StarshipDirect

1 hour ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

@StarshipDirect Keep in mind that one of the Army's main goals for M1E3 is a significant weight reduction, which is a key turbine advantage. Best not to count it out too soon.

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

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. 

3 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Honeywell has re-launched the transverse-mounted AGT1500 proposal, possibly related to the M1E3 engine competition.

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/en/about-us/press-release/2023/10/honeywell-enhances-agt1500-engine-powerpack-configuration-for-the-abrams-tank

https://play.vidyard.com/qXVHU8P8pf6iKowGEwJtBB

 

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 

On 1/20/2023 at 6:34 PM, Ramlaen said:

The MPF does not bring an Abrams level logistic tail, they are not going to "light infantry" brigades and the US Army does not have a programmable 120mm HE in service yet.

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.

7 hours ago, Atokara said:

The difference being that Russia is incapable of making a Javelin equivalent and the Chinese equivalent is of questionable quantity and quality. There is also the chance that the RWS can act as a point defense system as top attack missiles are typically slower than most other ATGMs with a much longer flight time.

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.
 

8 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

These are the money shot for me.

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

1 hour ago, Cleb said:

 

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. 

On 9/20/2022 at 7:29 PM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

It appears that the teaming agreement between Point Blank and their primary partner on OMFV, Keshik Mobile Power Systems, has collapsed, with any mention of Keshik being scrubbed from their website after PBE sued them in late July over a non-compete violation.

https://www.morganlewis.com/ja/news/2022/08/another-stellar-edition-of-litigator-of-the-week-runnersup-and-shout-outs

 

Point Blank was never going to be selected anyways.

52 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

I would say it uses exactly the same layout from that OMT concept from last year (this year´s EMBT and Panther use it as well), 2 men in the hull, driver and "operator", TC and gunner in the turret hence justifying it being heavily armored.
If that´s the case then the question would be where they put the huge fuel tanks that used to be besides the driver. That may point to ditching the turbine engine for good in favor of a hybrid powerpack.

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. 

4 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Played a bit with layers and exclusion blending modes in Photoshop to enhance the pictures (YMMV depending on your screen's contrast and luminosity, of course).

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Either they reduced the Next-Gen Abrams turret's height or that mantlet has overdosed on growth hormones (or they blew it up to better streamline it with the 20/30mm RWS' pedestal). And what ARE those things beneath the turret cheeks and what did they do to the mudflaps?

 

...That is, assuming that the 3D models are properly proportioned and detailed(for example, the Trophy launchers don't seem to have the shields to protect the crew when they're topside - omission or not? Seems to me like the commander and loader lost a bit of topside real estate there), of course.

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. 

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

trollface.jpg

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. 

6 hours ago, Żółć said:

I agree with you. In my oppinion Poland is stuck with Abrams for good, and it will eventually become our only MBT. But to be fair, there is still a lot of talk about K2 and K2PL in Poland, including military journalists and some politicians. The vice minister of defence talked, in today's article, about talks, that are held with Hyundai considering the aquasition of K2.

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. 

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

So this showed up today

 

First glance, seems like a modified hull with extra periscopes which would be the case if the crew was to be taken out of the turret and into the hull. But on the other hand, the shape of the turret seems to be the same classic Abrams pre SEPv3. 

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.” 

18 hours ago, SH_MM said:

There are no cameras mounted to the hull of the model....

There obviously will be on a working prototype. 

On 4/8/2022 at 1:52 AM, SH_MM said:

Not very pleasing to look at. The driver has no hatch/vision blocks? There are no headlights? I hope that is a very, very early mock-up.

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.

On 4/7/2022 at 7:23 PM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Better look at Point Blank's design, from a trade-show model company.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21159426@N05/albums/72177720297935581

 

 

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

7 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Evolution of the Lynx & Lance for OMFV.

 

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. 

15 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

That’s your interpretation, and not necessarily objective truth. The PDF-document only mentions that these are options for the RT-series, which includes the RT60, and that an ATGM can be fitted to a roof mounted RWS on an MCT-30/RT40.

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. 

20 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I suppose you could bolt on a LAW in a hurry, but the RT40 according the manufacturer absolutely does not have provisions for ATGMs or hardkill APS. That is literally why they put RT60 to market, as it otherwise offers essentially nothing over RT40.

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

34 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

And my comments on height was based totally on dragoon, yeah GDLS' proposal is just about as tall overall but the riser is baffling as to why it exists.

 

(And as an aside I agree with Serge, the fact that RT-40 was competing and in fact considered the favorite makes me very much doubt there is a hardkill APS or ATGM reservation as part of the contest. Neither RT-20 or RT-40 have any provisions or design margins for those - with RT-60 being offered for customers who need those features. And yet RT-60 didn't get tendered.)

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. 

11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

To repeat myself from twitter, the roof of the Dragoon isn't really higher than Oshkosh's vehicle though which implies GLDS's proposed vehicle has a taller roof for a different reason.

 

Here are some bigger versions of the pics.

  Hide contents

 

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. 

1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Too much height? Both the CMI and Rafael offerings are far, far taller. There's no plans for an APS, (and I seriously doubt the Stryker has the weight margins) - nor do I see any place to put ATGMs in that turret. Furthermore, nobody else in the tender had APS or ATGM capability, and that wasn't on accident.

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. 

12 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

 

IMHO, the updated MCT-30 was far and away the most attractive solution both aesthetically and in silhouette (the CMI and Rafael turrets are so tall!). Either Rafael has some really amazing tech promises or they went really aggressive with pricing.

 

Updated MCT-30 in the spoiler below for reference

  Hide contents

 

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. 

On 5/14/2021 at 5:34 PM, SH_MM said:

 

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