Future US AFV development

[LUCASWILLEN05]

interesting video

 

[c3k]

Nice hi-def videos of various Abrams at training ranges.

As to the title of the video: meh. So, budgetary considerations are important for peacetime weapons development? Huh.

Nice to watch...

[Thewood1]

I am not sure what is scary here.

[Armorgunner]

This video realy shows the huge *unarmored gap, between the hull and turret. That is the Achilles heel of the M1!

Dont matter if the turret has DU armor, if you are hit in the huge gap there. You are toast, or in best case. A crew, without a tank.

A Leopard 2, of later config. Atleast have the 700mm base composite armor there, if it is hit under the wedge addon armor. And the base 700mm armor is uppdated as well from the A4, at least in the Strv 122 config. And most probably in several other configs, since the Leo 2A4

Edited September 1, 2017 by Armorgunner

[Armorgunner]

Edit: *Not totally unarmored ofcourse. But thin armored. What does this big thinnly armored gap stop? 30mm Apfsds? 40mm APFSDS? 100mm APFSDS from a T-55? A lucky shot, from an old friend of the Cold war might penetrate. And and just 5" up, not even the latest in AP technology will penetrate?

Edited September 1, 2017 by Armorgunner

[akd]

Save yourself the aural onslaught:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-simply-scary-reason-the-us-army-cant-build-new-tank-20481

[LUCASWILLEN05]

23 hours ago, c3k said:

Nice hi-def videos of various Abrams at training ranges.

As to the title of the video: meh. So, budgetary considerations are important for peacetime weapons development? Huh.

Nice to watch...

Hmm, maybe if the much hyped Armata turns out to be all it is cracked up to be and there were to be a war the M1A2 might find itself in trouble without he time being available to upgrade or replace, That said there is likely still room to upgrade. and apparently there is this to replce Bradleythis 

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv/

Maybe an M1A3 MBT? But maybe not any time soon due to budget?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a3.htm

[LUCASWILLEN05]

How do you see the future of the M1A2? Armorgunner this may be your field of expertise 

[Armorgunner]

9 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

How do you see the future of the M1A2? Armorgunner this may be your field of expertise 

That was on a such low level, so i dont even intend to answer. Maybe grow up a few years, and then come back Here? 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

19 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Edit: *Not totally unarmored ofcourse. But thin armored. What does this big thinnly armored gap stop? 30mm Apfsds? 40mm APFSDS? 100mm APFSDS from a T-55? A lucky shot, from an old friend of the Cold war might penetrate. And and just 5" up, not even the latest in AP technology will penetrate?

Surprisingly for a critical weakness, there have been remarkably a lack of penetrations in that region to the best of my ability to say.  It's almost like there wasn't actually big thinly armored gap in the frontal armor array!!!!

Or in practical terms, if you can kill a bear with a spoon so long as you get it at the right angle through the eyesocket, that's cool.  The actual reality of getting the spoon in there however leaves some question to the reality of that weakness.  Looking at 1991, a lot of M1s were stuck with a variety of the sort of rounds you were talking about, with zero kills.  

Like try this on for size:

You really only get at the "unarmored" place with a straight gun tube/launcher 0 degrees to "weak" spot.  If you're too elevated, it's not going to hit.  You're too low, it's not going to hit.  You basically need a battle that gives you;

1. That cannon straight level with the gap between the turret and hull.
2. Enough time to aim accurately while the Abrams is likely at least you're aware out there.
3. A weapons system capable of very high precision hits.

Basically there's some absurdity to the idea that after existing since the late 70's, going to several major conflicts, and being at the forefront of the world's best funded military....that there's a true Achilles heel on the front of the fricking tank.  

So basically catastrophic eyeroll going on up in hizzhere.

Re: The video

It's what I like to call the M16 rule.

The M16 is over 40 years old.  There's no much out there that's 40 years old and doesn't need replacing.  

However the state of the art in assault rifles have not progressed to the point where the cost of a total M16 family replacement's cost aligns with the increased performance.

At this moment the Abrams:

1. Has some of the most advanced passive armor in the world.
2. Has some of the best 120 MM munitions available
3. Is the cutting edge for sensors and communications.  

There's no "better" passive armor technology waiting out there.  In terms of main gun, there's a lot of debate on if a 140 MM is practical, or required (or the "cost" in terms of other factors of the 140 MM do not clearly outweigh the benefits).  The sensors/communications are world beaters right now.  

There are things that could be done better.  Active defense is a must for the near future.  Better ERA would be nice, thermal mitigation or a different drive train gets kicked around, as do lesser more boring upgrades (better integration of the existing upgrades to reduce replication of wiring and connectivity systems, consolidating several generations of onboard systems into unified solutions etc).  

But none of these are full stop, we need a new hull, new turret, etc, etc, etc.  

Bradley is getting close to that point simply because it started off intentionally somewhat lightweight to maintain the ability to "swim" then received major armor upgrades in the late 80's, then yet more systems, and armor, and etc, etc, so I would contend at least a "hull" upgrade is in order (like something on order to the "stretch" M113s, same basic principle, but up-sized to better carry more/new systems).

[Armorgunner]

To the last 1-3 comparison in your post

1: I agree, at the parts that is actually protected by it.

2: I argree, very much. But the lower speed of the rounds,  makes the L52 guns more effective in some cases..

3:I agree, together with the latest Leopard.

Have the A2 been hit several times by qualified Threat?  No!

Have the A2 With export armor been destroyed several Times?  Yes!

Does this tell us Something?  Really No! 

And does this tell us anything about the big gap in armor, between the hull and Turret?  No!

Edited September 2, 2017 by Armorgunner

[cool breeze]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 so I would contend at least a "hull" upgrade is in order (like something on order to the "stretch" M113s, same basic principle, but up-sized to better carry more/new systems).

Omg Pansersourkrout, your secrets out...... you are secretly a big Gavin fan!   I knew it  

Edit:  Or maybe I mean Sparks

Edited September 2, 2017 by cool breeze

[MikeyD]

There's a law of diminishing returns that gets reached on vehicle design. Eventually you're wrestling with opposing doctrines rather than technological advancement. You're just not going to see leaps forward on par with mid-1930s to mid-1940s anymore. Because we've already got 'there' technology-wise. The argument is now over what sort of war the next war is going to be. Guess wrong and you've got the wrong sort of vehicle with capabilities mismatched to the mission. In Iraq during the occupation the Abrams was relegated to the role of over-engineered MG carrier. I don't think they bothered to send more than a couple Abrams into Afghanistan before the 2011 'surge'.

Edited September 2, 2017 by MikeyD

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

To the last 1-3 comparison in your post

1: I agree, at the parts that is actually protected by it.

2: I argree, very much. But the lower speed of the rounds,  makes the L52 guns more effective in some cases..

3:I agree, together with the latest Leopard.

Have the A2 been hit several times by qualified Threat?  No!

Have the A2 With export armor been destroyed several Times?  Yes!

Does this tell us Something?  Really No! 

And does this tell us anything about the big gap in armor, between the hull and Turret?  No!

1. I think I made, and the last ten years, a major mechanized conflict, a pretty good argument that the Abrams has protection effective in all the normal tank arcs.  There's no special holes in the array, no magic "Shoot here for s'plosion!" gap, your contention was there's a band that pretty much anything with armor piecing capability will slip through, and the Abrams has been 30 MMed, 25 MMed, hit with 100 MM, 115 MM, 125 MM, RPG-7, RPG-29, AT-4, 5 etc, etc, etc, and there's no apparent "weak" spots outside of the reality that like most tanks, it doesn't like getting shot in the side or rear.  

2. The reluctance to use DU is somewhat funny, but the post penetration effects are superior to most European style rounds, and the longer barrel on later model Leo 2s is an interesting design choice (it makes for a more difficult traverse at the least).  Basically the US family of sabot performs about the same, on a smaller, and soon to be lighter gun, while keeping a better traverse (again, gun tubes don't like trees or buildings), while having an equal chemical energy type round (and AMPS is very promising).

3. Actually no.  Leo's optics are a little worse off, and the satellite communications/C3 (or is is C4I? they keep changing it) systems on the Abrams are superior.  

Has any tank been hit by a "qualified" threat?

Actually the Abrams has been hit by a lot of hostile fire, ranging from tanks, to IFVs, to ATGMs, to RPGs, to idiots with AK-47s.  If there's a tank with a fairly established capability for being robust, it's the Abrams.  It was also developed by people who had decades of armor design experience, it's been upgraded by same people.  It's seen dozens of protection upgrades to match ongoing threats.

That there's a "big gap!" in the armor array, specifically the frontal armor array, speaks to some degree of madness.

I mean just sitting here right now, putting an armored "windshield" to mask that gap on the frontal slope of the hull, or even some sort of "fins" for the lower portion of the turret's cheek armor would be very easy to execute.  Or at that, making "bulges" on the front slope to mask the base of the turret, more expensive but not that much of a problem for a tank design that's had the entire front of the turret changed, had the composition of the armor revamped, ERA packages, things I cannot discuss (not an appeal to authority, simply a statement there), has had literally decades of service, and the idea that "well hell Bob, we've just got to leave this big gap in the armor in the front!  Tank's gotsta have an Achilles heel or we'll upset the tank gods!" is frankly silly in the extreme. 

I think there's just this assumption that because it's an American product we're too stupid to see this glaringly obvious flaw.  I mean it's not like we can't look at our own damn tanks, or read the internet forums to see this obvious tank weakspot!   NO!  We are just that stupid that we have a slit that an especially brave BMP-2 gunner will kill our very expensive tank with!  Because we are that dumb!  WHEEE!

 

 

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

Omg Pansersourkrout, your secrets out...... you are secretly a big Gavin fan!   I knew it  

Edit:  Or maybe I mean Sparks

I will kill you and eat your eyeballs.

The basic Bradley is pretty good. It's just now stupid levels of overload, and running out of space (and was built for infantry that wasn't wearing body armor).  As far as weapons package, armor protection level, etc, it's really not that bad.

So instead of making the landcruzer GCV or whatever, I think a "Super Brad" wouldn't be the worst idea as far as simply scaling up a little bit.  Which given Mr Sparkle's hatred of the Bradley should be a pretty strong indicator of my inclinations.

 

 

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

There's a law of diminishing returns that gets reached on vehicle design. Eventually you're wrestling with opposing doctrines rather than technological advancement. You're just not going to see leaps forward on par with mid-1930s to mid-1940s anymore. Because we've already got 'there' technology-wise. The argument is now over what sort of war the next war is going to be. Guess wrong and you've got the wrong sort of vehicle with capabilities mismatched to the mission. In Iraq during the occupation the Abrams was relegated to the role of over-engineered MG carrier. I don't think they bothered to sent more than a couple Abrams into Afghanistan before the 2011 'surge'.

Abram's role in Iraq was a little more complex than that.  It was one of the more capable sensor platforms we had, so it was often used to overwatch especially high activity routes.  Also on many occasions when facing especially silly insurgents it was used to scoop them out with direct fire/protection capability that no other vehicle was capable of handling.  It also had a "suppressive" effect in that most insurgents would stay home if tanks were around, so that could often be used to accomplish other effects.  

Tanks have a lot more complicated, and effective role in COIN that most folks seem to grasp, but in COIN, they're a lot closer to a very useful tool, than a unit of action if that makes any sense.  

The Abrams wasn't sent to Afghanistan because:

Most of the US Army AO is in places that do not support vehicle movement.  Like, not "Doesn't support Abrams!" like "anything bigger than a donkey isn't going up this road."  Most of the fighting is also in places where getting in a tracked vehicle of any kind is problematic (you see a lot of dead T-62s in Afghanistan partly because of this effect).

Down south it's a lot more tank friendly in the sense of maneuver, but it's also a lot less decisive engagements (the enemy leaves if he doesn't feel he's going to be effective, and comes back later).  The Marines brought some because in the 2011 timeframe it had a lot to do with the fact the Taliban was starting to try to take and hold terrain, which put them in a position to get tanked.  
 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

13 hours ago, MikeyD said:

There's a law of diminishing returns that gets reached on vehicle design. Eventually you're wrestling with opposing doctrines rather than technological advancement. You're just not going to see leaps forward on par with mid-1930s to mid-1940s anymore. Because we've already got 'there' technology-wise. The argument is now over what sort of war the next war is going to be. Guess wrong and you've got the wrong sort of vehicle with capabilities mismatched to the mission. In Iraq during the occupation the Abrams was relegated to the role of over-engineered MG carrier. I don't think they bothered to send more than a couple Abrams into Afghanistan before the 2011 'surge'.

True. Also, in peace time the bean counters are in the driving seat. According to this there were plans for an M1A3 but these were shelved in 2009 due to budget cuts This fiscal factor may well be a significant part of the reason for the current hiatus in AFV developmment

 https://www.thebalance.com/the-abrams-tank-next-generation-3345048

On the other hand it is interesting to compare and contrast Russian tank development. They seem to have spent a coupe of decades  and several prototype developments to get to the current T-14 model. Whether the T-14 is just another in the line of prototypes that will not go into mass production remains to be seen

 http://taskandpurpose.com/why-russias-new-tanks-are-a-wake-up-call-for-the-us/

Meanwhile China continues tank development with the MBT-3000

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mbt_3000.htm

As you say Mike doctrine (and training) are. as important as technology. Also the international situation must be a major factor. Only a real threat of war as in the 1980s will provide a real urgency for tank development

[Armorgunner]

15 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. I think I made, and the last ten years, a major mechanized conflict, a pretty good argument that the Abrams has protection effective in all the normal tank arcs.  There's no special holes in the array, no magic "Shoot here for s'plosion!" gap, your contention was there's a band that pretty much anything with armor piecing capability will slip through, and the Abrams has been 30 MMed, 25 MMed, hit with 100 MM, 115 MM, 125 MM, RPG-7, RPG-29, AT-4, 5 etc, etc, etc, and there's no apparent "weak" spots outside of the reality that like most tanks, it doesn't like getting shot in the side or rear.  

2. The reluctance to use DU is somewhat funny, but the post penetration effects are superior to most European style rounds, and the longer barrel on later model Leo 2s is an interesting design choice (it makes for a more difficult traverse at the least).  Basically the US family of sabot performs about the same, on a smaller, and soon to be lighter gun, while keeping a better traverse (again, gun tubes don't like trees or buildings), while having an equal chemical energy type round (and AMPS is very promising).

3. Actually no.  Leo's optics are a little worse off, and the satellite communications/C3 (or is is C4I? they keep changing it) systems on the Abrams are superior.  

Has any tank been hit by a "qualified" threat?

Actually the Abrams has been hit by a lot of hostile fire, ranging from tanks, to IFVs, to ATGMs, to RPGs, to idiots with AK-47s.  If there's a tank with a fairly established capability for being robust, it's the Abrams.  It was also developed by people who had decades of armor design experience, it's been upgraded by same people.  It's seen dozens of protection upgrades to match ongoing threats.

That there's a "big gap!" in the armor array, specifically the frontal armor array, speaks to some degree of madness.

I mean just sitting here right now, putting an armored "windshield" to mask that gap on the frontal slope of the hull, or even some sort of "fins" for the lower portion of the turret's cheek armor would be very easy to execute.  Or at that, making "bulges" on the front slope to mask the base of the turret, more expensive but not that much of a problem for a tank design that's had the entire front of the turret changed, had the composition of the armor revamped, ERA packages, things I cannot discuss (not an appeal to authority, simply a statement there), has had literally decades of service, and the idea that "well hell Bob, we've just got to leave this big gap in the armor in the front!  Tank's gotsta have an Achilles heel or we'll upset the tank gods!" is frankly silly in the extreme. 

I think there's just this assumption that because it's an American product we're too stupid to see this glaringly obvious flaw.  I mean it's not like we can't look at our own damn tanks, or read the internet forums to see this obvious tank weakspot!   NO!  We are just that stupid that we have a slit that an especially brave BMP-2 gunner will kill our very expensive tank with!  Because we are that dumb!  WHEEE!

 

 

Every modern tank, has big gaps in frontal armor protection. If you deny that, you just make youself look stupid. When we (Sweden) bought new tanks in the mid 90´s, the last, and best conteders where the Leo 2i, the Leclerc, and the M1A2 (export armor) The target was that the tank with a Swedish made addon armor, would have protection against the highest threats at that time in 70% of the frontal 30 degree aspect. With the Swedish addonarmor, the M1A2 was 50% more protected, than the original one (export armor). But the Leo 2 with the Swedish addonarmor was the best protected tank in the competition.

For political reasons, we could not buy DU rounds. But since our otherwise politicaly neutralness, we where not bound to buy ammo from a specific country. So after comperehensive testing. We bought the best 120mm non DU ammo at the time, from Israel. Since i am not in the military any more, since about 15 years. I dont know where the ammo of today is from.

But offcorse, the pyrophoric effects after penetration with a DU round, you cant get with a tungsten penetrator. Even if you can get to the same level of penetration.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Armorgunner

[Armorgunner]

Worth noting is, the fuel consumtion. Even though it not has anything to do with the armor.

M1A2: 148 Liter/10km

Leo 2i: 72 Liter/10km

Leclerc: 138 Liter/10km

And that might not seem to be a problem in Peace, and in a war when you are in Control of what is happening. But in an allout war, when your supplychain is britteling, that can be of most impotence.

This is not the official fuelconsumption, but the actual from the Swedish comprehensive tests.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Armorgunner

[LUCASWILLEN05]

5 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Every modern tank, has big gaps in frontal armor protection. If you deny that, you just make youself look stupid. When we (Sweden) bought new tanks in the mid 90´s, the last, and best conteders where the Leo 2i, the Leclerc, and the M1A2 (export armor) The target was that the tank with a Swedish made addon armor, would have protection against the highest threats at that time in 70% of the frontal 30 degree aspect. With the Swedish addonarmor, the M1A2 was 50% more protected, than the original one (export armor). But the Leo 2 with the Swedish addonarmor was the best protected tank in the competition.

For political reasons, we could not buy DU rounds. But since our otherwise politicaly neutralness, we where not bound to buy ammo from a specific country. So after comperehensive testing. We bought the best 120mm non DU ammo at the time, from Israel. Since i am not in the military any more, since about 15 years. I dont know where the ammo of today is from.

But offcorse, the pyrophoric effects after penetration with a DU round, you cant get with a tungsten penetrator. Even if you can get to the same level of penetration.

Trouble is that there has not been a real mechanized conflict between peer level opponents in which the US has been  involved for several decades. The two Gulf Was don't really count for this because Iraqi forces, even the Republican Guard were outclassed in terms of both their technology (the RG used T-72M, T-72M1 and T-72G against M1A1 in Desert Storm and the M1A2 in Iraqi Freedom)

A war with Russia in Ukraine would be a war fought by peers, not a second rate Arab army. Look at the difference between Syrian T-72s in CMSF (and even the export version of the T90) and what we see in CMBS. In football (soccer) terms Iraq was the Second Division. Russia on the other hand is among the top teams of the Premier League - as is the US of course :-)

[LUCASWILLEN05]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-armata-t-14-tank-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-who-wins-13825

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Being overly complacent is, historically, a bad idea. Arguably this is a mistake the IDF made prior to the Yom Kippur War. In consequence, while hey did still win the war they paid for it with heavy casualties. The danger is that complacency may have a similar  result in the event of a war with Russia or China. There probably won't be time to upgrade the Abrams in a relatively short high intensity conflict which most people assume will be the most likely scenario.

Yes the upgrades might be enough to handle such a war but eventually the M1A2 will need to be replaced either by an M1A3 or with something else

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

13 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Every modern tank, has big gaps in frontal armor protection. If you deny that, you just make youself look stupid. When we (Sweden) bought new tanks in the mid 90´s, the last, and best conteders where the Leo 2i, the Leclerc, and the M1A2 (export armor) The target was that the tank with a Swedish made addon armor, would have protection against the highest threats at that time in 70% of the frontal 30 degree aspect. With the Swedish addonarmor, the M1A2 was 50% more protected, than the original one (export armor). But the Leo 2 with the Swedish addonarmor was the best protected tank in the competition.

For political reasons, we could not buy DU rounds. But since our otherwise politicaly neutralness, we where not bound to buy ammo from a specific country. So after comperehensive testing. We bought the best 120mm non DU ammo at the time, from Israel. Since i am not in the military any more, since about 15 years. I dont know where the ammo of today is from.

But offcorse, the pyrophoric effects after penetration with a DU round, you cant get with a tungsten penetrator. Even if you can get to the same level of penetration.

