Future Combat Systems vehicles

[Slater]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007combatvehicle/NDIACOMBATVehiclesDay1/FutureCombatSystemsPANEL1030amREVISED/DavidOgg.pdf

Looking at the above presentation, the Bradley's replacement is going to be called the XM1206. I dunno, can they really replace the M1A1/A2 tanks with something so much lighter and still have the same survivability?

[Nathan_Bell]

Just reread "King of the Killing Zone" a book about the development of the Abrams, which drove me to do some article digging around on the errornet. From what I am seeing the Abrams will be around at least another 20 years.

The powerpacks are going to be upgraded from the old Avco's, which have been out of production since '92, to a newer turbine that developes the same power, but is approximately 30% more fuel efficient when under full load.

THe 120's on the Abrams still out penetrate the new 120's the Germany is using, due to US using DP rounds and Germany only using Tungsten based Long rod penetrators. So the cannon upgrade has been shelved for now.

The biggest area that they are looking for improvement for the Abrams is track design. They make up an absurd amount of the Army's maintenance budget.

Due to the armor design they have improved the armor packs 3 times so far and have another one proposed, which theoretically would make the Abrams the only MBT that cannot kill itself.

They are developing add on armor to help protect the rear 40% of the tank that has thinner armor compared to the 60% frontal arc. This need has arisen due to the urban combat we have been involved with the past half a decade.

The electronics have a couple upgrades already and have a few more coming down the pike. The FLIR systems currently used allow targeting beyond the first gens detection range.

Admittedly this info is from the internet, but I read it from a few different sources, so I am giving it a bit of weight.

They might replace the Brad with a new unit, but the Abrams will be around for a good deal longer as the MBT of the US mil.

[Deadduck]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007combatvehicle/NDIACOMBATVehiclesDay1/FutureCombatSystemsPANEL1030amREVISED/DavidOgg.pdf

Looking at the above presentation, the Bradley's replacement is going to be called the XM1206. I dunno, can they really replace the M1A1/A2 tanks with something so much lighter and still have the same survivability?

I don't think they're trying to replace the Abrams with this system in all cases, but there are some cases in urban areas where it could be better due to it's increased mobility. Battle tanks are always out of their element in confined urban areas. The Abrams has been criticized for being very expensive and maintainence intensive when compared to other smaller armored vehicles.

[Jay Cunningham]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html?ESRC=army.nl

Note that this is the brand new Mobile Gun System version, not the personnel carrier platform.

The MGS was developed to replace an already existing design that was never put into service:

M8 Armored Gun System (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm)

[wild_wild_wes]

No way will a 20 ton vehicle replace a MBT.

And the "band track" idea seems rather nutty too. What happens if the track breaks? You have to replace the whole unit, not just a link or two as in a regular articulated track. How can you replace a band track in combat conditions? And think of all the spare band tracks that would be needed.

The whole FCS effort seems to be an exercise in wishful thinking IMHO.

[Ross]

"Band tracks" are good and bad. They work fine, the Canadians have been using them on M113's for quite some time. They don't tear up roads (no more changing all your track pads to go from training area to asphalt). They don't tear up vehicles because they ride much better. They're overall lighter and cheaper than conventional tracks.

But you can't "short track", and repairing one is out of the question, you have to replace the whole thing.

I think they would be great for peacekeeping, and the like. For hard combat use, I'm not sold on them yet. We'll just have to see. I don't see the M1 or M2 going to band tracks though.