M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

Kat Tsun said:
It will require better understanding of future combat to determine if Afghanistan/Iraq were realistic threat environments or absolute flukes. It is genuinely unclear to what degree side, bottom, and rear protection matter. We know that top protection is now a priority given the primacy of cassette ammunition and top attack weapons like Javelin. Whether that matters if you're dealing with OF munitions or not is an open question.
Click to expand...
Afghanistan is definitely a fluke in terms of infantry combat. Longest engagement ranges in history, which is half of why the US Army wanted assault rifles shooting .270 Winchester.

In terms of vehicular combat, I'm not sure. It may indicate a need for greater elevation of IFV weapons. FFS, my friend that was a Stryker platoon leader and then Company XO over there had the engineers build him a freaking trebuchet to throw satchel charges onto ridgetops, so that they didn't have to wait for arty support when under fire.

I'd argue that Iraq and Afghanistan are realistic threat environments in terms of IED threat, and the protection necessary for modern military vehicles.
 
If they're realistic threats in any sense, it certainly isn't represented much in Ukraine. Somehow, I doubt trebuchets would be useful.

Iraq and Afghanistan were such serious threats to tanks, you can count the number of tanks lost in combat on both hands, over two decades of combat. Most of that was due to friendly fire. As for an armor heavy threat, there simply wasn't one in Afghanistan, or Iraq, and much like Desert Storm the biggest threat came from friendly troops accidentally killing you. It might as well have been Fort Bliss's firing range.

Small wars simply don't scale to big ones, and incredibly minor threats in real terms are exaggerated in them, so they aren't useful for designing tanks. America and its allies aren't going to collapse because they lost a small colonial, but they might collapse if they were conquered by the PRC, or something similar.

The baseline scenario should be a major superpower-on-superpower fight, because those are the wars where winning matters, not Iraq/Afghanistan.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Small wars simply don't scale to big ones, and incredibly minor threats in real terms are exaggerated in them, so they aren't useful for designing tanks. America and its allies aren't going to collapse because they lost a small colonial, but they might collapse if they were conquered by the PRC, or something similar.
Click to expand...
Except in terms of mine/IED resistance. Because if anything Ukraine has even more mines/IEDs in use than Iraq and Afghanistan.


Kat Tsun said:
The baseline scenario should be a major superpower-on-superpower fight, because those are the wars where winning matters, not Iraq/Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Shusui said:
Says it's been deleted.. lol
Two seat tech demonstrator with remote turret?
Click to expand...
Ita not a tech demonstrator, its a 3D printed model. The army has teams studying options and configurations, plus there are people just mocking stuff up in their own time.
 
Moose said:
Ita not a tech demonstrator, its a 3D printed model. The army has teams studying options and configurations, plus there are people just mocking stuff up in their own time.
Click to expand...
Well, that much is obvious that it's just a 3D model. I doubt it would be very difficult for them to mock one of these up for real though.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Except in terms of mine/IED resistance. Because if anything Ukraine has even more mines/IEDs in use than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Except that the mines used in Ukraine are often 3-5 kg charges, such as the PTM-1, which things like M2 Bradley and M1 Abrams are already mostly immune to...

IEDs are typically 50-500 kg charges, because they were being made from 55 gallon drums, bundles of artillery shells or mortars, or FAB aviation bombs. They are not representative of a normal mine threat in the slightest. No reasonable combat vehicle can be expected to survive a determined IED threat, and so the design consideration should look at organizational factors, not vehicle protection. It's why engineers got stuff like Buffalos and MRAPs in Iraq in the first place. Any decent IED would turn a Bradley inside out.
 
Last edited:
If you are preparing to fight technically advanced enemy with an adapting military industry, the question isn't which armor facing they target, but can you defend them developing the most effective anti-armor concept man can imagine.

When I think about it, it is utterly shocking that no good counter measure have been developed to defeat Tamuz missile that was first put into service at 1985 or so. It has been 40 years and counters are not gonna be fielded by the time we hit 50 years. It is an gap that can result in decisive defeat and all the armor designers on this planet just sleeps over it. It was bad enough that there has been no response whatsoever when technical feasibility is proven, but the response time to this category of weapons after its public reveals is measured in decades.

It seems easy for defense establishments to not take threats seriously. Russians didn't respect western ATGM and other threats seriously even though everyone knew about them, and their offensive failed, resulting in a ugly stalemate.

If your development project finishes in 2040, the threat environment to deal with is the one in 2055. To take until 2040 to finally deal with 1985 threats is just shameful. That is like proposing an Iowa upgrade to defeat kamikazing Zeros in 1990.

Forget all this "80s ideas now with a budget" after return of history, think about 2055 ideas with a budget.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Except that the mines used in Ukraine are often 3-5 kg charges, such as the PTM-1, which things like M2 Bradley and M1 Abrams are already mostly immune to...

IEDs are typically 50-500 kg charges, because they were being made from 55 gallon drums, bundles of artillery shells or mortars, or FAB aviation bombs. They are not representative of a normal mine threat in the slightest. No reasonable combat vehicle can be expected to survive a determined IED threat, and so the design consideration should look at organizational factors, not vehicle protection. It's why engineers got stuff like Buffalos and MRAPs in Iraq in the first place. Any decent IED would turn a Bradley inside out.
Click to expand...
Stacked AT mines count as IEDs, and are in use, apparently.
 
From their press release

Importantly, the AGT1500 engine is adaptable to both hydraulic and electric transmissions and compatible with various size motor generators.

The additional 46 cubic feet of space is created by a configuration that rotates the engine into a “transverse” orientation, meaning the engine’s axis of rotation is perpendicular to the vehicle’s direction of travel. Beyond the additional under armor space, this configuration can support hybridization options for the vehicle, which could allow for better fuel economy, increased range and improved performance.
Click to expand...

Well it's not an LV100, though a hybrid-electric AGT1500 would be winning combo for whatever M1E3 turns into.
 
isayyo2 said:
From their press release



Well it's not an LV100, though a hybrid-electric AGT1500 would be winning combo for whatever M1E3 turns into.
Click to expand...
Yes, running the AGT1500 at best economy speed like an APU to charge batteries and then running the tank off the batteries can save an immense amount of fuel.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, running the AGT1500 at best economy speed like an APU to charge batteries and then running the tank off the batteries can save an immense amount of fuel.
Click to expand...
The batteries are only used to power the electronics. The APU generates enough power to allow turret operation when in the defense with the engine off. Turbines burn a lot of gas when idle, much worse than diesels.
 
isayyo2 said:
From their press release



Well it's not an LV100, though a hybrid-electric AGT1500 would be winning combo for whatever M1E3 turns into.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't. You still won't get the fuel efficiency out of the AGT1500 with the engine running. Having an extra large battery can help handle the necessary power for new electronics/APS but that's all it can do. If Honeywell does pitch a new engine it should be the LV100 if they want to take an engine competition seriously.
 
Berserker95 said:
The batteries are only used to power the electronics. The APU generates enough power to allow turret operation when in the defense with the engine off. Turbines burn a lot of gas when idle, much worse than diesels.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding.

I'm saying use a series hybrid, turbine electric drive. AGT1500 (or LV100, doesn't matter here) drives a generator with no physical connection to the tracks. Tracks are driven by an electric motor. A large rack of batteries buffers the power supply, so that when you need more power than the turbine can supply, say climbing a hill at 100kph, it comes out of the batteries. And when the turbine is making more power than the tank needs, say creeping through a forest, it recharges the batteries.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're misunderstanding.

I'm saying use a series hybrid, turbine electric drive. AGT1500 (or LV100, doesn't matter here) drives a generator with no physical connection to the tracks. Tracks are driven by an electric motor. A large rack of batteries buffers the power supply, so that when you need more power than the turbine can supply, say climbing a hill at 100kph, it comes out of the batteries. And when the turbine is making more power than the tank needs, say creeping through a forest, it recharges the batteries.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it would generate much power to help move such a heavy vehicle but I could be wrong. Even without the electric motors the LV100 or Cummins ACE is going to help the most with power and fuel issues. No way we want a 70 year old engine in the 2040s.
 
Berserker95 said:
It wouldn't. You still won't get the fuel efficiency out of the AGT1500 with the engine running. Having an extra large battery can help handle the necessary power for new electronics/APS but that's all it can do. If Honeywell does pitch a new engine it should be the LV100 if they want to take an engine competition seriously.
Click to expand...
You get efficiency when the turbine is mechanically decoupled from the drivetrain allowing it to run at its most efficient RPM band...

In a cost-constrained environment a hybridized AGT + SEPv3 APU and additional batteries is the straightforward choice. If there was a serious completion against Cummins ACE, I hope Honeywell and GE would also utilize a clean-sheet design to properly compete. The LV100 is not new by any stretch (had it first run in late 1987).
 
www.defensenews.com

Uncertain fate for active protection on Army’s combat vehicles

While the Army moved quickly to field Trophy active protection systems on Abrams tanks, it has struggled to get similar protection on its combat vehicles.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

EOS contractor stated @AUSA to Def News that average time a moving vehicle on the Ukr front has before it is targeted by a ATGM or drone is 10mins...
 
Berserker95 said:
Not sure if it would generate much power to help move such a heavy vehicle but I could be wrong. Even without the electric motors the LV100 or Cummins ACE is going to help the most with power and fuel issues. No way we want a 70 year old engine in the 2040s.
Click to expand...
Electric motors generate their full rated torque at zero rpm. Put a ~1000hp electric motor in each final drive and watch the tank pop a wheelie. Oh, and thanks to the aircraft EV folks, a 1000hp (megawatt class) electric motor is under 80 lbs.

Think "diesel-electric locomotive", but with a turbine instead of a big diesel.
 
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1713891506250211452
View: https://twitter.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1713891506250211452?s=20
Click to expand...
One would question how much crewmen would tank-based jammers require.
Ever-increasing drone proliferations neccesitate softkill capability yet lasers are unsuitable for tanks as of now. EW is perhaps the most obvious choice, but it is a complex system.
The M1E3 would need to be designed around its protection suite not 140mm guns and drones. A clearly defined M-APS and EW development strategy and the armour, guns and automatives which are all matured and material would come later.
 
asVAL said:
One would question how much crewmen would tank-based jammers require.
Ever-increasing drone proliferations neccesitate softkill capability yet lasers are unsuitable for tanks as of now. EW is perhaps the most obvious choice, but it is a complex system.
The M1E3 would need to be designed around its protection suite not 140mm guns and drones. A clearly defined M-APS and EW development strategy and the armour, guns and automatives which are all matured and material would come later.
Click to expand...
I would expect the jammers to be highly automated, along the lines of a warning light that says "I hear drone control links, do you want to jam?" and then a big red button to gray out half the county.
 
With Ukraine in mind, I am still deeply suspicious of those solutions.

Active jamming means apertures, soon - probably directional, or there will be no point at all(FPVs are already getting both into IR and target lock, you have to detect and jam them immediately). That's on top of APS's own radars, and on top of higher bandwidth datalinks.
Lots of apertures, lots of very expensive apertures to lose.

ATGM are cool and nice, but tank is a first and foremost vehicle intended to be able to go through splinters and MG fire retaining its combat capability.

A couple of tanks going through an old-school artillery screening barrage - and we already lost as much as a reasonable MBT would cost.
Since 1916, tank was first and foremost an attritable platform. They were routinely lost in dozens(and often hundreds) a day to get a result.

Maybe if we can somehow scale car radar solutions to get truly cheap APS - it'll be better.
But right now most MBTs are screwed - there is just not enough of them for the level of threat - and they're only trying to get more expensive and irreplaceable.
Even Russian tanks appear to be nowhere near necessary production capability (though there appears to be a chance that by ~2025 they'll be there), and most Western ones are honestly a joke (decade-long Chally 3 program to get a 1-week army).
 
Ainen said:
With Ukraine in mind, I am still deeply suspicious of those solutions.

Active jamming means apertures, soon - probably directional, or there will be no point at all(FPVs are already getting both into IR and target lock, you have to detect and jam them immediately). That's on top of APS's own radars, and on top of higher bandwidth datalinks.
Lots of apertures, lots of very expensive apertures to lose.

ATGM are cool and nice, but tank is a first and foremost vehicle intended to be able to go through splinters and MG fire retaining its combat capability.

A couple of tanks going through an old-school artillery screening barrage - and we already lost as much as a reasonable MBT would cost.
Since 1916, tank was first and foremost an attritable platform. They were routinely lost in dozens(and often hundreds) a day to get a result.

Maybe if we can somehow scale car radar solutions to get truly cheap APS - it'll be better.
But right now most MBTs are screwed - there is just not enough of them for the level of threat - and they're only trying to get more expensive and irreplaceable.
Even Russian tanks appear to be nowhere near necessary production capability (though there appears to be a chance that by ~2025 they'll be there), and most Western ones are honestly a joke (decade-long Chally 3 program to get a 1-week army).
Click to expand...
Back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and lasers didn't exist yet, the Army looked at using a radar rangefinder from under armor. It basically had the antenna firing onto a reflector that was outside the armor and dirt cheap to replace. Take an artillery splash that horked up the reflector, it's no big deal because you can send the loader out and replace the reflector in a couple of minutes.

Wonder how well that idea would work with fancier radars?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and lasers didn't exist yet, the Army looked at using a radar rangefinder from under armor. It basically had the antenna firing onto a reflector that was outside the armor and dirt cheap to replace. Take an artillery splash that horked up the reflector, it's no big deal because you can send the loader out and replace the reflector in a couple of minutes.

Wonder how well that idea would work with fancier radars?
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but it's still the way it is right now.
Optics we see are sets of rotating/tilting reflector mirrors behind armored glass - while fancy glass isn't cheap, the actual juicy part is hidden within the turret. That certainly includes more powerful lasers.

But for antennae arrays it doesn't work - they have to be exposed themselves.
 
Ainen said:
I may be wrong, but it's still the way it is right now.
Optics we see are sets of rotating/tilting reflector mirrors behind armored glass - while fancy glass isn't cheap, the actual juicy part is hidden within the turret. That certainly includes more powerful lasers.

But for antennae arrays it doesn't work - they have to be exposed themselves.
Click to expand...
The Army did make a radar rangefinder work by bouncing the beam off a reflector. It may be better to try some LIDAR units for APS etc since it's much easier to set up a bounce path for light freqs than radar freqs. Pretty sure some cars use LIDAR for their smart cruise etc, so someone could get the emitters pretty cheap.
 
Ainen said:
tank was first and foremost an attritable platform
Click to expand...
Literally this.
The Soviet tank doctrine were derived from their WW2 lessons. Massive waves of tank, under-armoured troops formed their bulk of infantry.
The problem arised when tank designers started looking at technological, not tactical solutions to the revolutionary threats of loitering munitions, drones and unconventional tactics et al.
JSTARS/Assault Breaker is a shining star of the latter. No 140mm armed, 2-metre Chobham block equipped super tanks. Theatre ground scanning radar directing swarms of penetrating SFW-armed missiles instead.
Yet here we are in 2023, when people would rather put a 30mm RWS with HE-VT rounds and massive APS to counter drones rather than introduce more jammers, more SPAA, more ISTAR to hit the comms nodes, to neutralize the threat before it materialize in any sizable numbers.
Building a 4-man crewed tank controllinh HPM/lasers, EW, drones, UGV and whatever each Army wants to field, essentially a white elephant; apparently seems to be the preferred solutions for now rather than look at today's sitrep and organize a task force to restructure the ORBAT to suite itself best against any expected enemies.
Tanks are attritable and survivable assault platform, not neccesarily so, but history dictates their use. There is no requirement for them to be crewed, or armed with a supergun and NLOS missiles, or dual PASEO sights, or have a comms network to direct CAS, drones and dismounts. The T-72 is to the USSR what the Leopard 2 is to Europe, or what the Sherman is to the Allies. In the end a LOS-comms RCV-H is still a tank, as is a T-55 or a M1A1. It can take hits, can support infantry, can shoot at the enemy, and is replacable.

Arguably transitioning from 3-man to unmanned is the logical step, because not many militaries that can afford supertanks can afford large surplus or reserves, and modern warfare has shown the should-be-expected level of tank casualties between equal powers. 2-man is the minimal amount needed to perform only basic functions as OMT testings have shown, yet you still lose 2 very valuable drone/UGV/EW operator to something like a spare Kornet and a very expensive MBT in the end.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The Army did make a radar rangefinder work by bouncing the beam off a reflector
Click to expand...
Source for that sir? A "bouncing radar rangefinder" certainly sounds like some sort of weird T95 FCS proposal, but I haven't got anything from the web for now...
 
asVAL said:
Source for that sir? A "bouncing radar rangefinder" certainly sounds like some sort of weird T95 FCS proposal, but I haven't got anything from the web for now...
Click to expand...
Been way too long since I saw the concept, sorry. IIRC it was discarded because the radar beam was not narrow enough to only hit a tank at ~1km, and it had a terrible time with false reflections from ground clutter.

I was hoping that someone here would remember it and find a reference. My google-fu is weak.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Been way too long since I saw the concept, sorry. IIRC it was discarded because the radar beam was not narrow enough to only hit a tank at ~1km, and it had a terrible time with false reflections from ground clutter.

I was hoping that someone here would remember it and find a reference. My google-fu is weak.
Click to expand...
Do you remember any other details at all? What era, programmes, etc. it was associated with?
 
Most of the last posts are interesting in their own right, but hardly adding any news to the original topic, the replacement of the M1 Abrams.
Perhaps those digressing discussion could be made in a separate topic ? Maybe tilted "Future of tank warfare", or something like this ?
 
Seems an interesting concept and I recall reading late Cold War publications about plans to test the Startle Millimeter Wave radar on the M1, I can only imagine the technology has improved a lot since then. On the downside it's probably quite a bit more expensive than the CITV even with the latest generation thermals.

I do wonder how the information from the radar is displayed to the crew. Looking at some radar screen when they should be scanning visually for targets poses some problems.
 
.....Which is why the fourth crew member will be viital when they get all this kit. SItuational awareness improvement rather than dergrading.
 
You could integrate some
Colonial-Marine said:
Seems an interesting concept and I recall reading late Cold War publications about plans to test the Startle Millimeter Wave radar on the M1, I can only imagine the technology has improved a lot since then. On the downside it's probably quite a bit more expensive than the CITV even with the latest generation thermals.

I do wonder how the information from the radar is displayed to the crew. Looking at some radar screen when they should be scanning visually for targets poses some problems.
Click to expand...
Beyond a fourth crew member, you could have a computer system analysing the screens for movements/anomalies, and better yet, anomalies matching the signatures of threats. Then you could have such pings marked on the crew members' screens for easy acquisition. Of course, such programmes would likely end up costing vast amounts to develop through the MIC's infinite ingenuity.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom