Raytheon offers M60A3 SLEP

[John Kettler]

Raytheon may be calling it a M60A3 SLEP (Service Life Extension Program), but it's in many ways practically a new tank: 120 mm L/44 gun, digital FCS, zero timed 950 hp engine, switch from vulenerable hydraulics to electrical drives for turret, apparent netting capability, side armor, turret slat armor and more. Intention is to equal or exceed T-90S in a clash. While it shares certain core similarities with the Israeli developed Sabra (M60T) (second vid) in Turkish Army service, it would be fair to say the Raytheon offering will go much further.

M60A3 SLEP

Sabra (M60T)

Regards,

John Kettler

[HUSKER2142]

John Ketter , modernization of the tank M60A3, very similar to the modernization of the T-72B3. Why not upgrade the old M-1 tanks "Abrams", they can be let for sale.

 

"Модернизация танка М60А3, очень похожа на модернизацию танка Т-72Б3 . Почему не модернизировать старые танки М-1 "Абрамс" , их можно было пустить на продажу ."

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by HUSKER2142

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, HUSKER2142 said:

John Ketter , modernization of the tank M60A3, very similar to the modernization of the T-72B3. Why not upgrade the old M-1 tanks "Abrams", they can be let for sale.

 

"Модернизация танка М60А3, очень похожа на модернизацию танка Т-72Б3 . Почему не модернизировать старые танки М-1 "Абрамс" , их можно было пустить на продажу ."

It's directed at people who don't have Abrams tanks.  The last M60A3 left US Army active duty in 1993 if I recall correctly, and National Guard units in 1996.  There's still a few countries that have M60 fleets though that might be down for an improved version.

For US National Guard units it's mostly ensuring the M1A1HCs are up to M1A1SA standards, although many Guard units are receiving  M1A2 SEPs (v1 and v2s) although it's not an entirely popular transition.  

[Kinophile]

1 minute ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 although it's not an entirely popular transition.  

Why so? 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

Why so? 

For completely boring, unsexy reasons:

1. Automotively, the various M1s, M1A1s, or even earlier run M1A2s still used a lot of common automotive parts and fairly modest electronics outside of the FCS, C3 equipment, and optics.  The M1A2 SEP V2 introduced a lot more electronics.  Which unfolds into a two part problem, one being the expense of restocking the various spares supplies, and the other meaning tank repairs just got a lot more expensive.

2. There's still some ambiguity how to best use the Guard.  Some corners of the Army, both active and Guard believe the Guard is better served as a lighter force, basically ready to respond to domestic emergencies, or augment the active side as economy of force type measures (basically freeing up "better" forces for the more important missions, and using the Guard to secure rear areas).  The other portion of this is that if your State's Guard is an ABCT type unit, it doesn't have much useful equipment to do its Domestic Operations Mission*.

On the other hand, Guard ABCTs are much cheaper to maintain than the active side armor units, and are capable of being quite proficient (this year's Sullivan Cup winner was a National Guard crew).  And many Guard units still have enough wheeled transport options to conduct domestic missions even if they're armor units.  


*For non-Americans, the National Guard belongs to a specific state, and falls under the control of the State Governor.  The Guard may be called to federal service such as in war time, or responding to a National level crisis, but generally outside of those missions the Guard serves as the force in waiting for major disasters in their home state or the local region.  My Guard unit for instance was activated to provide medical and logistics support for firefighters, and to relieve local police in securing evacuated towns during my state's fire season last year.  These sort of operations are a major part of any Guard unit's mission, and as a result Guard units tend to split their time preparing to go to war if called, and also preparing to deal with regional emergencies.

Where this is relevant to tanks, is tanks have no value to a Guard unit outside of going to war.  A Stryker Guard unit for instance, could actually use its ICVs as basically big heavy trucks, or at the least deploy response teams straight from the armory without needing additional transportation.  

[MikeyD]

Companies have been dangling one or another M60A1 upgrade before Turkey for 25 years that I can recall. Israeli uparmoring, upgunning, re-engining, entire Abrams turret, I even recall a Stryker MGS-style overhead gun turret! After all those sales attempts Turkey still fields a tank almost indistinguishable from what came out of US NATO stocks.

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

For completely boring, unsexy reasons:

1. Automotively, the various M1s, M1A1s, or even earlier run M1A2s still used a lot of common automotive parts and fairly modest electronics outside of the FCS, C3 equipment, and optics.  The M1A2 SEP V2 introduced a lot more electronics.  Which unfolds into a two part problem, one being the expense of restocking the various spares supplies, and the other meaning tank repairs just got a lot more expensive.

2. There's still some ambiguity how to best use the Guard.  Some corners of the Army, both active and Guard believe the Guard is better served as a lighter force, basically ready to respond to domestic emergencies, or augment the active side as economy of force type measures (basically freeing up "better" forces for the more important missions, and using the Guard to secure rear areas).  The other portion of this is that if your State's Guard is an ABCT type unit, it doesn't have much useful equipment to do its Domestic Operations Mission*.

On the other hand, Guard ABCTs are much cheaper to maintain than the active side armor units, and are capable of being quite proficient (this year's Sullivan Cup winner was a National Guard crew).  And many Guard units still have enough wheeled transport options to conduct domestic missions even if they're armor units.  


*For non-Americans, the National Guard belongs to a specific state, and falls under the control of the State Governor.  The Guard may be called to federal service such as in war time, or responding to a National level crisis, but generally outside of those missions the Guard serves as the force in waiting for major disasters in their home state or the local region.  My Guard unit for instance was activated to provide medical and logistics support for firefighters, and to relieve local police in securing evacuated towns during my state's fire season last year.  These sort of operations are a major part of any Guard unit's mission, and as a result Guard units tend to split their time preparing to go to war if called, and also preparing to deal with regional emergencies.

Where this is relevant to tanks, is tanks have no value to a Guard unit outside of going to war.  A Stryker Guard unit for instance, could actually use its ICVs as basically big heavy trucks, or at the least deploy response teams straight from the armory without needing additional transportation.  

Not boring,  very interesting. 

It would make sense to me that a 65+ ton MBT is not needed within the continental US. It would certainly be good to train regularly,  but Strykers seem. Like a dar more appropriate vehicle.

What is the comparable ratio of armor/mech infantry from line units to Guards? 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

14 hours ago, kinophile said:

Not boring,  very interesting. 

It would make sense to me that a 65+ ton MBT is not needed within the continental US. It would certainly be good to train regularly,  but Strykers seem. Like a dar more appropriate vehicle.

What is the comparable ratio of armor/mech infantry from line units to Guards? 

It might not be useful in CONUS, but again in terms of keeping trained, mostly ready crews and tanks in the event of a large conflict or contingency, the National Guard offers a very good value.  It's also a way to hold onto experienced officers and NCOs who might leave the Army, but be willing to serve part time like yours truly.

In regards to ratio to armor/mech infantry:

If you're asking about how the formations look, National Guard units are mirror images of the Active formations, an ABCT looks like an ABCT, although I think most of the Guard ABCTs are still two CABs instead of three.  When we were going to be an ABCT for a while though we were going to augment our ARS with a Tank Company, but that never got off the ground as the SBCT conversion orders came down like, the month after we started looking into the whole process.  

As far as Guard ABCTs to regular ABCTs, there's 11ish Regular ABCTs (10 "real" ones, and 11th ACR has all the troops and equipment, it'd just need to ironically do a train up to really be ready to go), and looks like six Guard ABCTs as follows: 55th ABCT (Pennsylvania, possibly being deactivated), 30th ABCT (West Virginia, North Carolina), 1st ABCT (Minnesota)  116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team (Idaho, Oregon, and Montana.  Cavalry Brigades/Regiments are identical to ABCTs in modern army), 155th ABCT (Mississippi), 278 Armored Calvary Regiment (Tennessee).  About a year ago there'd have been the 81st BCT in there (Washington, North California) but it's undergoing transformation to an SBCT (including some really complicated inter-state unit adjustments).