Next Generation Abrams

[futon]

On 10/18/2022 at 4:03 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yeah but what will that armor cover, really? Because the true width of the turret will be just the gun mantlet. Everything else is just an external module. If ammo exists in the turret, then sure it makes sense to put armor around it. Otherwise, not so much. And we don't know what solution is preferred yet.

T-14's turret for example is not easier to mission-kill than a T-90's for example. Not at all.

I know some that are very happy with a front-heavy design and even made adjustments to make it so. Said to improve grip on slopes. Never drove a tank so I don't know. But it doesn't sound like an outright negative. But here's some food for thought - with only a driver in the hull, you can afford to have to rotate the turret a bit to let him in/out. With all crew in the hull, the turret will naturally have to go a bit further to the back. So increasing weight to the front (e.g. armor on the hull front) can be a positive thing, and might even just balance the weights, rather than make it front-heavy.

I agree that putting all 3 in the front is a major risk. That's why I propose an alternative design where the crew capsule is actually in the rear. That'd just make lives much more comfortable for the crew who will then use a large door/ramp instead of a small hatch to squeeze through.

Unfortunately, that poses a major challenge for situational awareness. But, there is a lot of effort right now to improve situational awareness and convince crewmen to remain with hatches closed during combat. I wonder what kind of tech can be used to provide a reliable, intuitive view of the outside world as a backup to cameras.

On the armor for mostly just turret. Just an amored mantlet is no longer effective at other angles of attack other than the narrow 5 degrees from the front. From the side or even 45 degree front side, the slim profile of a gun-only turret is no longer slim but also essentially the same as with a regular tank turret. In order to protect along a wider arc, the width of frontal armor needs to increase. I don't know if its really rule of thumb but ISTR a sort of necessity for 60 degree frontal arc protection and that doesn't seem to change in swaping a manned turret for a gun-only turret if the design calls protection to prevent mission kill. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by futon

[bfng3569]

think this was mentioned before but thought i'd throw the pic in

Edited October 28, 2022 by bfng3569

[Burncycle360]

M60 Starship might be another approach, driver and gunner in rotating turret basket with their own hatches, but nearly flush with the hull.  Separating gunner from commander is of course not ideal... so regardless of the approach it's just a matter of what tradeoffs are important to you

[Tim Sielbeck]

That was MBT-70.

[sunday]

M60A2 had individual hatches for each crewmember, however.

[Angrybk]

1 hour ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

That was MBT-70.

Didn't the drivers suffer from extreme motion sickness or something though?

[Tim Sielbeck]

Not sure.  I have heard the same about Abram's replacements with the crew in the hull, though.

[shep854]

The MBT70 had the whole crew in the turret; the driver in an independent capsule that pointed forward regardless of turret position.

The M60A2 had the TC in a huge cupola on top of the turret, with gunner and loader in the low hatches.  The Stryker MGS is where the TC and gunner were low in the turret.

[urbanoid]

 

[Damian]

GDLS is doing with AbramsX the same thing they were doing with Griffin series. They will now present it to the US Army, ask what is ok and what is not ok. Then change configuration, repeat the process untill results will be satisfactionary for the US Army.

[Renegade334]

Not sure the Abrams will be the basis for GDLS' offering for what is, for now, the DLP program.

It'll probably be a design made from the ground-up using the Abrams as a starting block, the same the way the Booker used the Ajax/Griffin as reference point to become something quite different at the end of the day. Abrams is getting a tad too old as it is, to be just spun off ad infinitum.

Right now, AbramsX is GDLS saying "this is what we can do today, and please do trust that we are ready for the US' next-gen MBT, that we have the chops and skills to build it...and...uh...by the way, can we have some pointers?".

 

Also: the left PASEO turret is missing and an additional Trophy radar (for frontal, top attack coverage) has been installed right in front of the empty PASEO pedestal.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Renegade334

[Damian]

I agree that new tank will be designed from the ground up. It might be a completely clean sheet design, or it might be a further evolution of the M1, or even both simultaneous programs as more progressive option A, and more evolutionary, safe option B.

[TrustMe]

Weapon development is circler i.e. if enemy tank has a weapon, we must have a superior weapon and so on.

What weapons in the world's armed forces can harm the existing M1A2? I can't think of any so why build something new. 

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Weapon development is circler i.e. if enemy tank has a weapon, we must have a superior weapon and so on.

What weapons in the world's armed forces can harm the existing M1A2? I can't think of any so why build something new. 

Modernisation is a process that takes many years. You don't wait, you develop in advance.

[sunday]

4 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

What weapons in the world's armed forces can harm the existing M1A2?

Mavericks, Hellfires, artillery, some drones, other M1s...

[Cajer]

Even if the abrams was completely satisfactory now and in the future performance wise (it isnt).  There’s still a large case for a new tank form the cost and logistics perspective.

 

3 man crews save a ton of manning costs, newer armor/lower protected volume means a smaller lighter vechile  simplifying logistics from the transportation and fuel side, a non 50 year old design means much higher reliability

[TrustMe]

I can understand all the reply's but still, I can't see any enemy nation currently having on a tank on tank basis, better than the current M1 Abrams.

[urbanoid]

Might be true, still doesn't matter. 

[Damian]

Right now next funded upgrade for the M1 series, outside of the M1A2SEPv4, is the integration and tests of In-Arm Hydropneumatic Suspension System.

My bet for next upgrade will be ACE 1500 HP opposed piston diesel engine with ACT transmission that are being tested on AbramsX.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Damian

[Cajer]

Do we know time the timeline for the abrams replacement?  I'm wondering when we will see upgrades stop.

[Renegade334]

IIRC the preliminary design requirements for DLP might start to get tentatively issued, within something like five years.

Which doesn't mean DLP will kick off in five years or thereabouts, only that they'll start prodding the waters then.

Odds are, it'll take a decade before something concrete truly starts. The combat data from Ukraine will certainly give DEVCOM GVSC (formerly TARDEC) and others a lot to think about.

 

EDIT: well, I was wrong. The "within five years" figure doesn't come from the Sofilein video as I previously wrote, but I'm pretty sure I heard it mentioned in one of the AbramsX interviews at AUSA...*sigh*
EDIT bis: no dice on the Timothy Reese AUSA interviews, either. You know what, discard the "5 years" number. As I can't find the source again, we might as well chalk it up as it a misunderstanding on my part.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Renegade334

[shep854]

I just with they’d quit beating around the bush and go to M1A3.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, TrustMe said:

What weapons in the world's armed forces can harm the existing M1A2?...

From which aspect?

[Mighty_Zuk]

10 hours ago, TrustMe said:

I can understand all the reply's but still, I can't see any enemy nation currently having on a tank on tank basis, better than the current M1 Abrams.

Tanks aren't competing against other tanks. They are competing against all the things planners want them to destroy, and against the all the things enemy planners want to destroy them with.

[urbanoid]

^This plus there's also such a thing as a generational replacement. In short, shit's getting old and you might just as well create something more modern (maybe also more ergonomic/easier to maintain/cheaper/whatever). No one in the world has the equivalent of B-2, it doesn't stop the USAF from fielding a replacement.