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
doggtag    hiker:   11/24/2007 6:46:21 PM
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?
 
The FCS family of manned vehicles, equivalently a series of "light tanks" to the untrained eye,
will, it appears,
be equipped with band tracks,
gigantic flexible rubber band-like belts,
in attempts at saving weight versus metal tracks.
 
Cons for the band track are that it's going to be difficult to field-replace a complete track (metal tracks had their defective links replaced),
and, like any rubber-hoofed vehicles,
it's probably more prone to fire (encourages the vehicle to burn even more once it initially catches fire from being hit).
 
Is nanotech the solution?
Possibly, if materials other than just carbon can be made into nanotube structures, then woven like fabric.
If achieved, that promises superb damage resistance in addition to great flexibility, but certainly a weave of such material into complete track sets, or even tread sections, will be needed to get the best requirements for an AFV:
flexible enough to bend and twist without breaking,
fire resistant,
doesn't get extremely brittle when it's near-arctic battle conditions,
doesn't get extremely soft and pliable during desert ops in hot sand or pavement,
and is fairly damage resistant.
 
Even now we're only dreaming of what nano weaves will provide us with.
But the reality is it will probably take a few decades to get the right materials woven together to give us the best results tailored for battlefield abuse.
 
Trial and error.
 
Just like it's taken us nearly a century to develop AFVs into what they are now.
 
 
Quote    Reply

hiker    doggtag, point and question   11/25/2007 11:15:04 AM

Thanks for the interesting info is always.


and, like any rubber-hoofed vehicles,

it's probably more prone to fire (encourages the vehicle to burn even more once it initially catches fire from being hit).

 



Well, there are a lot of highly fire-resistant rubbers but I don't know what kind of resiliency they have or if they would meet the other requirements to serve as band for one of these vehicles.

Here's my question.  Would a tank mounted with these bands be able to travel faster on rough terrain than a tank with traditional tank treads?  It seems to me that it would because the resiliency of the rubber would help hold the band on the wheels.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/25/2007 12:06:41 PM
I don't know that band tracks function better over rougher terrains better than metal tracks, both in speed and in durability.
 
But on improved surfaces, under defense contractor test conditions, vehicles equipped with band tracks can travel faster than metal tracked vehicles.
 
I cannot recall exactly how long we posted up some interesting discussions here of the benefits versus problem related to band tracks,
but IIRC there was a link or two from different companies offering AFV-suitable sets (Soucy comes to mind, whose band tracks supposedly saw battle environment experience in Afghanistan, mounted either on a handful of Dutch or Norwegian M113s, I don't recall which offhand).
And there was some mentioning of both United Defense's (now a BAE subsidiary) MTVL, a "super M113" if you will, and that it performed much better than comparable tracked vehicles because of its band tracks.
Plus, there was some minimal discussion that an Alvis (also now a BAE subsidiary) Scorpion CVR(T) was fitted with band tracks. This little 9-tonner AFV "light tank", already known for its routine ability to get 55mph (88km/hr) or better on its aluminum-rubber-steel construction tracks, supposed routinely crossed the 62mph (100km/hr) mark on a set of band tracks (I'll have to dig around, but I'm certain I recall reading its straight-line speed could achieve 65-68mph).
 
Does such high speed really have a tactical advantage?
Proponents for several wheeled AFVs suggest higher speed related to wheels gives a superior speed ability over tracks, although fuel usage is increased in either set of shoes, and stresses on suspension also increases proportionally as speed increases and terrain gets rougher.
 
The FCS program supposedly adopted band tracks on the grounds of weight savings (an initial requirement was C-130 transportability, but we'll never see that in a combat-ready FCS platform. It has hence been dropped, but the band tracks are still in, and that raises maintenance concerns for a vehicle that is expected to operate with just a 2-man crew).
 
Are band tracks as durable to extreme abuse as pneumatic rubber tires?
Time will tell,
but seeing as recreational snowmobiles have used them for decades,
as well as that Bv206/210 series articulated vehicle (Bronco in some circles),
agricultural tractors (Caterpillar Challenger series),
and an increasing number of commercially-available hydraulic shovels and small bulldozers for the construction industry,
not to mention the US Army's M105 DEUCE "light bulldozer",
band tracks are making their presence felt in more and more applications where they are required to put with, on a daily basis, hours of wear and tear over unfriendly terrain, in some of the most inhospitable conditions.
 
So certainly, as the manufacturers receive input from their customers,
band tracks' capabilities will certainly improve in durability, useful lifetime, damage resistance, and whatever else the end costomers require them to provide.
 
Only field experience will demonstrate if band tracks are a decent alternative to metal link tracks.
It will, most likely, come down to its ability to stand up to the same abuses as metal tracks, but be reliable enough, durable enough, and flexible enough that they aren't being thrown or broken with the same frequency of metal tracks systems, because it's currently obvious it will take more time to replace a complete endless loop band track than to replace a few metal track links.
 
I think for light-to-medium weight tracked AFVs we'll see them adopted more,
but the the heavyweight MBTs will still, most likely, rely on the sheer structural strength and abuse-tolerating that only metal links can provide.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       11/25/2007 1:37:19 PM
I read in the November 2007 issue of "Soldier" mag (the one with the nice pic of Katherin Jenkins on the front) that the British army now has a new tracked, armoured engineer vehicle (looked a bit like Spartan) which can be (or is) remote controlled.
 
Gucci stuff.
 
 
Quote    Reply

hiker    Yimmy, second time   11/26/2007 11:30:21 AM

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.

What I was thinking in response to this but never said was that we should apply the question to some specific scenarios.  I can to see this differently, favoring the speed tremendously and, really, not seeing the point of adding extra armor to a vehicle that has no people in it.  On the other hand, I am strictly an "armchair warrior," so it is easy for me to miss things.

Scenarios that come to my mind are: the conquest of Iraqi, the urban occupation of Iraq (my understanding is the tanks are not very important there), Afghanistan (raises the question of mountainous terrain), the German conquest of France in 1940, North Africa (WWII), and the Eastern front in World War II.  I realize this list probably seems a little absurd, but I'm just frankly working off things I have some knowledge of---reading newspapers and military history.

I'm trying to place the robot tank into some kind of specific context so I can imagine how it might function.
 
Quote    Reply

hiker    Doggtag, thanks again for the great info   11/26/2007 11:44:39 AM

I don't know that band tracks function better over rougher terrains better than metal tracks, both in speed and in durability.

 

But on improved surfaces, under defense contractor test conditions, vehicles equipped with band tracks can travel faster than metal tracked vehicles.

 

I cannot recall exactly how long we posted up some interesting discussions here of the benefits versus problem related to band tracks,

but IIRC there was a link or two from different companies offering AFV-suitable sets (Soucy comes to mind, whose band tracks supposedly saw battle environment experience in Afghanistan, mounted either on a handful of Dutch or Norwegian M113s, I don't recall which offhand).

And there was some mentioning of both United Defense's (now a BAE subsidiary) MTVL, a "super M113" if you will, and that it performed much better than comparable tracked vehicles because of its band tracks.

Plus, there was some minimal discussion that an Alvis (also now a BAE subsidiary) Scorpion CVR(T) was fitted with band tracks. This little 9-tonner AFV "light tank", already known for its routine ability to get 55mph (88km/hr) or better on its aluminum-rubber-steel construction tracks, supposed routinely crossed the 62mph (100km/hr) mark on a set of band tracks (I'll have to dig around, but I'm certain I recall reading its straight-line speed could achieve 65-68mph).

 

Does such high speed really have a tactical advantage?

Proponents for several wheeled AFVs suggest higher speed related to wheels gives a superior speed ability over tracks, although fuel usage is increased in either set of shoes, and stresses on suspension also increases proportionally as speed increases and terrain gets rougher.

 

The FCS program supposedly adopted band tracks on the grounds of weight savings (an initial requirement was C-130 transportability, but we'll never see that in a combat-ready FCS platform. It has hence been dropped, but the band tracks are still in, and that raises maintenance concerns for a vehicle that is expected to operate with just a 2-man crew).

 

Are band tracks as durable to extreme abuse as pneumatic rubber tires?

Time will tell,

but seeing as recreational snowmobiles have used them for decades,

as well as that Bv206/210 series articulated vehicle (Bronco in some circles),

agricultural tractors (Caterpillar Challenger series),

and an increasing number of commercially-available hydraulic shovels and small bulldozers for the construction industry,

not to mention the US Army's M105 DEUCE "light bulldozer",

band tracks are making their presence felt in more and more applications where they are required to put with, on a daily basis, hours of wear and tear over unfriendly terrain, in some of the most inhospitable conditions.

 

So certainly, as the manufacturers receive input from their customers,

band tracks' capabilities will certainly improve in durability, useful lifetime, damage resistance, and whatever else the end costomers require them to provide.

 

Only field experience will demonstrate if band tracks are a decent alternative to metal link tracks.

It will, most likely, come down to its ability to stand up to the same abuses as metal tracks, but be reliable enough, durable enough, and flexible enough that they aren't being thrown or broken with the same frequency of metal tracks systems, because it's currently obvious it will take more time to replace a complete endless loop band track than to replace a few metal track links.

 

I think for light-to-medium weight tracked AFVs we'll see them adopted more,

but the the heavyweight MBTs will still, most likely, rely on the sheer structural strength and abuse-tolerating that only metal links can provide.

 

Here's another thought.  Generally, vehicle suspensions have been designed, let's say, with two considerations in mind.  You need to protect the vehicle and you need to protect the driver and passengers.  With no driver and passengers to protect, is it possible that suspensions could be radically redesigned?  For example, might there be less dampening utilized and more directing energy into the motion of components in ways that do not result in harming the suspension?  I am envisioning a suspension with par
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Just one brief comment.   11/26/2007 12:04:42 PM
When it comes to mechanical vibration, flesh handles the harmonics far better than metal plastic and rubber. Its the sheer forces that kill you.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       11/27/2007 2:48:55 PM
Terrier, the new British 30 tonne tractor, either crewed by 2, or by remote.
 
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/armyterrierb.jpg" width=500 border=0>
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics