The Chieftain has a special gift; the ability to translate Army language into Civilian, a very useful skill. It's much akin to my ability to translate Engineer to English, or other people's ability to translate Legalese into Klingon (it IS translated, but most people still can't understand it).
This ability of his is what makes him stand out the most out of all military TH-camrs. If someone couldn’t translate Army to Civvy well we could have another F-35 situation where the public is woefully misinformed about what its role is.
Your ability to translate Engineer to English is rivalled only by my ability to learn jargon (I'm a bit hyperlexic). You wanna know what's _hard_ to learn? The shibboleths (those things that just *are,* and few questions are asked *why).* My God, it is hard to learn the shibboleths. Because if you don't learn them or ask why they exist, you're branded as goofy. If they're part of your "unknown knowns", explaining anything becomes needlessly verbose as you avoid the minefield that is the shibboleths. If you make them part of your "known knowns" (or try), learning anything becomes needlessly complex as you chase down the origin of every meaningless and unrelated thing while others look on, convinced that you're chasing ghosts.
As a guy who works with that stuff, it might be better to go with copper. Yes, fiber is lighter and you get more throughput but copper is way more robust and we're talking about a tank, not an F-22 Raptor. But who knows. Maybe they've got a way to protect the fiber, I dunno. I'd be interested in how.
My god.😂 I imagine their 90s tech upgrade was fairly similar to what was in the aircraft, since it's all solid steel and weighs a shit ton. Those old cables were no joke either, it took so much more amperage to get those shits to work
The M1A1 AIMS was not the predecessor to the M1A2. I participated in the M1A2 IOTE Test in 1991 at Fort Hunter Liggett. The AIM tank came out around 2005 as much of the Army hadn't gotten the M1A2 let alone the SEP version yet. I believe the AIM version was just a stop gap measure. Like the M60A3 was before all units transitioned to the M1. I think Fort Hood was all SEP v1 by the time many units were getting the AIM tank or maybe we at Fort Riley were just that far behind 🤣.
You are correct in terms that AIMS was not a successor vehicle, (I received mine off the production line in about 2007) but I don't believe that the underlying A2 technology is any different. I focused on AIMS because I am certain about it
It's interesting to get this on the same day as Perun putting out his video about how incentives surrounding decision makers affect defense procurement. That line about investing in the plants, it isn't only a way for your local congressman to buy votes by keeping jobs in his district that literally cannot be outsourced to China.
It’s also just a strategic national decision. These tank plants need something to do, and if they go out of business we lose a strategically important industry that will take a long time to restart and upscale.
Comment on the "Why now?" question. Looking at the tension rising in Asia the logistic footprint suddenly makes quite a bit more sense. Possibly hinting that the same design principles that made Sherman a good tank for America during the second world war needing to be reconsidered for the current M1
Also, lessons learned from the big AFV testing ground that is Ukraine. Challenger 2s and Leopard 2s have been lost, and the tanks are out fighting tank battles instead of plinking unaware Iraqis from miles away in a desert, or blowing the tops off minarets to deal with the sniper in it.
@@Skorpychan Yes some have been lost, but they have been lost to either mines and then artillery, mines and then atgm or drone and then artillery. I haven't seen any footage yet of any western tank given to Ukraine being taken out directly by another tank. They are all imobilised first, engaged with artillery or ATGM second. Which any tank, regardless of quality, nation of design, or any other variable, would be equally vulnerable too.
50,000 Sherman tanks were built in WWII (around 5 years time span). Over 5,000 M1 tanks were built in the last 30 years. There were around 18 different variants built on the M4 Sherman tank. How many versions are there on the M1?
@@robmx2324 The last 30 years have been the post-Cold War era of unipolar peace and conventional military drawdown aka. the Peace dividend. Use a better example
The torsion bar suspension is heavy! Each station weighs around 1 metric tons, so that's around 7 tons. Replacing it with hydropneumatic inarm suspension would save around 3-4 tons. Such suspension from Textron and General Dynamics was tested back in the 90s. Today the GD suspension is owned by RENK America, and is readily available.
Note: Italian Army had its "common combat engine" thing. the VCC80 Dardo IFV and Centauro-1 had the same IVECO 6-cylinders, the C-1 Ariete tank has two 6-cylinders bolted togheter to make a 12-cylinders.
@@alexisXcore93 Not really, it's a pretty standard concept. The problem is always in actually implementing it. By their nature, you rarely end up replacing your light and heavy vehicles at the same time, so the likelihood of the engine being relevant for both when needed is pretty low. Italy is a small enough country that they can do it, but major nations can't. For example, the BMP has been using the same engine since its introduction. It's good enough, and there hasn't been reason to significantly change the chassis, so why change it? In that time, Russia has also changed their MBT several times over, even trying a turbine in the T-80. A T-62 engine in a T-90 or T-80 simply wouldn't do
As to electronics vs. hydraulics, I believe that SpaceX switched from hydraulics to electronics for engine gimbaling. Which presumably requires a lot of force and accuracy. So probably another indication that the M-1 would do just fine with the electric controlled turret.
I very much suspect you're right and the electrics will be totally fine, but there are important differences as well. Failure is quite a different scenario, after all: -I think the engines gimbal independently? So if you lose gimbals on one engine, you can compensate with the others pretty easily. If you have the choice between nine engines with nine gimballing systems each of which is 99.2% reliable, versus a heavier system that is 99.5% reliable, and you can fly just fine with seven out of nine gimbals working... You'd probably pick the lighter one, y'know? (Play with the numbers until you get a number of nines acceptable for crewed flight, of course). But if it's a single point of failure instead of a "we can lose three, no problem, but four might cost us some missions and losing six could kill someone," the math changes, right? -The consequences of partial failure are different. A slow or off-calibration gimbal on some engines while others are working fine probably means you can't use those gimbals. A slow or off-calibration turret rotation system is still very much better than no power traverse. So if the electrics are more likely to die all at once, while the hydraulics are more likely to start to fail a little at a time, that might be worth a little more weight even though the top-line "reliability" statistic is similar.
And the electric actuators seem far better in terms of functionality. Don't know about reliability, but I doubt it's bad. Also, do you know if the flaps use electric or hydraulic actuators?
@@trioptimum9027it’s pretty catastrophic if a Falcon-9 booster is landing and the one engine it’s using for thrust loses gimbal control. Combat systems and space systems are different but they are both hard fields.
@@henrikoldcorn Oh, absolutely! I was just pointing out that the challenges are different, not that one set are easier than the other. One could say the same about space systems and other space systems, for that matter. (And yeah, you could absolutely lose a booster that way... But it wouldn't cost you the mission. Might be an acceptable risk, depending on the other factors.)
@@trioptimum9027 Properly engineered electrics are always going to beat hydraulics, you just have to do the work. Smaller, faster, stronger, more efficient. Can be redundant.
Well, the Merkava was designed by actual tankers. Many tank designers around the world are mostly designed by engineers. IMO, I rather have tankers input than an engineer.
This is the BEST breakdown of what the considerations are in designing the M1 series replacement that can fight and survive on today's battlefield I have heard. Thank you Sir! I do have a few questions because I did not hear this directly addressed. What are the options for addressing main gun effective range and target detection? Will they be using the current main gun and fire control system? Will the ability to detect an enemy first by passive means be addressed as well? Is a main gun tube launched missile system being considered? Will main gun rounds, with improved effective ranges, be developed as well? I can understand not saying anything in detail about these things but lethal effective range, target detection range, and observability of the tanks surrounding for the crew are important which I know you more aware of than me. I hope these things are also being addressed with earnest attempts are realistic improvements. Thank you for the knowledge you share Sir.
A Hybrid diesel/electric main engine would make sense...Technology has come a long way since the Tiger P (porsche). Electric motors have brutal torque from the moment they start and a massive powerband, which is perfect for quickly moving a tank to speed.
I've read commentary from other tankers that, while safer, the L2A6 electric turret is more challenging to control with precision. Old sports car vs. new electric steering sports car type comparison...just one guy's opinion tho
He never said that electrics were bad, infact he brought up "the germans" as an example of tanks that used electric turret systems that worked. What he did say, however, was that 15 years ago, the hydraulic systems gave more precise control. He also said that it should be looked into if modern electrical systems still have this problem or not, and if not, replacing the hydraulic systems would drop at least 1 ton of weight, if not more.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This whole argument over how to update M1 Abrams really reminds me of the arguments over how to replace M60 back in the day. For decades, the Army just couldn't find a "new" tank that really was more cost-effective than sticking upgraded modules in the M60. We went through several promising vehicles that came close to replacing M60 before M1 finally was adopted, but every one was too complicated, unreliable, expensive, or otherwise unsuitable compared to M60. Seems like we are in the same situation now with M1. Every time someone says "we really need a new tank entirely that efficiently integrates all the technologies we have and want," someone points out that it is just cheaper and easier to put a better computer or whatever on/in M1. Until someone actually proves M1 is not cost-effective in battle, it looks like we will indeed be retaining M1 for years to come.
@@TheoEvian Maybe that's a real reason for sending them. If Abrams tank will do fine, it will stay in service for another decade. If it will explode immediately in the first battle it took, like Leopard or Challenger, probably it's time to create a new tank from scratch.
@@leonfa259 Exactly, but still, military needs a real proof to use as an argument. Abrams is kinda more resistant from indirect artillery hits than Leopard actually, because latter has very thin armor on the sides compared to Abrams tank and all Soviet tanks. Nothing can survive a more or less direct hit though. This requires some kind of new powerful APS for the tanks.
If metamaterials continue their improvement, we could finally see a replacement for the Abrams. But only because the new tank hull will be made of entirely new alloys and so it becomes cheaper to build new hulls, since they don't make new Abrams hulls anymore.
It doesn't help when you can track the tanks heat signature from satellites. This was proven in the gulf War, it's time to move away from the gas turbine tank.
My uneducated guess is they won’t go for an unmanned turret. Maybe a two man turret with auto loader, but not something AbramsX style. This seems like a good medium approach between the more minimal, short term SEP v4 and the wholesale replacement program that’s been in the background for years. With the v4 cancelled and this announced I’m rather expecting the NGCV’s Decisive Lethality Platform to be cancelled or quietly shelved for another decade or more.
Agreed, so like Commander, driver, gunner and drone operator or something like that and a cassette autoloader like on the leclerc (besides the drone operator)?
@@Yuki_Ika7 Probably either 3-man with commander and gunner in the turret and an autoloader, or 4-man like they have now. I don't see them trying to add space and weight for a drone operator with their focus on weight reduction. Better to store more fuel, armor, ammunition or something like that. I don't really know what they'll go for, just making a guess at it
Small detail i dont think you'll see in the comments Its not just opposed piston Its opoc, opposed piston opposed chamber The pistons fire against eachother its super cool
That's a very dumb design simply because if one cylinder block goes down you lose two Pistons and believe me there's been times on my truck that a cylinder has just stop firing and then it runs like shit now imagine a tank, a tank that weighs 70 tons, losing two cylinders instead of one . Ya no, I really hope they stick with their turbines
That's just a 1960s VW Bug engine... Also, aircraft have been using Flay-4 and Flat-6 engines for a few decades...
ปีที่แล้ว +1
This Video shows the value of this channel. Just the chieftain infront of a tank putting things into perspective. I was wondering why there wasnt a program for a truly "new" tank in the works in the US, now that seems to be settled.
As someone that worked on tanks back in the 80's and has been working on industrial controls up until now this is a good thing. As good as the M1 is it would be so much better to green field the new MBT. Now they do not need to go crazy but take everything that works and start from the ground up for it to be in the system. If there is a better power plant use it, better main gun use it. In the end just do not lose sight of the fact that everything breaks and war is hard on equipment.
Those old terminals are like a block of solid steel. Just a 6"x6" screen and casings gotta be a few hundred lbs😂😂 i'd love to know how much the tech gutting weighs, id make a guess with the aircraft but tanks I got no clue
Great breakdown! Which finally! A new frontline tank seems pretty important and was kicked down the road for so long that the Air force and navy will both have their new toys long before the army has a new tank...
"E" is used for experimental modifications, not fielded equipment. If the M1E3 is accepted, it will become the M1A3. The SEP variants are considered upgrade packages for the M1A2 rather than modifications to the base tank.
because this denotes the vehicle itself and upgrades it has been though. The same way as: M60 (vehicle) A3 (modification) TTS (upgrade package) M2 (vehicle) A2 (modification) ODS SA (upgrade package) M60 (vehicle) A1 (modification) RISE (upgrade package) M109 (vehicle) A6 (modification) PIM (upgrade package) etc.
'E' used in that way means some kind of modification to the hull that is a change to the hull that is big enough to make it different but not big enough to justify being a different production model (the 'A'). The SEPs are upgrade packages that are addons- they can (and probably are) put on or taken off as needed, but either way the M1A2 under is the same as an M1A2 without it. We're probably not going to see another M#A#E# something because doing modifications like that is at best a bit confusing for logistics. As far as I know the only times we did that was during WWII and the Korean Tank Scare because we were willing to put up with logistics hiccups if it meant we could have more factory lines producing more tanks, even if they had differences (and even then not every difference justified a different designation).
Until there's a tank in front of me, I take all these announcements with a tablespoon of salt. You never know when Congress decides for new defense budget cuts. Thanks for the update though, breaking it down piece by piece was helpful.
@@UmHmm328 My gawd, I skipped one. Anytime I laugh until I bleed at the F-35 fiasco somebody mentions the Zumwalt, LCS and Ford. So you're telling me that the Army is 0-3-0, while the Navy is 0-2-1 and the AF is 0-0-1 and therefore the winner with a single tie?
thanks, Nick, for another great video on current military maters, making sense of the press releases and giving us insight to the true "world of tanks."
The other issue with the Abrams is that, for reasons I don't understand, the weight and the bridge rating diverge dramatically above 70 tons. So a SEPV3 with FP kit, APS and ballast weights 81.43 tons but needs a 104 Military Load Classification bridge. Which is why the MLC of new bridging the army is buying seems so absurdly high.
The question that hasn't been asked is why not start a new program to build a tank from the ground up instead of a major upgrade that has the potential to replace almost everything within the M1 hull?
@@billyparker5974 I agree, and they get cancelled because the Pentagon had completely lost it's ability to control development costs. This way they will lose SOME of their wish list when the costs spiral out of control, but still end up with a (less capable) vehicle.
find the ForgottenWeapons video about the Fusil Automatique RSC M1917. The French Army fielded that as an upgrade kit from Lebel. You took the lebel, throw it away except the front band and a couple of bits, add the bits to the RCS and, presto, here is a cheap, upgraded rifle way more economical than a brand new rifle. This M1E1 sounds more or less the same: it keep maybe the hull-thub and the return rollers (or the greasepump track tensioning, much to Chieftain disdain), everything else is something new. But is just a budget-reasonable upgrade, not a totally new tank program, in the PR leaflet.
@@billyparker5974 I also think they are worried about development time. This would probably much cheaper and faster to implement. If the US gov is worried about a war with China in the next ten years, cutting back on the weight and logistical support needed for an abrams would help ease alot of concerns.
While I'm sure they've thought about it already, I'm wondering why if they are looking at service past 2040 and are already looking at the cost of retooling production for significantly redesigned components, are they not looking into a clean-sheet design that puts forth everything we have learned about MBT design and expected capability? Surely a design from the 2020s would be more relevant on the 2050 battlefield than a remake of a design from the 1970s?
My guess is this prospective M1A3 is a middle ground between a short term, less expensive SEP v4 package and a long term, much more expensive totally new platform. The Abrams hull is still solid, so as long as everything can still fit inside (and there aren’t any signs yet that it can’t, as long as the internal systems are replaced as he describes) there’s not much advantage in designing a new hull, with the time and cost that would require. Even if they replace the turret with something completely new most of the hull will still be pretty much the same
at least TWICE in this video, the (auto-generated?) captions have transformed "They aren't saying" into "They are insane" which is a HELL OF A BIG CHANGE... I don't know if Nick can fix this, but it definitely needs fixed if possible.
AbramsX honestly seems like the most logical choice however the Army needs to decide if they want to go to a fully unmanned turret or a manned turret. The former seems more sensible since it would reduce the most weight. Also more weight could be shaved off if they replace the interior of the turret which is optionally manned with more systems or delete it entirely and save more weight.
Keep in mind AbramsX was a technology demonstrator so whatever the army gets would likely look drastically different. AbramsX was essentially “hey look what we can do if you anted us to”. As for unmanned turrets, from someone who has talked to German soldiers, and 2CR guys with dragoons I’ve heard nothing but hate for them, the ability to have direct access to the gun and the tc to be able to pop his head out and look around from what I’ve heard outweighs the advantages. This is all conjecture but I personally believe we will see something with an auto loader, as robotics have sky rocketed in the past 5 years in capability.
@@anonymous-ml8sl The thing with unmannned turrets and the crew comforts was already known before they were adopted in the various militaries. The goal of unmanned turrets is to make the vehicle safer, something which soldiers in general service generally don't notice, as they aren't shot at with HEAT shells that impact their turret. The fact that with unmanned turrets you can completely isolate the crew from anything explosive is incredible, if you care about the lives of your soldiers. And I as a German generally have heard nice things about the Puma. The soldiers may often complain about it, but the complaints I hear are less about the unmanned turret and more general vehicle design. Complaints I hear are mostly about the small turret magazine (you need to reload after 200 30mm rounds), overengineering and over-complication, plus bad training about how to repair the vehicles.
@@anonymous-ml8sl well autoloaders have never really been complex it's just a simple ramming arm however the MGS made it needlessly complex. Having access to the gun is largely unnecessary because if there was an issue that required the crew to open up the autoloader in combat it's more likely they would simply break contact and RTB for repairs than waste time trying to manually load the gun. However the main reason the commander would want to stick his head out of his hatch is to guide the driver but AbramsX has a back up camera so the crew has full situational awareness. Both M1 TTB and T-14 were well received by their test crews and there isn't any mention of the commander feeling he was blind or didn't have good vision. But people have been debating this for decades with things like gunners auxiliary sights which most modern designs of the 21st century have since deleted.
@@nemisous83there's a lot more in terms of situational awareness you get from having the TC with their head out the turrent, than just easier reversing. Having full use of your peripheral vision, as well you're other senses (sound, smell, feel do in fact subtly inform a TC's awareness of the surroundings) there's a reason why a TC today is very rarely fully "buttoned up" in the turret, they'll have their head out the hatch more often than not. I would he very surprised if the Army goes for an unmanned turret. Going to an autoloader and 3 man crew seems more likely, although that would also necessitate larger changes in a tank units MTOE, as the Army also currently seems to regard 4 crewmen to be the minimum for reliable field maintenance and watch, plus many tanks will at times be a crew man down due to illness, injury, leave, training needs, etc. Chieftain has been a big advocate for mirroring French armor formations which attach full time dismounts riding in trucks to the formation, who aid in repair, keeping watch, and other field duties.
@@grgr105 sure it may protect the crew… but I’d much rather be able to access my gun and get it up if it malfunctions to engage the enemy rather than climb out to fix the damn thing. But I’m bises as hell since I’m a brad guy. As for German troops complaining, I got the privilege to watch a puma gunnery and I noticed that the gun malfunctioned multiple times and they had to expose themselves in order to fix it. After talking with the crew afterwards he went on to complain about how every time the gun malfunctions he has to be exposed. Now all cannons like this malfunction the difference is in my Bradley I’m protected inside my vehicle and have complete and easy access to my gun to get it back in the fight asap. That’s just my experience and two cents on it
Former Abrams mechanic and I'd be interested to see what the maintenance is like on an electric vs hydraulic turret system, sounds like it'd be a lot easier than dealing with hydraulic fluid lines. And as to the weight and recovery, we had an m1 aims ed flip upside down in a canal in iraq and sink in the mud. It took 5 m88s and a week to get it out and it tied up damn near a company's worth of personnel. Those extra tons make their presence known and if that tank was an a2 we'd probably have had to thermite it and leave it
Damn. Bridge collapse under it? (I hope the crew got out! My great uncle died in Korea that way, bridge collapsed and his Sherman ended up upside down in a river.)
I'm just kinda excited to see what they come up with. In my lifetime the U.S. hasn't rolled out a new MBT, and while this is still an Abrams I think it will be fun to see.
Interesting. I suspect the war in Ukraine is making many weapons designers go back to their drawing board. Coping with drones and things like a Lancet missile have to be high on the list.
I don't know about that. Is a lancet or any other conventional loitering munition (which is to say, not using an exotic mode of attack) substantially different than, say, an atgm with a top-attack profile? At least from the perspective of the designer, who isn't necessarily having to account for the secondary factors of drone delivered weapons (such as the moral impact of pervasive, airborne individually directed explosive devices). It seems they have much the same requirements as they had before - how to keep the explosions going out of the tank rather than into it. If anything, they could improve in Ukraine by doubling down - being more armoured/protected and having more powerful guns/munitions, since they have proved most viable at stand-off ranges acting like massive sniper rifles. Now if you were talking about strategists and planners, or even designers working on other categories of systems, your point stands more confidently.
