Register here

Author Topic: M1 Abrams MBT Replacement  (Read 91293 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
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: 967
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2012
  • "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: 967
  • 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: 8346
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: 967
  • 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: 967
  • 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.