M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

DrRansom said:
Void said:
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.

For railguns, they will have fantastic range that tube artillery can't really match. Payload can be achieved by flechette warheads and choosing softer targets, like truck depots, air defense sites,etc. If it is a hard target at range, use some penetrating rocket artillery.

Electrothermal Chemical would be good. Capacitors still don't beat fuels. A land destroyer size tank just so u can throw railroad spikes also much of tank fire is cheap anti-structure shots hardly justifying a railguns cost per shot. .want to use EM, EM armor. Tanks do need to suppress area targets, EMRGs don't lend themselves to cheap area suppression shots either.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
If they felt the L55 with the latest US DU round wasn't enough they could even go with the 130mm the Germans are playing with.

Not without a massive redesign. The 130mm round is significantly longer than the 120mm. No way it fits in the M1 turret bustle.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26693.msg284076.html#msg284076
 

Attachments

  • CXcaqUEUkAE9wIm.png
    CXcaqUEUkAE9wIm.png
    209.7 KB · Views: 471
  • m1cattb1.jpg
    m1cattb1.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 455
Like I said, a massive redesign. Everything else you talked about could be done within the existing "outer mold line" of the M-1 family. Going to 130mm means a whole new turret, at minimum.
 
TomS said:
Like I said, a massive redesign. Everything else you talked about could be done within the existing "outer mold line" of the M-1 family. Going to 130mm means a whole new turret, at minimum.

True. Just pointing out they'd done something similar in the past (with an autoloader even) so it wouldn't be entirely new territory. Of course then there's round count; how many 130mm vs 120mm. At the least though, an L55 with the latest US DU round would be an improvement to buy time while they hunt for Leprechaun's gold.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Like I said, a massive redesign. Everything else you talked about could be done within the existing "outer mold line" of the M-1 family. Going to 130mm means a whole new turret, at minimum.

True. Just pointing out they'd done something similar in the past (with an autoloader even) so it wouldn't be entirely new territory. Of course then there's round count; how many 130mm vs 120mm. At the least though, an L55 with the latest US DU round would be an improvement to buy time while they hunt for Leprechaun's gold.

That's certainly true. It could be done, though I suspect it would make sense to go back to a clean sheet to take advantage of newer technology.

Sticking with the M-1 chassis, you'd lose the 6 rounds in the hull and have to do with a longer bustle and autoloader. Fortunately, the 130m round is the same diameter as the 120mm, just 30% longer.

Once upon a time, Meggit designed an autoloader that fits the current bustle and still holds 34 rounds, so you could probably fit about the same number of 130mm rounds in a new turret. The claim it won't even cost you a crew station, which would be interesting -- four-person crew with autoloader might free up the "loader" to run a remote weapon station or some such.

https://www.meggittdefense.com/product/compact-autoloader/
 
DrRansom said:
bobbymike said:
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.

Just when you thought Shinseki was gone!

sferrin said:
If they felt the L55 with the latest US DU round wasn't enough they could even go with the 130mm the Germans are playing with.

"According to the company, the increase of 8 percent in caliber results in a plus of 50 percent moreof kinetic energy over the 120mm gun from Rheinmetall, installed in thousands of tanks worldwide."

http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2016/06/15/german-rheinmetall-works-on-new-130mm-tank-gun/

The last time they tried to fit an L/55 into the Abrams they found out they would need to spend a lot of money. Which is why they never changed to L/55. M829A4 is better than any L/55 round anyway.

L/44 is fine as is. What the Army needs to do is commit itself to purchasing things like Bradley NG and AMPV, get a real replacement for Advanced Quick Fix, acquire a divisional air defense system (ADATS is gone, though), and begin development of a new artillery system akin to XM2001. Probably in that order. It's not as good as if it had done this in the 1990s, where it could have had M8 AGS, LOSAT (or CKEM), XM2001, and various M993-based utility carriers, but it's better than nothing.
 
Kat Tsun said:
DrRansom said:
bobbymike said:
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.

Just when you thought Shinseki was gone!

sferrin said:
If they felt the L55 with the latest US DU round wasn't enough they could even go with the 130mm the Germans are playing with.

"According to the company, the increase of 8 percent in caliber results in a plus of 50 percent moreof kinetic energy over the 120mm gun from Rheinmetall, installed in thousands of tanks worldwide."

http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2016/06/15/german-rheinmetall-works-on-new-130mm-tank-gun/

The last time they tried to fit an L/55 into the Abrams they found out they would need to spend a lot of money.

A lot more than an entirely new tank? I doubt it.

Kat Tsun said:
Which is why they never changed to L/55. M829A4 is better than any L/55 round anyway.

No such beast as an "L/55" round.
 
TomS said:
Like I said, a massive redesign. Everything else you talked about could be done within the existing "outer mold line" of the M-1 family. Going to 130mm means a whole new turret, at minimum.

A new turret would be a sensible option for mid-term modernization. A hydropneumatic suspension is another minimum development option I forgot before. It has been shown that the better dampening this kind of suspension offers is a significant benefit when firing on the move. And the MRM should definitely be revived, as UAV interface/control is already an objective for the M1A3.
[list type=decimal]
[*]5 years from now: Off-the-shelf firepower/sensor/mobility upgrade
[*]10-15 years: New turret/armour package and new 130mm main armament (which should be made the new NATO standard - no reason to re-invent the wheel at this stage)
[*]20-25 years: New MBT
[/list]

Together with accelerated refurbishing of old hulls the US Army could easily produce a tank competitive with the T-14 or anything the Chinese produce, in numbers far larger than either. Refurbishment would also be a good way to warm up the US industrial base for future heavy vehicle programs.
 
sferrin said:
Kat Tsun said:
DrRansom said:
bobbymike said:
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.

Just when you thought Shinseki was gone!

sferrin said:
If they felt the L55 with the latest US DU round wasn't enough they could even go with the 130mm the Germans are playing with.

"According to the company, the increase of 8 percent in caliber results in a plus of 50 percent moreof kinetic energy over the 120mm gun from Rheinmetall, installed in thousands of tanks worldwide."

http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2016/06/15/german-rheinmetall-works-on-new-130mm-tank-gun/

The last time they tried to fit an L/55 into the Abrams they found out they would need to spend a lot of money.

A lot more than an entirely new tank? I doubt it.

Third time's the charm? The US Army has already tried putting L/55 into the Abrams. Twice. Once with the Rheinmetall gun, and later with a lighter, more advanced American L/55. Incorporating either long caliber gun into the Abrams would require an entirely new gun stabilization and fire control system. That isn't cheap. The US Army doesn't even have enough money to keep its tanks running. Talking about a re-gunning and replacement of the fire control system, re-certification of the M829A4, and development of new ballistics tables is a bit beyond what the USA is capable of.

There's a reason XM360E1 was going to be a cut down piece. Incorporating that into Abrams isn't a long shot. The higher pressures would let you use more powerful ammo, which is certainly a boon considering the US Army is going to be outgunned through the 2020s and well into the 2030s. The barrel length would be backwards compatible with the current Abrams gun rotors, which is the only way you're going to get any gun into an Abrams that isn't M256.

The US Army needs the solutions of yesterday, not the solutions of tomorrow. Stuff that has already been bought, built, tested, or previously manufactured is what should be considered, in that order.

It's already tried looking to the future during Shinseki's tenure and it cost it the technology gap and a large chunk of its armored vehicle industrial base. Stick with what has already been developed, like XM360E1, AMP, SEPv3's new armour package, 30mm Bushmaster, and AMPV, and try to resurrect some of the dead things of yesterday, like XM2001 and CKEM, if there is money to spare. Giving the Abrams a mmW targeting radar, or at least some form of BLOS shell similar to STAFF or MRM-CE, would go a long way towards improving their ability to not die. Active protection is being talked about, but the Army simply doesn't have the money for the most improvements at the moment. Perhaps it should consider raiding the bloated military-welfare complex for R&D funds? Maybe it can fit a good APS like LEDS-200 onto the M1/M2 family, one that can defeat top-attack weapons like MRM and Javelin.

FWIW, Rheinmetall's 130mm gun won't exist until the 2030s and by that time the Abrams will be hopelessly obsolete. If the USA wants to get started now on a new tank, it can probably field one near the tail end of the 2040s, or in the early 2050s, and start retiring the Abrams then. Ideally something around the 55-ton class, armed with a 140mm gun similar or identical to ATAC and with crew-in-hull, similar to FMBT or one of many other Block III ideas, but that would be the sensible solution.

Otherwise we'll just have to accept the next American tank will be designed in countries with significantly more intelligent industrial policies, like Germany.
 
Kat Tsun said:
sferrin said:
Kat Tsun said:
DrRansom said:
bobbymike said:
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.

Just when you thought Shinseki was gone!

sferrin said:
If they felt the L55 with the latest US DU round wasn't enough they could even go with the 130mm the Germans are playing with.

"According to the company, the increase of 8 percent in caliber results in a plus of 50 percent moreof kinetic energy over the 120mm gun from Rheinmetall, installed in thousands of tanks worldwide."

http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2016/06/15/german-rheinmetall-works-on-new-130mm-tank-gun/

The last time they tried to fit an L/55 into the Abrams they found out they would need to spend a lot of money.

A lot more than an entirely new tank? I doubt it.

Third time's the charm? The US Army has already tried putting L/55 into the Abrams. Twice. Once with the Rheinmetall gun, and later with a lighter, more advanced American L/55. Incorporating either long caliber gun into the Abrams would require an entirely new gun stabilization and fire control system. That isn't cheap. The US Army doesn't even have enough money to keep its tanks running. Talking about a re-gunning and replacement of the fire control system, re-certification of the M829A4, and development of new ballistics tables is a bit beyond what the USA is capable of.

If we've really fallen that far that's damn depressing. Did we just up and quit the business or what? ??? If Russia, with their small budgets, can turn out an Armata. . .well, what the hell is the US Army doing?
 
From what I've read about the XM360E1 years ago it isn't cut down, just lacking the muzzle brake and some of the other features the XM360 had. Maybe that has changed. I think the XM360 was either L/48 or L/50.

Let the Navy worry about fielding railguns. This talk of having them on our next MBT is hopelessly overambitious. The most radical thing we should be looking at is an ETC gun but this tank should be designed with a conventional 140mm cannon in mind.

And could we please skip the whole "is the tank obsolete" questioning this time? It wasn't true yesterday and it isn't true today and it won't be true for the foreseeable future.
 
Kat Tsun said:
There's a reason XM360E1 was going to be a cut down piece. Incorporating that into Abrams isn't a long shot. The higher pressures would let you use more powerful ammo,

Kat Tsun said:
at least some form of BLOS shell similar to STAFF or MRM-CE,

Which of course want lower pressures...
 
sferrin said:
If we've really fallen that far that's damn depressing. Did we just up and quit the business or what? ??? If Russia, with their small budgets, can turn out an Armata. . .well, what the hell is the US Army doing?

Fighting wars until recently which required an almost complete re-equipment. It's also involved in various conflicts around the world.

Here's a quick way to actually afford what you want - reduce the size of the US Army. Design it to be able to fight one war, not three. Loads of money that way.

Who ever suggested BTW "raiding the bloated military-welfare complex for R&D funds" might find a load of veterans with disabilities from their service picketing outside his house. ::)
 
sferrin said:
If we've really fallen that far that's damn depressing. Did we just up and quit the business or what?[/quit]

Pretty much. We put all our industrial eggs into FCS. When that died, so did America's ability to produce land armor. Now it's "BAE Systems, inc." with a lot fewer employees and an ability to perhaps repair a couple tanks a month. At least we still have our submarines and aircraft carriers, which are arguably more important strategically.

Our industrial manufacturing base still exists, as a zombie of sorts, but the industrial design base died 10 years ago. We can build tanks. We just don't know how to design them anymore. A similar fate has befallen the German tank industry, so they will be cribbing a lot from the Leopard 2 in their future super tank. Puma had the fortuitous luck to appear ten years ago, before the Germans were out of the game and the guys who worked on Marder 2 were still around, but Leopard 3 won't have such luck. It's probably more like Leopard 2.5 than a true Leopard 3, since all the experienced German tank engineers are dead or retired by the time they start working on the thing.

Ditto for America now that FCS is kill.

OTOH, the United States still has loads of documentation and data from the XM2001 and Armor Systems Modernization programs, though, that it can pick up from. It's already ahead of the game, since the Block III tank was supposed to enter service less than 5 years ago when it first started (~2013 for first battalion equipped), and we've still been developing our armor, FLIR, turbine, and gun industrial bases with incremental improvements to the Abrams. We lack a lot of the institutional knowledge from experience, but we can avoid some of the pitfalls by cribbing as much as possible from the Armor Systems Modernization program. It'll still be a 1980s tank, but so is T-14.

Making a whole tank is hard if you've been out of the game for a while (Object 148 is literally a relic of the Cold War; being essentially an austerity model Object 195 equipped with the 2A82 gun, which is c. 1986), but America has all the pieces sitting around, it just needs to put them together. We don't want to build, but by Jingo if we do, we have the gun, XM291, we have the engine, just use an MTU, and we've the armor in SEPv3 and the ammunition too. The Russians shall not have Tallinn.

The best example of this sort of design austerity I can think of, the kind where you reuse as many pre-developed or already commercially existing parts as possible (thus, the "only" thing that needs to happen is regeneration of the industrial base) is probably GD's Griffin light tank, which is literally a Baby Abrams.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iZL3hDhSJuA/WOeUZdOPDGI/AAAAAAAAAn4/72K-QzmizbcBlMZT-ztFd3NZ29wyWcIIACLcB/s640/Griffin%2B%25282%2529.jpg

I guess depending on how quickly BAE can get to work again on their electric drive derived from FCS, we might be able to punt a new tank out the door in less than 20 years. Maybe less than 15. Cross your fingers that Next Generation Combat Vehicle gets a tank counterpart, I guess, but don't hold your breath for a new Army AFV until the '40s or '50s, unless we have a major shakeup like Korea where the US Army is driven from the field or something.

sferrin said:
If Russia, with their small budgets, can turn out an Armata. . .well, what the hell is the US Army doing?

Pining for FCS, desperately trying to cut down an out-of-control military-welfare complex in TRICARE, ham-stringed by a lack of funding due to both misplaced spending priorities and austerity measures, etc. At the end of the incumbent's term, expect a large resurgence in U.S. readiness rates, investment in applied R&D/procurement rather than basic research, and higher overall war funding, much like happened in the early 00's before GWOT.

The question I guess is whether or not we can afford to wait another 4 years for BCA to expire. Not so much that we'll have a war in four years, because if that were the case we're already up it, but whether or not the knock-on effects down the road (i.e. increased Sino-Russian investment in war technology) will mean our opponents will be evenly matched or outright superior to us in technology.

http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/the-end-of-advantage-enemies-may-catch-up-with-us-technology/

The other question is whether or not the US Army is priming itself for a repeat FCS "transformation" instead of a boring and conservative procurement plan.

Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
If we've really fallen that far that's damn depressing. Did we just up and quit the business or what? ??? If Russia, with their small budgets, can turn out an Armata. . .well, what the hell is the US Army doing?

Fighting wars until recently which required an almost complete re-equipment. It's also involved in various conflicts around the world.

Here's a quick way to actually afford what you want - reduce the size of the US Army. Design it to be able to fight one war, not three. Loads of money that way.

Yes, raid the O&M budget for money. That's exactly the reason why the US Army can't even fight one war. Readiness rates are through the floor, so you've effectively already reduced its size. Reducing personnel costs beyond cutting the military's manpower targets would go a long way towards freeing up money for the O&M and R&D budgets. At the moment the US Army is making the same mistake the Bundeswehr is, albeit not to the same magnitude. Too much spending on social niceties. Too little spending on the actual military.

When budgets are tight, you need to focus on the near-term. Long-term healthcare and pensions are nice, but those are luxuries that come after you've secured your immediate future. As it stands, the US Army is spending far too much on personnel and far too little on operations, maintenance, and research & development. It's sacrificing its ability to actually do its job: win America's wars, in order to...spend money on schools? Day-cares? Treating the flu? All of these things could be handled through out-sourcing in local communities instead. Slash TRICARE by iunno, a quarter or a third maybe, and use your new found billions of wealth to acquire stuff that will keep soldiers on the frontline alive.

When you've secured the immediate future, when your soldiers are no longer in danger of being killed en masse by radio direction-finding, improved conventional munitions, smart bombs, and Soviet-era super tanks, you can start looking inwards on how to improve their home lives. Otherwise, the US Army is going to fight the next war outgunned and outmatched by its opponents, in numbers and technology, and lose. But at least they have good dental plans!

marauder2048 said:
Kat Tsun said:
There's a reason XM360E1 was going to be a cut down piece. Incorporating that into Abrams isn't a long shot. The higher pressures would let you use more powerful ammo,

Kat Tsun said:
at least some form of BLOS shell similar to STAFF or MRM-CE,

Which of course want lower pressures...

The only thing you could be implying is that a higher pressure gun is bad because it can't fire lower pressure rounds. Which is incorrect. The purpose of the higher pressure rating is it lets you shoot something as heavy as M829A4 faster, which is always a good thing. While waiting for a notional 130mm or American-designed 140mm to come online, you'll need a faster, if not bigger, gun.

XM360E1's only downside is that it takes money to put into the Abrams, which isn't something the US Army has because of the Budget Control Act. Other than that, being twenty years newer than M256 helps it be superior in literally every important aspect. It's lighter, stronger, more accurate, and probably cheaper to manufacture. That's why it's currently plodding through the acquisition swamp despite everything.

The only thing the US Army lacks is a STAFF-type BLOS shell in its soon-to-be arsenal of super ammunition. It has the super KEP and the super HE shell, but it needs a super BLOS shell to kill tanks at a distance. This is knowledge the USA itself discovered and is now being used against it (indirectly).

Colonial-Marine said:
From what I've read about the XM360E1 years ago it isn't cut down, just lacking the muzzle brake and some of the other features the XM360 had. Maybe that has changed. I think the XM360 was either L/48 or L/50.

This is possibly true, I've read similar things anyway. Below the Turret Ring implied that XM360's gun was between 46 and 48 calibers long, although it's not terribly clear since it seems that the difference in length could be down to perspective or simply artistic licence or scale. Regardless, the gun is shorter than L/55 because an L/55 is too long for the Abrams fire control system and stabilization system to handle, which is why XM256E1 exploded.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/upgraded-abrams-to-feautre-xm360-gun.html

M.M.](...) The fact that the XM360E1 looks longer might be result of the perspective or the claims that the XM360 has the same length as M256's are including the muzzle break in the XM360's length said:
Let the Navy worry about fielding railguns. This talk of having them on our next MBT is hopelessly overambitious. The most radical thing we should be looking at is an ETC gun but this tank should be designed with a conventional 140mm cannon in mind.

ETC is dead, thankfully. What they hoped would be 100% improvements in muzzle energy turned out to be something closer to 7-10%. Barely noticeable in exchange for a lot of turret bulk and volume. At this point, the ideal gun would be something like the 140mm caliber XM291. Adequate powder charge to throw a really big LRP pretty quick, which should be able to kill any hypothetical future tank out to horizon, within an overall reasonable pressure tolerance.
 
The XM360 could fire low pressure rounds because its breech (unlike the Abrams breech) was
electrically actuated and not dependent on a minimum recoil force which most of these
BLOS rounds can barely generate particularly at lower ambient temperatures.

Which was one of the reasons, amongst others, for ETC especially for sustaining the long
propellant burn profiles that MRM rounds want in order to reduce peak pressures.
 
OK, I think I see what you're saying now. I'm only aware of ARDEC's work with ETIPPS II as being where the USA left off at ETC, with the conclusion being that it consumed too much volume for too little gain. Internal ballistics alone don't seem to be a big enough benefit to warrant switching to an ETC system. It may be possible down the road, I guess, with a larger 130-140mm gun. If you could reduce the size of capacitors and charger systems for ETC, then the pressure profiles might make it worth it, since you wouldn't be shooting for the increase in muzzle energy necessarily.
 
How many rounds of 140mm ammo could this theoretical replacement carry? How big would the turret need to be to contain 140mm rounds let alone the gun itself and recuperators etc? Even with the caseless ammo or other shorter rounds there is going to be a trade off which will entail more money and extra development time. Augmented 120mm and 130mm ammunition suffice for a while yet. Even with an autoloader, is a three man crew going to suffice in even the security of the unit is good, you still have a guard out and maintain the vehicle. You would seriously degrade the efficiency of the crews through fatigue.
 
Kat Tsun said:
ETC is dead, thankfully. What they hoped would be 100% improvements in muzzle energy turned out to be something closer to 7-10%. Barely noticeable in exchange for a lot of turret bulk and volume.
That is rather disappointing. Anywhere I can read more about the results of testing that revealed this?
 
A Staff like BLOS capability is quite important.
 
Interesting tech for NexGen armored systems?

http://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2017/08/23/israel-to-test-new-hybrid-power-source-for-tanks-armored-vehicles/
 
Definitely interesting, I can clearly remember the chore of radio watch and having to start the GUE in the early hours. Many times this was forgotten and slave starting a Chieftain is a chore, bump starting almost as much.
 
It's a little oddly written, but it sounds like they're using some sort of switch and monitoring system built into the battery, so that it basically partitions the storage to provide electricity for watch while keeping some in reserve for engine cranking. The basic idea isn't exactly novel -- we accomplished the same thing on a sailing boat by having three batteries and only running one or two at a time for hotel loads, preserving one deep cycle battery just for engine starting.
 
https://special-ops.org/news/tech/russia-china-will-hate-americas-new-super-tank/
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/9/29/tank-warfare-russia-builds-platform-to-rival-the-abrams
 
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Army-Starts-Conceptual-Work-on-New-Tank-After-Abrams-2040s-108701804
 
Orbital ATK XM1147 multipurpose round for Abrams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GySYbaSl2ok
 
https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/sensors/2017/10/23/armys-next-gen-tank-will-be-see-through-with-advanced-sensors/

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/virtual-and-augmented-reality-enable-windowless-armored-vehicle-to-drive-over-35-mph-in-offroad-tests.html

https://www.defensenews.com/video/2017/10/12/hands-on-with-iron-vision/
 
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.
 
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.
Of course nuclear reactor how else you going to power the two rail guns on twin turrets. :eek:
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.
Of course nuclear reactor how else you going to power the two rail guns on twin turrets. :eek:

The Rooskie one has two guns so we need two guns.
 

Attachments

  • comment_yIpfZ0a41gW8ylvZ9Gi9C5fzbuNhoIAL-678x381.jpg
    comment_yIpfZ0a41gW8ylvZ9Gi9C5fzbuNhoIAL-678x381.jpg
    51.5 KB · Views: 795
  • 2s35_koalitsiya_sv__by_futurewgworker-d98fygw.jpg
    2s35_koalitsiya_sv__by_futurewgworker-d98fygw.jpg
    67.6 KB · Views: 768
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.

Onboard nuclear reactor sounds useful defensively. "Do you REALLY want to fire that ATGW at us? Do you like radiation?"
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.

Onboard nuclear reactor sounds useful defensively. "Do you REALLY want to fire that ATGW at us? Do you like radiation?"

And it's the only way we'll get Bolos on the battlefield.
 

Attachments

  • BOLO1_.jpg
    BOLO1_.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 761
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.

I have to say, DARPA in action is almost more counterproductive than productive. DARPA ideas tend to finish half-baked and incomplete. It is technology advancement for the sake of technology advancement. Often enough, they don't even spend enough time to advance the technology *cough* hypersonics *cough*.

Look at the ideas cited, the desire is to remove the need for a human to look outside. At no point do they ask if a high-resolution sensor (and it has to be high resolution to replace a human eye) is going to be both more effective than the current implementation and robust enough for tank warfare. The DAS proved to be a bit of a struggle with the F-35, now imagine putting that system on a tank, with the much harder mechanical vibrations, shock from gun firing, and environmental survival requirements (nearby nuclear detonation)...

It doesn't look like the tank design is proceeding from first principles: this is the battlefield of the future, this is what we need in an armored vehicle. I'd imagine that putting anti-drone systems down onto every tank platoon is more valuable than pushing a DAS style upgrade.
 
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.

I have to say, DARPA in action is almost more counterproductive than productive. DARPA ideas tend to finish half-baked and incomplete. It is technology advancement for the sake of technology advancement. Often enough, they don't even spend enough time to advance the technology *cough* hypersonics *cough*.

Note my signature.
 
sferrin said:
And it's the only way we'll get Bolos on the battlefield.

Nahh . . . Ogre . . . ;D

DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.

I have to say, DARPA in action is almost more counterproductive than productive. DARPA ideas tend to finish half-baked and incomplete. It is technology advancement for the sake of technology advancement. Often enough, they don't even spend enough time to advance the technology *cough* hypersonics *cough*.

Look at the ideas cited, the desire is to remove the need for a human to look outside. At no point do they ask if a high-resolution sensor (and it has to be high resolution to replace a human eye) is going to be both more effective than the current implementation and robust enough for tank warfare. The DAS proved to be a bit of a struggle with the F-35, now imagine putting that system on a tank, with the much harder mechanical vibrations, shock from gun firing, and environmental survival requirements (nearby nuclear detonation)...

To my mind, this is the start of the development of an autonomous MBT. First develop an EODAS type system for a tank, then hook up the AI, job done . . . ::)


cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • ogre5.gif
    ogre5.gif
    62 KB · Views: 652
I would much prefer if they'd concentrate on the basics first like actually getting a new tank into service before getting into things like 360 degree "x-ray vision", lasers, railguns, and autonomous capability.

The idea of having smaller armed UGVs, perhaps as big as BAE's "Black Knight", in support of manned vehicles has promise but the idea of making an unmanned full-sized MBT seems questionable to me for all sorts of different reasons.

I'm pleased to see further upgrades to the M1 Abrams taking place but the sheer bulk of the Trophy configuration they've devised for it seems like it will be a bit problematic. With all of the extra stuff we're trying to fit on the turret these days perhaps it would be worth it to design a whole new turret for a potential "M1A3".
 
Either they all grow up and make some concessions to intelligence and cooperation or they may as well start using the illustration below.
 

Attachments

  • Musket.png
    Musket.png
    129.1 KB · Views: 568
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Army-Starts-Work-on-New-Fleet-of-Next-Generation-Combat-Vehicles-109732733
 
sferrin said:
Up next the new DARPA project to come up with ideas to make the next tank as expensive as possible. I'm suggesting an onboard nuclear reactor to save on gas and defend against climate change. Seriously though, it sounds like they're thinking of the "see-through" F-35. If they can port over the software and sensors (albeit smaller) of the F-35 DAS and couple it with the latest COTS consumer VR goggles. . .maybe it wouldn't be a fortune after all.

More than likely they will buy an off-the-shelf Israeli system like Elbit's Iron Vision. The U.S. Army is incapable of buying a simple handgun, let alone a tank, and it's unlikely Congress will let them repeat FCS when the BCA cap lifts. Hopefully they'll be outright told to get a new howitzer and tank, which is what is actually needed instead of intercontinental helicopters. If we are very lucky, and the USA works quickly, we may have a proper replacement for the M1 tank sometime in the 2040s. If we are unlucky, the USA will be buying Leopard 3s from Germany.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom