Jump to content
exsonic01

Interview regarding M1A2 SEP v4 and question.

Recommended Posts

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1728632-new-army-m1a2-sepv4-abrams-tank-for-2020s

"The SEP v4 variant, slated to being testing in 2021, will include new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round, Maj. Gen. David Bassett, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Scout Warrior in an interview."

According to Maj. Gen. D. Basset, it seems that LWR will be installed from SEP v4, not SEP v3. What will be the major improvement of SEP v3 program? Increased detection and increased defense? And if the Marines included, what would be the capability of M1A1 FEP when compared to current M1A2? 

Also, what would be the realistic SEP v2 and SEP v3 in CMBS? 

I remember that once @akd and others mentioned about no LWR, no Trophy, and are there any other things to be mentioned? And IMO SEP v3 should have increased crew survival rate, increased mobility, increased defense but not sure on this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

exsonic01 and BFC,

If the AMP and its presumably associated ammunition data links won't be fielded until the 2020s in the M1A2 SEPV4, then why are they in the CMBS M1A2 SEPV3? 

Regards,

John Kettler

Because word from those in the know was that if it all went kinetic some white coat dudes would suddenly rock up and fit some top secret box of tricks to the tanks. Allegedly ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, until this article was published every other article, including ones in Army publications, said the datalink would be part of the v3 upgrade due to start delivery this year.  Still not clear if this article is entirely distinguishing between v3 and v4, or is in part talking about v4 inclusive of v3.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I see articles about 'upgrades' they're often about addressing problems that had not been disclosed previously. Its not until a new laser rangefinder or IR device or data link or turret drive system is fielded that we find out the old equipment had been wanting. Before then the official word was everything's hunky-dory and it all works exactly as advertised. I recall back in the early 80s when APFSDS tank rounds were being introduced. It wasn't til afterwards that articles started popping about how the old APDS round couldn't hit the broad side of a barn oftentimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lee Vincent said:

No APS? Really?

APS is a separate program.  The M1A2 SEP v3/4 will go into production regardless, but the Army and Marines are both actively seeking APS type systems.  Good guess would be a bolt-on system vs integrated, much the same manner in with ERA is employed across the Abrams fleet.  If you read the article you'd see it mentioned.

 

 

On 2/16/2017 at 4:44 PM, MikeyD said:

Whenever I see articles about 'upgrades' they're often about addressing problems that had not been disclosed previously. Its not until a new laser rangefinder or IR device or data link or turret drive system is fielded that we find out the old equipment had been wanting. Before then the official word was everything's hunky-dory and it all works exactly as advertised. I recall back in the early 80s when APFSDS tank rounds were being introduced. It wasn't til afterwards that articles started popping about how the old APDS round couldn't hit the broad side of a barn oftentimes.

The LRF is fine, or at least not bad.  There's been some improvements in laser range finders from my understanding, mostly in balancing eyeball safety with still maintaining a good tight beam over range.  FLIR technology hasn't been stagnate either.  

Basically the Abrams was pretty darn good when I was on her, and she'll still be pretty good likely into the 2020-2030 range until whatever next comes along.  Tank development worldwide is fairly stagnant (with Leo 2s taking a similar track to the Abrams, the rest of the west more or less being out of the "new" tank game for the time being, and the Russians are curiously getting pretty deep into upgrades for existing model tanks despite the T-14 being totally and in wide usage according to last year's announcements on how soon there'd be sky dropped Armatas saving Russians everywhere from HATO rape squads), it's hard to see a real challenger coming up with the state of the art right now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Did I miss something? I thought the Abrams and the Bradley these days had eye safe, invisible to it, CO2 lasers. Didn't we do away with stuff like ruby years ago? Am not talking about the SOF types who have red lasers and IR lasers fitted to their individual weapons. That's another situation entirely. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John Kettler said:

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Did I miss something? I thought the Abrams and the Bradley these days had eye safe, invisible to it, CO2 lasers. Didn't we do away with stuff like ruby years ago? Am not talking about the SOF types who have red lasers and IR lasers fitted to their individual weapons. That's another situation entirely. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

The older M1A1 lasers had a better hypothetical range, but the risk of accidentally becoming a laser weapon if they hit someone incorrectly (like you're gazing into the front of the tank and it's trying to lase something you're standing around).  At combat ranges, the eyesafe laser that replaced it was equal in performance, but at outlying circumstances (extreme range, long range in truly appalling weather) it was somewhat inferior (this is largely one of those "from my understanding" things, I shot with an eyesafe LRF in a heavy snow storm out to 3+ KM, and also in a monsoon/heavy fog out to 2.5 KM so there's that to consider too).  

So from my understanding the new laser is some combination of still eyesafe, but closer to the historical M1A1's eye murdering laser capability.  Also just taking advantage of some of the other various upgrades in electronics and such over the last decade or so as far as reliability/precision etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ashez said:

So again - situation in Ukraine differs from 'US reality' and certainly it is far from black and white propaganda style.

But, there is no logical way that NATO should be viewed as a threat to anyone. The fact that people believe that it threatens them is due to Putin's propoganda. So, saying "see people think NATO is a threat" is not evidence that it actually is it is only evidence that there are people who have been sucked into the propoganda. It is a laughable circular argument that proves nothing other than it would be good to counter that propoganda with some facts and perhaps some counter propoganda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IanL said:

But, there is no logical way that NATO should be viewed as a threat to anyone. The fact that people believe that it threatens them is due to Putin's propoganda. So, saying "see people think NATO is a threat" is not evidence that it actually is it is only evidence that there are people who have been sucked into the propoganda. It is a laughable circular argument that proves nothing other than it would be good to counter that propoganda with some facts and perhaps some counter propoganda. 

Why? That 'propganda' explanation is a bad excuse. The fact is that NATO is one of the most (if not the most) aggresive military pacts in history with unprecedented military expenditures exceeding in total  more than everyone else banded together. Ever expanding, with every year littering more and more countries with military bases. A military alliance in permanent state of war, from aggresion against Serbia and Kosovo land grab, through invading and ruining Iraq (and imposing artificial constitution that will soon make the country implode), invading Afghanistan, ruining Libya and supporting terrorists in Syria. Helping Ukrainians to remove their democratically elected president.

And everything of this coupled with  hypocrisy of politicians from manipulating own public opinion to outright lies - like in Iraq's case.

Russian ship near US coast is 'BAD', US ship in the Black See is 'GOOD'. Russian planes are 'spying', US planes just 'gather intelligence'. Russian planes are 'provoking', US planes 'give a strong message'.

Just read ANY US/BR media. The same bias. Daily.

NATO is so powerful noone would attack it, and no NATO member was EVER attacked. NATO serves but one purpose: to further military agenda of its members.

Why those people view NATO as threat? Not because of Putin's propaganda (what a silly concept that people do nothing but pursue only Putin's media sources)[to be honest Putin propaganda pales in comparison to anti-russian hysteria based on 'trusted sources', unconfirmed and fake news/allegiations displayed in US media].

They view it as threat because people don't want another regime change and civil war in their own country, they are afraid of being invaded and displaced for 'democracy' or because their ruler/dictator is not US own 'son of the bitch'.

Russia has its own agenda and ambitions and traditionally its neighbours seek protection among Russia's enemies or just rivals. But they don't spam hundreds of their bases far away from home near US or Canada's borders.

**************

"there is no logical way that NATO should be viewed as a threat to anyone"

My God. 700.000 dead and displaced in Iraq only. Disfigured children born after depleted uranium extensive usage. Superimposed constitution. Weak government. Raise of IS.War upon war. What kind of hypocrisy and propaganda level it took to call it "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

 

 

Edited by Ashez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ashez said:

... Helping Ukrainians to remove their democratically elected president.

..

 

Come again ?

How did NATO ( a military organisation ) have anything to do with the Ukrainian uprising ?
I must have totally missed all the footage of the NATO tanks rolling into Kiev ...
Conspiracy theory alert ! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Come again ?

How did NATO ( a military organisation ) have anything to do with the Ukrainian uprising ?
I must have totally missed all the footage of the NATO tanks rolling into Kiev ...
Conspiracy theory alert ! :ph34r:

NATO tanks wouldn't do the job. 5 bln $ invested by Nuland and Brennan certainly helped. And doesn't NATO follow US footsteps.?

This is how Ukraine's fate was decided and the role USA played: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Just disregard naive journalist comments.

It is a fact, not a theory. Fact. I gave you bbc source so you feel more comfortable. Not 'undisclosed source' quoted in WP. If you look for conspiracy theory, accusations without single proof, stick to other british media: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/montenegro-plot-shows-russias-urge-destroy-reject-imperial-fantasies/

Edited by Ashez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just exactly what are you saying is the dangerous info there?  That the US would support a particular faction of the gov't?  Expressing their opinion on how to work with whom within the factions opposing the Russian backed guy?  Umm sure that is how we overthrew the Ukrainian gov't  And the Russian military invasion, how does that level of intervention fit compared to this..........

Sorry Baneman you are just totally wrong! - 2 Americans having a phone conversation trying to figure out how the dice are falling in Ukraine is certainly far superior data to Russia's infiltration of every aspect of Ukrainian gov't, massive bribes and outright military intervention.  Nasty Amerikanski!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sburke said:

Just exactly what are you saying is the dangerous info there?  That the US would support a particular faction of the gov't?  Expressing their opinion on how to work with whom within the factions opposing the Russian backed guy?  Umm sure that is how we overthrew the Ukrainian gov't  And the Russian military invasion, how does that level of intervention fit compared to this..........

Sorry Baneman you are just totally wrong! - 2 Americans having a phone conversation trying to figure out how the dice are falling in Ukraine is certainly far superior data to Russia's infiltration of every aspect of Ukrainian gov't, massive bribes and outright military intervention.  Nasty Amerikanski!!! 

No....it is plan to install a puppet prime minister in a foreign country discussed by two high ranking US officials.

I am pretty confused if you don't see anything wrong about it.

 

Oh. BTW, USA NEVER do it.:

 

Edited by Ashez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ashez said:

No....it is plan to install a puppet prime minister in a foreign country discussed by two high ranking US officials.

I am pretty confused if you don't see anything wrong about it.

No I see a conversation between the two about how the various factions are moving and how the US is going to work with them, mostly confused.  The whole conversation is about where the various Ukrainians stand and how they could possibly facilitate a meeting to get them to work together.  The point is it is about getting the Ukrainians to work together.  I have yet to see where the US "installed" their guy.  I did however see the Russian bribe to Yanukovych and the pressure to go against the Ukrainian nation's desire to open relations to the west.Not to mention the Russian troops invading the sovereign territory of Ukraine.

I can see how you would be confused though considering how you are completely oblivious to Russian behavior before and after these events.  Nowhere in this explosive conversation do I see a single instance of the US offering anything to anyone.  Just what exactly was our leverage to "install" our guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the history of coups d'état, from 876BC to the present day:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d'état_and_coup_attempts

To be fair most countries have had a go at it, the UK certainly has, but the US has been rather prominent in recent years.....All plausibly deniable of course (those pesky NGOs).  ;)

Not sure what any of this has to do with the Abrams though?   Genuinely thought I was responding in the Belarus thread here.....Is there anything that doesn't develop into a political ****-storm on this forum?  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not sure what any of this has to do with the Abrams though?   Genuinely thought I was responding in the Belarus thread here.....Is there anything that doesn't develop into a political ****-storm on this forum?  :rolleyes:

It's like Godwin's law, but for this Forum.  I'm sure it's Hitler in the WWII ones!

Here's another article I found about it.  Not sure if it's any more new info:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-once-future-tank-the-us-new-m1a2-sep-v4-super-18422

It's interesting that they're replacing the canister round with the M908 "Obstacle Reduction" high explosive round.  I guess CMBS' airburst rounds are becoming a standard-issue reality.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m908.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the vogue these days, apparently they can engage helicopters.  :o

You know I really don't like all the political stuff that kicks off here, no other forum I visit allows it and I find myself participating simply because the bias of this place offends my sense of fair play.....Worried it affects game balance too, did you try my tank-gun-test? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Politics

I wonder if you could eat an Armata.  Like you're really hungry, your state collapsed again after pursuing an international role it cannot support and it's alienated everyone, again.  So like if you just got really hungry, could you eat it?  Or maybe trade it to India or something for some rice?  Perhaps you could just sit on it as a monument to all the hopes and dreams wasted, adrift on the miscarried neu-USSR as it slips out of mother Russia into the trash.  Stiff lipped and proud, the Red Star a omen of the bad old days, brother to all the Lennins facedown in the scrapyard of history.  It falls from it's perch to crash into the cobblestones, the facade hollow. 

Will the endless fields of steel mean something to future generations?  When the novo-Siberians pick through their archaeological records, will the acres of tanks be anything more than an explanation of where their grandparent's wealth went?  Will burning PAK-FAs be enough to apologize to the Potemkin Villagers?  

I do not know.  I do know regardless of what sins you can accuse NATO of, Russia will dig it's own grave, and climb in it unassisted.  


Re: Abrams.

What's gotten interesting is after a few years of fairly modest upgrades is we're now seeing a wide variety of near term, long term, and then "distant future" upgrades with the distinct possibility many of them will actually reach wide fielding.  In that regard it's becoming harder to filter what is a likely "far" objective (like how APS used to be), vs a "near" objective (M829A4/AMP/datalink).

I'm a little envious of this generation of tankers, as I'd loved to have gone to Poland and gotten to do some of the stuff they're getting to do out there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course one completely understands the passion vs Russia re their illegal land grab actions.  But, many in the defense establishment have held for several decades that China is the primary threat and biggest potential enemy.  While we're all wanking away at Russia, China is grabbing tens of thousands of square miles of international ocean in Asia that are actually vital to US and the world's trade by building artificial islands then militarizing them.  In addition, China does nothing but snigger behind its hand at the problems North Korea is causing Japan, the US and Asia in general.  But so far, China which is a real existential threat to the US (and the world) has had a free pass and all we talk about is Russia.

Probably, the massive investment made in China by western corporations and the wealthy has completely distorted the discussion re what is a greater threat to world peace to the point that it's not rational.  (And of course there is no CM2 Korea/Japan game, so that's another challenge, heh.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Erwin said:

Of course one completely understands the passion vs Russia re their illegal land grab actions.  But, many in the defense establishment have held for several decades that China is the primary threat and biggest potential enemy.  While we're all wanking away at Russia, China is grabbing tens of thousands of square miles of international ocean in Asia that are actually vital to US and the world's trade by building artificial islands then militarizing them.  In addition, China does nothing but snigger behind its hand at the problems North Korea is causing Japan, the US and Asia in general.  But so far, China which is a real existential threat to the US (and the world) has had a free pass and all we talk about is Russia.

Probably, the massive investment made in China by western corporations and the wealthy has completely distorted the discussion re what is a greater threat to world peace to the point that it's not rational.  (And of course there is no CM2 Korea/Japan game, so that's another challenge, heh.)

That's been on my mind for a while now too. What is most alarming at the moment if true is that the US is heavily in debt to China. According to this version, China has been loaning money to the US so that we will keep buying their manufactured goods and thus expand their industry. Everybody happy, right? But the problem that I see in that arrangement is that if China were to decide to cash in all those T-bills, the US would be faced with the choice of either paying up or welshing on the deal, which would shoot down our credit rating worldwide.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

The government is well aware of the threat and has adopted a strategy change initiated under Obama and continuing under Trump. It's called the Asia pivot. For quite some time now, the US has been quite active in the region, and the Chinese are screaming bloody murder. For example, the US has paraded warships within spitting distance of some of those artificial islands on "Freedom of Navigation" transits and has repeatedly busted China's illegally imposed ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) tied to same. We're putting a new base into the thoroughly alarmed by China,  and which has territorial disputes over certain islands, the Philippines, which China has handled roughly and pretty much stripped the fish from around those disputed islands, too. India has been identified as a major counter to China, and the US is working with a number of countries in the Pacific basin who feel the Dragon breathing behind them--or in front, in the case of Vietnam, which is rearming. China is shooting itself in the head here, and China's already having a downturn in exports, and  exports, primarily to the US, are what've have fueled all the wonderful developments there in China. Restated, China's already in economic trouble, and it won't take much to implode what the Chinese people have gotten used to. Also, China's in the position of the overextended bank whose fate is tied to the customer in a dire financial state. If something major goes wrong here, China as it exists now goes glub glub. And well do the Chinese know it. And if, as the Japanese did a few decades ago, they have substantial real estate and other holdings here, they are vulnerable to those, too, and that can happen without anything resembling economic collapse. Look at how badly burned the Japanese got in real estate and things like the Sony debacle. 

None of the above relates directly to CMBS, but it does create a useful geostrategic context. Maybe it could form the basis of CMBS expansions, such as Russia vs China. That would be interesting to see, given the diversity of weaponry (lots of equipment unique to China) , a real change in geography, possible fixed Russian fortifications (tank turret installation kind of like the Panther turrets in Italy) and more. There've been some nasty clashes (one of which was the first and shattering combat use of the BM-21 against hordes of Chinese; the Russian general in charge there threw the then TOP SECRET weapon into the fray rather than be overrun) infantry in the past, and it wouldn't take much for there to be more. Putin always has to keep an eye on China, and that limits how much he can do elsewhere. Make no mistake. The Chinese want resource rich Siberia, among other things. Tom Clancy wrote The Bear and the Dragon about just such an event, with the US helping Russia in a desperate defense and counterattack. The Chinese are being nice to the Russians because, for now, it's beneficial to the Chinese. If China finds conditions have become disadvantageous at some point, the current  bonhomie could cease abruptly and things become frosty in a hurry.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of you who have been here long enough, or been out on other Forums for any length of time, should know that it's pointless to try and debate someone who believes what is shown on Russian TV.  We go through the same process of "wahtaboutism" and "alternative facts" each and every time.  It doesn't matter how may times we go through this process... the world is flat because that's what Russian TV said.  Case closed.

It would be nice if we could keep on the topic of tanks in a tank thread on a military wargame forum.  But that makes some uncomfortable, so they distract with unrelated politics.  And so the downward spiral begins.

So... let's try to keep this thread better on track, eh?

Steve

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...