M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
659
Reaction score
0
Our 120mm was two piece, rounds in the turret and bag charges in the hull in double skin water filled containers. Then again, ranging was achieved with a .5" Browning mg firing triple taps.

The latest news on the Challenger 2 is that it will be getting the MTU 1500hp engine and a Renk gearbox along with the Rheinmetal 120mm L55 which I think is a counter intuitive and derogatory backwards step rather than an upgrade. Pity they could not get upgrades instead.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,526
Reaction score
1
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2018/02/07/nexter-foresees-future-tank-prototype-contract-talks-ai-and-robot-aspirations/
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
0
Foo Fighter said:
Our 120mm was two piece, rounds in the turret and bag charges in the hull in double skin water filled containers. Then again, ranging was achieved with a .5" Browning mg firing triple taps.
Until they were the first to introduce laser range finding and ballistic computers to tanks.

Today, they use lasers, meteorological sensors and ballistic computers to work out Fire Control Solutions.

The latest news on the Challenger 2 is that it will be getting the MTU 1500hp engine and a Renk gearbox along with the Rheinmetal 120mm L55 which I think is a counter intuitive and derogatory backwards step rather than an upgrade. Pity they could not get upgrades instead.
Installing a rifled 120mm gun is a good first step. From there, larger guns can be installed. The real problem is reworking the ammunition stowage in the fighting compartment. Perhaps installing an autoloader as well. There is still a lot of "oomph!" in the 120mm round.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Colonial-Marine said:
The M1 may be a good place to start with yet there is a whole lot to do in my opinion. I think the basic turret layout could use some rework at this point due to the need to fit an active protection system and all that involves. I have to give the Israeli's credit for doing a really good job at seamlessly integrating Trophy onto the Merkava IV.

Whatever happened to that 140mm gun tested by the US and others that several NATO countries hoped to utilize on a future main battle tank?
Or even an L55 with a DU round (M829A4 if it would work).
XM256E1 died because it would have required replacing the gun laying drives and adding counterweights to balance the gun. Given the performance of M829 series ammo with the L/55, it's also not worth it.

Kadija_Man said:
All reasons why an autoloader would be necessary. While the US may have a surplus of large muscled men, most other Western European nations were looking at a decrease due to the end of the baby-boom when the Cold War ended. They were looking seriously at the need to introduce female soldiers to make up the shortfall.
Building muscle is easy. Just go to the gym. Needing four arms isn't so easy a fix. As illustrated, each piece of 140mm ATAC's ammunition was the size of a 120mm round.

The "Leopard 2-140" used a really awkward semi-automatic system where the front ammunition rack held the projectile end of the 140mm round and the rear bustle held the propellant-primer charge. The human loader rammed a projectile into the gun and the autoloader finished the job and closed the breech. It may have been the other way around though. That's not really workable in practice, but KWS III was the German equivalent of the American Thumper. It was to see what changes would be needed to Leopard 2 to make carry the 140mm. Turns out it would need a new turret entirely. So KWS III died and KWS I/II lived because they were just armor and fire control updates to the existing turrets.

Kadija_Man said:
Still nothing about a supposed replacement for the M1. A great deal of discussion about the Soviet Union/Russian strategic viewpoint but not about the US's. Nor about what is going to replace the M1.

I'd suggest more M1s, actually. Up the power, up the armour, up the gun. Perhaps the new Rhienmettal 130mm gun? Alternatively, reduce the power of the gun and put in place, as the armour killer, a battery of ATGWs. Bill or Spike like. Use the gun for the direct support of infantry.

So, let us discuss that idea, not the Russian views about China (which are BTW, incorrect as far as I can tell) nor the Chinese views about Russia.
At this point the USA is going to be buying Leopard 3s in the 2040s when Rheinmetall can finish their work on it and get them in mass production. The last Abrams will probably not be hugely different from the current Abrams. Different armor package, maybe. Better ammo. Newer computers. But no new engine and no new gun. It'll be fobbing off Abrams to the National Guard for decades after the Regular Army gets Leopard 3s, though, much like the National Guard still toils in the M1A1 and toiled in M48A5 in the early 1990s.

