Register here

Author Topic: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement  (Read 93387 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8449
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #300 on: March 27, 2018, 06:41:19 pm »
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/03/26/army-test-first-next-gen-ground-combat-vehicles-2019.html

Quote
Army maneuver officials on Monday said the service's Next Generation Combat Vehicle will allow it to team manned and unmanned vehicles and create an unbeatable overmatch against enemy armored forces.

Developing the NGCV to replace the fleet of Cold-War era M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles is the Army's second modernization priority under a new strategy to reform acquisition and modernization.

The Army intends to stand up a new Futures Command this summer, which will oversee cross-functional teams that focus on each of the of the service's six modernization priorities: long-range precision fires; next-generation combat vehicle; future vertical lift; a mobile and expeditionary network; air and missile defense capabilities; and soldier lethality.

"The Next Generation Combat Vehicle needs to be revolutionary," Gen Robert Abrams, commander of Forces Command, told an audience at the Association of the United States Army's Global Force Symposium.

"It's got to be 10X better than our current fleet and guarantee our overmatch into the future."
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #302 on: May 09, 2018, 11:07:22 am »
Tested in combat is the crucial distinction.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #303 on: May 17, 2018, 08:28:07 am »
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/05/16/army-begin-equipping-heavy-units-active-protection-2020.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2017.05.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

The Army has the gall to claim US companies aren't ready for APS production when Army incompetence for 20yrs has killed US APS systems like Quick Kill et al. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8449
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #304 on: June 27, 2018, 10:05:22 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/06/army-pushes-bradley-replacement-cautious-on-armed-robots/

Quote
he Army is accelerating its efforts to replace the M2 Bradley troop carrier while giving itself “a little more time” to develop a Robotic Combat Vehicle, a senior official told reporters. Exact timelines remain “in a state of flux” pending a July meeting with Army leaders, said John Miller, a senior member of the Fort Benning-based Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) Cross Functional Team. NGCV is No. 2 of the Army’s Big Six modernization priorities.

“Recent guidance from Army senior leadership has us looking at, emphasizing, Bradley replacement,” Miller told reporters in a conference call. “What we have now done is moved to accelerate our optionally manned fighting vehicle, the Bradley replacement, and we want to be able to focus on that.”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #305 on: July 02, 2018, 08:57:17 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/06/army-pushes-bradley-replacement-cautious-on-armed-robots/

Quote
he Army is accelerating its efforts to replace the M2 Bradley troop carrier while giving itself “a little more time” to develop a Robotic Combat Vehicle, a senior official told reporters. Exact timelines remain “in a state of flux” pending a July meeting with Army leaders, said John Miller, a senior member of the Fort Benning-based Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) Cross Functional Team. NGCV is No. 2 of the Army’s Big Six modernization priorities.

“Recent guidance from Army senior leadership has us looking at, emphasizing, Bradley replacement,” Miller told reporters in a conference call. “What we have now done is moved to accelerate our optionally manned fighting vehicle, the Bradley replacement, and we want to be able to focus on that.”
Putting the RCV operator in the NGCV may not be the best. Some RCVs or GXV (if that is to be continued) could be optionally manned and the controller could control RCVs, NGCVs housing even optionally manned Talos suits. The controller is main show and their concealment, protection and options should be maximized.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #306 on: August 16, 2018, 06:21:31 pm »




GFS CMF #2: Next Generation Combat Vehicle

Gen Abrams may say NGCV is not FCS, but as long as there is RDECOM/TARDEC PM/PEO, a NGCV CFT and  TRADOC which has not delivered a operational NGCV concept yet combined w/ a stated reluctance to formalize a requirement (based on future threat and limited funding). This program looks worse than FCS.

Saying we are "nested" and not stepping on each tows. HA Need not to be more leaderless group discussion.

 TARDEC needs to run the vehicle, (because it will, in the end, anyway) and Soldier Center the dismounts. TRADOC can work on the future when it all goes robotic ie Talos suits with or w/o humans.

There seemed to be only passing reference to a need to engage targets a max range ie 152/155mm Tardec slides show an In/direct fire vehicle. This should be the first emphasis. Gun launched max range munition/UAS.

BG Lesperance mentioned SWAP+Protection that should be the second emphasis. Plenty of modularity as sensor tech will contine to change but the powerplant/gearbox is the likely the program driver.

NGCV will be obsolete before it enters service if some radical engine/generators aren't explored. Opposing pistons will not cut it. Circular detonation is the only means to shrink and lighten a burner while simultaneously eliminating most of the Gearbox. Shocking to hear GEN Abrams say possibly vehicles w/o fuel. Even supercapcitors mostly yikes.

Third emphasis should the not discussed multiple UGV/UAS lethality and mobility. We hear RCVs will require two operators. the RCV operators are not the crew. OK, that is two members of the squad already taken up. The rest of the squad will need to operate other UGV/UAS ? The vehicle's combat traverse protection needs and infantry's need to support its own dismount could well be often conflicting to UGV/UAS operators. What if there needs to be a separate UGV/UAS operator vehicle.

Soldier issues in and out of the NGCV should be under Soldier Lethality CFT. Soldier Interface w/ the vehicle and UAS/UGVs is Soldier Lethality issue. When the infantry school works it out they fill the vehicle's hull. Otherwise bringing Infantry into vehicle requirements will confuse.

To the infantry NGCV is a taxi w/ benefits. To the crew it is the main show.

 
If the multi-decade developed Mobile Protected Fire Power (MPF) and these Playstation Play-dates, otherwise called AWEs are example of effective programs, than the US Army is in big trouble. When is real risk and real development.





Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8449
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #307 on: October 09, 2018, 06:53:38 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-ampv-on-track-for-milestone-c-ok-early/

Quote
AUSA: It doesn’t really seem possible, but there’s a large Army program, the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, that is 90 days ahead of schedule. Built by the tank mavens at BAE Systems, AMPV got a green light from testers and the official decision to begin mass production expected in less than six weeks.

Why does this matter? A modernized but less heavily armed variant of the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, the AMPV is a well-armored, all-terrain workhorse that will replace geriatric M113s in a host of roles from battlefield transport to armored ambulance to mobile command post. The M113 first saw action in Vietnam, was fairly poorly protected even at the time, and is completely outclassed by modern Russian anti-tank weapons.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 484
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #308 on: October 09, 2018, 09:05:59 am »
Does this mean Skynet is still officially a black project?  Seems a shame to waste it's potential.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8449
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #309 on: October 09, 2018, 07:51:37 pm »
Mike Peck, Director of Business Development at General Dynamics discusses the company’s latest combat vehicles and future army vehicle and weapon needs during an interview with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian at the 2018 AUSA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. Our AUSA coverage is brought to you by Bell, a Textron Company, Elbit System of America, L3 Technologies, Leonardo DRS, and Safran.

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #310 on: October 09, 2018, 10:29:59 pm »
That's a first-class interview with great answers by Mike Peck. More and better information there than you find 9 times out of 10.

Online Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 484
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #311 on: October 10, 2018, 02:50:09 am »
A very good set of responses in that interview, I agree on the clarity vis a vis other interviews that come across as information management and disinformation.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #312 on: October 14, 2018, 10:39:15 am »
Mike Peck, Director of Business Development at General Dynamics discusses the company’s latest combat vehicles and future army vehicle and weapon needs during an interview with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian at the 2018 AUSA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. Our AUSA coverage is brought to you by Bell, a Textron Company, Elbit System of America, L3 Technologies, Leonardo DRS, and Safran.



The Army, clearly, still has noone in charge of NGCV so the contractor makes excuses for his  confused client. as stated earlier one lead for NGCV at TARDEC because they will anyway in the end. TARDEC is a too GD dominated place, the Army needs to take on a new 'Government based design' based on the "Army Strategy " which depicts the classes of vehicles needed to be finally be integrated by a series of contractors (held to final system account).  A new vehicle basis which weighs closer to 20tons not Griffin (a 40tn Ajax) able to fit different bodies and guns up to 155mm direct/indirect fire guns.

Hopefully, the Army saying 'power plant agnostic' is some glimmer, as clearly there still is no powerplant solution as current hybrids are a still a step backwards. Energy density for batteries is bad juju need Fuel directly to electricity w/ an efficient engine.

 The Dismount community has a basic issue. When is the Army going to risk and spread the contractors on unmanned systems which can enable standoff at all levels down to the individual dismount (including largely replacing the dismount). Depending on the current UAS contractors and Google/BD for bipedal robots is a USG developmental funnel which is National Security Threat, Strait up, Full Stop.

The Army is likely a mistake (if true) by abandoning the 9xpax vehicle. 9apax does not make height. The Griffin III is a house on tracks just like GCV was. Questionable marketing going on there. (Why is SpecOps person talking for close conventional.) There is already the UD look at lengthening the Bradley. It is not about height but length. Nine dismounts is necessary to dominate in close urban squad fights. Two vehicles splits and risks to two vehicles.  Like football team starting from two separate places on the field, basic.

The 50mm might be good at countering Swarm UAS but RDEC has shown 60mm would be even better as CRAM and counter uas at range, assured kill. 55mm supershot comes to mind. (The Army would be foolish to go back to 30mm.) Likewise, storing suicide UASs (expensive toy garbage) inside the turret would take up precision turret volume.  Armed VTOLs have not matured enough to be matched to a vehicle anytime soon.



Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
Re: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement
« Reply #313 on: October 17, 2018, 08:04:07 am »
Breaking Defense interview with Director, Armored Vehicle Modernization.
Quote
By 2023, the Army will decide whether or not to move ahead with a replacement for the M1 Abrams heavy tank. “Anything’s on the table,” said the service’s director for armored vehicle modernization.

Define “anything,” I asked. Are we talking Imperial Walkers from Star Wars? Little robots carrying big missiles?

“It doesn’t have to be a tank, it just has to be decisive and lethal,” Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman answered. “If that is run by a flux capacitor, hovers, and has a ray gun — and we can make it run at a reasonable cost — we’ll look at it.”
Quote
That “reasonable cost” criterion, sadly, rules out laser-shooting hover tanks, but behind Coffman’s jocularity is a deadly serious point: The Army wants industry to imagine a wide range of possibilities for a new way to deliver high-powered direct fire. (Indirect fire, at targets over the horizon, belongs to a different modernization team, which is exploring a 1,000-mile supergun). The key thing is to apply maximum killing power at the crucial point in combat, not how you do it. If you have a technically feasible proposal, it sounds like they’ll at least take a look.

“We don’t want to stifle any initiative based on some preset notion of, ‘it has to be tank, it has to have 120 mm or 105 (cannon),'” Coffman told an industry audience at the Association of the US Army conference. “We want options.”