US Army's 1990s Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) Program (FIFV, Block III Tank, Crusader)

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.
 
dan_inbox said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1018433512976912384

Here's a video of it in action!

 
Last edited:
BTW @Bruno Anthony, mostly all of those point papers and more can be found here:

WILLIAM G. T. TUTTLE, JR. PAPERS; BOX 19, FOLDER 7, ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION BRIEFING BOOK, [FOLDER 2 OF 2], 1991 - Arena4-UAT

arena.usahec.org arena.usahec.org
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:
RyanC said:
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."
Click to expand...
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).
 
Elan Vital said:
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).
Click to expand...
What might have been. Now? Abrams leftovers. Forever.
 
Elan Vital said:
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).
Click to expand...
Abrams has suffered a 50% weight gain from M1 to M1A2C.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Abrams has suffered a 50% weight gain from M1 to M1A2C.
Click to expand...
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.
 
GTX said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
GTX said:
Not that I recall. Mind you, it does get complicated depending what sort of mission/role equipment get's included/not included.
Click to expand...
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!
 
I'm posting a report that includes the full Armored Family of Vehicles list.

The actual discussion of the list starts on page 210. Note that in various sections of the report the list differs and names differ a bit, for example 9-11 may be under one entry for resupply, but on the whole you should get the gist.

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA210352/mode/2up

(1) Future Armored Combat System (FACS).
(2) Future Infantry Fighting Vehicle (FIFV).
(3) Future Reconnaissance Vehicle (FRV).
(4) Directed Energy Weapons Vehicle (DEW-V).
(5) Mortar Weapon System Vehicle (MWS-V).
(6) Advanced Field Artillery System-Cannon (AFAS).
(7) Fire Support Combat Observation (FSCOLS).
(8) Elevated Target Acquisition System (ETAS).
(9) Armored Rearm System.
(10) Armored Refuel System. Arm. Resupply Veh.
(11) Armored resupply System
(12) Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance (NBCRS)
(13) Sapper (SFV)
(14) Combat Earthmover (CEM)
(15) Combat Mobility vehicle
(16) Combat Gap Crosser
(17) Combat Excavator
(18) Mine Dispensing Vehicle
(19) Recovery Vehicle (RV)
(20) Maintenance and Repair System
(21) Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Vehicle
(22) Combat Support Smoke Vehicle (CSSV).
(23) Armored Escort/Security Vehicle (AE/SV)
(24) Armored Ambulance (AA).
(25) Battalion Aid Station/MEDEVAC.
(26) Line of Sight-AntiTank (LOS-AT).
(27) Line of Sight-Air Defense (LOS-AD).
(28) Non-Line of Sight (NLOS-AT/AD).
(29) Non-Line of Sight (NLOS-AT/AD).
(30) Command Group Vehicle (GCV).
(31) Command and Control Vehicle (C2V).
(32) Rocket and Missile System (RAMS)

Note on 7, it is also listed as FIST, and includes a laser designation system.

231 and 232 are also of interest, 231 has an unnumbered list with more descriptive names while 232 has an illustration showing how the various vehicles relate to each other.

The basic idea is to use two base tracked vehicles, one heavy and one medium, as platforms to build the other vehicles on. Boxer would be an example of this idea in use, as would the cancelled SEP systems from Sweden. I've also seen a third base vehicle, this one wheeled, listed as a light platform, with a couple of sub-vehicle types. The document is mid-80s though before the West jumped on the wheeled AFV wagon.
 
Lupa said:
Says "Service Unavailable". Do you have the PDFs uploaded on another website?
Click to expand...
USAHEC somehow gone bad this time of the year. I've tried for a whole week wanting to get some CATTB files but nothing worked.
 
It is very hit and miss, traffic levels? Time of day access?
 
Lupa said:
Says "Service Unavailable". Do you have the PDFs uploaded on another website?
Click to expand...
Add web to the end of emu, I don't know why usahec changed it.

gonna post this stuff here before Andrei-bt's twitter tweet gets reposted here. Sorta meant to post this two years ago.

Directly related to ASM:

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/1019664/20184531MNBT991895792F110552I001.pdf < [PRESENTATION] VCSA PRESENTATION ARMY-INDUSTRY SYMPOSIUM 39 slides

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/563735/20184655MNBT989110488F023872I003.pdf < [PRESENTATION SLIDES REGARDING ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS INTEGRATIONS] 95 pages, contains extremely interesting things on ASM despite the bland title.

