StarshipDirect

Fuel efficiency will be prioritized over weight. Saving 1 ton of engine weight is not a big tradeoff for fuel and oil costs. Even with the fuel efficient LV100 you still need a lot of oils. Not sure if Honeywell will even offer the LV100. The Army has invested a lot of money into Cummins for the Advanced Combat Engine.

In my opinion a diesel will be the best option. This design doesn't improve fuel efficiency the way modern diesels do. Plus we know Honeywell offered this design in the past but the Army showed little interest. Maybe this engine configuration can be useful for other operators of the M1.

RCV-H Mock-up

AMP round will be in service soon for 120. The M8 does not require an 88 so I can see why the Griffin is similar in logistics to at least a Bradley.

Most countries don’t have a Javelin equivalent and it’s not because they can’t make one. To make a Javelin style missile it will cost you more than other ATGMs. Javelin is also shorter ranged than most other ATGMs. Russia has plenty of good ATGMS.

Javelin could still turn it inside out but at least the crew won’t be inside.

Great looking tank. Looks like it’s missing a few of its gadgets from the digital concept. We’ll see what they have to display at AUSA.

Point Blank was never going to be selected anyways.

The TC hatch has no periscopes which tells me these hatches are only used for maintenance related issues. It should be an unmanned turret. Keeping the turret armored despite not having a crew is to protect the weapons system and it makes sense to do so. All the fuel from the front of the hull will be shifted to the rear since the Army is dumping the turbine for a diesel which takes up roughly half the space of the AGT1500. If you look closely there’s a hatch periscope directly in the center of the hull and to the left side. Makes no sense to have the hatches on only one side of the hull so there has to be a third on the right side but it’s hidden.

Turret is slimmed down for sure to reduce weight. I see no visible turret hatches with periscopes. Most likely an unmanned turret. Tim Ryan secured funding for GDLS a while back to develop an unmanned turret for the Abrams. Those things below the turret cheeks might be cameras for 360 awareness. Or maybe the hull hatches are swung open to the side. I see the smoke grenades are integrated into the turret as well. The hull may have been lengthened for the extra crew hence the redesigned mud flaps.

No sir, anyone who’s been on M1s would tell you the same thing. Love the turbine in the winter but it’s old and needs too much oil. Many electrical problems with SEP V2. Not sure how reliable the V3 is but it wouldn’t surprise me if it has similar issues.

The M1 is a mechanical piece of sh*t and is expensive to operate. Big mistake for Poland to buy it. They’re gonna be operating a tank with a 50 year old engine. The K2 would best meet Polands requirements.

A while back GD received a contract to develop an unmanned turret for the M1. Looks like they will be showing it off at AUSA this October. Doubt it’s going to be the SEP V4 since that’s not really “next generation.”

There obviously will be on a working prototype.

Army is all about cameras these days. I wouldn’t be surprised if periscopes become a thing of the past. No need for headlamps with thermal cameras. Headlights are never used in combat anyways. Looks like it has reflection lights integrated in the hull.

It’s a great looking vehicle with potential. Unfortunately the defense giants will secure the contracts.

One thing I don’t like about this turret is the placement of the CITV. They should wrap the RWS around the CITV and put it towards the back of the turret. Seems kind of dumb to put both sights right next to each other and directly in the way of the RWS. I like Raytheon’s battle guard design. The turret appears to have high gun elevation and room for the larger 50mm ammo. Missile launcher on the right side with both a javelin and tow launcher that flips upwards. I wonder what APS this turret can handle besides iron fist.

Did you not see the picture I posted above showing the MCT-30 with a Javelin ATGM and Hydra 70 rocket pod mounted to the sides of the turret? One would assume this turret doesn’t need an RWS to launch ATGMs. If a manned Bradley turret can mount Iron Fist why wouldn’t this turret be able to? Call it my interpretation but it seems really pointless for Kongsberg to offer a turret that can’t fire ATGMs or mount an APS. It would also be a terrible decision for the Army to buy a turret that can’t utilize these options.

These turrets are designed to be modular, you’d be surprised what types of modifications they can do with a simple looking turret. Here’s a link of the RT-40 claiming APS and ATGM capabilities by Kongsberg. https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kda/products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rt40.pdf

MCT-30 has ATGM and APS capabilities. This was stated by the manufacturer. So far nobody has incorporated these upgrades but it can be done. I’d be shocked to hear that Oshkosh/Rafael can’t do it on this turret. This is something the Army would definitely want.

I noticed this after posting. I believe the GDLS proposal is based on the A1 Stryker so that may be why there’s added height compared to the Dragoon. To be honest I’m not sure why this prototype is so tall.

For all the people saying this turret is too tall. Look at how tall the MCT-30 made the Stryker with the hull riser. Huge difference, Army made the right choice.

You’re forgetting the added height from the plate that supports the MCT-30 turret. It’s the about the same as the Oshkosh turret when you factor this in. No plans for an APS are you sure? They actually all had ATGM capabilities, just not presented with the launchers.

Rafael is more innovative in my opinion. RT-20 added too much height and weight to the Strykers. They added a giant top plate to hold this turret. Samson MKII appears to have the most growth allowing better integration of an APS plus the ammo capacity is higher than RT-20. Hopefully this new version of the Samson MKII will have the ATGMS mounted on the inside.

I’m sure Poland and some other Eastern European countries have shown interest. This would make make a good replacement for the PT-91 and T-72 for Polish Army