Jump to content

Next Generation Abrams


lucklucky

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, sunday said:

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

Probably none, GDLS is cooperating with PGZ and primary production facility here in Poland would have WZM and recently introduced in to the group, Hipolit Cegielski Poznań Plant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@futon

"M4" is already in use for the M4 C2V (Command & Control Vehicle), which is based on the M270 MLRS. It's not very well known (less than 25 produced in total), but it's there in limited service.

As for model numbers...prototypes might be in the thirteen hundreds (13**). The new DVH Stryker A1 variants occupy the 1251-1257 range, the Stryker Dragoon holds 1296. The ERCA Paladin variant (originally/erroneously dubbed M109A8) is XM1299. MPF prototypes (both the BAE and GDLS pilot vehicles, despite being totally different designs) were XM1302. Take it from there.

And then you have the M10 Booker...which opens a whole new betting pool for us.

 

Clean sheet design could still retain a LOT of the original Abrams. Some time ago there was this one general who mused that if they were to start right now on the Abrams' successor, the first thing they'd do was look at different materials for the hull. It would be composites rather than just steel - just for the weight savings.
They've also been looking at a lot of new manufacturing technologies such as friction stir welding, though IIRC they've only used that for a notional next-gen APC/IFV hull...in aluminum.
My point is, rebuilding an Abrams hull with something other than RHA steel could be considered clean-sheet on paper...if you pepper-spray and tase yourself hard enough.

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

@futon

"M4" is already in use for the M4 C2V (Command & Control Vehicle), which is based on the M270 MLRS. It's not very well known (less than 25 produced in total), but it's there in limited service.

 

I guess I can't be too surprised M4 for got taken already. So obvious question. M5? M6? M7? M8 no and M10 no. M9? If M10s taken, prior number probably already all taken by something I guess. M11?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@futon

M6 is the Bradley Linebacker.
M7 is the Bradley B-FiST.
M8 is the AGS.
M9 is the ACE earthmover.

Maybe M5? Unless they opt for M11 as a direct follow-up to M10.
M5 might have been reserved for a Bradley variant meant to carry a Stinger MANPAD crew, but the concept was eventually superseded by the Linebacker, which didn't require dismounting to do its thing.
Note: I wrote that the M4 is a M270 variant, but the latter is itself based on the Bradley chassis, so M2->7 might actually all be members of the Bradley family, including the unassigned 5.

And before it is mentioned (as I've seen it elsewhere), no, "Ripsaw M5" is not a US Army designation, it's the manufacturer's name for it.

 

Anyways.

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

M10 is a light tank, M30 is new infantry fighting vehicle, so avaiable numbers are like M20 oraz M50 is there is a pattern to skip numbers i.e. M10 -> M30 -> M50 etc.

However if already it is said that prototype designation is M1E3, then after standarization new tank will bemost likely designated as M1A3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2023 at 7:24 AM, Renegade334 said:

@futon

"M4" is already in use for the M4 C2V (Command & Control Vehicle), which is based on the M270 MLRS. It's not very well known (less than 25 produced in total), but it's there in limited service.

As for model numbers...prototypes might be in the thirteen hundreds (13**). The new DVH Stryker A1 variants occupy the 1251-1257 range, the Stryker Dragoon holds 1296. The ERCA Paladin variant (originally/erroneously dubbed M109A8) is XM1299. MPF prototypes (both the BAE and GDLS pilot vehicles, despite being totally different designs) were XM1302. Take it from there.

And then you have the M10 Booker...which opens a whole new betting pool for us.

 

Clean sheet design could still retain a LOT of the original Abrams. Some time ago there was this one general who mused that if they were to start right now on the Abrams' successor, the first thing they'd do was look at different materials for the hull. It would be composites rather than just steel - just for the weight savings.
They've also been looking at a lot of new manufacturing technologies such as friction stir welding, though IIRC they've only used that for a notional next-gen APC/IFV hull...in aluminum.
My point is, rebuilding an Abrams hull with something other than RHA steel could be considered clean-sheet on paper...if you see pepper-spray and tase yourself hard enough.

There was a paper I ran across in the archives a while back which gave serious consideration to building the M1A2 turret in Titanium. (This was in the mid/late 80s). It listed the benefits, and then the costs. Mainly financial. Decided the merits just weren't worth the expense, but that it was an improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the US Army goes with (item, vehicle, etc), M (model)xx (number) there will be confusion.  The most clarity is the Euro practice of a distinct name, followed by a model, version or mark number.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, shep854 said:

As long as the US Army goes with (item, vehicle, etc), M (model)xx (number) there will be confusion.  The most clarity is the Euro practice of a distinct name, followed by a model, version or mark number.

 

I rather prefer US model with alphanumerical codes. European practice can be also confusing, how many animal names that sound "cool" can you use? Not to mention, many of them are silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Damian said:

I rather prefer US model with alphanumerical codes. European practice can be also confusing, how many animal names that sound "cool" can you use? Not to mention, many of them are silly.

Same here.  In context, the US system makes perfect sense.  Most people, though, won't go to the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damian said:

I rather prefer US model with alphanumerical codes. European practice can be also confusing, how many animal names that sound "cool" can you use? Not to mention, many of them are silly.

Much care should be taken to keep gunmakers out of the AFV manufacturers' sales/advertisement teams, then.

I dread the day I'll see a M**A* Schwarzkopf Freedom Xtreme Tactical Eagle Deluxe Edition.

Silliest name to date is the Cottonmouth - sure, it refers to a pit viper species, but did no one tell the guys at Textron that there is another meaning to that word?

At least it's not as bad a blunder as Mazda christening one of its cars "Laputa" without thinking about what it would do to sales numbers in Hispanic countries...>_>

/ot

@Manic Moran One of the SEPs did end up incorporating a lot more titanium in the turret, though - like the gunner's optics doghouse and the blow-off panels...

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

Silliest name to date is the Cottonmouth - sure, it refers to a pit viper species, but did no one tell the guys at Textron that there is another meaning to that word?

Should I look the Urban Dictionary?

2 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

At least it's not as bad a blunder as Mazda, who named one of its cars Laputa without thinking about what it would do to sales numbers in Hispanic countries...>_>

Then there was the Mitsubishi Pajero...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sunday said:

Should I look the Urban Dictionary?

Nah, save your brain cells for a nobler and safer purpose. But here:

"An oral dryness often associated with certain medicines and recreational drugs".

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shep854 said:

Same here.  In context, the US system makes perfect sense.  Most people, though, won't go to the effort.

US system is very simple, if only someone takes an effort to learn what it means. M1A2SEPv3 tells me more about vehicle, what variant it is, what changes were made, than animal names used often in Europe.

Because of that animal names fashion, we have a complete clusterfuck with naming convention here in Poland right now. Even tough in the past we had perfectly fine naming convention, especially for small arms. Vehicles is a bit different story, altough I would preffer we would stick with alphanumerical codes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, shep854 said:

 

 

I guess the section of the video at 15:44 was (possibly) directed at my pedantry in this thread.  I will hang my head in shame now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lower right corner is "M1E3 / **** (possible XM13** model number)".

Upper left seems to be the Booker.

Upper right is probably a pair of robotic mules.

Lower left is the XM30.

Anyway, it simply suggests they're further along than the beer-stained napkin doodle stage.

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

Lower right corner is "M1E3 / **** (possible XM13** model number)".

Anyway, it simply suggests they're further than the beer-stained napkin doodle stage.

Yes and no. They do have a particular design concept in mind. I may have been a little less forthcoming in my video than I was allowed to be, but erred on the side of caution, especially since I know more than I'm allowed put out and decided to make it a "these are considerations/possibilities" video. However, my understanding, and I'll watch the brief in a few days when it is made available online, is that the exact implementation of the design hasn't been nailed down yet. Thus I believe (esp from the wording of the Breaking Defense article), that what is shown on the screen is more of a 'placeholder' drawing for the sake of not leaving the powerpoint empty than an actual representation of what is envisioned.

I'll be able to watch the briefing in a few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I know it's a placeholder.

Heck, I've seen CADs of what eventually became the XM1299 with two or three completely different autoloading systems (mainly how the rounds are stored in the bustle and mechanically fetched)--at this point in the calendar it's logical that it's way too early to see a "definitive" design, but all I'm saying is that they must at least have a rough idea of what is needed to constitute a step-up to the SEP v4 to justify the investment and extra R&D beyond just stating "SEP v4 might be disadvantaged against the current (and future) threat ecosystem so we're nixing it".

 

EDIT:

ZQ0LprX.jpeg

Credit goes to Clan_Ghost_Bear on SH; apparently this also comes from LinkedIn.
And, yes, I know this is the NGCV family, but there is a M10 with ERA skirts here, so...who knows? Maybe the models in the middle are DLP proposals or previews of what the M1E3 could be like.
...
...Or they could just be 3D-printed doodles from one of those workshop events.

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manic Moran Do you happen to know if the LCAS turret is directly related to the M1E3 effort or if it's just some side tinkering/exploring? The timing seems rather convenient -- if only to serve as preliminary research for the E3's possible forms.

QUfpm5G.png

From https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2022/future/Tues_Grassano.pdf

If it's not AbramsX, then LCAS could constitute a good starting point for the E3.

Edited by Renegade334
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...