Posted on 01/26/2017 12:33:23 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Fire support is what I have done for a living for a long while and we won't always be fighting dimwits in the desert. Unless we plan and prepare for a real full-up war, we will be caught with our knickers at half-mast.
When tanks are needed, there is no substitute. When our young people's lives depend on effective and reliable weapons, we had better have them ready and not counting beans.
It’s a shame that we never adopted the 20x138mm ammo to replace the 20x102mm.The 138 has a muzzle velocity similar to a .22-250,about 3700fps.
Russian tanks are mostly rehashes of previous generations, with additional armor and technology.
The Russians give theirs new names and numbers, while we just add -A1, A2, A2SEP, etc.
Nothing really “new” from the Russians.
Dear SJ,
Since you view Russian tanks as ‘the same old same old version ‘x’;
I submit this, as proof of the definition of the word ‘new’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
Oh sure. Until your own folks are facing the other guy’s tanks and then they come in real handy.
Yep. Just look how the Russians rolled over the Ukrainians with just a handful of modern tanks.
The primary upgrade our tanks need is a new active anti-RPG/anti-missile system. The Syrian war proved that tanks are approaching pretty close to useless if the enemy has lots of anti-tank missiles.
I am thinking of a generational shift in tank design, as radical as the concept of the Predator drone being roughly modeled on the A-10 Warthog. Yes, drone tanks, something that has been wanted since before WWII.
When you don’t need to design for people, all the rules change. The could have temporary glide wings and be deployed from cargo aircraft, so land deep in enemy territory. Much easier to optimize for heat, cold and wet situations. Both guided and autonomous operations.
“So, we design a better tank. “
I managed one of the combined teams on Future Combat Systems. It was a perfect example of how not to run a program. It was the most money ever spent of a program up to that time and the vast majority of it was wasted.
First, in order to get the Congressional votes to approve the project Boeing and SAIC had to pool their pocket-Congressmen. So, there were two program leads. If that wasn’t stupid enough, Congress tried to involve virtually every contractor and divided up the pie along ridiculous lines. Any competent vehicle manufacturer could have done the entire program alone and we would likely have had a worthwhile set of vehicles.
The Army, for their own political reasons, refused to make critical design decisions until right before the preliminary design review. Things like, will the engine be in the front, rear or middle? Will it have wheels or tracks were not made until huge amounts of money was spent and wasted. The money was spent, and wasted, because the company’s award fees were based on a spend schedule that assumed those decisions had been made in a timely fashion. Since they were not, but the money was spent anyway, it was mostly wasted. The charts, progress graphs and associated materials were mostly fiction. This was fraud on a colossal scale.
Since the program was so large, every Congressman got involved to send money to their particular agenda. The Greens got a complete ban, not only on parts with chromium or cadmium, but on any parts made by a company that also made chromium or cadmium plated parts that we were not buying. (You can’t make this stuff up.) The gays got special sensitivity training imposed on contractors and, of course, there are the usual small business set-asides and the like. All of these added hugely to the cost. Parts that tested perfect when they left had corroded by the time they arrived because they didn’t have chromium or cadmium plating.
I could go on, but I am getting tired of typing and most people probably don’t care. The point is, as long as Congress is involved, I wouldn’t trust any development program to produce a new weapon.
The “new” T-80 was just a rehash of the T-64.
The “new” T-90 was just a rehash of the T-72.
I will grant you that this is their first actually new tank in how many decades?
And only 100 built, as opposed to the thousands of T-90s.
Take a look at the family-lineage of the most of Russian’s “new” front line fighters, as well. They’re almost all extension the the MiG-29 or the Su-27.
>Since the program was so large, every Congressman got involved to send money to their particular agenda. The Greens got a complete ban, not only on parts with chromium or cadmium, but on any parts made by a company that also made chromium or cadmium plated parts that we were not buying. (You can’t make this stuff up.) The gays got special sensitivity training imposed on contractors and, of course, there are the usual small business set-asides and the like. All of these added hugely to the cost. Parts that tested perfect when they left had corroded by the time they arrived because they didn’t have chromium or cadmium plating.
Wow. I’d thought the rot from the top was pretty bad, but not to this point.
“Wow. I’d thought the rot from the top was pretty bad, but not to this point.”
Companies will happily sell the government their inferior product by convincing the government that the superior product isn’t. (They will also use their personal relationships and job offers after military retirement, etc.) Congress will authorize the purchase of stuff they know is inferior because it means jobs in their district or state. Almost nobody gives a damned about the soldiers who will use the stuff. The entire procurement process needs a huge enema.
Still, we have to design the next generation weapons,don’t we?
Two options: design and test in-house (ARDEC, Rock Island, Watervliet, Dahlgren, etc.) and then bid out drawing package to industry.
Or fire everydamnbody in government acquisition and do programs the way we’re supposed to.
“Two options: design and test in-house (ARDEC, Rock Island, Watervliet, Dahlgren, etc.) and then bid out drawing package to industry.
Or fire everydamnbody in government acquisition and do programs the way we’re supposed to.”
I spent a career doing this. In my opinion, the Navy and Air Force are competent at separating bull from reality and can run their own programs. The Army and Marines are not.
The problem is not with the procurement people. It is with Congressmen who get to diddle at a high level and will decide, with no technical expertise, to send, say, the computer portion to a supplier in their district or state who has convinced them they can do the job. Only they can’t and their hardware requires major revisions. (That’s just one example I witnessed. There are dozens.) The problems start with Congress. If you took them out of the equation and told the procurement people, find out how to make it cheaper, they can all tell you how to do that. They are just menial paper-pushers, not the cause of problems.
I would argue that “make it cheaper” should not be top determinant - effective- more effective than any other - should be number one.
Second place in combat sucks.
Granted, the current model Abrams is nearing obsolescence. It is heavy and fuel-guzzling, without active armor protection or adaptive camouflage, and carries a 120 mm gun when newer rivals bear a 125 mm gun. The hardware, sensor, ammunition, and comm upgrades in the SEP V3 Abrams are worthy, even essential, and the Israeli Trophy defense system and a laser warning sensor should be added as well.
As it is, the Army plans to roll out an advanced model M1A3 Abrams by 2020 that will be lighter with extensive hardware and sensor improvements. Plausibly, if that effort is accelerated, after a couple of years of upgrading several brigades' worth of Abrams tanks to an enhanced SEP V3 standard, the Lima, Ohio facility can be transitioned to installing the more extensive upgrades planned for the M1A3 model.
The number one thing that changes is there no need for heavy armor anymore. Robot tanks can be very fast and light.
Sadly, I believe every word you said.
L
If you don’t have people in them, you don’t really need all that expensive armor to protect them. If you don’t need that expensive armor, you can make them much smaller, faster and cheap. If they are cheap you can make a lot of them.
Picture thousands of units the size of an ATV which are fast, armed and autonomous.
Now picture them landing on the shores of America.
Scary.
“I would argue that “make it cheaper” should not be top determinant - effective- more effective than any other - should be number one.
Second place in combat sucks.”
I agree with you. What I would like to eliminate are ludicrous political agendas. What good does a diversity program, elimination of lead based solder, elimination of cadmium and chromium plating do for the weapons? None of these things come cheap, nor are they beneficial for the end item. And, I suspect Congressmen simply don’t give a rat’s orifice about what evils those things do to the weapon as they got brownie points from their constituents or lobbyists for including them. I don’t think your average Congressman gives one moment’s thought about the soldier using the end item.
Should have stopped after the 5th word. Tanks are an easy target. They aren’t terribly useful in the modern age of war. Upgrading them would be a waste of money and time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.