@@sir_vix Top attack is at least somewhat predictable, but consider that FPV kamikaze drones can impact literally anywhere on the tank at any angle. That could be important. Otherwise, tanks now need to have some EW and radio surveillance tools built in IMO, as well as their own drones.
@@sir_vix I think Lancets and Vikhr missiles or similar long ranged ATGM systems are a major threat any system designer needs to think about. Certainly as you say keeping the explosion outside the tank is desirable. Also desirable is some way of knocking them down before they reach the tank. I think it is just a matter of time before we start seeing large flocks of networked anti vehicle (or anti air) drones with an AI controller drone somewhere in the middle or edge of the swarm selecting targets based on heat signature or other detection methods. No on the ground human controller, independent once launched until the fuel is expended..
not sure. I'm pretty confident that an anti-drone/loiter ammo WAS on the drawing board from long ago. The russian aggression to Ukraine is finally ringing the bell. Armies need the budget to take that thing from floating around drawing boards and prototypes into a real system fielded on every tank, and as soon as possible.
I can appreciate the weight and cost saving of switching from copper to fibre optics. It would make all sub systems faster as well because of the quicker electronic "talking" to one another. As old as the Abrams is, it is high time they did a ground up change as opposed to the long string of add ons. I can't imagine a long list of bolt on upgrades is the most efficient way of doing things especially when redundant communication devices have to be installed. I think E3 is really the way to go.
This is neat to hear, someone who translates military PR into civilian speak and focus not only what is said but what Isn't. But the idea of the E3 being a complete gutting of the Abrams makes sense, the advantage is that older Abrams can be gutted and refitted so production can focus on the new components while the older ones can be recycled while keeping the tanks in active service.
Depending on how far the Army wants to deviate from the current M1, we might see them going for an autoloader with the M1E3. I doubt it will be an unmanned turret or an external cannon though, so a two-man turret if they do decide take the autoloader route. However I am almost certain they will end up using a hybrid engine like the one demonstrated in the AbramsX. A hybrid engine would go a long way in reducing fuel consumption and hence the logistical footprint, plus it has plenty of tactical advantages too.
Fiber optics isn’t the same as copper. So it depends on what they would be swapping. Fiber is good for communications, but I highly doubt they would have over a ton of copper just for communications. Most of that would be for power, and for that, you can’t substitute fiber.
If they choose to follow the army nomenclature system the E stands for experimental modification version, then after it is approved it would get an A number as those mean its Successive approved modifications (A1, A2, A3, etc.)
The Chieftain is standing in front of the American response to the T-14. The armor is made of depleted Vibranium, the gun will penetrate 6000mm of RHA at 1.3 parsecs and we are going to build 12.000 of them. See Russian fanboys, two can play this game.
basically the army Generals walked up to politicians, pointed to the Russo-Ukraine war and said "see, our predictions were right" and the politicians proceeded to hand over the money the army had been asking for over the past 3 years. 14:50 I suspect this is because they might not be entirely sure either way right now.
Make sure that any upgrade modules are fully tested, running and fit into the space before they do any design changes. Also, make sure the level of contractor MRO is minimised/ Removed entirely to maximise MRO availability! The US Navy's LCS program Disaster of squeezing a quart into a pint pot is a case study and it sounds like the Army is trying to do the same thing!
I still think the future of ground combat is automated/unmanned vehicles. Replacing tanks/IFV's/APC's and combat soldiers. But, in case it isn't? Thanks for this. Very interesting. Easy to understand. ☮
Unmanned remote controlled vehicles, suffer from being targeted by Electronic Warfare. Autonomic vehicles may be hacked and aren't really working reliably enough yet. Still I think you are mostly right, an APC that controls a number of partially automatic remote vehicles the size of a Wiesel tanktet seams like the future and already possible. I understand the need for protected direct firepower, but Wiesel like 4 ton remote tank with a 20mm, a javelin and a sensor suite that can call in accurate artillery should be able to do nearly everything that a tank does at a tenth the price. And if 1-2 million is still to expensive, than a pickup truck with an AP, AT, or AA weapon system in the back might come in at below 200k. A solider in a western military I would estimate at 1 million on average (20 years * 50k/year). If Ukraine tough us anything it is that a 20+ million high tech tank burns just as well as a 500k t55 when hit by artillery. So to win we need tens of thousands of systems.
@leonfa259 I agree with all of that. Well said. The Russians have apparently taken down TONS of drones with electronic interference. So, better protection in that area is needed. Superior Faraday Cage's, perhaps. And you hit the nail on the head with the rest of it. I love the little Wiesel's. And why risk huge numbers of human soldiers when remote-controlled vehicles can do the job? Finally, throughout this video - as you said - I am thinking of how tanks are getting obliterated in Ukraine. Even Leopard 2A6's. I am not sure building 80 ton monsters that cost $12 million dollars are good value for the money any longer. Seems artillery and ATGM's are the way to go. And I doubt even Trophy can defeat all of those systems. Just like battleships ended up having to be just ridiculously huge to protect themselves. The same seems to be happening to tanks. I personally think their future is limited. Don't tell The Chieftain, though. ✌️
@@McRocket The problem with drones that are attacked by EW is usually that they loose communication and GPS, a Faraday cage doesn't help against that. But by using EW the Russians also deny the airspace to their own low tech drones too. Loosing 10,000 drones a month isn't really that big of an issue since they are still cheaper than a single western tank. At the end of the day it seams to be mostly about finding the enemy and delivering a munition, both ideally as cheaply, frequently and quickly as possible.
Well, to save weight titanium could be a solution. Twenty years ago titanium was only used for critical parts in an aircraft, but now it's used more extensively such as not just the frame but the entire body including a thick titanium "bath tub" surrounding the pilot. So a pure titanium turret and body may be feasible, and using titanium for running gear could save a ton or two as well. The cost has also decreased from what it was twenty years ago, and using titanium as an alloy is certainly a possibility. A lighter, more fuel efficient diesel might save weight but as you said the newer turbines are much improved. The one thing we probably won't see is aluminum armor, though lighter ceramic armor will definitely be in the cards, especially on the roof!
It needs a Gau-21 with a weapons radar like the BAE MK 38 has, only with a .50 Cal MP round, (or 20mm if you must insist, but I doubt that's practicable.) Maybe Orbital ATK can come up with something.
LTC. What is being done in the mean time to upgrade the Abrams for top cover of the turrets and engine decks? This drone thing is getting a bit dicey? Thank you. SSG. RET
The current answer is air defense units and electronic warfare. The long-term solution is hemispherical protection on the vehicle itself in addition to the above.
I think their they are going all implementations you said and for the turret the one of abrams x with bustle autoader but not remote operated but opertaed with two man crews like the Leclerc Tank turret and the K2 black panther turret that copy Leclerc ones ( the only ones that not copy Leclerc turet design and have butsle autoloader are the japanese with type 90 and type 10 and for that ones i not 100% sure that not be the case because the Leclerc program was starting in early 70's before even type 90 program )
As usual, the information in the Army document is like being on the parade field for a Div. Change of Command in August... 10-12 GO's, SES's and who's who giving their speeches. But not really saying much. So when you getting your star... 😁 BTW: I think you will be a great one, I've known quite a few of them, and a acquaintance who turned down his star to retire. Kidding aside, good breakdown on the next generation tanks.
The E3 may be what I figured a number of years ago. The Abrams-X actually had the Cummins ACE as a potential powerplant. The E3 may actually be the "turbo-electric" version envisioned over a decade ago. The transmission would be removed, and the turbine would be relegated as a an ultra high speed direct driven generator deeply mounted further into the chassis for a lower thermal signature. The drive system would be replaced with 2 electric drive motors. The 3 person in hull crew would be used, with an auto-loader. Because the turret would extend very little into the hull, all the extra space in the turret the crew would normally take, is replaced with fuel and on board batteries in the hull for silent mode operation. Also, because the crew is removed from the turret, there is no crew access to the turret. The top of the turret can be much better armored for protection against overhead attack. Munitions are loaded from the rear externally, still allowing for blowout design to protect the main hull. The possibility of a more rear and lower mounted 30mm cannon may be a possibility to keep its lower profile, but not sure if a system that size would fit without being too obtrusive. The idea behind the E3, is to make it lighter, quieter, and stealthier while still utilizing the same high end armor to protect the crew.
We can make the box and it’s contents as wonderful as we like in any language but the weakness shown in the Ukraine is the tracks. War will not follow polite opinion in Geneva both sides are out to kill expensively to the enemy. How do designers protect the tracks on the ground better than at the moment? Despite all the overhead whizz bangs tracks are the key. Give us a good analysis of track technology if anyone will give you such current information!
The Raytheon "B Kits" to switch the second gen to 3rd gen IR and all armored vehicles including Abrams car in initial production or in the beginning of full-rate production. So I imagine step three is going to get 3rd gen IR, I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a part of Sep v 3 anyways. That and AMP/Data-link...
So how many of those weight reducing modernizations (fiber optics instead of wiring, etc.) have been incorporated into the M-10? You would think the M-10 would be a testbed for most of them, but it looks decidedly old school on paper.
The point of the M10 was to get something off the shelf and field it ASAP. Maybe if there's a M10A2 we might see something be trialed on it but otherwise no.
Here is my dream list. Switch to hydro-pneumatic, which shrinks the chassis ~4" by removing torsion bars, also allows squatting and leaning of tank. Switch to 3 man tank (0 man turret), smaller, lighter turret. Light weight gun. New diesel, with hybrid power system, coupled with all electric turret controls, which should help thermal signature. Hardkill APS, because ATGM is probably the biggest threat on a modern battlefield, lets be honest. Maybe rubber tracks? Not convinced they would work for a MBT weight vehicle, but it would be worth testing, as the benefits are pretty good. And an idea I have had for a while, a 20-30mm remote weapon system. If it had distance fused rounds, with a dual fuse mode, one for radial frag pattern, one for forward cone pattern, it would DRAMATICALLY improve utility of a tank in urban and trench settings. Laze a trench line, add 1m, sweep the top with frag rounds, job done. Or over a wall, or on a roof, or through a window. Use the forward cone frag pattern to clear vegetation, or swiss cheese light armor, or even blind enemy tanks by destroying optics. Also, if it piggybacked off of the APS radar (or had its own) it could easily pull double duty as an anti-drone weapon, or maybe even a backup APS if it was fast enough. For a no-man turret, I think we have sufficiently advanced cameras that its now reasonable to think that with several pan/tilt/zoom and several fixed cameras, the 3 men in the hull would have similar situational awareness that a manned turret would, and maintain some redundancy. Plus a non-manned turret would take up a lot less internal volume, and save a huge amount of weight in armor. This should also help improve crew suitability, as any top down attack is more likely to aim dead center and there won't be any crew there.
What do you think about the CATTB? I think they're not done with the CATTB yet. According to a report published on MAR, 1989, the turret armor protection on the turret front and crew sides was significantly increased, but the heavy side armor was removed from the bustle, the CATTB also used composite armor for the turret roof over the crew area. Jane's armour and artillery says that the CATTB was still being tested alongside the Future Combat System (FCS) program which ended in 2009, the same book also states that the CATTB is currently stored at TACOM and probably tackling the most in terms of full vehicle function compared to other TACOM vehicle efforts. There's also a TARDEC report from november 1995 that says the following. The M1A3 "tank 1080" is projected to weigh 70 tons (probably empty weight) only because the 140mm gun weight is compensated by a titanium turret, which i suspect refers to the CATTB basic turret structure.
Is it possible the Army isn't 100% sure on exactly which design path ( ie. to what extent turret redesign ) it's going to go down itself and doesn't want to be pinned down too hard in one specific direction? I answer questions about projects I'm working on somewhat vaguely ( 3d modeller ) so I don't have someone a year down the line go 'AH HA! YOU SAID THIS HERE *produces email*' 😃
I mean it's like that for any military project isn't it? Nothing is really concrete until they've made some initial run vehicles and tested them out; look at the long and winding road taken to get to Abrams. Basically my guess is that they're going to keep Abrams and keep upgrading the A2 like we kept the M60 around with upgrades as the Abrams was rolled out and improved (I would not rule out SEP v4 being kept around and reworked) while they figure out what they're going to do an M1A3 (or, just a new tank, but even with that I think they will be looking at an A3 Abrams anyway).
I'm going to go out on a branch. A pretty thin one. I think it's a weight saving thing. I think it's a redesign thing, it's going back to basics and it's doing the rebuild for constructive reasons, modular and adaptable. Reducing the logistics-repair and management footprint. No hydraulics is less chance of fire too. More survivability in other areas. But.... We're still going to have a seventy to seventy five tonne tank. Any and every bit of weight they can save they're going to find a use for. Likely in protection systems and the main cannon. I would put my one dollar down on an autoloader or assisted loading mechanism and a 130mm cannon for the outcome of this. I think with more advanced, sensor fused rounds a lot more people are going to accept heavier vehicles for survivability. I think we might also be seeing more than a few replaces in the ARV/breaching vehicles, assault bridges for extra weight. If you find the weight, clean up the inside and otherwise give her a bit more in the bustle for balance? You're also going to find a use for it.
Maybe a lighter material for the wheels? Aluminum? Or dare I say it, an auto loader to cut down crew numbers? Or specialise each tank? Not all need radar? If there is "high way" mode? Remove the tracka and drive on the wheels? Once in operation or offroading, reinstall the tracks?
I have been shaking my head when I see people saying the Abrams X is the new Abrams when it isn't. The maker of the Demonstrator, I repeat Demonstrator, GDLS said that the Army will like some things and not like others. It is NOT the replacement for the current Abrams.
While I agree with some commentary about a redesign of the turret to properly integrate the pile of *stuff* that has been essentially bolted to the top of the current one, the comment about investment in the industrial base could mean a bunch of other entirely unrelated things. Commentary could just mean "we're shoveling a fat stack of cash to GDLS because it's gonna be fuckin expensive!" Or "we're going to pay to expand production from 10 tanks a month back to the full capacity of 25 tanks a month at this factory to expedite the upgrade once it's finalized." Or "we need to pay to shore up the supply chain because currently an unacceptable amount of components go through Asia and are vulnerable to adversary nation disruption." So that could mean they pay to ensure that their sources of raw materials or components comes from places that are not subject to Chinese/Russian/Whoever's influence or hostile action. There's a lot of yadda yadda yadda in that DIB comment, so I wouldn't read a whole lot into it. But I do agree that there's weight savings to be had, and the turret electronics and hydraulics are a good place to start. I don't think that going to the designed diesel is going to be part of any weight savings effort though. Turbines have amazing power to weight ratios, so if they want to keep that they'll likely stick to a turbine. Turbines are also compact in a way that diesels are not, and so there's a space limitation at play that could mean that the Advanced Combat Engine doesn't see adoption in the M1A3. There are a lot of good, high reliability, highly efficient turbines out there that could fit the bill.
With such an expensive price tag and the highly technical nature of modern tanks, why aren’t tank crews Warrant Officers much like Helicopter Pilots are Warrant Officers. You get an Army of tankers with a massive depth of knowledge and experience on this future tank. We need to stop training new tankers just for them to ETS out of the army 3 years later. Warrants get paid better but have a 10 year ADSO.
I think one thing that should be considered in the design process should be if the materials to build the tank can be sourced nationally or at least continentally, speed of manufacture and price. I think with modern tanks we've sort of forgotten what tanks should be and how they should be used, they're over engineered to their own detriment. It works very, very well when they're so damn well designed and have such a clear cut advantage over their opponent that losses are minimal to non existent in an engagement like in the Gulf war of 1991. But now we know that this tank will not be impervious and that its survivability will be far more dependent on the crews capabilities and the officers who command these formations than it will be dependent on factors such as thermal signature, armor, turret rotation, cannon performance etc. Another thing I would like to see get creative with is tracks! This can be a wonder weapon super tank and as soon as it hits a landmine big enough, the tracks are too damaged or thrown a road wheel gets shattered and it now you have a very expensive bunker that gets abandoned and probably flat out destroyed by the enemy like we're seeing in Ukraine and I get these are slightly "older" tanks like the Leopard 2A6 and Challenger 2, but it wouldn't make a difference if they were KF51's or Challenger 3's because the pattern is the same: A mine or high caliber artillery knocks off a track, the crew reasonably says "we can't stay here, lets bug out", they leave and the vehicle is destroyed by a Koronet or a Lancet and now all of a sudden this isn't a problem that can be solved by towing it back to the workshop for a few days. This would be fine if we were talking about T55's and Shermans, which saw hundreds turned out in a month and were very easy to make in comparison to now, but we're not. The loss of a single Leopard 2 should be seen as an almost unacceptable loss, but it isn't
Material sourcing location is definitely a concern. It has been mentioned by Army personnel in the past that they may occasionally choose an 'inferior' solution simply to help guarantee that the solution will always be available.
The Chieftain has a special gift; the ability to translate Army language into Civilian, a very useful skill. It's much akin to my ability to translate Engineer to English, or other people's ability to translate Legalese into Klingon (it IS translated, but most people still can't understand it).
This ability of his is what makes him stand out the most out of all military TH-camrs. If someone couldn’t translate Army to Civvy well we could have another F-35 situation where the public is woefully misinformed about what its role is.
Last I heard (two weeks ago) the UK has less then 60 fully operational tanks.
Your ability to translate Engineer to English is rivalled only by my ability to learn jargon (I'm a bit hyperlexic).
You wanna know what's _hard_ to learn? The shibboleths (those things that just *are,* and few questions are asked *why).* My God, it is hard to learn the shibboleths. Because if you don't learn them or ask why they exist, you're branded as goofy. If they're part of your "unknown knowns", explaining anything becomes needlessly verbose as you avoid the minefield that is the shibboleths. If you make them part of your "known knowns" (or try), learning anything becomes needlessly complex as you chase down the origin of every meaningless and unrelated thing while others look on, convinced that you're chasing ghosts.
As an American, it makes me smile that we see even our tanks as also overweight.
And its funny cause in Metric Ton and American Short Ton, we're one of the lighter of the heavy chunky MBT's that don't come from say: India . . .
Our tanks have been visiting fast food establishments along with our troops.
I'm a brit ... n have the same problem 😢😂 I'm showing my support for you yanks 😂
@@tyvernoverlord5363 India doesn't design their own vehicles, they buy Russian ones
@@filmandfirearms Arjun and Arjun II is what I was hinting at
I always enjoy TheCheiftain when he puts his Dad Hat on and is all "okay, Internet, settle down and think." :)
I imagine that doing exactly that with all the junior lieutenants in his battalion IS his actual job in the Army.
Opinion of LazerPig has fallen precipitously.
@@Operator8282Older officers are to Officers what NCO's are to Enlisted and Officers
Read Lazerpig's KF thread if you want a laugh.
Designated Tank Dad.
As I recall swapping from copper wire to fiber optics was to save something like 1.5 ton in weight from the previous news reports which can be found.
As a guy who works with that stuff, it might be better to go with copper. Yes, fiber is lighter and you get more throughput but copper is way more robust and we're talking about a tank, not an F-22 Raptor.
But who knows. Maybe they've got a way to protect the fiber, I dunno. I'd be interested in how.
My god.😂 I imagine their 90s tech upgrade was fairly similar to what was in the aircraft, since it's all solid steel and weighs a shit ton. Those old cables were no joke either, it took so much more amperage to get those shits to work
@@tinman3586 tbh, fiber isnt THAT fragile. There is going to be some challenges in design, but its not impossible.
@@PBmask modern fiber cables are actually pretty durable but some Private is going to make it his life mission to break every single one he can see.
@@tinman3586a tank only moves at 1 gee
The M1A1 AIMS was not the predecessor to the M1A2. I participated in the M1A2 IOTE Test in 1991 at Fort Hunter Liggett. The AIM tank came out around 2005 as much of the Army hadn't gotten the M1A2 let alone the SEP version yet. I believe the AIM version was just a stop gap measure. Like the M60A3 was before all units transitioned to the M1. I think Fort Hood was all SEP v1 by the time many units were getting the AIM tank or maybe we at Fort Riley were just that far behind 🤣.
You are correct in terms that AIMS was not a successor vehicle, (I received mine off the production line in about 2007) but I don't believe that the underlying A2 technology is any different. I focused on AIMS because I am certain about it
It's interesting to get this on the same day as Perun putting out his video about how incentives surrounding decision makers affect defense procurement. That line about investing in the plants, it isn't only a way for your local congressman to buy votes by keeping jobs in his district that literally cannot be outsourced to China.
Don't forget about all the contract kickbacks that it's going to provide, too.
It’s also just a strategic national decision. These tank plants need something to do, and if they go out of business we lose a strategically important industry that will take a long time to restart and upscale.
Emutopia needs them tanks!
@@Appletank8 We need them tanks, don't fool yourself.
Comment on the "Why now?" question. Looking at the tension rising in Asia the logistic footprint suddenly makes quite a bit more sense. Possibly hinting that the same design principles that made Sherman a good tank for America during the second world war needing to be reconsidered for the current M1
Also, lessons learned from the big AFV testing ground that is Ukraine. Challenger 2s and Leopard 2s have been lost, and the tanks are out fighting tank battles instead of plinking unaware Iraqis from miles away in a desert, or blowing the tops off minarets to deal with the sniper in it.
@@Skorpychan Yes some have been lost, but they have been lost to either mines and then artillery, mines and then atgm or drone and then artillery. I haven't seen any footage yet of any western tank given to Ukraine being taken out directly by another tank. They are all imobilised first, engaged with artillery or ATGM second. Which any tank, regardless of quality, nation of design, or any other variable, would be equally vulnerable too.
50,000 Sherman tanks were built in WWII (around 5 years time span). Over 5,000 M1 tanks were built in the last 30 years. There were around 18 different variants built on the M4 Sherman tank. How many versions are there on the M1?
@@robmx2324so if we send every M1 ever built to China, we will only be outnumbered by what, about 4 to one?
@@robmx2324 The last 30 years have been the post-Cold War era of unipolar peace and conventional military drawdown aka. the Peace dividend. Use a better example
The torsion bar suspension is heavy! Each station weighs around 1 metric tons, so that's around 7 tons. Replacing it with hydropneumatic inarm suspension would save around 3-4 tons. Such suspension from Textron and General Dynamics was tested back in the 90s. Today the GD suspension is owned by RENK America, and is readily available.
Pretty sure that's what the new M10 has.
@@TheMeepster72you’re not wrong
Better have room for googly eyes on the turret just saying
In honor of you, I promise that if the Army ever sees fit to assign another vehicle to me, I shall put googly eyes on it
Note: Italian Army had its "common combat engine" thing.
the VCC80 Dardo IFV and Centauro-1 had the same IVECO 6-cylinders, the C-1 Ariete tank has two 6-cylinders bolted togheter to make a 12-cylinders.
Thats genious
@@alexisXcore93 Not really, it's a pretty standard concept. The problem is always in actually implementing it. By their nature, you rarely end up replacing your light and heavy vehicles at the same time, so the likelihood of the engine being relevant for both when needed is pretty low. Italy is a small enough country that they can do it, but major nations can't. For example, the BMP has been using the same engine since its introduction. It's good enough, and there hasn't been reason to significantly change the chassis, so why change it? In that time, Russia has also changed their MBT several times over, even trying a turbine in the T-80. A T-62 engine in a T-90 or T-80 simply wouldn't do
As to electronics vs. hydraulics, I believe that SpaceX switched from hydraulics to electronics for engine gimbaling. Which presumably requires a lot of force and accuracy. So probably another indication that the M-1 would do just fine with the electric controlled turret.
I very much suspect you're right and the electrics will be totally fine, but there are important differences as well. Failure is quite a different scenario, after all:
-I think the engines gimbal independently? So if you lose gimbals on one engine, you can compensate with the others pretty easily. If you have the choice between nine engines with nine gimballing systems each of which is 99.2% reliable, versus a heavier system that is 99.5% reliable, and you can fly just fine with seven out of nine gimbals working... You'd probably pick the lighter one, y'know? (Play with the numbers until you get a number of nines acceptable for crewed flight, of course). But if it's a single point of failure instead of a "we can lose three, no problem, but four might cost us some missions and losing six could kill someone," the math changes, right?
-The consequences of partial failure are different. A slow or off-calibration gimbal on some engines while others are working fine probably means you can't use those gimbals. A slow or off-calibration turret rotation system is still very much better than no power traverse. So if the electrics are more likely to die all at once, while the hydraulics are more likely to start to fail a little at a time, that might be worth a little more weight even though the top-line "reliability" statistic is similar.
And the electric actuators seem far better in terms of functionality. Don't know about reliability, but I doubt it's bad. Also, do you know if the flaps use electric or hydraulic actuators?
@@trioptimum9027it’s pretty catastrophic if a Falcon-9 booster is landing and the one engine it’s using for thrust loses gimbal control. Combat systems and space systems are different but they are both hard fields.
@@henrikoldcorn Oh, absolutely! I was just pointing out that the challenges are different, not that one set are easier than the other. One could say the same about space systems and other space systems, for that matter. (And yeah, you could absolutely lose a booster that way... But it wouldn't cost you the mission. Might be an acceptable risk, depending on the other factors.)
@@trioptimum9027 Properly engineered electrics are always going to beat hydraulics, you just have to do the work. Smaller, faster, stronger, more efficient. Can be redundant.
I saw a few miniature models of M1E3 concepts at an Army Futures Command display. They all had new turrets and two hatches in the front hull.
As a former merkava 4 gunner and commander, electric works just fine, better than hydraulics that we had on the mark two, in every possible way.
Engineering people should know this.
I love the Merkava 4! Such an innovative Tank, also the only operational tank with APS!
God bless the mighty Merkava! ❤
Most of what I know of the Merkava comes from it being the main battle tank of the us military in 2035 in Arma 3 for some absurd reason lol.
Well, the Merkava was designed by actual tankers. Many tank designers around the world are mostly designed by engineers. IMO, I rather have tankers input than an engineer.
This is the BEST breakdown of what the considerations are in designing the M1 series replacement that can fight and survive on today's battlefield I have heard. Thank you Sir!
I do have a few questions because I did not hear this directly addressed.
What are the options for addressing main gun effective range and target detection?
Will they be using the current main gun and fire control system?
Will the ability to detect an enemy first by passive means be addressed as well?
Is a main gun tube launched missile system being considered?
Will main gun rounds, with improved effective ranges, be developed as well?
I can understand not saying anything in detail about these things but lethal effective range, target detection range, and observability of the tanks surrounding for the crew are important which I know you more aware of than me.
I hope these things are also being addressed with earnest attempts are realistic improvements.
Thank you for the knowledge you share Sir.
Electric powered turrets didn’t hurt Leopard 2 tanks during the Canadian Army Trophy (CAT) competitions.
on the leo2a6 the electronics had a tendency to overheat in hot weather and heavy load. its fixed with the a7 though.
A Hybrid diesel/electric main engine would make sense...Technology has come a long way since the Tiger P (porsche). Electric motors have brutal torque from the moment they start and a massive powerband, which is perfect for quickly moving a tank to speed.
I've read commentary from other tankers that, while safer, the L2A6 electric turret is more challenging to control with precision. Old sports car vs. new electric steering sports car type comparison...just one guy's opinion tho
@@jaeger1447 Likely quieter than the hydraulic pump sounds in the Abrams
He never said that electrics were bad, infact he brought up "the germans" as an example of tanks that used electric turret systems that worked.
What he did say, however, was that 15 years ago, the hydraulic systems gave more precise control. He also said that it should be looked into if modern electrical systems still have this problem or not, and if not, replacing the hydraulic systems would drop at least 1 ton of weight, if not more.
Gotta love that DoD word salad, I'm always amazed how they manage to say so much while simultaneously actually communicating very little.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This whole argument over how to update M1 Abrams really reminds me of the arguments over how to replace M60 back in the day.
For decades, the Army just couldn't find a "new" tank that really was more cost-effective than sticking upgraded modules in the M60. We went through several promising vehicles that came close to replacing M60 before M1 finally was adopted, but every one was too complicated, unreliable, expensive, or otherwise unsuitable compared to M60.
Seems like we are in the same situation now with M1. Every time someone says "we really need a new tank entirely that efficiently integrates all the technologies we have and want," someone points out that it is just cheaper and easier to put a better computer or whatever on/in M1.
Until someone actually proves M1 is not cost-effective in battle, it looks like we will indeed be retaining M1 for years to come.
Well, as soon as M1 arrives to Ukraine you might get some interesting data from the field.
@@TheoEvian Maybe that's a real reason for sending them. If Abrams tank will do fine, it will stay in service for another decade. If it will explode immediately in the first battle it took, like Leopard or Challenger, probably it's time to create a new tank from scratch.
@@dm1i Attrition is a fact of war, and an Abrams is no less vulnerable to artillery tan a Leo or Challenger.
@@leonfa259 Exactly, but still, military needs a real proof to use as an argument.
Abrams is kinda more resistant from indirect artillery hits than Leopard actually, because latter has very thin armor on the sides compared to Abrams tank and all Soviet tanks.
Nothing can survive a more or less direct hit though. This requires some kind of new powerful APS for the tanks.
If metamaterials continue their improvement, we could finally see a replacement for the Abrams. But only because the new tank hull will be made of entirely new alloys and so it becomes cheaper to build new hulls, since they don't make new Abrams hulls anymore.
Honeywell also pitched a 2100? Horsepower turbine that makes something like 7000lbf of torque at peak while using less fuel than the 1500.
It doesn't help when you can track the tanks heat signature from satellites. This was proven in the gulf War, it's time to move away from the gas turbine tank.
My uneducated guess is they won’t go for an unmanned turret. Maybe a two man turret with auto loader, but not something AbramsX style.
This seems like a good medium approach between the more minimal, short term SEP v4 and the wholesale replacement program that’s been in the background for years. With the v4 cancelled and this announced I’m rather expecting the NGCV’s Decisive Lethality Platform to be cancelled or quietly shelved for another decade or more.
Agreed, so like Commander, driver, gunner and drone operator or something like that and a cassette autoloader like on the leclerc (besides the drone operator)?
@@Yuki_Ika7 Putting a drone operator in a tank doesn’t make sense.
@@Yuki_Ika7 Probably either 3-man with commander and gunner in the turret and an autoloader, or 4-man like they have now. I don't see them trying to add space and weight for a drone operator with their focus on weight reduction. Better to store more fuel, armor, ammunition or something like that. I don't really know what they'll go for, just making a guess at it
Thanks for hit'n with them straight facts, Chieftain. You're the GOAT for a reason.
Small detail i dont think you'll see in the comments
Its not just opposed piston
Its opoc, opposed piston opposed chamber
The pistons fire against eachother its super cool
The Army will pass on it. They've been gutless about major decisions regarding MBTs for decades. Look up the AIPS program from the 80s.
@RobertLutece909 What went operational, and they got burned on?
That's a very dumb design simply because if one cylinder block goes down you lose two Pistons and believe me there's been times on my truck that a cylinder has just stop firing and then it runs like shit now imagine a tank, a tank that weighs 70 tons, losing two cylinders instead of one . Ya no, I really hope they stick with their turbines
So, like a boxer engine?
That's just a 1960s VW Bug engine... Also, aircraft have been using Flay-4 and Flat-6 engines for a few decades...
