M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

a reinforcing opinion.. a 4th person to share crew workloads based on input passed on this forum.. and BTW yes, operate unmanned systems (the real main show)
the future-is standoff NLOS/BLOS.
 
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

Next-Gen M1 Abrams Tank's Active Protection System, Autoloader Development Off To Delayed Start

The Army's vision for a substantially redesigned next-generation iteration of the M1 Abrams tank is slowly taking shape.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the US has been doing in regard to developing our own active protection systems over the past decade+ (after Quick Kill was cancelled), but so far it doesn't look we have much to show for it. Both APS and autloaders are very important but that shouldn't be news to anyone with some interest in the subject. The fact that yet another delay has been added in a project that has moved at glacial pace has me wondering yet again if anyone in the DoD knows what they're doing.
 
The new Boxer w an ability to in/direct fire 'on the move ' a 155mm as some sort of wheeled tank/ SPH makes long term decisions a bit more difficult. An APS w the quality Future Combat System (FCS) projected could certainly see a wheeled/tracked new "Decisive Lethality" vehicle like Darpa GXV was proposing. As usual $ and genuine analysis of the current battlefield would be required. Mud and mines are their own divinities. 1730426298788.png
 
Last edited:
Vampire thread, but I am building a CATTB currently.

This material is from a user perspective, but not at a tactical level.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3094.jpeg
    IMG_3094.jpeg
    194.1 KB · Views: 125
  • IMG_3093.png
    IMG_3093.png
    335.8 KB · Views: 120
  • IMG_3092.png
    IMG_3092.png
    700.2 KB · Views: 146
  • IMG_6864.jpeg
    IMG_6864.jpeg
    2.5 MB · Views: 151
  • IMG_6866.jpeg
    IMG_6866.jpeg
    860.5 KB · Views: 139
MihoshiK said:
Caliber - mm
Action - Recoil
Muzzle Velocity - fps
Range - yds
Weight of Round - lbs
Weight of Charge - lbs
Barrel Length - inches
Weight Towed - lbs
Produced By - Benet Labs
Entered Service - ?

Very informative, thank you.
Click to expand...
Your very welcome.
 
scrubhead said:
Old plan for tank modernization 1990's era, probably 1995-ish, its not dated on the USAHEC page. I have far more from usahec, might post in the FSCS thread.

[CHART] FUTURE TANK INDUSTRIAL BASE
https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/232539/1117B3-20183164MN000001.pdf <- for far better quality, 1 page
View attachment 718006

EDIT: also since I posted this I might as well post this if it hasn't been posted already, originally posted in SturgeonsHouse and Tanknet like 2.5 months ago. A general overview of all attempts to replace the abrams or improve it. This also has the first known photo of the manned weapon station study vehicle on the internet.

View attachment 718007
Click to expand...
1764134153812.png
Why hasnt any one commented on how closely the Abrams X / M1E1 appear to be a 1999 proposal. Some Decisive Lethality quantum Leap of the 2030s and beyond.... embarrassing.
 
jsport said:
View attachment 793147
Why hasnt any one commented on how closely the Abrams X / M1E1 appear to be a 1999 proposal. Some Decisive Lethality quantum Leap of the 2030s and beyond.... embarrassing.
Click to expand...
A low profile turret/design can give you at least 2 things:
  1. Lower silhouette - lower detectability or hit probability.
  2. Lower weight.
Gonna make a wild guess and say #1 was higher priority in the 90's, and #2 is a higher priority in 2025.
 
Big_Zukini said:
A low profile turret/design can give you at least 2 things:
  1. Lower silhouette - lower detectability or hit probability.
  2. Lower weight.
Gonna make a wild guess and say #1 was higher priority in the 90's, and #2 is a higher priority in 2025.
Click to expand...

Expeditionary Tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
If all that one cares about is profile why stay in the 80s.. DL requires more influence on the battlefield - fire power w/ longer range. E is still an embarrassment.
 
