M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

[Newtonk]

Black Knight looks like a miniature M-1.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUn0qit99IE

Pre apology for my lack of engineering knowledge but why don’t we see gatling guns like a modernized GAU-8 30mm
cannon on a [unmanned] ground vehicle. Is it rate of fire and storage/resupply issue?

Yes.

Gatling guns are basically too fast firing to be actually useful in most areas

3000 rounds a minute is nice and all.
You need 3000 rounds to fire it for 1 minute.

You can see the logistics issues.

Yes, great idea, but the logistics kill the idea fairly quickly. Reloading would be difficult, too.

 

[jsport]

Safran/Optics1 PASEO sight unit proposal

 

[Foo Fighter]

The only issue I have with this sort of kit, in an environment where shrapnel flying around is 'situation normal' comes from being so big and vulnerable. What is the back up system?

 

[TomS]

The only issue I have with this sort of kit, in an environment where shrapnel flying around is 'situation normal' comes from being so big and vulnerable. What is the back up system?

Well, you have two of them, each with a couple of separate optical channels, and the RWS I think has it's own optics. And it looks like there is a swappable (probably armored glass) plate in front of the actual optics -- I would expect replacements to be carried fairly far forward in the maintenance chain. (And last-ditch, the gunner's auxiliary sight is still there in the mantlet.)

But is this really much more of a single-point issue that the current M1, with a gunner's primary sight and commander's independent thermal sight? If the Abrams X electronics are set up like I suspect, you can probably use either optics head from either station, which is actually an improvement in redundancy.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Thanks for that clarification, much simpler IMD. Old git that I am.

 

[GTX]

US Army Thunderhorse 2-12 Cavalry Regiment receives first M1A2 SEP V4

First pictures of the Abrams M1A2 SEP V4 also called M1A2D Main Battle Tank (MBT) were released on the Facebook page of the U.S. Army Thunderhorse 2-12 Cav

www.armyrecognition.com

 

[njiiaf]

US Army Thunderhorse 2-12 Cavalry Regiment receives first M1A2 SEP V4

First pictures of the Abrams M1A2 SEP V4 also called M1A2D Main Battle Tank (MBT) were released on the Facebook page of the U.S. Army Thunderhorse 2-12 Cav

www.armyrecognition.com

This happened a few months ago IIRC.
I’m curious to see the interior. One of the big changes should be new displays for the TC and gunner.

 

[zjz]

Not sure if this has been shared, or is it relevant here :

Does the US Army regret choosing fuel-hungry turbine engines for the M1 Abrams main battle tank considering all other modern MBTs use die...

Answer by Glenn Girona, former 19K M1 Armor Crewman at U.S. Army (1995-2004)

www.quora.com

 

[Firefinder]

Not sure if this has been shared, or is it relevant here :

Does the US Army regret choosing fuel-hungry turbine engines for the M1 Abrams main battle tank considering all other modern MBTs use die...

Answer by Glenn Girona, former 19K M1 Armor Crewman at U.S. Army (1995-2004)

www.quora.com

And im yoinking all those links for future debates.

Real interesting on the fuel deal as well.

 

[GruntFox]

Yeah, the thing with the initial Abrams was... er... Congress being, well, Congress. The original design had an APU as standard, but Congress being complete idiots, ordered the removal of the APU on the first production models despite the Army's advise that doing so was a stupid idea.

... then surprised Pikachu face happened when Congress got the fuel consumption reports, and the Army basically said 'told you so'... leading to the reinstallation of the APU.

 

[Elan Vital]

Yeah, the thing with the initial Abrams was... er... Congress being, well, Congress. The original design had an APU as standard, but Congress being complete idiots, ordered the removal of the APU on the first production models despite the Army's advise that doing so was a stupid idea.

... then surprised Pikachu face happened when Congress got the fuel consumption reports, and the Army basically said 'told you so'... leading to the reinstallation of the APU.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/docum...&doi=996109f060aab7adbfcfb57ac136fcb14bee0feb

The Gemini APU scheduled for 1984 right? Funny how the US had to pay for the development of APUs like 3 times only to field one once.

