Jump to content

Next Generation Abrams


lucklucky

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/general-dynamics-business-units-to-participate-in-ausa-2022-301640911.html

General Dynamics Land Systems (Booth 801)

AbramsX: A main battle tank for the next generation, the AbramsX technology demonstrator features reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability, delivering the same tactical range as the M1A2 Abrams with 50% less fuel consumption. The AbramsX's hybrid power pack supports the U.S. Army's climate and electrification strategies, enhances silent watch capability and even allows for some silent mobility. With a reduced crew size and AI-enabled lethality, survivability, mobility, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T) and autonomous capabilities, AbramsX can be a key node in lethal battlefield networks and serve as a bridge from Abrams SEPv3 and SEPv4 to a future tank.

"Reduced crew size" means at least 3.

Crew is the new gen does not mean number of men inside the tank.

For example Carmel is said to have a 2-man crew, but has 3 stations. The third, being a systems operator, is not in charge of any essential capability of the vehicle itself, and is thus not considered part of the crew, much like how a stewardess is not a pilot.

That's why in all these new projects you hear references to crews as X+1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think people should keep in mind that the picture is just an artist's rendering of what a future tank might look like.  Two things immediately stuck out to me as being improbable in the final design.  First, the rather large turret.  This turret is unnecessarily large for a two man turret much less that of an unmanned turret.  Second, in keeping with the first, the gun mantlet is far oversized, it's bigger than the one currently being used on the M1s, it's almost as wide as that of the earlier generation M60s.  And then there is the incongruous M2 with all it's modern fire control trappings sitting atop the turret just waiting for an airburst to wipe it out. Meanwhile the coax is buried deep within the armored citadel making it difficult to access and maintain.  
Looks to me like an artist was told to use the M1 hull, take some clues from the TTB, and marry with a smaller turret.  It looks like the artist took some inspiration from the Leclerc and then used some licenses to stick the CROWS on top.  Oddly, the artist went with the older version instead of the newer low profile CROWS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^-- Well, first, that's not an M2 on a CROWS II/III, it's a M230LF for counter-UAV duty with a M240 coax, mounted on a Kongsberg Protector RS6. The RS6 is made for 30mm guns like the XM914E1/M230LF (the model fitted on the JLTV even has an optional Stinger launcher on the side), whereas the RS4LP (CROWS-LP) was designed as a less bulky cradle for the M2 and M240 already found on the M1.

As for the turret's bulk, we don't know whether it has a secondary carousel in its bustle and whether the Trophy sponsons, which now seem to be more integrated into the turret, rather than hanging off the sides, hide behind NERA cavities. GDLS doesn't seem to be going the let's-make-the-turret-paper-thin road used by the Armata; there is a thicker protection scheme at play here.

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

^-- Well, first, that's not an M2 on a CROWS II/III, it's a M230LF for counter-UAV duty with a M240 coax, mounted on a Kongsberg Protector RS6. The RS6 is made for 30mm guns like the XM914E1/M230LF (the model fitted on the JLTV even has an optional Stinger launcher on the side), whereas the RS4LP (CROWS-LP) was designed as a less bulky cradle for the M2 and M240 already found on the M1.

As for the turret's bulk, we don't know whether it has a secondary carousel in its bustle and whether the Trophy sponsons, which now seem to be more integrated into the turret, rather than hanging off the sides, hide behind NERA cavities. GDLS doesn't seem to be going the let's-make-the-turret-paper-thin road used by the Armata; there is a thicker protection scheme at play here.

You're completely missing the point about the picture being an artist rendering.  It may or may not have anything to do with reality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most important thing is, AbramsX is not intended to be mass produced. This is just a technology demonstrator and a test bed for some engineering solutions that might or might not be used in Next Generation Main Battle Tank programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DKTanker said:

You're completely missing the point about the picture being an artist rendering.  It may or may not have anything to do with reality.  

That image looks too much based on a CAD design and too much specific detail to be just "artist"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Crew is the new gen does not mean number of men inside the tank.

For example Carmel is said to have a 2-man crew, but has 3 stations. The third, being a systems operator, is not in charge of any essential capability of the vehicle itself, and is thus not considered part of the crew, much like how a stewardess is not a pilot.

That's why in all these new projects you hear references to crews as X+1.

May as well claim that the RIO in the back of an F-14, or Weapon System Officer in a Tornado weren't crew. Nevertheless, this is all just different terminology by different country's different services, and much like the tons/tonnes issue will lead to confusion unless people who are making comparisons know the differences.

After all, in terms of number of people killed in an engagement, it doesn't matter if it was 4 or 3+1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

For example Carmel is said to have a 2-man crew, but has 3 stations. The third, being a systems operator, is not in charge of any essential capability of the vehicle itself, and is thus not considered part of the crew, much like how a stewardess is not a pilot.

The system operator is important for the intended use of the entire tank. He is therefore assigned to the crew. I think so.

The stewardess? She just pushes only juice around. OK. But the flight engineer was never a pilot before. Nevertheless, he was part of the crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tank today cannot operate without a loader, or without a driver, or a gunner, or a TC. Everyone is essential to operating an essential component of the vehicle.

The system operator is necessary for combat, but not to operate the vehicle itself.

That's why on many vehicles it's not even a system operator but a platoon or company commander, an intelligence officer, artillery officer etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you can not accept there are different doctrines and that there is no "one size fits all" sollution.. Just look at IFV crew mess:

- Some armies treat both IFV and dismounted element as a single section.

- Others threat both as separate one.

In both versions you have different command structure inside squad(s):

- In one IFV commander is also dismounted element leader, but stays mounted.

- In other there is no vehicle commander per see, that duty is done by dismounted element commander when he is mounted and gunner when he is not.

- In other one there is separate vehicle and dismount leader. Then there are two versions who is junior and who is senior.

So who is "crew" and who is "operator" and what x+y numbers would you assign to each of those? :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every warm body in a vehicle is either crew or passenger, in the case of IFV etc.  Everyoner in a tank is "Crew" and to suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Better things to do than word games and mucking about with semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bojan said:

It seems you can not accept there are different doctrines and that there is no "one size fits all" sollution.. Just look at IFV crew mess:

- Some armies treat both IFV and dismounted element as a single section.

- Others threat both as separate one.

In both versions you have different command structure inside squad(s):

- In one IFV commander is also dismounted element leader, but stays mounted.

- In other there is no vehicle commander per see, that duty is done by dismounted element commander when he is mounted and gunner when he is not.

- In other one there is separate vehicle and dismount leader. Then there are two versions who is junior and who is senior.

So who is "crew" and who is "operator" and what x+y numbers would you assign to each of those? :)

 

I'm talking about MBTs, not IFVs. The structure is different.

Maybe I don't understand how IFVs work. Maybe you don't understand a simple nuance.

The extra "crewman" is not necessary for the operation of the vehicle, and his station will be manned by different roles.

Doctrines are different, but all so far (in the west) agree on an X+1 setup where usually the +1 is a systems operator, particularly of unmanned systems and deployables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the US at least has not moved to a "crew+1" doctrine, and the folks I have been talking to don't seem to agree that a "+1" is good for tank design. I personally agree with them.

However, I have it on good authority that the crew on this concept vehicle is three side by side as per the M1 TTB. And it is just a concept vehicle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

As far as I know, the US at least has not moved to a "crew+1" doctrine, and the folks I have been talking to don't seem to agree that a "+1" is good for tank design. I personally agree with them.

However, I have it on good authority that the crew on this concept vehicle is three side by side as per the M1 TTB. And it is just a concept vehicle.

 

Of course it didn't adopt that doctrine. None has, yet. But industry proposes, and armies look into, such a setup for new vehicles to be built within a decade or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the driver's sitting on the left. Would it make more sense for the gunner to sit in the center station or would it rather be reserved for the TC to improve his spatial awareness? (which, I know, would be heavily supported and improved on by Iron Vision-like V/AR systems) That aside, it's an interestingly [externally] clean design.

And, yes, DKTanker, I can totally see the artistic license now. The 3D artist really had no reference point at hand and freewheeled his way through. /sarcasm

 

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

So the driver's sitting on the left. Would it make more sense for the gunner to sit in the center station or would it rather be reserved for the TC for spatial awareness? (which, I know, would be heavily complemented by Iron Vision-like V/AR systems) That aside, it's an interestingly [externally] clean design.

And, yes, DKTanker, I can totally see the artistic license now. The 3D artist really had no reference point at hand and freewheeled his way through. /sarcasm

 

It's like ina  T-14. Driver on the left, TC in the right and gunner in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The reason why it matters is because it'll create a situation where most of the time, vehicles will be under-manned, running with only 2 men instead of 3.

Really?  How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Przezdzieblo said:

Looks like it got new tracks, similar - or same - to DST P0. Engine deck seems to be higher than in turbine-driven Abramses, original NBC protection system is no more. I like that overaggresive teeth-like rubber skirts ;)

AFAIK it uses hybrid diesel-electric drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...But industry proposes...

And thanks all gods old and new, industry does not write doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...