous system. If the autonomous systems are good enough, and an army that uses them ends up in a serious enough conflict that they have to make hard decisions about limited manpower, it is probably inevitable that the “man in the loop” will be shortcircuited and removed entirely. In other words The Simpsons was right: “…most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
You kind of worry that these systems will be too complex and resource intensive to maintain and it may ultimately turn out that you need to balance both a shock and awe system with as much overmatch as you can manage for the initial stages of a conflict but after that you need something simple to maintain and cheap to produce once your into the manufacturing race part of a conflict, something that maximises mass while minimising cost. I.e. stuff for the first 3-6 months and stuff for the following years, for example the long range, long endurance, multi-sensory surveillance drone carrying a dozen hellfires that costs over $100m vs the commercial quadcopter carrying grenades may only cost a few hundred dollars.
@@zachv1942 But with four platforms for every previous platform each featuring dozens of unique circuit boards, thousands of chips, etc.. The maintenance logistics and manufacturing procurements chains will be enormous. Your not just considering mechanical spares and discrete electronic modules anymore, these are integrated systems each reliant on the functioning of a multitude of subsystems. Every additional layer of system complexity you add increases the chance of malfunction or failure exponentially. Its like the difference in maintaining a prop plane vs a modern fighter jet.
@watcherzero5256 I worked at L3Harris. I know a thing or two. Alot of the new stuff is coming out and will automatically go to vehicles once built. If the US Govt foots the Expansion Cost in Contract it will get done n
@@zachv1942 Yeah my issue isnt with peacetime production, its about sustainment during conflict. According to L3Harris CFO last year the company was breaking apart its own radios to recover chips for other products because of shortages.
Why make it easy on the bad guys? Ukraine could’ve converted to fully western standard if just half of the surplus equipment Europeans stored was, well firstly stored correctly but second not sold off or cut into metal, I sincerely doubt it saved that much money. Hopefully they’ll learn a lesson from this war about attrition stocks.
Well honestly having an ai recomend a target can be very usefull, most often in a case when like an abrams gunner sees 2 t90's and that gunner aims at the closest one. But then the ai comes in the picture: the t90 further away is ready to fire i recomend getting it instead of the closer one. But one thing it must not do is take over blindly and be the gunner itself.
This future is all mine I am 29 next week. Everything is faster now, it was seen in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 1 and half year before Ukraine. Communication, see first kill first and faster decisions. Drone augmentation and even going beyond tactical to strategic field( bombing deep in Russia for example) but not seen as much, for now.
I wonder how Drake would have conceived BOOSTER had he started the series now in the 2020s instead of the 1970s... After watching another video discussing how 'battlefield transparency' hinders concentration of Ukrainian forces in their current offensive, I'm really interested in how they are and will deal with the heavy Russian EW and drone activity.
I like the German way of thinking for the future, assume the vehicle will get heavier over time and spec it for that from the get go. Same with the targeting, have the soldier decide what to shoot with an AI/computer handling the remaining tasks. I'm not so sure on what to think about the use of AI though. On one hand AI is much better at any well specified task than a human, but on the other hand they are much worse at more complicated less well defined tasks. I would like to see AI engage in armor development, it is something difficult and throwing a bunch at computers at it might result in lower weight armor. They are already doing this on very expensive sports cars where AI designs parts of the chassis and suspension in weird shapes that are much lighter and material efficient than conventional components. One of the problems we currently have with AI's like ChatGPT is that they are too broad. They are expected to provide answers not factcheck, so when asked a question they'll provide an answer regardless of whether the answer they're giving is true. Essentially ChatGPT decided that lying or making things up was the solution, unfortunately due to how ChatGPT is created we can't really change that behavior. For target recognition/detection though that should be a well enough defined task for AI to do without much troubles.
I also like how the germans look into the future and decide to make the tank future proof (when it will get heavier) but i dont think the solution of splitting specs to different vehicles is a good idea.
It's great they can develop a list of 300 requirements for s future vehicle, but when was the last time they actually won a war? Simplicity tends to do better in reality.
@@jonprince3237 From a software development standpoint I like that the German army has managed to come up with a decent list of requirements, but I agree that a list of requirements that might (read likely will, see the multiple vehicles for multiple roles) conflict with each other is not necessarily the answer. If you ask me, I still consider the Israeli Merkava the 'best' (for lack of a better term) tank at the moment. For the simple reason that the vehicle is designed and evolved from experience, not from a bloated list of requirements that army high command thinks they might need in the future. That said, I think they are moving in somewhat the right direction. If Germany manages to make a modular enough system, then development of any specific upgrades they did not foresee should be comparatively trivial.
Bigger calibre, dedicated remote station against drones (could be .50 BMG to 50mm), hybrid or pure electric propulsion, coil gun and ETC for more rounds without propellant or more efficient propellant
In the beginning of the war Russians tried to move fast and were stopped mostly by artillery. When there is a Frontline which is saturated with men, reinforced and mined... You can maneuver all you want, in some area distant to front line...
From my time in an armored battalion`s recon platoon in Germany in the seventies, since armored vehicles are so expensive to operate, (and I had no idea how terrible our M114A1E1 were considered, they did have one advantage, a huge amount of interior space per crewman) which can only be worse now, it would make sense to have enough bicycles (OneWheels?) for a section, or the crews for two vehicles at a time, plus a pickup to carry an opforce and cutout miniatures of various vehicles, etc to spot, to practice their skills. Things like calling in spotting reports or fire missions (something as simple as someone being a flag holder would help judge distances for calling in corrections) from the brigade artillery batteries, which of the two responses to use when ambushed, bridge capacities, spotting mine fields, what distances are actually practical when leap frogging, and just plain learning the topography of the area surrounding the base. I used to think the photos of pre-WW2 exercises using simulated tanks were silly, but most of the skills involved really are not directly connected to the vehicle.
For drills relying on analog systems, sure but the new integration of digital target information is spread across different nodes with the correct information the first time. The operators are going to be just deciding whether to drive or pull the trigger maybe not even target priority.
Basically there will be 3 main vehicles, one with a laser gun for close-in defence against small drones, one with 57mm aa/support gun with programmable munition for direct fire support and air defence up to 10 kilometers and an armored 120mm mortar/drone launcher
My ears perked up at the mention of Yolo. An intern and I were messing around with it using the most powerful gaming laptop we could find at the time. The only thing that comes to mind is, feed the model a camera image, and ask it how confident it is that there's a Russian tank in it. I'm sure they've found some brilliant applications, Ukrainians are highly educated.
Always happy to see a new vid from you. About the two man crews... will they be able to maintain their vehicle adequately? The LCS's were designed with a minimum crew and they are perpetually exhausted.
