Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: BAE's Black Knight unmanned robotic light tank
doggtag    11/9/2007 9:15:58 PM
It appears the future is much closer than some of us might realize...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
hiker    The trade-off between speed and armor   11/17/2007 7:29:16 PM
would, I suspect, be very different with an unmanned tank.  You just load a whole bunch of speed in there and use the speed to compensate for deficiencies in armor.  So your speed gives you some defense and of course it gives you more offense.

You're going to lose some tanks this way, but now it's just a matter of dollars and cents---no American lives.  And on the plus side, you save money on armor, lighten the tank, and get by with a less powerful engine that still goes faster.  Plus, another way to look at it is to heavily armor the more expensive parts of the tank and leave later armor for the cheaper parts.  That way, even if the tank is disabled, it could probably be salvaged was pretty good results---assuming you control the battlefield.

As far as the control thing goes, I'm not aware of any problem with controlling UAVs and I can't see the big difference there. As far as letting the robotic tanks "have their own head"---I think that's a little ways off.  This is a lot of firepower to be giving to a robot's discretion, at the this point in artificial intelligence development.

However, the article implies control from another tank.   I sort of like the idea of giving infantry the control.  Of course, the infantry would need vehicles to keep up with the tanks, but I'm under the impression that US armed forces don't march of the battle very often anymore anyway.  Tanks have always had problems with visibility, granted it's a lot better now with all their sensors.  An infantryman just seems like a better controller for robotic tank that another tank to me.  He could conceal himself better.  There would have to be multiple controls in case one guy got hit, but the same would probably apply to control by a tank.

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       11/17/2007 8:00:21 PM
Technology has moved on I guess, but I am still unsure about these things working in conjunction with our ECM.  Historical examples of friction exist, such as HMS Sheffield switching off her ECM in 1982 to use the sat-phone, which contributed to the Exocet strike.

It is a good point though, about the speed/armour balance.  Without the human element to house and protect, a lot more of both could be attained.  Personally I would rate more armour over more speed, as it isn't practical to have these remote control weapons speeding around everywhere without them wasting fuel and bumping into things.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Good points all.   11/17/2007 8:20:08 PM
There is a practical upper limit toland speed dtermined by powertrains and the coefficient of friction.
 
Armor at some point in the near future will be to diminish damage rather than to prevent it.
 
We'll see the CM/CCM battle appear on land as it has ast sea and in the air. This will grow more in importance as communication becomes moere and more the exploit of choice.
 
Robotic autonomy works with cargo haulers. For shoot/no shoots I still want a man to decide.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid       11/19/2007 1:51:29 AM
I'm waiting for the day of arrival of the Bolo autonomous tank.
 
But seriously how long until we see full blown tanks being remote controlled?
 
Quote    Reply

Charles99       11/19/2007 2:21:32 AM
one short term UGV might be a checkpoint robot, controlled from a few hundred yards away by a GI.  A major problme in Iraq has been accidental shootings of civilians due to the entirely reasonable desire on the part of troops manning checkpoints to be "safe then sorry" when dealing with potential carbombs.
  A robot removes that because a soldier will be far more likely to "take a chance" when he's just risking a radio shack robot as opposed to his own life.   Arm it with a small arm and you could order the people to leave the car, walk to  a safe distance and then examine the car.

   All of which contributes to reducing the sort of accidental shootings that the terrorists not only expect, but actively try to provoke.


 
Quote    Reply

hiker    Herald   11/21/2007 12:03:32 PM

There is a practical upper limit toland speed dtermined by powertrains and the coefficient of friction.

 

Robotic autonomy works with cargo haulers. For shoot/no shoots I still want a man to decide.

 


Point taken that there is a practical limit to speed.  The Abrams apparently has a top speed of 75 mph without a governor.  So it would appear that we are nowhere near the upper limit you refer to at this time. 

South Africans found out the hard way about the inadvisability of robotic shoot/no shoot.
"Robot Cannon Kills 9, Wounds 14"
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html




 
Quote    Reply

hiker       11/21/2007 12:19:50 PM



It is a good point though, about the speed/armour balance.  Without the human element to house and protect, a lot more of both could be attained.  Personally I would rate more armour over more speed, as it isn't practical to have these remote control weapons speeding around everywhere without them wasting fuel and bumping into things.

I hadn't thought about this aspect of the problem, although if the vehicle was lighter, it would waste less fuel by speeding around.  Bumping into things (such as elements of our own forces) could potentially be a huge problem for a fast-moving, tank-like vehicle.  Is this why the Abrams tanks generally operate with a governor, or is that just for non-combat?

To address the potential problem of accidental collisions, UAVs might be utilized to check out the path of the tank.

In addition to increased speed, a robotic tank could have increased maneuverability compared to a tank with people inside.  There would be no problem with worrying about guys getting hurt through overly rough turns, traveling too fast over bumpy terrain and building up excessive vibration, etc.  Of course, problems of potentially damaging the mechanism of the tank would still need to be addressed.

I knew this was a pretty big issue with jet fighters as the designs kept going forward.  As they solved the problems with the airframes, the biggest constraint on the potential motion of the aircraft was the damage maneuvers would cause the human body (the pilot).  This was one part of the motivation to plan to ultimately terminate manned fighters (I believe the F-35 will be our last manned fighter, according to Air Force statements.)  I imagine the same problem maps pretty well to tanks.

for a look at the potential maneuverability of the next generation of UAVs, check out my blog:
http://bizscitek.blogspot.com/search?q=UAV


 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/21/2007 12:55:12 PM





It is a good point though, about the speed/armour balance.  Without the human element to house and protect, a lot more of both could be attained.  Personally I would rate more armour over more speed, as it isn't practical to have these remote control weapons speeding around everywhere without them wasting fuel and bumping into things.


I hadn't thought about this aspect of the problem, although if the vehicle was lighter, it would waste less fuel by speeding around.  Bumping into things (such as elements of our own forces) could potentially be a huge problem for a fast-moving, tank-like vehicle.  Is this why the Abrams tanks generally operate with a governor, or is that just for non-combat?


From a mechanic's point of view (and I'm willing to bet the designers would generally agree),
the purpose of governing down the engine and transmission in an Abrams, or any MBT or fairly heavy AFVs for that matter,
is to prevent tracks from being thrown.
There's nothing wrong with a high speed dash capability,
but try slewinga tank at a fairly good clip of speed, and you'll most likely laterally overflex the track, which in that circumstance it can easily be thrown,
not to mention possibly damaging trailing arms, torsion bars, road wheels and sprockets (the track pulling excessively on them), and other suspension components.
 
It's considerably easier to re-install a track if it comes undone and is still generally in the same vicinity as the tank.
But if your tank throws a track (or breaks it) during a high speed turn, the track could easily end up several yards behind you if you're on a hard surface (on pavement, road wheels won't always dig right in and come to a complete stop right away).
Another risk is, something higher, like a Bradley or Warrior, could actually overturn if a track is thrown during a high speed turn, due to the trackless side digging into the dirt and the track on the other side still trying to drag the vehicle around.
If it doesn't overturn, it's still going to be fairly uncontrollable until it comes to a complete stop.
 
Surely there's a few internet clips out there of tracked AFVs losing a track.
It's only on improved surfaces like blacktop and concrete that we see those clips of that Bradley and Leo 2 doing high speed power slides and not have the rubber-padded treads come off.
But try the same in soft soil or loose rocks and gravel.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       11/21/2007 5:17:37 PM








It is a good point though, about the speed/armour balance.  Without the human element to house and protect, a lot more of both could be attained.  Personally I would rate more armour over more speed, as it isn't practical to have these remote control weapons speeding around everywhere without them wasting fuel and bumping into things.



I hadn't thought about this aspect of the problem, although if the vehicle was lighter, it would waste less fuel by speeding around.  Bumping into things (such as elements of our own forces) could potentially be a huge problem for a fast-moving, tank-like vehicle.  Is this why the Abrams tanks generally operate with a governor, or is that just for non-combat?



From a mechanic's point of view (and I'm willing to bet the designers would generally agree),

the purpose of governing down the engine and transmission in an Abrams, or any MBT or fairly heavy AFVs for that matter,

is to prevent tracks from being thrown.

There's nothing wrong with a high speed dash capability,

but try slewinga tank at a fairly good clip of speed, and you'll most likely laterally overflex the track, which in that circumstance it can easily be thrown,

not to mention possibly damaging trailing arms, torsion bars, road wheels and sprockets (the track pulling excessively on them), and other suspension components.

 

It's considerably easier to re-install a track if it comes undone and is still generally in the same vicinity as the tank.

But if your tank throws a track (or breaks it) during a high speed turn, the track could easily end up several yards behind you if you're on a hard surface (on pavement, road wheels won't always dig right in and come to a complete stop right away).

Another risk is, something higher, like a Bradley or Warrior, could actually overturn if a track is thrown during a high speed turn, due to the trackless side digging into the dirt and the track on the other side still trying to drag the vehicle around.

If it doesn't overturn, it's still going to be fairly uncontrollable until it comes to a complete stop.

 

Surely there's a few internet clips out there of tracked AFVs losing a track.

It's only on improved surfaces like blacktop and concrete that we see those clips of that Bradley and Leo 2 doing high speed power slides and not have the rubber-padded treads come off.

But try the same in soft soil or loose rocks and gravel.


Hence: why I said coefficient of friction.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

hiker    dogtag, thanks for your interesting comments.   11/24/2007 1:58:43 PM














From a mechanic's point of view (and I'm willing to bet the designers would generally agree),


but try slewinga tank at a fairly good clip of speed, and you'll most likely laterally overflex the track, which in that circumstance it can easily be thrown,

not to mention possibly damaging trailing arms, torsion bars, road wheels and sprockets (the track pulling excessively on them), and other suspension components.


I wonder if any of these new super technologies such as nanotechnology might be able to create new materials for tank tracks that could help alleviate this problem?

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics