Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

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


Tied

Recommended Posts

Apparently, the AbramsX in AUSA 2022 might be reusing the hull of the Abrams used to showcase the Abrams Dieselization Project, back in AUSA 2013:

 

Referring to this, of course:

Spoiler

 

 

Minor detail: while the Protector R6 on the AbramsX showpiece doesn't have the coaxial M240, it does have the servo for the Javelin launcher. Not a guarantee there'll be tests of the sort, though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Impressive weight reduction, though I have to ask how many rounds are in that carousel and whether they did consider using the turret basket as additional ammo storage space. The M1 CATTB had two extra horizontal, non-ready carousels in the hull to replenish the turret bustle's ready carousel upon depletion, but using a vertical carousel in the basket could potentially make it a ready carousel.

 

For reference, a SEP v3 should clock in at around 73.6 US tons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Impressive reduction in weight, though I have to ask how many rounds are in that carousel and whether they didn't think of using the turret basket as additional ammo storage space.


34 rounds in the cassette - not carousel - if that’s the off the shelf configuration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Impressive weight reduction, though I have to ask how many rounds are in that carousel and whether they did consider using the turret basket as additional ammo storage space. The M1 CATTB had two extra horizontal, non-ready carousels in the hull to replenish the turret bustle's ready carousel upon depletion, but using a vertical carousel in the basket could potentially make it a ready carousel.

 

For reference, a SEP v3 should clock in at around 73.6 US tons.


Is the demonstrator armored?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Spoke to the Meggitt guy. I’ll reengage today to clarify. 

So far i´ve seen no indication that AbramsX is using the Meggit autoloader. Said autoloader is meant as a drop in upgrade for existing Abrams turrets while AbramsX uses a completely new and smaller turret.
Given that the turret still has basket, i think its logical for them to mount an extra ammo rack to replenish the bustle autoloader there (that is, the side of the turret not to be manually used by the gunner). However this would surely be incompatible with longer 130/140mm caliber adoption.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Is the demonstrator armored?

The turret armor modules are actually emptied, hence, act as spaced armor. That should be enough to protect the turret vs most of medium caliber threats and i think its the right call. Making the front turret armor modular and swappable would also be the smart thing to do as different operational environments will entice different protection levels.

 

Another thing they could have done after getting the weight that low would be to add anti mine protection under the crew and/or add additional protection to the front hull roof. Both of these shouldn´t make the tank much heavier and likely still under 55 metric tons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

So far i´ve seen no indication that AbramsX is using the Meggit autoloader. Said autoloader is meant as a drop in upgrade for existing Abrams turrets while AbramsX uses a completely new and smaller turret.
 

I just asked the GD PM on the booth. He said it was the Meggitt auto loader. Make of that what you will.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

I just asked the GD PM on the booth. He said it was the Meggitt auto loader. Make of that what you will.  

I should have rephrased it, because Meggit has made several autoloaders. Other people report that GDLS representatives stated an autoloader capacity of 19 rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

I should have rephrased it, because Meggit has made several autoloaders. Other people report that GDLS representatives stated an autoloader capacity of 19 rounds.

I get what you mean. I reckon - speculation alert - that the core auto loader is the Meggitt action with the capacity adjusted to the size constraints. I’ll see if I can get a definitive answer, as I didn’t have any luck today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Suspension overheating problems eh? It would seem ASCOD 2 is showing its colors, again.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/10/10/general-dynamics-to-begin-building-us-armys-new-light-tank-next-month/

 

"The Army is working with GDLS to address overheating problems experienced by vehicles tested at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. “The hydraulic systems were getting hot; we think it’s an air flow problem. GD has already come up with a design fix for that that we have to validate,” Dean said."

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the ASCOD 2 uses torsion bar suspension. The MPF, which is not based on the ASCOD or AJAX, uses this

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also from that Defense News article.

 

Quote

Norman told Defense News the Army is now working to answer some operational questions that come along with a new capability. One of those is how to manage a vehicle that breaks down or ends up stuck in a ditch. GDLS designed the vehicles to have maintenance performed by a 10-ton or less wrecker, Norman said, and they are also intended to tow and recover each other.

“But there are times operationally when you’d want to have a recovery vehicle available to pull a vehicle out of a ditch or do a number of other things,” he explained. “There’s a decision coming up for Army senior leaders whether we want to put a dedicated recovery vehicle in the formations with MPF, or whether we want to have wheeled wreckers, 10-ton wreckers and self-recovery ... be the way that this is approached.”

 

The can (how to recover a heavy for an IBCT vehicle) was kicked down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not art official, it goes without saying. As for claims that the AbramsX's autoloader is smaller than Meggitt's CTA just based on pictures, I would take those with a grain of salt...unless you've been there in person with a measuring tape and came back with an interesting tale on how you bribed or blackmailed the GDLS guys into letting you climb onto the turret and engine deck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Tim also addressed the feedback, negative and positive, that was given by the U.S. Army on AbramsX. Of the critical response, it seems that the placement of crew in the hull of AbramsX is a point of contention, with the representative remarking: 

“Some Army leaders think that you lose too much for situational awareness. And it’d be too hard for three people in the hole to do the functions of four people and keep track of where they are and see around the vehicle when nobody can pop their head out.”

Quote

Unlike the AbramsX, StrykerX’s feedback has been “all positive on this record.” Tim attributes this to the lack of as many “radical” technologies as those on AbramsX.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/10/12/ausa-2022-general-dynamics-land-systems-debut-new-technology-demonstrators/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...