Big_Zukini said:
A low profile turret/design can give you at least 2 things:
  1. Lower silhouette - lower detectability or hit probability.
  2. Lower weight.
Gonna make a wild guess and say #1 was higher priority in the 90's, and #2 is a higher priority in 2025.
Click to expand...
Our guys are also testing a similar idea with the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0

The low profile, unmanned, APS riddled and anti-drone autocannon topped turret seems to be an emerging trend in western tank design, although T-14 and ZTZ-100 also have similar features.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Chinaman got a fourth gen so we need to project ourselves as the better gang in the block!

Seriously it's just a clickbait to draw people in. And apparently it worked!
Click to expand...
I was about to say, we rather recently just entered the fourth generation with the likes of the T-14 and ZTZ-100
 
There is no clear definition of MBT generations, nor should there be.
A semi made up classification system put the latest pre-APS tanks at 3rd gen, and they plus APS is 4th gen.
Another system put everything made in the 2000's and since in 4th gen.
Both systems are absolutely worthless because of the sheer upgradability of MBTs and high variance and nuance between each design.
 
G-AI


As of late 2025, the Decisive Lethality Platform (DLP) concept has largely been superseded by more specific development programs, though its core objective—replacing the M1 Abrams with a next-generation capability—remains a top U.S. Army priority.
The current status of the U.S. Army's efforts to achieve "decisive lethality" in its future armored force is as follows:
  • Shift to M1E3 Abrams: The Army has pivoted from a completely new clean-sheet "Decisive Lethality Platform" to the M1E3 Abrams program. This is an engineering change that effectively replaces the canceled M1A2 SEPv4. It aims to deliver a lighter, more survivable tank by the early 2030s using modular architecture for rapid technology inserts.
  • Optionally Manned Tank (OMT): While the DLP name is less frequently used, the Army continues to explore the Optionally Manned Tank concept. This remains in the concept and technology maturation phase, with the Army examining various weight classes and the possibility of unmanned turret designs or fully robotic platforms.
  • Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV): The DLP/OMT is part of the broader NGCV portfolio, which is still very active. This portfolio includes other programs like the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (replacing the Bradley) and Robotic Combat Vehicles (RCV).
 
lastdingo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the last nail in the coffin is the fact that you can't use a periscope for MMWR to keep it out of danger like a camera. Any way of protecting it makes it function worse.
 
If we can afford to fire mmW radar equipped missiles at tanks, we can afford to equip tanks with mmW radars.
 
MihoshiK said:
If we can afford to fire mmW radar equipped missiles at tanks, we can afford to equip tanks with mmW radars.
Click to expand...
Well if it was mmw missiles that were the thing everyone was worried about then this wouldn't be a issue, but at this point those kinds of missiles are luxurious compared to what's been actively killing tanks for decades now.
 
Cjc said:
Well if it was mmw missiles that were the thing everyone was worried about then this wouldn't be a issue, but at this point those kinds of missiles are luxurious compared to what's been actively killing tanks for decades now.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. If WE can afford to shoot mmW missiles at tanks (Hellfire), then we most definatively can afford to put mmW radar ON tanks to help detect drones.
 
MihoshiK said:
You missed the point. If WE can afford to shoot mmW missiles at tanks (Hellfire), then we most definatively can afford to put mmW radar ON tanks to help detect drones.
Click to expand...
With the caveat that it does take at least 4x mmW radars per tank. So 4x Hellfires per tank.
 
Big_Zukini said:
They aren't now. Nor have been for a very long time. What relevance does it have now?
Click to expand...
Because i wasn't talking in relevance to modern day, I was talking about how X-ROD and MTAS got canned back in the day, I apologise for the confusion
 
Hamez_boi said:
I think the last nail in the coffin is the fact that you can't use a periscope for MMWR to keep it out of danger like a camera. Any way of protecting it makes it function worse.
Click to expand...
No, this is wrong. Radomes can provide ballistic protection. Ballistically protected MMW radomes for use on armoured vehicles was part of the development of the FCS manned ground vehicles MFRF, multifunctional radio frequency, Ka-band radar/communication system.
 

Attachments

  • MILITARY BALLISTIC RADOMES WITH DYNEEMA.pdf
    483 KB · Views: 25
  • BALLISTIC RADOMES FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS.pdf
    179.2 KB · Views: 20

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom