I was informed that Australia was not too excited to go with the belly armor option, I really cannot blame them if they do not go with it.
M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?
- Thread starter sgtgunn
- Start date
- Status
Is it restricting the general mobility of the track that much (weight, ground clearance)?
Otherwise such a belly plate is rather usefull for out of area operations. The US or Danes had to learn this the hard way in Iraq and A-stan while the Canadians were lucky to have one.
Otherwise such a belly plate is rather usefull for out of area operations. The US or Danes had to learn this the hard way in Iraq and A-stan while the Canadians were lucky to have one.
For extended operations the answer is yes, the current package does contribute to alot of wear and tear on suspension components, especially during high speed mobility. With advancements in newer composites I would speculate that we could go with under hull armor that is alot lighter than what is currently being offered and we should expect to see it some time soon.
LloydTasiD
New Member
I don't think a full SAM platform would be the best choice. That would add more cost and basically take up space on the tank. What would be better would be a guided missile shot from the main gun such as with the Russian Refleks, that is also capable of hitting low flying aircraft. I believe that this missile would be the XM1111 but I don't know if it's still being developed.
LloydTasiD
New Member
With the GCV the army wants a whole new platform for versatility. 1 platform to base multiple variants on. For instance medevac, unit commander, squad carrier, mobile mortar platform, front-line resupply, etc.
M1A3 will unlikely be armed with the Rh 120 L55/M256A1 - the U.S. tested mounting the L55 in their Abrams' as part of the ATAS programme (Advanced Tank Armament System). The result was that the Abrams can mount the L55, but only after extensive modifications to the gun mount, oscillation compensators etc. - i.e. that it would be work and cost extensive.
More likely is that the M1A3 will carry the XM 360 (L/48) or (more probable) the XM360E1, which doesn't have a muzzle break and allows a higher chamber pressure. If someone googles "XM360 tank gun" then one result from dtic.mil will be the "120mm XM360 Primary Weapon Assembly [...] Briefing to NDIA Joint Armaments Symposium" where they state on page 14 that this gun will be tested/be part of the M1E3.
For increasing protection they will probably install an APS, and this is likely to be Quick Kill, just because it is American. While this decission is not bad, there are still a bunch of superior APS available. Front armour is immune to current 125 mm ammo and the next Russian tank (Armata UCP) will also have an 125 mm tank gun, so it seems more likely that side armour will be increased for urban conditions.
Hopefully they will replace the gas turbine of the M1 with a more fuel efficient diesel or alternativley a hybrid-engine as proposed by BAE Systems for GCV.
More likely is that the M1A3 will carry the XM 360 (L/48) or (more probable) the XM360E1, which doesn't have a muzzle break and allows a higher chamber pressure. If someone googles "XM360 tank gun" then one result from dtic.mil will be the "120mm XM360 Primary Weapon Assembly [...] Briefing to NDIA Joint Armaments Symposium" where they state on page 14 that this gun will be tested/be part of the M1E3.
For increasing protection they will probably install an APS, and this is likely to be Quick Kill, just because it is American. While this decission is not bad, there are still a bunch of superior APS available. Front armour is immune to current 125 mm ammo and the next Russian tank (Armata UCP) will also have an 125 mm tank gun, so it seems more likely that side armour will be increased for urban conditions.
Hopefully they will replace the gas turbine of the M1 with a more fuel efficient diesel or alternativley a hybrid-engine as proposed by BAE Systems for GCV.
The diesel would be cheaper, but a hybrid would be a better choice assuming it has some form of electrical energy storage. The reason is not mobility or fuel efficiency, but because of the increasing reliance on electronics and computers means the tank needs an uninterruptable power system, something that the current APU cannot provide. The battery pack in the hybrid should give them one good for a day or more.
Archangel117
New Member
Well I was looking at the requirements for the M1A3 and it struck me that if they were to use M.W.C.N.T sheets or composites in the armor of the tank they could reduce the thickness of the armor and probably maintain the same strength if not make it stronger while obviously reducing weight. Although I'm not to sure of the feasibility but there are companies that produce large sheets of these for defense contractors so I think its a possibility. In my opinion it's a good solution though because it meets many of the program requirements with several added benefits.
BTW my first post hurray!
BTW my first post hurray!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #169
Anyone know whatever happened to the XM943 STAFF round? From what little I found online it apprently worked, but was canceled in 2001 to divert $ to developing the MultiRole Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS) connected to the FCS program.
Was it a case of dropping the "pretty good right now" system for the "super-the-best-awesome-sometime-in-the-future (maybe)" system?
It seems kind of crazy that the US would kill a promising (if it in fact was) smart 120mm munitions program in order to develop something "better", and almost 12 years later still have nothing in the field to show for it.
Adrian
Was it a case of dropping the "pretty good right now" system for the "super-the-best-awesome-sometime-in-the-future (maybe)" system?
It seems kind of crazy that the US would kill a promising (if it in fact was) smart 120mm munitions program in order to develop something "better", and almost 12 years later still have nothing in the field to show for it.
Adrian
The XM943 STAFF round was still in engineering development, it was not ready yet for manufacturing. It was also a specialized system (anti-tank and some anti-helicopter) and they probably felt something more general purpose was needed as the main round for the FCS. Limited money, you make your choices.
And, as it turned out, there was no demand for it after Desert Storm.
STAFF was cancelled in FY01 and the development funding for tank Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) ended up via FCS in the XM1111 Mid Range Munition (MRM) after stops at MRAAS, X-Rod and TERM. The big difference is STAFF was a fire and forget weapon designed for ‘analogue’ 120mm guns on legacy tanks. The loader just entered a range bracket on the shell when loading and away she went. MRM is designed for digital connected XM360 120mm gun so it can be loaded and feed target data in the breech before firing. It also has dual mode guidance for fire and forget (using IR) and/or laser designation. MRM will certainly be better in a complex environment whereas STAFF was a Cold War ‘Assault Breaker’ type weapon.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #172
Any clue when/if the MRM would be fielded? STAFF was canceled almost 12 years ago and the US Army is still shooting dumb 120mm rounds.
It seems like the whole defense aquistion process takes so long these days that by the time a system is even close to ready to be fielded - the requirement has changed, it costs too much or technology has advanced to the point that it will no-longer be "revolutionary" enough. Look at the EFV, FCS, Crusader, ARH, OICWS, RAH-66,JTRS, CG(X)...the list goes on. Even some systems that actually eventually get fielded still end up being overpriced, have the purchase numbers slashed, or suffer on-going technical problems - V-22, Seawolf, B-2, F-22, etc. It seems to me that the way the US develops and fields new weapon systems (and pays for them) is seriously broken.
Adrian
exported_kiwi
New Member
Yes, that's the impression I get too when reading about US DOD purchasing and development. I wonder how much "fat" is in the budget and how much more streamlined it could be. A good example of developmental and cost woes would be the F35 or the F22.
MRM is tied into the XM360 so until this gun is on a tank (M1A3) it can’t be used.
Well it’s more than just defence. It’s a government wide crisis in leadership and management brought about by post-modernist principals.
Indeed - if you want to see what happens when there is an Urgent Operational Demand as opposed to the swamp that is peacetime procurement try:
GBU-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3 weeks from woah to go!
Geez its a big bugger - it makes the F-15 look pretty small (see piccie).
Personally I don’t see this as a huge problem as beyond line of sight (BLOS) rounds for tanks are really crossing the boundaries of branch/corps responsibilities for limited gain. The US Army field artillery has the SADRAM sensor fused round in service and this is the weapon and system best used to defeat BLOS enemy tanks. For one unlike the tank units there is actually a target acquisition and fire control system in place for managing such an attack. Who is going to be providing the forward observation for the tanks so they actually engage a BLOS target?
Also the artillery is set up to provide the ammunition and resupply. For every BLOS tank round in your unit of fire you have to displace a direct fire round. Plus tanks engaging in BLOS fires would be giving away their position and so on when they should be getting ready for a direct fire attack on the enemy force. So why spend X dollars on a BLOS tank shell when you can use it to buy an artillery SFM? The later is considerably more effective and actually fits into the existing army structure.
Now if the issue is providing a long range, guided anti helicopter weapon for tanks then something purpose designed or as simple as a Stinger missile added to the commander’s cupola is a much better solution. If tanks face a long range direct fire engagement then a much simpler guided tank shell like the Russian or Israeli solutions is a better option than a BLOS weapon.
exported_kiwi
New Member
Also the artillery is set up to provide the ammunition and resupply. For every BLOS tank round in your unit of fire you have to displace a direct fire round. Plus tanks engaging in BLOS fires would be giving away their position and so on when they should be getting ready for a direct fire attack on the enemy force. So why spend X dollars on a BLOS tank shell when you can use it to buy an artillery SFM? The later is considerably more effective and actually fits into the existing army structure. [B said:
How problematic would it be to actually have such a stinger system organically fitted to a M1 do you think? by the look of the turret roof, there appears to be plenty of room......put rather simplistically.
For sure one could just bolt a Stinger onto the roof but I doubt there is a big gain.
If the Helicopter is unaware of the presence of a tank platoon and/or doesn't maneuver too much the US already has a good attack option with the MPAT round.
If one really worries about enemy air attacks onto one's armoured units just bring back a modern SPAAG into service. The tank crews already have enough on their hands to effectively handle the ground engagement. Trying to fight the AA fight simultaniously is a recipe for desaster.
If the Helicopter is unaware of the presence of a tank platoon and/or doesn't maneuver too much the US already has a good attack option with the MPAT round.
If one really worries about enemy air attacks onto one's armoured units just bring back a modern SPAAG into service. The tank crews already have enough on their hands to effectively handle the ground engagement. Trying to fight the AA fight simultaniously is a recipe for desaster.
Adding something like Stinger to a modern tank would only be necessary facing a high level air threat. And far from making the tank an anti-aircraft asset it would just be for self-defence. Rather than use the tank gun and the roof MGs to engage aircraft you would actually have a far more effective weapon. As these weapons only provide effective anti-aircraft engagement in a limited sub set of conditions.
As to SPAAG coverage the Stinger missile actually gives better range and Pk than any SPAAG. With a BMS linked to a radar you could actually match the SPAAG for cueing and all weather engagement. Of course this is only suggested in the context of why equip tanks with guided BLOS rounds. My argument being leave BLOS anti-tank fires to artillery with SFM and if you air threat is so high you want a tank guided shell go for the real thing and bolt a Stinger to you commander’s weapon station.
Good idea. DIVAD
Yes.
Well, to be fair it could probably have done with more development... during one of the last live fire demonstrations the turret swivelled 180 degrees and was supposed to have acquired the grandstand with the VIP's.:dunce:tomato:crazy
Probably easily fixable now a days given the average gameboy has more processing power than a late 80's system.
- Status