Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

FY2018 US army budget request.



56 M1A1 upgraded to M1A2 SEPv3
287 Low Profile CROWS and 90 Ammunition Data Links for field upgrades
87 APS systems for Abrams


60 M2A2ODS and M7A3 Bradleys upgraded to M2A4 and M7A4 Bradleys
345 Bradley ECP1 kits (track and suspension system upgrades) and 134 Bradley ECP2 kits (improves the power train and electrical system) for field upgrades
35 APS systems for Bradleys


107 AMPV in multiple variants


71 M109A6/M992A2 Paladin sets upgraded to M109A7/M992A3


16 M88A1 upgraded to M88A2 Hercules


7 Assault Breacher Vehicles


27 Joint Assault Bridges


100 Ground Mobility Vehicles


2,100 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles in multiple variants


241,000 M793 TP-T


39,000 Mk258 APFSDS-T
116,000 Mk238 HEI-T
112,000 Mk317 TPFSDS-T
245,000 Mk239 TP-T


3,000 M724A2 TPDS-T


3,000 M829A4 APFSDS-T
20,000 M1002 TPMP-T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here is the latest news regarding a new tank for the US Military....



The US Army has requested USD36.242 million in fiscal year 2018 (FY 2018) for its Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) platform that it hopes can quickly deploy with relatively low logistics demand but enough protection and firepower - likely via a light- to medium-tank - to ensure the infantry's freedom of action.  In FY 2017 the army received USD9.678 million with which it is starting an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to assess the "operational effectiveness, suitability, and life-cycle cost" to meet requirements contained within MPF's initial development documents, according to the army.  The AoA's results are to support a 'Milestone B' decision in mid-FY 2019 to officially start the programme's engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase.


I'm not sure exactly what this means.  Apparently they will spend 10 million dollars in order to come up with a description of the new vehicle they want.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that includes feasibility tests as well. Do note that the US Army should be conducting trials on an existing Abrams platform to test the feasibility of a new operational concept - drone operating from a tank. More specifically, have a crewman replaced with a specialized operator to control a wide array of UGVs and maybe UAVs.

It could be that these are connected.


I haven't been paying attention lately, but what exactly is the MPF?

Is it the supposed M1A3 or fills another niche like a medium weight family to replace the Bradley for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MPF = Mobile Protected Firepower


It's not an Abrams, but more like another attempt to field a light tank like the M8 AGS, meant to support IBCT troops and conduct armored reconnaissance, all of that with minimal logistic requirements. There are already several candidates/offerings like the GDLS Griffin (an ASCOD2 with a stripped-down Abrams turret and XM360 gun) or ST Kinetics' NGAFV. IIRC, BAE is also considering pushing forward its updated M8 (recently spotted at AUSA) for this competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, here is the latest news regarding a new tank for the US Military....



I'm not sure exactly what this means.  Apparently they will spend 10 million dollars in order to come up with a description of the new vehicle they want.  










And the interim vehicle.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to piece together what is going on with 30mm armed Stryker ICVD's, which is the ECP 2 upgrade cycle.

The initial lot for the 2nd Cavalry SBCT will use Kongsberg's MCT-30 turret and the RFI released in early March helps clarify what the US army is looking for in a fleet wide application.


-the ability to mount and fire a Javelin or TOW from under armor (preferably a Javelin)

-a sight based on the IFLIR B-Kit (used by Abrams/Bradleys)

-a weight of 5,000 lbs or less

-optics to allow occupants to assist in situational awareness 

-willing to eat the sunk cost of the Kongsberg turret if an alternative's cost savings are viable

-willing to use a different gun than the XM813 if the vendor pays for qualifications

-up to 9 SBCT's worth of vehicles would be upgraded (760 vehicles)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

Excellent.  Now they just need to bring in the T29s and T34s that are rotting in a jungle somewhere and get started.

I believe they (and the T30) have at least been given a roof to hide under.  Google Maps has rather recent imagery of the store yard, and the spot along the road that they sat by is now empty.


Link to Google Maps


Link to an album, now two years old

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.

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.


  • Similar Content

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:

      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.

      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.

      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.

      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.

      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
  • Create New...