Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles durin

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was

Recoil system of the M256:  

3 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Incredibly stupid when there's already a 120mm designed for lighter vehicles that has been built and tested.

 

So with FCS being too sci-fi, the army is repeating the mistake of the 84-ton GCV monster now in going maximum conventional. Do they not have a setting between 'pie in the sky tech dream' and '50 year old tech'?

 

Reminds me of the fact we have both the B-2 & B-52 in service...

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Another photo of that model

jXRhqH5.jpg

   This thing looks like was supposed to be unified chassis for several type of AFVs - tank, IFV, SPG and ARV.

SJd6ZN5.png

 

 

   Speaking about US MBTs - some projects of new US MBT from 80s.

Quote

   In the mid-80s, it became clear that there was nowhere to hurry. FST-1 never appeared. Soviet tank builders took on the even more powerful FST-2 - also with an unmanned turret and a 152-mm cannon. Its appearance was expected by the mid-90s, and by this time it was necessary to have a tank superior to the FST-2. Several projects have been developed with an emphasis on increasing armor or installing powerful 135-145 mm guns. But all these projects took a long time to finalize, and it soon became clear that it was necessary to return to the idea of modernizing Abrams.

 

   Some of them:

ztHVL7t.jpg

   Variant with 145 mm gun, autoloader and low profile turret.

 

Spoiler

uqEwuEX.jpg

   145 mm gun, unmanned turret, crew of 2.

 

6LW67g4.jpg

   Unmanned turret with 145 mm gun, crew of 3.

 

z9LLYVa.jpg

   Same, but with ATGMs.

There were other variants, but i didn't researched into this question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 8:28 PM, TokyoMorose said:

 

So with FCS being too sci-fi, the army is repeating the mistake of the 84-ton GCV monster now in going maximum conventional. Do they not have a setting between 'pie in the sky tech dream' and '50 year old tech'?

 

Reminds me of the fact we have both the B-2 & B-52 in service...

 

FCS isn't too sci-fi today. The problem today is funding and time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MRose said:

FCS isn't too sci-fi today. The problem today is funding and time.

 

In general, no - but a lot of the detailed ideas still remain extremely wonky, such as purposefully forgoing armor in total reliance for active protection. Even if you build an all-conquering APS, it'll still quickly deplete its loaded bank of shots. There's also a *lot* of as-yet unworkable electronics demanded, and they even considered stuff like exoskeletons. There was also a planning undercurrent behind all of the FCS designs that high-intensity peer conflict was a thing of the past. The general concepts they were working on are indeed workable now, but without your all-conquering APS and literally magic electronics & sensors they aren't nearly as viable - FCS was only viable on paper *because* of the all-conquering APS & absolute omnipresent networking & data fusion along with nearly omnipotent sensor systems. Even the latest sensors and networks are far below what FCS was aiming for.

 

(As an aside, FCS *was* laughably pie-in-the-sky technologically in the context of when it was approved! It'd be like trying to put the current top-line smartphones with everything they have into service in the mid 2000s, sure it's not seen as a big deal now but the Army were really "optimistic" with approving that program...)

 

12 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

I'm not so sure about that. APS is only now starting to get good and there aren't any systems (that I'm aware of at least) that can do KE reliably.

 

There's some tested systems I seem to remember seeing that do alright against KE (I forget the names), although none fielded that I know of. The Quick Kill system proposed for FCS was extremely wonky, never fully worked right (although has some real impressive looking test footage!), and to this day still isn't fieldable. And then you get to the issue that the QC VLS cells were in packs of 4-8, and I've only ever seen one or two packs on the FCS vehicle renders. I've also never seen anything resembling a quick reload method for the QC, and so if worst case scenario you have only 4 of them loaded and the enemy takes 5 shots at you with an old T-12 Rapira... then what? Honestly not being able to rapidly reload is a total killer for an APS outside of Low Intensity patrols, and Quick Kill's design doesn't appear to be fast to load and certainly cannot be reloaded under armor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BAE to Get Green Light for $10 Billion Howitzer Project:
 

Quote

“BAE has met all requirements to enter into full-rate production and we anticipate that happening” during January, Sam Tricomo, a spokesman for the weapon’s Army program office, said in an email.

The company had been assembling the weapons system since October 2013 under a series of low-rate production contracts during which it produced the vehicles late and with numerous welding defects.
 

Deliveries were halted for six months in 2017 because of welding flaws that required the return for repairs of 50 of 86 vehicles already delivered. Since then, London-based BAE has invested $200 million in improvements at its factory in York, Pennsylvania, and delivered quality vehicles consistently in the last months of 2019, according to the Army.

“To ensure no break in vehicle production” at the York facility and another in Elgin, Oklahoma, the Army last month extended low-rate production, Tricomo said. “Our confidence in BAE’s ability to deliver has increased month after month as we have seen continuous improvement in quality vehicles at increased production rates.”
 

BAE’s factory quality is a priority for the Army because it wants to increase production through 2023, not only for the howitzer system but also the other major military vehicles that BAE builds: the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the M88A2 tank recovery vehicle.
 

The Army plans to surge production of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle for deployment to Europe as part of the U.S.’s deterrence buildup against Russia.
 

As recently as April, program officials had been privately pessimistic about BAE’s production capability in their annual Selected Acquisition Report for Pentagon officials and congressional committees marked “For Official Use Only.”
 

“At this time the Army does not have confidence when BAE will be able to deliver a quality product repeatedly,” according to the document. The “Army chief of staff does not recommend certifying the PIM program until BAE demonstrated the ability to produce quality vehicles on schedule.”


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/bae-to-get-green-light-for-dollar10-billion-howitzer-project/ar-BBYxHIM?ocid=st

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Army Now Has Enough Upgraded Abrams Tanks To Equip An Entire Brigade:
 

Quote

The Army in late 2017 accepted the very first M-1A2C Abrams tanks. Nearly two years later the service has enough of the new vehicles to equip an entire brigade.
 

The “first brigade is critical because we need to get [them] into the soldiers’ hands so they can get trained on it and everything else,” Kennedy said.
 

A U.S. Army armored brigade typically operates around 100 tanks. The Army has 16 armored brigades as part of a total force of 58 combat brigades.
 

The M-1A2C is the latest variant of Abrams to enter production. Congress in 2019 gave the Army $1.5 billion to buy 135 M-1s from General Dynamics, extending a program that began in the 1970s.
 

The Army’s budget proposal for 2020 asks for 174 new and upgraded tanks.
 

The new M-1A2C Abrams boasts new active and passive protection that could help to protect it from the latest enemy weaponry. The most obvious new features of the M-1A2C are the vehicle's Trophy active-protection systems and an additional slab of armor on the front of its turret.
 

Trophy uses a radar to detect incoming missiles and rockets then fires tiny projectiles to intercept the munitions. The Army also is back-fitting Trophy to some older M-1 models.
 

There are a bewildering number of subvariants of the M-1A1, each boasting incremental improvements in drive-train, armor and electronics. The latest upgrade, the M-1A1SA, has a factory-fresh engine, digital electronics and a top-secret armor blend that includes a thin layer of uranium.
 

The Army plans to retire all M-1A1SAs by 2025.
 

The M-1A2 appeared in 1992. It’s pretty much a new tank, with better armor than the basic M-1A1 plus a new internal layout and fresh sensors that together allow the gunner and the commander independently to search for targets.
 

The Army has acquired around 1,500 M-1A2s and converted most of them to the System Enhancement Package Version 2 standard. The M-1A2SEPv2, which General Dynamics describes as a "digital tank," features high-end computers, a remotely-operated machine gun on the turret and a dozen batteries that allow the tank quietly to operate its sensors without turning on its engine.
 

The M-1A2C in essence is a better-protected M-1A2SEPv2 that's also easier to upgrade. In addition to Trophy and more armor, the new tank boasts more electrical power, better diagnostic systems and a data-link that's compatible with programmable ammunition types that are in development.
 

"The Abrams M-1A2C can host any mature technology the Army deems operationally relevant," the Army stated.


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/army-now-has-enough-upgraded-abrams-tanks-equip-entire-brigade-109656


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

BAE Raven:
 

bYukF2m.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

BAE to Get Green Light for $10 Billion Howitzer Project:
 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/bae-to-get-green-light-for-dollar10-billion-howitzer-project/ar-BBYxHIM?ocid=st

 


The Army Now Has Enough Upgraded Abrams Tanks To Equip An Entire Brigade:
 


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/army-now-has-enough-upgraded-abrams-tanks-equip-entire-brigade-109656

 

BAE Raven:
 

bYukF2m.jpg

 

 

 

I haven't seen any photo with M1A2C with APS, only v2 stationed in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Serge said:

FCS is still sci-fi by 2020. 

18t platform can’t perform as a 60t one. 

 

It isn't trying to perform exactly the same, if it was that would be stupid.

 

4 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

In general, no - but a lot of the detailed ideas still remain extremely wonky, such as purposefully forgoing armor in total reliance for active protection. Even if you build an all-conquering APS, it'll still quickly deplete its loaded bank of shots. There's also a *lot* of as-yet unworkable electronics demanded, and they even considered stuff like exoskeletons. There was also a planning undercurrent behind all of the FCS designs that high-intensity peer conflict was a thing of the past. The general concepts they were working on are indeed workable now, but without your all-conquering APS and literally magic electronics & sensors they aren't nearly as viable - FCS was only viable on paper *because* of the all-conquering APS & absolute omnipresent networking & data fusion along with nearly omnipotent sensor systems. Even the latest sensors and networks are far below what FCS was aiming for.

 

(As an aside, FCS *was* laughably pie-in-the-sky technologically in the context of when it was approved! It'd be like trying to put the current top-line smartphones with everything they have into service in the mid 2000s, sure it's not seen as a big deal now but the Army were really "optimistic" with approving that program...)

 

 

There's some tested systems I seem to remember seeing that do alright against KE (I forget the names), although none fielded that I know of. The Quick Kill system proposed for FCS was extremely wonky, never fully worked right (although has some real impressive looking test footage!), and to this day still isn't fieldable. And then you get to the issue that the QC VLS cells were in packs of 4-8, and I've only ever seen one or two packs on the FCS vehicle renders. I've also never seen anything resembling a quick reload method for the QC, and so if worst case scenario you have only 4 of them loaded and the enemy takes 5 shots at you with an old T-12 Rapira... then what? Honestly not being able to rapidly reload is a total killer for an APS outside of Low Intensity patrols, and Quick Kill's design doesn't appear to be fast to load and certainly cannot be reloaded under armor.

 

The network and sensors are a lot closer to reality than they were before. In some cases, they are almost commercially available, but. Presumably, now it would be able to plug directly into the ABMS.

 

The APS would be a backup for when the superior sensors didn't identify and kill the target before it got into engagement range. Quick Kill is unworkable and completely fucked. The Trophy/Iron Fist combo APS that is supposedly in the pipeline would probably suffice. Although, it seems like that one is going to be missing for a while because Rafael and IMI had too much infighting and the Israelis didn't really have a requirement for beyond Trophy. If you have to reload the APS, presumably you would have already been mission killed at the very least.

 

What really killed the FCS was IEDs, which is completely near sighted. 

Link to post
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.

  • 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...