Posted on 03/02/2017 3:16:53 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
The Army is now performing concept modeling and early design work for a new mobile, lethal, high-tech future lightweight tank platform able to detect and destroy a wider range of targets from farther distances, cross bridges, incinerate drones with lasers and destroy incoming enemy artillery fire – all for the 2030s and beyond.
The new vehicle, now emerging purely in the concept phase, is based upon the reality that the current M1A2 SEP Abrams main battle tank can only be upgraded to a certain limited extent, senior Army officials explained.
The Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC, is now immersed in the development of design concepts for various super high-tech tank platforms, Maj. Gen. David Bassett, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Scout Warrior in an exclusive interview.
Bassett emphasized the extensive conceptual work, simulation and design modeling will be needed before there is any opportunity to “bend metal” and produce a new tank.
“We’ve used concept modeling. What are the limits of what you can do? What does a built from the ground up vehicle look like? We are assuming, if we are going to evolve it, it is because there is something we can't do in the current vehicle,” Basset explained. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at scout.com ...
Tank mounted lasers. Oh, baby! Bring it on. Can’t wait to see them.
Sheridan 2.0?
Tank mounted lasers. Oh, baby! Bring it on. Can’t wait to see them.
“The future of armor is unmanned, fully networked platforms that have autonomous abilities.”
“If they try to leave men in the tanks, the design will be obsolete before the first one gets muddy.”
Exactly.
In addition, there is then no need to make the tank “man safe”. No need for CBR protection, physical room for people, food & medical etc. forward. In fact, much less armor might be a weight saving trade-off. Make it .50 safe, but use reactive armor against anything heavier, and put 3 to 10 times as many on the FEBA/FLOT.
Two “crews” and automated refuel and restocking make it a 24/7 operation. And when it is killed on the battlefield, as some always are, no people die, and the next one is 400 meters behind it.
Even more “fun,” the crews never have to leave Benning, Knox or Ord.
Of course, how do you win a Combat Action Badge without ever leaving home?
I hope they don’t screw this up like they did with the Future Combat Vehicle.
Best war movie ever.
“Of course, how do you win a Combat Action Badge without ever leaving home?”
The AF was/is awarding the DFC to drone pilots in Kansas for action half a world away. Old timers were not pleased
I work with a lady named Dana Sterling.
She’s never seen the cartoon and thinks the references I throw out are funny.
I asked her to be kind when she watches the series.
How do you award a Distinguished Flying Cross to people not flying?
True. I'm sure the recently reported "metal foam" technology will be evaluated as part of this program.
The Army needs something. The M1-Ax is now over 70 tons. Too big and too heavy for far to many potential battlefields.
The Strykers are...not something I would ever ride in.
A lightweight tank - a “Sheridan V2.0” if you would, would give planners at least some tracked armor light enough for limited MOUT operations.
Speed will need to be a major requirement. I see diesel vice turbine solely for the fuel savings.
Will it ever be built or will the Bradly just get “promoted” to the job with a upgunned and larger turret?
Background material:
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/bigger-guns-are-not-always-better.html
http://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_apcs_that_never_were.htm (Note the Polish track with a 60mm gun)
And why not a 90mm on the Bradly - no troops, just more ammo....they’ve tried it on the Stryker, why not the M2?
I agree with you 100%. I think it was a recruitting attempt to attract more drone operators.
I remember seeing several times an entire IPT class being shanghaied and turned into drone “pilots”. Retention down the road was abysmal.
But...if you read the conditions under which the DFC is awarded, you can kinda, sorta, justify giving it to a computer operator, in a truly “modern” way of looking at it.
I have my Fathers DFC on the wall in my study, he most certainly was in the aircraft that day, and most of the plane landed in the same place in occupied France.
GUNNER!
SABOT!
TANK!
Please add me to your ping list.
Even better are Keith Laumer's Bolos. David Weber Wrote a couple of good books in Laumer's Bolo universe as well.
I knew I should have looked further down thread for a Bolo reference! Baen has republished the entire series of Bolo stories and books. It’s an awesome collection.
No more than *Blazer* and other add-on reactive HEAT-defeating armor proved effective against short repeated bursts of 25mm-30mm HEAT rounds from light auto cannons, which cleared the way for follow-on bursts of SABOT, or a main gun round from an accompanying Big Brother.
Nor are the Stynkers amphibious, so don't try to cross a blue line on your map in one. At least the Marine 8-wheelies can cross rivers, given reasonable flow rates and an undefended or lightly defended gently sloped opposite riverbank.
A lightweight tank - a “Sheridan V2.0” if you would, would give planners at least some tracked armor light enough for limited MOUT operations.
Think a Sheridan turret on an M2 Bradley chassis. The Australians used something very similar with a Sheridan turret on an M113 *Bucket* chassis in Vietnam, very useful when canister fire support was called for. There are a lot of those little flechette roofing nails in a 152mm round.
UP!
ON THE WAY!
BANG!
The Saudi M-1’s are an export version. IIRC they do not have the same armor package as our M-1’s
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.