Am I allowed to bring up the future of AFV design, particularly as it relates to the deployment of computing power on or near the front line here? /k/ is too stupid to have an interesting conversation about the role of the 5th (space) and 6th (cyber) domains as they relate to the tip of the bayonet.
>>17013117Do you have a particular claim you would like to bring to the table?Any insights or news?
>>17013117There are people here who work on stuff like that, but it's hard to talk about since even the unclassified stuff is usually either CUI or will violate some sort of export control if disclosed, especially for space related things.
>>17013125Several points I think are worthy of discussion in 2026. 1. All current AFVs are obsolete because they are unable to provide sufficient electrical power to the systems they need to carry to be effective. At the very top of this list is the Abrams which can barely turn on it's radio without running it's fuel hungry turbine, but there are currently no AFVs in service, OR PLANNED, that can actually supply enough electrical power to be of use on a 21st century battlefield. Electric drive and large modern batteries are simply a requirement now. 2. The proposals involving the use of Ai are being made by people who don't understand the physical engineering of Ai. On the one hand you have team iPhone who thinks you can just pack an LLM into a mobile phone with no connectivity and that's going to be the same having chatGPT 5 in a $500 drone. On the other hand you've got team data center who haven't even begun to figure out how that compute power reaches troops on the front like on a battlefield with contested EM and degraded satcoms. 3. The manned/unmanned mix, particularly as it relates to unmanned ground vehicles hasn't been addressed by next generation AFV proposals at all. It's at best being seen as an afterthought by engineers who are still in the mindset of the 20th century MBT/IFV combo, at worst seen as a seperate thing that does not relate to maneuver with armored forces. It seems to me that the actual mix is manned vehicles designed primarily to serve as command tanks for UGVs, heavily armoured, fast and survivable but with only enough firepower for self-defense in an emergency, and heavily armed but cheap and disposable UGVs being operated remotely by the command tank performing all the roles once performed by MBTs. 4. The use of ultrasonics for battlefield internetworking having the advantage of high bandwidth at short range but low to zero detectability beyond that.
>>17013117How much does it cost? Having one would stop arizonans from pretending to drive by shoot you through their windshields.
>>17013127What's CUI?
>>17013127Also, you don't really need classified information to know that the first day of a major war everyone is going to be shooting down everyone else's satellites. And I've seen very little thought put into that, at least publicly, by the military academy. Not only does there seem to be no doctrine there, but there doesn't seem to be any organized attempt to develop one. I could be wrong and it just hasn't reached my civvy ears tho.
>>17013133controlled unclassified information
>>17013143I see.
>>17013125>>17013130Further thoughtfuel in the hopes of sparking conversation. 5. The relationship between infantry and armor is being reversed. Where during the 20th century all the way up to the GWOT, armor needed infantry support to function as its eyes and ears as the men inside the tank have very limited situational awareness particularly at close range. With the vast array of digital sensors now available to AFV designers armor is now in a position to have better situational awareness than the infantry, functioning as the eyes and ears of the infantry rather than the other way around. While thinking here has mostly been limited to termoptics, in reality a properly designed AFV would have better acoustic detection, on board facial recognition, EM detection, on board drone capability, and much better access to broader C4ISR capability than could possibly be given to an infantry section or platoon. 6. Battlefield internetworking doesn't seem to have much doctrinal development at all. Seems the goto solution has just been to give everyone a satlink, which carries with it enourmous drawbacks, or to rely on RF which is practically suicide. I'm reminded of the American experience in WW1 where a large proportion of the American Expedition spent the war laying telephone cable. RF replaced that, but in a contested EM environment it's practically unusuable. The doctrine and systems needed to build a hardened network under battlefield conditions where optical fibre cable does the majority of the work with wireless communications only performing the last mile so to speak seems like it needs pretty significant investment. 7. The thinking about the manning reqs of AFVs seems to be going in the wrong direction. The "Ai crewman" aside from presenting the problems in point 2, as well as the use of unmanned systems in point 3, don't suggest a smaller crew workload but a larger one. Seems to me the optimal crew size might be around 6, not 3 as currently proposed.
>>17013130>>17013155great posts. moving weapons to a constellation of drones while a manned vehicle runs the show is something i've always found fascinating. afaik the only serious proposal for this was for aircraft, which is also cool but not quite as imagination-fueling as ground drones -- particularly bringing in your comments on infantry/armor cooperation, where the drones could also act as pointmen for attached infantry or extensions of an early warning systemneat to see some rudimentary drones in use today. hope we get to see them working with conventional units but it doesn't seem to be what they're used for
Future AFV:>360x180 degree composite camera vision in visible, IR and possibly other spectrums>computer assisted target detection and identification>computer controlled active defense countermeasures>computer aimed weapons including main weapons and roof machine gun>multiple ranging methods including passive stereo/multi-camera triangulation>EM signature awareness/mitigation and EM detection capabilities>ground 2 ground radar returns to see though concealment and cover>IR camouflage/mitigation>smart-fused munitions are automated by the computer FCS>external video and data reception of drones and other sources that are automatically parsed and used by the awareness and FCS system.The weapons and armor themselves are probably only going to be incremental improvements with the exception being the smart FCS meshing with smart munitions will result in being able to kill targets behind cover.
>>17013130>unable to provide sufficient electrical power to the systems they need to carry to be effectiveYou're complaining about a problem that already has a solution as simple as bolting a 15kW generator above the trailer hitch. Electrifying an existing tank is as easy as attaching an electric motor to the driveshaft. It doesn't even need a disconnect because it functions as a starter, alternator and can be spun freely with minimal resistance if no electrical load is needed.>abrams fuel usageNot a real problem.
>>17013130You are retarded. AI system needed for auto targeting runs on smallest of the ram. <10MB ram models exist for quick identification of drones/humans/etc. Any modern phone with few GB of ram can easily run a robust AI system for detection and control. They dont need to be super human AI hacker guru, they only need to be trained on limited domain use case
>>17013650>a constellation of dronesYou have to remember that every drone needs a pilot. I ran out of character but that's what I was getting at with the crew size. A 6-man crew would beCommanderDriverGunnerE-war specialistDrone OperatorDrone OperatorAllowing the tank to remotely control 1 ground drone and 1 air drone while maintaining the ability to counter enemy drones and move without having to stop the mission.
>>17013659AI midwits love to argue against each other without knowledge that target recognition and tracking algorithms is 1980s technology.All of >>17013656 is either deployed today in the war in ukraine, in use in the US, a demonstrated prototype or a networking of extant systems.
>>17013117AFVs are just offroad buses with guns.>computing power on the front linesWhy do you need this? Hacking can be done over the internet. Whether AFVs have a future or are the future depends on how well counter UAS works. If it's too hard to defend against drones, then AFVs are in the way out. No sense making infantry more vulnerable to drones by concentrating them in one place, have them walk instead. If counter UAS works very well, but it's big then AFVs are needed for like any use of infantry. Cause now the only way infantry survives useful time periods is in range of a drone defense system.>>17013130>ultrasound for battlefield networkingUnless you're fighting underwater, that's retarded>high bandwidthYou're retarded. Loss in air at 1MHz is like 100 dB/m. So yeah range will be really fucking short. 1MHz is not anywhere close to high bandwidth. And it's fucking sound, you're moving information slower than bullets! It'd be better to use millimeter wave. Millimeter waves(30-100GHz) are highly directional, don't go through walls*, and can have crappy propagation. Channel sizes can be on the range of GHz.*6G will forever be a fucking meme because of this.
>>170136581. 15kw isn't enough. They want to put 150kw lasers and 10kw radars on these things. 2. Attaching an electrical motor to the drive shaft only works while the engine is on3. An Abrams needs to be refueled every 6 hours while idling. A full tank is nearly 2000 liters. Meaning you're going through about 4 tonnes of fuel a day just to keep ONE tank on station with all it's gadgets on. What's needed is a ~10kwh battery and electric drive so the tank only needs to run it's engine intermittently to recharge its battery, and it can use a smaller more efficient engine since it doesn't need to rely on the torque of the engine itself for agility. But to do that to an existing tank would add about 15 tonnes of weight. Which means the only possible solution is a ground up redesign.
>>17013666150kw is missile destroyer tier15kw is anti-drone and anti-infantry(if Geneva convention can be bypassed somehow) tier
>>17013661>Allowing the tank to remotely control 1 ground drone and 1 air droneThe tank is going to have a satellite data receiver among other receivers to get video steams, intelligence, and communication from what's near them. Even in the EW jamming environment they'll still be receiving most of the time.Also there's no reason they would be limited to manually piloting one drone per operator. Ground drones that have nothing interesting to report can sit on standby and watched dozens at a time like a security camera feed (and have automatic notifications of detected movement).The same is true for flying drones which even without GPS can use a downward camera to maintain altitude and fly a patrol path. These drones can also be watched manually as a batch and can automatically report recognized or unexpected objects. The future is not FPV piloting, onboard systems can already do that. FPV piloting would be an alternate manual control used as needed.
>>17013666>your idea doesn't work, except it does work because you do the exact same thing with the obvious necessary electronics like a battery pack or capacitorsThanks anon.>15kW isn't enoughGood thing that tank engines are a lot more powerful than 15kW.
>>17013665>Why do you need this?Because there's no cell service on a battlefield. What we've got right now is broadcast wireless and satlinks, both of which are artillery and drone magnets. And that's before you get to a situation where everyone is shooting down everyone else's satellites. First day of the war - there's no more internet. So what are your fancy data centers doing now? And who's doing the C4ISR for the guys on the front line? Deploying computing power for the tasks that affect decisions on land while preventing the enemy from doing the same is the core of cyber warfare. >>17013659>>17013662What if I want to do more than just pilot an aspect seeking missile?
>>17013666>want to put 150 kw lasers and 10 kw radars on these thingsWhy the hell do you need a 10 kw radar? The laser won't operate continuously at 150 kw. Does this really need to be on EVERY amored vehicle? Why not have some vehicle specialized for drone defense? Or modify a bradley so it carries more generators and less people
>>17013668>The tank is going to have a satellite data receiverThat's going to give away it's location to enemy EW. >Also there's no reason they would be limited to manually piloting one drone per operator. Yeah there is. If you're trying to force a breakthrough you need one pilot for the ground vehicle and another for the air drone over head. That plus the e-war guy are performing the mission. Meanwhile, possibly because some idiot was running the satlink, there's a good chance once you start the mission the enemy is going to send it's own air drones to find you. So you need to be able to move and shoot the tank without bothering the guys doing the mission. Finally you need a commander because everyone is so focused on their own tasks that they lose broader awareness of what's going on. That's 6 guys. A drone without a pilot isn't doing anything. >>17013672OMG you're talking to me like that while being that fucking stupid. a LiFe battery holds about 100wh/kg. Meaning every 10kwh, which is enough to keep the electronics on for about 30 minutes as long as the tank just sits there and doesn't shoot at anything, weighs 100kg and that's about half a meter by half a meter by 20cms thick. That's a big fucking battery for 30 minutes of IDLE. So to actually operate a tank for long periods of time without running the noisy fuel hungry engine needs a battery a LOT bigger than that.
>tanks were invented during ww1 to push through no man's land >enemies started to make their own tanks to fight back>tanks got more and more advanced>until a drone blew one upi think tanks are outdated nowor there might be a compact unmanned highly mobile tank on the way with anti drone weaponry
>>17013673>no cell service in the battlefieldDrones are being guided over the cell network in ukraine>satlinks are artillery and drone magnetsBut not enough of ones to limit their use in ukraine>everyone is shooting down everyone's satellitesThen have communicate satellites ready to launch as soon they're taken down>first day of war - there's no more internetThen the war's over because the tick tock addicts will riot until the internet's back on. The consequences on the economy are basically apocalyptic. Most places don't use cash now, so if the internet goes down the economy stops>Deploying computing power for the tasks that affect decisions on land while preventing the enemy from doing the same is the core of cyber warfareJust use a laptop. No need for supercomputers. It's not like it's possible to hack everything on the battlefield like in videogames
>>17013677>Why the hell do you need a 10 kw radar?That's not the output rating, that's the raw energy cost of the entire system. 4 faces plus the computers to actually run the thing. >The laser won't operate continuously at 150 kw.They will sometimes. They times when they're doing their actual job dealing with swarms of drones. The fact that they don't need that electrical power when they're sitting in a parking lot isn't really germane to the issue. >Or modify a bradley so it carries more generators and less peopleThey've been trying bolt on systems for ages. And the electrical demands just keep going up.And that's before you start putting things like serious computing power and drone operation stations in there. The volume inside of a bradley just isn't that big and you want to put extra ic engines in there because the ic engine already in there isn't fit for purpose. A ground up redesign is inevitable.
>>17013684I read to the part where you start meming about tiktok. You're not a serious person so I don't take you seriously. These are legitimate problems that aren't being properly thought through at the highest levels, and certainly no solutions are currently coming through the procurement pipeline. Meanwhile the Chinese military was ordered to be ready for a war with the United States next year. If your plan is to just let other people solve the problems then shut up and let me do it.
>>17013686>That's not the output rating, that's the raw energy cost of the entire system.Ok, and do you have a link to this radar? A 1KW radar would be a drone and artillery magnet wouldn't it?>They will sometimesThen carry some energy storage. You only really need enough to rev the engine. And as of right now lasers don't work. They aren't guaranteed to work either. Optics might be too fragile for the battlefield. If you get a bit of dirt on a high power laser lense, it gets rekt>serious computing powerDo you really fucking need it?>drone operation stationsDon't need much power. It's just a TV screen.>>17013688>tiktokDo you think this is a joke? Tick tock was able to massively mobilize their userbase to lobby against a ban. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-calls-congress.htmlIf there was an actual ban, it'd be much worse. No point in even firing a bullet if you can 'mind control' much of the population to lobby for surrender.>These are legitimate problemsNo>aren't being properly thought through at the highest levelsYes>certainly no solutions are currently coming through the procurement pipeline.Procurement's fucked. Procuring a new AFV is not happening and the least of the US's problems>Meanwhile the Chinese military was ordered to be ready for a war with the United States next year.gg, we're fucked. Too much of the defense industrial base is made in china now.
>>17013682Weapon systems don't become obsolete when the enemy figures out a counter. They become obsolete when a system that can to the same job but better comes along. The modern main battle tank is obsolete but not because they're suddenly not invincible, they were never invincible. In ww1 the attrition rate of tanks was 75% per day of operation, and that number hasn't actually gone down by much when facing a peer enemy. What obsoletes the current crop of main battle tanks is their gun. The rh-120 (NATO) or the 2A46 (soviet) guns are both high velocity smoothbore anti-tank guns in a world where anti-tank guns are completely obsolete. The best anti-tank weapon on a tank is the radio. And that's doctrine for both side in the Ukraine war now. If they see another tank they fire whatever is in the barrel, which is usually HE-frag, and fuck off quickly while calling in drone and artillery knowing that's exactly what the other guy has done and they need to be somewhere else before that drone support and artillery gets here. The entire design of a MBT, with strong frontal armor and a powerful AT-gun is obsolete because it's optimized to do something that the tank just doesn't do any more. There are better ways to achieve the same thing. Which means the design of an AFV needs to be completely reconfigured from the ground up. Everything from the weapons system to the armor layout to the drive train is at best sub-optimal, at worst actively inhibiting the tank from doing the job it actually does which is provide direct fire on enemy strongpoints.
>>17013691>A 1KW radar would be a drone and artillery magnet wouldn't it?Yep. >Then carry some energy storage. Right now the Leo2A8 carries 4 lead acid truck batteries so that it can power the turret for a FEW MINUTES if the engine stalls out. >And as of right now lasers don't work. This information is out of date. There are plenty of effective laser systems available right now, and nothing to mount them on because no vehicle in any inventory, or even in the pipeline (with the exception of some chinese vehicles) that can provide sufficient electrical power. >Do you really fucking need it?Do you really need to have a war at all? The question of how and why we need to deploy computing power to the front line is conversation we should be having and aren't. >Don't need much power. It's just a TV screen.It's not. It's a computer. Even doing it with laptops, which is stupid, you're still talking about putting six laptops in a tank and keeping them charged. On a 24Vdc electrical system that was designed before laptops were even a thing. >Do you think this is a joke?Do you think a major war between china and the US is a joke? Everyone is shooting down everyone else satellites, everyone starts relaunching satellites because it's really hard to have a war without them, and so everyone starts shooting down everyone's relaunched satellites. Who wins that race? Can the US shoot down more satellites than china can launch? Can the US launch more satellites than china can shoot down? How long do you think until both sides start targeting satellite factories and launch facilities? How close are those factories your fucking house YOU DUMB FUCK.
>>17013117>AFVIn the era of remote controlled flying bombs with computerized guidance systems, those lumbering armored vehicles will be quickly targeted and destroyed. Completely obsolete against an even moderately technologically capable opponent. That's great if you're a military contractor selling replacement units or the congressman who represents the district where those manufacturing facilities are located, but sucks for anyone else.
>>17013707see >>17013692Tanks died to air power in WW2 too.
>>17013117the sad news is that tanks are obsolete by cheap'O drones with an explosive anti vehicle projectile just attached to themthink of how much the tank cost, now think how many drones you can make with that money, tank is BTFO
>>17013709see >>17013692In ww2 they didn't even need the drone, they just dropped the explosive.
>>17013708Air power requires the budget and infrastructure to build up an air force, Big pieces of machinery requiring even larger fabrication facilities. Every aspect of it can be targeted. Drones can be made in someone's basement.Drones are a game changer.
>>17013714No doubt. But the existing of effective anti-tank does not obsolete the tank. The existence of something that does what the tank does better than a tank does it obsoletes the tank. The germans figured out effective anti-tank tactics the day after the british first deployed tanks on the somme. 110 we still need tanks to assault enemy fortifications.
>>17013696>There are plenty of effective laser systems available right now, and nothing to mount them on because no vehicle in any inventory,No, the problem is that the lasers themselves are too big. Laser power/volume and power/mass isn't too great. Also they have problems with cooling ans reliability. Efforts to deploy lasers in combat have failed https://www.laserwars.net/p/army-enduring-high-energy-laser-weapon-draft-request-for-proposal>Do you really need to have a war at all?Ok, but is it really worth it over just carrying more bullets and using laptops?>It's not. It's a computerNo, it's literally TV screen or goggles. Lag has to be kept low, so you don't want the image getting delayed by passing it through a computer, it's directly displayed on screen. Maybe with like a little bit of telemetry, but that's fucking nothing. FPV goggles consume like 8-15 watts, that's fucking nothing. Walksnail qfpv goggles consume like 8 watts, that's nothing.>six laptops in a tank and keeping them charged.My laptop power adapter consumes 130 W, so 780 W, that's not even a kilowatt, woop de fucking doo>on a 24 Vdc electrical systemHave you been living under a rock? Power electronics are pretty efficient right now. Converting 24 V to the 12 volts my laptop uses is trivial.>Do you think a major war between china and the US is a joke?Yes, because nukes exist major war can't really happen without ending the world. So it won't happen.>Everyone is shooting down everyone else satellites,Then it's basically the end of the world. >Can the US shoot down more satellites than china can launch?Yes, as a matter of fact the US can. SpaceX can launch satellites faster than china.
>>17013696>How close are those factories your fucking house YOU DUMB FUCK.That's exactly the problem. The factories that make parts for missiles and other things we need for defense are in china. If we go to war with china we stop being able to make things like missiles because the parts are made in china. Building the parts in the US in the same capacities as in china here requires rebuilding the industrial base. And that's too slow. China has so much more industrial capacity than the US, that they can win by numbers alone.
>>17013719>Laser power/volume and power/mass isn't too great.That's not the laser itself, that's the power system. You know, the thing you've been trying to tell me isn't a problem? >Ok, but is it really worth it over just carrying more bullets and using laptops?Welcome to the conversation. Fewer bullets but they hit the target more often versus more bullets. C4ISR stands for command, control, communications, COMPUTING, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. Right now it's all done by connecting rooms full of people with desktops and big data centers to the front line effectors via satcom. >Lag has to be kept low, so you don't want the image getting delayed by passing it through a computer, it's directly displayed on screenIt's not a CRT running analogue NTSC you fucking idiot. It's a digital system. >My laptop power adapter consumes 130 W, so 780 W, that's not even a kilowattSo a kilowatt per hour, every hour, for 24 hours a day. That's just to run the laptops you're trying to run the entire fucking war on. > Power electronics are pretty efficient right now.The Abrams were built in the 1980s. >because nukes existNukes can be shot down, as long as you've got satellites up. Welcome to the future. >Then it's basically the end of the world.Now you're getting it. >Yes, as a matter of fact the US can. SpaceX can launch satellites faster than china.Soooooooooo, China should probably have SpaceX dialed in for some long range precision fires then. Is spaceX mobile? Or is it going to stay right where it is now, where the Chinese already know it is, so they don't need satellites to look for it? Seems like MAYBE someone should put a bit more thought into maintaining space launch capability in the event of a major war. Like I said, if you want to let other people solve the problem for you then shut up and let me do it. But pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make it not a problem.
>>17013730See you're not really wrapping your head around that problem properly. What you're suggesting there is that the US won't go to war because it would be an easy W for China. But if it's an easy W for China then it makes sense that China would go to war now because that might change later. This is what we call effective deterrence.
>>17013650the aircraft-based proposal i mentioned was for a small flight of autonomous drones in support of a manned jet, but obviously they would have limited function (probably just slaved to the manned jet most of the time)you could still have multiple drones attached to your ground vehicle, and the pilots maintain the ability to manually control any particular one in active phases of a mission. just have unpiloted ones following preprogrammed behavior like acting as a curtain of observers
>>17013661fuck, replied to my own posthere >>17013751
>>17013751>autonomous dronesSo the issue there is the smarter you make the drone the more expensive you make the drone and the more valuable the drone is to the enemy. When you're talking about wingman drones, it makes sense to use expensive drones because you don't need that many of them and it's going to be very hard for the enemy to get one in any state of repair after it's been shot out of the sky over the pacific ocean. When you're talking about land warfare tho, and unmanned ground vehicle designed to assault an enemy strongpoint is going to very quickly wind up knocked out, and will probably have most of it's electronics in tact when the enemy nabs it because you literally drove it straight into their lines. The active phase of the ground mission is the only thing that actually matters here. You need a pilot for the aerial drone, and that's going to take that pilot's full attention because it has to maneuver and so forth to do it's mission, and putting a big computer on a quadcopter requires a bigger quadcopter to carry it. So autonomy for that drone has extremely limited utility if any at all. For the ground drone, you again need a pilot to drive and shoot the gun. That's the mission, that's what the drone is there to do. It's not there to drive around looking cool, you've sent it to shoot enemies and you need a person to tell it how to do that. You can have extra drones in reserve, but ONE tank drone requires AT LEAST two pilots to be fully focused on just what that tank drone is doing. You also need a commander because both of those pilots are going to be so focused on what they're doing they're going to lose awareness of what's going on around them. What I'm proposing is that we put these three guys in a vehicle, because that was they don't have to walk and run and hide and shit while they're doing what they're doing. That vehicle obviously needs a driver, because the three guys already in the vehicle are busy.
>>17013751>>17013761That vehicle will probably want some firepower of it's own, most notably because you can pretty much guarantee enemy drones are going to be looking for it the minute the enemy figures out it's there. You can't drive and shoot at the same time, so that's a fifth guy. Finally, given how electronic all this warfare is, you definitely going to want an ewar specialists to be running both offense and defense while all of this is going on. So that's six guys fully engaged in moving ONE unmanned ground vehicle with a big fucking gun from our side to their side to use that big fucking gun in some way that's going upset them. The advantage is that ground vehicle can be made cheap by NOT making autonomous. You just run an optical fibre cable out the back, and it can probably carry 150kms of fibre, which is bit expensive at the moment but that's temporary. And there's no people in it, so you skimp out on the protection too. So you've now got a thing that does what an MBT does for a fractions of what an MBT costs. BUT, you still need that very expensive command vehicle, with those 6 very highly trained crew, to do it. But the risk to that vehicle and crew are a lot lower, so you can over-invest in that system.
>>17013765>>17013761as a pure replacement for a tank (which i guess is the subject of the thread) what you're proposing makes sense. definitely not questioning the need for other non-pilot dudes in the command vehiclei guess i'm just thinking about functions beyond what conventional vehicles do. you could have the one big gun drone for fighting, and a bunch of smaller cheaper ones that just navigate out a certain distance to do the observation job. little rovers with sensors, they get guidance from the command vehicle. but yeah if we're just trying to replace a tank you're right on the money
>>17013731>That's not the laser itself, that's the power system.https://prd-sc102-cdn.rtx.com/raytheon/-/media/ray/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/hel/pdf/ray_hel6-panel_data_ic23.pdfThe 10 kW laser module's 1.5 x 1 x 0.5 m(13.3 kW/m^3) and masses 310 kg(32W/kg). The 50 kW laser module's 1.5x1x1.5 m(22kW/m^3) and masses 1150 kg(40 W/kg). >It's not a CRT running analogue NTSCIt's an LCD running analog NTSC. No really. Analog's preferred for FPVs because it's cheap, there's less lag, and the signal degrades smoothly rather than immediately as with digital systems. Digital video decoding doesn't require "serious compute" either. Google says digital FPV goggles consume around 12-16W, which isn't that much>kilowatt per hour, every hour, for 24 hours a day.Not all computers would be running at full power all the time and the crew has to sleep at some point. >The Abrams were built in the 1980s. 24 vdc to USB-C converters can be built today>Nukes can be shot down, as long as you've got satellites up. Most nukes can't be shot down. Israel was able to intercept some, but not all ballistic missiles in the iran war, demonstrating that missile defense sucks. Even one nuke does a lot of damage. So nuclear deterrence still holds.>Now you're getting it. Nuclear deterrence still holds. Nothing ever happens.>Is spaceX mobileThere should be a few mobile falcon launchers>if you want to let other people solve the problem for you then shut up and let me do it.It's the wrong problem to solve. Maybe instead of making better AFVs, better drones should be made instead? Better AFVs won't help that much in the war with China over Taiwan. You do know it's gonna be about Taiwan right?
>>17013768Yeah and in scaling you start getting more options. You're probably not sending in one at a time, you're probably going to send a platoon of 6, which means now you can start mixing and matching some of those seats. You probably don't need all 6 to have their own eye in the sky, so you can take maybe 4 of those aerial drones and turn them into attack drones and stuff. And you need all 6 to have their own ewar guy, so at least one of those gets replaced by an overall mission commander, and maybe 3 more can be swapped out for more drone pilots. And this goes back to point 6 up here >>17013155 which is how to network all of this shit together. I was thinking that the command vehicles themselves have their own spool of optical fibre that they connect to a shared hub somewhere and then drive off and hide separately. That way if one of the vehicles gets discovered it can scarper while still doing it's job, not affecting the mission being conducted up in the enemy's face.