This Video shows the value of this channel. Just the chieftain infront of a tank putting things into perspective.
I was wondering why there wasnt a program for a truly "new" tank in the works in the US, now that seems to be settled.
As someone that worked on tanks back in the 80's and has been working on industrial controls up until now this is a good thing. As good as the M1 is it would be so much better to green field the new MBT. Now they do not need to go crazy but take everything that works and start from the ground up for it to be in the system. If there is a better power plant use it, better main gun use it. In the end just do not lose sight of the fact that everything breaks and war is hard on equipment.
Those old terminals are like a block of solid steel. Just a 6"x6" screen and casings gotta be a few hundred lbs😂😂 i'd love to know how much the tech gutting weighs, id make a guess with the aircraft but tanks I got no clue
Great breakdown! Which finally! A new frontline tank seems pretty important and was kicked down the road for so long that the Air force and navy will both have their new toys long before the army has a new tank...
Found your channel from a kind commenter who shouted it out on a Variety video. Glad I found you.
Excellent. Welcome aboard! (Didn't think Variety covered defense matters)
@TheChieftainsHatch Haha you're right. It was Insider. Not sure why I thought it was Variety.
Nicholas , thank you for an informative video , as always 👍Keep up doing awesome content! Greetings from Ukraine ! 🩵💛
Could you give a possible explanation of why the Army used the nomenclature "SEP V1, V2, V3" instead of using M1A2E2, M1A2E3, M1A2E4?
I think the SEP was the name of the upgrade package, like TUSK.
@@redbasher636Cause like the MBT program itself going back to 1992, the Army is very confused about a future MBT. Assuming it even wants one.
"E" is used for experimental modifications, not fielded equipment. If the M1E3 is accepted, it will become the M1A3. The SEP variants are considered upgrade packages for the M1A2 rather than modifications to the base tank.
because this denotes the vehicle itself and upgrades it has been though.
The same way as:
M60 (vehicle) A3 (modification) TTS (upgrade package)
M2 (vehicle) A2 (modification) ODS SA (upgrade package)
M60 (vehicle) A1 (modification) RISE (upgrade package)
M109 (vehicle) A6 (modification) PIM (upgrade package)
etc.
'E' used in that way means some kind of modification to the hull that is a change to the hull that is big enough to make it different but not big enough to justify being a different production model (the 'A'). The SEPs are upgrade packages that are addons- they can (and probably are) put on or taken off as needed, but either way the M1A2 under is the same as an M1A2 without it.
We're probably not going to see another M#A#E# something because doing modifications like that is at best a bit confusing for logistics. As far as I know the only times we did that was during WWII and the Korean Tank Scare because we were willing to put up with logistics hiccups if it meant we could have more factory lines producing more tanks, even if they had differences (and even then not every difference justified a different designation).
Until there's a tank in front of me, I take all these announcements with a tablespoon of salt. You never know when Congress decides for new defense budget cuts. Thanks for the update though, breaking it down piece by piece was helpful.
Plus the Army has spent almost 30 years spending $BB on "new army vehicle fleet strategy". Cancelled it twice.
@@jimmiller5600 If you think it's just FCS and then GCV, you've missed ASM from 1990.
@@UmHmm328 My gawd, I skipped one. Anytime I laugh until I bleed at the F-35 fiasco somebody mentions the Zumwalt, LCS and Ford. So you're telling me that the Army is 0-3-0, while the Navy is 0-2-1 and the AF is 0-0-1 and therefore the winner with a single tie?
@jimmiller5600 The Army is minimum 0-3 on just vehicle programs. Comanche, anyone?
@@RobertLutece909 But tanks may be way down the priority list. Economic warfare is way more economically successful.
thanks, Nick, for another great video on current military maters, making sense of the press releases and giving us insight to the true "world of tanks."
Awesome as usual....we're lucky you're still here & functioning ...stay healthy!!! 😁😀🙂
The other issue with the Abrams is that, for reasons I don't understand, the weight and the bridge rating diverge dramatically above 70 tons. So a SEPV3 with FP kit, APS and ballast weights 81.43 tons but needs a 104 Military Load Classification bridge. Which is why the MLC of new bridging the army is buying seems so absurdly high.
The question that hasn't been asked is why not start a new program to build a tank from the ground up instead of a major upgrade that has the potential to replace almost everything within the M1 hull?
@@billyparker5974 I agree, and they get cancelled because the Pentagon had completely lost it's ability to control development costs. This way they will lose SOME of their wish list when the costs spiral out of control, but still end up with a (less capable) vehicle.
find the ForgottenWeapons video about the Fusil Automatique RSC M1917.
The French Army fielded that as an upgrade kit from Lebel.
You took the lebel, throw it away except the front band and a couple of bits, add the bits to the RCS and, presto, here is a cheap, upgraded rifle way more economical than a brand new rifle.
This M1E1 sounds more or less the same: it keep maybe the hull-thub and the return rollers (or the greasepump track tensioning, much to Chieftain disdain), everything else is something new.
But is just a budget-reasonable upgrade, not a totally new tank program, in the PR leaflet.
@@billyparker5974 I also think they are worried about development time. This would probably much cheaper and faster to implement. If the US gov is worried about a war with China in the next ten years, cutting back on the weight and logistical support needed for an abrams would help ease alot of concerns.
Lol bit of a Freudian slip at 13:17 🤣
Great video Chieftain
Informative and interesting as always! Thanks for posting another great video.
While I'm sure they've thought about it already, I'm wondering why if they are looking at service past 2040 and are already looking at the cost of retooling production for significantly redesigned components, are they not looking into a clean-sheet design that puts forth everything we have learned about MBT design and expected capability? Surely a design from the 2020s would be more relevant on the 2050 battlefield than a remake of a design from the 1970s?
My guess is this prospective M1A3 is a middle ground between a short term, less expensive SEP v4 package and a long term, much more expensive totally new platform. The Abrams hull is still solid, so as long as everything can still fit inside (and there aren’t any signs yet that it can’t, as long as the internal systems are replaced as he describes) there’s not much advantage in designing a new hull, with the time and cost that would require. Even if they replace the turret with something completely new most of the hull will still be pretty much the same
Because if they start trying to build a new tank, it'll be ready for the 2050 battlefield in 2070 or so.
at least TWICE in this video, the (auto-generated?) captions have transformed "They aren't saying" into "They are insane" which is a HELL OF A BIG CHANGE... I don't know if Nick can fix this, but it definitely needs fixed if possible.
AbramsX honestly seems like the most logical choice however the Army needs to decide if they want to go to a fully unmanned turret or a manned turret. The former seems more sensible since it would reduce the most weight. Also more weight could be shaved off if they replace the interior of the turret which is optionally manned with more systems or delete it entirely and save more weight.
Keep in mind AbramsX was a technology demonstrator so whatever the army gets would likely look drastically different. AbramsX was essentially “hey look what we can do if you anted us to”. As for unmanned turrets, from someone who has talked to German soldiers, and 2CR guys with dragoons I’ve heard nothing but hate for them, the ability to have direct access to the gun and the tc to be able to pop his head out and look around from what I’ve heard outweighs the advantages. This is all conjecture but I personally believe we will see something with an auto loader, as robotics have sky rocketed in the past 5 years in capability.
@@anonymous-ml8sl The thing with unmannned turrets and the crew comforts was already known before they were adopted in the various militaries. The goal of unmanned turrets is to make the vehicle safer, something which soldiers in general service generally don't notice, as they aren't shot at with HEAT shells that impact their turret. The fact that with unmanned turrets you can completely isolate the crew from anything explosive is incredible, if you care about the lives of your soldiers.
And I as a German generally have heard nice things about the Puma. The soldiers may often complain about it, but the complaints I hear are less about the unmanned turret and more general vehicle design. Complaints I hear are mostly about the small turret magazine (you need to reload after 200 30mm rounds), overengineering and over-complication, plus bad training about how to repair the vehicles.
@@anonymous-ml8sl well autoloaders have never really been complex it's just a simple ramming arm however the MGS made it needlessly complex. Having access to the gun is largely unnecessary because if there was an issue that required the crew to open up the autoloader in combat it's more likely they would simply break contact and RTB for repairs than waste time trying to manually load the gun.
However the main reason the commander would want to stick his head out of his hatch is to guide the driver but AbramsX has a back up camera so the crew has full situational awareness. Both M1 TTB and T-14 were well received by their test crews and there isn't any mention of the commander feeling he was blind or didn't have good vision. But people have been debating this for decades with things like gunners auxiliary sights which most modern designs of the 21st century have since deleted.
@@nemisous83there's a lot more in terms of situational awareness you get from having the TC with their head out the turrent, than just easier reversing. Having full use of your peripheral vision, as well you're other senses (sound, smell, feel do in fact subtly inform a TC's awareness of the surroundings) there's a reason why a TC today is very rarely fully "buttoned up" in the turret, they'll have their head out the hatch more often than not.
I would he very surprised if the Army goes for an unmanned turret. Going to an autoloader and 3 man crew seems more likely, although that would also necessitate larger changes in a tank units MTOE, as the Army also currently seems to regard 4 crewmen to be the minimum for reliable field maintenance and watch, plus many tanks will at times be a crew man down due to illness, injury, leave, training needs, etc. Chieftain has been a big advocate for mirroring French armor formations which attach full time dismounts riding in trucks to the formation, who aid in repair, keeping watch, and other field duties.
@@grgr105 sure it may protect the crew… but I’d much rather be able to access my gun and get it up if it malfunctions to engage the enemy rather than climb out to fix the damn thing. But I’m bises as hell since I’m a brad guy. As for German troops complaining, I got the privilege to watch a puma gunnery and I noticed that the gun malfunctioned multiple times and they had to expose themselves in order to fix it. After talking with the crew afterwards he went on to complain about how every time the gun malfunctions he has to be exposed. Now all cannons like this malfunction the difference is in my Bradley I’m protected inside my vehicle and have complete and easy access to my gun to get it back in the fight asap. That’s just my experience and two cents on it
Thank you.
Former Abrams mechanic and I'd be interested to see what the maintenance is like on an electric vs hydraulic turret system, sounds like it'd be a lot easier than dealing with hydraulic fluid lines. And as to the weight and recovery, we had an m1 aims ed flip upside down in a canal in iraq and sink in the mud. It took 5 m88s and a week to get it out and it tied up damn near a company's worth of personnel. Those extra tons make their presence known and if that tank was an a2 we'd probably have had to thermite it and leave it
Damn. Bridge collapse under it? (I hope the crew got out! My great uncle died in Korea that way, bridge collapsed and his Sherman ended up upside down in a river.)
Abrams X = test bed demonstrator.
simplest way of putting it.
I'm just kinda excited to see what they come up with. In my lifetime the U.S. hasn't rolled out a new MBT, and while this is still an Abrams I think it will be fun to see.
Interesting. I suspect the war in Ukraine is making many weapons designers go back to their drawing board. Coping with drones and things like a Lancet missile have to be high on the list.
I don't know about that. Is a lancet or any other conventional loitering munition (which is to say, not using an exotic mode of attack) substantially different than, say, an atgm with a top-attack profile? At least from the perspective of the designer, who isn't necessarily having to account for the secondary factors of drone delivered weapons (such as the moral impact of pervasive, airborne individually directed explosive devices). It seems they have much the same requirements as they had before - how to keep the explosions going out of the tank rather than into it. If anything, they could improve in Ukraine by doubling down - being more armoured/protected and having more powerful guns/munitions, since they have proved most viable at stand-off ranges acting like massive sniper rifles.
Now if you were talking about strategists and planners, or even designers working on other categories of systems, your point stands more confidently.
@@sir_vix Top attack is at least somewhat predictable, but consider that FPV kamikaze drones can impact literally anywhere on the tank at any angle. That could be important.
Otherwise, tanks now need to have some EW and radio surveillance tools built in IMO, as well as their own drones.
@@sir_vix I think Lancets and Vikhr missiles or similar long ranged ATGM systems are a major threat any system designer needs to think about. Certainly as you say keeping the explosion outside the tank is desirable. Also desirable is some way of knocking them down before they reach the tank. I think it is just a matter of time before we start seeing large flocks of networked anti vehicle (or anti air) drones with an AI controller drone somewhere in the middle or edge of the swarm selecting targets based on heat signature or other detection methods. No on the ground human controller, independent once launched until the fuel is expended..
The only way to protect a tank nowadays is the APS. And it should be a new APS, current version of Trophy is not sufficient enough.
not sure.
I'm pretty confident that an anti-drone/loiter ammo WAS on the drawing board from long ago.
The russian aggression to Ukraine is finally ringing the bell.
Armies need the budget to take that thing from floating around drawing boards and prototypes into a real system fielded on every tank, and as soon as possible.
thanks yet again
These videos always generate a large amount of questions.
When the design is finalised does it become M1A3 or retain the E
M1A3 has been a designation that's been mentioned for ~35 yrs. Operation Turtle
I believe it switches to A when it is adopted as a "standard".
It becomes the M1A3 or the M1A2 something or other like how the M4A3E3 officially became the M4A3(76)W HVSS when it was accepted.
In theory E is experimental A is accepted for service, but it's been a while since the army actually abided by its official naming conventions
It should be M1A3
10:35 that subtle burn on Moskva❤
I can appreciate the weight and cost saving of switching from copper to fibre optics. It would make all sub systems faster as well because of the quicker electronic "talking" to one another. As old as the Abrams is, it is high time they did a ground up change as opposed to the long string of add ons. I can't imagine a long list of bolt on upgrades is the most efficient way of doing things especially when redundant communication devices have to be installed. I think E3 is really the way to go.
This is neat to hear, someone who translates military PR into civilian speak and focus not only what is said but what Isn't. But the idea of the E3 being a complete gutting of the Abrams makes sense, the advantage is that older Abrams can be gutted and refitted so production can focus on the new components while the older ones can be recycled while keeping the tanks in active service.
One of the easiest ways of reducing logistics issues is to upgrade the entire service and immediate reserve fleet to the same spec..
The Chieftain makes the murky clear.
13:17 Haha, that got a good chuckle out of me!
A lot of the ideas to save weight sound like they would also reduce the logistical footprint in other ways. Fiber optic cables, electronic parts, etc.
83 Tons?
The British Army reckons that is a rookie number!
Future tank needs be able to hover over mines and a rail gun
Depending on how far the Army wants to deviate from the current M1, we might see them going for an autoloader with the M1E3. I doubt it will be an unmanned turret or an external cannon though, so a two-man turret if they do decide take the autoloader route. However I am almost certain they will end up using a hybrid engine like the one demonstrated in the AbramsX. A hybrid engine would go a long way in reducing fuel consumption and hence the logistical footprint, plus it has plenty of tactical advantages too.
Great video, Nick...👍
Fiber optic would be a better replacement for hydraulic controls. It’s more resilient than electric and lighter still.
We are talking about Motors rapidly moving a multi ton armoured box
Fiber optics isn’t the same as copper. So it depends on what they would be swapping. Fiber is good for communications, but I highly doubt they would have over a ton of copper just for communications. Most of that would be for power, and for that, you can’t substitute fiber.
Hope to god it'll called M1A3
M1A2E3 would be funny
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Give it a while and they'd have the M1A2E3V4
@@sIightIybored A worthy opponent to the Leopard 2A10V5 Ausf. G (130mm) and T-90UBMV
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Please dont bloody encourage them or give them any ideas.
If they choose to follow the army nomenclature system the E stands for experimental modification version, then after it is approved it would get an A number as those mean its Successive approved modifications (A1, A2, A3, etc.)
The hybrid powertrain should also help with reducing the weight...
"Why is this being done now?" The US federal government has no budget limit until 01 Jan 2025.
Alright guys over 300 watching but only 11 thumbs up! Hit the button!
No
I've hit the like button, then it apparently blanked out when I clicked away from the video. I've started double-checking.
For weight not mentioned
- Suspension : High-hardness-steel torsion bars to ISU = 2-3 Tons
- Tracks : Steel --> Rubber = 1-2 Tons
The Chieftain is standing in front of the American response to the T-14. The armor is made of depleted Vibranium, the gun will penetrate 6000mm of RHA at 1.3 parsecs and we are going to build 12.000 of them.
See Russian fanboys, two can play this game.
Win!
The absolute lamest comment I have seen in some time. That is the "win".
Love the random drip pan under the track
A bit unrelated but do you plan on doing more Switchology videos? I loved those
basically the army Generals walked up to politicians, pointed to the Russo-Ukraine war and said "see, our predictions were right" and the politicians proceeded to hand over the money the army had been asking for over the past 3 years.
14:50 I suspect this is because they might not be entirely sure either way right now.
Wasn't there also a proposal to use more, smaller roadwheels with longer travel? IIRC that proposal also saved something like 1-2 tons.
Fantastic video thank you.
Make sure that any upgrade modules are fully tested, running and fit into the space before they do any design changes. Also, make sure the level of contractor MRO is minimised/ Removed entirely to maximise MRO availability! The US Navy's LCS program Disaster of squeezing a quart into a pint pot is a case study and it sounds like the Army is trying to do the same thing!
13:18 sounds about right.
But, good news for Lima?
Grief I'm old.. remember when it was just m1 with a 105mm gun
I still think the future of ground combat is automated/unmanned vehicles.
Replacing tanks/IFV's/APC's and combat soldiers.
But, in case it isn't?
Thanks for this.
Very interesting.
Easy to understand.
☮
Unmanned remote controlled vehicles, suffer from being targeted by Electronic Warfare. Autonomic vehicles may be hacked and aren't really working reliably enough yet.
Still I think you are mostly right, an APC that controls a number of partially automatic remote vehicles the size of a Wiesel tanktet seams like the future and already possible.
I understand the need for protected direct firepower, but Wiesel like 4 ton remote tank with a 20mm, a javelin and a sensor suite that can call in accurate artillery should be able to do nearly everything that a tank does at a tenth the price. And if 1-2 million is still to expensive, than a pickup truck with an AP, AT, or AA weapon system in the back might come in at below 200k.
A solider in a western military I would estimate at 1 million on average (20 years * 50k/year).
If Ukraine tough us anything it is that a 20+ million high tech tank burns just as well as a 500k t55 when hit by artillery. So to win we need tens of thousands of systems.
@leonfa259 I agree with all of that. Well said.
The Russians have apparently taken down TONS of drones with electronic interference. So, better protection in that area is needed. Superior Faraday Cage's, perhaps.
And you hit the nail on the head with the rest of it. I love the little Wiesel's. And why risk huge numbers of human soldiers when remote-controlled vehicles can do the job?
Finally, throughout this video - as you said - I am thinking of how tanks are getting obliterated in Ukraine. Even Leopard 2A6's. I am not sure building 80 ton monsters that cost $12 million dollars are good value for the money any longer. Seems artillery and ATGM's are the way to go. And I doubt even Trophy can defeat all of those systems.
Just like battleships ended up having to be just ridiculously huge to protect themselves. The same seems to be happening to tanks.
I personally think their future is limited.
Don't tell The Chieftain, though.
✌️
@@McRocket The problem with drones that are attacked by EW is usually that they loose communication and GPS, a Faraday cage doesn't help against that.
But by using EW the Russians also deny the airspace to their own low tech drones too. Loosing 10,000 drones a month isn't really that big of an issue since they are still cheaper than a single western tank.
At the end of the day it seams to be mostly about finding the enemy and delivering a munition, both ideally as cheaply, frequently and quickly as possible.
Well, to save weight titanium could be a solution. Twenty years ago titanium was only used for critical parts in an aircraft, but now it's used more extensively such as not just the frame but the entire body including a thick titanium "bath tub" surrounding the pilot. So a pure titanium turret and body may be feasible, and using titanium for running gear could save a ton or two as well. The cost has also decreased from what it was twenty years ago, and using titanium as an alloy is certainly a possibility. A lighter, more fuel efficient diesel might save weight but as you said the newer turbines are much improved. The one thing we probably won't see is aluminum armor, though lighter ceramic armor will definitely be in the cards, especially on the roof!
It needs a Gau-21 with a weapons radar like the BAE MK 38 has, only with a .50 Cal MP round, (or 20mm if you must insist, but I doubt that's practicable.) Maybe Orbital ATK can come up with something.
Anyone who jumps into a perfectly good recruiter bus is completely insane, but sometimes you gotta do these things. 😅
LTC. What is being done in the mean time to upgrade the Abrams for top cover of the turrets and engine decks? This drone thing is getting a bit dicey? Thank you. SSG. RET
The current answer is air defense units and electronic warfare. The long-term solution is hemispherical protection on the vehicle itself in addition to the above.
Australia was supposed to get sepv4 version but this decision may affect this.
I think their they are going all implementations you said and for the turret the one of abrams x with bustle autoader but not remote operated but opertaed with two man crews like the Leclerc Tank turret and the K2 black panther turret that copy Leclerc ones ( the only ones that not copy Leclerc turet design and have butsle autoloader are the japanese with type 90 and type 10 and for that ones i not 100% sure that not be the case because the Leclerc program was starting in early 70's before even type 90 program )
As usual, the information in the Army document is like being on the parade field for a Div. Change of Command in August... 10-12 GO's, SES's and who's who giving their speeches. But not really saying much.
So when you getting your star... 😁
BTW: I think you will be a great one, I've known quite a few of them, and a acquaintance who turned down his star to retire.
Kidding aside, good breakdown on the next generation tanks.
The E3 may be what I figured a number of years ago. The Abrams-X actually had the Cummins ACE as a potential powerplant. The E3 may actually be the "turbo-electric" version envisioned over a decade ago. The transmission would be removed, and the turbine would be relegated as a an ultra high speed direct driven generator deeply mounted further into the chassis for a lower thermal signature. The drive system would be replaced with 2 electric drive motors. The 3 person in hull crew would be used, with an auto-loader. Because the turret would extend very little into the hull, all the extra space in the turret the crew would normally take, is replaced with fuel and on board batteries in the hull for silent mode operation.
Also, because the crew is removed from the turret, there is no crew access to the turret. The top of the turret can be much better armored for protection against overhead attack. Munitions are loaded from the rear externally, still allowing for blowout design to protect the main hull. The possibility of a more rear and lower mounted 30mm cannon may be a possibility to keep its lower profile, but not sure if a system that size would fit without being too obtrusive. The idea behind the E3, is to make it lighter, quieter, and stealthier while still utilizing the same high end armor to protect the crew.
We can make the box and it’s contents as wonderful as we like in any language but the weakness shown in the Ukraine is the tracks. War will not follow polite opinion in Geneva both sides are out to kill expensively to the enemy. How do designers protect the tracks on the ground better than at the moment? Despite all the overhead whizz bangs tracks are the key. Give us a good analysis of track technology if anyone will give you such current information!
thanks for the vid!
So when we're talking replacing hydraulics do we mean swapping them out for ultra modern servos?
The Raytheon "B Kits" to switch the second gen to 3rd gen IR and all armored vehicles including Abrams car in initial production or in the beginning of full-rate production. So I imagine step three is going to get 3rd gen IR, I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a part of Sep v 3 anyways. That and AMP/Data-link...
Why the change from M1A-numberto M1E-number? I have more questions but I suspect they may be answered in the first question.
So how many of those weight reducing modernizations (fiber optics instead of wiring, etc.) have been incorporated into the M-10? You would think the M-10 would be a testbed for most of them, but it looks decidedly old school on paper.
The point of the M10 was to get something off the shelf and field it ASAP. Maybe if there's a M10A2 we might see something be trialed on it but otherwise no.
Here is my dream list. Switch to hydro-pneumatic, which shrinks the chassis ~4" by removing torsion bars, also allows squatting and leaning of tank. Switch to 3 man tank (0 man turret), smaller, lighter turret. Light weight gun. New diesel, with hybrid power system, coupled with all electric turret controls, which should help thermal signature. Hardkill APS, because ATGM is probably the biggest threat on a modern battlefield, lets be honest. Maybe rubber tracks? Not convinced they would work for a MBT weight vehicle, but it would be worth testing, as the benefits are pretty good.
And an idea I have had for a while, a 20-30mm remote weapon system. If it had distance fused rounds, with a dual fuse mode, one for radial frag pattern, one for forward cone pattern, it would DRAMATICALLY improve utility of a tank in urban and trench settings. Laze a trench line, add 1m, sweep the top with frag rounds, job done. Or over a wall, or on a roof, or through a window. Use the forward cone frag pattern to clear vegetation, or swiss cheese light armor, or even blind enemy tanks by destroying optics. Also, if it piggybacked off of the APS radar (or had its own) it could easily pull double duty as an anti-drone weapon, or maybe even a backup APS if it was fast enough.
For a no-man turret, I think we have sufficiently advanced cameras that its now reasonable to think that with several pan/tilt/zoom and several fixed cameras, the 3 men in the hull would have similar situational awareness that a manned turret would, and maintain some redundancy. Plus a non-manned turret would take up a lot less internal volume, and save a huge amount of weight in armor. This should also help improve crew suitability, as any top down attack is more likely to aim dead center and there won't be any crew there.
I absolutely love the look of the tank Chieftain is standing in front of. Don't know anything about it other than it looks great.
M1 TTB
What do you think about the CATTB? I think they're not done with the CATTB yet.
According to a report published on MAR, 1989, the turret armor protection on the turret front and crew sides was significantly increased, but the heavy side armor was removed from the bustle, the CATTB also used composite armor for the turret roof over the crew area.
Jane's armour and artillery says that the CATTB was still being tested alongside the Future Combat System (FCS) program which ended in 2009, the same book also states that the CATTB is currently stored at TACOM and probably tackling the most in terms of full vehicle function compared to other TACOM vehicle efforts.
There's also a TARDEC report from november 1995 that says the following. The M1A3 "tank 1080" is projected to weigh 70 tons (probably empty weight) only because the 140mm gun weight is compensated by a titanium turret, which i suspect refers to the CATTB basic turret structure.
Is it possible the Army isn't 100% sure on exactly which design path ( ie. to what extent turret redesign ) it's going to go down itself and doesn't want to be pinned down too hard in one specific direction?
I answer questions about projects I'm working on somewhat vaguely ( 3d modeller ) so I don't have someone a year down the line go 'AH HA! YOU SAID THIS HERE *produces email*' 😃
Personally, I think you're probably right. They probably only have a "pretty good idea" of what they're gonna do--subject to change. LOL
I mean it's like that for any military project isn't it? Nothing is really concrete until they've made some initial run vehicles and tested them out; look at the long and winding road taken to get to Abrams.
Basically my guess is that they're going to keep Abrams and keep upgrading the A2 like we kept the M60 around with upgrades as the Abrams was rolled out and improved (I would not rule out SEP v4 being kept around and reworked) while they figure out what they're going to do an M1A3 (or, just a new tank, but even with that I think they will be looking at an A3 Abrams anyway).
13:16 "...someone's going to be fuckin chucking some money.." >.
I'm going to go out on a branch. A pretty thin one.
I think it's a weight saving thing. I think it's a redesign thing, it's going back to basics and it's doing the rebuild for constructive reasons, modular and adaptable. Reducing the logistics-repair and management footprint. No hydraulics is less chance of fire too. More survivability in other areas. But....
We're still going to have a seventy to seventy five tonne tank. Any and every bit of weight they can save they're going to find a use for. Likely in protection systems and the main cannon. I would put my one dollar down on an autoloader or assisted loading mechanism and a 130mm cannon for the outcome of this.
I think with more advanced, sensor fused rounds a lot more people are going to accept heavier vehicles for survivability. I think we might also be seeing more than a few replaces in the ARV/breaching vehicles, assault bridges for extra weight. If you find the weight, clean up the inside and otherwise give her a bit more in the bustle for balance? You're also going to find a use for it.
Maybe a lighter material for the wheels? Aluminum?
Or dare I say it, an auto loader to cut down crew numbers?
Or specialise each tank? Not all need radar?
If there is "high way" mode? Remove the tracka and drive on the wheels? Once in operation or offroading, reinstall the tracks?
IM WORKING ON THE M1 E1
I have been shaking my head when I see people saying the Abrams X is the new Abrams when it isn't. The maker of the Demonstrator, I repeat Demonstrator, GDLS said that the Army will like some things and not like others. It is NOT the replacement for the current Abrams.
While I agree with some commentary about a redesign of the turret to properly integrate the pile of *stuff* that has been essentially bolted to the top of the current one, the comment about investment in the industrial base could mean a bunch of other entirely unrelated things.
Commentary could just mean "we're shoveling a fat stack of cash to GDLS because it's gonna be fuckin expensive!" Or "we're going to pay to expand production from 10 tanks a month back to the full capacity of 25 tanks a month at this factory to expedite the upgrade once it's finalized." Or "we need to pay to shore up the supply chain because currently an unacceptable amount of components go through Asia and are vulnerable to adversary nation disruption." So that could mean they pay to ensure that their sources of raw materials or components comes from places that are not subject to Chinese/Russian/Whoever's influence or hostile action.
There's a lot of yadda yadda yadda in that DIB comment, so I wouldn't read a whole lot into it.
But I do agree that there's weight savings to be had, and the turret electronics and hydraulics are a good place to start. I don't think that going to the designed diesel is going to be part of any weight savings effort though. Turbines have amazing power to weight ratios, so if they want to keep that they'll likely stick to a turbine. Turbines are also compact in a way that diesels are not, and so there's a space limitation at play that could mean that the Advanced Combat Engine doesn't see adoption in the M1A3. There are a lot of good, high reliability, highly efficient turbines out there that could fit the bill.
With such an expensive price tag and the highly technical nature of modern tanks, why aren’t tank crews Warrant Officers much like Helicopter Pilots are Warrant Officers. You get an Army of tankers with a massive depth of knowledge and experience on this future tank. We need to stop training new tankers just for them to ETS out of the army 3 years later. Warrants get paid better but have a 10 year ADSO.
I think one thing that should be considered in the design process should be if the materials to build the tank can be sourced nationally or at least continentally, speed of manufacture and price. I think with modern tanks we've sort of forgotten what tanks should be and how they should be used, they're over engineered to their own detriment. It works very, very well when they're so damn well designed and have such a clear cut advantage over their opponent that losses are minimal to non existent in an engagement like in the Gulf war of 1991. But now we know that this tank will not be impervious and that its survivability will be far more dependent on the crews capabilities and the officers who command these formations than it will be dependent on factors such as thermal signature, armor, turret rotation, cannon performance etc.
Another thing I would like to see get creative with is tracks! This can be a wonder weapon super tank and as soon as it hits a landmine big enough, the tracks are too damaged or thrown a road wheel gets shattered and it now you have a very expensive bunker that gets abandoned and probably flat out destroyed by the enemy like we're seeing in Ukraine and I get these are slightly "older" tanks like the Leopard 2A6 and Challenger 2, but it wouldn't make a difference if they were KF51's or Challenger 3's because the pattern is the same: A mine or high caliber artillery knocks off a track, the crew reasonably says "we can't stay here, lets bug out", they leave and the vehicle is destroyed by a Koronet or a Lancet and now all of a sudden this isn't a problem that can be solved by towing it back to the workshop for a few days. This would be fine if we were talking about T55's and Shermans, which saw hundreds turned out in a month and were very easy to make in comparison to now, but we're not. The loss of a single Leopard 2 should be seen as an almost unacceptable loss, but it isn't
Material sourcing location is definitely a concern. It has been mentioned by Army personnel in the past that they may occasionally choose an 'inferior' solution simply to help guarantee that the solution will always be available.