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

[alanch90]

Just now, Ramlaen said:

I wouldn't get too caught up on concept art, remember the stuff for the T-14?

I acknowledge that this is just sketching, people brainstorming, very early conceptual work just to figure out the requirements. Among all existing 4th gen tank programs the US is the one which is the most behind in terms of schedule, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. However based on the type of american responses to the concept of the fully isolated crew layout, i'm inclined to think that the americans might find this solution as an optimal compromise between the ´revolutionary´ and the traditional layout.

Bottom line, the first thing they have to figure out is if they are more interested in a 40-50 ton tank to fight the Chinese on Pacific islands and/or continental SE Asia or if they prefer a 50-60 ton design to be ready to exchange blows with the Russians in Eastern Europe Cold War Style. You can't do both and expect to be succesful.

[Ramlaen]

https://livepictureevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/08-MS2-Industry-Day-2020_v2.pdf

[skylancer-3441]

other pics from this pdf:

 

 

 

 

 

...

https://livepictureevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/04-GVPM-Industry-Day-2020.pdf

turns out, NGCV-OMT was renamed (a-la  MPF) into NGCV-FDL

 

 

[VPZ]

7 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

https://livepictureevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/08-MS2-Industry-Day-2020_v2.pdf

 

Quite similar to Merkava 3D turret.

[alanch90]

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

 

Quite similar to Merkava 3D turret.

That was my impression too. Very Merkava (4) looking. It points to them switching to NxRA for decreased armor weight (and/or increased protection effectiveness) in exchange of decreased multi hit capability. Makes sense for an unmanned turret that will have its ammunition on a bustle autoloader. Makes even more sense if the crew sits below the turret turret ring during combat but also may be  occasionally popping their heads through the turret hatches for everything non-combat/patrol stuff. Also the whole mantlet and central structure looks just the same as the RCV-H concept and appears to be derived from XM-1202. The gun seems like an XM-360, i guess they will consider either 130mm or ETC technology closer to the date of introduction of this thing, circa 2054 XD

 

[VPZ]

3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

That was my impression too. Very Merkava (4) looking. It points to them switching to NxRA for decreased armor weight (and/or increased protection effectiveness) in exchange of decreased multi hit capability. Makes sense for an unmanned turret that will have its ammunition on a bustle autoloader. Makes even more sense if the crew sits below the turret turret ring during combat but also may be  occasionally popping their heads through the turret hatches for everything non-combat/patrol stuff. Also the whole mantlet and central structure looks just the same as the RCV-H concept and appears to be derived from XM-1202. The gun seems like an XM-360, i guess they will consider either 130mm or ETC technology closer to the date of introduction of this thing, circa 2054 XD

 

 

I thought that next US tank will have manned turret.

[alanch90]

Just now, VPZ said:

 

I thought that next US tank will have manned turret.

The turret of the newly published concept does have at least 1 hatch on the roof. My take is that they are projecting a Black Eagle-like solution, with the crew sitting in the basket but below the turret ring, a sort of a compromise between a T-14-like layout and a traditional one. This way you can afford to have lighter armor modules on the turret (please note the 2 Iron Fist launchers) but also you get under armor access to service the weapons as well as allowing the TC to peek out from the turret roof. In theory it's not as weight-efficient as a "T-14-like layout" but is technologically safer. And also multiple american TCs stated multiple times that they prefer to have top-down view instead of being in a capsule in front of the hull.

[Ramlaen]

Another possibility is the two man crew efforts.

[alanch90]

44 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Another possibility is the two man crew efforts.

For an IFV makes a lot of sense if you absolutely want a 9 man squad. Current Bradley crews already consist of 3 men. For tanks, the americans have always been more conservative, always preferring the lower risk options. Although at this early stage, 2 man crews for tanks should not be discarded at all.

 

XM1202, is it you? XD

[VPZ]

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

The turret of the newly published concept does have at least 1 hatch on the roof. My take is that they are projecting a Black Eagle-like solution, with the crew sitting in the basket but below the turret ring, a sort of a compromise between a T-14-like layout and a traditional one. This way you can afford to have lighter armor modules on the turret (please note the 2 Iron Fist launchers) but also you get under armor access to service the weapons as well as allowing the TC to peek out from the turret roof. In theory it's not as weight-efficient as a "T-14-like layout" but is technologically safer. And also multiple american TCs stated multiple times that they prefer to have top-down view instead of being in a capsule in front of the hull.

 

I read in some article that M1A3 will have both auto-loader and loader mainly for controlling robots. It was only one of variants, or another tank? Maybe this one (on the picture) is completely new, while the other is just an upgrade of Abrams. But this chassis on the picture looks like from Abrams.

[alanch90]

6 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

I read in some article that M1A3 will have both auto-loader and loader mainly for controlling robots. It was only one of variants, or another tank? Mayby this one is completely new, while that just an upgrade of Abrams. But this chassis on the picture looks like from Abrams.

As far as i know "M1A3" is not planned. But whatever, if this new concept operates they way i think (crew in turret basket, under the ring, etc, etc.), they will have to make some changes to the hull anyways. Although it's a good idea if you want to recycle existing tanks to save money. For example, by replacing the suspension with the in-arm hydro designs they are testing on the bradley, they could free enough space so that gunner and TC can sit in the same way as the driver.

[Beer]

How about ammo stowage of that concept? It looks to have a relatively small rear portion of the turret which seems to be occupied on top by the APS, wind sensor etc. (no blow-off panels anymore?). It doesn't look like it could take a large portion of ammo anyway but if the TC and gunner sit at the bottom of the basket there is no space for any other autoloader option. 

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

20 minutes ago, Beer said:

How about ammo stowage of that concept?

 

Maybe it has a secondary ammo storage in the rear hull, that replenishes the bustle magazine? It's what they did with the M1 CATTB.

[Ramlaen]

33 minutes ago, Beer said:

How about ammo stowage of that concept? It looks to have a relatively small rear portion of the turret which seems to be occupied on top by the APS, wind sensor etc. (no blow-off panels anymore?). It doesn't look like it could take a large portion of ammo anyway but if the TC and gunner sit at the bottom of the basket there is no space for any other autoloader option. 

 

probably a TTB style autoloader in the basket

[alanch90]

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

probably a TTB style autoloader in the basket

Unlikely, such a carrousel type doesn´t leave space for the crew in the turret. Both TTB and XM1202 had the crew encapsulated forward in the hull. The difference between those 2 is that the latter was modified to, presumably, provide a "corridor" so that 1 crewman could access the weapons compartment for emergency servicing of the gun from the forward crew capsule.

 

Abrams TTB:

 

XM1202

 

[Ramlaen]

8 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Unlikely, such a carrousel type doesn´t leave space for the crew in the turret. Both TTB and XM1202 had the crew encapsulated forward in the hull. The difference between those 2 is that the latter was modified to, presumably, provide a "corridor" so that 1 crewman could access the weapons compartment for emergency servicing of the gun from the forward crew capsule.

 

The turret as depicted doesn't leave much room for ammunition in the bustle either.

[LoooSeR]

   Maybe it is somewhat similar to one of Kharkovite creations in 80s, with half of space under turret dedicated to autoloader, and other half for 2 crew members placed in 2 line.

   490A layout:

 

[alanch90]

8 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The turret as depicted doesn't leave much room for ammunition in the bustle either.

True. Although we can't get a good look on the actual projected bustle size either. My bet is that you could easily fit 22 or more rounds back there, i think that was the exact capacity of an old Meggitt designed mechanized bustle ammo rack. The rest of the needed ammo might be in another compartment inside the hull. For example if they managed to make an engine that was shorter (ala Europowerpack), the freed up space could serve to store ammo. Actually such a solution would also be very good for 130mm rounds (stored perpendicularly).

 

[StarshipDirect]

5 hours ago, Beer said:

How about ammo stowage of that concept? It looks to have a relatively small rear portion of the turret which seems to be occupied on top by the APS, wind sensor etc. (no blow-off panels anymore?). It doesn't look like it could take a large portion of ammo anyway but if the TC and gunner sit at the bottom of the basket there is no space for any other autoloader option. 

 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Maybe it is somewhat similar to one of Kharkovite creations in 80s, with half of space under turret dedicated to autoloader, and other half for 2 crew members placed in 2 line.

   490A layout:

 

The M8 AGS has a similar design but for this concept it doesn't appear to be the same. If you look at the gun it appears to be sealed up like on the STRV 2000. The autoloader is probably behind the breech sealed up with the gun. http://imgur.com/gallery/znFrKzr

[skylancer-3441]

 

On 8/5/2020 at 11:01 PM, Pascal said:

MILITARY HANDBOOK: DESIGN OF COMBAT VEHICLES FOR FIRE SURVIVABILITY (15 FEB 1995)

Very interesting book for me, as it quotes reports on Bradley ASTB (Advanced Survivability Test Bed) aka Col. Burton's Minimum Casualty Baseline Vehicle,

which (reports) seem to be unclassified but still are unavailable on the internet.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pascal]

On 8/6/2020 at 3:54 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

Very interesting book for me, as it quotes reports on Bradley ASTB (Advanced Survivability Test Bed)

 

If i remember right i found it after reading on soviet possible 'fixes' for fuel cells in crew compartment on btvt, one of which were quick-reaction fire suppression, so i started googling for fuel cells, survivability, quick-reaction etc. Thanks for your scans too!

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

Clearer image of the TARDEC Abrams replacement that came out some time ago.

[Wiedzmin]

[skylancer-3441]

color-corrected, to best of my abilitiy

[Jackvony]

First live-fires from the M1A2 SEPv3 tanks with 3-8 CAV.

 

 

Spoiler

 

https://twitter.com/TreatEmRough/status/1295732476707590148?s=20