![]() That's a sign a market segment has matured. ![]() Everyone and their dog has gotten in on the act. AFV tech seems to have plateaued at the moment, and I think products like CV90 and AMV reflect that, as it isn't necessarily the bleeding edge tech nations or traditional AFV producers developing top of the line AFVs. I like T10, and think it would be perfect for the Marines if they weren't eliminating tanks (still think it's stupid), but none of those are a massive leap in tech and capability. K2 is impressive, as is Armata if it lives up to the hype. Trophy and the like may be a game changer, but they don't need a new tank. Once they shed heavy armor, tanks become lighter, more maneuverable, and easier to ship across the world.I'm not really sure there is anything in terms of new tech that would justify a new tank design right now. Active protection systems, which can shoot down incoming rockets and missiles, makes them harder to hit. This can be accomplished by giving them stealth technology and reducing their infra-red signature, which makes them harder to find. Technologies that give tanks a good defense without covering them in heavy armor, for instance, the idea being that making tanks harder to detect and more difficult to hit means tanks can shed heavy plates of steel. Gareth Evans points out several key technologies that could become standard issue on future main battle tanks. ![]() But as the threat evolves so must the tank, which raises the question: What will the tanks of the future look like? Heavily armed and heavily armored, tanks have repeatedly proven themselves the arm of decision on the battlefield, even in the face of repeated challenges from other weapons such as bazookas, anti-tank guns, and even guided missiles. The tank has dominated battlefields for the last 100 years.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |