Tanks of the Future will be Ninja’s – quiet and hard to detect

Currently tanks are loud and emit a lot of heat. A quieter tank with a low level of infrared signature might not be detected until it was too late.

Future tanks could also control several large flying or ground drones with missiles. Those tanks would not give away their location when a strike is ordered.

Tanks could be made a lot more quiet by switching to electric battery operation when the detection is to be avoided. A hybrid power tank could switch to electric power when they get within 5 to 10 miles of the enemy.

Ion-soaked graphene sheets are thin and simple material that can shield an object’s thermal signature and even blend into surrounding temperature if actively manipulated. Graphene sheets could eliminate or significantly reduce or disguise a tank’s heat signature.

SAIC and Lockheed Martin are building the first U.S. electric tank prototype. Two demonstration vehicles are expected to be built by 2022. The Pentagon has expressed interest in military vehicles which generate their own electricity.

8 thoughts on “Tanks of the Future will be Ninja’s – quiet and hard to detect”

  1. Centralisation is fine for internal security, but it’s crippling in salvo warfare. Rubber treads can be partioned into 4 parts for breaking track; but their performance caps out around the 35 ton mark.

    Reply
  2. Centralisation is fine for internal security but it’s crippling in salvo warfare.Rubber treads can be partioned into 4 parts for breaking track; but their performance caps out around the 35 ton mark.

    Reply
  3. Centralisation is fine for internal security, but it’s crippling in salvo warfare.

    Rubber treads can be partioned into 4 parts for breaking track; but their performance caps out around the 35 ton mark.

    Reply
  4. “Future tanks could also control several large flying or ground drones with missiles. Those tanks would not give away their location when a strike is ordered.”

    Wouldn’t the radio they use to control the drones give away the location?

    Reply
  5. There’s a fundamental physical rule of law here when it comes to war. The tank was a big hit 100 years ago when there was no such thing as a jet engine, but these days you can destroy 1,000 tanks from a base 100 miles away all at once, with 1,000 missiles. It just doesn’t make any sense to build little fortified bases with cannons anymore, it makes more sense to build one massive heavily fortified mega-base stocked with missiles, both defensive and offensive missiles. Faster and more powerful missiles will win any war. The only thing that will change this equation are pure-energy weapons, basically the evolution of the projectile->missile.

    Reply
  6. I remember about ten years ago there were some developments in advanced rubber tank treads. Ironically the only link I can find on this now is from Treehugger:

    https://www.treehugger.com/cars/rubber-tracks-make-military-vehicles-more-efficient-durable-and-quieter.html

    With the weight of something like the Abrams you do start to run into issues with what is basically an oblong vulcanized tire tread but I don’t see why it couldn’t be properly reinforced.

    Something like the Abrams without heat or noise signatures would be a nightmare to fight against.

    Reply
  7. Quite is a big deal, in Iraq the striker was loved for being able to sweep in relatively quite (rubber wheels). A electric tank would be quieter but I am not sure how much so, tracks on roads or even off are the bulk of the noise. The modern diesels or even turbans of the Abrams are more of a whining hiss the tracks clanking is the tell that really travels.

    Reply

Leave a Comment