First slide also shows what developing ASM was really like: "Building a computer system with a tank on it." Most important one here, gives the most information on ASM.

[REPORT] ANNUAL HISTORICAL REVIEW 1 OCTOBER 1988 TO 30 SEPTEMBER 1989 FISCAL YEAR 1989

[REPORT] ANNUAL HISTORICAL REVIEW 1 OCTOBER 1988 TO 30 SEPTEMBER 1989 FISCAL YEAR 1989 - Arena4-UAT

arena.usahec.org arena.usahec.org

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/795982/20181457MNBT950588515F109316I001.pdf part 2 of the fiscal year review.

Pages 157 ( 73 on pdf ) to 170 ( 86 on pdf ) contain a great summary of the events of ASM/ HFM up to 1989 ( Mentions stuff like when FACS and Abrams Block III were merged together into a singular program ). Only this part because the others don't really talk about ASM, though I think one of the other parts does have a paragraph about SAVA, Standard Army Vetronics Architecture, which was part of ASM.

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/984563/20181815MN006626.pdf < AVTA ( headed by FMC and GDLS et al) flyer for Armored systems modernization two pages

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/584273/20184784MN002384_Final.pdf < [BOOKLET] ALLISON GAS TURBINE PRODUCTIVITY SUPPORT DIRECTORY 18 pages,

Despite the bland name, it is Allisons transmissions thoughts for powering the vehicles of Heavy Forces Modernization ( ASM's previous name ). Gives three example vehicles.

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/1466887/20181732MNBT950588230F63145I010.pdf < [COPY][MAGAZINE ARTICLE] "RATIONALIZING AFV PROCUREMENT". 6 page from article from an interesting ( British? ) defense magazine, Defense Attache.

Extremely interesting article, talks about AFV and showcases a concept for a 120mm armed, 45-ton tank from Teledyne, with an upgunned version of the turret mounted on Teledynes AGS competitor. The article seems to have not been fully archived since some pages are half blacked out. Tried finding if I could buy a copy of the magazine online, virtually nothing. However an article from the magazine is quoted in some journal from google scholar searching. Mighty interesting magazine especially if they published an article like this, wonder what other kind of articles they published. Janes has nothing on this coverage of AFV/ ASM.

Advanced field Artillery System / very early Crusader

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/984736/20181815MN006694.pdf < [SUMMARY] GM-AFAS TEAM. Two page flyer from GM AFAS

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/984571/20181815MN006630.pdf < [REPORT] ADVANCED FIELD ARTILLERY SYSTEM FROM FMC DEFENSE SYSTEMS. Two page flyer for FMCS AFAS

https://arena.usahec.org/results?p_p_id=crDetailWicket_WAR_arenaportlet&p_r_p_arena_urn:arena_search_item_id=269176 < GEORGE SCHECTER PAPERS; BOX 14, FIELD ARTILLERY SYSTEMS < have a look through here, lots of things with lots related to AFAS. Mostly reading material though, no great graphics or anything. The next two are examples from this Box.

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/304632/20184248MNBT989109240F100262I013.pdf < [OPERATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN FOR THE ADVANCED FIELD ARTILLERY SYSTEM, ATTACHMENT E], 9 page study on AFAS.

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/304629/20184248MNBT989109240F100262I012.pdf < [REPORT]ADVANCED FIELD ARTILLERY SYSTEM, CANNON, USE STUDY], 19 page study on AFAS.

Somewhat related to ASM:

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/1466954/20181732MNBT950588230F63150I006.pdf < [COPY][MAGAZINE ARTICLE] "THE ROTARY ENGINE" John Deere rotary engine article, 15 pages.

Again Mostly not related to asm but a paragraph ( see attachments ) does imply that John Deere was developing a rotary engine 'family' for AFV and maybe later on, ASM. Interesting read.

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/988314/20181815MNBT1036358160F107459I001.pdf October 1991 Army Green Book. Mostly not related to ASM however contains a cool ad for ASM Team Teledyne.

Got more but they fit into the 'Somewhat related to ASM' category, so im not gonna spam more links.

Edit: Theres also a great paper called: Development and demonstration of the SOFRADIR 480 x 4 infrared FPA for the LOSAT second-generation FLIR. Infrared Technology; 1994. I would link to SPIE but I sorta got my access suspended after opening too many SPIE tabs and articles. If you know where to pirate Studies, pirate it. It puts end to the myth that LOSAT only used steel penetrators. It used Tungsten alloy long rod penetrators.
 