>>17013770>The 50 kW laser module's 1.5x1x1.5 m(22kW/m^3) and masses 1150 kg(40 W/kg)Yep. And the aim of the game is 150kw. >Most nukes can't be shot down.The thing is that nukes themselves are actually obsolete. There is almost nothing you can do with a nuke that you can't do with a precision strike. Tactically speaking nukes are useless, the only thing they do is flatten cities and make everyone mad at you for flattening cities. The other point there is that Israel and Iran are fairly close. Those are intermediate range ballistic missiles not intercontinental ballistic missiles, which fly much higher for much longer. The more dangerous long range strike options are things like hypersonic glide vehicles, but the thing about those is they're just as dangerous in terms of degrading the enemy's capacity to make war with a conventional warhead as they are with a nuke.Which means you don't actually have to use nukes to blow up SpaceX. You can just use a submarine launched HGV. Which means no MAD trigger. Everyone shoots down everyone else's satellites, and destroys everyone satellite factory and nobody uses any nukes, and the faggots you were talking about earlier can whinge about tiktok all they want because that will be very least of anyone's problems. >Maybe instead of making better AFVs, better drones should be made instead?So that's you asking someone else to do the thinking. You're not actually assessing my proposals, you're just trying to pretend these proposals are unnecessary because you don't want to think about the problem.
>>17013776would be really cool to see the kinds of hyper-aggressive raids a unit of these could pull off, not having to directly risk themselves. and yeah spools of fiber cables are definitely the future, one day archaeologists will be remarking about the fiber optic age in ukraine. i hear troops over there are already carrying equipment to disentangle themselves from the stuff, it's all over the countrysidehope we see a big return of tow launchers with fiber-guided missiles, that shit is so cool
I have a bunch of military tech ideas, but I'd never give any of them to some zionist-controlled western zogbot whose orders come from deeply corrupted control freak politicians who love capitalism more than their own lives.
>>17013927It's a dilemma to be sure. I don't live in America so I feel like my ideas won't serve Israel too much.
>>17013939your ideas are being fed to LLMs for training, to be spread later to the right people in the right contextI'm sorry to say it anon, but that's the current state of things. the internet is fucked.
>>17013942That doesn't bother me so much because firstly my shit is full of typos and profanity. So when the military industrial Jew gets the Ai to tell it how to do corruption and stuff, worst case scenario he gets a face full of Australian fucking english, best case scenario the LLM ignores everything I say. The other thing is I don't consider myself a world ending genius or anything, if I can come up with this stuff someone else can too. And in the meantime it's fun to talk and think about.
>>17013117I guess I'll just explain why your image is stupid.>4 man crewWe're moving to 3 men crews and want to make tanks that can be "minimally manned" and work with 1 crewman if needed. The reason we're dropping the 4th crewmember is because they are just there to load the gun, which is soon to be an automated process.>Tank is too largeSquare cube law, ground pressure, etc. We make them as big as they need to be to carry the main cannon. We don't make them taller than needed and certainly don't have giant shot traps that guide incoming munitions into the underside of the turret.>Main gun has a slant muzzle brake that points downThis is just going to kick up dust and reveal the tank's position more easily with every shot. The tank doesn't even need that style of brake, which is more of a compensator than a recoil reducer. >RCWS has no vertical traversal capability.You're going to want a machine gun that can point down to sweep ditches and aim below the tank when it's hull down on a hill. These days you also want it to point upwards, for drone interception.>Tank is painted whiteThis isn't viable for any terrain unless you're trying to signal that you're a UN peacekeeper tank. Even tanks in alpine environments will be foliage colored, to hide in treelines better.
>>17014109>We're moving to 3 men crewsSee: >>17013761Minimally manned is brass retardation as usual, they think they can have an army without soldiers but the reality is that autonomous warfare means more people and more training for those people than the old fresh meat for the grinder model. >Tank is too largeThe reason tanks are the size they are is the transportability requirement. They have to be able to be moved on standard gauge rail for fitin in yoorup. If you get rid of the transportability requirement the discussion around optimal size of tanks gets very different very quickly. >Main gun has a slant muzzle brake that points downThat's not a muzzle brake that's a thermal shroud. >Tank is painted whiteIt's not white, it's matt beige which would be effective in a desert environment and would also reflect heat making the tank operate better. I'll pay the top mount tho.
This one is cool
>>17014594Got totalled in southern lebanon.
>>17013130absolute fucking slop, nice work, you're a real basedentist
>>17013117/k/ is glowie honeypot
