M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

rabid stoat

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
My first post, I think. Bear with me...

I've tried several times now to find more info on this Abrams CATTB (Component Advanced Technology TestBed), but Google and co lead me to VERY limited information. Text in the pic tell you all I know. Does Anyone know if Jane's International Defence Review is archived online anywhere?
 

Attachments

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
0
Found that pic on a Spanish newpaper from 1991. Anybody knows details about it?
 

Attachments

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
0
Its just a nice drawing for what the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) could look like. In the end it turned out looking like this (XM1201, the XM1202 is similar but with bigger gun):
 

Attachments

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
0
Thanks Abraham

Antonio
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
0
pometablava said:
Found that pic on a Spanish newpaper from 1991. Anybody knows details about it?
I remember it when it was going the rounds of the various defence journals. It was used in some advertising and intended to be an "artist's impression" of what a possible future MBT would look like, rather than a serious contender for the M1's replacement. It was supposed to feature modular armour which could be added depending upon what threat it was felt it would be facing, while the basic vehicle would be light enough to be easily air-transportable.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,680
Reaction score
0
FCS FMBT concept from Western Design HOWDEN (WDH)

The Future Combat System (FCS) - A Technology Evolution Review and Feasibility Assessment
by Asher H. Sharoni and Lawrence D. Bacon

ARMOR — July-August 1997
 

Attachments

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
0
Thanks Flateric!,

I find a very interesting feature in this design which is its main weapon.

Does it means that the big classical guns are obsolete for future MBT?

Is the MBT role evolving to act in a different role according to that change in its main weapon?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,680
Reaction score
0
Oh, here's the link to original article http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1997/4fcs97.pdf
 

Ranger6

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
pometablava said:
Does it means that the big classical guns are obsolete for future MBT?

Is the MBT role evolving to act in a different role according to that change in its main weapon?
Pometavlaba:

What all this means is that the US Army's concept of an FCS is still very much in a state of flux (you might also want to see the discussion on the FCS thread from late last year and early this year -- I can't seem to insert the link, but it was quite a heated discussion).

As matters stand now, the Future MBT is on hold. The FCS Mounted Combat System (MCS) is supposed to supplement the Abrams and possibly replace it in some roles. However, because the MCS is basically a light tank (weight is supposed to be 24 short tons), it will not completely replace the Abrams. The latter, indeed, is supposed to remain in service in one guise or another until at least 2050.

Regarding major caliber weapons: The MCS is going to mount a 120MM gun; efforts to produce weapons in larger calibers have not yet succeeded in an unequivocla fashion. Thus, in the 1990s it was widely reported that the US, Germany, Switzerland, and Israel were developing 140MM MBT guns. None have come into service. The truth is, that the bigger the gun, the more unwieldy the ammunition is and the greater the need for an autoloader, which complicates the vehicle to a point where it might no longer be economical. That doesn't mean that there won't be an MBT with a large caliber gun in the US Army's future, just not in the immediate future.

And BTW, the utility and wisdom of replacing a 60+ ton MBT with a 24 ton "MCS" is being hotly debated within the ranks of the Army's TRADOC and TACOM.

R6
(AKA Abraham E.)
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
0
Pah! They should go straight to a 7.2in gun, like the FV4005 had!

 

Ranger6

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Rickshaw:

I'm not sure that would necessarily solve the problem -- but that sure does look like an awesome tank killer. You wouldn't have a three view and specs for that puppy would you?

R6
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
0
You wouldn't have a three view and specs for that puppy would you?
don't know if this link's of any help..

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/conway.html

cheers,
Robin.
 

Just call me Ray

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
The FCS concept that Flateric posted appears to have a railgun, so small projectile, but lots of bang in that projectile :)
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
0
Thanks a lot for that comprehensive post Ranger6.

Antonio
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
0
Ranger6 said:
As matters stand now, the Future MBT is on hold. The FCS Mounted Combat System (MCS) is supposed to supplement the Abrams and possibly replace it in some roles. However, because the MCS is basically a light tank (weight is supposed to be 24 short tons), it will not completely replace the Abrams. The latter, indeed, is supposed to remain in service in one guise or another until at least 2050.
There is NO Future MBT program. The only reason the FCS XM1203 MCS won't replace all M1 tanks before 2050 is the US Army doesn't have the budget to build enough. As for a MLC30 vehicle replacing an MLC70 vehicle... Well if they were both designed and built with the same technology weight would be an adequate measure of comparison. But since there are 30 years separating the two and a massive range of design and technology features it’s a very inaccurate measure.

Any way the REAL project from the 1980s to replace the M1 was the Block III tank. The Block II tank being the M1A2/M1A1D aka M1A1 AIM. The idea was to use a base M1 hull but with crew in hull configuration and modular assembly so it could cover a range of missions.
 

Attachments

Firefly 2

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
Field artillery???

Not unlike the French who placed a AUF1 turret on the AMX30 chassis.
These are probably feasability studies without further info? I would love to know more about that artillery system.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,680
Reaction score
0
Abraham Gubler said:
Any way the REAL project from the 1980s to replace the M1 was the Block III tank.
I suspect this illustration goes from R.P.Hunnicutt's 'Abrams. A history of American main battle tank Vol.2.' — Presidio Press, 1990?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
0
flateric said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Any way the REAL project from the 1980s to replace the M1 was the Block III tank.
I suspect this illustration goes from R.P.Hunnicutt's 'Abrams. A history of American main battle tank Vol.2.' — Presidio Press, 1990?
I suspect the illustration is very general indeed. The IFV has merely a turret plonked into the middle of a tank hull. Where do the infantry sit and how do the debus? Over the sides?
 
Top