Every tank has vulnerable spots within it's frontal arc.  That said, your contention is there's an especially big one on the Abrams that's just asking to suck down 30 MM fire for a vehicle kill.  My contention is that no such special gap exists, and having been shot at extensively, and having had several major overhauls, nothing that been done to adjust the described gap.  The only place I've seen people claiming that gap is a real thing to kill Abrams from the frontal has been Russian trollposting, and repeating of said trollposting.

I worked around Abrams for most of my active military career.  I'm pretty familar with the places not to be shot.  While I wouldn't like to get hit anywhere on the tank, I revert to my bear analogy.  It's distinctly possible that if you could somehow get a round into that gap, you might be able to exploit it. However, getting that round there apparently is an uncommon enough event to as to be unheard of.  

So as to your contention, again I'm doubtful about this "big gap" and "Achilles Heel" thing.

 

 

12 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Worth noting is, the fuel consumtion. Even though it not has anything to do with the armor.

M1A2: 148 Liter/10km

Leo 2i: 72 Liter/10km

Leclerc: 138 Liter/10km

And that might not seem to be a problem in Peace, and in a war when you are in Control of what is happening. But in an allout war, when your supplychain is britteling, that can be of most impotence.

This is not the official fuelconsumption, but the actual from the Swedish comprehensive tests.

That's cool and all, but it's not really that relevant.  Or at least, the assumption is somehow the Abrams is especially vulnerable to fuel shortage.  My company had access to enough fuel to give each tank a little over a third of complete fuel capacity (in as far as a fueler that accompanied my company's HQ element).  That was usually consumed daily (or even if wasn't consumed, we'd still do an extra top-off before sending it back), and replaced with another fueler.  For longer movements, you'd have used ROMs (basically a linkup with a fueler element, sort of a fly by night gas station), but there were other sneaky stuff we'd do (a neat trick was dropping fuel blivets by helicopter) if forced.

Basically my contention is that the logistical "needs" of your tank are going to be based on the logistical capabilities of the Army it's built for.

And frankly if there's a fearsome branch to the US military, it's the logistical one (there's no many countries that can hack 150,000 soldiers over the horizon).

I don't know if I'd buy it as a foreign customer simply because the "export" armor package isn't that great, and the gas turbine is something that takes some serious dedication to use (I wouldn't have traded it for a diesel though).  Also cheap Leo 2s are still a thing for reasons.  
 

6 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-armata-t-14-tank-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-who-wins-13825

thhhppppppppttttttth.

I'll worry about the Armata when it's not a parade float.  We were supposed to be facing down a few Brigades of them RIGHT NOW by Russian claims/some "expert" opinions.  rummit indicates technical hurdle on the production, let alone design side are going to take time to resolve, if they get resolve.  

 

 

6 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Being overly complacent is, historically, a bad idea. Arguably this is a mistake the IDF made prior to the Yom Kippur War. In consequence, while hey did still win the war they paid for it with heavy casualties. The danger is that complacency may have a similar  result in the event of a war with Russia or China. There probably won't be time to upgrade the Abrams in a relatively short high intensity conflict which most people assume will be the most likely scenario.

Yes the upgrades might be enough to handle such a war but eventually the M1A2 will need to be replaced either by an M1A3 or with something else

It's not "complacent" nearly as much as okay, let's roll with this concept:

What out there right now demands a new tank?

Let's examine this quickly as I have a paper to write:

1. Protection: Abrams has one of the best passive arrays in the world.  There is no better armor type currently in serious development (or at least, far enough to design an armored vehicle around) ERA, APS, are both bolt-on systems that do not require a wholly new platform.  It might be possible to make a thicker array with existing technology, but an 80+ton tank is not practical.

2. Firepower: 120 MM is still the standard system.  The only really likely option for a "bigger" gun would be a 140 MM system, and frankly the jury is still really far out on that.  While it'd offer frankly disturbing anti-armor capability....it'd be likely half the carried rounds, would almost certainly require an autoloader (the 140 MM rounds trialed on the "thumper" prototype were almost twice as long as the M829A2).  Also it'd only improve one dimension of the firepower element, anti-tank, doing little to improve any of the other performance metrics.  If vastly improved armor arrays became a possible threat, revising the STAFF concept, or adopting a LAHAT with top-attack would keep the 120 MM relevant for some time to come.

3. Mobility:  If the choice was made to equip the Abrams with a diesel it would not require a new hull.  The rest of the automotive system is as standard for tanks at this point.  Some sort of hydropneumatic suspension might be neat, but not worth a new tank/complete hull overhaul.  

4. Electronics: It's been reworked a million times already.  There's no need for a totally new vehicle.

There's the M1A2 SEP V3, and there is indeed a M1A3 program lurking out there.  Not really complacent, as much as a lower key, less bombast preparedness compared to the coming aramamtamta T-14B42V1 Apocalypse Putin Extreme.  

[MikeyD]

"M1A2: 148 Liter/10km"

Certain people in the Pentagon have been trying to re-engine the Abrams with a diesel since the mid-80s. There was yet another refit package on display at a trade show just recently. I recall back-in-the-day the chief hold-up was that the tank's turban engines were manufactured in the then-Senate leader Bob Dole's district in Kansas so no way in hell Abrams was going to get a new engine! All that was back before the turn of the century, Kansas is still making those engines last I heard.

Oh, I just recalled! Last year there was rumors about early specs for an M1A3 floating around. Among the specs/was a drastically lighter turret design and, if I recall correctly, a diesel engine. I located the article:

https://www.thebalance.com/the-abrams-tank-next-generation-3345048

Edited September 4, 2017 by MikeyD

[LUCASWILLEN05]

4 hours ago, MikeyD said:

"M1A2: 148 Liter/10km"

Certain people in the Pentagon have been trying to re-engine the Abrams with a diesel since the mid-80s. There was yet another refit package on display at a trade show just recently. I recall back-in-the-day the chief hold-up was that the tank's turban engines were manufactured in the then-Senate leader Bob Dole's district in Kansas so no way in hell Abrams was going to get a new engine! All that was back before the turn of the century, Kansas is still making those engines last I heard.

Oh, I just recalled! Last year there was rumors about early specs for an M1A3 floating around. Among the specs/was a drastically lighter turret design and, if I recall correctly, a diesel engine. I located the article:

https://www.thebalance.com/the-abrams-tank-next-generation-3345048

Yes I have heard of these issues  as well. The reliance on aviation fuel and the high fuel consumption rates are certainly problems. Of more concern however is whether the Abrams can continue to retain its' lead given technological developments in gunnery, armour and ATGMs. What happens when Russia develops top attack capable missiles or instance? Trophy and similar point defense systems will help but sooner or later  Abrams will meet its' natural limits. This might not be a problem now but i a couple of decades this will likely change. Given the time it takes to develop a new MBT thinking about what will be needed in he 2030s or 2040s is clearly a good idea. It is also possible that the Russians or Chinese make a technological breakthrough sooner than that

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Yes I have heard of these issues  as well. The reliance on aviation fuel and the high fuel consumption rates are certainly problems. Of more concern however is whether the Abrams can continue to retain its' lead given technological developments in gunnery, armour and ATGMs. What happens when Russia develops top attack capable missiles or instance? Trophy and similar point defense systems will help but sooner or later  Abrams will meet its' natural limits. This might not be a problem now but i a couple of decades this will likely change. Given the time it takes to develop a new MBT thinking about what will be needed in he 2030s or 2040s is clearly a good idea. It is also possible that the Russians or Chinese make a technological breakthrough sooner than that

1. The ATG1500 will run on pretty much anything that'll burn.  From aviation fuel, to regular gasoline, diesel, kerosene etc, etc.  It's actually one of the advantages of the engine in that regard.

2. In terms of technical leads, one of the problems is in general, the state of the art hasn't advanced much on a whole.  Basically if there's a technical breakthrough than yes a new tank would be wise, but right now without that technical breakthrough there's no sense to building something completely new (or rather, maybe the next technical breakthrough is rail guns, and the entire tank will have to be designed around heat sinks, separate drive and "power" plants, or it'll be in using some crazy armor array that the entire vehicle will need to be designed from scratch for).  

Again, people are working on these things, just it's not exactly the kind of thing shouted from rooftops.  

[Apocal]

7 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Yes I have heard of these issues  as well. The reliance on aviation fuel and the high fuel consumption rates are certainly problems.

Why is running on JP-8 a concern? And I'm pretty sure an Abrams will run on anything you put in, it is just JP-8 is the Army's preferred brand, so every vehicle uses it.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Apocal