United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

[Zach9889]

 

36 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Pepperpot muzzle brake with a pseudo cleft turret. Looks like this concept from a little while back:

 

[Jackvony]

Looks like Protector RWS LW30 with the M230 30mm cannon. Can mount Javelin and Stingers too (Best Korea moment?)

 

Big gun for a tank RWS.

 

Spoiler

 

[Beer]

XXth attempt to add an autocannon on an MBT after it was (XX-1)th abandoned  as a bad idea? 

[Ramlaen]

I would presume the 30x113 RWS is for CUAS self protection as that is the gun being used on the SHORAD Stryker.

 

It is also an apples to oranges with something like the original plan for Abrams to have a 25mm coaxial.

 

Other things I see are Trophy, an XM360 gun and two thermal viewers.

[Renegade334]

Those rectangular objects beside each camera turret...Trophy out of the box?

And the UFP seems to have more detail...a thicker plate to protect the driver's compartment?

 

For the gun, it could be the XM360 in its original configuration. There were plans to put an XM360E1 in what would've eventually become the M1A3, but there was no pepperbox muzzle brake, only a muzzle with MRS.

 

Spoiler

 

EDIT: ninja'ed.

[Zach9889]

The turret shape/size suggests a turret basket autoloader, similar to that of the XM8.

[Ramlaen]

1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

Those rectangular objects beside each camera turret...Trophy out of the box?

And the UFP seems to have more detail...a thicker plate to protect the driver's compartment?

 

For the gun, it could be the XM360 in its original configuration. There were plans to put an XM360E1 in what would've eventually become the M1A3, but there was no pepperbox muzzle brake, only a muzzle with MRS.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

EDIT: ninja'ed.

 

Looks like Trophy VPS.

 

[LoooSeR]

5 hours ago, Beer said:

XXth attempt to add an autocannon on an MBT after it was (XX-1)th abandoned  as a bad idea? 

In current year low-recoil 30/35 mm autocannon with proximity/electronic time fuzes in RCWS makes more sense than MGs only in RCWS. Infantry in cover, drones, shit like that is easier to at least damage with airburst/AOE weapon rather than direct bullet hit. Would be better if they had 7.62 MG as second weapon, for suppression, but that could be a bit too heavy and eat too much space.

[Renegade334]

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).

 

Spoiler

 

 

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.

[StarshipDirect]

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. 

[Serge]

Two crewmen in the chassis front. 

[Renegade334]

7 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

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. 

 

To be fair, we don't see much of the back of the turret on this poster. It doesn't really tell us if GD went the Meggitt horizontal bustle carousel way or if they had a look back at the TTB's vertical carousel (which I don't think they did as it would require more re-engineering than the HC), which has deeper implications for available crew space in the turret. The hatches could still be there, only they're hidden from view.

 

As for the smoke grenade launchers, they're still affixed to the front sections of the turret sides; it's just that they've been given some sort of angled metal housing that dovetails with the storage baskets, makes it look neater. The launchers don't seem to "dig" into the armor cavity, proper.

 

4 hours ago, Serge said:

Two crewmen in the chassis front. 

 

That would require redesigning the driver's compartment and reducing the amount of protection afforded by the huge fuel cell that surrounds the driver's seat. Don't know how much wiggle room they've got in there for a second person, much less all the screens and panels required for the second crewmember's tasks and responsibilities. That said, I do remember that a while ago there were proposals to insert a mechanical autoloader into the Abrams and repurpose the now-redundant loader into an UAV/EW operator -- maybe the loader could relocate to the hull front while the commander and gunner keep their seats inside the turret, on the right side of it.

 

Slightly better enhancement of the poster, from Damian at tank-net:

 

Spoiler

 

@Ramlaen Were there any pictures displaying the volume reduction of the Trophy VPS sponsons as well as where exactly would the radars be mounted? Any possibility those turret-side storage containers are actually Trophy sponsons?

[Serge]

Two crewmen into the chassis. 
there are other view of this proposal. 

[SH_MM]

12 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

That would require redesigning the driver's compartment and reducing the amount of protection afforded by the huge fuel cell that surrounds the driver's seat.

 

The protection provided by the fuel cells is pretty small.

[Ramlaen]

3 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

To be fair, we don't see much of the back of the turret on this poster. It doesn't really tell us if GD went the Meggitt horizontal bustle carousel way or if they had a look back at the TTB's vertical carousel (which I don't think they did as it would require more re-engineering than the HC), which has deeper implications for available crew space in the turret. The hatches could still be there, only they're hidden from view.

 

As for the smoke grenade launchers, they're still affixed to the front sections of the turret sides; it's just that they've been given some sort of angled metal housing that dovetails with the storage baskets, makes it look neater. The launchers don't seem to "dig" into the armor cavity, proper.

 

 

That would require redesigning the driver's compartment and reducing the amount of protection afforded by the huge fuel cell that surrounds the driver's seat. Don't know how much wiggle room they've got in there for a second person, much less all the screens and panels required for the second crewmember's tasks and responsibilities. That said, I do remember that a while ago there were proposals to insert a mechanical autoloader into the Abrams and repurpose the now-redundant loader into an UAV/EW operator -- maybe the loader could relocate to the hull front while the commander and gunner keep their seats inside the turret, on the right side of it.

 

Slightly better enhancement of the poster, from Damian at tank-net:

 

  Hide contents

 

@Ramlaen Were there any pictures displaying the volume reduction of the Trophy VPS sponsons as well as where exactly would the radars be mounted? Any possibility those turret-side storage containers are actually Trophy sponsons?

 

Not that I am aware of.

[Ramlaen]

 

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

Some significant changes to the OMFV variant of the Lynx.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Clan_Ghost_Bear
Added one that I missed

[Scolopax]

Assuming they have gone with an unmanned turret now with how much further back it is mounted.

[LoooSeR]

3 hours ago, Scolopax said:

Assuming they have gone with an unmanned turret now with how much further back it is mounted.

Yes, this is very likely as its going to be mounted on top of dismounts compartment.

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

 

https://gdls-nextgen.com/abrams-next-gen-2/

[SH_MM]

So there still is crew in the turret...

[alanch90]

2 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

So there still is crew in the turret...

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.

[Renegade334]

Promo pictures enhanced through Photoshop:
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

EDIT - added three more.

 

At least two hatches for the driver compartment confirmed (with one open, the other closed), and possibly a third one right under the mantlet and XM360.

More detail on the turret front - the cheek plates are no longer welded together?

Coaxial 7.62mm retained.

Mantlet is smaller than I first thought - it's the front lip of the M230LF pedestal that's making it look taller/bigger.

At least one hatch on the turret's right side behind the PASEO and beside the M230LF pedestal. No periscopes on it.

[StarshipDirect]

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.