Very interesting concept, thanks isayyo2.
It looks like mechanical jams could be a major problem, though. I wonder if it was tested, and how far.

When compared with the much simpler and faster palletized system the IDF developped for the Merkava, it feels a little like the FARS designers were too-rich kids dreaming up too-complicated toys.
 
Very interesting concept, thanks isayyo2.
It looks like mechanical jams could be a major problem, though. I wonder if it was tested, and how far.

When compared with the much simpler and faster palletized system the IDF developped for the Merkava, it feels a little like the FARS designers were too-rich kids dreaming up too-complicated toys.
The complexity of FARS, and pretty much all of the AMS related program like Crusader and Grizzly, stem from the need for maximum lethality in NBC contaminated environments. FARS was planned so Tankers and Logistic personal could stay comfy inside their vehicles, rather than suiting up in MOPP and exposing themselves or the insides of their vehicles.

Thankfully for the Israeli's they did not have to worry about NBC/CBRN contaminated battlefield. They do however have this snazzy little trailer for additional fuel or ammunition, we should test it out.


Here's a video of it in action!

 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-01-08 002642.jpg
    Screenshot 2023-01-08 002642.jpg
    127 KB · Views: 209
  • Screenshot 2023-01-08 002655.jpg
    Screenshot 2023-01-08 002655.jpg
    122.7 KB · Views: 200
BTW @Bruno Anthony, mostly all of those point papers and more can be found here:
Fun facts from some of these papers: The Vehicle Electronics found in the ASM vehicles were meant to be more advanced than the ones found in the F16 fighter and Apache of the time.
Projected weight of AFAS was 58.7 tons. "The FIFV will meet the 62T weight goal using countermeasures and composites".
Tradoc wanted the vehicles to be 55 tons, USAIS however wanted ASM vehicles to have 'heavy' protection at 'medium' weights.

I'll probably post more stuff here soon, I've been looking in USAHEC mostly and some other places for the past month and found a lot of things that relate to ASM, usually just barely. It's mostly just presentations or something like a booklet with at least a relation or mention to ASM or some ASM technology or vehicle (like CATTB). Along with stuff relating to ALB-F and ALB-F(H) and a successor(?) study to ASM that CAV ATTD was related to: Advanced Land Combat Vehicles, ALCV.
 
Last edited:
By reducing the crew from four to three (eliminating the M1's loader position); shrinking the size of the power pack by 40 percent; using external in-arm hydropneumatic suspension units (and thus saving about 17 cubic feet of space now occupied by torsion bars); and using modular armor with advanced composite materials, the ASM teams intend to significantly improve armor protection while cutting combat-loaded weight to five to ten tons below the M1A2, or a range of 57 to 62 tons.

The Block III MBT would have at least 35 percent greater protection from the frontal aspect and 48 percent more side protection. "We are going to have a type of modular armor," Mr. Wynbelt said. 'The M1 Armor is extremely good, very effective; however, it is difficult to implement change, because you are confined. What we are going to do is design a vehicle with an armored wall, and then you hang boxes of armor on there, which allows you to upgrade as armor technology improves—you either get your weight down or provide more capability. In the past, every vehicle has had to grow in armor protection because the threat grows; this allows you to do that with minimum impact on the vehicle."

The ASM program executive office has told the CHC developers to allow for a 50 percent growth potential in armor effectiveness, Mr. Wynbelt said. "In other words, you have to design the vehicle to accommodate a heavier weight sometime in the future; if the armor has to grow and the technology is not there to offset the protection growth with weight reduction, we still have to be able to upgrade."
so, a chassis max of 86-93 tons.

Hell no.

Figure out how to make that LIGHTER!!!
 
If materials science isn't there, it's usually better to be slightly heavier than slightly deader, barring special circumstances. Reducing armored volume is the only real way to increase the mass to armor ratio.
 
Armor weight to full mass ratio is closer to 50% and the comment might be referring only to certain areas of the armor, so you're looking at 25% or less total weight increase to boost armor by 50%. This is compounded by the fact that armor mass efficiency doesn't scale up linearly (it tends to become somewhat more efficient as thickness increases), so probably even less.

Closer to 77 tons tops, which is still heavy as hell but only a couple tons heavier than where the latest M1 variants will be with WAYYYY more armor, and not exploiting the latest technology (sure, way more modern than the latest M1A2 already when it comes to weight and volume efficiency measures like the AIPS powerpack, but with 2000s technology we could go even higher and the armor upgrade for Block III would probably not happen until the 2010s given the planned intro date in the 2000s).
 
Armor weight to full mass ratio is closer to 50% and the comment might be referring only to certain areas of the armor, so you're looking at 25% or less total weight increase to boost armor by 50%. This is compounded by the fact that armor mass efficiency doesn't scale up linearly (it tends to become somewhat more efficient as thickness increases), so probably even less.

Closer to 77 tons tops, which is still heavy as hell but only a couple tons heavier than where the latest M1 variants will be with WAYYYY more armor, and not exploiting the latest technology (sure, way more modern than the latest M1A2 already when it comes to weight and volume efficiency measures like the AIPS powerpack, but with 2000s technology we could go even higher and the armor upgrade for Block III would probably not happen until the 2010s given the planned intro date in the 2000s).
What might have been. Now? Abrams leftovers. Forever.
 
Armor weight to full mass ratio is closer to 50% and the comment might be referring only to certain areas of the armor, so you're looking at 25% or less total weight increase to boost armor by 50%. This is compounded by the fact that armor mass efficiency doesn't scale up linearly (it tends to become somewhat more efficient as thickness increases), so probably even less.

Closer to 77 tons tops, which is still heavy as hell but only a couple tons heavier than where the latest M1 variants will be with WAYYYY more armor, and not exploiting the latest technology (sure, way more modern than the latest M1A2 already when it comes to weight and volume efficiency measures like the AIPS powerpack, but with 2000s technology we could go even higher and the armor upgrade for Block III would probably not happen until the 2010s given the planned intro date in the 2000s).
Abrams has suffered a 50% weight gain from M1 to M1A2C.
 
Abrams has suffered a 50% weight gain from M1 to M1A2C.
Do you want to check those numbers?

From what I understand the M1 weighed 55.7 t whereas the M1A2 SEPv3 (aka M1A2C) is 66.8 t which equates to just under 20% growth.
 
Do you want to check those numbers?

From what I understand the M1 weighed 55.7 t whereas the M1A2 SEPv3 (aka M1A2C) is 66.8 t which equates to just under 20% growth.
Weren't you the one arguing that the current A2C was more like 88-93 tonnes? due to required dozer or mine rollers?
 
Not that I recall. Mind you, it does get complicated depending what sort of mission/role equipment get's included/not included.
 
Not that I recall. Mind you, it does get complicated depending what sort of mission/role equipment get's included/not included.
In that case, my apologies.

I know someone here was raising quite an argument about how absurdly heavy the Abrams had gotten (and I agree that even a 20% weight increase is too much). Something like Military Load Class 130 for required bridges. I believe that was while on the transporter.
 
Interesting document on the NBC protection of then current Army vehicles in service vs the planned ASM fleet.


Also lists a few designations I have not seen before:
  • M1050 FAASV - 203mm shell carrier (Developed, but never funded for production)
  • XM1069 Line of Sight - Forward - Heavy (LOS-F-H Bradley ADATS)
  • XM1070 Electronic Fighting Vehicle System (EFVS eventually re-designated XM5)
  • XM1071 LOSAT Carrier
Also to note that the M110A2 intended to be in service until 2008!
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom