Register here

Author Topic: M-1 Replacement  (Read 62793 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7352
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1709
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #181 on: May 14, 2017, 06:53:52 am »
Intersting that no one has brought up Israeli experiance in urban armor operations.  If I am not mistaken they have transitioned to evern heavier vehicles for urban operations.   

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1595
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #182 on: May 14, 2017, 03:03:03 pm »
Intersting that no one has brought up Israeli experiance in urban armor operations.  If I am not mistaken they have transitioned to evern heavier vehicles for urban operations.

Hard to draw up general conclusions: the latest Israeli AFV, inspired by their experience in urban combat, is an 8x8 APC.

Offline Kat Tsun

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #183 on: May 18, 2017, 08:59:14 pm »
Intersting that no one has brought up Israeli experiance in urban armor operations.  If I am not mistaken they have transitioned to evern heavier vehicles for urban operations.

Hard to draw up general conclusions: the latest Israeli AFV, inspired by their experience in urban combat, is an 8x8 APC.

IIRC, Eitan is simply a replacement for M113 utility carriers and ambulances in certain units. It's not really clear if Israel will ever develop a Merkava Mk 5 because, unfortunately, Israel seems to be afflicted by the same mentality that had infected the US Army in the 1990s: http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29665

OTOH... http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/10/25/israel-builds-first-prototype-future-fighting-vehicle/74346650/

Quote
Sources say Carmel a Hebrew acronym for Advanced Ground Combat Vehicle will not be a Merkava Mk5, nor will it replace the Mk4, which is expected to remain in production through 2020.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 09:02:46 pm by Kat Tsun »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1595
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #184 on: May 18, 2017, 10:58:42 pm »
So one 35 ton 8x8 (Eitan) and one 32 ton tracked vehicle demonstrator (Carmel). 

At the very least, a trend towards lighter vehicles driven as much by design-for-manfacturability/cost as anything else.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7352
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7352
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #187 on: July 27, 2017, 06:55:35 pm »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/railguns-robotics-ultra-light-armor-general-milleys-future-tank/

This whole article reeks of the sloppy, undisciplined, thinking which gave the US Army the FCS catastrophe. The Army faces massive equipment shortfalls in air defense, artillery, survivable reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. The budget has no room for massive basic research projects, when immediate problems are so big and so overwhelming.

Promising some breakthrough tank in the future, when US tanks today lack modern electronic warfare and active protection systems, is sheer folly. Worse, if the Russians go with 152mm cannons in a near-term Armata variant, the US Army will be outgunned now and won't have the luxury of waiting for railguns and their power storage to become available.

Granted, one could say that Russian ATGMs already put the TOW to shame, but those aren't sexy enough for the US Army to invest in.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 793
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #188 on: July 29, 2017, 07:34:41 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/railguns-robotics-ultra-light-armor-general-milleys-future-tank/

This whole article reeks of the sloppy, undisciplined, thinking which gave the US Army the FCS catastrophe. The Army faces massive equipment shortfalls in air defense, artillery, survivable reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. The budget has no room for massive basic research projects, when immediate problems are so big and so overwhelming.

Promising some breakthrough tank in the future, when US tanks today lack modern electronic warfare and active protection systems, is sheer folly. Worse, if the Russians go with 152mm cannons in a near-term Armata variant, the US Army will be outgunned now and won't have the luxury of waiting for railguns and their power storage to become available.

Granted, one could say that Russian ATGMs already put the TOW to shame, but those aren't sexy enough for the US Army to invest in.
Minus the rail gun, would absolutely agree.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #189 on: July 29, 2017, 09:32:34 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/railguns-robotics-ultra-light-armor-general-milleys-future-tank/

This whole article reeks of the sloppy, undisciplined, thinking which gave the US Army the FCS catastrophe. The Army faces massive equipment shortfalls in air defense, artillery, survivable reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. The budget has no room for massive basic research projects, when immediate problems are so big and so overwhelming.

Promising some breakthrough tank in the future, when US tanks today lack modern electronic warfare and active protection systems, is sheer folly. Worse, if the Russians go with 152mm cannons in a near-term Armata variant, the US Army will be outgunned now and won't have the luxury of waiting for railguns and their power storage to become available.

Granted, one could say that Russian ATGMs already put the TOW to shame, but those aren't sexy enough for the US Army to invest in.

Dead nuts on, and very well said.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7352
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #190 on: July 29, 2017, 11:33:59 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/railguns-robotics-ultra-light-armor-general-milleys-future-tank/

This whole article reeks of the sloppy, undisciplined, thinking which gave the US Army the FCS catastrophe. The Army faces massive equipment shortfalls in air defense, artillery, survivable reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. The budget has no room for massive basic research projects, when immediate problems are so big and so overwhelming.

Promising some breakthrough tank in the future, when US tanks today lack modern electronic warfare and active protection systems, is sheer folly. Worse, if the Russians go with 152mm cannons in a near-term Armata variant, the US Army will be outgunned now and won't have the luxury of waiting for railguns and their power storage to become available.

Granted, one could say that Russian ATGMs already put the TOW to shame, but those aren't sexy enough for the US Army to invest in.

Dead nuts on, and very well said.
Another, "Will we survive the 30 year procurement holiday from 1988 to today"

We should have:
1) 450+ F-22s
2) 132 B-2s
3) More Seawolfs
4) M-1 replacement
5) Bradley replacement
6) 200 Peacekeepers
7) 300+ Midgetmen
8) W92 to W?? replacement nuke warheads
9) Many ACMs
10) CPGS missile

Feel free to add to the list  :D
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #191 on: July 29, 2017, 12:40:32 pm »
Minus the rail gun, would absolutely agree.

I do think that the railgun does have some great Army applications, as a 'towed' artillery piece. Getting a railgun into a tank is a ton of work and a ton of money, which the Army doesn't have.

As an Air Defense Artillery / Divisional Artillery piece, a railgun would offer great flexibility to a maneuver force. It gives the Army relatively low-cost per shot long range artillery, replacing and more than compensating for lost capability when the 8inch guns were retired. Or, the gun can be put into defending command and logistical nodes.

But as a tank gun? It is too much effort for a tank. A couple of trucks per gun is a vastly easier task and gets something now, a policy the Army is chronically incapable of doing.

This gets to a more fundamental problem the US military faces, there are trades between technological sophistication and numbers of units. We no longer have the luxury of pursuing the best technology in everything...

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 793
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #192 on: July 29, 2017, 05:18:30 pm »
Minus the rail gun, would absolutely agree.

I do think that the railgun does have some great Army applications, as a 'towed' artillery piece. Getting a railgun into a tank is a ton of work and a ton of money, which the Army doesn't have.

As an Air Defense Artillery / Divisional Artillery piece, a railgun would offer great flexibility to a maneuver force. It gives the Army relatively low-cost per shot long range artillery, replacing and more than compensating for lost capability when the 8inch guns were retired. Or, the gun can be put into defending command and logistical nodes.

But as a tank gun? It is too much effort for a tank. A couple of trucks per gun is a vastly easier task and gets something now, a policy the Army is chronically incapable of doing.

This gets to a more fundamental problem the US military faces, there are trades between technological sophistication and numbers of units. We no longer have the luxury of pursuing the best technology in everything...
AD railguns maybe,  not indirect fire..need payload and range no need for speed.
Facing large armies w/ small sophisticated units is an extremely hard problem as escalation against Centers of Gravity to stop the large might get nuknasty early. Maybe Gen Milley was correct when he went against conventional wisdom and said conflicts might be long rather quite sort.

Offline Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 124
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #193 on: July 29, 2017, 05:40:41 pm »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/railguns-robotics-ultra-light-armor-general-milleys-future-tank/

This whole article reeks of the sloppy, undisciplined, thinking which gave the US Army the FCS catastrophe. The Army faces massive equipment shortfalls in air defense, artillery, survivable reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. The budget has no room for massive basic research projects, when immediate problems are so big and so overwhelming.

Promising some breakthrough tank in the future, when US tanks today lack modern electronic warfare and active protection systems, is sheer folly. Worse, if the Russians go with 152mm cannons in a near-term Armata variant, the US Army will be outgunned now and won't have the luxury of waiting for railguns and their power storage to become available.

Granted, one could say that Russian ATGMs already put the TOW to shame, but those aren't sexy enough for the US Army to invest in.

Right now, with almost no R&D, the US could:
  • Upgun the Abrams to the L55
  • Replace the hydraulic turret and elevation drives
  • Re-engine the Abrams with a new turbine or diesel
  • Install Trophy or Iron Fist

And they would immediately get a tank with more firepower (greater muzzle energy from the L55 gun and better precision from the electric az/el drives), more survivable (active protection and the removal of hydraulics), more mobile (reduced fuel consumption) and cheaper to maintain (fuel!). And all of these things have already been explored by the Army in the past. But in defiance of all reason, they are still trying to revive the FCS.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 793
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: M-1 Replacement
« Reply #194 on: July 29, 2017, 06:03:54 pm »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/railguns-robotics-ultra-light-armor-general-milleys-future-tank/

This whole article reeks of the sloppy, undisciplined, thinking which gave the US Army the FCS catastrophe. The Army faces massive equipment shortfalls in air defense, artillery, survivable reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. The budget has no room for massive basic research projects, when immediate problems are so big and so overwhelming.

Promising some breakthrough tank in the future, when US tanks today lack modern electronic warfare and active protection systems, is sheer folly. Worse, if the Russians go with 152mm cannons in a near-term Armata variant, the US Army will be outgunned now and won't have the luxury of waiting for railguns and their power storage to become available.

Granted, one could say that Russian ATGMs already put the TOW to shame, but those aren't sexy enough for the US Army to invest in.

Right now, with almost no R&D, the US could:
  • Upgun the Abrams to the L55
  • Replace the hydraulic turret and elevation drives
  • Re-engine the Abrams with a new turbine or diesel
  • Install Trophy or Iron Fist

And they would immediately get a tank with more firepower (greater muzzle energy from the L55 gun and better precision from the electric az/el drives), more survivable (active protection and the removal of hydraulics), more mobile (reduced fuel consumption) and cheaper to maintain (fuel!). And all of these things have already been explored by the Army in the past. But in defiance of all reason, they are still trying to revive the FCS.
Also very well said. Except for Trophy etc..   Quickill, Metalstorm (believe there is an Israeli patent beside the original Australian, EM Armor developments known but not pursued yet.