 

[GTX]

Yeah, the thing with the initial Abrams was... er... Congress being, well, Congress. The original design had an APU as standard, but Congress being complete idiots, ordered the removal of the APU on the first production models despite the Army's advise that doing so was a stupid idea.

... then surprised Pikachu face happened when Congress got the fuel consumption reports, and the Army basically said 'told you so'... leading to the reinstallation of the APU.

Have you got proof it was "congress" or was it really Army.

 

[GruntFox]

Yeah, the thing with the initial Abrams was... er... Congress being, well, Congress. The original design had an APU as standard, but Congress being complete idiots, ordered the removal of the APU on the first production models despite the Army's advise that doing so was a stupid idea.

... then surprised Pikachu face happened when Congress got the fuel consumption reports, and the Army basically said 'told you so'... leading to the reinstallation of the APU.

Have you got proof it was "congress" or was it really Army.

I'll have to search for it, but it came up every time the history of the M1 came up. It's not uncommon for this sort of situation to come up, either, mind you. The entire Tillman design study is the poster-boy for Congress being complete idiots and butting heads with the military.

 

[GTX]

In my experience, it is easy to blame "the government" but rarely do Government officials do something without involving/consulting with the uniformed military. It is also unlikely that elected Government representatives would get down into the weeds re subsystems on platforms - many would not even know what an APU was. I suspect (and happy to be proven otherwise) that there would have been a budget restriction and there had to be trade offs. Perhaps something like "you can only have so many tanks at this price...if you want more you have to find a way to make cheaper" to which the Army replied "fine...we can do without the APU" but of course it is easier to blame the Government for forcing the issue.

 

[zjz]

M1 Abrams Was Once Tested With A Diesel Engine That Replaces Its Thirsty Turbine

Concerns over Ukraine's ability to fuel and maintain the Abrams' turbine engine have arisen, but other engine options have existed.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Elan Vital]

Btw, the first report on the M1 TMEPS (transverse improved AGT-1500) test rig:

Second report is the link: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA234999.pdf

 

[jsport]

Russian Robot Maker Working On Bot to Target Abrams, Leopard Tanks

But is it all just a PR stunt?

www.defenseone.com

 

[scrubhead]

I just stumbled across an xm91 (Cattb and ATACS system demonstrator/ Thumpers autoloader) patent. Don't know if it fits here nor if it was posted before. Sorry if it doesn't fit or was posted before.

US5223663 (A) ― 1993-06-29 AUTOMATED AMMUNITION HANDLING SYSTEM ​

Espacenet - Original document

worldwide.espacenet.com

​

17 pages. There is a 41 page version, IL104064 1997-01-10, if you go into inpadoc patent family. Same(?) document but much more easily legible as every 2-3 paragraphs is a new page. Might have a bit more info, but seems virtually the same.​

 

[jsport]

Army’s FY24 budget request doesn't include funding for new Abrams prototype - Breaking Defense

The service is deciding if it will continue onward with a SEPv4 Abrams and future upgrades or find a new future main battle tank.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'm a bit disappointed the Army isn't funding Abrams prototype work based on GD's tech demonstrator even if they want to keep the option of a new MBT open. A backup plan never hurt anyone.

 

[Moose]

I'm a bit disappointed the Army isn't funding Abrams prototype work based on GD's tech demonstrator even if they want to keep the option of a new MBT open. A backup plan never hurt anyone.

The demonstrator has only been around for a few months and the Army's got plenty of pressing issues so I wouldn't expect them to just jump on it instantly. There's also the potential for BAE and American Rheinmetall pitching a fit if they aren't given a chance to show what they can do. So we have to hope GDLS keeps messing with it and showing it off at trade shows like they did with the Griffin series.

 

[Firefinder]

As is the Army have far more pressing issues then replacing the M1.

Thats things works, and works well. It can still do it job bout as it could when it was new...

No need to fix that instead of say, the Artillery Communications set up or getting more Shorad systems. Those need a drastic overhaul.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Funding the continuation of research on the prototype is hardly lost investment. Anything that drives a proper decision on the future risk of serving soldiers is something of a result.

 

[jsport]

A major consideration for a M1 replacement program should be a robust robotic scout. A future tank should usually operate w/ an armored and armed scout vehicle able to take some punishment . A M-60 based vehicle might make the most sense.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Buy the Meerkava and develope it, they OWE the US big time. Pretty sure the concept could come up with something more than usable as the Namer came out OK.

 

[Firefinder]

A major consideration for a M1 replacement program should be a robust robotic scout. A future tank should usually operate w/ an armored and armed scout vehicle able to take some punishment . A M-60 based vehicle might make the most sense. View attachment 702627

A purpose built vehicle be better.

You can build it smaller and lighter that way.

 

[jsport]

A major consideration for a M1 replacement program should be a robust robotic scout. A future tank should usually operate w/ an armored and armed scout vehicle able to take some punishment . A M-60 based vehicle might make the most sense. View attachment 702627

A purpose built vehicle be better.

You can build it smaller and lighter that way.

IMHO expensive lght vehicles are quick and expensive losses as RPG bait. A unmanned vehicle will need to be lower cost ie already exist in large numbers and serve as heavy vehicle able to act as a missile sponge for as long as it can. It will also need be heavy enough to push a 'real' mine plough to clear mines and heavy and large obstacles. Minus this robustness in numbers, expensive light wreaks until one quickly runs out and left in current standoff the Ukrs are facing now..

 

[jsport]

Autocannons are not sufficient to break heavy quite in depth defenses only a full at least a 105mm thus a full UGV tank would hope to make sufficient difference to support a break thru.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Without a crew to keep it running and fully functional like you have in a manned MBT I'd think going lighter for UGVs would be the smarter route since that means less maintenance is needed.

Doesn't mean you couldn't make one big enough for a low recoil 105mm or 120mm if you really wanted some sort of breakthrough UGV but trying to armor it as well as a real MBT probably isn't worth it. Protection from heavy shell fragments and medium caliber autocannon fire would be good.

 

[Desertfox]

You can stick an auto-loading 90mm cannon on a pretty small chassis.

 

[jsport]

Without a crew to keep it running and fully functional like you have in a manned MBT I'd think going lighter for UGVs would be the smarter route since that means less maintenance is needed.

There is the issue, robots again are not going to allow less troops. Large and even tried platforms are going to require maintaince. M60 is well known maintainance animal ripe for simplifing rather a new build UGV.

The UGV must be complex enough to inact real effects and robust enough to absorb all the abuse of offensive action into a well defended PLUS mechanized battlefield. This is the worse case and exactly the Ukr battlefield today. A low cost APS may need to mounted on a unmanned scout also able to simultaneously clear mines.

Light weight, as repeated, is just quick destruction and not even an effective decoy for timely counterfire. Light is just expensive/new battlefield junk

Doesn't mean you couldn't make one big enough for a low recoil 105mm or 120mm if you really wanted some sort of breakthrough UGV but trying to armor it as well as a real MBT probably isn't worth it. Protection from heavy shell fragments and medium caliber autocannon fire would be good.

 

[Firefinder]

A major consideration for a M1 replacement program should be a robust robotic scout. A future tank should usually operate w/ an armored and armed scout vehicle able to take some punishment . A M-60 based vehicle might make the most sense. View attachment 702627

A purpose built vehicle be better.

You can build it smaller and lighter that way.

IMHO expensive lght vehicles are quick and expensive losses as RPG bait. A unmanned vehicle will need to be lower cost ie already exist in large numbers and serve as heavy vehicle able to act as a missile sponge for as long as it can. It will also need be heavy enough to push a 'real' mine plough to clear mines and heavy and large obstacles. Minus this robustness in numbers, expensive light wreaks until one quickly runs out and left in current standoff the Ukrs are facing now..

Thing is the US sold or scrap all its M60 hulls back in the late 90s early 00s.

So there are none to be converted to done usage.

Leaving the M1 hulls, which are better served for replacement of that fleet in combat.

Mean you going to have to design a specialized vehicle aways.

Best bet be something in the 20 to 30 ton range with a 105 gun to give you a solid do all drone.

That weight class is more then heavy enough to tank RPGs routinely as shown by the Strykers and drive mine plows more then well enough as show by the M4 bradley having such a attachment.

While still being light enough not to be an pain to move when it inevitably breaks or get stuck.

While also being light enough to get it to the action in large numbers.

Which is as you noted a very important thing...

 

[jsport]

A major consideration for a M1 replacement program should be a robust robotic scout. A future tank should usually operate w/ an armored and armed scout vehicle able to take some punishment . A M-60 based vehicle might make the most sense. View attachment 702627

A purpose built vehicle be better.

You can build it smaller and lighter that way.

IMHO expensive lght vehicles are quick and expensive losses as RPG bait. A unmanned vehicle will need to be lower cost ie already exist in large numbers and serve as heavy vehicle able to act as a missile sponge for as long as it can. It will also need be heavy enough to push a 'real' mine plough to clear mines and heavy and large obstacles. Minus this robustness in numbers, expensive light wreaks until one quickly runs out and left in current standoff the Ukrs are facing now..

Thing is the US sold or scrap all its M60 hulls back in the late 90s early 00s.

the m-60s are still around somewhere clearly as the above modifications display and the design easy enough to produce so using the same basic form factor for new heavy m-60 based UGV in the upward 40-50ton rg. would still be more survivable than the RsV being proposed. All those vehicles are great for snoopin an pooping but not leading a mechanized force into direct cmbt. A fire magnet which can take the heat is essential.

yes, a full 105mm auto load plus full frontal mine plough blade large enough so no direct frontal shots into the hull.

M88 Robotic recover should not worry about weight.

 

[Firefinder]

A major consideration for a M1 replacement program should be a robust robotic scout. A future tank should usually operate w/ an armored and armed scout vehicle able to take some punishment . A M-60 based vehicle might make the most sense. View attachment 702627

A purpose built vehicle be better.

You can build it smaller and lighter that way.

IMHO expensive lght vehicles are quick and expensive losses as RPG bait. A unmanned vehicle will need to be lower cost ie already exist in large numbers and serve as heavy vehicle able to act as a missile sponge for as long as it can. It will also need be heavy enough to push a 'real' mine plough to clear mines and heavy and large obstacles. Minus this robustness in numbers, expensive light wreaks until one quickly runs out and left in current standoff the Ukrs are facing now..

Thing is the US sold or scrap all its M60 hulls back in the late 90s early 00s.

the m-60s are still around somewhere clearly as the above modifications display and the design easy enough to produce so using the same basic form factor for new heavy m-60 based UGV in the upward 40-50ton rg. would still be more survivable than the RsV being proposed. All those vehicles are great for snoopin an pooping but not leading a mechanized force into direct cmbt. A fire magnet which can take the heat is essential.

Those M60s are other countries ones.

That image in particular is the Turkish upgrade of the M60 done by Roketsan. With Turkey still having like 800 of the M60A3 in active use.

Turkish MZK Modular Turret: Enhancing the M60A3 Tank’s Combat Capabilities | Defense Express

Turkey has a pragmatic approach to modernizing aging tank fleet

en.defence-ua.com

The USA it self?

Only has bout 230 of the engineer ARVE version in National Guard service or in the boneyard. For all purposes the M60 may was well be like the Sherman for the US.

Besides, remember you need like 10 tons of armor per person for tank.

Since drone tanks dont need personal, with any controls being a removable consol outside of the main armor block, that upwards of 40 tons you can remove.

While still having the same protection as the M1. Which is more then good enough.

 

[jsport]

Israel makes Sabra so blueprints/specs/upgrades lighweighting are all easier cheaper options than a new robust heavy surrogate robotic vehicle. Even Turkey could be contracted as western/Turkish/Israel business relations would be positive right now especially for NATO collab.

Sabra (tank) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

fictional artist impression via Gentlebeing

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not intended to offend, for those who are keen to see the M1 retain a gas turbine, would it be possible to have a smaller turbine as a generator to provide power to an electric drive similar to the Ferdinand/Elephant? Just how much weight could be saved by removing the need for secondary drive via a gearbox?

Not likely to be much weight saved, as a 1.5MW generator isn't light and neither is a battery pack. Both of which would also need cooling air flow added, though the generator could likely have its heat exchanger placed in the turbine intake.

 

[Scott Kenny]

TBF, there is a case to be made for modern assault guns, but it's not to replace tanks in mechanized units: A modern assault gun, like Stryker MGS or M8 AGS, could be used as an airborne or airdroppable vehicle to support paratroopers. That's about the only place for them these days, but that's just a "light tank" by any other name I suppose.

And now in 2023, the US Army has bought the M10 Booker Mobile Protected Firepower "light tank" with a 105mm main gun, specifically to issue to Infantry brigades/divisions and possibly to Strykers, specifically to use as a StuG.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I am not talking about developing a vehicle fit to engage tanks in a combat situation, an infantry support vehicle does NOT need to do that. You can develop a much cheaper vehicle from an IFV that can better support infantry IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT or anywhere else at a much lower price. ERA and BAR armour is readily available if an upgrade is needed. Added to this is a better fit for the job.

I'm not so sure about that.

The sensors and FCS are already a good 40-50% of the total cost of a tank, and this Urban Combat Support Vehicle will need all the same sensors as a tank and a similar FCS (depending on which gun you end up using). It will need just as much armor as a tank, which will include any/all Active Protection Systems and aren't cheap. And because it's got all this armor plus I'd give it a big bulldozer blade to unblock streets, it needs just as much engine as a tank, though probably with a revised gearing or electric motor controller for more torque at idle.

What are you going to sacrifice to make this cheaper than the classic MBT?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Like I said, a massive redesign. Everything else you talked about could be done within the existing "outer mold line" of the M-1 family. Going to 130mm means a whole new turret, at minimum.

True. Just pointing out they'd done something similar in the past (with an autoloader even) so it wouldn't be entirely new territory. Of course then there's round count; how many 130mm vs 120mm. At the least though, an L55 with the latest US DU round would be an improvement to buy time while they hunt for Leprechaun's gold.

That's certainly true. It could be done, though I suspect it would make sense to go back to a clean sheet to take advantage of newer technology.

Sticking with the M-1 chassis, you'd lose the 6 rounds in the hull and have to do with a longer bustle and autoloader. Fortunately, the 130m round is the same diameter as the 120mm, just 30% longer.

Once upon a time, Meggit designed an autoloader that fits the current bustle and still holds 34 rounds, so you could probably fit about the same number of 130mm rounds in a new turret. The claim it won't even cost you a crew station, which would be interesting -- four-person crew with autoloader might free up the "loader" to run a remote weapon station or some such.

Compact autoloader - Meggitt Defense Systems

The compact autoloader is an all-electric, fully automatic ammunition handling system designed for easy integration into the M1 weapon station. The magazine subsystem stores 34 ready rounds of 120mm ammunition in the envelope of the M1 bustle. The transfer unit resides completely behind the...

www.meggittdefense.com

I'm thinking spotter drone operator and an extra set of eyes looking around in general. How much is adding a Loader's Independent Thermal Viewer?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Telescoping ammunition/rounds will significantly reduce impact on turret and hull stowage while retaining efficacy.

Doesn't work so well with the Long Rod sabots, they're already basically the entire length of the case. The 120mm M829 casing is as short as is possible. The penetrators are on the order of 780mm long for the best performing like M829A4!

Going to case-telescoped construction would not really add any more propellant and would enlarge the bore of the gun to whatever the diameter of the 120mm case stub is.