Attachments

  • firefox_ifnVC3LLFt.jpg
    firefox_ifnVC3LLFt.jpg
    139.7 KB · Views: 19
  • firefox_iGECUKq7qe.jpg
    firefox_iGECUKq7qe.jpg
    145 KB · Views: 27
  • firefox_JdHJyub6Co.jpg
    firefox_JdHJyub6Co.jpg
    176.4 KB · Views: 35
  • firefox_jPvHzvViqm.jpg
    firefox_jPvHzvViqm.jpg
    196.6 KB · Views: 34
  • firefox_sQhrr6uoV2.jpg
    firefox_sQhrr6uoV2.jpg
    140.7 KB · Views: 37
  • firefox_3rxp4aCb59.jpg
    firefox_3rxp4aCb59.jpg
    170 KB · Views: 34
  • firefox_jAx3OifCEX.jpg
    firefox_jAx3OifCEX.jpg
    205.6 KB · Views: 29
  • firefox_CZpdDaTp4w.jpg
    firefox_CZpdDaTp4w.jpg
    136.8 KB · Views: 31
  • firefox_cOHJym5ISp.jpg
    firefox_cOHJym5ISp.jpg
    170.2 KB · Views: 32
  • firefox_bYJMWmS59G.jpg
    firefox_bYJMWmS59G.jpg
    105.2 KB · Views: 29
  • firefox_59KgiFtliJ.jpg
    firefox_59KgiFtliJ.jpg
    153 KB · Views: 27
  • firefox_4VizLUz0Nc.jpg
    firefox_4VizLUz0Nc.jpg
    127.1 KB · Views: 25
  • firefox_BcK1mulwWv.jpg
    firefox_BcK1mulwWv.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 32
  • chrome_ltf5pHk5S7.jpg
    chrome_ltf5pHk5S7.jpg
    89.1 KB · Views: 41
  • chrome_R1AGyIf6V4.jpg
    chrome_R1AGyIf6V4.jpg
    91.8 KB · Views: 40
  • chrome_LoqQEi5QoZ.jpg
    chrome_LoqQEi5QoZ.jpg
    6.3 KB · Views: 40
  • chrome_4NppQcoiwT.jpg
    chrome_4NppQcoiwT.jpg
    136.4 KB · Views: 39
  • firefox_dOR0OYmyva.jpg
    firefox_dOR0OYmyva.jpg
    57.2 KB · Views: 38
  • firefox_wYE9aY739h.jpg
    firefox_wYE9aY739h.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 40
  • firefox_0QuinzurrH.jpg
    firefox_0QuinzurrH.jpg
    135.8 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
Speaking of janes:

Janes Stuff:

https://emuweb.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/1635871/20181430MNBT1036356700F0000000391465I021.pdf Janes IDR 1987 Special Armor. Can also be found on Skylancers great archive. Contains Articles about Vetronics and Armored Family of vehicles along with other great articles too.

In the spoilers below, images are from Janes 1989-1990, 1990-1991, and 1995-1996. Tried to make 1990-91 and 1995-96 editions downloadable here, but the files are too large ( >1 gb ). I don't have a copy of the 1989-1990 edition, which used to be on internet archive, seemingly got taken down.

From 1989-1990: AFV article, BMY mobility test bed and ( I think? ) BMY Modular Armored Support Vehicle.

firefox_OBhscru4c3.jpg firefox_tTiXHHmyO6.jpg firefox_KLjVM6h3QN.jpg
firefox_o1BoDGg9tJ.jpg firefox_A5xFKVQBbx.jpg
Sorry for the mouse cursor on the third one. Images I think are in order. Don't remember, I took these screenshots back in 2024. Should've taken full page shots. :(

From 1990-1991: Emerson electrics proposal for a Teledyne heavy Chassis based LOSAT, Small Blurb on Teledynes Block III and two short articles on AFAS and liquid propellant.

firefox_dIViK9Dne8.jpg firefox_rhJ5v6O5Nl.jpg
firefox_qQ5vrtorTG.jpg
firefox_J14dWiXiKe.jpg
firefox_bYCnSqx93i.jpg firefox_Ix0sFpodYq.jpg
firefox_TziFjw4Buz.jpg

From 1995-1996: Armored Systems Modernization Article. Can also be found Skylancers Archive.
firefox_bUDAkOmsQu.jpg firefox_94i8fP6wKl.jpg
firefox_QFTJWCdtrt.jpg firefox_ypoUpcKjEf.jpg
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom