Next Generation Abrams

[Damian]

There is more to that. A completely new tank, can have reduced internal volume thanks to autoloader, unmanned turret and new powerpack. So weight can be reduced while maintaining or increasing armor protection (especially for crew compartment). Active Protection System can be better integrated with vehicle. There is plenty of improvements that can be done with new design.

[sunday]

26 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

^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.

B-52?

[Rick]

C130?

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

B-52?

It's role has changed to the long-range missile carrier*, which doesn't really require super advanced tech, at least as far the basic airframe is concerned. Same thing happened to the Tu-95, also the U-2 won't be sent over the territory of peer enemy (or even non-peer with AD capabilities) anymore, it was already a bad idea in the 1960s.

*at least in a conventional conflict, I guess having short-range guided bombs to use on some thirdworlders with no AD is an option if the US is ever again engaged in some COIN bullshit

[sunday]

As long as the B-52s have missions that they could do in a more or less survivable, and cost-effective manner, they will be keep flying.

No need to change what is not broken. Not too broken, at least.

Edited August 7, 2023 by sunday

[Renegade334]

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/09/06/us-army-scraps-abrams-tank-upgrade-unveils-new-modernization-plan/

So...no more SEP v4, but a M1E3 that might be more in line with an AbramsX (as the article seems to imply)?
Hope they add more non-ready storage to that AbramsX, then. Kinda light in terms of ammo capacity for my tastes.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Renegade334

[Walter_Sobchak]

M1E3?  Why not call it the M1A3?  Why does the US Army seem to hate its own classification system and refuse to follow it?  

[lucklucky]

3 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

M1E3?  Why not call it the M1A3?  Why does the US Army seem to hate its own classification system and refuse to follow it?  

Some bureaucrat wants to put his mark.

[urbanoid]

Well, there was M1E1 designation when it was still a project, it might be the same here.

[Renegade334]

If there are significant design departures (unmanned turret, replacement of the powerpack, installation of mechanical autoloader, relocation of the entire crew into a hull capsule, etc.) from the M1A2 that pose some risk in the development process, I could understand if they preferred to create a couple of prototypes type-codified as M1E3s exploring several R&D pathways before settling on a final design that, upon approval and certification, will receive the actual M1A3 designation.

And, yes, they indeed used M1E1 for the 14 Abrams vehicles built to receive and test the new XM256 back in 1976 or thereabouts. They even had, IIRC, a CITV (or a mockup thereof) that didn't make it into the final design/field testing and was left for integration into a later variant (A2).

Edited September 7, 2023 by Renegade334

[Dawes]

Presumably, if the M1E3 makes it into production it would become the M1A3.

[Manic Moran]

13 hours ago, Dawes said:

Presumably, if the M1E3 makes it into production it would become the M1A3.

Correct. “E” is an engineering variant. 

FWIW, as it says in the press release, the Army has been looking at this for a couple of years, AbramsX has nothing to with the decision. However, given they haven’t been very specific as to how they are reducing weight (and upon my asking, this was deliberate), an AbramsX or TTB type thing is not off the cards. The question is just how many tons are they trying to shave off? By ripping the guts out and starting over with something more modern than warmed-over 1990s internals, they can probably knock a good couple of tons off the tank without changing a single thing about the shape or armor or capability. If they’re looking to knock a score of tons off, then more radical solutions will be required.

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

M1E3?  Why not call it the M1A3?  Why does the US Army seem to hate its own classification system and refuse to follow it?  

I wish they would just fit some ultra wide tracks and new suspension called it M1A2E8, just for old times sake...

[DB]

One could imagine that modern FEA systems would allow for the development of significant structural optimisations, but one would probably argue that rather than reducing weight, one would go up to the current weight class by improving protection instead.

Also, whatever power plant is to be chosen, if it includes a battery hybrid element, that will cause volume and weight issues of its own, and I'd be very interested in how a battery pack would fare vs mines or other damage sources.

[Dawes]

At what point does the Abrams simply reach the end of it's useable life and a clean-sheet-of-paper design is required?

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Dawes said:

At what point does the Abrams simply reach the end of it's useable life and a clean-sheet-of-paper design is required?

I think there will be needed a technology revolution, like putting several crew in the turret during WWII, or using the rear sprocket for propulsion instead of the front one. Advances in electronics could usually be integrated without major mechanical changes.

One possible advance would be integration of AI-driven drones, another could be to put all ammo behind blow-up panels. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Dawes said:

At what point does the Abrams simply reach the end of it's useable life and a clean-sheet-of-paper design is required?

You can replace parts of a tank incrementally until nothing of the original remains, so there doesn't have to be a single point. If they redesign the hull around the same chassis to include a cockpit, and add a new turret, it'd still be an Abrams in its core. But if they change the chassis, it's still the same new Abrams "2.0" with all its new bells and whistles.

[DB]

For Abrams, when someone other than GD is the prime?

[Walter_Sobchak]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I wish they would just fit some ultra wide tracks and new suspension called it M1A2E8, just for old times sake...

Should I vehemently insist that the proper nomenclature for such a vehicle would be M1A2 (120) HVSS, just to mirror discussions in the Sherman related threads?

[Walter_Sobchak]

12 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Correct. “E” is an engineering variant. 
 

Yes, but don't they usually use the base designation of the existing variant and then add the "E" suffix?  For example, the vehicle we know as the M60A2 started out as M60A1E1, not as M60E2.  Another example, the M48A4 started out as the M48A1E3 rather than M48E4.  And yes, I know I am venturing into some pretty pedantic territory here.  Humor me. 

[Manic Moran]

11 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Yes, but don't they usually use the base designation of the existing variant and then add the "E" suffix?  For example, the vehicle we know as the M60A2 started out as M60A1E1, not as M60E2.  Another example, the M48A4 started out as the M48A1E3 rather than M48E4.  And yes, I know I am venturing into some pretty pedantic territory here.  Humor me. 

Only if it's a derivative of the variant in question. It's not that they're taking an M1A2 and making engineering changes to that, which would be M1A2E1; they are, in effect, making another branch of the M1 family tree by ripping apart the M1A2 blueprints, and creating a new M1 variant unrelated to M1A2.

[Damian]

Adding to what was said, as far as I understand official statements M1E3/M1A3 will be a clean sheet design in fact. Both new hull and new turret. And vehicles will be 100% newly produced, not older tanks refurbished, rebuild and upgraded.

GDLS representatives few months ago, hinted something like that to me, but in context of the Polish Army Wolf programme. I asked them about GDLS participation and they said that if it happens, it won't be a current generation M1 but a new vehicle.

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Should I vehemently insist that the proper nomenclature for such a vehicle would be M1A2 (120) HVSS, just to mirror discussions in the Sherman related threads?

Sounds entirely suitable to me.

 

[futon]

If the M1A3 is actually going to be clean sheet, maybe should give up on M1. M2 and M3 are Bradley's so...

M4 for introduction version, turbine gas engine.

M4A1 with new hull and armor that incorporates sensor sweep for all round hull camera view and for APS.

M4A2 with fuel efficient hybrid engine. Marines get their tanks back with this version.

M4A3 being best version with subset models, thus giving up on the current craze of making a single model being module for different mission package swapping. 

M4A4 as export version with the hybrid engine for allies that don't have the fuel logistics. 

(^-^)

[sunday]

2 hours ago, Damian said:

Adding to what was said, as far as I understand official statements M1E3/M1A3 will be a clean sheet design in fact. Both new hull and new turret. And vehicles will be 100% newly produced, not older tanks refurbished, rebuild and upgraded.

GDLS representatives few months ago, hinted something like that to me, but in context of the Polish Army Wolf programme. I asked them about GDLS participation and they said that if it happens, it won't be a current generation M1 but a new vehicle.

Very interesting, thanks. Wonder what kind of participation GDLS Spain would have.