• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
457
the 50-60tons doesnt have to happen for survival of the Ukraine like scenario if there are sufficient metals/composites
More funding is being applied to additive metals, manufacturing, structural thermoplastics and advanced materials development to make vehicles more survivable on the the battlefield.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
158
Reaction score
59
the 50-60tons doesnt have to happen for survival of the Ukraine like scenario if there are sufficient metals/composites
More funding is being applied to additive metals, manufacturing, structural thermoplastics and advanced materials development to make vehicles more survivable on the the battlefield.

Or they are significantly smaller due to reduced crew and an unmanned turret with an autoloader.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
457
the 50-60tons doesnt have to happen for survival of the Ukraine like scenario if there are sufficient metals/composites
More funding is being applied to additive metals, manufacturing, structural thermoplastics and advanced materials development to make vehicles more survivable on the the battlefield.

Or they are significantly smaller due to reduced crew and an unmanned turret with an autoloader.
Can omfv get smaller if it has to carry a full squad 9-11 as opposed to limited M2 Bradley?
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
158
Reaction score
59
the 50-60tons doesnt have to happen for survival of the Ukraine like scenario if there are sufficient metals/composites
More funding is being applied to additive metals, manufacturing, structural thermoplastics and advanced materials development to make vehicles more survivable on the the battlefield.

Or they are significantly smaller due to reduced crew and an unmanned turret with an autoloader.
Can omfv get smaller if it has to carry a full squad 9-11 as opposed to limited M2 Bradley?

They lowered the crew requirements to make it smaller/lighter, otherwise it would've been another NGCV. If it's going to be optionally manned, a protected crew compartment really isn't required, is it?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,710
Reaction score
1,777
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
457
a great fan of M1 upgrades but this will get ya funneled and battered.

 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
a great fan of M1 upgrades but this will get ya funneled and battered.



Abrams upgrade:
Looks like warmed over potatoes from last year and the year before. Our ammo must be unbelievably good because we NEVER upgun the Abrams.

OMFV:
Same old, vehicles are too heavy for the bridges, hope for magic armor.

Very jaded here because the Army I just don’t think knows what it wants to do nowadays aside from “shoot far.”
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,985
a great fan of M1 upgrades but this will get ya funneled and battered.



Abrams upgrade:
Looks like warmed over potatoes from last year and the year before. Our ammo must be unbelievably good because we NEVER upgun the Abrams.

OMFV:
Same old, vehicles are too heavy for the bridges, hope for magic armor.

Very jaded here because the Army I just don’t think knows what it wants to do nowadays aside from “shoot far.”
If it wanted to shoot far it would at least get an L55.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
Just to clarify the “shoot far” comment that’s for the Super Arty Gun, and the MRBM, the Abrams gun stays the same.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
800
I thought the new camouflage made them look like this:-
 

Attachments

  • Tree's Snow Backdrop 2.png
    Tree's Snow Backdrop 2.png
    6.2 MB · Views: 192

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
Not the Block III Abrams upgrade but the new MBT that was known as Block III that was part of Heavy Force Modernization then Armored Systems Modernization.
Tired of upgrades.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,985
Not the Block III Abrams upgrade but the new MBT that was known as Block III that was part of Heavy Force Modernization then Armored Systems Modernization.
Tired of upgrades.
Works for me. They just need to get on it before we forget how to build a tank. (If we haven't already.)
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
254
Reaction score
208
Very jaded here because the Army I just don’t think knows what it wants to do nowadays aside from “shoot far.”
Stall for time until UGV tech matures? T-14 and K2 doesn't look good enough to push a "interim manned heavy combat vehicle" against them?

What is needed is a MBT gap~, but where would the money come from?
 
Last edited:

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
Not the Block III Abrams upgrade but the new MBT that was known as Block III that was part of Heavy Force Modernization then Armored Systems Modernization.
Tired of upgrades.
Works for me. They just need to get on it before we forget how to build a tank. (If we haven't already.)

Tank?? Do you mean a Mobile Ground Optionally Manned Effects Based Protected Combat System............ blah blah blah blah
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
I think the Army is going through a “Tank is dead phase” and they don’t know how to say that publicly combined w/switching to a PRC based strategy where MBTs aren’t seen as important compared to shooting far.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
457
The Next Generation Combat Vehicle – Future Decisive Lethality (NGCV-FDL) will have capabilities that are enabled by assured position, navigation and timing and resilient networks that will enable future maneuver formations to execute semi-independent operations while conducting cross-domain maneuver against a peer adversary.
 

Attachments

  • FDL1.jpg
    FDL1.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 167
  • FDL2.jpg
    FDL2.jpg
    71.7 KB · Views: 161

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
The Next Generation Combat Vehicle – Future Decisive Lethality (NGCV-FDL) will have capabilities that are enabled by assured position, navigation and timing and resilient networks that will enable future maneuver formations to execute semi-independent operations while conducting cross-domain maneuver against a peer adversary.
In English please.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
800
All that with one additional AAA battery, wow.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
Better Radios and clocks allows tanks to beat up airplanes, ships and cyber largely by itself. :)

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the USArmy just came out and said in their future Pacific scenarios, they don’t see a need for heavy armor much less a new MBT or whatever the hell they want to call it program?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,849
Reaction score
3,721
Better Radios and clocks allows tanks to beat up airplanes, ships and cyber largely by itself. :)

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the USArmy just came out and said in their future Pacific scenarios, they don’t see a need for heavy armor much less a new MBT or whatever the hell they want to call it program?

They might as well surrender the entire Pacific to the PRC in that case, not to mention Eastern Europe to Russia.
 

Bruno Anthony

I miss the Cold War
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
263
Reaction score
66
Better Radios and clocks allows tanks to beat up airplanes, ships and cyber largely by itself. :)

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the USArmy just came out and said in their future Pacific scenarios, they don’t see a need for heavy armor much less a new MBT or whatever the hell they want to call it program?

They might as well surrender the entire Pacific to the PRC in that case, not to mention Eastern Europe to Russia.

I wouldn’t surrender an inch to either those 2. I’m pointing out the actual effect of decades of tap dancing, Acronym Creations, and endless upgrades to legacy systems. Not that hard to see through the wordsmithing and view the actual non results. I’m sure the PRC & Putinistan see that too.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
342
ouch.. .. didn't know. my bad
And given the knowledge that the US Army by its own making lacks adequate AVBL vehicles to support modern armoured operations......something only now I believe they're attempting to remedy...

Regards
Pioneer
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
500
ouch.. .. didn't know. my bad
And given the knowledge that the US Army by its own making lacks adequate AVBL vehicles to support modern armoured operations......something only now I believe they're attempting to remedy...

Regards
Pioneer

AVBLs wouldn't have sufficient bridging length for a typical Polish river anyway.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
254
Reaction score
208
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the USArmy just came out and said in their future Pacific scenarios, they don’t see a need for heavy armor much less a new MBT or whatever the hell they want to call it program?
Perhaps the 20xx wargames can be discussed:

I'm just going to quote the relevant parts:
It is assumed that large numbers of high-precision, low-observable missiles on both sides limit the practical effectiveness of missile defense systems. Belligerents in 20XX can amass missile arsenals large enough to exhaust interceptor stocks that are immediately available within a given portion of a theater of operations at any given point in time. The application of stealth technologies and hypersonic propulsion systems to low-flying cruise missiles makes them difficult to detect, track, and engage. Sophisticated penetration aids (e.g., multispectral decoys and active jammers) for ballistic-missile warheads further complicate the target discrimination challenge relative to today. Moreover, the high-power radars currently used in active missile defense systems are vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles and RF weapons.

Missile defenses, however, have also improved substantially by 20XX. Directed-energy (DE) ... Despite these improvements, it is assumed that defenses can be countered through a variety of means.... In short, while potentially very useful, active missile defenses remain incapable of fundamentally altering the strategic or operational battlespace in 20XX.

The Centrality of Stealth
Owing to advances in sensor and data processing technologies, the ability to find opposing forces is assumed to have improved dramatically by 20XX... If future “finding” capabilities completely dominated hiding capabilities, however, operational movement would be stymied and combat would likely be limited mainly to extended-range, precision-strike duels. It is assumed in the 20XX wargames that parallel advances in stealth, deception, jamming, offensive IW, and other forms of information protection have also occurred.

....Consequently, especially early on in a conflict, U.S. ground forces need to be inserted into a theater of operations via stealthy airlifters, stealthy surface insertion vessels, and submerged troop-carrier platforms. This requirement constrains the type and number of ground forces that can be successfully inserted and sustained....

....One of the central ground combat challenges in the 20XX regime is signature management. During all phases of combat, ground units must keep their signature as low as possible in order to avoid being detected by the opponent’s sensor systems and subsequently attacked.... In other words, while it might be possible to pummel an enemy unit in close combat, the attacking unit must devise a way of doing so without elevating its signature so long that the enemy can engage it with long-range counterattacks launched from a remote location. Seizing territory is also much easier to accomplish in 20XX than physically holding it. Stationary troops holding ground, just like any other fixed target, are vulnerable to detection and attack.

....“heavy” units like CARs that were organized around stealthy, 10-ton, electric-drive ACVs—light by today’s standards—were not seen as particularly useful in this regime. When CAR units were allocated to them for mission planning, Blue teams often opted not to deploy them for three reasons: 1. The CAR was not seen as providing significant additional or unique combat capabilities; 2. The relatively large footprint of the CAR was considered to present an unacceptably high risk of detection by enemy sensors; and 3. The ACVs were too difficult to support logistically, especially in terms of force insertion and extraction.

....As discussed in Chapter III, exoskeleton-equipped troops were used extensively throughout the 20XX wargame series. They were relied upon not only for close combat, including urban operations, but also for non-linear, distributed-strike operations in open terrain...

----------------
It seems like the USN and USAF have low hopes of getting heavy forces into action across peer A2AD and thus the marines (being closest to the navy) have "given up". It is one thing to keep a CVBG alive behind walls of AEGIS with thousands of miles from the nearest TEL, it is another getting landing crafts onto the shores of Shanghai....

Heavy armor in the RMA-world seems most useful in roles like bulldozing Gaza houses and building the Baghdad wall.
 
Last edited:

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
342
ouch.. .. didn't know. my bad
And given the knowledge that the US Army by its own making lacks adequate AVBL vehicles to support modern armoured operations......something only now I believe they're attempting to remedy...

Regards
Pioneer

AVBLs wouldn't have sufficient bridging length for a typical Polish river anyway.
Granted and thank for your reply marauder2048, but saying that, Im sure there is plenty of smaller waterways other than rivers alone in Poland. On top of that, Im sure the Russian's know and appreciate better than anyone such tactical and strategic choke points within Poland. As for wide spanning bridging engineering, I'd be more worried about the US Army's poorly lacking ground-based air defence, before I seriously worried about bridging. ;)

Regards
Pioneer
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
500
ouch.. .. didn't know. my bad
And given the knowledge that the US Army by its own making lacks adequate AVBL vehicles to support modern armoured operations......something only now I believe they're attempting to remedy...

Regards
Pioneer

AVBLs wouldn't have sufficient bridging length for a typical Polish river anyway.
Granted and thank for your reply marauder2048, but saying that, Im sure there is plenty of smaller waterways other than rivers alone in Poland. On top of that, Im sure the Russian's know and appreciate better than anyone such tactical and strategic choke points within Poland. As for wide spanning bridging engineering, I'd be more worried about the US Army's poorly lacking ground-based air defence, before I seriously worried about bridging. ;)

Regards
Pioneer


I did just look through a CIA document from the Cold War on Polish waterways.
There really aren't a lot of widths for Polish waterways of any note that are within the assault
bridge distance. Granted, they only give averages.

Navigating the wetlands of Poland looks to be...fun.

As to GBAD, the Poles alone are making huge investments via programs which are, ironically,
named after rivers: Wisła and Narew
 
Last edited:

Galvars

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
As to GBAD, the Poles alone are making huge investments via programs which are, ironically,
named after rivers: Wisła and Narew
Huge investments, yes. But with minimal effect. Wisła start to look like failure and with rather small number of launchers and their almost stationary role they are intended for the protection of areas, and at best few urban centers. Narew on other hand is program for mobile systems but that also depends which one will be pick (one of offer is for NASAMS and that's a stationary system that could be transported on truck)... but for now that program is in freezer for couple of years now and hard to say when it will start. As always political declarations are "Soon" TM. A lot of activities behind closed doors, fierce competition between different contenders and unpredictable policies are not conducive to the smooth running of the program. Even if the good solution will be pick (doubts) and bureaucracy will be minimal (huge doubts) putting even minimal level of systems in service will take many, many years. So the best solution for any forces that would like to operate in Polish theater... bring your own toys.

Same thing about river crossing, Polish bridge and crossing equipment is dramatically outdated and base mostly on PP-64 Wstęga (64 is a year it was implemented) systems that worn out. A little shining in the tunnel is few Daglezja but that's just a drop of water in sea of needs. So again... bring your own toys.
 

BAROBA

3D artist
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
338
Reaction score
17
Website
www.baroba.be
In regards to the Polish bridge-problem:
I think they will ( or have) wait(-ed) long enough for that problem to fix itself.
How long can a bridge last?? :p
 

Galvars

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
In regards to the Polish bridge-problem:
I think they will ( or have) wait(-ed) long enough for that problem to fix itself.
How long can a bridge last?? :p
The oldest still in use bridge (both carsh and trolleys) over Wisła is in Kraków, date of putting into service 1933. And it will be in use for many, many years to come. So bridge can stand a really long time.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
500
As to GBAD, the Poles alone are making huge investments via programs which are, ironically,
named after rivers: Wisła and Narew
Huge investments, yes. But with minimal effect. Wisła start to look like failure and with rather small number of launchers and their almost stationary role they are intended for the protection of areas, and at best few urban centers. Narew on other hand is program for mobile systems but that also depends which one will be pick (one of offer is for NASAMS and that's a stationary system that could be transported on truck)... but for now that program is in freezer for couple of years now and hard to say when it will start. As always political declarations are "Soon" TM. A lot of activities behind closed doors, fierce competition between different contenders and unpredictable policies are not conducive to the smooth running of the program. Even if the good solution will be pick (doubts) and bureaucracy will be minimal (huge doubts) putting even minimal level of systems in service will take many, many years. So the best solution for any forces that would like to operate in Polish theater... bring your own toys.

Same thing about river crossing, Polish bridge and crossing equipment is dramatically outdated and base mostly on PP-64 Wstęga (64 is a year it was implemented) systems that worn out. A little shining in the tunnel is few Daglezja but that's just a drop of water in sea of needs. So again... bring your own toys.

AMRAAM-ER or Stunner on a truck would be dangerous enough to push all but the stealthiest
of Russian aerial assets above 20,000 ft and into the hands of their Patriot batteries.

It would only take a small number of NASAMS or choose-your-favoriate-mobile-system to really
complicate things for Red on the aerial front.

The bigger issue is all of the surface-to-surface fires the Russians can throw at GBADS or...Polish bridges.
 

Galvars

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
AMRAAM-ER or Stunner on a truck would be dangerous enough to push all but the stealthiest
of Russian aerial assets above 20,000 ft and into the hands of their Patriot batteries.
If they put that on trucks, for now AMRAAM-ER is in form of NASAMS that is not optimal system. It's popularity is still a surprise for me. Stunner is proposed by Raytheon but in same launcher as Patriot, towed trailer that is absolutely ridiculous. Poland already make a great mistake choosing Patriot in that configuration. The original requirements of Narew is to protect units on move... towed systems are not capable of that. But, let's say that Wisła also had some "requirements" that land in trash when specific system from specific company and country did not meet them.

There will be no hands of Patriot to reach anyone, there will be only few launchers and they main goal will be protecting of AEGIS shore installation, airfields of F-16/35, US installations and at the end maybe country capital. As long as air assets avoid those places, no Patriot will be used.

Above all to create a good air defense sphere you need a proper numbers of systems ready to fire and that is whole new problem. Let's say that cost of two batteries of Patriots in "transitional" configuration was such financial burden that Ministry of Defense ask for more funds beyond own budget and it slowed down or put in to freezer different programs including Narew. That's why I say that if you want air defense... bring own toys.

Btw: the most optimal offer I saw in terms of capability and industrial gains is CAMM.

Bridges for now can be protected by two systems, one is Pilica gun-missile VSHORAD and Poprad missile VSHORAD. They provide very limited air defense against most targets and against cruise missiles they offer little protection... against ballistics, non at all.

Well, if Warsaw will be defended by single battery of Patriots then bridgest there would receive some defense. But rest is open for strikes. Securing them means almost instal new AD system in country on every level above VSHORAD.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
500
Btw: the most optimal offer I saw in terms of capability and industrial gains is CAMM.

Can't comment on the industrial side but anything but anything less than CAMM-ER is grossly inferior to just
about anything else on the market.
 

Galvars

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
MBDA offer CAMM as family, including ER for land and sea launchers with local manufacturing and tech transfer. You need to be more precise what you mean about being grossly inferior... in what aspects?

What is kay feature (unique to CAMM systems in Western sphere if I remember correctly) is vertical, cold launch. And easy to mount on truck launcher system that was already presented on Polish Jelcz chassis.
 

Similar threads

Top