It could change in the future, but the USA is currently going through a series of annual growth rates reminiscent of the early 1970s Brezhnev era.

The ideal replacement for M1 would be to make something like TTB powered by AIPS (or GD's MTU 883) and using the 140mm ATAC. All this technology exists, it's relatively modern (1990s), and it's basically what Russia did to make T-14 i.e. dig up a bunch of Cold War fossils from Kubinka and kitbash them together because Object 195 exploded like the Soviet Union when its fire control system failed to materialize. At the moment all America can do is make incremental improvements to M1, ignoring large bits like engines and guns, and making small bits like armor and thermal sights instead. Not bad, but not great, just OK.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
597
Reaction score
0
If the money exists to buy a Leopard 3 surely we'd be better off designing our own new MBT and retaining those skill sets.

But why not make a more extensive upgrade of the M1 in the short term? Improved turret with appropriate stabilization for longer or larger guns, maybe an autoloader, new engine and suspension upgrades as have been pitched by manufacturers in recent years, and mixed APS. Anything else? Personally I like the idea of a heavier secondary armament but many tankers I've spoken to say they'd rather have more main gun ammunition instead.

Looking it over it seems the end product would be mostly a new tank. So it's the age-old question of how far do you build off an existing design versus starting fresh.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
0
The reduction in ammunition stowage and the cumbersome loading
were in part why the 140mm never progressed. That and it pretty much
required ETC (or other complicated ignition methods) to get reliable and uniform ignition.

ETC would have also facilitated fire-out-of-battery because the muzzle brake that
was envisioned would have had obscuration issues.

This does bring up a need for MMW imagers (possibly passive) to help with
quick follow-up shots and to deal with IR/laser screening smoke; ViSAR recently
demonstrated close to 50W @ 231 - 235 GHz.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
659
Reaction score
0
The hull and turret architecture are not exactly expensive to develop in the greater scheme of things, consider the previous use of alternate turrets on developed hulls in the past for example. This would allow proper consideration to new technology to be introduced. It would be possible to for example, introduce a hybrid power unit/transmission and even an engine forward hull.

My understanding of the rheinmetal gun is that it has a smooth bore barrel not rifled.

"Until they were the first to introduce laser range finding and ballistic computers to tanks.

Today, they use lasers, meteorological sensors and ballistic computers to work out Fire Control Solutions".

I can remember the early laser range finders, very odd results for a long time which required the fitment of a 'second logic' button. All very odd but part of the development fun.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
0
Foo Fighter said:
The hull and turret architecture are not exactly expensive to develop in the greater scheme of things, consider the previous use of alternate turrets on developed hulls in the past for example. This would allow proper consideration to new technology to be introduced. It would be possible to for example, introduce a hybrid power unit/transmission and even an engine forward hull.

My understanding of the rheinmetal gun is that it has a smooth bore barrel not rifled.

"Until they were the first to introduce laser range finding and ballistic computers to tanks.

Today, they use lasers, meteorological sensors and ballistic computers to work out Fire Control Solutions".

I can remember the early laser range finders, very odd results for a long time which required the fitment of a 'second logic' button. All very odd but part of the development fun.
I remember many years ago watching the BBC report on the introduction of the Laser range finder to the Chieftain. They put it up against an older model with a .50in spotting gun. The Laser range finder missed. The .50in gun did not. Reflections were a real problem apparently with the early Lasers.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
659
Reaction score
0
Yes, interesting times. We had a batch delivered which had the bottom prism reversed which meant a less than timely return for a fix. Did very little to help the testing schedule. Modern sensors are fascinating with many avenues used to achieve the same goal. I wonder if Lidar is being considered yet.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
0
Foo Fighter said:
Yes, interesting times. We had a batch delivered which had the bottom prism reversed which meant a less than timely return for a fix. Did very little to help the testing schedule. Modern sensors are fascinating with many avenues used to achieve the same goal. I wonder if Lidar is being considered yet.
The Americans have put mm wave radar into an M1 in a "hunter-killer" set up.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,340
Reaction score
1
Kadija_Man said:
Foo Fighter said:
Yes, interesting times. We had a batch delivered which had the bottom prism reversed which meant a less than timely return for a fix. Did very little to help the testing schedule. Modern sensors are fascinating with many avenues used to achieve the same goal. I wonder if Lidar is being considered yet.
The Americans have put mm wave radar into an M1 in a "hunter-killer" set up.
I'd think that'd pretty much say, "hey everybody, I'm right here". Would anybody want to turn it on?
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
974
Reaction score
0
Depends on how it's used, especially since OPFOR does not carry any ESM that I am aware of to even detect it. If it's a decent LPI set then there should not be a problem.

5 Minutes of Google-Fu could only turn up MMW being part of an APS system like Trophy which means it's extremely short range at best.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
mm wavelength radar is known for short ranges, but those short ranges still add up to several kilometres in the Longbow radar and some others.
mmW is not very accurate at rangefinding, but capable of creating imagery without SAR tricks.

The addition of mmW radar to tanks for APS and as complementary sensor to IIR will likely drive up the costs even further - MBTs risk becoming too expensive.

It doesn't help to calculate that a tank with it will be so and so much more effective ceteris paribus. In the end, the rise in the costs of current tanks (even a plain IFV like Puma is at € 7 million drive away costs, 10+ if you add the periphery) may make them unaffordable in the necessary quantities.

A German army that goes down to 200 Leopard 3 for maybe six brigades would badly lack in MBT power compared to the cost equivalent of 2,000 T-90s, for example.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
659
Reaction score
0
I mentioned lidar as it is extremely accurate in an all aspect way. Smoke and other ways a target can be obscured would not be a problem and a short 360 would enable ranges to landmarks in a defended position for those times it gets loud.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
974
Reaction score
0
Sorry that I was not clear enough. While MMW is "short ranged" in it's own right (ie Longbow vs a fighter's X-Band radar), the MMW on Trophy is much shorter still (likely less than 1 mile) due to smaller antenna and lower power.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,165
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Foo Fighter said:
Yes, interesting times. We had a batch delivered which had the bottom prism reversed which meant a less than timely return for a fix. Did very little to help the testing schedule. Modern sensors are fascinating with many avenues used to achieve the same goal. I wonder if Lidar is being considered yet.
The Americans have put mm wave radar into an M1 in a "hunter-killer" set up.
I'd think that'd pretty much say, "hey everybody, I'm right here". Would anybody want to turn it on?
MTAS was ultimately basis for a fire control system for a command guided projectile (X-ROD).
Also you would use it to defeat screening smoke or obscuration (including ownship-induced).

My view is that the best place for the MMW emitter would be offboard (UGV) hence the passive MMW
remark I made above.

Not sure I fully buy the claim that MMW is prohibitively expensive since it can and is riding a consumer market e.g.
5G, medical imaging, autonomous cars, aviation DVE.
 

Attachments

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
597
Reaction score
0
Wasn't some sort of MMW radar included in the fire control system of both the Russian T-14 and "T-95"/Objekt 195?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,526
Reaction score
1
http://www.janes.com/article/78099/challenger-2-mbt-lep-selection-draws-closer?utm_campaign=CL_Jane%27s%20360-Feb-23-2017_PC5308_e-production_E-6951_KP_0223_0500&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

The 24-month Assessment Phase (AP) to determine the winning bidder for the British Army Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) Life Extension Programme (LEP) is due to be completed at the end of 2018.

Two competitors – a BAE Systems-led team that includes General Dynamics Land Systems UK, and Rheinmetall – are bidding for the opportunity to update 227 Challenger 2 MBTs operated by the service’s three Armoured Infantry Brigades as well as training contingents in Canada and the United Kingdom.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
659
Reaction score
0
I suppose they will want to introduce the new 24 fl oz cup holders too, that will bump up the budget a bit.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,883
Reaction score
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22zgc9SEpYk&t=3s
 
Top