Russia Plans to Field the T-99, a Radically New Main Battle Tank by 2015

Russia and China can knock down A-10’s in their airspace, but both have weaknesses in projecting force into the areas that the U.S. cares about.

The U.S. isn’t invading Russia or China.

Ever.

There simply aren’t U.S. interests there.

For that matter, geopolitical decisions and priorities are changing.

Russia doesn’t gain anything from invading Europe. It would in fact lose its largest customer of natural gas and have to prop up Greeks who refuse to work.

China isn’t invading its biggest customer, the U.S.

...and every U.S. oil well that gets fracked means that Africa diminishes in importance for the U.S.

What the world is coming to is a point where the regional and Super-Powers only need to project force into lawless badlands or into the occasional invaded minor country.

Russia is an oil exporter. China is an oil importer. The U.S. is headed toward oil neutrality in the next 5 years.

Which is to say, the major geopolitical goals of the world’s largest powers no longer clash.

China has some issues with Taiwan and India. Handled properly there won’t be another global war.

Just regional wars or war-flashes.

...and that means more and more drones. Zap. There goes another bad guy, and they aren’t putting up many IED’s in the sky to fight back.

They’ve got small arms, and the new main battle tanks can dispatch with them.

Well stated. For every weapon system, there is another weapon system to match it.

Terrain and situation drive the operational environment.

Dude Chill out! I only used the A-10 as an example of 1 weapon that can be used against a tank! Yes it’s old and out dated but I’m sure there is a new weapon system that will make this wonderful new tank obselete!
I do know which seat I’d rather be sitting in though! LOL

Here you go this armed and no pilot death!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CxWTqHiy3RM

“And what happens when you throw track?”

You push the self-destruct button. Yes, it may not completely replace the manned tank, but I think it will become developed enough that it will be used in battle, and will enable us to save a lot of lives and a lot of supplies. The logistics of supply are a big part of war. The fewer your army uses, the better. You use these tanks as the vanguard, move in to kill the enemy, and the men follow behind to strike the second blow.

Well,

We’re going to continue to disagree. My opinion is formed on the basis of 5 years as an Armor officer...so please take into account that I have a little bit of experience in this area.

Again, tanks are part of a land force - and the only reason for a land force is to hold ground. Ever since the advent of air power, there have been failed notions that air power alone can hold ground...it never does. So, if you want to hold ground, you need real live people there...and the tanks are just a means of protecting the people.

No need for people on the ground in a certain situation - aerial drones are the obvious choice.

You may not be completely aware of how often a tank breaks down - but it is often. Also, you may have noticed during the invasion of Iraq, there was footage of our tanks stopped, with the turrets turned sideways, during pauses in the advance. These were soldiers doing maintenance - checking fluids, and lifting out the v-pack air filters to blow the sand out of them. This can’t be accomplished without a crew. Bottom line, a drone aircraft gets to come back to home base every 24 hours or so - this would not be true with a tank, and it would be impossible to perform maintenance. That would be a real problem. Heck, in extreme cold, we would often have to ‘slave start’ each other’s tanks with giant jumper cables...yet another action that could not be accomplished without humans on board. The list of problems is endless.

As far as saving lives and using them as a ‘vanguard force’. First of all, it is difficult for me to paint a picture of how rough it is driving at full speed across terrain....and how the tank commander is constantly on edge, looking for obstacles and alerting the driver. You see, the driver can’t see much. The problem is partially because his vision is so low...but its also because he can only see through a ‘vision block’, which is really a periscope. He has zero peripheral vision, and a very limited field of view...just like driving remote control would be - with no TC up top to prevent accidents.

But beyond that, do we need to use a vanguard force to save lives? Last I checked, our M1 force hasn’t had one problem in tank on tank or tank on armor fighting. They won the initial fight in Iraq just fine. The destroyed tanks and deaths came later, when using the tank as a patrol vehicle, and mines get them. So, the notion of a battalion of tanks as the tip of the spear in an armored assault is frankly unnecessary. That’s the easy part.

And consider the good ole police bomb robot. You’ve seen these things on tv...and they’ve been around for decades now. Yet, if you watch one being operated, it is not a smooth thing to watch. The robot moves very slowly...usually stops before pivot steering...and they have to be extraordinarily careful if they are on anything but flat ground. That’s the leading edge technology for remote controlled track vehicles - and its not very impressive.

Finally, the original article called this an ‘armored vehicle’. And, I assure you that doesn’t mean tank. What it probably means is a remote controlled vehicle that can be used in police type actions in urban environments - like Israel would use to patrol the occupied territories. Looking at it, that is exactly what it is...lacking a gun anywhere close to qualifying it as a tank.

Back in the 1980’s Ft Carson was converted to an ‘all wheel’ division. No tracked vehicles. It was trendy, and everyone knew that all of our heavy divisions would be converted to fast and nimble wheeled vehicles. It didn’t happen.

A quarter century ago, I attended a briefing which described our capabilities and plans for anti-personnel lasers. We currently use alot of lasers for range finding; and, while they are dangerous, they are not deliberately used against people. Well, this briefing included prototypes of an M-16 with a laser, and other type equipment. The idea was (and its almost laughable) instead of killing the enemy with bullets, we would blind them with lasers. Somehow, this would be more readily acceptable to the American people and community of nations than killing people. I’m not kidding. This was a real live army project, with funding and prototypes and a plan to implement. Obviously, it went nowhere. Dozens of army projects go nowhere, for every one that finally gets a green light.

So trust me. Remote control tanks will not replace tanks. If any of the tank’s role is to be replaced, it will be replaced by a technology we already have - aerial drones.

One last thing - another temptation has always been to replace the tanks with tanks that use smaller crews, for all the logistical reasons you cited. The Soviets went to 3 man crews a long time ago - the history of Russian warfare is written around logistics and distance problems, so its very important to them. So, they replaced the human loader with an auto loader. Bad idea. First, the U.S. Army did inadvertant testing on 3 man crews after the first Gulf War. The ‘Peace Dividend’ meant we never had enough manpower, and much of our training was done with 3 man crews. It turned out that 3 man crews didn’t work well for taking shifts pulling nightitime security, or doing some major maintenance tasks which require 4 men. So, instead of operating 4 tanks with 3 men each, we tarped up a tank, and operated the remaining 3 with 4 man crews. Another vicious problem the Iraqis discovered in the first Gulf War - the autoloader requires the entire turret basket be surrounded with vertically stacked rounds. You may remember endless photos of tanks with their turrets flipped over, the result of being hit by a US round. That flipped turret - a direct result of that ammo configuration. So, the U.S. has stuck with 4 man crews by now....but guess what? Around 20-25 years ago, I went to another briefing. In this briefing, we were shown the tank of the future...which should have been deployed by now, if you were to believe the briefers. It was a 2 man tank, with an un-manned turret. The two men would be in the hull, and use screens to see, navigate, acquire targets, etc. It was supposed to risk less lives, and require less logistics. I’m not sure what ever happened to the tank of the future...but I assume testing showed it to be a terrible idea. Alas, another concept bit the dust.

Well, I respect your opinion but let me remind you that the admirals were opposed to the aircraft carrier in the 30’s because they were afraid it might obsolete their battleships and put themselves out of a job. Of course, history proved them wrong. The battleships were needed to protect the aircraft carriers.

The correct way to view this unmanned tank is that it’s really a new weapon, not simply a new version of the old weapon. If you need speed and fuel economy, then ditching the personnel, shrinking the size, and taking advantage of expendability and reduced profile to reduce the armor gets you a capability that you did not have before. You just need to figure out a way to use it to your best advantage. I think it could soften up the enemy’s defenses in advance of a manned tank advance. And moving a lot of small lightweight unmanned tanks around the world where they are needed would be a lot quicker and less expensive than the logistics of moving a manned tank battalion. Maybe you could even drop them in by parachute. You don’t need to feed, pay, uniform, train, or quarter computers. Your manpower limitations become less important. I am reminded of these totalitarian regimes who urge their population to have children so they can be conscripted. That’s so 20th Century.

Well I really think these are solutions in search of a problem. Need a lightweight vehicle to move quickly in and out? Aerial drones. Need to ‘soften up’ the enemy? We have bombers and artillery...but besides that, we do just fine in tank battles anyway - so well that I doubt any nation will ever again array its forces in a matter that sets up a traditional tank battle. Parachute tanks? The 82nd Airborne already does it with the Sheridan. Finally, unlike Admirals holding onto their battleships, I know tanks might not be in our future...so I’m not holding on for nostalgia’s sake. I jus happen to believe that drones will replace them - not a fleet of RC tanks. And btw, the Admirals’ fears have been realized...we don’t have battleships in our fleet anymore.

Would be interested in what their powertrain looks like.

Looks like they are building a Merkava. Should work pretty well.

Though I still wonder why no one has gone for a remote turret and keeping the crew in a cabin in the main body.

A few last thoughts...if you were to see a tank battalion go by on a train, you would immediately identify the tanks, of course...but I believe you would be astonished at all the other ‘stuff’ that is involved.

I looked up our current ‘TOE”:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/17375L000.htm

A tank battalion has 604 people...but less than half (252) are tank crewmen. Who are all the others?

Well, there’s the entire mortar platoon, providing indirect fire support to protect the tanks. There’s the entire scout platoon...a function highly reliant on human senses and almost impossible to replicate through a computer screen. Then there’s support - a fleet of fuelers to keep everything moving, a fleet of cargo trucks to keep the ammunition coming, each company has a large recovery vehicle...not only to pull a tank out of the mud, but also used to pull the engine out for major maintenance. Each company has an assortemnt of ‘milvans’ with commonly used parts, for repair. In addition to the M88 recovery vehicle, here are also some other wreckers, to tow around all these trucks, when they break. And, if you’re gonna have mortars and scouts and mechanics...you’re gonna need the medic platoon.

The only way to do without all this other ‘stuff’ is to view the entire battalion as expendable. A one and done. You somehow get the entire force within 150 miles of the battle, and send them in...with absolutely no support...not even enough fuel to come back. Its ‘fired’ at the enemy like any other munition, and expended. I just don’t see that happening.

And there’s a doctrinal roadblock as well. When I was in the army, we had armor battalions...and we had infantry battalions. And, when we would do large scale training at Ft Irwin, we would form ‘combat teams’...essentially the armor and infantry battalions swapped a few companies, so that each battalion would have both armor and infantry. In recent years, this doctrine has been re-inforced, and the modern battalions are neither pure infantry or pure tank...they are hybrid. I think this is a very wise choice...issues ranging from chain of command to parts train are solved by doing this, since the combat teams are no longer temporary arrangements. Its a great idea, alot of egos had to get put aside to make it happen, and we have a much more flexible heavy force. But...now, to go to a remote control tank force unravels all of that and makes the tank force very much seperate from the infantry.

BTW, these ‘super battalions’ also attaches other combat multipliers (heavy artillery and air defense artillery for example) to the battalion, bring their use down from a divisional asset to a battalion asset...i.e., more control from the ‘on the ground’ commander. And the net effect of this organization has allowed commanders to be, well, ‘commanders’...instead of mid-level managers caught in a swamp of red tape and helpless to make things happen, when he needs to. In the civilian world, it would be termed ‘deconstructing silos’. The concept is a subtle change, not even noticed by most, but in my opinion as revolutionary as many of our weapons systems. Its a big deal...and rc tanks doesn’t fit in with the plan.

Directed energy weaponry is already in the arsenal and on hold for the final countdown. That’s how the banking oligarchs who are arranging the new world order will deal with the Is Slime caliphate they are allowing to be set up now.

To some degree you’re right about in search of a problem but drones are no panacea and neither is air power in general. You can’t use drones in mass. You can’t use them in poor visability. You might be able to move a large unmanned tank battalion in quickly and just let it sit there until its needed. You can send it down a road to see if it draws fire or triggers mines. You really don’t know what good it will be until you have it and test it out. But I do think that robotics is going to be the next wave of military technology and I would rather be on the guy dishing it out than the guy taking the hits.