First, 26 year tanker, not 26 years old, 26 years on tanks, next Sci-Fi writer, and have met David Drake. At our current tech level a two man tank is absolutely possible. Loader is not needed. AI could do all of the Gunner' duties. With self driving cars and trucks coming soon, the driver might be next. What I am thinking is two man crew with interchangeable duties so technically it could be operated by one man.
While we often mock video games for giving us unrealistic depictions of real world conditions and vehicles, I think they can actually teach us a lot about how to design next generation vehicles. For example, I can tell you for a fact that a warthunder player operating an entire vehicle all by themselves is a much more effective fighting unit that 3 people operating the same vehicle in something a little more realistic like Squad or Arma, and certainly more than in real life. While we normally focus on how this is an unrealistic depiction of real world vehicles, I think a lot of those unrealistic elements could certainly be made real with modern technology.
Only for standards and architecture geeks:
Current US common standard is GCIA: [G]round Combat Systems [C]ommon [I]nfrastructure [A]rchitecture, now in version 2.0
Many European countries are using NGVA: [N]ATO [G]eneric [V]ehicle [A]rchitecture
And no, they aren't compatible; NGVA built and expanded upon a prior US standard (VICTORY) which was primarily for network/C4ISR integration; GCIA is a broader and more comprehensive standard than NGVA and uses a number of elements of an aviation common standard called FACE while building for the future.
That seems silly. There isn't even backwards compatibility? Does that mean that decoders need to be used if an item designed for one NATO country's vehicle is offered to another? (I'm thinking here particularly of, say, an upgrade that Poland might want to add to Leopard and M1)
@@TheChieftainsHatch There is a measure of backwards compatibility at the subsystem level; that allows some components to be installed across multiple types or generations of vehicles. But full-on compatibility isn't necessary; we simply don't share components at the LRU/LRM level that way, nor has the history of combined nation development in combat vehicles been particularly successful. The question is one of "what standards need to be common to interoperate?" Those standards -- information exchange in C4ISR elements -- are largely the same (GCIA still uses many of the C4ISR standards used in VICTORY and are carrying forward in the the new CMOSS standard).
Every nation tends to want to use their own C4I system anyway, so when things are sold abroad it's pretty standard to adapt those things; the differences between NGVA and GCIA won't significantly challenge that -- and frankly future suppliers will start to align to GCIA anyway as the volume of demand far favors that standard for the future.
@@glenndean6 IIRC Think Defence had a very good explanation of the UK GVA, and others on his site.
I tried looking them up, but didn't find anything cocrete on NGVA, but it seems to have been updated February this year (as STANAG 4754). So I'd love to se a clarification, wich versions you where comparing against each other.
@@TheChieftainsHatch That reminds me of what Ive read about aircraft. Other NATO countries were complaining that their aircraft used the american standards for networking and Link-16, yet the US just made their own "proprietary" upgrade. F22 and 35 can of course work with and support other planes, but have superior networking capabilities due to that.
No reason european aircraft couldnt have that, America just kinda screwed them over. Im sure thatll help standardization and trust in America. Especially combined with that story about american spy-software used in europe having backdoors to spy on europeans, specifically the eurofighter program (probably to use that data in foreign bids)...
I want to suggest we name ever item on any new AFV as a "M-1" not by doctrine, but just to piss Perun off.😁
I can second this motion.
Hyuck, Hyuck, Hyuck
@@TheChieftainsHatch Don't forget the electronic warfare variant the EM-1, the mobile casualty treatment Emergency Hospital EHM-1, the self propelled howitzer Enhanced Gun, Howitzer EGHM-1,...
Here, here, cobber
@@jackbartlet1447 You mean the emergency mobile digital doctor, the EMH-1, aka the Doctor.
When you turn it on, it says "Please state the nature of your medical emergency".
When you showed the APCs beside that Abrams my jaw dropped. Those things are literally larger then a freaking tank!!!
theyre some tall bois haha
Tanks are suprisingly small in person! Wait until you see an SPG - the british AS90 is massive up close!
If you care about their condition on the receiving end of the supply chain, humans make for very bulky cargo.
Humans take up lots o' space. So vehicles designed to carry many of them are going to be quite large.
7-8 infantrymen requires considerably more space than racks of ammo.
I'd honestly love a Chieftain podcast, even if it's just random questions, tangents, stories from his life. 1000% here for it
I use to convert the Chieftain QnA videos to an MP3 file. Nowadays I just listen to them with TH-cam premium. It makes for great listening.
Just listen to the videos... Why does everything have to be a podcast?
Dudes in an office: "The future of warfare will be fully automated space magic."
Dudes in the field: "Maxim goes dakka-dakka-dakka."
Some times… the reverse occurs
the fancy gadgets never replace the old stuff fully but instead augment them, the mortar has been a staple for over a hundred years but now you can watch the shell land and make adjustments. and of course a machine gun will always be needed for some good ol' dakka because there is never enough. (always perpetually between a lot and not enough)
@chazbazza the mortar didn't replace the cannon.... we still use cannons and mortars. the mortar has existed as long as gunpowder has been used in european warfare.
drone munitions wont replace things like the mortar because they do different jobs from one another, what the drone has replaced is binoculars and forward observers. the drone is the new eyes of artillery and drones carrying bombs, missiles or even little grenades have only replaced the aircraft that used to risk life and limb to deliver those old systems onto a target in the form of close air support.
@chazbazza missiles are essentially arrows, beefy and way fancier arrows
@chazbazza your examples are incorrect. Archers, ballistic, cannon, and mortars all fulfilled different battlefield roles
As a retired Australian RAAC officer I find the future of armour both terrifying and exciting in equal measure. Great vid, wonderful analysis .... thanks mate 💯
I guess a major perk of retirement is that least you won't have to be seating in a tank which comms are getting jammed, that has losts its optics and sensors to a laser strike, that is now trackless due to some smart sensor fuzed remotely deployed AT mine and who is about to be finished off by an FPV drone piloted by an 18 year old private that may have very well T-bagged you on some multiplayer game before the war.
That Shaheed warhead is an anti-ship munition. Lots of EFPs designed to punch lots of holes to make flooding harder to stop. Very similar to what the original exocet used back in the 70s. I suspect those warheads were originally intended for launch against a certain navy that Iran has had run-ins in the past with.
Not specifically. The Shaheed is a bootleg of the IDF Harpy drone, which was an SEAD system intended to hunt down armored radar systems. So, you're 100% right that it works well against ships, but that is an expansion of the initial purpose. It just happens that a swarming long-range munition that has AP warheads to take out armored vehicles has a TON of military uses that go beyond the initial mandate (like how Patriot started as an anti-plane system).
You mean the USN, I presume? Israel’s navy isn’t terribly large & it’s heaviest hitters are it’s submarines.
@@grahamstrouse1165 You misunderstand. It was the IDF (IAI specifically) that made the Harpy for land and air SEAD operations. You are right that the IDF hasn't had much of a chance to use it at sea, as their navy is pretty small (and their Harpy drones would be launched by ground-based platforms in a naval war, as they have a 1,000km range). The recent nautical use of this sort of drone has largely been by Iran, with their Shahed drones in the Arabian sea. Even their bootlegs are effective in disrupting ships and, in high enough volumes, could take down naval vessels.
Basically, Israel made it for SEAD, it turned out to be effective in a huge range of operations, Iran copied it, and then used their copy against ships off their coast, as well as in Bahrain's territorial waters.
It's insane seeing the futuristic warfare planning of the Germans & US displayed alongside UKE using searchlights and dual-maxims, while both seeming extremely viable
Well.
I suspect the US/German answer is going to involve 360 degree IR/VIS coverage coupled to AI to detect drones/missiles.
Coupled with a Hardkill system to take out fast moving missiles.
And a Fast firing rifle caliber MG on a remote turret to take out drones ( and other applicable targets obviously ).
MG3 redux anyone ?
I also suspect something like that will be needed for any artillery platoon operating near the front.
The Poles recently showed off a Point defense weapon based on a 12.7mm minigun for local defense.
Quite right, and you can add ever proliferating directed energy weapons of various power levels in combination with ever more sophisticated electronic warfare at every organisational level of combat forces.
The maxim is still a really good gun. It's just very heavy for what it is.
@@samoldfield5220 Heavy for what it is? That's like saying the MkIV was slow for what it was.
They’re Garbage Show Pieces
Interesting stuff. My career was in machine-tool design, and the single most difficult part is deciding what you actually need. Keep the people who design the system accountable for how well it actually works and you've got a pretty good start.
You know, I'm starting to understand how those crusty old surface admirals felt in 1942 when they first had radar explained to them.
Also, I know you don't like drones in tanks, but maybe a laser communication system is a good reason to have them. Each platoon launches a drone that acts as an "airborne hub" for a laser system, and each platoon's drones talk to each other to share information. If the drone is shot down, another tank launches a replacement. Probably a bad idea, but you never know.
A laser-relay drone? Noice.
Not sure if it's fiesable, but in a "
platoon-of-300-requirements-vehicles replacing one tank" scenario, where is the limit?
While, a "hornets nest" vehicle at company/btg level may be better?
yeah and after the start of this imagined super war how long till we are strapping rolls of telephone wire to peoples backs and saying "go that way till you find company hq
@@fabiogalletti8616 I suppose the limit is "being able to fulfill the role of a tank platoon while operating autonomously". A centralized system/vehicle would be vulnerable to it being taken down, and having ultra-specialized vehicles would add a large delay while said vehicle is requested.
If they are to utilize a common chassis, their smallest size will be constrained by the largest needed weapon. If one of the vehicles has to carry an artillery gun, it needs a large chassis. And if your chassis is large, it would be a waste to mount small weapons/systems on the same chassis.
Another constraint will be a price/weight. 20 hyper-specialized large vehicles will likely be more expensive to field than 5 more generalist ones. And weapons being cheap lets you deploy more of them.
I think the issue is less “drones in tanks” and more “drone operators in tanks”. If the drone is sufficiently automated and has a minimal risk of exposing the tank’s location assigning one or more drones to it makes a degree of sense. It’s when you have a full position wasted on something a command vehicle can do where it starts to be a problem.
Wow, this was exciting. I had no idea MGCS would be so ambitious. I just saw the Leclerc turret slammed on a leopard chassis and thought "here we go".
I love these subject-based videos. I like seeing how the technical parts of a machine interface with its use, or doctrine you could say.
My mind went to Keith Laumer and BOLO at the 3:00 mark, but the more I think about it, the more sense citing David Drake's Hammer's Slammers series makes to me. Particularly the networked air defense using zero-time-of-flight weaponry, and the emphasis on leveraging lots of sensor technologies to tilt the odds in favor of the armored units when facing the comparatively low-tech threat of infantry with buzzbombs.
Bolos are nice but for me it was Slammers since the first time the Base contacted the Platoon and had them ground and hold for the FC computers to take control of the 20cm main guns to vape incoming missiles/sats; that was sick.
Also, got to love the Chieftain went to discussing Booster, nice. Always good to see another Slammers fan. :)
Every video you put out on this subject makes me rewrite my MilSciFi setting. I'm not up-to-date with the military or industry conceptions of what is coming next so these are life savers.
Same for me but going into the past. I’m working on the third book in my ‘Republic of Texas Navy’ series (early WW2) and having to figure out what the Texas Army / Marine Corps are equipped with and how they should use it. Been binging videos from The Chieftain and the Tank Museum to help sort that out.
@@DABrock-authorRepublic of Texas in WW2? So it was cleaning up US then?
I don't have the same problem, because I'm not sure what exactly would be so different about 8 years from now.
It's the reason why my sci fi setting is either far future, post-apocalypse, or the past. Guessing next gen equipment within a few generations demands hard sci fi and, imo, it's embarrassing to get it wrong when the real world reaches the time of the setting.
@@imgvillasrc1608 To me that's part of the charm of old sci-fi stories, getting to see how people of their time extrapolated the current technology, they knew about and how they imagined possible new technologies. Stories are always a product of their time, I see nothing embarrasing about that.
I wonder if the no-hardware specific requirement is going to be like the Army's old ACR, they don't care how you do it, just meet the requirements. Ending up with some truly bizarre and ingenious designs.
i think the future will probably try to look like a video game. In video games you are the driver gunner and commander at the same time because you have all the information to make the decisions. making the job easy for the crew with either ai or information sharing system to allow the crew to have more data to fight effectively.
lmao, feature warfare is just gonna be warthunder, oh may the snail bless us
@@lewildknight9864😁😁😁
@@lewildknight9864 even in warthunder driving and scanning/gunning at the same time is pretty hard
russians went for 3 man crew in T-14 because the commander still has to process all the information, if computers will do most of that for him as per these booklets he can double as the gunner and thus 2-man MBT is born and then maybe you can put 300 requirements in 50 tons
On the MGCS, Germany does kind of have experience with this in the BOXER. You have one main hull, but you can swap out the mission module in mere minutes with the scorpion crane assembly. Essentially you can turn a mortar carrier into a command post in mere minutes, or change from a troop transport to a medic for the troops you just dropped off and double back with some medics. Maybe even drop troops off and go back to equip the autocannon/atgm module.
That simple toggle switch would probably have to either have 60 or more wires going to it or be connected to something with 60 wires going to it. It would look like the pistol grip switches that we used for breaker control that had a contact stack 8 inches long to accommodate all the interlocks
The other yoke already has those 60 wires, and its ergonomically dogtrash. Not putting all that into a breaker box, and switching in the control output of the yoke thats already there is just pure laziness.
Until recently I used to follow almost all military developments as closely as possible. After watching this video and mostly scratching my head and going what? Huh? How? Where? I realize how much and how fast things are now changing, and how far out of touch I have become in such a short time.
That was one of the most interesting presentations on armored warfare I have seen in the last couple of years.
So much things to think about.
Actually, I think I can answer the question regarding the...interesting warhead found on the shahed LOMs. Specifically I think that it's an anti-ship warhead: this sort of "spicy golfball" design is also found on some models of anti-ship missile, notably kormoran and C802 where the goal is to compromise as many watertight bulkheads as possible.
Great talk, thanks for sharing your thoughts. 20:20 They don't care what decade or century it is, someone gave them belted ammunition and hopefully filled their water jackets.
I mean, sustained fire, right?
Those old machine guns were legendarily reliable. There's the story from 1916 when the 100th Company of the British Machine Gun Corps used their 10 Vickers guns to deliver sustained fire throughout a 12-hour action - they got through 100 spare barrels and fired 1 million rounds of ammunition without a single breakdown.
In the 60s when the British were retiring the Vickers for good, they did an endurance test where they set up one Vickers gun, a target, opened fire, and swapped barrels every 10,000 rounds. Seven days and 5 million rounds later and the gun was still in perfect working order.
Okay that’s wild! I’ve been brainstorming a table top game for tank combat and had this same question. I was literally thinking “maybe I could ask the Chieftain for his thoughts on what future tanks could look like” and then this video comes out! Fantastic, thank you sir!
Hammers slammers……David Drake, read all his books years ago. Interesting to see him mentioned in a discussion about future armoured vehicles.
Perfect timing, just got a brew on!
I found the "what's old is new again" counter UAV point interesting and was reminded of when I was first playing toy helicopters. They don't like string in the rotors and it had the tendency to suck it up. I wonder how effective a persistent cloud of string would be against a drone swarm.
Chaff sounds like it'd be effective, or fine dust/sand launched into the air.
Maybe using an air bursting 40mm shell from a standard grenade launcher for commonality.
@@NM-wd7kx *Ahem* Barrage balloons? That was literally the point of them; persistent bits of string that make it a bad day for any pilot that hits them (or more realistically, to deny that line of approach and force aircraft into your flak battery's area of effect)
@@greendoodily could do, but I figure they're going to make for big targets for small drones
This is nothing new apart from a possible modernization of the barrage balloon concept, there's also the existence of net shells. Literally a shotgun shell loaded with a net to entangle and knock down a drone
@@filmandfirearms Anti-Drone Party Poppers.
I work for a manufacturer that makes the turret slip rings for Abrams, Bradley, and other programs. Data rates are a major concern. The multi platform concept reminds me of a product we manufacturer, the RIwP (re configurable, integrated, weapons, platform). It's a turret that allows the mission profile of the vehicle to change as needed.
Honestly hearing from "folks who know" that the future needs of fighting vehicles was predicted and described by David Drake just warms the cockles of my 1980's teenage scifi heart.
Having cut my teeth on military scifi by the likes of David Drake and Jerry Pournelle, Lois McMasters Bujold Roland Green etc I have seen the predicted future come closer to reality.
Maybe it's just because I've been away from TH-cam for a few days, but this is one of the most interesting videos that I've seen in a long time. The German concept really piques my curiosity. I would love to see a video going into greater detail about their requirements and the capabilities that they want to place on each hull type.
This is very much work in progress. Might take a few more decades?
I’m always a little wary of German engineering. No matter what the task the Germans almost always take the most complicated, expensive, Rube Goldberg-esque path to fulfilling it.
I do research with machine learning and neural networks. Meta’s Segment Anything is basically an neural network designed to take an image and identify different parts of the image. It doesn’t identify what they are, it just detects different segments of the image. YOLO (“You Only Look Once”) I am less familiar with, but it is also a neural network designed to detect things within an image.
Intercepting suicide drones with outdated AT munitions duct-taped to said drone seems one potential good usage of image recognition, mainly because such technology is also very well versed in recognizing humans, in particular friendly humans and their identification emblems.
Something I would be worried about that is the effect of the AI basically seeing what it wants to see. If I am a foe of US, I would be taking a hard look at Afghanistan for lessons, and in such an environment, accurate, not approximite, but accurate identification is very important. But I can see perhaps how it could be used to say, count the number of drones or tanks if it's trained on how drones or tanks typically look (with consequent developments in camoflauge and EW being to try and adapt to look non-typical) and do so faster. After all, for example in modern chemistry NMR software, peaks are already quite accurately picked for you, and a decent amount of pattern matching can be done to help (certainly helps identify solvent peaks), but it's the margins where it breaks down where also most research is done - paramagnetic compound NMRs are still quite a problem.
@@LazyLifeIFreak Then you've got the problem of it shooting at birds because it thinks they're drones
@@filmandfirearms Not an issue which cannot not be overcome, one of many issues but the alternative is to ask yourself the question:
How many dead tank crews do you want, before something is done about the suicide drones?
@@plebiusyou've got an invalid assumption about ChatGPT. Its design intent isn't to give answers, it's to generate humanistic prose as part of a conversational prompt system. It has no concept of truth, if your prompt doesn't match something in its training data it will grab the nearest thing to generate a plausible response.
Hi, I have not been here for at least 1 year. Hi, Chieftain ❤❤❤
Welcome back!
This is super interesting, as a casual tank-media consumer i would have no idea that this is the way people envision the future of armored warfare, great video!
If anyone asks Chieftan how to design the tank of the future, I guarantee it will be easy to adjust the track tension.
A fair assumption
what a diplomatic way of saying that he "missed" or "didn't understand" the classified stuff ;)
Given the current discussion, it sounds like design’s moving vehicles into the realm of Rhino, Razorback and Predator. Think of the Predator as a minimally manned MBT, using a common reliable chassis that has proven integration capability, and is ably equipped with various sensors and an AI…ahem ‘Machine Spirit’ that assists the 3 crewmen: Driver, Hull Crewman, Turret Crewman.
Why do these words sound familiar?
I can’t wait until someone builds a Baneblade, with sponson mounted anti-drone and ATGM team suppression weapons, a hull mounted anti-fortifications gun, and a rocket assist main gun.
@@federationprime Possibly not going to happen, because the Baneblade must weigh well over 120 metric tonnes and would sink into just about any terrain? I see things going more the "light, fast, cheap, minimally crewed" approach. But then I would, I used to play Orc Speed Freaks.
@@FelixstoweFoamForge I have a feeling minimally crewed is not likely for Ork vehicles given their ramshackle nature (unless there is a Machine Spirit that will tolerate a dilapidated condition). I imagine they have to actually have a decent crew inside to man a lot of their systems, aka JgPz 38t cramped
@@aqui1ifer Nah. One Ork to make it go fasta, one Ork to make it go dakka. Wot more ya need?
Presentations like these are why I always prefer a lot of the real stuff over what science fiction tries to create. Yeah, I am a sci-fi affectionado, but the amount of design & development that goes into the modern systems that we all awe over is very underappreciated in the mainstream. The future is certainly going to be a enlightening & frightening time.
Another cool video Chieftain, thank you.
For how many hundreds of years have we tried the 1 adaptable platform to suit all needs, and how few the times such a platform has found success.
Navies have largely managed it though. Go back a hundred years and you needed light and heavy cruisers, battleships and battlecruisers, destroyers and picket ships. These days a DDG does everything well enough.
Nowadays you have coastal patrol craft, sea control helicopter carriers, troop transports, fleet oilers, carriers, missile cruisers, hunter killer submarines, ballistic missile submarines, Landing ships, amphibious assault ships, and then I havnt even gotten into shit not all navies could make use of.
The only time there ever was only one type of warahip I can think of is early classical antiquity where triremes were the biggest galleys they could build, and anything smaller was not worth building.
Re timeline: most underapreciate how hard “AI vision” is. Teslas been working on 1 problem (road driving) with the worlds best team, and it’s still taking over 5y.
Yeah I suspect accuracy will be a problem - esp friend/foe/civilian. But I do think we'll see very soon all tanks have some form of radar-AA style tracking but for thermal vision and some basic "autospotting", where the AI alerts gunner/commander when it sees a suspicious heat signature. Part of the worry would be the problem of making decisions with insuffiently accurate info. Let's say you implement a basic, currrent generation image recognition system. You can give the gunner all the warning on how the system is flawed and imcomplete, when the system flashes on the screen words "T-90 MBT", they're going to shoot, cause it's their life on the line and they'd not rather risk it.
I think part of the problem is that the people asking for the systems expect it to run on a laptop while the people developing the systems are building them on workstations. And when you're talking about a Tesla, running a workstation is asking a lot from a battery that also has to move a car.
Excellent SITREP on where thinking is at, relative to current perceived shortcomings and probable/practical paths for resolution of stated challenges.
Keep it real if you cannot keep it simple! Be well & stay safe
16:51 I am a tank interested German with my own relatively succesfull channel in Tanks and Tank Technology. I also follow budgeting and overall German attitudes towards defence Spending. And my gut feeling right now is, that that family ov vehicles Idear is nice, but will never happen, because it costs extra.
Furthermore, from the limited Info I got about this program so far, I am also a bit fearfull that they want to integrate to many different new technologies into this program. To me, it looks a bit more like MBT-70, and not like Leopard 2.
But hey, I am just a guy on the Internet and we willonly really know in a few decades.
Good thing is, we'll probably get 200+ A8/9 first.
So if MGCS doesn't work out, we can add more of those, add C&C and sensors from MGCS and later upgrade to Panther turret with 130mm if needed.
And if MGCS DOES work out, we can have a mixed fleet of 300 heavy Leos (200 active A9, 100 A7V in reserve depots) and 200+ lighter MGCS.
Die Säbelzahnmöwe 😀
My money would be on "It will be done, but 20+ later than expected."
E.g. "Where are the fully autonomous cars we were promised??"
Doable means doable but not easy.
Wow, you’re doing a fantastic job, idk German so I’ll try watching it w/subs, but keep it up 🇳🇿🇬🇧🇺🇸🇨🇦🇺🇦🇩🇪🇦🇺
@@hollister2320 Thank you very much, ist nice to hear that. I am glad you can still follow via the subtitles. Unfortunatly doing videos on multiple languages is way to much work. But at some point I will try and also do some english Videos again :)
A couple suggestions for the comms-make-me-visible problem mentioned around 10:00:
1) laser based comms as mentioned by another commenter here
2) a reverse camera where the ccd in the focal plane is replaced with an led array, should give relatively low side leakage.
3) acoustic comms, whether through air or ground; whether above or below audible freqs.
4) using spread spectrum algorithms in any acoustic or EM channel to shape the comm signal to mimic the ambient noise profile.
Regarding the two joysticks solution, the hat/mini joystick on top of the primary joystick works well in gaming for me, if it could be made sturdy enough. The helicopter designers have already figured out how to add more controls to the stick that are simple enough for combat situations to supplement both inputs.
Just look at how video games control to solve that problem.
Makes me remember how big of an issue people made from the game controller, control system of the tragic sub the "Titan".
Like, there's ALOT of problems with the thing, and the controls ain't one of them.
How much you can split out controls also depends on how much automation you have in the FCS. For example, you can have a stick/hat controlling your view system; you would sight on and designate a target, and the currently-selected weapon would slew and elevate to engage that target. This would require only a single control input to perform target designation (with additional options to allow the operator to select engagement parameters -- i.e., HEAT vs. APFSDS, or burst length), and a delivery system selection (main gun, coax, CROWS, 40mm grenade launcher, etc.); however, this requires that the system _behind_ the controls is that much more 'intelligent' to be able to handle the differing inputs from the operator. And you still require some sort of backup system, so that if your primary control system goes down, you can still use the weapon systems, albeit at a severely degraded capability, to allow you to disengage without being a sitting duck. So there would be more input mechanisms, probably less ergonomically laid out.
@@talonharibon8577eople latched on to that controller as of it was some smoking gun.
I’m with you, it wasn’t. It was understandably goofy and the fact that it wasn’t hard wired is a little weird, but it was a fine solution from a theoretical/functional standpoint. Maybe the $15 Logitech knock off wasn’t the best choice, but game controller? Yeah game controller was a fine idea. Makes perfect sense. I’d still prefer a proper stick, but a game controller is a very rational control solution for many different applications.
@@seanmalloy7249 In that vein, imagine for a moment if you replaced the large and bulky CROWS mount with something coaxial to an enhanced CITV. Instead of having 3 controls (TC override, CITV, CROWS) you'd be back down to just two. And with full-hemispherical sensors backed by AI, you'd only have the override, and only as a backup in case the AI was being stupid or had become a casualty.
0:35 Ah, so we're moving more and more towards a EvE Online-esque design philosophy - using mods on a base chassis that has a certain number of hardpoints/'slots'. I sort of figured this would be the way of the future eventually, but it's nice to hear progress is being made within my lifetime.
I think the lesson of the most recent major conflict is that all the superfancy toys don't mean shit if they are too expensive to produce in sufficient numbers (which is a lot), maintain and risk losing.
Weapons don't just need to be effective, but also cost-effective.
it's not a new lesson, it's also one of the biggest lessons of ww2. A war between roughly equal foes where nuclear weapons are not on the table devolves quickly into a war of attrition and those cases it's better to produce Shermans or T-34s over Panthers and Tigers.
A good example of that is Switchblade. While Switchblade 600 has proven itself in Ukraine as a better contemporary of the Lancet, the Switchblade 300 proved to be far too expensive compared to a simple CotS drone with a grenade or mortar shell hooked to the underside. When you're aiming at a tank you want something good, responsive and resistant to jamming. Turns out a simple drone with a smartphone camera and a frag grenade is all you need for soft targets.
IR buoys will probably be the only way to transmit on the battlefield without using other EM systems. Though you need things like maybe drones with their own IR/laser receivers/transmitters. Lots of energy/battery power to dedicate to it.
I like how US presenters use "effectors" as something new and revolutionary, while a Ukrainian soldier assigns the same word to a searchlight and a turret-mounted machine gun.
People confuse the novelty of using a new thing in a similar way, with the ingenuity of using something old in a new way. Technicals are basically 21st C tachanka, but they still make great anti drone platforms (I'm presuming that the spotlight is running off the mounting vehicle's electrical system).
Effector sound like borrowed from the robotics word (i.e. end effector, or simply the gripper,suction cup, etc).
"Effectors" is a less offensive (in terms of shooting people and killing them) term.
It is like fighter presentation use effector instead of weapon for missile.
Gotta make confusing terms to confused everyone.
@@jintsuubest9331 Partly, but killing is not the only way to win an engagement. If shining a search light at an area is enough to make an enemy retreat you have stalled an attack just as much as if you had killed them. Killing is an effective way of achieving your objectives, but it is not the objective. Using different words for soft effects vs 'hard' effects would be a mistake, because it would prejudice decision makers into deciding whether to go with a hard kill or soft kill early in the decision process, rather than picking the most appropriate tool for the job.
They still use terms like kill chain, so I don't think sensitivity is the reason for this language.
@@jintsuubest9331 Not quite, because effectors includes inherently nonlethal stuff (like smoke launchers, spotlights, electronic warfare systems, active protection systems). It's a good term because it describes equipment that "does things that have effects" whereas sensors are "things that detect/track other things" but don't actually affect anything.
It's doubly useful because in things like dedicated electronic warfare vehicles, "effectors" is all you have and none of them are lethal weapons or guns. In a heavily protected APC, the only weapon it might have is a single machine gun, but it might have a bunch of effectors in the form of ECM, active protection systems, smoke launchers, etc..
Its a news report, but about tanks. Most enjoyable!
Aktive vs passive sensor system could be the difference between life and death on a contested battlefield.
Thanks Nick
My main concern is ammo supply. I look back to Betio island and what the Marines did after the battle. They added as many rounds as they could fit into a M4A1 as they were running out before nightfall. Fast upload of entire tank loads of ammo needs to be considered as well as fast support from other platforms if there are ammo upload periods that need to be covered.
A good future tank design prioritizing easy maintenance, logistics, and upgradability, along with the golden triangle. Must be a nice dream.
Borrowing the concept of "synsects" from Stanisla Lem, it should be possible to saturate the battlefield with small sensors checking audio, optics ranging from UV to IR and even submillimetre emissions. Once anything bigger than a rodent or sparrow moves, the components should talk to each other to triangulate the object, learning exact position and velocity in real time.
Thus, the system would provide instantaneous intel on everything from drones to armoured vehicles to stealth aircraft. And preferably with passive sensors.
It's not a silly idea that's for sure.
Micro drone swarms are already in testing. The problem is EWAR. You cant expect relyable communications between systems like these. Even a primitive enemy can just pump a diesel generators worth of energy into projecting white noise on all frequencies and coat the battlefield in IR absorbeant smoke to block your fancy point to point laser comms. They will be blinding and deafening themselves too, yes, but it is definitepy an area that gives the advantage to the one with less comms relyant systems in theater, meaning likley the less advanced party.
I have learned so much about tanks just from you and I look forward to your next video❤.
19 minutes in here, but I suppose one thing I would think of as a drawback to the new paradigm is this: "what happens when the enemy takes out one part of your diffused tactical capability?"
it's great to have a combined unit that's greater than the sum of its parts. but if you lose one part or two, will your combined effectiveness still be superior to an enemy using equipment with a more all-rounder approach?
Deeper than that, if you can figure out a counter to one element of the the system then the whole system is now worthless.
Except its the same armour that you get on a single vehicle, so instead of losing *All* your capabilty to a single lost vehicle you only loose some of your capability, capabilty you wouldn't even have in the first place if you only had 1 vehicle as there isn't enough space to put all your capability on 1 vehicle.
@samoldfield5220 how does this follow? This system allows you to protect your weaknesses by using other vehicles that don't have them.
Greetings . It is clear that some of the debates are .
- What kind of sensors: IIR / TV / UV / Radar, etc..
- BMS and LINK system that allows the maximum volume of data to have situational awareness and telemetry for weapons.
- AI surveillance functions, classification, selection, prioritization, etc...
- AI / Digital Twin for predictive maintenance and performance estimates.
Hammer's Slammers is a good example, but "Red One", A short story by Kevin Ikenberry ( title of the book is World Breakers, Super tanks to the stars) is most likely the capability they should strive for.
Why? I don’t have time to read
The talk about having the computer directly operate the machine and having the crewmembers instead be managing the computer is a cool concept that frequently turns up in sci-fi. For example in Red Alert 3 video game, the some of the Empire's vehicles are stated to be "pilot-assisted robots", the implication that the AI is controlling the vehicle and the human crewmember is just overseeing the AI. The diagram at 17:31 sums it up perfectly.
The obvious conclusion is that the human is just there as a safeguard. Ultimately we will remove the human to make the vehicles smaller and install a remote kill switch. And one day we will bitterly regret what we created.
"What is old, is new again"
I'd really be interested in an in-depth deep-dive on this idea, looking at all the lessons that were learnt and then forgotten and then re-learnt again. Especially if you can get other experts in.
Some things that spring to mind is the WW1 Snipers being forgotten until WW2, the current Ukraine conflict etc.
Snipers aren't that useful now. Combat keeps getting closer and closer, a simple designated marksman is often far more useful. This isn't some revolutionary piece of information, most armies realized it in the 70s and made structural changes accordingly
@@filmandfirearms Depends where the combat is - if it's in the middle east, there's still distance. And NATO snipers got a LOOOOOT of time in too, stories of like 5 or 6 sniper times lined up on a roof top taking em' out all day. Part of the decision to move on from 5.56 to the new 6.8 is effective range too, given the pats two decades spent in the middle east.
Combat isn't getting closer and closer, we just went from a middle eastern combat zone to your classic european-style slaughter each other session lol
Definitely. One example is 1960's air forces going, "oh, we've got long-range missiles, dogfighting's out, so we don't need a gun". Couple of years later; "whoops". Modern equivalent; "We've got stealth, we don't need a dogfighter, OR a gun". Hopefully they won't end up saying; "Oh dear, his planes have got stealth too, our missiles won't track and we've forgotten how to dogfight. And we have no gun." When Doctrine and Reality meet, reality tends to win. And reality is usually pretty messy. Which is possibly why Ukraine is using truck-mounted WW1 mg vs drones.
@@FelixstoweFoamForgeWhat you're saying makes sense, but the not needing a gun is largely correct. The US Navy made their Phantoms work over Vietnam without a gun. It's why the Navy never got a Naval Phantom with an integrated gun. It wasn't the highest priority, compared to the gun of the USAF's Phantom.
as a military stuff nerd myself and someone with a vivid imagination, I like these sorts of projects a lot, though it's kind of disheartnening when I think about how my consepts will never be as good as the stuff already out there.
Some good points there. A modern tank is complex. Any future tank will have to take it up a notch, or rather notches.
That is the question. What will those "notches" look like?
Having a human in the loop wouldn't have to mean having a human in the vehicle.
Yah, but if not you better be really sure you're resistant to jamming.
I believe the concern is about secure enough wireless communications. Would be a bit embarrassing if a particularly strong jammer made your entire fleet of super MBTs blind.
[laughs in insurgents with off-the-shelf equipment hacking your SatLinked drone]
... yeah, drones are likely to be a dead end unless we get AGIs within the next two decades. That or Horizon Zero Dawn's quantum entanglement encryption.
Who takes care of the vehicle then? You want to put a robot arm on it for field maintanance?
Throw enough kilowatts into a jammer and you have problems.
Hackers should also be considered.
Currently best to consider manned with lots of automation and a manual override.
Im not a military person but its so interesting to watch your videos sir
That's genius simplicity, we don't fight with things, we fight with formations. The Spartans didn't win because of their superior swords and shields.
The spartans lost...
Because they had no logistics at home
@@SonsOfLorgar granted but doesn't address my point. We don't remember the Spartans because they lost at the end of the day (and who hasn't).
The point regarding "show intelligence, instead of information" is one of the recurring challenges for AI. The human brain does some pretty amazing things with incomplete, contradictory and sparse information.
A computer can return an "answer" much faster than a person in many cases, but the quality of that "answer" is often much more important, provided the speed of getting there is not unreasonable for the situation.
I can imagine that's the conceptual challenge for AI for turning information into intelligence within a combat scenario. The quality of that intelligence assessment is tricky to make high enough to compete with experienced, well trained crew.
the KF 51 panther is a monster and yet it's the best tank that shows how we could reduce weight while still adding stuff to it like APS, etc but still no matter how much we manage to build stuff into the design it's still gonna be heavier tho that also depends if militaries will rely more on researching into better materials like metal foam or electric armor
Thanks for the vid Chieftain.
Amazing how the Army keeps going over the same ground since the late 80s Heavy Force Modernization program. With little to show for it since the late 80s.
So many topics in the video, great stuff.
In "Universal Architecture" the Swedes have done a great job on the CV90 as it was designed to easy intergrade a new equipment and weapon systems.
Im curious about the radial shaped charge. Are they heat or EFP. They are obviously to increase hit chance, but im curious if there is an impact fuse and its too allow some chance of kill on a near miss, or if its for a top attack/air burst that doesnt require much precision.
My guess if the first one. That there is still a forward facing heat charge, and if it doesnt get a direct hit one of those 18 extra charges might do something to something near the impact site. (I think if it was top attack only they would all point down).
Judging by the amount of equipment those drones have knocked out, it would seem that Iran's system working well. Having all those charges should mean no matter what the angle or location of impact there will be significant damage. The proof is in the video footage we see.
High Ecplosive Anti Tank and Explosively Formed Penetrator are two phrases for the same thing. Cumulative shaped charges. And the warhead is an anti ship warhead, designed to create a starburst of penetrators, perforating as many watertight sections as possible.
@egoalter1276 The term EFP implies different performance characteristics when compared to a traditional HEAT warhead so I think the distinction is worth while even if one category encompasses the other. Its like asking if something is square or rectangular, the answer that "squares are rectangles" isnt helpful
@@contagioushavoc5794 HEAT doesnt mean any specific cavity geometry either, and EFP is the general term for the effect.
@@egoalter1276 You should update the wikipedia page then
Excellent comorehensive summary video! Thank you!
17:35 I like how the only human part of the process is “man-in-the-loop”. In other words the robot fighting vehicle does everything and you have a single crewman inside pushing a “confirm” button every time the robot wants to fire a weapon. Presumably the crewman can stop the vehicle from firing if the vehicle makes an obvious mistake, but on what basis is he making this decision?
There’s also the concept from General Dynamics where you have a computer analyzing raw information and only informing the vehicle commander of its final conclusion, so as to reduce cognitive load. If you put these two concepts together, I submit that this does not equip the vehicle commander to assess whether or not a mistake has been made by the autonomous system.
If the autonomous systems are good enough, and an army that uses them ends up in a serious enough conflict that they have to make hard decisions about limited manpower, it is probably inevitable that the “man in the loop” will be shortcircuited and removed entirely. In other words The Simpsons was right: “…most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
That was fascinating. Thanks Chieftain.
You kind of worry that these systems will be too complex and resource intensive to maintain and it may ultimately turn out that you need to balance both a shock and awe system with as much overmatch as you can manage for the initial stages of a conflict but after that you need something simple to maintain and cheap to produce once your into the manufacturing race part of a conflict, something that maximises mass while minimising cost. I.e. stuff for the first 3-6 months and stuff for the following years, for example the long range, long endurance, multi-sensory surveillance drone carrying a dozen hellfires that costs over $100m vs the commercial quadcopter carrying grenades may only cost a few hundred dollars.
This suff is being designed to be field swapped by privates and sergeants with minimal education.
@@zachv1942 But with four platforms for every previous platform each featuring dozens of unique circuit boards, thousands of chips, etc.. The maintenance logistics and manufacturing procurements chains will be enormous. Your not just considering mechanical spares and discrete electronic modules anymore, these are integrated systems each reliant on the functioning of a multitude of subsystems. Every additional layer of system complexity you add increases the chance of malfunction or failure exponentially. Its like the difference in maintaining a prop plane vs a modern fighter jet.
@watcherzero5256 I worked at L3Harris. I know a thing or two. Alot of the new stuff is coming out and will automatically go to vehicles once built. If the US Govt foots the Expansion Cost in Contract it will get done n
@@zachv1942 Yeah my issue isnt with peacetime production, its about sustainment during conflict. According to L3Harris CFO last year the company was breaking apart its own radios to recover chips for other products because of shortages.
Why make it easy on the bad guys? Ukraine could’ve converted to fully western standard if just half of the surplus equipment Europeans stored was, well firstly stored correctly but second not sold off or cut into metal, I sincerely doubt it saved that much money. Hopefully they’ll learn a lesson from this war about attrition stocks.
Gods love ya, Colonel. Love the understated snark.
Well honestly having an ai recomend a target can be very usefull, most often in a case when like an abrams gunner sees 2 t90's and that gunner aims at the closest one.
But then the ai comes in the picture: the t90 further away is ready to fire i recomend getting it instead of the closer one.
But one thing it must not do is take over blindly and be the gunner itself.
I love when The Chieftain talks science fiction!
This future is all mine I am 29 next week. Everything is faster now, it was seen in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 1 and half year before Ukraine. Communication, see first kill first and faster decisions. Drone augmentation and even going beyond tactical to strategic field( bombing deep in Russia for example) but not seen as much, for now.
That was some great information. Thank You Chieftain!
I wonder how Drake would have conceived BOOSTER had he started the series now in the 2020s instead of the 1970s...
After watching another video discussing how 'battlefield transparency' hinders concentration of Ukrainian forces in their current offensive, I'm really interested in how they are and will deal with the heavy Russian EW and drone activity.
I like the German way of thinking for the future, assume the vehicle will get heavier over time and spec it for that from the get go. Same with the targeting, have the soldier decide what to shoot with an AI/computer handling the remaining tasks.
I'm not so sure on what to think about the use of AI though. On one hand AI is much better at any well specified task than a human, but on the other hand they are much worse at more complicated less well defined tasks.
I would like to see AI engage in armor development, it is something difficult and throwing a bunch at computers at it might result in lower weight armor. They are already doing this on very expensive sports cars where AI designs parts of the chassis and suspension in weird shapes that are much lighter and material efficient than conventional components.
One of the problems we currently have with AI's like ChatGPT is that they are too broad. They are expected to provide answers not factcheck, so when asked a question they'll provide an answer regardless of whether the answer they're giving is true. Essentially ChatGPT decided that lying or making things up was the solution, unfortunately due to how ChatGPT is created we can't really change that behavior.
For target recognition/detection though that should be a well enough defined task for AI to do without much troubles.
I also like how the germans look into the future and decide to make the tank future proof (when it will get heavier) but i dont think the solution of splitting specs to different vehicles is a good idea.
It's great they can develop a list of 300 requirements for s future vehicle, but when was the last time they actually won a war? Simplicity tends to do better in reality.
@@jonprince3237 From a software development standpoint I like that the German army has managed to come up with a decent list of requirements, but I agree that a list of requirements that might (read likely will, see the multiple vehicles for multiple roles) conflict with each other is not necessarily the answer.
If you ask me, I still consider the Israeli Merkava the 'best' (for lack of a better term) tank at the moment. For the simple reason that the vehicle is designed and evolved from experience, not from a bloated list of requirements that army high command thinks they might need in the future.
That said, I think they are moving in somewhat the right direction. If Germany manages to make a modular enough system, then development of any specific upgrades they did not foresee should be comparatively trivial.
Thank you
Bigger calibre, dedicated remote station against drones (could be .50 BMG to 50mm), hybrid or pure electric propulsion, coil gun and ETC for more rounds without propellant or more efficient propellant
I feel like I'm still in, and attending a training session. Fees good. I need to re watch this.
Bolos! I remember seeing the unveiling for the Abrams X and being like, “Oh! Mk. I Bolo”
20:40 Start putting star trackers or terrain radars on your future unmanned platforms.
Invest in laser LoS comms with drones as relays.
In the beginning of the war Russians tried to move fast and were stopped mostly by artillery. When there is a Frontline which is saturated with men, reinforced and mined... You can maneuver all you want, in some area distant to front line...
Good overview and thanks. Keep up the great work!
From my time in an armored battalion`s recon platoon in Germany in the seventies, since armored vehicles are so expensive to operate, (and I had no idea how terrible our M114A1E1 were considered, they did have one advantage, a huge amount of interior space per crewman) which can only be worse now, it would make sense to have enough bicycles (OneWheels?) for a section, or the crews for two vehicles at a time, plus a pickup to carry an opforce and cutout miniatures of various vehicles, etc to spot, to practice their skills.
Things like calling in spotting reports or fire missions (something as simple as someone being a flag holder would help judge distances for calling in corrections) from the brigade artillery batteries, which of the two responses to use when ambushed, bridge capacities, spotting mine fields, what distances are actually practical when leap frogging, and just plain learning the topography of the area surrounding the base.
I used to think the photos of pre-WW2 exercises using simulated tanks were silly, but most of the skills involved really are not directly connected to the vehicle.
For drills relying on analog systems, sure but the new integration of digital target information is spread across different nodes with the correct information the first time. The operators are going to be just deciding whether to drive or pull the trigger maybe not even target priority.
Super interesting! Thank you for the video!
Basically there will be 3 main vehicles, one with a laser gun for close-in defence against small drones, one with 57mm aa/support gun with programmable munition for direct fire support and air defence up to 10 kilometers and an armored 120mm mortar/drone launcher
Love the Bolo toss in.
Always interesting, thank you.
Loved the Bolo reference!
My ears perked up at the mention of Yolo. An intern and I were messing around with it using the most powerful gaming laptop we could find at the time. The only thing that comes to mind is, feed the model a camera image, and ask it how confident it is that there's a Russian tank in it.
I'm sure they've found some brilliant applications, Ukrainians are highly educated.
Always happy to see a new vid from you. About the two man crews... will they be able to maintain their vehicle adequately? The LCS's were designed with a minimum crew and they are perpetually exhausted.
The Swedes had the S-Tank that could in a pinch be operated by 1, and two was _normal_ the third person being the rear driver
First, 26 year tanker, not 26 years old, 26 years on tanks, next Sci-Fi writer, and have met David Drake. At our current tech level a two man tank is absolutely possible. Loader is not needed. AI could do all of the Gunner' duties. With self driving cars and trucks coming soon, the driver might be next. What I am thinking is two man crew with interchangeable duties so technically it could be operated by one man.
Hammer's Slammer's plasma guns and Iridium armored tanks. I can understand why they'd want to go that route eventually too.
While we often mock video games for giving us unrealistic depictions of real world conditions and vehicles, I think they can actually teach us a lot about how to design next generation vehicles.
For example, I can tell you for a fact that a warthunder player operating an entire vehicle all by themselves is a much more effective fighting unit that 3 people operating the same vehicle in something a little more realistic like Squad or Arma, and certainly more than in real life.
While we normally focus on how this is an unrealistic depiction of real world vehicles, I think a lot of those unrealistic elements could certainly be made real with modern technology.