A single pilot can fly a CAS aircraft, find targets, and use weapons at the same time, but at least a crew of 3 is needed to operate a much slower MBT on the ground.
Why can't we have MBTs which can be operated by a single crew?
Because planes are generally pointing at whatever they're firing at and radar just gives you an awareness of what's around you. When there's a decent radar that can provide situational awareness on the ground, it'll be more likely we'll see tanks with fewer crew.
Notice how attack helicopters have two crew members? It's so one guy can focus on shooting at stuff whilst the other focuses on not crashing into things.
Anytime an armed vehicle can aim in a direction other than the one it's traveling, you're going to need at least two crewmembers.
>>29924583
>>29924626
Also, planes go very fast and in the air.
An armored vehicle on the ground can be fucked up by many more things than a plane flying, so extra-eyes are always nice.
Russians in Afghanistan found that 4 men tanks were sometimes better than 3 men tanks because of that, plus it's an extra guy that can help with repairs and all.
When you fly a plane, you won't need to do repair on the spot, with a tank or a vehicle, it's not entirely impossible.
>>29924583
>Get in your car
>Start driving around the neighborhood
>Dont stop driving
>Browse facebook, start some conversations using texts.
When you crash you'll find out why.
And that is without people shooting at you.
>>29924651
not always, HOTAS with eye-tracking helmets let pilots lock their missiles in a wide angle which is determined pretty much just by the FOV of the sensor on a missile.
>>29924626
KA-50 would like to have a word with you. But I admit that is an exception.
>>29924748
It's also an outdated craft only really good for tank hunting and pretty much replaced by Ka-52, a 2 seat helicopter.
>>29924719
And yet with the basic amount of multi-tasking & hands free devices you are able to do that
Also autodriving will be the norm within a few years
>>29924583
>Why can't we have MBTs which can be operated by a single crew?
Because it's a three-person job.
How is it that you've made it this far in life without realizing that sometimes it takes more than one person to do something?
If the MBT only fired front-facing computer-targeted missiles and guns then I'm sure a single driver could command it.
>>29924877
>Completely misses the reference
Now do it cross country, looking through a 6x magnifying optic.
You cant make targeting hands free. Auto driving cross country will not be able for decades to come.
Its clear you don't have a clue about mechanized warfare. If you fuck up you are dead.
>>29925010
auto driving cross country is easier to do than autodriving in city
Not if you are a single person sitting in an escape pod which can eject & fly 20 miles.
>>29925037
>Completely proves my point
You don't have a clue how reality works.
If you autodrive cross county you are sure to lose a track or two. Do you ever go outside?
An escape pod won't save you when a sabot flies through your vehicle with 5x the speed of sound.
Since you clearly never even saw a MBT in real life let alone worked in one, I'll just leave you with alone with your weebo tier fantasy.
>>29924877
>auto driving will be the norm in a few years
You're fucking retarded
>>29924877
>autodriving
Sorry jimmy but this meme along with Amazon's drone delivery service will never be a thing
>>29924583
>TFW you will never operate a single driver land death machine
Because real life isn't Halo
>>29924583
technically any tank can be single crew if time is not the constraint, A person can drive the tank up to the range, then spot, then get out to load the gun, then aim the gun, then fire and report, then spot again, then reload the gun, etc. It will take a lot longer to do than with 4 men crew that's all
>What are self driving cars for $5000 Alex
The current level of crewing(3-4 dudes) is necessary for many reasons, but if you wanted a single man crew for an armoured fighting vehicle, you would have to make all interfaces electronic and basically work it as a computer feeding all cameras/periscopes, weapon sights, and movement control to him.
You could control it like you do in Battlefield games essentially, with just a keyboard and joystick. Automatic transmission, Widescreen multiple-optic output, autoloaded Main Gun and all coax ammo stored in one belt.
But the situational awareness for an entire tank is then reduced to one man. You have no loader hanging out wtaching your ass, no driver constantly observing the path of movement, no commander actively scanning wide with thermal optics, and no gunner dealing exclusively with current targets and observing likely path of enemy approach.
>>29925873
>>29925650
/k/ proving once again it is infested with technophobes
>>29926695
>technophobes
No, I think you mean realists.
If I wanted to get places without having to concentrate on the road I'd use public transport.
People aren't going to just get over having no control of their vehicle overnight.
Nor is it a system that could implemented country wide at the drop of a hat.
The legal barriers alone would take years to work out.
So no, as they've already pointed out, 'autodriving' isn't going to be a big thing soon.
If we're going to bother with automated transport, might as well make it mass transport that uses designated routes.
>>29926627
>Giving the answer and selecting a category all at once.
>There is no $5000 tier of questions in Jeopardy
Holy shit, is it already that warm outside? I think I can hear the ice cream vans!
>>29925037
>escape pod which can eject & fly 20 miles
top fucking kek
I don't doubt that a single-manned MBT can be created. Technology is only ever advancing and BAE already has the Black Knight, albeit experimental. Russkies are also toying around with their own unmanned AFVs. It's only a matter of time when a TC can tell his driver-AI where he wants his vehicle at along with the general path taken.
It's more of a question of when a single-manned MBT will be competitive on the field with multi-manned MBTs.
>>29925650
>>29925873
All tesla cars are equipped with autopilot
>>29926732
You are talking out your ass, autodriving REDUCES accidents, and will be mandated by the government soon.
>>29927150
>experimental
nigga it's pretty much just a mockup. As adorable as it is, that's not even a real functional turret up on there. it doesn't turn, and the guns are fake.
At least the Russian bathtubs with treads are fully functional RC cars with actual guns and missiles and turrets that can move.
>>29926675
so you're saying its because we havent bothered to computerize them yet.
everything you cited can be, and in other arenas, is, automated.
tanks have n+1 crewmembers becuase its more fun to play tank that way.
>>29924583
Tanks are multicrewed because the original first tanks were designed by the British Navy. They were even called landships. They basically designed it like a small military boat, with crews manning individual guns and a 'captain' to commander the tank. This mindset persists today because the military is traditionally conservative to change. Virtual reality and automation or even laser weapons that don't need a loader could one day lead to one man 'fighter' tanks.
>>29927883
It's the sensor suite and robotics that's packed into the Black Knight that matters, really. Remote/robotic turrets are already a thing, it's getting the damn tank to not flip itself like a brand new fuzzy driver is the hurdle.
>At least the Russian bathtubs with treads are fully functional RC cars with actual guns and missiles and turrets that can move.
Their BMP-3 robotic conversion gives me a chub.
put it this way.
you're driving at 40 miles an hour over a potholed, dirt road.
you must;
shoot a gun
load the gun every shot
talk to other drivers
and drive
all while being shot at by people who want nothing more than to kill you.
Pilots are graduates and more intelligent than the people on the ground.
>>29924583
>Why can't we have MBTs which can be operated by a single crew?
We don't have the technology yet.
>>29924583
>A single pilot
The reason this is done on planes is that there is a weight penalty in the form of designing a larger plane with more space and weight dedicated to another crewman.
Having extra crew members is generally not a bad thing otherwise - you have extra redundancy, better situational awareness, and someone to help you if you are injured, not to mention the psychological benefits of having buddies nearby in a stressful situation. As a result single-crew is generally not a development priority.
>>29930420
Notice that almost in fact most combat aircraft that aren't fighters or tactical strike aircraft are also multi-crew despite the technological possibility of making them single-crewed: bombers, transports, most attack helicopters, and so forth. Having an extra crewman is generally not a bad thing.
>>29924679
>Russians in Afghanistan found that 4 men tanks were sometimes better than 3 men tanks because of that, plus it's an extra guy that can help with repairs and all.
Nice bullshit. They never sent any of their 3-manned tanks to combat in A-stan so there is no valid comparison to be made regarding their operation.
>>29926486
Technically the Scorpi9n is build along the lines of an SPG. Provided all the loading is taken care of it make a lot mare sense if thought of that way.
>>29927423
You're also fucking retarded because the state of deep learning is not nearly advanced enough to reliably drive in all cross country conditions that a driver can. Current technologies don't even work if line markers are obscured sufficiently.
If you're going to talk about technology at least have a fucking clue about what you're talking about.
>>29924583
This really comes down to weapons automation and POV of the operator.
Combat aircraft have high levels of battlefield awareness. They can see a large portion of the horizon visually and have radar extending their view. They also have sensors that can detect incoming missiles and if an enemy has spotted them/locked on to them.
The majority of their weapons now are fire and forget,some can even find their target with out even you having to lock on
All of that shit is pretty fragile everything on tank needs to be stronk because tanks get shot at and are expected to take hits and survive.
A tank or afv has low automation. Most western tanks dont use auto-loaders and I dont think there is an auto-cannon that can a) fire 120mm rounds and b) isnt massive/complicated requiring a large crew to operate
A tank or afv also has shit and I mean shit battlefield awareness. Everything is limited by sight lines and small viewing ports.
To drive and shoot at the same time you would need a video game style gamepad with one stick that controls your direction and one stick that controls the turret rotation and elevation. You would need a way to simultaneous see what you are shooting at and where you're going
You would also need another display for observation so you could keep your gun on a possible area of interest why you do recon with your lil camera.
DESU senpai it would probably just be easier to have two people a gunner and a driver with a fully automatic loader.
>>29927423
>autodriving
>in a tank
>in battle
It's like that nuclear tank all over again
>>29924748
and the KA-50 concept was abandoned for the KA-52.
because you can get lonely and you need a buddy to jerk you off
>>29931643
Only possible in the T-14, its the only tank with side-by-side seating after all.
>>29929643
>"One day"
>hurr, the military hates change
Idiot
>>29926820
Johnny Gilbert shitposting on k
Tankettes, both pre/early WWII and the similar things germans use now are two man, no? I think with an autoloader that doesn't such that's about as good as you can get.
>>29926267
>TFW, You will never operate a drone driverless land death machine.
>>29931610
Autodriving nuclear Landkreuser with nuclear tipped SAMs when ?!
