Jump to content


Photo

M1 Ecp Upgrades And M1A3 Program.


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#21 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 15 April 2015 - 0655 AM

http://www.g8.army.m...Program2016.pdf

 

Updated US Army technical modernization plan from April 2015.

 

They are rather clear they intend to have also new MBT and new IFV in near future.


  • 0

#22 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 15 April 2015 - 0853 AM

My quick take away is they intend to continue with upgrading the Bradley and M1 to improve their functionality.

 

What I want to know what is the difference between an "assault kitchen" and "battlefield Kitchen"


  • 0

#23 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 15 April 2015 - 0919 AM

M1 and M2 will be upgraded up to 2020's, after that new MBT and new IFV will be in development, at least this is what I understand from their diagrams.


  • 0

#24 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,274 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 15 April 2015 - 1023 AM

An assault kitchen has a hi cap bread bin.


  • 0

#25 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,287 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 April 2015 - 1303 PM

My quick take away is they intend to continue with upgrading the Bradley and M1 to improve their functionality.

 

What I want to know what is the difference between an "assault kitchen" and "battlefield Kitchen"

 

Yes only new AFV slated for this time frame is the AMPV replacing the M113.

 

nothing?


  • 0

#26 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2015 - 1633 PM

 

My quick take away is they intend to continue with upgrading the Bradley and M1 to improve their functionality.

 

What I want to know what is the difference between an "assault kitchen" and "battlefield Kitchen"

 

Yes only new AFV slated for this time frame is the AMPV replacing the M113.

 

nothing?

 

 

I'm going to go fishing on the reefs they turn M113s into and post videos and photos of my expeditions all flagged with "Here I am at GAVIN REEF" so you-know-who will find them :D :D


  • 0

#27 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,736 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 16 April 2015 - 2359 PM

evil, just evil. I like the cut of your Jib sir.


  • 0

#28 Walter_Sobchak

Walter_Sobchak

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Rapids MI
  • Interests:Civilian tank and afv enthusiast. Collects 1/72 scale replicas although terrible at building them. Particular interest in post war US tank engines.

Posted 17 April 2015 - 1009 AM

Alas, I tried 

 

 

 

My quick take away is they intend to continue with upgrading the Bradley and M1 to improve their functionality.

 

What I want to know what is the difference between an "assault kitchen" and "battlefield Kitchen"

 

Yes only new AFV slated for this time frame is the AMPV replacing the M113.

 

nothing?

 

 

I'm going to go fishing on the reefs they turn M113s into and post videos and photos of my expeditions all flagged with "Here I am at GAVIN REEF" so you-know-who will find them :D :D

 

Alas, I tried to get Sparky's attention with this April Fools post on my site at the beginning of the month.  No luck though.  


  • 0

#29 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 25 September 2018 - 0917 AM

There are some rumours circulating on Twitter that announcement about M1A3 will be published soon, in October.

Scope likely to include:
- Revised armour incl. increased underbody IED protection
- 20% weight reduction
- Meggitt autoloader
- Smaller turret
- Lighter XM360E1 120mm gun & new ammo
- Anti-UAV light cannon

In particular weight reduction sounds excessive to be. Takea with grain of salt.
  • 0

#30 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2018 - 0926 AM

These rumors come from Mr. Drummond, who has been predicting this supposed announcement of a M1A3 variant (with different content) since quite a while (and he always was wrong about it). It seems to be just him being interested in attention on his twitter feed, last year he announced the coming reveal of a M1A3 three times, everytime with different sub-components (at first a  140 mm gun, then Rheinmetall's 130 mm gun, etc.).


  • 0

#31 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 25 September 2018 - 0938 AM

Smelled fishy to me too.
  • 0

#32 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2018 - 2211 PM

I heard going to wireless and fiber-optic, as well as some other information systems modernization would save some weight, but 20%?  No way.  Not and also adding a layer of armor on the belly.


  • 0

#33 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2018 - 0429 AM

Older statements suggest that replacing all copper wires with fiber-optics would result in just a mere 2 tons weight saving. If you read through the tiwtter discussion, you can see that the origin of the 20% figure is an article on BusinessInsider.com. However this article is not talking about an upgraded Abrams, but a new tank design (i.e. a potential replacement for the Abrams). The weight saving would be the result of new manufacturing techniques (plenty of which have been developed and tested in the last years - the Puma's thin-metal bending technology, the aluminium foam construction of the canceled Future Combat System or the K21's hull structure made of aluminium and glass-fibre reinforced plastic being a few examples). Lighter-weight composite armor is also cited as a reason for this potential weight saving.

 

Such changes need to be applied during construction and therefore cannot be adopted during an upgrade, making it impossible for the M1A3 to receive them. Mr. Drummond however ignores that, because he loves crafting new theories (and publishing them on his Twitter feed), even though 95% of them turn out wrong.

 

According to the Twitter discussion, the image of the M1A3 tank btw. is a fan-art made by a user of the website DeviantArt...


Edited by methos, 26 September 2018 - 0459 AM.

  • 0

#34 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 23 February 2019 - 1057 AM

M1A2 SEPv3 with trophy and added turret armor.....

 

http://thedrive.com/...t-armor-emerges

 

snipit from the article.

 

A picture has popped-up online showing the latest variant of the Army's M1 Abrams tank with what appears to be a new armor package on its turret. The U.S. Army is already in the process of adding the Trophy active protection system to the vehicles, which will help guard against anti-tank guided missiles and infantry anti-tank rockets. But the service is also interested adding additional passive armor in light of the threat of potential adversaries, such as Russia, with their own upgraded tanks and new armor-piercing shells.

The Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona posted a picture of an M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 tank, or M1A2 SEPv3, with both Trophy and the add-on armor package, as well as explosive reactor armor, on its Facebook page on Feb. 21, 2019. It was one of a series of pictures marking a visit by U.S. Army Sergeant Major Michael Crosby, the Command Sergeant Major for the service’s recently activated Futures Command, to the facility. The proving ground is supporting a number of that command’s modernization initiatives.

 

The Army took delivery of the first updated M1A2 SEPv3, also now known as the M1A2C, in October 2017. General Dynamics Land Systems is in charge of the upgrade program.

“This version is the most modernized configuration of the Abrams tank, having improved force protection and system survivability enhancements and increased lethality over the M1A1 and previous M1A2 variants,” U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Justin Shell, then the Abrams Product Manager, said at the rollout in 2017. “The Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 tank will be the foundation for future incremental system upgrades and can host any mature technology the Army deems operationally relevant.”

 

There do not appear to be any specific announcements about improved passive armor for the M1A2 SEPv3 in the past beyond statements that the variant would include added ballistic protection. Earlier pictures of the prototype M1A2 SEPv3s show weights on the front of the turret, as well as similar weights on the hull front.

These surrogates were supposed to simulate the added weight of the SEPv3's Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP).  There had been no indication, however, that the final turret shape would change significantly.

 


Edited by bfng3569, 23 February 2019 - 1057 AM.

  • 0

#35 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,454 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2019 - 2132 PM

With the benefit of cold war high rate production, it's my understanding there's quite a few low hour hulls in storage just waiting to be upgraded to current standard, sufficient to replace stock as they wear out for the forseeable future...  That being the case, is there any pressing need (from the end user standpoint) to design a whole new tank from the ground up, when it's performed admirably with the current (and proposed) upgrade packages?   I'm not saying Abrams forever out of any sort of emotion for it, but if it isn't broke the idea of another military project for it's own sake could slip down the slope into EFV and other boondoggle territory with little to show for it after a lot of money spent (as lucrative as it would be for corporations).

That being said I'm very pleased to see them finally give up waiting on a US counterpart APS and instead opting for Trophy despite NIH, and even more so pleased that nobody has thusfar said "well now that we have this, why do we need heavy armor?"


Edited by Burncycle360, 23 February 2019 - 2133 PM.

  • 0

#36 Special-K

Special-K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western New York State, USA
  • Interests:All things military, Shooting, Cycling, Hiking and Camping.

Posted 25 February 2019 - 1534 PM

I'm all for increased frontal armor, but what about the thin top armor?


-K
  • 0

#37 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 25 February 2019 - 1720 PM

I'm all for increased frontal armor, but what about the thin top armor?


-K

 

I think the Trophy system helps compensate for that against some threats. 


  • 0

#38 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 25 February 2019 - 2056 PM

Armoring the top surface gets heavy fast. Increasing the steel thickness by just 1mm over one square meter adds about 8kg to the weight of the vehicle.

The top surface of the turret alone is about 13 square meters, so adding a tonne of steel to the vehicle would give you less than 10mm of additional protection.

You could focus on just armoring the top surface above the crew, which would cut it down quite a bit, but would it be enough to make a difference? The humble PG-7M will penetrate about 350mm. Even with highly mass efficient composites you're not going to make the top surface resistant to that within a reasonable mass budget, and such composites add quite a bit of bulk too.

Active defenses like Trophy (which is effective against high-angle threats) are the way to go.

Edited by TTK Ciar, 25 February 2019 - 2057 PM.

  • 0

#39 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 26 February 2019 - 0314 AM

With the benefit of cold war high rate production, it's my understanding there's quite a few low hour hulls in storage just waiting to be upgraded to current standard, sufficient to replace stock as they wear out for the forseeable future...  That being the case, is there any pressing need (from the end user standpoint) to design a whole new tank from the ground up, when it's performed admirably with the current (and proposed) upgrade packages?   I'm not saying Abrams forever out of any sort of emotion for it, but if it isn't broke the idea of another military project for it's own sake could slip down the slope into EFV and other boondoggle territory with little to show for it after a lot of money spent (as lucrative as it would be for corporations).

That being said I'm very pleased to see them finally give up waiting on a US counterpart APS and instead opting for Trophy despite NIH, and even more so pleased that nobody has thusfar said "well now that we have this, why do we need heavy armor?"

 

If Russia ever fields T-14 in appreciable numbers, then yes there is a great need for a new tank. Ive got severe doubts Abrams is going to be able to reliably tackle weapons capable of penetrating 1000 RHA at 2000 metres, which is what they claim the gun in T-14 is capable of doing with DU ammunition.

 

Might be Russian hype again, sometimes as we saw with Kornet, the Russians are sometimes as good as their word.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 26 February 2019 - 0404 AM.

  • 0

#40 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,454 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 February 2019 - 1444 PM

 

Might be Russian hype again, sometimes as we saw with Kornet, the Russians are sometimes as good as their word.


Indeed


Edited by Burncycle360, 27 February 2019 - 1458 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users